Men are not all capable of being on the same “team” because men are not all equal.

Tonight I read a post from a participant on AVFM’s forum named Wio, and here’s the snippet I’d like to zero in on:

Taking a risk does not make you less of a man and taking precaution does not make you a greater man, so I see no contradiction here. MGTOW is not some standard of how to be a “real” man, and I’m pretty sure we all agreed such standards need not exist.

 

Are there not better men than others? Men more deserving of being esteemed and treated with honor and respect more than some others? And couldn’t the same also be said of women? Even while taking into account whatever differences we generally may have.

The question really is where we draw the lines, and obviously that can divvy up in countless ways across the spectrum. I understand what I personally esteem and appreciate in men, as well as what strikes me as notably honorable in women. A bit tricky trying to spell that out for others since it’s a nuanced understanding within myself that has evolved over time (and likely will only continue to evolve). But I do distinguish between people and don’t pretend they/we are all constituted equally. No. We are not all equal, and that’s not just solely determined along sex/gender lines. Simply put, some men are pieces of shit, as are some women, for whatever reasons. How many? Who can clearly say? But we know lowlifes exist across both of the sexes. Fact of life, subjectively determined as it can’t help but be.

So let’s stop for a moment and think about how it divvies up among males in particular, since some in the conversation pertaining to the in-fighting between “MGTOWs” and MRAs, particularly folks being haphazardly labeled as “traditionalists” simply because they choose to marry (or at least might be open to and tolerant of marriage). That’s somehow “the enemy” now, yeah — I’ve read and watched some of this shit unfold. Makes me long for a better hobby.  LOL

not_equalMen are not all equal, just as humans in general are not all equal. Can’t force us to all be either. Different natures, different genes, different socialization experiences, different drives. Etc. Not one and the same. Might be equal in some sense under that which we like to call God, or perhaps to a larger extent nowadays operating according to that which has been deemed The Law — that much I agree with. But each and all equally constituted? Not a chance.

A few are very sick and demented, as we’re all aware of and crime stories attest to. Some others out here are feeling very jilted, and perhaps in however many cases justifiably so through no fault of their own (at least initially). But a number of these jilted people are working with very limited experiences that they feel profoundly impacted by; sometimes legitimately so, but for others it’s like they fixated on the loss or heartache so intensely for so long that it warped them. They became a hater. That is, in this case, one driven to destroy that which is sacred to others out of covetousness and spite. They who began desiring to paint it all black. Some envy you and yet cannot or will not be like you. Some scorn you for having access to what they think they want and should be entitled to. And however many believe they ought to act on impulse and work to take away what another has because they’re so damned miserable with their own existence that they have grown to strongly resent others with lives that resemble their idyllic fantasies. That serving as just one example of how destructive drives may play out. There unarguably are those who aim to directly prey on folks who threaten their own insecurities. We know these cases do exist.

That initial comment just tapped into a can of worms I’ve been pondering on a while now. In reality, not all men are on the same side. Can’t be. Fundamental differences between them do exist. Just as not all women are on the same side as one another, though females are generally reported to be more collectivist or at least communal in nature. But in terms of masculine ideologies — doesn’t work that way. Impossible to all be on the same “team.” That’s gender-ideology-taken-too-far way of thinking, and it won’t work, not unless the haters all came to rule key social hierarchies and sufficiently intimidated most other males into adapting to their ways of being or standing down — not likely to happen.

All women aren’t one way and looking for the same things necessarily in a mate, same as with men. We know this. And yet people sit there and debate as if they subscribe to some universalized truth. Like the sexes, categorically, having irreconcilable differences and therefore sex segregation is in order (?). Some people online like to get nuts on this shit, especially young people operating with rather limited life experiences while saturated with ideologies. What’s most important winds up being obscured by comparably trivial distractions. But there are strikingly different worldviews among men that will prove every bit as irreconcilable as, if not more so than, the natural divide between the sexes.

But getting back to the original YT topic threads in question…  Simply enjoying one’s marriage, even if both spouses work, is now considered “traditionalist”? Living together is now deemed “traditionalist”? What next? Gonna label having a girlfriend as “traditionalist”? Having sex with women? Even acknowledging women? How Orwellian. Seriously.

People are blowing my mind. Not sure what to make of what all we’re trying to do here. I can sympathize to varying degrees, but damn. We’re not all on the same team here, not according to sex or race or class or whatever else we may identify with. And the “enemy” of my “enemy” isn’t always necessarily my friend by default. Not a secret.

This notion of all men coming together won’t happen because males tend to be more individualistic. That unavoidably matters. So males are forced to adopt different strategies as a result. However many clans wind up going their own ways. It will be interesting to observe how that may unfold. That is, if the online “manosphere” can manage to not get mired in unproductive drivel the way Feminism has.

Anyway, enough rambling for tonight.

____________________________________

March 18, 2015: Decided to record reading this post aloud:

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Men are not all capable of being on the same “team” because men are not all equal.

  1. Wyrd Smythe says:

    Yeah, right on. Both Feminism and Masculinism suffer from a fundamental flaw: they presume one platform can possibly speak for half the planet.

    Anyone who has tried to get a room full of men, or a room full of women, to agree on just one topic knows how silly of an idea that is. (Oh, it can happen with the right crowd and the right topic, but as a general principle usually not so much.)

    • vklaatu says:

      Too many people on BOTH SIDES of the gender divide seem to want a risk free environment for relationships, which is impossible. Then they go further and insist on an ideological purity which is so utterly anti-individualistic all I can do is back away slowly. Why do people waste time on them?

      Without a doubt there is a minority of very sane MRA’s and feminists with some very good ideas. I’m actually more than a little angry that these people don’t get much press.

      And now for a real zinger: did you know that many first wave feminists militantly opposed condoms being in the hands of men? They wanted total control over birth control. Feminism has always had a dark side, which is perfectly natural, all political movements do, but denying it really doesn’t help anyone.

      • Wyrd Smythe says:

        Compared to what? All the dark shit men have done since time immemorial? Drop in a bucket.

        People are full of dark shit. Some are just more ape-like than others.

        • Byenia says:

          True enough.

        • vklaatu says:

          Oh please. Do you think Medea was based on one man’s fantasy? Are you that naive?

          • Wyrd Smythe says:

            Medea? The ancient Greek tragedy written by Euripides (who was a dude last time I checked, so, yeah, it is kinda one man’s fantasy)? The play about a wife taking revenge on an unfaithful husband?

            What does that have to do with anything? You understand that plays, especially the Greek dramas, were loaded with mythology and fantasy, right? They’re allegories, not news reports.

            But fine. I’ll see your Medea with an Oedipus Rex and raise you a Pol Pot and a Genghis Khan. At least the last two are actual real people.

            • vklaatu says:

              You’re funny. It must really burn your ass that Richard Ramirez got more female fan male than you ever will.

              • Byenia says:

                vklaatu: That was uncalled for. What was the purpose in writing that? Has nothing to do with what you two were discussing.

                • vklaatu says:

                  That was just snarky humor. If I felt like pushing a more nihilistic tone, I could say that both he and I will be forgotten simply because neither of us has the balls of a Pol Pot, or Ghengis Khan, or Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez.

              • Wyrd Smythe says:

                Heh. And there’s the ad hominem… I mean, really, is that the best you can do? I don’t even know who “Richard Ramirez” is!

                • Byenia says:

                  Richard Ramirez was a serial killer/rapist (even of elderly women and children). For some ungodly reason, the man received a big following once he was convicted and sentenced to live out the rest of his days in prison.

                  • Wyrd Smythe says:

                    Well, people are attracted to all sorts of strange things. People love a good horror-freak show. It’s probably related to our thrill-fear regarding death.

                    Or do I mean taxes?

                    Damn! I still have to do my taxes! Thanks for the reminder! 🙂

                    • Byenia says:

                      Awww, geez. I’ve been putting mine off as long as possible, not wanting to pay in. lol Wasn’t a very productive winter so the money is a little tight, and then those bastards at the IRS want some. 😛

                    • vklaatu says:

                      Wyrd Smythe, you might want to keep in mind what Camille Paglia wrote about Mozart and Jack the Ripper. Some men, if they know they will never be famous, decide to be infamous, and considering that morality is very much a subjective, frail, fleeting little dove, do you blame them? Maybe I’m joking, and maybe I’m not. At any rate, I’m no longer interested in what most Baby Boomers think anymore, anyway.

                • vklaatu says:

                  I have a dark sense of humor. Had I said to your face what I wrote on this page, you would have been able to seen my sneer and raised eye brow.

          • Byenia says:

            vklaatu: I don’t think anyone here is saying that women aren’t capable of savagery.

      • Byenia says:

        vklaatu: Some of us focus on those we come into contact with. These are the ones I’ve found, so I address them. Others are free to address and promote whomever and whatever they so desire.

        But it is true that ideologues do seem to be operating with the fantasy of uncovering a risk-free environment, which is just another pipe dream. And I agree that their ideological purity ambitions are indeed utterly anti-individualistic, and that’s the argument I try to bring to them when we interact. Some of them are very young and naive, so I try very hard (and often enough fail) to have some patience while keeping in mind that perhaps they’ve arrived at their conclusions prematurely and without enough exposure to diversity to realize the flaws in their “logic.”

        But either way, there’s no shortage of people seeking easy answers and quick fixes and another group to toss all blame onto. And I’d rather they not become merely an echo chamber devoid of any other input. But, then again, I’m well-conditioned to “pick fights with stupid.” lol Not that I encourage all others to follow in my footsteps on that. Probably says as much about me as it does about those I choose to quarrel with.

      • Wyrd Smythe says:

        Incidentally, how about a source backing up that assertion about birth control? I was there for Second-Wave Feminism, and I don’t recall anyone saying anything like that.

        • vklaatu says:

          The Humble Little Condom: A History by Aine Collier

          • Wyrd Smythe says:

            Wherein it says what, exactly?

            I poked around the net and found this bit from the book:

            “Some early feminists approved of and even promoted its use as a simple, inexpensive way to prevent pregnancy. However, as the century moved forward and the feminist movement matured, more and more of its leaders reversed that stance and became very anticondom. They equated its use with the substandard rights of women, another example of something controlled by and decided upon by men, leaving women out of the decision-making process. Feminists preferred the diaphragm and spermicidal douches because those methods were strictly controlled by women.”

            If that’s the part you meant, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

  2. Byenia says:

    I just love it when my own replies manage to get erased on my own blog. Pffftt….

    In short, yup, it’s like herding cats, the lot of us. We group up however we do and that obviously varies across the board. Always has, likely always will (unless we’re somehow successfully re-engineered into droid-like automatons). Diversity isn’t a bad thing in my book.

    All or even most men (or people in general) haven’t managed to agree on any one single thing since the dawn of time. Not a one. I, for one, will not be holding my breath in expecting that to ever change.

    • vklaatu says:

      Men can be feminized by environmental factors and it’s actually physically unhealthy for them, i.e. lowering testosterone is actually unhealthy for most men. Naturally passivity isn’t very healthy for either sex, but for men, considering there’s no afterlife, it’s potentially a consignment to oblivion, when you consider that it requires taking risks to acquire status. Yes, I know plenty of women also want stable workhorse drones. And many others want it both ways. My son’s mother is like that. They can go piss up a rope right alongside with their precious beta males. They don’t interest me any more. Life is too short.

      Now the authentic visionary MGTOW who forgo relationships to focus on their passions make sense. I would like to spend more time supporting those young men.

      But this notion of “going Galt” is absurd.

      So the MGTOW who spout that crap have it backwards. Risk is what makes men. This is almost a cultural universal. And taking risks requires does require aggression, about which too many women whine. bitch, and complain. That is, until they need their roof fixed, or want decent sex that actually makes them feel desirable and alive. Why? Well it’s not hard to find a correlation between aggression and initiative. I know many women love a man who takes initiative, but it seems they don’t want to accept the trade off: he’s going to be aggressive.

      Maybe I’m just a macho asshole. I’m not sure I care anymore. Then again the last time a woman called me that to my face I laughed in hers. You can’t imagine how good that felt: almost as good as it felt when I dumped her a few months later and walked out the door.

      Bottom line: the cliche about MGTOW/MRA’s being the beta males too afraid to do the dumping and so get themselves dumped may be true. Ending a relationship is as frightening as getting into one.

      End of rant: I am probably preaching to the choir anyway.

      • Byenia says:

        vklaatu: For someone who takes issue with gender-bent movements, you sure do use their lingo. “Beta males”? Women wanting “stable workhorse drones”?

