Habibi left this comment on the back end. She is an editor and would have been horrified to have her name attached to a typo or two. The back end comment function does not permit editing. Besides, this learned gal, who speaks and reads 4 languages, which is 3.5 more than most American humans are conversant in, has offered quite a lot for a cave man to chew on here.
“I have two questions, one quick, and one not so. If masculinity is an evolved state, why do males do most of the killing on the planet?
Yes, I want a serious answer if there is one, including the difference between masculinity and male.”
Masculinity as an Evolved State?
This question can be looked at scientifically or spiritually.
Scientifically, using Darwin’s Origin of Species as a guide, with field work done by thousands of scientists in the century and a half since, we understand that Man evolved from apes. Most apes are exclusively vegetable and fruit gatherers, with those apes that eat meat being closer to humans genetically. The two watershed moments in human brain development were due (1) to tools that first permitted regular meat consumption, and (2) then the capturing of fire, which permitted the extraction of more energy from meat, which in turn permitted surplus energy for using these big brains for something other than a cooling organ under the African sun. See Our Kind by Marvin Harris.
The proto-human male, designed to rape the female and fight other proto-human males for access to her, was more adaptive to the hunting aspect, behaviorally diverged from the female gathering function, and rather gathered information about the more widely dispersed animal life, eventually becoming the most evolved killer on the planet!
When looking at evolution we make the mistake of thinking evolved is always better, although sometimes it is a dead end, such as the dodo bird that evolved to suit its environment and was promptly clubbed for food by Dutch sailors. Looking at sports, an American would look at American football and see something that has evolved for the good above and beyond European Football and English Rugby, where Europeans look upon our national pastime as a savage commercial aberration.
Spiritually we look upon the boy coming from the body of the mother and lacking a physiological coming of age flag such as menstruation. Obviously when the male youth begins to mature he must be guided in the nature of his gender role in a more radical way than the girl. The necessarily transformative process of coming of age in pre-religious society tended to position the male spiritualists as religious leaders in settled environments resulting in Yahweh rather than Yahwena for instance. In most primitive societies a little girl's life does not differ from her mother’s life nearly so much as the little boy’s life differs from the father’s life. If the man is to go away and explore, hunt, fight, and kill, he must, as a youth, be taken away from the family in ritual preparation. Purification rituals will be conducted before his return from war, something noteworthy for being absent from the modern soldier’s life, making soldiers much more likely to suffer from PTSD than did their ancient warriors equivalents. This is an example of modern and postmodern humans attempting to live according to a fictional construct and paying the price of the damned.
The Difference Between Masculinity and Male
My definition of male is simply this: “a biological platform for the development of masculine traits”
Many will disagree. I see masculine traits as inherently based on male physiology and psychology, with the psychology being the weak regressive link prone to falling back into feminine patterns. Masculine function in society is based on male physicality but is not exclusive to it [Look up Rhonda Rousey or the aptly named Chris Cyborg]. Just as females are more physically vulnerable to the male the male is more psychologically vulnerable to the female. Recognizing this, every male society at stone age level had rituals in place where the social adaptations that comprise a set of masculine tactical virtues [See Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men ‘The Primitive Math Of Violence’] are implemented by physically removing the pubescent youth from the women who cared for him as a boy and effecting the transformation from boy to man through ritual means. Note that most primitive warriors, upon first contact, did not regard most white men as men, but as a kind of drone-like tool dispensary with bizarre female [generally defined as materialistic] sensibilities.
Habibi Reacts
“I also have a reaction: Just because men don't understand women, doesn't mean the male standard gets applied to inferior, wannabe men. And vice versa, which is why I'm asking questions, not preaching (yet).
I define your wannabe men as manginas, and estimate that 80% of the adult male population of the U.S. suffer from either chronic or terminal manginitis. Perhaps you could recommend a feminine hygiene product.
“The longer item: As an empathetic and particularly emotional female, reading the Seven Pillars of Emasculation made me sad. Nobody wins in this tale, and no suggestions are offered to solve this predicament.”
A penchant for happy endings is the defining characteristic of the human female, which makes her more susceptible to social pressure than a man. If tyrants are to rule they require emasculated men and hopeful women to put up with their oppression for some greater good, such as children not starving in an obese nation. I say, ‘let the weak fall.’ If he is a denatured man let him fall into reproductive oblivion. If she is a woman let her fall into the arms of a hard man—or rabid dyke as her inclination dictates.
“As a feminist submissive by choice (and choice is one of the main precepts of feminism), with all of her faculties intact, I can still recognize a bitch session which is missing a positive resolution: a suggestion or two, to give the thoughtful reader hope for a happy ending (however false it may be). And no, I'm not fond of Dickens or Tolstoy...
So, I ask you, O Great Testicled One, what can you say to restore this feminist submissive to her hope that she may have her cake and eat it too; without stripping her of either purpose or pleasure, and without her testicled cronies losing anything that they came into the world with either.....because therein lies the only possibility for celebrating what continues to make the world go round: Mother Nature's impetus to make us mate, which challenges us all with the results... On a positive note, however, "Vive la difference!"
Actually, only one of them is ‘great’ as Damien Kestle kicked all of the tubing out of the right sack into the left one in a machete duel—which I won in Pyrrhic fashion—in 2004. I appreciate the assumption though. I actually suffer from low-T.
As was Ernst Junger, I am categorically opposed to happy endings. I am also opposed to ‘bitch sessions’ which, unfortunately is a lot of what goes on between men online discussing their highly contrived social emasculation in our society’s bizarre quest for a one gender world. There is nothing more unmanly in my eyes than two dudes bitching like women about women behaving like men. What I am exploring in Of Lions and Men, are those means by which our ancestors maintained gender differentiation, and noting how those means have been eroded. The number one rule for men seeking to increase or maintain or gain back their masculinity is not to bitch, but to have tactical discussions, which will gather intelligence for action.
The number two rule is to act without guarantee of a happy ending or a win, or the much obsessed over absence of risk. The male role was, for ages, the taking of risks, yet our society seeks to minimize this at every juncture, and thereby works toward a functionally one gender world. For instance your conjoining of purpose and pleasure is a typical female sentiment. To be a man one must pursue purpose without pleasure. Not so with the woman in a natural primitive breeding environment, where her purpose is inextricably linked with pleasure.
P.S.: I think your prediction for the future would make for a sad world. Who wants to be guaranteed a world full of female bosses and female drama? ...Sorry, Sisters...
Utopian dreams of a happy world caused as near as I can tell 150 million deaths in the 20th Century—100 million from communism alone—and is currently encouraging our fanatically greedy corporate structures to deplete planetary resources at unsustainable levels. My contention is that nothing shall achieve human sorrow more assuredly than the pursuit of a sadness free world.
P.P.S.: I am not a dyke either.
That is excellent news for mankind. Bringing a baby boy into the world and letting his father raise him is one of the best things a woman can do to cut down on youth male violence and male-on-female violence. Our current problem with psychopathic levels of violence in the African American community [a community that was bizarrely non-violent 120 years ago] can be traced directly to the policy of the U.S. and state governments targeting low income communities for fatherless household subsidies. Tens of millions of American women—mostly black and white—are currently taking government money in exchange for denying their children a functional father, for a tyranny can only properly thrive when there is but one father, The State.
O Great Half-Testicled One:
Your answers were very thoughtful.
Regarding the following, I was not clear in my question, thus the answer is not applying to the question:
“I also have a reaction: Just because men don't understand women, doesn't mean the male standard gets applied to inferior, wannabe men. And vice versa, which is why I'm asking questions, not preaching (yet).
I define your wannabe men as manginas, and estimate that 80% of the adult male population of the U.S. suffer from either chronic or terminal manginitis. Perhaps you could recommend a feminine hygiene product. "
What I meant is, Just because men don't understand women, doesn't mean the male standard gets applied to women as inferior, wannabe men or vice-versa.
I speak from the knowledge that historically, medical studies were done using a male population. So surprised when they discovered that male heart attack signs differ from female heart attack signs. If I’m not mistaken, this discovery was pivotal in reconsidering the applicability of tests originally done on males to females. It also cost quite a few female lives before they connected the dots. But oh well, those are cheap enough.
There’s also the problem of doing things to women in a medical or pharmaceutical way that I doubt would ever be acceptable to do to men.
Imagine a 25% hysterectomy rate (care for your other testicle?) and what the effect is on a woman who is missing her ovaries or staying in a hospital that has a high c-section rate (not due to the population of women being served either (I read about both of these in the 80’s, just to place my knowledge base in time for these items). Our gender has plenty to complain about. But I digress.
One more question
“For instance your conjoining of purpose and pleasure is a typical female sentiment. To be a man one must pursue purpose without pleasure. Not so with the woman in a natural primitive breeding environment, where her purpose is inextricably linked with pleasure.”
Pardon my stupid, stupid question, but why then do I see so many examples of males taking pleasure without purpose (leaving children scattered behind as they travel their trail of pleasure)? Or is this the behavior of the mangina you refer to?
Thank you for your answers in advance, Dear Abelhard.
Most sincerely,
Habibi
Yes, these insemination machines are not social behaving as men have in traditional societies but are instead adapting to an emerging one gender society. At the dawn of modern medicine in medieval Europe women were viewed through the Christian prism as defective men. Now, men are being viewed through the feminist prism as defective women. Perhaps this is just deserts for thousands of years of rape and imprisonment. I recommend Jack Donovan's No Man's Land which is a free e-book available on his site fro the state of boys denatured education today.
Keep in mind Ms., that the type of feminism you seem to promote is not the feminism that is being pushed today. Today's feminist agenda is a genderless society without distinctions between male and female, including educating boys as girls and drugging them up and making them sit in class instead of doing traditionally male activities. The schools my sons attended were staffed predominantly by women and gay men, all of them left wing liberals. Only some members of the black community and a few researchers like Jack Donovan seem to realize that there is a conscious effort to separate men from boys in this society and to have boys ushered into a gray malehood majority according to female sensibilities rather than true manhood.
Again, I am not arguing anything on a material [including the body and medicine] level but on a spiritual level, a level that leftists deny exists. Women have a built in need to seek comfort and security—usually at all costs. So, with women voting more than men, our society will tilt toward safety and security at all costs—most especially the cost of liberty—which is traditionally more of a male concern. I dare you to find a woman who you cannot question into a corner and finally get her to agree, that for this good, or that right, or a lower unemployment rate, that it would be acceptable to have a governing council of caring and all-knowing rulers to make our decisions for us.
My core point is that the submissive instinct in women is strong enough, that once they have the greater number of votes in a media-ruled society like this, that any and all personal liberties will eventually be sacrificed for safety, plenty and comfort. I am telling men that this is the way it is and it will not be getting any better, and that they need to live in their own mind and find a way to remain a man in a society in which being a man is increasingly politically incorrect, taboo, and criminal.
Thanks for the input.
“What would be best for you is quite beyond your reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best is to die soon.” - The Birth of Tragedy by Friedrich Nietzsche.
Indeed James, where did this modern obsession with a “happy ending” in all things come from? This is in contravention to all the world’s religions and philosophies. They all teach that the “happy ending” only comes after you die: when you go to Heaven, Valhalla, the Elysian Fields, achieve Nirvana, join with the One, rise from the dead on Judgment Day and live forever on an earth restored to its Garden of Eden state, and etc., etc., etc. All the prophets and philosophers teach that human existence is full of suffering. After all, Satan is the Prince of the World; he is determined to make all of Mankind feel his pain. “Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short." (Revelation 12:12). The existence of evil remains an unfathomable mystery to Humanity. Buddha teaches in his Four Noble Truths that human life is discontentment and suffering. Allah created heaven and earth and life and death to put Mankind to the test, to see who would acquit himself the best (Sura 44:38, 67:2). The Taoists teach that the ultimate reality is unknowable and unperceivable. The ancient Stoic philosophers essentially taught that anything that can happen can happen to you; since most of what can happen to you is bad, you should be thankful when nothing happens to you. “Everything that happens is fair and just to the gods, but human beings regard some things as just and others as unjust” (Heraclitus). Life is impermanent, a Veil of Illusion. Nothing is certain but death and taxes. So at best human life is managed suffering, managed risk and managed loss. Being the jingoistic myrmidon that I am, I recognize that being born an American is an incredible windfall profit, one that has delivered me and mine from the suffering and drudgery that so much of the rest of Humankind must endure on a daily basis. The Leftists (The Woman) would have me feel guilty about that. I do not and will not. Of course the Leftists believe in their heart of hearts that utopia can be coerced into existence on this world, but their grievance mongering just causes more discontent. Their nihilism destroys institutions that work and replaces them with ones that do not work. You are as happy as you make up your mind to be. Over-analyzing happiness and making other people responsible for your happiness is the sure to make yourself unhappy.
“So Gilgamesh, accept your fate. ...Make every day of your life a feast of rejoicing! This is the task that the gods have set before all human beings. This is the life you should seek, for this is the best life a mortal can hope to achieve."
Jeremy, do you know how intimidating you are?
It seems that whatever I write about you know more about!
Are you a giant brain in an aquarium that sends your body over to the keyboard? Or are you typing with thought waves while you body toils for The Woman?
You make the obvious and overwhelming case here—and have permitted this humble primate to cross the t and dot the i at the end of the thought—that what atheism gets an ape who wishes he were God, is an ever upwelling need to craft for himself a paradise on earth, with Satan demoted from time share manager of Hell to janitor of a disappointing interim heaven.
Its a wonder that so few of us stop to consider that the Old Brimstone Boy might not be happy with his new job description. The first thing you get when you demote a manager to janitor—for I have done it—is inexplicably clogged sanitary drains!
Dude, I'm posting this comment as an article.
Thanks