One of the strange superpowers of the modern Manosphere intellectual is the ability to pontificate endlessly, and with utmost confidence, on a subject — feminism — that they know absolutely nothing about. You could even say they know less than nothing about it, in that the few things they do think they know about it are completely and utterly wrong.
Today, the reliably terrible Return of Kings posted a prime example of what we might call the manosphere-splaining of feminism in the form of a post (archived here) by Beau Albrecht with the patronizing title “An Open Letter To Women Who Still Believe In Feminism.”
In other words, a guy who doesn’t know crap about feminism has decided to explain feminism to women who do actually know something about it. To paraphrase Mary McCarthy’s famous dis of Lillian Hellman, pretty much every word of Albrecht’s post is wrong, including “and” and “the.”
The post goes completely off the rails by the second paragraph:
I’m here to discuss radical feminism, which is the only variety that gets much attention and media access.
Like most antifeminists, Albrecht doesn’t actually know what radical feminism is, or what sets it apart from non-radical feminism, simply using it as a synonym for “all the feminists I don’t like,” a group that pretty much includes, well, all feminists except for mythologized first-wave feminists who were all polite and stuff, and possibly anti-feminist “feminists” like Christina Hoff Sommers.
Since the Second Wave arose—beginning in the mid-1950s, and kicking into high gear in the mid-1960s—feminism has been telling you that we live under a patriarchy, men are responsible for all your problems (“the personal is political”), we’re a bunch of evildoers, and so forth.
Here’s my Open Letter to dudes trying to explain feminism to feminists:
Dear dudes trying to explain feminism to feminists,
It helps if you get the basic facts about feminism straight.
Love, David
PS: Second wave feminism didn’t start in the 1950s; it started, very tentatively, in the early 1960s and only really took off on the late 1960s.
PPS: What difference does it make if you’re off by five or ten years in your dates, you ask? Because history involving women matters as much as history involving men. If you were writing an essay about Ronald Reagan and you said he had been elected to the presidency in 1972 or 1976, everyone reading your essay would know that you don’t know crap about crap.
PPPS: I mean, this is all stuff you could look up in two seconds on Wikipedia, or with a single Google search.
Albrecht continues on in this fashion, piling nonsense upon nonsense; his attempts to rebut statistics showing that a significant number of female college students are raped every year are undercut not only by his disingenuous use of stats but also by the fact that he keeps referring to said female college students as “coeds,” which conjures up images like the one at the start of this post.
The rest of Albrecht’s post is a collection of manosphere clichés we’ve all seen dozens of times. He suggests that the root case of misogyny is women being mean — and that some men are so disgusted by snarky women that they literally turn themselves gay, “finding it to be better than nothing.” He mentions sexbots, and Japanese “herbivores,” and “cultural Marxism.” He declares that antifeminists like him “care about you more than the feminists.”
There is the obligatory reference to Sex and the City, which Albrecht naturally refers to as Sex in the City.
If you spend your 20s partying and “finding yourself” as you’ve been encouraged to do, don’t expect Mr. Big to be waiting around patiently to sweep you off your feet after you’ve aged and decided it’s time to settle down. Actually, many Mr. Bigs used to be those nerds you wouldn’t have given a second look to back in college.
Sex and the City is such a completely fresh and original cultural reference that it’s likely many of Albrecht’s manosphere readers are going to spend much of the night tonight creepily hitting on women born after the show first went on the air in 1998.
There’s even a genuine “we hunted the mammoth” moment as Albrecht tries to convince women of the many fine benefits of patriarchy:
It was all on us to provide for you and the kids; be it by working on an assembly line all day, in a coal mine, digging ditches, or under the hot sun tilling the fields. … We got drafted in wars to protect you. We let you have first place on lifeboats. Meanwhile, women were tending the children and doing housework. All told, it wasn’t quite such a bad trade-off for women.
Look at this picture of men gallantly farming away for their pampered stay-at-home wives.
I don’t know why they’re all dressed as women. Probably just some gleaner thing.
Perhaps the most telling moment in the post comes during Albrecht’s attempt to prove that rape culture isn’t real.
Think about it a minute. We’re bigger and stronger than you. If we really were savages, we would be doing whatever we wanted to you, especially if that truly was approved by our culture. The reason you don’t have to pepper spray someone every day is that the vast majority of us are actually decent, civilized people. There are a few exceptions; they end up going to prison, and rightly so, where they’re despised even by the other criminals.
There’s just a teensy bit of an irony in the fact that Albrecht is posting this on a site run by everybody’s favorite repugnant “pickup artist” Roosh Valizadeh, an allegedly “ironic” proponent of rape legalization who has himself been accused of rape.
Yeah, the rest of this post isn’t going to be terribly funny.
