Tuesday, January 18, 2011

So the left now thinks burqas are liberating?

The left has entirely flipped its position when it comes to the burqa. Twenty years ago, feminists would often cite the burqa as evidence of the nasty patriarchal oppression of women. I can remember feeling aggrieved for being targeted as a Western man for something that was outside the Western tradition.

That's why it's so strange for someone of my generation to witness the left now coming to the defence of the burqa.

Here's the latest example of this from Australia. A Sydney artist has painted a mural on a wall with the slogan "Say no to burqas":

The Sydney artist, Sergio Redegalli, in front of the mural.

The response of one radical leftist woman, Kiraz Janicke, was to create this artwork:


So burqa wearing women have been transformed from victims of the patriarchy to inspiring leftist rebels.

How can the left justify such a change in position? This is the Indymedia line:

The anti-burqa mural articulates one form of patriarchy in the guise of what he perceives to be the patriarchy of another culture. The act of determining what is suitable behaviour for others and calling on the government to regulate this, is typically authoritarian and patriarchal. Empowerment and liberation are not things that can be prescribed and dictated to others. Some people might find empowerment in affirming aspects of their heritage, others by shedding all such traditional values. An anti-racist and anti-sexist politics of solidarity has to act in common with those who are struggling for their emancipation, not dictate what their freedom will look like.

This is an attempt to apply autonomy theory to the issue. The writer is arguing that it is patriarchal to oppose the wearing of the burqa because that would interfere with the self-determination of Muslim women. (Note too the argument that it is "empowering" for "some people" to affirm "aspects of their heritage" - presumably "some people" does not include Anglo-Australians).

Kiraz Janicke, who created the pro-burqa artwork portrayed above, took a similar line:

Some progressives and feminists may find “Burqa revolution” confronting because it portrays a woman demanding the right to wear a burqa — something commonly viewed as symbol of women’s subjugation.

However, as a recent 2000-strong rally in western Sydney supporting the right to wear a burqa shows, for many Muslim women wearing a burqa, niqab or hijab is an affirmation of their identity and an act of protest against the prevailing Islamophobia.

My artwork challenges the argument that banning the burqa can contribute to women’s liberation. Liberation is not something that can be imposed, but must be won through a process of self-determination.

There are three things happening here politically. The first, obviously, is that autonomy (i.e. self-determination) is being thought of as the end aim of politics. The second is that there is an underlying bias toward non-Western traditions, with the affirmation of Muslim identity and heritage being spoken of in positive terms that would never be extended to the Australian identity or heritage.

The third is the idea that liberation cannot be imposed. That sounds very strange coming from the far left, which is not averse to political violence. In fact, Kiraz Janicke is a member of the youth organisation Resistance. This organisation supports the idea of a revolutionary uprising to liberate the people. So when Kiraz Janicke states that "liberation cannot be imposed" she is not rejecting the idea of force to change society along left-wing lines. She is probably imagining (rather hopefully given historical evidence) that the revolutionary change will come from below.

Anyway, the little leftist activist groups in Sydney did organise a violent demonstration against the anti-burqa mural. It seems that the concept of "self-determination" was not applied to the artist.

It's interesting that the far left thinks it can harness Islam for its own purposes. It doesn't show much of a capacity for long-term thinking. If Islam consolidates itself in places like Sydney, what is likely to happen to our handful of lefty activists? Islam is about submission to God, not a self-creating lifestyle. Many of the lefty activists cultivate a punky/feral/queer look that isn't likely to be well-received in a majority Muslim culture:


As for the burqa, I think most Westerners, if they were honest, would have to admit that it's an unsettling sight. The following picture is from a demonstration in favour of the burqa held in the Sydney suburb of Lakemba last year:




The left is telling us that these burqa clad women are inspiring rebels. I don't see that, I see something very alien to my own tradition and another reason to oppose the principle of multiculturalism.

101 comments:

  1. The enemy of my enemy is my ... friend? Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mark said....

    ""It's interesting that the far left thinks it can harness Islam for its own purposes.""

    The Iranian Left-libs thought the same.

    Most of them ended up meekly changing their minds when they saw who the "strong horse" was.

    The others ended up on the end of a rope.

    The left sees Islam as a way to corrode Australia, they hate Australia [as anyone who has talked to them knows] and they want it destroyed.

    In their minds the islamic community is an easily manipulated guilt-tool that can be used against the majority as long as community leaders get scraps from the state.

    As confirmed aethiests they truely believe that religious groups will die out when "Inequality" is addressed.

    Mick Armstrongs growing Marxist group the Socialist Alternative has done quite a bit of ideological gymnastics to discover that religion is not the enemy of marxism after all, but rather a very seful tool to organise people who would not otherwise join a Marxist group.

    The annual "Hiroshima day" marches in Melbourne in early August unite most of the left leaning church groups with Marxists and the Greens under the banner of "Peace".

    These people are starting to grow to levels not seen since the fall of the Soviet Union, the old dogmatic Marxists of the Socialist Alliance are fading away, and the new generation are coming up.

    They already have people in high places:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Alternative_%28Australia%29#Notable_members

    One of them wrote an article on Onlineopinion explaining how marx was REALLY in favour of religious groups:

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8076

    They also are spreading the Amren lie about the AZ shooting [thank-you very-f*cking-much Foxnews]:

    http://www.sa.org.au/international/3054-hatred-strikes-in-the-capital-of-bigotry

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The act of determining what is suitable behaviour for others and calling on the government to regulate this, is typically authoritarian and patriarchal."

    Errmmmmmmm, isn't that exactly what feminists do? Determine suitable behavior for others (men) and demand the government regulate this???

    ReplyDelete
  4. ""rrmmmmmmm, isn't that exactly what feminists do? Determine suitable behavior for others (men) and demand the government regulate this???""

    Yup.

    But men are part of the "patriachal racist system" that enforces inequality between genders and ethnicities [because of course all humans would be equal if not for the evil of the system].

    ReplyDelete
  5. *Shrieks!*

    I'm going to go stand on my head then contort myself into a pretzel. Much easier than reading the bizarro world logic of these people.

    We all have our issues, and we've all done our stupid stuff...But really...

    Why can't some people (like these punk rockers) just throw in the towel call it a day and Just Be Normal?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Richardson,

    It would be more correct to say Islam is submission to an autonomous god. This allows the modern jihadist to serve Allah in the most unpredictable ways. The unsettling aspect of the burqa-wearing female jihadist is the very visceral feeling of witnessing one who exists in a state of radical autonomy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thoraddy,

    What does that mean? That Muslim women are isolated from the world? They're not free to do whatever they want.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Its always been our custom to let people wear whatever they want in the way of relgious dress. The French started this whole "ban the burqa" thing as part of their colonisation of north africa and their general atheist trend. That lefties would want to side with the muslims is ridiculous but the left/far left are always ridiculous. They can't exist without some political cause, but this is one that's devoid of any sense at all. The muslims don't need the help of lesbians to push their ideas.

    I can't recall if I've said this story or not but I remeber one soft lefite bloke complaining about feminist women on campus who thought Star Trek was oprressive to women as it was focused on war etc. The soft lefties might have to listen to these jerk offs but I'm gald we don't.

    Overhearing lefites on campus once I heard one say, "so you agree there should be a revolution". I mean people hear that and they shake their heads. Are these guys even really that relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  9. In what passes for the "social philosophy" of modern liberalism one of the givens is that Western societies are oppressive hell holes. This doctrine has all sorts of topsy-turvy and contradictory ramifications. For instance from a feminist point of view, wearing a burqa where they don't need to, is a sign that Muslim sisters are psychologically oppressed. They must be liberated of course. But at the same time, wearing a burqa where it isn't "mandatory" is a defiant gesture against the oppressive notion that it's an oppressive garment !

    So whatever ideas you have - even as an impartial observer - about wearing a burqa, the hell hole thesis is true.

    Is it any surprise that trying to think through this kind of drivel makes your head spin?

    ReplyDelete
  10. It means that female jihadists are free to make us feel alienated in our own houses or we can pretend like the burqa is just another meaningless outfit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For instance from a feminist point of view, wearing a burqa where they don't need to, is a sign that Muslim sisters are psychologically oppressed. They must be liberated of course. But at the same time, wearing a burqa where it isn't "mandatory" is a defiant gesture against the oppressive notion that it's an oppressive garment!

    Well put, Alex. And yes it boggles the mind.

    Are these guys even really that relevant?

    They used to be. They were few in number, no more than several hundred in Australia in the 80s and 90s. But they would turn over large numbers of young uni students. A lot of those students would go on to be lefty academics or political activists. I still recognise a few on the TV from my own time at uni.

    But I'm not sure they appeal to young white heterosexual guys as much as they used to. They seem to recruit a lot more from the "alternative" crowd now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Whenever I see a woman in a burqa I give her a look in the eyes, not in a rude way just to tell her I know she's there. They're often fairly anxious to look out at the world. I'm not intimidated by the burqa, I don't find it alien, it just seems to me its someone trying to hide behind a sheet. They usually find it quite unsettling because I think they're used to people looking at their clothes but not their eyes.

    They can wear whatever they want, in their own country. If they're wearing it here to unsettle me, then I'm free to unsettle them back.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I put this up before at the end of a thread but I'm not sure it was seen. Its a young lebanese guy loosing it in a kfc.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H4h4iW4vNU

    This is your muslim menace. An attitude that says I should be able to do anything.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The left hates it's own civilization (Western) and therefore if another civilization or culture is also agaisnt Western civilization they side with them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. How can you tell a feminist and a sumo apart?

    The hairy one is the feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jesse,

    We have to look at Islam and its different degree of jihadist the same way we look at radical liberalism and its different degree of autonomist. Fundamentally, both Islam and Liberalism are all-inclusive ideologies that seek a radical autonomy for the "worshipper." Neither protocol is truly realized until WE ARE ALL SUBSUMED. This means that the individual adherents are all, to differing degrees, possessors of a totalitarian mindset. Yes, the burqa-clad jihadist may being wearing the burqa "just because," but why continue to make that weak (liberal) judgement?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think the Islamists are probably smart enough not to turn on the western Left until they've destroyed the western Right. Remember what happened in Iran; the Left helped the Islamists take power, destroying the conservative elements - the military, royalists et al. Only then did the Islamists turn on the Left.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jesse 7:
    "Whenever I see a woman in a burqa I give her a look in the eyes, not in a rude way just to tell her I know she's there"

    IME Islamist burqa wearers (as opposed to apolitical old Afgani women) have the following reaction:

    If I give them a disapproving/angry/alarmed look, they look smug/happy; I am giving them exactly the reaction they seek.

    *However* one time I unexpectedly saw a burka wearer, and burst out laughing. *This* caused her a look of great consternation and unhappiness.

    Laughter, as they say, is the best medicine.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thordaddy
    It would be more correct to say Islam is submission to an autonomous god.

    In what sense is Allah an "autonomous god"?

    This allows the modern jihadist to serve Allah in the most unpredictable ways.

    Really? From my reading of Koran and life of Mohammed, I find the jihadi to be rather predictable.

    The unsettling aspect of the burqa-wearing female jihadist is the very visceral feeling of witnessing one who exists in a state of radical autonomy.

    This is just ignorant. You know nothing about Islam at all, it appears.

    Shouldn't you be blaming it all on the "homo" men's right advocates, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jesse,

    I just watched that Sydney KFC video. If I understand correctly, someone asked for bacon on their chicken burger. A very intense response.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think the Islamists are probably smart enough not to turn on the western Left until they've destroyed the western Right.

    Simon,

    I expect that's right. Nonetheless, there are some forthright Muslims who aren't feeding leftist vanities. For instance, at the pro-burqa demonstration in Lakemba one of the speakers said this:

    Islamic values are superior to ''flawed'' Western secular values and non-Muslims are in no position to lecture Muslims about the oppression of women, a speaker said yesterday at a Sydney rally against proposals to ban the burqa.

    ''Despite the intense negative propaganda against Islam and in particular the lies about its treatment of women, the number of Western women embracing Islam continues to rise at a rapid rate,'' said Fautmeh Ardati, a member of the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir. ''By turning their backs on this flawed way of life, it is testament of the superiority of Islamic values over Western values.''

    Women did not wear Islamic dress out of freedom of choice, Ms Ardati told the Lakemba rally.

    ''Because to use freedom of choice as a justification, then we are also accepting of women who undress out of this same freedom of choice, and we can never do this as Muslim women. We dress like this because it is the command of Allah, not any man.''

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon reader,

    Is it your understanding that the god Allah is "limited" in doing as he wills? Is it your understanding that the god Allah is "limited" in his capacity to do both good and evil? Is it your understanding that the god Allah is "limited" in his capacity to speak both truthfulness and falsness?

    How is the god Allah NOT radically autonomous and how are those that worship him NOT also radically autonomous?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon reader,

    But of course, being severely desensitized, you miss the larger point.

    Why must we continually confront these questions in our own house?

    Why can we not get any peace in our own houses without numbing ourselves with the drug of radical liberalism?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thordaddy,

    (Sorry I misspelt your name earlier). I agree with your point about my burqa response being essentially a liberal one. One thing we have in the west though is stronger individuals. On a person to person basis we're generally more developed and tougher. That's one of the reason's foreigners look at us and continue to be fascinated. If you can "pierce the veil" of the burqa wearer you're looking at their individuality and they immediately feel their vulnerability because on an individual basis they might not be that strong. Their response then is to feel a little shame. How developed as an individual can you be if you worship something that requires total submission and you feel you can't even show your face to the world? Like I said many burqa wearers, especially if they're not born here, continue to look out at the world with longing.

    Is this essentially a liberal argument? I think it is because its focusing on individuality, but you can't ignore individuality because we're also individuals as well as part of something greater. Westernism has always embraced individuality to some degree and that's one of the reasons I think for our success.

    Mark,

    On the KFC video, yes it had something to do with an order for bacon, if you look in the background you can see a halal sign. It was more than that though I believe the guy stuffed the order up, felt foolish, then "responded". This footage is in Australia, punchbowl I think. Just appalling.

    This guy is a 'liberal' muslim, ie young punk. If he was a devout muslim at least he wouldn't have acted like that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thordaddy
    Is it your understanding that the god Allah is "limited" in doing as he wills? Is it your understanding that the god Allah is "limited" in his capacity to do both good and evil? Is it your understanding that the god Allah is "limited" in his capacity to speak both truthfulness and falsness?

    The god Allah is essentially an Oriental despot who can and will do whatever he wills. But to refer to such a deity as "radically autonomous" is simply without meaning. It's making random sounds.

    How is the god Allah NOT radically autonomous and how are those that worship him NOT also radically autonomous?

    The followers of Allah are to be in submission to him, to his will as revealed in the Koran, Suna and hadith. A true follower of Islam is the farthest thing from autonomous. Let me give you an example: with which foot do you lead when you enter a house? Do you even know? Do you care? A follower of the Koran, Suna, hadith will always enter a house with his right and and right foot leading. Because he must, because Allah told him to.

    The number of rules that have been derived from Koran, etc. are many, and all are binding on the practicing Moslem. They are no more autonomous than observant Jews.

    Now run along. Adults are having a discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Now run along. Adults are having a discussion."

    A very 'adult' comment to make.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Personally I disagree with banning any form of islamic headgear.

    If they want to make themselves obviously different that can only be a good thing for awareness and identity amongst our own communities.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon reader,

    All one has to do is look at liberal orthodoxy to see that submitting to trivial dictates in order to maximize one's autonomy is way of the radical autonomist.

    Submitting one's self to the will of Allah is the mechanism by which the jihadist maximizes his autonomy. Now, you may disagree with his idea of "freedom," but that's irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jesse_7
    "Now run along. Adults are having a discussion."

    A very 'adult' comment to make.

    I've read "Thordaddy" at a number of sites, and often the postings are a mishmash of post-modernist junk thought and name calling. I've never seen "Thordaddy" make a rational argument. I've never seen "Thordaddy" quote a single source on anything. I've never seen "Thordaddy" answer a logical chain of reasoning.

    "Thordaddy" is at best a troll. In my opinion, of course. You're free to interact with it and attempt to engage in reason.

    Good luck if you do.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Thordaddy"
    Anon reader,
    All one has to do is look at liberal orthodoxy to see that submitting to trivial dictates in order to maximize one's autonomy is way of the radical autonomist.


    Don't be ridiculous. I wasn't born last week. Radical autonomy, in the sense that Mark Richardson is using it, enables those that follow it to pick and choose all manner of trivial dictates. Consider the cult of vegetarianism; there is an astounding number of variations, starting with the lacto/ovo vs. vegan split.

    Radical autonomy is all about making up one's own rules, not submitting to anyone else's.
    Examples abound, from homosexual "marriage", group "marriage", self "marriage" to demonstrably wrong notions about political economy, and so forth and so on.

    One motto of the radical autonomist is "It's My Life, Don't Tell Me How To Live It", another is "It's My Body, Don't Tell Me What To Do With It".

    That is diametrically opposite to the dictates of the Koran, Suna and hadith as explicated in the fiqh. Islamic law, Sharia, based upon the Koran and Suna explicitly tells the Moslem what he can and cannot do with his life, how he can and cannot die, what he can and cannot do with his body, how he can and cannot interact with other people, and so forth, and very much so on.

    It's ludicrous to claim that Islam is radical autonomy. It's like saying that fire is wet, or water is dry.

    Submitting one's self to the will of Allah is the mechanism by which the jihadist maximizes his autonomy.

    This is complete and utter rubbish.
    The dictates of Islam can be found on any number of websites, start with "ask the Imam" for just one example of finely-grained these requirements are.

    You're making the term "radical autonomy" mean something totally opposite in order to sustain your attempt at an argument. It's no good. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I am sure some of these "progressive" muslim women believe they are doing what Allah tells them to, not what their husbands tell them to, but Allah is a patriarchal figure and Mohammed was a living man who told women to obey their husbands and cover up.

    There's no getting around the fact that Islamic theory directly clashes with liberal autonomy theory. Nor, is there any respect in Islam for other cultures with different values. As a Muslim once told me, Islam is a staunch, simple religion which is designed to be understood and obeyed by simple peasant people. It was never designed to accommodate fancy western individualism, because if it did, it would lose the very qualities which have made it so successful.

    Interestingly, if multiculturalism is to work, then both liberalism and Islam will have to make compromises - Islamic women will have to stop wearing burkas and white women will have to tone things down too. However, both ideologies are absolutist with no room for compromise or genuine toleration of particuralism (eg, it's for Swedes to wear bikinis but not Saudi's).

    Left liberals may be celebrating multiculturalism but its actually going to be the the death of liberalism, because you can't have absolutist ideologies competing for control of the same society.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think the Islamists are probably smart enough not to turn on the western Left until they've destroyed the western Right.

    I'm not so sure. Moslems are like Mexicans in that they both belong to cultures that place a very high value on machismo. Imams currently have no reason to tell their young mujaheddin to stop physically attacking the West; each successful jihad attack is immediately followed up by calls for more "inclusion" and power for local imams.

    If imams did order the mujaheddin to lay low, whether or not they would actually listen remains to be seen. It seems to me that young Moslems are as in-your-face as they are because they see Westerners as feckless weaklings and themselves as natural conquerors. Why should they ease up if their enemy is already mostly defeated and God will give them victory besides?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anon reader,

    You seem to be under the impression that as one draws closer to existing in a radically autonomous state that one is actually reaching a place of absolute freedom. Look around and you will see that much like Islam, modern liberalism has reached a state of diminishing returns. Every new step it takes to autonomize the radical individual is a step towards TOTALITARIANISM. Just as there is no real freedom in worshipping a god that may compel its adherent to act irrationally, there is no real freedom in existing in a radically autonomous state UNLESS one defines freedom as embracing the false.

    Again, following a regiment of trivial dictates or flat-out lies IS NOT THE OPPOSITE of radical autonomy, but an attempt to prove that one is radically autonomous.

    When the jihadist - following the orders of an autonomous god - self-annihilates in a suicide mission, THAT IS PROOF OF HIS RADICAL AUTONOMY.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mike Courtman says,

    There's no getting around the fact that Islamic theory directly clashes with liberal autonomy theory.

    I disagree entirely. If radical autonomy theory says you may drive through red lights at will and my religion says I may run the red light sometimes and sometimes I may not - depending on the unfettered will of my god - then there is from the perspective of those that know you should never run the red light (outside the most extreme cases of course) no functional difference between the radical autonomist and the worshipper of an autonomous god.

    Also, both liberal orthodoxy and Islam ARE ALL-INCLUSIVE ideologies. Each needs to subsume all to be fully realized. It is impossible to be TRULY radically autonomous UNLESS all others are radically autonomous. Even one exclusion, one Supremacist, is infinitely impostional and torturously oppressive. This applies to Islam as well and gives us an understanding as to why there is a relentless drive by its adherents.

    Further, both find "liberation" in self-annihilation. The TRUE radical autonomist proves his radically autonomous "existence" via total liberation... Final liberation... Self-annihilation. The jihadist martyr liberates in the same fashion and serves an autonomous god in the most radically autonomous ways.

    And let's face facts. The collusion between radical liberals and Western integrated jihadists is unmistakeable.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Left liberals may be celebrating multiculturalism but its actually going to be the the death of liberalism, because you can't have absolutist ideologies competing for control of the same society.

    Very true.

    The liberals, however, truly believe that they will win, because interiorly they are convinced that everyone, when given the choice between the values of contemporary Western liberal secularism and any other set of values will choose Western liberal secularism overwhelmingly (except for groups which liberals consider to benefit directly from other values, such as white or Islamic men, for example). So, in other words, liberals are *sure* they are going to win because they think they have the most attractive ideology and value system to *everyone*, regardless of culture.

    In this they are surely wrong, and it will be their undoing. But until that happens, liberal "faith" in the ultimate triumph of Western liberal secularist values will continue unimpeded. They really *do* see themselves as "the good guys of history" and the triumph of secular liberalism globally as inevitable and eventual.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ''The liberals, however, truly believe that they will win, because interiorly they are convinced that everyone, when given the choice between the values of contemporary Western liberal secularism and any other set of values will choose Western liberal secularism overwhelmingly (except for groups which liberals consider to benefit directly from other values, such as white or Islamic men, for example). So, in other words, liberals are *sure* they are going to win because they think they have the most attractive ideology and value system to *everyone*, regardless of culture.''

    I think that as liberalism consumes a society and destroys it that the ones destroyed with gender neutrality, racial white guilt, autonomy/individualism, homosexualization, evolution (and the distortion of science as whole with regards for example global cooling to global warming to climate change) and so forth will react at some point.
    Like I said I have nothing against my Father and my Mother but it's wrong to have *no stable racial identity*. I always answer people ''My father is this, my mother is that and my maternal grandmother was that.'' I mean I don't know if I should marry somebody like my father, somebody like my mother or should I mix my blood even more. Ironically the mixing of two or three racial identities has made my racial identity useless. Diversity has killed diversity. Autonomy/Individualism have destroyed the individual. Sexual freedom leads to the destruction of sexuality. That's not to say that conservatism can't be bad in it's own ways. But it's ironic how liberalism says something and the result is it's opposite somewhere along the line. Liberalism is like a double edge sword. On one side ''There is no right/good and wrong/evil.'' and on the other side ''Traditional conservatism is wrong/evil.''

    Liberal society will sooner or later die out because of it's contradictions and unsustainability. The problem is how long it will take. Another problem is will liberals react to the destruction that liberalism causes with accusations at the suppose big mass of traditional conservatives out there that are causing this destruction? It's the law of projection and minority-majority relations. If your delusions and bad consequences are having a (minor or massive) effect project, cover it up, lie and hide and distort because you believe yourself to be good and having good intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Novaseeker: The liberals, however, truly believe that they will win, because interiorly they are convinced that everyone, when given the choice between the values of contemporary Western liberal secularism and any other set of values will choose Western liberal secularism overwhelmingly...

    Or, they are sick to death of their own empty liberalism and are longing for big bad Islam to sweep them off their feet, without their having to admit to Western conservatives (read "Daddy") that they, the "progressives", were wrong about everything.

    Hey, it fits with their essential infantilism and effeminacy. They love totalitarianism and thugs too much; what they really hate is the tradition of ordered liberty in the West, which requires the participation of adults. Adulthood requires self-control, self-denial, and answering for one's actions. The charms of what used quaintly to be called "oriental despotism" - fatalism, slavishness, the childish irresponsibility of the subject, the tolerance of tyrants - is actually very attractive to them. The Way of the West - the real Way of the West, that made the West what it was, not the self-indulgence of its degenerate stages - is a hard path, not for weak-minded and complacent.

    There are liberals, of the libertarian or neocon persuasion, who do naïvely believe what you write - that everyone given the choice longs to be a Western liberal. But to their credit, they really do believe in the superiority of those values, and will defend them.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rohan Swee said,

    "But to their credit, they really do believe in the superiority of those values, and will defend them."

    Or at least they should, there are plenty of chickenhawkes out there who bug out when the going gets tough.

    If you look at something like Al Quada, they spend most of their time killing and attacking other muslims. They want to bring down the middle east regimes, they want to defeat/kill non-true muslims read 'liberal' ones. It is fair to say that they see liberalism as a bigger threat to their society than merely the west. They wouldn't be so focused I believe if there wasn't a genuine concern that muslims would find the west/liberalism very appealing. In Afghanistan the foreign forces have over 60% approval ratings. So I don't think the appeal of liberalism shouldn’t be understated.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I realize that dismissing, belittling and even despising men's rights advocates, especially those at Spearhead, is pretty much required on this blog. However, Spearhead today has an article on a "marital rape" trial that might be worthy of comment or two on Oz Conservative...given the topic.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/19/australian-man-facing-trial-for-1963-spousal-rape/

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous Reader,

    I give that comment 10 likes and no dislikes. My thinking is that there would be a statue of limitations issue as well as the clear retroactive justice issue. Its not a good precedent and will be overturned at the high court. It doesn't say much for the South Australian judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I read that an appeal hasn't been lodged yet, and it should be. A high profile case like that can really raise the issue in the public's mind.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anon reader,

    What about the teenage boy or the lil' man? While you're so caught up in "men's" rights, what about these guys? What are their rights when pops chooses separatism? Who is out to protect them when all those females are so wayward and you're promoting male separatism?

    What is it with these MRAs that have themselves believing that only they know the man/woman struggle; only they have a grasp of the REAL reality? Who on this blog ever advocated man getting railroaded by injustice? This is the strawman by which many MRAs can then play victim.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The court said there's no statute of limitations because he's being charged with "common law" rape not statutory rape. Common law marital rape in '63 when it wasn't considered a common law offence at the time. This is a very weak argument and will come crashing down at the High Court. Unfortunately these intermediate courts think they can do almost anything sometimes and they have to be hauled into line by the High Court regularly. Time to reform the judiciary to stop them engaging in clear breaches of law in the name of "judicial independence". Courts need to be censured for stepping clearly outside the lines. Some guy has to wait in legal limbo till this is resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I realize that dismissing, belittling and even despising men's rights advocates, especially those at Spearhead, is pretty much required on this blog.

    C'mon, anon. That's not a fair assessment. I've expressed concern about some of the political ideas being expressed by some MRAs. But I haven't dismissed, belittled or despised. If anything, it's the other way around. Some Spearhead contributors seem to have a "thing" about traditionalists that's not easy to understand.

    I did read the article you linked to. It's a concern if it's a case of a law being retrospectively applied. I'll be interested to see how the case develops.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Rohan Swee:
    "There are liberals, of the libertarian or neocon persuasion, who do naïvely believe what you write - that everyone given the choice longs to be a Western liberal. But to their credit, they really do believe in the superiority of those values, and will defend them."

    I agree - it's the neocons and classical-Liberal Whigs who believe in Fukuyama Liberalism-as-end-of-History. Cultural Marxism influenced Left-Liberals seek destruction of the West and don't have a clear vision of the end-state other than it being a vague one-world utopia. This utopia does have some defined characteristics, eg it won't have any White people as such since Whites will have interbred with other races until they no longer exist as a defined group, and as classical Marxism predicts it won't have any nation-States.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous Reader,

    One of the SH commenters says the following:
    Let the wife say no to sex with her husband. However, if your wife won’t have sex with you it should be grounds for annulment.

    I'd just like to point out that doesn't make any sense. Either a husband has conjugal rights he can enforce with the law (through annulment), or he doesn't, and his wife can accuse him of marital rape. You can't say, "My wife is obligated to have sex with me, except when she doesn't want to."

    Marital rape laws are stupid, anyway. How can you prove that you didn't force your wife to have sex with you? If she doesn't want to have sex with you anymore, she should leave and file for divorce. They just created the law so that women can terrorize their husbands with threats of prosecution, demonize their ex-husbands in divorce proceedings, or make them sleep on the couch when they don't turn them on anymore. It's like a beta-punishment law.

    Some Spearhead contributors seem to have a "thing" about traditionalists that's not easy to understand.

    They criticize me a lot, as well. According to them, I'm a prudish, stupid, socon, feminist. LOL. Seriously, that's what they say about me. It's just shaming language designed to intimidate you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. My goodness Alte can we stop with calling everything shaming language. Its ridiculous to criticise this or that as shaming language because "everyone" does it, its impossible not to. People always us shaming language when they’re being rude or critical.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The staunch liberal right wingers are at least logically consistent. They realise Islam is a threat to liberal values so therefore they say Muslims should respect to liberal values.

    But as other commentators here have pointed out, it may not be in our interest when they advocate 'invite the world invade the world policies' and optimistically assume they can aggressively convert Islamists to liberalism.


    By contrast, as Jesse points out left liberals are avoiding confrontation and are hoping Muslims will eventually warm to liberalism and become more individualised. This is a dangerous assumption. The Islamic world looked to be going more moderate and secular in the 1970s, but since then large parts of it have become more theocratic and militant again, while toleration for Christians and Jews seems to be getting worse rather than better.

    My view is that if we are staunch on Muslim immigration and less aggressive on foreign policy, the particularist movements in Muslim countries will grow stronger and the militant pan-Muslim movements like Al Qaeda will decline.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jesse,

    I call it "shaming language" to point out they are using the same language as those they are... attempting to shame for using "shaming language". LOL. I just find it ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Alte,

    "rolls eyes" hehe.

    Mike Courtman,

    Can we in the West convert Arabs to liberalism? Assuming that we want to? In some ways I think we can. On the other hand its such a vacuous concept. The ideal of the liberal good life is:

    a) Material prosperity and entertainment.
    b) Government services to take care of us in the ways we can't or don't want to.
    c) Engagement with others in a fairly limited fashion. As part of quick and ready made "communities" of shared interest or identity, with relatively little or no mutual obligations.

    Its this third factor that makes many immigrants and foreigners uneasy. What personal identity can I have in such a setup? What does it mean to be a person in this environment? How should I or others behave? What if its not working for me etc?

    So we get sons and daughters of immigrants who are more hostile in a sense. The parents have satisfied the first two liberal criteria and focused on standards of living. Their children on the other hand are born with confused identities or buy into identity as an "us against the west" script.

    On the other point. I'll admit to being a neocon on foreign policy. I just think that there's nowhere in the world that you can hide and sooner or latter you have to confront these guys. I don't think our foreign policy really provokes them and that any clash is inevitable.

    I think up until the 70's in the Arab world there was an assumption that in order to be powerful you had to be western. This was designed to address the couple of centuries of stagnation they'd experienced. After the 1970's they thought the hell with it, we can sell oil and push islam.

    Are we too aggressive in our promotion of western ideas? I'm not sure. The biggest western influences are lifestyle factors and I think they're wanted rather than promoted. Should we close the doors? Absolutely.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "I realize that dismissing, belittling and even despising men's rights advocates, especially those at Spearhead, is pretty much required on this blog."

    Do you think it could be due to the fact that "so-cons" are mentioned practically in every discussion thread over there, in a negative way?

    Of course, it's easy to understand why MRAs hate traditionalists, as they hate the idea of traditional male responsibilities (just look at the recent discussion of this very topic).

    They aren't advocating the return of the traditional family but rather the complete withdrawal of men from society.

    I never thought I would come to admit this but thordaddy with his theories seems to be right about the movement.

    As for the marital rape, that should be an oxymoron in any sane society.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Would society be better or worse for MRA's (some at least) if there were no traditionalists? Because this seems to be the goal if they're endlessly criticising us. Its a scary concept. Assuming that some of the "we want society to collapse and live like Mad Max" is just rhetoric.

    1. Who would serve in the military? Ultimately soldiers can't be adventure seekers but have to be loyalists to their country.

    2. Who would take up many of the jobs that involve a commitment to society? Eg volunteer firefighter, lifesafer, charity worker.

    3. Who would ensure that children are properly raised? There are many conservatives in the education system or the churches who do this. Before you can "figure things out for yourself" you have to be schooled in some basics.

    4. Who would have children? Aren't they an inconvenience? Who would even marry assuming that divorce was changed. Married life in the best of words is a limitation.

    You can say "things aren't fair so men should be able to do what they want/pull out", but have you considered the ramifications of what you propose? Beyond the general resentment of saying society deserves it or hoping that once men have withdrawn for a while they'll happily take up their obligations again should things change.

    ReplyDelete
  54. „Would society be better or worse for MRA's (some at least) if there were no traditionalists? Because this seems to be the goal if they're endlessly criticising us.”

    If traditionalists simply concentrated on waging ideological struggle against feminists and creating isolated communities of their own subculture – which is, realistically speaking, the only long-term achievement they can hope for, given the current leftist liberal hegemony –, MRAs would have no problem with that and some of them would probably even applaud that.

    But some traditionalists apparently aren’t content with that. They decided that they need to pick online feuds with the MRM and compare them to hardcore feminists. They also consider it justified to implore young men to follow social rules that are not only unenforced but also completely devalued. For the same reason they call on them to sign up for Marriage 2.0, which some traditionalists apparently have a hard time understanding does not equal Marriage 1.0, thereby sending them off as clueless cannon fodder into the gender war that the feminists started.

    All this stems from their belief that they have the right to instruct young men what to do in order to become „real men”. You see, Jesse, some MRAs have correctly observed that one reason why Western men have been in a terrible situation for decades is because feminists, traditionalists, academics and other „professionals” consider themselves justified in defining what „proper manhood” is and what young men must do to achieve it. Maybe we should entertain the notion that young men don’t need feminists, traditionalists or any other political movement in dire need of useful idiots instructing them how to become „real men”, and they should simply be left alone instead, no longer branded as society’s scapegoats and targeted by oppressive laws.

    „Assuming that some of the "we want society to collapse and live like Mad Max" is just rhetoric.”

    You’re intentionally misrepresenting them (why do I not find that surprising?). What some MRAs are observing is that Western society has entered terminal decline, reforming the feminist legal system is either hopeless or would not amount to more than tinkering around the edges, and therefore young men should adopt a survival strategy because only societal collapse can wash away the feminist gynocracy and only then can men’s social condition improve. It’s a legitimate position, whether you like it or not, and certainly more realistic than the useful suggestions of traditionalists on how to reform the legal system (are there any?).

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hollenhund said,

    "But some traditionalists apparently aren’t content with that. They decided that they need to pick online feuds with the MRM and compare them to hardcore feminists."

    That's lame you criticise us too, much more probably. Stop playing the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "That's lame you criticise us too, much more probably."

    Unfair and baseless criticisms are usually responded to. Hopefully you won't find that surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  57. And vice versa.

    I also think its lame that the end state of the men's movement is that they be "left alone". Pretty weak. How can society survive, society in any shape, if men don't contribute?

    ReplyDelete
  58. "I also think its lame that the end state of the men's movement is that they be "left alone". Pretty weak."

    It'd actually be an enormous improvement. Please bother to read what I meant by that.

    "How can society survive, society in any shape, if men don't contribute?"

    Society survives if it gives men incentives to contribute. Currently neither traditionalists nor feminists are offering any.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ok so men should at least contribute then. We'll see what we can do about the incentives.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 1. Who would serve in the military? Ultimately soldiers can't be adventure seekers but have to be loyalists to their country.

    2. Who would take up many of the jobs that involve a commitment to society? Eg volunteer firefighter, lifesafer, charity worker.

    3. Who would ensure that children are properly raised? There are many conservatives in the education system or the churches who do this. Before you can "figure things out for yourself" you have to be schooled in some basics.

    4. Who would have children? Aren't they an inconvenience? Who would even marry assuming that divorce was changed. Married life in the best of words is a limitation.


    Eh, let the women do it. They claim they are just as capable as men at all these tasks, and in the case of #4, they claim they are more capable. Well, let's give them a chance to prove it!

    A society that forces men to do any of the above tasks does not deserve to survive.

    You can say "things aren't fair so men should be able to do what they want/pull out", but have you considered the ramifications of what you propose?

    Why should he? Women did not consider, and have never considered, the ramifications of feminism before ardently advocating it and doing everything in their power to seek advantage at men's expense. Women need to be shown that one of the ramifications of making society massively unfair to men is that men will quit contributing to it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. ''Do you think it could be due to the fact that "so-cons" are mentioned practically in every discussion thread over there, in a negative way?''

    They are individualistic and influenced by liberalism in a strong way. They probably just reacted against one strain of liberalism while still accepting liberalism as a whole. Check Lawrence Auster's writings on LGF (Little Green Footballs) and how that scenario turned out. LGF sooner or later abandoned it's anti-Muslim stance and reacted against people critical of Islam as ''fascists, racists, Nazis, regressives, theocracts'' and my favorite ''as bad as the Taliban''. LGF started banning comments which defended traditional conservative positions and gradually turned completely liberal once again. That is what will happen to them I'm sure of. You can't use liberal tactics and act as a liberal while going against just one strain of liberalism. You have to reject the entire system. That's what I hope traditional conservatives advocate and are starting to. Reject the liberal worldview and it's philosophies.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hollehund we already told you that the mainstream right isn't traditional conservative. It's right-liberal, capitalist and neoconservative mainly. The reason the few (and I repeat few) powerless traditional conservatives are saying that the MRM will turn liberal is because some of us have seen what happens when a movement comes in with a liberal worldview and reacts only against one strand of liberalism. Sooner or later it becomes completely liberal once again.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Women did not consider, and have never considered, the ramifications of feminism before ardently advocating it..."

    Please, stop blaming women only for feminism. The movement would never achieve anything if it lacked the support of men. In any society women have just as much freedom as the men of this society allow them to have.

    Feminism in the West became mainstream because there were enough men to support it.

    It is for men to put things right. If MRAs say that they reject marriage in the present situation to teach a lesson to the wayward women, I understand and agree with their position.

    However, what at least some of them advocate is total rejection of any traditional male obligations, and the provider/protector role is frequently equalled to slavery, so it seems that MRAs have a problem with the institution of marriage in general, not just the current version of it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Mark Richardson:
    C'mon, anon. That's not a fair assessment. I've expressed concern about some of the political ideas being expressed by some MRAs. But I haven't dismissed, belittled or despised. If anything, it's the other way around. Some Spearhead contributors seem to have a "thing" about traditionalists that's not easy to understand.

    This is an example right here. On the one hand, you refuse to even acknowledge the comments on your own blog, insisting that only your own writing counts. On the other hand, you hold every single commenter on Spearhead responsible.

    Double standard right there.

    I did read the article you linked to. It's a concern if it's a case of a law being retrospectively applied. I'll be interested to see how the case develops.

    Evidently you did not read very carefully. It is clearly a case of modern legal standards being imposed ex post facto on an event from over 45 years ago, and this isn't just some local judge, this is an appeals court that sets precedent for a portion of Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  65. ''They are individualistic and influenced by liberalism in a strong way. They probably just reacted against one strain of liberalism while still accepting liberalism as a whole.''

    I'm talking about MRA in case somebody gets confused.

    ''Please, stop blaming women only for feminism. The movement would never achieve anything if it lacked the support of men. In any society women have just as much freedom as the men of this society allow them to have.''

    I agree with this assessment. Liberalism is the culprit. It has affected both men and women.

    ''However, what at least some of them advocate is total rejection of any traditional male obligations, and the provider/protector role is frequently equalled to slavery, so it seems that MRAs have a problem with the institution of marriage in general, not just the current version of it.''

    The language they use is similar to the one feminists use which is why traditional conservatives say to MRA that they are influenced by liberalism. MRA are simply rejecting one strand of liberalism. As I said before we know what happens when a movement rejects only one strand of liberalism while accepting liberalism as a whole. It turns completely liberal once again.

    ReplyDelete
  66. If a soldier dies on a battlefield that is unfortunate. But by his service he has contributed to his society. If someone dodges the call they contribute nothing. They may live but they have no honor.

    We've heard recently MRA's say "I can't wait for China to take over", "I'll play Xbox for the rest of my life". These are not the calls of honorable men. The second is a call of a weakling and the first that of a traitor.

    It was recently the anniversary of JFK's inaugural speech. Whatever you may think of JFK he said of course, "ask not what your country can do for you". All we seem to hear from MRA's is "What are you going to do for me?". I would advise you to stop asking that. Get off the couch and join with those men who are actively contributing to this cause and who are lobbying for reforms in the legal system. I'll admit that I'm not a member of a father's right's activist group but my hat's are off to them. I support conservative causes and I would encourage those MRA's who take the time to write and read online to also join in such active lobbying and stop waiting for others to present you with a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Please, stop blaming women only for feminism. The movement would never achieve anything if it lacked the support of men. In any society women have just as much freedom as the men of this society allow them to have.

    You have made a faulty inference. When I said that women did not consider, and have never considered, the ramifications of feminism before ardently advocating it, I did not say that women were only to blame. That there are men who benefit from feminism is obvious, but also irrelevant. Men who want to GTOW shouldn't care about the effects of their actions on these men who embrace feminism any more than they should care about the effects of their actions on women who embrace feminism. Eff 'em all!

    It is for men to put things right.

    You just got done saying that feminism triumphed because men supported it. How then are "men" going to put things right? Men are not united, and the men who benefit from feminism are not going to "put things right" because they think things are already right.

    it seems that MRAs have a problem with the institution of marriage in general, not just the current version of it.

    Since the current version of marriage is the only version that exists and there is no prospect of creating (or recreating) a version acceptable to MRAs, then yeah, naturally MRAs have a problem with the institution as such.

    Men have no obligations other than those they freely choose to accept. They have no obligation whatsoever to volunteer for a lifetime of servitude just because the politically irrelevant "traditionalist right" thinks they should.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "You just got done saying that feminism triumphed because men supported it. How then are "men" going to put things right?"

    Look to the history for answers, how did other political movements, including feminism, triumphed? Certainly not by their members "going their own way" and not caring about the consequences of their actions.

    "Men are not united..."

    And neither are women, yet they get all lumped into the same category by MRAs.

    "Since the current version of marriage is the only version that exists and there is no prospect of creating (or recreating) a version acceptable to MRAs..."

    You surrender before even trying to fight for your cause.It's not the attitude which wins the wars.

    "Men have no obligations other than those they freely choose to accept.."

    Men certainly have the obligations to the society they live in. If you mean to say they don't have an obligation to marry, agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous said,

    "Men have no obligations other than those they freely choose to accept.."

    That's a bit of pure distilled liberalism right there.

    ReplyDelete
  70. If a soldier dies on a battlefield that is unfortunate. But by his service he has contributed to his society. If someone dodges the call they contribute nothing. They may live but they have no honor.

    Oh gawd I really want to puke when you start spouting this ridiculous twaddle. Most boys eventually grow out of playing army, but clearly some people never do.

    As it happens, your country and mine are at war right now. Is everyone who "dodges the call" and elects not to serve in the military a parasite without honor who is contributing nothing? That is the logic of your position. But if people can avoid serving in the military in time of war and still have "honor" then the logic of your analogy falls apart. Yes, there are a lot of people supporting the war in Afghanistan who are not in the military, but the vast majority of people are not doing anything to support the war (beyond, perhaps, paying taxes, though the war is not funded that way). But I suppose it is possible you despise all such people, who are equivalent to men who refuse to marry in your analogy.

    We may also note that we have "all volunteer" military forces, which means that by definition nobody is forced to serve and those who choose not to (the "dodgers" in your parlance) are still considered honorable. Why then should men be forced to marry? If they can choose to avoid military service and remain honorable, then they can choose to avoid being "soldiers in the marriage war" and remain honorable.

    Men who reject marriage most definitely "contribute to society". They pay taxes, obey the law, and in doing their daily jobs add to the physical and intellectual total of human achievement. Their contribution is no less valid than, say, those of gay people, the sterile, or those who marry but choose not to reproduce. (Or are these people also "dodgers" in your view?)

    Lastly we should note that the "army" in which you want us all to serve (by universal conscription, apparently), which is that of "traditional society", has been completely, utterly and irrevocably defeated. Our country has been occupied and enemy officials control ALL the important posts - politics, economics, academia, the media, the church. When you say we should all fight for "society" you are saying we should fight for the occupation regime, Those who assist enemy occupation forces are not usually viewed as "honorable soldiers". Useful fools is the kindest term for them; foul traitors is probably more accurate. Everything you contribute to "society" today prolongs the evil rule of Leftism. But you say we are dishonorable shirkers if we refuse. Very good, Mister Quisling...

    ReplyDelete
  71. We've heard recently MRA's say "I can't wait for China to take over", "I'll play Xbox for the rest of my life". These are not the calls of honorable men. The second is a call of a weakling and the first that of a traitor.

    What is one's duty to an evil and oppressive regime? Germans who resisted the Nazis, and Russians who resisted the Soviets, were considered "traitors" by their regimes and were executed for it. Yet their resistance was nevertheless honorable and worthy of respect. I don't see why resistance to Leftist tyranny today is less worthy of respect. This is the regime, remember, that hates you and is trying to destroy you if you are a white, right-wing male. You are their enemy, and they treat you as such! Yet you think we should strive to serve them and continue their misrule.Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.

    Whatever you may think of JFK he said of course, "ask not what your country can do for you"

    Translation: Ask not what your Leftist oppressors can do for you, ask what you can do for your Leftist oppressors!

    What a GREAT rallying cry for the traditionalist right! You've really got me excited about serving now, Vidkun.

    I'll admit that I'm not a member of a father's right's activist group but my hat's are off to them. I support conservative causes and I would encourage those MRA's who take the time to write and read online to also join in such active lobbying and stop waiting for others to present you with a solution.

    Stop waiting for others? You just admitted that YOU are doing NOTHING! What are YOU doing besides exactly what you're lambasting everyone else for? Geez what a hypocrite.

    Refusing to sustain the system is a far more effective form of resistance than "lobbying for legal reform", a doomed enterprise if there ever was one.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous said,

    "What is one's duty to an evil and oppressive regime?"

    In the case of Nazism or Communism the duty would be to resist it. But you don't resist it, you play xbox. Sit down strike? Are you in any father's rights groups? Are you active in your support? Or ... are we about to hear a list of excuses?

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Refusing to sustain the system is a far more effective form of resistance than "lobbying for legal reform", a doomed enterprise if there ever was one."

    How convenient, resistance overlaps with indolence. I wonder how the feminists got their system to be so influential/dominant? By simply refusing to do housework? Oh no wait that’s right the right propelled them forward. *Scratches head looking through history to support that*.

    ReplyDelete
  74. how did other political movements, including feminism, triumphed? Certainly not by their members "going their own way" and not caring about the consequences of their actions.

    Feminists most certainly did not care about the consequences of their actions! That is why men should also do, and argue for, their principles regardless of the consequences. Let there be justice, though the heavens should fall!

    The Left is so strong now that an "organized political movement" to fight it is most unlikely to succeed. The best thing we can do is try to damage it as much as we can on an individual level via non-violent non-cooperation.

    And neither are women, yet they get all lumped into the same category by MRAs.

    From a legal standpoint, women ARE all the same. They all enjoy the same massive advantages conferred by the divorce-industrial complex.

    You surrender before even trying to fight for your cause.It's not the attitude which wins the wars.

    The fight is OVER. We LOST. We are OCCUPIED by the enemy and he runs our countries. All that remains is non-violent non-cooperation.

    Men certainly have the obligations to the society they live in.

    I have no obligations I do not freely choose to accept. Society can, and does, coerce me, but in such cases, I do not accept the act I am forced to do as a voluntary obligation that I must honorably fulfill. If I can evade or sabotage it, I will.

    "Men have no obligations other than those they freely choose to accept.."

    That's a bit of pure distilled liberalism right there.


    Why, if it is, then the liberals can hardly complain about the MRA philosophy, can they? But it is certainly odd that a supposed conservative would oppose using liberal rules to fight liberalism, and argue instead that "traditionalism" demands unconditional support for liberalism. The kindest way to describe such an attitude is Stockholm Syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  75. How convenient, resistance overlaps with indolence. I wonder how the feminists got their system to be so influential/dominant? By simply refusing to do housework? Oh no wait that’s right the right propelled them forward. *Scratches head looking through history to support that*.

    You suffer from the typical right-wing infantile delusion that left-wing methods can work for the right. They don't, and that is why society has relentlessly moved leftward over the centuries. In short, something that worked for feminists in the past simply will not work for men in the future, period.

    Feminist left-wing agitation moved the system left, but male right-wing agitation will not move the system right. When confronted with a game rigged so you cannot win, the smartest thing to do is refuse to play.

    ReplyDelete
  76. In the case of Nazism or Communism the duty would be to resist it. But you don't resist it, you play xbox. Sit down strike? Are you in any father's rights groups? Are you active in your support? Or ... are we about to hear a list of excuses?

    Organized resistance did NOT bring down the USSR. Such resistance, when it occurred, only energized the massive machinery of state repression. What brought down the USSR was that enough people on an individual level refused to strive as hard as they could to support the system, and instead worked as little as possible and (since there was no Xbox) spent as much time as possible in a drunken stupor. In short, non-violent non-cooperation on an individual level. A similar approach is the only thing that will bring down the evil regime that oppresses us today.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I just posted but it didn't come up. I guess it got lost in blogger. I'll try again.

    ReplyDelete
  78. There was a little bit of external opposition too. Of course its perfectly legal to join a father's group in the West, unlike in the Soviet Union, and its perfectly legal to agitate for change. You say that left wing tactics won't work for the right, I fail to see why. Political pressure is political pressure and father's groups have allready started to recieve many concessions.

    Do you want year zero? To totally start society over? Who's the left winger amongst us then?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Since there are two anonymouses now, I'll call myself anony n1:)

    Now, to your points.
    "That is why men should also do, and argue for, their principles regardless of the consequences. Let there be justice, though the heavens should fall!"

    If that's what you meant by not caring of the consequences of your actions, agreed.

    "The Left is so strong now that an "organized political movement" to fight it is most unlikely to succeed."

    I can't say if you represent the position of the MRA as a whole, but if you do, the above words sum the problems of the movement pretty well. MRAs are doing a decent job in pointing out the evils of feminism, but they offer no solutions and have the defeatist attitude overall.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anony n1 here again.

    "From a legal standpoint, women ARE all the same. They all enjoy the same massive advantages conferred by the divorce-industrial complex."

    It must be an American thing you are talking about. Ín my country we don't have "the divorce-industrial complex"". All the men I know who divorced did reasonably well. BTW, I wonder that if in America the situation is so dire for men they not only keep marrying, but remarry after their divorce. Apparently, they don't all see themselves as victims of the said complex.

    "The fight is OVER. We LOST. We are OCCUPIED by the enemy and he runs our countries."

    More of the same hysterical rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anony n1, cont.

    "I have no obligations I do not freely choose to accept."

    If everybody thought the same, the Western civilisation stopped existing, but apparently that's exactly what you wish.

    "You suffer from the typical right-wing infantile delusion that left-wing methods can work for the right. "

    There are no left or right wing methods, there are just methods of political struggle which work for those who will use them.

    "Organized resistance did NOT bring down the USSR. Such resistance, when it occurred, only energized the massive machinery of state repression."

    To compare the modern Western democracies with a totalitarian state like USSR is utterly ridiculous. You don't get shot in the West for telling a joke about authorities as it happened in the times of Stalin. Well, not yet, but if we all just keep playing our X-Boxes instead of opposing evil, who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "but if we all just keep playing our X-Boxes instead of opposing evil, who knows."

    Shhh, I'm playing xbox.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anony n1 said,

    "I wonder that if in America the situation is so dire for men they not only keep marrying, but remarry after their divorce. Apparently, they don't all see themselves as victims of the said complex."

    But that's too optimistic a prospect, its fashionable these days to hang our heads and be down in the dumps. Both the left and the right do this.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "Shhh, I'm playing xbox."

    Sorry for spelling, we don't have such a word in our language:)

    ReplyDelete
  85. You're close enough. Even if you're totally determined to drop out though there are far more constructive things to be doing than playing computer. To have such a focus means that you'll soon have no skills at all and to allow yourself to descend to that is bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  86. You say that left wing tactics won't work for the right, I fail to see why.

    Sigh. One reason is that there is an exact term in political science for right wing groups that use leftist tactics. These groups are called, um, fascists. Fascism is not going to work in 2010. It only worked the first time because the media, academia, and the legal system in Germany wanted it to succeed, whereas today the media, academia, and the legal system will very effectively crush any nascent outbursts of "fascism". And if you win, and install a rightist regime using leftist methods, then you have recreated fascism, which I presume you would not want.

    No doubt you will vehemently insist that you're not a fascist, but the fact remains that the media, academia, the political system, and the legal system will oppose any effort by the right to use leftist tactics, just as they did not (and do not) oppose any effort by the left to use leftist tactics. There is no symmetry. Life ain't fair. But you knew that, right?

    ReplyDelete
  87. All the men I know who divorced did reasonably well.

    Not every man gets screwed every time in America, either, but this doesn't alter the fact that the system is massively stacked against him.

    More of the same hysterical rhetoric.

    It's the simple truth.

    Tell me the name of the important institution today that the Right controls? There is none.

    If everybody thought the same, the Western civilisation stopped existing, but apparently that's exactly what you wish.

    If everybody thought the same, then I'd be pretty stupid to think any other way, wouldn't I?

    The USSR no longer exists. But "civilization" in Russia still exists. If we defeat the evil, oppressive Leftist regimes currently in power in the West, then "civilization" will still exist. But you idiots think the evil, oppressive Leftist regimes that rule us - the ones that despise you and exploit you - are identical to "civilization".

    There are no left or right wing methods, there are just methods of political struggle which work for those who will use them.

    Of course there are. If you don't understand that, then you cannot understand why the Left is everywhere triumphant.

    To compare the modern Western democracies with a totalitarian state like USSR is utterly ridiculous.

    It's getting less ridiculous every day, chief. My place of work has a political commissar ("diversity officer") who ensures the party line is obeyed, and those who deviate from the party line are fired.

    You don't get shot in the West for telling a joke about authorities as it happened in the times of Stalin.

    We live in the time of Brezhnev, not Stalin, which happily means few people are shot or imprisoned, but unhappily remains an evil, oppressive, corrupt and incompetent regime.

    if we all just keep playing our X-Boxes instead of opposing evil, who knows.

    Since you are incapable of recognizing evil, you will never be able to oppose it effectively?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Since you are incapable of recognizing evil, you will never be able to oppose it effectively?

    That should be a period at the end, not a question mark. Originally it was a rhetorical question, heheheh.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous said,

    "the fact remains that the media, academia, the political system, and the legal system will oppose any effort by the right to use leftist tactics"

    That's just putting your feet up and saying, "see we're not in charge so nothing can be done". Leftist domination of the academia occurred gradually, leftist teachers today still whine about their "stuffy" dons. What has happened is that too much territory has been surrendered as inconsequential to the left. This was a mistake and needs to be reversed. No need to laugh at that, get on the bus and start reversing it.

    ReplyDelete
  90. anony n1 here.

    "We live in the time of Brezhnev, not Stalin..."

    Have you ever lived in Soviet Union? Do you even understand what you are talking about?

    You have a diversity officer at your working place, so what? You are free to quit and to work somewhere else or to move to another country, but you prefer to stay because you no doubt earn a good salary, don't you?

    People in Soviet Union had very few choices and certainly not the choice to leave.

    The left has won because people who consider themselves right-wing are to afraid to lose their cushy lifestyles and prefer to attack those on the net who point out to their hypocrisy.

    " But you idiots..." typical for MRAs and rather childish to insult your opponent instead of using arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anony n1 here again.

    "Not every man gets screwed every time in America, either, but this doesn't alter the fact that the system is massively stacked against him."

    The why don't you try to change the system? Just think, all the energy which you use to attack traditionalists on the net could be used to attack the unjust divorce system and improve the existing laws.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Anony n1 said,

    "The left has won because people who consider themselves right-wing are to afraid to lose their cushy lifestyles"

    There is a fair bit of truth to that. Lefties were willing to go to prison, live fairly poorly being "artists" and things, while conservatives lived generally more middle class lifestyles. Its certainly possible to resist without being a pauper but you have to have the will and not grumble and walk away.

    ReplyDelete
  93. That's just putting your feet up and saying, "see we're not in charge so nothing can be done". Leftist domination of the academia occurred gradually, leftist teachers today still whine about their "stuffy" dons.

    Academia is not going to be revolutionized from the Right, becuase the Left controls hiring and promotion. The current academic regime may be overthrown by even more extreme Leftists but needless to say that won't help things from a Right-wing perspective.

    What has happened is that too much territory has been surrendered as inconsequential to the left. This was a mistake and needs to be reversed. No need to laugh at that, get on the bus and start reversing it.

    What does history suggest about the prospects for that? Can you name an important Leftist gain in any realm that has been reversed in the past 60 years?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Have you ever lived in Soviet Union? Do you even understand what you are talking about?

    As it happens, Soviet history, government, and politics were fields of concentration in my MA and doctoral programs, so yeah, I think I do know what I'm talking about.

    You have a diversity officer at your working place, so what? You are free to quit and to work somewhere else or to move to another country, but you prefer to stay because you no doubt earn a good salary, don't you?

    I am free to quit and move to another company... which also has a diversity officer to enforce the state ideology, yaaay! Or, I could move to another country in which Leftism reigns supreme, like Britain or Australia, which is pretty much like moving from one Soviet Republic to another. If there were a truly free country to move to, believe me, I'd be there.

    That I make a good salary is beside the point. There were Soviet citizens who made reasonably good livings while paying lip service to the official ideologuy and keeping their private misgivings to themselves, too.

    People in Soviet Union had very few choices and certainly not the choice to leave.

    As I said, I can't "leave" the Leftist political system. It is everywhere. The "choices" that people in the West today have are confined to the trivial personal level. On major issues, there is no real choice.

    The left has won because people who consider themselves right-wing are to afraid to lose their cushy lifestyles and prefer to attack those on the net who point out to their hypocrisy.

    The Left wins not merely because it has people willing to suffer and die for their beliefs. The Right has such people, too. The reason the Left keeps winning is that Leftist political violence is tolerated, while Rightist political violence is ruthlessly crushed.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anonymous said,

    "Can you name an important Leftist gain in any realm that has been reversed in the past 60 years?"

    Well for a long time it looked like the communists were going to take over, that didn't happen. You might say that we have soft communism now but if you're reasonably cluely you can argue the toss with your diversity officer, I'm sure you could. This is not the same as Communism. We have the Tea party in the US which took me by surpise. I didn't think the right would be on the front foot for a long time. They might be libertarian right but its the right direction.

    Today I'm happy because we have a war on, for a long time I thought war would be abolished. You might think that's perverse but war fighting is an important male activity and as long as it exists male virtues will be present. You'd be surprised at how much men salivate at the prospect of going to war. Even if they've been there already.

    Another big turn around is that a lot of young women are facing the future with trepidation. Will I find a partner? Can I find one? Is this where I want my life to go? The fun of independence is starting to pall and this is a recurring theme with young women. Where they'll go to they're not quite sure but they're not in love with their mother's vision.

    Politically it is recognised that women are dominating the tertiary sphere. The idea that we live in a patriarchy is going. This might sound like failure but the patriarchy notion was the basis of the feminist agenda.

    I see young men potentially in a lot of trouble, but they are banding together and taking much greater care of each other. You can see this in gyms and other male areas. I go to army reserve training and I see the young men there being very activist and on the front foot. They talk openly about politics and the menace of the left and the importance of not being passive in the world. They certainly aren't interested, by in large, in destroying other men. Just look at the ultimate fighting championship, the guys hug each other in recognition of solidarity all the time.

    The time of "men getting in touch with their feelings" or "feminine side" is going. Men are now being much more active in learning traditional male activities and skills. You can see this in shows like Top Gear, Bear Grills' Man v Wild, or the continuing importance of sport.

    In the past men were inseparably associated with the "system". People would say things like, "We need women's history, not normal history, because normal history is men's history". Now we see that men aren't the "system" and that they have their own aspects over and above or separate from society. There is a recognition that men can break and there is not necessarily shame in that. We hear things like "support the troops" because there is a recognition that war is stressful and men can feel isolated. Men are not expected to be solely robots now. This is a big, and slightly untidy, social change.

    ReplyDelete
  96. anony n1 here:
    "The reason the Left keeps winning is that Leftist political violence is tolerated, while Rightist political violence is ruthlessly crushed."

    And why is that? Can it be because the Left runs the things now? But there was time not so long ago when it didn't, yet somehow it managed to came to a position of power. Why is it impossible for the Right to do likewise?

    " I am free to quit and move to another company... which also has a diversity officer to enforce the state ideology, yaaay! "

    Small companies and self-employed people don't have to deal with diversity officers as far as I know.

    "I could move to another country in which Leftism reigns supreme..."

    You could move to a country which isn't leftist, you know like Saudi Arabia or something.

    "As it happens, Soviet history, government, and politics were fields of concentration in my MA and doctoral programs..."

    Learning about something at the Uni isn't equal to having lived under the regime. Your knowledge is theoretical only.

    "What does history suggest about the prospects for that? Can you name an important Leftist gain in any realm that has been reversed in the past 60 years?"

    Wars are not won with an attitude like that.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Well for a long time it looked like the communists were going to take over, that didn't happen. (etc etc)

    In other words, no, you can't name an important Leftist gain in any realm that has been reversed in the past 60 years! Thanks for confirming that. We may not have "gone Communist", but this only means we have not gone as far Left as fast as we could, not that any Leftist gains have been reversed. The jury is still out on whether the Tea Party will be able to reverse anything Obama has done. My guess would be no they will not.

    Today I'm happy because we have a war on, for a long time I thought war would be abolished.

    A war you are not allowed to win, or even to fight effectively, and in pursuit of an unattainable goal. Hooray for war! The war in Afghanistan is many things, but an arena for demonstrating "male virtue" it is not. Indeed this war is being fought with a feminized military, for feminized objectives, and with feminized methods.

    And what this war has to do with reversing Leftist gains totally escapes me.

    Another big turn around is that a lot of young women are facing the future with trepidation.

    And what do women do when they are fearful? They demand government action. Thus their trepidation will advance the cause of Leftism, not reverse it.

    They talk openly about politics and the menace of the left

    "Talk" about the menace of the Left? There's been a lot of that in the past 50 years. Action to reverse that menace? Not so much. In fact, none.

    Nothing you said anywhere in your response was truly responsive to my assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  98. And why is that? Can it be because the Left runs the things now? But there was time not so long ago when it didn't, yet somehow it managed to came to a position of power. Why is it impossible for the Right to do likewise?

    You are assuming that the two sides are symmetrical and can use identical methods, which is not true. The Left can lie and cheat, and ultimately resort to violence, while the right cannot. Therefore, what you are asking is can honest, non-violent men defeat lying, cheating, violent men who have created a system in which all-pervasive dishonesty is the basis for hiring and advancement. Perhaps the honest men can triumph, and recreate an honest system, but that's not the way to bet. And that is why the track record shows continuous Leftist success. It's essentially the political second law of thermodynamics; the amount of entropy (Leftism) always increases, or at least does not decrease.

    In a system based on lying, cheating, and violence, good men either choose not to play, or become violent cheating liars themselves in order to win.

    Small companies and self-employed people don't have to deal with diversity officers as far as I know.

    State ideology is nevertheless enforced.

    You could move to a country which isn't leftist, you know like Saudi Arabia or something.

    False assumption. Wahhabism is essentially a perverted form of Marxism.

    Learning about something at the Uni isn't equal to having lived under the regime. Your knowledge is theoretical only.

    Bzzzzt, another false assumption. I have non-theoretical knowledge, too. And weren't you the one bellyaching about people using ad hominem attacks instead of proper argument?

    Wars are not won with an attitude like that.

    Not all wars can be won. You are like a Werwolf leader in the Bavarian Alps in 1946 telling his ever-decreasing band of followers to get a better attitude.

    ReplyDelete

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