If you remember, Clarissa was the one who claimed that modernity was worth its steep price because it liberates people from inherited norms, which then opens the way to a more self-defining life based on one's own choices.
To understand what is wrong with this liberal way of looking at modernity, consider a post that Clarissa wrote just a few days ago. The post is about the Katy Read story in Salon. Katy Read is a middle-aged, recently divorced American woman who has expressed regret that she spent years working part-time to be with her children rather than remaining full-time at work.
Clarissa, it turns out, doesn't like the idea of women choosing to stay at home with their children. She thinks that one positive effect of the economic downturn in the US is that fewer women will give up full-time work:
As with everything else in life, however, the crisis has brought about some positive things as well. Less and less women will be "choosing" to abandon economic independence and professional realization now that they see how costly such a decision is turning out to be to many former housewives. The fear of finding themselves indigent and with no way of proving their worth socially, professionally or financially will finally convince many women that the self-infantilization of housewifery is not worth the risk.
So already we have the career option praised as leading to economic independence and professional realization, whereas the stay at home option leaves women with no way to "prove their worth" and is merely a form of "self-infantilization".
Katy Read, the author of the article, tries to suggest that she had given up on working for fourteen years for the sake of her sons. Nobody, however, needs a parent to be constantly at home until one is 14 ... Like many other women, Read simply didn't want to make the effort of going to work every single day ... It's much easier to pretend that you are a little girl who needs to be provided with everything by a big, strong man.
The traditionally male career role is associated here with independence and adulthood. Therefore motherhood gets turned on its head. It no longer marks a transition to adult womanhood but a regression to girlhood. All those women in centuries past who gave much of their adult lives to the care of their children were, in Clarissa's eyes, just pretending to be "little girls".
As evidence for her theory she calls in the testimony of her sister, who works as a recruiter:
During preliminary interviews with housewives she saw that they had one thing in common: an extremely infantilized mode of behavior. Whenever the conversation didn't go exactly as they wanted, they would become highly emotional, raise their voices, become irritable, cry, make unreasonable demands.
The insults peak in the final paragraph:
Read's advice to women is not to fall into the same trap of the patriarchal discourse that keeps suggesting to us that women are somehow not fully human and should be fulfilled with less than what men need to be happy. I hope many people read this article and abstain from castrating their lives in the same way as Read did.
Charming. Clarissa is suggesting here that it's the traditional male career role which makes people fully human and fully happy. Stay at home mothers are therefore accepting a less than fully human life. In fact, they are "castrating" their lives by looking after their own children (echoes here of Greer's "female eunuch").
I know some of my readers will immediately dismiss Clarissa as a mad lefty, not worth the time of day. But I think there's more to it than this. Clarissa is adopting one of the possible liberal options open to her.
Remember, the point of liberalism is to maximise individual autonomy. But this aim has an inbuilt contradiction.
One way that you maximise autonomy is by giving people greater choice. But if you do this, people are likely to choose goods other than autonomy. They are likely to choose to sacrifice a degree of autonomy for some other good, such as motherhood. So autonomy is not maximised.
Another way to maximise autonomy is to rule out the choice of non-autonomous goods. In other words, you only allow people to prefer goods that maximise independence, such as the financial independence that comes with careers. But the problem with this option is that it cuts back on the degree to which people can choose for themselves. So this option also fails to maximise autonomy.
The only way the contradiction might be resolved is if people, when given maximum free choice, were to naturally choose autonomy as the highest, overriding good. And therefore it's understandable that many liberals prefer to believe that people really would choose this way. For instance, in another post Clarissa approvingly quotes this opinion:
The natural desire for freedom and autonomy exists in women, and has always been nearly impossible to smother with bribery (the carrot of the wedding and the family and the home) alone. The stick also has to come out, and that's where the pervasive threat of rape comes into play.
The suggestion here is that women would in a non-patriarchal society naturally choose "freedom and autonomy" as the highest goods; that this natural preference cannot be smothered with other false and inferior goods such as marriage, children and home; that the patriarchy therefore has to force women to deny their natural desires coercively with the "pervasive threat of rape".
But that's a fantasy. Even after decades of feminist indoctrination, the majority of women still express a desire to spend time at home with their children (a recent survey put the percentage of women preferring to stay at home at 69%).
What this means is that in a liberal society there is likely to be a continuing conflict in how people attempt to resolve the contradiction. If some take the "choice" option, then others like Clarissa will point out that this does not, in fact, create maximum autonomy as it leads people to choose goods other than autonomy.
So Clarissa is carrying through logically with an aspect of liberal politics. She cannot just be dismissed as a one off.
Having said that, we should take the time to register exactly where Clarissa's liberalism has led her. It has committed her to the idea that the mothering of children, the core role played by women since the dawn of time, is a less than human option because it involves interdependence with a man.
It has led her to characterise motherhood not as a fulfilment of adult womanhood but as infantile. Motherhood is no longer associated in Clarissa's mind with fertility or fecundity but with sterility - with female castration.
Is it any wonder that in a liberal society young women so often defer a serious commitment to marriage and motherhood? Particularly those most exposed in higher education to liberal academics like Clarissa?
Finally, it's important to underline the fault I am pointing to in Clarissa's liberalism. In one post she tells us that liberalism frees us to self-define and to make our own choices. But a few days later she savages the idea of women choosing to be stay at home mothers. She leaves women with only one legitimate choice, that of being a full-time careerist. In fact, she establishes careerism as the only way for both men and women to be fully human and self-realizing adults.
Liberalism doesn't work out the way it is supposed to. Clarissa wants women to have a self-defining life, but she then rules out the life that the majority of women want to have. And along the way she manages to grossly distort a basic human good such as motherhood.
This is sad. Without opening myself up to too much criticism say 50 years ago women were expected to marry and have children. If they didn't or couldn't then they were seen as failures, failure equaling a lack of adult standing. Now its the total opposite, women must not stay at home etc.ReplyDelete
I think it was Simone de Beauvoir who effectively said the above but in fewer words. Wasn't it something like "We wanted women to have every choice except to stay st home with their children. Because we knew that many of them would do so if it were an option"? I've tried to find the quote online but have had no success.
You're right. Here is the exact quote from the French feminist Simone de Beauvoir:
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."
The natural desire for freedom and autonomy exists in women, and has always been nearly impossible to smother with bribery (the carrot of the wedding and the family and the home) alone. The stick also has to come out, and that's where the pervasive threat of rape comes into play.ReplyDelete
In point of fact, traditionally it is men, not women, who have to be bribed to give up their autonomy and enter into the marriage contract. The bribe was the dowry and exclusive sexual access to the wife.
The wedding as a reward for the wife - a celebration of female narcissism and excess in which the husband is a superfluous accessory - is a relatively modern invention.
I wonder what she would think of homeschooling mothers, like me? Is it better or worse than plain-old homemaking? Perhaps she would say that it was a pathetic attempt to justify my infantilism?ReplyDelete
Clarissa is another one who should have been dragged off to the kitchen by a man..(See my comment about Sam Brett previous post)ReplyDelete
Unfortunately too late I would think, for this rusted on feminist cyclops.
