I keep hearing complaints about the “pussification” of the current crop of men. Apparently men are no longer “RealMen©” – they’ve all been rendered effeminate and ineffectual by some kind of nation-wide conspiracy (nature of the conspirators varies depending on who’s telling the tale). Instead of fighting and hunting and waving swords around and shooting and changing their own tires and working in STEM fields/down a mine, they’re spending all their time putting their beards in curlers and waxing their backs or whatever it is that “pussified” men do.
While that’s going on, there seems to be an increase in the number of women who fight and hunt and change tires and work doing whatever the hell they want to be doing. This increase it taking place regardless of the fact that women aren’t precisely encouraged by mainstream society to do any of that.
Now, I’m an easily confused person, ill-suited to theoretical thinking. Sometimes I need numbers, or a graph, or a flow chart, or anything concrete-ish to guide me through a chain of thoughts. But I look at the above two paragraphs, and, try as I may, I can’t make them stack up. I can’t make the equation work out. Thus far, by tweaking various variables, I’ve come up with three options.
Option 1: Society (or the government) is pressuring people into being “pussies”. The goal is to drive Real Men into extinction, because they can’t be tamed or controlled, and turn everyone into sheeples.
That means that women and men are both pressured into being women-like, because women are inherently sheeply. Equal pressure is being applied to both groups. Yet this is somehow resulting in the men becoming “pussified”, while at the same time the women are becoming unbecomingly “manly”.
I’m not a physicist or a chemist, so I don’t know the right technical terms; but know a lot about smashing things with hammers, so I have a practical understanding of strength. If I’ve got two different materials, I smack them both as hard as each other, and the first one breaks while the second one flips me the finger, I would tend to conclude that the second one is stronger than the first (or, at the very least, more resilient; which, for me, is a pretty damn important component of strength).
This theory seems to suggest that men are inherently weaker than women; yet they’re being made weaker by being forced to be more like women. And that just doesn’t stack up.
Option 2: Women, who are naturally weak, are now becoming unnaturally strong, thereby causing men, who are naturally strong, to become unnaturally weak.
Women are supposed to be “pussies”; it’s the natural order of things. When they reject their ordained sphere, they turn into rampant feminazis solely devoted to rendering men weak. When the men succumb to the pressure said feminazis put them under, they end up foregoing their natural inclinations – chainsawing and smacking things and wrestling bears – and instead end up engaging in the weaknesses and appearance-focused traits of the “pussified” individual. As a result, the very fabric of society is rent. Insert doom & gloom.
This kind of makes sense, if you squint. Many women have access to young human beings, who are easily indoctrinated. Women could be unfairly targeting the young males of the species, deliberately sabotaging their natural inclinations in order to render them unnaturally weak, or to prevent them from realising their strength. We know this is doable. After all, elephant trainers used to tie young elephants to a stake they couldn’t move, which taught the elephants that there’s no point in struggling to break free, which meant that even grown-ass elephants could be kept parked by tying them to a tiny stick in the ground. Or so I heard; I haven’t tried.
My problem with this theory is not just that most of the women I know are simply not that evil, particularly when it comes to their own spawns. It’s that most of the guys I know are smarter than the average elephant. Eventually they would catch up.
This theory also seems to suggest that men can only be strong when women are weak like nature intended; yet if women are so inherently weak, how are they are somehow managing to force an entire generation of men to be growing up weaker than them? That doesn’t stack up either.
Option 3: Young men and women are doing whatever the hell they want, regardless of their gender but, most importantly, regardless of what some older people think. And those older people don’t like that because it widdles in their cereals.
Maybe those older people have forgotten that, when they were young’uns, they were quite possibly equally disdainful of their elders. Maybe they expected to reach a certain age and automatically become authority figures, elders of the tribe, only to be rebuffed or ignored. Maybe they’re discounting the fact that young people enter the world that older people have created, and tend to have to deal with whatever they find there; if anyone is to blame for what ensues, it’s often the generation that went before them. Maybe they’re targeting young people to prove that they don’t want to be the elders of this tribe anyway, because the tribe sucks; and that could be true, or it could be a case of sour grapes.
The thing I find weird, though, is that I don’t generally see berating and belittling people as a way to help them shine. Some people may blossom under that kind of treatment, but many do not. In fact, abusers often convince their victims that they are inferior precisely to keep them under the thumb. It seems profoundly weird that people so invested in Manhood© and Strength© and suchlike stuff would engage in behaviours so unlikely to help cultivate those qualities.
Option 4: I’m overthinking, again.
Mischa said about this: “Men coming up with excuses to act superior to other men. Same shit, different day.” I think he might be right.