‘Man Down': How Vladimir Putin Embodies The Worst Of The Men’s Rights Movement

Outward machismo. Signs of (brute) strength. A cold, calculating manner seemingly devoid of any human element.

These are the traits more expected from the Men’s Rights Movement forums — those frequented by the likes of Elliot Rodger, who transformed the anger and ideals he fostered on those sites into a shooting rampage that killed six and wounded 13 others in Isla Vista, California.

But they’re also embodied by one world leader: Russian President Vladimir Putin.

When Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” last weekend, she called on Putin to take a more defined stance of the MH17 shooting down by Ukrainian Separatists, urging him to “man up.”

With Feinstein’s comments understandably upsetting those who take note of that word’s sexist implications, it’s likely the phrase “man up” is not the one she intended.

Because as recent events and staged photo-ops suggest, Putin is already on the path to carve himself out as a hyper-masculine individual — to the negative impact of his dealings with leaders from the rest of the world.

Instead, as Jezebel insisted, Putin, if anything, needs to “MAN DOWN.”

Over the last months, Putin has been in the news quite a bit, but instead of being perceived as a formidable leader and hard-lined negotiator, he’s come off as arrogant, unyielding and only slightly misogynistic (as evidenced by his horribly offensive comments towards former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton).

Perhaps Putin thought that, by casting himself as the “ultimate man” — evidence of which can presumably be gathered in these photos of him spelunking or wrestling with tigers — he’d gain more respect and command more gravitas as he goes toe-to-toe with other governments’ officials.

However, Putin’s actions prove to be alienating and heartless. His unwillingness to compromise hasn’t made him seem strong, but rather a weak negotiator.

In embracing this hyper-masculine culture, he’s desensitized himself to much of what’s going on in the world, especially the tragic deaths of MH17.

In his “conciliatory” statement after learning of the incident, Putin kept his remarks brief, but didn’t fail to mention that if fighting in Ukraine hadn’t recently resumed, the unfortunate plane crash wouldn’t have happened.

His senior officials, however, were reportedly dispatched to antagonize US investigators, insisting the pro-Russian Ukrainian rebels had nothing to do with the shooting down of the passenger plane. 

His callousness and unwillingness to compromise shouldn’t be viewed as a sign of masculine strength, but a real weakness when it comes to making Russia a diplomatic player and partner for the rest of the world.

But Putin’s personality doesn’t just reflect that of a bad state leader; he’s eerily replicating many of the machismo edicts dictated in the “Men’s Rights Movement” and forums, much like the one mass shooter Elliot Rodger frequented.

In an analysis of the toxicity promulgated by the Men’s Rights Movement, created in conjunction with a former white supremacist and sociology professor (AKA, guys who would definitely know), Cracked.com said that a major byproduct of the project was hating “women because it justified their suffering.”

In the case of Putin’s Russia, he has similarly torqued this idea to provide better security for himself.

Instead of simply hating women, however, Putin has acted distrustfully and outright aggressively towards many groups that simply oppose him in terms of ideas and aims.

When the popular (not to mention all-female) band Pussy Riot held an anti-Putin protest at a church, they were sentenced to perform labor at isolated penal colonies for their dissent.

Ukraine has similarly felt Putin’s indiscriminating wrath over the past few months, as he’s escalated his own country’s violent efforts there and in Crimea.

As Time described champions of the Men’s Rights Movement, they tap “into fear and insecurity and turn it into blame and rage.”

Putin is channeling perhaps his own disgruntled opinions that opposition is always bad, that he somehow has a right to govern in bad faith and with an iron fist.

As The New York Times astutely observed from Putin’s past behavior, he “often seethes with distrust and anger that the United States seeks to exploit any opening to weaken Russia.”

Putin’s own paranoia and anger make him a volatile, reactionary figure, who presumes that by asserting his own masculinity, he’s buoying his reputation and respectability.

But just as the Men’s Rights Movement produces toxic attitudes and dangerous, uncontrollable figures like Elliot Rodger, so has Putin’s blind machismo — perhaps, most directly, in pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists who are believed to have shot MH17 down without reason.

He hasn’t made his country more inclusive (remaining utterly backwards on gay rights), nor has he opened channels of communication for other leaders who have made the move to compromise on his and their country’s interests.

Instead, he’s still clearly committed to adhering to an outdated and rigid standard of what comprises masculinity, to the detriment of his country, ours and the entire international community.

Putin can do better, but not if he continues to act like the Men’s Rights Movement is something to be emulated.

Photo Credit: WENN