That seems to me to be too pessimistic a view, one which doesn't even allow the possibility that some men might marry happily and have children and raise another generation of Westerners.
And, what's worse, some of the feminist women who visit the site have an even more pessimistic view of relationships than the men. One comment from "Amanda" is one of the most dismal I have ever come across:
It’s a shame, at first I thought this site would be about men also wanting equality, about the sexism shown men. Now I can see it’s a bunch of sexist angry men abusing women.
As a woman, yes I am ashamed to be one most of the time, but equally I also admit, men, if women are being honest, are not what women want……but have been socially conditioned to drop their standards to get with them anyway. If women were being honest, there would be a majority of celibate single women out there and very few in relationships. Probably equally so, men would say the same if the truth were actually being told. We make each other miserable right now as we are in a time of change.
[Men are not what women want? Women are not what men want? That's way too pessimistic a view. It's certainly not true for men. It's natural for young men to be crazy about girls - and to think of the desirability and the beauty of women as one of the great experiences in life.]
I can put it simply what will make it easier...take away your preconceptions about men and women. Stop trying to control women with labels, a feminist is not angry, or bitter and nor is she necessarily a man hater. My best friends are all but 2 men. Do I like them from a relationship perspective? No and I am honest about that, no what men offer, I don’t want (other than I find them physically attractive and great friends to have). Do I like how men try and control me...no, not at all. DO I like how men sexualise women? No I really don’t. Do I like how men almost treat women like children who don’t know anything, no I don’t as I am smarter than most men and earn more than most thank you. Do I like how as a woman I am expected to be a certain way and perform certain duties? No I don’t. You get the point...you have to admit, you guys do love to make a woman feel like a freak for speaking out and being honest about how she feels, what she thinks or what she really wants. You do love to silence by using labels like angry, bitter, issues and psycho.
[Amanda doesn't want what men offer. Again, a dismal view. Already, we get the idea that Amanda doesn't like traditional gender roles and because of this has been alienated from normal human relationships. Her ideology is getting in the way of a loving relationship with a man.]
I get you guys, yes I would love even as a woman to come home to a gorgeous man, who looked after my kids, was kind and loving and made me nice food and made sure my home was all cozy and lovely. Wouldn’t anyone? It just isn’t fair that you guys are the only ones who get that, so cut us so called feminist some slack, we want that too….it isn’t just you who has a right to the beautiful stay home parent and home maker dream……we just have our dream with a gorgeous manly man (no we dont want weak feeble men and I hate that you make out stay home dads and guys who also want equality are in some way pansys or weak guys dominated by bossy women).
[Amanda misunderstands the male commenters at The Spearhead. They have rejected the traditional ideal of having a loving wife at home. They consider that entrapment or oppression of the male. Again, note that Amanda's rejection of traditional gender roles means that she has been pushed a long, long way away from a normal relationship. She is asking men to transform themselves into feminine homemakers, but without losing their masculinity. That's her asking price for a relationship, one which is obviously likely to keep her single.]
I agree though on this topic, women are dropping their standards and they shouldn’t. I have been celibate for three and a half years now as I want what I offer, I want an equal and I will not get with a guy who thinks it’s in any way womens work to stay home and raise the kids and he would have to believe it’s equally a males role. I would not accept gender roles in that respect………hence I accept I will likely be single forever and I am fine with that, as I have an awesome life and lack nothing. Not saying it wouldn’t be nice to have a gorgeous guy who I adored, but I fear, just as the guy who wrote this article does, that wanting it too much will make you settle as a woman. Don’t forget the rubbish we have been sold since we were born, dependence on men, their approval, we are nothing without a man in our life. I don’t believe that obviously, I like being single and its only going to be my best mate who makes my heart melt and my knees go weak am I ever going to change that for, a guy I genuinely like and respect who doesn’t have any sexist ideas about his or my gender.
[She knows that she is likely to be single forever because she rejects the idea of feminine or masculine roles in relationships despite retaining a heterosexual preference for masculine men. She has boxed herself into a corner. She wants a man who makes her go weak at the knees but he is not to assert masculine preferences as that would be "sexism". Good luck with that Amanda.]
I am a feminist I guess, but I prefer to have a new term, one that just wants to get rid of labels based on gender and is open for men and women to have equality, as equality is not just a womans to chase...as this article points out , there is much sexism toward men (see the court system tacking kids away from men as the woman gets awarded based on her gender, men expected to provide still by many sexist womens attitudes where the guy may want to stay home) . I am as aggressive, competitive and strong as any guy, I dress very feminine, not even a hint of butch before anyone suggests it, I wear make up, have long hair and all that typical stuff of the very feminine woman. However, thats where it stops for me and I won’t fit into a ‘womans role’ and I find it the most unattractive thing to see guys fitting into typical ‘mens roles’ just to conform with their fellow males.
[The unprincipled exception. She thinks that our sex shouldn't matter and yet she still presents herself in a feminine way. Perhaps gender identity matters to her more than she's willing to admit. Or perhaps she knows that heterosexuality really does require an expression of the feminine in women. But her compromise is not a consistent one. She's going to dress feminine but act masculine. Maybe she's internalised an idea that feminine behaviour is inferior to masculine behaviour. If so, that's a great pity. Nor do I think that too many self-confident men are going to accept a deal in which a woman dresses like a woman but acts like a man.]
Instead of fighting against each other and fighting against feminists, we should ditch the terminology and join together, for absolute equality….to ditch all of the social conditioned rubbish forced on both genders and accept (and reject) each other based on there not being a good fit if thats not the case.
Isn’t it better both genders be just who they are and admit they don’t fit from a relationship perspctive?
[They don't fit, Amanda, because you believe that the masculine role is the privileged one and so you want both sexes to follow a masculine path. So there can no longer be complementary relationships between men and women.]
To the calls of look at nature arguers. I tell you the following, females sleep with males only when they want to get pregnant, they sleep with many males at that time, all of the best genetic males only, then they leave. Most males die virgins as only the best genetic make ups ever get laid. Many males get killed by females for trying to mate. You get the point, the nature argument of animals cannot be used to control women back into the kitchen.
[This girl needs a good lie down on a sunny Queensland beach. What a dark and dismal view. As it happens, there is a lot of variation in the animal kingdom when it comes to sex selection. But pair bonding is not that uncommon. And it's even more common for mothers to be the primary caregivers of the young.]
I am a firm believer, when you look at all the couples you know, that in half the cases, the man has more nurturing, kind, warm traits which are better suited to the parental role in a family. However, stupid ideas about it being a womans role mean there are many miserable depressed males going out there slogging his guts out hating his job when really he is the nurturer had he not been socially conditioned otherwise. Then you have many competitive, protective, assertive, strong women who are miserable doing her gender role as stay home parent and home maker when really she would have been an excellent CEO/Engineer etc.
[She gives the game away when she claims that half of men are better suited to the "parental" role in a family. Note that she only recognises one "parental" role rather than distinct maternal and paternal ones. And note that she specifies exactly half of men being better suited to the "parental" role - this is not an accident, it's necessary if she wants to decouple gender from family roles. It's ideology run riot.]
I fight for both sides, I want nothing but to get rid of gender roles and assumptions about both genders. We are PEOPLE, nothing but people, not gender roles and the sooner we all realise this the better and happier we will all become.
[As I've said many times, the aim of a liberal society is to make gender not matter. But look at what it means for relationships. You end up with women like Amanda who have been made wholly unfit for marriage and who preach an extraordinarily dismal theory of how men and women should interact.]
Excellent article and commentary. "Equality" as a basis for marriage decoupled totally from gender roles I imagine is practically very very difficult.
ReplyDeleteJesse, thanks.
ReplyDeleteBTW, it seems as if the discussion threads at The Spearhead aren't entirely dominated by an anti-marriage and anti-tradition view. The comment by Jeb is worth reading.
"We are PEOPLE nothing but people..."
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to understand why people refer to 'chairpersons' or 'spokespersons' as such when the sex of the latter is known.
While the language conveys and reinforces the irrelevance of gender, one cannot fathom why people use it without considering what the implications of calling a man or woman a 'person' are.
I think a 'person' represents a liberal ideal as the physical equivalent of the Lockean blank slate i,e, something that can be continually molded into a more liberally acceptable form.
But, but, but isn't this the kind of girl you want Christian white western men to marry?
ReplyDeleteWho in their right mind would want to fight in a conflict to save her sorry arse?
The king is dead, long live the Han!
But, but, but isn't this the kind of girl you want Christian white western men to marry?
ReplyDeleteNot by a long shot. As she herself admits, she's not fit to be married.
Who in their right mind would want to fight in a conflict to save her sorry arse?
Agreed. She's not the kind of woman any man in his right mind would make sacrifices for.
The king is dead, long live the Han!
At best that's defeatist. At worst nihilistic.
I think a 'person' represents a liberal ideal as the physical equivalent of the Lockean blank slate i,e, something that can be continually molded into a more liberally acceptable form.
ReplyDeleteGood point. Being a man or a woman suggests definite qualities and therefore limits to what can be reinvented or self-defined.
But, but, but isn't this the kind of girl you want Christian white western men to marry?
ReplyDeleteNot by a long shot. Just because we believe that marriage is good (an ideal of marriage) doesn't mean we agree that the current state of marriage conducted by liberalism is righteous.
High time that "Amanda", with her endless wailing about being "nothing but PEOPLE", learned to read Joseph de Maistre's magnificent demolition job on the whole deracinated "cult of humankind" in general. J de M said:
ReplyDelete"There is no such thing as man in the world. In the course of my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians etc.; I know, too, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But as for man, I declare that I have never met him in my life; if he exists, he is unknown to me."
If Amanda was to read this I'd say kudos on not wanting to be a man basher, however, you haven't mentioned child raising as a legitimate aim. Presumably your parents didn't want to lead a solely personally preoccupied life as they managed to have you. It would be a real shame if you couldn't see child raising as something important in itself.
ReplyDeleteYes, she's quite muddled, isn't she?
ReplyDeleteShe doesn't seem to really know what she wants. On the one hand she says she wants equality, while on the other she say she wants a Mr. Mom who will be a SAHD and yet make her weak in the knees. Fundamental problems of a lack of self-understanding seem to be rampant here (albeit not terribly uncommon, sadly) in terms of thinking about what she wants vs. what actually attracts. And, in any case, how is she supposed to attract such a man when she, herself, acts like one and prides herself in acting like one?
I think you're right, Mark, that to the extent she has a non-muddled view, it appears to be a marriage between two men, one of whom has long hair, wears makeup, and has a vagina -- but that's where the differences end. The feminist fantasy, of course, is that men find women like that attractive -- when most men do not. 40 years of the media relentlessly portraying women like this as attractive hasn't really changed male attractional patterns much, or suddenly made men overwhelmingly attracted to masculine acting but feminine looking women.
The feminist fantasy, of course, is that men find women like that attractive -- when most men do not.
ReplyDeleteI was always attracted to the women who seemed most naturally at home being women.
They have rejected the traditional ideal of having a loving wife at home.
ReplyDeleteActually they realize such a thing doesn't exist anymore. What they reject is marriage 2.0 (feminist marriage) masquerading as traditional marriage. Feminist marriage is now the only game in town. Traditional marriage no longer exists because of the government so the MRAs can't reject something that no longer exists.
Great description of the conflict most feminist women seem to feel. They don't 'hate men'...they want to BE men. And they want to force men to be women (but they better not become unattractive in the process).
ReplyDeleteI'm sort of surprised that you haven't seen the thrust of most of the MRM when it comes to these matters. Basically, that the laws make Marriage a massive risk, and the infantile, petty, selfish behaviour so endemic among women makes them considerably less than trustworthy.
When articles written in the "Where have the good men gone?" vein actually start asking men the real questions, instead of pandering to women's vanity and insecurity, I am convinced they will find that exact same 'increasingly single voice' you see at The Spearhead.
It is not MRAs that have this attitude. It's men in general.
Now I know you're going to 'pshaw' that, but consider a couple of things:
Men REALLY love women. I sure do. The most enjoyable moments and memories in my life were usually with women or because of them. MRAs are no different to any other man in that they would love nothing better than to be in a healthy relationship, with a healthy woman they can trust. And MRAs are no different from any other man in seeing that this kind of woman is vanishingly rare, if not extinct.
Some MRAs, like myself, are motivated by a desire to restore sanity to the law and society so that I CAN have that again, although the longer it takes the less relevant that aspect becomes.
Many of the 'nihilist' MRAs see society as beyond repair, and that further attempts to save it are simply funneling more money into the corrupt hands behind the decline in the first place. You may disagree, but again I believe this attitude is not limited to MRAs at all, but is a generalized feeling among men. They have 'given up'. You can read about it in your local paper periodically.
MRAs have contended for years that we are not CREATING anything, we are a Bellwether, trying to warn others what's coming down the pike, and that's it. Well, OK, and a few more things nowadays, but not initially.
There are serious problems throughout ALL of society, and that includes religious / traditionalist ones as well.
It's not an MRA thing.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteMost people here in Australia have either a traditional marriage or some variant of it.
Yes, the laws mean that the wife can at her will enforce marriage 2.0. But that's not in the interests of most women, particularly when the woman finds herself in her 30s or older with kids. Most women are not then in much of a position to "trade up" even if the laws allow her to attempt to do so (which is why after a certain age most divorces are no longer initiated by women but by men).
Anyway, there are MRAs now who openly do reject marriage 1.0. They argue that any form of marriage is oppressive to men; that marriage is unnatural and impossible; and that men should aim at casual hookups or some other alternative.
I was pleased to see myself proved a little wrong, though, in the thread which Amanda contributed to. There were a couple of commenters who came out and defended marriage and traditional sex roles. So the debates at The Spearhead aren't entirely dominated by the anti-marriage group.
"At best that's defeatist. At worst nihilistic."
ReplyDeleteYou are aware the Prime Minister is inviting Chinese warships to Austraian ports?
Factory I agree with your post greatly but you are a rare type of MRA. While you believe that society today is beyond repair (and I myself may agree with this sentiment) after the fall of liberal society you would probably be one of the types that would try to restore traditional gender roles and traditional conservatism in general. A lot of MRAs are not like that and seem hostile to "marriage 1.0" as "marriage 2.0". Some of them have called me an arrogant female supremacist and on the same level as feminists. They think that I view women as holy or something.
ReplyDeletehttp://onestdv.blogspot.com/2011/05/getting-called-white-knight.html
ReplyDeleteIts not fair that men are bigger and stronger than women. What can we do about it??
ReplyDelete"hence I accept I will likely be single forever and I am fine with that,"
ReplyDeleteDamn good job. What man in his right mind would marry such a self centred narcissistic nutcase...
And, in the unfortunate event that she may jag a man.... what sort of a mother would she make?? The mind boggles..
She oughta be shot. ;)
Spearhead and its dark, doom filled view of the world reminds me more of the nazi-nutters at Stormfront every day.
ReplyDelete""But, but, but isn't this the kind of girl you want Christian white western men to marry?""
ReplyDeleteNope.
Although I would really enjoy breaking her view of the world piece by piece.
I have no sympathy for a bloke who would be willing to marry such a woman without fixing her head first.
And a strong man eventually makes a woman agree with him. If your views stay the same hers move to fit better with you.
So in short, my traditionalist message to men is not to get married with their eyes closed.
Understand the risks of modern marriage and the nature of most women. Keep searching around until you find one who is not a slut whom you can mould to your will.
If you cannot do the above, don't get married.
The last thing a Traditionalist should want is more crappy families with harpy like women making men's and children's lives miserable.
If no good men will stay with such beasts, the behavior will eventually change.