        I think that way of looking at life obscures more than it tends to illuminate…

        All aggression isn’t the problem. It’s how it tends to be manifested and where it winds up directed. It’s no secret that a notable number of males take out their frustrations on either females or weaker males, simply because they can. We can observe this phenomenon among primates as well. So aggression in itself can’t help but be a bit threatening, and it makes rational sense that people might wish to funnel that aggression toward beneficial purposes rather than putting up with however which way it may haphazardly play out, particularly if it’s bound to be turned against the individual in question.

        But I don’t think it’s a matter of trying to keep men from taking risks. Probably more of an issue of determining what risks are worth taking. We all know the guys who behave recklessly as rebels without a cause (or clue). And we worry about them negatively impacting us if we’re close to them. As to be expected. But either way, all forms of aggression aren’t created equal and can’t be spoken of as though they are all one and the same essentially.

        The truly manly men I’ve met who aren’t so risk-averse aren’t the ones out here telling others about it. Unless they were criminal types, or total assholes.

        Ending a relationship is as frightening as getting into one? Hmm… While I can understand it’s nerve-wracking and never fun to go through a break-up, I think some of these dudes build it up to be something so big and so terrifying that they lose touch with the reality of the situation. Relationships come and go. People come and go from our lives. That’s just the way life works, whether we like it or not. We can try to insulate ourselves from all pain and that will just guarantee we’ll wind up alone. Or we can take risks that appear worth taking and see how they pan out. That’s all any of us can do, males and females alike. Not necessarily any easier for those belonging to the other sex either.

        • vklaatu says:

          The alpha/beta dichotomy is a hold over from our simian past. Ovulating women are known to be more attracted to dominant, hyper-masculine men.That didn’t fall out of the sky into a PUA blog.

          Self promotion is tedious, and I don’t blame other men for avoiding it.

          But I happen to agree with the idea that libido/aggression/initiative/creativity flow from the same source. Being an outsider and/or an asshole is risky.

          True Story: the day after the Twin Towers burned, I was already printing leaflets calling for the impeachment of Bush. It took the intervention of several friends of mine in front of a Walmart to get me to refrain from handing them out. They hustled me into a van and hauled me home. My Aggression level? High enough for a platoon. Was it Risky? Duh? I rarely talk about this because echo chambers are boring and arguments with warmongers are tedious.

          • Byenia says:

            In terms of hormones, I’d say that’s a huge factor in all of this. Not only are our “civilized” societies along with our influential social spheres putting pressure on us to restrict ourselves in all sorts of ways, but then we also have environmental contamination of hormones that plays however big of a role as well. For example, women using hormonal birth control methods, plus both sexes are impacted by the estogenic compounds we run across all the time in our everyday lives, from plastics to soy products to marijuana (see: phytoestrogens), etc. Our own technologies are further complicating what was already naturally complex enough.

            “Alpha” and “beta” wind up being subjective assessments based on one’s perspective and vantage point. And “alpha,” as it’s popularly defined within the “manosphere,” doesn’t always equate with the best and most desirable, especially among us not interested in reproducing. I’ve read about how during ovulation women are more prone to take risks and promote ourselves in more sexually provocative manners. Doesn’t always necessarily (or even usually) lead to pursuing what a lot of PUA’s and others consider “alphas.” Sorry to burst bubbles. Pleasurable risk-taking can be had in other ways.

            Being an outsider (and thereby perceived automatically by many to be an asshole) is risky. No doubt. Just a question of what risks one’s willing to take and toward what cause, what reason, what end? Not all risk-taking efforts are created equal, regardless of which historical figures might remain most well-known.

            We didn’t even know yet the day after 9/11 that it had anything to do with Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. So I’m not sure what impeachable offense he had clearly committed by that point.

            • Byenia says:

              To clarify, there were disconcerting reports dated from before then, but most of us had no clue about them yet.

              • vklaatu says:

                I already knew it was very far from unprovoked. I had an axe to grind anyway, having served a very tedious tour of duty for Desert Storm/Shield at a remote air base, if you get my drift.

            • vklaatu says:

              Considering recent discoveries concerning the level of paternity fraud, I’d say more women are just as at the mercy of their instincts as men

              “The masses of men lead lives of quiet desperation,” wrote Thoreau. How right he is.

              • Byenia says:

                Men and women both are rendered at the mercy of their instincts and biology to whatever extents. Males certainly aren’t immune in any sense. We can pick out cases and issues all day to compare there.

                By “men” I’m inclined to believe he’s referring to humans. As most authors were several decades back who commonly spoke of humankind generically as “mankind.”

Leave a Reply