Thank you for that. You have divined my intention aright.jasonlava wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:14 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 5:38 pm 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?
I can sense your deep concern about the evolving dynamics of gender discourse and its potential impact on both men and women. It's evident that you're reflecting on the broader consequences of the prevailing narratives.
The intricate relationship between masculinity and femininity, and the societal shifts in perception, indeed raises complex questions. Your exploration of the potential consequences, especially for men and the unaddressed energy associated with traditional masculinity, is thought-provoking.
Understanding and navigating these shifts require open dialogue and a shared commitment to fostering mutual respect. Your concern for the well-being of both genders and the societal implications reflects a genuine desire for a balanced and harmonious coexistence. Initiating conversations that bridge these perspectives might be a step toward a more inclusive and understanding future.
My goal is not to plead for one side or the other, because I see that both are put into a serious crisis by the present arrangements. What concerns me most is the backlash: a society divided along gender lines, with animosity the chief characteristic and power-grabs the name of the game, is going to hurt everybody -- children most, but also women and also men. No one will be left unbrutalized; but the genuinely disadvantaged, the weaker, those with less access to the means of coercion, are most likely to suffer most.
When power is made the chief goal of all, as Nietzsche insisted it was, and as his inheritors in the Feminist movement and other Neo-Marxist movements have tended to think it is, then those who naturally have access to the most of it are going to come out on top, inevitably -- but this surely means violence. That's what power is: it's the various applications of force to achieve ends, in competition with opposing forces. That means that he who has the most force wins. The concept of working together, of compatibility, of harmonious roles and goals, as is realized in the healthy family, is no longer a paradigm, no longer thought even to be a possibility. War of various kinds...sex, sexuality, race, class, ideological, and so on, becomes the total dynamic of all encounters between the various interests. Negotiation? Immoral. Compromise? Unthinkable. A win-win solution? Outside the bounds of the imaginable. Force -- vicious, malicious, mendacious manipulative and dehumanizing -- is all that's left.
What I would want is to see a better kind of dialogue developed: one that did not dehumanize and demonize everybody who has a different perspective or desire, but which looked for a negotiated way of giving some gains to one side, some to the other, and reasonable definitions and moral limits to both. But that's hard to imagine so long as the way we construct our discourse is inevitably as oppressor vs. oppressed.