Ultramasculinism: the return of the repressed

Since 1970, moderate masculinism has sought to understand and heal the wounds of the male condition. Today, it's been supplanted by a raging, misogynistic ultramasculinism. Here's a look back at the major shift of recent years.

At first glance, nothing distinguishes a masculinist from an ultramasculinist, other than the prefix ultra. From a distance, Jordan Peterson, Warren Farrell, Andrew Tate or Alex Hitchens seem to be cut from the same cloth, denouncing the figure of the male scorned and dispossessed of his identity by neofeminism. Yet the diagnoses, methods, audiences and political aims of these two currents diverge radically. Two irreconcilable approaches, two ways of inhabiting the masculine. Unity is only a facade.

Moderate masculinism versus neofeminism

Born in the U.S. in the 1970s, egalitarian masculinism advocates strict equality between the sexes, while recognizing the specific vulnerabilities of each. Warren Farrell, former board member of the feminist association NOW, embodies this progressive trend. Having embraced the first two waves of feminism, the American sociologist calls for a third stage: integrating male suffering into the fight for equality.

Men are considered the «disposable sex» in both war and peace: in construction and hard labor. What's more, since 2000, in the United States, as in Europe, boys have accounted for around 85% of juvenile inmates, between 70 and 80% of school exclusions, and constitute the majority (around two-thirds) of school dropouts. They are going through a multi-faceted crisis - academic, paternal, psychological and professional - that is often ignored.

Farrell points the finger at this discrimination. In his view, boys require special attention, a suitable institutional setting and, above all, the presence of their fathers. His left-wing masculinism aims to rebalance equality between men and women.

Read also | Abandoning the boys

The 1990s saw the emergence of a conservative, complementarian masculinism, epitomized by Jordan Peterson. The Canadian psychologist refers in particular to the crisis of meaning that afflicts many men. In 12 rules for living, Peterson invites us all to «put our own house in order before trying to change the world», advocating responsibility and discipline. His approach is introspective: straighten up, enrich yourself through reading, confront your inner chaos and keep your word; in short, take charge of your life.

Although critical of neofeminism, Peterson never questions equal rights or feminist advances. Recognizing the biological differences between - Continued on p. 14 the sexes, he values complementarity against a backdrop of equality. In 2018, however, he warns, «If men are pushed too far to have to feminize, they will develop a hard-line, fascist political ideology.»

Wrongly accused of being «reactionary» or «fascist», Warren Farrell and Jordan Peterson are pioneers in defending a positive vision of masculinity.

Cassie Jaye and her hard-hitting documentary on MRAs

In 2016, young feminist filmmaker Cassie Jaye directed her documentary The Red Pill, infiltrating MRA (men's rights activists) networks to expose their supposed toxicity. Through some forty testimonies gathered in the United States, she discovers a reality that runs counter to her feminist prejudices. Expecting vengeful, vengeful men, she encounters men wounded by family injustices (divorces, custody rights) and in search of recognition. None of them rejects feminist achievements; all simply call for recognition of certain difficulties and injustices experienced by men.

In her TED talk «Meeting the Enemy», Cassie Jaye admits she was wrong, and realizes the extent to which neofeminism denigrates men and distorts reality. This sincerity cost her dearly: banned from feminist circles, she saw her conferences cancelled, notably in Australia, and became the bête noire of Anglo-Saxon neo-feminism. Without even having seen the film, her many detractors spread outrageous caricatures and misleading slogans. Cancelled!

A new monster: aggressive, uncomplicated ultramasculinism

For several decades, clear-sighted men and women have reached out to neofeminism, in a gesture of dialogue and reconciliation. And yet, they have been spurned, even spat upon. Today, the tide has suddenly turned, and the lambs have given way to wolves. On social networks, a new generation of influencers is emerging, carrying a masculinist discourse that is far more radical and belligerent.

It's a time of great disenchantment in neofeminist circles, who thought they'd won the battle against the manosphere. It's no longer a time for nuance, or outstretched hands, but for the brutal assertion of a conquering, openly misogynistic virility. Two figures embody this major break: Andrew Tate in the US and Alex Hitchens in France.

Against the backdrop of egalitarian or complementarian masculinism, the figureheads of ultramasculinism howl their rage and brandish the threat of a vast feminist conspiracy - the «Matrix» according to Tate. They saturate social networks with vengeful rhetoric, authoritarian precepts and misogynistic provocations. Tate declares: «I'm an absolute misogynist. I'm a realist man and, when you're a realist, you're sexist.» In his Manichean vision, the woman must serve the man, stay at home and renounce all personal ambition. Career women? An anomaly. And women in Afghanistan? Tate dodges: «Who am I to judge the Taliban?»

Read also | Masculinism and Cleopatra: fiction, little truth

Tate and Hitchens come from the world of competitive sport and transpose the law of the strongest to male-female relationships. The former, who was serving a year in prison for human trafficking and rape, is a former world kickboxing champion; the latter, a former top-level basketball player. Both attract millions of followers, seduced by the cult of physical power and material success. Tate shamelessly flaunts his fortune, his fleet of luxury cars and his collection of women-objects, displaying his contempt for the female condition. Hitchens monetizes his success story by selling his recipes for seduction to lost young TikTokers at a premium.

In their eyes, male physical superiority must prevail everywhere: family, sexuality, work and politics. Their credo can be summed up in three words: strength, luxury, submission. Their message appeals above all to teenagers aged 12 to 18. These two gurus succeed where society fails: they incite young people to rebel against a school accused of effeminating and weakening them, and to build themselves on the bangs of legality. This is the way to show one's strength: by defying all authority other than oneself. Today, the names Tate and Hitchens resonate in playgrounds, taunting school authority and mocking talk of equality.

The return of the repressed

The causes of the rise of ultramasculinism are complex, but one thing is certain: this phenomenon has been fueled by the unfair, even Manichean, treatment of the male question by our institutions, which are largely committed to neofeminist doxa. By relentlessly deconstructing gender stereotypes and blaming men as a whole, our institutions - led by schools - have relegated boys to the background. Their games, ambitions and impulses have in turn been stigmatized, pathologized, then repressed for lack of channeling. Humiliated, cohorts of young people - involuntary bachelors first and foremost - are seeking to regain a semblance of dignity with these muscle-bound merchants of virility. This is the hypothesis of the return of the repressed.

The void left by the disappearance of masculine archetypes has been filled by an infinitely more brutal and toxic virility. Gone is inspiring authority, replaced by aggressive despotism.

Farrell and the MRAs made legitimate demands, rooted in an egalitarian vision. Peterson defended, in a Stoic vein, an inner quest without resorting to hatred of women. Today, Tate and Hitchens dictate the new norms: «Women shouldn't vote because they don't care about issues beyond what they feel», «after 10 p.m., what the hell is a woman doing out?» or «if your wife does something stupid, she should be punished». Tate goes so far as to assert: «Women are men's property» and «I believe that women are given to men in marriage». From now on, women have only one choice: total submission or prostitution.

Read also | Anouck Saugy: «My feminism is not on strike».»

For a long time, many sociologists, without ever having met a single flesh-and-blood masculinist, dismissed the crisis of masculinity as a myth. They never saw it coming. Out of touch with reality, they caricatured MRAs, Warren Farrell and Jordan Peterson as retrograde, misogynistic figures. Only Cassie Jaye, a true sociologist in the field, was able to discern their distress and thirst for justice.

Radical masculinism is now sweeping in like a tsunami. The dikes have broken, and everything has to be rebuilt. And yet, positive masculinity does exist. Young men deserve better than the prevailing nihilism and the degrading portrayal of them as inherently toxic. They have a crucial need for inspiring male role models and a balanced, nuanced voice to help them regain their confidence and dignity. Only then can a deep respect for women be reborn.

Yan Greppin is a philosophy teacher at the Lycée Denis-de-Rougemont in Neuchâtel.

You have just read an open-access article from our print edition (Le Regard Libre N°121). Debates, analyses, cultural news: subscribe to support us and access all our content.