No Virtue Exists Without Masculine Incentives

Moral character cannot be attained by side-stepping masculine identity.

Readership: All; Christian Men
Theme: Problems with the Red Pill / Socio-Political Appropriation
Author’s Note: This post collates viewpoints from Red Pill Apostle, Thedeti, Jack, and Feeriker.  Some editing for clarity and readability. Links to original comments embedded.
Length: 2,000 words
Reading Time: 11 minutes

This post reviews David French’s critique of the Manosphere that appeared in The New York Times, entitled, The Atmosphere of the ‘Manosphere’ is Toxic (2024/4/14).

The T0x!c Disrespect for Men in Crisis (Red Pill Apostle)

T0x!c, when referring to behavior, is a word I could go the rest of my life without hearing.

David French says the atmosphere of the Manosphere is t0x!c, but he is wrong about the spheres.  It’s not toxic, but it does have an underlying bitterness due to the men who see answers in it.

Let me use a comparison to explain.

Imagine women in a divorce support group specifically for cases where the husband left because he was unhappy, alienated the kids against her, and is forcing her to give him a large percentage of her income.  Then imagine that the majority of society tells her to suck it up and deal with it, because maybe if she’d been more frequent and enthusiastic about giving head, he’d have been happy and not left.

Most moderns would say that’s a t0x!c atmosphere, but however rude though it may be, The Law of Evaluation is necessary for healing to begin, and it’s quite appropriate to invoke The Law of Power. No one in their right mind would be surprised if this support group demonstrated some tendencies of being bitter.  I’d say that something would be wrong with them if they didn’t.

Men who suffer a similar plight find support from the Manosphere, and they are labeled ‘t0x!c’ for being gutturally honest, implementing The Laws of Human Nature, and for being bitter. This labeling is, in itself, a t0x!c rejection of men in crisis.

The trick is not to wallow in bitterness so that it consumes you.  There comes a time for action towards fixing whatever the problem is, and that tends to be uplifting for men.  I think the improved outlook is due to realizing that there is an end in sight to the suffering.

Incentives Matter (Thedeti)

No one seems to be able to figure out why boys and men are failing.

How could this be happening?

We’ve taken away every good reason there is to be a man.  We’ve taken away respect.  We tell men they’re less than worthless sh!t.  Everyone tells boys and men they’re hated, not liked, not wanted, and unnecessary.  We’ve taken away avenues of competition and success.  We’ve taken away male spaces where boys and men can congregate and where boys can learn from men.  We’ve taken away boys’ educational opportunities.  We’ve taken away jobs and money.  We’ve deprived them of the ability to earn money.

Boys and men can’t even go up to a woman and try to strike up a conversation with them, without fearing police involvement.  Women have made it crystal clear that all but the top 10% of men are considered totally worthless and undesirable.  Superfluous.  Not even really there. Invisible.

They can’t ask women out.  They can’t act like men around women.  They can’t express frank and explicit sexual interest in women.  They can’t get married; and if they do get married they can’t stay married.  They have no right to anything they own.  They have no rights to their children, not even to see them on a regular basis, much less direct their upbringing.  They can’t even reasonably guarantee they’ll get anything at all from the marriages they do contract.

Gee.  Why do we suppose men are failing? Could it be because there are no incentives for men to pursue what was once known as ‘success’, and plenty of incentives NOT to?

David French

David French suggests a return to the cardinal virtues, and a “pursuit of [goodness]” for young men.

And French thinks that putting increased demands on boys and men without even so much as the opportunity to get something for it, will somehow fix this.

Why should young men be prudent, temperate, just, and courageous? What will they get in return for developing these virtues?

If you want good men, you have to incentivize their creation.

See, the entire point of requiring this character development in men is that they’ll get something in return.  They’ll get recognition from their peers and respect from other men.  They’ll get opportunities leading to greater status.  They’ll get jobs and incomes and homes.  And, yes, they can attract a decent woman and build a family.

But that’s not the case anymore.  Men of good character are actively punished and deprived now.

A Vacuum of Moral Vision (Jack)

French writes,

“Most of the “manosphere” influencers look at men’s existential despair and respond with a mainly material cure.  […] [Classical values are coopted] in service of the will to win.  Success — with money, with women — becomes your best revenge.”

“…when it comes to the crisis confronting men and boys, there is no competing, holistic vision for our sons.”

I agree with French that this is a problem with the Manosphere, as I wrote before…

“BOTH the protagonists and the antagonists of The Red Pill don’t seem to recognize that BOTH (1) the carnal / sexual aspects of attraction and mating, AND (2) the more abstract aspects of the human sociosexual experience, such as boundaries, faith, honor, humility, identity, longitudinal purpose, love, reputation, self-control, virtue, etc. must be considered if the truths of The Red Pill are to bring any lasting / eternal / redemptive / sanctifying value relevant to an individual man’s life.

Worse, without these transcendent aspects, the hard cold truths of The Red Pill only deliver a knock-out double-punch of bitterness and nihilism.”

Σ Frame: Vectors of Conflict (2024/6/17)

But this vacuum of moral vision is not unique to the Manosphere. It is a pestilent malady within Western societies at large. Materialism and sexual prowess are rewarded. Morality is punished. We cannot point the figurative finger at the Manosphere and ignore the social conditions that led to its formation and popularity. This is what French has missed.

How TPTB Defrauds Men out of Their Masculine Identities (Jack)

French is correct in the next passage too.

“One reason for this vacuum is that any discussion of the crisis among men almost immediately devolves into a debate over masculinity itself.”

However, he fails to point out that there now exists a vacuum of masculinity (and morality too, which is not a coincidence) precisely because of this phenomenon — the social inquisition to deconstruct, demonize, and dismantle masculinity, all of which is surreptitiously referred to as an “elite debate over masculinity” (his words).  All this suspicious questioning and methodical suppressing of masculinity is an attack on Western men’s fundamental identity.  It works by fomenting obsessive doubts and suspicions about the nature of masculinity which pose a distracting socio-psychological obstacle that prevents men from claiming their God given masculine identities by faith.

French furthers this same fraudulent questioning of masculinity when he writes,

“Is traditional masculinity toxic? Or is it toxic to abandon traditionally masculine approaches to raising boys? What is traditional masculinity anyway? Is “masculinity” even a concept worth pursuing, or does it jam too many boys into stereotypical boxes, magnifying their misery?“

Anyone in a healthy society would chuckle at such questions as being embarassingly naïve — or recoil at the latent evil conveyed therein.

Moreover, French’s questions are false questions, that is, a question that is founded on false premises and therefore has no true answer.  In fact, most ALL questions about the nature of masculinity, as posed by the MSM, are false questions intended to defraud men out of their heritage by inflicting self-doubts.

Confusion and Falsehoods Abound (Jack)

Vox’s SSH came to my mind when I read French’s last sentence quoted above in bold.  Based on readers’ comments under this post, the idea that young men are jamming themselves into Vox’s SSH and are made miserable by it might be both true and false, depending on how a man takes it.  That is, one man might feel confined or ostracized by being pidgeonholed into a SSH type, i.e. a Gamma, while another man might reflect upon this theoretical structure and realize his proper place in the social order. There’s some wisdom for mentors to learn from this.

Freedom or shelter?

Outside of Vox’s SSH and Σ Frame’s Faux Masculine Archetypes (which are not expressly intended to be mimicked), there are no ‘stereotypical boxes’ of masculinity being shown to young men, unless we include Schrödinger’s t0x!c p@tr!@rch@l boogeyman that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, or the emasculated ‘immature boy’ being touted by the MSM.

Furthermore, young men are being jammed outside of whatever construct of masculinity they might find. French’s essay, for instance, is clearly intended to shoo searching men away from the Manosphere.

Moral Character Cannot be Attained by Side-Stepping Masculinity (Jack)

French takes this orchestrated denial of ‘masculinity’ further in writing,

“I’m wondering if there is another, better way.  Can we sidestep the elite debate over masculinity by approaching the crisis with men via an appeal to universal values rather than to the distinctively male experience?”

French is keen in thinking that the “elite debate” can be ‘sidestepped’, but it cannot. We cannot omit, or sidestep, or skirt, or tip toe around the fact that all the anti-Man rhetoric needs to be done away with.

French is right that men need values and a moral vision and that the current Manosphere does not provide these, but let us not be distracted by this truism. (Colossians 2:4,8) His clever approach fails to address the dire necessity of masculinity.

Where French goes dank is in thinking that virtuous character can be achieved by abandoning or side-stepping masculinity (i.e. the image of God, not to be confused with the “elite debate” intended to destroy it).  French is suggesting that men should be good and moral, but NOT masculine, whatever that is.  All men must be shoehorned into a box of “universal values”, whatever he means by that. (I suspect this term may have a unique interpretative meaning.)

All this assumes that French’s proposition is even possible, but it is impossible.  Our study of Chemistry revealed that masculinity, morality, social structure, and testosterone (the nectar of holiness) are all intertwined.  Masculine strength is required for morality and virtue to exist.

Upon deeper examination, French’s curious and pleasantly trilling mixture of half-truths minus masculinity doesn’t sound much different from The Plan™ to keep men docile, subservient, weak, and working on The Pl@nt@t!0n™ (not to be confused with civilizationism).

Conclusions (Jack, Feeriker)

A man does not build or prove his character when life is convenient, but when it is difficult. Masculine development requires men to look beyond the easy but temporary solutions, to take the hard narrow road, and to embrace suffering as a necessary part of building character (Romans 5:3-5).

The overall message being conveyed, not just by French, but by all of MSM, is that masculine identity is a wash (except when applied to women). You must be a nice boy if you wish to escape your sorry life of suffering (imposed by TPTB).  This is a false promise intended to entice men to be more compliant with The Gynocracy™.

Living here, or passing through?

French is a mouthpiece for Satan’s ‘elite’ agenda, as is pretty much every “journalist” associated with MSM.

Don’t be fooled by the faux compassion for men, admonishments toward building moral character, and such.  Although these are important, the more serious issue is that masculinity is being denied from men, methodically and at the highest level.

As soon as you see this neoclown’s byline associated with anything in print, it’s your cue to ignore it and move on.

Related

• Σ Frame: The Spiritual Confusion of Clinging to the “Rules” (2021/3/24)
• 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 (Thedeti): The Delusion of the Good (2022/8/19)
• Σ Frame: Red Pill Redemption (2022/9/5)
• Σ Frame: Restoring Respect (2022/9/28)
• Σ Frame: The Battle Within (2023/4/10)
• Σ Frame (Thedeti): The Reality (2023/12/23)
• Σ Frame: Origins of the “Immature Boy” Stereotype (2024/5/22)
• Σ Frame: Philosophical Dualism (2024/5/27)