My kitchen is actually quite cold in the winter, so I was occasionally allowed to wear shoes. :-)ReplyDelete
Strange that the author should think all homemakers haven't considered the risks inherent to our choice. Every choice has risks; if nothing else, there is the risk of opportunity cost. Not being a homemaker means you are more financially independent, but you miss out on being a homemaker. Just like financial security, an experience is an intangible good of value to a person. Women will weigh the one against the other, and make an informed decision.
But that would involve them being free to make the choice, which Clarissa doesn't actually want.
Which just shows that left liberals are not interested in autonomy at all.ReplyDelete
they CLAIM to be in favour of autonomy but that would mean allowing people to make their own choices, and if people do that they will end up with unequal outcomes [women choosing to stay at home having less financial power than their husbands].
Since in the left's eyes the only reasons for inequality are the "oppressive" social constructs created by capitalism, Europeans and males to push themselves up over the "other" [another leftist obsession] autonomy is less the driving force behind liberalism than the insane push for "equality", an idea that managed to rack up 100 million corpses in under a century.
So in other words Mark, you are wrong about autonomy being the overiding liberal "good", they may SAY this and even believe it, but it is simply not the case.
Na na na na naaah na! :-)
But what do liberals mean when they say they want equality?
It goes like this. Liberals propose autonomy as the defining human good.
This then means that if some are denied autonomy that they are being treated as less than fully human.
So liberals demand both freedom (i.e. autonomy) and equality.
Right-liberals have tended to the view that procedural equality is sufficient. If there is equal opportunity, then individuals have the same freedom to shape their lives however they wish etc. There is some allowance made here for unequal outcomes.
However, it hasn't been an easy line for liberals to hold. After all, liberals want predetermined qualities like sex and race not to matter. So if there are differences in outcomes between the sexes or races, then it will be assumed by liberals that some sort of discrimination or prejudice must be at work.
So over time the more left-liberal view on equality has made ground. That's the idea that not just opportunities, but conditions of life (and outcomes) must be made equal.
A left-liberal, for instance, might say that if person A grows up in a region with poor educational outcomes, he is being denied the same chance to shape his own life outcomes and that the state, as a matter of human equality and social justice, must intercede to rectify the imbalance.
The influential philosopher John Rawls even believes that if person A works harder and makes a greater effort than person B that he should not be rewarded with better outcomes. Why? Because person A might have a better work ethic because of inherited qualities or because of a better upbringing. His advantage is therefore unmerited and the state should be biased toward transferring resources from hard-working A to slacker B.
The feminist views of women like Clarissa are categorized, roughly speaking and perhaps by most readers of this blog, among the follies of liberalism. But maybe her "lefty/liberal" views are merely superficial symptoms of an underlying disease - which is that democracy itself undermines the moral life. This is one of the ideas that Kenneth Minogue examines in his latest book The Servile Mind - which I'm reading at the moment.ReplyDelete
I've been visiting this site for about a year but very rarely commenting on anything until recently. In that time, I don't recall any reference here to the work of Kenneth Minogue. Since he was born in New Zealand and educated in Australia, I assume he is a well known and respected scholar in this part of the world. His classic analysis of liberalism (The Liberal Mind) was written about forty years ago.
Liberalism doesn't work out the way it is supposed to.ReplyDelete
Which is why it cannot last. Its own destruction was written into its original code.
Good points Mark.ReplyDelete
""But what do liberals mean when they say they want equality?""
You have this right, Right-libs want "equality of opportunity", Left libs point out [probably correctly] that someone born in a hovel cannot possibly have the same opportunity as the child of a millionaire.
Thus in the left-lib mind equality of opportunity [or autonomy] must go hand in hand with equality in schooling, income and many other areas.
While autonomy has been the defining "good" of all liberals since there have been liberals, in the 20th century I believe that influenced by Marxist thought left-libs have replaced autonomy as the greatest "good" with Equality.
In short, when equality and auonomy come into conflict, as they surely must, right-libs choose autonomy and left-libs choose equality.
Thus my reasoning that the modern lib-left overall is less concerned with autonomy than equality.
Of course when they seek to justify equality, they do it using the language of autonomy, but amongst the new generation of liberal-leftists I doubt many understand the historical underpinnings of their ideology, for them Equality is king.
This is not difficult to understand. The deep, profound, too-complex-for-men-to-possibly-understand philosophy underlying is simple:ReplyDelete
I want what I want when I want it!
That's it. That's all there is. Far too many people, and especially women, are nothing more than seriously overgrown toddlers still acting out their "terrible twos".
All the fancy wording and chin stroking and sign waving is just window dressing.
I want what I want when I want it, and if I don't get it then I'm oppressed! And when I want something totally different, I better get that right away, too!
It's really clarifying to view lefties through this simple prism.
The Spearhead has picked up on your post, Mark: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/14/the-mommy-wars-are-a-distraction/ReplyDelete
SHe is talking only about a certain socio-economic class of women, other women do not exist to her. I wonder what type of "professional realization" the millions of women who work as maids and at fast food counters, for example, experience.ReplyDelete
Alte, the article you linked to on Spearhead is rather sad. Is this the best that MRAs can come up with?ReplyDelete
This whole movement is turning more venomous every minute. In fact, how are they better than feminists they keep attacking. I have the feeling that they are motivated solely by hatred of women and nothing else.
They are the mirror image of feminists. Feminists want to discard the traditional female responsibilities, while MRas want to be freed from traditional male responsibilities.
Well, what could be expected from people who consider the likes of Roissy their heroes.
This whole movement is turning more venomous every minute.ReplyDelete
The whole political sphere is increasingly venomous. America is struggling and everybody's ticked off and pissed off. No surprises there.
The author has always been anti-homemaking, though. Anti-wife, really. There are other authors who are very pro-homemaking (or homemakers themselves, like Hestia and I), so it's a relatively diverse group. I'm not sure what his point is: Women are leeches whether they work or not, so who cares whether they work or not?
Umm... Okay. But how does that add to the conversation?
Alte is that a summary of the article? Sorry I don't want to read the link.ReplyDelete
Yeah, that's basically what he/they are saying. Homemakers and working mothers are equally worthless because all women are worthless, so the Mommy Wars are therefore completely pointless.ReplyDelete
Don't bother reading it, as it's dull and offers no new or interesting slant to the debate. He could have just written "Girls are stupid. Throw rocks at them." and made the same point, so I don't know why he even bothered writing an actual article. But if you like... I'll tell you what I really think. :-)
Oh that is too nice.
With a mouth locked in a sneer Clarissa writes about how stupid Conservatives are.
Problem comes in the last line of the second paragraph, where she postulates that right wingers are angry as hell about her pointing out the lack of grey matter displayed by tea party protesters.
""The conservatives, on the other hand, get upset when I mention that the US is a country that has some problems, go into tantrums when I remind that, statistically, hosewives are one group of population that suffers the most from depression, get sulky when I ask them difficult questions such as "What makes you think making a budget will cover a multi-billion dollar deficit?", and become rabid when I make fun of the general stupidty of the Tea Partiers""
If you don't see it, read it again.
Since she will almost certainly edit her work to correct the spelling errors i advise you to check it out while you can, I have never seen a sneering snobbish lefty be so funny!
If Clarissa in the film SOTL had been so dull her liver would have been served up with lima beans within two shakes of a lambs tail.
I do think that "having a go at the tea partiers" is a good sign as it shows the left are worried. I think you'll see the left across the world increasingly lose elections and right wing liberal party's to become more conservative.
Aside from that its all very tedious. If the basic argument is that middle/upper middle class people are "smarter" than others then that's not a great insight. The basic argument for an "elite", however, is that they should be given certain advantages in return for working on behalf of society. If all they can show is contempt then their status as an elite must be undermined.
If liberalism is about individuality, and elite liberals feel little to no obligation to society then they must exist on shakier ground. Look at the floods in Queensland. Those who volunteer or donate will be ordinary Australians not members of the elite. If the “elite” go off on a tangent of their own it’s a pretty unsatisfactory state of affairs.
"... "Girls are Stupid", throw rocks at them".
Women say similar things about men, so how are we supposed to get along? I think there's a strong underlying desire in society for more "rapprochement" rather than fighting.
Yeah, that's basically what he/they are saying.ReplyDelete
Alte it reminds me of "White Nationalists" who spend all their time talking about how terrible black people, Jewish people and "traitors" are without spending all that much time talking about what they are trying to create or defend.
People filled with hate as their primary driver tend to be highly motivated but why would the majority of the community they are reaching out to sign up to their program? Even feminism had to take over the higher education system first.
There are serious legal and social problems being caused by liberals [primarily left libs] in the West today, why do these supposed MRAs simply spend all their time ranting about how men don't need women?
Why don't they spend their time trying to raise money for groups like Fathers4Justice in the UK? Do something positive for a change?
Just who are they trying to convince?
This goes to the question of how much "class" should men today have?
Mainstream ''conservatives'' are finally waking up --- http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018416.htmlReplyDelete
I checked out craigslist recently and boy were the liberal rants amazing. The insanity and hatred of it all. ''Beck/Palin/Limbaugh/FOX News/etc did it!''
After this I am no longer reading "The Spearhead".ReplyDelete
An article and an entire comment thread trying to play down the epidemic of black on white rape in the U.S because, you know, all us men have to stick together.
Any group that tries to justify the continued rape of their own women is an abomination, this is the problem with the so-called "MRM" [which seems to exist only on the net], at the end of the day they are liberals, and left liberals at that who dislike what liberalism has done to men without giving a damn about it's other effects.
Short-sighted, ignorant naive fools. Seriously hope one of their "Black brothers" decides to relieve them of a few dollars on the way home tonight. Would serve them right.
Pathetic idiots, confirming the theory that when small minds find a single truth they block out everything else around them.
That's a pretty weak line Westieboy. So we're all to become "wigga's" now?ReplyDelete
''An article and an entire comment thread trying to play down the epidemic of black on white rape in the U.S because, you know, all us men have to stick together.''ReplyDelete
He's actually supporting the fact that the MSM hides the epidemic of black on white crime Jesse_7. He's saying that instead of focusing on a single issue that it's better to fight all of liberalism I think.
It made think of the EU when there were referendums on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland (it seems so remote): you can vote whatever you like, except no. That sums up liberalism; personal autonomy is the freedom to do anything except what liberals do not like. This why liberalism is unadulterated totalitarianism.ReplyDelete
An article and an entire comment thread trying to play down the epidemic of black on white rape in the U.S because, you know, all us men have to stick together.ReplyDelete
Actually, it was the racists who were trolling, as the original article wasn't about race, but about FRA and the value in a good and honorable lawyer.
I liked the comment you left on the Spearhead housewives thread.
>> Whenever the conversation didn't go exactly as they wanted, they would become highly emotional, raise their voices, become irritable, cry, make unreasonable demands.ReplyDelete
Sure sounds like the women I worked with in the ole' electronic factory for 31 years.
And, it sure sounds like the women a lot of men work with in offices around the country.
Clarissa perhaps only imagines she acts like an adult. Her writing does not indicate that.
Anonymous age 68
As far as I can see Liberalism, in particular left liberalism wants to destroy anything which is inherent, which is ethnicity and gender essentially.
If someone dislikes liberalism's attack on gender then it would make sense that they also look at the same ideologies attempt to destroy ethnic identity in a negative light.
I can understand why yanks might not however, the social ostracism directed at anyone who even mentions the fact that, yes African Americans do commit massive amounts of violent crime and the FBI stats would indicate they also rape ethnic European women as a kind of sport, much like Lebanese Muslims do in Western Sydney.
You would assume people against one aspect of liberalism would be against all its incarnations, but the Men's rights sites would indicate otherwise, as Mark has noted elsewhere many MRA actually see liberalism in a good light, and those who hate women the most seem to be those with the most liberal tendencies.
It's interesting to see, and I wonder where this movement is actually going.
"Actually, it was the racists who were trolling"
So anyone who mentions racist rape statistics is a racist? I admit I did not read all the comments on Spearhead but from what I saw it was one bloke ["firepower"] disgusted that an MRA would refer to one of the canon of European self hate [to kill a mockingbird] in a positive light to illustrate FRA.
To be clear as one of the first commenters on that thread mentioned, if the man falsely accused of rape in the book and film were white and the "victim" black the movie would not be considered a "classic" by the liberal establishment, it would be considered a hate crime.
It just goes to show that in most situations, race trumps gender for liberals, people who fail to realise that are only fooling themselves.
You would assume people against one aspect of liberalism would be against all its incarnations, but the Men's rights sites would indicate otherwise, as Mark has noted elsewhere many MRA actually see liberalism in a good light
Yes, that's an issue. It's clear that some of the key writers at The Spearhead continue to identify as liberals. That helps to explain why many of the articles there blame "socons" rather than feminists.
But I wouldn't give up on the MRM. We should try to influence the movement by making our points as reasonably and persuasively as we can.
And even the liberals in the MRM do some good. They've helped to break up the feminist orthodoxy which tagged men as privileged oppressors, rapists, wife beaters etc.
I liked the comment you left on the Spearhead housewives thread.ReplyDelete
Thanks, Alte. I had a look at that thread after you alerted me to it in a previous comment.
People filled with hate as their primary driver tend to be highly motivated but why would the majority of the community they are reaching out to sign up to their program?ReplyDelete
Unlike you traditionalists MRAs give a way for the individual man to avoid divorce court, false sexual harassment charges, and so on. MRAs also don't tell men to "man up" for things that are outside the control of individual men or are the fault of women. MRAs also don't try and hide women's sins by blaming black people. That's a lot more compelling that anything I have seen on this blog.
Why don't they spend their time trying to raise money for groups like Fathers4Justice in the UK? Do something positive for a change?
Why don't you? For decades MRAs have been trying to conservative and traditionalist groups to take part in eliminating no fault divorce, sexual harassment law, affirmative action, defending fatherhood, and so on. All of these things are your goals. The Republican Party, not even its wing of social conservatives, was not interested. Conservatives womens groups were not interested. The churches were not interested. The churches were not interested in dealing with these problems in their own female congregations. Pro family groups were not interested and so on. No one on the right wing is willing to take on feminism except on abortion and gay marriage. It's clear that this means the right wing agrees with feminism outside of abortion and gay marriage. This does not help any men. Only the MRAs are the ones dealing with feminism as it is and that's the reason why MRAs will be listened to.
That helps to explain why many of the articles there blame "socons" rather than feminists.ReplyDelete
It's clear that the Spearhead is blaming both feminists and socons. They see you as nothing other than anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage feminists, and they are correct.
and they are correctReplyDelete
Care to explain?
I ask this in all seriousness. Most people who visit this site would observe a large number of posts criticising not only feminist policies, but also feminist philosophy and first principles.
So how do you arrive at the conclusion that I am pro-feminist?
I'm curious as to how you would defend your position.
They are the mirror image of feminists. Feminists want to discard the traditional female responsibilities, while MRas want to be freed from traditional male responsibilities.
Feminists want to discard female responsibilities but retain male responsibilities. This has largely been accomplished, at least in industrialized countries, over the last 50 years or so.
Women have been given a lot of power, the average woman is now more powerful than the average man in the US, although this power rests upon a "glass floor" that is held up by -- men.
Many - not all, but many - women have abused the power given to them quite, quite badly. They have, individually and as a group, caused a great deal of harm to men both individually and as a group, as well as children.
So the issue for many men is simple: women are not to be trusted. Women cannot be trusted, because too many of them have abused, badly, any trust a man places in them.
That is the abstract view: because so many women have abused the unique powers handed to them by Affirmative Action, by sexual harassment laws, by divorce laws, by the power of false rape accusations, by "domestic violence" law, there are men who refuse to trust women - all women - any woman.
And the numbers of men who have this distrust are not decreasing, they are increasing. Neither feminist shaming, nor traditionalist shaming, will make a man more trusting.
In fact, I see it having the exact opposite effect.
Aah... I know Firepower pretty well. I like his haiku-style and his droll humor, but that doesn't mean I don't understand what his viewpoint is.
I've always loved that book. Rather than a work of "European self-hate", I read it as a novel about an honorable and beleaguered white man fighting for justice. But... that's just me. That's what I saw in both the book and the article, and Atticus Finch has always struck me as particularly noble character.
That was what the article was about: Atticus' nobility and his righteous fight for Truth. That it got derailed into yet-another American race battle was a shame, in my opinion.
''You would assume people against one aspect of liberalism would be against all its incarnations, but the Men's rights sites would indicate otherwise, as Mark has noted elsewhere many MRA actually see liberalism in a good light, and those who hate women the most seem to be those with the most liberal tendencies.ReplyDelete
It's interesting to see, and I wonder where this movement is actually going.''
It is doomed to fail. It will gradually become totally liberal as happened to LGF.
LGF --- http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011766.html
Alte if you don't like race realism then go away. I saw your disgusting writing on the badness of virginity (Turkey?) and anal sex is what Christian traditional girls do? Really? It's chastity + virginity for Christians. Or maybe you should not compare Islamic girls to Christian girls.
Oh, it is pretty much the same debate here and in the rest of Europe. In Oslo, Norway, the police department's figures (2009) indicate all rapes in the city in the past three years have been committed by immigrants, and the victims were... native women:ReplyDelete
Rape is one of the most revolting crimes I can think of. Surely we should bring back hanging and dispose of the rapists in the old fashion.
Telling men to "man up", particularly when it would be shooting themselves in the foot, is not criticism of feminism. Feminism = females/women so it's about what women do not how men defend themselves against it.
If you haven't noticed ''Anonymous Monday, 17 January 2011 4:10:00 AM AEDT'' Mark Richardson has never said such things. At least in the way you mean. What we need is destruction of liberalism. Mark focuses on equality, autonomy/individualism, progress, multiculturalism, etc.ReplyDelete
Can you scroll down to the "Christian Right is to blame" thread, there might be a post in the spam junk. Thank you.
Jesse, thanks. I've been checking the so-called spam folder regularly and it's been empty. This morning there were 11 comments stuck in there. It's a major nuisance.ReplyDelete
OK, so the "Mark Richardson is a feminist" line rests on the idea that I am simply telling men to "man up" or employing "shaming tactics" against men rather than criticising what feminists do.ReplyDelete
First, thank you for taking the trouble to explain your position.
However, I can only echo what Elizabeth Smith has already written in reply.
It simply isn't true that I have ever taken such a political position. I have always recognised that men have been put in a difficult position. I have always attributed this to the influence of feminism on society, and to the changes in behaviour of 20-something women.
My solution has never been a dismissive one of simply telling men to man up. I have attempted to show that feminism is a false and destructive ideology that needs to be combated.
It is true that I think that men should aim to be masculine. But that's because I'm what feminists would call an "essentialist": I believe that masculinity exists as a real good in life for men to embody.
So what is the real point of distinction between my own political position and that of some MRAs?
It's that some MRAs take a separatist line. They argue that current marriage laws and the current attitude and behaviour of women render relationships so risky and damaging to men that men should withdraw from relationships with women.
I don't entirely reject this point of view. I agree that the position of men within marriage and the family is being structurally undermined. I agree too that injustices and harms are being done to large numbers of men.
But I don't think that separatism is a solution at either a personal or a political level. I think it's better to build a political movement to reassert the place of men within the family and, whilst this is being accomplished, to marry and have children on the best foundations that the current situation allows.
If by taking this position I am alienating a section of the men's movement, then so be it. But let's argue over the real point of disagreement rather than off base claims that I shame men rather than blame feminism.
Mr. Richardson says,ReplyDelete
I don't entirely reject this point of view.
Then you don't entirely reject "radical autonomy" as highest principle.
I think a clear rejection of publicly pronounced male separatism is entirely appropriate. Those who want to choose de facto homo-ism should do so privately and not publicly advocate their radical liberalism. Of course, since the MRM is comprised largely of white male liberals, it is hardly surprising that its atheist, homosexual and equalist tendencies would start to shine through.
It should be clear that God-fearing man DOES NOT move towards radical autonomy or any of its many deviant manifestations (atheism, homosexualism, equalism, etc.).
Guys like to hang out with guys. They also tend to trust guys more. It doesn't follow from that they're "homo".
Hanging out with your boys is cool. Hanging out with your boys because you have a burgeoning aversion for WOMAN is homo. And then publicly advocating this all-around aversion for WOMAN is de facto homo-ism.
Once you move beyond the mere physical act (a task made impossible by one's materialism) and recognize that the devout dyke (anti-man) and radical homosexual (anti-woman) nature is ascendant under the guise of modern liberalism then you will have a better understanding of what PUBLICLY ADVOCATING male separatism really represents.
Thordaddy thinks all liberal MRAs are gay. More boring shaming language and incoherent ranting is all you can expect from him.ReplyDelete
I am consistently astounded by your inability to grasp the idea that I'm here because I find the debate interesting, and not because I agree with everything the men here say. It's not a debate if everyone agrees; it's just an orgy of blissful but mind-stultifying unity. Perhaps you should attack my actual argument about the nature of the book and its relevance to MRAs, rather than simply nagging me to death.
Furthermore, does your Mommy know you read my blog? What's a Nice Girl like you doing in a place like that? Tsk, tsk.
""I've always loved that book. Rather than a work of "European self-hate", I read it as a novel about an honorable and beleaguered white man fighting for justice.""ReplyDelete
That was probably what it was meant as, sadly me and my entire generation were taught it at school purely as "White person bad" narrative, where the only way anyone with pale skin can redeem themselves is to work to overthrow the evil racist system.
The racial aspect, not the justice aspect, is the reason this book and the film are still taught so exhaustively to students.
There may be other themes, but i and others have only ever been taught one, so I guess I knee jerk to any mention of it.
What would you call publicly advocating a collective male separatism founded on an aversion for woman other than the homosexualization of males?
Our culture isn't "feminizing" its young males. Whatever does that even mean? Our males are being led to embrace de facto homo-ism which is nothing more than the radically autonomous nature.
For what it's worth, many black people don't like the book, either. It's quite obviously a vehicle for the Noble Atticus and the Clever Scout, where the black characters are mere tools used to emphasize their nobility and cleverness.
Alte yes the debate is interesting. But traditional (Christian) girls=anal sex? That's wrong. That's not traditional conservative Christianity. Traditional Christian conservatism isn't just about chastity. It's chastity + virginity + other. It's kind of like saying that liberalism is just about equality when it´s also about autonomy (and vice-versa). Wouldn't it be better to say that it's more Islamic or Turkish traditional conservatism than traditional Christian conservatism?ReplyDelete
No, I see the same macho strains in the most conservative corners of American traditionalism, and I pick up on it because I've seen the same rhetoric in play elsewhere. But if you would like to discuss it further, please do so on my blog.ReplyDelete
"It has led her to characterise motherhood not as a fulfilment of adult womanhood but as infantile. Motherhood is no longer associated in Clarissa's mind with fertility or fecundity but with sterility - with female castration"ReplyDelete
I read Clarissa's post and do not understand how you arrived at this conclusion. She is not saying that motherhood is infantile, but rather the woman who is a housewife (including those who do not even have children). I think your analysis is weak, to say the least. I stumbled upon your site by accident and it seems to be a bunch of loonies that got together and voice the most ridiculous opinions. I really hope this backward thinking is not representative of your cultural heritage.
Just so weird...
So you start with a point, which you think goes without saying, and then end with an insult. Because you "dropped" into this site and are a smart ass/rude I wouldn't expect you to hang around long enough to reply or debate.
In reply to your argument you admit that Clarrisa thinks that being a stay at home woman is weak. A conservative or traditionalist would conflate being a stay at home women with motherhood, women stay at home primarily to have kids. If being a stay at home mother is infantile then a "traditional" women's role is infantile, which includes motherhood.
Why should staying at home be infantile? Clarissa says she opposes stay at home women, does she encourage working women to have children? She has no problem encouraging them to work. Does she have an opinion on declining fertility rates? Is it a coincidence that full time working mothers have fewer children? Does she consider modern working women necessarily mature? Do you think women should have a choice as to whether they stay at home or not? Do you think a women who stays at home can be happy and mature? Do you have a problem with women staying at home as such? Would you encourage men to stay at home more? If they did would they be infantile?
Don’t just cut and go, please stay and debate.
Clarissa is arguing that careers make women adults and staying at home to care for their children makes women infantile.
Therefore, the commitment to motherhood (as an activity) castrates women.
You're correct that this doesn't rule out having a baby. A woman could have a baby, stick it in care and return to her "adult" activity of paid work.
Nonetheless, the motherhood *role* is being treated by Clarissa as infantilising and castrating.
By the way, in calling my opinion on this "loony" or "weird" you are insulting not only the majority of your own countrymen, most of whom think it beneficial for women to spend time at home with their young children, but you are insulting your own forebears.
You are calling yourself the progeny of generations of loonies and weirdos.
I don't think there is any secret about what motivates the likes of Clarissa. It is the general dishonesty about the nobility of her plight that strikes most normal people. She is choosing career because it is safer, less risky, and without any real experience in motherhood, supposedly more rewarding. But even her reward is ENTIRELY material. She simply knows nothing of the immaterial rewards of motherhood and certainly has never contemplated them. But it doesn't stop there. She is also denigrating TO THOSE MOTHERS who genuinely choose a tougher and more sacrificial path so that the pull of material reward seem small and trivial as compared to the immaterial rewards that come almost always in unpredictable fashion. And this goes to highlight another stullifying aspect of radical autonomy. Once you get there, you simply know not what to do. You only have ideology to guide you and as we can see with Clarissa, you must simply embrace the most absurd beliefs.ReplyDelete
No one ever said, "that mother decided to stay close to her children... How liberal of her."
Clarissa, like all radical autonomists, is compelled to abandon truth at every turn as there is simply no other way to consistently prove that one is existing in a state of radical autonomy.
MR So what is the real point of distinction between my own political position and that of some MRAs?ReplyDelete
MR - ”It's that some MRAs take a separatist line.
I think it's better to build a political movement to reassert the place of men within the family and, whilst this is being accomplished, to marry and have children on the best foundations that the current situation allows.”
Of course, you never explain how that last sentence can be carried out any better than you do your claim about the MRM being largely “liberal”.
You just print abstract ideas that have little or no application to most men in the real world.
I’ll admit that I haven’t read every last thing you’ve ever written, but where is it that you have outlined your agenda for how the average man can possibly hope to make the best in the current situation?
What works for a very selective sub-group, like strict Christian Traditionalists, does not automatically have any applicability for men more broadly. The behaviors that make a man a good Christian husband tend to get men who’s wives are not (actual) Christians “run over”, first by those wives, and then by the courts.
MR - ”If by taking this position I am alienating a section of the men's movement, then so be it.”
Likewise, if the positions of those in the MRM have alienated you, then so be it. Never mind that the ranks of the MRM are growing (as more men find themselves and/or those around them disenfranchised) while the ranks of the Trads are shrinking, if you don’t want to find common ground, the larger contingent of men are no worse off for your refusal to help in seeking real changes, but your little clichés of Traditionalists are at risk of simply being over-run by the liberal feminist-influenced cultural-depravity hoards – that, or Muslims.
Benjamin Franklin is credited with the observation: ”Most assuredly we must all hang together, or, most assuredly we will all hang separately”
That largely sums up what MRAs have repeatedly suggested to you (Traditionalists).
In your deliberate effort to alienate those in the MRM, you are essentially declaring that you don’t mind hanging, just so long as you don’t have to do so with a bunch of autonomous (liberated) men.
Thordaddy - ”It should be clear that God-fearing man DOES NOT move towards radical autonomy or any of its many deviant manifestations (atheism, homosexualism, equalism, etc.).”ReplyDelete
And you’ve been able to divine this how?
The problem with MR’s “Autonomy Theory” is that is hinges on this incorrect notion:
”Autonomy is an ideal of self-creation, or self-authorship ”
This IS NOT what most people believe “autonomy” to mean. Rather, for most, “autonomy” is more suggestive of the idea that the individual is free to think for themselves, and not be coerced by the dictates of others; and, given that freedom, the individual most therefore assume responsibility.
This idea in no way requires “self-creation”, but rather “self-determination”. The individual is able to observe the evidence for himself, and determine his course of action.
I’m no Philosophy buff (in fact, I find most of it personally useless), but, if I were to chose how I view personal autonomy, I would be more in-line with Immanuel Kant, than with Mark Richards and Joseph Raz.ReplyDelete
To that end, I believe that man must first be able to liberate himself from the dictates of those around him so that he can choose of his free-will. I see this as being divinely ordained, as God gave the freedom to choose (even if to do so badly) to Adam (& Eve). It would be nothing to God for men to follow him if they had no choice but to do so. That which is given of free-will is of much greater value.
This applies the same way to men choosing to have relationships and marriages with women. They should study the “evidence” of a given woman, and come to a rational decision based on their freedom to choose either way. They should never enter into such relationships based on the coercion of others – including ill-educated lunk-heads who are going to call them “homo’s” if they decide that their best interests will be served by forgoing any one of many possible relationships with a given woman.
"while the ranks of the Trads are shrinking"
Rubbish, they're currently growing because people have tried living in the candy shop and don't really like it.
"any better than you do your claim about the MRM being largely “liberal”."
Of course its liberal and you admit to that yourself in your final post. To be properly liberal is essentially not about thinking for yourself as an individual but in holding yourself out as the highest good.
"In your deliberate effort to alienate those in the MRM"
Don't you play the victim, you also have to be honest and say how much of your attention is spent on criticsing us. Its an easy argument to make because "everyone" likes to criticise conservatives. Talk about taking responsibility for your own life. Blaming conservatives, who hold themselves out to be responsible (even if they don't always serve society as well as they could/should) is like blaming your parents for everything.
"but where is it that you have outlined your agenda for how the average man can possibly hope to make the best in the current situation?"
The average man must take from the men's movement where it says you have to watch your back. We say that too. However, if he embraces "do whatever feels good" ultimately he won't be better off.
Of course, you never explain how that last sentence can be carried out
I don't think I've written a particular post setting out a complete "how to marry well" message. But it gets discussed at times at the site. We've discussed what factors tend to either increase or reduce the risks of divorce. We've discussed how to respond to women who push at limits early in a marriage. We've discussed what characteristics in women to look out for.
while the ranks of the Trads are shrinking
No, over the past few years the readership of this site and other sites like VFR has grown appreciably.
We've gone from nothing to a small something. I think too that in the US a section of the young right is shifting politically in our direction.
In your deliberate effort to alienate those in the MRM
No, it's a deliberate effort to understand what is happening in the MRM. I take a keen interest in the movement, having been an active critic of feminism for over 15 years now. I'm delighted at the emergence of a significant MRM and I believe it's doing some good work in challenging aspects of feminism.
But there are some clear political currents emerging, which aren't easily reconciled. If some MRAs believe that trads/socons are to blame just as much as feminists are, then you can't ask trads/socons to simply "hang together" with the movement.
Our response will be to try to understand why such a line is being taken.
This IS NOT what most people believe “autonomy” to mean.
What matters is what the political class takes autonomy to mean. And their understanding is not that we have a God ordained free will by which we must bear the responsiblity for own moral decisions.
However, even the version of autonomy you set out is likely to end up in some kind of modernism.
If what matters is making an intellectual rational choice to self-determine our own course of action, then privilege will be given to aspects of life which allow for this rational choice making.
So a woman who chooses to renounce motherhood might think herself superior to those women who follow a more conventional, instinctive, "biologically determined" life path of having children.
Furthermore, important aspects of life which were once accepted as a good, will be abandoned because people are no longer adept at providing "rational" reasons for them.
Why not have free love? How, after all, do you intellectually decide in favour of a quality like modesty? It's a difficult quality to define and some of the reasons for favouring it don't become obvious until after it's been abandoned. If it comes down to an individually self-determined intellectual choice, then the inherited "prejudice" in favour of modesty probably won't hold.
We find ourselves back in the 1790s, with the French revolutionaries deciding that things have to be started again from scratch (they restarted the calendar to begin from Year 0), and Edmund Burke arguing against them in favour of inherited "prejudice" and correctly predicting that the Revolution would end in terror.
If we are merely self-determining rationally what is in our interests, then how can we ever give any due to qualities such as "duty" or "manhood" or "love of nation" or "integrity"?
It will start to be conventional to be unconventional, to be "anti-bourgeois," as this makes people believe they are choosing for themselves rather than following convention.
The West has been along this path already with unfortunate results.
[1 of 3]ReplyDelete
MR - ” What matters is what the political class takes autonomy to mean. And their understanding is not that we have a God ordained free will by which we must bear the responsiblity for own moral decisions.”
The opposite of “autonomy” is “dependency” (so sayeth Encarta), which might well fit with the Socialist view and their abhorrence of personal autonomy – wishing people to be entirely depended on government/ruling class.
But, I think you may be over-conflating the idea that personal autonomy equates to a separation form God. I think the more accurate term for the latter would be rebellion.
Autonomy may not always lead to desirable results, but it is God-given. Eve had the ability to consider “evidence” and chose her course of action. God gave her that ability. Obviously, she screwed-up and ruined it for all of us. But, still, her autonomy was God given.
[2 of 3]ReplyDelete
Perhaps my disconnect with your Autonony Theory is that I’m not clear as what you believe to be the alternative (on an individual basis). Are you suggesting that individuals are depended on other human beings for our choices in life.
A particularly twisted variant of such thought that I’ve personally encountered is the idea that husbands, as (figure)heads of their households, are responsible for any and all misdeeds of their wives. I have found this line of thought particularly onerous in regards to female infidelity, wherein certain Christian churches hold that a husband is largely, if not mostly to blame for his wife’s infidelity. This takes the personal responsibility from the wife as an autonomous individual, capable of making her own choices, and puts it on her husband (and her lover) for what can more rationally be seen as HER act of free-will.
[3 of 3]ReplyDelete
The only thing which I believe even comes close to in it’s misapplication is Thordaddy’s twist on your view of autonomy (which, I take it you hold to be man’s separation from God, his fellow man, and from God’s design fro him?)
I think where Thordaddy bungles this is that he doesn’t recognize that woman are not God, and that be separation from women is not analogous to being separated from God. By his mutation, the apostle Paul was a homosexual, as have been countless Catholic monks down through the ages.
My impression is that he believes he has found a clever way to call those he disagrees with “fagots” by incorporating your theory into his world-view.
Perhaps his misuse of your idea has caused me to have a more jaundice view of that theory in much the same way that the doctrinal misuse of Scriptural concepts by some avowed Conservative Christian churches has lead me to take a dim view of SoCons in general. Perhaps.
