This post was originally written May 2014
I want to take a minute to address a topic that has increasingly come up in the mensrights subreddit, and one that is increasingly getting play elsewhere in the MRM. The subject known as 'Gender Roles'. Over and over again I hear 'MRAs' complaining about traditional gender roles, and how the MRM is 'about' abolishing them somehow.
I lay the blame for this square at the feet of two entities: klootoyou, and Paul Elam. This is not because they did anything in particular, but because these two folks had/have control over the widest read aspects of certain portions of the Manosphere - the mensrights subreddit, and A Voice for Men respectively. And both of them seem to have missed a fundamental truth: we cannot criticise others for behaviour we ourselves engage in, there is no compromise with evil, and hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter who engages in it.
Strong words, I know. It's a personal failing.
But I meant it. Paul, I think, learned a Wooly lesson in this regard. I think Kloo, as well, might be a tad horrified at what has become of his creation. And even if not, the point of this article is still relevant to a potential future, not only for those sites, but the Mens Movement as a whole. The general point to be made, is that adopting the frame of reference of your ideological opponent virtually guarantees you'll be fighting at a disadvantage. There was a time when this tactic was advantageous as well as necessary, but no more.
We are at risk of losing the window of opportunity we are currently presented with. And wilful ignorance and ideologically hidebound behaviour are what are killing us.
This goes back to the old Game argument, along with the circular firing squad we usually form. I hope to convince more people that for God's sake, just fucking read something for yourself for once, would you? Sorry, did the frustration come out there?
There was once a time when Game meant PUAs bent exclusively on picking up women. Sure.
There was also a time when the Mens Rights Movement was equally focussed on a narrow portion of what it is now working on. Do I need to say more?
Ok, fine then. Many of the Philosophically minded among us often make reference to The Art of War and knowing the enemy and shit...but display precious little actual knowledge of anything but spoonfed shibboleths, first by Feminist society, then by MRAs. FAR too many 'MRAs' parrot talking points they barely understand, let alone grasp the theory and reality behind. This is inevitable in any popular movement, sure, but in this case, it is encouraged and furthered by much of the 'establishment MRM'.
The rabid anti-Game response among many MRAs has not been lost on our opponents, as is evidenced by the regular posts/comments/articles bemoaning being associated with Game Theory, the Manosphere , etc that are transparent attempts to drive wedges between the factions involved. Guys like Keyster might have experience with past PUA shysters, they might be on a mission from God to stamp out PUAs as a social scourge. But they are also exactly like Inquisitors in the middle ages, stamping out BadThink wherever it crops up.
This is the source of my personal severance with the website A Voice for Men, frankly, and it has spread among the MRM so pervasively, I have essentially stopped calling myself an MRA out of disgust. This is not because I disrespect many of the people involved. It doesn't mean I disrespect or even dislike Paul either. And in fact I greatly respect the man and hope to have a beer with him in Detroit this summer (after all, he owes me a couple). I like Paul on a personal level quite a bit.
But I can't countenance throwing away the work of so many MRAs like he has done and is continuing to do. It's a fixable problem, but it requires actually making an effort to fix it.
I will demonstrate why Game is important in any MRAs bag of ammo:
Take the issue of 'Traditional Gender Roles'. What are they?
Ok, the male one we object to so much at least...
Well, tall dark and handsome are niceties women insist on, but they aren't really a 'Gender Role' in the traditional sense. Let's focus on 'Provider, Protector, Stoic, hyperagent' type stuff.
Who forces men to be providers? Ok, more to the point (since no one forces men to be a provider...er...except the State), why is providing a male 'gender role' as opposed to a female one? Well, because women sexually select for the providers, because they naturally like not having to work hard for the niceties in life if they at all can. Men would do this in a heartbeat if they could. But they can't. It is the fact they can't, that makes this a 'gender role'.
Ok, protector. People say this is because men are bigger and stronger. Well, I'm 5'7", and weigh considerably less than a lot of women I see, so I am free of this role, right? Nope. This is because I am a man, and am expected to help. By who? Women. Why? Because for eons, men would help a woman in distress fairly automatically, it's a pretty natural assumption. So natural, in fact, that the notion men may stop giving a shit about women is the most attention grabbing aspect of this movement.
