So many times I have heard from frustrated women who explain that when they need a loved one to listen to their situation, the man in their life seeks instead to “fix” things. They tell me that this leaves them missing that loving connection that comes from being heard and all too often leaves them with the fear that the man just doesn’t really care so much since he is more interested in fixing things.
Right. But wait. What doesn’t she know about men?
What the women are missing is that men have a natural tendency to want to fix things. Why do men want to fix things? Because it helps them feel better. I could tell you plenty of stories of working on an old car and being frustrated in getting one bolt out. I try and try and no matter what I do, it just won’t budge. Then when I figure it out and successfully pull out the offending bolt I am hit with a wonderful blast of feeling good! Men know this elation. It feels good to solve and fix things and men simply want to share that good feeling with those they love. When she tells him a problem he wants to give to her the same feeling he gets when things are fixed so of course he tries to fix it for her. He’s doing this because he cares, not because he doesn’t.
After explaining this to the women in therapy I let them know that there are things they can do to help this situation. One effective approach is to be sure the man knows exactly what you want. Be clear with him whether you want a consult or want to be consoled. If you want to be consoled tell him he doesn’t need to do anything, that you simply want him to sit with you and listen.
When women talk to their men about this good things happen. When he becomes aware that she doesn’t want a solution and simply wants him to listen he can relax! I have seen this repeatedly. When this is explained to men they are relieved to know what is wanted and make an easy shift to simply listening. Most men find this much easier than the responsibility for fixing.
Here’s something to try:
If you are a woman talk to the man in your life about being consoled versus being consulted. Work out ways to let each other know when you need each one. If you are a man, talk to the woman in your life and let her know you need her to be specific about what she wants from you.
When both know what is needed, good things usually happen!
It’s been said that if you want to understand a society, ignore the anthropologists. Ditto for psychologists. Scratch sociologists off your list, too. They’re all useless. None of these disciplines can help us understand a society’s people or their core values and beliefs.
As strange as it may seem, if we want to plumb the depths of a society’s consciousness, into the well spring of its collective thinking, the thing to watch is the advertising.
This is no revelation to the red pill community. From the tried and true ploys, selling beer, cars and a host of other products with raw sexual imagery, to peddling laundry soap so easy to use that even a man can do it, we’ve seen it all. We’ve witnessed and commented on the tropes for years, particularly the misandric ones, portraying men precisely as society sees them. Menacing. Inept. Useless. Unnecessary. We’ve been taken aback, astounded, as companies like Gillette parrot the modern mindset about men as default perpetrators and agents of evil.
Yep, a few hours in front of your average television and you will get a real clear picture of the society that’s watching it. The worst of it is sometimes ugly, and, sadly, hateful.
So, it was with both pleasure and surprise that I heard about a company called Egard Watches, who made potent, profoundly touching response to Gillette’s full-frontal assault on men. It was even more pleasing that the ad they created was met with such overwhelming public approval.
Back to the advertising, though, a look at top of the home page of avoiceformen.com reveals a banner ad for Coyote Gear, an Arizona based company that sells brass and steel fittings, among other things. Brass and steel. The changing times. Both are a pretty good fit with the men’s movement, I’d say. And it can be revealed that this advertising was secured because of the advocacy for men and boys, not in spite of it.
Yep. Something in this society is changing.
I have also heard through the grapevine that the CEO of Egard Watches, Ilan Srulovicz, may be attending ICMI in Chicago next month. Did I say that things are changing?
Trust me, I understand that a couple of unexpected moves from comparatively small companies won’t exactly change the tilt of the Earth’s axis. But I submit to you that none of this was even possible a short time ago. We are changing the narrative.
You are changing the narrative.
I can even point out that the venue for the next ICMI is anything but a small company. They are a very big name and they know about the history of ICMI, yet they are backing the Honey Badger Brigade’s efforts to host the conference there. If that is not change, I don’t know what is.
So, what can you do? Well, you can get your ticket and attend the conference. In the absence of that (or in addition to it) you can visit Egard Watches and Coyote Gear and give them well some deserved business.
We are a growing demographic, but we won’t be that way for long if we don’t reward companies who take risks by covering our backs.
Looking for mental escape on an airplane last week, I found instead two movies that, in different ways, dramatize male disposability. Neither is an avowedly feminist creation, but both show the imprint of our culture’s male-blaming and female-valuing assumptions.
