By K.K. (Ken Kupstis), author of Rock Her World
My girlfriend was on the phone, in tears. One of her very close and dear relatives was in failing health, and about to pass on. Fiercely independent, brilliant and very emotionally strong, my girlfriend was living on her own several states away from her family. It was heartrending to hear her sobbing. She felt horrified, alone and powerless. I was glad she’d chosen me to reach out to, yet I didn’t know automatically what to say to console her…I don’t know if anyone truly does, in that chilling situation. So I listened more than I spoke. “It’s just, I miss my family, they’re so far away…and I’m just so tired of having to be strong all the time…” She gasped.
Barely even conscious of saying it…as if something was speaking through me, I said “This is a time not to be strong.” Something about the statement just felt right, somehow. “This is a time to open up, to feel things and roll with them…and to reach out. And I’m glad you reached out to me.” I did my best at playing lay-counselor, and gradually she felt better.
As modern Americans (or perhaps just human beings), we’re bombarded with messages of STRENGTH. You’re Strong? We’ll make you ARMY Strong. Dodge trucks are RAM TOUGH, while Fords are like a ROCK. Boxing’s for wusses; Ultimate Fighting is where it’s at. The new X-90 workout will have you shredded in 90 days. There are no earthquakes, it’s just Chuck Norris doing push-ups. My personal favorite MANOWAR song: “Kill With Power”. And we can’t simply kill bugs, we must kill them dead.
Make no mistake, strength in general—both physical and mental—is a genuine virtue and an asset. As I wrote in ROCK HER WORLD, “muscularity is a form of power, and it’s a form of power that virtually anyone can achieve…and muscularity will enable you to get your girlfriend out of a burning car faster than a lack of muscularity will.”
Having said that, there will be times in everyone’s existence when strength will be weakness.
Having to be continually, relentlessly strong in every situation eventually numbs the soul, turning us from the spiritual beings we were meant to be into mere automatons clothed in flesh. It robs us of the opportunity to truly feel painful or negative emotions, which we should otherwise use to learn and grow.
Men in particular are unfortunately shamed into being Strong, or at least projecting a damned good social façade of it. Tears are ‘the enemy’, and must be fought back wherever/whenever they arise…even though they’re the human body’s only true outlet for anguish. The German heavy metal band Accept has a song called “Man Enough To Cry”, and it wasn’t one of their greatest hits, although it was decently accurate (and that’s from Germans, possibly the most macho nations on Earth!) I can only recall my father crying once—most deservedly, as it was at my grandmother’s wake—and after my initial astonishment, I slid an arm around his shoulders, and was proud of him for doing it.
Other men tend to ‘bottle up’ their negative emotions: isolation, fear, rage, sorrow, jealousy, hatred, ad nauseum…all the while thinking they’re being Strong, or ‘real men’.
If there is a Devil, it must truly be drooling in anticipatory triumph as it watches—and urges—the pressure within these men to build, build, build, until it ultimately detonates and we read yet another headline of “Man kills wife, children, self” or “Crazed lone gunman opens fire at shopping mall; kills five, wounds eleven.”
Horrifying as they are, these stories are displays of Strength…misplaced Strength, evil Strength, despicably wrong Strength, yet Strength nonetheless. “I’ll show them! I’ll show them ALL! You can’t diss ME! DON’T YOU KNOW WHO YOU’RE MESSING WITH?!?!” Might be the prevailing thoughts in that man’s wounded, alienated mind. Author Gavin DeBecker, in his most illuminating book THE GIFT OF FEAR, has a chapter entitled “Better To Be Wanted By The Police Than Not Wanted At All.” I’d paraphrase that into Latin: Leto Ergo Sum.
I Kill, Therefore I Am. I’m not some powerless, henpecked accountant anymore, I’m ‘somebody’. Unfortunately, that ‘somebody’ is an infamous killer.
That is when Strength is truly Weakness. ‘Snapping’ into violence is ironically the ultimate Weakness…you know there are people who have committed their lives to ‘defusing’ potentially dangerous, yet otherwise good members of society. Resources to help you may be rare, but they still exist. When we surrender to our baser urges, when we decide that some crazed show of force is somehow better than admitting we’re in pain, we need help, we need someone to listen to us…and men in general rarely do that.
True Strength is in admitting you have some issues that need reconciling; it might not be celebrated, but it’s an intellectual strength, an admission that you won’t let your emotions control YOU. As Oskar Schindler was quoted in the film Schindler’s List: “Real power, is when we can do something, and we don’t do it. True power is in saying “I pardon you.” The ‘lone wolf’ killers illuminated in the media right now would do well to remember that. Yes, you have the ability to kill, as does everyone. You do NOT have the RIGHT, unless someone is directly threatening you with deadly force. And the recognition you so desperately seek will pale in comparison to the agony of the electric chair…or the infamy that will be your only legacy.
