Friday, 26 August 2011
The recent uprisings in the Arab world are interesting on a number of counts. These insurrections are propelled by the youthful naivety of Arab populations – half of whom are under 25, after all – not to mention the skilled self-marketing of Anglo-American nations.
For those of resident in the Anglosphere, the images projected by the Anglo-American media are fantastical nonsense – we know from our daily lives that very few people own private helicopters, live in mansions or earn billions of dollars. However, to people in Libya, the radiant images beamed at them by Hollywood are accurate depictions of life in the contemporary Anglosphere. Most of the youthful revolutionaries doubtless believe they, too, will own a helicopter if they adopt a western lifestyle.
One of the core myths projected by the Anglo media is the notion that sex with beautiful women is happening everywhere, to everyone, all the time – that casual sex is like autumn fruit, an endless abundance. I recall a coca-cola advert that typified this agenda. Some fool was jogging along when he encountered a beautiful blonde girl running in the opposite direction. In moments they were jogging together, saccharine music welling in the background, caught in the first flush of love... have a Coke and a smile.
Now, many American men report that such easy-going attitudes are rather rare among American females. PUAs talk about continual ‘shit-tests’. MRAs talk about over rudeness and hostility to decent, middle-class men, not to mention no-fault divorces and widespread female misandry. It is reasonable to say, therefore, that a vast gulf divides the reality of American sexuality and its media portrayal.
Sadly, people outside the Anglosphere only see what the Anglo-American media show them. Most young Libyans doubtless walk about thinking that all American men are dating nubile models and enjoying daily orgies. We cannot blame them for this – how could they think otherwise? The Anglo media does not tell them that a vast number of America males are sexually disenfranchised, or that most American women are obese. All they see are Coca Cola ads – hardly an index of social reality.
George Sodini’s rampage had a great impact around the world for this very reason – it confounded America’s carefully-groomed international image. Suddenly, people in Asia, Africa or the Arab world glimpsed the bugs lurking in America’s bed. Sodini’s massacre hinted at a very different America than the one typically portrayed – one where thugs and plutocrats monopolize the few attractive women, leaving all other males to the tender mercies of Divorce or sexual disenfranchisement. That was why the Anglo-American establishment was so quick to decry Sodini as warped and deluded – much more was at stake than a few dead women. One interesting fact that garnered much international attention was Sodini’s attachment to the PUA subculture. Many foreigners were fascinated by its very existence – that American men had to go to such preposterous lengths to get sex with even obese, past-prime or plain women. This went sorely against the grain of America’s international image, where debutantes and models are routinely depicted leaping into bed with ranch-hands and truck-drivers. Consider the lyrics to Katy Perry’s ‘California Girls’, a paean to American girls’ sassy, hedonistic ways:
You could travel the world
But nothing comes close
To the Golden Coast
Once you party with us
You'll be falling in love
Oooooh oh oooooh
Bikinis on top
We'll melt your Popsicle
Oooooh oh oooooh
Fine, fresh, fierce
We got it on lock
Now put your hands up
Oooooh oh oooooh
Sex on the beach
We don't mind sand in our Stilettos
In my Jeep
Snoop Doggy Dogg on the stereo (Oh oh)
American pop music from the sixties went even further in its ludicrous misrepresentation of sexual reality; consider ‘Surf City’, the old Jan and Dean surf song. This warbling ditty implies that all American men are driving around in customised T-Birds, attending an endless round of beach parties and banging two or more tanned, beautiful chicks at a time:
I bought a '30 Ford wagon and we call it a woody
(Surf City, here we come)
You know it's not very cherry, it's an oldie but a goody
(Surf City, here we come)
Well, it ain't got a back seat or a rear window
But it still gets me where I wanna go
And we're goin' to Surf City, 'cause it's two to one
You know we're goin' to Surf City, gonna have some fun
Ya, we're goin' to Surf City, 'cause it's two to one
You know we're goin' to Surf City, gonna have some fun, now
Two girls for every boy
You see they never roll the streets up 'cause there's always somethin' goin'
(Surf City, here we come)
You know they're either out surfin' or they got a party growin'
(Surf City, here we come)
Well, with two swingin' honeys for every guy
And all you gotta do is just wink your eye
And if my woody breaks down on me somewhere on the surf route
(Surf City, here we come)
I'll strap my board to my back and hitch a ride in my wetsuit
(Surf City, here we come)
And when I get to Surf City I'll be shootin' the curl
And checkin' out the parties for a surfer girl
Yeah, right. A world-view totally at odds with the experience of every American male I have ever met. All you gotta do is just wink your eye... and be a mumbling, sadistic thug with personal hygiene problems. The surfers forgot to mention that, unfortunately.
Of course, a tiny minority of rich, famous males were enjoying such a lifestyle in the early sixties – and their experiences were amplified by the mainstream media to create an entirely spurious image of the United States as a haven of sexual freedom. In primitive theocracies, the broad masses lack the cultural acumen to perceive the squalid reality behind America’s glittering public image. Young Libyans and Iranians truly believe that adopting Western ways will result in ‘two girls for every boy’. The reality, as we all know, runs more like: ‘ten girls for every mumbling thug/swaggering plutocrat - very little for anyone else.’
The foregoing discussion partly explains the Anglo-American establishment’s rabid antagonism towards the men’s movement. By revealing the tormented reality of Anglo-American gender-relations, the manosphere deflates decades of Hollywood propaganda, indirectly challenging the Anglosphere’s global agenda of economic coercion and cultural infiltration.
Only since the Internet obliterated the legacy media’s tired tales has this ‘revolution of truth’ been possible. I would compare the Internet to a Roman legionary’s pilum. These short spears were designed to stick in enemy shields, not to kill or wound the foe. Thus encumbered, the enemy could not raise their shields to defend themselves at close quarters; which exposed them to fatal, stabbing thrusts from the Roman gladius or short sword. In the same way, the Internet downs the Pan-Anglosphere shield of carefully-crafted media delusions, exposing the Anglo-American world to foreign eyes for the first time: misandrist, repressed and gynocentric.
One good MRA blog undoes decades of surf music, Hollywood romances and Coke adverts. Is it any wonder the men’s movement is so suppressed and marginalised in the United States? When the Arab revolutionaries find the sexual benefits of western life are only for an unrepresentative few, one can only guess at their response. Whatever, the West’s media shields are down or discarded, their filters ineffectual – and there’s not one thing the Anglo establishment can do about it.
Friday, 12 August 2011
Futrelle and other feminist sympathizers always consider themselves iconoclasts and revolutionaries – strange when one considers their boundless admiration for the mainstream media, which enjoys an intimate relationship with the Anglo-American cultural establishment. This gushing approbation makes more sense if one considers television and newspapers to be pro-feminist, misandrist institutions – and that feminism defines the Establishment rather than opposing it.
Antonio Gramsci argued that the media bound the consent of the masses to the existing social order by injecting them with a worldview contrary to their real lives – in short, they adopted the worldview of the elite (or their media minions), becoming detached from (and indifferent towards) their own reality. In this deluded condition, they were easy prey for elite manipulation. What the Internet has done – in its various forms – is challenge this indoctrination process. And that is frightening the elite, for obvious reasons. Richard Scarecrow’s blog is an excellent example of this ‘reality revolution’ in action. While the legacy media continually aver that Anglo-American women are kindly angels brimming with love for humanity, Richard gives us telling anecdotes about real American women – seemingly a very different species.
When Richard – a personable, educated, solvent male – approached women in his youth, he met remarks like: “You’re so ugly I wish I was a lesbian”; “fuck off”; “Go shoot yourself”. Now, encounters like this are very rarely described in the legacy media – yet seem rather commonplace in contemporary North America. Likewise, the ubiquitous female attraction to thugs and psychopaths is widely discussed on MRA blogs and websites, yet comprehensively vetoed by the 'mainstream' media. It seems that TV and the print media are living in a cocoon of utter self-delusion on any issue that might cast women in a negative light - in short, hopelessly out-of-touch with mainstream experience. This partly explains their recent marginalization and decline into low-brow slogans and platitudes - nowadays, only working class morons, knee-jerk conservatives and libtard fanatics uncritically swallow the puritanical misandry peddled by Murdoch’s legacy press: thinking people have gone elsewhere for news and opinion (according to Reuters, 70% of Americans now consider the media 'out of touch').
This dramatic shift raises many issues of interest to MRAs and anti-feminists. With the media’s hegemony crumbling, we are seeing reality aright for the first time in centuries. While the mainstream Anglo-American media would have us believe that 60 year old women are as attractive as 20 year olds, that all men want sex with Sarah Jessica Parker, that fashion models are all leaping around in bed with truck drivers, that women aren’t hypergamous and that no one is INCEL – in short, a farrago of fictions – most thinking people now see that these are remarkably silly messages. The point being, only since the Internet emerged has any opportunity for consensus social reality to be described or upheld at all – prior to the Internet, reality was systematically vetoed.
The Internet revolution also permits new perspectives on long-standing men’s issues. It has long been assumed by PUAs and conservative anti-feminists that the late sixties weakened monogamy, allowing women to pursue 'alpha' thugs and celebrities and creating a large rump of sexually disenfranchised males. While there is some truth in this model, an alternative explanation exists. In short, could it be that there have always been sexually-disenfranchised, INCEL males – that they are not new at all? Perhaps they only seem so because - prior to the Internet - there was no way for them to articulate their experience.
The media aimed at the Anglo-American working class projects a strongly sexualized agenda – ‘everyone’ is having sex ten times a day in Murdoch-world. Given that Anglo-American working class males are – given their low incomes and desultory life-chances – unlikely to enjoy much high-quality sex, one must accept that this is classic hegemonic manipulation at work. Further, anyone who dares challenge these mass hallucinations is reflexively lambasted as a ‘freak’ or ‘misfit’. And the middle class media (GQ, Men’s Health, Esquire) are little better, largely devised by Anglo-American homosexuals and projecting a denatured, high-bourgeois fantasy world as some kind of hyper-real ‘norm’.
But now – zum Teufel! – we have a plethora of blogs, websites and social media where normal people can express themselves without Murdoch’s tyrannical filter. It is our contention that this explosion gives the impression that INCEL males, PUAs and MRAs are something new – when they have always existed, albeit in a voiceless state. After all, the voiceless might as well not exist, for all practical purposes. Similarly, anti-feminist dissent has a 'fresh-minted' aura that is entirely spurious: a good British magazine called Male View existed in the early 90s, covering much of the ground now ably traversed by Angry Harry (I know – I published in it). Of course, Male View came by subscription only – its message was too radical for the mainstream – but it still existed, albeit in a marginalized state. In sum, the Internet has made the marginal mainstream.
Anders Breivik’s massacre in Norway has caused the Anglo-American Establishment much angst, most of it focussing on how online ‘communities of interest’ can form spontaneously in cyberspace, blissfully free of their ideological control (the manosphere being a good example). This fear is interesting, since fear always betrays weakness:
Anders Behring Breivik: Tunnel vision in an online world
Every country needs some degree of cohesion. Just how much is a legitimate matter of dispute. Some believe that cultural pluralism is a recipe for fragmentation and the loss of trust. This may be the case, but not necessarily. So long as common institutions function impartially – education, housing, work etc – a society can live well with considerable diversity. However, the moment we cease to speak to each other, something serious is under way. This is exactly what happened with Breivik and many of his co-believers: they developed a parallel reality on the internet.
The role of the internet in fragmenting the public sphere has been the subject of some scholarly and journalistic interest, most recently in Eli Pariser's excellent The Filter Bubble, which shows how Google, Facebook and other major actors filter our web searches, updates etc according to our user profiles and previous cyberhistories. So if I am an environmentalist typing "climate change" into Google, I get a different set of results from you, if you are an oil executive. The filter bubble operates on Amazon by giving personal recommendations; in its more insidious ways, it tailors our web searches to confirm our pre-existing world view without us noticing. Eventually, we may drift apart and end up living in different worlds.
Breivik must willingly have allowed himself to be brainwashed by Islamophobic and extreme rightwing websites. However, had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different. Perhaps one lesson from this weekend of shock and disbelief may be that cultural pluralism is not necessarily a threat to national cohesion, but that the tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet is.
Thomas Hylland Eriksen, The Guardian UK, 25 July 2011
'... had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different.'
True enough - but would his world have looked like reality? The same discourse emerged in relation to George Sodini - if he had not been immersed in the PUA subculture, would he have shot the people? Well, had Sodini been listening to the 'mainstream' media (and there is no evidence he did not) he would still have thought himself a crazy misfit - and perhaps been even more dangerous. After all, the 'mainstream' media's distorted fixation with demographic oddities - rich people, cross-class relationships, teenagers, alternative lifestyles - is hardly conducive to normal social adjustment. British academic John Downing cites evidence that people who watch a lot of TV hugely exaggerate the number of privately-owned helicopters, tennis courts, swimming pools and mansions in western societies - clear proof the 'mainstream' media promotes a delusional view of the world. How, then, can accepting the 'mainstream' media promote proper adjustment when it projects such delusions as casual norms?
The establishment's worries were recently compounded by the riots in England, challenges to the power elite's hegemony organized through social networking media. Prime Minister David Cameron has already promised to shut down social networking channels during future riots. This highlights the danger they represent to our oppressors - and the opportunities they give to us.
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Sunday, 26 June 2011
For readers familiar with Anglo White Knights like Tommy Fleming and David Futrelle, this YouTube video will be eerily familiar:
After watching this, how can anyone seriously deny that Anglo-American males are programmed by their culture to pedestalize women in the most ridiculous manner? Note the token presence of a few non-Anglo males to 'smooth the message' (hired White Knights?).
Note also the studied lack of objectivity these buffoons display in describing Anglo-American women - typically bigots, drunks, sluts and home-wreckers. For the White Knight fanciers among us (and there are many), these specimens embody all that is sick within Anglo-American manhood. Indeed, they remind me of cultists following some strange, arbitrary belief-system; consider their glazed eyes, slack mouths and feminine features. Not H P Lovecraft himself could conceive a more disturbing sect of denatured abominations.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
1. Of, relating to, or resembling a phallus.
2. Of or relating to male sexuality and sexual activity.
In the Anglosphere, ‘gay’ culture is defined by a cloying obsession with sex. Despite their rhetoric about lifestyles and the contemplation of flowers, gay men are clearly entranced by orgasm to an extent far surpassing that of heterosexual men. Gay writers, film directors, artists and philosophers are all enslaved by their sexual urges, to the exclusion of all else.
This fact set me to thinking: are most gay men just hyper-sexualized males – a self-selecting group whose priapic urges can only be satisfied by rejecting the relative sexual deprivation inescapably attendant on heterosexuality? The more one considers this possibility, the more plausible it seems. Even some badass with the looks of Apollo, the Game of Roissy and the confidence of a warlord would struggle to enter a nightclub and say: “I want sex NOW!” and expect to get it. Yet homosexual men can enter any gay bath house in any Anglosphere city, say the very same words and expected to be sexually serviced by several men in a matter of minutes! In short, the sexual mismatch between the sexes makes the heterosexual lifestyle a poor option for any hyper-sexualized male – a non-option, in fact, if he wants to fully slake his sexual thirsts. By contrast, adopting homosexuality allows him to instantly indulge his every sexual whim in every manner conceivable.
This state of affairs is strongly reinforced in the Anglosphere, with its undertow of puritan repression and attendant pedestalization of women as ‘owners’ of sex. In our view, the hyper-sexualized adoptee of homosexuality is far more common in the Anglo-Saxon countries than elsewhere, for this very reason. Since sex is so scarce and difficult to acquire in a heterosexual context, it simply makes no sense for an Anglo-American male with priapic urges to remain heterosexual – hence the self-selection of hyper-sexualized males towards homosexual lifestyles, not to mention the hyper-sexualized nature of homosexuality itself.
Let us consider another aspect of homosexuality – the vaunted ‘giftedness’ of gay men. Short and dirty IQ tests generally suggest that gay men are the sexual orientation whose median IQ ranks highest. A self-evident observation across the Anglosphere (especially in the United States) is that women actively dislike males of high intelligence, preferring swaggering thugs and moronic misfits. Now, this offers a plausible alternative explanation for the high incidence of homosexuality among intelligent males than the pseudo-scientific explanations currently in vogue – simply put, homosexuality follows intelligence, not the other way round. Left with no other option for attaining sex, highly sexed and intelligent males adopt homosexuality as a recreational life-strategy and genes have little to do with it.
These views may not be beloved – but then, truth seldom was. As we all know, Anglo-Saxon culture reflexively exonerates females of responsibility for pretty much everything – and homosexuality is doubtless another statistic. The very notion that homosexuality may be enforced by female sexual ostracism of intelligent males would never be admitted in the legacy media, yet the evidence for such a conclusion is impressive. Indeed, very few gay men would accept such a contention, since that would redefine their hedonistic lifestyle-choice as simple, unbridled lust, not the mystic ‘orientation’ it currently presents as.
Of all the pretty lies in the Anglosphere – liberation, democracy and equality - homosexuality remains the biggest.
Of no small significance is the fact that homosexuality has advanced in lock-step with feminism. Feminism and homosexuality are usually considered to be unrelated phenomena – or at best, phenomena independently linked to the rise of the Baby-Boomers’ ‘permissive society’. However, an alternative view is that feminism – by assailing marital monogamy and allowing women to indulge their primordial attraction to dangerous thugs, moronic bullies and swaggering plutocrats – produced an unwanted ‘rump’ of educated, economically stable but sexually disenfranchised males. Given that gay males are disproportionately intelligent, solvent and educated, it is fairly obvious that members of this group have opted for homosexuality as a means of escaping the living death of involuntary celibacy, that the two phenomena are in fact closely related and that feminism is directly responsible for the advancement of homosexuality across the Anglosphere. Certainly, genetic explanations of gay giftedness remain flaky at best, while Anglo-American sociobiology remains firmly trapped in the flawed assumption that women find male intelligence attractive, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.
Finally, the rabid female hatred of male homosexuals ‘seals the deal’ on this issue. As we all know, women seek to control men by limiting sexual supply, be it representational (pornography) or actual (prostitution) – and that feminism is, essentially, an institution created for that purpose. Women who like gay men are a tiny, unrepresentative minority of the educated middle class inflated by the legacy media – the vast majority of Anglo females detest gay men as vehemently as they hate men in general. The present author recently heard a discussion about homosexuality on BBC Radio Five. One gay youth described being savagely attacked by a girl wielding a cricket bat. That sums up the real link between pan-Anglosphere feminism and homosexuality: the latter is a reaction to the former, which hates it with boundless counter-reactionary zeal.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
As most regular readers will know, it is our opinion that - being in essence puritanical - Anglo-American culture harbors a reflexive animus against all men as sexualized beings. Consequently, we should not look to 'conservative' politicians across the Anglosphere to uphold men's rights - to the contrary, 'conservatives' are men's greatest enemies, since traditional Anglo culture detests men.
The latest proof of this assertion? British 'conservative' Prime Minister David Cameron's demented Father's Day outburst against 'feckless fathers'. As per usual, this 'conservative' decries all absent fathers as villains, conveniently forgetting that large numbers of men aren't allowed to see their children in contemporary Britain. Quite aside from this, most single mothers are hardly the harassed, misunderstood angels such White Knights as Futrelle, Fleming and Cameron routinely depict them as. Indeed, the vast majority of single mothers are educationally subnormal, welfare-dependent parasites whose offspring - if Professor Daniel Amneus is correct - are far more prone to crime, unemployment and economic failure than children raised in households where a father is present.
Anyway, let's have a good laugh at 'Dave's' rant:
Fathers who abandon their families should be "stigmatised" by society in the same way as drink drivers, David Cameron has said. The Prime Minister signalled a new onslaught on "runaway dads" saying they should be made to feel the "full force of shame" for their actions.
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph in an article to mark Father's Day he said it "simply isn't acceptable" for single mothers to be left to bring up their children on their own. Mr Cameron also indicated his determination to introduce tax breaks for married couples - a Tory general election pledge which appeared to have been dropped by the coalition in the face of Liberal Democrat opposition.
"I want us to recognise marriage in the tax system so as a country we show we value commitment," he wrote.
He issued a strong defence of traditional family life - describing it as the "cornerstone of our society" and called for a new drive to "bring fathers back into the lives of all our children".
Even when parents were separated, he said, fathers had a duty to support "financially and emotionally" their children - spending time with them at weekends, attending nativity plays and taking an interest in their education. Where men were unwilling to face up to their family obligations, Mr Cameron said that it was up to the rest of society to make clear that such behaviour was unacceptable.
"It's high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them," he said.
"They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale. They need the message rammed home to them, from every part of our culture, that what they're doing is wrong - that leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn't acceptable."
Mr Cameron also described how he learned his values from his own father, Ian Cameron, who died last year aged 77.
"From my father, I learned about responsibility. Seeing him get up before the crack of dawn to go and do a hard day's work and not come back until late at night had a profound impact on me," he said.
And there we have it, pure gold. The holes in Cameron's arguments are so huge one could comfortably drive a Mack truck through them. But why bother? His views do not originate in rational thought, just the misandrist psychobabble that is contemporary Anglo-American culture.
Sunday, 1 May 2011
Just a few observations on the Royal Wedding of Kate Middleton and Prince William:
- The Anglosphere countries remain culturally united by more than language
- Disney values define the Anglosphere
- Most Anglo women retain hypergamous fantasies
- The Anglo elites remain committed to puritanism
- Anglo women remain committed to Marriage, Repression and 'Romance'
- The Anglosphere template remains aristocratic
- Anglo 'tradition' and feminism are one
- At heart, all Guys want Something Else
The Anglosphere Nations remain Culturally United by more than Language
This Marriage (and the hysteria surrounding it) proves the Anglosphere remains a cogent cultural entity. From Milwaukee to Melbourne, from Manitoba to Milton Keynes, the event elicited a similar response. Wherever they were, all Anglo women wallowed in the same hypergamous fantasy, searing proof of the Anglosphere's androphobia, misandry and repression. Little wonder: sexual repression ('romance') remains the cornerstone of their agendas - and source of their socio-political power.
As we all know, George Washington defeated the British Crown (with the aid of the French) thereby creating a continental power that would one day rule the Anglosphere (and indeed, the world). And yet the same democratic, 'classless' republic still gets 'hot flushes' for British pageantry and aristocratic privilege.
These facts demonstrate the truth of the Anglosphere concept. Underlying superficial differences of accent, law and 'football' definitions, the English-speaking countries remain a cogent entity.
Disney values define the Anglosphere
Saccharine values define the Anglosphere. The broad mass of Anglo females in America, Australia, Canada and Britain still become starry-eyed whenever marriage is mentioned (especially to scions of inherited privilege).
All this persists despite the fact that around half of all marriages end in divorce and most British children now reach the age of 16 in a single-parent family. And yet, at least notionally, the Disneyland idyll thrives like marijuana in a hothouse. This is because the needle of Anglo culture defaults to a puritan pole, despite an antithetical 'reality'.
At heart, All Guys want Something Else
As a young Mexican fellow once observed here, Middleton looks more like Prince William's older sister rather than his girlfriend or wife. One way or another, most males will do anything to escape a stereotypical relationship with an Anglo female. Of course, selecting a foreign mate is the most direct and forceful expression of this tendency but, even so, an older-looking female still represents a viable statement of protest. Then again, there may be deeper psychological forces at work. As is generally observed, the repressive nature of Anglo culture ensures that the younger and more attractive a female is, the more entitled and obnoxious she will be. Hence the widely-observed preference for old-looking females among Anglo-American men - it represents a psychic defence against fear, insecurity and unhappy memories.
The Middleton girl is not merely too old, she is really rather plain. If she were a prostitute, she would struggle to make a living. And yet the gynocentric media gush over her as if she were Helen of Troy. Yet another reason to want 'something else'...
Anglo women remain Committed to Marriage, Repression and 'Romance'
Women love 'romance' and remain fanatically devoted to it, despite decades (if not centuries) of feminist propaganda decrying it. But hold on; was this the same 'militant' feminism that railed against prostitution, (imaginary) sex-trafficking and pornography? Of course it was. And now we see the kinship between Anglo feminism and the dominant, traditional culture of the Anglosphere, where 'romance' and repression are the order of the day.
Indeed, the popularity of the Royal Marriage (in all, 2 billion people watched it) indicates that the vast majority of Anglo women remain committed to hypergamous fantasies. This implies that Anglo feminism (most contemporary Anglo women are self-identified feminists, after all) coheres with 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon values, a central assumption of the Anglobitch Thesis. So much for 'revolutionary' feminism...
The Anglosphere Template Remains Aristocratic
The aristocratic nature of American culture has never been touched upon in my writings, but is rather important. The high social 'power distance' in Anglo-Saxon countries drives female hypergamy and entitlement to insane levels. Indeed, this 'aristocratic' hypergamy inheres seamlessly with Anglo repression to produce a 'hyper-hypergamy' with racist, caste-like and Neo-Nazi undertones. This is felt most keenly by working-class and non-white males in the Anglosphere (although it also infects female attitudes to all men, to a greater or lesser extent).
Compared to the aristocratic ideal and the 'fairy-tale' hypergamy that springs from it, no male can ever match the crazy expectations of the Anglobitch. Such expectations handily explain why 7 in 10 divorces are initiated by women and half of all marriages end in divorce. Nothing less than a Prince is good enough for a princess, after all...
P.S. A pity the Gynotheory writer is on holiday. I wonder where he goes - perhaps the Bodeleian library? Anyone who can write such fine essays is clearly highly intelligent... the kind of visionary who makes us all dream.
Monday, 18 April 2011
I found this article rather interesting, not so much for Stephen Fry's views but rather for the hysterical response to them by Anglo-American women. Dick Masterson once wrote, 'female anger is the weather-vane of truth'. Considering the Anglobitch rage elicited by Fry's comments (among 'feminist psychotherapists' and other pseudo-scientific finger-painters), one is inclined to give his acerbic views consideration, if not credence.
He has been called ‘the cleverest man in Britain’. But even Stephen Fry’s fans must feel there are limits to his expertise. And as one of the country’s most famous homosexuals, female sexuality is unlikely to be one of his specialist topics.
Yet 53-year-old Fry has raised eyebrows by claiming that women are unenthusiastic about sex, and see it only as ‘the price they are willing to pay for a relationship’.
Most straight men, he added, fear that ‘they disgust women’ and ‘find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are’.
Feminist writer Susie Orbach suggested the remarks said more about Fry than they do about women, and ground-breaking female journalist Rosie Boycott said he was talking ‘rubbish’. Fry told gay magazine Attitude that men feared that women were less interested in sex than them ‘for good reason’. If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas,’ he said.
‘Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking, “God, I’ve got to get my ******* rocks off”, or they’d go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to s**g behind a bush. It doesn’t happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it.’
Fry, who hosts BBC quiz QI, added: ‘I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, “Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!” But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?’
Feminist journalist Miss Boycott said the claims were ‘kind of rubbish’, adding: ‘Women are just as capable as men are of enjoying sex.
'We don’t go cruising or cottaging on Hampstead Heath because we don’t need to. Women have other ways to get our thrills, and we can go and get them in bars or clubs.’
Psychotherapist and writer Miss Orbach said: ‘I’m really intrigued by his notion that men’s sexuality is disgusting in some way. Why would he believe that women could be so disgusted by men? Does he think there is something disgusting about sex?’
Fry has often spoken out for gay rights. He played Oscar Wilde in the 1997 movie Wilde, and a gay man dying of Aids in 1992 film Peter’s Friends. But he has also said he was celibate from 1979 to 1995. And in his autobiography this year he said he was only ‘90 per cent gay’ and had once been attracted to Rowan Atkinson’s wife Sunetra Sastry and his Cambridge University contemporary Caroline Oulton, now a novelist. Nothing happened with either woman. Fry is currently understood to be in a relationship with actor Steven Webb, 25.
SOURCE: Daily Mail, November 2010
As ever, one is struck by the 'mainstream' Anglo media's reflexive support for feminist hysteria and misandrist gynocentrism. Is any further proof needed of the close alignment between 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon culture and misandrist Anglo-American feminism?
In truth, the two are one.
Sunday, 10 April 2011
The following research has some interesting implications for anti-feminists and the international Men's Rights Movement:
Faith no more! From New Zealand to Canada, religion 'to become extinct' in nine countries
Religion is on course to virtually die out in nine countries, according to a new study. Research using census data from a selection of countries concluded there is a steady rise in people claiming no religious affiliation. The findings, unveiled at a American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, was drawn from data stretching back 100 years from these countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.
The study was carried out by Northwestern University and the University of Arizona. Richard Wiener, of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, led the scientific survey. He said: 'In a large number of modern secular democracies, there's been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion. 'In the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%.'
Mr Wiener did, however, admit the highly-formulaic study only provided ‘suggestive results’ and recognised it did not represent the structure of modern society with the way it calculated each person being influenced equally by all other people. It followed a formula used in 2003 research on the decline of lesser-spoken world languages. At its heart is the competition between speakers of different languages, and the 'utility' of speaking one instead of another, the BBC reports. Mr Wiener said: 'The idea is pretty simple: social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join. 'For example, there can be greater utility or status in speaking Spanish instead of the dying language of Quechuan in Peru, and similarly there's some kind of status or utility in being a member of a religion or not.' Put simply, it shows that social groups have a kind of 'gravity' that drags in more people the bigger they are.
The same principle can be seen on the web when it comes to the growth of some social networking sites over others. The paper adds: 'Some other competitive social systems in which identical or very similar models may apply include, for example, smoker versus non-smoker, vegetarian versus meat-eater, obese versus non-obese, and Mac user versus PC user.'
Mrs Wiener said: 'It's interesting that a fairly simple model captures the data, and if those simple ideas are correct, it suggests where this might be going. 'Obviously much more complicated things are going on with any one individual, but maybe a lot of that averages out.'
SOURCE: UK Daily Mail
I believe that the insidious growth of misandrist feminism so ably described on the gynotheory blog is partly due to its high 'social utility' - the countless advantages it showers on its adherents (both male and female). Of course, the fact that Anglo-Saxon culture harbors a puritanical, reflexively misandrist animus has also facilitated this hegemonic expansion.
By contrast, the Anglo-American Men's Rights movement remains a weak, marginalized social entity. Unlike feminism, it enjoys little or no 'social utility', rather resembling some obscure sect like the Shakers. Most MRA activity remains virtual, seldom infiltrating the mainstream media . Feminism, by contrast, has thoroughly infiltrated the socio-political establishment. In sum, MRAs remain cultural outlaws - which, while it may be superficially romantic leaves us with no real power and no chance of changing anything. This is merely an objective assessment.
Unless the social utility of Anglo-American masculinism improves dramatically, it must remain an obscure subculture associated with social and political failure. Consider the relative success of Futrelle's Manboobz blog: both women and manginas flock to it despite the abysmal level of research and argument contained therein. Women enjoy it because it notionally reinforces the social advantages and spurious victim-status they revel in; manginas and White Knights flock to it because it ingratiates them with women, offering the prospect of sexual relations. By contrast, this blog only attracts high IQ males from across the Anglosphere and beyond, despite its robust conceptual foundations.
In our perspective, the misandry inherent in Anglo-American culture plays a potent role in maintaining the elevated social profile of feminism - an ongoing, omnipresent Kulturkampf. In Anglo-Saxon culture we have a Manichaean dualism that reflexively equates boys, men and masculinity with evil and girls, women and femininity with good. This covert campaign perpetuates the parlous state of Anglo-American masculinity and assures the cultic marginalization of the Men's movement.
As ever, the 'old style' masculinism which yearns to return to some mythical 'patriarchal' past (when Anglo-Saxon culture has always maintained an informal contra-masculine position) merely maintains the poor public image of organized masculinism. Indeed, the abject public image of Anglo-American MRAs - angry, maladjusted men living in trailer parks with guns under the bed - is continually reinforced by both Anglo culture and 'traditional' masculinists themselves.
Somewhere along the line, if MRAs are serious about rising from subcultural obscurity to become a credible political force across the anglosphere, a complete redefinition of contemporary masculinism is essential. It needs to confer the social benefits presently showered by feminism on its adherents - state-sanctioned legal, healthcare, welfare, educational and media advantages, not to mention (for men, at least) improved access to sex. On all these fronts, masculinism has shown itself an unmitigated failure. A complete conceptual translation is required to liberate the movement from its 'utility ghetto'. Smart, progressive, rational, overclass, self-aware and sexy - these are the core 'social proofs' any successful movement must demonstrate to flourish in this image-conscious age - and presently, in the coarse hands of 'old style', reactionary MRAs this movement projects none of these benefits.
Of course, it is much easier to argue for this redefinition than to actually realize it across the Anglosphere. Reactionary MRAs - what I call 'the 1958 brigade' - presently define and control the movement's public image (such as it is). However, if the Anglo-American men's movement is to transcend its currently marginalized and ineffective condition, such redefinition is imperative. At least online, the good news is that a growing network of thoughtful, urbane blogs, sites and fora - Gynotheory, Scarecrow's Blog and several others - are injecting a measure of positive 'social equity' into the movement. However, much more positive activity is needed to lift this movement with the necessary 'social utility' to seriously contest the feminist hegemony.
Friday, 25 February 2011
Take a look at the following Bayer Beyond Birth Control advertisement:
Note how the women can choose males from a shelf in a department store like different brands of perfume. Advertisements inevitably reflect the values of a culture (or at least a specific target audience) and this one shows clearly how Anglo-American women view men: as disposable commodities to be traded and discarded. Each male on display is a stooge expressing some inane 'lifestyle-choice' for the female to approve (or not, as the case may be).
The whole theme of birth-control is presented as an entirely female enterprise. The fact that a male has fathered the child is conveniently dismissed, along with any influence he might have on the woman's decision. In fact, the process in presented in rather Brave New World terms, except that female 'choice' has replaced the technocratic state.
Ultimately, what we observe here is the ultimate feminist idyll: a matriarchy resembling that of the social insects where the male - any male - is a brief-lived sperm-giver, a necessary evil, a ghost at the banquet. In fact, no living male is necessary to perpetuate such a nightmare scenario; his sperm can be frozen and utilized whenever necessary. The man-hating feminist Jodie Foster of course chose this method of conception, and no doubt we will see ever more middle-class females adopt her spine-chilling approach in the years to come. The complete elimination of living men is already scientifically possible. Like the mythical Amazons, feminist technocrats could simply kill all male infants and their misandrist utopia would still continue indefinitely. Seldom have all the terrible themes of Anglo-American feminism been presented so artfully: misandry, homosociality, gendercide, puritanism and totalitarian matriarchy. What I have attempted to describe in three years, Bayer have successfully expressed in three minutes... no small achievement.
White Knights like Fleming or Futrelle should study this cultural artifact hard and often. At heart, Anglo-American women simply don't like men very much. That goes for Fleming, Futrelle and any other male (whether White Knight or not). The ultimate end of Anglo-American feminism is not some peaceful wonder-world of sexual freedom but the gendercidal elimination of all men - and, of course, matriarchal fascism.
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Recently, some silver-tongued fellow challenged the Anglobitch Thesis and some of his charges merited a counter-critique, which we present here. Incisive criticism presented with eloquence and skill - we love these things. His central objection was that the Anglosphere cannot be considered puritanical if we view it objectively – children born out of wedlock, rampant divorce rates, sex-education classes, teenage pregnancies, hook-up culture, and so on.
By way of reply, I must first point out that Anglo-American gender-relations are determined by social structure as much as Puritanism. The Anglo-Saxon nations have smaller, less influential middle-classes than most comparable western nations. This means fewer personable, attractive women, since such winning qualities are ‘middle-class’ as such. Continental countries like Sweden or Austria have rather more ‘high beta’ women than the Anglosphere (in Game ranking, 5s to 7s), while the Anglo-American power-distance between classes ensures such women are rare (lots of under-5s and a few entitled over-7s, complete with Homeric 'bitch-shields'). European countries also have traditions of exercise and good diet, further raising the average standard of their women.
That said, at first glance it seems ridiculous to claim that the contemporary anglosphere is ‘puritanical’. In virtually Anglo-American city on a Friday or Saturday night, scantily clad young women can be seen tottering about in drunken stupefaction on the hunt for thugs, sports stars or plutocrats. While the anglosphere was indisputably puritanical well into the 1950s, such a description seems laughable today.
And yet – and it is a crucial ‘and yet’ – the contemporary anglosphere retains a far-reaching animus against men as sexualized beings. Murdoch’s media demonizes men while glorifying women at every turn. For example, British girls who pass public examinations (after years of preferential treatment, of course) are celebrated in press photo-shoots (I kid you not) while young males are mocked as feral morons and pumped full of Ritalin. The ‘conservative’ politicians of the Anglosphere take women’s side at every opportunity, capitulating to every feminist demand. Women commit all manner of crimes with impunity while males are imprisoned for the most trivial offences (and no offences, in the case of divorced fathers).
And so we have a paradox - while the contemporary anglosphere is no longer overtly puritanical, it still exalts women as if it were. The explanation underlying this contradiction sheds much light on feminist conceit. As usual, nothing is simple when discussing the Anglobitch.
The culture-bearing classes in the contemporary anglosphere are not reflective of the general population. That is, social elites in Britain, America and the rest of the Anglophere retain an antiquated outlook completely out of step with modern experience. Moreover, the Anglo elites are typically WASPS whose beliefs closely inhere to ‘traditional’ Anglo-Saxon puritanism. British Prime Minister David Cameron is a perfect example – having attended Eton College, Oxford University and enjoyed a life of insular privilege, he might as well be living in the 1950s for all he knows of contemporary Britain with its gangs, drugs and Welfare mothers. Unsurprisingly, this weak character yields to feminist opinion at every turn, belying the old-style MRA belief that all feminists are Marxists. And elites across the English-speaking world are similarly archaic, repressive, puritanical and misandrist. This explains how a morally-lax culture still nurtures a puritanical, misandrist media, legislature and judiciary. Its top decision-makers are still living in the early fifties, woodenly partisan and fiercely insistent on imposing their outmoded beliefs.
Furthermore, Puritanism persists in pockets outside the elite. Of course, the Anglo elite are of paramount importance in maintaining the old puritanical culture, but they have many lesser confederates in their mission. The feminist movement clings fiercely to the old repression, with its hysterical ‘sex-trafficking’ fantasies, its paranoid desire to suppress porn – and above all, its overmastering urge to prevent American men seeking foreign mates via VAWA and its derivatives. The legal profession remains determinedly WASP-ish – and of course, pivotal in framing the torrent of anti-male legislation that has oppressed Anglo-American men in recent decades. The media – Ezra Pound’s ‘Liars for Hire’ – are also some fifty years behind the times, still exalting women as stainless angels, forever presenting males as dead-beat dads, rapists and morons. And the established Protestant churches augment this agenda – especially in the United States, where religion remains a potent socio-cultural force.
It is also notable that Anglo-American elite colleges like Harvard, Yale and Oxford are hotbeds of repression. The fact that very little sex occurs in these institutions (about half of Harvard students have no sex in four years of study) shows perfectly well that puritanical attitudes still thrive among the traditional Anglo elites. Academic feminism (as exemplified by the execrable views of Ms Catherine Mackinnon) is notably archaic and anti-sexual - indeed, could come straight from Seventeenth Century New England. Yet graduates of these institutions go on to occupy prominent positions in law, politics and the media, maintaining a strong puritanical agenda in the corridors of power.
Though writers like Roissy continually claim that America is now a ‘post-Marriage’ culture characterised by casual hook-ups, these views and experiences are most definitely not shared by the Anglosphere elites. No – they are still living in the fifties, frowning on sex outside marriage – even though a substantial proportion of Anglo-American citizens no longer marry at all. In Britain, the archaic Establishment gushes over Royal Weddings even though hordes of people are single and substantial numbers of children are now born out of wedlock (most Royal marriages fail, anyway).
So – while the Anglosphere is replete with drunken whores, sex-education classes and porn downloads, in many key areas of policy and opinion-formation the old puritanism is alive and well. And this explains our paradox: the Anglo-American elites defend 'princesses' even while the drunken Anglobitch staggers the streets, her panties around her ankles. Indeed, this gulf between the Anglobitch and the Anglo-American Establishment’s idealization of her is what renders feminism so intellectually inconsistent and absurd.
Where does the foregoing discussion leave us? Above all, it hammers home the point that the ‘conservatism’ extolled by old-style MRAs offers nothing to the Anglo-American men’s movement. Why should it, when residual Puritanism is the source of pan-anglosphere misandry?
Elite or overclass detachment from mainstream experience also explains the precipituous decline of the mainstream media. The Internet has greatly weakened the elite’s ideological influence, exposing the gulf between their archaic rhetoric and the post-feminist nightmare most men have to live in. It is by definition that the men’s movement is an online phenomenon, since the Internet allows for objective discussion without hindrance from the feminists' 'silk curtain'. The MSM does not like men, has no time for their issues and has experienced male disengagement for that reason.
Monday, 24 January 2011
This is one of the funnist things I've ever read. Don't laugh too hard, your sides might split...
Today’s 20-somethings were brought up believing they could have it all: the high-flying job, the enviable bank balance, the perfect relationship. But as young adults in a recession, they have found that the reality is very different. For a generation raised on sky-high expectations, learning to compromise has brought them back down to earth, says 23-year-old Sophie Ellis...
When I arrived at Manchester Metropolitan University (decidedly not Oxford - RK) to study English (decidedly not chemical engineering - RK) six years ago, I had no doubt that after three years of hedonism, hangovers and hard work, I’d emerge a proud graduate with the world at my feet. I believed that it would be only a matter of time before I found a full-time job in my chosen field, made inroads into my student debts, bought my first house and forged a happy relationship with the man of my dreams. There was an unspoken assumption among my peers that this was our future – all we had to do now was sort out the finer details. The word compromise never entered our heads. Unfortunately, we soon discovered that life had other plans for us.
After university I took a master’s in journalism, thinking it would give me an edge in a highly competitive industry. But as the chaplain handed me my scroll in 2008, the reality of graduation was far from the fairy tale I had expected. The abrupt economic downturn had really sunk in; unemployment was skyrocketing alongside loan interest rates; graduates weren’t getting a look-in in the job market and the 100 per cent mortgages of recent years, which had allowed first-time buyers a vital first footing on the property ladder, had vanished. We were left reeling.
‘Rigid goals, an idealised trajectory and a world-owes-me-something attitude is commonplace, making many of today’s young adults demoralised, anxious and depressed,’ says psychologist Dr Cecilia d’Felice. Psychotherapist Richard Reid agrees: ‘I’ve noticed an increasing number of young adults coming to see me suffering from symptoms of dissatisfaction in their everyday lives,’ he says. ‘They’ve lost their identity and sense of direction as the jobs and lifestyle they expected have been abruptly taken away.’
Dissatisfaction is an understatement. Despite what our parents and teachers assured us, a degree no longer guarantees a good job. Figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that almost one in ten of 2008’s graduates are unemployed, and more than a million under 25s were out of work at the end of 2009.
I’d assumed I would walk into my ideal job on a women’s magazine; instead, I spent the best part of six months filling in application forms for jobs that weren’t even remotely related to my degree. The rejection letters I received could easily have filled a postbag. I eventually secured a job as a television researcher in Leeds. I was lucky – at least it was in the journalistic arena. My friend Jessica, 22, graduated with a degree in fashion buying the same year as me. Eight months later she became so disillusioned at the lack of jobs that she decided to take a Postgraduate Certificate in Education to retrain as a teacher. ‘Teaching isn’t something I would have considered before,’ she says. ‘But I have to believe that I’m bettering my chances.’
For some, the brutal shock of unemployment in place of the promise of a fulfilling career proves too much to handle. In April, 21-year-old Vicky Harrison committed suicide. She had dreamt of a career as a teacher or a TV producer but gave up hope after more than 200 unsuccessful job applications. She was one of more than 450,000 young adults under 25 who claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance (Welfare) last year – a figure which has risen by 99 per cent since the beginning of the recession.
‘When we are young our hopes are in their most nascent and fragile form,’ explains Dr d’Felice. ‘They can easily be trampled upon – with devastating consequences to our self-confidence and self-esteem, as the tragic case of Vicky Harrison illustrates so poignantly.’
When I was born in 1986 it was a time of affluence, opportunity and promise; my mother, a single parent, had a respected and well-paid job in the flourishing IT industry and worked hard to provide a decent lifestyle for the two of us. She emphasised the importance of education and pushed me academically. I joined after-school clubs, took clarinet and piano lessons and applied myself to my studies. It seemed an obvious equation – working hard at school meant I’d get a good job and nice things when I grew up.
However, like many people who grew up in the 1970s, my mum had had a smooth transition into the world of work. She found a job with a large IT firm weeks after graduating, progressed quickly up the career ladder, bought a house and, by the time she had me, at 31, was established in a lucrative job as a freelance computer programmer. Her peers had similar good fortune – many had received full grants for university, signed on in the long holidays and graduated with no debt. They found work, bought property cheaply, then, as prices rose, made a tidy profit and traded up. As their children, we had the best foundations in terms of education, economy and ego. I had no doubt that I’d be at least as successful as my mother.
For the first time, we’re asking ourselves what we can do without and becoming masters in constructive compromise.
The media sold me a similar dream. Magazines taught me how to bag a bloke, add zeros to my future salary and become the best-dressed girl in town; and every US drama from Sweet Valley High to Sex and the City assured me that, one day, I too would be sipping cosmopolitans, flicking my perfectly coiffed hair and discussing my charmed life with my equally groomed, intelligent and successful friends. In short, my expectations of adulthood were sky-high; my sense of entitlement enormous. Nothing – intellectually, financially or emotionally, I believed – was out of reach.
Yet here I am, living back at home near Leeds – crammed in with my mum and her dog Louis. As we sit watching Location, Location, Location, I daydream about the small but stylish city-centre flat I’d envisaged for myself. I’m far from alone – one 23-year-old friend, who needs to pay off her student debt and is trying to save for a deposit on a flat, has moved back in with her parents, is sleeping in her childhood bed and adhering to a curfew.
My relationship has been similarly affected by my own lofty expectations. I have been with my boyfriend, albeit on and off, for more than five years. In truth, all our ‘off’ times were down to my concern that there might be something better out there. It’s awful to admit, but my reluctance to commit was because our relationship was ‘normal’. I felt entitled to constant declarations of love and devotion, 90210-style, and it’s taken me a long time to curb my cravings for a Hollywood romance that simply doesn’t exist. And, seemingly, my peers are having the same trouble adjusting. In a recent newspaper article, author Joanna Trollope chastised young women for believing in the perfect man.
She insisted: ‘People have to throw away this absurd Vera Wang shopping list which says that a man has to earn £100,000 a year, be able to cut down a tree, play the Spanish guitar, make love all night and cook a cheese soufflé.’ But growing up, all we saw were perfect men with perfect wives, whether it was on television, in a magazine or on a billboard. Even my mother advised me to settle for nothing less than the three Rs – respect, romance and ‘Robert Redford looks’. Ironically, she herself has never married, which should have been a hint that real life wasn’t like the movies. Slowly, begrudgingly, my generation is realising that compromise is key.
The upside to the gloom is that we’ve had to knock the narcissism down a peg or two and realise that we weren’t quite as entitled to the job, the house or the man as we thought. For the first time, we’re asking ourselves what we can do without and becoming masters in constructive compromise. For me, living in London just wouldn’t have worked. It wasn’t feasible to pay off my student debts alongside extortionate rent. Yes, living with mum is a compromise – for both of us – but one which, with luck, will enable me to save for a place of my own. And although my magazine dreams may be delayed, I have decided to give freelancing a go – it’s hard work, but the sense of pride I feel when I get a commission is something I wouldn’t necessarily have experienced in a magazine-office environment. My relationship is now flourishing too. We both make the effort to keep it special and exciting, and I’ve learnt that an ‘ordinary’ night in on the sofa beats overblown declarations of love any day.
Would it have made the blow any easier if my generation had known in advance that we would become adults in an age of insecurity and cutbacks? Probably. But that might not have given us the motivation to aim high. According to a recent poll, rather than becoming despondent and giving up, a quarter of young people still dream of running their own business, and 23 per cent of new graduates want to gain more qualifications in order to better tailor their skills to the career they really want.
SOURCE: UK Daily Mail.
This article is couched in terms of 'generational' experience but really, most of the issues discussed are relevant only to young Anglo females: ideal 'love', absurd career expectations and a total lack of self awareness. In sum, is this 'crisis' to do with generations or is it really to do with Anglobitch entitlement? In my opinion, it is the latter.
Sophie Ellis believes that she is entitled to a multi-millionaire uber-alpha male partner, a six-figure job, a house in one of the world's most expensive cities, a Hollywood romance - all with a 'degree' in a soft subject from a mediocre school that, frankly, anyone of normal intelligence could have acquired. The Men's Rights Movement often discusses the effect of female-headed households on sons, never daughters. However, the impact of an entitled mother prattling continuously in her daughter's ear cannot be underestimated. The only male presence in Sophie's formative years seems to have been her mother's dog - a fact that surely amplified the impact of this parental misandry ten-thousandfold. Her mother's '3 Rs' (Respect, Romance and Robert Redford looks) are especially disturbing - how many more young girls are being similarly indoctrinated by feminist mothers? Divorce and lone-motherhood must inflate female self-delusion to deranged levels.
Having smaller amygdalas, women are naturally more pliant to external influences than men. And Anglo-American societies continually tell women they are 'special', they are princesses, they are entitled to things by mere virtue of owning a vagina (our Pedestal Syndrome). But what happens when this absurd agenda hits the real world of work and commerce? Well, what happened to Sophie Ellis: such carefully-constructed fantasies collapse like a house of cards. Many Anglo females apparently hit a crisis in their early Twenties (the vaunted 'Quarter-Life Crisis') when they realise they are not princesses strolling about a magic kingdom. The mass media aimed at Anglo-American women are all characterised by a relentless, homosocial narcissism, hammering home the message that they are 'special' and entitled to a personal pedestal. Because men are comparatively autonomous, free-thinking individuals governed by instinct, such messages have little purchase on them. But for women they are 'Holy Writ' and only 'the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' can prise such fantasies from them.
The article also raises questions about the state of Anglo-American education. Women now take up most college places, but what do they study? Usually 'Mickey Mouse' subjects like the humanities and liberal arts - seldom mathematics, computing, economics, science or engineering - that is, subjects with commercial utility. The whole 'dumbing down' of western education into a race where everyone gets a prize and where inferior culture is applauded in the highest seats of learning inheres closely to the rise of feminism (can't upset a real-life princess, can we?). But the blunt fact is, engagement with commercial reality cannot be delayed forever. Employers need graduates in Peace/Women's/Media Studies like they need an investigation by the IRS. There is a place for the canonical liberal arts and humanities in education, but the prosperity of any nation depends on its commercial, technical and scientific skills. Of course, these unpleasant facts are overlooked in the matriarchal Anglosphere where 'degrees' in finger-painting are handed out like confetti to females best-suited to stacking shelves or child-minding (if that). The only 'serious' subject women rule is law - again verbal, non-productive and commercially irrelevant. Is it any wonder that the Anglosphere is headed down the toilet?
But all is not lost. The article's relative lucidity and self-awareness rings a bell of hope. Is reality permeating the Anglobitch brain, at last? It is surely too early to talk about the beginning of the end of misandrist gender-feminism. However, for many young Anglo females the message DOES seems to be sinking in that they are not 'special', not 'princesses' and that employers, men and the world in general do not owe them anything. By confrontation and agitation, all Men's Rights activists must drive that message home: its impact is proven.
Saturday, 15 January 2011
An interesting new blog called Gynotheory has recently opened offering a number of interesting perspectives on feminism, men's rights and the impact of culture on gender relations. Gynotheory discusses these issues from a post-modern vantage, refusing to inhere to any one analytical paradigm. I approve of this approach, partly because of its intellectual integrity but mainly because it remains acutely alert to culture - a hugely significant dynamic, in my view, one central to the Anglobitch Thesis.
The men's movement is dividing into old-style and new-style theorists. The old-style masculinists broadly want to return to 'conservative' values and extol 'traditional' gender relations, citing evolutionary psychology or Judeo-Christianity to justify these beliefs. The new-style masculinists - and I am one of these, as is the Gynotheory writer - derive our perspective from cultural analysis and consider both left and right to be equally misandrist in the Anglo-American context. Further, we are wary of invoking biological arguments such as sociobiology, since these can be twisted against men to justify anti-male discrimination, even woman-worship (a grave potential danger of Male Studies, in our view).
The distinction is rather like the distinction between Generals Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant - Lee was the last of the great old-style commanders, while Grant represented the first of the great new-style commanders. In time, I believe more and more MRAs will follow our new-style masculinism out of sheer necessity. Moreover, the old-style project is daily refuted by the simple fact that Anglo-American 'conservatives' are as anti-male as Anglo-American leftists - if not more so. As we know, this is because Anglo culture - being puritanical - is inherently misandrist, reflexively vilifying men as sexualized beings. Consequently, Anglo-American 'conservatism' merely restates the age-old 'gynocentrism' implicit in Anglo culture.
Let us consider the problems of old-style masculinism at length:
While Angry Harry is a brilliant writer and activist, his reflexive conflation of feminism with left-Marxism troubles me. Yes, many feminists profess a strong affiliation to the left but then, a good many of these adopt a rightist affiliation and revert to gender-traditionalism where it suits them - criminal sentencing and lifeboat priorities, for instance. Besides, there is little evidence that 'conservative' governments are 'friends to men' - just consider the British Conservative party, who promote misandrist legislation at every turn and cave in to feminist demands 'at the drop of a (top) hat'. American readers will of course be aware that the Republican party has no better record, tacitly viewing all men as abusive via VAWA while unthinkingly setting all women atop pedestals, whatever their conduct. The Conservative Anglo-American media - Fox News, The Daily Mail, The Sun - all are explicitly misandrist yet all profess a 'conservative' orientation. In short, the old-style MRA obsession with 'conservatism' is absurd, since Anglo-American conservatives are just as anti-male as leftists.
Culture, not politics, best explains the misandrist nature of Anglo feminism. Both the left and the right exist within that cultural context, and it is notable that both Anglo conservatives and leftists remain stoutly puritanical and misandrist. Both the left and the right view men as rapist louts who must be suppressed, while all women are victims who must be exalted. And this misandry has a long pedigree in the Anglosphere, as might be expected - it did not erupt in the 1960s. Gynotheory implicitly accepts this, focussing on the 'traditional' devaluation of males in disasters like the Titanic.
My issue with gynotheory's historical analysis is that it conflates all empires as gynocentric, which was actually not the case. In Rome, for instance, even aristocratic women had very few rights and the Empire's expansion was motivated by a masculine desire for wealth and self-aggrandisement, not any desire to protect women. By contrast, the Anglo-Saxon empires - first the British and now the American - fit his analysis perfectly, misandrist empires where men are expendable fodder to shield the rights of hyper-privileged Entitlement Princesses. The difference? Puritanism - the Anglo-Americans have it, the Romans did not.
Evolutionary psychology is a powerful modern paradigm, especially in tandem with the more rigorous science of genetics. However, it is fraught with danger for masculinists to extol evolutionary psychology as their only working paradigm, partly because it precludes socio/cultural dynamics but also because it can be used to legitimate female advantage.
For example, it is certainly a fact that men are viewed as more expendable in most western nations. Evolutionary psychology can partly explain this - a small number of survivor males can re-stock a ravaged community, while a similar group with few females will die out. However, the presence of such misandry in modern civilization might be partly the result of social complexity processes embedding archaic mores in modern contexts. Besides, cultural factors also play a part - in the anglosphere, a female must also be white, young, upper middle-class, Anglo and virginal to be fully bewailed by the Anglo media (i.e. Madeleine McCann). None of those things are 'biological' factors as such - all are cultural.
It is also notable that Evolutionary Psychology tends to be an Anglo-Saxon discipline, and thus strongly inflected with puritanical and gynocratic Anglo values. In my two previous posts I posited an alternative interpretation of evolutionary history to explain the inchoate nature of female sexuality - and predictably drew flak from Anglo numb-skulls trying to impose matriarchal values on the slaughterhouse of prehistory. In short, the Darwinian paradigm can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the culture of the interpreter, and not all these interpretations accord with Anglo gynocentrism. To patriarchal Asiatics, for whom the rule of 'strong men' like Tamerlane and Stalin has been the norm, female mate-selection seems a rather more ephemeral force than it does to Anglo-Saxons.
Ultimately, the very fact that Evolutionary Psychology exists as a science shows men can transcend our biological programming - or at least regard it as rational outsiders. Were it not the case, there would be no men's movement the question the manifold injustices men experience. The better Game writers all acknowledge this conceptual self-transcendence, promoting a mocking, post-modern detachment from their own activities. If we just accepted that all men are expendable and all women are angels, why are we bothering to be MRAs? We would just accede to the misandrist propaganda and become manginas like Tommy Fleming and David Futrelle. The fact that we don't proves the limits of evolutionary psychology. Post-feminist women have in any case reneged on their primary biological function (child-bearing), creating an entirely new social compact beyond the scope of Darwinian thought. The New-Style MRA programme is a supra-biological response to supra-biological conditions: we can do no other.
Old-Style MRAs hold a delusional view of feminism. They broadly believe it can and will be 'rolled back' to be replaced by an archaic patriarchy where all men are respected and allowed to reproduce sans Game or sperm banks. All this is juvenile thinking. Societies are complex entities ruled by non-linear processes that are effectively irreversible. Female contraception, careers and 'rights' will never be rescinded and any assumption that they will is naive and adolescent. Given this reality, invoking 'conservatism' and unqualified biological determinism are potentially dangerous, lending support to the 'rights plus privileges' agenda that women already enjoy.
What really impressed me about the Gynotheory blog is the author's implicit acceptance of the new conditions. Most men have no reason to be chivalrous in the modern context; invoking traditional chivalry in an era when most men are third class citizens is a suicidal project. Instead, the author calls for western men to build a new lifestyle that negotiates the whirlpools of misandrist gender-feminism while retaining fidelity to masculine objectivity and independence. As T S Eliot wrote in the wake of the First World War (a specific disaster for western manhood), 'these fragments I have shored against my ruins'. This is surely a commendable approach and one which will bear much fruit in the longer term.
While we are discussing blogs, I really like the turn Scarecrow's Men-Factor blog is taking. Dick Masterson taught the manosphere that humour could be a devastating weapon in the fight against misandrist gender-feminism and Men-Factor has certainly taken that lesson to heart. In the presence of humour a fool understands her stupidity instantly, partly because humour elides exposition while demanding considerable 'deconstructive' prowess on the part of the reader/viewer.
Feminists (and women generally) lack the capacity for sophisticated humour, partly because of the lower female median IQ but also because of their crass inability to think 'outside the box' - a by-product of their miniscule amygdalas. The images on that blog are worthy of Monty Python and have clearly upset the witless Peter Futrelle with their puckish drollery.
And that's got to be good.