Masculinity is dangerous

The Committee for Women’s Equality and Patriarchy Abolition has found that it is now hate for people without vagina to engage in activities exclusive to them. This is an adjustment to Article IX, Section 16 which stipulates that there be no more “male-only spaces” since this is discriminatory and fosters an atmosphere of misogyny, patriarchy, and sociopathy, better known as masculinity. Henceforth all voluntary associations must comply with these rules or face legal reprimands and/or social pressure. We must forcefully make androgynous all areas of life, public and private, for the propagation of equality and the eradication of male privilege.

Earlier this year another milestone on the path to tolerance and equality was reached when openly homosexual teenage boys were accepted as members, thus ending the heteronormative disenfranchisement of the LGBTQ youth community. Now our Committee can happily declare our work in having girls admitted to the Boy Scout national jamboree has been successful. Just read the words of confidence from these two girls who intend on out-competing the boys and showing them that girls are equally as good, probably even better, than the boys,

Welles and Virginia McGhee can’t wait to go whitewater rafting on the nearby New River.

Along the way, they won’t mind showing the boys a thing or two.

“If we can surpass them, that’d be great, to show them that we’re just as tough as they are,” Virginia McGhee said.”

Society must be forced to understand that girls are just as physically capable as boys. Permitting them to compete against each other is a good way of demonstrating gender equality. In fact, it will be a boon for the boys since girls will introduce new values into competition which will make competitions fairer. This will also allow for boys to learn how to better interact with girls through sharing,

“”My daughter walked anywhere and a boy would open up his bag and go, ‘I’ll trade you because you’re a girl with anything I’ve got.’ She got everything she wanted when she was at jamboree,” Kagawa said. “”We tell all our girls that you’ll get any patch set you want.””

Alright let’s get real here. What this forced mixing of the sexes is all about, at heart, is to hinder the development of masculinity in boys. At the same time girls are being catered to, and placed on a pedestal, in another aspect of life; which is the last thing society needs. We have girls being told they will get whatever they want, have the boys kowtowing to their every demand so as to be considered “nice”, and boys forced into competing against girls.

Males are now being forced, de facto, into sharing the entirety of their lives with women, not being allowed to develop independently, and simultaneously being taught a warped version of chivalry. We lose our separate sphere while having to cater to those who were never invited in the first place. Men like to get away from women, we do not want to be around them all the time yet if we say “this is for men only” it becomes a hate crime. If you expect this to have anything but horrible results, you are naïve. Boys learn to be men through interacting with other guys in a masculine atmosphere. Girls, and primarily their feminist parents, want to end this.

70 years of wedded bliss

(h/t Lena S.)

As unto the bow the cord is,
So unto the man is woman;
Though she bonds him she obeys him,
Though she draws him, yet she follows,
Useless each without the other!”

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

In our modern times it is easy to get swept away in all the cynicism and gloom of the ever growing insanity of life. For that reason it is good to remind ourselves of positive stories and, more importantly, that such positive stories are still possible. While the Supreme Court yesterday paved the way for the legalization of gay marriage here in the US, there is a good story coming out of Canada. It is about a couple, Doug and Helen Hatton, who celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary yesterday, June 26th, at a time when many cannot last even 7.

One thing I noticed about them was their playfulness. These two enjoyed teasing each other a bit. My favorite line from the article is when Doug says (highlighted),

Helen lives at Rapelje Lodge on Plymouth Rd. and Doug travels from his Denistoun St. apartment twice a day every day to see his wife.

“I do it just to see her, to be with her for a bit,” he says modestly of the dedicated trek.

“Where else would I go? Must mean I kind of like you.”

This is something too many people do not understand, the importance of simple joking and teasing. My grandparents were great with that and their marriage lasted just a few months short of fifty years when my grandmother passed. It is strange but with the elderly couples you can more clearly see the dynamics of a successful marriage. When two people can sit silently together yet know the other’s heart and mind, that is when you have truly become one.

Instead of teasing, I see and read about guys always complimenting and essentially appeasing the woman. An occasional compliment is constructive, constantly doing so is not. The men who do this are the same ones that place her as their center. It is not meant to be this way. Men are not the relation beings, women are. Women exist in relation to men; their fathers then their husbands. Those women who lack such relation are adrift in a chaotic existence. Men are, instead, the rock upon which women find refuge from their emotional whirlwind.

I believe those with the long, healthy, happy marriages are the people who best understand this and apply it to their lives. It is not misogynistic to say this about women because that would imply it is a bad thing for women to be this way. But it is not a bad thing. Eve was made that way before the fall, meaning it is an inherently good aspect of female nature. A man should neither cater to a woman’s erratic emotions nor allow himself to be controlled by them. He is meant to lift her above them, not be dragged down with her. Happiness for both comes from stabilizing the woman by first strengthening yourself.

How does a man strengthen himself? He places God as his center. It is possible to be a good man without believing in God, but you are not whole and your marriage will never be whole. I must note that he does not place the God of liberal, effeminate Christianity as his center, but rather the biblical God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, struck down Uzzah, punished the Egyptians, saved an adulteress from a mob, healed the sick, and preached turning the other cheek.

The more people realize what makes a marriage such as the one Doug and Helen Hatton have, the more likely it is they may have a similar marriage. Although the chances of finding a respectable wife, or husband, today is rather slim it is still possible. At the end of the day, for those that are married, it all comes down to this, really,

They still hold hands.

Still look into each other’s eyes.

And still whisper “I love you.”

There is no equality

(h/t Hipster Racist)

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.“*

Aristotle

Simply put there is no such thing as equality. The worst tragedies of our age stem from the insidious notion that all people are equal. We can be equal before the law but not anything more. One particularly damaging result of this idea is that men and women must be equal. Feminism is supposedly (although I certainly do not believe it) about achieving equality between the sexes. Such a goal is untenable because to make such an attempt is the equivalent of trying to make apples equal to oranges. How can it be done? The answer is basically: it cannot.

Men and women have complementary natures and, thus, different roles to play. This is not about oppression; it is about acknowledging the laws of nature. Consider the story of Adam and Eve. God first made Adam (man). But God saw that Adam needed a partner, he was not fulfilled by his lonesome. Therefore God created Eve (woman) from the body of Adam. Woman was created from man, for man. Her body was created to receive his. Eve was the comforter of Adam, in body and soul. In her Adam finally found wholeness, and in making him whole Eve was fulfilled.

This is not about whether Adam was equal to Eve. It was about completion of the human person which could only be found in the unity of the sexes. Homosexuality is wrong and polygamy is wrong because they both reject this union. Man cannot be whole with another man and he cannot be whole with more than one woman. Those in rebellion against this eternal truth are denying the complementary natures of the sexes. One must believe that sex is interchangeable, that we are all essentially the same. But it is not true; common sense should dismiss that as lunacy.

A common mischaracterization of scripture would have us believe that men and women, in marriage, are called to “mutual submission”. This is simply not true. Only one person can be the leader in a marriage just as only one can be the captain of a ship. A woman is called to submit to her husband and a husband is to love and give himself up for his wife. This is not something radical, it is fairly simple. It amounts to deference of leadership and most decision making to the husband where he makes choices while honestly considering his wife’s interests.

The idea that men are to submit to their wives was created so as to prevent the Bible from appearing sexist. To require only women submit is to reject equality. However, this overlooks the fact that a man is then tasked with the difficulty of decision making and self-sacrifice for his wife. All feminism has done in terms of liberating women is removing them from submission to their husbands and instead making them submit to indifferent bosses/employers. Add to that the burden of difficult decision making which had once been removed from their shoulders has now been placed back on.

In the end, men want a refuge from the harshness of this world and women want to be that refuge. Why deny what we really want? The feminine is attracted to, and attracts, the masculine because the one wants what it does not have. This is how life works, how humans are made. Our physical bodies are even demonstrative of this complementary nature, of who is to give and who is to receive, who is to submit and who is to dominate. I have to wonder how this is not obvious.

*This first appears in 1974 in an explanation of Aristotle’s politics in Time magazine, before being condensed to an epigram as “Aristotle’s Axiom” in Peter’s People (1979) by Laurence J. Peter

Man talk

I get a good laugh at this scene. Is he being a patronizing sexist? Of course he is! Why should the woman not be let in on the secret? To suggest it is not proper for a woman to know this or that is in no way a bad thing. The desire to protect and preserve a woman’s innocence, or merely to acknowledge that some women should simply not have knowledge of certain information, is a good thing. Perhaps I am just way too old fashioned in certain regards. But no matter the amount of shaming, this will always be my way of thinking.

In my previous dispatch, I attempted to connect the dots between the sexual revolution, rampant feminist-based societal misandry (that is, man-hatred), and the PUA “Game” culture.  In such circumstances, I argued, the only self-respecting choice is to opt for celibacy, or at the very least, for defiant chastity. The nature of the human male is now commonly understood to be naught but low, base, and oversexed; men are regarded as piggish and bestial when it comes to carnal matters, and while this perception admittedly often corresponds with reality, I wonder how much of it is due to the fact that we have been trained to be just such pigs, that we have been willfully debased by the overseers who rule the gynocentric dystopia we currently inhabit.

In short, if the male libido is so easily exploited that men will do anything for sex, it follows that men are easily controlled. Is it therefore so hard to conceive of the notion that male sexualization and debasement could be an instrument of domination by our so-called betters?

Our identity, after all, is tied up in what we’re told about ourselves. People become extraordinarily compliant when confronted with the sternly-worded dictates of authority figures and distressingly susceptible to all manner of trendy mantras and shibboleths. Tell a man enough times that he wants, needs, and can’tdowithout sex, and he’ll be hard-put to disagree. Keep banging home the message: “You can’t help yourself; it’s just the essence of who you are, part and parcel of being a testosterone-afflicted beast wallowing in filth,” and eventually he’ll nod his assent and behave accordingly, even if he objected to the message at some point in the past.

Thus, notions of restraint and self-control are dismissed, and practitioners and purveyors of traditional sexual morality are attacked as prudes or hypocrites, or prudish hypocrites, or hypocritical prudes. The Catholic church, which affirms celibacy as a high and exalted vocation necessary for leadership (“It is better not to marry”), is routinely ridiculed by these smug, smarmy hyper-enlightened experts, for whom promiscuity is perfectly “natural” (and that which is “natural,”, through some slippery rhetorical slight of hand, is dubiously rendered as “good”). But the real reason why the Church is reviled is because of the very real danger it represents to the control of the current ruling elite, encapsulated in the fact that it won’t bend to accommodate the dictates of the Zeitgeist on sexual matters. [Continue reading…]

– Andy Nowicki, ‘Kiss Cams, Conformity, and Masculine Defiance‘, Alternative Right