On ‘Fragile Masculinity’

http://theothermccain.com/2015/11/20/on-fragile-masculinity/

 

Sarah Taylor Gibson (@s_t_gibson on Twitter) is a young Christian college student who also calls herself a feminist, evidently having failed to understand what feminism actually requires.

“There are no Christian feminists, because feminism is a sort of narcissistic idolatry, wherein women deny God and instead worship themselves as their own divinity.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Dec. 17

Feminism permits women to view their own selfishness as altruism. Feminism also justifies cruelty and dishonesty. By telling themselves that they are oppressed — and that males are both the perpetrators and beneficiaries of systematic injustice against them — feminists grant themselves a license to be deliberately cruel toward men because all men are oppressors and thus deserving of such cruelty. Feminism is a radical egalitarian ideology that tells women “equality” is the only true moral ideal (the summum bonum), a goal which can only be achieved by the destruction of a social order that feminist theory condemns as a manifestation of male supremacy. Everything men do is wrong — an exercise of unjust privilege — and nothing any man says is valid. Because its condemnation of males is without limit or qualification (all men are guilty of oppression, simply because they are male) feminist theory destroys any basis of trust, respect or cooperation between the sexes. Yet feminists typically deny the implications of their own theory, resorting to dishonest sophistry to conceal from critical scrutiny what feminism really means. Feminists refuse to debate their critics, instead seeking to silence all opposition, especially in media and academia. Because the movement’s naïve young followers never encounter any articulate criticism of their ideology, they seem to imagine that all intelligent people support the feminist cause.

Here is a Tumblr mini-lecture from Sarah Taylor Gibson:

What perplexes me the most about the fragile masculinity of straight men is the fact that machismo is not what women want. Lets look, for example, to the men girls have plastered all over their bedroom walls in highschool. What could be a better insight into the deeply personal sexual psyche of a girl figuring out what she wants? Sometimes the posters are of jacked action movie heroes or football players, but I would argue you’re more likely to find those in a boy’s room, not a girls. When I remember my friend’s bedrooms in highschool, I remember willowy anime heartthrobs, singer-songwriters in eyeliner and tight jeans, soft-lipped big-eyed child idols, and rock stars that kissed other boys on stage. When I think of the two biggest movie dreamboats from the 2000s I think of Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean and Legolas from Lord of the Rings. Every other girl in my high school had posters over her bed of a swaggering trinket-laden trickster diva and a flawlessly blonde gymnastically graceful Elvin beauty. Both excellent examples of masculinity, neither at all traditionally macho.
It’s almost like boys model their sexual expression off what other men perform for one another instead of actually listening to what women want or, God forbid, performing their own personality.

 

 

Notice how easily Ms. Gibson arrogates to herself the authority of anexpert, qualified to issue sweeping condemnations of male behavior. Feminists do this routinely, never expecting anyone to challenge their judgment or demand any credentials. Any college girl can just log onto the Internet and deliver such indictments of males without fear that anyone might question her analysis. Ms. Gibson knows “what most women want” and yet “straight men,” whom she diagnoses as afflicted with “fragile masculinity,” instead foolishly pursue “traditionally macho” behavior as a “model [for] their sexual expression.” Why do men do this? Because, Ms. Gibson informs us, men refuse to listen to women.

Translation: Guys are so stupid they don’t even know how to be guys and therefore they need feminists to tell them how to do it.

Ms. Gibson perfectly expresses the feminist presumption that not only are all males inadequate and incompetent, incapable of doing anything right, but also that males are so ignorant they do not even realize why everything they do is wrong. Men are mentally inferior and lack any capacity for self-awareness, the feminist believes. No one ever points out to Ms. Gibson that her beliefs amount to an insulting anti-male prejudice.

Notice how it is only “straight men” whom Ms. Gibson condemns for their “fragile masculinity,” implying that the masculinity of homosexual men is robust and healthy by comparison. Furthermore, notice how Ms. Gibson assumes that “traditionally macho” behavior is never authentic, but is rather always a performance, an artificial façade that does not reflect a man’s “own personality.” Insofar as any heterosexual man behaves “traditionally,” Ms. Gibson would have us believe, this can only be explained by his mimicking the “sexual expression” of other men — perhaps “movie heroes or football players” — because there can be no such thing as original and authentic “machismo.”

Instead, we are informed, men should be “willowy anime heartthrobs, singer-songwriters in eyeliner and tight jeans, soft-lipped big-eyed child idols, and rock stars that kissed other boys on stage,” because this is what women actually want men to be, based on Ms. Gibson’s memory of posters with which high school girls decorated their bedrooms.

And if any man should express doubt about the validity of Ms. Gibson’s judgment? Well, that’s just evidence of his “fragile masculinity.”

Feminists know everything, you see, and men know nothing, which is why feminist discourse is always a lecture, never a dialogue. This is probably also why feminists assume all men are hopelessly stupid, because smart men avoid feminists. Why would any intelligent man with a modicum of self-respect subject himself to such insulting treatment? Only a masochist with a damaged ego and a craving for humiliation would associate with a woman who never says a word to him except to belittle him, bossing him around as if he had no will of his own.

 

As to why so many teenage girls prefer pouty “sensitive”-looking boys, psychologists long ago explained this as a manifestation of sexual immaturity. Conventionally masculine adult males are too intimidating for the adolescent female to imagine them as romantic partners. The implications of her own role in a relationship with such an imposing figure — what it would mean to be a man’s partner — understandably frighten the girl; it is more comfortable to focus her affection on a somewhat effeminate boy/man. Indeed, from the perspective of developmental psychology, it might be considered inappropriate if a 13- or 14-year-old girl chose an overtly “macho” romantic idol. However, it is even more inappropriate to expect adult men to conform their behavior so as to appeal to the immature emotional needs of adolescent girls, and yet Ms. Gibson sees no problem in demanding that men emulate “excellent examples of masculinity” like a make-believe pirate from a Disney movie or an elf-prince from Middle Earth.

We see, then, why feminism’s one-sided analysis of sexual behavior is so misleading. The feminist is always willing to excuse women’s immature attitudes and selfish behaviors; because every woman is a victim of oppression, she is therefore never responsible for her faults and failures. Exempting herself from critical scrutiny, the feminist then proceeds to pronounce insulting judgments against men and, if they should object to her criticism, she interprets his objection as proof of his misogyny. Merely disagreeing with a feminist proves that he hates women and, therefore, his objections are automatically invalidated.

 

The circular logic of Lewis’s Law, whereby opposition to feminism is cited as a justification for feminism, should raise the question of why feminism inspires so much opposition. The obvious answer is that men do not enjoy being rudely insulted, told that they are deserving of no respect or consideration. What have I done — or what have my sons done — to be subjected to such hateful rhetoric? And what has Helen Lewis ever done that qualifies her to stand in judgment of anyone?

No one ever questions feminist authority. Nowadays, it is just assumed that all men should be treated with scornful contempt, merely because they are male. The ideological basis of this assumption — i.e., that men deserve such treatment because they are perpetrators of unjust oppression — is never disputed, although it is difficult to find any objective evidence of this. How is it, after all, that complaints about women’s oppression are most often heard from women who are themselves manifestly privileged? And how are we to supposed to interpret the fact that the majority of college students (57%) are women? If this is oppression, then what would equality look like? Will women finally consider themselves “equal” if they are 75% or 80% of college students, or is anything short of 100% unacceptable to feminists?

 

These questions are never asked, however, because no one on the 21st-century campus is permitted to do anything other than nod in agreement when feminists speak. A college student like Sarah Taylor Gibson probably doesn’t even think of feminism as a political ideology, but rather accepts it as reality, the only valid way of understanding human behavior. The fact that feminism is epistemologically incompatible with Christianity is either not yet apparent to her or else she is unwilling to alienate her Christian parents by admitting her apostasy.

