Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Immanuel Can]

Noteable in the world of "gender" theory is the lauding of feminity, and the persistent effort to debase masculinity. The dominant discourses position men as "oppressors" and inheritors of the illegitimate benefits of "patriarchy," and women as the "victims," whose values have been "marginalized," and must now be "re-centered."

Of course, all this is quite ridiculous in the sort of world in which women's values already manifestly predominate. But continued success for the Feminist movement requires an on-going enemy. So the tendency has become for Feminists to pile-on, constantly finding new ways to assert that the mythical "patriarchy" remains, in some form, and thus there is still work for Feminism to do, and legitimacy to their always-increasing political hegemony through the media, institutions and government. Their cries are less and less plausible, and their demands more and more extravagant: but at some point, the balance tips, and cries for redistribution and new privilege start to sound lunatic and greedy. That point may have already been reached, which would sap the Feminist movement of further strength.

However, absent from any concern is what this would cause to men. Men cannot be pitied, not only because the narrative requires them never to be, but because the nature of masculinity is to despise pity -- a pitiable male is feminized and gelded. So even men won't heap pity on other men, because that's insulting and degrading. So I am not here taking any thought for what is conventionally called "the men's rights movement," because I think that men are ill-served by collective "movements." To plead for sympathy is unmasculine. Men, when they are ready to do it, can always take back society, because, at the end of the day, overwhelming power exists on their side, and ideological suppression of that is always temporary...and perilous to women. The need for that power to be exercised, and its lack of legitimate forms of exercise being allowed by society, builds with continued repression...and one day, when that pressure becomes enough, everything suddenly reverses. That should concern all Feminists. Nothing they can do will prevent that, either; so they'd be better to find a way to empathize with it an elicit it as a positive force, instead of denigrating it. But the Feminists have found it much easier simply to deplore the masculine rather than to redirect it, and that cheap short-cut stands to be a real problem to both sexes.

However, my concern of the moment is what the effective elimination of interest in men's perspectives does to women.

For one thing, it removes the essential binary value that allows femininity to be seen, to be distinctive, or to be assigned social value. If what we have traditionally seen as "femininity" is nothing more than a kind of compassionate, general "humanity," then there is no "other" against which "feminine" can be understood to signify anything. If there is no "male," then what is the meaning of "female"? If there is no "masculine," then what has the "feminine" to contribute that we can call its own?

Beyond that, there is a serious concern over what this essential exclusion from recognition and valuing does to women...through what it does to men. Enough has been written already about "men going their own way," (MGTOW), or the 10% of males that get the rapt attention of 80% of the women, but commit to only one or to none, or the plague of choiceless single-mothering, and the abundance of essentially-unmarriageable Western women, and "passport bros," all of which radically alter the dynamics of sexual politics. There are other spin-offs that go more directly to the question of how society understands the feminine.

For the removal of this "other," this counterpart, leaves about half of the human race on the outside of society. What is to be done with all this "masculine" energy, once we have denied it has any place to be useful or celebrated within our feminized society? What is to be done with our boys? What are they allowed to grow into, if being a "man" is bad, destructive, and socially-deplored? It's not like they'll stop being men, or that they even could; it's just that whatever energies they've got, they will be abused and marginalized for having. And this will radically reorient the relationship between men and society itself. Will men just stop living? Or will the energy they are denigrated for having be expressed in primarily more anti-social ways? It's not masculine to give up; so where is that energy going to go next?

All this to come down to this: there is a saying in Africa, apparently. It goes, “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.” Right now, it's quite clear that male children are not embraced by "the village," at least, not for being male children. What then will they do, in order to find "warmth" from this society?

[Alexiev]

For the removal of this "other," this counterpart, leaves about half of the human race on the outside of society. What is to be done with all this "masculine" energy, once we have denied it has any place to be useful or celebrated within our feminized society? What is to be done with our boys? What are they allowed to grow into, if being a "man" is bad, destructive, and socially-deplored? It's not like they'll stop being men, or that they even could; it's just that whatever energies they've got, they will be abused and marginalized for having. And this will radically reorient the relationship between men and society itself. Will men just stop living? Or will the energy they are denigrated for having be expressed in primarily more anti-social ways? It's not masculine to give up; so where is that energy going to go next?

All this to come down to this: there is a saying in Africa, apparently. It goes, “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.” Right now, it's quite clear that male children are not embraced by "the village," at least, not for being male children. What then will they do, in order to find "warmth" from this society?

What nonsense! According to Immanuel, we are not to decry bigotry, because doing so belittles the bigots (or, at least, the privileged group). Male children are not "embraced" by the village? Huh? Since when? Our reverence for youthful athletic achievement embraces girls more than boys? Really?

Aren't the sports we love (and for which men are paid many times as much as women) an indication that we reward "masculine energy"?

Immanuel appears to embrace the MAGA notion that when elites are even threatened with losing their elite status, that fact constitutes some sort of unfair and intolerable bigotry. He also appears to read nonsensical MAGA propaganda about the horrid hardships boys must endure in an egalitarian society. Perhaps Immanuel should change his gender, to enjoy the supposed dominance women currently enjoy.

[Immanuel Can]

For the removal of this "other," this counterpart, leaves about half of the human race on the outside of society. What is to be done with all this "masculine" energy, once we have denied it has any place to be useful or celebrated within our feminized society? What is to be done with our boys? What are they allowed to grow into, if being a "man" is bad, destructive, and socially-deplored? It's not like they'll stop being men, or that they even could; it's just that whatever energies they've got, they will be abused and marginalized for having. And this will radically reorient the relationship between men and society itself. Will men just stop living? Or will the energy they are denigrated for having be expressed in primarily more anti-social ways? It's not masculine to give up; so where is that energy going to go next?

All this to come down to this: there is a saying in Africa, apparently. It goes, “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.” Right now, it's quite clear that male children are not embraced by "the village," at least, not for being male children. What then will they do, in order to find "warmth" from this society?

What nonsense! According to Immanuel, we are not to decry bigotry,

Quote the part where I said any such thing.

Male children are not "embraced" by the village? Huh? Since when?

Since the legend of "patriarchy" first appeared, and increasingly, including now.

Aren't the sports we love (and for which men are paid many times as much as women) an indication that we reward "masculine energy"?

Why is it, then, that women will not support women's sports? There are more women than men: how can female athletes continue to be paid less? Answer: because even the women know that women's sports are not nearly as good as men's sports (apart from things like gymnastics, diving and figure skating, of course, at which women do excel, but which still do not get top dollar). If they were, then women would support women's sports. They don't. The women are voting with their dollars, and those dollars say that women's sports are no good. If you think otherwise, argue with the women who won't go to the games, buy the jerseys and merchandise, fill the stadiums, watch their heroines on TV, can't even name most of the female athletes, and so on. They're the reason women are not paid well for playing sports.

But "masculine energy," as I have used the term, obviously does not mean merely sports. It means everything that is distinctively masculine, in contrast to that which is especially feminine. The Feminist critique holds that things like competitiveness, meritocracy, achievement, logic, physical aggressiveness, hierarchical social arrangements, individualism, self-reliance, and a host of other things are "masculine" and "patriarchal." And their list continually grows. Everything they attribute to males is negative. This is not going to create a generation of good young men.

MAGA

Sorry...not American. I can't bother with that.

[Alexiev]

For the removal of this "other," this counterpart, leaves about half of the human race on the outside of society. What is to be done with all this "masculine" energy, once we have denied it has any place to be useful or celebrated within our feminized society? What is to be done with our boys? What are they allowed to grow into, if being a "man" is bad, destructive, and socially-deplored? It's not like they'll stop being men, or that they even could; it's just that whatever energies they've got, they will be abused and marginalized for having. And this will radically reorient the relationship between men and society itself. Will men just stop living? Or will the energy they are denigrated for having be expressed in primarily more anti-social ways? It's not masculine to give up; so where is that energy going to go next?

All this to come down to this: there is a saying in Africa, apparently. It goes, “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.” Right now, it's quite clear that male children are not embraced by "the village," at least, not for being male children. What then will they do, in order to find "warmth" from this society?



Why is it, then, that women will not support women's sports? There are more women than men: how can female athletes continue to be paid less? Answer: because even the women know that women's sports are not nearly as good as men's sports (apart from things like gymnastics, diving and figure skating, of course, at which women do excel, but which still do not get top dollar). If they were, then women would support women's sports. They don't. The women are voting with their dollars, and those dollars say that women's sports are no good. If you think otherwise, argue with the women who won't go to the games, buy the jerseys and merchandise, fill the stadiums, watch their heroines on TV, can't even name most of the female athletes, and so on. They're the reason women are not paid well for playing sports.

But "masculine energy," as I have used the term, obviously does not mean merely sports. It means everything that is distinctively masculine, in contrast to that which is especially feminine. The Feminist critique holds that things like competitiveness, meritocracy, achievement, logic, physical aggressiveness, hierarchical social arrangements, individualism, self-reliance, and a host of other things are "masculine" and "patriarchal." And their list continually grows. Everything they attribute to males is negative. This is not going to create a generation of good young men.

You appear to be sorely lacking in the "masculine energy" you laud. It isn't manly to whine and whimper about one's "oppression" -- especially when one is a member of the dominant group. Men continue to be paid more than women (not only in sports, but in all businesses). Men donminate political positions. Men oppress women (look at rape statistics) far more than women oppress men.

Then some men (Immanuel, for one) whimper about how men are oppressed. To use a sexist expression: Man up, Mr. Can! Try to accept some (although not all) of your gender's dominance waning. Stiff upper lip, Mr. Britain! Your mewlish whimpering not only makes you look bad -- it makes all of us men look like cry babies.

[Immanuel Can]

It isn't manly to whine and whimper about one's "oppression" -- especially when one is a member of the dominant group.

Nobody's "whining." I'm asking what this is going to cause to women, not men.

But you're right about one thing: there is a "dominant group." Women under 30 make more money than men (before they start making different choices), and are 60% of college students, and growing. They are coddled by all the press and the political system, and have "affirmative action" protections. And when they allege anything, they are "believed," and men are not. Men can be insulted at will, and have no rights to their own children, and do all the dangerous and dirty jobs in society...so there is a dominant group, but it's certainly not the men.

I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm certainly not asking for sympathy. I'm suggesting that women are putting themselves in considerable danger by thinking they can get by with hating men. And they're certainly being toxic to their own male children. But that's just obvious.

[Iwannaplato]

It isn't manly to whine and whimper about one's "oppression" -- especially when one is a member of the dominant group.

Nobody's "whining." I'm asking what this is going to cause to women, not men.

But you're right about one thing: there is a "dominant group." Women under 30 make more money than men (before they start making different choices), and are 60% of college students, and growing. They are coddled by all the press and the political system, and have "affirmative action" protections. And when they allege anything, they are "believed," and men are not. Men can be insulted at will, and have no rights to their own children, and do all the dangerous and dirty jobs in society...so there is a dominant group, but it's certainly not the men.

I'm not complaining, mind you.

Yeah, right.

[Iwannaplato]

The current PC is out of hand.
The old PC where women were considered incapable of doing all sorts of things, it turns out they can, was messed up.
The old PC was created in part by religious people who hated women - though certainly secular people can hate women also.

So, here we have a religious person who hates women noticing problems, but not capable of noticing the problems created in the past (and in the present in many places) by people like him.

[Immanuel Can]

The old PC where women were considered incapable of doing all sorts of things, it turns out they can, was messed up.

That's ancient history. We live in quite a different world, now. Look around you.

[Alexiev]

It isn't manly to whine and whimper about one's "oppression" -- especially when one is a member of the dominant group.

Nobody's "whining." I'm asking what this is going to cause to women, not men.

But you're right about one thing: there is a "dominant group." Women under 30 make more money than men (before they start making different choices), and are 60% of college students, and growing. They are coddled by all the press and the political system, and have "affirmative action" protections. And when they allege anything, they are "believed," and men are not. Men can be insulted at will, and have no rights to their own children, and do all the dangerous and dirty jobs in society...so there is a dominant group, but it's certainly not the men.

I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm certainly not asking for sympathy. I'm suggesting that women are putting themselves in considerable danger by thinking they can get by with hating men. And they're certainly being toxic to their own male children. But that's just obvious.

Oh, no! More women than men are going to college! Horrors!

When women "allege anything they are believed"? Since when? Was the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of molesting her believed? I think not.
Most men accused of rape never even go to trial, because prosecutors know that they cannot get a conviction, because women are not believed.

Men have no rights to their own children? Since when? As an unmarried, single father I had a joint custody agreement and had equal rights with my son's mother. Unfortunately, many men don't want rights to their own children. If they did, they could get them.

It is far from "obvious" that women are "toxic to their own male children". Are men "toxic" to their female children?

Finally, when you say, "I'm not complaining" after offering a litany of whinging plaints, you simply make yourself look bad. What do your posts comprise, if not complaints?

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, no! More women than men are going to college! Horrors!

Not a "horror." Just a fact. And it doesn't fit with the "patriarchy" narrative.

When women "allege anything they are believed"? Since when?

Where is the "Believe All Men" campaign? The whole idea is so ridiculous, it would never even be floated. But it seems it's not problematic, when women are the subject of the campaign.

By the way, I've never met even one woman who couldn't tell you multiple horror stories about how other women lied about her. So "Believe All Women" becomes even more stupid, in light of that.

Men have no rights to their own children? Since when?

Since today. Imagine what would happen if we said that men could murder their offspring at will, and call it a "choice". Or imagine what would happen if men, not women, usually automatically got primary custody in divorces, and women had to petition to see their own children. Or imagine if women had to pay "spousal and child support" to the men they divorced... If we're going to have equality, let's consider what equality would look like.

Are men "toxic" to their female children?

Women are essential to their children. But so are fathers. Every study ever done on fatherlessness shows the same results: increased drug abuse, suicide, teen-pregnancy, anti-social behaviour, criminality and poverty. The single greatest determinant against these things is one factor: the presence of a father in the home. Even a poor one is always better than none. Only in the cases of violence or addiction is a home better any other way. And even then, the children always pay a price for that dysfunction.

What do your posts comprise, if not complaints?

Facts. Observations. I have no interest in sympathy or complaints at all. I don't need them. Nor do I imagine there's anyone here who would be interested in hearing them.

However, my post also contains a warning: not all the effects Feminists imagine they're going to get from their antipathy to men are going to be the ones they want to get. That, too, is very obvious. You can't get ahead by piling vituperation on one essential half of the human race; sooner or later, those chickens come home to roost. And we're seeing it in the massively increasing dysfunction in the upcoming generation, both male and female.

[Alexiev]

Oh, no! More women than men are going to college! Horrors!

Not a "horror." Just a fact. And it doesn't fit with the "patriarchy" narrative.

When women "allege anything they are believed"? Since when?

Where is the "Believe All Men" campaign? The whole idea is so ridiculous, it would never even be floated. But it seems it's not problematic, when women are the subject of the campaign.

By the way, I've never met even one woman who couldn't tell you multiple horror stories about how other women lied about her. So "Believe All Women" becomes even more stupid, in light of that.

Men have no rights to their own children? Since when?

Since today. Imagine what would happen if we said that men could murder their offspring at will, and call it a "choice". Or imagine what would happen if men, not women, usually automatically got primary custody in divorces, and women had to petition to see their own children. Or imagine if women had to pay "spousal and child support" to the men they divorced... If we're going to have equality, let's consider what equality would look like.

Are men "toxic" to their female children?

Women are essential to their children. But so are fathers. Every study ever done on fatherlessness shows the same results: increased drug abuse, suicide, teen-pregnancy, anti-social behaviour, criminality and poverty. The single greatest determinant against these things is one factor: the presence of a father in the home. Even a poor one is always better than none. Only in the cases of violence or addiction is a home better any other way. And even then, the children always pay a price for that dysfunction.

What do your posts comprise, if not complaints?

Facts. Observations. I have no interest in sympathy or complaints at all. I don't need them. Nor do I imagine there's anyone here who would be interested in hearing them.

However, my post also contains a warning: not all the effects Feminists imagine they're going to get from their antipathy to men are going to be the ones they want to get. That, too, is very obvious. You can't get ahead by piling vituperation on one essential half of the human race; sooner or later, those chickens come home to roost. And we're seeing it in the massively increasing dysfunction in the upcoming generation, both male and female.

Once again, your whinging is both unmasculine and incorrect. We don't "believe all women", and never have. The fact that only one rape accusation out of ten results in a trial (and many of those fail to get a conviction) proves this truism. A campaign suggesting that women should be believed simply intends to correct this obvious tendency to discount women's accounts of male violence.

The statistics about fatherless homes prove nothing. Correlation is not causation. Single parent children are supposedly less successful than those with two parent homes. This is belied by my own son, who graduated from an Ivy League University phi beta kappa and summa cum laude, and has a successful career. Of course many single parent homes are that way because the parents are drug users, or anti-social in some other way. The sins of the parent revisit the children, yeah even to the seventh generation. But it may not be the single parent nature of the home that causes the statistics you cite: it might be heredity, or socialization that is at best tangential to whether there are one or two parents at home.

The vituperation you cite is a fantasy created by sexist men. Some few areas of the academy (gender studies, perhaps) may offer sexist objections to masculinity and male dominance. The outrage generated by these specialized fields is ridiculous. Who cares? Don't major in gender studies. To whine about the "increasing dysfunction in the upcoming generation" is pathetic. Dysfunction according to whom? You? If you are any indication, there is plenty of disfunction in your generation -- starting with your own rhetorical ability.

[Sculptor]

The orientation of, and choice of people in the matter of gender is personal and nothing whatever to do with anyone else..

The fact that such a thing has become a hot political issue is an affront to personal freedom, and an indication that the establishment are so keen to avert the eyes of the public away from their failure to govern in the interests of all that the issue is nothing more that scapegoatism to snare the right wingers to a cause.
It is no surprise that the little Hitler called Immanual Can is spearheding this issue, because he loves to hate; punch downwards and vilify the most vulnerable minorities.

[Walker]

I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm certainly not asking for sympathy. I'm suggesting that women are putting themselves in considerable danger by thinking they can get by with hating men. And they're certainly being toxic to their own male children. But that's just obvious.

That's my takeaway from the OP. Excellent and provocative, btw. Women should be piping up.

*

- It does help the child to have a lifetime touchstone of parents, male and female, balancing the powers of each into a harmonious peace. And, it actually does happen.
- If this does not happen, peace can still be found if one has the capacity to overcome that deprevation, although a more successful blanket/universal formula than Ma & Pa has yet to be found, if objectively judging by the reported misbehaviors in these days of single parent households.
- However, in order for the melding of male and female powers to balance for the benefit of the child, self-identity of each must shift from the supremacy of the individual, to the supremacy of the vow.
- The vow? Yes. The marriage promise. That inviolate vow replaces what was the inviolate individual. The vow becomes the absolute … and you know how folks resist absolutes these days. This is why it’s best to choose wisely before the vow and if not, say for instance one was charmed, then adapt and grow under the limitation of the absolute vow. Grow into something other than what was once thought to be the individual.
- How does this happen? Each individual is not denied in a marriage. However, individuality is less dominant within the entity of embodied, male/female balance. For simplicity in explanation, being changes 100% individual, to 70/30, with 30% the individual.
- And, the vow must be spoken in public, not for arbitrary reasons, but because it strengthens conscience which is the touchstone of the vow.
- So, from the societal perspective, this business of fatherless households is likely due to an indoctrinated sense of Individual Supremacy over all other considerations.
- And as a balance in the context of this situation … if the above is not clear, then it would be my privilege to answer your questions or further explain what is not clear due to my limitations of communication, even for you to establish the basis of my knowledge if that's required beyond the meaning of the words, and if I have failed to identify or address the gist of your message, then apologies for my inattention.

[Immanuel Can]

Once again, your whinging

There is none. Stop the nonsense.

We don't "believe all women", and never have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women

The statistics about fatherless homes prove nothing.

Really? Some of the best and most consistent sociological evidence we have "proves nothing"?

Not a fan of science, I'm guessing.

This is belied by my own son, who graduated from an Ivy League University phi beta kappa and summa cum laude, and has a successful career.

An anecdote is an exception. It is not data.

Don't major in gender studies.

It's not a real academic subject.

[Immanuel Can]

Women should be piping up.

Well, we'll see.