“A Star is Born” is the third remake of an old story (originally a 1937 movie), and I haven’t re-watched earlier versions to see whether they were as overt in their emphasis on the theme of worn-out male talent being replaced by a vibrant and superior feminine creativity. In the modern version, the male star is not only an aging rocker nearing the end of his career, but also a pathetically self-destructive man who has never come to terms with his inner demons, most particularly the legacy of the abusive father who set him on his path to alcohol-fueled self-hatred and oblivion. To make matters worse, he is losing his hearing as a result of years on a deafening stage and his (typically macho) refusal to use the protective equipment recommended by his doctor.
The male role in the film—and it’s hard not to see it as symbolic of our contemporary moment—is to bring much-deserved attention to the awesome talent of the younger woman, and then to exit the scene. Though the woman loves him—mainly out of gratitude, it seems—she is legitimately powerless to supply the self-respect and self-control he so spectacularly lacks; and his love for her quickly comes to seem, both to the film’s characters and to the compliant viewer, as a drag on her career prospects.
His only decent option is the one he ultimately takes: to kill himself before she can come to hate him for his need and irrelevancy. Even for that, of course, he is blamed, in a scene in which his former manager reassures the grieving widow that she need take no responsibility for the despair that led him to suicide. Fortunately, he leaves her a song that she makes her own in a spectacular memorial performance. We are to understand that she will make of her fame something far more fruitful than the man ever did. In death, he is a greater artistic inspiration than he would have been in life.
I expected a far different take in Clint Eastwood’s acclaimed “The Mule,” but found instead a strikingly similar theme about male redemption through self-sacrifice and disappearance. The movie’s hero is a man near the end of his life who discovers, almost too late, that he under-valued his (entirely female) family and thus deservedly lost their love. In an act combining reckless indifference and financial desperation, he becomes a drug runner for a cartel after his flower business fails; at the same time, he begins to re-connect with his estranged wife, daughter, and grand-daughter. As he descends further into crime, risking his future on increasingly hefty drug runs, he embarks on an emotional and spiritual rebirth.
For what sins is he atoning? His family, especially his constantly nagging ex-wife, are bitterly vocal about their grievances: the man never made time for them and was always on the road or working at his business, failing to show up for many important family occasions. That he provided—and continues to provide—a materially good life that would likely have been impossible if he had been more physically present is never once acknowledged by anyone, not even our hero, who accepts without contradiction his family’s harsh judgements.
In an ironic moment of confession, the Eastwood character tells the FBI agent who will ultimately arrest him that he made a terrible mistake by not putting his family first in his life. That he loved his work and seems to have received affection and affirmation through it that were entirely lacking in his family is hinted at, but never directly explored. Near the movie’s end, the man’s redemption comes when he risks his life to stay by his dying ex-wife’s bedside. Shortly after, he is arrested, pleads guilty to drug charges, and is embraced by the remainder of his family as he is taken away to prison, where they joke affectionately that at least they will know where he is. He will not be in their lives any more than he was in the past, but he won’t have his own outer-directed life either, and that seems a just recompense for his earlier failures.
Both these films view their male characters almost entirely through a female lens, judging them by their (in)ability to provide emotional and other kinds of support for their women. The men’s own emotional needs and desires are presented as either irrelevant or morally wrong. When the men are no longer necessary to the women in their lives, they redeem themselves by quietly disappearing. It’s hard not to see them as parables for our man-shaming times.
When men enter into couples therapy with their wives or significant female others they will often come into what seems like foreign territory. Things don’t make sense and the language used is not so familiar. His needs seem far less addressed than his female partner. It seems to men like they are “out of place.” The first section of this article intends to offer men a primer on the basics of why they may feel out of place. The later section will focus on ideas about what they can do about it and tips for getting the most they can from the experience. It is worth noting that for biological reasons there are probably about 1 in 5 men who will feel more comfortable in the couples therapy setting. It is also true that 1 in 5 women will be more like most men. When this article addresses “men” it is directed towards that 80% of men and 20% of women. Bottom line? We are all very different and if you are a man or a woman and want to know more about the nature of couples therapy you may find this article useful. (For more information on these differences see my ebook The Way Men Heal at Amazon)
1. Men and Couples Therapy – Why is this hard for men?
The whole idea of sitting face to face and talking about emotions and hurt seems odd to many men. Men might feel more comfortable taking this sort of problem and hashing it out as they play a game of horse or shoot 18 holes of golf. They may feel more comfortable shoulder to shoulder or even by themselves but that is not the way this system of couples therapy is set up. This is just one of many factors that make this experience one that is more difficult for men.
Couples therapy uses a unique language that most men simply don’t know but most women speak fluently. This has an impact on what happens in couples treatment. Imagine visiting France. Your wife speaks fluent French and you speak a little. A Frenchman invites you to his table at a restaurant and a conversation unfolds. Who is he going to speak with? How will the conversation flow? Likely you will be secondary since you are simply not as fluent and your wife will translate to you the details that you miss. You rely on her to keep you informed about what is happening and you make your best guesses about the rest. Both your wife and the frenchman will probably not judge you harshly for not being fluent but even so, you will likely feel on the outside. Now think about a couples therapy session. You are likely not as fluent as the therapist and your wife, you will probably feel on the outside in a similar manner but there may be a difference. In the couples therapy arena when you are not as fluent you are likely to be judged and seen as inferior, ignorant, even as cold and uncaring. The truth is that many therapists think that men should be fluent in the language of feelings and tend to judge them for their apparent deficiency. They believe that men, if only they wanted to, could easily learn this feeling language and would then want to talk about their emotions. Simple right? “Just try a little harder honey, it’s not so hard if you will just try.” What these therapists don’t seem to know is that men’s biology is working against them. Their brains are more geared towards building and understanding systems and are not as interested in the emotional side of things. There is some evidence now that testosterone actually limits a man’s ability to articulate emotions even when in the midst of feeling them. Men have a very different way to process emotions but this difference is rarely acknowledged in couples therapy and men’s unique ways are often interpreted as being deficiencies or are simply ignored.
Another aspect to the language problem is that it likely creates a bond between your wife and the therapist and just as you depended on her translations at the French restaurant you now depend on her. The difference is that in a couples therapy scenario, she may be antagonistic towards you since your interests are now in conflict. The likelihood of getting a good translation goes down as you must depend on her emotional maturity and only a truly mature woman will be considering your needs at a time like this. I have seen women use their fluency in the language of emotions as a tool to prove her side and to show the man as being the problem.
Another difference is in the details. Have you ever noticed that women seem to remember in great detail relationship events from years ago? You know, the time you insulted her by saying she was fat in 2007. She remembers. You don’t. Why is it when you are in a session with a couples therapist, she can rattle off a long series of your indiscretions over the past several years? All the while you are struggling to remember the events she is describing much less coming up with your own examples. This sort of memory gives women a distinct advantage in couples counseling since they have a much better grasp on details of problems and disagreements from the past. She often keeps a scorecard. You usually don’t. Her barrage of memories and your silence make it appear that you have no case.
We don’t know why women remember and men don’t. Maybe it’s that men seem to treat their relationship problems and upsets like fishing. When they catch a fish that is too small they simply throw it back in, forget about it, and focus on catching the next one. Most men don’t keep score and catalogue the small everyday relationship deficiencies. Could it be that men see small indiscretions in relationships as being like the small fish and let them go by just throwing them back in rather then hold on to them and file them into a growing pile of hurts and resentments? Could it be that men are simply forgiving and letting the small stuff go? Perhaps when it comes time for couples therapy the men don’t have a huge stockpile of past hurts since they have already let them go while his female partner has a bucket of old hurts which seem geared to prove he is an uncaring sort? You be the judge. YMMV.
Avoiding Men’s Emotional Pain
Also at work are misandrist attitudes that are held by almost everyone in the US culture that have an impact on men in couples treatment. These attitudes are led by the idea that a man’s emotional pain is basically taboo. No one wants to touch a man’s pain, no one wants to hear a man’s pain, no one knows what to do with a man’s pain. Men are aware of this distaste for his emotional pain and avoid publicly emoting. No brainer. Men are simply not dumb enough to emote publicly, they know the judgement they would face. Contrast this with the norm for female emotional pain which rather than being taboo is more a call to action. When people see a tearful women in public the first thing that comes to their mind is “How can I help? Oh, poor thing, she needs support.” When they see a tearful man they will often see him as someone dangerous who needs to be avoided. These vastly different responses to men and women’s emotional pain has an impact on couples treatment. I have noticed that at least some therapists carry a portion of this bias. Those who do carry it seem unaware. It is obvious that if this bias is present in therapy the man’s emotional pain is going to get little attention while the women’s emotional pain will likely be the focus of treatment. Add on to that many couples therapists are female and this will give the female therapist a much better understanding of what it is like to grow up as a girl and be a woman but leaves her devoid of the same understandings about men and boys. She will be more likely to compare him to the female norm she has in her minds eye. This sort of thing can leave the man terribly misunderstood. I have known men who had huge stressors like recent major surgery, the loss of a job, and the death of a parent all having happened in the previous month and the therapist decides not to focus on his pain but instead focus on the wife’s emotional pain from something much less significant and question why he hasn’t been more attentive to her needs. This simply disenfranchises his reality and reinforces the therapist’s and the wife’s avoidance of the man’s pain. My experience has been that when the men’s emotional pain is avoided in therapy the men are left feeling even more bewildered and alone.