What Ms. Gibson fails to see is that the “equality” demanded by feminism requires us to deny the actual differences between men and woman, thus to bring about an androgynous utopia. No such society has ever existed in human history, of course, nor will it ever exist at any time in the future. Feminism is as incompatible with human nature as it is with Christian theology, and yet neither science nor faith can dissuade Ms. Gibson from embracing the folly of feminism, which flatters her vanity in much the same way as the serpent beguiled Eve: “Ye shall be as gods!”

 

 

Your Heterosexual Feminism Is Wrong

http://theothermccain.com/2015/11/19/your-heterosexual-feminism-is-wrong/

 

Miriam Mogilevsky (@sondosia on Twitter) describes herself as “queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible . . . a lesbian with exceptions,” furthermore explaining: “I’m on the asexual spectrum somewhere . . . I don’t experience primary sexual attraction.” Also, she is into polyamory, “which means that I’m open to multiple committed and loving relationships, but with minimal life enmeshment and no ‘rules’ placed on me.” In other words, she’s a weirdo. But in 2015, feminism is all about weirdos, which brings us to her latest column at Everyday Feminism:

5 Ways Straight Women Can Be
Better Allies to Queer Women

Perhaps you didn’t realize that feminists are obligated to be “Allies to Queer Women,” but as Professor Mimi Marinucci has explainedFeminism Is Queer, and therefore heterosexual women in the movement are expected to regard lesbians as their moral and intellectual superiors. Exactly why heterosexual women would want to be part of a movement that requires them to be lectured by weirdos, I can’t explain, and yet Miriam Mogilevsky presumes they are in need of her instruction:

Most queer women have stories of things straight women have said or done that stung unexpectedly, that casually wore down our senses of self.
Some of those things we would’ve resignedly expected from straight men — but coming from women, they were powerfully painful. . . .
By deconstructing some of these dynamics, I hope to inspire straight women to find better ways to relate to and support their queer female friends.

 

Notice that Ms. Mogilevsky assumes that her readers at Everyday Feminism share her contemptuous disdain for “straight men”; feminists are expected to recoil in horror at the accusation that their own behavior is as bad as the behavior of heterosexual males (who are always wrong about everything, of course). Well, you may ask, how do straight women fail as “Allies to Queer Feminists”? Ms. Mogilevsky lectures them:

 

Most queer women I know have stories of straight women touching them without consent — often in ways that read to us as very sexual, and ways that they would (rightfully) be furious if men touched them.
Maybe it’s because we feel “safe” to them, and they feel comfortable expressing affection or attraction to us in ways that they don’t feel comfortable doing with men.
But maybe it’s because they like having that feeling of power over someone.
It’s probably true that if a woman touches another woman, that’s less likely to be interpreted as a come-on than when she touches a man. . . .
However, when women assume that there’s no chance that another woman would ever interpret a touch in a sexual way — not even when they touch her breasts or butt — they desexualize her.
To these women, touching men can be a sexual gesture; touching women cannot.
Straight women touch us in these ways while insisting that there’s no need to ask for consent because there’s nothing sexual about it. . . .
When straight women casually touch me in intimate ways without asking first, it hurts. Not only because I wasn’t given the chance to consent, but because they don’t understand that for me, these types of touches are something to share with a partner.
They’re sexually charged and erotic. It’s an interaction that’s supposed to happen in bed with someone I’m into, not at the bar where you’ve decided that my butt is “soooo cute!” that you want to grab it without asking.

