u/Impossible_Newt_5994

In the most dangerous hours of the twentieth century two Soviet officers stood between humanity and nuclear destruction and chose restraint. Their names are Vasili Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov. Both were men who carried the weight of command when the cost of a single error would have been measured in millions of lives.

In October 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis Vasili Arkhipov served as second in command on the submarine B 59. American forces subjected the vessel to depth charges. The captain and political officer believed war had already begun and prepared to launch a nuclear torpedo. Protocol required unanimous agreement among the three senior officers. Arkhipov refused. He insisted on calm assessment rather than immediate retaliation. His refusal held. The submarine surfaced. Contact with Moscow confirmed that no general war had started. One man’s judgment prevented the first use of nuclear weapons in combat between the superpowers.

Twenty one years later on 26 September 1983 Stanislav Petrov sat in a command center monitoring the Soviet early warning system. The computers reported multiple incoming American missiles. Protocol demanded that he report an attack and begin the sequence toward retaliation. Petrov examined the data and judged the alarms false. He reported a system malfunction instead. Investigation later confirmed that sunlight reflecting off clouds had triggered the sensors. Had he followed the formal procedure the world might have entered nuclear war that night. Once again a single officer’s independent assessment averted catastrophe.

These were not abstract acts of ideology. They were concrete decisions made under extreme pressure by men trained for obedience yet capable of independent moral reasoning. In both cases the safer personal choice would have been to follow orders and transfer responsibility upward. Arkhipov and Petrov accepted personal risk in order to protect the larger human community. Their courage consisted not of aggression but of disciplined refusal to escalate.

Recognition of their actions is a matter of historical accuracy. It is also a necessary corrective to narratives that treat male agency primarily as a source of danger. Two men in positions of military authority used their authority to preserve life on a planetary scale. Their example demonstrates that responsibility restraint and moral independence are capacities that men have exercised at the highest levels of consequence. To diminish or ignore such records is to distort the historical record and to impoverish our understanding of human character under pressure.

Arkhipov and Petrov remind us that the fate of nations has sometimes turned on the quiet decision of an individual officer to think rather than merely to obey, and their names deserve to be remembered with respect.

​

Feminism is a large decentralized social movement made of people with different, often contradictory ideas. It claims to be a movement for gender equality, and sure for some feminists they genuinely act under those principles, but I would say that from a wholistic view in the modern day feminism acts more as a movement for female advocacy (which it doesn't even do consistently) often lurching into female supremacy.

This IS a Motte and Bailey. The Motte is a highly defensible argument you'd seem absurd for arguing against, and the Bailey is a much shakier more indefensible argument that hides behind the Motte. By hiding behind the Motte when your Bailey is attacked, you can avoid refutation and normalize the Bailey by making your enemies seem unreasonable. This is a force for radicalization, both inside your group, for your enemies, and for people unassociated with all of it as the Bailey's arguments slowly become the new norm and acceptable to say.

And so, there's two main sections of the feminist movement.

Motte:

The Motte is simple. "Men and Women should be treated equally!" Now, if that's all it takes to be a feminist, if that's all there is to it, sign me up. That is a simple and fair universal principle, and a movement based on that sounds great. Many good things were done with this aspect of feminism I don't want to take away from. It gave women the vote and financial independence.

However, in present day that has become a much lesser part of the conversation, and this aspect of feminism has become it's shield.

The complicated reality lies in the Bailey.

Bailey:

The Bailey is dirtier and more complicated, almost insurgent. There are many arguments that act as Feminism's Bailey, most of which are broad sweeping and dehumanizing generalizations:

* Men universally oppress women and every man is privileged as a result

* Men socially oppress women as well through toxic dominance dynamics

* Men are intrinsically misogynist and objectify women, seeing them as breeding stock

* Masculinity is toxic

* Rape culture

* Domestic Violence is a gendered issue, men don't get abused. And if they did, it isn't that bad!

* "Men are literally killing us! Stop killing us!"

* If a man ever dislikes a woman it is due to misogyny or male fragility

* Men are unfeeling sociopaths

* Advocating for men hurts women and distracts from their REAL problems

* Our culture socializes everyone to be misogynist

* Women are victims of male violence

* If you don't instantly believe SA allegations with no evidence you're sexist

* Wars are created by men and would not exist under female leaders

* As a result women don't need to be grateful for male soldiers defending them

* Women are better leaders due to higher emotional intelligence and empathy

* Workplace demographics are indicators of female oppression

* Pro-life arguments enforce gender inequality

* You have internalized misogyny if you want to be a house-wife or love your husband

* Marriage is oppressive, childrearing even more-so

* And ALL men are at fault for all of the above. Yes, individual men.

Now all of these arguments have something wrong with them or are maliciously incomplete, making them highly objectionable. And these generalizations don't even stop with men, they target women who don't fall in line, so feminism isn't even supportive to all women. But do men universally oppress women? I don't. That's laughable. Are women victims of male violence? Sure, but so are men at a rate 3-4x more in some cases, leaving that out gives wildly incorrect framing. Also queens were 27-39% more aggressive, so the claim war is a male invention is literally wrong for example.

But they run with these arguments that lead to fairly ridiculous outcomes. Men have been repeatedly dehumanized due to these ideas for doing basically anything. They are now viewed with inherent suspicion and guilt that was not present before, giving empathy to men is even more foreign than it used to be, and all their actions are now filtered through the worst faith interpretations possible by those who internalize much feminist rhetoric. Many feminists turn "misogyny" into an amorphous mixture of subconscious biases that can never be observed, which allows you to call any possible act by a man misogyny and it is impossible to prove one's innocence or good intent.

Explaining something to a woman is now motivated by misogyny.

Avoiding doing so is now male fragility. Typical male avoidance of course.

Smile at a woman? You're trying to get her in bed with you.

Don't instantly assume a man's guilt in the face of an SA accusation? Misogyny! Rape culture! You think she's lying!?

Your videogames, problematic. Pretty and feminine characters set unfair standards!

Your workforce is 70% men? Better make it 50% or you're sexist, even if your applicants are also 70% male.

And of course, you're a pick-me if you're a woman who dares to be kind to men.

These complaints never benefit men, they only attack either them or women who aren't behaving inside feminist orthodoxy. They never complain about male dating standards, they never talk about male victimization of male violence, or of domestic violence affecting men. It is in fact, actively blind to those issues and feminists often knee-jerk accuse you of belittling women's problems if you bring it up. That shows that feminism isn't about gender equality, its about "equality" that only benefits women to increase women's bargaining power over men.

Not only that most of the feminist arguments you see on social media, media, and in academia are these types of arguments. These arguments influence subconscious cultural perceptions of men and women, and those three places are the places with arguably the most cultural impact. So, the harm is real. Feminism has been here for decades fighting for equality, but somehow, men and women are now more culturally apart than ever, and both are more miserable measurably.

The result: good faith advocacy becomes a shield for radicals

In the midst of third/fourth wave feminism, many men and women alike are starting to get sick of this. It is putting us at each other's throats, deliberately eroding the trust between men and women, and making us both worse off than when we started. Men and women only flourish together, a movement that only sees women's problems and suffering as valid makes us both worse off, and feminism often treats women as beyond criticism unless it is the one making the criticism.

In the 2010s onward especially, feminism has been largely culturally destructive and reprehensible. These are things it should rightfully be attacked for, however, when attacked they abandon the bailey to hide behind the Motte:

"Oh, so you hate women's rights?"

And unfortunately, this tactic is exactly what allowed feminism as a movement to maintain/increase public relevancy while growing increasingly more radical and unprincipled. Even now, many many normal and unaligned people equate attacking feminism with attacking women's rights. They associate attacking feminist ideas and impacts to hating women. A feminist doesn't even have to vocalize the Motte to hide the Bailey anymore. Men's advocates are mocked relentlessly as a result even when they have sound arguments, because they are stereotyped before they even speak to be some pathetic, angry, and spiteful man.

It works very well, and it is what the kids would call "gaslighting."

Oh, you don't like me saying all men are misogynistic? You must want to enslave women!

Yeah, its ridiculous, but a staggering amount of people fall for it. Those who don't end up afraid to push back or else they'll be painted with that brush. It's emotionally and intellectually dishonest and abusive.

You're not allowed to argue against feminism because it did good things in the past, so now in the present where a large portion of its practitioners dialogue and foot-soldiers abandoned most of it's core guiding principles, you have to let them abuse you or you're sexist. And if you complain after all that, too bad, "when accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." Your entire perspective is invalid simply due to your gender, and your voice is taken from you.

It's tiresome and right now feminists are some of the worst obstacles to gender equality and neutral gender advocacy. The gender war would not exist if feminism actually upheld its principles and acted as an egalitarian movement. The results will continue to not only hurt men, but women as well.

The only solution is to drive this home until the common person understands it:

Feminism =/= Women's Rights

And it would help if feminists strongly gatekept man-hating out of their movement. The people parroting the misandry should be associated with insanity, bigotry, and sexism, not a respected social movement that gives them unearned legitimacy and defense by default and normalizes their rhetoric. The way feminism is now, even well intentioned feminists are unwittingly acting as the Motte for radical misandrists who use them as a shield. The misandrists either need to be kicked out, or the principled feminists should jump ship to Egalitarianism entirely so the misandrists lose their leverage over the culture.