To culture or not to culture… definitely to culture
The last 200 years has seen the word human mean ‘females as well’. And why not? Women have had excellent successes in that time. Just like the successes that brought our European ancestors the hubris that only ‘humans’ were to cilivised, the last 100 years has brought the notion that only those that believe in absolute equality were righteous. The destruction of old regimes to allow for the new regime will require a change of language and culture. ‘Chairman’ must become ‘chairperson’ or else it doesn’t describe what we see. There is no stopping this now as it’s logical to do so. After all, women do chair boards.
If men are not seated the table that decides the new language, we will be dealt out of the new world. Feminists and SJW’s will not choose to create a language that includes us. There will be “chair-person”, “chair-women”, “chair-otherkin” but no “chairman”. That would be exclusionary and thus sexist. To bargain at the table we must have a culture and a history that all can see. This was the Australian aboriginal’s problem. They were left with no culture and therefore no seat at the table. They had to use white words to describe Aboriginal values, an utterly impossible task. If we have to use SJW language to describe masculine problems, we’ll fail too.
Let us learn the lessons that others have taught us so we don’t go out like the Australian Aborigine is at risk of doing, without recorded history or culture to hang our hat on. Let us own our own ‘otherness’ and become our own ‘us’ and make our opponents ‘them’. We won’t be popular to SJW’s but at least we’ll ‘be’. However, staying an ‘us’ is proving hard. I’ll explain why.
Males are not longer an ‘us’
For us to be a bona fide ‘us’, we must have a unique culture. We must have unique history, a unique language and unique arts of our own. If we do not, Lt James Cook might just plant a flag in us and proclaim “Terra Nullius”. But as soon as men (and particularly, straight white men) have something that is ours and no-one else’s, it is immediately sexist to do so. If we have an ‘us’ we are immediately sexist by definition. For men, ‘us’ is exclusionary. For women, ‘us’ is empowering.
In spite of what many MRA’s might say, masculine culture isn’t being exterminated. It really isn’t. But it is being subsumed and that amounts to the same thing as extermination. We aren’t left with nothing, but we are left with nothing of our own. Everything we create is immediately co-opted. What we have everyone must have in the name of equality.
- Should we not share what’s ours we are *insert word*ist.
- Men’s clubs are chauvinist.
- If we have an AFL league, there must be a women’s league.
- If we watch only men’s sport (because god forbid we should some how identify with our own gender more than other’s) we are sexist again.
- International men’s day is offensive.
- Father’s day must become special persons’ day to be more inclusive.
- And at the very extreme we even find if we desire to kiss a beautiful women and not a transwomen, that uniquely and sacred male desire, is now transphobic. Our passion for women without a penis is now hateful.
A metaphor of a true us and them scenario would be two tennis players facing each other over the net. Each exists and has a name which the umpire calls them by but the game of tennis cannot exist without two players. This is not how men and women are anymore. The metaphor for our times is men putting one leg in a pair of pants and women forcing their leg through the other hole before we can be sexist about wearing the whole pair of pants. This way we are equal but neither is clothed. One choose clothes they don’t get to wear while the other is provoked into trying to wear what the other has chosen.
At the same time, feminine culture is flourishing because males are not trying to subsume it as soon as women produce it. Women have an ‘us’. I don’t want to be equal with them as I respect their boundaries. Women should flourish into total women (what ever we find that is), it is good. Having me join in every step of the way might promote equality but it will certainly ruin her day. But women insist on being equal to us and thus we have nothing of our own. We are told men should not flourish into total men as that would set us apart from women and we must be equal.
The pivotal moment is now
Remember, my ancestors didn’t define themselves as European and everyone else as Asia, African, Indian etc. They defined themselves as human and everyone else as savages. If women define themselves in the way that European men once defined themselves, then men will be in the same position as the ‘non-humans’. As we might recall, this was not an issue in itself until European laws failed to protect non-humans and the term ‘rights’ served only to protect ‘humans’. This is happening right now. Let’s look at some of the cases where we use ‘rights’ only to protect ‘women’.
