Saturday, September 25, 2010

More Evidence of What to Expect
From SoCons

A commenter on the foregoing post had THIS to say:

"Fidelbogen, take a gander at this: http://tinyurl.com/2fxhvdj
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts and observations. Perhaps you can post a comment at this site."

Delete
BloggerAnd I replied to the commenter as follows:

Anon 10:45, I thank you for the link. I went there and read the article, and I am not feeling very kindly toward the author of it. Here is the comment I left (which may not survive moderation) :

"I consider myself a member of that “men’s movement” which Thomas Fleming mentions in the present article.

"For the record, I take serious offense at Fleming’s snide, dismissive, arrogance in speaking of said movement. He clearly knows almost nothing about it, and as befits the ignorant, should be instructed to shut up.

"This reinforces the growing consensus among movement members, that social conservatives (such as Fleming) are as much the enemies of men as feminists are.

"It also taints my personal enjoyment of the article, and makes it hard for me to appreciate the author’s points on their own merit.

"Consider your knuckles smacked, Thomas! You are just plain MEAN, and you should behave yourself in the future!"


Yes, another lofty ignoramus with a diamond-shaped, felt-lined asshole who cannot or will not comprehend the magnitude of the crisis, who doesn't give a snap about men outside his sheltered cultural-social milieu, and probably thinks "it can't happen here."

Fittingly trenchant remarks at that website, by CF readers, are encouraged. Intelligent and classy, please!

posted by Fidelbogen at 6:10 PM

27 Comments:

Blogger Will S. said...

Fleming is an old fart, who can't think outside the Victorian chivalrous box. I for one, won't be bothered trying to change his thinking on gender issues; F. Roger Devlin himself has interacted with him on several occasions (though not always regarding gender issues, mind you), and he has been very brusque with and dismissive of him, IMO, as he is with anyone whom he dislikes, for whatever reason. But if others wish to, they may go ahead.

I would like to say, though, that notwithstanding Fleming's blind spot in this regard, he is refreshingly traditionalist in his approach to gender issues; e.g. he doesn't like Sarah Palin; he doesn't even like the idea of a married mother holding office rather than staying at home with the kids. In that sense, then, he is more of a potential ally than an enemy. And Chronicles is a good magazine; they don't buy into warmongering, nor the sell-out of conservatism by the National Review folks.

7:26 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

I have to say I agreed with his views on patriarchy, but that should come as no surprise. Didn't really understand why he had such negative remarks regarding the MRM, or why he would consider anti-feminists "whiners," considering that he does recognize there is a problem.

On a side note - I've heard the phrase SoCon tossed around amongst MRM men (usually negatively), but don't really have a good grasp on the connotations of what that means. According to his article (but for his odd consideration of anti-feminists as being whiners), and your label, I would consider myself a "socon." But from what I have heard of other people dropping remarks about what SoCons are representative of, I wouldn't. Can you offer some quick enlightenment? Is it basically what he terms a "patriarchalist"?

1:20 PM  
Blogger Will S. said...

trent13: I won't try to answer for Fidelbogen, but since I self-identify as a SoCon, I might as well give my two centsm too.

SoCon means social conservative, and so encompasses all the sort of traditionalist, very-much Christian-identified sort of positions on social issues that you would expect that to entail - opposition to homosexuality, esp. gay 'rights', opposition to abortion, euthanasia, etc.

Where many in the manosphere have objections to social conservatives politically, myself included, is their reluctance to recognize how things have changed for men, and their putting down MRM types as whiners, invoking shaming language, saying they need to 'man up', and stop worrying about feminism; also, some so-cons have tried to say they are 'conservative feminists', like Sarah Palin, so they really aren't opposing feminism at all; they have no interest, it seems, in overturning anti-male laws and ending the misandrist biases in the legal system, etc. Basically, their chivalrous values practically mean they end up unwittingly being allies, or at least tools, of the feminists. Those of us who are so-cons will say that all too many of our fellow so-cons have blinders on in this regard; they haven't taken the 'red pill', so to speak, so their eyes aren't opened to the realities of what men who aren't the elite, face in the 21st century.

So, many so-cons may say they're pro-family, and pro-marriage, but their refusal to stand with men against the feminist agenda, makes them practically anti-family, as well as anti-male, ultimately.

6:02 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Trent13: Hey! When I published this post (and posted over there), I was sizzling mad. But I have cooled down now, so I will try to sort a few things out.

I was not taking issue with anything he said in his article OTHER THAN his remarks about the "men's movement", which branded him as a sadistic assclown and a perverse ignoramus. There was honestly no good reason for him to insert that crap into his article, and I must conclude that it was done from a combination of conceptual ignorance, and personal malice, toward a dimly perceived group of people whom he considers "beneath" him.

Oh sure, he recognizes that there is "a problem", but from what I can gather, his actual comprehension of that problem has half the bricks missing. I think that somehow, he has "mixed the personal with the political" -- meaning that his personal animus toward certain people short-circuits his political understanding.

As simply as I can put it, he does not want to admit that the MRM people are RIGHT about a lot of things, and that is why he is blocking the realization of what they are saying. Not only does he not want to give them due props and respect as people, but merely admitting that they are correct about critically important matters could force him to take on board certain things that might crash his worldview. And his arrogance toward the MRM is precisely because of this threat which he has subconsciously detected.

If I were a professional psychologist, I'm sure I could parse that in much better jargon.

6:48 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Trent13:

I was going to post a part 2 comment to address further points of yours (about so-cons, etc.), but I see that Will S. has stolen the words right out of my keyboard, and saved me the work!

Therefore: "What Will said!"

@Will S:

Thank you for your timely entry. As I say, it saves me the work!

As for your remarks, I should briefly make clear, that I am (and long have been) aware that SoCons (unlike feminists) are not a monolithic group, and that some of them indeed have their heads in the right place, politically speaking. Yourself, evidently! :)

Ahhh...but those other SoCons...

They need a special, cute monikker to set them apart them from SoCons in general, and to maintain semantic hygiene.

As for Sarah Palin: she's a shallow birdbrain whom I would rather not see in the White House. Although, if she DID get in, it might be fun to kick back with beer and popcorn and listen to the distant popping sound of brain aneurysms as feminists everywhere go apoplectic! ;)

7:55 PM  
Blogger Will S. said...

Hey, Fidelbogen, you're welcome!

Yeah, I admit, I too, enjoy watching feminazis' overreaction to Sarah Palin. It's hilarious that they can't see that she is in no way a threat to anything they stand for; she's all talk and no action, like most socon politicians.

2:54 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Will S:

What the feminists cannot forgive Sarah Palin for, is claiming the word "feminism" for herself. Stealing their name. Copyright infringement so to speak.

6:01 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

@ Will S. Thank you, that was very enlightening. It's unfortunate that there is no differentiation in phrasing for those SoCons who believe in chivalry without a simultaneous and necessary female submission to males. There really should be a different moniker as was pointed out. According to your definition, that definitely makes me a SoCon. I was wondering though, you mentioned the following:

"Where many in the manosphere have objections to social conservatives politically, myself included..."

So, just to clarify, despite the fact that you, yourself, are a self-labelled SoCon you have reservations about them in the MRM precisely b/c you don't know what "type" they are going to be?

@ F:

"Not only does he not want to give them due props and respect as people, but merely admitting that they are correct about critically important matters could force him to take on board certain things that might crash his worldview. And his arrogance toward the MRM is precisely because of this threat which he has subconsciously detected."

Delving into someone else's motivations is usually a hypothetical question b/c of all the various assumptions one has to make, but that being said, I was wondering what aspects of the MRM you theorize might threaten his world view. I would think that his world view is what gives him perspective on certain "critical matters" rather than the other way around, but perhaps that is (probably is) projection - it's very hard to get out of my own "box".

I think that (the world view or principle informing one's understanding of events) is why I don't understand how SoCons like himself, recognizing that patriarchy is good, and feminism is bad, can yet denigrate a movement which at the very least he has a large percentage of common ground with. But as you said, perhaps "his personal animus toward certain people short-circuits his political understanding."

1:56 PM  
Blogger Will S. said...

trent13: No, not at all; I don't mean I have reservations about SoCons like myself or you in the manosphere; I meant those outside of our circles, both (a) those running for political office who identify thus, because even if I agree with them on other issues, I don't want to get behind anyone who will not do anything to help men in general, and who isn't doing anything to actually undo feminism and its pernicious effects, and (b) fellow outside-the-mainstream conservatives, who should be natural allies, but who instead criticize our types, without seeking to understand, or listen to us; or who only want to help men for the sake of their particular goals rather than for men's sake alone, i.e. to help the family, and/or the Catholic Church, etc. Fleming is one such; Mark Richardson is another; Laura Wood the Thinking Housewife is another; their anti-feminism is not an end in itself, but a means, towards getting men to be self-sacrificing once again, to recreate a working civilization, rather than making a world where men could feel that self-sacrifice is a sensible choice, if they choose to do so. IOW, they have it backwards; first, we need to free men and stop protecting women from the effects of their mistakes; then some men might feel, once Marriage 1.0 is possible again, that marriage is for them - while others won't bother - but that's a legitimate choice in itself, something that many SoCons refuse to acknowledge. IOW, their concern about men dropping out of society, isn't for those men themselves, but for the effects it will have on society. Not good enough! Men need to be appreciated as men, just for being men, whether or not they choose to be husbands and fathers, or to "go their own way", and do their own thing. We should want to end injustice simply in order to see justice done, rather than towards any other ends; they can come later. Anything else, is just using men, once again, as fodder for someone else's agenda.

3:29 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

". . making a world where men could feel that self-sacrifice is a sensible choice, if they choose to do so. IOW, they have it backwards; first, we need to free men and stop protecting women from the effects of their mistakes; then some men might feel, once Marriage 1.0 is possible again, that marriage is for them - while others won't bother - but that's a legitimate choice in itself, something that many SoCons refuse to acknowledge."

Will, I see that you are the more "liberal" brand of conservative;I have a hunch that you and Edmund Burke would have hit it off rather well.

Anyhow. . . you have touched upon something important here. Firstly, that your focus is upon simple justice, and treating men as ends in themselves. Makes perfect sense, if one would ask them to sacrifice themselves. Just imagine telling somebody at the get-go that he had zero value for his own sake, and yet, strangely, he OUGHT to sacrifice himself.

No, that wouldn't quite fly. It could not be made the basis of a moral imperative. In moral terms, it is a shade different from slavery, but only a shade.

Furthermore, the opt-out option builds a flex factor into the social fabric which permits the fabric, hence the entire culture, to BREATHE. And breath is a function vital to any metabolism.

In olden times, monasticism took care of this need to a great extent, but. . . monasticism ain't what it used to be!

Apart from all that, some people have personal gifts, hence unique contributions to make, that would be hard to make within the constraints of marriage, family and that whole standard form of life.

More later. . .

5:55 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

Hm, Will, that was a lot to think on. For starters (assuming i ever have time to revisit this again) perhaps you can tell me if I would be put in your category B from above (not that I care to be b/c I don't agree entirely, but I ask your opinion). I consider the men's movement necessary and good, even despite the fact that I am a trad Catholic and the beliefs held by many of them are contrary to my faith. I consider it good in the sense that the more men are aware of how bad feminism is, the sooner feminism can be done away with - and that is good for everyone so long as patriarchy replaces it.

But maybe this goes back to what comes of placing individuals as the building blocks of society v. placing the family as the building blocks of society.

I absolutely agree that men should have a choice about getting married, that they should receive respect, etc. even not having the appellation of father and provider attached to them. I would say that their status as men is not derived from what they do for society but from their God-given superiority, but that doesn't mean this elevated status would give them license to break natural or supernatural law(s) which are set up for the good of society.

I don't think women should be protected under the law for the sake of protecting women, but neither do I think that women should be "unprotected" or that laws should be enacted for the sake of giving men "freedom" to (for example) sleep around and chose whether or not to support, not support, or (as some have advocated on the Spearhead) have equal say in the option to abort the fetus. Freedom to commit license is no freedom at all, for either men or women - regardless of what the state might declare as constitutional. Laws should be concerned about true justice, not perceived equality.

At this point both parties are taking "free will" and running with it, the difference being that women are generally worse and are getting away with more. It seems like some men in the MRM simply want "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", but it doesn't address the greater issue of the fact that what was ushered in by feminism and cultural marxism was bad in the first place, so why bother arguing equal consideration. If it's bad, it's bad and no amount of equal is going to make it better.

Does that make me SoCon type B in your book?

Sorry this was so long, and very probably unclear.

@ F: "monasticism ain't what it used to be!"

HA! You think?!

7:22 PM  
Blogger Will S. said...

Fidelbogen, trent13: I'm Canadian, and I'm of the more British, collectivist, less individualist type of conservatism (even though I am appearing to advocate greater individualism for men, I actually am not; more on that later), and so yes, I'd have some Burkean tendencies in some ways, and yet, not in others; perhaps I'd be more Oakeshottean. (Actually, the Canadian thinker George Parkin Grant, is the conservative with whom I most strongly identify; you can look him up if you're interested.)

I am a Christian, of the Protestant variety, and I believe that Christ and St. Paul both encouraged marriage, but recognized it wasn't for everyone - certainly, it wasn't for either of them. We all have different callings, and I'm not entirely sure the Reformation was correct in abolishing monasticism within the Protestant fold; I believe it's well possible that in that regard, the baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater. Anyway, that aside, I still think that marriage is something the State and society should generally encourage, but it needs to be Marriage 1.0, not the current 2.0 variety where women have all the rights and men all the responsibilities; and furthermore, I think we should recognize that not all men - or women - are called to marriage, and that's okay; let's have room in our society for confirmed bachelors and spinsters. That's all I'm saying. Certainly, trent13, I don't want men to be cads and use women, any more than I want women using men. And I don't want laws to give license, by any means, to any party, to do that which is wrong, nor to unfairly treat any party. I'm pretty sure you and I are on the same page here.

Basically, I want the laws in our society to treat all fairly; then, most men and women will opt for marriage, which is good for society certainly; but some won't, and that's okay, too; a healthy society can and should handle that. It's not that I'm a rabid individualist, but I'm recognizing the reality of different callings for different folks. And yes, Fidelbogen, breathing room is important; women won't mistreat men if men feel they have the option to opt out of the married life; IOW, women won't take men for granted, both if divorce becomes a much rarer thing than now (because the penalties are borne more evenly than at present, thus dis-incentivizing women to opt for divorce as readily as they do now, alas), and if men feel they don't have to marry, to be of value to the society they live in. Competition, so to speak, is always needed.

Men have value, simply because they are created in the image of God. Not because they are husbands or fathers; husbands and fathers certainly have great value in those capacities, I'm not denying that, but men in general, whether or not married, have value in God's eyes. (I am as angered as Anakin Niceguy, the former Biblical Manhood blogger, at churches castigating men who opt not to marry, as somehow failing to live up to some supposed obligation of all to marry and have children; not all have that calling, and churches mustn't be shaming men (or women, for that matter, though that is rarer) who opt out.)

A healthy, Christian society should recognize men's having value in God's eyes just because He created them in His image, and social conservatives in general, ought to do so, certainly.

10:20 PM  
Blogger Will S. said...

One more thing, trent13: is the individual or the family the building block of society? Certainly, the family is - but so are those individuals who opt out of family life, but still contribute in various ways to society; the Church has room for both, and always has had, and so should society in general.

10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, it looks as if your comment hasn't survived moderation, Fidelbogen. The comments from readers at that site have nauseated me. What a bunch of jerks.

1:25 PM  
Blogger Will S. said...

Yep; Fleming doesn't care to actually engage any of us; we're just whiners:

A number of mens-movement types have written in, though their comments are in moderation and will not be posted until I have the time to sift through them. The basic argument is that males should recognize they are at war with women, and that social conservatives–whatever that means in this context–are as much part of the problem as feminists. (By the way, they make the case against the mens movement better than I could ever do.) A milder argument is that we should now enforce real equality, by making women adhere to the same physical standards in the military. I understand their frustration and naturally concede the point, but the larger point escapes them: That it is a man’s duty to protect his women and no matter how much the character of American women has been ruined by schools and legislation–authored by men–our duty does not change. While I would not take this gallantry to the suicidal point that Waugh’s Tony Last does, the basic MM argument only makes matters worse. If a few men started acting like men–as opposed to whiny brats–they might get a response from some women. Remember the old woman’s advice from Nietzsche? Goest thou to woman, do not forget to take thy whip. While I do not advocate corporal punishment–far from it–I do recommend virility.

If we make the case against ourselves by our supposed poor reasoning, then why not show that, by publishing our responses, thereby giving us the humiliation and ridicule Fleming thinks we deserve? And how does "a man's duty to protect his women", which he asserts without reference to Scripture or Church teaching, etc., translate legislatively, if at all? If we're simply being whiny and not "manning up", then can he give constructive criticism as to how we might get unfair laws changed, for example? No, of course not. All we have, then, once again, is a cranky patriarchal traditionalist, who just doesn't get it, ultimately; who offers no real solutions, merely engages in shaming language, yet won't even engage with us in debate, won't try to understand and see from our perspective, nor will he offer valid reasons for holding to his outdated Victorian chivalrous views. For all his positives (which I do concede; he is a patriarchal traditionalist, after all, but unfortunately his vision is blinkered), ultimately he's useless on men's issues, as is the case with most of his generation, within the conservative movement.

3:57 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

I haven't even been back there. Maybe I should take a look. I just wanted to blow off steam and bitch-slap the punk (which I did!) and NOT to argue with him (which I know to be useless).

But it looks like I unleashed a whirlwind of MRAs.

His ignorance glares as much as ever.

The most important point of all is NOT the present condition of women (deplorable as it is), but the anti-male toxicity of the LAW and the entire culture.

This point evidently escapes him.

The cold, brutal existential reality which now confronts us (as men) leaves no room for "chivalry", "protecting women", or any of that fine old noble crap. . .

5:13 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

There was a fellow by the name of Jesse Powell who posted on the 'Thinking Housewife' blog, who voiced similar sentiments (to Fleming's), but pushed it to the point of saying (in effect) that destroying innocent men with false accusation is the price we must pay for protecting women (against rapists).

As for Fleming, I wonder what he would think of my argument that the social contract between men and women is voided.

5:23 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

The "man's duty to protect his woman" is one I do not recognize. It is null and void, and exists only in the imagination of Fleming and his ilk. Assuming that this so-called duty ever DID exist, it is now supended "for the duration", and any woman who seeks my special "protection" must earn it by her merit.

Oddly, the feminists have spoken of a patriarchal protection racket, and Fleming (strangely enough) fits right into this pattern.

5:48 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

So Fleming's argument is, "if men were more men, women would be more women".... I think that's the attitude that got us into this mess in the first place, not recognizing the fact that men being good men wasn't enough, that feminist women were willing to use, have counted on and will continue to count on being able to use chivalrous principle against men.

I don't think the answer is to get rid of patriarchy in order to save society, but to get women to change what they have come to accept as the status quo regarding the social order. I know that seems like a tall order, but the more women become aware of the good that can come of patriarchy (i.e. men having authority, and women being submissive to man's rule) the more likely it is that we have order in society again.

I just don't see though that the "protect women" principle without an absolutely necessary belief in the submission of women to men is going to work - it just lays men open to getting screwed over, as we have seen.

At the very least the more women who begin to question the validity of feminism, the better.

6:28 PM  
Blogger Will S. said...

trent13: I myself certainly believe in patriarchy, paterfamilias, etc. But like you say, it has two aspects: men having authority, and women being submissive. The status quo asks men to do their traditional duty, while not asking the same of women. And both feminists and clueless social conservatives are guilty of not recognizing the imbalance in the status quo, today. Like you say, all Fleming's advice will do is result in more of the same.

I think it's great that more women like yourself are questioning feminism, but ultimately, I believe it will be up to men to force change, through becoming aware, then responding as they each see fit - whether learning Game, and applying it to get and keep a LTR, esp. marriage, or whether to drop out and go their own way, whether to challenge unjust laws, etc. Female allies will be helpful, and welcome, but ultimately, it will be men who decide to overthrow the feminist beast. Men built civilization; men let women install feminism and tear apart the social fabric of our society; it will be up to men, again, to restore it back, though the assistance of women who recognize this will certainly be a help.

8:48 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Female allies will be helpful, and welcome, but ultimately, it will be men who decide to overthrow the feminist beast. Men built civilization; men let women install feminism and tear apart the social fabric of our society; it will be up to men, again, to restore it back, though the assistance of women who recognize this will certainly be a help."

Will, this is pretty similar to what I have written HERE:

http://tinyurl.com/28uwchs

9:31 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"Female allies will be helpful, and welcome, but ultimately, it will be men who decide to overthrow the feminist beast. Men built civilization; men let women install feminism and tear apart the social fabric of our society; it will be up to men, again, to restore it back, though the assistance of women who recognize this will certainly be a help."

I guess I kind of consider it a chicken or egg thing, as in what comes first, the political process whereby that which empowers women is done away with, or the mindset of women changing away from feminism. Perhaps it will be simultaneous and as the two work on each other, a snow-ball effect could occur. I imagine that being the best scenario. Worst scenario is that men politically do away with feminism, but the average woman never stops believing in it, and continue to fight for it - it would always be a struggle than. Eh, no, that's not true, I don't think it will ever be gone until the culture viz a viz the media (not just our political process) stops positively reflecting and endorsing it. If men could ever get ahold of the media and the political process, I think they could win against feminism, even without our (anti-feminist female) example or action.

9:45 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Trent:

Aye-yi-yi! I REALLY need to write a long article, or even a book, about the master plan.

Women will cease actively or passively supporting feminism when their advantage so dictates. I think I am safe to say that women are advantage maximizers -- and nobody can call me a "misogynist" for making such a statement.

Best short term policy would be continued preaching and agitating, to politically awaken men who will become preachers and agitators in their turn, and so on. Eventually the grassroots energy will grow to where it can no longer be ignored, and that is when powerful supporters (with deep pockets and wide connections) will come sniffing around -- because they smell opportunity.

In the meantime, I would love to see the formation of countless local groups and cells, and networks between them, and the growth of MRA attitude among men everywhere -- especially young men!

Women have been gradually coming on board, and will continue doing so. They will always be outnumbered by male MRAs, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. At any rate, the function of activated non-feminist women is A.) to be a "women's chorus" making anti-feminist noise in society, and B.) to serve as "apostles" among the female population.

The second level of strategy (as I envision it) consists of forming a widespread popular front coalition among a variety of cultural and political groups. (This gets highly detailed).

All of this to be laid out in the book (or books) I might be writing. . .

11:05 PM  
Blogger Will S. said...

Fidelbogen is surely right when he says "Women will cease actively or passively supporting feminism when their advantage so dictates."; the problem is, most women see it as being to their advantage. Novaseeker has pointed out how feminism has meant not only have women retained control over the traditionally female space, the home, but have also aggressively colonized the traditionally male space, the workplace. So many women think they're getting to have their cake and eat it, too. Of course, when they end up as lonely, overweight ice-cream-snarfling middle-aged cat ladies who no man will look at, they may reconsider. But until reality bites them in the behind, they'll think the world is their oyster.

So, it will take a sea change, for most women to realize that the status quo really isn't the best for anyone.

4:17 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

". .the problem is, most women see it as being to their advantage."

Time, circumstance, and continued "educational efforts" would turn that around.

4:44 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"Eventually the grassroots energy will grow to where it can no longer be ignored, and that is when powerful supporters (with deep pockets and wide connections) will come sniffing around -- because they smell opportunity."

Oh, that sounds so cynical - but I guess those with deep pockets don't throw their money around without opportunity (as in, it's a good chance it'll be a winning venture). I'd like to think that there is some deep pocket male out there who wants to do it b/c it should be done - maybe that's just unreasonable?

1:03 PM  
Anonymous KARMA MRA MGTOW said...

"This reinforces the growing consensus among movement members, that social conservatives (such as Fleming) are as much the enemies of men as feminists are."

Very true :)

1:36 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home