Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Millennia of woe?

A feminist by the name of Suzanna Danuta Walters has written an opinion piece for the Washington Post with the title "Why can't we hate men?"

I found the piece interesting because it spells out so clearly the logic of the feminist position.

I have been writing for many years that if feminists took their theories seriously that they would be, at the very least, deeply conflicted in their attitudes to men. After all, feminists claim that throughout history men have organised together to create privilege for themselves at the expense of women; that men enact violence against women to uphold this privilege; and that at the core of society is a conflict between the two sexes for power and status.

If you were a woman who really believed that, then it would be logical to see men as the enemy and to have some sort of negative feelings towards men as a class of people.

And Suzanna Walters (a professor of sociology) acknowledges this:
...it seems logical to hate men...Women experience sexual violence, and the threat of that violence permeates our choices big and small. In addition, male violence is not restricted to intimate-partner attacks or sexual assault but plagues us in the form of terrorism and mass gun violence...wage inequality continues to permeate every economy and almost every industry...women have less access to education, particularly at the higher levels; women have lower rates of property ownership.

...So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men? For all the power of #MeToo and #TimesUp and the women’s marches, only a relatively few men have been called to task, and I’ve yet to see a mass wave of prosecutions or even serious recognition of wrongdoing. On the contrary, cries of “witch hunt” and the plotted resurrection of celebrity offenders came quick on the heels of the outcry over endemic sexual harassment and violence. But we’re not supposed to hate them because . . . #NotAllMen. I love Michelle Obama as much as the next woman, but when they have gone low for all of human history, maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts.

...So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

It's all there. Men have created "millennia of woe" for women so that women "have every right to hate you". The suggested solution is for men to play for the other team by giving up all power ("Don't be in charge of anything").

Nor is this is new feature of feminism. In 1913 a male feminist by the name of W.L. George noted of the "new women" of his era that:
The "New Woman", as we know her to-day, a woman who is not so new as the woman who will be born of her, is a very unpleasant product; armed with a little knowledge, she tends to be dogmatic in her views and offensive in argument. She tends to hate men, and to look upon Feminism as a revenge; she adopts mannish ways, tends to shout, to contradict, to flout principles because they are principles; also she affects a contempt for marriage which is the natural result of her hatred of man.

Again, we should not be surprised as the same logic was at work in 1913 as it is more than a century later.

Professor Walters appears to be a lesbian and so can more readily embrace the logic of the feminist position. For heterosexual feminists the situation is more difficult: they have to reconcile the logic of their politics with their desire for relationships with particular men. The difficulty of achieving this is magnified when you consider that feminist women are not likely to be attracted to servile men who are willing to roll over and give up masculine power. The result is an uneasy compromise between the personal and the political for more serious feminists, whilst most women continue to refuse to identify as feminists at all.

The larger point, of course, is that feminist assumptions have to be challenged. The picture that feminists have of the past is, mostly, a strange one. It does not acknowledge the sacrifices that men made on behalf of their wives and children; nor does it recognise that men and women, rather than being set apart, mostly worked together for the larger benefit of their families and communities (ultimately producing Western civilisation).

I want to finish on a positive note, so I'm going to praise, again, the work of traditionalist women on social media, who are pushing a much more positive message of men and women cooperating together for larger purposes of love, family, community and culture. In no particular order, here are some of the traditionalist women worth following on Twitter:

Sarah Jean Gosney: https://twitter.com/sarahjeangosney

Sophie: https://twitter.com/mtnhousewife

Cherry: https://twitter.com/SewTrad

Trisarahtops: https://twitter.com/xTrisarahtops

Kami: https://twitter.com/Highheeled_Kami

A note to Melbourne readers. If you are sympathetic to the ideas of this website, please visit the site of the Melbourne Traditionalists. It's important that traditionalists don't remain isolated from each other; our group provides a great opportunity for traditionalists to meet up and connect. Details at the website.


  1. In my experience, the vast majority of women claim adherence to a feminist value system, but don't usually call themselves feminists. The term is seen as "divisive", even after almost a decade of celebrity-sponsored rebranding.

    Rather than an ideology like liberalism, I see feminism as a policy that can't exist outside of the law. The ease of divorce alters the relationship dynamics by its theoretical existence, even if a couple remains married until death. Few women will accept an "unregistered" marriage, and the waiving of legal rights where the concept of "common-law marriage" or palimony does not exist.

    1. The ease of divorce alters the relationship dynamics by its theoretical existence

      Big time.

  2. I love the way that it's women in academia and the media who bleat about how oppressed they are. In the entire history of our species no group has ever been as privileged as modern western women in academia and the media. And the more privileges that feminism gains for these women the more bitterly they complain.

    The obvious conclusion is that for some mysterious reason feminism has made these women angry and miserable. It's almost as if feminism just doesn't work.

    1. These are the feminist women I know best. They are certainly highly privileged, but I suspect that many aspire to an absolute first tier rank at which there are no longer any limitations on lifestyle, consumption, status and influence. They are unlikely to ever get there (few do), hence the bitterness and sense of being robbed because of their sex - despite the fact that they are more privileged than 95% of the population.

      I think this helps to explain as well why they usually push issues that leverage sexual politics against men they are competing with for high status positions. They have little interest in the lives of ordinary women either here or abroad, but they push hard when it comes to institutional control and power in high status professions.

  3. Unless she’s gone insane, this is a strategic piece to get us out of the rut in which we’re currently positioned. She’s pushing against shallow and problematic tolerance, and offering integration. Integration will mean new identities for everyone and I think she’s saying this will be sustainable, hate of men by women and women by men will be wrought-out by performance.

    An impossible utopia is the aim. Think what taking up the assumption will mean for both men and women. If it’s a consalation we’ll get to act out our Soviet-Berlin fantasy as both sides stagger to reestablish a certain trust with allies.
    Don’t trust, don’t trust power, do so at your own peril. Agents show their allegiance only by carrying out their missions. Spies lie, cheat, steal, kill. If caught you turn them to a double agent and make them work for your side.

    Men see themselves repositioned in women’s eyes as the ones who need to fear walking alone at night, hypothetically.

    It’s a limp in the dark but at least it’s a move. I just hope she isn’t mad or something. But to just allow the current state of ethics as practiced by the sexes unto each other is just as mad. We’re always at risk at being called out for eating shit, like a schizophrenic who is told they’re not James Bond.