Monday, April 19, 2010

The man of the future?

The Green Party gets about 10% of the vote in Germany. They were part of a governing coalition from 1998 to 2005.

How are they keeping busy in opposition? By writing a Men's Manifesto. This manifesto is interesting to me because it applies liberal principles to men, just as feminism applies them to women.

Remember, according to liberal autonomy theory what matters is that we are self-determining. Our sex is predetermined and is therefore held to be an oppressive restriction on our individuality. Liberals therefore set out to make gender not matter.

So what we ought to expect from the Men's Manifesto are claims that masculinity restricts men; that it is oppressive to men; and that men and women should be levelled to follow the same life path.

So I'll now let Jan Philipp Albrecht, a Green MP for the EU, introduce his manifesto:

Equal rights in the year 2010? We men see that our society is still pervaded by a deep seated spirit of sexual polarity which reduces women to femininity and men to masculinity. We have to finally put a stop to it. We no longer want to have to be macho, we want to be people!

[It didn't take long for the liberal orthodoxy to come out, did it? Already Albrecht has set out the terms of the manifesto: masculinity is something that "reduces" us (i.e. is a restriction), which stands in the way of a human identity, and gender has to be made not to matter - there has to be an end to "sexual polarity" in society.]

You aren't born a man, you are turned into one.

[Again, a predictable claim that masculinity has no basis in nature or biology but is socially constructed - an idea that flies in the face of modern science.]

Sex roles for men are also a corset, that does them more harm than good.

[The language of restriction again - a "corset" - plus the claim once more that masculinity oppresses men.]

We as male feminists say: men, give up power, it's worth it!

The crisis is male. The climate, financial and economic crisis, hunger and justice crisis, these are all the direct result of a particularly male way of life, work and economic conduct, which has driven the planet to the brink of ruin.

[So now there does exist something distinctly male - only it's so ruinous that it has to be given up. Albrecht is saying that men as they really exist are contemptible - only when we rebirth into something non-masculine and non-distinct will we be redeemed. Not a great basis, I would have thought, for a "men's movement".]

The existing division of roles between the sexes frequently leads to serious psychological stress ... It is therefore urgently necessary for the body and mind of people to break apart the roles.

[A dramatic way to claim that masculinity and femininity are oppressive to people and must be deconstructed.]

It's true, of course, that masculinity does lay some obligations on men. At times, these obligations can be burdensome. I have no objection to a movement which wants to keep these burdens from being overwhelming.

But let's be honest. It is not a freedom to lose your sense of masculine strength. It is not a freedom if women become less attractively feminine.

These Greens should be careful what they wish for. Who would really want to abolish sex distinctions? After all, our sex is a core part of our identity. And sex distinctions are a vital part of our sexuality and of our instincts toward love and family.

Finally, I'll leave you with an image of our feminist New Man. Below is a photo of Jan Philipp Albrecht, the author of the Men's Manifesto. Is this really the man of the future?

52 comments:

  1. Lol he's the man of the present. At least among the left and intelligensia.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's the old "patriarchy is bad for men, too!" line that feminists, male and female alike, have been pushing on men for a while now.

    More seriously, there is a recognition among even the more even-minded feminists that to achieve their "new" goals, men need to be addressed. In other words, feminism has focused on changing women's lives and behaviors and so on, while the perception (wrong, but it's the perception) is that men's lives haven't changed that much, and the fact that they haven't is "holding women back".

    I think men's lives *have* changed quite a bit, but not in ways that many feminists would like to see on a broader scale. Many of the feminist types would like men to embrace feminine aspects of being with the same gusto that so many women have embraced male aspects of being, and see the fact that not that many men have done this as being something that holds women back by providing less flexibility to women than would be the case if men were more eagerly adopting what were previously female sex roles. Something more along the lines that we see men in, say, Sweden doing. The feminists in the Anglosphere have the idea that men in the Anglosphere are still too "macho", and this is holding women back -- men need to become more feminized, as they have to some extent in Sweden, just as women have become more masculinized, which will allow women more opportunities and "equalize" things more between men and women (according to their theories).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Er ist ein Sitzpinkler!

