After several years of observation....

Quite a while ago, I got into a debate on an MRA blog with a feminist. This particular debate centered around the idea of Feminists being much more "refined" in their posts, and nowhere near as "man-bashing" as this feminist contended MRA blogs were in the reverse.

Does that make sense?

Anyway, she invited me to have a look around some feminist blogs and dared me to find any as belligerent as the blog we were on (which, I admit, was pretty belligerent).

So I poked around, and at first they did indeed seem to be much more "civilized" places. The language was indeed more "refined" looking. The subject matter was more "in depth" as well, arguing nuances and semantics, ideas and social methodology.

I was admittedly, begrudingly impressed and I began to wonder about the future of the MRM, and how we would evolve. But then, while thinking about this, I began to notice some things.

These were hardly revelations, mind you. Just a lining up and "clicking into place" of several things I knew but didn't connect. It was all a facade.

There was no dissent (or not much) because people were banned outright almost immediately if they held an opposing view. Dissent was to be limited to those feminists that "dissent" with the others over minor qibbles. Those who disagreed with the basic premise of feminism (that men were/are shit heads that deserve to be punished / held back so women can "take their turn") were shown the door, in most cases without warning or reason given.

Some feminist blogs are more "open", although even these heavily censor the posts of those who disagree. This may not be done to limit debate, or to block the spread of information and ideas. This may truly be a method to keep on topic. One must only look to see who tends to get censored to see if there's a bias. Since it's such an easy experiment, I invite the reader to try it out.

So, the civilized aspect can in part be explained through censorship, but what about the rhetoric. It seems so Academic and smartypntsish. And that's because it is. They have whole areas of study built up around their central, sexist thesis.

But strip it down, or better yet demand the feminist speak English (if she knows what she's saying instead of parroting her professor, she should be able to do this, if not - well, you know she's a mindless follower anyway), and what do you get?

Patriarchy theory = We assert men had everything handed to them in the past, we demand you hand everything to women now.

Questioning Patriarchy Theory = tantamount to denying the Holocaust in a feminists' eyes.

Another reason why these blogs seem so civilized? They have, quite literally, almost nothing left to complain about. They have to MAKE SHIT UP to justify their existence now. Which is why they obfusticate whenever possible, position themselves as the only ones that truly understand gender differences (all the while hoping nobody notices the only thing they know about men is that they're to blame), and rag on MRA's all the time. Hey, it must be scary seeing a group with legitimate, socially sanctioned and legally enforced discrimination being perpetrated against them....and it's YOU they're coming after to rectify it.

Damn scary indeed I would imagine.

Which brings me to the hateful part.

These sites are hateful alright. Not in the same wailing and gnashing of teeth way MRA sites are. There is far more passion on MRA blogs. There is far more pain, and far more genuine shock at the way they were treated. A lot of MRA's are dealing with seeing "women" in a negative light for the first time in their lives.

But feminist sites?

Cold, dispassionate, and loathing. These people casually view men as subhuman, broken, in need of serious "fixing". These people hate men, make no mistake about it. They've INSTITUTIONALIZED the hatred of men. The blaming of men, and masculinity, is a Central tenet of feminist thinking. This means that you CANNOT BE A FEMINIST unless you blame men for women's failures.

And they do. All of them do in one way or another.

Hell, they blame men for the state men find themselves in. It's called the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too argument, and it, like Patriarchy theory itself, is utter bullshit invented to justify doing terrible things to men.

And all you have to do to prove this to yourself is visit a feminist blog for a while.