Right-Wing Male Feminists are Still Choosing Name-Calling Over Rational Defense of Matriarchy

I recently discovered that debate is still raging about supposed “misogyny” on the right-wing. The male feminist side of the argument continues making the standard claims that the only reason anyone would oppose women’s liberation is that they are pathetic losers who cannot get laid. Though I still do not understand the goals or intentions of the right-wing male feminist movement (beyond just ninnying and tone-policing), I will herein address the topic of right-wing male feminism in a general sense.

I am very much opposed to the male feminist procedure of claiming that anyone who expresses ideas against feminism is just angry that they can’t get laid. Using this shame tactic is clearly just a way to silence discussion. As with everything else, the ideas should be addressed based on their validity. Anyone refusing to do that, and instead claiming that the person making the argument has something wrong with them and therefore the argument should not be addressed at all, cannot be taken seriously.

We’ve all seen this in other areas:

• You just don’t like blacks because you’re jealous of their monster horse cocks
• You just don’t like gays because you’re secretly gay
• etc.

It’s a way to prevent open discussion.

Any serious person is able to discuss arguments based on their merit without attempting to personally shame the person making the arguments. Even if the person doing the shaming is capable of succeeding in silencing the person making the argument, the argument still stands unassailed. Nothing has been proven.

Perhaps the defining characteristic that separates the modern left from the modern right is the latter’s belief in the value of rational discourse. If women’s liberation is a good thing, there must be rational arguments to support women’s liberation. Thus far, I have never seen a right-wing male feminist attempt to make such an argument.

The good news is, there is a way to really simplify the discussion with a very straightforward question:

Was it a good idea to liberate women and bring them into public life?

For all of history, before the late 19th century, women were not a part of public life, and were considered property. This was the case across virtually every race and culture, excluding some parts of sub-Saharan Africa and probably among Australian Aborigines and related groups (Papuans, etc.). We might note that infamously, Margaret Mead’s claims that female sexual liberation existed among certain groups of Pacific Islanders, outlined in her 1928 book “Coming of Age in Samoa,” were proved to have been academic fraud.

Because patriarchy was a standard that existed throughout all of history, and certainly through all of prehistory, it seems to me obvious that those arguing in favor of this massive society-transforming change, which was part of the very distasteful and destructive Jewish social revolutionary movement of the 1960s, are the ones upon which the burden of proof falls to present an argument in favor of this transformation.

Obviously, it is more or less impossible to argue that society at large has benefited in any way from the liberation of women, and the list of negatives is so long as to probably include almost every negative thing that has happened in the last 100 years. Based on overwhelming data from the voting patterns of men and women, everything from the legalization and normalization of abortion and divorce, to racial integration and mass immigration, would have been impossible without the enfranchisement of women.

Before the male feminists even get to their arguments (if they ever decide to do so), this simple reality buries any kind of psychoanalysis about “you’re just angry you can’t get pussy, bro.” Women’s liberation has been utterly ruinous for civilization. It’s not some funny, cutesy joke, to be dismissed with “te-he-he, bro you’re just a pathetic virgin, learn to get pussy, bro.”

As an aside: if you want to play this game that this is all just somehow personal for anyone opposed to feminism, you can also go into the fact that the most attractive, richest, and powerful people on earth have been divorce-raped, which means that the problem is about a lot more than “getting laid.” But I almost feel that engaging on that level is below me, as the problems are so obviously self-evident that it’s like being asked to explain why it’s bad to huff glue or drink diet soda pop. Opposition to feminism is clearly personal for a lot of men, just as opposition to immigration or the decriminalization of drugs is personal for a lot of men. But that is totally irrelevant.

“But It’s Too Late…”

At this point in the discussion, the standard response from male feminists is that it is impossible to take away women’s rights, so we just have to be practical. (Obviously, that logic could just as easily be applied to any other issue, to the point where you could say that everyone should just go ahead and accept everything that is happening. But let’s address it anyway.)

“But it’s too late” is a complete movement of the goal posts, which also makes all of the psychoanalysis and man-shaming all that much more ridiculous. It is also just another way to avoid the discussion. (Is it an admission that anti-feminists are right? If so, then what was the point of the original attack on anti-feminists? Why not skip directly to “it’s too late and we just have to deal with it?”)

If we accept that it’s too late and we have to be practical, then what we are now talking about is not that it’s totally reasonable for women to have rights and anyone who disagrees is a pathetic loser who can’t get laid. We’re saying “yes, this is a ridiculous situation, but we have to figure out a strategy to deal with it.”

Well, writing essays on the internet is not a strategy to deal with it. Using any form of logic to communicate information to women is not a strategy for doing anything (other than getting yourself accused of sexual harassment and fired from your job).

If your goal is to convince women to accept right-wing ideas because you have no choice because they are already empowered, what you would do is look at what motivates women, and figure out how to exploit that.

The conclusion you would come to, very quickly, is that what motivates women is:

• Being attached to centers of power and social status,
• Being personally adored or otherwise being the center of attention, and
• Exploiting men for emotional and material resources

So, you would then figure out a way to exploit those things, which would require you to have power, which you can’t do without building or taking over some kind of powerful organization. Involving women in your project effectively means you will never build or take over anything. This means that the obvious thing you should do is avoid being involved with women at all until you have achieved some kind of power, and instead appeal to men.

Going around claiming that any man who claims that anyone who is unsuccessful with women is a pathetic loser is not going to help you build anything with men, given that basically no men in the Western world are successful with women. Male feminists like to pick on incels, because incels are the lowest people in our society, and are therefore easy to bully. But sexually successful chads, married men and divorced men do not tend to be very happy with the current sexual dynamics of our society either. The single group of men who are happy with the current sexual dynamics are male feminists, who enjoy being controlled by women. Due to the Stockholm syndrome that decades of feminism has created, this is a significant group of men, but not a particularly useful group of men if you’re trying to build a revolutionary political movement.

You also have to ask what possible benefit you can get from having “right-wing women” involved in your organization, assuming you do not control a government or political party engaged in electoral politics. I guess this goes back to the issue of what exactly is being communicated by male feminists in general, which has never been clear. Again, given the lack of arguments from male feminists, we could only speculate.

Ultimately, the whole conversation strikes me as completely non-serious, and likely actually ridiculous.

The goal of dissident right-wing politics should be to appeal to young men, period. Talking to those men about how to deal with women could be valuable, but that is completely unrelated to trying to convince women to join a political movement. (Although we’re not talking about electoral politics, I will note that if you did control a political party engaged in electoral politics, I would say that the strategy for getting female votes would be to advise your male members on how to deal with women, as if every male supporter has a wife or girlfriend, then you’ve potentially doubled your votes. Doubling your votes by presenting a platform that appeals to women would be impossible, especially given the number of male votes you would lose by trying to appeal to women.)

Women have never been political, and they are not now. Women’s involvement in politics is entirely based on instinctive notions of what will benefit them. There is no concept of right or wrong, or any form of idealism, or long-term civilizational security in the mind of a woman.

Please note the significant gap between the voting patterns of married and unmarried women.

Of course, given the way women’s brains function, there is no clear delineation between “what is personally materially beneficial” and “what is emotionally satisfying.” A woman’s emotional satisfaction with her decisions is largely or entirely based on arbitrary notions of morality as defined by the state/media, which she associates with social status.

So, if the question is “how can we convince women as a group to accept our political doctrine while we remain a marginalized minority?”, then my answer is “you can’t.” I would follow that up with “but why would you want to?”

Of course, the discussion has never and presumably will never get to this point, as every time I’ve ever made these arguments, male feminists have come back with “you’re just mad because you can’t get laid.”

Finally, I just want to say that I have no desire to fight for a new political order in which women maintain sexual liberation and political enfranchisement. In fact, one of my main social goals is to restore the traditional sexual norms which existed all through human history before the modern era. Frankly, I consider anyone who believes in women’s liberation to be a liberal, and I might even go so far as to say that a belief in the social and political enfranchisement of women is the defining value of liberal ideology.

For those readers who choose to engage male feminists on the internet, I have no advice. In my long years of experience, I have found that they will not ever address arguments, and they will not ever engage with honesty. However, I will say this: if you’re an incel, if you’re divorced, or if you’re in an abusive relationship, the chances that it is your fault are statistically near-zero. Remember that. And remember that what we are fighting for is a world where you can have a normal family, as normal men had all throughout the history of civilization. You have a right to that, and evil people took that away from you.

We are going to reclaim what belongs to us.