Women in Vancouver have created a women’s library to promote writing by women authors and “continue the legacy of women-run bookstores.” The library is run by women volunteers. Despite the fact that they announce themselves as queer-positive right on their website, with a “queer space” sign and a notice that the library is for “all self-identified women and girls,” a group of “radical queers” have launched an attack against the library.
Guerrilla Feminist Collective reports the following intimidation tactics used at the library:
“Last night we had to push through physical intimidation and lots of verbal nonsense to enter the new Vancouver Women’s Library.
Anti-feminist protesters actually showed up for once! They were welcomed inside (snowing, cold, everyone was welcome), but asked to leave when they tried to tear down feminist posters in the space and continued their physical intimidation inside. Police had to be called for fear of destruction of the space and the safety of library patrons inside. The protesters held signs and shouted at people entering the space. They poured wine over the books. They smoked inside when asked not to. They pulled the fire alarm. Some of them tried to bar then pushed women entering the space. As far as we saw, men were left alone to come and go as they pleased.
Women were shamed and blamed for calling the police, for fearing for theirs and others’ safety. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. All battered women will be familiar with these tactics. When we pointed out how we were physically barred then pushed from entering the space, and how threatening that felt, protesters wanted to know how we’d gender the person, rather than discuss the ethics of violence at hand.
Despite clearly stated goals (creation of women’s space for women’s work and dialogue), inclusion (all women), transparency of funding (self & UBC women’s centre), hard work (unpaid), and initiative (frankly brilliant caring GOODNESS of heart, seeking to create A WOMEN’S LIBRARY) the organizers were demonized, targeted, lied about, and all but burnt at the stake.
Ridiculous demands were made, such as the stepping down of founding member Emily (for having volunteered at and supporting a shelter for women fleeing male violence), creation of a board of directors (must everything be Mc-incorporated?), and the removal of certain books (fascism 101).”
The group Gays Against Gentrification (GAG) released a list of demands for the library on Facebook. I’m not sure if the people who showed up at the library are the same people who wrote this list of demands, but they certainly are using similar intimidation tactics.
The group GAG uses the slurs “TERF” and “SWERF” to intimidate and silence women who speak out about the harms of gender and the sex trade. The function of these words is to shut down conversations about women’s oppression. They can be applied to absolutely anyone who disagrees with the queer/liberal party line. Even women with direct experience in the sex trade can be called “SWERF,” despite the fact that it makes no sense that a woman could be “excluding” herself from her own analysis of the harms of the sex industry that she experienced.
GAG erroneously accuses feminists of denying health care and jobs to trans women and of trying to control the bodies of “sex workers” and enacting violence upon them. It is difficult to believe that anyone could be so far removed from reality that they actually think that feminists are the ones harming women in the sex trade rather than the johns and pimps who are actually inflicting the violence. Those people who seek to make male violence invisible and blame women instead for what men do to us can only be called MRAs.
GAG made a list of demands that includes, among other things, that the library must elect a board of directors that GAG members approve of, remove any books from the library that GAG does not approve of, and fire one of the organizers of the library who is specified by name. It’s just astounding that this group feels so entitled to women’s labor that they feel they can dictate to women how to run their own library. This is a vile display of misogyny and anti-feminism.
Their wording gets so over-the-top at times it almost looks like a parody:
“TERFs and SWERFs are complicit in violence against sex workers and trans women and it is imperative that we do not let this violence go unnoticed. The same ideology and praxis of hate is present and replicated in right-wing/alt-right/neo-nazi organizing. TERFs and SWERFs organize for the same violent policies and work in partnership with right-wing hate groups to replicate settler-colonial white-supremacist constructions of cisheteropatrarchy that outright reject, erase, and deny IBPOC sovereignty, body sovereignty, and all peoples that do not fit under euro-centric nativism.”
It would seem that GAG believes that women who lend out books written by women are literal Nazis who are enacting white supremacy and patriarchy. It’s very clear that the goal of “radical queers” is to shut down feminism by harassing women and making feminist analysis of women’s oppression impossible to share. “Radical queers” are therefore obviously an anti-feminist hate group. The idea that feminists have the material power in society to inflict violence on large groups of people is completely laughable. There is not a single radical feminist in a position of power in government or the private sector, and there are very few left in the academy. In addition, physical violence is not a tactic that any feminist groups are advocating for. If recent history tells us anything about feminist organizing, we like to knit cute hats and even in crowds of thousands of women there is no violence reported at all.
GAG provided a list of the feminist books they believe should be banned from the women’s library. Here is the list:
Sometimes trolls can be entertaining. There is someone who writes for Portland Independent Media Center who has a habit of writing really hilarious hyperbole about what he thinks radical feminists are like. He sounds no different from any other MRA when he tells outright lies about feminists, misrepresents our position, and pretends as though we are advocating for exterminating people. I’m not going to link, just in case the pingback brings a whole bunch of trolls over here, but if you Google this quote you’ll find the page.
Make America TERF Again
TERF’s are already gloating and rejoicing over Donald Trump’s cabinet picks.
https: //www.reddit.com/ r/GenderCritical/ comments /5edznh/silverlining_in_the_2016_presidential_election/
The term “TERF” (Trans* Exterminationist Radicalicalized Females) was invented only because real radical feminists had enough when a small group of self-radicalized vagina-worshipers began calling themselves feminists and promoting terrorism and genocide against Trans* women.
TERF’s may try to fool people into thinking they are feminists, but they are agents of the alt-right. That’s why TERF’s must be named and called out every day. No, we won’t quit.
Oh, man. Trans Exterminationist Radicalized Females. Well, radicalized females is right! When females witness the removal of our rights by MRAs in dresses, you bet we become radicalized. But Exterminationist? No feminists are calling for extermination of trans people. No feminist has ever killed a trans person. We’re not about killing people, we’re about protecting women’s rights. The people who actually kill trans people are MEN. Trans activists do not want to acknowledge the epidemic of male violence, even though it’s harming their community. They are completely against looking at the reality of male socialization and toxic masculinity that causes men to want to kill transwomen. They cannot put together the fact that radical feminists are against the very same toxic masculinity that is hurting them. They will not acknowledge the fact that a lot of the trans women who are killed are in the sex trade and that it’s johns killing them. They won’t acknowledge that johns are violent and that they are violent toward anyone in the sex trade, whether male or female. No male violence may be acknowledged in any way by trans activists. Instead, they yell at women, who aren’t killing them, for being “exterminationist.” Why? Because we understand human reproductive anatomy, and our understanding of the reality of human beings is allegedly “killing” them. Note that tons of men also understand human reproductive anatomy, but male authors of biology textbooks that call the penis a male organ aren’t getting slandered as TERFs, no-platformed, and sent death threats. That behaviour is only directed at women. That’s how we know that trans activism is a male supremacist and misogynist political group.
Terrorism and genocide? Name one example of any woman committing genocide, for fuck sake. However, if you want to see an act of terrorism, take a look at transwoman Dana Rivers, who has long hated the fact that lesbians want spaces for women only, and who actually murdered two lesbians and their son. That is an actual act of terrorism—a violent male making it clear that he hates lesbians and then actually killing lesbians. But trans activists will not call this an act of terrorism, and instead they go around the internet yelling at women who report that Dana Rivers was male. They are more concerned about the “gender identity” of male terrorists than about the violence they inflict on actual women.
It’s kind of amusing that this troll says TERFs are gloating over Trump’s cabinet picks, when the very first sentence in the link he provides says “I am a Democrat and I abhor just about everything that’s happening right now with Donald Trump and his cabinet appointments.” Yeah, that sure sounds like we’re “gloating,” right?
This stuff about radical feminists being right-wing is insane. Radical feminists are pro-feminist, pro-lesbian, pro-abortion, and are generally socialist and anti-capitalist. We are generally atheists. Sometimes radfems have a woman-centered spirituality but this certainly doesn’t look like the authoritarian, male-centered religions of the right. Calling us right-wing demonstrates that the speaker doesn’t know anything about us at all and has no interest in the truth.
I really, really love the above quote from a silly troll, because of the words “self-radicalized vagina-worshippers.” HELL YEAH. What could be better than worshipping vaginas? (Well, maybe worshipping the clitoris would be better, but, you know, the intent is the same.) Hell yeah I worship vaginas, both literally and figuratively.
And on behalf of self-radicalized vagina worshippers everywhere, I promise to keep on calling out male violence every day. No, we won’t quit.
So this idiot took a poll to see if lesbians are attracted to “women” or “their genitals.” Because in crazy transgenderland, these things can be separated. In real life, of course, women and their genitals are actually connected together in one piece, and lesbians are attracted to both.
When this person’s friends answer the poll, the conclusion is of course that lesbians fancy “women,” a word that in transgenderland can include absolutely anyone, regardless of their sex. Also, TERFs should get some fleshlights because we are just into genitals. (I had to ask someone what “minge” means. Apparently it means “pussy” in the U.K. I definitely prefer “fanny.” Anyway…)
A fleshlight is a sex toy for men consisting of a fake vagina in a hollow tube.
This person is suggesting that TERFs would enjoy playing with this toy. Now, I don’t think this person actually believes this—I think they’re being completely disingenuous and they’re just saying this for a laugh. But you never know with these people—they’re so nuts that it’s impossible to tell between their sincere speech and satire.
I would have absolutely no interest in playing with a fleshlight. This toy is designed for men to use by sticking their dicks into it. (This actually meets men’s definition of sex BTW, because, for men, sex means sticking their dick into a thing.) This toy would do absolutely nothing for me. What would I do, stick my finger in it? It’s an inanimate object. Inanimate objects don’t actually turn me on.
This idea that “TERFs” are only into genitals and not the rest of the person is ridiculously stupid. The people who are only into genitals and not the rest of the person are men. Men are the ones who don’t give a shit about a woman’s personality or her likes and dislikes, and just want to stick their dick into her vagina. That’s why men pay for “sex” with women, because they don’t actually care about women as people, they just want to use our genitals.
Lesbian feminists (“TERFs”) care about women as whole people. We want women to have full human rights and full autonomy. We appreciate whole women—their personalities, their ideas, their courage and strength, their talents, their intelligence, and also their bodies. We appreciate their bodies as they come naturally, with normal body hair, with intact labia, and without makeup or adornment.
The reason that lesbians are only attracted to people with vulvas and vaginas is because lesbians are female homosexuals—that is, females attracted to other females. Males are not females.
Just when I thought this dude was the biggest anti-lesbian shithead on Twitter, I saw this:
I shamelessly stole this screenshot from Gallus Mag. (Thanks!) This is a person who was denouncing the fantastic new book about the war on women that is being waged by transgenderist politics, which of course is inspiring the transgenderists to continue their war on women, and another person responded to the Tweet with a stunningly hateful anti-lesbian rant:
“Saw a TERF describe being lesbian as “aversion to penis.” I think that’s maybe the most hollow, meaningless idea of love and sexuality ever. You’re taking a love so wondrous and full of “life” in every way the word matters—and stripping it of anything recognizably human. This is a very large part of why I believe TERFs have very little useful concept of what it means to be lesbian, or to love at all.”
Wow. This asshole actually thinks that when women exclude men from their sex lives their sexuality becomes hollow, meaningless, and not recognizably human. And he believes that males and male-identified women have a better idea of how to be a lesbian than actual lesbians. This is overflowing with misogyny and homophobia, and a specific kind of arrogance that only men have.
I’m an actual female homosexual, the kind who is female and loves females. I have a very good idea of what love is. It’s not the least bit “meaningless and hollow” for me to exclude men from my sex life. I have been in a relationship with the same woman for nine years, and every single day I feel lucky that I get to be with her and that I live in a society that allows me to live openly as a lesbian. I’m lucky that I don’t have to be married to a man, because I know I would be terribly uncomfortable and resentful if I was. My relationship with my partner is wonderful and fulfilling and has been the best thing in my life ever since we met.
Homophobic misogynists like these Twitter users are trying to make it impossible for women to assert sexual boundaries that exclude men and they’re trying to redefine what a lesbian is so that we can’t even claim to be females attracted to females without being bigoted. They might succeed in getting a lot of people to pretend they don’t know what a lesbian is, which will be really unfortunate, but they will not succeed in changing the fact that around 5% of women in every generation are exclusively attracted to other women, and that we are NOT going to date stupid assholes who put on lipstick and think that makes them women.
I don’t blame these guys for being jealous of lesbians, because honestly, lesbians have the best relationships and the best sex out of anyone anywhere! But no matter what clothes they put on or what surgeries they have, they will not become women. Female bodies have a complex structure of their own that cannot be created by turning the penis inside out. Men with a surgically-created fuckhole will never know what it feels like to have a female orgasm. They are not female, and they’re not lesbians, they are men who hate us.
I am just speechless with shock upon seeing this Tweet by trans activist Zinnia Jones, which reads “Literally 100% of trans people could be convicted rapists and that still doesn’t actually justify excluding us from the proper restroom.”
As of the time of writing this post, this Tweet is still available at this link.
So Zinnia, you really think it’s okay to allow convicted rapists into women’s washrooms? And you think that if ALL trans people were convicted rapists it would still be justifiable to allow them in women’s washrooms? Like, are you serious?
In Zinnia’s world, apparently, women’s washrooms are designated places where sex offenders can feel free practice their fetish and perv on unsuspecting women. This sounds like some sick and twisted porn fantasy from an abusive male.
He has provided this link to a blog post where he explains himself. He says that there is no real danger to women if men are using their washrooms and no predatory men would ever claim transgender status in order to perv on women in the washroom. Here is an extremely long list of newspaper articles where men have dressed in women’s clothes while committing sex crimes. Thank you Pantypopo for the list.
Zinnia Jones is aware of the reason why women need women-only bathrooms. He denies that women are in any danger from CONVICTED RAPISTS because it suits him to deny this. He does not care about the safety of women and girls. He only cares about his own identity as a trans woman and being allowed into women’s spaces. He is proudly displaying his disregard for women’s safety in plain view as if it’s a perfectly acceptable thing to do. This is male privilege and this is misogyny.
Recently the Misogynist Raging Assholes are having a tantrum over the alleged feminist conspiracy to ban their sex robots. According to MRAs, feminists want to ban the sex bots because when women have to compete with robots for male attention, the robots will win, since feminists are so fat, ugly, and unwilling to put out, and since the availability of sex bots will drive the price of sex way down. The MRAs believe that all interactions between men and women consist of transactions where men get sex and women get stuff in return. Therefore, according to their theory, women do things to keep the price of sex high so that we can get a lot of stuff from men who want sex from us.
It’s a very sad little world that MRAs live in. They have no idea that men and women actually form relationships and friendships with each other all the time, and that we get joy and pleasure from being together, and interacting pleasantly, the way humans do when they’re not hateful, small-minded morons. MRAs basically think that all men hate women as much as they do, and that heterosexual sex consists of men fucking someone they hate, just for the orgasm, and women allowing their bodies to be used in order to gain something in return.
Actual sex, you know, the kind that isn’t rape, is a mutually pleasurable experience where all parties involved are there because they enjoy doing what they’re doing and wish to experience sexual pleasure together. Sex-as-a-transaction is a product of capitalist patriarchy where men are people and women are objects, and everything in life is commodified and sold in the marketplace. Since women do not have fully human status, we are fair game for selling in the marketplace and so men sell us and buy us.
Sex-as-a-transaction is based on a male-centric and penis-centric idea of what sex is. To the MRA, sex is when a person (man) thrusts his penis inside of something until he ejaculates. In this model of sex, it really doesn’t matter what the receptacle is. They prefer to use human women as receptacles because the added dimension of dominance over women’s bodies gives them an extra high as they ejaculate. However, men will also use children, animals, and inanimate objects as receptacles because when your definition of sex is simply “thrusting my penis into a thing” then the thing can truly be anything. Notice that in this model of sex, there is no distinction to be made between sex and rape. Misogynist Raging Assholes do not distinguish between the two because the receptacle he uses does not matter to him and whether the receptacle agrees to be a receptacle or not does not matter. The only thing that matters to him is that he gets to fuck something or someone who is subordinate to him.
So that brings us to sex robots. It is perfectly logical that a Misogynist Raging Asshole would want to fuck an inanimate object shaped like a human female. That’s because they already think of human females as objects so it’s not a stretch to fuck an actual object. Since they are not aware that sex is an intrinsically rewarding positive interaction between two human subjects, they are not aware of any difference between fucking a robot and fucking an actual human being. Thrusting their penis into an inanimate object meets their definition of sex.
The reason that the robots are shaped like human women, instead of being shaped like any other thing, is because of the cultural perception that women and sex are the same thing. Sex isn’t an activity that MRAs experience with another person, sex is something women are. We are the chosen receptacle for their bodily fluids. Simply seeing women anywhere, on the street, in the workplace, in the store, wherever, is a sexual experience for men. They look at a woman and they see sex. The sight of our bodies is an indication that orgasm is coming. The constant use of pornography among Misogynist Raging Assholes ensures they continue to think this way. If they do not wish to see themselves as rapists they bargain with the woman before fucking her. They offer her money, food, marriage, etc to get her to agree to being his receptacle. However, the actual activity—using a woman as a receptacle—does not change whether the woman has agreed to it or not. It is quite indistinguishable from rape. Sex that does not perfectly resemble rape is something that MRAs have never even thought about. It has not occurred to him that sex might be something that women want to do just for the sake of it, something we might find pleasurable. They cannot see us as sexual subjects with our own desires to be fulfilled. If at any point they do come across a woman who desires sex on her own terms, they will label her a slut and deem her unfuckable. That’s because MRAs wish for their receptacles to be exactly like sex bots, and not like people. We are just there for him, we cannot have a self of our own.
I’ve met plenty of women who have found decent husbands who respect them as people and have mature adult relationships. I wouldn’t marry a man myself but I know that there are men who do understand what sex and relationships with woman are and who can do them just fine. But the men who think that sex bots are better than human women are men who cannot see women as human beings and who cannot distinguish between sex and rape. I say, if these men would prefer a robot over a human being, let them have their robots. I wouldn’t wish any actual women to have the misfortune of having to interact with them.
If I came out against sex bots, it would only be from an anti-capitalist perspective. Sex robots are an unnecessary luxury item for the rich, and I am against all unnecessary luxury items for the rich on the basis that no one should have luxuries while other people go without the basics of life. If men have so much money that they can afford to buy a robot to ejaculate in when all they truly need is a sock, then they shouldn’t have that much money. We should share our resources equally and the only way some people can be rich is if other people are poor. However, I do not oppose the use of sex bots on the basis of them creating competition for women and driving the price of sex down. That is complete and utter nonsense. Women are not actually competing for the attention of rapists and wannabe rapists. We actually want to stay the fuck away from them and we are actively working to create a culture where this sort of pro-rape attitude no longer exists. Sex is not actually a commodity. Men have been trying to commodify sex for a long, long, time but all they’ve done is commodify rape. Mutual, consensual sex has no price tag.
From the Institute for the Study of MRA behaviour
The MRA, or Misogynist Raging Asshole, is a man who is so enraged that women do not want to have sex with him that he spends large portions of his time writing misogynist messages on the Internet as a form of revenge. He hasn’t interacted with very many women before, and gets most of his information about women from television, music videos, and porn, but despite (because of?) his lack of interaction with real women he believes that we should all be basking in his awesomeness and begging him to allow us to service his boner. He further believes that because women aren’t begging him to allow us to service his boner, men are thus an oppressed class of people, being deprived of their human right to empornulate and abuse women. The MRA is dimly aware that the real reason women reject him is because he is a pathetic loser, but he denies this reality using so many defense mechanisms and delusions that he really deserves his own category in the DSM. This essay examines all the strategies the MRA uses to validate his bullshit, starting with Aesop’s sour grapes, and continuing with all the defense mechanisms described by Anna Freud: denial, repression, regression, displacement, projection, reaction formation, intellectualization, rationalization, and sublimation. They need all these strategies because it’s hard work trying to believe in utter nonsense.
In Aesop’s fable The Fox and the Grapes, a fox who is unable to reach the grapes he is seeking decides that they must have been sour. The MRA uses the same strategy when he is rejected by a woman he wants. The unattainable woman is called “cum dumpster,” “garbage dump,” “whore,” “twat,” “pig,” “animal,” “slut” “worthless,” etc. He tells himself that women “are all fat and ugly anyway,” and that “the stench of vagina could knock a buzzard off a shit wagon at fifty paces,” and he makes proclamations such as “I would never date a cum rag” even though it is clear by his constant obsession with women that we are exactly what he really wants. “Girlfriends are for suckers,” he says, “wives are for fools and casual sex is not worth the effort of putting up with the rotten personalities that almost all women have.” Then he continues to spend a large amount of his time obsessing over how to “get” women.
The MRA’s primary denial is that he really does desire a sexual relationship with a woman, and that he feels too insecure and unworthy of finding and keeping a partner. But his denial doesn’t stop at his own desires. The MRA invents elaborate bogus theories about female domination and hatred of men; in order to maintain these beliefs he must deny many aspects of reality. Denial can be on a small scale, such as the choice to ignore statistics on sexual assault and the wage gap, or it can present on a large scale such as an entire make-believe world. When only a handful of people showed up for a men’s rights rally in Toronto, they just pretended it was a huge success, describing it in overinflated terms such as “one of the most important turning points for Men and Boys in Crisis.” Reality for the MRA is whatever he wants it to be.
Repression is to simply forget something bad, such as a traumatic experience, in order to avoid dealing with it. It is hard to say whether MRAs have experienced traumatic events because they are unable to explain their experiences in a coherent way, but it’s clear that they’ve either had negative experiences or they fear having negative experiences, and that they repress the related fear and anxiety. In this telling short story, a famous MRA presents an excuse for violence against women that reveals his underlying anxiety. He fears sexual humiliation and betrayal by his partner, and he fears being a “loser” who cannot please her.
Regression is to deal with anxiety by reverting back to a childlike emotional state. The MRA displays regression when he has long, screeching tantrums, when he allows his baser instincts to control him, and when he behaves like a schoolboy by bullying women, calling people names, trying to win sympathy by lying, making vague threats to try to intimidate people, and being unable to take back the shit he dishes out. Behaving like a schoolboy helps him to avoid unpleasant aspects of adulthood such as responsibility, self-reflection, and getting along with other people.
Displacement is to direct negative feelings away from their real source and toward an easier target. The MRA likes to blame women and feminists for a variety of social and natural phenomena, all of which are either nobody’s fault or the fault of men. When wildfires broke out in Sweden, MRAs complained that feminists were ruining the Swedish firefighting system. When boys don’t do well in school, MRAs claim that feminists have taken over the school system and have been systematically making sure boys receive lower marks. When men die in violent crime, MRAs complain that feminism has made men “disposable,” although it is overwhelmingly men, not women, who are perpetuating violence. When men go on shooting rampages, MRAs blame women for not providing sex to violent men. It is right to be upset when people are hurt in natural disasters, when large groups of young people are underachieving, and when people are wrongfully murdered, but it is important to address the actual problem or perpetrator rather than scapegoating or deflecting to an unrelated party.
Projection is when we imagine our insecurities or problems on other people, instead of facing the fact that they’re our own traits. The MRA imagines that women are immature, dull, lacking in emotional development, childlike, not accountable for our actions, irresponsible, unable to understand our own feelings, emotional, short-sighted, needing leadership, selfish and narcissistic, confusing opinions and feelings with reality, making claims with no evidence, seeking attention and validation, and being fickle/having a short attention span. These are, of course, his own traits, as evidenced by his behavior. As well as projecting his childlike qualities on women, he also projects his fears of being insufficiently masculine on other men. The MRA enjoys calling other men “beta,” a word meaning “not macho enough.” Since he fears having this quality himself, he imagines that other men have it and mocks them for it.
Reaction formation is to create a public persona that is the opposite of the way one truly feels, because the real feeling is shameful. The MRA fears that he is not masculine enough to attract a woman, and he is ashamed of this, so he disguises his insecurity by playing the part of the “Alpha Male,” a character who is heroically hypermasculine and misogynist. (Of course, women don’t actually want hypermasculine, misogynist men, but once again, the MRA assumes that porn and television are real life.) One of the MRA’s favourite Internet activities is the sharing of fantasies in which he goes to bars and uses expert pick-up lines to pick up women, or in which he has several girlfriends who adore him completely because of his masculinity and abusive behavior. It is a description of what he wishes his life could be like, and the opposite of the way he really feels about himself. He also enjoys giving advice to other men about how to act more “Alpha”, and judging by the advice he gives, he is obviously talking out of his ass. One MRA recommends to spit in women’s mouths to be more alpha, and another imagined the following totally plausible scenario: “Of course, I also never keep them around for long—although some of them have managed to make themselves so useful that I won’t willingly kick them to the curb—how can you veto a woman that actively brings other (younger) women to your bed?” Sure, women are always bringing younger women with them into their boyfriend’s beds—in porn movies!
Intellectualization is to think away your feelings of anxiety or insecurity, taking comfort in the neutral world of facts and figures instead of the difficult world of emotions. Of course, since the MRA’s world is mostly imaginary, so are his facts and figures. For example, “Sluts release less oxytocin than normal women do during lovemaking, which means the hard slut is less likely to emotionally bond when she’s spermally bonded.” Right.
Rationalization is explaining away or making excuses for shameful behavior. When men’s violence toward women comes up in conversation, the MRA will make excuses for it in attempt to justify it, to hide his shame that he loves abuse. A justification for peeping toms, for example: “If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn’t assault her, didn’t touch her…all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public. How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him? This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men’s freedom.”
Sublimation is to channel rage or other negative emotions into a productive outlet, such as when a misogynist channels his hatred for women into Men’s Rights Activism. Well, actually this would be a good example, except the MRA doesn’t actually fight for men’s rights. His only activities are typing factually incorrect and hateful messages on the Internet, harassing women, and wanking. It’s too bad, really, because men could use some activism around poverty, racism, suicide, mental health, the stigma against male victims of sexual assault, rape in prison, and more, but the one defense mechanism that could be productive is the only one he won’t do. It’s probably because real activism requires a person to be responsible, caring, socially aware, and selfless—qualities that MRAs do not have.
All these psychological tricks work together to keep several important truths away from the MRA brain. Women don’t reject him because there’s something wrong with us, we reject him because there’s something wrong with him. The reason women won’t submit to his authority is not because we “don’t know our place,” it’s because we’re people, and people aren’t interested in submitting to some douchebag’s authority. The use of defense mechanisms to shield his ego from reality isn’t the only psychological problem the MRA has—he also has issues with power and control, possessiveness and jealousy, anger and violence—but those are topics for another day. The solution here is not too complicated—the MRA could be helped a lot by changing his attitudes and behaviours with some good old cognitive-behavioural therapy. However, the first step in getting help is realizing that you have a problem, and he has diligently protected himself from realizing what the problem really is. The continued use of these defense mechanisms will ensure that the MRA remains a sad, lonely little boy for the rest of his life.