A little over two weeks ago Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signed off on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles’ (hyphenated surname noted) reasoning for initiating the six-year endeavor was,
“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”
Thus words such as ‘freshmen’, ‘fireman’, ‘fisherman’ and even ‘penmanship’ are neutralized to ‘first year student’, ‘fireperson’, ‘fisher’ and ‘writing skill’. Perhaps the easiest way to grasp the process the committee used in their six-year effort is to presume that any noun or verb with the successive letters of ‘m-a-n’ in its syntax was replaced with ‘person’ or a substitution for a term that excluded the offending ‘m-a-n’ letters.
This hasn’t been the only effort to geld the English language under the guise of a want for avoiding legal repercussions. The University of North Carolina has initiated a similar effort in their school’s by-laws. Kent Law, Marquette and virtually every state college in the union, while not mandating the ‘manless’ language, has made efforts to encourage linguistic androgyny.
The Washington state initiative is really just the next predictable progression in this gelding, however the six-year effort represents something more endemically hostile; the Feminine Imperative, in its unconsolable insecurity, would reengineer the very language society uses in order to feel more secure.
Now granted, this is English, the second most commonly spoken language in the world, but in order to fully appreciate the scope of the Feminine Imperative and the lengths to which it will go unhindered to assuage the need for feminine-security, a red-pill man has to recognize the importance language represents to the human race as well as the removal of male, not masculine, influence from that language.
In all Latin-based languages there are gender associations with definitive articles. Nouns (and many adjectives) are specifically feminine or masculine as part of their intrinsic qualities. In Spanish ‘La Casa’, the home, is a feminine association. ‘El Toro’, the bull, is a masculine association. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of a Latin-based language understands that millennia ago the Latin culture found gender differentiation so important that it attached gender associations to the words, written and spoken, that represented the ideas and articles each word meant.
This might seem like a remedial review of language and society, but it’s important to understand what it is the Feminine Imperative hopes to undo, and the magnitude of its insecurities. The six-year effort of gender-abridgment in the Washington state law is really an illustration of the lengths to which the Feminine Imperative would reengineer society; from the very foundations of human communication, language, by eliminating masculine associations with any article or quality. The Feminine Imperative, that is dependent upon men being Men when convenient, simultaneously makes herculean efforts to remove men from its idealized environment and society.
Be a Man
There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of passage into manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect. In Latin cultures a young woman becomes a woman on here quinceñera – her fifteenth birthday. Jewish boys have a Bar Mitzvah, certain Native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it – we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when that adult, masculine respect is due.
A lot has been written on this blog and many others about the ceaseless efforts of the feminine to marginalize and ridicule anything masculine. It’s easy to find consistent examples of this in the past 50 years of popular media, movies, TV sit-coms, music, etc. While masculinity is ridiculed, there’s more to it than this. It’s not simple masculine ridicule, because the same masculine attributes and qualities that make women ‘strong’ are the same that make men strong. The difference is in the application – it wasn’t enough to implant the seeds of masculine self-doubt into men, the Feminine Imperative had to make men, not necessarily masculinity, the problem to be solved.
In all of the examples of masculine gender reversal in popular culture, men are the unique problem, to which only women have the resources, wisdom and intuition to correct. The men of today are characterized as the Lucy Ricardos of the 50’s, requiring women’s guidance to avoid, often mutually destructive, disasters. However, the key to solving those problems, characterized as uniquely male, still require masculine-associated, mindsets, skills and applications.
Guys vs. Men
I was participating in a conversation just recently with a young woman of 26 and a young man of 18. The conversation itself wasn’t important, but at one point the young man referred to himself as a ‘Man’. He said something to the effect of, “Well I’m a man, and men do,..” At the word ‘man’ she cut him off with the unconscious snigger that’s resulted from years of feminine ridicule conditioning. Just the mention of a man self-referencing as a “man” is enough to inspire feminine ridicule. It’s laughable for a man to consider himself a man.
This exchange got me to wondering about the turning point at which I began to self-reference as a “Man”. In the face of a constant conditioned ridicule, it’s almost an uncomfortable recognition to distinguish yourself as a Man. It’s too easy to just think of yourself as a ‘guy’ and never be so presumptuous as to insist upon your manhood. In girl-world, to claim to be a Man is to admit to arrogance – it’s to embrace a flawed nature.
It’s important to note here that in embracing your status as a Man, instead of ‘just a guy’, you are passing a meta-shit test. By embracing self-referenced manhood, you are rejecting what a world aligned against you would like you to believe about yourself. You’re endorsing yourself as a Man with self-assurance despite the self-doubt the Feminine Imperative relies upon men believing about themselves, masculinity and the dubious state of manhood as a whole. By flagrantly referring to yourself as a Man you are passing the meta-shit test – you’re overtly stating you’re a Man, but you you’re covertly stating “I Just Get It.”
Remove the Man
As I addressed earlier, the Feminine Imperative perceives your Manhood as a Threat. By endorsing yourself as a Man, on some level, whether you’re cognizant of it or not, you’re alluding that you have an inkling of your own personal value as a Man. You’re expressing a self-awareness that is both attractive and terrorizing for women, but due to the constant influence of feminine primacy you’re perceived as arrogant, self-serving and prideful. Even in the most innocuous context, insisting upon your status as a Man is inherently sexist to a world defined by the Feminine Imperative.
But the imperative needs masculinity. To insure its (temporary) satisfaction of security a masculine element is required. Strength, confidence, determination, a capacity for risk taking, dominance and the comfort that women naturally derive from those masculine attributes are necessities of a healthy, secure, existence for women and the feminine.
However, brutish, ridiculous and stupid men can’t be trusted to universally provide this masculine security that every woman deserves irrespective of attractiveness or merit according to the Feminine Imperative. So Men must be removed from masculinity.
No longer are Men allowed a monopoly on masculinity. Domineering women as a default status in heterosexual relationships pushes masculinity into her domain. Dominant masculine partners in sexually fluid relationships are similarly, unironically, re-characterized.
These are the easy examples. Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.
I can remember an instance at a former workplace where some coworkers were organizing a team to run in a Breast Cancer awareness walk/run. At one point a particularly mangina coworker suggested we all wear the prerequisite pink color at the event, and needless to say I arrived in a black T-Shirt amongst a sea of pink. The predictable accusation of my sexual security came up: “What, aren’t you secure enough in your manhood to wear pink?…herp..derp!” to which I answered “I’m secure enough in my Manhood not to wear pink.”
What the mangina was obliviously parroting back is the same social tool that’s been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative. My answer to him was simply taking that power of definition back into a male-controlled frame – “I’ll tell you what manhood is, your grasp of manhood doesn’t qualify you to tell me.”
This power of defining the masculine isn’t limited just to snarky, subconscious referencing; it’s simply one aspect of a greater effort to remove men from masculinity. While the efforts of certain women bloggers and psychologists (both within and without the manosphere) to build better betas seems ennobling to white knights, the unifying purpose behind their efforts is really one of portioning or rationing masculine authority to men in as convenient a way as would satisfy their immediate needs for those masculine aspects. Be Alpha as needed, but beta for the greater part so as to allow for fem-masculine dominance and primacy.
I’ve explained this previously as the Male Catch 22, but it’s important to understand that this Catch isn’t some unfortunate byproduct of male inheritance; it’s a careful, calculated feminine social dynamic with the latent purpose of making men accountable for masculine responsibilities while simultaneously making them shamed and guilty of ‘male privilege’ when that masculinity conflicts with the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. That’s the crux of the dynamic, but the mechanics of it are still rooted in specifically male masculine self-doubt.
For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.
When I was 13 my faat, ugly, femanazi english teacher told my I must use gender neutral language. So where I saw person I said and wrote per-child because per-“son” was obviously gendered.
She got “upset” so a number of my classmates followed suit because gender neutral language obviously extends to “son”.
Therefore a woman becomes wo-per-child and we started calling the female teachers wo-per-children! LOL!!
I think all men should refer to women as woperchildren to make sure we do NOT OFFEND THEM!!
It was a quick and simple idea, but the Private Man recently had a good idea on taking back a small part of the language:
Language is beyond fundamental, and Orwell correctly observed that it shapes your very ability to think.
I’ll be damned if I can find it, but I also remember a video in which it pointed out how every newscast referring to a tragedy identified “women” and “childre”, but men were always “miners”, “soldiers”, etc.
I think a less diplomatic answer would be “By your logic you should be going out naked in public with a dildo up your arse. Unless you’re not secure enough in your manhood”
The FI technique described is an attempt at shaming you into submission to a point of view. Shaming is the feminine technique of parenting, a violation of cultural or social values. Guilt based parenting is that of an Alpha male, a violation of ones own internal values.
This starts at a young age, and continues to the point of creating the perfect beta. Even men in my social circle that I thought of as Alpha, come with this shaming.
Which leads us to this……..
Soooo….what happens to words like FEMinism? That’s clearly a gendered word, so that too should be banned, right? Right? Yeah, I’m not holding my breath.
There’s a video series on youtube called “misandry in the media”. Check it out. I think episode 18 discusses the issue you mention. The video series by manwomanmyth also touches on this. In fact it may be the source material for the misandry in the media series.
“ I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it – we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when that adult, masculine respect is due.” Yes, but it’s worth pointing out that part of the reason we don’t define the parameters of masculinity is because it is in the interest of the feminine imperative that the definition remain as fluid as possible. The feminine imperative has different needs at different times—some of which are completely contradictory. Defining set rules for acquiring masculine respect would necessarily constrain… Read more »
That video you are referring to is:
“Men don’t exist”
Hi Rollo, the idea that men need to think about is “can a free man be told what he can and can not say?” The rather obvious answer is no, right? So if this legislation is telling “persons” what they can and can not say then what is this thing called a “person”? It is, in fact, a legal entity. I rescinded my consent to be governed and therefore legislation like this does not apply to me. I have proven this and tried to tell men the good news but they do not want to listen. You might want to… Read more »
beautifully written essay, but in my opinion, too many of the great minds here in the manosphere are repeating the same message, and not asking enough, how do we spread the message?
for example, almost all of us use pseudonyms, will any one of us post this essay on our actual, real life facebook account?
I went to get dinner with one of my young sons the other day at a sports bar. On one of the televisions there was a predictable commercial with some manly looking dudes playing volleyball, then the girls show up and trounce them. Shock! Who thought of that? How clever! Anyway, I notice my son noticing this commercial from among the four TV options posted up and I ask him about it. “What was that commercial?” “Some people playing volleyball.” “Who was playing” “Boys against girls” (his exact answer, that simple, that direct, that immediate, no prompting) “Who won?” “The… Read more »
@ Mark: thank you
@ rivsdiary: I agree about spreading the message, but I don’t think real names are essential to that at this point. I doubt Rollo, Roissy, etc. would be having more impact if we could find them in the phonebook. And some are using real names, i.e. Roosh, Aaron Clary, etc.
@ case: Beautiful!
I would wager your son remember that conversation for the rest of his life, mainly because you made an example of that woman.
I guess political election entitles the elected to bugger the language at will. They have a mandate — I mean a persondate.
rivsdiary “but in my opinion, too many of the great minds here in the manosphere are repeating the same message, and not asking enough, how do we spread the message?” The issue is not actually “spreading the message”. The issue is that men in the man-o-sphere are repeating the SYMPTOMS of the problem endlessly and not addressing the REMEDY to their problems which was PROVEN THREE YEARS AGO. If men would STOP TALKING and START LISTENING then they would hear the REMEDY. But since men will not STOP TALKING the cacophony that has been created means the REMEDY is drowned… Read more »
Look in one of the most feminized countries (and proud of their gender equity) of the world: Sweden
The minister (a woman) says among other interesting things (after years of demoting men in schools)
“We need more man in preschool”,”I imagine a national strategy to increase the proportion of men in preschool”, “Women are not men. Yet the individual is always first”
I liked how one commenter said: “Wow. Women are not men. Is that allowed to be said in the Gender-Church?”
