A Treatise on Misandry and How Feminists Need to Sit Pretty and Listen to Misogynists Rant With No Consequences

Or how to not write a manifesto.

So apparently someone in the Manosphere (MRA bloggers) known by Fidelbogen wrote some sort of manifesto for the Men’s Rights Movement.

Honestly, I thought that the MRAs had like three goals.

  1. To hate on all women forever and ever.
  2. To impede any and all attempts to have women recognized as people.
  3. To help men.

They have certainly succeeded in the first goal, and I’d say that they’ve been working on the second one. But the third one?


Somewhere in the distance is an MRA whining “WHAT ABOUT THE MENZZZZ!!?!”, complete with faux outrage and fury that people are paying attention to anything else BUT men for once.

Many organizations (if not all) that DO want to help men and actually do so don’t consider themselves MRAs; in fact, they actually distance themselves from the MRA label, because it’s been tainted by and associated with anti-feminist, misogynistic assholes.

So is this “manifesto” a step towards fulfilling the third goal?

Ehhhhhhh, no.

Let’s get started.

JS38 is a coalition of politically conscious non-feminist groups and individuals. The name itself is a random character string which serves only as an identification tag.

What did you do, use a D26 and a D10 to figure out what letters and numbers you should use?

As a project, JS38 is designed to overcome the problems which labels often generate – such problems as branding, false grouping, conflation, stereotypification, message degradation and the like.

Because it’s obviously so terrible to have a name that doesn’t bring to mind a cold, unfeeling AI about to kill us all.

We recognize that we are in a contest to sway hearts and minds.

I didn’t realize that we’re in a contest on whether women are to be people or not.

If we establish that an octagon is an eight-sided geometrical figure, the truth of that message remains uncompromised by the messenger. Even if Stalin or Caligula declared that an octagon was an eight-sided geometrical figure, it would not become a nine-sided or seven-sided figure.

And even if [insert hot person of your choice here] came up and said that women are all lying, gold-digging, spermjacking sluts, it doesn’t change the fact that what is being said is misogynistic.

I’d also add that it says a lot about you if you’re advocating such a hateful position with a straight face.

We reject all forms of racial, religious, or ethnic identification. We view such identification as conflating the messenger with the message, or the personal with the political.

“Our group is totally colorblind, ’cause we said so. Racism solved!

What do you mean that it’s racist to say that Asian women are inherently submissive and docile?! I’m not racist, see? You’re the one with the problem, not me!”

[…] we believe it is good practice to “think like a lawyer.”

So you’re always trying to find some way to “win” against feminists?

We define our method as query-based rather than theory-based – although it is true that we theorize. But feminism owes us answers, and not the reverse. Thus, if we declare that “feminism is x”, we are expecting proof that feminism is NOT x, and shall expect our concerns to be sensitively and respectfully addressed.

Oh goodie, another excuse for misogynistic men to mansplain feminism to feminists. *rolls eyes*

Also, what concerns? Do you really want us to take “all of the gold digging sluts are teaming up to false accuse me of rape” seriously?

If a particular idea is not expressly stated in this document, it cannot be attributed to the document. Equally, however, it cannot be said that the document excludes it.

“Well, this doesn’t actually say that, but it doesn’t NOT say that either.”

We shall make it our chief business to agitate against feminism, and shall touch upon men’s issues as a subset of this topic, when we are talking about the damage feminism does to the world.

A: “We will oppose feminists at every turn! This I swear we will do!”
B: “What about the fact that one out of six men experience sexual abuse? Or the fact that 3% of American men have experienced an attempted or a completed rape in their lifetime? What do we plan to do about that?”

We recognize that the de facto consequence of feminist innovation has been to make “male” and “female” into separate political interest groups.

I thought feminism was about the radical idea that women are people, and equally deserving of rights. It’s really not our fault that we were born female. And it’s not our fault that there are men who seek to take away the rights to our own bodies, or that there are men who want to take us back to the 1950s where women “learned their place” (if not earlier of course).

We recognize that men on as a group are unaware that they have political interests as a group, and that said unawareness makes them vulnerable to erosion of their well-being within the social polity.

It goes against your interest to have people learn about consent, have women in combat roles, have more women working in STEM, and whatnot? And having women take a more equal role in society alongside men erodes a man’s well-being?

Well then, who would have thunk it?

*rolls eyes*

We affirm that males and females possess, on average, bio-genetically based differences which generate differences in psychology and behavior not due to cultural training.

For example, it has been shown that ladybrains have been shown to be inferior to men in all ways. It’s not our fault that ladies are inherently inferior, it’s BIOLOGY.


We affirm that the existence of male-only social space – in the form of groups, clubs and organizations of whatever sort – is a POSITIVE GOOD. We assert that such things ought to make part of any future society we would aspire to, and that the formation of male-only spaces should begin immediately.

“Why do women get to have women’s centers and women’s shelters and everything? It’s not like they did anything special. MISANDRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!”

We assert that the non-feminist community is an autonomous power in relation to the feminist community. As such, diplomatic courtesy from the feminist community will be expected.

“Even when I say that all women are inherently gold digging sluts, you are not allowed to talk back and say that I’m wrong. Got that?”

We assert the prerogative to define feminism in absolute terms in the light of our own study, regardless of feminist objection to such a proceeding. Simply put, feminism categorically IS what WE say it is.

“Words only mean what I mean what they mean. Hence, rape culture means a culture in which men can rape women without impunity and there are absolutely no consequences ever. And obviously that doesn’t exist, because men can go to jail for raping a bitch, LOL.”

We affirm that feminism generates a cloud of inconsistency or indefiniteness about itself, and switches from one set of rules to another as need dictates. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.

Because while feminists are inconsistent ’cause ladies, MRAs are ALWAYS consistent and never contradict themselves.

“Of course we men are consistent. We’re MEN. It’s BIOLOGY.

What do you mean that it’s inconsistent to say that women need to protect themselves against rapists and then say that women shouldn’t presume all men to be rapists? Your ladybrains just don’t comprehend the logic behind it. Mmhm.”

We affirm that feminism, as a cultural project, seeks to increase the individual and collective power of women with no limit. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.

“Feminism is about FEMALE SUPREMACY, while the men’s rights movement is about EQUALITY. I know this because I’m a MAN. You don’t because you’re a WOMAN.

Anyways, women shouldn’t even bother getting out of the kitchen, they need to learn their place. Now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich bitch.”

We affirm that the feminist drive to increase female power involves a willful attack upon men and maleness as such.

Because toxic masculinity is totally a good thing for men. And because all feminists want to do is to suppress those uppity men, just like MRAs want to suppress those uppity women and send them back in the kitchen.

We recognize that feminism promotes the idea that everything wrong with the world flows from a male source, or as the saying goes, that “men are the problem”. 

Also known as something that no feminist has ever said, ever.

We affirm that men and women share the same social ecology, and that harm to any part of this system will generate systemic consequences. Consequently, we recognize that feminism’s attack upon men amounts to a war of aggression against the world at large, and that this war will damage men and women alike.

“If you women don’t shut up about your feminism, I’m going to withdraw my attention away from you and not date you, ever. And you can’t marry me, or have my babies, ever. WHAT NOW, HUHHH?????”

We affirm that feminism is dynamic, must remain perpetually in motion, and that if forced to become static, would expire. We refer to this condition as “perpetual revolution”. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.

Because no civil rights movement has ever evolved over time.

We recognize that the feminist campaign for “equality” between the sexes is fraught with hypocrisy in practice, and that the term “equality” itself is deeply problematic by its very nature.

“Equality implies that women are actually people, deserving of rights and of an equal position of society. We can’t have that, nope.”

We affirm that there is a cultural taboo which suppresses open critique of feminism.

Really? Because feminists disagree with one another all the time. Just some time ago, Manboobzers had a disagreement with David Furtelle because he stated that he believes that made to penetrate isn’t rape.

Oh, you mean that you want the right to call women uppity gold digging sluts and whores without consequences. Sorry, not going to happen.

We affirm that there is a cultural taboo against recognition of male suffering and against recognition that male life has inherent value.

Because men suffer so much when feminists call for consent education.

Also, society doesn’t recognize that men’s lives have value? Other than the fact that most of history focuses on the achievements of men, much of science focuses on what men have achieved, movies are extremely male oriented, video games are almost all about the men, and people still think it acceptable to make sexist jokes and to threaten to rape a woman for having an opinion?

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.

We call for an end to the feminist stranglehold in the realm of public education.

Because encouraging girls to take on STEM is a stranglehold on the MENZ.

We call for a full intellectual auditing of all feminist claims and theories, from a non-feminist epistemic standpoint. We call upon credentialed academics to join in this work, along with all manner of people everywhere. 

“I don’t accept your studies! They don’t support my viewpoint, so they’re all invalid!”

I know that there have been studies done on many feminist claims/theories. I can’t be arsed to find all of the evidence right now though. Maybe if I have a specific claim that I can debunk, then sure, I can do a in-focus search.

We affirm that misandry (disaffection toward men and maleness) is a real thing with cultural and institutional presence.

“A woman refused to have sex with me! Misandryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! You need to acknowledge my painnnnnnnnnnnnn!”

We affirm that misandry and misogyny are two aspects of an underlying unity, that they cannot be understood separately, and that they increase or decrease in direct proportion to each other.

So we should aim to be more misogynistic in order to make a better society, if your hypothesis is correct?

You know, this says a lot more than they realize.

We affirm that misandry, rather than misogyny, is the primary driver behind the present crisis.

“Women can choose to not have to sex with me!!11! MISANDRYYYYYYYYY!!!”

We affirm that the growth of freedom without responsibility is pernicious, and we recognize that feminism, as a movement and as an ideology, has encouraged precisely such growth among the female population.

Because while feminists seek to put rapists to task for, you know, raping someone, MRAs want to put the blame on the rape victim for letting zirself be raped. Right.

Of course, the MRA version of taking responsibility is to blame a woman for everything, and excuse a man’s misdeeds as somehow caused by a woman. (“Hitler just needed more poon, then he wouldn’t have committed the Holocaust” anyone?)

We assert that non-feminist men and women have no duty to stay current with the discourse in the feminist community. The case is rather the reverse: that the feminist community must listen sensitively to what non-feminist men and women are saying, and address respectfully any concerns they might raise.

“We don’t ever have to listen to you. You’re just stupid. Instead, you must sit pretty while we go on an tirade on how women are all gold digging sluts and how women are destroying the world because we let them out of the kitchen.”

We maintain that feminism, in its ideological and politicized form, was imposed on the world as a social innovation and that the impacted population was never consulted about this.


This “manifesto” actually does say a LOT about the MRA movement. But it doesn’t actually say what they think it says.


3 thoughts on “A Treatise on Misandry and How Feminists Need to Sit Pretty and Listen to Misogynists Rant With No Consequences

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s