Who Decides What is Masculinity and Why Does that Matter?
Is masculinity under attack or is it just more noticeable when men are passive?
What is masculinity? I won't answer that because I think that men themselves, as individuals, should define it. Perhaps a man thinks he is masculine if he shoots and kills a deer. Another man may feel masculine when he gently kisses a woman. Which version of masculinity is correct? I'd like to tell you which one I prefer, but I'll keep that a secret for now...
First of all, I think the notion that men should always be in control, always on top, always tough and strong is one of our biggest problems. It is mostly men who are trying to take over the world. Yes, there are a few women involved, but they are not the instigators. It has been true all throughout history that war and takeovers of countries has primarily been a male activity. We women are taught to be passive. That has always been true. Many of us have spent a lot of time learning to take back our power, to be assertive, when necessary, to stand up for ourselves, even though we’d been taught from birth to put others first.
That notion of masculinity as being defined as men always on top and always tough causes men to fight so hard to have control. It results in some men (certainly not all men) becoming violent toward their more passive female companions. It drives some men to feel emasculated when they are not in control or dominant.
Since it is mostly men--Gates, Schwab, CEO's of Big Pharma and Big Tech are mostly men—trying to take over the world, it doesn't make sense that they would be foraging any attack on men. Personally, I believe the opposite is true. The Powers That Be (PTB) do not like ordinary working-class people. I think we all know that. But they especially dislike women and people of color. (I have a theory as to why that is, and maybe I’ll write about that or talk about it in my podcast sometime in the future ‘cause it’s only a theory.)
However, some people are suggesting that men are somehow under attack. I find this disturbing as those behind this totalitarian takeover are mostly men, not women, and certainly not feminists (though many so-called “feminist” groups, like most “liberal” entities are supporting the totalitarian takeover.
Furthermore, not all men fit the stereotype of the macho guy with big muscles who likes to fight and carry a gun. Some men dislike that stereotype and would rather not be pressured into conforming to it.
Some would argue that that stereotype was created by the war industry, a.k.a., the “military industrial complex.” Machismo is a way to convince young men to willing sign up to join the military. “Become a soldier—fighting and killing will make you a man!” says the military. But is that true?
I would argue that both men and women should be able to be tough and strong, when necessary, but also free to be sensitive, nurturing and caring, when necessary. I don’t see men who are aggressive and violent as saving the day. Not at all. Aggressive, violent men are running countries and big businesses around the world. Most of them are elderly and can no longer fight physically, so they’re engaging us in psychological warfare, and it’s a scary thing. Psychological violence can be just as damaging as physical violence.
What causes some men to try to take over the world when they grow old? Machismo—this belief that if you are not always in control then you are not a “real” man. Define a “real” man for me. Who decides whether or not a man is “real” or is “masculine”? If a boy doesn’t want to play baseball and is kind to animals, is he less of a boy? I read that when Abraham Lincoln was a boy, he protested against the other boys who were throwing turtles in the air for fun. Lincoln, at least according to what I read about him, had a lot of empathy for animals. Did that make him less than a man? If that’s the case, then we need to do some self-examination as a society. Because if we want to teach boys that being manly involves being aggressive and potentially violent then we have no right to complain about male violence and perhaps we need to take special precautions when men are involved in activities if we are to believe that men are naturally violent.
Having said all of that, and leaving out more that could be said but that would make this blog too long, I would argue that both men and women are extraordinarily passive, especially when it comes to politics and public policy. Apparently, it is more noticeable that men are passive. The fact that women are passive politically doesn’t seem to matter to a lot of people. I guess they think that politics is not the right place for women to be?
Why are people—both men and women—so passive? I would argue that we need to take a look at those blasted screens! Television, iPads, tablets, smart phones, computers, etc. Parents sit their babies in front of those things to pacify them. Yet we wonder why people are so passive? Wow.
We need not look to any conspiracy for an answer to that question. We need to take a look at ourselves. The fact is, a crying baby, a difficult child having a temper tantrum, or just a kid being a typical kid with boundless energy just doesn’t fit in well with our fast-paced and very busy lifestyle. We are so busy working and trying to make ends meet, so stressed out much of the time, that we don’t have time to interact with our kids. It’s just so much easier to sit them in front of a device to quiet them down.
Sorry, but we can’t blame Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates for that one…
Yes, there is an attack on our individual identities. Some people are trying to break down our society and break us down psychologically to do so. Our gender, race, religion/or lack thereof, ethnicity, etc.--all of those things define us. If they can get us confused as to who we are then they can make all of us vulnerable.
So yes, I do believe in conspiracies. But we are all—male and female—pacified. We have all been trained to be apathetic, to look up to those celebrities we see on those screens, to assume they are better than we are, that they know more than we do, that they will solve our problems. And that’s too bad because… They won’t. The average millionaire celebrity doesn’t care about the average person. Why would they care? The lives of millionaire celebrities are so radically different than our own that even if they did care about us, they wouldn’t have a clue as to what our problems and their solutions could possibly be.
Vaccines, mRNA injections, chemicals in our air, food and water may very well be affecting people’s gender identities and mental capacity. I won’t argue against that. There are a lot of toxins in our environment. But let’s not become the toxins ourselves… I am not blaming the victim by saying that we, the people, can take some responsibility for ways in which we are contributing to our own demise. Screen addiction creates passivity, celebrity culture, hero worship and a sense of helplessness among the population. We can choose to turn it off. At least right now, as of this writing, we do have a choice.
I enjoy writing these blogs, making videos and making music and putting them up online. I also enjoy the little dialogues in the comments, but I also know that they are not real in the sense that I am not forming real, lasting, intimate relationships with anyone when I engage in this online discourse.
So I’m working with myself on this as well. I include myself in this when I say that we have all become passive, dependent, lacking in effective social skills such as cooperation, conflict resolution, and empathy due to years of screen addiction.
Rather than attack women’s rights activists, why don’t we all take a look at ourselves and think of ways in which we have all developed a bit of learned helplessness for which one cure is to simply turn it all off and start talking with people directly, face-to-face again?