I read quite carefully, omitting fragments, about Freud and Jung, who have long been excommunicated not only by psychologists and psychiatrists, but simply by no one taking them and their revelations seriously. Many years have passed, no one now blames everything on impulses...
you refer to them, nothing could be further from the truth, fortunately you did not base your entire post on their "knowledge". I would argue about the way of looking at sex, but never mind that... but the way you look at death...?? You would have to know how much effort it costs, and it takes YEARS, for people, not alcoholics, not taking any drugs, not to mention the tough ones, non-smokers, rescuers, who want to LIVE!!! without killing yourself with drugs and other shit, and bragging about it. I am an addiction therapist, so I have heard many stories and seen many life tragedies.
However, what struck me most was that you wrote about death. Someone goes out of their way to survive and live another day! They are healthy, let me just mention that they are mentally healthy and don't suffer from anything! Their lives simply turned out this way, with no money, no chance of a job, 30 years of loneliness, it doesn't matter who was unlucky, absolutely unlucky, many people, through no fault of their own, now the more they try to avoid the mess, the more they fall into it! They want to live, they fight for years, they run, they write, they read! They don't stuff themselves with shit, they don't brag about it to everyone. All this just so they can kill the thoughts that they won't be able to do it, they fight for years, weeks, even until they succeed, everything collapses, collapses, and you have to get up, go for a run, whatever to avoid staying at home! It doesn't matter that you don't know anyone anymore, you can't talk to anyone anymore, it doesn't matter!!! It's important to think!! although I don't see any reason!! getting up in pain for over 20 years and screaming, with no hope that it will get better! and to the usual daily routine, changed as much as possible without a penny, running, apart from good shoes, or walking because this fight for life lasts so long, sometimes in more hopeless cases, so long, so many years that some of them start walking, there is no opportunities for hobbies, mountaineering, swimming in the pool, it costs money, and we are talking about people who want to live at all costs! I wonder... it's terrible and indescribable... why am I writing this here? Because when you write from a patriarchal perspective, you also write about yourself. You have no idea what's really going on in REAL life!! And I'm not writing about Africa or any other third world, here and now in the USA, for example!!! If you don't see it and you don't see it... it's sad
R at the end you say Includes looking. I affirm this. I gained a march on my life by honoring my bent towards the whole auditory world for the longest time...but looking and i think the concomittant of holding your face in a fake of a dull witted simply taking all dangers and torpors is exactly what the world sort of asks from us. Not an idyll pronouncement. Take for example the identitarian movement. Ribbons and bows tied in the language of revolution. But the revolutions in europe 1848 to 1954 had the impacts of bringing our people to this continent. Handily crushed by the politically connected, but they looked they really looked and processed the Napoleon moment as the time to throw over drunken sherrifs and similar uprises.
Dating sites for me are like entering the 16th century. Men check a woman out like a doctor would. Do you have good teeth? are you fat? on and on. Auction block, kind-da-thing. So far, I have not been asked if I can milk a cow. 😁
I'd like to see you include discussion on honoring commitments made. At its core, manhood is about accepting responsibility and fulfilling one's commitments, to both self and others.
Great piece my friend, and I'm happy to see more us addressing the question, and the nature of masculinity, and manhood, IN OUR OWN VOICES. As much as I appreciate women speaking out about and in support of men & masculinity, it is our duty to ourselves and our fellow men to speak for ourselves.
Some of the ways that I define a "man"
1) man = person & good man = good person, i.e. there are fewer differences btw men and woman than there is common ground as human beings.
2) what is it to "be" a man is up to each man. I love how Grayson Perry refers to a "plurality of masculinities," and that it can be "whatever you want it to be," as I discuss here:
3) Patriarchy requires us to earn our 'right' to "be" a "man." To the extent there are benefits that accrue to men in "patriarchy" aka our current cultural system, we have to subjugate ourselves to that system to 'enjoy' those benefits. I love how my friend Kim Stanley Robinson pointed to how he learned to shift the paradigm of masculinity from dominance to resistance from his friend, CA poet Gary Snyder.
4) As you point out "In order to truly live you have to truly face death," in which "truly face," and "truly live" are key for me. I argue here that, because our past/current cultural system requires us to tell untruths about ourselves as men, and about men, that TRUTH is what men need most, and by focusing on embodying truth, men can bring something new, unique and powerful to our conception of love:
5) Inspired by a comment on my own stack from reader @david roberts, a "man" is a person who can be those few things only a man can be: brother, father, husband, son.
6) In thinking about what a man _can_ be, I appreciate the idea of "emergent masculinity." That is, a third way that is not about going back to some prior idea of what an ideal man was. Regardless of how it arose in the first place, that is a "solution to problem that no longer exists" as my friend Robert Ellis put it. Jung wrote that "Our present-day consciousness is a mere child is just beginning to say 'I,'" and our task, much more than to continue to try to explain the past, is to move forwards and integrate what we have learned, reintegrate our modern consciousness with our "primordial foundation," and continue to evolve as conscious people.
My Granddad and dad define a man as: The male of the species, who is honest, upright, strong, caring, hard-working, has a strong hand shake, and who is very dependable. My grandad would add to that.
A man shows up to work early, gives his best work, then leaves when the job is done. A real man takes care of his family, and is deeply concerned with (In order of importance:) his family, his land, his community, his local town, his state, then his country. A real man can do without almost everything, except his family, his land, and his community. A real man doesn't wait for the government to fix something that's wrong and will lend his fellow man a hand.
I appreciate your effort in sharing your honest thoughts. In response to the title of your post, I often refer to “If—” by Rudyard Kipling during times of turmoil. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if---
Also, one of the main differences between today and, say, the 1950s, is that more women seek and/or attain financial independence and positions of authority typically held by men. I think that women, on average, still desire their men to “provide” and “protect,” and those terms need to be clearly understood and agreed upon by both parties involved.
When men start believing that they are not needed anymore -- because they want to be respected and to feel proud -- you can bet your bottom dollar that society will take a nasty turn where men plummet into depression and/or entertainment as a distraction or coping mechanism.
With both sexes having the opportunity to gain higher education and financial independence compared to older generations, some men are slacking off under the assumption that their wife or girlfriend can “do it all”–especially among millennials or Gen Z.
Thank you, again, for using your craft to speak for millions who would otherwise struggle to express their views.
“ When men start believing that they are not needed anymore -- because they want to be respected and to feel proud -- you can bet your bottom dollar that society will take a nasty turn where men plummet into depression and/or entertainment as a distraction or coping mechanism.”
Exactly. And that’s not a place we want to be. Any of us. Especially women.
I’ve become increasingly concerned about men, and not just because I’m gay and enjoy sucking their dicks.
I believe that, in the midst of the incredible progress of feminism, gay rights, trans rights, etc. we have forgotten to maintain/rebuild the institutions and social networks that support men.
Men are increasingly lonelier, more addicted, more likely to die by suicide or overdose, becoming radicalized, and are falling behind in the work force and academia. It’s a real crisis, and I see it every day. My fellow leftists are so twitter-brained that they can’t see this acknowledgement as anything other than patriarchal and conservative.
The brotherhoods and institutions that encourage men to undergo rites of passage, mentorship, and rigorous pursuit of wisdom and nobility are dying out. Mentors and brothers who can help men learn to live fully and bravely in the face of death are increasingly absent. No wonder more and more men are opting for despair and avoidance.
And any attempt to care for men is seen as sexist. That’s a fucking shame.
You nailed it, my friend. "Men are increasingly lonelier, more addicted, more likely to die by suicide or overdose, becoming radicalized, and are falling behind in the work force and academia. It’s a real crisis, and I see it every day. My fellow leftists are so twitter-brained that they can’t see this acknowledgement as anything other than patriarchal and conservative."
Yes. The culture-war stuff has torn rational, nuanced discourse apart. It's not helping anybody, that's for sure. It's a major problem because, as you sort of suggested, men (straight, gay etc) are an integral part of society. They're husbands, sons, uncles, cousins, friends, employees, bosses, etc. And many of them--too many--are struggling. What happens if that demographic frays to a scary point? I don't want to see that. I don't think anyone does.
As with gender discussions in this country right now (at least the minority voices on the media are screaming about this), so it is with race. White straight men are supposedly "all" the same, and are "all" rich and privileged and live lives of lazy ease. Yet we know that is patently absurd. Most of the tens of millions of Trump voters (wrong as they may be in their choice of a narcissist asshole like Trump) are working-class, and they're seeing their livelihoods dissolve in front of their eyes. They want help; they're angry; they're scared. Who wouldn't be? I find it ironic that it's ultimately become a proxy class war between working-class Trumpers and rich trust-fund Lefties (mostly white) who work in media and live in $4,500/mo NYC condos making $60K/year.
Anyway. Solutions lie, clearly, in understanding our mutual human bonds and similarities, not our superficial differences. The extreme sides of BOTH sides are obsessed with gender, race, etc, and look where it's gotten us. We need to move BEYOND the color of someone's skin, the sex of a man or woman or trans person, and see our sacred common humanity.
One way to start, in my view, is to honestly get off both mainstream news and social media. Both, in my opinion, have corrupted commonsense, rational thinking, and civil discourse, not to mention basic human decency.
Thanks for the read and the insightful comment, Stephen.
Thanks for reading and responding to my comment! I completely agree. We *must* see our shared humanity and everyone’s individuality first and foremost. Without establishing those two essential natures first, it all goes to shit.
One problem with being a man these days is the false narrative that there's no difference between men and women. Feminism has coopted manhood; the ideal woman is a man. What used to be equal -- women rule the domestic and social spheres, men rule the outside world -- is now so confused and chaotic both men and women feel lost. Women can act like men and that's feminism; if men act like women, they're less than, even though women tend to see men through a myopic lens, assuming men think as they do, are interested in the same things they are, but they are not, nor should they be. Women are so confused about what men are, due to these false narratives, that their expectations are delusional, and when these delusions are not met the man is deemed defective and put out to pasture.
You are absolutely correct that the constant consent is not desirable in any way, shape, or form. Women want men to be sure of themselves. To my mind, feminism has gotten more abrasive for that very reason. It's a paradox: feminism tells men to step aside and let women take over. Feminism is angry because men don't want to be around women who believe that they are the men and the men are extensions of themselves.
Yes. Well said. It IS very confusing for men today. The message is: Women are equal to men in every single way. Yet: Clearly this is not true, if nothing else simply from a physiological and biological perspective. Women seem to want effeminate men...so they say. But when push comes to shove they want a man: Confidence, drive, ambition, dominance in some ways, and even violence when/if totally necessary. Most women I've dated and spoken with and known in real life, both romantically and platonically, admit this.
The concept of both manhood and womanhood have changed now that we live in an artificial environment. Nature enforced the division of labor now seen as "gender roles", but we no longer live in nature. We're not fighting off predators [in the wild animal sense anyway], fighting neighboring tribes [outside of pathetic political allegiances], we have more food than we know what to do with... the forces that defined man and woman [beyond reproduction] in the wild no longer apply. We are in the garden of Eden (i.e. civilization... break the rules and you're booted out of "polite" society).
Now that we no longer live in nature, the rules nature applied start to break down... the role of men has been diminished because what they evolved to be is no longer necessary — they've been replaced by the state. Until artificial wombs are commonplace, the role of women will only continue to expand because their most basic role hasn't been replaced. So they keep their original status, but are at the same time being elevated while men are being diminished.
Once men have been diminished to the point they are no longer a threat to the state and technology has advanced enough to make women as disposable as men, the goal will have been met: a gray underclass whose entire existence, including reproduction, is dictated [and monitored] via subscription services [that can be shut off if you're naughty] controlled by the state. As a worldwide "community", with controlled growth [reduced to the number required to maintain the machines doing the work men used to], we will work for them to ensure they never have to lift a finger... unless it's to reduce your social credit score. But the garden sure is beautiful, isn't it?
Thank you for sharing your personal reflections. The connection you draw between facing death, confronting reality, and the need for courage is thought-provoking. Your insights align with existentialist philosophies, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging our own mortality and embracing the challenges that life presents. This candid perspective is refreshing and resonates with those who have confronted their own mortality or faced difficult circumstances.
Also, I'd add that the media noises around Feminism (just like extreme politics) are in my experience vastly different than most women I've spoken with in real life. In a good way.
I'll have to take a look. I definitely think there are rational feminists out there, of course. It's totally NOT "all" women. I think we're ultimately all individuals. I hear you. I love women writers and thinkers like Zadie Smith, Meghan Daum, etc. Bell Hooks, as Bowen Dwelle mentioned in his interview with me recently, is a good example, too. I also can't help but think of women such as Patti Smith, etc.
Why do you think you’re the only person to judge that? Have you been teaching and writing about feminism for the past 25 years? I think Michael may be more open than you think to an actual interchange with a feminist about this. But you don’t seem to be. You seem trapped in some stereotyped notions, and perhaps some Right Wing talking points about what a feminist is.
WOW! You've triggered the angst of every woman I've met, including me, since Gloria Steinem etal slithered their ways into our conversations. There are undoubtedly a lot of people who have suffered from the PTSD infused older generations who thought violence of how you discipline children and beating your wife was showing her how much you loved her. That said, those brutal men created children who didn't learn how to love each other. Can't speak for men, but women learned this fractured, guilt-driven attitude toward sex. They wanted it but weren't supposed to have is and certainly not love it. Trollops! So, every encounter with a man is considered rape. And the "constant consent" of which you wrote plays into that ridiculous excuse for womanhood. What women want is John Wayne. There's even a song about it. "What are all the John Wayne's?" If you watch his movies, truly, really watch them with an open mind, you'll see how he regards women as partners, lovers, equals ... or at least he wants them to be. But there's a lot of tenderness in a big baffoonish sort of way. Many films shows him finally admitting his love for a woman, his vulnerability ... dammit. It's funny and lovely to watch. And that's what attracts women. Thank you, Michael, for this article. It's one to be discussed deep into many nights.
Interesting. Good points. The John Wayne angle is fascinating, and it feels impossible at first...but then you really think about it and it makes a lot of sense.
Wayne has been much maligned over the decades as an anachronism. While his persona on the screen is somewhat beyond what he was in real life (he did have his foibles and faults as any human does) he did a decent job of modeling manly character. Also, he's one of these people whose politics didn't really change; the politics changed around him. He was a liberal in college and more of a die-hard Republican later, but he loved his country, not necessarily the government. Even in his movies, he took potshots at governmental behavior.
I think that, while consistently seeking a middle ground, things have again too far in one direction.
Is there such thing as "Toxic Masculinity"? Perhaps. Probably some very extreme examples, or maybe Andrew Tate, yes. Does that automatically mean that all Masculinity is toxic? I don't think so, and this seems to be one area where things have gone a bit too far.
To me, Masculinity means to build things, to create, to support, to nurture, and to explore. Fortunately this "exploration" has been applied to our own feelings, where now there's a bit of space to be a bit more vulnerable in time past.
Men, like women, are infinitely complex. I write my own thoughts in a very vulnerable way, in a public platform (substack), but I also love to watch football and I'm excited about the upcoming season. The way that the players strive all their lives to get good at one thing, I love it.
"To me, Masculinity means to build things, to create, to support, to nurture, and to explore. Fortunately this "exploration" has been applied to our own feelings, where now there's a bit of space to be a bit more vulnerable in time past.
by the way u "" like only comments"""u like??? its really miserable, u want discussion? here i am
I read quite carefully, omitting fragments, about Freud and Jung, who have long been excommunicated not only by psychologists and psychiatrists, but simply by no one taking them and their revelations seriously. Many years have passed, no one now blames everything on impulses...
you refer to them, nothing could be further from the truth, fortunately you did not base your entire post on their "knowledge". I would argue about the way of looking at sex, but never mind that... but the way you look at death...?? You would have to know how much effort it costs, and it takes YEARS, for people, not alcoholics, not taking any drugs, not to mention the tough ones, non-smokers, rescuers, who want to LIVE!!! without killing yourself with drugs and other shit, and bragging about it. I am an addiction therapist, so I have heard many stories and seen many life tragedies.
