“Mother May I?” Masculinity

Post image for “Mother May I?” Masculinity

by Jack Donovan on January 6, 2010

Modern women balk at any suggestion that men should be able to tell women how to behave. Many believe that a woman should be able to do whatever she likes without worrying “what women are supposed to do.”

When feminists talk to men, they pretend to offer the same sort of freedom from social expectations attached to one’s sex. But this talk of freedom is always a lie. This new, “free” model of manhood approved by feminists must, after all, serve the interests of feminism. Many traditionally masculine behaviors and ideas are clearly “off limits.” So, while the new woman does whatever she wants and explores her world unfettered, the feminist male is carefully restricted and monitored for signs of disobedience or treachery.

He’s a rhinestone collared lapdog with a humiliating barrette in his hair, free to run in a yard bordered by an electric fence.

At best, he’s allowed the manly privileges of opening jars and taking out the garbage.

The pro-feminist male is a wretched, guilt-ridden creature who must at every turn make certain he is not impeding the progress of women in any way. He willingly accepts guilt for crimes against women he never committed, perpetrated by men he has never met. He must question any interest he has in sports or any admiration he might have for traditional male role models—for fear that he is perpetuating cultures of honor or patriarchy that could somehow result in the oppression of or violence against women. He must be careful to include women in every activity, even if he would prefer not to.  He must avoid pornography.  He must “Try hard to understand how [his] own attitudes and actions might inadvertently perpetuate sexism and violence, and work toward changing them.” He must never collude with men to work for the interests of men—unless those interests have been certified as completely harmless to the interests of women.  He is encouraged to work with women to support their interests with little or no regard for how those interests might have a negative impact on men. He must “create systems of accountability to women in [his] community.” He must reject any advantages he receives that seem to be tied to “systems of male privilege” but he must support and defend programs that help or give advantages to women based on their sex alone.

The only “freedom” that feminism offers men is the freedom to do exactly what women want him to do.  The freedom to serve.

Moderate feminists sometimes make the argument that feminism is truly “humanism” and that the interests of men and women are essentially the same. This is a debatable belief—not a fact—and we must respect it, as H.L. Mencken wrote, “only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” Men and women do share some key interests—especially when they are not in competition with one another.  But so long as men and women remain physically different and demonstrate different psychological and political tendencies, some conflicts of interest between them will naturally continue.

No woman is expected to burden herself with concerns about how her words or actions might have a negative impact on men. The idea that women should serve the interests of men is explicitly anti-feminist, but the same is not true of men serving the interests of women. Serving the interests of women—possibly at the expense of your own—is required of men who support feminism.

What kind of a man must ask women “what kind of man may I be?”

Not a man, but a boy—a mere child picking flowers for a kiss on the cheek and a pat on the head.

Any assertion of his manhood hinges on the question “Mother, may I?”

If men are not supposed to tell women how women must behave, what right do women have to demand that men cater to their interests? Who are they to tell men what manhood means? Why should men accept their authority? What the Hell do women know about what it means to be a man?

A woman’s commentary on the masculine experience is warped and distorted by her own interests, and should never be regarded as authoritative. If, as feminists have said, the personal is political, it is foolish to trust any woman not to filter her thoughts on men through her own experience and interests as a woman. The pose and the language of unbiased thought do not guarantee it.

These new, independent women should have no need to exploit a man’s vestigial sense of chivalry. If they are truly suited to compete with men, they should be able to do so without special rules, privileges and protections. Men should not have to curb their behavior so that women can achieve. If “equality” were truly desired, men would never have to ask, “Mother, may I?”

Now, within any relationship or friendship between two people, compromise is inevitable and healthy. Every relationship is different, and a man and a woman should be able to make their private arrangements as best serves them both.

It is also true that some compromise at the public level is necessary to maintain even the most rudimentary civilization. But to ask men to radically alter their behavior to facilitate the success of complete strangers with whom they may well be in direct or indirect competition is absurd. That’s not “equality” any more than asking a boxer to fight with one hand tied behind his back is a “fair fight.”

And yet this is exactly what feminists ask of men.

“Hobble yourselves so that we can crawl over your backs.”

Men need to reject this.

In the UK, there was recently some controversy over the formation of what looks like the most benignly pro-feminist men’s therapy and health education group you could possibly imagine. But it was too much for some women to entertain the possibility that men might have any valid concerns or complaints of their own, or that they should have access to the same kinds of sex-specific support networks that now abound for women. The group’s leader fell all over himself trying to justify his existence to female critics, trying to prove that he was “one of the good ones” and that his focus on masculinity wasn’t a threat to women or gays or the transgendered. Perhaps this appeased his masters.

Men are doing this everywhere.  They’re apologizing and appeasing and asking for permission, cowering and begging and finding out that it will never, ever be enough.

Maybe some men believe that unless they hold their tongues and surrender to the never-ending demands of women, they’ll never get laid again. Maybe they’re afraid of being alone, unloved or scorned by women. Maybe they’re afraid that if they really look into the abyss and see the situation for what it is, they’ll be consumed by anger and hatred and they’ll no longer be able to smile and nod their way through the crowd of oblivious and obedient consumers who are their friends, families, employers and clients. Buckin’ the system ain’t great for business. So men lie to themselves and pretend everything is fine to keep things on an even keel.

Damage control.

It’s a little too easy for me, having little use for women and few reasons to compromise with them, to tell other men what I think they should do. So I’ll just ask:

“How’s that working out for ya, fellas?”

Change will begin when men stop working from willingly handicapped, defensive positions.

Men need to stop apologizing for being men.

And most of all, they need to stop asking for permission to be men.

{ 178 comments… read them below or add one }

Snark January 6, 2010 at 03:33

I would add that, even when men do capitulate to every demand of women, they are tagged ‘wimps’, ‘not masculine enough’, ‘nice guys’ etc., and can expect to be divorced and have their property stolen – you know the drill by now.

The presence or absence of masculinity are sticks used to beat men.

Any sign of masculinity at all is elevated to hypermasculinity – another example of Orwellian Newspeak. As if any man who engages in traditionally masculine activities, or is not ashamed to be a man, can be equated with rapists and murderers.

And a man who lacks masculinity is looked upon with pity by the very same women – he’s ‘not manly enough’.

I would say that this is not accidental but a very deliberate cultural pincer movement, a double-bind in which men cannot win, but must be shamed whatever their actions. Act like a man and be called a rapist, or act like a lickspittle and be looked down on with scorn.

The conclusion is: who the hell cares what women think?

If you’re going to be wrong either way, you might as well just do whatever you like and be wrong about it. They offer nothing else.

This isn’t to denigrate the purpose of your article – it’s very important that men recognise that nothing they do will earn them anything less than wrath from feminists and feminised women. There is no other option! All roadss lead here! ALL of them!

So, we stop caring altogether what feminists and feminised women think – quite frankly, they don’t have a clue. All they know how to do is hate. Their wimp-rapist dichotomy is false and can be destroyed simply by ignoring it. If men support each other in being masculine, and if they are supported by non-feminist women, this mechanism of control is broken. Who cares what a lunatic fringe thinks if you have a lot of people backing you up?

Brotherhood is what will save us – and the respect we deserve, from non-feminist women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Great Stuff January 6, 2010 at 03:55

Awesome article and comments.
I have now been celibate for several years. Furthermore, I’ve seriously limited my contact with women and treat most of them with polite contempt. These past several years have not been always been a bowl of cherries for me, but I can tell you that not once did I think “Wow, my life would be better if I was with a woman.”
Things are turning around for me, and as I look back on the past few years, I take pride in the fact that I did not turn to drink, drugs, or women as an illusory “cure” for my (mostly self-inflicted) melodrama and depression.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Migu January 6, 2010 at 04:12

Brotherhood and fraternity (not the college crap) will re-ignite men. Women never will.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
djc January 6, 2010 at 04:20

Great stuff….Great stuff. I am also celibate by choice. I truly don’t need, or want, a woman in my life any more. My two younger brothers think I’m crazy. I overheard one telling the other that I had some sort of “complex” about women. I had a good laugh over that one. I gave up long ago trying to explain it to them, as they are under “the trance” like most men are. One has even said he will probably marry his girl friend. And he is in his early fifties. Heh, what a tool.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
POIUYT January 6, 2010 at 04:35

I know exactly why the majority of do-or-say-nothing-bad-to-males from within the genderclass are supportive of pro-female double standard sentiments by ommission, and vehemently disagree with considering themselves as but one, amongst others of their own kind :

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, why males are universally and monolithically cast and portrayed badly, as an existential evil to others in all societies.

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, that the very social contract that has served all well since antiquity between the sexes, is nowadays falsely described and treated as an evil originating with and perpetuated by males.

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, a perniciously themed and deliberately manufactured imbalance has arisen surrounding reproductive, sexual, economic and even engineered relations between males and female others.

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, tens of millions of men are coerced into blindly and obediently fighting wars for a fatherland, which has not the slightest lingering regard or respect for their person, property or progeny.

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, prostitutes, harlots, illegal migrants and bastardising aliens of the appropriate gender, chasing the coveted green-card or residence permit, are considered better citizens and of a footing ten steps ahead of husbands and fathers. Even where these men are the historically indigenous subjects of the land !!!

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, why every overwhelming and negative experience of males in and out of marriage or the workplace, does not even exist, let alone come to institutional attention, as deserving of treatment or address.

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, that the very concept of a constitutional republic of equal citizens, of an equal footing in law and procedure, is falsely held aloft, to be an evil manufactured by men. That is, as a means to oppress and disadvantage those whom by gender alone, are allegedly more worthy and deserving of absolute freedom to do as they please were it not for males.

… It is for these very same reasons of ommission, that successive and perpetual amendments to law and procedure are arbitrarily enacted on a daily basis mens disadvantege and violation. That is to a point where it is safe now to say as far as males are concerned, there is no fixed law but merely an institutional caprice and a dynamic tyranny which changes by the moment to thwart inhibit and usurp us.

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, we are encouraged as fools to belive that those very things that are most damaging to us, sexually, economically and socially are good things, if such nonsenses lead to a chance liasoin with societies more designated worthies. Whom the goddamned hell made these chosen designates any more worthy in the first place, if not our own fellow mankind, eh?

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, we males for many future generations are set to experience the most eggregious, heartless and barbaric of personal violations and usurpations this world has ever seen. All because the most rotten of a political lie is oft repeated in high places and elswhere: “that the physical, economic, social, moral, ethical and personal emancipation of females, nescesarily leads to a hell on earth for our own group that are males”. What a deep, dyed fib and a dastardly falsehood !

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, we are bound by mutual enforcement and policing, to an excessive observance of an obsolete, outdated, outmoded and counter-productive subsevience and servility to those deemed more worthy. That is, when just about every substantive reason and material return for such conduct, has been outlawed, deemed mendacious and determined to be a sexual harrasment.

… It is for these same reasons of ommission, that Conservative, Socialist, Liberal, Religious, Libertarian, Agnostic, Aetheist, Black, White, Hispanic, Jew, upper-class, middle-class, working-class, Mangina, MRA, FRA and every other single representative of you, I and others of mankind forming the majority, stand aloof and in mindless self-destructive conspiracy against our own selves. That is all by ommission to team up, to unite, to unionise !!!

1.
If all those fellows of our own kind stand alone, in conceit of nothing really worthy, but exceedingly pridefull and full of joy for our individuality as men, better than thou, and more self-aware of our singular personhood than those others of our kind around us …

2.
If all those fellows of our own kind individualistically, purposefully and deliberately omit to reccognise and work with each other on a mutual task of such proportion to ourselves for many generations, as to be insurmountable alone as individuals …

3.
If all fellows of our own kind go it alone, because we are men, not members of a genderclass and not on the one side, but stand in contemptuous isolation from those whom appeal to collectivism from within …

… Then we are doomed in splendid aloofness and are justifyably so doomed in carefree isolation from each other, in a world and society where others unite against our common genderclass interests.

We have no choice but to root-out from within traitors or personal atttitudes inimical to the collective interests of males, to survive this misandrous age intact !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Meistergedanken January 6, 2010 at 04:36

Inspirational. I have felt the twinge of guilt when I didn’t “ask for permission”, or decided to just relax and not “be busy” when my wife comes into the house so I don’t have to hear her bitching about how much she has to do. On the other hand, my wife often complains that, “you don’t care what people think!”, as if that were a monstrous charge. I must be doing something right…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Fidel January 6, 2010 at 04:47

Jack,

Once again, a great article.

Snark, spot on. Who the hell cares what they think ????

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Re: djc January 6, 2010 at 05:34

I hear you loud and clear djc.

I have not yet planted a flag in the sand that says I’ll be “celibate for life” but if I do stick my hand back into that bag of vipers it will be with the knowledge that I will get 100% of what I want out of the relationship and if she doesn’t like it she can move on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 6, 2010 at 06:13

Sorry, but this article is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

This dishonesty starts with the very first sentence, “Modern women balk at any suggestion that men should be able to tell women how to behave”, this is as fundamentally intellectually dishonest as saying “Modern Muslims are terrorists”

The truth is that a very small proportion of modern women, albeit a proportion that varies in line with country / culture of origin, balk at any suggestion etc…

I happen to live in one of those countries / cultures with a higher than the global median proportion of such women, but I can still find other types of women living within 1 mile of my front door.

You are all fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

You claim that “manhood” is all about overcoming adversity in the environment, and always has been since the days of Ug living in his cave, and then, when presented with environmental challenges that do not even amount to a mound of beans compared to those our ancestors faces, as recently as 50 years ago (I grew up without mains water or sewerage, no electricity, no telephone, and living in a state described as a “communist emergency”) and what happens?

You fail, miserably, and then start whining about how it isn’t fair, boo hoo hoo, those nasty women are all to blame.

RESPONSIBILITY.

It is missing in modern western culture, we are no longer responsible for the consequences of our own actions, if the coffee scalds us, it is McDonalds fault for not putting a warning on the cup.

Back in the days of personal responsibility, that awareness curtailed your actions somewhat. It, at the very least, gave you pause for thought.

Now we are irresponsible, and everything is someone else’s fault, including when other people take the same attitude and try to make you responsible for their actions, like some modern women do.

You’re not men, you’re mice, pass the fucking cheese…

I’ve been falsely accused of rape etc etc etc, do you see me whining? Do you see me saying “it’s not fair?”. Do you see me claiming that none of this predicament is my own making? Do you fuck.

I’m a man, she was a crazy bitch but good in the sack, one day she went off the rails. Shit happens. I’m dealing with it.

Yes, what she did was wrong and indefensible, but, fact is, I *knew* she was loosely wrapped, I made that choice, and for many years I won every hand, getting great sex while avoiding the price of fucking a loon.

So one day the dice came up snake eyes.

Fuck it, who am I supposed to blame for being in that position? Welmer? Snark? Someone else, anyone else, but me?

Hell no.

They didn’t get the great sex, why should they get the blame?

This is the same as riding your motorcycle close to the edge for the buzz. If you fall off and get hurt one day, you can’t blame the nips for selling you a 150 mph motorcycle for 10k, or the road, or other drivers, or the great noodle monster, or women, or some women.

Shit happens.

If you doff your cap and kow tow to some bint, well, same as me fucking a loon, the consequences are all yours brother.

Deal with it.

If you end up losing and don’t even have great sex to compensate, more fool you.

THIS guy
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/04/hot_findlay_action/
I can relate to, intimately.

I got news for you, guys like me may get in the wars with these women you are all so afraid of, and we may get bloody, but we also beat the bitches, because we are men, not pussies.

You guys need to remember what you have swinging between your legs, else you may as well just join the ever increasing numbers of males (*not* men) going down the Body Modification route and disfiguring their penises, cutting them in half, cutting their testicles off, sticking pins through them, getting women to stomp on them, hammering nails through them.

Shit…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Krauser January 6, 2010 at 06:40

For chrissakes Afor, do you ever stop?

Good article. The important shift I made was to decide I simply do not care what women think, either individually or as a sisterhood. A special few women in my life will be allowed to influence my behaviour but as people, not as wimmin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 6, 2010 at 06:51

Krauser January 6, 2010 at 06:40

“For chrissakes Afor, do you ever stop?”

pah, snowed in dude…

“Good article. The important shift I made was to decide I simply do not care what women think, either individually or as a sisterhood. A special few women in my life will be allowed to influence my behaviour but as people, not as wimmin.”

Hallelujah.

Now all you have to do is learn to be yourself jack.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 07:21

AfOR-

What are you even talking about? The actual essay, if you’d read it instead of masturbating your own ego, was an indictment of men who do roll over and let women dictate the terms. I look around me and I see tons of male housepets asking for permission and it’s sad.

You’re the dickhead who would brag about how his house wasn’t on fire while Rome burned around him, calling everyone else whiners. Or the guy who sat around saying how he was doing fine under the reign of King George.