 

So, that’s Rule One: Never touch Miriam Mogilevsky. And honestly, if you feel an overwhelming urge to touch her, you should seek psychiatric help immediately. But remember there are five ways you heterosexual feminists are failing as “Allies to Queer Women,” according to Ms. Mogilevsky, and let’s just cut to Rule Five:

 

5. Remember That We Aren’t Your ‘Experiments’ . . .
If you feel like you have to try sex with people of different genders to help yourself understand what kinds of partners you’re looking for, by all means, get consent and go for it.
But treating people as “experiments” is different. Straight or questioning women who treat queer women as “experiments” treat them as disposable, as objects, as a means to an end.
They feel no responsibility — before or after the hookup — to be honest with their partner about their reason for seeking out the hookup or their intentions afterward.
Sometimes they enter explicitly queer spaces despite comfortably identifying as straight and knowing that they’ll be assumed queer in that space. Some straight women I’ve met even seem to take a gleeful pride in their ability to seduce and mislead queer women, toying with them for their own amusement. . . .
But because of the negative experiences many of us have had with women who saw us as nothing more than an “experiment,” many of us are no longer willing to consent to these types of encounters.

 

Well, you can read the whole thing. Or you can gouge your eyes out with a rusty screwdriver. Either will do you as much good.

Perhaps, if you are a heterosexual woman who considers yourself a feminist, this presumptuous lecture from Ms. Mogilevsky will make you reconsider. As a heterosexual male, however, I am perplexed that Ms. Mogilevsky thinks she’s such a hot commodity that people she meets cannot resist the temptation to “touch her breasts or butt.” Really?

 

Maybe that’s your idea of an irresistibly attractive “queer, gay, femme, homoflexible lesbian with exceptions,” in which case you should seek psychiatric help immediately. But speaking of exceptionsMs. Mogilesky recently shared this strange and alarming confession:

 

So I’d been dreading the inevitable moment when I’d find myself interested in a guy again because I figured it’d be confusing and awful, but now it’s happened and it’s actually not a big deal. If anything, I’m only more comfortable with my gay identity because I could immediately feel the difference from previous times I’ve been interested in men. I have no investment in this, “this” being the idea of dating this person or any other man. I’m not worried about the fact that the attraction will inevitably fade, because I don’t *have* to make it last. I don’t have to make it serious and committed. I don’t have to do anything with it at all. I don’t have to appeal to this person or make myself palatable to him or any other man, because it doesn’t matter to me if I have men in my life as partners or not.
(And yes, I know plenty of women who are attracted to men have similar thoughts, but believe me, it feels completely different from when I was bi.)
It doesn’t really bother me because it’s only natural that something like this would happen. I’ve entered a time of my life that’s more colorful and dynamic than probably any other previous time, and I’m meeting interesting people constantly, and things are stable enough for me now that genuine attraction to people is a thing that actually happens, so it was probable that eventually one of those people would be a man. It doesn’t *have* to mean anything about My Sexuality; it’s a statistical fluke. These results are not statistically significant. They are, however, quite enjoyable in the moment.
(This also makes me realize that one of the reasons I mostly stopped being attracted to men to begin with is that whenever I felt and expressed that attraction, they would more often than not freak out, shame me, etc. They’d be all “whoa you’re acting weird” and “um wow isn’t that kind of forward,” and of course the next day they’d be texting me at midnight asking “what’s up,” but that was enough. Men in general can’t handle women expressing interest in them directly, so I gave up and eventually the interest went away.
Well, now it doesn’t bother me if my attempt to be clear and direct gets stigmatized and ridiculed, because I don’t f–king need them. If they’re going to act like children, I’m out.)

 

Am I the only one who thinks the lady doth protest too much? She wants it known to everyone on Tumblr that she doesn’t really care about men and they don’t matter, but then there’s this jarring assertion: “Men in general can’t handle women expressing interest in them directly.” What? According to who? Maybe men have a problem with Miriam Mogilevsky “expressing interest,” but we can’t blame them for that, can we? If this weirdo “expressed . . . attraction” to you, wouldn’t you “freak out”?

Yet this is feminism in 2015: The “queer, gay, femme, homoflexible lesbian with exceptions” is a columnist for Everyday Feminism, and heterosexual women are expected to be grateful that Miriam Mogilevsky has taken the time to tell you exactly how and why your heterosexual feminism is wrong. You are so ignorant you wouldn’t even know how to be “Allies to Queer Women” unless she told you, and if you find her attitude insulting, then perhaps you’re not a feminist at all.