Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Loser = Uppity

Recently I've been reminded of a phenomenon I noticed in junior high school.  (With the Death of the Grownup, an increasing number of sociopolitical phenomena are starting to remind me of junior high school.)   For these purposes I'm dividing JH students into the cool (high-status kids who intimidated others), the masses (kids who weren't cool but seemed to accept the heirarchy), the outsiders (kids who didn't really accept the heirarchy but didn't fight it either), and the uppity (people who noted that the whole thing was a sham, based - whether they knew it or not - on the inverted value system common to post-civilization groups).

The cool kids became cool largely by insulting others, an approach which was sure to work if the others chose to respond with logic or reason.  Once the coveted label of "cool" had been achieved, no behavioral rules applied to you, including the supposed rule against complaining and the injunction against "having a thin skin".  It was perfectly acceptable for the cool kids to complain of having hurt feelings, not so much because people rationalized it, but because they didn't notice.  When cool kids pointed out that so-and-so hurt their feelings, the masses would uncritically believe that so-and-so was an incorrigible bastard.

Even though the outsiders may not have accepted "proof by accusation" in the case of the aforementioned incorrigible bastard, they would still enforce the injunction against complaining, and the injunction against thin skin.  They may have noticed the double standard and the doublethink that allowed the captain of the soccer team to insult away any constructive criticism, but they still applied one half of the standard ruthlessly to anyone who spoke of injustice.

This brings us to the uppity.  These were the guys who noted that both the rules and the emotionality were completely bogus.   For example, while the masses claimed to care nothing for academics or the people who excelled scholastically, they didn't casually dismiss grinds and nerds at all, but rather acted out bewilderment, disgust, and obvious hurt feelings whenever anyone performed better than average.  The uppity occasionally called BS.  Like everyone else, outsiders felt like no one should speak of the double standard, and joined in the chewing-out of the uppity at any opportunity.

The point is not to tell you about my junior-high.  The point is to show how similar this is to the blogosphere.  To be honest, as a happily married man I don't really care much about either Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) or Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW).  The main thing I keep noticing about them is that MRAs and MGTOW make a whole lot less noise than the people who loathe them, at least at the right end of the blogosphere.  Everyone is just so absolutely sure these guys are "losers".  Technically, a lot of them have "lost" if you take their divorce history into account.  It kind of puzzles me why people feel the need to complain about them so much, especially about their habit of complaining too much (be the change you want to see in the world!)  They certainly don't complain more than the Anti-Defamation League, the National Organization for Women, or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The analogies are:
cool ... journalists, professors, judges, and civil servants
masses .... masses
outsiders ... alternative rightists, neocameralists
uppity ... men's rights activists, MGTOW, white nationalists

If MRAs and MGTOW are irrelevant (and they probably are), then it follows that there is no real percentage in putting them down.  Doing so only confirms for them that the masses don't respect white males who don't follow the rules.  (Incidentally, doing so also proves that white males are still the victim of a double standard, which should perhaps cause anger to be focused in directions other than at white males.)

Might be better just to ignore the whole matter.  If you want to prove MRAs and/or MGTOW wrong, tell one of them that you respect him, and that he's way too good to spend his spare time focussing on the wrong that's been done to him when he could be doing something useful, like volunteering for Numbers USA or passing out Unamused's flyers.  Then again, I don't want people to lie, and I know it's hard for most people to respect "losers" they have been conditioned to hate.

Question is, can you rise above your conditioning?

3 comments:

latté island said...

The blogosphere is a different environment from real life. The blogosphere is more egalitarian, so even though the Men's Rights and WN people are marginalised elsewhere, in our corner of the internet, they are also cool kids.

Sometimes, the WNs agress against blogs they think are too philosemitic. That's why Auster can't have open comments, because of the nonstop abuse he gets from them. They also did that to Ian Jobling, who is now missing from the internet. And just the other day, they started in on Gates of Vienna.

Last year or so, the Roissyites were agressively negging women bloggers, to the point that when I coincidentally retired my blog, several commenters asked me if I'd been harassed by the Roissyites. I told them I hadn't, but I have heard of other women having a hard time with those guys.

So, on the internet, everyone wears a lot of hats. Depending on what blog we're on at the time, anyone can function as a cool kid or an outsider.

latté island said...

Aggress, aggressively [ed.]

hbd chick said...

"With the Death of the Grownup, an increasing number of sociopolitical phenomena are starting to remind me of junior high school."

depressing, isn't it? (i didn't like jr. high the first time 'round!)