Dissecting the Musings of a Moron
So, I happened to come across an essay from some moron named John Stoltenberg. In a nutshell, this"So I got to thinking: If everyone trying to be a "real man" thinks there's someone else out there who has more manhood, then either some guy has more manhood than anybody--and he's got so much manhood he never has to prove it and it's never ever in doubt--or else manhood doesn't exist. It's just a sham and a delusion."
You know, up until this point in the essay, the reader has no idea just what manhood consists of, or how it is gained or lost. Just lots of griping about every guy thinking that every other guy they see must have more manhood then they do. Sort of like one saying no matter how bad you have it, there's someone else out there who has it worse. The reader may guess that manhood has to do with things like having a constructive hobby, generally treating others with respect and kindness, or some such benign character trait. Hell, even some mention of virtue and honor would've helped. Unfortunately, no such positivity will be afforded to real men. You know, because...
"As I watched guys trying to prove their fantasy of manhood--by doing dirt to women, making fun of queers, putting down people of other religions and races--I realized they were doing something really negative to me too, because their fear and hatred of everything "nonmanly" was killing off something in me that I valued.
That's why I feel a connection to feminism. I want a humanity that is not measured against the cult of masculinity. I want a selfhood that does not reject fine parts of myself just because they are not "manly." I want courage to confront the things men have done in the world that are damaging to women and that are also leaving no safe space for the self I hope to be."
This is where the plot thickens, so they say. I'm sure this guy has never noticed any women doing dirt to men to prove themselves as real women (i.e. not dependent on a man, blah blah blah), and why?...that would require the manly virtue of realizing that women aren't just perfect little angels waiting to be tainted by
The author continues in his lame attempt to pull the wool over the reader's eyes by essentially arguing that men are some sort of hazardous presence to women (but never the reverse) and that manhood is just a man's way of rejecting those fine character traits that women must have. By now, I can clearly tell this guy doesn't want to be a real man since you know, a real man might have the manly pride necessary to actually claim certain heretical thoughts.
A real man might claim that manliness is represented by someone other than a drunken wannabe pimp at a frat party who has to settle for slapping the ass of any woman who walks too close to him and putting on a show for every other guy in the room. A real man might claim that a man secure in his sense of manhood doesn't have to lash out in a murderous rage should someone find out that he seems to be doing something feminine (note the use of bold and italics here. have you seen this before?). A real man might note that some the things we've been brainwashed into seeing as purely feminine once were considered masculine and could easily become so again if certain types of people weren't so busy making manhood out to be some villainous concept. A real man might even go so far as to say that men cannot afford to allow advertisers, feminists, and pop culture to define manhood more than your average Joes and your not-so-average Joes. Does the author dare take that bold step forward in the name of all that is man? Absolutely not.
"When I began to see how pornography makes dominance and subordination feel "sexy"--the very opposite of fairness--that affected me in a very personal way too. I had always been taught that dominance was the way "real men" were supposed to have sex; dominance was what I was supposed to be able to do in sex. Men had to be the conqueror, the powerful fucker. Well, I never got very good at that, and I always felt sort of a failure.
...
When I am feeling really centered, it's as if my selfhood doesn't have a gender. In the world I'm perceived as a man, of course; I live with the benefits and privileges of the social meaning of my anatomy. But my life path is really about refusing to be a man. I don't believe that manhood even exists. The only way to prove one's manhood is to win a fight or put someone down--which is just too dumb for words. And anyone who tries to get in touch with "deep masculinity" through myth is bound to be disappointed--because manhood is the biggest myth of all."
I think I see the real issue at work, finally. Here, we have a
Such blindness to the true nature of manhood can produce this kind of idiocy. The only way to prove one's manhood is to win a fight or put someone down? No, that's just what feminists, insecure men, and the media trick fools into believing. To me, proof of manhood is not visible in silly fights (as opposed to important fights) or putdowns, but in things like technological advances and great discoveries, though morons like Stoltenberg probably don't want you to care about that. Because not everyone can be a genius, manhood can also be proven in less spectacular ways, none of which involve beating others down to prop yourself up, none of which would convince the foolish author.
I won't even say I "agree" with him on pornography. This is because while I detest mainstream hardcore pornography, it's not for the same reason. While Stoltenberg worries his little head off about dominance and powerful fucking, I simply detest mainstream pornography due to its premise - that while a woman is there to derive pleasure on the multiple body parts she has, a man is only there to provide a single body part (a hard penis) which must be prioritized above everything else that man has, only to render him useless after it has had its fun. On certain occasions, the man might actually engage in foreplay toward the woman, but of course his body just has to be so uninteresting or threatening that he'd never get to experience a woman pleasing him all over it. How so many guys can think this is an accurate portrayal of their sexuality is beyond me...I certainly don't fantasize strictly in terms of what I can do with my penis and I'm sure any other guy who doesn't give a goddamn what his peers would call him would say and mean the same.
Anyway, in conclusion, Stoltenberg is yet another self-hating man produced by feminism who obviously loves marginalizing as many men as he can, unless they're fellow self-hating feminists. His history of attacking the concept of manhood puts him on a very low level in my book. A level lower than that for the "I-like-wearing-women's-clothing-and-I'm-a-man-therefore-I-must-be-gay" crowd. Both levels are occupied by insecure men who merely put up with the conventional wisdom that it's perfectly okay for women to do what they want without wanting to be men, yet doubt - if not attack - the idea (and might I say fact) that men can also do what they want without wanting to become women. Both levels are part of a wider mass of men that have such profound disrespect for the continuum of male behavior and variety that they idolize women while trying to diminish themselves and other men who don't conform so easily.
So, John Stoltenberg, you want to refuse to be a man. That's fine with me. You're perfectly welcome to be nothing more than a cowardly wimp who attacks as many non-feminist men as possible, all while acting like women are incapable of doing any wrong entirely of their own will. Go curl up in a corner and shiver in fear as real manly men sound off on what makes a man without trying to focus exclusively on whatever percentage of men happen to actually rape, pillage, murder, consume hardcore porn, or do whatever else is used to make men look bad.
posted by el-chozo-loco @ 12:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home