Men’s liberation is a dirty word to those who want to continue to oppress men, like allowing the slaves to be released to live a life defined in their own right. These tyrants claim to have ownership over men and how masculinity is defined. Incumbents of this defined existence (males) are bound to enact a role defined by others.
Also Read: The Myth of Male Privilege
How can something deemed strong in one case be deemed weak in another? An archaic mindset manifests itself in a ‘masculine’ identity that masks injustice as something to be accepted on the one hand yet to be fought against on the other, merely depending on which narrative you support. For example, men are discouraged and even shamed for standing up for themselves by some ‘men’s’ groups (e.g. religious trad/cons) claiming that it’s not ‘manly’, but ‘weak’ to do so. They make men out to be ‘whiners’ who stand up for themselves. So, men are supposed to just take their abuse and accept their second-class status? Isn’t THIS being weak? The calloused and misandric mindset isn’t applied to other realms of our existence men may encounter as self-defense or in a battle situation or to protecting others, so why would it not apply to men’s rights/equality? These people are presenting strong barriers, laced with double standards, to men’s advocacy, no less than are feminists.
Being strong physically often means being weak mentally. This is explained in science as those who have relied on their primitive physical strength to succeed have been replaced by those who compensate by their intellectual advancement (brains)–basically what separates humans from other species. It appears that some want to take us back to a standard this ignorance supports–religion and blind faith. Hmm, let’s see. Allow women/feminists to control our educational system with men segregated to the slave trades will place women in charge politically and over professions and in important positions in society over men. [Where will this lead us, especially with a misandric mindset in place? Men themselves treat women better and women treat themselves much better than men as it is.]
Strange as it sounds, based on the ‘up to date’ standards of education, one can often find more valid/valuable educational content in old references prior to feminism’s influence. Although ‘outdated’ they are absent of the feminist bias and inaccuracy which has hurt us more than outdated sources will, up to a point. But the double negative whammy of inaccuracy (e.g., changing history and science to fit), combined with misandric and obsolete educational material, with a toxic anti-male university environment included, progressively harms us the longer we allow this condition to exist.
Not giving a crap about the injustices taking place against men and stressing the ‘honor’ and importance in men being masculine by way of a manhood built out of disposability, also complements what feminists are basically striving for. “Kill all men,” but use them as much as possible first, is a win/win compromise between both the feminists and religious trad/cons. (Men defined in their own right, is not included in this package—the two factions fighting over a man’s defined existence like some bone.) Manhood defined by disposability plays right into the hands of both feminists and the religious trad/cons. Religious trad/cons are thus merely undercover feminists striving for the same outcome.
The workhorse is physically strong, but the those with the reigns direct him and what he does for their benefit–much like women are in control of men per sexual access and chivalrous dictate. Men are mere figureheads in society bound to serve women. Yet some have the audacity to claim we live in a patriarchy. No such thing exists under these conditions. As I explain in my latest book, A Flaw From Within, the blind devotion to serving women is why feminism received little resistance and proved so successful. And a major difference in women’s rule over men is misandry in contrast to men priding themselves in protecting and providing for women. Just as is the case at the micro level (social scene and dating) the same applies at the macro level in which case those served are those who dominate in our society by extreme selfishness and hate.
Alan Millard continues to be a prominent men’s equality advocate since the early ’80s. He began writing his first book, Equality: A Man’s Claim, in the Spring of 1983. He has been thereafter continually affiliated with the major men’s rights organizations and has contributed many articles, radio, and some television broadcasts. His work includes research conducted through his graduate and doctoral coursework and knowledge acquired through his independent studies and colleague associations as a university professor. He heads the group Men’s Equality on Facebook. He is the author of three books addressing men’s equality concerns. His most recent book, A Flaw From Within: How Women’s Higher Status Defies Equal Justice, Violates Men, and Destroys Society, is available through Amazon.
2 thoughts on “Defining Manhood and what is Masculine is subjective: Which narrative do you support?”