The Two-Party System of Gender Politics
The objective political situation of men in Western civilization being what it presently is, it would be asking far too much of any male citizen that he should agitate for women's advantages, or trouble himself in the least with women's political issues. This means that women are on their own: when the "personal" became the "political", it gained the moral nimbus of the political—and the political does not entail any personal solicitude for the partisan interest of the opposition.
I say partisan interest, for it happens that feminist innovation in all corners of life has turned 'male' and 'female' into rival political parties, having dissolved by its corrosive acidic action the foundation for any sentimental connection that formerly existed. Look around you; study life; the proof is everywhere. The situation now established in law and public policy, where men live under numerous threats of false accusation as under a Sword of Damocles, sets the capstone upon all of this. It sets the final seal. Chivalry is dead, and women, I repeat, are on their own. Given the state of reality at the present historical juncture, they ought to feel surprised and flattered that men will even associate with them at all.
How many times have we known one feminist or another to say it is not their job to go to bat for men? I've heard many variations upon this refrain, and I respect the sentiment because it transmits a flavor of blunt honesty—honesty of any sort being a rare find among members of the women's movement!
Again, I respect the sentiment. But I ask only that men should enjoy the equivalent advantage at their own end of the bargain: it is not the job of men to go to bat for women! For now that relations between the sexes have been reconstituted upon a model of political competition, it is incumbent upon us all that we play the game with consistency and wholesome frankness, however harsh or contrary to our instinctual feelings its terms might appear.
Yes, I for one am quite willing to play this game, and to embrace both the asperity which it imposes, and the compensative gift of simplicity which it brings. I look every feminist or collaborationist on earth squarely in the eye while I say this, and would have them know that I know their worth, and that I know the vital part which they have acted in bringing the world to that state which now occupies our attention.
To summarize: Men as a group owe no extraordinary collective favor to women as a group, any more than Democrats as a group would owe any special favor to Republicans as a group. Given the objective political situation of men in Western civilization, where women have the whip hand, such is the only conclusion to which moral consistency would adapt itself.
Having coldly but briefly outlined the prevailing state of affairs, I turn to ponder the ramifications—especially as it might involve the future plans and policies of our movement.
What evaluation ought we to draw from this partisan state of gender politics? For example, how does it make us feel?
I would guess: not so good! Even one so cynical as myself laments that this state of affairs offers precious little ground for celebration. It is difficult to understand what desirable consequence might ensue from the status quo that now confronts us. One foresees little more than a harsh lunar landscape, bereft of air or anything else that customarily sustains life. Think of it: men and women are political adversaries working to get the better of each other or, stating it more plainly, to shaft each other! For such is the model which feminist ideological indoctrination has established. And can any social polity hope to endure upon such a foundation? That is a very serious question, yet I shall leave it to the reader to supply the answer as his or her wisdom might suggest—my present concern lies elsewhere.
Thinking in cold, practical, political terms, what does this partisan reality promise? What are the auguries? How might we profit by its ascendancy, and what adjustments shall it require of us?
I have already set out this matter in somewhat different terms, in stating that men as a group owe no extraordinary collective favor to women as a group. Yet to this I would add that men, either jointly or severally, have no longer any ordinary contractual social duty toward women—that too was washed away, abolished, annihilated, when feminism arrived on the scene and turned the world upside-down! This is harsh, but if we are to live consistently and accept the new lunar freedom which has fallen to our lot, we must abide by certain terms. We must take the bitter with the sweet, and the feminists must be made to see this. Women in theory are on their own, as I have stated.
I would parenthetically add, that present law and public policy are out of step with what I am explaining here—they are behind the times. Nor does it matter that they are backed by the coercive power of the state, for that power is now (at least in theory) superceded by a different order of sovereignty!
Very well, so women are on their own. Men have no obligation to agitate for their interests, or to assume any sense of collective responsibility for postulated historical wrongs, or even to shoulder the burden of normal contractual social duties. Men are free and sovereign in their dealings with the opposite sex regardless of any state-sanctioned laws or public policies, regardless of the fumings of pro-feminist intellectual pundits and other collaborationists, and most of all regardless of feminist dogma itself.
That all of this has cold and barren consequences, is perfectly understood by the present writer —who doesn't much care for what the future very likely holds, but knows there is little to be done about it given the nature of the present historical reality which feminism has helped so largely to create, and upon which feminists themselves even to the present day remain so intractably pigheaded and incorrigible. To us in the Movement, no other course presents itself than to plough our furrow doggedly into this future wasteland, since the alternative is worse!
The alternative is, of course, collaborationism—be a Schwyzer; be a Flood; be a ribbon worm; be a self-betrayer! However, as should be self-evident, collaboration is ruled out a priori if you don't intend to co-labor! And as a man going your own way, you know good and well where the road forks . . . don't you?
It is sad that you have no choice but view every woman you meet as a potential betrayer. The law no longer protects you, and although most women would never stoop so low, you can never tell. Therefore you must watch your back and keep your own counsel—and until the law changes, so it must remain!
In the interim, you are free to shrug a worthless bag of rocks off your shoulders, to revel in the new-found sense of ease and lightness, and to travel unencumbered in the desert. You don't "owe" women anything, not even the most elementary social considerations. Feminism has brought matters to this pass. Feminism—through its wanton destruction of formerly existing systems, and its failure to supply anything viable or equitable in their place—has freed you to go about your life in a spirit of mercenary calculation. It is none of your doing; you never asked for it, and they never asked you if you wanted it! Nor did they ask anybody else . . .
So as a man, you are free to treat any woman you meet purely according to her merit, and purely according to your own honor and goodness. You are free to negotiate a new social contract every time—and feminism dictates no marching orders here! Feminism provides no instruction manual whatever, for that book was long ago cast upon the highway and trampled into the dust by the endless parade of passing hooves and wheels.
This freedom: it makes life simple. It is profitable to you and me, and profitable to the Movement. It clears the air, it clears our eyes, it clears our minds. It allows us to see, and to think, and finally to ACT.
Let us act with wisdom and discretion, while standing clear of the destructive turbulence which is sure to come. We have no duty to restrain this turbulence, but only to predict its arrival and to exhort the other side to take responsibility. We can't do it alone. They must get off their duff and do their share, and admit their wrongdoing. When that day arrives, the world will become a very different place. I'm not giving up hope, but I see a long road ahead—most of it uphill.
I say partisan interest, for it happens that feminist innovation in all corners of life has turned 'male' and 'female' into rival political parties, having dissolved by its corrosive acidic action the foundation for any sentimental connection that formerly existed. Look around you; study life; the proof is everywhere. The situation now established in law and public policy, where men live under numerous threats of false accusation as under a Sword of Damocles, sets the capstone upon all of this. It sets the final seal. Chivalry is dead, and women, I repeat, are on their own. Given the state of reality at the present historical juncture, they ought to feel surprised and flattered that men will even associate with them at all.
How many times have we known one feminist or another to say it is not their job to go to bat for men? I've heard many variations upon this refrain, and I respect the sentiment because it transmits a flavor of blunt honesty—honesty of any sort being a rare find among members of the women's movement!
Again, I respect the sentiment. But I ask only that men should enjoy the equivalent advantage at their own end of the bargain: it is not the job of men to go to bat for women! For now that relations between the sexes have been reconstituted upon a model of political competition, it is incumbent upon us all that we play the game with consistency and wholesome frankness, however harsh or contrary to our instinctual feelings its terms might appear.
Yes, I for one am quite willing to play this game, and to embrace both the asperity which it imposes, and the compensative gift of simplicity which it brings. I look every feminist or collaborationist on earth squarely in the eye while I say this, and would have them know that I know their worth, and that I know the vital part which they have acted in bringing the world to that state which now occupies our attention.
To summarize: Men as a group owe no extraordinary collective favor to women as a group, any more than Democrats as a group would owe any special favor to Republicans as a group. Given the objective political situation of men in Western civilization, where women have the whip hand, such is the only conclusion to which moral consistency would adapt itself.
Having coldly but briefly outlined the prevailing state of affairs, I turn to ponder the ramifications—especially as it might involve the future plans and policies of our movement.
What evaluation ought we to draw from this partisan state of gender politics? For example, how does it make us feel?
I would guess: not so good! Even one so cynical as myself laments that this state of affairs offers precious little ground for celebration. It is difficult to understand what desirable consequence might ensue from the status quo that now confronts us. One foresees little more than a harsh lunar landscape, bereft of air or anything else that customarily sustains life. Think of it: men and women are political adversaries working to get the better of each other or, stating it more plainly, to shaft each other! For such is the model which feminist ideological indoctrination has established. And can any social polity hope to endure upon such a foundation? That is a very serious question, yet I shall leave it to the reader to supply the answer as his or her wisdom might suggest—my present concern lies elsewhere.
Thinking in cold, practical, political terms, what does this partisan reality promise? What are the auguries? How might we profit by its ascendancy, and what adjustments shall it require of us?
I have already set out this matter in somewhat different terms, in stating that men as a group owe no extraordinary collective favor to women as a group. Yet to this I would add that men, either jointly or severally, have no longer any ordinary contractual social duty toward women—that too was washed away, abolished, annihilated, when feminism arrived on the scene and turned the world upside-down! This is harsh, but if we are to live consistently and accept the new lunar freedom which has fallen to our lot, we must abide by certain terms. We must take the bitter with the sweet, and the feminists must be made to see this. Women in theory are on their own, as I have stated.
I would parenthetically add, that present law and public policy are out of step with what I am explaining here—they are behind the times. Nor does it matter that they are backed by the coercive power of the state, for that power is now (at least in theory) superceded by a different order of sovereignty!
Very well, so women are on their own. Men have no obligation to agitate for their interests, or to assume any sense of collective responsibility for postulated historical wrongs, or even to shoulder the burden of normal contractual social duties. Men are free and sovereign in their dealings with the opposite sex regardless of any state-sanctioned laws or public policies, regardless of the fumings of pro-feminist intellectual pundits and other collaborationists, and most of all regardless of feminist dogma itself.
That all of this has cold and barren consequences, is perfectly understood by the present writer —who doesn't much care for what the future very likely holds, but knows there is little to be done about it given the nature of the present historical reality which feminism has helped so largely to create, and upon which feminists themselves even to the present day remain so intractably pigheaded and incorrigible. To us in the Movement, no other course presents itself than to plough our furrow doggedly into this future wasteland, since the alternative is worse!
The alternative is, of course, collaborationism—be a Schwyzer; be a Flood; be a ribbon worm; be a self-betrayer! However, as should be self-evident, collaboration is ruled out a priori if you don't intend to co-labor! And as a man going your own way, you know good and well where the road forks . . . don't you?
It is sad that you have no choice but view every woman you meet as a potential betrayer. The law no longer protects you, and although most women would never stoop so low, you can never tell. Therefore you must watch your back and keep your own counsel—and until the law changes, so it must remain!
In the interim, you are free to shrug a worthless bag of rocks off your shoulders, to revel in the new-found sense of ease and lightness, and to travel unencumbered in the desert. You don't "owe" women anything, not even the most elementary social considerations. Feminism has brought matters to this pass. Feminism—through its wanton destruction of formerly existing systems, and its failure to supply anything viable or equitable in their place—has freed you to go about your life in a spirit of mercenary calculation. It is none of your doing; you never asked for it, and they never asked you if you wanted it! Nor did they ask anybody else . . .
So as a man, you are free to treat any woman you meet purely according to her merit, and purely according to your own honor and goodness. You are free to negotiate a new social contract every time—and feminism dictates no marching orders here! Feminism provides no instruction manual whatever, for that book was long ago cast upon the highway and trampled into the dust by the endless parade of passing hooves and wheels.
This freedom: it makes life simple. It is profitable to you and me, and profitable to the Movement. It clears the air, it clears our eyes, it clears our minds. It allows us to see, and to think, and finally to ACT.
Let us act with wisdom and discretion, while standing clear of the destructive turbulence which is sure to come. We have no duty to restrain this turbulence, but only to predict its arrival and to exhort the other side to take responsibility. We can't do it alone. They must get off their duff and do their share, and admit their wrongdoing. When that day arrives, the world will become a very different place. I'm not giving up hope, but I see a long road ahead—most of it uphill.
posted by Fidelbogen at 1:04 AM
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home