There is yet another important and related factor involved in the bias we see in couples therapy. It has to do with sex roles. Women’s sex roles have been changing over the last 40-50 years but men’s? Not so much. The traditional male sex role calls for him to provide and protect. Specifically, it calls him to do those things for his spouse that provide her with the supplies she needs/wants while also offering her a safe place. This idea of a safe place can and does include the idea of being cared for. If a woman does not feel cared for she is likely not going to feel safe so it is rolled into one big package for which the man is responsible. Bring her the provisions she needs to do her job and help her feel safe and cared for. On the other hand, the traditional sex roles of women were to birth, raise, and nurture the children and care for the home. He may get some benefit from this but her focus is not on him, it is on the kids and the home. These roles link the spouses in a very different manner. Her happiness is linked directly to how he performs in his providing and protecting. Does he give her what she wants? Does he give her a safe place? If not, he is open to judgement and criticism from his wife. This is his primary responsibility, to make money to provide and to insure safety. Her needs are his responsibility and his needs and his happiness are not attached in a similar manner. He needs to get the job done first and provide for her. This makes it simple to see the flow of energy in a traditional marriage as being from man to woman, and her flow of energy is from woman to children and/or home. This gives the woman a platform to judge his success or lack of success in providing for her. It gives her reasons to complain about his failures. Her needs are seen as primary. But what about his needs? No one is responsible. His needs are his problem. There is no one mandated to provide and protect for him. No one. It’s easy to see how this plays out in couples therapy. The woman’s needs and satisfaction are a primary element. His needs are much less front and center if they are even dealt with. This being the case it would be easy to see how most couples therapists will have a tendency to focus on HER and not so much on HIM. It would also be more likely that he wouldn’t even think of focusing on HIS needs and wants. He is programmed to care for her needs, not his. Plus, he is graded on how well he performs his providing and protecting for her but she is less likely to receive a grade for her treatment of him. “I can’t do everything, I’ve been taking care of the house and kids.”
To make matters worse the man’s role of provide and protect leaves him with a mandate to maintain his independence. Being dependent or needy is not acceptable. In order to be the best provider and protector he needs to be independent and he will usually struggle to do so. What do we ask of men in therapy and specifically in couples therapy? We ask them to talk about their problems, their vulnerabilities, and their feelings. All of the above are huge signs of dependency and neediness. So we are asking men to do a 180 degree turn and suddenly they are supposed to just magically be comfortable with showing neediness and dependency. The women think this should be easy since their roles are not as demanding of them to be independent. In fact what are the old demands of women’s roles? Nurturing and caring right? So just imagine for a moment putting women into a situation where they had to talk in ways that would show they were not nurturing and caring! Would they have an easy time with that? I don’t think so. We need to have some compassion for our men and the bind they are placed into by coming into couples therapy.
Therapy is Friendly to Women
Therapy has evolved over the years to be friendly to women. Why? Well, it’s pretty simple, women are the ones who come into therapy. Therapists will naturally move towards creating an environment that caters to and welcomes those who are showing up and paying! This is one of the reasons that therapy is based on the more feminine ideas of who is relating to whom and who cares about whom. This is the currency. This is what drives things. In a more masculine environment the currency would more likely be who is governing whom or who is admiring or respecting whom. These are very different spaces. If you are presently in couples counseling it is likely that your wife is attempting to make the point that you simply don’t care about her and she will go through the litany of things you have done that prove you don’t care. Caring is the index. She attempts to convince the therapist that you have committed numerous sins of not caring and now need to change your ways and that her negative behaviors are justified by your indiscretions. This puts you into a defensive position. You spend most of your time defending yourself and trying to rebut her claims about your uncaring behaviors. This is yet another problem for men in couples treatment. They will often find themselves in such a defensive position that they neglect telling their own story, their own needs etc since they are so overwhelmed with just trying to defend themselves.
