Yesterday I realized I was feeling irritated, frustrated, angry, tense. Then I realized that I was horny. Sex felt like the perfect way to express and to calm my anger. So my question: did my horniness manifest as the anger or did my anger manifest as the horniness? Or am I trying to put words onto something which is both at the same time?
The three archetypal roles of the male, originating in the hunter-gatherer world where our species was formed and spent the vast majority of its time: fathering children, fighting for the group and against its enemies, and feeding them protein thru hunting. Distill these down and you have sex and violence. That's what little boys are made of. And made for.
Jack Donovan recently wrote a very restrained, rational and civilized piece defending the preference for men in certain roles from charges of "misogyny". I was led to think of the larger gender wars going on in Western culture, where masculinity has been pathologized. Precisely because of issues around sex and violence. Wouldn't the world be a better place if women were in charge?
Well, sister, let me put it to you this way. Wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone were a Quaker? Better? Not at all sure. More peaceful? Sure. Possible? See below.
But as it is with Quakers, so with women and feminized men: you can only survive in a world where either a) non-Quakers and non-females protect you from the great number of non-Quakers and non-females or b) everyone must become a Quaker or a female.
The likelihood that the whole world will become a Femdom paradise is pretty slim. Consequently, there will always be lots and lots of male-driven societies out there and unless you have home-grown males to protect you against them, you will become their vassals. Feminism can only occur in societies where the men allow it. So women, and especially feminists, have a crucial stake in making sure that society produces sufficient numbers of actual men. Who else can protect them and their privileges?
Part of the reason I get so incensed when I see thinks like arch-cunt* Maureen Dowd profiting from a book called "Are Men Necessary?" is that it is so deeply dishonest. She and her kind could not exist for ten minutes without relying on the works and ideas and sweat and lives of vast numbers of the men she has such disdain for. Contemptuous privileged women like her provoke misogyny in me.
*This is a word I once found so objectionable that I could hardly even speak it at all. Up there with the N-word. Shows you what my feelings are for Modo and her kind that now I will put it in print.
5 comments:
Isn't this logos open to the accusation that it treats manliness as a mere necessity? Manliness isn't noble, essential, desireable, but only necessary in order to protect "Quakers and females"? e.g. Oliver Cromwell protecting George Fox, according to their conversation. And when golem king Cromwell grew too dangerous, he was off'd by a Sabellian modalist. .... I suppose some could imagine they already live in a "Femdom paradise" protected by their male police and military personnel in the world. But then these may like the spectacle of manliness -- which they wouldn't prefer to replace by total Quakerdom in the world. ... Machiavelli's modes and orders were for the goal of compelling Mensch to become manly from in himself, from within civilization, if he can't depend on periodic invasion by barbarian hordes from Eurasia to renew (de-effeminize from the effeminization caused by civilization). Civilization would have to become essentially different from the principles set forth in the Paideia. Reminder from Nietzsche: Islam "presupposes" not raises up Männer. Sc suicide bombers and cult of death sectarianism don't dispel nausea. IMHO (in Machiavelli's humble opinion)
P.S. Cf that the officer deems his S.S. personnel "Mademoiselles" in the movie Inglorious Ba'sturds. Or the palpable contempt for the anti-semitic weekend warrior losers in "The Believer." ... Instrumentality won't suffice where substance is required -- e.g. supposing that civilization can be renew'd by a Catholicism not believed in but treated as a means for renewing civilization.
U r right on both counts. But I wasn't doing a Summa Masculina, just pointing out one salient flaw in the feminist pose. And as for religion used but not believed in, I agree that unless the bond is real, the renewal won't happen.
Love to agree with you, man! ... I suppose one 'radical feminist' response is that when boys from Ontario or Pennsylvania fight against the S.S. women don't ned to be grateful because this is an intra-male business. Treating all males as functionaries of one gender, when a good man risks his life to protect a woman, he's only restoring the woman's original birth right to not be violated by men, or by wild beasts. That she should say "thanks" to the defender is like saying the innocent man should be thankful that the judicial system doesn't send him to prison as a criminal. But not only 'radical feminists': also Mae West who mock'd men for wishing to protect her -- since the protection was only against other men, and since the protective wish is bound up with a desire for sex. (I wonder if she'd really prefer the insult of being protected by Sir Galahad, indifferent to her charms, rescuing her just as he would his grandmother -- or grandfather. Yet a knight who did rescue her and hope for her favour she would blame as motivated only by lust.)
But there are fine womengirls who don't hold to this theory, who instead consider that a boy in the situation in which he is thrown isn't ipso facto a personnel unit belonging to the male gender, to be rightly used up in any way the Man wishes, thus that the boy voluntarily selects how to dispose his time energy life courage etc. (This reality may be conceal'd from him. The Man didn't exactly enthuse for Heidegger's presentation of Thrownness.) These womengirls, in any event, don't sneer that his courage and nobleness is 'necessary' only because there are males in the world to begin with. These womengirls seem to me intrinsically loveable. The Mae West response seems almost an invitation for all males to behave as violent rapists ("Rapists are the shock troops of the 'good men who wish to be thank'd and admired by womengirls"?) -- which would 'prove' that love between womangirl and man has always been hypocritical, only lesbian love is possible, and accordingly lesbian committees should supervise the lives of hetero womengirls who have no ability to take care of themselves, think for themselves etc?
hey man I like it. I'm ready to write more posts and put your ideas to the test. After all, we always have something new to learn and being humble, I came here to learn. Bookmarked.
- John
Post a Comment