The psycho-spiritual balance between the masculine and feminine properties in western society is on the verge of collapse. The sexes just don’t see eye to eye these days, and seems ill will between women and men is reaching an all-time zenith. The question is, why? Today, we’re going to shed light on some of the factors contributing to this disharmony, and what might be done about it.
First, the argument that biological gender is a social construct.
Many modern individuals are of the opinion that the differences between men and women are purely a result of socialization and upbringing, and that if such cultural constructs were erased, men and women would be identical in all respects.
There are some major flaws with this argument. Primarily that it’s biologically inaccurate at its core.
It’s a non-controversial statement that humans are sexually dimorphic, and that human reproductive traits narrow themselves down to two essential categories. Either someone is born with a set of testes, or without them, and there is a whole slew of features associated with a human that has testes that are generally not in present in those that lack them.
I’ve chosen to start with a rather bland, yet incontrovertible set of facts when laying out this line of reasoning so that this doesn’t sound like an ideological position. It isn’t an opinion that by and large, humans are sexually dimorphic, and that intersex traits are a genetic anomaly, affecting a very small proportion of the population (about 1 in 2000, or .05 percent). As such, anyone with even an iota of respect for the science this civilization is built on cannot deny the fact that there are only two genders. It’s simply an inarguable point, unless one wants to post hoc extend the definition of “gender” to include psychological and social preferences, which seems like a rather cheap, unwarranted deviation from the original set of facts.
Nonetheless, there are those who would espouse such a viewpoint, and further yet, use it as one of the pillars of their world-view. With a fallacy serving as the basis for one’s ideology, one is free to draw other baseless conclusions, for example:
Western Society is a tyrannical patriarchy.
(So, do your part and damage society as well.)
This one is an absolute killer for male/female harmony.
The basic premise here is that men (who, as we’ve discussed before, don’t really exist) have, over the centuries conspired together, and made it their prime objective to oppress women (who are, in fact, indistinguishable from them) out of cruelty and malice, and finally to obtain sexual and social power.
While it seems rather tongue in cheek to lay it out like that, I haven’t said anything that a certain segment of the western population would disagree with. One of the statistics certain groups cite as evidence for this tyrannical oppression is that American women on average earn 80.5 cents to the American man’s dollar. This is often called the wage-gap, and is a common political talking point among establishment democrats and far-left advocates alike.
Again, there are some flaws with this interpretation. Primarily, and most obviously, its self-contradictory nature. How can there be a wage gap if gender is a social construct?
I’m not one to espouse this viewpoint, but it seems rather difficult to draw a disparity between two groups that don’t exist, or to insist that said disparity is purely the result of the oppression of one of these non-existent groups over the other.
Furthermore, there are third world countries in which both males and females are equally poor, earning pennies on the dollar to the average American, yet I doubt anyone would argue that it’s a result of the active tyranny of American civilization lording it over them (though indeed, I may be surprised).
Another issue with this argument is it’s a radically oversimplified unidimensional assessment of the initial statistic, with no attempt at addressing the underlying context.
For reference, men vastly outnumber women in terms of full time and overtime positions.
(Women outnumber men from 39 hours/week and below, but beyond that point, men are disproportionately more prevalent.)
In addition, on average, men work longer hours, which is unsurprising considering the previous statistic.
(A simpler statistic, but still telling. Men work longer hours per day as well.)
As the employer of a company, would you be more inclined to give pay rises to those who showed up to work for longer hours?
Another contributing factor is the disparity in interest between men and women. Generally, men are more interested in things; objects, and ideas, and women are more interested in relationships and people. The primary education, social work, and nursing fields are overwhelmingly populated with women because women are the most likely to gravitate towards jobs in which they can provide attention and care for people. Likewise, the STEM fields are heavily populated by men, because, by and large, men are more interested in mathematical and scientific pursuits. Aerospace engineers earn a great deal more per year than school counselors, social workers, and nurses on average. If the solution here is to simply flatten the wage disparity by insisting the government to step in and forcibly pay physicists and engineers the same wages as the school teachers and nurses, we’re headed down a very slippery slope towards communism (and there are, in fact many people who would very much enjoy that, tyranny included).