However, what struck me most was that you wrote about death. Someone goes out of their way to survive and live another day! They are healthy, let me just mention that they are mentally healthy and don't suffer from anything! Their lives simply turned out this way, with no money, no chance of a job, 30 years of loneliness, it doesn't matter who was unlucky, absolutely unlucky, many people, through no fault of their own, now the more they try to avoid the mess, the more they fall into it! They want to live, they fight for years, they run, they write, they read! They don't stuff themselves with shit, they don't brag about it to everyone. All this just so they can kill the thoughts that they won't be able to do it, they fight for years, weeks, even until they succeed, everything collapses, collapses, and you have to get up, go for a run, whatever to avoid staying at home! It doesn't matter that you don't know anyone anymore, you can't talk to anyone anymore, it doesn't matter!!! It's important to think!! although I don't see any reason!! getting up in pain for over 20 years and screaming, with no hope that it will get better! and to the usual daily routine, changed as much as possible without a penny, running, apart from good shoes, or walking because this fight for life lasts so long, sometimes in more hopeless cases, so long, so many years that some of them start walking, there is no opportunities for hobbies, mountaineering, swimming in the pool, it costs money, and we are talking about people who want to live at all costs! I wonder... it's terrible and indescribable... why am I writing this here? Because when you write from a patriarchal perspective, you also write about yourself. You have no idea what's really going on in REAL life!! And I'm not writing about Africa or any other third world, here and now in the USA, for example!!! If you don't see it and you don't see it... it's sad
Thank God, I feel revived. It’s ok to be a MAN! Thank you for writing, loved it
R at the end you say Includes looking. I affirm this. I gained a march on my life by honoring my bent towards the whole auditory world for the longest time...but looking and i think the concomittant of holding your face in a fake of a dull witted simply taking all dangers and torpors is exactly what the world sort of asks from us. Not an idyll pronouncement. Take for example the identitarian movement. Ribbons and bows tied in the language of revolution. But the revolutions in europe 1848 to 1954 had the impacts of bringing our people to this continent. Handily crushed by the politically connected, but they looked they really looked and processed the Napoleon moment as the time to throw over drunken sherrifs and similar uprises.
Dating sites for me are like entering the 16th century. Men check a woman out like a doctor would. Do you have good teeth? are you fat? on and on. Auction block, kind-da-thing. So far, I have not been asked if I can milk a cow. 😁
I'd like to see you include discussion on honoring commitments made. At its core, manhood is about accepting responsibility and fulfilling one's commitments, to both self and others.
Agree 100 % 👌
Great piece my friend, and I'm happy to see more us addressing the question, and the nature of masculinity, and manhood, IN OUR OWN VOICES. As much as I appreciate women speaking out about and in support of men & masculinity, it is our duty to ourselves and our fellow men to speak for ourselves.
Some of the ways that I define a "man"
1) man = person & good man = good person, i.e. there are fewer differences btw men and woman than there is common ground as human beings.
2) what is it to "be" a man is up to each man. I love how Grayson Perry refers to a "plurality of masculinities," and that it can be "whatever you want it to be," as I discuss here:
https://bowendwelle.substack.com/p/there-is-no-struggle-to-find-good
3) Patriarchy requires us to earn our 'right' to "be" a "man." To the extent there are benefits that accrue to men in "patriarchy" aka our current cultural system, we have to subjugate ourselves to that system to 'enjoy' those benefits. I love how my friend Kim Stanley Robinson pointed to how he learned to shift the paradigm of masculinity from dominance to resistance from his friend, CA poet Gary Snyder.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bowendwelle/p/e14-wayfinding-with-kim-stanley-robinson
4) As you point out "In order to truly live you have to truly face death," in which "truly face," and "truly live" are key for me. I argue here that, because our past/current cultural system requires us to tell untruths about ourselves as men, and about men, that TRUTH is what men need most, and by focusing on embodying truth, men can bring something new, unique and powerful to our conception of love:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bowendwelle/p/the-truth-about-love
5) Inspired by a comment on my own stack from reader @david roberts, a "man" is a person who can be those few things only a man can be: brother, father, husband, son.
6) In thinking about what a man _can_ be, I appreciate the idea of "emergent masculinity." That is, a third way that is not about going back to some prior idea of what an ideal man was. Regardless of how it arose in the first place, that is a "solution to problem that no longer exists" as my friend Robert Ellis put it. Jung wrote that "Our present-day consciousness is a mere child is just beginning to say 'I,'" and our task, much more than to continue to try to explain the past, is to move forwards and integrate what we have learned, reintegrate our modern consciousness with our "primordial foundation," and continue to evolve as conscious people.
My memoir and writing all here: https://bowendwelle.substack.com
“man = person & good man = good person, i.e. there are fewer differences btw men and woman than there is common ground as human beings.”
👌👌👌
My Granddad and dad define a man as: The male of the species, who is honest, upright, strong, caring, hard-working, has a strong hand shake, and who is very dependable. My grandad would add to that.
A man shows up to work early, gives his best work, then leaves when the job is done. A real man takes care of his family, and is deeply concerned with (In order of importance:) his family, his land, his community, his local town, his state, then his country. A real man can do without almost everything, except his family, his land, and his community. A real man doesn't wait for the government to fix something that's wrong and will lend his fellow man a hand.
I appreciate your effort in sharing your honest thoughts. In response to the title of your post, I often refer to “If—” by Rudyard Kipling during times of turmoil. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if---
Also, one of the main differences between today and, say, the 1950s, is that more women seek and/or attain financial independence and positions of authority typically held by men. I think that women, on average, still desire their men to “provide” and “protect,” and those terms need to be clearly understood and agreed upon by both parties involved.
When men start believing that they are not needed anymore -- because they want to be respected and to feel proud -- you can bet your bottom dollar that society will take a nasty turn where men plummet into depression and/or entertainment as a distraction or coping mechanism.
With both sexes having the opportunity to gain higher education and financial independence compared to older generations, some men are slacking off under the assumption that their wife or girlfriend can “do it all”–especially among millennials or Gen Z.
Thank you, again, for using your craft to speak for millions who would otherwise struggle to express their views.
“ When men start believing that they are not needed anymore -- because they want to be respected and to feel proud -- you can bet your bottom dollar that society will take a nasty turn where men plummet into depression and/or entertainment as a distraction or coping mechanism.”
Exactly. And that’s not a place we want to be. Any of us. Especially women.
I’ve become increasingly concerned about men, and not just because I’m gay and enjoy sucking their dicks.
I believe that, in the midst of the incredible progress of feminism, gay rights, trans rights, etc. we have forgotten to maintain/rebuild the institutions and social networks that support men.
Men are increasingly lonelier, more addicted, more likely to die by suicide or overdose, becoming radicalized, and are falling behind in the work force and academia. It’s a real crisis, and I see it every day. My fellow leftists are so twitter-brained that they can’t see this acknowledgement as anything other than patriarchal and conservative.
The brotherhoods and institutions that encourage men to undergo rites of passage, mentorship, and rigorous pursuit of wisdom and nobility are dying out. Mentors and brothers who can help men learn to live fully and bravely in the face of death are increasingly absent. No wonder more and more men are opting for despair and avoidance.
And any attempt to care for men is seen as sexist. That’s a fucking shame.
Anyway, good piece, and thanks for writing it.
You nailed it, my friend. "Men are increasingly lonelier, more addicted, more likely to die by suicide or overdose, becoming radicalized, and are falling behind in the work force and academia. It’s a real crisis, and I see it every day. My fellow leftists are so twitter-brained that they can’t see this acknowledgement as anything other than patriarchal and conservative."
Yes. The culture-war stuff has torn rational, nuanced discourse apart. It's not helping anybody, that's for sure. It's a major problem because, as you sort of suggested, men (straight, gay etc) are an integral part of society. They're husbands, sons, uncles, cousins, friends, employees, bosses, etc. And many of them--too many--are struggling. What happens if that demographic frays to a scary point? I don't want to see that. I don't think anyone does.
As with gender discussions in this country right now (at least the minority voices on the media are screaming about this), so it is with race. White straight men are supposedly "all" the same, and are "all" rich and privileged and live lives of lazy ease. Yet we know that is patently absurd. Most of the tens of millions of Trump voters (wrong as they may be in their choice of a narcissist asshole like Trump) are working-class, and they're seeing their livelihoods dissolve in front of their eyes. They want help; they're angry; they're scared. Who wouldn't be? I find it ironic that it's ultimately become a proxy class war between working-class Trumpers and rich trust-fund Lefties (mostly white) who work in media and live in $4,500/mo NYC condos making $60K/year.
Anyway. Solutions lie, clearly, in understanding our mutual human bonds and similarities, not our superficial differences. The extreme sides of BOTH sides are obsessed with gender, race, etc, and look where it's gotten us. We need to move BEYOND the color of someone's skin, the sex of a man or woman or trans person, and see our sacred common humanity.
One way to start, in my view, is to honestly get off both mainstream news and social media. Both, in my opinion, have corrupted commonsense, rational thinking, and civil discourse, not to mention basic human decency.
Thanks for the read and the insightful comment, Stephen.
Michael
Thanks for reading and responding to my comment! I completely agree. We *must* see our shared humanity and everyone’s individuality first and foremost. Without establishing those two essential natures first, it all goes to shit.
Some men are married and still lonely. It seems as if the women just want the benefits of being with a man, but not the relationships.
One problem with being a man these days is the false narrative that there's no difference between men and women. Feminism has coopted manhood; the ideal woman is a man. What used to be equal -- women rule the domestic and social spheres, men rule the outside world -- is now so confused and chaotic both men and women feel lost. Women can act like men and that's feminism; if men act like women, they're less than, even though women tend to see men through a myopic lens, assuming men think as they do, are interested in the same things they are, but they are not, nor should they be. Women are so confused about what men are, due to these false narratives, that their expectations are delusional, and when these delusions are not met the man is deemed defective and put out to pasture.
You are absolutely correct that the constant consent is not desirable in any way, shape, or form. Women want men to be sure of themselves. To my mind, feminism has gotten more abrasive for that very reason. It's a paradox: feminism tells men to step aside and let women take over. Feminism is angry because men don't want to be around women who believe that they are the men and the men are extensions of themselves.
Yes. Well said. It IS very confusing for men today. The message is: Women are equal to men in every single way. Yet: Clearly this is not true, if nothing else simply from a physiological and biological perspective. Women seem to want effeminate men...so they say. But when push comes to shove they want a man: Confidence, drive, ambition, dominance in some ways, and even violence when/if totally necessary. Most women I've dated and spoken with and known in real life, both romantically and platonically, admit this.
The concept of both manhood and womanhood have changed now that we live in an artificial environment. Nature enforced the division of labor now seen as "gender roles", but we no longer live in nature. We're not fighting off predators [in the wild animal sense anyway], fighting neighboring tribes [outside of pathetic political allegiances], we have more food than we know what to do with... the forces that defined man and woman [beyond reproduction] in the wild no longer apply. We are in the garden of Eden (i.e. civilization... break the rules and you're booted out of "polite" society).
Now that we no longer live in nature, the rules nature applied start to break down... the role of men has been diminished because what they evolved to be is no longer necessary — they've been replaced by the state. Until artificial wombs are commonplace, the role of women will only continue to expand because their most basic role hasn't been replaced. So they keep their original status, but are at the same time being elevated while men are being diminished.
Once men have been diminished to the point they are no longer a threat to the state and technology has advanced enough to make women as disposable as men, the goal will have been met: a gray underclass whose entire existence, including reproduction, is dictated [and monitored] via subscription services [that can be shut off if you're naughty] controlled by the state. As a worldwide "community", with controlled growth [reduced to the number required to maintain the machines doing the work men used to], we will work for them to ensure they never have to lift a finger... unless it's to reduce your social credit score. But the garden sure is beautiful, isn't it?
Thank you for sharing your personal reflections. The connection you draw between facing death, confronting reality, and the need for courage is thought-provoking. Your insights align with existentialist philosophies, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging our own mortality and embracing the challenges that life presents. This candid perspective is refreshing and resonates with those who have confronted their own mortality or faced difficult circumstances.
Thank you Winston :)
Can I suggest you have a look at my book? It might encourage you to revise your overly-general notions about feminists. It was written by a feminist (me) and was applauded by many men, including reviewers at the NYT and WAPO. It was published in 1999 so the references are a bit dated, but I think it may still have something to offer you. I’m sending my website link to you as well as the amazon page, and a link to one of the NYT reviews. https://bordocrossings.com/book/the-male-body/; https://www.amazon.com/Male-Body-Look-Public-Private/dp/0374527326/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Also, I'd add that the media noises around Feminism (just like extreme politics) are in my experience vastly different than most women I've spoken with in real life. In a good way.
That’s almost always the case with the media.
I'll have to take a look. I definitely think there are rational feminists out there, of course. It's totally NOT "all" women. I think we're ultimately all individuals. I hear you. I love women writers and thinkers like Zadie Smith, Meghan Daum, etc. Bell Hooks, as Bowen Dwelle mentioned in his interview with me recently, is a good example, too. I also can't help but think of women such as Patti Smith, etc.
Btw if interested here's my interview/conversation: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/growing-a-spiritual-pair-a-conversation
Zadie Smith is one of my favorite writers and bell hooks was a personal friend. I look forward to reading the interview!
A lot has happened to feminism since 1999, not much of it good. Mohr’s up to speed, I’d say.
Why do you think you’re the only person to judge that? Have you been teaching and writing about feminism for the past 25 years? I think Michael may be more open than you think to an actual interchange with a feminist about this. But you don’t seem to be. You seem trapped in some stereotyped notions, and perhaps some Right Wing talking points about what a feminist is.
You're responding to things I didn't even say. Yours is one book I won't bother reading.
I’m happy with that.
Good. Now go take your Xanax.
WOW! You've triggered the angst of every woman I've met, including me, since Gloria Steinem etal slithered their ways into our conversations. There are undoubtedly a lot of people who have suffered from the PTSD infused older generations who thought violence of how you discipline children and beating your wife was showing her how much you loved her. That said, those brutal men created children who didn't learn how to love each other. Can't speak for men, but women learned this fractured, guilt-driven attitude toward sex. They wanted it but weren't supposed to have is and certainly not love it. Trollops! So, every encounter with a man is considered rape. And the "constant consent" of which you wrote plays into that ridiculous excuse for womanhood. What women want is John Wayne. There's even a song about it. "What are all the John Wayne's?" If you watch his movies, truly, really watch them with an open mind, you'll see how he regards women as partners, lovers, equals ... or at least he wants them to be. But there's a lot of tenderness in a big baffoonish sort of way. Many films shows him finally admitting his love for a woman, his vulnerability ... dammit. It's funny and lovely to watch. And that's what attracts women. Thank you, Michael, for this article. It's one to be discussed deep into many nights.
Interesting. Good points. The John Wayne angle is fascinating, and it feels impossible at first...but then you really think about it and it makes a lot of sense.
Wayne has been much maligned over the decades as an anachronism. While his persona on the screen is somewhat beyond what he was in real life (he did have his foibles and faults as any human does) he did a decent job of modeling manly character. Also, he's one of these people whose politics didn't really change; the politics changed around him. He was a liberal in college and more of a die-hard Republican later, but he loved his country, not necessarily the government. Even in his movies, he took potshots at governmental behavior.
I think that, while consistently seeking a middle ground, things have again too far in one direction.
Is there such thing as "Toxic Masculinity"? Perhaps. Probably some very extreme examples, or maybe Andrew Tate, yes. Does that automatically mean that all Masculinity is toxic? I don't think so, and this seems to be one area where things have gone a bit too far.
To me, Masculinity means to build things, to create, to support, to nurture, and to explore. Fortunately this "exploration" has been applied to our own feelings, where now there's a bit of space to be a bit more vulnerable in time past.
Men, like women, are infinitely complex. I write my own thoughts in a very vulnerable way, in a public platform (substack), but I also love to watch football and I'm excited about the upcoming season. The way that the players strive all their lives to get good at one thing, I love it.
"To me, Masculinity means to build things, to create, to support, to nurture, and to explore. Fortunately this "exploration" has been applied to our own feelings, where now there's a bit of space to be a bit more vulnerable in time past.
Men, like women, are infinitely complex."
YES!!!
and as always, I love your writing.