Thursday, 15 September 2011

Feminism and Gender Enforcement

I know most of you are probably expecting this to be a diatribe about how feminism has vilified and demonized male sexuality, and criticized the aggressive qualities (ambition, achievement, competitiveness, assertiveness) of masculinity that have been so useful to society since the dawn of time.

I mean, it's no secret to those in the know that feminism is all too happy to reinforce, manipulate and even codify the cultural norms surrounding maleness--in domestic violence discourse, policy and law, sexual assault discourse, policy and law, family law, etc.

But what I want to talk about is how feminism has manipulated and enforced other masculine qualities that most people don't spend a lot of time thinking about in any depth with respect to feminism. I mean, if society has been well-served by the men who were ambitious and high-achieving--the scientists, inventors, artists, leaders, etc, who inhabited the upper echelons of social status--well, for every William Shakespeare or Henry V or Sir Isaac Newton, there were a thousand or ten thousand male cogs in the machinery of society, dutifully bending their backs and making the whole thing work, often at the expense of their health, their happiness and their lives.

These men were dutiful, honorable, responsible, self-sacrificing, generous, hard-working, decent, and devoted to those in their care. "Nose to the grindstone", "get 'er done", "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do", "grow up, get a job, do something with your life."

I've often thought that there's not that much difference between a "mangina" and what has always been thought of as a "real man". Both manginas and real men are generous, thoughtful of others (especially women), and put the benefit of others (especially women) before themselves. Manginas have been accused, probably accurately, of behaving this way out of a (mostly vain) hope of being rewarded with pussy. Real men, throughout history, did this because it needed to be done, and because up until very recently, a real man's efforts and sacrifices were worth the rewards he received, even if those rewards only consisted of social acknowledgment and appreciation and the returned devotion of a woman.

A real man will help a woman move her shit, and expect a thank you. A mangina will go way out of his way to ingratiate himself by helping her, and then tolerate being treated like an asshole for it.

And "guys"? When a woman needs to lug her furniture from one apartment to another, "guys" duck her calls and let them go to voice mail. And if she wants a commitment? Forget that shit, he's got his XBox.

The collective feminist gnashing of teeth over this state of affairs has been no less frenzied than that of more traditional arms of society, as they all scratch their heads and wonder whatever happened to real men.

We've gotten so used to men's sense of duty, obligation and responsibility toward women, children and society, that we didn't even know what we had until we realized it was going extinct. And you see the anger and lamentation over men abandoning those roles nowhere more than in what many feminists have to say about "guys".

Guys--or MGTOW--are characterized by feminists and traditionalists alike as irresponsible to the point of repugnance, commitment-phobic, losers, Peter Pans, wasting their lives, and refusing to "grow up". Keep in mind, these men aren't welfare cases. They're self-sufficient, not leeching off their families or society. They don't peel up and down suburban streets at 3 AM waking up babies and kicking over mailboxes, or refuse to pay their taxes. But as Kay Hymowitz once put it, they're free to live in "pig heaven" until women get sick of it and go to a sperm bank.

But think about what this kind of criticism is actually saying about our expectations--even feminists' expectations--of men.

The complaint is not that they're a burden on others or on society, but that they refuse to take on anyone else's burdens. This is a far cry from the very occasional, heavily-qualified criticisms we hear of women--and utter condemnation of men--when they willingly take on a responsibility by, say, having children, and then fail to live up to it. No, this is all about, "You men are not doing what women want, and what women want is to be given what they want."

Women have spent the last 50 to 75 years challenging the roles they used to be stuck in, sort of negotiating and renegotiating with society as to exactly what was acceptable and what was pushing too far too fast. They've cast off their shackles, been free to define themselves as women, and to put personal fulfilment first. Until recently, for men, it's been mostly business as usual--they've worked, achieved, devoted themselves to women and children, and continued to put the good of others before themselves.

And I think women, and society, sort of figured that men would just keep doing it--working, being responsible, being dutiful and honorable, toiling and sacrificing for the betterment of society or the benefit of women, achieving, building, etc... even though a huge number of the benefits men were given in exchange for these efforts and for putting others first have been effectively removed. What used to be a well-compensated bondage is now an entirely onerous form of imprisonment. 

I mean really, how long can you expect a man to continue living up to those expectations when society stops respecting or appreciating them for it, when society only threatens to take away what he's built and what he loves, shoves its hands deeper into his pockets, and constantly tells him he's an idiot, or evil, or unnecessary, or a piece of shit?

A lot of feminist writers have been taking great pains to tell everyone for years about what giant assholes men are and have always been. And even when men do awesome things, like working around the clock digging children out of a collapsed school after a tsunami, it's just another opportunity to remind people how the chaos of the situation puts children at risk from pedophiles (who are always men, of course). When men die saving lives, they're called police officers or firefighters, but when they mow down a bunch of innocent people at a mall, they're gunmen. Hell, even the millions of men whose lives have been callously and brutally thrown away on battlefields through history--even their suffering and tragedy can be appropriated by feminists to prove to everyone who'll listen that women have always had it worse. 

Can anyone blame men for finally starting to say fuck this shit, why try to cram yourself into that mold if you're just going to be called an asshole? Some--PUAs, most notably--are even saying, "Fuck, if I have the name, I might as well have the game."

For the first time in history, men are starting to do what makes them happy, even if it doesn't benefit women or society, hell, even if it pisses women and society off. And EVERYBODY'S freaking out about it.

I'm not gonna lie, it's a tough pill for everyone to swallow, because those characteristics--duty, honor, devotion, self-sacrifice, responsibility--are the very characteristics that societies are largely built on. Without them, it's every human for him/herself, isn't it?

And feminism--which pushed women to live for their own fulfilment, to be true to themselves, to break out of the roles they were stuck in, who insist patriarchal gender norms harm everyone--should be celebrating men's increasing casting-off of their shackles, of men's smashing of patriarchy by eschewing traditional masculinity in favor of smoking pot with their buddies. But they aren't. Because feminism itself has been as dependent on those particular male roles as individual women have been throughout human history.

I mean, the entire feminist movement, and society's reaction to it (swift capitulation), boils down to the interaction of two traditional gender norms, right? Women wanted to be protected, provided for and given the things they want and need. And men have, for the most part, kept doing that, for decades, even as what women say they want and need has changed. Mostly male governments have passed laws and enacted public policy that gave women what they wanted (freedom, protection, provision, support, and opportunity) and individual men have also continued to keep giving women what they say they want and need (freedom, provision, support, understanding, accommodation).

Those are the two patriarchal gender norms that have been at work throughout the entire timeline of the feminist movement--women asking for something, and men doing it or going along with it to make women happy. So I suppose it's been something of a shock to women when men started putting their foot down and saying, "Yeah, I don't think so. Me first now. I got shit of my own to deal with." The men's rights movement has only driven this point home for feminists and women in general, and it's like two gender norms going kablooie all at once--women being indulged in their needs and desires, and men being indulgent of them.

And the most radical feminists? I kind of think of radical feminism itself as a kind of collective shit-test. Sort of a "Are you guys really gonna let us get away with this? Huh, I guess you are... Okay, how about this? We're really talking some shit about you now. You gonna let that stand? Hmmm.... Okay, well, I bet you're not gonna put up with THIS!" 

And the longer people have put up with it and let them get away with it, the higher they've escalated the test. The collective temper tantrum that's begun over men starting to put their foot down--whether it's through activism and advocacy for the equality of men, or through playing XBox and refusing to devote themselves to doing what women want them to--rivals the antics of any three-year-old denied candy in a grocery store check-out line.

And me? Do I want men to cast off those roles they've had throughout history? To be honest, no. Those roles are beneficial to society, and they get shit done that needs to get done. But do I blame men for saying, "Hells, no, I only look out for me now"? Why would they do anything different? There's no individual benefit in men living up to those standards anymore--not even appreciation--only risk, punishment and the reward of being called an asshole no matter what you do. 

Who the fuck needs that?

41 comments:

  1. wow you hit the nail on the head. thank you

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, bravo. I am a masculinist. I put my foot down. I realized this when on a date, I was called out for opening doors, pulling out a chair, ordering drinks, and putting my hand on her neck as a sign of affection. These things were chastised, instead of appreciated. She explained her feminist upbringing, and politely asked me not to do these things. Obviously this did not last, and later at the zoo, I rushed to open a door for a group of women. One of them commented that "gentlemen still exist" and since we were at the zoo, I thought it appropriate to retort "gentlemen are not extinct, just an endangered species." Brought up by my Grandmother, I am not pleased with the way women treat me in relationships, and everything you point out above asserts my position on my lost sense of masculinity.

    My ps3 is way better than your reality tv ladies, and you expect us to cuddle when you watch it, but we are ridiculed for interacting with media. Come on men, YES WE CAN!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said...

    Feel free to read this book.

    http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/1/threadid/538/scope/posts/Default.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmmm, certainly an interesting post,seeing as it's from a woman. I suspect she has learned much from visiting the ever growing Manosphere websites. With respect to the author, although it is a slightly refreshing and accurate post. Sadly, even me saying way too little way too late would be a huge understatement. There is one major shit storm heading our way. When the SHTF remember,women need men like fish need bicycles. P.S. I am clean out of chivalry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For politeness...I cross posted here.

    http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/38/postid/717/scope/posts/Default.aspx#717

    Hi Oddsock....thanks for coming over.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You've elaborated expertly upon thoughts I've expressed elsewhere. Feminism and traditionalism are two sides of the same coin, unwittingly(?) converging to manipulate and control men.

    Feminism = cultural cuntservatism.

    Keep writing; I'll keep reading...

    ReplyDelete
  7. By the way girlwriteswhat.

    You might want to start gathering up you fellow bloggers like Dr. Helen (whom I guess you know) and women like Erin Pizzy and Christina Hoff Summers and championing the idea of ALL FEMALE common law courts.

    If women wish some credibility, of which they have none now, then they are going to have to form common law courts and put on trial any woman who is properly accused under oath of a crime by a father or other man. If proven to be guilty you will have to require the woman make remedy or be outlawed.

    Unless women are willing to do this? They can have no claim of wishing "equality before the law" and they can have no claim of moral equality or even honesty or credibility.

    Us men are no longer listening to what you say. We are watching what you do. And what you are DOING is NOTHING USEFUL.

    Now. Am I clear on this? Talk is cheap. New common law courts are what is required.

    http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/GroupID/1/ForumID/98/Default.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whatever we say, or whatever we do or whatever we plan, we are never free. We are bound by the circumstances around us. Off course, everyone tries to get the best out of the circumstances- be it men or women or even children.
    There was a time women could not have survived without a man. She was not equipped to work as a soldier, or do back breaking labour on unmechanized farms... and society treated her the way she deserved in those circumstances. Today labour and physical valour has become less important (I just imagine how Achilles have been treated in today's society), and with this men's importance is declining. It has nothing to do with men or women, it is more about circumstances. It is the skills needed at that time, and who have it. It can be man or woman or some other species.
    In todays situation, in democracy organised numbers count. Thus people are organising themselves based on caste, colour, occupation, gender, region, taste, economic outlook.... here men suffered. Whereas women organised themselves, men didn't. So politics and state become anti-men. Anti-men laws were legislated. Property earned by men, fruits of their labour were extracted in the name of higher taxes, alimony, maintenance, child support and various types of compensations for perceived wrong. Obstacles were raised in his path of education, job. Life was made dangerous for him against power of the state, which only men created. All because men were not organised. Believe me, if even pigs are organised, we may give them reservation in our public service (read Animal Farm by George Orwell).
    Now men are organising themselves. And that is why such writings. i can remember the hostile attitude of feminazis when men started organizing. Now they are partially organised, and language is slowly changing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Masculist, That's a great post but I think you are underestimating the jobs that still require difficult, back-breaking work. There are many jobs, construction, for instance, that women simply can not do. Hod carriers, concrete layers, heavy machinery mechanics, mining, oil rig roughnecks, the list goes on and on. The work men do in these areas is obfuscated and taken for granted, especially now that society obfuscates a man's worth. Even in this modern society, women cannot survive without a mans work nor could many men. And this is not work for idiots. The underlying complex mechanical structures that support modern society would rapidly fall apart if men were removed from the care and maintenance of them. Most people have a profound ignorance of how these complex structures actually work and what it takes to build and maintain them. As an airplane mechanic, believe me I know. We also are legally responsible for the work we do (as construction tradesmen are) and we can be put in prison if improper workmanship results in a plane crash. Mechanized farms would also deteriorate and quickly. How many women does it take to change a 700' vertical conveyor in a commercial grain elevator?

      Delete
  9. And men will have a hard time organizing, Masculist, because so many of them still see themselves as "on top", because all the propaganda around us tell us they are.

    The problem, as I see it, is that women and children still largely can't exist without provision and protection, and the best people to provide that has always been men. And we've stripped all the benefits of living up to those obligations away from them. I mean, one guy I dated briefly said, "Why the hell am I still giving her half my paycheck? Is she still cleaning my house and doing my laundry?" It's all burden and risk, and no benefit, and as such, it drains resources and power from men without giving them anything in return, weakening them.

    And yet the bodies required to fulfill the historical patriarchal obligations of individual men have all come under the aegis of the state and corporate interests--social welfare, health care spending, a larger and larger justice, enforcement and prison system. The top--Patriarchy, according to feminists--is getting bigger and bigger now that we've started to smash patriarchy, and the wealth is transferring from men up into the system, which takes its HUGE cut, and then trickles a little bit back down to women and children. Corporations profit, too--there's a fuck-ton of increased economic activity stemming from divorce--and again, there's little trickle-down. Hell, the London riots probably upped Britain's GDP considerably.

    And the cogs in the machine are been bled dry. When the machinery seizes up and can no longer reasonably provide for or protect women and children, where will men be? They'll have been in decline for so long that half of them are sick, imprisoned, uneducated, unskilled, disenfranchised, psychologically damaged, or just won't give enough of a shit to grab their shovels and start helping us dig ourselves out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a blue collar skilled workman I can say you are spot on when you say, "...so many of them still see themselves as "on top", because all the propaganda around us tell us they are." But that's beginning to change.

      The best success I've had of getting the MRM message into my buddies heads goes something like this. "When the ship goes down you are going to go with it and the women will be saved in the lifeboats." Anything else like quoting statistics just doesn't register with them. Here's another one I use that they seem to get, "You are nothing more than an ant on an ant hill. Your job is to move sugar crystals around so the ants at the top will profit from your work." After the major screw job we got from our company that destroyed our retirement (a major airline) they get it. Yet it's a long hard haul and I've had heated arguments about social fraud at the hands of feminists we endure.

      That's one reason why your writing is so important. You see the nature of the social forest whereas many of us men are so enmeshed in it we have a hard time seeing our true humanity in society and with women.

      Two days ago I said that most men are in sexual prison in response to one of the popular, married guys coming out of the closet. He has always been known as a loving father of his children and a devoted husband. His wife supports his coming out. Years ago I would have been hung. Yet nowadays the men I work with are beginning to become open, not specifically to sex between men, but to the whole range of sexuality natural to a man. I think that's great but feminism really screws things up by demanding and trying to coerce men into conforming to a vision of sexuality men may not enjoy or are not interested in.

      You should see (I know you know) how these guys sacrifice for their families. It's amazing to me and they have my respect and empathy yet the idea of putting self fulfillment above duty is foreign to them.

      All of us are getting old though, and many of us are past due for retirement. When we finally do retire, in a society that no longer supports men (like education), I wonder who will be able to take our place?

      Delete
  10. As someone who coined the term anarcho-misogyny in reaction to feminism, I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis, if not your conclusion. Men SHOULD follow their instincts and rational self-interests, and those don't include putting themselves in a position to provide for a woman. If a man wants a child, he should adopt. Breeding with a woman and putting himself at risk for the woman to take the child and a significant portion of his assets and his income to support said child is just stupid. Moreover, it's socially irresponsible, given how many parentless children are out there. Give a child a home, but by no means should you give a woman a free or subsidized ride. Women are something we need for our gratification and edification, and they're nice to have around for the symbiotic relationships that are possible...but when symbiosis goes into a parasitic realm, it's time to get rid of the woman in question altogether. At no point should any man compromise himself and his interests to where he cannot excise a cancer from his life as easily as possible if said female metastasizes into a malignant force. Those are my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hate to be the fly in the ointment, but it's very nearly impossible to adopt a child in the United States even if you are a traditional, stable, prosperous heterosexual couple. Takes years and years because there are so few children available for adoption here--which is why overseas adoption is so common. It might honestly be cheaper to hire a surrogate mother.

      Delete
  11. I actually get a stabbing feeling in the gut whenever a man talks that way, Jay--of orchestrating all relationships with women based on worst-case scenarios and a woman's potential to wreak damage on him. That doesn't mean I don't see your point, though.

    When I look at the value of the contributions men made to society all through history, and the benefits women and children derived from those contributions in societies where the patriarchal balance of obligation/benefit was equitable...it makes me so fucking sad how we've fucked it all up.

    You can't strip away all the benefits men received in return for those contributions and still expect them to feel obligated or motivated to contribute. And we've come to a point where it isn't just men putting in effort and duty and getting *nothing* in return...we ask them to play the dutiful, self-sacrificing, stand-up guy, and then if he isn't VERY lucky, we take away everything he loves and has worked for, kick him in the teeth and call him an asshole. We allow women to banish men from their children's lives, and then turn around and blame men for abandoning their children.

    Used to be, you did the right thing and you were rewarded. But we've fucked up the system so badly that I can't blame men for looking out first for Number One, and refusing to put themselves under any woman's power to harm them.

    Sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's like in Atlas Shrugged: Men are shrugging, and disappearing, and people are asking, Who is Johan Galt?

      It's logical, because the fundamental philosophic ideas that are pushing the welfare state are the same as those that push feminism: it's somehow "moral" for the people benefiting from the producers thinking and producing the keep exploiting them, without even recognizing their role, and, of course, without even a 'thank you'.

      Delete
  12. It has nothing to do with a system being fucked up. This is the way the system has always been, and only when women started engaging in blatant misandry did it become apparent to men that no matter what you give a woman, she'll never be content. We're denigrated, stereotyped, and our natural impulses are demonized if we engage them. Being a stand-up guy is surrendering to emasculation because you can't do what you want to do when you want to do it. Your life is no longer to be lived on your own terms. Men are starting to wake up, and when we finally do come to terms with the legacy of our history as individuals who had the fruit of labors taken to subsidize a fairer sex and its insatiable appetite for more, more, more...women had better watch out, because the days of men fulfilling a role of convenience or meeting your needs as enablers are over.

    I see only two real reasons to interact with women, to be honest: sex and companionship. I would never have a child with a woman in the context of a relationship. If I do choose to have a biological child, it will be with a surrogate who has no rights or say so in the child's upbringing or life. To me, women have become increasingly irrelevant to men, perhaps even malignant. If I ever do get married again, there will be a straight up partition agreement going in that specifies that my assets and whatever arises out of those assets are mine and and mine alone. My child is mine alone. And I will be having a vasectomy beforehand to eliminate the possibility of an accident.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Meh, the system was always fucked up, but at least it was reasonably equitable between genders (although I'll admit, because of men's obligation to go to war, it was probably more beneficial to women).

    A couple hundred years ago, I could see a man considering the cost/benefit ratio of being a husband and father, and thinking, "I don't get paid enough for this shit." But now? It's more like, "I shouldn't have to pay to be treated like shit."

    Now it's just fucked up.

    And while I agree there has always been an instinct in women for seeking material gain through men's efforts, there are still a few good women around, who weren't raised to think of themselves as princesses who deserve whatever they want without having to earn it, and who look at relationships not only in terms of what they can get out of them, but what they can put into them.

    That said, I don't blame you for covering your ass, either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ girlwriteswhat -

      I am not optimistic either. But sometimes a strike by an undervalued group of workers wake people up. Perhaps this will happen with women too. But, as I said, I'm not overly optimistic.

      Delete
  14. Jesus fuck I love your writing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. To Jay and girlwriteswhat: Consider writing more articles for sites like avoiceformen and the-spearhead.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is wonderful to encounter a woman who understands how most men feel.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You raise a lot of good points, but reading your article I couldn't help but feel that who are you to say that men in history were "well compensated" for being forced into their role.

    Considering that men in history had absolutely no possibility of even trying out the costs and benefits in their role for any deviation from it would've been met with complete isolation and horrific abuse from both society and individual people. A couple of rants from feminists and traditionalists is nothing compared to what you would've been faced with in history should you have been trying different roles. So I'd say it wasn't "well compensated bonage", but rather an even worse and stricter prison than it is nowadays (and considering that I'm currently altering my body to get rid of the male gender role because I view it as so horribly restricting that's saying a lot).

    As far as your concern about women and children not being provided for goes, seriously, fuck that. Women are perfectly capable of providing for themselves (and others as well) and I'm sick of having these kinds of attitudes (or pretending these kinds of attitudes because you just don't want to take on the burdens that others take so you don't have to) prevent a whole lot of people from having equal relationships with one another.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wait...what?

    I'm not exactly prepared to write a single post that explores the experience of the majority of people--who are straight and cisgendered--and how their experience was shitty but equitable back then, and unequitably shitty for men today, AND the experience of non-cisgendered, non-straight people's experience through history. That's a topic for a dozen or more posts, and it probably wouldn't even scratch the surface.

    If you're angry that I didn't put a disclaimer at the top that I was speaking only of straight, cis-gendered people...well, fair enough. Suffice to say, I know things were shittier for those who could not cram themselves into the gender binary than they were for pretty much everybody else.

    If the male gender role is more restricting than the female gender role, that says something too. There have been a lot of types of deviations from "normal" that have been more readily tolerated by society in women than in men, for sure. I think today, there is a far wider spectrum of gender expression "allowed" to women, while men are still policed like mad.

    What I don't quite understand, though, is where you're getting the idea that I want women to continue to be provided for the way they were under a patriarchal social structure. That this structure was the most efficient and beneficial for society before the industrial revolution is, I think, a given (though it could certainly be terrible for individuals). A society that was not arranged in this way would have been selected out of existence by a stronger, more efficient society.

    The world has changed, though. I'm fully in support of financial abortion as an option for men, because women ARE now perfectly capable of providing for themselves and others, now that the nature of income-generating work has so dramatically shifted, and women have control over their fertility. I don't require my ex to pay child support, though I'd welcome it, for sure. I've been raising three kids entirely on my own for three years. I don't see how other women couldn't do the same, and feel social supports for unwed mothers only enable more women to make poor and unilateral decisions wrt having babies, and then put an unfair burden on men to mitigate the consequences.

    There is no barrier left to women's independence from men, even if she wants children. And as children are, in essence, her property from the moment they emerge as eggs from her ovaries until the moment they emerge from the birth canal and beyond, expecting men to take responsibility for children over whom they have no right or power of decision whatsoever is hideously unjust.

    I think you've misinterpreted a great deal of my article.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think that you misunderstood my comment quite a bit. I wasn't trying to bring any discussion about non-hetero non-cisgendered people or anything of that sort. I was merely wondering why you, in the article, seemed to think that the situation was somehow better for men in the past because they got somehow compensated for being forced in their role when in reality those roles were just even more strictly forced in the past than they are now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Of course they were enforced--for both men and women, and it was shitty for everyone. But men did actually *get* something out of the deal. What does he get now? His kids are not his. They belong to their mother, and she can take them away if she pleases. He no longer has a wife to support--where at least he'd get regular (or at least semi-regular sex) and someone to cook and clean his house--he has an EX wife to support, often for life, even though she no longer has any obligation to him.

    It was a balance of costs and benefits. Now, for men it is all cost. For women, it is all benefit. She's free to cheat on him, leave him, take his kids, and still make him support her until she dies. If he doesn't live up to this obligation, he goes to jail.

    At least in the past he got *something* for living up to those expectations, even if they were shitty expectations that didn't suit him. But now? Now there's no "power balance". It's all in her favor.

    Personally, I'd love to see men abandon any sense of duty to women or society. Women can absolutely make it "on their own" these days, with a tertiary economy, subsidized daycare and the pill. What the hell do men owe them? What do men owe anyone? You can't make someone work for no pay, right? You can't require them to live other than how they want if you're not going to give them something of value in return.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @But as Kay Hymowitz once put it, they're free to live in "pig heaven" until women get sick of it and go to a sperm bank.

    ...and we are proud of that:

    http://i43.tinypic.com/svhx06.jpg

    See you soon on first wankher pride parade, dear femmies ;)

    ReplyDelete
  22. You are officially my favourite blogger. I have been thinking about these things on and off for the last 8 years, and you are one of the saddeningly few women who talk sensibly about feminism. Please keep on blogging and vlogging: what you write and say is more helpful than you can imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I want to have your babies.

    That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I would argue that men abandoning their sense of duty to women is actually beneficial from a moral point of view. At the same time I still consider a sense of duty and self-sacrifice to be beneficial to society. How ? It all stems from the paradox of self-sacrifice : a person that is good enough to sacrifice him/herself for another that isn't willing to do so will result in a net loss to humanity. As an example, it's not just that i would flip a coin against a woman on the Titanic for a seat on the lifeboat(instead of giving it away), i would try to dissuade men from sacrificing themselves blindly for wifes and women who weren't even asked to consider their own sacrifice. For the good of humanity. Ha ! A long way from "Every man for himself".

    ReplyDelete
  25. I just followed your link from your youtube page. I found that link from goodmenproject.com

    Thanks for stating the things you are.
    I can't believe how succinctly and concisely you nail everything down.

    Thanks for writing about the things you are.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "And me? Do I want men to cast off those roles they've had throughout history? To be honest, no. Those roles are beneficial to society, and they get shit done that needs to get done."

    Annnnnnnd, now you lost me.

    There's a reason the political popularity of feminism is rather well-correlated with productivity: What you describe as patriarchy has lost what relevance it had, at least in the Western World. We don't need to segregate this sort of work by assigned sex anymore... (which by the way is one of the many reasons that the difference between assigned and presented sex is becoming more frequently articulated)

    Uterine output is no longer required as our main economic and pension engine. With the advent of durable capital, It's no longer necessary for society to encourage mullerians to put their uteri to use, as a certain degree of gestation still happens on its own. (About 1.5-1.8 per mullerian, it seems.) And by the time that it becomes important for someone to actually produce more than the naturally occurring number of children, and there still exists no artificial uterus, that, like many other previously uncompensated jobs, will be paid labour. [pause for laughter]

    As a society, we are more diverse than we have been pretending to be, and that willful mass-delusion, while at one point a survival mechanism, has been causing measurable harm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annnnnnnnd....under patriarchy, men put more into the system on an individual basis than they took out (invested in family), and were rewarded with intangible benefits that kept them motivated to keep putting in more than they took out.

      Under feminism, men put more into the system than they take out, government takes a cut, and then hands what's left to women. Men who are "good" enough to invest as individuals (in family) can easily see all the reward for that taken away (and be left with a monthly bill as an extra kick in the teeth).

      Our government--the most influential branch of The Big Patriarchy Boogeyman feminism set out to bring down--is over 100x as big as it was before women's suffrage.

      Feminism is a PRODUCT of productivity, prosperity and wealth. It COSTS. We PAY for it, and as long as governments and individuals are permitted to live on credit, we can "afford" it. If government disappeared, and people had to pay for their fair share of services and infrastructure, that is, if women could not take out more than they put into the system, feminism would VANISH.

      Delete
    2. I totes agree with your last paragraph especially. The point has been made by many others (Ed Driscoll especially) that feminism first arose among wealthy of upper-middle class women who had the wherewithal to do without men. Every subsequent wave of feminism has remained true to that- Murphy Brown could afford to be a single mother, etc.

      For many working-class and poor women the state has supplanted the husband (and father) as the provider and protector of women and children, with mostly disastrous consequences. Feminism is largely a leftist movement and allying it with (ironically names) paternalistic government is no coincidence.

      The boys raised under this system are noted for being particularly disrespecting of the women in their lives and of shunning the children they produce. Thereby perpetuating their "baby mama's" reliance on government programs for yet another generation.

      Delete
  27. @Valerie Keefe Feminism is also correlated to amount of garbage created per capita, obesity, democracy, suicide rates, Porsches, and TVs. Bad, bad feminists ! Oh wait, correlation doesn't imply causation.
    Annnnnnnnd, now you're hearing just what you want to hear. When GWW writes "those roles", she means self sacrificing roles. You hear high-paid, prestigious jobs. "Sure, I can do THAT !". I understand why you made that mistake :)
    I don't hear feminists saying " We want the OBLIGATION to go to war when needed" or women saying "I'll go down with the ship, let MEN and children survive for once!". Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think that your credibility comes from not just your 20/20 vision but especially your manner of putting the case for men aided by your extreme command of the English language.
    I also think Barbara Kay is a great ambassador.
    I often hear that boys are not as "advanced" as girls (not as mature) - I have yet to hear that girls are not as advanced as boys because they cannot climb a tree, or scim stones etc. People constantly forget that nature has designed men & women differently & that is why the human race has evolved as sucessfully - at least until now...
    Many, many thanks for your input to this much needed debate.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I dont think i ever did anything because of my sex i do things because their fun or because i believe in them. I just want to be treated like a human being, not have my sex made an issue of every time i turn around. I find chivalry vile and always did if a woman wants me to help her move i will if shes a friend but id do that for a man to. I sure a HELL wont do anything for her becaue of her sex or because i feel its my duty as a man. It pleases me no end that feminists dont want that degrading crap im sure not going to give it to any one.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I always thought the mangina's want to avoid (10% allowed to live) the feminist genocide of men. Why would they have a desire for pussy if they are a pussy?

    ReplyDelete
  31. As a man who both holds old-school values as good and honest and supports the cause of equality for women (that's less of a contradiction than some might think), I officially want to buy you a boilermaker and talk politics with you for a good long while.

    There's room for good men in this world that feminists want to create. Masculinity can adapt, it can make room, it can change to meet new requirements. Women have the right to request a seat at the table...and we as men should give it to them. Anyone who can do the job is welcome.

    However...With equal rights come equal responsibilities, as well as equal risks. Masculinity is not a statement of privilege; it is an assumption of a mantle of responsibility. If women want it, they can have it...if they can do the work required to sustain it.

    Feminists: you can tell me that I have to make room for womankind at the table of privilege, and I will do it. You can tell me that I have to modify my code of ethics to accommodate a changing world, and I will do it. But you cannot tell me that the code of honor that sustains me suddenly has no value...that code built the world in which you live, and I will fight to keep it.

    A man stands up for what he believes in after all.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As I see it, MGTOW are pretty much deciding that a man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle. They are pretty much in the exact same state of mind as feminists: I have the right to do what *I* want to do with my life, to seek happiness and fulfilment without needing a spouse to make me complete and I don't need to defer to the opposite sex (individually or collectively). How is it not enormously hypocritical to see that as an empowering state of mind for a woman, but men with this mind-set are "irresponsible to the point of repugnance, commitment-phobic, losers, Peter Pans, wasting their lives, and refusing to "grow up"."?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Very advisory and effective collection of stuff. helpful hints

    ReplyDelete

Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!