Cloudiah found this amazingly awful rant — from a prolific manosphere commenter and Spearhead supporter by the name of Jacob Ian Stalk — in the comments section to a piece on feminism in The Tab Oxford, a student paper. She posted it in the comments here on Man Boobz, where it’s already generated a good deal of discussion (see comments here, here, here, and here for starters). But I thought it deserved a post of its own.
So without further ado, I present Jacob Ian Stalk’s “12-Step Program for Recovering Feminists.”
Equality is equality. Feminism is about the unbridled pursuit of power for women. Got that?
Uh, no, actually, because it’s not true, but please continue.
The age of feminism is over, thankfully. The comments here that support feminism are from the rats that refuse to leave the sinking ship, thinking there’s sustenance still to be found there somewhere. Sorry to disappoint, but there is nothing nutritious left.
So the ship is sinking at the very moment it’s run out of food that rats can eat. That’s quite a coincidence! Or is it sinking because it ran out of food? Were the dudes on the ship using rat food to plug holes in the hull?
Men the world over are waking up to the damage wrought by rampant feminism and they’re shocked to realise it all happened while they were asleep. Well, they’re asleep no more. Bleat all you like about feminism being about this or that, but the truth of it’s evil is written all over the once noble institutions of the world and the wishful bleatings of solipsistic girl-children can’t erase it. It is done. The cailphate is establishing its power base once more and Sharia law is spreading.
Huh? Because of feminism? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Feminists have destroyed the family and have eschewed child-bearing in favour of credentialism and the illusion of success, killing their unborn children and robbing men of their will to be fathers and husbands. The laugh is on you, Western feminists, as Western birth rates have at last fallen below their replenishment rate and the Muslims are laughing all the way to the maternity wards.
Oh, dear, you got some racism in your misogyny. Two terrible tastes that taste worse together!
The best you can hope for, Western women, is to abandon feminism entirely. Abandon that idiotic notion of ‘equality’, as it will never happen. All it has earned you is the disrespect of men and an increasing number of women the world over. Feminism doesn’t make you strong. It doesn’t make you powerful. It doesn’t make you free. And it sure as hell doesn’t make you equal. It just makes you despicable.
Wait, weren’t you just complaining that feminism is about female supremacy? Now you’re admitting that it’s actually about equality – and you’re preaching male supremacy in its place?
Abandon feminism. Here’s a 12-step program for recovering feminists. There are others.
Ok, here we go.
1. Don’t be narcissistic. Never think you’re more important than men or children. Marketing departments delight in exploiting the feminist fallacy that you are. They promote ‘women’s only’ this and that, and women have bought into it. This appears sexist but it is really a marketing ploy that works because most women are narcissistic. Companies know they can charge more for goods and services by using the words ‘women only’. Narcissistic women are easily exploitable women. Be neither.
Huh. Isn’t the Men’s Rights Movement all about exploiting the narcissism of men who think they’re more important than women? (And children – at least in the case of the MRAs who whine endlessly about how unfair it is they can’t financially abandon their kids.)
2. Don’t let others make choices for you. This should be self-evident but for most of your life you’ve allowed yourself to be told what to wear, what to buy, what to eat, how to dress, where to go, how to think – in clubs, gyms, magazines, websites, books, stores and by TV talk show hosts. You’ve ‘needed’ a step-by-step guide through life, which you’ve followed with your sisters like sheep. Companies have exploited this need. Behave like a sheep if you must but obey the sheepdog, not the wolf. Better yet, be a woman who can think for herself.
… so long as “thinking for yourself” means “thinking you’re inferior to men and generally thinking the way men who hate women want you to.”
3. Get rid of the self-induced schizophrenia. Don’t insist you’re strong, confident, capable and independent one minute, then weak, frightened and vulnerable the next, especially when you’ve been caught doing something wrong. Don’t chop and change whenever it suits you – learn about who you are and be true. Admit when you’ve done something wrong. Don’t suddenly remember that you suffered abuse in the past or have some kind of mental illness or other instability, then use it to get yourself off. If you never sought help for these problems before you were caught, don’t use them as an excuse afterwards. Accept responsibility for yourself.
