Not all feminists…
Speaking of the The Other McCain…
I’m a semi-regular commenter there. It’s easier than writing my own stand-alone blog entries. When I’m tired or busy, that’s a big thing.
One of Robert Stacy McCain’s big things is Sex Trouble. He’s written a book on it and he’s revising the book now.
As Mr. McCain explains it, radical feminism has declared war on human nature. That’s fine as far as it goes, but RSM puts ALL feminists in one category and considers them all guilty for the excesses of the RadFems.
On the other hand, the RadFems claim to speak not only for all feminists, but for all women.
But curiously they overlook crimes against women if they can’t blame white heterosexual men.
Now, Mr. McCain has a point, several of them actually. My issue is that… (wait for it)
NOT ALL FEMINISTS ARE LIKE THAT.
Certainly not all women are like that. What we have is a very small group that wants political power and public validation in the worst way. Yes, it’s another case of Those Who Want To Be Noticed.
Oddly enough, the RadFems and Mr. McCain are pushing the same idea. ALL feminists do X, We know it’s not true. Mr. McCain knows it’s not true. The RadFems deny it but they know it’s not true.
It just serves their purpose as if it is.
That’s my principle annoyance with Mr. McCain.
I know women who call themselves feminists who are nothing like that. They’re interested in equality not special privileges. But they aren’t the ones demanding attention.
Which means I’m going to pull my reluctant advocate hat on again. I only do that when one group is unable or unwilling to speak for themselves.
See, much of the Manosphere (and some of McCain’s commenters) would have you believe that the problem is that women have too many rights. I want to only focus on three here.
First of course is a woman’s right to vote. That predated me by a bit, but overall I think it’s a good idea. Just because someone’s perspective is different doesn’t mean it’s wrong. And if someone doesn’t have voting rights, it’s easier to OFFICIALLY® make them less than human. Don’t believe me? Just look at what happens to illegal immigrants in the U.S. today. Or underage kids…
The second is property rights. Yes it can be abused, but the lack of property rights makes abuse of the law much easier.
And finally is the right of association. That includes the right to walk away. Combined with property rights that makes leaving a bad marriage much easier.
Those three rights are cornerstones to our personal identity in the U.S. There is no reason to deny those rights because of gender. Men can’t do that without making ourselves less human and certainly less deserving.
Let Freedom Ring.
I’m a semi-regular commenter there. It’s easier than writing my own stand-alone blog entries. When I’m tired or busy, that’s a big thing.
One of Robert Stacy McCain’s big things is Sex Trouble. He’s written a book on it and he’s revising the book now.
As Mr. McCain explains it, radical feminism has declared war on human nature. That’s fine as far as it goes, but RSM puts ALL feminists in one category and considers them all guilty for the excesses of the RadFems.
On the other hand, the RadFems claim to speak not only for all feminists, but for all women.
But curiously they overlook crimes against women if they can’t blame white heterosexual men.
Now, Mr. McCain has a point, several of them actually. My issue is that… (wait for it)
NOT ALL FEMINISTS ARE LIKE THAT.
Certainly not all women are like that. What we have is a very small group that wants political power and public validation in the worst way. Yes, it’s another case of Those Who Want To Be Noticed.
❝The loudest voices are those who are disconnected from life. And those are the ones I don't want to be associated with.❞
Oddly enough, the RadFems and Mr. McCain are pushing the same idea. ALL feminists do X, We know it’s not true. Mr. McCain knows it’s not true. The RadFems deny it but they know it’s not true.
It just serves their purpose as if it is.
That’s my principle annoyance with Mr. McCain.
I know women who call themselves feminists who are nothing like that. They’re interested in equality not special privileges. But they aren’t the ones demanding attention.
Which means I’m going to pull my reluctant advocate hat on again. I only do that when one group is unable or unwilling to speak for themselves.
See, much of the Manosphere (and some of McCain’s commenters) would have you believe that the problem is that women have too many rights. I want to only focus on three here.
First of course is a woman’s right to vote. That predated me by a bit, but overall I think it’s a good idea. Just because someone’s perspective is different doesn’t mean it’s wrong. And if someone doesn’t have voting rights, it’s easier to OFFICIALLY® make them less than human. Don’t believe me? Just look at what happens to illegal immigrants in the U.S. today. Or underage kids…
The second is property rights. Yes it can be abused, but the lack of property rights makes abuse of the law much easier.
And finally is the right of association. That includes the right to walk away. Combined with property rights that makes leaving a bad marriage much easier.
Those three rights are cornerstones to our personal identity in the U.S. There is no reason to deny those rights because of gender. Men can’t do that without making ourselves less human and certainly less deserving.
Let Freedom Ring.
blog comments powered by Disqus