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.

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…

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.

ArchetypeIdol
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 DopeyAnger, bitterness
The Boring Loyal DudeHaving a comfortable, ordered, no-nonsense lifestyle
The Armchair PhilosopherEgo dominance
The Decadent Christian (Antimonianism)Impulsive living
The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism)Inverted Feminist / Progressive values
The White KnightChivalrous social posturing; Faux honor;
The Male FeministVaries, but female propinquity is a common denominator
The Simp / Soy BoyAn Oedipal mother; the blinding obsession;
The Abusive Criminal / ThugControl, various fears, respect, et al.
Bad@ss Chad / PUAsDominance, Winning, Egotistical highs / Sexual expression; P_ssy;
Chivalrous CuckservativesMaterialistic comforts of capitalism; Perceived nuances of “Tradition”
ChurchiansWhitewashed socialization and popularity
ComplementariansMarital harmony, Whitewashed 2nd Wave Feminism *
Dark TriadNarcissistic manipulation and social circumnavigation
F boysSexual dominance and conquest
Generic Nice GuysComfort, Covert Contract, Loyalty
IncelsLust, Envy, Poverty Mentality
Liberal mouthpiecesAcceptance; Relevance
Male versions of radical feministsAttention, Influence, Power, Popularity
Manginas / Bro’sAutopilot
Nice Guys™Obsession with “love”, Oneitis
QTBGL typesUninhibited sexual expression, et al.
The PlayboyPleasures of living
The WorkaholicEarning 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.

ArchetypeSHARPAvg.
The Armchair Philosopher (Extroverted)0-2+5-88-105-107-106.5
The Abusive Criminal / Thug8-100-46-106-100-66
The Armchair Philosopher (Introverted)0-2+3-66-82-64-84.5
The Male Feminist (High Power)0-505-10?5-104.5
The Decadent Christian (Antimonianism)4-80-4??0-44
The White Knight0-40-60-50-50-103
The Boring Loyal Dude2-50-40-30-23-62.5
The Simp / Soy Boy0-62-80-80-60-52-3.5
Mopey Dopey0-10-10-20-20-41
The Male Feminist (Low Power)0-200-50-20-11
The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet, AKA “The Family / Home Project Manager”0-30-20000.5
The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism)0-2< 0< 0< 00-100

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

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Antimonianism, Archetypes, Calculated Risk Taking, Churchianity, Communications, Complementarianism, Conflict Management, Conserving Power, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Depression, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline, Enduring Suffering, Faux-Masculinity, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, God's Concept of Justice, Holding Frame, Identity, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, MGTOW, Incels, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Mysticism, Overcoming Addictions, Personal Domain, Personal Presentation, Power, Psychology, Purpose, Relationships, Respect, Reviews, Self-Concept, Sphere of Influence, Statistics Reports, Teaching, The Power of God, White Wash, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes

  1. Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  2. india_kilo_romeo says:

    “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.”

    “God said to Solomon, “Since [..] you have not asked for wealth, possessions or honor, nor for the death of your enemies, and since you have not asked for a long life but for wisdom and knowledge to govern my people over whom I have made you king, therefore wisdom and knowledge will be given you. And I will also give you wealth, possessions and honor [..]”

    Those who focus on the reward, not responsibility, are denied the reward. Also harkens to Mt 13 / Mt 25.

    Also, just IKR will do. I’ve fumbled through different WP logins, incl this one.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. redpillboomer says:

    “Nice Guys™Obsession with “love”, Oneitis” this was me before red pill. It worked to a degree sort of, but only because I believe God stepped in and prevented blue pill me from screwing this all up. I had Oneitis for a girl, I’ve written about it previously, and it would undoubtedly have screwed me over except God stepped in and re-directed me toward another girl, who’s been my wife for 33 years now. He got “Oneitis” girl out of the way, no thanks to me that’s for sure, and then got Miss CC rider out of the way (hopping off the Carousel at 29 and now dedicated to following God now supposedly–sheesh), and got the girl he wanted in there. I see it all now in retrospect.

    I can see now how so many of these Faux-Masculinity types were present in either me or the guys I knew. It’s amazing we can ever establish any kind of relationship with a female that works, I.e. conforms more towards the Biblical model, with all this crap floating around out there as the “way a man should be.” We rag on women a lot, and rightfully so, however looking at the men and these Faux-Masculinity types, it’s a sh!t show on our end as well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      I do wonder how many purported Christian Men are actually saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. There is no way God would ever allow the Men to be content with their figureheadship.

      No way that such evil would be allowed for too long when he dwells in such Men’s hearts.

      Like

  4. thedeti says:

    Re: Tasty Toothpaste:

    I knew that would get yanked.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Bad@ss Chad | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s