Gay Patriot Header Image

Is the Men’s Rights Movement a Reaction to Deranged Feminist Misandry?

Posted by V the K at 9:58 am - May 30, 2014.
Filed under: Leftist Nutjobs,Liberal Intolerance



Feminists are blaming the Men’s Rights Movement for the murders committed by psycho whackjob Elliot Rodger in San Diego; primarily on the basis that wedging Rodger into the “War on Women” narrative is useful to the feminist left’s agenda; and admitting that he was a deranged sociopath is not. A typical, albeit mild, response is from the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey.

Rodger’s misogynistic rhetoric seems undeniably influenced by the manosphere, and his manifesto has kicked off a loud debate about how modern society treats women, online and off. If there was ever a time to take a closer look at online misogyny, it’s now.

I am reminded of a Biblical passage relating to motes and beams. The fact is that before there was a Man’s Movement, there was a women’s movement. And the Women’s Movement has produced some extremely hate-filled feminist rhetoric that is widely embraced by the progressive left.

  • “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”  – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
  • “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”  -– Valerie Solanas
  • “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
  • “Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
  • “The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone
  • “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
  • “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French

And there is more. Much, much more. It’s not limited to a few websites at the back of the internet; deranged feminist misandry permeates academia, politics, and pop culture. Entire cable networks like Lifetime and Oxygen are devoted to spreading the message that men are terrible. Womyn’s studies programs exist at every major university. A feminist professor or politician can express the idea that the world would be better off without men and be praised as a visionary, but let a man say the same thing about women and he’s branded a hater and bigot.

Is it a surprise that after decades of feminist man-bashing that some men would start to push back?

Progressive leftists want there to be two sets of rules; one set that lets them silence and stigmatize those whom they disagree with, and another to let them express their hatred in any vile terms they choose.



  1. Crap like this was real prevalent in the 1970s when I first started at go to gay bars and meet G/L people. Anti-porn. Anti-fun. anti-patriarchy. “Stay out of OUR bars, We don’t need you…” There was a very real barrier and separation between the two communities, and even in the early days of AIDS there was a certain smug-attitude from the Lesbian-side since many then thought “gay cancer” was just a guy-thing. A few loud and ugly-minded Fem-Nazis thought it might even “thin the herd”…and that was a good thing.

    To-this-day I still internally identify lesbians as “Other”.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 30, 2014 @ 10:12 am - May 30, 2014

  2. Feminists buy into stereotypes & base their hatreds on them. It’s a twisted way of looking at the world.

    Comment by Marc Winger — May 30, 2014 @ 10:47 am - May 30, 2014

  3. There are two sides to the “masculist” movement. The Men’s Rights Advocates are the mainstream side who argue men’s causes in situations where the laws have been written or used to favor women. Basically, men who embrace the feminist claim of “equality between the sexes” and work to correct pro-female imbalances.

    The other side of the movement is the “Manosphere,” a sizable group of male bloggers who have a very cynical view of women and relations between the sexes. Manospherians tend to have similar life stories: they were raised to be “good men” according to the feminist definition, and then at some point got screwed over by women indoctrinated by misandronistic feminism. Many were cheated on because they weren’t “man enough,” divorced, and forced to pay child support; others were wrongly accused of rape to help the woman save face; still others were falsely accused of domestic abuse when they defended themselves from their wives’ and girlfriends’ physical abuse. Over the years, these guys have united under their common distrust of women. This side of the movement has recently undergone an internal shift from, “woe is me, I was screwed by women and a pro-female system” self-pity to “let’s make sure this never happens to any other man” action, and is focussing on teaching men how to reject feminist propaganda and avoid the nightmares they faced.

    The MRM sees the Manosphere as too bellicose and resentful of women. The Manosphere sees the MRM as too willing to let the feminists’ b.s. stand. Both sides have a point, but it remains to be seen whether the measured opposition MRM or the take-no-prisoners Manosphere comes to dominate the movement

    Long story short, men are starting to realize that women have gotten a lot out of the feminist movement, and in some cases, they are better off than men. Many women have at least subconsciously accepted misandronist feminist rhetoric and use men for their own ends, holding the threat of legal action over their heads if they don’t cooperate.

    Comment by Sean L — May 30, 2014 @ 10:50 am - May 30, 2014

  4. The thing that puts the lie to this line of thinking was that despite his threat of invading a sorority and killing them all, he killed five males and two females.

    Comment by Craig Smith — May 30, 2014 @ 12:26 pm - May 30, 2014

  5. […] Here is the UPDATE via Gay Patriot: […]

    Pingback by The Woody Show Responds to P.C. B.S. (Update via GayPatriot!) | Religio-Political Talk (RPT) — May 30, 2014 @ 12:35 pm - May 30, 2014

  6. This is still my fav:

    A Feminist Dictionary, published by the University of Illinois, gives the following definitions:

    Male: “… represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants… the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.”

    Man: “… an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched … a contradictory baby-man.”

    Testosterone Poisoning: “Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from ‘testosterone poisoning.’”

    (Cheris Kramarae and Paula A. Treichler, eds., Feminist Dictionary [Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1986], cf. male, 242; cf. male, 246; cf. testosterone poisoning, 446.)

    Read more:

    Comment by Papa Giorgio — May 30, 2014 @ 12:44 pm - May 30, 2014

  7. If you want a glimpse of the feminist dream for men, watch “Magic Mike.” Metrosexuals who obsess over their sex appeal; their days are spent doing high-rep/low-weight exercises and endless cardio to build muscle for aesthetics, not strength; their nights are spent putting themselves on display for the gaze of women who both desire them for their bodies and promised sexual stamina, but disregard them as lesser being. Men will judge themselves based on how many women choose to have sex with them, how well they stack up to women’s standards of male beauty, not by what material things they accomplish in life. That is the fate of man, if the feminists had their way. Feel free to weep.

    The trend started with the metrosexual, the creation of feminists and their gay allies in the fashion and cultural world. Men have been highly sexualized, and willingly- and, truth be told, happily. Male models and square-jawed sports stars strike poses with various sports equipment and skimpy underwear that would be considered demeaning or indecent if it was a woman, but the men are plastered on magazine covers and billboards.

    Comment by Sean L — May 30, 2014 @ 1:07 pm - May 30, 2014

  8. There are two major problems I have with the “men’s rights movement”:

    1) Like feminism, it is fundamentally collectivist and accepts the classification of people based on their gender. I’m not saying men and women aren’t substantially different, but there are so many ways people to be classified (by gender, race, personality, interests, etc) and, for most purposes, there is no reason to divide people in such a way.
    2) It represents something that is fundamentally wrong with politics, its defensiveness. A lot of things in politics are merely reactions to other things, rather than things that are derived from objective, universal, static principles. It is just another example of the status quo of moral relativism.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 30, 2014 @ 1:32 pm - May 30, 2014

  9. @ Rattlesnake: I have to respectfully disagree with you on all counts.

    1) The Men’s Rights Movement sees things in a female/male perspective because that’s how feminists have framed the debate. It’s like the Axis Powers declaring “war” on the Allies and the Allies declaring “humanitarian intervention” on the Axis. When one side declares war on the other, the other needs to respond in kind if it has any chance of surviving or winning. Furthermore, all human interactions since the beginning of time have had an “us vs. them” quality to them: men and women have long had their own customs and societies-within-societies. The concept that men and women are socially equivalent was born out of the Enlightenment, which we can squarely blame for the liberal insanity we see today.

    2) You speak of “objective, universal, static principles.” Can you name one idea or principle that was spontaneously born from navel-gazing without the use of experience and observation, shared by all cultures and societies for all time? The fact of the matter is, when many people talk about “universal” principles, they are talking about Western ideas that were born from long centuries of observation and thinking.

    Comment by Sean L — May 30, 2014 @ 1:56 pm - May 30, 2014

  10. The Men’s Rights Movement sees things in a female/male perspective because that’s how feminists have framed the debate.

    I’m suggesting that that is one of the major problems. The way the debate has been framed should be outright rejected.

    It’s like the Axis Powers declaring “war” on the Allies and the Allies declaring “humanitarian intervention” on the Axis. When one side declares war on the other, the other needs to respond in kind if it has any chance of surviving or winning.

    This isn’t World War II, it is a war of ideas. How this war is framed can be just as important as what the arguments involved are, and what I’m saying is that I reject the notion that the classification of people as men and women, from a political perspective, is relevant (obviously not from other perspectives, such as interpersonal relationships, though). People are individuals and they have many characteristics, so it makes no sense to treat them (on a societal scale) as members of some group rather than individuals.

    Furthermore, all human interactions since the beginning of time have had an “us vs. them” quality to them: men and women have long had their own customs and societies-within-societies.

    How does this have any relevance? It took a long time for reason to be considered important, and thus society has almost always been plagued by irrationality. That doesn’t make irrationality necessary or even okay.

    The concept that men and women are socially equivalent was born out of the Enlightenment

    How aren’t they societally equivalent, though? Correct ways of thinking might sometimes lead to incorrect conclusions (such as the liberal insanity you refer to), but that just means someone made a mistake somewhere. Again, I’m not saying men and women are the same, but I don’t see why it would matter from a societal perspective whether or not a particular individual is male or female.

    Can you name one idea or principle that was spontaneously born from navel-gazing without the use of experience and observation, shared by all cultures and societies for all time? The fact of the matter is, when many people talk about “universal” principles, they are talking about Western ideas that were born from long centuries of observation and thinking.

    That is exactly what I mean by “universal” principles. I’m not saying they are universally understood, but they are universally important, are true regardless of culture, and can be derived from simple observations and logic. No amount of societal change will change that, just like no academic theories will change the laws of physics (which were largely discovered by “Western” scientists).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 30, 2014 @ 2:45 pm - May 30, 2014

  11. If we are talking about universally applicable principles, on the level of scientific laws, then yes, you are correct. It’s when you get into human behavior and the multitude of cultural structures that things get a little messy. However, I think you can pin down a few basic principles, with as many variations as there are cultures:

    1. There is a higher power governing the world. I don’t think there has ever been an atheistic society, or a secular society that has not raised certain ideas or principles to the levels of religious doctrine.

    2. Casual killing within the community is prohibited. Differences in attitudes about self-defense, crime, and honor aside, no society has ever been okay with people randomly walking around killing people.

    3. You can’t sleep with whomever you want. Who you can sleep with, their say in the matter, how many people you can sleep with, and under what circumstances you can sleep with somebody has changed from society to society, but monogamy or limited forms of polygyny have been the norm.

    4. Don’t betray the group. Whether a religion, a family, or a country, leaving or betraying the group has not been taken kindly to, but the punishment for this act has changed from group to group.

    Comment by Sean L — May 30, 2014 @ 3:09 pm - May 30, 2014

  12. “MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way – is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn’t.”

    Comment by Mann Fuga — May 30, 2014 @ 6:13 pm - May 30, 2014

  13. It turns out that the 1/2 Asian guy that knifed 3 men and shot others is a feminist. as evidenced by
    Don’t you love it when leftists hate on a site that rings true & draws attention to it.
    3. He didn’t believe in self-improvement, just like feminists
    4. He believed that men should be chivalrous and kind, like feminists do
    6. He subscribed to The Young Turks Youtube channel, a feminist darling
    7. He hated alpha males, just like feminists do
    8. He shared many personality traits with your modern American feminist “Like I already mentioned, a quick find/replace gender swap on his manifesto will pass the Turing test in convincing most spectators that he was actually a 22-year-old empowered feminist who participates in “Take Back The Night” walks and thinks that posting mindless #YesAllWomen tweets on Twitter comprises her good deed of the month. Rodger was effeminate and a negative person overall simply because he possessed beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by feminists.
    9. He wanted to be a social justice warrior, just like feminists
    10. He was not far away from being the epitome of a white knight, a man that feminists collect for their friend zones

    Comment by Steve — May 30, 2014 @ 7:10 pm - May 30, 2014

  14. The PUA are right about feminist women, the women that get beaten by men will deny their man did it to their dying day, and they are probably more loyal to their man than they would be to any guy that treats them nice. The straight guys I knew that where A holes to women always had them.

    Comment by Steve — May 30, 2014 @ 7:15 pm - May 30, 2014

  15. There is plenty of men hating with the femiNazis. They ought to look in the mirror before casting stones.

    Comment by davinci — May 30, 2014 @ 7:53 pm - May 30, 2014

  16. Rattlesnake and Sean L., thank you for a well-written discussion based on reason without heading into ad hominem territory. Too often the latter prevail on the bigger-pool comment threads (say, on Washington Post articles) which make them unreadable. This discussion of yours I’ll want to re-read to see if I caught what you both are saying.

    Sorry for the diversion from the topic of the thread.

    Comment by Kevin — May 31, 2014 @ 4:10 pm - May 31, 2014

  17. “he’s a machine, a walking dildo”???

    Let some college fraternity guy publicly refer to women as “walking holes” and see how fast he gets reprimanded or sent to sensitivity training.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — June 1, 2014 @ 12:38 pm - June 1, 2014

  18. Sean L, when I say “objective, universal, static principles” I mean things that have no relation whatsoever to culture or how many different people came to the same conclusion about them. They simply exist, even if no one acknowledges them (like the laws of physics), although they can be seen somewhat in human nature. I’m not sure exactly what they are, but here is what I think and why:

    – The basic premise is that humans are capable of higher-level reasoning and are capable of identifying that.
    – People also have free will, and there is nothing fundamental to humanity that forces them to serve others. So, it is immoral to do so and freedom and individual sovereignty are basic rights (the protection of which is the proper function of the government). Of course, this also implies that no one person’s rights are any more important than any one else’s, so they can’t do anything that prevents them from having the same rights (for example, killing them). It also implies that no one should be forced to abide by the traditions of whatever culture they were born into, unless those traditions are compatible with freedom and individual sovereignty. That such oppressive cultures exist or ever started to exist is the result of irrationality and betray the reason that humans are capable of using.

    I’m not suggesting that I’m not willing to argue about what these principles are or even whether or not they actually exist, but I’m not really fond of being forced to do anything or live by anyone else’s rules or standards if I don’t see a reason to (because they mostly seem arbitrary to me), and no one has ever given me a good reason why I should relinquish my morals and adopt theirs.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 1, 2014 @ 3:39 pm - June 1, 2014

  19. MRA’s are being demonized because they’re the ones who truly believe in equality. Feminists are just mad their worldview is being exposed for the hatred it is.

    If you guys want insight into what MRA’s believe, go to A Voice for Men, or go to Youtube and watch videos made by girlwriteswhat, Kristal Garcia, Judgy , Paul Elam, etc. It’s like taking the Red Pill.

    Comment by Paul — June 3, 2014 @ 3:42 am - June 3, 2014

  20. Sorry for the bold text above. I didn’t realize that using the keys would cause it to go bold. When I said, “Judgy,” I meant to say “Judgy B-Word.” Obviously, when you type that name in, you’ll put the actual word.

    Comment by Paul — June 3, 2014 @ 2:28 pm - June 3, 2014

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.