DISCUSSIONThe New Anti-feminists – (Hint: They’re Not From The Religious Right) (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by LadyLumen

Link: https://ladyimperium.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/the-new-antifeminists-hint-theyre-not-from-the-religious-right/

Conventionally the enemies of feminism were members of the religious right. This was the case during second wave feminism, when religious minded people attacked things like birth control, abortion rights, and a woman's right to work outside of the home. But in the age of third wave feminism, many of the voices on the religious right (such as Pat Robertson) aren't really taken seriously anymore by anyone. So the new emerging voices against feminism - interestingly enough - are actually coming from atheists and intellectuals. The conventional wisdom of feminists was that as society became more modern and rational, it would become more feminist, so this is kind of a shock for them.

[–]Highly_Tingled 25 points26 points  (17 children)

It's sad how men are being pushed away from society into its dark outskirts. I can relate a lot to what is being said in this article.

Do modern feminists think that men will adhere to their ultimatum of "either accept all of our ideology with a smile, or have it forced down your throats whether you like it or not"?. Did feminists really not consider or care about the possibility that men would seriously withdraw from society as a result of being mistreated and undervalued ? When men opt out , they really do commit. They become ghosts.

As a society, I think we are witnessing the whole movement starting to backfire. Feminism is taking a big steamy crap on itself. How is it that women have more opportunity than ever before , but are generally more miserable than ever? This seems counterintuitive due to all the 'progress' that the feminism movement has made for women over the past few decades.

Also , an unfortunate result of the movement is the generalization/stereotype created by it. Meaning, these young millennial men are more prone to placing all women in the same boat due to the same type of female that they commonly experience in their every day lives; day after day after day (I'm very guilty of this myself).

Yes, I know this seems like ignorant thinking; but I question how many times it takes a young man who is constantly being shamed for being born with a cock, to conclude that the majority of all young women generally feel a certain negative way about all men.

It seems like feminism is something that went from being about 'female empowerment' and rights, to something that resembles a man-bashing party 24/7 365 .

Instead of fighting it (because you can't argue with something as irrational and illogical as feminism and the extremists that uphold its values), men are just starting to simply say "fuck off" and withdraw from all that is. On one hand, I applaud them for doing their own thing in a society where the cards are stacked against them heavily. On the other hand, I think it is very sad and concerning that this type of behavior is becoming common amongst men in response to all women , and not just to extreme feminists anymore.

[–]LadyLumen[S] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I think feminists haven't really thought it through. The concept of MGTOW doesn't bother them too much because they think, "Oh, that's fine, as long as it's not any men I'm interested in." And typically guys who have game don't go their own way. In the short term, it doesn't really affect women that much. But it does in the long term. Because that is more guys not committing to society. More guys not innovating, not paying a big chunk of taxes (to feed the nanny state that will pay for all the things feminists want), not improving society overall. Society starts to stagnate. The economy begins to fragment. Things become less safe, there are less opportunities, more loose canons. It becomes kind of a slow motion collapse that's so slow that no one really sees it until it's already happened.

[–]EvolvedA 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You are probably right when you say that guys who have game don't go their own way, but I am also sure that men who have options will rather not commit to a feminist woman, why should they when they have other options? This is also a way of opting out and this affects women in the short term. There are less and less avialable high quality men.

I mean feminism as it is nowadays will push away all kinds of men, and I also think that needy men will play along with that longer than men with options.

[–]QueenBee126 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Do modern feminists think that men will adhere to their ultimatum of "either accept all of our ideology with a smile, or have it forced down your throats whether you like it or not"?. Did feminists really not consider or care about the possibility that men would seriously withdraw from society as a result of being mistreated and undervalued ? When men opt out , they really do commit. They become ghosts.


[–]PantheraTigris95 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Feminism fails to realize that we actually need something from men and alienating them isn't in anyone's best interest..

[–]bowie747 6 points7 points  (1 child)

[–]Highly_Tingled 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Aware and on-board. Appreciate it friend.

[–]LillyOrell 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I certainly see what you're saying, yes. :s I've.. sort of been noticing this behaviour with some members of the feminist community in my college within the last few years. I've become less active in that particular community lately to distance myself.

[–]Highly_Tingled 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Awesome! How is that working out for you ?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Feminism has freed men from the burden of performance, so many of them are taking advantage of it. Men no longer have to be fathers, soldiers, or providers, so why do it unless you want to. It's not shunning society it's simply making a new one free from traditional gynocentrism (1950's) and modern gynocentrism (i.e. feminist worldview).

