Men With Stereotypical Notions of What A Feminist Should Look Like.

As the “feminist” “movement” increasingly becomes the sort of fad that prompts Urban Outfitters to sell t-shirts with the three syllable word on it, “men’s” commonly held notions about what one should look like (chiefly a short-coiffed, homely, ill-dressed, long armpit-haired being) ought to evolve quickly if they don’t want to further incriminate themselves to the world about just what narrow-minded pieces of shit they are.

This false perception “men” have of only “ugly” women being capable of rage and contempt for the centuries-long acceptance of female oppression probably wasn’t helped by our Lord and Savior, Valerie Solanas. Then again, most “straight” “men” have nary a clue who that is unless they happened to catch a certain episode of American Horror Story: Cult. What’s more, when the type of dickless “men” I’m referring to think “ugly,” it is in the manner that has so often prompted the Hollywood trope of a woman getting a makeover by the simple removal of her glasses and the addition of a form-fitting dress to her wardrobe.

And yet, it’s actually easier for “men” to position a feminist to themselves in this manner–the manner that assumes she wouldn’t be a feminist if she was pretty enough to finagle herself a “man.” Comforts them in the belief that it’s merely a “trend” that will pass more attractive women by after enough time has lapsed and some more liberal celebrity takes the presidential office.

John Michael McDonagh’s 2016 film, War on Everyone, oft memed, rarely watched, paints this issue most succinctly when Alexander Skarsgård in the role of Terry Monroe daftly asks, “Can you be a feminist and still wear hot pants?” The guilelessness of this question gives a genuine insight into how most “men” think, persisting in truly believing that to be hideous is to be a feminist–in their minds, still a synonym for harpy. That is, if such an age-old insult is even in their Newspeak vernacular. So to break down the answer to that query very simply: you can be a feminist and wear whatever the fuck you want. Even the polar opposite wardrobe piece, a burka–which packs even more power because it hides the only thing “men” care about in a woman: her body.


Men Who Don’t See the Term “Men’s Activism” As An Oxymoron.

It isn’t just a certain Republican presidential nominee that has revived an interest in “men’s” activism. It’s that, for a particular sect of faux penis possessors, women have gone too far (see: Beyoncé), provoking a not so understated backlash that has left, in its wake, an absurd desire for women to, in essence, “be quiet” and stop looking and being so goddamn superior.

Some "rights" "men's" activists are keen on

Some “rights” “men’s” activists are keen on

The steady build of “men’s” activism, which developed in the 1970s out of the fear that the feminist movement of the 60s was getting, well, out of hand–which just means a woman preferred to use her hand for other things besides cooking and manual stimulation of a non-existent dick–has only increased over time as a response to “men’s” natural panic at no longer being subjectively viewed as the “better,” more powerful sex. But the incongruity–the sheer oxymoron–of the movement and term is circumcised by one simple fact: women have never subjugated “men.” Instead, they have let them believe, all this time, that they have even a modicum of control, letting them be free–even with their derogatory “activism.” A feminist, on the flip side, is merely an advocate of equality, not oppression. Though, in the current epoch, it feels as though feminism’s definition is becoming dangerously muddled with misandry’s. Which, if “men’s” activists aren’t careful, will win out in the end.