Man-hating both drives feminism and glues it together.
Man-hating spans a full continuum, starting with minor
dissatisfaction (the most common) and ranging clear up to white-hot, vitriolic animosity. Feminism captures this energy and uses it to align female loyalty. Man-hating operates
as a lodestone toward which the milder forms of feminism orient
themselves. In the absence of this Central Attractor the feminist project
would disintegrate and dissipate.
lower end of the scale you would hardly call it hating and yet, owing to
it, a fair number of otherwise well-disposed women have stuck the
feminist label to themselves. Such women would earnestly deny that
feminism is a hate movement, and they will typically regale you with statements like “oh no, I’m not that kind of feminist!” Individuals of this
sort may be styled as weak feminists.
Strictly speaking, the term 'weak feminist' indicates nothing
inherently derogatory, but simply an unstrong attachment to feminism's occult core, or root. Still, the radical strong feminists are quite right to view such persons as useful idiots or shills.
The base-level man-haters drive the movement as a whole. They impart to it a primary direction, a particular velocity, a spin.
The psychic cross-section of the movement has a concentric schema,
with the more numerous weak feminists inhabiting the weak force-field
near the perimeter. Radical man-haters dwell at the high-energy core -
the actual root of the movement. (Radical means “of the root”, for which
reason we call a “radical” feminist a root-feminist.)
would make bold that man-hating is what brought the root-feminists to
feminism in the first place - that their animus toward the male sex
formed the historical precondition for their decision to call themselves feminists. Such being given, it is not
amiss to wonder about their probity and their policy.
Perhaps you have experienced their icy politeness; they're like
rattlesnakes who have attended charm school for one or two semesters,
where they learned not to make that uncouth buzzing noise. In the star
chamber of their minds they have passed judgement by virtue of a hidden standard
- a silent, one-sided game whose rules they've not had the goodness to
make clear to you. Yes...they've got cards they aren't showing. And
no...they are not mellow hippies!
The fact that some feminists are extreme man-haters makes it unnecessary
for all of them to be so. The rest are free to voice milder shades of
dissatisfaction because someone else is doing the dirty work. Thanks to such combined operations, feminism in general remains on track toward the occult goal of
of both weak feminists and radical feminists permits the
movement to play the game of “good cop-bad cop” toward the male
The man-hating radicals,
being smaller in number, are obscured by the cloud of
weak feminists swirling around them. Swirling around them is an apposite phrase, being connotative of gravitation.
You might ask why man-hating should be considered feminism's occult core, given that man-hating is quickly discoverable by
anyone who cares to look. The thing to understand is that man-hating as such is not the thing which is hidden. Rather, what's hidden is the naked fact itself that man-hating as such is indeed the core of feminism. Cognitive fragmentation is how this hiding happens.
In computer terms, man-hating is the Unix kernel of the women's
movement, encompassed by all manner of shells, directory trees, file
paths, programming environments, application softwares and aesthetically
pleasing graphical user interfaces. In the present context, it is as if
the almighty kernel were pretending to be just another text file.
Being dense and heavy, the man-haters sink to the center of
the movement like lead weights. In that narrow space they quickly
gain the companionship of kindred spirits and the communal
reinforcement such companionship offers.
And they have rude intentions on a grand scale. If you are male, they
view you abstractly -- as a “problem” to be socially engineered or
managed, a contradictory baby-man, a dangerous animal needing to be
carefully watched, a glorified juvenile delinquent for whom it is
permissible to “make plans”. In no case do they look upon you as a
rational being endowed with freedom and dignity who must be consulted or
engaged in dialogue.
The world indeed
contains feminists who view you in such a light, if you are male. They
are a thin wedge of the female population, a less thin wedge of the
feminist population, but either way they unquestionably exist and they’d
rather you didn’t.
And they have no
trademark physical personna. Radical feminists don’t often walk around
with signs on their backs (although I once saw a bumper sticker that
said “Now you know what a radical feminist looks like”). Most are well
able to blend with the landscape and operate incognito. This they do
skillfully; they’ve had practice. The person ahead of you in the
checkout line might be one of them.
Feminism has reached its current station owing to a considerable
passion and a considerable drive. It is no exaggeration that
women who either strongly dislike men, or adhere to some theory of
abstract male guilt, have furnished the most powerful sector of this
“drive”. You'll never convince me otherwise.
If it feels a bit strong to call feminism a hate movement, consider
that this much at least may be fairly admitted; that denigration of men
is a recurring motif in the speech and writing of many feminist
leaders. Such being granted, we might pose a question or two. How deeply
does such animosity inform the movement as a whole? And would the
movement have any salient character at all if such an element were
lacking? Realistically, how long would the feminist movement remain in
motion if man-hating somehow evaporated from the world? If you insist
that feminism means something respectable, then feminism simply does not parse.
The leading spirits of the feminist movement have pissed a
continual stream of corrosive anti-male diatribe for many years, with
proof of their venomous disposition abundantly stockpiled. And
man-haters of less celebrity but no less malice occupy the movement from top to bottom. If we call feminism a hate movement we do
so because we have difficulty understanding what else puts the “move” in
the “movement”. The movement moves because hateful people are setting
their shoulders to the wheel and pushing hard. It moves by virtue of
hate, therefore it qualifies as a hate movement, being nothing less than
hate in motion. This makes at least as much sense as any contrary
explanation, and probably a good deal more.
Man-hating has never operated on the mere fringes of the women's
movement; never has it been marginal. (Even the freak-prophetess Valerie
Solanas could be described as faux or pseudo-marginal; in fact, she has
gotten plenty of endorsements by more respectable pundits, even if many
affect to hold her at arm's length.) Man-hating, man haters and
man-deprecators have been front stage center since the early days of
women's lib in the 1960s. They have stated plainly and repeatedly that
they intend revolution, not reform. So it would be painfully naive and
fatuous to say, “oh, but look at all the nice feminists! Look at all the
noble things that are happening! Oh, please do accentuate the
Many a weak feminist might concur, let us say,
that Andrea Dworkin was something of a nutter. Yet we are bound to
wonder how many times a day she, this weak feminist, unconsciously
paraphrases Andrea. Dworkin, in common with her various radical sisters,
generates memes into the surrounding culture space much as a star
generates a stellar wind.
If you still balk at calling feminism a hate movement, you will surely not dispute that the hateful
part of it may be so characterized. Regrettably, that hateful part
constitutes the most vital, structurally consistent and far-reaching
part -- by far the more revealing index of larger developments. The
unhateful or comparatively less hateful part provides the inertial mass,
consisting as it does of segments who feed off the ideological
direction of the misandrically biased leadership. These segments ought
to start distancing themselves, else their silence equates to acquiesence.
The drivers are typically the driven. Of a certainty, man haters are the most driven of all feminists. Hate-filled people on the whole are driven people, hate being a tremendous rocket fuel.
This fact ought to command our interest. To say the least, it is significant that hate is such a tremendous motivator in the world
generally. And while anybody is free to assert that the women's
movement is motivated by “love”, that idea is a clinker. It strikes a
wooden note. If hatred of the male sex did not play a decidedly central
role, where would be those ad nauseam iterations of “one in four, one in
four”? Where would be the vim and vigor in those “take back the night”
rallies? What would be the emotional provenance of the infamous
expression that “dead men don't rape”? Where would be those horrendously
inflated bulimia/anorexia statistics, with the implication that “men”
are somehow to blame? Why would the two Lenores, Walker and Weitzman,
have written such shabby books as “The Battered Woman” and “The Divorce
Revolution” ? Why would those who publicly challenge the truth of
feminist DV statistics sometimes recieve death threats?
Maybe someone else can answer; I'm having a tough time of it.