Why call myself an antifeminist?

Now I will clarify my views on why I would call myself an antifeminist. Here is what I am for, at the fundamental level:

1)Men and women having the same fundamental rights, and no institutionalized sexism. That means justice being as blind as possible – although I know it is hard to remove all bias from trials, for example. Government and other organs with power over regular people should set a good example by their own behavior. If schools they own give boys worse grades just because they’re boys, they should fix this, for example. Try not to convict men just because they look rapey and the accuser is credible, and try not to say things like “prostitutes can’t be raped”.

2)More freedom and not having a huge government regulating every little thing.  In contrast to the government, people shouldn’t be as constrained in their behavior.

What I am against:

1)Experts in bullshit being in command of how things are run at the government level. Like I said, I wouldn’t want an astrologist, using astrology, solving economical problems. And I wouldn’t want a pseudoscientist saying that gender differences are all due to socialization, rape is about power, and porn leads to rape.

So you see, I’d like both genders to have rights and be allowed to choose. Which is identical to what many online non-famous feminists say. Because of that, some would say I should call myself a feminist. The reason I don’t, is that modern feminism that is in power also has the least reality-based worldview. They spread false ideas, they create unnecessary violence. They and their supporters ruined whatever good name feminism ever had.

Those feminists who  are honest about wanting equality of rights and are willing to use science, facts and logic, are welcome to attempt to reclaim the name and make feminism into a “good feminism”. I think Camille Paglia is doing something of that sort.

Others are welcome to shame self-professed feminists into abandoning the name , but I don’t care so much. Although I think trying to reclaim the name “feminist” is futile in practice, I don’t see it as wrong in theory. I wonder how an MRA would feel, if a small group of MRAs gained a lot of power, and “MRA” became synonymous with something preposterous and amoral? Would he/she give up the name, because it supposedly supports a murderous group? Or would he/she insist that the MRM is not about that, but merely about securing men’s rights, and that the murderous group are not true MRAs?

But I’d rather drop the name “feminist” and be antifeminist, as long as opposition to the powerful modern feminism is warranted and needed. More feminism is not needed where I live. The opposite seems more rational to pick.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Feminism, MRA and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Why call myself an antifeminist?

  1. Emma, thank you for a sound analysis. I’d just like to make the point that MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) are increasingly using the term MHRAs (Men’s Human Rights Activists) – I do, personally – to make it perfectly clear we stand for gender equality and we’re not ‘against’ women’s rights. And I very much doubt that either term will ever become ‘synonymous with something preposterous or amoral’. Why? Because despite society’s poor treatment of men, men very rarely suffer from misogyny – in my experience far more men exhibit misandry (hatred of men) than exhibit misogny. This remains true for individual men even when treated appalingly by individual women (e.g. those who make false rape claims). Misandry is common among women, in my experience, ranging from low-level resentment of men to blind hatred of all things male, which of course has driven the scourge of militant feminism for 30+ years. I hope to make that point when interviewed by Jenni Murray on ‘Woman’s Hour’ on Thursday 28 March (BBC Radio 4, 10:00 – 10:45).

    I don’t know if you’re familiar with ‘A Voice for Men’. I recommend people subscribe. Some of their best material comes from women – JudgyBitch being a personal favourite.

    I look forward to your future blog posts. Let me know mb1957@hotmail.co.uk if you’re happy for me to add your blog URL to others on one of my site’s list of recommended websites and blogs.

    Oh, a final thought. More and more women (of all ages) are becoming comfortable with self-identifying publicly as anti-feminists. They’re usually very intelligent, politically savvy, and (shoot me down in flames for this simple observation haha) attractive.

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)
    http://j4mb.wordpress.com

    ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
    http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com

    • Eric says:

      Mike:
      The so-called MHRM is about creating feminism for males: accepting all the feminist standards and applying them to men. There is nothing positive about it for men, it’s simply about creating equality of injustice.

      Legal equality means nothing: even feminists themselves admit this. The gender polarity is what they wish to destroy, and the clods behind the MHRM are playing the same game.

      As for ‘Judgybitch’ , she is a man-hating feminist as bad as anyone at Jezebel or Manboobz.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I didn’t notice any man-hate from Judgybitch. When was that?

      • Emma, I agree, and she and I have had some private exchanges.

        Eric, you couldn;t be more wrong about the MHRM, at least the mainstream. I strongly recommend you subscribe to ‘A Voice for Men’

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        For example, there was her article on raising boys where she compared men to beer-swilling neanderthals and advocated that feminising boys was a positive thing. Overall she comes across as a typical Typhon Blue sex-negative, pro-feminist femRA.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Really? Even after she wrote this:

        “The courts are now moving (albeit very slowly) towards prosecuting women for the crime of having sex with students, but I think we’re going exactly the wrong way. We don’t need more victim mentality and more rules and more policing of relationships. We need less.”

        http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/02/how-to-ace-an-ethics-course-as-long-as-you-have-no-ethics-that-is/

        I just don’t sense the same pedohysteria in her like in some of the others.

      • Eric says:

        Mike:
        After the way that A Voice for Manginas has treated genuine mens’ activists like Angry Harry, I really have little interest in following their ‘leadership.’ Overall, the blog is simply warmed-over social purity feminism. Paul Elam admitted as much with his ‘MRM Blueprint for Bridgebuilding’ article wherein he fully subscribed to all feminism’s goals.

        The same goes for Dizzy Dean Esmay and his pack of lesbian hangers-on. Eivind Berge has already written a comprehensive article on the subject:

        http://www.eivindberge.blogspot.com/2013/01/beware-of-sex-negative-mras.html

        Along with Bernard Chapin, W.F. Price, Rookh Kshatriya, and others who’ve denounced the vctimization (i.e. feminising) of men that AVfM is promoting. When real leaders like these claim AVfM is moving in the wrong direction, while femihags like Erin Prizzey applaud it, there’s hardly any argument necessary.

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        Yes, and yesterday she wrote an article praising younger women who have relationships with older men. So, you’re right; she’s not as bad as the others. However, some of her earlier stuff did seem heavy on slut-shaming and had anti-male overtones.

        Maybe there’s some hope for this one? Let’s keep our fingers crossed and see what she does in the future…

  2. BHardt says:

    You should take a look at the English Wikipedia article for anti-feminism. It’s cringe-worthy.

  3. Pingback: Robert Stark interviews Nataliya Kochergova - The STARK TRUTH with Robert Stark

  4. Pingback: Robert Stark interviews Nataliya Kochergova « Attack the System

  5. Anonymous says:

    What I don’t get is why you want both genders to have equal rights if you claim that self-defense is misogyny.

  6. AgentofReactivity says:

    Legal Equality is a feeble lie created by those who didn’t have the guts to strive to be genuinely equal. If you can’t have equal levels of facial expression, character, storytelling skills etc because you aren’t really equal. Then you create a consolation in the form of legal equality in order to cope with the desperate situation of not being actually equal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s