This is how I know feminists are simple minded and morally puerile. This article was written by the same pathetic little snevie that directed the "my strength is not for hurting" hate campaign that litters most Western universities.
His contention is very simple to sum up and equally simple to dismiss; that the damage caused by masculinity is due primarily to our constructing hierarchies, and that referring to masculine identity as "healthy" or "good" is an expression of that same flawed character, because it implies a hierarchy. He then outlines how "real men" are men who are devoted to proving their manhood.
The reasons why this loathsome piece is so easy to dismiss are manifold.
Firstly, women shape male identity enormously through sexual selection. In other words, blaming men for any flaws in male identity (real or imagined) while holding women as pure, innocent flowers who have no skin in the game is ridiculous. Indeed, this mangina's article is proof of how strongly women shape male identity. His entire career has been devoted to validating his own masculine identity in the eyes of his masters. In other words, he is engaged in "proving" behavior, even as he calls other men out for what he sees as "proving" behavior.
Secondly, it is women and feminists who continuously trot out the "man up" articles and comments which arbitrarily promote a male identity that is of benefit or utility to women. "Manning up," for example, is promoted when some personality-disordered single woman wants to get married. That is a hierarchy which only the manosphere appears to take exception to. Thus, claiming hierarchies are innately male is utterly infantile and self-evidently inaccurate.
Finally, and most importantly, this article fails by its own metric. The writer claims that building hierarchies is why masculinity is problematic, and that masculinity is thus inherently flawed. In other words, he's essentially making the point that female identity is innately superior to male identity, which means he is building a hierarchy.
His own self loathing and disdain for his own sex even leads him to refer to men as "penised persons," as though the sum total of a man's humanity can be ascribed to his genitalia.
Now, I could break down this piece for hours, but I want to focus in on one sequence in particular. Quoting the author,
The emboldened is what he considers worthy behavior (ironically, "worthy" behavior implies a hierarchy, but whatever). What I find so interesting about this is that this is exactly what MRAs are doing. They are acting out their moral agency without any interest in proving their manhood. Their entire endevour assures them of no cultural validation for their own manhood. Yet the author would assuredly be diametrically opposed to the MRM.
What he wants is "bystander-intervention training" so that "good" men will stop "bad" men in defense of women (another hierarchy, prioritizing women's defense over men's safety), while calling out those same "good" men as cancerous. Wow, what a great deal for men, I can't wait to sign right up.
This is why feminism is so heinously hateful and dysfunctional. These are the social engineers promoting these university programs of gender apartheid. Notice the feminist drones in the comments section applauding his piece, one even claiming:
So much for equality. And they wonder why the manosphere is growing.
His contention is very simple to sum up and equally simple to dismiss; that the damage caused by masculinity is due primarily to our constructing hierarchies, and that referring to masculine identity as "healthy" or "good" is an expression of that same flawed character, because it implies a hierarchy. He then outlines how "real men" are men who are devoted to proving their manhood.
The reasons why this loathsome piece is so easy to dismiss are manifold.
Firstly, women shape male identity enormously through sexual selection. In other words, blaming men for any flaws in male identity (real or imagined) while holding women as pure, innocent flowers who have no skin in the game is ridiculous. Indeed, this mangina's article is proof of how strongly women shape male identity. His entire career has been devoted to validating his own masculine identity in the eyes of his masters. In other words, he is engaged in "proving" behavior, even as he calls other men out for what he sees as "proving" behavior.
Secondly, it is women and feminists who continuously trot out the "man up" articles and comments which arbitrarily promote a male identity that is of benefit or utility to women. "Manning up," for example, is promoted when some personality-disordered single woman wants to get married. That is a hierarchy which only the manosphere appears to take exception to. Thus, claiming hierarchies are innately male is utterly infantile and self-evidently inaccurate.
Finally, and most importantly, this article fails by its own metric. The writer claims that building hierarchies is why masculinity is problematic, and that masculinity is thus inherently flawed. In other words, he's essentially making the point that female identity is innately superior to male identity, which means he is building a hierarchy.
His own self loathing and disdain for his own sex even leads him to refer to men as "penised persons," as though the sum total of a man's humanity can be ascribed to his genitalia.
Now, I could break down this piece for hours, but I want to focus in on one sequence in particular. Quoting the author,
Quote:Quote:
There are many worthy aspects of bystander-intervention training but the one I want to focus on is this: It is practice acting out of one’s moral agency without trying to prove one’s manhood. This is a discipline that is learnable, replicable, and rememberable.
The emboldened is what he considers worthy behavior (ironically, "worthy" behavior implies a hierarchy, but whatever). What I find so interesting about this is that this is exactly what MRAs are doing. They are acting out their moral agency without any interest in proving their manhood. Their entire endevour assures them of no cultural validation for their own manhood. Yet the author would assuredly be diametrically opposed to the MRM.
What he wants is "bystander-intervention training" so that "good" men will stop "bad" men in defense of women (another hierarchy, prioritizing women's defense over men's safety), while calling out those same "good" men as cancerous. Wow, what a great deal for men, I can't wait to sign right up.
This is why feminism is so heinously hateful and dysfunctional. These are the social engineers promoting these university programs of gender apartheid. Notice the feminist drones in the comments section applauding his piece, one even claiming:
Quote:Quote:
I’m sorry for leaving a nitpicking message on a great entry like this, but I believe the correct term is bepenised. I totally agree with you on the trap of “healthy masculinity.” They are “gender reformists,” and you don’t reform something that’s fundamentally wrong. That’s just dumb thinking.
So much for equality. And they wonder why the manosphere is growing.
