The man-hating "feminazi" seething with contempt for anyone carrying a Y chromosome is a beloved right-wing bogeyman'er,woman. Yet a lot of times, conservative anti-feminists give the impression they have way more contempt for men.
Consider, for instance, the staple argument of rape apologists that we men are subhuman beasts. We simply can't control ourselves if we see a woman show too much skin or do anything else that turns us on. The point of such arguments is that women have only themselves to blame
for rape (after all, it's not like we men can control ourselves) but an argument all men are innate rapists is about as anti-male as it gets.
Or consider Susan Patton, writing
in the Wall Street Journal about what douchebags men are. Okay, she doesn't come out and say it that way. The thrust of her article is how women should get their "MRS" degree before graduating college. But one of the reasons is that if a woman hits thirty without tying the knot, well, no man's going to look at her twice when there are hot twenty-something women for the taking.
Plus, of course, the only reason a man would ever want to marry a woman is so he can get laid, so women should guard their virtue until he puts a ring on it: "If you offer intimacy without commitment, the incentive to commit is eliminated. The grandmotherly message of yesterday is still true today: Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free."
Apparently in Patton's world we men are all lecherous, selfish rakes who sit around the Hellfire Club laughing at how we seduce women, then discard them in the gutter, heedless of their sobbing ' "No decent man will have me now! I'm ruined!" If that's not man-bashing, what is? And, of course, it's utter bullshit.
In the real world, millions of men and women get married after they've slept together. Commitment happens for all kinds of eccentric and magical reasons, not just because the women's dangling her vagina like an angler trying to hook a trout. It's perfectly true some men will lie, manipulate and make false promises to get laid, but even if withholding sex got manipulative liar to tie the knot, why would anyone want to?
It's not that premarital sex guarantees happiness, but neither does withholding sex. Our grandmothers saving it for marriage didn't stop husbands from cheating on them, abusing them or abandoning them.
Unfortunately, Patton's finger-wagging at slutty sluts who actually enjoy sex rather than other it as a bargaining chip isn't unique. In fact, she's kind of tame compared to some members of the Save the Milk Brigade.
Conservative sociologist Mark Regnerus, for example, has argued
that "societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority"'they don't get married and have kids right away, they make enough money to support themselves'are bad because they turn men into lazy slackers. If women give it away and don't require men to pay for sex in some fashion, men have no incentive to work to earn money. After all, it's not like we have passions or ambitions or anything.
Likewise, author Kay Hymowitz argues
that if women got married by the time they were 20, that would force guys to become responsible fathers and husbands. Women choosing to postpone marriage is therefore bad for men, but it's also bad for women. Their sluttiness has created a nation of lazy shiftless bums so when women want to get married, there'll be no good men around.
So men are lecherous, shallow, lazy selfish jerks. And women are destroying society by daring to live their own lives and enjoying sex without consequences
I take it back. The man-bashers don't have contempt for men, they have contempt for everyone.