Category Archives: Undead sexist cliches

As I’ve mentioned before, the belief that society can’t exist without hierarchy — is one of the obstacles to equality. If you believe one race/religion/gender/orientation must rank over others, then equality is impossible: feminists and civil rights activists really want to turn the tables and make women and POC the superior class. Hence the many stories I’ve read over the years where women’s equality translates into men reduced to slavery or at least being forced to stay home and clean all day.

On top of which, patriarchy makes men stupid. It tells them a system that’s still predominantly shaped to their needs and interests is right and natural — they deserve to be in charge, to not be slut-shamed the way women are, to have their wife or partner handle most of the cooking, cleaning and childcare. It’s awfully tempting not to question a system that tells you something like that. And as Celeste Davis points out in some of her posts at Matriarchal Blessing, equality gains women status and power compared to patriarchy. For men it’s not only that equality feels like oppression, it’s that if they’re doing “women’s work” or filling a “woman’s role” then they’re no longer Real Men. Not to mention their buddies might make fun of them for being girly. As Davis says, it’s difficult for men to swim against that tide.

However there’s more to the tide than merely guys not wanting equality. As Susan Faludi pointed out 35 years ago, the backlash against feminism has been consistent and ongoing since the 1980s. A lot of that backlash is directed at women but a lot of it preaches to men too. It assures them there’s no need to listen to women — they’re so irrationally angry.

The religious right in the 1980s began preaching the women belong in the kitchen. The Reagan administration pined for the 1950s, when men had their (supposedly) rightful place as family head (an illusion that lives on today). When sexual harassment became a legal concept, there were plenty of articles about how men were miserable at work, terrified of being sued; there were a lot fewer articles about women feeling safer. Rush Limbaugh preached the evils of all things liberal, including feminism, and like many conservative pundits claimed a woman’s no can mean yes. Warren Farrell’s Myth of Male Power claimed men are the truly oppressed gender and presented rape as a woman having “more sex than expected,” the equivalent of eating too many potato chips at a sitting.

Gen Z men are more sexist than Boomers and Gen X, longing for a marriage where they’re the boss (though apparently a wife working outside the home and acting tradwife inside it is their idea) and bring home a breadwinner wage. Never mind that even in the 1950s, not everyone had a breadwinner wage or lived in a one-earner family; in the 21st century economy, it’s even less likely. Which Noosphere at the link suggests is one reason men long for a home in which they can have the authority and status that’s their due.

There is no shortage of influencers, pundits and online shitbags to tell them this. Matt Walsh, Allie Beth Stuckey, Suzanne Venker, Andrew Tate, James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal. Plenty of others who will insist white men can’t get jobs any more. Extremists like neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin who use misogyny as a marketing tool. The Heritage Foundation embraces it as policy. Mainstream voices who think incels have a point when they demand the redistribution of women. Or claim that women had more liberty in the 1800s. Or that AI will improve men’s prospects because it will take women’s jobs first.

The religious right’s positions haven’t gotten any less misogynist: they’re shiny, happy people who preach absolute male authority as the will of god. It’s easy to focus on slime like Andrew Tate; this shit is equally harmful. No surprise Joseph Duggar (brother to infamous sibling-molester Josh) has been accused of sexual activity with a minor. Bethel Church prophet (their designation, not mine) Ben Armstrong allegedly sexually abused a 23 year old years ago, describing himself as “her spiritual father.” The church later portrayed it as an “affair.” William Wolfe is a Southern Baptist who wants to impose his Christian morality on everyone; by his standards allowing women to preach is a much more serious problem than the church’s rape-and-cover-up scandal. He clams his views are God’s views; if that were true (I do not believe God is a misogynist rape-apologist), then I think it’s time to say, a la Huckleberry Finn, “Stop the rapes and go to hell for it.” It’s not surprising more Christian women seek help from therapists than pastors.

Not that Christianity is unique. All kinds of power structures give men the power to abuse women; women in similar positions can abuse their subordinates but it doesn’t seem to be as common (i.e., power matters but gender appears to matter too). Legendary labor leader Cesar Chavez abused women and assaulted underage girls; he was a power in his movement and it went unchecked. Hispanics who admired him are now having to deal with his evil side. Kevin Levin looks at how schools named for Chavez should approach the issue. Columnist Gustavo Arellano discusses separating the man from the cause.

Talking about Chavez, Jill Filopovic looks at another form of backlash, the claims women are really the ones in power (Farrell built his whole book around that premise): “It’s bullshit. And this insistence on eclipsing where real power lies and how real power manifests is precisely why men like Chavez got away with horrific crimes, and with many smaller indignities and acts of misogyny. This denial of small-time interpersonal misogyny is how we get denials of horrific abuses — a good man would never believe himself to be more powerful than his wife; a good man would never harm the girls and women around him; being honest about what we see in front of us would create a fissure in a good family, bring down a good movement.”

Endless propaganda doesn’t excuse those who buy into it. None of what I’ve said excuses Epstein, Cosby, or the countless unnamed rapists, harassers and misogynists we never hear about. At the same time, I do believe the problem with achieving equality runs deeper than an innate male resistance to change.

SecDef — oh, sorry, SecWar — Pete Hegseth has made it clear that in his eyes rules of war are for sissies and wimps.

“Hegseth appears to argue that the US military should ignore the Geneva conventions and any international laws governing the conduct of war, and instead “unleash them” to become a “ruthless”, “uncompromising” and “overwhelmingly lethal” force geared to “winning our wars according to our own rules.'” Because if we fight fair, what happens when the other side doesn’t, huh? Maybe if we were as brutal and ruthless as our enemy, they’d learn better fast!”

This is bullshit on multiple levels. I’ll get to why it’s bullshit in a second. First though, I want to look at what’s behind it: toxic masculinity, the belief that men are brutal, violent creatures and indeed should be brutal, violent creatures

It’s not an attitude unique to Hegseth. Lots of right-wingers grumble that the military accepting trans Americans and women and working to treat minorities and women fairly is too woke. As noted at the link, there’s not the slightest evidence we’re less effective in war, even though Sen. Ted Cruz whines that having a woman raised by two gay parents in the Army reduces the military to “pansies” — how can soldiers like that possibly compete with the savage brutes of Putin’s utterly masculine Russian military?

Ukraine, of course, proved that the Russian man-beasts were somewhat less than invincible. While boots on the ground are essential to hold territory, battles in the age of drone warfare are no longer about brute strength or which side has the most testosterone. However, as Paul Waldman puts it, “in a world where most men are unable to demonstrate that their upper-body strength justifies their superior social status, some are desperate to defend a physical hierarchy wherever it can be found.”

That ties in with toxic masculinity, an obsession of religious conservatives such as Hegseth (they’re for it, in case you were wondering). As Dr. Nerdlove puts it, toxic masculinity is the belief men are inherently, innately violent, sexually aggressive (rape is natural! [no, it isn’t]) and supposed to be dominant. Worse, “everything is about the performance rather than the reality. Even expressions of theoretical selflessness – the idea of “a real man provides”, for example – are at their core aimed at maintaining their masculine credentials rather than caring for the wellbeing of one’s spouse and family.”

Who judges your performance? Other men, as Celeste Davis points out (and Nerdlove too). Men police masculinity and judge other men for coming up too short — not tough enough, not brave enough, didn’t laugh at the rape joke, like whatever’s considered “girly.” It’s a paradox: this kind of manhood is supposed to embody toughness and strength but in the face of male criticism you’re expected to cave instantly.

Pete Hegseth, despite having served, seems to embody this performative aspect, spouting about how those Iraqis better be scared we are in total control of what happens, “we are punching them when they’re down,” and sure, bad things are going to happen to American troops but it’s war, it’s hell! You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few human eggs, amiright?

Now, as to the bullshit. Hegseth obviously wants a war that conforms to his toxic masculine priors, where savage American brutes are unleashed to do their worst to the Iranians. Calling for America to reject the Geneva Convention and hand-wave any rules of engagement — yeah, he’s one tough mother alpha male!

Like I said it’s bullshit. We do not have to be as ruthless/cruel/barbaric as the enemy to beat them. The Union beat the Confederacy without embracing slavery. We defeated the Axis without imposing a final solution. We won the Cold War without adopting a Soviet-style dictatorship. Conversely we lost in Iraq even though we used torture. The idea we have to sink to the enemy’s level does not hold up, nor does victory go to the most savage or cruel. It’s the military equivalent of the myth that respecting people’s constitutional rights would be a suicide pact.

On top of which, being cruel and savage is a bad thing. This isn’t a modern “woke” idea — Christians have been debating what constitutes just wars and legitimate tactics for centuries. In the words of the 1863 Army regulations, “Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral human beings, responsible to one another and to God.” Doing evil — murdering fishermen because just maybe possibly they’re transporting drugs — does not become justified because you’re now in the military. Or because you’re the Secretary of War or the Commander in Chief.

As Military.com puts it, “no competent military runs ‘no ROE,’ because U.S. forces remain bound by domestic orders and the law of armed conflict, including concepts such as distinction and proportionality. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual lays out those rules as operational obligations, not optional preferences.” As the article notes, rules can become cumbersome and overly lawyered but they give guidelines for what to do and not do. No torture (at least that was the rule before W decided to embrace “harsh interrogation” in his presidency). No executing helpless prisoners. No massacring civilians as happened in Vietnam (and of course, the butchering of Venezuelan fishing boats).

This isn’t purely about being noble: not being a brute is in our interest too. The enemy are more likely to surrender if we treat prisoners fairly. Civilian casualties “can create tactical blowback, degrade intelligence access, and strengthen enemy recruiting,” in the words of Military.com. Having rules of engagement that treat the enemy as humans is often a pragmatic strategy. Well, if your primary goal is winning rather than proving how masculine you are by terrorizing and crushing your enemy.

I think we know which way Hegseth and the Toddler of the United States prefer to go. The wrong one.

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.”

In a discussion on my congresswoman’s (Valerie Foushee) Facebook page, I pointed out that as written, the new Stop People Voting Act (not quite titled that way) would appear to disqualify women from voting if they changed their name when they married. Which would fit in with their long hatred of women’s suffrage.

An outraged Repub voter informed me that his party certainly doesn’t hate women, they’re just trying to prevent voter fraud, etc., etc. He is either lying or ignorant because yes, a lot of people on his side are misogynists and the rest of them don’t have any strong objections.

Take, for example, right-wing propagandist Nick Fuentes: “Women get sent to the gulags first, obviously. Which women? All women. Every woman. Every woman and girl is sent to the gulags. We will determine who the good ones are after the fact. Well, what about the good ones? What about the trad ones? First of all, there are no trad ones or good ones. Second of all, we will determine which ones are acceptable after they’re all imprisoned. Then we will let them out … Our number one political enemy is women because women constrain everything, every conversation, every man, everything. They have to be imprisoned.”

Fuentes is extreme but as I’ve said before the policy is no enemies on the right — being a misogynist shit is acceptable in an ally because Fuentes is willing to punch down at the same enemy — uppity, insubordinate women — as the rest of them.

Elon Musk is a raging racist but he also agrees with an X post that ““It breaks my heart to say but in order to save this country we are probably going to have to do things that make women sad :(.” I guarantee whoever posted that ain’t suffering heartbreak at the thought. Nor are the many right-wingers promoting young women getting married early and never aspiring beyond housewifery breaking their hearts at the thought of rolling back decades of women’s freedom. It’s built into the successors to Project 2025.

Even devoutly right-wing women like Dana Loesch aren’t safe from misogynist bullshit. Which she shouldn’t suffer any more than women whose views I respect. But it’s a reminder than Fuentes isn’t the only one determined to see all women in chains.