Turns out, the ones I spoke with don't think they took "your" concept.
They like the term and choose to associate it with meaning they think most important, meanings that are not those you attribute to these men.
In my map, they want The Good, The Beautiful, The True: Western Civilization to survive and thrive. They intend to use the term Tonic Masculinity to help achieve those goals. They reject embracing the definition(s) you promote here.
(e.g. one commenter suggested boys should be taken from their mothers and raised by men after ~age 7.)
Yes, that's absolutely true. They took the term they liked and left the concept that they didn't along with any mention that the term wasn't theirs. How is that not hijacking my phrase and driving it in a different direction? If they had a different concept, they should coin their own term to describe it.
Is that where you got it from, Harrison? Or did the nine of you spontaneously come up with it together? How did it occur to you personally to use it in your fine article, which I didn't get a chance to respond to? I loved that you used etymology in it, and went back to the original meanings of tonic. There's been a celebration of tonic masculinity as a team sport, as Mark said. All of you are very appreciative of every post that your article builds on. It's a very thriving intersection.
That's why NOT mentioning me is so notable. In your article, you write, "Enter tonicity. If you haven’t checked out Carter’s piece, or Jay Rollins’s which inspired it, do so now." Why did all that stop when you realized a woman had invented the phrase? Before that, each new article harkened back to what went before. And then your very first response when I showed the lineage from Jay was, "Hey, you don't own that. Somebody thought of it before."
I think it's an embarrassment that the phrase came from a woman. And that's very telling for how you've all defined it--not something that heals the relationships between men and women but helps "males adrift in a Sargasso sea of impotent faggotry" as you quote from John. You're turning healing into hatred, and that's the opposite of how it was meant.
Men have been stealing women's IP and making it their own and deluding themselves that they came up with it since the Indo-European sociopaths took over human/matrilineal civilization. It's second nature now.
Tereza, speaking only for myself, I had no idea that you were the one Jay got the phrase from.
As to your personal definition of the term - no one is stopping you from writing about it and expanding on it. I've given my perspective, others have given theirs, and those are not your perspectives. Another commenter in this thread wrote a very good essay, offering her own perspective, which we read with interest.
Tereza, I was not aware that you coined the phrase "tonic masculinity." I added my own perspectives and perception to the concept in a two-part article on my Stack (although I have only posted Part 1 so far). Will you share a link to your initial post on tonic masculinity? If so, I will add it to my "Part 2" before posting.
Thanks, John. I'm still twiddling with Part 2. Could be a week or more. I was the [returning adult] college student who was required to do 15-page research papers with 15 references, and my papers were like double that, haha. Well, it's my love of research for the sake of truth-seeking *and* my love of writing. Know anyone else like that?!?!
The article of mine that you referenced was not about tonic masculinity, but about identity in general. Just as I appropriated the term ‘intersectionality’, I appropriated your conception of tonic as a contrast to toxic. I knew that Jay drew this term from you because he said so explicitly in his initial article on the subject. In the only paragraph in my article in which I reference tonic masculinity I link to Jay’s article, which I thought would be sufficient. I can see now that this assumption was unfounded. To correct the record I left a detailed footnote crediting you with the genesis of the term tonic as it pertains to my usage of the term as a virtuous contrasting adjective to toxic viciousness at the end of the paragraph in question.
As to the content of your article, there is something that really stood out to me that I’d like to comment on. You attempt to characterize the Tonic 7’s conception of ‘tonic masculinity’, a complex topic based on the intersection of abstract concepts like identity, virtue, vice, purpose, and meaning based on observing a casual hour-long conversation between 8 participants. While I understand that it is difficult if not impossible to appreciate situated within the longhouse, just because we’ve identified ourselves as a group does not mean that there is any kind of consensus between us on this topic or any other. If I had to identify one thing that we all agree on, it is that searching for truth is good, and that it is always best to attempt to know and understand truth regardless of the consequences. Even there we may have some disagreement among us. To tell you the truth, I don’t think any of us are particularly interested in masculinity as a topic of focus at this point, although it is no doubt related to the ongoing spiritual crisis we are all grappling with to one extent or another. I feel compelled to point this out because I hope that it clarifies something that might interest you. We don’t need to agree with each other as to what ‘tonic masculinity’ is to be on the same side. I’ve read several of your articles and especially enjoy the one on the history of the constitutional convention. I have little doubt we are on the same side. I also have little doubt we will ever agree about the ‘true’ meaning of the term I am happy to credit you with coining. I believe what is optimally ‘tonic’ in any given circumstance varies just as widely as nature itself. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions for humanity, even ones that sound great like focusing on the children.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on my tonic intersectionality piece that you referenced, because it is only tangentially related to masculinity.
Hi, Grant. Thanks for responding, I haven't had much chance to interact with you and I appreciate it! I looked again at Jay's initial post and I don't see any reference to me. Let me know if I'm missing it: https://www.wonderlandrules.com/p/tate-modern. I think I first brought it up in the comments on Doc Hammer's, because I was already subscribed to him due to our common admiration for Guttermouth. I couldn't comment on some of the others without being a subscriber so that was where I brought it up.
I'm so glad you brought up spirituality and that you'd still like to hear my thoughts on your essay on tonic intersectionality. I hadn't read it yet because I was responding in the order they were written (although I think I mixed up Luc and Harrison). It's a very interesting concept.
My primary focuses are on bringing about a feminine economy, where the purpose of our labor is to serve families and communities, and a feminine spirituality. The latter I define as entertaining the possibility that we are, as the mystics say, One consciousness. What's anathema to that is believing we're superior to other people--I don't want to think I'm one with someone I think I'm better than. So I define my one dogma as believing I'm no better than anyone else.
The common thread that I hear in the discussion, particularly coming from 'John,' is superiority, and that's the idea that's 'toxic' or poison to a feminine spirituality of Oneness. If that's heard within a frame of competition, it seems like I'm trying to make women better than men by making them 'more' equal. But the Western system for the last 3500 yrs has been hierarchical, which in itself is a masculine system of dominance. That's how I define toxicity.
What I said in my first comments was that I didn't want ownership, I wanted to be part of the conversation. I feel like my articles, which have been respectful and engaging, backed up my statement in good faith. But in return, my authority as author has been disappeared. Rather than articles in which others start with my definition, both in the comment where I coined it and the Eisenstein article I responded to, and explain how they differ, I'm taking them as the authority on the term I defined.
When you write about intersectionality, you start with a commonly understood definition, I assume. I don't know the term myself, but I'd guess you're speaking to an audience who does. And then you're giving your take on it and how it differs by adding the word 'tonic'. You're not looking at the word as a blank slate you just made up to describe whatever you want. But that's what's being done with my term.
And I also appreciate you reading my other pieces and saying we're on the same side. That's what I was hoping for because it's an admirable group of men and every time I've read something, I'm reminded that I don't want to alienate this group of fine men and the endeavor to support each other, which the world needs.
You're right, I must have been confused remembering your first article where you highlighted Jay's comment (if I even recall that correctly, I read a lot of substack articles). I updated the footnote to reflect.
Regarding hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, my views are somewhat different, and I'm not sure that you characterize John's views accurately. I believe that value is subjective, so being better or worse is always relative to flesh and blood human beings who can only make such determinations for themselves. It logically follows then that nobody is objectively better or worse than anyone else, so in that sense, I agree with you. On the other hand, I certainly appreciate and value some people for a wide variety of reasons while I there are others that I feel pretty much the opposite about.
Your primary focus is to shape the world in a certain way. I don’t think anyone has the wisdom to provide a prescription for the world, which is why I advocate for a multipolarity internationally and a sort of federalist populism at home. I use tonic and toxic differently as well as it pertains to identity.
With respect to authority and being a part of the conversation, I believe these things are only legitimized by voluntary consent. You have no a priori claim to respect, attention, authority, deference, or consideration for the usage of these terms or anything else, nor do I. These things must be earned. I find attempts to cloak desires for recognition with appeals to propriety off putting. I presume this is merely a product of my nature. I prefer to engage in the world of ideas as a prestige hierarchy. I allocate attention based on appreciation and admiration for excellence. I don’t care who came up with what first. I only care who can deliver excellent ideas with which to engage. I also don’t expect anyone to read or recommend my shit if they don’t think it is worth their time.
Hi, Grant. Let me clarify what I mean as my primary focus. It's not to tell other people how they should shape their families or communities. It's to provide the tools so that families and communities can decide how to shape themselves. I think we're in agreement about multipolarity internationally and a federal populism at home. I couldn't have put that better. I'm certain we agree that our current economic and political systems aren't that. So my book, How to Dismantle an Empire, looks at the system change that could enable that with the least amount of disruption.
I think the group is caught with two contradictory ideas. One, my phrase is not worth very much, didn't really take anything to think up, doesn't buy any claim on respect or authority as the author, or consideration for how I defined it. It earned me nothing, and my laying claim to it is simply a desire for recognition. Two, this phrase is so valuable and has brought so much recognition and attention to the nine of you and your ideas that you can't come up with another phrase that's as good.
You can't really have it both ways. If it's nothing, write your own damn phrase. You're nine excellent writers. If the attention and recognition you're getting has nothing to do with my phrase and is all about your ideas, showcase your ideas with your own phrase. But if you're unwilling to give up my phrase because it's the catalyst for publicizing your ideas, don't try to pretend to me that it's nothing. If you're going to diss my ideas in your prestige hierarchy, don't steal them first. You 'allocate attention based on appreciation and admiration for excellence' but don't care who came up with what first. You're saying tonic masculinity is an excellent term that spontaneously combusted out of nothing. If it's not an excellent term, write your own. If it is, so is its author.
I don't think the phrase has inherent value. The phrase tonic masculinity isn't what is useful or interesting, it is the definition my boys provided for it that makes it useful and interesting, at least from my perspective. I think I just said I wasn't impressed with it until I read Harrison's article, which should give you an idea about how I value ideas. This extends to intellectual property which I'm quite skeptical of. I don't expect you to agree, but ideas aren't worth anything to me until they are transformed into something useful. In this case, I think the only thing that makes tonic masculinity useful is as a heuristic to facilitate the harnessing of innate character strengths and personality variables to cultivate virtue, which can easily be abstracted beyond masculinity (which is what my article was about).
Words get defined by common usage, and what that common usage ends up being is determined in the marketplace of ideas. Even if you inspired focus on this particular grammatical construction, you didn't invent it, Janice Fiamengo apparently did many years ago. In any case, your contribution in terms of inspiration is not nothing. It mattered, at least to me, and that is why I now credit you in the one place I tangentially mention tonic masculinity in text online, because it didn't cost me anything to do so but time. It would be costly to continually credit you going forward though, because we're essentially competing in the marketplace of ideas to influence common usage. If you want to have any chance of winning you should focus on making a compelling case as to why your preferred usage of the term is superior instead of focusing on issues of propriety. I would say something cheeky like "it's our term now, come and take it" but the fact of the matter is, I don't think any of us have any desire to continue to talk about masculinity. We've all said our piece and moved on. That is why we are the Tonic 7 and not the 'tonically masculine 7'. Is it safe for me to assume that you don't claim the word 'tonic' as your own?
Grant, I find that you are smoothly trying to deny Tereza’s claim, smoothly and dishonestly. She WAS written out of its history and denied citation. She DOES have a right to citation. When you admit that she was right in that Jay did NOT cite her, I noticed that you did not overt that. You smoothly said - you were right but not what Tereza was right about. Let me use a word that I like when referring to men. I love a gentleman who is loving, gentle with the weaker, chivalrous and protective when necessary. Ask yourself and your bros if you behaved like gentlemen with regard to your treatment of Tereza. You did not. She does deserve citation and attribution. What you do with the phrase is your business thereafter.
I only use the term "tonic masculinity" once on my blog. I didn't cite her because I thought Jay did. I was wrong, so I went back to that one place where I use the term and added a footnote to remedy this oversight. My friends and I are perfect gentlemen with a sober and judicious comportment. To suggest otherwise is an affront to reason. I appreciate your stance, which is why I made the effort to, as you say, write Tereza into the history of my usage of the term. Know that Tereza doesn't agree with you, she doesn't think it is our business to use the term unless we also adopt her preferred definition.
Thank you for birthing this term and thank you for standing by it despite the interlopers and ransackers.
I still think about writing about this concept when I have time but I am at 6 days a week, 12 hours a day for my day job and tryna sort out my book self-publishing and garden so I am stretched a bit thin for the moment.
Wishing you a spring time filled with fragrant blossoms, verdant forests and germinating seeds full of potential.
Thanks also for the likes on my I Like to Fight comments. You're a breath of fresh air, Gavin. And I look forward to your article whenever time allows. I don't know if you ever read William Hunter Duncan's post on Sacred Masculine, but I think you'd relate. He's eagerly digging up ground still frozen and has starts and sprouts crowding every corner!
I am not sure your reading (listening?) of the Tonic 7 episode is quite accurate. I do not take away quite the same things as you seem to. Although I agree that there is a great deal of difference in how we all approach the topic, I don’t think anyone is describing misogynists just a hair short of psychopathy as tonically masculine. :)
It is fair to say there is a bit of frustration with the over feminization of society. I would describe that as a mix of applying the blank slate model of humans to all institutions as though men and women do not have different proclivities and needs, and a bleeding of a toxic femininity into all realms of western life. Others might describe it differently, but it is not anti-woman any more than being anti-violent crime makes you anti-man.
Also, apologies for failing to reference you as the originator of the term. I am not in the habit of attributing phrases to particular people , but I could probably stand to do it more.
Hi, Doc. I was taking notes while I was painting but John did say that toxic masculinity was the absence of masculinity or when it 'went a little bit too far' and you had a serial killer. Now, was John kidding? Of course. Yet it remains that no one is defining what toxic masculinity is, in order to differentiate tonic. The focus of the group is how masculinity differentiates itself from femininity. So it has nothing to do with tonic or healing, and is a VERY long way from men dying--or living--to protect the one they love or life itself. It's become watered down and twisted.
It was Grant who said that the indirect competition that women bring to society allows psychopaths to enter. And it was your statement that it's going to be a man who stands up and says, "This is wrong." To use my term and change its meaning is wrong. You can do it and I can't stop you, but it's wrong.
I think John was making a reference to Aristotle's notion that every virtue exists between two vices, one from the lack and one of the overabundance of the virtue. In this case proper masculinity is being willing and able to do violence to stand up for what is right, the over abundance being excessive violence of a serial killer. (I was myself thinking of the Hercules myth there instead of a serial killer, but I don't think I said anything about it.)
I kind of see what you mean about the focus drifting towards separating masculinity from femininity, but I think that was less about "women bad" than "making men act like women is bad (and vice versa)." The differences between how men and women tend to act are important and necessary for men and women's cooperation, and forcing one to be more like the other than their nature inclines them is going to cause them problems and lead to vice. For example, men are more disagreeable (in the personality trait sense) than women, so, yes, on average when there is an unpopular thing that needs said at personal risk, it will be a man saying it. Trying to beat that tendency out of men because it is deemed too "confrontational" is bad for men and bad for society. Yet that is exactly what our highly feminized school system and corporate HR systems try to do. It is about as sensible as forcing women to abandon their motherly roles and tromp off to the office a few weeks after giving birth.
I am going to politely push back on it being a case of misusing your term on two counts. Firstly it was used before, and no one to my knowledge said anything along the lines of "Tereza C. uses the term tonic masculinity to mean X, Y and Z" contrary to how you used it. Secondly, and I think more importantly, understanding what it is to be tonically masculine, to be a healing man, is a large exploratory project to discover what is, not simply what you said it was. Your definition is a good start, although its implications sound a little like "men are expendable" if one isn't careful, but it certainly isn't the end point, anymore than an early astronomer's definition of orbital rings is the end all, be all definition.
Finally, if we didn't sufficiently define "toxic masculinity" it is only because there is no clear definition other than "Whatever wailing Twitter blue checks don't like" or perhaps "Anything your great grandfather would have considered normal masculine behavior." Perhaps Jim Austen here has a definition worked out he would like to share.
I think that's a great way to distinguish the two, Doc:
"proper masculinity, as defined by ___ is being willing and able to do violence to stand up for what is right, the over abundance being excessive violence of a serial killer."
Tonic masculinity, as defined by Tereza Coraggio and inspired by Charles Eisenstein, is: [to] offer his life to protect what he loves, to protect life itself.
--one who is willing, if need be, to die.
--Courage and not violence defines him.
--the willingness to put everything on the line, to offer even one’s own body and all the ego holds precious, in service to life.
--who are willing to risk themselves to change all that.
I think that you, along with most or all of the others, read and admire Charles Eisenstein. What if he'd ended the article I quoted with "This is tonic masculinity." Can you imagine Jay commenting, "Stealing that!" and then posting as if it was his own invention? And changing what Charles meant into a near-opposite? Of course not.
This phrase I coined was, in a sense, in collaboration with Charles and his representation of a quality of which he said, "Without the kind of healing I am seeing here, this world has no chance." My phrase was created to capture that healing, without which the world has no chance. I agree with Charles about that. So it was worth defending that idea even though I knew that it would make me very unpopular.
I honestly have no idea who Charles Einstein is, or what he has written. Does he use a pseudonym or something on Substack here, and I subscribe without knowing him?
I can imagine Jay taking a term he likes and using it as he sees fit. He's a "I'm taking this back from the haters" kind of guy. I don't know about the rest though.
I do think it is a good pairing of words, although I suppose "healthy masculinity" could do as well, though it lacks the obvious counter point to "toxic masculinity". Yet again I would point out that it is a handle for a really big concept, one that has not entirely or even mostly been worked out. I am not so sure I would say Jay means the near-opposite of what you say, but again I can't speak to what Charles apparently said. I think there is room both for your points and Jay's within the concept, though it might prove otherwise.
You mean the HUMANIZATION of male apes? The feminization of the male ape IS what defines our species lol. Can't have it both ways, although too many men try - and that's why we are in endless war cycle/destruction of the living environment. Grow up and get out of the adolescent Aryan raider stage.
I'm sorry, I honestly can't tell if you are sincere or a satire or parody of the stated position. I've been trying, but it could go either way.
To take it seriously for a moment, I think you will find that female apes such as chimps are remarkably violent as well. Although it seems to be true that humans have rather less sexual dimorphism compared to other wild animals, in a fashion similar to that seen by domesticated animals, it is not obviously the case that the result was making males more feminine. Docility is not an inherently male or female trait across species.
I cant tell whether you're kidding or not. Ever heard of bonobos? Every heard of maternal care and oxytocin, which decreased the testosterone in the male primate. Females domesticated male apes and some unfortunately cant match the emotional/social intelligence needed to be Human. Unless you still think Humans are apes who makes tools? Female mammals have have always been the peacemakers/nurturers/social educators. Women dont do war, male apes do.
Oh dear, you are serious? Yet you can't be unaware that bonobos have males and females, solve problems with sexual aggression, and are extant only in a comparatively tiny inaccessible region, suggesting their way of life is hardly adaptive to the world at large. Surely you are aware that wasps, ants, termites, dolphins, orca, lions all have very aggressive females, just to name a few.
Not to mention that many apes, as well as other species, make tools. What is particularly strange is your definition of "Human" that seems to include only half the species. It is things like that what make me think you are a rather over the top satire.
But bonobos dont solve problems with sexual aggression - you have it backwards. Can you please give me a citation for that? Bonobo females bond to STOP MALE sexual/aggression. We are talking about humans here I thought - not insects - and female mammals, who bond with and help create their baby's brains. Yes, females can be aggressive but it's to PROTECT LIFE, not to DOMinate others to spread their seed. Nor do they do gang violence for personal/progeny gain.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but that was the sine qua non of "what makes us human" in evo bio until fairly recently, when men had full reign of The Science - I call it the bro Home Depot theory of human. When women started to make headway in science, the story had to change to reflect the evidence. Neoteny and maternal care/oxytocin, coupled with Maternal Culture, made male apes Human. Yes, we are a Maternalized species. No other group of male apes can get along like Humen, nor take care of offspring, cooperate for so long without ripping penises off. Or focus on other goals besides sex and violence. That's all from maternalized males.
Look up meerkats. The head females are brutal towards the other female members of their pack that become pregnant, typically to the point of causing miscarriages. There is a lot of aggression to end life. Dolphins and orcas both male and female habitually brutalize other animals such as seals or porpoises not to eat them but apparently just because it is fun. Naked mole rats are another fun times female dominated society, although so strange it is hard to make parallels.
Animals are horrible by human standards. The smarter they are, the more horrific.
“it’s clear to me that we need to heal the heart of the world. It will take women and men together to do that, especially men like these who are complex, original thinkers and excellent writers.”
That was the original title of the essay I'd been contemplating, Healing the Heart of the World. And my original intent was to say how much we need men like the Tonic 9, I think it's up to, using their skills and courage to stand up for mothers, those who are and those who would be. I think I'll keep it in the queue. Thank you for saying that, Michael.
Another Hy-jacking of A beautiful thing described by you and the fellow you commented on. Maybe the way you defined it was catching on. Highest form of love, imo to give your life for someone else. At the very least, these guys must be young, they don't sound mature and at worst sinister.
Apr 19, 2023·edited Apr 19, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Well, we tangled with JR, who put you on blast for the "Forgive Hitler" video. After watching a bit, it was clear he hadn't, and we returned to let him know he'd misconstrued your point. He promptly shit his pants, and it went around for entirely too many posts. He's kind of incapable of working with nuance, from what we saw.
Then he posted this, clearly in reaction to this encounter:
"There's a point where you say “Okay. I'm done here.”
I reached that point this morning, when I found myself arguing with another Substacker over something so ridiculous I would be hard-pressed to explain it to anyone who doesn't spend all their waking hours online."
Imagine having your mind blown that hard by a simple disagreement that you actually need to leave the platform. Unfortunately, he probably still thinks we're the crazy ones.
Oh! I wondered why Forgiving Hitler was suddenly getting hits. I'm so pleased you brought in Thich Nhat Hahn, one of the people I most admire! I quoted that same poem somewhere and was accused of 'spiritual bypassing.' It's interesting, isn't it, that the degree of condemnation for a dead person (as Word Herder says) is supposed to convey something about our own moral superiority. Now, if you were doing that in Germany in WWII, YES you deserve credit. But jumping on the most popular face-of-evil bandwagon on the planet? Why does that make you brave?
Thank you for defending my honor/ nuance. One of my YT viewers who I most admire (among many) said it was her favorite of my episodes. And she had had to come to terms with the sexual abuse of her brother, with Down's syndrome, by a caregiver, after which he was never the same. If she, and Thich Nhat Hahn can find forgiveness, who is Jay to ridicule it?
And I thought Jay was hitting pause from the TM discussion, but it seems one and the same.
We were very surprised when we actually saw the video and upset that he'd framed it this way. You'd really gone out on a limb to say some really uncomfortable things that resonated, and felt that he was attempting an act of cancel culture.
It was amusing to see him melt down so hard over it, but also sad. Such a simple idea, but it takes a sense of cosmic fairness to embrace.
If I had done that video only for you to come to that understanding, it would have been well worth it. Yes, I chose my title to be intentionally provocative. On both a spiritual and historical level (aka propaganda) I wanted my example to be the person most unanimously condemned. And yes, I wanted to go way out on that limb and challenge the viewer to tell me why my logic wasn't sturdy.
I'm going to bring this concept up in the next episode, and I can only be grateful to Jay for bringing it to your (and others') attention.
I didn't know about your interactions with Jay concerning this term, which regretfully seem to have taken an unpleasant turn. Looks like we would all owe royalties for using this term to you, should you decide to copyright it, though it looks you may run into problems establishing your parentage of this phrase, as others may make competing claims to it, like the writer cited in this article from 2019: https://fcpp.org/2019/05/06/tonic-masculinity/
You know that it isn't about that, right Daniel? I think that you, along with most or all of the others, read and admire Charles Eisenstein. What if he'd ended the article I quoted with "This is tonic masculinity." Can you imagine Jay commenting, "Stealing that!" and then posting as if it was his own invention? Of course not.
This phrase I coined was, in a sense, in collaboration with Charles and his representation of a quality of which he said, "Without the kind of healing I am seeing here, this world has no chance." My phrase was created to capture that healing, without which the world has no chance. I agree with Charles about that. So it was worth defending that idea even though I knew that it would make me very unpopular.
I credited Jay with it, unaware he had gotten it from you. I will go back and amend that part of what I wrote, now that I know the backstory of where Jay got it. But I'm really not sure what your point is. Obviously the phrase itself has been in use for a while before you or Eisenstein or any of us wrote about it. Are you claiming ownership of it in spite of that? Or do you think we ripped off your ideas? But then you seem upset that our own takes on "tonic masculinity" were at odds with your own, indicating that you are upset that we did *not* use your ideas. So I'm honestly not sure what the issue is.
Let me give an example. Let's say I was the person who coined 'regenerative agriculture'. Monsanto's PR lackeys come along and say it means chemically enhanced GMOs that grow better. As someone who believes in the concept that I captured with the term regenerative ag, I'd want people to steal my idea and my term all day and night and never give me credit because I want a world that gets restored. But when Monsanto takes my term and makes it mean the opposite, they're destroying the concept I coined the term to promote. That's immoral. Ideas are meant to be stolen and only add by it. This group has stolen the term and destroyed the concept it encapsulated.
But how can you realistically claim to have coined a term that was already in use several years before you claim to have first used it? I mean, maybe you're responsible for Jay Rollins hearing of it, but a regular Google search will show you that others used the term before you had your discussion with Eisenstein about it, so you can't be the originator of the term.
I honestly have zero idea who Charles Einstein is. Part of that is that I am really bad with names, and I probably forgot that you mentioned his, but I have never read him to my knowledge.
About the Longhouse, I feel I must defend Frog Twitter's honor against charges of genocide enjoyment. The metaphor is entirely unrelated to the Iroquois Confederation; Amerindians aren't much of a topic of conversation at all, really, and when they're brought up at all in a historical context in those circles it's generally in a positive light.
The metaphor rather originated in reference to the neolithic farming cultures of Europe, who - according to some narratives - were a goddess-worshipping, matrifocal culture. The Longhouse then becomes a symbol for the gynocratic society that crushes the spirits of its young men, lest they upset the order, and thereby achieves cultural stasis at the expense of vitality. Of course this also makes such a culture quite defenseless, and so they were displaced via conquest by the Aryan invasion from the steppe, with the Aryan religion being focused on Dyeus Pater, the Sky Father, reflecting their patriarchal warrior culture.
This is almost certainly a mythologized account, which may or may not have any resemblance to the actual historical cultures of Bronze Age Europe. However this is the sense in which the Longhouse must be understood - as an articulation of one of the two founding tendencies in European culture itself. It's got nothing at all to do with the Iroquois.
Crush the spirit of the young men - LOL you mean demand they behave HUMAN and not like male apes? Aryan raiders were adolescent psychopaths - warriors and gay/homosocial priests to sing their praises as they slaughtered HUMANS and regressed to HOMO APIAN
I think the point you're making, Jerome, is that you disagree with tonic masculinity, as I described it in the comment that inspired Jay to use it. That's perfectly legit. If the group had launched a movement called "Here's Why Tonic Masculinity Isn't" and argued against my concept, that would have been great. But instead the group appropriated the term as if they'd thought of it and could define it any way they wanted.
If you notice a pattern in these comments, women and non-aggressive men, who you might find feminized, find that unethical. It might even be that they'd call it toxic, something that poisons the relationships between people by not caring who's hurt by it and what anyone else thinks, and who's stepped on, as long as it serves the ego.
John's most popular post was his one on Tonic Masculinity. The group was interviewed as 'the Tonic 7'. Presumably their ideas were the same before they used the phrase, but it's the phrase that brought the interest in their ideas, not the other way around. That's being a fraud, not being collaborative and building on a newly-minted concept. If you don't agree with the idea, don't use the term. That would be the ethical decision.
I am all for right and ethical action in my work here, Tereza. You gave us what you think Tonic means in relation to masculinity. I appreciate that. I thank you for that. I see value in that. I agree that without prioritizing children, we have no future as a people.
In my judgement, Tonic Masculine men have a different perspective on life than Tonic Feminine women. We men look outward to face the threats in world, while you women look inward to the family. When we see things that you don't see (like what Tonic means), we have to go with what we see, even if it hurts your feelings when we do not conform to your feminine notions of what is Tonic in the masculine.
I am willing to listen to women. I appreciate that they see things I don't see. I've listened to you at considerable length, and have gained insights from your sharing your perspective. And you are not man. You do not see what I see. If we are to avoid the slave future the pathocracy imagines for us, we can't let ego get in the way of identifying truth.
I appreciate you listening to me at considerable length, Jerome, and responding. No one here has hurt my feelings. I would never have the courage to take the stands that I do (if you've seen my 10 episodes exposing the leader of the anti-vax movement as a CIA plant) if I looked to the online world for emotional validation. I'm not irate or angry, as Daniel has said. If it wasn't a matter of so much importance in changing the destructive direction of the world, I'd let this go in a heartbeat.
My areas of research for the last dozen years have been global economics and geopolitics. That seems about as outward-facing as you can get. Many women, when I talk about economics, say 'my mind doesn't work that way.' I tell them that it needs to, if their children will have a chance. 3500 yrs of male-dominated economics has gotten us where we are.
I didn't give you what I think tonic means, I defined tonic masculinity when I coined the term, as it's been picked up by this group. There's no such thing as tonic femininity. No one I know has ever proposed that as a concept. Toxic femininity isn't part of the lexicon, although it seems like this group might have some opinions on it.
Similar to my response to Jay, it seems like you're claiming to be the arbiter of truth, Jerome, for what my phrase means. It's not about masculine vs. feminine, it's about tonic vs. toxic. Certainly women have defined what toxic masculinity is. I'm all for you defining masculinity, defining healthy masculinity, proper masculinity. You're the authority when you're the author. To supplant the author and claim to be the final authority over their work seems like ... ego.
I seek Truth. I seek the continuation of my People. You are the author of your words. In my sense-making, I will not limit my definition of Tonic Masculinity to what you think it means.
Thanks for your generosity in reposting my comment, Jay. I think it's for readers to decide whether your dismissal was 'entirely appropriate' and 'entirely polite.' Without knowing what you were responding to, that's more difficult.
I wouldn't say that I 'forgot the content of said grievance' unless you think what I actually wrote is substantively different than what I summarized in my post. I had spent a considerable amount of time thinking about how to word it to give the best chance of not offending. And I'm still glad I did spend that time because then I knew you (and likely the others) were going to take offense no matter how I worded it, so I might as well be direct.
When you wrote "stealing that" and I gave you my blessing, you didn't specify that you were only stealing the last two words devoid of the meaning I'd given them. Had you stolen and expanded on my concept, I would have been delighted even if you'd never mentioned me again.
Ideas only increase by someone taking them, it's like taking a branch from a tree and grafting it onto your own root stock, your way of thinking. What you did was say, hey, that looks like a tree with some vigor, and pulled it up by the roots then grafted your own ideas onto it. It destroyed the idea and used the stock phrase to promote an entirely different, and I think opposite, idea.
I'm absolutely not trying to define healthy masculinity, or proper masculinity as Doc phrases it. Those are entirely things I leave up to you, the way I think that feminine intelligence shouldn't be defined by a man. But the word tonic only works because it's the inverse of toxic. And I don't think you or your group recognizes what's toxic.
For instance, you speak in declarative sentences, telling me what I've done and why I did it as if that's just a fact. You declare your own actions blameless--just a fact. You give me orders like 'don't cast aspersions...' so that your ethics are off-limits for me to question. You tell me what this is about, call me bonkers, imply that my 'belated recognition' of the popularity of my term is about monetizing it.
And it's clear to me that you have no idea how offensive your statements are. It's an entirely unconscious reflex. You don't see how you're being dominating, competitive, arrogant, and even violent. You don't recognize when you're making threats and if I perceive them that way, you tell me not to do it again and that I'm 'cheapening the project I claim to care about.' You've made tonic into a fig leaf for toxicity.
The theft and inversion of women's ideas (IP) by men is the bane of our human history. LOL this is HIS house. LOLOL. What a bully and frat boy. The very kind of male they grew up disdaining until they could become keyboard bully boyz themselves. KEEP SPEAKING UP against this PARASITISM.
Tereza, fair points but ultimately to me as a male, family man etc - meh! WHO CARES? Also Candice is a sock puppet. Do you know who her husband and father in law are?
No I don't, who are they? Before I did Substack, I did a response to Russell Brand's interview of her. What I responded to was purely what she said and I talk about why it made sense, especially her use of historical facts and data. The next interview Russell did was of Kehinde Andrews and I found him full of empty hot air. Here's the description of that video:
Russell Brand has a vigorous debate with Candace Owens where they jest, they joust, they hold hands and they redesign the system on a yellow pad. Russell's next interview, Kehinde Andrews, calls Candace contradictory, wrapped around a bubble, an empty void, like talking down a hole, belongs on a plantation, crazy ideas, dangerous nonsense, irrational, ridiculously delusional, and a black face on white racism. Who's right? I present their positions and solutions, and then show how we could enable Kehindeville, Russelltopia and Candaceland, along with my own system of community reciprocity: https://youtu.be/fDWVGdExV-A
Husband is George Farmer, former UK Turning Point Chairman and CEO of Parler, son of Lord Baron Michael Farmer, City of London metals trader. Candace talks a good game
Good point. Marrying into money doesn't contradict any of the points she makes, which again seemed very similar to Aly. They both think there should be more practical advice and less patronizing wokism. Candace had a lot of good stats on how the welfare system discourages families from living with fathers in the home. I think that Aly, as someone drawn to stats and policies, would appreciate her view.
WOMEN care. ALL their ideas have been STOLEN and inverted by sociopathic men who regressed our species to Homo ApeIan. Which is why were are where we are now.
This back-story is fascinating, Tereza. I intend to attempt to call this to those of the 'tonic 7' that I may be able to reach.
Turns out, the ones I spoke with don't think they took "your" concept.
They like the term and choose to associate it with meaning they think most important, meanings that are not those you attribute to these men.
In my map, they want The Good, The Beautiful, The True: Western Civilization to survive and thrive. They intend to use the term Tonic Masculinity to help achieve those goals. They reject embracing the definition(s) you promote here.
(e.g. one commenter suggested boys should be taken from their mothers and raised by men after ~age 7.)
Yes, that's absolutely true. They took the term they liked and left the concept that they didn't along with any mention that the term wasn't theirs. How is that not hijacking my phrase and driving it in a different direction? If they had a different concept, they should coin their own term to describe it.
A friendly reminder: https://fcpp.org/2019/05/06/tonic-masculinity/
Is that where you got it from, Harrison? Or did the nine of you spontaneously come up with it together? How did it occur to you personally to use it in your fine article, which I didn't get a chance to respond to? I loved that you used etymology in it, and went back to the original meanings of tonic. There's been a celebration of tonic masculinity as a team sport, as Mark said. All of you are very appreciative of every post that your article builds on. It's a very thriving intersection.
