By David Futrelle
Writers for Men’s Rights shit site A Voice for Men regularly denounce feminism as a “female supremacist” hate movement, while insisting that they themselves harbor no male supremacist leanings.
Indeed, a recent post on the site by one Australian Man Going His Way managed to include both of these assertions in short order. Attacking feminists for allegedly “want[ing] female supremacy and … want[ing] to impose their agenda on everyone else,” Peter Ryan insisted he and other MRAs are all about equality.
I do not hate women and I am not a male supremacist or a Nazi. I am not a racist or a bigot. All the feminists could do was throw these labels at us and strawman to the max. They have no argument and no defence for their appalling behaviour.
So imagine my surprise — well, not really — when I recently ran across this lovely article posted on AVFM less than a month after Mr. Ryan’s indignant assertions. And yes, this is the sexualized, 50-Shades-style graphic they chose to illustrate the piece.
Apparently the straw men are coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!
Mr. Mundum’s post is a muddled attempt to provide both a “scientific” and Biblical justification for his male supremacist views on heterosexual relationships. “To be successful,: he writes,
long-term, pair-bonded relationships between men and women must enhance the man’s independence and authority. They must feature male and female in proper evolutionary alignment, with the man leading and the woman following.
This is pretty bog-standard male supremacy. But Mr. Mundum ‘s argument quickly gets a lot weirder after he reveals that he still holds some sort of grudge against his mother for gestating him in her womb for nine months.
A boy is formed in the body of a woman, is born into the world of women, and there he remains until he matures. During this time, he is completely dependent on his mother and other women for everything — at the beginning even for the food that sustains his growth.
Damn you, mom, for literally making food for me with your own body!
As males grow older, Mundum writes, they are ultimately able to extract themselves from this evil woman-world. So why don’t they just keep running away from women for the rest of their lives? As Mundum sees it, it’s because penis.
Once a boy completes the rites of passage, the trials, and the necessary lessons to become an independent man, why the hell would he want to return to the world of women, to once again be subject to them? The only answer I can find is heterosexual desire. If it weren’t for that, I think 99% of men would have nothing to do with women.
If men give in to these heterosexual desires, Mundum warns them not to fall into bed, much less marriage, with evil feminist man-haters. He cites his own allegedly happy marriage as proof that men and women can settle down together fruitfully as long as the women are willing to “submit” to the paterfamilias.
I was looking to fill a void that I decided could only be filled by being the head of a family. I went looking for a woman to do that with, and my wife and I found each other. … She was not interested in emasculating me; to have her feminist way with me. In fact, we decided beforehand to follow the very traditional path of me providing for the family both spiritually and physically, while she raised babies. …
Husbands love their wives, and give their very lives for them, with the intention of making them holy. Wives fully submit to their husbands in all things, and they must show respect at all times for their husband’s sacrifice. This is a great arrangement for both.
Naturally, Mundum is convinced that God — yes, the God — has his back on all of this.
When it comes to alpha [f]ucks and beta bucks, the scriptures are right on the money. Women love to have sex with the bad boy, but they want the provider to take care of them and their children. Well, nothing drives the dominance that a wife loves in her husband like her willing submission to him, and this in turn helps the husband resist becoming beta-male, emasculated cuck, which is the distortion that occurs when the husband sacrifices and the wife greedily abuses him.
So, to wrap it up – if men want to be fulfilled in their relationships with women, they should look for women who are going to submit to their will, and take their leadership.
Is it wrong to hope that his wife ultimately gets sick of his arrogant ass and files for divorce? I don’t think it’s wrong.
In any case, it’s sort of refreshing to see an A Voice for Menner just straight-up admit that he’s a male supremacist instead of pretending oh-so-unconvincingly he’s some sort of “egalitarian.”
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
@Steph Tohill
Its a product of the manosphere created in response to the concept of toxic masculinity,
effectively a parody that both fails to understand what its a parody of or that its even a parody.
In other words more nonsense jargon from misogynists.
@Steph @Diptych
The reason “toxic feminity” always leads to the manosphere is because it’s an MRA-created comeback to “toxic masculinity”, except that they use their phrase to mean “women who aren’t submissive.”