So, legitimate 'gender role'?
Let's momentarily move on to the other two, 'stoic' and 'hyperagent'. Who expects men to be stoic? Well, everybody, right?
Uh, no. How many of you men have had the 'I love you man' conversation when really drunk with a good friend? How many really involved conversations about relationships, women, marriage, prospects in life, fear, etc, have you men had in your lives? I've had plenty. Men do this all the time, to the point where women jealously refer to 'bromances', it's so common.
Men are not expected to be stoic by society. They are expected to be stoic by women. Why? Because it is something that women tend to find attractive. The guy who shuts up and gets things done instead of endlessly whining about it is infinitely more attractive to women. Gee, I wonder why?
Bosses likewise prefer someone who shuts up and gets to work, to someone who endlessly creates drama and a poisonous office environment with constant complaining.
But men have the close friendships that women are typically 'secretly' jealous of because men have literally no one else to talk to. And all of this pivots on a simple fulcrum: women are not attracted to whiners. This 'gender role' is no such thing, it is merely a code of conduct at the office, and a sexual hurdle in the home. It is female sexual preference, and not a lot more. Because a genuine Gender Role(tm) would mean men would not tolerate non-stoicism in men either, and it's plainly obvious this is not the case - considering the existence of the MRM and bromances the world over.
Hyperagency is another aspect of the elephant we attempt to describe. It is well known, even among MRAs, that roughly all women are chasing after the top 20% of men. Sure, the metric used to determine that 20% varies slightly by woman, but anyone who has exposure to the exhaustive list many young women have for 'the perfect guy' can see quite a few items pop up consistently. It's a truism in the Mens Movement, one based on significant evidence, that women simply don't notice the existence of a good portion of men.
So naturally, the men they focus on, the ones they are attracted to, the top 20%, seem incredibly capable. They likely ARE incredibly capable, frankly. The kicker though, is that if women are only paying attention to the cream of the crop, and thus generalize those traits to men in general, it would naturally follow that it would be 'common knowledge' men are hyper capable. We know this as the Apex Fallacy.
If true, this would mean that as women are freer to choose their sexual mates, without needing to secure commitment first, the common understanding of male agency becomes increasingly skewed. The longer women are socially permitted to YOLO their way from man to man in search of 'Mr Right (perfect)', the more likely they are to either believe all men are able to accomplish incredible things, or all men are losers and why can't she find the 'average' guys she hears about all the time?
I dunno, you read any "where have the good men gone?" articles lately? Anything about women having increased expectations or being unhappier these days?
Let's go back to that 'protector' bit again. Why are men expected to protect women, and were they really for true always expected to do this? Yes and no. As Typhon and GWW have often made plain, the protector role used to be largely restricted to protecting you and your own. A man could reasonably be expected to protect his wife and children, his family, at the least. The case might even be made for friends. It is only when men began to be driven from the family that it became important to browbeat men into 'social responsibility' (gee, sounds Marxist).
So what do we have there, one legitimate Gender Role (protector), one sexual selection criteria (provider), and two effects of self selection in perception (stoic, hyperagent). And the question remains, how exactly would an MRA 'end' any of this? When we are 'about ending gender roles', what exactly are we saying, do you think?
We are saying effectively the exact same thing Radical Feminists say, when they bitch and complain about Frat Boys and Rock Stars only finding younger hotter tighter attractive, and not their corduroy wearing asses. It is every bit as much railing against human nature, and every bit as butthurt pathetic.
A few years ago, Paul and I and a few other guys explored a concept called Zeta Masculinity, in an attempt to formulate a coherent response to the situation men are in. A scaffold to hopefully hang a coping strategy on, and eventually a means to success. It might horrify some of those involved to now hear that the Red Pill subreddit has taken up that challenge. But the MRM abandoned it long ago, so stop complaining.
I encourage MRAs to read Game Theory websites like Rollos, and Dalrock's, and Roissy's. Return of Kings is now where A Voice for Men was a few years ago, and if kept in that light, it is also a good source of learning what modern Red Pill theory is all about.
The best professor I ever had, would say the same phrase at the end of every class. "Don't let Colloge interfere with your Education". The MRM could use such kinds of advice.
