“Manslamming” – Is it useful to use the opponents’ tactics?

This article first appeared on AVFM Romania.

I think we all already know about the new idiotic idea the feminists came up with, called “manslamming”. For those of you who don’t know what it is about, I will brief you on it. Some chick from New York City, a place which I choose to call the international capital of “social liberalism,” woke up one day and decided that it is a good idea to walk on the streets and to slam herself into everyone that got in her way, to see who will step aside from her self entitled mistress tantrums and who wouldn’t. As you have probably guessed by now, the lady, named Beth Breslaw, is a feminist. Based on her little experiment, she arrived at the astonishing conclusion that almost all the men she encountered have slammed into her and that almost all the women have stepped out of her way. This so called statistic, aside from the fact that it seems very dubious, is very offensive because it implies that all men are jerks and all women have the mentality of a servant.

This fact is not surprising because this has always been the feminist’s movement message. What raises a question mark for me is the decision of another lady, named Katherine Timpf, of showing her support for Men’s Rights by choosing to make her own social experiment, similar to the one mentioned above. I can see how this can become a problem. In the following lines, I will present my opinion on the consequences of such kind of actions on the image of activism for men’s rights.

I will start by saying that I understand Ms. Timpf’s enthusiasm and I appreciate her willingness to help. I find her results in accordance with human society’s mentality because people, in general, have more sympathy and respect for people of the opposite sex than for people of the same sex as theirs (this is why our species still reproduces and raises children). However, I do not believe that it is such a great idea to start slamming into people on the streets just because you have something to prove. This is the attitude of a bully. I believe that people have developed the ability to speak out of desire to communicate something to another without the need to hit each other in the head with a stick. This is why it is more effective to resolve our differences by the way of open dialogue and persuasion than by slamming into people just because we consider ourselves to be all high and mighty and we’ve got something to prove.

The fact that Miss Timpf has proven that three times less women than men are willing to get out of your way when you walk on the street is a good thing for a short term because it comes in opposition to the false statistic made by Miss Breslaw. On a long term, however, the results can be catastrophic and rather undesirable.

The First Wave of feminism was to some extent a sensible movement. Its representatives were married women, they had families, they were devout Christians and furthermore, women with a proper education. These are the reasons why their message, although radical for that period, made sense because it wanted the progress of human society. There were plenty of crazies and fanatics back then in the movement, but they were kept under check.

With the coming of the Second Wave of Feminism in the 60’s however, things have taken a turn for the worse. The feminist message, infected with the communist ideology of those times, had become more violent and anti progressive. This is the reason why the movement was flooded by all kinds of social misfits, which used feminism as a “gateway drug” to something more radical or who were simply looking for an excuse to get back at a society who didn’t agree with them. And so, once upon a day, the crazies took control of the asylum, creating today’s radical feminism, in which the nuttier you are, the higher you will climb.

I consider my sympathy for the MRM to rather be an extension of my love for truth and equity rather than a supreme goal of which I am in need to justify my existence. The message is a peaceful one, encouraging normality and a society free of fanaticism. But if we start to impose our message by slamming into people who walk on the streets and have no idea about our movement, we might be classified as anything else but peaceful.

If somebody wishes to contribute to the movement or to just criticize feminist hypocrisy, I advise them to write an article, make a video or a short humoristic animation or anything else that implies a level of intelligence higher than that of a kindergartener. As a movement, the last thing we need is waves of fanatics which want to use our label as an excuse to inflict harm upon others. After all, only the UN still believes that peace is born out of conflict.

In the ending, I would like to say that I do not personally know Miss Timpf and I do not know anything about her past ideological orientation, which is the reason why I avoided to express any opinions I may have about her. On the other hand, if my hunch is correct and especially if it is not, I would like to state that anyone who ever realized up until now that the feminist movement is harmful to society, had chosen to leave the movement and come to our side, had better leave their rules where they came from and play by our rules instead. I like to think that I speak in the name of every MRA when I state that we, as a movement, do not desire or find ourselves in the need of fanatics.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar