The "male feminist" is a running joke both among feminists and anti-feminists. Like, dear God, #StopClymer, right? Why is this? Isn't it because the male feminist's motives are so transparently obvious? Yet he expects to be taken seriously?
Or what about @BillClinton? Isn't it obvious that he became a politician for the same reason I, as a teenage boy, learned how to play guitar? Feminists can debate among themselves which is the more honest way a guy can try to get laid.
Most of what feminists call "sexism" or "misogyny" nowadays seems to be synonymous with "guys trying to get laid." If left-wing politics is considered to be the sine qua non of sexual access to young women? Hello, "male feminist"!
Can the left-wing politics of the "male feminist" ever be entirely sincere? Shouldn't we suspect the progressive guy is running a three-card monte hustle? He conceals his selfishness behind ostentatious "social justice" gestures.
There is such a thing as an honest proposition, a free and rational exchange of value -- voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. In economics, this is what is generally called capitalism. In politics, "progressives" are against capitalism.
The progressive begins by denying that a free and honest exchange of value is desirable or even possible. Certainly no progressive believes capitalism is beneficial, or preferable to government-mandated economic "equality."
At its heart, the "progressive" economic agenda is about denying the personal agency of the individual. Everyone is either (a) a ruthless oppressor or (b) a helpless victim of the all-powerful "system," according to progressives.
Feminism translates the "progressive" worldview from the domain of economics into the realm of sexual relationships. You're either (a) a cishet male oppressor or (b) a helpless victim of "patriarchy."
You should now consider the questions no progressive ever seems willing to ask: "What if I'm wrong? What if my loyalties have been misplaced? What if I've been bamboozled?" @mmegannnolan@glosswitch@MeghanEMurphy@jessphillips
Circa 1985, when Andrea Dworkin & Co. were leading the feminist crusade against pornography, most Americans had zero exposure to hard-core porn. I know that I was clueless as to what the fuss was about, never having seen such stuff.
Prior to the mid-1980s, one had to go looking for actual hard core pornography, like at some grimy "XXX" theater or smut shop in the bad neighborhoods of a big cities.
Mrs. Alexander is, of course, correct. Parents should not automatically assume that sending your daughters off to college is the thing to do, simply because that's what everybody else does.
Ideally, however, your daughter will have met and been courted by her future husband *before* she reaches college age. This was the case with our oldest daughter, who met her future husband at 15 and married him at 21.
There is a huge overlap between (a) the transgender population and (b) the BDSM/fetish/"kink" scene. Only a fool could believe this is not significant. Also, how many transgender people have histories of childhood sexual trauma?
#Transcult: "If you don't validate their identities and support their transition, they'll kill themselves!"
Sane People: "Can we talk about their suicidal tendencies? Maybe the cause-and-effect correlation here isn't what you say it is?" #Transcult: "HATER!"
#Transcult: "Do what I say or I'll kill myself!"
Sane people: "What is this, a hostage standoff? You're not a victim. You're a bully. Take your pronouns and your ideology and go jump off a bridge, for all I care."
First, of course, it the "Atrocity Narrative" pretext: A man does terrible thing, thereby authorizing the feminist to write quite generally about ubiquitous male evil. @RationalMale
Second, the feminist never describes males in any context other than in discussing violence, abuse, misogyny, etc. If a man ever did any good thing in human history, no feminist has ever mentioned it. @RationalMale
Observations on "gender": The sexual marketplace is governed by forces that mirror the economics of supply and demand. Humans respond to incentives, but not all responses are rational or advantageous.
Many of those in the so-called "manosphere" speak the language of sociobiology, although it's not clear that they actually understand the fundamental concepts pioneered by E.O. Wilson, Lionel Tiger, et al.
For example, any intelligent person reading the "manosphere" soon gets weary of the dumbed-down and stereotypical "Alpha"/"Beta" discourse. Much of this rhetoric is badly misguided or erroneous.