February 9, 2014 1 Comment
The title of this post is pointed more toward the victim complex at large on all sides, left or right, manosphere or not.
We see that there are those who blame feminists and minorities for all of their ills to the point that they begin to sound like the feminists who blame the patriarchy, or minorities who blame Whitey for all of their problems. Isn’t it absurd?
None of this is to acknowledge that there aren’t problems… it’s quite the contrary. There are many problems, many of which have some reasonable solutions.
But the overarching problem is the victim complex. It appears that some people actually seek to become victims.
If they aren’t victims, they can’t be the martyrs they envision themselves to be. The victim complex is a form of narcissism that actually denies itself the opportunity to empowerment, but rather seeks self-enfeeblement.
Perhaps this is a kind of mental neoteny, requiring others to wipe your ass, comb your hair and brush your teeth for you. There’s a kind of pathological learned helplessness that has swept through our society like wildfire, where nobody knows how to do anything for themselves, nor do they desire to do anything for themselves.
Where’s the root of the problem? Is it because it’s been encouraged to become a victim, where if you aren’t a victim your speech is ignored for more potent emotional stimulation?
I came across a “greentext” story last night that explained progressive websites in a nutshell:
- Put a cardboard box on your head
- Cry about your feels
- Listen to echo
This description is also a very accurate depiction of the victim complex, but what does it explain about it? The only conclusion I’ve been able to draw for myself is that the victim complex mentality doesn’t seek solutions, it only seeks validation.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but taken to an absurd level, the individual with the victim complex acts as if the wheel has to keep squeaking if it wants more and more grease.
Where does it end? My hunch is that it never ends unless the cries are ignored and the problem has to be fixed by the individual. It doesn’t help when the enfeebled cries of a self-victimizer are given legitimacy by our government or by other self-victimizers in tandem.
Back to the manosphere…
What does this have to do with the manosphere? I don’t see too much victim mentality here. Perhaps some of the complaints are legitimate obstacles to male goals. Not oppressions or victimizations, but obstacles that can be surmounted in a variety of ways:
- Going to a jurisdiction where these obstacles no longer apply (MGTOW)
- Changing the laws or circumstances creating these obstacles (MRA)
Eric over at runsonmagic supposes that manospherians don’t carry their own weight, that they don’t want to create lasting social change, but also explains that it’s in the nature of men not to change due to the futile nature of self-victimization, but to create instead, similar to what I’ve explained above.
Short of outright destroying those obstacles and rebuilding atop the ashes and rubble, taking your ball to play somewhere else has been a sensible solution. What Eric advocates however is taking the ball as a group and creating a “tribe” of sorts, an insular society that supports itself. It would be an interesting solution for people who don’t already have a tribe with friends and family, let alone friends or family who agree wholly with these beliefs.
Systems are not fixed. They are replaced. One tribe dissolves and another takes its place. The solution for the manosphere is to create a community and system that can replace the present one, and to start living in that system now, while slowly withdrawing support from the mainstream.
What makes the “tribe” more interesting however is that it’ll be a group of people who barely know each other but through their writings and that they happen to share similar beliefs. Assuming it doesn’t descend into a kumbaya commune or amount to the “Freemen on the land” movement which is ridiculed by the governing bodies that encounter these groups, it would be interesting to see, and even if it didn’t create any lasting change, they’ll be ahead of the game should any collapse arrive.
In lieu of that, perhaps we should form a secret club or gentleman’s society of sorts. The only issue is with any large movement or group is that it inevitably gets diluted by the lowest common denominator, that is, a group is only as strong as its weakest members. That and the tendency of knowledge to be hoarded or kept away from the population at large by more unscrupulous types.
Nonetheless, these are great ideas worth considering.