As I roam through the endless Femo commentary, with it’s favourite subject of educating the world on the “true” nature of men’s relationship to women, with its near universal undercurrent of misandry, one occasionally comes across a strange and curious figure in ones journeys, the Femo-Male or how they like to describe themselves as “Profeminist Men”. Men such as American’s Hugo Schwyzer and Michael Kimmel, or Australia’s very own Michael Flood. While female femo commentators are easier to explain, as simply being the sociably acceptable and sociably sanctioned outlet for female misandry( the hatred of men) and hetrophobia( the fear and anxiety of heterosexual relationships). Femo males, such as Michael Flood, defy such simple explanations. But rather rely on a deeper and more complex exploration of the male male psyche and what went wrong with these individuals. As to why they choose to ignore and exile themselves from the actual life experiences of men and but instead identify with women, to be more specific, identifying with femo ideology.
So what makes these femo males different from other males, what is it in their psychological structure that directs them towards embracing femo ideology, while rejecting reality. The underlying reason why they identify with feminism is that as adult males they have never properly separated from their psychological mother. There are plenty of men who have never properly separated from their internal mother, and this takes on many shapes and forms. But what makes males such as Michael Flood and Hugo Schwyzer different is their unique form that they give to their lack of separateness and the opportunity that today’s femo inspired social organizations provide a public expression of their lack of separateness.
By identifying with femo ideology, these males are now able to create an utopian society, a world where there is no suffering, a world without gender differences, a world without boundaries, a world of complete innocence. The goal being to create a heaven on earth, as oppose to how society is now. This of coarse is not health for the male psyche, a society where heterosexuality and patriarchal values are now banished. So naturally their true “Self” insists on the need for balance in the psyche and rebels, and demands an overthrow of the status quo, an an overthrow of the existing matriarchy and the utopian structure that she now represents. These “rebels” split off from conciousness and live on as autonomous complexes. The stronger the desire for utopia, the more stronger demand is for the violent overturning of the status quo. And hence such men, such as Michael Flood, spend their concious time seeing and combating what they see as evidence of male violence and the oppression of women. When in reality they are just projecting their own inner conflicts onto others, that is if they just change men in the outer world to their line of thinking, the resistance to achieving a heaven on earth will evaporate. The implication being the women will now be “liberated”. When in reality the conflicts that they see between the sexes exist only within their troubled psyche.
There is also a further point to note about femo males, that is the heterosexual centric nature of their activism. Homosexual males are not considered a threat to their utopian vision of society, hence they are viewed as non violent, safe or enlightened about gender. Thus they are largely ignored. By contrast, the heterosexual males threat to utopia, requires the most extreme and draconian measures to be undertaken. All in the name of protecting women from violence.