In case you were against stigmatising an entire category of people due to the actions of some (which is the foundation of what feminists abhor, such as racism, xenophobia, religious discrimination – unless it’s against Christians  – etc), rest assured it is legitimate when it comes to one category – men.

Not a big deal or a massive generalisation; after all, men only amount to half of the people on this planet. It’s only fair to assume that regardless of their culture, upbringing, level of intelligence, genetic tendencies and personal values, deep down they all pose the same level of threat.

We know what you mean by “not all men” – because on a basic level, we agree with you.

But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

“These behaviours are normalised through patriarchy…”

Like, you know, rape, assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence – which are all illegal in the west, as opposed to other parts of the world, but never mind. It’s not like by passing laws against violence the patriarchy is trying to make these behaviours seem abnormal and is discouraging them, as opposed to normalising them.

“In a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors…” 

No mental health issues here… none whatsoever. And needless to say, none can result from teaching young people where nature has positioned them through birth – into one category or another. No persecution of innocent people will arise from this black and white thinking, by assuming there is no middle ground and whoever doesn’t automatically side with leftist radicals is by default an “oppressor”, even if they mind their own business and don’t bother anybody’s life. You are with or against the revolution, comrades.

So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.

Again, no mental issues, nothing to see here. It’s perfectly normal for a group of women to feel threatened in the presence of any man, ranging from their family members to strangers encountered in a public place. All men, at all times, have the potential to harm them, by default. The men they sleep with, as they share a bed. The men they grow up with (who are by nature usually very protective of their sisters, as are fathers of daughters, in civilised countries anyway, unless a rotten character is involved). The men they give birth to and raise.

At this point, one should differentiate between potential and likelihood. A car has the potential to get you killed, but you still get behind the wheel. What feminists are doing is pushing potential towards likelihood where men are concerned, which is why they feel they must take action.

Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.

The link is to an article in which – no kidding – the author blames even Islamic terrorism not on religion but on masculinity.

This makes me boil, perhaps because without intending to, in an alternative news report, I came across very disturbing material today, about a rise in public floggings in Indonesia, including of women, for “crimes” such as standing too close to men or being in a room with a man they were not married or related to, which might lead to adultery, just like these feminists say a man’s presence might lead to violence. All I see is paranoia and fanaticism, to the point of insanity, in both cases.

It made me sick in more ways than one. But what is relevant to this article is that in those countries men and women think this is normal. Women gather by the dozen to watch their fellow “sisters” being tortured in public and being put in the hospital, not a trace of empathy on their faces or outcry that this is in fact unnatural and abnormal, an utter abomination. They have been desensitised to cruelty.

This is a cultural issue, not one related to sexism. Brainwashing can make men and women capable of the worst kind of violence. Those who perform FGM, by the way, are traditionally female.

I remember Thomas Sheridan making a video on this subject – that even though not all people identifying with a sick religion are extremist and capable of committing acts of violence, many will passively – or even gladly – stand by and watch. Never mind the power-drunk system and its enforcers – to see a crowd stand by and watch that with no reaction is shocking. It’s medieval.

They live in an absolutely sick culture.

Here’s the truth: Most of the time, when we generalize and use the word men, what we’re actually referring to is the effects of patriarchy. What we’re actually intending to communicate when we say “men are horrible,” for instance, is “the ways in which men are socialized under patriarchy, as well as how that benefits them and disadvantages everyone else, sometimes in violent ways, is horrible.”

But that’s kind of a mouthful, isn’t it? So we use men as a linguistic shortcut to express that.

Forgetting for a second about all of the above, so that I don’t actually vomit when comparing these grievances to actual oppression (because the sight of that is still fresh in my mind), am I reading this correctly?

If I am, let me put it this way. If I think the effects of feminism are horrible, I am therefore free to go up to any feminist, indiscriminately, and say “you’re horrible” to their face, without them having to take it personally. Because what I’m trying to communicate by calling a human being horrible is that I disagree with their politics and impact on society. And apparently, that makes it OK to insult them.

The thing about privilege is that it’s often invisible from the inside. It’s hard to see the scale and scope of a system designed to benefit you when it’s as all-encompassing as patriarchy. And that might lead you to buy into the idea of “not all men.”

What if it was “female privilege”? Would feminists be able to see that from the inside, if this applied to human nature in general? If “privilege” was comparable to sin and sometimes went unacknowledged by the one sinning?

Privilege is not invisible from the inside. People in the western world know they are privileged compared to others who were born in less fortunate circumstances and are subjected to trauma daily, through wars, extreme poverty or religious oppression and violence, either directly or by witnessing it. Wealthy people are also aware they are privileged compared to others who are less fortunate.

These are logical observations anyone can make, not the result of some Freudian analysis or some revelation. They only involve a minimum of intelligence and realism, which most people have. It is impossible to be genuinely privileged and not aware of one’s advantages in life.

To those on the outside, however, the margins are painfully visible. That’s why men who really want to aid in leveling the playing field have a responsibility to listen to people who can see the things they can’t.

Again, assuming complete idiocy on the part of these men, some of whom have propelled our species forward through their intelligence.

Religious fanatics do the same, claiming to see the evil and the sin others cannot even understand or recognise in themselves. What all these fanatics (feminists included) want is for everyone to hand over their mental faculties, their very perception of reality, to their brainwashing.

When gender minorities tell you that you’re harming them, listen. Listen even when you don’t understand. Listen especially when you don’t understand.

People can listen and understand, open-mindedly, to the other side of the debate. But they can still choose to disagree in the end. That’s what leftists don’t get.

Picture this: A well-meaning man offers a woman a compliment at a bar. He has no sinister motive, and he is – after all – in an appropriate setting for flirting.

When the woman rebuffs him for whatever reason (she’s in a relationship, she’s not into men, she’s just not interested), the man feels snubbed – because he was polite and respectful, but not rewarded for it. (…)

Such a man isn’t an outright abuser. But his learned entitlement makes him potentially unsafe for women to be around. And it’s hard to see that sense of entitlement from the inside, let alone question it or start to break it down.

The man in question might be disappointed for a minute, if he’s not the stalker or general weirdo type. And I imagine that happens all the time in that sort of environment.

But rest assured that a lot of men do not expect (and in some cases want) all women to be available to just everyone. Do you think men would by default jump right into intimacy with someone who was married or in a relationship? Unless they were into cheating, would they expect their own prospective wives and girlfriends to behave like that at a bar? Would they think women should naturally be like that? Would fathers expect their daughters to reward any complimenting man because it should be female nature according to patriarchy?

To use one of feminists’ favourite expressions, men do not exist in a vacuum.

They don’t just have wives, girlfriends or fuck buddies, or whatever you call them. Their approach to the female nature is complex and complicated. They have mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters as well.

And “patriarchy” plus “male entitlement” aside, they would not expect all women, especially the aforementioned, to cave in to just any creature sporting a dick, due to a compliment in a bar.

As such, when we generalize and say, “Men feel entitled to our bodies,” this man would be wrong if he said, “Not all men are like that – I’m not.” He just doesn’t connect the bitterness of rejection with the broader sense of entitlement he’s learned and internalized. Furthermore, he may not realize how this sense of entitlement is symptomatic of a larger patriarchal culture in which men are taught that they’re owed romantic and sexual interest from women.

Logic, dear logic, where are you. The same point as above.

And here’s a quote about “mansplaining”:

Here’s the thing about opinions, though: They’re actually not all equally valid or worth sharing, no matter what you were taught in grade school. You’re actually not automatically entitled to share your opinion; in fact, your opinion might be pointless or even harmful in some conversations.

Isn’t that equality. Surely there are times when opinions should be reconsidered, such as the time when someone knows they have insufficient information and said opinions might be superficial. But harmful? Let’s be serious for a minute.

Propagandising a superficial opinion might be harmful. Expressing it in a certain circle, or even less, to one person – definitely not.