This is not to say that men are the only ones caught in the trap of “You’ve gotta be STRONG!” Women, at least in Western civilization, have never been Stronger, at least in a political sense (they may be even stronger than they want to be!) Yet they may be ‘strengthening’ themselves straight out of any and all relationships. As I write this, Canada has a pending legislative bill (HR #1777) which will enable Canadian women—in any stage of a relationship—to have a man arrested, incarcerated, have a restraining order placed in effect, and have a large portion of the man’s income directly transferred to them, at the mere allegation of abuse. I wrote to the legislators who dreamed up bill 1777 and asked “Do you have enough shelters to accommodate the men who will otherwise freeze to death on your streets if Bill 1777 passes? Will your economy survive once men realize they cannot safely take a woman to a restaurant, movie, or sports game? Do you have enough law enforcement personnel to respond to actual crimes, knowing they themselves can be sold down the river with a mere phone call?”
It is political suicide for any American politician to question women’s rights at all. Sam “Because Of Me, No One Gets A Free Ride” Donaldson admitted he stopped asking any serious questions to Feminist leaders, after being heaped with scorn when he called a female Park Ranger a “Rangerette”. Afterwards he said “I’ll take on any (male) world leader at any time…but taking on half of the world is just too much.” Vice President of the Bush administration Dan Quayle was similarly targeted when he said “Television shows like ‘Murphy Brown’ aren’t the best role models for single mothers in America*”.
Overnight, thousands of single mothers were buying bumper stickers that read “Thank You, Murphy Brown…From a Single Mother.”
Thousands of single mothers were thanking a woman that did not exist.
You never saw an episode of Murphy Brown getting up at 3 am to change a dirty diaper. Instead, you saw Murphy Brown coolly engaging in corporate combat with the “Old Boys”, looking fly all the while, without a hair out of place.
But in reality, single mothers aren’t Murphy Brown. They do have to change the diapers at 3 am, and race their kids off to daycare at 7 am, in order to get to work at 8 am. They get out of work at 4 pm in order to pick up their kids at 5 pm. Then they make dinner, while fielding every question from “Why is the sky blue?” to “Why do gorillas have such big nostrils?**” And they get to do it again the next day, wondering why single guys their age don’t want to get with them…all the while remaining Strong.
That same Strength may be the reason that their Dad is not around to pick up the slack. Maybe he was abusive, maybe he was an alcoholic, maybe he was a type-A provider that gave you everything else but companionship while he worked 70 hours a week at the burn ward? Maybe—just maybe—he had some personality flaw that would enable you to stay together as parents, if you compromised, and/or sought counseling?
Maybe you quit your vows too early? Maybe you nagged him into the arms of another woman? Maybe you were just too Strong, when he didn’t want you to be? Maybe he wanted you to be Guinevere, so he could be Lancelot? Whatever the reason—they’re probably manifold—as a single mother, you’ll have to be Strong. For the rest of your life. Or until you find a man who’s cool with helping to raise another man’s child(ren). Or until you put your pride aside and reconcile with your children’s father. It could obviously seem like you’re weak, doing that. Trying to raise children on your own, without a father, might show that you’re Strong, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re right.
Sometimes, Strength is a weakness.
*-Paraphrased.
**-Because they have such big FINGERS, hahaha.
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
“Canada has a pending legislative bill (HR #1777) which will enable Canadian women—in any stage of a relationship—to have a man arrested, incarcerated, have a restraining order placed in effect, and have a large portion of the man’s income directly transferred to them, at the mere allegation of abuse.”
Does anyone know where I can find more information about this bill? I tried searching on google to no avail. It’s quite unsettling to know that such a thing might become a reality especially when I haven’t even reached 30.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
I remember the day I lost all physical and legal custody of my daughters. I went to a Catholic Church and just sat there with tears streaming down my face. Call me weak if you want, but these are the times that men cry.
Do men have emotions? …of course. Then we get on with life, but never really get over it, even if we do not dwell on it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
55 
1
I gotta’ admit I cried three times as an adult. The first time was during my public activism years in the 80′s. Someone sent me a VCR tape. A man told of wanting to see his son playing high school football. His lovely ex- skank told him if he went to the games, she would pull the son out of football.
So, he would lurk in a nearby cornfield, and watch his son play with field glasses. I can’t even explain why that made me cry, but the thought of a father who loved his son so much he’d be out in a cornfield watching with field glasses just broke me up, sorry.
The second time was in the early 90′s. I was engaged yet in some heavy duty activism and everyone in our city knew who I was. I can honestly and proudly say I was probably the most hated man in town as any effective MRA will be. I never for a second left my back unprotected. I started flying to Mexico City and take my vacation in December, all month long. At Christmas time, my wife would bring the kids.
One year, I flew in on a Saturday, and my sweetheart niece met me at the airport. All was cool. The next morning, she invited me to go to the First Baptist Church near the Hidalgo metro stop with her.
We walked into the church, and the sun was shining in the colored glass window. Those lovely Mexican people were singing a beautiful hymn, and in an emotional burst that surprised me, I had the feeling of safety, total safety. No feminists to file false sex abuse charges, none of the usual risks of living in the US. I started without warning, bawling. I was able to get it under control before we sat down, but I tell you it was a surprise to me that I had those feelings in me.
The third time. In December 1995, in our house in Mexico City, one day I fell on my face and didn’t wake up for six days. (encephalitis.) I was in the ABC hospital for 5 more days, then a few days in Mexico City, then flew back to the States.
A few days later, I got what I thought was pleurisy, but was actually a pulmonary embolism and was in a local hospital another several days.
One day, I was watching TV and they had a sh0w of a missionary couple in Central America, or Mexico, I am not sure. They took several days to travel by burro out into the boonies. The woman fell off her animal and was badly injured. Those lovely Indian people make a hammock thing, and ran her back in a few hours to the village they had left hours before.
Then, by accident a plane flew over that was not scheduled. Within a few hours of the injury she was in a big hospital.
I also do not understand why this made me cry, perhaps the cumulative stress of weeks of illness and almost dying, I don’t know, but I really started to bawl. Not a short outburst, but this went on and on and on. I prayed, “God, don’t let a nurse come in now or I’ll be upstairs in the psych ward.” God was kind.
I am neither proud or ashamed of these three incidents. They are what they are.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
3
When my ex looked me in the eyes and told me she didn’t care that she was leaving, then made my daughter tell me goodbye and that she’d miss me. That’s when this big ol’ bear of a man sat in his van and balled his eyes out. I am a strong man, able to bear many burdens and take on the world, but in that moment I was as weak as a kitten. The one woman I trusted and loved took my only daughter and didn’t care how it affected me.
Because of that I was able to move on, to live on. If not for the Almighty giving me the ability to cry out, my “strength” would have broken me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
I cry while contemplating beauty of art, nature, or thought. I cry out of joy, rather than sadness. Not that there’s anything wrong with the latter.
One of the smartest things I’ve heard Paul Elam say was something to the effect of “Women are ruled by their emotions, men master them” and cited all the masterful male writers and artists as an example.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
“I kill, therefore I am.”
That has a powerful ring to it. I love it. Can I use that?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Also, I’ve never cried as an adult. The last time I cried was almost 10 years ago.
I see no use in it.
If you cut off your toe accidentally, bawling isn’t going to stitch it back on. Your half-crazed,drunken,arsonist, sick ass ex-con buddy will…. after you pop a couple of oxycontins and down half a bottle of codeine cough syrup.
Crying is never the solution, reacting with undisguised pain to someone attempting to hurt you only lets them know they’ve succeeded. If someone wants to break you, and you are unable to stop them, the only thing you have left is to make them doubt in their minds whether they succeeded or even can succeed. To leave them guessing whether their actions were in vain.
Strength for men is our greatest asset, it is what elevates a man above the fearful rabble. The ability to accept the possibility of torment or death in your mind, and do what needs to be done despite that.
Women, however, should be discouraged from emulating male strength because they cannot do it right,no matter how hard they try. The best they can do is put up a mildly convincing facade of dependability and then break down in the moment of truth,getting EVERYBODY including themselves killed, because hiding behind a male in dangerous situations is hard-wired into them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
I think we react differently, but the depth of emotion is equal. Men tend to hold something close to the chest. We aren’t allowed to have that period of hysteria like women do. They purge with that. We swallow and it kills us. Slowly. Literally.
‘Something filled up
my heart with nothing
Someone told me not to cry.
Now that I’m older…. My heart is colder
and I can see that it’s a lie.’ Arcade Fire.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
I did shed a tear on 9/11, because I knew my life wouldn’t be the same after that day.
As for Canada, we are a liberal country, of the sandal-wearing, cocktail drinking type. We have a lot of land and resources so we have the liberty of dispensing our wealth around the world. But lowering birthrates and increased immigration, has turned this country into a Feminist Utopia.
No-Fault Divorce. Abortion on Demand. Biased media. Corrupt Academia.
For me, I know that I am a pioneer, seeking a new frontier.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
Great essay, Bill.
A lot can be said about the character of male strength. As the essay suggests, men fail to comprehend what it actually means. Our mistake is to assume that what women think it means is what it ought to mean for us. The main reason men struggle with the ‘real man’ demands placed on them is that they’re unrealistic in the modern age and are often lumped with the equally unrealistic concept of ‘independence’. Strength and independence are the classic traits of the male – they’re asserted by men and women alike and used as a shaming tool for those that don’t make the perceived cut. But things have changed in our world – the global village and the internet mean that individual strength and independence are largely meaningless and certainly trivial.
Doubt has been expressed in recent days here at The Spearhead that men can’t band together as well as women and that this is an inherent part of our failure to find a solution to the rampant feminism problem. With due recognition given to the context of those claims, I have to disagree with this. I say men can not only band together better than women but FAR better. Men have done precisely this to stand against other dark and dangerous forces that have rebelled against the righteous social order throughout history. Historically, whenever forces gathered that sought to prosecute the interests of the few ahead of the needs of the many, men have fought shoulder to shoulder and fallen rank by rank to ensure that righteousness prevailed. Civilisation could not have advanced without this ability. Of course, not all victors have been righteous but righteousness is the common denominator when it comes to making the ultimate sacrifice. Under banded men, righteousness has definition and will always prevail. Those with a theological bent might call this ‘God’s footprint through history’.
The poet John Donne wrote in his famous 17th century Devotions upon Emergent Occasions:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…”
Today, F. Roger Devlin, an editor for The Occidental Quarterly, expands on this at http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v7n2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf
He writes:
“Men, I fear, will have to demand nothing less than the full reestablishment of what feminists call patriarchy—the male-headed family as the normal social unit. This may be a “radical” idea, given how far our society has gone off track, but it is hardly revolutionary. It is really just the radical restoration of the natural and traditional order of the human family. [...] It took much more determination on behalf of homosexuals to get us to where “gay marriage” is talked about with a straight face that it would take normal men to restore the presumption of father custody. [...] Indeed, I suspect that men, once politically united, could dictate almost any terms they wished to women. There are interesting times ahead for men. The course we must embark on is dangerous, but it is less dangerous than continuing to do nothing.”
Both Donne and Devlin are right on the money. Men ought to start thinking of themselves again not as individually strong and independent creatures but as part of a whole. This is especially necessary if we’re to arrest the evil spread of Governance Feminism (GF).
Until the last decade of the twentieth century men viewed GF as with mild amusement, perhaps as a collection of disjointed skirmishes along the fringe. In reality, and with deadly seriousness, women have been organising themselves as a political class for ten times longer. The nets were carefully cast; hooks were quietly submerged; fishless bicycles were invented. The nets were then closed and male volition was slowly but surely sqeezed out of the political arena.
Until the MRM began a decade or so ago, there has been little to counter the feminist lies (a.k.a. feminist ‘theory’) behind it all. As with any conflated ideology, feminist theory has lingered long past its ‘use-by’ date; long after its defining cause was resolved. What begain as a righteous pursuit has become a highly subjective, pseudo-intellectual form of tyranny. Its influence reached the centres of power because organised opposition was weak. Indeed, the audacious feminist slogans of the last 40 years and the political concessions made to stop them from driving the world into gynocentric anarchy, even those that were intended only as levers, have been codified into law with very little resistance. Feminism is now so effective at selling subjective governance these days that most people, men and women alike, don’t notice the lies any more. The devil has found its way into the detail while we’ve been asleep.
The problem this poses for us as men is that the lies are reinforced every time the protective male instinct overpowers the need to hold women individually accountable for them. White knights and manginas disrupt the natural checks and balances. Every judge or politician that fails to correct gender injustice when placed before him is the problem. Without this accountability the gargoyle of unrestrained femininity will consume the earth, babies and all. Men can and must put a stop to this by defining themselves as a political class, just as women have done.
This is where the MRM and Game come in. These are essentially the tools we have at our disposal to destroy the gargoyle. The MRM is the knowledge hub and Game the strategic instrument. Together they mobilise men to re-introduce the checks and balances that have been systematically been trawled almost to extinction by Governance Feminism. These two tools working together (I think Dr Paul defines these collectiely as Zeta Game) are the modern rallying points for men as a political class.
So, rather than being weak as a class, I think collective action is our principle strength. The power and nobility of men working together for a righteous cause is breathtaking and I’d say every man reading this has felt the magnificence of it at one point or another. It is civilisation in action – the social imperative, the very essence of intelligent manhood. Women are thigh-partingly awestruck by its power and no man is without it. We need only listen for the bugles and heed their call.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
“So, rather than being weak as a class, I think collective action is our principle strength. The power and nobility of men working together for a righteous cause is breathtaking and I’d say every man reading this has felt the magnificence of it at one point or another. It is civilisation in action – the social imperative, the very essence of intelligent manhood. Women are thigh-partingly awestruck by its power and no man is without it. We need only listen for the bugles and heed their call.”
Hear,hear.
Every man has power, every man has some strength, we are born risk-takers and thinkers. Working in unison, there is NOTHING we can’t accomplish. All we need to do is convince men that today’s women are a THREAT because of the awesome power invested in each of them by the state, and men will unite against that state, and we will remove that threat.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Thanks to everyone for their feedback. Nergal, you’re welcome to use the quote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Strength in found in long term strategic planning combined with the steadfastness to ensure constant progress as well as the fluidity required for any necessary adaptations needed to achieve one’s objective. Suppressing or amplifying emotions can both successfully be used to one’s benefit as circumstances call for it. Emotions are also guide posts, an intuitive sense given to us to help us survive from an evolutionary standpoint, but better always analyzed and considered against wisdom and experience.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
This seems like a feminist Trojan, a la “tough guise” with the therapeutic focus being on men being “shamed” into being “tough” rather than emotional control being esteemed over emotional diarrhea. It’s as if being tough has no purpose, and being emotionally available and accessible is somehow more important. Practically speaking, the opposite is true.
There’s nothing wrong with having “feelings” — I tend to think the emotions of men are worth more because they are better managed and more considered. Your first emotion is not always your best one — but “The View” viewpoint is to see all emotions as being equally valid and meaningful. Honestly, I see the “men don’t show emotions properly” as being part of a feminist dialectic, morally gerrymandered in the favor of women. If you read history from the first books ever written forward, you will see that men do indeed have emotions. The problem, for women and therapists, is that they don’t “feel” what women and therapists want them to feel. It’s all a political game, though I do believe that many women and therapist types truly believe they are “helping.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
The fact that men and boys are increasingly picking an enemy real or arbitrary and attacking has nothing to do with misplaced masculinity. It is not a cultural ill that we should shame men and boys for.
The misplaced masculinity is normal in a society, country and culture that is dying. It is part of the consummation. It is in fact natural.
It is natural for men to turn from an enfranchised and thus productive element of society to a predatory and destructive element. It is a healthy and natural part of the death cycle of civilizations.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Besides, you are asking men to shed our external utility or show that we are lacking in it. You are asking quite a bit aren’t you? A man is not a man by default…A man is measured by his external utility to women and to society even to the ends of actual expendability of males. We actually pride ourselves in this because quite honestly what choice do men have.
Males don’t have inherent value to the opposite sex and in culture for the simple fact that we exist as women do. Men must be, we must become a man, we must have external utility, we must have use, we must produce..
Sir you are asking men to shed the very thing that women and society value in us. Do you think for a moment that women will ever let us escape this? What do you think feminism is sir? It is certainly not about making women independent. Why else do you think men are so pissed off.
There is no escaping male purpose and masculinity because it is defined by the biological, by nature. It is not something we can escape from. However, it is something that can be harnesed, enfranchised and directed toward constructive ends. In general this can be defined by patriarchy and marriage which if you have not noticed has been destroyed.
I will tell you now that certain elements of masculinity and male design can not be changed, nor should they. Again, there is only so much that men can do for themselves in a society that refuses to free men nor even allows us to be equally yoked to our women. The labors and sacrifices of men are USED to “liberate” women and make them “independent”. We have no rights my friend. Not to our bodies nor the fruits of its labor and not even to our children. Our bodies are the property of women and government.
In my opinion feminism was allowed to happen and continues because male value to women, family and society is something that can be diminished if we do not tow the line and supplicate ourselves to be useful, to be the beast of burden. Male destructive behavior is only natural in a society that disenfranchised them from the family, education, economic policy, political, judicial and social policy.
Men won’t look for sympathy sir because we won’t find any. We may only form ranks as we are increasingly doing. We may only withdraw from a failed society, stick together and on our own or in numbers go on the offensive. Men will fight my friend, by withdraw as contributing members of society but rather as destructive members, MGTOW is a positive form of this.
We may also manage to do so by peaceful assembly or we will kill until blood runs through the streets and the thunder of resounding arms of my countrymen echo from the hills.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Men are human beings.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Off-topic,I know,but why the FUCK aren’t we all over this bullshit?
They’re calling it a “national catchphrase”, for christ’s sake! It is a sexist epithet. Clear parallels can be drawn with expressions such as “Go back to Africa,n*gger!” or “Get back in the kitchen,bitch!”/
“Man up” has to go,as a tool in the feminist arsenal. Yes,men should be taught to be tough enough to survive on their own, but if they’re tough enough to stand on their own two feet, NO ONE, ESPECIALLY A FUCKING WOMAN has the right to tell them to “man up”. He’s already “manned up” a fuckton more than she ever will because he has a dick and the registration for selective service to fucking prove it. Let me point a gun at your head and see how you feel about it,bitch. I bet it’s real easy talking a bunch of shit when you’re personally in no danger, but you’d wet your fucking panties when somebody forced you to “man up”.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
OT;
“American Electra: Feminism’s ritual matricide”
http://news.mensactivism.org/node/15836
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/10/0083140
“Big News: International Anti-Feminist Meeting
in Switzerland! ”
“The following e-mail reaches me from Ulf Andersson, a father’s rights activist in Sweden.
That’s right — Sweden! The most rabidly feminazified nation on earth!
But the news, you will see, is enormous. I have always known that our brothers in the Eurosphere were miles ahead of us Anglo types, and now . . . see how they have taken the bit in their teeth!”
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
‘…and muscularity will enable you to get your girlfriend out of a burning car faster than a lack of muscularity will.”’
The strength you refer to is a alot more meaningful than that. Strength and greater control over your emotions allows you to really look at yourself. It is throughout strength that we may be honest with ourselves and put in the extra effort to do what we think we should do. The very concept of should implies the need for thoughtful regulation of one’s self. I would argue that that strength makes you a better person imbued with more meaning.
Chris Rock the comedian jokingly talked about how in an argument men care about making sense but women do not. Granted that is a generalization but the quality of wanting to make sense is necessary if you actually care about those around you. It means that you may actually care about the impact you have on others instead of just trying to satisfy yourself in your own world. It takes maturity and the ability to separate your emotions from the needs of others before you can really be looking out for them.
It is this strength that I see as the reason that men IMO are more capable of forming very close bonds with each other. In fact male friendships tend to last longer than female friendships. Strength supports honesty, loyalty, and a willingness to change if need be.
Men have deep concern for others, perhaps even more than women, despite all the rantings of women’s emotions. I think the following studies are quite emblematic of this idea. One study had concluded that men are actually more affected by the ups and downs in a relationship, study here. Also Men Are More Stressed in Arguments which was a study on couples using objective measures on stress indicators. Finally another study (for which I lack the citation ATM) saying that parental care, good or bad, has a greater affect on boys than I does girls.
“That is when Strength is truly Weakness.”
Ultimately I’d say men’s greatest weakness is in the acceptance of the idea that men do not need lots of well rounded support. Men are left vulnerable by a misconstrued idea that strength is about compartmentalizing yourself to provide greater utility to other people. Men need to embrace fuller relationships with each other including emotional support that he may be trying to reserve for just his wife or a select few that have been predetermined to fit that role.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Sorry if there was a mixup — I didn’t write this post, Ken Kupstis did. I simply neglected to change the author from “W.F. Price” to Featured Guest after scheduling the article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
It is easy to explode with manly contempt when we hear all the drivel about “Army strong” , “Ram Tough”, etc etc etc. Point taken. Amen!
At times like that, I want to say “man up, and don’t be a ‘man’!”
But, let us not fall into the old feminist crap-trap that “men need to get in touch with their feelings.”
All right?
I don’t mind saying that I have never cried in my entire life, save in the presence of onions or cold wind.
And why? Because I am “being macho”? Because I am “fighting back the tears?”
Nope. It is because there are no tears to fight back.>/i> Don’t ask me why, but the well is dry.
So, I am gonna reverse the customary wisdom here and say it is okay to not cry. Especially if you are not naturally “talented” in that field anyway!
I think that the position I have outlined above is the moderate, sensible, “just right” position, worthy of a philosopher AND a man!
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Red0660 October 24, 2010 at 23:00
There is no escaping male purpose and masculinity because it is defined by the biological, by nature. It is not something we can escape from. However, it is something that can be harnesed, enfranchised and directed toward constructive ends. In general this can be defined by patriarchy and marriage which if you have not noticed has been destroyed.
I will tell you now that certain elements of masculinity and male design can not be changed, nor should they. Again, there is only so much that men can do for themselves in a society that refuses to free men nor even allows us to be equally yoked to our women. The labors and sacrifices of men are USED to “liberate” women and make them “independent”. We have no rights my friend. Not to our bodies nor the fruits of its labor and not even to our children. Our bodies are the property of women and government.
In my opinion feminism was allowed to happen and continues because male value to women, family and society is something that can be diminished if we do not tow the line and supplicate ourselves to be useful, to be the beast of burden. Male destructive behavior is only natural in a society that disenfranchised them from the family, education, economic policy, political, judicial and social policy.
Men won’t look for sympathy sir because we won’t find any. We may only form ranks as we are increasingly doing. We may only withdraw from a failed society, stick together and on our own or in numbers go on the offensive. Men will fight my friend, by withdraw as contributing members of society but rather as destructive members, MGTOW is a positive form of this.
We may also manage to do so by peaceful assembly or we will kill until blood runs through the streets and the thunder of resounding arms of my countrymen echo from the hills.
———————————
this is one of the most insightful things ever written on the site, I thought it was worth repeating.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I screwed up the HTML in the comment above. I gonna cry about it!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
7
Strength is never weakness unless it is fake. To be truly strong is to rid yourself of the impulse to react to stimuli in an involuntary, irrational way. All difficulties are obstacles; when we see the world through the proper lens, we (both men and women) can attain true, unfailing strength. I recommend you read some Seneca.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
“Man-ing Up” is an indefensible term meant to shame and demean a man. It implies that whatever a man is doing, he’s not “man enough” to do it. He’s extremely weak and unworthy of manhood.
“Men should “MAN UP” and accept strong, empowered women.”
…in other words be less of a man. It’s very clever. But if a man were to say “get back in the kitchen”, it would be a huge story.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
The term “man up” stems from my observation expounded upon earlier. That is, male value is heavily if not entirely weighted in external utility to women and to society.
