Saturday, May 24, 2014

The So-Called 'Men's Rights Movement' is a Far-Left Progressive Project

As I noted earlier, "The depraved Obama-protection media will be spinning this Elliot Rodger as some kinda of NRA-survivalist tea party conserva-libertarian, or something."

Well, that "or something" is the so-called "men's rights movement," which murderous leftists are attempting to spin as a bastion of "reactionary" conservatism.


In fact, this so-called "men's rights movement" is bathed in progressive, me-culture leftism in which the Hollywood luxury boy Elliot Rodger glommed onto like a baby to the teat.

See Amanda Marcotte, at Raw Story, "Why Progressive “Men’s Movements” Are Bound to Fail."

Linked there is the leftist Good Men Project, which boasts bona fide progressive credentials, and includes on the frontpage a photograph of Democrat Party propagandist Shepard Fairey:

Shepard Fairey photo PanelTomMattShep-680x1024_zps4d826cff.jpg

Some idiot feminists have sought to portray the "men's right's movement" as conservative, for example, Anne Theriault, at PuffHo, "Why the Men's Rights Movement Is Garbage":
MRAs believe that feminists are to blame for basically everything that's wrong with their lives. The Men's Rights Movement is a reactionary movement created specifically to counter feminism, and most (if not all) of their time and resources go towards silencing and marginalizing women.
Actually, it's a misogyny movement of sick privileged men who can't stand strong women, a textbook trait of far-left progressivism. Leftists want their women dependent on government handouts (Sandra Fluke) and protected by a legal regime of "equal pay" and affirmative action. Indeed, one of the most prominent men's right's groups, "A Voice for Men," is characterized as a "humanist" organization critical of traditional conservatism and founded by "human rights activist" Paul Elam. The group's motto is " Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry."

Men attached to this movement are insecure pansy-assed losers. Here's a post at Pete Billing's blog that's all about humanism and moving past stultifying socially constructed gender roles, "Do We Need a Men’s Movement?"

Further, another prominent "men's rights" group, the National Coalition For Men (NCFM), positions the movement in nurturing, rights-talk foundationalism:
We have heard in some detail from the women’s movement how such sex-stereotyping has limited the potential of women. More recently, men have become increasingly aware that they too are assigned limiting roles which they are expected to fulfill regardless of their individual abilities, interests, physical/emotional constitutions or needs. Men have few or no effective choices in many critical areas of life. They face injustices under the law. And typically they have been handicapped by socially defined “shoulds” in expressing themselves in other than stereotypical ways.

Society has taught us, for example, that a “real” man is strong… courageous… knowledgeable… disciplined… level headed… competitive… successful… in control …unemotional… heterosexual… sexually aggressive… sexually competent… and silent-suffering. A man is also dependent on women for satisfying relationships, for child rearing and for routine home and health maintenance like housekeeping and cooking. All of this and more, society has taught us, constitutes a man’s role privilege or burden as the case may be.

Many men, however, are no longer comfortable with the traditional male role. Emotionally adrift, they are searching for a new identity; yet they find few viable alternatives to traditional masculine behavior (and even these few are narrow and limiting).
That program is distinctly opposed to traditional conservatism, which sees a prudent and socially regenerative function of traditional gender roles in society (think Edmund Burke).

Frankly, Elliot Rodger was a freak loser and Hollywood entitlement baby who failed to grow up to be a responsible adult. Here's an interesting discussion at We Hunted the Mammoth, "Video allegedly from mass killer in Santa Barbara: “If I can’t have you, girls, I’ll destroy you.” [TRIGGER WARNING]":
As the person who sent this video to me this morning noted, it sounds almost like a parody of the misogynistic beliefs and rhetoric that I write about on this blog. His language and his melodramatic tone both echo the writings of many of those young men who consider themselves “incels.” His anger is the same anger we see from the rejected men who lash out with insults and threats on OkCupid when their often crude advances are turned down. He reminds me of every so-called “nice guy” who is inwardly seething with resentment born of sexual entitlement denied. He even, at one point, calls himself a “gentleman.” He also calls himself an “alpha.”

It is clear that his  resentment at women was stoked by what I call the “new misogyny” and by steeping himself in at least one online community that reaffirmed his exaggerated, unwarranted sense of victimhood. So far we have evidence that he was a commenter at PUAhate, a site ostensibly designed to critique PUAs but which has degenerated into a haven for misogynistic “incels” and angry trolls. I suspect we will find that he was also a reader of, or  a commenter at, some of the other sites I critique on this blog.

For those of you who cannot make it through the video — I found it very hard to watch — here is a transcript of what he said.
Well, it was hard to watch, that's for sure. Rodger's mimicking "evil laughter" is literally unbelievable, impossibly gauche, but at the same time preternatural, considering the scale of genuine evil this man-child Hollywood leftist rained down.