This sort of imbalanced approach neglects to look at the man’s side of things. He probably isn’t even thinking about voicing his own needs. It is partly his fault for not bringing things up but he is all too often under water in trying to defend himself and feeling out of place in a world that shows little interest in his needs or his feelings. This pattern has been going on for thousands of years and continues to this day, that women voice what they need in relationship whether it is about their own safety or the provisions they feel they require. The men do their best to provide what is requested or protect them if they are in danger. The men are then evaluated on their performance. It’s easy to see how in couples counseling it would be simple to focus on the woman’s complaints and needs and expect the man to step up and meet those needs while at the same time placing his wants and desires a step down. The byproduct of this formula is that men’s emotional pain and needs are marginalized and avoided.
Another problem that often surfaces is that of volume. Women have a very different threshold for determining when someone is yelling. Two men can be actively and politely arguing a point at what seems to them to be reasonable volumes but if that same tone and volume is used with their wives, she often claims he is yelling. This often frustrates the man no end. He simply says, “I am not yelling.” And in his mind this is the objective truth. But remember when entering couples therapy your masculine rules and limits stop being applicable. You have entered a more feminine space. The biggest danger of this dreaded “you are yelling” meme is that it is sometimes used when the man is making a very good point, a point that can’t be easily countered. By claiming he is yelling the focus of the conversation shifts quickly and completely. Now the focus is whether he yelled or not…AND how hurt she is that he was yelling at her. (remember the keyword is “caring”, a caring person wouldn’t yell) Now the focus leaves his point and instead centers on how hurt she is and his responsibility for this. This is a devastating development and leaves the man feeling ambushed, helpless and completely unheard. It also importantly lets her off the hook.
Now let’s change gears and look into what a man can do to improve the chances of couples therapy being helpful to him and his relationship in Part Two.
Tom Golden, LCSW is a psychotherapist in private practice. His office is in Gaithersburg MD. Tom also does consults via the internet and phone. His newest ebook “The Way Men Heal” offers a quick look at the masculine side of healing. You can find him here: [email protected]
This is a guest post from Moiret Allegiere. He has a great deal to say about our plight as men in today’s insane misandrist world. You can find his blog here.
We are a generation lost, choking on our own fumes of self-righteous indignation egged on by dishonest academic coprophilia. Come past, come present, come future, we will all be forced to eat shit and then die, harnessed to our safety-bubbles and lost within the great wide world-void without a safety net. Cerebral coprophilia.
Where once we used to taste and thrive on danger – what could be considered dangerous – rebellion and wild vulgarity, rock’n’roll and free expression – we now thrive on telling others what they may or may not speak and how they should go about doing so. Or not doing so.
Where once we used to laugh and crack whiplash-jokes at just about anything, we are now so inoculated that our mediocre playtime schools tell us nothing of substance for fear of triggering the trigger-happy woke hipster squad armed with muscle-loss rifles. Pow pow pow.
We are the generation of South Park and gross-out humour. And we can’t stand anything offensive. It boggles the mind and shakes the spinal fluid out my nose and ears. If anything, we should be so used to wild kicks in all directions that nothing would phase us. But the loonies have taken over the asylum. They have overrun our institutions and turned them on their head very much over heels – wondrous institutions of higher indoctrination into the victim cult of burnt offerings – neck scarred by failed lynchings – free-form ideas replaced with cancerous tumours. We no longer seek to understand or heal through laughter and through humour. We seek to heal through trapping ourselves within a cage and throwing away the key. Demanding anything we don’t like be thrown out of society and beaten to a bloody pulp by those who are supposedly opposed to violence. Mad wild-beast-hysteria, mirroring those who protested rock’n’roll, who decided that Dungeons and Dragons was a pathway to satanism, who blamed Alice Cooper for murders and claimed Marilyn Manson as the reason for school-shootings and massacres.
Masculinity is taught in schools to be a dangerous ideology, through years of unchecked auto-cannibalism on behalf of western thought. Research gone the route of subjective opinion where objective fact is naught but triggers for the squad of woke dementia branded by their handlers and told that they must never have their feelings hurt. If they are of a non-masculine persuasion, that is.
For there are no checks in place, no balance to be had. Boys and men may still be subject to denigration and hatred, uncensored and shot out both barrels of rhetorical shotguns aimed flat-fisted and devoid of facts at the chests and beating hearts of young boys trapped in schools to be told that they are vicious visceral beasts of rape and annihilation. And girls are still sugar and spice and everything nice – en mass.
All boys and men should do is sit still, silent and complacent, as their inner world burns and wild teacher’s manifested telepathy reach into their minds to tell them not what they think but what the academic nincompoops of mass-indoctrinated hay-fever tell them that they think that they think. For boys are still snips and snails and puppy-dog tails. And there is something wrong with boys and with men that must be unlearned through rigorous academic shit-tests. And this is painted as being of great service to boys and men! Manufacturing confusion and inner turmoil, self-loathing and layers of shame in the souls of boys and men – attacking their core identity – is rendered as a service and not a full frontal assault on their very being. In a just universe, these people would be shunned and shamed for their blatant assault on a group of people for nothing but their innate characteristics. In a universe and a society that ran on reason, these peddlers of abhorrent hatred would be hated and curb-stomped and left in the wilderness.
My generation is doomed. Domesticated and complacent. Whipped into place by hatred and shame painted in the new glow of liberating equality; by gender-political con-artists espousing feminine virtue as the only virtue, demanding that they be the ones to decide what are the real problems facing men, never leaving men a space to decide for themselves. Or speak on behalf of themselves. Punctuated by the guttural roar of clenched teeth and fists flung violently towards the world of men. And never – never understanding that it is not in the best interest of men that men should not be allowed to speak for themselves as to what constitutes and makes a man a man, that it is not in the best interest of men that men should not be the ones to speak on what are the issues facing men.
A political movement that has picked its own enemy should not be the ones to speak on behalf of their enemy. This should be obvious. Yet, here we are, a society so firmly placed betwixt the unwashed butt-cheeks of feminist misandric ideology that all our noses and all our tongues are brown, and all we taste and smell is shit. So much so that we do not notice the taste and smell any more. We take it for granted. Part and parcel of the western utopian pipe-bomb-dream where sex and gender does not matter, except when it does matter. And when it does matter, it is when one is better than the other and one is worse than the other. Skewed heavily in favour of the fraud and sham of feminist poltergeist-philosophy, thriving on hatred and division when claiming to be nothing of the sort. Of course.
My generation were fed the notion of equal treatment through the myopic lenses of frazzled and bewildered feminism. We had feminism forced down our throats as the movement with a monopoly on equality; the movement of equality to end all other civil rights movements, past, present and future. So that no other voices and no other views were to be heard and were to be seen. Because there were no other movements of such fantastic vision, such fantastic truth and beauty. Opposition to feminism meant not only opposition to equality, but opposition to women. And opposition to women is worse than being opposed to equality. Which, I think, should be an eye-opener if ever there was one.
Any movement that does not tolerate dissent… that does not tolerate other movements… should be hastily ignored and thrown out the door flat on their anaemic arse. Any political movement so tyrannical and so domineering as to claim to hold the monopoly on this, that or the other should be hastily broken down and drowned in its own septic flesh. The obvious totalitarianism in this way of thinking is nothing that should be celebrated. Yet, it was and it is celebrated. It is taught and told and forced down our gullible throats as the only path towards equality – whatever that tenderly infected term “equality” means.
My generation had no personal choice in the matter. We were brow-beaten and whipped into compliance with feminist orthodoxy and dogmatic rule through pictures painted and presented us of poor oppressed women herded like sheep to the slaughter, opposed at all sides by the wickedness and cruelty of men. Leered at and raped at every turn of the cock, ticking timebombs as they were, throbbing and waiting for rape and pillage and plunder and the spoiling of virginal and sanctified womanhood.
All this to justify the building up of girls – the girl power rhetoric so hip and cool – at the expense of boys, whose shuddering and neglected shapes fell flat on their faces on the sidelines of education reform that taught us nothing but to feel ashamed and feel guilty for our sex; that taught us nothing but an inherent knowledge that we were bad. And all the while telling us, with serpent-tongues and crimson smiles, that it was not about hating men or boys.
Where once we dared to set course for uncharted waters… where we dared to face the world on our own terms, we have been rendered impotent and deemed incompetent. We have been thrown to the margins and forgotten; our pride and our masculinity swallowed by the serpent-shape of gender-politics claiming to speak on behalf of both genders, yet caring only for one, neglecting the other.
And the serpent gave birth to numerous offspring, clans upon clans of followers of the snake-cult, all clinically brain-dead and washed ashore on the rhetoric of shame-hate-rage-ruin-ridicule, hiding and cowering in fear if anyone should propose something outside their ideological comfort zone. Claiming offence if truths are presented, and then demanding protection from facts and from truths uncomfortable to their preconceived notions of supposed equal treatment, meaning, of course, “superiority for me, inferiority for thee”. An arrogant tribe of spoilt and rotten eggs, all claiming tolerance and lack of hatred, all claiming open-mindedness and truth and reason, whilst showing lack of tolerance, proving their unflinching and unbridled hatred at any turn, keeping their minds closed to anything outside their realm of proclaimed knowledge and disavowing facts and truth and reason countering their dogmatic, borderline religious, flat-earth-like convictions.
And claiming all things to be offensive, in order to shut down any opposition. This and that and all the other stuff is offensive. As if that is enough of an argument, as if merely the pregnant tunes of offence taken is a counter-argument. A glaringly obvious tactic of manipulation in place of arguments. Which somehow fucking bloody god-damned works within and without powerful institutions.
My generation killed Rock’n’roll.
God have mercy on our souls.
This is a guest post from Moiret Allegiere. He has a great deal to say about our plight as men in today’s insane misandrist world. You can find his blog here.
What if men simply stopped contributing to the system that exploits and abuses them? What if they not only withdrew their emotional and intellectual energy from that system, but withdrew themselves altogether?
This week’s discussion with Steve Brule, who has been living mainly in the Dominican Republic for the past 2 ½ years, made me think of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Not unlike Rand’s angry heroes, Steve found that Canada had become, for men like him, a large, well-regulated prison where his freedom to live according to his principles had been compromised, and where he felt constantly targeted for being born male. So he left–and he has no regrets.
Rand’s philosophy of objectivism may not be to everyone’s taste, but her metaphor of ‘going Galt’ resonates powerfully with anyone who has ever fantasized about leaving a culture and a country that takes men’s contributions for granted, repaying them with indifference, condemnation, and/or extortion. In Rand’s novel, the achievers of the world simply disappear, leaving the takers to reap the rewards of their selfishness: economic and social collapse.
For how many more years will men accept being treated as second-class citizens, public enemies, aggressors, and dangerous perverts—even while still being expected to support women, mentor them, defer to them, promote them, pay for their children, prop up a legal system that favors women, and pay taxes to a government that creates programs to advantage women and disadvantage men?
For every man who has ever intuited that in return for his hard work, stress, ingenuity, and tax money, he gets precious little in return, Atlas Shrugged provides a satisfying portrait of rebellion.
As Steve suggests, men should consider ways to protect their assets, their freedom, and their emotional well-being. Investigate the possibility of living outside the West. Starve the beast!
I saw a video that featured a man named Martin Seligman who some call the father of positive psychology. He explained that psychology had been focused since its inception on the medical model. That is, they’ve been interested in finding what is wrong and then finding out how to get rid of it. In some ways they have found success but he says that this focus has ignored a huge group of people, the normal folks who are simply looking for ways to feel better and enjoy their lives. Seligman and his colleagues have been focusing on that group. Rather than focus on illness and psychopathology they focus on the positive side of being human and what helps make people happier.
In the video Seligman lists three states of happiness. The first is simply finding pleasure and enjoying the good things of life. He was quick to point out that this element was short lived, and as he said, it was a square wave. When you experienced the pleasantness you enjoyed, but after it was gone, so was your positive feeling. It was very short lived.
The second element was the state of mind we find when we become enthralled with an activity. He called it FLOW. Everything else disappears and we lose track of time and simply experience this state. It can take on many faces. For some it might be captivated by music, for others it might be a game or another passion/interest.
The third element was where we did things that we tied to meaningfulness. They were important to us due to their meaning.
He then made the point that when we can combine the second and third element that this combination could produce a potent example of something that helped us to feel good. Its impact on us was not short lived like the temporary pleasure, it had a much more lasting impact. He called it Eudaemonic.
We will be looking at more of Seligman’s ideas and practical suggestions about feeling good in newsletters to come.
Think if you have something you do that helps you move into FLOW. Is it something you do often? Something you enjoy? Something that has meaning to you?