Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The Retribalizers Part 3: A Special And Specially Threatening Case

Just a few days ago, I wrote:

Metrosexuality, spornosexuality, and the widening gulf between the sexes generally are not the consequences of overpopulation. Indeed, the reproduction rate of the First World has fallen so low that several nations are disappearing as we watch: they’re “going out of business,” not due to lack of “customers” but to lack of “workers.” Nor is this a recent development; its inception can be traced back at least five decades. This leads to some fascinating correlations and investigations.

In America, the traditional masculine ideal was encapsulated in the manly virtues: in essence, the cardinal Christian virtues:

  • Prudence,
  • Justice,
  • Temperance,
  • Fortitude,

...unified around a clearly conceived standard of right and wrong, plus the courage required to uphold that standard when it’s challenged in word or deed.

If the cited essay alarmed you, Gentle Reader, it achieved its aim. Today’s tirade will have a different focus.

Milo Yiannopoulos continues from his earlier essay with this gem of observation and analysis:

[Daryush] Valizadeh agrees with masculinity author Jack Donovan that men have been feminised by a culture that rejects and ridicules male characteristics and habits. "Good luck naming one male role model that men have today that actually helps them become men," he remarks. These thoughts are echoed on occasionally rude but compelling male-oriented blogs, such as the phenomenally popular Chateau Heartiste.

They are also supported by the current state of the sex wars, which are constituted bizarrely. One of the remarkable things about recent high-profile skirmishes with feminists is how few mainstream heterosexual men have been involved. In the GamerGate video games controversy, opposition to "social justice warriors" and their attempts at censorship on Twitter has come from older gay men in public life and younger geeks, gamers and drop-outs; in the case of Matt Taylor, it was geeks and other women.

Straight young men simply don't want to know any more. They're not getting involved. Some women, too, horrified by what lesbianised third-wave feminism claims to do in their name, opt out of the argument. The absurd result is that geeks, queers and dykes are dominating the discussion about how men and women should interact. Jack Donovan, for example, is gay, as is your present correspondent. It's as if gays are the only men left prepared to fight masculinity's corner.

Men want normal relationships that include sex, says Valizadeh. Some of them will read pick-up artist books or go to seminars by people such as Roosh V if they don't get it or need to be trained out of "white knight" behaviours instilled in them by a female-dominated culture. (Men have been taught that being a nice guy gets you laid. It doesn't.)

What strikes a lot of women as strange is how rational and systematic so much of this decision-making is by men. Many young men literally perform a cost-benefit analysis and decide that women aren't worth the hassle. It's girls who lose out in this scenario: men don't need the sustained emotional intimacy that comes with a fulfilling sexual relationship and can retreat into masturbatory pursuits, prostitution and one-night stands much more comfortably.

But that's exactly what it is, from a male point of view: a rational opting out from education, work and marriage by men who have had enough, as a remarkable book by Dr. Helen Smith called Men on Strike warned in July last year.

[Emphasis added by FWP.]

See also many of the essays at The Return of Kings.

The gender war is real.
It’s rapidly growing in scope and intensity.
And it presages the end of society as we older folks have known it.

If it isn’t obvious from the title, my focus here is on the artificial nature of the gender gulf. It’s a creation of a very small number of gender-war feminists: “angry ugly girls,” as my Vietnamese-American sweetie Duyen likes to style them, who have succeeded by stridency, repetition, and the skillful play of the victim-card in dominating all discussions of male-female relations to which they’ve been admitted.

These are not good people. Their sole aim is destruction, animated by their corrosive envy of those who have what they have not: courage, energy, enterprise, firm morals and ethics, beauty, femininity, love. They don’t intend (and have never intended) to compel the redress any objective injustice. They seek solely to alienate women from men.

Inventions such as “lookism,” “rape culture,” and “patriarchal privilege” are laughable in light of the state of the law, the social and commercial advantages women command over men, and the extraordinary lengths to which men have gone to create a world in which women can be and do whatever they please. Yet an incredible number of men, nearly all of whom ought to know better and have no excuse for acting otherwise, grant the “angry ugly girls” an entirely unearned stature as “the voices of our generation.” Why?

Rotate the question in your mind. Why would nominally intelligent, reasonably aware men deliberately place themselves in subordination to vicious-minded harridans, at least rhetorically in print and on the airwaves? What could they possibly hope to gain by such groveling self-abasement?

Think about it for a moment.

There are tremendous ironies in one of the above-emphasized sentences:

It's as if gays are the only men left prepared to fight masculinity's corner.

It doesn’t take a lot of thought to arrive at the reason: Homosexuals have nothing to lose from entering that arena. There are no women to be alienated among their potential sexual-romantic partners. Similarly, a fair number of the most vociferous “angry ugly girls” are homosexuals, because they have nothing to lose from alienating men. (Indeed, it’s possible that the horse was their sexual-romantic uncompetitiveness and the cart was a chosen lesbianism. Women’s sexuality is more fluid than men’s, and adapts more readily in either direction.)

Among the tribalizers driving the gender wars, you will find, standing with the “angry ugly girls:”

  • “Beta” males hoping for improved sexual-romantic acceptance from women;
  • Hucksters avid for acceptance in the feminist commercial niche;
  • Persons with a strongly left-wing political agenda.

You won’t find traditionally masculine men. Indeed, you won’t find much sincerity of any stripe.

I call this “a special and specially threatening case” of tribalization because of its potential effect on our future. In particular, it’s depressing reproduction rates throughout the advanced countries of the world. As Mark Steyn has already noted, a people that declines to reproduce...declines. You have no shot at being part of the future if you’re never born, but then, you’re unlikely to care much for the very same reason. However, the consequences for current generations are ominous indeed.

What are your savings worth, in actual purchasing power? What can you buy with them? Why is it available to be bought? Would those dollars in your bank account be worth as much if there were only half as many humans as there are today? How about a third or a quarter as many? Are you sure about that?

The late Phyllis Dorothy James would have some thoughts for you.

Just as there are many separate cases of tribalization taking place around us, there are many perspectives from which one can approach the tribalization phenomenon. In my view, the most profitable path for analysis is to view it as a quest for gain on the part of the tribalizers, always bearing in mind that “gain” need not be denominated in dollars. Some tribalizers are after power or prestige; others are merely straining to slake their hatred of some perceived enemy. Rare is the case in which the ideological separation of otherwise compatible groups into mutually hostile camps is spontaneous.

In no case is it anything but contemptible and vile.

No comments: