TRIGGER WARNING for extreme misogyny
So in the previous post, we touched a little bit on what Facebook tolerates when it comes to misogyny and harassment online. But the group of men’s rights activists that tops all of the groups in existence when it comes to male supremacism and misogyny are the Masculinists.
Masculinists, unlike those who associate themselves with the broader “Men’s Rights Movement” or “Men’s Human Rights Movement”, are unapologetically anti-gender equality and are outspoken with their sexist ideologies. They hold no pretense about being “humanists”, like many notable MRAs claim to be. Masculinists strive to establish a world that revolves around male needs and aspirations with women being used as nothing more than sex slaves and domesticated servants.
Essentially, “masculinism” is another term for supremacism, just like other reactionary ideologies that championed the plights of certain races and ethnic groups over other groups. The fanaticism of masculinism is difficult to ignore since the behaviors of the masculinist leadership mirror that of a cult.
Many of these Masculinist groups have been flourishing on Facebook. One prominent one, Masculinist India, boasts 19K likes and frequently posts calling for abuse and torture of women.
Masculinism is marked with many contradictions and confusions when their stances are called into question. Usually their rants are accompanied with a laundry list of slurs and the absence of credible sources to back their claims. The next two photos will illustrate this phenomenon. The first asserting that being a male supremacist doesn’t inhibit one from also being an equalist, with an explanation that makes it obvious that this Facebook user has a tenuous grasp on the definition of “equalism”. The following post is a rant that claims single mothers couldn’t keep their partners because their behavior is “undisciplined”.
Whatever the topic is, however, one thing is clear. Women are always at fault for the ills of society in the eyes of masculinists, and they will find a round-a-bout way to “prove” this point with the use of ferocious typing and little source-linking.