Thursday, December 21, 2006

Why the left is bleeding men

It's been my impression for a while now that the left is becoming the female side of politics. Where have the younger, straight men gone? Increasingly, it seems, to some kind of right-liberal politics.

Why? Perhaps because there is just too much pain and suffering for a heterosexual man in having to share a political milieu with feminists.

To give you a flavour of what left-liberal men have to put up with, consider this Open Letter to All the Liberal Straight Men by a feminist calling herself Earlbecke.

Remember, Earlbecke is writing to the men on her own side. She is not writing to criticise and annoy conservatives like myself, but to address the average left-liberal, politically correct male.

Her first six words begin in a friendly tone: "Dear Straight Guys, I respectfully submit...". However, that's it for friendliness or respect.

She proceeds to tell male leftists that they are actually not understanding or sensitive individuals just because they show concern or admiration for women. They remain sexists if they show a "specialized sort of attention to women", namely a heterosexual appreciation for women. Instead, they have to change the very way they think so that they see women as people rather than as women.

She then begins her official first point, which is that this is all about her and not about men, so that when she is attacking leftist men their role is to passively listen and accept:

Resist the urge to assert yourself in defense of the male voice. We've already heard it, and doubtless we will hear it again. Save it until we're finished. Do it somewhere else.

Her second point is the same as her first point: that this all revolves around her and not about men, and that what men like isn't relevant and women shouldn't care what men like.

Her third official point is the killer:

3. We are all human beings. We are all similar lumps of fleshy matter that moves and grunts and goes around its daily business. Until you can look at any random woman on the street and see the human being before you start placing significance on the gender presentation, until being human, of any variety, any color, any sexual orientation, any genitalia, any anything, is the nebulous vague default in your mind, you still need to try harder. If you automatically assume a person of unspecified gender or sex is “he”, or white, able-bodied, and heterosexual, that is your problem. And this is why so many of us have no time or patience to try to explain things to you.

She's not exactly a romantic soul is she? She can only conceive of men and women being "similar lumps of fleshy matter that move and grunt". And she demands that we all think the same way. As an instinctive mental default she wants all men to see women not as women but as "its", and to only consider the "gender presentation" as some kind of afterthought.

Point number four is that men have no right to question her on this and that she is "not required to explain myself". Men, she admits, might be made confused, upset or defensive by what she says, but they are not entitled to have "everything placed in a pretty little box" for them. Continued listening, though, is OK.

Number five is predictable: all men are guilty. The only kind of male not guilty is one who "reads the whole list and nods along and then genuinely apologizes for your gender (while not feeling the need to defend yourself by insisting that you do not represent these men)."

So leftist men are innocent if they silently agree to everything, apologise sincerely on behalf of all men, but don't attempt to separate themselves from male guilt.

Now surely, the response of most self-respecting men to all this will be to find a political home elsewhere. Why belong to the left if it means being berated by haughty, condescending feminists for the "sin" of being male and heterosexual?

Earlbecke seems to recognise the burden being placed on straight left-wing men: that of being made confused, defensive and guilty. She seems to think that this is a deserved condition for men.

It is a burden, though, which can disappear in a moment of true liberation when a man decisively rejects the politics of the left, and this is what political men in general appear to be doing.

(There is more on the same theme in an interesting post by Julian David.)


  1. A good piece as usual Mark
    What I find sad about Feminist (besides their complete lack of any sense of humuor) is that they jump at idea of celebrating their "femaleness" but they Jump ON any attempt by men to celebrate their maleness.
    The amusing thing at this sad womans site was the disclaimer on the comments.

  2. "Right-liberalism" is not the answer. Only traditional conservatism has the solution to this kind of problem. A rediscovery of the common sense of the traditional sex and marital roles is all that is needed.

  3. This comment, only indirectly related to the entry, is directly related to the general subject of the wrongness of women's lib:

    "Kay Hymovitz, writing in City Journal, says that America's chief source of inequality is 'the marriage gap':

    " 'It’s common sense, backed up by plenty of research, that you’ll have a better chance of fully “developing” your children — that is, of fulfilling The Mission — if you have a husband around. Children of single mothers have lower grades and educational attainment than kids who grow up with married parents, even after controlling for race, family background, and IQ. Children of divorce are also less likely to graduate and attend college, and when they do go for a B.A. they tend to go to less elite schools. Cornell professor Jennifer Gerner was baffled some years ago when she noticed that only about 10 percent of her students came from divorced families. [For non-Yanks, Cornell University is considered one of the U.S.'s √©lite colleges.] She and her colleague Dean Lillard examined the records of students at the nation’s top 50 schools and much to their surprise found a similar pattern. Children who did not grow up with their two biological parents, they concluded when they published their findings, were only half as likely to go to a selective college. As adults, they also earned less and had lower occupational status. [...] This all points to a deeply worrying conclusion: the Marriage Gap — and the inequality to which it is tied — is self-perpetuating. A low-income single mother, unprepared to carry out The Mission, is more likely to raise children who will become low-income single parents, who will pass that legacy on to their children, and so on down the line. Married parents are more likely to be visiting their married children and their grandchildren in their comfortable suburban homes, and those married children will in turn be sending their offspring off to good colleges, superior jobs, and wedding parties. Instead of an opportunity-rich country for all, the Marriage Gap threatens us with a rigid caste society.' "

  4. Bobby, I was interested in your comment that for Earlbecke the only 'acceptable' men are those who mirror her loathing of males.

    This does seem true of Earlbecke: she only wants contact with men who don't put a male view, but who quietly affirm her own attacks on men and her "superior" moral position.

    BTW, I more than understand your complaints about the difficulty of relating to modern girls, having been through the process myself.

    I wonder, though, if things have started to improve a bit. For instance, a certain percentage of women now seem to be dressing in a self-respecting, feminine and appealing way.

    It must be a bit encouraging for the younger, single guys, who aren't meeting a solid wall of androgynous grunge or power dressing.

  5. Iain, I expect that it was this disclaimer at Earlbecke's site which amused you:

    "Feel free to leave a comment, however keep in mind that comments are moderated and that any comments deemed to be trollish or anti-feminist will not be posted."

    Which translates to:

    "Feel free to comment as long as you agree with me".

    Which translates to:

    "Don't feel free to comment I don't like being contradicted."

    Unsurprisingly there aren't too many comments!

    Iain, another odd thing about the feminists is that they celebrate their "femaleness" but then argue that there are no "essential" gender qualities but then write all kinds of stuff on their sites about knitting, cats, babies, dinner parties, fashion, home decorating etc.

    No wonder they're a bit sensitive about allowing criticism - their theories don't generate a consistency of thought.

  6. Julian, agreed! In fact, I think it will be decisive over the next few years whether or not we see individuals make the shift from right-liberalism to traditionalist conservatism.

    Fred, thanks for the excellent link.

  7. Yes Mark that was the one sad ain't it ?

  8. Mark

    But is there any evidence that men are abandoning the Left? I am constantly surprised at the amount of silly offensive feminist nonsense Leftist men will tolerate and endorse, apparently sincerely. Although I am cynical enough to suspect they often don't practice what they preach in their private lives. What man could?

    Most media conservatives are really right-liberals. Right-liberalism has no depth, and it tends to drift towards left-liberalism. Even figures like John Paul II were really right-liberals only, not traditionalists. And it makes them unreliable. Only traditional conservatism can be relied upon. Feminists (modern nuns make a good example) have confirmed everything that has been traditionally understood about the dangers of liberalism in relation to sexual roles.

  9. Julian, my impression that men are abandoning the left is based on two things.

    First, amongst the staff at my school all the men over the age of 50 are politically correct leftists (and fit the stereotype of left-wing teachers), whereas the younger men are much more diverse in their politics.

    Second, when I visit left-liberal websites (like Larvatus Prodeo) I notice how thin on the ground heterosexual men are. The writers are nearly always women or homosexual men.

    This is in contrast to right-liberal or libertarian sites (like Catallaxy) where the reverse is true, and nearly all of the writers are young, heterosexual men.

    Julian, your comments about the crucial distinction between right-liberalism and traditionalist conservatism are expressed very well.

    It's my hope that over the next few years we'll have a larger number of people in the political class sharing such insights.