Belinda Brown began her recent article “An Obituary to Feminism” by arguing that “It is high time that feminism was recognised as a hate movement, that its ideology was felt as an embarrassment and being a feminist was seen as a badge of shame.”

Is this a fair assessment of feminism?

Let us examine statements by prominent feminists to gauge their sentiments. And, as a trial exercise, let us substitute the referent, in most cases “men,” with other referent categories, to see how we feel about the altered statement.

“The Future is Female”

This slogan was displayed on a T-shirt sold by a feminist bookstore in 1975, and reproduced in Los Angeles in 2015. According to Rachel Berks, who is responsible for the resuscitation of the T-shirt, “It’s thrilling to see people embrace something that came out of the ’70s lesbian separatist moment.”[1] The popular shirt with its slogan is widely displayed in North America.

But the slogan was not entirely original in 1975, Sally Miller Gearhart, the author of The Wanderground, said in her 1982 pamphlet  “The Future, if there is one, is female.” Nor is the idea deemed out of date, as the popular T-shirt shows. Addressing the 2017 MAKERS conference, Hillary Clinton said, “Despite all the challenges we face, I remain convinced that, yes, the future is female.”[2]

Once critic, Heather Wilhelm, asks, “What does “the future is female” even mean? Is one half of the human race going into hiding? Fading into irrelevance?” [3]

Let’s try some substitutions: What would we think of the slogan, “The future is Asian”? A bit racist? Or, “The future is Muslim”? A bit supremacist? How about the most obvious one: “The future is male”? A bit sexist? A bit misogynist?

“Man-hating is an honourable act”

Robin Morgan takes the view that “man-hating is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class hatred against the class that is oppressing them”.[4]

Morgan, along with many other feminist authors, deal conceptually only with global female vs. male categories, a Manichean opposition of good females vs. evil males. Treating all men as if they are exactly the same, half the people in the world as if they are all the same, is, to say the least, lacking in nuance.

Suzanna Danuta Walters agrees. In her article “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” she insists men should “Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this.”[5]

Let us try some substitute referents: “Asian-hating is an honourable and viable political act.” “Anglophone-hating is an honourable and viable political act.” “Jew-hating is an honourable and viable political act.” Well, yes, honourable, if you believe that racism and antisemitism are honourable. How about “woman-hating is an honourable and viable political act”? Or, “Why Can’t We Hate Asians?” “Why Can’t We Hate Whites?” “Why Can’t We Hate Jews?”

Not very civil. Advocating hate is not very civil.

We need a drastic reduction of the population of males

In order to ensure that “the future is female,” some prominent feminist argues that the population of males must be reduced. Sally Miller Gearhart said in her 1982 pamphlet, “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” She suggests first steps: “It’s not genocide, exactly. It’s more like job attrition, the way employers cut back positions without actually firing anyone. A 75 per cent female to 25 per cent male ratio could be achieved in one generation if one half of a population reproduced heterosexually and one half by ovular merging”.[6]

As recently as 1999 these sentiments were echoed by Mary Daly in an interview called ‘No Man’s Land’ for the EnlighteNext magazine with Susan Bridle. “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff any more”, she ruefully adds.[7]

Let’s substitute: “We should reduce the population of natives by 80%.” “We should reduce the population of Muslims by 80%.” We should reduce the population of whites by 80%.” Just a partial genocide; nothing to object to.

“Toxic masculinity”

Suzanna Danuta Walters says that we live in “the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity.” According to the site “geek feminism,” “Toxic masculinity…refers to the social-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth.[8] Do all men exhibit “toxic masculinity”? Suzanna Danuta Walters does not exempt any men.

The critic Gad Saad objects to “the bogus term ‘toxic masculinity.’ It literally seeks to pathologize masculinity in ways that are profoundly harmful to the existential sense of self of young men.”[9] The message that feminists appear to send with the phrase “toxic masculinity” is that all men are evil.

How would these fly? “Toxic African Americans”? “Toxic Muslims”? “Toxic Asians”? Or even “Toxic females”?

“Destroy the male sex”

As early as 1967, Valerie Solanas with her S.C.U.M (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto advocated destroying all men: “there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.”[10]

Robin Morgan recommended starting at home: “Sexism is not the fault of women – kill your fathers, not your mothers.”[11]

Here we do have recommendations for outright murder and genocide, hate acted out in the most extreme possible fashion. Among some feminists, the project of the Holocaust seems happily applicable to men. If this is not hate speech, what would be?












Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: