As part of my community outreach, I’ve contributed a piece to notorious men’s rights/post-conservative blog In Mala Fide.
This particular piece addresses the assault on masculinity from those who wish to divide it as a concept and by creating a false concept of it, thus obscure what men need to do in order to reclaim a place in this civilization.
It rejects the idea that we can become leftists, liberals and neo-Marxists and imitate the path of feminists in demanding equality, mainly because “equality” always punishes the group not perceived to be the underdog. That will always be men.
Men in this modern time are all kept men. You are kept because living in this society is easy if you don’t have any large goals. If all you want is a job, an apartment, some hobbies and a little fun, you are living in the period of history when this is easiest. True, the girls are all crazy and most of them are fat or have diseases, but that’s like the damaged goods shelf at Kroger, lower prices… and true, your apartment is in a trash-strewn wasteland where you’re as likely to get shot as noticed, but it’s at a discount too. You can just pass your whole life away in this method, without ever forming any goals that take you close to the edge of self-discovery or worse, challenging yourself. It’s a paradise for the chinless.
All of the above is a rather complicated way of telling you that masculinity is to you an unknown quantity. No one in the media, government or high society wants it to exist. None of your friends know anything about it. And if you start getting close to any idea approximating masculinity, the armies of the chinless will rise up and start complaining about how you offended them. – In Mala Fide, “Masculinity Versus the Age of the Chinless”
This article comes with all the added bonus products you expect in a Brett Stevens article: excessive use of quotation, random vocabulary, bullet pointed lists, excessive character assassination of pointless celebrities, and lengthy sentences starting languidly but working themselves up to urged, pointed conclusions.
What are you waiting for? Read it now.
44 queries. 1.190 seconds
I’ve observed that shorter articles tend to do better than longer ones on blogs.
It’s never a good thing when one polarity dominates another. Harmony exists in the proper balance between positive and negative, male/female, yin/yang, etc.
This is the essence of the concept of dynamic monism, that there exists is a unity that naturally polarizes at the extremes and, in turn, is fueled by the interaction between these two polarized opposite ends. The tension/frission that is created by these two polar opposites coming into close proximity is the energy that enlivens all existence. Without it, we would only have a void of unexperiencable possibilities, Mu/Nirvana/Pleroma.
The problem facing the Occident today is that the negative/female polarity has come to dominate the positive/male polarity, giving rise to such ideological abortions as Socialism/Marxism/Communism. These demonstrably malicious modes of herd conformity are nothing but the unresolved libidinal projections of the feminine mind gone berserk. The insanity of the enforced nanny state, if you will.
This is why I must respectfully disagree with the author’s assertion that it isn’t men that are under attack, but the concept of masculinity itself that is. Men, the physical embodiment of the masculine principle. It is their very existence that is now seen as the threat to out of balance gyno totalitarianism. This can be seen quite clearly today by the standard of man that these estrogenical nut jobs accept as the baseline of acceptability of “masculinity”, the slope-shouldered man-boy slobs you see at the OWS events, for instance. These are acceptable to them simply because they have been emasculated/castrated to the point where they are no longer even seen as physical threats to the multikulti suffargettes.
Really, the ultimate aim of all gender warfare is the destruction of the male principle. Of course this is an impossibility, because without the male/positive impulse there can be no interaction between the polarities, meaning that a totally unnatural state of existence would come into being. This is of course what we ares seeing today with the over-proliferation gender confused men and women we have now.
As to what can be done to solve the problem, I think that this age of hyper-feminazation can only be cured through another ensuing age of hyper-masculinazation. This is, I believe, the only way to counteract this current age of unbalance and to restore any semblance of natural order again.
amen, but how can one facitiltate such a Shift without raising the evil phantom of “mysogeny”? its awful, anytime i attempt to debate this with comrades,usually of the liberal (aka don’t have any actual well thought out opinion, only “john stewart’s”) caliber it always becomes a fling the shit at the “mysogenist” (who according to them “can’t get laid” so thats why he isn’t a “feminist”). i literally think that our society is so off its rocker that we as men must take the “equality” approach because people are literallt INCAPABALE of looking at things from “outside the 1960′s box”.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This period of touchy-feely multikulturalism will, in turn, be overturned by an age of overly aggressive jingoism and chauvinism.
It will be many, many years before we return to state of equilibrium. Until then, expect one age of turmoil after another.
One of the goals of this blog is to cause growth within conservatism so that this backlash does not go too far, thus “necessitating” another liberal revolt.
I am also unconvinced that liberalism and conservatism are necessary poles. That is, a conservative society survives just fine without liberalism. No liberal societies have lasted long enough for us to know if they can survive without conservatism; apparently, they just don’t survive.
the problem all along, was to assume there was going to be an “eternal struggle”, the idea that western civilization is this constant, definable progress of events,etc. really when you get down to it, “conservatism” is the realist perspective, because it preserves, what would otherwise be a dynamic chaotic force. (but yes i know you are being nietzchian!)