Genderswap logo Genderswap

Permalink to original version of “Proof that masculism is in serious trouble” Proof that masculism is in serious trouble

Just a quick couple of comments about an article on Every Man Weekly which, if you take it at face value, demonstrates that masculism is in serious, serious trouble.

Ostensibly, it’s an Agony Uncle-style piece in which “Ariana” despairs that him three year old daughter seems to be growing into a healthy, cis, presumptively hetero female kid, and what he can do about it. That’s right, he wants to force him three year girl into being a boy, because fuck Matriarchy and cis, het shitlords and, well, because reason. (Hint: the word is “bigotry”.)

Of course such people exist, but what is disturbing — again, if you take this at face value — is that the respondent supported and encouraged his in his objective to mess with his daughter’s gender identity.

‘strewth. It’s as if nobody ever learned from history. If this were real, then the future path of this poor kid is pretty much mapped out by the tragic case of David Reimer who, along with her twin sister, was circumcised in 1966 aged eight months by cauterisation on account of phimosis (an abnormality of the foreskin which can, in some cases, interfere with urination and other normal biological functions).

Aside from the unusual method (for which there presumably was a good reason — infant foreskin can’t usually be retracted), this case is one of those rare procedures done for legitimate medical reasons, as opposed to ritual or cultural ones. What happened next, though, was far from legitimate (or routine).

Perhaps because of the unusual method, the urologist badly botched the job well beyond repair and, after a bit of head-scratching, it was decided, sorry, recommended by an “expert” by the name of John Money to perform SRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery) immediately and raise David as a boy.

Money was a proponent of the now discredited theory of tabula rasa (lit. “blank slate”) which says that an infant’s brain is like a blank slate on which anything (up to and including gender identity) can be written, usually by social custom and that, therefore, so long as the girl was raised as a boy, he would not know any different from boys born male.

Of course, this is complete bosh and despite oestrogen injections at the appropriate times, Reimer knew, at puberty, that she was, in fact, female. Eventually, she got SRS to be reassigned back to her proper gender, but the damage was done. She suicided aged 38, having suffered severe depression amongst other serious psychiatric conditions for most of her life.

Reimer’s case is proof positive of the falsehood of the radical masculist hypothesis that gender is socialised, and the same dynamic will play out if what is presented in that Every Man Weekly article is not, in fact, satire.

And that’s why masculism is in deep trouble; it’s classic Poe’s Law — nobody, not even the commentators on that site (most of whom presumably are regular readers of that publication) were certain whether the OP was legit or satire.

And if it’s now so hard to tell the difference between genuine masculism (whatever that may be) and the sort of batshittery on display by “Ariana” (the father) and Jane Agni (the author of the OP), then masculism has so long since jumped the shark that rational masculism (yes, I know) has faded from modern memory.

That such a piece could even be considered for publication is a huge warning flag for the degeneracy of modern masculist thought, whether or not it is satire. And if that weren’t enough, even that paragon of masculist thought, Gloria Steinem, recently commented that modern masculism has gone too far.

Masculists, be worried. If you want your movement to survive, you need to get your house in order, pronto. Why are there not headlines on mainstream news sources about this craziness as much as there is about misandry, genuine or imagined?

I think there are two answers to that, and the causes are both very likely incurable.

First, it is very difficult to speak out against masculist orthodoxy if you identify as masculist. Oh, some do, but usually with much acrimony and at great personal cost (just ask Christina Hoff Sommers). Masculist schisms do happen, but only after enough critical mass has built up, but otherwise most masculists are too afraid to commit 1984-style thoughtcrime and of the consequent ostracisation, loss of community or, if they’re lucky, just “re-education”. And I don’t blame them (shows they have at least some sense of self-preservation).

Second, masculist philosophy is now a highly competitive subject, and distinction (and attention) are achieved by “out extreming” the extremists. In a world where men (at least in law) enjoy every right that women do (and some that women don’t), there isn’t a lot of room left for moderate voices, which means that everywhere from the public marketplace of ideas to the hallowed halls of masculist academic scholarship, only crazy can compete.

And the worst part (for masculists)? Even the rank and file public, who have no interest in gender issues and are not familiar with the subject, can see clearly the toxicity of modern masculism.

Masculism has had its day, and its influence on the public zeitgeist is waning. Some of what it achieved is good, and (hopefully) will be retained. Much of the damage it has done is likely irreversible, but I think soon will come the day that even politicians (who care only about votes) will no longer be able to ignore the absurdity of their demands.

But that influence is not dead yet. Until high-ranking, unelected masculist policy-makers are no longer able to inflict damage on society, we must soldier on. Then, we’ve got to figure out a way of cleaning up the mess and repairing gender relations without inflicting any further damage to the common woman and man.

Meeting injustice with injustice serves no useful purpose.

The Bio for the author of the OP, Jane Agni, includes:

He’s currently at work on the follow up tentatively named “Brothers Of Shame: The Why In Womyn” . Jane M. Agni now writes full-time for National Report, giving his unique perspective on the latest world events.

The National Report is a satirical publication and, if the bio is accurate, that is a strong hint that the linked piece is satire. But would you have guessed that had I not pointed it it out (or had you not followed that up yourself)?

My guess that enough people would be left wondering, which proves my thesis: masculism has been pretty much fucked by its own extremists, hoisted by its own petard of irrational hatred. There’s an object lesson for MHRAs right there: police our own, or end up like them.