First I have to commend you on a fine essay. I can see you have put a lot of effort and thought into it, and I strongly admire deep thought, especially when one can render it sensible in words.
Although you hit on many, many points, I will only comment on two at this stage. First point is the “internalization of man”, as I am sure you are aware is a Nietzsche quote from “On the Genealogy of Morals”. This “internalization” is a major turning point in human evolution. Whatever is not discharged is internalized. Therefore, instead of venting one’s emotions and thoughts onto whomever it may concern, it is re-directed back to the self. This results in a constant bottling up of one’s emotions and then leads to what is today labelled as “mental illness”, a severe struggle inside oneself in coming to terms with many years of supressed emotion. The brain goes haywire trying to figure out what to do with years of supressed emotion. This is the common reason for mental illness today. It is a result of the zeitgeist in which we live. We are taught from birth to not offend, be nice, don’t hurt anyone and to act like innocent children all our lives. It is obvious that this “feminization” did not forsee the mental effect it would have on the populus. Men have now become externally timid animals with a raging lion inside of them killing their spirit at every moment. The problem I see now is how to rip ourselves out of this condition. With every media outlet denegrating any aggressive male instinct at every corner, this task is close to impossible.
The second point leads on from the first. This internalization of man has led to there being little to no difference at all between the sexes, and hence the levelling of society. In this absurd state, superficial consumerism rules supreme, anti-defamation laws arise, and every petty whim of the weak is given the highest honour and value in society. Men are only given accolades in sporting adventures. If a man happens to stick his head above the flat-line of society, he is quickly shot down by armchair critics who detest anyone who may be better than themselves at any endevour. This is really psychological envy and resentment at work. The herd ridicule and detest anyone who may be too different from the norm, so they are shot down in flames. This formula of the herd’s and media outlets is the gatekeeper of the level society, and as a result the cause of mental illness and men at war with their own selves.
My task ahead, and I hope it is yours too, satyr, is to find ways out of this current mediocre position we men have found ourselves in.
But I am a bit more pessimistic, than you appear to be.
For me this ‘Feminization’ is a natural stabilizing effect when overpopulation and diminishing resources forces a certain adaptation.
Contained environments create particular adaptations.
The only way maleness can return to its past glory, is if new frontiers become accessible to the masses.
Under the current circumstances females will be more valuable and feminine men more desirable to the whole.
Without new frontiers, it is unfortunate, men will become obsolete and if the conditions persist over a certain period of time, the masculine type will evolve out of mankind.
The only way I see out of this current mediocrity is by way of gaining control of the media and advertising. A horde of Ubermensch-like figures must have access to the airwaves to sprout their vision of man and the world. It should work eventually if it is done tactfully and cunningly. We all know advertising works, so I can’t see why it wouldn’t work if the current pathetic messages were slowly replaced with messages of another kind. All one has to do is continually repeat a message over and over and supply some basic reasoned argument to back it up, and the herd will believe it. If they can believe that buying a new car, a new shirt or owning 10 dvd players leads to happiness, then they will believe that the Ubermensch is the path to virtue.
But I know this will not happen, not in my lifetime anyway. Tiny things amuse tiny minds, and the mind of the herd animal is tiny indeed. I pity their ignorant innocence.
I agree with Chimneysweep.
That’s what I had in mind when I spoke of frontiers.
In my opinion, when frontiers are opened up it offers the possibility of interpreting man, and self, in any way – or in multiple ways – isolated from external influences or force.
With space, in particular, the possibilities will be far grater than the old terrestrial frontiers of the Dark Continent or the New World.
With frontiers each man can live as he wishes, the weak shall suffer the consequences, the strong shall be successful.
We’d like to believe we live as we wish, in our present deluded culture, but many options are prohibited or made reprehensible, using morality and indoctrination.
Furthermore access to frontiers will open up the walls of a shrinking environment, which forces a particular meme to flourish and particular psychologies to dominate, and with access to alternatives it will make the attributes that lead mankind to domination (masculine attributes found both in men and in women) to be essential once more.
So you mean by exploring and/or colonising space it would take daring adventurous men like it did to open up the New World? Is this the parallel you are making? If so, you may be onto something there. The exploration is limitless. Only those unafraid of fear would take the challenge, thus leaving all the weak-willed by the wayside.
You don’t need to go into space… The New frontier where no-man dares to tread begins, these days, on the doorstep of your neighbor’s house.
Do you really think if we eventually find away off this miserable bog of a planet that it will be all Tarzan and Jane again boys…? Gut in, Machete out…?
Nah.
“Capt’n - there’s an alien on the port bow…! Canna blast Capt’n, Can I…?”
“Er - no, according to the Space exploration Book of regulations, written by Sebastian the extremely Gay Civil Servant back on Earth, and I quote: “Alien life forms are to be respected and embraced as brothers”… Now, go out there and hug that critter private.!!!”
Sorry guys, the weak will always outnumber the strong and the multiude will always destroy the dreams of the one. Tiz the way of things.
How would the Daleks put it…?
“Resistance is futile.”
The whole “feminization of man” is more a “frustration of man” Believe me, right now I would dearly love to go round to my other house, and put the whining penny-pinching low-lives renting it from me to the sword. But I can’t. And in the long run, that’s a good thing, because there is always someone either bigger, or more ruthless, than yourself.
“Daleks�!
Dude you gotta keep up with the nerd lingo…it’s the Borg.
So, it’s fear?
Figures.
To prevent there being someone bigger or more ruthless or, I dare say, smarter than yourself, why don’t we make everyone the same or, at least, prevent him from using the full extent of what he has. Then, every time we are out and about, we’ll have that secure certain feeling, even if false, that, no matter what, nobody will divert too far from the average and surprise us and, no matter what, he/she really thinks or wants to do or say, (s)he will remain “civilizedâ€.
Then we can sit around, like friends, and talk about average things like, what cars we drive, how much money we make, what a wonderful time we had in Cancun last summer, how happy we are, what intimacy means to our loving marriage, the price of oil and how to ‘free’ all those repressed ‘terrorists’ from that Muslim disease.
Then we’ll feel content, even if a little bored, because we’ll repeat the scene over and over again, each time with different people but always in the same ways and with the same results.
To alleviate our boredom we can then play video-games or watch TV or movies, through which we will live vicariously in every character unleashing our hidden, innermost desires and unexploited potentials and we’ll wonder why life is so meaningless.
Peace of mind: The chain around our ankles. The fertilizer of boredom.
And how much are we not willing to give up for “peace of mind�
Do we have it?
In this world?!!
I don’t. Do you?
Fent
Yes, the male type will be necessary again.
Challenging, aggressive, ruthless, courageous, non-conforming, curious, discontented.
Not only that but a man or a group can get lost in space.
If resources could become accessible using technology, there could be a fragmentation of the human species where each group could exist separately, or even start evolving - physically intellectually - along different paths.
I remember an experiment once conducted with rats. I saw a documentary on it.
They placed rats in an enclosed space and slowly started increasing their numbers.
They first kept the food on the same levels.
The rats turned on one another, they became cannibalistic and vicious. In time most rats were maimed or dead.
The surprising thing was that even when they increased the food supply, to where it could support more than the number of rats in the enclosure, the rats still maintained their violent tendencies.
Lesson was that each individual has a minimum space requirement as well as a food and water requirement. Personal space is just as essential to a person.
Of course the space requirement for each is proportional to his character.
I believe the individuals sense of self, his/her self-esteem, intelligence, strength of character all participate in determining each person’s tolerance of others in their space.
We all know of people who just can’t be along, while others prefer solitude.
In human groups, where the same diminishment of space is happening as we speak, this violent tendency was repressed or controlled using ideals (memes).
It is not a coincidence that the modern popular Religions, preaching tolerance and love for all, were born in periods where population pressures were first emerging as a problem and during particularly violent times.
It is also not a coincidence that some of the oldest of such passive religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, emerged long before Christianity in areas where population growth had already forced their necessity.
Human life had lost all value during Roman times when Christianity took hold. There was just so much of it that it was regularly sacrificed – such as in the Coliseum - to placate a disgruntled population and to distract it from its woes and dissatisfaction, in the same way modern sports and entertainment is used today.
Christianity came to offer hope to the masses of suffering non-people, destined to live and die in suffering and was one reason why it spread like wildfire. It offered a release from the Earthly world and the promise of a better after-world where the meek shall be rewarded and the strong punished, as an act of vengeance.
There’s nothing more moral or ideal about these modern religions. They are, simply, more useful and necessary under these particular circumstances. It would explain their popularity and longevity, since the circumstances have not changed much but only become more pronounced.
An ideal serves a purpose. Where the environmental conditions demand a more ruthless violent type the religion and the culture promotes this type, where they demand a more passive, docile man then this type is promoted as the highest of all – the most moral.
It is possible to be free, while in chains, or to be in chains while walking around, seemingly free.
But first look and see if there are not, presently, any chains around your ankles, even if they are subtle or pretending to be pretty gold bracelets or you’ve gotten so used to them that you think them part of your ensemble and that you’ve chosen them.
Metal has been replaced by digits and the locks are built and installed by the prisoners themselves, calling them ‘safety-devices’ or ‘security systems’, meant to keep others out rather than them in.
And if you’ve grown accustomed to your chains, then don’t call them by other names to explain why.
Did you ever read “V for Vendetta” by Alan Moore…? It’s right up your alley.
“It is in this last inch that we are free.”
I agree it is possible to be free enchained, but the price of that freedom is prohibitive, and even attained, your physical life still hangs on the whim of your captor, even if you are unafraid of losing it - what good does this state of grace do exactly, save irritate your executioner…?
We have constructed these metaphorical chains for a reason, indeed they were constructed by the strong, to protect their legacies. To ensure that those following them would not need to make the choices they had to, would not need to become monsters to survive, would not be able to usurp them. The strong create a peaceful society of the ‘weak’ by default.
These chains are a fundamental part of the flip-flop between order/chaos within growing societies, they enable stability at the small price of hobbling our, already near none-existant, free will.
I think it is interesting that this thread, this forum this website, the internet is founded on the intricate patterns of social convention that removes us from our atavistic pre-immanent selves. Satyr, even as I see the thrust of your essay, I’m still hesitant to endorse your conclusions. I cannot return to the African veldt of a couple hundred thousand years ago, nor is it likely I’ll be a crew member on a starship. That we function inside our social milleau is a given. While descriptive, I’m not sure it takes us anywhere. Here is where we are. Short of a hermetic existence, what would you have?
Offering a perspective and offering a preference are two different things.
I can believe something to be more true than another and still not like it.
The practice of trying to integrate our preferences with our opinions can only lead to error and disillusionment.
We indulge in this practice so often than we eventually attempt to discover the hidden agendas behind everyone else’s points of view and trying to uncover the secret advantages in holding them as true or the in how they sooth the opinion holder from his own psychological ailments.
Granted, more often than not, most people believe what offers some advantage to them. So much so that one can almost predict what beliefs will be popular during particular historical eras and geographical areas.
But to assume that all minds are equally subjective is to ascribe, even if indirectly, to the notion that all minds are equal.
Great essay. It makes a lot of sense to me. I noticed the feminization of society before, but I did not even think about it being a natural development in the current level of civilization. I say “The Kingdom of Women” is surely at hand.
The “Kingdom of Women†implies the end of our species as we know it.
In fact the changes have already started but can only be appreciated in time when their accumulated effects will render them obvious.
Some preliminary effects which, although slight, point to a general trend are:
1- The growing acceptance of homosexuality as just another life-style or another choice of self-realization worthy of equal status and just as viable as any other. The slow redefinition of sex as a human practice used primarily for entertainment, psychological fulfillment, symbolic potency and communal integration but lacking the severity imposed upon it by reproduction, renders sex, and as consequence sexuality, a matter of choice with no real other consequences; a trivial detail of the human condition no more relevant than color preference and only significant when one denies the other his/her “right†to fornicate with whomever and whenever. The loss of sexual weight can be seen in pornography and sexual exhibitionism. Sex has ceased to be something intimate between two beings and has become something to be flaunted, commercialized, exaggerated in symbolic relevance even while minimized in importance and finally made public.
2- The decline and eventual eradication of the family unit. The emancipation of women risks a growing male (and sometimes female) alienation with the system which unites us through morality and shared interests, a restriction to procreation and an increase in the burden of having children, resulting in lowered birth rates and children devoid of any sense of lineage, a continuum of tradition, a sense of identity through the past, which connects all men to their national/cultural identity, and a redistribution and redefinition of authority, resulting in power through association, figureheads imitating authority as it is projected by institutions with no real personal input but only in how well the figurehead represents and projects, through himself/herself, the institutions unyielding authority, and the eventual leveling of individuality and identity.
3- The growing empowerment of women, who having evolved to adapt more readily to social environments gains the upper hand in relation to males, who have been stripped of their natural advantages (mental and physical) or restricted in their usage, forcing them to adapt to more feminine methods of pursuing power, using more feminine tactics.
4- Growing male docility and effeminate behavior resulting in the glorification of the adolescent male form – more closely resembling the female form – as well as a more adolescent female (prissy, pampered, dependant, demanding) and a general male confusion concerning sexual behavior; as the environment tells them to be male through a female attraction to a past, wanting to feel feminine, vulnerable, belonging, inferior in relation to the male, and a cultural norm, projected and enforced through ideals which denies all identities that limit its realization (including gender identities) and which demands, through social pressures, a more calm, tolerant, accepting, nurturing, compliant male.
5- The abstraction of value through money resulting in the ability to buy and sell anything to anyone, including masculinity, femininity, dignity, freedom, respect and so on. The abstraction of value, making it another commodity that can be bought even if not earned, so not entirely appreciated and so not being entirely deserved, creates the possibility of attainment of value through integration. That is, one becomes valuable only in how he/she integrates ones self into the system (theyness) and is accordingly rewarded for his/her obedience. Therefore it makes worth and self-worth a process of diminishing self to attain the ability to buy it back from the very system one lost it to, but this time, altered and redefined in accordance to the particular systems ideals and interests. Mirroring effect.
