In 1944 C.S. Lewis published The Abolition of Man, a three chapter handbook that uses a horse tranquilizer of logic to paralyze the legs of the enduring progressive quest to pillage and burn objective truth to the ashy ground. The book is named after its final chapter, which in one line strikes at the heart of the predicament that the progressive plan now logically and inevitably faces:
“Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man.”
First Principles
According to Lewis, there exists a body of first principles; traditional values that are universally and objectively applicable to all humanity. Lewis calls this body of collected ancient wisdom the Tao. Lewis argues that the conditioners rebel against the Tao to their own detriment (Lewis refers to progressives as “progressives” occasionally throughout his argument, but more commonly calls them “the conditioners,” a term that more aptly describes their tactics). They believe that in destroying the Tao, they can then either build a new body of values, or they can finally live in a world absent of values and first principles.
To those conditioners who would build a new body of values, Lewis reveals that by their mere recognition that some first principles are worthy, they recognize that there are worthy human values. Therefore, any attempt to alter the Tao is done to suit a personal or ideological agenda or done out of ignorance of the Tao. Lewis rhetorically asks:
“Whence comes the Innovator’s authority to pick and choose?” Lewis then explains, “Since I can see no answer to these questions, I draw the following conclusions. This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality of the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of value judgment. If it is rejected, all value is rejected.”
Progress Fallacy
To the conditioners who would reject all value, who adhere to the Nietzschean ethic and believe there are no values and there are no first principles, Lewis argues that the logical conclusion of their belief only means that in the end, they will have destroyed themselves. Lewis relays a personal story, where a man claimed that “Man has Nature whacked,” even as he was, ironically, dying of tuberculosis. The man said that although we would be a casualty in man’s war against nature, it is not uncommon for the winning side of a fight to still suffer casualties. Lewis aptly points out that “Man’s conquest of Nature is an expression often used to describe the progress of applied science.”
Lewis argues that man has made no progress against nature and has gained zero power over it since the dawn of time. He uses airplanes as an example. Airplanes simply use the physical laws of nature to function; they do not defy those laws or subvert them. Although new inventions and new applied science might seem to give man an advantage over nature, this is not the case; Nature is merely the tool by which man makes those claims of power and any power gained by any man is only power gained over other men, and not over nature. If you were the last man on Earth, could you alone rebuild civilization? Could you alone build and fly a jet? Perhaps you can, but most cannot. So in inventing the airplane, men who were capable of doing so used Nature to gain power over those men, like me, who have to rely on buying a ticket to achieve flight.
Lewis makes this distinction because nature includes human nature. There are men in this world who have been conditioned by the conditioners into thinking human nature can also be beaten. And they are deceived by the apparent retreat of nature from man’s newly gained ‘powers over it’. But nature’s arms held high in surrender is merely a Trojan Horse, because when man draws near enough to claim final victory, he will only find that he has destroyed what he is; he will have abolished himself, because he no longer believes anything; he sees through everything, and as Lewis says, a man who sees through everything sees nothing. Humans will walk the earth, perhaps for a short time longer, but they will not be men by definition, because they have ripped from themselves everything that is objectively true about being a man.
Why do the conditioners, the progressives, the so-called innovators, think that their goals are worthy when every ‘advance’ they believe they make is in fact a denial of truth and a piecemeal removal of the laws that make us men?
Applicability To Feminism
Take feminism. After 200,000 years of mankind’s existence, did the 1960s feminists and their descendants happen upon a new truth about humanity? Feminists will argue that feminism merely requests that women be equal to men under the law and in perceived worth and dignity; but equality under the law already exists, and equal worth and dignity is certainly a first principle, a branch in the Tao, if there ever was one. So what else do they fight for?
Feminists want total control. And they perceive, most ironically, that the way to gain full control over men and over society, is to behave like men; in dress, in attitude, and in professional pursuits. They also encourage men to not behave like men – that is, they want men to be more like the traditional woman. They deny gender roles, which are unequivocally true and necessary (another immutable branch of the Tao). Women are best suited to be women, and men are best suited to be men. Women in the 1960s, however, found a new truth and made ‘progress’ for all humanity, or so they continue to believe.
I would ask them: whence comes your authority to pick and choose? Feminists, after all, at once recognize the branch of the Tao that calls for equal dignity and respect of men and women, but not the branch of the Tao that defines the two genders separately and assigns them separate roles in nature. In their picking and choosing they have denied all objective value, and they now seek to burn down the nature of man and build a new one. But in doing so, they only burn down themselves; they have systematically rejected all the true and wonderful things about womanhood and feminine quality, and traded it for a construct that is unnatural and doomed to collapse.
The silver lining is that this history of humankind is cyclical, and the feminist revolution can only be tenable for so long before it collapses under its own weight and a counter-revolution takes its place; a counter-revolution that encourages men to be men and women to be women. But until then, the conditioners, the progressives, the innovators, and the feminists will live in their fairy tale land of progress. A fairy tale land that Lewis describes thusly:
“What I most fear is the reply that I am ‘only one more’ obscurantist, that this barrier, like all previous barriers set up against the advance of science, can be safely passed. Such a reply springs from the fatal serialism of the modern imagination — the image of infinite unilinear progression which so haunts our minds. Because we have to use numbers so much we tend to think of every process as if it must be like the numeral series, where every step, to all eternity, is the same kind of step as the one before. I implore you to remember the Irishman and his two stoves. There are progressions in which the last step is sui generis — incommensurable with the others — and in which to go the whole way is to undo all the labour of your previous journey.”
Read More: What Society Values
This is completely misguided; we don’t need more of this “traditional values” bullshit. It’s gonna lead our society into a big fat ditch that we can’t dig out of.
The problem with our society is that it’s become way too pussified. From a very young age, children(this is especially true for young boys) are stuck in what’s a prison, but this is what we call “education”. Rather than encouraging people to take risks and think the unthinkable, we teach them from a very young age that they shouldn’t do so. The kind of group-think and herd behavior of people is encouraged from a very young age as dissent is not tolerated. Rebellion is completely suppressed and children are being taught not to fail.
Creativity and mental clarity are being suppressed from a very young age, but those are the ideas that drive progress in society.
“Traditional Values” can mean very different things to people. For example, from an evolutionary biology perspective ‘traditional values’ means asserting dominance, accumulating resources, mating with as many attractive women as possible to ensure genetic replication, and killing or subjugating anyone who disagrees with you. Maybe you mean something different.
Yes, but traditional in 2013, means middle class, which is boring, conservative, get education, have kids, and die in some assisted living facility yapping dull stories about the day you got your promotion from assistant manger to manager…..and don’t forget when you pass the 40 mark to start condescending anything creative or new…..causing a huge generation gap and ensuring you cannot connect with your kids who become crazed rebels, until they either die from a drug over dose as pseudo rockstars or settle down into the same boring mold you came from…….
This is the traditional reality right now….
The traditional reality also expects the government to be waiting nappy in hand any time you have the slightest difficulty, breeding a whole generation of teachers pet type mentality…… who are selfishly out for themselves, even if the net result is they go no where fast in life….
Traditional today also means mistrusting, disloyal, bitchy, back stabbing, dishonorable, godless, disconnected, scattered, attention seeking and with a mindset that needs constant entertainment and trival BS to ingest and discuss lest you might actually have to look up at the stars or watch a sunset without technology, social updates, a media commentator or 500 pages of government legislation to assist…..
You missed the point. Traditional conservatives are neither. They are loyal opposition to the progressives of today, merely behind the times. When you understand it, actual tradition works; that is how it becomes traditional. A traditional stance in this age is a quite revolutionary stance.
The Shadowed Knight
By traditional we mean what has been working, and what is true.
Did you guys read the same article I did? The man is talking about Natural Law. He was very clear about it.
When I talk about traditional, I’m mainly talking about what would be considered social conservatism today. I actually grew up to a very socially conservative family, which is why I find it so retarded.
Today, we live in a world of virtually endless complexity that becomes more complex at a faster rate than ever before. In such a world, what really matters are the outliers and extreme events. So the key to building a strong civilization is by building one that takes advantages of the good outliers while not being affected by the bad ones(this is actually why I think capitalism works so well). Social conservatism basically does the exact opposite. It makes everything seem like it’s running more smoothly, but all it really does for the society as a whole is suppress volatility until something blows up completely.
Are you sure that capitalism is working well? I´m more afraid to a fascist solution to the capitalist catastrophe coming our way (the Goldman Sachs destruction of 2008-now is only the beginning) than to any kind of enlightened socialist democracy that could develop (in the mold of the advanced North Europe states).
We don’t have capitalism. The most successful form of economic management across the world over the past 50-75 years has been the age old policy of mercantilism, which is starting to come under fire. The only country that hasn’t stuck to that policy is the United States. Once the countries in the creditor phase of the mercantilist cycle(China, Russia, Brazil, Australia other emerging markets) start to come under fire, those countries that are currently the debtors in the cycle(mainly the US) will start to benefit in ways they haven’t seen in decades. The only problem is that when the US starts to benefit disproprtionately from the correction of the current account balances is that the rest of the world is going into a depression(industrial commodity prices are going to fall by over 50% in the next 3-5 years).
2008-09 wasn’t a destruction by Goldman Sachs, it was caused by an international imbalance in the flows of capital that was primarily driven by China. When you have large inflows of capital with excessively low interest rates(2000’s), you will get asset bubbles and consumption booms.
Either way, the US will be fine and will probably be the first to emerge from this crisis–much like how the UK was the first to emerge from the Great Depression. The countries that’ll really get screwed are primarily countries that are heavily reliant on importing foreign demand(mercantilism), who’ll get crushed. You’re already starting to see in happen. The Chinese banking system is already showing major signs of stress, industrial commodity prices are now in a secular bear market and commodities like iron ore and copper have fallen around 30% from the peak, Japan is starting to go into a death spiral, etc..
Show me a system that has brought more people out of poverty and misery than capitalism. Its private property coupled with freedom of association and exchange. The economic problems in the US today were fostered by government meddling in the name of being “fair”. Being an “enlightened social democracy” means picking winners and losers without regard to effort, talent or best use of resources. Its a mess that leads elected officials to prefer popularity over sound governance. A handful of small, closely knit, homogenous nordic populations aside, socialism has been proven to be a failure over and over again on every continent.
It comes back to human nature, like the author said.
Thanks for the bigger picture.
So it is “Traditional Values” that lands societies in ditches? Good to know. How did they get the ditches to keep moving forward, generation after generation?
The societies that are the most “traditional”(which I defined by called socially conservative) are the most backwards today–like in the Middle East.
If you want progress, you need a society wherein people are encouraged to fail, you need a society where people are allowed to think in radical ways that would be considered by social conservatives to be dangerous.
Note: Feminism and Marxism are not radical ways of thinking. They are old recycled ways of thinking that offer nothing new at all.
No disrespect to Mr Rouleau — and I thank him for writing this article — but is anyone else sick of author bio’s that say things like “He is vehemently opposed to cats, onions, and progress”?
It’s just so *cute* and *quirky* in that “Aren’t I so random?” way. You see this everywhere, in all kinds of outlets. Frankly, it reads like a girl’s online dating profile. It’s almost as if the author doesn’t truly feel comfortable just stating the facts, and feels a need to make it a bit silly and pseudo-self-deprecating (only “pseudo” because the self-deprecation itself is a kind of #humblebrag, reassuring the reader that the writer has the proper ironic distance to everything he says).
I’d be much more likely to read carefully a writer who, when asked by a website to provide a biographical snippet, had the forthrightness to just give his name, his website if any, and the relevant topics he covers. “John Jones lives in XYZ. His essays on progressivism, along with occasional movie reviews can be found at ABC website.” Something like that.
This particular example isn’t really that bad at all. This just happened to be the moment I realized how much this little unbiquitous quirk was bothering me.
Ok then.
And who the fuck hates onions? They’re delicious and super healthy.
While we’re at it the subheadings of articles always stink.
How can u deny gender roles and yet try to fit into one ? “I deny gender roles, yet I try to act like..a MAN” how stupid is that ?
Regarding the “who had the auth to pick and choose”, when you’ve given up the belief in any sort of objective values, you accept the validity of a Nietzschian dog-eat-dog type world. There is no right or wrong, only power and your ability to use it.
Feminists often believe that under the patriarchy, there was no morality. Since men are immoral (there are no objective morals, anyhow), they’ve every right to get whatever the hell they can by any means necessary.
Hence the Alinskyite tactic of “use your enemy’s own moral code against him”, how they’ll excuse Bill Clinton’s womanizing while ripping Romeny to shreds for his “binders” comment, how Harry Reid can use “negro” but Allen couldn’t say “macaca”, etc. There IS no right and wrong, only power. Your enemy’s moral code is but a tool to weaken him and make him look like a hypocrite.
There are few greater sins to the progressive than “hypocrisy”, and the only way to ensure you’re NEVER a hypocrite is to not believe in anything.
Some proggies actually believe their own BS, but among the Anointed, beliefs are but a tool they can use to put themselves in charge of everything.
C.S. Lewis is a fountain of logic and superior moral philosophy. Good to see others enjoying his work.
I fear that one aspect of the counter-revolution is already among us- mainstream islam’s treatment of women and incredibly-fast spreading influence is carrying the feminist pendulum the other way as other cultures view with alarm our ‘progress.’ For political reasons the feminists can’t comment, of course, and granted, the goal of islam is domination over all, not just resistance to feminism, but the results are there, as is the justification. Every one of us has heard some Irani cleric frothing at the mouth over Western values- and it’s a hard pill to swallow when you acknowledge that there’s a certain amount we can actually agree with there amidst all the hate and rage and insane rantings. Our culture IS sick, though I would argue it’s not yet time to take it out back for an Ol’ Yeller, much as I’d like to see that done in a limited fashion.
“The silver lining is that this history of humankind is cyclical, and the feminist revolution can only be tenable for so long before it collapses under its own weight and a counter-revolution takes its place.”
This is why a group of Rationals needs to break off and form their own society. The SJ/SP minions of society, humanity’s drones (I’ve discussed this in detail in previous posts) have run society into the ground too often. This is why the cycle that’s gone on in previous societies for thousands of years continues to this day.
My idea would take at least a book to explain, but I’m tired of intelligent, rational people being controlled by the spasmodic and emotional responses of the majority of people in society.
It’s been asked before, but you don’t have an own blog right?
Anyway, I also think that rational people should form their own community and watch the rest of the world burn.
Gated communities exist for a reason.
that last line is golden. Reminds me of Rome – “the barbarians are at the walls!”
Not yet, but I have been pondering starting up a blog.
Also, my vision is homo sapiens splitting in two species:
– a higher, rational one
– a stupid mob that will slowly degenerate back to ape status
If it wasn’t for the SJ/SP mobs that eventually ran Western Civilization into the Dark Ages, we might have been flying to the moon 1,000 years ago and eliminated such problems as poverty, widespread violence, and the current enslavement of the working class across the globe.
What do SJ and SP stand for?
Look up Myers-Briggs.
Ahhh, okay, thanks.
Starting to suffer acronym fatigue from too much online reading . . .
Great article.
On topic, it is correct that there are first principles which are both true and necessary to abide by for the well being of a civilization. The denial of these first principles, for the sake of their denial, is the most dangerous thing that can happen to a civilization.
In essence its postmodernism, relativism, or perspectivism (though those terms are not synonymous). Where people agree that what is agreed upon as true is NOT true, some weird shit goes down.
The truth then becomes what is AGREED upon, and not what is actually true, then a whole host of relative and subjective truths come into play: what is true for you may not be true for me, there is no objective truth, all truth is subjective.
This is a big issue that PLAGUES modern culture, cultural truth is EVIL, it leads people to believe that what they WANT, or FEEL determines what is true.
And this is why education and art sucks, “there is no good or bad art, there is just art”, “there is no good or bad writing, just interpretations of their writing.”
Anyways, great stuff.
>The truth then becomes what is AGREED upon, and not what is actually
true, then a whole host of relative and subjective truths come into
play: what is true for you may not be true for me, there is no objective
truth, all truth is subjective.
This. I can’t stand this fucking statements “truth is in the eye of the beholder”, “it’s true for me” etc. any longer.
There is always an objective truth, what changes is people’s precious, hurt “feewings” that make them say such nonsense.
Is anyone else having their mind blown by reading an appraisal of the work of the great Christian writer C.S. Lewis on the same site that runs articles with titles like “How To Pull A Slut From A Vegas Pool Party” and “How To Convince A Girl To Get An Abortion”?
It is a cognitive dissonance. I am a progressive (in fact, I am a Marxist) that nevertheless agrees with lots of the stuff published here about relationships and the deleterious influence of American feminism in society, go figure. But (despite being called a conservative by feminists) I do not wish to go back to a supposed “golden era” of Americana in the 1950s. I want to go forward, to mutual respect between the sexes, the rekindling of real love. Weird, uh?
I used to consider myself progressive as well, but always uncomfortable with feminism. Eventually, though, I discovered authors who value Marxist critique while rejecting progressive utopianism in favor of a conservative acceptance of human limitation (see Christopher Lasch, Paul Gottfried, for example). (Such limitations include an understanding of gender complementarity, which feminism rejects.) I found them much more convincing and moved “right” in my thinking.
“The Abolition of Man” is in a way a definition of these limitations. Incidentally these limitations can also be summed up in the term “natural law,” whose chief contemporary proponent, like it or not, is the Catholic Church.
I have to agree with you. Also 1950s americana is frightening. I believe the dissolution of genders made significant progress at that time. This is when the coorperate man came into being.
stop polluting the manosphere with your imaginary zombie ‘saviour’. there`s a place for you fanatics, and it`s called the middle ages. we`ve moved on in the meantime.
Sure you have. You moved on into atheist orthodoxies like the Soviet Union and the PRC. If only atheist wonderlands were as pleasant in real life as they are in your imagination. Maybe those folks from the Middle Ages grasped something you haven’t.
russia and the other former soviet countries are amongst the most fervent conservatively-orthodox countries, buddy. get your facts straight before posting, lest you be judged ignorant..
as for your wonderland comment, there`s a pretty strong correlation between percentage of atheits in the general populace and the country`s wellbeing. check out all of nothern europe
Having been there repeatedly during the communist era, I’ve got to say that either I REALLY didn’t get around enough, or you’re not old enough to remember the cold war era and haven’t read much on it. As you said, though ‘former.’ The Soviet era wasn’t a blip in time but a multigenerational empire.
Two points. Last time I checked something like 15% of the country are self declared atheists with another big chunk calling themselves “spiritual but not religious” so yeah, also communism and atheism are inseparable abstractions- that is to say you can be an atheist without being communist but you can not be communist without being atheist. Secondly, Northern Europe may have embraced secularism and Atheism recently, but the foundations of their economic prosperity which you reference was built during an era of widespread cultural and religious solidarity.
Atheism is a religion. A religion that says “look at me, I believe in nothing so I’m spesthial.” It’s a religion of attention whores, by attention whores, for attention whores.
My facts are straight, my man. I said the Soviet Union and atheist orthodoxies (where religion is officially discouraged or banned), not the FSU. I could’ve used Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia, the point is still the same. In those countries, might makes right, there is no God or natural law, culture and traditions were upended.
What happened to make all those northern European countries gel and rise? Were there a unifying event or events that tied together their cultures? How did all those Germanic tribes come together in the first place?
Do you honestly believe that atheism caused the rise of northern European countries? Or were those nations already great when atheism began growing in their populations?
Please, enlighten me. I must be ignorant of how atheism elevated Europe.
Atheists and progressives share a common trait, they look back down the annals of mankind and think, “Man, those dummies had it all wrong. Look how stupid they were.”
In reality, they are the blip. Man will keep on doing what man does, having a family with a man and wife and worshipping a Creator.
What a fucking idiot.
oh no, i have incurred the wrath of a woman! woe is me woe is meeeeeeeeeeee
in all honesty though, you bring no arguments to the table, just insults..and then you wonder why we consider you bitches to be totally illogical and unreasonable. barf. come back when you add to the conversation instead of providing background noise
Zombies are cool.
I’m not a Christian, but there is a lot of wisdom in the Bible, and it is very easy for people like you to condemn and mock a religion that formed the foundation of western civilization, benefiting from it. Like it or not, freedom and individualism sprung and evolved from Christianity, so be thankful people worshipped a zombie.
^ This.
“we`ve moved on in the meantime.”
That’s just a different religion, replacing a human-divine saviour with salvation by an imaginary zombie called “progress.” In reality, to be created requires a Creator, and to be saved requires a Saviour. Lewis points out that while there’s abundant evidence of the life of Jesus, there is no evidence of a Progress that improves or saves human nature.
Christianity is very Red Pill. Put aside your faith or lack thereof and actually read the Bible, and you’ll understand why the Red Pill community is full of Christians.
It’s definitely possible to be an enlightened, educated man who is not a Christian (I’m an agnostic) but it’s impossible to understand western history, philosophy and literature, without a deep dive into the Christian tradition.
Newsflash, these articles aren’t all written by the same author.
And how does C.S. Lewis’ Christianity come into it at all? Did we just invent some form of relevance a second ago?
Excellent point. There’s no reason to hijack the commentary into a discussion on religion. C.S. Lewis is far and away among the best moral philosophers of the modern era.
While I’m at it, @b1b065256aad5820827e91fd25ed63e9:disqus , what’s the point of flipping out about the author’s faith? The value of the message is more important than the faith of the author. Would you throw out the science of Genetics because it was founded by a Catholic monk? Ignore the Big Bang Theory because Georges LeMaitre was a priest?
if you care to scroll up, i was merely reacting to markus’ remark. sheesh you`re touchy..
NO, you are a troll. You need be heeded no longer.
It is one thing to make a remark intellectually on something you disagree with, it is quite another to actually be guilty of said remark in regards to your offense to a religion that save for a few zealots has done much good in the world; you got overly reactionary yourself.
This ol’seadog Hawsepiper is correct, you did make the implication that religion and communism are inseparable, and that quoting CS Lewis is merely an exercise in Christian futility in gaming.
The medieval era was one born after the fall of the Classical era, and you would be wise to understand that our great achievements could fall to a dark age as well. It was the fear sprang out of the dark ages that created the oppression of your beloved communist empire, and it was the different members off the Church that persevered through it and overcame it it’s tenets. Bringing a renaissance of sorts to a former communist country that even it’s saltiest warrior now talks about God. (Putin) Your attempts to explain belay your simplistic understanding.
I would not be surprised at all if we discover that science starts to recognize a creator, and secular governments start printing Bibles out of respect. It happened in Northern Europe, it could happen again.
People are not backwards, ideological fools for believing that everything they see is potentially created. They are if the disagree with most of the science formulated. The Bible is an essential tool in anyone’s life when it comes to morality. You will find that it’s historical value on the Middle East is invaluable in that it is so accurate. Archeologists, both atheist and Religious alike, carry a Biblical timeline for their unearthed discoveries so as to help date them.
In regards to your obvious coming counter-attack on whether I am a creationist, I am not in that sense. I sense God created everything, and let the eons go by and tweaked things as necessary. Until certain times came to pass. It makes a lot of sense, a being that exists as a temporal form that inhabits all space and time, and then some; also claims to have a member that does something similiar, and a humanoid “mouthpiece” to communicate on its behalf. Makes an eery amount of sense if you thought about it. A lightyear is the time it takes for light to travel in on 12 month period. Their are things in this universe we will never get to in our species existence. They are just too far away, and the universe maintains a speed limit of 186,000m/sec as the fastest we can ever go. Even if we use magnetic warpholes, or something else, we will never discover everything. If their is an unimaginable being, and he decides to contact us, what is it to you how he does that? Be it an email, or 66 authors over 4500 years to predict things in the future so you know Whose talking. If you actually kept an open mind, you would see why so many still believe, even if you won’t.
If I am wrong, I perish like you. If I am right, I don’t. It is neither a crutch, nor an excuse. Merely one who is knowledgeable, me, compared to an ignoramus who mistook one of the most intelligent moralists of last century, and twisted his argument from something other than what the article’s writer intended.
Shut up son.
Actually, if you care to scroll up, you were responding to TexAustin when I chimed in.
Then you mis-read my comment and I took the time to explain my point you.
This entire site is a monument to knucklewalkers.
Check your privilege, abelist.
I feel that a lot of writers for this site and the men who frequent it are on the right track but it is certainly apparent that they too have the self-absorbed self-serving mentality that they accuse feminists of having. Look at the most patriarchal societies, societies that have been unfazed and unmoved by feminism. They all advocate that women be treated in a “respectful” manner and not be used as sexual objects or defiled. They do not encourage men to manipulate women for sexual favors or judge women only on their physical appearance. They do not condone men “trading in” their older wives/girlfriends for younger women, and they value women for their nurturing and mothering qualities above all. They have very high expectations for what a man is and require that men are the protectors and providers of their families. They certainly to do condone prostitution or short love affairs that often result in the spread of STDs and unwanted bastard children. Now patriarchy has nothing to do with Christianity or other faiths it just so happens that patriarchal societies function the most efficiently. I’ve noticed that the men on sites like these who are against feminism are often times anti-marriage, anti-family, and pro casual sex and promiscuity. Ironically enough feminists hold similar values and as a movement has done little to encourage family life. In short “PUA’s” or whatever you would call these men are no better then the feminists in that they are also societies “conditioners” these men want women to be sexually available but do not want to be responsible for their children or a productive member of societies. Most brag about having unsteady jobs, a long list of casual affairs, and no children seems like PUA’s and feminists should be best friends.
I feel that a lot of writers for this site and the men who frequent it are on the right track but it is certainly apparent that they too have the self-absorbed self-serving mentality that they accuse feminists of having. Look at the most patriarchal societies, societies that have been unfazed and unmoved by feminism. They all advocate that women be treated in a “respectful” manner and not be used as sexual objects or defiled. They do not encourage men to manipulate women for sexual favors or judge women only on their physical appearance. They do not condone men “trading in” their older wives/girlfriends for younger women, and they value women for their nurturing and mothering qualities above all. They have very high expectations for what a man is and require that men are the protectors and providers of their families. They certainly to do condone prostitution or short love affairs that often result in the spread of STDs and unwanted bastard children. Now patriarchy has nothing to do with Christianity or other faiths it just so happens that patriarchal societies function the most efficiently. I’ve noticed that the men on sites like these who are against feminism are often times anti-marriage, anti-family, and pro casual sex and promiscuity. Ironically enough feminists hold similar values and as a movement has done little to encourage family life. In short “PUA’s” or whatever you would call these men are no better then the feminists in that they are also societies “conditioners” these men want women to be sexually available but do not want to be responsible for their children or a productive member of societies. Most brag about having unsteady jobs, a long list of casual affairs, and no children seems like PUA’s and feminists should be best friends.
Total disrespect to the author, but he is a complete prat.
Obviously doesn’t know many feminists. Or just is selective.
And if you think there is equality between the sexes and between the genders, you are living in your own fairy land.
Ahh, so you’re on troll duties today.
You start off with an insult and then a series of assertions presented as facts. You must do much better than that if you wish to be taken with even a slightest bit of seriousness.
“Feminists will argue that feminism merely requests that women be equal to men under the law and in perceived worth and dignity; but equality under the law already exists…”
Couple of issues with this:
1) Equality under the law (right to own property, work, vote, serve in the military, etc.) would not have existed were it not for feminism. One may argue that feminism is no longer relevant, but to imply that 1960’s feminists were merely fighting to preserve the status quo is patently untrue.
2) An extremely common gripe in the manosphere is that there ISN’T equality under the law, e.g. unfair treatment of men in the divorce / custody / judicial processes.If you are willing to grant that genders are treated differently under the law, it is most unreasonable to claim that there is no instance in which this inequality harms women. You can’t have it both ways.
3) Feminists are not a homogeneous group. Some, certainly, are power hungry hypocrites (and the extremity of their views makes them all the more visible through outlets like Jezebel), but others genuinely do only wish for equal legal representation and dignity. A little more selectivity would have done the author good.
Further, this article never satisfactorily overcame Hume’s Guillotine – there was never sufficient justification of the premise that a traditional body of values and wisdom exists, therefore it is worthy, infallible, and applicable to all humanity with objective net benefit. Lewis argues “is, therefore ought”, which is simply not sufficient.
I tend to support traditional values and gender roles, but justifying them with ill-reasoned arguments and logical inconsistencies does this site a disservice. Support conservative opinions with science and utilitarianism and fair analysis, not C-grade philosophy.
Very nice article and well written.
As the saying goes, “There is nothing new under the sun.” We need only look to history to see the observations of those that have gone before us and witnessed the effects of our social afflictions.
That’s not just a saying, its from Ecclesiastes. If you’ve never read it, I encourage you to please do so. Its very short and the author demonstrates true, hard-fought wisdom. He has excellent insight into human nature and the way of the world. He asks all the classic questions… why are we here, what is the point, why bother?
Yes, I am aware that this is an excerpt from Ecclesiastes but as I was not citing the entire passage of Scripture I went with the abbreviated saying.
Solomon, the author, was indeed gifted with wisdom and insight.
I hope that I didn’t come across as being condescending, I just got excited and gushed a bit. That book really spoke to me and gave me perspective when I was a moody, mopey, woe-is-me adolescent.
All good brother.
Is there any other kind?
Many scholars in the past objected to Ecclesiastes being included in the Bible since it only mentions God in the last verse and many believe that was added later to the text because a book of the Bible should mention SOMETHING about God, shouldn’t it (they have the same problem with Ester)? However, as one who believes the Bible speaks the Truth about Man and the human condition I find Ecclesiastes a powerful book on its own, even without the last verses.
One fatal flaw in Lewis’ work: he failed to recognise that the Tao is an ever evolving thing, and claiming it at one set moment in time as being the ultimate delimiter is contrary to nature.
For example, why not say, since we’re so ‘up’ on human nature, that we pin the Tao as it was back in primitive man times, when killing someone who looked at you was acceptable because they might have been a threat; when ownership and safety belonged only to who was physically string enough to keep it; when breeding was animalistic, seeking out as many genetically superior males as possible to ensure a fruitful conception and eschuing any semblence of monogamy.
Unless Lewis promotes returning to that, then he is already “picking and choosing” what he wants from the Tao, exactly what he denounces. That, or is admitting to a certain transiency of the principles in their ability to line up to current eras, which allows for the Tao to accept feminism in its true sense: placing the principle of equality over predefined gender roles rather than the inverse.
If you’ve actually read _The Abolition of Man_ you’ll recall that Lewis actually addresses this very issue.
Trimegistus is correct — he doesn’t “fail to recognize” this, he in fact addresses it explicitly, acknowledging that “the Tao admits development from within,” but distinguishing between “organic” and “surgical” modifications to it.
You’re free to disagree with his conclusions on this matter, but yes, you’ll actually have to read the book first.
Apologies, I was posting under the assumption that the article’s author had read the text. Given it is he, not Lewis, who believes that the Tao indeed can be changed only when it suits him, I should change each instance of “Lewis” to “the author’s interpretation of Lewis”.
>> but equality under the law already exists, and equal worth and dignity is certainly a first principle, a branch in the Tao, if there ever was one<<
I really don’t see how.I’ve never found a convincing argument of why Equality is actually a good thing,nor have I come across a true example where this is actually applicable.An advance thanks to any Marxists or Egalitarians who would care to educate me about your ideology’s most revered (though absurd and harmful) creed.
when the worm turns against the feminists and the egalitarians — there will be the matter of vengeance
Great book, great synopsis
San Francisco is a great example of the feminization of men (even straight men) and the masculinization of women. See: http://reclaimingfemininity.blogspot.com/2013/10/lesson-14-why-san-francisco-dating.html
“Nature is merely the tool by which man makes those claims of power and any power gained by any man is only power gained over other men, and not over nature.”
Bravo! (Applause).
Nature is God. Live by its rules interact with it and find your way back to the garden of Eden with the naked healthy girls and the free food and the wild weed.
I say you bounce right here and you bounce over there spongi reggae. Awesome Jamaican music.
Peace to everyone except the feminists, the corporations, the organized religions with political power, the govt. bureaucrats and the fast food/processed food mafia.
Good article. I think the manosphere really benefits from well thought out, researched ideas like this, rather than just rants about feminism.