While reading a discussion on immigration on one of our more or less right-wing sites yesterday I stumbled upon the following comment: "Only Western men believe in equality." The guy who wrote it, obviously proud of the fact, expressed in one short sentence what I have been trying to demonstrate on this blog for years.
It's true that currently equality is the Western Man's religion and that all our social and other policies are based on it. Since men and women and various ethnic and other groups are considered equal, any disparity in life choices and their outcomes must obviously be the result of the discrimination which needs to be addressed by the government.
Though the site in question (mildly) criticises feminism, I've read discussions where men sincerely wondered why women chose "soft" professions instead of joining the army or having a high-powered career in the business world. They thought that something was wrong with those women, they were apparently lazy and failed to profit from the new wonderful opportunities open to them.
I see this sentiment echoed on American blogs where guys wonder why women aren't interested in automatic weapons and choose early child development instead of STEM in college. And that's a huge elephant in the room a lot of "manospherians" simply fail to see as they rant and rave demanding that women (!) put an end to feminism.
Men are guardians of society, not women. Men are active, women are reactive. If the change happens, it's because men enable it. Western men appear in general to be fine with feminism, they just want a more Playboy version of it, I guess.
Exactly---most Manospherians are fine with Feminist so-called 'Sexual Liberation' as long as it's Hugh Hefner's version of it. When most Westerners today say they want political or social 'change' what they really mean is keeping the status quo at no cost to themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this, you and especially your blog was the first thing that came into my mind :-)
ReplyDeleteIt is clearly described in the I Ching, the Wilhelm-Baynes translation, when you read the description of Hexagram 2, the yin energy:
The attribute of the hexagram is devotion; its image is the earth. It is the perfect complement of THE CREATIVE--the complement, not the opposite, for the Receptive does not combat the Creative but completes it . It represents nature in contrast to spirit, earth in contrast to heaven, space as against time, the female-maternal as against the male-paternal. However, as applied to human affairs, the principle of this complementary relationship is found not only in the relation between man and woman, but also in that between prince and minister and between father and son. Indeed, even in the individual this duality appears
in the coexistence of the spiritual world and the world of the senses.
But strictly speaking there is no real dualism here, because there is a clearly defined hierarchic relationship between the two principles. In itself of course the Receptive is just as important as the Creative, but the attribute of devotion defines the place occupied by this primal power in relation to the Creative. For the Receptive must be activated and led by the Creative; then it is productive of good. Only when it abandons this position and tries to stand as an equal side by side with the Creative, does it become evil. The result then is opposition to and struggle against the Creative, which is productive of evil to both.
Miriam, very interesting, thanks!
ReplyDeleteNW, sexual liberation is a huge carrot held in front of the young men, yet this belief in equality goes deeper than that. Western men started believing in equality long before 1960s and changed the society accordingly. Many still believe in it, despite all evidence to the contrary. It's the only religion they have, after all.
I wonder if young men were so happy with sexual liberation if they understood that it does not only mean that they can get laid more. It ALSO means, that very likely several men have shagged their future wife before them... Well, maybe most men do not care about that anymore. Which I find hard to believe; in biological sense only way a man can be sure he is the father of his children is to make sure the mother of those children never has sex with anyone else.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why men actually allowed all this to happen. Were they so tired after WWI and WWII that they wanted women to "do their share" or what?
Housewife, ever heard of Critical Theory? Men used to share women before, just not those they married:)
ReplyDeleteThat was my point. Thanks to sexual liberation, it is very har to find un-shared woman to marry, so men just have to settle.
ReplyDeleteThey settle to the point were they are willing to provide for woman's children from previous affair... Another man's children. Man's, who os usually alive and should provide for his own children. I know women who have children with two or three men. And usually they have no problem to find a man who is willing to father the fourth kid!
And if you say something like this aloud, people say you are just a prude. Well, maybe I am. :)
Housewife, here it's mostly typical for lower classes, and though these types have little problem to find another father they usually do have trouble to find one who'll stick around, though it does happen:)
ReplyDelete