
Kamanbert
Wizcelled
★★★
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2024
- Posts
- 3,239
I think we can all agree that what is meant by "masculinity crisis" is both men falling behind concretely and feeling undervalued abstractly.
The concrete and the abstract intertwine as two factors without any real means for observers to determine which one takes precedence over the other ; do men feel like shit because they underperform or do they underperform because they feel like shit ? In every debate over the subject you can feel this stupid confusion hanging in the air without anyone ever addressing it and it pisses me off.
Even the composition of this forum reflects this concrete-abstract dynamic : some members are jobless, depressed and aimless while some members are succesful, somewhat content and focused enough for contemporary standards but are still incels.
So the problem is that soyciety makes the diagnosis of a masculine crisis but never acknowledges the possible validity of men's feelings under egalitarianism, despite the semantical obviousness :
"Masculinity" does not live as in a vacuum but rather as an alterity to femininity, concretely and abstractly which is simply a law of nature. Sadly, this implies things no feminist mumbo jumbo can override, mainly things such as sexual dimorphism influencing women's perception of men.
Sexual dimorphism is physical (concrete) but in our intelligent human species it's very safe to say that it's equally extremely symbolic (abstract), and this symbolism used to even out the field for men but not anymore due to egalitarianism ; if women can do anything we do if not better
what is the default symbolic value of a man in the contemporary world outside insane beauty standards or - once the looks threshold is met - performative masculinity which comes in all shapes and forms : the thug, the cool artist, the driven carreer man, the subservient husband... not simply a man with his qualities and shortcomings ?
That's why bluepillers insist so much on "personality", "purpose" and chastise us ; if we can't fulfill the end of the bargain of sexual dimorphism through concrete means (looks), we must go for the abstract sexual dimorphism by imposing a bullshit personal and performative narrative on the ruin of our classical, patriarcal masculinity where men had a default value. This is a continuity of the neoliberal/postmodern logic but it hurts men 1000 times more than women : individuals have no default value unless they make big bank or reinvent themselves in the eyes of the Spectacle.
But again, if there is a spectacular "feminine mystique" by default which, by the way, is constantly celebrated by media and women in a defiant way (muh God is a woman), clearly vocalizing it's all-absorbing nature through the transcending of gender roles, what place does this leave for the masculine mystique ? There is simply none and the only solution is what i mentionned before : you must reinvent yourself in complete subservience to women's desires.
This is more deep than "women make money now so they don't need us". It's also "women see themselves as our equals therefore they see us as crap due to the symbolic sexual dimorphism".
Maybe this is just my intuition but i really feel like this is what's behind the "masculinity crisis" at it's core. Men can feel like shit even if they perform, they can perform even if they feel like shit ; it doesn't fucking matter, at the end of the day they're doomed to feel like shit. If i was a succesful man with a good wife, a good job, a good social life, i'd still fear for my son if i had one, cause men nowadays are nothing by default.
When normies say that not all women are radical feminists and that not all of society is out to get you, they're right, but they don't get that the diffuse feminism or the feminization of power are catalysers for what men feel : the broken sexual dimorphism is shitty enough as it is but when you add in constant dehumanizing feminist discourse at least partially (and i'm being generous here
) validated by the average woman on the street, unfair treatments of men in the legal or school system, it's crazy that we're still the ones that are supposed to go the extra mile despite all the existential anguish, ressentment and anxiety all this shitshow might give us.
The concrete and the abstract intertwine as two factors without any real means for observers to determine which one takes precedence over the other ; do men feel like shit because they underperform or do they underperform because they feel like shit ? In every debate over the subject you can feel this stupid confusion hanging in the air without anyone ever addressing it and it pisses me off.
Even the composition of this forum reflects this concrete-abstract dynamic : some members are jobless, depressed and aimless while some members are succesful, somewhat content and focused enough for contemporary standards but are still incels.
So the problem is that soyciety makes the diagnosis of a masculine crisis but never acknowledges the possible validity of men's feelings under egalitarianism, despite the semantical obviousness :
"Masculinity" does not live as in a vacuum but rather as an alterity to femininity, concretely and abstractly which is simply a law of nature. Sadly, this implies things no feminist mumbo jumbo can override, mainly things such as sexual dimorphism influencing women's perception of men.
Sexual dimorphism is physical (concrete) but in our intelligent human species it's very safe to say that it's equally extremely symbolic (abstract), and this symbolism used to even out the field for men but not anymore due to egalitarianism ; if women can do anything we do if not better
That's why bluepillers insist so much on "personality", "purpose" and chastise us ; if we can't fulfill the end of the bargain of sexual dimorphism through concrete means (looks), we must go for the abstract sexual dimorphism by imposing a bullshit personal and performative narrative on the ruin of our classical, patriarcal masculinity where men had a default value. This is a continuity of the neoliberal/postmodern logic but it hurts men 1000 times more than women : individuals have no default value unless they make big bank or reinvent themselves in the eyes of the Spectacle.
But again, if there is a spectacular "feminine mystique" by default which, by the way, is constantly celebrated by media and women in a defiant way (muh God is a woman), clearly vocalizing it's all-absorbing nature through the transcending of gender roles, what place does this leave for the masculine mystique ? There is simply none and the only solution is what i mentionned before : you must reinvent yourself in complete subservience to women's desires.
This is more deep than "women make money now so they don't need us". It's also "women see themselves as our equals therefore they see us as crap due to the symbolic sexual dimorphism".
Maybe this is just my intuition but i really feel like this is what's behind the "masculinity crisis" at it's core. Men can feel like shit even if they perform, they can perform even if they feel like shit ; it doesn't fucking matter, at the end of the day they're doomed to feel like shit. If i was a succesful man with a good wife, a good job, a good social life, i'd still fear for my son if i had one, cause men nowadays are nothing by default.
When normies say that not all women are radical feminists and that not all of society is out to get you, they're right, but they don't get that the diffuse feminism or the feminization of power are catalysers for what men feel : the broken sexual dimorphism is shitty enough as it is but when you add in constant dehumanizing feminist discourse at least partially (and i'm being generous here
Last edited: