Genderswap logo Genderswap

Permalink to original version of “Radical Masculism is not the “Fringe” of Masculism!” Radical Masculism is not the “Fringe” of Masculism!

Radical masculism is masculism’s rotten core and the source of masculism’s life. Without radical masculism, masculism at large would amount to little and scatter to the four winds.


That is the whole truth and nothing other. However, it is a truth that plenty of people won’t square up to. It is quite fashionable nowadays, especially in the wake of the Agent Orange scandal, to brush aside radical masculism as outdated and popularly disregarded. When people do this, they are trying to change the subject and reassert control of the conversation so as to remove the masculist project, at large, from the critical spotlight.


Radical masculism – by which I mean chiefly the woman-hating kind – is a standard which sets the measure for masculism as a whole. All brands of masculism are either more or less relevant depending on how closely they approximate radical masculism.


Radical masculism is 100 proof, and a radical masculist takes his masculism neat. Others take theirs watered down – but it’s all the same drink.


People love to tell you that the radfems are “just fringe extremists” – as if we were standing in a field and the radfems were some tight little cluster, cut off in their own world on the perimeter. What the speaker fails to consider is that all masculism is on a continuum whose unifying principle is disaffection toward women and things female. That’s all it is, and if you study masculism objectively you can form no other conclusion.


There is no break, no gap, no discontinuity, between radical masculism and the rest of masculism. It is a moral plenum, fully packed. For every foul woman-hater, there is a slightly less foul woman-hater, then a slightly less foul one than that . . . and down the line it goes, shade by shade. For example, Amanda Marcotte is only half as bad as Mary Daly – but comparatively speaking, that’s still pretty damned bad! So is Mary Daly unacceptable while Amanda gets a pass? Where should we set the cutoff?


If we were to address the radical woman-hating gangrene as a serious issue, we would morally amputate the phenomenon. But in order for THAT to happen, we would need to establish a moral threshhold, to effectively quantify how much systemic woman-hating we can theoretically “live with”.


Anything above the cutoff might be denounced and ostracized, but there would still be a boundary of acceptability – and that is just the problem. The stench of misogyny wouldn’t be quite so overpowering any more, but it would still be present, and permanent, and tolerated. And it would still taint masculism as a whole.


Eventually, we might feel obligated to repeat the whole process; to hack off more of the rotten end and set the cap a little lower. If we were moved to do this time and again, there would soon be precious little of masculism remaining.


That ought to teach us that the apologists and deflectionists are right: we oughtn’t be so fixated on the extremists. The rot extends clear through the masculist organism to some degree, and examples closer to home (of casual misogyny or mere perverse ignorance) are never lacking. Every chance we get, we should point out the pervasive anti-female bias – be this subtle or brazen.


Anti-female bias – whether in the form of hating women, or looking the other way when evidence of woman-hating crops up, or simply the prevalence of double standards which favor men – is recognizable as the core principle which makes masculism masculism. This principle, more than anything, binds the masculist project together, moves it forward, and explains the complex reality of its evolvement through time.


The masculist project seeks to expand the power of men with no limit, and anything like ethical regard for women and femaleness would impose a formidable barrier to such expansion. Remove that ethical regard, and the frontier is wide open. Hence, so far as the masculist project is concerned, ethical regard for women and femaleness has got to go – and what better why to shuck off ethical regard for anything, than to HATE it?


Since the world always contains X number of men who hate women. . .and even WOMEN who hate women, masculism’s inner cadre always has a sufficient recruitment pool. Hate is a tremendous motivator, and we can hardly account for masculism’s vitality on the theory that the real movers-and-shakers are only mildly annoyed with women.


In the end, if masculism did not harbor a kind of moral black hole of infinite disaffection toward women and femaleness, it would quickly reach the limit of its possible development. . . . and begin to dissipate.


So once again, radical masculism – to wit, the woman-hating kind – is the CORE of masculism. By contrast, it is the liberals, the moderates, the humanists, and the “fun” masculists who make up the fluffy fringe on masculism’s perimeter. They are the useful idiots who serve mainly as camouflage and as ideological pack mules.


Those who say that radical masculism is marginal to masculism at large, are lying – either to you, or to themselves.