Sometimes critiquing feminist isn’t exactly fair play. It’s just not sporting to flame the writers on smaller platforms than the one we’re working from ourselves. This rule of thumb has been harder to adhere to as AVfM has grown in traffic and influence. Today, the rule is set aside because the site being addressed, although small, indicates an evolving change in the prevalent and populist public hatred typically heaped onto male identity and sexuality.
The article in question is called,“Sexuality, Gender and Relationships: How to Get Men Involved in the Discussion.” The unattributed author posted the piece to Reddit, inviting readers of the mens’ rights sub-reddit to read and respond. However, that individual also indicated that the target audience is not men themselves, but those who believe men are the problem, and need to modify themselves to suit the preferences of others.
“The article is written with a specific target audience in mind – those that think that the problem is men, and men need to change.”
With that audience in mind, the article is probably a project of good intent. However, the author registered a fail at trying to steer the “conversation” toward reason or away from bigotry.
With that in mind we want to volunteer our corrections to the misandric assumptions, and offer praise for the attempt to embrace reality, crippled by denial though it was.
The title of the article implies that discourse on sexuality, gender, and relationship is incomplete without the input of men. It also implies that men have not been speaking up, and struggling to be heard for as long as people have been having the conversation They talk about this radical new idea as though it were just accidentally discovered.
The article’s opening:
“We need men to participate in dialog about sexuality, gender, and relationships.”
Uh, we are. And when we do we are routinely shouted down, censored, vilified and shamed. So we kept talking, just not to people like you. The conversation is going much better.
What was that you needed again?
Next we are treated to this little gem:
“Until they do [join the conversation], we won’t stop sexual violence, and there is a limit to how far the women’s movement can go.”
Yeah, there is indeed a limit, and it has been reached. Feminism’s use-by date is starting to fade under a patina, but not the kind that makes it more valuable. Clinging to the delusion that sexual violence is uniquely masculine is just one of the many ways feminism has walked itself into a wall, and it is why there is a quickly growing number of men and women rejecting the toxic narrative and saying “no thank you” to the invitation to the “conversation.”
The article continues:
“In general, men haven’t arrived at the discussion table (let alone collectively change[d] their behavior).”
Sorry, we skipped the classes on “changing the collective behavior” of our sex. And we intend to keep on skipping them. So certain of this are we that we have formed our own classes. If you are teachable attendance is free.
It may not be THE perfect conversation, but it beats the hell out of appealing to men to participate in a discussion that requires them to demonize themselves and others; a conversation they know will ultimately require them to shut up if they don’t like it.
If that is what you are trying to sell strong, informed, intelligent men in 2014, you better get Zig Ziglar on the case – or change your thinking. Otherwise you will be stuck with the same boring lackeys that have you out here now hunting for fresh meat.
The article lists supposed strategies for engaging men in gender discourse.
“Create conversations where it’s clear that men are going to be honored, rather than made fun of or spoken about like they’re nothing but dangerous.“
We are not quite sure how this is going to be accomplished. How do you create a conversation with men that does not address them like they are nothing but dangerous, when you have already established that your purpose for the discussion is ultimately to get everyone to accept that all men are dangerous?
We will save you the suspense. You don’t.
“Men are used to getting lynched in discussions about sexuality, gender and relationships, and as a consequence they avoid the topics.”
As a consequence of perpetual cultural lynching of male identity – men, especially those who have a vested interest in discussing sexual politics, have rejected the narrative in which they are the designated monsters. Or more simply put, they are telling the lynch mobs to bugger off.
They are smart enough to see the clearly implied lynching in the “appeal for inclusion” we are now addressing. The fact that it is disguised in with such lackluster effort only makes it more insulting.
Feminists, you are all keen on cultural awareness. Our culture, a culture of men and women talking about gender issues without being on a leash, aren’t poised to jump up and down and yell, “Yippie! They are gonna let us talk! We actually exist now!”
Nor are we going to be moved by anything like the following:.
The author of the “genderequality” blog asserts that his/her readers and feminist colleagues and comrades must “find our compassion and love for men if we want them to step into the dialog”
Perhaps we should be grateful for the acknowledgment that they don’t know where their compassion and love for men is to begin with. Hey, at least there is some insight, even if limited. Then again, being grateful for crumbs of something that normal people don’t have to go looking for isn’t in our culture either.
We have an abundance of compassion and love for men right here. So if you don’t find yours in the sofa cushions or under the bed, we are willing to share.
Those addressed by genderequality’s author as “we” really need to engage in a wrenching, agonizing, courageous and brutally honest self-evaluation of their own lives, then go looking. Not for their compassion and love, but for redemption.
And we are pretty sure that would pique the interest of a lot of men they now seem keen on reaching.
“We have to admit that those of us in the progressive movement often have deeply entrenched and negative views about men and male sexuality, and that this keeps men from engaging.”
Almost correct again. The deeply entrenched negative views about male sexuality do not prevent men from engaging. They keep men from respecting you or taking you seriously, save of course the sycophants who don’t care much what you think as long as they get the chance to tell you they agree with it.
This of course begs the question on what this particular writer is looking for. Is it men to engage in “discussions” about gender and sexuality? Or is it just seeking males who conform to and validate their sick ideas?
There is, as we speak, a great many men (and women) who are more than willing to engage people with deeply entrenched negative views on men and male sexuality. Indeed, men have persisted to engage people with these ideas in the face of a fire-hose of abuse, censorship, yellow journalism, smear campaigns and fraudulent accusations.
Did we mention all this abuse comes from feminists? Did we have to?
This is indicated in widespread use of the acronym for men’s rights advocate as an insult. The letters of MRA creatively mapped to “malevolent rotten a-holes”.
Comedian Joe Rogan remarked in April 2013 on Twitter:
“The weirdest thing I’m being called is an MRA or “Male Rights Activist” as an INSULT. I mean, why should men have rights? Are they people?”
Returning to the point made at genderequality that they need to, “Create conversations where it’s clear that men are going to be honored,” we’d like to say something to the author.
After decades of feminists abuse and lies heaped onto men, by people like you, the men you need to reach are happy to ask you to shove your offer to magnanimously hear your lessers, and shove your opinion. When you can see and empathize with why they feel that way, you will have found your missing compassion and love.
It will also earn you a seat at the table here.
You actually can find your way into the discussion that you claim to be seeking. All you have to do is show up with a convincing demonstration that you have corrected your mistakes, and that you have matured enough to become an actual part of the solution.
That kind of accountability and maturity, or rather how far you really are from having it, is demonstrated in the next point in the article:
“Teach men the difference between the level of pleasure they’re used to, and the level of pleasure that is possible.”
Let’s address the most fundamental problem in this imperative.
Yes, let’s invite men into a conversation about sexual politics, honoring and loving them while we do so, from a pulpit built on the arrogance sufficient to assume that feminists qualify to be the instructors of men in a one-way relationship.
Perhaps when they are done with males, they can teach black people how to talk white and not get strung out on crack.
Men are fully capable of sorting out their own experiences of sex. A proposition for instructive feminism to enhance pleasure for men? It is too comical to rise to the level of insulting, but it tries.
Indeed, that the first two points of persuasion listed included the mentions that  “Men are used to getting lynched in discussions about sexuality” and  that women should teach men “the level of pleasure that is possible” is considerably more revealing than the author likely intended. These are the tools of coercion. First the stick, then the carrot. Or in this case, first the noose, then the vagina.
Moving along to the next item in genderequality’s list:
Put the eradication of homophobia near the top of our social change agenda; homophobia is not just about sex, but about a broader fear of male-male intimacy.
We’ll start here by mention of the language used in this bullet item. The terms: “eradication” and “social change agenda” stand out.
Noting that the anonymous author is writing from a feminist and (likely) female perspective, what’s also increasingly obvious is the authoritarian and totalitarian character of their discourse.
What’s admitted truthfully is that “[most] men can’t even sit together in a room and have a meaningful conversation about their sexuality with one another.”
Unstated is the obvious fact that men engaged in such discourse are routinely shamed and marginalized. But by whom? Who is it in such powerful control of public consensus on matters of sexual identity? Who would even have the power to silence, isolate and shame men for the offense of being human?
