“Real men don’t read books about masculinity or sit around talking about manhood.â€
I’ve heard it more than a few times. Masculinity is associated with action, so men who simply write about men’s issues are sometimes taunted with accusations of defective masculinity. This also plays into the big, dumb, silent thug stereotype that is half-consciously accepted by men, though it only advances the cause of women. My joke that even Conan studied the classics only draws blank stares.
But, by Crom, the truth is that men have been talking about what it means to be a man since the beginning of recorded history. Men laid down the law about what men should and should not do. They debated about what makes a good man good and a wicked man wicked, about how a man should behave and carry himself, about how he should conduct himself around women. Actually, it seems that men are always talking about manhood. Homer, Aristotle, Chaucer, Kipling and Theodore Roosevelt have all weighed in. Much of this writing is meant to inspire; it was written to benefit men and to spur them on toward excellence and achievement. A good introductory sourcebook for this rich and ongoing debate about Western manhood is What Is A Man? 3,000 Years of Wisdom on the Art of Manly Virtue, by Waller R. Newell.
In recent times, it seems the majority of writing about men has not been written to benefit men.
Countless writers have congratulated themselves and each other as they snarkily “deconstructed†manhood. The worst of them have slandered men outright. The most generous have attempted to forgive men for not being like women, and have offered corrective suggestions as to how men might better serve the social agendas of certain women. Unfortunately, by employing the vocabulary and style of the “social sciences,†ideologically skewed disinformation and propaganda has often been mistaken for objective analysis–even “truth.â€
The majority of people writing about men have some sort of axe to grind. Many are simply nursing wounds of exclusion or rejection from their childhoods, and they adopt the language and postures of craftier folk. Some of the male feminist writers also fit that description, but some seem to be motivated, ironically, by a sense of chivalry–as if they are graciously opening doors so that women can thrive.
But the end of this sort of anti-male writing is clear: to render manhood meaningless and demoralize men to the extent that they can no longer function to their greatest potential.
Moral arguments are advanced demanding that men stop being men and get out of the way so that others may rise to prominence and “express themselves.â€
The patriarchal hierarchies historically favored by men have been shown to be incompatible with a communal society wherein every person gives according to his/her ability, and receives according to his/her needs, regardless of their individual contribution. Some scientists have disputed the notion that humans are all blank slates without any true nature, and anthropologists have insisted that there are human universals. Marxist revolutions have never materialized into the communal utopias that inspired them.
Real men don’t function well in the theoretical ant farms of cloistered intellectuals.
Men create social systems based on the general physical differences between the sexes. They divide labor and craft idealized, “essential†roles which make certain demands of men and offer them certain privileges or punishments based on their ability to reach those ideals.
Without a role to play, without a set of noble ideals, obligations and responsibilities…men are handicapped. They don’t know what to do with their masculine qualities, and are made to feel guilty simply for being born into “male privilege.†They are expected to “compete,†but they are shamed for having won. They are robbed of positive drive. Under such conditions, many men become directionless, bitter, lazy, decadent and hedonistic or even dangerous. Too often they simply offer up their stones and say, “Yes ma’am.â€
As Al Bundy would say, it’s time to fight this Amazonian Masterhood over the intellectual discussion of masculinity with a thundering, “No ma’am.â€
The problem is that feminists and their pets have created an academic system wherein feminist interests dictate the rules. Any man who wishes to be considered an “expert†on masculinity or men’s psychology, or who wishes to make a name for himself in the field of gender studies must genuflect to feminist gatekeepers. Could a man who writes critical reviews of feminist material, or whose writing seems to support patriarchal family structures, traditional gender roles, classical masculine virtues or natural differences between the sexes ever expect to find his work published in a scholarly journal such as Men and Masculinities? Below are its submission guidelines.
Men and Masculinities seeks empirical and theoretical articles, written for a multidisciplinary audience, that explore issues in masculinities. Topics of particular interest include
- constructions of masculinities
- male/female relationships
- sexual behavior or sexual identities
- representations of gender
- diversity among men and intersections of race, ethnicity, sexuality, age, class, and masculinities
The journal subscribes to principles of non-sexist, non-heterosexist, and non-racist publishing, and the editors are also committed to publishing significant empirical work that challenges conventional wisdoms.
I think not.
The principles outlined above assure that any “exploration†of the male experience undertaken in the pages of Men and Masculinities will yield material that supports a progressive feminist worldview. There is no pretense of honest truth-seeking or objectivity here. As with the majority of feminist thought, this journal is a pre-determined conviction soliciting evidence to support it.
Men and Masculinities is edited by Michael S. Kimmel. Kimmel is a significant figure in what passes for “Men’s Studies.†His recent book Guyland was praised by Gloria Steinem and he is widely recognized as an expert on men. In the following clip, excerpted from his video on gender, Mars, Venus or Planet Earth, Kimmel talks about an explosion of writing on feminism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgaOK74HqiA
This explosion of feminist writing led to feminist study groups about gender within academia. Kimmel gives the impression that these kinds of groups eventually led to the development of courses on gender and women’s studies—from a feminist perspective. These courses are largely responsible for indoctrinating and influencing generations of young people and have prepared them to accept and further the pathologizing of masculinity and maleness that we see in society, culture and government today.
If you go down to your local Borders or Barnes and Noble, you will notice that compared to the “Women’s Studies†section, the “Men’s Studies†section is awfully small. That’s if they even have a shelf for it. Several of those few books are written from an explicitly feminist perspective. Most—like Harvey C. Mansfield’s Manliness—make an effort to square their vision of masculinity with the feminist goal of a gender-neutral society.
The idea that women and feminists are the only real experts on what it means to be a man is absurd, but that’s where we seem to be today. What we need is an explosion of writing about manhood from the perspective of men who do not seek the approval of women before they determine what being a man means. We need writing about men written manifestly for the benefit of men.
This writing will have to be extra-academic for the most part, because feminist thinking appears to be institutionalized at nearly all levels in academia. But the writing must be of a caliber that rivals the other writing in the field. This is a formidable task for those of us who don’t have grants, research assistants or cushy tenured positions at Universities. But it has to be done, somehow, if men are ever to regain control over their own identities.
The Spearhead seems to be a step in that direction.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 119 comments… read them below or add one }
“But the writing must be of a caliber that rivals the other writing in the field”
Actually, it needs to be better and more thorough in every way.
But, besides the sheer magnitude of such a project, it shouldnt be too hard to reach those standards, since books written from an explicit feministic viewpoint about men are, when you cut down to the bone, to compare with books written by blind people, on the subject of colours.
They hold no validation and are merely scrathing the surface.
Another alligation are, that its like a blindfolded trying to descripe an tiger from holding its tail. And like the blindfolded, they have no understanding, whatsoever, about the danger such an action places them in, until the tiger roars…
“In recent times, it seems the majority of writing about men has not been written to benefit men.”
This is a good point. There is no money to be made or prestige to be acquired by writing about the same old monoliths. Turn to the internet and blogs for example. On my own blog, my largest traffic spikes occur when I post sensationalist pieces. People get attention, money, fame, etc when they go against the grain.
Men made names for themselves by going against that and adopting leftism, progressivism, feminism, New-Ageism, and such even if it went against “men’s” best interests.
In aggregate, it seems that when men as a group seemed to have a lot of power**, the only way individual men could gain any extra power was by dispersing the power of other men to those who were perceived to not have any (minorities and women).
**I use the term power, but I believe there are actually many facets to power. Men have structural – economic, political – power while women have power over the household, the womb, and essentially the man (women choose). Women in total bought into feminism because it gave them more access to structural power which pushes them ever-closer to a monopoly of all types of power.
Good post Jack.
Nice posting, and I am glad to make this my first post to The Spearhead, glad to see “Operation: Headquarters” went as expected.
You mention:
“This writing will have to be extra-academic for the most part”
I think that this will not be hard to achieve, as even WITH all their luxuries they still can’t assemble a grain of truth; truth is constant, and all they have to go on is lies. However the biased system against Men will require exceptional writing to inspire exceptional talent that will one day take the system down: It’s going to happen, the status quo works against the tide, against gravity, and it’s losing power. We’re already beginning to see defects to the natural order, not because they eventually had to accept it, but because Men (and Women) couldn’t choke down this farce forever, paying lip service to something they didn’t believe (they’re not the defects, by the way, they are the ones who always knew or had their eyes opened at some point), they’re, WE’RE fighting back now, and it’s obvious who will win to all spectators.
-AmStrat
Good post.
I am reminded of the Thucydides quote that says (paraphrased):
“The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools”
But, by Crom, the truth is that men have been talking about what it means to be a man since the beginning of recorded history. Men laid down the law about what men should and should not do. They debated about what makes a good man good and a wicked man wicked, about how a man should behave and carry himself, about how he should conduct himself around women.
Outstanding post, Jack.
I’ve had an idea that has been bouncing around in my head for a while that has been really difficult to get a handle on and pin down into words. It has to do with the difference between essence and manifestation.
It seems to me that the quote above is less about defining manhood than it is about defining civilization by defining behaviors which contribute to civilization and then find ways to raise boys which incorporate these roles into their identities. “Man”, “men”, and “manhood” all seem to be socially defined roles which shape and channel men’s basic natures and characteristics into patterns which benefit the group, the civilization. It seems to be a way to overcome humans’ intrinsically selfish natures and get them to internalize a concern and regard for others and not think entirely of themselves and what gratifies them at the current moment.
Thus, we do come up with a real distinction between what a “man” is, as a socially defined term and role, versus simply a reproductively capable adult human male.
Things like aggression, competition, risk taking, are probably part of our essence – our intrinsic biological natures. Concepts like “honor” channel those qualities into behaving in a way that benefits the social group as whole.
The incredible destructiveness of the movement to “deconstruct masculinity” is that starts by denying that there is any such thing as a biological nature, and assumes that those characteristics which are due to it are instead due to socialization. Then they use the darker and more destructive tendencies as evidence and justification for the need to destroy the socialization. The more of the socialization they destroy, the more the darker aspects manifest themselves, giving the social deconstructionists the opening to say “see, we were right!”
First they destroy the socialization which made men noble, then when men started becoming less noble, used that as a justification to intensify their destruction efforts.
And, so much of this comes back to the role of fatherhood. Women have no need to debate what it “means” to be a woman – all they have to do is pop out a kid and say “see, I am a woman.” With no correspondingly evident biological role, men are defined mostly by a social role.
Women are women by their essence, men must become men by manifestation of socially supporting and constructive values and actions.
Actions speak louder than words.
All that had to be said has been said time and time again, ad nauseam. We are going nowhere with words.
The time has come to let the sword do the talking.
There is no other way out. Sooner or later, this society will know destruction. It’s unavoidableé The longer we wait to burn this society the worse it will get. That sore tooth must be pulled out.
When your house is rotten, you take it down and rebuild a new one. This is what we must do on a grand scale. No other solution will do.
Nothing will change until we bring down that which is oppressing us: this society must sink.
We shall rebuild from the ashes as has been done many times before.
Rebel
It wasn’t so long ago that all writing on all topics was done by men. Women were so outside-of-language that they were omitted from the historic record or not even given names during their lifetime. Feminists who today natter on about being excluded from the printed page should instead turn cartwheels in the streets celebrating how far men have let them advance, and advance at the cost of men.
It is good to have an axe to grind when writing (about men or other topics). Men’s ideas compete and the weaker ones should die out. Feminist’s ideas… well, that’s a different story then isn’t it.
‘Most men’ is a large group of people, and not many of them live where I live or as I live. Likely, most men know what being a man means. It takes a diet of ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ to introduce other perspectives. Most men would scratch their head and laugh ‘you don’t say’ at the notion men and women are different. Such mockery might do the feminist world some good. Academic text (in our out of academia) is important but not singularly important. Living a good life as a good man matters most to me.
Thank you to all authors at The Spearhead.
anonymous -
I know what you mean. I know a guy who only gets on the Internet for porn and gun shopping. When I ramble on about feminists he looks at me like I just got back from a trip to Mars. It’s not part of his world.
At the same time, feminists influence his world, and I suspect that many of the angrier men who comment here were suddenly shocked into caring what feminists say when they realized that, while they were not caring, their world had been re-created to favor women and handicap men.
Feminists train our leaders, influence and pressure the people who craft the messages in our entertainment, and they educate our children.
The free marketplace of ideas is an important concept for America, and the point of my post is that men need to regain market share.
I think we can start by realizing that manhood is not something we have the liberty of defining. Manhood is the birthright of every male human being. We don’t do men any favors by denying who they are. Being a man is a biological fact, not a value judgment. Like I said in my most recent post, if we make it a value judgment, then we fall into the trap the feminists have set for us. If we want men to take up certain virtues, then these virtues must be defended logically on their own basis, not because we get to usurp the throne of the Creator and/or nature and decide who has XY chromosomes and who doesn’t.
My last line should read “usurp the throne of the Creator and decide …” since God is clearly above nature, though human beings physically aren’t.
Dovetailing into what Anakin just said, I think it is important that manhood and masculinity be recognized and affirmed by virtue of a fellow having male chromosomes.
There should be a distinction made between “being a man” and “acting in a socially constructive manner”.
The former is achieved through no other virtue than being born. The other is subject to critique, even shaming language in order that constructive behaviors be promoted and destructive behaviors be suppressed.
@Jack
“This writing will have to be extra-academic for the most part, because feminist thinking appears to be institutionalized at nearly all levels in academia.”
I disagree with this quite strongly, because the notion that the public or the government are swayed much by academia is wrong.
The public is swayed by emotion and soundbites and the governing classes are swayed by those things that affect their own powers and wealth.
If this was not true, feminism would never have got its stranglehold in the first place.
Indeed, as I have admitted quite openly recently, the Game/PUA brigade will likely have more influence when it comes to waking men up than will the activities typically engaged in by MRAs – for the simple reason that *most* men are more interested in being good around women than they are in politics or social science academia.
Women, too, are particularly more interested in relationships than in science.
I have repeatedly pointed out on my website that this notion that science and academia are the route to success for the progress of ‘men’ in our societies is just plain wrong.
Recent and past history show that the ‘generation of heat’ is mostly what matters; e.g. see my articles here, …
http://www.angryharry.com/esEffectiveActivism.htm
I wish it wasn’t so.
But it is.
Anakin/EW:
Women will always be valued more than men in themselves and trying to fight that is a fool’s errand. The reason is very simple, and biologically determined: eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. A woman inherently has something of value (reproductive capacity), while a man does not. That is why so much of game writings emphasize being a giver of value.
Roy Baumeister explains:
The phrase “Be a man†is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive.
Some sociological writings about the male role have emphasized that to be a man, you have to produce more than you consume. That is, men are expected, first, to provide for themselves: If somebody else provides for you, you’re less than a man. Second, the man should create some additional wealth or surplus value so that it can provide for others in addition to himself. These can be his wife and children, or others who depend on him, or his subordinates, or even perhaps just paying taxes that the government can use. Regardless, you’re not a man unless you produce at that level.
Again, I’m not saying men have it worse than women. There are plenty of problems and disadvantages that cultures put on women. My point is just that cultures find men useful in these very specific ways. Requiring the man to earn respect by producing wealth and value that can support himself and others is one of these. Women do not face this particular challenge or requirement.
These demands also contribute to various male behavior patterns. The ambition, competition, and striving for greatness may well be linked to this requirement to fight for respect. All-male groups tend to be marked by putdowns and other practices that remind everybody that there is NOT enough respect to go around, because this awareness motivates each man to try harder to earn respect. This, incidentally, has probably been a major source of friction as women have moved into the workplace, and organizations have had to shift toward policies that everyone is entitled to respect. The men hadn’t originally built them to respect everybody.
One of the basic, most widely accepted gender differences is agency versus communion. Male agency may be partly an adaptation to this kind of social life based on larger groups, where people aren’t necessarily valued and one has to strive for respect. To succeed in the male social sphere of large groups, you need an active, agentic self to fight for your place, because it isn’t given to you and only a few will be successful. Even the male ego, with its concern with proving oneself and competing against others, seems likely to be designed to cope with systems where there is a shortage of respect and you have to work hard to get some — or else you’ll be exposed to humiliation.
I agree that all men should be entitled to a minimum level of respect as a human beings, and I further agree that we should have equally high expectations of moral behaviour for women as for men, but the demands on men in other areas will, rightly, always be higher than on women.
This revolution just cannot go to the feminist oriented traditional media and academia, so for spreading the word we must focus on the Internet, and if we want to win this war we need a way to strengthen the bulk of our forces.
Because, besides the traffic spikes that come every single time that there is a post on a mainstream topic, the bulk of our forces are PUAs, divorced males, and those males who stumbled unto this by despair or accident. And, given the large size of the Internet, this isn’t reaching the masses, specially the masses of young men.
So, my proposal is that we make a call to a group, a large group of young males that already fight against women, gays and manginas, a group of young males that are already bitter because the nature of our society doesn’t allow them to get laid and a group that has no problem in fighting the most hurtful and dirtiest way possible.
Oh and even better, a group that already has already gained momentum in the traditional media, if only for their desire of destruction.
My proposal is that we make an alliance with the sewers of the Internet, the hackers on steroids, the Internet Hate Machine. At least is that how the media talks about them. Better known as 4chan’s /b/, the Something Awful forums, the Enciclopedia Dramatica cadre, the Player vs. Player videogame community, etc.
Let’s face it, we need a mass large enough to fight the status quo. We need young males who have the disposition to fight. We need males that have the “getting laid” motivation that has impulsed so many revolutions. What better way to get them?
I think any discussion on male gender issues should begin and end with warren ferrell.
If you haven’t read it, pick up The Myth of Male Power.
“The idea that women and feminists are the only real experts on what it means to be a man is absurd, but that’s where we seem to be today. What we need is an explosion of writing about manhood from the perspective of men who do not seek the approval of women before they determine what being a man means. We need writing about men written manifestly for the benefit of men.”
Correct, the idea a woman knows anything about a man is absurd. Indeed, if you actually read any of these womens books they are filled with lies and clearly demonstrate these women don’t know anything about anything and are being told what to write by powerful men.
I actually do not think we need an ‘explosion’ is writing about manhood. Just conversations. I am not on commission. But Dick Masterson has written pretty much everything a young man needs to know about being a man in Men Are Better Than Women…and we are. Sure, some more books would be good. But as you point out there are plenty written. I never had to read a book to know how to be a man.
And us men are notoriously reluctant to read books and act on them. We are much more enthused about getting into a job and demonstrating our abilities by getting a ‘job well done’ pat on the back at the end by someone we respect. Not saying we don’t need some books. I am saying I read a lot of books about ‘self improvement’ and they don’t have lasting effect. Being on the coal face has lasting effect.
I would argue we need places for the young men to come to and ask about what it is to be a man and how does that work for specific cases. The time honoured ‘seek advice from older men’ technique. Over on the mabtw forums we have many a young man come in very confused. I’d love to see localised forums by city so the young guys can go have a beer and a dinner with an older guy and pick his brains. All those days I played cricket with the ‘old guys’ or went to football with the ‘old guys’ and had them teach me one little bit al a time what it is to be a man doesn’t happen any more for the young guys. When I am working I hold ‘nite schools’ to help educate the young men. I am the only person I know who does that.
Lastly, and I feel very strongly about this. Young guys are being totally f***ed over in the universities now. Further, universities are teaching crap in IT. Kids coming out of western unis know bugger all about how to be useful in an IT environment. (I guess it is the same elsewhere but I only work in IT) Their indian counterparts burn them off by a wide margin. If we want to help these young men (for example in my area of IT) we simply must form companies that will mostly exclude women and we need to give young men work experience to replace the university education that is being denied them.
My view is that degrees have become so worthless, especially ‘wimmins studies’, that we really need to use the older ‘master/apprentice’ notion to be able to bring young men through. By being an ‘apprentice’ the young men will also find out what it is to ‘be a man’.
This writing will have to be extra-academic for the most part
Or cleverly disguised as humor…
JD October 18, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“I think any discussion on male gender issues should begin and end with warren ferrell.
If you haven’t read it, pick up The Myth of Male Power.”
In my opinion Warren Farrel is an Illuminati stooge plain and simple. I have seen him present a number of videos talking about ‘how men need to adjust to the new world with empowered women’ and crap like that. Really? Sorry Warren. Weren’t you one of the band leaders promoting feminism? And aren’t you now just saying we should adjust to this new reality? I did not read his book but in the things of his I browsed I can find no mention that feminism was run by the Illuminati. I can find no mention of how it was always planned as a destructive force in our society despite the wealth of evidence it was. And I see him on MSM which is always an indication that he is putting out an ‘Illuminati approved message’. My opinion is that he is nothing but an agent to now get men to ‘change’. So I wrote to him and challenged him on these points and others.
Answer? Nothing at all. Typical. Any man who claims to be speaking for men and then fails to step up to the challenge of responding to the facts of the matter is a fraud in my book and Warren Farrel is high on that list. Sorry guys. I have no time for him and believe him to be a dangerous subversive. Sure, I might be wrong. So let him argue his case out in the open if he is not.
Gx1080 October 18, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“Let’s face it, we need a mass large enough to fight the status quo. We need young males who have the disposition to fight.”
Gents, I disagree strongly. All I ever hear about in MRAs or Mens Rights discussion is how we need to tell more men about the issues and wake them up. Although this is true to an extent it remains a single focus. 15 months ago I too believed we needed to change the ‘laws’ and we needed to wake men up to ‘get the votes’ etc. This was a mistake and I am man enough to admit it.
The current state of affairs has been achieved by deception and it is actually very fragile. I will keep saying it until a few bright sparks here pick it up. Men need to learn how common law works and we need to establish dejour juries and incarcerate judges who are found guilty of committing crimes. We have plenty of judges who are guilty and we have tens of thousands of members of MRAs. What we do not have is 12 men willing to sit in a dejour jury. Why?
How many judges will we need to throw in jail for crimes commited in abusing men before the other judges wake up and realise we are serious and we will thrown them in jail if they do not serve us as they have taken an oath to? Not many in my expectations. You guys would be AMAZED how hard it is to get across the notion that common law exists and can be used. All these men are ‘so smart’ that they ‘know’ it does not exist despite the fact that it does.
Think of it this way. In ALL THE WORLD I can not find 12 men willing to stand up for their rights even at the risk of their lives! How about that!!! I’ve got about 6 in Ireland and working on it. When we figure out how to create dejour juries and try judges for crimes (“all men are equal before the law”) and we throw a few in jail THEN we will get somewhere. What sort of publicity can we get with a jailed judge? Pretty good I imagine. “Raising awareness” is good and needs to continue. But in case you haven’t noticed it has not made a great deal of difference in the last 10 years because votes don’t count. We do NOT live in a democracy and I wouldn’t want to anyway. Democracies are very bad things.
How can thinking men believe that ‘justice’ should be left to a bunch of people who have proven themselves to be criminal? How can thinking men believe that said criminals have any jurisduiction over them? This is how brainwashed men are. They think a bunch of criminals somehow has legitimate jurisdiction over them. It’s such nonsense as to be laughable. Writing about men? Write this: “All men are sovereign and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights”. Any man who understands this understands that when his rights are violated there is remedy and he can avail of it. One sentence. If we can get a few men to believe it we might get somewhere…
Sorry I sound like a broken record.
Great post Jack
I also think Spearhead is a step in the right direction. Looking at the posts and comments on here, it’s a pretty big step 
Quick question. What do you think of the whole “Fratire” genre?
zed, Anakin, Elusive Wapiti –
I agree with what zed wrote 100%, which reminds me, sans the bushido way of death part, of one of my favorite Mishima quotes.
