Men’s Rights Activists, and anti-feminists generally, are forever warning anyone who will listen that excessive feminism could, any day now, bring about the end of western civilization itself.
This is not a terribly new or original idea. And a post on Nazified pickup artist blog Chateau Heartiste today reminds us just how old and unoriginal this notion is.
The proprietor of that blog, James “Heartiste” Weidmann, brings his readers’ attention to a lengthy quotation from a 1911 book by a fellow named Octavius Beale.
[U]nreasonable demands for exaggerated “rights ” of women will always find a limit in the fact that the majority of men will constantly prefer for wives those who do not claim such rights, but who rather seek their happiness in cultivating and developing their specially feminine virtues and attributes, apart from any aim at equality with men.
Take that, feminist cat ladies with no husbands!
These attributes will also therefore be preferably inherited, whilst the extreme tendencies of the women’s rights movement will usually not come into heredity, but will constantly tend to die out.
Well, he was half right. Feminism did die out, for a time, but then it came back.
Notwithstanding, should woman-rule —contrary to all expectations— become so strong in any single State that it will be able to enforce all its demands, even the most extreme, that result could only be possible where the men are completely degenerated.
Degenerated, huh? Can you see where this is going?
Such a nation would soon be supplanted and dissolved by healthier peoples, who might, perhaps, stand on a lower scale of culture.
I believe he is referring to what the Nazis of today like to call “white genocide.” Back in 1911, Beale called it “Racial Decay” — which was in fact the title of his book.
Amazing how quickly and easily Beale slid from antifeminism to white supremacy. Just as so many antifeminists do today.
Heartiste follows up Beale’s dire, racist warning with a dire, racist warning of his own.
After declaring “equalism” to be “a corruption of civilized man’s soul,” he tries his best to rally the troops in defense of their white “tribe.”
[F]emcuntery will only achieve wrecking power in a nation of degenerated men unable and unwilling to act to preserve their culture and protect their tribe. Women are followers and will follow their nation right into the abyss if it guarantees their social standing among peers; as I’ve been saying, it’ll take shitlord men with big balls to bring their women to heel and their nation back to greatness.
Heartiste, seriously, no one wants to hear about your balls.
Fuck off, Bradley. I not letting you harsh my Sunday buzz.
@Laughter at Bigots, Mincing Betaboy
Thank you for being polite. Youre probably the first one on this site that has been polite to me.
I believe feminism in western society is no longer required cause women have equal rights to men and in some cases more(To be fair not many cases).
+LindsayIrene
Thats a good excuse when you want to avoid having a debate. Enjoy your Sunday Lindsey.
LOL No one is ever required to debate with you, sunshine.
+LindsayIrene
How nice, somone called me sunshine. Is it cause Im bright? Who knew Id get something positive out of you.
@Brad
It really isn’t. Ya see that search box on the right side of the page? Type in ‘western civilization’. Lotsa examples in the last few years of antifeminists ranting about the collapse of the west. Thus, saying that antifeminists regularly whine about western civ isn’t a strawman
Wrong is not synonymous with fallacious
Did anyone ask you whether you found something wrong with those comments? Like, you are perfectly free to say you don’t, but why are you addressing this to me as if this is a rebuttal to something I said?
Mockery isn’t fallacious, and neither is a lack of substance
You mean an example of a strawman, not the fallacy itself. Common mistake. Also, it’s not a strawman. Beale claimed feminism would die out, Futrelle stated that feminism did indeed die out but was revived. It’s a relevant response to the claim, thus not a strawman
Really. I’m interested in your research. Where can I find it? Is it a white paper or was it in a journal? I’m not snobbish about journal publishing, so just tell me where I can find it.
Such as? For example? I can give you examples, such as women not being taken as seriously at work, at the doctor, or in family life as men, leading to lesser rates of promotion, poorer medical care, and an increased burden of emotional labor. Pregnancy is treated as an “illness” rather than as a normal state, which only makes sense if the “normal state” is the male state, where pregnancy doesn’t generally happen. This leads to such absurdities as the idea that an employer giving a pregnant woman time to sit down and use the bathroom once an hour is not providing a reasonable accommodation, but is instead providing some kind of extra heroic super accommodation that is totally optional.
What super rights do women have that men don’t?
Why are women selecting those industries, and is that selection a completely free one? What is your evidence?
Why are women choosing to work a certain number of hours, and is that choice a completely free one? What is your evidence?
You’re obviously not taking uncompensated work into account here. Why not? Why is that work not important?
If you think this is a problem, you should probably hook up with some feminists, because feminists think it is a serious problem and actively work to resolve it.
I have no idea what you’re asking with this question, but since we’re just asking each other random questions, let me ask one of you: Why is rape the only crime for which consent to the act is assumed and non-consent needs to be proven? We don’t do this for robbery, assault, murder, theft, or literally any other crime. Why rape?
Why do men fail to seek custody of their children? They are very likely to get it when they bother to ask for it, which would solve the child support issue about which your sort is constantly complaining. Alimony is intended to be compensation to the non-earner spouse for doing all that unpaid labor you discounted earlier to enable to earning spouse to, y’know, earn. When men are the non-earning spouses, they get alimony in situation where alimony is called for. If you’d stop spouting bullshit about the wage gap and supported equal pay for women, then men would get alimony at much higher rates! But wait, that would deprive you of a talking point, and we can’t have that, can we?
For some reason I doubt that anything I’ve already typed is going to get through to you, so I’m not going to bother with this one. It would require a lot of words and if you’re not going to pay attention I won’t waste my time.
Dozens more fallacies? I’m sure that’s true.
“It really isn’t. Ya see that search box on the right side of the page? Type in ‘western civilization’. Lotsa examples in the last few years of antifeminists ranting about the collapse of the west. Thus, saying that antifeminists regularly whine about western civ isn’t a strawman”
Those are the most vocal members of antifeminism. Thats like saying feminists have been saying men are rapists for the last 10 years. The majority are not like that(in western society).
“Wrong is not synonymous with fallacious”
That wasnt the fallacy I was talking about.
“Mockery isn’t fallacious, and neither is a lack of substance”
Again, that was not the fallacy I was talking about.
“You mean an example of a strawman, not the fallacy itself.”
What? The name of the fallacy is “strawman fallacy”.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent
“Beale claimed feminism would die out, Futrelle stated that feminism did indeed die out but was revived.”
No he didnt he said the extreme tendencies of the women’s rights movement would die out. Here is the exact quote.
whilst the extreme tendencies of the women’s rights movement will usually not come into heredity, but will constantly tend to die out
Jesus, Brad, learn to format. Nobody is going to bother with you if your shit is unreadable.
How about next time you communicate clearly so that people know what you mean?
Since you are currently Gish galloping every MRA talking point in existence, it would seem our initial assessment of you as a misogynist is spot on.
Especially since you keep saying “unreasonable rights.” WTF does that even mean?
My read is that it means women expecting to be treated as human beings.
Hi there, Bradley. I’m interested in this particular remark of yours:
Who are these other antifeminists? What books have they written, what talks have they given? Can you link me to, say, three popular and respected antifeminist thinkers who are on board with the way that modern society and modern academia are headed?
The reason I ask isn’t just because I want to call you out. I’m male and I spend a lot of time talking to depressed, misogynistic young men in the hopes of creating a better gender. When they list their favourite writers and speakers, those people have a distressing habit of opposing the very things that make modern society as great as it is, and instead hankering back to some nonexistent past where ideas weren’t threatening and dominance was assured. I’m curious to see if you know something that they don’t.
Why hello there. I’m a man too, and as you may not know, I’m allowed to do those things. That argument is not only false, it’s also completely irrelevant to what LindsayIrene said.
The problem isn’t that you’re a man, it’s that you’re spewing shit that the lot of us (which includes a whole lot of women who actually know this shit better than you) have heard and refuted a thousand times already.
Even the way you’re denying the problem shows that you are the problem.
Oh, and you’re not entitled to a debate. None of us has any obligation to adress you or take you seriously. You’re just a chew-toy. Some of us may actually want to teach you something and may hope you’ll learn something, but you’d have to actually shut up and listen for a second there. ’cause, dude, no, you’re not “well versed” at all on these issues.
Mr Shore told me that feminism is unnecessary today because women have equal rights to men. The problem is that (a) longstanding social attitudes cannot be changed at a stroke by decree (racism did not vanish with the passage of the Reconstruction amendments, or with Brown v. Board, or with the Civil Rights act); (b) some people don’t follow the law; (c) the justice system does not fairly and impartially enforce the law; and (d) it’s debatable whether women even do have equal rights to men.
I wanted to address his disputation of the extent of antifeminist fear-mongering for Western civilization, but EJ did it better.
@Brad
Quote please
What wasn’t the fallacy you were talking about? I didn’t name a fallacy for you not to be talking about. For some reason, it seems as if you’re having an entirely different conversation around me
Yes. But it is incorrect to say that an example of the fallacy is the fallacy. Your definition backs this up. “A strawman is…” not “a strawman fallacy is…”
Ah! Fair enough. In that case, what did Beale mean by ‘extreme tendencies’? Any idea? Cos, in these excerpts, he lists aiming for equality, voting in a unified block, and whatever ‘degenerating men’ means
What are you saying? That all the antifeminist leaders hold extreme views such as “western civilization is collapsing” but that the majority of rank and file antifeminists disagree? What is your evidence of this? Why are they so silent? Why do none of these moderate MRAs you guys always promise exist but can never produce start their own blogs? Or at least speak out against the racism and misogyny?
Well, yeah. I just wanted to see how he would try and weasel out of it.
