Males are raised to hate other males–often shown in posture, expression, and in a stand-offish greeting or even physical violence, to include being turned against each other for women. (This is even portrayed as a male ‘positive’/use-identity for women in feminist/chivalrous-sculptured movies and commonly expressed in laws and court proceedings/decisions.) A healthy form of masculinity requires that men treat other men equal to how they treat women.
A genuine male identity (positive masculinity) is one that can not be turned against itself. A man is to greet another man with a smile, not with contempt as a potential threat, just as he acknowledges a woman. Otherwise, a man conveys contempt toward other men as some ‘macho’ thing, confining men to a secular and under-rated existence. This small-minded, self-hate mentality keeps men divided and weak as a collective. Men need to be bigger than this–a mentality that lends itself to chivalry and men being pitted against each other for women. (These ‘men’ protect women when men are the ones who need equal protection, mostly now from women.)
The self-hating mindset decreases the ability for men to come together as a collective and programs men to be divided as their own worse enemies and conquered at the will of women and a government controlled by women. Once men are able to climb out of this box holding them to this macho-type, prescribed self-hating behavior, limited identity and intellect, they will be enabled to progress, gain substance over mere image and realize that their existence means much more than this hollow core of what some call a man. But this only comes from men having rights, individual value, and a status equal to women in society.
[There is something dreadfully wrong when at a time men’s rights are so desperately needed men are more concerned about a masculine image than their rights. For example, although not unwarranted, more was made of a Gillette commercial aimed against men than a Dr. Pepper commercial that conveyed a motor cycle gang of bullies beating up a young man as humorous. Why was Dr. Pepper not boycotted as was Gillette?]
Some say in response the super tough/macho male character now being projected is the type that defended our country and won wars in the past. But that is not true. The kind of male character that best protected our country came from good, genuine men of the past who were not of this steroid, tough, hollow character. Their male identity was not sculptured to be what was needed for an exception to the rule, and a war is an exception, not what we conform to as the general rule. Many were strong, hard-working farmboys. But this is not the point. A quality of life, with a male character that matched, being threatened is what made so many angry when our country was threatened and attacked by Japan, with thousands of young men volunteering to fight immediately after Pearl Harbor was attacked. It was then they trained to be fighters for the war.
One WWII Vet explained we were told we had to unlearn everything we had ever been taught and become blank slates, then reprogramed and conformed to be what the military wanted us to be in order to best fight in the war. But the only problem is, as the WWII Vet stated, after the war was over, the government failed to adequately have us unlearn what it had taught us, sending us back in to society without adequately deprograming us.
Although men did not have equality to women in the past, they generally had a better male character than the one being conveyed and encouraged today. The one being popularly projected in today’s society is merely an empty one born out of an apparent insecurity due to all the other positive masculine attributes that have been gutted from male identity.
This negative masculinity, what some now want as the standard, completely sets men up to be disposable pawns who can be used to both women’s and the government’s discretion–those who are ‘tough’ enough not to need their rights. It’s an advancement of the very ‘masculine’ character than stands against men’s equality.
The concept of the ‘alpha male’ easily adopts this negative male identiy in which case all men are potential threats to each other and categorically turned against one another. This is especially effective by deeming other males ‘beta males’ (perhaps nerds, or anyone inbetween with any brains) whose identity is stigmatized as ‘weak’ but whose existence is necessary for ‘alpha males’ to exist. Males who fall in to this identity trap and prep themselves to be identified as alpha males are being manipulated into a robotic identity rather than one secured in their own right that makes them acknowledged as real people in need of equal rights to women.
Can we not see where this is taking us? Beta males, through this divide and conquer technique, will be easily marked and condemned men’s rights advocates by the government, chivalrous-minded women and men, and feminists.
[Take note that women, who have formed an effective collective (although one lacking merit), do not discriminate against other women attaching stigmas to them.]
The male characterization conveyed through actors as Arnold Swartzenaugger and Sylvester Stallone or Dwayne Johnson (the Rock) are empty, steroid versions of what is left of ‘masculinity’, and that is a toxic, violent male character identity. But this does not mean that masculinity itself is toxic, just that how society is sculpturing males is–the negative influence is, the chivalrous and feminist influence is–which has left positive masculinity gutted without substance (equal rights, consideration, and status). Men are not those who we need protection from and who are to be used as pawns against themselves. A man must think to himself that “I am that other man who I encounter. He is good and innocent just as I am, in need of help and his rights, not one to view as my enemy or a threat.” A mindset that dictates otherwise is unhealthy and filled with self-hate, and the ‘alpha male’ steroid image and matching charaterization stands with it.
The ‘alpha’ male and beta male identity stigma resembles the bully and whimp categorization that reduces men to a right-makes-right mentality–perfect for blind servitude for the government and serving women against other men. This reduces men to an existence that dictates the ‘bigger’ man wins the arguememt because he can kick the crap out of the other man. Thus ‘right’ is only determined by might, and no one other than the thug has a right to speak or be heard in which case freedom of speech does not exist for men. (One might call this the ‘John Wayne’ mentality–e.g. Those are mighty big words for such little man.) Sadly, as this example reveals, violence against men, not women, has been culturally acceptable and used in the past to silence other men. Nothing is resolved by violence, and that applies to men just as it does to women, with more need for men’s equal protection. This is where men’s rights meet injustice harbored by men themselves which presents a challenge to men creating a legitimate effort to acheive equality to women.
Men need more protection from women (and other men) than has been provided to them. In fact, as equals, men are to receive equal protection to women, not less which has resulted in them losing their rights and being reduced in meaning to mere disposable thugs for women and subject to a government controlled and influenced by women.
–Concepts from A Flaw From Within by Alan Millard
Due to perhaps a modern-day insecurity men have gone to the extreme in their expression of ‘masculinity’. The movie title The Expendables surely identifies the extreme effect of a toxic or negative masculinity differing from the past―e.g. The days of Father Knows Best and Jack Lalanne. But at the same time a barbaric masculinity seems to be promoted we are denouncing bullying and acknowledging men’s feelings, with a personal and individual value as being equal to a woman’s. Any worthy masculine identity can not be turned on itself. It’s devoid of self-hate. Being a kind, good person must equally apply in character to a man as well as a woman, with equal expectations and qualifications determining this status and its expression applying equally to both sexes. If we had common decency expressed by men (and women) equally applied to men that considered violence toward men just as unacceptable as toward women we would then have an expression of equality of the sexes.