One part of our culture is still tumbling leftward. The "bad guy" in the comic is standing up for an ideal of women as feminine and sweet and he also opposes the disempowerment of men. The rainbow coalition opposing him complain that this is "mansplaining" and one of the women punishes him for this by punching him in the face.
I was curious as to who might have written something like this. The writer credited with the story is Shea Fontana. She has a Twitter account which gives you some idea of her personality:
Clearly, Shea is nothing like a tough Amazonian warrior. From reading her Twitter feed she seems to be very much oriented to a feminine world of children, pets, home, fashion, and things which appeal to her as being cute.
And yet she wrote a comic book story in which the man who defends this aspect of womanhood gets beaten up as a "mansplainer".
So there is a disjuncture here between the person she really is and the views that she promotes in her work. It seems that you can be a feminine woman in your personal life, but publicly you must defend the "wonder woman" ethos of tough, independent warrior woman.
I will simply point out that this is another fail within liberal culture. The one thing that liberalism promises is that you can "be who you want to be" but the reality is that there are things you are supposed to be in a liberal culture that individuals are under significant pressure to assent to. And in such a culture you are not supposed to be a feminine woman or a masculine man (as you are not supposed to follow predetermined sex roles).
It seems to me to be a low act to promote to young girls a view of womanhood that you yourself do not, and would not, choose to follow in your own private life.
I'm going to throw in a comment here myself. Shea's first tweet is interesting as it expresses the female mind in a certain mood. She is saying she wants a man to fix things for her, but he should do it without her having to make decisions or without him needing explanations. He just takes it all in hand and just knows what to do.
ReplyDeleteI believe it's Rollo Tomassi who wrote about this. He calls it competence.
DeleteThe idea that men need to step up & sve problems before women even knows it's a problem. We find it intoxicatingly attractive.
Unfortunately, women are undermining men, children and themselves with feminist warrior women ethics.
"It seems to me to be a low act to promote to young girls a view of womanhood that you yourself do not, and would not, choose to follow in your own private life."
ReplyDeleteThat is the standard modus operandi of all of modern public life. Writers, politicians, journalists, social leaders and professionals all take their orders from the oligarchs who control society and propagandise the world view and values of these oligarchs. Views and values which don't concord with these, are eliminated from the public sphere and the bearer of these views destroyed. Hence the writer, politician or professional who wants to make a career has to comply with these standards and propagandise a false and artificial world view for the purpose of social engineering a docile population.
In an individualistic, materialistic society with no concept of the common good, the majority of people co-operate with the hostile elites for personal fame and fortune. This has been the situation for centuries and the reason why the Western, and in particular, the Anglo countries have been so easily, so rapidly and almost totally subverted. No one is born free, individualistic or rational. These qualities have to be engineered by the willingness of dishonest individuals to assist the elites in working against their own people. And there is no shortage of people in the West who are all too ready to sell their people out to make a fast buck and there is no social system capable of holding them to account.
"it expresses the female mind in a certain mood."
ReplyDeleteA mood is an emotional state. Shea is not describing a mood here, she is stating a fact. The point she is making is that she wants a man to take responsibility for certain tasks without seeking input from her. In other words, she is looking for a man who acts like a man and gets things done decisively without seeking the approval of a woman. And then of course, takes responsibility for his actions.
This type of man is increasingly rare in the west where most men are feminised and weak hence feminism. In fact the two different styles of Shea's writing are linked; the desire for men who are masculine, in control and responsible and don't need female approval and the contempt women have for weak men who fail to take responsibility for their own social problems. That's the same reason why Muslims and other immigrants are increasingly aggressive. They take the same view of the weak men who have done nothing to eliminate their corrupt elites or defend their own families and societies.
Anon, the female instinct being described here can be a problem at times. If it is kept within realistic bounds, OK. But imagine a woman who says "I don't know myself, I don't know what makes me happy, but you are a man, so you can know these things about me that I don't know about myself and step in decisively to fix things up, without any communication on my part, and you can do all this with a mere gesture or look on your part."
DeleteI have had such a conversation with a woman. As you can imagine, the relationship did not have much of a future.
It's one thing for a man to show competence by walking around the house, declaring "the widgets need tightening or the floorboards will sink", getting out a wrench and fixing the problem within the admiring sight of his wife.
But as Flavia wrote above, competence in men can be "intoxicatingly attractive" which means the notion of it is going to run off the rails for some women. Part of the issue, then, is not men being insufficiently masculine, it is keeping some women sufficiently grounded.
"Part of the issue, then, is not men being insufficiently masculine, it is keeping some women sufficiently grounded."
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing the issue here. Normal female instinct and psychopathology are two entirely different things. The woman who is not "sufficiently grounded" is psychologically unstable and hence not normal. The normal man or woman is mentally stable, hence grounded.
You quote "I don't know myself, I don't know what makes me happy, but you are a man, so you can know these things about me that I don't know about myself and step in decisively to fix things up, without any communication on my part, and you can do all this with a mere gesture or look on your part."
What you are describing above is a mentally disordered individual who has a disorder of identity and personality, actually symptomatic of the borderline personality disorder. The quote, therefore, has nothing to do with the feminine instinct for strong males and is reflective of an immature childlike personality who cannot self control and requires strong boundaries and guidance.
And what has mental disorder in some women go to do with the points I made?
Anon, "normal female instinct" is just as, if not more, problematic as "normal male instinct". The key for both sexes is to try to order these instincts to serve a higher good. And I would argue that men are likely, on average, to do this better than women, as men have a stronger drive toward self-mastery and a stronger sense of duty toward society as a whole.
DeleteTherefore, men (together with the most cultured types of women) need to recognise what is most problematic within the nature of women when it comes to establishing good marriages and a stable culture of family life and then take steps to overcome it.
So who do you blame? Do you blame women for the wayward parts of their nature? Or do you blame men for not effectively bringing these parts of female nature under control?
It seems to me that unless you treat women wholly as infants, without moral accountability, then you cannot blame men alone.
So, yes, men have failed to take charge to defend their society, but this does not mean absolving women of accountability for their own faults.
Both assertions stand as true. We need to acknowledge both.
Maybe I am mistaken, but I get the feeling that you have some block about criticising women, as if this breaks a man code.
On the contrary, I have no block about the criticism of women but have noticed throughout your blog that you demonstrate a consistent and indeed quite irrational notion of "feminism" as the prime cause of all social ills and almost totally ignore the prime factor in the collapse of the west which is male weakness and degeneracy. Men are key to civilisation, women merely accessories. There is no woman who wields real power in the brotherhood of the power structure and the faults of women, minor compared with those of men, will not be resolved until men assume their role of strength and civilisation. Women and children require a strong social framework to keep them in line and that framework can only be provided by men.
DeleteWomen and men with wayward natures have psychological problems and these require professional treatment. 10% of the population have diagnosable personality disorders and these cannot be managed within the framework of the nuclear family. They require a larger more solid institutional framework in which the afflicted individual can gradually mature. However a man who marries a woman with a psychological disorder must accept responsibility for his own poor decision making and address the issue rather than seeking to run away from it or blame the woman for her own abnormal psychological development as if it is a self inflicted disease. The underlying problem here is male irresponsibility in the selection of marriage partners and that is the direct consequence of the failure to take marriage seriously.
"And I would argue that men are likely, on average, to do this better than women, as men have a stronger drive toward self-mastery and a stronger sense of duty toward society as a whole."
What is your evidence for this? Have you looked at the conviction rates for violent crime?
Men outnumber women in all categories of deviant behaviour:
violent crime, rape, murder, assault, public disorder
substance abuse
paedophilia, homosexuality and all kinds of deviant sexuality
Evidence from legal and medical sources incontrovertibly demonstrates that men exhibit aberrant and socially deviant behaviour in rates far excessive to those of women. And men have very little sense of duty to society unless it is imposed upon them. Men have a greater tendency to greed, lust and the pursuit of individual pleasure than women do and a far greater incidence of abandoning their offspring (illegitimacy and single mother rates?).
Ancient wisdom, discarded by the liberal order, always recognised men as a danger to society and recognised that control of men until late maturity was essential to direct their energies towards the common good. In most societies males are controlled by their elders under a formal system of patriarchy with attendant rewards and punishments for good and bad behaviour. The patriarchal family, religion, compulsory military service and work provided the basis of fairly rigid control with threat of expulsion for rule breakers. Without formal control mechanisms, men become feral, society descends into chaos and then women and children suffer.
In a society run by real men, would muslim paedophiles dare to rape young white girls? And if the rare one did, would he live long enough for a court case? Where is the "Strong duty towards society" here? The deafening silence of men here must be unprecedented in history.
Anon, your comment could be summarised in just two words: man up. It's an older pre-red pill, conservative attitude, one which is uninterested in what women do or in the nature of women, because the answer for everything is for men to man up. The whole effort of society is to be directed to this aim.
DeleteI think it misconceived. If a man's mind is captured by liberalism then telling him to man up is pointless. If, for instance, a man is convinced that immigrants should be a protected class as a matter of social justice, then it is likely that he will not wish to press the Rotherham issue too much, not because he is effeminate, but because he thinks it wrong to do so.
So what is required is for him to break with the liberal morality in favour of a better moral understanding. He needs to be triggered in some way, perhaps by his dismay at sex relations, or by the effects of open borders, or by intellectual argument to break decisively with the liberal "moral arc of progress" he was brought up with.
To put this another way: if a man was a convinced and faithful Christian, but was too fearful to act according to his faith, then an appeal to man up would make sense. But to tell a man who is a convinced liberal to man up won't achieve much. He will just act more decisively for the wrong ends. He will do more damage.
We don't just need real men, we need men with the right convictions. We also need men who recognise the importance of family, and so who wish to have wisdom and insight into the challenges of holding a culture of family life together. And this means learning from what has happened over the past 40 years or so as the waning of older restraints has uncovered a negative reality about the nature of men and women in relationships.
You seem to be advocating a dual system of ethics with regard to immigrants in which criminality and gross abuse of vulnerable members of the host community is to be tolerated and accepted on the grounds of social justice?! What kind of social justice is that? The law applies to all and to promote the idea that criminal, evil immigrants receive immunity from prosecution because they are immigrants is a violation of justice and frankly evil. Another dimension to this matter is the fact that women are the booty of war. When immigrants can freely abuse and assault the women of a country they are sending the men of that country a clear message that you are weak and defeated and unable to defend your own women and by extension your own property and territory. The next step in their agenda will be to kill the men and seize the assets. By your logic, that too should be tolerated, as immigrants are a protected species. When the muslim comes for you with a sword, are you going to fight or just surrender? I suspect you will go under the sword meekly.
DeleteA man who cannot defend his land and people is worthless and if a brainwashed liberal cannot man up then one day he will suffer for that in terms of financial wipe out or massacre. That may be what it takes for some to regain sense.
" But to tell a man who is a convinced liberal to man up won't achieve much. He will just act more decisively for the wrong ends. He will do more damage."
That is a very defeatist statement. By the time the average man learns from the mistakes of the last 200 + years and not just 40 years, he will be under the rule of other men, a serf in what was once his own land.
Anon, this is going to have to be the last comment in this particular discussion - it is a time consuming one that isn't going places. You haven't understood the last comment I made. I was not advocating liberal positions on crime or immigration, I was explaining that these liberal positions are what have dominated culturally and are the drivers of what has happened in the West, and that therefore "man up" is not a sufficient response to the problems we face.
DeleteAs to this being "defeatist" - the issue is that it is also realistic. Unless Western men get rid of the liberal virus infecting them, they will continue to be defeated. And it is not so easy to get rid of the virus. It is even spreading rapidly at the moment within the alt right.
The positive is that things are immeasurably better now than they were even five years ago (in the sense that the political space for traditionalists has grown via social media). The negative is that a genuinely non-liberal politics is still a minority position, even it seems on the alt right.
That is why things are still going the wrong way in the wider society.