By R. Brownell
It seems like if I’m not writing about the sexist death cult known as Feminism on a weekly basis, something just isn’t right in the world. About a week ago I covered the case for real manhood following feminists on college campuses have basically admitted not getting an orgasm is sexist; but the fun train just keeps on rolling these days.
Recently a progressive by the name of Zach Stafford from The Guardian decided to give the middle finger to masculine men everywhere with his article “It’s time to do away with the concept of ‘manhood’ altogether.”
So here is Zach’s main argument:
“Men are pretty terrible people. They commit significantly more violent crimes, robberies and assaults each year than women do, according to the Department of Justice. They are more likely to show anger in the workplace and be rewarded for it while women are affected negatively for the same behaviors. They even take up too much space on public transportation when “manspreading”. I could keep going.
Men probably dominate all these “terrible” statistics because, now and throughout history, they’ve dominated the world. But that doesn’t give them a pass. They are still to blame even if they don’t know better, and it’s high time their dominant position – their entitled ignorance – was questioned and dismantled.”
He goes off on a self hating tangent for the rest of the article, but you get the picture, so let’s take this apart piece by piece.
When Zach said “Men are pretty terrible people,” I had to pause and take that in– that’s a broad and general assumption, just as (if not more) ridiculous as if I were to say all Puerto Ricans are kidnappers (I’m Puerto Rican, I can at least get away with saying shit like that jokingly, for you PC police), all blacks are gangbangers, and all Muslims are terrorist. I guess these days with the constant assault on men, males has just given up being outraged, like many would be if someone were to say all women are basically sluts.
Secondly, Zach once again shows his obvious man-hating (I still think this is funny coming from someone with a pair of balls) bias, “they [men] commit significantly more violent crimes…” What’s funny is that 100% of preborn infanticide is committed by women (for the liberals out there, preborn means not outside the womb, infanticide means to kill infants in droves) since women are the only ones who can become pregnant, and apparently have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner in the matter of a child’s life. Thirdly, in terms of aggression and temper in the workplace, that is entirely pseudo science, moving on…
For the piece de resistance, Zach goes and says, “throughout history, they’ve dominated the world. But that doesn’t give them a pass. They are still to blame even if they don’t know better…”
Come one man! That’s the same logic behind white guilt, where because a white person I’m not even related too owned a black slave, I somehow inherit that racism because I too am white. Why not say that all Muslims are conquest hungry totalitarians because history has shown that? Yeah, Saudi Arabia is still a screwed up country, but how the hell do you explain Ahmed the nice Hot Dog vender who used to sell me food when I worked in Washington D.C.? Ahmed was Muslim, a man, and a capitalist! So do all those external factors dictate his character or person?
What losers like the 3rd wave feminist movement and Zach don’t get is that they confuse abuse with masculinity. They confuse masculinity with machismo tendencies which draw a Randy Savage picture of manliness. Do you understand why I want my future son to be masculine? Because I want him to defend himself like a man (not start a fight). By that I mean not resort to social media bullying or cowardly passive aggressive; bitchy behavior to deal with things employed by a generation of lost boys refusing to be men. I want him to grow into himself with a positive male role model like myself, a close friend, or even my father helping him mature into adulthood.
Don’t start thinking because I want my future son to behave like a man that I want to raise him to be like Ron Swanson. One of my most influential libertarian role models was a teacher who sponsored a libertarian student group I led at the school I attended for my first to years of college. This guy not only showed me how to fight the power of the school administration, but he was a amazing male role model to students, and was a complete example of how a gentleman should behave. The one thing that made him different from other male role models in my life is that he was openly gay! That doesn’t make him any less masculine or manly though, since he could teach a lot of straight men how to be tough and have character.
Hell, libertarian extraordinaire Tom Palmer (aka the libertarian James Bond) is an example of bravery and commitment to people all over the globe, and knows how to get his hands dirty for the struggle of freedom. Palmer is known for being a true renaissance man, which should slap feminist in the face, since his mere existence is combatting the ultra effeminate gay stereotype cast on homosexuals (even those annoying metrosexual hipsters invading the world) .
Zach’s article sucks not simply because his argument is weak, but because his facts to back up his claim are weaker. The feminist army, armed with their relativist ideology is showing something though, it’s that men should avoid the Hollywood misinterpretation of manhood, and instead be the real deal- Good Men who are not ashamed to be men as much as women should not be ashamed to be women.