Thank you for this.
To clear a few misunderstandings up. Your essay rests on gynocentrism’s ubiquitous ‘Category Error’ fallacy – the self-serving failure to distinguish adequately between “some men” and “men”. Contemplate for a few moments the difference in meaning between “some women are mawkishly narcissistic” and “women are mawkishly narcissistic” and you will readily grasp one of your essay’s weaknesses.
So, while “some men” – and, of course, some women – may require excusing, they are a tiny fraction of the many billions who do not. To the latter – the civilised society that feminism operates at the fringes of – your tone is impossibly condescending, and your self imposed burden of excusing all “men” is neither merited, nor welcome. Feel free to consider yourself relieved of a burden that was never yours to carry.
On the point that you are trained to be on guard, we agree. But it is feminism that trains you. The so-called #MeToo moral panic has revealed two important truths: that feminists cannot distinguish reliably between genuine abuse, minor mistakes, and genuine misunderstandings; and that feminist activists encourage women to conceive of themselves as victims of all of it. You are taught to fear family members, class mates, members of your community, the better to mobilise your support for feminism’s ideological social, legal, and economic reforms. It weakens and undermines all women, so impatient privileged women can speed their journey to the Board room.
Meanwhile, a rapidly growing body of feminist academics and authors critique and challenge this phenomenon, and they have given it a name: “Victim Feminism” – a species of Münchausen syndrome by proxy. Ordinary women and men are tiring rapidly of its cynical schemes and stunts to manufacture tension and unease between us, and we can’t wait to welcome you back into civilised society with open arms after the emerging backlash against it is over.
Finally, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the problem with the term “violence against women”. The term isn’t problematic because it omits “men” from the subject of the term. It’s problematic because it excludes men from the object. Humans are violent towards humans, and it is violence against humans that is the abomination, not against one particular classification of humans. We live in a society in which 70% of the victims of homicide are innocent boys and men. Singling the less affected group out for special protection and the more affected group out for censure is absurd.
Meanwhile, singling out groups for censure has never ended well in the history of social relations – look at our history with Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, the disabled, Muslims, etc. The chill of the psychopath is never far below the surface of feminist ideology.
So thank you again for your interesting essay. It’s reassuring to note how quickly sentiment towards its category is changing.
Best wishes, etc.
