Men and women in cyberspace.

I will admit to spending the last few weeks exploring what is fondly described as the “manosphere”: blogs focusing on gender relations from a masculine point of view, or at least a male-friendly one.

It’s a diverse and fascinating place, and also a little disturbing one.

On the one hand, I can be angry with the way men have had their abilities to make decisions regarding their own lives, work, and relationships, methodically stripped from them. The minefields and hazards of being male in our era, with stacked divorce and custody laws, work expectations and assumption of risk, are something that I  can be frustrated at.

I have a bit of a principle:

Men work best when they are men.

This is far from obvious. Many women see masculinity as a character flaw, or they mistake masculinity for not-femininity, defining it by its opposite.

Masculinity is leadership. Masculinity is creativity. Masculinity is protection.

The whiniest rantings of the neofeminists cannot erase these truths, much as they might like to pretend otherwise. The world as we know it would not be here but for men, and ignoring or abusing men for their work in basically BUILDING SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT, is ingratitude of the highest order.

On the other hand, some of the stuff I see on some sites kinda scares me.

It’s well put in this post by Ken White of Popehat:

I’m questioning why on some issues — say, race — incoherent basement-stinking fury is relegated to places like Stormfront, but when it comes to sex it’s alarmingly close to the mainstream. I’m asking why is it that if I write about racism, truly nutty and racist response are fairly rare, but if I talk about sexual harassment or sexism, I can count on being classified as a “white knight” or “mangina” or “pink shirt” or homosexual or something.

As an adult, I’ve always preferred the friendship of men. I hope to Jeebus that this frustration that men feel is in fact, a frustration with the politics and injustices, but not an actual hatred of all women. Because that would make me sad.

Women are not all gold-digging manipulators, but they’re not all fearless superwomen either. A lot of our life is fraught with making choices that may have repercussions years down the line. I would hate it if the actions of so-called “liberated” women trying to empower their femme selves through abuse of the men in their lives (their husbands, lovers, AND sons), ruined male-female relations for people. And it has happened. Look all over the place and you’ll see men expressing themselves: 

“I’VE HAD IT WITH WOMEN”

“BITCHES CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES”

This is certainly cathartic for the guys, but what about non-psychotic women who read this and mourn the men they could have been?

Another issue I have is the issue of “alpha”. From reading some of the sites, I come away with the impression that “alpha” is a term used for a swaggering peacock who aims to get laid early and often. “Betas” are often reduced to the poor suckers who get married and father children. There’s often a whiff (or more) of derision aimed at these betas, who are deemed by alphas to be not quite smart enough to avoid the trap of family.

The true “alpha” male, in my completely biased and non-evidence-backed opinion, is:

  • A strong man, physically and mentally. Not necessarily intellectually, mind you, but he can’t be stupid.
  • A leader of his peers.
  • A protector of those more vulnerable than himself.
  • A man willing to enforce that protection with force if necessary.

Naturally, a man who proves himself in these areas will have his choice of the best females. But that doesn’t mean that all a man has to do to be an alpha is play pick-up games with women until they get good at it. That subverts the whole reason alphas exist. Alphas aren’t made by learning secret panty-wetting pick-up lines and buying Trojans by the case lot. They are made through COMBAT. Alphas EARN the right to swagger if they choose to. PUAs are not alphas, they merely play them on TV.

Yeah, I know I’m all over the place with this post. Probably should have been two or three at least. Bear with me, I’m still new at this.

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Erudite Knight

    ‘Women are not all gold-digging manipulators…’
    Watch out, if you havent seen the acronym, its NAWALT! (Not all women are like that). I dont want you to think I am deriding your point at all, but as a male, and esp. in the manosphere, it is VERY easy to be critical of women, and to laugh at women defending what happens in 90%+ cases.

    I think that is a big miconception between men and women, women say things like ‘not ALL women…’ and they know it is true (after all, not EVERYONE women is like that) so they dont understand men not ‘getting it’. But men see tons of females DOING that very thing ‘NAWALT’ so they dont need to see EVERY women doing it to extract meaning.

  2. Sasha

    Point taken, EK. As I said I am still new around these parts.

    I guess I am just angry that the gold-diggers and vengeful brats have quite literally ruined the good name of women. I have to be tarnished by the same brush due to their crappy behavior.

Tell me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s