Another couple interesting elements in the emergent Men's Interests world are the Bio-Cons and HBD aka 'Human BioDiversity'.
If I understand the Men's Interests argument of the former (the Bio-Cons), it is that there was something biological or 'natural' about the old social constructs - they gave 'beta males' - that is, the average dudes out there (and that means all of us at one point or other, in my opinion) - a way to succeed. One woman was bound to one man, and needed that man to make her routine work.
Overturning the basic social framework with easy divorce, sex-without-responsibilities, abortion on demand, government supports for single motherhood, and governmental divorce structures that leave men destroyed and women empowered disrupts our society. Suddenly the nuclear family is less common, and men are avoiding marriage as women are running for their marriage exit and alimony/support check.
OK, all of that is from my/a Men's Rights worldview, but try this definition on for size: (Source)
Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word combining "biology" and "conservatism"), is a stance of hesitancy about biotechnological development especially if it is perceived to threaten a social order.
Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to the genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification of human beings in particular. Whether arising from a conventionally right-leaning politics of religious and cultural conservatism or from a conventionally left-leaning politics of environmentalism, bioconservative positions oppose medical and other technological interventions into what are broadly perceived as current human and cultural limits in the name of a defense of "the natural" deployed as a moral category.
Bioconservative skepticism toward biomedical and other particular technological developments often is, but need not always be, part of a more general technophobic perspective or critique of technological society. Bioluddism represents a more radical and sweeping anti-biotechnological perspective.
So whichever of those you go with, or some cross-pollination of the two, fine. And see here and here for more on Bio-Conservatism.
But what worries and scares me is the HBD movement - Human BioDiversity - which is linked with Bio-Conservatism and which claims that the major differences between folks are not so much individual differences, but racial or genetic differences between major groups and genders.
And even if that was true, the formation of a movement around this idea worries me.
Because I think that HBD may often be a cover-word for racism - in fact, when you drill down on the bloggers involved, like Steve Sailer and Chris Brand you start seeing that they are participants in VDare, and the BNP and the like. (For more reading see here, and this post, (hm, <- this blogger also reads Roissy - and studies game))
Now I love my race like I love my gender, but even if we have good evidence that different races and genders are practically different, I don't want them treated differently by our country, and I worry that this is where focusing on this will get us.
Our founding fathers here in the states insisted that every citizen be treated equally, and that is because that is the only practical way to govern a democracy, and the only way to recognize and honor the spirit placed in us by our creator. It is also a capitalistic and legal principle that allows the truly talented to actually benefit from the work of their hands.
I want to fight for elimination of bias of all sorts - favoritism by gender, race, faith - our government should have no part of bias, and a revolution that enshrines our differences and tips the tables in favor of those who are seen as 'better' would create a new slavery, a new oppressed class, and set the stage for yet more revolution, chaos and bloodshed.
Anyway, I'm worried. I'm worried because our country, and our world is in a period of stress, and some of these new social movements that are popping up and being linked to the Men's movement on the web concern me.
I think men need to stay focused on fighting for their personal and group rights - if that means going ghost, fine - if that means going Galt, great (interesting how alike they can be) - if that means working together to break the logjam of of abusive anti-male government legislation - wonderful.
But let's not get distracted by the evil-ly tempting specter of racism and bias, and those who would look to slide them into our movement.
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Agreed: the "men's movement" needs to stay ON MESSAGE. And that message needs to be confined to a rather narrow political focus area.
Prime Directive: No Extra Baggage.
That includes not only the Johnny-come-lately trends you have mentioned in this post, but more importantly, most of the old familiar PC items which the political Left has linked together into a kind of moral-ideological phalanx of enforced orthodoxy.
You know: racism, multiculturalism, homophobia, transexualism. . . etc, etc, etc. And even abortion, for that matter.
As an "MRA" of whatever sort, one is wise not to be drawn into a conversational quagmire about those subjects. EVER. For practical purposes, one is entitled to have no opinion at all regarding such matters - or at any rate, no publicly expressed opinion! ;)
And if somebody tries to draw you, or trick you, into having a conversation on those subjects, you should jerk them back onto the correct walkway like a dog on a leash.
Post a Comment