Thursday, January 10, 2019

Now the Psychologists Come Out Against Traditional Masculinity

When viewing the actions of the left, the charitable thing to do is to echo Christ, and say: "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." The less charitable thing is to tell the truth, that the left is a sink of cruelty and injustice, and that every word uttered by a lefty is a lie, including "and" and "the."

So  now the American Psychological Association has come out and declared traditional masculinity to be harmful -- to men, as reported by US News.
Traditional masculinity ideology – which the APA says includes elements of "anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence" – can be psychologically harmful to men and boys, the association noted in its 36-page "APA Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men" that's highlighted in the latest issue of its Monitor on Psychology magazine.
Well, yes. If you are a lefty, and believe in the left's reactionary secular faith, and think that middle-class mores of resilience and responsibility are sick and wrong, and believe that the exploration of sexuality in a creative manner is the right and true and only way to live -- provided you are not a certified victim of the patriarchy -- then of course you would think that traditional masculinity "can be" harmful to boys and men.

On the other hand if you believe like me that a fruitful way of understanding modern humans is with my reductive Three Peoples theory then you might have a more nuanced view of masculinity.

You might think that, for boys and men in the ghetto, who are People of the Subordinate Self, the notion of masculinity -- as not takin' no dissin' from The Man "can be psychologically harmful," not to say physically harmful. Because the way the world works in the city is that you do not reduce it to gang warfare, but go forth to find out if you can be useful in the economy of the city, and you offer your services on the labor market of that city. An excessive attachment to "risk, and violence" might make that adaptation very difficult.

On the other hand, like Jordan Peterson, you might think that, for middle-class twentysomething men hiding in their parents' basement, a little courage and risk-taking might be a good thing. When BCC North London luvvie Stephen Sackur talks to Jordan Peterson on BBC HARDTalk he wants to link Peterson's responsibility mantra to alt-right anger. Says Sackur:
Anger is a powerful force in politics, and there is a lot of it about. Donald Trump, Brexit, and a host of populist movements have been fueled with anger by the way things are.
No kidding, Stevie! I remember when the left celebrated the anger of the workers, of the  feminists, of the civil rights marchers, of  the Stonewall rioters. But that was then. This is now.

Hey, Stevie, why do you think that Peterson has struck such a chord (especially with men)? Peterson:
Because I'm having a serious conversation with my viewers and listeners and readers about how to structure their lives individually and the relationship between responsibility and meaning. And it's a level of discourse, or, I would say, of analysis, that people don't often have an opportunity to participate in.
But is it reaching out to men who are angry, replies Stephen Sacker?

Well, no, not exactly. It is giving men who belong to the People of the Responsible Self what they are looking for, a program for them to get out of their parents' basement and become strong and responsible men. Not toxic masculine men, but men programmed and ready to be responsible workers, husbands, and fathers.

You can see the problem, for North London luvvies and lefties on all the ships at sea. Their whole world view is built upon the notion that the responsible middle class is is fact a vast conspiracy to visit injustice on women, minorities, and the victims of all patriarchs and white supremacists. That was what Marxism was about. It appointed itself to the holy task of stopping the bourgeoisie in the act of descending like the angel of vengeance on the poor helpless workers who were toiling away for peanuts in the dark satanic mills and reducing them to "immiseration."

Therefore there must be something wrong with all the culture around the middle-class cult of responsibility: something toxic, something patriarchal, something supremacist. Eeuww!

Only, of course, the workers had migrated from the farm to the mills in the city because they were starving on the farm, and hoped at least to earn enough for bread in the city. And they did earn bread in the city, and much more, because the bourgeois system, of markets and wage labor, by its internal logic, poured a benison of prosperity upon the workers that were formerly starving on the farm.

In fact, of course, my reductive Three Peoples theory -- which is certainly not as reductive as every word out of a lefty's mouth, including "and" and "the" -- also has something to say about the ideology and anger and hate of the average North London media luvvie and the anger and hate in all the lefties in all the ships at sea. These lefties are People of the Creative Self, and their god is the creative self. That is why Nietzsche said that God is Dead. He meant that the old god of responsibility and divine justice was dead because chaps like him -- and well-born scions in Europe everywhere -- no longer believed in responsibility and divine justice as the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. What they believed in, instead, was to be the creator God Himself, creating art, literature, and above all, justice.

Yes, there are a ton of people out there that believe that the most creative thing in the world is to use political power to create a perfect state with perfect equality and perfect justice, ruled over by them and their cronies. Their record thus far is 100 million dead. Way to go, lefties!

As I said, everything lefties say and believe is a lie, including "and" and "the."

Now, it happens that I believe, in part, in the ukase of the American Psychological Association. I agree that if you are a would-be creative then the traditional masculine culture of "anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence" is not for you. You are not planning to be a warrior, willing to risk your life defending the borders of your patch of land against the village next door, or even a soldier in a national army defending the borders of the nation state from foreign marauders. So it doesn't make any sense for a would-be creative to train in the martial arts, to work hard at attaining a reputation for courage, to be adventurous, and make people fear your terrible swift sword. OK, bully for you, creatives. Although you might want to look into Nietzsche, who said that to become an √úbermensch, a superior man, you had to be hard. I think he means that the path of a creative artist is not for the faint of heart, in particular because in the creative arts many are called but few are chosen.

But not all people in the world are People of the Creative Self. The qualities that a creative person must develop are not the qualities that People of the Responsible Self and People of the Subordinate Self must develop. And it is cruel and ignorant to marginalize the qualities that these other people must develop if they are to understand the "relationship between responsibility and meaning" in their lives, and so on.

The great contribution that lefties made to the world was to say to the bourgeoisie, back in the 19th century: you chaps should not create a society just to suit yourselves, the responsible middle class. what about the workers? They want and need protective social structures, things like labor unions and wage and hour laws, that may mean nothing to you bourgeois chaps, but are very important to them.

Good point lefties. Now, a word. Have you not noticed that the dreaded bourgeoisie has acceded to the demands of the workers, and permitted a huge welfare state go grow up, even though it is not in the interest and the culture of the middle class, and even though the middle class has to bear most of the cost of the welfare state, which does nothing for them except make it more difficult to afford a house, to start a business, and to provide for the future? You haven't noticed? Dear me, where have you been, leftie?

Now I say this. You lefties and luvvies and creative bigots have basically said: we are going to build a  society that is suitable and comfortable for us, the People of the Creative Self, and you racist sexist homophobic bigots of the People of the Responsible Self can go pound sand.

Do you not see, lefties, and luvvies and creative bigots, that this is cruel and unjust? Because it says that there is no room in the world except for people like you? Is not this the argument you made against the middle class 150 years ago, that the middle class was making a world to suit itself without a thought for the poor helpless working class?

Until you lefties and luvvies and creative bigots start to get a glimmer of this, you are going to find, in the words of leftie luvvie Stephen Sackur, that there is going  to be a lot of anger comin' on. And unless you lefties and luvvies and creative bigots allow a space for other kinds of people, the notorious "other" of which we've heard tell, then the anger is going to grow and grow.

Because most people aspire no higher than a modest life of responsibility and work and family and children and grandchildren. They don't want to get all creative about sex, or about morality,  or about art, or about anything in particular. And they deserve a place at the table too, one little place alongside all the magnificent gilded thrones reserved for activists and artists and politicians, and writers and intellectuals and all the rest of the People of the Creative Self.

I say that this is the defining issue of our age: that the People of the Creative Self learn tolerance for people who are not like them. Or else.

No comments:

Post a Comment