I’m just so baffled as to why MRAs are so obsessed with alimony. I’ve known women who get child support (which troll doesn’t seem to realize is for the child, not the mother) but I don’t think I know anyone who gets alimony. I did a really brief Google to see if I could find the percentage of divorced women who get alimony because from what I remember reading in the past, it’s not that high and I found this
http://time.com/money/4116161/alimony-reform-spousal-support/
The article’s claims that alimony payments have gone down from 25% in the 60s to 10% today is unsourced, so grain of salt, but this was funny
So, men spent decades whining about alimony but it was women who did something about it when they started more often being the primary breadwinner. Hahahaha!
I’m neither for or against alimony. I think it’s a case by case kind of thing. I don’t think people are entitled to payments simply for having been married to someone, but if one spouse (usually the woman) puts their career on the back burner to support the other spouse’s career, it seems fair to me. Even short breaks in work have a severe impact on earning potential. Still, that did make me giggle.
@Axe
They’re good fallacies, Bred.
Really. I’m interested in your research. Where can I find it? Is it a white paper or was it in a journal? I’m not snobbish about journal publishing, so just tell me where I can find it.
I will gladly give you some sources.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf
The above is crime statistics.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/06/06/are-divorce-courts-unfair-to-men/
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/08/5-legal-rights-women-have-that-men-dont/
“I have no idea what you’re asking with this question, but since we’re just asking each other random questions, let me ask one of you: Why is rape the only crime for which consent to the act is assumed and non-consent needs to be proven? We don’t do this for robbery, assault, murder, theft, or literally any other crime. Why rape?’
Wrong. In the case of some financial crimes the victim has to prove that he didnt give consent. The reason why I gave that question is to prove that men get the short end of the stick when it comes to female on male sexual or physical assault. I thought I was being clear.
http://gruenlohlawfirm.com/practice-areas/securities-fraud-2/
“Why are women selecting those industries, and is that selection a completely free one? What is your evidence?”
Of course the selection is a free one. Are you seriously saying that outside forces put a gun to women’s heads and forced them to choose nursing or teaching rather than engineering or investment banking?
“Why are women choosing to work a certain number of hours, and is that choice a completely free one? What is your evidence?”
I dont know the reason why cause it is inconclusive, but I can give you proof of women choosing to work less hours.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm
If you think this is a problem, you should probably hook up with some feminists, because feminists think it is a serious problem and actively work to resolve it.
How do you know feminists are?
Why do men fail to seek custody of their children? They are very likely to get it when they bother to ask for it, which would solve the child support issue about which your sort is constantly complaining. Alimony is intended to be compensation to the non-earner spouse for doing all that unpaid labor you discounted earlier to enable to earning spouse to, y’know, earn. When men are the non-earning spouses, they get alimony in situation where alimony is called for. If you’d stop spouting bullshit about the wage gap and supported equal pay for women, then men would get alimony at much higher rates! But wait, that would deprive you of a talking point, and we can’t have that, can we?
Of course men try and seek custody of children. They are very unlikely to get it. Here is a source. The reason for why is the tender years doctrine.The tender years doctrine is a legal principle in family law since the late nineteenth century. In common law, it presumes that during a child’s “tender” years (generally regarded as the age of four and under), the mother should have custody of the child. The doctrine often arises in divorce proceedings. That literally means the mother ALWAYS gets the custody if it is invoked.
http://www.divorcenet.com/resources/divorce/for-men/divorce-for-men-why-women-get-child-custody-over-80-time#
weirwood are you implying that its always the “patriarchy’s” fault for women choosing to be lazy and working less hours? Some sense of personal responsibility has to be there.
Jesus, Brad, learn to format. Nobody is going to bother with you if your shit is unreadable.
Again a great excuse.
@John
Ha!
@Brad
Why is laziness an inherently more believable explanation to you than social pressures and inequalities?
“How about next time you communicate clearly so that people know what you mean?
Since you are currently Gish galloping every MRA talking point in existence, it would seem our initial assessment of you as a misogynist is spot on.
Especially since you keep saying “unreasonable rights.” WTF does that even mean?”
Im sorry but its not my job to make sure you dont misunderstand me. If you are biased enough you can find anything to misunderstand.
How am I galloping every MRA talking point? How many MRAs do you know that talked about the tender years doctrine?
Unreasonable rights?
Hey jackass, who do you think is taking care or children, the elderly, and people with disabilities without pay?
Troll boy used a Judgybitch Thought Catalog piece as a source
Why are you assuming it’s laziness? Women do the majority of childcare as well as the majority of care for elderly or disabled family members. That sometimes means having to take time off of work. My mom quit her job and moved to another state to care for her elderly mother while she was dying from cancer. After she died, she was never able to get a job that paid as well as her old one again. People don’t want to hire people who are getting close to retirement ages. She didn’t decide she was too lazy to work, you wankstain.
“Hey jackass, who do you think is taking care or children, the elderly, and people with disabilities without pay?”
Taking care of children and elderly is your choice. Dont start accusing the “patriarchy” of paying you less if you work less. Its called earning what you are worth. Its not the job of the company to reimburse you if you decide to do something that doesnt benefit the company.