Rome is burning. Saying so isn’t whining. Identifying the problem is the first step to solving it. The Spearhead isn’t about whining, it’s precisely about saying the system isn’t working and moving to change it.

You’d let women take over to save your own ego. Your comment belongs on Jersey Shore. Empty posturing, no substance.

Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 07:36

I’m criticizing feminist theory and its male supporters and enablers, and you’re talking about getting ‘tang.

AfOR January 6, 2010 at 07:39

Jack Donovan.

you just don’t get it, “it” being darwinism.

house burning my ass, the more male housepets there are, the more feminists will be to exploit them, and all it means for *men* is less competition for more pussy.

Let women take over??? give me a fucking break, taking over means acquiring all the skills and doing all the jobs required to keep civilisation going, and, guess what, put someone in that place and they CAN NO LONGER BE either feminist or mangina.

women are like the meek in the bible, the only things they can “take over” is territories abandoned by others.

feminists are no threat to me sunshine, nor are manginas.

it’s all about the DNA replicating itself, cuckolding is a success strategy for DNA, so is every single other stress test DNA gets.

no stress test = very bad news for DNA

nature (eg DNA) abhorrs a vacuum, so lacking sabre toothed tigers, DNA figures another way to create selection, manginas and feminists are it.

there is no intellectual / social / verbal response to DNA, two separate strands either combine, or they don’t.

end
of
story

masturbating my ego huh, you sound like one of them tharr feminist creatures…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 6, 2010 at 07:41

Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 07:36

I’m criticizing feminist theory and its male supporters and enablers, and you’re talking about getting ‘tang.

Brother, there ain’t nothing else… truth…

no poontang, no DNA combination…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet January 6, 2010 at 07:41

Interesting article with a lot of truth in it. I think this is a situation were knowledge of Game becomes very useful. Guys with even a cursory knowledge of Game know to root out the obsequious behavior displayed by many men toward women because it is emasculating. And anti-seductive, to boot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 6, 2010 at 07:41

feminists are no threat to me

Aren’t you currently fighting a false rape accusation?

It is feminists who have enabled, and who encourage, women to make these false accusations …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 6, 2010 at 07:56

@ Snark

Yeah, I am currently fighting a false rape accusation.

I described above the “problem”, my ancestors had sabre tooth tiger, I have a societal norm and legal system, blaming the environment that created the sabre tooth, or the sabre tooth itself, gets me zilch.

In fact, it gets me less than zilch, because in adopting that blame culture I make myself less than I am, weaker than I am, less formidable than I am.

In adopting that culture I’d think myself lucky to get out from under it, hey buddy, where’s that plea bargain.

No thanks.

Fight to the death please, no quarter asked for or given.

Hell, I went out and stalked that sabre tooth / loon but a great fuck.

Not over till it’s over, where she stops, nobody knows.

here is my favourite quote of all time, 99.9% of people do not understand it, if you can, you understand me.

“Death is not the end of life, Character is the end of life.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 6, 2010 at 08:47

@AfOR

You’re intelligent and you write well, but the “man up” thing is getting old.

From hints you dropped earlier, I had thought the false rape accusation was done and dusted, in the past. So it’s ongoing? Have you considered you might not win? Would a couple of years looking out at the world through steel bars change your perception?

How do you feel about positive discrimination? That it’s the UK government’s position that government and private companies alike should give employment preference to women and minorities?

How about health care? Your taxes pay for a health care system where the majority of the spending is on women?

Do you work? How do you feel about the fact that (under current rules) you will be shoveling the fooking gravel until age 65 before you can quit and draw your “pension,” while your false-rape accuser, who will live five years longer than you, can draw her pension at age 60?

This is about more than your dick.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 6, 2010 at 08:57

@AfOR

Almost any intellectual discussion with a woman will end like this.

MAN: “A birth rate below 1.3 is non-recoverable”

WOMAN: “It doesn’t affect me, why should I care?”

Think about that.

“Death is not the end of life, Character is the end of life.”

Superficial. BlipBlapBleep.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul January 6, 2010 at 09:01

Jack’s article was good. Looking round me I can not help but think that there are many men who enjoy grovelling to women. I don’t know for sure if this is all the result of feminism or not. The idea of the pathetic hen pecked husband has been around for a long time . This could indeed all come from mothers. The first thing a boy learns is how to obey a woman. So the idea of pleasing women to get their approval is there from the start. I think there is more. Men do go in for a lot of sexual grovelling. You know the sort of thing:- excessive pandering to women in the hope of a bit of action.

I have certainly see this and would be surprised if you have not. Indeed I have even been aware of this inpulse within myself. I am with Krauser and distain all women. This for a young man is not an easy thing to do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 6, 2010 at 09:02

@AfOR

Anonymous For A Reason

AfAR

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 6, 2010 at 09:11

@ Charles Martell

You’re intelligent and you write well, but the “man up” thing is getting old.

dude, the “women are ruing everything” thing is getting old.

From hints you dropped earlier, I had thought the false rape accusation was done and dusted, in the past. So it’s ongoing? Have you considered you might not win? Would a couple of years looking out at the world through steel bars change your perception?

In theory, yes, but… here are some words to live by

“The difference between theory and fact, is greater in fact than in theory.”

Not over till the fat lady sings, many a slip twixt cup and lip, etc etc.

So, naturally I might not win, them’s the rules.

Couple of years looking out through bars? Shit, I’m with Lovelace
(and you’re smart enough to know who I mean)

change my perception? didn’t last time…

How do you feel about positive discrimination? That it’s the UK government’s position that government and private companies alike should give employment preference to women and minorities?

I don’t have feelings for it one way or another, it is inanimate, just an aspect of the environment, every time it crops up, I point out politely that I am a member of an minority (celtic jedi)

How about health care? Your taxes pay for a health care system where the majority of the spending is on women?

I get 100% of the health care I ever asked for or need, free of charge at the point of delivery.

It is just another aspect of the environment. And yes, I have lived in other environments.

Do you work? How do you feel about the fact that (under current rules) you will be shoveling the fooking gravel until age 65 before you can quit and draw your “pension,” while your false-rape accuser, who will live five years longer than you, can draw her pension at age 60?

LMAO

muddy thinking Charles, you’re smarter than that…

work != being a wage slave.

self employment is available to all, as are limited companies and accountants and tax laws.

sadly, my false accuser will probably suicide in prison (assuming of course I win) or shortly after release, whereas in an ideal world she’d live to be 1,000…

This is about more than your dick.

It isn’t about my dick at all, except in passing, as a conduit for my DNA, and reward systems.

besides Charles, isn’t it a bit feminist to try to tell a man that his dick is not the most important thing in his world, if he so chooses to believe?

what higher calling can a woman have, but to worship the cock? lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TAllagash January 6, 2010 at 09:12

men still die from virtually every disease more than women….so much for healthcare spending….women live longer and will likely outlast any of the men from whom they get divorce/alimony/child support…..will likely retire earlier if they’ve even continued to work whilst married (unlikely after a short stint)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 6, 2010 at 09:14

Charles Martel January 6, 2010 at 09:02

@AfOR

Anonymous For A Reason

AfAR

or

Anonymous FOr a Reason

yeah, but I like wordplay, it was also the Albania Force, and I guess a couple of others…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
j r January 6, 2010 at 09:17

some of the examples you link to are seriously disturbing and i hope they represent an extreme and minority view. it is worth noting that the phenomenon of which you speak has a more prevelant and everyday expression than the examples of radical feminism pointed out. it exists in the dynamic that takes shape in most couples, where the male is often some overgrown boy whose wife drags him around by the ear.

how many men do you know whose wives tell them – or at least offer constant commentary on – how to dress, what to eat, how to speak, where they can go, who they can hang out with, etc? it’s really sad to watch couples like that. if feminists really believed in equality, you would see them speaking out about this the same way they would speak out about a relationship where the man exerted the same level of control over his woman.

as much as i would like to dismiss these women as incorrigable shrews, i cannot. relatationships like this are only possible when the man acqiesces or when he really is an overgrown adolescent. the first step in recovering from this “mother, may i” syndrome is for men to begin acting like men and not boys. i believe that most of these women, the few actual ball-busters aside, act this way because they realize that their men are severly lacking in masculinity; that’s real masculinity, the grown up, adult version and not the cartoon posturing we so far too often these days. step one to women who respect you, is conducting yourself in a manner that commands respect. i find that some of the most rabid radical feminists will come to heal when you carry yourself like a man and stop backtracking and apologizing like some sniveling wretch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 09:19

I agree completely, jr.

Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 09:20

Paul,

Looking round me I can not help but think that there are many men who enjoy grovelling to women.

Funny you should say that. I actually pulled the original image above (before I cropped and altered it) from a dominatrix site.

Charles Martel January 6, 2010 at 09:26

@AfAR

muddy thinking Charles, you’re smarter than that…

Actually I’m not smarter than that. The pension situation in the UK is a blatant wealth transfer from (majority) male taxpayers to (majority) female retirees. UK women can expect to receive this wealth transfer for ten years longer than can UK men. Where’s the equality in that?

self employment is available to all, as are limited companies and accountants and tax laws.

Passive voice. Are you self-employed?

besides Charles, isn’t it a bit feminist to try to tell a man that his dick is not the most important thing in his world, if he so chooses to believe?

Hyperbole. I am merely presenting my case. I have no wish to force you to comply with my cognitive bias, unlike the feminists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David DeAngelo said... January 6, 2010 at 09:29

Something like “A 50/50 relationship means she owns you.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 6, 2010 at 09:30

@AfAR

I have been described as “pathologically independent.” The person who said that did not mean it as a compliment. Nevertheless, I took it as one.

The curse of maleness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 6, 2010 at 09:33

@ Chuck

( you call me afar, I’ll call you chuck, deal…)

Passive voice. Are you self-employed?

That is one of several possibilities…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 6, 2010 at 09:40

I have heard before that for both men and women, being dominated is a top fantasy.

I suspect this might be true, and that actually the “mentality” of sexuality might be more similar for men and women than we care to admit.

Someone who practices “game,” after all, is more or less imitating female dating strategy, which is dominating the other party. Of course, there are factors that make male/female different – such as shit tests seem to be something that is solely female behaviour in order to determine a superior man to her… but then again, a woman’s beauty often brings a man to his knees on its own.

I am purely speculating here though, and have no evidence except for my own ponderings and a few tidbits of trivia here and there.

It does not work for men to be submissive to women, however, because women are the choosers. Apparently, women willing to be dominatrices are scarcer than hen’s teeth.

But, suppose we take the internet as a cross-section of the “collective human brain.”

The BDSM scene takes up an enormous portion of internet porn, indicating that there is no shortage of men who are turned on by debasing themselves in front of a female who they deem superior.

Also, and again – only from personal observation, the gay community seems to have a much higher incidence of the BDSM scene than regular society does, and I have often observed gay men and wondered if what they are seeking is not actually sex with a man, per se, but rather they might be seeking to be submissive to someone more dominant than them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
dragnet January 6, 2010 at 09:42

“…relatationships like this are only possible when the man acqiesces or when he really is an overgrown adolescent. the first step in recovering from this “mother, may i” syndrome is for men to begin acting like men and not boys. i believe that most of these women, the few actual ball-busters aside, act this way because they realize that their men are severly lacking in masculinity;”

Well said. It’s damn near a crime to let a chump keep his dignity anyways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 6, 2010 at 09:43

@AfAR

I’ll call you chuck

So you’re a Northerner. Yorkshire? Leeds? Sheffield?

That is one of several possibilities…

Now I get it, you’re a professional hitman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt January 6, 2010 at 09:59

AfOR,

Enough of the pissing contest. You got a bunch of people angry with your commentary, and they lost respect for you because they thought it was poorly written and conceived, and that is their right. Don’t like it? Go somewhere else.

This is one of those threads where someone permanently buries their credibility, otherwise. Unplug your computer and go do something else for a while.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt January 6, 2010 at 10:06

@Jack
Excellent article. It literally turns my stomach when I see men acting that way. I have posted several times on The Spearhead that this mangina/white knight, etc. persona/attitude is more reprehensible to me than actual feminists (who are more of an irritant/unstable/insane) than anything else. What bothers me most is that I see this waay too often. Seriously makes me want to walk up to them, whack them in the head and yell “wake up”.

@jr
step one to women who respect you, is conducting yourself in a manner that commands respect. “i find that some of the most rabid radical feminists will come to heal when you carry yourself like a man and stop backtracking and apologizing like some sniveling wretch.”
I agree completely, and this is true of all women with those few exceptions (a very insignificant few).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
too late for romance January 6, 2010 at 10:09

I don’t understand how any of this is different than any relationship – personal, professional, or, uh, are there other kinds of relationships?

It’s easy: if you allow yourself to get taken then people will swindle you and take advantage of you, regardless of the setting and circumstances.

So any human with a dick who allows himself to be manipulated will be manipulated. And that’s a damn good thing because that means there is just one less “man” who doesn’t know what’s really going on and who is therefore not serious competition for me in getting money and pussy.

Just like any market competitor I hate competition and I would much rather that potential competitors play themselves out of the market without me having to lift a finger than be forced to compete with competent opponents. That allows me to get my minimum twelve hours of sleep every day that I need before I get cranky, But if I am forced to really compete that cuts into my sleeping time.

Sheep get sheared. That’s the entire reason for their existence. Well, that and eating with mint jelly.

And another thing – someone who plays a game or engages in some other form of risky behavior and subsequently loses is not a victim. The bottom line is that if a man (or a woman – we are all absolutely equal after all) accepts a risk for the possibility of an upside (e.g. money, pussy, beer) then I am not interested in bitching and moaning when the dice roll funny and he gets the downside instead. That sounds like a personal problem to me.

So any talk about victimhood in this context is bullshit blameshifting and fundamentally the type of talk worthy of pussies, children, and women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul January 6, 2010 at 10:17

Jack interesting indeed that you took the image from a dominatrix site. I partly had this sort of thing in mind as I wrote my comment. Although this behaviour is the tip of the iceberg I have often reflected that it does seem to be a disturbing and growing trend. JR is correct that there is a lot of run of the mill humiliation evident in many man woman relationships. I would say that the default position for a woman is to humiliate a man. They may well despise him for allowing it but they enjoy it all the same.

My defence is to have nothing but contempt and dislike for women. I don’t mind being called a misogamist though usually I only admit to hating women. For consistency by the way that includes my mother.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
OM Shanti January 6, 2010 at 10:48

What kind of a man must ask women “what kind of man may I be?”

An Indian man.

Which ties into my previous comment regarding Islam and Eastern/Traditional Cultures in general.

It appears that many men have the-grass-is-always-greener-on-the-other-side-itis.

The fact is that in Eastern and Traditional cultures, parents and elders are venerated to such an extent that the sons are tied to their mothers’ opinions and diktats for life. We see this especially in the South Asian (Desi) Cultures of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal, but it is not uncommon throughout the East – Middle East to Far East.

This is because of the tight family bonds and family/social heirarchies.

Men have more personal “freedom” under post-modern Western Feminist regimes than in those countries.

Simply touring around Asia as an “ugly American” consumerist will not make you privy to this. Living with actual families will.

If you do, one thing that will stand out to you is how childlike the men in this countries are.

Not saying that’s neccessarily a bad thing. But you won’t find swashbuckling machismo, that is for sure.

There is a saying in India: MOTHER IS GOD.

And by god, do they ever believe it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman January 6, 2010 at 11:01

It is simpy not possible to appease a women. My eastern lady friends tell me ‘women do not know what they want, they need to be told what to want by their man and told to be happy about it’. That women who are single are mostly miserable and desperately trying to snare a man tells you everything you need to know about how much women know about being happy. Nothing. The VAST majority of single men are very happy and the VAST majority of married men are miserable. That too tells you everything you need to know about marriage.

And you should see western women and how freely they tell men what it is they should be doing? They claim they are their own masters and men should not tell them what to do? Yet they spout ‘advice’ endlessly.

Example. I am now quite familiar with one of the girls behind the bar where I was on Sunday. While she was fixing drinks we had a little ‘small talk’ and I mentioned I had 4 children. She said it must be great to talk with them etc. I said I will never speak with them again in this lifetime as I had disowned them. Then I had to hear about 3 minutes of ‘advice’ about how I should talk to my former children. blah, blah, blah. In the end I simply ended the conversation saying that it was bad luck for the children that their mother was so horrible and that all those women around her supported her criminal actions rather than act in the best interests of the children.

Now remember. This is a BAR GIRL who is in her 20s giving advice to a man in his 40s who has two children older than her. Her job is to dispense drinks. Not advice. Nope. Wimmin will endlessly tell men what to do while claiming that men have nothing useful to say to wimmin. And when men tell wimmin something really important like “we are sick to death of your princess ways and we want nothing more to do with you feminised women” we have to hear all the crap about how WE have to change to somehow be ‘better men’. LOL!

As for these manginas like I used to be? Stupid bastards. It really sucks today to be a great husband and father. There is nothing in it AT ALL for the man. Women endlessly put you down as ‘not good enough’. They endlessly attempt to humiliate you. You work like a slave and you are ‘not spending enough time with the children’. You take some time off to be with the kids and you are a ‘loser who does not make enough money’ (even when you are making USD200-300K a year). I sincerely recommend any man who does not have children with a feminised wife just leave. It’s time for women to put onto the table what they ‘offer’ that is so ‘precious’. The answser is nothing. Once you get to my level of understanding of women you can actually see they have nothing to offer of value past a bit of sex and banter which can be enjoyable enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 6, 2010 at 11:13

“Yeah, I am currently fighting a false rape accusation.

I described above the “problem”, my ancestors had sabre tooth tiger, I have a societal norm and legal system, blaming the environment that created the sabre tooth, or the sabre tooth itself, gets me zilch.”

Interesting metaphor. When a sabretooth ran off with one of our ancestors babies, the tribe did blame the sabretooth. Some probably bitched, some probably whined, and some probably raged about it. They probably pointlessly shook their fists at the sky as well. After all, baby Ug took a lot of time and energy, and now that is all wasted, but I promise you this, the next time a sabretooth came around, they were all ready, even the ones who could’ve cared less about baby Ug. Thats because emotions and ideas are contagious. Now the whole tribe is on the same page, just through all that “bitching”. If you weren’t mildly sociopathic, you’d understand better. Emotions can be good and bad. They exist for a reason. Men have them too. They just don’t overwhelm our logic.

Do you see any sabretooth tigers around today?

In 50 years, hopefully we will fondly remember that crazy cult that almost took over the world, called feminism, and laugh about it like we do bell-bottoms.

I respect your MGTOW attitude. Funny, however, that you want to enforce your way on others. Until you can make that happen through your logic, I’m going to bitch and whine, just like a women, until I get what I want. It’s called fighting fire with fire. It works. It prevents the enemy from claiming the high ground. Of course I could kill feminists, and blow up the HQ of NOW, but that would only benefit them in the long run. Watch Gran Torino. Thats how you fight smart. You don’t go all flailing about, guns blazing. You have a plan. It’s how I roll. Its how we roll. We have a plan. We are sticking to it. Getting heard through bitching and complaining is step one. Man’ing up got us into the mess we’re in right now. A slave shouldn’t deal with it, or lash out at the slave master, he needs a plan, he needs to spread the seeds of revolt, and the revolt must strike hard and fast, and leave no doubt that we will not be slaves again. We are spreading the seeds of revolt. Not just idle complaining.

Your heart is in the right place, and you’ll be useful on the front lines, but trust me, we got this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia January 6, 2010 at 11:13

Knowing full well that the issues you have highlighted do happen, do you have any thoughts on the root cause beyond feminism itself, Mr. Donovan? With fathers not being seen as valuable as happens in our culture, what role does this play in women believing they are accountable to nobody and men being ashamed of their masculinity? A strong father who commands respect from his children winds up teaching his daughter how to behave (including when it comes to dealings with men and her future marriage) and would be a good example of masculinity for his son. If his wife were a true “traditional” woman, she would see the importance in backing off and leaving her husband and other older men to socialize her sons into manhood, as she’d acknowledge the fact this would be impossible for her to do. When the role of father isn’t valued as it should be, this important system for socialization likely breaks down resulting in the mess we have today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
globalman January 6, 2010 at 11:18

Krauser January 6, 2010 at 06:40
“For chrissakes Afor, do you ever stop?”
Krauser, in case you didn’t notice, there are quite a few men on this forum yet almost NONE of them are in action taking the fight up to the Illuminati corrupted guvments. Guys like Afor and I are actually DOING SOMETHING by taking the fight to the bad guys. Afor is doing his best as he sees fit. As am I.

I’ll repeat I have charged two magisrates with crimes that carry jail time if I can get them convicted. How many other men here have TWO Family Law Magistrates charged with crimes and have noticed their Prime Minister and Attorney General that they too may be charged with crimes and tried/incarcerated? I guess zero. I haven’t seen anyone else claim this.

As Afor correctly points out. Most men here are pussies and whimps. Give me 12 Afors in Sydney and I’ll put corrupt magistrates in jail. So guys like us are throwing it in your faces a bit to see if we can find a few more guys who might actually DO something rather than whine, bitch, moan and complain.

It’s probably a good question to ask. How many men here would sign up to sit on a jury to try a corrupt family court judge? You can do that in any common law country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman January 6, 2010 at 11:21

Hestia January 6, 2010 at 11:13
“Knowing full well that the issues you have highlighted do happen, do you have any thoughts on the root cause beyond feminism itself, Mr. Donovan?”
Hestia, the Illuminati are destoying western civilisation in order to bring in their New World Order. Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant. They are the ‘root cause’ as it is they who have constructed the society you live in.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 6, 2010 at 11:56

@Globie and Afor

“Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more, or fill the wall up with our English dead.”

With these words, Henry V urged his soldiers forward during the siege of Harfleur in 1415, heartening his weary soldiers to gather their remaining energy one more time. In retrospect this battle preserved the independence of England, which, of course, made it possible for the USA to be the USA…But that’s a different story.”

My plans don’t involve needless sacrifice when they can avoid it. I believe we can avoid it still at this point. You go ahead and gather your army for your frontal assault. Ninja’s, do your thing, hack their computers, plant thought bombs, discover the enemies secrets. We all have roles to play. The Spearhead can be thought of as the a brain-trust incapsulating both the Propaganda department and the Central Liason for our diverse branches of men’s activism, and if we use emotional propaganda to back up our logical propaganda, then so be it. We also dabble in strategy and tactics, but we leave that up mainly to the various cells of men’s activist, as we all have differing ideas about how to best engage in this war. I understand the urgency. I’m in no hurry.

The below quotes are all from Sun-Tzu.

————————————————————————

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 6, 2010 at 12:06

Excellent piece!

I think we need to take it a step further. We are not just talking about feminist men here. Whether most want to admit it or not, we are talking about classic masculinity, strong men, being at the root of the problem. It is that which drives the guys we like to target as “feminists,” when they are doing naught but what men have been trained to do from ancient times.

There is not a wrist hairs difference between the guy who acts like a lap dog for women’s causes and men who go to coal mines and labor so that women can stay home and spend 90 minutes a day cooking and cleaning. The rest of the time that hubby spends breathing in all manner of black lung causing vileness, she watches TV, with or without a child in her lap.

We like to assign new names to things, perhaps to infer some intellectual ownership of the MRA vision. Mangina or male feminist, as so well described in this article had another name in my youth.

Henpecked is one. Husband is another. Rarely is there much difference between the two.

All this shit, pure and simple, stems from a code to take care of women at all costs. And it puts modern men in the precarious position of destroying their historical archetypes if they want to do anything about it.

When the erudite Mr. Donovan says this:

Men need to stop apologizing for being men.
And most of all, they need to stop asking for permission to be men.

I take the liberty (purely on myself) to reword it in my mind.

Men need to quit trying to be men. Period. There is no getting away from it. We can wax nostalgic all we want about some imagined days when men weren’t sacrificial animals at the alter of womanhood.

It gets us exactly squat.

It gets us right back to pursuing an alpha status that was always sacrificial in the past; stupidly, abjectly, ridiculously suicidal in the present.

I assert that there is no separation in the male consciousness from real “manhood” the accompanying mandate to serve women. It is has too long been ingrained.

What is needed is not the romancing of an identity that brought us to great glory, women’s APPROVAL and early death. Sorry, but screw that guy.

And screw the women who seek that kind of man so they can harness his power and use it for their enhanced living.

It is not feminism, but Hermes, that gives us “Mother May I?” masculinity.

I say we ice the gullible prick and take up arms with Tom Joad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Re: Paul Elam January 6, 2010 at 12:18

Awesome!!!

Speaking personally, when I hear females saying “be a man!” “be a REAL man!” that means either “She wants a mute beast of burden” or “She wants to be brutally fucked in every orifice imaginable.”

Not only do we need to “be men” we need to define what a man is, as advantageously as possible., taking into account history, biology, and our potential future.

Damn, I love the erudite diversity of viewpoints on this site…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
adan flores January 6, 2010 at 14:46

Very erudite, gentlemen. Are we to be featherless capons? To quote the magnificent Al Bundy: Cluck, no!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros2010 January 6, 2010 at 14:55

Reinholt:

This is one of those threads where someone permanently buries their credibility, otherwise. Unplug your computer and go do something else for a while.

Indeed, let’s all be nicer to each other, OK? Personally I’ll promise to try my very best, as hard as it can sometimes be. Hostilities do no good.

Peace and happiness!

(Inspired by “A Suite of Pragmatic Considerations in Favor of Niceness.”)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 16:59

Paul Elam –

I assert that there is no separation in the male consciousness from real “manhood” the accompanying mandate to serve women. It is has too long been ingrained.

See, this is where I disagree with you completely. Because if men aren’t going to act like men, they might as well align themselves with feminists. Same end goal. Because that’s what “sensible” feminists, aka “humanists” want. If men don’t strive to a higher standard of manhood, I have no use for them–they are no better than women.

I’m sure what you’re saying sounds “freeing” or “fair” in some way to you, but the end result is basically straight males who act like the majority of urban gay males. Completely self-indulgent, self-absorbed, neurotic, superficial and completely without what most men would recognize as honor or dignity. They’ll spend their lives buying shit and going out for drinks and chasing tail, and everything that’s really admirable about men will disappear. What’s left is merely another passive consumer, the things that drive men to sacrifice themselves are the very same things that make great men.

I say this with a certain amount of respect, because you’re not some anonymous commenter and I know you put a lot of work into helping men, but the end goal here seems completely indistinguishable from what feminists and gay men envision for the “man of the future.” He has no ideal and no rules. He is “free,” and like women, he essentially does whatever he wants and justifies it after the fact. It was realizing that this sort of person is unworthy that turned me around from that path myself.

Feminists and Marxists want to make rules for men that are wrong for men and wrong for any sane civilization.

But without rules and ideals, we have only childish hedonists. These people will be conquered by a more disciplined people, and they will deserve it.

Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 17:00

Heroic manhood is the only masculine heritage worth preserving and protecting. Everything else is masturbation.

Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 17:03

Re: (Re: Paul Elam)

Speaking personally, when I hear females saying “be a man!” “be a REAL man!” that means either “She wants a mute beast of burden”

Yes, there’s a difference between men defining manhood and women shaming men as a means of control. Women should not be allowed to define manhood. Men must.

David January 6, 2010 at 17:48

I have never pandered to feminism. I could see years ago that it was an illogical, dishonest, biologically ignorant and ultimately totalitarian world view.

I never make feminist remarks to please my wife or daughter. In fact, I go the other way. I refer to female characters on TV who sleep around (including Temperance on “Bones”) as “sluts”, so that my 15 y.o. daughter will get the message.

I am a bit more careful at work, but again I don’t pander.

I have always been very happy and proud to be a man, and make no apologies for it. I think feminists mostly wish they were men and envy men. They will never be happy because they will never be men.

Men should not even begin to pander to feminism. There is no end to it. Do things to please a woman if you really want to, but don’t if you feel that you are being manipulated or brow-beaten. I got my wife a cup of tea this morning because she asked nicely. She has learned that demands will be met with refusal.

If you are living with a woman, do not take on housework. Whatever you do, she will want more. Just don’t.

I have poked around the Internet a fair bit, and I agree that there are a lot of men who get off on being submissive to dominant women. There are men who pay women to dominate them as a lifestyle. But a lot of men simply feel that they are not going to win the mating game, and they might as well sexually enjoy their low status. Men can sexualise just about any situation, and I suspect a lot of men decide to revel in their pro-feminism, to “get off” on it almost. And they receive societal support. It must be great days for male masochists.

This is why men must never give up the struggle to be men. Don’t fall into feminine ways, even harmless seeming things like doing housework. Don’t be a slave who comes to love his chains.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jabberwocky from home January 6, 2010 at 17:56

I get you Jack. Totally. But (you knew it was coming) if you factor in male outliers, there are many types of men, and we need to accept this greater variety of masculinity that men express.

I like to say “Necessity is the mother of invention, but laziness creates all types of needs.” Jabbernism #104

Along similiar lines, a man could be a coward, and that could inspire him to come up with a better alarm system technology. I think “heroic manhood” is important, but what to me defines maleness, from an evolutionary perspective, is the ability to specialize. Take your froo-froo flamer example. That attitude has made some gay men very rich, as they become icons of taste and fashion. I agree, the pendulum has swung too far into this metro-sexual realm. We need more boys to admire astronauts and engineers, soldiers and explorers, we don’t need them looking up to Ryan Seacrest or Adam Lambert (I like Adam, and if he did that album cover as a joke, then its funny, but I’m not quite sure if he’s just rationalizing it after the fact). The same traits that make people brave, fearless, also puts them at risk, but you’re right, its better to have a nation of brave men with a few cowards for balance, than a nation of cowards with a few brave men. I’m just saying, sometimes being a coward is evolutionarily beneficial. Everyone in the village laughed at the shy hermit who was scared of everything, so scared that he lived in a cave up on the hill where he would be always be safe and no one would bother him, that is, until a flood came and wiped the village and everyone in it away. Men should have the right to choose to be the shy hermit, even though we shouldn’t encourage it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anakin Niceguy January 6, 2010 at 18:11

Jack,

Yours is a good article but I think Paul Elam has a point. I think you are raising strawman argument when you mention narcissistic, self-centered, metrosexuals or whatever. The truth of the matter is that even traditional masculinity has produced its share of self-centered, immature souls. Maybe you want men to be protectors and providers, but I have three questions about that: 1) Cui bono? 2) Cui bono? and again 3) Cui bono?

My message to women is this: If you want knight in shining armor, then get back in the kitchen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 18:25

Jabberwocky -

Don’t worry so much about evolution. It’s not a process that requires your stewardship. It happens with or without your opinion, input or approval. What it sounds like you’re doing, and I see many men do this, is making a moral argument from nature using evolution, to say that whatever is evolutionarily advantageous is therefore good. Why not just stick with what you think is best, what are the best values to promote in men, and let evolution sort itself out, which it will anyway on its own timeline. Thinking about evolution is informative and instructive but it doesn’t justify. I’m not going to say that cowardliness is better than heroism because some cowardly nerd invented something–that’s relativism taken too far. Yes, men have different aptitudes and qualities. Men have always understood this, without the evolutionary backup theory. Half the point of having an ideal is to encourage the best qualities in the largest number of men. Rather than enabling the coward by saying he is “special in his own way,” you push him to be more courageous. So you get a coward who is a little less cowardly, or who might just surprise you one day. (In fact, that’s a popular theme in adventure stories and superhero mythologies–the nerd who becomes a hero. The nerd in the last Die Hard comes to mind.)

You don’t have to re-tool an ideal so that everyone can feel good about themselves. Women have been doing that since they got control of the educational system. That’s counterproductive empathy. Smart men are good. Heroic men are good. My ideal is really heroic smart men.

And the thing is, men tend to make room for other men who are doing their best. Men worth knowing appreciate a sincere effort, even from the weakest or smallest men or dumbest men.

Jack Donovan January 6, 2010 at 18:37

Anakin,

I think you are raising strawman argument when you mention narcissistic, self-centered, metrosexuals or whatever.

I’ve seen it in real men too often to imagine that it’s a straw man. Men without a noble ideal are pretty pathetic creatures. They’re worse than women, because they have greater potential. It’s shame and a waste.

The truth of the matter is that even traditional masculinity has produced its share of self-centered, immature souls.

Er, yeah. Of course. Humans are pretty base generally, and since traditional masculinity–depending on how you define that–is basically all we’ve ever had, of course it produced some assholes. Absolutely.

But exactly what powerfully motivating force does the alternative have to offer that will reliably produce anything but self-centered, immature souls. Without a powerful ideal, what reason do men have to be anything else? Just being nice? I don’t think so.

I fail to see anything secular that is this powerful (this is one place I think atheism really fails humans), and the major religions are generally patriarchal and promote some sort of masculine ideal…though we could quibble over the details there.

Maybe you want men to be protectors and providers, but I have three questions about that: 1) Cui bono? 2) Cui bono? and again 3) Cui bono?

Have you ever met a man who is actually proud of a sacrifice he’s made?

It’s not so one sided.

My message to women is this: If you want knight in shining armor, then get back in the kitchen.

