Robert McCain writes about a column in The New York Times that is chock full of male feminist angst. All of these horrible men who are being outed as horrible men who chase after women! Oh the humanities!
Is this masochistic self-flagellation necessary? Is it really true that, because of what we’ve learned about Weinstein, et al., men are now “forced” to admit that their sexuality is “ugly and dangerous”? Are all men perpetrators of “implicit brutality”?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; all of these men who are being outed as not very nice guys all have one thing in common – they are left wing progressive “enlightened men”. Male feminists in other words.
From the column in question:
Through sheer bulk, the string of revelations about men from Bill Cosby to Roger Ailes to Harvey Weinstein to Louis C.K. to Al Franken and, this week, to Charlie Rose and John Lasseter, have forced men to confront what they hate to think about most: the nature of men in general. This time the accusations aren’t against some freak geography teacher, some frat running amok in a Southern college town. They’re against men of all different varieties, in different industries, with different sensibilities, bound together, solely, by the grotesquerie of their sexuality.
They want you to think that these men are all of different varieties, but they’re not. You may as well stick the title of male feminist before each of their names, and I have no doubt that each and every one of them voted for Hillary! These men are a self-fulfilling prophecy for the left. They went along with all of the progressive platitudes in the hope that this would enable them to finally get laid on a regular basis. Men only become ‘male feminists’ or some other prog abomination in order to fulfill an urgency to get laid. When this doesn’t eventuate for them, (because you never listen to what a woman says she wants on such a subject), then their desperation propels them to other less salacious methods of sexual fulfillment.
The writer, one Stephen Marche, claims that male sexuality is inherently brutal. What he means by that is normal and healthy male sexuality that is unpolluted by progressive feminist doctrine. These men are insanely jealous of men who get laid without sucking up to women. As a result when their own are caught behaving badly then this is a wonderful opportunity for them to smear normal masculinity as a whole.
How do I know that this Stephen Marche is a whimpering beta male that is racked by jealousy? Let’s have a look at a couple of passages from his article.
The men I know don’t actively discuss changing sexual norms. We gossip and surmise: Who is a criminal and who isn’t? Which of the creeps whom we know are out there will fall this week? Beyond the gossip, there is a fog of the past that is better not to penetrate.
I have never before seen the term gossip associated with men. This passage is a dead giveaway that Marche and all of his male friends are repressed, frustrated, beta chumps. And at heart every one of them are secretly jubilant with each of their own who falls to the frenzied lust to find more perpetrators of sexual misdeeds. One more falling is one less competitor which is vitally important when you are so inept in the sexual market stakes.
A healthy sexual existence requires a continuing education, and men have the opposite. A healthy sexual existence requires a continuing education, and men have the opposite. There is sex education for boys, but once you leave school the traditional demands on masculinity return: show no vulnerability, solve your own problems. Men deal with their nature alone, and apart. Ignorance and misprision are the norms.
The first sentence is a falsehood that is presented as fact. The rest is a misdirection to place blame for progressive men’s failings at the feet of traditional masculinity. But these men who have been implicated did nothing of the kind. They took the progressive route of sharing their feelings, showing their vulnerabilities, and getting in touch with their emotions that feminists demanded of them. And it led them down the path of immense sexual failure and frustration. So what is Marche’s solution to this big problem?
I’m not asking for male consciousness-raising groups; let’s start with a basic understanding that masculinity is a subject worth thinking about. That alone would be an immense step forward. If you want to be a civilized man, you have to consider what you are. Pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be, cannot help. It is not morality but culture — accepting our monstrosity, reckoning with it — that can save us. If anything can.
He is correct, but not as he intended. The actual monstrosity is distorted and twisted masculinity – male feminists just like him. These are the men who are being exposed. Pretending to be a sensitive new age guy as feminists demanded will only cause you a world of misery. Their only solution is to stop listening to women and start making a real man of themselves.
But as long as they participate in male “gossip groups” then I just can’t see that happening.