The Impotent and the Potent, Part 4—In Which the Android Sings

(continued from "In Which Zarathustra Spake")

One big problem with adherents of reactionary worldviews like that of Return of Kings is that their definition of themselves comes with a definition of others. Men must be masculine according to certain rules and women must be feminine according to certain rules. Norms of their choosing are to be imposed.

There is no room in this for a boy who decides to wear a dress to school. I remember watching Robert Smith of The Cure describe on Later . . . with Jools Holland the ridicule he faced when he did just that. I found the anecdote fascinating and respected him all the more because of his bravery. A world without Robert Smith, without The Cure, without men who wear mascara, is a poorer one. The same could be said for many of the world’s great artists, scientists and thinkers--as well as nonfamous folk--who don’t conform to their time’s or culture’s idea of masculinity or femininity and who in many cases bestowed their particular beauty on the world precisely because of that refusal.

 

To return to Nietzsche, while he spoke of the Übermensch, Kaufmann says he also spoke of the Normalmensch, the sick creature that results from conformity. I’m no follower of Nietzsche--his thought isn’t a system to be followed anyway--but I do believe that individuals are happier in a pluralistic climate and that pluralistic societies are healthier as a whole. America isn’t at the forefront of creating more open and inclusive societies, but it is making progress, and that’s what puts The Fear in male chauvinists. Their egos can’t handle a world that doesn’t spin around their phallus.

Sometimes, people such as myself who make a point of visibly griping are criticized for devoting too much attention to numbskulls, thereby generating interest in their causes and even making the feeble and unknown into the strong and famous. I have a nagging feeling that such criticism may be just in this case. The worst of the manosphere is unworthy of attention.

And yet, if someone doesn’t speak against the numbskulls, they will overrun the marketplace. In thinking about this, I keep coming back to alternative soul artist Janelle Monáe. From what I know of her life, her talent, and her values, she seems to be particularly skilled at self-creation of the sort Nietzsche might approve, going so far as to reinvent and portray herself as an android. Her song “Cold War,” suggests there is a fight to be fought, at the very least through moral example:

 

 

( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )

The Impotent and the Potent, Part 3—In Which Zarathustra Spake

(continued from “In Which the Übermensh Has a Pair")

 I wrote the preceding passage about the Übermensh based on fairly extensive reading of Nietzsche and secondary sources in my free time years ago. To make sure the years hadn’t introduced a swerve to my understanding of the material, I went back and reviewed, adding in some unread material I’d been dying to get to, and I was surprised to find that the emphasis on self-improvement in Nietzsche as well as scholarship about his writing is much stronger even than I remembered.

Consider this from Walter Kaufmann’s classic introduction Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist:

“It was not the military or political successes [of Caesar] that Nietzsche looked to, but the embodiment of the passionate man who controls his passions: the man who, in the face of universal disintegration and licentiousness, knowing this decadence as part of his own soul, performs his unique deed of self-integration, self-creation, and self-mastery.”

Also from Kaufmann, and simply put:

“Tyranny over others is not part of Nietzsche’s vision.”

But the real meat is always in the primary sources. One of my favorite concepts from Nietzsche is giving style to oneself:

“One thing is needed. – ‘To give style’ to one’s character – a great and rare art! He exercises it who surveys all that his nature presents in strength and weakness and then moulds it to an artistic plan until everything appears as art and reason, and even the weaknesses delight the eye. . . . It will be the strong, imperious natures which experience their subtlest joy in exercising such control, in such constraint and perfecting under their own law . . . ” (from The Gay Science)

And more, this from “Of the Way of the Creator” in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

“Can you furnish yourself with your own good and evil and hang up your own will above yourself as a law? Can you be judge of yourself and avenger of your law? It is terrible to be alone with the judge and avenger of one’s own law. It is to be like a star thrown forth into empty space and into the icy breath of solitude.”

That’s true potency and it’s hard work and it has nothing to do with telling others who to be. Calls for a return to a past order that marginalizes those who don’t easily slot into that order are the whimperings of impotents. Real men, the man of the future, the manly man, the alpha dog, and so forth should be so grounded in themselves that other people behaving differently is not a threat, but a reason to celebrate.

 

( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )

 

 

The Impotent and the Potent, Part 2—In Which the Übermensh Has a Pair

(continued from “In Which the Manosphere Needs a Pair”)

 

Return of Kings does, of course, deny misogyny. Yet the eight key beliefs themselves define women in terms that many women simply do not want for themselves and that is a big problem. No one gets to decide for others what their sex or gender roles should be, with whom they should sleep, or where their value primarily comes from. Threatened by a world in which their worldview is losing, they make up a code for reality whereby they are the rightful winners. Instead of Return of Kings, they should name their website Return to Infancy, where instead of a scepter, every man wields a baby's rattle.

To be clear, I am not saying there is anything wrong with being a man or woman who exemplifies, respectively, masculinity or femininity as traditionally defined. Nor am I saying that all arguments by feminists, gay rights advocates, etc. are above criticism. But Return of Kings makes it clear that there is a specific and very limited order to which people should conform, and for this I have only condemnation.

Also to be clear, I’m still exploring the manosphere as I write this. It appears that not all aspects of it are as backwards as Return of Kings. Poking around the Internet, I ran across this post by Kid Strangelove via Manosphere.com that isn’t all bad. The post raises ways traditional and emerging social practices adversely and unfairly affect men. Apparently, other environs in the manosphere skip the social commentary and agon in favor of simply celebrating traditionally masculine fashion, sports, etc. If you simply must participate, be vigilant. Compared to the darkness of Return of Kings, Maxim looks positively enlightened.

My advice to men threatened by powerful women, gay men and others who unsettle them is to improve themselves. Self-improvement already appears to be a big part of the manosphere’s philosophy, but the focus is often on getting “game” and it comes with an awful lot of hate: slut-shaming, fat-shaming, homophobia, etc. These would-be kings have discovered, as have many before them, that one of the easiest ways to feel good about oneself is to insult others. 

Even though Friedrich Nietzsche was not addressing gender roles when he formulated his idea of the Übermensh, I feel like it is instructive here. Übermensh is often translated as superman or overman. It designates a particular type of superior individual, which has unfortunately made it an attractive concept to every jackass looking for an authority to tell him he is better than everyone else.

The problem for those who use the idea of the Übermensh in this way is that the overman is defined by the strength to overcome him or herself. The Übermensh is so superior due to this ability to grow as a person that he or she does not need to lord it over anyone. In fact, as soon as you begin to do so, you immediately lose the right. If you would be über, my dear Mensch, then you must master thyself and look no further.

( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )

The Impotent and the Potent, Part 1—In Which the Manosphere Needs a Pair

While reading about Elliot Rodger’s killing spree in Santa Barbara, California last month, I ran across a male empowerment website called Return of Kings, and it has occupied my thoughts since. The “About” page begins with a brief statement of the online community’s focus:

“Return of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine.”

The page goes on to explicitly state that “women and homosexuals” are forbidden from participating in the online forum. Then eight key beliefs are presented. They include the following:

“2. Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not. This fact is due to the biological differences between men and women.”

“6. A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty. A man’s value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character.”

“7. Elimination of traditional gender roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation.”

The Return of Kings response to Rodger’s killing spree was a misogynist screed. The article by Roosh V, who runs the website, is oblivious to its own contradictions, shaming women who have “experienced more than a dozen different penises in her vagina, anus, and mouth” in one paragraph, and elsewhere encouraging lonely men like Elliot Rodger to solve their problems by going out to get some.

The worldview represented by Return of Kings is so wrong on so many levels that it’s fascinating. As is often the case with pernicious ideologies, it bases its narrative around a few ideas that most people would generally agree with (men and women are biologically different, animals have different sex roles, family is good, etc.) and branches out from there to far-reaching claims that exalt a chosen group while demeaning others. The appearance of it all simply following from a few common-sense premises will fool some people.

My only previous encounter with male empowerment was through Tom Cruise’s character in the film Magnolia. How humorous, I thought. How sad. In psychoanalytic terms, the more vicious members of the manosphere feel impotent in the face of modern values and react by claiming omnipotence. The symbolic order of their world is crumbling around them through increasingly open social schemes, so they desperately try to place themselves back at the center of the universe. Unfortunately for them, however, nothing could be more indicative of lacking a pair than running around, shaking your balls at everyone and shouting “Look at these!”

 

( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )