QUOTE: “The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize — American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with the grandchildren). The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.”
I would argue that the sudden and total collapsing of love, as it is presented to men, is evidence of its illusion.
Children are raised on it, women can expect it their whole lives in a watered down sense, but men lose all right to it as they come of age. Unfortunately, in the West, no-one ever tells them that this is their heritage as men. They have to learn it the hard way, or go mad refusing to learn it at all.
Other cultures, particularly those closer to nature, had rites of passage for young men. The rite usually involved sending the stripling out in the wild, on his own. He would be exposed to danger, expected to survive on his own, and could expect no assistance. It was a symbolic, and real, exercise to let him know that he was no longer the dependent he once was. Young women were never subjected to the same. They belonged to the community, no matter their age, their fertility or their ability.
It is a feature of all men who go wild at women and take it out on innocents, as well as their former intimates, that they are still sold on the love illusion – they are men that fervently believe they deserve a place in the bosom of society. The trick is maintained for its utility in deceiving men into social contracts that are counter to their own interests.
It’s the same the world over. Every deal won by trickery has a higher harvest of woe than that done with all cards on the table and intentions plainly stated.
There are a couple of small lakes not far from where I live. One is purple to look at, the other is orange. Apparently the difference is due to a tiny presence of minerals – a little of one element in the purple lake, and a little of another in the orange one.
If you were to take a glass of water out of each of them, you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. They taste the same and look the same. A simple laboratory analysis wouldn’t be able to distinguish them – only an advanced lab that can detect minute mineral presence and measure it accurately would be able to correctly identify which glass of water came from which lake.
Yet the human eye can spot the difference easily – but only in aggregate. At the microscopic level, rather than the macroscopic, the difference is beyond human detection.
The difference between men and women is also impossible to define in terms of easily spotted differences between individuals. The differences between the sexes is too easily obscured by simple personality differences. It is only when you look at humanity in aggregate that the difference between the sexes is at all obvious. And it is striking.
This is why feminists can say things like “gender is a social construct” and get away with it. Individuals can easily be made to appear similar, regardless of sex. The thing is though, “similar” is not “the same”. Often very significant differences cannot be seen unless one steps back from the microscopic view and looks again from the macroscopic. It is only then that the difference is glaring.
QUOTE: "Turn your back on it all, accept the Truth, and Go Your Own Way."
I’m convinced this is the only way to effectively counter the nonsense. It is leading by example.
The real value to me in following MRA/MGTOW sites is that they are the only places where I get to read intelligent men talking about things that matter without the media/academic gag firmly in its usual place. For that alone I value it highly, even if one has to read through a lot of dross to find a few pearls – at least those pearls are there to be found.
QUOTE: "I’m convinced this is the only way to effectively counter the nonsense. It is leading by example."
The thing is, if men leave the building, women will follow. And if men keep walking, women will figure out a way to make some sort of association with men again that is agreeable.
Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland.
It doesn’t even have to get to the level of physical performance. Women’s mental character does not seek independence itself.
You can see this when women get divorced. I can, on many levels, understand why women would seek independence from marriage – from a male point of view, we understand it – but that’s not what they are doing. They divorce their current husband, and in 99% of cases, already have another waiting in the wings. Usually, in a very short time, the woman is back into a long-term relationship again where she is once again following the dominant lead of a male. Independence never existed.
Schopenhauer points this out too: ” That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.”
The Buddhist philosopher Nichiren said it as well, but slightly differently. There are three phases women go through in life, and in each she attaches herself to a man – in the sense that the man is her “tool” for her own purposes in society – the first is her father when she is young, then her husband during most of her life, and finally to her sons when she is old. And I can certainly attest to the last since my father died. It is now me who she comes to for authority since she is without husband.
Furthermore, one also has to realize that women were complicit in creating “Patriarchy.” As we’ve often pointed out, “patriarchy” is merely another form of matriarchy, because even Patriarchy is ultimately for the benefit of women, not men. Women “are” society. Men are on the outside of society. “The herd” is what society is, not the males on the outside trying to seek approval to get back in (which they will never be allowed). Men might have controlled the laws in the past, but women have always controlled society’s social mores. If women don’t approve, society doesn’t approve, because women are society. Men are on the outside looking in.
If men walk away, women will follow. And if we keep walking, they will keep trying to entice us back. And if we still keep walking, they will try even harder until eventually women themselves will make it so that “it” works. Patriarchy only existed because women endorsed it themselves and were complicit in creating the social mores that made it work.
QUOTE: "Women “are” society. Men are on the outside of society."
And it is man’s place at the periphery that is our natural home.
While we concern ourselves with laws, government and social mores, we are intruding upon women’s space and women’s affairs – we are auditioning for their approval as – nominally at least – their masters (though it is clear on closer examination that all men in such positions are actually women’s servants, be they politicians, priests or husbands).
On the other hand, when a man realizes he is alone in the world, and dependent on nothing but his reason, his physical strength and his resolve, his attitude changes. His immediacy to the Absolute could not be clearer. The thing the free man most craves – his own sovereignty – is at its closest to being realized. It is this state that I refer to as "One Man's Kingdom."
When I say that I am convinced going my own way is the most effective way to counter the nonsense, it is not because I believe it will have any material effect on ‘society’ – it is the effect it has on the man himself that is undeniable. It is like turning off the television and no longer reading the newspapers (which are portals into society, or women’s influence). The calming effect is near immediate. The more one works at it, dealing almost solely with Nature, one’s own material needs and whatever other problems that concern only the individual – and disengaging from ‘society’ in as many ways as possible – it is surprising how readily, and how happily, the submerged male psyche rises to the challenge.
Also surprising is how one develops a keener appreciation of company when one gets the chance, even though it can easily be lived without.
At the end of the day, society will always be there and always be unconcerned with the welfare of men. Like women who cannot embrace true independence, many men also shy away from it, exhausting themselves knocking on the door of women’s world trying to gain admission, never stopping to look about them and say “it’s actually not so bad out here by myself”.
The world would of course change if a lot of men started doing this, but I have no interest in something as abstract as ‘the world’. I am far more interested in the small world I live in, and how I can adapt to it, and prosper in it. But I am alone in it always. Not being a woman, that actually makes me feel more alive.
Previous Index Next