Flat White

Honey Badgers make me cringe

10 June 2017

8:49 AM

10 June 2017

8:49 AM

I want to believe. I really, really do. I want to believe that all this post-conservative ‘New Right’ stuff. I want to believe that if our memes are dank enough, and our pop culture references on fleek enough, and if we use nonsense words like ‘fleek’ enough, we’ll win the war for the West.

But I can’t. I don’t believe we can beat the Left on their field, with their ball, their rules, and their referees. I don’t think we’ll gain any ground by casting ourselves as their antagonists.

If we’re going to take back our civilization, we need to think, speak, and act differently than the Left does. We have to go over our work, find the error in our calculations, and start from scratch – even if it means abandoning decades of work. We have to take the long view, because that’s what the Left does. We’re playing one move ahead; we have to play eight, because they’re playing seven.

That’s why I cringe at the idea of ‘female men’s rights activists’, or Honey Badgers. (Our own Daisy Cousens was profiled, and rightly; Corrine Barraclough though, probably deserves a gong.) Does anyone think that, in the long run, the men’s rights movement will solve the excesses of the women’s rights movement? Do they think meninism is a viable alternative to feminism? Do they think that the way to end the War of the Sexes is for everyone to defect to one side or the other?

Let’s take a look at some of the Honey Badgers’ causes célèbres – marriage, for starters. To quote Badger-in-Chief Karen Straughan (linked above):

For women, marriage is all benefit and zero risk, and that’s why women are whining about men’s reluctance to tie the knot. But for men, it’s the other way around – no guaranteed benefit, and the kind of risk an adrenaline junkie would eschew.


So what do we do about? More prenups? Replace the bonds of duty, affection, and trust with the threat of lawsuits? Will that reconcile men and women to each other as loving partners, or will it make them more suspicious of each other?

Or take the gynocentric child-custody practices. Yes, it’s true that women are vastly more likely to get custody in the event of a divorce. But so what? Mothers are, by and large, the primary caregivers.

If we dig below the surface of the present crisis, we’ll see that it has its roots in the breakdown of traditional gender roles. A man’s first duty was to provide for their wives and children; a woman’s first duty was to care for her husband and the spouses were expected to take their Till-Deaths with extreme gravity. Sure, that sounds antiquated – but do you have a better idea? Does anyone? Are there any viable, long-term solutions that don’t include the words, ‘It’s not all about you, mate’?

If the Badgers want to do some real good, they wouldn’t make divorce more profitable for men: they’d strengthen the bonds of marriage. They wouldn’t help fathers get more custody rights: they’d fight to preserve the natural family. Otherwise we’re just arguing for a seat at the captain’s table on a sinking ship. I know the Twitter fights and shit-postings are fun, but they’re a dead end.

And it’s not all women’s fault. Many of the feminists’ grievances are perfectly legitimate. But they, too, all go back to the Sexual Revolution.

At some point in the sixties and seventies, our society decided that ‘duty’, ‘trust’, and ‘respect’ were too old-fashioned and had to be tossed out. That’s when we started to become collectively miserable. The idea of a gentleman was mocked into extinction, but then women were outraged to discover that men are actually pigs. We didn’t want to feel ‘ashamed’ of the human body, yet we’re horrified by the explosion of exploitative pornography. Women’s ‘liberation’ has proved a huge boon to men, who’ll shag anything with a hole … but not so much to the women they use as sex toys and then dump, maybe with a kid growing in their bellies. Likewise, when the stigma around single mothers disappeared, they became the new norm.

These are huge causes of women’s resentment of men, and rightly so. But moral laxity does have consequences, dears. These social mores weren’t meant to be oppressive – they were meant to protect you. I’m even willing to concede that they were probably established by the omnipresent Patriarchy: they show a cynical understanding of male depravity that women (you poor things) apparently had no intimation of.

Want to end the War of the Sexes? Forget feminism and forget meninism: take up complementarianism. Fight for marriage and the family. Give primacy to duty, trust, and respect. Raise your kids to be ladies and gentlemen, not beta-male white-knights and ‘Honey Badgers’. And just exercise a little self-restraint, yeah? That’s how you play the long game.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.


Show comments
Close