This is not to say that there are not some men who, on their own, have an irrational and hostile reaction to homosexuality. Part of that so-called “discussion” we might have with those gender ideologues who so much want to “honor” us might consider that “hypermasculinity” is driven by competition for their holy of holies – because women respond to it. It is the same force that drives men to sell themselves out to gain approval from gender ideologues and other women who hate their guts.
In the article’s conclusion the author admits another superficially obvious reality: ”[B]ecause we – those of us that advocate gender equality and sexual liberation – almost completely control the debate. Collectively, we can fairly comfortably keep men’s issues marginalized, which is what we’ve been doing.”
A couple of obligatory points here. One, those who advocate gender equality and sexual liberation have not had control of the public discourse. Feminists have. Those of us actually practicing what we preach have only just begun to be heard.
Second, those who erroneously think they have complete control of the dialogue just have not noticed that their monopoly has ended.
Or perhaps they do.
Perhaps that article was posted to Reddit, replete with promises of inclusion and honoring their former victims, is part of the growing body of evidence that feminists are trying to adjust to a new world that no longer nods like so many millions of bobble-head dolls whenever they spew factoids and crazy ideas.
Recalling that in commentary about the genderequality article, the author stated “The article is written with a specific target audience in mind – those that think that the problem is men, and men need to change.”
Of course this person neglected to notice that the article is saturated with that very idea. It’s only appeal will be to people already convinced that “men are the problem,” or willing to be convinced if it gets them some approval.
We have a radical idea. It is really, really out there on the fringes. It’s an idea so strange it deserves its own website, YouTube channel and FaceBook page with literally dozens of followers:
If you want to get men to get involved in a discussion on “sexuality, gender and relationships,” include how men actually experience sexuality, gender and relationships. Not how you want them to tell you they experience those things, not in the tone that best suits or least offends you.
You claim to have been in complete control of the discourse? Fine. If that is true, then shutting up and listing for a while should seem to be a rational and obvious next step. After that, if you can enter a rational discussion with adults, then adults have the habit of responding favorably.
In case it s not obvious, men and women here are already way ahead of you, doing this every day, in ever-increasing numbers. Feminists are welcome to join us in a rational and reasoned debate on the issues, or even to find common ground, but they have chosen not to with remarkable consistency for the six years we have been here. They have, in fact, undermined and even threatened people who sought to establish such a dialog.
Those comfortably keeping “men’s issues marginalized,” i.e., you, are the problem.
Solutions, solutions, solutions.
The activists and actors of the evolving men’s rights movement have been hard at work for decades. However, in a climate of nearly universal censure, vilification and marginalization – it is only in the past few years that MRAs have begun to be heard, or have started to influence the discourse. Concurrently, if feminism were a sound system, we could say it has started blowing speakers.
After so many decades, that must be unnerving, considering public knowledge of the malevolent character of feminism’s public myth making.
It might even rattle feminists enough to extend pointless (and wholly unbelievable) olive branches to trust and honor the men they have been crapping on for two generations.
What’s also well-known is that feminism also has an established history of co-opting other movements and re-purposing them as vehicles of the feminist narrative, to the detriment of the co-opted group. The modern secular movement and the occupy movements are just two recent but stark examples.
Now that men have a small, but growing public voice – the next feminist project will undoubtedly be to play nice long enough to reclaim their monopoly. Recall that this is the same feminism which still rests of on the writings Solanas and Dworkin, and whose current “respectable” legal activists promote the idea that women should kill men, rather than leave allegedly abusive relationships.
It is very simple. If you want a productive discourse with men that honors all participants, that seeks evidence-based understanding and solutions to problems related to gender, sexuality and relationships, then your solution has a simple but almost miraculously efficacious first step.
Reject feminism as an ideology of hate and start over.
From there you can maybe get therapy or other form of counsel to help you live a life where your compassion and willingness to give fair hearing to the ideas of others; where your valuing of addressing the problems of all people absolutely without lines of division, and where problems are measured by behaviors and not genitals.
In other words, go find your moral compass and let it, not your ideology, lead you back here. If you can do that there is a community of like-minded people waiting here for you. And you will have everything you claim to want.
If you can’t, feminists will love you even more for failing.