Your true colors are showing. A palid shade of white knight...Of course, I saw this type of baseless invective coming. Because after all, many MRAs exist as feminist doppelgangers, eager to shame and insult anyone who doesn't agree with their gender hatred. This largely explains why many have turned away from The Spearhead. But as with the perennially unsatisfied anti-racists, MRAs accept nothing less than full acceptance of their creed. Unless one is ideologically pure, a standard that they move capriciously and frequently, you're a despicable "white knight".
So just for kicks, let's review what has made me this sort of spineless fellow. Let's see what unreasonable positions I took in the aforementioned post:
1) The nuclear family is the bedrock of civilization.Pretty outlandish stuff, right? But you can never satisfy the MRAs who legitimately hate women, even when I countenance a return to patriarchy where, in the words of the mainstream, I want to banish women back to the kitchen. These men, in a position that should stupefy any reasonable individual, don't see men and women as two necessary components of a stable society; they actually think "going their own way" will somehow work. Or the really funny ones that think robots can replace real women. I wonder how many of them have Real Dolls already.
2) Women are valuable as more than just prostitutes.
3) A romantic relationship has more benefits than just physical pleasure.
4) Marriage has risks, but sometimes they're very much worth it.
5) Fatherhood is a rewarding experience integral to the emotional health of children.
6) (Modern SWPL) Women can be petulant, mannish, and entitled, but also uniquely endearing as only feminine women can be.
7) MRAs express a female-like neuroticism because they whine and focus so much on what could happen.
8) A return to patriarchy should be the goal, not men going their own way.
So where does this come from? I imagine they're gay (destroy heterosexuality as a means of normalizing homosexuality), bitter (people hate what they're not good at), anti-white (destroy American whites as a collective by undermining the basic unit the family and trying to divert the focus to white feminists instead of NAMs), or jealous (if they can't get any, no one should).
47 comments:
Fair enough.
As a long -time MRA (or egalitarian feminist aka anti-feminist to most gender feminists or MRA sympathizer, there really is a bit of relativism in the standards that others might refer to me by) I really have no patience for most of the fools in the Spearhead comments section and their reflexive hatred or distrust of all things female. I may not always agree with everything you say in terms of race or sex but I hardly see you as the "Women are always right, man up and marry you loser" type.
Clarence
"6) (Modern SWPL) Women can be petulant, mannish, and entitled, but also uniquely endearing as only feminine women can be."
I agree with this. Much of Portlandia ideals and attitudes aren't that bad to live with.
What you're writing about MRA's could easily be written about social and Christian reactionaries who curse modernity with a passion; they would even want to do away with all of modernity's blessings if it would mean the end of modernity's irritants. I mean, really, excepting racial preferences and mass immigration from the Third World is it all really that bad in the West? I beg to differ.
I don't think there's very many men in the so-called "manosphere"; they cry a bit too much for my taste.
Sure, there's issues of divorce law inequity and so on but is that all that's really going on here? Why the neurotic, obsessive fixation on the supposed gender war?
The guy that says paying a series of hookers is preferable to having a reliable spouse (or girlfriend) is out of it. What, was his own mother a hooker? Would he have preferred that as his inheritance?
Lots of people out there with all kinds of hangups. They just elevate it all to some seemingly rational sounding school of thought where they get to petulantly lash out at those they find threatening.
MRA's need a good kick in the pants to smarten them up. The similarities between some MRA's and the most extreme feminist man-haters is obvious to reasonable readers and threatens to undermine the movement before it can accomplish any of it's laudable and necessary goals.
MGTOW may be a viable personal choice but sounds more like a way of rationalizing one's lack of dates or justifying one's loneliness and subsequent bitterness. It certainly is not a viable political movement.
That was a really well-stated list of eight points.
We're trying to move the goalposts of public discourse. You don't move the goalposts of the principle by kow towing to every single exception that exists. We know exceptions exist. Hell, the world is full of exceptions. The feminazis weren't constantly talking about how great men were as they were undermining the status quo. Why? BECAUSE IT MAKES THE ARGUMENT LESS EFFECTIVE! Doesn't mean many weren't married or in love or respectful overall of the achievements of men. For God's sake, WE'RE MEN! We don't need to point out every blade of positive grass as we move the goalposts. I mean shit, we're individuals. We're talking about PUBLIC DISCOURSE. Screw the middle ground. You can't move the goalposts if you're stuck in the middle. There are a lot of sacred cows that need to be slaughtered. You're either helping or you're not.
What you're writing about MRA's could easily be written about social and Christian reactionaries who curse modernity with a passion; they would even want to do away with all of modernity's blessings if it would mean the end of modernity's irritants. I mean, really, excepting racial preferences and mass immigration from the Third World is it all really that bad in the West? I beg to differ.
This is the perspective I'm coming around to myself as well.
What we have on the internet are a lot of malcontents with the current setup. The differences between them are (1) what they see as the source of their malcontent and (2) what they see as the solution to their malcontent. And, in general, they disagree bitterly and vehemently with each other over their respective utopian visions of return to a better world before "X" happened.
That's not going to work, folks.
There are MRAs who are doing real activism work like Glenn Sacks. To me, that's "real" MRA -- actually lobbying to change some of the laws incrementally (as it tends to work in our system), rather than writing endless critiques of the current system in the blogosphere and hoping for some kind of systemic collapse. So many people are highly invested in the idea that a collapse is imminent -- MRAs, Trads, WNs, racists/anti-racists/anti-anti-racists, garden variety nihilists like FB, and various strains of extremes on the left and the right alike. Bide you time, hope for a collapse, and then we can be rid of "X" that we dislike about contemporary society, and all will be well (or at least better). This corner of the internet has become a bit unhinged, really.
A far better approach, it seems to me, is to engage with the current reality on its own terms. You don't have to like the current setup, but you do have to live in it. Even if you MGTOW, you're still a part of the "system", and don't kid yourself into thinking that there is a huge groundswell of men doing MGTOW, because there isn't, and there never will be. And if you're a patriarchal advocate, that's fine and well if you can pull that off in your own private life despite the general mores, but the general mores themselves are not going to become patriarchal again anytime soon, regardless of what you advocate. The pendulum hasn't even gotten to the end of its anti-patriarchal swing yet, frankly. Things are still progressing further and further away from patriarchy and its norms, and this does not seem to be slowing down.
Reality is what it is. We don't have to follow social norms if we don't like them. But building one's life and ideology and worldview around the idea that the current world setup must collapse in order for things to be okay. Like it or lump it, we need to engage the world that we have on its terms in whatever way makes sense to us. Just live your lives in a way that makes sense. Scared of getting married? Fine, then don't get married. Don't like NAMs? Fine, then vote for people who oppose immigration and don't live around NAMs. But the fact that you don't want to get married or that you don't like NAMs will not change the current setup one bit. It's much bigger than you, and far bigger than the discontent that comes spewing from this corner of the internet on a regular basis.
MRA's don't offer a social solution to the problem. Which is the failure to replicate the nuclear family down this generation.
If men go their own way or not, the size of that population is trivial. It would not matter if they went 19th Century Mormon with twelve wives or had no children or girlfriends at all.
What matters is restarting the Nuclear Family above all. Charles Murray is pessimistic for the Working Class which has abandoned it among Whites, and says the Middle Class is sliding that way. Only the upper class among Whites retains the Nuclear Family values and behavior.
Ultimately I'd add that MGTOW, MRA are completely irrelevant. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Women alone matter, men do not. Men will be whatever kind of man women want them to be. Since Women decide, and men do not. Outside of a repressive Muslim society anyway which "solves" that problem akin to getting rid of a wart on your foot by cutting off your foot.
I am not optimistic on the central problem of restarting the nuclear family among Working Class Whites and Middle Class Whites (Charles Murray notes that only the Upper Classes among Whites have strong nuclear families, the Working Class has abandoned it and the Middle Class is in the process). I don't think most White women absent the goodies that UPPER CLASS White men produce, can be persuaded to trade a "boring" nuclear family against "sexy" single motherhood with shared Alpha males.
I'll note that choice first came upon Black women, they chose Sexy. Then Hispanic women (if you trace illegitimacy rates against time, there is a huge change/jump for each cohort).
Driving a BMW and vacationing at Jackson Hole over Christmas is worth putting up with forgone Sexy. The suburbs (which I consider along with Sailer from 1955-1986 to be pure paradise for the average guy) not so much.
I can't remember her name and don't care enough to look her up, but the sex dolls and he man woman haters club ideas strike me as the other side of the coin of the feminist who first proposed using sperm banks and artificial insemination to completely eradicate men from the picture.
"The guy that says paying a series of hookers is preferable to having a reliable spouse (or girlfriend) is out of it."
When it comes to the men who talk like this I assume their sexual market value is low and by low I mean like those "true forced loneliness" guys.
At the start of the video below you can see what a few of them look like. If they can get women at all, those women would be so undesirable that a hooker may very well be preferable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xg8nek158w
These kinds of men don't earn our pity but rather they earn our reflexive disgust. You can judge a book by it's cover and these guys look fucked up.
"I mean, really, excepting racial preferences and mass immigration from the Third World is it all really that bad in the West? I beg to differ."
Yes, because sexual freedom allows women to distort the selection process in favor of guys who are not good fathers. That means each successive generation can get more and more primitive and base.
When the quality productive men in society can't leverage earning power to get good wives, but delinquent assholes can leverage personality to create their spawn, we have a dysgenic trend developing. It is a slippery slope.
With bastards (literally) siring ever more bastards, we are sliding (free falling) into the abyss of dysfunction, violence and ever lower quality of life.
Women have never created or maintained quality societies. Men must make and defend sane policies. People's base impulses must be controlled one way or another.
"I mean, really, excepting racial preferences and mass immigration from the Third World is it all really that bad in the West? I beg to differ."
Ugh, the whole reason we have racial preferences and mass 3rd world immigration is because women can vote!!! And they vote for the politicians who push this shit!!!
Audacious Epigone on voting patterns
-- I mean, really, excepting ... mass immigration from the Third World is it all really that bad in the West?
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Besides mass non-white immigration, EVERY other problem this sphere discusses would be self-correcting. Every single one: misandry, low birthrates, hypergamy, political correctness, black crime, and so on.
That's why race/immigration is in my opinion THE most important problem, and I have little interest in MRAs who argue that men across races are to form an adversarial front against women as women.
Novaseeker, I like your comment here and yesterday at Chuck's by the way. I disagree with your apparent acceptance of the inevitability of global pressures on lower-class Americans, but your perspective gave me quite a bit to think about and an opportunity to recalibrate my approach a bit.
-- What we have on the internet are a lot of malcontents with the current setup. ... That's not going to work, folks.
There are malcontents, wierdos, and omegas in the Sphere, no doubt. Apocalypse-porn addicts are prevalent here too. Nonwithstanding, there is a lot of very good dialogue on these blogs, and malcontentment is not the first thing I notice -- what I notice is passion for change and a clear-eyed understanding of problems that face our society.
These discussions aren't mere bitching sessions. They serve the cause by honing our persepctive and argumentation skills; they let us know that contra media/education complex, we're not alone in thinking what we're thinking.
Also importantly, these alt-right blogs have real-life impact in that they filter up to people in positions of influence like activists, journos, politicians possibly, who borrow Roissy's or Sailer's arguments.
-- I am not optimistic ...
Really, Whiskey? you don't say...
Just posted a longish comment. Looks like Blogger ate it or it's stuck in Mod.
"The pendulum hasn't even gotten to the end of its anti-patriarchal swing yet, frankly. Things are still progressing further and further away from patriarchy and its norms, and this does not seem to be slowing down."
It doesn't matter what percent of women are sluts. It just matters how many children smart women of good character have. There is no other source for good people than good people.
There is also a vocal contingent of MRAs whose roots are in non-Western countries. There is often a palpable contempt for women as women in their rhetoric. This point of view is very alien to a European, culturally-Christian man, who traditionally sees women as as partners and helpmeets subordinate to us as men but equal as human beings and before God.
Meanwhile, non-Westerners, even those from high-functioning backgrounds, generally treated women as chattle and that sort of twerpish attitude comes through loudly.
PA, I like your comments so much that I a have developed a burning question:
What is your handle?
Are you P.A. or Pa?
I.e., do you pronounce your name Pea 'Ey or Paw?
Are you still private about your country of origin? (If so, I respect that choice, but if not I'm curious.)
(I have nothing original to say on this. PA and OneSTDV beat to most of what I have to say.)
Hey Olave, in my head I pronounce it like two separate letters of the alphabet. My nick is the abbreviation for Pennsylvania, which I settled on in my early days of blog commenting circa 2007, when I used a number of nicks at first before sticking wiht this one.
I picked it at the time for idiosyncratic reasons.
No, not private on my country of origin. It's PL.
As always, great comments PA.
HalfSigma likes to talk about people possessing gravity and I always think of that adjective when reading your comments.
That's why race/immigration is in my opinion THE most important problem, and I have little interest in MRAs who argue that men across races are to form an adversarial front against women as women.
Of course. I supported this idea in a thread awhile back at In Mala Fide and boy did some of them get angry. And this is why I added in the non-white motivation at the bottom of this post.
I believe Chuck has come to understand this as well (I originally thought of him as a gender blogger and even though he eviscerates them frequently, I'm pretty sure he agrees.)
I disagree with your apparent acceptance of the inevitability of global pressures on lower-class Americans, but your perspective gave me quite a bit to think about and an opportunity to recalibrate my approach a bit.
It's a good conversation, I think. These are issues we all need to be thinking about, and I also find your perspective interesting -- I think we're closing to agreement, probably, than we think, although I am likely more of a political realist, given where I'm sitting.
*closer* to agreement. Ugh, typos.
"So where does this come from? I imagine they're gay (destroy heterosexuality as a means of normalizing homosexuality), bitter (people hate what they're not good at), anti-white (destroy American whites as a collective by undermining the basic unit the family and trying to divert the focus to white feminists instead of NAMs), or jealous (if they can't get any, no one should)."
Shaming.
@ Dave:
It's not shaming if there's a logical connection between espoused views and motivation. And if one can ascertain such motivation from the expressed ideas.
For example, anyone that would go so far as to think sexbots are a viable replacement for women probably has had absolutely no success (sexual or romantic) with women. That's not shaming - that's a logical extrapolation.
"It's not shaming if there's a logical connection between espoused views and motivation."
Of course it is. Maybe you could make the case that if there was a 100% inevitable connection between views and motivation, than it wouldn't be shaming. You haven't done that. Even you won't go farther than "probably."
Truly, you're just rationalizing hypocrisy. You want to insult them, even though you don't like it when they insult you.
Lame.
@ Dave:
So someone's opinions (which also, not unimportantly, happen to be completely wrong) can never be motivated by personal bias?
Of course they can and, in some situations, one can understand this. In some instances, there's a logical chain.
Plus, I also argued against what they've said then proposed why they've said it. I didn't just call them "losers" and ignore their positions.
You really have trouble grasping the concept of shaming.
I mean, really, excepting racial preferences and mass immigration from the Third World is it all really that bad in the West?
Well, our economy has been gutted, perhaps permanently. We've got continual endless wars, both abroad and at home (war on drugs, war on terror, war on whatever they think of next). Banksters run our federal government. Our civil liberties are being steadily eroded and we're increasingly living in a police state (Deine papieren, bitte!).
But yeah, aside from all those things, it's great here!
At the start of the video below you can see what a few of them look like. If they can get women at all, those women would be so undesirable that a hooker may very well be preferable.
It makes little sense to imply only men who can't get non-hooker women use hookers when you consider the case of Charlie Sheen.
He was using hookers at the same time he was getting plenty of non-hooker women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xg8nek158w
These kinds of men don't earn our pity but rather they earn our reflexive disgust.
If such men as use hookers are worthy of reflexive disgust it is because they gave into the temptation of using hookers, showing bad character, not because they are sometimes unattractive to the opposite sex.
What you're doing here is a form of status based shaming language.
I'd agree with you if you told men they shouldn't use hookers because it's wrong for this or that reason, or because it's less meaningful than sex with someone you're in a relationship with, but trying to drive men away from hookers with the idea that only losers use hookers is silly afterschool special quality weak sauce.
"Drugs are for losers!"
Actually cool people use drugs all the time, it would make more sense to say "drugs are for shortsighted people and/or people ignorant of the consequences!"
Another example of a man who got plenty of non-hooker women, but who still got caught with a hooker, was the popular English actor Hugh Grant.
"Drugs are for losers!"
Actually cool people use drugs all the time, it would make more sense to say "drugs are for shortsighted people and/or people ignorant of the consequences!"
This is actually a great point (independent of the post).
And it would behoove anti-drug educators to understand this. I think that's why showing gruesome and violent car crashes is more effective than obviously dishonest shaming like "drugs are for losers" to stop kids from using drugs.
I recall when I had to listen to anti-drug stuff, I would always think to myself, "well doing drugs actually seems to make people cool and the coolest kids seem to be the ones doing drugs (at least less serious stuff like weed and drinking). Or at least abstaining is a sign that you're uncool, no matter what these corny handouts and teachers and such say."
I'm still voting for Steve Sailer as the best representative of the non-ideologically bound alt-right, simply because Steve Sailer can convert neocons.
National Review has Goldberg, true, but it also has Sullivan, Derbyshire, Krikorian, McCarthy, and even ol' Neocon Hanson's coming round on immigration more than any other author there. And Steyn was beating the drum on demographic necessity before any other neocon began to.
None of these people are SUPER AWESOME at constantly telling the plainest or most important truths, but they tell them with enough consistency and provide enough links to more red-meat style bloggers to keep those who do know and are hungry for more sated.
NR is like a gateway drug to paleoconservatism. Anyone interested in following things to their end are going to get caught up in the paleo undertow.
Versus, say, the Exile, which had one good thing in the War Nerd and is now sucking the life out of him while the rest of the site goes to shit over liberal talking points and a focus on the Kochs above all else. NR linked me to both Sailer and the Exile, and only one has gotten better over the decade.
Lesson: NEOCONS AND SOFT REPUBLICANS ARE EDUCABLE ON BOTH HBD AND MRA. Liberals are not. And even when they do get educated, liberals tend to look out for only themselves. Remember that most liberals have never had to fairly argue their position before.
So if a liberal goes HBD or MRA, they're FAR more likely to simply mirror the tactics of...feminists and racial minorities. Keeping this in mind helps any dealing you might have with angry extremist MRAs immensely.
Might be fun to put out an article like:
The Dangers of Alpha: How False Positives, Hollow Success, and Misleading Lessons Can Ruin Even A Natural, Or: Some Rules Actually Were There To Protect You.
Men’s rights are about just that… men’s rights. At the most fundamental level it has nothing to do whether someone chooses to get married, can get laid, or lives in a bedroom at their mother’s house until she dies jerking off to internet porn 24/7. Ultimately, what men’s rights means is that legally, men have a fundamental right to due process, their children, and their hard earned assets. Too many people confuse their ability to attract a potential mate with custody issues, financial encumbrances and transfers, and legal preferences. Given a level playing field 50% of men will do just fine.
The reflexive misogyny of the MRA sphere has bugged me, as has the notion that you should just "take what you can get" up to and including getting a woman to cheat on her husband with you. Similar sentiments were echoed by many men on a forum for people suffering from dating issues, so there may be some truth to the idea that many of these men are simply desperate sexual rejects.
However, I think there are class issues as well. Moreso on places like the Happy Bachelor forum where it was most noticeable. Lots of the men there seemed very low-class and uneducated, from what I could read. It may very well be that a large number of the men who end up as MRA discontents are people who only have low-class women available to them- women who basically embody the worst of all the influence that mainstream modern culture has brought about.
That's not to say that higher-class women are any better, as higher intelligence without ethics just makes it that much easier for a woman to screw over a guy. But such women are generally more aware of the consequences of horrible behavior, and have a longer future time orientation. I still believe marriage is a raw deal for men of any class, because there's always a legal Sword of Damocles hanging over your head that wasn't there before. However, focusing on bashing women misses the point about what reform needs to be set afoot to make things more reasonable for men.
This whole issue is confused by the fact that the current climate is bad for all men- high, middle, and low-class, sexually successful and unsuccessful. So a guy who is sexually unsuccessful has perfect reason to complain that sexual harassment laws negatively affect his ability to approach women, while the same climate chastises him as "creepy," reducing his confidence even more. For sexually successful men, the current marriage regime can make men want to permanently divorce themselves from any interaction with women, thus leading to resentment and anti-family values nihilism.
The MRA sphere as a whole is just a reflection of the damage that has been done, and most of these guys are too far gone to be reasoned with. It's up to serious reformers to band together and balance skillfully marginalizing and appeasing the badly hurt men so that a sane society can be restored again.
alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/my-problem-with-mras-and-gamers-aka-puas/
My bigger point is that most AltRighters seem to want to do away with everything and, indeed, turn back to some radical traditionalism. Lawrence Auster and Richard Spencer, although they differ greatly on some issues, seem to be for such a society. My take: they throw away the baby with the bathwater. Auster is most consistent, he believes liberalism is evil to the core, therefore it must be done away with in all its forms and fought on any level.I don't think that's necessary. Some liberal accomplishments are even OK with me, others I don't care for either way and some things I want to change.
Some MRA activists have ideas that deserve a decent hearing, especially concerning divorce laws and child custody. But I'm put off by their bitchy anti-women attitudes and other radical ideas that are downright off the wall like taking the right to vote away from women -- and then these same people blame feminists for having blinders on.. Some of these guys feel you're feminized if you're for such a position. Right.
Concerning the argument that women turn countries more leftwing, I'd agree. It can be emperically demonstrated by looking at voting patterns indeed (or anybody paying attention). I just don't think the alternative is a position to emulate. You could argue for limiting voting rights to people who pay taxes (net), I bet a different pattern would show up -- but that would be unfair to the poor. The current system is probably the best and fairest equilibrium there is, all countries seem to come to this situation eventually.
Some of the commenters above seem a bit hysterical and apocalyptic. A bit of nuanced rational thinking would be a better way. Some trends in the West are bad, but trends change as well; you think our medieval forefathers looked at the plague haunting Europe and saying to each other: "In 40 years nobody will be left, we'll all be dead, just give the continent away already. It won't matter anymore.."
Maciano you talk two sides of your most. The system is flawed but it's balanced and the best? By your own admission you have said that women voting turns countries more left-wing or libertarian. Liberalism is evil to the core. There is no baby to throw out with it. It's all bathwater. Don't worry I'm not that crazy since I pretty much prefer secession where we have liberal and conservative societies. I have figured out that while liberalism is evil to the core it will never be annihilated since some people will always be liberal. You can go to a liberal society and I stay in a conservative society. It will be the best for us all instead of this current sick system.
Maciano you talk two sides of your mouth.
"Maciano you talk two sides of your most. The system is flawed but it's balanced and the best?"
In a society some things will not be to your liking, but from an objective standpoint it can be the most fair, because we all have to give in a bit. In that sense 'balanced' is probably a good description.
What do you mean by a conservative society? I'm curious. The world of Spencer and Auster doesn't do much for me. I've once read Bruce Charlton saying something that most Westerners are too deeply morally corrupted, even the HBD (atheist) types.
Some of you 'conservatives' want a sort of Stepford Wives society where we're all our 50s best plastic self. How about a bit of freedom; you do your thing and I do mine. You wouldn't need to secede for that (but if you must, go ahead..)
Novaseeker said...
"Reality is what it is. We don't have to follow social norms if we don't like them. But building one's life and ideology and worldview around the idea that the current world setup must collapse in order for things to be okay."
What if your ideology / worldview does not necessarily advocate a collapse but instead says there WILL BE a collapse and nothing can stop it. In fact it's happening right now as we speak but half of society is too blind to see it. And for those who see it only half of that either have the resources or the discipline to take premptive action now to shield themselves from the collapse.
So what category does that make me? *wink*
E
The MRA crowd is angry and they have every right to be. Men get used and abused mercilessly in our society. Our masculinity is degraded non-stop, the media portrays us as idiots, that's when we aren't portrayed as rapists, misandry is ingrained into the legal system, the socio-sexual landscape is a wasteland for most(except the alphas), we need some strong push back against these trends, and it all starts by raising awareness and calling out the shit for what it is. If that bothers anyone or comes across as extreme then you aren't paying close enough attention.
I think the dislike of women is obvious, especially as the manosphere has exposed their true devious natures. The anti-family bit comes from a realization that many men missed out on a lot during their youth. This ties back into the anti-woman thing, because much of what their parents (mothers in particular) told them was wrong in this regard. Fate is generous to some and cruel to others. Some guys are sick of being asked to sacrifice when they get so little in return. The Roosh/Roissy lifestyle of unending sexual debauchery is very appealing to betas who never got to enjoy the good things in life.
Liberals are obsessed with the 1950's. I rarely see ANY conservative writer talking about that time period unless it's related to historical events and history in general. Conservatives talk about morals and ethics from any time period or as something that doesn't change and liberals think "1950's!". Idiotic baboons.
Quite frankly liberal society does nothing for me either. You're the plastic ones thinking you're all so individualistic and free when you're one of the the most oppressed generations I have ever seen.
Why don't we just divide and turn towards our chosen ways?
Bruce Charlton is right anyways. We are too corrupted and that's why we should get rid of the corruption.
A commenter writes:
"[Auster] believes liberalism is evil to the core, therefore it must be done away with in all its forms and fought on any level."
That is not correct. What I say is that the rule of modern liberalism must be overthrown. At the same time, there are elements in the older liberalism that are good and that serve a useful purpose in society. But if such liberalism is not to be destructive of social order (by, for example, leading to modern liberalism), it must be a part of a social and cultural order which is not itself liberal.
In short, some elements of the older liberalism are good, but they must not be in the driver's seat.
@Anon
I'm not a liberal/progressive or any of the kind, they wouldn't tolerate me for a second. I just don't think that all aspects of liberalism are bad or awful.
If you want to secede that's your choice and you'd be free to do it, but I don't feel the need to secede from you. In fact, I like conservatives just fine, they just shouldn't try to make me live on their terms.
Lawrence Auster
Excuse me if I put words in your mouth, but it was my genuine impression that you believed liberalism, all of it, should be done away with. I am curious what aspects of liberalism you actually do like.
To simply state that classical liberalism isn't objectionable as long as it doesn't hurt the traditional order is not enough to cure my curiosity. Please be more concrete. What practical part of classical liberalism can you embrace completely? (Apart from the economic liberal ideas.)
"What practical part of classical liberalism can you embrace completely? (Apart from the economic liberal ideas.)"
There are plenty of reactionaries who disagree with free-market capitalism. They aren't communist but they aren't pro-capitalist either.
Nice post. My thoughts...
1. Yep.
2. True of some women, but by no means all.
3. Sometimes, yes.
4. Yes, and no.
5. Yes, and yes. Too bad feminists and their white knight enablers have made it impossible for a western man to take part in without taking tremendous legal risks.
6. That's true, though you're talking about two different groups of women here.
7. Certainly true of some MRAs, but not all. There's a huge difference between the Spearhead whiners and guys like Paul Elam who actually work to get shit done.
8. Irrelevant, as patriarchy won't come back without total systemic collapse.
I see you are not above a little shaming yourself?
As for your patriarchy wish; tell how patriarchy is intrinsically different from feminism?
Both reduce or eliminate female accountability. Both make males responsible for the health and welfare of women. Both blame men for failing to protect women. Both make males disposable commodities to be exploited by women.
The only real differences are that modern feminism has made the government their uber father and feast on the largess of big government. Even though males are paying the majority of taxes women are still consuming the majority of resources. Same as it ever was.
I recognize NAWALT, and I agree that marriage and family is the foundation of a sound society. Unfortunately, marriage is no longer an enforceable agreement between a man and a woman. Now it also includes the state which has proven time and again to come out on the side of women.
You speak of the benefits of being a father and yet fatherhood has been eroded to the point where even married men can be said to only possess parental privileges rather than parental rights. You speak of the love of women but given the steady stream of hatred coming from women what man can really trust the feelings of a woman? 70% of divorces are filed by women.
Patriarchy isn't the answer. Not only is it offensive to an indoctrinated population thus making it a non-starter, but frankly sir, I have no intention of going back to the exploitation that existed under patriarchy.
That being where men worked and toiled and surrendered the majority of their income to a woman who sat at home and watched soaps all day and maybe did a little light housework on commercial breaks. I have no interest in returning to a time where a woman's fantasy is inheriting after her husband dies. There is a reason why the movie "Titanic" is very popular with women. It's a movie where high status men willingly die terrible deaths so women can row away in half empty lifeboats. Even the male protagonist demonstrates his love for the female protagonist by embracing his disposability.
MGTOW isn't sustainable. However, it is the least worst choice for men who are disillusioned and marginalized by the pro-woman society. At once we are expected to compete and gain status so we can earn the respect and love of women while those same women compete against us. If we succeed it's because of sexism. If we fail it's because we are losers. If women succeed it's because they are superior. If they fail it's because of sexism.
MGTOW are men who find women repulsive and would rather live alone than become some woman's beast of burden.
BTW, you say that women are more than prostitutes. I'm sure this is true, but show me a woman who has a relationship with a man that doesn't involve him transferring wealth over to her. Unless she is very rich or very ugly or both she's going to expect something in return. That "something" is usually money.
Post a Comment