Saturday, May 14, 2011

Dancing With the Night Wind III: Deconstructing the Feminist View of Privilege

I wanted to give another shout to two of my friends that have diedaway for years now, but as it stands, this post is (in part) about that---and will segue into the topic I also wanted to discuss.

As someone that has not entered his twilight years, I am old enough to have experienced the pain and loss of family members and friends. I often wonder what Bryon and Marshall would have done with the rest of their lives had they lived as old as, perhaps, my maternal grandmother, who before entering a coma and passing in her 80s still had concern for me. She wanted to see me well loved is this lifetime, and even with the last conversation with me had on the phone, weakened, she still asked how I was doing and to keep myself healthy and strong . . . although her own health was gradually failing hers.

That's real love. No question.

I can't say definitively that a misandric culture could be directly attributed to two my friend's deaths. But as someone who has been critical of how society views and treats men and masculinity, there's a something to be said about it. I ruminate how if their quality of lives could have been improved, possessed the support structures that were lacking, and if something could have prevented them from dying younger than they should have. I have my own guilty thoughts about what I could have done, although there is only so much one can do.

Marshall and Bryon struggled in some ways that were different, and a few that were similar. Both had encroaching serious health problems for the last year or so of their lives. While I think Bryon would have---superficially---disagreed with me on the goals of feminism, with more revelatory examination, he would have realized that there was no real good that would ever benefit him with it.

Both, throughout their length of experiences, never enjoyed a life of an ivory tower academic or high-powered CEO. Any ground they gained was generally up to them as well as failings. Their struggles, as myriad as they were, were not the concern of feminism. As with so many men, men's issues are not a priority. These men were not born of privilege, just like most men---find themselves . . . having to sort through life battles of different areas. As some posters have stated on The Spearhead, it can take until a man's early 30s before he even begins to find himself mildly successful.

One serious mistake feminists and their cohorts make is to believe that men have dominance and privilege in our "patriarchal" system without examining how that manifests outside of their myopic perspective. Of course, they claim that transforming "patriarchy" would help men from their restrictions as well.

Guess what. Feminists, manginas, and their counterpart white knights cannot have this. Not one bit. By truly freeing men up, it would also mean that that men would no longer be in the service of women and rational self-interest would be a cardinal rule. No longer would the hideous talons of feminism would clutch us. People, feminists deeply hate this even if they are not completely certain why they loathe it. A man they cannot shame, scapegoat, blame, or control is perceived as either dangerous or useless.

Ultimately, though, feminists are concerned with power and control; with minimum accountability. They could not care less how men have made the modern world around them an environment more comfortable and safe to live in. This is one thing they mean by demanding men give up their "male privilege;" it's not about equality or egalitarianism. It's about who is the master symbolically holding the barbed whip, all the while justifying the use and abuse. And if anyone thinks that feminism is a deflated force in the social and legal circles, they are in earnest denial. Mary Kellett is one of the legions.

Of course, without men fulfilling utility purposes, you might as well be dead to them; after all, as an old Rush song says to the effect of there as to be someone to talk to and someone to sweep the floors. If you are the janitor, you're still beneath them in status, but you'd better be damn well working hard on your daily sanitation and getting things done. Or else.

I'll say it before, and I'll say it again---the real motive behind the shaming of men for alleged privileges is actually eroding away of what little men have as rights, what we are fighting for, and ultimately control of men; their labor, their money, their sexuality, and even down to the attention Ameriskanks desperately crave despite the label of being "independent." That's really what it's all about.


3 comments:

Fidelbogen said...

Yup.

I say "word" to every word here.

Jennifer said...

Yes, it's interesting how some women pushed men into the pot from the beginning. Phyllis Schaffly and her niece Suzanne Venker pointed out how women's increased choices in America was a natural evolution, having mainly to do with WWII getting women out to work and the presence of birth control; the patent male hatred and double-sided demands following (and some preceding) suffrage were unnecessary. And why are we so fortunate today? Mainly because of our amazing men, who built our society and most of whom supported us in our choices.

Sami said...

This actually brought tears to my eyes :( This is just, my heart goes out to him. This was almost painful to read. Thank you for sharing this.

@Jennifer, actually that's not entirely true. The women's equality movement, in America, started back in the 1920's when women made a stand to have the same equal rights as men. Back then, women were a discriminated against group, so women made a stand to fight for equal rights. Then after this came the natural progression. From change came growth and from growth came change and gradually over time, women did achieve equal right status. BUT and this is a big but, as with many groups that have at one time or another been discriminated against it didn't stay as a fight for equality, but became a quest for dominance, punishment, submission and control.

Not all women you understand, but a select few that grew in numbers over the years, have decided that women should be the dominant sex (there's a scary thought). They've made damn sure their voices were heard and basically have *insert rude word here* everything up. Power corrupts and now over time, the growth that was found has basically been destroyed and through political correctness, the world is now a place where in the eyes of the law, for many things, a woman can do no wrong. This is wrong and unjust for anyone with any common sense.

As the post has stated, when a man is physically abusive (and by that I mean on a regular basis for no reason whatsoever) there are no excuses, but when a woman is the same, there's nothing but excuses. In my opinion that's appalling. To actually have equality, the same rules should apply to both men and women. So if a man has no excuses for physical violence, then neither should a woman have any excuses for physical violence.
Like I said though, this is something you'll find in any equality battle. Take the race equality battle. What started out as a fight for equal rights between races (rightly so) has now turned into a politically correct abomination, where one race has no excuses and another race has nothing but excuses.

Fact of the matter is, if there's ever going to be equality between the sexes, then the current feminist movement need to be seen for what they are. A bunch of power crazed, resentful, male hating, lunatics.

There have been many achievements made by both men and women. We women enjoy the luxeries of the modern world that was mainly built by the sweat and blood of men, but the freedom we have in this modern world was started by a women's movement decades ago that simply wanted to be seen as equal beings to men and has now turned into this.

Power corrupts, but absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

Hi SR, welcome back :)

Sami