Fraser Sherman's Blog

The title is a variation on Wilhoit’s Law, that conservatives believe the law should protect them but not bind them, and bind others but not protect them. For the majority of right-wingers, men are free to claim any job they can qualify for; women should be confined to one job, stay-at-home mom, preferably when they’re vulnerable teens. As Simone de Bouvier put it, women have been “denied the human right to create, to invent, to go beyond mere living to find a meaning for life in projects of ever-widening scope.” Women are chattel who should be bound by the will of their husband and master.

Many right-wingers support marital rape; many of them want to end women’s suffrage. James Dobson is one of many right-wing evangelicals who think the only way to stop spousal abuse is for the husband to chose to stop — turning to the church or the police would be defying her rightful lord and master and going against God’s will for her to submit. Patriarchal writer Lori Alexander, along with insisting marital rape does not exist (marriage is consent, end of story), says taking action to escape an abusive husband will anger god. Other conservative female misogynists think sexism is bad, when it’s directed at them (though no, they don’t deserve that either).

None of these ideas are unique to the right wing, to be sure (or unique to America. See also this). Most people, however, aren’t as devoted to making their misogyny into law as the right wing. As Jill Filipovic says, “they are getting very, very clear on what they think an acceptable life looks like for women: Settle for any man who decides he wants you; don’t go to college; marry early; have as many babies as possible; quit your job (or don’t pursue one in the first place) to stay home full time and depend financially on your husband; shoulder the blame if you wind up married to a jerk; wind up impoverished if you divorce; and face social condemnation if you fail to follow the Trad Wife script. Contraception should be illegal or at least hard to get; same for IVF and other fertility treatments. The reactionary conservatives of the New Right are not simply pro-natalists who want lots of babies; they are people who want to impose a strictly patriarchal model of the family on all of us, which has certain kinds of women having babies, and other women punished for deviating. And that requires giving men greater rights and freedoms, while allowing women fewer.”

One way the Heritage fascists plan to accomplish this: financial aid for women with kids but only married, two parent families, excluding step and adoptive parents. And targeting families who are more well-off rather than less. This is typical: when the right says it cares about families, it means families who conform to a 1950s sitcom image. Not single parents, not divorced parents, presumably not rape victims who choose to keep the baby (or have no choice due to forced-birth laws).

Right-wingers have also expressed enthusiasm for ending laws that protect women from discrimination: no job, no choice but to marry to support yourself (and the kids you’ll have a hard time not having). As right-winger David Frum puts it, when you’re living on the edge of ruin you have to behave carefully. Economic hardship for women is a win for the right.

You can find more raving misogyny in the long list of posts with the Undead Sexist Cliches tag.

As I’ve written in Undead Sexist Cliches, there should be no compromise on gender (or any other kind) of equality. Neither men nor women being dominant is the compromise position, the balance between the male supremacy we have now and the female supremacy so many people imagine is the alternatives (by envisioning a world without supremacy, feminists are visionary). By imagining equality as the extreme opposite to “men are in charge,” people fool themselves into believing “well, women should have some equality but not 100 percent” is a moderate position, e.g., the New York Times. Or there’s this story, which assumes that if a gay man or a woman is promoted ahead of you, that has to be affirmative action. Which as an analysis shows isn’t true; “Instead, what appears to have happened is a lot of empty talk, no real significant change, and backlash that is causing real harm. This is the worst of all possible worlds.”

Compromise with people who to reduce women to chattel is unacceptable. As Jessica Valenti says, “You don’t ask the guy with the boot on your neck to wear a softer shoe. You rip his fucking foot off.”

In his essay The Power of the Powerless, the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel argues persuasively that dictatorships fear dissent and dissidents because modern dictatorships claim their politics (fascism, communism, white supremacy) are the Truth and the truth empowers them. To openly express different views, to imply the government doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth, sounds to the tyrant like an attack on their authority

An excellent Dr. Nerdlove post on toxic masculinity argues the same attitude shapes some men’s intolerance for nonconforming guys: their definition of masculinity “only can work as the “standard” as long as everyone agrees to play by the same rules. People who diverge from its dictates threaten to undermine the “truth” in “biotruth”. Trans people challenge the idea that being a man is inherent in one’s genitalia or having a Y chromosome. Feminine acting or presenting gay men challenge male sexual roles. Passive, submissive or emotionally expressive men put paid to the idea that men must be aggressive and stoic. And because they challenge the status-quo, they must be forced back into compliance, whether through mockery and derision or through outright violence.”

As I’ve mentioned before, when men such as J.D. Vance whine that feminists won’t let men be men (which is not true unless you mean “feminists object to having a 1950s male-dominant hierarchy”), they ignore that men are heavily invested in policing male behavior. “Let men be men” refers to a specific type of male stereotype — a guy who chases women, likes scotch and cigars, watches sports, plays sports, etc. (as far as I know, nobody’s stopping guys from doing any of that). It doesn’t extend to letting guys who prefer theater, opera, biochemistry or herbal tea be men in their own way (to say nothing of guys who are gay, asexual, trans, etc.). Those guys undercut the idea manhood is a narrow path and all Real Men are on it. As Nerdlove says, the alternatives have to be dismissed — white knighting, beta male, etc. Similarly I’ve read What Men Are Like articles that claim any man who says he’s faithful is lying, or any man who doesn’t objectify women is just posing to impress them.

Of course the same is true of men who perform masculinity for other men, to impress their buddies or their community. That’s okay, though because the performance affirms the supposed truth of stereotypical masculinity instead of questioning it. I’ve covered a lot of this stuff but the Nerdlove post is worth reading.

Toxic masculinity is also deeply entwined with rape culture, which is enough of a reason to post this quote about the Steubenville rape case from an old post of mine (the quote is not mine, links in the piece): “the guys who made a video laughing about it, the spreading of the images, the unwillingness of anyone to interfere, the congratulations for domineering, abusive behavior. That is why assault happens, not because some girls drink too much. We need to help young people, both men and women, spot predatory behavior for what it is, and to push against it instead of laughing it off.”

In other moments of misogyny:

NYT’s Kellen Browning quotes A-OC as follows:

As noted at the link, nobody quotes the Necrotic Toddler like this — nobody quotes anyone like this. It’s standard journalistic practice to chop out uh, you know, um and other pause-words in speech; it doesn’t change the meaning, it makes it clearer and more readable. Quoting it verbatim is a way to make a highly intelligent woman sound like she’s the one sliding into senility, not the Toddler; it’s a dry run for what to expect if she ever runs for higher office than she has now (if you thought they were bad with Hilary Clinton …)

Lying antifeminists Allie Beth Stuckey and Megan Basham are terribly, terribly upset some Christian women are upset over the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti — where is the compassion for ICE agents?

Another pregnant woman who can’t get an abortion and dies. Lots of women who live get arrested for drug use in pregnancy — based on inaccurate tests. As Jessica Valenti says, “Think about the worst guy you knew in high school. The biggest jerk in class, the most ignorant asshole—the guy who bullied other students or made people miserable.  Now imagine he’s the district attorney in your county who decides what happens to women who have abortions. Or that he’s your police chief. Or your state representative.”