Positive Masculinity vs. Equalism

If you type the word “equalism” in a blog’s text box you get that annoying little red line underneath it indicating that you misspelled something. In other words, the English language doesn’t officially recognize that word in any dictionary. I suppose this is apt since for the last 50+ years the effort to feminize society has always used the abstract concept of gender equalism as something ambient in the background of the agenda. It doesn’t have an official definition because, collectively, were supposed to take it as a given; something that should just be considered “common sense”. To be sure, feminization’s plea for a more humane restructuring of society has always been couched in terms like “equality”, which sounds comforting when spoken, even if the intent is distracting.

However, that’s not the “equalism” my computer wont recognize. I read this term in Roissy’s writings. I sometimes see it creeping in from the edges on blogs decrying some nebulous, neo-liberal social agenda, or I see it written as some corrupting element keeping conservatism from realizing it’s ‘true’ potential, but what I don’t see is a very good accounting of it. Equalism needs to be brought out of the shadows – if at least so I don’t have to see that damn red line anymore.

New Gender Definitions

I’ll admit, I was motivated to type all this because of a link that a reader, Sam, posted in yesterday’s White Knight post:

http://mariashriver.com/blog/2011/09/governor-s-spouse-s-story-6-lessons-love-and-learning-dual-career-guy

Granted, this brief article is little more than an apologetic directed toward the author himself, but this pretty much sums up the entirety of the problem – masculinity has been redefined by people (men and women) who have no concept of what its original definition is. The behaviors and characteristics that constitute what is uniquely masculine aren’t being challenged, they’ve been redefined to fit the purposes of an agenda.

In 1905 no one wrote articles on how to “be a man” or bothered to analyze the fundamentals of masculinity. Men knew from their socialization what was masculine and women responded to it.
Traditionally, women define what is masculine and men define what is feminine. The characteristics that made a man desirable were ones that presented the opposite to what men similarly found desirable in femininity. Men and their biology defines what in the feminine that arouses them, women react to this and behave accordingly (knowingly or not).

The root of the male-equalist endemic lies in the fact that as recently as 50 years ago there has been a concerted effort to “de-masculinize” society, not only in mass media, but down to how we educate and condition our youth to assume masculine and feminine roles. What is being challenged is the predisposition of males in predominantly western culture to even consider what masculinity is.

A rugged, stoic, heroic definition of masculinity is losing ground, but is that a good thing? The equalist certainly believes so. When men become feminized, are we leveling any playing fields or are we progessing towards androgeny and homogenization of gender? The equalist hails this as a triumph of a new gender paradigm. Why should masculine traits be of lower value than feminine traits? 

The very characteristics that define traditional masculinity – independence, self-confidence, rugged individualism, physical strength, risk taking, problem solving and innovation – we are now to believe are (or should be) the aspirations of women to the point that ridicule of the singularly feminine female is the order. In expecting women to be just as masculine as men, while simultaneously expecting them to still embody a feminine ideal, not only does this puts undue, unrealistic, ideals upon them, but also devalues the merits of their own femininity.

That’s not to say, given this new gender dynamic, that women are discouraged from claiming their femininity in addition to their masculinity. On the contrary they’re encouraged to “handle their business as well as any man” and “still be a sexy, vivacious woman” every man should want. Yet in opposition to this post-modern gender dynamic, men are not encouraged to embrace their masculine side We are told to “man up” for sure, and yet our mascuilinity (as we define it) is a flaw; we’re poisoned by our testosterone. Our higher aspiration ought to be becoming more feminized, sensitive, emotional, empathetic, nurturing, etc,.. We should “feel comfortable waxing our legs” stripping away the hair that is the result of our poisoning testosterone. Interestingly enough there are few cries in society to have women cultivate their leg or armpit hair.
Yet the ‘masculine’ that the Matrix would have us strive for doesn’t encourage anything resembling traditionally masculine traits in a male’s personality. In fact it’s ridiculed to such a degree in mass media and larger society that it’s literally akin to a disease.

While women are congratulated for embodying masculine traits with an acceptance of her feminine character, men are conditioned to believe that feminine traits are masculine traits and any traditionally masculine characteristics that manifest themselves in us are the unfortunate byproducts of our ‘flawed’ biology. And the true crime of this gender redefining is the real “double standard” that men should be so feminized as to loathe their innate masculinity, yet still be held liable for uniquely male, traditionally masculine responsibilities and accountabilities by virtue of them being male. It’s a gender Catch 22; hate your masculinity, but be held responsible for not “being man enough” to solve uniquely male problems, then to be shamed when a masculinized woman steps in to do so and he’s then ridiculed for not being as masculine as she is. That’s the cycle. This is self-perpetuating negative masculinity that has led to generations of AFCs.

Needless to say, all of this convolutes what masculinity was, is and is intended to be. Before you can set out a plan to live out what I call Positive Masculinity you first have to take into consideration why masculinity has value and should be encouraged as well as cultivated in yourself, your sons and society as a whole. I’m an adherent of the ‘build it and they will come’ school of thought in this regard, but understanding how traditional masculinity has been redefined by social contrivance and distilling it back down to it’s core fundamentals is imperative in getting back to masculinity as a positive.

So where do you start?

With yourself. You must change your mind about yourself as a “m”an and begin thinking of yourself as a “M”an. The first step is to unlearn what feminized conditioning has taught you to the point of it becoming an ego-investment in your personality. You need to become impervious to convenient accusations of “misogyny” or 1950’s caveman thinking whenever you assert yourself. The truly positive masculine Man sets himself apart from the Matrix in spite of a world set against him – this unconscious meta-acknowledgment is what makes a woman (and other men) attracted to you as a vibrant, responsible, but firmly confident masculine Man. You have to genuinely live it in order to set an example of it. That doesn’t mean you’re an uncaring, tunnel vision robot, unwilling to learn from anyone or anything, it means that in spite of a world calling you “egotistical”, “caveman”, “fragile ego”, “macho”, “infantile”, “Jerk”, etc., you unwaveringly, provably, live out and exemplify the positive merits of being masculine.


15 responses to “Positive Masculinity vs. Equalism

  • Good Luck Chuck

    Femininity inspires masculinity, and vice versa.

    I logged on facebook the other day and noticed that several posts by my female “friends” were about professional sports. Not that this is uncommon but until then I hadn’t paid much attention. I decided to go back 24 hours to see just how many posts were made by people on my friends list that had something to do with football, baseball or some other masculine sport.

    The tally-

    – A total of 8 women posted a combined total of 23 comments that were sports related, and this was not counting posts where women were tagged at sporting events by other people or anything that had to do with their kids

    – One chick had THIRTEEN of these posts

    – There were only 4 sports posts by a total of 3 men

    What’s wrong with this picture? What happened to women? I wasn’t alive 60 years ago but I can’t imagine women getting so excited over something so masculine in nature.

    What would happen if I were to proclaim to the world my excitement about a cake decorating class I signed up for? Not only would my sexuality be questioned, but women who might have had some kind of sexual attraction toward me would be physically repulsed when they found out that I was taking up a less than masculine hobby.

    American men have had to deal with this for so long that at this point they don’t even realize how much of a raw deal it is to be stuck with women who lack femininity to the point where many of them border on being masculine. True femininity is INTOXICATING. The first time I stepped foot in eastern Europe it took me about a day to realize that I was getting a raw deal with the women in the states.

  • Y

    Great stuff.

    This is why I don’t get all the bitching about why society is the way it is (in the US).

    What are these guys doing about it except complaining and wishing it was the 1950s?

    Stop watching Mad Men, get off your ass and change the world.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    The only thing you can “do about it” at this point is to either live with the culture or find another one. Do you really believe that “changing the world” is option C?

    You can embrace positive masculinity all you want but at the end of the day it is all getting channeled into attracting quasi-femininity. Not worth it, IMO.

  • Intergender Friendship «

    [...] mature friends is to invite reproach from a society that’s been steeped in notions of egalitarian equalism. If men and women are fundamentally “the same” there should be no impediment to [...]

  • The Curse of Jung «

    [...] androgynous balance. Introduce convenient, feminine controlled hormonal contraception and viola, gender equalism was [...]

  • Free Lunch «

    [...] or should be attracted to a guy unbiased by what he does – but these are all part of a whole. Egalitarian Equalismis self-defeating; it leaves a vaccuum of power or responsibilities to be filled by either sex in [...]

  • What Lies Beneath «

    [...] mindset is that traditional gender is a socialized set of behaviors leading to a gender identity. Equalism is based on discarding any preconceptions about innate gender identity, which is one of the primary reasons it’s proponents screech so vehemently against the ideas [...]

  • You Be the Boy «

    [...] time over at Hooking Up Beta, but his story, and others like it are all too common in a fem-centric socialization that encourages equalism in favor of complimentarianism. It’s the triumph of blank slate ideology that men should be [...]

  • The 5 Stages of Unplugging «

    [...] – Game Awareness: “Maybe this IS the way things really work. I guess I should give up the gender relations mythology I’ve been holding onto…hey, what do you think of these negs I came up [...]

  • Hopeless Romantic

    The problem in the West is that you have replaced the positive feminine and masculine mythic archetypes (goddesses and their corresponding gods) with simply one, often negative, father-god mythic figure.

  • Master & Servant |

    [...] feminization conditioning to repress the male definition of masculinity in a man. As I’ve noted before, feminization seeks to redefine masculinity to better fit with an egalitarian equalist doctrine, [...]

  • Rashan

    I’m an equalist and have always been.
    I agree with feminism because it is one of the ‘subjects’ (for want of a better term) that falls under the umbrella of equalism.

    I got totally shot down today for being an equalist by a hardline feminist – I was trying to say I agree with them, but they just wouldn’t listen and practically accused me of being sexist.

    I just don’t get it, if equality is the aim of feminism, then a true feminist should have no problem with the term.
    I’m honestly getting really angry about this – it seems to happen all too often when I mention I am an equalist.

    To get angry at someone for wanting equality for all (humans, at least), then saying it is OK to be a feminist tells me that this person is only interested in things being ‘fair’ for women, but they want things to be unfair for everyone (or thing) else, which is, AHEM blatantly sexist and, dare I say, UNEQUAL.
    It was almost as if this person wanted me to shut up and take it – LIKE A MAN – pretty sexist, huh?

    It’s also plain hypocritical.

    Remember, I have nothing against the feminist agenda, I just choose to call myself an equalist.

    The point I was trying to make to this very close minded feminist is that there are inequalities to men, just as there are inequalities to women, it’s just that there are different inequalities to men as there are women. A great example of this is that men are still expected to FIGHT AND DIE more than women in general (just is it is unfair to say that women shouldn’t go to war because they are supposedly too weak to fight). But again I got an angry response and pretty much expected to shut up and MAN UP… which is why a lot of men who have been raped are often too embarrassed to reveal this (I suspect more so, at least statistically) – so the percentage of men versus women who are raped is grossly understated, I think; of course, there is no way of proving this, since, well, those men will never add their stats to the list (for the record, I am one of those men – well, nearly at the age of 15 – and I’m not afraid to say it, more men should speak up about it, there’s no shame in admitting it). I mention this because this was one of the angry issues thrown my way.

    All I’m saying is, fairness needs to be for everybody. A feminist who gets angry at someone because they say they are an equalist either has it in for everything not woman or just doesn’t understand what the hell they are talking about.
    And I totally disagree that equalism is a convenient blanket that leaves a ‘power vacuum’ – say in the example of a relationship between two lovers, a man and a women, all this means is that the couple can now choose which role each of them wants to take, whether it be the traditional model or a reverse of that, or perhaps something different depending on what they fancy for themselves as a couple. If the result isn’t complimentary, then perhaps they are not suited to each other.

  • The Lesson of Hugo |

    […] every guy who’s convinced himself of ‘correctness’  of gender equalism, much less feminine-primacy, understand that Hugo’s example is the logical extreme of […]

  • caprizchka

    Mothers, female teachers, and female employers socialize men to be obedient and obedience in a man disqualifies them from sex with those women. However, obedience to the state requires that all individualistic rough edges be smoothed out. It is no different in livestock management.

  • Nathan

    @caprizchka,

    Yes, exactly. It should be obvious. The goal, to form a neofeudal society, is happening before our eyes. “come get your paycheck, slaves” it’s fiat money anyway. Do people not comprehend this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,335 other followers

%d bloggers like this: