Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Also Bankrupt - Thoughts On Masculinity In The Wake of the Elliot Rodger Affair

A couple of years back, I suggested that those women who felt the need to trade upon their sexuality as a means to garner commitment from men were bankrupt. For wont of the traits of virtue, fidelity, and / or chastity, they fell back on the only currency they had, given to them by Lady Luck at the time of their conception, a currency with very low value and suffering from market glut.

Branching from that post, and thinking about Mr. Elliot Rodger, the gamma male Santa Barbara serial stabber/shooter, perhaps he is an exponent of this phenomenon as applied to men. Like those women in London over New Years Eve two years ago, he found he had very little to offer his female counterparts in the old qualities of dependability, responsibility, integrity, strength, and protective covering--these traits having been widely declared as immaterial by the majority of women--thus, with displays of resources and status failing to secure the sex that he so coveted, he too measured himself and found himself wanting:
Like most of us, he wanted something more. He wanted something good. A car, games, medicine didn't help him. In a culture that doesn't value men as protectors and fathers, all there really was to hope for was sex; this was his only idea of any semblance of pursuing happiness. "This makes perfect sense, because deep in even the most deluded and anesthetized heart, we cannot fail to know that sex is meant to connect us to an Other," says Ed Mechmann, director of the Safe Environment Office at the Archdiocese of New York. When he couldn't get what he wanted, there was an "existential anger" about him, "not just against his situation but even against who and what he is," Mechmann comments. "And so he tried to destroy all that reminded him of the hurt he couldn't get rid of or make sense of." [bolded emphasis mine].
While I bolded that clause above to highlight just how upside-down our culture has become, the title of the article from which this quote was drawn actually says it all for me..."toxic loserdom". The epithet "loser" being defined these days as (1) a man without value as protector and father--those qualities being next to worthless in the modern SMP and practically so in the MMP--and (2) as a man without dominance or status (or unable to emulate it sufficiently), well, it appears that Mr. Rodger was a "loser" under both the Old Rules (i.e., the dreaded Patriarchy™) and the New (our present gynarchy).

Perhaps Mr. Rodger's folly--indeed the folly of a great many men--was to define masculinity in terms of the feminine and his sense of self in terms of Others. Under his own version of the apex fallacy, he saw other men "succeed", hated both them and himself for their success, and salved his bruised ego in the echo chamber of PUAHate. Moreover, he pedestalized women, particularly blonde Caucasian ones (which he, again, considered the apex of female beauty), yet deeply resented their rejection of his too-subtle-to-detect offers of provision and protection and attempts at displaying higher value and dominance and status.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rodger's masculinity was defined in terms of what the apex women around him wanted and the behaviors to which they responded, a poor reference upon which to base one's identity. He found himself caught between the rock of the liberated unrestrained feminine and the hard place of Victorian chivalry.

This, then, appears to be the mission field for the brotherhood of men and the manosphere. To come alongside younger men (or better yet, educate them as boys) and coach them to live out their God-given masculinity without reference to what the feminine, corrupted by feminism or not, thinks. If She wants to come alongside and audition for the part of co-captain of the journey through life, She can. Otherwise, he is self-contained, secure in his sense of self, his relationship to his Creator, and with a masculinity defined by his Creator's timeless wisdom.  In other words, truly going his own way.  The alternative for men in this context is the same nothingness that Mr. Rodger felt...a chasing after sex, with nothing beyond that and nothing to show for it.  Instead, Mr. Rodger would have done better to pursue that for which men were created to protect, to sire, to lead--to love a woman and be loved by her. But above all, live the life his Creator has laid out before him.


AAB said...

'This, then, appears to be the mission field for the brotherhood of men and the manosphere. To come alongside younger men (or better yet, educate them as boys) and coach them to live out their God-given masculinity without reference to what the feminine, corrupted by feminism or not, thinks.'

This would be a good 'mission statement' for the androsphere/manosphere to adopt. Something positive & helpful to other men, rather than negative & critical.

Bob Wallace said...

I had a Filipina tell me that over there he would have been considered pretty good-looking and been popular since he was a half-breed. Too bad his parents didn't send him over there.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ AAB,

Thanks. It was difficult to write this post and those lines you quoted and not sound like I'm beating the proselytizing drum too hard. Yet I am convinced that the malaise affecting men and women these days is directly due to not grounding their identities in sound Biblical (or Talmudic or Koranic) principles.

Not that I am in any way Universalist when I mention Judaism or Islam, but rather that any fixed point is superior to what secular men these days have to use as a point of reference, i.e., themselves.

Elusive Wapiti said...


What I've observed in my travels around this world is, in general, the lighter your skin, the more powerful/attractive you are.

Added to that is the interesting phenomenon in Asia of the more White one looks, the more desirable one is thought to be. All those Chinese and Japanese women having surgery to remove/soften their epicanthic folds can't be for no reason.

Again, just my observation. YMMV. So, yes, had Mr. Rodger relocated to China, he may have found the SMP terrain tilted a bit more in his favor.

ray said...

By far the best analysis of Rodgers' etiology and requisite solutions. Well done EW. I'll check in later w/more.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Thanks Ray.

ray said...

"This, then, appears to be the mission field for the brotherhood of men and the manosphere. To come alongside younger men (or better yet, educate them as boys) and coach them to live out their God-given masculinity without reference to what the feminine, corrupted by feminism or not, thinks."

That's the mission alright, educate and defend them, and nobody else is gonna do it either, as usual.

It's easy to make Eliots out of the shards of american masculinity. Cookie cutters. They are intentional and inevitable.

Getting them from a feminist, fatherless, materialist, sex-saturated culture into the manhood that God conserved in them is challenging. It usually takes:

1) a good dad

2) a male-affirming society

3) time

We have little of 1 and 3, and none of 2. Strong Christian and Hebrew men must, as you write, step in and provide this covering to boys and young men -- especially experienced fathers-of-boys, like yrself. That includes making young men aware of the fallen nature of females, and of the disaster of pedestalization and Romanticism that suffuses U.S. churches.

It also includes debunking the notion that young men are 'owed sex' or that, at 20 years of age, they should be (or commonly are) of great interest to females. They aren't, because they aren't accomplished and confident (i.e. fully men) at age 20. Not in the modern west they aint. So giving them wildly false expectations about their ability to attact -- much less bed -- females in their teens or early twenties is setting them (and yourselves) up for. . . more late swat teams.

Eliot was both a soldier and a casualty of his nation's internal wars. And he was a product and signet of the nation, culpable along with his covetousness and selfishness. But Eliot apparently also investigated PUA/Game, and inevitably failed to Bang Hot Babes! as advertised.

Giving insecure, sex-starved, unaccomplished, naive young men the idea that cool jargon and Double Dread Game will get them laid is flying w/o a tail rotor. It's bad enough that the American advertisement industry stuffs their brains with sex and acquisitiveness. Eliot needed experienced male guidance, and patience, to grow into his manhood. . . Scriptural grounding and progress, public tasks he could gradually accomplish, and another eight or ten years under his belt is what he needed... not unfulfillable promises of endless Poolside Poon that only ratchet-up his frustration and insecurities.

EW it's up to you and a few others to give the other Eliots out there -- and be sure they ARE out there -- a place, if only in cyberspace, where they can find some fellowship in confronting the often painful and personally-deflating truths about these matters.

We're not gonna Fix the World. Your manosphere and movement is only a temporary (but desperately needed) bandaid until the King comes. Your sons will see Him enthroned. Not bad for a workin' man eh?

Justin said...

EW, you have nailed it on the head, although you didn't say the exact words: GAME IS THE ENEMY. You've come a long way through the years, good for you.

Elusive Wapiti said...

I appreciate Game from a sex/gender realism standpoint. But as an operative philosophy? Bankrupt.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"It also includes debunking the notion that young men are 'owed sex'..."

Does this notion really exist?

I've seen this claim a lot from the feminist fever-swamp after the Rodger stab-n-shootfest, but in no other venues.

I personally don't see it, but then again I'm two decades removed from college and may just be projecting my mores on the current cohort of young men.

Do young men have a more transactional view of relationships nowadays than in times past? I.e., "I paid for your meal/movie, ergo you owe me something"? Is this due to "eqwalitee", the mirror image of women's feeling of entitlement to being wined and dined?

Maybe I'm just out of touch.

ray said...

No, I don't think you're out of touch. I agree that most young men don't believe they are 'owed sex'.

But obviously this 'notion' exists, and it's not simply a fem-figment. My comment was contexted with the elliot rodgers attitude, which certainly WAS that he was owed sex. Not necessarily transactionally, but that was his general assumption.

I also think he read and possibly practiced some Game/PUA, and its failure as panacea and substitute for manhood was material, tho not primary, in driving his sense of failure and rage over the obsession of Not Getting Laid.

I didn't mean to imply an attitude of owed-sex was widespread amongst young men in the U.S. Thanks for helping me clarify.