A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes

Assessments, similarities, and rankings.

Readership: All
Theme: Archetypes of Faux-Masculinity
Author’s Note: This post contains excerpts from readers’ comments. Links to original comments are embedded in the initial word.
Length: 1,750 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes

An Overview of the Archetypes Covered

A dozen male archetypes have been investigated as part of our survey of Faux-Masculinity. This post covers some noteworthy points that came up and offers some comprehensive conclusions.

This month, the number of visitors was down 60% of the previous two-month average, indicating a relatively lower interest in Faux-Masculinity. However, the number of views per visitor exceeded 10.5, up from a running average of ~7, and there was an average of 87 comments per post, up from ~60 during the previous month.  These numbers indicate that there were a smaller number of readers who were intensely interested in this topic. I trust that those who requested this topic got what they were hoping to find out of this month’s theme.

This series received two pingbacks / responses.

• Christianity and Masculinity: How are we supposed to become more like Jesus? (2022-5-3)
• Christianity and Masculinity: The blind side: what works for the pastor usually does not work for you (2022-5-9)

The Faux-Masculine Archetypes are listed as follows…

1. The Blue Pilled Alpha (2016-11-4) *
2. The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet (2022-5-4) *
3. Mopey Dopey (2022-5-6) @
4. The Bungling Dimwitted Lazy Husband (2022-5-9) #
5. The Boring Loyal Dude (2022-5-11) *
6. The Armchair Philosopher (2022-5-13)
7. The Decadent Christian (Antimonianism) (2022-5-16)
8. The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism) (2022-5-18) *
9. The Decadent Christian (Legalism)
10. The White Knight (2022-5-20) *
11. The Male Feminist (2022-5-23) *
12. The Lecherous Horndog (2022-5-25) #
13. The Simp (2022-5-27) @*
14. The Abusive Criminal / Thug (2022-5-29)
15. Bad@ss Chad / PUAs (2022-8-3) *
16. Dark Triad
17. The Playboy
18. The Incel *
19. The Sebaceous Soy Boy *
20. The Workaholic

There were two archetypes (indicated by a #) that are not necessarily true archetypes, but only a faux conceptualization of normal men’s behavior that is stereotyped and criticized by women and society in order to control or shame men or to demonize masculinity.

Several archetypes (indicated by an asterisk) were identified as being a subgroup of the Male Feminist (MF), which was found to have countless subtypes. The thing that makes them all MFs is that they either espouse feminist philosophy, or they support feminism, female equality, and/or female dominance, either willingly or inadvertently through compliance. Another interrelated identifying quality is that they all neglect or forfeit Headship as an ongoing habit in both their psychology and their relationships. (Some rare exceptions exist.  Certain aspects of Headship masculinity, like determination, domination, and strength of purpose, may be found among PUAs and High Power Male Feminists.)

Adding others to those listed above, we have this list of MFs…

• The Blue Pilled Alpha (2016-11-4)
• The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet (2022-5-4)
• The Boring Loyal Dude (2022-5-11)
• The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism) (2022-5-18)
• The White Knight (2022-5-20)
• The Male Feminist (2022-5-23)
• The Simp (2022-5-27)
• Bad@ss Chad / PUAs
• Chivalrous Cuckservatives
• Churchians
• Complementarians
• F boys
• Generic Nice Guys
• Incels
• Liberal mouthpieces
• Male versions of radical feminists
• Manginas
• Nice Guys™
• QTBGL types

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

The Simp is one subtype that is widely prevalent and therefore appears in many forms. Most Simps will self-identify as a Geek, or a Nerd, or a “Brony”, and so on, as seen in the case studies, and so these monikers might be taken as synonyms. The Sebaceous Soy Boy could also be rolled into this sub-archetype as a Simp who is excessively lazy and unmotivated.

Although it is not outwardly apparent, Simps and Thugs bear some resemblance. Both come from a dysfunctional home environment with a poor or absent father figure and/or a harridan mother. Both are lacking social skills. Both have pet interests, with examples of video games and drug habits, respectively. The difference is that Simps have been softened and feminized by an Oedipal mother while Thugs have been hardened somehow, perhaps by rejecting an Oedipal mother. Another difference is that Simps recognize the authority of the Oedipal mother and women in general, whereas Thugs do not recognize any authority other than himself and/or a gang lord.

The Idolatry of Faux-Masculinity

Another way to categorize all the different types of true Faux-Masculine archetypes and other types of Male Feminists is according to their espoused idol.  (An idol is the central aspect of one’s personal psychology that one will cling to and be intensely reluctant to renounce.)  Here, I’ve listed all the types listed above, followed by the most prevalent idols of that type.

Archetype	Idol
The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet, AKA “The Family / Home Project Manager”	The wife (“Happy Wife, Happy Life”); Having a peaceful home; Having sex with the wife; Posturing as “Traditional” conservative;
Mopey Dopey	Anger, bitterness
The Boring Loyal Dude	Having a comfortable, ordered, no-nonsense lifestyle
The Armchair Philosopher	Ego dominance
The Decadent Christian (Antimonianism)	Impulsive living
The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism)	Inverted Feminist / Progressive values
The White Knight	Chivalrous social posturing; Faux honor;
The Male Feminist	Varies, but female propinquity is a common denominator
The Simp / Soy Boy	An Oedipal mother; the blinding obsession;
The Abusive Criminal / Thug	Control, various fears, respect, et al.
Bad@ss Chad / PUAs	Dominance, Winning, Egotistical highs / Sexual expression; P_ssy;
Chivalrous Cuckservatives	Materialistic comforts of capitalism; Perceived nuances of “Tradition”
Churchians	Whitewashed socialization and popularity
Complementarians	Marital harmony, Whitewashed 2nd Wave Feminism *
Dark Triad	Narcissistic manipulation and social circumnavigation
F boys	Sexual dominance and conquest
Generic Nice Guys	Comfort, Covert Contract, Loyalty
Incels	Lust, Envy, Poverty Mentality
Liberal mouthpieces	Acceptance; Relevance
Male versions of radical feminists	Attention, Influence, Power, Popularity
Manginas / Bro’s	Autopilot
Nice Guys™	Obsession with “love”, Oneitis
QTBGL types	Uninhibited sexual expression, et al.
The Playboy	Pleasures of living
The Workaholic	Earning money, success, flow, et al.

* The wife wants to be a tradwife when it benefits her but also be a feminist when it benefits her. Comprehensively, this requires female primacy and wife pedestalization.

Ironically, the idol is the thing that is ultimately denied to the respective type.  IcemanKimiRai stated a mystical theory that those who sell their souls for material gain, do not live to see the rewards of their plan. Or if he should by any means obtain his desire, he will find no joy in it.  The game becomes a never-ending chase for a high that is always denied. Those who bargain with the world, bargain with Satan — and Satan always plays with loaded dice.  For example, boring loyal men are prone to be One-itis-ers and are often cucked.  Although this is exacerbated by the negative ressentiment of loyalty within the current sexually liberated culture, it is no coincidence.

A Man’s best chance of conforming to God’s order, gaining submission from wives, etc. is to fight the desire to make any inner propensity (e.g. a covert contract, a peaceful home, lust, marital harmony, sex, etc.) into an idol. Rather than making harmony, peace, sex, etc. as the goal, the goal should be holding God’s standards and any standards he sets for his own family fully knowing that this will cause conflict, but a good conflict that is sanctifying. When a man does this there is absolutely conflict, but more often than not, with enough time, fortitude and patience, he will end up with both a submissive wife and the peace, etc. he desires.

Masculinity Ratings

In the introductory post, I set forth 5 benchmarks of Masculinity to form an objective and qualitative criteria which were then 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;

The scores for each archetype are shown in the table below, in decreasing order.

Archetype	S	H	A	R	P	Avg.
The Armchair Philosopher (Extroverted)	0-2+	5-8	8-10	5-10	7-10	6.5
The Abusive Criminal / Thug	8-10	0-4	6-10	6-10	0-6	6
The Armchair Philosopher (Introverted)	0-2+	3-6	6-8	2-6	4-8	4.5
The Male Feminist (High Power)	0-5	0	5-10	?	5-10	4.5
The Decadent Christian (Antimonianism)	4-8	0-4	?	?	0-4	4
The White Knight	0-4	0-6	0-5	0-5	0-10	3
The Boring Loyal Dude	2-5	0-4	0-3	0-2	3-6	2.5
The Simp / Soy Boy	0-6	2-8	0-8	0-6	0-5	2-3.5
Mopey Dopey	0-1	0-1	0-2	0-2	0-4	1
The Male Feminist (Low Power)	0-2	0	0-5	0-2	0-1	1
The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet, AKA “The Family / Home Project Manager”	0-3	0-2	0	0	0	0.5
The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism)	0-2	< 0	< 0	< 0	0-10	0

Conclusions

The continuing perpetuation of Faux-Masculine archetypes and the fact that aggressive, masculine, high-earning women can continually get sex from high value/attractive men reinforces several negative outcomes.

• Hierarchies of authority, including Headship, continue to be denigrated.
• Men continue to dwell in the helpless and hopeless position of having all the responsibility with no authority, including in his own home.
• Women become s1uts and hoes early in life, and then become masculinized harridans and Karens after hitting the wall.
• Men are conditioned to accept, and even expected to prefer, a strong, independent, kick-@ss woman.
• A growing asymmetry in attraction between the wife and husband. The wife will be lukewarm in her affections toward her husband. Many will divorce and others will just be roommates in an unhappy but tolerable marriage.
• Christians will go on pretending that the church is full of godly gals of wife material while lamenting that the men are subpar.

Personally speaking, I have seen aspects of myself in every single one of these archetypes, and I’ve made a few comments to this effect. It’s been good to review these things and monitor my own progress in getting out and staying free from these traps.

It’s easy to rake men over the coals for “not getting it”, i.e. that women don’t like nice, kind, affable men for sex and relationships. The best thing we can do is to help guys find fellowship with other men, be aware of the traps and shenanigans, and steer clear of the pitfalls of faux-masculinity – and there are many.

Related

• Σ Frame (Jack): Building Fellowship – The Problem of Disliking Each Other (2010-7-11)
• Illimitable Men: The Game of Power (2014 April 22)
• Σ Frame (Jack): The Dispensation of the Red Pill (2018-4-7)
• Σ Frame (Jack): Answers to the Exit Questions for the Series on Masculinity (2021-7-2)
• Σ Frame (Red Pill Apostle): Developing Masculinity (2021-12-6)
• Biblical Gender Roles: The War on Masculine Sexuality (2022-1-23)