Publisher’s note: “What’s Behind Our War Against Men?” first appeared as a lead article in World Net Daily’s Whistleblower Magazine. The original title was “What’s Behind the Left’s War Against Men?” I changed the title and published the article intact. Why the title change? Because many who ar not “leftists,” including some Christians, have a battle against men. The altered title better fits reality.
To most Americans, the radical feminist belief that men are intrinsically abusive, predatory and responsible for most of society’s problems has always seemed like a marginal viewpoint.
War Against Men Growing in Intensity
But then came last year’s highly publicized Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. Not only was Kavanaugh, a jurist with an impeccable professional and personal record, viciously condemned as a serial rapist on virtually no evidence, but the concurrent attacks on the presiding Senate Judiciary Committee members for being predominantly “old white men” jarred many people, who wondered aloud: When did it become a crime to be a man?
Though the issue still flies mostly under the radar – except in news stories involving alleged sexual abuse and the #MeToo movement – a serious anger toward all men is steadily rising in an America drenched in identity politics.
Back in the ’70s and ’80s, some of the most well-known feminist leaders openly despised all men, categorically denouncing marriage as “slavery” and “legalized rape.” But again, these were obviously fringe positions and most people regarded them as such.
Today, however, generalized antipathy towards men is increasingly expressed using pejorative code terms like “toxic masculinity,” or else disguised with added modifiers – like “white men” or “old white men,” rather than just “men.” But venerated black columnist and economics professor Walter Williams, in his article “Demonizing white men all the rage,” calls out this obfuscation, concluding: “I think that the attack is on masculinity itself and that white men are a convenient scapegoat – for now.”
Indeed, the American Psychological Association, in a new report released in January titled “APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men,” flat-out condemns “traditional masculinity” as “harmful.”
Not only is masculinity dangerous to men, warns the 118,000-member organization, but it also somehow constitutes an “ideology” that leads to sexual harassment of women and encourages “homophobia.”
“Marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression,” says the APA, “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful,” adding that “socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”
Unfortunately, attacks on “toxic masculinity” and men in general have come increasingly to dominate today’s elite sphere, particularly on university campuses, which are awash with courses and events titled “Rethink Masculinity,” “Male Melancholia: Crisis Masculinity,” “White Men, Aggrieved Entitlement, and Violence” and “HashtagAllMen: A Reflection on Men’s Complicity in Rape Culture.”
This growing antagonism toward men in general has developed to the point that some progressives, for whom identity politics has become their singular yardstick for personal and national morality, argue that since the last 45 presidents have been men, America must have a woman president. Writer and former New Yorker fact-checker Talia Lavin penned a recent Huffington Post column headlined, “I Want A Woman President. I’m Not Afraid to Say So Anymore.” Chicago Tribune reporter Heidi Stevens titled her recent Tribune article, “It’s time for a century of women: The argument for electing a female president ASAP.” And in Rebecca Sive’s new book, “Vote Her In: Your Guide to Electing Our First Woman President,” the foreword, penned by Julia M. Stasch, president of the wealthy and influential John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, explains the burning necessity of having a woman run the United States of America:
“The election and presidency of Barack Obama ripped off the Band-Aid of complacency about race in our country, forcing us to confront the malignant racism that threads through our history and continues today. Ugly, yes, but there is today perhaps a more honest environment within which to try to find common ground, to make progress, and to heal.
“Although the #MeToo movement provides a jumpstart, the presidency of a woman may serve the same revolutionary purpose as the election of our first African American president. Let’s face head-on the misogyny, the entitlement, the low expectations, and the patronizing “respect” for women that has made our path to shared power so hard. … There is one more important reason. A just society demands it. …The election of the first woman president is a building block of a just society.”
With the siren song thus wailing, an ever-growing number of Democrat women are heeding the call and running for president – including Sen. Kamala Harris, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and author/activist Marianne Williamson. Others, like failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, say they may run as well.
‘We have every right to hate you’
“Misandry” – the hatred of men – “went out of fashion during the 1980s and the idea that feminists were all ‘lesbians and man haters’ was rightly ridiculed,” writes British author and journalist Tim Lott. “Now it’s back – and much closer to the mainstream than it was 50 years ago.”
Lott explains: “Despite all the remarkable advances we have made in gender equality, the idea that all men are the enemy of all women has been given a new lease of life, helped by the disgrace of Harvey Weinstein, the rise of Donald Trump and the successes of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements.”
Consider a typical feminist voice not from a generation ago, but featured in today’s Washington Post.
“Why can’t we hate men?” is the screaming headline for Suzanna Danuta Walters’ June 8, 2018, Post commentary. A sociology professor and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, Walters doesn’t hold back: “In this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men?”
After cataloging the various evils she attributes to all men, Walters ends with a challenge: “So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.”
Is War Against Men Reasonable?
Question: How can intelligent, educated adults in 2019 America, where women are freer and better off than in any country or at any time in history, possibly be consumed with such unbridled hatred for an entire group that comprises fully half of the population? Especially when that half of the population has fought all of our wars, cleared all of our wilderness, invented everything, constructed our civilization, and protected and sacrificed itself for women and children from day one.
Tim Lott offers an explanation for this “demented” worldview, arguing “there is a prism through which [hating men] makes perfect sense, the prism constructed by the odd and contradictory fusion of neo-Marxism and post-modernism”:
In this scheme of thought, now widely taught in the humanities and social science departments of the West’s leading universities, there are no intrinsically superior, universal values, like love or dignity or general human goodwill – and no such thing as “objective” truth in the scientific sense. It’s all relative. There are just multiple and sometimes overlapping groups that compete for power, and their values, even their idea of what constitutes a “fact,” are determined by the relative status of their group. The most powerful group in society – in all societies – are men, and men, therefore, are collectively guilty for the oppression of every less powerful group.
Though Lott’s analysis is insightful and accurate as far as it goes, being an entirely secular evaluation it omits any mention of God or religion. But that’s precisely where the rest of the story can be found.
For Western nations rapidly transitioning into post-Christian societies, two opposite worldviews now openly war with each other. One is the traditional Judeo-Christian, biblical, patriarchal “prism” and the other is based on Marxist notions of radical equality.
The Bible – and the historical, cultural, moral and spiritual worldview it illuminates and champions – is utterly patriarchal. God is neither our Mother nor a genderless cosmic being, but our heavenly Father. God the Father created the first man, Adam; then out of Adam He created Eve. Almost all the Old Testament prophets were men. Jesus Christ was a man, as were all His apostles. Down through the centuries, the vast majority of Jewish and Christian religious leaders, from popes and priests to evangelists, rabbis and ministers, have been men. So, for that matter, have the vast majority of national political leaders.
Why? Is it, as alleged by those sworn to “tear down the patriarchy,” simply because men take advantage of their greater size, strength and aggressiveness to oppress women by bullying them into submission? Or is there a higher, indeed transcendent, principle – a divine order – evident in the overwhelmingly dominant leadership role men have exercised throughout human history?
In the Judeo-Christian worldview, just as God causes electrons to orbit around atomic nuclei and planets to orbit around suns so everything doesn’t crash into everything else and quickly descend into smoldering chaos, He also ordains a certain order to life on earth – to prevent much the same chaotic outcome.
“The head of every man is Christ,” writes the Apostle Paul, “and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) According to this understanding, the order of authority in a marriage could be roughly compared to a military chain of command: The colonel is not jealous and hateful toward the general for “oppressing” him even though the general is above him in authority. The general is not a superior person to the colonel, and indeed the colonel might even be wiser or better informed than the general in certain areas, gladly offering his counsel to him. But the general is the general.
What makes this work, of course, is that both the colonel and the general are under a higher authority still, that of the commander-in-chief. In a God-centered marriage, the “commander-in-chief” is God. So the relationship between the two “officers” is not about ego or oppression, as both are there to cooperatively serve the same higher commander and the same transcendent mission, that of together raising a godly family.
Competing against this traditional worldview, which for centuries admirably served as the basis for a stable and prosperous America, is today’s essentially godless cult of radical equality. Seen through this prism, every race, religion, ideology, culture, ethical system and sexual/gender orientation, no matter how bizarre, immoral or insane, is as valid and worthwhile as every other (well, except for Christianity, conservatives, Republicans, men and white people in general). At the core of this worldview, there is no God, no divine moral law, no higher purpose of life binding us all together; there is only power and glory for the individual and tribe. And since there’s no ultimate meaning to anything, there can be no real differences between the sexes, other than those we ourselves decree.
Thus, everything Americans of previous generations thought was solid and real, even the most basic biology, is now considered merely the result of “social constructs” overseen by society’s oppressor class. So, for example, whether there are two genders as we once believed, or 24 or 48 (Facebook currently offers 71 gender choices, but a more recent online list includes 112), we are living in a time when every person is encouraged to pursue his, her or zir own “truth.”
But in reality, without the Living God overshadowing people in their relationships with one another, it doesn’t ultimately matter whether we have a patriarchal culture (Muslim culture is oppressively and abusively “patriarchal”), or a revolutionary matriarchy with a radical feminist queen at the top, or some dreamed-up totalitarian nightmare regime of enforced radical equality. The result will be the same: ever-evolving anxiety, conflict, loss of freedom, madness, violence and slavery. One of our founding fathers, William Penn, put it perfectly: “If man is not governed by God, he will be ruled by tyrants.”
Truth is, what we’re really beholding in today’s growing condemnation of men – not of the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, but disdain toward men in general – is primal rage and rebellion against God and the divine laws, order and values He so wisely has provided for our eternal benefit.
The preceding (under the headline “The rise of the rebel queen”) is David Kupelian’s introductory story in the April issue of Whistleblower magazine, “HATING MEN: The left’s ultimate strategy for overturning Judeo-Christian America.”
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/05/whats-really-behind-the-lefts-war-on-men/#1CFiAsj3PuJDasAA.99
