An Open Letter to Richard Reeves

Dear Richard,

I imagine you thinking, “Who is this guy?” Though it’s also possible you will never read this. No matter - perhaps it will influence someone else. In either case this letter is a plea to you, the reader, to reconsider your commitment to feminism. In fact, to repent.

To return to my question though, I think of myself as a worker in the vineyard, toiling to leave the world a little better than it might otherwise be. My influence is less than yours – I might even say it is difficult to understate. But I think our objectives are something we hold in common.

And we have both written (at length) on how men and boys are doing it tough, so I guess that’s something else on which we can agree.

Beyond that, our positions start to diverge.

---

Our most obvious difference is that I’ve written at length about feminism’s destructiveness. You, on the other hand, are apparently proud to call yourself a feminist.

To be fair, I can see why many overlook the destructive side of feminism. As philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, destructive ideologies don’t announce themselves as such. Rather, the worse the ideology, the more loudly and frequently it proclaims its virtue. And feminism’s rhetoric is so pervasive feminists can easily avert their eyes from the reality.

But for many, including me, feminism’s rhetoric of virtue cannot be reconciled with the reality. Claims of virtue just don’t fit with the feminist head of the World Food Program deliberately withholding food from starving men. And there was no virtue in Australia’s (male) feminist Prime Minister shutting down all men’s health programs. (Yes, I do mean that our total men’s health budget is currently zero.) Meanwhile the same sisterhood that claims virtue also chants “Men are pigs”, “Men are trash” and “Kill all men”.

I could go on. In fact, I have. If you need more examples, I have a significant and growing back catalogue. But, in a nutshell, the reality is that most contemporary attacks on males come from feminists and most of the other problems we face could be addressed if only feminists didn’t block the path forward. Can you think of a recent attack on males that didn’t come from feminists? I can’t. Nor do I know of a case from this century of feminists supporting equal treatment of men and women - they always seem to oppose it.

Today, there is a chasm between feminists, who heed only the rhetoric, and critics, who see the ugly reality. If it helps, I will concede that feminism’s rhetoric is indeed seductive. Will you gaze upon the ugly reality behind the rhetoric?

---

But it’s not just rhetoric that diverts people from the reality of feminism. There’s strong evidence that the psychology of empathy is key. Let me try to sketch out the issue very briefly.

I’m pretty sure I don’t need to tell you that there’s a lack of empathy for males. And I’m also confident we can agree that it feels good to help and protect women. We’ve all felt that pull — the small glow of caring, of being a protector. But that makes us all too ready to reflexively embrace policies described as helping women while ignoring the reality of attacks on men. Empathy doesn’t just mask feminist destructiveness; it is also a cause. Psychology confirms the bitter irony that empathy both attracts people to feminism and fuels its divisiveness, injustice and prejudice.

The flip side of that is that criticising feminism seems like an attack on women and is thus abhorrent. Going with the flow and basking in that warm glow of empathy is much more attractive than criticising feminism - even if criticism is what reason demands. It takes more strength than most possess to escape the pull of empathy.

And empathy is just one of feminism’s draws. Social identity is another.

If empathy corrals us, social identity wraps us in a cocoon. Our political identity weaves through our social life, work and beliefs. Breaking out is daunting. I can tell you from first-hand experience that rejecting feminism can be costly in terms of friendships, career and status. Far easier to stay in one’s comfort zone.

It would be nice if there was a middle road – a way to do the right thing yet retain one’s social identity and the warm glow from caring for women. Sadly, there isn’t.

I’ve previously argued that feminism cannot be reformed. Both psychology and history are clear – us-vs-them political ideologies become destructive if they gain power. So feminism’s destructiveness isn’t the result of a wrong turn; it was inevitable. There is good evidence that feminism was always going to be as it is and will never be anything else.

---

That leaves us with no easy answer. And, I’d argue, with no real choice.

I come back to my friend Mike. Mike’s mother was an ardent feminist who treated him cruelly throughout his childhood. According to Mike, she felt it right to punish him for being male. Now there are strong logical arguments that feminism must be condemned for its prejudice, dehumanisation and discrimination amongst other things. But I keep thinking of Mike’s mother. What sort of ideology can turn a parent against their child?

The easy path might be to look away, to rest in the warm glow of empathy and the comfort of a familiar circle. But that warmth erodes our dignity; that comfort also wounds. Looking away carries a terrible cost. Sooner or later, feminism and self-respect can’t be reconciled. Something has to give. Seeing clearly requires courage, but can there be any doubt what is right?

There are many wrongs to be righted, and the task will be easier with your help. Please help.

---

I will be taking a break for the next couple of months. When I return, I will start a new group of essays on the relationship between feminism and western society. From the very start, this was the subject I most wanted to write about – in some ways my essays to date have been preamble. I earnestly hope you’ll find them stimulating. Please subscribe to be notified when they are published.

---