12 July 2006
There is, apparently, a resurgence of manliness in America. Superman has returned to the big screen and unshaven, testosterone-charged film stars such as Colin Farrell no longer look socially marginalised.
Superman’s return in Superman Returns is a rather unlikely catalyst to this article. From what I’ve heard, the former Man of Steel is now a metrosexual hen-pecked wimp, at the mercy of slag single-mum Lois Lane. The film itself was described by it’s own makers as a chick flick with a superhero.
Shame the article’s author is a bit of a mangina when he has to put himself down by insisting his wife is more of a man than he is just because she has borne children. To me, having babies makes her more of a woman.
And yet it’s instructive to consider that a woman’s understanding of manliness tends to be very different from a man’s.
That’s because a woman has little or no understanding of manliness, or if they do they have no idea what to do about it or whether they like it. Hence their insistence on men becoming New Men, then pining for the old traditional men, then going gooey over metrosexuals before longing for bad boys and…so on.
I’m sick of hearing women go on about what they want in a man, what they think a Real Man is. In my view, manliness is defining yourself. Maybe I would consider listening to women’s opinion on what they want in a man if they listen to us men when we give our opinion on what we want in a woman, but they don’t. It’s “sexist” to even comment on what women should be or do. That, perhaps, is the heart of the problem; feminism told women not to give a shit about what us men wanted from them, or what we thought about them. Now us men are taking the same stance and women are getting a taste of their own medicine as we refuse to give a damn about what women want from us or think about us.
This [feminism] is the lunacy that allows women fighter pilots to get aloft even though a man is more effective in combat because his stronger frame better protects him from G-forces. It is the feminist orthodoxy that renders my wife faintly embarrassed when she owns up to being a housewife. It is the notion that children do not need fathers.
He [a Yale University professor Harvey Mansfield] continues: “Feminism needs to come to terms with manliness. I think women are confused about what they want men to be and that leads to male confusion.”
Maybe women are confused, but most of us men aren’t, at least not those of us who’ve unplugged from the Matriarchy, stop letting women define us and basically Gone Our Own Way.
This is the best point in the article, one that backs up the clear point that the Welfare State removes the incentive and motivation for men to work hard.
Secondly, in Britain we have lived for more than 50 years under the umbrella of an all-powerful welfare state. This is a good thing in that it protects the weakest, but bad in that our taxation and redistributive structures have served to stamp out that key element of manliness – self-betterment and provision for those you are responsible for.
Why bother working? Why bother marrying and remaining faithful to wife and family if a single mother on benefits garners
Of course, the growth of the welfare state, in particular to benefit single mothers, was at the behest of feminists. It was one big attempt at an abortion of manliness from society. It is something feminists can never be forgiven for, not even as some begin to backtrack and bemoan the slacker culture of young men demotivated by the Matriarchy.
In meritocratic America, where welfare is harder to get, self-betterment is a constituent part of staying fed and housed. Men cannot afford to be feckless. If they don’t help themselves, no one will.
Maybe so, but if women don’t help themselves, someone will. The Government. Or, more accurately, the Government will make some man help her.
A society can’t function if only one sex is obliged to be responsible and independent whilst the other can do fuck all but play the eternal victim and be pampered by the government. Besides, welfare may be harder to obtain in the US, but alimony and Child Support certainly aren’t. Not for women, obviously.
And America, it must be remembered, is a country which still venerates male icons: heroes such as Jim Bowie are loved because the nation’s history is force-fed to the young in schools.
Not being American I can’t really comment on this point. I’ve heard most US guys proclaim their nation is as Matriarchal as any other Western country in it’s devaluing and denigration of men. What do you transatlantic chaps think?
The feminist lobby, which has achieved much for women over the past 40 years, must take its foot off the accelerator…
Sorry, you’ve lost me here mate.
There were some good points in the midst of this article and displayed some much-needed derision of political correctness and metrosexuals, but given that he started off proclaiming the new hen-pecked loser that is Superman as a return of manliness and ended by making the mistake of claiming feminism has “achieved much for women”, it’s not exactly the groundbreaking smash-feminism piece I hoped it’d be.
Feminism has achieved fuck all for women except made them confused, lonely and encouraged them to take up careers none of them really wanted in the first place. Not that I’m letting women off the hook; many millions followed feminism. They should have looked a bit more closely into it before doing so.
Plus, in a more general sense, all this nonsense about it being okay to Be A Man seems to be because women have Said It’s Okay. Fuck that. We don’t need permission or guidelines from women, and not bowing to the whims and fickle demands of women is what being a man is about, surely.
Still, having said that, it’s at least good to see more references to many things us anti-feminists are complaining about popping up into the mainstream press more frequently. It’s a start at least, but we need people to stand up and declare feminism to be a big pile of steaming hate-fulled nonsense that’s accomplished nothing good for society, rather than this tentative “Well, feminism was good for a while but…” sort of half-hearted rubbish. Still, the Daily Mail is read by a lot of women, so maybe I should give this guy a bit of slack, he could very well have just had to soften his rant up a little bit to get it past the editors.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:23 PM
At 9:19 PM, ChicagoMan said…
In the states it’s just as bad. All the women here have attitudes that aren’t enough good men around for those Strong Wymyn.
I know of ONE woman here at my work that honestly hates feminism and what it has done to our society, but of course she’s in the older crowd that was actually raised right.
Fathers in the US have no rights and even women brought up in traditional families have been bitten by the feminist bug. It’s a tragedy that so many of them just don’t understand how destructive their behavior is.
At 12:17 AM, Anonymous said…
Chicagoman, I fear that you guys in the US will have to suck it up for some time yet for at least two reasons:
1. The baby boomers are getting older. That means male boomers dying off leaving an excess of females to whom the politicians will pander.
2. There is no serious competition for your military. If the Chinese or some other major power were massing on your border, you can be pretty sure the army of single mothers bleeding military funds dry would find themselves out on their ears rather quickly.
The turnaround, then, will come from Europe when the first and perhaps second countries fall to Islam due to the catastrophic effects of feminism on the birth rates of the natives vs the much higher reproduction rate of muslim immigrants.
At 2:49 AM, Anonymous said…
Colin Farrel is testosterone charged is he? Why because he’s unshaven? HAHAHA.
Ahem, ever noticed that society has three layers, here it is from top to bottom:
1) Beta males: Get used by women and beaten by tougher men (and sometimes beaten by women). Ever noticed manginas look like the epitome of a bully victim? Manginas are either worried a tougher guy will bash them for annoying a female owned by them or getting bashed for hitting on a woman owned by a tougher guy. These days with just cause as the government and The Law constitute a formidable foe. They seek protection FROM WOMEN.
2) Females. These days as many opportunities as beta males, with none of the responsibility to act in a proper manner making them far more powerful.
3) Males that do what they want regardless. At the end of the day a guy who isn’t afraid of getting his arse kicked for it will tell a woman to fuck off to her face. There’s nothing she can do about it. Unfortunately with the government effectively acting like a “tougher guy”, prudence is required and the fuck off must be done within certain parameters, unless you have nothing to lose and so don’t care about the law, which is why bad boys fall into this category. Ever tell a guy who answers to noone to act “responsibly”?
Please note: Society cannot actually function if all men fall into category 3. Women would die. I say let them start dying until they see the light.
Colin Farrel and Superboy fall into category no.1 I’m afraid along with the writer of that article.
At 4:59 AM, Anonymous said…
Jim Bowie? I think this guy is 50 years out-of-date with the U.S. school system.
The main thing in the U.S., at least that bugs me, is how men are constantly denigrated in the media. Men are shown in the media as boobs, idiots, mechanically incompetent and women are depicted as problem solvers and technically adept. WTF? What planet is that on? Reality is almost the exact opposite. I’m about 1 inch away from keeping a journal with me whenever I see a castrating advertisement: mark down the company name, refuse to buy their products EVER (i.e., a blacklist I will check against before I make a purchase), send the company a letter stating such (will not support a castrative socially destructive company).
I might even start of list of Socially Destructive Castrative Corporations for men to officially OSTRACIZE.
Time to form FIGHT CLUB.
At 5:20 AM, broken_rhyme said…
Chicagoman is right. It’s just as bad here in the U.S. I know a womyn who’s a single mother and in her late 30’s. She would break down and cry to me about how lonely she was, how she was tired of taking care of everyone all the time, wanted to be taken care of for once in her life, tired of pretending to be happy and content, tired of putting on a show, etc…. It was like a water spilling over a dam. The wall didn’t break, just cracked a little. The thing that infuriates me about her is that when she meets some guy that is willing to help her get her life together her response is “I’m to independent for that.”
Feminism has created generations of strong, proud, independent wymyn that practically hate anything male and have no idea what it means to actually be feminine. By the time they realize this, it’s to late for them. Most don’t realize it until they reach the age of the womyn I mentioned earlier (late 30’s). They don’t understand that most masculine men are attracted to feminine womyn. The only masculine guys I know that are attracted to masculinity are gay manginas.
Sadly, most of these old, lost, vampire-like wymyn are set in there ways, and would rather die alone than let go of their pride or actually admit they made a mistake. I don’t think you can help people like that. I don’t want to give up on U.S. womyn (I believe they are worth saving) but logic and all the evidence I see in my everyday interactions with them says its a lost cause. Logic says give them what they want. When the world begins to come crashing down around their ears they will either come back, swallow pride, make amends…. or be crushed by the weight of the rubble.
At 6:41 AM, Anonymous said…
Manly Men in the US
That’s BS! I know people in Minnesota they are the most whipped men in the Western world. Minnesota is home to things like womenspress.com. Go and read it! It’s also the birthplace of Cathy MacKinnon, one of the worst fembots ever.
Funny thing is Minnesota has welcomed over 40000 Somalis in the last 15 years. One of nastiest groups of immigrants you can get. Strange how fems love brutal patriarchal oppressors!
At 8:51 AM, ntk said…
the nation’s history is force-fed to the young in schools.
This is possibly the bizarrest piece of editorialising I’ve ever seen. What country doesn’t teach its own history in its schools?
At 10:28 AM, Anonymous said…
This blog is against feminism, but the author never actually says what sort of society he DOES want to live in, in terms of gender roles.
Does he want to go back to the 50’s? I don’t think it was a utopia back then.
Does he want a taliban style state?
Anti-feminists like this blogger are against abortion, yet they don’t realise that banning abortion would create hundreds of thousands more single mother leeches.
Also, he seems to want all women to be obedient housewives. So, MEN have to provide 100% of the family income while women sit on their arses? Piss-off. He just SAYS in this very article that men are supporting single mother leeches through taxes, so WHY is it ok that men should have to support his non-working partner?
I AM one of those half-hearted anti-feminists that the blogger condemns. I agree with a lot of what is said on this blog, and the current state of affairs in this society is shocking. But I would kill myself if I had to live in this blogger’s utopia, whatever that is.
At 11:13 AM, FredXblog said…
Good piece Duncan!
I’m not in the least bit surprised the article didn’t attack feminism explicitly
Not that this man wanted to, no- he seemed quite deluded
He even thought the feminist movement was beneficial in part- which it wasn’t
That said- if the writer was a true antifeminist/MRA then I doubt he would even get published lol
But that’s corruption for you
I failed to see where he was going with his article- and, in the end, it read as a garbled mess
I forever groan when I come across pieces like this, as, because the writers often hate upsetting their editors, they ‘dumb down’ on their views
They know it is unpopular to tarnish anything to do with ‘women’s rights’, and, as such, hold back on their arguments
But such writers are rare- most actually believe the feminised-bile that they write
And others are too stupid (like this one) to present information that could actually hold water
No- I wasn’t surprised this article didn’t attack feminism- none of them do
The best articles that attack feminism are those that appear beyond control of feminists themselves- and they occur online!!
And they, or should I say we, are not bound or restricted in our views- and couldn’t give a hoot nor a holler about winding them up lol
Anyway, good on you for highlighting this, it was an excellent read 😉
At 2:33 PM, Anonymous said…
I have a theory that all women want to be feminists until the check comes due. Then when they are expected to “be equal,” they want to be traditional. Why? Well let’s face it, it is a better system for them. Most people love getting a free lunch, having a door opened for them and not being held responsible for actions that didn’t turn out well. Feminism (and the men in power who have allowed feminist abuses of power) has raise generations of women who have come to expect this in all aspects of life.
The only cure is to call them on it publicly. I have found that the best way to do this is to use there own shaming tactics against them. When confronted with a feminist trying to get one over on you tell them:
“You know my mom was a feminist, and she would say that you don’t need a man to do that for you. You need to show that you are independent.”
Shuts them down every time….
At 5:28 PM, Duncan Idaho said…
Anti-feminists like this blogger are against abortion, yet they don’t realise that banning abortion would create hundreds of thousands more single mother leeches.
Not if society stops throwing money at single mothers. You’ll note there didn’t used to be abortion on demand but there weren’t armies of single mother leeches because they weren’t financially rewarded, they were looked down upon like the whores they are.
I AM one of those half-hearted anti-feminists that the blogger condemns.
A half-hearted anti-feminists? WTF?
That’s as absurd as being a half-hearted anti-racist.
But I would kill myself if I had to live in this blogger’s utopia, whatever that is.
You wouldn’t be invited into “this blogger’s utopia”; no feminists, no half-hearted anti-feminists and no suicidal people allowed.
At 7:14 PM, Nat said…
But I am still very curious, what sort of society do you want to live in? As I read your blog I know a lot about what you don’t like in women and society but not about what you would like. And what would be the options for the women who live in it? I assume that women would exist in that society but what kind of life would they have?
At 7:16 PM, ChicagoMan said…
To the Anon that just doesn’t get it. Back when abortions or murdering innocent children was illegal, people would think twice before engaging in lewd behavior without proper protection.
When you aren’t rewarded for bad immoral behavior and the consequences are severe, it deters you from engaging in the acts.
Banning abortion except for cases from Rape or health reasons would go hand in hand with a decrease in STDs, decrease in single motherhood etc. Only feminists are too stupid to see the direct correlations from the past 3 decades of life they are ruining in the western world. “it’s ok, i’ll just spread my legs for whoever, free love, I mean if i get pregnant, I can just kill it”
At 8:46 PM, ChicagoMan said…
The kind of world us here imagine is one where women respect themselves, respect authority and respect men. A world where they actually take some responsibility for their actions, where government women don’t slap policemen and then try to get away with it as if they are above the law.
A world where you aren’t rewarded for being a burden to society and contribute to the government funds instead of being a drain on it so that government can run fairly.
A world where boys are treated like boys and girls like girls.
I don’t care who you are, I personally have my PhD in the sciences and I can tell you that MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE THE SAME.
There are biological and genetic differences that create vast differences between the talents and abilities of men and women. Trying to marginalize those just to be PC is stupid and ignorant.
This world would also treat men and women fairly and both would enjoy the same rights as citizens. Punishments would happen for Rape, violent crimes etc.
Both parents would have a say in the upbringing of the child and both would be responsible for it.
Wow what a world, this is an ideal and what us men here strive for.
Is it 1950s era? Yes you could say that, that is when you could leave your doors unlocked and wouldn’t have to worry about someone breaking in because people were raised to respect each other.
Fatherless boys and girls no longer learn respect and the word NO because single mothers let their children run their lives.
Think of how much society would benefit from this, and the funny thing is it could happen without the females losing any legal rights to life, liberty, property, work, school and anything else that they earned.
It all makes sense, but women these days are taught early on to “throw rocks at boys” . What kind of garbage is that?
The way things are going, feminists will weed themselves out of existence when radical Islam puts all of you in Burkhas. You think you have it bad now, just try abortion and disrespecting men under Sharia
At 9:22 PM, heart-my-penis said…
I heard that Lois is preggo with superman’s kid… marries some schmuck and keeps this little tidbit from bio-daddy and the schmuck-husband paying the bills for some other guy’s kid.
At 7:24 PM, Anonymous said…
In America, girls whore themselves out starting from around 14 and lasting until 22, if not 25-26 if they do graduate school of some sort. At that point, they’re used up and why anyone would want to marry them is beyond me. I work out at the gym at least every other day, and people from Europe will mention how American women are unmarriageable, although they’re more than willing to get a sports fuck out of them it seems. The great philosophers of old had it right, the marrying age for a woman is 18 (provided they’re kept in checking from being whores before then) and the age for men is around 30, since schooling takes up so much time and then getting out of debt. But the feminists don’t want the natural order of things, and they don’t want women to commit to a younger man at a younger age either, so we get this nonsense instead.
At 3:10 AM, Anonymous said…
get your passports ready guys Mrs. Clinton’s coming. welcome to the next fall of Rome.