Recently, John the Other ran an article here, “Socialized psychopathy, modeling female misbehavior,” in which he postulated that women were inherently amoral. It was written in JtO’s typically provocative fashion, and created some dissent, some of which even spilled into one of my personal friendships in a very sad and unfortunate way.
Does John’s article skirt the edge of convention and in fact dance over it wearing muddy combat boots? Well, yes.
Do his points contain enough reason that they warrant vetting and further exploration? Yes, they do, to a certainty.
Part of the dissent in the comments asserted that material of this sort was a mirroring of feminist strategy; to effectively operate within a “man good, woman bad,” paradigm. Yet when I went back to give another, intentionally more thoughtful read to the piece, I find that assertion unwarranted, and in fact consciously avoidant of important details contained in the article.
I will not go through a point by point analysis here. That may well play out in the comments if that is what readers desire. It is all still there, just as originally posted, through the link above.
There are actually more important issues at hand that I will choose to address. And, honestly speaking, I think it feeds into an already severe problem for me to take the time to present a defense to John’s already well stated ideas when there is so much more at stake than just one article.
The value of this discussion is that it brings us to a needed vetting of the concept of deconstruction; of whether it is appropriate or helpful to evaluate aspects of the modern psyche of men and women, and draw conclusions as to how those observations may or may not contribute to misandry in society.
To answer this is simple for me personally. If we cannot look at the roots of social customs like hypergamy and chivalry honestly, and seek to understand their origins, then not only are we wasting our time here, we will have also proven to be hypocrites and liars with no right to be here in the first place.
Either that, or we must subscribe to the feminist doctrine that all sexual identity is socialized and that none of this is inherent to our nature. I am willing to give that idea due examination, but can’t assume it has any validity in advance.
The fact is that even on cursory examination I can make sense, through a sociobiological lens, of female selfishness and male disposability. I can even speculate that had women adopted a moral code that placed them in expendable roles, it would have resulted in the end of all of us a long time ago. If that is true, it does not make women bad, it makes them human.
I can make the same quick analysis about male disposability. Had men not been willing to risk and die for procreation and female survival, we likely would not be here to have this discussion. And the same inference applies. This does not make men good, just human, and disposable, which we are trying to rise above.
The entire philosophy of this corner of the men’s movement hinges on understanding all this and looking at how those roles, applied in a modern setting without such immediate survival needs, have come to visit all of us in ways that are detrimental and often unnecessarily deadly. In particular, we look at how these things play out in our social infrastructure in places like courts, schools and the workplace.
So unless I am wrong, and there was no biological mandate that ever urged women to self-preserve at the expense of men, and to take advantage of their blood and labor without compunction or moral compass, then this is a conversation we must have.
It is just as vital that we understand what drives men to chivalry when the time and practicality have long past; indeed when the practice of it is dangerous to men in ways that no longer serve any benefit to the species at all.
If this conversation is going to be squelched by voices confusing it with misogyny, or our own internal PC aphorisms to “not do what the feminists did,” even when we didn’t, then I hope people will let me know so I can pack up this tent and go home. Just kidding. I am not going anywhere.
I hope, as this conversation gets some perspective from the fine minds that frequent this site, that at the very least we can rise above having to qualify that this is not about vilifying women, or developing a corrupt paradigm in which they are blamed for the ills of the earth; that we can immediately disabuse the notion that we are acting in the same way that feminists do.
For those of you who interpreted John’s article as a feminist-like attack on all women, it is customary in the mainstream to offer an apology, something along the lines of “if you were offended, we apologize.”
First, I don’t offer apologies that start with the word “if.” Those apologies are empty and meaningless. And second, I don’t offer apologies when nothing wrong was done.
What I do offer, what we offer at A Voice for Men, is people of good intent, trying to slog each and every day through the gender insanity in this world, trying to find answers; trying to find truth. We will not always hit the mark, but will not miss because our aim is clouded by hate, prejudice or ignorance.
Where we do err, we will strive to be better, but not because of PC mandates and swallowing blue pills. This website will continue, as we always have, to examine how men and women came to be the way they are.
I have been doing that myself for years, and always with the hope that at some point we can assist men and women, at least the few who want to, in rising above all of it and meeting each other in a place where they see each other as human beings instead of human doings.
We won’t get there without the truth, and the truth won’t be found unless we allow ourselves to look for it.
- The new male archetypes: Servant, Slave and Scapegoat - June 30, 2015
- AVfM Classics: Your feelings and why they don’t matter - June 29, 2015
- A new age for gays, or a trip to the gallows? - June 27, 2015
- Drug policy more dangerous to men than drugs - June 24, 2015
- Don’t look away, Dixie Land - June 24, 2015