Common Man-Hating Feminism

Barb Wire

“I’m so tired of masculinity. And male aggression. And male voyeurism. And male arrogance. And male mediocrity. And how we’re conditioned to normalize it.”
Zuriya at

What inspired that declaration? That 24-word anti-male outburst was published on Tumblr a week ago and has already acquired more than 3,000 likes or reblogs. The young woman who posted it is the child of Eritrean refugees, living in Southern California, and has absorbed from her American education many typical progressive attitudes inculcated by our public school system. She is a Muslim, and does not seem to recognize (or at least does not acknowledge) that the anti-male attitudes of her feminism are fundamentally incompatible with Islam.

“Why am I not solely dating women at this point in my life like men have so little good to offer this world.”

Good luck getting your imam to sign off on that idea, Zuriya. Now, let’s hear about your actual relationships with men:

Trending: In Attacks on Kavanaugh, We’re Shocked — Shocked! — that Abortion Enthusiasts Act Repulsively

I was talking about my boyfriend/partner/whatever . . . to a good friend a few weeks ago and like, I don’t get giddy about men. I never have. I have never seen men as an essential and important and necessary part of my life. If we broke up, I’d just keep it pushin TBH. I was with a guy for five years and I hardly felt butterflies. It just isn’t my demeanor. Men are overwhelmingly to some extent f–kboys and I’m just not concerned with getting into my feelings about them. Idk, outwardly displays of overzealous affection are just corny AF me.

And some more:

I love being in a long distance relationship. I have horrible anxiety and depression and have been trying through medication and lifestyle changes to get that under control. Right now, my priorities include work, school, my bills, friends and then my relationship. I’m grateful for this indefinite separation because it gives me time to get my life together. I’m not getting married for another few years at least, until I have my Masters and life set together . . . I need to be committed to myself before I can commit to someone else and this solitude gradually allows me to do that.

Well, there it is again, you see?

How often have we noted the correlation between feminism and mental illness? Depression and anxiety seem to be nearly ubiquitous in the feminist movement. Self-harm and eating disorders are also common, and we occasionally encounter diagnoses of personality disorders as well. There is a clear pattern: Young women who view men as irresponsible and untrustworthy “f–kboys,” women whose emotional instability is serious enough to require psychiatric intervention — such are the unhappy women who find that feminism’s hostility to the existing social order offers a rationalization of their discontents.

Have they never read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements? Do they not recognize themselves as the frustrated misfits Hoffer described?

Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. . . .

Those who clamor loudest for freedom are often the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. The frustrated, oppressed by their shortcomings, blame their failure on existing restraints. Actually their innermost desire is for an end to the ‘free for all.’ They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society.

So it is that the feminist movement attracts to its banner frustrated women “who see their lives as spoiled and wasted,” women who require a scapegoat to “blame [for] their failure” and who find in feminism’s anti-male ideology a ready-made excuse for their unhappiness. Yet for every miserable misfit grumbling about “masculinity . . . male aggression . . . male arrogance . . . male mediocrity” on the Internet, there are many more happy women going about their normal lives, without mental illness and without feminism. If we compared the objective circumstances of any two women, one self-identifying as feminist and the other rejecting the “feminist” label, what difference would distinguish them?

Are anti-feminist women on average more “privileged” than the militant man-haters? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I think generally the opposite is true: One does not commonly encounter working-class women reading Judith Butler and ranting about the gender binary and the heterosexual matrix. Whatever the normal woman’s complaints about her relationships with men, she does not construe her problems in terms of academic theory and political ideology.

Understanding the ‘F–kboy’ Syndrome

There isn’t a lot of theory in Zuriya’s feminism. She cites no authors and does not sling around trendy academic jargon. Rather, she expresses anti-male attitudes in the rhetoric of popular culture. For example, the term “f–kboy” seems to have originated as a homophobic putdown, suggesting effeminate weakness, but was adapted by women as an all-purpose slur, so that “f–kboy” is now “a pejorative toward men who are perceived as oversexed or disrespectful toward women.”

Is Zuriya correct? Are men “overwhelmingly to some extent f–kboys”? No, but a wise woman is naturally cautious toward any man who shows an interest in her, lest he prove to be a “player” who wants to run his game on her. Anyone observing the behavior of young men on the prowl recognizes the “f–kboy” type who seems to think himself entitled to an unlimited supply of enthusiastic partners for casual sex, and who has no interest in a committed relationship.

The question feminists cannot answer is, “Whence does this f–kboy attitude arise?” Where do these guys develop the attitude that every woman they meet is irrepressibly horny and ready to go?

Feminists are eager to blame “culture” and “society” for men’s bad attitudes toward women, because it would not advance the feminist agenda to admit that f–kboys are f–kboys because too many young women actually are irrepressibly horny and ready to go. These young women have adopted the ideas of sexual “empowerment” advanced by so-called “pro-sex feminists” and, abandoning all concern for their own dignity, pursued a false “equality” by enacting a simulacrum of what they suppose to be a male prerogative, shameless promiscuity. Ask any parent of teenage boys how it is. If your son is reasonably attractive and popular, he will be more or less besieged by lovestruck girls by the time he finishes middle school. Certainly, a good-looking teenage boy doesn’t need to expend any strenuous effort to land a girlfriend, and the reversal of customary roles (wherein the boy was the romantic pursuer and the girl was pursued) is so common that every day is now Sadie Hawkins Day.

This “Girls Gone Wild” culture of unrestrained female promiscuity, which “pro-sex” feminists have actively encouraged, creates an environment where the f–kboy attitude becomes commonplace. Lectures about “safe sex,” combined with a systemic hostility to religion and traditional morality, have the effect of turning public schools into training camps for sluts and f–kboys. Young people are taught that sex is only about hedonistic pleasure, and that any sexual behavior is acceptable so long as it is “safe.”

Schools now teach kids: “God is dead. Sex is fun. Use a condom.”

Parents in many cases actually endorse this attitude, because today’s young people were born in the 1990s, when “safe sex” became the prevailing mantra of public education.

Irresponsible parents raise irresponsible children, and the flight from responsibility — the childish desire to live in NerfWorld, where everything is padded to protect us against the consequences of our actions — produces f–kboys, selfish hedonists who cannot be trusted.

From a semi-humorous list of their habits:

He’s constantly begging for nudes.
F–kboys are hungry and desperate for female attention. They feed their f–kboy ways with nude pics from the dozens of girls they talk to on Tinder, OkC, Reddit, and other random sites. He hides his phone when he gets a Snapchat because he knows it’s gonna be some girl’s nudies. For every one nude pic you send, he’s getting like 10 others from other chicks. . . .
He’s disrespectful to his mother.
A man who doesn’t respect his mother is just a f–kboy you don’t have time for. If he treats his mom like sh*t, just think about how he’s going to treat you when the honeymoon phase wears off. Yes, it’s important to see how he treats both of his both parents, but how he respects his mother is a clear reflection as to how he views women in his life.
He never wants to be seen in public with you.
He always has some excuse for why you two can’t be seen together. He’s busy, doesn’t feel like going out, whatever. If a man isn’t proud to be seen with then obviously you’re just a sidepiece for this
f–kboy. . . .

Read the whole thing, and ask yourself: Where do guys get the idea they can treat women like that? Answer: From women who let themselves be treated like that. From women who have been taught that it’s “empowering” to be sexually promiscuous and pursue hookups, women who have been taught to scoff at virtue, women who have been taught that “equality” is the only moral standard.

The Inexorable Logic of ‘Equality’

Whether or not a regime of “sexual equality” is even possible, we ought to ask whether such equality is actually desirable.

“Wow, he’s so equal,” said no woman ever. A woman wants a man who is in some way her superior, a man she can respect and rely upon, someone who brings to a relationship personal attributes, economic assets and social status greater than her own. Of course, no woman wishes to be weak, helpless and dependent, and she does not want a man to treat her as his inferior, but she can never love a man she cannot also admire. A man must bring “value added” to her life.

Feminism’s advocacy of “sexual equality” actually deprives women of the opportunity for that kind of positive relationship. Feminists constantly derogate masculinity and express an ideological hostility to male achievement, viewing male-female relations as a competitive zero-sum game in which a man’s success can only be explained in terms of discrimination against women. If men achieve success only though the oppression of women, as feminists believe, then the most successful man must therefore also be the most oppressive man.

The logic is inexorable. If ending women’s oppression requires ending male supremacy, this will require the enactment of policies to deprive men of educational and economic opportunity, to redistribute wealth and social status from men to women. Men must be discouraged from pursuing high-paying careers in order that women may have a greater share of those careers, for how else is “equality” to be achieved?

Is it any wonder, then, that the young woman finds the men she meets are selfish, immature f–kboys whose only interest in women is whatever hedonistic pleasure they can provide? In a world where male-female relations are viewed as a remorseless power struggle between antagonistic competitors, what basis can there be for voluntary cooperation between men and women? Where are the incentives for men to be anything better than f–kboys?

Many problems facing young women today are actually caused by feminism’s “success” in destroying the social order. If feminism is the cause of your problems, the solution is not more feminism.

First published at

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Robert Stacy McCain
Robert Stacy McCain is an award-winning journalist with more than 25 years of experience in the news business. He is a correspondent for The American Spectator, editor-in-chief at Viral Read and blogs at

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.