One of the bigger dilemmas facing men today is that there is a general lack of concern for their problems not only from the opposite sex, but from other men as well. The myth of the rugged individual has poisoned the atmosphere almost to the same extent as chivalry; in fact, in many ways the two concepts are intertwined. The American manifestation of machismo has an unconcealed misandric element, and it is common to see men portrayed in popular culture as willing to beat or humiliate other men to honor or protect women, or even simply to enhance their own status. This barbaric proclivity has resulted in a culture that imprisons and punishes more men than any other on earth while maintaining one of the largest gender disparities in prison populations.
The idea that one has an obligation toward one’s fellow man has been forgotten in contemporary America, and has been replaced with either bigoted contempt for other men (conservative) or the passive-aggressive adoption of feminist ideology (liberal). There is no position along the mainstream political spectrum that does not have an element of hostility toward men. However, there are those who have begun to reject the useless tug-of-war over the hearts of America’s pampered women, and there are those very few with truly altruistic motives. I would put the PUA community, which has made great strides in undoing the shackles of woman-worship that bind men by proposing that a man should pursue pleasure for his own fulfillment, and nobody else’s, in the former category. The latter is comprised of those men that minister to the broken, hopeless, imprisoned and despairing men of our country, whose ranks are growing every day.
It is in times of great adversity that men turn to each other for comfort and help in what seem to be impossible circumstances. There is said to be no bond stronger than that between soldiers who have carried each other through the horror of battle. In that environment the bombastic macho jerk that typifies talk radio would likely be fragged by his comrades, and the compromising pansy abandoned.
Today, more and more men are facing what they feel are impossible circumstances. Many of them are facing them alone, and we have seen the result in the spate of mass killings carried out by men who have, for one reason or another snapped. One wonders how many more are suffering in silent agony, rejected by a culture and society that treats them as worthless refuse. In the meanwhile, women’s shelters are humming with activity, including late night parties, free counseling and legal services. Male unemployment is several digits above female, and yet men find themselves without relief. Male enrollment in higher education lags far behind female, and boys drop out of school at higher rates than girls.
Despite the deteriorating situation, few men have taken steps to help each other. Of course a man should try to help himself first, but humans are social animals, and our strength is in our ability to cooperate to overcome obstacles. I commend the few who have taken steps to do so by various means — even blogging is a way to extend a helping hand. However, one of these days, and it should be soon, we ought to start actively promoting a new way of life that will make things better for us collectively. One of the first steps lies in gaining a sense of common purpose, and we can only get there through first learning to open up and enjoy each other’s company, and then going out and changing the world together.
The success of ancient Sparta, the early Christians, Muhammed and his followers and the American Revolution derived from a sense of brotherhood between men. This strength can only be achieved if we reject the isolation of contemporary society by removing the feminist/macho wedge that has been driven between men. To do this, we only need to start thinking of our enlightened comrades as brothers, and soon the world will become a friendlier place.
6 responses so far ↓
1 novaseeker // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:33 am
It’s a very good point — the concept of brotherhood or fraternity among men is currently moribund.
It’s true, I think, that women are more naturally social than men are, but the kind of isolation we see many men living in today is an extreme that can only lead to problems for themselves and everyone else. In part, I think that the number of “permitted male spaces” was severely cut down by feminism, when the feminists aggressively demanded that male-only spaces be opened to women. That kind of defeated the purpose of having such spaces, which was to provide places for men to be men with each other. Other than sports bars and similar kinds of venues, our culture doesn’t really have “male spaces” left — while women have created a lot of their own spaces, as you mention, for themselves.
In general I think that the reaction of men to feminism and the liberation of women has been terrible. As you say, we’ve kind of diverged into two directions: one overly macho, and the other overly conciliatory towards feminism. Each is a kind of caricature of masculinity and manhood, rather than an integrated conception of it. I’m not suggesting here that all men need to follow the same “integrated conception” of manhood, but we all could stand to benefit from a bit more clarity, in the culture of men, of what it really means to be a man in the early 21st Century West.
One issue that has caught my thinking recently has been the concept of male liberation. Your post about this a while ago was brilliant, I think. But more needs to be done. I fully agree with embracing freedom and liberation for men, but I think this also needs to go hand-in-hand with a revitalized concept of maleness, of masculinity, which is relevant and authentic for men — not something which is based on the ideas of women’s and gender studies.
Women cannot help us with this, and in fact I think, even if well-meaning, they can derail us. To a certain degree this is what has happened to the men who have become overly conciliatory to feminism — they have become the kinds of men feminists seem to like, but which women as a whole do not. And in any case, this conception of manhood is not authentically male, because it is not really based on a male perspective, but a female one. The irony is that feminism often speaks about women taking back the definition of femininity and owning it and so on, but at the same time many feminists have aggressively tried to redefine masculinity (often by simply destroying or pathologizing anything that is masculine) for men — the direct parallel of what they oppose when it is coming in their direction.
But while women cannot help us here, we also cannot blame women completely for these issues. Yes, feminism has had its negative consequences on us. But we can’t really do much about feminism right now. What we *can* do is work, as men, on our own culture, from our own perspectives — perspectives that are authentic to us, and come from us — in an atmosphere of concern for men, rather than antagonism toward women. We do not need a male equivalent of feminism (which was fueled to a significant degree by anger at men), but simply a male movement for ourselves, directed at healing the wounds men have suffered in the last few decades, and becoming whole men again.
2 Welmer // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I think you’re right about the male spaces, novaseeker, but you also gave me an idea about what is really wrong with our institutions concerning men. I think I’ve just received a sort of flash of inspiration concerning a major reason it is increasingly difficult for boys and men to handle American institutions. I’ll blog it and let me know what you think if you have time.
3 WLindsayWheeler // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Jesus Christ said, “You can’t serve two masters”.
Either you will love the one, and hate the other OR you will hate the one , and love the other. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t serve feminism and masculinity at the same time. Either you serve feminism or you serve masculinity. But you can’t do both.
For Masculinity leads to Patriarchy and this is totally rejected by Feminism. The natural end of masculinity is leadership. Well, if the effort is to have women lead, you can’t very well teach boys masculinity. Duh.
I mean face it. We live under Marxist hegemony everywhere. Political Correctness rules. And you can’t have masculinity under Political Correctness. Way back in the 1970s, a Catholic priest, Fr. S. J. Hardon, a researcher of communism, writes that America is a Marxist nation. This back in 1970s.
You have got to put this in context; we live under Marxist hegemony which entails globalism. Men naturally segregate themselves and when manly and noble don’t take to orders. You can’t have manliness under socialism. When you have manliness and manhood it breeds violence naturally. We can’t have that. What is going on is the effeminization of men and this has the okay by thousands of academics and political leaders. The political elite do NOT want manly noble men. They can not accomplish globalization with manly noble men—they must have effeminate men.
Do you not understand what is going on today? Are you all so politically naive? Do you not understand socialist/marxist dynamics? Do you know nothing of Antonio Gramsci’s dictum that “Culture defines politics”? Manly noble men create self-government. Socialists don’t want men to create self-government, they want compliant metrosexuals and effeminates who are easily controllable.
Duh.
4 whiskey // May 4, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I would not necessarily agree with the two-model structure of masculine behavior.
Most of Western culture after all is based on a fairly “flat” hierarchy between men to reduce competition over women, through monogamy more or less enforced and the nuclear family and mutual protection. Very different from Eastern Cultures with polygamy and high distrust among men.
Beowulf, the Arthur romances, Robin Hood, the various pagan Viking Sagas, all point towards a very egalitarian male-oriented society with significantly, in the Arthurian legends, trouble coming when someone poaches another’s wife, a theme found all the way back to the Iliad, which was roughly contemporaneously with the Old Testament (circa 1100 BC or so). Male cooperation to reduce tensions over women is that old in the West. [The Bible also touches on David's flaws in that way.]
Rather, IMHO we see a more complex model:
1. “Bros before hos” aka the “Bromance” or men using other men’s companionship to replace that of female affection, cooperative video gaming, sports watching, etc. interspersed with occasional sex partners among rotating women about whom there is no expectation of exclusivity or long-term romance. Classic substitution in the decline of monogamy, delayed marriage, and suitable women. [Candidates for marriage in their mid twenties have long sexual histories making bonding/marriage questionable at best.]
2. Classic PUA communities and so on.
3. Beta type guys in relationships/marriages with women they know are not long term, who substitute male friendships and activities like NFL games, etc. as “dates” for companionship and support.
4. Full on beta type dudes in marriages/relationships with Alpha women who are likely to be having sex with other men.
5. Loner opt-outs who use hobbies and past-times and/or workaholic stuff to provide structure and meaning to lives.
6. “Floaters” who move in-between various groups and behaviors due to changing circumstances.
I would say that the enduring popularity among men for the NFL and Collegiate Football, with it’s emphasis on shared sacrifice, team play, eschewing individualism, and strong coaching authority figures, says men have not changed that much in core attitudes.
What has changed clearly I think is male adaption to the end essentially of the nuclear family and monogamous marriage.
5 Anonymous // May 4, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Loner opt-out. Thank you for defining me. I always wondered what the hell I was.
6 novaseeker // May 6, 2009 at 7:33 pm
That’s an interesting grouping, Whiskey.
I will think more on it, but I suspect that your groupings are more about different coping mechanisms men use, rather than a different fundamental underlying attitudinal difference.
Yet, you’re likely right that it isn’t a simple bifurcation between machos and feminist appeasers — there is a middle ground of men who are masculine in most ways, not very feminist, not macho … and also largely disconnected from women.
I would think in your coping categories, 1 and 5 would fall into the middle ground category, 2 in the macho category (or Game, which is a synthetic recreation of it in many ways) and 3 and 4 in the feminist appeasers category (anyone who is married either becomes a feminist appeaser or gets divorced), and 6 is a floater.
So I think it can be reconciled with my schema, if I add a third middle ground attitudinal category. But I will think on it some more.
Your point that the betam/alphaf relationships almost always involve female infidelity. Yet I would also point out that that your category 3′s are also likely at great risk for female infidelity. Female infidelity is simply exploding across the board, regardless of whether the female is “alpha” or not.
Leave a Comment