History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

A men’s rights movement?

August 17th, 2014 · No Comments

A Look Inside The Infamous Men’s Rights Movement
The MRM may be known today for its radical, anti-feminist rhetoric, but it certainly didn’t start out that way.
This article speaks for itself but raises too many issues to be quite coherent. If there is such a thing as a feminist movement there is no reason there can’t be a men’s movement: but we see the original idea spawned in symmetry deviating into confusion.

The larger question is why the Axial Age spawned a ‘men’s movement’ and, next to that, will the women’s movement end in a similar domination? To the latter I suspect the answer is no, to the former, we have no answer save to see the first archaelogical glimpses of pre-patriarchal cultures and wait for the added data needed to understand what’s going on.

One issue that spells trouble for the women’s movement is wicca, a real charmer on the surface. But if women start using witchcraft on men on a large scale the reaction will be delayed, but violent, and the cycle could reverse itself once again. It is not OK to use witchcraft from either side. But the realm of empowerment is going to finesse this in the name of Crowley’s idiot new age of the ‘will’. Since men are far worse here I would say that is mostly tit for tat, but in the end we will miss the Christian type of religious world that enforced ‘withcraft’ disarmament, male and female. If you use witchcraft on violent men they will fight back, and kill the wrong women.
It is worth noting that a major Axial religion, started by Buddha, refused admittance to women.Many, including realized sages, protested this, and Buddha backed down, sort of. Buddha blantantly predicted, as he changed course, that his movement would be shortlived if he admitted women. I would suspect he was wrong: the sangha has endured to its limits, the cycle of a new age.
But it is worth noting that the current buddhist scene, with women falling all over themselves in a repressed hunger to be in a spiritual movement of the buddhist type, have already changed the formula, one that Gautama didn’t foresee. The game has changed, no problem there, as the formula spins to create a new religion. Osho/Rajneesh clearly saw the situation with another buddha’s insight, and he has created one of the first true sanghas for men and women.

I think this is related to the issue raised above about the menace of reciprocal withcraft. Male domination, desperate on the social level of violent control of females, is matched with the elusive domination of women, which infuriates men and makes them violent.
It is interesting to see the play of BDSM in the cycle of fashions. The connection of withcraft is unclear on the surface but it is obvious that there is some connection. But on a massive social scale? I had never heard of the term ‘femdom’ (Google that) until four years ago, and was amazed to see the way sexual mores have changed, or become more public and open.
It is obvious suddenly what Buddha was worried about: study the femdom phenomenon (symmetrical to be sure: male/female, with mathematical precision the mirror image is emerging in ‘shades of grey’ nonsense) and you will see a harmless form of sex game turned into a predatory tactic of (hopefully pretended, at first) what it was in the first place: a ritual sadism by an aristocrat in the French Revolution, with Masoch not far behind, and whipping brothels emerging a distinctive modern ‘innovation’. The problem here is ‘slave’ metaphor induced by sexual contexts. Ay, there’s the rub. Sexual domination could be a form of humor, but mixed with the ‘slave’ metaphor it is dangerous, because in the end it is not a metaphor.
And we should distinguish the forms of ‘personal character’ which are hard to change and yet somehow less dangerous, from the forms of mass hypnosis used to create a phenomenon of social domination, a phenomenon whose hidden side we never see. So, strangely, the ‘masochist’ as a character in a social creature of curiouser properties, and a kind of humor of types, while the hypnotized masochist is a dumbbell on the way to being an fascist. Not very funny, in the progression from sex slave to robotic killer. But the clear signature of a macro effect in the explosion of the unconscious into public form in the wake of the French Revolution cap on the early modern shows that there is a hopefully benign longterm action at work exposing the repressed unconscious of the Axial Age next to the perennial connection to social domination in the BDSM nexus.

Clearly Gautama didn’t want to have to deal with a sangha of men in a ‘slave mentality’ voluntarily embraced, under the spell of the ‘goddess’, or some ancient variant of that. One might consider the work of Anirvan, To Live Within, who brings out the connection of disciplehood, the goddess, prakriti and purusha, the connection to the path as male empowerment via a goddess factor (all nonsense in my view) and you can see how easily an ancient sadhana of great subtlety is reflected in the sewer of modern sex idiocy.

So, are men who ‘surrender’ to the sexual ritual of being a ‘slave’ dead ducks for buddhism? I doubt it and many sages I think challenge Gautama’s stance here. You can ‘always’ repent, for crying out loud. Most of this sexual stuff is apparent nonsense. But clearly ancient monastic traditions in their struggles went to extremes to disagree with moderns. I fear the pendulum will swing the other way: men are getting wiped out by the sexual revolution.

The enigma of BDSM as mass hypnosis is still a mystery to be understood, but its sudden emergence at the dawn of modernity as a far more explicitly conscious set of issues and activities where before it was locked in the unconscious, shows we are on a rollercoaster ride on the level of culture that will test the issues by experiment. One irony is that tantra is rapidly becoming superfluous, an irrelevance.
I can’t resolve this enigma, once I see that it is operating on a marcohistorical cycle: what’s going on? In fact, the concept of prakriti comes close perhaps to suggesting this higher level, beyond the merely psychological. But isn’t all this a patriarchal distortion? The terms of the words as feminine and masculine nouns, prakriti and purusha are a built in bias, no?

The wheel spins here, and the fate of the modern experiment(s) remains unclear. The world of Gautama is gone, but the wheel could turn back at the end of the current era.

There can be a men’s movement, and the traditional monastery was one form! One for our times, well, check back for more info, in the reversal of fortune men will ‘fifty shades of grey’ the dratted feminists and restore the veil to further their meditative concentration. Le plus ca change, etc…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment