10 January 2013

Male Feminists

Let's stop right there.  These men are, as Hugo says, aggrieved and clueless.  Enraged, sad and bewildered.  He calls them pathetic and infuriating (mostly because of how many of them prefer women with shaven legs, apparently).  He even actually questions the morality of mocking them.
 But if you think Hugo's about to show the slightest concern for his fellow men over, say, the obsequious fawning he does over his feminist handlers, you would be wrong.  The rage and pain of these losers -- and Hugo doesn't hesitate to mock them as such -- is, indeed, a fair and moral talent for public bullying according to Hugo . . . because they're just dudes.  And dudes don't matter.  (Until they start buying firearms -- then they matter).

Now, what’s interesting about this excerpt is that it is basically a male version of the type of writing that is generally found on feminist sites.  It uses us-versus-them language, and never once stops to consider whether the other side may be right.*

Now, it is true that Hugo Schwyzer is an insufferable leftist mangina male feminist.  And it’s also true that Schwyzer should be punched in his insufferably douchy face for being such an insufferable douche.  But none of this is relevant to considering whether Schwyzer’s arguments have merit.

Instead of asking whether Schwyzer’s characterizations of nice guys is correct, instead of asking whether Schwyzer correctly identified nice guys’ motivations for interacting with women, instead of asking whether Schwyzer is correct in asserting that the fulfillment of sexual desire is not a right, instead of asking whether Schwyzer’s assertion that alpha traits are not distributed evenly is correct, instead of asking whether Schwyzer’s assertion that nice guys have a sense of entitlement, and instead of asking questions relevant to Schwyzer’s assertion, Ian simply attempts to rip Schwyzer a new one instead of asking whether Schwyzer is correct.  Again, Schwyzer is an annoying feminist prick.  But that doesn’t make him wrong.

Indeed, the whole failure of the excerpted post, which is itself indicative of the general failure of the MRM, is that it is fundamentally predicated on the assumption that Team Men is always above reproach, and is therefore never wrong, and therefore never needs to engage in quiet self-examination.  Just as feminists will defend Team Woman to the nth degree, no matter how wrong or irrational the case may be, MRAs will likewise defend Team Man even when Team Man is incredibly wrong.

The sad hypocrisy in all this is that MRAs will generally complain about feminists constantly defending their own, even when it’s wrong.  But then, basically everything that MRAs hate about feminists tends to be true of MRAs.  MRAs are whiny, they defend their own at all costs, they constantly talk about how government can solve their problems, and so on.  The only difference between MRAs and feminists is that they play for different teams.  Other than that, the goals, tactics, and behaviors are basically the same.

* Although in fairness to Ian—whose writings I generally find insightful—he does note later on that Schwyzer is correct in one thing:  sex has to be won.  Of course, Ian’s post implicitly reinforces Schywzer’s point that nice guys are manipulative because Ian’s advice in this post is that men basically need to get better at manipulating women, which involves being a dick instead of a nice guy.  I digress.

1 comment:

  1. That's about it, yeah. I like Ian's blog and I read most of the stuff he publishes but that post was indicative of a certain 'circle the wagons' mentality that interest groups in general tend to have.

    Maybe that's a requirement for putting any kind of united front towards anything adversarial, maybe it's not, I'm not sure. Nevertheless, that mentality isn't the most conductive for actual analysis of problems such as nice guy mockery here.

    The 'manosphere' might not be so obviously suspectible to that as their counterpoint, the feminist movement, but that herd mentality is definitely there and it overtakes rigorous thinking too often. Valid terms such as hypergamy or solipsism become shorthand for "anything girls do that I don't like". The blog writers tend to be insightful and analytical but the comment sections are something else. Spearhead is unreadable, Dalrock's signal-to-noise ratio went off the rails a long time ago, etc. Yes, a lot of these men have legitimate grievances but the constant antagonizing grinds even me as a symphatizer. Dump that bitch isn't always the first and best solution.

    Back to Ian's post. Yes, your reading is correct in that he's basically advocating men to replace one manipulative behavior with a more functional one. However, I think 'niceness' (which I believe is usually borne out of general politeness) isn't a manipulative stance for a majority of the men labeled 'nice guys', instead it is a genuine reflection of their natural temperament. That doesn't mean women have any obligation to humor that niceness any more than they instinctively do, but it makes Schwyzer's mockery much more vile.

    I did like Rollo Tomassi's viewpoint on this, that piling on other incongruently/manipulatively/insufficiently nice guys is a tactic for the Schwyzers of the world to prove their own female-friendliness to the girls around them (and presumably leverage that in their romantic life). I believe there's something to that.