NOTE: I will leave it to Days Of Broken Arrows about movies in past years about coming of age for boys & men if he wants to. For the purposes of this, I will not be framing it through any movie, but through my thesis.
![[Image: feminine%20mystique%20fondas.jpg]](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/hua_hsu/feminine%20mystique%20fondas.jpg)
In 1963, radical liberal Betty Freidan released an earth-shattering book named the “The Feminine Mystique.” In it, she talks of the “problem that has no name,” referring the supposedly stultifying confines of middle-class+ white womanhood. In this terrifying maelstrom of oppression & misogyny, women were forced to be little more than a wife & mother. Women needed educations & paid jobs in order to smash this retrograde, oppressive construct. She also urged women to smash the foundations of femininity, rebelling against female norms & creating new ones for women to follow.
This book is credited for kicking off second-wave feminism, although she was just in the right place at the right time. However, the changes in societal structure began to alter, as women began to take jobs that men once had (doctors, managers, lawyers, etc.), divorced their husbands & began to often live lives without a boyfriend or husband. The giddy begins of second-wave feminist were far less hateful than memory would suggest, it wasn’t until women realized that financial independence & sexual independence were not quite the panacea that second-wave feminists promised. Then the knives came out.
Contrary to popular belief, early second-wave feminism was focused on legal systems of oppression as opposed to patriarchal modes of oppression based on gendered norms of male supremacy. If a feminist ever says she isn’t a radical feminist and thoroughly a fan of the theory that patriarchal ideas of male supremacy are what oppresses women, inform said person they are a radical feminist. Unlike black people, but second-wave feminists got their legal changes enacted in flip of a switch, provides evidence that we live a female-dominated society, not a male-dominated one.
These changes did little to solve women’s supposed “problem with no name.” Instead of engaging in real levels of introspection as to their wintry lives of discontent, they continued to blame society, but began to shift to radical politics, blaming men & patriarchy for their psychological issues. This dumping on men has been overwhelming documented by this forum, but let’s segue into the burgeoning men’s movement that developed alongside feminism.
Through the sixties & seventies it was mostly quiet. In the eighties, men’s groups began to develop alongside the increasing misandry witnessed by prominent feminists that got reflected in female media – songs, movies, magazines, etc. They were heavily ridiculed by both men & women. Women complained that men had nothing to complain about as men – they were so blindingly privileged by being a man they could not see how good they had it. In response to these sorts of ignorant behaviors, Warren Farrell eventually broke from feminism and wrote his ground-breaking seminal work, “The Myth Of Power.” It did not go over as bad as you might think it would, but many feminists can be savvy and saw the writing on the wall and began to stress intersectionality hard so other feminists would have to start checking their hateful critiques of black men, poor men & gay men.
![[Image: iron_john.jpg]](http://harmonia.meccahosting.com/~a0002223/iron_john.jpg)
An interesting book was penned around the same time as “The Myth of Male Power,” called “Iron John” by Robert Bly. I have not read the book (but I will do a review someday for RoK) but I have read many reviews & critiques of it. In it, Bly examines many cultures and their approaches to manhood & masculinity. He was roundly criticized for examined “backwards” cultures that were violent & patriarchal. He was also criticized for thinking of cultures that are “simple,” in which gender roles are clear. What Bly was stumbling towards, whether he realized it or not, was that he was questioning the fundamental nature of a boy transitioning to a man and how society encourages or aids in that in America
Before I get into what exactly is going on psychologically with masculinity today, consider this article from my NYT. It speaks, fairly derisively, of the self-styled "Male Identity Crisis." It isn't a fair article, but not bad at all considering it was originally published in 1994. It does a good job of presenting one the issues facing masculinity: its supreme mis-characterization in the media.
![[Image: how-bushmaster-advertised-the-semiautoma...ssacre.jpg]](http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50cf511becad04da61000008/how-bushmaster-advertised-the-semiautomatic-weapon-used-in-the-connecticut-massacre.jpg)
This picture encapsulates with what is wrong with modern masculinity: a man's masculinity doesn't flow from within but from without by authority figures in society. This picture & Bushmaster's campaign was wildly misunderstood, even in the manosphere. This poster isn't about violent masculinity, promoting guns or misandric interpretation of men, but about that fact an authority figure in the media claims to be able to give your masculinity back.
Further, it isn't just a claim, it is died-in-wool truth for most men - none of whom have taken the red-pill (I do hate that phrase truly). Modern masculinity is based not a performance as feminists would claim, but based on subjugation a man's identity to authority figures from birth.
Let's consider Dr. Robert Glover's book, "No More Mister Nice Guy." In it, he notes the proliferation of single-mother homes & female dominated schools have completely blunted the positive growth of men. While he doesn't explicitly say it, I think the best working definition masculinity would be a man who feels no shame or guilt for being a man. Further, men need to able to engage other men with no issues for being seen as gay. The phrase "no homo" is reflective of misandry, as it suggests it male friendship or appreciation is suggestive of homosexuality. It isn't.
Men also need to comfortable with themselves, alone. This is important and I will come back to as it relates to constructs of masculinity based out of female approval. However, let's a talk about Glover's thesis about boy's lives being female-dominated. Many boys grow up with no father or a weak one. Just about all go to female-dominated schools where cooperation, dishonesty & superficiality reign supreme. Male behavior are shamed or medicalized via drugs when teachers cannot come to grips with biological male behavior.
They also have to deal with a female-centric media leviathan. Many shows simply show male inferiors in juxtaposition with female achievers - all in the name of equality, of course. Many shows simply show soft men who spend their time being overly kind, deferential to women & supremely comfortable with expressing emotions, all the while to female approval, often adoring & appreciated.
The exegesis of this in a boy's life is how he realizes the cradle from which is raised has little resemblance to reality. Boys become uncomfortable with males razing each other - often done out of a sense of camaraderie. Since they are socialized as females, they often react badly as they perceive it as a veiled attack - just like a female would. They don't pick up the nuance of expressing emotions like females do - that "expressing emotions" isn't about expressing your true emotions, but those that please the group & advance or maintain your status in a hierarchy. Most importantly, is realization of how this socialization does not work with women.
This dynamic set up forces a boy, maturing to a man, to rely heavily on female approval for his sense of "masculinity" to in order have self-esteem. This system sets up a dynamic in which a man's masculinity is supremely contingent upon female approval. Approval gleaned from mothers & teachers bleeds into women at puberty. You see this curiously played out by many male homosexuals who kvetch hard for female approval even though they are gay. Dr. Glover notes this and doesn't say it, but I will: Lesbians don't kvetch for male approval but gay men do from women because we live in female-centric society.
As for heterosexual men, we see this soft man often trying to reconcile is upbringing with the reality of female sexuality. Unable to properly value themselves as men separate from female approval, they double down on a system born out of boyhood that is 100& inappropriate for manhood. Like any other psychological issue, such supplication served a boy well in his female-dominated childhood, but does nothing to help him as a man.
![[Image: EWAdams300x300_11642_1292609948.jpg]](http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/MediaManager/Image/User/EWAdams300x300_11642_1292609948.jpg)
Supremely ironically, even feminists recognize this phenomenon. What isn't surprising is that they fall back on what they do to create this problem: problematize masculinity & its inherent socially constructed failure, they remedy it through shaming/guilt while reinforcing the need female approval to be a real man. The article has some very pointed things to say about men, using examples of individual men's behavior to paint a broad picture about men as a class. Essentialism never sounds so good to a feminist as when it applies against men.
Telling men to treat women better will do little to ameliorate men who chose to hurt women. The article even mentions "anti-social" behavior as part of the impetus for men to behave in such a way. Telling anti-social men to behave in a certain way society demands is mindbogglingly ignorant because the definition anti-social behavior is that which expressly bucks social norms. Lord have mercy!
Further, it completely misrepresents men & masculinity. When I talked earlier of radical feminism bleeding into mainstream feminism, this article reflects that. Such strident & vociferous critiques of men can only spill from the ink pens of radical feminists - the complete devaluing of men while simultaneously painting men as monsters while claiming the patriarchy creates that men is disgusting. First, if you are reading it, it is for you. The people reading it are agreeing with the conceptualizations of men. You think they are carefully girding their conceptions of all men based on the actions of a few?
Second, note the tone of the article. It reeks of a supreme air of authority only a completely delusional beta would have. He goes all in on using male shaming tactics reinforcing "gendered" norms of male behavior - being successful, confident & attractive to women. Unwittingly, he makes a so-called patriarchal argument that men need to be successful, confident and live outside their parent's home. What he doesn't realize is these are markers of male marriageability based on "heteropatriachal norms," but leave it some fool like him to miss that point.
By writing this, he reinforces male subornation to female approval, as the reason he wrote it was to get female approval via comments, likes & retweets. He is fulfilling his role as a man whose masculinity is approved of by authority figures - in his life, women are the primary authority figures. Would not surprise me he was born to single mother or an abusive father.
His repeatedly point that adult men are boys (which basilransom pointed out seems like a Herbert situation from Family Guy) needs to be considered. He makes a valid point, in theory, but does absolutely nothing to consider the real reasons why.
His working theory is that all boys grow up hating women and it is that hatred that signifies immaturity. He does nothing to understand why any man would hate anything, much less women. When he mentions misandry, he clearly blames it on men. Further, that theory is balderdash, as not every boy hates girls - and it ignores that girls consider boys "having cooties." Of course, girls & women have their narcissism in order - excuse I mean their act together - so it must be boys who are the problem. Every President has been a man! Most CEO's are men! Haven't these immature misogynists realized men have the power in society?
It will be a cold day in Hell if any boy who has grown up in modern American to believe men have the power. Even when fathers are around, they are often betas who are subject to our narcissistic sexual hierarchy. Telling boys that men they will never be, meet or have their needs considered by is fucking ignorant. It is beta male internalization of female hypergamy that is presented here. For the record, female hypergamy, as influenced by narcissism, is on overdrive not because of hypergamy itself, but because of the existential terror of never having it fulfilled, so you get impossibly attractive men like Christian Grey to fantasize about or fatties desiring George Clooney.
Back on point, he really likes the idea of careful management of male behavior so as to produce a better beta. While it is beta males he is seeking, he is really seeking feminist men who will step off their "male privilege" into a world of equality with women, which requires rigorous standards, constant surveillance & incessant policing - all in the name of equality, of course.
You men really have no idea how good you have it
Really, how good do we have it?
The privileged can't see privilege! However, the self-proclaimed unprivileged, like us, can see it. Now, stop oppressing me - oops! I mean us.
![[Image: tumblr_mc1t1sU8RI1qjxam2o1_500.jpg]](https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc1t1sU8RI1qjxam2o1_500.jpg)
This whole situation reeks of narcissism & codependency. Narcissistic women, who can't live out their grandiose hypergamic visions, resort to draining codependent beta males, who have been masterfully trained in the modern art of slaking modern female's narcissistic thirst. The poorly socialized beta males take like a duck to water to this situation, as it is all they have ever known. A match made in the Hellish implications of feminism.
As much as I would like to provide solutions of the modern man, this really isn't the point of the post. Dr. Glover's books has many, many great ideas for any man getting comfortable with being a man. I will eventually build on this post with concrete ideas to help a man grow as a man with no guilt or shame. First, though, would be a post differentiating between guilt & shame.
I can recall the ending to one of my favorite childhood TV shows, "The Wonder Years." It was about a boy coming into adulthood in the needlessly tumultuous '60's. From my memory, it really did address issues of masculinity that weren't couched completely in female interests. In some ways, it was a dying breed of media - one that considered men as more than just accessories or companions to women. One of the reasons women consider the reverse to be true is a way of "equalizing" oppression.
Still, I recall the final narration. It was filled with the confidence & self-assurance of a man who believed in his society despite its misgiving & growing pains. His lily-white neighborhood, lit perfectly with well-maintained street lights, showed not only how privileged feminism is & was, but how fragile masculinity was and is.
The balance between men & women will always be fragile. It is a balance that is of supreme social concern. However, it is one that cannot be discussed freely in social media.
Perhaps men had it easier in the past with respects to their masculinity - which makes no sense to feminists as they believe masculinity is a performance - unless they naively admit being "in power" as a class somehow ensures confidence. Assuming men were in power, as a class, it does nothing to address real issues of individual men.
Sometimes, I stand back and wonder what this all means.
I will close with Kanye's lyrics in the song:
Sometimes, I wonder. . .
In 1963, radical liberal Betty Freidan released an earth-shattering book named the “The Feminine Mystique.” In it, she talks of the “problem that has no name,” referring the supposedly stultifying confines of middle-class+ white womanhood. In this terrifying maelstrom of oppression & misogyny, women were forced to be little more than a wife & mother. Women needed educations & paid jobs in order to smash this retrograde, oppressive construct. She also urged women to smash the foundations of femininity, rebelling against female norms & creating new ones for women to follow.
This book is credited for kicking off second-wave feminism, although she was just in the right place at the right time. However, the changes in societal structure began to alter, as women began to take jobs that men once had (doctors, managers, lawyers, etc.), divorced their husbands & began to often live lives without a boyfriend or husband. The giddy begins of second-wave feminist were far less hateful than memory would suggest, it wasn’t until women realized that financial independence & sexual independence were not quite the panacea that second-wave feminists promised. Then the knives came out.
Contrary to popular belief, early second-wave feminism was focused on legal systems of oppression as opposed to patriarchal modes of oppression based on gendered norms of male supremacy. If a feminist ever says she isn’t a radical feminist and thoroughly a fan of the theory that patriarchal ideas of male supremacy are what oppresses women, inform said person they are a radical feminist. Unlike black people, but second-wave feminists got their legal changes enacted in flip of a switch, provides evidence that we live a female-dominated society, not a male-dominated one.
These changes did little to solve women’s supposed “problem with no name.” Instead of engaging in real levels of introspection as to their wintry lives of discontent, they continued to blame society, but began to shift to radical politics, blaming men & patriarchy for their psychological issues. This dumping on men has been overwhelming documented by this forum, but let’s segue into the burgeoning men’s movement that developed alongside feminism.
Through the sixties & seventies it was mostly quiet. In the eighties, men’s groups began to develop alongside the increasing misandry witnessed by prominent feminists that got reflected in female media – songs, movies, magazines, etc. They were heavily ridiculed by both men & women. Women complained that men had nothing to complain about as men – they were so blindingly privileged by being a man they could not see how good they had it. In response to these sorts of ignorant behaviors, Warren Farrell eventually broke from feminism and wrote his ground-breaking seminal work, “The Myth Of Power.” It did not go over as bad as you might think it would, but many feminists can be savvy and saw the writing on the wall and began to stress intersectionality hard so other feminists would have to start checking their hateful critiques of black men, poor men & gay men.
An interesting book was penned around the same time as “The Myth of Male Power,” called “Iron John” by Robert Bly. I have not read the book (but I will do a review someday for RoK) but I have read many reviews & critiques of it. In it, Bly examines many cultures and their approaches to manhood & masculinity. He was roundly criticized for examined “backwards” cultures that were violent & patriarchal. He was also criticized for thinking of cultures that are “simple,” in which gender roles are clear. What Bly was stumbling towards, whether he realized it or not, was that he was questioning the fundamental nature of a boy transitioning to a man and how society encourages or aids in that in America
Before I get into what exactly is going on psychologically with masculinity today, consider this article from my NYT. It speaks, fairly derisively, of the self-styled "Male Identity Crisis." It isn't a fair article, but not bad at all considering it was originally published in 1994. It does a good job of presenting one the issues facing masculinity: its supreme mis-characterization in the media.
This picture encapsulates with what is wrong with modern masculinity: a man's masculinity doesn't flow from within but from without by authority figures in society. This picture & Bushmaster's campaign was wildly misunderstood, even in the manosphere. This poster isn't about violent masculinity, promoting guns or misandric interpretation of men, but about that fact an authority figure in the media claims to be able to give your masculinity back.
Further, it isn't just a claim, it is died-in-wool truth for most men - none of whom have taken the red-pill (I do hate that phrase truly). Modern masculinity is based not a performance as feminists would claim, but based on subjugation a man's identity to authority figures from birth.
Let's consider Dr. Robert Glover's book, "No More Mister Nice Guy." In it, he notes the proliferation of single-mother homes & female dominated schools have completely blunted the positive growth of men. While he doesn't explicitly say it, I think the best working definition masculinity would be a man who feels no shame or guilt for being a man. Further, men need to able to engage other men with no issues for being seen as gay. The phrase "no homo" is reflective of misandry, as it suggests it male friendship or appreciation is suggestive of homosexuality. It isn't.
Men also need to comfortable with themselves, alone. This is important and I will come back to as it relates to constructs of masculinity based out of female approval. However, let's a talk about Glover's thesis about boy's lives being female-dominated. Many boys grow up with no father or a weak one. Just about all go to female-dominated schools where cooperation, dishonesty & superficiality reign supreme. Male behavior are shamed or medicalized via drugs when teachers cannot come to grips with biological male behavior.
They also have to deal with a female-centric media leviathan. Many shows simply show male inferiors in juxtaposition with female achievers - all in the name of equality, of course. Many shows simply show soft men who spend their time being overly kind, deferential to women & supremely comfortable with expressing emotions, all the while to female approval, often adoring & appreciated.
The exegesis of this in a boy's life is how he realizes the cradle from which is raised has little resemblance to reality. Boys become uncomfortable with males razing each other - often done out of a sense of camaraderie. Since they are socialized as females, they often react badly as they perceive it as a veiled attack - just like a female would. They don't pick up the nuance of expressing emotions like females do - that "expressing emotions" isn't about expressing your true emotions, but those that please the group & advance or maintain your status in a hierarchy. Most importantly, is realization of how this socialization does not work with women.
This dynamic set up forces a boy, maturing to a man, to rely heavily on female approval for his sense of "masculinity" to in order have self-esteem. This system sets up a dynamic in which a man's masculinity is supremely contingent upon female approval. Approval gleaned from mothers & teachers bleeds into women at puberty. You see this curiously played out by many male homosexuals who kvetch hard for female approval even though they are gay. Dr. Glover notes this and doesn't say it, but I will: Lesbians don't kvetch for male approval but gay men do from women because we live in female-centric society.
As for heterosexual men, we see this soft man often trying to reconcile is upbringing with the reality of female sexuality. Unable to properly value themselves as men separate from female approval, they double down on a system born out of boyhood that is 100& inappropriate for manhood. Like any other psychological issue, such supplication served a boy well in his female-dominated childhood, but does nothing to help him as a man.
Supremely ironically, even feminists recognize this phenomenon. What isn't surprising is that they fall back on what they do to create this problem: problematize masculinity & its inherent socially constructed failure, they remedy it through shaming/guilt while reinforcing the need female approval to be a real man. The article has some very pointed things to say about men, using examples of individual men's behavior to paint a broad picture about men as a class. Essentialism never sounds so good to a feminist as when it applies against men.
Telling men to treat women better will do little to ameliorate men who chose to hurt women. The article even mentions "anti-social" behavior as part of the impetus for men to behave in such a way. Telling anti-social men to behave in a certain way society demands is mindbogglingly ignorant because the definition anti-social behavior is that which expressly bucks social norms. Lord have mercy!
Further, it completely misrepresents men & masculinity. When I talked earlier of radical feminism bleeding into mainstream feminism, this article reflects that. Such strident & vociferous critiques of men can only spill from the ink pens of radical feminists - the complete devaluing of men while simultaneously painting men as monsters while claiming the patriarchy creates that men is disgusting. First, if you are reading it, it is for you. The people reading it are agreeing with the conceptualizations of men. You think they are carefully girding their conceptions of all men based on the actions of a few?
Second, note the tone of the article. It reeks of a supreme air of authority only a completely delusional beta would have. He goes all in on using male shaming tactics reinforcing "gendered" norms of male behavior - being successful, confident & attractive to women. Unwittingly, he makes a so-called patriarchal argument that men need to be successful, confident and live outside their parent's home. What he doesn't realize is these are markers of male marriageability based on "heteropatriachal norms," but leave it some fool like him to miss that point.