MR - ”Why not have free love? How, after all, do you intellectually decide in favour of a quality like modesty? It's a difficult quality to define and some of the reasons for favouring it don't become obvious until after it's been abandoned. If it comes down to an individually self-determined intellectual choice, then the inherited "prejudice" in favour of modesty probably won't hold.”ReplyDelete
Unfortunately, I’m a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I’d like to revisit this later. But, basically, I see this being linked to men needing to withhold marriage from women, making them prove themselves worthy first, as a way of re-establishing control over female sexuality – the modern libertine version of which I see as the “root” of the socio-sexual chaos we now face.
Whereas Mr. Richardson sees "autonomy theory" in terms of self-creation, I see it in terms of a fundamental aversion to truth. So we get things like abortion equals reproductive rights. We get homosexual male equals man. We get anti-man ideology equals "feminism." We call degenerate female behavior "female supremacy." We get male separatism based on a general aversion for woman as MAN's movement. The self-creation aspect is largely a tool of denial about what actually motivates those that seek an impossible absolute freedom in a strictly physical realm.
What you don't seem to understand is that the homosexual is a PARTICULAR and original instance of radical autonomy within our reality. His radical autonomy is grounded in his sexual autonomy. In his world, Man and Woman are worthless creations. Both represent something impositional and oppressive. Both the homosexual and devout dyke UNDERSTAND that Man and Woman CAN'T exist radically autonomous AND STILL BE Man and Woman.
[1 of 2]ReplyDelete
Josh F/Thordaddy - "Whereas Mr. Richardson sees "autonomy theory" in terms of self-creation, I see it in terms of a fundamental aversion to truth."
As time an posts go by, you make less and less sense all the time. Being an autonomous individual is not, in any way, aversion to the truth (I doubt you could even offer up a half-way cogent argument as to how it supposedly is).
Nor is autonomy “self-love”. There are those who do practice such self-love. The correct term is “narcissist”. But, many individuals who are living alone, both men and woman, are clearly not narcissists. Nor are they, by any definition (other than your private and deeply twisted one) “homosexual”. Your inane theory is a pathetic FAILURE. Did you ever wonder why no one has picked up on it? Hint- everyone else sees it for the juvenile effort to call those who disagree with you “fagots” that it is.
Autonomy is simply developing ones self as an individual, not as some group-thinking cultist. To this end, men need to resume doing what they had routinely done in years gone by – establish themselves (career, trade, farm, etc.) so that they can live out their lives in relative self-sufficiency. It is only after a man has established his own independent autonomous self that he is even ready to consider marriage. By establishing himself, even if he didn’t marry, he would still be able to get by on his own.
[2 of 2]ReplyDelete
Now, in the past, once established, a man could have a reasonable expectation of finding a worthy women to be his wife, and to bear him children.
The sexual revolution has, however, loosed female sexuality, which had hither-to been checked by the need/desire of women to be able to find a husband (no rings for sluts is as old as history).
The most obvious net result of loosed female sexuality is that there are simply not enough marriage-worthy women to go around for the number of men who would otherwise make good husbands.
But, given your simplistic view of the world, I’m obviously wasting time trying to explain the plainly obvious to you. Your one of those guys who simply believes that whatever wrong with society, the fault lies solely with men (you only ever criticize men), and you might have actually started believing in your own inane theory. So, you can just get back to calling me a “fag” or whatever you need to do to feel better about yourself.
@Mark R: [1 of 2]ReplyDelete
Getting back to what I touched on earlier, I don’t see personal autonomy necessarily leading to “modernism” (I’m not clear on what you mean by that, but I’m guessing you would include the modern tendency to personal selfishness and sexual promiscuity?)
The idea that if everyone is given the freedom to choose, they will uniformly choose what might be considered anti-social (or, anti-societal) paths simply hasn’t been borne out in human history.
People have always had such choices to make, limited by only what those around them would allow them to get away with, and yet great societies have arisen never-the-less, and even without the benefit of Christianity.
The simple fact is that (as the Manosphere has re-illuminated) only a small percentage of men benefit from loose sexual mores. Thus, there has long been incentive for most men to support social system which enforce monogamy (for most). Key to doing so (and it’s a huge key, at that) was the understanding that “slut” weren’t desirable as wives. There has historically been a penalty for women who would become promiscuous.
[2 of 2]ReplyDelete
Feminism has been no small part in “freeing” to be sexually liberated, which has lead to a large proportion of women not seeking out a sole partner to build a relationship and life with, but rather for that group of women to “compete” for the most desirable men at the apex. [I’m sure that I’m telling you nothing that you aren’t already aware of]
The problem today is not that men are seeking to be autonomous near so much as it is that woman are seeking to be sexually rebellious (relative to Gods plan). Thus, it is actually quite logical that men would want to return to the old system wherein they didn’t reward female promiscuity by offering up their lives and goods to unworthy women.
I don’t see how you cannot see that the necessary “corrective” action for the situation we are in now is going to require that some significant portion of men refuse to marry (as there are not as many worthy woman).
It’s hardly a perfect solution, but I see nothing better being offered up as an alternative that has a reasonable chance of success.
Sorry, but I just can't take these people seriously. This recycled twaddle was stale when *I* was at university.ReplyDelete
There has to be an end to the analysis of stupidity. The point is to offer an alternative. How hard can this be? These people have absolutely nothing of substance to offer to anyone. For God's sake I've known 15-year-olds who had more depth and independence of mind and heart, and more sophisticated political opinions, that this monster of banality.
She (or her sister) also doesn't pass the smell test for simple honesty:
During preliminary interviews with housewives [her sister] saw that they had one thing in common: an extremely infantilized mode of behavior. Whenever the conversation didn't go exactly as they wanted, they would become highly emotional, raise their voices, become irritable, cry, make unreasonable demands.
Yeah, sure they did. And I am Marie of Roumania. Every word rings false.
(And just to get completely trivial here - because I don't see these women as anything but trivial:
Less and less women will be "choosing" to abandon economic independence...
I would think a professor of literature, even if it isn't English literature, would know how to use "less" and "fewer" correctly. Inane and illiterate.)
Your entire spiel is based on the idea that man is in an inferior position to "female supremacy." So right from the outset we see where your desire for "equality" originates. It's in this "equality" that you promote male separatism based on a general aversion for woman (radical autonomy) JUST LIKE your "feminist" counterparts. "Feminists" also promote a dual female separatism based on an aversion to man. Why we call it "feminism" and not devout dykism remains a mystery.
Your movement is but a liberationist movement. A movement towards self-annihilation.
But how do you REALLY PROVE that you are RADICALLY autonomous? Go homo... Declare your atheism... Promote anarchism... Call a general aversion for woman a "man's" movement.
No one ever tells the truth and gets accused of being liberal.
Again, what does RADICAL AUTONOMY look like if not a "man's" movement towards de facto homo-ism, i.e., the spiritual, intellectual and sexual aversion for woman?
Another point is that the likes of Clarissa confound the "gamer's" main thrust which is the female desire for Alpha man all the time. Clarissa WANTS TO BE Alpha. Clarissa desires to be "Butch," pseudo-Alpha... Anti-man.
And you call this "feminism..." Something pertaining to femininity... Where.is.it?
1 of 3ReplyDelete
”Your entire spiel is based on the idea that man is in an inferior position to "female supremacy."
Um…have you somehow missed the obvious again? Men have been put into an inferior position, especially in regards to the laws and the courts. The prime thrust of the MRM has been to seek “equity”, not “equality” (there is a difference) for men under the law.
T - ”It's in this "equality" that you promote male separatism based on a general aversion for woman (radical autonomy) JUST LIKE your "feminist" counterparts.”
BS! Your just too full of yourself to actually read/listen to what anyone else has to say. It is not an aversion to women but rather an aversion to Marriage 2.0 in a contract between a man, the state, and an unworthy women. I’m not sure how that can be so difficult for you to understand.
You know who you remind me of? The character Dr. Pangloss, who had his own stupid little pet theory that he went about espousing regardless of whether it was either appropriate or applicable. I think I’ll just start referring to you thusly.
2 of 3ReplyDelete
Pangloss -”Why we call it "feminism" and not devout dykism remains a mystery.”
Who’d this “we”? I’ve never seen anyone else adopt your inane terminology. Yes, your matriarch Laura Woods once tried to make some sense out of it, but even she moved away from your empty and confusing drivel rather quickly.
Pangloss - ”Your movement is but a liberationist movement. A movement towards self-annihilation.”
No. Again you seem unable to comprehend anything that anyone else has written. It’s more of a “corrective” movement using what remaining power we as men have to try to put the genie of liberated female sexuality back into the box (or, at least limit it’s damage). And, the cold hard reality is that marriage isn’t even necessary to have children any more. A couple of educational comments posted by one Oak (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/dads-and-trucks/#comment-4779 & http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/dads-and-trucks/#comment-4782) - not that you’ll A) read them, nor B) be able to understand them.
3 of 3ReplyDelete
The other cold hard reality you seem unable to comprehend is that there are simply more good men than there are marriage-worthy women today. This means that many good, non-“homosexual” men will not be able to fins a woman who would be in their interest to marry. This is not the fault of themen alone, but even more so the fault of the women who chosen to be sluts, entitlement princesses, career-first/only, or any combination thereof – and who have thus eliminated themselves as martial material. Again, a fairly simple concept you seem unable to grasp.
Pangloss - ”what does RADICAL AUTONOMY look like if not a "man's" movement towards de facto homo-ism, i.e., the spiritual, intellectual and sexual aversion for woman?”
Even though you’ve utterly FAILED to describe the MRM, I’ll ask you the question that I doubt you’ll be able to answer:
What is your proposed alternative for the real world today?
"Autonomy is simply developing ones self as an individual, not as some group-thinking cultist"
Ok but are you saying the men's movement doesn't have group-think?
Aside from that you make some fairly good points.
"Nor is autonomy “self-love”."
Where does loyalty come into it? If its ok for men to establish themselves and do what they want, why shouldn't women? Should monogamy apply to men as well? One vision of a traditionalist male is a patriarch overseeing his family, why do you accuse him of being a cultist? He is a strong man not a patsy following orders. Nonetheless he recognises he has obligations and not just prerogatives. Please don’t say the patriarch died with marriage 2.0 because your argument isn't simply that its harder to be a proper man but also that every man should figure everything out for themself and do their own thing
If the modern female can legally fornicate, abort and divorce at will, how is it claimed that she is in a superior position? If you were allowed to LEGALLY self-annihilate spiritually, intellectual and physically, would you call this absolute freedom?
What of a "collective" call for male SEPARATISM? Is there nothing paradoxical in that call? Shouldn't the separatist stand ALONE like the radical autonomist he is perceived to be?
If Clarissa denigrates motherhood and you equate that with "feminism" just because (not because it represents something feminine or does it?), what does this say of your comprehension of reality?
The fact is, you keep saying that you can't comprehend me and I can't comprehend you. I comprehend you just fine. You are waffling back in forth between states of radical autonomy and nuggets of truth. You don't need to lecture thordaddy on the battle at hand. I know full well the environment in which we reside. It is one where all communications are breaking down, separatism is calling from every corner and technology is immobilizing us. In short, we are all progressing towards a state of radical autonomy and self-annihilating in the process.
Another problem you're having is distinguishing between a generic notion of autonomy and the highly conceptualized notion of radical autonomy premised on the idea that one may be absolutely free in an entirely physical realm. Of course, such a thing is impossible outside of self-annihilation. When Mr. Richardson talks of autonomy in terms of self-creation, the subject must either ALWAYS BE in a state of self-creation so as to prove one's autonomy or they must manifest in the physical world as a particular creation. But in order to prove one's autonomy in face of this imposition (the created state), one chooses any number of radically autonomous natures, namely, the homosexual, the atheist, the anarchist, the jihadist, etc.
Its not that I disagree with your position but the point was made what should men today do? What responses should be made to the current sitaution? Thanks.
The first thing you need to ask yourself is whether you believe in Supremacy?
If the answer is "yes" then you start on a course of "defining" and then striving towards Supremacy.
If the answer is "no" then you are in a state of anti-Supremacy. You have explicitly acknowledged your inferior state. Why you want to be there is a question in need of an answer?
Now, this seems simplistic until you actually have to think about it. But make no mistake, a man that has no solution to his own conundrum can have no answer for another man's conundrum. Relationships are too dynamic for a-one-size-fits-all solution. The best ones are hard to destroy BUT so are the worst ones. You have to pick and choose but you can't abandon altogether. And any man that tells you running is the only solution is no man at all because men always keep the ability to fight for what's right as a decisive solution.
At a practical level, I train so as to back up every word I speak with knuckles, knees and elbows. I train so as to let others know that I take my life and the life of my children and their mother with deadly seriousness. It's something to wake up for every single day. A call for separatism is a call to stay asleep.
Seek to exercise your maximum moral autonomy at all times. You will stand above the radically autonomous masses and attract those worth attracting and repel those worthy of repelling. You should feel inspired to partake in a great battle both personally and publicly; or you simply give in to debilitating despair.
If there is a more specific question, I will try and answer it.
I think supremacy is a good thing to strife for, however, according to the law we're equal. A woman can leave, she can do all sorts of things. In my experience women love you till they don't. This is a fragile state of affairs for men. The other kicker is that when women leave they do so angrily, "you haven't measured up to my expectations" etc. In such an instance they feel little concern for the consequences of their actions.
I'm very willing to fight for society and add my weight to it, but if I was to get married today (as in right now) I'd find myself in a very perilous position. I'd be happier knowing that I was strong enough to take whatever happened, and then get married.
I'm not advocating marriage to anyone unless both man and woman have a strong faith in God. Any marriage without that faith is built on nothing.
In reality, I am speaking out against those who collectively advocate for male separatism based on a general aversion to woman. If you desire to separate from the perilous world of woman then it should be a personal choice and pursuit.
Something to think about.ReplyDelete