On this, we can agree. Feminism fucks up the system that makes men good, which is a big reason why I hate it and its proponents.

by_the_sword January 6, 2010 at 22:54

I like Jack Donovan’s vision of manhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros2010 January 7, 2010 at 00:04

The trouble I see with this “heroic masculinity” thing in practice today are the incentives. Or the current lack of them.

Jack Donovan:

“Women should not be allowed to define manhood.”

That’s all good in theory, but in practice they can and have defined it just by doing the thing they do, i.e. choice of men through sexual selection. If you can now easily get away with being self-centered and it’s not frowned upon, why should you undertake heroic efforts (for the good of women and children, or society)?

Just for the sake of rules and ideals themselves when they don’t have any obvious rewards for the individual?

“Without a powerful ideal, what reason do men have to be anything else?”

I think this may be erroneus in that traditionally you got women and status by aspiring to powerful ideals. Ideals were a guidepost of sorts to success and “the good life”.

“Lifeboat feminism” doesn’t encourage noblesse oblige.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Caliph January 7, 2010 at 00:34

@ Jack Donovan

“But exactly what powerfully motivating force does the alternative have to offer that will reliably produce anything but self-centered, immature souls. Without a powerful ideal, what reason do men have to be anything else? Just being nice? I don’t think so.

I fail to see anything secular that is this powerful (this is one place I think atheism really fails humans), and the major religions are generally patriarchal and promote some sort of masculine ideal…though we could quibble over the details there”.

Atheism is NOT a religion Jack, its more of a perception or a point of view accepted truth.

As for preserving manhood, where we differ is that i dont think we necessarily need religion, in fact evolution provides some answers. These manhood ideals you speak of are evolutionarily programmed in all males, it is part of the alturistic gene.

All you need to trigger it is to create the appropriate stimulus.

Take Globalman for example, the man exhibited this evolutionary trait, worked his butt off to support his then wife including her other 2 children which aren’t gentically his (altruistic gene at work here), while they were married taking care of those offspring even though they werent genetically his was a sensible move in light of maintaining stability and happiness of his mate who is the mother of his genetic offsprings.

But what was his incentive? divorce and fleecing.

Now he’s busy blowing his 6 figure income on east european women, but can you blame him? What is his reward for his sacrifice in the past?

Do you think he’s a lesser man now?. After all he embraced the old manly ideal and look what it brought him, now all he’s left with is hedonism with favourites #1 #2, heaven knows how many.

Globalman hasnt changed? he’s still the same guy, driven to earn a 6 figure income and create softwares, what has changed is the incentive for his alturitic gene.

Thats neither atheists nor religions fault, the drive to be productive is hardwired in most males (including most females) of the species, secular state parastatls or religon has no bearing on that.

All you need is to recreate the incentives to stimulate the dormant evolutionary traits, you dont need religion for that. Just a change of the secular laws.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist January 7, 2010 at 02:52

I’m not a history buff (if I am, I don’t know THIS), but… Mr. Caliph, if striving hard is naturally built into people, and such traits are not necessarily carried by religion*, could you tell me a great civilization that wasn’t?

Soviet Union doesn’t count, it was a land of practicing (most orthodox) religists and THEN went secular and then cccccccrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaasssssssssshhhhhhh.

*(btw, I don’t think Jack necessarily called atheism a religion, but it IS mutually exclusive with religion, you can’t practice religion and be atheist unless your name starts with a J and ends with a “abherwockie”, I’m convinced he can do almost anything)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt January 7, 2010 at 03:49

@The Caliph
I played the same way as Globalman, albeit with some differences, and had a hard wake-up call. My experience starts in the 50′s with the paradigm then, and across the years with everything that’s happened literally forcing my eyes open, doing a great deal of research and arriving at many of the same conclusions. It seems we all arrive at our limits as to what we believe–however it has been useful to me to ask my self why I believe something and then step back and actually look at the larger picture, something I believe he has done. Attempting to wake other people up is altruistic–in my experience however ultimately they will see what they wish to see and block much of what makes them uncomfortable–unless/until they themselves receive a massive jolt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dominance and Submission January 7, 2010 at 05:33

Several comments above have implied that men date/hire/marry dominant women to submit to them, because they are weak men and sexualize it. That may be true in some cases, but not all.

In the BDSM community there are plenty of serious alpha males who will “submit” to a dominant female because 1. The ensuing activities are pleasurable 2. they get out of their everyday headspace. Walking around with the same personality 24/7/365 is hella boring, and diminishes creativity and joy for life.

In my experience, the men who have the dominant switch “on” all the time are actually weaker souls then men who can choose a stance at will, and be congruent with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 7, 2010 at 06:15

And what does ‘weaker soul’ mean?

So if a man is strong more of the time, he’s actually weaker?

LOL!

Speak sense. Or at least define a ‘soul’, and how it can be that a stronger man is in fact weaker than weaker men in this regard, and why it matters since ‘soul’ is an abstraction with no bearing on the man himself or his behaviour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 7, 2010 at 06:24

@Jack-

Yeah, I’m quibbling and splitting hairs. I’m with you 98%. I don’t like wimps and cowards much either. Even inventors need to be bold. I just see uses for cowards. And I use evolution not really as a moral justification. Evolution is A-moral. I just use it to explain things, not justify them. After all, we’re evolved to be hunter-gatherers, but I don’t encourage us to all quit our jobs and go live off the land. I still think you should think about men’s ability to specialize a little more as an important masculine trait. It is not always good to have such tunnel vision, but even for a primitive tribe, not alone our current specialized labor economy, it is useful. Men’s hieararchy depends on this task specialization.

“”*(btw, I don’t think Jack necessarily called atheism a religion, but it IS mutually exclusive with religion, you can’t practice religion and be atheist unless your name starts with a J and ends with a “abherwockie”, I’m convinced he can do almost anything)””””

“Be all things and be nothing, only then can you see the inbetween.” Jabbernism #3

And I believe in God. I’m a part of him, and I believe in myself. Your a piece of God also. Of course, so is the chair I’m sitting in. I don’t understand why this is so confusing?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 7, 2010 at 06:28

Heh, Snark….

Maybe we’re talking about the kind of “strong soul” that Oprah believes in, which only makes sense in the world where the oppressed are stronger than their oppressors.

All kidding aside, a man who lets go sometimes, when it is appropriate and safe and doesn’t really mean a whole lot, is probably more comfortable than a man who can never let go and who holds onto his manhood (ahem) with white knuckles.

This is often blown WAY out of proportion and distorted by gays and feminists, though, to the point where strength becomes an inverted value (as with the Oprah strength above).

Once someone said to me that he thought me liked the idea of being dominated in play, because it didn’t matter, and it was a fun fantasy escape, and this was in fact a totally different dynamic than men who actually want to be dominated in real life, when it matters. I tend to agree. A strong man NEVER wants to be dominated in real life, when it matters.

Dominance and Submission January 7, 2010 at 06:29

Fair enough. A dominant male is a formidable creature. An even more formidable creature is a dominant male who can choose the stance that gets him what he wants out of the situation. Or solves the problem at hand.

To use Greek mythology as an example, Odysseus did not always charge at every situation with weapon drawn. He employed wisdom and cunning to overcome the challenge, or weigh the scales in his favor.

In an S&M scene, hardcore dominants do play the role of submissive at times to get what they want out of the situation, and can revert to form at will. Lesser dominants do not switch roles, and you can often spot the cracks in their persona behind the dominant veneer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 7, 2010 at 06:32

And for the record, folks…I do know what atheism is. I haven’t been able to fathom a belief in a higher power since I was a child. Man’s ultimate vanity, to my mind. “Someone, somewhere, gives a shit about everything I do.”

In my experience (this may not be the official line, but this is how I see it):

There are 2 kinds of atheists:

1. Nonbelievers.
2. “Religious” atheists who truly believe that the abandonment of religion will leads us all to a peaceful promised land ruled by science and reason. I would put Sam Harris and Dawkins and most hardline atheists in this category.

I am #1, and I truly believe that man is going to be an irrational animal with or without religion–and religion actually has some good things that science lacks.

Jabherwochie January 7, 2010 at 06:40

“Someone, somewhere, gives a shit about everything I do.”

Everything, everywhere, is connected in some way to everything you do. Parts of God love you, parts hate you, most of it ignores you, some of it ignores nothing. Again, why is this so hard to grasp?

I kid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dominance and Submission January 7, 2010 at 06:49

If we take the supernatural and the superstition out of the concept of God, we’re left with infinity, expressed through unimaginably vast multiverses of beautiful and terrible creations.

That’s more than enough to inspire me to keep my ducks in a row.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 7, 2010 at 06:57

Fair enough. A dominant male is a formidable creature. An even more formidable creature is a dominant male who can choose the stance that gets him what he wants out of the situation. Or solves the problem at hand.

Okay, but to me this just makes him even more of a ‘dominant’ male than the one who clings to ‘manhood’ with ‘white knuckles’ as Jack put it … I think maybe the issue here is that I’m not really making a distinction between being strong and being dominant. The strongest man is the most dominant, but that doesn’t simply refer to physical strength.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 7, 2010 at 08:15

@JD

There are 2 kinds of atheists:
1. Nonbelievers.
2. “Religious” atheists who truly believe……

I am #1 also. Actually, I consider myself a secular Christian. IOW, I believe in Christian values but I do not believe that God exists. I am considering founding the United Church of Christ Imaginary.

People need to believe. How else to explain Global Warming?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 7, 2010 at 09:10

“Dominance and Submission January 7, 2010 at 06:49

If we take the supernatural and the superstition out of the concept of God, we’re left with infinity, expressed through unimaginably vast multiverses of beautiful and terrible creations.

That’s more than enough to inspire me to keep my ducks in a row.”

I like you. I have some pretty old posts on some old articles here about the nature of God being the universe (or multiverse) in a state of evolution that when complete, and God is whole and pure again, starts over in a big bang like scenerio, and thus is an infinite cycle. In that way, God is a process, he is not static, and everything, especially us, is a part of this process. God grows in sentience as the universe evolves.

BTW; I dabble in a little S&M. Real light stuff by enthusiasts standards, but role play setup can make up for a lack of hardcoreness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sugar January 7, 2010 at 09:17

“Fair enough. A dominant male is a formidable creature.”

Mmmm and an incredibly sexually appealing creature too.

I hate to say it guys, but it’s true, real women don’t like wimps. We don’t like brainless gorrilas either, but an Alpha male is…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt January 7, 2010 at 09:21

Jabherwochie

Very much in agreement with that concept of God. I don’t know if there’s a ‘label’ for that concept, but I never cared much for labeling myself. I have given it a great deal of thought in the past–now, not so much. I’m just here for the experience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 7, 2010 at 09:29

I have to say that I have a good deal of sympathy for what Paul Elam wrote here. I also think that the old roles are not coming back — at least not within any personally-relevant time frame — outside of pockets of resistance here and there (most of them being inside religious communities of one sort or other).

I don’t think Paul meant, though, that men therefore should simply pursue hedonism. I think men function best when they are on a personal quest of some sort — something that has meaning and gives life structure. The sickness of the current culture is that the structure comes from the inherited notions of chivalry — that is, the male role being designed around female prerogatives — i.e., how “useful” is a man being to a woman and her children, and, by extension therefore, to society as a whole. It’s that last bit which is dysfunctional in an age where women can and do simply exploit this male role without any recompense. For men to continue to self-define around women-and-children centric ideas is a kind of suicide for the male sex as a whole. Instead, our manliness, our quest or meaning in life, must be defined in a way that is independent of women and their prerogatives and, yes, their desire to have children as well (because women are increasingly decoupling this from any interest they have in men, per se).

This is a big challenge, because men are more or less taught by their mothers that pleasing women is the way to receive female approval, and it’s very easy for men to crave this for the rest of their lives (a mommy complex). It’s even more exacerbated today when so many boys are raised without their biological fathers having a meaningful role in their lives –> they learn fast that pleasing the woman is the way to avoid trouble, and so they do that. In fact, the greatest tool in the arsenal of the feminists has been the destruction of the family by the removal of fathers, because this creates de facto familial matriarchies throughout the country, and conditions the males raised in them to submit to female prerogatives (or … to rebel so strongly against them as to become thugs in an exaggerated over-reaction).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sugar January 7, 2010 at 09:37

Just a question for all you men; How many of you actually had fathers who bothered telling you how to be men? Being examples?

My husband had a hard time finding other positive male role models for our sons. We desperately wanted them to have some sort of coming-of-age ritual so we started our own tradition (which we will continue with our grandsons), but along with that came many hours of watching strong male-role model films, reading books like Wild At Heart & Way of the Wild Heart by John Eldridge. Doing male-bonding things.

I had to accept that it was no longer my time but their father’s time and stop trying to protect and nuture and let them be.

It’s a hard task to raise men and my husband has done a fabulous job of it, even though he had no example how to do it himself. I was just wondering how many men had a good example and carried it over to the next generation?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood January 7, 2010 at 10:51

Afor said:

RESPONSIBILITY.

It is missing in modern western culture, we are no longer responsible for the consequences of our own actions, if the coffee scalds us, it is McDonalds fault for not putting a warning on the cup.

When I had a fairly bad slash on my hand from a dog bite, the ‘doctor’ ‘helping’ me at the hospital told me that I needed a tetanus vaccine. I asked if he thought the dog had rusty metal teeth in his mouth. He wouldn’t back down.

He called in a male nurse who then stood, threateningly, right behind me.

I know, I know, he was just worried I might get “violent” and hurt him. I mean, first step, refusing unnecessary tetanus vaccine. Next step I pick up a scalpel and cut his throat. So he was merely protecting himself.

Still, I felt “responsible” for my decision. In fact, if there is one certainty in America it is that a young man is “responsible” for any decision which he has made…. and many he has not.

So respectfully, Afor, I feel your attempt to attach more “responsibility” to me is a threat(and it really is)… and I feel the next step could be violence against me(and in this case it very well could be)… so I’m wondering what preventive measures I should be take against you…. in all fairness you would be responsible for anything I did to you, having threatened me so outrageously.

Isn’t responsibility fun?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 7, 2010 at 11:15

Well you can see good examples of this mother may I phenomena in the getting fat thread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 7, 2010 at 14:49

To answer a question above, I didn’t have a very good male role model growing up, but I did at least have a father until he died when I was about 17. I suppose I learned something from him. Also, I was close to one of my grandfathers. But, no, I didn’t get many talks on being a man.

I think I was a bit of a Mummy’s Boy for many years, but life taught me to be a man.

I do sometimes spank my wife for fun, and a few mild things like that, but I would never want to turn it around. Never. I have no desire for this, and my wife would be horrified. I would never want to play a female role, even in fun.

A word of warning. I believe that God made us “male and female”. We are not meant to cross those boundaries. Men don’t get to play at being women occasionally. There are men with websites on the Internet who thought they could dabble in a bit of femininity, and they end up “going down the rabbit hole” and finish in a mess. The logic of being feminine is ultimately that a man will penetrate you.

Yes, Sugar, the most important thing in all this is for men to get the message at places like this website, which they are not getting anywhere else at the moment, that women really prefer masculine men. As you say, not gorillas, but manly men. The more I “man up”, the more my wife responds to me in a feminine way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Dominance and Submission January 7, 2010 at 14:54

Hey Jabherwochie-
I agree completely though I might put it in different words. I think that the universe/multiverse is infinite, and infinity is continual change, creativity, and evolution. That’s what “god” is. (And to me, way more awe-inspiring than any God I’ve heard about in Western monotheism)

Any chance you’ve read Dune or Children of Dune by Frank Herbert? I think you’d get a kick out of them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 7, 2010 at 15:03

Which pretty much inevitably plays into the hands of feminism, because worship of (or awe of, whatever) the creation itself tends towards matriarchal ideas, due to women being the sex which gives birth. Paglia pointed this out well enough in Sexual Personae.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dominance and Submission January 7, 2010 at 15:21

Novaseeker-
Respectfully, please re-read what I wrote. I didn’t endorse awe of creation. I endorsed awe of “continual change, creativity, and evolution.” The actual process of gestating and birthing is a part of that. As is creating a piece of art, a skyscraper, or a corporation. As is a black hole eating a star. As is a lion tearing its prey limb from limb.As is a nuclear bomb going off. etc etc etc.

I would agree that the supremacy of awe of gestation and giving birth might lead to matriarchal principles taking precedence. Interestingly enough, Christian pro-life high schoolers all over the United States are holding prayer rituals around flagpoles which follow pagan fertility rites, pretty much line by line.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sugar January 7, 2010 at 15:39

@David,

Thanks for the response. I figure from the lack of other respondents that my husband and sons (and me) are not the only ones in this situation. Women also suffer from a lack of strong male role models in their lives.

