The Manliest Man

So yea, straight up, I'm talking about Christ. And many might be put off by this because Culturally speaking ... Christ isn't really thought of as a milestone of masculinity by any stretch of the imagination - and is probably closer to being thought of as Boring, effeminate or even weak.

I certainly wasn't raised with the idea that Christ is a manly man. Though, I suppose, the one or the other Christian preacher would try to make a case for it, however unbelievable it may seem, along the lines of "God always good". But somehow deep within me ... this belief just took shape regardless.
Maybe because deep inside I was a damsel in distress wishing for a Knight in shining Armor to come rescue me - maybe also in part because that's where the Music (DJ Genki Dharma - TimeLESS ("Chapter 1")) I was making took me - but overall it was I suppose a little bit of everything. I might call it a hobby of my passive, subconscious self ... to obsess over the idea that God couldn't quite possibly be this passive Bitch that, I certainly felt like that, the world was trying to sell me on.

Well, I must consider that my taste in Arts and such doesn't necessarily resonate with a lot of people - but after learning a bit of Greek, on my own, I realized that a noob (which was definitely what I was (nowadays I'm even less)) could pronounce the Greek transliteration of Christ's Name as "Iesois" - which to me at least projected a lot more masculine energy than "Jesus" or ... "Iesus". Such at least were the musings of my mind.

Another part of it is the notions that we shouldn't regard anyone on earth a Master - though whether or not that's the correct meaning of the words isn't important - because there is only one true Master. It didn't take me long to understand that there is a very easy case to be made that God is certainly the best at anything one could be good at. And the intricacy of the world we live in does certainly function as a testament to at least some aspects of that.


People these days are complaining that men lack adequate role-models. And honestly, I find it to be a clusterfuck of philosophical brainrot. By which I mean to say, that there is so much one could talk about it's difficult to figure out where to reasonably start.
But yea. Men blaming women for the state this world is in ... is like so utterly laughable on it's face, I'd think it needs no further elaboration. Though I guess there's nuance to it. Or more like ... niches in the fringes of the human psyche in which our feelings short-cirquit our logical reasoning and understanding to the point where we're stuck on unhealthy mental feedback loops that keep us locked in an unhealthy state of cognitive self-harm.

I mean, let's start with the claim that women are Gold-diggers. Right away I don't really know what to make of it. Other than #NotAllWomen. For starters. But beyond that I have to question, because after all I'm responding to a foreign claim, whether or not that's taken as good or a bad thing. I mean, if you want to propose that the man is supposed to be the self-assured, dominant provider, you create the environment in which the woman is SUPPOSED TO BE a Gold Digger. If you simultaneously however talk about women being Gold Diggers as though that's a detestable and bad thing, you have to come up with a concept of masculinity that complements whatever you think a woman is supposed to be in this instance!


So, one thing to criticize feminism for is that it has thus far not really succeeded in getting things like this through. Perhaps by being too militant and outwardly misandrist - too much about motivating women to throw stones at the Patriarchy and too little about informing men about what they want a man to be. But it doesn't take too long - for me at least - to realize that this line of reasoning is somewhat silly. I mean, it's a decent ... pseudo-argument to establish some context for further discussion or thought.
Like, it's not that the "classical man" has been conditioned to scoff at the idea of the woman having any say in anything - full stop. And in that instance the feminist woman doesn't have much of a choice but to escape and criticize it.
Like ... criticism sometimes gets a bad wrap. But criticism is after all still the first and simplest thing we can do to address failures, injustices and the like.

It is then up to the men to listen and adjust, seek a dialog and such - which is ultimately how we got to where we are today. On the good side. On the other side there are those that would yet resist - including women, per-chance. Amongst these, these days, we then find voices that want to get rid of women suffrage. And the idea here is simply violence. Authoritarianism. It's not: Let's ask all women if they'd rather have it this or that way - but again a "let us (men) make decisions for them (women)" ... possibly in ways that "just so happen to be" incredibly beneficial to men. What? Women? Huh?


The issue with Gold-Diggers is, that this world still has a lot of systems and structures in place that encourage the woman to make herself dependent on a man. And like the man pursues greed and whatever self-interest, so would the woman. That's just ... the state of affairs - generally speaking - these days.

Beyond that, it's also not our fault that boys are worse in school. Some might try to argue that it's emasculating when women outperform men - but again, silencing the woman by force isn't really an enlightened move. The enlightened move would be to recognize that maybe the man isn't inherently better at everything (except for chores).

In other words: To hate what you ought to love just because you have difficulty adjusting to it ... that's a bad move! I mean, if we can't be honest about our feelings - without just being ignored or gaslighted - the whole thing isn't an institution worth preserving! In my opinion. Humble or not.


So, in a way we're saying that this world is bad because men. And that men are bad because they behave like men. But that's not entirely correct. The thing is that at some point in history, men in various cultures have discovered - so it would seem - that the weaker Sex has problems defending itself against them. And for as long as this idea persists in the heart of men - for as long as they feel the urge to re-assert their dominance with violence if "needs be" - we're living in an unhealthy society!

And I want to stress that this is different to what we might call "romantic heteronormativity".
This romantic heteronormativity however lends itself to misogyny - to an undeducated eye the two might look identical. But, let's not further delve into that right now.

Part 2

The keen observer may have noted a subtle thread that persists throughout this problems. And yes, it may feel like a running joke, but it is Capitalism. Or whatever we want to call this perverse way of doing things that we're somehow all subjected to. Let's say "Unenlightened Capitalism" - for good measure. I mean, it's not difficult to understand: If you have a system in which the dominant attitude is to hold grudges about people who get 'free stuff' - you insist that labour is the only way by which anyone could have anything ever. By virtue of that - for as long as women shouldn't be allowed to work - you're condemning her to be a whore. Either she's whoring out for a husband or for a suitor - unless she's lucky and finds a respectable man. But what is a respectable man?

It's a tough question, because I think there are both men and woman who have good but also bad ideas about it. Ultimately a respectable man would also have standards - but in a world where it is the woman who is in peril, the dominant perspective is the female one.
But it sure isn't supposed to be a one-sided story.

And ... I sense that it might be a bit controversial to speak of "feminine superiority" - mostly around the issue that some men seem to be highly allergic to the idea of submitting to a woman. It's a weird story where men behave like Dogs that will do anything for a treat - unless you acknowledge that they're Dogs that only need a treat. Now, I don't mean to defend or promote feminine superiority, but because I can only deliver my thoughts one sentence at a time I have to use crude sentences ever so often. The thing here is that feminine superiority is more like a fear that some men have. A fear that then ever so often translates into toxic masculinity. So, using the term "cuck" as an insult is a symptom thereof. Implying that a "real man" holds his wife by a tight leash is another one. It of course comes from this attitude where the woman isn't more than a man's property.
And I have to wonder how those men think the female psyche works.

And so this fear from feminine superiority ... is an obstacle. To that, I have a bit of a fairy tale. You might take it as a theory. A conspiracy maybe. As such, it would be on par with Flat Earth or any other "Whatever" Earth (Hollow, Young, etc.) theory. Here the idea is that mankind once used to be a Matriarchal society. Eventually man however rebelled against their female overlords and ... has lived in fear of a reversal ever since.
We could bring up how the woman has the 'full' Genes and how the man is like inherently subservient to the woman - however "cucked" they might be from admitting that. I mean, we could say that the tendency of powerful men to have a submission Kink is an expression of this innate male urge to worship women as Godesses. As such the man has to court the woman, the woman who is pleased by that will then engage with him and that's that. In reality I think that this is just due to an equalizing mechanism woven into the whole "God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman" hierarchy. Which is a two-way thing.

Like so, the woman who wants to be worshipped as a Godess would also have to deserve that. Ultimately that's however also an intimate thing which is further a very complex - or more to the point: Diverse reality.

So, it isn't only not a one-sided story - it is also very difficult to generalize. The only thing that can easily be generalized are the things that are implicitly generalized already. Like "what society expects a man/woman to be". So yea, Gender roles - in as far as we're still stuck in the outdated heternonormative world-view.

Part 3

As has been often pointed out, these "Meninists" will have no issues complaining about how men are disproportionally suffering - compared to women - when it comes to things such as war and labour. Followed up by the remark that it haven't been women that made it this way. It also weren't the feminists. The ire - which isn't usually a rational thing - is here directed at the woman for not adequately suffering alongside men or for not being grateful for men shielding women from that suffering. So, if you think about it a little bit ... you must realize that this is some crazy degree of mental gymnastics.
So, when we point out that "Patriarchy Evil" - we are trying to help. We are trying to tell you that your problems are a "you" thing. Not 'you' in particular - or specifically - but more of a toxic masculinity problem, if we wanted to keep it short.

It's kind of funny to me how Hillary Clinton is like ... demonized for being this warmongering Psychopath, but has at most only been almost the President of the USA. Which, yea, may have been the closest a woman has gotten to being an adequate scapegoat for all the suffering in the world - up until recently.
But men thinking that they'll gain favor in the eyes of women for fighting pointless wars - that's ... I'd argue a fantasy narrative.

It's similar to toxic masculinity. It's a form of self-aggrandizement, similar also to main Character Syndrome, similar also to American Superiority, where it's like ... everything one does ought to be worth some appreciation. There are many ways in which people may find whatever they're doing to be worth of admiration. There's a Southpark Episode about taking a world record shit. And I find it worth noting here.


If you want to have things straight, you first have to learn what straight is. To that end ... facts are like a ruler that help you draw straight lines. You should however not start by drawing crooked lines, calling them straight as to then throw away the rulers for not aligning with your nonsense!


The big hurdle here would seem to be that men have to learn that women also are human beings with needs and sensitivities. We aren't wish-fulfillment-machines - and much less are we capable of changing the world if we're not even listened to.

Part 4

In case it wasn't clear, the problem is that these men don't seem to recognize the true quality of the role models they chose for themselves. And I'm not talking about the Man-O-Sphere influencers, but those above that create the conditions for these dipshits to thrive. So, Orange Man for instance.
But yea, it goes a lot further - and TJ's Video that I shared previously goes a long way in laying things out.

"The Mono-God" I think is even a good way to describe it. It also works within the context of the Bible because the original term for God in it is a prulaistic one. To my understanding that pluralism isn't a polytheistic thing, but a hint at God's inherent diversity.
And while that narrative certainly has some more depth to it still - I don't want to delve into the theology of this just yet.

The issue for here is that the spiritual leaders of Christianity so far haven't done a great Job at looking at Jesus as a role-model of masculinity. Or to even consider it.
Like so, when we see images of Christ, He's either hanging from a Cross or lording His divinity over the masses. We barely see Him described as a Philosopher or Friend, a Rebel or Kingpin. The entire concept of independence and free thought is like ... horribly absent from the Christian mindset.

Instead, men have exalted their ego into a position of dominance - to the point where it's presented as what God wants. And if you have a hard time associating "classical masculinity" with Christ, the problem may be that your ideas of masculinity are horribly backwards!


But does it come as a surprise? I mean, Jesus made a case for paying Taxes; And yet, apart from collecting their own taxes, Christian organizations seem to be allergic to the concept.
I mean, it makes sense for Churches to argue that the money that people give THEM should also be for THEM and not also the Government - but for being Christian nations we don't seem to have a healthy relationship with the whole idea nonetheless.

Maybe because we somehow understand that these people don't really use the money in the way they should.


So, it doesn't really matter what qualities we want to assign to masculinity, at first. As it stands, men are the dominant Gender - and it is merely by virtue of that, that we expect them to use that privilege responsibly. So we might call them "Providers" - which certainly is a role that makes sense. Alternatively though we might have Managers or whatever. The point is ... how can we get these "Men" to do what they ought to?
Which men?


Whatever. The real point here is that men shouldn't be afraid from taking an example in Christ. I mean, it's explicitly what the Bible asks from us.
I mean, if you're looking at this world - ignoring everything that women have any control over - is what you see something to be proud of? You know ... as ... something that is "Man Made"?

And eventually it is us then that try hard to get men together, to cooperate, to work this shit out; So, don't blame us if it doesn't work out because ...


I'm reminded of some ... what to call it? So, at the start of my "Ausbildung", we had these "classes" focused on things such as "how to deal with violence?" - and one was about teamwork. Here we played a few games that were meant to see or train how well we would work together as a team.

1) As a group, standing in a circle, everyone is to hold a chair in front of them such that only the front legs touch the ground. The task is to make a full cycle ... not moving the chairs ... without the back legs of a chair to touch the ground.
2) As a group, balancing a stick or beam - anything long and stiff - on their index fingers, such that everyone's index fingers touch the stick, the task is to move the stick to the ground.

Those would be the simple ones. And I've heard that some groups just can't manage it. Here failure isn't a problem of the task being impossible ... because it isn't.


Anyway. I'm out of Ammo ... so ... yea. I hope you can take these things to mind.