Tuesday, January 26, 2016

In defense of "sterotypical" masculinity

One of the tenets of modern progressive feminism, a view strongly held by a significant portion of the movement, is that stereotypical masculinity is a very negative trait, is "toxic", and causes all the problems in our world. They argue that this is why "every man is a potential rapist", and why "rape apology", "rape culture", "misogyny", oppression of women and so on is so "prevalent". They strongly posit that boys should be taught from a young age away from this "toxic masculinity" (and that doing this would somehow magically solve all the "inequalities" that feminists think there exist in our society.)

I would like to present the opposite view, in defense of stereotypically masculine traits. I would posit that our society wouldn't even exist without them, and they are very important. (These traits can, of course, be taken to unhealthy extremes sometimes, but removing them completely, if that were even possible, would be highly detrimental to our society.)

Such stereotypical masculine traits include:


Being cold, calculating and stoic, not clouded nor driven by emotions, is a very important trait in many situations. Being able to assess the situation in a level-headed pragmatic way even in highly stressing situations, making fast and good decisions based in logic and reasoning rather than based on emotion-driven instinct. Being able to function in a rational manner in a very dangerous or stressing situation. Conquering fear, panic and sadness in situations where swift actions are needed.

Being able to do this saves lives, helps others, avoids or minimizes deaths, injuries and property damage, and can help in many non-life-threatening situations, such as when having to make good business decisions. It can also resolve conflicts in social interactions, where people are panicking, fighting, or in despair, especially when such situations could escalate quickly.

Stoicism can also help in many non-urgent social interactions, calming things down, and working as a kind of lightning rod for all the emotions around.

This does not mean that no woman is capable of doing exactly this and being like this. However, stoicism is a typically masculine trait, and one that many of these misguided progressive feminists are fighting against.


If there is one trait that most girls think about boys, and which they don't like, especially at a younger age, is that boys are significantly more competitive.

Is this a bad thing? No.

Competitiveness among males is one of the most fundamental traits of our (and many other) species. It probably goes waaaaay back, before our species could even be called hominids. It most probably helped us survive and thrive as a species. It of course has had its negative aspects, but on the other hand it has helped us get where we are now.

Ok, maybe male competitiveness was useful in the distant past. Is it anymore? Is it a relic of evolution that we should abandon? I'd still say no.

I am pretty certain that you wouldn't be using the computer you are using without male competitiveness. If you even existed, you would probably be living in a mud hut instead, and the highest form of technology available to you would probably consist of rocks and primitive spears.

Technology and progress thrives thanks to competitiveness. Thanks to people who want to beat their competition, to become the first to achieve something, to get on the top. Technology and progress does not thrive in a hippie community where everybody is "nice" to each other, nobody is greedy, and nobody wants to hurt anybody else's feelings. If the human species were such a "hippie community" we would  most probably be living in those mud huts.

Technology and progress are good things. It has improved the quality of our lives tremendously. Life expectancy has risen significantly, and we can cure diseases trivially that were lethal in the past. We can help the weaker members of our society thanks to all the technology and progress, rather than let them simply die because we don't have the resources to help them.


While women can, of course, be very assertive and not take s**t from anybody, this is likewise still a typically masculine trait, while appeasement and submission is more a feminine trait. (This is not intended as any kind of derogatory statement. It's just stating reality, with no judgment or attitude.)

Needless to say, there are many situations were being assertive is more productive than being meek and submissive. The latter often leads to be taken advantage of, and can be very detrimental. Assertiveness can also help others, especially other people who are being taken advantage of. It can help the weaker members of our society.

Of course assertiveness (as anything else) can be taken to an unhealthy extreme, in which case it can become detrimental, but there is still place for it, and the solution to the extreme is not to remove assertiveness completely.

(It is quite ironic that many progressive feminist activists are deeply, deeply assertive, of the detrimental kind. They are angry, and will shout down any criticism and dissenting opinion, and will impose their opinions onto others, silencing them with shouting. These same feminists, mostly female, complain about "toxic masculinity"... while engaging in a highly masculine trait, arguably a toxic one.)

Aggression and strength

Men are on average typically more aggressive than women. (While exceptions to both directions exist in both genders, we are talking about overwhelming averages here.)

The reason why men are on average more aggressive is largely due to the same reason why men are on average much stronger than women: Biology. More specifically hormones (and possibly a few other things.)

Many progressive feminists are in deep denial of the fact that yes, men are by nature stronger than women on average. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species, and one of the differences is the innate difference in strength (caused mainly due to different hormone production.) No amount of whining and complaining is going to change this physical fact.

Men are not only stronger in the sense of physical strength, but also in terms of stamina. Men in top fitness can endure physical stress longer than women in top fitness. (This has been demonstrated time and again in different situations. Such as the United States Navy SEAL training. No woman to date has been able to pass it.) Again, no amount of whining and complaining by feminists is going to change this fact. It's just biology, and you can't change it no matter how "politically incorrect" you may think it is.

Male strength is deeply innate. Even a relative non-fit man can probably overpower almost any woman, no matter how fit they may be.

Male strength is helpful in many situations. As an example, male firefighters can do more than female ones, for the simple reason that they are stronger and have more stamina. They can fight fires for longer, do more acts that require strength, and save more lives.

This same strength and stamina allows them to perform jobs that would be too wearing and stressing for most women (such as construction, mining, and so on. I'm not saying that no woman is capable of these. Once again: I'm talking about averages here.)

No comments:

Post a Comment