Like many other groups, men are victims of injustice. What’s unique, however, is men’s inability to speak about said injustices. Other groups of people have platforms to speak about their issues. They get speaking invitations. Politicians run campaigns attempting to appeal to them. Schools teach us about their history in social science classes. Hollywood makes movies to raise awareness.
Unfortunately, men aren’t granted these benefits. When men speak up, we are put through frustrating levels of intolerance. Society spends their time telling people what our opinions and intentions are, as opposed to…idk…letting us speak for ourselves. We get lumped in with groups that we would never dream of affiliating with. Articles take all our words out of context. College students use these lies to censor our appearances on campuses. People who put on this facade of being in favor of human rights, suddenly find themselves in favor of bigotry and the status quo.
This isn’t a mistake. We live in a society that promotes, finances, and priorities feminist dogma over justice. Who cares if men suffer? Sure, it hurts relationships, creates a gender war, and destabilizes society. None of that matters to people. Agreeing to force a philosophy — founded on willful ignorance, racism, lies, inconsistency, and manipulation — was their top priority. Anyone, or anything, that gets in the way becomes an immediate target for people to aggressively antagonize.
Phase 1 Patriarchy-Gender Hierarchy
In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement raised awareness on a structure known as “white supremacy”. White supremacy was used to describe the racial hierarchy that the black community had been living in. Feminists mimicked the Civil Rights Movement’s rhetoric and attached it to their philosophy. They recycled the term “patriarchy” (which previously defined male leadership and authority) to resemble the gender hierarchy that they claimed to be living in.
Feminists promoted a false equivalence between the struggle of race and gender. They would even promote themselves as the gender equivalent of the Civil Rights Movement. Unfortunately, it didn’t stop there. People of Color and “women” were told (by feminists) that they had a common enemy: the white man. This relieves white women from any responsibility for their racist history — as they are an “oppressed group.” White women, even to this day, consider themselves champions of racial equality for pointing their fingers at white men for all of society’s ills. Rewriting history and liberating a group of people from accountability doesn’t achieve racial equality. Yet, society continues to present this as a legitimate fight against racism.
This philosophy of feminism still exists to this very day. Due to this intellectual dishonesty, men’s issues are completely shunned by society. The concept of men’s rights (prison sentencing, selective service, educational resources, etc.) are compared to “white rights”, and “the rights of the wealthy”. International Men’s Day (a day dedicated to speaking about men’s rights) is lumped in with “White History Month” and a “Straight Pride Parade” in order to dismiss men’s issues. And, of course, the men’s rights movement is described as a movement full of racist white men fighting for male privileges and the oppression of women.
When a society views men as oppressors and women as their victims, advocating for men’s issues is going to be viewed as advocating for the “oppressor”. This is an inaccurate philosophy that silences male injustice and excuses advantages granted to women. This puts men in the awkward position. If a man speaks up, he is subject to ridicule, protest, slander, and death threats. That man becomes a walking target. If he decides not to speak up, he spends the rest of his life suffering in silence. Both situations are a personal dystopia. Men suffer without support because society pleads ignorance to the very existence of their issues.
Phase 2 Patriarchy-A competition
Eventually, a certain group of men got tired of suffering and watching other people suffer. This movement became known as the men’s rights movement (MRM). The MRM has existed for over a century. However, it rose to prominence-and gained considerable media attention, in the 1970s. This is heavily credited to Warren Farrell-the former feminist, the father’s rights movement, and The National Coalition for Men. They wrote books, created conferences, spoke at events, filed lawsuits, spoke to judges, engaged in court cases, and spoke to politicians.
Feminists, being aware of this, altered their statements. They, surprisingly, acknowledged men’s issues. However, they declared that “women have it worse”. Therefore, men should be focused on helping women, not helping themselves. If you speak of men’s rights, you are technically rolling back women’s rights. Case in point, the men’s rights movement is accused of rolling back women’s rights by speaking of men’s rights. By raising awareness on men’s issues, MRAs are supposedly silencing women’s issues. Suddenly, activism was no longer about morality and fighting against injustice. It was now a competition to become the most negatively affected group. Whenever men speak about their own issues, society turns them down for slowing down the progress of women’s issues. Ultimately, men and their rights will always be put into an inequity competition that they are predetermined to lose.
