[quote]One hears that the ‘women of the United States’ are up in arms about this or that; the plain fact is that eight fat women, meeting in a hotel parlor, have decided to kick up some dust. ~ HL Mencken 1880-1956[/quote]
[dropcap]P[/dropcap]ublic awareness of the damage wrought by feminism is increasing with each passing year. While this is heartening, it hasn’t – so far, at least – impacted greatly on the numerous manifestations of feminism, which leads me to pose an obvious question. How might we more effectively fight feminism?
We need to recognize the deeply undemocratic nature of feminism. The rise of feminism as a major political force – over the past 30 years in particular – has been facilitated by the feminist strategy of operating ‘below the radar.’ I have friends and acquaintances who remain blind to the catastrophic impact of feminism in the modern era, despite my best efforts to enlighten them.
I’m 54 and I can’t recall a penetrating critique of feminism on a mainstream television or radio program in the UK in my lifetime, nor in ‘serious’ newspapers or magazines. We shouldn’t be surprised that the level of public understanding about the nature and impact of feminism, while improving, remains low.
Feminist agendas are developed and driven by activists who are wildly unrepresentative of women in general. When women blithely call themselves ‘feminists’, what do they mean by the word? If they use terms like ‘patriarchy’ you know they’ve been brainwashed, but most women define their personal feminist ideology (if they do so at all) using expressions such as ‘equality between men and women.’
But do they mean equality of opportunities, or equality of outcomes? The first is the equity feminist position, the second the gender feminist position – I refer the reader to Christina Hoff Sommers’ Who Stole Feminism? (1996).
In my view, fewer than 10% of women hold the ideological positions of gender feminists, and fewer than 10% of them are developing and driving feminist agendas in either a professional capacity, or as activists. Combining the two figures leads us to a stark realization. Fewer than 1% of women are driving feminist agendas.
From this point forward the reader should understand the term ‘feminist’ to mean “gender” feminist.
Despite their claims, feminists haven’t fought for the transfers of economic and political power from men to women which have taken place over the past 30+ years. They’ve manipulated a small number of powerful and influential male collaborators (white knights, sycophants, call them what you will) into handing over power, or enabling that handover, through tactics which are ultimately rooted in shaming men. I doubt if these collaborators represent more than 1% of men. They’re found in all walks of life – politics, state agencies, journalism, business, medicine, law and education.
Feminists lack any democratic legitimacy. The British prime minister, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party and leader of the Conservative-led coalition government, is clearly a feminist – all his speeches and policy directions have been reliably women-friendly and feminist-friendly. The British government continues to drive ‘improving’ gender diversity in corporate boardrooms.
Feminism is being driven by a tiny minority of women, and is enabled by a tiny minority of men. An extraordinary state of affairs in developed democracies, and one which has implications for how feminism might be fought.
Let’s get practical
First, the bad news. It’s not possible to defeat feminism as an ideology. Now, the good news. It doesn’t need to be defeated, only thwarted, and that is possible. If there’s to be a war on feminism it will have to be fought one battle at a time, like all wars.
While public understanding of the damage wrought by feminism is rising over time, even a major increase in that understanding won’t stop the tiny minority of women demanding more power, and the tiny minority of men giving it to them.
Feminism has many manifestations which damage the interests of men – and sometimes women and children, let’s not forget – and they need to be fought individually.
I’m increasingly convinced that if the MRM is to make more progress, more speedily, MRAs will have to become less ideological and more practical. MRAs need to spend less of their limited and valuable time and energy debating with other MRAs. They need to step out of their ‘comfort zone’ more often. They need to spend less time debating with feminists, online and elsewhere. Experience tells us that feminists cannot, and will not, be persuaded by rational arguments.
More MRAs need to dedicate themselves to fighting on single issues, moving from being ‘generalists’ to ‘specialists’. There are, of course, many such issues. Obvious examples are the differential treatment of men and women with respect to parental access rights, domestic violence, unemployment, homelessness, suicide risk, drug addiction (including alcoholism), incarceration and sentencing and education.
By focusing and collaborating on single issues, MRAs could become more effective. In April 2012 I realized that no individuals or organizations were campaigning against the initiative to ‘improve’ gender diversity in corporate boardrooms, despite the growing evidence that the ‘improvement’ leads to declines in corporate financial performance.
So I launched the Campaign for Merit in Business. While we haven’t yet won the battle to persuade the government to drop its threats of minimum quotas for women in corporate boardrooms, the battle is well and truly underway. The lessons we’re learning from this single-issue campaign will hopefully be the subject of a future article on AVfM, but one of the early lessons was that our opponents had no robust defenses, only ideologically-driven supporters, albeit powerful ones.
We’ve publicly challenged all of their arguments, and shown them all to be questionable at best, and ridiculous at worst. We’ve exposed many of their claims as lies. By contrast, not one of our key arguments – for example, that ‘improving’ gender diversity in boardrooms leads to declines in corporate financial performance – has been challenged.
If MRAs shift their focus from fighting feminism as an ideology, to fighting its manifestations, they may find they have a number of influential allies. One of the reasons we campaign against ‘improving’ gender diversity in boardrooms is to attract funding from business people wishing to counter this ideological assault on the business sector.
The CBI, the major employers’ organization which should be countering the assault, is itself a proponent of ‘improved’ gender diversity on boards. The current President of the CBI is a FTSE100 company chairman, Sir Roger Carr:
Let’s go on the offensive
How do you know when a feminist is lying? Her lips move.
Feminists have no rational arguments. They have only lies and distortions to ‘justify’ their actions, which helps explain why they’re permanently on the offensive.
For many years MRAs have heroically countered those lies and distortions, but with little impact on the public consciousness (largely because the mass media is reliably feminist-friendly). The feminist mission is damaged both by free speech, and by feminists’ efforts to prevent free speech. MRAs need to stop being defensive, engage less with feminists, and spend more time addressing the reasonable men and women who are willing to listen to their arguments.
While men have legitimate reasons to be angry at the feminists’ assaults on their rights, there’s an obvious problem when men publicly display anger. It plays into the feminist stereotype of men being predisposed to anger and violence. The more than men remain externally calm when provoked by angry feminists, the better. But maybe that’s easier for me than some.
I’m British and therefore genetically predisposed to remaining calm in the face of offensive people… even those most offensive of people, feminists.
Naming, shaming and ridiculing feminists
Feminists’ power stems from their relentless shaming of men as a gender. The idea of gender-wide shame is ridiculous to me – has any woman ever accepted it for her own gender – but shame is a powerful emotion. Feminist activists and ideologues should be ashamed of themselves, and we can help them realize it. The AVfM search for the identity of the feminist protester screeching at a man wishing to attend Warren Farrell’s talk at the University of Toronto is a good example of this tactic.
We also need to subject feminists to ridicule. I think the following is a gem:
Anti-Feminism League presents ‘Harpy’ awards to prominent feminists, including one to Cherie Blair, the wife of the former prime minister, Tony Blair:
Naming, shaming and ridiculing feminists’ male collaborators
We need to name, shame and ridicule the male collaborators who hand over power to woman. Anti-Feminism League presents ‘Toady’ awards to such men. The 2012 ‘Toady of the Year’ award was won by the prime minister:
Celebrating people who contribute to the fight against feminism
We need to celebrate these people publicly. A Conservative MP, Philip Davies, made an outstanding contribution to a debate in the House of Commons about the differential treatment of men and women by the judicial system, earning him a ‘Winston’:
To summarize my key points, I believe MRAs should:
Spend less time fighting feminism as an ideology, and less time debating with feminists.
Spend more time fighting the manifestations of feminism – collaborating with other MRAs on practical single-issue campaigns.
Name, shame and ridicule feminists.
Name, shame and ridicule feminists’ male collaborators.