The Little Boys Society - part 8: I am an anti-feminist man and I do not defend any woman, except the ones in my family

Abigail Pereira Aranha

I've seen some comments by anti-feminist boys in the last 3 months like this one: "Yes, I do defend. The women in my family: mother, wife, sisters. The others? F... them!". The problem with such a comment is that a significant part of this man's antifeminism is lost, and what remains is essentially a nineteenth-century Catholic-Protestant countryside boy revolt against the sexual rejection by the literate girls from the twenty-first century big city.

And the boy thinks he's a warrior against Feminism when he defends only the women of his own family. Boy, let's go to the Bible. Why did Simeon and Levi exterminate the Shechemites? Gen 34. Why did Potiphar make Joseph of Egypt to be arrested? Gen 39: 7 to 20. Why did Absalom ordered Amnon to be killed? 2 Sam 13: 1 to 29.

Feminism arose where and because it was viable, not because it had the need the movement says it has. Men's Human Rights Activism and, recently, female conservative antifeminism (in fact, a conservative feminism against leftist feminism), these really have sprung up for the needs they claim. If they are right the men's movement about gynocentrism and the female conservative antifeminism about the dominance of anti-Christian leftist feminism, it is consistent that mainstream media only give them sporadic spaces unwillingly or with ill intent. On the other hand, left-wing feminism is shattered as a sound idea when a woman without femininity says Brazil is macho and women-killer on a Sunday afternoon show on Rede Globo. But it is not unlikely for most men to have the thought that a proof that men find it acceptable to beat women for no reason is that a woman with little visibility on Facebook saying that false reports of violence exist (this happened to me). As well as the thought that a man who physically reacts to a woman's physical assault has done an unjustifiable assault against a fragile and angelic muse. As well as the thought that governmental and private organization campaigns against violence against women exist and are carried in the largest mass media in the country because the society finds this violence acceptable. This happens because our thinking patterns can overwhelm the logical inferences of direct observation data especially when we have enough laziness or fear to understand a projection of stupidity and prejudice over real data as if it was a direct view of reality itself.

A man defending women in the family is a man doing what the family was made for. More: that is, according to what he has learned, a man doing that for which A MAN exists. And where did he learn that? Television is from the mid-twentieth century. The feminist movement and the socialist movement are from the mid-nineteenth century. Centuries before that, we had those biblical cases that I reminded. If you do not believe the Bible (I am an atheist myself), you still believe that these cases were recorded in the first millennium BC; and you believe the ideas of the Bible are the worldview of the epoch and the place the Bible was written.

You will hear around that women only started to be respected after Christianity. But the Bible itself cites at least two pre-Christian female deities: the Queen of Heaven, from the Babylonians, in Jer 44: 15 to 19 and Diana, from the Greeks, in Acts 19: 24 to 41. But this is more than a legend from uninformed ufanist provincials. This is an example that when you believe you were born to fight against an evil, as men raised in a Christian family believe they were born to protect women from danger and discomfort, you can fight even when evil does not exist.

Why do many men advocate the death penalty or even extra-legal execution for sexual crimes by men against women if they are not crimes against life? And that anti-feminist man, "I only defend a woman if she's from my family," would he be wise considerating of the possibility that this woman is making a false accusation? Or would he go after the accused ready to be a new Potiphar or a new Emmett Till assassin? But at that epoch when men killed or died to defend wives, mothers or half-sisters, this protection was reversed when they had sexual life outside of marriage on their own initiative: Leviticus 21: 9 and Deuteronomy 22: 13 to 24. If I had born at that epoch, I would not reach 309 men (which was even more than men of the population of some cities). We have improved a lot, but in the same United States where both Feminism and male reactions to it were born, it has been proposed that a woman who has condoms in her purse be arrested for prostitution, which is a crime there. Why? The traditional Judeo-Christian family was not only created to protect the physical integrity of women in real danger and to support them, it was also made to protect them from male heterosexuality. Due to some mental confusion induced by this model, the men in charge of this protection began to treat their own heterosexuality and that of other men as despicable, clandestine and criminal.

But several men from anti-feminist communities have already committed a flawed act: they said it's no use being an old-style man to a modern woman. They confess that women change and reject archaic things as society progresses, while they themselves do not remain equal because it is not feasible today. But this "modern woman" is only a young woman between the ages of 14 and 30 with at least 6/10 beauty who is not a fervent traditional Christian or an older or uglier woman, sometimes religious, who follows lesbofeminist ideas. Women with half-masculine face and body, with uncomfortable presence, usually elderly or middle-aged Christians, these men do not criticize them and even have a moderated respect for them, especially when they preach against a fictitious or increased non-chastity in some woman who has the beauty and success they would like to have. This is the type-woman of these men's mothers or grandmothers themselves.

The conservative milieu has neither in its most cultured circle two notions which, on the left-wing, are not lacking even among the high school students: History makes no leaps and the future is the result of the actions (or lack thereof) in the past and in the present. It is not surprising to find a conservative anti-feminist man who thinks that Feminism started with a frenzy by crazy lesbians in the 1960s. Not surprisingly, conservatives want to defend the family in order to fight against leftism in general and Feminism in particular without knowing why this one exploded when the majority of the country's population was still Catholic-Protestant. And without associating the traditional families of before the twentieth century with the so-called "white knight", who is the man who defends whosoever woman just for being a woman.