My dog Dee vomited. Then she walked away and never returned. That cannot be said of some women who are trying to foist their hamsterized leftist beliefs onto the manosphere.
The writer from the link above, Kristina Hansen, who has landed an editor slot at AVFM, has a proscription and a prescription for helping the MRM to gain traction. If we do not follow her advice, traction will forever elude us. She rightly asserts that the left/right political divide has hamstrung the secular MRM. I couldn’t agree more. But her solution is too brilliant by half. Jettison libertarian/conservative beliefs and embrace secular liberalism. I saw this coming at AVFM for a long time, not so much because Elam is a liberal, he is not, but because of the commentariat.
I stopped reading and commenting there for this reason. There was a time when the comments section was part men’s issues and part a contest to see who could most cleverly insult Christians and/or conservatives. To be fair, Elam adopted a policy to try and keep the place above the squabbling. He asserted that his was to be a safe place for all ideologies to coalesce on specifically men’s rights issues. Seemed like a decent effort. However, I believe ignoring the ideology issue is not a solution and as I said, Hansen gets that right in her post. This above the fray folly is beside the point that I wish to make here in this post but in my experience, in the forced absence of ideology, liberalism reigns. This is also one of the inherent weaknesses of what I call “The Third Way” (a term I clearly did not coin)
There is synergy between feminism and liberalism. Hansen, like most liberals and many conservatives, doesn’t get that. In a wall-eyed fit of dissonance she makes my case for me in her post and then in one of her comments following the post.
From the post:
A man who is homeless, mentally ill, disabled, or in any way held back by unfortunate life experiences and/or circumstances is not going to be able to hoist himself out of his hole without assistance. We need to provide those that are less fortunate with tools and resources to help them get to the next level, be it a place to live, a meal, or a shoulder to lean on. These things are vital in lifting others out of their negative situations and helping them to become as autonomous as possible while acknowledging that everyone has specific needs and limitations. We are not all capable of achieving the same level of achievement or independence because of human nature and other circumstances beyond our control.
Then, in response to being challenged on her views and told that she was a feminist she responds:
I never suggested a nanny state. I said some people need a helping hand in life.
To support and empower people by giving them the TOOLS and RESOURCES they need in order to be as productive and self-sufficient as possible. That is NOT coddling. IT is teaching and assisting someone to become self-sufficient and as productive as possible. How do you manage to conflate that with feminism?
See, this is the fucking problem. Any time anyone suggests we help men by supporting them or offering some form of assistance to them there is this blowback from libertarians who insist that any form of that type of assistance is equal to feminism. It’s fucking bullshit and nothing more than an excuse to be selfish and do nothing to help those in need. And that is supported by the FACT that libertarians have done NOTHING to help men in any way other than blow smoke up their own asses about how XTY ‘should’ be done so that ‘ABC’ could happen. Should and could does NOT help anyone.
If that is all you can offer then it’s really not much of anything is it?
I am not arguing the libertarian case specifically. One comment after her blog post summed up a huge problem with libertarianism by saying:
you get 300 libertarians in a room, and you get 301 definitions of libertarian. (one will always disagree with themself.)
This is spot on. Again, I’m not here to defend libertarianism or any -ism, but that comment doesn’t say anything that refutes a single tenet of the belief set. It shows a dynamic that plagues gatherings of largely above average intelligence people discussing nebulous things. This problem plagues Game discussions for example, and it generally plagues any discussion where someone begins by stating they reject those things that are well defined because to buy into one of those is to be sold out and intellectually lazy. The third way has sex appeal specifically because it makes the one explaining it the only one who understands it. Its a huge pontification soap box born of an ego trip. There are as many third-ways as there are people who proffer them making the third in the nomenclature problematic on its face.
Back to Hansen.
She sets up the straw man that the only libertarian (or non-liberal) accommodation for helping unfortunate people is to expect that those unfortunates will pull up their own boot straps. That is utterly false. If I have to explain why that’s false and what the conservative and/or libertarian accommodation for the poor or less fortunate is then you may as well go read somewhere else. Sitting that aside, her prescription is the naivete of youth combined with empathy driven thinking, some Utopian-ism, and a nod to feminist-esque equality. Any one of those things is sufficient to discredit her. In sum she disappears into the noise of nattering young people, men and women, who have not yet figured out that the world is not The Game of Life and people do not respond as expected to the types of programs she proposes.
Lets take an example. She would, I infer from her writing, support the platitudinous job training center concept. They are going to rent some space in an economically challenged neighborhood and they are going to teach people some basic computer skills. Then, if it was The Game of Life, the person would move along until they landed in the “data entry” job where those basic skills are sufficient. She would picture row upon row of happily self sufficient data entering newly trained people. But that’s not how it works.
The expense to set the place up is added to the cost of the locally spent entitlements. A few folks may actually complete the training but most realize that its not the training, its the lack of JOBS close by that is the problem. There are not vast floors of empty chairs in front of monitors waiting the these previously untrained people to show up. So, the one’s who get trained? Where do they go? The DMV, and similar places, all government jobs, all created out of tax payer money, and all a greater drain on resources than the entitlements that were supporting the new workers.
That’s why feminism and liberalism are inseparable. It is the image of the workers filling those empty chairs, keyboards blazing, that animates them. Never mind that the reality is more, “take a number” when you go to renew your license. She helps illustrate further:
The world is not as simple as libertarians would like to believe it is, where everyone is capable of the same basic level of autonomy and self-sufficiency. This is not just an ignorant idea, but it is also a dangerous concept as it leads to the vilification and denial of basic rights of those who were simply dealt a lousy hand in life.
Neither libertarians nor conservatives maintain the position that everyone is capable of the SAME level of autonomy. Pay close attention to her exact words…”the same basic level”. Should she not have said either “the same level” or “a basic level”? Why did she choose “same basic”? Is she saying there is a right to a minimum standard or that there is a right for everyone to have the same standard? I suspect she means a minimum standard but her choice of words reveals that her statement is purely emotion based. Liberalism and feminism are Siamese twins adjoined at the sameness.
As much as we men want there to be women who get this stuff, who we think can carry truths to the sistas with more moxy than we could ever, we are eventually disappointed. Or we are not, in which case we are reacting illogically to how cool it is that some chick joined our Man Club. For a moment we see a ray of hope, that our good virus has managed to jump genders.
Then we discover she doesn’t have a virus, she has a flipping prion.
[This is a little stale, date wise, but was sitting in my drafts begging for a click]