Let’s be honest, the only thing worse than a feminist is a male feminist. Now before the blue-haired trigger-happy morons jump all over the extreme bigotry of this article, we do mean current weak post-modernist feminists, not the women who fought for every advancement in society you call the patriarchy. Simply put, a male feminist is like a female feminist, claiming that the daily struggles of women in modern western democracies are the result of evil men, with the added benefit of believing you are one of the very same who cause these struggles.
“Not all guys are like this” promise male feminists while hiding their weak soy-powered fragile arms under their Che Guevara tee, “I’m one of the good ones.” This is a common tactic implemented by the beta-males who can’t attract women on what nature gave them, so they have to resort to self-hating talking points to earn their fancy. These men, the same who know every step in the 17-step process for affirmative consent without the benefit of ever being able to use it, are the original incels.
The truth is that as much as the detractors of conservative commentators like to label them as incels, aka “involuntarily celibates,” the fact remains that many of the conservatives they brand as incels are in long-term healthy relationships. It’s amazing what the lack of a degenerate ideology can do for love. Meanwhile, you have soy-boys trolling the internet finding outlets to which to protest their weakness who can’t hold down a relationship as much as they can pull up a weight. And sure, they attribute their lack of masculine traits such as gravitas, courage, and strength to their rejection of toxic masculinity. Turns out weak arms, soft voices, and passive demeanours are the thing to drive the ladies crazy.
That being said, if male feminists are such a bastion for female rights and advancement, why are they always the biggest creeps? We all know the Aziz Ansari case was a load of rubbish, but for a self-proclaimed feminist he sure did objectify the hell out of that woman. But of course, by the standards of feminism, sexual liberation is key to empowerment and chivalry is patriarchal tyranny. By these standards, to claim that the woman accusing Aziz Ansari should be less sexually permissive would be retrograde, and to claim that Aziz should have been less sexually aggressive would be to suggest treating her as a prude. And let’s not forget the recent human piece of tofu from the Greens party who was recently accused of sexual improprieties, or the quintessential former feminist hero of leftist Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein. When it comes to male feminists, they only protect women when they sexually disengage.
In fact, personal responsibility and traditional values seem to be far more conducive to romantic relationships than the post-modernist sexually liberated woke blokes. The current sex recession is a phenomenon almost exclusive to first-world Western countries in which fewer and fewer young people are having sex, many claiming they prefer to view pornography than to sleep with another human being. This certainly doesn’t fall into the frame of traditional values and seems far more aligned with the leftist sexual liberators who profess both that men are pigs who must be tamed and that servicing these pigs with sex work is not literal objectification but absolute empowerment.
But hey, if it has feminism in the title, don’t expect logical coherency.