A ship in a harbor is safe, but that’s not what ships were meant to do.
Once upon a time there were two old men talking about the places they lived and how each thought their homes were the best places to live. The first was born and raised in a remote town in rural Montana. He always spoke lovingly about his hometown and often boasted it was the most beautiful place in the world, though he’d never been more than a few miles beyond it’s borders. He was proud to be from a small town and had lived there his entire life because it was genuinely a wonderful place to live. He often said it was the best place in the world to settle down in.
The second man was from the same town, but he left at 18 to join the Navy. In the course of his enlistment he’d traveled to Singapore, Australia, the Philippines, Guam, and many other countries in the asian pacific. Additionally he’d spent time at several Naval bases in San Diego, Hawaii and San Francisco. Later he traveled to Panama, through the canal and was stationed in Florida and South Carolina. After his time in the Navy, he went to a university in New York and later became an investment banker traveling to Britain, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Spain. In his 50’s he was commissioned to be a US Ambassador to several countries in the middle east. In his travels he’d experienced the best and the worst of humanity. He’d been met with grace and hospitality as well as hate and hostility. Ultimately he’d decided to retire in New Zealand, because it was the most welcoming and beautiful country he’d traveled to in the course of his life – and proud, he too believed his home to be the best place in the world to settle down in.
Which of these two men’s advice should a young man consider when it comes time for him to call a place his home?
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:
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.