Summary: The next phase in the feminist revolution has begun, as women unleash their rage as a tool for social change – and men begin to jump off the bandwagon. This might a turning point. What comes next might be even more exciting. What if men initiated 50% of divorces? Divorce equality! At the end see two new books about feminist rage.
Feminists unleash their righteous grrl-rage!
Centuries of effort made public displays of rage, racism, and (lastly) sexism inappropriate in most American communities. In one generation, the Left is erasing all that progress. None can predict where this unleashing of women’s rage will take America. When reading it, imagine this article with the genders reversed.
“Thanks for not raping us, all you ‘good men.’ But it’s not enough.”
By Victoria Bissell Brown, a professor emerita of history at Grinnell College.
A “perspective” article in the WaPo.
“A flood of rage is rushing through women’s brains.
Why can’t men organize to change themselves?”
“I yelled at my husband last night. Not pick-up-your-socks yell. Not how-could-you-ignore-that-red-light yell. This was real yelling. This was 30 minutes of from-the-gut yelling. Triggered by a small, thoughtless, dismissive, annoyed, patronizing comment. Really small. A micro-wave that triggered a hurricane. I blew. Hard and fast. And it terrified me. I’m still terrified by what I felt and what I said. I am almost 70 years old. …Yet in that roiling moment, screaming at my husband as if he represented every clueless male on the planet (and I every angry woman of 2018), I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead.”
Her husband responded like a true beta.
“My husband of 50 years did not have to stifle a laugh. He took it dead seriously. He did not defend his remark, he did not defend men. He sat, hunched and hurt, and he listened. …
Of course, that only spurred her rage to new heights.
“The winds calmed ever so slightly in that moment. And then the storm surge welled up in me as I realized the pathetic impotence of nice men’s plan to rebuild the wreckage by listening to women. As my rage rushed through the streets of my mind, toppling every memory of every good thing my husband has ever done (and there are scores of memories), I said the meanest thing I’ve ever said to him: Don’t you dare sit there and sympathetically promise to change. Don’t say you will stop yourself before you blurt out some impatient, annoyed, controlling remark. No, I said, you can’t change. You are unable to change. You don’t have the skills and you won’t do it. …And you cannot change.”
Why should he change in the face of an irrational woman, bereft of any sense of fairness, an entitled princess frustrated that she does not receive her due subservience from those around her? She demands the equivalent of “Danegeld”, to be followed inevitably by further demands.
“In the centuries of feminist movements that have washed up and away, good men have not once organized their own mass movement to change themselves and their sons or to attack the mean-spirited, teasing, punching thing that passes for male culture. Not once. Bastards.”
She does not ask if women have ever organized to improve bad aspects of their “culture.” Her sweeping characterization of “male” culture (whatever that is) is quite mad. Especially since in the space of a generation American women have gained rights and privileges without precedent in history. Women asked for them, and men agreed. Reading this rant, perhaps we were wrong to do so. She then has a moment of accidental wisdom.
“Don’t listen to me. Listen to each other. Talk to each other. Earn your power for once.”
Men are doing exactly as she recommends, as seen in a small way by two posts this week on the FM website: Women’s self-esteem: has been boosted to their self-destruction — and A surprise end to the gender wars: men will stand together. She ends with two prophecies. Many men will agree with the first. It depends on the how the reader defines “we.”
“No man right now understands the flood that is rushing through women’s brains …Pay attention people: If we do not raise boys to walk humbly and care deeply, if we do not demand that men do more than just listen, we will all drown in the flood.”
The second assumes that men will be weak, like her husband.
“And there is no patriarchal Noah to save us.”
History suggests that she is wrong. There are remnants in America of masculinity and male pride: men who are African-Americans, Hispanics, migrants, far-Right extremists, military (active duty and vets), police, and Muslim. The rest of us can learn from them. And strong men find leaders. We may get a patriarchal Noah to save us from the flood of radical feminists’ mad rage.
Revolt of the liberal betas!
“MIA: the liberal men we love”
By Amy Butcher at Literary Hub.
“Everywhere across America, liberal unions once so strong in love – relationships founded on mutual respect and trust and commitment and loyalty – have found themselves upended, or at the very least foundationally rocked, by the political escalation as it relates, perhaps most specifically, to womanhood and gender. Twenties or thirties or forties, children or no children, married or engaged or committed via long-term relationships: I have met more women than I can count in these past three weeks alone who have confided, in low voices – or once shouting, disbelieving, desperate, we have three children, one woman cried to me – of the disruption in their own home.”
Next she describes the revolt of the betas. This could be big. Bigger than big.
“Of men – previously, pleasantly, progressive – rising up with unprecedented hostility, anger, abandon, and resentment.”
Next comes the ritual claim of “fascism”, since to Leftists that means stuff you don’t like is Hitler.
“Who is it that said that when fascism eventually comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and holding the cross? I think it is worth adding that it will wear the face you love.”
Next she tells tales that are long overdue, as men awaken to the new world built by feminists.
“My husband worries about our daughter, she told me recently. That I’m only teaching her she’s a victim. …My husband filed for divorce, another confided a few days later. He said he loved me and shared in some of my frustrations, but “could no longer tolerate,” he said, the level at which I felt them. Hours later, another wrote to tell me of a save-the-date no longer in need of saving. My fiancé called off the engagement, she wrote. He loves me – he’s sure, and I believe him – but he’s ‘overwhelmed’ with everything and ‘doesn’t know how to comfort me’ and ‘doesn’t love who I’ve become.’
“Who I’ve become: a phrase I’ve heard most frequently by women who have found themselves rightly riled, women who have perhaps never before – until recently – cited themselves as feminists report the fury, the frustration, the foundational shift as it’s occurring in the men they love so fiercely and the relationships that hold them as a consequence to the male gaze gazing now at their woman, riled.”
Seldom mentioned by feminists is the near 50% divorce rate, most of which are initiated by women (not all women love their husbands “fiercely”). Men have learned to recognize the signs, and act preemptively. And they have learned from women that “till death do us part” means “until I’m no longer having fun.” Equality demands that men initiate 50% of divorces. Who knows how that will improve marriage? Perhaps such ill-tempered rages by wives would become less common when they have immediate consequences. Perhaps men achieving divorce equality with men would be a Samson in the Temple moment that knocks down the institution of marriage.
Read the rest of her article. She is touchingly unaware that she might be even slightly at fault, and that there are two sides to every such debate in life.
Appeasing feminists doesn’t work
As radical feminists take American society into new territory, Chis Jenson’s song “Drunk Girl” urges men to adopt obsolete values of chivalry. He gets abuse in return.
“Take a drunk girl home
Let her sleep all alone
Leave her keys on the counter your number by her phone
Pick up her life she threw on the floor
Leave the hall lights on walk out and lock the door
That’s how she knows the difference between a boy and man.”
See this scathing reply, similar to that of Victoria Bissell Brown above.
“The Kavanaugh Hearing, Chris Janson’s ‘Drunk Girl,’
and Country Music’s #MeToo Misfire”
By Kathryn Schulz at The New Yorker.
“Sitting in my car, I laughed, swore, sputtered. Because, really, where on earth to begin? Seldom has a musical creation been so well-intentioned yet so wrongheaded. …{it’s} a P.S.A. {public service announcement} about not raping women. ….Much as the man in the song doesn’t deserve credit for not raping a woman, the man who sings it doesn’t deserve credit for his allegedly bold stand against rape.”
That’s a bizarre statement. The song advocates doing a good deed. She might as well interpret Boy Scout’s training to help the elderly cross the street as an announcement that they won’t mug them. The article gets weirder.
“To its credit, the song gets one thing mostly right, which is the woman at the heart of it. …Janson does her the rare courtesy of not chastising her for drinking. On the contrary, he makes it the man’s responsibility to behave appropriately ….”
Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: “Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.” {Example here.} But this is taking it to a mad extreme. What lays this responsibility on men to protect women from the consequences of their actions? Do they at least get cab fare at Uber rates for this service?
“Taking a drunk girl home, not to have sex with her but to make sure she gets there safely, is not the difference between a boy and a man; it is the difference between the perpetrator of a violent crime and an averagely decent, law-abiding human being.”
No, it is the difference between a criminal and a saint. Few people, men or women, go to such lengths to help strangers. Especially as this involves the risk of a sexual assault charge from the drunk, perhaps crazy or criminal, woman (such false accusations are common) – whose home he has entered while she was drunk.
This is modern feminism. The advances of women have been supported by enough men to make them happen. At what point will those men jump off the bandwagon? Look at what it got Chris Janson.
The invaluable Dalrock
For those interested in understanding modern feminism, I recommend reading Dalrock. Two are relevant to this subject. This post is based on his post Ugly feminists high on rage. He draws some important conclusions. Also see Has feminism jumped the shark.
He has some brilliant analysis about the relationship of feminism and chivalry, all well-worth reading.
- How chivalry (and mamma’s boys) brought us women’s suffrage and feminism.
- Feminists resent his chivalry even as he chivalrously supports feminism – about Chris Janson’s song.
- Other posts about chivalry.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women & society, and especially these about the counter-revolution…
- The feminist revolutionaries have won. Insurgents have arisen to challenge the new order. As always, they’re outlaws.
- As the Left’s social revolution wins victories, a revolt begins.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- MeToo discovers that there is always a counterrevolution.
- Society changes as men learn the Dark Triad.
- The patriarchy built this city and will return after it dies — an article by Phillip Longman in Foreign Policy.
- Game is toxic to feminism.
New books about women’s righteous grrl-power rage
Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger
Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger
“Her husband responded like a true beta”
To be fair him he was broken to her will a long time ago, I shudder to think what 50 years of this would do to a person, some variant of Stockholm syndrome I guess.
Again: Stop the with this hyperbolic “false rape accusations are common” rhetoric. Not a one of you EVER complains about “false” mugging and break-in accusations. The problem isn’t the possibility of false accusation of a CRIME, the problem is that you MIGHT actually be held accountable for your misogynistic, entitled, self centered behavior towards women. It means you MIGHT actually have to give up some of your TOXIC patriarchal privileges. There are some parts of masculinity that are nice – the toxic male sexual entitlement that men are socialized to engage in no matter who they’re dealing with is not one of them.
Considering the America’s deep-rooted racist sickness that still causes this country’s justice system to be unwilling to even report and prosecute rapes based on the race of the VICTIM alone, I’d say it’s absurd to be so hyperbolic with this false accusations narrative. Maybe you should concentrate on making sure that ALL races and ethnicities of women and girls have the same level of protection in U.S. society and making sure that the backlog in rape kits is finally adressed. Those are ACTUALLY the moss pressing issues concerning rape – not faux hyperbolic debates about false rape narratives. Most rapes aren’t reported and only 4% of rapists even get jail time. This is absurd.
“The problem isn’t the possibility of false accusation of a CRIME”, is true. The problem is the loss of presumption of innocence. Speaking of sexist thought, “the toxic male sexual entitlement that men are socialized to engage in no matter who they’re dealing with is not one of them”. Let’s change and see how women fair “There are some parts of femininity that are nice, the toxic permanent female monetary entitlement that women are socialized to have no matter who’s at fault, is not one of them”.
At first I thought, Emme, that you were being sarcastic. The real truth is that the genetic, biological, evolutionary, and social forces that shaped men, also shaped women. We are one species.
We have real problems, but incorrectly singling out a guilty party is very unlikely to help. The limited number of cases I have studied indicate that identifying the wrong problem leads to the wrong solution. One would think from your tirade that women just got the vote, or can’t organize to be effective.
But rather than just moralize, I will offer to you part of the real problem: humans are competitive and they strive more in their self interest than not.
Emme, stop listening to idiotic, fact-free liberal screeds. Your mental health will improve dramatically.
alan,
No personal attacks, please. That violates our comment policy.
Emme,
“Not a one of you EVER complains about “false” mugging and break-in accusations.”
False. There is a large body of evidence about false accusations of theft. Since the damage is usually to the insurance company – not the individual – they’re the ones complaining.
As for muggings – there is seldom a gain from a false report of mugging. False accusations of sexual assault can be useful for women. Ditto the large fraction of reports about sexual and racial harrassment (see the latest, made by a coed at Ohio U).
For example, there is no substantial evidence supporting Ford’s accusations. But there are significant benefits to her from making them. Political gain, stopping a conservative from getting on the Court. Fame. Status as a victim. Potential for much income (speaking fees, book deals, professional advancement – all enjoyed by Anita Hill).
This changes the dynamics for reporting of sexual assault from that a generation or two ago. Then the costs to a woman for making an accusation were high, the benefits often zero or negative.
After that article , I am so glad that I never married.
Sven,
Talking to the young men I led in Boy Scouts, misogyny and aversion to marriage are quite common. Cause, meet effects.
Another terrific assemblage of information to consider.
“Next she describes the revolt of the betas. This could be big. Bigger than big.”
Yes. Amy’s Article should be read. Comments are valuable to this …betas revolt.
