Thursday, 23 May 2013
Male disposability - a strength?
Male disposability, that big bugbear.
Ah, I still remember the old days when I was reading Angry Harry, of land whales squealing in excitement at the thought the Y chromosome might be decaying, "self-love" jokes when it was found it was capable of self-repair, and sullen silence when it was suggested its mutability may be responsible for much of human evolution.
Men are expendable. It's in our genes. Women are inherently valuable because they have wombs and thus are the reproductive bottleneck. You can spend forever trying to fight it, or you can accept the fact that men and women are not equal on any footing whatsoever and turn that to your advantage.
If it still can be, that is. Somehow, I doubt that.
The problem, it would appear, is that the paradigm has been corrupted like so many other things that come into contact with modernity and the Left. Instead of "these are your fields, work them as much as you will and you will reap whatever has been sown, good or ill", thanks to the wonders of statism we now have "you have no claim to these fields, but you shall till them anyway; you will be held responsible for all failings, but your harvest shall be forcibly taken from you to feed the new leisure class."
Heaven may still be high, but the Emperor is no longer far away. The risk/reward system that used to come with male disposability has been broken, and with all costs and no benefits, what sane and aware man would step into this mire? After all, men are no longer lauded for their capabilities or achievements in this perverse Harrison Berguron world.
Because we men are expendable, we are free to take risks. We are more free to experiment and play just as nature experiments and plays with our genes to find what works. Don't have a genetic backup of your X chromosome? Whoops, it's muscular dystrophy for you. We can dare, we can put one foot forward; as Vox Day points out, a people with courageous and selfless women is a people soon extinct, and thus it is stupid to try and hold men and women to the same standards. Should it be the way things ought to be? That is debatable. But it is the way things are, and is always wins out over ought.
Good old Francis opines that his headache got a lot better when he started thinking of most ladies as children with tits and nice asses. It's not inherently bad to reduce men to be tools to be used - so long as one respects and cares for one's tools, just like one knows how to deal with children.
The reactionary goal is not to end male disposability - which is as much a fool's errand as feminism is - but to restore the benefits to a man who tends his own fields. Socially and genetically, women have clustered near the mean, protected as much as the ambient level of civilisation would allow. Sure, fewer women were and are out on the streets, but the same goes for those at the top - and I mean those who earned it, as opposed to affirmative action hires. A man on the street is ignored as he was in times past, and yet today a man who has done reasonably well for himself but yet not risen to the ranks of the plutocracy is taxed into oblivion. We are robbed of the fruits of our harvest.
This cannot continue. The only answer to what can be done, it seems, is to help tear down the already-crumbling Cathedral.