- Pink train carriages. If you are not female, you will not enjoy their safety. There are no ‘blue’ train carriages for men;
- Domestic violence: If you are male, no one will accept that hitting you is violence. Hitting you will occur but it is not violence, it’s funny;
- Quota systems: The idea of mandatory levels of male participation is sexist. 62% of veterinarians are female, but it’s not a problem;
- Workplace participation: That there are few female politicians is a scandal. That there are few female sanitation workers is desirable.
- Sexual assault: In a drunken hook-up, the female is not able to consent but the man is. Men are accountable for our intoxicated choices, she won’t be;
- Pay gaps: There are pay gaps both ways depending on the industry, but only one way is offensive.
- Safe spaces: A room for of men is exclusionary. A room full of women is empowering
- World events: 300 girls kidnapped by Boko Haram is front pages news. 1,000 boys murdered and burned alive by Boko Haram doesn’t crack a mention
- Terminology: Calling a group ‘policemen‘ excludes women. Saying ‘bitch’ demonises women. But calling a group feminism doesn’t exclude men and saying patriarchy doesn’t demonise men.
- Sport: If there is a men’s football league, it must establish (and pay for) a women’s league. But a men’s netball league doesn’t exist at the national level.
I’m not making the whiny point that “blah blah blah it’s unfair” *male tears* and I’m sorry if it comes across that way. I’m sure there are good reasons why drunk women are different from drunk men. It might be unfair or it might not, I’m not interested at this point right now. What I am interested in is that we are creating language and culture where we have humans vs non-humans; or
- ‘women’; vs ‘men’; or
- ‘those who have rights’ vs ‘those who don’t’; or
- ‘brave female victims of domestic violence’ vs ‘ridiculous male victims of domestic violence’; or
- ‘triumphant 85% female enrollment in health sciences’ vs ‘problematic 85% male enrollment in engineering’; or
- ‘rapist male boss who slept with a junior co-worker’ vs ‘strong, confident, empowered female boss who slept with a junior co-worker’; or
- ‘celebrated female footballers’ vs ‘unknown male netballers’; or
- ‘underpaid female is the victim of sexism’ vs ‘underpaid male should work harder’.
The male role within the new age is to be the ‘other’ while women are the ‘us’. What we make must be subsumed. What women make is celebrated as feminine achievement.
In this article and the one that proceeds it I’ve argued
- the world has a habit of making an ‘us’ and a ‘them’;
- when the ‘them’ get denied rights simply because of their status as a ‘them’, we see a demunanisation of a people;
- the weapon that dehumanises is language;
- the dehumanised have their culture labeled as ‘bad’ or ‘uncivilised’ by language
- right now we are classing the masculine male as a ‘them’
- the culture of the masculine male is not being destroyed, but rather subsumed by femininity under the guise of ‘equality’
Historically the dehumanised ones are destroyed. But I don’t think that to be the case at present. I think it more likely that we will see the masculine male will embrace either the Alpha Male or Beta Risk Taker archetypes. In the first instance, the Alpha Male will create a new system and gain followers along the way. In the second instance, the Beta Risk Taker will break the existing system and thrive in the chaos.
Regardless, it is my opinion that a male who is the product of either a weak or stalled masculine culture (or an synthesized culture approved by feminist overlords) will be an unhappy male. This should scare people. Unhappy males kill us all. They can be violent to the point of murderous.
It seems inevitable that we will face a crisis but we must come out of it with happy males. Those of you who can create art must create art for us, our art. Those of you who would be neither liberal or misogynist must find a third option and learn to vocalize it. Once you’ve made new word, defend it. Don’t let it be subsumed just so we can all be equal. And all of us must create our own language so that our son’s walk in “our” footsteps, not us in “their’s”. Because after all, our son’s feet will grow to be just like ours.