Mangina, wimp, sissy, pussy beggar, white knight; there are a lot of derogatory words for male feminists. Most advocates for men’s civil rights deal repeatedly with such guys in full attack dog mode.
They will attack non-compliant men, in supposed defence of the women who grant them the identity as “good boys”. These men are given that identity, as long as they do exactly what they’re supposed to do.
But what keeps them in denial of their own humanity? What keeps them in line and makes them pretend the women they claim to protect are helpless and fragile innocents? What drives white knights to violence against men who treat those fragile flowers like the complete, accountable human beings they actually are?
Fear. This is what drives men to a posture of self hatred, and into the fantasy of themselves as “the only good men” against the narrative of a world of baddies.
“See how well I grovel and agree that womanliness is good and manliness is bad? I am the one good man. Please approve of me.”
As humans we are social, tribal animals. Identity within the group is so important that its lack is felt as physical pain. The threat of identity loss, that it should be taken away by attack through a person’s social group is a legitimate fear of real injury. Social death is the destruction of a person’s life. This is why the nuclear option of false accusation doesn’t even need the police or courts to become involved. And that attack is only the pinnacle of such attacks. Graduated levels of lesser violence are routinely employed on an ongoing basis by the women who rule over male conformists, keeping them in a regime of fear and shame.
This is why terms like mangina, and pussy beggar serve only to cement those poor bastards into their role as barely tolerated but useful slaves.
These men live in a regime of shame and fear all the time. Attempting to heap more shame on them, even if we think it justified, won’t do any good because men are not in control of their own social narrative. That is the province of women.
If we are competing for the hearts and minds of these men, we can’t confer a positive identity on them either. This is because, again, no matter how logical our arguments are, and however charismatic we might be, we, as men are not the sources of male identity. That is where women rule, and it is how most men are controlled.
To be honest, I am glad to not be charge of granting men’s identities. That much power, in anyone’s hands, will corrupt even the best intentioned.
Women grow up with their own set of pressures, obviously, including the pressure to be physically attractive. But let’s accept that the social caste we call women have the power we’re talking about. If we ignore or deny this, we are coming unarmed to a gun fight, and pretending the woman with the machine gun is helpless even as she cuts us down.
It’s actually worse than that metaphor suggests. In verbal or other conflict, it is not just male feminists who are the problem. Almost all men who are the disposable dispensers of violence on women’s behalf become their obedient dogs. But they’re not actual dogs, they’re men. Even when their behaviour seems to be obviously cowardly. This is to say, governed by fear of their identity loss via the fiat of women around them; these men cannot just be destroyed as we would do with a dog which has attacked us.
What we can and should do is illuminate the door through which such men can exit their own cages.
This is a relatively uncharted territory, but the map begins with some waypoints.
The first point is recognition of tribally supplied identity. This is where we are now, and it’s where most men rejecting the ideas of male liberation lose the plot. They reject the reality in front of their face because departing from the only source of public identity they know is terrifying.
But a growing number of men have begun cutting this new path and the visibility of their lifestyles makes it not quite so impossible.
The next step, after recognition of woman supplied identity is departure from that tribal identity. A mistake to avoid is the belief that, if we are strong enough, we don’t need a network in which we can have a positive identity. People do not stop being social animals just because we recognize our gynocentric culture is toxic.
An alternative social network is required, and there are a lot of different of ways to build one. This will be something to explore in greater depth on an ongoing basis.
As alternative paths to men’s self actualization grow, the existing toxic culture of feminine coercion and control over male identity will erode. And eventually it will be relegated to history’s trash-bin of bad ideas.