The Anti-Romeos: Feminism’s Assault on Masculinity
American women should be outraged. Not because of their
supposed oppression over the years, but because American women have been
starved of one of the greatest values available to them while living life on
earth: masculine men.
This is not to say that masculine men don’t exist—they do,
by the millions! But, culturally, they are suffocated.
Before the malicious feminist revolution, women could
enjoy not just men, but masculine men. Popular actors included the
masculine Paul Newman, the gentlemanly Clark Gable, the cool and confident Sean
Connery. Women could line up at military bases to watch their favorite men in
uniform. Up until just before the women’s liberation movement, women used to
faint after seeing their favorite men in concert. In my lifetime, I have yet to
see such a health concern at a concert—unless the raped, dehydrated, and
mud-covered women of the 1999 Woodstock count.
For the past 30 years, the dirtiest, most politically
incorrect concept to talk about has been masculinity. It has been pushed under
the rug, twisted, turned, and manipulated. In our newly feminized nation, few
want to talk about it or define it. Let us now define it.
Masculinity, like men, is simple. (I say this
affectionately.) Masculinity is efficacy. I hasten to add that man’s
source of efficacy is reason. While strength and athletic ability are
not unimportant in defining masculinity, the primary source of efficacy and
masculinity is reason.
However, man is not a ghost. Man learns, understands, and
imagines, and then his creations must be materialized in the world. True
efficacy is reason materialized into concrete existence. And it is this
particular area, the construction of those things that man’s mind created
(chopping wood, building skyscrapers, flying airplanes, etc.), in which men, by
nature, outperform women, which is the genuine source of female-to-male
Fatherhood is also an attribute of masculinity. And the
primary purpose of fatherhood is for the father to teach his young son how to
be a man. A young boy looks up to his father in hero worship.
Today, it is popular to look at policemen, soldiers, and
firemen as the ultimate symbols of masculinity. But this presents a problem:
one can only admire masculinity when there is crime, war, and fires. While
policemen, soldiers, and firemen are certainly masculine figures to be admired
(and are driven by reason), many other men in different professions demonstrate
rational masculinity including businessmen, engineers, skilled labor, and many
Masculinity, i.e., a strong, heroic, efficacious man, is
the primary source of erotica for a heterosexual woman. Without it, a
heterosexual woman is lost.
Young women are constantly being ripped from such erotica.
They are being taught that masculinity is not to be looked at in admiration,
but in fear.
This is, in short, all feminists’ fault.
Masculinity is never associated with anything positive by
feminists. They consistently equate masculinity with violence.
Gloria Steinem gave several speeches in 2002, preaching school
shootings, Nazism, and terrorism were a product of “male dominance.” She says:
“The cult of masculinity is the basis of every violent, fascist regime.
[. . .] We need to raise our sons more like our daughters, with empathy,
flexibility, patience, and compassion.”
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of these events knows
the reasons behind them are not as simplistic and sexist as Gloria Steinem
makes them out to be. However, according to feminist theory, her analysis is
impeccable. Masculinity is not identified with the men who stopped the Nazis or
the men who built the skyscrapers, but the men who sprayed their fellow
classmates with bullets, killed six million Jews, and flew into buildings with
Men notoriously fall on the extreme ends of most scales.
For instance, on an intelligence scale, men will rank on both the very high end
and the very low end. If you cover up one of the ends, you can paint a very
glowing or damning picture of men. Feminists always present the lower end. An
article in the US News and World Report boasted that boys now succeed in
areas such as low grades and frequent disciplinary problems. There is no
compassion for the boys, just a broad statement that they are mostly
delinquents. The very title of the article is derogatory: “Are Boys the Weaker
Sex? Science Says Yes but Society is Trying to Deal with Male Handicaps”
In fact, the only time that the physically stronger nature
of men is acknowledged by feminists, or even popular culture anymore, is in
regards to domestic violence. Both men and women may hit each other, but men
can do more damage. This is the only activity feminists seem to admit where men
are stronger than women. All other physical things they seem to think women can
do equally well.
Indeed, violence imposed on society by men is one thing,
but is nothing compared to the violence men impose on women. The worst thing a
woman can do, in feminist eyes, is enter a relationship with a man, or at least
one who has not been effectively emasculated. Feminists do not make their
stance on heterosexual relationships a mystery: inherently violent, masculine
males will only serve to abuse women.
In their activism, feminists were quick to pounce on the
issue of domestic violence. They were also quick to show that violence upon
women was not a product of random, individual cases of violence, but rather
something that was institutionalized in society. This message is captured in
the haunting title of an article written by feminist Liz Kelly: “’It’s Everywhere’:
Sexual Violence as a Continuum” (Emphasis mine).
In their effort to show men as always the abuser and women
as always the abused, feminists produced studies, which unfortunately gained
widespread popularity, claiming such things as one in four women will be raped
in their lifetime (Warshaw 2). The author of this study, Mary Koss, admits
herself that 73 percent of supposed rape victims did not themselves believe
they were actually raped.
Alternatively, if all men are not violent, feminists can
always project on to all men the trait of violence. At a popular feminist
event, Take Back the Night, held yearly on most college campuses, a
group of women parade around campus chanting: “No Means No; Yes Means Yes;
Wherever We Go; However We Dress,” targeted at all men.
I spoke to a head of a women’s shelter once, and asked her
why they targeted all men on campus with their chanting. I was told,
like all feminists will tell you, that because the one continuing theme among
all rapes is that the attacker is male and, “men need to be held responsible
for their actions.”
Well, it is true that most rapists are men. But this does
not mean all men are rapists. Imagine that a study found that most thieves were
black, and therefore a group of white people paraded in black communities,
chanting slogans, pinning this crime on the blackness of a person. The racism
in this is obvious, and anyone who did so would be trying to incite a
groundless hatred of black people. The method of the feminists is no different.
They are taking the base behavior of a few men, and projecting it on to the
male gender at large, furthering the message of institutionalized
Common flirtation is not being defined as fun, but
increasingly as “harassment.” If you think sexual harassment laws were an
innocent measure to protect unwarranted abuse of women, consider that the woman
who successfully enacted sexual harassment laws in the United States, Catharine
MacKinnon, is an admitted Marxist who believes all sex between men and women is
exploitative of the woman. She argues that just as the capitalist exploits his
workers in search of profit, so men exploit women in search of pleasure. She
argues in her article, “Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for
Theory”: “Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most
one’s own, yet most taken away” (182). She is a malicious man hater, and she
championed current sexual harassment laws in the United States.
The message is always that masculinity is nothing but
violence, but the argument is specifically that men have an uncontrollable desire
to hurt women (which is slightly different from their argument about the
“exploitive” nature of, say, the capitalist-worker relationship). In feminist
theory, women are always portrayed as the trembling victim, who are the victim
of not only abuse, but also abuse directed at their femaleness. When women are
murdered or abused, in feminist theory it is never seen as the product of
irrational greed, coercion, or an overinflated sense of self (common reasons
for abuse and murder), but rather as an institutionalized desire of men to
control and hurt women. It is epitomized by feminists’ popular, but unsupported
claim that rape is about control, i.e., a man’s desire to hurt a woman, as
opposed to sex, i.e., a man’s desire for sexual gratification, which is a highly
doubtful claim at best. (For further research against this feminist claim, and
an honest inquiry into the reasons for domestic violence, I enthusiastically
refer you to Violence and Gender Reexamined by Richard Felson.)
Everything a woman might enjoy about a man: strength,
flirtation, a relationship with him, etc., is not seen as erotica, but a source
of fear. Even the male genitalia is not presented as a source of pleasure but
violence. Luce Irigaray in “This Sex Which is Not One,” describes, “Autoeroticism
is disrupted by a violent break-in: the brutal separation of the two lips by a
violating penis” (80). Violent, brutal, violating: these are the words used to
At Harvard, after a crew team built a giant snow penis as
a joke, some females at that school tore it down in outrage. A Harvard Women’s
Studies professor summarizes the girls’ actions: “The ice sculpture was erected
in a public space, one that should be free from menacing reminders of women’s
sexual vulnerability” (qtd. in Alberts). These were not radical 1970s activists
but girls at an elite college in 2003.
Probably the most laughable example is feminist architects
who make it their goal to build buildings that look like the female genitalia,
to counter the vast number of buildings that look like the “violating” male
penis, such as skyscrapers, which are simply buildings that were built based on
reason to maximize space with a minimal footprint.
Feminists are insistent on the message that the
male-female relationship is marked by violence—by oppressors and the oppressed.
This is not a dead radical feminist philosophy, either. To this day, modern
campuses and theatres nationwide present The Vagina Monologues on
Valentine’s Day. Their new term for this day is “V-day,” which stands for,
among other things, violence. Valentine’s Day, a day meant to celebrate
male-female romantic love, is now being turned into a “consciousness-raising”
day about how men allegedly beat women up. This is done in similar fashion to
the way some have tried to change the meaning of Columbus Day, where Americans
are told they should not celebrate the founding of the greatest civilization
ever, but instead must remember white violence upon Native Americans.
The very title of The Vagina Monologues shows they
want women to turn from the “violating” penis and towards the soft
vagina—either in autoeroticism (masturbation) or in lesbianism. (The author of The
Monologues, Eve Ensler, is herself a lesbian.)
Feminists do their best to show that it is inherent in men
to be violent. They do not argue that to eradicate violence one should
eradicate violence, but rather masculinity itself instead. As the conclusion to
an article written by Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth Frazer entitled, “The
Murderer as Misogynist?” begs us: “It [the solution to male-on-female violence]
also involves, as we have already hinted, a struggle to once and for all
overthrow the structures of male power and masculinity” (215).
What may (or may not) surprise most people is that none of
what feminists propagandize was based on fact. Men are not being throttled,
silenced, and bullied on a daily basis anymore because they are genuinely
violent. Men are being throttled, silenced, and bullied on a daily basis
because they are men, i.e., they are strong.
Disgruntled that their economic policies failed, many
Marxists were quick to dig their knives and scalpels into the male-female
relationship. Leninists believe that America and Israel, by the sin of being
“economically and militarily stronger,” are thus, by definition, always wrong,
and Palestine and those that are weaker are always right. Similarly, feminists
decided that men, by the sin of being stronger, are always wrong, and women, by
virtue of being weaker, are always right. And this, the fact that men are the
metaphysically dominant sex, is the reason why, as Ayn Rand says, feminists
were capable of obtaining compassion for their movement (“Age of Envy” 149); i.e.,
it is the reason why people believe that domestic violence is always a product
of violent, abusive men and saintly, victimized women.
And just as Leninists are not interested in the facts, for
their bizarre theories already dictated to them the conclusions, so feminists
are not interested in the facts of domestic violence. If you ever wanted to see
the results of Kantian, a priori reasoning, in pure, ugly form, this is it. No
facts ever supported what feminists had to say about domestic violence; they
merely believe by definition that men are always wrong and women always
right. As an example, Ann Oakley in an article entitled “Sexuality” says:
“Women are psychologically, no less than anatomically, incapable of rape” (36).
Yet, when a more honest sex researcher surveyed men, they found that men are
just as, if not more, likely to have sex when they don’t want to or feel
coerced by women into sex (Fillion 201-2). By feminist definition, this would
be date rape.
If feminists did investigate the issue of domestic
violence honestly, which they did not, feminist findings would have looked more
like Erin Pizzey’s work. Pizzey was the first person to start a domestic
violence shelter for women.
Pizzey was the entrepreneur of domestic violence shelters,
yet today she is denied access on all current domestic violence websites and
shouted down when she speaks. Why? It has to do with the fact that she said
women could be violent also, and that many victims of violence were “addicted
to pain,” i.e., they actively sought out violent situations based on their
troubled childhood. Her solution to domestic violence included advocating
strong families, encouraging women to realize their role in solving their own
situation, and even allowing men into shelters to teach women that not all men
are violent. As such, she is suffocated and silenced by modern feminists.
Pizzey documents in her work the Marxist takeover of
domestic violence shelters, including attending organizational meetings run by
radical feminists that had posters of Mao on the walls (“From the Personal to
the Political”). Feminists used domestic violence, primarily, as a tool to
A friend of mine received an email once about a young
woman doing a study on people’s perception of domestic violence. Why would one
do a study on people’s perception of anything? Why wouldn’t the study be
targeted at perpetrators of domestic violence, their victims, and understanding
the problem so as to find a solution? The reason is because the issue is being
used as propaganda to influence the public a certain way—not to find solutions
to the problem.
Indeed, feminists are not, and have never been, interested
in helping unfortunate victims of domestic violence. They are interested in
using the issue as a method of class warfare—to make women a protected
class: the victim class of the male oppressor class. That was made painfully
obvious when feminists failed to condemn OJ Simpson, a man who beat his wife
for 10 years and eventually murdered her. The feminist reaction to this case is
well documented in Tammy Bruce’s The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s
Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. In this case, feminists did not come
to Nicole Brown Simpson’s defense because protecting a class, in this case a
class that they give higher priority to—race—was more important than protecting
the victim of assault/murder. (And Nicole Brown Simpson was guilty of something
that feminists could never forgive: she was a beautiful woman.)
Read any honest research on domestic violence and you will
find men and women abuse each other at roughly the same rate for roughly the
same reasons. Feminists’ belief that rampant male-on-female violence is
throughout our culture everywhere, with men always the abuser and women always
the victim, is a blatant lie.
This lie of masculinity equated to violence has created a false
dichotomy, as Objectivist Robert Garmong pointed out in a speech at Penn State
in 2002: the jerk versus the wimp. If masculinity is defined as violence,
either a man embraces his masculinity and abuses women or he becomes the nice
guy and allows women to abuse him.
This is a myth that feminists have a vested interest in
perpetuating. Indeed, there are countless feminist speakers and thinkers who go
around describing masculinity as violence, and then beg men, “please, please,
please don’t be afraid to lose your masculinity for fear of being ‘sissy.’”
Men do not have to be the jerk or the wimp; they can be
men. Masculinity doesn’t need to be eradicated, but managed. A far
more rational solution than begging men to completely lose their sexuality
would be to work with a man’s masculinity to turn him away from violence,
i.e., making it manly to respect women.
Begging men to become the “wimp” may serve something else.
By demanding men become feminized, does this not make men even more likely to
rebel and thus become violent? In the movie The Fight Club, effeminated
men rebelled against all aspects of society and started an underground
consensual fight club. Masculinity cannot be suffocated. By telling men to
abandon their masculinity altogether, otherwise they will be violent, creates
the self-fulfilling prophecy. Rebellious men become violent, which perhaps is
exactly what the feminists want. For proof, observe that most feminists seem
happy, not sad, when evidence shows increased levels of rape and/or
sexual/domestic abuse of women.
Masculinity is not tied up in violence or abuse.
Masculinity can and should be strength, efficacy, competence, ability. The
concretes of efficacy might change, but strength, efficacy, ability, etc., are
always the standard. As an example, in Ancient Greece, which was frequently
under threat of military attack, masculinity was primarily tied up in those
with military ability. Whatever is the most needed trait for any particular
region’s prosperity will always be eroticized.
Many say they want to redefine masculinity (and they
always say they want to redefine masculinity for the self-righteous reason of
protecting women from abusive men). As an example of those trying to “redefine
masculinity,” at Penn State University, there was an art exhibit on display for
six weeks in 2003 called In the Company of Men. It boasted itself as
“revisiting masculinity” after 30 years of feminism. A newspaper article said
the photographer visited military bases and wrestling practices to capture
shots of men. When visiting this art exhibit, one would expect shots of heroic
men, winning wrestling matches, preparing for war, etc. What was at this
exhibit was far from that. The photographs included primarily men (most looked
no older than 18) standing around bored; standing in line staring mindlessly at
the cafeteria; on the sidelines lost in thought at wrestling practice; at the
Prom looking bored. Many of the pictures had men in homoerotic positions, which
was easy to do at wrestling practice. Worst of all, though, was a picture of a
man, who looked to be in his twenties, and a 7- or 8-year-old boy in what
appears to be an erotic mouth-to-mouth kiss.
Most shocking is the fact that Susan Faludi, the woman who
re-popularized feminism in the early 1990s and wrote the book, Stiffed: The
Betrayal of the American Man (where she sneakily suggests she supports
men), endorsed this art exhibit, in the artist’s statement, of pedophilia and
The only real and unfortunate result of feminism has been
the division of the sexes. The women’s “liberation” movement had only one
intention: to “liberate” women from men. Did you ever wonder what women were
supposed to be liberated from—in the freest, most liberated nation on earth?
Women today often fail to appreciate masculinity anymore.
They are not too sure what it is about a man that is particularly exciting.
That probably comes from the feminist belief that sexual desire is entirely
socially constructed, and they have done their best to confuse it as much as
Well, let me tell women what makes men desirable. What
turns women on to men is their masculinity. Normal heterosexual women do
not see a man’s sexual initiative as harassment but flirtation. Men’s strength
is not a source of violence but admiration. And a man’s genitalia is not
invasive but pleasurable. And if women’s sexual desire is socially
constructed, then let’s do the logical thing and socialize them into
And if feminists want to put female vaginal orgasms on
trial, let me be the first on the witness stand.
Feminists consider romantic love to be a mere choice at
best, as a sign of fraternizing with the enemy at worst. A woman’s desire for a
man is considered passé. Feminists can be considered the anti-Romeos.
You certainly will not read any feminist literature that affirms charming,
long-lasting relationships between a man and a woman. From “The Murderer as
Misogynist?”: “No feminist would dream of saying that women’s desire for
heterosexual romantic love was natural and valid” (213 Emphasis original). Tell
that to the literally thousands of lonely girls out there, denied male
affection because of the gender division over the last 40 years.
Feminists will say I am a woman who is “eroticizing her
own oppression,” which is feminist speak for re-eroticizing heterosexual
sex—what they really want to eradicate for various reasons. If women admire
masculine men, it does not make them weak, dependent, or stupid. Masculine men
have always excited women. By removing our culture of masculine men, feminists
have not caused women to rework a new sexuality. Women just become bitter and
sexless, as so many of them are today.
Feminists’ constant portrayal as the female as victim
hasn’t empowered women; it has turned them into ultra-fragile, ultra-sensitive,
emotionally vulnerable wimps. They are literally afraid of the dark.
However, there will be a new era. It will be hard for
feminists to continue the lies they started in the 1970s. They cry in their
literature about man-on-girl pedophilia, but the most visible form of
pedophilia today is man-on-boy. They cry about the lack of justice for female
rape victims, but the most visible cases of injustice with rape today are women
falsely accusing men of it, such as the Duke Lacrosse mess. During the Duke
Lacrosse scandal, a woman falsely accused three men of rape. The men were
nearly convicted by the media before the trial, but it came out they were all
completely innocent. And feminism will not remain as popular, because unlike
Nazis and Jews, or terrorists and Western civilization, men and women
fraternize far too much.
This is not the hippy world of our mothers. This is not
the time of radical liberalism but rather a post 9-11 world. The feminist
generation is the generation that dodged Vietnam. We are the generation that will
go down in history as eradicating Islamic terrorism. Old feminist hags will
soon hit their graves, and it will be an opportunity for young women, my
generation, to define what we want, not what they handed to us. And I can
assure you, part of that new vision will definitely embrace not just men but
undeniably masculine men.
My advice to men is to not to talk to women about it; just
do it—just be masculine. If you talk to them, many women will reject
masculinity on a conscious level. But when you just do it, her inner woman
comes out. Give them a glimpse of what they have been missing this whole time.
Women have been starved of genuine erotica for far too
long. Women line up at events such as The Vagina Monologues in the hope
of capturing erotica that has in fact been swept from under their feet. But
things such as The Vagina Monologues do more damage than good, turning
them away from a woman’s genuine source of erotica: a masculine man.
Masculinity is not tied to violence. It is tied to
strength, and it should be seen as erotica, not fear.
Let it go on record that my favorite type of building is