    What a tool.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Novaseeker,

    Yes, that does seem to be the context for what's happening here. I remember a moment in time when feminists expressed surprise that men hadn't just automatically changed to fit in with what they wanted. They seem to have realised now that the change won't be automatic and will have to be agitated for.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Er ist ein Sitzpinkler.

    Maybe we could popularise the term for those men who obey feminists and accept being gender neutered. Sitzpinklers.

    (sitzen = to sit / pinkeln = to pee)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "[The language of restriction again - a "corset" - plus the claim once more that masculinity oppresses men.]"

    Plus, notice the long-obsolete item of women's attire to which he chooses to liken masculinity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can you post a picture of yourself next to him so we can choose properly what the 'man of the future' should be?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Corset = old feminist language. Plus men don't even wear them, good job goon.

    I'll try, gender roles are like being tackled by a five-eight. Not what he was looking for?

    ReplyDelete
  9. So, he doesn't even have the decency (or is it intelligence?) to do more than attempt to pawn off old and shop-worn tropes?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why should feminists not use old and shopworn language? It has been working very well for them so far.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ""Why should feminists not use old and shopworn language? It has been working very well for them so far.""

    ReplyDelete
  12. ""Why should feminists not use old and shopworn language? It has been working very well for them so far.""

    Certainly has.

    When you are winning over and over again you don't really feel the need to shake it up.

    Plus its a left wing thing, for some reason they seem to cling to the past most than others.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A society with men like that is ripe for conquest.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "A society with men like that is ripe for conquest."

    This is totally true and you can see it in the swagger of the immigrants, that they see themselves as tougher, more purposeful, and better. The Cronulla riots a few years ago were totally awesome because it showed that white people were willing to compete on their level.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I openly and directly mock Europeans that in 50 years their women will be concubines in the harems of their Muslim conquerors.

    Hilarious stuff. Seriously. Try it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I openly and directly mock Europeans that in 50 years their women will be concubines in the harems of their Muslim conquerors.

    Occasionally one sees the claim that the Euros are going to turn fierce and liquidate the immigrants, Nazi-style. Frankly I don't see it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So, my question is, since Europe is going to be conquered by somebody anyway why don't we just beat the Muslims to the punch and do it ourselves?

    ReplyDelete
  18. You didn't comment on my Cronulla comment. Why not? Why do you have to jump directly to the state? Because life is all about power? the will to power? Read crime and punishment by Dostoevsky. Its about a guy who's very read up on Nietzsche’s' ideas of the superman, about how morality shouldn't apply. He uses that to justify a robbery/murder because he's so poor and a super guy like him shouldn't be poor, also the victim had it coming. He doesn't have too good a time of it.

    We've had a smallish state in our history, which was in important ways responsive to the desires of its population and which recognised its national role. Today we have a far more "blunted" or sated population that is only just starting to become aware of what's going on around it and finds itself utterly tangled in confused ideology and worries over immediate self interest. Also a state which seems far less interested in its role as national guardian and instead is acting for what?

    Its the battles within the populace and within the state that matter, because like I think I've said before, I don't think this is being caused by deliberate conspiracy but rather by blind stumbling forwards and foolish notions that:

    1) Everything will be allright because what they're/we're doing is progress and progress always leads to better outcomes,

    2) The nation doesn't really matter, caused by our increased national security and the practical ability of people to live far more individuated and comfortable lives. Or alternatively that the nation is actually the enemy which is caused in large part by our recent history of highly destructive national warfare.

    3) Whatever happens I won't be around to see it. Come on weekend!!

    None of these notions are in themselves fatal as they are inherently self contradictory and wrong. The boat simply has to be turned. Lets just say I won't be joining the Red brigade any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The appearance of that vile-looking Sitzpinkler leads me to wondering, not for the first time, how much of current fashionable "empowerment" feminism (as distinct from, say, the ghetto feminism of Germaine Greer and her wretched acolytes during the 1970s) is actually (a) created by, and/or (b) designed specifically to appeal to, the male sodomite. (I will not call such an individual "gay" because I refuse to use terms like "gay" about those who are inherently sad, not least in their taste for anal penetration.) Miranda Devine has occasionally touched on this topic in the Sydney Morning Herald but, of course, it's more than her job's worth to examine the concept systematically.

    By any ordinary heterosexual standards of female beauty, the stars of Sex and the City range from adequately good-looking (Kim Cattrall, who according to recent news reports has a very big female fan club) to emaciated-equine (Sarah Jessica Parker). But it's quite possible that male sodomites might think such creatures represented quite attractive-looking women, purely because their brains are so wired as to be unable to appreciate what really attractive-looking women would be like.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jesse_7 your three points are the reason why so many young middle class college educated types are complacent to government issues.

    Point #2 is important because there is a fear of confronting the wars of the past amongst educated people. They are so afraid of history that they are afraid of doing anything that could rock the boat in the future. That makes them sitting ducks for more aggressive peoples.

    I will add this, what is disturbing, is I even saw 'liberal victimization' creep into some middle class educated types I know.

    Like a mutual friend's grandfather is giving her 5 million dollars in the will. The friend (friend A) is a teacher. Well friends B and C (PHD engineers) were going off about how "The government should take away people's inheritance. I want my parents to spend all their money and leave me with nothing. That's what I'm going to do...my kids should have to work for what they have" etc etc...

    So basically they were liberal victims in that their granddaddy's weren't rich and they were jealous to the point where they would support stealing other people's inheritance. It was a sick conversation...masked in wait for it...as Jesse said in another post "conservative" language...(aka the working hard crap)

    ReplyDelete
  21. As per Anonymous' comment, envy is the great (perhaps only, other than a related greed) recruiting tool of leftism.

    Now, the thing is, a society comprised of persons such as he describes -- present fixated, thinking about life in Keynesian mode ("In the long-run, we're all dead anyway") -- is a society with no future, for it is willing to devour its own future for the sake of a bit more comfort in the present.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hey guys,

    I'm from California and I wanted to ask you guys what you thought about this...

    When I applied for a business license I had to get electronically fingerprinted...It's called LiveScan. My electronic fingerprints are now permanently on file with the State.

    Also, when I was younger and worked for the city I was fingerprinted as well. I may have been fingerprinted at a private company also but it's a little fuzzy.

    I heard today that you guys in Oz don't do that. I just realized how bad this is...some people have even gotten fired by filing letters of complaint and having that letter be dusted for fingerprints.

    http://www.vdare.com/indexb.asp

    Just running this by the ozzies and telling you guys how low 'the home of the brave and freedom' has sunk.

    ReplyDelete
  23. whoops wrong link....
    http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/14/university-employee-fired-for-complaining-about-non-english-speaking-bus-driver/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Like a mutual friend's grandfather is giving her 5 million dollars in the will. The friend (friend A) is a teacher. Well friends B and C (PHD engineers) were going off about how "The government should take away people's inheritance. I want my parents to spend all their money and leave me with nothing. That's what I'm going to do...my kids should have to work for what they have" etc etc...

    The response to that is "your parents can do what they like with their money, and you can do what you like with yours - give it away, if you like - but what's it to you if someone else gives a ton of money to their kids? Why should the government decide what people do with their inheritances? That's crazy and evil."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Myself, I'd call it "crazy and wicked" ... because the root meaning of the word "evil" does not imply anything about morality, whereas "wicked" always does.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ... there is a reason, after all, that Richard Dawkins (in)famously asserted, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He was making a moral assertion about the people who do not recognize Darwinism as valid -- while, being the moral-weasel he is, trying to have that he’d “ rather not consider” the very thing he just considered.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Because he's an atheist he's uncomfortable useing religious language. But like you said he uses it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This is NOT a "men's manifesto".

    It's a feminist manifesto that targets masculinity.

    The sitzpinkler is a hybrid useful-idiot and direct product of institutionalised feminist emasculation we've all been seeing over the last 40 or so years.

    I repeat, this is not a men's manifesto. Discussing it as if it were is a structural flaw in any critique that forces us to analyse it on the wrong level.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well I think its a men's manifesto for girl men. A little guy like that would probably appreciate feminism.

    On the fingerprinting side I have to say that that does rankle me a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I disagree strongly. It is definitively not a "men's" manifesto because it positions itself against the essence of masculinity. If "men" assume it, they are not assuming it as men, but as some "new man". This only reinforces the proposition that it is an inherently feminist (or at least an explicitly anti-male) manifesto directed against masculinity (and therefore against men as a class). Compare this with the concept of “Soviet man”, a being fundamentally opposed to human nature and therefore inhuman, i.e. not "man" at all but automaton, robot. This is not semantic. It goes to the very heart of the matter. Perhaps I'm being too conceptual, in which case I invite Mr. Richardson to step in and try to put this in other words.

    ReplyDelete
  31. ... just to clarify, I wasn't trying to bait Mr. Richardson; I just think that he'd understand where I was coming from, has the ability to explain this better than I ...

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Perhaps I'm being too conceptual, ..."

    Or, perhaps, simply not realizing that the one of the points here, and which we all understand, is that this risible little thing is anti-masculine and thus anti-men (and thus is as fully anti-human as feminism, which is anti-feminine, is).

    ReplyDelete
  33. Kilroy said,

    "If "men" assume it, they are not assuming it as men, but as some "new man""

    Yes that's right.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jess_7 wrote (replying to me): “’Perhaps I'm being too conceptual, ...’ Or, perhaps, simply not realizing that the one of the points here, and which we all understand, is that this risible little thing is anti-masculine and thus anti-men (and thus is as fully anti-human as feminism, which is anti-feminine, is).

    I don’t understand how you could write the above. You believe I do not realize that one of the points here is that the manifesto is anti-masculine and therefore anti-male? The basis of my whole argument is that it is anti-masculine. I’ll repeat what I sad: “It's a feminist manifesto that targets masculinity … it positions itself against the essence of masculinity … it is an inherently feminist (or at least an explicitly anti-male) manifesto directed against masculinity (and therefore against men as a class)” (original emphasis retained).

    Really… how could you say that I don’t realize that it’s anti-male after having read all that???

    Look. The basic characteristic of a manifesto is that it serves the class it purports to be written on behalf of. This is a manifesto for men as much as it is a manifesto for alpacas. In fact, it is probably more a manifesto for alpacas because at least it doesn’t attack and deconstruct the essence of the alpaca. It is written for the benefit of anti-male women and mentally castrated (i.e. defective, and therefore not representative) men. Therefore, I repeat again: this is a feminist manifesto, not a men’s manifesto. The only people that will subscribe to it are feminist women and genderless/feminine men, not mentally healthy men.

    The reason why understanding this is important is because if you wish to argue against it, you need to place yourself on the right level. Otherwise, you end up trying to do battle against these social parasites by playing according to their own rules. That is exactly what mainstream “conservatives” have been doing for decades on a whole host of issues, which is why conservative parties these days are just right-liberal in their essence. What you’re doing by accepting the liberal lie here in believing this is a “men’s manifesto” is trying to rebut the substance on its own assumptions, which are profoundly in error. It would be far more economical to see through the mischievous lie and simply reject it in globo as being based on a fraud.

    I take back what I said about this being too conceptual. What I’m saying goes to the heart of the matter. If you don't understand what I'm saying, you will be ineffective in battling against the liberal feminist left.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Erratum:

    My apologies Jess_7, that was a reply to Ilion.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I mean this is an important point. Is feminism anti male or anti gender? If its seen as anti gender than goon's like this guy will want a piece of it because masculinity is too oppressive for him in his view. If its seen as anti-male then he's clearly making a fool of himself or fifth columning by joining it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "I don’t understand how you could write the above. ..."

    Of course, you *do* have that problem.

    I wonder, do you ever *read* your own posts?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I wonder, do you ever *read* your own posts?

    This is unintelligible. I provided quotes and my argument was structured. My interlocutor doesn’t seem to engage in the debate at all, other than responding with this juvenile insult. This from a person who constantly complains of others (namely, myself) being “passive-aggressive”, and, if I remember correctly, “arrogant” and “amoral” etc.

    I don’t believe that anything I wrote up until now was hostile or offensive (at least not to a traditionalist conservative). In this context, I’m amazed that on prior occasions he or she has accused me of “baiting” him or her. Is Ilion really that intimidated by a contrary view? Is he or she really that afraid of an articulated argument that challenges his or her world view?

    I always savor the opportunity to educate those that obviously need a little more edification, even liberals like Ilion. I made my position clear in this thread, even repeated myself for his or her benefit. But obviously, some prefer the fever swamps of online flaming to reaching some kind of synthesis or understanding. That’s fine, but I don’t need to play that game. Essentially, it is impossible to engage in a debate with someone who is fundamentally incapable of making the effort to comprehend an alternative point of view.

    My mistake here was that I though I was replying to a traditionalist on a rather important point of liberal critique. I was wrong: Ilion’s radical views on gender have been previously identified by me, much to his or her chagrin.

    In that context, Ilion’s inability to understand the simple point that a manifesto for X must be written from a particular vantage point vis-à-vis X, is analogous to his or her inability to understand that the innate differences between the genders will produce different behavioural norms for men and women as distinct from each other. That, of course, is the sad product of taking the liberal-left's doctrine of formal equality as a starting position and refusing to question the assumptions on which it is based (a la Ilion). Hence, in this case, a manifesto for Muslims can be written by a member of Opus Dei, a manifesto for the oppressed working class can be written by the Duke of Gloucester, and in this particular case, a manifesto for men, according to Ilion, can even be written by asexual feminist womyn. The idea is plainly ridiculous. But instead of justifying it on rational grounds (which is admittedly impossible), Ilion resorts to insults. I am therefore left with only one response, which I have already asserted here on another occasion, and need not repeat.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Is there a link to the actual manifesto, or just the story in Spiegel Online?

    ReplyDelete
  40. That, of course, is the sad product of taking the liberal-left's doctrine of formal equality as a starting position and refusing to question the assumptions on which it is based...

    It's better to say that is is the product of not seeing distinctions between things, which leads to formal equality etc...

    My advise is: ignor Ilion. There's no point...

    ReplyDelete
  41. Henry, agreed. But does the fact that distinctions exist between classes of people, such as men and women, mean that it is hypocritical to think that they both have a different morality? I would say no, because the difference in behavioural norms is inherent in the difference in biology, psychology etc. To tie that into this discussion, a manifesto that purports to be written for a class, must be written from within the ranks of that class. The so-called men's manifesto isn't, it is not a men's manifesto QED.

    ReplyDelete
  42. At the end of the day though it's not that important - the damage is the same. You point is a technical one only.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mr. Richardson,

    I think the idea of liberal autonomy theory being rooted in the desire for self-creation runs secondary to a radical autonomy theory that is rooted in dissolving relations and destroying impediments.

    It is because the liberal "self-creation" often times represents something so noxious to the senses that we recognize the root of this desire for autonomy is a radical detachment from and an incredible disgust for reality. The radical autonomist tries to live outside the Higher order first and then envelops himself in an array of "self-creations" in "order" to operate.

    What we are seeing in these "men's movement" are radical autonomists of the homosexual variant co-opting frustrated young men to serve as proxies in their NATURAL DESIRE to dissolve relations with women. What we see on the other side IS THE EXACT SAME THING. Devout dykes co-opting waywards females as proxies in their NATURAL DESIRE to dissolve relations with men.

    The elevation of radical autonomy as highest existential state is the elevation of the homosexual and lesbian nature as highest nature. The homosexual and lesbian were the first liberals daring to live outside God's order and all His Impediments.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm a fiftysomething mum and I think he (the young man in the photo) is lovely. He looks like he's enjoying life, and you lot are just bitter and sad (as well as a bit scary).

    ReplyDelete
  45. Allright Georgia, he looks lovely no doubt because he's very "boy like". As opposed to man like. You'd have to ask yourself though would you be willing to marry someone like him? Would you want to rely on him in a crisis? Do you think he could manage a really difficult job? A degendered male like him might be acceptable in an utopian setting and would no doubt be a pleasant companion for women. The rest of us have to live in the real world.

    As for enjoying life that's easy when you have no, or have abrogated, all your responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  46. " ...and you lot are just bitter and sad (as well as a bit scary)."

    And you’re clearly a fool.

    Or, were I to speak in the same vein you had used, I might say something like –

    Your problem is that you’ve never had a really thorough rogering.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Allright Georgia, he looks lovely no doubt because he's very "boy like". As opposed to man like. You'd have to ask yourself though would you be willing to marry someone like him?

    Yes, I wonder if Georgia went for boymen when she was single and in her late teens/early twenties.

    And how many boymen would make it through an arduous life and successfully fulfil their responsibilities as a husband and father?

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.