DAVID writes:

In response to your entry on Romney’s egalitarian vision of prosperity, I’ve noted for sometime the absence of men i.e. “Men of the West,” in Islam’s ongoing war on Europe and Christendom.

Why, why, why are men absent? Mostly it is women – Melanie Phillips, Marine LePen, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Pamela Geller, Ann Barnhardt, the late Oriana Fallaci, and a few others. As for men, it is just Geert Wilders.

Why have men abandoned the field, the greatest civilization that men created, and gone walkabout, as if they don’t care for their creation?

In this e-book, the author outlines a deeper reason: the re-imposition of matriarchy as the governing paradigm of the West. This really is a worthwhile read, from chapters one through eleven. Many points you outlined in your 2009 article “why We Must Discriminate” are here.

Men have been disenfranchised wholesale. Their role in society negated and mocked. They have been excluded as protectors of the family, and by extension, protectors of the community and nation. The state has assumed the role of the husband/father, offering comprehensive welfare to single mums and women in general. Men rightly feel that they have no stake in society, nothing to lose. That sacrificing their lives to protect the family and the nation, is a waste of their lives. The result is a huge increase in lawlessness, decay in discipline, catastrophic fall in educational standards, a growing population of feral young men and women, as there are no strong and good men willing to impose discipline. In effect, the death of a once great civilization. Civilization is very fragile- without protection, it will either decay and die, or be conquered by barbarians.

A few decades ago, the ongoing rape of women in European countries, the sexual grooming of young girls by Muslim men, would never have occurred.

Unless “Men of the West” see a future for themselves as men – as providers and protectors of the family, and the nation by extension, we are finished.

Laura writes:

Thank you for your outstanding points.

I would add an important qualification.

The loss of moral legitimacy of the West — and of the white race — were the necessary preconditions for the loss of male authority and responsibility that you describe.

A civilization that believes in itself, that adheres to its vision of transcendence, its “metaphysical dream,” as Richard Weaver called it, and that also maintains the pre-rational and concrete loyalties that bind and create a people, does not abandon male authority and responsibility because to do so is suicide.

None of these immense changes, particularly the marginalization and outright abuse of fathers by the state, would have occurred if the West had not already ripped its own heart out.

—– Comments —–

Kevin M. writes:

David’s post made my heart pound. I have been ruminating over those very points (after having endured several recent spates of Hanna Rosin’s stellar idiocy). The past 40-50 years have seen feminism put a stranglehold on every move government makes. Our Western civilization has bought hook, line and sinker into the myth of the “evil patriarchy,” every imaginable form of female oppression and the need to provide affirmative action and other back-door positive discriminations in favor of women. There is no “rise of women” at all, just a breathtaking suppression of men and boys.

Women, biologically speaking, gravitate to four things: safety, security, comfort and convenience. It is their biological imperative to have these if they intend to reproduce. Not so for men, and because of the masculine environments and values they seek (and the ubiquitous disappearance of same due to the Sisterhood), men are checking out of the program. From marriage, fatherhood, employment and other forms of leadership. And Big Daddy Government is helping.

They say there is no sweeter sound than hearing your own opinion coming from the mouths of others. David did a flawless job of stating my own opinion on the matter. How heartwarming to know one is not alone in his beliefs!

I hate to sound like a reactionary, but the thought of repealing the 19th Amendment is starting to sound like a good idea to me. I am getting soooooooo fed up with hearing women, women, women, women, women, ad nauseum.

Kevin adds:

Where women seek security, men seek honor and relevance. The author (I forget her name) of “The Manipulated Man” was quite correct when she said men have been happy little slaves to women. If a man is honored and respected, you can get him to work until his heart gives out. Men no longer get that. We are openly disrespected in the education system, the media and nearly all forms of public discourse. Young men see this. And then they lose the initiative to play a role in society. Why should they, when they know their female peers are receiving all the accolades?

Tell a man he is neither needed nor respected, and he knows his efforts will yield no honor. And then you get a generation of men you don’t want to be around.

 Laura writes:

I agree with many of your points, but feminism is not just opposed to men. It’s opposed to women too; its victims are male and female.

Mary Wollstonecraft, the first feminist of modern times, advocated a “confounding” of the sexes, and that’s what we see.

Winnie writes:

As a woman, I would give up the vote and any number of feminist “gains” in an instant if it meant clearing the way for men to be men. I am (re)training myself to behave and think according to my God-given design, to dress, speak, and comport myself with feminine dignity and grace, for my own sake, but also in the hope that I will encourage the men around me, young and old, to embrace their highest masculine qualities.

This requires significant reprogramming – and it is even more challenging from an interior sense; especially since one builds up and fortifies, only to go out into the world and be wearied by the onslaught of ugliness. It can be discouraging, but I persevere in hope!

Kevin M. wrote:

“They say there is no sweeter sound than hearing your own opinion coming from the mouths of others. David did a flawless job of stating my own opinion on the matter. How heartwarming to know one is not alone in his beliefs!”

This notion – the great relief of discovering an ideological ally (or a place where many of them congregate, such as your wonderful blog, as well as Lawrence Auster’s site) – is one that has been resonating more and more strongly for me. You give us such a gift, Laura Wood! A place to find each other, to seek nourishment of Truth and Beauty as reinforcement before going back out into the world. (I am, on that note, sending my contribution to you for your great work).

Kevin’s thoughts bring to mind one of my favorite G.K. Chesterton quotes:

“There are no words to express the abyss between isolation and having one ally. It may be conceded to the mathematician that four is twice two. But two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one.” – GKC

Laura writes:

Thank you.

