Tammy Bruce: A new feminism for the 21st century

Our thanks to S for pointing us to this short video. You know feminism is in serious trouble, and fast losing its support base, as well as the battle of ideas, when prominent feminists such as Tammy Bruce start seeking to recruit family-oriented women – a group they’ve relentlessly assaulted, decade after decade, and continue to assault – and seek the appeasement of men, and engagement with them.

Doubtless some men, and some organisations purporting to campaign for men’s and boys’ human rights, will respond to feminists’ calls for appeasement and engagement. No matter. We know who those men and organisations are, and they’re already held in contempt across the MHRM.

J4MB will never be appeased by feminists, nor engage substantively with them. We won’t be satisfied until their evil ideology has been consigned – as a politically influential ideology – to where it should have been consigned decades ago:

The dustbin of history.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Mike..
    just to make it clear
    tammy bruce is not exactly a “prominent feminist trying to recruit family oriented women”
    she was an active feminist in late 80s and early 90s.. and conservative and lesbian
    she was even president of los angeles NOW. But she was forced out by the lefty feminists over the oj simpson issue. The feminists were married to the democrat party by then in the US

    She has been quite popular in conservative circles since then, and is a popular radio talk show host
    she now smells blood, and is trying to sway wo en to the republican side. There are videos out there where she makes this clear

    Hence feminism 2.0 note that she does not give a shit for men.

  • Amen and amen to that. Here is the comment I posted on the YouTube discussion.

    Frankly, what Tammy Bruce is saying makes my stomach heave. She is just the first of the many that are fast realising that feminism’s number is up thanks to the MHRM, and they are jumping ship. She is just the yellowest of the rats, getting out whilst the going is good and re-defining a new role for herself whilst she can.

    These are just weasel words, and it is staggering that she thinks people will not see through her. She is suing for peace with a message that has the moral equivalence of Adolf Hitler apologising for the wrongs of the Nazis, whilst redefining his ideology in softer terms. ‘So, we killed six million innocent men, women and children, invaded and plundered other people’s countries, looted treasure, including their gold teeth, and, yes, we got it wrong. So now we would like peace and move forward with a new version of Nazism and work with you.’ I don’t think so. Absolutely not. There is no appeasing extremism, and feminism is extremism.

    What Tammy Bruce is really saying is that women are waking up to the fact that they have created a monster that is turning on them. All of a sudden they realise they are not attractive to men anymore. With their slut walks, their mannish-ness and insults, and their unwomanly behaviour. Perhaps they now get it that men are attracted to women, not female caricatures of men and increasingly they are going their own way and no longer want to have anything to do with them because they are so far off the scale of what is acceptable and attractive to men. Perhaps there is a slow dawning realisation in their feminist programmed brains that is saying they actually want men, after all?

    Well pardon me whilst I clear my throat onto the floor.

  • It’s interesting. Viewing this there is a reasonable description of some of the damage caused by “third wave feminism”. Yet what Tammy has on offer is a very traditional, almost Victorian, version of what she calls feminism. Women, she assures us, “civilise” men. Consequently it looks like more of the invitation to “White knightery”. The sort of pedestalling feminism Belfort Bax wrote about a century ago as Bourgeois. In a sense Tammy has followed the route of so many feminists, firebrands and warriors when young and then discovering later the desire to establish family and family life. Only to find their ideology makes that much less likely. How can Tammy claim she values  men if she shares the view of men of feminists she says are damaging; that they are intrinsically untamed beasts? 
    Just for contrast Karen Straughen’s piece gets to the root of this sort of double think.