Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘feminism’

Feminism And MGTOW: Retarded Twins Separated At Birth

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

feminism is paranoid neurosis

Recently I watched The Golden One, Marcus Follin, on the Virtue of the West Podcast with Brittany Pettibone and Tara McCarthy. The subject of the MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way) came up.

I’ve dealt with the MGTOW crowd before on social media. Criticize them and they come out of the woodwork. They also have a problem with traditional marriage, which makes them seem cynical and jaded. I wouldn’t have much of a problem with them if they kept to themselves, but no they are evangelical. They want to make more MGTOWs to justify their choices. Misery loves company.

Many have critiqued feminism as being a philosophy for angry, ugly women. They’re not wrong. Most feminists seem to think the world owes them something, a man who is perfect, a perfect job in the city like Carrie Bradshaw, or a position of power she hasn’t earned. Many feminists also believe the anti-male rhetoric they learn in college or from the media. They are taught men are the enemy, potential rapists and abusers without remorse. Their solution is to become as unattractive to men as possible so they can avoid any of the possible problems that come with dealing with the cis het scum asking to buy them a drink.

That’s when it dawned on me: both MGTOW and feminism are cults based on selfishness and radical individualism. Both put the happiness of the individual before the good of society. Both are based on the notion that there are no responsibilities to society based upon the gender to which you were born. There is no obligation to perpetuate your genes.

Isn’t cult a bit strong? No both are exactly that. Disagree with them and they come after you. Criticize them and you will have your feed full of frustrated men and women who’ve decided to check out of the human race.

To understand the mental state of the MGTOWs and feminists and how closely they actually are, let’s look at each in depth. First, modern day feminism is ostensibly based on notions of egalitarianism. But feminists don’t simply believe that women should have equal political rights to men, they believe it is the role of the state to control any behavior that might indicate that there is a difference between the sexes, biological or psychological

Pronouns and self-labeling have become absurd. There are what, thirty-eight genders at last count? Misgendering someone can get you fired or sued, and if you suggest that transgenderism is a mental disorder you’ll end up on a watch list.

Today feminists promote ideas such as refusal to date trannies makes you transphobic, you have to date butter huffers or you’re fatphobic, and if you have any preference at all (God forbid white women should prefer their own race) you’re basically a bad person. They also seem to think Sharia law is feminist, female genital mutilation can be liberating, and intersectionality won’t end badly for them. Because being forced to cover up or get stoned to death is the essence of equality.

We’ve all heard the jokes about thirty-five year old women with three cats, two abortions, and a bottle of chardonnay crying about how there are no good men left. Their problem is that they blame men for all that is wrong with the world, and by world I mean their personal lives. Feminism has taught women they are victims and there is nothing they can do about it.

Sound selfish? It is. Feminism is largely a philosophy that comes out of the individualism preached by so many libertarians. Which is ironic because libertarians generally oppose third-wave feminism.

Feminism is also a philosophy of revenge. Witness the banging on about “muh wage gap” feminists are so quick to bring up when someone dares say that men and women are equal under the law. Title IIV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination in the workplace based upon gender. So if a woman is being paid less than a man with equal qualifications and experience she can sue her employer. No need for additional virtue signaling legislation.

Feminism has convinced women of my generation, Gen X, that they should be like men. Have indiscriminant sex, buy yourself anything your heart desires, take up jobs that will bring social status, and don’t have children. The “childfree” life is where it’s at! This is all based upon the notion that happiness is rooted in individualism. Do whatever you want today, tomorrow isn’t guaranteed, so if you live for the future, if you live for your children, you’ll miss out on the moment.

That’s dysgenic.

In response to the fact that many women today have abandoned feminine virtue by sleeping around, taking offense to every little act of kindness from men, and obsessing over why women still can’t be Navy SEALs, some men have started checking out too. Some of the Alt-Right came in from the manosphere. This isn’t going to make me popular with them, but so what? They need to hear how selfish their retarded philosophy is.

Now let’s talk about MGTOWs. Go on any MGTOW site, or watch their YouTube videos, and you’ll quickly see two things. First you’ll notice they worship men like Newton and Tesla. That is, men who achieved great things without having ever been married. Next you’ll notice that there is a lot of anger towards women. To be honest, I understand. I’ve had friends go through nasty divorces where their women took them for most of what they had. Most of my friends and I have been cheated on and I’ve also known men who have been in very abusive relationships. Feminism took women away from their natural role and turned them into angry monsters.

