Feminism and the Bro Code. Part Two.

Feminism and the Bro Code. Part Two.

You know: I am beginning some what to empathise with that fellow who shot up that sorority. His METHODS I dis-confirm, but in terms of ethos he might have been on to some thing. What did I get from his ultimatum? Nothing more or less than a violent tirade against feminine entitlement. The notion that regardless of ethic one's emotions can be relied upon to guide one's actions. I kind of loathe society my self, but only for treating Caliban as a scape-goat. But now here is a question for our feminist friends: can you imagine any thing more dangerous nor more deplorable than a patriarchal man who is ruthless, self-serving, unabashedly power-hungry, with out conscience or alibi, manipulative, domineering, and worst of all both horny and did I mention power-hungry and megalomaniacal? Now think for a bit. Okay. Nothing worse? Fair game. Now look at your average female of college age. Apparently one in four of them are sexually assaulted. Is it that MOST men are patriarchal pigs? How did this become the masculine standard? Surely by now most men would have learned that it is only the noble gentleman, the unremitting altruist, the man of Character, the knight of chivalry and loyalty, that shall claim the maiden for his own?

Or is that a bit dated? May be it is rather that Nice Guys Finish Last. May be so long as women recklessly fall for arrogant jocks without rational consideration for their own projections and neuroses, nor for the social consequences of their emotivism, then men will only be incentivised to be cruel, rude, (though pretending towards sweetness where they are so clever and where they can flatter in place of being truthfull), unabashedly selfish in the company of their peers and the total opposite of the veneer they present to their female admirers, thus estranging the two genders entirely in what Reality Its Self appears to be, manipulative and moralistic to cover their ruse and their tracks, though never truly moral at all. Is it any surprise then that the rates of rape are so high? May be then that fellow who shot those girls truly WAS a martyr. But of course I am an optimist. I do not truly think that most men are like that. I have too much faith in man. So from whence do the reports come? Are they valid? Or are most of them exaggerated? Our buddy the serial killer shot a bunch of women that he deemed 'sluts'; he did it when they were convened in private. There is all ways some thing that we can LEARN from serial murderers. I mean: we MUST! They are the Shadows of our own society, and invariably informants of what we TRULY need to work on in our evolution, not to hide and say 'it was just HE who did it.' The reason that Deleuze ascribes to such tragedies the shame in being a man is that they call upon us all to cha(lle)nge the status quo. We are all connected deep down. And in that same interview with his petite amie he speaks of his own triumphs. How do we make the most therefore of tragedies? We Learn. And an ultimatum and a manifesto lay it RIGHT out in front of us in plain logic, a mirror for the common sense of our time taken to its natural and pathological conclusion and extreme. What have we learned? Well the kid shot them not only because they were women. He shot them because they were CONVENED. The bastard pragmatist would dismiss this as purely strategic; of course, they were easy prey. But WHY are those who convene easy prey? Are they easier than the solitary rape victim? The former are easy by law of nature. In the same way as there is strength in numbers there is danger in them. The lone wolf at least knows one's own dangers; her only risk is of losing her self in solitude and distrust, of being consumed in her own cynicism and becoming the oppressor. It is right that a bunker of Nazis should blow up and deal a more lethal blow than had the officials just Skyped their meeting. People who live by the herd die by the herd. And people who decide together that their affects matter more than the standards of decency created by their fathers pose a threat not only to would-be fathers but to all. It is this tendency that compells men to become tyrants. This emotive herd mentality is a breeding ground only for Fascism, and Fascists love to elect a leader who is charismatic and appeals to nothing short of the desire of a woman for a bad boy and the desire of a man for a rugged role model. And try to tell me that sex is not a motivator in politics.

Our society if it is to survive as a Free Society must shed its ideological pretensions. Feminism only leads to Fascism in a country like ours. We have as much equality as is humanly possible; fairness is an other issue. Fairness consists in giving each man his due. And of course I speak in the generic sense of the word man. But I all so speak in a kind of de facto solidarity with those men who WERE chivalrous and who found a world that not only dissatisfied them but condemned them because the true manipulators gave every thing with the semblance of virtue a bad name.

Men must again adopt chivalry and loyalty, and women must learn to recognise it by its fruits. The days of egoism and being rendered irrelevant and marginal by virtue of one's kindness are over. And this is NOT a statement of Moral Imperative alone. It is a statement of FACT. We shall not survive an emotivist society.

Dm.A.A.