I want to take a minute to address a topic that has increasingly come up in the mensrights subreddit, and one that is increasingly getting play elsewhere in the MRM. The subject known as 'Gender Roles'. Over and over again I hear 'MRAs' complaining about traditional gender roles, and how the MRM is 'about' abolishing them somehow.
I lay the blame for this square at the feet of two entities: klootoyou, and Paul Elam. This is not because they did anything in particular, but because these two folks had/have control over the widest read aspects of certain portions of the Manosphere - the mensrights subreddit, and A Voice for Men respectively. And both of them seem to have missed a fundamental truth: we cannot criticise others for behaviour we ourselves engage in, there is no compromise with evil, and hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter who engages in it.
Strong words, I know. It's a personal failing.
But I meant it. Paul, I think, learned a Wooly lesson in this regard. I think Kloo, as well, might be a tad horrified at what has become of his creation. And even if not, the point of this article is still relevant to a potential future, not only for those sites, but the Mens Movement as a whole. The general point to be made, is that adopting the frame of reference of your ideological opponent virtually guarantees you'll be fighting at a disadvantage. There was a time when this tactic was advantageous as well as necessary, but no more.
We are at risk of losing the window of opportunity we are currently presented with. And wilful ignorance and ideologically hidebound behaviour are what are killing us.
This goes back to the old Game argument, along with the circular firing squad we usually form. I hope to convince more people that for God's sake, just fucking read something for yourself for once, would you? Sorry, did the frustration come out there?
There was once a time when Game meant PUAs bent exclusively on picking up women. Sure.
There was also a time when the Mens Rights Movement was equally focussed on a narrow portion of what it is now working on. Do I need to say more?
Ok, fine then. Many of the Philosophically minded among us often make reference to The Art of War and knowing the enemy and shit...but display precious little actual knowledge of anything but spoonfed shibboleths, first by Feminist society, then by MRAs. FAR too many 'MRAs' parrot talking points they barely understand, let alone grasp the theory and reality behind. This is inevitable in any popular movement, sure, but in this case, it is encouraged and furthered by much of the 'establishment MRM'.
The rabid anti-Game response among many MRAs has not been lost on our opponents, as is evidenced by the regular posts/comments/articles bemoaning being associated with Game Theory, the Manosphere , etc that are transparent attempts to drive wedges between the factions involved. Guys like Keyster might have experience with past PUA shysters, they might be on a mission from God to stamp out PUAs as a social scourge. But they are also exactly like Inquisitors in the middle ages, stamping out BadThink wherever it crops up.
This is the source of my personal severance with the website A Voice for Men, frankly, and it has spread among the MRM so pervasively, I have essentially stopped calling myself an MRA out of disgust. This is not because I disrespect many of the people involved. It doesn't mean I disrespect or even dislike Paul either. And in fact I greatly respect the man and hope to have a beer with him in Detroit this summer (after all, he owes me a couple). I like Paul on a personal level quite a bit.
But I can't countenance throwing away the work of so many MRAs like he has done and is continuing to do. It's a fixable problem, but it requires actually making an effort to fix it.
I will demonstrate why Game is important in any MRAs bag of ammo:
Take the issue of 'Traditional Gender Roles'. What are they?
Ok, the male one we object to so much at least...
Well, tall dark and handsome are niceties women insist on, but they aren't really a 'Gender Role' in the traditional sense. Let's focus on 'Provider, Protector, Stoic, hyperagent' type stuff.
Who forces men to be providers? Ok, more to the point (since no one forces men to be a provider...er...except the State), why is providing a male 'gender role' as opposed to a female one? Well, because women sexually select for the providers, because they naturally like not having to work hard for the niceties in life if they at all can. Men would do this in a heartbeat if they could. But they can't. It is the fact they can't, that makes this a 'gender role'.
Ok, protector. People say this is because men are bigger and stronger. Well, I'm 5'7", and weigh considerably less than a lot of women I see, so I am free of this role, right? Nope. This is because I am a man, and am expected to help. By who? Women. Why? Because for eons, men would help a woman in distress fairly automatically, it's a pretty natural assumption. So natural, in fact, that the notion men may stop giving a shit about women is the most attention grabbing aspect of this movement.
