Munchausen by Patriarchy, Pt 2: The Words Feminists Use that Repulse Men

Stop speaking like a sociology professor

In the previous post, I explained how feminism repeatedly fails to make any progress (See the 2024 U.S. Elections).

Essentially, if you can understand why people dislike Dolores Umbridge more than Voldemort, then you can understand why people rejected Harris in favor of Trump. 

In this post, I will be going a little bit deeper, examining some common terms in feminist circles, before breaking down why these words are repulsive to men.

If feminists ever want to make any sort of tangible progress, they'll have to set aside their usual strategy of scolding and berating men, and instead adopt new language that promotes gender egalitarianism — the thing that they were supposed to be fighting for in the first place.

Repulsive word #1: Patriarchy

Based on this essay by bell hooks, patriarchy is defined as: A social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and religious functions.

In that essay she gives a harrowing tale of her childhood, narrating how she and her brother were beaten when they did not rigidly conform to gender roles, and further elaborates on the societal ramifications of living in a patriarchal society.

I find myself agreeing with hooks in certain parts. Many boys and men are emotionally stunted today, unable to feel love from their friends and family in the fear that it will make them look less masculine. It's one of the reasons why the suicide rate is much higher for men, and why the spotlight on the loneliness crisis is disproportionately focused on men. 

There are two problems with her construction of patriarchy, however.

The first problem is simple enough to comprehend. The definition, while being strictly true, paints with such a broad brush that pretty much every society gets classified as a patriarchy. Everything from ancient Sumeria to Stalin to Nazi Germany to modern day democracies fall under the classification of patriarchy.

“That's because they all are patriarchies,”  many feminists would say.

Sure, but if you're not going to make any distinction between Nazi Germany and modern day democracies — which is to say, refuse to see any sort of progress between these two points in time — then the definition is so broad that it’s meaningless.

By analogy, I could say that everything in the world is a chair or not a chair. Sure, that would be an accurate depiction of the universe, but it would be useless.

Which brings us to the second issue with patriarchy:

Patriarchal societies represent an equilibrium.

This is a fact that a lot of feminist thinkers do not want to contend with. There is a reason why ancient Sumeria, the Greeks, The Carthaginians, The Vikings, Medieval England, and Middle East all separately became patriarchal cultures: it works. 

To be clear, I am not saying that patriarchies are the most optimal form of society. In game theory, most equilibrium points are usually not optimal for all of the players. 

I'm simply saying that patriarchies provide a stable way of continuing genetic lines from one generation to another.

Take this article here, provocatively titled: The Fuck rate is about to Implode. It's hyperbolic, it's intentionally antagonistic, but it points to a broader truth about how we got to 2024 in the first place. Men get the promise of a hot woman and regular sex, and in exchange the world gets public transport systems and plumbing.

The reason why men today are so emotionally crippled is because we needed men to go to war and fight on the front lines. Unfortunately there's no time for cognitive behavioral therapy while you're dying of gangrene in the trenches. That’s why patriarchies worked.

Feminists ironically talk about the “erasure” of history, but much of feminist thought fails to grapple with the idea that patriarchy, as violent and oppressive as it is, brought about the roof over their heads, and the heating units which keep them warm in the winter. Ultimately, this is why they have very few alternatives as to what sort of society they want to create when they tear down the patriarchy.

Feminists have no conception of creating a world where we still have to do cockroach extermination or oil rig work, or the many hundred things that make the world go round.

Repulsive word #2: Toxic masculinity

When questioned, feminists claim that they have no antagonism towards a healthy form of masculinity, but whenever they are questioned as to what this sort of masculinity looks like, they usually turn around and say things like: “Oh, he has to be kind and caring and nurturing” or something to that effect.

In other words, femininity. 

I hope everyone is starting to see a running theme here. Feminists have lots of literature pointing to all the things they don't want (patriarchy, oppression, etc.) but they don't have any sort of conception of the things they do want.

Feminists want the best of masculinity (the big arms, the ability to keep cool under pressure) but they don't understand that the traits which produce the big arms and keep-cool attitudes are the same traits which also produce patriarchy.

There's a reason why men comprise most of the CEOs as well as the prison population. it's the same hyper aggressive ultra competitive behavior, just channeled into two different directions.

A lot of men come to learn very early on in their life that their feelings do not matter. It is a sort of pain that cannot be easily recognized, because it is an emotional pain brought about by neglect; the realization that people will treat him like a literal cockroach until he prove himself.

As a result, this pain drives them, forcing them to become competent in a particular domain. Some go for the muscles, others try to beef up their bank accounts. Others still revel in the subversion of it all (think Tyler Durden from Fight Club).

So when a lot of feminists say that they want the healthy parts of masculinity without all the baggage that come with it, it's like asking for Brad Pitt and Edward Norton's character at the same time. It's not possible. There's a psychological bifurcation there.

Asking a feminist about healthy masculinity is like doing your taxes. They won't give you a proper answer, but they will penalize you if you get it wrong.

Repulsive word #3: Feminism

Of course this had to be on the list.

In psychology, there is a particular bias known as the “No True Scotsman Fallacy.” 

If people critique X, the defenders of X will just say “Well, that's not a true example of X”.

Communism is one of the examples that comes to mind with this. Whenever they are presented with the failures of Venezuela, Cuba, Soviet Russia, or Mao’s China, they quickly turn around and say “Well, that's not real communism.”

It's the same thing with feminism. 

As I will highlight in upcoming posts, much of online feminist thinking is basically Misandry in disguise. 

In some sense I find it ironic. if you copied the personalities of these feminists, and somehow pasted it into the bodies of men, they would be the very sort of men feminists hate.

But of course, whenever I point this out, I get the usual response: that's not real feminism, real feminism is (some other thing).

And this is one of the prevailing problems with feminism itself. It doesn't have a clear definition that lasts the test of time. Feminism is what the feminist wants it to be, and the definition continually changes so that they have to avoid taking responsibility for any of the pitfalls of feminist thinking. 

Do you notice the recurring pattern?

The underlying issue with all of these words — feminism, patriarchy, toxic masculinity — is that they originally came about in sociology departments, in academic settings. 

In these settings, people write essays like this one, and actually take the time to define what they mean when they’re talking. If there is some sort of disagreement, it’s more to do with the application of these terms, rather than the definitions themselves.

In this context, I actually have no problem with these words. The problem arises when these words and definitions get exported onto the general population.

Naturally, people who have normal lives are not going to take the time to understand colonial literature. They have actual problems to attend to.

Nevertheless, feminists:

1. Insist on sticking to these terms, even if they continue to be misrepresented, and

2. Blame the audience for misunderstanding them, rather than believing that the problem lies with themselves.

A good analogy here is the bizarre misuse of the word racism in recent years. Scholars like Ibrahim X Kendi decided that racism was now a utilitarian concept, and that anything could be construed as racist or anti-racist based on the effect that it had on society.

I call it bizarre because it brings about absurd notions of racism. If I decide to go out and buy a Subway sandwich instead of using that money to give to a black person, does that count as racism? 

Another twisting of the word racism comes from critical theory. In this definition racism can only be perpetrated by those in power. This means that a person of colour can go up to an extremely poor white man and say “you cracker ass honky motherfucker” and that technically wouldn’t count as racism.

Again, I have no problem with using these words and definitions in an academic context. Within the walls of higher educational institutions, anything can be discussed, and anything is up for debate.

The problem is when these words get released into the broader population, stripped of the context. Now minorities can go about saying that they are incapable of racism, and everyone else is left scratching their heads as to what the fuck they mean.

It’s the same thing with much of the feminist rhetoric. Toxic masculinity was originally a word used to describe the behaviour of criminals. You know, like murderers and rapists? Now scratching your balls in public is considered a form of toxic masculinity.

Ultimately, the same people who have no problem talking about how this term or that term is problematic all of a sudden go around using very sloppy rhetoric, and get mad when the general population misunderstand them.

Here’s the thing: If a large percentage of the population is misunderstanding you in precisely the same way, then it is on you to communicate your ideas more effectively.

Conclusion

So, to recap. In the first post, I pointed out that feminists are using a losing strategy in scolding and shaming men. They continue to hang onto the delusion that this will gain them political ground — even when reality continues to slap them in the face like a cold bucket of water.

In this post, I go over some words that feminists use which men generally find repulsive.

As I mentioned in the introduction, if feminists ever want to make any sort of tangible progress in society, they will eventually have to switch up their strategy.

I don't see that happening anytime soon. Seeing how many of the liberal outlets are covering the Harris loss,  they've already resorted to the usual gaslighting and shaming of the usual demographics. 

In fact, somewhat ironically, many feminists have begun to adopt the Korean 4B movement, where they essentially abstain from men, sex, and relationships. They don't want to do this of course, but they feel that they have to.

In other words, they are quite literally becoming involuntarily celibate, i.e. an incel.

Nevertheless, these sorts of reactions point to a greater issue: what happens when social movements like feminism interact with the modern online landscape — something that I will be covering in the next post.

Edit: Third part out now!