Friday, March 27, 2015
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
The Truth about "Misogyny"
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Posted to AVFM: What is "Equality"?
A Universal Non-Feminist Credo
As non-feminist, we occupy a critical standpoint independent of feminist presupposition. On the merit of our standpoint, we claim the authority to define feminism on independent terms by the light of independent study. In principle, feminism IS what we say it is. The power to define feminism is not a sole feminist privilege.
We shall maintain non-feminist autonomy and secure non-feminist existence against feminist imposition, in whatever form this may arise.
The present statement may be considered foundational. Future associations or clubs may incorporate this material into their manifestos or charters, and augment the material as they see fit.
Friday, March 06, 2015
What Side are you On?
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
The Meaning of "Equality"
In the course of dispute, many a feminist will inform you that you “don't know what feminism really is”, and instruct you to “look in the dictionary”. They will pronounce this with an air of immutable finality, as if they had settled the question for all time. In deference to their wisdom, I share the following dictionary entry:
Feminism -n: 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.This definition is the source of the oft-heard claim that “feminism is about equality”, meaning that it seeks to establish equality of the sexes in the form suggested. We call this “dictionary feminism”, and if you enquire to know what feminism really is, it establishes a core minimum that nearly any feminist would publicly agree upon.
The problem with dictionary feminism is that it does not exist outside the dictionary. For this reason, we favor a more pragmatic or empirical way of knowledge. To us feminism is not merely a sentence on a book page, or even an ideology. It is a set of real-life practices - a dynamic pattern of things existing in the objective world. We see it, and we call it as we see it. From this we draw the counter-feminist maxim that “feminism is what we say it is”.
To say that feminism is “about equality” is useless because, frankly, what is this thing called “equality”? No ready answer presents itself, and we are left with no coherent explanation. That compels us to set aside the dictionary and map our knowledge from independent principles.
For that purpose, we now go to investigate the difficulties of the term “equality”.
One issue immediately crops up, namely, the rightness of this term in relation to “feminism”. One sees that “masculism” could be supplied in place of “feminism” with no harm done to the requirements of “equality”. Either term would be equally fitting, and provided both sexes came out “equal” it would all be good. (Ideally, however, both terms should be discarded in favor of something sexually neutral.)
Only if we assume that a present inequality exists, and that this condition disfavors women, can we justify using “feminism” according to the “equality” definition.
But not everybody would accept the notion that women suffer inequality. Many would find this notion problematic. Hence, the word feminism (as the dictionary defines it) is loaded. It is contraband language that smuggles a hidden premise into the discussion and tricks you into harboring an element of the feminist worldview. Like a thought-terminating cliché, it invites no cognitive process of discovery. So in order to ferret out the contraband in the dictionary definition of feminism, we should reconstruct the definition thuswise:
Feminism -n: Advocacy for women on the grounds that women are burdened with inequality.Granted, this doesn't quite tell us what “equality” (or inequality) really means. But it frames the talk in a manner that precludes mischief, and puts us in a way to asking the relevant questions. In that spirit, we shall focus our lens narrowly upon the word “equality” itself. What does this word really mean? Here the talk gets especially interesting.
On the surface, "equality" would seem to be feminism's holy grail. Yet although this word is central to the dictionary definition of feminism, it is debatable whether feminism genuinely seeks "equality" between between the sexes. However, let's leave political questions aside for now.
The term is most at home in the realm of mathematics -- and we could argue that it's away from home anywhere else. Fundamentally, “equality” is where two sides of an equation are identical. Hence, X = X is another way of saying that “X is X”. Simply stated: anything is what it is. This is the law of identity.
Very well. The realm of mathematics is the realm of pure number, hence the realm of pure abstraction. A number is merely a conceptual quantifier. It may keep tabs on things in the real world, but a number in itself has no assignable quality apart from abstractness. Numbers are not hot or cold, wet or dry, sad or happy, male or female, socialist or capitalist. A number has no physical dimension, and it references nothing inherently.
So long as you stick to pure math, or anything that can be mathematically operationalized, equality is a workable concept. Otherwise, it is an essentially contested concept. The reason is, that when you apply this concept to human conditions in the world of lived reality, it turns into a hopeless muddle.
However, that does not stop legions of muddle-headed people from applying the concept of "equality" to the world of lived reality. They do this all the time.
The non-mathematical world is a world in flux, a metamorphosing world. It is a dynamic world, to say the least -- it never sits still for long.
In such a world, "equality" becomes a very tricky and complicated idea. So what does it mean as a core minimum? As a core minimum, any way you cut it, "equality" signifies "sameness" or "identity". Numerical quantities on opposite sides of an equation are always the same -- otherwise, the math is wrong.
This core idea of sameness carries over into the real world, but quickly goes south. That is because the only way to achieve universal "equality" in the human social world, or in the physical universe at large, is to create absolute SAMENESS of all things everywhere. Pure "equality" would equate to pure nothingness -- pure non-existence -- because it would annihilate the basis for all differentiation.
That's what you get, when you try to make a mathematical idea govern every facet of living reality. Mathematics is pure abstraction, hence pure nothingness, and when you force this upon the real world, the only logical outcome, is pure nothingness.
The real world is not only dynamic and ever-changing, but subject to countless frames of reference at any given instant. Would you make all of that "equal"? Then you must roll it flat, and convert it into . . . . nothing! No differentiation equals nothing. That's the rule.
Now, when feminists and various other people bang on about this "equality" thing, they are simply playing with a noble buzzword that makes them feel warm and fuzzy because it conjures up glowing mental images of truth and beauty and universal justice. This is called the halo effect.
In feminist discourse, at any rate, equality breaks down into two forms:
1. Equality of opportunity -- also called "formal equality",
2. Equality of outcome -- also called "substantive equality".
Equality of opportunity can be achieved when you mandate "equal rights" under law, so that everybody legally has the same opportunity in situation X. It's about anti-discrimination.
Equality of outcome, however, goes deeper. It aims to rearrange the world so that no gross disparities of wealth or situation will be found anywhere. As if, eveybody has not only an equal right to pick in the orchard, but a positive guarantee they will come away with the same number of apples.
Equality of outcome can only be made real, when some superior force -- such as state power -- intervenes in the world of affairs and either redistributes the harvest, or handicaps some of the harvesters so that they won't harvest any more than anybody else does.
Furthermore, equality of outcome can only be made real, when the intervening force cuts deeper and deeper into the microcosm of life, to see that redistribution and handicapping are applied to even the smallest of transactions. There is no theoretical limit to this.
In a nutshell, equality of outcome is inherently a totalitarian project. That is the level of control it eventually requires - total. Finally, it generates the biggest inequality of all, because the enforcers of “equality” will hold all the power and other people will hold little or none.
In the end, there is no ultimate "equality" in the real world. There is only endlessly redistributed inequality. That is where all of our efforts to achieve so-called "equality", in the real world, will take us. So if you want to worship "equality", be a mathematician. You will be on solid ground that way.
And never talk about “equality” in an abstract or freestanding way; never as a political catch-phrase or banner slogan. Any time you speak or write this word, you should directly follow up with a finite project or proposal where you hope to see some precise condition “equalized”. Otherwise, don't say it. That is the only honest way to use this word: not as a glittering generality, not as a rainbow which invites pursuit, but as something immediate and quantifiable.
Remember that this "equality" thing which so many people prattle on about, amounts to intellectual cotton candy and very little more. In other words, it is a sweet nothing. So when people blather about it, they are blathering about . . . . nothing.
Tell me, how insane is that, to blather about nothing? Hallucination is not a wise idea. We need reality -- the more the better.
Sunday, March 01, 2015
Latest Article at AVFM: What is the Non-Feminist Revolution?
