We’re all taught (at least in the US) that the American Revolution and the Enlightenment (the rediscovery of Classical/ancient Roman culture and science) were the most important and wonderful thing ever to happen in history and that we were all a bunch of savages before they occurred.
Monarchy, to our American mindset, is an irrational evil, a trip back to the old barbaric days when kings and queens could do whatever they wanted and squash the population and take all their money. I definitely disagree with those kind of monarchs, and I don’t necessarily agree with monarchy itself. But I’ve been wondering why men tend to hate it so much, specifically the Ron Paul libertarian, America robots that are gaining ground in the political scene.
These liberty-bots scream about how AWESOME “diim-moooocckk-rrraaa-sseeeeeeee!!!” is and it would seem to make sense, that people should live in freedom, but there is a darker side to their cries. They seem to hate monarchy and want democracy or republic or whichever they want for the wrong reasons.
Look at what monarchy is: a system in which a family or person governs a country, often with special respect for local cultural beliefs and “subjective” opinions. It is not a disembodied “system”, but is a structure in which a ruler has a close emotional and familial relationship with her or his subjects, as the parent of a country rather than an emotionally distant “just business” leader. To men, it’s “illogical” to have monarchy, and the succession method of choosing the child of a ruler as the next ruler.
Yes, it would be illogical to claim the child of a ruler would necessarily be able to govern as well as its parent. But maybe the goal of a monarchy isn’t merely to govern, but to establish a familial or culturally cherished entity as the top of a nation or group of people.
If someone has a different goal than you, that doesn’t mean they’re being illogical. Men like to argue this way: if you are trying to reach goal B, and they are trying to reach goal A, they call your strategies and attempts to reach your goal “illogical”, because you wouldn’t be able to reach their goal, goal A, that way.
For example, if you are trying to reach Goal B, which is to establish a monarchy in order to establish a relationship with your people and put some culture in your government and keep up a beloved tradition, they say this is illogical……because you wouldn’t be able to reach their goal, goal A, which is to dispassionately govern the dry economic and military systems of the nation.
When they say, therefore, that you’re being “illogical”, what they really mean is that they don’t want to admit that maybe you have a different goal than they do, because they are too selfish to admit that someone doesn’t share theirs. They purposely don’t want to admit that you even HAVE a different goal or opinion than they do, so they just say, “Humph! That’s not the way to reach MY goal properly!” Assholes.
Anyway, this is what men do in response to the monarchy question. They refuse to admit that the cold, hard, mechanized job a government can do might not be the ONLY job it can do. And they would NEVER admit that a governing body can do something integrated and complex like fulfill TWO functions at once, such as the economic/mechanical function AND the emotional/familial/cultural one!
(perhaps this is why little girls are so preoccupied with princesses- they like beauty, rules, culture, family, monarchy, protection, etc)
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism espouses individualism and enshrines capitalism and liberty as proper societal and governmental virtues. She routinely used the word “savage” and mocked such “irrational” and small-town things as folk music, religion, spiritualism, tribal art, and naturalism. She preferred to look at the skyscrapers instead of the stars. She highly praised individualism and stressed that charity should NOT be seen as a moral necessity, but rather as a personal choice.
Ayn Rand, a woman, was born in the Soviet Union, a repressive totalitarian state, so we can forgive her for obsessing over these particular values since they were the opposite of the values she was oppressed under, and since her philosophy does have some rather good points. But we cannot excuse the purposeful ignorance of the young, upstart white male crowd who use her philosophy to justify their selfish and anti-community behavior.
The Objectivists, the Ron Paul freaks, and the dimmocccraceeee loons are often in conflict with each other on nonessential issues, but they all subconsciously agree on one thing: the subjugation or ignoring of women. Obstetrician Ron Paul is anti-abortion, and 89% of his donors were men. The democracy loons are annoyed that Mommy government won’t let them do whatever they want. Objectivism, though it believes in equality, isn’t able to integrate what women truly need with its philosophy, which has holes in it that prevent the understanding of how oppression works.
Men, Ron Paul bots, and Objectivism support capitalism and anti-monarchist beliefs and all such “logical” masculine ideas. Our Founding Fathers, whom they adore, were obsessed with instituting “freedom” from the “tyranny” of a “monster” that taxed his colony about %3. What did they do once they won that “freedom”? Because the people didn’t want to pay taxes, Washington squashed the Whiskey Rebellion with more troops than were used in the entire Revolutionary War! “The King is dead; long live the King!” is always their battle cry. It wasn’t about freedom for everyone. It was about their freedom to dominate women, beat slaves, and indoctrinate children.
The reason they hate monarchy is because they are not in control. They cannot manipulate the ruler of the country, the daddy- or, shudder, mommy- into giving them everyone else’s money and power. In a democracy, they can trick the idiot population into voting itself into slavery, but with a monarchy, a sole figure is in charge who can stop their whims. Worst of all, this figure might be a woman, who is going to really lord it over them and make them respect others.
Men are fine with laws against insulting Muslims and fear anyone trying to invade “the sanctity of the family” but they are allergic to laws about insulting your wife, hate speech, and sexism. Just as they want “freedom” for George Washington to own slaves, they want “freedom” for Muslims to impose Sharia law on their families and communities, and freedom for a retarded inbred redneck to sexually molest his daughter. They are hysterically opposed to the EU and the United Nations (unless they get to control it) because the EU (headed by a woman, I believe, Angela Merkel) is trying to control Europe “like Hitler” and impose extremely unfair rules against people pushing each other around (and they’re pro-Jewish!!! Oh no!!)
Part of the opposition to monarchy, authority, and community is an opposition to the idea that the personal is the political. Men don’t want the personal- women’s issues, their mothers, childhood rules, familiarity, emotion- to follow them into the political. They don’t want to have to bother with the complaining women at home, so they set up politics as a tool to help them create their own man-spaces (the market, war, “freedom” in various issues, forcing women to stay home), and sometimes the political establishment itself isn’t only a tool for setting up these spaces, it IS those spaces! (recall the Congressional showers, homosexual relations with male pages, baths and homosexuality in the Roman days, etc).
Men choose to see things in linear, unconnected terms. Black and white, you might say. This is why they refuse to admit that the personal is the political. They refuse to understand that it’s not separate, but that the two concepts gradually blend into each other, the way white blends into black via gray. But men choose to see things as simplistic so they can separate concepts when they want to ignore one or the other (like ignoring the personal).
Politics, to them, is NOT personal, but has to do with governing things, not people- money, military equipment, technology, legal structures. Personal things like equality, justice, jobs, the arts, culture, are not considered “important”, even though they directly affect more people than dry legalistic matters do. But even here they are hypocrites: they claim to want to focus only on these dry matters and ignore personal ones, yet they go and draft tons of laws that focus directly on the personal: laws allowing wife beating, laws about clothing and rape, laws allowing child abuse. Not to mention the fact that when women come into politics, they act the same way towards them as they do at home, they act out their psychological hatred and fear of them, therefore THEY are the ones who are bringing their own personal feelings into politics. Men are afraid women will enforce rules against their misbehavior, just they way they do at home.
“Masculine” men almost instinctively bristle at this mention of the word “misbehavior”- they recognize it as an admission that the personal is the political. Words like “misbehavior”, “bad,” “deserve,”- it reminds them of home, of mother, or that umbilical leash they try to wriggle away from. They don’t like this encroachment of the personal sphere into the political sphere. “Oh, no! I thought I got away from this!” they moan, when they realize their childish scheme to reject their mothers and their homes and the personal sphere predictably falls apart.
They had hoped the personal wouldn’t follow them into the political, and put up barriers- on female suffrage, birth control, working women- to keep it at home, protected, enclosed- they are unsurprisingly upset when people, families, feelings, needs, wants, hopes, dreams, and the dreaded Feminine come to knock at the Capitol doors. When they speak of “protection” of the family, we can conclude they can only mean their protection from the family. Big strong men indeed. Politics isn’t serious business for them, it’s just a boys’ club. Not an important mechanism for ruling a society. A boys’ club. Repulsive.
Men oppose laws against speech because they dread the idea that the personal is the political, and vice versa. They hate the idea that the state is just an overgrown nanny who won’t let them pick on others. They see laws curtailing the exercise of speech, and they scowl “I thought I escaped that when I grew up and moved out of the house!!” because they resent the fact that “personal” rules- like rules against teasing, lying, etc- are encroaching on their “political” world, which they thought was a dood-haven protecting them from rules, fairness, and nagging mothers.
They need this dualistic, illogical, and unsustainable divide between personal and political because they don’t want their mothers creeping up into their space.
The obsession with capitalism versus communism is also due to personal psychological problems on the part of “masculine” men. They start out as capitalists, confident in their own abilities to work and manipulate the market in their favor. Then when they get older, maybe age 22, they realize what losers they are and become socialists or communists, because they think socialism and communism mean taking from the responsible and giving to the irresponsible.
But perhaps it’s just another dood-fit, and since they see capitalism as an authority figure, and they direct their anger at that. Who knows, maybe in Soviet Russia naughty young boys, full of angst, saw communism as an authority and capitalism as rebellious!
They may see communism as a system to help the “little guy”; in this case, it helps the little guy get women, whom they want to see as objects. They want the same right to women, as property, as the rich robber baron capitalists have. They may go the opposite direction when they get the woman- they are now conservative because they don’t want anyone to take her now that he’s got her, just as rich people become capitalist conservatives now that they don’t want anyone taking their money.
But there’s always a thread of freedom in there, whether they’re capitalist or communist; there’s always this fear of themselves being governed. This selfish mistrust of government shows up in pop culture as well. Look at all the detective or murder movies out there:
The masculine, intelligent male always senses that the neighbor or the local butcher or the school teacher or some other seemingly innocuous citizen is some horrible terrorist or enemy, and needs to be taken out. His crying nervous hysterical wife never believes him- oh, that deadweight, mission crushing bitch!
The wife, who tries to reason with her husband, to get him to see that the neighbor or barber or whoever is just a normal person, SHE is seen as the irrational one, the one who needs to wake up. This is how patriarchy sees things: an enemy everywhere, and the more normal they act, the craftier their conspiracy must be. They need to be killed.
Noooo, not by the cops or by a cooperative of citizens! Mr/Mrs Villain needs to be killed by the lone male hero, whose spoilsport wife wants to wimpishly force him to make peace for no other reason than…well…than that she hates violence because she’s a wimp.
Of course, then comes the epiphany for Mrs Hero, when she finds out the conspiracy or whatever is true, and that the suspect in fact WAS the villain. Now crying in fear and embarrassment, she learns the husband was right, and calls him, talks to him, hugs him, gives him makeup sex. Maybe she even gets threatened or held hostage or perhaps killed by the enemy to teach her a little lesson about letting her evil pacifist feminine side take over.
Of course, the policemen are all pathetic and don’t believe the male hero, and neither do any female nurses or psychologists (if the hero gets committed)- the government and the community are not to be trusted. This is how the movies, collaborating with patriarchy, make citizens afraid of each other, and put down women.
As we can see, the introduction of masculine philosophy into politics is dangerous and causes childish political behavior and mistrust of important laws and authority.
How much longer is it until men institute either a fascist state, or an anarchist Dionysian rape fest?