Another Group Deserving of Shame
I would like to make brief note of a cohort of people who are properly a subject of interest in the world of gender politics. To date, their existence has not been greatly analyzed or remarked upon—or at least not to my knowledge.
We know about the feminists themselves, in their rich and varied shadings. Likewise, we know about the male supporters of feminism—those whom we bluntly call collaborationists, by historical analogy with World War Two.
But the group I am discussing today has so far kept clear of the hostile scrutiny it richly deserves. I won't list names, but rather highlight their unique qualities in a way that would call their presence to the attention of others, and encourage some awareness of the role such people play, or might potentially play, in the thickening plot developments of the gender crisis.
These people—these MALES I should say—have escaped the radar mainly because they show no sign of any friendly feeling toward feminism. If anything, the contrary. They are on the whole what you might call "traditional males"; politically, I would peg them as possibly neoconservative, or libertarian with neoconservative leanings.
What sets these men apart is their arrogant conventionalism, and their proclivity toward the customary alpha dominance games which, according to feminist propaganda, characterize men as a group. To say that these men lack male political consciousness is altogether too much of a kindness. In fact, they are flat-out rude, snide, callous and pig-headed when confronted by any honest description of the objective conditions that weigh upon men as men. According to them, any speech of this kind is the mark of a "wimp".
Therefore, such males are worse than useless to the men's movement. They believe they can make their way in the world—to achieve money, power, status, promotion, expensive cars and other such crucial necessities—despite every damn thing which has operated to poison the world against men in the last forty years. Oh no, none of it makes a chicken-feed worth of difference to them; suck it up, they say! Male political consciousness is only a character flaw, a lame excuse to be a pathetic loser. If you are rugged and square-shouldered, you can plow your furrow to the top of the mountain no matter what—and no excuses mister! Male solidarity? Brotherhood? That's just a load of worthless whining, you little drip!
These elitist cowboys are no help at all. They are not our brothers! They are wretched curs who would rather betray us to a common enemy than modify their traditional manly narratives and self-conceptualizations. Their presence on earth is like a 50-pound bag of buckshot around our necks! Every time the bar gets raised, their eternal answer is "jump a little higher!" Admirable tough guys, aren't they? Oddly enough, the feminists don't like such men any more than we do, for they are very much the "patriarchalists" of caricatured legend! And yet what a friend they are to feminism after all! Supremely ironic, yes? Finally, they shall be served according to their merit.
Since I like to invent names for things, I believe I will call these people SCABS. That word has a nice wicked "bite" to it... don't you think?
I am open to better suggestions. Perhaps later I will think of one myself....
-----------------------------
Post Note: The original name that occurred to me was "cowboys", but I think "scabs" is better!
We know about the feminists themselves, in their rich and varied shadings. Likewise, we know about the male supporters of feminism—those whom we bluntly call collaborationists, by historical analogy with World War Two.
But the group I am discussing today has so far kept clear of the hostile scrutiny it richly deserves. I won't list names, but rather highlight their unique qualities in a way that would call their presence to the attention of others, and encourage some awareness of the role such people play, or might potentially play, in the thickening plot developments of the gender crisis.
These people—these MALES I should say—have escaped the radar mainly because they show no sign of any friendly feeling toward feminism. If anything, the contrary. They are on the whole what you might call "traditional males"; politically, I would peg them as possibly neoconservative, or libertarian with neoconservative leanings.
What sets these men apart is their arrogant conventionalism, and their proclivity toward the customary alpha dominance games which, according to feminist propaganda, characterize men as a group. To say that these men lack male political consciousness is altogether too much of a kindness. In fact, they are flat-out rude, snide, callous and pig-headed when confronted by any honest description of the objective conditions that weigh upon men as men. According to them, any speech of this kind is the mark of a "wimp".
Therefore, such males are worse than useless to the men's movement. They believe they can make their way in the world—to achieve money, power, status, promotion, expensive cars and other such crucial necessities—despite every damn thing which has operated to poison the world against men in the last forty years. Oh no, none of it makes a chicken-feed worth of difference to them; suck it up, they say! Male political consciousness is only a character flaw, a lame excuse to be a pathetic loser. If you are rugged and square-shouldered, you can plow your furrow to the top of the mountain no matter what—and no excuses mister! Male solidarity? Brotherhood? That's just a load of worthless whining, you little drip!
These elitist cowboys are no help at all. They are not our brothers! They are wretched curs who would rather betray us to a common enemy than modify their traditional manly narratives and self-conceptualizations. Their presence on earth is like a 50-pound bag of buckshot around our necks! Every time the bar gets raised, their eternal answer is "jump a little higher!" Admirable tough guys, aren't they? Oddly enough, the feminists don't like such men any more than we do, for they are very much the "patriarchalists" of caricatured legend! And yet what a friend they are to feminism after all! Supremely ironic, yes? Finally, they shall be served according to their merit.
Since I like to invent names for things, I believe I will call these people SCABS. That word has a nice wicked "bite" to it... don't you think?
I am open to better suggestions. Perhaps later I will think of one myself....
-----------------------------
Post Note: The original name that occurred to me was "cowboys", but I think "scabs" is better!
posted by Fidelbogen at 8:27 PM
9 Comments:
I think 'scab' is a great way of saying it. A description of what they do is fairly analogous to what scabs do during a strike, be it a marriage strike or otherwise. I'll be surprised if you come up with something that fits better.
Hi Fidelbogan,
I don't know who you are speaking of personally but I myself have been seeing this. It is good that someone else sees it too. They are not OK with themselves and take it out on others.
Scabs is a really hard word to call someone else. I like collaborist because it is a smart, classy word. I don't like to get down to street words and scab sounds like a street word to me. It sounds like a name calling instead of a real word to desribe a group of people. I will think of a word but I know I won't think of something as good as you will,. in time. lol
I just look at them as the men that make me want to be a feminist. I am so glad they are small in numbers.
Anon, it's nice to see that you picked up on my grist of thinking so handily! :)
Hi Julie: I'm talking about almost any males who don't pretend to be "pro-feminist", and YET.... heap scorn upon the idea of men's rights or the political struggle of men in our time.
They are a uniquely different class of traitors unto themselves, who ought to be distinguished from the pro-feminist "collaborationists" (like Schwyzer)that we are already familiar with.
They are a different KIND of collaborationist, and that is why I think these people should should get their own special name - 'cuz they play a different game.
Scab isn't really a street word. Well, maybe in a way. It's a word that originates in the labor movement. It means: a strikebreaker, a person who crosses the picket line.
It's the kind of person who has no actual loyalty to the enemy, but is willing to sell you out nevertheless - and roll rocks down upon you from the mountaintop just for laughs.
You think "collaborationist" sounds smart and classy?
Well believe me, collaborationist and scab are BOTH mean, hard, ugly street words! ;)
After all, we want the people in question to know exactly what we think of them.....
Could you link to my MRA blog at mikeeusa.blogspot.com
I'll link back (just drop a comment on one of the stories on my blog so I know).
Mikeeusa! You, sir, are a man of some reputation indeed around pro-male cyberspace!
That is, if you really ARE Mikeeusa...
Mikeeusa has an account on Blogger, therefore, he doesn't need to log in as "anonymous"....does he?
Hi Fidelbogan.
Can you please delete my last comment. I wrote it in a fearful state of thinking how bad all this has to get before things will get better. It was written to you but I don't think it is appropriate for others.
Hey, I can do better than delete it. I can moderate it - which means it never appears at all. I'll just keep it behind the curtain for my own reading...
Today...I ran into an old friend who tells me about his adventures with the family court/child protective system. He confirms at first hand that the whole thing is a great big money-grabbing racket, festering with corruption.
He himself got accused of "verbal abuse" and forced by the court into a "program". I questioned him a little bit about this, and it sure sounded like the Duluth model all right....
Anyway...
I will think about your "hidden comment" for a while and get back.
Thanx
Julie...it sounds like you have concluded that this "war" is going to go on for quite a while.
That has been my conclusion also, for quite some time now.
And the reason? Because the feminists will NEVER change their game. EVER.
Their game is what? To BLAME MEN for EVERYthing that goes wrong, for EVERY ugly development that might pop up and grow large along the future highway.....
And NEVER look in the mirror and take ANY responsibility for their own part in creating the problem in the first place.
Furthermore, they are so deeply entrenched in their strategic positions that they can drop off the radar if they wish, and STILL keep playing their game on the sly in the dead of night, and STILL keep stealing a march on their opposition!
And they have every intention of sticking around permanently, and working non-stop to gain more and more ground in the world.
The people within government and the various institutions are probably not going to start anything revolutionary even if they DO know what is going on....
The "revolution" needs to be from the street. From the grass roots. When people in the institutions and professions become aware of such heat from the street, more and more of them will feel encouraged to rally to the banner. (Logically, it would be rebel insiders in the media who would be the first big icebreakers, breaking a lane for others.)
The priority would be to raise the political consciousness of MEN first of all. The sooner the better, otherwise things will get uglier and uglier if men don't know WHAT to be mad about, and HOW to direct their anger toward the proper target...
What the feminists want most of all is more "male violence", in order to "prove" their point about men....so that they can secure the passage of more anti-male laws and policies. However, they want this male violence to be politically unfocused - i.e. directed at innocent women rather than feminist women. Nothing would please the feminists more than to see more men beating their wives or girlfriends, or causing criminal destruction with absolutely no political focus...
SO: Men as men need to gain political awareness and brotherhood and solidarity with other men, and SOON. Otherwise...worse and worse male behavior in general. (Which the feminists will as usual "blame on men" - and they'll be half right and half wrong although they will NEVER 'fess up to the half wrong part!)
And then....WOMEN need to know what's going on, the sooner the better.
And I think that the way to reach ze womenfolk is to make it very very clear to them that it is in THEIR own vital interest to oppose feminism.
Not to encourage some great big horrible pity party for men....but to let women know that **THEY** will be the losers if the feminists keep moving ahead with those perpetual revolution plans....
More thoughts later, perhaps...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home