Rollo, it is “quinceañera”. Typo there.
Your mention of the breast cancer awareness reminds me of the NFL during Breast Cancer awareness week/month (however long it is). Why can’t they do something for men like Prostate Cancer awareness? I mean, it’s a male sport…no women play football. EVERY player has something pink on in one of the most visible sports in North America.
I don’t know how valid this is (psych is not my domain) but I recall reading somewhere that the mind doesn’t grasp injunctions or negatives well.
Apprently negative injunctions like ‘quit smoking’ simply don’t work, the mind registers the noun but not the verb.
I see the fem imperative in the same vein, the more they press the less effective they will become, after all they are getting the most backlash during a time they are pressing the hardest.
Yeah, I think I’m going to get obnoxious dismissing idiots this year when Breast Cancer Awareness Month comes around. I’m beyond tired of folks that scoff at looking at iodine levels or thermal imagining for breast cancer detection BUT think wearing pink accomplishes something!
Oh, and squishing their boobs and irradiating them. Can’t forget that! Doctors make money off that, after all. Huh… traumatizing tissue and zapping it with radiation… that must do something good!
When I was studying abroad in Barcelona I took an entire class called “The sexism of the Spanish Language.” So glad I paid 35k a year for that. Thank you liberal arts degree for giving me something to be pissed about
@rivsdiary- I agree with the fact that the manosphere needs to become more marketable and reach out to the mainstream. It’s an idea I’ve been wrestling with for some time now. Read a good quote in a post on Bold and Determined recently that got me thinking: “Losers whine, winners act.” Not that all of the manosphere is whining. Especially Rollo’s stuff is important to deconstruct the fem imperative. It’s not whining, it’s learning. But at a certain point, stuff does become repetitive and require action. This is why I haven’t posted on my blog in a couple of weeks,… Read more »
This is one main reason why women deeply resented the bygone Western patriarchy. In a patriarchy it’s older men who have the power to grant or withdraw the social status of young men. If older men agreed that a certain young man deserved social status for whatever reason (bravery, honor, work ethic), then that was it – society as a whole had to accept that. No woman had the power to strip him of that status on grounds that he’s not hot enough. Women prefer a social system where all men’s social status is only dependent on women’s whims. As… Read more »
Saint Peter went before God and he said, “God, the women have penis envy. And they are angry. That are angry that a penis is so much more attractive than a vagina. But they are mostly angry that a penis is such a true and perfect indicator of sexual arousal, that once the penis is long and hard, then enjoyment of sex is almost a given for men. The women have no idea if they are aroused or when they are aroused, and there is nothing about the female anatomy that guarantees the woman will enjoy sex. Some never have… Read more »
““What, aren’t you secure enough in your manhood to wear pink?…herp..derp!” ”
One cannot prove their manhood by acting like a woman.
While I am on the Algebra theme, here is a proof that WOMEN ARE EVIL First we state that women require time and money: (1) women = time x money From the axiom (2) time = money So by substituting (2) in (1) we have (3) women = money x money or women=(money) **2 “money squared” and because “Money is the root of all evil” (4) money = evil **1/2 “square root” Since the square of two square roots of same value is equal to the value, then from (4) we can substitute (3) and we have the final result… Read more »
good job. how did the men react, though?
Has anyone heard of feminist womyn changing their last names if they end in “son” yet? It seems logical on their current trajectory. For instance…
Williamson = Williamsdaughter
Henderson = Henderperson (better but it still ends in “son”)
Johnson = lost cause, too Patriarchal to redeem due to penis connotations
I made a comment above about “son” being changed to “child”..such that woman would become wo-per-child. And I think that is what we should call women…wo-per-children.
Some languages do just that out of tradition. In Icelandic, the singer Bjork’s last name is Gudmunsdottir (daughter of Gudmun); had she been a boy, her surname would be Gudmundsen. Russian, too, uses the traditional patronymic (middle name) as a gender ID; son of Ivan would be Ivanovich; daughter would be Ivana. There was a dopey gender politics essay in the NY Times Mag back in the 70’s argiung for a new English sex-neutral replacement for MANkind; their idea was Genkind, which got nowhere after being severely laughed at. (“Humankind”, a term coined by Jimmy Carter, wasn’t good enough for… Read more »
I remember having to read a novel for a Women’s Lit class in college (don’t judge, we were required to take a Women’s Studies or AA Studies class) which used the made-up pronoun per in place of either his or her. Perhaps Senator Kohl-Welles can squeeze another six years of funding out of the state coffers to try to institute the usage of per in all future government documents.
Society is far too productive these days, people haven’t concerned with real surviving any more thus naturally gender roles lost its economical sense. There is no demand for such number of men existing today, there is huge demand for worker bees.
Nothing will change until real economical collapse or great disaster.
I looked over all the posts in the thread to see if anyone mentioned this and somehow missed the very first. “Woperchild” has an undeniable ring to it.
Rollo, you are dense and annoying with your constant use of the ridiculous term “feminine imperative”. The term you should be using is “The Left”.
Feminism is just one sub-ideology of Leftism, the ruling ideological paradigm of our era. And Leftism is the cultural, political, and social manifestation of post-modern philosophy. This is deeper than just feminism. This is about applied epistemology.
But you ManoSphere bloggers can only sing one tune.
[…] http://therationalmale.com/2013/05/06/remove-the-man/#comment-19722 […]
Jesus, Minter where do you get your material? Were you a math major at UT?
“Thus words such as ‘freshmen’, ‘fireman’, ‘fisherman’ and even ‘penmanship’ are neutralized to ‘first year student’, ‘fireperson’, ‘fisher’ and ‘writing skill’. Perhaps the easiest way to grasp the process the committee used in their six-year effort is to presume that any noun or verb with the successive letters of ‘m-a-n’ in its syntax was replaced with ‘person’ or a substitution for a term that excluded the offending ‘m-a-n’ letters.”
Next effort, get rid of the “appalling sexism” in science. “AdaMANtium”?
Not cool. From now on,it’s “adapersontium”?
Aluminum? That’s one letter off from being “Alu-I’m-gonna-rape-you-um”. NOT cool.
This post is brilliant and something I wish all men (and women) would read. That nonsense in Washington made my stomach churn. Even the talking heads on the news had to shake their heads in disbelief (penmanship had to be changed? really?) The extent our culture is going to devalue men is ridiculous. I’m a woman and it disgusts me. You put into words something that I’ve had difficulty articulating in conversations with others…namely the way our society does not allow men to define masculinity and they are, in fact, ridiculed for attempting to do so, accused of being uncomfortable… Read more »
Do you believe in equality?
Yeah – it means changing all surnames as well – you know, from Johnson to Johndaughter or Johnchild. Thompson to Thompdaughter or Thompchild. Akerman to Akerwoman or Akerperson. Freeman to Freewoman or Freeperson.
I think another aspect to add would be the notion by our society that masculinity is behavior of the lower class. Masculine behavior is written off as being befitting of uneducated racist rednecks. By associating traditional manly values to people of low social status they control a huge number of people with positions of social prestige into accepting their behavioral standards. “You don’t want to seem like you’re stupid hick do you?” is basically the lure that they use to keep people from deviating from their beliefs. If you can link your oppositions viewpoints to something seen as negative, then… Read more »
So, Jack…whence “the left”? Is “the left” some kind of sub-ideology? I think it is.
Women are herd animals who must follow the herd. They live within it and derive status from it. Feminism is herd-approved so women follow it. But men do not herd. Feminism seeks supremacy, blamelessness, conformity, and resource independence. Above all, compliance. But men hold the keys and men do not herd. Men must be brought to heel and placed under hoof. Subordinated to the herd, and assimilated by it. They must meet social approval, shed all that is male, and become one of the guys. But men do not herd. Guys may herd but men do not. This is why… Read more »
Well, first and foremost this is a political stunt designed to get votes. In it of itself it’s fairly harmless if not downright stupid, but the intent is disturbing. The problem is most men are too busy with their family, careers or lives to take much notice of this type of thing. After all, If your life is good, stuff like this is just silly, right? And, if your struggling with the aforementioned, you just don’t have the time. However, the endless whining from women – particularly white, US women – just gets louder and louder with a muted response… Read more »
Regarding the evesdropper, I would have looked at the dudes with her and tell them to check their woman. Dealing with women on these things ars pointless. The key is to shame the men for being womanish
“Gilligan May 8th, 2013 at 11:27 pm Lots of complaining on these boards, but I don’t see much action. Maybe some thought and energy needs to be put into that?” Gilligan , comments like this from men REALLY piss me off. The thought and energy WAS put into that…BY ME. In 2008/09. On 2009-11-26 I walked into the Australian Federal Magistrates Courts and PROVED THE REMEDY I DEVELOPED. There is not ONE single blogger in the MRA world who does not know about the video I took of that meeting and posted to YT. NOT ONE. I then released my… Read more »
“Ton May 8th, 2013 at 11:46 pm The key is to shame the men for being womanish” No. The key is for men to get off their fat arses and DO SOMETHING. And that something is join the mens business association, rescind your consent to be governed, move your assets to where they can not be stolen and set up your own business to produce an income that is not able to be blocked by the criminals in guvment. THAT is what I advise men to do. And if men choose not to do this? If they CHOOSE to remain… Read more »
„Lots of complaining on these boards, but I don’t see much action. Maybe some thought and energy needs to be put into that?” Such arguments are a gimmick and nothing more. Don’t fall from them. Let’s suppose that some MRA groups launch some sort of political campaign. You can safely bet that the first group of people to dole out snark and criticism to them won’t be the feminists or the tradcons – it’ll be exactly the group that complained about the MRM not doing any real action. Feminists, as usual ,will just go into a rage without offering any… Read more »
Removing the B-O-Y:
Unbelievable. Suspended from school for just being little boys.
Gender neutrality of firemen? Policemen? Fishermen?
In Old English the word man refers to men, women and children.
As in human.
“Gilligan May 8th, 2013 at 11:27 pm
Lots of complaining on these boards, but I don’t see much action. Maybe some thought and energy needs to be put into that?”
See Gilligan? When a man presents the REMEDY to all these problems men will not even TALK about it.
Indeed men will talk about ANYTHING BUT THE REMEDY. Because if they actually admitted there was a REMEDY they might actually have to stop complaining! LOL!!
MEN ARE UN-HELP-ABLE.
@Different T You ask – Do I believe in equality? If we are talking about equality in the sense of worth, then yes I believe in equality in that all people, male or female, are equal in worth. However, if you are referring to equality as far as gender dynamics and the holding of authority in society and relationships are concerned, then I categorically do not believe in equality. Men, for so many reasons, are simply better leaders than women. And despite what women may say or think they feel, I believe that, subconsciously, women desire men to lead, guide… Read more »
” I believe in equality in that all people, male or female, are equal in worth.”
I’m equal to Marky Zuckerburgz! Awesome!
A pear-shaped, tatted-up Nintendo-head welfare juggalo is equal to whom?
@Peter Andrew – I’m not really sure that I could prove what I believe in a written forum such as this. May I ask why you are asking me to do so? I can only assume that you are skeptical, which is curious. Why would I profess that if I do not, in fact, hold this belief?
Rollo, OT question but I would be interested if you have a view on it.
Do you have any word or advise or anything to offer a woman who perceives herself to be facing the wall and who is having a hard time with it? Emphasized nuances: perceives herself to be facing, not yet objectively over, and having a hard time with it not absorbed in suffering over it. Is there anything to offer such a soul?
@Stingray, thx I hope he does. @Itsme, they were ooblivious. Why would two men be eavesdropping in a private conversation between a man and his son. They obviously were enjoying conversation about something else. @Peter Nolan, re: “So now I take a different tack. I call you men the ‘stupid dumb animals’ and ‘useless eaters’ you are. I denounce you. I say you have persuaded me that the Illuminati is right and you SHOULD be killed off” …ahhhh, so I can totally see that you really are motivated by how you care about me and my sons and men and… Read more »
~gwen May 10th, 2013 at 6:54 pm @Peter Andrew – I’m not really sure that I could prove what I believe in a written forum such as this. May I ask why you are asking me to do so? I can only assume that you are skeptical, which is curious. Why would I profess that if I do not, in fact, hold this belief? Gwen. I am not questioning that you are so stupid that you believe all people are of equal worth. I am quite willing to concede you are that stupid. You are a woman. Women will believe… Read more »
Case “@Peter Nolan, re: “So now I take a different tack. I call you men the ‘stupid dumb animals’ and ‘useless eaters’ you are. I denounce you. I say you have persuaded me that the Illuminati is right and you SHOULD be killed off”” Do you know that legislation is not law and you can rescind your consent to be governed? Do you know that alimony and child support are voluntary payments? Do you know that children can be retrieved from an ex wife in a very simple procedure that takes about 6 weeks? Do you know there is a… Read more »
No….son is gendered…it has to be hu-per-child…just like I suggest wo-per-child should be used for women. “men” is gendered. woperson is gendered. So woperchild it must be.
@ Peter Andrew – I cannot and will not argue with your logic. I am a woman so my ability to reason is greatly limited by my tendency to attach emotion to everything. What you said makes a lot of sense and I thank you for offering a different perspective. I may just be a “stupid” woman, but I do believe I am designed to serve a purpose, just as you, as a man, are designed to serve a purpose. Obviously, based on your self-description, you are a man who is of more worth than a man who is a… Read more »
@~gwen This society is highly heterogeneous regarding its processes for valuation. Using comparative terms (including “equal”) opens a number of solipsistic mazes and is inadvisable if you are not adept at navigating them (it appears you are not and are aware of this). As an example, it took you two lengthy posts to respond in a somewhat coherent fashion to the question “do you believe in equality?” “My point was that both contributions are valuable. The roles of the man and woman in this scenario are different but of [omitted] worth in ensuring a positive and healthy outcome for a… Read more »
Sheesh, some of you guys need to relax the kung fu grip a bit. This Gwen seems like she “gets it” as far as a woman can grasp “getting it”,which is rare as hens teeth for a woman to even admit to herself let alone out loud. She’s not a bad egg.
Rollo, outstanding post. Some of the posts I’ve seen around the manosphere lead me to believe these really are the great books of our time.
Tsk my apologies “Some of you MEN”.
That guy shit really does go deep.
~gwen, Your ability to reason is impressive, and your heart is in the right place (you are even kind and polite to those who don’t deserve it). My only suggestion regarding discussions would be to define your terms. For example, your usage was clear to me from your context, but “equality” has been used to mean so many different things, that people can misinterpret your words, intentionally as well as unintentionally. You might also like to visit sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com, since you seem like kindred spirits. She is also trying very hard to gain understanding, so that she can become both a… Read more »
@ Peter (C:\) Perhaps you should start by proving that your “remedy” is more than magical thinking. It seems to be the claim that pointing out loopholes and inconsistencies will somehow cause those who make and enforce rules to enforce these rules against themselves, instead of just making more and different rules, if they pay any attention at all. You state: “Do you know that alimony and child support are voluntary payments? Do you know that children can be retrieved from an ex wife in a very simple procedure that takes about 6 weeks?” So then you should have no… Read more »
[…] Rational male: Remove the man […]
@Anonymous – thank you for your kind words. I have a pretty thick skin so I’m not offended by criticism. Criticism, even harshly given, is necessary for self-examination. I have much to learn and very little to teach, which is why I rarely comment. I will visit the blog you suggested. Thank you : )
Talking about removing the man…in going to the cinema this weekend I was given a rather long pre-movie promo for “The Fosters” which is an ABC Family show about lesbian women who are raising a mix of biogical, adoptive and foster children in a heroic home where one “parent” is a police officer and teased story lines include how awful the biological parents are and how the kids are dealing with drugs,sex and delinquency. Not a man in sight. Welcome to the new vision if family per popular culture. Makes the “Brady Bunch” or “8 is Enough” seem idyllic snapshots… Read more »
I’ve got to see this dynamic play out in real time since I started growing out my beard several months ago. Guys I meet are universally positive and rally around it as a symbol of manliness while girls, with a few notable exceptions, shit test me like crazy and try to get me to shave it. I admit to having had considerable skepticism about the existence of the female imperative but seeing how polarizing an overt symbol of masculinity, even one like a beard or mustache that’s been largely reduced to a caricature, is among the general population has been… Read more »
A man hears from his doctor that he has only half a year to live. The doctor advises him to marry Susan Walsh, have sex with her every night, and read her blog, “Hooking Up Smart” every day, including all the comments, especially her replies.
The man asks: “will this cure my illness?”
The doctor answered, “No, but the half year will seem pretty long.”
[…] One of Tomassi’s recent posts over at The Rational Male discusses the changes in language that the feminine imperative has been […]
I want to thank you so much for having the honesty to create this blog. i am a woman and the mother of boys. i have always felt a pain knowing that they live in a world where they will probably never be allowed to be themselves. I have been ridiculed and dismissed by many people both Male and Female when i try to explain how i feel. i am not as able as you to put it into words but i will try. And if this comment is deleted due to being seen as some lunatic ramble then i… Read more »
I am a man. A brute if you will. Full of caveman goodness. Grrrr.
[…] Capable of Empathizing with Men * Man is Superior to Woman * Male and Female: Equal but Different * Feminists wish to Remove the Man * Marxist Dogma in Feminist Studies * Male Earning Power as it relates to Alphas * A Guide to […]
[…] says has suddenly become one of the most popular blogs in the world. Nice. Rollo Tomassi over at The Rational Male knows his stuff. Congratulations to […]
When are we going to get the balance right? Never going to happen – it will keep swinging. On all levels of discrimination, if we could only learn to respect each others differences – Meet each other half way. We may get somewhere then. Seems selfish needs and ideals are just human nature – and they ooze out everywhere.
[…] to achieve its vaunted social equalism between the sexes. What feminine independence truly means is removing the man – independence from men. Feminine independence’s idealized state is one where women are […]
[…] and normalized that laid bare feminism latent purpose – strong independent women® could remove the man from the equation of effecting an optimal hypergamy, while at the same time effecting future […]
[…] http://therationalmale.com/2013/05/06/remove-the-man/ […]
[…] son no less. It was apropos for a retelling of the classic formula that would see all semblances of conventional masculinity erased from what is intended to be a new classic. Han Solo represented the last of a kind, the brash, […]
[…] three years ago I published a post called Remove the Man. That essay was prompted by Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signing on the final installment […]
[…] From Remove the Man: […]
I read a book for my boy when he was little. It was about a boy who was mucked in school by a bully and his brothers and cousins. Every time our boy told his father about these incidents, the father was busy doing housework chores. Finally in the end of the book when the boy was mucked several times and beaten up, his father became a monster who kicked the living shit out of the boys enemies. I never really understood the meaning of this book until I thought about it recently. It’s exactly about being the perfect beta… Read more »
[…] masculinity. I’ve written on numerous occasions about feminine-primacy’s efforts to remove men from all aspects of our collective thought, but a Hillary presidency was to be a decisive victory […]
[…] in the Feminine Imperative’s unceasing efforts to Remove the Man a distinction between a useful masculinity and a dangerous masculinity is no longer something that […]
[…] men are no longer men today, they are “allies”. This is the next logical step in Removing the Man from our social context. Boys are no longer ‘boys’, and they can only ever be […]
[…] the imperative men are no longer men today, they are “allies”. This is the next logical step in Removing the Man from our social context. Boys are no longer ‘boys’, and they can only ever be ‘good humans’ […]
not Mankind, Peoplekind !
[…] http://therationalmale.com/2013/05/06/remove-the-man/ […]
[…] Rational Male: Remove the Man (2013 May […]
[…] The Rational Male: Remove the Man (2013-5-6) […]