Nothing more “toxic” to them than a woman who does her own thing. *eyeroll*
ETA: part ninja’d by TreePerson!
@TreePerson, sunnysombrera
I have never understood the criticism of feminism that it supposedly says that women are always good, the female gender role is perfect and nothing women ever do is a problem. I mean, feminism is cultural critique. Many have long discussed the negative aspects of the female gender role. For example, Betty Friedans Feminine Mystique, is an entire book solely about “toxic femininity” (if you define it as damaging aspects of the female gender role). And that is considered one of the feminist classics!
I think half the time they don’t even care what it might mean, because it’s enough to just have a comeback.
Or maybe they think if “toxic femininity” sounds nonsensical, it’s a great argument against the concept of toxic masculinity.
@solecism, @epitome of incomprehensibility
Thanks.
The person in question has done a LOT of work, but it’s all pretty recent, and I think I’d registered a few red flags earlier – things that made me present boundaries underhandedly just in case, having to call them on sexist or selfish stuff that they should have known better than. They had a terrible crisis recently, but they also have a lot of other friends. And knowing their history, and knowing my history… yeah, I can’t stay their friend. I’m glad they’re doing the work to make themselves a better person, I’m glad they come so far, I’m glad their ex has forgiven them. But my dad spent long periods of time pretending to reform, being forgiven, and then sliding back to his old abuse patterns.
Abuse is an addiction as much as alcohol IMO, and I will never feel comfortable being close to someone who has been dependent on it. Not after the shit I’ve been through.
So. The answer is no. Still hurts, though.
@solecism
I’d recommend that, or adopting!
My new blog deals with a lot of this stuff, I was taught this submission stuff in the Open Brethren.
https://wordpress.com/view/nakedemperorblog.wordpress.com
I believe Toxic Femininity to be overly submissive and harbouring a victim complex, exactly the kind of woman a narcissist would seek out as a source of ‘supply”. Learned helplessness and Stockholm syndrome.
I think the real solution these guys would like is *if* in some kind of fucked up sci-fi story world, the men were erudite and intelligent, able to build cities and create great art and great civilisations, but the women were sub-human pig like beasts who you kept as pets and fed offal until they were fit to bear offspring. Then after breeding and weaning, maybe they could be ritually slaughtered and eaten by the menfolk, who have delightful homosexual sex together and congratulate each other on how manly they are. Boys I guess would be educated in hunting, fishing, and how to snare a wild female to rape, and females would either be raised in captivity and fattened up for breeding/ritual slaughter, or allowed to run free for hunting and rape.
Sound good to you, Sticky Micky?
@Virgin Mary
Why did you feel like you had to post any of that?
@Virgin Mary,
(my opinions follow)
I mean, there’s certainly a mode of femininity that is self-harming – the self-obliterating submission and sacrifice to narcissism is certainly poisonous for anyone who’s got it. But that’s not Toxic Femininity, that’s just plain old normal femininity according to the traditional patriarchal gender role.
Toxic Femininity isn’t feminine-behaviour-that’s-toxic-to-relationships, it’s something specific. It’s the compliment to toxic masculinity, and shares certain traits. These behaviours point outwards – they harm people around them, not the actor themselves. Any self-damage they do is from the fact that people don’t want to associate with toxicity. Your definition of toxic femininity points inwards, and is about self-harm; it’s the stockholm-victim of toxic masculinity.
Toxic Femininity is an MRA inversion attempt. Like most conservatives, they try to use the language of progressives as weapons, turning them against us. For the MRA, it’s blaming feminists of being “toxic”, of poisoning discourse and harming others around us. They don’t ever really show that this exists beyond asserting it, and it’s really poorly thought out. But when they say toxic femininity, that’s what it is – it’s I know you are but what am I written with bigger words.
Oh, and just to hammer the nail in – Toxic Femininity doesn’t actually exist. Feminists aren’t all angels or saints, some are terrible, but the concept of outwardly-toxic-feminist-woman doesn’t actually exist outside of stereotype.
