Masculinities of the far right

[slomo]

^^^^^Upvote for Tom of Finland

(Not because I find his work sexy, far from it, but because it is sure to make AD uncomfortable.)

[American Dream]

http://foolsofvinland.blogspot.com/2015 ... nland.html

Who are the Wolves of Vinland?



Chief furry in-charge of the Wolves of Vinland, Paul Waggener, aka "Grimnir"
(Image courtesy of Tumblr)

"Six years ago, I was one of four guys who decided to start a gang. This wasn’t the word we used, and its negative connotations will put a lot of people off, but Webster defines the word as: “…a group of persons working together (2): a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends…” We were both of these things at once- our aim was to work toward a common goal that was antosocial. We’ll turn again to our trusty Webster’s Dictionary for a definition of that one: “…hostile or harmful to organized society; especially: being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm.” “Behavior deviating sharply from the social norm.” That definition should be tattooed right on the forearm of everyone in this outfit as a reminder of what we are, and what we ain’t. Before you get hung up on the “hostile to organized society” bit, Webster simply defines that as “openly opposed or in resistance to.” We are openly opposed to this culture’s social norms. We are in resistance to herd mentality and ignorance. We are “hostile” towards laziness, obesity, homogenization, emasculation and the tight leash of overly restrictive Law. We clanned together because we chose to reach out to like minds and carve a niche into this world big enough to breathe in- and we clawed it out the hard way- every step of the process was a climb up the mountainside, and we still have not come close to the summit. Six years after formation, we own property, have dozens of members in more than 6 states, have built permanent structures, and are still reaching out to those like minds, attempting to provide a community and a social structure that presents its own set of “norms,” those being Honor, Loyalty, Strength, Pride, Ferocity and Will, to name a few. I was prompted to write this little piece by a number of emails and messages I’ve received over the past few months from individuals in locations as far flung as Canada, Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, and a few right here in Vinland, bemoaning a lack of fellowship, camaraderie and value in their lives. In short, they were expressing a deep dissatisfaction with lack of TRIBE. I believe this is a dissatisfaction that most individuals in this modern society are experiencing, and one that they seek to remedy with all manner of distraction and replacement- from drinking buddies to sports team loyalty, from the MMA gym to the motorcycle club, people are looking for a tribe to belong to, and that in turn, belongs to them. I have only one piece of advice to offer all these people: man the fuck up and sieze the day by its throat! Get out there and start forming meaningful connections and relationships the old-fashioned way… get off the fucking keyboard and out from behind the computer screen and make shit happen in your life instead of bemoaning a lack of adventure and community! This never ceases to enrage and frustrate me- no matter what is being discussed, if it is being discussed, it aint getting done. Certainly, some amount of discussion and pre-planning can get something “in the works,” but more often than not it leads to nothing but words upon words, instead of word leading to deed. The Wolves exist because we felt a Need, and out of that Need, we Created. That Creation became a living thing, and its strength called out to Strength. It Grew, it is still Growing. But all of it, and everything we do, begins as a Seed. A tiny thing, a fragile idea that must be watered with Blood and Will and Action if it is to set down roots- without these things it will simply die in rocky soil. This world is cold, and hard, and unforgiving- within it, the only thing that has value for us is the Family we have chosen. Hail the Wolves, Fuck the World." Paul Waggener (aka "Grimnir")

[slomo]

AD, it may surprise you to know that many of us here are ahead of you on this one, and have been aware of Donovan and the Wolves for a long time. You think that Donovan's hard-on for the right wing somehow invalidates concerns about masculine identity raised by him and many others?

WR is correct, Donovan is problematic. His writings on tribalism are cogent and actually kind of compelling up to a point. They break down with an assumption that ones immediate tribal network must have a genetic basis.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Indeed. Who on the left could really argue with this, as a single-slice for instance?

"It’s tragic to think that heroic man’s great destiny is to become economic man, that men will be reduced to craven creatures who crawl across the globe competing for money, who spend their nights dreaming up new ways to swindle each other. That’s the path we’re on now. What a withering, ignoble end…"

Another author I enjoy freaking out my more liberal friends with is Brett Stevens, who writes at Amerika. When he states his political beliefs nakedly, it sounds almost funny, but he's a gifted essayist. When I speak of my friends "freaking out," I don't mean some paroxysm of allergic rage, I mean they're disturbed by how persuasive the material is, despite knowing that they're agreeing with ideals and agendas that are anathema to their personal beliefs.

The Curse of Complex Phenomena. Any conclusion can be reached from any direction, and critics of modernity are doomed to strange bedfellows in any era.

[American Dream]

The "Men's Movement" started a hell of a long time before this current shit- and what was true then is still true now:

When men gather together as a "masculinist" tribe- just as when "white" people gather together as a tribe/nation- it can be big trouble for those they've historically abused/oppressed/dominated, if they do not mobilize around deeply considered commitments to anti-Racism, anti-Sexism, and what have you. Doesn't mean those organizing efforts don't add at least some kinda relevant points into the (troubling) mix...

[Harvey]

None of that would work in the UK, not really. When I met God here, he simply enquired whether I'd paid my bills. Culture, culture, culture...

[Searcher08]

None of that would work in the UK, not really. When I met God here, he simply enquired whether I'd paid my bills. Culture, culture, culture...

The "Men's Movement" I was around for a while in the UK in the 1980s had nothing to do with nonsense cloud words like "masculinist" and other thought-stoppers that seek to create control by intermediating raw experience with a consensual hallucination of agreed speech and ostracism of those who dont "sign-up" .
What it was, was guys sharing about actual experiences and relationships they had been through rather than SJW imaginings and control of the same. There was a great deal of listening; many experiences were surprising and / or remarkable - and built deep relationships of understanding and respect between the diverse participants.

[Harvey]

I was being only slightly facetious. Yes. I've found all of those things and in many contexts, between groups of friends but equally, randomly with complete strangers, of all genders, races, religions, doctrines and economic groups, should I wish it. And the depth was real, powerfully, profoundly, but ultimately temporary. What I yearned for is so far from my cultural co-ordinates, it doesn't have a language, nor an expression in English. I found it, but in the last I didn't want to hold onto it. While appearances appear to demand only 'accountancy.'

I'd be hard pressed to replicate the respect which I felt toward anyone, simply for surviving into adulthood.

[slomo]

None of that would work in the UK, not really. When I met God here, he simply enquired whether I'd paid my bills. Culture, culture, culture...

The "Men's Movement" I was around for a while in the UK in the 1980s had nothing to do with nonsense cloud words like "masculinist" and other thought-stoppers that seek to create control by intermediating raw experience with a consensual hallucination of agreed speech and ostracism of those who dont "sign-up" .
What it was, was guys sharing about actual experiences and relationships they had been through rather than SJW imaginings and control of the same. There was a great deal of listening; many experiences were surprising and / or remarkable - and built deep relationships of understanding and respect between the diverse participants.

I'll tell you how I came to "masculinist" consciousness (whatever the hell that is), from being a reasonably typical gay-boy raised by a feminist mother, and with all the upper-middle-class entitlements one might expect such a gay-boy to be carrying around. I started listening to straight men tell their stories. They were very compelling stories of feeling victimized, helpless in the world, oppressed by having to maintain identities that were imposed upon them from somewhere else (sound familiar, feminists?) The particulars were different from my own, but the emotional tone, the quite desperation, was the same. I can already hear the feminists in the room cry Patriarchy!, see!?, but that cry is disingenuous because feminist politics never address the way men are victimized by "Patriarchy", that old boogeyman, and feminist theory is always happy to collectively blame all men for Patriarchy. After listening long enough, I realized that Patriarchy is bullshit. Yes, there are systems of oppression, but they grind everybody down, not just women. Patriarchy is a bad term for whatever it is, and it isn't perpetrated by all men, or even only men. The quicker everybody realizes this, the more true "progress" (if there can be such a thing) will occur.

I have some other thoughts about this thread, but I'm in the middle of helping to prep for Thanksgiving dinner, so it will have to wait until later.

[American Dream]

Understanding Patriarchy

http://imaginenoborders.org/pdf/zines/U ... iarchy.pdf

[Agent Orange Cooper]

feminist politics never address the way men are victimized by "Patriarchy"

That's because it's called feminism, and not something else. It's called such because, unlike nearly every other arena of human thought, it doesn't prioritize male experience. Sorry, but feminists have 100% zero obligation to address male victimization (though they often do), and the oft-heard complaint (always from men) that they ought to is a prime example of male entitlement at work. See how it works? Women get together and prioritize female experience, discussing female struggles and strategies for improving their station in life as a class... and then men see this and get upset because their POV isn't being prioritized as per usual. This is how you end up with things like the third-wave and transfeminism.

[slomo]

feminist politics never address the way men are victimized by "Patriarchy"

That's because it's called feminism, and not something else. It's called such because, unlike nearly every other arena of human thought, it doesn't prioritize male experience. Sorry, but feminists have 100% zero obligation to address male victimization (though they often do), and the oft-heard complaint (always from men) that they ought to is a prime example of male entitlement at work. See how it works? Women get together and prioritize female experience, discussing female struggles and strategies for improving their station in life as a class... and then men see this and get upset because their POV isn't being prioritized as per usual. This is how you end up with things like the third-wave and transfeminism.

And yet, if you suggest that there should be a political movement that addresses men's issues, the response you get is that "feminism already does that" and "Patriarchy hurts men too!". Classic double-bind. See how that works?

[slomo]

Understanding Patriarchy

http://imaginenoborders.org/pdf/zines/U ... iarchy.pdf

I understand "Patriarchy" fine, I can read and analyze. I just don't believe in it.

Or to quote one radical feminist, "I understand you, I just don't believe you."

You know why I don't believe in it? Because there is no proposition about it that is ever falsifiable. If you point out something that is inconsistent (like, for example, that women can be shitty individuals also, it ends up because of Patriarchy, if you find women that are happy with their traditional roles, it's because they're brainwashed by Patriarchy. Ultimately, what Patriarchy means is that everything men do is bad, everything women do is good.

It's not a scientific theory, it's a religion.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

And yet, if you suggest that there should be a political movement that addresses men's issues, the response you get is that "feminism already does that" and "Patriarchy hurts men too!". Classic double-bind. See how that works?

I've never heard anyone claim feminism "already does that."

I'm 100% in support of men banding together to create political movements to address systemic oppression of males (circumcision is a big one). But unfortunately, all men seem to ever actually do when they get together is complain about women not doing their work for them. Nothing new there!

[slomo]

And yet, if you suggest that there should be a political movement that addresses men's issues, the response you get is that "feminism already does that" and "Patriarchy hurts men too!". Classic double-bind. See how that works?

I've never heard anyone claim feminism "already does that."

I'm 100% in support of men banding together to create political movements to address systemic oppression of males (circumcision is a big one). But unfortunately, all men seem to ever actually do when they get together is complain about women not doing their work for them. Nothing new there!

Actually, that's not what happens. You clearly have not spent any time listening to men talking about their real problems. Men complain about a punitive family court system, double-standards in the dating marketplace vis-a-vis wealth expectations, and lack of due process in the way sexual assault cases are adjudicated in universities. And, yes, circumcision (an issue that I find less compelling but some men do get very passionate about what amounts to male genital mutilation.) These are real issues (you may or may not agree with the position of men's rights advocates on these issues, but they involve tangible consequences).

If you calmly and factually explain your position to self-described feminists on, e.g. Reddit, you will either get banned outright -- on threads where these discussions are not off-topic -- or dismissed with something that amounts to "feminism already addresses this issue" when it clearly does not.

If you are genuinely interested in hearing this perspective, you might find it more palatable coming from a woman who has become a well-known speaker on these issues:

https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

However, I am almost certain that you really are not interested in hearing this perspective, and that you will instead cling to the idea that all men complain about is "women not doing their work for them". Hey, that's your right. But I won't play along with it.