We all need to make up our minds. Every last one of us. We are, all of us, either one thing or the other: masculist, or not masculist. There is no middle ground. There are no shades of gray. There are no blurred lines. There is no fence to sit upon.
You are either a masculist, or you are not a masculist. Isn’t that simple?
So, what does it mean in practice, to say that you are either a masculist or not a masculist? In practice, it means that you should take one second, at the very most, to make your decision. If I were to inquire, “are you a masculist?”, you would respond either yes or no . . . . in a flash!
You ought not to vacillate. If you need to pause and think about it, then you might as well just call yourself a masculist until you finally get your head straight. The force which pulls you instinctively away from masculism ought to be so powerful that it operates instantaneously. It ought to be second nature.
Naturally, we’d rather you were not a masculist at all, but the important thing is to make your mind up. It is not nearly so bad to be a masculist, as to be a fence-sitter. To be a fence-sitter is to be woefully uninformed about the political situation. Your “middle ground” between masculist and non-masculist is a melting iceberg, a transitory condition that will not last. It is an illusion, a state of existential dithering, and to occupy such a position is to be a morally two-headed creature with no stable identity — or if you will, no GPS coordinates on the political map.
The middle ground illusion emerges from the notion that there is a “good” masculism and a “bad” masculism which can be teased apart from each other. That notion is erroneous. The truth is that if you did separate the (ideologically) good from the (ideologically) bad in masculism, you would effectively dismantle masculism altogether and it would no longer operate.
You cannot effectively discard the bad stuff in masculism, and save aside the good stuff in its own heap, and still call that heap masculism. Any so-called masculism extracted by this method would be redundant and superfluous because it would already be covered in a separately existing category — such as, for example, “egalitarianism” or “liberal humanism.” The word masculism would serve no purpose any longer.
The “good” part of masculism is not masculism’s defining core. It is the insulation but not the wire. It is a fig leaf or cover story, while “bad masculism” is the real juice, the real nitty-gritty. Any effort to direct attention away from the dark side of masculism amounts to passing the buck.
I would wrap it up tersely, thuswise: Whatever is is good about masculism is not original, and whatever is original is not good.
If you resort to the standard cop-out that “not all masculists are like that” (NAFALT), then you are practicing a slight variant of the same evasionary maneuver we have already talked about. You are trying to separate the “good” masculists from the “bad” masculists, but this fails for the same reason that we have sketched above. The good masculists are the “good cop”, and the bad masculists are the “bad cop” — but they are both on the same team.
Furthermore you are dodging the question “what is masculism?” because you are actually addressing the question “who are masculists?” Hence, the argument is a deflection. In the end, you see, the real question is not “are all masculists like that?”, but rather “is all MASCULISM like that?” This is not a trivial distinction.
So the illusion of middle ground between masculist and non-masculist, springs from an obfuscational distinction between “good” masculism (or masculists), and “bad” masculism (or masculists). The trajectory of counter-masculist analysis will make this obfuscation increasingly evident to the world at large, and the one correct understanding of masculism will emerge slowly into the light of public awarenness. As correct understanding emerges, the illusion of middle ground will become unsustainable and melt away, and many an existential crisis will be had.
In the meantime, I would like to pose a series of rhetorical questions that will situate the conversation and clarify the nature of masculism in general:
Do you think it is a good idea to drive a wedge down the middle of the human race and alienate women and men from each other?
Do you think it is a good idea, to insinuate that most of the world’s problems flow from a female source?
Do you think it is a good idea to treat “man-hating” as a moral felony, but treat “woman-hating” as a social misdemeanor?
Do you think it is a good idea to encourage the growth of motherless families?
Do you think it is a good idea to prop up your political agenda with false statistics?
Do you think it is a good idea to corrupt the criminal justice system with anti-female ideological bias?
Do you think it is a good idea to “empower” men with no clear limits and no stipulations about using that power responsibly?
Do you think it is a good idea to insult and slander men of conscience who disown masculism or say stiff things about it?
Finally, do you think it is a good idea to pretend that masculism bears no relation to any of the creepy things we have listed here?
All right. If your first impulse is to say “that’s not what masculism really is!”, then you had best declare yourself a masculist, and withdraw to the private enjoyment of your private understanding.
As you can see, the decision to call yourself masculist, or not call yourself masculist, is fraught with some very heavy moral underpinnings. It’s a decision of serious consequence in either direction – one that accomodates no dithering, dilly-dallying, or shilly-shallying.
Come now, be a good fellow, or a good gent, and hop down off that fence!
Are you masculist, or are you non-masculist? Please make your mind up, and please declare your standpoint frequently, in conversation, when disclosure is the appropriate thing to do.
As non-masculist women and men, the resolute nature of our opposition to masculism is the force-field which binds us together. Regrettably, we don’t YET fully agree on what masculism IS. We have not YET reached target consensus. I repeat, not YET. But despite our differences, we are in FULL agreement that a show of solidarity will impress the gravitas of the occasion upon the other side. It will make them sit up a little bit straighter, and it will cause them to moderate their tone when they speak to us.
Yes. A popular front non-masculist coalition – that’s the ticket!
So, are you a masculist? Or are you a non-masculist? That bedrock question is where it all begins.