Rancid wrote:If you are a misogynous, and you think that feminism is destroying women..... shouldn't you be pro-feminist?
I call this the Rancid-Misogynist-Feminism paradox.
Boom, I just blew your collective minds.
The problem with this is the assumption that anti-feminists are actually misogynists at all. Its a slur that was used for propoganda purposes that has stuck for some reason (MGTOWs and INCELS are perhaps a recent exception on this, but that is a separate matter).
The truth is, most anti-feminists are some variety of tradcon who actually love women for their distinctive virtues and would like to see those expressed in their fullest sense of traditional motherhood and wifedom. Tradcons and patriarchal types are critical of women being political, going to war, or working alongside men precisely because they believe it cheapens womanhood itself and makes women into an ugly attempt at a photocopy of traditional male roles and thus they view feminism and egalitarianism (by extension) as the eliminating of the "sacred" notion of femininity that those societies have collectively protected and elevated for a millennia.
It is not a coincidence that anti-feminist societies were also the ones most sensitive to the dignity and virtue of women as encased by manners, moral codes, and chivalry. That feminism killed chivalry is really all the evidence you need that it is truly anti-women and misogynistic at its core.
The reason patriarchal types oppose feminism (contrary to your paradox) is because patriarchal types are the exact opposite of misogynists, indeed they are the greatest preservers of femininity as it has been collectively understood by the majority of the human race for several thousand years.
Women are different and these so-called "haters of women" (misogynists) only wish to see femininity protected, elevated, and preserved as distinct from masculinity.
The real amusing thing to me, is the deluded belief of some feminists that men are "threatened" by women taking roles in politics, war, and the workplace. Being threatened has nothing to do with it, after all, the only reason women are able to do any of these things is because men have "allowed" them too in the first place via concessions and political protections.
If all men collectively did not want women to have those "liberated" roles, they could do so by force and there is nothing women could do about it, do you really think women would be able to rise up and take those rights by force from the men? Get real.
Feminism only exists because men have allowed it to happen (usually for selfish, greedy, or lustful reasons), which is an amusing irony that never ceases to entertain my mind.
This is why men shouldn't take loud mouth feminists too seriously, they should be dismissed as the privileged and spoiled little girls they are, only being able to spew their bile because men were gracious enough to concede them such rights in the first place and which could be revoked in an instant by these same men if the collective will were strong enough.
Without a state (operated by men who seek to gain by giving women the "illusion" of power), there could be no feminism or egalitarianism. In a state of nature, traditionalism exists not merely out of a sense of nostalgia (as most conservatives have today regarding patriarchy), but out of pure, natural, necessity.