I can already hear the protests insisting that:
If only our culture hadn’t so thoroughly conditioned boys to be interested in objects by giving them trucks to play with, and similarly conditioned girls by giving them dollies, they might have identical interests.
(Tyranny at its finest.)
Again, this is false. Disparity in interest between genders is a phenomenon noted across the animal kingdom. Male chimpanzees are more captivated by object-like toys, from the time they’re young, and young female chimpanzees are more inclined to choose baby-like toys. We have, as of yet, not discovered a twisted cabal of tyrannical apes enforcing these rules upon their youth, so I doubt one can label that phenomenon a product of social engineering. Rather it’s far more plausibly explained as a biological impetus driving the growing chimps interests.
Furthermore, in Scandinavia, their governments have gone farther than any other to legislate away the societal differences between men and women, and give both genders equal opportunity to pursue whichever careers they enjoy. The effect? When given more freedom, the differences between male and female career choice is amplified, not diminished. This has been dubbed the “gender equality paradox”. Now, this might come as a shock to you if you’re of the ideology that insists the gender differences between male and female are merely the effect of socialization, but if you aren’t swayed by that opinion, this is a perfectly unremarkable result.
Of course, giving men and women more freedom to make their own choices results in men and women making different choices, because men and women are different. It isn’t a bad thing that we aren’t a homologous, asexual species. The sexual polarity we have is what creates attraction, much the same way magnetic polarity generates attraction.
However, those who insist that the history of mankind has been one of the domination and oppression of women by men want to see that polarity erased.
To achieve this, instead of trying to uplift women and celebrate their virtues, those who abhor sexual polarity denigrate men, assail them with hatred and vitriol and label their natural inclination towards masculinity “toxic”.
(Smashing or rather, "burning "the Patriarchy.)
There’s a wonderful video of a young Russian law student pouring bleach over the crotches of men she deemed “manspreading” (sitting with legs spread apart in public) as a way of delivering justice to their oppressive masculinity.
Of course, this demonstrates a clear lack of awareness of the underlying biology behind open or “spread” body language. It isn’t a microaggression or a sexual display to spread one’s legs, it actually finds its roots in the presence of high levels of testosterone. Open body language is a display of vulnerability and relaxation, it increases testosterone and mitigates cortisol, signaling to others that it is okay to let one’s guard down and be comfortable in the present situation. If anything, it engenders peace rather than oppression.
Now, the lovely thing about ideology is, it takes the place of facts. She didn’t need to be privy of the underlying neurobiology of body language, and in fact even if she was, it wouldn’t matter. Her ideology allows her to “know” what a man is up to when he spreads his legs on the subway without ever having to think about it: the subconscious or conscious oppression of nearby women. No education or inquiry is required, in an ideology, all problems are solved, and critical thinking is rendered unnecessary.
Now, this isn’t a hit piece on the femininity, or a treatise from the budding MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement, as that philosophy comes with its own pathological bag of snakes. It’s simply an assessment of the impact of third wave feminist ideology on male-female interactions and the emergent instability of our cultural and sexual relations.
It’s gradually becoming apparent that third wave feminism is both completely divorced from the original tenets of feminism, and simultaneously harmful to both men and women alike.
Third wave feminism is deeply pernicious and anti-female because it renders the average woman powerless. As a woman, if you’re unable to secure a good job, it has little to do with your level of education, experience, or competence in a given field. Rather it’s because society is rigged, and you never really had a chance to succeed to begin with. Oh, and you have the opposite sex to blame exclusively for that. As a woman, if you’re attracted to virile, strapping men with high levels of testosterone, it has nothing to do with your biology, rather it’s because you’re a naïve fool brainwashed by the prevailing culture and Hollywood, which manipulates you, and forces you to swoon at their image of an ideal man. As a woman, you should avoid and resent such men, for they are your enemies. Instead you ought to seek meek, incompetent, harmless boys (if any males at all) for partners, so that you can rightfully crush and dominate them, effectively punishing men for the callous sins of their forefathers.
This is a twisted, pathological, revenge-driven doctrine that subjugates women by placing them as the eternal victims of a perceived patriarchal oppression.
Be wary of any ideology which assumes you the victim, because in it, you’re liable to stay that way.
(Yet another ideology which rallies people on the basis of their victimhood, and not one wholly unpopular among feminists. We also happen to know exactly how that experiment went)
Now, we haven’t even begun to cover the rising number of fatherless, directionless, ostracized young men in our society, or the emergent problems lurking behind this trend, and for now, we’ll have to put a bookmark in it, as this article is dragging on. But suffice it to say that boys have a hard time finding their way in the world in a culture which sees male development as a social crime.
Nonetheless, in order to solve the problem of male-female conflict, we must move from the concrete to the abstract domain. We’ll assess the problem from a much broader perspective, instead of looking at individual cases, to see if we can extract valid insights across contexts.
Upon such analysis, it becomes clearer that if there is any antidote at all to the increasing destabilization of the connection between men and women, it is to firmly, yet respectfully draw the boundaries between them more clearly than ever. The idea that gender is a fluid, subjective phenomenon helps no one, and harms and confuses everyone, in the same way that playing that sort of game with age is harmful and confusing. Instead of trying to erase sexual polarity, or drag men down into the dirt, we should return to celebrating the feminine principle, and returning it to its rightful position in the hierarchy of cultural values: at the top.
It’s clear that women want to be revered, as should be. The feminine is the narrow bottleneck through which only the most exceptional genes must pass on to future generations, and human female sexual selectivity is the very driving force behind our species’ rapid evolutionary progress. This is not speculation, it’s an indisputable biological fact.
The verdict is also in on this discussion with regards to sociology. Cultures that fail to recognize and secure the archetypal feminine as a quasi-sacred principle are inequitable, unstable, and prone to corruption and pathology in their governments. In fact, it’s often been stated by sociologists that a good litmus test to determine the progressiveness and sustainability of a given society is to watch how that culture treats its women.
(Freedom)
As such, feminists recognize the injustice in societies that fail to hold women in the highest regard. However, to revere something, and even to serve it does not mean to allow oneself to become oppressed by it. The problem with third wave feminism is that it confuses the lack of reverence for women in American society with tyrannical oppression, and use that perceived tyranny as license for women to exercise male oppression to get it back.
Instead of having an honest conversation about the fact that women are biologically geared to seek men who are competent and powerful enough to protect them, and sensible and wise enough cherish them, feminists resort to vitriol to address the sexual imbalance in modern culture, and in doing so, only serve to worsen it.
Trust me, I’m not turning a blind eye to the dangers of the unmitigated feminine. I’m well aware that a sort of hyper compassion and excessive tolerance can begin to contradict itself, and that the feminine principle, if not properly offset by the masculine can easily spiral into cultural pathology as well. However, at the moment, the greater danger to personal liberties appears to be in countries which abhor the feminine (for instance, North Korea and the tumultuous Middle East).
as opposed to the nations that lean towards the hyper feminine (for example, Canada).
As such, the masculine principles of rationality, justice, and truth must take their rightful position in defense of these ideals, and act in the service of preserving feminine principles, lest society degenerates into oppressive, anti-individual, anti-human tyranny.
It’s a damn good thing that it’s an unspoken (and sometimes spoken) rule that on sinking cruise ships women and children enter life boats first. It’s one of the last remaining bastions of protective chivalry in our society, yet of course, third wave feminism, to its own detriment, and to the detriment of broader humanity, wants to see such bastions obliterated.
(Epic example of chivalry, from one the most popular movies among women of all time. Perhaps there’s a connection)
Our window of error is shrinking, and we need to get our collective acts together before the very ship we find ourselves on accelerates its descent into oblivion.
The impediments to male development must stop. Women need to assume their rightful place on the mantle of the cultural hierarchy of values, and fulfill their proper designations as the nurturers and encouragers of males who will eventually become worthy of them, and thus worthy of fathering the next generation of humankind. Men must not back down and shrink away from the challenges of life, regardless of the immense odds stacked against them, and the increasing condemnation of their development, and rise above the tyranny of the pathological ideologies that would strive impede them.
This is not optional. At this point, it is absolutely necessary our continued societal health. We must mend and re-balance the relations between the masculine and feminine energies of society, honor the sanctity of our women, and promote the maturation of our men so that we can mitigate societal distortions, and move towards our collective prosperity.