About a year ago, I made a video titled 'My
Nietzschean Feminism', in which I was trying
to redefine my feminism.
Liberal that I am, I always regarded myself
a feminist, someone who believes in gender
equality.
But since today's western feminism is obviously
opposed to gender equality, I had to ask myself
if I still want to define myself as such,
or just call myself an egalitarian.
I decided to keep calling myself feminist,
and I justified it by wanting to keep supporting
the feminists in the third world, especially
in the region where I live.
So I offered a version of feminism that relies
on my Nietzschean worldview.
Later, I realized that my aversion to calling
myself egalitarian is because I am Nietzschean.
I do believe in equality before the law, but
we already have that in the West, so the debate
isn't legal but cultural.
Nietzscheanism is not about being equal to
others, but about empowerment, about achieving
your potential, excelling in what makes you
unique.
So I want to support the people who are displaying
this sort of attitude.
For women, that could mean developing their
femininity, so, as a culture critic, I want
to shine a light on women who express and
develop their femininity in cultural ways,
and that is what I was doing in that video.
Meanwhile, regressive feminists keep on doing
their thing, which is to attack the positive
aspects of Western culture, and one of their
main targets is masculinity, which they are
trying to destroy.
Their logic goes something like this: masculinity
and femininity are social constructs, which
the patriarchy created.
In their nature, male and female are basically
the same, but these constructs teach them
to behave in a certain way according to their
gender, and creates a class system in which
men dominate women.
Masculinity demands of men to be emotionally
stultified, selfish, domineering, aggressive
and possessive.
It is a toxic artificial construct, which
only makes men miserable, and also drives
them to hurt women and make their lives miserable.
So we must eliminate both masculinity and
femininity, and then we will finally live
according to our shared nature and be happy.
That's the ideological position, although
I think many feminists don't really understand
it.
Many of them talk as if they believe masculinity
is bad but femininity is good, and what they
actually aspire to is eliminating only masculinity,
and teaching everyone to behave in a feminine
way.
Anyone who isn't an SJW realizes that men
and women are not the same.
There are statistical differences between
them when you look at different characteristics,
and masculinity and femininity are based on
those differences.
Nobody denies that there's also a culturally
constructed element in how we perceive masculinity
and femininity, but to think they are entirely
constructed is ridiculous.
So the attack on masculinity, the attempt
to eliminate it, is harmful, and should be
resisted.
If it was just the SJWs attacking it, it would
not be much of a problem, but there are also
a lot of passive regressives around, who are
taken for a ride and buy the idea that there
is something wrong with masculinity.
We have come to a point in which masculinity,
too, needs to be defended and empowered.
But to do that, we should be mindful of what
masculinity is and what it stands for, and
this video will attempt to shed some light
on this question.
So first of all, I'll begin with an observation.
Masculinity is not an artificial creation,
it is based on the reality of human nature.
Human nature, of course, is diverse, and every
individual is slightly different, but aggression
is part of the nature of every human, to some
extent, and human males are statistically
more naturally aggressive than females, especially
when it comes to physical aggression.
Masculinity is based on male characteristics,
but it is not an expression of our nature.
On the contrary, it is a code of conduct by
which males control their nature, and direct
it in positive, rather than harmful, directions.
A big part of the masculine code is aimed
at protecting women against the aggression
of men, whether it is other men or you yourself.
Which is why the current attack on masculinity
is dangerous to women.
Here is a warning to my female viewers: beware
of men who agree with the idea that masculinity
should be eliminated.
Some men are just not masculine by nature,
and that's fine – that's part of human diversity.
But a man who is ideologically repressing
his masculinity is a man who is not in control
of his drives, and therefore dangerous to
women.
The male sex drive and violent drive are very
powerful forces, and part of being a man is
learning how to control these forces.
The first step in learning to control them
is acknowledging that they are part of you.
Those male SJWs who think that sex and violence
are a learned thing, and can be eliminated
just by learning to think differently, are
woefully out of touch with their own nature.
Be very wary of such men.
Learning how to control our animalistic nature
is basically what human civilization is about,
and the history of humankind can be seen as
a civilizing process.
In Europe, around the end of the Middle-Ages,
the noblemen gradually stopped fighting each
other, and instead huddled together in royal
courts, and developed a court culture, which
took the civilizing process to extreme heights.
The court culture was based on manners, which
were partly about creating a more peaceful
society, but in big part it was aimed at separating
the aristocrats from the rest of humanity.
They created the concept of the gentleman,
someone who isn't like the brutish lower classes.
By the 18th century, this genteel culture
refined its manners to such an extent that
it became ridiculously delicate and prissy.
But then came the modern state, which aimed
to abolish the class differences.
In the modern state, all men are considered
gentlemen, and the state tries to refine them
and teach them the right manners.
But the lower classes regarded the aristocratic
culture as effeminate, and didn't want to
become like that.
Masculinity is, in large part, a rejection
of the attempt by the elite to force its manners
on the masses, and a celebration of male traits.
But, again, that does not mean acting like
beasts.
The modern man does want to become better
and to advance in society, and the lower classes
are no exception.
Our idea of masculinity is undergoing a perpetual
process of refinement, in which we move along
with the times and adjust our perception of
what it means to be a man.
This process has enabled the lower classes
to become more acceptable and gain a better
chance of upward mobility, and it has also
taken us away from the genteel aristocratic
ideal, and established a more masculine ideal
of man.
This process also played a big part in teaching
men to accept the growing independence of
women, and want to protect it.
And it is still ongoing.
But today's SJW feminists are completely oblivious
to these nuances, and portray masculinity
as an attitude aimed at dominating women.
Where does this position come from?
I would say that there are two main traditions
behind it.
First, it is part of the aforementioned upper-class
contempt of the culture of the lower-classes.
Being mostly upper-class, the feminists are
continuing this tradition.
But more substantially, it comes from the
erosion of Marxist-dialectic thought.
While the original Marxists were very aware
that every concept has a history of a dialectic
struggle between opposing forces defining
it, today's cultural Marxists regard society
as if it has just two forces, a dominant class
and a subordinate class, who were always basically
as they are today.
And so, they are ignorant of the fact that
masculinity is actually a rebellion against
the elites, and portray it as something that
was created by the dominant patriarchy.
Today's feminists claim to be intersectional
and speak for all underprivileged groups,
but their ignorance in this case, just like
in many other cases, makes them work against
the underprivileged.
So we need to make a stand for masculinity,
and not allow them to turn it into a dirty
word.
But while doing so, let's remember what it
is about.
Masculinity, as we pointed out, is partly
about controlling your drives and directing
them into positive and constructive directions.
Which means that masculinity should evolve
with time, and become more refined.
I am worried that in defending masculinity,
we will not agree to have it changed in any
way, even when the change is required.
Let's just continue the process of refining
masculinity, and disregard what the SJWs have
to say.
As an example of the process I am talking
about, let's take something fairly recent,
from American cinema.
The myth about Hollywood says that it is this
big liberal propaganda machine, promoting
only left-wing values.
That myth is not entirely true.
When it comes to action movies, for instance,
many of them come from a right-wing perspective.
Most of Hollywood's action movie icons have
been right-wingers, who made their fame starring
in movies written by right-wing screenwriters
and directed by right-wing directors.
Conservatives make the best action movies.
Why?
Because through these movies, they make a
stand against what they perceive as the emasculating
process enforced on us by liberal culture,
and give us models of old-fashion male heroism.
And these movies have had a massive impact
on our perception of masculinity, and what
it means to be a real man.
Let's take a look at one such movie, 1971's
Dirty Harry.
The story takes place in San Francisco, the
Hippie capital, which is troubled by a psychopath
who kills people for fun.
He has to be stopped, but the system is quite
impotent against him, because the public hates
the police, the media takes the side of the
criminal and believes his lies about police
brutality, and the authorities are working
only by the book.
Because of all that, good cops lose faith
in the system and drop out, and there's no
one to stand up to the murderer.
The film is an indictment of what liberal
values have done to America, turning it into
a haven for criminals and psychos.
San Francisco is shown as a place full of
decadence, in which people have lost their
virtuous core.
But there is still one man in town who hasn't
forgotten what it means to be a man: Inspector
Harry Callahan, a tough, stone-faced policeman,
who goes by his own rules, and doesn't hesitate
to use his gun to instill justice.
Realizing that the system is incompetent,
Harry goes on a vigilante mission to stop
the villain, answering evil ruthlessness with
righteous ruthlessness.
The odds are against him, but luckily, he
happens to be Clint Eastwood, so everything
works out in his favor.
Good old masculinity saves the day.
Let's fast forward some years, and have a
look at another action movie.
The year is 1988, and the movie is Die Hard.
This time the villain is a group of terrorists,
maybe, who have taken over a building in Los
Angeles.
Once again, we meet familiar right-wing tropes.
There's a decadent society, that is partying
away while evil people plot against it.
There's the media, that is completely unscrupulous
and cares only about getting a good story.
There's the idiot liberal, who thinks the
way to handle terrorists is to make deals
with them.
There's the incompetent police and authorities,
who work only by the book.
There's the good cop who got taken off the
streets for making a mistake.
And there's the one vigilante hero who is
a real man, Officer John McClane.
Something new we see here is the fact that
McClane is separated from his wife, because
feminism taught her to put her career above
the family.
It seems hopeless for McClane, but fortunately
he is Bruce Willis, so he singlehandedly defeats
the terrorists and wins back his wife, who
falls back into his arms after this display
of manliness.
Masculinity saves the day yet again.
But on the way there, something happens, something
we haven't seen in the previous movie.
At one point, a teary eyed McClane has an
emotional outpouring, in which he admits that
he had done his wife wrong, by not standing
by her when she was pursuing her dream.
If Dirty Harry would have seen this shameless
display of feelings, he would have shot McClane's
head clean off, but in the two decades that
passed between the two movies, our perception
of masculinity evolved a little.
We came to realize that you are more of a
man if you let your woman realize her potential
and dreams, and also that it is ok for a man
to cry sometimes.
Masculinity survives, but only by adapting
to the changing environment.
Which reminds us that our perception of masculinity
is always interlinked with our perception
of femininity.
So to defend masculinity, we also need to
remind ourselves what femininity is about.
Yeah, that look works better with stilettos,
June, but other than that, I'd say you got
femininity on lockdown.
No, that's not what femininity should be about…
well, every once in a while, it can be.
But our perception of femininity, just like
masculinity, evolves with time.
So defending femininity doesn't mean that
we send women back to the kitchen, it means
that we adjust it to be right with our current
culture.
And nowadays, it mainly means that we should
save it from what the regressive feminists
are doing to it.
Since we were talking about action movies,
I'm going to stay in this domain, to provide
examples of what I am talking about.
In the last two decades, chicks in action
movies kicked ass.
While before that they were mainly the damsel
in distress that needed saving, now they became
fighters who could fend for themselves.
Since women are obviously weaker than men,
the female action heroes of those years, like
Buffy, Trinity or Mystique, had some supernatural
powers.
The important thing with those characters
wasn't that they were fighters, though – it
was that they were badass.
They had a strong character, matching those
of male action heroes, while still retaining
their feminine side.
That's why they were empowering: at a time
when femininity was still quite timid, they
presented models of women who were more assertive,
a model of femininity that was more suitable
for a world in which women had to fight men
in the marketplace.
After that, we got movies in which it became
unrealistic, like Charlie's Angels or Kill
Bill, in which we saw regular women singlehandedly
fighting groups of men and defeating them.
It was ridiculous, but it was ok, because
these movies were supposed to be over the
top.
After that, however, we started to see action
movies that were supposed to be realistic,
but in which women were shown as equal to
men in hand-to-hand combat.
This was not empowering, this was just stupid.
A strong and well trained woman will defeat
an untrained man, but there is no way that
someone that looks like Angelina Jolie or
Scarlett Johansson can defeat a well-trained
male fighter.
Instead of providing us with inspiring models
of women who find a way to succeed despite
their natural disadvantages, these movies
took us into a fantasy world, in which there
are no natural differences between men and
women.
And the regressive feminists of today are
treating this fantasy as a reality.
The moment when it really jumped the shark
for me was a 2012 movie called Snow White
and the Huntsman, a new version of the famous
fairytale.
In the Walt Disney animated classic, Snow
White has power in that nature responds to
her, and she brings joy and blossoming to
wherever she goes.
She's not strong enough to fight against the
evil Queen, but her charm makes all men come
to her rescue.
The huntsman takes mercy on her, the dwarves
fight the queen for her, and the Prince saves
her.
In this new version, Snow White still has
positive power over nature, but she also has
many other inexplicable powers, which render
her male companions redundant.
Instead of one love interest, here she has
two hot men in her life, the prince and the
huntsman, but they don't do much, because
she's the one who leads the war against the
queen.
I am willing to suspend my disbelief and accept
that Snow White Kirsten Stewart is fairer
than evil queen Charlize Theron, but not that
a girl who was locked in a tower all her life
is a skilled fighter.
The dwarves, meanwhile, are completely minimized,
which is unfortunate, given that they're dwarves.
It's a movie that showed that Hollywood has
reached a point where its idea of a strong
woman is of a flawless, goddess-like character,
who doesn't need the help of men on anything.
In other words, what today's regressive feminists
believe.
Of course, not all products of today's pop
culture are affected by this retardation.
The TV series Game of Thrones has many strong
female characters, but they are strong in
ways that women can be strong.
There is admittedly the character of Brienne
of Tarth, a woman who beats men in their game,
but she is a freak of nature, so I can buy
that she is this strong.
The other female warriors are no match for
men in hand-to-hand combat, and must rely
on cunning or use of weapons.
And the greatest thing about it is that it
all seems realistic.
If we go back a few decades, the strong female
characters in science fiction shows were seen
as something futuristic, not something that
we are familiar with in real life.
The Game of Thrones female characters feel
like women we know from our world.
I also watched a few of the behind the scenes
videos of the show, and noticed the large
number of women in the production team, who
are there not to fill some quota, but simply
because they are very good at their jobs.
In other words, we have reached the point
where strong and capable women are an integral
part of our society, and there's nothing empowering
about seeing them on screen.
I'd like to see Hollywood changing direction
and giving us models of women who explore
their feminine sides.
But, of course, the reflex in our culture
at the moment is still to demand women who
kick ass.
Whenever there's a new female action hero,
we get enthusiastic articles about how finally,
finally there's a strong female figure that
girls can look up to.
It doesn't matter how many hundreds of such
characters we saw in the past two decades.
The SJW mind is wired to think that we live
in a patriarchy, so they forget about all
those past female heroes, and always enthuse
that this hero is the one that heralds the
change.
So we need to resist this trend as well.
But let's not act like the SJWs and do it
on reflex.
I feel like whenever there's a new strong
female character, some people in the anti-SJW
community oppose it automatically.
Sometimes it is worthy of criticism, but sometimes
it isn't.
For the former case, let's take the Ghostbusters
relaunch.
Here, it was obvious that the moviemakers
came from a worldview that believes there
is no difference between men and women, so
they took a premise that was built on male
dynamics, and just replaced the men with women.
It was stupid, it justifiably got called out,
and predictably it flopped.
But when it comes to the announcement that
the new Doctor is going to be a female Timelord,
I see no reason for the negative reaction.
The Dr. Who series has gone through a dozen
Doctors, and every Doctor was a different
character and had a different dynamics with
his human companions.
So it's a logical step to have a female Doctor,
perfectly in line with the Dr. Who lore, and
I am actually curious to see the new possibilities
it will open up.
Let's be smarter with our criticism.
That's the main message I wanted to convey
in this video: don't be like SJWs and act
in a knee-jerk way.
To believe that the attack on masculinity
is a new and scary development is to have
a one-dimensional view of history, just like
SJWs have.
The history of masculinity is a complex one,
even more complex than what I described here,
and as I have shown, it has always been attacked,
and always had to adjust.
The SJW attack on it is more malicious, but
it is also a lot dumber, so it shouldn't be
hard to defeat.
So resist this attack, but put it in perspective.
In short, take it like a man.
