I often hear libertarians say, “feminism is collectivism”, “I only support libertarian feminism” or “feminism is Marxist”. As a libertarian and a feminist I find this laughable and a serious concern; libertarians in general have no clue what feminism is. If they support the idea of feminism, it’s usually individualist feminism, which is rooted mostly in “egalitarianism”. Sometimes I hear libertarians say they, “reject feminism in support of egalitarianism,” based on a misguided understanding of politics and social construction.
Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning “equal”)—or, rarely, equalitarianism [1][2] – is a trend of thought that favors equality for particular categories of, or for all, living entities.
This could actually be considered a more acceptable definition of socialism. Feminism is simply, “advocacy or support of the rights and equality of women,” something that seems conveniently ignored. I’m wondering how this idea of egalitarianism is not the ultimate idea of collectivism or somehow “Marxist”, from a libertarian perspective, as it attempts to straw man feminist theory into complete contradiction.
Egalitarian “anti-feminists” like Girlwriteswhat, who not only fail to address the concept or the reality of female oppression, legitimately reassert heteronormativity and the gender binary of “man” and “woman” that dominates their understanding of what “egalitarian” means. It’s no wonder why she is loved by libertarians like Stefan Molyneux—who are annoyingly anti-feminist and unironically sexist.
Queer and Gender theory offers the single biggest case against egalitarian arguments posed by libertarian feminists.
This is why equity feminism, a branch of individualist feminism, is wrong. Their opposition to “gender feminism” is entirely based on the false claims that gender feminism is gynocentric and misandric. This is not true of gender feminism. These are problems of second-wave feminism and it’s a very thin critique, if at all. Misogynistic, patriarchal, heteronormative, transphobic and cissexist concepts are found in “equity” feminism – which is funny because they stress the ideas of “equality” and “liberty”. I do not believe this is intentional, but rather, an unintended result of the ideology being more so a reaction to feminism than it being actually feminist. Here you see how social conservatism and status quo apologia has always been a part of the right libertarian narrative. This has disastrous consequences for liberty, as it leads many libertarians to ignore horrendous gender based violations of liberty. In the 19th Century the state sent women to reformatories if they violated feminine gender norms, forcing them into reeducation. Equity feminism has no conceptual basis for inclusion of trans women or queer women or how their struggle fits within the gender constructs of society – just like first-wave feminism. Which implies how inadequate it’s analysis is, among other types of third-wave feminist view points, in being able to address the problems we face in modern day society. Inclusion of trans women, recognizing that they are also women who experience the oppression of gender-based violence and patriarchy, is one of these problems we must address. In the mean time, anything that opposes “gender feminism” is not feminism nor is it truly libertarian. If gender is used to oppress us, then it’s a meaningful concept to understand, if we want to understand the idea of “liberty”.
Gender feminism will continue to address problems that are significant and relevant to libertarianism, because talking about gender is important to us and our identity – gender and sexuality help define who we are as individuals. This is key to understanding our oppression. If feminism is not gender-based, it’s not effective as feminism, nor does it get us closer to understanding the idea of equality. “Equity” supposes a gender construct that can only be understood if we even know what “gender” is. Social constructs that create our perceptions of gender, as understood in queer theory, can help us see how the State is oppressing us even in our own perceived identity – where “man” and “woman” are the product of power relations. Gender-based oppression is one of the most violent and perpetual conditions we face under the State and it’s monopoly of force and aggression. This is why queer theory suggests that the radical deconstruction of gender-identity will get us closer to chipping away at the foundation in which our oppression originates. Not only should libertarians be feminists – they should support Queer and Trans liberation.
Libertarians will never support the idea of feminism, if they don’t understand it. And they should try to understand it because it addresses a problem within our own movement – “where are all the women”. Either women hate liberty or we’re doing something wrong? For myself and other female libertarians this is continuously frustrating. The good thing is that there are lots of libertarians that do support feminism, though we are a minority, and feminism is more so associated with the growth left-libertarian thought. This is why left-libertarians need to keep talking. Yet simply reminding people that we are feminists should not be our only approach to feminism within left-libertarian thought. It is crucial to understanding our oppression within capitalist society and how it originates from the State. That’s where thick libertarian values are key – they go beyond just talking about economics and unambiguous State violence.
If the narrow analysis of thin libertarianism continues, then it will continue to marginalize feminist libertarians and trivialize feminism’s importance. But skeptics should know, however, that it’s not going away. Feminism is relevant to libertarianism and no I will not shut up about it.
The draft ended in 1973 just fyi
Hi, and thank you, this is a good essay.
I have a bit of a cold, so this won't be as clear as I'd like.
I do have some concerns over the emphasis on queer theory. In its way, third-way queer theory has simply continued second-wave androgyny. It recognizes that gender roles are social constructs, often violently enforced, but all too often tends to assume that sex identity is only an extension of gender roles. It doesn't work for many trans people, and it doesn't work either for many cis people who are solidly aligned with their coercively assigned sex at birth while being at odds with their assigned gender roles. I think third-wave queer theory and second-wave androgyny don't work for people who need to reclaim/reassert their sex identity.
I also think that people who are skeptical of feminism should remember that it, like anarchism, is a movement for human freedom and human equality, and, like anarchism, it is incredibly diverse. The ways that feminism has gone wrong are also ways which anarchism and other forms of libertarianism can go wrong. The ways which feminism has gone right are ways which anarchism and other forms of libertarianism can learn from. And feminism itself is a libertarian issue.
Do you think it's women enacting these things against men, or is it the male superpowers of the world imposing notions of hypermasculinity to men and hypersensitivity to women?
"Gender-based oppression is one of the most violent and perpetual conditions we face under the State and it’s monopoly of force and aggression."
Yep. For example…
The heavy bias against men in family courts.
The draft that only enslaves men.
Rape laws which allow a woman to anonymously ruin an innocent man's with a false accusation.
Rape laws that exclude female envelopment from punishment.
Marja, Thanks for your comment! I'm glad you liked the article.
I completely agree with your points about queer theory. My intension was to give a queer critique of individualist feminism as a case for why emphasis on gender is important (rather than ignoring it because "men and women are equal"). I agree it's not ideal in any way for dealing with Trans* or cis issues (with gender identity, like you said), but I do believe that it is gender feminism that can approach these topics more appropriately– not equity feminism. I used queer theory as a means to introduce readers to concepts found in gender feminism. I didn't want to get into too much differing theory in such a short article
Perhaps I should have made that more clear in the introduction.
Thanks for writing such a great article!
I've claimed to be a feminist for many years, and had many arguments over it.
Some thoughts I've had about this recently:
Janis Joplin: Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
so independence doesn't even exist technically.
freedom is the absence of network connections and agency is the proliferation of network connections.
Agency = the ability to get things done. Being part of a collective is more important to both men and women though it is clearer that in general women think it is more important.
I think right leaning libertarians are going to make those claims: "collective = women's perspective" more than left leaning libertarians. But the truth is, our understanding of the concepts of liberty, independence, and freedom are so deeply flawed that it is nearly impossible to have a real conversation about it with anyone without first going through a serious redefining of our terms.
One thing that probably jerks their chains a bit (the righty tighties and the patriarchs within the libertarian movement) is the feminist movement like the civil rights movement is seen by them as big government about to be, when in reality it was predominantly a social movement that happened forced real change in government.
Or am I wrong here and do you think that it is just as bad among left libertarian men because of a flawed understanding of feminism that results in it's being evenly distributed regardless of the right / left affiliation?
I think it has a lot to do with how both sides view capitalism and political economy, since that is where our understanding (as libertarians) of oppression generally stems from. "Thick libertarian values are key because they go beyond a conversation on State violence", this is why I see left-libertarianism as being generally more understanding and inviting of feminism. But I think feminism has grown more important in libertarian thought because of libertarian feminists like Sharon Presley and organizations like Association of Libertarian Feminists. It's not a right or a left issue, it's a libertarian one. I think the right tends to have a thin analysis and understanding of oppression in general, but there are still a lot of misconceptions about feminism even among left-libertarians which is why we need to continue to talk about it and why it is important.
Does it matter? Feminism isn't doing a damn thing about these. Apparently gender roles are still okay for men. It's no wonder the MRM developed mostly out of former feminists.
It is a massive waste of time to try to rehabilitate a word, especially feminism, which has been used by statists to justify an incredible amount of oppression. What good does it do if you have some rarified definition of this word that no one else uses? Some idiot agent of the state will still come along and use the ruse of oppression against females to do what the state wants. It is wholly part of the bureaucratic excuse, the reason they exist, for surely the family, the owner, the person cannot do anything properly or fairly- since their version of history has this oppression existing for all time and everywhere, and it would not be held in abeyance even for a moment except for their benevolent action.
any mainstream value system will become integrated into the state (at least in the US). Either it is cynically co-opted or it legitimately gains influence and state policies are designed to advance that value system. We can't make any progress if we steer away from every contaminated value system.
"gender and sexuality help define who we are as individuals"
Part of the problem is gender binaries. I doubt obsessing over terms like 'male' and 'female' will help much. Labels don't make individuals, only limit them.
You said: What good does it do if you have some rarified definition of this word that no one else uses?
I respectfully disagree.
We take back words all the time from those political operatives who've corrupted their meanings. It takes decades of course but lets be clear, the authoritarians have a stake in language just as we do. To cede this to the powers that be rather than taking our language back is to lose this war of words. It's not just using the words, with static meanings but actively questioning the definitions of them in the style of Socrates that needs to happen.
this idea that language changes over time perhaps doesn't always occur to the rigid minds of the right IMO.
I just don't get it. The very word 'feminism' arrives rife with the 'gender binaries' mentioned in the above article.
For someone against gender binaries, feminists like the author of the above article seem very obsessed with gender.
And sorry trans-sexuals, you will NEVER be able to carry a child. At the very least, at the most base level, women are born with ovaries and can give birth. I agree that gender is bullshit by and large, a bunch of roles assigned by society and assigned by larger, stronger men.
But it takes two to tango. Not all pregnancies in history were due to rape. women have been playing power games from time immemorial.
Want the 'privilege' of being male? Well then if you want something, fight for it. No one is going to give you what you want in life, no state, no institution, and no man.
The author chastizes 'gender binaries' then says 'gender and sexuality help define who we are as individuals'.
So which is it? Gender binaries: part of the problem or the solution? The very word 'feminism' implies a division or labor, so to speak.
Because it never actually works for the right. The words are always corrupted of their meaning, away from whatever they were, to whatever the new 'progressive' mindset takes it. Unfortunately, that usually leads straight to a bigger more interfering government, and in this case, feminism whether it was meant to or not, has usually been used by people wanting a pretext for government action. It cannot be rescued.
Feminism is an ideology..In that regard it will be an anathema to many libertarians and anarchists alike.. As individuals, discussing rights is always going to be a moot point.. As individuals will we recognise our own abilities or blame others for the lack thereof.. blaming others seems to be a statist mantra.. Ladies please try and understand me are not your enemy. Peace!
I'm a newbie to the terminology, but at first glance, this schism between "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" seems to parallel almost exactly the distinction between "workerist" anarchism and American-style "libertarianism." In both cases, from my perspective, the latter looks like an attempt to graft classic liberalism (the revolt of the bourgeois elites against the high-born elites, which in no way challenges the supposed Iron Law of Oligarchy) onto a tradition of genuine rage originating at the actual bottom of the hierarchy. No single word better denotes what I consider to be the legitimate target of anarchist rage than kyriarchy, which encompasses the whole panoply of dominance, ascendancy, leverage of differential independence; in short, politics. Market libertarianism and equity feminism, on the other hand, look to me like a mathematical game in which the goal is to formulate a set of formal propositions from which can be derived all the ideologies in service to bourgeois interests such as markets, property, etc.
Anti-statism is an example of blaming others; it's just that the others happen to be the state.
Men Of Ability, please try and understand me are not your enemy, either.
Queer theory isn't feminism. It legitimizes the concept of gender and denies that women are oppressed because of our biology (not "identity").
Are you implying that the men's movement *is* "doing a damn thing about it"? And no, gender roles are NOT okay for men either. That's also an emphasis of third-wave theory (Also, just to note something in the original comment, the US draft ended in 1973 under the Nixon administration)
Who said anything about rehabilitating the word? Some third-wave feminists don't even call themselves feminists. That doesn't mean you can't talk about feminist issues.
I did not propose gender binaries. I said we should try to understand what gender and sexuality actually is. And not only is it true that gender and sexuality do help us define ourselves, queer/post-structuralist theory suggests that we radically deconstruct the social construct of gender with gender-identity. (Feminism implies a division of labor– okay I lost you there?)
Please tell me how a person who identifies as genderqueer somehow feels *more* individualistic by keeping quite about their gender-identity/sexuality. That to me seems more limiting. "Don't label yourself" is easy, maybe if you fit these gender norms in the first place…but not everyone does.
Third-wave feminism is heavily influenced by postmodern, post-structuralist, queer, and gender theory. It's very feminist in my opinion, I identify as a queer feminist myself. Queer theory is not gender essentialist, if that's what you mean. Have you read any Judith Butler? That's a good start to learn more about gender-identity from a feminist point of view.
>Implying that feminism is statist.
Did you read the article?
beta as fuck
Is that why you've abandoned the word "capitalism" after it's been used by statists to justify an incredible amount of oppression?
No Abby, the draft still effectively exists. FASFA (student aid) question #17.
So apparently drafting rich males is a problem but shipping poor working-class guys to war is acceptable.
Your ignorance on issues like these is unexcusable.
>Implying that August conflated feminism with statism when August clearly laid out specific context (i.e. progressive corruption).
Did you read the comment?
What gender feminism does is say that ALL gender-based oppression is directed against women. If you are taking the position that gender-based oppresssion exists toward men as well, and that it is immoral, then you are taking an individualist feminist position. If you are identifying as a gender feminist, then you are condoning the belief that men's issues are less important than women's issues.
What Ryan didn't even mention is laws like VAWA, which pay domestic violence shelters to discriminate against men, making it impossible for men who are victims of domestic violence to get the help they need. And this is a direct result of years of gender feminist propaganda designed to make violence against men acceptable. Ask any gender feminist, and she will not only tell you that violence against men is less of an issue than violence against women, but will in many cases be offended that you even suggested that the two are equivalent.
And no, the men's rights movement hasn't done anything for men either. And none of this will change until everyone stops playing the victim and starts working together to actually solve these problems.
Okay, so I've already posted some of my objections to gender feminism in a comment above, but let me repeat them here. One, as Ryan pointed out, gender feminism takes an extremely one-side approach to gender-based oppression which ignores the fact that men suffer from oppression as well. I could actually let this slide, were it not for feminists' open disregard for men who are victims of domestic violence. It's not just that they don't address the issue. They actually attack anyone who brings it up. Look at any feminist forum and see what happens when this point is brought up. They quite explicitly do not believe that domestic violence against men matters. And regardless of whatever platitudes they use, it should be clear from this that feminists do not believe men have equal standing as human beings. (A pretty anti-libertarian idea, I should note.)
Now combine this with the feminist belief that men are, as a group, responsible for women's victimization, and the solution, from the feminist standpoint, is simple: Just kill all the men, and everything will be fine. And, if you look at what some feminists are saying, you will find calls for men to be killed.
I don't even care if you're an individualist or a gender feminist at this point. If you are going to use the feminist label, you have an obligation to call these people out. The movement has gotten long past the point where any intelligent person should have called out people like that, and publicly and explicitly disavowed them as true feminists. If you can't do this, and you continue to use the feminist label, then you are on their side.
The other thing that's worth pointing out is the constant efforts by feminists to demonize male sexuality. Male sexual preferences are unfair expectations being forced on women by "the patriarchy." Feminine traits which men find sexually attractive are lumped in with oppressive gender roles. The implication of this is that men should not have sexual preferences, and should just have sex with any willing female partner. And, you may note, this has now become the norm, with men expected to compete with each other to get a partner, and to place sexual satisfaction before any emotional needs, while women are encouraged to use men as waystations while they look for someone better. THAT is an instance of actual social oppression.
This is then used to smear men as rabid animals, with no desire except to get laid. This allows women to exploit us in order to demand special treatment, and also gives feminists another excuse to smear male sexuality. That's why we're hearing feminists going on about "objectification," which they themselves define as men "viewing women as objects of sexual desire." In other words, if a man has any sexual desires whatsoever, he is objectifying women.
Of course they then lump this in with not seeing women as people, which we do because, again, the qualities we naturally seek out in women have been demonized as effects of "patriarchy" and us forcing our expectations on women.
So yes. Gender feminism is definitely anti-male.
Kudos to you Brendan..couldn't agree more. I don't understand why men and women are so keen to be at each other's throats and flying off insults to each other about how unfair something is and blah blah instead of working together. I support the equal right so f men and women and there are a shit ton of inequalities on both sides of the matter. For instance, Men do not get to choose whether or not their child is born. For some reason, the unborn baby is considered to be less of the man's child than the woman's simply because the man has no physical part in the gestation of a baby, so a woman can just abort a baby without ever having to consult the father…WRONG! Men are almost always paid more in any career whether female dominated or male dominated and whether the woman has the exact credentials and performs just as well or not…WRONG!!! Domestic violence seems to only be perceived as only women being victims when plenty of mena re subjected to it too but this is hard for some people to understand because they view the very idea of masculinity as a sort of mochismo effect where men couldn't possibly be the victim's of a weaker sex…Also WRONG!!
I really enjoyed this article. As someone who identifies both as a libertarian and feminist, it gets tricky to explain to people how it works – especially when they completely cut off the idea that it even works. Gender feminism does have concerns that work. Feminism is a thing about social change. The sad thing is is that people believe feminist only want a government solution which is not always the case. I think we need to address that the problems are there and then we can argue how to fix them. I get sick of having to prove that sexism exists or even that rape even exists! But it does – I don't propose the government to fix it but it does matter and it is true.
Great post!
http://www.theindividualistfeminist.com
My recent post Happy International Women's Day!
1. There is no heavy bias against men in family courts. When men seek custody the statistics are closer to 50/50
2. Men are not being drafted. The draft is wrong regardless of who is drafted, but it is not currently in effect.
3. False accusations are incredibly rare and most men who are falsely convicted are thanks to racial discrimination. Please don't appropriate racial issues.
4. Feminism as a whole is working towards redefining rape in general and does not seek to prevent envelopment from becoming a form of rape.
Every single thing you have mentioned, when there is a bias, is of men's own doing. The desire to be the perceived as the dominant sex. Every feminist that I know is working to deconstruct these gender roles which will ultimately effect positive change for everything you've mentioned.
But good job rushing in to change the topic of feminism to another "what about teh menz?" discussion. Always derailing.
No, not all cis women can carry children or give birth. Are they not real women?
If we had a history rich with equal rights for all that didn't oppress one sex there would be no reason to be "obsessed" with gender and we could all call ourselves egalitarian and call it a day. Unfortunately we're not living in that world and we have not come far enough or made enough progress to remove ourselves from that history. So until that day comes some of us have to "obsess" over our gender in order to maintain the rights we do have and continue to move towards a level playing field.
That's a whole lot of straw feminism you've described here.
Feminists are not angry that you point out that women can be abusive, feminists are angry that you derail their discussions about violence against women to discuss violence against men. We cannot have a conversation about our oppression without someone chiming in with all the problems that men face. It's not the time, nor the place. My own issue tends to be then with men's rights types who misrepresent or just completely fabricate statistics on the topic, or the ones who just seem to want permission to beat abusive women up. No I will not take you seriously if you present me with assstats, no I will not condone anything beyond subduing someone else in the name or self defense.
Second point is pure straw feminism. While I have no doubt that some people who call themselves feminists have said, "kill all men," it's not in line with feminist belief and is more a knee-jerk reaction of some very angry women. I have only seen feminists who say ignorant things like that get called out. We collect our own more than you apparently want to admit.
Nobody is demonizing your sexuality unless you believe that your sexuality includes raping women. How do you not know that the standards of beauty are a product of popular culture? Look at old paintings, old ads that encourage weight gain, etc. If you're blindly preferring the types of women being fed to you by the mass media that's your own problem because you're not likely to find many women who are that skinny. I'm not sure which straw feminist insisted you just accept any willing woman and not have preferences. The closest thing I've ever heard is not to call women superficial for passing up a man who doesn't put the same effort into maintaining his appearance as she does. If you're allowed to have standards, so are we. I don't even want to hear this way stations bit. It's just gross.
Feminists are the ones painted men as rabid animals? Excuse me, but feminists hold men up to higher standards than many seem to want to hold themselves. The whole point is to not force yourself upon a woman which includes staring her down. Nobody thinks you can't find a woman attractive, it's when you infringe upon her space and refuse to control yourself that there's a problem.
This whole thing, ughh. Why did I bother?
And sadly so true. Beta-males are always that whiny. If things turn out badly for them, they blame straw "feminists" rather than themselves because they cannot reach rigid patriarchal standards imposed by their MALE PEERS.
"gender and sexuality help define who we are as individuals"
It only does this through cultural influence, especially socialization. Take religion for example, it establishes both genders and how the genders relate. If we stop paying attention to gender – we then stop discriminating. Because if a woman is seen as caring and nurturing, which is 'supposedly' suppose to define her as an individual, could be true for some women. But some women do not care for children nor do they want to have children, nor do they feel that they should sacrifice their livelihood for the sake of others. This is what essentially means to be a woman, if you pay attention to gender essentialism it says that the woman will do the work for free or that she will automatically 'care' and 'nurture' you like a nanny or a nurse would. this is highly insulting to females and our dignity. Paying attention to gender is sexism in some way or the other. I still think that individual feminism is the only way to go, especially if you seek gender equality. This is my essay discussing objectivism and its compatibility with feminism; http://beyondenlightenment.wordpress.com/2013/06/…
My recent post Why I will Never Support Jezebel and its Propaganda
Everything Ryan blames feminism for are just the very products of patriarchy, which wrongly assume that all men are strong & all women are weak:
"Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.
Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you." (Lindy West)
& Lastly, I am a MALE feminist, just in case ye think of personally attacking me.
I think you miss the point. No one thinks a draft is on. The Supreme Court managed to take the Equal Protection clause to not mean what it says when upholding a male-only draft.
They 'deferred' to Congress there. Of course, note that the 14th Amendment by its plain language should prohibit affirmative action programs {no matter if you agree with AA as social policy, that is a separate matter from the *legal* analysis of 'equal protection under the law'} but in those cases the SC felt free to intervene and in essence legislate based on the *ends* they anticipated, rather than the means.
As with the phenomena of feminists taking umbrage at the {rare} rape joke – it's only when it's about a woman. These same feminists have not in any significant way protested the fact that male rape or violence against male genitals is bloody well a *staple* of sitcoms, films, and hack stand ups everywhere.
The common thread is men's lives and suffering and emotion are accorded less value than women's. A military in which women aren't forced into combat positions or can, possibly, "choose" combat positions {and yes there's been significant blurring anyway} means that when women enter the military, they will be taking, on average, less dangerous jobs with better post-military training, which pushes men into unskilled, infantry or support roles. This isn't fair, it's simply that this notion of "white male privilege" is little more than philosophical sophistry, making "the white male" into a monolith defined by the 0.01% who have great power.
This is one of the very few articles where I disagree with everything. No type of feminism is equalitarian – it can't be as at its base feminism is about supremacy, as is borne out by any writing of any feminist. The only time they are at all concerned about men and boys is where it affects women. Toxic.
No one group gets to decide what the rules are for discussing gender but I have yet to meet a feminist who thinks that they are more morally qualified to discuss gender than men are.
I have never seen a collective of people who so often refuse consensus as much as feminists do.
Fuck all feminism, right in the ear.