Why aren't men masculine anymore?

The erosion of manhood and its causes

I don’t care how much you can bench, how cool you look, or how many jiu-jitsu belts you’ve earned. If you don’t stand for something or can’t stand your ground when it matters, then you can’t be very masculine.

Male donkeys have massive shlongs, but donkeys are incredibly passive and submissive (I feel sorry for the poor things). A horse is one of the most powerful organisms on the planet, but it’s submissive and easy to tame; no self-ownership, no hope to control its mind let alone its body. What does a strong body matter when a mind is so easy to break?

Similarly, what good is a macho-macho man when he puts on a performance of bravado yet he’s nothing but a subservient yes-man when it comes to the dominant females in his life?

Masculinity standards

If you can’t stand for something, then you can’t stand for yourself, nor stand your ground against peer pressure… especially not against a woman’s shaming manipulation tactics. Males who succumb to toxic femininity - the shaming, the matriarchal manipulation of deliberately withheld female approval - can’t be masculine. A man sets boundaries and is not afraid to say ‘no.’ If you submit to the whims of a female putting on a faux-victim mask, making you feel guilty and responsible for her problems, then you can’t really be a self-reliant self-actualised man. Your deficiency in standing your ground reduces you to a mere male with delusions of manhood.

Similarly, the violently reactive male whose high estrogen levels compel him to respond with hissy fits and unhinged rage - like old Karens screaming at the waiter - isn’t masculine either. The aggressive male who loses his composure under pressure is just as weak as the submissive male.

By “stand for something” I mean a commitment to higher ideals and moral principles… enough so that you don’t feel compelled to force those ideals on others for cheap validation of your insecurely held beliefs.

“If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

- Unknown

I’ve known tons of males with the appearance of a Hellenic demigod - guys you’d cast as ‘80s action heroes or ‘60s epic movie protagonists. Their voices were like truck engines, strong and solid, and their demeanour conveyed dominance and aggression. Yet when it came to their relationship with their woman, not only where they passively compliant to the point of subservient servitude, but they behaved in a needlessly undignified manner, causing them to lose the respect of other males, and more importantly, the admiration of their women. Nothing turns off a woman more than losing her admiration for her man, no matter how handsome, macho, or wealthy he is. Even the most apparently masculine male can lose the admiration of his woman in an instant when he behaves in a way that demonstrates weakness: giving in to pressure, reluctantly submitting to others, and failing to stand for his professed values. Any woman reading this is welcome to comment on this.

The weak male archetype

Jerry from Rick and Morty, Cyril from Archer, Brad from Daddy’s Home, Mark from Peep Show… these are the type of push-over subservient male, a doormat for others, a passive-aggressive tool whose only way to survive is to become overly agreeable and underlyingly indignant. The best they can hope for from their needy agreeableness is sympathy from pity, which means that the women who settle for them despise them. Women loathe males they can’t respect. This type of male would not be able to survive in primitive human settlements. If not the other tribesmen, then the elements would destroy them. So it makes sense for the community or tribe to want to expel them lest they infect the group with weakness.

Note that this agreeable “nice” guy isn’t kind at all. He’s just “nice” because he has no other option. That’s why he secretly hates the people he’s nice to… and hates himself for being weak.

There is nothing more spiteful, untrustworthy, and devious than a weak male. Weak males are the perpetrators of every single betrayal and utilitarian atrocity in history because when you give institutional power to a weak male, he has tons of indignation to channel… loads of humiliation to compensate for by crushing others.

A true man doesn’t have to be kind but, whenever he is kind, it’s because he freely chooses it; he could have been unkind and gotten away with it, but he chose not to regardless.

Causes behind emasculation

We can theorise all day on reasons behind the lack of masculinity. We can point fingers at microplastics, seed oils, phytates, pesticides, and all sorts of chemicals that demonstrably reduce testosterone and sperm count. But what if the reduction of testosterone and sperm count is also the consequence of a psychosomatic mechanism?

Modern society isn’t structured for masculinity. From the way we commute to work to the actual work we do. Most jobs are desk-based. Males working in offices wear feminine pointy shoes and ties that resemble girly ribbon bows than anything actually manly. Their juvenile shirts and suits are uniform, denying them their individuality. Male corporate attire is impractical, which makes men awkward, uncomfortable, twitchy, and hopeless to defend themselves let alone the women around them. Men are supposed to look for function more than appearances. It’s a feminine trait to sacrifice function for appearance, and that’s totally fine. But when males do it, we get males with female complexes.

There’s a reason society has become so feminised.

I’ve written before about how government kills masculinity (part 1 and part 2). The state deliberately conditions us to be submissive and obedient. And we make excuses for our eagerly subservient mindset too. Not only that but family law in the supposedly “civilised” world grants every legal advantage to women, which overly emasculates men and gives women a sense of leverage in their relationships with men. This leverage is unnaturally based on arbitrary power structures.

Women aren’t built to have overt power over men, but rather, to seek a strong man to whom they’ll eagerly surrender. They can passively influence him using their subtle ways, but when he turns into a servant, they lose all respect for him and despise him for having to settle with him.

I’ve known a number of cucks in my life, and I’ve heard a few of them utter the same squeals of terror: “I have to do what she says otherwise she’ll divorce me and I’ll never see my kids again.” Perhaps it’s less mentally damaging to the children to be without a dad than to grow under a weak twisted shadow of fatherhood.

Let us not forget how the government even distorts the definition of masculinity, instilling in young insecure males the notion that the gay submissiveness of the military is somehow the epitome of manliness. It’s not. Not even close. No self-respecting man eagerly stands in attention to blindly obey other males. And if he’s forced to do it, then he can at least retain some of his integrity by obeying reluctantly, recalcitrantly, and resentfully. There is nothing more pathetic and unmanly than willing enthusiastic subservience.

The erosion of masculinity is the consequence of deliberate psychological conditioning through schooling. The state forces young boys to waste their most character-defining years in literal prison for kids where they are shamed for “not being as well-behaved as the girls,” completely being denied their right to channel those hormones in more masculine activities.

What are masculine activities? How about a mentorship where they can learn a trade? I don’t think anyone in adulthood remembers or cares about the geography or the needless mathematics kids are forced to mindlessly parrot in school. If someone’s trade or interest dictates it, anyone can learn anything they want, especially in this age of broad access to information. Schooling is quite literally useless.

Schooling feminises boys

Let’s examine how schooling erodes masculinity from a young age.

Authority

Schoolboys understand that they are forced to attend school. They know that, if they skip school, then their parents will be in trouble with the government. They’ll get knocks on doors and fines, and the government might even use violence to take the kids away from them to be brought up like cattle by strangers. So, all school kids learn that the world works via threats of violence, to which they must respond with submissiveness.

This instilled psychopathy of “might is right” teaches us all to be pathetically submissive whenever we don’t have power and to be inhumanely dominant whenever we do have power. Schooling teaches us to revere perceived “authority” - to submit to it when others have it, and to expect subservience whenever we have it.

It teaches us that strength means we should put others down. We associate strength with abuse. With this threat-based mindset, not only does our circumstantial power excuse our abusive behaviour, but it necessitates it.

But an abusive mindset is needy and weak. A man has the ability to be strong and kind without compromising strength. Abusive behaviour is just a desperate need for cheap meaningless validation from weak submissive people. So, as little boys become abused, they are taught to become abusive in a perpetual cycle of abuse. There is nothing masculine about abusive males; there is only a weak desperate cry for respect via intimation from broken males who can’t respect themselves.

Passivity

“Sit, stand, speak, be silent, do this, don’t do that…” All this ordering around, boxing and taming little children when they want to explore the world -and themselves- causes irreversible trauma. It teaches children not to trust themselves and to always look to others to tell them what to do. Not only that but endless controlling and ordering around of children renders them passive, always expecting, relying on, and wanting to obey others.

We were never free to run and stumble on experiences of our choosing, never free to roam and own our decisions for ourselves, let alone own our choice of education or values. We are deprived of initiative, spontaneity, and the courage to face the unknown, to make hard choices for ourselves, and to be trusted to own ourselves.

Instead, we have everything chosen for us from birth until 18 the earliest, and in many cases, until our 30s. Kids grow up to be passive so they can’t make any decision unless given to them by their government, their school teachers, their parents, their peers, or their YouTube “masculinity guru” scammer. Indecisiveness and susceptibility to influence are anti-masculine traits. And we are up to our necks in “influencers...”

Softness

No child needs to sit for so many hours a day. I know this objectively. How? All the postural issues that children experience from endless hours of schooling and homework: kyphosis, scoliosis, ankle overpronation (misdiagnosed as “flat feet”), and hamstring and hip flexor tightness. Children, especially boys, need to be more active due to their hormonal profile. Who decided how many hours of memorising bullshit is ideal for our entire childhoods? Which clueless fat atherosclerotic bureaucrat presumed to make that decision for us?

Schooling promotes a sedentary lifestyle especially during those developmental years that set the foundation for our entire lives ahead of us. Sitting down most of the day memorising useless bullshit you’ll forget the second you finish the exam isn’t helping anyone. Schooling - at best - is nothing but expensive, ineffective, and dangerous daycare run by useless government bureaucrats. But mainly, schooling is a propaganda, indoctrination, and social-engineering apparatus of the state.

Instead, physical activities, be it sports or trades, teach children competition, teamwork, facing confrontation, and most importantly, social skills. Physical activities teach children to trust in themselves and to be humble in accepting defeat. They condition the body - the vessel of the mind - to be healthy. People misunderstand the ancient Hellenic notion of “νοῦς ὑγιής ἐν σώματι ὑγιεῖ” (healthy mind in a healthy body). This doesn’t mean aspiring to maintain the health of both body and mind. It means that only in a healthy body can the mind be healthy. The body’s health must come first. This is why you can’t trust a sedentary academic with a thousand degrees and gynecomastia. The best software won’t work if the hardware ist kaputt.

The bottom line

The state is interested in weak, passive, submissive males. True men question authority. True men are not submissive. True men resist, defy, protest, and revolt. True men question perceived “authority” structures and don’t willingly submit to fat degenerate bureaucrats or repressed homosexual military figures. The truly manly aren’t the eagerly obedient cucks in love with their brutalisers - only masochists love being submitted. True men are defiant and recalcitrant even when they have to momentarily feign compliance.

Weak males are useful because they can’t recognise the difference between true masculinity and its weak distorted alternative: bravado. Bravado is crippling insecurity and neediness to prove oneself as a man because he knows he is not. This neediness compels him to enlist in the military, which is marketed as the epitome of masculinity when in fact, the military is a cult-musical tribute to gayness. The professional military (not conscripted servitude) always attracts the weakest of the weakest of boys, those who play too much Call of Duty and who have a desperate need for a “rite of passage” into manliness; the irony is that in the military they’ll learn nothing other than more internalised submissiveness.

All those soldiers who’ve killed and died in needless wars for petty political interests were, unfortunately, nothing but useful idiots who were egged on, goaded, and encouraged to “do what men do.” But what men actually do is protect their family and community - not by dying in a ditch somewhere in a war far away from home, but by safeguarding their family from the natural disaster of war itself.

Yuri Bezmenov was clear about how ideological subversion and demoralisation were useful to state power structures in solidifying their hold over their subjects. Emasculation is part of demoralisation. You wouldn’t want slaves with a self-reliant, defiant masculine state of mind.

---

It is no wonder that schooling is designed to discourage masculinity in boys. The state blatantly attacks masculinity with its promotion of ridiculously psychotic “gender” ideology, pop culture’s deliberate depiction of power-girls dominating weak stupid males, and feminist propaganda (e.g. the wage gap lie).

Feminism is a state-funded psychological operation to promote the hatred of men by women tricked into seeing themselves as victims - when in fact their faux victimhood is their privilege. The state promotes this psychopathy with the government’s own female-centric messaging, female-favoring regulations and incentives (e.g. affirmative action), and feminist funding opportunities for NGOs, media companies, and online grifters to regurgitate man-hating feminist talking points.

---

The state has every reason to want to undermine masculinity in its subjects. If you were a slave master, you’d want to castrate your male slaves to avoid revolt.

Arab slavers used to castrate male slaves for the same practical reasons. Make no mistake: your government sees you as a slave, and if you are a man, your state wishes to castrate you too, even if it’s only mentally.

---

Thank you for reading. I appreciate your time. All my work here is free.

Like, comment, share, or subscribe for free… or not. It’s all the same.

---