Death of the "Man"

Re-establishing Truth

Recently, Iv'e reached where I found some comfort in my self-image. For too long, ideas perpetuated through higher education institutions informed me (while using this word informed very loosely) of the deeply rooted evil of who I am as a man of eastern European descent. Iv'e been silent and afraid of formulating rational discussions about these issues. These professors, whom we are supposed to look to for guidance, use fear and manipulation as a tactic to push their personal agendas. Tenured professors give lectures based entirely on research constructed on the pretense of demonizing particular groups of people (White, Male, Christians mostly) while lifting up (they call empowerment) others who have no connection to any form of oppression. They teach victim mentality and laziness. Those so-called activists who have barely lifted a finger appear as hard workers, while those who break their backs are framed as oppressors. They TEACH them that they are oppressed whether they know or accept it. It becomes clear that this format relies on Marxist principles, though arguing this point would only result in quick dismissal under the assumption of radical conservatism. This tyranny goes as far as to assume these radical conservatives are mentally ill. We are not allowed to have conversations.

Several men whose works have spoken volumes helped me understand that men (males) still deserve recognition, not demoralization. Entering a place of higher learning should be enlightening, not terrifying. However, in the age of the progressive, we are ironically regressing backward into an almost tribal state. The only goal should be building a solid foundation for our character, which is the most challenging thing men or women attempt to accomplish. No values surround character development, only indoctrination under political (left-wing) agendas. There is a substantial value of hard work embedded in this country that I fear is collapsing under these radical notions of living within tyrannical patriarchy (one in which specific demographics of individuals can assume power without recourse, meaning anyone but white men). To combat these false claims is the death of masculinity, assumed to be a "toxic" characteristic that men must dissolve. These notions only exist on the premise of completely dismantling our values of hard work to make room for those feeling it is their time to climb to the top. This concerns power only, not diversity, equity, or inclusion (the woke triumvirate), which they hold as pseudo-religious commandments.

The purpose of this article is to present an argument based on observation and the current sociopolitical climate of the U.S. Many of the ideas presented use evolutionary justifications. To better crystalize these arguments, I will outline the arguments presented to me from the other side to attempt neither demonize nor dismiss the radical left of whom I aim to critique. Ultimately the left SHOULD BE CRITIQUING THEMSELVES. How do we really think Hitler convinced his followers to commit the acts of the Third Reich? He wanted them to be dumb and silent. He wanted them to agree with him. As a scientist, listening to counterarguments stimulates much-needed conversations. It is absurd that we even need to have such conversations as "Men are actually worth something and struggle" or "biology is real," but here we go.

Essential Family Unit

At what point has exhibiting masculine qualities become corrosive? Some of my less intellectual yet good friends joke about certain men joining feminist movements to "find a woman." My friends are, in fact, men who support women's equality and the truth behind womanhood. They have wives and children whom they love with everything. They even go to the evil Christian Church that is so scrutinized. Examining oxford's definition of feminism -- the advocacy of women's rights based on the equality of the sexes --, they hold this value without having to pump their fists or spell women as -- WOMYN. In reality, which may be difficult to hear, these modern liberals are joining these movements to find a woman whether they know it or not.

Our entire pursuit as human beings and animals is directed toward this idea of finding a mate & reproduction. All jokes aside, a classmate uttered a disturbing accusation about my favorite TV show Breaking Bad: "Walter White is a toxic male attempting to support his family and show what a man he is." While perhaps this statement was an attempt to shift my perception away from my simple love for writing, acting, and cinematography toward something potentially cynical, I feel there is something much more profound here. Ironically, this statement which in his mind was an attempt to strengthen the feminine character, is, in reality, wildly destructive and harmful to women. As an anthropologist, examining the kin groups combined with theological and economic values is vital in understanding the foundation of any culture. Dismantling kin groups could cause catastrophic results to the entire foundation of a culture, as seen through processes of colonization throughout the centuries. American culture is vast in its construction, existing outside of a monolith. Numerous representations of kinship would require an entirely different article to examine. Regardless of the myriad of kin groups, it is unexplainably detrimental to the fabric of our culture to assume that exhibiting the masculine quality of providing for one's family is "toxic" (an absurd term).

I would grant the individual too much credit by directing my arguments toward his statement. There is a cultural phenomenon reflected in his words more than maliciousness. As he assumes he is an intellectual. In a funny way, my jock Marine friends are much more profound than he, who is college educated. However, I am thankful for the stark discomfort and untruth presented by the "tolerant" leftist. This is not an attack on non-traditional families. This argument highlights that conventional families are not symbols of oppression if the male figure serves a vital role in this equation. Regardless of any political position that has gained significant momentum in recent socio-political climates, the fundamental reality remains that conception relies on male and female biological mechanisms. Within that reality exists the necessity for forming the family unit we call marriage. Forming any discourse about the subject is difficult due to the fear of social alienation. Apparent social pressures have created an entirely subjective position that relies on the demonization of masculinity and, ultimatly, manhood.

Who is the Fittest?

Many examples show how vast the expression of unconventional families is in the U.S. Regardless of these examples, many of these families (not all) are only a means of "SURVIVAL," not "LIVING," which are separated by their means of character development, self-exploration, artistic endeavor, and a myriad of other qualities that distinguish a rich Vs. Poor society. If the definition of survival -- the state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically despite an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances -- then these alternative non-traditional kin groups fit this definition. There is a keyword to note within this definition; accident or accidental. Applying pressures to affirm non-traditional families to manifest these ordeals or challenging circumstances purposefully seems unnecessary and detrimental.

A civilization does not thrive on survival. In such a complex society as the U.S., our culture is formed through our ability to take time to form it. Art, music, infrastructure, education, and religious freedom result from our ability to work together to provide the time to create them; survival would diminish what we call culture. A single mother has no time to work on her passions. A man who runs out on his family ends up broken from his lack of meaning that a woman could provide him. Breaking apart the family unit purposefully to prove such points as a man is not essential in the pursuit of political power (power that does not even benefit anyone) is entirely destructive to families.

Leaning into the psychological mechanisms of temperament, discarding all masculine qualities as oppressive remains unjustified. Professor Jordan Peterson discusses the concept of gender fluidity and a form of fluid temperaments, not biological characteristics. Temperaments, by definition, are emotional qualities that serve as fundamental building blocks for personalities. Whether or not these temperaments have traditionally been biased toward biological males or females remains irrelevant. Maleness is deeply ingrained in the male biological organism in all species. Evolutionary science has shown clear evidence of the superior hunting capabilities of the male organism. Females thus traditionally became caretakers. Both social roles are deeply ingrained in the biological organism though socially have been labeled as "gender roles." Both roles are essential to living and evolving, and removing either component will cause the extinction of a particular species. With these precise scientific assertions in place (which contain mountains of still relevant literature), we can assume that these counter positions regarding non-traditional kin groups exist primarily within a subjective reality formed around socio-political pressures.

What is Truth?

My question then remains; Why are they doing this? What is the gain from causing something so beautiful and innate to our species to collapse? I want to focus on what is to gain besides political and economic power, but I can't find a single answer. However, again, how would anyone gain from these claims? Why break apart families? For WHAT exactly? One area of explanation is within our modern age's most relevant philosophical debates; that infinite truths exist.

Here, let us turn to the vital question asked throughout the centuries by thinkers & philosophers; What is truth? Post-modernism suggests infinite possibilities exist to understand any phenomenon in the known universe. While this perception is accurate to an extent, there are few opportunities to examine known universal facts. Here is a simple analogy to best understand this paradox; There is a field. We know that this is a fact, a field. Not a mountain, river, or house. There are infinite ways to look at the field depending on what time of day or season, or mood an individual has. The field is still a field when no one is there to look upon it (or so some philosophers say this is not true). There are endless ways to walk through the field. However, with these possibilities in place, the field remains constrained because it is a field.

Human culture, which consists of elements that ensure it remains intact, relies on converging realities. As soon as they meet, each reality becomes subjective. Regardless of how each person walked through the field, they met at some point, and through the meeting, their realities merged. Why do individuals desire to live in their reality even upon this convergence? As social animals, agreeance is vital for the overall development of civilization. This reality is fundamentally simple, as we would have only evolved past the hunter-gathering band into chiefdoms and then into large-scale technologically advanced societies with a cooperative effort.

Regarding the truth behind the toxic masculinity statement. The assumption is that men are traditionally masculine. Now breaking this down even further, the idea suggests that 1) masculinity is evil because it created an oppressive society which is "The West" (the one which many flee to for sovereignty). 2) We must demonize masculinity by supporting the rise of the feminine/the chaotic -- the collapse of what is mythologically correlated with culture. 3) now that there are infinite possibilities, one must respect each as truth rather than the apparent lack of converging. How are these radical ideological goals enacted? In almost every film, TV show (including children's shows), and other forms of media, these narratives are being pushed. Masculine men are framed as the villains and the poor quirky gay person, the oppressed hero. Now a further justification for this narrative says that all tradition is evil. This is NOT what Joseph Campbell was talking about. Thus, who you are is not "who you are." While the statement is confusing, if you are naturally masculine, you MUST feminize or face ostracization; if you are heterosexual, you must be curious about the opposite sex. If these developments were natural, why create TV, shows, movies, and education around these "natural developments." If they were natural, why do men desire to form families with those who can conceive their children? If it was natural, why do ALL mammalian species follow the same pattern? Should they not just emerge on their own without stimulation?

This is for Women too!

What do we do? Well, primarily, be yourself, not the self-others tell you must be under this newfound politically driven narrative. All men are not evil. Within the archetypal male, the tyrant and good father exist in every man. If you want to awaken the tyrant, the treatment men are receiving will catalyze manifesting the worse possible outcome. Women in our country should support men and love them for their masculine qualities to awaken the good father within them. For the man, treat her like the queen who drives the destiny of your empire.

Most importantly, women initiate men. Do we have to worry about little boys being taught that they are born with this innate evil? We work together, not against each other. As the woke propagandists suggest, men are intimidated by a successful female, and THEY SHOULD BE. In truth, we love to see good, strong women. Look at the development of societies and how we walked and worked hand in hand. This document is not aimed at polarizing. It is aimed to show that we cannot do this without you, and whether you want to believe it or not, you need us to. We are not here to oppress or hold you down. For my partner, who went through several bad relationships, all I want is her happiness. I want her to engage in her art and the things she loves. However, as a single mother for so long, she was surviving and had no time to do these things, as explained. Now, it's our time to build a strong relationship as all the men and women who came before us. This is not about politics or ideology. It's about love and making our ancestors proud to have built such a wonderful nation.

Let's build some relationships based on love, not fear.