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.