How the Grinch stole Valentine’s Day

I see that the feminist harpies have been out in force recently on campuses throughout the country with their “V-day” booths, their “Stop the Violence” (the traditional patriarchal family being equated with “violence” in their usual dishonest way) posters, their obscene “Vagina Monologues” productions, and their “all men who don’t approve of me being a slut are rapists” marches.  Well, you say, why be surprised?  That’s what feminists do.  Yes, but they make a special point of doing it around Saint Valentine’s Day.

So, sure, Valentine’s Day is mostly a gimick for card and flower salesmen to make money.  On the other hand, I have no objection to these honest businessmen making money, and the holiday is named for a Catholic saint and martyr (or, actually, maybe three of them).  Above all, marital love is a good and holy thing, and it takes a deep and abiding spitefulness against the normal and natural mass of mankind to deliberately set out to spoil a holiday in this love’s honor.  What the hell is wrong with these people?  They see lovers exchanging chocolates and their furry green heads turn red.  Everything warm and human is hateful to them.

Clarity: good vs evil

I’ve been on the fence about BGC & Proph’s claim that good and evil are getting more unambiguous with time, but this would seem to be a case of it:  a man cultivated and wise by any century’s standard defending the noblest truths about human nature and being confronted by a mob of what any other age would call “unimaginable depravity” but ours calls “tomorrow’s leaders”.

Are men equal?

Some of you may be interested in this.  Justin has found and quoted an interesting argument from A Voice for Men attacking the masculine protector role because it implies that men are not equal to (i.e. inferior to) women.  In the comments, I defend the patriarchal position:  men and women are not “equal”; they have distinct roles.  Since two orthospheric writers responded so oppositely to the same article, it may be worth further discussion.  See The Truth Shall Set You Free for details.

Career and the heart of modernity

Let us first realize how unprecedented our situation is.  The great Emile Durkheim identified the key new feature of modern society as its being built around “organic solidarity” as opposed to “mechanical solidarity”.  In premodern societies, each household performs similar economic functions and does so largely indepedently each other.  Thus, it makes sense to have a single standard and set of expectations for everyone (or, rather, one for men and another for women), because, except for small ruling and clerical classes, everybody does pretty much the same things.  In modern societies, we’ve replaced this with a system where everybody’s pooled into one tightly connected economic system, and we’ve pursued specialization and a division of labor so that people do very different things.  Each person has a single, tiny focus, and relies on everybody else to supply his other needs.  This destroys the “mechanical” solidarity of one standard for everybody, but it creates a new “organic” solidarity around our much tighter interconnection.  In the short run, modernity creates alienation:  specialization and individualism erode our sense of community.  But Durkheim was convinced that the cure was to go all out for modernity, and it will cure its own problems.  Once inheritance is gotten rid of (based as it was on the idea of household independence and thus no longer making sense) and wealth is based on merit, our economic system will no longer seem unfair.  Our sense of alienation will be cured by the specialization that caused it:  new profession-specific societies will provide us with the sense of belonging we have lost.  Individualism itself will serve as a common creed to replace all the other social creeds it destroyed.  (My understanding of Durkheim is based on these selections.)

Modernity’s true ideology, one shared by nearly everyone, is the “career”.  Every adult should have a career, and this career should be the main organizing principle in his life.  A career presumes organic solidarity:  a man’s career is supposed to take him away from home and family and set him to work producing something to be consumed by society at large, rather than by his own kin.  This, however, isn’t enough to make work a career; this just makes it a “job”.  A career is also supposed to be the prime outlet for a man’s creativity, intelligence, and initiative.  His bonds with his coworkers (with whom he spends more waking hours than he does with his spouse) provide him a sense of belonging and common purpose.  Career is the ultimate fulfillment of Durkheim’s vision.

Career has largely devoured older forms of belonging–home, tribe, religion–just as Durkheim hoped it would.  There are certainly economic factors in this:  the extreme division of labor certainly brings certain efficiencies with it.  It could well be–I will not speculate on it here–that a sufficiently dense population is stuck with organic solidarity.  What interests me, though, is the ideology, the fact that we have decided to regard this as a liberation rather than a curse.  What’s more, we have outpaced economic forces, deliberately attacking other ways of organizing one’s life.

The romantic conception of work–that it uniquely manifests the “species-life” of man as an intelligent, creative individual–arguably goes back to Locke’s defense of private property.  It is given full expression in Marx’s early writings (especially the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844).  Of course, for Marx, this vision was an indictment of the modern system, because it was obvious to him that the wage-employed hyper-specialized laborer of his day was not engaging in expressively creative work.  Similar criticisms came later from the Agrarians/Distributists.  For both Marxists and Distributists, employment and the division of labor are inherently alienating and must be abolished.

The ideology of the modern age, which we may call “careerism”, has done a remarkable thing in accepting the Marxist/Distributist romanticized vision of work as the outlet for creativity and saying that the current system instantiates this ideal, at least for those with true careers.  Adherents of feminism, an aspect of careerism, would no doubt take offense at the idea that they are proponents of the capitalist system, but this is hardly credible, given that they preach that no woman can be fulfilled without being part of it.  Most people, of course, wouldn’t call themselves anything as radical (i.e. anything as explicit) as feminists, but they accept the careerist creed.  No one thinks it controversial to tell children to start dreaming about the careers that could “empower”/”fullfil”them and let them “change the world”.  When we tell these kids to study hard and get good careers so they can “make something of themselves”, it doesn’t strike us as insulting to those without careers–who are therefore presumably not “something”–although it should.  We never come out and say “your career should be the focal point of your life; everything else should be organized around it”, but this is implied in the way we live and the advice we give our children.

Well, what’s wrong with telling everyone to look for a rewarding and challenging career that will make them “something”?  The ideal of careerism is, after all, somewhat broad; it blesses a great variety of callings.  The trouble is that it’s still not broad enough.  One of the main criticisms leveled at medieval Christianity (and at medieval Buddhism, to the extent anyone but me criticizes Buddhism) is that it was a religion aimed at clergy.  Its vision of human excellence supposedly required one to be a priest, monk, or nun, and it had nothing to say to a layman who wanted to acheive holiness in his lay life.  In short, it valorized a far too small part of the human experience.  Now, whether or not this is a fair criticism of medieval Christianity is a topic for another time, but it is quite odd that the same people who level this charge don’t realize that their own ideology is obviously guilty of it.  Most people don’t have careers, not in the sense of careerist ideology.  This ideology is then forced to regard these people, or at least their way of life, as fundamentally defective.

Today’s world is an exact analogue of the popular image of the “theocratic” Middle Ages:  a society designed for clergy where a majority of the populace were not clergy.  Today, we offer career as the priviledged means of personal fulfillment, but most people don’t have careers.  Thus, careerism has shown great intolerance, or at least a stunning lack of sympathy for, those who don’t fit the careerist pattern:  religious contemplatives, unskilled workers (i.e. those with “jobs” rather than “careers”), and housewives.

The hostility of modernity to the consecrated religious life is so open and extreme that little needs to be said about it.  Closing monastaries and convents is a quintessentially modern thing to do (as is guillotining their former occupants).  What’s really striking is that the contempt for the contemplative life has seeped down even to Catholic apologists.  How often have we heard them tell us that the great thing about the Rule of Saint Benedict is that it forced the monks to work and so valorized labor as a path to holiness, or some such nonsense?  We are then unseemily eager to point out that the monks performed social services like distributing alms.  We seem positively embarrassed to admit that the primary purpose of these institutions was prayer and worship.  (Here modernity has been more gentle with the Buddhists.  Nobody asks how much of Buddhist monastaries’ resources goes to poor relief or reclaiming swamps.  People seem to accept that that’s not the purpose of these organizations.  Sometimes they even recognize that having an organization with explicitly spiritual aims might be a valuable thing.)

What about that majority of men (and now women) whose jobs involve no particular skill or creativity, who generally don’t see their job as a calling but mostly as a way to pay the bills, who work 9 to 5 and then return to their more cherished home life, who find their life’s meaning in family, hobbies, or something other than the job?  For rhetorical purposes (the purpose of posing as a voice of the majority), the careerist ideology will sometimes say that these people have careers, but if it says that, it must admit that they are inadequate careers.  They certainly don’t measure up to what a career should be.  Something is wrong with these people.  We may say it is their fault:  they’re just lazy or dumb.  We may be more generous and say it’s society’s fault for not educating them enough.  What we certainly won’t do is defend their way of life.  Our rulers rather work to destroy it through free trade and mass immigration.  There’s something very wrong that it is becoming harder and harder to support a family–or even maintain a job–without becoming some kind of college-credentialed specialist, but for our politicians (especially, I’m sad to say, our Republican politicians) the answer is always career retraining and more higher eduction so that everyone can become an engineer or entrepeneur.  This is how beholden to careerism they are.

Finally, there are the housewives, who endure as much hostility as the monks.  They are the last representatives of mechanical solidarity:  the home as a place of valuable and creative work, not just relaxation and consumption.  Feminism exists largely to eliminate this holdout.  According to careerism, one needs a career to have an outlet for one’s creativity and initiative and to be socially engaged.  I am fond of pointing out on this blog that most jobs (and even most careers) involve less, or at least no more, opportunity for creativity and initiative than organizing and keeping a household and educating children.  In fact, Chesterton’s argument against women having jobs basically comes down to the claim that it would dull them.  Men have already been narrowed by specialization; let us not lose the womans’ generalism too.  Of course, Chesterton’s goal wasn’t just to keep women in the home; he was more ambitious than that.  His goal was to bring the men back home too, as farmers and artisans.  Is it workable?  Or is it–like Marxism–an accurate diagnosis of the tendency of careerism to distort the soul tied to an unworkable cure?

I’m not sure.  I’m convinced that conservatives must fight careerism, explicit and implicit, when it erodes the morale of these other honorable ways of life.  We are the natural allies of the cleric, the unambitious family man, and the housewife.  Some people, men and women, indeed have callings to a career, and God speed to them.  I decided I wanted to be a physicist in third grade.  In fifth grade, my mother once punished me by forbidding me to read about the theory of relativity for a weekend.  By junior high, I had taught myself multivariable calculus.  (I used to sneak into my parents’ bedroom to read my father’s college calculus book–I needed it to follow an exposition I’d found on the Euler-Lagrange equations.  For some reason, I thought this was something I wasn’t supposed to be doing.)  Most of the other kids I knew weren’t like that.  As seniors in high school, they didn’t know what they wanted to “do with their lives”, even as the pressures to find a career calling in their souls got ever stronger.  Most people don’t have a particular career calling–their passions lie elsewhere–and there’s nothing wrong with that.  It may be necessary in today’s world for the man to take on a career, and not just a job, anyway, to work as if he had a passion he doesn’t have.  I do not concede this, but I admit the possibility.  Let us put up a fight, though, before we let careerism devour home life as a whole.  We certainly should not push women, whom nature has particularly ordained to the care of young children, into the careerist path unless they have a genuine calling for it.  It may still be necessary (and given how the non-work related social world has been practically deserted, it may even sometimes be desireable) for noncareer women to have jobs, so long as their maternal duties come first.  Patriarchy gives no inflexible rules here.  It only demands that family duties come before work in our self-understanding.  In fact, family duties inform our understanding of work, i.e. seeing it primarily in terms of the father’s provider role rather than as a means to “self-actualization”.

What feminism offers

More from GROIN:

Women had it better when they had a sacred role. Now, they’re pieces of meat. Meat to fondle and fornicate with, like a prostitute but they don’t get paid (except in dubious “pleasure”). Meat to throw into the wheels of the machine as some desk-bound functionary. Meat to watch hundreds of hours of television that saps its self-esteem, compelling it to buy more products.

The result of feminism is femicide: the destruction of female lives. Not quickly, like murder, but slowly over the course of decades. We turn them into pieces of meat and cogs in the machine, then tell them that “empowerment” means casual sex followed by years alone in their lifeless apartments, sipping Chardonnay and surfing Amazon.com, wondering about the could-have-beens: could have been a mother, could have been really loved, could have been something more than a desk-bound functionary with a high wine bill and low self-esteem.

What we think of feminism, female empowerment and pro-grrl ideals are in fact a subtle trap that lures women from a place of importance, and instead turns them into chattel. The ideal alternative is a traditional society, but trillions of dollars of movies, government propaganda, books, magazines and TV shows tell you otherwise.

A crisis moment for the Anglo-American Left?

Suppose it is true that, in its enthusiasm for buggery, Anglo-American liberalism has decided to drop the pretense of neutrality between competing comprehensive moral systems.  What will this mean for Leftism in these countries?  Is this just another case of progression towards greater self-awareness and self-consistency on the Left, of the Left dropping no-longer-necessary compromises and achieving greater ideological purity?  Is it just a change in how Leftists will argue with their opponents, or how they will understand their own commitments?

Why is it, we should ask, that the Left (at least in England and its offshoots) has always made such a boast of its “neutrality”?  I have sometimes suspected that this is just an argument tactic, that liberals think that it will be easier to sell their beliefs as the neutral position, the “agreeing to disagree” position, than to establish that their beliefs are actually true.  They want the reward of having proved their beliefs true–government policy organized on their principles–without having to actually supply the proof.  If that is what some liberals are thinking, it seems pretty misguided to me.  I think one can make a much more plausible case that Leftist social policy is objectively just and good than that it is in any interesting sense neutral.  Of course, I don’t agree with that former claim either, but, to give a concrete example, it’s a lot easier to make the argument that traditional gender roles are oppressive than to argue that Leftist policy is neutral on the question of whether they should be encouraged or discouraged.

However, when I read liberals’ writings, I usually get the impression that their claim to neutrality is more than just a tactic.  It seems to be an important part of how they understand themselves.  I see two reasons for this.  First, Leftists cannot seem to accept the fact that they are the establishment and not some small band of intrepid rebels.  (A couple of years ago, I read an amusing story, related by Mark Steyn, about how one of President Obama’s ministers had gone to ball out someone, some government functionary or businessman or something like that, and said in doing so she was “speaking truth to power”.  Steyn said something to the effect of “Dude, you are the power.  Admit it.”)  Of course, their whole “plucky underdog rebels” self-understanding is getting harder and harder to take seriously as their hegemony becomes more and more overpowering.  Second, the Left’s fundamental principle is autonomy, of which they take a very expansive view, to the point of demanding that each person be free to define the meaning of life, the universe, and everything for themselves.  This makes it very difficult for them to say that some moral system (even their own one based on autonomy!) is objectively true and should be enforced by the State.  There are the makings of a contradiction here.  Perhaps a subtle liberal understanding of autonomy and government action could get around it, but the claim to be neutral (and that this “neutrality” somehow involves enforcing liberalism on all aspects of life) makes it easy.  Dropping this would presumably force the more reflective ones to grapple with the question of what it could actually mean to enforce autonomy, which–because this is their ultimate goal–could prompt a real existential crisis for the Left.  It would mean abandoning their current synthesis of liberal thought, and it’s not obvious what they would replace it with.

I suspect that most Leftists are hoping that this whole issue will blow over before it provokes any real crisis.  They are calculating on the resistance to the androgynist/homosexual agenda being weak, and that it will collapse under a small amount of coercion.  Whether or not that coercion was really consistent with liberal neutrality theory will then be a mute issue.  It will be no more danger to their ideology than, say, the issue of whether laws that one must display one’s license plate on one’s car are neutral toward people who think this is a horribly wicked thing to do.  Since such people are entirely hypothetical, nobody cares if we’re being neutral toward them.  Even dissenters who are not hypothetical, but are in the past, are not a real threat.  The fact that liberalism “broke” this dissent using illiberal means is just an irony of history, an accident of the fact that those were rougher, less liberal times (and thus, ironically, the illiberal behavior of liberals is made to seem the fault of their victims, the society they were transforming).  Someday, looking back on this incident, they may think “Of course the patriarchists were treated roughly.  Back then, everyone was made brutal by patriarchy, even the liberals who exterminated it.  How horrid patriarchy was, that it made even its enemies so cruel!  Let us be grateful that they put all of that behind us.”

If this is what liberals are hoping will happen, then it means we can provoke a crisis for them just by visibly surviving.  If, in the next couple of years, some people lose their jobs or get some intimidation from angry mobs, and then everybody falls into line, then liberalism will be secure.  If, twenty years from now, people are still getting fired and terrorized in large numbers, that’s a crisis for them.  To avert such a crisis, they may try to escalate the repression, but the harder they make it, the worse their position will be if it doesn’t work.

A Rubicon moment for the Anglo-American Left?

On the European Continent–especially France, Spain, and Russia–there’s never been any doubt that the Left is anti-Christian; the quest to eradicate Christianity from public life has been practically its defining feature since the eighteenth century.  Liberalism in England and America, while acknowledged by friends and enemies as a Leftist movement, has always tried to understand its relationship to Christianity, and other religions and “comprehensive” philosophies, differently.  Supposedly, Anglo-American Leftism does not require historical Christian orthodoxy to be false, only controversial or irrelevant to governing.  Liberalism presents itself as a neutral position, an agreement to disagree and not throw the weight of government coercion one way or the other.  Thus, liberals are fond of saying that a policy of legal abortion is a way of not deciding whether the act in question is murder or harmless lifestyle enhancement.  I think this claim is untenable–and I especially don’t see how the neutrality line is consistent with liberals’ insistence that the government make sure that women have easy access to abortions, as if whether or not this is something that is good to have access to weren’t the very thing liberals claim to be neutral about–but that’s an argument for another time.  Sometimes the supposed neutrality of the liberal state is presented as a recognition of how little power government has to influence the private morals of its citizens:  “You can’t police bedrooms”, and all that.  Again, there are arguments for and against this view, but at least it’s not obviously absurd.  It seems perfectly possible for someone to say, for example, “I think prostitution is utterly wicked, but attempts by the government to suppress it would be futile and counterproductive”.

In the past few years, Anglo-American liberalism has basically abandoned this “neutrality” position.  It did this by embracing the homosexual agenda.  Now, one can imagine a sodomy-friendly liberal policy that plausibly respects the strictures of official neutrality, e.g. “We liberals don’t think the state should take any position on the morality or lack thereof of homosexual acts.  We won’t punish them, and we won’t bar sodomites from government positions.  If someone thinks that what these people are doing is wrong, they are free to argue it in the free marketplace of ideas.”  However, the Left–and I mean the entire Anglosphere Left–has gone far beyond this.  It insists that homosexual relationships are positively good.  It sets aside a whole month to officially celebrate them.  It seeks to award civil benefits to those who claim to be engaged in such relationships.  It demands that public schoolchildren be taught to hold a positive view of active homosexuals.  Furthermore, the Left–and I mean the entire Left–believes that disapproval of homosexuality is itself a social vice that must be eradicated by government action.  Schoolchildren holding gender essentialist views are now actively terrorized by euphemistically-named “anti-bullying” campaigns.  The state has broken off collaborations with the Catholic Church precisely because the Church refuses to endorse what the Left regards as the unquestionable good of homosexuality.  There is no way that a liberal can say that liberalism is neutral on the moral question of homosexuality–or the related ontological/teleological question of gender; it is actively campaigning for one view and using the power of the state to discourage other views.  Nor can liberals claim that they are simply keeping their noses out of other peoples’ business because they don’t think the state has any real power to affect public morals.  The whole point of their campaign is to alter the public’s moral perceptions.  This necessarily means redefining marriage in the minds of its participants into a genderless arrangement and impeding the ability of gender essentialist and/or religious parents from transmitting their moral beliefs to their children.

So liberalism isn’t even pretending to be neutral anymore.  Fine, you might say, what’s the big deal?  I mean, nobody but a few political science professors ever really imagined it was.  Most liberal voters hold the more forthright view that their moral opinions are objectively correct and should be reflected in law for that reason.  It’s best that they drop the whole “neutrality” smokescreen now, so we can get to the serious work of arguing over whether their beliefs (utilitarianism, tolerance, etc) really are true.

But there is something new and troubling.  Aside from idolatry and possibly adultery, no sin is condemned as clearly and forcefully by the Christian tradition as sodomy.  Whether one looks at the Bible, the Fathers, Popes, or Protestant Reformers, the witness is unanimous.  Nor is this a belief that the Church just absorbed from the surrounding culture; opposition to homosexuality was, like opposition to infanticide and polygamy, one of the defining features of Christian life in opposition to paganism, whose opinion of these practices was more ambiguous.  Now, liberalism claims that not only is homosexuality morally unproblematic, but that disapproval of it is itself a grave moral fault–the supreme liberal sin of intolerance.  Thus, liberalism now claims that one of Christianity’s clearest and strongest moral stands is itself wicked.  If true, this would mean that Christianity must be a false religion.  Liberals may admit that Christianity has a few correct teachings, but they are committed to eradicating the belief that it is a reliable guide to truth about morals and human nature.

That’s the new thing.  Anglo-American liberalism has not admitted before that it wants to make it official policy that Christianity is a false religion.  The real reasons to oppose the androgynist agenda, of which the approval of homosexual perversion is only one part, are philosophical and anthropological; they don’t rely on any particular revelation.  However, it is certainly worth noting that Leftism now regards it a matter of basic justice that the religion of the majority of the American population be rejected as false.

Civil war in the MRM

“Vir” writes

The MRM-sphere is slowly gaining momentum as it faces its own identity crisis: do we want to become another victims’ rights group, or are we a movement for a uniquely male place in the world?

Those who find masculinism more appealing than victimhood are not the most popular party in this debate, because victimhood has two salient advantages: it lets us follow the pattern that feminism set up, and that is a path of least resistance that lets us continue to live sloppy, careless lives….

Our society starting hating men in 1789, when we started demanding that everyone be equal…1789 was followed by 200 years of warfare to establish this principle as winning out. Finally, in 1991 it won — by abandoning its hard-line edge with the Soviet Union, and instead embracing the kind of fat ‘n’ sloppy that makes America so wealthy and so frustrating. Consumerism and socialism joined as one.

The 1960s can be characterized as the switch from majoritarianism to minoritarianism in America, when the moral high ground shifted from the majority to anybody who can successfully characterize themselves as a victimized minority. – iSteve

Since that time, we’ve seen the same pattern from those committee meetings and revolutions mentioned above: a small group crowds out the rest and legitimizes incompetence if and only if that incompetence is paired with the right dogma, e.g. loudly proclaiming how we’re all equal and it’s great.

You can see this in how feminists work. At your average university, a couple of them penetrate the English department or the Philosophy department. Then they use passive aggression, or strategically being offended by others and thus demanding the punishment of those others, to remove anyone but the feminists.

Soon it’s like a prison gang. They rule, and to get ahead, you brain-numbingly repeat their warped dogma….

Our society is dying. No, “the corporations” didn’t do it — the voter did. The average person experienced a failing of personal moral responsibility and stopped making realistic decisions, and started making convenient ones. As a result, we threw away culture and let the incompetents rule us through commerce.

Now we live in a troubled world. Our technology is no longer advancing. We’re polluting the planet. Our cities are ugly, loud, filthy places where we sit around in cars because traffic is bad. Our jobs have been adjusted downward so idiots can do them, and as a result, they are boring. We can no longer have pleasant relationships between the sexes, so we use each other and then simmer in the swarming distrust.

One result of this is that as culture dies, and competence becomes rare, we become addicted to nanny state agencies like administrative government and large corporations that provide us with convenient but not necessarily healthy products. We have lost our will to act decisively, and have become couch-bound wimps.

If you wonder why masculinity is such a topic lately, this is why: we are fighting for our souls. We either decide we wish to be men who initiate, conquer and create, or we decide to become man-boys who fall back on the couch, play video games, and try to hide the fat girls they bring home on lonely nights.

More on men’s rights

Here‘s the best argument I’ve yet read for the MRM:  it’s a way to disprove androgynism via reducio ad absurdum:

Richard T. Ford’s new article, Rights Gone Wrong, laments the Alinskyite strategy increasingly deployed by White males of forcing the Civil Rights hustle to live up to its own rhetoric. He drips with contempt for his fellow males, appealing to his warped notion of “common sense”. For him, common sense boils down to the unspoken premise of the Civil Rights Movement: It’s a weapon to bludgeon White males. It’s inappropriate and nonsensical to apply the statutes as written, because the intention is the opposite of what’s written. It’s a fig leaf of universal rhetoric over the giant throbbing obscenity of anti-White and anti-male zero-sum identity politics.

Ford’s leopard-print thong is in a bunch because a man alleged sexual discrimination in a Mother’s Day contest. Of course he was sexually discriminated against for being a man, it was a Mother’s Day contest. Ford echoes the popular sentiment which is that the man should shut up and “man-up”. In a sane world, I would concur. However, there’s only one way to fight a social and legal system which is half-retarded and throws the retarded half in your lap: go full retard.

As for “Game”, I’m still struggling to find a good thing to say about it.  It’s not just that the central idea–that women are amoral automata driven totally by their sex drives and social pressure, that they possess neither consciences nor self-awareness–is offensive and obnoxious.  If an idea is true, then the fault for offensiveness lies with he who takes offense.  But that’s just it:  this claim is completely ridiculous.  The game model of women doesn’t describe any woman I’ve ever met.  It’s a male fantasy.  Would it do society good if women were taken down a peg, if their misbehavior were noted and criticized?  Sure, but let’s not fight the lie of feminism with an even more obvious falsehood.

The truth of the matter is peculiar, but it lies right before our eyes.  Our culture encourages women to be selfish, to regard career as “self-actualization” rather than service, to put career before family, to engage in reckless promiscuity without censor, to show unwarranted contempt for their husbands, to frivolously abandon their husbands and deprive their children of fathers, to murder their children.  If you don’t believe me, go over to Dalrock‘s page for a couple of hours, and you’ll be fully convinced.  One might expect that such a culture would turn women into immoral monsters.  It has indeed produced more than a few who’ve been lionized by the feminist media.  On the other hand, we see with out very eyes that most women continue to live responsible lives.  If you ask them, they will no doubt repeat the lines they’ve been told about “empowerment” and being “sex positive” being such good things.  But if you watch what they do, you’ll see most of them show great kindness to their families (including the men), sometimes even making real sacrifices for them.  They’re like the brother in the parable who said he wouldn’t help his father, but later did–hypocrites, but in a good way.

So traditionalists and MRM can’t work together after all?

A while back, Novaseeker wrote a fairly well-argued article against my claim that patriarchists/traditionalist conservatives should shun The Spearhead (and, by implication, the non-Christian faction of the “men’s rights movement”, hereafter “MSM”).  I wasn’t convinced, of course, but we might as well leave that to one side, because he actually seems to agree with me that traditionalists and MRM advocates cannot collaborate in any meaningful fashion.  The difference between him and me really just comes down to which team we’ve chosen.

First, it should be clear that much of what constitutes the “traditionalist right” can never be the ally of either Game or MRA — their goal is not to help men, but rather to erect a social/moral/political system that reflects their traditionalist ideologies, and make men confirm to their vision.  This is the case both for religious traditionalists as well as secularists who may long for more societal traditionalism.  “Helping men”, as men, is not really one of their key goals, as such.  To the degree that they sympathize with men and men’s issues, it is only to call into question the entirety of the current socio-political system in an effort to convince one to support an alternative total system — it is not to assist men in the current system, at least not in any significant way that would contradict what the utopian traditionalist version of reality would look like.  This does not mean that individual Gamers or MRAs cannot, or do not, hold some views that could be characterized as “traditionalist”.  It simply means that the traditionalist movements, as a whole, cannot be seen as allies, in any meaningful way, of anything in the MRA or Game movements.  They are, in fact, more of a hindrance to MRA and Game goals than they are anything else….

We already know that the traditionalists (who want you to man up and do what their system says you should do), the white nationalists and HBDers (who want you to man up and have lots of white babies), the neocons and liberals (who want you to tune in and tune out to serve their own interests) specifically want to tear men apart and reconstruct us according to what they want us to be, according to what they want us to do.  There are really only two movements that are focused on helping men, and helping men do what men want to do, in ways determined by men themselves — and those are MRA and Game.  It’s an oversimplification and an obfuscation to say that these are “two sides of the same coin” — they’re not.  They’re quite different, as we know.  But they are nevertheless two aspects, two ways, two approaches that are natural allies in that they alone do not seek to destroy men or channel men, or co-opt men, but rather to empower them — in different ways, to be sure, but above all by enabling men to have more informed choices about all aspects of their lives coupled with the freedom – legal, social — to make them.  No-one else is doing this.  No-one else is really qualified to be an “ally” of either group.   Both groups are, however, very well qualified to be allies of each other if — and this is a big “if” — the men involved on both sides can lay aside the well-worn tendency to tear each other apart and status monger, and instead recognize the commonalities, the unique commonalities, that really do make Game and MRA the most adequate allies for men who wish to help men, full stop.

Novaseeker and I agree on the following crucial points:

  1. MRM’s goals are incompatible with a traditionalist remoralization of society.  Rather that seeking to dignify men by rejuvenating patriarchal gender roles, it seeks to help men achieve power, power in the service of self-gratification rather than service.  Individualist “empowerment” is a Satanic goal.  Novaseeker is right to think that the Christian Right wants no part in it.
  2. On the other hand, the MRM does share a commonality of goals with the “Game” community, whose purpose is to teach men how to manipulate women for sex.  The traditionalist right is certainly not interested in “helping” men in this way.
  3. It is acknowledged that traditionalism and the alternative right represent a more radical critique of feminist society than the MRM, which only wants to relieve men of intolerable iniquities without questioning the Leftist/feminist order as a whole.

Finally, let me comment on the double standard that we see in MRM websites.  When a traditionalist criticizes the MRM, that’s an outrage that shows how narrow-minded we are.  How dare I say that MRM and conservatism are inconsistent?  But they can say it.  They can and do attack us all the time.  (And remember, Novaseeker is one of the MRM advocates that makes some efforts to be fair to us.  The criticisms you read above are mild by MRM standards.  Usually they call us morons and cowards and make vulgar insinuations against our wives.)  We are tyrannical utopians.  We are devious manipulators.  That or we’re the manipulated dupes of the feminists.

So any proposed Christian-MRM alliance would have been a very one-sided affair anyway.  We would have been expected to put their agenda first and to refrain from publicly criticizing them, while they would have gone on attacking us without restraint.  In other words, it would have been just like the Christian-libertarian one-sided alliance that constitutes the Republican Party.  The Christian and traditionalist Right seems to have a habit of forming one-sided alliances, and I say that they are worse than useless.  I prefer that the MRM choose the more honest way of admitted antagonism, so that they can hardly complain when we respond in kind.  This is one Christian who doesn’t turn the other cheek.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers