Michael Kimmel has made a career out of pushing policies that do vastly more harm than good to children, and directly harm the American people, but still he manages to portray himself as the voice of reason. There’s some blame to go around here for that, and as the publisher of this site I’ll have to take some of the share of it (more on that below), but it’s still my duty to expose the damage Kimmel does to society.
First, I should say that writing with rage and anger may be understandable, and justified in many cases, but it gives deceivers like Kimmel the upper hand. All he needs to do is sit back and point, saying: “see? Look how angry they are! I told you so!” Apparently, this is the theme of his newest book.
Provoking people and then crying for help is an age-old trick and often used in divorce, primarily by women due to the fact that an angry woman doesn’t frighten people or command attention like an angry man. However, men with a dispassionate or effeminate nature can also take advantage of it.
In his book, Kimmel used an article written here on The Spearhead written by Paul Elam to portray MRAs as irrational men who are in a rage because they feel their privilege is under threat, or because they cannot control women. I’ve found that having men desire to control them is a powerful female fantasy, which is why bondage and harems so often figure into “romance novels” and other female literature, so perhaps Kimmel is simply trying to take advantage of this instinct by incorporating bondage into academic literature. Not a bad idea, actually. If he wrote case studies of dominant men who demand utter submission from lovers he could probably find a pretty good market, and perhaps even make some money in popular entertainment.
On the other hand, rage writing is often appealing to men. Think of the Iliad, which is filled with descriptions of rage and the excesses of the battlefield, and has endured for thousands of years as a popular account of the Trojan War. I’m sure there were far less passionate accounts of the conflict, but they have been lost to posterity. Because of this, I used to be pretty tolerant about allowing people to post those kinds of rage articles, but over time I’ve come to see that radicals on both sides are playing a game in which the majority loses, including most children. In fact, as I get older the entire thing is starting to look infantile to me. Both sides are acting like babies, and if it weren’t for the fact that feminists like Kimmel are mainly responsible for this state of affairs, I’d be tempted to tell them all to go to hell.
But it is indeed the feminists who bear the greater share of the blame, so about all I can say about some of the excesses of some MRAs is that it’s unfortunate self-indulgence, and should be frowned upon even if it is understandable. My own rage peaked about when I found out my former mother-in-law prompted a false accusation of domestic violence that almost got me shot. She had the gall to come to my house after that, and I lost my temper when she grinned at me over the incident, cursing and saying things I really shouldn’t have said. Sure, that’s understandable; who wouldn’t be angry? But I should have kept my mouth shut given the circumstances. It was exactly her intent to break me down, and my temporary loss of self-possession was a victory for her. It showed a weakness on my part that I’m still a bit ashamed of. In a better world, I would have kept my cool, collected the evidence and sued her for substantial damages.
But we don’t live in a perfect world, and never will, so the Michael Kimmels of the world will likely continue to get away with falsely portraying men who are upset over the screwed-up family law system as irrational, dangerous people who are angry over nothing but the loss of their privilege. It’s an astonishing lie, but often those are the most effective ones, and unfortunately a lot of MRAs feed into that impression.
But instead of denouncing those on my side, I’d like to focus attention on Kimmel, and remind readers and anyone else who might come across this article that he has been a tireless proponent of empowering women at the expense of everyone else for the entirety of his academic career. His critiques of men are not limited merely to cultural issues, which are sometimes dysfunctional and fair game for criticism, but men’s normal human nature. He argues for a new man that is no man at all, and thereby does a great disservice to the vast middle of normal men. Like most feminists, he sets the bar for proper male behavior so low that only the least masculine can crawl beneath it, which necessarily puts the rest of us in a difficult situation.
In doing so he and his feminist cohort all but guarantee the continued, steady destruction of the normal, patriarchal American family, which ensures the ongoing decline in the living standards and outcomes of the average American child. But does any of this concern him? Not at all. He simply doubles down and keeps at it, attacking men in general, white men in particular, and, one gets the impression, middle-class white men most of all. A true friend of the elite, this Kimmel — a hero of the new aristocracy, putting the vile mediocrities who make up the majority of America in their proper, lower place.
And what better way to do that than to see to it that their children do not have the benefit of living with their father? Does the vastly more prevalent child abuse, sexual assault, child murder, neglect and poverty of single mother homes concern Kimmel? It doesn’t appear so. Perhaps he sees it as a feature rather than a bug. In any event, bashing on unfashionable working men is a good living these days, children be damned!
We’re finally getting to the point where guys like Kimmel no longer control the narrative as they used to, so maybe it’s time to put aside the attention-grabbing antics and belligerent rhetoric and get down to the work of mopping up the mess. So from here on out, perhaps a bit less of the self-indulgent rage and a little more self-control is in order. People are open to calls for a return to civility, so maybe we should make the first move, but all the while continue to point out the radical selfishness and vast social harm of feminism.
