Friday, September 13, 2013

Why the Manosphere and Socialism are Mutually Exclusive

A young man on the RooshV Forum had posted a question about resources that would help him determine his political orientation.  Obviously a younger fellow and not fully versed in politics, economics, and ideology, he was noble in that he was at least open minded and wanted to find out for himself what his political leanings were and NOT let the government-education matrix tell him he was a socialist.

However, I found that kind of funny because if you think about it being a real man or a Manosphere adherent and being a socialist/leftist/democrat are pretty much mutually exclusive.

If you look at what men stand for (and the themes that are being written about in the Manosphere) they are largely traits of that of conservatives or libertarians.

Independence.
Freedom.
Self Reliance.
Production.
Wealth/enriching oneself.
Success.
Competition.
Excellence.
Integrity.
Honor.
Physical health

If you look at our presumed opposite number  (feminists or women in general) they write about/champion:

Dependence
Government assistance/reliance
Commune
Sharing
Equality in opportunity AND outcomes
"Fairness"
Sameness
Preventing hurt feelings by the elimination of success
The elimination of concepts like "best" or "better"
Fat acceptance

Now we can debate about the details, but frankly, it cannot be any more stark and any more clear.

Men champion ideologies themed around capitalism/conservative/libertarianism/freedom/the individual

Women champion ideologies themed around socialism/democrat/dependency/commune.

But there are many insightful ramifications for this "boiling down" of the two spheres' ideologies.

It goes a long way in explaining why women tend to vote democrat and men, republican.  It brings up good questions about males vs. females aptitudes in logic and math versus emotions and feelings.  It explains clearly how women view the government as a viable substitute for men.  It even brings up some interesting psychological or sanity issues (in the case of fat acceptance).  But if there's one thing it does point out, especially for a young man, it's that real men aren't socialists.  Real men aren't democrats.  Real men aren't egalitarians.  Real men aren't communists.

Real men are freedom-loving individualists who want to achieve excellence.

The reason I bring this up is because there are a fair amount of young men who think they are democrat, discover the Manosphere, love what it has to say about courtship and dating, but then get confused (or even angry) when they find the political aspects of the Manosphere to be conservative or libertarian in nature.  I imagine this causes some confusion where a young man would say, "Wow, I really dig this stuff on dating and girls, but WTF is with this capitalist, nazi, GW, racist, BS?  I hate the banks, maaaan!"

So let me break this down to explain why there seems to be this disconnect.

1.  You are too young and ill-read to know the history and economics behind the current political spectrum to be able to accurately judge and assess the correct political ideology.  This is not a slam on you young men, but a correct assessment AND YOU KNOW IT.  Have you studied the federal budget?  Have you studied Keynesian vs. Classical economics?  Of course you haven't.  But you HAVE STUDIED GIRLS.  The only reason you find the observations of the Manosphere spot on about women IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN INTEREST IN WOMEN.  Most 20 soemthing men have no interest in economics or politics. It's time you do your civic duty and un-ignorantize yourself about government finances, budgets, and economics.

2.  The stuff you like about "dating" and "courting" and "girls" and "sex" derives from the exact same logic, reality, and truth that most men in the Manosphere derive their political ideology from. The common thread between them is one simple thing - "truth."  Real men really don't have an opinion as much as they merely want to know what the truth is and then abide by it, even taking advantage of it to advance themselves.

Do women like caring sensitive men?  No
Do women like strong, brutish men?  Yes

Conclusion - hit the gym

The same cold, steely logic applies to all aspects of life.

Will majoring in poetry help me get a job?  No.
Will majoring in electrical engineering get me a job?  Yes.

Conclusion - major in engineering despite me wanted to be a poet.

Will lying around collecting a government check advance society or improve myself?  No.
Will lower taxes and less government spending prompt people to get off their ass and work?  Yes.

Conclusion - vote republican.

Women, on the other hand (particularly feminists) do the opposite.  They find out what the truth is and try to change it or villainize it:

Will majoring in women's studies get me a job?  No.

THAT'S BECAUSE SOCIETY IS SEXISTS AND PATRIARCHICAL!!!!  I NEED GOVERNMENT MONEY!

Conclusion - vote democrat.

Will being fat and having short hair attract me a man?  No.

THAT'S BECAUSE MEN ARE INTIMIDATED BY A REAL OR STRONG WOMAN!!!!!  I NEED IVF!!!

Conclusion - vote democrat

Will running trillion dollar deficits ultimately destroy the US dollar and our economy?  Yes.

HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE OBAMA YOU RACIST!!!!

Conclusion - marry Barack Obama vicariously.

The choice is really up to you - do you live in reality or futilely fight against it?

3.  Being a man it is in your nature to be conservative/libertarian/individualistic.  as time goes on and you become more and more informed about government, politics, economics, and budgets, you will start to realize the BS you were fed in K-12 and college was precisely that.  BS. Unless you have high estrogen levels in your system, your DNA and genetic programming will take over your social brainwashing, driving you to succeed, achieve and excel as well as maximize your freedom. 

We could go on, but the truth is I am not trying to convince you.  I kind of like keeping the Manosphere stuff separate from the political stuff, and I truly believe it is up to the individual to come to their own conclusions about their political beliefs.  What I am trying to do, however, is explain to you the differences between the Manosphere's and feminists' political ideologies so that you can make a more informed decision on your own as well as clear up any confusion as to why the Manosphere seems to have so many republicans, conservatives, libertarians, etc.

Besides, the truth is, I don't have to lift a finger to convince you.  If at any time you want to be a liberal man, go ahead.








































Most real men are anything but.



25 comments:

sth_txs said...

Captain, I hope you were joking about voting Republican as a means to lower taxes and limited government. I have yet to see that happen when Republican had the majority in Congress.

Even in TX, our allegedly Republican governor and comptroller arm twisted in Amazon into collecting sales tax revenue.

Boom said...

I wouldn't necessarily say that the manosphere is conservative. The manosphere tends to be libertarian, which is fiscally conservative...but the manosphere is far from being socially conservative. A lot of social conservatives want the government involved in our lives and are not shy about passing laws that encourage "morality." This is the reason that most social conservatives recoil in horror when they read manosphere blogs, websites, etc.

The good news is that the Republican party is at least giving real libertarians like Rand Paul a fair hearing. Hopefully they continue to move in that direction, but it is not as simple as saying that the manophere automatically is for Republicans.

eruditeknight said...

I was a liberal for a long time, went to a liberal arts college etc, I thought I could get girls by showing how 'understanding' I was.

After a few mental and physical beatings later I realize what a shame all of that is, and await the downfall of feminism.

sth_txs said...

Rand Paul is not a libertarian. Some of his positions have been laughable from even a Constitutional perspective. If he were really libertarian, he would be for abolishing the ATF and a number of other federal agencies and be a bit more conservative on foreign policy by acknowledging we need to mind our own business.

Anonymous said...

Could you post the specific thread from the Roosh V Forum? Would love to check it out as I'm in the same position.

Martel said...

I'd say on social issues that there are both conservative and libertarian spheres of influence. We're conservative in that we recognize that men and women are different (which liberals don't).

We diverge between those who think we should work to return to natural gender roles, those who think doing that's a pipe dream, and those who merely want to take full advantage of the hedonism and score a lot.

I'm a socially conservative libertarian in that I believe in traditional values but don't think the government is the best way to enforce them. I want the government out of the way, and if the government gets out of the way (by not paying women to have kids out of wedlock, turning divorce into a lottery, etc.) SOME of the social stuff will take care of itself.

The moment women actually NEED men to raise a family is the moment most of them will stop submitting entirely to their worst instincts. One of the best ways to end bad behavior is to simply stop subsidizing it.

Great post; genuine substance with effective rhetoric.

Boom said...

"Rand Paul is not a libertarian. Some of his positions have been laughable from even a Constitutional perspective. If he were really libertarian, he would be for abolishing the ATF and a number of other federal agencies and be a bit more conservative on foreign policy by acknowledging we need to mind our own business."

Rand is as close to a libertarian as we are probably going to get, at least one that is taken seriously. I personally like Ron Paul better, but Ron is no longer in politics and he was never really taken seriously by the establishment. Rand at least would be a step, however small, toward a more libertarian government, assuming he can get himself elected president.

Mark said...

All the traditional advice to young men has to be thrown out. It was good advice and worked in an earlier era but not now. This is true in every area: career advice, health advice, political advice, romantic advice. Going to college doesn't automatically get you a job, going to doctors doesn't automatically keep you healthy, giving the government more power doesn't automatically bring prosperity, and getting married doesn't automatically make you happy. The manosphere has just come into existence because of male awareness that most of what they've been told is false.

Green Steelhead said...

I agree with sth_txs and Boom on this issue. I think the Republican Party has turned into Democrat Lite, and the Republicans are all for bigger government as long as they are in control of it or spending on their pet programs (i.e., military).

Don't believe me? Just listen to their constant and consistent rhetoric about "cutting the rate of growth of government" (and not actually cutting anything). Actions speak louder than words, John "Worthless Cry Baby" Boehner. Can't wait until the voting public spits him out like vomit at a college party.

For guys like me that have finally SEEN The Matrix and swallowed the Red Pill, I cannot go back to supporting the Republicans and living the lie like they expect me to. I cannot be their defender or cheerleader. I refuse.

At the same time, I cannot support the Statists either. They represent many things that I detest and despise, and many are truly insane. I know, I deal with the elected daily.

From now on, I will have to look at the man (or woman) of each party and select the best based on my core beliefs.

I do think we need term limits. No reason for these parasites to stay in positions of power more than 2 terms. If it is good enough for the President of the US, it is good enough for ALL layers of politicians.

Wilko said...

Stirring stuff Cappy! More please:)

sth_txs said...

If the Republicans want to show some limited government credibility, they need to start with abolishing federal pensions for all federally elected officials effective immediately.

An elected position is a privilege, not a family heirloom to be passed down (Kennedy or Bush) or a lifelong 'career'. I don't object to paid elected positions since some like sheriff or a commissioner do require some managerial thought and effort. I don't even object for some nominal compensation for an elected office like legislators, but I resent it becoming a retirement plan for every one of them.

I'm still waiting for the Republicscum to abolish the Dept of Education and any other they may have promised.

kurt9 said...

Independence.
Freedom.
Self Reliance.
Production.
Wealth/enriching oneself.
Success.
Competition.
Excellence.
Integrity.
Honor.
Physical health

Of course, anyone right in the head agrees with these values. However, you would be surprised at the number of conservative bloggers who are actually hostile to some or most of these values, including several prominent MRA bloggers.

Indeed, I would argue that perhaps a majority of social conservative/MRA bloggers are actually hostile to some or most of these values.

Anonymous said...

Real men are not employees and are not job seekers.

If you want to revive the manosphere then get rid of jobs and allow men to simply get to work like they did in the hunting and gathering economies.

Matt said...

sth_txs,

We have a two party system. You may not like that, but it's a fact.

The Republicans are horrible, and the Democrats are infinitely worse.

I can name off the top of my head several very solid Republicans. I can't name a single good Democrat. They are too blinded by their politically correct, marxist ideology.

The only time in your lifetime that we've had a balanced budget was when Republicans were writing it back in the 90s.

Why don't the Republicans do more? The reality is the country is not with us. That's the God's honest truth. The country is not with us. The last election showed that. I can't think of a more damaging president than Barack Obama, and yet here he is - back in the White House.

Dave Lucas said...

I wonder how women feel about being lied to.

I remember balking at the lies I was fed by my early twenties, but I don't think women were forced to face the same reality - or rather, they could afford put off reality.

I don't think women care about having children; nor relationships, nor anything but that which society prescribes. Social status is all.

What I wonder is, if women, who pursued the education degree, resisted any idea about becoming a decent mate, and justified serial monogamy as "love", feel as though they were cheated.

Single, bad job, in debt... not exactly high status, are you, ladies?

Tom White said...

Cap, great post but you made one error. You put Republican where you should have put Ron Paul (or at least Libertarian Party).

Anonymous said...

@Boom:

"A lot of social conservatives want the government involved in our lives and are not shy about passing laws that encourage "morality.""

Every law is rooted in moral law. Even speed limits are rooted in the morality of preserving life. Ethics is one of the major branches of philosophy, so don't assume that government and law exist for exclusively utilitarian purposes.

I'm a conservative and not a libertarian because I think such utilitarianism ultimately does more harm than good. See Ed Feser for some good commentary on the differences between conservatism and libertarianism. There is much to agree on, but don't automatically assume that the differences are due to conservatives trying to "get involved in our lives".

Paul, Dammit! said...

It's worth noting, too, that science backs up one of Cap's major points about men tending towards libertarianism/conservatism. Our genetic imperative shifts with age, and as we age out of peak child-making years, we shift behaviorally from Hunter to Protector/Patriarch to take advantage of gained knowledge and mitigate the impact of physical decline. The survival mechanisms for that shift include becoming more conservative and less recognition of social cues in decisionmaking. We begin to gather and collect wealth (in knowledge, assets, security or any number of our preferred benefits). We begin to critically view risk-taking from experience. We give imprimatur and delegate. We seek self-management as an earned right. Where does socialism exist in that worldview? Nowhere. It's antithetical to masculinity.


Hell, if we old(er) farts can prepare young men for that change, we're giving back.

Captain Capitalism said...

Damnit Paul,

Now I have to look up "imprimitur!"

Cappy

tz said...

Or you can collect a disability check

https://disabilityover50.com/ (H/T Mish)

while doing the man-strike thing and getting back a fraction of the money stolen from you over the years.

Ragnar Danneskjold was also a character in Atlas Shrugged.

As to some of the comments on Rand Paul, the perfect can be the enemy of the good. If we wait around for the equivalent of a canonizable saint, it won't happen. At this point I don't care if someone wants to cut off the head, limb, or even a toenail, anyone who will limit government is welcome.

Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta said...

I would tell the young man not to worry about politics. For now he's quite lucky not to suffer the consciousness of the stupidity and venality that are endemic to our "elected" representatives. We who are politically aware get especially upset and frustrated because it's all outside our locus of control.

A metaphor I might draw would be that this is like him asking us which sports team he should support. He could choose the Jets, the Niners or the Cowboys, but no matter how well informed he makes himself or how excited he gets, he won't be able to affect the outcome of the game.

Much better would be to busy yourself with things inside your locus of control. What I would recommend, (and what I'm trying to do myself) is to get involved on a local level to become an expert and develop a network so that one can eventually earn the credibility of the community that can be transformed into real results.

Arguing about Washington is nothing but mental masturbation. It might be fun, but it's usually a waste of time and amounts to nothing. (Perhaps not unlike participation, contribution and discussion in certain online fora?)

In the case of this young man I would suggest going to school board meetings. Perhaps not the most exciting at first glance, but with education so fresh at the front of his mind somebody as young as he is could make some real contributions. Furthermore those assembled at school board meetings might take him more seriously than he would be in almost any other situation. In that context, youth would be seen as an asset, while mostly young men are ignored in politics because you gotta pay your dues first (unless your daddy was a Senator or President himself, but then he'd probably already know his political affinities).

If he decides to to the School Board thing and get involved in educational politics, I'd recommend being patient and listening to what the people have to say and ask lots of questions, but be aware that many of the interests and motivations that are at the root of the conflict are often left unquestioned and undiscussed. This is one of the hardest parts about politics because the real motivations are aren't as palatable to the public as the stated rationalizations given to sell a particular policy. Once the he gets a feeling for things he may acquire a greater understanding of how coalitions and power bases form and how things work in general.

As for what positions I would recommend he embrace in education policy, I'll refrain from taking this opportunity to brainwash him. What I will say is that neither "side" as we understand them has a monopoly on good idea. Furthermore both sides are married to some real stinkers of dogma. Without getting into details, I give one example. The left wants to make compensation of teachers more generous. The right wants to demand excellent performance with rigorous standards and evaluation. There is no reason we couldn't do both if we wanted to make education a truly elite profession - one that attracts and indeed only accepts the very best candidates. It would mean that we might have to revise tenure and other rules to be able to kick the bums out who don't deliver excellence. But it would also mean that if we demand measurable rock star performance, we might also have to start paying them like rock stars.

I wish I could join Roosh's forum; I tried but the system said I've got to wait until the beginning of the month. Whatever, I've already got enough things to do and ways to waste time.

ShortAndNasty said...

"Do women like caring sensitive men? No
Do women like strong, brutish men? Yes

Conclusion - hit the gym"

If things were that easy.

There are some problems you cannot fix by hitting the gym - such as being short, for instance. No woman will care for you if you are strong and brutish, but also short.

These correspond to market imperfections: true value is not always recognized nor rewarded.

Only in the dreams of economists are markets perfect - some degree of government intervention is in most cases necessary.

However, I mostly agree with the points you are making, Capt. With the current degree of government intervention, we are way beyond past the point where it was marginally beneficial.

TheKangarooBoxer said...

i do think a lot of what has changed in this last century, was the common vote. more specifically, the common woman vote. since women make up 55% of the electorate, all politicians have to do is pander to the insecurities(that are often fabricated by the politicians themselves) of women. Obama and Clinton are both known as Feminist presidents. sadly, women are quite vulnerable to being bought out by feminism. after all, any conservative or alternative conservative candidate is a misogynist, homophobe, antisemite, and racist.

politics has come from the flawed attempt to develop consensus, to the buying the lowest common denominator. one question for the voting public is; "how's that working out for you?".

fucking idiots.

Mandorff said...

I normally dig your stuff, but it's not at all accurate to say that those with opposing viewpoints are not 'real men'.

Was Stalin a fake man?
Most certainly not. A tyrannical man with a corrupt worldview, sure, but as big an alpha as you'll find in the past century.

Also, the men of the nations which operated under socialism until the early 90s have retained their masculine values and control of their women.

The same cannot be said of your capitalistic homeland.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if men are more politically conservative. If they don't vote, their opinions don't count. Women are more likely to take the time to vote than men. Men gotta start taking responsibility and go to the polls so they can be represented.

I don't really see the libertarian side of the Manosphere. Majority of them champion Marriage 1.0 and still want the government controling their lives.

Majority of them tell men not to enter Marriage 2.0 but give women the complete opposite advice, just start younger. It's really stupid.