Continued from part 1: A resounding silence
A decade into the 21st century, Western culture operates by explicit denial of some obvious facts. Men and boys are second class citizens. This is plainly evident in a large number of measurable factors.
Infant males are routinely sexually mutilated, and the harvested tissues used, among other places in high end women’s cosmetic wrinkle creams[1][2]. In fact, males are so despised that at least one company has abandoned animal testing in favour of testing products on the harvested tissues of mutilated male infants[3]. Debtors prisons, although formally illegal for more than a century, still exist solely for men[4][5][6][7] who have run afoul of the corrupt family court system. Most publicly funded anti-violence programs focus exclusively on the victimization of women, the sexual demographic already least victimized[8][9], implicitly promoting escalated violence against the demographic most victimized; men[10].
Proving this case for purpose of debate is outside the scope of this article. The fact of male disfranchisement is supported by a few examples above, but established and cemented in a substantial fraction of the article content on this site, a body of more than 800 essays.
How did we get here? The ideology of supposed feminine victimhood and the imaginary male domination of Western society has held an increasing totality of the public zeitgeist for the last half century. On our road to the present, it’s worth noting a few of the bigger cultural fractures.
Historically, the protectors of society have been men. That means the protectors of women, of children, of the elderly and of the infirm have been men. In a public places, the presence of men going about their various business has always been to the benefit of everybody else’s safety.
Men, for their part, have almost universally accepted this role of de-facto public bodyguard with pride as an element of masculine identity. Fast forward a few decades with a continuous looping backbeat of claimed rape culture, pedophile hysteria, and the masculine reality that a whispered accusation from an antonymous stranger destroys life, career, family and future. Then demonstrate to men the willingness of a major fraction of the female public to indulge in this blood sport for motives ranging from boredom to petty revenge.
Heidi Jones fabricated a phantom rape against herself for attention[11]. Nafissatou Diallo fraudulently accused Domenique Strauss Kahn in a paid strategy to derail his political career.
According to the Amy Davidson in the New Yorker: “Ms. Diallo is the first accuser in history to conduct a media campaign to persuade a prosecutor to pursue charges against a person from whom she wants money. Her lawyers and public relations consultants have orchestrated an unprecedented number of media events and rallies to bring pressure on the prosecutors in this case after she had to admit her extraordinary efforts to mislead them.” [12]
Julian Assange was fraudulently charged with rape because he had embarrassed the US government. Amanda Knox[13] accused an innocent man of rape because she was angry with one of his relatives over a minor debt. These, along with hundreds of cases making it into the news every year send a crystal clear message. Men are regularly imprisoned and destroyed with ease, based on nothing but words. Nicola Osborne, 32, of Winchester Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire fabricated a rape to cover up her own extramarital affair.[14]
The Canadian province of Ontario is one of the few places where false rape claims are statistically tracked by law enforcement. In that province in one year, more than 2,235 sexual assault allegations were not merely unproven as assaults, but in fact proven definitively to be false[15].
Pile onto this climate of false accusation the organized efforts of ideologues to eliminate due process[16] and the presumption of innocence for males, and we have a truly male-hostile culture. If this were not enough, we also have a media culture which celebrates male targeting violence, and treats male-targeting violent female criminals as pseudo-celebrities. Lorena Bobbitt and Katherine Becker being two most famous examples of this.
Further piling onto this extraordinarily ugly public ethic we have mainstream, respected pillars of society engaging in open discussion of male targeting eugenics and mass male-infanticide. The authors, teachers, daycare workers, politicians and professors orbiting Pamela Oshaughnessy’s women’s murder club[17] continue to reveal that accepted male-targeting violence is a community value for a large fraction of the female public.
All this, of course, is not enough. Take every argument made by members of the men’s rights movement, addressing the issues listed above and more, and stand these arguments against the other side of the debate. From the counter-men’s-rights camp, there is mockery, accusation, threats, and various attempts to shame and censor. There is also, from a vast majority of the public, a great, indifferent silence.
Men are, of course still expected to perform. Chase that all- important career path so that as good, conforming men we can pay for diapers, diamond rings and generally do right by the women in our lives. There’s even a newly emerging genre of literature dedicated to exhorting men to get back to protect, provide and die when convenient. Kimmel’s Guyland, and Hymowitz’s Child Man In The Promised Land being template examples of such.
Penny Nance, the CEO of Concerned Women of America has made a career of tut-tutting the growing fraction of men recognizing the non-viability of the allowable masculine role of disposable appliance. According to nance “We have an increasing problem of men walking away from families, walking away from their children, and we need to be concerned as a nation. We need to urge them to achieve and to be essential, and to be present in the family”[18]
In her interview with Fox News, she makes it clear, saying, “We need them, all the social science together points to the fact that dads are essential in the home; they’re essential in the family. We want them to do a great job now when they’re young, learning how to provide so that when they are dads that they can really be there for their families”
Nance frames the phenomenon of men opting out as a failure on the part of men to “grow up” and conform to her understanding of “good man,” but whether this is a conscious deception to shame men into compliance – or simple failure of comprehension on Penny’s part – is irrelevant.
What’s abundantly clear is that in the male-disposable zeitgeist of modern feminism, a new ethic of male survival is required for every man with the mental acumen to value himself as a self determined human, rather than a disposable appliance providing labor, money, sperm and violence on behalf of women.