So, legitimate 'gender role'?
Let's momentarily move on to the other two, 'stoic' and 'hyperagent'. Who expects men to be stoic? Well, everybody, right?
Uh, no. How many of you men have had the 'I love you man' conversation when really drunk with a good friend? How many really involved conversations about relationships, women, marriage, prospects in life, fear, etc, have you men had in your lives? I've had plenty. Men do this all the time, to the point where women jealously refer to 'bromances', it's so common.
Men are not expected to be stoic by society. They are expected to be stoic by women. Why? Because it is something that women tend to find attractive. The guy who shuts up and gets things done instead of endlessly whining about it is infinitely more attractive to women. Gee, I wonder why?
Bosses likewise prefer someone who shuts up and gets to work, to someone who endlessly creates drama and a poisonous office environment with constant complaining.
But men have the close friendships that women are typically 'secretly' jealous of because men have literally no one else to talk to. And all of this pivots on a simple fulcrum: women are not attracted to whiners. This 'gender role' is no such thing, it is merely a code of conduct at the office, and a sexual hurdle in the home. It is female sexual preference, and not a lot more. Because a genuine Gender Role(tm) would mean men would not tolerate non-stoicism in men either, and it's plainly obvious this is not the case - considering the existence of the MRM and bromances the world over.
Hyperagency is another aspect of the elephant we attempt to describe. It is well known, even among MRAs, that roughly all women are chasing after the top 20% of men. Sure, the metric used to determine that 20% varies slightly by woman, but anyone who has exposure to the exhaustive list many young women have for 'the perfect guy' can see quite a few items pop up consistently. It's a truism in the Mens Movement, one based on significant evidence, that women simply don't notice the existence of a good portion of men.
So naturally, the men they focus on, the ones they are attracted to, the top 20%, seem incredibly capable. They likely ARE incredibly capable, frankly. The kicker though, is that if women are only paying attention to the cream of the crop, and thus generalize those traits to men in general, it would naturally follow that it would be 'common knowledge' men are hyper capable. We know this as the Apex Fallacy.
If true, this would mean that as women are freer to choose their sexual mates, without needing to secure commitment first, the common understanding of male agency becomes increasingly skewed. The longer women are socially permitted to YOLO their way from man to man in search of 'Mr Right (perfect)', the more likely they are to either believe all men are able to accomplish incredible things, or all men are losers and why can't she find the 'average' guys she hears about all the time?
I dunno, you read any "where have the good men gone?" articles lately? Anything about women having increased expectations or being unhappier these days?
Let's go back to that 'protector' bit again. Why are men expected to protect women, and were they really for true always expected to do this? Yes and no. As Typhon and GWW have often made plain, the protector role used to be largely restricted to protecting you and your own. A man could reasonably be expected to protect his wife and children, his family, at the least. The case might even be made for friends. It is only when men began to be driven from the family that it became important to browbeat men into 'social responsibility' (gee, sounds Marxist).
So what do we have there, one legitimate Gender Role (protector), one sexual selection criteria (provider), and two effects of self selection in perception (stoic, hyperagent). And the question remains, how exactly would an MRA 'end' any of this? When we are 'about ending gender roles', what exactly are we saying, do you think?
We are saying effectively the exact same thing Radical Feminists say, when they bitch and complain about Frat Boys and Rock Stars only finding younger hotter tighter attractive, and not their corduroy wearing asses. It is every bit as much railing against human nature, and every bit as butthurt pathetic.
A few years ago, Paul and I and a few other guys explored a concept called Zeta Masculinity, in an attempt to formulate a coherent response to the situation men are in. A scaffold to hopefully hang a coping strategy on, and eventually a means to success. It might horrify some of those involved to now hear that the Red Pill subreddit has taken up that challenge. But the MRM abandoned it long ago, so stop complaining.
I encourage MRAs to read Game Theory websites like Rollos, and Dalrock's, and Roissy's. Return of Kings is now where A Voice for Men was a few years ago, and if kept in that light, it is also a good source of learning what modern Red Pill theory is all about.
The best professor I ever had, would say the same phrase at the end of every class. "Don't let Colloge interfere with your Education". The MRM could use such kinds of advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment