He is the one good man.
He’s on his knees figuratively speaking, groveling about his apparent privilege. He’s allowed to speak so long as he prefaces each utterance with an apologetic seeking of approval.
“Look! Look! I’m using the knotted rope to beat myself! I’m one of the good men! Look! Look! I’m not like those other bad men!”
This slave, this coward, this supplicant seeking approval – he is the good man, and to prove it he will scourge every other man; every other man, who is not, like him, demonstrating that he is one of the good men; on his knees, or already busy attacking other men who don’t yet know they should live in a state of ongoing apology for existing.
Now, some will call this apologetic man an unkind word: a “mangina.” It is not a word I generally use. Although it is appropriately insulting, it lacks explanatory power. Others will call him a white knight. They’re the same creature. A man, surrendering reason, morality, surrendering the right to an identity as a human being, in favor of the consensus identity afforded to him by the group, based on his utility, his conformance, or his affectations of supplication to the preferred members of the group, such as women.
But the underlying motivation for men to manifest the characteristics of snivelling, apologetic supplicants for approval, or the characteristics of amoral, violent enforcers of group think and conformism – are the same motivations. The first is fear of loss of their identities as “good men.” This is the cowardice of identity, or the inability or unwillingness to define themselves human beings of worth without regard for approval of the group.
The second reason, which operates in concert with the first is surrender of an internal moral compass in favor of conformity. What’s right, or what’s true will be what the group says is right, or simply what the loudest drivers of opinion in the group say is right.
But what if the drivers of group opinion are themselves immature, violent, prejudiced, bigoted, or demonstrate other signs of mental illness, particularly, a constellation of qualities associated with high conflict personality disorders? Then the group think, the consensus reality becomes one of paranoia, hatred, and ultimately, violence. The accepted rules of civil society go out the window, because men who lack the courage to self define, but who allow themselves to be guided by fear of loss of their group identity of good men — these men become the enforcers of a public ethic of atavistic group think; us-versus-them along lines of trivial disagreement, social ostracism, fear driven conformism and authoritarian compliance; of hatred, and of violent enforcement of social norms which are fundamentally toxic and dysfunctional.
And all of this is enabled by the cowardice of those males who the group will define as good men. The compliant, the apologetic, and the heroes enforcing the whim of overgrown toddlers with princess complexes.
So we come to the one good man. The one who, by distinguishing himself good, renders all others bad. Look at him, he’ll defend the women, he’ll defend the children, because those other men, they’ve failed to recognize the need of all women to be defended. The bad men have failed to recognize that women are fundamentally helpless, weak, in need of rescue, elevation, protection and insulation from any possible discomfort, disturbance or criticism.
He is the one good man.
This is obviously why his violence, enacted or initiated on behalf of those helpless, special fragile flowers he defends, is excusable. Indeed, his violence, which he, being good, might not even enact other than through indirect proxy. His violence is virtuous because he is good. And if you aren’t him, then you’re a bad man. In fact, you might not even be a human being at all. Better get on your knees, apologize and admit your privilege, if, of course, you ever hope to be good.
If you let fear of loss of status as a good man – lending you to surrender your identity, your compass and any sense of right or wrong, then you simply cling to provisional approval. And you might even get to indulge yourself in some violence on behalf of grown up toddlers who discount your humanity and the humanity of all men in favor of utility and conformance.
But that world of hatred, fear, enemies, in groups and out groups, good people and bad, based on biology or cowardly conformity – that’s not where I live, or where I want to live.
- Substantive Equality, a golf handicap in the law - April 22, 2014
- Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund: The first rule of LEAF is don’t talk about LEAF - April 18, 2014
- Consent: You Don’t Have It - April 17, 2014
- What the fuck is infanticide? - April 12, 2014
- Danielle D’Entremont, Bellwether? - March 30, 2014