In his book Bang Iceland, Roosh offered this account of one of his “dates,” if they can be called that:
While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she couldn’t legally give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated.
I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.
In a book called 30 Bangs, Roosh wrote about his inability to take no for an answer:
It took four hours of foreplay and at least thirty repetitions of “No, Roosh, no” until she allowed my penis to enter her vagina. No means no—until it means yes.
Roosh went on to note that:
The sex was painful for her … She whimpered like a wounded puppy dog the entire time, but I really wanted to have an orgasm, so I was “almost there” for about ten minutes. After sex she sobbed for a good while … .
In Bang Ukraine, Roosh wrote this about a woman he got into an argument with during sex:
She tried to squirm away while I was laying down my strokes so I had to use some muscle to prevent her from escaping.
Apparently some men really are savages, at least by Albrecht’s definition of the term.
Yeah, but even with an “equal pay for equal work and equal benefits”, that still happens.
Still a struggle for working women
I’m with StephToe on this one, both in the specific case of Japan and more broadly. I think any inclination towards paying people different rates for the same work is something that should be quashed immediately, because, as they point out, that way lies the pay gap. Men were traditionally paid more because they had a wife and children to support, while women were working for ‘pin money’. People’s lifestyle and reproductive choices should have no bearing on their salaries, I believe.
Not to mention there’s a wealth of policy options to encourage people to have families. Tax breaks for families with children, subsidised or free childcare, encouraging a culture of work/life balance and flexible hours, etc, etc. No need to start valuing people’s work at different rates based on irrelevant personal details.
Totally, which is why you shouldn’t then codify such attitudes in salaries. Better to encourage a culture that values work/life balance for everybody.
I’m also with Steph. Not only would paying the childless lower salaries be fundamentally unjust, it would not remove the primary barrier to motherhood especially and also to fatherhood: the demand by employers that the salaried work at least until mid evening, and the strong expectation they will then socialise with colleagues and clients for a few hours more.
Paying childless staff less money, or paying parents more, will not allow parents to go home to their families. Only a change in the work culture can do that.
EDIT: Weird double post there. Look down.
@Imperator Kahlo
The problem is outdated gender roles and traditions that aren’t compatiable with modern business thinking, pushing women out of business positions and discouraging both men and women from having families in Japan. Nick’s suggestion is a way to make having both a family and a job more attractive since more and more men and women in Japan are opting out of having a family over favoring a job.
Obviously a long-term solution would be, you know, stopping sexism and the salaryman culture but that’s not going to happen soon so creating a system that favors families would, in fact, help Japan get more more people having families and jobs.
(This suggested along with allowing easier immigration to Japan would help Japan’s aging population and economy, which would also require Japan to lessen its xenophobia but that’s not what people are jumping at.)
Japan already has equal pay for equal work instated there and it isn’t helping people have families or bring new people into Japan.
Besides, tax breaks are already a way of paying people who have families, just government sanctioned. Of course, I don’t know what the tax code is in Japan but I do know the Japanese government IS paying people to have children already and it’s working on making more babies, so…
It is partially a struggle for women but generally the gender pay gap is an earnings gap not a pay gap.
But I am not sure the fact the in some places the fact a gender pay gap may exist justifies adding single people to the list of those who are discriminated against and who have their work devalued.
Instead of requiring single people to work longer for less pay change the work culture that requires ridiculously long hours and the social culture that mandates housework and childcare is solely the responsibility of women.
Also put into place paid childcare options, paid parental leave.
But don’t start paying people different salaries based on their personal circumstances.
@Handsome Jack, yes, you’ve got a phantom double post, Stephs older post did the migrate to bottom thing, and now Stephs newest post has jumped to the middle
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/26/professor-douchecanoe-manosphere-splains-feminism-to-coeds/comment-page-3/#comment-1079204 . Makes this hard to follow.
@Steph, replying from a notification email? That can cause weirdness.
@handsome
But you can make starting a family “more attractive” (or less unappealing) without penalising those who are single / have no children.
Why choose the method that codifies pay discrimination on the basis of personal circumstance?
@StephToe
Okay, let me break it down for you.
The population of Japan is shrinking, which is the whole reason Nick proposed the money incentives.
Without a short term solution to the problem of a declining population (like giving people more money to pop out babies OR as Nick also suggested making immigration easier), Japan’s elderly population will become too much for itself to handle AND with it being the 3rd largest economy in the world, can in fact screw the entire Earth economy over.
Also, for the fifty millionth time, people aren’t opting out of having kids because they don’t want them but rather it’s literally either having a family or having a job for many people.
The culture of Japan is so that women are pushed to quit their jobs after marriage to raise children while men, particularly of the salaryman variety, are pushed to work up to and over 80 hour work weeks to provide for the family they never see.
This makes having both a family and job practically impossible to do so they are forced to choose one or the other. They are punished for wanting both a job and family.
While, obviously, dismantling the sexism and salaryman culture would be the optimal solution, it isn’t gonna go easily or fast enough to help maintain the population of Japan before we all get fucked over in fifty years because the economy of Japan can’t sustain its elderly population.
So, the short term solution for this problem is to incentify having families, which, as I linked to before, Japan is already doing and it’s working.
And, I keep mentioning, this is a short term solution. Obviously salaryman and the sexism in the culture has to be lessened for equal pay for equal work to not punish people who want both family and jobs but until then, give people money for popping out babies so Japan doesn’t cave in on itself.
Or make immigration to Japan more viable. (But, that requires they stop with the racism and xenophobia, which is also a long-term goal that isn’t gonna help now.)
EDIT: Or, I guess, as a third solution, completely change how the world’s economy works so it doesn’t fuck us over in the next fifty years.
@Handsome
A tax break sends quite a different message to pay discrimination.
The government choosing to direct funds towards those most in need is rather different to a company deciding to pay its female or childless workers less although the work they produce is the same as male / workers with children.
And requiring single people to work longer hours reinforces the culture message that lives without children in them are worth less/of less importance. Work /life balance should be promoted for all, not solely those with children.
I understand you see it as a short term solution it devaluing the lives of those without children should never be a solution imo short term or not.
Besides the cultural impact of that messaging wouldn’t be short term.
As I said I don’t disagree with incentivising children just not at the cost of discriminating against those without children.
It really is identical to paying people less on the basis of their gender or skin colour.
@Handsome
Incidentally the link you posted about lying for babies is about government assistance – not about employers valuing their jobs based by the personal circumstances of their employees.
Incidentally there really is no need to “break it down for me” that’s really rather patronising.
I am aware of the situation. I disagree with employers taking employees personal circumstances into account when setting salary levels (particularly as single people are already at a disadvantage having not other income to draw on.
Any assistance should be set at the redistributive level (government and tax policy.) Employees should all be equal in the eyes of the employers
Paying differently based on personal circumstances is the whole reason we have a pay gap to begin with. If you are doing the same work you deserve the same money. That’s it.
(And of course that encourages more discrimination when employers learn that the same job will be cheaper when done by an unmarried childless person.)
@StephToe
Okay, like, I posted nothing about “lying for babies”, and I DID in fact, point out that it’s the government paying for it.
Now, I will quote almost the entire article:
Now, like, what Nick hypothetically suggested it just more of the same but from a business standpoint. The concept Nick brought up however is, in fact, working from an actual government standpoint.
Now, like, I didn’t read any of Nick’s suggestion making it completely in the hands of the employers to make them give more money for family oriented people. The government giving incentives for employers to favor family makers would make the most sense.
But, the question is, does Japan continue to do equal pay for equal work in its climate where it’s declining population growth will fuck itself and the world over or does it do a short-term incentive program to make people have babies so the population is more stable even though it will fuck over the single people?
Which do you think would be better? Fucking over MORE people (i.e. the world economy) or only SOME people (i.e. the single population of Japan for however long Japan has a population crisis)?
I don’t even know why I got into this argument the first place.
You know, reading that over, I sound much angrier than I am and much more patronizing than I’m trying to be. Also, like, making it much more black and white. @StephToe, I apologize for that. I’m being irrational.
I mean, the whole reason I even got into this mess is because people kinda just latched onto the whole “pay people to have babies” thing while ignoring the rest of what Nick suggested, as if the whole point of Nick’s post is an idea to make life better for people in Japan rather than just an idea to increase the population of Japan. So, for some reason, I’m taking the idea of more pay for family people and running with it. Don’t ask me. I have no clue. It works as a broad concept, I guess.
Yes, it has it’s flaws, that’s true. It would in fact make a pay gap but the point IS in fact to make a pay gap to make it so people will want to have children. (Well, my point. It’s not fair but it seems there’s proof that it works already.)
Also, I’m sorry for taking over the thread.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then won’t we.
No problem with government assistance aimed where it’s needed.
I have huge problems problems with workplace discrimination on the basis of private family situations or requiring single people to work longer hours for less pay.
Equal pay for equal work.
I don’t know why you keep insisting we haven’t understood what Nick is saying. Disagreement doesn’t mean a failure to understand. I get his point about encouraging an increase in the Japanese birth rate. I just happen to disagree with penalising single and/or childless people to do that (and yes paying somebody less for the same work is a penalty.)
It’s actually a pet peeve when people insist that disagreement must come from an inability to understand the point being made!
Always struck me as kinda arrogant 🙂
I am also confused as to why that post of mine is randomly at the bottom of the thread . It shall have me puzzled all day.
@StephToe
Hey, question, what do you think would help raise Japan’s population within the next 60 years enough to sustain the aging population and keep the economy afloat anyway?
“We fought wars to protect you” = “You women should be grateful to us men for fighting wars to protect you and our other possessions from us men going to war to advance the wealth and power of our leaders in the hope of personal gain in this world ir the next”
How is that an argument *for* patriarchy?
@ croquembouche
One of my mates got a job working for Nomura in London. He was the only westerner in his particular team. We were fascinated by his tales as to the work culture.
One aspect was that there was massive pressure to not be the first to leave of an evening. He said it was almost like an endurance challenge gameshow; who would be the first to ‘crack’.
The silly thing was, no-one was actually getting any real work done. They’d finished their actual tasks for the day ages ago; so they were just sat there, bored silly, pretending to look at spreadsheets.
When he realised that it made no actual difference he was happy to confirm the lazy gaijin stereotype and just bugger off at five o’clock.
We did tag along some nights though to the karaoke sessions after work. Again though it was all artificial. You could see the poor blokes were desperate just to go home and get some sleep, but there was huge stigma in doing so (not just a ‘party pooper’ thing; it was seen as a real character flaw). I know 1984 comparisons are trite but it was very like the thing where you had to spend at least three nights a week doing some pointless community activity and actually going home and spending time on your own was seen as suspect.
@Handsome
I have already named a fair few – tax breaks, paid childcare, good quality parental leave provisions (all government funded) in the short term.
A wholesale shift in societal attitudes towards gender roles in the home and working culture out of it.
What I cannot support is a policy which allows employers to penalise single workers by making them work longer hours for less pay.
It’s not that I think it won’t work (although I do think there is a danger whereby single employees become more valued because the same job will be performed by them for less money) but that I think it reinforces the notion of the importance not of corporate activity where those without partners / children are essentially told their free time outside of work is of less importance.
And I think paying people salaries which are divorced from the work they do and instead are based on personal life circumstances is morally wrong. And I don’t think is ever, not even to increase numbers of children born, is ever justified.
It’s the very justification that was given for paying women less in the past – that as there were not the breadwinner they didn’t need to be paid as much. I think I should be paid as much as those I do the same job as. Plain and simple.
If the state wishes to target its welfare provisions at those most in need / encouraging things that will be viewed as benefitting the state I have no issue. My objection starts when we start promoting discrimination in the workplace. Something I find objectionable no matter the desired outcome.
Although Japan will enact whatever measures it feels are necessary. Personally if ever I lived in a country where the government decided to codify discrimination against me in the workplace based on nothing more than my skin colour, gender, or family circumstances I’d leave at the first opportunity.
@Scildfreja
Wow!
Their behavior is AFAIC completely gross and unacceptable.
If you meet with them again, stay strong — and I wish you the best of luck!
@Jack
In Japan’s situation, the most obvious would be to cap the weekly work time at, say, 40 hours, make working overtime optional and make it illegal for the employer not to pay extra for the overtime. To give an example, 1,5xsalary for first three hours of overtime and then 2x for any time after that and even more for doing overtime on weekends. That would motivate the employers to organize the work in such a way that there was minimal need for long days, since each long day they ask the employees to pull would cost them quite a lot.
Combine that with free or subsidized childcare services (=kindergartens) and paid maternity&paternity leave (paid from tax money, not by employer) and it pretty much would work. Japan already has (at least mostly) free healthcare, if I remember correctly, so being pregnant and giving birth shouldn’t cause the couples a financial crisis from the hospital bills alone either.
None of the above would cause the childless single people to end up working for less pay and longer days for the rest of their lives but would help people combine having a career and kids.
@hottotrotsky
That was my observation from way back in the way-back times. Women may have deferred to their husbands, but the husbands paid for that by their wives being resentful. I think that the guys may have thought that was just the high price of being a powerful, powerful patriarch.
And yeah, along with the resentment came the struggle. Women often seemed to be determined to somehow get around their husbands — usually for the sake of the children.
********
Oh hey, I had a similar experience when I had my wisdom teeth out! I went to a dentist in Beverly Hills, who was probably used to treating an affluent crowd, including celebrities.
He was deferential to me, an attitude I find false and kind of alarming.
After I was sedated, I came to a couple of times and heard him talking to his staff, who were assisting him, in a cold, abrupt way. Ick!
@Alan Robertshaw
That’s crazy! No wonder the birth rate plummeted as more women entered the workforce.
I am glad to live in Oz. Not sure if it’s the companies I work for or the culture itself but having a life outside of work seems to be far more valued here (irrespective of what you do with it.)