Butler

The Western butler and his manhood

What a creature is the besieged Western male. His battle-worn spirit is a warzone over which rages a mêlée for supremacy of his identity. And he is expected never to voice concern for that which is the prize — his humanity.

Radical feminists continue to vilify him, clawing at his character and imposing shame and subservience. But he should be a leader. Moderate feminists encourage him to “move beyond” his masculinity and become more sensitive and “evolved.” But he should be a protector. Society designates him provider. But celebrates his earning power being exceeded by women. People of both sexes expect him to be chivalrous. But he must value equality.

It reads like the dating profile of a prom queen.

And make no mistake, each of these groups deliver their sermons on the shoulders of the Western male, and do so while ignoring both his voice and their own comically crippling dysfunction. Humorously, an informal public survey would likely reveal the general belief that this condition is a privilege. I don’t wonder at the men who stand up and fight, nor at the many men who simply surrender.

The whole affair is a dog and pony show debacle, but never mind all that for now.

The point is this; I often wonder how to sum up the condition of the contemporary Western male in a single word, and because of all the factors at play, it’s not exactly an easy task.

But there is one thing that makes it simple. As complicated as the situation has become between the sexes, our legal equality with women is only a simple moral boundary away. That moral boundary being the one which separates one person’s choices from another person’s responsibilities. In other words, the “radical notion” that making a personal choice doesn’t morally obligate another human being. In every corner of Western civilization we put this moral boundary into practice. Every corner except one.

Because we aren’t protected by this boundary, as men in Western culture our condition is one of profound responsibility. For our own choices, sure, but even for choices which we had no part in making. Even despite this fact, however, the word responsibility isn’t quite enough to describe the contemporary Western male.

Why is the word responsibility insufficient? Simply, because this type of chivalrous male obligation to facilitate the lady’s privilege has always existed. It’s nothing particularly new. The male has always been a pillar of responsibility, since the simple nature of chivalry is just a marriage between the obligation of a man and the benefit of a lady. This remains untouched, so what has changed?

The obvious answer is that women have changed. The responsibilities of yesteryear’s chivalrous man obligated him to a lady, but that same lady had her own traditional responsibilities to observe. This equilibrium meant that the chivalrous man’s responsibility knew limits, and his chivalry was thus curtailed by the limits imposed on the lady. Feminism appeared and rightfully freed women from their traditional limits and responsibilities, but nothing severed the chivalrous bond connecting a man’s obligation to the benefit of a lady. Thus, the chivalrous man’s responsibility came to know no limits as the lady cast aside all limits of her own.

With all of that in mind, what word is more appropriate than “responsible” to describe the Western man whose traditional obligations bind him to the lady’s traditional benefits even as she has become free to do as she wishes? More specifically, what is the word used to describe someone whose responsibility finances another person’s complete freedom to choose and act as they wish free of consequence?

The word is “butler,” and in a nutshell, the Western male has become a sort of traditional butler engaged in a deranged ritual of sacrifice and service. The Western butler isn’t indentured to a master per se, but rather to a concept. This concept is his unreconstructed “manhood,” which encompasses and packages his traditional chivalrous obligations and the way they are designed to benefit and pedestalize a “lady.”

In other words, the Western butler is shackled to his own manhood. Feminists will argue this is the patriarchy hurting men, but this is merely the feminist crashing into her ideological furniture as she stumbles through the dark looking for the light switch. The infantile feminist notion of “patriarchy” isn’t what hurts men, what hurts men is a women’s advocacy that keeps men obligated to women via men’s traditional chivalrous obligations while freeing women from their own roles. What hurts men is a continued responsibility and legal obligation to women that recognize no limitations on their own behavior. What hurts men is that they are not allowed to represent their own interests and humanity with their own movement separate from feminism. What hurts men is a feminist movement that increasingly puts women as a group above criticism and beyond reproach.

Hugo Schwyzer unknowingly highlighted the Western butler’s exact problem in his recent article “Hardwired to Disappoint? The Crushingly Low Expectations of Men” published on March 15 at Jezebel. To quote him directly,

 

As feminists have been pointing out for some time, expanding opportunity for women without also expanding expectations for men leaves us with a lot of anxious and exhausted female overachievers.

This is Schwyzer punctuating men’s chivalrous obligations to the lady. He is advocating that women’s equality involves expanding opportunity for women while also expanding expectations for men. This mentality is exactly the reason the Western male has become a butler; our chivalrous expectations obligate us to the lady who increasingly does as she wishes.

Nowhere is our butler status more evident than in matters of reproduction. The lady now owns her reproductive self determination, as well I believe she should. Unfortunately, no boundary exists between her choice of self determination in this matter and that of the Western male. His obligation to the lady is still intact even as her traditional restrictions have been lifted. As a result, her choice is more than his responsibility, it is his life, with no moral boundary separating his life from her choice. The Western butler is expected to shoulder the weight of her self determination by chivalrously casting aside his own, and the only cost is his humanity.

In the same way, the Western butler is responsible when the lady breaks her part of the marriage contract and finds herself mothering another man’s child. Her status as a lady worth sacrificing for is secure in spite of her infidelity. The Western butler remains obligated to her benefit, and thus works to protect her from the inconveniences of her choice. He is not allowed to consider himself, since no boundary exists to separate his responsibility even from her degenerate choice.

Furthermore, the Western butler is obligated to the safety of the lady. Yet the lady increasingly recognizes no limits on her own behavior. Thus, the Western butler must take responsibility for the lady who increasingly refuses to accept any responsibility for herself. The lady’s poor decisions where her safety is concerned must never be questioned. Doing so results in international slut walk movements to remind the butler of his place. Thus, the Western butler’s obligation to the lady’s safety, even as she continues to behave as she likes, ensures she will not be inconvenienced by any of her own choices, since he is responsible for those choices. She can behave in any manner she chooses, and he will sacrifice and come to her defense, whatever the circumstances, without questioning her. The butler’s own safety, of course, is not a priority.

In matters of sex, the Western butler is also responsible for the lady’s choices. She may desire sex, but if she has been drinking, it is his responsibility to decline. He is thus expected to protect the lady from herself. Her choice to consume alcohol is his responsibility, no boundary exists to separate these concepts. She may choose to consume alcohol or drugs in any quantity. Perhaps she wants to enjoy sex while drunk or high, but he must protect her anyway. Such is the way of the butler. His chivalrous obligation to the lady prevents him from respecting her adult volition and choices, even as she’s warming him up with the most “enthusiastic consent” he’s ever received. The Western butler’s choices are thus to engage her and risk being called a rapist, or reject her and open the gates of hell.

The Western butler’s chivalrous obligation to the lady prevents him from defending himself even if she is attacking him. If she murders him, society holds him responsible. He must have been violent, and such a betrayal of the butler-lady relationship often validates her act of murder. The Western butler must also keep a straight face while the lady and her friends display their open hostility and contempt for men and masculinity. In addition, the lady can fire the butler at any time. He can be removed from the house by force and even by gunpoint if she wishes it. He can be ejected from his family.

At least a traditional butler so discarded was never expected to finance his former master’s operations while he searched for a new one like the Western butler is.

How then, does the Western butler free himself from his master? How does he rid himself of the oppression of his own antiquated manhood? The answer is by fighting to be allowed to define his own masculine identity independently. And this terrifies feminists. It terrifies them. They violently oppose this trend above all else. They oppose the MHRM for this reason. They wish to ensure that the Western butler remains shackled to his socially imposed “manhood.” Their goal is to supervise and direct his masculinity, to keep it caged and harnessed for their own benefit. They construct altars to the feminine such as GMP to debate how best to harness this force. And when the men involved step even one inch over the line, they are savagely punished.

And yet convincing men, even these men from the GMP, of their butler status can be extremely difficult. The reason being that most men feel valued, appreciated, and loved, and indeed many of them are. And to those men, I ask you only for a single favor. Try speaking up for your humanity. Try it just once, and find out whether you’re loved as a human being or loved as a butler.

About Gordon Wadsworth

Gordon Wadsworth is a Canadian scientist who was also one of Western society's many butlers before swallowing the red pill. He has since traded in his service tray for a refusal to bow or comply, and now endeavors to FTSU.

View All Posts
  • Theaverageman

    This is a fantastic article, imo it should be one of the introductory articles.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Agreed, and it will be. These days, though, our problem is that we only have room for 18 introductory articles. We probably have at least 50, or more, that should be introductory reading.

      High class problem.

      • August Løvenskiolds

        Perhaps a couple of the 18 slots might be set aside for sets of descriptive links to the larger set of intro readings.

        The college model 100/101, 2XX, 3XX…and then, at the post-doc level, Asha’s stuff.

  • Bombay

    “Try speaking up for your humanity. Try it just once, and find out whether you’re loved as a human being or loved as a butler.”

    Yes. As soon as I started sticking up for others and myself, did my marriage really fell apart.

    • GeorgeOlduvai

      I feel for you and all others who experienced what you did. I got lucky; when I spoke up, she listened. She listened and agreed. We stand together. With any luck we will show other couples (and eventually the world) that the current societal mindset is not only wrong but harmful (to both sides).

      Stay strong. Speak your mind and know that there are others who stand with you.

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

    “Try speaking up for your humanity. Try it just once, and find out whether you’re loved as a human being or loved as a butler.”

    They already did. Tom Matlack posted some not so flattering things about feminists, and allowed some MRA writers on the site.

    They put his ass in line QUICKLY.

    They stomped him so hard, in fact, that he had to take off his butler’s suit and dress up like a lap dog to get back in their good graces.

    He is behaving real good now. Not a peep about men’s humanity allowed on his site for older frustrated women.

  • http://marktrueblood.posterous.com/ Mark Trueblood

    Good stuff. Agreed.

    Men and women might want to have relationships based on utility, and that’s fine, so long as both are aware that’s the status of the relationship.

  • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

    Best article ever!

    For your listening enjoyment I submit Stone Sour’s “Absolute Zero” may it be the theme song for “Western Butlers” everywhere!

    http://youtu.be/Yw3cHIFny0g

    The perfect work out song to push up that last crushing rep, lap, or wifely insult to the scrap heap of history!

  • August Løvenskiolds

    The MHRM: a group of men and women dedicated the radical notion that men are more than the butlers and lapdogs of women.

    Feminism: a group of women and men who are terrified of the idea that men, as individuals or a group, might be capable of defining themselves apart from the expectations and demands of women.

  • Rad

    I enjoyed this article. It especially fits well for those who have just taken the red pill.

    There’s a small error at the end that a spellcheck wouldn’t catch. “Alter”, as in change, should be “altar”.

  • August Løvenskiolds

    Good catch, but if I may be so bold, both spellings work when set in context:

    GMP is an alter (alternate) to the feminine in that it pretends to consider men as good…

    However,

    GMP is an altar of the feminine in that the good men/attentive butlers are expected to have a worshipful obedience that anticipates the slightest whim or fancy of the divine shoe Goddess.

    Personally, instead of licking her footware, I’d rather set it ablaze.

  • shmiggen

    This was an essay of unsurpassed beauty. Thank you for this, Gordon.

    Here at Butler’s Anonymous, it’s ok to admit you are a recovering Butler.

    My name is Shmiggen, and I am a Butler. I haven’t performed an act of chivalry/self-loathing in five and a half years, though.

    It wasn’t easy putting my Butler’s tray down. People thought I was uppity, even my next of kin. (my father, and my father’s father were Butler’s).

    As crazy as it sounds, I sometimes wonder if being a Butler isn’t all bad. There is security, and an identity, and female approval. (and disgust?)

    Painful stuff, Gordon.

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      Awesome

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Dang…very well spoken, it resonates with me. thank you.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    Great article, Gordon… you get right to the heart of the matter with your word butler.

    Another more historically pertinent word is Vassal. The dictionary definition of vassal is: “A bondman; a slave; a subordinate or dependent.”

    The Wikipedia entry defines vassal this way:
    “A vassal is a person who has entered into a mutual obligation to a lord or monarch in the context of the feudal system in medieval Europe. The obligations often included military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain privileges, usually including the grant of land held as a fiefdom.”

    Read here to see precisely when men became vassals to women.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Read this piece by a middle-ages historian moments ago, thought it was pertinent to this thread. Quote:

      Love and the Medieval Lady
      In medieval courtly love “a true lover considers nothing good except what he thinks will please his beloved.” Hence, it metaphorically extended the social relation of vàssàlage to the love relationship, a “conceit” that Maurice Valency rightly called “the shaping principle of the whole design” of courtly love… Most fundamental, ideas of homage and mutuality entered the notion of heterosexual relations along with the idea of freedom. As symbolized on shieids and other illustrations that place the knight in the ritual attitude of commendation, kneeling before his lady with his hands folded between hers, homage signified male service, not domination or subordination of the lady, and it signified fidelity, constancy in that service. “A lady must honor her lover as a friend, not as a master,” wrote Marie de Ventadour, a female troubadour or trobniritz.” At the same time, homage entailed a reciprocity of rights and obligations, a service on the lady’s part as well. In one of Marie de France’s romances, a knight is about to be judged by the barons of King Arthur’s court when his lady rides to thè castle to give him “succor” and pleads successfully for him, as any overlord might. Mutuality, or complementarity, marks the relation the lady entered into with her ami (the favored name for “lover” and, significantly, a synonym for “vassal”). [end quote]

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    This is a very good article. A fucking bullseye.

  • napocapo69

    Moderate feminists encourage him to “move beyond” his masculinity and become more sensitive and “evolved.”

    …more compliant, more disposable.

  • UKMan

    “Butler”? “Servant”, more like.

    I believe good butlers are well paid and respected for the duties they perform.

    Servants are treated like a disposable appliance until they breakdown and can be easily replaced with another.

    In fact, “appliance” is probably the word we’re looking for – servants are at least seen as human.

    • cr8054

      I agree. The proper word is appliance. Women want us when we are of use to them. The minute we are no longer of use to them, we are disposed of like a piece of garbage.

    • Near Earth Object

      UKMan & cr8054

      I can appreciate—101%—your thinking around being viewed as a disposable appliance, and how that may invite someone to feel about himself. From experience, I can!

      And now, I ask, do I ‘need’ to be seen by feminists, as human, in order to view myself as human? Clearly, if I leave myself open to needing anything from Camp Feminism—in all of their warped and toxic femorality—then I will likely fail to thrive.

      I am hu(man)…and I have hu(man) rights!

      • Grumpy Old Man

        NEO, your my hero…:)

      • Gordon Wadsworth

        Well said. I couldn’t agree more.

        And yet I can’t help but think of myself at age 18, a feminist and white knight, a narcissist who arrogantly loved thinking of his “strength” serving women. Growing up I was trained to value women above all else, and saw myself as a kind of champion of women’s equality, not realizing that of course this presumes women are feeble infants in need of a champion.

        I freed myself from all that in my early 20s but it took a couple years of thought and a few rude wake up calls. I see alot of young men now behaving in the same way, and it’s depressing to watch. They know nothing else because their masculinity has been caged all their life. It’s for them that this site and others like it are such a crucial resource. Just my opinion.

        • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

          Equality, I spoke their word, as if a wedding vow… ah but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now..

  • Near Earth Object

    That’s two for two Gordon.
    I plan to re-read your earlier article today.
    I can’t wait for your next piece.

    I’ve been meaning to say this for some time now.
    Every article has an additional ‘thousand words’ when you look at the perfect pairing of picture with article. A BIG thumbs up to the folks behind the scenes in the art department. You are outstanding!

  • Justice

    You mentioned radical feminists …

    Just remember that the beneficiaries of any coercive system are it’s most vocal supporters.

  • http://none universe

    A most clear essay and enjoyable summary of what ails us.

    Multiple legislatively enacted sexually polarizing social conditions brought about chiefly by ruthless narcicists (feminism) and supplicating traditionalists.

    Difficult and futile to epitomize this fine article, yet : man as traditionally bound dutiful lackey creating numerous adverse consequences.
    “The infantile feminist notion of “patriarchy” isn’t what hurts men, what hurts men is a women’s advocacy that keeps men obligated to women via men’s traditional chivalrous obligations while freeing women from their own roles.”

    What many past failed to do was knowing the very women they sought to ‘liberate’. The women that greatly disliked and convinced others to dislike men. Men and many others complied in traditional female protecting mode without fully knowing the rhetoric and the truth, or lack thereof, regarding feminism.

    So now, not only has the ‘butler’ dutifully complied to feminist demands but having done so also requires an all attending ‘nanny’ to mind the historical and present created childishness in the fairy tail palace.

    Not to worry dear readers. The author rightfully identifies and prescribes that men define themselves as they see fit. Fit in duty to themselves which is likely to be also for the benefit to all others.
    Given time the encompassing feminism which serves to restrict men’s alignment with the present will rightfully be left to fend for itself alone and barren. That is, after the purge.

  • donzaloog

    This article is perfect. Just perfect.

  • Booyah

    Loved both your articles, Gordon particularly this one. It’s always nice to get a new piece of the puzzle or look at an old piece from a new angle.
    I don’t have much else to add except welcome aboard and glad you’re here.

  • yama

    It’s interesting. Reading this article reminds me of conversations I’ve had with family friends over the years (the males my dad’s age that is) – they always refer to their wives as “the boss” and speak of a whole lot of things they do/say just to stay on her good side and keep the peace. I say the exact opposite, to which they look at me with eyes that say “oh you’ll learn your place one day buddy”, before I recount episodes of how I don’t put up with female bullshit. They look at me astonished and quickly change the subject every time.

    Butlers indeed.

    • Roger O Thornhill (George Kaplan)

      Have we met somewhere before? :-)

      • Near Earth Object

        As soon as the other triplet shows, I’ll be doing my “Cary, Cary, Cary” impersonation.

        • Roger O Thornhill (George Kaplan)

          Don’t wait for him, he’s always late! :-)

          • Near Earth Object

            A bit of entertainment, while we wait for the other Cary.

            CARY GRANT reveals a personal flaw & actually says “Judy, Judy, Judy”! .

  • MGTOW-man

    Feminism appeared and rightfully freed women from their traditional limits and responsibilities, but nothing severed the chivalrous bond connecting a man’s obligation to the benefit of a lady.”
    —”rightfully freed”. I dissent. Women and men were doing what they needed to do to help the most people most of the time, about most things, making life more reasonable, rational, successful and overall, fun.

    We must put our species first; women or men as groups aren’t as big as the world itself, which means our species-integrity should come first before all subjective wishes—even when we posses the capacity to have easier, industrial revolution-changed lives.

    I love your article, but I do disagree with the above.

    However, given that things have drastically changed, due precisely because women abandoned their species-driven duties and responsibilities, your article concurs with what I have been saying for along time: Change men, and you change the world. Get them to see that manhood—being a “real” man—has absolutely nothing to do with that of keeping women pleased, having kids, revolving their entire lives around them, then die an uncelebrated death likely earlier than most women—being utterly a “had sucker”, then we will, with truth as sword, conquer the beast of feminism and shut out any chance that it can raise its ugly head in our faces ever again.

    Given what we now have, why should men be the only ones/thing to not change?

    I also dissent from your idea of her body-her right to control/abort. (That is what I got from your words, “The lady now owns her reproductive self determination, as well I believe she should.”

    I disagree because in the interest of a man’s humanity,( in which you defend) it is more degrading, and a greater loss of his dignity for a man to have no procreation power (just because he does not own the equipment), than it is for a woman to have to share, say, 51/49, her favor. Owning the equipment should have no bearing on the only way be both have to procreate as a species.

    If the situation were reversed, in which men owned the equipment, feminists, and apparently most women would expect us to share. They would march and fight against a cruel practice to shut them out of their own procreation power. They should win such a fight–as we should too, because there is no better way to rob a person of humanity than to take away his human procreation power and rights.

    However, asking women to share with men, even though their entire premise for feminism was to get men to share with them, is like asking a child to not be selfish.

    Don’t get me wrong, you and I are on the same side overall, but I disagree with “men have no equipment, so they should not have any power”. I would never treat women that way and I expect the same from women, that is, IF they are truly fair. Her plans are not as important as the life of the child that belongs to her AND him. If neither wants the child, then that changes the deal because unwanted children are bad for society too.

    I also think we MHRA’s should address procreation this way on the world stage that is surely ours to come very soon, Our humanity will NEVER be complete without procreation capacity 50/50— or as close as can be achieved.

    I also believe that men should be able to opt out of parenting. THEN, it would become solely her body, her choice, her murder, if she so chooses.

    I will not apologize for my male perspective.

    Continuing from your article: “How then, does the Western butler free himself from his master? How does he rid himself of the oppression of his own antiquated manhood? The answer is by fighting to be allowed to define his own masculine identity independently. And this terrifies feminists. It terrifies them. They violently oppose this trend above all else. They oppose the MHRM for this reason. They wish to ensure that the Western butler remains shackled to his socially imposed “manhood.” Their goal is to supervise and direct his masculinity, to keep it caged and harnessed for their own benefit. They construct altars to the feminine such as GMP to debate how best to harness this force. And when the men involved step even one inch over the line, they are savagely punished.”
    —TRUTH IS THEIR NUMBER ONE ENEMY: MASCULINITY, AS DETERMINED BY NON-FEMINIZED AND NON-CHIVALROUS MEN, IS THEIR SECOND, because if they don’t/can’t have help, they can’t be equal—which sort of spoils their entire equality quest from the get go, but feminist and their women, do not get it. or want to get it.

  • Carlos

    Excellent work Wadsworth!!

    I generally summarize these ideas by saying:

    Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin.

    When you have rights without corresponding responsibilities what you really have are privileges.

    When you have responsibilities without corresponding rights what you really have is indentured servitude (ie slavery.)