It's been interesting to see the blog comments devolve into a sort of petty war between what appears to be some flavor of MGTOW on one hand and a loose alliance of pro-male married women and traditionalist men on the other. Based on some comments I've received from some leading Game bloggers, this dynamic has appeared on other blogs as well.
To a certain extent, it is something that was always inevitable. To give one example, whereas Roissy and I obviously respect each other despite our different purposes, those who incline more towards his "fiddle while Rome burns" perspective are considerably less able to view those differences in the abstract than Roissy, while those who are more focused on saving civilization from itself, (or at least preserving the seeds of civilization as the fire sweeps through the forest), are considerably less able to view the fiddlers with the same sort of equanimity that I am.
What both camps have in common is a diagnosis. Where they differ is the prescription. This is why they are not functional allies in the long term. Their immediate objectives and priorities have nothing in common and their perspectives are fundamentally different. However, it should be kept in mind that neither side created the problem to which both are reacting, and it should be recognized that both have important roles to play before the course plays itself out.
It is the MGTOW who will ultimately destroy the Female Imperative society by removing its foundations. The traditionalists tend to allay the destructive effects of the irrational while the hedonists exacerbate them. This is why the MGTOW incorrectly tend to look on the traditionalists as white knights and useful idiots in the service of the Female Imperative. They erroneously conflate the traditionalists who are simply doing what they have always done with the feminized Church and the female-biased State.
By withdrawing their services, their seed, their paternal support, and their economic surplus from the women and children of society, they render that society unsustainable. They are responding rationally to the disincentives which that society has presented them. Theirs is a perfectly legitimate response to a society gone mad. More than that, their response is a necessary one, it is part of the pendulum swing that is required before society can return to sanity and stability.
However, the hedonistic, self-centered MGTOW will never be able to build anything lasting or replace the society which they quite rightly hate. They must rely upon the civilizationists to do that; without the traditionalists still stubbornly working, marrying, and having children despite all of the societal disincentives for doing so, there will be no eventual recovery from the chaotic, barbaric morass into which the equalitarian-corrupted West is rapidly sliding.
This is why the accusations of lotus-eating on the one hand and white-knighting on the other are both misplaced and ill-considered. Both nihilists and civilizationists are necessary to the process of first destroying, and then replacing, FI society. One need not agree with the other to respect and understand his - or her - role in the necessary, desirable, and, I would argue, inevitable, process.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Book Review: Men on Strike
MEN ON STRIKE
Dr. Helen Smith
Rating: 8 of 10
With the publication of Men on Strike, Dr. Helen Smith fires an important shot in the ongoing cultural war for the soul, and indeed, the survival, of Western Civilization. It is a shot she fires in defense of the defenders, in defense of the barricades, in defense of the gates, against the lawless barbarians marching under the banner of the Female Imperative.
If the horror stories and red pill realities she chronicles will not be unfamiliar to those who are regular readers of the androsphere, they are nevertheless particularly effective when presented, largely dispassionately, one after another in succession. Dr. Helen does an competent job of drawing clear links between a legal regime biased towards women and the fearful behavior of men who no longer see sufficient incentive to perform the roles that society has long expected and required of them.
Men on Strike is particularly effective when pointing out the shameless hypocrisy of feminist activism, and how the voices that are quick to appeal to equality when it benefits women are completely silent when it is the male sex that is getting the short side of the stick. And it raises what is arguably the most important question of all: how can a society which actively disincentivizes men to marry, father children, and produce the economic surplus required to support women and children expect to survive, let alone thrive?
Dr. Helen begins the book with considering the question of why men are increasingly reluctant to marry, as evidenced by both national statistics and personal anecdotes. She continues with a presentation of the hypocrisy of the present legal approach to children and parenting, then moves on to the recent inversion of the male/female ratio of college attendance. After considering the way marriage has changed in recent decades, she then explains why these changes matter, and devotes the final chapter to considering whether men are best advised to continue simply opting out of society or attempting to fight back.
While much of the evidence is anecdotal, it must be noted that the anecdotal evidence is largely presented in an explanatory sense and is primarily used to support the statistical evidence. As such, it is much more valid than anecdotal evidence cited in support of hypothetical trends.
Possibly the best thing about Men on Strike is that at no point does Dr. Helen attempt to speak for men or tell men what they should do. She is quite clearly cognizant of the fact that she is speaking out in support of men, she is attempting to encourage them to speak out themselves rather than to speak for them.
Unlike other books that purport to be concerned about the societal degradation of men, Dr. Helen's book is not driven by the Female Imperative. She is aware that the degradation of men is not likely to serve women well in the long run, but she also opposes that legal and social degradation in its own right. In her words: "I propose that men are autonomous beings who are entitled to justice and equality and the pursuit of their own happiness because they are human beings in a supposedly free society."
Dr. Helen's book is both courageous and important because it is written by a woman. It cannot be dismissed as male whining or a parthian shot by the Patriarchy, and it is rhetorically effective because it breaks the Pink Code of Silence and shames those women who, in the name of equality, have pursued an inequality more oppressive and deadly than has been personally experienced by any woman of the West. It will be a valuable resource for anyone, male or female, who cares about the fate of men or the fate of Western civilization.
Text sample: Our society, the media, the government, women, white knights and Uncle Tims have regulated and demanded that any incentives men have for acting like men be taken away and decried masculinity as evil. Now they are seeing the result. Men have been listening to what society has been saying about them for more than forty years; they are perverts, wimps, cowards, assholes, jerks, good-for-nothing, bumbling deadbeats and expendable. Men got the message; now they are acting accordingly. As you sow, so shall you reap.
So now people are surprised when men are heading for the exits? They shouldn’t be surprised. Men have been pushed there for some time. We should actually be surprised that it has taken so long.
The Concordia is just a microcosm of what is happening in our greater society. Men are opting out, bailing out and going on strike in response to the attack on their gender; a society can’t spend more than forty years tearing down almost half of the population and expect them to respond with “give me another” forever. Pretty soon, a lot more men will be taking Captain Schettino’s lead and jumping ship—only it will be on a lot larger scale than a boatload of people. The war on men is suicidal for our society in so many ways, and treating men like the enemy is dangerous, both to men and to the society that needs their positive participation as fathers, husbands, role models and leaders.
NB: In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that in the first chapter of the book, Dr. Helen refers to the socio-sexual hierarchy I developed from Roissy's sexual hierarchy.
Dr. Helen Smith
Rating: 8 of 10
With the publication of Men on Strike, Dr. Helen Smith fires an important shot in the ongoing cultural war for the soul, and indeed, the survival, of Western Civilization. It is a shot she fires in defense of the defenders, in defense of the barricades, in defense of the gates, against the lawless barbarians marching under the banner of the Female Imperative.
If the horror stories and red pill realities she chronicles will not be unfamiliar to those who are regular readers of the androsphere, they are nevertheless particularly effective when presented, largely dispassionately, one after another in succession. Dr. Helen does an competent job of drawing clear links between a legal regime biased towards women and the fearful behavior of men who no longer see sufficient incentive to perform the roles that society has long expected and required of them.
Men on Strike is particularly effective when pointing out the shameless hypocrisy of feminist activism, and how the voices that are quick to appeal to equality when it benefits women are completely silent when it is the male sex that is getting the short side of the stick. And it raises what is arguably the most important question of all: how can a society which actively disincentivizes men to marry, father children, and produce the economic surplus required to support women and children expect to survive, let alone thrive?
Dr. Helen begins the book with considering the question of why men are increasingly reluctant to marry, as evidenced by both national statistics and personal anecdotes. She continues with a presentation of the hypocrisy of the present legal approach to children and parenting, then moves on to the recent inversion of the male/female ratio of college attendance. After considering the way marriage has changed in recent decades, she then explains why these changes matter, and devotes the final chapter to considering whether men are best advised to continue simply opting out of society or attempting to fight back.
While much of the evidence is anecdotal, it must be noted that the anecdotal evidence is largely presented in an explanatory sense and is primarily used to support the statistical evidence. As such, it is much more valid than anecdotal evidence cited in support of hypothetical trends.
Possibly the best thing about Men on Strike is that at no point does Dr. Helen attempt to speak for men or tell men what they should do. She is quite clearly cognizant of the fact that she is speaking out in support of men, she is attempting to encourage them to speak out themselves rather than to speak for them.
Unlike other books that purport to be concerned about the societal degradation of men, Dr. Helen's book is not driven by the Female Imperative. She is aware that the degradation of men is not likely to serve women well in the long run, but she also opposes that legal and social degradation in its own right. In her words: "I propose that men are autonomous beings who are entitled to justice and equality and the pursuit of their own happiness because they are human beings in a supposedly free society."
Dr. Helen's book is both courageous and important because it is written by a woman. It cannot be dismissed as male whining or a parthian shot by the Patriarchy, and it is rhetorically effective because it breaks the Pink Code of Silence and shames those women who, in the name of equality, have pursued an inequality more oppressive and deadly than has been personally experienced by any woman of the West. It will be a valuable resource for anyone, male or female, who cares about the fate of men or the fate of Western civilization.
Text sample: Our society, the media, the government, women, white knights and Uncle Tims have regulated and demanded that any incentives men have for acting like men be taken away and decried masculinity as evil. Now they are seeing the result. Men have been listening to what society has been saying about them for more than forty years; they are perverts, wimps, cowards, assholes, jerks, good-for-nothing, bumbling deadbeats and expendable. Men got the message; now they are acting accordingly. As you sow, so shall you reap.
So now people are surprised when men are heading for the exits? They shouldn’t be surprised. Men have been pushed there for some time. We should actually be surprised that it has taken so long.
The Concordia is just a microcosm of what is happening in our greater society. Men are opting out, bailing out and going on strike in response to the attack on their gender; a society can’t spend more than forty years tearing down almost half of the population and expect them to respond with “give me another” forever. Pretty soon, a lot more men will be taking Captain Schettino’s lead and jumping ship—only it will be on a lot larger scale than a boatload of people. The war on men is suicidal for our society in so many ways, and treating men like the enemy is dangerous, both to men and to the society that needs their positive participation as fathers, husbands, role models and leaders.
NB: In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that in the first chapter of the book, Dr. Helen refers to the socio-sexual hierarchy I developed from Roissy's sexual hierarchy.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Illusion and reality
Athol explains why it's important to believe in at least the potential for the best in others:
I don't recommend choosing illusion over reality, but it is also important to understand that the potential for doing evil is not the same as actually committing it. And experiencing temptation is not action.
Knowing that a woman does not belong on a pedestal is not synonymous with believing that she dwells in a sewer. The fact of female fallibility should not lead one to assume that they are subhuman, and the fact of sexual inequality should not be confused with male infallibility.
The trouble is, a lot of the Red Pill approach to life assumes a near telepathic assumption of negative intentions in others. Is it often right? Sure it is. But it’s almost impossible to live happily if you are endlessly paranoid and jaded about the intentions of everyone around you. If every woman is a hot mess of whorish desire and nothing else but a lying cunt of a hamster justifying her Alpha male sperm seeking… well it gets tiring being on edge after a while. Likewise every man is a third wheel seeking an opportunity and plots behind your back, pumping you for information about your woman, seeking to make a run into the endzone the moment you blink too slowly.You can't maintain a combat edge indefinitely. Eventually, you break down. At some point, you have to take a few chosen others on trust, men and women. People do mature, people do change, people do surmount their baser instincts.
I don't recommend choosing illusion over reality, but it is also important to understand that the potential for doing evil is not the same as actually committing it. And experiencing temptation is not action.
Knowing that a woman does not belong on a pedestal is not synonymous with believing that she dwells in a sewer. The fact of female fallibility should not lead one to assume that they are subhuman, and the fact of sexual inequality should not be confused with male infallibility.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Gardening and the single woman
The Germans don't hold with it:
"But I'm not the one who didn't do X!" they protest. Which is true. And yet, there isn't a single young man who has just received his driver's license that has racked up six speeding tickets in a year or overturned his car while driving 75 in a 35 zone. His treatment is based on the expectation of his future actions on the basis of the knowledge of other young men's actions.
And let's face it, in Germany there is no higher crime than failing to keep your garden allotment in order.
"We've had bad experiences with single women," said the chairman of the Fiekendorf allotment club, named only as Hans-Dieter H. "They can't do this, they can't do that. It never works out. I'm sorry. It only causes us trouble."I find it interesting that many women who have no problem with understanding the concept that young men should pay higher insurance premiums because they statistically tend to drive faster and crash their cars more often are so easily outraged by the same concept being applied to women.
Speaking to Wednesday's edition of the Hamburger Morgenpost newspaper, he explained that the club's communal work - like hedge-cutting - was especially beyond a woman's power, adding that there was already one single woman in the club and she was annoying.
He also said that there were several women who had been left with an allotment after the husbands had died and subsequently also caused "difficulties."
"They have to understand that," said Hans-Dieter H. "We're not going to invite the bother anymore."
One woman left particularly frustrated at the new rule is Nafize Ö., a farmer's daughter from Turkey who has just had her allotment application turned down by Hans-Dieter H. "He told me that he turns down all women who don't have a man. He said they can't manage the work."
"But I'm not the one who didn't do X!" they protest. Which is true. And yet, there isn't a single young man who has just received his driver's license that has racked up six speeding tickets in a year or overturned his car while driving 75 in a 35 zone. His treatment is based on the expectation of his future actions on the basis of the knowledge of other young men's actions.
And let's face it, in Germany there is no higher crime than failing to keep your garden allotment in order.
Men on Strike and the SSH
A video review of Helen Smith's forthcoming Men on Strike, which I'm told contains some discussion of the socio-sexual hierarchy which Dr. Helen references in her book.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Exactly backwards
Someone needs to explain where babies come from to the distinguished Representative from the great State of Illinois:
"Our survival as a species is dependent on women taking charge,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) told a gathering at a campaign fundraiser earlier this month.It's rather remarkable that she should be able to get it so precisely backward. Our survival as a species is actually dependent upon women having and raising children, two activities which are almost perfectly inversely related to "taking charge".
Alpha Mail: Obamacare and the Female Imperative
Jill is being devoured by the rage monster:
But this doesn't preclude understanding the political realities that are driving this latest government intrusion upon the tattered remnants of American liberties. Nor does it change the fact that one of the primary problems in resisting the growth of government is the refusal of many women - not all, to be sure - to oppose policies such as no-fault divorce, VAWA, and domestic abuse-related laws on the grounds that they might one day personally benefit from the enshrinement of the Female Imperative into law.
The reason why men will have such hikes in their insurance costs is that there is to be no disparity between what men and women pay. Women, on average, pay a lot more for (individual) health insurance. They pay more because they go to the doctor more often. They are the ones who are more likely to take their kids to the doctor for head colds. They, to a much higher degree than men, have been manipulated into "preventative" healthcare (and this doesn't even get into maternity care and well-baby visits). So they cost the system more. Men will simply be subsidizing their more frequent use of medical care. Men work the most dangerous jobs and die younger, on average, than women do, but they don't tend to go to the doctor for preventative care.I have to confess, I'm not clear concerning towards whom Jill's rage is directed. Is it the fault of any one individual woman that the Obama administration sees political benefit in serving the Female Imperative? Of course not. Are there women who oppose Obamacare despite the fact that estimates indicate that they will personally benefit from it? I assume there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them.
Why should men have to do that? Good question, but a little late to be asking that. Obamacare was foisted on all of us, both men and women, whether we want it or like it. Some would say we should get as much out of the system as we can, but I, personally, would rather not. Really, how is it going to help me to take prescription meds? I have so much rage at this issue already that when you bring up the "female imperative" the rage monster just eats me up inside. I don't want Obamacare any more than you do.
But this doesn't preclude understanding the political realities that are driving this latest government intrusion upon the tattered remnants of American liberties. Nor does it change the fact that one of the primary problems in resisting the growth of government is the refusal of many women - not all, to be sure - to oppose policies such as no-fault divorce, VAWA, and domestic abuse-related laws on the grounds that they might one day personally benefit from the enshrinement of the Female Imperative into law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)