A recent entry I wrote on the male entitlement to sex fairly exploded with comments both on and off this blog, mainly spurred by yet another Reddidiot invasion (I wish Reddit would die an inglorious death already- I am really tired of this bullshit). I did not publish most of the comments I got from the comments section because they were beyond inane or downright woman-hating.
I thought the reactions were so bizarre, so unexpected, that I should do some kind of post mortem.
The thing that was most noticeable by far is that every single response was about pornography. The thing is, my entry is in no way about pornography! The only relation is that I mention the word twice in passing as a form of exploitation of women. And yet every commentator latched on to that word, as if they were magnetically attracted to it. I find that extremely interesting.
Let us assume that at least most commentators were self-described men. This would provide some explanation for the obsession on pornography, as men are by far the biggest users of pornography and most pornography is made for them. Let us assume also that they are not familiar with anti-pornography blogs or sites, as most people are not. Seeing someone who even mentions pornography negatively might then set them off as being too outrageous to ignore. So we might have a gigantic deficit regarding the visibility of anti-pornography arguments. Based on this, I am interested in writing more about it.
Incidentally, I already have an entry against pornography in my queue, but I wrote it way before my entry on male entitlement. Based on these events, I will definitely think about adding more.
Another interesting point is that my manhood was put into question. This is not something I am used to, as the topics I treat do not lend themselves to such insults. And I understand why MRAs call me a traitor when I attack them. But why would my manhood be put into question when I address the exploitation of women?
I think the answer is in the question itself. My manhood is put into question precisely because everyone “knows” that to be a man is to want to exploit women. Liberals “know” this and conservatives “know” this; every single liberal or conservative argument regarding gender is predicated on this definition. Christians “know” this and atheists “know” this. Natalists “know” this and antinatalists “know” this.
It is expected that women will adapt to this desire and prevent the men around them from exploiting them. It is expected that if a woman is violated in some way, it must have been her fault because she failed to adapt to men’s desire to exploit her. It is expected that we need prostitutes because men will rape prostitutes instead of raping “real” women: either way, the belief that men will rape is unquestionable.
Here’s the thing, though: the belief that manhood depends on exploiting women is utter and complete bullshit. This bullshit myth is predicated upon three further bullshit myths:
1. That there exists two groups of humans, “men” and “women.”
2. That we distinguish between these two groups by the way people groom, dress, talk, feel, behave, and so on.
3. That man is above woman in the gender hierarchy, and that therefore women must adapt to men, not the reverse.
Therefore I am not offended by people who question my manhood because I attack the exploitation of women. It is simply bullshit. The relation is a psychological one: men are indoctrinated to want to exploit women, but indoctrination is not 100% effective by far. Therefore being a man does not prove that I want to exploit women.
Another point I’ve stated in the entry and which was proven by the subsequent comments is that these men cannot, and will not, admit that they have no inherent need for sex or pornography. To admit this would destroy their attempts at making them human rights, and would enlighten women on some truths about men. The fact is that men have lied to women about this for so long that they may have bought their own line of bullshit. I don’t know. The most surreal thing during this whole episode was arguing with a man who was claiming that sex was a biological necessity for men. He could have been lying, he could have been deluded, I don’t know, it’s hard to tell.
The sad fact is that the current conversation on the Internet about men/women relations is a man’s conversation about men’s needs. The needs of women are considered trivial or simply non-existent. Accusations of sexual harassment lead to arguments that women should stop making accusations because it makes men uncomfortable. Radfem analysis of rape, prostitution and pornography leads to arguments that it’s okay for men to hurt those women because they asked for it. Discussions of sexism revolve around men feeling hurt and why men think their sexism is acceptable. And we already know it is inevitable that on any gender discussion you will get the “but what about teh menz??” argument (another topic for which I have an entry in the queue).
This is as true about pornography as it is about anything else related to gender, but it seems pornography is an extremely sore spot. Perhaps the answer is that men feel more entitled to pornography than they do prostitution or rape, since liberals have some remaining guilt about prostitution and rape but none about pornography. Perhaps it is the sheer rarity of the position. I am not sure. There are plenty of radfem anti-pornography blogs out there but it is probable that no man would go anywhere near such blogs because they do not pander to manhood, and funfems sure as hell aren’t going to educate men on the subject.
I was also disappointed that Reddit used the entry as another reason to attack my blog, but that is becoming a habit by now. The so-called “Anarchists” on Reddit are basically just your common Internet goon squad pretending to be Anarchists. Division by Zero (who is himself a woman-hater) has extensively documented this on his blog. It would be funny if the harassment wasn’t so persistent.