Not too long ago, Paul Elam, the driving force behind men’s rights site A Voice for Men*, changed the tagline on his site to Changing the Cultural Narrative, and today I’d like to discuss Amanda Marcotte confirming his success. Since the earliest days of the gender equality movement, men have been actively trying to include men’s issues in the narrative, with little success. Gender equality was hijacked by feminism, which successfully convinced the popular culture that women were oppressed and men were privileged and that was the entire story, full stop. Men like Harry Crouch and Dr. Warren Farrell were effectively silenced, through mockery, derision, scorn and of course, the all too familiar accusations of ‘misogyny’.
Misogyny, according to feminists, is anything they don’t like.
A great example of this is the abortion debate. The pro-life stance on abortion is that it ends a human life, and pro-lifers object to abortion on those grounds. Pro-life is, at heart, a discussion of when life begins. For some people, life begins at conception, and that understanding is generally born of religious principles. For other pro-life people, life begins with brain activity (the pro-life camp in which I include myself). For both of these groups, the central issue under contemplation is when does life begin? A large number of feminists accept that issue as central, but counter with arguments about fetal pain being ‘a lie’, and argue over developmental stages. All of these people agree that ending a human life is an evil that must be prevented, they simply disagree on where the alive line is to be drawn.
Radical feminists, on the other hand, refuse to engage in a discussion of life, possibly because they realize how little traction I should have the right to kill babies anytime I like, for any reason would offer them, so instead, they reframe the argument as misogyny. If you are against abortion, it’s not because you care about human life, it’s because you hate women. No doubt there are pro-lifers who are deeply misogynist, just as there are sadistic feminists who truly relish the idea they can kill. I would assume both are in the minority.
Most pro-lifers care about life, and most pro-choicers accept that life is intrinsically valuable and should be protected, but disagree on when life begins. It’s a discussion about human life, not hating women. The best evidence for this is the number of women who are pro-life and the 80% of women who support restrictions on abortion, even when they are pro-choice.
Feminists have successfully cast the abortion narrative as misogyny, even when it’s clearly not. Almost everyone understands that there is huge difference between ending a pregnancy at 8 weeks and 8 months, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hating women. What Elam and A Voice for Men have been doing for the past decade is attacking that narrative (which of course, feminists misconstrue as attacking women). And it’s not just the abortion narrative that feminists have been able to control. Domestic violence is seen as something that men do to women. Any discussion of what women do to men and children is misogyny. Child custody is legally presumed to belong to the mother, and any discussion of equality between mothers and fathers is misogyny. Reproductive choices belong to women and any discussion of men having reproductive rights is misogyny. Rape is something that men do to women, and any discussion of what women do to men or to their female partners is …. well, you know the answer.
Challenging the cultural narrative essentially means challenging feminists who declare everything they don’t like misogyny, and expecting to have that charge stick. It’s not sticking anymore, and for that, a huge amount of credit goes to Paul Elam and A Voice for Men. Not all that long ago, the mainstream media consigned the Men’s Rights Movement to dark, dank corners of the internet where normal people never ventured. Amanda Marcotte, in her recent article at Salon, just moved the MRM into the spotlight, by claiming Donald Trump and Gavin McInnes as members in spirit, if not in fact.
Honestly, this chick makes me laugh. If you are trying to claim the MRM is a small movement of manbabies crying over nothing, perhaps attaching the movement to a Presidential nominee and one of the most influential voices in conservative media is going to be counterproductive? It’s rather difficult to claim that the movement is insignificant (solely online) when you’re putting us in the same league as Trump and McInnes. No doubt, Amanda thought this would be a crushing critique, akin to saying that Donald and Gavin have KKK bathrobes, but no dice, honeybuns.
But if you’ve been following the growth of the self-declared “men’s rights” movement online (and it exists almost solely online), this sort of rhetoric will be very familiar to you. Claiming that women are the ascendent sex and that men are oppressed is its bread and butter, and now its rhetoric is starting to move into mainstream conservative, aided by men like Gavin McInnes. And this new form of anti-feminism may even be helping Donald Trump maintain his lead in the Republican primary race.
Amanda Marcotte is the very definition of useful idiot. Also, how weird that a movement that exists solely online is hosting its second international conference, and continues to run workshops and meetings across the world.
Marcotte is also completely baffled by the number of women who appear to support the conservative agenda of misogyny, and it never occurs to her that perhaps the conservative agenda is not misogyny? Discussing Jesse Watters from the O’Reilly factor, she writes:
Watters is a reliable source of MRA-pandering rhetoric, with his tired jokes about women drivers and his shameless willingness to sexually harass much younger women on camera. But his most perfectly MRA moment came in 2014 when, on “Outnumbered,” he called single female voters “Beyoncé Voters” and argued that they “depend on government because they’re not depending on their husbands.” He did this in front of four female pundits, all of whom obviously have jobs and are living proof that there’s a third financial option for women besides living on welfare or being a dependent housewife.
There are more than three options dear, but single female voters tend not to take them. The four women sitting with O’Reilly are well aware single mothers are spending our nation into collapse, while producing children that fail in every imaginable way. Like Madeline Albright, Marcotte seems to think that having a vagina ought to guarantee that every woman experiences the world in the same way.
Feminist hive mind.
Let’s give credit where credit is due, though. ‘In many ways [Trump] is already President MRA’, she writes. Marcotte knows that Trump is going to win, and her only option at this point is to declare him a misogynist. An MRA. The worst kind of MRA. Why?
Because Marcotte doesn’t wike him!
Marcotte and other crybully leftists are about to discover that the narrative has been lost, and it will now take more than throwing tantrums and screaming misogyny to get their way. Trump scares the hell out of them, because they know throwing a tantrum at his feet will likely earn them an hour on the naughty stool, and he’ll take their iPhones away for a week, too. The alternative will be to construct reasoned arguments, supported by evidence and facts, to demonstrate the intelligence and long term viability of their demands.
Won’t that be fun to see?
Welcome to the end, feminists. Oh, Paul Elam says ‘you’re welcome’.
He’s gracious like that.
Lots of love,
*I know Paul personally, and I am actively involved in directing the social media strategy for AVfM, in addition to managing my own social media platforms.