Feminism's Assault on Masculinity

[Rebam98]

The Anti-Romeos: Feminism, Masculinity, and Violence

August 3, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Amber Pawlik

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American women should be outraged. Not because of their supposed oppression over the years, not because of over inflated rape statistics that are always being beat into their brains, but because American women have been starved of one of the greatest values open to them while living life on earth – masculinity.

Before the malicious feminist revolution, women had wide spread access and viewage of not just men, but masculine men. Popular actors included the masculine Paul Newman, the gentlemanly Clark Gable, the cool and confident Sean Connery. Women could line up military bases to watch their favorite men in uniform. Up until just before the women's liberation movement, women used to faint after seeing their favorite men in concert. In my lifetime, I've yet to see such a health concern at a concert – unless the raped, dehydrated and mud-covered women of the second and third "Woodstock" count.

For the past 30 years, the dirtiest most politically incorrect concept to talk about has been masculinity. It has been pushed under the rug, twisted, turned, and manipulated. In our newly feminized nation, few want to talk about it or define it. I am now going to define it.

Masculinity, like men, is simple. (I say this affectionately). Masculinity is efficacy. I hasten to add that man's source of efficacy is reason. While strength and athletic ability are not unimportant in defining masculinity - the primary source of efficacy and masculinity is reason.

However, man is not a ghost. Man learns, understands, and imagines – and then his creations must be materialized in the world. True efficacy is reason materialized into concrete existence. And it is in this particular area, the construction of those things that man’s mind created (chopping wood, building skyscrapers, flying airplanes, what have you), in which men by nature outperform women, and is the genuine source of female to male admiration.

Today, it is popular to look at police men, soldiers and fireman as the ultimate symbols of masculinity. While these are certainly masculine figures to be admired (and are driven in many ways by reason), the most eloquent and visible example of rational masculinity, i.e. one who uses reason for productive effort is the modern day business man.

Masculinity as such is the primary source of erotica for a heterosexual woman. The ability to look up to a hero, i.e. a masculine man, is the fundamental source of sexual arousal for a woman. Without it, a heterosexual woman is lost.

Young women are constantly being ripped from such erotica. They are not being taught that men’s strength is to be looked at in admiration, but fear.

This is, in short – all feminist’s fault.


More here (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/p/p-misc/pawlik080303.htm)

[Rebam98]

A Response to Amber Pawlik's Article
By Catherine Corey
Thursday, August 14, 2003

I think there are a few things we need to clear up. First and foremost, we need to clarify exactly who we need to watch in this society. We as a society need to keep our eyes on the truly dangerous people, who are unfortunately, a lot harder to identify since their ignorance knows no limits. They are not confined to any gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other group, but rather, these people can transcend all these groups and show up anywhere. These are people like Amber ...


More here (http://www.quorumcall.com/content/contributors/catherine_corey/081403.html)

[pja]

Hi Rebam98 and welcome.

I generally hop into stuff I shouldn’t hop into. Since you have a version of one of my favorite topics here I thought I would toss in a couple comments.

Like with discussions of liberalism and conservatism there is a lack of an agreed upon definition of masculinism and feminism. Amber is attempting to deal with the symptoms of this lack of definition as viewed subjectively in our society. Her attempt didn’t fly so well, IMHO. Amber does bring up a few points, also subjective, which are too often ignored.

[ QUOTE ]
from Amber’s screed: “Feminists used domestic violence, primarily, as a tool to spread Marxism.”

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a profound observation. Feminism, in this statement, is what I call “political feminism”. Political feminism accepts and promotes a Marxist/Socialist agenda in the face of the consistent womanizing by the icons of this Marxist/Socialist agenda such as Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Anyone honestly interested in women’s issues and problems must reject the out and out hypocrisy of political feminism and its associated Marxist/Socialist agenda.

[ QUOTE ]
from Amber’s screed: “Pizzey was the entrepreneur in domestic violence shelters, yet today she is denied access on all current domestic violence websites and shouted down when she speaks. Why? It had to do with the fact that she said women could be violent also…”

[/ QUOTE ]

As noted, there are just bad people all over and we need to address them individually. However, there is a social taboo attached to dealing with the problem of women committing violent acts against their spouses/boyfirends. It would be far better for society to address the topics of abuse honestly instead of by way of a political feminist agenda.

I would also like to dump in my own observation that a true feminist would not reject part of the function of women by allowing abortion on demand. Our current culture demands that women be sexually available to the exclusion of the product of that sexual expression. This is a destructive distortion of women and their social role.

Generally, what political feminism has done is to replace the traditional masculinist element in a family relationship with a political social safety net making the traditional male not really necessary any more. This has damaged the social fabric of our culture by creating an imbalance in relationships.

I would like to offer a philosophical definition of masculinism and feminism which steps beyond the gender conflict described by Amber’s frustration. I have found it a good starting point to understand the tension of opposites, which is always in action no matter what society we exist in.

Masculinism: aggressive, creative, orderly, individual
Feminism: passive, non-creative, chaotic, communial

The philosophical definition (http://home.olemiss.edu/~csjoseph/graphs/mill.htm)

Now, before anyone gets pissy, these definitions are not about men and women genderwise. They are about opposite qualities applied to individuals. Without the ability to express masculinist qualities the Margaret Thatchers of the world would be just so many housewives. The author of this definition came to this conclusion through philosophical inquiry yet the philosophy is found repeated in cultures from the ancient Greek to the yin/yang of the Orient. Political feminism has pitted natural opposites against each other and defined one opposite as “good” and one as “bad” with a goal of an artificial social change that defies human nature.

Rebam98, are you Catherine? Not sure how I am supposed to address the two essays. If you are then you are a much better writer and debater than Amber. However, you, or Catherine, fail to recognize the core of Amber’s frustrations because you use her language, debate and technical failings to reject the reality she views and throw away a frightened view of something that is seriously damaging to our culture.

[ QUOTE ]
from Catherine’s essay:”: (according to the Webster's dictionary), "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative fail the real world test so does the dictionary’s definition of feminism fail the real world test. For if the so called feminists of our age embraced this theory in totality they would have to reject the political creatures who feed off of women for their personal sexual pleasure such as Ted Kennedy et al. These political creatures are not rejected, shunned, or excommunicated from the ranks of feminism therefore, the dictionary definition is defective. To encourage the development of this political/economic/social equality disqualifies the persistent sexual predators of the claim to be champions of the theory. And, no one can make “equal” what is not equal without violating one or the other of what they are trying to force into equality which means the theory according to the dictionary doesn't float.

[ QUOTE ]
from Catherine’s essay: “Amber's claims disgust me. And with everything I've experienced, she had better believe I don't throw that word around lightly.”

[/ QUOTE ]

That is understandable on Catherine's part. What you are looking at is an expression of frustration caused by watching much of the perceived good qualities of our culture being destroyed over decades. Amber has watched families being torn apart and probably remembering her own childhood as being full and good. She has watched a sexual revolution that has defined woman as a thing to be used instead of an individual who has a real value beyond the temporary pleasure. Amber is looking at a form of feminism that promised to honor and uplift the housewife but instead removed the housewife from her family and forced her into the workplace to the detriment of her family. Amber sees a world where what was taboo is now embraced and what should have been embraced is now treated as a taboo. Amber did her best to express her understanding of these changes and the damage that has been caused. I don’t know Amber other than this one screed she presented but I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that she hasn’t spent time listening to the stories told by the children at the shelters. There is a historic and cultural balance that encourages men to embrace and protect their families. That balance has been damaged. Amber is brokenhearted because of those in our society who will gleefully slap a man and call him a “sexist pig” because he opened a door for them in traditional good manners and then bemoan the fact that the man will not hold open the door the next time. Political feminism is a vulgar, vile and destructive lie and needs to be spat upon at every opportunity. Amber spat with passion and Catherine is disgusted.

Just some thoughts…and again, welcome to FC.

Pat (aka pja)

[DesertFox]

Good to see you back, Amber, and congrats on finishing your degree with sanity intact from a pc institution.

Superb comments. We face a crisis of masculinity unexampled since the days of the shaman-ruled female cults of antiquity.

America presented the world its first masculine culture, and the world has never forgiven us.

[Rebam98]

No, I am Amber.

You actually thinks that high pitched rant from Catherine is better than my essay? An essay which accuses me of being one of the most dangerous people in the world, and ends with the sentence: "You are dismissed."

To each his own. http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[pja]

[ QUOTE ]
Rebam98 said:
No, I am Amber.

You actually thinks that high pitched rant from Catherine is better than my essay? An essay which accuses me of being one of the most dangerous people in the world, and ends with the sentence: "You are dismissed."

To each his own. http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, hi Amber. Unfortunately I don't care for your writing style. It is a bit rough. It could be smoothed out a good deal. However, as far as having a grip on reality you have it vs Catherine who is picking at you based on technical flaws rather than dealing with the points you made. I was amused that Catherine fell back on the old dictionary definition dung as part of her argument. But she does have a smoother writing style.

I also don't consider your definition of masculinity to be all that accurate or precise. I think I get what you are saying, basically modern women haven't a clue about what masculine is because of extreme efforts to minimize traditional masculine concepts. It is a learned error which should be unlearned as soon as possible.

You have a rather odd combination of sexual and philosophical themes running together in the essay which are making it a poor read for me prone to adhom attack rather than an address of the topic itself. Catherine had the easier part. All she had to do was be critical of the technical aspects.

Anyway, just the way I read the two posts. I suppose I could offer suggestions for your essay if you are interested, on forum or in PM. Like I mentioned at the start, I hop into things too often that I probably shouldn't hop into. I will stand down if you prefer.

Pat (aka pja)

[DesertFox]

Catherine does indeed write better than Amber does. But Amber is on the right track while Catherine is on that same boring train to nowhere that feminism has been since the 1970's.

Catherine accuses Amber of oversimplification, but the important oversimplifications here are Catherine's. Amber, following her healthy instincts and the evidence of her own senses, believes that Eros is biologically, not socially, determined and that the archetypal woman finds men erotic. Feminism (with Catherine) argues that sexuality is socially determined and unfair because it's all really about power, not sex. Amber's position makes plain sense. The biological reproductive imperative of every species requires erotic intercourse between the sexes. The feminist position, followed to its logical conclusion, would end the human race with weeping harpies on one side and brutes on the other.

Catherine oversimplifies feminism with a dictionary definition, but we all know that modern feminism long since ceased being about political rights and became enamored of female power over men. Power is the language in which feminists couch their rhetoric, but Catherine disingenuously pretends it's still about equality before the law, as if the law hadn't long since recognized women's political rights. That some women suffer at the hands of some men doesn't mean all men have to change; it means that criminals need to be behind bars, and that women have to learn to handle (manage) men.

Amber doesn't get around to saying this, but it's the core of her argument: Feminism's complaints aren't about masculinity, but about criminals. Feminism defines all men as criminals or potential criminals. Amber rightly rebels at this stupidly simplistic conflation of the masculine with the criminal. She properly recognizes that upbringing -- culture -- is supposed to teach a boy to manage his crude impulses and channel them into productive work. Feminism will have none of this. Feminism wants to outlaw boyness, medicate it with Ritalin, teach boys to "be more like girls." As Prof. Summers notes, feminists see boyhood as a pathology.

Camille Paglia's continuum of the human psyche posits the masculine archetype as Apollonian (achieving and godlike, mental, tending toward fascism) and the feminine archetype as Dionysian (wedded to biology, fecund, tending toward vandalism). I don't know how much Paglia Amber has read, but her approach is definitely Paglian -- which is to say, far more sophisticated and intrinsically more interesting than that of Catherine and the disgusting feminists.

Amber's shortcomings as a writer can be fixed with practice and reflection. As for Catherine: If she really wants to help the dysfunctional women of the world against the dysfunctional men in their lives, she needs to focus on teaching those women functionality -- efficacy, as Amber properly said.

And with that, Catherine, you are dismissed.

[pja]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
.
.
.
Amber doesn't get around to saying this, but it's the core of her argument: Feminism's complaints aren't about masculinity, but about criminals. Feminism defines all men as criminals or potential criminals. Amber rightly rebels at this stupidly simplistic conflation of the masculine with the criminal. She properly recognizes that upbringing -- culture -- is supposed to teach a boy to manage his crude impulses and channel them into productive work. Feminism will have none of this. Feminism wants to outlaw boyness, medicate it with Ritalin, teach boys to "be more like girls." As Prof. Summers notes, feminists see boyhood as a pathology.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, political feminism is simply using criminality as a tool to reconstruct the social order. Amber's statements about the Marxist/socialist roots of political feminism are seriously on target. The political feminists are only using criminality as a tool. The goal is to make men unnecessary placing power, which is always the goal, in the control not of women but of a Marxist/socialist elite under the flag of political feminism. Domestic violence is simply a tool which needs to be nurtured and enhanced, not solved. Solving the domestic violence issue removes power from political feminists.

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
Camille Paglia's continuum of the human psyche posits the masculine archetype as Apollonian (achieving and godlike, mental, tending toward fascism) and the feminine archetype as Dionysian (wedded to biology, fecund, tending toward vandalism). I don't know how much Paglia Amber has read, but her approach is definitely Paglian -- which is to say, far more sophisticated and intrinsically more interesting than that of Catherine and the disgusting feminists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn't thought about Paglia, but her writing is another example of the expanded definition. I think Amber could seriously improve her presentation by making a more encompassing definition which reflects more of the whole concept of masculinism. Amber's "efficacy" is only one component leaving a very large hole in efforts to sell a concept such as this. At this point, Amber's presentation is little more than a passionate rant. Amber is enamored by Ayn Rand. Amber needs to build her own philosophical base rather than swooning over Rand, IMHO. Rand is a dead weight around Amber’s neck when dealing with this topic. Rand’s writings are unobjectively tainted by her times and the culture she came from. I strongly suggest a broader philosophical base for approaching this topic.

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
Amber's shortcomings as a writer can be fixed with practice and reflection. As for Catherine: If she really wants to help the dysfunctional women of the world against the dysfunctional men in their lives, she needs to focus on teaching those women functionality -- efficacy, as Amber properly said.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I hope she does just this because what she is trying to describe and counter is probably the most significant culture killer of modern times. Political feminism goes against human nature and seeks to artificially construct something that can't be maintained. Political feminism is a truly destructive force...kind of like pure evil. The failings of political feminism are a taboo topic in most forums. It is also sad that few people will read this thread let alone give feed back to Amber. If Amber is serious about writing on this topic she better be ready to take some hits a whole lot harder than anything Catherine can provide. One important thing Amber has going is her gender. A woman can get away with writing on this topic. A man presenting the same concepts risks being hung in effigy if not literally.

Pat (aka pja)

[DesertFox]

Good comments, Pat.

I would disagree mildly with the idea that feminism is just a front for Marxism. That's true, but there's more to it. Feminists don't want power for male Marxists; they want power for themselves, and to get it they've grafted their agenda onto a Marxian base. Marxism is among their assumptions. They're true statists.

You're correct about reducing masculinity to one word. It leaves too much unsaid that needs to be said; and the more Leftward the world leans, the greater the need to leave nothing to inference (because it would be misunderstood). Radek and Himmler, after all, were efficacious in what they did, but no one would argue for them as models of masculinity.

Paglia's explanation of human sexuality (and its crucial role in human affairs) far excels that of anyone else. Amber's essay would benefit from expanding beyond the didactic Rand to include Paglia and Christine Hoff Sommers, who has done superb work exposing feminist fallacies (Who Stole Feminism?).

But I like it that Amber isn't afraid to say publicly what she thinks.

[pja]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
I would disagree mildly with the idea that feminism is just a front for Marxism. That's true, but there's more to it. Feminists don't want power for male Marxists; they want power for themselves, and to get it they've grafted their agenda onto a Marxian base. Marxism is among their assumptions. They're true statists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt I can convince you. The feminism that is the topic of the thread is not true feminism. True feminism is passive and wouldn't know what to do with power if power was achieved. True feminism is profoundly anti abortion. The feminism that is eating away at our society and at war with masculinism is political in nature, political feminism. It is aggressive which is not a quality of feminism. Aggression, which is both good and bad, is a masculinist quality. Political feminism is defining aggression as bad. That is in error. Some aggression is bad. Most masculine aggression is good; consider the man as defender of his family. Aggression is a masculinist quality. Women can be aggressive but it is not a primary quality and generally poorly executed. Because feminism, political feminism, doesn't vomit out creatures like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and their kind, it stands as a strong proof that political feminism is not at all about women or especially domestic violence but it is all about Marxist conquest of our society. It comes back to being serious about how things are defined.

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
But I like it that Amber isn't afraid to say publicly what she thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there isn't a polite way to say it. Since "Amber" and "Catherine" each had a post made by something called "Rebam98" the reader is left to guess who they are talking to. It sounds like a pretty safe position to stand in on a very safe forum in a very, very, very safe sub forum. Rebam98 brought the two essays here to seek some kind of reaffirmation from someone. She certainly isn’t seeking input from anyone, constructive or otherwise. Glad you were there, DesertFox, to provide the necessary reaffirmation.

Pat (aka pja)

[DesertFox]

Well, you're correct that Rebam doesn't accept criticism. That's true of any Ayn Rand acolyte.

[dajoga]

The best book I've read on masculinity is Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul by John Eldredge. John defines the masculine heart as one that has a "desperate desire for a battle to win, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue."

Chuck Swindoll wrote in the forward, "Every man and his wife and every mother of a boy really should read this book."

Not all our loss of masculinity can be laid at the feet of feminism. Much of that loss can be attributed to the wound that a son receives from his father, and all sons have one to some degree. And like the thread of child abuse, loss of masculinity is passed on to the next generation, to the next, etc.

[TheRealLobo]

While only marginally on-topic, I just wanted to drop by and flex my biceps for the ladies here.

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[pja]

[ QUOTE ]
TheRealLobo said:
While only marginally on-topic, I just wanted to drop by and flex my biceps for the ladies here.

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Masculinist biceps are always appreciated.

Pat (aka pja)

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to drop by and flex my biceps for the ladies here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Promoting "efficacy", eh, Lobo?

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
dgauw said:
[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to drop by and flex my biceps for the ladies here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Promoting "efficacy", eh, Lobo?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's me...everywhere I go. Can't help it, it's a gift.

[nosferatuscoffin]

[ QUOTE ]
TheRealLobo said:
That's me...everywhere I go. Can't help it, it's a gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

Showoff. http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
nosferatuscoffin said:
[ QUOTE ]
TheRealLobo said:
That's me...everywhere I go. Can't help it, it's a gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

Showoff. http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Moi? Showoff? Like I'd EVER be looking for attention...as if.

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif

[Timberwolf]

http://www.freeconservatives.com/uploads/doggie.gif