I once went to a Mankind Project meeting. I described how the man-hating feminists in human resources were giving me crap, after I complained about them to the ineffectual CEO. The men there looked at me with glazed eyes. Perhaps they had never been in that position: men from the Robert Bly school of thought often haven't, but men's rights men definitely have. I ended up hiring a lawyer and getting a settlement from the company.
If you went to MKP for advocacy--or even sympathy--you were in the wrong place. New Warrior Training is not about fighting feminism. It's not about fixing the world. It's about fixing yourself. It's about manning up, in the best sense of the term. I gained a lot from my Warrior Weekend and the Integration group that followed. I miss my Warrior brothers, actually. I'd strongly recommend the training to any man--assuming it is what it once was.
I am not an expert, but I would say that the ultimate masculine things are risk, bravery, courage, physical strength- a warrior idea and a competitive-you beat everyone.
I am not super familiar with Tate. I have a notion of who he is. But I don’t think he risked his life for a cause, or competed against other men and won.
He is not afraid of women?
Is that the new idea of courage?
It’s a low bar, if you ask me.
The morality of Tate’s behavior aside.
Jordan Peterson seems to be saying- don’t be a loser.
Which today is controversial.
I don’t know.
Humankind has known men who are real heroes. A lot of them. Books are written about them.
Hard to understand why the modern world cannot include the past in its perspective.
It is very limiting and narcissistic to respect only those who breathe the same air you do.
Captain Von Trapp the real person The Sound of Music was based on, was some sort of improbably successful war hero in WWI for his country. But in WWII refused to serve under Hitler. (What the movie was about. A lot of details were changed. But this point is true.) That’s a hero.
I'd largely agree with your definition. I might add some things about self-discipline, stoicism, and self-awareness. And I don't think you have to beat anyone, but I do think you have to be in the game. You almost can't be a man in isolation.
I was just thinking about this topic two days ago. Back in the '90s, when I was raising up two little boys, I read "Iron John." I wanted to hear about the historical male experience from a man (plus I was at the University of Minnesota, which was Bly territory). I took that book seriously, and it was part of the reason I began to view feminist ideology with skepticism -- especially since I was criticized by other women for traitorously having read the book (they hated it without having read it).
Sadly, since that time the ideas in the book seem to have been covered over by cultural detritus, like a pathway that's been lost due to lack of use. Instead of a mens' movement we have the overused concept of "toxic masculinity." (Of course there is such a thing, just as there is toxic femininity. Imagine the outcry if men reflexively used the counter term over and over.) I'm interested in how someone might resurrect that earlier mens' movement, which we need maybe more now than ever. Of course, it is a task for men. But I'd be a supportive ally.
The men's rights movement hopefully will resurrect the men's movement. The State of Californis being sued for having a women's commission, but refusing to have a men's commission. The Selective Service System is also being sued for discrimination against men.
Well said. I cannot believe the number of border skirmishes being conducted via the language these days... no other era of humankind has experienced anything like this. Even the twentieth century censorship regimes never got this deep into intentionally planted weeds.
I was thinking about this yesterday. I was reading an academic, feminist book about p*rn*graphy which did speak about "toxic masculinity," but which failed to define what was toxic about it and what a non-toxic masculinity would look like (beyond not involving p*rn, which I would agree with). I was left with the impression than anything other than the most feminised, violence-free, competition-free male personality would be seen as "toxic."
(The author also describes letting her nephews and nieces, aged eight to thirteen, watch the James Bond film "Casino Royale" and her being shocked by the violence, without saying why on earth she thought it was a good idea to let an eight-year-old watch such an adult film. I certainly wouldn't.)
I once went to a Mankind Project meeting. I described how the man-hating feminists in human resources were giving me crap, after I complained about them to the ineffectual CEO. The men there looked at me with glazed eyes. Perhaps they had never been in that position: men from the Robert Bly school of thought often haven't, but men's rights men definitely have. I ended up hiring a lawyer and getting a settlement from the company.
If you went to MKP for advocacy--or even sympathy--you were in the wrong place. New Warrior Training is not about fighting feminism. It's not about fixing the world. It's about fixing yourself. It's about manning up, in the best sense of the term. I gained a lot from my Warrior Weekend and the Integration group that followed. I miss my Warrior brothers, actually. I'd strongly recommend the training to any man--assuming it is what it once was.
Thanks for the explanation. I think the MKP approach needs to combined with the men’s advocacy/activism approach, to get the best of both worlds.
Thanks for the post. Long before feminists used the term "toxic masculinity" in their war on men, people of BOTH sexes were called "jerks".
I am not an expert, but I would say that the ultimate masculine things are risk, bravery, courage, physical strength- a warrior idea and a competitive-you beat everyone.
I am not super familiar with Tate. I have a notion of who he is. But I don’t think he risked his life for a cause, or competed against other men and won.
He is not afraid of women?
Is that the new idea of courage?
It’s a low bar, if you ask me.
The morality of Tate’s behavior aside.
Jordan Peterson seems to be saying- don’t be a loser.
Which today is controversial.
I don’t know.
Humankind has known men who are real heroes. A lot of them. Books are written about them.
Hard to understand why the modern world cannot include the past in its perspective.
It is very limiting and narcissistic to respect only those who breathe the same air you do.
Captain Von Trapp the real person The Sound of Music was based on, was some sort of improbably successful war hero in WWI for his country. But in WWII refused to serve under Hitler. (What the movie was about. A lot of details were changed. But this point is true.) That’s a hero.
And there are many, many more.
I'd largely agree with your definition. I might add some things about self-discipline, stoicism, and self-awareness. And I don't think you have to beat anyone, but I do think you have to be in the game. You almost can't be a man in isolation.
He meets none of these.
And I can’t imagine that any man couldn’t out-Tate him if their morals would allow it.
I was just thinking about this topic two days ago. Back in the '90s, when I was raising up two little boys, I read "Iron John." I wanted to hear about the historical male experience from a man (plus I was at the University of Minnesota, which was Bly territory). I took that book seriously, and it was part of the reason I began to view feminist ideology with skepticism -- especially since I was criticized by other women for traitorously having read the book (they hated it without having read it).
Sadly, since that time the ideas in the book seem to have been covered over by cultural detritus, like a pathway that's been lost due to lack of use. Instead of a mens' movement we have the overused concept of "toxic masculinity." (Of course there is such a thing, just as there is toxic femininity. Imagine the outcry if men reflexively used the counter term over and over.) I'm interested in how someone might resurrect that earlier mens' movement, which we need maybe more now than ever. Of course, it is a task for men. But I'd be a supportive ally.
The men's rights movement hopefully will resurrect the men's movement. The State of Californis being sued for having a women's commission, but refusing to have a men's commission. The Selective Service System is also being sued for discrimination against men.
Well said. I cannot believe the number of border skirmishes being conducted via the language these days... no other era of humankind has experienced anything like this. Even the twentieth century censorship regimes never got this deep into intentionally planted weeds.
Stay wonderful!
I was thinking about this yesterday. I was reading an academic, feminist book about p*rn*graphy which did speak about "toxic masculinity," but which failed to define what was toxic about it and what a non-toxic masculinity would look like (beyond not involving p*rn, which I would agree with). I was left with the impression than anything other than the most feminised, violence-free, competition-free male personality would be seen as "toxic."
(The author also describes letting her nephews and nieces, aged eight to thirteen, watch the James Bond film "Casino Royale" and her being shocked by the violence, without saying why on earth she thought it was a good idea to let an eight-year-old watch such an adult film. I certainly wouldn't.)
"But Tate’s not toxically masculine. He’s just an A-hole."
Yep. There are A-holes and jerks on the left and the right, both male and female.
On the other hand, there are strong and kind people in the same places.