The MGTOW analysis of how marital law screws men is not incorrect. Just look at the stories on r/PussyPass to get an idea of what women are allowed to get away with for proof. My problem with the MGTOWs comes in the solution they provide.

MGTWOs want men to go on strike, refusing to marry or have kids. This dysgenic behavior isn’t something a traditionalist member of the Alt-Right can afford to subscribe to. Marriage and family mean sacrifice and hard work on the part of both parties. But the ugly individualism of modernity and the “what’s in it for me” mindset of too many children and grandchildren of the “Me generation” has caused people to use marriage law in ways it was never intended.

Feminism is based in radical individualism. And so too is MGTOW. The solution to men’s problems in the relationship world isn’t to give up and surf the internet for porn every night. One guy on Gab recently told me the new orgasm capable sex dolls would be a good option for men. I bowed out of the discussion. How do you insult a man who admits he would prefer to fuck a piece of rubber?

Both feminism and MGTOW are rooted in a conspiracy theory, namely that the other sex is out to ruin their lives in some way. Whether it’s “the patriarchy” or “thots” this mindset is destructive to us as a group. In the interview with The Golden One, McCarthy mentions r/K selection theory and its relationship to modern relationships. She is right to do so. Unfortunately many of the people who believe in these twin ideas are the people who should be having children, but they’re not. They’re off having girls’ night, or guy’s night, spending money recklessly on ephemeral pleasure, and in general acting as if they never got out of college. All this is done with the assumption that there are no consequences to believing the other sex is out to get you.

If you want true happiness find a woman, and make her want to be a better woman. Simple fact guys is this, you’re not going to find that virgin QT after about the age of twenty-one. The “no hymen, no diamond” crowd will have to learn to accept that most women have known the touch of a man. Really, it’s okay. Just don’t marry a woman with a number higher than the sub-Saharan average IQ and you can forge a lasting, loving relationship.

Men, women are not out to get you. They’re really not. Most women simply want companionship with someone who will treat her with dignity and respect. We are the product of our ancestors, and in the last forty years we’ve not lost the hearts and souls produced by millennia of traditional marriage and childrearing.

Women, men don’t want to see you enslaved to a kitchen living life as nothing but a baby factory. We simply understand that men and women have different natures. The sexual revolution produced one of society’s Big Lies: You can have it all. Women you have within you the ability to create life, and the temperament necessary to build a home for a man.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Men build civilizations for women so women can build homes for  men.

Point out that refusing to have anything to do with relationships is dysgenic and will ultimately leave you unhappy and frustrated and they come back with doublespeak saying men are free to choose to be in a relationship if they want. It’s about going your own way, not being a slave to women. Except when you choose to be a husband or do something they don’t like they jump on you and call you a SIMP.

This is ridiculous and both the feminists and the MGTOWs need to stop, it’s counterproductive and hurts not only women infected by the mind virus of feminism but also the good men and women still fighting for traditional Western values.

Diversity Advocates Reveal Their Actual Goal: Remove Whites

Friday, May 19th, 2017

The American Mathematical Society decided to publish this rant which reveals the intent behind diversity programs of removing the white majority entirely from power:

I have this talk that I give and afterwards, I will often get concerned white men asking me what they can do to fight sexism. But they’re not really thinking about ending sexism. They’re thinking about progress. They want to know which benefits the cis male hoarders-of-power can offer to women so that we don’t feel so bad and complain so much and contribute to such dismal numbers. This is natural, reasonable even, but sexist all the same.

…What can universities do? Well, that’s easier. Stop hiring white cis men (except as needed to get/retain people who are not white cis men) until the problem goes away. If you think this is a bad or un-serious idea, your sexism/racism/transphobia is showing.

…If you are on a hiring committee, and you are looking at applicants and you see a stellar white male applicant, think long and hard about whether your department needs another white man. You are not hiring a researching robot who will output papers from a dark closet. You are hiring an educator, a role model, a spokesperson, an advisor, a committee person. When you hire a non-marginalized person, you are not just supporting this one applicant whom you like, you are rewarding a person who has been rewarded his whole life. You are justifying the system that makes his application look so good. You are not innocent. You are perpetuating a system that requires your participation if not your consent. When your female students of color have no role models in your department, that’s not “meritocracy”; that’s on you. Again, if you think the “great mathematicians” are disproportionately male because of meritocracy, then your sexism is showing.

Diversity and feminism are subsets of egalitarianism; if all people are equal, we cannot admit that some are unequal because of race or sex. For this reason, the inequality of results must be fixed by filtering out the whites, which is what affirmative action was designed to do. No matter how often diversity is represented as the following:

They want to know which benefits the cis male hoarders-of-power can offer to women so that we don’t feel so bad and complain so much and contribute to such dismal numbers.

The actual agenda is:

Stop hiring white cis men (except as needed to get/retain people who are not white cis men) until the problem goes away.

Since the problem with never go away because individuals and groups are inherently diverse, or varied in ability most of which is inherited, then this becomes a permanent crusade against white people, much as affirmative action has.

Leave Progress Ahead Of You

Tuesday, April 4th, 2017

I knew a very intelligent man who loved what feminism was originally about. He would do this thing where he talked about first, second, third, even fourth wave feminism.

He would say, for example, “Third wave feminism is simply about arguing that gender is a social construct and nothing more.” He saw no problem with feminism itself, but would localize the problem to third or fourth wave feminism as a means of exonerating the original “true” feminism.

To my mind, this is trickery because it does not recognize the continuity between the original feminism and the version we face today. One develops into the other. Perhaps “decays” is a better word as things which may have been good in moderation or at certain times turn into societal decay.

As long as we ignore calling third or fourth wave feminism actual feminism, we may still hold some belief that it is actually a beneficial thing, that the core is golden, that some parts of it is good when in actuality all that we have is a version of it that went bad — or just “worse” — because as an inconsistent ideology, it naturally breaks down into something simpler and less sane.

We witness the same process in other areas where what starts out as one thing turns into something far worse. Eventually all societies decay. What was one law soon became a myriad of laws to micromanage the people for there is no end to how many laws that can control us, it all keeps on going until society self-destructs.

There is no end to the number of laws or rights created as each person wants a rule for their specific circumstance. There is no end to making comparisons and attempting to equalize different people within society, because jealousy goes on looking. There is no end to such madness while people are looking for benefits for themselves, which they will keep on doing.

This is why at the heart of it conservatism is a very limited way of life. The conservative is careful not to do or say too much, and keep to the traditional ways for any and all things will develop into something else. The most dangerous societal concepts, like rights, are so useful that they proliferate like crazy: everyone wants one.

The first to the fourth law of conservatism ought to be: avoid progress, because it will start out innocently and become a monster. Because defensive ideas like “rights” mutate, we should simply not go there. Do not be progressive; stay normal, and you will avoid the forces of decay that turn our good intentions into nightmares.

Feminism Destroys Femininity

Thursday, March 23rd, 2017

Feminism disguises its origins, but its essence arises from egalitarianism, this time applied to the sexes. Much as the classes were once democratized, now the sexes are as well, which means that women must be “equal” to men; this democratizing process only occurs through one method, which is reducing standards so all can participate and taking from the productive to give to the non-productive.

It is therefore not surprising or shocking that feminism, which argues for equality, does so by advocating a force inequality by which those who naturally succeed are penalized in order to subsidize those who naturally succeed less. In the process of advocating this, it becomes a movement against men, which then turns women into replacements for men, destroying all hope of equitable relations between the sexes.

Rebecca Lemke criticizes this tendency of feminism by pointing out its alienating properties… for women:

This sense that freedom is the ability to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and that the earlier I can experience this total freedom, the better. But we know that freedom is the ability to do what you ought to do, to do the good, to choose the good. – Colleen Carroll Campbell

…It always baffled me how I was told that men were supposed to be the oppressors, their traits and qualities were undesirable and they were what was wrong with society, but in order to exercise our equality correctly, I was supposed to act the same way and do the same the things I was supposed to hate about them. I was supposed to be strong (read: obstinate), independent (I was told no woman should need a man), and taught that men were always wrong, women were always right, and I should never apologize to one for anything.

I was supposed to believe what we (women) wanted was equality, but I never believed it.

Feminism, not the patriarchy, was what tried to steal my choices and my femininity.

When equality — not harmony, or like an ecosystem, a balance between unequal but vital parts — becomes the goal, it turns women into men and men into women as a means of evening out those inequalities. This in turn redirects the question of what actions are desirable from doing what is good, to acting toward equality, which is a proxy for the good.

This sabotages women’s hope of a family without internal politics of resentment. Men and women become competing forces, and as enemies, treat each other poorly, which means that they have trouble staying married. This in turn deprives both men and women for what constitutes the best option for life, an enduring love, marriage and family.

From this comes the destruction of the family for trivial reasons, not the large scenarios of evil victimizers versus innocent victims the media likes to portray, leading to decreased happiness for people in marriage:

A recent study from the Marriage Foundation in England found that couples with newborns who were unhappy in their marriage but who stayed together were actually likely to be happy a few years later.

The authors write that of the unhappiest parents — “those scoring 1 or 2 on a 7-point scale — only 7 percent of these said they were still unhappy 10 years later, regardless of whether they stayed together or split up. Two thirds said they were happy or very happy, scoring 6 or 7.”

Inability to work past trivial problems suggests a lack of trust caused by the polarization of the sexes brought about by feminism and sexual liberation. When there is no expectation of harmony, since it has been replaced by the ideology of equality, people no longer look toward good end results, only an intermediate state of perpetual symbolic correctness via the idea of being equals.

Equality as a concept seizes human minds and makes them unable to function because it is an appealing sense of power. In this quest for power, every person becomes opposed to every other person, and works to shatter them and their needs. As the West reels from low reproduction rates, high divorce and other social problems, we have only this equality mind virus to blame.

Deprived Of Your Tribe

Wednesday, March 15th, 2017

In the modern time, where every consideration is based in the individual, people have trouble conceptualizing things of importance that are larger than the individual, despite such things being the one and only path toward significance, meaning and pleasure in life itself.

One of these things — we might call them “transcendentals,” or qualitative and not quantitative measurements of reality — is identity, or the knowledge of having a group, gang, cult, troupe, army, family or tribe to which one belongs. Identity is important; it conveys the notion of having a purpose and a direction, which are the rarest things among all humans.

And yet, people are deprived of their tribes by the false tribalism of ideology:

I’m a feminist, so shouldn’t the men I date and sleep with be feminists too?

…But men looking for feminist-sanctioned romance tend to fall in to one of two categories: those who use our attraction as a sign of approval and seek out trophy feminists to clear their conscience of any inherent patriarchal wrong-doing, and outright predators who employ a bare-bones knowledge of feminist discourse to target any young woman whose politics so much as graze the notion of sex-positivity.

Ideology replaces organic membership with a type of vote: you affirm the dogma, and then are accepted. Since the dogma consists of symbols without any feedback loop to check whether or not you understand them and to what degree, it becomes a comedy of swearing allegiance to the unknown and then manipulating the authority conferred for personal gain.

The dogma then becomes a means of manipulation. It is trivial to claim allegiance to the dogma, and then to use that membership in a group for personal gain. For this reason, the men drawn to feminism are those most likely to be rapists; the people drawn toward altruism are those most likely to steal from the rest. They are given a cover story by the symbol of goodness, which is license to steal.

In turn, this destroys the identity of groups. With equality, whatever makes a group unique is erased in service to the idea of making everyone equal. For example, look at the erasure of gay culture by equality:

In our lifetime, the gay community has made more progress on legal and social acceptance than any other demographic group in history. As recently as my own adolescence, gay marriage was a distant aspiration, something newspapers still put in scare quotes. Now, it’s been enshrined in law by the Supreme Court. Public support for gay marriage has climbed from 27 percent in 1996 to 61 percent in 2016. In pop culture, we’ve gone from “Cruising” to “Queer Eye” to “Moonlight.” Gay characters these days are so commonplace they’re even allowed to have flaws.

Still, even as we celebrate the scale and speed of this change, the rates of depression, loneliness and substance abuse in the gay community remain stuck in the same place they’ve been for decades. Gay people are now, depending on the study, between 2 and 10 times more likely than straight people to take their own lives. We’re twice as likely to have a major depressive episode. And just like the last epidemic we lived through, the trauma appears to be concentrated among men. In a survey of gay men who recently arrived in New York City, three-quarters suffered from anxiety or depression, abused drugs or alcohol or were having risky sex—or some combination of the three. Despite all the talk of our “chosen families,” gay men have fewer close friends than straight people or gay women. In a survey of care-providers at HIV clinics, one respondent told researchers: “It’s not a question of them not knowing how to save their lives. It’s a question of them knowing if their lives are worth saving.”

The brutal thing is: a tribe cannot be defined by opposition to others, only by what it hopes to achieve. Minority cultures are dependent on the majority culture, causing resentment and from that, resistance. Within that comes the seeds of their own doom: when given the autonomy they crave, their unifying mission is erased, and the culture disappears.

Dogma and anti-culture pervade the tribal landscape of the balkanized West. At some point, the easy gambit of opposing the majority becomes obsolete, and people must assert what they stand for, instead of what they stand against. The tragedy is at this point, few know what that is, and so their tribes will be assimilated into the democracy and shopping malls anti-culture of the herd.

Why The Left Adores Pacifism

Monday, February 20th, 2017

Robert Stacy McCain observes the loser psychology of the Left:

Feminists refuse to confront the reality that there are evil forces in the world which wish us harm.

…Feminists can denounce the president as a “fascist,” and suffer no harm, but what would become of these fools if America was not protected by brave troops obedient to our Commander in Chief?

The Left makes zero sense until you understand them as individualists. They want to be free from any risk in decision-making, of the Darwinian kind including a loss of social status, while they are still able to enjoy the benefits of society, and are empowered to game the system by being able to make public, symbolic gestures of goodness that obscure the moral level of their other acts.

They hide this philosophy in egalitarianism because the plural of “I can do anything I want” is “we can do anything we want” and this type of collectivized individualism compels all of the members of the gang to defend each other, and so is the most effective method of building a cult-like revolutionary movement within a thriving society.

It makes sense to note this: Leftists do not create civilizations; they attach to them, or rise up within them, and then act as all parasites do. They siphon off nutrition and as they get more numerous, clog the internal motion necessary for homeostasis and gradually weaken and then kill the civilization. Leftists want you to see them as independent; a better comparison is the mosquito or cholera.

The thing about parasites is that if the host dies, all they need is another host nearby. For this reason, it is important for Leftists to encourage the host civilization to embark on any wars it cannot win. Once it is conquered, the Leftists will be there to collaborate with the enemy in exchange for a position in the enemy where they can continue their parasitism.

One reason that theories about The Rich™, The Masons™ or The Jews™ taking over our civilization are silly is that these theories are designed to conceal the actual parasite, which is the Leftist. Maybe the others are also parasites… evidence suggests they are varied, like any other human group. But what they do pales in comparison to the damage Leftism does.

A parasite needs to be like a good snake oil salesman or celebrity. It must constantly draw attention to itself in a way that displays its moral goodness through symbolic acts, because these are a cover for its immoral acts like parasitism itself. Think of it like a businessman: it is more efficient to give 10% a year than spend 20% of every deal ensuring it is ethical and constructive.

This “virtue signaling” is the hallmark of the Leftist and shows us that their ideology is not a philosophy but a pathology. They have zero interest in whether their words are true; what matters is — like the salesman, again — how their words are perceived by others in terms of making the Leftist look good.

If you wonder why Leftist politicians can approve obviously insane and non-working policies and laws, here is your answer. They do not care whether the policy works; in fact, it serves them better if it does not, and creates more social chaos which in turn engenders more unhappy, neurotic and rootless people that can be recruited into the Leftist gang.

Pacifism appeals to the Left because it is part of their stable of “reality is not reality” thinking. Leftists realize they do not have to be radical innovators in order to look like profound inventors, which they do by acting out the script of an inventor.

The inventor is remember by the group for having essentially said “reality is not reality” in a specific area; the way everyone was thinking about a problem was wrong, and some guy beat it, so it turns out that what most people think of reality is not reality… in that specific area. Leftists want this power more generally, and so they act out the script of claiming most people are wrong in order to appear to be radical innovators.

Conventional knowledge, common sense, logical fact and history hold that the best way to achieve peace is to have a deterrent to aggression. If you can cost the enemy more than he can likely gain, and create uncertainty that he can win, then you are as safe from him as you can be. If you declare pacifism, he will roll in and conquer you, at which point the parasites transfer to him.

Conquerors like the Romans and Genghis Khan experienced this in their own adventures. Whenever they conquered a state or city, there were people there waiting to be of service to the new regime. These people had been highly powerful before and so, it stood to reason, they were competent. Instead they were often parasites, which increased the viral load for Rome while healing some of its territories.

The “reality is not reality” approach of the Leftist recognizes the truth of the need for a military. In fact, if Leftists consistently oppose something, it is a good idea to reconsider it as it usually will be something good. Leftists want to virtue signal their independence from need and their moral supremacy, and humans — especially women — respond to pacifism as if it were good.

In reality, this “good” is just rationalization of a problem to the point of explaining it away. No hippie ever had a good answer for what would happen if the Soviets charged through the American heartland. But, a good salesman makes people feel better by explaining away actual problems so that instead the victims of his con focus on what he wants them to see, which is his virtue.

Feminism — entirely a subset of Leftism — opposes the military because it wants to weaken the nation around it and conquer that nation for its own purposes. Like any other viral thought, feminism “seems” intelligent, good, moral, etc. but turns out to be a deception. Its pacifism is a ruse to the end of that deception, and can safely be considered insane like the rest of feminism.

This Is How They Think

Saturday, January 21st, 2017

The root of modernity is individualism. The individual wants to be included by mechanistic action like equality, as this guarantees he cannot lose but also allows him to continue to agitate for more. In groups, individuals agree that this is best, and so they create collectivized individualism, or mob rule called crowdism. Like a gang or cult, this infests society and subverts it by reversing thinking from principle to results (cause to effect) to thinking that argues from what is, and tries to find a way to justify it as socially good or bad so that it advances the crowdist narrative. To do this, it creates the mythos of itself as a victim so that its taking of wealth and power from society can be justified as positive. This creates a one-dimensional world where whatever makes everyone feel included is good, and everything else is a source of victimhood and bad, so this must be fought instead of the real-world problems that civilization faces. From that thinking one gets the type of smug, entitled and witless thinking demonstrated by this poster for the women’s anti-Trump protests today.

Why the Right Needs Feminism

Saturday, December 17th, 2016

I want to start this article off with a simple statement: the Right needs feminism. I can hear your cries of indignation echoing through the tubes of the Internet, but hear me out.

The so-called “crisis of masculinity” – that is to say “the ongoing and ever changing struggle to find an acceptable compromise between the primal gang masculinity […] and the level of restraint required of men to maintain a desirable level of order in a given civilization”1 – is, as Jack Donovan notes, an inevitable result of modern civilization. The question has never been ‘is there a crisis of masculinity?’ Nay, that “problem is as old as civilization itself.”2 Instead, the question is ‘under what conditions can we address this crisis?’

It is my contention that, although seemingly counterintuitive, feminist epistemology has been the impetus (if not the primary force) behind movements to solve the crisis of masculinity. To understand why, we must journey back to 1949 and examine the introduction to the French existentialist Simone de Beauvoir’s seminal work, The Second Sex.3

In The Second Sex, de Beauvoir lays out a Hegelian (and arguably structuralist) understanding of womanliness and femininity. While we will not get into a detailed analysis of her argument, a cursory understanding is necessary before moving forward. For her, masculinity (whatever that may mean) has been the culturally hegemonic force in history and has shaped the identities of those around it. Specifically, she argues that masculinity has been the norm – “both the positive and neutral” electric poles in philosophical inquiry whereas women represent “only the negative, defined by limiting criteria”4 – and that womanliness and femininity have been defined as a “lack” of masculine qualities.5 What is important to take from de Beauvoir’s analysis is the concept of binary opposition. Binary opposition, in a word, is the idea in linguistics and semiotics that says that things get their meanings by reference to what they are not.

de Beauvoir’s analysis, indeed her entire project, hinges upon a view of the world that holds masculinity as the dominant, culturally hegemonic force which, for centuries, it was. As she noted in 1949, “[a] man would never get the notion of writing a book on the peculiar situation of the human male.”6 But this is The Current Year™ and times have changed. Not only does Jack Donovan’s excellent book, The Way of Men, do precisely what de Beauvoir says is impossible, but the scores of authors Donovan cites show that, indeed, “the peculiar situation of the human male” is being examined.7 The question we must thus ask is why? de Beauvoir’s analysis was certainly correct in the late 40s and early 50s – there were no major analyses of masculinity – but her commentary doesn’t hold up today. What changed? Simply, the change was the rise of feminism and female identity politics.

In the early days of feminist theory, the questions of femininity and womanliness were only raised due to the hegemony of masculinity. Because masculinity was such a dominant force, it was used as a thesis by Hegelian feminists off which to bounce an antithesis of femininity. This feminist dialectic directly resulted in the rise of female identity and a more multipolar conception of gender. This multipolar conception of gender – that is to say, a world where female identity politics were recognized alongside masculine hegemony – gave masculinity a thesis off which to bounce its own ideas. It’s true, as Donovan notes, that the growth of civilization, the bountifulness of food, and the peacefulness of society made inevitable a crisis of masculinity insofar as men are now unable to partake in traditional activities that made them good at being men; instead they are confined to simulated, vicarious, and intellectualized masculinity.8 Indeed, “[w]hat are men supposed to do when there’s no land to settle and no one to fight?”9 However, Donovan only takes the analysis so far. Just because the crisis of masculinity was inevitable does not mean the study of manliness was. Just because modern society produced a crisis of masculinity does not mean that modern society would have necessarily produced an answer to it. Rather, something was needed to force the issue of masculinity to the forefront of people’s minds. That something was feminism. Feminism created a reactionary male counterpart.

Absent a counterhegemonic force, we would be paralyzed by the crisis of masculinity with no way to define ourselves as men. There would be no male studies absent the rise of feminism; there would be no attempts to define masculinity absent an understanding of femininity; there would be no ‘manosphere’ and no understanding of The Way of Men absent feminism. Why? Because absent an opposite – a counterhegemonic force – there is no way to define the self. Absent opposition there is no tension and nothing to compare masculinity to. Without The Way of Women, there is no Way of Men.

  1.   Jack Donovan, The Way of Men (Dissonant Hum, 2012), 135.
  2.   Donovan, The Way of Men, 135.
  3.   Simone de Beauvoir, “The Second Sex,” in Continental Philosophy: An Anthology, ed. William McNeill and Karen Feldman (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1998), 161-166.
  4.   de Beauvoir, “The Second Sex,” 162.
  5.   Ibid.
  6.   Ibid.
  7.   Donovan cites, among others, Sam Sheridan’s A Fighter’s Heart, Waller Newell’s What is a Man?, and Harvey Mansfield’s Manliness.
  8.   Donovan, The Way of Men, 97-98.
  9.   Ibid., 93.

Ghostbusters (2016)

Monday, July 18th, 2016

ghostbusters_-_cast_shot

The new politically-correct reboot of Ghostbusters (1984) was designed with a singular task: to translate a favorite franchise into an advertisement for feminism, diversity and Leftism. However, its impotence as a film crushes the film’s own message and shows why ideological thinking is destructive.

Given the same storyline, better equipment, and recent advances in special effects, one would assume that four of Hollywood’s top upcoming female comics would be able to deliver a movie on a par with that of their male predecessors from a generation ago. But as if the case any time humans force reality to conform to their inner emotional needs, it is not so: this film misses out on the adventure, fun and chemistry that makes a good movie, and instead we get the same mediocre schlock that fills up every sit-com and safety video. It is not horribly bad because of the minimum competence of all involved, but there is nothing good here either, which is why we use terms like “typical” and “mediocre”: like most of humanity, it gets a barely passing grade which means it demonstrates basic competence but no depth of understanding.

Ghostbusters (2016) feels like a drive-by movie as a result. It seems as if all the people involved took a cursory look at the original, maybe just using stills or storyboards, and decided to remake that world aesthetically while relying on entirely new content. Four ladies from different backgrounds coming together to bust ghosts in 2016 is a different story than four misfits doing so in the 1980s, but that story is not told. Instead, we get a film with no sense of spirit, enjoyment or even purpose. It barely hangs together as if all the participants were compelled to interact at gunpoint by KGB colonels.

Un-inspired acting appears consistently throughout this flick. A lot of screen time goes to long rambling scientific terms which no one seems to really care about on a real level, but since it is in the script, so they have to get through each line (and they just barely do…). It is like watching a politician read from a Teleprompter. When characters do interact, you wonder if they were all green screened in, because they do not seem to react to one another so much as they are reading their lines at the right cue. And every time one of these actors starts doing something which could be interesting, the script smashes that momentum in order to go on to make its next point.

Making points: that is what this film feels like, an educational video or wartime government propaganda. Every aspect of this production feels like it was designed to say or do the correct thing, and it has selected an audience from those for whom ideology is more important than quality. This film for them is more about the political concept than the film.

For many years we have heard that women don’t get the good roles in Hollywood, and that they are underpaid because of discrimination. The lack of synergy and spark between these actors suggests that the free market economy is deciding things correctly, and that women are not delivering entertainment value for certain types of roles. Lately the same was also said for black actors, despite presidents and scientists being black in every big Hollywood blockbuster. This film tries to address both of those questions by having an all-female cast, making the men into morons, and featuring a black female typecast character, played by Leslie Jones (who is supposedly some big deal in comedy) who has forced racial dialogue in terms of maximum lingo and being “the cool one” of the bunch. Whenever a laugh is needed they pan to her and she delivers dud after dud. But the all-female cast have none of the energy or charisma of even the corny 1980s film, and the hip black character act becomes alarmingly like a racial caricature.

This reboot has switched the roles around beyond one hundred percent to where not only are the men all useless and militantly clueless (even Bill Murray’s cameo is as a skeptic which makes no sense), but they are pretty boys who cannot even answer a phone call or perform secretarial duties. The women who are supposed to be the focus of the film end up either delivering their lines like bad office workers or over-acting like carnies, as Kate McKinnon does, a glitch she shares with official white male moron Chris Hemsworth, who plays a receptionist.

imdb_votes_ghostbusters

No one will come right out and say it, but for this movie its appeal, its political concept and its summary are identical: four women (irony! rebellion!) battle ghosts in New York. No depth is added to this to make the film worth watching. The women approach ghost-hunting like dweeby pacifists, and they spend the whole movie looking dumpy and being unfunny, appearing to waddle their way around and even at one point they try and “run” with their packs on. The filmmakers seem to think that the audience will show up and praise this digestive byproduct of a movie, and in the case of angry, lonely female SJWs they may be right, but for the rest of us it is transparent propaganda and a badly-done film.

The Isolation And Sadness Of Broken Families

Friday, July 8th, 2016

female_empowerment_equals_family_demotion

Politics is a means to an ends, but culture and the genetic health of a people can be used to influence politics as well. The “war on the family” is real, and now that we have had a few generations to suffer, we can see how negative its effects are. One of my favorite novelists, Candida Crewe, writes about the isolation of the single mother:

Take the time one of my sons was having a sleepover with a friend, but was persuaded to go into the city centre at 10.30pm on a Saturday. The two 13-year-olds were found by police in a doorway, cold and chatting.

Asleep in bed, I thought my child was safe and sound – until I was rudely awakened by a hammering on the front door at 1am.

My heart nearly beat out of my chest when I opened it to find two police officers. They were very kind, reassuring me he wasn’t in trouble, but they felt ‘the city centre isn’t a great place for two young boys on a Saturday night’. I felt worried and alone, cross and helpless. My instinct was to ring his father, but I didn’t want to wake him. What would be the point?

Crewe writes this piece in defense of her lifestyle, as we all do: rationalizing what is, in order to survive it and still feel good about ourselves. But from the center of her piece, comes an honest plea. She wishes to no longer be alone. The family unit always beats the individual because the family is a center where the individual is an atom.

Feminists pushed a hardline mode of thought which said “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” But this sidestepped the issue. A woman needs a family like a fish needs an ocean (the same, incidentally, is true of men). We all need family, community, civilization, self-determination and pride, but Leftism is opposed to those because they compete with its need for Total Control.

Without a family, people are alone in facing the problems of the world. They have no one to trust, and no one to be close by, and they are forced into a cycle of compromise as biological limits constrain their ability to have children. Even when they do eventually find a partner, trust is limited and alienation below the surface of every interaction.

But feminists insist women should have careers. How well is that going? Not very well except where Big Government steps in:

Study after study has shown bias persists at every point of the employment process. So the start-up interviewing.io decided to try and do something about it. It masked women’s voices to sound like men’s and vice versa during online interviews to see if interviewers would like them better. It was inspired to do the experiment because it was seeing some alarming data. Interviewing.io is a platform that allows people to practice technical interviewing anonymously and, hopefully, get a job in the process. After amassing data from thousands of technical interviews, the company noticed a troubling trend, writes founder Aline Lerner in a blog post: “Men were getting advanced to the next round 1.4 times more often than women. Interviewee technical score wasn’t faring that well either — men on the platform had an average technical score of 3 out of 4, as compared to a 2.5 out of 4 for women.

This study is quite interesting. It removes the appearance of femininity, which gives women a level playing field. And yet their answers were not satisfying, because as men they were less desired than other men. I will submit a radical but commonsense thesis here: women do not want to be in jobs, least of all mastering nerdy and anal-retentive genres like computer coding. They crave organic connection to people, which is why every good human resources department in the universe is run by women, and every terrible one by men (unless they are homosexual, at which point they are halfway to female in terms of performance).

In our mania for equality, we deny the differences between people. Race, class, caste, sex, ethnicity and family all make a huge difference, but to say that offends our fundamental sense of ideological purity and thus the goodness of ourselves. But if we get over that pretense, we can see more of reality as it is, and realize that shifting focus from jobs (which are jails) to family will not just be better for women, but for men and children as well.

Recommended Reading