DrVornoff said:
The difference is that instead of calling on a nationalist identity to demonize a vague "other," the anti-feminist crowd are calling on a sexual identity. Women who want to be a part of society the same way that men are, who want to see privilege distributed by merit rather than genitalia, are perceived as not wanting to raise the bar, but to tear men down to create a matriarchy. They're accused of wanting to emasculate men and make them subservient.
I think a very good definition of feminism would be: "Women do not want drag men down, merely raised to raised to their level."
Per the privelige argument, my stance is this: You should definitely acknowledge your own priveliges, but the moment you start to shame yourself for it, I will hold you in contempt. Wailing "I am priveliged for A, B and C reason, I am so sorry!" is nothing more than a figurative angst-wank and it is not helping anybody.
Obviously, this is pretty basic "us vs them" tribal thinking. But the fact that it's been able to take such a hold over people indicates, I think, an extreme weakness of men. They're incredibly insecure in their positions of power and privilege. And power can be a very poisonous thing, because once you have it there is a part of your brain that will look at someone trying to get a slice of the pie or become your equal that is whispering in your ear, "Destroy them." Unless you feel secure in your power you will fight tooth and nail to defend it against every challenger, real or imagined. And that will only betray your insecurity to others. They'll start to think that you're cruel and mean-spirited or just sadistic and using your position to get away with it or perhaps that you don't deserve your power because you didn't truly earn it.
There is a very good line in
Lord of Ruin which goes pretty much like this: "Put a man in chains and s/he will look for the first chance to escape. Put a man in power and s/he'll fight like a daemon to stay in power." Kinda sums the situation nicely. Power may indeed be the strongest prison.
Anti-feminists love to argue that women always play the victim card. But it rings hollow because these same men never take responsibility for themselves. They never take responsibility for their mistakes. It's always that they're victims too, it was somebody else's fault, it was circumstances beyond their control, the mean people on the internet made fun of them, etc. They cry and whine and moan about how unfair they have it compared to women.
They do have it unfair, but not in the way that they think they do...
And they really do need to take
en jävla look in the mirror when it comes to the victim card. In fact, an alarm bell should go off every time when someone accuses another of playing the victim in order to paint themselves as one.
With that said, this should not dismiss the eventuality/possibility that a woman will play the victim when it is convenient for her, as I am sure you know. Just look at Sarah Palin.
The number of beautiful women who get pleasure out of manipulating guys is actually pretty slim. The reason being that a beautiful woman in a decent-sized city is getting hit on somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 or 30 times a day. Imagine that for a second. Imagine getting hit on by clueless, clingy, desperate girls 30 times a day, all saying the same stupid lines that they're convinced they're the first to come up with, but you've heard a million times before. Women do not respect men who act like trained puppies. They respect men who are neither intimidated or impressed by physical beauty. And though these guys deny it vehemently, that's what they are: intimidated.
So we see guys who are anti-feminists because they believe women already have too much power over them. But that's horseshit. Such a guy is not powerless because women have more privilege. He's powerless because every time he sees a pretty girl, the first thing he does is hand her his balls in a lovely new purse.
And therein lies the difference between a mature male and an immature one.
