I would also like to read about gays' difficult situation in the 50s.
My strong believe is that they were disdained because they did not fulfill the gynocentric order.
- They did not marry women nor provided for them.
- They did not procreate and assured the continuation of the family and the village
- They were believed not to be suitable to protect the house/village.
- They were not believed to be able to protect the nation or sacrifice their life for others.
They had it worse than lesbians for sure.
Gays were fighting for their rights in very difficult times, then came the feminism who hijacked the csd movement. They claimed the fruits of the movement but they never actively did anything for the gays. They still hate men, no matter if hetero of gay. Some gays understood that and disassociate with feminists.
Still now it is commonly believed that 'homophobia' comes from 'hetero-normative patriarchy'. But in reality, it was coming from society including women. I hope the feminist lie about patriarchy vanishes one day.
Very good points about the many reasons gay men were disdained in the mid to late 20th century. Have you thought of writing this up? Would love to see it and I am sure others would want to see it also.
I am lacking the eloquence of a Tom Golden or Janice Fiamengo.
But I can point to some sources.
Angry Harry:
"It is often argued, for example, that feminists were at the forefront in loosening the shackles of traditional gender roles which made men masculine and women feminine.
But was it?
Surely, if any particular group is to be especially credited with leading the way in this area it was the gay movement not the women's movement."
Also see the book
"The New Gay Liberation: Escaping the Fag End of Feminism"
Yes, yes, and yes! Saying no is one of the best shit tests for smoking out relational aggression. You get a bird's eye view of what may be come. This will be discussed in part 5 of this series on what men can do.
Actually, Tom, I said that few men are "TOTALLY" under the spell of this urge to protect of provide for women. And I added that more men in our society are NOW rebelling against that gender script than they once did. (They do so in ways that are not necessarily good for themselves, let alone for women or children, which is another topic.)
Now, think of your comparison with "1950." Provide and protect was indeed the cultural default setting for men in those days (although a few men resorted to abuse or rape). Those who had other ideas, at any rate, generally hid those. This was not because "men were men" (and "women were women") as the old saying goes. It was because society promised to REWARD men (and women) for conforming to their gendered scripts and thus contributing to the common good--but also to punish those who did not conform. That was a healthier society than ours, by and large, because it encouraged RECIPROCITY. Men fought a war to protect society, but the survivors came home with the expectation of being honored accordingly AS MEN--or at least to get their old jobs back. Today, that social contract is vanishing. Women per se (and some other groups) can now expect to be rewarded as virtuous victims. But men per se (or at least "white" men) can expect only to be punished as vicious victimizers. THAT is gynocentrism, not some universal cultural norm, let alone a biological norm, but the perversion of an older one.
By the way, men don't need to join MGTOW in order to go their own way. They can do so by abandoning society as school dropouts, drug or gaming addicts, criminals or suicides--at skyrocketing rates. They can do so merely by adopting current fashions such as polyamory, serial marriage or even by declaring themselves "transgendered women."
In short, restoring a social contract between men and women will involve a whole lot more than convincing men to protect and provide for women. In addition, it will require convincing women to honor those acts of self-sacrifice and make similar ones to men in return.
Aha. It seems that we agree on what is happening but differ on the definition. I think gynocentrism has been with us for some time and that lately in the last 50 years or so it has shifted into a deeply weaponized version. You seem to think of that the weaponized version is gynocentrism.
The arguments from gynocentrism seem powerful, but seem to reflect a mirror image of feminism. Namely, that conflict between the sexes is biologically determined, making it inevitable. The inevitability of conflict seems inarguable, but so does the inevitability of attraction between opposites. Conflict and attraction are the yin and yang of life.
Yes, yin and yang. I think the reality of conflict between the sexes is inevitable. It is built into the system. Men and women reach maturity through the give and take of relationships, particularly working together to raise children. What has happened has been the intentional wrecking of that fine balance that is needed for men and women to work together. How can anyone expect a good relationship if one half of the parties goes in thinking they have been oppressed and are now owed? What we see now is a greater percentage of adults who are lacking maturity.
I can't exactly argue with what you say, Tom, but I notice also what you don't say.
Testosterone, for example, has the demonstrable effect of fostering fitness for action, which encourages men to seek the esteem of peers and therefore to seek status. This is simple male biology. But the cultural context of male biology is not so simple. I'm not entirely satisfied with your explanation of gynocentrism and its effect on men, an explanation that could be too simple (reductive). It seems to me, in other words, that reality is more complicated than any theory--even one that can be supported by some stereotypical examples. I'll try to be more precise.
It's true, as you say, that gynocentric societies put men at a disadvantage in relations with women. But not all societies are gynocentric. Some are androcentric. Others, perhaps, are androcentric from the perspective of women (or men) and gynocentric from that of men (or women). At any rate, more than a few men in our own society at this time are far from the passive recipients that you describe of abuse by women. Few men, if any, are (or ever were) totally under the spell of this urge, which you repeat many times, to "protect and provide for" women; this is why it requires a massive cultural effort, which often includes bribery and intimidation, to encourage that urge. And it works in many men, especially in healthy societies--ones that actually honor and reward men for protecting and providing for women. But our society is no longer a healthy one. On the contrary, it distorts, perverts, confuses, ignores and reverses traditional cultural patterns in countless ways. The result, by now, is a chaotic mess. Cut to the chase: You need to account, Tom, for the men who react to abusive women either by abusing those women in return (even all women in a relatively low number of psychopathological cases) or by leaving them. These men are not biological mutants. To some extent, they're characteristic products of their time and place.
To put this in more theoretical terms, I suggest that the urge for survival (or self-defense)--a universal one not only in our species but in every species by definition--is at least as powerful as the one that you discuss. Which one prevails at any moment, of course, depends largely on context: personal, familial, communal, cultural, historical and so on.
Yes, agree with much of what you say Paul. I was going out on a limb here due to the lack of knowledge about gynocentrism and how it works and how men have been blue pilled. I may have gotten some of this wrong but I think if you look at it as a big picture it is a helpful take on things. Yes, there are always exceptions, however, we have millions of men in the US who are under the spell of the blue pill and who are not valuing their own worth and that is really what this is all about.
You said " Few men, if any, are (or ever were) totally under the spell of this urge, which you repeat many times, to "protect and provide for" women; this is why it requires a massive cultural effort, which often includes bribery and intimidation, to encourage that urge. "
Few men were under the spell of provide and protect? Really? Totally disagree. Most men have been heavily influenced by this and due to this our culture has been built. If what you claim is true we would have very large groups of men who were going their own way. Now we have just a splinter of men who are MGTOW though it is growing. Think 1950. What was th default at that time? Provide and protect.
LOL! You are not supposed to look so closely! AI was very very leery of showing a train about to run over a woman. No mater how I worded it AI would show the train coming down one track and her on another. This was the only one where the train seemed to be about to run her over!
Nice read Tom!
I would also like to read about gays' difficult situation in the 50s.
My strong believe is that they were disdained because they did not fulfill the gynocentric order.
- They did not marry women nor provided for them.
- They did not procreate and assured the continuation of the family and the village
- They were believed not to be suitable to protect the house/village.
- They were not believed to be able to protect the nation or sacrifice their life for others.
They had it worse than lesbians for sure.
Gays were fighting for their rights in very difficult times, then came the feminism who hijacked the csd movement. They claimed the fruits of the movement but they never actively did anything for the gays. They still hate men, no matter if hetero of gay. Some gays understood that and disassociate with feminists.
Still now it is commonly believed that 'homophobia' comes from 'hetero-normative patriarchy'. But in reality, it was coming from society including women. I hope the feminist lie about patriarchy vanishes one day.
Very good points about the many reasons gay men were disdained in the mid to late 20th century. Have you thought of writing this up? Would love to see it and I am sure others would want to see it also.
I am lacking the eloquence of a Tom Golden or Janice Fiamengo.
But I can point to some sources.
Angry Harry:
"It is often argued, for example, that feminists were at the forefront in loosening the shackles of traditional gender roles which made men masculine and women feminine.
But was it?
Surely, if any particular group is to be especially credited with leading the way in this area it was the gay movement not the women's movement."
Also see the book
"The New Gay Liberation: Escaping the Fag End of Feminism"
Reading your article reflects the thoughts, ideas, and hypotheses that I have developed over the decades.
It took me many years to the develop the strategy to deal with the manipulation that would occur when I said NO!
Saying NO, to the women I worked with would then bring out their arsenal of guilt-tripping, shaming ect.
When I was able to identify what they were doing, I would say things like;
"Does this work on your husband/boyfriend?"
"Are you practising on me for when you get home?"
Reading "The Rantings of a Single Male" by Thomas Ellis he identified how men are accused of misogyny when they disagree with women.
Yes, yes, and yes! Saying no is one of the best shit tests for smoking out relational aggression. You get a bird's eye view of what may be come. This will be discussed in part 5 of this series on what men can do.
Actually, Tom, I said that few men are "TOTALLY" under the spell of this urge to protect of provide for women. And I added that more men in our society are NOW rebelling against that gender script than they once did. (They do so in ways that are not necessarily good for themselves, let alone for women or children, which is another topic.)
Now, think of your comparison with "1950." Provide and protect was indeed the cultural default setting for men in those days (although a few men resorted to abuse or rape). Those who had other ideas, at any rate, generally hid those. This was not because "men were men" (and "women were women") as the old saying goes. It was because society promised to REWARD men (and women) for conforming to their gendered scripts and thus contributing to the common good--but also to punish those who did not conform. That was a healthier society than ours, by and large, because it encouraged RECIPROCITY. Men fought a war to protect society, but the survivors came home with the expectation of being honored accordingly AS MEN--or at least to get their old jobs back. Today, that social contract is vanishing. Women per se (and some other groups) can now expect to be rewarded as virtuous victims. But men per se (or at least "white" men) can expect only to be punished as vicious victimizers. THAT is gynocentrism, not some universal cultural norm, let alone a biological norm, but the perversion of an older one.
By the way, men don't need to join MGTOW in order to go their own way. They can do so by abandoning society as school dropouts, drug or gaming addicts, criminals or suicides--at skyrocketing rates. They can do so merely by adopting current fashions such as polyamory, serial marriage or even by declaring themselves "transgendered women."
In short, restoring a social contract between men and women will involve a whole lot more than convincing men to protect and provide for women. In addition, it will require convincing women to honor those acts of self-sacrifice and make similar ones to men in return.
Aha. It seems that we agree on what is happening but differ on the definition. I think gynocentrism has been with us for some time and that lately in the last 50 years or so it has shifted into a deeply weaponized version. You seem to think of that the weaponized version is gynocentrism.
The arguments from gynocentrism seem powerful, but seem to reflect a mirror image of feminism. Namely, that conflict between the sexes is biologically determined, making it inevitable. The inevitability of conflict seems inarguable, but so does the inevitability of attraction between opposites. Conflict and attraction are the yin and yang of life.
Yes, yin and yang. I think the reality of conflict between the sexes is inevitable. It is built into the system. Men and women reach maturity through the give and take of relationships, particularly working together to raise children. What has happened has been the intentional wrecking of that fine balance that is needed for men and women to work together. How can anyone expect a good relationship if one half of the parties goes in thinking they have been oppressed and are now owed? What we see now is a greater percentage of adults who are lacking maturity.
I can't exactly argue with what you say, Tom, but I notice also what you don't say.
Testosterone, for example, has the demonstrable effect of fostering fitness for action, which encourages men to seek the esteem of peers and therefore to seek status. This is simple male biology. But the cultural context of male biology is not so simple. I'm not entirely satisfied with your explanation of gynocentrism and its effect on men, an explanation that could be too simple (reductive). It seems to me, in other words, that reality is more complicated than any theory--even one that can be supported by some stereotypical examples. I'll try to be more precise.
It's true, as you say, that gynocentric societies put men at a disadvantage in relations with women. But not all societies are gynocentric. Some are androcentric. Others, perhaps, are androcentric from the perspective of women (or men) and gynocentric from that of men (or women). At any rate, more than a few men in our own society at this time are far from the passive recipients that you describe of abuse by women. Few men, if any, are (or ever were) totally under the spell of this urge, which you repeat many times, to "protect and provide for" women; this is why it requires a massive cultural effort, which often includes bribery and intimidation, to encourage that urge. And it works in many men, especially in healthy societies--ones that actually honor and reward men for protecting and providing for women. But our society is no longer a healthy one. On the contrary, it distorts, perverts, confuses, ignores and reverses traditional cultural patterns in countless ways. The result, by now, is a chaotic mess. Cut to the chase: You need to account, Tom, for the men who react to abusive women either by abusing those women in return (even all women in a relatively low number of psychopathological cases) or by leaving them. These men are not biological mutants. To some extent, they're characteristic products of their time and place.
To put this in more theoretical terms, I suggest that the urge for survival (or self-defense)--a universal one not only in our species but in every species by definition--is at least as powerful as the one that you discuss. Which one prevails at any moment, of course, depends largely on context: personal, familial, communal, cultural, historical and so on.
Yes, agree with much of what you say Paul. I was going out on a limb here due to the lack of knowledge about gynocentrism and how it works and how men have been blue pilled. I may have gotten some of this wrong but I think if you look at it as a big picture it is a helpful take on things. Yes, there are always exceptions, however, we have millions of men in the US who are under the spell of the blue pill and who are not valuing their own worth and that is really what this is all about.
You said " Few men, if any, are (or ever were) totally under the spell of this urge, which you repeat many times, to "protect and provide for" women; this is why it requires a massive cultural effort, which often includes bribery and intimidation, to encourage that urge. "
Few men were under the spell of provide and protect? Really? Totally disagree. Most men have been heavily influenced by this and due to this our culture has been built. If what you claim is true we would have very large groups of men who were going their own way. Now we have just a splinter of men who are MGTOW though it is growing. Think 1950. What was th default at that time? Provide and protect.
Wow, Tom, looks like AI drew a very strange woman on the tracks: she has three deformed feet but only two legs!
LOL! You are not supposed to look so closely! AI was very very leery of showing a train about to run over a woman. No mater how I worded it AI would show the train coming down one track and her on another. This was the only one where the train seemed to be about to run her over!
That’s amazing. I’ve never messed with AI, I have no idea how to do that.
The best on e I have found is ideogram.ai It's free to start. So many variables. Lots of fun for a non artist!