americanreformer.org / archive
April 21, 2025
Neil Gaiman is a self-described “male feminist.” He considers himself an ally of women, someone who desires their equality, someone who will fight for their rights, etc. For many years, he has done everything necessary to cultivate the public persona that nearly every actor, musician, or popular writer wants: an unproblematic, average leftist who aims the occasional snarky tweet at the regressive right. He checks the right boxes. The accusations have sparked more than a few articles about the dangers of faux feminists, but I think the problem is precisely the opposite: Neil Gaiman isn’t a faux feminist, he’s a true believer. He’s not the exception; he’s a picture of where consistent feminism leads. At the very least, he is someone who has exploited the social weaknesses feminism has created. We will return to this later.
One crucial concept that feminism has utterly destroyed in the modern mind is the nature of femininity. There are two concepts that are often conflated, but are, in reality, separate: femininity, and effeminacy. While the words are often used interchangeably, they shouldn’t be. Dictionary definitions can be a helpful tool in understanding the nuance here.
Femininity (Oxford English Dictionary): Behaviour or qualities regarded as characteristic of a woman; feminine quality or characteristics; womanliness.
Effeminacy (Oxford English Dictionary): spec. Speech, mannerisms, bearing, etc., in a man regarded as feminine, affected, or overly fastidious.
Notice the subtle difference. Femininity, properly understood, is simply the set of qualities associated with womanhood, rightly placed in the context of womanhood. Femininity is the beautiful nature of the woman on display. Effeminacy, while it may share many superficial characteristics or traits with femininity, differs in that the traits are not seen rightly in a woman, but in a man. To be feminine is something only a woman can do–to be effeminate is something only a man can do. Effeminacy is an attempt by a man to embody the characteristics that God has given to the woman. Femininity is womanhood in line with reality; effeminacy is attempted womanhood—defiance of reality.
Reality is reality, and it cannot be overwritten (and should not be tampered with). Effeminacy is a man going against his own nature, bucking against the duties and traits that God has laid out for him, and seeking to define himself. It is abandoning and abdicating his role as leader, provider, and protector. Effeminacy rightly carries connotations of weakness, cowardice, and the like. There is nothing more unseemly and repulsive than a man refusing to act like one. Rebellion against our given nature brings absurdity and suffering. Our natural and designed differences as men and women are declared good in Genesis, are not abrogated by grace, and are, therefore, permanent and eternal.
The entire history of creation and redemption is an interplay between masculinity and femininity–the King slays the Dragon and rescues the Bride. God took on flesh as a human man, not a woman, because He is the masculine player in the story we are in. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride. Our corporate marriage to Christ, upheld by the strength, will, and protection of the husband, is a union that will not be broken.
When a man offloads his natural and righteous responsibilities and instead tries to steal the role of a wife or a mother, he is not nurturing as a mother can be, or beautiful as a wife can be. He is effeminate and an unnatural mockery of the image of God in man.
For a materialist, on the other hand, pragmatism, functionality is all. A role is simply a role that must be filled – so why can’t a woman be a pastor, or a soldier, or a father, for that matter? For most, nature isn’t an inherent reality baked into the world; it’s simply “the way things are.” And if we don’t like the way things are, we ought to change them, right?
This is why feminism is so uniquely evil. Not just modern feminism with its “gender affirming care” and “LGBT rights” and public screeching and man-hating. All feminism, from the first wave onward, is evil. Feminism, at its core, is a twisting of nature and a complete reversal of the natural order. Feminism is, in a sense, an inverse of effeminacy. It is a woman attempting to be a man.
Feminism hates women. It does not seek their highest good, and it does not elevate them to masculine status. Feminism debases women. Moreover, feminism is a necessarily modern invention, one only possible in material conditions that extends an invitation to exit domestic life and enter the external, global economy. Here, success is obtained according to a masculine but egalitarian, individualistic metric. Natural human relationships and bonds, and the maintenance of or service to the same, count for nothing. In the feminist world, the feminine woman is a pitiable creature and only to be admired insofar as she attains masculine achievement.
So-called “TERFs” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, while fun and often helpful for resisting the breakneck speed of the leftward cultural sprint, are in fact walking contradictions. Feminism cannot be detached from its logical outworkings, and feminism logically leads, and has led, to transgenderism and worse.
Rowling and feminists like her rightly point out that the term “woman” has to have a real and biological meaning for feminism to make any sense at all—it requires a point of reference. If a man can decide to be a woman, what exactly is “feminism” even fighting to defend? While a valid point, it misses the greater issue, which is that feminism created the world in which transgenderism is possible to begin with. If, as feminism claims, a woman’s role is whatever she makes it, that she can do anything a man can do, then the implication of human self-definition is established, and ontology is sidelined.
Even if just in social roles—expression of biological reality—feminism tells us that we have at least some ability to mold and shape what we are and what we are meant to do, and that the correspondence between the social and biological is arbitrarily constructed.
We see again and again that some of the most vocal “male feminists” like Neil Gaiman turn out to be sexual predators (Joss Whedon, Louis C.K., etc.). This is a feature, not a bug. They’re acting on what they really believe about women. Women (again, real women) in the eyes of a feminist are something to be hated and pitied. A weak, compliant, and tragic figure who could be just like the man who dominates her but chooses not to. But if women are no different than men, then men need not protect women, treat them with more gentleness, shelter them, provide for them, treat them as the “weaker sex.” Women are not men, not in the Garden and not now. Neil Gaiman and his crimes paint a picture of feminism’s central archetype: Weak, conniving, effeminate man, and women enslaved to the idea that they ought to be more like him.
Effeminacy is Not Feminine
Zephram FosterApril 21, 2025
Nature Must Reassert Itself
You may have heard the allegations against acclaimed fantasy author Neil Gaiman. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend diving headfirst into reading the details – they’re not for the faint of heart. Though these allegations are not yet proven in a court of law, they appear credible. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. Cases like Gaiman’s are increasing in publicity and, perhaps, number. If these allegations are true, Neil Gaiman is just one more predator in a long line of celebrity predators. But more than that, Gaiman and his crimes are a perfect encapsulation of where feminism leads, and how it is an ideology that achieves precisely the opposite of its alleged ambitions.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27
Neil Gaiman is a self-described “male feminist.” He considers himself an ally of women, someone who desires their equality, someone who will fight for their rights, etc. For many years, he has done everything necessary to cultivate the public persona that nearly every actor, musician, or popular writer wants: an unproblematic, average leftist who aims the occasional snarky tweet at the regressive right. He checks the right boxes. The accusations have sparked more than a few articles about the dangers of faux feminists, but I think the problem is precisely the opposite: Neil Gaiman isn’t a faux feminist, he’s a true believer. He’s not the exception; he’s a picture of where consistent feminism leads. At the very least, he is someone who has exploited the social weaknesses feminism has created. We will return to this later.
One crucial concept that feminism has utterly destroyed in the modern mind is the nature of femininity. There are two concepts that are often conflated, but are, in reality, separate: femininity, and effeminacy. While the words are often used interchangeably, they shouldn’t be. Dictionary definitions can be a helpful tool in understanding the nuance here.
Femininity (Oxford English Dictionary): Behaviour or qualities regarded as characteristic of a woman; feminine quality or characteristics; womanliness.
Effeminacy (Oxford English Dictionary): spec. Speech, mannerisms, bearing, etc., in a man regarded as feminine, affected, or overly fastidious.
Notice the subtle difference. Femininity, properly understood, is simply the set of qualities associated with womanhood, rightly placed in the context of womanhood. Femininity is the beautiful nature of the woman on display. Effeminacy, while it may share many superficial characteristics or traits with femininity, differs in that the traits are not seen rightly in a woman, but in a man. To be feminine is something only a woman can do–to be effeminate is something only a man can do. Effeminacy is an attempt by a man to embody the characteristics that God has given to the woman. Femininity is womanhood in line with reality; effeminacy is attempted womanhood—defiance of reality.
What Is, Is
Awoman should be feminine. A man should be masculine. Masculinity and femininity are not malleable concepts that can be changed to suit our social whims. They are objective and unchanging. God created man and woman, and He gave them natures of their own. Not only should a man not be feminine, but he cannot be feminine. A feminine man is an impossibility, a contradiction. Man cannot be feminine any more than a child can be grown up. A child may act grown-up, but we would all recognize that playing house in a small plastic kitchen doesn’t bestow a real mortgage obligation upon a toddler. There is something inescapably cartoonish and absurd about it all, even as we play along with the fantasy. (A notable difference, of course, is that the child possesses the potential of adulthood, whereas the man does not have the potential to be a woman.)“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 22:5
Reality is reality, and it cannot be overwritten (and should not be tampered with). Effeminacy is a man going against his own nature, bucking against the duties and traits that God has laid out for him, and seeking to define himself. It is abandoning and abdicating his role as leader, provider, and protector. Effeminacy rightly carries connotations of weakness, cowardice, and the like. There is nothing more unseemly and repulsive than a man refusing to act like one. Rebellion against our given nature brings absurdity and suffering. Our natural and designed differences as men and women are declared good in Genesis, are not abrogated by grace, and are, therefore, permanent and eternal.
The entire history of creation and redemption is an interplay between masculinity and femininity–the King slays the Dragon and rescues the Bride. God took on flesh as a human man, not a woman, because He is the masculine player in the story we are in. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride. Our corporate marriage to Christ, upheld by the strength, will, and protection of the husband, is a union that will not be broken.
When a man offloads his natural and righteous responsibilities and instead tries to steal the role of a wife or a mother, he is not nurturing as a mother can be, or beautiful as a wife can be. He is effeminate and an unnatural mockery of the image of God in man.
Feminism Hates Women
This conversation is utter nonsense to the modern world. For these things to make any sense at all, a basic, shared ontology must be assumed, an ontology not subject to constant, creaturely redefinition.For a materialist, on the other hand, pragmatism, functionality is all. A role is simply a role that must be filled – so why can’t a woman be a pastor, or a soldier, or a father, for that matter? For most, nature isn’t an inherent reality baked into the world; it’s simply “the way things are.” And if we don’t like the way things are, we ought to change them, right?
This is why feminism is so uniquely evil. Not just modern feminism with its “gender affirming care” and “LGBT rights” and public screeching and man-hating. All feminism, from the first wave onward, is evil. Feminism, at its core, is a twisting of nature and a complete reversal of the natural order. Feminism is, in a sense, an inverse of effeminacy. It is a woman attempting to be a man.
Feminism hates women. It does not seek their highest good, and it does not elevate them to masculine status. Feminism debases women. Moreover, feminism is a necessarily modern invention, one only possible in material conditions that extends an invitation to exit domestic life and enter the external, global economy. Here, success is obtained according to a masculine but egalitarian, individualistic metric. Natural human relationships and bonds, and the maintenance of or service to the same, count for nothing. In the feminist world, the feminine woman is a pitiable creature and only to be admired insofar as she attains masculine achievement.
TERF Wars
The cognitive dissonance that feminism creates is precisely why there are so many apparent allies of the traditional gender binary today who are merely that, apparent allies.So-called “TERFs” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, while fun and often helpful for resisting the breakneck speed of the leftward cultural sprint, are in fact walking contradictions. Feminism cannot be detached from its logical outworkings, and feminism logically leads, and has led, to transgenderism and worse.
Rowling and feminists like her rightly point out that the term “woman” has to have a real and biological meaning for feminism to make any sense at all—it requires a point of reference. If a man can decide to be a woman, what exactly is “feminism” even fighting to defend? While a valid point, it misses the greater issue, which is that feminism created the world in which transgenderism is possible to begin with. If, as feminism claims, a woman’s role is whatever she makes it, that she can do anything a man can do, then the implication of human self-definition is established, and ontology is sidelined.
Even if just in social roles—expression of biological reality—feminism tells us that we have at least some ability to mold and shape what we are and what we are meant to do, and that the correspondence between the social and biological is arbitrarily constructed.
We see again and again that some of the most vocal “male feminists” like Neil Gaiman turn out to be sexual predators (Joss Whedon, Louis C.K., etc.). This is a feature, not a bug. They’re acting on what they really believe about women. Women (again, real women) in the eyes of a feminist are something to be hated and pitied. A weak, compliant, and tragic figure who could be just like the man who dominates her but chooses not to. But if women are no different than men, then men need not protect women, treat them with more gentleness, shelter them, provide for them, treat them as the “weaker sex.” Women are not men, not in the Garden and not now. Neil Gaiman and his crimes paint a picture of feminism’s central archetype: Weak, conniving, effeminate man, and women enslaved to the idea that they ought to be more like him.
