A few days ago a women’s MRA group named the Honey Badger Brigade was forced to leave a comics convention in Calgary after complaints from feminists. People who supported the HBB called this an example of misogyny. I made a post on Reddit explaining why, despite it involving women, it is actually an example of misandry.
There have been quite a few posters here claiming the Honey Badger Brigade being kicked out of the Calgary expo is an example of misogyny.
I think this is short sighted. You need to go a step further and ask, why were these specific women targeted? It is because they defend men and a gaming culture feminists see as male dominated. It’s because they said:
Once there we will start distributing the totalitarian message that nerd and gamer culture is… perfectly wonderful just as it is and should be left alone to go it’s own way.
This is dangerous to a feminist mindset that depends upon demonizing men and male subcultures, such as gaming or comics or sci-fi, as “toxic” or “exclusionary.” It threatens a worldview that is based upon anti-male bigotry.
You might say: “But these were women being kicked out, so how can it be an example of misandry?”
It because when bigotry becomes totally deranged, it not only attacks its target, but also anyone who defends the target.
Ask yourselves, are the feminists attacking the HBB solely because they’re women, or is it because they’re women who defend men?
And if feminists attack women-who-defend-men, it isn’t because feminists are biased against women, it is because they are biased against men.
Why is this distinction important? It’s because you can’t fight against misandry until you can recognize it and name it. You have to get so good at this you can recognize it even when its victims are… women. (Misandry hurts women too.)
Most of you here want equality. And the dictionary definition of feminism is all about equality. So how has SJW feminism gone so wrong? Perhaps it is because it has become saturated with anti-male bigotry? Do you see them criticizing female dominated industries?
A couple of days ago I posted about the publishing industry, which is 74% female. Do the SJWs criticize it for having too many women? No, they criticize it for having too many men (too many “straight white men” I’m think you’ve heard this before.) Does that suggest a belief in equality? They aren’t motivated by equality. They are motivated by anti-male bigotry.
Allow me to go on a bit about one way of thinking about feminism common in these parts that I think misses the point.
Some like to say “The problem with these feminists isn’t that they hate men, but that they are authoritarian. This is really about authoritarianism vs libertarianism.”
OK, but go one step further. Ask yourself, where does their authoritarianism come from? What basis does it rest on? Most people living in the US or Western Europe don’t want to be authoritarian. I don’t think they want to destroy freedom of expression, that’s why we have laws protecting it. I think this is true of feminists too. So how do they end up embracing authoritarian policies? It’s because in their worldview men are so dangerous in so many ways they have to be controlled by feminists.
Men looking at women is “objectification.” Men having their own subcultures is “exclusionary.” Men arguing against feminist ideas is “mansplaining” or even “harrassment.” If they defend themselves from false rape accusations they are promoting “rape culture.” And this goes on and on until everything men do is interpreted in the most sinister possible way. There’s a word for this kind of thought process, and that word is bigotry.
And after thinking about men like his the feminist says to herself “Everything men do hurts me in some way. How can I possibly protect myself from all this toxic masculinity?”
And that is how authoritarianism is born from anti-male bigotry.
If you still want to say they are authoritarians first, and the bigotry towards men is just the excuse, well either way the two go hand in hand. Authoritarianism needs a scapegoat to exist. Who is feminism’s scapegoat?
A commenter writes: “Why not say it is both misogyny and misandry?”
Ask why were these women targeted: was it because they were women, or was it because of what they were doing on behalf of men?
Another way of putting it: if a group of men had done the same thing the HBB did, would they have been expelled too? Of course.
It isn’t about the gender of the HBB, it is about the gender of the people they are defending.
That’s the issue.
Or…it’s fucking neither, because to use either term is to do the same bullshit as SJW’s do and use the terms inappropriately, thus devaluing their actual, very serious, meaning.
All it is is a mixture of ignorance, outrage culture, and fear. There’s no deep seated hatred on the part of the Calgery Expo for men or women, just them not wanting to risk the wrath of the Social Media Inquisition (which is fucking real, and nowhere as fun or unexpected as the Spanish Inquisition) and reacting without bothering to do any investigation.
It’s shitty as fuck, don’t get me wrong. But to classify this as either is kinda silly.
Discriminating on the basis of ignorance, outrage, and fear is a pretty good definition of bigotry.
“the wrath of the Social Media Inquisition”
Why did the Social Media Inquisition target these women?
I can explain that: Because they’re currently cynically pushing a victimhood narrative to make a profit off of. Ones that break the narrative are the ones that get targeted the most. it has little to do with misogyny/misandry, and everything to do with money. Stop looking at everything through the lens of id politics, and you might notice a pattern involved with them encouraging outrage culture.
“a victimhood narrative”
That’s right. They have a narrative in which weak little feminists are the victims. But within that narrative, who is responsible for victimising them? Does patriarchy ring a bell?
You think they are just pretending to be victims, that they exaggerate threats to their safety in order to advance an agenda. I agree with you. But I think they are pretending to be victims as a way of making men look bad. People see a girl crying about videogame culture and they think, “oh those men must be so awful to hurt this poor little girl.” Those “objectifying” “harassing” “toxic” “rape culture” men.
When Gamergate is covered anywhere in the media, from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the BBC – that’s the narrative people hear. Some of them believe it.
Even if you think money is the SJWs primary motivation (and I disagree), surely you can see that men are being slandered as a kind of collateral damage. And that men might object to being slandered.
You might even say that slandering a group of people for personal profit is a kind of bigotry.
No, because SJWs and feminists themselves are the smokescreen in this. Them and others sell that victimhood narrative to profiteer off of the situation, and the media enables it because it makes them money as well as serve others that pay them to astroturf. Once again, stop focusing on id politics and realize that it’s not something a singular group does, but is a common issue.
This particular narrative in the media is the “War on Women” threat narrative that the left is currently pushing. You see feminism. I see a cash grab.
Well, if SJWs are just selling a narrative to make money, than that’s no problem. After all, JK Rowling made a huge amount of money selling a narrative called Harry Potter. George Martin is making a ton of money selling an narrative called Game of Thrones. Good for them.
So what’s the problem? Maybe it’s that this narrative is based upon slandering a group of people? Maybe profiting off those kinds of narratives is wrong, even if Harry Potter is ok.