Last week Elon University banned the use of the word “Freshmen” from its website and student orientation citing that the word was “sexist” and suggests that the young women might make good rape victims.
The term has often been felt to refer to the vulnerableness of young women in college for the first time. ‘Given the rates of sexual violence perpetrated against women on college campuses, it is useful to examine any use of a term that suggests that a group of people just entering college might be targets for such violence in any way’
Roosh had a passing tweet of this development and it reminded me of another “gender neutral” language purge from last year. In August of 2013 Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signed off on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles’s (hyphenated surname noted) reasoning for initiating the six-year endeavor was,
It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?
Thus, words such as freshmen, fireman, fisherman and even penmanship are neutralized to “first year student,” “fireperson,” “fisher” and “writing skill.” Perhaps the easiest way to grasp the process the committee used in their six-year effort is to presume that any noun or verb with the successive letters of “m-a-n” in its syntax was replaced with “person” or a substitution for a term that excluded the offending “m-a-n” letters.
This hasn’t been the only effort to geld the English language under the guise of a want for avoiding legal repercussions. The University of North Carolina has initiated a similar effort in their school’s by-laws. Kent Law, Marquette, and virtually every state college in the union, while not mandating the “manless” language, has made efforts to encourage linguistic androgyny.
The Washington state initiative is really just the next predictable progression in this gelding, but it clearly shows that the Feminine Imperative, in its unconsolable insecurity, would re-engineer the very language society uses in order to feel more secure. In order to fully appreciate the scope of the Feminine Imperative and the lengths to which it will go to assuage the need for feminine-security, a red pill man has to recognize the importance language represents to the human race as well as the removal of male, not masculine, influence from that language.
In all Latin-based languages there are gender associations with definitive articles. Nouns (and many adjectives) are specifically feminine or masculine as part of their intrinsic qualities. In Spanish “La Casa,” the home, is a feminine association. “El Toro,” the bull, is a masculine association. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of a Latin-based language understands that millennia ago the Latin culture found gender differentiation so important that it attached gender associations to the words, written and spoken, that represented the ideas and articles each word meant.
This might seem like a remedial review of language and society, but it’s important to understand what it is the Feminine Imperative hopes to undo, and the magnitude of its insecurities. They wish to alter the very foundations of human communication, language, by eliminating masculine associations with any article or quality. The Feminine Imperative, that is dependent upon men being Men when convenient, simultaneously makes herculean efforts to remove men from its idealized environment and society.
Be a Man
There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of passage into manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect. In Latin cultures a young woman becomes a woman on here quinceñera – her fifteenth birthday. Jewish boys have a Bar Mitzvah, certain Native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it – we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when that adult, masculine respect is due.
A lot has been written on this blog and many others about the ceaseless efforts of feminists and SJWs to marginalize and ridicule anything masculine. It’s easy to find consistent examples of this in the past 50 years of popular media, movies, TV sitcoms, music, etc. While masculinity is ridiculed, there’s more to it than this—the same masculine attributes and qualities that make women “strong” are those make men strong. The difference is in the application – it wasn’t enough to implant the seeds of masculine self-doubt into men, the Feminine Imperative had to make men, not necessarily masculinity, the problem to be solved.
In all of the examples of masculine gender reversal in popular culture, men are the unique problem, to which only women have the resources, wisdom and intuition to correct. The men of today are characterized as the Lucy Ricardos of the 50’s, requiring women’s guidance to avoid, often mutually destructive, disasters. However, the key to solving those problems, characterized as uniquely male, still require masculine-associated, mindsets, skills and applications.
Guys vs. Men
I was participating in a conversation just recently with a young woman of 26 and a young man of 18. The conversation itself wasn’t important, but at one point the young man referred to himself as a “Man.” He said something to the effect of, “Well I’m a man, and men do…” At the word “man,” she cut him off with the unconscious snigger that’s resulted from years of feminist ridicule conditioning. Just the mention of a man self-referencing as a “man” is enough to inspire feminine ridicule. It’s laughable for a man to consider himself a man.
In the face of a constant conditioned ridicule, it’s almost an uncomfortable recognition to distinguish yourself as a Man. It’s too easy to just think of yourself as a “guy” and never be so presumptuous as to insist upon your manhood. In girl-world, to claim to be a Man is to admit to arrogance – it’s to embrace a flawed nature. It’s important to note here that in embracing your status as a Man, instead of “just a guy,” you are passing a meta-shit test. By embracing self-referenced manhood, you are rejecting what a world aligned against you would like you to believe about yourself.
Remove the Man
As I addressed earlier, the Feminine Imperative perceives your Manhood as a threat. By endorsing yourself as a Man, on some level, whether you’re cognizant of it or not, you’re indicating that you have an inkling of your own personal value. You’re expressing a self-awareness that is both attractive and terrorizing for women, but due to the constant influence of feminine primacy you’re perceived as arrogant, self-serving, and prideful. Even in the most innocuous context, insisting upon your status as a Man is inherently sexist to a world defined by the Feminine Imperative.
But the imperative needs masculinity. To insure its (temporary) satisfaction of security a masculine element is required. Strength, confidence, determination, a capacity for risk taking, dominance and the comfort that women naturally derive from those masculine attributes are necessities of a healthy, secure, existence for women and the feminine.
However, brutish, ridiculous, and stupid men can’t be trusted to universally provide this masculine security that every woman deserves irrespective of attractiveness or merit according to the Feminine Imperative. So Men must be removed from masculinity. Domineering women, as a default status in heterosexual relationships, pushes masculinity into her domain. Dominant masculine partners in sexually fluid relationships are similarly, unironically, re-characterized.
These are the easy examples. Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.
I can remember an instance at a former workplace where some coworkers were organizing a team to run in a Breast Cancer awareness walk. At one point a particularly mangina coworker suggested we all wear the prerequisite pink color at the event. Needless to say I arrived in a black t-shirt amongst a sea of pink. The predictable accusation of my sexual security came up: “What, aren’t you secure enough in your manhood to wear pink?…herp..derp!” to which I answered “I’m secure enough in my Manhood not to wear pink.”
What the mangina was obliviously parroting back is the same social tool that’s been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the very movement that seeks to destroy it.
This power of defining the masculine isn’t limited just to snarky, subconscious referencing; it’s simply one aspect of a greater effort to remove men from masculinity. While the efforts of certain women bloggers and psychologists (both within and out of the manosphere) to build better betas seems ennobling to white knights, the unifying purpose behind their efforts is really one of portioning or rationing masculine authority to men to satisfy only their immediate needs for those masculine aspects. Be alpha as needed, but more often be beta to allow for fem-masculine dominance and primacy.
I’ve explained this previously as the Male Catch 22, but it’s important to understand that this catch isn’t some unfortunate byproduct of male inheritance; it’s a careful, calculated feminine social dynamic with the latent purpose of making men accountable for masculine responsibilities while simultaneously making them shamed and guilty of “male privilege” when that masculinity conflicts with the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. That’s the crux of the dynamic, but the mechanics of it are still rooted in specifically male masculine self-doubt.
For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity. Here’s the solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them faux authority only when it would benefit the Feminine Imperative.
Read More: The Limits Of American Feminism