Stress and the Man-O-Sphere

Maybe this topical Sandwich isn't for everyone, but I hope that the choices made are yet somehow palettable for everyone.

So - the main topic here is 'Stress'. More to the point a particular kind, or family of Stress. This isn't the kind of stress that is defined by physical activity or labor. It is the kind of stress that's associated with Panic, Tunnel-Vision, Depression and Wishful Thinking.

As for the Man-O-Sphere part, there are some things that came up. Things I might just present a slightly different perspective on, while the take-aways ought to vastly be "the same". The same to what? Well, Feminism I guess.

But let's start with that. I here want to introduce the concept, that your typical "Alpha Male" is as a Creature effectively grown in a Lab. As a hypothetical. In this sense, the typical "Alpha Male" is constructed by looking at core properties of Gamers, Nerds and just people in General and probe them for properties that can be labeled as "direct Aspects of Real World Success". These Groups are then being scored; Thus shaping hypothetical alliances built around stereotypes. Each group - or appearance even - that isn't associated to a 'direct aspect of real world success' is subsequently getting villified. Correspondingly is an image being created, to be the antithesis to the produced 'enemy'/enemies. To so get, by no means, associated to any one of those groups.

So money, a hot girlfriend, an expensive car - that's probably "the big three" that an "Alpha Male" will aspouse. Though they might talk of God, family and procreation, Family is one of those things that isn't a 'direct' aspect of success; And so, neither is anything that involves skill.
Or an education, for that matter. At least so given that Gambling and, by virtue of that, "Crypto" can compensate for the lack of either on behalf of luck.

And so we get to one core problem: These self-proclaimed "Cultural Fathers" extend their narrative upon the positive traits of manhood as seen throughout history, without being themselves willing or capable of wearing any of those shoes. Yet asking what it is they bring to the cultural table, they would assert themselves as positive role-models, voices of reason (or: Manly Reasoning that's "definitely really what we need"); Where to underline this, they can dig at the various "enemey profiles" to present themselves as "more high value". Subsequently everyone that is a part of a villified group can feel like - or be seen as - a loser by comparison; In turn "winning the argument" by being "successful".

While we then might be inclined to regard their influence as positive when faced with cultural manifestations that we deem 'bad' or 'in decline' or otherwise in need of improvement; I only see it as a different flavor of Third Wave Feminism (alas: A Rebellion against skill and education).

Both have in common, that you can easily frame either in a way, such that any reasonable person would sympathize with their stance against "Nerds". The framing is however what matters. So with TWF, it is one thing to be for diversity and against marginalization in the world of Video Games (or Politics, Culture, Society and so on) - as, I'm all for that. I don't want to say, imply or believe that bigotry and discrimination don't exist - so, wherever we need to look closer, we should. To say however that Super Mario is Problematic and that there cannot be any Sexy women in video games as to come up with a scientific model for how each work of art should be configured accross the expanse of its culturally relevant data-points - that's like firing your kid's teachers if it's bad at school!
(::Which wouldn't be too too bad if what they turned to would at least be Smut, but rebellion usually doesn't care much for a sensible dealings with art and culture:: -> So what we get turns out much much worse - usually, I'd say. (Well, turning towards smut - or other positive things - would require certain dispositions; Where a cultural body that isn't outlined by those has a hard time rooting its identity within them.))
And I refuse to see this brand of Feminism and this "Man-O-Sphere-ic Conservatism" as the only two sides that there are.

So, where does now Stress come in?

At first: The Kind of Stress I'm writing about can be described as: being mentally under tension, akin to tensing up ones physical musculature, such as to be more effective or efficient at performing a certain task - that however at the cost of seeing the bigger picture.
And if the implication, notion or presentation of even just the concept of a "bigger picture" that isn't yours, stresses you, annoys you, causes dissonance and such - you need to, as the influencers call it: Touch Grass. Here's why:
Within a mode of stress, your concerns shift onto what would seem to be an immediate problem; And any notion of some bigger picture would appear as a distraction. Perhaps even irrelevant. And given that the bigger picture yet fractures into slices, it's easy to come accross one that is utterly detached from where your concerns might be at. If you however maintain an understanding of the bigger picture, it does first of all not affect you. It doesn't do much to reduce the stress either. But, once you're coming down from the stress, your mind has an easier way back into a healthier view of the world. As opposed to suffering post-stress syndrome that sends you spiraling down accross the patterns of a certain mode of operations, even if that mindset doesn't encounter a problem that needs any solving. As they say: "When all you have is a Hammer, everything looks like a Nail".
Beyond that, the issue is that there are a great number of problems in the world. Any one of those that might come to affect you directly, still takes place in this greater whole that we occasionally refer to as 'society'. These problems might then get you 'tense' - stressed, a.k.a. "upset" - and you could find yourself urging for a solution while spiralling down an understanding that is more and more detached from the real complexity of the world you're living in. To highlight this, understand the concept, that every 'problem' comes with its own state of stress. So, if the problem is racism or "the great replacement", all you see at first might be things that could, at least in theory, cause that. And the longer you're stressed by that, without having a proper escape, the more "the theory" begins to look like "fact"; And so eventually you forget that your entire worldview may merely be the result of a simple hypothetical, entirely devoid of any cultural relevance.

And that's what I see in Fascism. And that's also how Conservatism or TWF lend themselves to that analogy.
While you might go and apply the same criticism to "the Left" - you're conflating TWF into "the Broader Left" - as I might by simply bringing up Conservatism. Both, "the "Alt" Right" and "the Left" would try to argue what the bigger picture and its problems may be; And anything either comes up with, in terms of solution, may be perceived as oppression to the other. If we however intend to bring science into the discussion; And one group adamantly insists that Science is Bullcrap, the case is practically closed. And it baffles me how Conservatives can hold a position that is so adamantly anti-science, while being narrated as the side of "Facts and Logic". Well, I suppose, the answer goes right there: They are 'narrated' as the side of "Facts and Logic".
The Stressors that send people flailing against "the Woke Left" are all constructed very emotionally. Speaking of "the Mutilation of Children", "cutting off dicks", "censoring free speech", "rigging elections", "usurping the Great Orange", "Transing your Kids", "Sexualizing the Children" ... allthewhile locking 16 year old girls into marriage "because fertility" is considered perfectly reasonable.

Now, why would people vote against that?

So, we've all heard it before. The "Vaccines cause autism", "Chemtrails", "Flat Earth", "Reptilians", "Adrenochrome", "Lolita Island" - and such; Things that "the people up there" do - to which the only remedy, over short or long terms, is to flock together and overthrow the establishment. And when it comes to us Transes you'd only throw some "Satanism", "Devil's Worship" and "Demonic Infuence" in there.
And then it's just a short distance from seeing how Generation so-and-so is feeding into all that by ... well, in the end: "Just having a Life", but more to the point: "A Life that isn't bent on fixing those problems the same way you are"; And 1-2-3, you might come to agree that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

This is what we refer to as a "Pipeline". Akin to saying that "all roads lead to Rome" - I'd say that these narratives are constructed so that they feed into each other, without the need for any kind of implicit connection. This way the Conservatives can distance themselves from the Man-O-Sphere, for instance, should the need arise.
That's how they don't need to make sense amongst each other; While yet being functionally one and the same thing. So, if you "get it" at one point, chances are you're also "getting more".
These Pipelines, in other words, can be described as "Stress Funnels".

Like, you'd want me to explain - me being not on your side - what up then with ... this or that. Vaccines, Chemtrails, Lolita Island, etc.. And just in a spirit of due diligence: Good, Fake, Problematic, "etc.".
That is to say, that I'm not in a Mode where I try to tackle any one of those problems. Like, if your issue is that 'Leftist Speech' is "Transing your Kids" - I might wanna ask you "what up with Free Speech?", but more to the point can I possibly only 'shrug' at it while doing things that might potentially trans your kid! As a Trans person, I don't see an issue with Trans people existing; While also having basic Human Rights - alongside 'Basic Human Rights' being like a Gold Standard we'd all want to enjoy.
It's an entirely different ballpark of issues - but to you/someone it might appear that I'm ignoring "the Problem", "Lost to Satanic Influences", or at worse: Secretly in favor of Lolita Island - because clearly I'm not upset enough about it.
But ... other than joining a group of people to "overthrow the Establishment" without, to my understanding, an even half-decent idea of what then ... I wouldn't know what to do about it! So, "even if I wanted to".

The problem here is, that these theories do at some point neccessitate that you warp your understanding of the world around you - and the people in it - to accommodate the corresponding world-view. If you're for instance led to believe that Trans-sexuality is a trend; A trend that somehow gets medical organizations on board of its realization; and you met a trans-person that's at least somewhat openly trans, there really is just one in two ways for you: Either you end up accusing that person of perpetuating toxic/dangerous ideas, or you come to understand that Trans people are also just humans that have to carry their own bag of problems through the world.
And, well, what you end up then determines whether you're "going woke" or "remain reasonable".

Because - to be fair - in some instance the contrast between 'right and wrong' is that strong.
I mean, given that there are people who are concerned about the truth, reality; And other groups that take issue with what conclusions they arrive at - it is really just 'either, or'; Without much room for compromise.

But sure. The same thing also happens on "the other side". The thing right now however is, that we Trans people for instance face politicians that have enough support to enact or at least propose Anti-Trans legislation; Mostly without a care for what the actual facts are. Implied are the facts that they think matter - and whether you think it's these or those ... is a function of what facts you're open to.
It shouldn't be a problematic issue though.
Like, if you think that men are weak - the issue, to my understanding, isn't that there are feminine dudes and trans people; But it is that the average man is bound to labor within a system that has, it would seem, long since abandoned the concept of reasonable balance. Which, you should agree, is part of what drives the appeal behind "Alpha Males" - because they clearly position themselves outside of that.

But, tackling those issues and coming to a reasonable understanding - good to go and at least somewhat future-proof - involves one thing that Conservatives seem to be allergic to: Co-operation.

And, to be fair, I've seen instances where Conservatives at least try to keep a big picture in mind. The part where the one most inevitable conclusion of what's in this big picture is, that we're like ... too divided right now.
As might be the consequence of living "in Babylon" - or so, an era described as "made of iron mixed with clay".

How we then try to understand that division, well, might first take us into the world of semantics and definitions.
Eventually that formulates an understanding - concerning the division; And what should be concerning is that real and serious motivations that people actually have, get, eventually, replaced by superstition.
Now, I would also - at some point - invoke "the Devil" when it comes to an answer as to why we're so divided. The Bible spells out how. Here and there. The Bible however also tries to talk TO those that are part of what drives the division of what it itself perceives as "the healthy whole" - with Damnation being reserved for those that wouldn't listen even until the bitter end. By that I mean, that the people who are just being Deceived, are - even if voluntarily so - victims of deception. Their motivations then cannot be summed up as "Being Demons".

What I'm trying to say is, that Stressed worldviews tend to skew our perception of reality in weird ways. There for instance is the matter of Detransitioning. That is: a person who started to Transition, identifying as Trans, realizing that they're not - or opting against it for some other reason. From what I understand, Conservatives usually treat it as evidence for there being something wrong with Trans-sexuality. Each De-Transitioner to them would be like ... an Ex [Religious Cult Member] that comes out telling of how they escaped. And eventually there are more or less heated conflicts between these and those; But which side is truly exempt from guilt?
Or: Who's lying? Misinformed? -> Grifting?
So - the way it stands, this narrative around De-Transitioners eventually helps draw a narrative against Trans people; One that, to us Trans people, happens to be utterly Ridiculous. But, I suppose that "normal"/cis people don't get to ordinarily partake-in or whitness our "Trans Internal Circlejerks" - so let it be told: Trans-sexuality is, inherently, a matter of self-discovery. Every successfully concluded Trans-story is one of joy over being themselves; While every story that terminated in De-Transition is one of either Grief over the world, or the insight that what made them think they're trans is to be sorted into a different box. And we don't want to grief people either! We don't want people to think they're trans - and force them down some gruesome medical journey. So, we do encourage De-Transitioning. We just ... generally ... are biased into 'pro-transition' vocabulary.
I'm sure that we may have to understand, that the joy and enthusiasm emergent from our Transition as we "Unchain our inner Django" (which way ever that might go) may give depressed people the impression that it's what they're missing in Life. But best we can do is to emphasize that this joy isn't merely a consequence of the Transition, but heavily based upon "living our gender".

And so - the power of transitioning, to add that, isn't founded in our wanting. So, if you started to transition with the sense that the act of transitioning is fulfilling - so that you transition in order to attain fulfillment; Well, to me that sounds wrong! Like ever so often the issue is in the right framing; The right framing may also help distinguish things from each other that might otherwise appear identical.
But you can't do so if you're unwilling to look beyond your own nose's reach.
More to the point then, the power of transitiong - to my experience - is "expaned upon" in/by our wanting. I mean, there are many ways to put it - but to try and not be cryptic about it: Transition can be laid out by a series of steps. The first step is the very basic shift in appearances. Coming out, having a chosen name and dressing differently. If that doesn't already give you peace, if that isn't already "enough", if that doesn't already "lock you in" - you're probably on the wrong track!
I mean - I can't talk about this from a perspective of 'early' transitioning; Although I can talk about how early indicators for/feelings of being Trans have emerged. I'd go with the approximation of 6 years old. Maybe less. Pre-school for sure.
And yet I might have been outwardly Transphobic - here and there - because ... well, that's (was/is) the social norm. People want to fit in; And usually when people of different persuasions are brought up, it's in a light that none of the people present wants to be associated with. It's one thing to highlight "the worse of: Cringe Trans Compilation - the Anthology" - but another to ask the serious questions.
And that's what the first stage ... comes down to. To ... have that inner self that's pushed and boxed into the dark corners of ones mind ... come out. And the rest follows. Like, after just coming out - taking a new name and dressing differently - there's for once a deep satisfaction over having established that inner something; And non-binary people, I assume, find most of what they care about within that field of things. Here the main problem is gender as a social construct. Trans people like me however, we are confronted with a dilemma. Of sorts. On the one side we've experienced the bliss, the freedom, the joy, 'THE LIGHT' - of extroverting our true identity; But much of what we are is yet going against that.

And it may be that this narrative appears a bit vague. That's probably because it is. Inherently. As we say: Gender is on a Spectrum. And I suppose one thing I might try to do here, is to take away people's fear from that statement. An attempt shall be made.
A Spectrum is a Gradient. Some might be uni and others bi-polar, but with the spectrum of the Light we get to a lot more than just that. While our eyes hold receptors for three distinct colors to compose a visual impression of the world; Technology allows us to see beyond what these three can identify. And similarly can gender be perceived as uni-polar; Which would appear to be "Manly Man" way of looking at it. So, there's man and then there's NOT man. But further does a spectrum contain a smooth transition between the individual highlights. Between "Man" and "Woman" so - we might think of a slice of the spectrum where "man becomes woman and vice verso"; But that's not what we mean by it per se. Like any common definition of what a man or a woman is might at best just approximate your position; We do perceive such 'definitions' as apprximations. Me being a woman doesn't mean that I try to fit into the social understanding of what a woman is; Although I feel discomfort when or where-ever I fail to fit the social criteria. At least the 'big' ones.
Instead: Me being a woman means that by being myself, I come to differ from the ideal in so and so many ways.

Questioning whether I'm a woman or not ... is I would say problematic. But, when asked what social ideal I'd rather be forced into, I'm clearly a woman. But then also a sort of feminist ... like, asking for "whom"s ideal of what this or that is supposed to be.
A position that cis-women should back me up on.
And yea, the problem here - as many people, let's say, have tried to point out - is that all of this does vastly rely on self-id and a narrative to go with it. And I might start, responding to that, by telling you how deeply insulting that is or feels - if I wouldn't be too busy dealing with how insulted I'd feel. Ignoring the nice ways in which one might inquire. The reality is pretty straightforward: Given my own experiences I evaluate my being and come out with a conclusion. To call it: An honest/good-faith statement. And the only one that could truly tell whether it is a good-faith statement or not, is God. Unless ... you were a bit of a moron and there's legitimate doubt. Beyond that, I think it's beyond nobody to put up an act for any amount of time - as us humans are also known to be capable of great stubborness despite what's better for us.
But you cannot "defeat" the underlying truth.

So, in good faith: Wherever you find yourself - on the spectrum - that is you. And whether or not we should be bothered by the social pressure that comes along with being this or that, that's a different story.
Also in good faith: Saying that usually we don't have legitimate grounds to question someone else's self-id, we assume that they will try to do all that they can to fully express that self-id. And if that means that we'll have to strap a propeller to our back and learn how to carry heavy armaments underneath our arms, so be it.
As for those that won't or can't - those that are effectively 'out' but still not "in" - I don't know. I've been a grey apple for quite a while, but so I wouldn't insist on being considered a woman. We'd hope, so our inherent bias, that a more open and inclusive society would enable them to go further; As for their own best interest - as otherwise ... they'd stand there as impostors and there isn't much more than anyone can reasonably add to that. Unless it entered a different terrain, like say ... bullying.

And on a different note: it has been highlighted that in recent years the amount of girls that came out as trans has grown dramatically, as usually it were men that would. And this is now the final trans-related example to cut back to the topic. The inherent conclusion to a transphobic mindset, so what seems to be going on in the world right now, is to blame trans people. Directly or not. At least, we're made to suffer for it. That is, some believe that there are reasonable grounds to call for "that"; And I don't have the resources to argue against it.
An alternative view would be to ask: What is it that drives girls to think that being a man is better? Or that they want to be a man? Rather than that they 'are' - for in that case, they probably are!
Not to slip into semantics, it's easy to mis-speak; But ... regardless of how close these cases might be together, there are still differences.

I mean, I can imagine that a girl might look at all the freedoms that boys get. They don't have to dress in certain ways, they don't have to play with dolls or practice standing in a Kitchen - they have all the colors that aren't pink; At times they even do get Pink - and such. Then there's all the lingering/passive toxic masculinity in the air that can easily make one really uncomfortable for having two holes between the legs.
I mean, did you catch wind of the whole "Bear vs. Man" "Meme" - where Women speak out in favor of the Bear when asked for whom they'd rather encounter in the wilds? Vaush had a really fitting fallout in one of his videos I've seen - which I'll pin for ... like ... the post coital atmosphere.

So, what's the point?
Well, one made already. I don't mean to get you over on the pro-trans side as much as I try to shed some light onto a matter that seems to still be mired in misconceptions. And that probably only to the benefit of a few; Who shouldn't have any right to benefit of it - because it's Bullshit!

I also won't try to explain what the big picture is. It's ... anyway more like an ongoing process. One thing however is sure: If a thing exists - in actuality - it is somehow a part of it.
So, if you want to be a strong man; You should first step onto the right side of History - and ideally let God give you a hand so you can ... live up to your ideal. Being a 'truly' good role model should it come to that.

For, how much talk about innovation and taking leadership and all that do I have to listen to, before we get actual examples of what that innovation and leadership amounts to? Other than ... being cool with Russia invading the Ukraine or Israel advancing on a genocidal road trip?
Or any other kind of "Unga Bunga, beat Problem with Stick" attitude?