Skip to main content

Masculinity is *always* an insult

Yeah, I'm a couple days behind commenting on this post linked from protein wisdom.

This part had me cracking up...

Personally, I like the idea of a thousand masculinities blooming and all of them able to recognize women as equal selves and citizens.

Masculinities don't BLOOM.

Go read it if you like but it's just a name calling screed against any man who is "right wing". Or woman for that matter. It's all about the wrong sort of masculinity. A failure of manliness, what he calls "weenie-boys."

More seriously, it's clear this guy (and it is a guy) does not like the idea of a thousand masculinities, he likes the idea of approved masculinities... apparently the sort of masculinities that bloom.

Even more seriously, in real life nearly all masculinities recognize women as equal selves. The idea that they don't is what keeps people like this professor employed in Women's Studies. Without a patriarchy actively oppressing women this guy is out of a job.

And more seriously yet, masculinity today is always used as an insult. It's the feminist approved version of "you're just a girl." It's acceptable to denigrate masculinity and that's a sad and sorry thing. I hear it from ladies all the time. Men!

Are we really that sexist? You know this "equal partnership" thing? I expect my husband to check with me about things but I expect him to have the authority of a grown-up over his life. I don't know if I'm seeing my liberal female friends on bad days, but I see them treat their husbands in ways that I wouldn't want to be treated and ways that I would never treat my husband.


It seems like the more we go on about equality the more that we have to define our differences in order to do it. People just are. Men aren't like women... much. Women aren't like men... often. But we're even less like each other than that.

When people use masculinity like a hammer they invariably pound away at things that define *me*.

The thing about that is that I'm not unfeminine.

Which makes me wonder why those things... politics and preferences and ideas... are defined and criticized as "masculine." I'm convinced it's because "anything I don't like" is labeled masculine.

It's always an insult.


Ymarsakar said…
They seek to repress their darker desires, anger, rage, the desire to destroy, and so forth, Synova. It is politically expedient since after all, only the right wing Hitlerties can blow people up, eh? It can never be the Left wing revolutionaries fighting for a better world for free men, eh.

The problem with repression, though Synova, is that eventually the ugly starts getting through the lock. When that happens, the Left simply goes out of control and becomes controlled by their darkest desires; it has already happened after all, don't make me mention euthanasia and support of the JIhad.

People with Leftist views have never really accepted the dark side of their souls. They project their own flaws unto Bush and Republicans, you know this Synova you have seen this. But regardless of how many times they seek to project their own flaws by denying it in them and seeing it in their enemies, their flaws are still in them; it never goes away.

People talk about getting in touch with the "feminine" side, but that seems a way to assume that everyone is already gripped by the dark side, that only the "feminine" side can control the dark side. That's not true in the first place, even for those suffering under dissociative disorders.

It is not healthy to repress the internal basic and inborn instincts of human men and women to rend and destroy their perceived enemies. It just isn't. It doesn't make for a better world and it doesn't make better people.

Women turn on men because women are told that they are the less aggressive sex, so obviously only the aggression of men can justify taking the mad out on them. Men are told that they are essentially rapists at heart and cannot (or even should not) control themselves. This produces the effect of channeling all the energy that could have went into protecting women, into fearing women because men would fear their reactions to women and when you fear your own reactions to women... need I remind people of the Islamic Jihad's justification of the rape of Western women by the Mullah in Australia?

This is not a good path to take, personally speaking. Humanity has been given the gift, by whatever god or natural force you believe in, to control our own destinies to a certain extent. Our DNA template, our evolution, our sociological and technological progress. We are given a say in our destiny, our fate. But that has some horrendous effects when you see the sociological experiments the Left is conducting on human men and women.
Ymarsakar said…
your fascination with "blooming" is pretty standard right-wing word fetishism.

This coming from a guy that talked about Weenie Boys and made an entire post about it going into detailed and so called intellectual descriptions and "empirical" analysis.

One might get the impression that there's some kind of projection going on here, via the denial by the professor of the validity of your remarks, Synova.

These days, he's fetishizing about "history."

Only a professor would use the word fetish and then use it as a non-noun. At least they are the only ones I've seen do that.

3. that the right is the political home of racism, misogyny, and homophobia in American society.

I almost wish that the Left would not be so to predictable. In the sense that, their psychological mannerisms and behavioral settings are too predictable; it is so predictable that I continually wonder if they are setting me up for a fall.

Most black folks are homophobic, and most blacks vote for the Left. Why does the Left deny their own problems so vehemently, Synova? Is it simply personality weakness and lack of courage? Or are there actual puppetmasters pulling their strings?
Synova said…
I think we all deny our own problems to some extent.

But some more than others and certain of those on the left seem to have made an art form of it. I do think that questions of identity and self-image are hard to combat for anyone and that certain elements of liberal identity are tolerance and rational thought.

Therefore intolerance and irrationality simply *can't* be problems for them.

I don't think that core identity things get questioned without a rather big shock prompting the self-examination.

I think that is why some liberals can express rather amazing racism and not see it. Or, perhaps it will be misoandry (?) rather than misogyny, but not see it. It's the same with using homosexuality as a negative or religion or anything.

The classic, of course, reading blogs and stuff, is the *classism* so evident from people who's self-image is that they represent the true interests of the poor.

Conservatives are supposedly so hateful toward the poor and progressives so essentially tolerant and definitely sticking up for poor people... but if an insult needs to be flung what insult comes most quickly to a left hand? Trailer trash.

And fat.

I don't think that the left is *more* hateful, overall, than the right, but it certainly isn't any *less* hateful. But the right, at least, seems willing to look at that part of behavior and question it... the left won't because it's a matter of core identity that they don't do those things.
Anonymous said…
Personally, I have seen what hate is if only from its acid corrosion from the inside out and the amount of hate you have almost doesn't matter; what matters is whether you can control it, whether you are its slave or its master, and of course whether you use it to help or to hurt. Knowing the difference is not so easy.

I see the difference between Left and Right archetypes is that one archetype can accept itself and thus gain control through acceptance, while the other shuns and puts lines on the ground which divides and weakens their control.

Still, after 20 years or even 40, doesn't that get old for somebody? Does not even someone of the Left get tired of the constant need to maintain an image of illusion? I keep thinking that even if they fear what is deep inside them, that old age would eventually crack the barriers; but this doesn't seem to be true. Inherently, I don't think they are strong enough to maintain the illusion of peace and harmony inside their own minds and soulds for long; yet some of them do so I always wonder whether someone else might be pulling their strings and funneling in energy to maintain the illusion.

Too much hate eats a person from the inside out. Eventually. That's a principle I believe in.

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.


It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism,

What You Know That Isn't So

  The saying goes like this, It's not what you *don't* know that is going to trip you up, it's what you know that isn't so. I believe that the first lady might possibly have been feigning helplessness, just a little bit.  She already had concept art and visuals, so I think she'll be okay.   But someone might truly be so new that they know nothing about science fiction as a genre or how it works in the world.  That person, the truly "new" person, might not realize that the second lady, no matter how assured she seems to be that she's passing on vital Wisdom, is wrong. So lets unwrap her backpack a little (to steal a metaphor). Stories about space pirates are Space Opera, generally.  "Soft" science in science fiction usually refers to sociology or psychology, social "science".  A story about space pirates might be "soft".  But that's picking nits.  The first big boo-boo is this: "not as popular *because* it is women