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (6 children)

Feminism has freed men from the burden of performance

No, the burden of performance is still there. There is no pussy-pass for men, and men are still valued for what they do, not for who they are. It has simply changed the cost/benefit equation by increasing the costs and removing the most important benefits. When men shun committed relationships they do gain protection from divorce-rape and the kind of toxicity that feminism brings into modern relationships with so many women. So they cut the costs, but they don't get the benefits of a good relationship either. When they shun trying to achieve value in their lives, they not only lose out financially but in a very important aspect of the male psyche; respect, especially self-respect, is more important than affection.

I'm talking about the ones that withdraw, like the herbivores. Those that instead play the game actually benefit a lot from feminism driving the cost of sex down, but they still lose out in other ways. And ultimately, we all lose out, since birth rates are below replacement levels and there is a toxic anti-male atmosphere everywhere, which sours relationships between the sexes. What should be complementary is now competitive, and sometimes ugly.

[–]LadyLumen[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

For one I'm okay with driving down the birth rate. There are too many damn people on the planet and we are bad for the planet.

But I agree with the fact that men these days are really struggling with relationships. I'd say most of the men I know are either single or were in relationships where it was a lot of drama. There are a LOT of lonely people out there these days.

I remember one of my professors at college who was like a million years old said, "I don't understand what is wrong with people these days. My wife and I got married when we were young. We both had sex with each other for the first time, after we married. And then that was it." And a few of the female students were like, "But what if people got married and the sex was bad?"

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

we are bad for the planet.

For whom was the planet created?

Here's what happens. Western people come up with these self destructive ideas such as overpopulation of the planet, concluding to have less children. Great. Will the planet be less populated? Not at all! It'll be MORE populated with poor/illiterate/terrorists etc and the world will move backwards by 1,000 years.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The people who shouldn't have kids, have a surplus. The people who should have kids, choose to end their lineage.

On a similar note, I'm very happy Sadie isn't one of those people.

[–]MasterBassion 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For whom was the planet created?

It wasn't created for anybody.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    How wonderful. So this alpha got in great physical shape without having to do anything. He is a leader, without actually having to do any leading. He is respected for his character, but didn't have to do anything to build that character, faced no adversity. He is dedicated to his mission, but doesn't actually do anything about it. He is not a broke down-and-out either, but he didn't have to work hard for that wealth. He just is, appreciated for the looks he was born with. This is nice to know.

    [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    While it's encouraging to see women making these observations, both online or in person, it's a distinct minority. People who are socially conservative in any manners are not popular, least not in large metropolitan areas, the media or academia... even if the only thing you're old school about are understanding the gender roles and biological dimorphism of reproductive dynamics. Feminist pollution of institutional education will take awhile to undo.

    It will take another generation or two to fully cause the pendulum to swing back, as is so typical across human history, no matter the societal variables.

    As for MGTOW-esque things, it's just like AWALT. It's not an absolute truth of action... It's a practical self defense approach, like TRPers say for promiscuous women and solipsism. If a person allows themselves to be crippled with self doubt, they can't move forward and be healthy. For a woman with children, enter solipsism. They're depending on her. She can't implode. Her genes fail. She fails. She won't be happy. For a man who thought there was more to life, enter the withdrawal. He can't sacrifice everything that makes him happy, when the pay-out on what will truly make him happy has such terrible odds in investment to possible reward.

    Reading the OP's other comment, the slow motion collapse... I think most are already aware of what I'm saying. The initial, disgusted rejections have begun. It remains to be seen whether the West can pick up the pieces and find something that works in time to salvage itself.

    [–]QueenBee126 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    This is a really interesting article. The Red Pill network is in itself an alternate reality world.

    [–]throwthisshitaway7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Pretty cool article--and it's nice to see something like that on Alternet, which is a sign of changing tides perhaps.

    My issue with the article is that it's based on the premise that feminists primarily blame religion and the religious right for the patriarchy. I don't believe they do. Religion to feminists is but one of the many social constructs that is dominated by men. Can't forget government, the workplace, etiquette, social convention, the family, etc.

    Also, we've been celebrating the end of religion since the Enlightenment--and it hasn't happened yet.

    But hey, any shit flung at feminism is a-ok to me.