The Way of Men: An Anarchist Perspective

Picture: Public Domain

Bonobo masturbation society?  One world therapeutic tribe?  R.J. writes at the Daily Attack:

This book could not have come at a better time. Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men is a spear through the side of the one world therapeutic tribe. Donovan incorporates his theory of masculinity into a Nietzschean critique of modernity that unveils human nature and screams WAR! in the face of feminists and professional utopians.

Donovan explores the origins of masculinity by looking at the human EEA. Different species must evolve different mechanisms in response to the imposed conditions. Donovan describes human males as a party gang species organized into male dominated gangs whose members compete and cooperate for status, women, and the greater good of the gang. The earliest male humans, comprising the genus Homo, needed the warm smell of the gang to survive, to position themselves in, to ground themselves in. For Donovan, the first male “virtues” emerged during man’s hard gang hunter way of life. Donovan identifies four core tactical gang virtues of “primal gang morality” — Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honor. However, the four gang virtues do not form a highest moral imperative. These are the basic attributes men must exhibit in order to survive and go on to create a set of higher virtues specific to men. But when the higher virtues are established, primal gang morality still lies beneath.

Society is founded by a gang and it grows from primitive gang unit, to culture city, and at last to full civilization. Along the way, women and fearful men supplant man’s tactical gang virtues with a set of civilized virtues to control male dramas, to give nature a make-over, to pull the weeds out, leaving only the pretty flowers and good smells. Donovan breaks down the various power structures put into place to deny men. He shows that as society moves into full civilization, masculinity must become increasingly curbed and controlled as men no longer need to do battle, hunt, kill, and overcome. Man’s explosive drive for sex, control and destruction must be consumed elsewhere through simulated, vicarious, and intellectual vehicles. Manhood is further withered in the statist bureaucracy and brought down to achieve equality and homogeneity which weakens distinction and imposes sameness. All the while man sees his highest values crashing in on themselves. The only way out, says Donovan, is to grow some balls, gang up and bring down the modern world. One of the central themes in The Way of Men is the way in which men of a smaller indigenous gang are often more powerful, more connected, and more holy than men in larger gangs. Donovan decries the idea of large, traitorous, “worthless” empire and calls for a return to the golden summit of small bonded brotherhoods of men.

Donovan’s concept of the “perimeter” sees human conflict as an inborn pattern fixed into existence, an inextricable feature of anthropological human nature. The tactical gang ethos can be used to reach a state of the pre-rational to where we can explore our instincts and passions rather than building men and building civilization on fear and denial. In separating masculinity (Being Good At Being A Man) from ideal (Being A Good Man), Donovan formulates a Nietzschean critique of society’s “Good Man” as a “well behaved slave” serving his masters. Men surrender to the humanist, feminine moral imperative which restricts the desires of men. It creates an acceptable zone for manliness, and by doing so, the imperative structure now has a system of governance. Ruling classes then use feminism and pacifism to serve their interests by selling The Good Man Masculinity to control the way in which men exist in this world. The modern world view is a world devoid of manhood, replaced by an ideal, and the “moralizers of masculinity” use moral evaluation to infect men with self denial and raise everything that lowers men to the ideal. If you buy into the ideal, others gain power over you through the changes made by the values. This is slave morality. Men begin working for a new reproductive interest. Donovan’s description of the “globalist bonobo masturbating society” is probably the best end-game example of slave morality/emasculation I’ve seen thus far. It is the result of a long homogenous form of activity of one kind of feminized man. It is the male experience of being utterly powerless, and the most desperate embitterment against existence for men. The bonobo masturbation society is a challenge to any anarchist stuck in the linear assumption of history that progression of society is unfolding in a process towards “goodness” or perfection.  Donovan shows us what it might look like to reach the state of perfection — to access a world in which men live a life where they are no longer a threat to any other human.

Read more here.

, , , ,

  • alizardx

    Evo-psych Gone Wild.

  • MoralDrift

    An alternative viewpoint: this author has an inadequate penis

  • bobbiethejean

    Correct me if I’m wrong but this guy seems to be decrying feminism and feminization. If that’s his view, he should move out of the modern world and go live in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iraq, or pretty much anywhere else in the Middle East. I bet he’d like it better there. They don’t tolerate feminism or feminization. In fact, they often kill it quite brutally with stones and guns and hangings. Nice and violent!

    • Roger Mexico

      To be fair–and I haven’t read the book nor do I tend to find these sorts of theories anything but stupid–he seems to be talking more about the concept of masculinity itself. Talking about what it means to be a man and encouraging men to embrace virtues associated with masculinity isn’t an ipso-facto endorsement of oppressing women. He may just be saying that men shouldn’t uncritically accept the condemnation of masculinity as evil and celebration of femininity as good that you sometimes hear from some feminists.

      Interestingly enough, I’m currently reading a book on masculinity by a female feminist–Susan Faludi’s “Stiffed”–and she makes some of the same observations as the blurb for this book does, although her overall conclusions about the nature of ‘manliness’ and contemporary gender politics are very different. She does seem to agree with the centrality of the “Strength, Mastery, Courage, Honor” (and that’s mastery of a skill or social function, not mastery over others) definition of manhood, and she observes that by the late 20th century American society no longer seemed to reward these qualities.

      Now it’s all about imaging, marketing, and networking–being pretty and getting people to like you, rather than being good at something that contributes to society. This is what life was like for suburban housewives in the 1950′s, and ironically the point where women started rejecting this kind of life–demanding a chance to be valued as strong, capable, producers–coincided with the collapse of the masculine “production culture” which is now forcing men to participate in the previously feminine “display culture.” And Faludi would seem to agree that this isn’t any better for men than it is for women, nor is it particularly good for society as a whole.

      • bobbiethejean

        he seems to be talking more about the concept of masculinity itself

        He does focus on masculinity but you can’t deny that he is ripping on feminism and feminization. It’s right there in plain print.

        I reject the notion that masculinity and femininity are at odds. They don’t have to be, especially since they are both contrived, subjective, and fluctuant definitions. Is a man less masculine if he is communicative and empathetic? Is he more masculine if he grunts, scratches his ass in public, and beats his wife when she gets uppity? Was Iggy less masculine when he put on a dress and declared that he is not ashamed to dress like a woman because he does not feel it is shameful to be a woman? Is a woman more masculine if she likes math and wants to become an engineer? Is she less feminine if she fixes cars? What if she wears dresses and makeup? Would that cancel out the fact that she fixes cars?

        See where I’m going here? The matter is not so black and white as the author is making it out to be and feminization is not this big terrible boogey man (boogey woman?) here. If anything, “feminization” is a good thing. It has a direct, quite possibly causal link to societal prosperity. Take a look around the world and notice that almost unanimously, the countries that are doing the best have embraced a good balance of what are “considered” to be feministic ideals (feminism being equality for all, liberalism, et al, not preference for women over men). And conversely, most of the countries doing the most poorly tend to be the ones rejecting “feministic” ideals (see Middle East for details).

        Talking about what it means to be a man

        I would like to draw your attention to the following paragraph:
        _____________________________________________________________________

        Men surrender to the humanist, feminine moral imperative which restricts
        the desires of men. It creates an acceptable zone for manliness, and by
        doing so, the imperative structure now has a system of governance.
        Ruling classes then use feminism and pacifism to serve their interests
        by selling The Good Man Masculinity to control the way in which men
        exist in this world. The modern world view is a world devoid of manhood,
        replaced by an ideal, and the “moralizers of masculinity” use moral
        evaluation to infect men with self denial and raise everything that
        lowers men to the ideal. If you buy into the ideal, others gain power
        over you through the changes made by the values. This is slave morality.
        Men begin working for a new reproductive interest.

        _____________________________________________________________________

        Can you spot the code words and phrases? “Surrender,” “restricts,” “serve,” “selling,” “devoid of manhood,” “infect,” “others gain power over you,” “slave.”

        What it means to be a man is a matter of opinion for the most part. It seems the author is saying that to be a man is to be a violent, recalcitrant, anti-social, anarchist thug. Correct me if I’m wrong. Perhaps I have simply misinterpreted.

        condemnation of masculinity as evil Who is saying masculinity is evil? For every one feminazi I’ve heard saying “men and masculinity are evil,” I have seen hundreds of misogynistic comments saying how stupid and evil women are. I am not being exaggerative, I am being quite literal. It seems that what the author is decrying is the exact opposite of what is actually going on.

        I’m currently reading a book on masculinity by a female feminist–Susan Faludi’s

        It’s still a matter of opinion. The fact that she has tits doesn’t make her anymore right or wrong than Donovan.

        “Strength, Mastery, Courage, Honor”

        I vehemently reject the notion that those traits are inherently masculine and when I say vehemently, I mean about as vehemently as something can be vehemented. As for them no longer being rewarded, when were they ever? We reward beauty, privilege, sex, manipulation, power and anything that has the ability to entertain or distract us from out utterly boring, meaningless lives because humans can be shallow, selfish, greedy, shortsighted, ignorant, juvenile assholes.

        coincided with the collapse of the masculine “production culture”

        That had nothing to do with women in the work force, it had to do with the rise of shipping all our jobs overseas. What is not opinion is the fact that when women entered the workforce, America’s economic power effectively doubled.

        Bottom line: This author seems to be whinging about how put-upon and oppressed men are yet men are still in control of practically everything. The day we have a nearly all-female congress with a handful of men, then I’ll be more open to the complaints of women being an overbearing, dominant force in our culture.

        • Andrew

          > humans are shallow, selfish, greedy, shortsighted, ignorant, juvenile assholes

          That seems to contradict both the idea that masculinity is not evil and the idea that femininity is not evil.

          • bobbiethejean

            Not necessarily. Apples and oranges. Human nature can be violent, self-serving, and shortsighted but it can also lead us to do great things. Notice that when we do great things it’s because we’re working together, playing to our strengths, cooperating, and NOT giving into our base, juvenile nature to start NO U battles with the opposite sex.

            I should amend my previous statement to include “can be.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

          Who is saying masculinity is evil? Gender studies programs around the world.
          Google “toxic masculinity” “the end of men” or read Demonic Males.

          And while it’s easy to point out “misogynistic comments saying how stupid and evil women are” they are put out on comment threads. Mary Daly called for mass chemical castration of males and she was a tenured fucking professor at Boston University! No male professor would dare say anything remotely comparable about women and expect to ever teach again. Comparing internet trolls to tenured professors at major universities is absurd.

          “Strength, Mastery, Courage, Honor”
          I’ve read Donovan’s book, and what is not included in the above snippet is that he clearly states that women can embody any or all of these virtues, but a woman would not be socially penalized if she didn’t. Those qualities have always been EXPECTED of men.

          • bobbiethejean

            Google “toxic masculinity” “the end of men” or read Demonic Males. Yeah because women aren’t ever the target of the exact same stupid BS kinds of studies… ever. *sardonic glare*

            Mary Daly called for mass chemical castration And we have CONGRESSMEN, people who are actually IN CHARGE of our government, calling for women to go back to being housewives, trying to take away our reproductive rights, and even saying we should not have the right to vote! You want to play NO U? Because trust me, it can go on all day long. Do you really want me to go down the “legitimate rape” and “women are like lifestock” road?

            Comparing internet trolls to tenured professors at major universities is absurd So then why are you doing it? I’m not the one who brought up that comparison, you are. If one whacknut professor says something, poopoo on her/him. If half a population feels a certain way, THAT is something to take notice of. If a significant number of our REPRESENTATIVES feel a certain way (voting against the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Violence against women act) that’s something to take notice of.

            Those qualities have always been EXPECTED of men. Well how exactly the fuck is that MY fault or the fault of women? That’s the fault of society in general. BOTH men and women are responsible.

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            1st. No. There are no studies or professors at major universities that have strong influence in both public and corporate policy that talk about “reimagining femininity” to suit what men want women to be. Glare all the fuck you want because it just ain’t true.

            2. No one in Congress is calling for women to go back to the kitchen. Yes, there are religious nutbags and opportunists looking for the loony vote looking to score political points demonizing abortion. Almost every single one also just got wiped off the board during the last election. But nice try.

            3. Bullshit. YOU made the initial comparison when you said “For every one feminazi I’ve heard saying “men and masculinity are evil,” I have seen hundreds of misogynistic comments saying how stupid and evil women are.” Your words. Show some honor and own up to them.

            4. Nobody said it was your fault. In fact, Donovan, and those who like his work (count me among them) don’t believe that expecting those defined masculine virtues are something to blame anyone for. They are things to be desired, celebrated and cherished among those we choose to consider members of our tribe and respected when found in an enemy.

            But the most important theme to be aware of when that runs through Donovan’s ideas and men who agree with him, and the thing that really seems to rub feminists the wrong way, is this- IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.

          • bobbiethejean

            Glare all the fuck you want because it just ain’t true. Uh, yeah, actually it is true. Please don’t make me link-spam you with the PLETHORA of studies I’ve found stating that women should obey their husbands and black women are less attractive and women are not as smart as men and men like stupider women and so on and so forth because I will if you make me.

            No one in Congress is calling for women to go back to the kitchen.

            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/12/wisc-dems-ad-shows-gop-thinks-women-belong-in-the-kitchen/

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk-0eJkfnaU

            http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/131598/sexist_rick_santorum_doesnt_believe

            http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/17/402438/santorum-staffer-says-women-shouldnt-be-president-because-its-against-gods-will/

            And no, this isn’t some small group of religious whacknuts.

            Bullshit. YOU made the initial comparison I never once made that comparison. YOU did. I do believe this is the first time I’ve ever seen someone pull a ridiculous argument completely out of his arse then claim I am the one who came up with it. Can that even be called a strawman at that point? More like strawMANGLING! My point, which you STRAWMANGLED to death, is that men aren’t these poor, put-upon, oppressed, pussy-whipped sods that the author is trying to portray them as. That and the “we hate men” camp is probably a lot smaller than the “we hate women” camp.

            IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. I would ask you to elaborate but you’re such a belligerent, insulting, nasty, know-it-all I really have no interest in listening to anything else you might say.

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            “Please don’t make me link-spam you with the PLETHORA of studies I’ve found stating that women should obey their husbands and black women are less attractive and women are not as smart as men and men like stupider women and so on and so forth because I will if you make me.” Just make sure you provide additional links showing what policies have been put in place as a result of those studies or don’t waste our time.

            “No one in Congress is calling for women to go back to the kitchen.”
            Rick Santorum and a christian fundie newsletter. THAT’S the best rebuttal you can come up with? They’re the GOP equivelant of the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner. You can’t not invite them ’cause they’re family but NOBODY with any real pull takes anything they have to say seriously.

            RadFem Academics vs Internet trolls. Redfems have a degree of political power. Genuine misogynist trolls do not. If you still persist in denying the comparison you made, what else have you got to compare to the shit being peddled in gender studies programs across the western world?

            I’M belligerent and insulting? Have you EVER honestly gone back and looked at some of the shit you say on this site? Take a look at my response to your initial post and your response to that before you call ME belligerent.

          • bobbiethejean

            Just make sure you provide additional links showing what policies have
            been put in place as a result of those studies or don’t waste our time.
            How about the fact that marital rape was only just recently illegalized? How about legislation to close down Planned Parenthoods which millions of women across the country rely on for medical care including cancer screening and reproductive health. How about the tremendous opposition the Lilly Ledbetter act received? Or how about this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rahimkanani/2012/04/20/why-do-republicans-oppose-reauthorizing-the-violence-against-women-act/ Want me to keep going? Because I can.

            Rick Santorum and a christian fundie newsletter. THAT’S the best rebuttal you can come up with? You asked for sources and I gave them to you. let me remind you that the governors/reps/senators who opine these things were ELECTED and a lot of them have REMAINED elected which necessarily means there are potentially MILLIONS of people out there who agree with them.

            RadFem Academics Ok, now it’s your turn. Give me a list of “RadFem Academics” or else you’re just being a paranoid reactionary. I bet that for every “RadFem Academic” you can posit, I can posit one openly misogynist member of congress.

            I’M belligerent and insulting?

            Sometimes it is justified, sometimes it is not. I only become belligerent and insulting when people push me to it or if I see someone being extremely, purposefully stupid. In this “discussion” we’ve been having, you were the first one to name call. All I did was opine that 1.) Men are not these little pussy whipped bitches Donovan is claiming and 2.) This stupid NO-U fingerpointing game is absurd and needs to stop. Enter YOU who feels the need to demean me for DARING to question a man’s opinion that “feminization” (i.e. women) are ruining masculinity. I’d say there is a big difference between me getting pissy at dumbass young earth creationists who believe utter nonsense that is verifiably wrong and you getting belligerent and insulting at me because I don’t think men should act like a bunch of violent thugs as Donovan seems to be advocating.

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            Sometimes it is justified (read: It’s OK when I do it), sometimes it is not (read: when anyone I disagree with does it). This is a very tribal response.
            Enter YOU who feels the need to demean me for DARING to question.etc.
            Where did my first reply disputing your initial snarky assertions demean you? When your response threw snark at me, I threw it right back.
            Cite my specific comments in that first reply where demeaning or STFU and stop playing the victim.

            I’d love to debate the merits of VAWA or the LL act and why I think it is reasonable to question the merits of those pieces of legislation if I thought for one second you had any interest in a serious debate. I don’t. You’ve clearly gone tribal on anything related to feminism or the ideas put forth in this post.

          • bobbiethejean

            read: It’s OK when I do it Actually no it’s not which is why I try not to, even when someone is pushing me to it. That aside, are you advocating that someone who is trolling and/or being willfully ignorant deserves the same respect as someone trying to have an intelligent, adult discussion? I don’t. If someone is being a moron, he deserves to get told he’s being a moron. There is nothing demonstrably wrong, moronic, or willfully ignorant about anything I’ve said in this discussion unlike the people who usually earn my ire who are lying, trolling, or being willfully ignorant (i.e. evolution deniers, science denouncers, moonlanding conspiracy nuts etc.).

            I’d love to debate the merits of VAWA or the LL act

            You’ve clearly gone tribal on anything related to feminism or the ideas put forth in this post.

            In one sentence you say you’d love to have a serious debate then in the next sentence, you childishly accuse me of going “tribal.” You also assume that I’m a feminist which I am not. If you REALLY wanted to have an actual debate, you wouldn’t accuse me of going “tribal” just because I don’t agree with Donovan’s take that feminization is this “evil force” corrupting, enslaving, and pacifying men who should give into their nature which is presumably opposite of passivist, humanist, and feminist.

            As for your insults, you’ve accused me of lacking honor, not taking responsibility, and now you’re calling me “tribal.” You’ve also moved the goal posts and refuse to acknowledge several of the points I’ve made because it’s much easier for you to focus on my character flaws than to actually pick apart my argument which is again, this:

            Men are not the poor, put-upon, pussy-whipped sods Donovan is claiming them to be and feminization is not this “evil force” that is causing men to be impotent sissies. Also, the NO-U fingerpointing battle of the sexes needs to stop because it is unproductive and stupid. Now, how about instead of attacking me personally, you try and actually address my stance? Or you can continue waving your penis around if that makes you feel dominant and in control. ;)

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            Selective editing much?
            “…IF I thought for one second you had any interest in a serious debate. which I don’t.”

            You left out that part as well as ignored any citing of where I attacked you in my INITIAL response (as in before you got shitty) to your post while trying to paint yourself as a poor little victim. If ya can’t take it, don’t dish it.

            Either way, I’m bored. Arguing this topic with you is like arguing evolution with a young earth creationist, so I’m done.

          • bobbiethejean

            Selective editing much? I copy pasted a snippet so I didn’t have to waste space copying the whole string of nonsense you wrote. In lieu of an actual argument, now you’re nitpicking how I present my argument? Shallow. And I pointed out obviously where you accuse me of lacking honor, imply that I’m not taking responsibility for something you never really specified in detail, then later you accuse me of being “tribal” which is funny. It’s funny because if anyone’s gone tribal on the topic here, it’s you. Once again, you’ve sidestepped my argument.

            Men are not the poor, put-upon, pussy-whipped sods Donovan is claiming
            them to be and feminization is not this “evil force” that is causing men
            to be impotent sissies. Also, the NO-U fingerpointing battle of the
            sexes needs to stop because it is unproductive and stupid. Now, how
            about instead of attacking me personally, you try and actually address
            my stance? Or you can continue waving your penis around if that makes
            you feel dominant and in control. ;)

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            “Men are not the poor, put-upon, pussy-whipped sods Donovan is claiming
            them to be.”

            Not all men, no. But the (lately) unspoken devotion to pure Blank Slate Theory that underlies all the established neoliberal/globalist/feminist/multicult aspirations wants people to be exactly that. The social engineers that make up the intellectual and business elite want the coming global underclass (which will include almost everyone who is not part of the elite global oligarchy). It eliminates any potential threat to their power.

            At some level the engineers are aware of this, but I’m sure most truly believe in their dream of utopia where, as the author put it in a comment here, “Wouldn’t it be better, after all, if we were all medium brown, de-gendered, non-violent, sexually flexible worker/consumers whose social and familial networks are superficial, and who are therefore utterly dependent on symbiotic cooperation between big government and big business?”
            That is exactly what their blueprint for the future looks like. Personally, I’d rather see the whole thing burn down so we as a species can start over. I am far from being the only one to hold that view.

          • bobbiethejean

            I’m not getting anything out of this and it’s abundantly clear that you’re determined to think men are the little bitches of womankind so go ahead and think whatever you want. I suppose I should take this opportunity to gather up all my girlbitches and take over the planet since you “pussy-whipped, poor, little put-upon sods” obviously won’t put up a fight. I’ll make abortion legal across the board, free contraception for everyone, paid maternity leave for up to 3 years (no paternity leave because double standards are awesome!), I’ll elect myself president and fill the congress with nothing but women…. maybe I’ll let a token man or two stay put but only if they worship at the altar of the sacred vagina which will become the national religion. I’ll outlaw football, beer, NASCAR and other “manly” things. Getting in the kitchen and making sammiches will become a predominantly male form of employment. Maybe I’ll take my feminazi agenda planetwide and go subdue all those surly Middle Eastern men and show them who’s boss next.

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            And the strawman world heavyweight championship goes to…You.
            I never said women run anything. A (relative)handful of men do and always will. They are in your corner because modern feminism serves their interests. That’s why it’s backed by the full power of the oligarchy and the state.
            They are the real power, you and your ilk are simply useful tools.

            But by all means, keep kicking the pieces around, take a shit on the board, and strut around as if you won if that makes you happy.

            This is feminism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySdfzmwar6M

          • bobbiethejean

            That wasn’t a strawman, genius, it was sarcasm. Secondly, I’m not a feminist. I don’t like the term. I believe it is inherently divisive. I am a liberal and I try to approach subjects with reason, logic, and curiosity. I want to understand why people behave the way they do- I think everyone should. That way maybe we can move towards a progressive, better future in which inequality and bigotry become things of the past…. at least to some extent. I realize there will always be idiots but we can shrink them down to an impotent minority if we cooperate. What are you accomplishing by siding with Donovan? Nothing constructive. You’re only adding to the NO U noise. I have been guilty of this too and it’s not good. It needs to stop. Perhaps instead of fingerpointing and chest-pounding we should ask questions and try to find solutions to the problems plaguing us. What Donovan suggests, going back to a state of violent, anarchist thuggery, doesn’t sound all that appealing to me.

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            “What are you accomplishing by siding with Donovan? Nothing constructive.”

            Demolition is an integral part of construction. If you want to clean up a a decaying city, you have to demo the slums before you can build something better.

            “What Donovan suggests, going back to a state of violent, anarchist thuggery, doesn’t sound all that appealing to me.”

            I’d imagine not. To me, it will be a far better world than what exists today.”Better to live one day as a lion than a thousand years as a lamb,” sort of thing.

            Then there is the really uncomfortable truth that most liberals can’t and wont accept, which is this:It is far far too late to break the stranglehold that global corporatists have on the world through peaceful, legal means. It just ain’t gonna happen.

            I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          • bobbiethejean

            Well there is one thing we don’t disagree on- that the global corporatists are a massive, pervasive problem. I don’t disagree there. I just disagree that feminization has anything to do with that. And I don’t disagree that we need serious revolution. But I would say we need a nice, neat, ordered revolution, if that’s possible, rather than immediately erupting into violence and anarchy. I think the BIG problem here is that not enough people agree with us on the point that there IS a problem. Politicians (especially conservatives) are so good at convincing the masses that everything is fine and goading them into voting against their own selfinterests. We’ve largely become ignorant, uneducated, complacent sheep.

            I be that if we convinced enough people of the problem in this profits>people global corporatists goldenruleocracy, we might stand a chance at having a peaceable revolution rather than a violent one….. as satisfying as that might be.

          • bobbiethejean

            http://stfuconservatives.tumblr.com/post/37210603628 Yup. Dem evil feminazis deserved it! Didn’t they? Evil bizzles, taking over the planet and ruining men!

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer
        • Roger Mexico

          >”The matter is not so black and white as the author is making it out to be”

          I agree.

          >”If anything, ‘feminization’ is a good thing…. the countries that are doing the best have embraced a good balance of what are ‘considered’ to be feministic ideals”

          Let’s not confuse feminization with feminism. Why not simply call them liberal ideals? Cooperation and equality and such are not intrinsically ‘feminine’ any more than any other set of behaviors not directly linked to biological reproduction are intrinsically ‘masculine.’ Gender stereotypes work both ways. Women can be egotistical and cruel, just as men can be generous and compassionate. These are qualities of decent human beings, not one sex or the other. To say otherwise is not only to reinforce artificially constructed gender distinctions, but to promote the superiority of one gender over another. Again, there’s a difference between saying that men should feel comfortable being masculine and saying that men should repress everything feminine.

          >”Can you spot the code words and phrases? “Surrender,” “restricts,” “serve,” “selling,” “devoid of manhood,” “infect,” “others gain power over you,” “slave.” ”

          Have you read any Nietzsche? It’s relatively straightforward–when you accept someone else’s definition of what will make you a “good” person, you surrender your autonomy to them. You subjugate your will to their will. You become their slave. Freedom comes from embracing your intrinsic nature, and working to become more fully yourself rather than more fully what someone else wants you to be. Again, I haven’t read this book, but I don’t see why you assume these are “code” words rather than direct expressions of what the author is talking about.

          Best not to ascribe an agenda to someone without knowing whether or not they actually have that agenda.

          >”It seems the author is saying that to be a man is to be a violent, recalcitrant, anti-social, anarchist thug. Correct me if I’m wrong.”

          Well, I don’t know. I haven’t read it, but the review suggests this might be a partially accurate characterization of the author’s viewpoint. He might, however, be saying something else–he might simply be saying that there’s nothing virtuous about subjugating yourself to others and embracing the refusal to fight for what you want as a moral good. I’d have to read the whole book to say for sure.

          >”The fact that she has tits doesn’t make her anymore right or wrong than Donovan.”

          I didn’t say that. I was just pointing out that you don’t have to be an anti-feminist to think that SOME of these observations might be valid.

          It’s a good book. (Faludi’s book, I mean.) You should read it. I’m inclined to give it to every feminist I know as a Christmas present–among other things, she acknowledges that modern feminism might have become a bit ideologically blindered about how men think and what they want. Also, she points out that men should be seen foremost as individuals–notably, the vast majority of men in the US now have very little power over their own lives, let alone anyone else’s. The same small group of men (and women) who have been exercising their social power to make women’s lives miserable have also been doing the same thing to the majority of men for quite some time now. Treating gender politics dogmatically, as a class struggle in which men-as-a-group are all guilty of oppressing women-as-a-group, risks missing this important point.

          >”Who is saying masculinity is evil?”

          Anyone who says “feminization” characterizes everything good and progressive in society while any defense of masculinity must be a call for regression. IMHO

          >”As for them no longer being rewarded, when were they ever? We reward beauty, privilege, sex, manipulation, power and anything that has the ability to entertain or distract us from out utterly boring, meaningless lives”

          I would argue those traits have been highly valued, because they were eminently vital, in and by the vast majority of human beings for the vast majority of human history. You have to be extremely privileged, relative to 99% of the people who have ever lived on this planet, for “boredom” and “meaninglessness” to be the worst problems you face in your life. That doesn’t make them non-issues, but read Debord on that. And the rise of pervasive image-transmission technologies that has made a mass culture based primarily on media and celebrity possible is a relatively recent phenomenon.

          A society in which every facet of community life has devolved into a beauty pageant or a popularity contest is probably not one most of us would want to live in–it degrades people, and brings out the worst in us. Women certainly didn’t want to live that way anymore in the 50′s/60′s/70′s, which is why there was a resurgence of feminism around precisely these issues. If it’s something that women should reject, why would it be something that men should embrace? Pushing for a society that starts to value character and competence again–Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honor–would seem like a path out of this spiraling cultural hellhole for both men and women. In that respect, at least, I think Donovan (and Faludi) might be onto something.

          >”This author seems to be whinging about how put-upon and oppressed men are yet men are still in control of practically everything.”

          Are they? (Holy shit you should go pick up Faludi’s book–she’s so goddamn right about this.) Are ALL men “in control of everything” or are most men becoming more and more reduced to passive, led, victimized, infantilized, objectified, subjugated fodder for a predatory culture of spectacle and manipulation that only benefits a select few, just as most women are?

          I don’t think feminism is the thing that’s doing this to (most of) us, but I do think there’s something to the argument that an excess of “civilization” (or rather, what our civilization has come to represent) and its moralistic restraints on human beings expressing the fullness of their nature is a big part of the problem.

          I don’t agree with the idea that beating and killing each other is what it means to be a man. But frankly, I do get a great deal of satisfaction from scratching my ass when it itches, and fuck anyone who’s going to tell me I can’t.

          • bobbiethejean

            Why not simply call them liberal ideals That works for me. That’s actually why I don’t identify as a feminist. I believe the term is inherently divisive.

            These are qualities of decent human beings, not one sex or the other. Absolutely. No disagreement here.

            Again, there’s a difference between saying that men should feel comfortable being masculine and saying that men should repress everything feminine. I agree with the statement but that’s not what Donovan seems to be saying. Maybe I’ve misinterpreted him but he seems to be ripping pretty harshly on traits that are considered traditionally feminine. I would argue that we should not be ascribing gender to traits above and beyond biological differences. Penis is a masculine trait. Vagina is a feminine trait. Honor should not be considered a masculine trait and compassion should not be considered a feminine trait- they should just be considered good traits that everyone should strive for. No?

            Anyone who says “feminization” characterizes everything good and progressive in society while any defense of masculinity must be a call for regression. IMHO I have genuinely never once heard that opinion from anyone. I am sure people like that do exist but they have to be an extreme minority. And they are an extreme minority that is extremely wrong. Society will not move forward by playing this ridiculous NO-U fingerpointing game. Know what I mean? MEN ARE BETTER THAN WOMEN ARE BETTER THAN MEN ARE BETTER THAN WOMEN ARE BETTER THAN… and on and on it goes. It’s so counterproductive.

            I would argue those traits have been highly valued Interesting thoughts. Debord, eh?

            Pushing for a society that starts to value character and competence again–Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honor THIS! MOTHERFUCKING THIS. HEY EVERYONE, LOOK AT THIS! *starts tapdancing around and pointing to THIS*

            or are most men becoming more and more reduced to passive I would say that applies to humans in general though. We all seem to be getting led around like cattle or pushed into increasingly dire straits so we have less energy, resources, and power to fight back against the forces working to, in a sense, enslave us. I wouldn’t say this is the plight of men but the plight of human beings living in the shadow of a tyrannical, anarcho-capitalist golden-ruleocracy.

            But frankly, I do get a great deal of satisfaction from scratching my ass when it itches, WELL! I NEVER! How repulsive! *pretends she doesn’t do exactly the same thing when no one is looking.*

  • BuzzCoastin

    > Donovan decries the idea of large, traitorous, “worthless” empire and calls for a return to the golden summit of small bonded brotherhoods of men.

    On a planet with 7+ billion
    this will be difficult to achieve
    first the gangs will need to kill off several billion
    before humans learn to live in peace

  • Cocksniffer

    Hmmm….a website seemingly connected to ‘national anarchist’ (read: crypto-nazi) Keith Preston appearing on Disinfo? This is kind of stupid. Keith Preston is a white separatist who fuses both far left and far right ideas to attract those at the margins to advance his racist agenda. This guy sucks, and honestly publishing shit from his website makes me wonder what type of a direction Disinfo is headed in. Why are the mods so often inept at doing their fucking jobs at Disinfo?

    • Matt Staggs

      This post was written by a contributor. Publication at disinfo.com does not in any way imply endorsement or even agreement with the writer or sources cited. Feel free to dispute the material or even the contributor. Our readers love that sort of thing, as do I. Good German has a very long history of involvement with this site, both as a contributor and commentator, and often presents a variety of materials for discussion, something that you clearly do not. It’s always amazing to me how many pseudo-anonymous fly-by-night people like you come out of the woodwork to decry the direction of a site they don’t contribute to in any sort of meaningful way. There are literally thousands of posts here that you might like, dislike or meaningfully interact with here, but the one thing that you dislike or oppose is the one thing for which you muster the courage to step out of the shadows and complain about. I do my job here. I do more than my fair share of work. I’m here morning, noon at night, and I do it on top of a work schedule that would probably have you crying for your comfy footy jammies hours before I even take a break. I bleed for this site, and if I don’t do a good enough “fucking job” for you, then feel free to wander to whatever haven you feel safe in.

  • Sonnenritter

    wahhhhhh this isn’t politically correct enough!!!

  • http://twitter.com/Favila68 Fernando Avila

    OMG Such Bullshit. Can’t believe I took the time to actually read it.

  • Tyler Durden

    This guy read Fight Club to many times.

    • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

      I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.dentremont1 Dan D’Entremont

    What a complete load of crap

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=742104313 Adam Goodwin

    This isn’t a commentary about anything other than pseudo-anthropological findings and Steven Spielberg/Michael Bay movies. Firstly, anthropology requires ethnography–be a participant observer, rather than pontificate about the whims and wills of ‘primitive’ peoples. Most of evolutionary psychology is pure conjecture, wrapped in a shiny scientific cloak to ward off any real critical inquiry. Run some MRIs, do some lab tests with grad students, and make deductions based on rules for nat selection, and you, too, can impute any and all qualities on what it means to be human!

    Humans have choice above all, and to claim there is a single nature that dominates our behaviour is the same as saying nothing changes in nature. This flies in the face of what Darwin was arguing all along–that nothing stays the same in nature for very long, simply because there is variety unfurling all the time. These dark accounts of ‘human nature’ are political tools, used to justify the status quo. Anyone who doesn’t see that hasn’t done enough introspection in their life. There’s nothing anarchist about this approach. Anarchism espouses the recognition of individual choice and the possibilities for relating to others that arise through the uninhibiting of individual choice. Garbage theories like this aim to rob us (men, this time) of choice by proclaiming that we can never escape from our own inner evil. Speak for yourself, asshole!

    • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

      “Garbage theories like this aim to rob us (men, this time) of choice by proclaiming that we can never escape from our own inner evil.”

      Statements like this seem to indicate you believe that men in general are possessed by some inner evil. That is precisely the sort of worldview that Donovan’s book gives the one-finger salute to.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=742104313 Adam Goodwin

        You misunderstand, I was being facetious when I wrote that. I guess I should have put the last bit in quotes to make it obvious. “we can never escape from our own ‘inner evil’”

        • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

          Fair enough. Facetiousness doesn’t always translate very well in text form.

    • Matt Staggs

      Yeah, I’m a little wary of any kind of over-arching theory about why huge swaths of people act the way they do, especially either gender. I’d make a terrible “gang” member, and traditional ideas of masculinity – or directives on the ways that men should act – are rightly deemed “traditional”: they don’t hold up in modern societies.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=742104313 Adam Goodwin

        Here’s a shitty little draft of a paper I wrote on this very topic. I’m incorporating these ideas as the backbone of the thesis I’m writing at the moment. I was thinking about polishing this up and sending it off somewhere for publication. Any feedback would be good, if you have the time.

        http://www.academia.edu/1485559/Biological_Fatalism_The_Politics_of_De_Naturalising_Conflict_and_De_Problematising_Cooperation

        • Matt Staggs

          I’ll check it out as soon as I can. Thanks!

      • Jin The Ninja

        all good points. and might i add, masculinity or even the gender category of ‘male’ is not universal, nor has it ever been universal, and the way in which sexuality and gender intersect also create complexities which are totally ignored in the article.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1450060469 Jack Donovan

          This is false. Male and female have been recognized as the two major gender categories in mainstream human societies always and everywhere. The fact that there are and have always been a very small percentage of non-conforming individuals in any population does not change that fact. The occasional berdache, castrati, drag queen, cross-dressing temple priest or outcast tribe of extra fancy Indians does not change this.

          Also, this article was a review of a book, and pandering to every gender studies pet fetish is naturally going to be beyond the scope of a book review.

        • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

          Cat got your tongue?

          • Jin The Ninja

            no, i’m planning on replying in due time to this half-baked comment and to one of your most inane below.
            wait for it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            Strike while the iron’s still hot already.

          • Jin The Ninja

            i’ll strike when i’m ready to sit and throttle some backwards ideas for a moderate amount of time. that is my way of the ninja.

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            A true ninja would live by this book. Just sayin’

          • Jin The Ninja

            nah, ninjas don’t subscribe to eurocentric, misogynist bullshit. sorry.

          • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

            There’s nothing eurocentric about it. Nor is it misogynist (at least in the actual definition of the word, which requires a genuine hatred of women; not just a label to throw around at anyone who disagrees with feminist scripture.).

          • Jin The Ninja

            everything about it IS eurocentric (which was the main bulk of my earilier objection and i’ll get to this later) , and everything about it reeks of male ‘differentness’/’specialness.’ it also is misogynist, but in an unexpected way that is both anti glbtq, pro gender normative, with a very patriarchal definition of division of labour. if you’re interested in my full conclusions, and not in some shallow exchange of banter, you’ll have to wait until friday. otherwise continue on.

          • Jin The Ninja

            fyi a book about the martial world and brotherhood that is far more a propos for a ninja is
            “All Men are Brothers”/”Outlaws of the Marsh”/ “The Water Margin.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1450060469 Jack Donovan

        An over-arching theory about why huge swaths of people act the way they do doesn’t have to be anything more than a reasonable generalization.

        You don’t have to say that every man behaves in exactly the same way today to say that most men throughout history have behaved in a certain way, because they have been called on more often to behave in a certain way, for obvious practical reasons.

        Human traits follow trends and curves, as with intelligence or strength or anything else. You can say that more men are stronger than women than are weaker than women without having to say that every man is stronger than every women (which is obviously false).

        Maintaining that you are wary of making generalizing statements about gender might protect you from the criticism of women and programmed peers, but I won’t bring you closer to understanding anything. It’s a safe route.

        What you think you know about yourself might change if you were placed in a survival scenario for an extended period of time. What kind of choices would you make, and what kind of traits would you come to value in those around you? How would those traits change your sense of a group’s hierarchy?

        Also, I don’t know what you mean by “hold up.” Do you mean, “do not serve the goals of contemporary globalist capitalism?” Because if so, I agree with you, and the end of the book deals with that question. It also asks who the goals of contemporary globalist capitalism really serve, and if sitting on your computer and consuming for 90 years is really your “best life.”

        • lazy_friend

          We are not in a survival scenario. Stop fantasizing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1450060469 Jack Donovan

      “These dark accounts of ‘human nature’ are political tools, used to justify the status quo.”

      As far as I can tell, the status quo in academia, public education, and the mainstream media is feminist, multiculturalist, and globalist. The “nurture over nature” line has been pushed for some time, and it has been accepted even when evidence is contradictory, so one must question what status quo that justifies. It’s long been my feeling that the trendy egalitarian mindset serves globalist capitalism by breaking up tribes and hierarchies that threaten the trading interest of the wealthy.

      Wouldn’t it be better, after all, if we were all medium brown, de-gendered, non-violent, sexually flexible worker/consumers whose social and familial networks are superficial, and who are therefore utterly dependent on symbiotic cooperation between big government and big business?

      • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

        Is it just me, or is pointing out the features of Feminism/Multiculturalism Inc. that serve global corporatism the equivalent of a liver punch from Mike Tyson to most contemporary mainstream “progressives”? (or at least should be if logical consistency is desirable)

      • lazy_friend

        The book is rubbish. You can paint whatever picture you want with a creative license. How can a tribe be a true if there is inner competition? that’s team suicide. Seems like you never been part of a serious sports team. It does not take a know it all to figure that out. How can we not share things and be one big tribe in a world of billions? Sure tribalism worked in primitive times, when we were few and far in between. In my social circle, I have not met a man not worthy of leading. Trust me Donovan, you would not want to ever compete with me for power, so take my truce, peace offerings and shut the hell up. Whining about how things used to be is the way of the wimp. It’s funny how the hyper masculine guy, who thinks the world should be one be war zone lives in all of the places in the world, “Portland OR”. Without time to innovate there is no innovation, and in tribal warfare, there is no time to rest, the enemy will always be attacking. Just because you want to dominate your gay lovers, does not mean you got the right idea. Trust me, I am the embodiment of competition in daily life, but my true strength lies controlling those primitive urges. Instead, I want all my brothers to rise along side me, as they are all useful and are all masters. Having a tribe of underlings is not desirable. If you are having trouble finding work with your hands, shoot me a comment, I am elbow deep in back breaking, nerve pinching work and still find time to play semi pro soccer and hit the gym. I long for a vacation of no strings attached sex with the women you so hate. I read it till you said ” I am a right wing sexist”. I want my 5.99 back as your advice would land me in jail and in major trouble with my family. What a bunch of lies. You should switch to writing scrips for fantasy movies, you would write the next Hobbit. No intelligent listens to know it alls with showy chest tattoos (real men according to you, should not want to change themselves in anyway). Trust me, in real life, you would not want to compete with me in a lawless environment, I am as cunning as they come, but I am also a good person and I choose peace and quiet, the good life, and I suspect you are trying to achieve the same by selling books. Extremes never work, we are trying to stomp out violence and leave it in sports, where its controlled and something totally different. I am going for a more permanent power, True RESPECT. A true man does not need a gang, a true man can stand perfect by himself and chooses to be part of something. The tactical virtues are true but they are not violent. Violence is obsolete and will always be. When you are messing with people with High IQ’s, its a different beast you have to battle. A true team is pure unity, the leader is just a symbol, chosen by all. Not some macho fool who forces his way to the top only to be killed by the very same people he is trying to lead. 5.99 back please. According to you, everything my successful mother thought me is a lie, and she is the best person I know. Nice try, but I am taking nootropics and they make sharp as a tack. You tool.

      • lazy_friend

        The book is rubbish. You can paint whatever picture you want with a creative license. How can a tribe be a true if there is inner competition? that’s team suicide. Seems like you never been part of a serious sports team. It does not take a know it all to figure that out. How can we not share things and be one big tribe in a world of billions? Sure tribalism worked in primitive times, when we were few and far in between. In my social circle, I have not met a man not worthy of leading. Trust me Donovan, you would not want to ever compete with me for power, so take my truce, peace offerings and shut the hell up. Whining about how things used to be is the way of the wimp. It’s funny how the hyper masculine guy, who thinks the world should be one be war zone lives in all of the places in the world, “Portland OR”. Without time to innovate there is no innovation, and in tribal warfare, there is no time to rest, the enemy will always be attacking. Just because you want to dominate your gay lovers, does not mean you got the right idea. Trust me, I am the embodiment of competition in daily life, but my true strength lies controlling those primitive urges. Instead, I want all my brothers to rise along side me, as they are all useful and are all masters. Having a tribe of underlings is not desirable. If you are having trouble finding work with your hands, shoot me a comment, I am elbow deep in back breaking, nerve pinching work and still find time to play semi pro soccer and hit the gym. I long for a vacation of no strings attached sex with the women you so hate. I read it till you said ” I am a right wing sexist”. I want my 5.99 back as your advice would land me in jail and in major trouble with my family. What a bunch of lies. You should switch to writing scrips for fantasy movies, you would write the next Hobbit. No intelligent listens to know it alls with showy chest tattoos (real men according to you, should not want to change themselves in anyway). Trust me, in real life, you would not want to compete with me in a lawless environment, I am as cunning as they come, but I am also a good person and I choose peace and quiet, the good life, and I suspect you are trying to achieve the same by selling books. Extremes never work, we are trying to stomp out violence and leave it in sports, where its controlled and something totally different. I am going for a more permanent power, True RESPECT. A true man does not need a gang, a true man can stand perfect by himself and chooses to be part of something. The tactical virtues are true but they are not violent. Violence is obsolete and will always be. When you are messing with people with High IQ’s, its a different beast you have to battle. A true team is pure unity, the leader is just a symbol, chosen by all. Not some macho fool who forces his way to the top only to be killed by the very same people he is trying to lead. 5.99 back please. According to you, everything my successful mother thought me is a lie, and she is the best person I know. Nice try, but I am taking nootropics and they make sharp as a tack. You tool.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1450060469 Jack Donovan

      “Humans have choice above all, and to claim there is a single nature that dominates our behaviour is the same as saying nothing changes in nature. ”

      This is a false claim that has nothing to do with anything evolutionary psychologists claim. Actually, most of the evolutionary psychology cited in the book comes from feminist evolutionary psychologists who hope, but doubt, that human nature will change at the speed that progressives/feminists/pacifists want it to. A sense of human nature based in evolution presupposes that human nature DID change and EVOLVE in response to repeated circumstances over a very long evolutionary timeline. The idea is that human nature DOES change, but not necessarily because a bunch of people in the last hundred years or so decided that it would be more convenient for everyone if human nature hurried up and got with the new program. That is EXACTLY what feminists and progressives ask of men.

    • Sonnenritter

      “Humans have choice above all” Nope, free will doesn’t exist. Sam Harris has a good lecture to that effect.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=742104313 Adam Goodwin

        No free will? As in not being able to make choices? How about the most affirming choice of self-awareness–suicide. How about making a choice to commit suicide in a certain way to convey a certain message? No free will? Tell that to Thich Quand Duc, Norman Morrison, Mohammed Bouazizi…

        Neo-atheism is an intellectual scam. It hides behind the ‘efficacy’ of the status quo. Its proponents like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett etc. are dogmatic materialists–spawn of the logical positivist tradition of the 19th and 20th centuries. To a dogmatic materialist, if it can’t be observed directly, it doesn’t exist. If the technology that exists today can’t reduce its cause, separate it from its system, identify it through differentiation against other known entities, it can’t possibly exist and shouldn’t be postulated because it is based on ‘bronze age myths’ or superstitions.There is no philosophical profundity to dogmatic materialism; on the contrary, as a belief system, it does its best to avoid the deeper questions.

        There are other scientific opinions with much more depth than the ‘expertise’ based mainstream science of today. Michael Polanyi. as one example, wrote on the difficulties of understanding where knowledge actually comes from. The very act of problematizing something–asking a question about the nature of things–implies pre-knowledge of the solution. Polanyi’s The Tacit Dimension gives a great explanation of this.

        I suggest expanding the scope of your readings about free will. Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge is one book that approaches the source of the scientist’s theory. Also, Mary Midgley has written extensively on the problem of free will and the sham of reductionist approaches to accumulating knowledge. Read up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.fischer.73 Eric Fischer

    From the horse’s mouth: “At the most basic, primal level masculinity is about how other men think you will perform when you’re under stress, when you’re under attack, and when they push you.”

    http://www.jack-donovan.com/podcast/08102012_jackdonovan_countermedia.mp3

  • VaudeVillain

    See, there’s a little problem here: the golden past to which this seems to be referring wasn’t actually the male-dominated gang war the author seems to imagine. Current anthropological research indicates that prior to the rise of agriculture, division of labor was almost entirely done along lines of age and infirmity, rather than gender. Healthy young females would hunt and fight right alongside their healthy young male peers, only joining the very young, elderly or injured when they were frankly too pregnant to keep up or had recently given birth to a child not yet able to be weaned.

    The pseudo-anarchist hunter-gatherer utopia imagined in the article was far too deprived and brutal to permit anyone the luxury of sitting back and letting others take care of them unless they had literally no choice in the matter. Had it been left to the Men to do all the dangerous and difficult work of survival, humans would be naught but a grease-smear on natural history.

  • Handsome Dan

    and you became a hippy because your parents were lazy piles of shit right?

  • Matt Staggs

    Watch the ad hominem insults.

  • Jin The Ninja

    nothing is uglier than an ignorant human being.

  • bobbiethejean

    You want to make an actual argument like an intelligent adult or fling poo like a chimp?

  • Jin The Ninja

    he might not be ( and i have NO idea if he is or not) , but a lot of what is said in this article has corresponding points in aryan literature.

  • Andrew

    Or at least the literature of white people who think they’re Aryans.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1450060469 Jack Donovan

    This is the only ad hominem called out in a string of ad hominems. Is name calling and sloppy, knee-jerk dehumanization only acceptable when directed at a perceived enemy (non-progressive, anti-liberal, etc.). And if so, isn’t that kind of…tribal?

  • Jin The Ninja

    holla.

  • bobbiethejean

    You are so utterly ignorant it is scary. You should be embarrassed.

  • bobbiethejean

    No, I am being very serious. It wasn’t merely name calling. The fact that you resorted to name-calling over a mere, perfectly valid difference of opinion speaks for itself. You should be ashamed and embarrassed.

    There are so many ugly I don’t think I am ugly: http://bobbie-the-jean.deviantart.com/art/The-Old-Self-98060779 and neither do any of the people who know me. I’ve been called ugly maybe a handful of times in my life, way fewer times than I’ve been told I’m pretty. However, that is irrelevant. Judging people by their appearance is a disgusting, ignorant, and juvenile behavior.

    women who know they are not appealing to men I don’t formulate my opinions around whether or not men perceive me as being attractive, I formulate them based on evidence, logic, and reason…. unlike you, apparently.

    I felt more judged by feminists If you would rather be surrounded by misogynists than men and women who simply seek equality for everyone, that’s your prerogative. Have fun getting beaten, sexually harassed, and gang-raped. I’ll be over here in the company of decent men and women who understand that moving forward requires understanding, cooperation, equality, and CIVILITY.

    P.S. I find it funny how you accuse feminists of being self-hating. Projecting much?

  • bobbiethejean

    Hey, keep it coming. You’re doing such a wonderful job representing people from the Middle East. ;)

    Incidentally, if women are “running the show” here in America as you say, then why is it that only a tiny percentage of women hold positions in government? Why is it that women still make less money for the same work? Why is it that marital rape was only illegalized relatively recently? *Grabs some popcorn* It should be really fun watching you try to tap dance around this one.

    Oh and I don’t identify as a feminist, you presumptuous twit. I believe the term is inherently divisive.

  • Andrew

    > Marital rape shouldn’t be illegal.

    > Men who rape and beat women are not feminists issues. Ethical men have never done these things.

    Hypocritical stupidity.

  • Andrew

    You must admit, Tia’s proven “better” at sloppy, knee-jerk dehumanization than anyone else in this thread.

  • Jin The Ninja

    self-hate much? must be interesting to be a vehicle to other women’s oppression.

  • Matt Staggs

    Bye bye.

  • bobbiethejean

    Patently absurd and indefensible.

  • Andrew

    Exactly. (Note the > quotes. They’re from deleted posts.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1450060469 Jack Donovan

    I’m pro-tribalism, and I accept that dehumanizing potential enemies is part of human nature. This would only be a problem for people who imagine themselves to be above that sort of thing and (*cue laugh track*) “objective truth-seekers.”

  • bobbiethejean

    Oooohhhhh. You’re not the one who said that? My bad. *facepalms.* I didn’t realize you were quoting someone else. DERP. XC

  • Andrew

    So you’re not seeking objective truth? That would explain a lot.

21