And for everything bad that men do as well, as manospherians repeatedly insist. If men are violent, it’s because women (allegedly) like dating violent men. If men brutalize the women in their life, it’s because the women provoke them. If a man arms himself with high-powered weapons and massacres children, his mom is to the real villain. For manospherians and MRAs generally, “responsiblity” means “a woman is always to blame.”
4. Don’t let the law take responsibility for crimes women commit. Speak out against women routinely receiving shorter sentences than men for the same crimes. If the law punishes women as it does children, treat them like children and encourage others to do so too. Don’t call these women ‘victims’ and say “they’ve suffered enough” because they’re women. Believe in, and stand up for, equal justice on the basis of gender.
Women do tend to receive shorter sentences than men for the same crimes. But this isn’t the fault of feminism. Indeed, female judges are slightly more likely to give women harsher sentence than male judges, possibly reflecting paternalistic attitudes on the part of male judges.
5. Don’t believe everything women and feminised men in the media tell you. Many serve up slop by the bucket – celebrity gossip, slimming tips, sex tips, man-shaming tips, rape and abuse lies, etc. TV shows like Oprah and Dr Phil are filled with advice on how women can transform themselves into victims and blame everything on men, while constantly ridiculing them. Partake of more nutritious fare than this. Get your infotainment from equitable programs. Be aware of the cultural status quo from both perspectives.
I have no idea what Jacob here would consider an “equitable” program, but, really, no one of any gender should be getting life advice from Dr. Phil.
6. Don’t fake solidarity with other women, especially in public. Don’t pretend that all women are your best friends when everyone knows nothing could be further from the truth. Openly acknowledge the reality that women despise each other unless there’s personal advantage in not doing so. Most good men can see through these attempts at deception, so lies won’t travel far. Don’t be a liar, especially not an obvious one.
I have no idea what the fuck he’s going on about here. “Don’t fake solidarity with other women, especially in public??” Do women who hate each other march around Jacob’s neighborhood arm-in-arm, pretending to be BFFs and singing the Lady Internationale? (“Arise, you prisoners of menstruation … .“)
7. Don’t seek equality with men. Masculinity and femininity are inherently different. They are neither equals nor opposites, but different parts of the sexual continuum that can’t be defined from each other. Actively separate masculinity from femininity, and separate both from the sexual politics that keep them in healthy tension. Don’t claim women can do anything men can do until you start producing your own sperm.
Um, what? Is Kate Bush not a brilliant musician because she doesn’t have balls? Is Joan Didion not a brilliant writer because she can’t jizz into a sock?
Not every sperm producer is sacred.
8. Don’t demonize male sexuality or the male sex. Both sexes can be evil, both can be virtuous. Empathy, wisdom, grace, mercy, compassion and love are all as masculine as they are feminine. Don’t invaginate our boys by shaming or medicating the masculinity out of them before it matures and don’t impregnate them with the corrosive lie that being a woman is like being a man only better. Male sexuality is a pearl to be cultured. Suffuse your sons egos with promise if you want your daughters to have good men to love.
Uh, “invaginate?” Invaginate means to “be turned inside out or folded back on itself to form a cavity or pouch.” I’m pretty sure that teaching boys not to rape their dates does not in any way, literally or figuratively, turn them into a pouch.
9. Respect the sanctuaries of men. Men are judged much more harshly than women so they need their safe retreat. They don’t have the same opportunities for emotional support as women so they need a place where they can express themselves free of judgment and ridicule. This place must be respected. Take care if you venture there as your feminine narcissism is the enemy. Don’t draw attention to yourself and don’t expect protection if you do. If you must speak don’t attempt to control the dialogue or steer it towards you. Don’t censor language to suit your sensitivities. Male sanctuary is sacred – treat it as you would a cathedral.
Dudes, if you want to start your own little clubhouses where you can call women “cunts” in peace and quiet, go ahead and do it. Just don’t pretend they’re about anything more than misogyny. And if you put these allegedly sacred sanctuaries on the internet, don’t be surprised if some people take offence. Oh, and don’t claim that, say, video games, or STEM fields, or atheism, or whatever male-heavy thing you’re into, is a “male sanctuary” that need to be protected from evil girl germs.
Some male spaces can be totally awesome:
Others, not so awesome.
10. Don’t use shaming tactics. Don’t accuse men of having anger management issues when they’re angry at injustice. Don’t accuse them of being a threat when they call you out for being a bigot or a tyrant. Don’t accuse them of having a fear of commitment when they’re merely making a choice between bravery and stupidity. Don’t assess the merit of their arguments on the basis of their attractiveness to you. Don’t attribute their views about women to past disappointments when it is merely an objective assessment of your sex. Shaming tactics are remnants of childhood so leave them in the nursery if you want to be taken seriously.
I think this one just broke the irony meter. It’s not like manosphere dudes ever use shaming language aimed at anyone.
A word of warning here. The next paragraph is the worst one in the whole manifesto, and, honestly, one of the worst things I’ve run across in my more than two years of doing this blog. TRIGGER WARNING for rape apologia.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11. Be honest about sexual harassment. If you assert that you have the right to dress as you please and that men should be able to control their sexuality, honour their right to be shielded from yours. If you don’t want men to control themselves but instead want to control their loss of control for your own enjoyment, be prepared for the consequences when things go awry. If ‘harassment’ – the stares, sexual innuendos, sly touches, and even rape – magically cease to be harassment and become the foundations of a passionate new romance occasionally, admit that you don’t really want men to control themselves. Don’t expect men to know when it’s right to ‘harass’ you and when it’s not. Don’t treat Man one minute as an exciting and courageous hero and the next a monster intent on tyranny and abuse if you’re inconsistent in your sexual intentions and desires.
Woah. Let’s take another look at that especially terrible comment in the middle of that mess:
If ‘harassment’ – the stares, sexual innuendos, sly touches, and even rape – magically cease to be harassment and become the foundations of a passionate new romance occasionally, admit that you don’t really want men to control themselves.
I’ve got no jokes for this one. You honestly think that RAPE can be “the foundation of a passionate new romance?” What the fuck is wrong with you?
12. Speak out against misandry. The main reason for its proliferation is that women have remained silent. Silence in the face of injustice is cowardly. It has allowed loud, obnoxious women to preach hatred with impunity, which has reflected badly on all women. When you speak out against misandry you do all women a favour. Don’t be a misandrist, don’t be a coward and don’t be silent.
At this point, I really don’t think I need to bother to point out the hypocrisy here.
AND WHAT ABOUT SCARECROW’S BRAIN???
“Are you really afraid that Muslims are going to take over the world with their higher birthrates?”
Afraid? Not really. Concerned perhaps. Concerned for those who follow different religions and for the reduced freedoms that may result from increased Islamic influence, particularly for women.
So wait.
Women being equal to men is bad.
Muslims reducing freedom of women is bad.
Hm, anyone else getting the sense that either he thinks women are inferior, or is, in fact, afraid of Muslims? Or maybe both?
And idk what country you’re in, but my concern over Muslim birth rates is zilch, first amendment being a thing and all.
Fibinachi, have I told you how much I love your responses to trolls here? You’re going to make me have a giggle-fit one of these days.
Please continue to be awesome.
“Can you clarify if you actually know what “feminism” is”
There are many definitions out there but the one that stands out as the most comprehensive is the Redstockings Manifesto, although I’m not up to date with the latest in feminist thought. I generally prefer not to comment where this level of feminist thought is evident as it seems wiser to read and reflect.
Sharia law is definitely a grave threat to freedom and equality for many reasons. Aside from the fact that I detest Sharia law itself, I myself have a personal aversion to Sharia law as it’s incredibly bigoted towards people like me.
But the notion that Muslims are close to dominating the world is not only bigoted against all Muslims but also absurd. While the majority of Muslims I know are very bigoted, there also quite a few out there who are decent human beings (something to be expected since Muslims are human beings, too). And Islam isn’t even the fastest-growing religion. It’s still Christianity.
…But you thought it was a good idea to make a list of 12 things to order feminists to stop doing?
PS I give this one 45 minutes, assuming he hangs about.
What was in that manifesto did not mesh with what you made it sound like you thought feminism was in this post. In fact, you said
and they said
Calling men to give up their male privilege does not clash with equality, in fact, it would enforce it. When men do not have privilege based on their gender, and women are not oppressed based on their gender, gender-based equality will exist
What do you have to say about that?
“What do you have to say about that?”
Totally not directed at me, but I have to say that that was dated 1969. As in, when my parents were a few years shy of puberty. Someone got a bingo card handy? Because we just found a zombie feminist.
1969 *dies laughing* my oldest cousin was born that year, after “attending” Woodstock as an 8 month old fetus. Yeah, that’s way before my time.
Not really on topic or anything but “the music was great, the view kinda sucked though”
@Argenti
Lol.
The thing is, if he wanted to bring up a zombie feminist manifesto, couldn’t he have at least got one that said what he thought it said?
There was no KILL ALL MEN PROP WOMEN UP AT THEIR EXPENSE bit in there.
Wow, Jake, get some new feminists. Redstockings? REALLY?
Almost as if he gives a fuck about women. I bet the only thing he cares about is the possibility of white women breeding with those scary brown men.
Not that the author didn’t say other objectional stuff.
Which is like… I think that’s trying to say “this is the most important issue” which I don’t agree with because i don’t like ranking isms in order of importance
I will admit, I have no clue what this
means.
And this
Ignores intersectionality. If she said women can oppress men on the basis of them being men then I’d agree, but it’s not like white women don’t have some advantages over MoC (though MoC have male privilege), or neurotypical women don’t have some advantages over neuro atypical men.
I mean, I think that was most of the objectional stuff in there, though I may have missed some.
But still, there was nothing about “female domination” or whatever he was going on about in the quoted section of the original post
Bet anyone a plate of miniature cucumber sandwiches that he’ll come back and complain that hellkell swore after he was being so polite.
Fade: basically what they meant was that other men would call men “manginas” if they take up with feminists. Kinda like what goes on now.
It’s not that the Redstockings ignored intersectionality (which yes in a way), it’s that this is REALLY early second wave stuff.
I fucking love those things.
Fade — yeah and I actually agree with all of it. No TERF shit (granted trans* women are not explicitly mentioned, but considering how hidden trans* people were at that point, and the *gasp* call for intersectionality, seems like they weren’t intentionally excluding trans* women).
Also, pay attention here Jacob (is it ok to just call you that?) — “On the contrary, any man is free to renounce his superior position, provided that he is willing to be treated like a woman by other men.”
Emphasis mine, because yes, men are still shamed for “acting like women”. And “white knight”? Exactly what they mean there — renounce your status as a man in charge and give a shit about women, and get treated like a woman // accused of being a “mangina” or “white knight”.
Hm, maybe the MRM is worse for men than feminism is?
Ah, I just couldn’t tell what that meant. XD I was going like “how can a man renounce his male privilege…. it’s like people will still read them as a man, and they most of the time won’t have to deal with street harrassment, what will they do? ask their bosses to pay them x cents less?”
Hellkell, I’m assuming you mean miniature cucumber sandwiches, not tone trolls. Have a digital one.
Ok, perhaps I gave too much credit to the assumption that they were talking about men and women who were otherwise equal. Because yeah, second wave feminism really was mostly white women, so it’s quite possible they did mean “white women can’t oppress any men, including ones less privileged on other axes”
I took, maybe just because I wanted to, this “men dominate women, a few men dominate the rest” to be recognizing the other axes, cuz in context it seems to say that among all axes, men are still more privileged (and really, they are, just like among all axes whites are more privileged, cis people, etc — saying that doesn’t mean any “trans* people are more oppressed than PoC” Oppression Olympics)
…easy mode and all that
/seems to be justifying zir jumping to the conclusion ze wanted to see
Thanks, Katz. I kinda do enjoy tone trolls, because wow, how sad. But not as much as tiny sammiches.
Argenti: I may be misremembering, but I thought the Redstockings were a relatively diverse group for second-wave, 1969 feminism. I believe it was the New Yorker that had a really good article on Shulamith Firestone recently.
And looking it up, they may have been, but their thoughts on homosexuality were not very well thought out.
In response to Fibinachi May 10, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Thanks for your thoughtful questions. I hope I can respond persuasively.
“In example 2, you write “Behave like sheep if you must, but obey the sheepdog”… who would the sheepdog be in this example? Husband, partner, president? “
“Sheepdog” is an elaboration of the biblical metaphor of Jesus as the good shepherd. The way I meant it, a sheepdog in a woman’s life is someone who genuinely has her best interests at heart and is capable of leading her. The sheepdog barks and nips to prevent the sheep from pitfalls she can’t see and to help her get to where the good shepherd needs her to go. The sheepdog could be anyone but the one most suitable is probably a husband who loves her.
“In example 7, you write “Don’t seek equality with men…” – why not? I understand you answer that in part in the following, with the notion that feminine and masculine traits are inherently two parts of the same specutrm and I’ll accept that, but where does that slip into “Not seeking equality?”. If the argument “You can’t produce sperm” works, how about the argument “You can’t produce babies”? Being equal is not being identical.
Equality between men and women is impossible for the very reason you’ve stated here. Our biological and hormonal differences and the impact they have on our behaviour, emotional make-up, approaches to life etc are sufficient evidence of that. But it can also be reasoned that no two men are equal as they have different capabilities, aptitudes, character and experience, in which case it wouldn’t be possible for a man and a woman to be equal. If by “equality” we mean “equal rights under the law” or “equal dignity in the eyes of God” then we get closer to understanding.
“In example 11, you write: “magically cease to be harassment and become the foundations for a passionate new romance…” in relation to rape, sly touches and wicked flirtation. Would you argue that the notion that something OCCASIONALLY happens invalidates the idea that AT ALL OTHER TIMES, IT’S STILL NEGATIVE? If so, why? Note, as abhorent as I find the idea that rape could lead to a passionate romance, I am not saying it cannot – I’m asking why it’s still okay. It’s still a crime, I believe?”
Of course, illegal behaviour is not encouraged. Example 11 on my list was not a commentary on rape (which our host may have overlooked in his critique), but on the inconsistency of sexual response. We’re not very good at read each others minds (the animosity between feminists and MRA’s is sufficient evidence of this), so good and consistent communication is important. It seems wise, then, that both men and women should be concerned for each others good shepherding in sexually charged situations, which was the aim of Example 11.
“In example 10, you write “Don’t use shaming tactics”, a notion I fairly agree with. However, earlier, you also write: “Abandon that idiotic notion of ‘equality’, as it will never happen. All it has earned you is the disrespect of men and an increasing number of women the world over. Feminism doesn’t make you strong. It doesn’t make you powerful. It doesn’t make you free. And it sure as hell doesn’t make you equal. It just makes you despicable”. This reads to me as an attempt at shaming language, ie: a shaming tactic. Could you explain why it’s okay for you, but not okay for “hypothethical feminists”?
Since the previous commenters on that thread didn’t make the distinction between “identical” and “equal rights etc…equal dignity…etc”, it seemed reasonable to assume that rights and dignity for men was unimportant to them. This is how feminist arguments come across in lowbrow forums. It’s a better example of cognitive dissonance than shaming language.
In example 8, you write: “Don’t demonize male sexuality”, something I agree with. However, you follow it up by claiming that empathy, compassion, honor and other such traits are as masculine as they are feminine. How does this work with example 7, if feminine and masculine behaviour are at a spectrum and equality is “an idiotic notion”? If these positive traits are neither inherent one or the other, why is there a marked difference in the value of either sex/gender?
If we correct the cognitive dissonance and define “equality” as “equal rights etc…equal dignity etc…”, then I think its reasonable to say empathy, wisdom, grace, mercy, compassion and love are human qualities but others exist that are more strongly expressed by men or by women. My goal was to draw attention to the human traits we share, rather than use the traits we don’t share (and were not mentioned) as grappling points.
I hope this helps.
That’s very egalitarian of you. Now fuck off.