We don’t include these men in the manosphere, but we should. Men who use their platforms and mics to talk about how women should give more and move over for the wants of men are manosphering their a*& off too.
There is something particularly insulting about the suggestion that women disagree because we simply have not understood the argument.
As though another lecture will finally make us recognize the wisdom of surrendering something we have already considered and decided to protect.
As though another academic paper, another philosophical theory, or another impressive title after somebody’s name will settle the question.
We can appreciate scholarship. We can recognize competing interests. We can acknowledge that some legal and ethical questions genuinely are complicated.
But unlearning sexism does not require us to forget what sexism looks like.
Photo by Bradley Andrews
We recognize the expectation that women should accommodate men. We recognize the practice of dismissing women’s objections as emotional, irrational, or uninformed. We recognize the habit of treating women’s sacrifices as evidence of goodness.
These patterns did not become unfamiliar simply because the vocabulary changed.
You can dress an old prejudice in new language, surround it with impressive credentials, and deliver it from a prestigious institution.
But the question remains:
Who is expected to surrender something, and who is being told they deserve it?
An argument can be intellectually complicated and still be morally weak. It can cite philosophers, invoke justice, and appeal to the greater good while failing to account for the women who must live with its consequences.
And when women point out those consequences, the response should not be another lecture about why we have failed to understand.
Sometimes we understand perfectly well.
We understand what is being asked. We understand who is expected to accommodate whom. We understand that the proposed arrangement may benefit someone else while costing us something we value.
And after considering all of that, we may still say no.
A conversation about a woman’s rights is incomplete when her voice is treated as an interruption.
Women are tired of being told that sexism is something only sufficiently educated people can recognize, interpret, or explain away.
We are tired of the suggestion that misogyny becomes less recognizable when it is presented as intellectual sophistication.
And we are tired of the assumption that every disagreement is an invitation for someone to explain our own interests to us.
Women are not failing to understand progress. We are asking whether what is being called “progress” has actually made life more just for women and girls. Or is it just another way for girls and women to serve the wants and desires of men.
That question deserves an answer. An insult is not an answer. Another lecture about our intelligence is not an answer. Not another demand that we prove our compassion by surrendering our judgment is not an answer.
An answer.
In this world where too few are talking about rape, domestic violence, femicide, incest, molestation, and girl-child marriage …..
Why the hell should we do it?! Because women have already spent enough of history being told that our objections are the problem.
And we are allowed to be finished with that.
