Let’s Take it Point by Point

All right, in light of my recent posts on Vox’s gun shirts, I think it might be appropriate for me to go through this post by Vox after Dalrock’s take on it. I’m late, I know. Put it in my imaginary suggestion box if it bothers you.

A note – I am NOT here to try and refute or disagree with either Vox or Dalrock. Just figure out what Vox is trying to say.

Disclaimer: Not a married man, not currently engaged, and thus cannot comment on this in any manner outside of direct interpretation of words. Given this I’m going to try and keep what I think separate from Dalrock.

After someone expresses sympathy for MGTOW (for the non-savvy, this is “men go their own way” and refers to men who decide to opt out of the marriage market because it is such a brutal deal for men from the legal perspective), Vox replies with this:

MGTOW are low morale cowards. From the societal and civilizational perspective they are useless parasites who, by their fecklessness, are helping the barbarians win the civilization war. Sure, they’re vastly to be preferred to the feminists, foreigners, globalists, and anti-Christians who are actively waging war against Western civilization, but they are passively refusing to defend it in any way.

How are they any better than the very Western women they excoriate? They are, in fact, observably worse, as both are in it merely for themselves but at least the women may produce the next generation of Western children, even if they will surely raise them in a sub-optimal manner. Neither the feral woman nor the fearful MGTOW is capable of maintaining the civilization whose toys they enjoy.

“How are they better than the very western women they excoriate?” strikes me as a very strange question. The whole point of MGTOW is that these men believe women are so dangerous as a group that they will destroy them emotionally and financially if they opt into the marriage market. Is Vox saying it would be better to marry these women? I doubt he means that. So what exactly does he mean?

My best guess is that he means they should try to find women they don’t think are bad and take the plunge to marry them despite the risks, but if that’s what he means his “How are they better than the very western women they excoriate?” is still an odd question, because it doesn’t really address anything at all.

This is where things get – and I don’t know how else to say this – weird.

If we aren’t sympathetic to soldiers who run the moment they see the first casualties in their unit, we should not be sympathetic to men who run from women because they saw someone taken down by a toxic woman. The truth is that men often suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it. Would any Roman patrician have meekly submitted to being made an indentured servant at the whim of his wife and the word of a judge?

No. He would have killed the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly gone home and opened his veins in the bath. That’s why Roman law permitted patriarchs to kill those under their authority who crossed them in any way – because they were going to do it anyway and the maintenance of legal order in their society relied upon acknowledging that reality.

…What?

Seriously, what? I have absolutely no clue what he is trying to say here. None. I’ve read this multiple times and still don’t get it.

So…because a Roman would have murdered several people and turned his own children into orphans…modern men should…

What?

Is he saying that collectively, over generations, men have let women take the legal control of marriage to a point that men should be ashamed?

Well…what men? Who, exactly did this that he is referring to? I mean, it obviously happened, but what is the sin of each, individual man divorced by his wife for cash money that warrants this level of shame and degradation?

And is he saying that the solution to this is…revolution? We should rise up and collectively fight a war to take back our marriages? Is Vox willing to fight this war? If Spacebunny drops Vox and runs off with the kids, is Vox willing to start rallying men to the cause and overthrow the government?

Or does he want each individual man to take up the cause personally? So he truly believes that if Spacebunny divorces him the answer here is to orphan his children after they live with the reality that daddy killed mommy, went on a killing spree, and then offed himself in the bathtub? Hopefully he sends the kids out first so they don’t stumble onto the bodies.

If he doesn’t mean this, and I doubt he does, what does he mean? What exactly is he saying here?

I have no idea.

But the modern man values his toys more than his honor. That’s why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either. Men could end the entire divorce machine in 30 days if they chose, but instead, they prefer to live alone as indentured servants or in fear of becoming an indentured servant.

Men could end the divorce machine in 30 days…how? Seriously, how? How is this supposed to work?

I am not saying “wife up those sluts”, I am merely saying that living one’s life in fear of potentially wifing up a woman who may turn out to be less than entirely faithful and interested in playing the divorce lottery is not worthy of respect or emulation.

These two sections appear at first glance to be completely contradictory.

On the one hand, getting married literally puts you at risk of becoming an indentured servant, something he has contempt for.

