Is Feminism Really About Choice?

A few years ago I somehow ended up watching a movie called ‘Mona Lisa Smile’. I’m not quite sure why because even back then I thought the title sounded stupid, and also it has Kirsten Dunst in it and she reminds of one of those wet-wipes that people keep in the glove boxes of their cars. Anyway! The basic plot of the movie is that this super-liberated feminist teacher goes to some school in the 1950s and teaches some young women about art and culture or whatever, and then she helps some of them get all liberated by teaching them about how they can go to college and don’t have to be housewives and all that. Not a totally awful concept, but I personally found the film to be almost completely unremarkable.

There is, however, one particular scene that sticks with me to this day. One of the young women (played by Julia Stiles) is super smart and the teacher constantly encourages her to go to med school or something equally competitive, and it looks like she’s going to do it. Then all of a sudden she comes back from a weekend away with her boyfriend, and it turns out they spontaneously got married and she’s decided she’s not going to college after all. Unsurprisingly the teacher gets all shitty and disappointed, but what was interesting to me was that Julia Stiles’ character gets shitty right back. She basically points out that her decision to marry and not go to college doesn’t actually diminish her abilities or her worth as a person – in fact she literally says “This doesn’t make me any less smart.” I’ve never forgotten that line, and it seems particularly relevant to what I want to discuss in this post.

Let’s start with a scenario you’re probably all familiar with; a female public figure who’s famous for something other than her appearance (sports, politics, academia, business, whatever) does something like an interview about how motherhood is the best thing that’s ever happened to her, or a sexy photo shoot, or decides to retire from public life to raise a family. A couple of recent examples would be Michelle Obama’s speech at the State of the Union address, and the female Russian Olympic athletes who posed for a series of lingerie photos as part of the promotion for the Sochi winter games. In both these cases, as in so many others, there has been a lot of controversy and backlash from the feminist sphere, particularly from pop feminist sources. They’ve railed against Michelle Obama’s statement that her role as a mother is the most important thing to her, in spite of her incredible education and career and the power she wields as First Lady. They’ve lamented that these Russian female athletes have been ‘reduced’ to mere sexual objects, rather than being honoured and respected for their abilities as sportswomen. Isn’t it terrible, they say, that a woman in the public eye still needs to squeeze herself into traditional feminine roles like wife, mother and sex symbol in order to be accepted and worthy of praise? Well, yes. That would be terrible. But it seems to me as though that’s not really what’s happening here.

See, there’s a difference between a woman being ‘reduced’ to a housewife or sex symbol, and a woman choosing to embrace those roles as part of her overall existence. If a woman is portrayed in such a way that all her other achievements and abilities are trumped by this one particular aspect of her existence then yes, she is ‘reduced’. But not all portrayals of women as sexy or domestic or maternal do this, and a crucial part of making the distinction is understanding the importance of choice. The crux of the matter is whether or not the woman in question is choosing to be portrayed in this way. If she’s being forced or pressured into embracing a traditional manifestation of femininity then yes, I would say that is reductive and oppressive. But if she’s choosing of her own free will to be shown in such a light, then personally I don’t see how that’s oppressive or even unfair.

Many feminist sources would and do argue that women cannot always be conscious about the decisions they’re making in these matters. The pressure our society puts on women to behave and appear in a certain way is so great, that a woman may believe that she’s choosing to be shown in a particular light but in fact she’s doing no such thing. In order to be successful, to gain popularity and sponsorship and general acceptance, a woman in the public eye must show a willingness to conform to traditional female gender roles. On some levels I agree with this; there’s certainly a lot of social stigma about ‘unfeminine’ women in positions of power (just look at the kind of gender-obsessed bullshit directed at Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton). But at the same time, I think there are also many instances where the women in question have genuinely made the choice to publicly embrace traditional female roles of their own free will. And all too often, pop feminism and mass media indulge in the knee-jerk reaction of assuming that any depiction of a high-profile woman in a traditionally feminine light is an example of patriarchal oppression.

Whilst there are unarguably examples of famous and successful women being pressured into ‘acting femme’, there are also plenty of instances where that is probably not the case. So how do we figure out whether we’re looking at oppression or an exercise in free will? Personally, I think the best indicator lies in whether or not the woman had anything to lose by not choosing to ‘act femme’. After all, if coming across as sexy or maternal is really so abhorrent to high-profile women, surely they would not agree to do so unless it was seriously to their detriment to refuse. Would they have lost votes, sponsorship, money, popularity, employment opportunities? If not – well then, I’d say its pretty unlikely they were coerced into speaking or acting as they did. Michelle Obama is a great example here, because although many people lament the pressures she must have felt to make a statement about how much she loves motherhood, she had absolutely nothing to lose by not doing so. She’s already First Lady, she can’t be un-First-Ladied if enough people don’t like her. And it’s not as though she had to shore up support for her husband’s political career, because Obama’s already served two terms and he can’t be re-elected anyway. And clearly Michelle Obama was not in a position of financial need – so what did she have to gain by announcing to the world that being a mother to her two daughters has been her proudest achievement? Nothing. She simply decided to publicly share that out of all her academic, political and personal achievements, raising her daughters was the thing that she most valued. And making that announcement in no way diminishes the importance or value of her other achievements, because funnily enough, it’s actually entirely possible for a woman to enjoy both traditionally feminine and non-traditional aspects of her own existence.

