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 to the supposedly stultifying confines of middle-class and white womanhood. In this terrifying maelstrom of oppression and misogyny, women were forced to be little more than a wife and mother. Freidan thought women needed independent income streams in order to smash this retrograde, oppressive construct. She also urged women to smash the foundations of femininity – encouraging rebellion against female norms and creating new norms for women to follow.
This book is credited for kicking off second-wave feminism. Women began to take jobs that men once had (doctors, managers, lawyers, etc.), divorced their husbands, and began to live lives without a boyfriend or husband. The giddy beginnings of second-wave feminism were far less hateful than some would suggest; it was not until women realized that financial independence and sexual independence were not quite the panacea that second-wave feminists promised that 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 she is 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, second-wave feminists got their legal changes enacted in flip of a switch, providing real evidence that we live a female-dominated society, not a male-dominated one.
These changes did little to solve women’s “problem with no name.” Instead of engaging in real levels of introspection as to their discontentment, they continued to blame society, but began to shift to radical politics that blamed men and patriarchy for their psychological issues. This dumping on men has been overwhelming documented by the manosphere, but let’s segue into the burgeoning men’s movement that developed alongside feminism.
Throughout the sixties and 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 the media – songs, movies, magazines, etc. The groups were heavily ridiculed by both men and 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 opinions, 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 and gay men.
An interesting book was penned around the same time as “The Myth of Male Power,” called “Iron John” by Robert Bly. In it, Bly examines many cultures and their approaches to manhood and masculinity. He was roundly criticized for examining “backwards” cultures that were violent and patriarchal. He was also criticized for thinking that cultures that are “simple,” in which gender roles are clear, are superior to those that are not. What Bly was stumbling towards, whether he realized it or not, was questioning the fundamental nature of a boy transitioning to a man and how society influences that.
Consider this article from the 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.
A man’s masculinity doesn’t flow from within but from without by authority figures in society. This picture represents that. Bushmaster’s campaign was wildly misunderstood – even in the manosphere. This poster isn’t about violent masculinity, promoting guns or misandric interpretations of men, but about that fact an authority figure in the media claims to be able to restore a man’s sense of masculinity.
Further, it isn’t just a claim, it is died-in-wool truth for most men – none of whom have taken the red-pill. Modern masculinity is based not a performance as feminists would claim, but based on men taught that their self-concept of masculinity should be based on approval from authority figures – at the home, in the media and women.
Consider Dr. Robert Glover’s book, “No More Mister Nice Guy.” In it, he notes the proliferation of single-mother homes and female dominated schools has 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. Without having fathers around to develop positive relationships with, boys are often adrift in their life with no masculine figure to secure their positive growth to. Then these boys go to schools dominated by women and centered around girl’s strengths. Boys are labeled troublemakers, listless and problems if they refuse to kowtow to the prevailing zeitgeist.
They also have to deal with the female-centric media leviathan. Many TV 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 and supremely comfortable with expressing emotions—all the while to adoring female approval. The point of this media isn’t to help boys develop into healthy men, but to shore up girls self-esteem and encourage them to willing and capable cogs in society. Further, it fuels female delusion about how they really treat men; the media exists to help women paper over their mistreatment of men.
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. The authority figures in his early life are mothers and female relatives. Boys go to school where the authority figures are women. This bleeds into the transition to adolescence as the new authority figures become the girls that boys become sexually interested in. We see this very immature behavior towards girls many boys take—needlessly worshipful, suborning their lives to them and general behavior that is classified as beta. Authority figures in media reinforce this dynamic. Boys and men are told that being nice, respectful and open with women will lead to love and happiness for men. Feminist-aimed media takes the issue farther, blaming men for being men, stridently criticizing them ways calculated to make men feel guilt for existing as a male.
We see these soft men often trying to do is reconcile their 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 not appropriate 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.
Ernest W. Adams
Even feminists recognize this phenomenon. What isn’t surprising is that they fall back on what they did to create this problem: problematize masculinity and its inherent socially constructed failure, then remedy it through shaming and guilt while reinforcing the need for female (feminist) 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.
His working theory is that all boys grow up hating women and that hatred signifies immaturity. Right out the gate, this hypothesis is false. However, as is usual with anything liberal or feminist, it has its roots in complete falsehood. He needs to prove that all men hate women at some point in their life and the reason some men seemingly hate women is they have not learned the appropriate social comportment. This is incorrect, as children are born as narcissists and their growth into adulthood is marked by their shedding of this self-absorption. Still, Adam’s approach reeks of the typical interventionist type of feminist who feels the strong need to insert themselves into discussions about which they have no idea.
He presents the example of a man freaking out over a woman beating him in a game. First, he is assuming said man is doing so because she is a woman. Second, he neglects to mention many women – feminists – take great pride in besting men because they are men (female supremacism). As usual, it is just projection. Third, he ignores women who don’t sexualize men they feel superior to—a man’s anxiety over a woman besting him is understandable. Doubt he would know that though because this man clearly never has had consensual sex.
Telling men to treat women better will do little to change men who choose 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.
Further, it completely misrepresents men and masculinity. When I talked earlier of radical feminism bleeding into mainstream feminism, this article reflects that. Such strident and vociferous critiques of men can only spill from the ink pens of radical feminists – the complete devaluing of men while simultaneously pretending to offer the salve to save men from their misogynistic masculinity. Once again, the supreme ignorance of feminists bleeds through as Adams cannot even conceptualize of a male that does not care about social rules or anybody else. If he even admits that, he would chalk it up to misogyny, patriarchy or homophobia – whatever left-wing boogeyman he most recently got hard-on over. Most importantly, he cannot conceive of a man who can think for and value himself independent of female approval.
Consider the tone of the article. It reeks of a supreme air of arrogance only a completely delusional beta would have. He uses strong male shaming tactics in order to command men to stop engaging in hateful “gendered” behavior. Unwittingly, he makes a so-called patriarchal argument that men need to be successful, confident and live outside their parent’s home in order to be considered real men. What he doesn’t realize is these are markers of male marriageability based on “heteropatriachal” norms. He also calls for men to be better role models for boys. What a great idea – how about stop kicking men out of their homes via divorce courts, stop fueling the single-mother epidemic and start educating the public on the supreme importance of fatherhood. He would never criticize said institutions or women, as he knows his place in the hierarchy – his ideas, approaches and existence are completely suborned to women at large.
By writing this, he reinforces male subornation to female approval, as the reason he wrote it was to get female approval via comments, likes and 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. He thinks he is ripping up gender roles and radically transforming society through his feminism. He isn’t.
All he desires is to toss out “patriarchal” and “misogynistic” markers for masculinity and replace them with ones that feminists would approve of. He isn’t changing the fundamental psychology here, he is just demanding a new set of even more female-friendly norms for male behavior. His new standards reinforce the idea that men need to have their self-concept of masculinity based out of female approval. His dogged insistence that men have it so much better than women is his way of justifying and papering over his own lack of true masculinity.
Since his sense of masculinity is wholly contingent upon female approval, he exists in a terrifying world than any single misstep of his could result in the crumbling of his identity by women withdrawing approval. He pushes hatred of men so hard because he knows it is the only way he has to not collapse into deep depression. Subconsciously, he knows how fickle female approval and any single act by him could result said approval being withdrawn with extreme prejudice.
It will be a cold day in Hell if any boy who has grown up in modern American believe men, collectively, 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 completely delusional. Men like him rapidly oppose the MRM precisely because he is terrified of men existing without female approval. He knows that learning to be self-sufficient, confident and masculine is something he could never do. So, he shames men for desiring to bond with other men, make them feel guilt for establishing male-only spaces—even if they are just to play video games. Men like him want men subject to eternal watchful of eye of the superior woman so he can grow into a better man. Of course, she is superior only because women are oppressed in society and the oppressed always have greater insight than the oppressors.
He really likes the idea of careful management of male behavior so as to produce a better beta. He is seeking men who will step off their “male privilege” into a world of equality with women, which requires rigorous standards, constant surveillance and incessant policing—all in the name of equality, of course.
This whole situation reeks of narcissism and 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. Accusations of misogyny, sexism or not being a real man all reinforce that. Ultimately, what the accusers are seeking is male worship. Unable to properly value themselves without narcissism, they desperately need beta male adoration. They can always find it, but slaking narcissistic thirst outright is never enough. It constantly needs new victims to drain, which is why feminists demand more men become feminists—so they can prey on them as an object to be used and discard, not as a person.
Re-imaging masculinity in our post-feminist world is little more than further twisting men’s arms in order to become better objects in the greater game of female self-delusion.
Read More: The Forced Transexuality Of David Reimer