Men’s Rights Activists have rich fantasy lives
By David Futrelle
Writers for Men’s Rights shit site A Voice for Men regularly denounce feminism as a “female supremacist” hate movement, while insisting that they themselves harbor no male supremacist leanings.
Indeed, a recent post on the site by one Australian Man Going His Way managed to include both of these assertions in short order. Attacking feminists for allegedly “want[ing] female supremacy and … want[ing] to impose their agenda on everyone else,” Peter Ryan insisted he and other MRAs are all about equality.
I do not hate women and I am not a male supremacist or a Nazi. I am not a racist or a bigot. All the feminists could do was throw these labels at us and strawman to the max. They have no argument and no defence for their appalling behaviour.
So imagine my surprise — well, not really — when I recently ran across this lovely article posted on AVFM less than a month after Mr. Ryan’s indignant assertions. And yes, this is the sexualized, 50-Shades-style graphic they chose to illustrate the piece.
Apparently the straw men are coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!
Mr. Mundum’s post is a muddled attempt to provide both a “scientific” and Biblical justification for his male supremacist views on heterosexual relationships. “To be successful,: he writes,
long-term, pair-bonded relationships between men and women must enhance the man’s independence and authority. They must feature male and female in proper evolutionary alignment, with the man leading and the woman following.
This is pretty bog-standard male supremacy. But Mr. Mundum ‘s argument quickly gets a lot weirder after he reveals that he still holds some sort of grudge against his mother for gestating him in her womb for nine months.
A boy is formed in the body of a woman, is born into the world of women, and there he remains until he matures. During this time, he is completely dependent on his mother and other women for everything — at the beginning even for the food that sustains his growth.
Damn you, mom, for literally making food for me with your own body!
As males grow older, Mundum writes, they are ultimately able to extract themselves from this evil woman-world. So why don’t they just keep running away from women for the rest of their lives? As Mundum sees it, it’s because penis.
Once a boy completes the rites of passage, the trials, and the necessary lessons to become an independent man, why the hell would he want to return to the world of women, to once again be subject to them? The only answer I can find is heterosexual desire. If it weren’t for that, I think 99% of men would have nothing to do with women.
If men give in to these heterosexual desires, Mundum warns them not to fall into bed, much less marriage, with evil feminist man-haters. He cites his own allegedly happy marriage as proof that men and women can settle down together fruitfully as long as the women are willing to “submit” to the paterfamilias.
I was looking to fill a void that I decided could only be filled by being the head of a family. I went looking for a woman to do that with, and my wife and I found each other. … She was not interested in emasculating me; to have her feminist way with me. In fact, we decided beforehand to follow the very traditional path of me providing for the family both spiritually and physically, while she raised babies. …
Husbands love their wives, and give their very lives for them, with the intention of making them holy. Wives fully submit to their husbands in all things, and they must show respect at all times for their husband’s sacrifice. This is a great arrangement for both.
Naturally, Mundum is convinced that God — yes, the God — has his back on all of this.
When it comes to alpha [f]ucks and beta bucks, the scriptures are right on the money. Women love to have sex with the bad boy, but they want the provider to take care of them and their children. Well, nothing drives the dominance that a wife loves in her husband like her willing submission to him, and this in turn helps the husband resist becoming beta-male, emasculated cuck, which is the distortion that occurs when the husband sacrifices and the wife greedily abuses him.
So, to wrap it up – if men want to be fulfilled in their relationships with women, they should look for women who are going to submit to their will, and take their leadership.
Is it wrong to hope that his wife ultimately gets sick of his arrogant ass and files for divorce? I don’t think it’s wrong.
In any case, it’s sort of refreshing to see an A Voice for Menner just straight-up admit that he’s a male supremacist instead of pretending oh-so-unconvincingly he’s some sort of “egalitarian.”
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Where is the downside in that??
Ooglyboogles: Good for you. I wish you all the luck, healing and happiness in the world!
Re: Mickslick (like oilslick but more Mickey Mouse): yes, speaking as a leftie ciswoman happily married to a leftie cisman, and with now down to just the one cat (at one point, due to rescuing kittens quite a bit, we had seven, which did feel rather like being outnumbered) and there’s a dildo that we bought together one Valentine’s… Mick is certainly full of fine organic manure, isn’t he?
There’s a real market for “libertarians of gor”, isn’t there?
Hey, good luck Ooglyboogles ❤️ Nice to hear some good news the way things have been exploding lately.
Over here, one of my friends recently admitted (to me and others) that they brutally abused and repeatedly raped their first spouse. I’m still reeling from this, and do not think i can stay their friend even though they badly need support.
The whole “marriageable women = right wing, unmarriageable women = left wing” thing falls down when you consider that the states with the highest divorce rates are red states.
It also fails when you consider that the left wing continues to somehow procreate,, year after year. It’s almost as if evolution doesn’t share the all-important goal of authoritarian male supremacy at any cost, because that’s turned out to be a maladaptive trait for half the human race, and for the planet itself.
Someone seems to be taking the Ascent of Man poster too literally:
If one more MRA tries to use the naturalistic fallacy to justify power and abuse, I’m going to take away his toothbrush and antibiotics.
Ooglyboggles: go you! Best of luck.
Reading articles like this, and Slick Mick’s trolling, and a part of me wants to step back and ask “Does this person really believe this?” The other part of me remembers that what the person really believes versus what they say is ultimately irrelevant and that we can only go on the context and content of what is made public, yet I can’t help but wonder if through all the ridiculous jargon they’ve come up, they ever realize, “Okay, this is just ridiculous”, yet press on because of epistemological capture or just trolling other people?
The reason I wonder that is due to the fact (reinforced by all the other comments that came before mine) that there’s a way to live a life that’s fulfilling and actually quite full of all sorts of fun sexytimes without this need to play psychological mind games for the purpose of coercion and dominance. After all, feminists are simultaneously caricatured as Victorian aristocrats ready to faint away at the mere mention of bare ankles and rainbow-haired tattooed sexual deviants, usually with the word “degenerate” thrown their way. I actually suspect that the second caricature is actually more infuriating to them than the first because a woman just being her own sexual being on her own terms and getting enjoyment out of it undermines their adopted worldview of Alphas and Betas and Chads and Staceys and all that BS.
If they’re just trolling and don’t actually believe all that, than they’re really committing to the anger.
Or maybe it’s not an either/or scenario and they both believe it and use it to troll.
“I’m not a male supremacist , it’s just that evolutionary alignment has placed men in the leadership role.” This also means not having to own up to it. Amazing how conveniently that works out.
@Oooglyboggles Let me add my congratulations to you!!! *happy dance*
@Oil slick Lefty ciswoman here commonlaw-married to lefty cisman, domme of lefty cisboyfriend and owner of a fair few sex toys. No cats, though – am allergic (My husband loves them, though, as do I). Does a statuette of Bast count?
I’ve known cats to be insulted with the food offered to them. One would look at the bowl of unfamiliar catfood, then up at the human that delivered it, and scrape the floor in front of the bowl as if burying a fresh turd. Also, the time one of them approached the table hoping for scraps, sniffed the plate that had had Quorn on it — then stepped smartly back and gave it the side-eye as if to say “you’ve been had, mate”.
I’m a liberal feminist married to a liberal cis-man. We both have careers and are currently making roughly equal amounts of money and contribute equally to household finances like mortgage payments, utility bills, etc. So I guess according to MRAs we don’t exist.
We have both gone through periods of unemployment where the employed partner financially supported the unemployed partner. We both figure that’s one of the great benefits of being a two-income household. My husband actually prefers that I keep working so that we may have that extra bit of financial security.
Now, if someone is in a relationship where only one partner works – that’s fine with me, if you can pull it off. It just seems risky to me because if the one partner loses their job, then what do you do?
As for cats, when we first moved in together, I already had two, and my husband already had two, so we had four, but over the years three of them have passed away. The one we have left was originally my husband’s cat and has always had a STRONG preference for him. The first night I spent with him, she got in the bed and PEED ON ME to show me her displeasure at having to share him with me. She’s warmed up to me a little bit over the years, but she still likes to step over me in bed and kind of shove me out of the way to cuddle with daddy.
So I know there’s a stereotype of women preferring cats, but in our relationship the CAT prefers my husband over me. We’ve been considering getting another pet (either a cat or dog) so we’ll have a pet that actually likes me again. I miss having a pet to cuddle with, but this cat only seems to care about me when she’s hungry and wants me to feed her.
@The McTroll
Unmarried but with a cismale boy friend
We both have cats , we both are cat people
I do not own a dildo though
Its weird how stereotypes fall flat isn’t it?
Also congrats OoglyBoogle
I saw that WHTM got a shout out on Wonkette and wanted to share:
https://www.wonkette.com/americas-worst-humans-are-swooning-over-kavanaugh
The central thesis had an interesting point: that we’re looking at the fundamental divide the wrong way and it’s less about ideology and more about temperament. It’s the entitlement versus empathy. Those who can put themselves into another’s shoes versus those who can’t. It explains a lot. However, I think the underpinning of this idea goes unexplored, and it’s actually one of capitalism’s excesses: the adversarial nature of branding and attention as currency. Since we’ve all been trained by social media to be our own brands and compete with each other for eyeballs, clicks, likes, etc., the compassionate and considerate quickly get overcome by the narcissistic hot-takers. They’re the ones constantly rewarded with attention, so the takeaway for people already inclined to assholery is “assholes succeed.”
That’s a script we need to flip. And fast.
@ FelineFine;
i resemble that remark… 😉
A grammar note for my fellow commenters– symmetrical with trans, cis is a conventional adjective in the context of gender, not a prefix. “Cis man” and “cis woman,” not “cisman”/”ciswoman”.
The politics of the distinction are kind of nuanced, but it basically boils down to the idea that prefixed nouns are more distinct from the original than noun-adjective phrases. If you say “a trans woman” you’re discussing somebody who is a woman and who additionally has this particular trait, but if you say “a transwoman” it sounds like you’re discussing something kind of like a woman.
Okay, what?
The husbands die? Marriage means death for men? Is it, like, immediate, or…
How does one submit to a corpse?
Perhaps I am just confused because I am an unmarriageable leftist woman with cats and dildos and stuff.
@Nentuaby Thanks!
I’m old, unhealthy, feminist, and scared tbh. I have 2 cats. I work part time at a company owned by a new citizen of the U.S. She’s very cool, lol! But my health is failing and I live in a red state. Aside from the depression, anxiety, and high blood pressure, I now have broken toes which never bothered me before (I’m naturally clumsy), and now I’ve been told been to stay off my feet. Staying off my feet means more weight gain and higher blood pressure. Walking means a weird purple foot. Still, I prefer all this to the man I nearly married . . . last minute he told me he was the captain since that’s men’s role. I’m scared but not regretting my choices. Yes, he had more $ than me. No, I’m not for sale – even now, when I’d be in the bargain bin, lol!
@Ooglyboogles,
I hope the appointment goes well and you are well on your way to the new and true you. I have a friend who has transitioned over the last couple of years, and more than one person has commented on how much happier he is. Again, I wish the same for you.
@Cyborgette,
That is quite the moral dilemma you’re confronting. I hope this person admitted to such atrocities because he is genuinely working to change (while the statistics overwhelmingly point to this being unlikely, I recognize that statistics about groups can’t be used to accurately predict outcome for every member of said groups). And thus, I hope he finds the support he needs to move toward personal transformation. But I totally understand being completely horrified and choosing to no longer be friends with someone who is capable of choosing and performing such atrocities on a vulnerable person.
@Jesalin: Clit-o-centric Lesbian Goddess,
Heh. One-stop shopping! I have to wonder the mindset of the store manager who decided to organize the products in such a fashion–was it intended to be supportive or mocking? I will have to keep my eyes open for other such serendipitous(?) retail signage.
@Dreamer,
Congratulations on the narrow escape. I hope your toes heal quickly. It’s hard to strike the balance between resting the feet and staying active. Any access to a pool?
@Jesalin: Clit-o-centric Lesbian Goddess,
I’m right there with you. Failing to see the problem. Pleasure in solitude, companionship, warm fuzzies both literal and metaphorical, physical affection, and the sense of entitlement is both charming and deserved–after all, if we keep cats indoors at all times, we have a duty to meet their needs. The same can’t be said for grown-ass adult men, who should be able to function without being completely dependent on others or whining about how unfair life is.
I just bought my first dildo! It does the job! Way better without either the boasting or the pain or the frustration of both my past long-term relationships.
Sadly, no cat. Thinking of fostering. The ex brought the cat(s) into the relationship, and very reasonably retained custody when we broke up. Though we sometimes have something of a joint custody arrangement when he goes away for an extended period. The ex isn’t a leftie, tends to identify as more libertarian. Though being in relationship with me for a decade did shift his position on more than one social justice issue.
Anyway, all that is more *pfft* anecdata contradicting the ridiculous stereotypes spouted by the ridiculous peoples.
My comment is basically a bunch of responses, so sorry if this is long.
@Ooglyboggles – Congratulations and best wishes!
@Newt – Ha, that reminds me of a cat-sitting story! I was eating supper. The cat jumped up on the chair next to me and stared wistfully at my (rather expensive) leftover salmon. I gave him a small piece and he ate it. The message I took from this was, “Oh, he likes fish.” But the next day when I offered him cheap tuna, he wouldn’t touch it! Picky kitty. I miss him. 🙁 (he’s probably still alive, but I live far away now)
@Nentuaby – Thank you!! That’s really useful to know. I’ve probably made that mistake before.
@Cyborgette – That sounds really tough. I would do what feels safest and best for yourself first, and for your other friends, and only stay in touch with the person who was abusive if you can feel safe/OK doing so.
“a lifetime of dildos and cats imminent …”
Odd double standard from a MGTOW. What’s wrong with being a single woman?
Just say you hate women and be done with it.
I may regret asking this but does anybody know what “toxic feminity” is? I tried to look for a sensible definition but it kept taking me to the woman hating manosphere.
I see the term used occasionally but I don’t know that it has a commonly-accepted definition. I suppose it would describe those beliefs and behaviours women are taught to abide by as a facet of womanliness under the patriarchy, and which tend to be obstructive and/or harmful. I imagine a more common expression for the same topic might be something like “internalised misogyny”.
ID: Gatecrasher
Age: 30 yrs
Gender: Cis woman
Civil status: Married.
Political views: Left-leaning. Feminist.
Choice of partner: Leftist cis man. We note that Mrs Gatecrasher has married down according to social norms and conventions.
Status of relationship: Five (5) happy years this far. Celebrating anniversary Engagement Day today. Mr Gatecrasher will get an apple pie when he comes home from work. Don’t tell him, it’s a surprise.
Sex toys: Yes.
Number of cats: One (1).
@Ooglyboggles: Good luck with everything!
@Steph Tohill
Its a product of the manosphere created in response to the concept of toxic masculinity,
effectively a parody that both fails to understand what its a parody of or that its even a parody.
In other words more nonsense jargon from misogynists.
@Steph @Diptych
The reason “toxic feminity” always leads to the manosphere is because it’s an MRA-created comeback to “toxic masculinity”, except that they use their phrase to mean “women who aren’t submissive.”
Nothing more “toxic” to them than a woman who does her own thing. *eyeroll*
ETA: part ninja’d by TreePerson!
@TreePerson, sunnysombrera
I have never understood the criticism of feminism that it supposedly says that women are always good, the female gender role is perfect and nothing women ever do is a problem. I mean, feminism is cultural critique. Many have long discussed the negative aspects of the female gender role. For example, Betty Friedans Feminine Mystique, is an entire book solely about “toxic femininity” (if you define it as damaging aspects of the female gender role). And that is considered one of the feminist classics!
I think half the time they don’t even care what it might mean, because it’s enough to just have a comeback.
Or maybe they think if “toxic femininity” sounds nonsensical, it’s a great argument against the concept of toxic masculinity.
@solecism, @epitome of incomprehensibility
Thanks.
The person in question has done a LOT of work, but it’s all pretty recent, and I think I’d registered a few red flags earlier – things that made me present boundaries underhandedly just in case, having to call them on sexist or selfish stuff that they should have known better than. They had a terrible crisis recently, but they also have a lot of other friends. And knowing their history, and knowing my history… yeah, I can’t stay their friend. I’m glad they’re doing the work to make themselves a better person, I’m glad they come so far, I’m glad their ex has forgiven them. But my dad spent long periods of time pretending to reform, being forgiven, and then sliding back to his old abuse patterns.
Abuse is an addiction as much as alcohol IMO, and I will never feel comfortable being close to someone who has been dependent on it. Not after the shit I’ve been through.
So. The answer is no. Still hurts, though.
@solecism
I’d recommend that, or adopting!
My new blog deals with a lot of this stuff, I was taught this submission stuff in the Open Brethren.
https://wordpress.com/view/nakedemperorblog.wordpress.com
I believe Toxic Femininity to be overly submissive and harbouring a victim complex, exactly the kind of woman a narcissist would seek out as a source of ‘supply”. Learned helplessness and Stockholm syndrome.
I think the real solution these guys would like is *if* in some kind of fucked up sci-fi story world, the men were erudite and intelligent, able to build cities and create great art and great civilisations, but the women were sub-human pig like beasts who you kept as pets and fed offal until they were fit to bear offspring. Then after breeding and weaning, maybe they could be ritually slaughtered and eaten by the menfolk, who have delightful homosexual sex together and congratulate each other on how manly they are. Boys I guess would be educated in hunting, fishing, and how to snare a wild female to rape, and females would either be raised in captivity and fattened up for breeding/ritual slaughter, or allowed to run free for hunting and rape.
Sound good to you, Sticky Micky?
@Virgin Mary
Why did you feel like you had to post any of that?
@Virgin Mary,
(my opinions follow)
I mean, there’s certainly a mode of femininity that is self-harming – the self-obliterating submission and sacrifice to narcissism is certainly poisonous for anyone who’s got it. But that’s not Toxic Femininity, that’s just plain old normal femininity according to the traditional patriarchal gender role.
Toxic Femininity isn’t feminine-behaviour-that’s-toxic-to-relationships, it’s something specific. It’s the compliment to toxic masculinity, and shares certain traits. These behaviours point outwards – they harm people around them, not the actor themselves. Any self-damage they do is from the fact that people don’t want to associate with toxicity. Your definition of toxic femininity points inwards, and is about self-harm; it’s the stockholm-victim of toxic masculinity.
Toxic Femininity is an MRA inversion attempt. Like most conservatives, they try to use the language of progressives as weapons, turning them against us. For the MRA, it’s blaming feminists of being “toxic”, of poisoning discourse and harming others around us. They don’t ever really show that this exists beyond asserting it, and it’s really poorly thought out. But when they say toxic femininity, that’s what it is – it’s I know you are but what am I written with bigger words.
Oh, and just to hammer the nail in – Toxic Femininity doesn’t actually exist. Feminists aren’t all angels or saints, some are terrible, but the concept of outwardly-toxic-feminist-woman doesn’t actually exist outside of stereotype.
Adopting the term Toxic Femininity is dangerous, it legitimizes one of the MRA’s ridiculous inversion attempts. I suggest you find another term for the ideas you’re trying to convey.
