Note: This article is also available in Spanish.
Have you noticed how much hatred feminists direct at MGTOW guys? Is it just because they can’t be bothered to distinguish between PUAs, MRAs and MGTOW or is there more to it? I think there is. I think if we look at feminism’s record on gay men, the Ultimate MGTOW, we can see what’s really going on.
A while ago I found out about the Redstockings, a radical feminist group founded in the late sixties. They had a nasty streak of man-hating gay-bashing and it wasn’t incidental, it flowed from their basic premises. So maybe all their good was really no good at all. And they were not some fringe group and they were not the only feminists of their period to use gay-bashing rhetoric and weave man-hating and gay-bashing principles into their work. It turns out all kinds of very prominent feminists in the late ’60s and early ’70s went in for this kind of bigotry.
John Lauritsen gave a talk back in 1976 that lays this all out in great detail. He cites a widespread pattern of vilification of gay men and gay organizations by feminists of that time. Feminists conducted a campaign of disrupting gay events and undermining gay organizations. As they say, read the whole thing. It is a very ugly history. If you have never heard about it in your courses in Women’s Studies, go back and ask why. Bring back the answers; I bet they will be hilarious.
Here he quotes Carol Hanisch where she explicitly enunciates the homophobic claim that male homosexuality and male separatism are misogynist. Oh that’s it! It’s all about the wimminz!
“Men’s liberationists always bring up ‘confronting their own feelings about men’ by which they mean homosexuality. Male homosexuality is an extension of the reactionary club (meaning both group and weapon). The growth of gay liberation carries contempt for women to the ultimate: total segregation. The desire of men to ‘explore their homosexuality’ really means encouraging the possibility of homosexuality as a reaction against feminist demands. This is the reason the movement for “gay rights” received much more support only after women’s liberation became a mass movement.”
There it is: men ignoring women is contempt. Even when we do nothing we are guilty of harming women, because we owe them attention and it is violence when we “deprive” them of it. Talk about a rape culture – they are entitled to our sexual attention.
So men have a duty to have sex with women and not with men. That is rape culture and it is feminists demanding it. Oh, and forced heterosexuality for men. Can you see the difference between these people and Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum? Me neither.
Or maybe there’s no intention of there being any sex – men are just supposed to marry and support women – because they “deserve” it like all the advertising is constantly telling us. Female privilege much?
Lauritsen gives Kate Millett–author of “Sexual Politics” and, ironically, a lesbian separatist–special attention for her hatred of male relationships. She comes across as both stupid and dishonest. For instance she equates homosexuality and Nazism, which is an especially obscene piece of stupidity in view of the actual history, and a transparent piece of dishonesty in view of how well-known that history is.
He also details these feminists’ hatred of drag queens, too. That hatred came as no surprise either.
This bigotry is not some little splinter thing in feminism. It is foundational. Millett’s Sexual Politics was seminal to the movement and Hanish was a founding member of the radical wing of the movement. She edited the Redstockings Collective’s book the Feminist Revolution and coined the phrase “the personal is political”. These were not marginal people or marginal views. It’s no good whining how feminism is not a monolith when every pebble of it shares this theoretical underpinning.
Speaking of the Redstockings, we are going to look at their manifesto in the next post on this subject. Even if you have never read it or even heard of it, none of it will be unfamiliar. You see it in every feminist space on the net and you hear it in every gender studies class.
Lauritsen says it best:
“We must recognize our enemies wherever we find them. Nobody’s ideas and nobody’s actions should be exempted from criticism.”
Gay men in solidarity with feminists against hetero men? That may be attractive to someone coming out of high school and all that trauma, but alliances with people who despise you are just sick.
