“Masculinism” makes its debut

How much should be expected from “masculinism”? The term appears to be mostly window dressing for the fathers’ rights movement, initiated by men who have been abused by a divorce and child support system that often gives women the power at will to kick husbands out of the house and their children’s lives while forcing them, under Draconian penalties, to keep supporting the (now fatherless) household.

The “fathers’ rights” movement makes sense, and attempts by the feminist establishment to tar it as extremist, invoke “hate crime” legislation against it and what not are characteristically disgraceful. In fact, the movement fully accepts the feminist premise that radical equality is the appropriate standard for relations between the sexes, and so in theoretical terms is objectionable chiefly on grounds of excessive compliance with the views that now count as “mainstream.” Still, the feminists are right that it poses a fundamental threat. Radical equality is necessarily a fraud. Opening up discussion on “women’s issues,” as the “masculinist” movement does, is likely to dramatize the fraudulence and open up the possibility of some resolution that comes closer to accepting human beings as they are. And that would mean the end of all familiar forms of feminism.

6 thoughts on ““Masculinism” makes its debut”

  1. Hi, Jim and all. Here’s a
    Hi, Jim and all. Here’s a quick, rough piece I
    posted on the topic to a fathers’ rights list
    (with an edit for length). Fathers’ rights
    writers will make faster, more consistent
    progress when they recognize linguistic
    activism against them and keep it out of their
    media work. The idea presented here is in sync
    with other practices by individuals who want a
    civil society, in my opinion. Hopefully, someone
    with better credentials than mine will help us
    to defeat encroachments of the past few decades
    by linguistic activists.

    femina = women
    -ism = doctrine

    One who is a feminist is for women only if we regard the word
    from an etymological or common voter point of view. Etymology
    tells on linguistic activists who elaborate ridiculously in
    their definitions to the point of lying nakedly. Even common
    literary knowledge (from base pop literature) is enough for
    one to know that there’s something wrong with the word. It
    speaks of women only—of a wish for more dominion over and
    against men, regardless of how elaborately defined.

    A few years ago, feminist envoys brought us the linguistic
    trojan horse, “masculism,” “masculinism,” ad nauseam, and a
    few of us sucked it right up. Those of us who have studied
    our language and the art of propaganda for years, on the other
    hand, were horrified.

    Now feminists are using it against us. We try, as feminists do,
    to portray ourselves as “masculists” or “masculinists” (for
    men only) who want “equality” with women. We are made to
    appear as selfish feminists to the public eye. We are
    lowered to their level. They attempt to use us to pass
    pass more laws (devices) they can use to take more judicial
    supremacy over us (e.g., the ERA), as they and their pimps
    (our leaders who pander to them for business and political
    reasons) will never admit to feminists being treated equally.

    In the 1980s, at a university, I debated feminism with a
    feminist for a few minutes. She concluded with “You know,
    you should start a men’s rights organization.” Then she
    sneered. She sneered, because that’s exactly what feminists
    have wanted our reaction to be. Others have been too happy
    to offer the same “remedy.” They discussed the coming
    “backlash” a very long time ago and decided on the idiocies
    they would inject into our reputation. It’s not what they fear.

    They fear that we will come to be regarded as beneficial
    and impeccable men for the good of all—respected by all.
    Thus, the unprecedented weirdnesses injected into our forums
    and later dishonestly assigned to our reputation in feminist

    Most of the common voters who elect our leaders from the
    catchy phases presented by television, newspapers, etc.,
    cringe or laugh at the word, “feminism” being brought up
    in conversation. “Masculism” conjures thoughts and comments
    from coworkers corporate bosses, politicians and neighbors—
    thoughts and comments that are unprintable in the general
    media. We all know it. “Masculist” would naturally evoke
    the same image that “feminist” has earned.
    And we know what that image is, don’t we. Think of two
    men in the act. That’s the thought of the general public
    on the word, just as they have thought of feminists.

    We all know that in order for men to regain rights,
    we must win the hearts and minds of all.

    We are men who bring a better way for all. We are not
    selfish. We are beneficial messengers to the world—men,
    women and children. All should read and listen to what
    we have to say. We will win for all.


  2. I agree that “masculinism”
    I agree that “masculinism” and the like are bad words, that what’s needed is not some vision of men and women as opposing interest groups with universal equality (enforced by universal bureaucracy) as the standard that keeps them on the same level. Some other expression suggesting a more human understanding of relations between the sexes are needed.

    I think “fathers’ rights” is OK for men who are outraged by the divorce industry and want a better deal. More general expressions might include anti-feminist, pro-family, pro-partnership, new traditionalist, and complementarist. They’ve all got problems: it’s bad to be anti, “pro-family” is already taken, “pro-partnership” sounds like it has to do with domestic partnership legislation, “new traditionalist” is inscrutable, and “complementarist” is horrible jargon.

    One possibility would be to use “sexist” in a positive sense, for someone who thinks sex and the sexes matter and that the attempt to say everything’s all the same is fraudulent and doesn’t work. Appropriate the language of the hegemons and subvert the dominant paradigm is what I always say.

  3. I can’t thank you enough,
    I can’t thank you enough, Jim. It was
    right in front of me in a dictionary, and
    the thought of actually using it that way
    instead of simply analyzing it didn’t occur.

    The improper, tangential definition of the
    word, “sexist” by linguistic activists
    (discrimination against women or whatever)
    is anther lie we should refuse to support.
    I’ll use the word and use it more properly
    until all should be aware.


  4. Since I’m the main promoter
    Since I’m the main promoter of masculism on the net and the Canadian feminists attacked “masculinists” on the net, what am I to think? Apparently they weren’t attacking you Art and Jim, so I guess I’m the only one here with an issue.

    The use of the incorrect term of “masculinist” is typical feminist obfuscation, but they are dead serious about going after my advocacy on the net. They don’t seem worried about you two though do they?

    Anti-feminists are doing masculism every day, it’s just the nature of the game. For any educated person who knows alittle about thse things, it’s clear as punch. Aren’t you guys educated?

    You can’t struggle against a powerful ideology by use of your personality, and as the fundies have discovered, even Jesus has His limitations. God gave us a brain and ideology. He helps those who help themselves.


  5. Art wrote in his
    Art wrote in his article:

    “People outside of academia and journalism laughed at such terms for decades, and they could laugh at them again.”

    Here we are forty years later absolutely and unconditinally buried by those “terms” and ideological tactics and Art says “someday” it will all be laughable by just doing what we are doing and jokingly calling ourselves “sexist”, one of the more successful feminist terms.

    I understand your reluctance to use the term masculist, and I recently had some major pangs against it, but it’s unavoidable. Everything you do in the movement, if successful, will be classified “masculism” in texts. It’s just how things work.

    My reluctance is the same as yours and other men and I think may even be a genetic sex thing. Men organize around sweeping causes and never as men specific. It goes to men’s nature of chivalry as opposed to women’s nature of defensiveness in social contexts. I know this isn’t a scientific fact, but it’s good theory considering the evidence.

    The question for us shouldn’t be whether we should be masculists, it should be how can we be masculists and somehow give it a larger vision. Even women don’t see themselves as just “feminists”, these days they sound like you and deny it. They can afford to though, they still own the democratic party and half the republican party.

    I guess we could all become simply “republicans”, eh Art? That’s the real reason you oppose masculism I bet.



Leave a Comment