“Isao had never felt that he might want to be a woman. He had never wished for anything else but to be a man, live in a manly way, die a manly death. To be thus a man was to give constant proof of one’s manliness–to be more a man today than yesterday, more a man tomorrow than today. To be a man was to forge ever upward toward the peak of manhood, there to die amid the white snows of that peak.
But to be a woman? It seemed to mean being a woman at the beginning and being a woman forever.â€
- Yukio Mishima, Runaway Horses
I think we can start by realizing that manhood is not something we have the liberty of defining. Manhood is the birthright of every male human being. We don’t do men any favors by denying who they are.
I disagree with this statement completely. Men have always defined manhood for each other. It is, yes, a form of social control, but without it men become, well…look at the majority of gay men. Their masculinity is part biological and part costume. They believe, as a therapist who works in the Castro once told me, that they are people first. They have discarded the idea of being good MEN. And, from a lot of inside knowledge that extends beyond tea party political correctness and gay press releases, I can tell you that most self-described gay men are extremely fucked up. What goes on in that world is the definition of decadence–it’s a nonstop celebration of perpetual adolescence, dysfunction, selfishness and weakness. Seeing how men without honor or idealized masculinity behave when they have complete freedom is what brought me to these conclusions several years ago.
Stripping men of an idealized, noble, heroic form of manhood is one of the greatest crimes that feminism has committed against men. MAN is an honorific, an earned title. Personhood can mean anything. There is no standard to live up to. “Acting in a constructive manner” has virtually no power as a way to motivate and inspire young men. This is something that most societies have figured out, and doing away with this powerful tool is modern hubris.
I try, whenever possible, to make a distinction between males and men. Maleness is the birthright of everyone with a Y chromosome. Manhood is earned. There are some who would say that I am not a man proper because I’m a homo. That’s their opinion, they have as much right to one as I do, and I respectfully disagree. I think most of the men who know me would say otherwise, on the basis of how I conduct myself. Because I’ve proved it.
Actually, the two essays on my own blog about Strength and Morality and Manliness probably do a better job of explaining where I’m coming from. I’ve been playing around with this a lot over the past few years, and I’d say in short that:
1. Any successful concept of manliness has to be rooted in strength (defined better in that essay). Without a link to strength, what you’re talking about becomes something gender neutral.
2. Strength-based manliness is not always moral. Men can respect and imitate man who is manly, but completely immoral by every other definition those men hold dear.
3. There is a noble, strength-based heroic masculinity, which is moral/ethical and spiritual if you like that sort of thing. If society doesn’t promote this, it gets…
4. Immoral strength-based masculinity. Bullies, gangs, tyrants, thugs, losers, pimps.
Jack, perhaps you and EW are coming at this from two different perspectives (actually, I know you are).
There is an awful lot of “man up” talk directed at straight men that serves to actually emasculate men who follow that kind of advice. For example, “you aren’t a man if you contest your child support obligations,” or “you aren’t a man if you complain about being mistreated at work or getting laid off — get a job boy!” This kind of stuff that defines men according to their usefulness to women or elites has got to go; the definition of masculinity has been twisted into a sort of slavery cult.
On the other hand, acting like and emulating women is not masculine, but I think guys like me an EW take this for granted. However, as you point out, this is a problem that does afflict a substantial number of men, and is actively promoted in the gay and academic communities. In a way, we are fighting a battle on two fronts here. Not only are we fighting the manipulation of a healthy sense of masculinity, but the active suppression of real masculine expression as well.
I think the important work we are doing here is offering a definition of masculinity that comes from our own souls and will. It is a good thing to see.
Gx1080 –
And, given the large size of the Internet, this isn’t reaching the masses, specially the masses of young men.
Geez, give us a chance. The site’s only been up for a few weeks… and it’s doing really well, really fast.
I also believe in the theory of trickle-down thought. The people who read things like this are in the minority, but there is an area of crossover where readers of essays and discussions like these then write and create things that are influenced by what they’ve read. People in Hollywood regurgitate ideas they read about elsewhere, and people repeat things they hear without knowing where they ever really came from. Novaseeker’s post on Cultural Marxism is a great example of how average liberals can do Marx’s dirty work without even knowing it.
One of us here could write an essay that is read by the nerd who writes the next “Fight Club” that then becomes a movie that is seen and internalized by men who never read. The influence, for better or worse, that this one movie has had over so many men who can recite lines by heart is amazing.
I mean, Hell, I referenced Conan in this post, and I know tons of guys who know “what is best in life.”
I had a 20 year old thank me recently for getting him to start thinking about honor, because it is not an idea he was raised with. Ideas matter. Writing matters. The writers are not always the ones who put ideas into action. That’s OK.
I don’t see a lot of feminst bashing of The Spearhead yet. They certainly know about it after the Sci-Fi article.
Maybe they just like to circle-jerk each other within their own silos of 100% conformity. If that is the case, our job is easier, as the tax revenue and male labor that supports these parasites can stop without them noticing what changed.
For example, “you aren’t a man if you contest your child support obligations,†or “you aren’t a man if you complain about being mistreated at work or getting laid off — get a job boy!†This kind of stuff that defines men according to their usefulness to women or elites has got to go; the definition of masculinity has been twisted into a sort of slavery cult.
This is why the more high-impact strategy is not attacking feminism, but rather attacking socialcons.
Welmer –
Yeah, thanks for the clarification. I know that a lot of the guys here are dealing with women’s expectations, and that is something I see from an outsider’s perspective but not something that effects me directly.
My point would be to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If manhood means nothing, feminists win. Women win. Masculine ideals are important, but I think the challenge is to avoid letting women do the defining. This is something men have to do. And that is what my post is really about–taking the intellectual authority about what makes a man back from women.
The right answer to “You’re not a man because X,” coming from a woman, is:
“What the fuck do you know about what it means to be a man? That’s right. Zero. Now shut your whore mouth while men are talking.”
Welmer
On the other hand, acting like and emulating women is not masculine, but I think guys like me an EW take this for granted. However, as you point out, this is a problem that does afflict a substantial number of men, and is actively promoted in the gay and academic communities.
Two more quick points.
1) The image of man that is different from women, the one you’re taking for granted, is being progressively stigmatized by both the media and educators, so I think it’s important to realize that younger generations of men will not necessarily take the same truths for granted if women and feminists continue to dominate the discussion of gender and masculinity. Your recent post about pre-school is just one illustration of that.
2) The academic/feminist/queer theory/gender studies bullshit has already impacted our culture to the extent that if a woman takes steroids and cuts off her breasts, she can legally be considered a man. And even if she gives birth–one of the great signifiers of womanhood–she is referred to by the mainstream media as a “man.” We’re all supposed to agree that this is what being a man is, and refer to politely refer to her as a man. This is a very big deal on a conceptual level. It’s not just an isolated pocket of society.
True. I used to laugh about that, but it isn’t all that funny, now that I think about it.
The reason is very simple, and biologically determined: eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. A woman inherently has something of value (reproductive capacity), while a man does not. That is why so much of game writings emphasize being a giver of value.
I would agree. A woman’s biological investment in her offspring is huge compared to a man’s, and her risks far, far greater, which is why we’re the “gatekeepers” of sex. The problem arises in the fact that at its most basic level, what a man provides for his offspring–beyond sperm–is entirely voluntary. Which means there need to be, and have always been, social pressures put on men to invest beyond that. The problem where feminism comes in is it’s removed so many of the rewards that come with the investment, and shifted responsibility for that investment right onto women, that a growing number of men are walking away from it.
Feminism’s beatification of the single mother has devalued both traditional male and traditional female roles in regard to parenting. It’s turned marriage into a roommate scenario. If I’d accidentally knocked a woman up, and I had a choice between having a roommate with a kid who might have sex with me once a week if I’m lucky and whose socially sanctioned behaviors devalued my manhood, and a life of freedom to pursue meaningless sex and fun fun fun without any major social consequences (shaming/shunning), I might well find myself choosing the latter. Especially considering the inherent financial risks to men who choose to marry or achieve common law spouse status.
There have always been deadbeat dads, just as there have always been crappy moms. But the system is set up now to see them both become the norm–moms who are told they can and should be both mother and father, and who simply can’t, and dads whose only accepted, socially endorsed role in parenting is to cough up money.
I’ve honestly never understood women who punish their exes by denying them access to their kids because they don’t pay. Even if the dad doesn’t pay a dime, access is the right of the child. Having a father is the right of the child.
Though I see a growing number of men in the lower and lower-middle classes who are all too happy to abdicate any responsibility to their kids. And that’s sad. Because no matter how your ex might have fucked you over, your kids deserve a dad. And they deserve a decent one. And it just sucks because it’s feminism in large part that’s told these men that their role in parenting is little more than sperm donors with bottomless wallets.
This is a great article, Jack.
My own sense is that we need, quite urgently, real men’s studies courses, along the lines that Paul Elam described last week here. Not feminism-for-men, which is what the current so-called “men’s studies” courses are about. We need men writing about men and masculinity from the male perspective, and not from the feminist, gender-deconstructionist one.
Deconstructionism is a scam anyway. Were women deconstructed? Not really. What happened was that women kept all of their traditional powers and prerogatives (none of these was deconstructed … not a single one) while acquiring male powers and prerogatives. It was additive, not deconstructive. The privileges of being a woman survived intact, while what were previously male privileges were added in. There was no deconstruction of femininity or womanhood done.
The effort to deconstruct masculinity is nothing other than a concerted effort to destroy the masculine and replace it with the neuter — a neutered “manhood” that is a hybrid between femininity and the parts of old masculinity that feminists think are not pathological. It is an effort to “cleanse” men of “bad masculinity”, and leave only “good masculinity” left — which will look, unsurprisingly, rather similar to what the hybridized form of the feminine looks like today, with the major difference that women retained their female privilege, while men will not. It is nothing other than a recipe for the domination of men by the female sex, full stop.
Of course, that’s a programme that can never fully succeed. The most masculine men will resist being deconstructed, and women will reward them for doing so with sexual access. This has already happened today, and to the extent that most men continue to be feminized and emasculated, we can expect that the trend will continue towards an increasing state of polygamy involving the few masculine men who are left, who resisted being deconstructed into feminized “kitchen bitches”.
But I think men everywhere need to recognize that this effort is an attack on the essence of the male sex — whether gay, straight, or otherwise. It’s a huge threat, and it needs to be met with adequate intellectual resources.
I try, whenever possible, to make a distinction between males and men. Maleness is the birthright of everyone with a Y chromosome. Manhood is earned. There are some who would say that I am not a man proper because I’m a homo. That’s their opinion, they have as much right to one as I do, and I respectfully disagree. I think most of the men who know me would say otherwise, on the basis of how I conduct myself. Because I’ve proved it.
Jack, I respect where you trying to come from on a lot of things. I find what you are saying worth consideration and there are indeed traits that men should have. But when you engage in realmannspracht you leave yourself wide open. When we start thinking we can give or take away someone’s manhood, you can be rest assured that men like you will be one the first ones to go. Homosexuality is one of the greatest sins among the “real man” crowd. Then they’ll start going after guys who too intellectual, too socially awkward, too introspective, too artistic, the list goes on. They even try to go after men like me who are not desperate to play married/w children.
No men’s movement needs this unnecessary infighting with enemies like the feminists around. Jack, I am a heterosexual conservative Christian. In another forum, we would be locking horns. In fact, I personally take issue with the PUAs about their sexual immorality. But in the trenches of a warfare, I don’t ask about where a man has been last Saturday night. I want to know if he can fire the machine gun. For me, men are to obey God and be sexually pure. Do you want me to go around and start reneging men’s humanity when they don’t live up to my expectations? Should I go around and billy club the whole MGTOW/MRA/whatever community with my worldview? I think a poster of mine actually wanted me to do that. There are too many men from too many walks of life in the men’s issue arena. To start talking about necessary signs of “manhood” is problematic at best in that regard. On some things men’s issues advocates will have to agree to disagree
When respect to Thursday, I am well aware of that quote by Roy Baumeister. I used it in my article on realmannspracht.
Thursday writes:
Women will always be valued more than men in themselves and trying to fight that is a fool’s errand. The reason is very simple, and biologically determined: eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. A woman inherently has something of value (reproductive capacity), while a man does not. That is why so much of game writings emphasize being a giver of value.
What are you saying here Thursday? That because things were a certain way in the past, they have to remain that way? Women had very little say in the past how they lived their lives. Now, that has changed. But what about men? Oh no, we still have to accept our role as the “disposable sex.” No, I am not buying it. The MGTOWers are right about this and always will be. Many of us are well beyond having discussions about basing our worth on what women want from us or playing the part of the “disposable sex.” Take a look at the last sentence of the last entry of the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics (the “Pink Whip” entry). The MGTOWers feel no need to prove themselves as men. They already know they are men. They leave the “proving your a man” up to those engaged in self-loathing or the cynical attempt to gain power at the expense of other men.
What are people going to do? Tell me to do this, do that, no don’t do that, wait – we changed that, wait we changed it back again. I am done dancing to the “be a man” game. My Bible tells me what a man should do. Good enough for me. Everything else is more often than not some cynical horse manure pushed by people with an agenda (usually women and/or their male lackeys).
Anakin -
When we start thinking we can give or take away someone’s manhood, you can be rest assured that men like you will be one the first ones to go. Homosexuality is one of the greatest sins among the “real man†crowd.
I am far more acutely aware of how this works than you are. This is not my first rodeo. And I routinely engage in realmannspracht alongside straight men–men who would be considered especially manly by other straight men– who know exactly what side my bread is buttered on. And that has everything to do with how I present myself and how I deal with my sexuality with them.
No men’s movement needs this unnecessary infighting with enemies like the feminists around.
This is not infighting. It’s an exchange of ideas. As Welmer said in the “about” link – “We don’t all have exactly the same opinions or the same solutions, but we’re all dedicated to tackling the same injustices and building a better society based on honesty and a realistic assessment of human nature.”
There are people here who I agree with and people I don’t agree with at all.
Feminists want a gender-neutral world. Remove realmannspracht and you’ve delivered it to them on a silver platter.
Actually Jack, as I pointed out in my article, it’s the opposite. If you engage in realmannspracht, you simply underscore the feminists’ belief that “manhood” is socially constructed and does not exist in reality. I don’t think either of us want that. I’m with you that there are things men should do. I look to one source as inspiration. You may look to another and we may have some commonalities and differences. But making judgments about whether people are “men” or not really puts us on slippery slope. We are playing the game of the feminists and the woman-firsters at that point.
This is a terrific article. And I think it is wonderful that you think this way. Men discussing and writing about men is so needed in society and sooooo missing.
I have 2 sons I have been raising on a day to day basis for a number of years (their father is very ill and dying) and those years were really hard because they were 2 of the young men society expected to”go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.00.” (I don’t like to talk about it much and feminists have always pushed me to forget about them and help women work so I have had to fight quite a lot of women and social men and systems over the years)
The three years I have been involved with the online movement empowered me and empowered my sons. Not only do they have a bright future but they have no police record even though they were both falsely accused of rape from girls who didn’t want to get into trouble for staying out late from their parents and BTW, both were sorted without going to court with the help of one of the fathers and a women who worked with the police. There is no way I could have seen the world through their eyes and they constantly remind me that I am a female and that there are different rules for me and for them.
I have also met older feminists who said they had given a lot of their time to the ‘real off the net feminist movement’ but were disowned when they could not raise their sons as feminist men because the sons chose to follow their fathers as soon as they became teenagers.
And now lots and lots of young men growing up are searching for male role models because we have few fathers who have no rights. Feminism sure went all out to discredit men in the hope they could show them as unnecessary to raise children.
We don’t even discuss the problem nor acknowledge how bad it is but instead just make laws to protect single mothers from criticism.
……….
It is not our young men’s fault. They didn’t ask for this to be placed upon them and they don’t deserve their whole precious lives to be ruined because some sick screwed up women found the world in their favour because men cared.
I think Christianity did so well because the message was love. I think Gandhi did so well because the message was love. And I think good always out wins bad. And every hero in every male child’s story book and every made up imaginary story he thinks is always the good guys beat the bad guys.
Now is just a time when the bad guys aren’t guys. They are women. And every bad guy isn’t even a bad guy for he just a projection of the bad women. Feminism IMO created what it imagined yet it wasn’t how they expected. They expected the male to be the bad egg and created a female bad egg while all along there was no bad egg to start with. IMO
Thanks guys for all you have done through sharing your views, your wisdom just by being a man and speaking up. I would never have done it without you and I am sure I am so ordinary that there must be thousands of others out there whose lives have been touched by you and the efforts you make voluntarily. In a world where men have no right to free speech, the net has been almost like the hand of God.
That because things were a certain way in the past, they have to remain that way?
I am saying there are some things that are so deeply ingrained in our biology that they will remain that way. That men in themselves just are less valuable to others than women is part of biological reality. Men simply are more disposable than women and the opinions of MGTOWers aren’t going to change that. Any movement built on the denial of reality is going to be dead in the water.
There are definite, God given male and female roles. Performing the male role well is what we refer to as manliness and, yes, it often does involve more demands being placed on you than on women. Notice though that being a good father to your children or being a good husband and lover to a woman are not the only ways that men can bring value to others, and hence are not the only ways to fulfill our male role. We are all agreed that the opinion of women should not be the be all and end all of manliness. But that does not mean that we do not have to actually achieve something to be entitled to our full respect as men.
Women will always be valued more than men in themselves and trying to fight that is a fool’s errand. The reason is very simple, and biologically determined: eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.
Thursday,
This would be true, except that since a woman’s reproductive capacity is all but gone by age 37 or so, while a man of 37 is still fertile, your logic would lead us to conclude that :
A 40 year old man has much more value than a 40 year old woman (who has zero value).
Do you see how the eggs expensive/sperm cheap argument doesn’t hold up with modern feminist ideology?
Actually, for those who believe in Transhumanism, biocosm, other such concepts, MEN are going to be valued a lot more by the universe than woman (at least those men who create or at least do not impede innovation).
TFH;
I once almost caused Clio to blow a gasket when I suggested that most older women who haven’t reproduced are of very low value to society. Virtually invisible was the word I used.
Globalman, you’re an idiot.
Firstly you’ve taken warren ferrell’s premise out of context. Which is that male gender roles are destructive to men. And then you’ve tied him into some paranoid conspiracy theory.
Now if you’d just said you disagreed with his premise there would be room for discussion but that’s not the case. So cut out this Illuminati crap and just stupid being so stupid.
male gender roles are destructive to men.
I haven’t read Farrell, but if he thinks this he is wrong. What is destructive for men is being expected to perform traditional male sex roles when that is advantageous for women and then having to ditch traditional sex roles when _that_ is advantageous for women. Since traditional sex roles are rooted in biology, it is best just to throw out the equalist crap and consistently reinstate traditional sex roles.
Julie´s right in that last piece of her entry…Most of you guys in here, and in the MRM in general, need to give yourself a round of applause, for your relentless, voluntary work and efforts !!!
I thank God for the day, I stumpled into this universe, and for the first time in more years, than I care to think about, I´m starting to feel good about being a man again…
And you´ve made me proud to be a man, for the first time in my life.
I sincerely thank you all for that !!
Thursday,
Here’s reality: No society can survive that elevates women over men. In fact, Thursday, if you look over the broad sweep of history, chivalry is an anamoly. Let’s not confuse Westernized gynocentrism with biology. Do you think women are valued more than men in other societies? They have no rights. They are not respected. They are the booty – the property, like slaves and children. That doesn’t sound like the top of the food chain to me.
Women are valued more than men? Probably for the same reason that donkeys, coconuts, and seashells are valued more than men. That’s what men in power do – cherish things and use men. They dehumanize others. Anyone who support this supports oppression and tyranny. Really, is greed and hatred a biological reality, too, Thursday? Does that make it okay? As it is, I am not for dehumanizing either sex.
You have brought God into this discussion. Here’s what the Word of God says about the “disposable sex” “women are more valuable” mantra: 1 Cor. 11:3, 7, 8-9. The one who is “the image and glory of God” cannot be of lesser value than the one who is “the image and glory of man.” It is true there are roles God expect men to fulfill, but men are still created in the image of God and we dishonor the Creator when we try to destroy that image either physically or through words.
male gender roles are destructive to men.
I haven’t read Farrell, but if he thinks this he is wrong.
Only someone who has lived his entire life during a time when there was no military conscription could possibly make such a statement.
Yeah, I wouldnt want to walk out in a battlefield, thinking like that !
Greetings, Jack. Long time no comment! Spot on about that wretched “People First” canard. As a born cripple, I’ve heard endless variations of this not merely anti-human but specifically dishonorable and anti-masculine nonsense since 1962. Kudos gentlemen (and Madame), and continue doing this invaluable men’s work.
Kimskinovgorod
Most of you guys in here, and in the MRM in general, need to give yourself a round of applause, for your relentless, voluntary work and efforts !!!
Oh, yes! So much.
Y’know, if what you are doing was available to me, my marriage would have been bliss. And many of my girlfriends would agree with me.
I married young and when my husband and I did, we sort of put on these hats where he was the husband and I was the wife. And so began our reactions to each other as if we were reacting from a position rather than as best friends. Listening to each other was something we did but because we couldn’t be in each other’s shoes – because we could never do so, we still saw things from our own side yet we never really understood what each other’s side was.
Men hardly ever complain and women are expected to complain is what has been handed down for ever, me thinks. And so the husband finds his place with his mates to cope and the wife bitches to her girlfriends.
But the net has given so many wonderful opportunities and one of them is that husbands can listen to female strangers and wives can listen to male strangers.
I think many wives would appreciate what a stranger husband has to say because even in game the man doesn’t come across as a moaner and a weak man because the female can’t accept that.
When a man online says, “Hey ladies, we can’t hold the world up for you and protect you and provide for you ever single moment of your life and we are not some brick wall and we are sooooooo put at a disadvantage because of feminism” I think, “Oh, my Gosh, I never saw what I was doing to you”.
Women don’t hear what men don’t say and yet men are constantly bombarded with what women say. It isn’t working this way. For every time you write an article, I bet you save at least one marriage.
(that’s just a least figure. Imagine if I gave a most figure)
@ Thursday:
“Women will always be valued more than men in themselves and trying to fight that is a fool’s errand.”
I never said they shouldn’t be. But this whole “women are, men must become” stuff, while true in an environment where the sexes’ natural inclinations were allowed to be expressed, is false today and will be the end of us it women continue to be the social, legal, and economic superiors of men. In a culture where hard-wired sex differences are suppressed, permitting women to not be required to ahere to a set of standards is disastrous.
“A woman inherently has something of value (reproductive capacity), while a man does not. “
I disagree…men have value to offer…their strength, their creativity, their power to build. Women don’t have these blessings, by and large.
@ Welmer:
“…the definition of masculinity has been twisted into a sort of slavery cult.”
Too true. Yet all of us probably continue with it. How many conversations between men who have just met each other start out with the question: “so what do you do for a living?”. We ourselves reinforce the industrial-age notion that a man is about his place in the labor market.
@5h
“This is why the more high-impact strategy is not attacking feminism, but rather attacking socialcons.”
Which is why the nastiest rivalry was between the Nazis and the Soviets, two sides of the same coin.
Julie
Spread the word !!
-I know, I do !
Only someone who has lived his entire life during a time when there was no military conscription could possibly make such a statement.
Or even considered the possibility of the draft happening again. I remember sitting in my study hall period on 9/11, watching the planes crash into the towers and the other events of the day, when the sick realization hit me that my classmate Jamison had just turned eighteen the week prior and had registered with selective services. Watching everything unfold that day, I was absolutely terrified to realize that my male classmates could REALLY go to war and die without a choice in the matter. Up until that point, the draft was something that had ended with Vietnam in my mind, since my innocence hadn’t been shattered by a terrible current event I was old enough to comprehend until that day.
After I came across your website, zed, I ordered Warren Farrel’s books and was stunned, angered, and deeply touched by what I read, especially with regards to military service. I obviously have the real firsthand knowledge of what military service and the stereotypes surrounding it can do to service members, their families, and men in general but Farrel made me open up my eyes and consider points I never had before. His writing helped me find the words to express many of my observations and also sparked me to have a difficult conversation with my husband over webcam that was long overdue.
It was fascinating to explore my husband’s reasons for joining and this particular conversation wound up taking my husband’s military career in a direction he had always hoped, but had been unsure about going for various reasons up until that point. It was also interesting to have learned the reasons many of his buddies joined. It seems quite a few men join the military as it feels like a last bastion of “true masculinity” in our misandric culture or the “prove” their manhood perhaps to a former military father or another person. A career in the military is certainly a respectable choice and can be a good decision for a man who really wants to be there, but it’s not the brightest choice if one wants to “prove” their masculinity, while risking dire consequences in the process.
This reality proves the dangerous possibilities of military service even without conscription, in a culture that has very little value for men or masculinity anymore except in the area of “warrior”.
“Women will always be valued more than men in themselves and trying to fight that is a fool’s errand.â€
“A woman inherently has something of value (reproductive capacity), while a man does not. “
Ever hear of some little countries named “China” and “India”? Both practice selective selection of female fetuses because they already have quite enough babies, thank you very much, and because women tend to be net consumers while men tend to be net producers.
China’s “one child” policy has resulted in millions fewer women than men, which is producing such a surplus of men who can’t find mates that some people are starting to get worried about it.
When you already have more people than you can feed, etc., as it is, women’s reproductive capacity becomes a negative rather than a positive.
1. Women will always be more valued because they provide the eggs?
No. Not true.
2. Warren Farrell is correct. The roles required of men are often destructive of them.
3. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that men are going to win this war. And there are a zillion pathways through which this victory is going to be brought about.
4. My advice. Recognise your enemies and lay into them. The feminists, the government, the abuse industry etc.
5. There are no enemies posting regularly round here.
Anyone remember Lord of the Rings?
Perhaps this is Elrond’s place.
Women don’t hear what men don’t say and yet men are constantly bombarded with what women say.
I know you mean well, Julie. But, I have a lot of experience with women absolutely NOT wanting to hear what men say and do everything in their power to shut men up when they do try to say it. Just look the vehmence of the attack on PMAFT for his very mild discussion of sci fi. Go over to the False Rape Society and have a look at a few women who week in and week out fight and deny what those guys are saying.
And, if I never again had to hear that tired old dodge “But, NOT ALL women are ‘like that’!” my life would be immeasurable better for it.
slective abortionof female fetuses”
Anakin:
It’s true that alpha males have more value than women. But then that is underlied by another biological reality, alpha level social status and the certified alpha sperm that goes along with it certainly aren’t cheap.
Also, why exactly do you think alpha males have sought to control women in such drastic ways? The answer is obvious: because women have so much inherent value.
But even in the most restrictive of those societies, there is still evidence of women’s higher value in general than men’s. For example, women were never sent into battle, even in the most controlling societies. Any society that valued the life of its men than its women would not soon survive.
And, yes, all sorts of unsavoury things are based in biology. However, it is usually best to try and channel them into useful forms rather than completely eliminate them. I have to say, IMHO, you seem to have a bit of an utopian streak.
@Zed,
Women don’t hear what men don’t say and yet men are constantly bombarded with what women say.
I know you mean well, Julie. But, I have a lot of experience with women absolutely NOT wanting to hear what men say and do everything in their power to shut men up when they do try to say it.
Umm, gee, how do I say this and be nice?
Well, you don’t really have a lot of experience with women in the general sense. You just have a lot of experience with feminists”.
And, yes, all sorts of unsavoury things are based in biology.
Biology is not magic. Anything women can do that makes them more valuable than men can be replicated by technology. Sure it can’t be done YET, but YET is the most important word. Eventually, it will be possible.
I disagree…men have value to offer…their strength, their creativity, their power to build.
Men, on average, have more potential than women, but it needs to be expressed. To greatly oversimplify, men need to do something to have value, while women simply are valuable.
Well, you don’t really have a lot of experience with women in the general sense. You just have a lot of experience with feminists.
LOL. I have lots of experience with women in general, julie – been living among them all my life. Not with Kiwi women, who are something of a different breed than US women, but not entirely different. My Kiwi friend and I have had a lot of exactly the same arguements I’ve had with US women.
The future of China and India belongs to those who have given birth to female children.
Thursday
Apparently you dont know your history very well, so let me enlighten you a bit…
The Russian army used a vast amount of female soldiers during WWII, not just as footsoldiers, but as officers, as well…
The Vietnamese used females, both against the US. and the French.
Wouldnt you call those systems controlling ??
Julie
Same thing in Korea, btw…
Julie
Come to think about it, history is filled with female soldiers all the way back to the Greeks, and even before that…
Sorry, those last two post were for thursday, not you Julie…;)
@Zed, oh shite, now see what I have done, lol…
Well, you don’t really have a lot of experience with women in the general sense. You just have a lot of experience with feminists.
LOL. I have lots of experience with women in general, julie – been living among them all my life. Not with Kiwi women, who are something of a different breed than US women, but not entirely different. My Kiwi friend and I have had a lot of exactly the same arguements I’ve had with US women.
OK, so you say.
Anakin,
If you engage in realmannspracht, you simply underscore the feminists’ belief that “manhood†is socially constructed and does not exist in reality.
That’s an interesting point, but of course manhood IS a constructed thing inspired by and rooted in biological differences. It’s not an either/or, it’s BOTH.
Shaming is a part of how societies make men. It’s no more uniquely Christian than it is uniquely Japanese. It’s a cross-cultural thing older than either of those cultures. Earning manhood, and fearing dishonor/emasculation are methods that tap into male psychology and produce certain predictable results. It doesn’t work the same way with women–a lot of the triggers are different. Masculinity and femininity are constructed differently not merely to “oppress women,” but precisely because men and women are fundamentally different and have a different experience of the world.
If feminists are setting up a false dichotomy, where masculinity must either be 100% socially constructed or 100% genetic, then that is where they need to be corrected. I don’t think most women, men or scientists believe that.
All of that said, I don’t think it’s appropriate or productive for us to be emasculating each other in a personal fashion in the comments here. (I haven’t seen it happen yet, though I don’t follow every discussion) I think we should all continue to write about and discuss exactly what we truly believe, impersonally, like gentlemen. We should leave the ad hominem bitchiness to the feminists.
If someone gets personally offended by or feels called out by the impersonal content of what someone writes in an actual article…well, then tough shit. As long as we’re talking about ideas and content, I think we should be fine.
@ Thursday,
“To greatly oversimplify, men need to do something to have value, while women simply are valuable.”
Women have to do something to have value as well…i.e. have children, or work and create/add value to something else.
But the mere act of existing isn’t worth squat. Not anymore, if it ever did. And I see no reason why a woman should be accorded any special worth for no other reason than she has an “innie” and not an “outie”.
Maybe in the tribal days, a breeding female was absolutely vital to the sustainment of the tribe. But if we’re not in this situation, then this primacy of the female is like the appendix. At best, a vestigal organ and about as useful. At worst, a deadly hazard.
“This would be true, except that since a woman’s reproductive capacity is all but gone by age 37 or so, while a man of 37 is still fertile, your logic would lead us to conclude that :
A 40 year old man has much more value than a 40 year old woman (who has zero value).
Do you see how the eggs expensive/sperm cheap argument doesn’t hold up with modern feminist ideology?” – Thursday
True as this may be, it tells me that women are given an incredible head start in life compared to men when it comes to being valued. That they so often blow it, is not really anybody’s fault but their own. They sure shouldn’t expect sympathy from anybody, let alone the men who were not privy to that windfall. Besides, any man who is considered worthy of reproduction at age 40 has probably done something to earn it. You can’t be an aging bum living with your parents and expect to be given a decent chance at mating. Whereas a younger woman who does nothing with her life very well might get that chance so long as she looks decent. However little she may deserve it…
ok, I was quoting, TFH in response to Thursday above, not Thursday himself. Sorry.
Yea, edit button plz. ;p
But this whole “women are, men must become†stuff, while true in an environment where the sexes’ natural inclinations were allowed to be expressed, is false today and will be the end of us it women continue to be the social, legal, and economic superiors of men.
Yes, it’s false today, but it has always been false. As you already pointed out there’s a difference between “being a man” and “acting in a socially constructive manner” or as I like to think of it, “acting in a manner that isn’t declaring war on civilization”.
There is an important difference. The “being a man” argument allows someone to be completely subjective and engage in manipulation of men for their own benefit. That’s very different to “acting in a socially constructive manner” or in a “manner supporting civilization” because those behaviors are objective. We can figure out objectively what behaviors are pro-civilization and those that are not.
I once almost caused Clio to blow a gasket when I suggested that most older women who haven’t reproduced are of very low value to society. Virtually invisible was the word I used.
I would agree. A woman of age 35 or more, has value to society ONLY if at least one (preferably both) of the following are true :
1) She has kids and is being a good mother to them. Part of being a good mother is making sure that the child grows up with both parents, which means staying in a marriage even if she doesn’t get gina tingles from the father.
2) She works in a job that adds real value. Of course, ALL women think their jobs are something the world would collapse without, but in reality, many women work in professions that are useless and even harmful. Only the women in useful professions like medicine, science, nursing, management, GOOD teachers, etc. count.
If neither one of these two is true for a woman over 35, she is a liability to society. A female trial lawyer of 37 is a liability. A feminist government worker of 38 is a liability.
Of course, older, childless women are the WORST voting block of all.
Thursday writes:
But even in the most restrictive of those societies, there is still evidence of women’s higher value in general than men’s. For example, women were never sent into battle, even in the most controlling societies. Any society that valued the life of its men than its women would not soon survive.
The reason women weren’t sent into battle is because they generally can’t fight and kill as well as men. Which, by the way, is the real reason why men are called upon to “sacrifice” and “be protectors.” Not because there is something inherently valiant about killing other people. That’s just a bunch of psychobabble to motivate young men to do dangerous things that no one in their right mind would do. No, it about who is the most effective killer–and that’s men. Who makes killers out of men? That’s right–the big men at the top. War is young blood for old money.
Also remember that the ‘eggs are expensive’ idea is bypassed by the fact that you can get a surrogate in India, and donor eggs fedexed over to the clinic from any high-value donor in China or Russia, for about $20,000. This is a clinic that caters specifically to 1st world clients, and is top notch.
Yes, going it alone as a single dad is hard, and is at a disadvantage compared to a two-parent household (or is it, given how kids are used as pawns in divorce court?). Nannies are expensive too (but much cheaper than divorce). But if you *really* wanted to do it, $20,000 is all it costs.
Of course, you have to worry about some feminist social worker using the government to take your kids away, since ‘men are not suitable to be single parents’. But that is another issue.
Anakin,
Remember that the reason that women took marriage more seriously in the old days, aside from social shaming and poverty from having a kid out of wedlock, is that there were more women than men.
20% or more of young men died on the battlefield or during occupational accidents. A fair number of women could not marry, and widows were common. Hence, women who were married had more reason to be grateful.
America after the Civil War was a sexual paradise for young men who managed to avoid death and disability. The same was true for Europe after WWI and WW2.
Thus, a necessary condition for marriage to be viable was that there were 100 women for every 80 men, as was normally the case in human societies.
That is why China’s gender ratio is such a disaster – far worse than any problems feminists have created in the US.
Also, why exactly do you think alpha males have sought to control women in such drastic ways? The answer is obvious: because women have so much inherent value.
Absolutely. It’s why in societies that still look on women as things instead of humans–societies where the concept of “alpha” means absolute power and wealth, and beta means drudgery–those women are locked away, kept uneducated, etc. Because their value is only value if their owners can exploit it. Exploiting that value–as bedmates and brood mares–requires protecting it from other males. Even the betas who might only have one wife will protect her as a possession, not a person.
The future of China and India belongs to those who have given birth to female children.
I wish I could believe that. But the cultural concept that no family is complete without at least one son is hard to undo. If women were on the verge of becoming valuable in cultures that devalue them, the dowry system would already be a thing of the past in India, since IIRC, their population is already lopsided by about 20 million surplus, reproductively capable men.
Women have to do something to have value as well…i.e. have children, or work and create/add value to something else.
That’s the rub. Women who are not desirable in the mating game, or unable to reproduce, need to make other contributions. In the past, even if they did, they were still largely considered useless. That’s one good thing early feminism brought about–that a woman could have be of value to society as something other than wife/mother/nun.
Zed, I am hmmm, ’100 emotions I can chose from, lol’
But from me whether I am at the middle, end, beginning, or what ever else there is in a woman’s cycle I just want to remind you that you said, “we all have the same journey” when I said, “I don’t want to waste your time with my journey in all this.”
But y’know, you are a kiddo too. (we don’t really ever grow old , lol)
I don’t think or feel as a feminist and I am of the generation they lost. so….
kis, if you really do talk about sex online… I have a single father who has the 2nd largest website of prostitutes of men and women in the country and he is looking for a few writers and he will pay.
Email me: julie@singleparents.org.nz ….
@ Jack Donovan
Shaming is a part of how societies make men. It’s no more uniquely Christian than it is uniquely Japanese. It’s a cross-cultural thing older than either of those cultures. Earning manhood, and fearing dishonor/emasculation are methods that tap into male psychology and produce certain predictable results.
I don’t deny the value of shame for building character in men. As a conservative Christian, I plenty of uses and misuses of it, lol. I am simply asking if we should adopt a better paradigm for challenging men to certain virtues, one that doesn’t undermine the manhood of other men. I see feminists, male-bashing socons, Madison Avenue, ignorant women, and others use realmannspracht. We could say, “Well they’re wrong.” But until we make a valid case for what we ask of men, then any “real men” talk amounts to little more than “you’re a poopy head.” I don’t take realmannspracht seriously anymore as constructive criticism. It causes my ears to close and not hear what the other person saying; an increasing number of men feel the same way I do. When a man uses “real men” talk on me, for better or worse, I stop seeing a mentor and start seeing a manipulator (because that’s the unfortunate history of realmannspracht).
I don’t think we can have it both ways – dip into the biological and then dip into the sociological to construct manhood. It doesn’t hold up to logical scrutiny. It’s the Law of the Excluded Middle. Aristotle said it best – it is impossible for one to be a man and not be a man at the same time. If you are not a man then what are you? A male? A male what? A male human being. But that’s what a man is. If you are not a man, then you are an animal, a child, or a woman. Realmannspracht fails to convey reality; at best, it is the language of tropes.
Which society do I check in with to get my manhood, anyway? The Spartans or the Mennonites? Look at how men act to get society stamp of approval. They jump from wearing gold chains to mullets to getting hair waxed to getting plugs for their receding hairline. First, they try to be like Cary Grant, then like Alan Alda, then like Pierce Brosnan, no wait its Ashton Kutchner now. The Christian men jump from PromiseKeepers to John Elderidge to something else. It occurs to me that it’s all a stupid sham to make men feel inferior, look to others validation, and help siphon money and resources from men in exchange for tokens of acceptance. I reiterate my main point: If we want men to do something, the case needs to made for it, instead resorting to rhetoric and cynical attempt to play on emotions.
Women have to do something to have value as well…i.e. have children
If any non-hideous woman wants to have kids there are plenty of men who will sign up for the job. All she really has to do is pick. Not that hard.
Maybe in the tribal days, a breeding female was absolutely vital to the sustainment of the tribe
Birthrates are a major concern to this day. Don’t minimize this.
The reason women weren’t sent into battle is because they generally can’t fight and kill as well as men.
You’re making up implausible ad hoc explanations. The loss of one woman’s life was much, much more detrimental to the survival of the tribe than the loss of a male.
going it alone as a single dad is hard
Most men decidedly don’t want to be the primary caregiver and buying someone else’s eggs doesn’t bring nearly the same satisfaction as convincing a real live woman to bear your offspring out of love.
kis, if you really do talk about sex online… I have a single father who has the 2nd largest website of prostitutes of men and women in the country and he is looking for a few writers and he will pay.
Why does everyone want me to email them and write stuff? It’s not like I know what the hell I’m talking about…LOL
The talking about sex online I do usually has to do with writing realistic, quality erotica (which sometimes includes publishing issues), and bisexual rights issues (not gay enough for the gays and not straight enough for the straights, and everyone just wishes we’d go away). Don’t know if I’d have anything to offer a site like that…
You’re making up implausible ad hoc explanations. The loss of one woman’s life was much, much more detrimental to the survival of the tribe than the loss of a male.
The whole concept of women’s value deriving solely from their uteruses is why historically conquerors employed rapine. Collect all the virgins to fill the head honcho’s harem, and rape (and possibly kill) the rest. The despoiling of women at that point was the equivalent of keying your enemy’s car. You wreck his stuff, and it hurts him.
Hey kis,
Why does everyone want me to email them and write stuff? It’s not like I know what the hell I’m talking about…LOL
The talking about sex online I do usually has to do with writing realistic, quality erotica (which sometimes includes publishing issues), and bisexual rights issues (not gay enough for the gays and not straight enough for the straights, and everyone just wishes we’d go away). Don’t know if I’d have anything to offer a site like that…
Cause you silly woman (just a joke between women) we don’t all have that kind of imagination”. I am not even good with ordinary big words let alone sexual descriptive big words.
Anakin:
There are specifically male virtues that men have to live up to and specific male roles that they have to fill. Any man who fails to live up to at least some of those virtues or fill some of those roles is a failure as a man. That life is complicated and filled with exceptions doesn’t mean there aren’t real standards for specifically male good conduct.
Masculinity is what is called a cluster concept. There are a number of things that make it up. Not everyone will have all of them. It is not a platonic category.
Cause you silly woman (just a joke between women) we don’t all have that kind of imaginationâ€. I am not even good with ordinary big words let alone sexual descriptive big words.
Sounds to me like you need to read some dirty books…
My exploration of sex and gender issues has been totally self-propelled and self-absorbed. I never went to university or college (okay, I flunked out–spectacularly–twice, heh), and I’ve never explored feminism, per se, other than those aspects of it that I agree with–equal rights, personhood for women, sexual and reproductive freedoms, etc. I am by no means an expert on anything.
What kind of site is it? What kind of articles do they publish?
Masculinity is what is called a cluster concept. There are a number of things that make it up. Not everyone will have all of them. It is not a platonic category.
I’d agree with that. And I’d guess that pretty much every man has the potential to nail enough of those virtues to be a “real man” or “act in a socially constructive manner”, or whatever you choose to call it.
But then, being a woman, my opinion on that is maybe not the point?
Most men decidedly don’t want to be the primary caregiver
It is not for ‘most’ men. It is for the few that choose this route.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/City/Ahmedabad/Single-men-hire-wombs-in-Gujarat-to-become-fathers/articleshow/4682292.cms
This is its own form of MGTOW, the ultimate form in fact. While most of us would not want to undertake such a huge responsibility, the few who do are flipping the bird at feminism big time.
What is MGTOW, after all?
the same satisfaction as convincing a real live woman to bear your offspring out of love.
What a man endures while going through the divorce court brutalization might well be the opposite of ‘satisfaction’ and ‘love’.
I don’t think we can have it both ways – dip into the biological and then dip into the sociological to construct manhood.
But that’s the reality of it and always has been. They feed each other. An ideal of manhood that is not somehow linked to the biological/physical experience of maleness falls flat (like the one that feminists are selling). The ideals we associate with manhood are linked to testosterone, to larger size, to greater strength. It really isn’t brain surgery to see how the sociological and the biological play off each other. The either/or is a false dichotomy, just like any other black/white nature/nurture argument.
Look, if you agree that a man should display certain desirable characteristics that are less suitable or less important in women, then you have to logically agree that a man who displays said characteristics to a lesser degree is therefore less manly. If a man proudly veers toward the opposite of said ideals, rejecting them nearly completely, I think it’s fair to say that he’s a poor example of a man.
It’s the Law of the Excluded Middle. Aristotle said it best – it is impossible for one to be a man and not be a man at the same time. If you are not a man then what are you? A male? A male what? A male human being. But that’s what a man is. If you are not a man, then you are an animal, a child, or a woman.
That’s not an especially convincing argument. Words have multiple meanings in English. There is the simple biological sense of a man, which is the adult male, and then there is an archetypal man who has similar qualities across cultures. People get hung up on the superficial cultural differences without looking at the reasons why men adopted a particular practice, but when you look at the underlying rationale for said practice it falls into line a lot better.
Finally, as I’ve said, there’s a difference between moral arguments and arguments about root qualities of masculinity.
Yes, you do need to make an argument for why you want men to behave in a certain way–for why you want to moralize masculinity. That’s what men have been doing for millenia, as times and situations change. But you can only fantasize about a moralized social construction of manhood so far from nature. So there’s a balance there.
A drum I will beat often is that masculinity universally reduces to strength, and that (aside from the “duh” strategic benefits of promoting a culture of strong, assertive men when there are other men who want access to the same resources) young men will gravitate toward masculine role models who demonstrate strength, and repudiate male role models who appear to be weaker. Encouraging good men to also be strong men is a no-brainer. Stigmatizing weakness is a no-brainer. And yes, most men put in stress situations respond to challenges to their masculinity with a particular vigor. I really don’t think you’ll be able to escape realmannspracht for the simple reason that it works better than most of the alternatives.
@kis
Cause you silly woman (just a joke between women) we don’t all have that kind of imaginationâ€. I am not even good with ordinary big words let alone sexual descriptive big words.
Sounds to me like you need to read some dirty books…
Just in the middle of a different books.
Probably.
My exploration of sex and gender issues has been totally self-propelled and self-absorbed. I never went to university or college (okay, I flunked out–spectacularly–twice, heh), and I’ve never explored feminism, per se, other than those aspects of it that I agree with–equal rights, personhood for women, sexual and reproductive freedoms, etc. I am by no means an expert on anything.
What kind of site is it? What kind of articles do they publish?
OMG, do you think that a men’s site would be something you don’t stand for? (Just kidding).
But um, what do mean about gender issues?
Ok, maybe I was wrong abou the need of a major movement of males. But, I’m just saying that if LGBTs and feminists can and do reach videogames and other stuff of the geek culture, why we can’t?
I used wide(and far off base) examples, but in particular, an approach to the videogame community, a place when the males come instead of watching TV because it still cater to us, mainly because PC-ness (there’s still bad guys, and not only imaginary ones, WWII first-person shooters for example do say that nazis as evil and let us shot them) and feminist propaganda (woman need to do heroic stuff at the same level of men so they can be protagonists) are pretty much at bay.
Of course, it isn’t perfect, the female caricatures presented there are not real (note, female media don’t present males in a fair way either, see: Twilight and sitcoms), but an expansion to the young (and not so young) male bastions of entretaiment that still exist in this world would be a good idea.
Ok, to the subject:
Given that the Sex and the City worshipers, their manginas and the flamboyant gay community (note, a guy can be beta and still refuse to be an slave to women) don’t have an idea of what it means to be a man because their ONLY requisite is if either he makes them wet ot not, it falls to us to define what it means to be a male in the modern world.
We cannot imitate the wimmin and define malehood based in only sexual progress(it is still there, relax), but given that the old standard of provider is a dead-end, there’s must be another way to define and measure manhood.
Im my opinion, there’s must be a way to channel male energy in a positive way, because the secondary meter of courage can be applied in a negative ans self-destructive way, an abusive alcoholic, for example. The failure of our society to do this will result in a degradation, a slow and painful death. Or we can be invaded by Muslims, whatever happens first.
What is this way? What is the way to channel male energy into true manhood? That is the question. Male energy needs to go somewhere, so far it goes to vandalism, gheeto fights, Internet flame wars, etc. That isn’t healthy neither for males or the rest of the world.
Game is an step in the right direction, it gives male energy something positive to do, it gives males awareness of the world that surrounds them(something extremely important) and it gives a regulation on how not to use it, but it isn’t enough.
For a change to be made in this society, a political, economical and social movement must be created to counter feminism. It will take decades, it will take a huge social change of values first, but it will happen. Although it would help being focused in the goal, is just one step at a time.
Great stuff, Guys.
But, in my view, it is all much more simple when it comes to deciding what a man should be.
Just someone who tries at all times to be decent towards other people while pursuing his own aims.
Isn’t this the ‘core’ of it all? – more or less.
Here’s a song I like that very few care to know. But umm, what the hey,
Hit them with a little ghetto gospel
[Chorus - Elton John:]
Those who wish to follow me (my ghetto gospel)
I welcome with my hands
And the red sun sinks at last into the hills of gold
And peace to this young warrior without the sound of guns
[2Pac]
If I could recollect before my hood days
I’d sit and reminisce, thinking of bliss of the good days
I stop and stare at the younger, my heart goes to ‘em
They tested, it was stress that they under
And nowadays things changed
Everyone’s ashamed to the youth cause the truth looks strange
And for me it’s reversed, we left them a world that’s cursed, and it hurts
’cause any day they’ll push the button
and you all condemned like Malcolm X and Bobby Hunton, died for nothing
Don’t them let me get teary, the world looks dreary
but when you wipe your eyes, see it clearly
there’s no need for you to fear me
if you take your time to hear me, maybe you can learn to cheer me
it ain’t about black or white, cause we’re human
I hope we see the light before its ruined
my ghetto gospel
[Chorus - Elton John]
[2Pac]
Tell me do you see that old lady ain’t it sad
Living out a bag, but she’s glad for the little things she has
And over there there’s a lady, crack got her crazy
Guess she’s given birth to a baby
I don’t trip and let it fade me, from outta the frying pan
We jump into another form of slavery
Even now I get discouraged
Wonder if they take it all back while I still keep the courage
I refuse to be a role model
I set goals, take control, drink out my own bottles
I make mistakes, I learn from everyone
And when it’s said and done
I bet this Brother be a better one
If I upset you, don’t stress
Never forget, that God hasn’t finished with me yet
I feel his hand on my brain
When I write rhymes, I go blind, and let the lord do his thang
But am I less holy
’cause I choose to puff a blunt and drink a beer with my homies
Before we find world peace
We gotta find peace and end the war on the streets
My ghetto gospel
[Chorus - Elton John]
[2Pac]
Lord can you hear me speak!!
To pay the price of being hell bound…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JcCWQt6OM8
I posted similar thoughts on the Christian Rock comments thread, but they seem more appropriate for this one. I do not understand why there is not more conservative, traditionalist (pro-man) fiction and drama. The left has been using fiction and drama to promote their ideas for years, and with dismaying success. There’s a mountain of non-fiction books from conservative writers and publishers; why not more fiction?
Doesn’t do a lot of good to complain about something without doing something about it so I started writing novels that honor men. The first one is about a man falsely accused of sexual harassment; it’s pro-man, pro-family, pro-tradition and very anti-feminist. I was convinced no mainstream publisher would touch it — they don’t dare cross the feminist lobby — so I created my own imprint to publish it. That’s easier and cheaper than ever, in the digital publishing age.
I would love to see more fiction and drama that honors men and deals with men’s issues. A lot of people who’d never read nonfiction about men’s issues might see and understand them if they’re presented as part of an absorbing story or drama.
Just someone who tries at all times to be decent towards other people while pursuing his own aims.
Imagine if women pursued such a noble code.
But rather, we see that women will happily pursue X gain for herself even if that causes 4X damage to others in the process.
The issue, Thursday, is that we have moved beyond this as a species. We really have. The planet is very well populated. The incubators are simply not as precious as they once may have been. Countries that have high populations are avoiding giving birth to incubators, because they do not need them — population is high and growing, and in that setting, incubators have low value.
As men, we should never, ever, buy in to the idea that we are disposable or of lesser value than women. Disposable? If all men went on strike for 48 hours in North America, we would soon see just how silly it is to view men as the disposable sex. In the 21st century, we are the indispensible sex and the incubator class, in the context of sustained high population, is the disposable class. Women get this, Thursday, which is why they have demanded not being seen simply as the incubator class. They demanded to be involved in other things, to augment their value, because their basic incubator value was decreasing. It is men — either social conservatives or biocons wedded to evolutionary history as a lodeston — who prop up the fantasy that being a human incubator is of more social value, in today’s context, than being a do-bee like men are. When the space aliens of the third galactic imperium invade and decimate the human race, then yes we will need a lot of incubators. But now? Pfft. Men should not be augmenting the dubiously assumed incubator privilege by buttressing it with evo-psych stuff that in this environment simply no longer applies.
This is a great point, Connie.
I think that the reason why there is less conservative fiction is because most creatives, in this age, identify with progressivism and the left rather than the right. It’s certainly a problem, and we need more balance in that area. Thanks for helping to provide that.
Nova – You bring up a good point about “incubator privilige”. This is the real reason behind gender inequities such as:
- Alimony. Only available for SAHM ex-spouse, and nothing provided in return for the breadwinner ex-spouse. Most law is now worded “gender neutral”, but the essence still determines outcomes by incubator-vs-workerbee distinction.
- Criminal Sentencing Discount.
- Affirmative Action (based on gender).
- Exclusion from Combat Roles.
- Qualification for special types of welfare (such as the US Back to Skool program, and the UK Apartment subsidies programs for single-moms-only, etc).
Legal and economic priviliges based on what type of plumbing you have under your skin. If you have the incubator-plumbing you are all set.
Basically, women shouldn’t be treated different just becasue children came out of their vaginas. No the “great pains of giving birth” don’t matter (and we don’t give a shit) because, biologically, you are here for that. In this age of “equality”, I fully support it.
The deal braker is demanding equality in some spheres while demanding sexist-privilige in others. The sin here is demanding to eat your cake, and keep it too.
- Alimony. Only available for SAHM ex-spouse, and nothing provided in return for the breadwinner ex-spouse. Most law is now worded “gender neutralâ€, but the essence still determines outcomes by incubator-vs-workerbee distinction.
- Criminal Sentencing Discount.
- Affirmative Action (based on gender).
- Exclusion from Combat Roles.
- Qualification for special types of welfare (such as the US Back to Skool program, and the UK Apartment subsidies programs for single-moms-only, etc).
I don’t see all of those as “incubator privileges” per se. I think governments are self-serving. The Canadian government doesn’t give me income supplements because I’m a woman–if my ex had custody, they’d give them to him (and I might be expected to pay him spousal support as well as child support, for that matter). The reality is that single mothers with custody are simply more common (and likely always will be, even when divorce and custody laws are gender-neutral) than single dads with custody. The reason governments provide boosts and tax breaks to custodial parents (whether they’re single or married) is because in a society with declining birthrates, where the demographic pyramid has been turned upside down, they have a vested interest in making the future “bottoms” successful. Because if they aren’t, those on top are in for a hard time indeed.
That’s not to say that women don’t get all kinds of special privileges based on their plumbing. Just that not all the privileges handed mostly to women are based on plumbing. A single woman without kids, or custody of her kids, would not qualify for those apartment subsidies. I don’t know if the answer is to deny them the subsidies, but rather, to insist that single fathers with custody also qualify for them. And to insist that fathers get custody when it’s the best for everyone–especially the kids.
I think we need an essay on “Incubator Privilige”. We can then popularize it on redditt, etc. It’s a Meme War baby!
Kis -
The “good of the child” argument that is behind some of these laws/subsidies is really just an extension of the incubator privilige. The killer here is forcibly removing the worker-bee parent from the child’s life, and hence turning the worker-bee parent into the a near-lifetime financial servant for the custodial-parent (who is usually the incubator parent).
Children in our current civilization model are positioned and used as a bait, a cash-cow. Such a civilization does not deserve to survive.
Nova:
1. None of what you say disproves the fact that men have to do something to make themselves valuable to others. They aren’t valuable to society just standing around.
2. Reproduction still matters . The road to the next generation still goes through the choosy sex. And they are going to remain the choosy sex, because, even in modern society, it remains true that eggs are more expensive than sperm.
Puma:
The deal [breaker] is demanding equality in some spheres while demanding sexist-privilige in others. The sin here is demanding to eat your cake, and keep it too.
Exactly.
My point is that for biological reasons, equality is a non-starter, so we should return to more tradtional sex roles.
Kis -
The “good of the child†argument that is behind some of these laws/subsidies is really just an extension of the incubator privilige. The killer here is forcibly removing the worker-bee parent from the child’s life, and hence turning the worker-bee parent into the a near-lifetime financial servant for the custodial-parent (who is usually the incubator parent).
I think the problem isn’t with “the good of the child” so much as that “the good of the child” is an unevenly applied standard. As a Canadian, I see that standard being applied more evenly all the time, whether that means more dads getting custody (or parents sharing custody, with no child support paid in either direction), or the new guidelines that define access for non-custodial parents as the right of the child, rather than the right of the parent seeking access. We still have a long way to go, but I think we’re probably farther ahead than the States in that regard.
And I think there are some benefits to being the non-custodial parent, as well. I mean, my kids came home yesterday to tell me that their dad now has a live-in girlfriend (and I’m choked, because he didn’t do anything to prepare them, and he didn’t tell me so I could prepare them, which left them not even wanting to answer my “Is she nice?” question because they had no idea WTF they were supposed to say or whether it would hurt my feelings). Not having the kids there every day means he was free to pursue a new relationship.
Me, I haven’t even started dating, because my baggage is significantly more impactful on my life (and the life of a porential mate) than his baggage, even if he was paying support. Any man who wants a serious relationship with me is taking on three kids full time. Any women who wants a serious relationship with him is taking on three kids every other weekend.
So in some ways, non-custodial parents have it harder, and in some ways they have it easier. Even if I came after him for all the money I could get, I’m pretty sure he’d rather pay than have custody, because the financial burden is easier for him to bear than the daily burden of being a parent.
zed October 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“slective abortion of female fetuses”
Just in case anyone didn’t hear…Hillary Clinton has got her kickers in a knot about the fact that couples who are able to determine the sex of their child early on in pregnancy are selectively aborting females far more often than males and hillary wants this ‘oppression’ stopped…LOL!!!
Women, when given a choice, will more often kill a female foetus than a male foetus. I think that just about summs up womens view of women. Now..if we could only find a doctor to give Hillary a late term abortion! LOL! (No I am not inciting murder..it’s a joke!!)
julie October 18, 2009 at 7:00 pm
“Well, you don’t really have a lot of experience with women in the general sense. You just have a lot of experience with feminists”
Julie, I suggest you listen rather then tell men what it is they have and have not experience with….yes, this is the same GM as over on MND. I see you have made your way across here too.
I have TONS of experience with western women and 99.99% of them are feminsts whether they admit to it or not. 99.99% of them are crap and not worth talking to no matter how much they ‘protest’ about how ‘non-feminist’ they are. Feminism is inherent in the west via the MSM. And I know what I am talking about because I have been dating non-feminised women for 18 months. The non-feminised women make you western women look very bad in every conceivable way.
“Come to think about it, history is filled with female soldiers all the way back to the Greeks, and even before that”
Care to offer %s of men dead to women dead as soldiers. There were women soldiers killed in Vietnam too for the US. 8 of them I believe compared to the 58,000 men.
To even give mention to women soldies in russia is an insult to the men. Something like 25M russian men died. In Stalingrad they would give one gun and 5 bullets to 5 men facing machine guns. Yes, I am dating russian women who tell me this is true and the 2 men story was a cover to make it look better. The russian men were slaughtered in their millions. Not so russian women. Sorry. Massive fail. Please quote facts or provide evidence for what you say. You are dealing with men now and your credibility starts at zero because you are a western woman, a kiwi no less. (Not to mention so many vacuuous posts on MND.) Why do you have so much time to post when you have children and a sick husband to look after?
cayalx October 18, 2009 at 9:14 pm
“A 40 year old man has much more value than a 40 year old woman (who has zero value).”
A 40 year old women has negative value. She is a liability. She is only worth keeping if she has been a loyal and faithful mother and wife. I don’t touch women over 35. I used to say to my ex that when she was young and beautiful was the time for her to build up her stock with me so that when the inevitable day came that someone younger and hotter tried to steal me away I would have good reason to say ‘no’. Nope. Didn’t listen. She figured ‘unconditional love’ means you can abuse a man all you like and he still has to love you because he said he would. And what does she need to do? Nothing, of course. Women over 50 will be getting their demise pill in mail soon enough.
@Thursday
“men have to do something to make themselves valuable to others. They aren’t valuable to society just standing around.”
Same goes for women.
“Reproduction still matters . The road to the next generation still goes through the choosy sex. And they are going to remain the choosy sex, because, even in modern society, it remains true that eggs are more expensive than sperm.”
Yes; but only up to a point. And as Novaseeker said, times are changing quite dramatically with respect to our need to reproduce more.
Besides which, I am not convinced by the notion that women were more valued in the past than men simply because they produced offspring. They did much more than that.
Contrary to feminist BS, women have always had a great deal to offer their societies. As such, they inevitably had a lot of power.
Furthermore, keeping their men happy was probably one of their most important functions.
Females are more sexually valuable than males. This is why males –across all nature–fight; the male system is a huge soup of molecular models selected by that truth and devoted to it (but not necessarily selected _by_ females).
See sea horses to see a perfect “exception proving the rule” case.
There is an interesting evolutionary perspective to all of this. Did you know that when “sexual reproduction” first got accidentally selected by mutation/natural-selection of the previous asexual dividers, that the “male” and “female” organisms were identical? Sex was about shuffling of the DNA between the two, to fool parasites from preying on the next generation of offspring. Keep shuffling the deck of cards, so that parasites don’t know what hand you are holding.
It was only later that the “egg” vs. the “sperm” differentiation arose. In some species the differences are still mostly nominal. In many species of fish the females lay their eggs on the sea bottom and the males simply splash their sperm over that. It’s like two dumpster trucks with slightly differing loads (excuse the pun). One dumpster truck female, the other one male.
In reptiles, avians, and mammals, the gender differences got taken to a whole new level. It’s funny that we humans are now started to reverse this differentiation trend, at least culturally.
Well, the “choosy sex” has made the “choice” to throw away about 50 million of those eggs after they were fertilized. It reminds me a bit of dairy farmers dumping milk out on the ground in order to keep the prices up enough to make it economically viable to continue to produce milk.
We clearly have more of a problem with reproductive excess than with reproductive shortage if we are allowing more than 1/3 rd of every generation to just get tossed in the dumpster.
Re: Maternal investment: Her body, her choice.
Re: Paternal investment: His wallet, not his choice.
… I think the above pretty much sums up “Incubator Privilige”.
@ Jack Donovan
Look, if you agree that a man should display certain desirable characteristics that are less suitable or less important in women, then you have to logically agree that a man who displays said characteristics to a lesser degree is therefore less manly. If a man proudly veers toward the opposite of said ideals, rejecting them nearly completely, I think it’s fair to say that he’s a poor example of a man.
A man can be a bad man, a cowardly man, or weak man, but he is still a man. That’s physical reality of the situation, unless science has some way of scrambling his genetic material. I do not think we can escape the sticking point of cultural differences when we start making value judgments about manhood. The question still arises – Whose manhood counts? For some, it’s physical strength. For those with my worldview, it’s moral and spiritual strength that comes from submission to God. Everybody has a bellybutton opinion when it comes to what they think a “man” is, but the only objective measure of manhood is biological.
I am of the conviction that every man has inherent worth as a one created in the image of God. I don’t consider myself “utopian” for saying that. It is simply a moral observation that springs from the Christian worldview (as opposed to something like, say, Nietzchean Darwinism). As a libertarian, I realize that even liberty and freedom are based upon this concept, otherwise theft, murder, and slavery have no meaning. Now, I should say that I do not embrace the opposite error: equality of outcomes and the entitlement mentality. But every man has inherent worth (as a man). This is my conviction, though others here may disagree.
I have escaped realmannspracht in the most critical way possible – by not allowing it to personally affect me. Moreover, appealing to my “honor” and “shame” only works inasmuch as I have accepted the standards of the appeal. The problem is that men are waking up and realizing the old standards are not being enforced fairly, but that DOUBLE standards are being enforced. “Honor” and “shame” in such a context doesn’t have any teeth. That’s why when Barak Obama makes his shaming comments about fathers, he has no legitimacy in the eyes of many men. I’ve asked it before as a rhetorical question, but I’ll ask it here: Why should men protect a society that doesn’t care about them?
Anakin Niceguy
Let me re-phrase that: Why should men support a system they don´t believe in ??
Guys -
Let’s all go an die in Afghanistan so we can spread the Goddess’s Gift to Mankind: Feminism. I can’t wait to spill my own blood and give up my life so that the poor Afghan women can gain the right to divorce their husbands and take all his shit (plus chain him for lifetime alimony).
Some ideals are worth dying for my friends.
But seriously. Who would sign up to fight for other people’s causes?
Puma
“lets all go die in Afghanistan”
-After you !
(sound of running feet !)
Anakin -
I do not think we can escape the sticking point of cultural differences when we start making value judgments about manhood. The question still arises – Whose manhood counts? For some, it’s physical strength. For those with my worldview, it’s moral and spiritual strength that comes from submission to God. Everybody has a bellybutton opinion when it comes to what they think a “man†is, but the only objective measure of manhood is biological.
I’ll continue to disagree. Your appeal to cultural differences, as is often the case, skips the commonalities. Christian men, historically speaking, have demonstrated a desire to be as strong and dominant as men of any other religion. Christians conquered most of the world, and they didn’t do it with prayer. They did it with swords and guns and cannons. They gathered mighty armies and slaughtered many. I guess you could engage in realchristianspracht, but that’s the reality.
Your Christian morality of masculinity is best described an add-on module to the default mode, which is cross-cultural. I broke it down as best I could here:
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2009/10/strength/
My definition dovetails with yours at the point where the strength of will becomes self mastery and self discipline.
Why should men protect a society that doesn’t care about them?
Now, see, that is an interesting question.
To avoid protecting your society out of personal interest is selfish hedonism. Possibly rational hedonism, but hedonism all the same.
I’m still not even sure how to go about doing this, but the better answer is probably to work to transform the society AND protect it. I’d wager to say that neither of us is quite ready to give up on the West just yet. If I were, I wouldn’t be here. I’d be drinking.
Anyway, to wrap up this little marathon of what I like to call “friendly clarification”…
Advocating for and writing about a secular, cross-cultural vision of honor and manhood is kinda my whole thing. It’s based on conclusions I have come to about human nature and men and ideas I am still developing but have been working on for some time. So you may disagree with some things I’m going to write about, and that’s “OK.” I do appreciate constructive input and insight either way. But like yourself, there are things I’m not going to bend on.
I agree with Anakin: a man is a man because he is biologically so.
In the social sense, he should be strong, virtuous, honourable (insert societal value of your choice here) but he starts off as a MAN.
Given that he is biologically a man, then we can see what type of man he should be ideally.
As for this question, “Why should men protect a society that doesn’t care about them”? The answer is obvious. Such a society is doomed. An anti-man society is a dying society. Destroy men, you destroy the family, and destroy the children; such a society should be destroyed so that a sane one can take its place.
As for this question, “Why should men protect a society that doesn’t care about them� The answer is obvious. Such a society is doomed. An anti-man society is a dying society. Destroy men, you destroy the family, and destroy the children; such a society should be destroyed so that a sane one can take its place.
Can’t argue with that, Marlon. The populations of European peoples are declining precisely because they’ve enthusiastically institutionalized the anti-family, anti-male, ideals of feminism. Nature is teaching them a lesson about what happens to groups of people who have a declining birth rate while surrounding groups have a growing one.
I learned more about manhood from the writings of from Ernest Hemingway and Robert E. Howard than I have in any other books.
@ Jack Donovan
To avoid protecting your society out of personal interest is selfish hedonism. Possibly rational hedonism, but hedonism all the same.
Excellent article and thread. I have to wonder if the society we live in would not benefit more from such male hedonism than be harmed by it in the current state of affairs. And sometimes I think that some form of hedonism is a given, and our task only to choose which one.
First, and this is a topic in writing on men that is even more rare than the rest, there is one but one kind of male selfishness and it is at the root of most of our problems. Sexual conquest. I think this is the enabling root of feminist hegemony of social consciousness. Men tend to tolerate whatever women do, or whatever anyone does as long as it appears to garner womens approval, regardless of morality, integrity or honesty. And it is all about the attentions (ultimately sexual) of women.
How many manginas do you suppose have their convoluted thinking rooted in sexual desire? How many feminist outrages obtain support from the majority of men simply because of sexual desires?
The postfeminist male, which is he average male, is emasculated because he imagines women want him to be. He has complied with the perceived wishes of women via self castration and has even learned to feign public pride in it by disguising his own disempowerment as sensitivity and progressive thought.
Alternatively, he may mask his servile ways as traditionalism and chivalry. The core of modern traditionalism, in a culture that has been stripped of traditions, is mindless subservience. The modern chivalrist/traditionalist is the mirror image of the modern mangina in that his behaviors, beliefs and values all go back to his perception of women’s needs and desires. He is the patsy imagining he is a warrior.
Both manginas and traditionalists form identity, determine purpose and project identity based on an image of what they think women want.
They will usually deny it and espouse lofty goals. For the mangina the goal is an egalitarian society, for the traditionalist it is family values and the social fabric. But for both I think it boils down unconsciously to pussy. It is all woman centered and therefore centered in the drive for sex.
I wrote about this some more in A Letter to Men on my website.
For me, it is precisely as you have said:
What we need is an explosion of writing about manhood from the perspective of men who do not seek the approval of women before they determine what being a man means. We need writing about men written manifestly for the benefit of men.
And that writing which is “manifestly for the benefit of men” is precisely the hedonism men should practice, IMO. What men have never had throughout history are identities outside those which serve women in one way or another. In fact, we can’t, and any attempt to define manhood, per se, is just another way to offer up men to female governance.
We are hobbled by the fact that the only way we can define masculinity is in contrast to femininity. The very definition itself is contingent on a symbiotic compatibility with women.
To me, this is what proves the real potential in the MGTOW philosophy. By writing anti traditional material, as well as good material that eschews the weakness of manginal castrados, we speak to the core of the problem. We reject the power of the pussy to shape our identities as human beings and defy anyones attempts to mold us into anything.
In that light, I think there are some basic areas of the literature that are more helpful than the others. My favorite topics are
1. Anti-marriage
2. Anti-chivalry
3. Indifferent or hostile to the collective aspirations of women on their face.
4. Anti-feminist
5. Pro male choice- Men should have the legal right to unilaterally terminate parental obligations during the same period a woman can legally get an abortion.
None of these topics or my belief in them paints me as anything but human with a healthy self interest. And the more healthy self interest any human being has, the less likely they are to be exploited.
@ Paul Elam-
Thanks for your words.
I define myself as a Geek. Somebody with Asperger’s syndrome. I self label myself this because I take pride in what Geeks are good at, and feel like the things Geeks are weak at, ie. catering to what women think a man should be like socially, is less important. Just because women don’t like Geeks does not distract from our power, and won’t stop our eventual rise in this information economy. That is how I choose to define myself as a man. If Asperger’s is a mild form of Autism, and Autism is the extreme male brain, than yes, I am a Geek. My brain is more male than average. If women don’t understand this, or don’t appreciate this, fuck em’.
{ 2 trackbacks }