(In response to Devvy Kidd's article, Where Have All The Men Gone?)
Dear Devvy Kidd,
I was most interested recently to come across your article “Where Have All the ‘Men’ gone?” which was referenced on a site concerned with what are nowadays being called “men’s issues.” I note this article first appeared over nine months ago; I don’t know what kind of response/s you may have had, but would like to add my own.
I’ve heard of you before, through my own involvement in the “constitutionalist/patriot” movement, and while I haven’t followed your activities closely, I’ve had the impression you’ve been doing valuable work, alerting and educating the American people to the peril we face–in particular your role in the awakening of ex-IRS agent Joe Banister, among, I’m sure, many others. I’ve heard you on one or another shortwave radio program, and taken a couple looks at your web site. So I was intrigued to see you pop up on a site whose general political orientation tends to be (due mostly to ignorance, I feel) rather different than yours, or mine, on such issues.
Born during the Second Great War (while my father was away defending hearth and home–and Standard Oil’s profits, though he didn’t know it at the time), raised in the liberal atmosphere of a southern California university community, an avid experimenter with psychedelics in the 1960s, as well as “draft-dodger,” all-around hippie and long-term student of Oriental wisdom traditions, I was until about age 40 a fairly typical example of the feminist/socialist revolution’s effect on American culture: a regular “Sensitive New Age Guy.”
However, I also had the advantage of having had a father who was one of the fast-vanishing type of American men who thought for himself, was a real truth-seeker, and understood about freedom and responsibility. (He came home to a war with his wife, which she naturally won, assigning him the role of bogeyman and turning his children against him. Nevertheless, at least I had a father.) He taught me, mostly by a kind of osmosis, to “question authority”–enough that not only did I question the same authorities that so many in my generation questioned, I also continued questioning after most in my generation simply accepted yet another authority–the feminist/communist orthodoxy that is if anything even more rigid and stultifying than the one we originally rebelled against.
Thus, when at about age 40 I came across the work of Irwin Schiff, Tupper Saussy and others I was open enough to recognize almost immediately that they were making a lot better sense than anything I’d been taught before about political, economic and social issues. I immediately quit paying at least the major taxes for which I was not legally (or morally) liable, and have continued studying and learning in the twenty years since. Which was why your name was familiar to me when it appeared on the Mensactivism site.
What’s interesting to me about your article is that, although I know you disagree emphatically with all (or nearly all) the aims of the femmunist movement, you clearly agree with them on the one basic issue that I would consider the very cornerstone of their whole ideology: the idea that men, a mysterious species totally foreign to women (as in “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”), rule the world, and women are merely their innocent, powerless victims. Thus, frustrated (understandably) in your efforts to awaken the American people, you resort, as women have since the Beginning, to castigating men.
Unfortunately, it won’t work. The premise is false, so any action based thereon will be fruitless.
The truth is, regardless of appearances, it is women who truly rule the world. This has always been so; it will always be so. Human males, like males of all species, are created by females for purposes of their own: to provide services which they cannot or prefer not to do for themselves. Including, e.g., the rapid evolution enabled by genetic roulette; taking out the garbage; fighting wars to capture (or defend) territory and assets whose possession provides for the comfort of women and their children; etc. etc.
And, occasionally, when asked, the ability to think clearly and dispassionately about issues of import, simply because men, at one remove from Nature who rules women’s lives, have at least the potential ability to escape the total hormonal control that She (the very Goddess the feminists insist we worship) exercises over women’s consciousness. But of course, this will be no help if women refuse to acknowledge that men can do anything for them that they can’t do for themselves.
Human males, like males of all other species, operate under a single Prime Directive: Please the Female. Since the invention of sex, roughly 1.5 billion years ago, males have been ruthlessly selectively bred to obey this imperative: those who did not, who failed to get there fastest with the most, did not become our forefathers, thus were genetically irrelevant.
The truth is, the argument you’re involved in is actually, like all human arguments, between groups of women. (In fact, I would extend this even to arguments between individual women and men: when a woman marries, she marries her mother-in-law’s idea of what a “proper” man is.) The men you complain about are the men created, molded and used by the women who run the other side of the argument. They don’t please you because that’s not their job; they please the women who control them–just as the men you and (the few) other women like you control strive to please you.
“Why is this? Why is this?” If you can’t see it for yourself, I guess I’ll have to enlighten you: The men you complain about are the sons of the mothers who created the feminist movement, which gave us Infant Male Circumcision (terrorize, torture and mutilate male babies so they’ll be sure to remember who’s the Boss throughout their life), Prohibition (if men drink to excess, never ask why, just clamp down with all the power of the State, in the process creating a vast network of organized crime and its mirror image, the Federal Police), and the “19th Amendment” (is it entirely accidental that the slide into totalitarian socialism has radically accelerated since women decided to trade in their husbands for the support provided by the All-Powerful State?). Not to mention the entire catalog of horrors since the 1960s, when the first universally-circumcised generation of American men came of age and began caving in completely to feminist demands.
“Systems and agencies that are putting their women and children into a state of involuntary servitude for all their lives.” Well, maybe they are (though I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to)–but only in the time they have to spare from enslaving men, especially divorced fathers (now defined as “sex abusers”) who must turn over most of what they make to their ex-wives while they’re barred from any contact with their children. Not to mention single men who pay confiscatory taxes to support “female heads of household.” That’s what the “black robed judges” spend most of their time doing. At the behest of the women who elect them.
“Back in 1776, this breed of men would be called cowards.” Maybe, but now they’re called “enlightened,” while Washington, Jefferson and their ilk are seen for what they really were: male-chauvinist slavedrivers. This is the history that is taught in our government-run schools, by 90% female teachers, supported by the vast majority of American women voters–who are the absolute majority of all voters.
“The men of this country … refuse to lift a finger to ensure that their women and children will not be forced into global citizenship under the UN. Why is this?” You really don’t know? It’s for the simplest, most powerful, most ancient reason of all: because it’s what women want, and any man who doesn’t give women what they want is a failure, out of the picture.
“Why won’t these men stand up to this rogue agency called the IRS?” You really don’t know? Have you ever tried to talk to a woman about the IRS? I’ve found this is one of the best ways to lose all the female friends you have. They love the Income Tax, because it’s what makes it possible to dump their husbands and live off the State. Any man who says anything negative about the Income Tax is in serious danger of never getting a date.
“These men have put their children in harms way via mandatory social indoctrination in the anti-God public school system.” If talking about the Income Tax doesn’t get you drawn and quartered, try criticizing the public school system. There’s hardly any cow more sacred in our utopian Matriarchy.
“Over the past 40 years, the men of this country have sat back and allowed themselves to be brow beaten into submission and castrated by so-called ‘feminists’ like Rosie O’Donnell and Hillary Clinton….” Nearly all (90+%) of those men, like me, were already “castrated” at birth when their mothers had them circumcised. (The psychological effect of infant male circumcision is essentially the same as castration–i.e. abortion of full development of male consciousness and character–while still leaving the male able to provide necessary basic stud service.) You’re asking these men to rebel first against their own mothers. Is that what you want? Can a viable human society be created on such a basis? Is it even possible?
“Our nation was built by men who were self-reliant, independent and strong.” No, they were male chauvinist pigs and patriarchal oppressors. Just ask (almost) any woman.
“Women in this country spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on ’romance books’ whose pages are filled with knights in shining armour and genuine heroes coming to rescue the damsel in distress. Why do you suppose that is?” I’ve wondered about this myself, since those same women demand that the men in their own lives be the spineless wimps you so scathingly describe in your essay. I don’t know why; perhaps, as a woman, you can enlighten me?
“Today they are tolerant, sensitive and genuflect at the feet of perverts called ‘gays.’” While you’re at it, perhaps you can elucidate another mystery for me: Why is it that the very same women who complain that all the “good” men are either married or “gay” also become instantly rabid in defence of “gay rights”?
Sigmund Freud became famous for (among other things) his immortal question: “What do women want?” Well, I’ve figured out the answer: WHAT WE HAVE is what women want, because it is what they have used their power to create. If they wanted it different, they would have made it different. Q.E.D.
One thing I do know, however: Although I was brought up to be a perfect little 20th century American male feminist, it has been the behaviour of women themselves which has finally convinced me of the truth in the “traditional” views of women, and of the wisdom of men in the past who kept women “in their place,” where their passionate irrationality could be prevented (at least somewhat) from doing damage, not only to men, but to themselves as well. Clearly, the 19th Amendment was one of the biggest mistakes in American history.
“Why are the women the ones out there on the front lines battling this government tooth and nail for our children – ready and willing to die if necessary to protect our own?” Sorry, not so. There may be a few women, such as yourself, involved in this fight, but there are many more men. I have a list of over a hundred web sites, 90% of them by men, devoted to the struggle to prevent the evils you enumerate in your article. Though I honour your work, such intellectual dishonesty … well, is typical of why men of the past–the very men you praise– paid only limited attention to women, even as they worked and risked their lives to build a nation wherein women were better off than they have been at any other time or place in human history.
Which these very same women are now working with equal enthusiasm (though far less risk, at least in the short run–which seems to be all they can see) to destroy.
You may have seen an excellent response to your article from Australian Graham Strachan. I would disagree with him only in that the history of this war on men and maleness is not just twenty years old. Its modern phase began, by the feminists’ own “herstory,” in 1848, at the Seneca Falls Convention (see its “Declaration of Sentiments” for a catty parody of the Declaration of Independence)–the same year that the Communist Manifesto appeared. Coincidence? Cui bono?
For my part, after a lifetime of abuse, I’ve gradually become rather sick of women, their endless complaints, irrational inconstancy, self-satisfied narcissism and wearisome temper tantrums. I’m retired. While I can see the value, in absolute spiritual terms, of standing up for the truth, it seems pointless to engage in battle for something whose intended beneficiaries clearly don’t want it. It’s your world, sisters; I’m only a guest here, my very existence a result of my mother’s not having bothered to exercise her “right to choose” to abort me. If you don’t like how things are, rather than complaining to the hired hands, the front men, fall guys, whipping boys and cannon fodder, you’d do better to talk to The Boss.
If something you’ve purchased doesn’t work right, what do you do? Take it back where you got it, no? Well, where do men come from? I’d suggest you address your complaint to the manufacturer.
Maybe when you girls’ve got it sorted out, you’ll let us know exactly what you do want. Or maybe my nephew (thank God I don’t have any children to worry about), or his son or grandson. My nephew, age 25, recently married. His wife is clearly smarter than he is–not to mention at least 50% heavier–and clearly knows exactly what she wants. God help him, poor chump. He’s what his mother, his teachers, American women have made him, and so he shall be.
An American man who’s had enough
Previous Philalethes Index Next