Feminist “Allies”

When most Westerners hear the word “Allies”, they tend to think of relations between the United States and the United Kingdom, during World War II and the Cold War.  Though we had declared war on them almost two centuries earlier to gain independence from them, we provided them with plenty of resources and several heavy cruisers, even before we declared war on the Axis powers.  Of course, we had some strong disagreements, mainly on the issue of whether India should have been independent, but we shared intelligence, and often carried out joint operations.

That is why I find it profoundly disgraceful that on so many feminist websites, they list websites hosted by gay or bisexual men as “allies.”  Feminists pander to gay men for the exact same reason that Rudy Giuliani pandered to firefighters: because their presence in photo-ops made him look good.  A feminist brings in a sassy, snappy-dressed, non-threatening twink of a guy with an oh-so-cute speech impediment to sit next to her in round table discussions, where he’ll no doubt agree with her about how scummy Republicans are and how fugly Michelle Bachman’s getup is.  He’ll also be allowed to fetch coffee for her and her gal pals, but that’s pretty much the limit of what he’s allowed to do.

As has been explained before, feminists are perfectly content to have men as allies, up until those men start thinking for themselves. When a man starts acting like a “dudebro”, as they call it, he’s being an obnoxious, sexist douchebag. As that article demonstrates, feminists don’t make any secret of their contempt for men who are self-thinkers or who want their own rights. Naturally, you’d think that they’d like gay guys for a change, since they act so feminine and don’t want anything to do with mainstream masculinity, right?

Wrong. Most gay men are virtually indistinguishable from their heterosexual counterparts. They drink beer, watch football, and work blue-collar jobs. The only substantial difference is that they prefer to have sex with men instead of women.

Perhaps that last one is the worst of all. Here, you have a bunch of men who not only enjoy acting in a way that feels right to them, they don’t go around seeking women’s approval. What does that mean? It means that they don’t care if a woman takes offense at what they’re saying, and they decide for themselves what makes a man a good man. What’ll they do next, find fulfillment in making money for themselves instead of forking it over to some ungrateful harpy who blows it on wine and jewelry and gives nothing in return? How dare they!

Now, I’m not going to pretend that I don’t have an agenda here. As I’ve said before, I’m openly bisexual. Feminists probably find this even more frustrating than dealing with a gay man, because I could potentially end up pleasing a woman sexually, but I have alternatives. So, what do they do when confronted with a man like me? Well, they do take some of the traditional approach; I’ve been called a “faggot” by no fewer than five feminists, all of whom stated on their blogs that they are SOOOO MAAAAD that gay marriage isn’t legal in all fifty states. But, since I’m not totally gay, they just try to deny my existence. They insist that I’m a gay-in-denial, and that the moment a man ever experiences any sexual desire for or activity with another man, it automatically erases any and all interest in women. No, it doesn’t.

When it comes to matters of sex, feminists will readily embrace antiquated, patriarchal notions about gay and bisexual men (i.e. that we’re pedophiles, we’re overly promiscuous, and our sexuality is predatory to the extreme). This, coupled with their refusal to denounce misandrists within their own movement, only goes to show just how much bigotry makes up the foundation of feminism. In the end, it’s quite simple to figure out how they feel: if you have a penis between your legs, you are the enemy. End of story.

And THAT, my friends, is why we embrace men of all backgrounds here in the MRM.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar