By 
0
0
The concepts of ‘male fragility’ and ‘toxic masculinity‘ are rampant in many feminist circles. Feminism often condemns masculinity and belittles men by blaming bad female behaviour on ‘the patriarchy.’ It holds men accountable for bad behaviour (and sometimes blames it all on them, such as Johnny Depp), yet absolves women of the same responsibilities.
Ironically, feminists are usually the ones who are fragile, but of course feminists overlook this. Let’s take a look at male fragility, and then see how feminist fragility compares.
Men Are To Blame As Always
Male fragility has no concrete definition, but conceptually, it describes a man who is trying to uphold his masculinity so as not to appear too ‘feminine’ in front of women and other men. It claims that men are threatened by women who have high-powered paying positions. The ‘male ego’ simply cannot handle a strong woman who doesn’t bow-down to the patriarchy.
Now, I will say that there are definitely men out there who are threatened by assertive career women. There are men who have incredibly one-dimensional views on how a woman should be, and on masculinity. Men who believe that being a man means talking shit about women, beating their chest and drinking beer. However, I certainly wouldn’t call these men fragile. I’d call them egocentric arseholes. (They also represent the minority of men, contrary to what feminists seem to think.)
The problem with terms like ‘male fragility’ is that it groups all men into one category. Whenever a guy is cruel, selfish, or genuinely misogynistic, instead of this being a reflection on his character, its suddenly a reflection on ‘manhood.’
Groupings
Men are not a group of people lumped together by a governing ideology in the way that feminists, Christians, anarchists or vegans are. Men are (usually) people born with male genitalia. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are not ‘political classes.’ ‘Feminist’ or ‘MGTOW’ ARE socio-political groups of people. They represent groups with governing ideologies. Whenever a man is insecure, why is it suddenly tied to a ‘broader problem’ that concerns ‘all male behaviour’? And why is the problem automatically tied to gender rather than psychology or individual behaviour?
Men who go around murdering and beating up women are not doing so because they are ‘fragile’ or adhering to unhealthy standards of ‘toxic masculinity.’ They do so because they are sick psychopathic individuals who need help.
The Need to Defend Feminism
Feminists are the ones who feel the need to uphold their feminism, and become defensive whenever it is threatened. It makes women believe that they are victims, and blames one’s problems on the system rather than on a person’s lifestyle or individual choices. This is because feminism is a lot like a religion; deeply protective of its core. Feminists are often threatened by women that don’t subscribe to feminism, rather than calmly accepting it as a different way of thinking.
If feminism was more about female empowerment and held women accountable for their bad behaviour, rather than blaming women’s problems on men and the patriarchy, then I am sure many would not be so harsh on it.
The Fragile Feminist
It’s easy to find examples online (and offline) of the fragile feminist. Anita Sarkeesian embodies feminist fragility. She claims to be this strong, empowered feminist, yet shuts down any potential for opposing viewpoint and conversation. She receives backlash and criticism like every single public figure online and backs away from it.
Sadly, feminist fragility is at the heart of feminism. Feminism is about shirking personal responsibility and becoming a victim. Even if it doesn’t mean to be, this is what it is in practice. The wage gap is viewed, not as the result of hard-wired differences between men and women and behaviour choices in work, but ‘patriarchy.’ Sexually desirable women in video games are ‘offensive’ and ‘objectified’, while Beyonce is ’empowered’ for being just as scantily clad.
Getting upset because a guy on the street whistled at you shows fragility. Ignoring him, telling him off politely but firmly, or laughing shows resilience. (Feminism does NOT encourage resilience in women at all.) Cat-calling is not the worst thing in the world to happen to a woman, yet feminists make it seem like it is. I’m not saying that we should excuse men for bad behaviour. I’m certainly not blaming cat-calling on women. But I AM saying that when something minor upsets us, we don’t have to be so fragile and overly-sensitive that we completely break down.
Feminist Bias
One of my favourite YouTube channels makes videos analysing film and TV characters and meanings. I adore their nuance and depth in their videos essays. However, many of the videos I have watched analysing ‘tropes’, such as ‘Cool Girl’ ‘Tough Girl’ ‘Bad Goy’ ‘Girly-Girl’ constantly push a feminist bias. Time and time again, bad mothers and cruel women are sympathised with. Their behaviour is a ‘result of the patriarchy’ or their ‘personal struggles.’
On the flip-side, male characters are held to much harsher standards. Characters like Ross from Friends or Ted from How I Met Your Mother are examples of ‘male fragility.’ But Skyler White is a poor belittled woman and the mistress in Fatal Attraction is just trying to make it in a man’s world. And the bad mothers? They’re just victims of the ‘stress’ placed upon modern women.
Not all feminists are alike. But be they ‘radical’ or ‘moderate’, most feminists DO typically side with the female and are biased in favour of women. I am sure the creators of the YouTube channel I enjoy are balanced, level-headed feminists. But they are still feminists, and their bias shows through.
Fragile vs Empowered
Ulimately, if feminism wanted to truly empower women, it would stop selling the idea that the system is rigged against them from the start. It would celebrate women throughout history who have done great things, rather than claim that women have spent most of human history being ‘oppressed.’ And it would hold women accountable for their decisions, rather than blaming the system.
This article is excellent, and I look forward to exploring more of your blog.
I have had my head in the anti-feminist game for near 20 years, and I think I was the first to weaponize the word “non-feminist” as political semantics. I have written a book of 551 pages, called “The Counter-Feminist Essays”, which summarizes most of my thoughts on feminism, and lays out nearly all you need to know to take feminism down. After I have finished the second edition, I will provide a link to it.
~Fidelbogen~
Thank you for your thoughts! Your book sounds really interesting and relevant, I will definitely check it out when you have finished the 2nd ed! I consider myself a ‘non-feminist’ because it sounds a lot less antagonistic than ‘anti-feminist’, so that’s my personal preference.