Feminism is branch of liberal egalitarianism. It’s a lie that comes from a lie. The lie that “all men are created equal” engenders the lie that “all men and women are created equal.”
Equality is a roller that flattens human social topography. There is no hierarchy – no up or down or in or out. There’s nowhere to climb and nowhere to fall. Everyone is everywhere. No one is excluded. Nothing is closed. The space is open. No one and nowhere is better than any person or place. All movement is lateral.
In practical terms achieving equality between men and women is predominantly about achieving political, legal and economic equality. In practice, the success of the feminist initiative has been measured by the ability of women to infiltrate previously male spaces. There can be no separate sex roles, because everyone must be everywhere, and no one can be excluded from anything. No difference between what men do and what women do can be defined, because to define is to exclude. The doctrine of equality demands that women do whatever men do and be wherever men are.
Refusing to exclude a woman from a group of men as a matter of principal is a feminist act.
If you can’t exclude a woman, you are the problem.
If you truly believe that men lose nothing of value when women are introduced to male groups –or even that all male groups are improved by female participation–you are a feminist egalitarian, and men who are not feminist egalitarians should exclude you.
I don’t believe that the majority of men feel no sense of loss when they are pressured to include a woman in a male group. Most men would prefer to be able to do certain things with men, other things with women, and some things in mixed groups.
Men often convince themselves that they lose nothing by including women because they are greedy, lazy or afraid—and then attribute that revelation to a nobility of character to make themselves feel better.
If you’re trying to make a profit, it’s advantageous to include women whether they are wanted or not, because modern men have been conditioned to tolerate the presence of women everywhere, and excluding a woman is excluding a potential customer.
This is also why multiculturalism and globalist capitalism have become symbiotic. When everyone has a dollar sign over his or her head, exclusivity tosses money over a moat. Including everyone makes everyone a potential customer.
Men who are selling something imagine themselves chivalrous for inviting women into male spaces because it’s better than admitting that they are greedy or desperate. Principles are expensive.
The same rule applies to groups who need “support.” Many nominally anti-feminist or patriarchal groups make the error of pandering to women, for fear of losing “support” –be it financial or political. Unfortunately, in doing this, those groups inevitably compromise the very principals that make them anti-feminist or patriarchal. Groups of men should follow the Roman example. When you have a power base, women are easy enough to attain–one way or another. Empty pandering is for the shoe salesmen of democracy.
Inclusion is the path of least resistance. Establishing and defending boundaries always takes work. It’s easier to let lines be crossed and then rationalize your laziness after nothing can be done.
Taking a stand means taking heat. Saying “no” will have consequences. No one likes to be excluded, and when you move to exclude someone, they will lash out emotionally. You risk insult and shaming. In our feminist, egalitarian society, saying “no” to women may mean that other men will be afraid (or won’t be allowed) to associate with you, for fear of being shamed themselves. When you move to exclude someone, and the prevailing morality abhors exclusion, you will be punished socially and you must accept the possibility that you may yourself be excluded. It is easier to avoid the consequences of exclusion, and then imagine yourself a brave hero for “breaking down barriers.”
You are not running an underground railroad for women.
There are no significant financial, legal or social penalties in mainstream American society associated with the inclusion of women. The only thing you risk is a pat on the head. There is no such thing as courage without risk.
There’s nothing brave about giving women whatever they ask for.
It’s called “being a chump.”
If you want to live in a world where men can be men and women can be women, where the sexes can have distinct roles and different meaningful identities, you have to be prepared to draw the line. If you want the men around you to be masculine and the women around you to be feminine, you have to be prepared to define the boundaries of masculinity and femininity. If the experience of brotherhood is important to you, then you can’t invite sisters into every room.
Excluding women isn’t the same as “hating” them.
Don’t allow liberal egalitarians to define all of your terms and frame all of your arguments. Enforcing absolute equality and inclusion in everything for everyone isn’t the same as love. Cultivating distinct and separate identities for different groups of people isn’t the same as hate.
Refusing to give women whatever they ask for is not hate.
Human communities have always had separate spaces where men can be men and women can be women. Today, women call their separate spaces “safe spaces.” Men have no sanctioned “safe spaces,” though if they did, they wouldn’t call them that, because wanting “safety” sounds cowardly and unmanly. Men don’t need “safe” spaces. They do need their own spaces, and their own time, and their own identities. Men need spaces where they can speak freely and frankly–where they are not expected to edit their commentary to pander to the interests and agendas of women.
Creating space for men doesn’t require a special government program, or a professional mediator, or a formal conference. You don’t need some kind of awkward weekend retreat.
All you need is men who are willing to draw the line and hold it.