I’m starting a series that I’ve been wanting to write for some time. The manosphere claims to be about the promotion of patriarchy and masculinity as the pinnacles of manhood, but the tactics they use and the opinions they share are lefitst and they are effeminate. Over the course of this series, I will discuss various common misconceptions of masculinity and femininity, as it pertains to the manosphere and to Christianity. In the process I will show that:
Many claims of patriarchy and masculinity are empty bravado and posturing.
There are a lot of engineering types in the manosphere, as well as lawyers, psychs, and insurance types. These are not who you normally think of as paragons of masculinity. But a few men have the physical attractiveness to pull off 10 out of 10 masculinity scores.
Ivan Throne is a self-proclaimed philosopher and “financial industry professional” as a senior project and program manager for a financial services industry over two decades. In other words, he more-or-less has the same credentials that I do, with the bonus that he is in the class of non-anonymous men who have published works (a trend I noted years ago in “Anonymity and Authorship“). Before he got permanently suspended from Twitter, he made this infamous comment about a certain statue:
We’ve all run into men in articles and forums who speak with this kind of superlative, hyperbolic bravado. This extreme level of overconfidence is the male equivalent of “YOU GO GIRL!” “Men of the West fight for real attractive women, not those fat ugly women! Men understand the perfection to be found in a beautiful Western woman!”
Then in walks one Rollo Tomassi—the Red Pill’s own Rational Male—to add to the discussion. Rollo is among the most famous members of the manosphere. He is, arguably, its Godfather.
Knowing what you know about the manosphere and its views on masculinity, what do you think Rollo is going to say in response to Throne? I promise that you won’t be surprised:
Truly, how could any woman even remotely comprehend the act of worship that a man has for the female form, the passion in which a man respects the beauty of the feminine? What do you think?
The statue of the perfect Western woman that only a male sculptor could make? It was made by a Chinese woman named Luo Li Rong.
I’m opening this series with this pie-in-the-face moment because it highlights a trend that I’ve seen throughout the manosphere: there is no clear, rational, non-contradictory definition of what masculinity is. For the Rational Male™ to make such a comical mistake underscores the fragility of his philosophy. He can’t comprehend the world that differs from the one that he created in his head, even though that world actually exists.
These men take themselves deeply seriously, but to outsiders they are ridiculous fools. Our resident expert (I’m not being sarcastic) said it best:
Throughout most of history, it was the female who “worshiped” her lord husband. But for Throne and Tomassi, only the male is even capable of showing that kind of worship. Those two were strutting like peacocks before a peahen, and they were shown to be ridiculous. They lost the dance for a mate, and they will continue to do so:
In the fight for a mate, most of the birds are losers.
In birds, it is the male who is the most beautiful, who struts and preens, competing with the other males to attract that one female. In humans, it is the female who decorates herself with finery and competes with the other females for that one prime male. Now you can see why when men in the manosphere, paragons of masculinity, crowd together in social cliques to compete for that one unicorn, they look very, very unmasculine to observers.
In traditional patriarchal societies, a man had authority over his own domain. You didn’t dare command (or touch) another man’s wife or kids within his domain, lest that husband and father challenge you (e.g. in a duel, a fight, or a good old-fashioned public shaming). Unless you had a death wish. Violence is masculine, but applying it—or encouraging it—in a stupid manner makes you a stupid man: not all applications of masculinity are good all the time, a point that is apparently unclear.
Red Pill Patriarchy is a parody of patriarchy. Much of the modern Red Pill wisdom does not align with scripture or even with history (as with John Chrysostom). This is easily seen in Saint Dalrock’s piece “What if we acknowledged repentance and respected men who married single mothers?” (PDF) where he suggested the following policy (to the cheers of his audience):
Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?
We wouldn’t have to be cruel about it, just honest, humble, loving, and sincere. This would be incredibly powerful, and would set the couple (and therefore the children) up for a much greater chance of success. It would also go a long way to reducing any shortage (if there really is one) of Christian men willing to marry Christian single mothers.
This plan—to publicly shame single mothers publicly on their wedding day—is extremely insulting to the idea of Patriarchy. In a comment on my article “Judgy Judges Judging“, Boxer nailed it:
Without the right of paterfamilias to take into marriage anyone he wants, then there is no paterfamilias. There is no patriarchy without the paterfamilias.
The minute a man decides to marry a skank-ho single mom, she is no longer a skank-ho single mom. She becomes the honorable affianced of the paterfamilias, and one can not occupy both of those roles at the same time.
A public declaration of the “sin” of the wife would be an insult to the man who marries this woman, aside from being ridiculous. One might evade shame with a wedding, but s/he doesn’t evade “sin” this way. If sin is a private matter, and repentance is possible without an earthly mediator, then there’s no way of knowing who has or hasn’t really repented anyhow.
The bottom line is that by doing what Dalrock suggests, one negates the whole concept of patriarchy. I know his heart might be in the right place, but ask yourself if any such thing (announcing all the past misdeeds at a wedding celebration) ever was customary in classical antiquity (either among the Jews, Greeks, Romans or anyone else). No authentic patriarchal culture ever had that as a more, and for obvious reasons.
I said something similar to Sharkly about his weak-form patriarchy, which at its core disrespects patriarchal men. So concerned are the “patriarchal” men with nagging women (and their husbands), that they’ve merely turned into old women talking about men with the sexes reversed.
Man Up! Woman Up?
It is my assertion that, in general, the Red Pill and the manosphere want a form of limited patriarchy where women are completely subservient and controlled by men, but without the duties and responsibilities that would inherently fall on a paterfamilias by the mere nature of his position. This is indistinguishable from the endless line of feminists who argue for the same thing with the sexes reversed:
Lily B. was essentially telling her husband to “Man Up.” “Man Up” is the aphorism for the duties of man under the Law of God. There is nothing wrong with this: all men should man up, especially patriarchal men. I once said something similar:
Telling a man to “Man up” is perhaps the least offensive thing a feminist can do. It is, arguable, a rather plain, but grudging, acknowledgment that he should be in authority and she shouldn’t, regardless of what else she says or does.
The problem, of course, with “Man Up” is that it is typically paired with the implication that women are exempt from their duties, as perfectly illustrated in Lily B.’s comment. But the lack of femininity in a wife does not justify a lack of masculinity in her husband, nor does the lack of femininity in a wife justify husbands acting like women. Manning up is good advice. Telling wives that they are exempt from biblical wifehood and motherhood is bad advice that may well lead to divorce.
I simply don’t find men who preach about patriarchy convincing when they look like complaining women, just with the sexes reversed. If your idea of masculinity is males doing what females do, how is that masculinity? Fighting “Man-Up” just makes you a male Lily B. who also isn’t going to budge an inch until the problem with the other sex is completely resolved. If your behavior as a man depends on what your wife’s behavior is, you are likely in a stalemate.
As this series continues, I will show how black and white thinking of femininity and masculinity are errors. Sexual dimorphism simply does not work in such a strict binary mode, and attempting to shoehorn this philosophy it into reality results in silly things like the above. Make no mistake, Throne’s and Tomassi’s pie-in-the-face was no freak accident.