"The non-feminist revolution is not a “movement,” but a largely unconscious demographic upwelling of resistance to feminism and its consequences. It is an objectively historical process, of a spontaneous, organic and amoral character. Its center is everywhere, its perimeter nowhere, and its parts do not always accord with each other. We did not initiate or instigate this “revolution”. We did not invent it. We merely recognized it in action, and gave it a name."Read the whole thing HERE:
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Article published at AVFM - Post-argumentalism
Due to a glitch, the comment section on that article was disabled for about the first ten hours. I notified, they fixed it, and it is functional again.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Audrey Lentz - Hysterical Feminist Nitwit
I did this person the honor of a thoughtful, nuanced reply at some length. That comment is in moderation, and might not get through, but here it is for posterity. I share this because it makes some important points, and also because Audrey Lentz herself is a superlative case study who ought to be emblematic. I have archived the blog post in question. Anyhow, here is the comment that I left:
Hmm.Your treatment of the subject sounds shrill,hysterical, and not very nuanced. It is transparently polemical, propagandistic, and dishonest. If you dig around, you can find plenty of non-feminist voices which don’t match the description that you have given here. Remember, we non-feminist folk are the clear majority of the human race, and surely we can’t ALL fit the profile you have sketched in this blog post.
Some recommendations: stop cherry-picking, and give citations from across the entire spectrum of non-feminist writers. This will create a more balanced impression, and readers will be more inclined to take you seriously.
Also, please eschew the feminist-triumphalist standpoint. It makes you look like a fanatical ideologue. I mean, mere assertion does not ipso facto make things true – nor does repeated assertion. You need to make your case with *evidence*, okay? Don’t forget that feminism is just another competitor in the dusty marketplace of ideas, and must compete on an equal footing.
Finally, do whatever you can to mitigate the impression that you hate non-feminist people. Okay?
And in case you are wondering, no, I am not a member of the “men’s rights movement”. I operate under a different construct. (That was your first lesson in nuance! ;)
Apart from that, your best plan to contain the growing threat to feminism (from men and women everywhere!) is to “come clean”, admit feminism’s failings, and align yourself with a set of concrete goals and proposals that will place a “term limit” upon feminism as a whole.
Oh, by the way, I appreciate that you are honest about being a feminist. You do make your position pretty clear, and that is to your credit.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Some Very Interesting Dialogue Behind the Scenes
[06:29:28] DB: Sweden the rape capital of the world?
Cover-up: The Swedish Left’s Sacrifice of Women to Political Correctness
[06:35:12] KTS: That's what happens when you stick to a victim narrative over holding people personally responsible for their own actions. As soon as you have two victim classes clash, you're left without any tools to work with.
[06:38:29] KTS: The thing that bothers me is that the victim has to ALWAYS be a victim. They can do no wrong. If they do something wrong, then it confuses people; a victim wouldn't hurt someone, there has to be a reason why they'd do something blatantly horrible like rape or murder - clearly it must be the oppressor's fault that they were murdered in their sleep! The victim has to remain a victim at all times.
[06:43:23] DB: Can't be holding peeps responsible for stupidity KTS!
[06:43:37] DB: Sheesh what do you think this is reality or something?
[06:43:39] Sol: That just won't do DB.
[06:44:10] KTS: The problem is, they're missing the point. Everyone thinks they're the protagonist of their own story; even Hitler thought he was the good guy. People who think of themselves as victims see other people as oppressors, and they lash out at them in anger and fear, even when there's nothing to be angry nor fearful about.
The KKK was, and still is, considering themselves to be the victims of blacks stealing their jobs and eroding their family values.
The Nazis blamed a lot of people for how shitty their country had become... and to be perfectly blunt, they were right. France really did fuck over Germany hardcore. Under the modern definition, the Nazi's were the victim class, and had every right to bomb the shit out of France because the French were the oppressor class.
The problem is that people can't update their ideas very well. It's also blatantly obvious that, at some point, Germany wasn't the victim anymore. They'd turned into the oppressor.
The "victim" status is a problem because people equate "victim" with "innocent", and the fact of the matter is, you can be a victim and still do horrible, terrible things. You can be both the oppressor and the victim at the same time, and victim status isn't indefinite.
[06:44:56] KTS: Bleh, we need to discard the word "victim" entirely from our vocabulary, because it's causing more problems than it solves.
[06:45:24] DB: Oh Christ, can't use survivor!
[06:45:50] DB: Can we just call them all feminists? :D
[06:48:22] KTS: Nah, won't work, feminists don't all consider themselves victims.
[06:48:28] KTS: Some of them consider themselves white knights.
[06:49:53] KTS: Seriously though, the causality link of "victim" to "never at fault for their own actions" is too strong to be useful.
[06:51:21] KTS: It means it's all right for people to justify anything as long as they're of a victim class. I could murder anyone here and they'd be tripping over themselves looking for an excuse to blame you for your own death, rather than trying to hold me accountable, and that idea terrifies me because I know damned well I can't trust myself with a total lack of accountability.
[06:52:21] KTS: The whole great power = great responsibility thing. If you have zero responsibility for your actions, THAT IS POWER, and therefore you must be given responsibility for it.
[06:52:26] KTS: Making it a paradox.
[06:52:38] KTS: You can't have someone who exists without responsibility because of it
Saturday, February 14, 2015
A Seriously Important Idea
And that is the real reason why feminists hate non-feminist people so bitterly. They can't face the implication that feminism, hence they themselves, are unnecessary.
That's right. Feminism is poison any way you look at it, and I think of a dozen new reasons every day.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
No, that is not how the world works.
Such being said, our project is not to reprogram the deep ideological conviction of every purported feminist. Rather, it is to make such people modify their outward behavior so that the pernicious implications of feminist ideology will no longer translate into real-world consequences. They can believe any pernicious thing they want to believe, but they must stop acting upon such belief.
In so stating, we exercise a mandate. Such is the power of post-argumentalism – it nullifies the presumptive moral authority of feminism and commandeers authority on its own account. In this way, post-argumentalism is a revolutionary procedure, the starting point for anything at all that you could rightly call a revolution.
Truly, to nullify authority is a rightful deed when authority is intractable due to fraud or villainy. Post-argumentalism makes no fuss about this. It does the job brusquely, unceremoniously, unapologetically. To make omelettes, you break eggs.
In the end, both war and revolution are a fight, and both involve the element of violation. The rules of war dictate that the parties violate each other until one side gives up, while the rules of revolution dictate that one system of rules gets violated so another system can replace it.
The non-feminist revolution is both a revolution and a war, and is not undertaken for light and transient causes.
As non-feminist men and women we must ask ourselves: what did we originally hope to accomplish by arguing? Supposing we could have persuaded the intractable other, what did we hope to gain? What did we hope to obtain that we couldn't have gotten elsewise, in due course? What prevented us from simply taking it?
We know that this intractable other, feminism, is a taker who never quits taking, and gives nothing back at the behest of mere persuasion. We ought to craft our politics in the light of such understanding. In other words, we ought to craft our politics post-argumentally.
We do not argue with feminism, we simply tell it things – and if it will not listen or modify its course, we hold it accountable.
Saturday, February 07, 2015
We don't care about Men. We're just Anti-feminist!
Nick's latest video, with an appearance by yours truly. Enjoy!
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Posted to AVFM: Worth-based Entitlement
Two Worldviews: Feminist and Non-feminist
But in such a case, even if we shared the same conclusion, we will have gotten there by different lines of thinking - or to put it colloquially, we will have brought different baggage to the conversation.
Accordingly, when we embrace post-argumentalism it is not because we reject every point a feminist might make, but because we disown the line of thinking that led up to it, and the mode of being-in-the-world which underpins it.
For example, a feminist and a non-feminist might agree that "ending rape" is theoretically not a bad idea, and yet prioritize that goal very differently. Or, they might differ as to the cause of the problem and what should be done about it. Think a little further, and you will see that a clash of worldviews is happening.
So while a feminist might believe that slandering men collectively, or making innocent men suffer, is part of an acceptable solution, the non-feminist might see things differently. That is because the feminist and the non-feminist are reasoning from separate worldviews.
This difference in worldviews is by nature an adversarial reality, because the worldviews themselves are unalterably at variance. There is an argument - a meta-argument you might call it - between these worldviews.
And the dispute runs straight across the board, to embrace each conversant's entire mode of being-in-the-world. This dynamic operates whether the conversants are aware of it or not - and most often they are not.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Posted to AVFM: Foundational Points of Counter-feminist Philosophy
Article, by me, posted on AVFM: Twelve Foundational Points of Counter-Feminist Philosophy:
Friday, January 16, 2015
Friday, January 09, 2015
A Feminist Manipulates us with Language Tricks. Again.
Okay, now my comment. The italicized bit is a statement by a feminist, and the rest is my words:
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
The Feminist/Non-feminist Cooperation Spiral
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
Articles: On AVFM and Nicht-Feminist
Another article, by me, is posted in German translation here:
Monday, December 29, 2014
Feminism is not Monolithic, but it Might as Well Be!
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Anita Sarkeesian on the Grill
Go there, if you wish to read it.
Also, retweet the following if you are so inclined:
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Yes, Hatred of Men is a Thing. Don't Believe Me?
First, go here:
Once there, you will need to sign in, probably with Facebook. After you have done that, you will arrive at a page with a lot of menu icons. Scroll down carefully until you arrive at the playlist titled "I hate men". Tag line: "It's not you, it's men. Fuel your misandry..."
Click on the icon, and bon appetit!
I have noticed that this playlist has 11,000 followers.
I thank Nicht-Feminist Berlin for bringing this to my attention.
So...if anybody notices an "I hate women" playlist on there, do let me know. I would have no objection to such a list, if somebody created one. I mean, free expression, right? If some women want to hate men, and some men want to hate women, I'm all for "letting it all hang out". Equality of opportunity, don'cha know? ;)
But now, for realz homies, here is a wonderful, delightful flute sonata by Telemann - and no, I am not being sarcastic:
Monday, December 22, 2014
Amanda Marcotte Tells the Truth About Feminism
Amanda Marcotte pretty much admits this, in the following article that she wrote in 2013:
But she's wrong about one thing. Anti-trans feminism (the "TERF" faction) is as radical, and as feminist, as they come. Their rejection of transwomen grows from their hatred of men -- transwomen were born male, after all, and still have those XY chromosomes!
As a rule of thumb, the "radicalness" of feminism correlates to hatred of things male, however discreetly this might manifest itself in any given case.
Radical Feminism is the Real Feminism
Radical feminism is feminism's rotten core, and the source of feminism's life. Without it, feminism at large would amount to little, and scatter to the four winds.
That is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. However. . . it is a truth which plenty of people won't square up to. It is quite fashionable nowadays, especially in the wake of the Agent Orange scandal, to brush aside radical feminism as outdated and popularly disregarded.
When people do this, they are trying to change the subject and gain control of the conversation so as to remove the feminist project, at large, from the critical spotlight.
Radical feminism - by which I mean chiefly the man-hating kind - is a standard which sets the measure for feminism as a whole. All brands of feminism are either more or less relevant depending on how closely they approximate radical feminism.
Radical feminism is 100 proof, and a radical feminist takes her feminism neat.
All other feminists take their feminism watered down - but it's all the same drink.
People love to tell you that the radfems are "just fringe extremists" - as if we were standing in a field and the radfems were some tight little group clustered in their own world near the perimeter. What the speaker fails to consider is that all feminism is on a continuum whose unifying principle is disaffection toward men and things male. That's all it is, and if you study feminism objectively you can reach no other conclusion.
Hence, there is no gap, no discontinuity between radical feminism and the rest of feminism. For every foul man-hater, there is a slightly less foul man-hater, and then one slightly less foul than that . . . and so on down the line. Thus, for example, Amanda Marcotte is indeed a foul man-hater, yet she is only half as foul as Mary Daly.
In one way, the apologists and deflectionists are right: we oughtn't be so fixated on the extremists. After all, the rot extends clear through the feminist organism to some degree, and examples closer to home are not lacking. What we should point out every chance we get, is the pervasive anti-male bias - be this subtle or brazen.
Anti-male bias - whether in the form of hating men, or in looking the other way when evidence of man-hating crops up, or simply in the prevalence of double standards which favor women - may safely be described as the defining feature of feminism.
Anti-male bias - culminating in outright hatred of men - is the core principle which makes feminism feminism. This principle, more than anything else, binds the feminist project together, moves it forward, and explains the complex reality of its evolvement through time.
The feminist project seeks to expand the power of women with no limit, and anything like ethical regard for men and maleness would impose a formidable barrier to such expansion. Remove that ethical regard, and the frontier is wide open. Hence, so far as the feminist project is concerned, ethical regard for men and maleness has got to go - and what better why to shuck off ethical regard for anything, than to HATE it?
And since the world always contains X number of women who hate men. . .and even MEN who hate men, feminism's inner cadre always has a sufficient recruitment pool.
In the end, if feminism did not harbor a kind of moral black hole of infinite disaffection toward men and maleness, it would quickly reach the limit of its possible development. . . . and begin to dissipate.
So once again, radical feminism - to wit, the man-hating kind - is the CORE of feminism.
And it is the liberals, the moderates, the humanists, and the "fun" feminists who make up the fluffy fringe on feminism's outskirts. They are the useful idiots who serve mainly as camouflage and as ideological pack mules.
Those who say that radical feminism is marginal to feminism at large, are lying - either to you, or to themselves.
Fidelbogen . . . out.
The MHRM and the Manosphere: Ceasefire Time?
More Mischief in the Making -- from Edmonton! ;)
Yeah! Nick did a nice job on this video. I like it.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
In the Beginning, Feminism Declared War on Men
In the beginning, feminism declared war on men. This war had consequences - not only for men, but for the entire social ecology. How can you declare war on half the human race without the fallout raining down on everybody, irrespectively? In other words, how can you poison only half of a well?
Hence, by reason of its consequences, feminism's war against men became a war against the world at large.
But even though feminism makes war against the world at large, the brunt of the attack still falls upon men. They are living at ground zero.
When the consequences of feminism's war become evident, the feminist response is to lay blame at the doorstep of men and maleness. This is central to the feminist project - to blame men wherever possible, and to exonerate women. When this happens, the war goes through another cycle of escalation, leading to more consequences which, true to form, are blamed upon men and maleness. It happens every time.
Resistance to feminism, and the eventual overthrow of it, must be mapped according to the description we have given.
First: given the nature of the case, only men have the necessary understanding to take the lead against feminism. Being the primary target of feminist aggression, men are expert in the nature of that aggression and as such, uniquely qualified to direct the resistance. Women, with all due respect, cannot match the motivation and competence that men naturally possess in this realm. Accordingly, they must play an auxiliary role.
Second: we must understand that male disposability and gynocentrism, in the culture at large, will not go away any time soon. Hence, to place "men's rights" rhetoric at front and center, will gain only limited traction. So it is necessary to "talk up" the idea that feminism commits aggression against humanity at large, and that we are all in this together against feminism.
As a subset to that line of talk, it is useful to emphasize that feminism "hurts women too." Overall, the gynocentric tendency in society must be "tricked" or "gamed" in some manner, so as to serve a pro-male end.
Third: we must understand that although feminism is monolithic, the resistance to it is quite otherwise. The resistance is in fact a variety of movements, co-movements, sub-movements and projects that may be slotted into a coordinating meta-template - called the counter-feminist project.
So, having understood that the resistance is not monolithic, we must train the general public to stop understanding it in monolithic terms. Accordingly, each sub-movement or project must develop an individuated "brand" that will stand out clearly in the public eye. This will force the public to see the parts individually and, by such constant exercise, develop ambient understanding of a complex reality which breaks the feminist narrative.
In the end, male-friendly interest will be served by creating a male inner sanctum within the resistance as a whole, by redirecting or blind-siding gynocentrism in calculated ways, and by sabotaging the feminist power structure in ways both foreseen and yet to be conceived. When the pro-male interest is served, the feminist war against men will be blocked and feminism will be at an end. This will be for the good of all.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Don't "Speak as a Woman". Just speak!
Feminists: Are they Compulsive Liars, or just Mentally Lazy?
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Academic Study from UCLA -- Indicates High Sexual Victimization Among Males
"We assessed 12-month prevalence and incidence data on sexual victimization in 5 federal surveys that the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted independently in 2010 through 2012. We used these data to examine the prevailing assumption that men rarely experience sexual victimization. We concluded that federal surveys detect a high prevalence of sexual victimization among men—in many circumstances similar to the prevalence found among women. We identified factors that perpetuate misperceptions about men’s sexual victimization: reliance on traditional gender stereotypes, outdated and inconsistent definitions, and methodological sampling biases that exclude inmates. We recommend changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men."
Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946?journalCode=ajph&
Saturday, December 13, 2014
MGTOW: An Impersonal Force of History
I don't want to say either too much or too little, but I'd like to be as impartial as I can while hopefully adding something original. Yes, many of the ideas sketched here will be uniquely my own, but hey...why not?
The bone of contention seems to be a fear, within the MGTOW sector, that the AVFM sector is yielding to something called "traditionalism". So to break this down further: what is traditionalism? I will base my talk on what people appear to mean by that word.
Firstly: many in the MGTOW sector have a settled conviction that married men cannot belong to what they consider their "movement". So stubborn is their conviction, that to question it borders on heresy. Despite this, the leading lights of the AVFM sector do make bold to be heretical, contending that married men can indeed partake of MGTOW.
Secondly: many in the MGTOW sector have voiced unease at a percieved traditionalism in certain members of the AVFM sector. In their view, this foreshadows a return to old-school gynocentric marriage along with old-fangled sex roles -- and that is a prospect which repels them.
The foregoing has spotlighted the exact "traditionalism" which MGTOW sectarians believe is creeping into the AVFM community. It is what they generally mean when they toss that word around.
That said, why should MGTOW sectarians even give a toot if AVFM happens to turn "traditional"? Because: AVFM still purports to have an interest in and obligation to" the greater MGTOW enterprise, and so long as it does, the question of who "owns" MGTOW will remain unsettled. In other words, the question of MGTOW identity will remain unsettled. ("Identity" in this case equates to ownership).
The MGTOW sectarians see MGTOW as a social refuge. They fear that if they admit married men to their fellowship, a camel's nose effect will drive them out of their own tent. That is why control of MGTOW identity (ownership) is important to them: to keep the gynocentric traditionalist camel out of their tent.
There you have it: the two sides are battling for the MGTOW identity like two parties contesting for a wishbone. I am aware, however, that AVFM never wished for such a battle - it just came to them.
So has it occurred to anybody that nobody really owns the MGTOW identity at all, and never will? Come to that, has it occurred to anybody to wonder if there even IS a MGTOW identity?
I leave those questions open, but I'll get back to them later. For now, I pose a singular query: "What is MGTOW?" -- and until we have sorted that one out, we needn't hope to sort out the tangled mess we've talked about so far.
All right, so what is MGTOW?
MGTOW is an acronym that stands for "men going their own way". That phrase evokes men walking down a road they have freely chosen -- literally, "their own way".
In the context of history, MGTOW signifies the objective political reality where men, as a class, currently find themselves. Under the system of feminist innovation which now predominates, men are second-class citizens. Moreover, this reality is not static: it promises to get worse when feminist innovation develops further.
I say all of this with the understanding that my target audience already knows why men are second-class citizens. They have covered that ground as thoroughly as I have, so I needn't waste time explaining it to them.
Returning to our theme: under such conditions, the system of social obligation which formerly bound men either to women or to society as a whole, is voided of moral authority. Hence it may, at individual discretion, be nullifed.
Briefly then, MGTOW signifies the death of the social contract and the liberation of all males into a system of individual agency where they may form ad hoc social contracts as they see fit. Such is the objective reality of history -- one might wish it otherwise, but that is how things are.
Note however, that MGTOW signifies merely freedom, leaving open the question of what should be done with it. Accordingly, we use "MGTOW" in a political or world-historic way, and would stipulate that the realm of personal relations does not fall within its purview. That is to say, there is no MGTOW manual to specify how any man should govern that aspect of his life.
So MGTOW is rooted in the political, not the personal -- although it certainly has implications for the personal.
In itself, MGTOW is not a clique, club, cult, coterie or tribe of any sort -- and nothing in the present statement should be taken to imply this. So it is incorrect to attach the indefinite article and speak of the individual as "a" MGTOW, since that implies club membership.
Similarly, MGTOW is not a personal identity dog-tag -- so again, to call yourself "a" MGTOW, is not a very MGTOW move at all. The phrase "a MGTOW" is a flawed grammatical construction because "MGTOW" is an abstract noun, and no man is identical with an abstract noun. You could, of course, style yourself more verbosely as a man "who goes his own way", but that is rather a natural descriptor than an appellative tag. Also, nobody, and no group, has any patent on such a phrase.
In the end, MGTOW is no more than 1.) a principle or force of history, and 2.) a high-altitude situation map of the male condition.
What we have sketched here is the MGTOW core minimum. Anything less would insufficiently describe MGTOW, and anything more would be bells and whistles. So I turn again to the question of MGTOW identity or ownership. Now that we have inventoried what makes MGTOW fundamentally MGTOW, we may interrogate this more to the purpose.
Since MGTOW is a demographic phenomenon, nobody owns it. It simply "is". So ultimately, the MGTOW principle itself "goes its own way". It springs from the reality of history, and you either tap into it or you don't. It is like an ocean wave that beckons you to "hang ten" and be powerfully carried along, but it does not belong to you. It paradoxically serves but will not be commanded, and you cannot understand it otherwise.
So you are free to form all the MGTOW clubs you wish, with membership rules as you see fit. But keep in mind that "MGTOW" doesn't belong to your club alone. You are not, in or of yourselves, "MGTOW". You are not identical with that abstract noun. You are simply a group of people surfing on the wave of history, organized around the MGTOW principle in a manner that suits you. And that is fine. That is good. That is your right. But never forget that the MGTOW principle is something far bigger than you, and bigger than all of us.
Even so, I think there is an over-arching philosophical mandate to all of this, and I have tried to catch a glimmer of it here.
I should add that I roundly applaud the marriage strike both as a strategy for male survival and as a political leveraging tool to extort proper treatment of the male population.
However, the point where I go my own way is the idea that the marriage strike makes the principal focus for MGTOW-related thought, rhetoric or action. No, I see the marriage strike as merely a subplot, or rather, one of many projects that could manifest the MGTOW principle as a force in history.
Here's a related point that I don't want to omit: male solidarity should be grounded in the political and world-historic side of things. It should NOT be centered on personal frustrations about women and relationships. The latter, if voiced within earshot of the general public, sets you up to be the butt of mockery. What's more, it sounds like a form of gynocentrism . . doesn't it?
Very well. So . . . if a married man would express SOLIDARITY with MGTOW, who's to tell him that he mustn't do that?
Furthermore, if by personal genius or luck-of-the-draw he finds the perfect mate and succeeds wildly at self-realization despite her presence, then is he not well and truly "going his own way"? Can you plausibly argue otherwise? Certainly such a man has found his own path. So how if he literally calls himself "a MGTOW", and starts a "MGTOW" website, and a "MGTOW" publishing company, and paints a giant MGTOW logo on his house -- what of that? Would you send the One True MGTOW Posse to burn that pretender down? I think not.
So who are you to tell this man he doesn't pertain to "MGTOW"? On what authority do you speak? Yours, apparently. But what about his? You reckon he gives one cold spit about your presumed authority, and what you think? And why should he?
In the end, all that matters is that a man can make the MGTOW principle work for him in his own life according to his innovative genius. After all, a man going his own way goes his OWN way, does he not?
And does such a man make social arrangements with other men, for the sake of mutual benefit?
You bet he does!
In fact, oddly enough, even men who only wish to be left alone, can "stick together".
But none of that in itself is MGTOW. It is only a manifestation of MGTOW -- a way of harnessing the MGTOW principle and putting it to work.
So I renounce the indefinite article. I am not "a" MGTOW, nor do I belong to any club bearing that name. I am simply a respecter of the MGTOW principle as a force in history.
To summarize: "MGTOW" is not an identity, but merely a fact.
Meanwhile, the MGTOW sectarians are facing a boundary crisis. They are worried about their little tent, while forgetting that MGTOW is a big tent. Their fears are groundless, for they can always pitch any little tent they want to pitch, and decide who gets in or who doesn't. But they must understand that there is plenty of MGTOW to go around, and that for heaven's sake, nobody wants to steal their piece of the action!
So, hey maaaan! Like...don't bogart that MGTOW, man! Pass it around!