Just as any magazine has different sections and departments, such as sports, entertainment, hard news, etc., so will The Spearhead look at different aspects of the male experience in the early 21st century westernized world. And, I think most readers of the Spearhead will agree that experience has some issues.
One aspect of the traditional notions of masculinity favors the active over the passive. Men have been identified with doing, and are typically known by what they DO. How many times have you been asked the question, many times as the first opening of conversation, “What do you DO?”
Just for the fun of it, because I love to yank people’s chains by giving unexpected responses, I often reply “I don’t DO anything, I just am.”
There is immense power in not going along with people’s social expectations. I’m not talking about being actively anti-social and doing things which are immoral, unethical, or illegal; but rather to simply not fall into the subtle social manipulation which amounts to following a script: “Well, if I say “A” then that is your prompt to say “B.” “The Social Script”, or just the “The Script”, for short, is a very powerful means of subtly controlling other people’s behavior.
One of my favorite examples of not following the social script in circumstances where doing so is self destructive is a story about the philosopher Alan Watts. At a posh, high-brow, dinner party he was served some potatoes which were still scaldingly hot. He immediately spit them out onto his plate and looked up to a sea of faces aghast at his incredible breech of “table manners.” He laughed in their faces and said “Only a fool would have swallowed it.”
Only a fool would swallow something which is self-destructive, simply because he is under social pressure to do so.
Ferdinand did a recent post about “The Emptiness of Modern Manhood.” Welmer has said that “Over the last few years, it has become increasingly obvious that American men – particularly those of the post-boomer generations – have fallen into a cultural gap.” and “As our society slowly hews down the last pillars of masculinity, ennervating a once vigorous civilization, it is important that some among us continue to stand up and live, speak and think as men.” If this is the picture of manhood, and civilization, that younger men see, it seems fairly obvious that somewhere along the line the guardians of masculinity and manhood have been fools and swallowed something fairly destructive.
As part of the generation who probably dropped the ball more than any other, I am in a position to offer some insights into how and why that occured. However, a post-mortem on classical notions of manhood and masculinity would be nothing more than a pointless intellectual exercise, particularly for men, unless whatever understanding and insight comes from that is taken to the next step and forms the basis for some sort of action.
If there is one symptom of the malaise of modern manhood/masculinity which more than any other points to both the root of the problems and their potential solutions, it is the loss of the ability and desire to take action. Rich Zubaty wrote a book a few years ago entitled “Surviving the Feminization of America.” His message boils down to the concept which has been pushed for the past 40 years – that masculinity and men are bad and femininity and women are good and that all the problems of the world will be solved if only men will become women.
But, the problem is that the average woman who is not among the feminist policy makers is not a lesbian. If she wanted to be with a woman, she could choose to do so. Masculinity is the natural complement to femininity, and to the extent that women retain any sense of their own feminine natures, they prefer masculine men.
When Ferdinand speaks of “The Emptiness of Modern Manhood”, he invokes the imagery of a hollowed out shell. Certain surface trappings of manhood have been held onto by the social deconstructionists in collusion with the Social Conservatives, but they have hollowed out the heart of it, leaving a truly empty feeling shell. Obsessive-compulsive “chivalry” has dictated deference and special treatment for all women which was previously reserved for those women who had earned the right to be called “ladies.” Hint: this right was not earned by swearing like a sailor, dressing in a manner which would embarass anyone with both self-awareness and taste, or excusing boorish and excessive behavior by saying “well, men have been doing it for years.”
So, part of the problem with modern manhood which makes it feel empty to younger men is being required to treat with respect an entire group of people who have not earned it by acting in a respectable manner or by reciprocating that respect – a group of people who seem to feel entitled whatever they want for no other reason than having been born with a vagina. And, in allowing that to come about and continue, the people who allowed it have cheapened the entire concept of “respect” so that it no longer contains any aspects of excellence, or admirable qualities, or achievement. In short, people today demand respect not for anything they do, but simply for being – existing. Well, earthworms exist, but they are not particularly admirable creatures.
But, there is something in the masculine spirit which rebels against this – something deep down which knows that it is fundamentally, completely, perversely wrong; something which knows that anything unearned is nothing but alms. And to accept alms is to be a beggar and is a wound to the spirit.
The masculine spirit knows that something must be done to earn what one receives in order for it feel like an achievement, a reward for excellence, and something which is worthy of respect. The quarterback who scrambles, finds his receiver, connects with his pass, and the receiver who takes it into the end zone both have done something characteristically different than the waterboy sitting on the sidelines. And thus it is just and right that should be rewarded with more respect.
But, in today’s world, the opposite is the case. Those who have achieved nothing demand the same rewards as those who have, and blame their own failures on the successes and excellence of others.
“From each according to ability, to each according to need” is the ideology of a cancer cell. Yet, in much of today’s world people are punished according to their ability and rewarded according to their need. That is what has eaten the heart out of modern manhood – the demand that we respect what is not respectable, give what has not been earned, and feed the tumor before we feed the heart.
Yes, indeed, only a fool would swallow it. But, unfortunately a lot of fools did. And, a lot of younger men have been left with a sense of emptiness.
So, what do we do now? We stop being fools and stop swallowing it. We spit out the nonsense we have been fed back onto the plates where it came from. And, when we get those nasty disapproving looks from people because we have refused to allow them to socially pressure us into harming ourselves – we laugh in their faces.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
“And, when we get those nasty disapproving looks from people because we have refused to allow them to socially pressure us into harming ourselves – we laugh in their faces.”
And once we’ve done this once, the second time is easier.
Everything starts with that first step. With Alcoholics Anonymous it was ‘My name is Joe Smith and I’m an alcoholic’. With gays it was ‘coming out’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent read.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t like the way men are treated in the media and by our culture. But I think one thing needs to be made clear.
Traditional masculinity SUCKS and it needs to DIE.
Traditional masculinity is, you work so somebody else can spend your money. You separate yourself from your emotions so you can shoulder the emotional burdens of somebody else. And you die to make sure somebody else lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
JD -
“Traditional masculinity SUCKS and it needs to DIE.Traditional masculinity is, you work so somebody else can spend your money. You separate yourself from your emotions so you can shoulder the emotional burdens of somebody else. And you die to make sure somebody else lives.”
I used to think the same thing.
But what alternative is so much better?
I disagree completely. Traditional masculinity is one of the only things in the world worth saving.
It is better to be strong than to be weak. Emotional control is better than emotional diarrhea and “self expression.” Heroism is more admirable than hedonism.
Men who reject traditional ideals of masculinity, in my experience, remain trapped in an amoral perpetual adolescence where they indulge in self-serving celebrations of weakness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Men who reject traditional ideals of masculinity, in my experience, remain trapped in an amoral perpetual adolescence where they indulge in self-serving celebrations of weakness.”
Yeah how about that Hugh Hefner guy? I feel sorry for him for being trapped in that amoral existence. Poor guy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…. then again maybe Hugh manages to combine traditonal masculunity PLUS a hedonistic existence. That would be like the best of both worlds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You got it, Puma.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was going to say george clooney but hugh hefner is a pretty good example.
I’m not saying “don’t work hard” or “don’t control your emotions.”
I’m saying, “If you’re going to work hard, make sure you’re the one enjoying the fruits of your labor.” and “Don’t get used as an emotional tampon.”
I draw the line at dying to protect a woman, however. No amount of sex and sandwiches is worth that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JD & Jack Donovan
You are mostly talking about different things.
@Jack Donovan
“Men who reject traditional ideals of masculinity, in my experience, remain trapped in an amoral perpetual adolescence where they indulge in self-serving celebrations of weakness.”
Not in my experience.
And there are plenty of masculine men around who would agree wholeheartedly with JD.
Of course, I agree with you here, …
“It is better to be strong than to be weak. Emotional control is better than emotional diarrhea and “self expression.†Heroism is more admirable than hedonism.”
In general, I see no reason why masculinity should be ‘defined’ as it was in the past.
Why do this? It’s not necessary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“But, in today’s world, the opposite is the case. Those who have achieved nothing demand the same rewards as those who have, and blame their own failures on the successes and excellence of others.”
This, I think, is the key point. It completely captures the feminization of the culture. Out of this idea comes the conflation of all women with ladies – epitomized by Victorianism.
It is also the basis for all of the utopian socialist tenets. The idea that one “deserves” the fruits of another’s labor is feminism’s essence. Whether it is wrapped-up in “because I have a vagina” or in “because I have been oppressed, it is the same special pleading.
SteveinTX
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“because I have become accustomed”
(I guess this is a corollary of “because I have a vagina”)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Puma,
I think I like yours better.
SteveinTX
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with Zed. A good post that I heartedly endorse against the Entitlement Mentality.I see the Entitlement Mentality as a dangerous ditch on one side of the road.
On the other side of the road is Functionalism (Something I’ve been dealing with length on my blog. It a mentality that has led to murder of the weak, the socially ostracized, etc. It has also led to a systemic attempt to dehumanize men that fail to meet the expectations of others (e.g., realmannspracht). Man’s worth is often conceived in terms of what he does for women or for other special interests in society. This represents the other ditch.
The challenge for the men’s movement is avoid either extreme. People need to be challenged to ethical behavior and responsibility, but not at the expense of dehumanizing them (and certainly not over matters of social preference, as opposed to matter of character).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Harry-
“And there are plenty of masculine men around who would agree wholeheartedly with JD.”
Masculine by what definition? If you throw out traditional masculinity, you’re talking about something completely undefined, so the word itself is meaningless. Actually, that’s pretty close to the feminist definition, which is “masculinity is whatever you want it to be, so long as it doesn’t conflict with the goals of women, in which case it is morally wrong.” That’s why in the humanities they refer to “masculinities” in plural, instead of “masculinity.”
In general, I see no reason why masculinity should be ‘defined’ as it was in the past.
My short answer is that we’re still the same monkeys.
I believe, as this fellow wrote recently, that “Culture and morality are machines for transmitting basic survival truths across generations. ”
Abandoning traditional masculinity is exactly what women want you to do. Actually, if you think about it, abandoning traditional masculinity and letting feminists use the government to tell men how to be men is how we got where we are now.
The problem is not traditional masculinity, it’s the fact that a feminist system exploits it. Patriarchal masculinity is pretty good for men. The tradeoff is closer to fair; men get something out of the bargain.
Nature makes men expendable. One can impregnate many women. (See Genghis Khan) That’s a fact of human life. If a culture/tribe is to survive, the next generation has to be protected. Men end up fighting that fight, because they do it better, but sometimes they fight it to the death.
Without traditional masculinity, in our fake gender-neutral society, men are just sperm donors with paychecks in what Lionel Tiger called our “bureaugamy” (the relationship between a woman, a child and the government).
Feminism has always relied on the benevolence of men. Men have always been in control for a reason.
They just have to start saying, “no.”
Today, that might mean saying no to marriage until the laws are better balanced, but if it is “no” to family, then whatever system you’re creating is going to fade quickly for lack of numbers, and be replaced by a more fecund civilization.
And Hefner fits the definition of a hedonist perfectly. It’s good to be Hef. Good work if you can get it. But you can’t run a civilization full of Hefs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jack Donovan
“Masculine by what definition? If you throw out traditional masculinity, you’re talking about something completely undefined, so the word itself is meaningless.”
Not really.
Refusing to endorse a concept does not mean that the concept is meaningless.
Besides which, meanings change over time.
Furthermore, I have no idea how to ‘define’ masculinity. And neither have you, would be my guess – certainly not one that I would agree with, I imagine.
And I don’t see people like Zed trying to define it for you.
But the problem with your overall view, in my view, is that times are changing quite dramatically – with much more change to come in the near future.
And so, for example, I do not accept your view that, …
“we’re still the same monkeys.”
… because we have become much wiser and more powerful in many ways. (Not all good, though.)
Furthermore, whatever men did before to be ‘masculine’ does not mean that there are no other ways in which to be masculine.
“But you can’t run a civilization full of Hefs.”
Why not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Furthermore, I have no idea how to ‘define’ masculinity. And neither have you, would be my guess – certainly not one that I would agree with, I imagine.
There is actually an awful lot of cross-cultural overlap, conceptually, despite all of the change humans have endured thusfar.
http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm
But here’s my stab at it. It’s a complex thing, but the masculine ideals of successful civilizations have one quality in common.
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2009/10/strength/
Technology isn’t exactly the same as wisdom, and technology only changes so much. Often, it just offers new ways to prove the same things.
I don’t want to sidetrack the comments on this article any further, so I’ll just let it rest there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jack Donovan, you are wrong on several fundamental levels.
Firstly, Masculinity is defined as “whatever women want you to be” and not only is it that way right now, but that’s the way it’s always been.
Second, women (or to be more accurate, societies) have ALWAYS exploited masculinity. the difference is just that now, it’s taken a different form. There’s a reason women don’t want to till fields, mine coal, or do anything that involves heavy lifting. It SUCKS.
In the past the institution of marriage was used to exploit men. You marry a woman and then she moves in with you and then you go off to work and she stays at home and plays house wife. Most of the time you didn’t even have a choice. The marriage was arranged for you. Your job was to work and take care of the people who make the babies.
Now, we live in a society that bombards men with sex in the media and promiscuous women. The women have an array of contraceptive options, plus abortion and adoption so they don’t have to be mothers unless they absolutely want to. The men have condoms which are 1 in 10 and best and no reproductive rights. Then, when the women “accidentally” gets pregnant, the judicial system forces the man to give the women his hard earned cash.
The system is different (the former overt, the latter coercive) but the bottom line is the same. You are ALWAYS a sperm donor with a paycheck.
Thirdly, women have ALWAYS relied on the benevolence of men. When the first man to get a woman pregnant decided not to abandon her to raise the children by herself, that was benevolence.
The deck might still be stacked against men but for the first time in history men have a degree of choice. On top of that, the system can be exploited if you know what you’re doing.
I’ve got more to say on the subject which I will save for a later post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m so happy that Zed is posting new articles and all in one place… this will save me so much google time!
I also hear the planets are going to align for the first time in 25,000 years on Dec 21st, 2012… oh god! Where is a bathroom? I need to pee so badly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
JD –
Well, that’s certainly one way to interpret history…
I have to say, it’s a treat to read a post by a fellow ideologue who is angrier at women than I am.
My general objection is that feminism is ruining everything noble and worthwhile about manhood, and is well on its way to destroying Western Civilization in the interest of creating fake “equality” to please a small minority of women who feel “less than.”
Yours seems to be that men have been tools ruled by women all along, and that feminism accidentally created a world where men can tell finally women to piss off.
They certainly can, though I don’t know how that will turn out in the long run.
Two irreconcilable viewpoints. Fair enough, sir.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I thought the article demonstrated again why The Spearhead is such an outstanding publication. As for the comments I feel as one who has more or less taken the ‘traditional route’ that my sympathies are with Harry and JD. One thing experience has taught me is that no mater what a man does for a woman and however hard he tries IT WILL NEVER BE GOOD ENOUGH. Say a woman wants $10000 and you give her $9000 all you will have achieved is her never-ending resentment that you denied her a $1000.
Women give men at least the following two things:-
1) A total knowledge of all his faults and imperfections, which without her he may have been completely unaware of.
2) The self knowledge of his own unworthiness and an understanding of her sacrifice in stooping so low as to have anything to do with him.
Actually there is a third I can think of:-
3) A woman can make a man utterly hate his life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it is less a case of ruining it than of simply driving it out of the lives of women. Ruining it for women, certainly. But, I think the far worse devastation is how feminism has ruined everything noble and worthwhile about womanhood. The dating pool for men is like swimming in highly concentrated toxic waste. When their flagship issue is the right to kill their own children (either before birth, or in cases like Andrea Yates – after birth) the only thing women really have left to offer men is sex. Certainly the PUA types are going to take full advantage of this, but their visibility simply makes the other sort of men even more invisible to women.
Guys like Anakin are holding on to the noble aspects of manhood, by the strategy of avoiding “entangling alliances” with creatures who have been almost universally corrupted by feminist influence. And, he takes a huge amount of guff for doing so. I believe it is these holdouts who will keep that spark of nobility alive through some very dark ages so that if conditions ever change so that it does not make a man into a target for looting, those values can come back.
Nor can you run a civilization dedicated to cannibalizing a significant portion of its members so that other members can live in unearned luxury. As long as the Hefs get rewarded and the decent men get their bones cracked so the looters can suck the marrow out of them, the decent men are going to go underground and you are going to see lots of Hefs.
There has to something more on the table for men in exchange for sustaining civilization than the opportunity to be noble corpses.
“There has to be something more on the table for men in exchange for sustaining civilization than the opportunity to be noble corpses.”
Insta-Classic Quote +1
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jack Donovan
I read your piece on ‘strength’.
Very good indeed. I enjoyed it. But it looks too much to the past.
And what seems to be forever missing from 99% of MRA discussions is that men now have the opportunity to change their world in a way that is different from the past in many fundamental ways.
And, I must confess, this general failure irritates me a great deal – partly because I also end up getting stuck in the past as a result.
But, for example, in the near future, our technology will allow us to produce children without the need for women’s wombs, we will modify our children genetically, we will choose their gender in advance, and so on.
Such things are going to have a major impact on how we view the genders.
Just as importantly, however, is the fact that the new communication technologies are going to allow ‘men’ to unite in ways that they have not been able to do before,
Our rulers (who have controlled our information sources) have always been prone to divide ‘men’ on grounds of race, religion, nationality, and so on – FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES.
But they will not be able to do this very effectively in the future.
And so, perhaps, for the first time in history, there will be a huge force for ‘men’ that has not existed before – a force that is small at the moment, but which cannot be stopped from growing.
And, as you say in your piece, the ‘strength’ of men is, to a large extent, what tended to give them their roles in life in the past.
And my point would be that this strength, when used on behalf of themselves rather than on behalf of their rulers, is bound to be extremely effective.
Indeed, assuming no worldwide catastrophes and the continuation of the internet, there is absolutely nothing that can halt the growth in size and power of a movement whose main aim is bettering the lot of men.
It just cannot be stopped.
The main point that I would like to make, however, is that our RECENT past (e.g. monogamous marriage, nuclear family etc) is NOT going to be a good guide to where we are heading.
And I would desperately urge MRAs to step outside of ‘the past’ and think much more about where men would LIKE to go in the future – because this is where we are heading.
e.g. see my piece,
http://www.angryharry.com/esMoreWomenThanMenRequired.htm
Now, one of the main reasons that MRAs rarely consider the future properly is because they (like me) are, as yet, continually being sidetracked by more pressing issues (e.g. various outrages such as men being convicted without evidence etc etc) and because we are still at the stage of trying to rally support from our friends while beating off our enemies.
In other words, we do not have much time to consider the future.
Furthermore, MRAs, and the MM in general, continually have to deal with ‘newcomers’ who haven’t got a clue what they are talking about. And so a huge amount of time is wasted trying to get them to wisen up and to stop them leading others down the wrong track.
The internet makes things very messy in this respect.
Nevertheless, the MM is growing. It is having a noticeable impact. And, in my view, it is all going rather well – but VERY SLOWLY.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Our rulers (who have controlled our information sources) have always been prone to divide ‘men’ on grounds of race, religion, nationality, and so on – FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES.”
In addition to these tried and true techniques for controlling men, ensuring men are too busily occupied with things besides their own interest is also vital to rulers maintaining power (the army breaks in conscripts by keeping them so worked that they have no energy to resist).
It’s no coincidence that most of the men actively discussing men’s issues are men who have leisure, even if for some it’s an undesirable kind of leisure. Large numbers of unemployed, unattached men are another factor to consider along with communication media like the internet when looking at our future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
zed –
I believe it is these holdouts who will keep that spark of nobility alive through some very dark ages so that if conditions ever change so that it does not make a man into a target for looting, those values can come back.
That’s more where I’m at. Not because I’m a religious conservative, because I’m not. I’m a non-believer. I’ve just come to the conclusion, as one who used to believe in the idea of a gender neutral society, that some of those old noble ideas are the best ones–though they do need tweaking from time to time. I’d like to see men refuse to submit to whatever women want, call out the liars, say “no,” and start moving back toward patriarchal ideas. But if they don’t, I’d like to be a part of the underground that saves that which is truly worth saving. I choose to live my life as if honor still matters. Because it matters to me.
I’m also not quite ready to see the men of the west lie down and accept that what has happened in little more than a generation is now undo-able. I don’t know that we have to abandon ship just yet. Everyone thought that Obama would sweep in a new era of unstoppable socialism (which favors women, “equality of results,” etc.). But people are standing up. Men are standing up. We shall see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Yeah how about that Hugh Hefner guy? I feel sorry for him for being trapped in that amoral existence. Poor guy.”
Well as a man who was getting so little sex in an 18 year marriage I can talk to this some. Yes. I was faithful for those 23 years. Now I am divorced, 45, and have plenty of money. Last night (being friday) I was in a bar with some friends, went home and watched a movie (American Beauty actually….I like to be reminded of how pathic married life was), got drunk….woke up about midday, got out of bed about 2pm….wandered into the office to do some work….thought about ringing up this woman I have been banging of late and decided ….stuff it…I think I’ll go to the bar, get nice cooked dinner, watch the football and get drunk again.
When I am getting laid enough that I simply can’t be bothered even making a date on a Saturday night to get laid, well, I think I am doing ok. I am not doing as well as Hef…but I don’t have the same desire or sex drive that he seems to retain.
I won’t ever pay for a woman or a child again…no taxes either…….and when I can’t get laid the way I want any more I’ll just lay down on the train tracks and say hello to my maker! LOL!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Harry,
I’ve been trying to email you AngryHarry. Are you aware of John Harris and http://www.tpuc.org and http://www.deadbeatdadsassociation.co.uk ?
Are you aware of their work in refusing jurisdiction of the Family Law Courts?
I have just served a bill on a judge in Ireland for EUR1,5M as the bill for the order of interim maintenance. Every time a judge issues an ‘order’ the man is legally entitled to issue a bill for that order. If we can only get that one small piece of information to every man who is being screwed over by FC we can actually stop the whole machine dead in it’s tracks.
Judges will not issue orders if they then get personal liens against them to pay the bill. A man has no obligation to fulfill an order until the bill is paid. Also, we are having success refusing jurisdiction of FC all together.
Yours is the largest site in the UK..but…mysteriously I can no longer view your site on my laptop and my emails to you seem to be blocked.
Are you aware of this progress in FC in the UK?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0