Adopting the term Toxic Femininity is dangerous, it legitimizes one of the MRA’s ridiculous inversion attempts. I suggest you find another term for the ideas you’re trying to convey.
Could Munchausen by proxy be an example of toxic femininity? And that’s a psychological disorder rather than a systemic one.
@Viscaria
Dunno about submission, but appreciating that sacrifice is straightforward enough. You just have to think of the children.
(content note: parasitoid insects. no creepy pictures, at least)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp
It’s a made up term used by MRA-types to blame-shift. Much like the bullshit ‘femsplaining’ term they made up by inverting ‘mansplaining’.
Treating it like it’s a real term only legitimizes it.
I think there is such a thing as toxic femininity, and that it’s the mindset that polices other women’s behavior (squash the potential competition and/or “I had to put up with this, so should the next generation”); pushes a “men will be boys” narrative, and uses passive-aggression, weaponized fragility (“white womens’ tears,” etc.), to bully and manipulate. “The Rules” would have been an example of toxic femininity.
That said, when the MRAs, etc, say “toxic femininity,” yeah, I’m pretty sure they mean “women having the temerity to stand up for themselves.”
Wait, I have a question. Why are we conflating femininity and feminism here?
@Moon_custafer: You just described my mother!!!
@Diptych, good eye! I wrote that because “toxic femininity” is a synonym for “feminism” to an MRA. They use the terms in the exact same way: “entitled woman who thinks she deserves it all and will cry and destroy until she gets it.” That’s what they think feminism is, that’s what they mean when they refer to “toxic femininity.”
Should have made that more clear, thank you for pointing it out.
I was alerted that the term “toxic femininity” does have a legitimate existence outside of MRA circles, though. A good friend pointed out that women of colour will use the term to refer to white women who cry alligator tears in order to deflect accusations of racism. A link for the reading!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/how-white-women-use-strategic-tears-to-avoid-accountability
Intersectionality is important. I still don’t like the term “toxic femininity” because of the wind it blows into MRA’s sails, but I’m not going to tell women of colour or people of colour what words they can use, and it’s perfectly descriptive for that.
I’d say the term might also fairly be applied to TERFs.
Instinctively, my mind translates “toxic femininity” as women who passionately embrace being Stepford Wives and remain completely unaware of how that’s not good for them, or for anyone. In the same way that toxic masculinity isn’t good for men despite the surface appearances. The difference, of course, is that while it’s obvious how toxic masculinity isn’t good for women, it’s less obvious how toxic femininity (defined this way) is bad for men, until you realize how it infantilizes them. Toxic femininity could be a useful term as the necessary pendant to toxic masculinity, describing what women have to internalize in terms of behavior to fit in the toxically masculine world, such as embodying the feminine mystique and automatically standing by your man when he’s accused of sexual assault, to give some random examples.
But as I say, that’s just my immediate, not thought-through reaction to the term, which obviously has nothing to do with how MRAs use it.
Oh, thank you for helping me realize how dissatisfied I was with my life with a kind, funny, smart, leftist husband who treats me as his equal and does his equal part of parenting our children. I need a domineering husband who would almost certainly make my life hell, but not as much as a friend of mine who just escaped from a domineering, abusive husband and is currently easing the pain from the abuse by fostering cats.
And if you believed any of that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Ooglyboggles, yay for you!
@Emmytiel
I’m glad your friend was able to get out.
I’m personally with the ones who define toxic femininity as simply “I know you are but what am I” rather than a real thing on its own.
Feminism that disregards or even relies on racism against women of color? That’s already called White Feminism.
Femininity that demands submission and self-harm for men’s sake? Or that gives a set of rules to dictate how other women should live their lives? That’s already called internalized misogyny.
Feminism or a concept of femininity that is transphobic? Already called TERF.
It never seems to occur to these guys that a lot of men don’t actually want to be in charge. Who wants all the extra work & responsibilities?
It’s actually quite sad; the “dominant husband” is missing out on being able to share life’s responsibilities with his wife. Those of us in healthy relationships get to give mutual support, so we never have to go it alone.
Being in charge all the time sounds really lonely.