My father was a womaniser, but not a very good man or husband. There is a difference between the man who just plays the game very well and the real deal. My father was a mommies boy, but understood women well enough to play Game really well. Not that I am trying to bring down a storm on myself here, there is fun to be had in the games women and men play. But playing games to lure women to bed might get you some more, but is hardly likely to change our society back to Patriarchy any time soon and to give men and women the strong male role models our society so desperately needs.

At least some men are trying to reverse the tide of something that is destroying our society and not just hoping to score.

After all if all you’re doing is fooling women, how are you re-educating and unbrainwashing them? And they really need re-education. I can’t tell you how I love the A-ha moment when a woman suddenly realised what a load of bull feminism is and how it’s robbed her of what she really needs in a relationship with a man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 7, 2010 at 15:41

It’s worship of nature and creation, whichever way you want to slice that, and that is a woman’s game, full stop. It’s not a coincidence at all that the rise of feminism has taken place simultaneously with the decline in belief in monotheism among elites — the two phenomena are linked, quite clearly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 7, 2010 at 15:49

The point of Game from the larger perspective, though, is two-fold.

The first aspect is that if enough men are deploying Game, it will eventually make the relationship market fairly intolerable for women, and women will then try to change the rules of it again — which will move it closer to the way it used to be. Game tends to equalize the price of the current relationship market dynamics and place more of that “cost” on women than the current model tends to do.

The second aspect is that even if the market dynamics do not change, it accelerates the pace of social decay of the current system — which, in turn, accelerates the time of the arrival of its replacement. Obviously this is a grimmer scenario, but also a possible one.

The likelihood of massive amounts of men somehow learning to “man up” when decreasing numbers of them even have fathers in their lives seems rather small to me. The problem of emasculated males is going to be increasing in the years ahead, not decreasing, unless Game or something else like that shakes them up *after* they have come of age without male role models. The rest will simply be the male drones of the existing status quo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 7, 2010 at 16:02

@ Jack Donovan

I’m sure what you’re saying sounds “freeing” or “fair” in some way to you, but the end result is basically straight males who act like the majority of urban gay males. Completely self-indulgent, self-absorbed, neurotic, superficial and completely without what most men would recognize as honor or dignity. They’ll spend their lives buying shit and going out for drinks and chasing tail, and everything that’s really admirable about men will disappear.

I have no problem acknowledging this as a danger. I see some of it in MGTOW and a whole lot more in PUA. Even more than that in emasculated modern men. But, with the same respect you extend to me, I have to say that I think you are only painting half a picture here.

We get modern day pussymen, PUA’s and to a much less degree, MGTOW from men who have not the wrong archetype, but no archetype at all. Either that, or, shamed by feminists and alpha males, they just live in reactionary fashion to the elders. Thus my reference to Tom Joad. It is the model I embrace. And if one man can do it…..

I think it may be much easier for homosexual men to hang on to Hermes and flourish well because their sexual orientation leaves them exempt from the forces that drive straight men who embrace the same model. I am confident you read that one the way intended.

And it may be that there are plenty of straight alphas that are just fine with that archetype and won’t let it lead them to ruin. I just haven’t met a lot of them. And I can tell you from personal experience, I know a lot more alphas that end up eating a gun any other kind of man.

But in the end I where I really differ with you that it is only the hero model of masculinity that pulls men away from the abject selfishness of femininity. Again, I see you as one of the more thoughtful and intelligent writers here (and Welmer has put together a really impressive collection), but your logic on this one smacks of someone who has made a personal choice and builds a rationale for applying it to the general population after the fact.

And while you make a pretty damned good case in some ways, I don’t think you have cogently addressed the aspect of make heterosexual dependence on the feminine that is the Achilles heel of that model.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 7, 2010 at 16:08

Sugar

I am only interested in “game” to make my marriage better. I have been doing some of this naturally for years, but lately I have made more of a conscious effort, and it is working quite well.

I have never been a “skirt-chaser”. I am a one-woman man.

I wish I could have had a better relationship with my father, but he travelled a lot on business, and he died in a road accident when I was 17. He was a womaniser too, and a heavy drinker. A lot of men of his generation had trouble with drink.

There is no ideal system, and people are flawed. I think a lot of men here have been disappointed to discover that women are only human, like men. I am very religious (a traditional Catholic) and I believe that some kind of morality of that sort is the best for human beings. You have to have a moral or theological basis to build a marriage and a family, and indeed a society.

Some people here complain that they are being displaced by other ethnic groups. There is a reason for that – those ethnic groups may have their faults but they have traditional patriarchal families and they produce children.

My advice to all the young guys tempted to be “players” would be blunt: don’t. You are only storing up bad memories for yourself, and there are real dangers. I don’t know what has happened to the blogger called “Roissy in DC”, and I think the feminists who have gone after him are crazy, but I am afraid he may have brought it all on himself. I don’t believe in Karma. But this is a case where you could say, “Karma’s a bitch”. I think he had a lot to say, but you really shouldn’t call a woman a “horse-faced slut”, for example. Not publicly.

My wife’s father was an alcoholic and I think a bit of a disappointment to my wife when she was growing up. I think she has some “daddy issues” and sees me in that role sometimes.

I try to be consistent in my thinking and acting. I am very old-fashioned about men and women, but I am also old-fashioned about fidelity. I would never have an affair. I want to make my marriage work, not “score chicks”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 7, 2010 at 16:11

@ Jack D. and Novaseeker

I think this is perhaps the most relevant topic imaginable to males in modern culture. I am going to write a piece on male archetypes and submit it here first. I hope Welmer will see fit to run it. I don’t expect to have anything authoritative or definitive to say, but I do think I have some ideas that will add to this important discussion.

And NS, you are quite correct, the last thing I would do is point men toward self indulgence. Men must have a purpose, or IMO, they self destruct. I am just arguing that we have moved past a time that this purpose can be define by mere utility to women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 7, 2010 at 16:21

I am going to write a piece on male archetypes and submit it here first. I hope Welmer will see fit to run it.

-Paul Elam

By all means.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 7, 2010 at 16:24

Now that last part was interesting, Novaseeker.

I’m inclined to believe the reality that we’re making peace with here is a) very young and changeable and b) stamped with an expiration date. The shrinking population it must create will be engulfed, and Westerners will either have to fuck like bunnies and create a “war on oblivion” or simply be replaced. The encroaching peoples in Europe and the West are not ze Chinese. Western capitals will look more and more like Baghdad, Mexico City and Detroit. I’m not really making a racist argument there so much as a cultural one. There’s no reason for Muslims (especially) or Mexicans to embrace the existing culture exactly as it is. They’ll take the cracking infrastructure and do whatever they want with it, unburdened by white guilt or shame. It will be their moment and they’ll take it. There’s a cultural clash brewing, and economic collapse will only hasten it. Helter Skelter.

I’m joking and I absolutely am not recruiting for this particular team, but…

…there is a way that men can live as men without serving women, petitioning them for sex, indulging their reproductive natures, etc.

It’s not a hard club to join, and they’re always looking for fresh meat, and it’s real, real easy to get laid…but most men seem to have some sort of mental block about it.

“I kid, I kid.”

Seriously, though…I see traditional manhood as a quasi-religion, a near secular religion, that has a powerful connection to both the past and biology that modern, makeshift solutions will simply never be able to offer. It has value of its own, even if you cut women almost completely out of the picture–and you can because they want out, except for when it suits them. You can keep the good–there’s so much good–and let women flounder. Honor existed before chivalry did.

As for the fact that this culture of manhood has also benefited women over the millenia…well, that is what it is and it’s all about how you frame it. I see it as something that has been and frankly still is crucial for the survival of our species. Women and men are both means to an end.

Will we see more pussies in the years to come? Oh yeah. More X-Box addicted fat-asses sitting around in their basements hiding from their successful but shrewish house hags.

I’m more interested in the men who say “no.” What path for them?

Jack Donovan January 7, 2010 at 16:29

Paul Elam –

I think this is perhaps the most relevant topic imaginable to males in modern culture. I am going to write a piece on male archetypes and submit it here first.

YES, I agree and that is exactly what keeps me writing. I’m sure I will quibble over details, but this subject is SO important and I look forward to your piece.

Men must have a purpose, or IMO, they self destruct. I am just arguing that we have moved past a time that this purpose can be define by mere utility to women.

Absolutely. I just don’t think you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We don’t have to be rootless.

by_the_sword January 7, 2010 at 17:59

Sugar:

Just a question for all you men; How many of you actually had fathers who bothered telling you how to be men? Being examples?

My parents were divorced when I was 1 and shortly after that, y mother moved me halfway across the country so I grew up mostly without a father or strong male figure in my life.

When I was 15 I met a fencing master whom I began to study under. This man taught me (more than any other man did) about honor and courage and sacrifice. I was only able to associate with him for a few weeks but he was more like a father to me than my own real father was. Many years later I reconnected with him and I learned that he was just a man, with a man’s foibles and not the hero that my boyish mind made him out to be. But that taught me something too…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 7, 2010 at 18:03

Paul Elam –

Again, I see you as one of the more thoughtful and intelligent writers here (and Welmer has put together a really impressive collection), but your logic on this one smacks of someone who has made a personal choice and builds a rationale for applying it to the general population after the fact.

Missed this earlier.

Your browser based analysis here relies on some forgivable but both insulting and incorrect assumptions about my character, my intellect and my “story arc,” such as it is.

I am guilty of many things, but one is not an inability to self-analyze.

If anything, the most difficult thing for me is reconciling my youthful choices with what I’ve come to understand, and the solutions I’d advocate, without rationalizing or coming to convenient solutions. I try, whenever possible, to walk my talk, not talk my walk. When I can’t for some reason, it really bugs me.

And I can tell you from personal experience, I know a lot more alphas that end up eating a gun any other kind of man.

This makes perfect sense. They hold themselves to a higher standard, and have farther to fall. Most alphas I know have a certain respect for a man who knows when he’s beaten. Beats being a scumbag.

Nagayama Rokurozaemon was going down the Tokaido and was at Hamamatsu. As he passed by an inn, a beggar faced his palanquin and said, “I am a ronin from Echigo. I am short of money and in difficulties. We are both warriors. Please help me out.”

Rokurozaemon got angry and said, “It is a discourtesy to mention that we are both warriors. If I were in your state of affairs, I’d cut my stomach open. Rather than being out of money for the road and exposing yourself to shame, cut your stomach open right where you are!” It is said that the beggar moved off.

– Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Hagakure

Expect nothing and never be disappointed. This is why women are less likely to commit suicide. They rationalize, they have no honor, and they’re OK with being parasites.

I think it may be much easier for homosexual men to hang on to Hermes and flourish well because their sexual orientation leaves them exempt from the forces that drive straight men who embrace the same model. I am confident you read that one the way intended.

Certainly. Because of (usually valid) stereotypes, few are able to see it this way. I’m a monk for the man team, untainted by the impurity of menstrual blood.

That’s a joke. That is a situation where the egg came before the chicken, as you insinuated above, not the result of noble sacrifice. But it is still my position. I am perhaps most free to see what women really are. I spent the first half of my life surrounded by them and included in their groups. I know what they say when no other men are around. Women are neither mysterious nor mystical to me. But now I spend almost all of my time with straight men, and I do understand all too well that there is still some magic there for even the most frustrated among them. This is why I wrote in the original post above:

It’s a little too easy for me, having little use for women and few reasons to compromise with them, to tell other men what I think they should do. So I’ll just ask:

“How’s that working out for ya, fellas?”

Keep in mind though, that I’m not a hetero virgin. My first sexual experiences were with women, and they were not traumatic or “wrong,” and I was genuinely in love with a few women. So while that was a long time ago, I do know have some idea what that experience is like and my perspective isn’t entirely “homosexually solipsistic.”

David January 7, 2010 at 18:45

Just an additional comment. I didn’t have many male influences as a boy, but I was always a little male chauvinist. I sort of popped out like that. Don’t know why. Apparently, I once pushed an ashtray away in a restaurant, when I was about four, with the words, “the women in our family don’t smoke”.

I also remember my mother trying to get me to serve tea to some visiting ladies. I simply refused. There was no way I was going to wait on women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 7, 2010 at 18:47

Atta kid.

Jabberwocky from home January 7, 2010 at 19:01

“Hey Jabherwochie-
I agree completely though I might put it in different words. I think that the universe/multiverse is infinite, and infinity is continual change, creativity, and evolution. That’s what “god” is. (And to me, way more awe-inspiring than any God I’ve heard about in Western monotheism)

Any chance you’ve read Dune or Children of Dune by Frank Herbert? I think you’d get a kick out of them.”

Nope. I was just talking about needing to read those. Wheres the time?

It seems your conception of the omniverse we call God lacks direction or purpose. If evolution propels us toward perfection, what happens at this end state of stagnant perfection when the omniverse is pure and whole. In my mind, everything must start over, as perfection is boring,hence a cycle, a flux, and every time this cycle happens, it is different. Thats the whole point of the process. God, a state of perfection, gets bored in this state. So he rips himself apart, disperses his sentience, blows himself up, and waits until he forms himself back together. He does this through evolution, but not just biological evolution. Other stuff evolves; science, technology, culture, government, religion, the cosmos it self, and it all evolves together, intertwined. When I refer to nature, which Novaseeker understandably thinks is a female thing, my nature includes technology, machines, society itself. Nothing is separate from nature in this sense, and nature is no more feminine than masculine. War is a natural process in this sense. One day biology and technology will merge to form a new life form, and what comes after that is open to the imagination. Aliens? Sure, throw them in the mix. Maybe we’ll interbreed with some, maybe drive others to extinction. Humanity will surpass any recognizable form, eventually merging into some mass consciousness, some bio, techno, energy hybrid. Eventually, a God consciousness will emerge, and this consciousness will propel us to our true form. An apex omni singularity. God.

Then, Bang, the puzzle gets shuffled up again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 7, 2010 at 19:06

@JD

I’m inclined to believe the reality that we’re making peace with here is a) very young and changeable and b) stamped with an expiration date. The shrinking population it must create will be engulfed, and Westerners will either have to fuck like bunnies and create a “war on oblivion” or simply be replaced.

This is the issue, in my opinion.

Another remarkable and unexpected symptom of national decline is the intensification of internal political hatreds. One would have expected that, when the survival of the nation became precarious, political factions would drop their rivalry and stand shoulder-to-shoulder to save their country. In the fourteenth century, the weakening empire of Byzantium was threatened, and indeed dominated, by the Ottoman Turks. The situation was so serious that one would have expected every subject of Byzantium to abandon his personal interests and to stand with his compatriots in a last desperate attempt to save the country. The reverse occurred. The Byzantines spent the last 50 years of their history in fighting one another in repeated civil wars, until the Ottomans moved in and administered the coup de grace.”…….The Fate Of Empires, Sir John Glubb

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 7, 2010 at 19:09

@ Jack Donovan

Your browser based analysis here relies on some forgivable but both insulting and incorrect assumptions about my character, my intellect and my “story arc,” such as it is.

I will address the rest of your post in my piece (some good fodder there), but I wanted to say here that I am glad my assumptions were forgivable, because I assure you they were not intended as insulting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky from home January 7, 2010 at 19:38

@ Sugar-

My parents didn’t have a clue what feminism was really about or the folly caused by its gender role upturning and denial of gender differences. Few people did. Few people understood it, and sure as hell didn’t understand its ramifications. My mom used feminism as an excuse to blame her self inflicted misery on men. My dad saw most human beliefs as flawed in some way and didn’t take many seriously at all. He was a beta nerd. Passive and cautious. No parental figure type taught me anything profound or useful. Everything was a lie. Be nice. Share. Don’t lie. Work hard. Follow the rules. Basically, be the perfect slave. Most parents, and definitely not the education system, is worth a damn in enlightening people about people. Its all sugar coated, PC, naive, sunshine and rainbows, play by the rules, bullshit. It was an anchor in a sea of cut throat, competitive, pricks. It does our children no good to deny to them the harsh realities of human selfishness and greed, and to leave them defenseless against the realities of the capitalistic, bureaucratic, sexual free for all, that is modern life. But I’m just jaded and full of resentment, because as a Niceguy, crippled with a moral compass, I was further maimed by a system that rewarded average mediocrity and encouraged conformity. My brother taught me one thing useful, “Don’t give a shit about anything.” Useful, yes, but hard to implement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
David January 7, 2010 at 20:17

fedrz:

“Also, and again – only from personal observation, the gay community seems to have a much higher incidence of the BDSM scene than regular society does, and I have often observed gay men and wondered if what they are seeking is not actually sex with a man, per se, but rather they might be seeking to be submissive to someone more dominant than them.”

David: I have no observations of the gay community, but I have poked around the Internet a bit. I was amazed to find a nest of these guys, who seem to want to dress up as girls and service men sexually. I also don’t think they are actually always homosexuals. I think they are straight men seeking what they clearly see as the ultimate humiliation, being treated as a woman sexually when you are a man.

Interesting psychology.

I suspect that women who want to dominate men sexually are rare. That is why women who do this often do it professionally and they have a stable of men whom they do it to. I suspect the relationship is more in the mind of the man than the woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 7, 2010 at 21:12

Meh, insomnia.

A colleague of mine who is into the BDSM thing once confided to me over drinks on a business trip that the demographics of the “community” are quite skewed along the following lines, in descending order: (1) dominant males, (2) submissive males, (3) large gap, (4) submissive females, (5) dominant females. He was talking about the BDSM fetish community — not women who like to “submit in bed” — rather the more fetishy type stuff. He said that the submissive male fetishists outnumber the dominant female fetishists by 5-10 to one. Which leads to the “professional dominatrix” phenomenon.

It’s an interesting subculture, but it’s also a tiny one. While I think quite a few people have fantasies about some of that stuff, and some incorporate some elements here and there in their own sexual lives, the number who incorporate a consistent fetish sexuality in their lives is a very small group. And the number who have a sexually dominant woman as an element of that is, judging by what my colleague told me, tiny.

Women are less fetishistic overall than men are. The shrinks will tell you that — “paraphilias”, like BDSM (considered a mental illness currently), are magnitudes more common among men than women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead January 7, 2010 at 21:44

Something gets lost in the attempt to ‘define manliness’. I know that whenever I hear attempts at putting the quality into words, I see fault in it almost immediately – and at the core of that fault is really resistance to accepting someone else’s authority in what I consider to be a very personal business.

But I don’t doubt that manliness, or admirable masculinity, exists. It exists in the men I know who possess it. As soon as I or anyone else tries to place it in words and say ‘these are men because…’, they always miss the mark somehow. The exercise in definition seems to steal something from them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 7, 2010 at 22:09

Novaseeker –

All true IMHO. BDSM is also kind of a fashion thing, as well as a “I’m a special snowflake” thing, and a “look how naughty I am” thing. It seems to have faded in and out of the decadent fringe since Weimar or earlier and reached a peak of pop-”counterculture cool” about when Madonna discovered it in the early-90s and then faded back into a little consumer subculture (toys to buy! toys to buy!) The people (mostly men, as you say) who are serious about it are probably often a little tweaked, though probably also fully functional. A lot of the women are probably looking for (surprise!) money or attention or both.

The gay “fetish” community seems to be a lot about dressing up in outfits and identity as much as it is about sex. Sure, they have kinky sex, but so do lots of people with a lot of time and expendable income. Extreme fetish, the real stuff–like “lifestyle role playing” or people tied up for hours or beaten until they bleed–probably isn’t that mainstream even for 75% of the people who wear the fancy outfits and go to the fancy parties. (I think I’ve heard insiders complain about this). I’ve also observed that a lot of them seem to copy each others “fetishes” and talk about them a lot, seeking some sort of social validation.

Being kind of a wierdo, I’ve come in contact with a lot of wierdos in my day, and you could do worse than fetishists of some flavor or another in terms of people and friends. But too often they tend to align with other far “out there” identity groups, which shift left into the “everything is permissable” crowd, and then further left into the “everything should have a parade” crowd, which has its ground base of operations deep in some San Francisco dive bar that smells of urine.

Jack Donovan January 7, 2010 at 22:17

piercedhead –

But I don’t doubt that manliness, or admirable masculinity, exists. It exists in the men I know who possess it. As soon as I or anyone else tries to place it in words and say ‘these are men because…’, they always miss the mark somehow. The exercise in definition seems to steal something from them.

I know what you mean. It’s also an ego thing…when a man hears another man define it, if he has any honor, he mentally defends it by rejecting any portion of the definition that doesn’t include his best qualities and exclude his worst ones. I think most men know this is bullshit, but they’ll often argue on their own behalf anyway because it’s the thing to do and the fight in them makes them want to. We see it here all the time.

“That can’t be what a man is, because I admire someone who has or is lacking quality X, and that man is a man, so you have it all wrong.”

“That can’t be what a man is, because I have or am lacking quality X, and I am a man, so you have it all wrong.”

The down side of this is that when men throw up their hands, women and the weakest or most bitter men step in to do the defining. And they have their own interests and biases.

Lara January 8, 2010 at 00:58

Manhood and even womanhood must be redefined; not models from the past are adequate today; things have changed so much (it has been a feminine revolution, not a simple “movement”), so new stereotypes are required.
A man can´t be like men in the past (for a long relationship), “the boss in the family”, the head, the authority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 8, 2010 at 07:24

Heh, exactly my point. Manhood “must be redefined” to better suit the needs of women like Lara, since there’s been a “revolution.”

How may men define manhood, Lara?

Before you answer…what do men get out of the your deal? The moral satisfaction of having facilitated your revolution? Why should they care?

Lara January 8, 2010 at 07:57

You are not actually listening to me, you´re just answering according to your convictions of feminism.
Men should find manhood for themselves. (but I insist, it is different from our fathers´)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 8, 2010 at 08:13

And we are doing so. More and more of us, however, will do this without reference to women and children, because we can. And you women get to do all the work — suits me fine, really.

There’s no incentive for men to do otherwise in your feminine revolution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
just curious January 8, 2010 at 08:21

@Lara

How tables have turned…this used to be femininity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UBb087qHvI
I guess this is what being a real women means today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKLK4dluQtg&NR=1

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara January 8, 2010 at 09:23

Curious:

the two extremes aren´t very illustrative.
However, us women still don´t know what whomanhood means today. (An it isn´t what it was in the past).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious January 8, 2010 at 09:49

@Lara
The point is that men and women on the extremes will have very opposing views on what femininity and masculinity are. Extreme feminists require submission from men and extreme misogynists require submission from women. Should men or women on extremes define what masculinity or femininity are? Or better yet, can they define either of the concepts so that these have any meaning for people actually trying to create families? Can a man who wants a stable family afford not to compromise his concept of masculinity at least marginally? The same for a woman and her concept of femininity?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara January 8, 2010 at 10:11

curious:
two points:
1) nor woman or men on the extremes should have the moral authority to tell how to behave to the rest (let them get along and together).
2)I really don´t know it it is necessary a definition of masculinity or feminity; lets try to dig out the best things for both today (women can go out an get a living for themselves, men can raise a family with female support and economical responsability). I can´t hardly believe how alone and harsh was the lifes of our grandfathers, having the whole responsability of a family hanging on their shoulders and working from dawn to dusk. Sometimes I thing that was the real sense of manhood in past years. Fortunately, things have changed for better (I am optimistic as you can see).
Let me give you a piece of advice, get a good woman (and with a proper job) to marry, if divorce, you don´t have to pay for her alimony If there´s no economical unbalance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steezer January 8, 2010 at 10:36

1. “Should” != “is”
2. It isn’t that easy to get a good woman (or a good man), with a job, proper or not. I lucked out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious January 8, 2010 at 10:59

@Lara

“I can´t hardly believe how alone and harsh was the lifes of our grandfathers, having the whole responsability of a family hanging on their shoulders and working from dawn to dusk.”

When it comes to hunters and gatherers or agrarian societies women always pulled their share or did not survive. Even today on farms you will see women working on the farm (at least in my country) and not just raising the family. Naturally, women taking care of the children and being physically weaker took/take on somewhat different duties (tending to the farm animals for example) but work they did/do. And I think that in such environments it was/is clear to both women and men what each of them has to contribute to the family and what femininity and masculinity are. Even in the 19th century after the industrial revolution a lot of women still worked either as domestics (maids for instance) or had to work in factories in pretty bad conditions (as most men did as well). So when men speak of being slaves to their wifes in terms of labor I think this was really not the case until the 20th century rolled on. And I do not believe this to be the natural state of things for various reasons and it certainly isn’t the case in my country. Both of my grandmothers worked (in offices) and so did my great grandmothers (on the farm).

I guess in the past men and women had to depend on each other for survival, today when survival is no longer threatened it seems as though we have no use for each other and that is why masculinity and femininity are suddenly such vague concepts. Or is it that physical strength no longer warrants survival so women or the society no longer have a logical need for assertive dominant masculinity but a subdued cooperative one?

On the side note, gender “wars” are nothing new to the affluent class, just read Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing for instance ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 8, 2010 at 11:30

I guess in the past men and women had to depend on each other for survival, today when survival is no longer threatened it seems as though we have no use for each other and that is why masculinity and femininity are suddenly such vague concepts. Or is it that physical strength no longer warrants survival so women or the society no longer have a logical need for assertive dominant masculinity but a subdued cooperative one?

Not even that, really. What our current society needs of men is to be drones — work, pay your taxes to support women and children and STFU. That’s what we are expected to do.

More men should reject that and go their own way — finding meaning themselves in life, rather than being drones for society and its women-and-children-centric demands it places on men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 9, 2010 at 02:42

@ Jack Donovan

I am nearly through with my piece on archetypes, and as these things happen it has taken on a much different dimension than when I started. I said that I was going to address your comments more directly in the piece, and have done so in a fashion, but a more complete response is needed here.

But first to this. I said:

Again, I see you as one of the more thoughtful and intelligent writers here (and Welmer has put together a really impressive collection), but your logic on this one smacks of someone who has made a personal choice and builds a rationale for applying it to the general population after the fact.

To which you responded:

Your browser based analysis here relies on some forgivable but both insulting and incorrect assumptions about my character, my intellect and my “story arc,” such as it is.

Not the case at all. My impression was one of human nature, not any shortcomings on your part. In psych it was called “justification after the purchase,” or just a way of saying that human beings all tend to point to the positive attributes of something after they commit to it, or buy it.

If I am mistaken about this being the case with you, it wasn’t out of questioning your character or intellect.

I do however, find what I think are some, ah sorry, can’t find a better word, miscalled romanticizing of mythology over common reality in your thesis.

To wit:

Nagayama Rokurozaemon was going down the Tokaido and was at Hamamatsu. As he passed by an inn, a beggar faced his palanquin and said, “I am a ronin from Echigo. I am short of money and in difficulties. We are both warriors. Please help me out.”

Rokurozaemon got angry and said, “It is a discourtesy to mention that we are both warriors. If I were in your state of affairs, I’d cut my stomach open. Rather than being out of money for the road and exposing yourself to shame, cut your stomach open right where you are!” It is said that the beggar moved off.

– Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Hagakure

Now, after getting past the obvious, that Rokurozaemon is a colossal prick, some other things came to mind.

Alphas are much bigger on telling others to fall on their own sword than they are on doing so themselves. Granted, some men are such emotional pansies that any sense of failure results in suicidal ideations (integral to the alpha model), citing this type of lore is not representative of alpha behavior on the whole. It is just an overly romantic notion of a small slice of it that most alphas don’t measure up to, assuming they are crazy enough to even try.

But I tend to reference all these matters to the MRM (hey, it’s what I do) and it brings to mind some rather serious questions that I address in this slice of my rough draft:

Ask yourself this. When feminism launched it’s attack on the core of masculinity some forty years ago and spread like smallpox though every aspect of western existence, where were the alpha males?

They were doing what they have always done, consolidating and using power. They became the muscle of the feminist Mafioso, maintaining rank and privilege through enforcing feminist will on the defenseless masses beneath them. They became cops hauling men to jail on the simple accusation of their wives. They became judges bludgeoning men with their gavels in corrupt courtrooms; politicians passing ever more misandric legislation; C.E.O.’s of pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs to sap the masculinity out of our boys, to make them more malleable to feminine control.

They became the enemy as soon as there was more power in doing it.

Rokurozaemon exhibits this exact same tendency when confronted with someone in a position less powerful than his. There is no nobility in this, and certainly no honor. Rather in my admittedly non alpha mind, there is nothing but disgrace. Rokurozaemon’s reaction appears to me to be little more than perverse self aggrandizement. This is the very trait we have come to love so much in gender feminists who wield power with all the indifferent smugness Rokurozaemon so arrogantly demonstrates toward someone not as powerful as himself.

Notwithstanding that, a model of masculinity that infers “be on top or be worthless and dead” in a system that is rigged against the average man, is a prescription for a dead end for 98% of us, myself included. And the 2% who make it are already, for the most part, turning on the others.

I can’t find any reason to embrace this unless I have ambitions to power at any cost, and I don’t. And no, Jack, that wasn’t a lob at you personally, but an honest if brutal critique of your philosophy.

The hierarchy and alpha males will likely always be with us, but if the ronin from Echigo was a scumbag, then so are the legions of men that have been financially destroyed and forced out of work by a bad economy.

Pure madness, in my book, all respect due.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 9, 2010 at 03:00

@ Lara

A man can´t be like men in the past (for a long relationship), “the boss in the family”, the head, the authority.

Or the prince or provider or protector. I am fine with what you start out with, Lara, but like most women, you stop halfway through the equation, generally at the part that actually disadvantages you.

I agree new stereotypes are needed. The new stereotype for women should be self sufficient with absolutely no option for access to the fruit of a man’s labor or his services as pack animal when confronted with the strenuous, dangerous work that life throws at us all.

The new woman is everything that feminist claim women are. Str0ng, capable and not in need of a man.

To me, the model for men is just the same. It is so simple actually. We owe each other nothing. Pre-mandated ties are severed for good, and any connection we make is of conscious choice.

And for me, my choice is no connection at all save the occasional romp in the bedroom, and only with women who know where their purse is for half the dinner check when it arrives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lara January 9, 2010 at 09:17

Paul:

We still need each other, but in anotther way than in the past. Women need men, and need strong men (in terms of personality, charácter), I thing that what us women expect from a man is bravery and courage (the myth of knight in shiny armour), but with shared control and command of the family. I know it is terribly confusing and full of difficulties, but we ought to fine a way.
The fruits of a man labour: well, it depends, you have to take into account in what part a woman has contributed to his wealth, to what extent she was at home taking care of children and losing labour opportunities and professional promotion. It must be rewarded somehow, but without leaving anyone in bad conditions, I mean a compensation is OK, but not half of a fortune.
You can do what you like with your live, this crazy, neurotic western societies lead us to solitude standing, but deep inside we are gregarius, emotional, sentimental, and sexual animals. Men want above all affection, caring and sex from women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Snark January 9, 2010 at 09:23

I know it is terribly confusing and full of difficulties, but we ought to fine a way.

No, you want to have your cake and eat it.

You want to have it both ways, both contradictory ways.

Women don’t get to dictate to men what they shall be. Men are deciding that for themselves, and increasingly, it seems it has nothing to do with women and children.

You are reaping what you have sown.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lara January 9, 2010 at 09:31

Snark:

Maybe somehow you are right: imagine a way of living like elephants: women and children living together raising the family, and adult men hanging outside waiting for the season to rut and heat; that would be their only involvement.

this could be the other posibility, although I think we still need each other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 9, 2010 at 09:37

You’re still missing the point.

Men’s worth is no longer defined by their utility to women and children, but by their own criteria.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Snark January 9, 2010 at 09:38

As in, no men would be ‘waiting around’ for women, for any reason.

They would have turned tail and gone off to do whatever the hell they want to do, without any regard for women at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 9, 2010 at 10:04

Heh. Another animal representation would be lions.

They just hang out, look cool, and bust some ass every once in a while…usually in conflict with other men. They seem to have a separate world …

The males associated with a pride tend to stay on the fringes, patrolling their territory. Why sociality—the most pronounced in any cat species—has developed in lionesses is the subject of much debate. Increased hunting success appears an obvious reason, but this is less than sure upon examination: coordinated hunting does allow for more successful predation, but also ensures that non-hunting members reduce per capita caloric intake, however, some take a role raising cubs, who may be left alone for extended periods of time.

Lionesses do the majority of the hunting for their pride, being smaller, swifter and more agile than the males, and unencumbered by the heavy and conspicuous mane, which causes overheating during exertion. They act as a co-ordinated group in order to stalk and bring down the prey successfully. However, if nearby the hunt, males have a tendency to dominate the kill once the lionesses have succeeded and eaten. They are more likely to share with the cubs than with the lionesses, but rarely share food they have killed by themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion

Lara January 9, 2010 at 10:20

Your point of view is extreme, tough and cold, it shows deep desperation and pain. I am sorry for you, but maybe you are right somehow: a world forever apart for men and women…what would it be?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Lara January 9, 2010 at 10:23

(former comment was to Shark)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara January 9, 2010 at 10:24

(sorry, Snark)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed January 9, 2010 at 10:35

although I think we still need each other.

Speak for yourself, cupcake. You may need us, but a lot of us see no need at all for someone like you.

I’m the age of Welmer’s parents, and I have seen him say many times something to the effect that he cannot imagine the constant presence of a woman in his life as doing anything but seriously degrading the quality of his life. I’m there, too. The women I encounter for the most part have nothing to offer which interests me, and demand a great deal that I’m not interested in giving. It seems to work best for me to roll along down my bicycle path and let the fishy femmes hang out with their own slimy friends.

Men want above all affection, caring and sex from women.

And, I am far more likely to win the lottery than to get 2 of those 3 things from any woman I’ve met in the past 40 years or so. Sex? Ok, fine – except for the fact that the vast majority of women my age look like worn-out old hags and are clueless about what a man needs or how one responds sexually. I think they have spent way too much time with their vibrators and just can’t quite figure out how to deal with a flesh and blood human being with needs of his own who does not, and cannot, respond like the little remote-controlled robot she wants him to be.

I thing that what us women expect from a man is bravery and courage (the myth of knight in shiny armour), but with shared control and command of the family. I know it is terribly confusing and full of difficulties, but we ought to fine a way.

Spoken like a true woman – you want it, so “we ought to find a way.” As others have pointed out, it is not “terribly confusing and full of difficulties”, it is a total contradiction. You are coming across as the type of feminist woman that is the type many men here most detest – you ask for a man to “be in control”, except when y0u tell him that he can’t be. You want water to only be wet when you want it to be wet.

I don’t think the next couple of generations of women will have anything to worry about when it comes to ” losing labour opportunities and professional promotion.” I swore 40 years ago that I would never do anything so awful to a woman as to “oppress” her into staying at home and living off the fruits of my labors and my generousity, while she raised “her” children.

Men are busting the game of women like you. The days of getting away with playing both ends against the middle are gone. You want to be strong and independent and “not need” us?

Fine.

But, for god’s sake, go “not need” us somewhere else, and stop annoying us with your futile attempts to convince us that we need you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 9, 2010 at 10:40

You’re still missing the point.

Men’s worth is no longer defined by their utility to women and children, but by their own criteria.

As in, no men would be ‘waiting around’ for women, for any reason.

They would have turned tail and gone off to do whatever the hell they want to do, without any regard for women at all.

==

You are definately on to something here, Snark -

Bird’s Eye View: Regrets Of An Old Feminist Hag…

[...]

I hate the world for teaching me those lessons. I remember complaining about how my husband never grew up. But as the tears streamed down my face, I came to the conclusion that I had never grown up. I never learned about compromise, trust, tolerance, niceness. I was a bitch, pure and simple. I know now that being a bitch is not about strength or independence. Being a bitch is about being repellent, unpleasant, unhappy, and lonely. Being a bitch is nothing more than being a spoiled princess who is too selfish or stupid to accept the joy in life.

I had become a fat, unpleasant, middle-aged princess because I had refused to grow up. Sure, I had taken on grown-up responsibilities (marriage, career, house, motherhood) but at the core of my psyche was a 13-year-old girl who stamped her feet and whined when she didn’t get her way. Of course, I had stopped whining years ago but I simply replaced the whining with emotional manipulation and ornery bitchiness. No wonder I was still single and my two teenaged sons spent all their free time with their father.

[...]

http://byrdeye.blogspot.com/2008/03/regrets-of-old-feminist-hag.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 9, 2010 at 10:42

Your point of view is extreme, tough and cold, it shows deep desperation and pain. I am sorry for you, but maybe you are right somehow: a world forever apart for men and women…what would it be?

Desperation and pain? No.

That is what women will be feeling when they are forced into a state of true independence.

My point of view is not extreme; all I am saying is that men do not need the validation of women.

And I think that this view scares you, Lara. I think it scares you and it scares other women, and that is why you label it ‘extreme’, and attempt to shame me by saying I am desperate and pained.

But I couldn’t care less, Lara. Really, I couldn’t.

If there’s one thing men have learned from the feminist movement, it’s that we can do just fine without women.

There has been no equivalent lesson on the female side. Women have made no attempt to detach from men whatsoever. They have simply chosen to marry Big Husband Government which extorts the rewards of men’s labours from them, to give to women.

That’s not independence.

That’s total dependence, just on a bigger man which picks on the smaller men.

Furthermore, it’s a parasitic relationship, and one which has no benefit whatsoever to men. That is what I would term extreme, tough and cold.

But when we just walk away from the situation altogether, and put ourselves out of your reach?

You will reap what you have sown. I promise you this. And no man will be there to pick up your slack.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lara January 9, 2010 at 10:47

Zed:

Don´t mess around; it´s easy: joint decisions in ruling a family.

Is this that difficult to understand) (maybe to put into real live it is)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 9, 2010 at 10:48

I thing that what us women expect from a man is bravery and courage (the myth of knight in shiny armour), but with shared control and command of the family. I know it is terribly confusing and full of difficulties, but we ought to fine a way.

The problem here, Lara, is that this really cannot apply (at least in broadly sufficient numbers), to average men (mere ‘mortals’) — hence, this is why they are ‘average’.

It is also unfair to ask this of the average guy — just as it is unfair for men to ask of the average woman to be a hyper-feminine cherub, if you get my drift.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed January 9, 2010 at 10:49

Lara – make your own money, make your own decisions. Simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lara January 9, 2010 at 10:59

Snark.

I am surrounded by great, fantastic men, And it is hard to me imagine a world withour them, but if someday they abandon me, I will survive no doubt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara January 9, 2010 at 11:02

Real: I feel you don´t understand my point: I am not saying a fighter, no, no.

I am referring a man must show coldness and courage when phisycal risk, thats all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 9, 2010 at 11:07

I am surrounded by great, fantastic men, And it is hard to me imagine a world withour them, but if someday they abandon me, I will survive no doubt.

I agree with you Lara — that good men and good women should be together.

It is just that we have to accept each other for who we really are — warts and all. — and not just what we feel we deserve, or are entitled to, in our projective phantasies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 9, 2010 at 11:19

Real: I feel you don´t understand my point: I am not saying a fighter, no, no.

I am referring a man must show coldness and courage when phisycal risk, thats all.

Lara,

I understood, and understand, where you are coming from.

It is just that many men do not have many, er, ‘opportunities’ to demonstrate their, um, ‘prowess’ (especially in the last couple of generations), so this is often (for at least middle class men and higher) a moot question. (Not that this wouldn’t or couldn’t change in the forseeable future — with the coming collapse of Western Civilization — and the invasion/colonization from the Third World.)

I think what women really have meant by what you have said is that they want the magical ‘perfect’ combination of an aggressive (ok, or ‘assertive’) ‘alpha’ male concomitantly with the, usually, passive provider qualities of a ‘beta’ male.

In reality, this is often not the case, nor is it even realistically often very possible, since they are both seperate, discreet individual personalities.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hestia January 9, 2010 at 11:27

Get Real-It is just that we have to accept each other for who we really are — warts and all. — and not just what we feel we deserve, or are entitled to, in our projective phantasies.
Along with this, women need to understand that a relationship is GIVE and take. Not take, take, take until I no longer feel “fulfilled” and head off to divorce court to get some alimony. To be part of a partnership, something of value must be brought to the table or else no true partnership can exist.

As for what you seem to be advocating for, Lara, a new form of partnership or Marriage 3.0, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, but I don’t believe “shared control of the family” is necessarily the issue. In a marriage when the husband is the primary breadwinner, it’s not at all outrageous for him to have more control of the money as he earned it. To have control of the money would imply more control over life choices as many involve money. What house do we buy? How much do we spend on Christmas gifts? How should we school the children? How many children should we have? These and many more questions require financial consideration, including how much time am I willing to spend away from my family to make this happen.

A better way to look at this issue may be how couples can better share the burden of income earning, especially if children are involved as such arrangements can allow both parents to have more time with their children and equal investment. Some understandably balk at such a discussion as they fear daycare might be necessary for the children, but this doesn’t have to be so. There are ways to prevent this, including women working from home with their own business, providing childcare, or working part-time when their husband is off work. Ideally home should be a place of industry, not just consumption.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hestia January 9, 2010 at 11:32

I should also add, Lara, that a more formidable sort femininity ought to be cultivated. There is a middle ground between the “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen” stereotype and the man hating feminist. A woman standing up to be responsible for her own affairs, including her physical safety, and being capable of taking care of herself will make a better partner in the long run. When life gets tough, women need to capable of stepping up, either by themselves or alongside the men in their lives to take care of whatever problem has presented itself. There are indeed differences between the sexes but this doesn’t need to stop a woman from answering the call of duty and being tough & strong when life demands such from her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious January 9, 2010 at 11:39

Wow, these are all really depressive views…I come from completely different surroundings and can not imagine such a bipolar society…
Women one way, men the other.
So, it is your underlying belief that men gain nothing from the company of women?
In any case, I checked the divorce laws in my country and ex-wifes may only be supported up to a year if and only if she has no other means of support. After that she is cut of. But then again we never had a lot of housewives to begin with. So I would say your main priority is the laws. Are you actually doing anything about those, all I see is posts about women parking badly and redefining masculinity?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious January 9, 2010 at 11:46

@Hestia

Some understandably balk at such a discussion as they fear daycare might be necessary for the children, but this doesn’t have to be so.

I went to daycare and I consider it a good experience, for one you socialize with kids of your own age a lot and I still remember our teachers fondly (though they actually need an associate degree for that job here). Is daycare viewed so negatively in the States? Why is it so? Is it fear from leaving your child with strangers?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 9, 2010 at 11:49

In a marriage when the husband is the primary breadwinner, it’s not at all outrageous for him to have more control of the money as he earned it.

There always has to be a Captain of a Ship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious January 9, 2010 at 11:52

@Hestia

Ideally home should be a place of industry, not just consumption.

That is an impressive post, it seems as though you trully are Hestia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 9, 2010 at 12:13

Hestia,

I just LOVE YOUR BLOG!!!

It has been bookedmarked, and I will be sure to check it out frequently.

Here is a most-appropriate Biblical passage in honour of you, and ladies like yourself -

2 John 1:1
From the church leader. To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love because we share the truth. I’m not the only one who loves you. Everyone who knows the truth also loves you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 9, 2010 at 12:15

(One more time) -

Here is a most-appropriate Biblical passage in honour of you, and ladies like yourself -

2 John 1:1
From the church leader. To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love because we share the truth. I’m not the only one who loves you. Everyone who knows the truth also loves you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 9, 2010 at 12:19

I went to daycare and I consider it a good experience, for one you socialize with kids of your own age a lot and I still remember our teachers fondly (though they actually need an associate degree for that job here). Is daycare viewed so negatively in the States? Why is it so? Is it fear from leaving your child with strangers?

-just curious

Where I live quality (i.e. not scary) daycare for a couple kids runs about 30% of median household income. Given that most young people do not make median income, it’s a dealbreaker. In fact, when I take my kids to the park, most parents – even mothers – are significantly older than I am if their children are the same age as mine, and I’m not a particularly young father. This is because nobody can afford kids until established in a career, which typically doesn’t happen until people hit their mid-30s or so. It’s different in the country, but people out there don’t have much money at all, so they just make do on next to nothing. Young Americans are a lot poorer than people realize.

So, it is your underlying belief that men gain nothing from the company of women?

I already addressed this in my White Elephant post.

all I see is posts about women parking badly and redefining masculinity

That’s all you want to see.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 9, 2010 at 12:31

@ Lara

“We still need each other, but in anotther way than in the past”

I may be barking up the wrong tree here, as you have been asked this in one way or another multiple times already, but I am going to try one more time to get a straight answer from you.

What on earth makes you think men should care about women’s needs? And let’s set aside, just for the moment, the aspect of children. We set that aside because according to modern terms, you can’t be define in such biological terms any more. You are woman, and your roar has been heard.

But more to the point, if I am not intending to have a baby with you (assuming I am man foolish enough to make one any more), what possible reason would I have for giving you the time of day?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
just curious January 9, 2010 at 12:31

@Welmer

all I see is posts about women parking badly and redefining masculinity

That’s all you want to see.

That was snappish, sorry. The problem that I see with internet is that it gives people an opportunity to vent and not act later… I may sound naive but I honestly ask what are you doing? Are you visible in the US, how far are you from changing any laws? Should there be no information on progress on these issues on this site (gatherings, protests, lobbying, petitions)? Do you have any priority goals and plans on how to achieve them?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 9, 2010 at 12:37

So, it is your underlying belief that men gain nothing from the company of women?

That would be the rationale behind MGTOW …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
@Hestia January 9, 2010 at 12:49

Raging feminists have benefited greatly from women believing they’re the only alternative to barefoot & pregnant.
Men & women both need better archetypes to model. As a man, I refuse to even acknowlege the existence of typical women but have a splendid time with women who have stepped outside of the binary, in one way or another.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 9, 2010 at 13:21

@just curious

How big is the country you are from?

You seem a little naive about what it would take to achieve social change in America. The kind of change you’re talking about requires millions and millions of dollars, massive media coverage and millions of supporters. Your suggestion sounds a bit like “Hey, I have a great idea! Why don’t you guys just hold a talent show and raise the money to get to the national square dancing competition!”

But that aside…

There’s a difference between activism and social commentary. The two feed each other. You have to get more people reading alternative views about a subject before any sort of significant “activism” is really even possible. There are TONS of people writing social commentary from the feminist left, and there has been for a few decades.

Hestia January 9, 2010 at 16:09

just curious-Is daycare viewed so negatively in the States? Why is it so? Is it fear from leaving your child with strangers?
Welmer is right that cost is a factor for many couples when it comes to daycare. There is also a lot of fear about leaving children with strangers. Much of this fear is fueled by the near obsession with pedophilia, but some of it is not unwarranted as a fair number of daycares pay minimum wage and attract the sorts of workers who earn minimum wage. This is not to say all of those people are bad people, just that they aren’t certified early childhood educators or experts in child development.

For my husband and myself, we have chosen to forgo daycare largely because we intend to homeschool our daughter and socialize with many families who do the same. This allows for our daughter to have meaningful contact with children and adults of all ages in a loving, positive atmosphere that may not be found in many daycares. We had also hoped to have a large family, which may not be a reality now due to health issues, but obviously impacted many of our financial and parenting choices. Daycare would be mighty expensive for a large family and a moot point since homeschooling a large family would have kept one of us at home during the day anyway.

Get Real- Thank you for your kind words :)

Welmer- In fact, when I take my kids to the park, most parents – even mothers – are significantly older than I am if their children are the same age as mine, and I’m not a particularly young father.
I’m usually at playgrounds with parents who are nearly old enough to be my parents but have younger children than I do. Down south the age difference isn’t so bad and I did expect situations like this seeing as I was just twenty when Peapod was born, but at the regular playgrounds around here I feel like a baby with a baby. This difference in the ages people have children has been one of the most shocking things about living out here. One time I asked an older man how old his grandson was, but unfortunately the little boy was his son. I felt like such a jerk and rightfully so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 9, 2010 at 16:51

I’m usually at playgrounds with parents who are nearly old enough to be my parents but have younger children than I do.

-Hestia

Yeah, at your age it must be quite a stark difference. For me, I’d say the guys average around eight years older than me, and the women three to five. It’s a bit weird. I thought I was pushing it by waiting until my late 20s to take the plunge. Also, many of the younger women with kids have significantly older husbands, and are clearly looking around at other men — sometimes it’s a bit embarrassing there.

A lot of the dads I see at the preschool when I’m picking up the kids – except for the black guys, who are generally around my age – look like grandpas, although they are pretty virile and in good shape for their age. Still, it isn’t quite what you’d expect; money is a huge factor in family creation in West Coast cities like Seattle and San Francisco. It’s getting to be almost colonial.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt January 9, 2010 at 18:15

To be a bit more precise on a point Snark touched on above, it should read:

So, it is your underlying belief that men gain nothing from the company of [typical western] women?

With the portion in brackets added. The problem is not all women; it is most women. Also, the number of problem women has become great enough that men face a situation similar to the lemon car sale problem from Game Theory (the mathematical kind, not the relationship kind, so get your mind out of the fucking gutter).

Here is a quick primer on that problem:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Economic_Classroom_Experiments/Lemon_Game

Notice the summary:

“An optimistic buyer, who values an object more than its owner but knows less about its quality, finds out through repeat play that he or she is in a market for lemons and would be better off not to buy at all.”

The problem is that, in real world dynamic situations, people will often learn by observing the failures of others, so that as the game progresses, even if new players are introduced, if they are allowed to observe for some time before they begin playing, they have already adopted the strategy of not buying.

I consider this a more accurate explanation for the decline of marriage than any of the others that I have seen so far, given the strong legal disincentives for men to marry (the current generation of men have observed their fathers / uncles getting fucked over either in marriage or in divorce court, and, just like in the lemon game, stop buying).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 9, 2010 at 19:06

“…Either that, or, shamed by feminists and alpha males, they just live in reactionary fashion to the elders. …” @ Paul Elam
__

Paul,

How exactly do ‘alpha’ males ‘shame’ other men?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 9, 2010 at 19:23

Paul,

How exactly do ‘alpha’ males ’shame’ other men?

-Kulak

You don’t know? That’s the biggest scam in town these days.

Preachers threatening hellfire for not submitting to one’s wife while doing all the women in the congregation they can get their hands on, judges sentencing guys to jail for arrears while sleeping with their wives, scummy talk show hosts like Dr. Phil getting rich off women by acting like thugs toward men, senators, governors and presidents demanding that guys “pay up” while screwing women all over the place, businessmen donating to feminist organizations while undercutting the wages of men and wealthier older men preying on young mothers for an easy lay.

The entire time all these scumbags are saying that the guys they are screwing over are worthless losers. It’s really a wonder that more of them don’t pay for it. Just says something to me about the slave-like nature of humanity. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon. Alphas are just guys who know what they can get away with, which is a lot, apparently.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 9, 2010 at 19:37

Preachers threatening hellfire for not submitting to one’s wife while doing all the women in the congregation they can get their hands on, judges sentencing guys to jail for arrears while sleeping with their wives, scummy talk show hosts like Dr. Phil getting rich off women by acting like thugs toward men, senators, governors and presidents demanding that guys “pay up” while screwing women all over the place, businessmen donating to feminist organizations while undercutting the wages of men and wealthier older men preying on young mothers for an easy lay.

I understand what you mean Welmer.

It is just that I disagree that these types of ‘men’ are ‘alpha’ males.

They are not.

They are, however, {A}pproval {S}eeking {S}upplicants to women — meaning that they are counterfeit ‘alphas’, at best.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 9, 2010 at 19:59

I agree that not all men who wield power are “alpha males” any more than Oprah is an alpha males. There are plenty of wealthy, powerful pussies. Some rich, successful men definitively have alpha qualities, some have very few.

I think most men understand alpha status in more primitive terms. I tend to think of alphas as men who posses an abundance of manly qualities. Most men have some masculine qualities. Some have more than others. Alphas have an excess of certain “hunter” characteristics. Sometimes these characteristics put them at a disadvantage in a world where there is little hunting to do, and a lot of paperwork.

fedrz January 9, 2010 at 20:33

I never voted to be socially re-engineered… and a punch in the face to any man or woman who demands it must happen to me.

This is one issue that separates me from much of the fembot styled MRM that still thinks we need “gender-transitioning.” (Some of you know who I am talking about).

Says who?

And who voted to give them that kind of power in my personal affairs?

Grrrr.

“I ams who I ams” – Popeye

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 9, 2010 at 20:39

I agree that not all men who wield power are “alpha males” any more than Oprah is an alpha males. There are plenty of wealthy, powerful pussies. …

Sometimes these characteristics put them at a disadvantage in a world where there is little hunting to do, and a lot of paperwork.

My point exactly Jack.

I would even deign to say that many, perhaps even well over 50%, of these twats are the classic ‘beta-boy’ enablers of these wretched women — who, if the money and status is not speedily and readily forthcoming, often dump and humiliate their worthless, cowardly asses.

Here is an interesting article for guys who think that a “successful career” and lots of money will get them a quality or “hot” girl:

Recession: When the money goes, so does the toxic wife – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/3527803/Recession-When-the-money-goes-so-does-the-toxic-wife.html

It makes me wonder how these ‘high status’ white collar guys can be so wimpy and clueless outside of work. In a single article, we learn about:

# “Lawyers and financial advisers have reported a 50 per cent increase in the number of divorce inquiries since the financial markets collapsed in September (2008).”

# A guy who let his golddigger wife beat him up bloody when she learned that she’d have to cut back on luxury.

# Successful and rich guys who apparently react with fearful, walking-on-eggshells cowering when their good-for-nothing golddigger wives threaten with going ballistic because some obscure whim of theirs hasn’t been satisfied properly.

# A guy who “turned to his wife in the middle of the night and asked her if she’d still love him if he lost all his money”, got the arrogantly honest answer “Fuck no!”, but deluded himself into thinking it was a joke. “She left him the moment he lost his senior post at an investment bank and immediately hooked up with another rich man.”

# Finally, a certain Susie Ambrose “has a waiting-list for her life-coaching sessions – a course costs between £10,000-£60,000 – on how to distinguish a gold-digger from a genuine woman.” If a ‘man’ is incapable of distinguishing that, ‘he’ is probably such a sucker and emotional retard that no course on Earth could possibly help him. In fact, you’re likely just being played and falling for another female-induced scam by signing up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 9, 2010 at 21:10

@ Kulak

Paul,

How exactly do ‘alpha’ males ’shame’ other men?

Welmer nailed the answer to that, and I can’t add to it, but the ensuing discussion points to something else.

I am not buying the argument that not all power wielding men are alpha males. Sure, some beta lapdogs have been elevated to power in the feminist Zeitgeist, but that effectively puts them in the alpha status and they got there playing alpha politics.

It is sort of like feminists, when confronted with the unthinkably hateful agenda of their cherished icons, suddenly make claim to “not being that kind of feminist.”

And again, I point to Mr. Donovan’s words to exemplify what I am talking about.

I tend to think of alphas as men who posses an abundance of manly qualities.

It is a perfectly rational, well intended statement, but I can not just ignore the implications of this line of thought.

The message in it is clear. A real man is an alpha man. The alpha is in assumed possession of what is masculine, and those that aren’t alpha are less “manly”

And it is translated again into Mr. Donovan’s proclamation that a man not on top of things and in control, or that has fallen on hard times, is a “scumbag” if he asks for help, and may be better off dead than living in such unmanly disgrace. (My use of the word unmanly the last time, not Mr. Donovan’s)

But this is the issue that I have always had with so called alpha men. Generally they attempt is to garner control over everything with whatever tools are required. This includes ownership of concepts like honor and strength and manhood itself, as though they own those things outright. And as Welmer p0inted to, you have examples in the culture all around you of how they wield those things as shaming weapons to control other men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist January 9, 2010 at 21:12

It sounds like you’re being tested on spotting golddigging bad deals just by the offer. If you take that course, you’ve already failed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 9, 2010 at 21:36

Sure, some beta lapdogs have been elevated to power in the feminist Zeitgeist, but that effectively puts them in the alpha status and they got there playing alpha politics.

Still Paul, many of these types of “men” are not really all that “manly” in their private lives with their women, many of whom scrape and supplicate to (as the article from the telegraph that I provided alluded to) -

Again, here is an interesting article for guys who think that a “successful career” and lots of money will get them a quality or “hot” girl:

Recession: When the money goes, so does the toxic wife – Telegraph

‘You loser!” screamed Katie, aiming a vase at her husband. “You’ve destroyed my life,” she continued, hurling it. “Just look at my hair, look at my nails! You loser, you jerk, you nobody.”

Katie’s husband, Jack, whose property portfolio disintegrated in the financial crash, had just told his wife that she would have to cut back on her thrice-weekly visits to Nicky Clarke, the nail salon in Harvey Nichols, and the oxygen facials, chemical peels and seaweed wraps at Space NK.

Not only that, but they no longer had the money to pay for an army of bullied Eastern Europeans to wait on her hand and foot.

Worse was to come – the brow-lift would have to be cancelled; her black Amex card would have to be snipped in half; and there was no way, he told her, that he could carry on spending £28,000 a year on Henry’s school fees at Eton.

Chloe, too, would have to leave the marginally cheaper (only £25,000 pa) Wycombe Abbey immediately.

Such was the aggression and verbal and physical abuse that followed that Jack was left with cut lips and blood streaming from a broken nose.

Their eight-year-old child, not yet at boarding school, sat cowering in a corner and dialling 999. When they arrived, they had to restrain Katie forcibly from attacking her husband.

An extreme and isolated example of the global economic meltdown hitting the £1 million home? Sadly no. When the super-rich feel the pinch, inevitably, the Toxic Wife heads off…

Indeed, lawyers and financial advisers have reported a 50 per cent increase in the number of divorce inquiries since the financial markets collapsed in September…

How we laughed when Richard, with admiration in his voice, mentioned at a drinks party last year that he’d turned to his wife in the middle of the night and asked her if she’d still love him if he lost all his money.

”F— no!” had been her answer. Such a feisty, amusing (and obviously joky) response delighted him. But today he is scratching his head with abject dejection. She had meant it.

She left him the moment he lost his senior post at an investment bank and immediately hooked up with another rich man.

This part is amusing, yet sad.

‘I told my wife to stop this organic food malarkey,” said Jeremy, a beleaguered hedge-fund manager, another man who fell for an extremely beautiful yet extravagant woman.

“She went ballistic. Organic Hass avocados cost £1.75 each and she wanted me to buy six of them! In the end, I just peeled off the labels that said they were certified organic and put them on ordinary avocados – she didn’t notice the difference. I did the same with bananas…”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/3527803/Recession-When-the-money-goes-so-does-the-toxic-wife.html

Oh yeah, real ‘alphas’ there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 9, 2010 at 22:01

Paul Elam -

The message in it is clear. A real man is an alpha man. The alpha is in assumed possession of what is masculine, and those that aren’t alpha are less “manly”

This is correct. Most grown men manage somehow to make peace with the fact that they are not perfect exemplars of masculinity, which is in itself an unreachable ideal. This is reality, just as most of us realize at some point that we don’t all have genius level IQs, etc.

I am not the perfect, shining example of all that is alpha male. I’m OK with that. I don’t need to redefine masculinity to make myself feel better. But I reach for that ideal, and employ it to curb undesirable behavior, because the opposite of trying to become stronger is allowing yourself to become weaker.

If you need them to ALL feel that they are perfect exemplars of man, or equal exemplars of man, then that collapses into the feminist argument that masculinity is whatever you want it to be. Complete relativism. “Masculinities.” It loses all power to motivate and inspire, and becomes another meaningless feel-good self esteem word.

“Masculinity” without an ideal is indistinguishable from feminism.

And it is translated again into Mr. Donovan’s proclamation that a man not on top of things and in control, or that has fallen on hard times, is a “scumbag” if he asks for help, and may be better off dead than living in such unmanly disgrace

There’s a difference between honor and status. There’s also a difference between trying your best and needing assistance (all decent men I know will gladly help another man if they can see he is really trying) and being a man who is not trying and who has become utterly dependent on the goodwill of others.

Gunslingergregi January 9, 2010 at 22:33

””””””””’# Finally, a certain Susie Ambrose “has a waiting-list for her life-coaching sessions – a course costs between £10,000-£60,000 – on how to distinguish a gold-digger from a genuine woman.” If a ‘man’ is incapable of distinguishing that, ‘he’ is probably such a sucker and emotional retard that no course on Earth could possibly help him. In fact, you’re likely just being played and falling for another female-induced scam by signing up.

”””””””””

Thats easy tell her your broke at some point during the relationship or give her all your money to invest and see what happens. Easy to become financially independant. I have done it three times. If life where a game who would play.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 9, 2010 at 22:36

@ Kulak

Still Paul, many of these types of “men” are not really all that “manly” in their private lives with their women, many of whom scrape and supplicate to (as the article from the telegraph that I provided alluded to)

-

Oh, absolutely!

Roger Waters penned something along these lines when writing his masterpiece The Wall

When we grew up and went to school
There were certain teachers who would
Hurt the children in any way they could
By pouring their derision upon anything we did
And exposing every weakness
However carefully hidden by the kids
But in the town, it was well known
When they got home at night, their fat and
Psychopathic wives would thrash them
Within inches of their lives.

Here he has laid out the quintessential alpha male, IMO. It is the counter darkness to a dark existence. I believe most dominatrix’s will tell you the preponderance of their clients are alpha males.

It lends a lot to my theory that the closer a man gets to a true alpha state of being, the more sadistic he is externally and the more masochistic internally.

@ Jack Donovan

I think there comes a point in any standoff in philosophy that the arguments go circular. We are pretty close to that.

But what I offer here is something else to consider. It is most challenging for anyone to define masculine or manhood anyway. From your posts I infer, guess rather, that you assign traits like self sufficiency, honor, integrity, strength, etc. to the alpha model of manhood.

I think where we really differ is that I don’t see these as sexual traits, but human. I don’t imply that there are not significant differences in the sexes, but it seems more likely to me that those differences run along the lines of physical, intellectual and emotional. Those are natural differences. The rest, the realm of values and morals, are purely a social construct which neither gender can lay claim to.

And, by the fact that so many men have put a sexual label on those traits, they have excused women from being held to them as standards.

As always, sir. You provide much to think about. In fact, there isn’t anyone in recent times that has helped me sort out and articulate some of my own ideas, though different from yours.

Good show.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 9, 2010 at 22:45

””””’It makes me wonder how these ‘high status’ white collar guys can be so wimpy and clueless outside of work. In a single article, we learn about:”””””””””””’

The beauty of it is the guys will come back easy having learned a valuable lesson earlier than would otherwise be the case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 9, 2010 at 23:23

Mr. Elam –

As always, sir. You provide much to think about. In fact, there isn’t anyone in recent times that has helped me sort out and articulate some of my own ideas, though different from yours.

Good show.

Glad to hear it, sir.

In moments of weakness, or possibly strength, or maybe just honesty or self-doubt…I think to myself, wouldn’t the ultimate ideal be to promote a society where every man and woman were held to the same high standards, encouraged to be as strong (etc.) as they could be, to have women and men compete as best they can according to truly equal standards, without handicaps or special treatment?

Isn’t it possible, I ask myself, that the codes of honor once attributed to men could be applied to men and women equally?

What I have realized over the past few years is that, because there are significant differences between the sexes, the motivation simply isn’t there in the same way for women. There are women who hold themselves to a high standard and ask for little or nothing.

But for the majority of women, a tantalizing option will always be available in a way that it simply is not and cannot be available to men.

Shake your tits, get what you want. Look cute, get what you want.

Men do not have to “grant access” to women. They seek access. Women control that, though men have certainly tried their best to control it. (Someone mentioned Paglia and this is where she comes in, I think.)

Because of differences between men and women that won’t go away, because they are grounded in biology, women simply have less reason to push themselves as hard as men must to reach an acceptable outcome. Men and women have different powers, and different motivations, and seek different things. We can paper over history as much as we like, and forge ahead into unknown territory, but these simple realities remain.

codebuster January 9, 2010 at 23:52

@Jack Donovan

Interesting parallels between your and my most recent posts. Spooky. Have you been reading my mind, or have I been reading yours?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster January 10, 2010 at 00:27

@Hestia

I should also add, Lara, that a more formidable sort femininity ought to be cultivated.

I agree. I anticipate that such might be next on our evolutionary agenda. Might we be at the cutting edge?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious January 10, 2010 at 11:18

@Reinholt

I appreciate your lemons market analogy but it relies heavily on being unable to tell lemons apart from cherries, that is it relies on informational asymmetry. Personally, all the people that I know that buy second hand cars in an unregulated market such as the one in my country take the car to the garage of their own choice for check up. How that would translate into finding a good wife? I do not know for sure, but men predominantly fall for pretty (some gamers say nothing less than 8 is worth dating in long run), that means they do not look under the hood. And women know that, that is why they often polish the outside and not the inside. However, there are plenty of signals that a good woman will give, maybe Hestia could write a post on how to tell lemons from cherries. For one thing maybe you should not look for one in a bar?
One more point, although I see that Western women are not held in high regard on this forum my bet would not lie with Eastern women. Yes, they are maybe beautiful and smarter at signaling worth but if they are so unscrupulous to marry for money once they get the citizenship I would not be surprised if it will be buyer beware all over again. The good women from these countries are not hanging online looking for Western soul mates, no, they are marrying men they fell in love with in their countries. Though I am sure there are exceptions I wonder what the statistics are on these marriages.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 10, 2010 at 17:53

@ Jack Donvan

Well, I PM’d Welmer a couple of days ago about submitting this piece here, but got no answer, so I have it running at MND. If you would care to read it you can do so at the link. Thanks

On Killing the Alpha Male

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 10, 2010 at 17:54

@Paul Elam

Paul, you should email me through the contact form. I don’t generally check the forum very often.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns January 10, 2010 at 18:07

I believe most dominatrix’s will tell you the preponderance of their clients are alpha males.

You’d be correct.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 10, 2010 at 19:40

@ Welmer

Maybe next time, then. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 11, 2010 at 07:09

Paul,

I would’ve loved to have it run here, for balance if nothing else.

Paul Elam January 11, 2010 at 07:16

Oh hey, I understand the man is busy. He has to be with everything he is doing. No problem with that. It wasn’t really a matter of impatience, just putting it in the can and moving on to something else.

I will offer something else I think is relevant before too long. I do a lot of writing. I’ll contact Welmer at his email address when it’s ready. I just got a little confused because we were communicating by PM in the forum before.

No bother, lessons learned.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: