A few days back, one of the gents I follow on Twitter posted that. His was a thoughtful tweet, which got me thinking about the allegiances we form—externally or internally in our heads—with ideological groups in our pursuit of meaning. In my open application of that phrase, I considered who I've conversed with: Republicans, Trudeau's faithful, vaccine fanatics, vaccine refuseniks, TERFs and even trans-medicalists who abide by the reality that sex is immutable regardless of one's mode of dress or surgical decisions. In certain circles acknowledging your affiliations with one or more of these ideologues will see you granted a swift expulsion from the tribe.
As I'm not prone to tribalism and prefer to exist on the periphery of culture, observing, recording and interpreting for creative material the rites and ludicrousness of humanity, I am pretty out of touch with the rules of the various cults to which many pay obeisance. When I participate, I do so with individual proponents. I rarely join public outcries because the nature of participating with a mob requires surrendering your autonomy for collective ideation. I've enjoyed my chats with Benjamin Boyce and Belissa Cohen, and as with the best conversations, our dialogue has shaped or refined my thinking. But while we align on particular moralities or beliefs, I understand that the similarities in our personalities, lifestyles and choices vary exceptionally beyond those shared concepts.
I cannot stress enough the need to move away from tribalism, even if you find shelter with those of likewise beliefs. If you follow Mary Harrington, she has some brilliant commentary on the role of men's and boys' clubs. I agree with her that the primitive aspects of manhood—the bravado and sexual dominance—are best regulated not by internet Karens but by the self-policing tribes of gentlemen we've almost completely obliterated in our desire to force equity into single-sex spaces. That's all blown up spectacularly on both ends now, with the unregulated perverts who would be chastened by their male peers invading women's and girls' spaces and those same male peers now too neutered to mount a chivalrous defence. I understand but disagree with the schadenfreude of angry men who mock women for the wolves they invited to watch the sheep. The gender apocalypse is something we all face and fix together, regardless of where our ideological paths afterward wend.
And what of #metoo and #believeallwomen? These movements shoved away and demonized all men and were eventually capsized by the egomaniacal misandrists at their helms: Asia Argento, Alysa Milano and Amber Heard as the standouts. The lesson is that misandrists are no better and just as destructive as misogynists. Hate in any form should be identified and corrected.
Even Reduxx' s esteemed editor-in-chief, Anna Slatz, whom I have not interacted with, has recently come under fire for her homophobic comments. I haven't unearthed any damning evidence of this myself, though I haven't cared to go looking beyond a cursory Twitter hashtag search for her name. There was one spurious claim about her harassing someone, which was revoked—and I'm generally of a "trust but verify" attitude toward any claims that can destroy a person's reputation. Although, in Ana's case, her work does not seem to perpetuate misandry. Instead, it speaks to women's voices and viewpoints and is akin to one of the clubs that I earlier mentioned that underwent extinction.
Regardless of whether she is or is not a homophobe, I won't stop reading Reduxx's brilliant commentary because of an ideological difference. I read the occasional Epoch Times piece and regularly guffaw at Babylon Bee's satire, despite each being a Christian organization that's intrinsically opposed to my lifestyle.
Who cares? Why does this matter? The only thing that should count in the pursuit of truth is whether or not that information is accurate and can further enlighten you. History was made on shaky alliances. The French Revolution was a difficult and tumultuous period marked by various competing factions, including monarchists, republicans, socialists, and radicals. Despite their ideological differences, these groups worked together to establish a new political order based on liberty, equality, and fraternity principles. This collaboration had its challenges, including violent clashes between factions. Nonetheless, the Revolutionaries abolished feudalism, established religious toleration, and created a secular education system, among other achievements. The French Revolution's legacy is one of a transformative event that inspired other revolutionary movements and shaped the course of modern Europe.
For another example, I'd refer to my work: an unmissable dark fantasy tale, according to Kirkus (which you can buy and read to support me if you're so inclined). But more than that, it's a tale of a world split by geopolitical extremes and of a small, ragtag band of unusual allies, many of whom come together out of necessity rather than genuine affection (though they end up developing lasting bonds). The backdrop of the affair is a looming war with Lovecraftian forces that make all of mankind's squabbles a toddler's tantrum in the grand scheme of things. Because existential threats make people forget their petty biases, providing a playground to explore fundamental human relationship dynamics and morality.
Forgoing an invasion by the Old Ones or world war (despite our leaders toying with the idea) and returning to the present, how do men engage with women who hate them? First, engage with our common moral truths, and forget about the rest. Then go our separate ways once the shared goal has been achieved. Of course, that's not without peril, and let's not forget the Rein of Terror, the years of bloodshed and turmoil that resulted from reorienting society after the French Revolution. But I'm hopeful we can at least get men out of women's spaces and stop transing gay youths without public executions.
Perhaps I'm being naive. Time will tell.
—C