Personally, I envision sexual polarity the same way I think about a magnet. The N and S poles are distinct in one sense, but intrinsic parts of the same whole in another. Each completes the opposite, and in the middle they flow into one another and become indistinguishable. However, the more distinct the two poles become, the further apart they move, the stronger the magnet, and the further its field can reach. Just so with sexual polarity. Each sex needs the other, but the more distinct they become, the stronger their unity. Thus a society of highly masculine men, and very feminine women, tends to have greater dynamic energy than an exhausted, dissipated society of depolarized androgynes.
The 'bros before hos' vibe was deliberate, and is something of a reaction to the current state of society, in which male spaces are de facto banned, and it therefore becomes extremely difficult for men to come into their own.
Thanks for giving me so much fun material to respond to, John! I did get that the 'bros before hos' was deliberate and to scare off women, as Jay mentions. A tribe of men, however, is a generation of one. If tonic is to mean healing, it sure seems to me like the relationship between men and women needs it.
In personality types, I've always tested more masculine than my partners--and that's a good thing! My ex saved me from many an interpersonal blunder because I was looking at it logically and he was more attuned to how people feel. The joke in our household was that while I loved humanity, he actually liked people. Fortunately our daughters got the best of both worlds.
I had to laugh at your second comment--the women I dance with could profane you into the ground. Creative cursing is an art form they've perfected and it often interferes with my dancing that I'm laughing too hard to move. So don't count on it keeping all the women out!
The idea isn't to have a sterile tribe of homos, of course not. That's just a prison gang. The ideal is the hunting band. Men need their own world, entirely separate from that of women (and vice versa), but naturally there must also be shared worlds in which they overlap.
One of the great social pathologies of the last several decades has been the relentless penetration of women into male spaces, driven by the assumption that a male space is intrinsically illegitimate, and that women should therefore seek them out and force entry, that men should never, under any circumstances, be permitted their own company. To a certain degree men have started to respond in an ad hoc fashion to try and discourage this, by making spaces that women don't WANT to be in. But of course there will always be women who see this as a challenge. To a degree that's amusing, and tolerable if kept at a low level, but a 'low level' is not where we find ourselves right now.
Ah, John. I have to tell you that when you reach my age, how your society handles dental care will matter a whole lot more than how they handle homosexuality. You really have the option not to care what people think! Middle Eastern men hold hands, walk arm in arm, in one of the most anti-gay societies. Maybe those two things go together but I don't think they have to.
I don't think it's possible to separate gender and power dynamics. In my parent's generation white men DID have all the power, including over other white men. And their secret enclaves were where the plots were hatched that still enslave all of us. Now the only difference is they allow in 'patriarchs without penises,' as I've called Hilary and her ilk. We celebrate 'the first woman blankety-blank' in order to better serve the toxic-male agenda of power over others.
And, honestly, we really don't want to be sharing a locker room with you. Ours smells much prettier ;-)
You and John seem to be missing each other by a wide mark in this exchange. In my opinion, the majority of the misunderstanding falls your way.
On the one hand, you seem to accept and even reify that there's a profound difference between masculine and feminine as archetypes, and that this difference is at least somewhat correlated with biology (I'd go farther and say these words represent an ontological duality that expresses itself through imperfect shapes, but whatever).
On the other, you seem to scoff at what seem to be John's earnest claims about the assault against the masculine expression (which according to you may or may not include men holding hands???). You even link it to the "systemic oppression" narratives that our common enemy uses to divide and conquer us all. If this was meant as a joke, I guess it didn't land with me.
Anyway this comes off as more than a little strange, Tereza. It's as though you're trying to demean and belittle the very "masculinity" that you claim to uncannily possess, while simultaneously denying it has any formal or informal rules/borders. And the offhand appeal to your own authority ("when you reach my age") damages whatever case you're trying to make. Which... still isn't entirely clear to me.
Maybe you are trying to cut phantoms with a sword? If so, I think you're hunting the wrong ghosts today.
Hi, Mark, thanks for reading our conversation and clarifying. I'll need to give some thought to masculine/ feminine archetypes. On a metaphysical-spiritual level, I don't know if we even exist as bodies. I've meant to say that I think we all embody both the masculine and feminine in the left/right sides of our brain, and need to develop them both together. Luc's article, that he linked, cites Iain McGilchrist saying something similar.
I don't mean to scoff, demean or belittle anyone, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I absolutely don't know what it's like to be a guy today, especially white, who's been cast as the villain of the systemic oppression story you refer to. I don't begrudge men spaces to be with other men, and I think that the supportive group you're all building is very healthy and constructive.
My reference to age is because, as I posted when Dr. Hammer did a poll, I'm going on 66, which I'd guess is at least a half-generation to a full generation older than any of you. That's why I said that my perspective was as a female elder, not just as a female. The way I was defining masculinity was logic, rationality, linear thinking, and I'm sort of obsessively analytical. But you may be defining masculinity a different way, that wouldn't apply to me at all.
"I've meant to say that I think we all embody both the masculine and feminine in the left/right sides of our brain, and need to develop them both together. Luc's article, that he linked, cites Iain McGilchrist saying something similar."
I've investigated McGilchrist's writing. The error he makes is as fundamental as it is familiar, inverting causality at a node too distant for those in his field to see. I've considered writing about it in depth - though in a way, I already have:
"I absolutely don't know what it's like to be a guy today, especially white, who's been cast as the villain of the systemic oppression story you refer to."
Transgenderism as a conceptual map contains many absurdities and evils. When I see a man who claims to be a "woman" (in some inexplicable, amorphous way), my first thought is, "What was your first period like?" I could say the same about "transmen." Describe for me the discomfort of an erection. What's the difference between the automated version you endure in the morning and the one derived from Eros?
That's not to say the flesh is a prison, or that general category rules deny individual cases. Like all else in observable* reality, masculinity and femininity exist as bell curves (*indeed so does "observable reality," in the sense that the mean observability defines a general ruleset about what is real/unreal, but does not exclude people who see more or less of it). When I say "masculine" I am referring to the mean, which highly (if not entirely) correlates with male forms. Indeed, that is the etymology of the term itself. Why must we argue so vehemently with our own language? I would blame lunatics and frauds like Foucault and Derrida, but like McGilchrist I'd be aiming far too low. They represent the crest of a certain ideological wave which tragically has yet to break.
"My reference to age is because, as I posted when Dr. Hammer did a poll, I'm going on 66, which I'd guess is at least a half-generation to a full generation older than any of you. That's why I said that my perspective was as a female elder, not just as a female."
This reminds me somewhat of SC justice/identity-politician Sotomayor, referring to herself a a "wise latina woman," as if to say such a thing is to prove it so. If we were to argue that masculinity correlates imperfectly with maleness (and it surely does; the question being how imperfectly), then I would argue that the correlation between wisdom and age is so imperfect as to be practically illusory.
In my view, the sole metric of wisdom is insight, of which raw experience is a necessary but insufficient component. We must not only gain the experience, but productively mine truth from it. And in a sense, a more advanced age does not even correlate highly with the kinds of rich experiences that may or may not be productively mined. When I gaze upon our current gerontocracy, for example, I do not see wise elders, but a motley collection of maniacs and fools. Perhaps you see it otherwise, but having "a half-generation to a generation" of years on me does not prove your perception of them or disprove mine.