A similar argument could be made in the case of the female Russian olympic athletes who appeared in a recently released lingerie photo shoot. Now I recognise that Russia has some pretty dreadful shit going on in terms of the rights of women, LGBTQ people and in fact anyone who isn’t Vladimir Putin himself. However, the arguments made against this photo shoot by most pop feminist sources did not focus on Russia’s appalling human rights record or its strongly anti-feminist religious culture. No, the main problem seemed to be that these were elite athletes, talented and empowered women who deserved respect, and that showing them as scantily-clad pin-ups diminished their achievements and disrespected them as professionals. My question is – how? How does showing a woman in a conventional sexually attractive light make her less athletic, less intelligent, less deserving of respect? No, these photographs did not focus on the athletic abilities of the women they portrayed – but that was not their goal. It’s not like the photographers lied to the women and said that they really wanted to depict their athletic prowess, but then somehow tricked them into wearing suspenders and portrayed them as mindless sex-dolls. The photographs were specifically designed to be sexy and sexualised because hey, sex sells – and if the athletes who posed for these photos are happy to use their sexuality to increase publicity for the Sochi Olympics, why shouldn’t they? I’m not saying that these images don’t portray these women in a purely aesthetic and sexualised way, because they absolutely do. I’m saying that such a depiction is not necessarily reductive, because appearing in a sexualised light is only demeaning if you find it to be so. These women are still elite sportspeople, and they will still be recognised and respected for their athletic achievements. Why shouldn’t a woman be proud to be a world-class athlete, and also to be celebrated as a sex symbol? The two things are not mutually exclusive, and embracing the latter doesn’t erase the worth of the former. 

And this is where the Julia Stiles thing comes in – the idea that embracing and enjoying traditional gender roles deprives a woman of her independence, her intelligence, her achievements and her credibility. That a capable female who chooses not to dedicate herself primarily to the ’empowering’ pursuit of externally recognised success, who instead or even also decides to follow more traditional female roles, is somehow wasting their potential and diminishing their worth. That in order to be a true feminist, everything you do in life must be geared towards improving the rights of women and breaking down traditional gender roles – and that anything less is a betrayal and a failure of the ideals you believe in.

Pardon my French, but fuck that noise.

I absolutely consider myself a feminist, as well as an MRA. One of the dearest goals of my life is to somehow contribute to dismantling traditional gender roles and increasing equality for people of all genders. If I leave a legacy to the world, I would like that to be it. But while I believe passionately in the ideology of gender equality, I don’t want it to be the defining factor in everything that I do. And it’s not because I’m a ‘fake’ feminist or I’m giving in to the pressures of the patriarchal apparatus. It’s because I’m a real fucking person, and my needs and wants cannot be encompassed by just one ideology. Right now, I’m basically a housewife; I very happily cook and clean while my fiance is the one who brings home the bacon. If all goes to plan, I’ll be married at the age of 22 and I’d like to have kids in my mid-20s. And you know what? None of that makes me any less smart. It doesn’t stop me from pursuing a double-major at university; it doesn’t prevent me from writing these appallingly long but hopefully intelligent blog posts; it doesn’t diminish my desire to have a career that somehow furthers the cause of gender equality amongst many other social justice issues. But I will not spend my one life becoming a standard-bearer for feminism or any other ideology. If other people want to follow that path then more power to them, but it doesn’t give them a blank cheque to write off the life choices of people who don’t share their goals.

So I utterly reject the idea that a woman, that anyone, has to choose between either totally embracing or utterly rejecting all traditional gender roles. Not only is it something I find personally insulting, but more importantly it’s one of the biggest ways that modern feminism shoots itself in the foot. I’ve heard it said more times than I can count that feminism is about choice – increasing freedom and choices for everyone, but especially for women. But how can that be reconciled with the knee-jerk and vitriolic way in which so many so-called feminists demean those women who decide to embrace rather than reject some aspects of traditional femininity? After all, is that not their choice to make? Many critics of feminism have pointed out – quite rightly – that the movement cannot truly support freedom of choice for women if it acts like some women are making the ‘wrong’ choices for themselves. It comes across as a case of “We want you to have freedom of choice – as long as you choose what we think is right.”

As I said, some feminist sources counter this argument by saying that women choosing traditional gender roles are being subtly forced into making that decision, caving into the innumerable pressures and discriminations that women face in our society. Call me crazy, but isn’t a little inconsistent to follow an ideology that believes in the equal intelligence and abilities of women, and then effectively imply that some women are too ignorant to make their own choices without being manipulated by external force? Because that’s basically what it means – women who don’t reject traditional gender roles are too stupid to know what’s good for them or to understand the reasons for their own choices. More than that; it says that only women who reject traditional femininity are capable of seeing the lies and manipulations to which other women are falling victim. They alone can see the truth, they alone have not been fooled. Because what woman in their right mind would voluntarily embrace traditional female gender roles? Honestly, it’s not remotely difficult to understand why anyone, male or female, would be reluctant to support feminism if this is the kind of message the movement is sending out.

Despite all my criticisms, I believe that feminism is a wonderful movement which has achieved much and can still offer a great deal to the world. But that’s why I get so pissed off with stuff like this – there’s so much potential, and I honestly think that breaking down traditional gender roles through feminism and other movements will improve the lives of the vast majority of people. Ideally it can increase equality and tolerance, and offer more freedom and more choices to everyone, not just women. But people who support feminism have to truly embrace these goals, and really understand what such an ideal means. It does not mean getting rid of all traditionally masculine or feminine roles. It does not mean shaming and discriminating against people who voluntarily adopt the traditional roles and behaviours associated with their gender. It does not mean replacing a patriarchal system which oppresses people by forcing them into traditional gender roles, with a feminist system that oppresses them by refusing to let them embrace those roles if they want to. It does not mean telling other people how to live and what their values should be. It simply means that whatever choices a person makes, in whatever aspect of their life, should not be restricted by societal expectations about gender. A woman can be respected whether she’s a housewife or a Senator; a man can be respected whether he’s a stockbroker or a stay-at-home dad; and LGBTQ people can be respected and treated with dignity whether they identify as male, female, both or nothing at all. If feminism is really about choice and gender equality, then its supporters must respect all decisions equally and not denigrate those that they don’t personally agree with. I, for one, want the freedom to make my own life choices irrespective of my gender – not a mantra that tells me what those choices should look like.

Dear Roosh

Dear Roosh,

I’m a long-time reader of your most notorious publication, Return of Kings. Every day I patiently check through its articles for insights into the minds of those who, on the surface, most fervently disagree with my own views and, in some cases, my very existence. I never engage with commenters or authors, since it seems commenting on a website that specifically forbids the input of women would be rather futile for me. But today, dearest Roosh, I was at last inspired to respond to an article written by none other than your illustrious self – ‘The Time Is Right For Traditional Gender Roles To Return’. Why, you might ask? Well, because in this article you very nobly take time to inform readers of the seriousness of your commitment to the ideals of ROK. You solemnly swear that you are not a ‘troll’ website, as many infer, but that you and all your contributors truly believe in the ideals on which this forum is based. With that in mind, I felt it was incumbent upon me to shelve my natural feminine aversion to logic, and point out just a few of the flaws in this particular contribution to the ROK archives. After all accuracy is crucial, is it not?

Let’s start at the very beginning, which I hear is a very good place to start. You begin your piece with a list of “simple examples” of how traditional sex roles allow each gender to maximise their natural strengths and weaknesses. I assume that the conclusion we’re meant to draw is that by forsaking traditional sex roles, we’re forcing both men and women into jobs and behaviours to which they are not suited. But, alas, I do believe you’ve erred. For instance…

Which sex, thanks to a stronger nurturing component, makes for better nurses and caretakers? Which sex, thanks to a superior analytical faculty, makes for better engineers and programmers?

No offence, but you could’ve picked better examples. The fact is that nursing and care-taking professions are still female-dominated, whilst industries like engineering and programming are still very much dominated by men. But forget the details, let’s look at the core argument – that because of the inherent, evolutionary abilities of each gender, men and women are better suited to particular and often different professions. Well Roosh, getting rid of traditional gender roles doesn’t deny that. What it does deny is that any man or woman should be restricted only to taking on those jobs dictated by the so-called natural abilities shared by the majority of their gender. Nobody’s saying that all nurses should be men or all engineers should be women because that would somehow make society more equal. All that gender equality advocates are saying is that if an individual demonstrates a certain aptitude for a particular task or career, they should be allowed to follow that path regardless of their gender. Perhaps natural ability dictates that most nurses should be women and most engineers should be men – but when there are exceptions, it’d be pretty stupid to tell them that they can’t do something they’re good at, just because most people who are good at it have different genitals to them.

Which sex, thanks to its predisposition for accumulating power and resources, makes for better nation builders, state leaders, and executives?

I’m guessing the answer is ‘men’, right? Unfortunately this one’s a little off the mark as well. I won’t argue that men are more in the habit of accumulating power than women, but as for resources I can’t really agree. You later argue that women are naturally better homemakers – but surely a critical aspect of homemaking throughout the centuries has been accumulating and successfully managing resources to ensure survival? In an increasingly overpopulated world with limited natural resources, surely the ability to distribute and conserve those resources strategically is more important than the drive to go out and take someone else’s resources? If we’re going by your logic, women should be just as good if not better at this task than men. Which leads to my next point – politics is no longer about aggressive nation building. Developed nations are called that for a reason – they’re already built. As I said, the world has a finite amount of resources and constant aggressive expansion is not a sustainable political format. Maybe you’re right and men are naturally better at accumulating power and resources; but in this day and age, that’s not the only thing we need from our leaders and politicians. We also need diplomacy, tact, an awareness of our place in the world, and the ability to see the viewpoints of others and build strong relationships with other nations. Even if we accept that a person’s gender is what determines their abilities, there’s no reason why women and men should not be equally good at these tasks since they’re hardly gender specific. No nation can function healthily in the world unless its leaders have a variety of skills and perspectives – maybe having a government comprised entirely of heterosexual white men isn’t a super-great way to achieve that?

Which sex, thanks to a more innate ability at nesting and maintaining the hearth, makes for better home caretakers?

I won’t bore you with this one, because it pretty much fall under the same umbrella as your first two arguments. Yes, women have a long evolutionary tradition of creating and maintaining hearth and home, and the majority of stay-at-home parents and partners are still women. But as I said before, there are exceptions to the rule on both sides – women who have no domestic or maternal urges at all, and men who would much rather stay at home with their kids than slave away in an office. A reversion to traditional gender roles would mean that such people would be viewed as unnatural, and would almost certainly be discouraged from pursuing the paths which most appealed to them and their abilities. In fact, you only need to look at how few men are encouraged to work part-time to see that the stigma around being a ‘house-husband’ or ‘stay-at-home dad’ is still very real. Most homemakers are still women, and most full-time workers are still men. Would going back to the bad old days when pursuing any other option was almost impossible really make our lives better?

Which sex, due to its greater desensitization to fear, is better suited to take large risks?

Alas, Roosh, I think you’ll find that this predisposition to risk-taking is something of a double-edged sword. I won’t deny that it’s true; males are typically less risk-averse than females, especially when they’re younger. Many people argue that this makes them better at jobs like military service, firefighting, mining and police work. But the dark side of courage is stupidity, and being willing to take a risk (especially a large one) is not always the best option. Just look at the GFC – my understanding is that it was caused, among other things, by the people in charge of the stock market taking enormous risks with other people’s money which really, really didn’t pay off. So while males in general may be better suited to risk-taking behaviour, that’s not a reason to exclude all women from high-risk professions. As I keep reiterating, there are always exceptions to the rule; if a woman can prove that she’s just as capable of meeting the criteria for a job as a man, then why not employ her? When traditional gender roles are the dominant influence in the work force, people’s career paths are based more on social stigma about appropriate roles for each gender, rather than on the abilities of the individual in question. Encouraging the influence of traditional sex roles in the workplace will just lead to greater restriction for both genders.

Which sex, due to having a minuscule fluid contribution to the breeding process, is better suited at having a larger number of sexual partners?

You know what? I actually have no beef with this. I wouldn’t say that males were “better suited” to having multiple sexual partners than females, but I also don’t think a single man should have to hold off sex out of some kind of moral imperative. As long as it’s safe and consensual, and nobody’s being unnecessarily hurt or deceived, I’m happy for a dude to marinate his nether rod in as many different squish-mittens as he likes.

Which sex, due to having to risk its life through a 9-month gestation period, is better suited to monogamy?

I’m afraid this is perhaps your greatest logical fallacy. Sure, historically speaking it’s definitely been safer and more sensible for women to be monogamous. Being pregnant was difficult, giving birth was life-threatening, and having a child out of wedlock was pretty much catastrophic. I don’t think this was some kind of evil patriarchal conspiracy; it was quite practical, even if the double standard was pretty unfair. But unfortunately the crux of your argument is also its downfall, because science! Since I doubt you live in a cave, I can only assume you’re aware that we now have things like condoms, the pill, implants, and in more extreme cases abortion and the morning after pill. Anyone with half a brain, male or female, can and should use measures like these especially when having casual sex (and they should probably use condoms anyway, because sharing chlamydia isn’t really a fun first-date activity.) If the sole reason that women shouldn’t have lots of sex is because of the risk of pregnancy, then surely the advent of birth control completely negates the need for female monogamy. In a country like the U.S., where access to birth control measures is relatively widespread and affordable, there’s no practical reason why a female should not be allowed to have just as many sexual partners as a male. Add to that the enormous decline in maternal mortality in the last 100 years, and I’m afraid there’s really no scientific basis for this argument. Sorry, but it just ain’t logical. If you still don’t think that women should be allowed to have as many sexual partners as men because of your personal values or preferences, that’s fine. You’re perfectly entitled to think that way, and to encourage others to share your viewpoint. But please, don’t try to dress up your personal opinions as science. It’s dishonest to your readers, and it makes you look stupid.

Well Roosh, I’m afraid we’re nearing the end of this humble offering of mine. But before I say goodbye, I do have a few final points. First up, I do kind of get where you’re coming from. No, honestly! Quite often mainstream feminism is characterised by a ‘women can do anything men can do’ attitude which I quite sincerely find silly and annoying. Most women cannot do some of the things that most men can do, and no amount of rhetoric is going to change that. Likewise, there are some things most women can do that no man can do (but ovulation isn’t nearly as fun as it sounds). So I understand how you might think that scrapping traditional gender roles means that we’ll start stupidly shoe-horning people into professions and roles that they neither enjoy or succeed at, all in the name of equality. But as I said so many times, that’s not the case – and people who think that it should be, feminist or not, are idiots. The thing is, what you fear is basically what happens if traditional gender roles make a comeback. When society has been dominated by these norms, people have been forced to do and be things that do not come naturally to them. Many aspects of their lives, sometimes all of them, are moulded around a factor over which they had no choice or influence – their gender. A person’s career, sexuality, appearance, home life, hobbies and behaviour were all restricted by what society deemed acceptable to a person of that gender, even when conforming to such standards seriously compromised the health and happiness of the individual. Breaking away from these norms resulted in varying degrees of punishment, from public shaming and ostracism and sometimes even to death. We’re never going to live in a world where everyone is always happy and fulfilled and nobody ever has to make sacrifices. But shouldn’t we at least try to shape a society where a person is able to make their life choices based on their character and abilities, and not on what type of genitals they were born with?

Also, the hashtag. I have a serious problem with the hashtag. At the end of your post you encourage readers to comment on ROK or on Twitter using #BackToTheKitchen. My problem is not that it offends me, because it’s too ridiculous even to do that. My problem is that whether you realise it or not, you’ve effectively shot yourself in the foot. In this very piece you specifically state that ROK is not a troll website. Can you not understand that when you write an article about traditional gender roles featuring ‘#BackToTheKitchen’, it takes absolutely no imagination at all to picture ROK as a big fat joke? If your idea of traditional gender roles week does indeed go viral, all anyone’s going to remember about it is that stupid hashtag. The only people who will actually listen to your arguments are the people who already agreed with your ideas anyway. To everyone else, this sort of rubbish makes you look like a snotty teenager drawing dicks on the other kids’ lunch boxes because he thinks it makes him look clever. You claim that the aim of ROK is to provide answers to men struggling with their masculinity – surely they deserve a better response than self-sabotaging childishness?

And finally, just how far are you planning to go with this whole reviving traditional gender roles business? Because you see, these roles have meant different things at different times. You can’t just say “We need to go back to the way things were!” and hope that everyone will just magically agree on a new set of standards for social attitudes to gender. But more importantly, reviving traditional gender roles in the U.S. would not just affect gender politics at home. For better or worse, America’s biggest export is its culture, and the way Americans approach gender and equality can have a profound impact on the attitudes of other countries. In your article you imply that the traditional sex roles prevailing in regions like the Middle East are a positive thing: but I wonder if you’d still feel that way if you’d had the chance to speak to the 15-year-old Yemeni girl who was burned to death by her own father last year for daring to contact her fiance before their marriage. Or perhaps to any of the LGBTQ people who live in one of the 38 African countries where homosexuality is a criminal offence punishable by fines, imprisonment and even execution. Or maybe even to the men in this article who, having been raped by other men as part of wartime terror tactics, find themselves rejected by their wives, families and communities if they speak out about this trauma; they are viewed as emasculated failures, unable to live up to the traditional masculine ideals of dominance, aggression, protectiveness and strength. To you, Roosh, restoring traditional gender roles may mean having a pleasant, attractive wife to mix you a drink when you get home from work. But to many others in this world it can mean the difference between life and death, freedom and imprisonment, sanity and madness.

Well, that’s about it. Hopefully my humble feminine perspective has provided a little something to think about. And while I totally respect your right to whatever opinions you hold, I do wish that for your own sake and for that of your followers, you’d accept that traditional gender roles are not going to make a comeback anytime soon. Society can be pretty screwed up, but it doesn’t generally take a deliberate step backwards unless something super terrible happens, like the Roman empire collapsing or everyone getting killed by Africanised bees or whatever. Hoping and wishing that we can go back to the Mad Men era might make for pleasant daydreams, but it probably won’t do much to improve the lot of men in our society, or anywhere else in the world.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll get #BackToTheKitchen.

Apocalypse When?

In my last post, I discussed some of the common flaws shared by pop feminism and the manosphere, hoping to illustrate that these groups and the causes they support are not as dissimilar as they might appear. Today, however, I want to look at a phenomenon that seems to occur solely in the manosphere: an apparent obsession with social collapse. As before, I’d like to point out that this isn’t something that occurs throughout the men’s rights movement, but rather seems to be solely confined to easy-access, opinion based media about men’s rights (i.e. the aforementioned manosphere). Also I do apologise if this comes across as a biased criticism – I would have loved to compare this phenomenon in both the manosphere and in pop feminism, but since I can’t find any evidence of its existence in the latter that wasn’t really an option. Anyway, let’s roll.

Many writers and commenters in the manosphere seem to think that feminism and the ‘feminisation’ of Western society (especially the U.S.) is leading us towards some kind of societal apocalypse. I can’t find any universal consensus on what exactly it is about feminism that’s inviting such doom. In fact I’ve seen people blame pretty much everything: single mothers, divorce, abortion, contraception, the loss of the traditional family unit, destruction of traditional gender roles, female promiscuity, anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, a lack of respect for traditional masculinity, and the apparent overall ‘pussy-whipping’ of society. However, one thing that is almost always agreed upon is that feminists are foolishly upsetting the natural order, and that their self-important meddling is fostering a social collapse that will teach both the architects and victims of the feminism a well-deserved lesson.

Now I realise that when something you don’t like is happening around you and it’s out of your control, it’s not uncommon to view it as a crisis. I also get that for most humans who are feeling angry or aggrieved, the idea of their so-called enemies receiving comeuppance through their own folly is a tempting vision. So yes, in some ways I can understand why some people believe that feminism will soon bring the society is has so distorted crashing down upon its own head. But there’s nothing to stop an idea from being both tempting and ridiculous, and this one is definitely both.

For starters, nobody seems able to agree on exactly how this crisis will start. This is hardly surprising given the great diversity and loosely organised nature of the manosphere; it’s not like there’s some kind of central hive that will one day send out the signal that it’s time to rise up. No-one really seems too bothered by this, however – they just know that one day the call will come, and when it does they will answer. While social upheaval is hardly a meticulously planned process, it’s a little difficult to give credence to a revolution that doesn’t know how or why it’s going to start, or who is going to start it. It’s rather similar to those ultra-conservatives in America who insist on hoarding guns in preparation for the day when they’ll have to rise up against a corrupt government; they have no idea how, when or why they’ll have to fight back, but by golly they’ll be ready when the call goes out!

But let’s for one moment entertain the possibility that somehow, someone manages to successfully get the anti-feminist revolutionary ball rolling. What then? Who will be the driving force behind this armageddon, and what exactly will they be doing? Once again, nobody seems to be super keen on specifics. In my experience, discussions consist almost solely of people insisting that “One day they’ll be sorry!” in an astonishing variety of ways. Occasionally I’ve comes across someone with a slightly more concrete idea of what the incoming apocalypse looks like – I’d say overall the scenarios fall into three main categories. And while these visions of social armageddon are certainly interesting, it’s also not difficult to think up some very basic reasons why they wouldn’t be very successful. For instance…

Apocalypse 1 – The Rampage: The ‘beta’ males of American society, so long held hostage by meaningless jobs and sexless, emasculating relationships, will rise up in a tidal wave of rage and go on a general spree of looting/violence/rape/all of the above. The feminist puppet masters and their dupes will be frightened into submission when they see how powerless they are in the face of widespread male anger.

This little gem came from a commenter on Return of Kings a few weeks ago. The most obvious problem with this one  is that the idea of every man who’s unhappy with his job or his relationship (or lack thereof) spontaneously uniting and going on a pillaging excursion is, frankly, rather stupid. A very generous estimate would be a few hundred thousand people at most. Which leaves absolutely everyone else in society to oppose this revolution at a personal level. Even if we accept the thoroughly inaccurate idea that females would be incapable of defending themselves at all, that still leaves millions of men who would probably rather help protect their wives, children, mothers, sisters and friends from harm than join some kind of senseless riot. Add to that a federal government which has the world’s largest and most powerful military, and the chances of this particular scenario coming off successfully are looking pretty slim.

Apocalypse 2 – The Exodus: The ‘alpha’ males of society, recognising that there’s no reason for them to buy into the conventional goals of wives, families and mundane job security, will distance themselves as much as possible from mainstream society. They will forgo relationships, not earn more than they need to survive, possibly even move overseas to more ‘traditional’ environments. Once society is deprived of its most successful and valuable members, it will slowly collapse and/or ‘naturally’ gravitate back towards traditional gender roles.

This is quite a common one, a slightly more extreme version of the MGTOW philosophy. While it’s decidedly less batty than the first scenario, it’s probably still not gonna fly. In the first place, I doubt that men would opt out of society in significant enough numbers to make this a social crisis. While there are certainly issues of inequality which affect most men, those who feel aggrieved enough to totally opt out of society fall into the minority (albeit a very vocal one). Even if men did decide to eschew marriage and long-term relationships with women, would they be willing to give up their ties to their families? What if they have children that they value more than their own needs, as many fathers do – should they still only earn what they need to survive? And while I’m sure many of us have fantasised about moving overseas and starting a whole new life, how many of us – male or female – would be willing to say goodbye to all our family and friends just so we could teach society a lesson? The biggest problem with this idea is that it requires men to behave as though they are both selfish and lonely; to value their own agency more than they value other people, and to be content with avoiding all close relationships except those with other like-minded men. Some men may be willing to make that choice, but I’d bet my life that most would not. And aside from that, how arrogant does a person have to be to think that if ‘alpha males’ like them suddenly withdraw themselves from society, everyone else will just slump to the ground like dead bumblebees? This is not ‘Atlas Shrugged’, and these men are not an army of gender-conscious John Galts – if they opted out of mainstream society, then society would just continue without them because nobody is that damn important. There are only a handful of people in this world who are wealthy and powerful enough that their withdrawal from society would cause a problem; and frankly, they’re doing so well under the current system that they have no reason to distance themselves from it. Everyone else is replaceable as far as society is concerned, including self-nominated ‘alpha’ males – and even if they weren’t, there simply aren’t enough of them to make their exodus even a nuisance, let alone an armageddon.

Apocalypse 3 – Bankruptcy: The single mothers who depend on welfare will eventually become such a drain on the U.S. economy that it will collapse, forcing a social restructure featuring – you guessed it – traditional gender roles.

I can’t tell if this is the most or least insane idea of them all. Now I understand nothing about the economy so I won’t try to dismantle this from a financial viewpoint. But even I realise that it’s not as simple as ‘This group of people is living off money they haven’t earned so everything is going to be bad”. Judging by its incomprehensible nature I can only assume that the economy is a very complex thing, and so the actions of one not-very-powerful group of people hardly seem likely to bring the whole thing crashing down. On one level, this scenario is nothing more than a rather sad attempt to villify single mothers (apparently just calling them immoral is so last season). But on another level it’s one of the less ludicrous scenarios I’ve come across, because there’s no doubt at all that wealth distribution in America is absolutely fucked. It’s pretty screwy the world over, actually – as this recent report by Oxfam demonstrates, a ridiculously small number of people control a hideously large proportion of the world’s wealth, and the amount of income they receive has increased steadily in the last 30 years. So my point is not that an economic collapse isn’t going to happen (GFC anyone? No?) The point is that if/when it does happen, it’s not going to be because single mothers are on welfare. That’s why I think this idea is so stupid – how can anyone look at all the  economic bullshit happening in America today, and reach the conclusion that people on welfare are the problem? What about stagnant wages? Or the fact that the average worker in America needs to work for over a month to earn what a CEO earns in one hour? (Also seriously click on that last link because it’s one of the best and scariest short videos you’ll ever see.) The economic problems of America are genuine, but blaming a relatively poor and non-influential group just harms everyone except those who are already benefitting unfairly from a broken system. Surely these very real and serious concerns pose far more of a threat to social stability than any amount of welfare-dependent single mothers ever could.

As fun as it is to pick apart a nonsensical vision of social doom, these apocalyptic scenarios make me rather sad. Not because they’re going to happen, but because some people seem to want them to happen so badly. They’d rather see Western society collapse than continue the way that it’s going – and in many ways it’s not even going that badly! We have comforts, advantages and resources that our ancestors – and indeed many people in developing countries – could only dream of. People of colour and ethnic minorities are arguably closer to equality and better protected from discrimination than they have ever been. LGBTQ people are being increasingly accepted and are freer to express their love and identities than ever before. Medicine makes our lives longer, and technology makes them easier – we have no fear of famine or disease, wild animals or conquest by our neighbours. Naturally there are problems, but in case nobody’s noticed there are always problems! In the past century alone we’ve survived two World Wars, the Spanish Influenza, the Holocaust or Shoah, an escalating nuclear conflict, the collapse of the Soviet Empire, 9/11 and the War on Terror, the legalisation of gay marriage, the end of state-sanctioned racial discrimination, plus God only knows how many natural disasters – and this is just a fraction of what people throughout the world have suffered in recent history. Humans survive. Societies survive. We may not keep calm but we do carry on, it’s what we’ve always done, and changing gender roles are not going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Discrimination and injustice affects men as well as women, but dreaming of armageddon and a return to the good old days doesn’t help anyone. The more a person sits around hoping that one day they’ll be proved right in their negativity, the less they’re doing to actually make life better for anyone else, let alone themselves. We’re lucky enough that our degenerate, doomed, feminised Western allows us the freedom to vote, to protest, to agitate and start petitions, to form non-governmental agencies, to create online communities of like-minded people actually trying to change something about the world, rather than just tear it down. Surely investing energy into any of these avenues would be better and more helpful. If you don’t think legislation changes anything then make it personal; join a community or mentoring program like Mentoring to Manhood that provides guidance for boys and young men, or help out with a support group for men affected by divorce, depression or substance abuse. Hell, just go out with a friend who’s having a hard time and actually talk to him – the single most destructive thing about traditional masculinity is that it discourages men from showing vulnerability. I hate saying it because sincerity gives me a rash, but you really do have to be the change you want to see in the world.

When you feel powerless and disenfranchised, it’s understandable to want to smash the whole thing to pieces and start all over again in a society that’s better and fairer to you. But the crash isn’t coming, at least not in the way or for the reasons that these members of the manosphere imagine. And I may be stretching a point here, but it’s my belief that traditional gender roles won’t be making a comeback anytime soon. As one-time feminist and now MRA Warren Farrell points out in his book The Myth of Male Power, traditional gender roles are an anachronism in modern society. They evolved out of the need to protect the human species – but our species is no longer under threat, and the roles the once defined each gender have become dysfunctional. Which is not to say that we all have to give up our sense of masculinity or femininity, because we don’t if we don’t want to. It just means that if we don’t want to define ourselves and our behaviours by what has traditionally been considered ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, we don’t have to do that either. And we should not have others impose such behaviours and definitions upon us when there is no need for them. Our society has evolved to the point where most people no longer need to spend their lives trying to ensure basic survival; it’s about time our expectations and definitions of gender moved on too.

Patriarchy 101

What is patriarchy?

At the risk of spoiling the big surprise, it’s something I’ll probably write about a lot as long as this blog exists. So I feel like I’d better explain what my understanding of patriarchy is; not because I think anybody reading this hasn’t heard of the word, but because if the school debating team taught me one thing it’s that definitions are crucial to good arguments. And also that some shifty bastard always manages to eat the nice biscuits before you can.

Anyway! Broadly speaking, patriarchy just means a system in which men control a disproportionately large share of power. The power doesn’t have to be ‘official’ (y’know, male CEOs and politicians etc), it also and more commonly comes in the form of entitlement – the idea that men have a right to behaviours, positions, and freedoms which women cannot access.

The reality of patriarchy in modern Western society is a little different. For one thing, it’s not a case of all men having more power and entitlement – there’s a kind of hierarchy. One’s place on the ladder is partially determined by class (e.g. a surgeon would probably rank higher than a council worker). It’s also affected by race (e.g. a white woman may be said to rank higher than a man of African or Asian descent). As you move further up the ladder you become more powerful, but the criteria also become more restrictive; so what you have at the top is a group of wealthy white men. There are obviously exceptions to this rule in real life, but I think it would be fair to argue that most Western societies disproportionately favour men who meet these criteria.

But wait, there’s more! Turns out, having fair skin and a fat wallet isn’t really enough these days. Getting to the top of the ladder is also about how you behave. Unless you’ve been living under a rock I assume you’ve come across the term ‘alpha male’. Well, these are the sort of people who apparently deserve to be (and often are) at the top of the patriarchal food chain. These people are not just men, they’re real men. But what defines someone as such a fine specimen of manhood? you might ask. Luckily, the brilliant Tony Porter has come up with a diagram he calls the ‘Man Box’.

And before anyone starts to wonder the answer is yes, there are people out there who really do believe that fitting into this little Man Box is the only way to be truly masculine. But never fear – equality is at hand! In the spirit of fairness, a patriarchal system also dictates that there should be ‘real’ women to accompany these ‘real’ men. Alas, I have no handy-dandy diagram to illustrate the requirements of true femininity, but I think we could all probably agree on a few traits: submissive, non-violent, heterosexual, passive, sexually available but not ‘slutty’, fertile, not career-oriented, fragile, modest, and physically attractive.

Now, I’ve seen more people than I can count oppose feminism on the grounds that it’s fundamentally unfair; as this (in my opinion) slightly misguided but strangely insightful Return of Kings article states, ‘If Women Were Oppressed, Men Suffered Right Along Side Them’.  Whilst the article doesn’t explicitly state it, the implication is that the fact that men and women were both restricted by gender roles is proof that feminism is fundamentally unfair. It suggests that feminists ignore the oppression of men, and instead try to make them feel guilty for the oppression of women in order “to elevate themselves above others”. I, on the other hand, would argue that this shared history of oppression is the single most important fucking reason that feminism exists.

Contrary to some people’s interpretation, feminism is not about bringing women up to the level of men – it’s about putting everyone on the same level regardless of gender, which is a very different thing. Yes, it means that women should be allowed to vote and own property have pre-marital sex and work and initiate a divorce and do all the things that men are ‘allowed’ to do. But it also means that men can be stay-at-home dads, and cry and express emotion, and not like sport, and not solve problems with violence, and not have to do the more dangerous jobs, and not have to be the breadwinners. Feminism, as I understand it, is about dismantling patriarchy, this system under which both women and men are restricted to these little boxes if they want to be accepted.  It’s a belief that there should not be certain behaviours allowed only for men or for women; and that you are still a ‘real’ person if you don’t conform to those behaviours.

And quite honestly, when I think about why I hate patriarchy so fucking much, I very rarely think about the women I know. In fact, I usually think about the men – my fiance, my friends, my father, my cousins, all the wonderful males in my life that I love and care about. I think about how not one of them fits absolutely into that sad little Man Box, and how miserable they would probably be if they believed that they should. I think about the son I might have one day, and how I can possibly explain to him that no matter what I’ve taught him, some people out there will think that everything he does should be defined by his gender. I think about all the people I’ve ever met who identify as LGBT in some way, and how I might never truly met them at all if our society wasn’t oh so gradually coming to accept them living their lives honestly and openly.

Feminism is not about preferential treatment for women, or about disempowering men. Sometimes I reckon ‘humanism’ is a better term (except that its already in use, alas!) because the ultimate point of feminism is that the way you live your life should not be determined by your gender. We are all human, and frankly that humanity seems far more important than what kind of genitals you were born with.