As a staunch, self-proclaimed Libertarian, nothing is more sacred to me than the principles of liberty and equality. Indeed, it is upon these very principles that the foundations of Feminism are also built. In an environment in which anyone, be it a class of peoples defined by superficial differences or sporadic individuals similarly discriminated against, I believe that inherent in our existence is a moral obligation on both those discriminated against and their privileged peers to endeavor to correct such social, judicial, and economic incongruities. It is in the light of this general, nonspecific moral obligation that I align myself with women, minorities, men, majorities, and disenfranchised individuals alike, for to encompass preference for any particular struggle for liberty and equality would be to resemble the root of oppression itself.
Note: Some people do not believe that such moral obligations are inherent in their existence, which they view as some incarnation of the notion of social contract. To clarify, I also believe in and defend the right of individuals to maintain this position of dis-compassionate autonomy. Such is their choice. Mine is one of compassionate Libertarianism, which teaches us that all obligations are self inflicted, at every individuals discretion. All non-voluntary obligations amount to tyranny, whether petty or absolute or somewhere in between. So when I talk of a moral obligation, understand that I mean only that I have obligated myself with one, and that to attempt to force another to adopt my philosophy would be to unmake it.
One possibly unfortunate effect of this stance is that I am forced by my own moral position to defend the rights of people and groups with whom I disagree, such as vocal neo-nazis, radical fundamentalists, drug war crusaders, and gun control advocates. One fortunate side effect is that my moral position is immune to accusations of political bias, despite having been born of largely political origins in Libertarian philosophy.
Some, perhaps a good deal more than I’d like to concede, do not share this sentiment except perhaps as lip service to negate their detractors criticism. I am referring to such organizations as the NAACP, which despite its claimed goal of ‘ensuring the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination’ still operates under an acronym that parses to “National Association (for the) Advancement (of) Colored People”.
Current cultural indoctrination would have, I suspect, most of my readers dismissing this apparent disparity as a happenstance anachronism or an innocent matter of semantics. Consider, then, a similar organization, with an identical mission statement, only this time it is the National Association (for the) Advancement (of) White People.
Sounds kind of klan-ish, now, doesn’t it? To go around telling people that you support the NAACP will likely garner less scrutiny and, yes, discrimination against you for your beliefs (despite those beliefs being identical but for the name of the orginization) than to go around telling people that you’re really totally into the advancement of white people. For extra credit, or if you don’t believe me, try that out the next time you’re at a party or similar social gathering. (I choose the Aristotlian route in this instance and so it has, for myself, remained merely a thought experiment unworthy of actually conducting.)
White people, in being (pardon the pun) painted as racists, are now quite legitimately a racially oppressed group, based on a stereotype that is so deeply ingrained in our culture that no one in their right mind would name an organization the NAAWP for fear of being discriminated against by racists who would accuse them of being racists.
As I stated previously, however, I am not here to ‘raise awareness’ (whatever that means) of the plight of the whites any more or less than any other group or individual. This is merely an example of the institutionalized, politically correct discrimination that pervades our society today.
This brings me, predictably, to the title and theme of this article: Misandry: When Feminism Defeats Itself.
As another, highly convenient example of the kind of divisive, biased, yet socially sanctioned discrimination that quietly, yet ubiquitously exists in our culture, I would wager that upwards of 90% of my readers are well aware, and cognizant of, the concept of misogyny, and yet the majority have likely never even discussed or encountered the concept of misandry. Put simply, misandry is the inverse of misogyny. From The New Oxford American Dictionary:
Misandry: The hatred of men by women.
As stated many paragraphs ago, the foundations of feminism are the principles of liberty and equality – they are one and the same as the basic tenets of libertarianism. Feminism, in its namesake, is guilty of the same subtle discriminatory prioritization that the NAACP is, and that the NAAWP would be if anyone were daft enough to… hold on. Holy shit. There really IS an NAAWP… and they are just as self defeating as any racially or gender specific group that purports to be dedicated to equality.
Sorry, that NAAWP thing threw me off big time. Ahem:
Regardless of the purity of ones motives, to establish preference for the equality of one group over another is, in fact, to perpetuate that which such a group claims to be attempting to eliminate.
Aha! You say, “nutbastard, you claim that to take issue with one form of injustice over another is self defeating, and yet here you are digging down into a very specific form of discrimination!”
Two things: I could have easily named this article ‘Affirmative Action: When Racism Defeats Itself’ or some other variation of the theme. Secondly, being a white male, misandry is one of the many forms of discrimination I’ve actually personally experienced (in addition to socioeconomic and political prejudice) and you know what they say: Write what you know. Also, it is sometimes necessary to be a little inflammatory in a title in order to entice readers.
The problem with feminism is not that it advocates liberty and equality, it is that it advocates liberty and equality for a very specific group of people – in this case, women. But this is not a bad thing in and of itself – what is at issue is what drawing such (seemingly innocuous) lines in the sand invoke and manifest in some fraction of people: It invokes the concept of The Other, which, with just a tiny sprinkle of subconscious contempt, makes the leap to the concept of The Enemy almost trivial.
And so it is that people make the jump from being pro-woman to being anti-man, or pro-black to anti-white. The concept of The Other and the ensuing conflict it almost invariably creates has been hardwired at such a basic evolutionary level that virtually all animals exhibit some expression of the phenomenon. It is the reason why things like gender bias and racism exist. It is the reason why it is so difficult for humans, even with our extraordinary mental faculties and ability to reason, to truly and honestly adhere to such an alien notion as unity. It is the reason for soccer riots and political parties. It is rooted in the most despicable emotion to ever have evolutionary value: Fear. And it is so deeply ingrained that it rears its influence in the very names of organizations whose sole stated goal is to circumvent, negate and eliminate it.
In the case of feminism, the advantage is currently on the side of the feminist-cum-misandrist in that they are given free license to interpret the words and behaviors of men with semantic and context negating impunity, nay, omnipotence, and in this age in which political correctness reigns supreme, the first person to become offended wins by default. The only reason this subject became the focus of this article is because I have experienced it first hand, unfairly, and without recourse. Its vileness is amplified by this lack of recourse – once someone has decided that someone else is Other, is Enemy, it is almost certainly impossible to convince them otherwise with reason, for this determination is born of ancient, lizard-brain-stem emotion, and if reason were able to easily overcome such deeply imprinted behavioral patterns, we would not have irrational fears of spiders; nor would we be startled by practical jokes; nor would we be paralyzed by traumatic events.
Misandry is hate, plain and simple, and is thus incompatible with feminism, just as any other form of hate is incompatible with any other philosophy of liberty and equality. Feminism in its namesake dwells too close to Female Supremacy in its emotional implications. I urge all feminists, defenders of minorities, objectors of oppression, all the sons and daughters of liberty to cast off these divisive nomenclatures and instead pay moral and ethical tribute to humanism. The issue of liberty and equality is not about blacks and whites and Muslims and men and Jews – it’s about people. Keep your identity, practice your religion, and cherish your culture, but remember above all that we’re all humans, we’re all Earthlings, we’re all on this crazy spherical space ship and we all have the same crises of faith, love, loss, and circumstance. In our quest for unity we defeat ourselves when we divide our efforts by the very labels and superficial distinctions and differences that we all know in our heart of hearts do not matter, do not in and of themselves separate us – unless we use them to separate ourselves.