So here is the deal Newsweek, your article reeks of desperation. The two male authors, (should they actually be real people) are beta males willing to bend their external utility to the ends of which make them supplicated bitch boys. Alpha men will continue to draw a line in the sand. Because male value is in external utility male value is subject to be diminished. Beta males will always fill the gaps that alphas refuse to fill. Males are a class divided, we know this.
Newsweek may hope that my countrymen will place the chains of tyranny upon themselves but you are mistaken. Men are NOT “over represented in business and government” anyway.
Give this nation its sovereign economy back. Give men and the middle class our wages back. GIVE US OUR PLACE IN THE FAMILY BACK. WOMEN LOVE YOU GOVERNMENT HUSBAND BUT YOU ARE NO FRIEND OF MEN!
We will rangle you in, my countrymen will prevail. We are a free people. Give us Liberty and Freedom or give us death.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Fidelbogen October 25, 2010 at 05:57
I screwed up the HTML in the comment above. I gonna cry about it!!!
How is it some women and feminists put it?
MAN UP! OR GET OVER IT!
You wise one know what I’m talking about.
I remember a phrase thet went; ” kick em when their down”.
Feminists asked; ” Why can’t men be more like womem?” Another example of how feminism caused confusion amongst men ( imho, another hypocracy on their part). As I have stated; men are human beings. Of course it goes without saying being human means having emotions. Compassion, lust, greed, happiness, disappointment, joy, stoicness, fear, envy, regret (imho, is one of the results from lack of rhetorical discipline), etc. are part of being human. This does not mean that some of us men have not the discipline to control our emotions (some of of have learned very well [ myself included as my heart turned into an ice cold diamond { perhaps with me having nothing to live for or lose has something to do with it after the utter series of hells' I have suffered/endured in my f*cked up life?}] ). It is said ” Children live what they learn.” With all of what I have been through, I should be one of the most feared human beings in existence. I rebelliously refuse to be what feminists, the feminized system and/or feminized society tried to “create” me as; a hellion. They lose. Whithin my heart, somehow, there is at least one tenth of a percent of compassion for humanity. Nobody can expect one of ” hells’ children” to “get over the sh*t they suffered/endured in their past but, I’m both; doing my best and directing my rage (another human emotion that everyone has against those who are responsible).
I am not the evil being they wanted. I try my best to disallow emotions to rule me or my life. I encourage other men to do the same.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
When I was a child; hell was for some of us. It was especially for those of us whos’ fathers were murdered, we and our siblings stolen/ “legally kidnapped” from not only each other but, from the only somebody we knew who loved us and,pure chilhood innocence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUCsTLHqXxo
In a way, this IS our song.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Feminism saught to destroy “the nuclear family” . It did succeed in destroying many “nuclear families”. It , and it’s followers owe much. They cannot replace lives destroyed.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Crying huh, never cried much which is interesting as I have ADHD and very sensitive to certian things but there is a recent memory which I will never forget as long as I live.
With a partner a while back and things wheren’t going so hot. Not as if she was treating my badly, but routinely forgoing my needs was the issue. Whatever she wanted I would bend over for, whatever I wanted was done at her convenience(sp?). Heck, the reason why I even got tested for ADHD was because I wanted to make sure I was at my best for the family, she never brought it up herself.
Well, I finally called her on it and stated that we needed to go to counselling. It was possible that she had ADHD as well as it runs in her family, and her daughter has a very serious case of it. While there, I heard over and over again how I was indeed making her happy, and how I felt about things upset her. She agreed while with the counsellor that she should get tested, then never set an appointment.
One week goes by, nothing done, too busy packing the house up for our move. i’m thinking that if we get divorced, that packing won’t really be important, but hey, what do I know?
After a horredous shift at the bar I come home and ask her why she hesitated in terms of setting the appointment.
She said that she was afraid of what that positive diagnosis would mean for her.
I broke down, I didn’t even see it coming. I just stood there bawling as I realized that all the sacrifices I had made for her, all the reading, even facing down ADHD myself all to make things better for the family, and here I was in pain and asking to see a counselor to fix things and she still thought about herself at my expense and giving me excuses over the week in an attempt to fluff me off.
I felt like warmed over sh!t that day.
Even if she had met me halfway, stating that she was afraid of the diagnosis, but that she didn’t want to hurt me, that would have been okay. No, I just got ignored.
Think long and hard before you commit to a woman, she had better be worth your time and energy. That will surprise many a woman to hear that coming from a man, but they damn well need a wake up call.
Believe it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Epoche says upon my comment:
“this is one of the most insightful things ever written on the site, I thought it was worth repeating.”
Thank you sir, I often like to research the extreme ends of this dichotomy by reading female supremacist literature. The extreme ends help to elucidate the more moderate itterations of feminist ideology but more importantly the most literal examples of female essential nature.
However unbelievable it might be I have no doubt in my mind that the following link which I will present to you is revealing of the danger that we face. However rudimentary in form it has been implemented now, we must realize that the all consummate nature of females and its associated manifestation in government WILL NOT STOP!
I find solice in the fact that a female lead culture is unsustainable due to their all consummate nature. The disenfranchisement of males will cause the system to consume itself of its own means of production.
Elements of male subjugation and the results of feminism are already evident. The key element to female rule and the implementation of matriarchy involves the nullification of male necessity as part of the family.
This has already happened in most entirety through matriarchal marriage 2.0 laws. More specifically, female property rights over the male body and thus the fruits of its labor and the transference of the public treasury by government to females. as well. It is the females relationship with government that must be destroyed. We must do this by restoration of The Constitution of The United States and therefore the removal of ALL gender secular representation and associated laws within government.
The primary means of attack is through the power of government.
For feminists making the personal and biological political is essential. Females seek to nullify male necessity and codify male expendibility through the power of the state and tyranny of government.
Some female supremacist smell victory around the corner. I am often fascinated by how close main stream feminist ideology and the real social, political and economic victories of feminism are related to the female supremacist movement.
There is a reason for this. It is her all consummate nature, her hypergamous nature that will not stop. Female supremacism and feminism are one in the same.
It has now manifested itself in government. As females promised during the beginning stages of the second wave in the 1960′s the personal has become political.
Observe below: the “Myths of female supremacism” article specifically. If men remain a class divided the consummation will NOT STOP…
Though things will certainly unravel in a fashion other than what is shown in the link below I have no doubt that if such levels of female consummation and control over male biological purpose of external utility were ever achieved the below would indeed be the result.
Note: When researching female supremacism keep in mind its close ties to feminism and the biological dichotomy I mentioned in the comment you liked.
http://saharaheve.com/blog/
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
There’s hope here in Canada, where Toronto just elected Rob Ford, a no-nonsense, common sense everyman who is going to (hopefully) drive the socialist tax-and-spend thugs out of city hall. He’ll have a fight on his hands with the unions, but once people start seeing how much better a city they have when government acts maturely and fiscally responsible, they will dismiss union complaints as children kept out of the cookie jar.
Next stop, Queen’s Park, then Parliament Hill. We MUST start reorganizing the public sector before European-style cutbacks/rioting hits our land.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
““Man up” has to go,as a tool in the feminist arsenal…..”
Nergal, I agree 100%. Did you see last night that Anderson Cooper was calling Christine O’Donnell out on the same thing. He just came right out and called it sexist, and then played example after example of it. He really went after her.
If these breeders are so fucking traditional and conservative, why aren’t they off in a kitchen all barefoot and pregnant?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So is Ken Kupstis ever going to speak up and tell us where we can find evidence of this mystery bill H.R. 1777 in Canada? The challenge to do so, presented in what appears to have been the first comment, has been online for a few days now without reply. Seems like plenty of time for him or an editor here to issue a clarification.
Canadian bills introduced in the House of Common appear to be n C-# with senate bills numbered S-#. Human “rights” tribunal rulings don’t seem to have that prefix either. Looking at bills in both the Senate and House of Commons, they don’t even reach numbers as high as 1777.
The only H.R. 1777 that appears to actually exist is a U.S. bill regarding student loans.
In short, barring further elaboration, I will conclude that this guest author doesn’t appear to know what he’s talking about.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Dave, I was informed about that Canadian bill a while back…hopefully it has been defeated or otherwise pulled from the Legislature…it appeared to have been a state or municipal bill focused on Toronto. It had been called “A Pimp’s dream” because under its wording it was described as any couple “in a relationship”, without adequately defining the parameters in said relationship.
If I’ve gotten the bill’s number wrong, everyone has my apologies, that was the number as it was described to me. If you’ll consult the comments section of the earlier post Caveat Amator, a number of Canadian commentators described some very unfair DV legislation in their own provinces.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There appears to be some confusion here about this so-called bill.
Firstly, any bill labelled “HR #1777″ would be a bill originating in the U.S. House of Representatives, the lower house of your Congress. Canadian bills originating in the lower house of our Parliament would be prefixed with the letter “C”. Bills originating in the upper house of both national legislatures are prefixed with the letter “S”. Said bill, being passed in one house has to be passed in the other house and then sent to your President, or our Governor-General, for signing to become an Act of Congress or Act of Parliament.
Secondly, our federal Parliament is responsible for all criminal legislation, and our provincial (not state!) legislatures are responsible for all civil legislation; i.e. marriage, divorce, child custody & support, etc.
Your imaginary “HR #1777″ appears to be both criminal and civil in nature, although there is some necessary overlapping; but incarceration for a violation of provincial law must be for less than two years, and there cannot be penalties without a trial in front of a magistrate!
Generally, unproven allegations of abuse result in no conviction or penalty in Canada but, of course, are highly useful in obtaining sole custody of children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 1 trackback }