This well-meaning man thinks he’s contributing to a discussion, which he feels entitled to do, because he has a right to his opinion. He doesn’t see the pattern of being talked over, belittled, or dismissed that his female friend daily, to which he’s just contributed.

Which basically means do not contradict a woman even if you know she is wrong. And there I was thinking conversations were meant to lead to intellectual progress for all involved, and not some masturbatory gratification of being listened to. I’m now starting to understand why these people are routinely called regressives.

 

Fair enough, no one tried to contradict Elena Ceausecu when she spoke. Though she was obviously a half-wit and deranged in all sorts of ways. But still, she had gained the privilege of being able to speak uninterrupted and unchallenged.

According to feminists, all women should have that right, regardless of the bullshit they might be spouting.

To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.

Women are not a gender minority. They represent half of the population of this planet. I can’t believe I even have to write this.

So no matter how well-intentioned you are, you’re not off the hook when you hurt people. And because of everything we’ve discussed above, you are likely (yes, all men) to hurt and violate. And you need to be willing to take responsibility for that.

Apparently, you need to take responsibility for someone else’s feelings, which you never meant to cause. Any hysterical harpy can jump out of the woodwork and drag you into her imagined drama for a simple comment.

My best response to that consists of two words: Hugh Mungus.

The deplorable scene which unfolded when a shrieking SJW accused an innocent man of sexual harassment over a joke proves just how far this subjectivity can go. No harm had been done to her and yet she went as far as trying to press charges because she felt offended. No, people’s feelings are not absolutes. There’s this little thing called reality, one that we all share and need to acknowledge, otherwise we will have to indulge all the Caesars and Napoleons of the world as well.

Being a “safe” man – hell, being a feminist man – is more than just believing yourself to be and collecting accolades from others about the minimal work that you’re doing not to be an asshole.

Doing the work means really doing the work – getting your hands dirty (and potentially having an existential crisis in the process).

Boy, you’re not asking for much, are you?

The average feminist must be imagining that men would be so desperate to be accepted by her crowd, as if there were no women left in the world, that they would humiliate themselves to the back of beyond in order to be considered “safer”.

Because here’s the truth: Even when it’s not conscious, male entitlement is a choice – a choice to be uncritical, a choice to continue to passively benefit. And attempting to fight that entitlement is also a choice ­– one that has to be both conscious and ongoing. You’ve got to choose it every day, in every instance.

That’s the first I’ve ever heard of an unconscious choice. Because there is no such thing. A choice entails analysis, weighing different options, using one’s judgement, making a decision.

Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting patriarchy. And claiming that you’re “not like that” doesn’t negate patriarchy – it enforces it.

Right. Just like denying that you’re a racist makes you more of a racist than if you actually admitted to being one. That’s the type of reasoning we seem to be employing nowadays.

Fighting learned male entitlement means assuming the burden of vigilance – watching not just yourself, but other men. It means being open to having your motives questioned, even when they’re pure. It means knowing you’re not always as pure as you think.

It means assessing the harm you’re capable of causing, and then being proactive in mitigating it.

Most of all, it’s a conscious decision to view every individual’s humanity as something exactly as valuable and inviolable as your own.

Let me get this straight. His humanity is valuable and inviolable, after you’ve called him a threat to all women for possessing a penis, denied him the right to assess his own judgement and personality and told him you’ll police his head for mental impurities 24/7? What’s “inviolable” about that?

And it means doing it every single moment of your life. Point blank, period.

Again, not asking for much. Just complete control over his mind, every single moment of his life.

We don’t want to fear or distrust men. We don’t want to have to perform risk assessments on every man that we meet. Trust us – it’s a miserable life! We’d gladly abandon this work if it wasn’t absolutely necessary to our survival.

And since they will not feel safe until every last man adopts this way of thinking, which will never ever happen, this is basically a declaration of perpetual misery.

To recap, what these men would gain by selling their souls and dignity to feminism would be the company of permanently miserable women who will always see them as a threat, regardless of their intentions, words or actions.

Totally worth it, right?