There is no one way that a "man" should be.
Humans, like all animals, have varying degrees of sexual dimorphism. Sexually dimorphic traits are simply a set of physical qualities and behaviors that are distinctive/characteristic of a certain sex of a given species. Much of this is a product of sex hormones and genes, and perhaps most importantly, sex hormone exposure during development in the womb as this very strongly influences the degree of dimorphism.
But again while this is a gradient, our perception of a "real man" is based on a maximally, or perhaps near maximally, dimorphic male. So what's thought of as "alpha" or "beta" (or etc) male is to some degree inherent in the human following birth, influenced to some degree by environment.
Those less than maximally dimorphic who are trying to mimick these stereotypical maximally dimorphic traits results in disaffected characters like Andrew Tate, over compensating with their cigar smoking, women chasing, MMA fighting, actively seeking recognition by the outside world that they are now "alpha" males etc, yet all the while simultaneously still exuding a sort of disaffected vibe not seen in those who are indigenously "alpha" males (i.e., maximally dimorphic).
My view of the ideal man is informed by imagery of the divine masculine or the divine father. The wise, courageous, experienced, adventuring, loving, nurturing protector. There are so many good archetypes to draw upon for men: the king, the warrior, the magician, the lover. The old world (mostly the classical world) has so many good male role models in their religious pantheons, and there's a reason why those archetypes persist in our world to this day. Although men and women can have the same qualities, they tend to be expressed differently. Males and females are not the same. The Divine Father and the Divine Mother not viewed the same way, even though they may have similar virtues. The archetype of the warrior, for example, tends to be male because when wars happen, very few or no soldiers are female. When barbarians come to burn down your village, it'll be the men fighting back. The archetype of the nurturing divine tends to female because, although males provide nourishing resources, women can directly nourish young with their bodies.
These archetypes are embedded in our psyches and are perennial. They aren't sexist and they aren't wrong. They're only sexist when we force people to become an archetype that they don't want to / aren't meant to be. They've existed for thousands upon thousands of years. Children respond to male voices with fear, so men tend to be more disciplinarian. Children tend to run to women for comfort because they have a physical connection to the body that birthed them and nourished them.
Therefore, I think the ideal archetypes of men tend to be: the warrior (instead of the hero), the resource gatherer/hunter/nurturer, the protector from invasion, the wise leader whose experience is informed by past hardships, the sage, the adventurer/explorer, the loyal friend, the builder, the leader, the holy one, the king. There are others.
Interestingly... I think a lot of people's confusion right now could be solved by looking at the psychological effects of hormones. I've been on HRT for over a year because years of chronic illness destroyed my endocrine system. I have experienced low T, high T, high estrogen, low estrogen. Testosterone, when it's too high, definitely turns up the volume on male psychology. Similarly, when estrogen is too high, you see what it's like to be more feminine. It's very clear which is which. Before the decadence of the modern world when science and technology let us try to discard gender roles or become genders we can never truly be, historically it was our biology that drove us to be who we were. I still think that's pretty pivotal. I'm not saying that hormones determine everything but they play a huge role in our life experiences.
I don't subscribe to "toxic masculinity" or other progressive ideas. They are mostly ideas put forth by women/females and are generally worthless because they lack any sort of lived experience. Interestingly, the things that are of the so-called toxic masculine are now the things being projected in the media for "strong women." In woke media, the "strong women" embody all of the worst male traits: arrogance, recklessness, abuse of power (physical or psychological), egocentricism, overconfidence that is not matched by experience, suppression of emotions, lack of empathy/compassion, dominance, entitlement, refusal to seek help (going it alone), etc. When men display these traits, they are "toxic," when women display them, they are "strong, independent women."
If modern civilization ended tomorrow, we ended up back in an agrarian society tomorrow, and big pharma hormones and gender treatments were no longer available, everyone would revert to their biological sex along with the accompanying strengths and weaknesses. Women would bleed once a month and be at risk of dying from childbirth so they'd have to be sheltered again. They'd control reproduction on the one hand, but be less eligible or leadership positions because birthing a child could kill them. Men would have to take all the physical risks because they are stronger bodied, so they'd die more often. All of the social media fluff of the past 10 years would evaporate instantly. Natural selection would determine the gender division of labour.
Progressive social ideology is a lie. I entertain it because these weak people are no real threat to me. Let them think what they want because nature decides at the end of the day. I only really speak up when they try to control my thoughts and speech -- I won't let them do that. Most of the men I've seen kowtowing to the idea of toxic masculinity are cucks to their girlfriends and have limiting mating options, so they have to adopt the beliefs of their women in order to successfully mate. Most of the women I've seen espousing the idea of toxic masculinity are trying to attain social power through virtue signalling because they don't have other strong forms of social currency (beauty, grace, capability, community influence). These are generally weaklings who think the world is constantly harming them instead of trying to fortify themselves. I feel sorry for them. They continue to push their weaknesses onto the rest of society while strong human beings continue to effortlessly and successfully mate and lead fulfilling lives.
Controlling thoughts and speech, like say, banning books? Or perhaps trying to force your religion on others by introducing it into public schools?I only really speak up when they try to control my thoughts and speech
Toxic masuncality is a made up topic invented by commies and extreme left to turn men into pussies and enslave the entire world under the communist diactorship
These are generally weaklings who think the world is constantly harming them instead of trying to fortify themselves. I feel sorry for them. They continue to push their weaknesses onto the rest of society while strong human beings continue to effortlessly and successfully mate and lead fulfilling lives.
My view of the ideal man is informed by imagery of the divine masculine or the divine father. The wise, courageous, experienced, adventuring, loving, nurturing protector. There are so many good archetypes to draw upon for men: the king, the warrior, the magician, the lover. The old world (mostly the classical world) has so many good male role models in their religious pantheons, and there's a reason why those archetypes persist in our world to this day. Although men and women can have the same qualities, they tend to be expressed differently. Males and females are not the same. The Divine Father and the Divine Mother not viewed the same way, even though they may have similar virtues. The archetype of the warrior, for example, tends to be male because when wars happen, very few or no soldiers are female. When barbarians come to burn down your village, it'll be the men fighting back. The archetype of the nurturing divine tends to female because, although males provide nourishing resources, women can directly nourish young with their bodies.
These archetypes are embedded in our psyches and are perennial. They aren't sexist and they aren't wrong. They're only sexist when we force people to become an archetype that they don't want to / aren't meant to be. They've existed for thousands upon thousands of years. Children respond to male voices with fear, so men tend to be more disciplinarian. Children tend to run to women for comfort because they have a physical connection to the body that birthed them and nourished them.
Therefore, I think the ideal archetypes of men tend to be: the warrior (instead of the hero), the resource gatherer/hunter/nurturer, the protector from invasion, the wise leader whose experience is informed by past hardships, the sage, the adventurer/explorer, the loyal friend, the builder, the leader, the holy one, the king. There are others.
Interestingly... I think a lot of people's confusion right now could be solved by looking at the psychological effects of hormones. I've been on HRT for over a year because years of chronic illness destroyed my endocrine system. I have experienced low T, high T, high estrogen, low estrogen. Testosterone, when it's too high, definitely turns up the volume on male psychology. Similarly, when estrogen is too high, you see what it's like to be more feminine. It's very clear which is which. Before the decadence of the modern world when science and technology let us try to discard gender roles or become genders we can never truly be, historically it was our biology that drove us to be who we were. I still think that's pretty pivotal. I'm not saying that hormones determine everything but they play a huge role in our life experiences.
I don't subscribe to "toxic masculinity" or other progressive ideas. They are mostly ideas put forth by women/females and are generally worthless because they lack any sort of lived experience. Interestingly, the things that are of the so-called toxic masculine are now the things being projected in the media for "strong women." In woke media, the "strong women" embody all of the worst male traits: arrogance, recklessness, abuse of power (physical or psychological), egocentricism, overconfidence that is not matched by experience, suppression of emotions, lack of empathy/compassion, dominance, entitlement, refusal to seek help (going it alone), etc. When men display these traits, they are "toxic," when women display them, they are "strong, independent women."
If modern civilization ended tomorrow, we ended up back in an agrarian society tomorrow, and big pharma hormones and gender treatments were no longer available, everyone would revert to their biological sex along with the accompanying strengths and weaknesses. Women would bleed once a month and be at risk of dying from childbirth so they'd have to be sheltered again. They'd control reproduction on the one hand, but be less eligible or leadership positions because birthing a child could kill them. Men would have to take all the physical risks because they are stronger bodied, so they'd die more often. All of the social media fluff of the past 10 years would evaporate instantly. Natural selection would determine the gender division of labour.
Progressive social ideology is a lie. I entertain it because these weak people are no real threat to me. Let them think what they want because nature decides at the end of the day. I only really speak up when they try to control my thoughts and speech -- I won't let them do that. Most of the men I've seen kowtowing to the idea of toxic masculinity are cucks to their girlfriends and have limiting mating options, so they have to adopt the beliefs of their women in order to successfully mate. Most of the women I've seen espousing the idea of toxic masculinity are trying to attain social power through virtue signalling because they don't have other strong forms of social currency (beauty, grace, capability, community influence). These are generally weaklings who think the world is constantly harming them instead of trying to fortify themselves. I feel sorry for them. They continue to push their weaknesses onto the rest of society while strong human beings continue to effortlessly and successfully mate and lead fulfilling lives.
q.e.d.?
alasdair
I agree with some of the things you said here…nevertheless, I feel like you may be downplaying the altered environmental context that humans now live in.
For hundreds of thousands of years, or 95%+ of the total time on the planet, human beings lived in one specific environmental context, that of small hunter-gatherer bands. That’s our evolutionary heritage. Then they started tilling the fields, working in factories etc. So how is a man supposed to realize his primordial identity as a hunter when he lives in Brooklyn? For a long time men transferred this into being a provider within the capitalist economy, being a “breadwinner” etc, but there are no guarantees that this identity will be available into the future, at least not on the same level that it was in the past. You say that there are these archetypes that define masculine roles, but we don’t live in the Paleolithic or even the Bronze Age anymore, so I think that the question of how these roles can be realized in the present day, and within the specific environmental context we live in, is more of an interesting one than its perhaps given credit for
That's quite the cheapshot.
Controlling thoughts and speech, like say, banning books? Or perhaps trying to force your religion on others by introducing it into public schools?![]()
I agree with some of the things you said here…nevertheless, I feel like you may be downplaying the altered environmental context that humans now live in.
For hundreds of thousands of years, or 95%+ of the total time on the planet, human beings lived in one specific environmental context, that of small hunter-gatherer bands. That’s our evolutionary heritage. Then they started tilling the fields, working in factories etc. So how is a man supposed to realize his primordial identity as a hunter when he lives in Brooklyn? For a long time men transferred this into being a provider within the capitalist economy, being a “breadwinner” etc, but there are no guarantees that this identity will be available into the future, at least not on the same level that it was in the past. You say that there are these archetypes that define masculine roles, but we don’t live in the Paleolithic or even the Bronze Age anymore, so I think that the question of how these roles can be realized in the present day, and within the specific environmental context we live in, is more of an interesting one than its perhaps given credit for