But on the other hand, we should get married anyway or we’re Not Real Men.

The only way to resolve this potential contradiction, according to Vox, if I’m reading this right, is if you marry someone while also being willing to go on a vigilante spree and orphan your children after committing suicide.

If you are not willing to do that, you are Not A Real Man and Deserve What You Get.

A man of the West takes risks. A man of the Wests molds his wife and his children. A man of the West is willing to fight for his honor, his family, and his civilization. Success is not guaranteed. But then, when, in the entire history of Man, has it ever been guaranteed? For millennia, young men of honor have fought and died for what they believe. But for what, if anything, would an MGTOW risk breaking a fingernail?

And now the divorce mill and lack of commitment to revolution or murder-suicide is the equivalent to a fear of breaking a fingernail.

Please, tell me how else I can possibly read this post. I don’t see another way.

Ultimately Dalrock appears to be right, unfortunately. As he says:

The reality is that our current anti married father policies are merely the formal legal expression of our societal disrespect of married fathers.  The men of National Review, and now sadly Vox, are searching for a way to motivate men to marry without offering married fathers respect.  Though the details of their arguments differ, the form is the same;  married fathers deserve the contempt the system has for them.  If you disagree, your are either lazy or a coward. 

I truly hope I’m misunderstanding him here. I just don’t see how.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Let’s Take it Point by Point

  1. I honestly don’t know much about what men who choose MGTOW do, but as far as I’ve seen they do seem to have abandoned society. As a practical matter, they are the men with the most free time and resources to give to attempting to change things politically because they have no wife or children, but all I’ve really seen them do is make videos complaining about women on youtube. If they are organizing to try to change the legal system in a significant way, I haven’t seen where they are doing it. But none of that changes the fact that this post by Vox was entirely unreasonable.

    And, for Catholics, there is always the choice to marry the indefectible bride of Christ, His Church. And society could definitely do with more men willing to marry that particular woman.

    Merry Christmas Malcolm.

  2. Men could end the divorce machine in 30 days…how? Seriously, how? How is this supposed to work?

    I presume the idea is that if men, as a group, went on some sort of Atlas Shrugged-style strike, the government would be forced to reform the divorce laws. Which is probably true, but like most proponents of “If group X all did Y, we’d get Z”-style plans, Vox is ignoring the insuperable difficulties in getting any large and heterogeneous group of people with no pre-existing leadership to co-ordinate for such a group action.

  3. GJ says:

    No. He would have killed the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly gone home and opened his veins in the bath…

    A man of the West takes risks. A man of the Wests molds his wife and his children. A man of the West is willing to fight for his honor, his family, and his civilization.

    Presumably he turned over the blog for a day to one of his LARPing friends at http://www.menofthewest.net/

  4. There’s a quote Jonah Goldberg often repeats: “Every year all civilizations are invaded by millions of barbarians. We call them children.”

    Civilization endures because parents (especially the father) mold the children out of their barbarism and into a citizen proper. One clear problem the modern West is having is a lack of fathers leaving children still in their barbaric forms.

    That’s what Vox seems to be missing. He looks at it like a war where the worst thing that might happen to a soldier is that he dies, which is wrong. If a man marries and fathers children and is then ejected from the home, he has unwittingly contributed to the forces eroding the West. The metaphor isn’t a regular war, but a fight against zombies, where death isn’t the worst outcome – the worst outcome is becoming a part of the enemy.

    And in a situation like that, it may be better for some people to stay out of the battle – especially if they’ll be more likely to contribute to the enemy than their allies. If MGTOWs don’t have much for game or whatever, they’re doing more for the cause by getting out of the way of those who can contribute with less risk of aiding the enemy.

  5. GJ says:

    natewinchester:

    The metaphor of soldier is completely inappropriate. Soldiers have their comrades to cover their back; what does a man who is about to be divorce-raped have?

    During actual war, deserters can be shot. In the culture war, the best someone who has run off Italy-wards can do to prevent desertion is increasingly ineffective shaming and bizarre incitement to behave like ancient Romans.

  6. Andy says:

    So…because a Roman would have murdered several people and turned his own children into orphans…modern men should…

    … murder their wives if they do not submit to their authority. That is quite obviously what Vox meant, You are probably just somewhat reluctant at accepting his words at face value because you are not used to seeing people recommending murder as a solution for marital problems, or any other problems for that matter. But this is just the kind of person Vox is, just remember his fawning admiration of mass murderer Anders Breivik for example,

  7. GJ says:

    On further thought, I think I understand better.

    Malcolm, have you known a soldier well? That is, known a soldier whom just about everyone around would regards as a decent, God-fearing, honourable, virtuous man during peacetime – and then also known him as a ruthless killing machine during war?

    Most people, despite the number of WWII movies they’ve watched, would be shocked at the difference, as what they would think is an obvious disconnect.

    And here we have Vox, an avowed utilitarian, who believes that his community, ranging from the level of the local town to that of all Western Christendom, is engaged in existential war at multiple levels. I gather that he is a decent man and a good father. He is, however, not someone I would want as a true enemy.

    I would not be surprised in the least if an increasing number of ‘bizarre’ comments issues from his keyboard.

    • Not well no, though the greatest Priest I ever met was a paratrooper on D- Day.

      I gather your estimation of Vox is correct; I have worked with him and he is at worst entirely professional.

      But if I understand it correctly, this post is wrong regardless.

    • Andy says:

      That Vox is an avowed utilitarian is news to me, and I find that very hard to believe –
      do you have a quote for that.
      More importantly though, is someone who fawns over mass murder (quote: “St. Breivik, pray for us”) really worth your effort at coming up with excuses for his behaviour?

      • GJ says:

        That Vox is an avowed utilitarian is news to me, and I find that very hard to believe –
        do you have a quote for that.
        More importantly though, is someone who fawns over mass murder

        I’m surprised you say Vox being an avowed utilitarian is news to you, given that you say he ‘fawns’ over mass murder. Why else would he do what you describe as ‘fawning’?

        Check these links out (https://voxday.blogspot.sg/2015/10/dialogue-with-moderate.html;https://imgur.com/a/NbPBM ; https://archive.is/o2oqL). Vox may criticise the SJWs heavily but he has no problems, in principle, with using the same tactics. For example, “SJWs always lie”, but “use of lying is justified” – with the correct ends in mind, that is. Therefore he is utilitarian.

        More importantly though, is someone who fawns over mass murder (quote: “St. Breivik, pray for us”) really worth your effort at coming up with excuses for his behaviour?

        I have had no intention of excusing his behaviour; I have only been seeking to understand what motivates it.

      • GJ says:

        His utilitarian proclamations have advanced from “punch back twice as hard” (SJWs Always Lie) to “don’t punch back twice as hard. Punch first, and hit them where they’re not looking when they’re not expecting it.” (http://voxday.blogspot.sg/2017/11/tactics-are-not-objectives.html).

        A notable intermediate stage was the period of engagement with cuckservatives, during which then-topical questions such as ‘is it justified to harass journalists by spamming their Twitter accounts with Nazi memes?’ were discussed and answered on utilitarian terms.

      • Andy says:

        That’s not utilitarianism in any way, shape or form – that’s just being an asshole (and btw, “avowed utilitarian” would mean that Vox himself called his views “utilitarian”, not that you interpret him to be one).

      • Andy says:

        I’m surprised you say Vox being an avowed utilitarian is news to you

        To “avow” something means to “assert or confess [it] openly” – Vox never did that as far as I can tell.

        Why else would he do what you describe as ‘fawning’?

        I have some ideas but they amount to armchair psychology.

        For example, “SJWs always lie”, but “use of lying is justified” – with the correct ends in mind, that is. Therefore he is utilitarian.

        Ah, now I understand how you got that idea. An “ends justify the means” position like the one you describe here is *consequentialism*. “Utilitarianism” is a specific subset of consequentialism, so you cannot use the terms interchangeably because one is much more specific than the other.
        And if you’d ask him I’d suspect that Vox would strongly deny having a consequentialist worldview, he might very well be one (in fact I’m positively certain that he is one) but I’d be very surprised to see him admit that.

      • GJ says:

        What a typo. You are right, of course. I chalk it down to lack of sleep.

        I’m not concerned about whether he has ever explicitly declared that he has a consequentialist worldview. It’s clear that he does. But what is even more interesting than that, is the question of how many people he will incite to kill. Maybe we’ll find out sooner rather than later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s