Women don't have to raise their standards to make our society better. Men need to raise theirs.
In short if your woman is going to be chippy, don't marry her. Make her earn it.
James,
ReplyDeleteMy assessment of The Spearhead isn't as harsh as yours. There are some currents of thought there that I don't think are helpful (e.g. the idea that social conservatives are to blame for everything, that men should go their own way, that letting Western society fall apart is a good political strategy, that all women are equally unworthy of marriage and relationships etc).
But I still find myself agreeing with a significant portion of the posts and if I write a reasonable comment it usually attracts some support.
Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm one of those MRAs that thinks that women will do precisely what the laws allow them to do with minimum pain. Ergo, I advocate harsher laws and attitudes towards women's misbehaviour - at LEAST as harsh as the last 50 years have been on men.
I would clap my hands with glee if women were denied the vote, simply because I truly think that when it comes to these matters, women truly are drooling morons by and large. I think giving women the vote was one of the biggest mistakes ever made in the US and Canada, and I offer the legal and political landscape as proof. And note this outcome is IDENTICAL to that predicted by Pliny the Elder several thousand years ago, which suggests this is actually women's nature, and not modern society, that is to blame.
I also personally advocate 'term-contractual marriage' where the agreement is a legally binding one with a start AND end date, exactly as in the business world, complete with penalty clauses and all the rest.
I would not cross the street to 'stand up for women'.
And if it all went South, I would sit back and watch, and any pleas for help would be met with a sour look and a "you made your bed".
Because that's what someone does with children to teach them important lessons.
And if that offends, at least I still care, and still enjoy women's company. Many men don't, not just in the MRM. You'd probably be stunned at the percentage of men who hold women in the lowest regard, and for all the reasons outlined at those 'extremist' sites like The Spearhead. And with blinding stupidity, women continue to refuse to see this for what it is, and blame all manner of other things instead.
Mark:
That last bit goes for Religious types as well. Critics should look to your own houses before you condemn others. It seems like I read an article daily on how Churches are struggling to get men to attend. Just read one today in the Globe and Mail, actually. The criticisms levelled about focussing on bogus issues (because they fit your own biases) like Gay Marriage are spot on.
If you REALLY cared about marriage, you'd be lobbying to change the laws to a point where it's possible to protect oneself, rather than trying to browbeat and shame men into it. Churches are every bit as Politically Correct and Gynocentric as Feminism is, or so literally every article I've read on the subject says.
And from what I've seen, not a single one of you is willing to stick his or her neck out and state the obvious. Marriage is FAR too risky for men to enter into - and just HOW did it get that way? Marriage was never supposed to be a RISK, it was supposed to make two people stronger by creating a family.
And to date, none of you have ever answered why you continue (as a group) to bang on about stuff NO ONE believes matters, rather than face up to the truth. You appeal to honour, and integrity, and submission, and sense of rightness all the time, in support of men getting married.
Isn't it time you guys displayed some of your own, and did something about the REAL problems for a change?
Factory,
ReplyDeleteI often hear MRAs talk about social conservatives shaming or browbeating men into marriage. Maybe that does happen somewhere, but I'm not aware of it. It's certainly not what I do.
The reasons for men to marry are the same as they have always been: to experience marital love, to get to undertake the role of husband and father, to provide the best foundation for the raising of children and to best transmit into the future one's own family, culture and people.
I know from personal experience both the upside and the downside of marriage. Overall, it's something of tremendous significance in life and men should not allow it to be taken from them. It's something to fight for.
Factory, gay marriage is not irrelevant to the position of men in marriage. If two women can marry and raise children, then fathers officially become optional within family life.
Having said that, I agree that we have to focus on the real root of the issues we face. But the divorce laws and the culture of modern womanhood are not the root causes - they are the offshoots of something else - of the beliefs that opinion makers hold about what is right and just.
These beliefs are rarely challenged. We are stuck in a politics in which debate is limited to how these beliefs about what is right and just can best be realised.
It's not easy to break through this closed politics. But it's what we need to do if we're to challenge at the source.