By writing this, he reinforces male subornation to female approval, as the reason he wrote it was to get female approval via comments, likes & retweets. He is fulfilling his role as a man whose masculinity is approved of by authority figures - in his life, women are the primary authority figures. Would not surprise me he was born to single mother or an abusive father.
His repeatedly point that adult men are boys (which basilransom pointed out seems like a Herbert situation from Family Guy) needs to be considered. He makes a valid point, in theory, but does absolutely nothing to consider the real reasons why.
His working theory is that all boys grow up hating women and it is that hatred that signifies immaturity. He does nothing to understand why any man would hate anything, much less women. When he mentions misandry, he clearly blames it on men. Further, that theory is balderdash, as not every boy hates girls - and it ignores that girls consider boys "having cooties." Of course, girls & women have their narcissism in order - excuse I mean their act together - so it must be boys who are the problem. Every President has been a man! Most CEO's are men! Haven't these immature misogynists realized men have the power in society?
It will be a cold day in Hell if any boy who has grown up in modern American to believe men have the power. Even when fathers are around, they are often betas who are subject to our narcissistic sexual hierarchy. Telling boys that men they will never be, meet or have their needs considered by is fucking ignorant. It is beta male internalization of female hypergamy that is presented here. For the record, female hypergamy, as influenced by narcissism, is on overdrive not because of hypergamy itself, but because of the existential terror of never having it fulfilled, so you get impossibly attractive men like Christian Grey to fantasize about or fatties desiring George Clooney.
Back on point, he really likes the idea of careful management of male behavior so as to produce a better beta. While it is beta males he is seeking, he is really seeking feminist men who will step off their "male privilege" into a world of equality with women, which requires rigorous standards, constant surveillance & incessant policing - all in the name of equality, of course.
You men really have no idea how good you have it
Really, how good do we have it?
The privileged can't see privilege! However, the self-proclaimed unprivileged, like us, can see it. Now, stop oppressing me - oops! I mean us.
This whole situation reeks of narcissism & codependency. Narcissistic women, who can't live out their grandiose hypergamic visions, resort to draining codependent beta males, who have been masterfully trained in the modern art of slaking modern female's narcissistic thirst. The poorly socialized beta males take like a duck to water to this situation, as it is all they have ever known. A match made in the Hellish implications of feminism.
As much as I would like to provide solutions of the modern man, this really isn't the point of the post. Dr. Glover's books has many, many great ideas for any man getting comfortable with being a man. I will eventually build on this post with concrete ideas to help a man grow as a man with no guilt or shame. First, though, would be a post differentiating between guilt & shame.
I can recall the ending to one of my favorite childhood TV shows, "The Wonder Years." It was about a boy coming into adulthood in the needlessly tumultuous '60's. From my memory, it really did address issues of masculinity that weren't couched completely in female interests. In some ways, it was a dying breed of media - one that considered men as more than just accessories or companions to women. One of the reasons women consider the reverse to be true is a way of "equalizing" oppression.
Still, I recall the final narration. It was filled with the confidence & self-assurance of a man who believed in his society despite its misgiving & growing pains. His lily-white neighborhood, lit perfectly with well-maintained street lights, showed not only how privileged feminism is & was, but how fragile masculinity was and is.
The balance between men & women will always be fragile. It is a balance that is of supreme social concern. However, it is one that cannot be discussed freely in social media.
Perhaps men had it easier in the past with respects to their masculinity - which makes no sense to feminists as they believe masculinity is a performance - unless they naively admit being "in power" as a class somehow ensures confidence. Assuming men were in power, as a class, it does nothing to address real issues of individual men.
Sometimes, I stand back and wonder what this all means.
I will close with Kanye's lyrics in the song:
Quote:Quote:
I've been waiting on this my whole life
These dreams be waking me up at night
You say I think I'm never wrong
You know what, maybe you're right, aight
And I wonder if you know
What it means, what it means
And I wonder if you know
What it means to find your dreams
Sometimes, I wonder. . .
![[Image: tumblr_mc34sxqfYs1rvipjpo1_400.jpg]](https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc34sxqfYs1rvipjpo1_400.jpg)
