<-- home

what is neo-masculinism?

I’m sure many people know about the ‘make rape legal’ rallies that were supposed to happen globally. On tumblr, I saw an article saying that the main guy is cancelling some of the rallies bc of safety concerns. Wonderful. I hope they all get shutdown.

A few things, though, have bothered me about the media attention to this and the overall reaction to it. Some of these feelings are crystalized by the term used in the headline I saw: neo-masculinist. Or something to that effect.

All I can do is sit here and blink. I mean. What possible meaning does such a term have? It implies that the current ‘masculinism’ is somehow anti-rape. Or somehow distinct from what this particular group is advocating for.

My issue? There isn’t anything ‘neo’ about this. This is literally the same old, boring patriarchy that we’ve been dealing with for a long, long time. There is literally no substantive difference between this group and your average man.

Lol. Ok. I know a bunch of men just clutched their bro-pearls but… While this is somewhat more extreme than your average man will openly admit to feeling, it isn’t a difference of kind but of degree. A difference of kind would warrant a label like ‘neo-masculinism’. A difference of degree, though, allows us to view this group and their stated goals as part of a larger patriarchial context in which rape culture thrives.

I mean… even if you want to try and argue that it is a difference of kind, this still isn’t ‘new’ by any standards. The MRA movement has been around for long enough that this group isn’t advocating for anything that they don’t already want (even if it is [sometimes] more covertly expressed).

This is point one: ~neo-masculinism~ is just your garden variety patriarchy.

My other problem is the massive media attention and global mobilization in opposition to this. I’ve seen mayor’s outright say that this group isn’t welcome because it is a hate group. It’s being talked about in the mainstream media. People are up in arms about this.

As they should be.

But… I can’t help contrast this with the… general apathy or tacit tolerance of an actual ‘neo’ movement that frequently meets in public spaces without nearly the same level of opposition. I’m talking about groups like neo-nazis and other extreme white supremacist groups.

Literally every discussion I’ve seen about these groups and whether or not they should be allowed to gather publicly to spread hate is largely about liberal pluralism and the right to free speech. Or some combination therein.

So… where are all these people now? Are they saying the same thing about this group? It doesn’t appear this way to me. I don’t think I’ve seen a single person defending this groups right to assembly, free speech, or any other such thing. Pretty much being universally condemned. As it should be.

And yet….

The way this is playing out publicly is fascinating to me. Especially in Canada where I’m seeing politicians go on record about how this group isn’t welcome in their respective cities. Even denying them space to assemble (at least in ‘public’ spaces controlled by the state). But we are willing to give space to white supremacists who openly advocate for and incite violence against people of colour? Huh.

We willingly give space to radfems who openly advocate for and incite violence against sex workers and/or trans women? h u h.

How interesting.

(Omg. I wanted to stop here but now I’m remembering a third point that I wanted to discuss… how it is super interesting that the opposition to this group is coming from some ‘progressive’ mainly white nations wherein there is already legal rape… but I guess we aren’t supposed to talk about this.)