Could Munchausen by proxy be an example of toxic femininity? And that’s a psychological disorder rather than a systemic one.
@Viscaria
Dunno about submission, but appreciating that sacrifice is straightforward enough. You just have to think of the children.
(content note: parasitoid insects. no creepy pictures, at least)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp
It’s a made up term used by MRA-types to blame-shift. Much like the bullshit ‘femsplaining’ term they made up by inverting ‘mansplaining’.
Treating it like it’s a real term only legitimizes it.
I think there is such a thing as toxic femininity, and that it’s the mindset that polices other women’s behavior (squash the potential competition and/or “I had to put up with this, so should the next generation”); pushes a “men will be boys” narrative, and uses passive-aggression, weaponized fragility (“white womens’ tears,” etc.), to bully and manipulate. “The Rules” would have been an example of toxic femininity.
That said, when the MRAs, etc, say “toxic femininity,” yeah, I’m pretty sure they mean “women having the temerity to stand up for themselves.”
Wait, I have a question. Why are we conflating femininity and feminism here?
@Moon_custafer: You just described my mother!!!
@Diptych, good eye! I wrote that because “toxic femininity” is a synonym for “feminism” to an MRA. They use the terms in the exact same way: “entitled woman who thinks she deserves it all and will cry and destroy until she gets it.” That’s what they think feminism is, that’s what they mean when they refer to “toxic femininity.”
Should have made that more clear, thank you for pointing it out.
I was alerted that the term “toxic femininity” does have a legitimate existence outside of MRA circles, though. A good friend pointed out that women of colour will use the term to refer to white women who cry alligator tears in order to deflect accusations of racism. A link for the reading!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/how-white-women-use-strategic-tears-to-avoid-accountability
Intersectionality is important. I still don’t like the term “toxic femininity” because of the wind it blows into MRA’s sails, but I’m not going to tell women of colour or people of colour what words they can use, and it’s perfectly descriptive for that.
I’d say the term might also fairly be applied to TERFs.
Instinctively, my mind translates “toxic femininity” as women who passionately embrace being Stepford Wives and remain completely unaware of how that’s not good for them, or for anyone. In the same way that toxic masculinity isn’t good for men despite the surface appearances. The difference, of course, is that while it’s obvious how toxic masculinity isn’t good for women, it’s less obvious how toxic femininity (defined this way) is bad for men, until you realize how it infantilizes them. Toxic femininity could be a useful term as the necessary pendant to toxic masculinity, describing what women have to internalize in terms of behavior to fit in the toxically masculine world, such as embodying the feminine mystique and automatically standing by your man when he’s accused of sexual assault, to give some random examples.
But as I say, that’s just my immediate, not thought-through reaction to the term, which obviously has nothing to do with how MRAs use it.
Oh, thank you for helping me realize how dissatisfied I was with my life with a kind, funny, smart, leftist husband who treats me as his equal and does his equal part of parenting our children. I need a domineering husband who would almost certainly make my life hell, but not as much as a friend of mine who just escaped from a domineering, abusive husband and is currently easing the pain from the abuse by fostering cats.
And if you believed any of that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Ooglyboggles, yay for you!
@Emmytiel
I’m glad your friend was able to get out.
I’m personally with the ones who define toxic femininity as simply “I know you are but what am I” rather than a real thing on its own.
Feminism that disregards or even relies on racism against women of color? That’s already called White Feminism.
Femininity that demands submission and self-harm for men’s sake? Or that gives a set of rules to dictate how other women should live their lives? That’s already called internalized misogyny.
Feminism or a concept of femininity that is transphobic? Already called TERF.
It never seems to occur to these guys that a lot of men don’t actually want to be in charge. Who wants all the extra work & responsibilities?
It’s actually quite sad; the “dominant husband” is missing out on being able to share life’s responsibilities with his wife. Those of us in healthy relationships get to give mutual support, so we never have to go it alone.
Being in charge all the time sounds really lonely.