"The way I was defining masculinity was logic, rationality, linear thinking, and I'm sort of obsessively analytical. But you may be defining masculinity a different way, that wouldn't apply to me at all"
My short answer is I think that's *part* of it. And of course, women will possess/express some degree of these traits, just as men will possess/express some feminine traits. We are social creatures, so some of this deviation might be inherent (nature), other of it "rubbing off" (nuture). But what we're experiencing now is the typical Satanic ploy; to invert causal relationships and pretend the tails can be transposed with the mean on a whim. In fact, I think the case could be made that this ploy defines the core of transhumanism in general.
I can only offer myself as proof point, Jay. Do you find me unable to live in the world of ideas? Am I illogical in my arguments? Disinterested, bored and silent when affairs of the world are discussed? Are you needing to explain things to me that are over my head? Do I appear as a dunce feigning interest in the male terrains of religion and economics, on which I've written my book?
Smoking, btw, was a way that women were 'Virginia-Slimmed' into the trappings of masculinity, serving the double toxic-male agenda of profit through poisons--not tobacco itself but all the chemicals added. It doesn't matter if it was women sipping mimosas who put together this PR campaign, they embodied toxic masculinity. That's why the goal of the group is more important than their appendages.
Post and Cancel are FAR too close together in Substack.
Short version: I wanted to push back a little. The change in economics over the past 10 years or so as women complain about feeling "unwelcome" when people question their work presented at conferences pushes against the idea that women are as at home in the realm of ideas as men, on average. There are many exceptional cases, yourself included Tereza, but the pursuit of "equity" in economics, which has meant admitting and promoting women above men regardless of skill, has demonstrated ably that most women cannot tolerate having their work dissected and criticized. They see "I think your idea is wrong, and here is why" as a personal attack, the idea as part of themselves and not something external to be worked on, perhaps. I don't know why, but my impression has been that most women want to be praised for doing stuff like other people, and not for having done actual good work, and having their stuff they are doing critiqued is badwrong.
My sense is that pushing people into roles because we desire parity of some sort instead of testing for competence and talent has put a lot of people into positions they are not at all suited for. Exceptional women like you are far more comfortable there and belong, just as there are exceptional men who can teach kindergarten passably or excel at fashion design, but we shouldn't expect the curves of each gender's innate talents and tendencies to overlap perfectly.
Oh, I hate it when I lose a carefully crafted post like that! Glad you had the energy to summarize.
First, let me HEARTILY agree with the point that you, John and Jay keep alluding back to (I think.) This nonsense about including people or giving them special treatment because of their gender, race or sexual preferences is a deliberate technique to thwart any threat to the parasitic class. I've seen it again and again--whenever a group starts to get truly subversive, it stops being about the goal (whatever it was) and is instead about whether Latinos or Native Americans are being represented. The GOAL should be inclusive, not the means.
I think we probably agree that the current economic system is designed to make the rich richer, not to have our labor and assets make families and communities stronger. Yes? So including women in academic discussions about making the rich richer does nothing. A goal of a feminine economy whose purpose is to serve families and communities would change everything, and it wouldn't matter if it was done exclusively by men.
All I've ever wanted is to go toe-to-toe with my ideas, with clearly defined and measurable objectives. But the other person needs to put their own rooster in the game, not just shoot down mine. Read my book and tell me, not just where I'm wrong, but where your system is better. As long as my book is dismissed without reading it (not by you, I mean in general), we both need to consider that it may be because I'm a woman. If you can show how your, or the current system, logically better serves the goal, then I will admit that men naturally have more competence and talent in economics and slink back to fashion design and teaching kindergarten ;-)
ps thank you for the nice compliments, I love jousting with you.
Which religion would you say is not patriarchal, Jay? Judaism? Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? I've sometimes used this to my advantage, at conferences where they alternate taking questions from men and women, and I've been the only woman with something to say. There are times when the all-male panels were practically begging another woman to take the mic, when none of them could refute me, and women rabbis and chaplains started getting up and making my point for me.
And I know that mansplaining is a trigger word here, but try being a housewife with a book on economics. I can't tell you how many times the guy on the next barstool has regurgitated the latest Paul Krugman at me or asked if I knew who Adam Smith was.
I can't not like Lewis! (Even though I don't have like buttons for people's posts anymore it seems, just comments, and only sometimes.)
I think this really puts its finger on a key issue, that many time women (and sometimes men) want to be in the single gender spaces not because they care about the space, but because they care about not being able to enter it. Just like when we are kids we want to stay up later because we just KNOW our parents are having fun after we go to bed, only to find... it is basically more of what they were doing before. It is almost a punishment to be stuck in a space you don't care about, among people who do deeply care. In the case of mandatory HR training, it usually IS a punishment. Possibly the only thing worse than being stuck in such a space is having to tolerate those who are in it but don't want to be.
I feel that the polarity between men and women is part of our being electromagnetic beings in an electromagnetic universe. I see it function every day to help form music which is the language I speak best. Yes, and the stronger each become the stronger their unity. The comment section here is great. Thanks to everyone who commented. More from me if I can get myself out of the way enough to make any sense.
Precisely, which is why we adapt by using informal groups without articles of incorporation, which cannot be (wo)manhandled by the courts into allowing the forcible injection of females; and, frankly, by adopting a somewhat profane grammar that is deliberately frightening to women socialized in the context of extensive linguistic taboos. Doing all of this as far from screens as possible is very useful (e.g. the Wolves of Vinland), but sadly that's not usually possible. You go to war with the tools and the army you have.
“A woman is born again as a mother when she gives birth and forever after her heart lives outside her body. There is, from my experience, an instinct that takes over of the scariest love imaginable, that you don’t choose and you’re helpless to resist. It never lets go.
I think that for men, they have a choice to love or not to love. A man might not even know he fathered a child because he has the kind of relationships that aren’t. A man can walk away once or several times a day. But the choice to love and take responsibility for a child, day in, day out, is the surest way a man becomes a man. It’s a humbling experience because there’s nowhere to hide from reality—every judgment you have of others will come back to haunt you in the form of your kids.”
As the father of eleven children all with the same woman, I can say that this is wrong. Men do not have the choice to love or not love. Those that walk away are no different than a woman who kills her unborn child in the womb. How do these women fit into your argument?
My mother and father were alcoholics and used me as a pawn in their games. When I was around 13-14 years old, I woke to mom screaming for me to help her because my father was beating her. I got his shotgun and pointed it at him and said, "You need to leave." He said, "You're not my son anymore.", and walked out, not to be seen again for a decade. I vowed I would never say those words to my children, and I never have, thought it's been on the tip of my tongue many times. But fate laughed at me and two of my sons told me I wasn't their father anymore. The pain is real and never leaves. I can't choose not to love them or walk away, but what I can choose is to not let it stop me from doing my duty to be the best husband and father I can be to my other children. What I can do is let the pain push me to be better. Those men you think are choosing not to love may be shouldering the pain from loss and choosing not to let it show.
Don, I'm so sorry for what you've been through with your dad and with your sons. I hope that the latter is healed sometime and they reconcile with you. We're all doing the best we can.
What I meant to do was give men more credit for stepping up to being good fathers. If love is defined as something that requires action, there are certainly dads who walk away from the baby they wanted aborted and begrudge every penny he's forced to pay, one who never wants anything to do with him or her. If that kind of dad loves his child, it isn't in anyway that helps them.
Women, however, can't choose to walk away, even to go play basketball because they're sick of all the wailing. They're stuck. Every moment of every day. They're either taking responsibility directly or depending on someone else, paid or unpaid. They're the default unless other arrangements are made. So the work of love is something in which they have no choice, once they have that baby.
That's why I believe it's ABSOLUTELY their choice to decide whether to abort a fertilized egg or devote the rest of their lives to putting that child's needs before their own. I don't believe this is even something men should be allowed an opinion on--casually, legally or a celibate church hierarchy. Responsibility and authority should always go together. A woman has ultimate responsibility for the child once they're born. She has to have the authority to make that lifelong choice.
Thanks for your concern but it's water under the bridge and I'm fine.
Women most definitely can choose to walk away, as my own mother did. I most definitely have an an opinion on abortion and you won't take it away from me. Who would enforce your edict that I'm not allowed to have an opinion? What then would you say you are not even allowed to have an opinion on? How should I search for truth on your stack when I may have to tiptoe around an opinion I'm not allowed to have? Why should I even bother reading if I may already be guilty of wrong think? Perhaps you know of a good brain wash I could use? Shutting down discourse and thought is the root of some of the greatest evils the world has ever known.
You plead a special case for women and claim they are reborn when they become mothers, something us lowly men will never understand. You make no allowances for men being reborn when they become fathers. Maybe you could ask a few about it. And ask them their opinion of men who walk away. In fact, your entire article did not mention the word father except in the phrase, "may not even know they fathered a child".
Your position that women are superior to men in regard to the children they bear is flawed and so is the edifice you have built upon it. Women alone do not have ultimate responsibility, nor authority. Father and mother share equally the responsibility and authority for the children they bear for the rest of their life. You are excusing taking a life for the sake of convenience no matter how you color it.
Hmmm... I don't believe I should have an opinion on how other people live their lives or what they do that isn't harming me or mine. I think we both agree that I shouldn't have an opinion on you having 11 kids, yes? And I don't! Why should I? In the same way, I don't think anyone except the woman involved should have the power to make her decisions for her.
But we may not be as apart as it seems on this issue. In one of my videos, I talk about women deserving the choice TO have a baby, something that single women and many young couples don't think they can afford. My focus is on changing the economic system so it supports families. We might both agree on that.
The question this article was addressing was whether men and women were fundamentally different--whether they had different souls. My answer is no, except in the capacity of women to bear a child, and any ways that capacity changes them psychologically in addition to the obvious physical changes. I'm not calling men lowly or claiming that women are superior.
The only other alternatives are 1) there's no difference other than biological between men and women, or 2) men and women are different in ways that have nothing to do with having a baby. Men, obviously, don't go through biological changes when they become fathers. So maybe both go through the same psychological changes and hormones have nothing to do with it. My husband was a great dad to our daughters, very devoted and patient and fun. Loves them every bit as much as I do. Took as much responsibility as I did, but in different ways. However, he would say that I went through more changes than he did after I had them. Maybe that's not your experience.
"Without harming me or mine". What about harming others? Not much of a society or culture if we only care about ourselves. Have you ever thought whom you may be harming by advocating abortion?
I don't agree that you should not have an opinion on my having 11 kids and you probably do. Not in the sense that you care about me in particular, I'm nobody, but on large families in general. I would imagine your opinion is something along the lines of, "As long as no one was coerced and you can take care of them so they're not a burden to me or mine." It's only because you don't have a negative opinion that you say you don't have one. We basically agree, there is no conflict, so we think we hold no feelings one way or another. But opinions ran the gamut from disgust to lavish praise when we visited the grocery store or restaurant with our large family, and people are welcome to them. There are detriments to large families and I could make good points against them. People can make up their own minds, ONCE THEY'VE HEARD ALL SIDES. (Sorry, not yelling, but Substack gives me no option for italics, which is what any caps I use represent.)
I believe in freedom of thought and speech for all on all things. This is an absolute and saying men should not be allowed an opinion is a weakness in your own thinking. Men don't get the luxury of declaring themselves the victor in a struggle without actually engaging in the struggle. This is a feminine trait that ties back to my comment about women and mercy you haven't replied to.
I agree with most of what you write and I enjoy your writing, but I can't accept your special pleading for women based on biology. Race is biological and leads to special pleading. Homosexuals were desperate to find a biological basis for homosexuality so that they then could gain special privileges. Do you want equality or do you want privilege? We are all of us "someone" and not "something". We are all unique and fundamentally different. I refuse to be reduced to biology. I'm curious why you don't? What is the allure of victimhood? Do you want to hear, "Oh, you poor thing, forced by the cruelties of biology to bear children."? I would hope not.
If a woman can terminate her parenthood, why can't a man? Because women are special?When a man discovers he has impregnated a woman and decides the lifelong commitment to raising a child is too much, why can't he terminate the child? Because women are special?
The whole truth of the matter is, women ARE special and they Are superior to men in every single category except physical strength. (Men know this, although many will not admit it outright. They admit it tacitly by draining their physicality to protect and provide for their woman and the children she bears him.) The battle of the sexes was over before it started. You win. This is why societies have chained women up. Women unchained can be the most dangerous, disruptive force on the planet. Women, not men, have the power to make or break society and abortion is a huge part of that breakage, whether you will admit that or not. Sluttiness is a part of that breakage. I'm not advocating for chaining women up, but women have to learn to get control of their sexual power and propensity for destroying the familial structure, just as men have to learn to get control of their physical power and propensity for violence.
Maybe food for debate here, huh? I apologize if I've stated some opinions I'm not allowed to have. 😁😁😁
I concede the point entirely, Don. Everyone is allowed to have any opinion they want. What I meant by opinion, and it's why I included gov't and church hierarchies, is 'power over'. I was thinking of 'opinion' as a vote.
What I appreciate, Don, is you giving me the opportunity to think through what makes a productive debate, that moves thinking forward for both people. I'm going to put that into my next episode on Harrison Koehli. Then you and I can pick up with a fresh start instead of six indents in, if it seems worthwhile to you.
Agree with the inadequacy of the reductionist definitions of a woman that both left and right are engaged in. You might be interested in my take on it, which I outlined here: https://luctalks.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
I really liked your piece on What is a Woman? Luc. I'll link it into the draft I started on Red-Pilled in Disneyland, tentatively titled The Tonic Gnostic & Zealot Warrior ;-)
Excellent, Luc, you know you're on my list, right? Just after William and Harrison, in the order that you wrote about TM. I'm really looking forward to engaging with your ideas so this older post will be helpful to give me more background on your thinking. Each of the Tonic 8 have such different perspectives, it's great to be in conversation with each of you!
I started reading this before I even had a cup of tea this morning, thinking "Wow, Tereza is coming out hard naming an essay 'Men and Women and the Tonic Tit.' That's a surprising choice of words, but I guess she is really going to deep dive on the woman side."
I came back to it later in the day after I reread the title a few times and realized my paring error.
