Faux Masculine Archetypes

A prelude to upcoming case studies of Faux-Masculinity.

Readership: Men; Single Men; Christians;
Theme: Faux-Masculine Archetypes
Length: 2,100 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes

Update: A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes (2022-5-30)

Introduction

Over the past several months, there have been a few readers who specifically requested the topic of Christian Masculinity or True Masculinity, and so I’ve adopted the mindset to concentrate on this area in the future. Red Pill Apostle has recognized this need too, and has written about the differences between dominating and domineering in one of his posts.

The Bible contains relevant archetypes of masculinity for us to emulate, but although most all the readers here have read the words and stories therein, we’re not visualizing the real world application very clearly. This is understandable. We’ve been snowed by a maelstrom of Feminism most all our lives.

Before the turn of the century, popular culture and entertainment regularly promoted many examples of masculinity.  A wide spectrum of archetypes were represented. To name a few…

• The wise, caring, hardworking father (Andy Griffith, Bill Cosby, Jim Anderson)
• The creative inventor (Emmet Brown, MacGyver)
• The ladies’ man (Arthur Fonzarelli, John Travolta, Sean Connery, Templeton Peck)
• The leader (Capt. William T. Kirk, Capt. Jean Luc Picard)
• The military hero (Audie Murphy, Gny. Sgt. Hartman, Lt. Pete Mitchell, William Wallace)
• The strong protector (Clint Eastwood, Mr. T, Randy Savage)
• The rugged outdoorsman (Crocodile Dundee, Indiana Jones, Steve Irwin)
• Superheros (Batman, Spiderman, Superman)

In spite of all their faults, all these male role models had a strength of purpose and they met the challenge of overcoming an obstacle. Taken together, these characters provided a well-rounded sampling of masculinity, and this offered a comprehensive model of masculinity for young boys of the time.

Gung Ho, a G.I. Joe character that was popular among young boys in the 1980s and 1990s.

Today, role models such as these are conspicuously absent.  Modern men are commonly depicted as…

• Vainglorious pretty boys (Jamie Dornan, Justin Bieber, Ryan Gosling)
• Thuggish degenerates (any mass murderer, MAGA “deplorables”)
• Greedy, villainous businessmen (Creed Bratton, Ron Swanson)
• Bumbling dimwit husbands (Al Bundy, Homer Simpson)
• Drug Lords or addicts (Narcos, Walter White)
• Persnickety Nerds (Leonard Hofstadter)
• Tech Geeks (Sheldon Cooper)
• Effete androgynes

Readers might notice that some of the same archetypes are present today, but compared to the previous archetypes, the challenges they face and their strength of purpose are either self-centered or missing altogether. For example, dimwit husbands have replaced the wise father, pretty boys have replaced the ladies’ man, tech geeks have displaced the crafty inventor, and thugs have replaced the hero. Sebaceous immature weaklings are the new norm.

Another difference is that no matter which faux archetype is presented, he is either a loner, or else he is under the command of an all-powerful harridan wife or a masculinized Lara Croft / Natasha Romanoff type heroine, who is almost predictably never wrong! Consequently, young men’s concept of Masculinity has been corrupted and perverted.

On this, Red Pill Boomer offered a great suggestion.

“…it might be a good thing to compare and contrast faux-masculine headship (posturing) vs. true Biblical headship. I know you and others have handled the subject of Biblical headship a lot on here, but have we ever compared and contrasted the two? IDK, maybe you did already and I missed it, or it was before my time as being a part of this blog…”

I have written about this many times before, but I haven’t labeled it as “faux-masculinity” so you won’t find anything by using this search term. I haven’t written about it in one stand-alone post that contains a full comprehensive listing of the types and differences either. I’ve only picked out one or two differences at a time as it related to a topic. I’ve also not had the habit of listing such a comparison within its own category, so I can see how these posts would be hard to find. So, starting with this post, I’ll include such posts in a new category under Archetypes / Faux-Masculinity.

This month I’ve chosen the theme of Faux-Masculine Archetypes in which I’ll review several popular stereotypes of fake masculinity. I have the idea that by objectively (and at times humorously) examining these stereotypes, we’ll get some practical insights about where masculinity, or rather, where our concept of masculinity has gone wrong.

We don’t need to look too far to find examples of faux-masculinity. As of right now, I’m not sure exactly how many types of faux-masculinity there are. But I’ve already put together this short list of noteworthy examples for the reader.

1. The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet (2022-5-4) *
2. Mopey Dopey (2022-5-6)
3. The Bungling Dimwitted Lazy Husband (2022-5-9)
4. The Boring Loyal Dude (2022-5-11) *
5. The Armchair Philosopher (2022-5-13)
6. The Decadent Christian (Antimonianism) (2022-5-16)
7. The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism) (2022-5-18) *
8. The Decadent Christian (Legalism)
9. The White Knight (2022-5-20) *
10. The Male Feminist (2022-5-23) *
11. The Lecherous Horndog (2022-5-25)
12. The Simp (2022-5-27)
13. The Abusive Criminal / Thug (2022-5-29)
14. The Playboy
15. The Workaholic
16. Bad@ss Chad *
17. Dark Triad
18. The Incel *
19. The Sebaceous Soy Boy *

I won’t be able to cover all of these this month, but this is the list I’m starting with. Readers are welcome to pick out their “favorites” for me to focus on, and/or suggest others not listed here.

---

* Update: These types were identified as being a subgroup of the Male Feminist (MF), which was found to have countless subtypes. To add to this list, we have…

• Chivalrous Cuckservatives
• Churchians
• Complementarians
• F boys
• Generic Nice Guys
• Incels
• Liberal mouthpieces
• Male versions of radical feminists
• Manginas
• Nice Guys™
• PUAs
• QTBGL types

The reason there are so many MFs, and so many types, is because most all men across the West have been raised by feminist parents and schooled in feminism from their youth.

The thing that makes them all MFs is that they either espouse feminist philosophy, or they support feminism, either willingly or inadvertently.

---

One question for us to consider is whether True Masculinity is equivalent to Christian Masculinity. I suspect that it is.

Encapsulating an archetype of Christian Masculinity in particular is a delicate mine field that few dare to enter!  Those that do, invariably maintain a steadfast principle of presenting the saccharine sweet or spiritually / sexually eviscerated images of faux-masculinity that are all too common within modern Christianity, as if this were the central core of what Christian Masculinity is all about.

Likewise, by objectively examining these stereotypes, and comparing them to what the Bible tells us, we’ll be able to identify exactly where Christian Masculinity has gone wrong, and whether it is any different from True Masculinity. With fruit, we’ll be able to find some insights about the sources of these stereotypes and identify the false values and/or false impressions associated with them. Once this is done, we’ll be able to call them out and push towards a better model.

Qualitative Benchmarks for Evaluating Masculinity

I’ve selected five benchmarks of Masculinity to form an objective and qualitative criteria which can be used to evaluate each of the archetypes. These five benchmarks form the acronym SHARP (or HARPS) and have the subcategories listed below.

1. Strength — Athleticism; Endurance; Maintaining Frame; Physical Strength; Stamina;
2. Honor — Ethics; Honesty; Identity; Morality; Reputation; Social Status;
3. Authority — Education; Influence; Position; Power; Socioeconomic Status;
4. Respect — Abilities / Skills; Authenticity; Charisma; Excellence; Integrity; SMV;
5. Purpose — Attaining Goals; Discipline; Incentives / Motivations; Meaning / Significance / Value; Perseverance;

Honor is an interesting category, because Ethics and Morality often have a negative correllation with Status. More attention and honor is usually given to Reputation and Status than Ethics and Morality.

It should be well noted that Respect is linked to Authority through Power.

Abilities / Skills (included under Respect) are traits that branch across Authority, Respect, and Purpose.

I hesitate listing SMV under Respect, but there are reasons for doing so.

1. From a social perspective, honor and respect are predominantly offered to those men with a demonstrated utility to Feminine Imperatives. (Readers may discuss how morally or ethically appropriate this is.)
2. From an intersexual perspective, Tingles = Respect. (This is a fact that cannot be debated.)

Also of note, a man’s SMV is primarily based on Donal Graeme’s LAMPS (Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, Status), and these correlate with Strength, Honor, and Authority. Also, Charisma is often added to LAMPS as an SMV determinant, and this would include Respect according to the above nomenclature. Purpose is entirely omitted from one’s SMV evaluation! (Although it might be considered in assessing one’s MMV.) Is it a coincidence that a man’s purpose is the one characteristic that women are entirely blind to?

Honor and Respect

The previous section shows that Honor and Respect deserve special attention in our study of Masculine Archetypes for two main reasons.

1. Honor and Respect are intertwined with Strength, Authority, and Purpose, as well as Abilities / Skills, and SMV.
2. Western culture has somehow developed a propensity to disrespect respectability and dishonor the honorable.

On the first point, it seems that the core spiritual effectiveness of Masculinity hinges on Respect, which is possibly why St. Paul emphasized that wives should respect their husbands (Ephesians 5:33). Furthermore, a Man’s identity, ethics, and morality are necessarily tied to Honor. If it is not, then a man ceases to be (relatively) good, by definition.

On the second point, this general attitude of dishonor and disrespect towards good men started about a century ago. The inflection point happened during the Sexual De-Evolution. Since then, the dishonor and disrespect towards men went full throttle within 20 years (by the mid 90s), and has gradually grown to become all encompassing today. Some factions even consider it virtuous to disparage and vilify men!

This general tenor of subtle contempt, condescension, and disrespect towards men has created various animosities and the overall feeling that something is amiss. This topic has been the subject of a long running discussion in the Men’s sphere.

Conversely, we can observe how immoral and unethical men receive honor and respect. As a result, men see little value in being respectable or honorable.

Dalrock suggested that we need to focus on respect instead of fairness (which is a progressive value).

Catacomb Resident pointed out that the underlying problem from a spiritual perspective is that we predominantly maintain a worldly paradigm. We commend and revere those qualities that are valued by women, and we give very little credence nor recognition to men who have those qualities which are eternally valued by God.

On this, RedPillBoomer posed a pertinent question about the moral incongruencies surrounding Respect.

“So Jack, maybe for a possible future blog subject, what is the profile of a man who “rightfully deserves the respect of other men?” What does that profile look like?”

We will consider this question during our examination of Masculine Archetypes. I expect the discussion of Honor and Respect will be interesting.

Epilogue

Masculinity as a discipline and an art of expression has died out in the West. As a result, Men have been pigeonholed into ignominy.

Scott summed up the situation well in a comment.

“In the current crisis, I almost consider it an automatic fail when we hear what a “real man” is (or other variations of this theme).

The most common ones come from the tradcons, who try so desperately try to walk the fine line between their weird notions of chivalry (from opening doors to protecting) and worshipping their kick ass daughters with guns who don’t need no man. (“Any future son in law better be able to handle a strong, sassy opinionated woman like my daughter!”)

The construct of masculinity will stand or fall on its own merits and the smartest move right now is for men to support each other in the wilderness.”

Yes, and in addition to supporting one another, we need to do so with mutual respect.

It’s long past time we faced up to the reality that Christian Masculinity is a lost art and discipline.

Through all these studies of Faux-Masculinity, it is my hope that we’ll see what went wrong and envision a revised concept of True Masculinity. There is much to be done in the way of developing a new archetype of Christian Masculinity in particular.  Outside of Biblical examples, there’s very little to work with. It seems like we’re starting over from scratch.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle that must be overcome at present is our current notion that Christian Masculinity is depressed, ex-responsible, “figurehead but not head”, flaccid, nonproductive, pandering, pedestalizing, obsequious, speak-no-evil, watered down immasculinity. (We’ll get to that in the next few posts.)

It is not eternally True. It is a false, worldly mockery of masculinity to be soundly rejected.

Related

• The Rational Male: Remove the Man (2013-5-6)
• The Rational Male: Male Authority – Be a “Man” (2018-11-13)
• Σ Frame (Jack): Eunuchs of the New Feminist Order (2019-8-31)
• Σ Frame (Jack): Redefining Manhood as Boyish Immaturity (2021-6-14)
• Σ Frame (Thedeti): Disclosing the Taboo of Masculine Sexuality (2021-10-20)
• Biblical Gender Roles: The War on Masculine Sexuality (2022-1-23)
• Σ Frame (Jack): The Young Man’s Problem (2022-2-4)