It seems liberty must have its limits or we fail to produce a society we can live in. Perhaps conservatives are right and change comes with a societal cost that we can’t afford when change comes too fast. But, if we limit change must impinge on someone’s liberty.
You see, no matter how much we may want to, we can’t see ourselves as individuals and nothing else. We are members of a society and not petulant teenagers who think only of themselves. We are also members of society. And that comes with responsibility to others. Not just to not harm them, but to work with the other members of society to function at the same time.
Let’s deal with the individual first. One of the great and powerful truths of life is that no one will ever know what you want more accurately than you know it. It is a great fallacy to believe that others (the State or your family) can provide for you better than you can. I might say “I’m cold” and someone might bring me gloves, when I needed socks. There is always the problem of communicating what you want to others. But you’ll never have that problem communicating to yourself. Self provision of your own life and happiness is far preferable to provision by others. Furthermore, once a freeman knows what he wants and and can provide it for himself, he will become strong and admirable to the those around him. Conversely, if he is ignorant of his needs or deficient in providing himself with that which makes him happy, he will be held with contempt and become a source of ridicule. And here is the problem (especially at present). Sometimes men choose to go without that which they need through fear of offending others. It is hard to manage this because often in providing for ourselves, we harm or offend others. Harm to others must be minimized. But that a man will not take care of himself and earn the contempt of others for being weak, just so he doesn’t offend another, is not a good bargain for society. A man that lets himself become broken and defeated so as to not offend someone else is like a marta that maimed himself but didn’t die. Now the rest of us have to now care for this failed man and avoid the crime, sloth and illness a broken man can exudes as he lives his half life. Society errs when this trade off is required. A man should be what he needs to be a freeman, so long as he minimizes harm to everyone, and should not have to explain himself or apologize for offending. You can see that the difference between harm and mere offense is paramount.
Sometimes a man will ruin his own life through his own poor choices. We should not seek to ruin him further for our own pleasure, or as punishment for his failure. It may be that we choose to help him and educate him in what went wrong. If we do so, we may gain a strong freeman to stand with us in society and make us stronger together.
However, in exercising his own freedom, what if a man ruins his life and in doing so, forsakes his responsibilities to society? It is here that we consider how to have society flourish alongside the individual. What if we are now ‘a man down’ or we end up with a ‘gap in the defenses’? This is hard to judge. What duties does a man have to society? At what point do we start to address the choices a man makes and in the process, risk encroaching on his person liberties, to remind him that he is forsaking his duty to be a good man? Where does the line between personal freedoms and responsibility to others fall? I don’t believe there is an easy answer. But I do believe that society has had 18 years to instruct a boy on what society expects from him before he becomes a man. I believe a boy or adolescent male wants to know what to do in society to be dutiful. These two beliefs are enough to form a discernible line between personal freedoms and duty to society.
Is it enough that a boy has had 18 years to learn from us to start addressing the choices a man makes? I say no, it is not enough. We need one more thing. We cant lecture a man about a failure to perform a duty he has chosen for himself and knows how to perform until he loves those who would benefit from his dutiful life. Young men must want to belong to a society they will be responsible to. Young men must have a chosen tribe. This is key. This chosen tribe might not be what their mothers would choose for them, nor what they would choose when they are old men, but they must choose one. Men must feel proud to have served the specific society they belong to, not ashamed of it. To feel a duty to ‘man the defenses’ and ‘take your turn at the wall’ you must love that which you are defending. What if he doesn’t? What if he doesn’t identify his society as something he should belong to? What if it has changed too much for him to understand it or feel a party too. What if feminism has repainted the room a shocking shade of pink that the boy will not tolerate? Society can only flourish at the same time that the individual flourishes so long as a) the boy wants to serve b) society teaches him how to serve and c) the boy loves the society he will serve.
We must accept that society should not interfere with the part of a man that is purely individualist until he fails society or harms someone when it can be avoided. When he is minimizing harm, a freeman can do what he pleases. This is right because it makes a freeman most happy as only he knows what he wants and thus a society based on principles of liberty makes the happiest, and therefore the strongest, freemen. When a man’s individualistic actions cause him to fail his social responsibility, a society should intervene and remind the man of what it expects from him. This is right when all of society is made of similar individuals. In reminding the failed man of what is expected of him, a similar individual is required to ask himself what he wants from his fellow man and how he would in turn feel if he was the failed man and was asked to change. This principle works well when society is ruled by a substantial majority and the failed man accepts his place within the substantial majority and feels a duty to the substantial majority based on his acceptance within it. This principle does not work well when the failed man is not part of the majority or does not identify with it. When, for example, a 98% heterosexual society tells a homosexual man how to act or when men tell women what is acceptable female behaviour. The gay man or the female may not feel duty bound to the society that is judging him/her and as such will not change to belong to the society. Is the answer then that freemen should only feel themselves duty bound to the society of freemen? I believe the answer is that a fallen or broken man will correct himself best when the request for correction comes from a tribe he loves and has chosen. Again, if his tribesmen posses a homogenous set of values, this request for correction will be most easily received by the broken man. This poses another big question for multi-culturalism.
How do I feel when my duty to society can be determined by women? When I fail society, don’t I fail women too? Surely then the females that I’ve failed have the right to inform me that I have done so. When we choose our tribes, we often make the mistake of thinking we are choosing a tribe of freemen like us. But in reality, half of all tribes will be made up of women and a much smaller percent by homosexuals and transgender. And when we fail our tribes, we fail everyone and they’ve a right to be disappointed in us. The issue that many men are having at present is that men can easily be judged by women when we fail society, but women (or LGBT’s) are outraged by any judgement of them by men when they fail. It is the easiest thing to abuse a white, cishet male but to reasonably criticize a female is likened to misogyny by all and sundry. Men confuse this feeling with not wanting to be judged by women. Really, we should be judged by all of society when we fail it, but we must be free to judge back.
Some women have feminism and female liberation and in a sense have chosen their own tribe that most men don’t want to belong to. Do we still have any duty to these women? If a feminist reminds me of my social responsibility to her vision of society, do I care anymore? By choosing to belong to a tribe composed 50% by women, have I not by extension chosen a type of alliance with feminism?
The answer has been covered already. Feminism is in part some women using their freedom to know themselves and be stronger through their freedoms, which is good. But a lot of what modern feminism has become is custom, tradition and fashion. This is bad. We should accept some feminism within our chosen tribe but challenge, without harm, their beliefs where we think they are mere custom, tradition and fashion. We do this with reason, critical thinking and skepticism, good manners can’t hurt either. However, the thinking woman within our tribe that is committed to becoming stronger through exploring her own freedoms is a good woman. And if and when she decides that knowing herself is to know a fat, green haired, man hating feminazi, that is good for her too. At that point I think it is safe to say she will no longer want to be part of your tribe and you two can go your separate ways. If she ends up all on her own as part of a very weak tribe, one would assume she would use her freedom to lose 20 kgs, let her hair grow out and relax a little, unless knowing herself is to know a masochist who desires to live on the fringe. And if it turns out that her new tribe is a large and prosperous one, I guess you will have to make a choice as to whom you wish to identify with in light of this development. But the point is a man should only be reminded of his duty to his tribe by those within it who are prepared to be reminded in turn should they fail. Some will make the choice to be a part of a different tribe, so be it.
Some feminist should not form part of your tribe. Some feminist have chosen to define liberty as absolute liberty to do whatever they want. This is flawed. If you try saying to these feminists. “you should have bought a house by now” or “you’re not paying enough tax” or “that college degree you are studying will not be of any use to society” or “you should be providing for your own self funded retirement” it is seen as oppression and these feminist rebels against it. If you say it to a freeman, you are simply reminding him of his social duty. These feminists petition the minister for women to do something when much more women than men live below the poverty line. They do not put a responsibility on themselves to plan for retirement. It is a good and natural part of being an individual to be duty bound to the public good or the commonwealth. But this brand of feminism has resisted adopting this as a tenant of its teachings. Instead it has opted for absolute liberty and it has opted wrongly.
As a result of this form of feminism rejecting its own social responsibility to save itself from the evils of the world by choosing its own strong self sufficient tribe, it is becoming welfare dependent on our tribe. Men pay a considerably greater proportion of taxes but women receive considerably more welfare than men. As a result of this, men feel that they have voluntarily adopted a greater personal responsibility for society than some women have and that we are being taken for granted. We see women with all the liberties that we have but fewer social responsibilities. We work, but not entirely for ourselves. We work for us and also for those who can’t work and need assistance. Feminism does not place this duty upon women. When it comes time for divorce, women receive half of everything we have. The female will get custody of the children and we will have to pay child support even though we don’t get to see the children and be part of their lives. Perhaps another man will raise them and see them everyday. If she doesn’t work, the rest of masculinity pays for her with their taxes so she can receive welfare. Is this a tribe we still want to belong to?
Freemen are growing tired of the arrangement. Freemen are withdrawing from greater society. We are withdrawing into our own small tribes where we accept our society’s judgments and where we serve proudly. Freemen are losing their attachment to the family. We no longer accept that our duty to the population is fair and we balk at it. Freemen see liberty as the freedom to place oneself between the our tribe and harms’ way. Some aspects of feminism sees liberty as perpetual adolescence and the freedom from all responsibility. Men should continue to choose their tribe and serve it by being strong through being free to be men whilst minimizing the harm they do to others. If our tribe gets smaller and smaller and feminists and SJW’s choose to leave, then so be it. If at some point you must abandon your brothers and join another tribe, that will be your decision to make.
So let’s come back to the rolling question one last time. Feminism has refused to define its own version of liberty as the freedom to do what it wants so long as what it wants to do serves its tribe. Is this why it is, relatively, unhappy? Is femininity’s own society unable to provide for itself? Does the average women look into her future and see security in old age only via a man or The State? I know this wouldn’t make me happy.
I would add here that the feminist argument “I’m born women into a male world and am not made for it, therefore the male world owns me sovereignty. Even if I can’t provide it for myself.” is flawed in the modern world. It is no longer a male world, equal opportunity for females is ample. Yes, if you really go looking for sexism you can find it (even if it’s not there). But female opportunity to undertake to provide for itself has been established.