The tomboy debate - Samirah vs. Hannah Barron
Eastern shaming against the West
In The shaming fallacy [part 1], I failed to communicate my point accurately enough; that shaming, just like violence, is unethical only when initiated, when it seeks to alter the neutral state of the default. By all means, use psychological or physical violence when defending yourself from proportional aggression initiated against you. But to presume to take the initiate to shame others minding their own business so you can mold them to your image is immoral. It’s easy to see why. Just ask yourself if you’d enjoy being on the wrong side of this shaming dynamic.
Shaming context
Shaming as a means to promote your ideals and morals renders them meaningless. If your ideals are adopted only due to shame attached to their alternative, then they aren’t really adopted in any meaningful way, are they? If your virtues cannot emerge without coercion, then what good are they?
“But what if a degenerate displays abhorrent acts in front of my children?”
This is the straw man I keep getting whenever I talk about shaming as the false basis of one’s ideals. Some readers still refuse to understand the difference between shaming as INITIATION of aggression to change someone’s default position, and using shame in defense when faced with direct intent to provoke or threat. Society already disapproves of provocative displays of degeneracy in public; in legal reproductions, refusal of association, with ostracism, and yes, with shame. These consequences vary from culture to culture, as is understandable. The question is who molds and socially engineers culture? Western governments are set on promoting degeneracy while criminalizing objections. Are you sure the government wants what’s best for you?
Side note: By no means can you blame freedom for the celebration and promotion of degenerate and despicable public acts that we see in the post-modern West. It is in fact the state that goes against public sentiment to promote degeneracy. It provides incentives for corporations to adopt vile behaviours, including the trivialisation of pederasty. It spends your tax money to promote social engineering tactics to brainwash the masses, who assume it’s their idea to support such ideas. The state also punishes speech against such policies. In no way would a competitive free market go against the self-interests of businesses. A free market would never promote “go woke go broke” principles. A business that would do that would quickly be relentlessly punished by free-market pressures. The fact that big corpos do this means they have inorganic incentives to do so - from state actors.
Shaming is fine only when in response to aggression. Then there’s the subjective arbitrary definition of “aggression.” Some pretend to feel threatened by someone’s antithetical beliefs, even if that someone keeps to himself, or to his own country. Actual aggressors then use mental gymnastics to present the mere holding of antithetical beliefs as “aggression,” which shows how insecure they are in their own beliefs. Newsflash: every single aggressor believes he is responding to some arbitrarily defined “aggression” against him.
Baptising psychological aggression as a convenient “preemptive strike” is not morally justifiable because all initiators of aggression claim that their violence is for an arbitrary “greater good.” Shaming, just like physical violence, is morally justifiable only when it is an analogous response to actual threat, intimidation, provocation and aggression. However, shaming people to get them to adopt your ideals (people who are minding their own business no less), when they don’t do the same to you, is not morally justifiable.
The tomboy straw man
Enter the perfect example of shaming as unprovoked aggression, which occurred recently in Twitter (X) drama: the “tomboy” debacle initiated by a glam influencer named Samirah.
Here’s what happened.
Samirah presumed to take the moral high ground and the self-righteous stance of moral excellence enough to initiate psychological abuse (shaming) intended to publicly humiliate another influencer, Hannah Barron. Samirah published a thread mocking Hannah’s accent, ethnic background and “manly” activities, and claiming that American women were “literally mem.” I mean, if men where she comes from look like Hannah, she has my sympathies.
She then proceeded to shame men who don’t find Hannah as unattractive as Samirah wanted them to find her, as if people couldn’t see through this shaming manipulation tactic. She questioned men’s sexuality, as if she were the authority on the subject.
She then recruited her fellow propagandist and willing drone “super-sad” Saad to proceed with the common Easter shaming and false dichotomy tactic of “If - then.”
“If you have a different opinion than me, then you are <ENTER HERE SHAMING TERM>.”
I’ll go over the motivations behind Samirah and Saad’s contrived psyop towards the end of this piece.
But first, let me call it out for the straw man and gross misinterpretation that it was.
Samirah started this as an attempt to shame and demoralize Western women and men. The conversation then morphed into “tomboyism” and how women shouldn’t be forced or encouraged to do manly things. Yes, I do agree that women should be women, and generally, I don’t think any man finds women like Hannah Barron attractive BECAUSE she conducts manual labour, but DESPITE it.
The delightfully caustic
had this to add:
…and she is right.
Western women forced to be men is twisted. This state-promoted social engineering pressure gave birth to the boss-girl hag, the entitled man-hating shrew, the take-you-to-the-cleaners divorce queen, not to mention abusive single mother drunk on entitled child support, producing hopelessly dysfunctional offspring.
But this not what Samirah was trying to say, nor what Hannah Barron is. Hannah is not the butch lesbian stereotype who deliberately rejects her femininity with clumsy male mannerisms and an artificial deepening of the voice. Hannah is a stay-at-home mom who makes a living recording herself performing jobs and hobbies that mainly interest men. That’s her USP.
If some men are attracted Hannah only BECAUSE she does manly hobbies, then there is something weirdly broken in them, and Megha is right. But if they find her attractive and feminine DESPITE her masculine hobbies (which she does for novelty and attention), then this goes to show how feminine she truly is - she can do manly things without compromising her femininity, which she doesn’t, nor does she aim to.
For most men, Hannah is popular not because she exhibits masculinity, but because men like to see someone perform the hobbies they’d like to perform but can’t. Men also love looking at women. It’s great for them to visualise their favorable activities without having to stare at some random dude performing them, which would provoke their jealous of him for having the luxury while they rot away in a corporate cubicle. It’s demotivating. Instead, they prefer to watch an attractive lady perform those hobbies, which makes the experience more pleasant - not because she looks more attractive by doing them, but because she looks attractive DESPITE doing them.
I used to follow male fitness influencers for motivation, inspiration and fitness tips. But it became demotivating over time. I couldn’t help but compare myself to their implied impossible juiced-up standards. I noticed that I didn’t feel the same way when I watched female fitness influencers. If anything, they inspired me more because women are disadvantaged in physical fitness. I am more impressed by an amateur Crossfit girl snatching 50kg than a dime-a-dozen roid-raged dude deadlifting 420kg. I don’t follow the girl because I am attracted to her. I follow her becuase of what she represents: inspiration. If she can do it when she’s disadvantaged, then so can I. An enhanced male doing it doesn’t really mean anything to me. I don’t follow her because she happens to be attractive (if she is). If she is attractive, then it’s not BECAUSE she does masculine sports; she’s attractive DESPITE doing masculine sports.
The reversal
“So, should men do feminine things too, then?”
Men do feminine things all the time if it means becoming more approachable and less threatening to women: they wear bow ties, drink from martini glasses, wear flowers, work in marketing, and dress in impractical suits and high-heeled butt-lifting shoes instead of battle armour or cowboy attire, which is how MEN should present themselves.
The most famous rockstars - for whom women literally do anything to have a cheap one night stand with - wear lipstick, makeup and feminine wigs, just like androgynous 18th-century European aristocracy. When James Bond is not fighting bad guys or backhand-slapping women, he deliberately suppresses and contrasts his masculinity with the feminine tuxedo and impractical pointy shoes that define western emasculated man. This is what a gentleman is: a feminized man, not to make man gay, but to make him less threatening to women who are easily spooked by the masculinity they can’t help but revere - or fear. If anything, the this may sometimes highlight masculinity through implied contrast.
The same goes for tomboys; tomboyism is (for the most part) women’s desperate attempt at not scaring men away. Women like Hannah Barron who selectively exhibit faux-masculine behaviour are the gentle-women - just like gentlemen selectively exhibit faux-feminine behaviour. This does not make these women any less feminine, or these men any less masculine. If anything, their ability to tone down their femininity and masculinity respectively without compromising them makes them unwaveringly feminine and masculine. Women like Samirah, though, would probably feel their fragile conviction in their own femininity fractured if they had to open a pickle jar for themselves when there’s no man around to indulge them.
I’ll have to clarify again that woman like Hannah Barron who take on masculine activities so as to appear more approachable to men are not the same as the boss-girl. If anything, Samirah looks exactly like the typical boss-girl, the hyper-feminised glam princess, the insufferably entitled crone queen dragging her needy drone simps like Saad by their nose rings.
Samirah is the contrived overfeminine equivalent of the macho hard-man brut “Liver King” scammer, or the exaggerated manly man image of the Giga Chad meme. They are caricatures of femininity and masculinity respectively. And no, being juiced-up strong is not at all a mark of manhood. A frail 90-year old who stands for something is a man. A 30-year-old muscle freak, the undignified sellout to the fitness supplements industry, is not a man. See What makes a man for more. But I digress…
Samirah is the equivalent of the “Liver King,” a male so insecure about his masculinity he had to juice himself into comedy and act 24/7 that he’s this uber loud obnoxious “warrior.” Samirah is the exact same as the insecure “uber-man” steroid user, judging from her body modifications (creepy lip filler) and generous use of makeup to the point of drag-queenism. What are they overcompensating for?
On the other hand, Hannah Barron is the equivalent of James Bond, a man so secure in his masculinity that he is able to tone it down at will so as to be more approachable and less threatening. A truly masculine and socially calibrated man understands how his strong masculinity can be uncomfortable to men and women around him in most social situations. If the men who find Hannah attractive are gay, then women finding Bond attractive are gay too.
It’s actually the mark of a true man to be able to selectively tone down his masculinity without compromising it; not because he is weak, but because he can read the room, consider how threatening his masculinity could be perceived in a certain situation, and thus contain it for the sake of others. A man can be strong and kind at the same kind without compromising either. This is what a gentleman is.
This is exactly what women like Hannah are doing. They are the equivalent of the gentleman: women who at times tone down their femininity so as to not appear threatening to those around them (men and women). They tone down their femininity so as to not provoke female envy. They tone down their femininity so that weak males of the 21st century don’t find them threatening or put them on a pedestal.
Women like Hannah Barron selectively advertise themselves engaging in manly activities (hunting, videogaming, engineering) in an attempt to appeal and reach out to men. They understand that the 21st century is plagued by male insecurity and lack of masculinity. This goes for the West, East and all (if you’ve lived in the Middle East, you’ll see how truly matriarchal it is). Back in the old days, men used to be much fewer than women due to male infant mortality and wars that relied less on technology and more on ax swinging. So men had more worth due to scarcity alone. Now droves of males desperately compete for the top women who don’t seem to need men as much as men need women. The government more-or-less takes care of women’s need for protection, but no one takes care of men’s need for pair bonding. Women’s need for pair bonding is childbearing more than bonding with a man. So, males are expendable and disposable. This short-stick dynamic is what frustrates modern man.
In such a hyper-feminized environment, women with an interest in men have to tone down their femininity to not appear threatening to men. In the Renaissance era, coming out of the brutal hyper-masculine dark ages, men with an interest in women had to tone down their masculinity, if they wanted to appear less threatening to women. This is why women like Hannah Barron are so popular online. It’s an adaptation to the hyper-feminized post-modern world.
This try-hard makeup and over-feminized glamour by women to add to their femininity is a projection of insecurity and an overcompensation for deficiency. The same goes for the obnoxious bravado overly macho man showing off his muscles and aggression. He desperately needs to do so, because he is insecure in his conviction. James Bond doesn’t need any validation of his manhood. He knows he is a man. Similarly, Hannah Barron knows she is a woman. Her femininity is not threatened by occasional bouts of traditionally manly behaviour.
The reversal of Samirah’s argument is this:
“Any male without a beard, muscles, a weapon in hand at all times, and who isn’t a brut always ready for battle, is not a man. Business suits should be banned, and any women like such feminized males are gay. Also, James Bond is gay.”
This is Samirah’s “logic” applied to men.
Hannah is socially intelligent, so she understands what her audience likes. Samirah is also socially intelligent, but she appeals to a different audience: glam Eastern females and males with a passive aggression and underlying resentment against Westerners - Western women in particular.
West versus East
Eastern cultures tend to assume that their men are “more masculine” and their women “more feminine” than their Western counterparts. This is due to a variety of justified as well as deluded reasons. Easterners men make fun of Western men who marry women with a triple-digit body count. And they’d be right to do so, if Eastern men actually knew the rates of hymenorrhaphy among Eastern women. What did you think she was doing alone on her trip to South Korea, Singapore and Turkey?
People in the East confuse Western civility and nobility as weakness. Perhaps in the post-modern West, weakness has taken over, but make no mistake: civility and nobility are not weaknesses - it is a weakness to see them as such.
Eastern men tend to carry themselves with a flair of bravado, which they confuse with actual masculinity, thus they consider themselves more masculine on the basis of that alone. Similarly, Eastern women consider themselves better because they adhere to more traditional expressions of feminine roles. This part is true, but their involuntary femininity means little if their community gives them no choice but to embrace said female roles. And what you suppress tends to react the opposite way. Remember when Google released its porn term search statistics by country?
Eastern women of the Islamic persuasion in particular are complicit in their oppression. They go along with the Islamic oppression of women because they are complacent knowing that the women they envy are also oppressed. This is why I keep saying that Islam is Marxist in nature: people willingly accept their oppression because the same oppression of their neighbor outweighs their own. Marxism is the Samson tactic of self-assured destruction: people are happy suffering as long as their neighbour suffers too. It is peak schadenfreude. Why men embrace Islam? It’s the deification of faux-masculine bravado, a sex-obsessed coomer afterlife, and a promise of collective “conquest,” which all weak nerds crave. (See the recent state psyop promoting the Roman Empire “ideal” for young insecure impressionable males.)
Samirah is a try-hard over-feminized Eastern woman. I do not find Samirah attractive at all because she is this caricature of the entitled shrew princess stringing along her male swarm of drones like super-sad Saad. Yes, her face has some pretty features hidden under piles of makeup, lip filler, Botox and creepy contact lenes, but what demolishes her femininity is her know-it-all abusive demeanour. Not feminine.
Samirah loses her femininity by her aggressive hubris of presuming that her moral framework is the one and only objective one, and that she has an obligation or right to impose it on others. She has no humility, no groundedness, no courage to embrace her vulnerability, as a quality woman would.
Samirah presumed that her ideal is absolute for everyone. And that’s OK - we all need faith in ourselves, to an extent. But then she presumed to have the moral justification to enforce her idealism through psychological violence - shaming and public humiliation.
This is the West versus the East. The culture of the East initiates unprovoked shaming to get others to comply. It doesn’t use shaming in defense. Hannah’s videos aren’t provoking anyone who doesn’t deliberately choose to pretend to be offended by her. The East also fails to understand how men and women can at time choose to tone down their masculinity and femininity - not to swap roles, but to serve a function.
The Western gentleman concept is something Eastern men make fun of because the latter presume it’s unmanly - just like Samirah fails to (or pretends not to) see the femininity in Hannah. The gentleman is undeniably a man who chooses to tone down his masculinity whenever it’s appropriate, so that he does not appear threatening. It is socially useful. Likewise, women like Hannah (no, she’s not a tomboy) sometimes do manly things to appeal to a niche male audience. So what? Does that make her a man, or makes any man who still likes her gay? Most of her day she spends tending to her family, wearing cute dresses and smiling like the sweet young woman she is. What Samirah pretends not to understand is that Hannah is feminine not BECAUSE she records herself doing manly hobbies but DESPITE doing them. Just like James Bond is manly not BECAUSE he wears a feminine bow tie and drinks from a martini glass (a girly glass), but he’s manly DESPITE doing those things. Samirah and super-sad Saad’s logic here would deem as lesbian all women who like James Bond.
"Ridicule them and they will retreat from human association; shame them and they will find a hundred ways to get even." - John Taylor Gatto
What you missed about Samirah
Seeing how Samirah shamelessly expresses her insufferable disdain towards anything non-Muslim, and especially towards Western cultures, I’ll entertain the idea that she has an agenda - probably funded too.
Samirah uses textbook propaganda and social engineering shaming. She overtly calls for Western men to become “passport bros,” in essence to deny their own women. She promotes to Western women that Muslim men “the best,” but she failed to mention in what. If this isn’t a belligerent subversive tactic, I don’t know what is.
This latest post of hers showcases her shameless self-obsession and hopeless glam fetishization. Imagine calling your in-group “perfect” while in the next sentence shaming an out-group using made-up nonsense with an aim to provoke shame. This is how toxic femininity looks like. She is the crone female archetype; resentful and jealous of better women so she can’t help but spew her deleterious shaming to demoralize and break them - drag them down to her level of misery and self-loathing.
Seeing as though Samirah is blatantly dishing out war glorification propaganda, it’s safe to assume that she’s a paid propagandist promoting western subversion. What else can she be? She has a massive following with nothing of interest to say. Yes, the masses are interested in low-IQ shitposting, but I can’t help but wonder whom the mysterious Xitter algorithm favours, and why. And since we know that online influencers get invited to political parties and sell out to political interests to spread narrative over fact, I’m calling out Samirah as yet another obvious propagandist.
Key takeaways
Tomboys are the equivalent of gentlemen. A gentleman selectively tones down his masculinity so as to become less threatening to women. Similarly, a “tomboy” (I hate that term) selectively tones down her femininity so as to not appear threatening to 21st-century emasculated males. Instead of “tomboy,” let’s just call her innocently natural, rough around the edges, inelegant, child-like, or just a daddy’s girl who grew up with brothers.
Let us not confuse the boss girl matriarch archetype with the “tomboy.” The male equivalent of the boss girl shrew is the biker gang thug, the compensating-for-something bravado, the caricature of masculinity. The boss girl does not want to appeal to men. She wants to dominate them, just like the thug wants to oppress women. The main difference here is intent. Tomboys desperately want to connect to men. Boss girls hate men slightly less than they hate other women - including themselves.
Shaming someone for being a “tomboy” makes you the aggressor. If you are female, you lose your femininity by being aggressive and uncompassionate. In no way do girls such as Hannah Barron affect wannabe dark queens like Samirah other than poking the latter’s insecurities; but that’s Samirah’s problem. In no way is it moral to presume to shame men for finding Hannah Barron attractive DESPITE her masculine activities.
People who use shaming manipulation are themselves shame-based. They assume that everyone else is shame-based too, so they use the only leverage they know. By all means, shame the shamers. Shame is justified in self-defense and in response to unprovoked shaming.
Kindly share.
It takes a lot of time and energy to write these articles. All I ask is that you share this piece with just one person. If you read this far, I assume you found value in it.
Someone you know needs to read this. Do them a favour or troll them by sharing.
I prefer a follow on Substack Notes than a subscription to my newsletter. If you want to stay in touch, subscribe below for free. I won’t flood your inbox. Much of what I publish I don’t even send through email.
I cherish your feedback. Criticise me, if you wish - even in a disrespectful manner - but at least respect yourself enough to present logical arguments.
If you don’t already argue with strangers on Substack, then what are you even doing with your life? Download the Substack app. You get way more engagement than Xitter.
Love me? Send me a message.
Hate me? Send me two.
In Game of Thrones there were those sour nuns that shouted “shame!” judgmentally and were meant to make you cringe.
Instead people ran with that and started screaming “shame! shame!”, intuitively thinking that those were the characters to follow.
"no one will protect you like a muslim man will"
says the one suffering from stockholm syndrome.