Phalanxed Perspectives #4: The Anti-Feminist Male



1. State your name, age, profession (there is no need to tell us where you work or the name of whomever or wherever you work but merely the type of job), whether you are a feminist or anti-feminist and the racial identity you identify with if you believe in such a thing.

“Zisaan Malik, 20 years old, working as a tutor and studies at University of Toronto majoring in philosophy. I am an anti-feminist, and I would be considered half Portuguese and half Arab, but a south Asian by nationality and European according to skull ancestry.”

2. If you are an anti-feminist why are you an anti-feminist?

“I am an anti-feminist not because I hate women or do not believe women should have equal rights to men. However I am rightfully justified in being an anti-feminist because modern day third wave intersectional Feminism has become nothing more than a bitter nasty misandrist cult. It all started with the nonsense of second wave feminism chanting slogans like “sisterhood is powerful join us now!” “

3. Do you understand the definition of feminism by the dictionary? If so, why are you an anti-feminist even if the dictionary just says they want equal rights?

“Feminism does not mean equality of the sexes. That’s egalitarianism. Feminism is defined as the political, social, and economic equality of women to that of men. Notice the language being used here? It presupposes an extreme assuming men have more rights than women and women ought to be like them, ironically feminists often display and imitate the worst behaviors of men. However so with that being said the dictionary definition does not apply to political ideologies which are actually judged by the policies of it’s members. Feminists have horrible policies therefore feminism is in a horrible sorry bitter toxic state.”

4. How do you feel about gender rights, equal opportunity and women?

“Women and men are already equal in America and already have equal opportunities to choose whatever career paths they want. Naturally however women and men gravitate towards different life choices and different careers due to sexual dimorphism, you’ll see more women working as nurses than men because women are more nurturing, but men with their greater upper body strength are found in labor or military jobs. Despite feminism’s best attempts at gender neutral pronouns.”

5. Tell us about when you first became an anti-feminist.

“Part of being an Atheist is questioning narratives and your own beliefs at times, anti-feminism just hit me one day out of the blue so I began researching and questioning the feminist narrative by reading books like Peter Knight’s Sex, Lies, and feminism. Christina Hoff Sommers The War On Boys. I also engaged in debates and watched videos of others who were anti feminist.”

6. What is your response when you’re told that you’re “mansplaining”? Do you feel like your opinion is not being taken seriously or such a claim is designed to silence you? What do you think the purpose of telling someone they are mansplaining really is? Do you agree that men can mansplain?

“Mansplaining is a copout technique to silence criticism of feminism by males or to enslave men by taking away their freedom of speech. It’s cultural authoritarianism.”

7. Whenever you share your opinions are you normally called a misogynist or do you catch a lot of hatred?

“Yes in almost every thread by the most immature feminists.”

8. What do you do when you run into someone who is particularly nasty? Have you ever been threatened because of your views on feminism? If so, could you give us some detail and the specific nature of the threat?

“I outwit them. You don’t need heavy statistics for bitter nasty people. You just need clever mind games. Give a guilty person enough rope and they’ll supply enough evidence to hang themselves.”

9. You mentioned atheism. Some say atheism plus, or atheism that involves social issues, was started in part due to feminism. Do you think that is the case or do you blame feminism for atheism plus?

“Yes. Atheism plus was a result of third wave feminism’s toxic influence.”

10. You do understand that your responses to questions 6 and 7 can come across as a little aggressive. The normal response from some would be, “why are you so angry?” or “masculinity is fragile and we see it in you.” Could you understand how becoming angry like that could create or even motivate that type of reaction?

“I’d rather not appease or be humble to cultural authoritarians.”

11. How many times a week do you get called a misogynist? Like, give us an estimated number.

“It depends per month but it’s beginning to die down because people are starting to understand my position and I have researched a lot more than the typical person I argue against.”

12. Is anyone close to your or in your family, maybe a friend, a feminist? If so, how do you and that person interact?


13. Let’s say we have a nice person. They can be male or female as we don’t know your preference. And they wanted to date you. If they told you that they were a feminist how would you react?

“I’m a straight male. So, I’m interested in women. I judge people based off of character but I am interested in women only. If she has good character I wouldn’t care if she was a feminist or not.”

14. Are you actually saying that you’d date a feminist? Wouldn’t you as an anti-feminist be opening Pandora’s Box on that one?

“Maybe. It’d depend on the person’s character.”

15. And have you ever dated a feminist before or dated someone who you suspected was a feminist or could have been a feminist?

“No I haven’t dated feminists or someone who proclaimed to be. I’ve dated women who didn’t identify as a feminist though. But now I’ve taken a break from dating to build up my career, knowledge and character. As well as to give some much needed attention to myself as well as opposed to always worrying about others or helping them out. I mean I’d like to help out others but sometimes you have to work on yourself too.”

16. You go to school, right? Well, you say that feminists, or at least the ones you tend to run into, are cultural authoritarians. Does that apply to academia as well in that you believe that feminism is being forced into schools and institutions of higher learning?

“Yes definitely it is being forced in the form of social justice, and safe spaces. I am very opposed to the term social justice. It is about the government gaining ever increasing wealth and influence in order accomplish economic redistribution, and what the champions of social justice call good things which fall under the category of re-engineering society to appease their bigotry.

I would like to add that I am a cultural libertarian. Safe spaces are about silencing debates and critical inquiry to appeal to whiny adolescents that can’t handle dissent or views that challenge their bigotry.”

17. What do you think of the term “rape culture”?

“We do not live in a rape culture in the West. Saudi Arabia is a rape culture where women can get stoned to death just for being raped. See, that is a rape culture. Over here? No, there is no rape culture.”

18. What do you think of male privilege?

Male privilege is a myth. Males are less privileged than ever as Christina Hoff Sommers explains in her book, “The War on Boys.” Feminists wage a battle against men’s education and boys are treated as defective girls.

19. Since the idea of white male privilege is out there so often and you certainly aren’t a white male even in a historical sense do you find yourself having a leg up in debates due to your heritage and racial identity? You know, because someone couldn’t just throw out the privileged white male title at you?

“There is no white male privilege. Once again this is a feminist and social justice warrior myth. White people work just as hard as others and succeed on a proportionate footing. The idea of white privilege is just a racist and dogmatic view.”

20. We appreciate having you on SBC Perspectives Mr. Malik. We hope to have you again for later episodes and articles. Is there anything else you’d like to add?

“Thank you very much I appreciate and am honored to have been a part of this interview. I’d like to share some notes.

WHAT IS FEMINISM ? Rendall (The Origins of Modern Feminism: Women in Britain, France and the United States, 1780-1860, London:Macmillan, 1985) states that the word “Feminism” was first used in English in 1894. It was derived from the French word “feminisme”, which was apparently invented by the French Utopian Socialist, Charles Fourier. I would like to attempt a definition of Feminism which covers all the “Feminisms” mentioned in this book – and perhaps even some that are not. Feminists seem to have some difficulty in defining Feminism – mostly because Feminists have conquered western societies so thoroughly that there are few non-Feminists left for Feminists to contrast themselves with. Groups usually define themselves in relation to non-members, and as this particular group can find few articulate non-members, it ends up with a fuzzy self-image. I hope to be of assistance in this regard, as this book focuses on the thesis that the victims-of-oppression model fits the situation of men at least as well as it fits the situation of women, and that men’s oppressors are the Feminists (male and female) – plus some overly chivalrous non-Feminist males. In my view, this book argues that thesis successfully, but it is up to you to judge if I have been successful. Another problem for anyone who wants to define “Feminism” is that, as each generation of Feminists wins its battles and retires, the next generation comes along with a completely new set of worries, complaints and demands. For much of the nineteenth century, Feminists were concerned with obtaining the right to vote, and property rights. Since the end of World War Two, the focus has been first on employment issues and abortion, and later on crimes where women are typically the complainants and men are the alleged perpetrators – e.g.., rape, domestic violence and child sexual abuse. These different generations tend to define themselves in terms of their own current policy goals. This confuses any attempt at getting an overview of this entire political movement: A central problem within feminist discourse has been our inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about what feminism is or accept definition(s) that could serve as points of unification. Without agreed upon definition(s), we lack a sound foundation on which to construct theory or engage in overall meaningful praxis. (Bell Hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, Boston: South End Press, 1989, p. 17) This uncertainty about the essence of Feminism is one of the hallmarks of Postmodern Feminism. Previously, Feminists did not find it quite so hard to define Feminism. The textbook on Feminism by the Bristol Women’s Studies Group (1979), for example, despite declaring itself unable to give a neat definition of the academic discipline of Women’s Studies itself, gives the following definition of its subject-matter, Feminism. I consider this an excellent definition, and my own definition is very similar. “By feminism we mean both an awareness of women’s position in society as one of disadvantage or inequality compared with that of men, and also a desire to remove those disadvantages.” (Bristol Women’s Studies Group, Half the Sky: An Introduction to Women’s Studies,1979, p. 3) A non-Feminist might feel that that definition demonstrated a fairly rational turn of mind – one that left the door open for lucid discussion about whether it was actually true to say women’s position in society was one of disadvantage or inequality. The desire to remove those disadvantages and inequalities would presumably disappear if it was agreed, after a period of dialogue between Feminists and non-Feminists, that they did not, in fact, exist. But contrast this with the mentality implicit in the following: “If feminism is broadly defined as the quest for a sexually just society, many people share at least some of its goals, though they disavow the label.” (Meehan, British Feminism from the 1960s to the 1980s, in Smith (ed.) 1990, p. 189 The problem with this definition is that it simply takes for granted, rather than overtly states, what the previous definition claimed, i.e., that women’s position in society is one of disadvantage vis-a-vis men. A Feminist is one who (as the very word suggests) is primarily, if not exclusively, interested in pushing the female point of view and women’s agendas. To simply assume this is the same as suggesting sexual justice betrays a one-sided frame of mind which would find constructive dialogue with non-Feminists virtually impossible. A good definition of a Feminist appeared in a leaflet advertising the Public Sessions of the 1993 National Conference of the New Zealand Women’s Electoral Lobby (WEL), in Wellington, New Zealand: WEL defines a feminist as someone who believes that women are socially and economically disadvantaged because of their gender and acts on that belief. Here is another interesting view of Feminism: “Feminism is not, in my view, a set of a priori answers, nor a commitment to a particular ideology. It is rather a willingness to follow questions wherever they lead us. Feminism insists upon a commitment to listening with open ears to women’s experience in order to reformulate our actions and thought. It is thus more a method for creative inquiry than a set of predetermined points. Feminism is a commitment to women’s well-being, to pursuing justice instead of patriarchy, but the substance of women’s well-being is not necessarily known in advance.” (Pellauer: Moral Callousness and Moral Sensitivity: Violence against Women, in Andolsen et al. 1987, p. 34) This statement embodies a misconception as to the nature of ideology. No ideology, and no religion, is able to anticipate every single issue that might arise, and therefore issues are interpreted in the light of prevailing circumstances by the believers in that particular religion or ideology. So other ideologies are just as open-ended as Feminism is – tending to determine what questions are asked by its adherents, rather than providing all of the answers ready-made. That is why there are so many versions of Marxism, and why there can be theoretical debate about the proper Marxist approach to many issues. I am sure Feminism has always, by and large, followed questions wherever they happened to lead – but the point is that Feminist ideology determines what questions get asked in the first place. This book points out the inherent bias in the types of questions Feminists always ask, and it suggests other questions we could and should ask, as well. Feminists, as Pellauer points out, listen to women’s experience with open ears. By the same token, they do not listen to men’s experience with open ears. That is one clear indication of the bias that is inherent in Feminist ideology. “The reason feminism uncovered this reality, its methodological secret, is that feminism is built on believing women’s accounts of sexual use and abuse by men.” (Catharine A. MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified, p. 5) The unstated corollary to this, of course, is that they do not believe men. This one-eyed approach can also lead Feminists (and entire western legal systems) up unscientific paths, as we will see in connection with Lenore Walker’s book, The Battered Woman, in my chapter on domestic violence. As Pellauer points out, Feminism is a commitment to women’s well-being – but (by implication) not a commitment to men’s well-being. If there is ever a conflict between men’s well-being and women’s, there is no doubt at all which side Feminists are on. As we will see in the chapter on circumcision, western Feminists focus on female genital mutilation in Third-World countries – but when asked about male genital mutilation in their own countries, dismiss it as a men’s issue. One might think there is nothing wrong in having a bias. However, Feminists usually claim their goal is sexual equality, and the Feminazis (totalitarian Feminists) actively try to prevent Men’s Rights positions from being propagated on an equal basis with Feminist ideas. Therefore this bias is a very serious issue. My own approach to the problem is to define Feminism as the application of the victims of oppression model to the situation of women in society. Thus a Feminist is one who believes this model (in any given society) fits the situation of women more appropriately than it does the situation of men. This does not imply that all Feminists believe the “oppressors” of women are men – some Feminists believe the real oppressor is Society itself, and that men, too, are oppressed by the rigidity of the roles that Society forces them to adopt.

Feminists often pressure women by telling them they ought to want to supersede traditional female roles. This consciousness-raising takes place at/in Feminist meetings and women’s studies courses, movies and television shows, and magazine and newspaper editorials. They encourage women to enter traditionally male-only occupations, even when these occupations are manual and low pay and status. Many men, of course, agree that the work formerly reserved for men is somehow more important than women’s. Indeed, many men are taught (brainwashed?) to believe this from the cradle, because many aspects of the male role involve certain sacrifices and disadvantages (e.g., lower life expectancy, risk-taking, machismo, chivalry, military conscription) that men might not be willing to accept were there no compensations in the form of (apparently) higher status. Traditionally, women had a quieter sense of their own superiority to men which enabled them to face the different sacrifices and disadvantages their traditional role demands. Feminists, however, seem to believe women’s traditional role is inferior, and this role-confusion (penis envy?) is the true cause and origin of Feminism. Many of their foremost writers, beginning with Mary Wollstonecraft, have been practising lesbians or bisexuals, so this may explain the roleconfusion. (Camille Paglia, a prominent bisexual anti-Feminist may be the exception that proves the rule. She may call herself a “Feminist”, but that is almost compulsory for American women nowadays, and doesn’t actually mean anything.)

“Sexual dimorphism (males having different physical characteristics from females) is common among living organisms that reproduce sexually. Sometimes dimorphism is supplemented or replaced by non-visual cues, such as smell, etc., or by gender-specificbehaviours. Obviously, it would be very inefficient, from the point of view of the survival of a given species, if members of a species found it difficult to distinguish the males from the females. Among humans, gender roles help distinguish men from women.”

Peter Zohrab Sex, lies, and feminism


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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