The social contract between men and women has been broken. Our society’s feminist-driven war on men, pursued for the last five decades, has burned, bombed and razed to the ground that ancient agreement between men and women. Everybody, including the social-conservative women wringing their hands over men opting out are all aware of the annexation of the social contract.
For men, a new ethic of survival has become necessary, and that ethic has elements which will disturb and terrify those still invested in maintaining the status quo. To be clear, that means individuals invested in the continued casual disposal of men’s lives for everybody else’s convenience.
A complete description of this ethic is not the point of this article, and indeed, for other self actualized men, the solution will vary in it’s details. However, common to most men opting out of traditionally allowed disposable masculinity will be at least a version of the following elements. For convenience, this emerging masculine ethic is labeled with an expression coined by Paul Elam, that of Zeta Masculinity.
Zeta Masculinity entails no more acceptance of personal violence. This seems like nothing startling at first, until it is understood that outside of the newly emerging ethic of masculine self actualization – men are expected to both dispense and absorb personal violence on behalf of women and children as well as on behalf of high-status men. This is the ancient evolutionarily wired in model of men as the disposable protectors of family, community and taken across the large populations, the protectors of societies. For men alert to the social reality that they are despised as human beings, and only valued as disposable human-appliances, a total refusal to accept and absorb violence, or to dispense violence for any reason except personal protection is likely startling to socially conforming men and women.
Depending on the presentation of this non-violence – men refusing their own disposability are called cowards, or not-real-men. In the most desperate thrashings of social conservative rationalization – this nonviolence is characterized as support for violence. These accusatory reactions are based either in fear of removed protection by previously disposable males, or simply blank stupidity’s failure to grasp a masculine ethic of nonviolence. In either case – the failure lies with the critic, and no scant breath of apology or explanation is warranted. Zeta males owe nobody either.
This means that women and high status men can learn to abandon their assumption that the men around them owe them protection or enforcement. It’s likely that neither women nor high-status men will soon learn any such thing, but zeta men will be wholly indifferent to the pain experienced by either group on that learning curve.
Zeta masculinity also entails an abandonment of the self-sacrificing drive for career and status. That means the rapidly growing numbers of men adopting the emerging ethic of zeta masculinity are rejecting the age old female utilization of men as success objects. If women as a demographic can learn to value men as humans in a calculus separate from their fat wallets, shiny cars and prestigious high power careers, thats great. However, nobody’s expecting that, and women already whining in blogs, newspapers and social commentary talk shows can just keep complaining about peter pan until they’re blue in the face. Zeta men don’t care, because we know the game is rigged for men to earn, provide and die – and there’s no appeal in it.
Rebuttals to this of the character: “but you’ll never attract women without a respectable paycheck” are pre-emptively noted, and the real answer is that this is not a problem for anybody except those social conservatives and feminists invested in maintaining men’s role as disposable providers. Zeta males don’t care. That old game of sacrifice and early death isn’t worth the candle. We’re not going to pay for other people’s shit anymore, and we don’t care what this does to the bottom line of Saks 5th avenue, or Wells fargo, or Exxon. We don’t care, at all. What zeta males do understand in excruciating clarity is that the established, acceptable and respectable role of men as protector and provider is what props up a culture which has always run on the corpses of “good,” disposable men.
There is one more plank in this platform worth mentioning here. Zeta males are increasingly careful of their biological contributions in baby-making. The family courts, excepting a few recent reforms in specific states – have demonstrated a wholly corrupt mandate of wealth appropriation from men who’ve contributed their chromosomes in the procreative process. The problem being that although required by law to abide by and to underwrite the reproductive rights only women enjoy, men enjoy no such reproductive rights or choices themselves.
The only sane response to this is to exercise extreme caution in the disposal of semen. Without a gratuitous detail of method, the result is that an increasing number of men are refusing to impregnate women. Certainly the greater majority of men continue to fall blindly into the baby trap, but even this is likely to change rapidly with the emergence of new male contraceptive technologies.
What will happen without men willing to burn in this machine’s fuel? The system will either collapse or adapt to an modern ethic which doesn’t require human disposability. Whichever case emerges, zeta men are prepared to survive and adapt. The rest of you are on your own.
We’ll be taking first seats on the lifeboats, too. Thanks for asking.
[1] http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8415
[2] http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/30/Foreskin/
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076666/Scientists-secret-German-laborator/index.html
[4] http://purplemotes.net/2011/03/22/persons-in-jail-for-child-support-debt/
[5] http://www.rense.com/general51/chsup.htm
[6] http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-15/justice/georgia.child.support_1_child-support-deadbeat-jailed
[7] http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44376665/ns/today-today_news/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/
[8] http://www.amnesty.ca/campaigns/svaw_overview.php
[9] http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/violence_against_women/
[10] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm
[11] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20106221-504083.html
[12] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/07/nafissatou-diallo.html
[13] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/03/501364/main20114867.shtml
[14] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/woman-jailed-for-false-rape-claim-2225627.html
[15] http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2002/false-rape-claims-the-evidence-from-canada/
[16] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576516232905230642.html
[17] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/radfem-hub-the-underbelly-of-a-hate-movement/
[18] http://www.newshounds.us/2011/10/09/concerned_woman_for_america_penny_nance_loves_men_but_wants_them_to_grow_up.php