The notion that girls do not become women until they have kids, which isn't exactly what you said but what popped up in my mind, is tough, but kind of fair. I have found myself noticing a difference between people with and without kids, often categorizing the latter as a little less than "real adult." That is of course due to many features correlated with not having kids, but it is really hard to take someone who refers to themselves as a doggie mommy seriously when they talk as though they have responsibility for a few human lives. And, if you are not fully adult until you have kids, and a woman is an adult human female, well, the logic is clear. Not necessarily correct, but it has an appeal. There is a real threshold when you get to the point of being responsible enough for yourself that you can make another person and be responsible for them as well. Maybe there is much to describing the women's life as "maiden, mother and... the other one." The reduction of motherhood to a luxury good does strike as horrific. (That was a really good point!)
Yes, I was really trying to word that carefully. In two generations, we've gone from women needing to defend their right to NOT get married and have kids to young couples who want kids not having the economic choice or being shamed for being 'breeders.' And yes, pets are the new kids. Just the way Schwab & Co. want it.
There is a natural progression from being a dependent to taking responsibility within the household to taking responsibility for a household. The "You will own nothing" Davos elite have made the 'house' part of that progression equal to winning the lottery. For both men and women, more important than having kids themselves is creating an economic system that returns that to being our purpose rather than making the rich richer.
I think that is very much the goal, keeping people from being able to be responsible. Peel it back a layer at a time: no, you can’t afford to have kids, and it is bad anyway, so stay responsible only for yourself. Peel that back such that you aren’t allowed to do things for yourself (“trust the experts and follow our rules for your own good!”) and you no longer can be responsible for yourself. What remains is mere fully grown children, children that can be made to produce wealth for others and controlled through fear. If the populace depends on the state for everything, the state has all the control.
1,000,000,000% correct! Coercing the bovine masses into avoiding responsibility for anything, even for themselves, and remaining completely dependent on so-called experts and authority figures, while also inflaming their sense of entitlement to absurd proportions, results in a culture of slavish compliance, perfect for an illegitimate ruling class to govern.
You know I will likely miss the entire point of this great post this morning - with just a small amount of coffee onboard at this point. I can’t help but think - as evidenced by the “post hippie feminist” character. Wow - I seem to have had so many of these types - male and female in my life! Then I think - I answer to your question . How could we like each other when we work so hard on not even liking who we become? On the other hand I gave up on toxic masculinity & toxic femininity a long time ago. In some blind fashion I selected for real masculinity and real femininity and found something that works (most of the time). Stumbling & bumbling into learning how to become what we do like?
Haha, you're tempting me to go back for another cuppa. Yes, I found it interesting that my friend had come to a place of being willing to defend herself and say, "I'm white and I'm as good of a person as you are. I wouldn't write/ read something that demeaned black or brown people, or women. Why is it okay for you to write fictional stereotypes of us?" I'm putting words in her mouth, but that's what I saw as the implications of her question.
You raise such a good point, KW. So much of liking each other rests on liking ourselves. Thanks for that!
Thanks. Hopefully forgiven for initiating yet another cuppa.
For me it goes all the way back to who did I want to be, who do I want to be now and in the future. How does this “me” help make the world better? What exactly are others saying about who they are/want to be, and so forth. How do others - males, females, children respond to what I and others do? Things either blossom and change in the right direction or they don’t - direct feedback. There is a lot to it - more than will fit here. We must love the world and each other in it. Then we get a world we love and want to be in. Right now we are in the PrisonPlanet they want us to have. Time to take it back.
More on this hopefully. Takes a bit of explaining and lots of issues to overcome.
This is really beautiful, KW. May I quote you when I do the next episode on William? I look forward to the 'more on this' and please post a link if you write it in your own 'stack.
While the conversation below is interesting, I realized I've yet address this article directly. I think the meat of my disagreement (or perhaps, misunderstanding) is rooted in the following statement:
"In the same way, I feel that the healing of masculinity and femininity only happens in tandem. The tonic form of both is plotted on the diagonal, starting where the lines intersect. To become stronger as a man means drawing on the right side of the brain where you might be engulfed in an expansive sense of love for all people. To become a fuller woman means taking that intuitive love as a mother into the analytical realm of how to make the world you want for your child possible for everyone."
Putting aside for the moment the (IMO illusory) notion that concepts like masculine/feminine are localized in the brain, there is something about this description of "tonic" -- in both the tonal and restorative implications of the word -- that strikes me as wrong, even on its own terms. In fact, advancing androgyny as the social imperative or ideal state (i.e. the male becoming more feminine and the female becoming more masculine) strikes me not as a solution to the current problem, but as the source of the problem itself.
It is both good and natural to desire that which is different from ourselves in form and function, but neither good nor natural to want to simulate it in ourselves. The "transformative" aspect of trans is just that; a poorly designed simulation and dangerous delusion, in which the line between Self and Other is blurred to nothingness, or the territory of desire swapped out for maps that will only get you further lost in the postmodern jungle.
Again, this is not to say that masculinity and femininity are perfectly encapsulated or defined, let alone individual traits completely walled. The word "human" exists to describe where they overlap, and such overlap is multidimensional in the sense of object versus instance, shape versus shadow. But the solution is not to try to attempt to simulate or emulate that what we perceive as attractively tonic in the opposite sex, but to build up those qualities in ourselves which makes us desirable to the other.
For some, that desire may indeed include women with certain more masculine traits of mind (in fact, this describes both my own beloved wife and her mother quite well). But it strikes me as at the very least unproductive to "work" at building qualities - not knowledge, *qualities* - that you do not already possess, particularly if those qualities won't increase your attractiveness to the mean (i.e. thereby reducing the chances of falling in love, getting married, procreating children, etc). And if enough people attempt this - i.e. androgenic pursuit *becomes* the mean - that will lead to cratering birthrates and civilizational collapse.
Perhaps I've forgotten my first rule of dialogue: define your terms. What are the qualities of masculinity that women shouldn't possess or aspire to? What are the qualities of femininity that men should not possess or aspire to?
Women can possess or aspire to any masculine qualities they may choose to, but they should avoid mercy, not knowing its true nature. Men can aspire to or possess any feminine qualities they choose to, but they should avoid compassion, as it will weaken their resolve to commit necessary violence.
This is on point. It's what I had in mind with sexual depolarization - this idea that men accentuate the inner feminine to complete themselves, and vice versa. That's not to say there isn't some yin in the yang, there always is, but rather that the current problem is precisely androgyny, that dough-like lack of gendered differentiation that only results in soft, deferential males and narcissistic females barren of the milk of human kindness, neither of whom is of any particular use to the other.
I know this is tangential, but since you mentioned Myers-Briggs and then described your own thought-processes somewhat, I am curious to know: are you INTJ? I ask, because that personality type (and closely related variations) is relatively rare in society but seems to predominate in discussions like these.
That's funny. I thought I was but took it again just to see. I had the same tendency to overthink and argue with it that two extremes at once wasn't the same as something that was neither in the middle. And yet I came out INTJ again, "An independent thinker focused on solving the world's problems." Yep.
Personally, I envision sexual polarity the same way I think about a magnet. The N and S poles are distinct in one sense, but intrinsic parts of the same whole in another. Each completes the opposite, and in the middle they flow into one another and become indistinguishable. However, the more distinct the two poles become, the further apart they move, the stronger the magnet, and the further its field can reach. Just so with sexual polarity. Each sex needs the other, but the more distinct they become, the stronger their unity. Thus a society of highly masculine men, and very feminine women, tends to have greater dynamic energy than an exhausted, dissipated society of depolarized androgynes.
The 'bros before hos' vibe was deliberate, and is something of a reaction to the current state of society, in which male spaces are de facto banned, and it therefore becomes extremely difficult for men to come into their own.
Thanks for giving me so much fun material to respond to, John! I did get that the 'bros before hos' was deliberate and to scare off women, as Jay mentions. A tribe of men, however, is a generation of one. If tonic is to mean healing, it sure seems to me like the relationship between men and women needs it.
In personality types, I've always tested more masculine than my partners--and that's a good thing! My ex saved me from many an interpersonal blunder because I was looking at it logically and he was more attuned to how people feel. The joke in our household was that while I loved humanity, he actually liked people. Fortunately our daughters got the best of both worlds.
I had to laugh at your second comment--the women I dance with could profane you into the ground. Creative cursing is an art form they've perfected and it often interferes with my dancing that I'm laughing too hard to move. So don't count on it keeping all the women out!
The idea isn't to have a sterile tribe of homos, of course not. That's just a prison gang. The ideal is the hunting band. Men need their own world, entirely separate from that of women (and vice versa), but naturally there must also be shared worlds in which they overlap.
One of the great social pathologies of the last several decades has been the relentless penetration of women into male spaces, driven by the assumption that a male space is intrinsically illegitimate, and that women should therefore seek them out and force entry, that men should never, under any circumstances, be permitted their own company. To a certain degree men have started to respond in an ad hoc fashion to try and discourage this, by making spaces that women don't WANT to be in. But of course there will always be women who see this as a challenge. To a degree that's amusing, and tolerable if kept at a low level, but a 'low level' is not where we find ourselves right now.
Ah, John. I have to tell you that when you reach my age, how your society handles dental care will matter a whole lot more than how they handle homosexuality. You really have the option not to care what people think! Middle Eastern men hold hands, walk arm in arm, in one of the most anti-gay societies. Maybe those two things go together but I don't think they have to.
I don't think it's possible to separate gender and power dynamics. In my parent's generation white men DID have all the power, including over other white men. And their secret enclaves were where the plots were hatched that still enslave all of us. Now the only difference is they allow in 'patriarchs without penises,' as I've called Hilary and her ilk. We celebrate 'the first woman blankety-blank' in order to better serve the toxic-male agenda of power over others.
And, honestly, we really don't want to be sharing a locker room with you. Ours smells much prettier ;-)
You and John seem to be missing each other by a wide mark in this exchange. In my opinion, the majority of the misunderstanding falls your way.
On the one hand, you seem to accept and even reify that there's a profound difference between masculine and feminine as archetypes, and that this difference is at least somewhat correlated with biology (I'd go farther and say these words represent an ontological duality that expresses itself through imperfect shapes, but whatever).
On the other, you seem to scoff at what seem to be John's earnest claims about the assault against the masculine expression (which according to you may or may not include men holding hands???). You even link it to the "systemic oppression" narratives that our common enemy uses to divide and conquer us all. If this was meant as a joke, I guess it didn't land with me.
Anyway this comes off as more than a little strange, Tereza. It's as though you're trying to demean and belittle the very "masculinity" that you claim to uncannily possess, while simultaneously denying it has any formal or informal rules/borders. And the offhand appeal to your own authority ("when you reach my age") damages whatever case you're trying to make. Which... still isn't entirely clear to me.
Maybe you are trying to cut phantoms with a sword? If so, I think you're hunting the wrong ghosts today.
Hi, Mark, thanks for reading our conversation and clarifying. I'll need to give some thought to masculine/ feminine archetypes. On a metaphysical-spiritual level, I don't know if we even exist as bodies. I've meant to say that I think we all embody both the masculine and feminine in the left/right sides of our brain, and need to develop them both together. Luc's article, that he linked, cites Iain McGilchrist saying something similar.
I don't mean to scoff, demean or belittle anyone, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I absolutely don't know what it's like to be a guy today, especially white, who's been cast as the villain of the systemic oppression story you refer to. I don't begrudge men spaces to be with other men, and I think that the supportive group you're all building is very healthy and constructive.
My reference to age is because, as I posted when Dr. Hammer did a poll, I'm going on 66, which I'd guess is at least a half-generation to a full generation older than any of you. That's why I said that my perspective was as a female elder, not just as a female. The way I was defining masculinity was logic, rationality, linear thinking, and I'm sort of obsessively analytical. But you may be defining masculinity a different way, that wouldn't apply to me at all.
Hi Tereza.
"I've meant to say that I think we all embody both the masculine and feminine in the left/right sides of our brain, and need to develop them both together. Luc's article, that he linked, cites Iain McGilchrist saying something similar."
I've investigated McGilchrist's writing. The error he makes is as fundamental as it is familiar, inverting causality at a node too distant for those in his field to see. I've considered writing about it in depth - though in a way, I already have:
https://markbisone.substack.com/p/the-devil-incarnate-part-3
"I absolutely don't know what it's like to be a guy today, especially white, who's been cast as the villain of the systemic oppression story you refer to."
Transgenderism as a conceptual map contains many absurdities and evils. When I see a man who claims to be a "woman" (in some inexplicable, amorphous way), my first thought is, "What was your first period like?" I could say the same about "transmen." Describe for me the discomfort of an erection. What's the difference between the automated version you endure in the morning and the one derived from Eros?
That's not to say the flesh is a prison, or that general category rules deny individual cases. Like all else in observable* reality, masculinity and femininity exist as bell curves (*indeed so does "observable reality," in the sense that the mean observability defines a general ruleset about what is real/unreal, but does not exclude people who see more or less of it). When I say "masculine" I am referring to the mean, which highly (if not entirely) correlates with male forms. Indeed, that is the etymology of the term itself. Why must we argue so vehemently with our own language? I would blame lunatics and frauds like Foucault and Derrida, but like McGilchrist I'd be aiming far too low. They represent the crest of a certain ideological wave which tragically has yet to break.
"My reference to age is because, as I posted when Dr. Hammer did a poll, I'm going on 66, which I'd guess is at least a half-generation to a full generation older than any of you. That's why I said that my perspective was as a female elder, not just as a female."
This reminds me somewhat of SC justice/identity-politician Sotomayor, referring to herself a a "wise latina woman," as if to say such a thing is to prove it so. If we were to argue that masculinity correlates imperfectly with maleness (and it surely does; the question being how imperfectly), then I would argue that the correlation between wisdom and age is so imperfect as to be practically illusory.
In my view, the sole metric of wisdom is insight, of which raw experience is a necessary but insufficient component. We must not only gain the experience, but productively mine truth from it. And in a sense, a more advanced age does not even correlate highly with the kinds of rich experiences that may or may not be productively mined. When I gaze upon our current gerontocracy, for example, I do not see wise elders, but a motley collection of maniacs and fools. Perhaps you see it otherwise, but having "a half-generation to a generation" of years on me does not prove your perception of them or disprove mine.
"The way I was defining masculinity was logic, rationality, linear thinking, and I'm sort of obsessively analytical. But you may be defining masculinity a different way, that wouldn't apply to me at all"
My short answer is I think that's *part* of it. And of course, women will possess/express some degree of these traits, just as men will possess/express some feminine traits. We are social creatures, so some of this deviation might be inherent (nature), other of it "rubbing off" (nuture). But what we're experiencing now is the typical Satanic ploy; to invert causal relationships and pretend the tails can be transposed with the mean on a whim. In fact, I think the case could be made that this ploy defines the core of transhumanism in general.
I can only offer myself as proof point, Jay. Do you find me unable to live in the world of ideas? Am I illogical in my arguments? Disinterested, bored and silent when affairs of the world are discussed? Are you needing to explain things to me that are over my head? Do I appear as a dunce feigning interest in the male terrains of religion and economics, on which I've written my book?
Smoking, btw, was a way that women were 'Virginia-Slimmed' into the trappings of masculinity, serving the double toxic-male agenda of profit through poisons--not tobacco itself but all the chemicals added. It doesn't matter if it was women sipping mimosas who put together this PR campaign, they embodied toxic masculinity. That's why the goal of the group is more important than their appendages.
Post and Cancel are FAR too close together in Substack.
Short version: I wanted to push back a little. The change in economics over the past 10 years or so as women complain about feeling "unwelcome" when people question their work presented at conferences pushes against the idea that women are as at home in the realm of ideas as men, on average. There are many exceptional cases, yourself included Tereza, but the pursuit of "equity" in economics, which has meant admitting and promoting women above men regardless of skill, has demonstrated ably that most women cannot tolerate having their work dissected and criticized. They see "I think your idea is wrong, and here is why" as a personal attack, the idea as part of themselves and not something external to be worked on, perhaps. I don't know why, but my impression has been that most women want to be praised for doing stuff like other people, and not for having done actual good work, and having their stuff they are doing critiqued is badwrong.
My sense is that pushing people into roles because we desire parity of some sort instead of testing for competence and talent has put a lot of people into positions they are not at all suited for. Exceptional women like you are far more comfortable there and belong, just as there are exceptional men who can teach kindergarten passably or excel at fashion design, but we shouldn't expect the curves of each gender's innate talents and tendencies to overlap perfectly.
Oh, I hate it when I lose a carefully crafted post like that! Glad you had the energy to summarize.
First, let me HEARTILY agree with the point that you, John and Jay keep alluding back to (I think.) This nonsense about including people or giving them special treatment because of their gender, race or sexual preferences is a deliberate technique to thwart any threat to the parasitic class. I've seen it again and again--whenever a group starts to get truly subversive, it stops being about the goal (whatever it was) and is instead about whether Latinos or Native Americans are being represented. The GOAL should be inclusive, not the means.
I think we probably agree that the current economic system is designed to make the rich richer, not to have our labor and assets make families and communities stronger. Yes? So including women in academic discussions about making the rich richer does nothing. A goal of a feminine economy whose purpose is to serve families and communities would change everything, and it wouldn't matter if it was done exclusively by men.
All I've ever wanted is to go toe-to-toe with my ideas, with clearly defined and measurable objectives. But the other person needs to put their own rooster in the game, not just shoot down mine. Read my book and tell me, not just where I'm wrong, but where your system is better. As long as my book is dismissed without reading it (not by you, I mean in general), we both need to consider that it may be because I'm a woman. If you can show how your, or the current system, logically better serves the goal, then I will admit that men naturally have more competence and talent in economics and slink back to fashion design and teaching kindergarten ;-)
ps thank you for the nice compliments, I love jousting with you.
Which religion would you say is not patriarchal, Jay? Judaism? Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? I've sometimes used this to my advantage, at conferences where they alternate taking questions from men and women, and I've been the only woman with something to say. There are times when the all-male panels were practically begging another woman to take the mic, when none of them could refute me, and women rabbis and chaplains started getting up and making my point for me.
And I know that mansplaining is a trigger word here, but try being a housewife with a book on economics. I can't tell you how many times the guy on the next barstool has regurgitated the latest Paul Krugman at me or asked if I knew who Adam Smith was.
I can't not like Lewis! (Even though I don't have like buttons for people's posts anymore it seems, just comments, and only sometimes.)
I think this really puts its finger on a key issue, that many time women (and sometimes men) want to be in the single gender spaces not because they care about the space, but because they care about not being able to enter it. Just like when we are kids we want to stay up later because we just KNOW our parents are having fun after we go to bed, only to find... it is basically more of what they were doing before. It is almost a punishment to be stuck in a space you don't care about, among people who do deeply care. In the case of mandatory HR training, it usually IS a punishment. Possibly the only thing worse than being stuck in such a space is having to tolerate those who are in it but don't want to be.
I feel that the polarity between men and women is part of our being electromagnetic beings in an electromagnetic universe. I see it function every day to help form music which is the language I speak best. Yes, and the stronger each become the stronger their unity. The comment section here is great. Thanks to everyone who commented. More from me if I can get myself out of the way enough to make any sense.
You bring up a good point (among others) in your last sentence, Jay. This episode is on The Lust Frontier: Disposable Dating & the Great Isolation: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-lust-frontier
Precisely, which is why we adapt by using informal groups without articles of incorporation, which cannot be (wo)manhandled by the courts into allowing the forcible injection of females; and, frankly, by adopting a somewhat profane grammar that is deliberately frightening to women socialized in the context of extensive linguistic taboos. Doing all of this as far from screens as possible is very useful (e.g. the Wolves of Vinland), but sadly that's not usually possible. You go to war with the tools and the army you have.
This is perfection:
“A woman is born again as a mother when she gives birth and forever after her heart lives outside her body. There is, from my experience, an instinct that takes over of the scariest love imaginable, that you don’t choose and you’re helpless to resist. It never lets go.
I think that for men, they have a choice to love or not to love. A man might not even know he fathered a child because he has the kind of relationships that aren’t. A man can walk away once or several times a day. But the choice to love and take responsibility for a child, day in, day out, is the surest way a man becomes a man. It’s a humbling experience because there’s nowhere to hide from reality—every judgment you have of others will come back to haunt you in the form of your kids.”
As the father of eleven children all with the same woman, I can say that this is wrong. Men do not have the choice to love or not love. Those that walk away are no different than a woman who kills her unborn child in the womb. How do these women fit into your argument?
My mother and father were alcoholics and used me as a pawn in their games. When I was around 13-14 years old, I woke to mom screaming for me to help her because my father was beating her. I got his shotgun and pointed it at him and said, "You need to leave." He said, "You're not my son anymore.", and walked out, not to be seen again for a decade. I vowed I would never say those words to my children, and I never have, thought it's been on the tip of my tongue many times. But fate laughed at me and two of my sons told me I wasn't their father anymore. The pain is real and never leaves. I can't choose not to love them or walk away, but what I can choose is to not let it stop me from doing my duty to be the best husband and father I can be to my other children. What I can do is let the pain push me to be better. Those men you think are choosing not to love may be shouldering the pain from loss and choosing not to let it show.
Don, I'm so sorry for what you've been through with your dad and with your sons. I hope that the latter is healed sometime and they reconcile with you. We're all doing the best we can.
What I meant to do was give men more credit for stepping up to being good fathers. If love is defined as something that requires action, there are certainly dads who walk away from the baby they wanted aborted and begrudge every penny he's forced to pay, one who never wants anything to do with him or her. If that kind of dad loves his child, it isn't in anyway that helps them.
Women, however, can't choose to walk away, even to go play basketball because they're sick of all the wailing. They're stuck. Every moment of every day. They're either taking responsibility directly or depending on someone else, paid or unpaid. They're the default unless other arrangements are made. So the work of love is something in which they have no choice, once they have that baby.
That's why I believe it's ABSOLUTELY their choice to decide whether to abort a fertilized egg or devote the rest of their lives to putting that child's needs before their own. I don't believe this is even something men should be allowed an opinion on--casually, legally or a celibate church hierarchy. Responsibility and authority should always go together. A woman has ultimate responsibility for the child once they're born. She has to have the authority to make that lifelong choice.
Thanks for your concern but it's water under the bridge and I'm fine.
Women most definitely can choose to walk away, as my own mother did. I most definitely have an an opinion on abortion and you won't take it away from me. Who would enforce your edict that I'm not allowed to have an opinion? What then would you say you are not even allowed to have an opinion on? How should I search for truth on your stack when I may have to tiptoe around an opinion I'm not allowed to have? Why should I even bother reading if I may already be guilty of wrong think? Perhaps you know of a good brain wash I could use? Shutting down discourse and thought is the root of some of the greatest evils the world has ever known.
You plead a special case for women and claim they are reborn when they become mothers, something us lowly men will never understand. You make no allowances for men being reborn when they become fathers. Maybe you could ask a few about it. And ask them their opinion of men who walk away. In fact, your entire article did not mention the word father except in the phrase, "may not even know they fathered a child".
Your position that women are superior to men in regard to the children they bear is flawed and so is the edifice you have built upon it. Women alone do not have ultimate responsibility, nor authority. Father and mother share equally the responsibility and authority for the children they bear for the rest of their life. You are excusing taking a life for the sake of convenience no matter how you color it.
Hmmm... I don't believe I should have an opinion on how other people live their lives or what they do that isn't harming me or mine. I think we both agree that I shouldn't have an opinion on you having 11 kids, yes? And I don't! Why should I? In the same way, I don't think anyone except the woman involved should have the power to make her decisions for her.
But we may not be as apart as it seems on this issue. In one of my videos, I talk about women deserving the choice TO have a baby, something that single women and many young couples don't think they can afford. My focus is on changing the economic system so it supports families. We might both agree on that.
The question this article was addressing was whether men and women were fundamentally different--whether they had different souls. My answer is no, except in the capacity of women to bear a child, and any ways that capacity changes them psychologically in addition to the obvious physical changes. I'm not calling men lowly or claiming that women are superior.
The only other alternatives are 1) there's no difference other than biological between men and women, or 2) men and women are different in ways that have nothing to do with having a baby. Men, obviously, don't go through biological changes when they become fathers. So maybe both go through the same psychological changes and hormones have nothing to do with it. My husband was a great dad to our daughters, very devoted and patient and fun. Loves them every bit as much as I do. Took as much responsibility as I did, but in different ways. However, he would say that I went through more changes than he did after I had them. Maybe that's not your experience.
On a lighter note, I dedicate this to you. 😂 https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/sometimes-its-hard-to-be-a-woman/
"Without harming me or mine". What about harming others? Not much of a society or culture if we only care about ourselves. Have you ever thought whom you may be harming by advocating abortion?
I don't agree that you should not have an opinion on my having 11 kids and you probably do. Not in the sense that you care about me in particular, I'm nobody, but on large families in general. I would imagine your opinion is something along the lines of, "As long as no one was coerced and you can take care of them so they're not a burden to me or mine." It's only because you don't have a negative opinion that you say you don't have one. We basically agree, there is no conflict, so we think we hold no feelings one way or another. But opinions ran the gamut from disgust to lavish praise when we visited the grocery store or restaurant with our large family, and people are welcome to them. There are detriments to large families and I could make good points against them. People can make up their own minds, ONCE THEY'VE HEARD ALL SIDES. (Sorry, not yelling, but Substack gives me no option for italics, which is what any caps I use represent.)
I believe in freedom of thought and speech for all on all things. This is an absolute and saying men should not be allowed an opinion is a weakness in your own thinking. Men don't get the luxury of declaring themselves the victor in a struggle without actually engaging in the struggle. This is a feminine trait that ties back to my comment about women and mercy you haven't replied to.
I agree with most of what you write and I enjoy your writing, but I can't accept your special pleading for women based on biology. Race is biological and leads to special pleading. Homosexuals were desperate to find a biological basis for homosexuality so that they then could gain special privileges. Do you want equality or do you want privilege? We are all of us "someone" and not "something". We are all unique and fundamentally different. I refuse to be reduced to biology. I'm curious why you don't? What is the allure of victimhood? Do you want to hear, "Oh, you poor thing, forced by the cruelties of biology to bear children."? I would hope not.
If a woman can terminate her parenthood, why can't a man? Because women are special?When a man discovers he has impregnated a woman and decides the lifelong commitment to raising a child is too much, why can't he terminate the child? Because women are special?
The whole truth of the matter is, women ARE special and they Are superior to men in every single category except physical strength. (Men know this, although many will not admit it outright. They admit it tacitly by draining their physicality to protect and provide for their woman and the children she bears him.) The battle of the sexes was over before it started. You win. This is why societies have chained women up. Women unchained can be the most dangerous, disruptive force on the planet. Women, not men, have the power to make or break society and abortion is a huge part of that breakage, whether you will admit that or not. Sluttiness is a part of that breakage. I'm not advocating for chaining women up, but women have to learn to get control of their sexual power and propensity for destroying the familial structure, just as men have to learn to get control of their physical power and propensity for violence.
Maybe food for debate here, huh? I apologize if I've stated some opinions I'm not allowed to have. 😁😁😁
I concede the point entirely, Don. Everyone is allowed to have any opinion they want. What I meant by opinion, and it's why I included gov't and church hierarchies, is 'power over'. I was thinking of 'opinion' as a vote.
What I appreciate, Don, is you giving me the opportunity to think through what makes a productive debate, that moves thinking forward for both people. I'm going to put that into my next episode on Harrison Koehli. Then you and I can pick up with a fresh start instead of six indents in, if it seems worthwhile to you.
Hmm.. no edit function available. Sadly, I do my best proofreading after I hit post. Only a couple typos, please excuse.
Agree with the inadequacy of the reductionist definitions of a woman that both left and right are engaged in. You might be interested in my take on it, which I outlined here: https://luctalks.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
I really liked your piece on What is a Woman? Luc. I'll link it into the draft I started on Red-Pilled in Disneyland, tentatively titled The Tonic Gnostic & Zealot Warrior ;-)
Excellent, Luc, you know you're on my list, right? Just after William and Harrison, in the order that you wrote about TM. I'm really looking forward to engaging with your ideas so this older post will be helpful to give me more background on your thinking. Each of the Tonic 8 have such different perspectives, it's great to be in conversation with each of you!
I started reading this before I even had a cup of tea this morning, thinking "Wow, Tereza is coming out hard naming an essay 'Men and Women and the Tonic Tit.' That's a surprising choice of words, but I guess she is really going to deep dive on the woman side."
I came back to it later in the day after I reread the title a few times and realized my paring error.
The notion that girls do not become women until they have kids, which isn't exactly what you said but what popped up in my mind, is tough, but kind of fair. I have found myself noticing a difference between people with and without kids, often categorizing the latter as a little less than "real adult." That is of course due to many features correlated with not having kids, but it is really hard to take someone who refers to themselves as a doggie mommy seriously when they talk as though they have responsibility for a few human lives. And, if you are not fully adult until you have kids, and a woman is an adult human female, well, the logic is clear. Not necessarily correct, but it has an appeal. There is a real threshold when you get to the point of being responsible enough for yourself that you can make another person and be responsible for them as well. Maybe there is much to describing the women's life as "maiden, mother and... the other one." The reduction of motherhood to a luxury good does strike as horrific. (That was a really good point!)
Hahaha!
Yes, I was really trying to word that carefully. In two generations, we've gone from women needing to defend their right to NOT get married and have kids to young couples who want kids not having the economic choice or being shamed for being 'breeders.' And yes, pets are the new kids. Just the way Schwab & Co. want it.
There is a natural progression from being a dependent to taking responsibility within the household to taking responsibility for a household. The "You will own nothing" Davos elite have made the 'house' part of that progression equal to winning the lottery. For both men and women, more important than having kids themselves is creating an economic system that returns that to being our purpose rather than making the rich richer.
I think that is very much the goal, keeping people from being able to be responsible. Peel it back a layer at a time: no, you can’t afford to have kids, and it is bad anyway, so stay responsible only for yourself. Peel that back such that you aren’t allowed to do things for yourself (“trust the experts and follow our rules for your own good!”) and you no longer can be responsible for yourself. What remains is mere fully grown children, children that can be made to produce wealth for others and controlled through fear. If the populace depends on the state for everything, the state has all the control.
Double hearts for that!
1,000,000,000% correct! Coercing the bovine masses into avoiding responsibility for anything, even for themselves, and remaining completely dependent on so-called experts and authority figures, while also inflaming their sense of entitlement to absurd proportions, results in a culture of slavish compliance, perfect for an illegitimate ruling class to govern.
You know I will likely miss the entire point of this great post this morning - with just a small amount of coffee onboard at this point. I can’t help but think - as evidenced by the “post hippie feminist” character. Wow - I seem to have had so many of these types - male and female in my life! Then I think - I answer to your question . How could we like each other when we work so hard on not even liking who we become? On the other hand I gave up on toxic masculinity & toxic femininity a long time ago. In some blind fashion I selected for real masculinity and real femininity and found something that works (most of the time). Stumbling & bumbling into learning how to become what we do like?
Haha, you're tempting me to go back for another cuppa. Yes, I found it interesting that my friend had come to a place of being willing to defend herself and say, "I'm white and I'm as good of a person as you are. I wouldn't write/ read something that demeaned black or brown people, or women. Why is it okay for you to write fictional stereotypes of us?" I'm putting words in her mouth, but that's what I saw as the implications of her question.
You raise such a good point, KW. So much of liking each other rests on liking ourselves. Thanks for that!
Thanks. Hopefully forgiven for initiating yet another cuppa.
For me it goes all the way back to who did I want to be, who do I want to be now and in the future. How does this “me” help make the world better? What exactly are others saying about who they are/want to be, and so forth. How do others - males, females, children respond to what I and others do? Things either blossom and change in the right direction or they don’t - direct feedback. There is a lot to it - more than will fit here. We must love the world and each other in it. Then we get a world we love and want to be in. Right now we are in the PrisonPlanet they want us to have. Time to take it back.
More on this hopefully. Takes a bit of explaining and lots of issues to overcome.
This is really beautiful, KW. May I quote you when I do the next episode on William? I look forward to the 'more on this' and please post a link if you write it in your own 'stack.
Of course you can quote this. I am working on a longer post based on your article and this comment. But it will likely take awhile.
Thank You. There is likely a great deal more to explain if I can get out of my own way today, lol.
I'm honored. Whatever your opinion.
While the conversation below is interesting, I realized I've yet address this article directly. I think the meat of my disagreement (or perhaps, misunderstanding) is rooted in the following statement:
"In the same way, I feel that the healing of masculinity and femininity only happens in tandem. The tonic form of both is plotted on the diagonal, starting where the lines intersect. To become stronger as a man means drawing on the right side of the brain where you might be engulfed in an expansive sense of love for all people. To become a fuller woman means taking that intuitive love as a mother into the analytical realm of how to make the world you want for your child possible for everyone."
Putting aside for the moment the (IMO illusory) notion that concepts like masculine/feminine are localized in the brain, there is something about this description of "tonic" -- in both the tonal and restorative implications of the word -- that strikes me as wrong, even on its own terms. In fact, advancing androgyny as the social imperative or ideal state (i.e. the male becoming more feminine and the female becoming more masculine) strikes me not as a solution to the current problem, but as the source of the problem itself.
It is both good and natural to desire that which is different from ourselves in form and function, but neither good nor natural to want to simulate it in ourselves. The "transformative" aspect of trans is just that; a poorly designed simulation and dangerous delusion, in which the line between Self and Other is blurred to nothingness, or the territory of desire swapped out for maps that will only get you further lost in the postmodern jungle.
Again, this is not to say that masculinity and femininity are perfectly encapsulated or defined, let alone individual traits completely walled. The word "human" exists to describe where they overlap, and such overlap is multidimensional in the sense of object versus instance, shape versus shadow. But the solution is not to try to attempt to simulate or emulate that what we perceive as attractively tonic in the opposite sex, but to build up those qualities in ourselves which makes us desirable to the other.
For some, that desire may indeed include women with certain more masculine traits of mind (in fact, this describes both my own beloved wife and her mother quite well). But it strikes me as at the very least unproductive to "work" at building qualities - not knowledge, *qualities* - that you do not already possess, particularly if those qualities won't increase your attractiveness to the mean (i.e. thereby reducing the chances of falling in love, getting married, procreating children, etc). And if enough people attempt this - i.e. androgenic pursuit *becomes* the mean - that will lead to cratering birthrates and civilizational collapse.
Which, coincidentally enough, is what we have.
Perhaps I've forgotten my first rule of dialogue: define your terms. What are the qualities of masculinity that women shouldn't possess or aspire to? What are the qualities of femininity that men should not possess or aspire to?
Women can possess or aspire to any masculine qualities they may choose to, but they should avoid mercy, not knowing its true nature. Men can aspire to or possess any feminine qualities they choose to, but they should avoid compassion, as it will weaken their resolve to commit necessary violence.
This is on point. It's what I had in mind with sexual depolarization - this idea that men accentuate the inner feminine to complete themselves, and vice versa. That's not to say there isn't some yin in the yang, there always is, but rather that the current problem is precisely androgyny, that dough-like lack of gendered differentiation that only results in soft, deferential males and narcissistic females barren of the milk of human kindness, neither of whom is of any particular use to the other.
“A woman is born again as a mother when she gives birth and forever after her heart lives outside her body.”
—Tereza Coraggio
Eloquent, moving, and true. 💞
I know this is tangential, but since you mentioned Myers-Briggs and then described your own thought-processes somewhat, I am curious to know: are you INTJ? I ask, because that personality type (and closely related variations) is relatively rare in society but seems to predominate in discussions like these.
That's funny. I thought I was but took it again just to see. I had the same tendency to overthink and argue with it that two extremes at once wasn't the same as something that was neither in the middle. And yet I came out INTJ again, "An independent thinker focused on solving the world's problems." Yep.
INTJs of the world, unite! 😎👍