Phase 3 Patriarchy-Revisionist History Heroines
Despite the feminist driven efforts to censor the discussion of men’s rights, certain topics and groups have entered the mainstream. Father’s Rights Organizations are present in many countries around the world. Comedians have done notable standup routines on men’s issues. There are campaigns raising money for men’s health. Men’s support groups and men’s conferences have grown recently. People have become more educated on men’s human rights.
Feminists, realizing this, did a complete flip from their original gimmick. They completely acknowledged that men’s issues do exist. They also acknowledged that there was an entire culture and system that harms men. All the feminist assertions of men’s rights were completely back tracked. Unfortunately, this admission came with a series of conditions. Feminists will admit that men’s issues exist if they can victim blame men for the suffering.
This starts with their completely altered definition of patriarchy. Patriarchy (the word they originally used to describe a society in favor of men and against women) is now used to explain away any injustices that men face. This system is supposedly responsible for all the legal discrimination that men and boys have to deal with on a daily basis. “Men in power” are the scapegoat for all of men’s issues. Therefore, men are responsible for all their own problems, because they “have power”.
This continues with the term “toxic masculinity”. Toxic masculinity (as recycled by the feminist movement) is used to explain the social injustices that men go through. The term implies that men created a culture of manhood that is unhealthy and puts social pressure on them to act a certain way. Toxic masculinity is routinely used as a response to concerns around men’s health, male sexuality, violence against men, and the lack of empathy granted to male victims. Therefore, men are responsible for “creating” a toxic environment that prevents men from expressing themselves.
Finally, feminists change the stated goal of their movement as “equality of the sexes”. After asserting that men’s problems are the result of patriarchy and toxic masculinity, feminists decide that they are the solution. Feminists (who spent decades attempting to silence the discussion on men’s issues) experienced revisionist history, in which they portrayed themselves as the champions of men’s issues. The people who don’t think men’s rights exist, are suddenly an advocate for a term they deemed to be fictional. Every men’s issue was now deemed to be a “feminist” issue. Feminists appointed themselves to be gatekeepers of gender equality. Ultimately, in their eyes, you MUST be a feminist to raise awareness on men’s issues. And, of course, this gives them a new reason to oppose men’s rights activists. In their mind, MRAs are the epitome of the “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchy”. Therefore, they can’t advocate for the wellbeing of men (despite the long history of MRAs fighting for men and feminists fighting against it).
This phase is the ultimate con. It’s appalling how many vulnerable men get manipulated by this word salad. Some people believe that feminists give a damn about the wellbeing of men. Unfortunately, it’s not true. This theory is all over the place and simply defies logic. This phase is so outrageously ignorant, it must be debunked piece by piece.
Let’s start with the patriarchy-which has been changed so many damn times now, it has lost meaning. The assertion of “power” is intellectually lazy. Men are most of the politicians and business owners. However, women are most of the voters, tv viewers, teachers, and parents. Also, the women’s movement has all of the social, political, and financial influence. So, these “men in power” spend all their time serving the interests of women and women’s rights groups. Therefore, the assertion that men have “power” is nothing more than a deflection tactic.
Next, we’ll get to the whole toxic masculinity rhetoric. Can someone explain to me why women feel the need to construct men’s identities? The original definition of toxic masculinity was created by a group of men-the mythopoetic men’s movement to be exact. This original definition described how society was forcing men to be feminine, and not allowing them to embrace their masculinity. This current, recycled definition was created by women. This rhetoric implies that men need to embrace more feminine roles. So, what entitles women to decide how men should express their identity? If they cared about men, they would be supporting men, unconditionally. Men shouldn’t have to embrace feminine characteristics for women to put on a pro-male facade. Also, this entire rhetoric completely ignores the process of the “mating market” and excuses women’s role in the social mistreatment of men. Men and women both compete in the mating market to find a romantic partner. Women compete by their looks and their sexual purity. Men compete by their physical/emotional strengths and their ability to serve/protect women. Therefore, men judge each other for their toughness. Men have to make themselves more appealing in the mating market. Women generally don’t date men that they deem to be “too emotional” or “weak”. Toxic masculinity doesn’t address any of this. It simply blames all of men’s social concerns on men and portrays women as the heroines attempting to rescue them from themselves.
Last of all, let’s address the shift in feminist philosophy. Feminists spent over half of a century centering gender equality around women’s thoughts, feelings, interests, and wellbeing. They were so determined to keep it this way that they attempted to censor people who spoke about men’s issues. These censorship tactics walked a fine line between ignorance and flat out bigotry. Are we now led to believe that these very people are legitimately concerned about helping men? Have they ever come out and apologized to men for promoting a theory that effectively silenced the discussion on their issues? If so, I haven’t seen it. What I have seen them do is completely rewrite history. I’ve seen them pretend as if this was always their goal and that their detractors are just ignorant. I’ve seen them appoint themselves to gatekeeper status for gender equality, demand people identify with the movement, and protest people who criticize them. And, as long as this ridiculous pattern continues, I don’t see feminists as a group of people who are interested in helping men.
Phase 4 Patriarchy-Radical Rights Activists
This is the final phase of patriarchy. I honestly don’t want to spend too much time on it (as it isn’t really important). This phase is exclusive to radical feminists.
Mainstream feminists fight to put a negative connotation on “men’s rights”, “misandry”, and “International Men’s Day”. They blame men for everything that’s wrong with society-including men’s issues. When men attempt to give themselves a positive image for all of the good things they do (like saving women from danger, becoming firefighters and police officers, and being the financial caretakers in relationships), feminists dismiss this with cartoonish rhetoric (claiming that the patriarchy forces men to save women, claiming to be kept out of these male dominated jobs, and framing women as victims of male pride for accepting men’s financial offers). But they never explicitly say “I hate men”.
Radical feminists, or Radfems, openly express contempt for men. Radical feminists aren’t concerned with their image. They are proud of their prejudice and don’t shy away from it. These radicals are like alter egos to the mainstream feminist. Radfems have the same ideas, thoughts, feelings, and emotions as average feminists. They are just more transparent and forthcoming with their bigotry, while mainstream feminists disguise their prejudice through ideology.
The Feminist Chameleon
These different phases of feminism effectively silenced the discussion on men’s issues. But it manages to get worse. The phases of feminism (excluding phase 4), are all actively used by the feminist movement today. They don’t have a consistent philosophy. Feminists jump between these phases during conversations and debates. If you think I’m joking, try to have a conversation with a feminist about men’s rights.
A feminist will pop up to belittle you for daring to speak about men’s rights, telling you that society is always in your favor. You’ll push back and speak about the misandry that men face. Suddenly, feminists will downplay misandry in favor of misogyny — turning the conversation into a competition. You’ll point out that this isn’t a competition and that you’re just trying to raise awareness for men. But feminists will counter this by telling you that you should identify with their movement to talk about men’s issues-as they supposedly favor gender equality. They will portray themselves as allies enabling men to speak up, while portraying you as the monster who doesn’t care about men. If all else fails, you will be met with virgin shaming and claims of fragility (despite their insistence on claiming that they are freeing you from gender roles).
Each reason will be used as an excuse to attack you. You’ll be confused-if not frustrated-noticing that they’re saying contradictory things with each response. But it won’t matter to them. They have the social, financial, educational, and political power. All they need is a detailed reason to silence you — be it true or false. Before you know it, you’re being denied access to platforms, you’re being protested, and your position is being mischaracterized. Society will look at you as the monster. In reality, all you wanted to do is raise awareness about men’s issues.
Welcome to the land of feminism my friends. Where bigotry is equality.