Is There Anything Good About Men?

As I am flying off to Las Vegas for the WSWA show today, my blog posting may be getting a bit more sparse next week. To hold readers over for a bit I wanted to drop a quick post on an article I read back in 2007 that wasn’t very well received by the fem-centric establishment, but is nonetheless one of the seminal articles I think should be required reading for (especially young) Men.

I thought this was brilliant. I think this message is severely lacking in how we raise boys into Men. There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect. Jews have a Bar Mitzvah, certain native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it – we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when it’s due.

There’s been a lot made of feminist triumphalism recently and how the new gender paradigm is challenging hypergamy, at least in the sense that it applies to women’s imperatives being the cultural imperatives – not the inescapable, bio-evolutionary kind of hypergamy. If momma aint haaaappy, well the whole damn world shouldn’t be haaaappy. This may be rather depressing news for average men, but after reading  Roy F. Baumeister’s fantastic piece you might actually begin to understand the lies fem-centrism is selling you with a little more optimism.

I look forward to the comment discussion.

Is there anything good about men?

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

51 comments on “Is There Anything Good About Men?

    1. Yohami,

      You’re right, but I get the sense that he is trying to include women in this understanding as well. If he doesn’t write in that tone, women will immediately put up that wall at the first negative thing they read that may or may not apply to them and it’s over. If he wants to get women involved in the discussion, this tone is, unfortunately, necessary.

  1. This brings me to a question: Are men friendly women necessary in turning all of this around?

    1. It’d be a sign of complete arrogance to think that all of this can be turned around, with or without ‘men-friendly women’.

          1. Indeed – but it’s simply another way of saying that only personal options are on the table. But turning this around (whatever that means) requires collective action.

          2. Höllen,

            Yes, personal options. But depending on where you’re at and what you’re doing it can be far reaching. From doing girlswriteswhat to doing tv shows movies books plays oprah sort of shows, to proper political movements, etc.

            The people financing the current schema are just people with personal options too. In a way, to steer the wheel on N direction, all it takes is a bunch of money.

          3. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment and rape shield laws aren’t the results of personal decisions.

          4. “collective” action is an illusion…always has been.

            the people have barely the power to govern their own lives

            the people are driven to do what the elite manipulate them to do.

            Men will stopped being attacked when and IF the BANKERS believe it is profitable…till then…the current status will persist

    2. Stingray,

      I’d say more important than friendly would simply be empathetic. Most women seem to have a difficult time putting themselves in a man’s position and seeing beyond men as agents to help them accomplish their life objectives, even those who appear to be supporters of men.

      1. Mike,

        That’s actually what I meant when I said “friendly”. I should have been more clear. Women who understand and who are interested in team man and are willing to buck team woman.

      1. Stingray is one of most prized commentators. The challenge is to come up with the right format. Her comments are scattered throughout different blogs. They’re wonderful, but they could reach a broader audience if presented in one place. It is difficult to imagine how topics would break down for women (as Rollo does here for men). There are many angles to cover (long term relationship, hamster management, etc.), so that’s up to her.

        I also like AW’s comment about how Stingray can deliver her material in Womanese. She doesn’t have to; I like her brevity. But it is a consideration.

        1. Michel,

          I am truly appreciative. I’ve very briefly considered it before (is there anyone who hasn’t 😉 ) but dismissed it quickly. I’m hesitant, but will give it some thought.

          1. My suggestion is something I’ve had in mind for a while. However, it is too much and even selfish of me to expect a blog from you. A blog requires you to devote a portion of your real life. That’s not a fair request. If you’re realistic, you lean towards no. And that’s fine.

            If anything, I want you to consider it as a thank-you note from other commentators and readers alike. It’s good to have you around in these areas.

          2. That is exactly one big reason for my hesitation.

            Consider this a Your’re Welcome and I hope I don’t disappoint in the future.

            Thank you, again.

      1. Yes. In a way I imagine a savvy female blogger could create the methodical antithesis to The Rational Male yet retaining the same message: being a female, perhaps it would be possible to address these issues in a more female-conducive format instead of the cold stark clinical analysis featured by TRM and other Manosphere blogs. (Different method, same objective). Though it suits us logical, clinical males just fine, it’s obvious (i.e. from recent HUS activity, etc) that this format is completely ineffective at penetrating the female operating system of comprehension.

        But perhaps if an aware and enlightened female were expounding on these issues then the female demographic might be more receptive? At least such a blog would be somewhat impervious to the knee-jerk “misogynist” accusations by female readers…

        I think the closest I’ve seen to this would be a site like:

        1. It’s a good idea. Though I’m not sure I would be the one for this. I would only have the patience for occasional female posts. I’m not trying to be rude to the women reading here, it’s just that I have more interest in the male side of things. Also, while I can do it, it is not as easy for me to write to woman as it is to write to men. This is my natural writing style and I have to change it quite a bit when I write to women. It’s one of the reasons I don’t really post at HUS any more.

          Anyway, thank all of you. I’m surprised, really and tremendously appreciative.

  2. I’ve made a lot of knee jerk comments on the internet when it comes to gender dynamics. This article helped me understand what it was I was trying to express (sometimes indignantly) before. Thank you for the link.

  3. „There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect…we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when it’s due.”

    Was manhood ever genuinely respected, really? It seems to me the rites of manhood you mention were nothing but acts of indoctrination to create pack mules and disposable cannon fodder. Society’s elite defined what they expected of manhood and when they expected it to be due, but that doesn’t strike me as an act of respect, really. Boys were taught that they won’t be ’real men’ until they subordinate their interests to the ’common good’. They couldn’t hope to gain any social standing until they did that. And that subordination basically equaled self-sacrifice – death on battlefields and in workplace accidents, getting beaten and killed because some woman wanted to play ’let’s you and him fight’, men working themselves to death to uphold the feminine imperative. Can you name me one culture where the masculine imperative is accepted as legitimate?

    ’Respect for manhood’, BS. Manhood wasn’t respected, it was merely tolerated. Young men were manipulated into considering themselves important because for a long time society couldn’t replace them as provider betas, pack mules and cannon fodder. Once they’re no longer necessary to fulfill these roles, they’re jettisoned without a heartbeat.

  4. I think that men and leadership go hand-in-hand and that remains true today.

    Regardless of “Feminism Triumphalism” and the talk about hypergamy coming to an end, men still are the ones looked upon in society as providers of strength, stability and an unwavering sense of accomplishment.

    Our society may rely less upon physical strength in work and career today, but men remain the ones who take risks, “push the envelope” and move things forward. The only women I have ever worked with who have possessed a “take charge” attitude remotely close to that of a man’s are ones who have had to take on masculine, aggressive and dominant personalities. You would swear they have “cocks” and the sad thing is that their female coworkers hate them. They would tell you that they get along better with men too.

    In my “Corporate America” career and world, I work with lots of self-proclaimed feminists and no matter what job title they have, none possess the moxy to “take the ball” and run with it or even step forward and tell the team “let’s get it going!” They fantasize about it ala “Hunger Games,” but that is as close as they come.

    Men of action! That is why we are good for society.

    1. Yes but the elites don’t want leaders

      they want slaves

      women were known to be slaves to their emotions so all that was required was to subjugate men to the will of women…then the state would merely have to control women…

      and so we arrive at the current day

  5. I very much recommend the book, which fleshes out his argument. Baumeister’s study on willpower is inspirational reading as well.

  6. Interesting. Btw, if anyone hasn’t read it, I’d suggest checking out a copy of “The manipulated man” – there are pdf downloads available free if you google. interesting reading and written by a women. A bit dated but strong stuff.

  7. Great article, and makes me realize I’ve been a bit glib in claiming that society is women and beta males.

    I’m trying to point to that women are femme centric, and are quite cohesive in their rules about what is acceptable discourse and an acceptable frame of reference. Men that are accepted into that frame and that discourse “must” abide by those rules. Those that do abide by them are by default beta men – they accept the fem-centric view and foster it.

    As Hanson at points out, the men who don’t buy into the female frame have little incentive to educate the betas, or to even be sympathetic towards them.

    Leaving the female view as the default cultural state.

    However males do organize socially, and alpha males especially are responsible for a great deal of leadership and organization. Men create the bulk of all that we think of as culture.

    So I’ll need to come up with different wording that gives the image that women control the gossip, and own the frame for what is acceptable discourse. Acceptable to women and the men who want to be viewed in a positive light by women.

    On TV or in the movies, it is always an old woman in the background when something naughty is being done that needs to be highlighted as improper. Never an old man. Women own the frame for what is naughty or nice.

    How about this then: polite acceptable society is defined by what is polite and acceptable to women.

  8. “However males do organize socially, and alpha males especially are responsible for a great deal of leadership and organization. Men create the bulk of all that we think of as culture.”

    Never forget this.

    tatoo it on your arm

    1. I will never forget awhile back on a message board a woman tried to explain to everyone how testosterone is “evil” and is responsible for everything that is bad in the world. It’s like “Bitch, the only reason you are even able to write that retarded ass comment on the INTERNET on a COMPUTER sitting there sipping your grande soy latte is because of testosterone.”

      Yea, some women really are that stupid.

  9. This is from the description of the book Rollo linked to:

    and how both men and women will feel surprisingly liberated in the end.

    What does this even mean? It kills me how these people think that what they don’t like about each sex will just magically disappear because their supposed utopia is coming to being. As Rollo said “If momma aint haaaappy, well the whole damn world shouldn’t be haaaappy.”

    Well, momma ain’t happy finding out that what she thought was the oh so awesome man’s club in corporate America is a shit hole of 50-60 hours a week of thankless, tedious work. So now that she got what she thought she wanted she’s pissed that it’s not what she acutually wanted and is now pushing for more change. I truly wonder when these women’s heads will explode if they ever discover that what they wanted (needed) was what we used to have (men as the breadwinner). It’s unfortunate that they are giving so many invalid rationalizations to run with to appease the hamster.

  10. Alot of this argument can be observed through successful marketing in America. Successful marketing essentially is marketing directed toward the feminine. Every commercial you watch on TV is either directed TOWARD women (playtex commercial) specifically or directed toward being attractive TO women (gilette commercial). And of course you have those terrible commercials that seem ridiculous (“Dr. Pepper Zero: It’s not for women! —> seriously marketing team? what a fail.)

    Many blogs have explained this.

    But the fact of the matter is that men hate other men. Misandry is inevitable because men, the abundant sex (and STILL the abundant sex, unless 2 billion guys suddenly die tomorrow), have to COMPETE with each other for breeding rights.

    Now all you guys here who have played a sport, tell me, do you “like” or “support” the opposing players? Or would you like to punch them in the kidneys when the refs aren’t looking?

    IMO, there have ONLY been three times in the current history of man where men were united on some level.

    First was the Greeks, united in their philosophy
    Second was the Martin-Luther era monks, united in their religion
    FINALLY is modern men today, gladly feeding the red pill of enlightenment to many unknowing betas.

    And to answer Rollo’s question, yes, EVERYTHING is good about man.

  11. “I am a musician, and I’ve long wondered about this difference. We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently — essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They don’t feel driven to do it.”

    Motivation can explain levels of accomplishment,t but not of creativity. Creative people create as self-expression, not because of competition. If women were creative in music they would do it just for the sake of creating, regardless of any outside motivation. Women are less creative then men, and this cannot be fit into the discussion of motivation.

    “Aggression and helping are in some ways opposites, so the converging pattern is quite meaningful. Women both help and aggress in the intimate sphere of close relationships, because that’s what they care about. In contrast, men care (also) about the broader network of shallower relationships, and so they are plenty helpful and aggressive there.”

    This is backward. Women are the ones with large shallow social networks. I would also say they have shallow personal relationships. Women are helpful in personal relationships because they need the immediate relationship, and that is why they are not nearly as helpful socially – it does not serve them. Men are more helpful all around because they see themselves as an intimate part of the surrounding society. Men are aggressive when they see a threat to their society or when their relationships are being threatened (including people who are unable to form larger social relationships, so they see the entire surrounding society as a threat since they are not part of it.) Women are not aggressive on a social level because they are weak, and going back to his initial discussion of women not being risk-takers.

    I think there is value to his basic observations, especially about motivation, the flatter bell-curve for men, and sexual dimorphism in risk-taking, but otherwise I think he misses a lot. He accepts the popular idea that men and women are essentially the same, and tries to work within that. Since men and women are quite different in many ways, as this whole biog and ‘sphere is dedicated to explaining, there is no reason to try to explain the differences by looking for statistical anomalies which result from differences in distributions. Baumeister ends up with some very weak arguments to explain differences away which are not the result of his basic arguments.

    1. About creativity. It’s possible that men evolved to be more ambitious, regardless of competition – it’s in their favor to be more ambitous and striving without consciously thinking “I’m doing this because if I win/create something genius, I will gets loads of pussy”, just like they don’t think “I want to procreate” while having sex.

    2. That means that someone can have good imagination, but no ambition or drive to put it to use. Just like you can have great math skills and creative ways of solving math problems, but you don’t like math… I don’t think talent and the drive to use it are always present together in the same person.

  12. Cassius : ” Women are the ones with large shallow social networks. I would also say they have shallow personal relationships. ”

    … exactly what I was thinking.

    Baumeister : ” Let’s not overstate. The women had after all managed childbirth pretty well for all those centuries. The species had survived, which is the bottom line. The women had managed to get the essential job done.”

    If I understand correctly, women managed “for all those centuries” to do… exactly what amoeba have been doing since the dawn of life on earth. Hurray for them !

    Baumeister : ” Our society is made up of institutions such as universities, governments, corporations. Most of these were founded and built up by men. Again, this probably had less to do with women being oppressed or whatever and more to do with men being motivated to form large networks of shallow relationships.”

    Hoss manure. Corporations, empires of all sorts were created by men in almost all cases because they were capable of persuading people to belieive in their dream, and follow them. In other words, they were leaders. Does he seriously think that Alexander, Caesar or Bonaparte had any kind of personal relationship, shallow or intimate, with the hundreds of thousands of men who risked their lives for them ? Nope. They led.

    1. “Does he seriously think that Alexander, Caesar or Bonaparte had any kind of personal relationship, shallow or intimate, with the hundreds of thousands of men who risked their lives for them ? Nope. They led.”


      In men, life is not about relationships. It’s about goals. Leading = pursuing a goal that is desirable my many, usually at expenses of everything else, including your own relationships.

      The relationships that form within these rules are operational, like, soldier to soldier or soldier to general. There’s hierarchy and values, rules and honor.

      I dont see how is that more “shallow” than conditional love based on chitchat, indignation and the minute of the day, which are the ingredients women use to form their social networks.

      1. Men define and achieve goals

        women live off the fruits of that achievement..and have forgotten that the original achievement ever existed in the first place.

        women believe that they have denied their rightful place in society when in fact they were never the builders of that society…they were the caretakers of the next generation..but again apes and chicken care for their young,

        but human males conceived of civilization and built it

      2. It is shallow because you don’t know your leader or follower all that closely. Followers are replaceable (not leaders though, but you don’t know what they are like inside). It’s not shallower because it’s worse and less useful or moral somehow.

  13. A logical fallacy I keep seeing repeated in pieces like these is that men and women’s behavior is different because of their specialization throughout evolutionary history yet men and women somehow still have all the same skill sets and are exactly alike except for the plumbing.

    You can’t have it both ways. Evolution isn’t about accruing advantages. It’s about trading one advantage for another. The same evolutionary force which would specialize men and women in behavior would cause each sex to gain and lose skills over time.

    Women don’t need spatial reasoning to nurture. Men don’t need emotional reasoning to hunt and kill.

  14. In this society many boys are socialized into being like females instead of becoming men (especially in schools). Many men and women end up doing jobs they don’t like that also usually don’t have any significant value and then they die. Women are not the enemy. I don’t fall for the divide tactic. Historically men protected their women and children, now usually without any life or death outside dangers they are just about going to schools/get a job to pay the bills/watch tv/die. Men had to physically Alpha type masculine compete for resources (food, women, etc). In the current (information, financial) society betas (intelligence based) can more easily rise to the top of the culture (the article didn’t differentiate this from a Game stand point). Contraception changed the game and cultures. Because I do not want a old fashioned traditional homemaker wife to cook and clean for me; I am in favor of women having jobs (such as, designing and wearing lingerie) and I accept if other men hate me for it as I don’t care what others think or say about me anyway. I’m selfish and this benefits myself, women, and society. I have had old women be affectionate to me and affection is over-rated and I do not need or want affection (and this is what the feminized dating industry tells guys that affection is what men and women want). Modern war is now more about ideologies (religions, beliefs, views of culture), and it’s heating up globally.

  15. Sorry to drag this from ancient history, but, “equal pay for less work, of which I’m an advocate”

    Fucking socialist. Communal/feminist thinking.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: