Meninism: A Justified Response to Feminism

Feminism is gynocentric DEI, and feminists should never be allowed to forget that

My wish is that one day we will live in a world where people finally shut the bleep up about feminism, but let’s be honest, that day is still a long ways away, if it ever comes at all. In the meantime, we are still caught in endlessly looping dialogues about what actually is or actually isn’t feminism or what counts as this or how feminism defines that. Very tiresome, often very dishonest. One of the better ways of understanding feminism is as vagina-centered DEI. I think that an unassailable means of demonstrating this is through my just-invented-right-now concept of meninism.

What is meninism? Meninism is the mirror image of feminism, simply re-tooled to be man-centered rather than woman-centered.

Meninism is not men’s rights activism. Men’s rights activists are earnest. Meninists are cynical. Men’s rights activists make the naïve mistake of believing that they can actually earn a seat at the feminist table. A meninist knows better than this. He knows how the game is played and his only goal is to demonstrate that two can play at it.

The feminist narrative goes something like this:

“Patriarchy (which I will refer to henceforth as ‘paytreearkee’ to make fun of it) is a systemic oppression of women which has existed as the human norm since before recorded history. Because of paytreearkee, women were basically breeding cattle with no rights who were forced to constantly suffer the trauma of sex and birth in order to satisfy the desires of men. As redress for this primal grievance, women must come together in solidarity and advocate for their interests, lest they once again be abused by violent, misogynistic men.”

The meninist narrative responds with:

“The only reason that feminism exists at all is because men have allowed it. Men have the prowess, both physical and psychological, to turn women into actual breeding cattle at any time, if they actually wanted to. It is only by playing upon men’s natural sympathy for women that feminism has made any of its gains. Furthermore, effectively all of modern civilization is a result of the efforts of men. From farming to industrialization to the combustion engine—nearly all created entirely by men. Women have genuinely contributed little or nothing to this process besides their ability to produce more men.

It is only just now, at the very end of things when life has finally gotten safe enough and comfy enough, that we have begun allowing women to go out and pretend that they can build things too. This suggests that, if men were truly devoid of sympathy for women, they would be right to conclude that women are worth little more than their reproductive organs. Men must therefore come together in solidarity and advocate for their interests, lest women go too far in taking advantage of our charitable disposition.”

Same set of facts, different interpretation. Because there is no disagreement on fact, only on narrative, this perspective forms an impregnable intellectual wall that no feminist can breach. In any dialogue with feminism of any form, the meninist has only to reverse the feminist’s language and remain stubbornly committed to his frame, and the discourse grinds to a complete and intractable halt.

Feminism: We seek gender equality, so this means that women must earn the same amount of money as men, that women must be equally represented among scientists and CEOs, and that movies must show female heroes who can beat up bad guys just as well as the men can.
Meninism: We also seek gender equality, so this means that women must be victims of murder at the same rate as men, that women must be equally represented among draftees and sewage workers, and that movies must show male heroes whose affections female characters will fight to the death over.

Feminism: Deconstructing paytreearkee will result in a world that is better for men as well, because men will no longer be forced to conform to toxic masculinity.
Meninism: Deconstructing gynocentrism will result in a world that is better for women as well, because women will no longer be expected to conform to unrealistic “girlboss” standards.

Feminism: Because we are feminists, we are only concerned with the affairs of women.
Meninism: Because we are meninists, we are only concerned with the affairs of men.

And so forth and so on. Obviously, you can do this forever, no matter what the feminist says.

The point of this is to demonstrate that feminism is, at its core, an ideology based on women getting their way, whatever that happens to be at any given moment. This makes it a sister to DEI, which is the more sophisticated form of BLM—“Black Lives Matter.” Remember that slogan? Feminism is a big wordcel cope that boils down to “Women Matter.” If you respond with “Men Matter Too,” feminists either shut down or condemn you, because if we both agree that both sexes matter, then the entire exercise has become a pointless farce. The obvious implication of shouting “X Matters” is that “Y Doesn’t Matter (As Much).”

You can see this in how closely paytreearkee resembles the DEI theory of “systemic racism.” Both of these are invisible, all-pervading forces of primordial evil that are unobservable and unfalsifiable. Any troubling inequality in any form is somehow twisted so as to be the fault of paytreearkee, for the feminist, or “systemic racism,” for the DEI grifter. Women don’t make as much money as men? Paytreearkee, men somehow caused it, and it’s on men to somehow to fix it. Black people end up in jail too often? Systemic racism, white people somehow caused it, and it’s on whitey to somehow fix it.

Both ideologies also share the same logic of ancestral grievances. Race agitators claim that because of evils perpetrated against black people in the past, white people are essentially forever guilty, and whites must be subservient until the echoing consequences of those past injustices have somehow been atoned for. When will that be, or how do we get there? Well, the race grifter doesn’t want to go into specifics, but rest assured, only he has the authority to tell you when it’s over. It is the same for the feminist and her outrages over things that happened to women in the distant past.

The fact that today’s world in no way resembles the past one which these people claim to be upset about does not matter to them. Their victimhood is eternal, and their targeted “oppressor” classes are never allowed to escape from their collective guilt, even if the things they are charged with happened long before they were born and were never perpetrated by them personally.

All of this exposes that, like DEI, feminism is ultimately reliant upon the charity of soft-hearted people for its gains. All of the hemming and hawing about the depth of “feminist theory” is motivated reasoning tacked on after the fact; that stuff has exactly the same intellectual weight as Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. This is proven by the obvious fact that if every time a feminist spoke, she were met with an intransigent meninist in response, feminism would go nowhere and quickly die off. There is no genuine intellectual objection that a feminist can make against a meninist, her only weapon in such a case is to get emotional and call him mean names.

In this way, feminism and other identity grifts strike me as modern evolutions of the highly explanatory “stationary bandit” theory of governance. The basic narrative of the “stationary bandit” is as follows: When humans first began to develop agriculture and thus gained the ability to accumulate and store surpluses of wealth, this development was not evenly spread amongst the world’s various peoples and tribes. Some tribes were quite proficient at it while others, for one reason or another, were either much less proficient or could not do it at all.

Those tribes who lacked this proficiency took notice that their neighbors were able to produce far more wealth than they could, and so they did something quite rational in response. Rather than learning to farm, they specialized in warfare, and soon began to mount raids and assaults upon their wealthier neighbors. The farmers, having specialized in farming rather than fighting, usually had little recourse but to give the invaders whatever they wanted. Over the course of repeated interactions, this settled into a pattern whereby the warfare specialists became kings over their little slice of territory, exacting taxes from all nearby producers in exchange for not killing them. And so the first governments were born.

In the modern context, we can also observe that productivity and wealth generation differ wildly between different populations. Men are much more productive than women, for instance, and white people are more productive than blacks, and so forth and so on. Those who find themselves on the lower end of this distribution may thus spend their time specializing in political activism and grievance-mongering instead of productivity, demanding concessions in exchange for allowing the producers to continue with their work relatively unmolested.

This basic dynamic of governance has changed very little from pre-historic times and identity grievance-mongers such as feminists have merely attached themselves to it. When a professor of feminist theory or some such, whose entire “profession” has been paid for by government subsidy, comes to Joe Sixpack and hits him with the wordcel tide about paytreearkee and feminist theory and this and that, Joe Sixpack is not mentally equipped to defend himself against this. Even if he doesn’t like it and doesn’t really agree with it, he just wants to drop the subject, because he’s only got two hours to watch sportsball in between checking in for his shifts at the widget factory. He has neither the time nor the tools to advocate on his own behalf to a similar degree.

I believe that feminism has an extra layer of advantage over DEI in this space due to the nature of its chosen victim group. Anti-feminism, to the extent that it exists, seems as though it simply does not have the same quality to it as anti-DEI pushback. There is no Nathan Cofnas out there dedicating his existence to debunking feminist talking points. Why is this? I think one reason lies in basic evolutionary gender dynamics. Among men, making women upset is a low status behavior. Men only need to engage in aggression towards women if the women don’t want to mate with them otherwise. You might protest that arguing with women about feminism isn’t aggression, but for purposes of social perception, this does not matter. You are engaging in conflict with women about women stuff and making them upset in the process. It looks like aggression.

High status males have no need to do anything that makes women around them upset. Their status draws women naturally to them, meaning they have no need to engage in any sort of aggression towards women in order to gain reproductive access. They have better things to do than waste their time arguing with women about politics. They are happy to nod along to feminism; they have plenty of attractive women lining up to receive their penis either way. So long as that’s the case, who cares if the women are calling themselves “feminists” or not?

Meanwhile, among the rest of the men, female sexual selectivity can be weaponized to great effect. Most men, knowing that their sexual fortunes are already in a precarious place, will be quick to shut their mouths if women make it clear that a certain opinion might stop them from getting laid. When the average man does manage to get some action from time to time, the same dynamic applies. Why risk it over abstract political arguments? Not worth it. Thus the perception that the only men who complain about feminism are total losers who are bitter about their failure with women; that stereotype likely corresponds to real patterns of behavior, with all of this adding up to rig modern status games in favor of feminists.

This is speculation on my part, of course. I’m not sure if there are any heckin’ stoodies on this or if it’s even really the sort of thing you could properly observe in a scientific experiment. I think the abortion issue suffers from a similar dynamic, though. As I’ve written before, the “what about rape?” objection is, in my opinion, the anti-lifer’s strongest weapon. This is not because it presents a logical challenge, but because of the strength of its emotional appeal. If you are defending a pro-life viewpoint, and a woman says, “what if I get raped?”, the entire discussion is almost certain to be derailed from there by melodramatics and emotional histrionics, regardless of intellectual substance. It’s entirely understandable that most people aren’t autistic enough to bring this situation upon themselves just for the sake of making a point.

That’s the nice thing about the Internet, though, and the primary reason that I say all of this stuff here under a pseudonym. The distance between our screens filters out your overwrought emotions and theatrical moral outrage. Here, under my anon wojak account, attempts at social shaming cannot touch me. This allows us to distill things down to the purely philosophical in a way that is not possible elsewhere. Under such conditions, we can clearly see feminism for what it really is—DEI’s big sister, nothing more, an anti-truth grift dependent upon appeals to sympathy and petty status games in order to acquire patronage.

Now, does all of this mean that I think women don’t have valid concerns or that we shouldn’t listen to them or whatever? No, it only means that I think women should not be babies about it. This is why I also reject men’s rights activism. A mature, well-adjusted person does not engage in identitarian grievance-mongering. If you resort to DEI-style victim-baiting garbage, you are engaging in childish behavior, the intellectual equivalent of a toddler throwing a temper tantrum to get their way. It’ll work to get you what you want sometimes, probably just because people will placate you so that you’ll stop making a scene, but you’ve exposed yourself as a person of low character in the process.

Would I call myself a meninist? Of course not, not when speaking to other adults. But I may feel tempted to become a selective meninist—someone who becomes a meninist when I speak to a feminist, until the feminist goes away or gives up their nonsense.

I think that identity grifting and gender war narratives are stupid and harmful, regardless of whether they’re man-centered or woman-centered. But if a woman (or a man, for that matter) absolutely refuses to let them go, well, at some point the only real option is to hit back. So if war it must be, then let’s have it out good and proper. I’ll be ready to drop my meninism when you’re ready to quit flailing around, get up off the floor, and speak to me like a grown-up. Until then, perhaps you can enjoy a contrary dose of your own infantile worldview.