In Reason magzine’s “Why So Many Men Who Hate Women Love Limited Government,” we’re treated to a predictable, yet ambiguous and vague piece about men going their own way (MGTOW) and Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) that doesn’t link to a single relevant blog or website or quote a single pertinent writer representing the ideologies condemned as misogynist; hell, the writer, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, doesn’t even really answer the titular question.
Brown writes (emphasis added).
The misogynist mindset centers on irrationally blaming women for all men’s problems, so casting blame on another outside group—the government, the rich, immigrants, big business, some other race—isn’t really a stretch. And of all these targets, the government actually makes the most sense if we’re talking about bearing (some) responsibility for unemployment and other economic issues men face.
In general, MRA lists of the ways women allegedly screw men over tend to feature alimony, child support, custody battles, campus sexual assault policies, and domestic violence law prominently—all areas where the state is a strong actor. Some of these policies, like men not beating up their wives without breaking the law, are just fine as is. But others could use a significant scrubbing of sexist precepts. In other words, the “manosphere” isn’t always wrong to pinpoint the government as a locus of their problems.
The bottom line, however, is that while libertarian-leaning sentiment makes sense among the He Man Woman Hating club and your run-of-the-mill MRAs, there’s nothing in libertarianism as a political philosophy that is inherently sexist or misogynistic.
It’s amazing she uses the word allegedly and frames the argument around hatred of women while refusing to actually specifically name any MRA or MGTOW claims of aggrieved status and demonstrate why they’re incorrect.
It would be hard, considering how women, particularly single women, vote more liberal/Progressive than men in America. Women initiate 70 percent of divorce, and when there is a divorce they obtain child custody 90 percent of the time. Despite the fact that more men in the country get raped than women, in a true rape culture (prison), the Department of Justice didn’t count forced penetration of a man to be a crime until recent years.
But no, this is all alleged.
Christopher Cantwell’s takedown of a feminist’s attitude on MRAs could equally apply to this situation (Note: He’s also written his own response to Brown’s piece here).
She dismisses our concerns about being 90+% of the prison population, nearly 100% of war casualties, being responsible for thousands of years to feed, clothe, and shelter women, and getting screwed over in family and divorce court, as conspiracy theories.
It also reminds me of a similar observation Dalrock made in a post in response to a woman making the same kind of accusation.
Not only does she ridicule and belittle those who voice concerns with the immense damage caused by feminism without seriously addressing the actual issues, in the subtitle of her post she washes her hands of any responsibility for the harms of feminism. In truly childish form, if there are any negative outcomes to the changes women have demanded she decides that it must be men who are to blame:
Brown rightly points out that the state is the necessary tool for these injustices, and even admits that we men aren’t entirely wrong, but she completely misunderstands the anger and frustration of so many MGTOWs and MRAs.
The state is a merely a weapon that women can choose not to use against men; but too many do. This doesn’t change the state’s fundamental role in the problem, but neither does it excuse the women who are more than willing to exploit it. This is the source of the bitterness in many of these men so casually dismissed as “misogyny.” Ironically, this ad hominem attack only goes to prove the point made by these men in demonstrating the profound indifference, contempt, or plain ignorance that many women, even libertarian ones, hold concerning men and their specific problems caused by state violence.
The police don’t just show up randomly to men’s houses and arrest them on trumped up charges of domestic violence or assault, or arrest them afterwards even though they were the victim. The woman has to call them or report it. The courts don’t just write their own restraining orders that kick men out of their own homes as de facto eviction notices; the wife or live-in girlfriend has to file it. Prosecutors don’t just charge men with rapes that didn’t occur; women have to make the false claim. The state can’t just break up a family, tear a man’s children away from him, and force him to pay alimony and child support based on imputed income. Someone must initiate the proceedings first, and as the stats show it is overwhelming the woman because the laws are stacked in such a way that the mere threat of divorce can be used to control husbands. Title IX inhibits men’s sports and has led to the creation of kangaroo courts on college campuses where young male students are denied the most basic rights and can be kicked off of campus based merely on an allegation of sexual assault (Reason itself has covered this travesty repeatedly. How many women have been victims of this miscarriage of justice?). The government doesn’t just hand out more welfare benefits to women than men; they have to apply for them, typically after giving birth out of wedlock. There is no “man” in “WIC” (Women, Infant, Children).
Brown then goes on to write:
……In my personal experience, libertarianism can appeal to MRAs and feminist-minded folks alike because it’s based on protecting people’s basic rights regardless of who they are, and getting rid of government policies that infringe on liberty whomever they hit hardest. But libertarians must reject encoding any particular set of beliefs—religious, ideological, or otherwise—into the law. And for people on all sides of sex- and gender-issue debates, that’s often a bridge too far no matter how much they want to limit the government’s involvement with their wallet or workplace hirng practices or uterus.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we call “projection.”
Modern-day feminism is as complementary to the state as nationalism. Its agenda is to have the state act as a replacement for men in every aspect of society, particularly as fathers and husbands, while forcing men to pay for it through taxation.
This is why many of the “feminists” in the libertarian movement eventually return to their vomit and start bitching about mythical white male privilege with a digital decentralized currency. Or, they come out and argue in favor of government-run marriage because privatizing marriage would take away the immense power they have due to the state.
They’ve been so successful in achieving their goals that they’re run out of things to complain about, so they’re forced to focus on petty things like catcalling on the street, the amount of space a man puts between his legs on a bus, or the way he tries to articulate something to a woman. The movement has gone from giving woman the right to vote to giving them state power to micromanage every single aspect of life a la a secular sharia state.
They’re been so successful, in fact, that any kind of dissent against the status quo in society or government, no matter how discriminatory the specific policy or social norm is against men, is considered hateful toward women.
There is no MRA or MGTOW pushing the United Nations to censor feminists on the Internet or insist that women must obtain verbal consent from men before engaging in sexual activity. There’s no “She for He” campaign featuring a wealthy man whining about how he’s a victim of sexism when he’s one of the most privileged people to ever walk the planet. There’s no men’s group insisting that men as a gender be given preferential treatment over women based on their gender. There’s no men out there on Youtube proclaiming how mommy government helps them take care of their kids instead of a woman. Neither MGTOWs nor MRAs are pushing false narratives to the point where a national magazine writes a single-sourced story about a brutal crime taking place inside a sorority house that later turned out to be completely false.
MGTOW is more or less anti-state (the movement’s original slogan was “masculine men, feminine women, limited government”). MGTOWs feel society is so unbearably hostile to them that they are withdrawing from it; how does wanting to be left the hell alone translate into “I want to use state violence to promote sexism?”
And if anything, MRAs are egalitarians who demand the standards placed on men by government and society apply to women as well. Apparently that’s misogyny, too.
It’s bad enough we get accused of immaturity for not wanting to enter into a state-controlled institution where our lives can be turned upside down on a mere whim. It’s bad enough we have to endure the stupidity of “where have all the good men gone?” articles droning on about how men need to “man up” – a wonderfully Orwellian term that translates into “do exactly what I tell you to do so I may benefit.”
It’s funny this woman mentions government involvement in a “uterus” when we are taxed to pay for abortions, including for women who openly brag about killing the child because it was going to be a boy (that’s not certainly not misandry or anti-male, right?). Even after repeated videos have shown the barbarism of this repulsive behavior at the hands of Planned Parenthood, we can’t even get the so-called “pro-life” party to stop the feds from funding it. And woe be the politician who opposes subsidizing female contraceptives and birth control. Yet if the woman chooses to keep a child during a pregnancy she can either give it up for adoption without his permission or force him to pay her money for 18 years, possibly more, and put him in jail for refusing even if they haven’t proven he is the actual father. They can also force a man to pay for a child that isn’t his, even after the mother they divorced later marries the child’s actual father.
If you’re wondering whether the current political climate is absolutely and completely inundated in an anti-male narrative, look no further than pieces like this one over at Reason. The situation is so deeply grounded in this narrative that men who are infuriated at being perpetual victims of state violence are not only looked upon with suspicion by libertarians as to whether or not their grievances are valid, but even when there is begrudged acknowledgment of their validity, their justifiable indignation is painted as somehow really being driven by an irrational hatred of all women.
Frankly, as Dalrock has written, if you’re not angry, you’re unaware, indifferent, or regard the current environment favorably (emphasis added).
Anger is an entirely healthy response to gross injustice. Apathy on the other hand is an indication of a profound inability to feel empathy, perhaps even masking a strong level of personal investment in maintaining the injustice itself.
At the same time, women are not all or solely to blame for this current setup. Too many men have been there voting and supporting these measures and acting as the state agents. It is men who ultimately carry out the majority of these injustices at the behest of the women that want to use the state as a weapon. But there is just as much anger against these white knights in the Manosphere for their eagerness to play the vital role of the quisling, yet this is glossed over or ignored because it doesn’t fit the “misogyny” narrative.
You can call these men whatever the hell you want, but accusing someone of hating women for discussing how many of them use the state against men (thanks to and with the aid of other men) and demonstrating how those assertions are incorrect or untrue through evidence, statistics, empirical data, logic, and reason is another thing entirely.
Of course, that wasn’t the point of Brown’s piece. The simple fact is that MRAs and MGTOWs in the libertarian movement pose a threat to the current political arrangement, an arrangement in which women like Brown currently benefit.