Feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement
- as Ideological Autism
I’m far from the first person to note the similarities between feminists and MRAs, and I think I’ve stumbled across the reason why: both ideologies are motivated by autism. That is, both the feminist and men’s rights’ movements are populated by women and men who are socially awkward and incapable of relating to other people normally. The amount of dysfunction depends on the particular feminist/MRA in question—that’s why we have an autism spectrum—but all of them are mentally disabled to some degree.
In other words, arguing with feminists and MRAs is completely pointless, because it means we have to take seriously the delusions of broken minds.
The idea that feminists/MRAs might be socially retarded first came to me when I read this feminist response to my Michelle Jenneke post. In particular, it was this passage that lit me up:The best thing about this long discussion of how feminine, how confident, how accomplished, and how generally wonderful Jenneke is, is that Forney has no idea whatsoever if anything he’s saying about her character is true. All he knows, based on this commentary, is that she’s an athlete who looks graceful and happy. That’s it. Oh, and that she’s hot. [...]Now, in a strict sense, she is right: I’ll likely never meet Jenneke and thus I’ll never get to find out what she’s like. But she’s really pulling the tired “you can’t judge a book by its cover” line that fatties, uggos and other weirdos use to defend themselves. At our deepest levels, we all know it’s bullshit: a person’s outward appearance is a reflection of their soul in nine out of ten cases. A well-dressed businessman, a filthy bum, a scantily-clad woman; if you use your instincts to make snap judgments of people according to their appearance, you’ll be on the money most of the time.
What got me thinking is that feminists may not simply be using that line as a defense mechanism: it might be that they legitimately can’t tell what people are like from looking at them. One of the defining characteristics—hell, the defining characteristic—of autism and Asperger’s is an inability to understand social cues. When Gretchen Koch watches that video of Michelle Jenneke’s “sexy” dancing, it may be that she honestly cannot read the social cues that Jenneke is inadvertently telegraphing through her behavior, cues that I and millions of socially adjusted men instinctively pick up on.
To further drive the point home, Koch has a picture of herself on her blog’s sidebar. There are no good-looking feminists for a reason: when was the last time you met a good-looking person with autism?
But the fun doesn’t stop there!
Koch links to an article from Sociological Images on “daily rituals of objectification culture” that women engage in that they apparently need to stop:1) Stop seeking male attention.This is the damaged output of a damaged mind. The idea that women should shun male attention is anathema to the very psychology of human beings. All of us, man or woman, crave social acceptance, and sexual attention is a form of social acceptance. Normal women want to be objectified (even if they have trouble admitting it) because objectification is validation, and validation is a basic human need. The average woman gets more sexual attention than the average man, but don’t kid yourselves, guys; we dream of girls falling at our feet, eye-fucking us.
Most women have been taught that heterosexual male attention is the Holy Grail and its hard to reject this system of validation, but we must. We give our power away when we engage in habitual body monitoring so we can be visually pleasing to others. The ways in which we seek attention for our bodies varies by sexuality, race, ethnicity, and ability, but the template is the “male gaze.”
Heterosexual male attention is actually pretty easy to give up when you think about it.
Fun related activity: When a man cat calls you, respond with an extended laugh and declare, “I don’t exist for you!” Be prepared for a verbally violent reaction as you are challenging his power as the great validator. Your gazer likely won’t even know why he becomes angry since he’s just following the societal script that you’ve just interrupted.
- First, we seek it mostly from strangers we will never see again, so it doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of life. Who cares what the man in the car next to you thinks of your profile? You’ll probably never see him again.
- Secondly, men in U.S. culture are raised to objectify women as a matter of course, so an approving gaze doesn’t mean you’re unique or special, it’s something he’s supposed to do.
- Thirdly, male validation is fleeting and valueless; it certainly won’t pay your rent or get you a book deal. In fact, being seen as sexy hurts at least as much as it helps women.
- Lastly, men are terrible validators of physical appearance because so many are duped by make-up, hair coloring and styling, surgical alterations, girdles, etc. If I want an evaluation of how I look, a heterosexual male stranger is one of the least reliable sources on the subject.
The alternative—being ignored, invisible—is repulsive to the human psyche, so repulsive that the threat of it is one of the easiest ways to manipulate someone.
Because feminists are autistic, they’re incapable of forming meaningful relationships with anyone aside from their fellow mental defectives. The above passage is nothing more than a rationalization of the writer’s inability to get male attention; she pretends it’s a conscious choice rather than the natural outgrowth of her social awkwardness. “You can’t fire me, because I quit!” Attractive women never complain about objectification: it’s always fat, ugly or plain women who do because they either never get any male attention to begin with, or what they do get is of the “no one’s ugly after 2am” variety.And do I really need to bash David Futrelle? I could write a million words about how broken and pathetic he is, but this video of him (go to 7:03) says it better than I ever could:
(By the way, am I the only one who’s noticed the irony of al-Jazeera hosting a feminist roundtable on “e-patriarchy?” Kind of like a synagogue hosting a discussion of The Culture of Critique.)
