I re-blogged this to expose the absurdity of male feminism, or “dude feminism” as Mr. McCarroll calls it. It is beyond my interest to discredit this article word by word. I think this little gem speaks for itself:
McCarroll: “Male privilege is re-defined, but not negated, in a way that leaves masculinity unchallenged and still dominant. The wonderful, complex, and multi-faceted language of generations of queer, trans, intersectionalist and sex-positive feminism and human-rights dialogues is thrown aside completely in favor of a request that straight, cis-gendered men join the rest of the world at the big-kids table.”
translation: “Men who do not participate in the feminist/LGBTQ social justice war of coerced enlightenment to the extent that we see fit are nothing more than whiny, spoiled, snot-nosed little brats who let all the feminist/LGBTQ warriors do all the hard work while they sit back and have their privilege handed to them on a silver platter.”
McCarroll: “Moreover, the bar for male allies has been set tremendously low. In contrast to the sacrifices, acts of bravery and daily fights women and LGBTQ people are expected to take on to achieve equality and justice, men are asked simply not to buy people, physically abuse people, or rape.”
translation: “Even though we (feminists/LGBTQers) fight
heroically* heroineically against human trafficking, domestic violence, and sexual assault, the majority of men who do not participate in these acts are not doing enough. Especially male policemen, male detectives, male judges, and any other men in criminal justice WHOSE JOB IT IS TO TAKE CARE OF THESE THINGS – they’re not doing enough.”
* We (feminists/LGBTQers) have henceforth banned the word “heroic” and all other derivations of the word “hero” because it accentuates male privilege.
McCarroll: “Males in the movement should (and can) be challenged and encouraged to act not like a virtuous “real man,”but like humans.”
translation: “Men who do not participate in our movement do not qualify as human.”
But hey, feminists gonna feminist.
The sort of language used to assert men’s dominance over women has a pretty recognizable pattern across the cultural landscape. Men, we are told, are in charge of things because they have something women (supposedly) lack: physical strength, honor, higher cognitive facilities, or the mystique of the male organ itself. Women, sadly “lacking” these qualities, need to be “protected” from the all-consuming lusts of strange men.
This can be spun as noble chivalry, brutal domination, or a playful battle of the sexes, but at the root it’s the same: women are denied the freedoms that men take as a God-given right, assigned subordinate status, and coerced into performative gender roles.
In this dialectic, men’s protective abilities and ravaging urges come from the same place and are both aimed squarely at women. Language, of course, did not create the patriarchy, but language is a powerful method of inscribing the possible, shaping…
View original post 580 more words