What a magnificent statement this is by Winnie:

As a woman, I would give up the vote and any number of feminist “gains” in an instant if it meant clearing the way for men to be men. I am (re)training myself to behave and think according to my God-given design, to dress, speak, and comport myself with feminine dignity and grace, for my own sake, but also in the hope that I will encourage the men around me, young and old, to embrace their highest masculine qualities.

This requires significant reprogramming – and it is even more challenging from an interior sense; especially since one builds up and fortifies, only to go out into the world and be wearied by the onslaught of ugliness. It can be discouraging, but I persevere in hope!

Regardless of whether women in general could ever overcome their strong inclination toward socialism, there are other more powerful arguments for the male franchise. The male vote had great symbolic value. It embodied the trust and love women had for men.  It also counterbalanced the enormous power of women as mothers and wives in the private sphere.

Daniel S. writes:

David wrote:

I’ve noted for sometime the absence of men i.e. “Men of the West,” in Islam’s ongoing war on Europe and Christendom.

Why, why, why are men absent? Mostly it is women – Melanie Phillips, Marine LePen, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Pamela Geller, Ann Barnhardt, the late Oriana Fallaci, and a few others. As for men, it is just Geert Wilders.

I would contest this statement. I can think of numerous names beyond Geert Wilders who have spoken, often at the price of their own freedom and safety, in defense of the West and the remnants of Christendom against Islamization. The conservative columnist Mark Steyn was dragged in front of a “human rights” commission in Canada for his remarks about Islam, and the Serbian born Islam critic Srdja Trifkovic was barred from Canada and had his book removed from the National Review‘s online bookstore for his comments. In Europe figures like Filip Dewinter regularly face threats from both radical Muslims and the liberal political establishment for resisting Islamization of European cities. English Defense League leader Tommy Robinson was beaten by Muslim thugs for his activities. Danish writer Lars Hedegaard was convicted for “hate speech” for publicly criticizing Islam. I could go on.

 Laura writes:

Yes, there are more men than David mentioned who are articulating the case against Islam in Europe.

Thank you for this correction.

However, I think David’s point still stands. There are not enough men.

Terry Morris writes:

Great post. And excellent comments by all. I was at a friend’s house one day visiting with him at his kitchen table when I noticed his marriage license lying in front of me partially obscured by other paperwork. I asked if I could have a look at it, and he said “sure.” I picked it up and began to read as though I were reading from it word-for-word: This certifies that (his full name) is wedded to (her maiden name), and that (her maiden name) is wedded to the State of Oklahoma, her husband and protector, for the rest of her natural life. In witness whereof, etc., etc.” My friend thought it very funny. His wife was less amused, actually irritated, truth be known. But anyway…

Winnie’s opening line in her excellent comments got me thinking. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see a significant movement by women who have come to Winnie’s conclusions, simply unqualifiedly step out on faith and give up the vote and all the other female advantages secured them by the State? When Winnie says she would gladly give up a,b, and c, if doing so would mean x, y, and z, she’s effectively establishing an impossible condition to her surrender of the vote. Why not simply surrender the vote and everything else on principle, with no strings attached and no conditions established?

Early into our marriage, my wife and I discovered that, as I often describe it to others, society was going in a direction that we were very uncomfortable with. This realization preceded a number of radical changes in the way we had before conducted ourselves as a family unit.

In voting, for instance, my wife conceded that I was the more politically astute, thus more qualified, between us, and began to trust my judgment in voting. She hasn’t given up the vote in the sense that she stays home on election day, but she has given it up in the sense that she simply copies my ballot. There is no cancelling one another’s votes out in our family. I won’t participate in that sort of self-destructive behavior. We have certain female friends who brag to us that “Well, I’m just going to cancel his (her husband’s) vote,” as if to say that a house divided against itself is the woman’s sacred franchise. And it makes me ill.

Kevin M. writes:

We should also add Robert Spencer to the list of men who challenge the Islamic nonsense foisted upon us. And he is a good friend of Pamela Geller.

Laura writes:

David was writing about men in Europe, or at least he seemed to be writing about men in Europe. Spencer, Trifkovic and Steyn do not fit into this category. Nor does Lawrence Auster, who would be included if the list were broadened.

Daniel S. writes:

I didn’t get the sense that David was speaking exclusively of Europe, as a used the generic term “the West” and listed a couple American women as examples.

As for there not being enough men resisting the Islamization of the West, then that is beyond contest. However, I felt the point was that only or primarily women were resisting said Islamization and that men were almost entirely absent and that is clearly not the case.

Laura writes:

When I looked at David’s list quickly, I thought of Europe, but clearly he was not speaking just of Europe.

Ibitsaam writes:

There is an Islamic saying:

”A nation which placed its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper!”

As for the Islamic ‘war’ on Europe, never mind the imported and ignorant Muslim thugs who are a disgrace to the religion and actually do a disservice to the spread of Islam; the ‘Islamization’ of Europe will occur organically: through hundreds of thousands of white, indigenous European converts who reject the Western paradigm, and go on to have lots of white Muslim babies (like me).

Daniel S. writes:

Ibitsaam writes:

[T]he ‘Islamization’ of Europe will occur organically: through hundreds of thousands of white, indigenous European converts who reject the Western paradigm, and go on to have lots of white Muslim babies (like me).

Most doubtful. Certainly the current nihilism of Europe does incline a small number of spiritually deprived Europeans toward Islam and other Eastern creeds, but there will be no mass conversions. Indeed, with the coming economic and social calamities if there is any spiritual awakening in Europe it will be the return of the people to their ancestral faith, traditional Christianity. Remember, it is in the very DNA of our people to resist Islamization, just look to the reconquest of Spain and Portugal from the Moors, or the centuries the Christian peoples of the Balkans resisted the Ottoman Turks.

Please follow and like us: