Amanda Hess is the author of a prodigious number of feminist rants. Highlights include chastising Stephen Colbert for hiring writers based on his assessment of their talent, rather than affirmative action, and defending a woman who knowingly and repeatedly put the care of her son in the hands of the mentally unstable, murderously violent boyfriend who eventually killed the boy.
In her recent Slate.com article “Male Allies Are Important, Except When They’re the Worst,” Hess criticizes the way male feminists have tried to help women. She draws heavily from a PhD dissertation by Kris Macomber, as well as a variety of other articles, to create a semi-coherent rant in which Macomber’s views and Hess’s own are indistinguishable. Not quite a presentation of Macomber’s work, not quite an original work of social or cultural commentary, Hess’s article does a spectacular job of illustrating the hypocritical attitudes of modern feminists.
The Attitudes of Feminists
Feminists Don’t Want Real Opportunity
In the beginning of her article Hess mentions the Grace Hopper Celebration, a conference for women in computing. According to Hess:
The Grace Hopper Celebration brought top executives from Facebook, Google, and Microsoft to the stage for the ‘Male Allies Plenary Panel,’ where they were to talk about how high-powered male allies can advocate for women in tech. Too bad the GHC male allies panel spent less time discussing how men can advocate for women than it did instructing women to advocate for themselves by ‘speaking up.’
Advocacy for someone in the context of a high-talent, high-stakes field requires nothing more than being open-minded to the person proving their own worth. Feminists like Hess don’t want real opportunity, the chance to learn the rules of an industry or profession and then to work hard to succeed. Instead, feminists believe that workplace environments need to change to accommodate them.
Another victim of patriarchy
Feminists Believe Male Strength Is Bad
Hess presents another critique of men working to help women when she writes:
Macomber notes that when male allies work to ‘redefine’ masculinity—as in the long-running Men Can Stop Rape campaign ‘My Strength Is Not for Hurting,’ which foregrounded the idea that men are real strong—they signal an attempt to participate in feminism without actually shedding their male privilege.
Hess and Macomber illustrate two things here. Firstly, feminists believe that male strength is “male privilege” because feminists’ view of empowerment is parasitic, wherein people leech off of society and the government. According to feminists, men are only strong if society awards them “privilege” for having dicks. The truth, however, is that men can cultivate strength of body, of mind, and of spirit only through personal effort.
Secondly, Hess and Macomber illustrate that feminism is only nominally about “empowering” women. In reality, feminism is primarily about eroding the strength of men. Accordingly, men could only ever fully participate in feminism (which supposedly is about gender equality) if and when they are weak.
Feminists Think All Men Are Guilty
Hess shares another gem from Macomber’s dissertation, in which she writes:
Male allies often position themselves in opposition to typically sexist dudes in order to find a community inside feminism, but identifying as one of the ‘good guys’ can feel like a denial of their own role in the problems.Loading...
This statement illustrates one of the most insidious elements of liberal and progressive thought—the notion of collective responsibility. Because of this, feminists view each man as “part of the problem” because of the advantages of a few, regardless of his own actions or character. Here’s a joke: What does a feminist call a man who gets falsely accused of rape, another man who works 60 hours a week to support his family, and a third man who gets blown up in Iraq? Privileged!
Women Don’t Know What They Want
If only men… uhhh… just started to… you know….
After criticizing the various ways in which men have tried to help feminists, Hess finally asks “So how is a man supposed to act?” For this she offers up Macomber’s view that “the feminist approach to allies could benefit from more ‘action-oriented language’ and ‘very explicit guidelines.’”
Of course, Hess never gives any examples of “action-oriented language” or “very explicit guidelines.” The problem is that feminists (and other SJWs) tend to operate on their feelings. Hess cannot articulate what she wants male feminists to do, because she is not fundamentally concerned with what they do or accomplish. She is concerned with how they make her feel.
Feminism Is Not About Gender Equality
If feminism was really about gender equality, then the input of men would be valued, even if they approached the issue differently. Of course, the input of men is valued (marginally) only when they parrot the views of women in general women feminists. As Macomber points out, in feminism, “men are instructed to listen to women and follow their leadership.”
Later, Hess asks some questions about the future of feminism and makes clear who she thinks should decide it. She writes:
Is feminism most effective as a radical fringe movement or a broad coalition? Should it stay grass-roots or go corporate? Is ‘feminist’ a label that every person defines for themselves, or does it reference specific political beliefs and commitments? Should feminism focus squarely on women, or on gender itself? If you’re a man, don’t answer those questions.
Lastly, if anyone doubts whether feminism is about gender equality, just re-read Hess’s article and note how she refers to men trying to help women as “allies.” For Hess and others like her, men cannot be real feminists because, at its core, modern feminism is not about equality, but about advancing the interests of women only.
The general hypocrisy of feminism is nothing new to the seasoned readers of ROK. However, it’s important to emphasize that Hess and Macomber’s attitudes are not just about men in general, but about the very men who are trying to help them.
These are the betas, the white knights, the blue-pill men. These are the guys who need to wake up and see how feminists are using them. Being “a feminist” won’t earn them a woman’s love or respect, because feminists don’t care about them independently of their usefulness to the cause. Of course, feminists feel entitled to men’s help, even though, as Hess shows, they will always consider men to be “part of the problem.” This is because entitlement and ingratitude go hand-in-hand.
My advice to any blue-pill man, beta, or white knight is to do a little experiment to see how entitled to your help a feminist feels. This will give you some idea of how ungrateful that feminist would be if you actually did help. The next time a feminist asks you to help with something like promoting breast cancer awareness, just tell her that breast cancer is women’s problem, and you’re not going to help.
Indignant, she’ll start shaming and will demand an explanation. Here’s what you say:
If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh's book Free Speech Isn't Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.