Men today are lost because the technological and administrative world in which they find themselves gives them no markers to tell them they are men. In fact, to survive, they must become like women.
Men are more intelligent and stronger than women, as well as being the dominant sex. This does not make them "the disposable sex", rather the opposite. Women exist, bluntly, to create more men.
I'm not sure where this "insecurity" comes from either. Historically men were associated with divinity and the sky father, women with the earth mother. Women obeyed men. This fictious picture of an insecure lesser man comes right out of the resentful imagination of some 1960s feminist with penis envy.
Finally, men conduct the highest forms of cultural expression in human society. They are associated with the implicit and intuitive, with the romantics and the right hemisphere. Da Vinci was not painting the Cistene chapel to sleep with a girl, he was communing with God.
The issue is this, how does a man become a man? How does he know he is a man? He is born out of a woman and is cared for by women in his early years. Then he must transition into a man’s world. He must be taught by other men how to be a man. Without this clear instruction, he remains unformed and unsure of who he is as a man. Public schooling, dominated by women, inhibits this development.
Additionally, because a society can replenish itself with one man and about 30 women, but the reverse is not true, there is a sense that men are “expendable.”
The point you raise about role models is true. We certainly need a good culture and that's one thing which I'm sure you agree has been eroded. I can even see that growing up in my own life. Although, to be fair, I think the cultural idea of masculinity is mearly the reflection and proper cultivation of its biological source. And, sure, from the perspective of reproduction. But that's hardly the dominant perspective anyone is thinking about in their day-to-day lives. What I'm saying is it doesn't translate into objective reality. Naturally, you need a man and woman to procreate and you tend to pair bond through that. No one is going around making calculations at how to grow a society at the fastest possible rate. In fact most people I think want to have boys. What I'm saying is it's decontextualised from reality a bit, although obviously I understand the point and enjoyed this particular article.
Men are more intelligent and stronger than women, as well as being the dominant sex. This does not make them "the disposable sex", rather the opposite. Women exist, bluntly, to create more men.
I'm not sure where this "insecurity" comes from either. Historically men were associated with divinity and the sky father, women with the earth mother. Women obeyed men. This fictious picture of an insecure lesser man comes right out of the resentful imagination of some 1960s feminist with penis envy.
Finally, men conduct the highest forms of cultural expression in human society. They are associated with the implicit and intuitive, with the romantics and the right hemisphere. Da Vinci was not painting the Cistene chapel to sleep with a girl, he was communing with God.
The issue is this, how does a man become a man? How does he know he is a man? He is born out of a woman and is cared for by women in his early years. Then he must transition into a man’s world. He must be taught by other men how to be a man. Without this clear instruction, he remains unformed and unsure of who he is as a man. Public schooling, dominated by women, inhibits this development.
Additionally, because a society can replenish itself with one man and about 30 women, but the reverse is not true, there is a sense that men are “expendable.”
The point you raise about role models is true. We certainly need a good culture and that's one thing which I'm sure you agree has been eroded. I can even see that growing up in my own life. Although, to be fair, I think the cultural idea of masculinity is mearly the reflection and proper cultivation of its biological source. And, sure, from the perspective of reproduction. But that's hardly the dominant perspective anyone is thinking about in their day-to-day lives. What I'm saying is it doesn't translate into objective reality. Naturally, you need a man and woman to procreate and you tend to pair bond through that. No one is going around making calculations at how to grow a society at the fastest possible rate. In fact most people I think want to have boys. What I'm saying is it's decontextualised from reality a bit, although obviously I understand the point and enjoyed this particular article.