What Vote Male Means
By Rod Van Mechelen
We don't hate women. We don't blame women. But we do need to restore the balance.
Fostering unfettered masculine virtue
1996 Bellevue, Wash. - Whether due to evolution, socialization, the will of a Deity, bad food, PMS, testosterone poisoning, the innate goodness of women, the inborn badness of men, rock music, an oppressive patriarchy, a subversive matriarchy, stale kitty litter or bad breath in dogs, the male and female psyches tend to be different.
Yes, this is true.
Men tend to be interested in what new hills and valleys lie just over the geographic horizon, women, in what peaks and depressions lie just over the emotional horizon. Men tend to explore outward, women, inward. Men build nests, women feather them. Men fly, women anchor. A dynamic tension exists between them. If men are the dynamos, constantly straining outward, women are the transformers, harnessing men's restless energy to hearth and home.
Generally speaking, of course.
Transformers & Dynamos
Speaking generally, when dynamos donít drive, or transformers donít transform, civilizations explode into chaos or collapse into apathy. Or both. Such is the nature of life.
Life is the static point between chaos and control. The delicate balance between frenzy and surcease, yin and yang, the essence of masculine and feminine.
Women are like the candle wax that keeps the wick from burning too quickly; men, the wick without which there would be no light. Too much wax, the flame dies; too much fire, the candle is consumed. The dance of gender founds, forms, protects and sustains everything from scrubbing bubbles to mechanical conveyances with too-big tires and loud engines that spout flame and go "vroom-vroom."
Societies that acknowledge and cater to, but do not necessarily enforce, this reality, thrive. Those that do not...well, take a look at our own. The working class has become the working poor, members of the middle class frantically struggle to avoid joining them, the number of single parent households is skyrocketing as men are marginalized, fathers are forced out of their childrenís lives and poverty is "feminized" (men who are homeless, imprisoned or dead donít count), and meanwhile the richest families grow immensely richer. Why? Where has our "patriarchy" gone wrong?
Has our patriarchy gone wrong?
In the July 1996 Atlantic Monthly, Steven Stark notes that throughout this century American policies and programs have grown increasingly "maternal":
The result was that unlike most European states, America had a welfare state constructed not around the "paternal" notion of work (workers' pensions and the like) but around "maternal" programs defending mothers and families, deemed weaker and needing protection.
Protecting mothers, families and the weakest members of society is a fine thing; we ought to take care of our own. But how much is enough? At what point do we cross the line between the reasonable and absurd, between providing a safety net and encouraging sloth? How far can we go to provide protection before we exhaust the protectors?
I believe we have crossed that line. Pop feminist transformers have handicapped the masculine dynamos to the point of collapse. Moreover, even as they impose limits on our ability to produce, they demand that we produce more, guaranteeing a backlash.
Should we return to patriarchy? No. Lack of patriarchy is not the problem. But a society that maligns men and diminishes dads is.
Restore the balance
The need is to restore the balance between the dynamic nature of men and the transformational nature of women. For men, that means the same thing it has always meant: encourage men to, in appropriate measure, explore, learn, create, invent, build, compete, be acquisitive, inquisitive, gregarious, productive, and above all, protective of women and children.
Shere Hite would call that "paternalistic" and "oppressive." See where her narcissism has gotten us.
It means respecting every individual's right to choose who and how they want to be, while also nurturing a sense of responsibility to family and community.
Susan Faludi says women should not be expected to live for anyone but themselves and their own pleasure. See where her hedonism has gotten us.
If some hedonistic kooks or narcissistic whackos want to waste their life away, we should respect their right to do so; however, we have no responsibility to support them. As in the children's tale of the Grasshopper and the Ant, let the Grasshopper wile away the warm summer days while the Ant toils; when the winter comes, let them both enjoy or suffer the consequences of their own actions. If the Grasshopper comes begging, he lives by the generosity of the Ant. The Ant has no responsibility to support the irresponsible Grasshopper, but he does have the right to keep and enjoy what he produced in the summer, and anyone who takes it away from him and gives it to the Grasshopper is no Robin Hood, but a robbing hoodlum. A thug who panders to the profligate.
This is where we find ourselves today, with the pop feminist hoodlums promoting female profligacy. That must stop, and it will stop all by itself when our economy collapses. To avoid that, we need to restore the balance. That means voting male.
MGTOW v. the Muslim Invasion
2016 Olympia, Wash. - MGTOW commentators have opened my eyes. While I have been living MGTOW for many years, I was still stuck in the MRA rut of thinking we could vote our way out of this hypergamous mess. I no longer harbor such illusions.
Nonetheless, the United States, and indeed the West, confront a threat that goes far beyond feminism, hypergamy and gynocentrism.
I'm talking about the Muslim invasion.
Several other commentators have delineated the threat far better than I could, notably Black Pigeon Speaks and Paul Joseph Watson.
Advocates of totalitarian government in all its flavors are striving to throw the doors open to an Islamic takeover before we can close them.
Ironically, feminists from all three of the current waves are supporting this. It's like they're standing atop the ramparts breasts bared as they call out, "western men are castrated wimps, come bend us over and take us hard, you seventh century manly men!"
Candidly, I'm tempted to say we should all just flee to South America and let the so-called refugees forcibly convert the feminist fools to Islam, but if we do, they'll just come after us.
There is no safe place to hide. No santuary where we can safeguard and rebuild western civilization far from the pseudo-religious political ideology of Islam.
We have no choice but to stand and fight. The first step is to take political action. That means voting for the leaders who will not stand for this.
In the United States, that means to vote for Trump and every other politician, Republican, Democrat or Libertarian, who says no to this invasion.
Rod Van Mechelen
Rod Van Mechelen is the author of What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues: The Male-Positive Perspective (the page now includes several articles by other authors), and the publisher of The Backlash! @ Backlash.com. He is a member of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and served for 9-1/2 years on the Cowlitz Indian Tribal Council.