Female Submission and its Enemies & A Response to Jungle Jain
Mannerbund: This is What a Feminist Looks At got a positive response from men, and a negative response from feminists. Blogger JungleJain was so inspired by my comments on reddit she wrote an article about me: Masculinity, Privilege, and Boxes. My response is below. Her article, along with a long exchange with feminists on reddit, got me thinking about one of my favorite subjects. Some commenter mentioned that the whole “game” phenomenon may have helped get some men laid, but hasn’t helped them attain something they want even more: to become a husband and a father. Which got me thinking about feminism.
We called it “women’s liberation.” The question is, who were they liberated from? Women must obey and submit to their employers, women must obey and submit to the officers of the state (police, judges). The only men that women were liberated from was their husbands. Feminism was always about denigrating the role of wife, a role that more specifically can be termed “wife of this man and mother of his children.”
What’s fascinating is that an article and a discussion that was really narrowly focused on “the dating game” and the sexual marketplace turned into something bigger; the role of women in society, masculinity and femininity as abstract concepts, and gender roles.
The “marriage problem” has been discussed in the manosphere forever. Men’s complains seem to boil down to, they have no power in marriage anymore. Anytime a wife decides she wants to leave, she can, and will get presumptive custody of the children, child support and/or alimony (“cash and prizes” and Dalrock would say). Dalrock talks about a “threat point” which is where a woman can simply threaten divorce as a tactic to get her way in the relationship, sort of a domestic version of the Sampson Option. The men’s response to this lack of power in a relationship is straightforward: they aren’t getting married. This has caused unhappiness among both men and women, and it’s such a major social issue the elite press such as the NYT and WSJ have written extensively about it.
But men and women are not “social constructs” and their natures do not change because leftists wish them to. I’ve had conversations with three women recently that all said the exact same thing: they want a man to “take care” of them. One said she wanted to be “owned” by a man – a woman that proudly called herself a feminist (until she met me, that is.) Another admitted to very mixed feelings; she wanted to be “independent” but at the same time, she constantly fantasized about having a man to take care of her.
While I still haven’t read it (I’ve heard it’s awful) the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon of last year continues to fascinate me. Feminists hated it, one said it “set women back 50 years,” one was so outraged at the idea the woman was just a “decoration” for the man in the book. But of course, women bought the book in record numbers; millions of women around the world spent money to fantasize about being the property of a rich, wealthy businessman and submitting to his every whim, up to and including … butt plugs.
BDSM is not about whips and chains, it’s about power. Many, I suspect most, women have a submissive streak a mile wide; sexuality is more central to a woman’s identity than to a man’s, literally, a great deal of her physical body is devoted to sexuality and fertility. So the submissive streak comes out not just in the bedroom, but in many aspects of a relationship.
What has happened is that middle class men have lost power in relation to women, which thwarts their ability to satisfy a woman’s hypergamy. If you’re a handome, fabulously wealthy businessman, it’s easy to satisfy a woman’s hypergamy and keep her loyalty, but for the average man, between women’s increasing economic power and the divorce and custody laws, he has no “hand” in the relationship anymore. So, they don’t get married. People are still having sex, and plenty of it, just no longer in the context of a traditional marriage.
One of the eradica commenters said that BDSM was a manifestation of the lack of proper social roles and hierarchy, but what if part of it is simply the lack of men powerful enough, high enough in social status, to trigger a woman’s hypergamy and her submissive instinct? When most men had a higher status than most women, it was easy for a woman to find a man more powerful than her.
Since they cannot find those men in real life, it comes out in increasingly hardcore D/s themes in erotica.
Feminists try to demonize men who want a woman that has less power than them, supposedly, the men are “afraid” of women with advanced degrees, or who make more money. That’s simply part of feminist’s typical demonization of men, most men really just don’t care if a woman has a PhD in women’s studies, it’s just irrelevant to the sexual attractiveness of a woman. Feminists will say that men are “afraid” of a woman that makes more money, without ever speaking to the obvious power dynamic.
Feminists want women to be dominant, but most women are submissive. It’s the feminists that are the outliers, just like the submissive men. It also might explain the recent outbreaks of feminist tirades, screaming at various protests. You’re seeing a specific outlier in action; verbally aggressive, domineering women who like to make men submit.
But no matter how much feminist indoctrination women are subjected to, no matter how much “sub-shaming” (an absolutely real phenomenon), they still fantasize about powerful Mr. Grey. I can imagine the frustration feminists must feel at this constant reminder that they are the exception, not the rule.
My Reply to JungleJain:
He recognizes that gender roles are (at least partially) constructed, and explicitly puts all men not conforming to his idea of masculine into the feminine gender. This, of course, made my ears perk way up, because this is how the man box shrinks.
Let’s not confuse sex and gender. I assume TheBluePillers are of the female sex – not gender – because at least some of them claim they are, and from my original read, it seemed like most of them.
Sex, not gender.
Keep the context here; TheRedPill is about sex, specifically, men attempting to make themselves more successful getting sex from women. If TheBluePillers are actually men, it’s their behavior and agenda, not their characteristics, that would lead me to put them on the “female side” of the Red/Blue duo, and only because of their behavior in the context of the two forums, which are about the sexual marketplace. They are advocating, in the context of the sexual marketplace, for women.
When you define masculinity by the absence of anything deemed feminine by anybody, you can’t help but have a dwindling supply of it, in a world where women are everywhere, and none of us are okay with invisible.
But I don’t. Biologically, male and female are not polar opposites. They are different. That’s why you want to abstract sex to gender. Instead of your straight line, why not draw a “V” – the bottom of the triangle is “genderless” or “androgynous” and the top left is “feminine” and the top right is “masculine.”
“Male space” is a place where males are. Even if the men engage in stereotypically feminine behavior, it’s still “male space.” “Female space” is a place where females are. A space where men and women are together is integrated space; neither men’s nor women’s space.
If there was a forum devoted to, say, nursing, I might assume most posters are women, because nursing is a female dominated field. But there is nothing really specifically “feminine” about nursing. I wouldn’t think a man that is a nurse is somehow “feminine” or “not a real man.” On the other hand, “soldier” tends to be a male profession, because men tend to be physically stronger and more aggressive than women. Gender roles are only partially “socially constructed.”
So, you’re confusing sex with gender, and you’re confusing “space” in the sense of physical space, or virtual space (like an online forum) with “gender space,” your abstract notions of “masculine” and “feminine” and your boxes.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
As far as not being ok with invisibility, you don’t have a claim to my attention; no woman does. I do not owe you “visibility.” Men are under no obligation to do anything for you. That’s another typical leftist tactic, in order to expropriate wealth and power from others, you de-individualize (especially) men into “society.” So, if “society” grants men unearned privileges, therefore “society” – i.e., individual men, owes you something.
Characterizing me as a “misogynist” is just slander, it’s just name calling. I do not hate women, nor do I hate stereotypically feminine roles or behaviors. I’ll cop to sexism and racism, but not “misogyny.”
For the record, I dropped out because, first, it had gone on long enough and I was getting bored, and second, one of the moderators starting threatening to ban me for unapproved thoughts.
I also, if you will recall, started engaging in domineering and “flirtatious” behavior, calling presumably female posters “sweetheart” and the like, and mocking women’s studies degrees. This, again, is in the context of the sexual marketplace. You have the women (or proxy women) of TheBluePill/SRS using stereotypical shaming language, calling men “fedoras,” calling them “homoerotic,” deriding their masculinity, heckling them. I characterized that, as well as the women’s behavior in the protest video, as “topping from the bottom,” an aggressive, sexualized form of verbal dominance/submission play. I countered that with my own style of aggressive, sexualized talk, mocking the femininity of feminists, their value in the sexual marketplace, etc.