Next is Dalrock’s Law of Feminisim. Invaluable reading as Larry offers and spot on as a perspective on the adolescent ideas of “victimizations” and “oppressions” of women by men. Add in the demands (and destructive raging) that the all powerful men must lead in rectifying thereof.
Families?
Children?
It’s all about “me”!
Warren Farrell, The Boy Crisis, and his long involvement with this early Feminisim, he can give one a historical perspective from the late 60’s of when Friedan and Steinem decided to succumb to the early demands of radical gender feminists while he was on the Board of NOW.
Bigger than big?
The pushback has been gaining strength and perhaps will even more so now after the circus of Blasey Ford.
And well it should.
Good stuff.
I don’t know if you have seen this yet, but it is apropos … and possibly blog topic worthy.
https://lithub.com/mia-the-liberal-men-we-love/
Citizen ,
That post is in the second section of this post, with a substantial excerpt.
I am sorry about that. I was flagged to it on FB after reading/scanning this article. I will pay closer attention next time.
Citizen,
Not a problem. Much of commenting is making mistakes and misspellings. Like bull sessions at the pub!
Thank you for this timely article. A SWPL/SJW woman came over a few months ago. She believes in marriage “equality” so her husband has to do half of the housework and cooking, though she brings in about 5% of what he does with her home business. He is the bread-winner. She told my wife she was now a “Social Justice Warrior.” As is so common with white liberals, she talks like MLK but lives like the KKK in a white neighborhood with “good schools.” My wife quickly changed the subject. The kids go to after-care so even though both work from home, they pay the public school to watch them until 5. The wife doesn’t have much to do and obviously her idleness is fertile ground for wickedness.
On the surface, the marriage seems “happy.” Many marriages do until divorce comes. It’s entirely possible the husband is wondering what he’s getting out of the marriage.
The hen-pecked beta male divorce meme needs to go viral or men need to find their balls and put the Emmas of the world in their place. With women earning more due to the “Mancession,” men can now get alimony. Tech beta males will cling to feminism to the bitter end, but maybe more can be saved.
PRCD,
I’ve been in the forecasting biz for 35 years, 15 years making forecasts about geopolitics (broadly defined). Both have taught me that when people don’t see signs of strangeness and tightly stick to orthodox views, strange things are about to happen. I’ve seen this happen many times. I have been burned by this too many times as a portfolio manger.
I remember vividly the replies in 2007 to my prediction that the Iraq war would end with us pushed out and leave Iraq in three parts, which would then fight among themselves. The consensus among both hawks (victory!) and doves (just like Vietnam, total defeat) was that I wasn’t wrong, I was stupid. Now I’m told my prediction was obvious. So it is, in hindsight.
The evidence is accumulating now that something is happening in the gender wars. Too soon to tell what. The big tell is that people don’t see this happening, the scale and extraordinary nature of events.
My guess is that we’re in the early process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Perhaps the eventual synthesis that will look strange to us today. As usual, both sides are confident that the usual process of history won’t happen.
I’m not sure if the Betas are actually revolting, or simply noting that too many women are simply becoming more trouble than they are worth. The modern sexual marketplace brings to mind Harlan Ellison’s remark about making it in Hollywood. He said pursuing success there was like climbing a mountain of cow flop in order to pluck a single perfect rose, and finding once you made it to the top that you had lost your sense of smell. Feminism, like a lot of other success stories, hit the point of diminishing marginal returns. Maybe the pursuit of feminist women has hit that point for a lot of Beta males.
The Man,
“I’m not sure if the Betas are actually revolting, or simply noting that too many women are simply becoming more trouble than they are worth.”
That’s missing the point. This is a quantitative prediction, not that kind of vagueness. Watch the rate of marriage and rate of male-initiated divorces for men 20-35. A revolt of the beta will put the former in free fall and send the later soaring.
“That’s missing the point. This is a quantitative prediction, not that kind of vagueness. Watch the rate of marriage and rate of male-initiated divorces for men 20-35. A revolt of the beta will put the former in free fall and send the later soaring.”
That’s not much of a revolt. It’s more an admission that marriage has become a strange game, and the only winning move is not to play. I think the term I’ve heard is MGTOW. Revolt would be changing the rules to put Betas on a more level playing field. Betas aren’t really revolting, except to the extent that women find them revolting until they feel the need to hook one. Betas are giving up on a game they can’t win. It’s not a revolt until you try to overthrow something.
The Man,
“That’s not much of a revolt.”
This is exactly the form of most successful revolts. The pitchforks storming the palace revolts are done by desparate fools, and almost always lose.
People tend to have a bizarrely unrealistic picture of revolts because they think of America and France, two unusual events (unusual in different ways). Hence peasants dream of the Great Day When They will Arise and Smite their Oppressors.
Successful revolts involve market power, or (as with marriage) changes in form or numbers of participation.
Larry,
You mentioned that successful revolts involve market power. Can you elaborate more on that and give one example? Chances are that you’ve mentioned it before and I have missed it.
AC,
“You mentioned that successful revolts involve market power.”
Consider the revolt of urban elites against rural aristocrats in Europe. It took centuries, but they successfully asserted their power. Economic power – via free markets – was their decisive advantage.
The Founders wanted to economically integrate America’s regions so that markets would the venue for conflicts – not other and more destructive forms of conflict. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 prohibited the States from limiting interstate commerce. So the revolutionary shift in the economic center of gravity from the East coast to the center was accomplished thru markets – not force (except for the South, who responded to loss of power by force) – as it was in other lands.
Many other examples! Rise of women, etc.
Clausewitz’s definition of war is the following: ” ‘War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale… an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.’
What Mrs. Bissel Brown did to her husband amounts to an act of war: the violence is psychological, but the difference is not relevant, means and intention being the same, i.e. “compel the opponent to fulfill our will”; let’s say that it’s a psyops war operation. Clausewitz adds, ironically, that the aggressor never bears the responsibility of war, because he would never make war if the attacked party did not resist to his aggression, being very happy to gain his coveted loot without any toil or risk (evidently, Mrs. Bissell Brown did not read Clausewitz, or she would have not unleashed her rage against a man who never resisted her aggressions, so risking to elicit a resistance in a longtime defeated opponent.
Escalating the war among sexes is a very bad idea for women, because in an all out war – a war in which means other than psychological violence could be employed, for example physical, economical, political violence – women will lose, and lose very badly, because:
a) men are physically much stronger than women, and much more at ease with physical aggression
b) men still hold the large majority of economical power
c) men still hold the large majority of political power positions
d) in the cohesion of women’s army, there’s an ingrained weakness: in its deepest layers, women’s human nature is strongly attracted by strong, even criminally strong, i.e. violent, men, so that men’s army could break the enemy front and attract a significant number of enemy troops, who would betray their side and join the men’s army.
Roberto,
“What Mrs. Bissel Brown did to her husband amounts to an act of war: the violence is psychological,”
The West is war-mad. Everything is war. War on poverty, war on cancer, all our social problems are war, war on boys.
My guess is that this silliness results from the Long Peace. A society that has suffered from war knows what it really is. Much like a rich coddled person believes a hangnail is an affliction, until he gets a severe toothache or chronic disease.
Dear Mr. Kummer,
having seen and fought a real war in my youth, and a particularly horrible and dirty kind of war, the civil one (Lebanon, 1982 and following years) I could’nt agree more with you. Really, we absolutely do not know what we are doing, when we talk about war, and especially when we make parodies of war like this one.
Roberto,
I agree. Chet Richards was, so far as I know, the first to discuss this – discussing how 4GW evolved from a useful metaphor for war, to a meaningless bit of jargon about conflict.
More broadly, these kinds of civil conflicts are common as dirt. What makes the gender wars unique is their scale – men vs. women, a struggle for the very basic rules of society. It’s not war. Not violent or physically destructive. But probably big beyond our imagining.
“So don’t be too open with your own wife, don’t tell her every thought in your mind, reveal a part, keep the rest to yourself…” says the ghost of Agamemnon to Odysseus, in hell.
“ This is a quantitative prediction, not that kind of vagueness. Watch the rate of marriage and rate of male-initiated divorces for men 20-35. A revolt of the beta will put the former in free fall and send the later soaring.”
Exactly. It’s called a relationship, for two. If she stops giving, get out. “Never learned how to play well with others.”? Move on. You were looking for a job(woman) when you found this one, so? Next. Same exact thing.
So you made a bad choice? Fix your “choosing mechanism” and go find a caring, giving good woman.
They are out there.
Notice how the ranting and raving Ones always want someone else to repair things.
Always want a political solution.
Change the Laws to accommodate Us.
Weak, irresponsible orientation.
“Don’t you ever talk that way to me again….” say it once and mean it.
Pay the price and move on.
Tragedy for so many women.
Too bad,
Pingback: Good catch! | Dalrock