But I’ve harped on feminists enough. Time to turn my boomstick of truth on the MRAs.
Enter The Black Pill, a blog of hopelessly confused Forever Aloners trying to argue the existence of the “Paleo-Game Cult,” a catch-all term they apply to anyone not as whiny and morose as them. I first learned of the Black Pill when he disapprovingly commented on my post criticizing Register-Her.com. He’s linked to my posts on other occasions, but being the chickenshit he is, he anonymizes the links so I can’t see where the traffic is coming from; unfortunately, he didn’t count on the Google Alerts I have for my name. A recent post of his takes aim at the “red pill” concept:Elam and others believe that to be against feminism and understand mens rights, you have to take the “red pill”. Only a tiny group of people have taken the “red pill” so they believe that the vast majority of people are “blue pills” which among other things means that they’re feminists. The only way to go from “blue pill” to “red pill” is some major transformation in thinking according to the “red pills”. The “red pill” takers can include all sorts of nutjobs as long as they can talk about how they have gone through this supposed transformation. The first problem with this is the assumption that most men are “blue pill” feminists. While almost all women are either feminists or de facto feminists, that isn’t true of men. I have talked to plenty of mainstream joes IRL and in almost all cases, they understood to varying degrees just how much trouble feminism causes. This is particularly true of men under the age of 35 or so. They weren’t “blue pills”, not by a long shot. They don’t need a mental transformation into becoming a “red pill”.What a load of nerdy bullshit. Another aspect of autism is the inability to process language correctly. Aspies and the autistic have difficulty recognizing nuance or metaphor, taking everything they read and hear at face value. Black Pill attacks the “red pill idea” without realizing that there is no red pill idea: it’s simply a metaphor to describe rejecting mainstream wisdom on women and whatnot. He keeps tilting at windmills in a follow-up post:
Over time more and more men are going to have no idea what the red pill is supposed to be about just like how Martian Bachelor had no idea. The last Matrix movie came out in 2003 and the only real substantial reference to the red pill is in the first movie which came out in 1999. Take a man who is 30 in 2020. The first Matrix movie came out when he was 9. He may never have seen it. That’s even more likely for a man who is 25 in 1990. The first Matrix movie only came out when he was 4.Yes, that’s right, the “red pill” will become obsolete because of the increasing age of The Matrix. It’s wholly inconceivable that someone will come up with a newer, fresher metaphor that will be more relevant.
It’s a wonder how these people can even tie their shoes in the morning without accidentally strangling themselves with the laces. Oh whoops, that’s shaming language! I’m a mangina!
This isn’t even getting into the perverse glee MRAs take in the advent of sexbots and the like. I defended male porn use in a past article, but I’m not going to pretend that it’s anything other than what it is: a sick outgrowth of a sick society. You can get off on porn, but you can’t get a human connection from it. This is the MRA equivalent of feminists whining about “objectification”: losers trying to spin their loserness into a principled choice.That’s what the motivation of many MRAs, particularly the ones who haven’t experienced divorce rape or the other ill effects of feminism, boils down to: a justification for their failures with women. Their claims about how they “don’t care” about getting laid are a total lie; if a moderately cute woman were to ever show interest in any of these dorks, their rhetoric of “going their own way” would fly right out the window.
Attention men’s rights’ activists! Tired of getting erections whenever a hot girl crosses your path? Feelings of sexual inadequacy eating away at your busy activism of posting comments on blogs? Try CASTROGOL! One tab of Castrogol every day will annihilate your desire for the opposite sex, leaving you free to play video games in your underwear all weekend without a pang of guilt! WARNING: side effects of Castrogol may include nausea, infertility and spontaneously sprouting a vagina. Please consult your doctor before taking Castrogol.
The MRM is informally considered part of the manosphere because MRAs and “gamers” (Christ I hate that term; anyone who calls me a “gamer” is going to get an uppercut to the jaw) oppose feminism. This is despite the fact that the two groups walk different paths: “gamers” want to improve themselves and grow as men to achieve contentment and fulfillment, while MRAs want to lobby to have men added to the list of liberal victim groups. The two have mixed like oil and water; in other words, not at all. It’s obvious that men, especially young men, don’t want what the MRM is selling: the most popular MRM sites, such as A Voice for Men and Fathers & Families, are eclipsed in popularity by sites like Roosh’s and Chateau Heartiste.It’s time to throw the MRM out and let it fade into irrelevance.
Feminists and MRAs are equally autistic, the only substantive difference between them being that one group has power and the other is powerless. You don’t debate with the mentally disabled, any more than you would challenge a guy in a wheelchair to pickup basketball. You deal with them through mockery and ridicule. Never take a feminist or an MRA seriously. Don’t accept their frame or debate them. Instead, shower them with derision and insults. Belittle and tear them down at every opportunity. Remind them that we are the normal ones and they are the freaks, and they need our approval if they want to be happy and free.Mental illness is not a defense. It’s time to take the asylum back from the inmates.
