This is a shockingly stupid argument, because it doesn't examine any actual facts, it just comes straight from the cool-aid.
The idea that we are moving increasingly deeper into a social climate hostile to masculinity and men is treated as if it is a laughable and foolish fantasy. Supposedly any complaint about an increasingly male-hostile zeitgeist is merely the bleating of men as their “privileges” are taken away by an apparently equalist society. That's one of the arguments that myself and other MRA's continuously face, and that argument comes right out of public opinion, taking no consideration of peer reviewed research or observable facts.
So, I want to ask a rhetorical question. Can a mainstream entertainer or celebrity survive if they make a public statement that is distinctly and clearly racist or bigoted against a biological demographic?
For example, can an individual's career survive uttering the bigoted claim that “jews are greedy, filthy, and the schemers behind wars”? Or, will such utterance destroy the career of the person who speaks it?
Can an individual freely express the racist idea that blacks or african americans are inferior, one step away from monkeys? Can a celebrity survive the public expression of the hateful notion that south asians are in some respect inferior to caucasians?
I know the answer to these questions, a professional career – or the status of celebrity wont survive any such racist, bigoted statement. Mel Gibson provides an object lesson in this. His career in Hollywood is effectively finished following his expressions of antisemitism against Jews.
But there is a biological demographic to which hatred, denigration and blatant bigotry can be applied, and it will accelerate the career and wealth of the individual indulging in that public bigotry. The demographic to which hatred can be freely expressed is men. CBS news anchor Dan Abrams has just written a book called “Women Are Better Than Men”.
The actual title is:
“Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else”
My version is more succinct. An entire book devoted to sexist supremacy. Consider what would happen to anyone who published an equivalent volume pronouncing inferiority of any other biological demographic, blacks or native americans, for example. An individual as publicly and disgustingly bigoted towards any other biological demographic would be wrapped up and done, career and public celebrity ended.
Its okay as long as the target for hatred is men. We are clearly moving deeper into a culture which vilifies half the population based on sex. Abrams, a news anchor on a major network has just written a book denouncing his own sex for innate inferiority, celebrating women for being better. It seems clear that Abrams doesn't actually believe his own hateful propaganda, how could he have managed a successful career with such a low opinion of himself based on his biology? What he's doing is cynically capitalizing on the direction of the cool-aid.
I could easily write a book pronouncing male inferiority – all it would require of me is a suspension of my ethics, and setting aside of my moral compass. Anyone reading this will recognize the ability to assemble a readable thesis. I could pander to the gullible Oprah watching masses and stroke the egos of feminists with reassurances of female superiority, then walk away with my pockets full of cash.
I don't do that, because I'm unwilling to denigrate half the humans race for a quick buck. Abrams seems to have no such inhibitions. The fact of his book's publication tells anyone paying attention all we need to know about whether hatred of men is the prevalent ethic.
Some people will rebut this with reference to the publication of Dick Masterson's “Men Are Better Than Women”. To this argument, I'll only point out that Masterson is a comedian, and his claimed position of masculine superiority is obvious satire. Even his name is a prank-name. Dick Master.
The question in my mind is - are proponents of the Dick Master argument actually foolish enough to think Dickmaster is for real? or are these arguments based on a willful pretence that anybody believes a comedian who named himself "Dick Master" is fielding a serious position of male supremacy?
Masterson is a comedian, by contrast; Abrams is the news anchor on a major television network.
He's a successful celebrity and intellectual who has cynically chosen to profit by the denigration of a biological demographic. He's educated and intelligent enough to know that our culture is waging a war against men, and he's content to collaborate for personal profit. Cynical, profiteering bigot, and opportunist amoral quisling is what he is.
