A few weeks ago I posted something on the Coalition website regarding articles from one Thinking Michael. Michael had discussed the apparent growing irrelevance of men in society and rallied against feminism. A cursory glance at his posts suggests he feels women are the more emotional, inferior gender. He regards himself as right-wing.

He speaks of Real Women, then provides examples that seem to defy his expectations of what women are supposed to be. His greatest idol is the late former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the first woman to hold the post in the UK.

Is she not (under Michael’s thinking) actually an atypical woman? The traditional gender roles did not apply to her. She embodied traits that to some would never be considered feminine. She was referred to as the Iron Lady. Whether one agrees with her political decisions or not, few would deny she was a formidable, strong woman. Yet Michael claims in another post that real women are meant to be gentle, merciful and kind. Women are meant to make and maintain families and by extension communities. This stands in a rather stark contradiction to his original post and views on what makes a woman a woman.

Women, Michael maintains, are weak. He calls women ‘weak creatures’. Every thing about women is shaped by their inherent weakness (try telling that to Margaret Thatcher). This characteristic is why women apparently come across as cold and heartless, why women are not brave, nor sacrificial. Women apparently evolved to put themselves first, yet as already mentioned, Michael points out that women are meant to be the source of gentleness and kindness. Somehow, women are biologically inclined to be both cold and heartless and gentle and kind. They are simultaneously self-centred and giving.

I’m particularly interested in the opinions of women on this post and the material relating to it. Feel free to share this post and leave a comment!