So far so good, just enjoying the sound of you typingYes I think so, how about you?
I have came across Red Pill blogs that talk about the importance of disconnecting your mind from femdom influence if what you want to do is pursue your stoic vision as a man. I think there is an important point here as someone who was submitted to psychologically coercive control through legal, financial and education-based institutions from a young age. It makes sense why I don't want to succumb to feminine influence, and why I would see it as a particularly insidious influence for any young man.
And stoicism is an important element to authentic sexual abstinence. But at the same time, I don't believe men should be shamed for having feminine desires as this doesn't seem productive to men's collective self-interest. It reeks of conservative traditionalist dogmatisation of masculinity which is no more helpful than feminism in promoting "our" (collective) goal. If it's true that left wing feminist ideologies psychologically and sexually castrate young men while destroying their dreams and ambitions, categorising them as "toxically masculine", it's also true that right-wing conservatism has historically conscripted men and engaged them in dangerous, low paid labour conditions so that women could play happy family at home.
I'm tempted to talk about bumps in the road and "if at first you fail, try and try again" but reading this again, it makes me think that no-fap in a sense is a traditionalist cult in self-improvement theory because really it seems to just be about stoically practising abstinence in the interests of "feeling more masculine" rather than actually having any psychological or physical benefit. You cannot truly become more masculine without psychological or physical benefits - it's not possible because over time you will break. This is where acknowledging and indulging in the feminine can serve men's interests. But not always.
While I find the blacksmith analogy relevant, I do have to disagree with your comparison of women's and black people's issues. While women certainly face issues like sexual assault, lack of representation at the top echelons of society and the gender pay gap (although most of it seems to be due to career choice rather than gender) I can't believe that they are relatively disadvantaged to men who are literally dying because of the professional death toll (construction/fishing/haulage/rigging/military/fire service/etc.), violent assault and suicide (due to the mental health crisis). So ironing out the bigger problems in the blade doesn't seem to be a unilateral concern between men and women.
With black people though, most of their issues are from gerrymandering it seems as this is what leads to ghettoisation, poverty, drugs trade, arms trade and increased prevalence of arms and gang warfare in those American neighbourhoods where US politicians are stealing their political representation so that they can steal their funding. I think it is fair to make a comparison between ethnic minorities and white people in privilege and while I accept privilege as a white person, I cannot accept privilege as a man.
My issues as a man are not comparable to what women face because they are apples and oranges in this society. But if we are to compare I would argue that we are roughly equal. With the way we discuss these subjects, it is often correctly acknowledged by the left that undermining black issues such as the increased level of violent assault black people face by blaming them on "increased aggression in the black people" is racist, or at least racially divisive because it conceals the way political oppression in America is subjugating and further exacerbating black people's issues there.
But the feminists still prevail in blaming men's issues on toxic masculinity - even though many of the issues facing men as a whole (violent assault, professional death toll) can still be attributed to many of the problems that black people face in urban communities as a result of poverty. I can't see that it is fair or reasonable to draw a distinction where one form of analysis is racist but the other one for some reason is not misandrist, because of some obscure identity categorisation of "men" universally pertaining to some sort of abstract "oppressor" group.
And this is why I can't get behind feminism as an ideology because I do not truly believe representation of the feminine identity - purportedly with the alleged goal of promoting equality - is in the interests of my group. I can get behind ELM (ethnic minority lives matter), I can get behind advocacy for neurodivergence in society, I can get behind working class representation but as a whole, I fail to see how women are a marginalised group in society except perhaps on an international level (but then even in a lot of these fundamentalist or third world countries men are being drafted, so it seems like a poor assessment of gender politics globally too).
if I can't approach feminism with critical thought as TERF or intersectional feminism, what can it be represented as? If it is not representation of the feminine identity, what is it?
Any individual that represents themselves as feminist could propose an alternative working definition that supports there narrative, which makes it totally insidious to say that any critique is generalising feminism because then there is literally nothing to critique and feminism as a broader ideology remains intellectually unchallenged.
Feminism is the political representation of the *femi*nine identity - it purports to champion equality by protecting what it perceives to be the marginalised gender group above anything else it identifies as "obstruction" to its ends and means.
if I can't approach feminism with critical thought as TERF or intersectional feminism, what can it be represented as? If it is not representation of the feminine identity, what is it?
Any individual that represents themselves as feminist could propose an alternative working definition that supports there narrative, which makes it totally insidious to say that any critique is generalising feminism because then there is literally nothing to critique and feminism as a broader ideology remains intellectually unchallenged.
I wonder how productive it is to brush off male opinions as mansplaining.
But at some point, addressing misogyny and patriarchy requires getting a critical mass of males to change their attitudes and behaviours.
I’m not sure that brushing off people’s reasoned ideas as mansplaining is going to help achieve that.
But to brush off as mansplaining the opinion of a man who’s put some thought into the point he’s making seems like shooting a potential ally in the foot.
A common trope in feminist circles is the theme of the "feminist ally" or "good man" that ~~get's his ass kicked~~ stands up to and confronts "bullies" that are perceived violators of feminist standards for engaging with women. The fact is, it's no longer sufficient for men to quietly ignore feminist dogma and keep their business to themselves to avoid shame, ridicule and castigation by the "girl power brigade". Now they have to be vigilantes, protectors of and political advocates of women's collective self-interest to be perceived worthy as men. There is already a higher professional death toll among men which includes police, military and fire service but that is not sufficient servitude towards society and women's collective ability to have equal privilege without responsibility.
In a previous entry, I wrote about the insidious "Good Man" narrative - "Good Men" are, essentially, feminist men or "feminist allies". They are considered "good" because they support the feminist narrative and are therefore of useful service to women's collective interest. Feminist intersectionality is essentially a cut-throat ideology that either downplays the existence of legitimate men's issues ranging from the increased prevalence of violent assault rates, higher incarceration, higher professional death toll, mental health issues, increased suicide rate and sexual/romantic isolation ... or explains them away as being symptomatic of broader "patriarchy" rather than concerns such as economic poverty or feminist attitudes towards these issues.
Since it is a cut-throat ideology, you need to fight fire with fire, that is to say, be aggressive in the dismantling of feminist diatribe. It is not sufficient to intellectually dismantle the numerous erroneous misconceptions and fallacious reasoning that is characteristic of feminist ideology. There needs to be activism, online drama and even trolling to defeat a particularly malicious beast. The young masculinist may find he has to roll his sleeves up and get his hands dirty to beat the feminist dogmatist in his social circles at their own word games.
We notice the underhanded nature of feminism in the way they reward the psychological castration and ideological subservience to feminism in their so-called "male allies" while castigating, shaming, ridiculing and ostracising any and every critical thought that deviates from the norm. "Devil's advocacy" is frequently admonished by feminist allies because rather than strengthening an idea, as you would expect to be the outcome of rational debate if that idea is strong enough, it exposes the weaknesses and inherent flaws of the ideology. Meanwhile, women who themselves express doubts about feminism or see themselves as "non-feminist identifying egalitarians" are equally castigated as possessing "internalised misogyny".
To play dirty then, masculinist culture needs to actively recognise and reward traits in the female allies of masculinism while shaming and berating the internalised misandry of those men who are clearly no longer naive about the true nature of feminism but instead persistently and actively support it. Rational debate has to be welcomed inside the masculinist circle because it can only strengthen our ideology but clear feminist trolling will and must be castigated. To some this would be considered insidious but as it is only a proportionate response to the sinister tactics of feminist ideology, I would say that after attempting reform, expelling the self-hating men and warmly welcoming our masculinist allies among women can only be considered prudent. An insidious method would be something like denying social funding for young feminist men and women to achieve their hopes and dreams through attaining new qualifications, scholarships and apprenticeships. Ostracising non-conformists from their social circles just happens to be something that comes naturally to feminists and it's time the matter was addressed through an optimistic strategy.
5. Typical Feminist – You Can’t Even Handle Debate
I think you probably need to take a foundational debating class if you think that calling me a “socialist whore” is a respectful and well-formed argument that would do me well to engage with in order to broaden my understanding of the world around me.
Translation: “I don’t have an argument. But maybe if I pretend that you’re the one without an argument, no one will notice that I have no idea what I’m talking about.”
8. Let Me Just Play Devil’s Advocate
Listen, buddy, I think that as a general rule, if the person you’re advocating for is Satan, you’re probably already in the wrong. But I’ll explain this one to you anyway.
When a troll wants to play devil’s advocate with you, what they’re really saying is: “I am in such a place of privilege that I actually believe that what I’m about to say to you is fascinating, intellectually stimulating debate and not just a regurgitation of the status quo that you’re already trying to dismantle. I have deluded myself.”
But now we know many trolls are young women, the searchlight shines on schools’ failure to look after children’s well-being. Cooper points to the lack of good compulsory sex and relationships education, to empower girls. Give them strength to resist sexual harassment and bullying, to face down body-image tyranny, to stand up for themselves and one another and you can break the cycle of misery they deflect onto each other. Prudes and cowardly politicians who prevent putting honest sex and relationship education at the heart of schooling fail to see how keeping pupils happy and protected is the first prerequisite of learning. I have visited Swedish schools where they set up feminist girls’ clubs to protect and support each other, to look after each other going out at night, to resist the bullying and trivialising of girls’ lives. Teachers said it improved their happiness – and their results. Back in the 1970s when feminist groups drew women together for mutual support to resist misogynist pressures, we never imagined that girls 40 years later would suffer far worse.
What stops learning is all the social pressures that get in the way – from this sexism to all the torments of family problems that trip children up. But Gradgrind Michael Gove’s first act was to strip out “children and families” from the brass plate on his education department, reducing schools to the three Rs, and mountainous tickboxing paperwork for teachers monitoring only hard learning. He banned the nascent Every Child Matters programme that looked after the well-being of every aspect of a child’s life, from cradle to college. The arts have been all but stripped out of too many schools under crude exam pressure. Drama, above all, helps children express themselves, role play, explore the stresses in their own lives and others’, learning empathy. But education for kindness is not on the curriculum for these politicians, who should note the rising suicide rate among the young.
This ~~gentle~~man claimed, essentially, that this “new wave” of feminism is too sensitive in its insistence that our “personal lives” and experiences have sociopolitical significance.
These are people who go against you “for the sake of argument” even if they agree with what you’re saying. This is all good until the topic of the argument is something that affects the lives of others. When it’s anything related to social justice, playing the Devil’s Advocate only derails the conversation and puts an end to any progress towards a productive interaction. It is especially harmful in the context of feminism when a man plays the Devil’s Advocate to a woman trying to discuss feminist issues; it becomes another way to silence women and disregard our experiences. Disagreeing with someone who is promoting equal rights just “for the sake of argument” ultimately trivialises the oppression that marginalised people face daily.
if a woman says, “men are trash”, it is not the same thing as a man being derogatory towards women.
To be fair, there are many privileged devil’s advocates out there who are truly trying to figure things out.
You ask those of us who are knowledgeable on the subject to explain it to you again and again because in this world it is harder for you to believe that maybe the deck is stacked in your favor than to think of us as lazy, whining, or liars.
It can be difficult to identify internalized misogyny. As independent as we think we may be, we have many preconceived notions about how a woman should exist that stem from societal expectations and gender norms.
This manifests in statements that claim, “I am not like other girls” due to the need to cater to the male gaze. Projecting these misogynistic claims is a result of a gnawing fear of being perceived as weak or incapable due to one’s association with femininity.
As Harshita Narasimhan brilliantly writes in this 101, internalised misogyny has a restricted view of femininity and womanhood where, in order to be independent, a woman must subvert all traditional notions of womanhood and challenge the existence of “the other girl.”
According to Spengler (2014). internalized misogyny is made up of two main elements: self-objectification and passive acceptance of gender roles.
In 2020, there were 4,377 male occupational injury deaths in the United States, compared to 387 deaths among women.
Suicide accounts for over 58,000 deaths in Europe per annum, where suicide attempts are estimated to be 20 times higher. Males have been found to have a disproportionately lower rate of suicide attempts and an excessively higher rate of suicides compared to females.
Definition of egalitarian: "believing in [..] the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities."
Definition of feminism: "the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way"
From this follows that if you are an egalitarian, you are also a feminist.
Reading your posts I get the notion that you operate on a different definition of feminism.
Discrimination which is wrongful proceeds from the identification of a specific class or category; either a discriminator intentionally identifies this category, or a process is adopted which somehow disadvantages all members of this category. According to the dominant view, a discriminator treats all people within a race or sex category similarly. Any significant experiential or statistical variation within this group suggests either that the group is not being discriminated against or that conflicting interests exist which defeat any attempts to bring a common claim. Consequently, one generally cannot combine these categories. Race and sex, moreover, become significant only when they operate to explicitly disadvantage the victims; because the privileging of whiteness or maleness is implicit, it is generally not perceived at all.
‘With the exception of cancer, the most common causes of mortality for young adults are almost entirely attributable to external events, which could be prevented with appropriate interventions.’
Dr Tilstra adds, ‘Previous studies have taught us that racism gets ‘under the skin’ and leads to persistently worse health outcomes for the black population. Our study adds to this by highlighting how ‘outside the skin’ factors can prove harmful for both black and white young adults. More needs to be done to understand why there are differences in mortality between black and white Americans at younger ages.’
Black on Black violence exists in the wider parameters of systemic white violence sgainst Black people.
Men killing men is NOT caused by an umbrella culture where women systemically commit violence against men.
make a case for “intra male violence exists in a greater context of female supremacy
School shootings have become more common in the United States in recent years. Yet, as media portrayals of these ‘rampages’ shock the public, the characterisation of this violence obscures an important point: many of these crimes culminate in suicide, and they are almost universally committed by males. We examine three recent American cases, which involve suicide, to elucidate how the culture of hegemonic masculinity in the US creates a sense of aggrieved entitlement conducive to violence. This sense of entitlement simultaneously frames suicide as an appropriate, instrumental behaviour for these males to underscore their violent enactment of masculinity.
In 2 studies, beliefs supporting the use of violence moderated the association between normative masculine activities and aggressive behavior (Study 1) and normative masculine attitudes and aggressive and homophobic behavior (Study 2) among adolescent boys. These beliefs also moderated the association between normative masculine activities and homophobic behavior among adolescent girls. Consistent with social information processing models, beliefs about the appropriateness and effectiveness of violence predicted aggressive behavior for boys and girls, including bullying, fighting, and relational aggression. Furthermore, the association between masculine norms and aggressive behavior and homophobic behavior was partly dependent on holding these beliefs among boys. Continued research is needed to identify other beliefs that may distinguish different expressions of masculinities and their association with other attitudes and behaviors. Within the broader aggression and homophobia literature among adolescents there is a need to include the study of gender norms, while recognizing the complexity with which these factors are associated.
When discussing privilege, we often consider it a zero-sum quantity, one either has it or one does not. Since privilege is distributed along a range of axes, we consider three sites in which male privilege is compromised by marginalization by other statuses: disability status, sexuality, and class. Employing a Symbolic Interactionist approach, derived from Erving Goffman's Stigma (1963), we observe strategies employed by disabled men, gay men and working class men to reduce, neutralize, or resist the problematization of masculinity as a constitutive element of their marginalization by class, sexuality, or disability.
Racial minorities are disproportionately imprisoned or sent to jail for reasons including racial profiling, unfair drug laws, and a biased judicial system. Black men are often subject to unwarranted searches and stop-and-frisks. These are meant to protect neighborhoods from criminal activity, when in fact they are often used to target people of color in destitute neighborhoods. Some scholars argue that a lot of differential treatment towards Black men stems from automatic thought processes, or implicit biases on the part of law enforcement officers. These are seen as unconscious and instilled by societal stigmas, rather than the result of careful deliberations. The intersectionality of being both Black and being a woman can give rise to discrimination, and yet research shows that generally, Black women seem to fare better than Black men. However, even though Black women have the propensity to attend and graduate college at a higher rate than their male counterparts, they are still underrepresented in academia. I plan to explore why Black men are so often behind bars, whereas Black women are thriving within society, and how intersectionality affects that. Although it is futile to rank experiences of persecution when discussing oppression of any kind, one can’t avoid noting the blatant disadvantage that Black men and women can be placed in. I choose the concept of intersectionality as my vehicle to tease out the nuances behind the marginalized, but differentiated, plights of Black men and women, mainly because I hope to explore the literature on intersectionality and the efforts by scholars to use this concept to explore the very same systematic oppression that begets societal and individual power hierarchies.
The figure below shows the probability of moving up the income ladder for children raised by low-income parents by race. The data shows that Black men raised by low-income parents face twice the risk of remaining stuck in intergenerational poverty (38%) as Black women (20%) in terms of their individual income. Note however that Black women fare worse in terms of household income than in individual income, especially compared to whites—itself a reflection, in part, of the worse outcomes for Black men.
- Education
In 2019, 28% of Black men ages 25-29 had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 30% of Black women, over 40% of white men, and nearly half of white women, according to the National Center of Education Statistics in 2019. The gap is greater still at higher education levels: only half as many Black men have a Master’s degree (4%) as Black women (9%), white men (8%) and white women (13%):- Upward mobility
Black women and white women raised by low-income parents (those in the bottom 20% of the income distribution) have similar rates of upward intergenerational mobility, measured in terms of their individual income as adults. Black men, by contrast, are much less likely than white men to rise up the income ladder, according to Raj Chetty and his team at Opportunity Insights who have crunched the numbers on 20 million Americans in the 1978-1983 birth cohorts. A third of white men raised by low-income parents end up in the top 40% of the income distribution as adults, compared to only 19% of Black boys.
3. Earnings
Black workers—regardless of gender—earn less than white workers, and white men have substantially out-earned white women and Black workers since 1980, according to Current Population Survey data. For both Black and white workers, men earn more; but the gender gap is much smaller for Black workers. The figure below shows the weekly earnings of full-time workers (hourly and non-hourly) for Black and white workers by gender since 1980. The results are striking: Black men earn $378 less per week than white men and $125 less than white women. Overall white women have seen the biggest increase in earnings, overtaking Black men in the 1990s.
4. Labor force participation
The labor force participation rate for Black men aged 20 and over is 5.6 percentage points lower than for white men, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates (note that this excludes the incarcerated population). Many men and women face different considerations when deciding to participate in the labor force – so here for simplicity we compare Black and white men in terms of labor force participation:
5. Unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic
Black men have the highest unemployment rate of civilian non-institutionalized Black and white men and women over age 20, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There was a large race gap in unemployment (independent of gender) even before COVID-19 swept the U.S.
Prior to March 2020, Black men consistently had among the highest unemployment rates of Black and white workers. Unemployment shot up for everyone in April, and Black women faced higher unemployment than Black men for two months. As unemployment began to fall for most in June, Black men’s unemployment rose and remained high through September (the last month data is available). In September, 12.6% of Black men were unemployed, compared to 6.5% of white men.
6. Life expectancy
Women live longer than men, on average—but there are big race gaps, too. Life expectancy is lowest for Black men (among Black and white people), according the CDC National Center for Health Statistics, both at birth and at age 65. For white men, life expectancy at birth is about 6 years lower than at age 65. But for Black men, that gap is over 9 years—showing that Black men are more likely to die prematurely.
7. COVID-19 death
Black men have been the most likely among Black and white Americans to die of COVID-19 at a rate 2.4 times that of white men, according to CDC data through July 2020. The figure below showed that 80 of 100,000 Black men in the U.S. had died of COVID-19 by July 4.
8. Criminal justice
Black men face a much higher chance of being incarcerated, according to Bureau of Justice data. The figure below shows the proportion of state and federal prisoners of each race and gender, compared to the shared of the U.S. adult population. Black men are overrepresented among prisoners by a factor of five (32% v. 6%).
yes there is a problem with aggression and homophobia in young men. Yes, school shooters are toxically aggressive. Yes, there are some norms that affect gay and disabled men in society. But the men's issues in society are not purely related to the masculine. With professional death toll for, no it is not just sexism that means men are predominantly dying - sure, women may be castigated for working in "traditionally male jobs" but that doesn't mean more men wouldn't opt for jobs than women for which they were more psychologically and physically prepared for (on the whole). This is biology and economics.
For deaths by violent assault rate - yes men are more physically and psychologically disposed towards violence. But what about poverty, ghettoisation, gerrymandering, drug warfare, gang culture? I explained in the previous thread about the violence black men face as a result of the way their communities are isolated and posted numerous citations demonstrating this. If men were castrated in these communities through their water supply as some sort of twisted social experiment, are we to assume that women - no longer having to compete with more psychologically aggressive males - would not take up arms and dominate gang culture or drug dealing in impoverished neighbourhoods? Would the violence really cease? Is this truly a male-only phenomena? Don't economics and race contribute to the effect that we see and observe?
How is it that any academic research I am likely to look for on male on male violence focuses on toxic masculinity then and doesn't explore economics or race?
FOUR DECADES LATER, as the nation wobbled toward the millenium, its pulse-takers seemed to agree that a domestic apocalypse was under way: American manhood was under siege. Newspaper editors, TV pundits, fundamentalist preachers, marketeers, legislators, no matter where they perched on the political spectrum, had a contribution to make to the chronicles of the "masculinity crisis." Right-wing talk-radio hosts and left-wing men's-movement spokesmen found themselves uncomfortably on common ground. MEN ON TRIAL, the headlines cried. THE TROUBLE WITH BOYS, ARE MEN NECESSARY?, MAYBE MANHOOD CAN RECOVER. Periodicals of every political stripe from the conservative *Weekly Standard (THE CRISIS OF MANLINESS) to Newsweek (WHITE MALE PARANOIA) to the progressive Utme Reader (MEN: IT'S TIME TO PULL TOGETHER) bannered the crisis on their covers. Newspaper and broadcast journalists raced to report on one young-male hot spot after another: Tailhook, the Citadel, the Spur Posse, South Central gangsters, high-desert skinheads, militia-men blowing up federal buildings and abortion clinics, schoolyard shooters in Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, Pennsylvannia, Oregon, and Colorado.
Social scientists from right, left, and center pontificated on "endangered" young black men in the inner cities, Ritalin-addicted white "bad boys" in the suburbs, "deadbeat dads" everywhere, and, less frequently, the anguish of downsized male workers.
Masculinism is the new ideology for young men alienated by the cancerous growth of judgemental and hypocritically self-righteous misandry. It's the way forwards from the history of conscription, 20th century wage slavery for the working man and modern-day feminism towards a brighter future that doesn't pine for a return to traditional conservatism.
However, we also have traditionalism and conservatism from the right which has historically sent young men to die in wars so women could play happy family and be house wives in the meanwhile - not to mention the inability of privileged older generations to take responsibility for their own fuck ups or accept how their decisions can affect young people's psychology, success, autonomy or prosperity. None of this is good stuff for the masculinist, however centrism is just a combination of those flaws so while attractive at first glance to seek a middle ground, it is an overly simplistic answer (another one of those instances where Occam's razor falls flat on its face).
Masculinists can be derailed by both feminist and traditionalist detractors (the latter are the type that want to send the young, aspiring masculinist to wars or else performing demeaning, low paid, dangerous blue collar labour and commit through "ethical monogamy" to women with significantly higher partner counts). This can be achieved through limiting discourse, baseless accusations and more. Furthermore, we have some general detractors that could use arguments pertaining to feminist or traditionalist ideology or may not fit so easily into any particular camp.
So whenever we talk about serious men's issues like death through violent assault or wars, we know that these are caused by history, politics, drugs trade, minerals trade (blood diamonds), oil, war, poverty, gang culture, drugs, human trafficking and more. But when feminists approach these concerns, they want to derail our narrative with the baseless accusation that these events are all caused by toxic masculinity, in the same way that when the young American black masculinist is disenfranchised by politics, his community ghettoised and gerrymandered, the people turn to crime there, his traditionalist detractors tell him it is all because of his racial identity. Feminists are no different from those that they call racists then, in so far as they are perfectly happy to use misandrist language under the guise of "intersectionality".
Within the prevailing "sexuo-economic" system, men got the best deal, Gilman thought - though only in moral terms. True, men had to pay a high price for dubious and often inept domestic services, but this was good for them. Anticipating Betty Friedan, she believed that dependency and exclusive concentration on domestic detail infantilised women, potentially making them unfit even for the central vocation of motherhood. And, anticipating George Gilder, she believed that the role of the provider uplifted and "maternalised" men, taming "the destructive action of male energy" and teaching men "to love and care, to work, to serve, to be human."
Over time I came to eroticise my own virginity and it was femdom pornography that led to this aberration. Even though I use "heteronormative chastity" as a term to distinguish myself from men that engage in more gender dysphoric and sexually fluid practices, it is not, truthfully "heteronormative" in the mainstream.
I have came across Red Pill blogs that talk about the importance of disconnecting your mind from femdom influence if what you want to do is pursue your stoic vision as a man. I think there is an important point here as someone who was submitted to psychologically coercive control through legal, financial and education-based institutions from a young age. It makes sense why I don't want to succumb to feminine influence, and why I would see it as a particularly insidious influence for any young man.
And stoicism is an important element to authentic sexual abstinence. But at the same time, I don't believe men should be shamed for having feminine desires as this doesn't seem productive to men's collective self-interest. It reeks of conservative traditionalist dogmatisation of masculinity which is no more helpful than feminism in promoting "our" (collective) goal. If it's true that left wing feminist ideologies psychologically and sexually castrate young men while destroying their dreams and ambitions, categorising them as "toxically masculine", it's also true that right-wing conservatism has historically conscripted men and engaged them in dangerous, low paid labour conditions so that women could play happy family at home.
It's a shame that there are not masculinist resources for couples or individuals interested in seeking femdom relationships. For example, a lot of the femdom literature I'd be interested in reviewing seems to have a bent towards feminine representation - which I do not see as conducive towards genuine equality - and servitude in a lifestyle rather than roleplay sense - which I do not see as conducive towards a healthy relationship.
femdom in the sense of roleplay or lifestyle may rely on erosion of traditional gender norms in some sense as well as equality between the sexes but these are not necessarily exclusive to former, and that the unilateral representation of gender may actually be destructive towards the latter.
All around our nation a billboard carries this message: "Each night millions of kids go to sleep starving-for attention from their dads."
Because patriarchal culture has already taught girls and boys that Dad's love is more valuable than mother love, it is unlikely that maternal affection will heal the lack of fatherly love.
rage, grief, and unrelenting disappointment lead women and men to close off the part of themselves that was hoping to be touched and healed by male love. They learn then to settle for whatever positive attention men are able to give. They learn to overvalue it. They learn to pretend that it is love. They learn how not to speak the truth about men and love. They learn to live the lie.
Anyway, the answer is to get a broad masculinist network for men to help each other. I'm talking masculinist lawyers, therapists, politicians, everything - then we get resources to help men improve their qualifications: education, courses, self-help & apprenticeships through government funding (with the help of masculinist politicians) and negative income tax for the unemployed or blue collar labour masculinists.
The politicians are essential to make sure there are more masculinist therapists in place to help guide men through and realise their potential. It could be part of the government training scheme initiative where young men come together, go on retreats for their respective qualification enhancement desires, talk to empathising masculinist therapists and boost their sexual market value as well, so the sexually/romantically frustrated can get something useful out of the experience rather than just being told their issues are caused by "toxic masculinity", or that they're not entitled to women or something. This way, they may actually be able to get laid.
"Your expectations are because of media and porn that creates unrealistic expectations and that's caused by patriarchy" - something feminists say. "It's because everyone says that you're supposed to have lots of women as a man and that's what's effecting your self-image - patriarchy" - there's another thing. All of this kind of thing just exacerbates the anger in the psychologically unstable men while doing nothing to help their situation (and perhaps even feeds into anti-social behaviours). Masculinism avoids harmful, destructive narratives like these.
Well hang on - what stops feminists making their own social networks? They already have much larger circles than masculinists do: book clubs, strikes, protests, slut walks, feminist-themed events (poetry evenings, music gigs, debate clubs), feminist meet-ups, online communities of feminists, etc., etc.
I am talking about something that would have to begin as a "trial period" in UK because the civil service actually obstruct laws from becoming enacted until they have gone through one of these first. First a masculinist politician picks a few regions and he introduces a process for screening applicants (masculinists and female "masculinist allies") as being appropriate for the trial phase - maybe they have to demonstrate keen knowledge, understanding and agreement with masculinist literature, earn less than £20k, maybe have some mental health difficulties.
Those candidates go on negative income tax while they attend the courses and the retreats. They have access to resources, therapists, instructors, lifestyle coaches, gardens, they can socialise, with a bar and kitchen - and they are monitored and assessed by experts during the trial phase. They have to complete forms and surveys before the trial phase, a few months after then a few years again. Then after a few trials of this have been conducted, maybe it can be enacted as law that we give masculinist candidates all over the country access to these resources vital for improving their human capital and life prospects.
To be honest I don't think politics belongs on this site, this is a chastity site not political. But that's just my opinion.
To each their own good luckThat's like ... just your opinion bro.
I imagine all of my detractors here will be thrilled to hear my mind has gone completely blank about what to write for the next entry. Guess I'm all masculinist-ed out.
MEN ARE DYING BY THE HANDS OF OTHER MEN (mainly).
SOCK-incel no less. I feel so privileged!
The other sock must have gotten eaten by the washing machine, so now we have a lonely incel sock.
It's an observation by somebody who actually participated in a war. You should try it once.
I do not think he's a sock. But just as pathetic as Heisenberg. It's easy to think one is the other, but I think this one is the apprentice H. did not fire...
Here we have another neologism invented by a woman to describe the misogynist ideology and mind set now being co-opted in the way incel has been.
Citing yourself as a source is classic appeal to authority and typical of the OPie's narcissistic, overgeneralised, hyperbolic style. Unfortunately the numerous people who already have him blocked won't be able to follow his self referential trail. #sad /s
Well, I have to admit, your narcissism trumps Heisenberg's. Using your own deranged writings as 'proof' is an idea even Heisenberg didn't have yet.
He's missing his sole mate! That's so sad!
Now you're just looking like an attention deprived wannabee writer who needs to promote his own writings on almost every random theme.
What's really funny is that incels post this kind of crap and then complain that women won't have sex with them.
Could you please stop calling us bitches?
SOCK-incel no less. I feel so privileged!
The other sock must have gotten eaten by the washing machine, so now we have a lonely incel sock.
It's an observation by somebody who actually participated in a war. You should try it once.
I do not think he's a sock. But just as pathetic as Heisenberg. It's easy to think one is the other, but I think this one is the apprentice H. did not fire...
Here we have another neologism invented by a woman to describe the misogynist ideology and mind set now being co-opted in the way incel has been.
Citing yourself as a source is classic appeal to authority and typical of the OPie's narcissistic, overgeneralised, hyperbolic style. Unfortunately the numerous people who already have him blocked won't be able to follow his self referential trail. #sad /s
Well, I have to admit, your narcissism trumps Heisenberg's. Using your own deranged writings as 'proof' is an idea even Heisenberg didn't have yet.
He's missing his sole mate! That's so sad!
Now you're just looking like an attention deprived wannabee writer who needs to promote his own writings on almost every random theme.
My content analysis of twenty-six documents (130,000 words) designated by the community as central to its purpose and ideology shows that The Red Pill is not just an expression of hegemonic masculinity but also explicitly integrates neoliberal and scientific discourses into its seduction strategies. I theorize that the resulting philosophy superficially resolves a contradiction between hegemonic masculinity’s prescriptive emotional walls and an inherent desire for connection by constructing women as exchangeable commodities.
Beginning around 2016, misogynist incel forums began to shift from a Red Pill to an increasing “Black Pill” mentality. This belief system accepts the Red Pill view of society dominated by women but rejects individual-level attempts such as learning game to achieve a sexual relationship with women as misguided, asserting that only change at a societal level has the possibility to be effective. Black Pill adherents believe that looks are genetically determined, and that women choose sexual partners based solely on physical features (“lookism”), so whether or not a person will be an incel is predetermined.39 Misogynist incels attempt to prove the truth of the Black Pill through misreadings of scientific studies, online dating datasets, and their own “experiments” to prove that women only care about a man’s physical looks. Although some incels still seek out plastic surgery, work out (“gym maxxing”), or try to otherwise improve their physical features, many believe such strategies are pointless as inceldom is a problem with society, not the individual. Blackpilled incels are aware of appearance and sociability/game strategies and reject them as solutions.
Websites, blogs, and message boards of the “manosphere” are dedicated to a worldview that celebrates hegemonic masculinity and decries feminism. In a reflexive thematic analysis of 227 posts (389,189 words) from two manosphere message boards (The Red Pill and Incel), we analyzed how posters viewed women and men. We found that beliefs about women and men formed an ideology comprised of (a) evolution-based views of gender essentialism, (b) an informal psychology of women's motivations, and (c) a typology of men. Women were seen as having three primary motives: to deceive and manipulate men, to promiscuously satisfy their own sexual needs, and to trade sex for power. Men were seen as falling into two (The Red Pill) or three (Incel) types: alpha men who are attractive, powerful, and sexually successful, beta men who give to women as their only route to sexual interactions, and incel (involuntarily celibate) men who are too unattractive to achieve sexual success. Posters acted on these beliefs either to improve themselves (The Red Pill) or give up on life and endorse suicide and/or violence (Incel). We discuss these beliefs and actions in relation to theories of sexual aggression, the psychology of radicalization, and the American Psychological Association's Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.
A common anti-feminist misconception suggests it means using “feminine” qualities to manipulate men. Yet most experts agree toxic femininity involves restricting your behavior to fit stereotypically feminine traits that men supposedly find pleasing.
Feeling you should always have a male partner, even if you don’t particularly want a relationship. Rice notes this may stem from toxic femininity when you feel as if you’re somehow incomplete without a male partner and need to depend on them for certain things.
Putting men’s needs and desires before your own. This could mean suppressing your own needs and feelings in order to accommodate a male partner, colleague, or family member,
Pretending you don’t know how to do something or aren’t physically capable of something — especially in an effort to avoid emasculating a man
Avoiding confrontation with men. Since traditional gender norms dictate that women should be obedient and submissive, Lurie says toxic femininity can manifest as not challenging men when you disagree with them or when they do something that bothers you.
A 2020 study suggests women in higher managerial positions are more likely to experience bullying from men in the same positions. Researchers theorized this may stem from sexist beliefs that women lack the ability to handle leadership positions. They also noted that women with stereotypically masculine traits also tend to experience more workplace harassment.
The quote you are referring to was:
fuck these feminist bitches that think they talk for all women.
Do you claim to talk for all women? Do you use words like internalised misandry to speak for women who do not identify as feminists? Do you try to marginalise serious men's issues, obfuscating their significance or explain them away as somehow being symptomatic of patriarchy?
I am not on this website every day for immediate response. I don't want to argue with you. I'm just asking if you can please stop calling women bitches.
It's also hurtful that you call men you disagree with eunuchs.