That's why NOT mentioning me is so notable. In your article, you write, "Enter tonicity. If you haven’t checked out Carter’s piece, or Jay Rollins’s which inspired it, do so now." Why did all that stop when you realized a woman had invented the phrase? Before that, each new article harkened back to what went before. And then your very first response when I showed the lineage from Jay was, "Hey, you don't own that. Somebody thought of it before."
I think it's an embarrassment that the phrase came from a woman. And that's very telling for how you've all defined it--not something that heals the relationships between men and women but helps "males adrift in a Sargasso sea of impotent faggotry" as you quote from John. You're turning healing into hatred, and that's the opposite of how it was meant.
Do you know who coined the phrase toxic masculinity?
You're answering my question with a question. Did you come up spontaneously with the term or get it from Jay and John, attributing it to them?
Men have been stealing women's IP and making it their own and deluding themselves that they came up with it since the Indo-European sociopaths took over human/matrilineal civilization. It's second nature now.
Tereza, speaking only for myself, I had no idea that you were the one Jay got the phrase from.
As to your personal definition of the term - no one is stopping you from writing about it and expanding on it. I've given my perspective, others have given theirs, and those are not your perspectives. Another commenter in this thread wrote a very good essay, offering her own perspective, which we read with interest.
Tereza, I was not aware that you coined the phrase "tonic masculinity." I added my own perspectives and perception to the concept in a two-part article on my Stack (although I have only posted Part 1 so far). Will you share a link to your initial post on tonic masculinity? If so, I will add it to my "Part 2" before posting.
What a beautiful post, Sharine! I love your straightforward description of right and wrong in the natural law. Here are my posts, in order, on Tonic Masculinity, please use whatever fits with your theme: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-feminine-wiles
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-the-mad-hatter
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/men-and-women-and-the-tonic-tilt
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-sacred-masculine
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-tonic-gnostic
Thank you, Tereza!
I'm looking forward to that essay's conclusion. I found Part 1 quite intriguing.
Thanks, John. I'm still twiddling with Part 2. Could be a week or more. I was the [returning adult] college student who was required to do 15-page research papers with 15 references, and my papers were like double that, haha. Well, it's my love of research for the sake of truth-seeking *and* my love of writing. Know anyone else like that?!?!
*raises hand*
Everyone else in uni: "How will I ever write 10 whole pages?"
Me in uni: "Fuck how am I gonna keep it under 10 pages?"
The article of mine that you referenced was not about tonic masculinity, but about identity in general. Just as I appropriated the term ‘intersectionality’, I appropriated your conception of tonic as a contrast to toxic. I knew that Jay drew this term from you because he said so explicitly in his initial article on the subject. In the only paragraph in my article in which I reference tonic masculinity I link to Jay’s article, which I thought would be sufficient. I can see now that this assumption was unfounded. To correct the record I left a detailed footnote crediting you with the genesis of the term tonic as it pertains to my usage of the term as a virtuous contrasting adjective to toxic viciousness at the end of the paragraph in question.
As to the content of your article, there is something that really stood out to me that I’d like to comment on. You attempt to characterize the Tonic 7’s conception of ‘tonic masculinity’, a complex topic based on the intersection of abstract concepts like identity, virtue, vice, purpose, and meaning based on observing a casual hour-long conversation between 8 participants. While I understand that it is difficult if not impossible to appreciate situated within the longhouse, just because we’ve identified ourselves as a group does not mean that there is any kind of consensus between us on this topic or any other. If I had to identify one thing that we all agree on, it is that searching for truth is good, and that it is always best to attempt to know and understand truth regardless of the consequences. Even there we may have some disagreement among us. To tell you the truth, I don’t think any of us are particularly interested in masculinity as a topic of focus at this point, although it is no doubt related to the ongoing spiritual crisis we are all grappling with to one extent or another. I feel compelled to point this out because I hope that it clarifies something that might interest you. We don’t need to agree with each other as to what ‘tonic masculinity’ is to be on the same side. I’ve read several of your articles and especially enjoy the one on the history of the constitutional convention. I have little doubt we are on the same side. I also have little doubt we will ever agree about the ‘true’ meaning of the term I am happy to credit you with coining. I believe what is optimally ‘tonic’ in any given circumstance varies just as widely as nature itself. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions for humanity, even ones that sound great like focusing on the children.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on my tonic intersectionality piece that you referenced, because it is only tangentially related to masculinity.
Hi, Grant. Thanks for responding, I haven't had much chance to interact with you and I appreciate it! I looked again at Jay's initial post and I don't see any reference to me. Let me know if I'm missing it: https://www.wonderlandrules.com/p/tate-modern. I think I first brought it up in the comments on Doc Hammer's, because I was already subscribed to him due to our common admiration for Guttermouth. I couldn't comment on some of the others without being a subscriber so that was where I brought it up.
I'm so glad you brought up spirituality and that you'd still like to hear my thoughts on your essay on tonic intersectionality. I hadn't read it yet because I was responding in the order they were written (although I think I mixed up Luc and Harrison). It's a very interesting concept.
My primary focuses are on bringing about a feminine economy, where the purpose of our labor is to serve families and communities, and a feminine spirituality. The latter I define as entertaining the possibility that we are, as the mystics say, One consciousness. What's anathema to that is believing we're superior to other people--I don't want to think I'm one with someone I think I'm better than. So I define my one dogma as believing I'm no better than anyone else.
The common thread that I hear in the discussion, particularly coming from 'John,' is superiority, and that's the idea that's 'toxic' or poison to a feminine spirituality of Oneness. If that's heard within a frame of competition, it seems like I'm trying to make women better than men by making them 'more' equal. But the Western system for the last 3500 yrs has been hierarchical, which in itself is a masculine system of dominance. That's how I define toxicity.
What I said in my first comments was that I didn't want ownership, I wanted to be part of the conversation. I feel like my articles, which have been respectful and engaging, backed up my statement in good faith. But in return, my authority as author has been disappeared. Rather than articles in which others start with my definition, both in the comment where I coined it and the Eisenstein article I responded to, and explain how they differ, I'm taking them as the authority on the term I defined.
When you write about intersectionality, you start with a commonly understood definition, I assume. I don't know the term myself, but I'd guess you're speaking to an audience who does. And then you're giving your take on it and how it differs by adding the word 'tonic'. You're not looking at the word as a blank slate you just made up to describe whatever you want. But that's what's being done with my term.
And I also appreciate you reading my other pieces and saying we're on the same side. That's what I was hoping for because it's an admirable group of men and every time I've read something, I'm reminded that I don't want to alienate this group of fine men and the endeavor to support each other, which the world needs.
You're right, I must have been confused remembering your first article where you highlighted Jay's comment (if I even recall that correctly, I read a lot of substack articles). I updated the footnote to reflect.
Regarding hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, my views are somewhat different, and I'm not sure that you characterize John's views accurately. I believe that value is subjective, so being better or worse is always relative to flesh and blood human beings who can only make such determinations for themselves. It logically follows then that nobody is objectively better or worse than anyone else, so in that sense, I agree with you. On the other hand, I certainly appreciate and value some people for a wide variety of reasons while I there are others that I feel pretty much the opposite about.
Your primary focus is to shape the world in a certain way. I don’t think anyone has the wisdom to provide a prescription for the world, which is why I advocate for a multipolarity internationally and a sort of federalist populism at home. I use tonic and toxic differently as well as it pertains to identity.
With respect to authority and being a part of the conversation, I believe these things are only legitimized by voluntary consent. You have no a priori claim to respect, attention, authority, deference, or consideration for the usage of these terms or anything else, nor do I. These things must be earned. I find attempts to cloak desires for recognition with appeals to propriety off putting. I presume this is merely a product of my nature. I prefer to engage in the world of ideas as a prestige hierarchy. I allocate attention based on appreciation and admiration for excellence. I don’t care who came up with what first. I only care who can deliver excellent ideas with which to engage. I also don’t expect anyone to read or recommend my shit if they don’t think it is worth their time.
Hi, Grant. Let me clarify what I mean as my primary focus. It's not to tell other people how they should shape their families or communities. It's to provide the tools so that families and communities can decide how to shape themselves. I think we're in agreement about multipolarity internationally and a federal populism at home. I couldn't have put that better. I'm certain we agree that our current economic and political systems aren't that. So my book, How to Dismantle an Empire, looks at the system change that could enable that with the least amount of disruption.
I think the group is caught with two contradictory ideas. One, my phrase is not worth very much, didn't really take anything to think up, doesn't buy any claim on respect or authority as the author, or consideration for how I defined it. It earned me nothing, and my laying claim to it is simply a desire for recognition. Two, this phrase is so valuable and has brought so much recognition and attention to the nine of you and your ideas that you can't come up with another phrase that's as good.
You can't really have it both ways. If it's nothing, write your own damn phrase. You're nine excellent writers. If the attention and recognition you're getting has nothing to do with my phrase and is all about your ideas, showcase your ideas with your own phrase. But if you're unwilling to give up my phrase because it's the catalyst for publicizing your ideas, don't try to pretend to me that it's nothing. If you're going to diss my ideas in your prestige hierarchy, don't steal them first. You 'allocate attention based on appreciation and admiration for excellence' but don't care who came up with what first. You're saying tonic masculinity is an excellent term that spontaneously combusted out of nothing. If it's not an excellent term, write your own. If it is, so is its author.
I don't think the phrase has inherent value. The phrase tonic masculinity isn't what is useful or interesting, it is the definition my boys provided for it that makes it useful and interesting, at least from my perspective. I think I just said I wasn't impressed with it until I read Harrison's article, which should give you an idea about how I value ideas. This extends to intellectual property which I'm quite skeptical of. I don't expect you to agree, but ideas aren't worth anything to me until they are transformed into something useful. In this case, I think the only thing that makes tonic masculinity useful is as a heuristic to facilitate the harnessing of innate character strengths and personality variables to cultivate virtue, which can easily be abstracted beyond masculinity (which is what my article was about).
Words get defined by common usage, and what that common usage ends up being is determined in the marketplace of ideas. Even if you inspired focus on this particular grammatical construction, you didn't invent it, Janice Fiamengo apparently did many years ago. In any case, your contribution in terms of inspiration is not nothing. It mattered, at least to me, and that is why I now credit you in the one place I tangentially mention tonic masculinity in text online, because it didn't cost me anything to do so but time. It would be costly to continually credit you going forward though, because we're essentially competing in the marketplace of ideas to influence common usage. If you want to have any chance of winning you should focus on making a compelling case as to why your preferred usage of the term is superior instead of focusing on issues of propriety. I would say something cheeky like "it's our term now, come and take it" but the fact of the matter is, I don't think any of us have any desire to continue to talk about masculinity. We've all said our piece and moved on. That is why we are the Tonic 7 and not the 'tonically masculine 7'. Is it safe for me to assume that you don't claim the word 'tonic' as your own?
Grant, I find that you are smoothly trying to deny Tereza’s claim, smoothly and dishonestly. She WAS written out of its history and denied citation. She DOES have a right to citation. When you admit that she was right in that Jay did NOT cite her, I noticed that you did not overt that. You smoothly said - you were right but not what Tereza was right about. Let me use a word that I like when referring to men. I love a gentleman who is loving, gentle with the weaker, chivalrous and protective when necessary. Ask yourself and your bros if you behaved like gentlemen with regard to your treatment of Tereza. You did not. She does deserve citation and attribution. What you do with the phrase is your business thereafter.
I only use the term "tonic masculinity" once on my blog. I didn't cite her because I thought Jay did. I was wrong, so I went back to that one place where I use the term and added a footnote to remedy this oversight. My friends and I are perfect gentlemen with a sober and judicious comportment. To suggest otherwise is an affront to reason. I appreciate your stance, which is why I made the effort to, as you say, write Tereza into the history of my usage of the term. Know that Tereza doesn't agree with you, she doesn't think it is our business to use the term unless we also adopt her preferred definition.
Thank you for birthing this term and thank you for standing by it despite the interlopers and ransackers.
I still think about writing about this concept when I have time but I am at 6 days a week, 12 hours a day for my day job and tryna sort out my book self-publishing and garden so I am stretched a bit thin for the moment.
Wishing you a spring time filled with fragrant blossoms, verdant forests and germinating seeds full of potential.
Thanks also for the likes on my I Like to Fight comments. You're a breath of fresh air, Gavin. And I look forward to your article whenever time allows. I don't know if you ever read William Hunter Duncan's post on Sacred Masculine, but I think you'd relate. He's eagerly digging up ground still frozen and has starts and sprouts crowding every corner!
I am not sure your reading (listening?) of the Tonic 7 episode is quite accurate. I do not take away quite the same things as you seem to. Although I agree that there is a great deal of difference in how we all approach the topic, I don’t think anyone is describing misogynists just a hair short of psychopathy as tonically masculine. :)
It is fair to say there is a bit of frustration with the over feminization of society. I would describe that as a mix of applying the blank slate model of humans to all institutions as though men and women do not have different proclivities and needs, and a bleeding of a toxic femininity into all realms of western life. Others might describe it differently, but it is not anti-woman any more than being anti-violent crime makes you anti-man.
Also, apologies for failing to reference you as the originator of the term. I am not in the habit of attributing phrases to particular people , but I could probably stand to do it more.
I really appreciate the apology, Doc. And I mean that sincerely.
I AM in the habit of attributing phrases and whatever, it's common courtesy.
I wonder who first used the phrase "common courtesy."
lol.
Hi, Doc. I was taking notes while I was painting but John did say that toxic masculinity was the absence of masculinity or when it 'went a little bit too far' and you had a serial killer. Now, was John kidding? Of course. Yet it remains that no one is defining what toxic masculinity is, in order to differentiate tonic. The focus of the group is how masculinity differentiates itself from femininity. So it has nothing to do with tonic or healing, and is a VERY long way from men dying--or living--to protect the one they love or life itself. It's become watered down and twisted.
It was Grant who said that the indirect competition that women bring to society allows psychopaths to enter. And it was your statement that it's going to be a man who stands up and says, "This is wrong." To use my term and change its meaning is wrong. You can do it and I can't stop you, but it's wrong.
I think John was making a reference to Aristotle's notion that every virtue exists between two vices, one from the lack and one of the overabundance of the virtue. In this case proper masculinity is being willing and able to do violence to stand up for what is right, the over abundance being excessive violence of a serial killer. (I was myself thinking of the Hercules myth there instead of a serial killer, but I don't think I said anything about it.)
I kind of see what you mean about the focus drifting towards separating masculinity from femininity, but I think that was less about "women bad" than "making men act like women is bad (and vice versa)." The differences between how men and women tend to act are important and necessary for men and women's cooperation, and forcing one to be more like the other than their nature inclines them is going to cause them problems and lead to vice. For example, men are more disagreeable (in the personality trait sense) than women, so, yes, on average when there is an unpopular thing that needs said at personal risk, it will be a man saying it. Trying to beat that tendency out of men because it is deemed too "confrontational" is bad for men and bad for society. Yet that is exactly what our highly feminized school system and corporate HR systems try to do. It is about as sensible as forcing women to abandon their motherly roles and tromp off to the office a few weeks after giving birth.
I am going to politely push back on it being a case of misusing your term on two counts. Firstly it was used before, and no one to my knowledge said anything along the lines of "Tereza C. uses the term tonic masculinity to mean X, Y and Z" contrary to how you used it. Secondly, and I think more importantly, understanding what it is to be tonically masculine, to be a healing man, is a large exploratory project to discover what is, not simply what you said it was. Your definition is a good start, although its implications sound a little like "men are expendable" if one isn't careful, but it certainly isn't the end point, anymore than an early astronomer's definition of orbital rings is the end all, be all definition.
Finally, if we didn't sufficiently define "toxic masculinity" it is only because there is no clear definition other than "Whatever wailing Twitter blue checks don't like" or perhaps "Anything your great grandfather would have considered normal masculine behavior." Perhaps Jim Austen here has a definition worked out he would like to share.
I think that's a great way to distinguish the two, Doc:
"proper masculinity, as defined by ___ is being willing and able to do violence to stand up for what is right, the over abundance being excessive violence of a serial killer."
Tonic masculinity, as defined by Tereza Coraggio and inspired by Charles Eisenstein, is: [to] offer his life to protect what he loves, to protect life itself.
--one who is willing, if need be, to die.
--Courage and not violence defines him.
--the willingness to put everything on the line, to offer even one’s own body and all the ego holds precious, in service to life.
--who are willing to risk themselves to change all that.
I'll repeat what I said to Daniel below:
I think that you, along with most or all of the others, read and admire Charles Eisenstein. What if he'd ended the article I quoted with "This is tonic masculinity." Can you imagine Jay commenting, "Stealing that!" and then posting as if it was his own invention? And changing what Charles meant into a near-opposite? Of course not.
This phrase I coined was, in a sense, in collaboration with Charles and his representation of a quality of which he said, "Without the kind of healing I am seeing here, this world has no chance." My phrase was created to capture that healing, without which the world has no chance. I agree with Charles about that. So it was worth defending that idea even though I knew that it would make me very unpopular.
I honestly have no idea who Charles Einstein is, or what he has written. Does he use a pseudonym or something on Substack here, and I subscribe without knowing him?
I can imagine Jay taking a term he likes and using it as he sees fit. He's a "I'm taking this back from the haters" kind of guy. I don't know about the rest though.
I do think it is a good pairing of words, although I suppose "healthy masculinity" could do as well, though it lacks the obvious counter point to "toxic masculinity". Yet again I would point out that it is a handle for a really big concept, one that has not entirely or even mostly been worked out. I am not so sure I would say Jay means the near-opposite of what you say, but again I can't speak to what Charles apparently said. I think there is room both for your points and Jay's within the concept, though it might prove otherwise.
Thanks, Doc. That is indeed what I meant, stated in a more measured tone than my usual poetic hyperbole.
You mean the HUMANIZATION of male apes? The feminization of the male ape IS what defines our species lol. Can't have it both ways, although too many men try - and that's why we are in endless war cycle/destruction of the living environment. Grow up and get out of the adolescent Aryan raider stage.
I'm sorry, I honestly can't tell if you are sincere or a satire or parody of the stated position. I've been trying, but it could go either way.
To take it seriously for a moment, I think you will find that female apes such as chimps are remarkably violent as well. Although it seems to be true that humans have rather less sexual dimorphism compared to other wild animals, in a fashion similar to that seen by domesticated animals, it is not obviously the case that the result was making males more feminine. Docility is not an inherently male or female trait across species.
I cant tell whether you're kidding or not. Ever heard of bonobos? Every heard of maternal care and oxytocin, which decreased the testosterone in the male primate. Females domesticated male apes and some unfortunately cant match the emotional/social intelligence needed to be Human. Unless you still think Humans are apes who makes tools? Female mammals have have always been the peacemakers/nurturers/social educators. Women dont do war, male apes do.
Oh dear, you are serious? Yet you can't be unaware that bonobos have males and females, solve problems with sexual aggression, and are extant only in a comparatively tiny inaccessible region, suggesting their way of life is hardly adaptive to the world at large. Surely you are aware that wasps, ants, termites, dolphins, orca, lions all have very aggressive females, just to name a few.
Not to mention that many apes, as well as other species, make tools. What is particularly strange is your definition of "Human" that seems to include only half the species. It is things like that what make me think you are a rather over the top satire.
But bonobos dont solve problems with sexual aggression - you have it backwards. Can you please give me a citation for that? Bonobo females bond to STOP MALE sexual/aggression. We are talking about humans here I thought - not insects - and female mammals, who bond with and help create their baby's brains. Yes, females can be aggressive but it's to PROTECT LIFE, not to DOMinate others to spread their seed. Nor do they do gang violence for personal/progeny gain.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but that was the sine qua non of "what makes us human" in evo bio until fairly recently, when men had full reign of The Science - I call it the bro Home Depot theory of human. When women started to make headway in science, the story had to change to reflect the evidence. Neoteny and maternal care/oxytocin, coupled with Maternal Culture, made male apes Human. Yes, we are a Maternalized species. No other group of male apes can get along like Humen, nor take care of offspring, cooperate for so long without ripping penises off. Or focus on other goals besides sex and violence. That's all from maternalized males.
Wow. Are these the pickup lines you use at feminist rallies?
Look up meerkats. The head females are brutal towards the other female members of their pack that become pregnant, typically to the point of causing miscarriages. There is a lot of aggression to end life. Dolphins and orcas both male and female habitually brutalize other animals such as seals or porpoises not to eat them but apparently just because it is fun. Naked mole rats are another fun times female dominated society, although so strange it is hard to make parallels.
Animals are horrible by human standards. The smarter they are, the more horrific.
“it’s clear to me that we need to heal the heart of the world. It will take women and men together to do that, especially men like these who are complex, original thinkers and excellent writers.”
Beautifully said ❤️
That was the original title of the essay I'd been contemplating, Healing the Heart of the World. And my original intent was to say how much we need men like the Tonic 9, I think it's up to, using their skills and courage to stand up for mothers, those who are and those who would be. I think I'll keep it in the queue. Thank you for saying that, Michael.
Another Hy-jacking of A beautiful thing described by you and the fellow you commented on. Maybe the way you defined it was catching on. Highest form of love, imo to give your life for someone else. At the very least, these guys must be young, they don't sound mature and at worst sinister.
Well, we tangled with JR, who put you on blast for the "Forgive Hitler" video. After watching a bit, it was clear he hadn't, and we returned to let him know he'd misconstrued your point. He promptly shit his pants, and it went around for entirely too many posts. He's kind of incapable of working with nuance, from what we saw.
https://substack.com/profile/3453525-jay-rollins/note/c-14769981
Then he posted this, clearly in reaction to this encounter:
"There's a point where you say “Okay. I'm done here.”
I reached that point this morning, when I found myself arguing with another Substacker over something so ridiculous I would be hard-pressed to explain it to anyone who doesn't spend all their waking hours online."
https://www.wonderlandrules.com/p/hitting-pause
Imagine having your mind blown that hard by a simple disagreement that you actually need to leave the platform. Unfortunately, he probably still thinks we're the crazy ones.
Oh! I wondered why Forgiving Hitler was suddenly getting hits. I'm so pleased you brought in Thich Nhat Hahn, one of the people I most admire! I quoted that same poem somewhere and was accused of 'spiritual bypassing.' It's interesting, isn't it, that the degree of condemnation for a dead person (as Word Herder says) is supposed to convey something about our own moral superiority. Now, if you were doing that in Germany in WWII, YES you deserve credit. But jumping on the most popular face-of-evil bandwagon on the planet? Why does that make you brave?
Thank you for defending my honor/ nuance. One of my YT viewers who I most admire (among many) said it was her favorite of my episodes. And she had had to come to terms with the sexual abuse of her brother, with Down's syndrome, by a caregiver, after which he was never the same. If she, and Thich Nhat Hahn can find forgiveness, who is Jay to ridicule it?
And I thought Jay was hitting pause from the TM discussion, but it seems one and the same.
We were very surprised when we actually saw the video and upset that he'd framed it this way. You'd really gone out on a limb to say some really uncomfortable things that resonated, and felt that he was attempting an act of cancel culture.
It was amusing to see him melt down so hard over it, but also sad. Such a simple idea, but it takes a sense of cosmic fairness to embrace.
If I had done that video only for you to come to that understanding, it would have been well worth it. Yes, I chose my title to be intentionally provocative. On both a spiritual and historical level (aka propaganda) I wanted my example to be the person most unanimously condemned. And yes, I wanted to go way out on that limb and challenge the viewer to tell me why my logic wasn't sturdy.
I'm going to bring this concept up in the next episode, and I can only be grateful to Jay for bringing it to your (and others') attention.
I didn't know about your interactions with Jay concerning this term, which regretfully seem to have taken an unpleasant turn. Looks like we would all owe royalties for using this term to you, should you decide to copyright it, though it looks you may run into problems establishing your parentage of this phrase, as others may make competing claims to it, like the writer cited in this article from 2019: https://fcpp.org/2019/05/06/tonic-masculinity/
You know that it isn't about that, right Daniel? I think that you, along with most or all of the others, read and admire Charles Eisenstein. What if he'd ended the article I quoted with "This is tonic masculinity." Can you imagine Jay commenting, "Stealing that!" and then posting as if it was his own invention? Of course not.
This phrase I coined was, in a sense, in collaboration with Charles and his representation of a quality of which he said, "Without the kind of healing I am seeing here, this world has no chance." My phrase was created to capture that healing, without which the world has no chance. I agree with Charles about that. So it was worth defending that idea even though I knew that it would make me very unpopular.
I credited Jay with it, unaware he had gotten it from you. I will go back and amend that part of what I wrote, now that I know the backstory of where Jay got it. But I'm really not sure what your point is. Obviously the phrase itself has been in use for a while before you or Eisenstein or any of us wrote about it. Are you claiming ownership of it in spite of that? Or do you think we ripped off your ideas? But then you seem upset that our own takes on "tonic masculinity" were at odds with your own, indicating that you are upset that we did *not* use your ideas. So I'm honestly not sure what the issue is.
Let me give an example. Let's say I was the person who coined 'regenerative agriculture'. Monsanto's PR lackeys come along and say it means chemically enhanced GMOs that grow better. As someone who believes in the concept that I captured with the term regenerative ag, I'd want people to steal my idea and my term all day and night and never give me credit because I want a world that gets restored. But when Monsanto takes my term and makes it mean the opposite, they're destroying the concept I coined the term to promote. That's immoral. Ideas are meant to be stolen and only add by it. This group has stolen the term and destroyed the concept it encapsulated.
But how can you realistically claim to have coined a term that was already in use several years before you claim to have first used it? I mean, maybe you're responsible for Jay Rollins hearing of it, but a regular Google search will show you that others used the term before you had your discussion with Eisenstein about it, so you can't be the originator of the term.
I honestly have zero idea who Charles Einstein is. Part of that is that I am really bad with names, and I probably forgot that you mentioned his, but I have never read him to my knowledge.
Eisenstein's great. Fantastic writer and a deep and nuanced thinker.
Never read Charles Eisenstein? Well, you’re in for a treat.
What a saga!
About the Longhouse, I feel I must defend Frog Twitter's honor against charges of genocide enjoyment. The metaphor is entirely unrelated to the Iroquois Confederation; Amerindians aren't much of a topic of conversation at all, really, and when they're brought up at all in a historical context in those circles it's generally in a positive light.
The metaphor rather originated in reference to the neolithic farming cultures of Europe, who - according to some narratives - were a goddess-worshipping, matrifocal culture. The Longhouse then becomes a symbol for the gynocratic society that crushes the spirits of its young men, lest they upset the order, and thereby achieves cultural stasis at the expense of vitality. Of course this also makes such a culture quite defenseless, and so they were displaced via conquest by the Aryan invasion from the steppe, with the Aryan religion being focused on Dyeus Pater, the Sky Father, reflecting their patriarchal warrior culture.
This is almost certainly a mythologized account, which may or may not have any resemblance to the actual historical cultures of Bronze Age Europe. However this is the sense in which the Longhouse must be understood - as an articulation of one of the two founding tendencies in European culture itself. It's got nothing at all to do with the Iroquois.
Crush the spirit of the young men - LOL you mean demand they behave HUMAN and not like male apes? Aryan raiders were adolescent psychopaths - warriors and gay/homosocial priests to sing their praises as they slaughtered HUMANS and regressed to HOMO APIAN
When writing such words, did you feel that you were under the influence of that which is most noble in you?
I think what we're seeing here is Stockholm Syndrome in action. He's been in the Longhouse so long, he doesn’t want to leave.
Be a weak, obedient, soy boy, date your own gender, or your toxic
May help broaden your perspective, Tereza?
https://helendale.substack.com/p/feminisation-has-consequences-i
I found it excellent, as did those who called it to my attention.
I think the point you're making, Jerome, is that you disagree with tonic masculinity, as I described it in the comment that inspired Jay to use it. That's perfectly legit. If the group had launched a movement called "Here's Why Tonic Masculinity Isn't" and argued against my concept, that would have been great. But instead the group appropriated the term as if they'd thought of it and could define it any way they wanted.
If you notice a pattern in these comments, women and non-aggressive men, who you might find feminized, find that unethical. It might even be that they'd call it toxic, something that poisons the relationships between people by not caring who's hurt by it and what anyone else thinks, and who's stepped on, as long as it serves the ego.
John's most popular post was his one on Tonic Masculinity. The group was interviewed as 'the Tonic 7'. Presumably their ideas were the same before they used the phrase, but it's the phrase that brought the interest in their ideas, not the other way around. That's being a fraud, not being collaborative and building on a newly-minted concept. If you don't agree with the idea, don't use the term. That would be the ethical decision.
I am all for right and ethical action in my work here, Tereza. You gave us what you think Tonic means in relation to masculinity. I appreciate that. I thank you for that. I see value in that. I agree that without prioritizing children, we have no future as a people.
In my judgement, Tonic Masculine men have a different perspective on life than Tonic Feminine women. We men look outward to face the threats in world, while you women look inward to the family. When we see things that you don't see (like what Tonic means), we have to go with what we see, even if it hurts your feelings when we do not conform to your feminine notions of what is Tonic in the masculine.
I am willing to listen to women. I appreciate that they see things I don't see. I've listened to you at considerable length, and have gained insights from your sharing your perspective. And you are not man. You do not see what I see. If we are to avoid the slave future the pathocracy imagines for us, we can't let ego get in the way of identifying truth.
I appreciate you listening to me at considerable length, Jerome, and responding. No one here has hurt my feelings. I would never have the courage to take the stands that I do (if you've seen my 10 episodes exposing the leader of the anti-vax movement as a CIA plant) if I looked to the online world for emotional validation. I'm not irate or angry, as Daniel has said. If it wasn't a matter of so much importance in changing the destructive direction of the world, I'd let this go in a heartbeat.
My areas of research for the last dozen years have been global economics and geopolitics. That seems about as outward-facing as you can get. Many women, when I talk about economics, say 'my mind doesn't work that way.' I tell them that it needs to, if their children will have a chance. 3500 yrs of male-dominated economics has gotten us where we are.
I didn't give you what I think tonic means, I defined tonic masculinity when I coined the term, as it's been picked up by this group. There's no such thing as tonic femininity. No one I know has ever proposed that as a concept. Toxic femininity isn't part of the lexicon, although it seems like this group might have some opinions on it.
Similar to my response to Jay, it seems like you're claiming to be the arbiter of truth, Jerome, for what my phrase means. It's not about masculine vs. feminine, it's about tonic vs. toxic. Certainly women have defined what toxic masculinity is. I'm all for you defining masculinity, defining healthy masculinity, proper masculinity. You're the authority when you're the author. To supplant the author and claim to be the final authority over their work seems like ... ego.
I seek Truth. I seek the continuation of my People. You are the author of your words. In my sense-making, I will not limit my definition of Tonic Masculinity to what you think it means.
Thanks for your generosity in reposting my comment, Jay. I think it's for readers to decide whether your dismissal was 'entirely appropriate' and 'entirely polite.' Without knowing what you were responding to, that's more difficult.
I wouldn't say that I 'forgot the content of said grievance' unless you think what I actually wrote is substantively different than what I summarized in my post. I had spent a considerable amount of time thinking about how to word it to give the best chance of not offending. And I'm still glad I did spend that time because then I knew you (and likely the others) were going to take offense no matter how I worded it, so I might as well be direct.
When you wrote "stealing that" and I gave you my blessing, you didn't specify that you were only stealing the last two words devoid of the meaning I'd given them. Had you stolen and expanded on my concept, I would have been delighted even if you'd never mentioned me again.
Ideas only increase by someone taking them, it's like taking a branch from a tree and grafting it onto your own root stock, your way of thinking. What you did was say, hey, that looks like a tree with some vigor, and pulled it up by the roots then grafted your own ideas onto it. It destroyed the idea and used the stock phrase to promote an entirely different, and I think opposite, idea.
I'm absolutely not trying to define healthy masculinity, or proper masculinity as Doc phrases it. Those are entirely things I leave up to you, the way I think that feminine intelligence shouldn't be defined by a man. But the word tonic only works because it's the inverse of toxic. And I don't think you or your group recognizes what's toxic.
For instance, you speak in declarative sentences, telling me what I've done and why I did it as if that's just a fact. You declare your own actions blameless--just a fact. You give me orders like 'don't cast aspersions...' so that your ethics are off-limits for me to question. You tell me what this is about, call me bonkers, imply that my 'belated recognition' of the popularity of my term is about monetizing it.
And it's clear to me that you have no idea how offensive your statements are. It's an entirely unconscious reflex. You don't see how you're being dominating, competitive, arrogant, and even violent. You don't recognize when you're making threats and if I perceive them that way, you tell me not to do it again and that I'm 'cheapening the project I claim to care about.' You've made tonic into a fig leaf for toxicity.
we’ve also got a significant portion of population that doesn’t want to grow up & government has been eagerly filling the void.
The theft and inversion of women's ideas (IP) by men is the bane of our human history. LOL this is HIS house. LOLOL. What a bully and frat boy. The very kind of male they grew up disdaining until they could become keyboard bully boyz themselves. KEEP SPEAKING UP against this PARASITISM.
Tereza, fair points but ultimately to me as a male, family man etc - meh! WHO CARES? Also Candice is a sock puppet. Do you know who her husband and father in law are?
No I don't, who are they? Before I did Substack, I did a response to Russell Brand's interview of her. What I responded to was purely what she said and I talk about why it made sense, especially her use of historical facts and data. The next interview Russell did was of Kehinde Andrews and I found him full of empty hot air. Here's the description of that video:
Russell Brand has a vigorous debate with Candace Owens where they jest, they joust, they hold hands and they redesign the system on a yellow pad. Russell's next interview, Kehinde Andrews, calls Candace contradictory, wrapped around a bubble, an empty void, like talking down a hole, belongs on a plantation, crazy ideas, dangerous nonsense, irrational, ridiculously delusional, and a black face on white racism. Who's right? I present their positions and solutions, and then show how we could enable Kehindeville, Russelltopia and Candaceland, along with my own system of community reciprocity: https://youtu.be/fDWVGdExV-A
Husband is George Farmer, former UK Turning Point Chairman and CEO of Parler, son of Lord Baron Michael Farmer, City of London metals trader. Candace talks a good game
Very different than the childhood she presents.
Candace Owens was not raised from childhood by her in-laws. I suspect her own upbringing was a bit different from her husband's.
Good point. Marrying into money doesn't contradict any of the points she makes, which again seemed very similar to Aly. They both think there should be more practical advice and less patronizing wokism. Candace had a lot of good stats on how the welfare system discourages families from living with fathers in the home. I think that Aly, as someone drawn to stats and policies, would appreciate her view.
WOMEN care. ALL their ideas have been STOLEN and inverted by sociopathic men who regressed our species to Homo ApeIan. Which is why were are where we are now.
who are they? I agree she's a puppet.