Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
There's so much to go off on in this article it's hard to know where to begin. A lot of you guys responding to this already have done a pretty admirable analysis of it, so let me shock the sh!t out of you for a minute. I think this woman is correct in her assessments, but for the wrong reasons.
Before I go into detail, let me qualify this by pointing out the most glaring motivation behind this entire article; the feminine social contrivance of shame. This is a textbook example of feminine shaming. The very premise of this woman's dissatisfaction is founded in men's perceived responsibility to be committed to a woman in marriage, parental investment, and the motivation for his ambitions ought to be prompted by a desire to better accomplish measuring up to a female specific goal-set. Anything less than this, anything that does not directly lead to this feminine idealization of security provision, and the man is automatically cast as being "child-like", immature or in some way retarded or stunted in his inability to recognize that her gender specific goals should necessarily be his own. Therefore a man without these recognitions needs to be ashamed of himself - so much so that he cannot be a "man" until he does so. This is the essence of shaming as a feminine social convention.
In addition to this, we are to understand that women are themselves more responsible and mature, not just for recognizing this, but for exceeding it themselves (or at least the perception of having done so) by fulfilling the masculine role on their own while the shameful man-child blissfully sits at home, plays x-box and masturbates to his latest issue of Maxim. Her position is empowerment by default in assuming the responsibility of providing for her own security (which should be his, remember?) that he is too immature to be trusted with. And again, this is the upside for she and her gender's interests as a result of this shaming. While simultaneously playing the responsible adult herself (dubious at best), she uses shame that appeals to his uniquely masculine sense of responsibility. He can't be wishy-washy, lacking ambition or indecisive to be defined as masculine, but she will gladly use this thumbscrew to shame him for her own gender's unique prerogative - the inalienable right to change her mind - literally, to be blamelessly indecisive.
As much as she relishes in her bemoaning the state of child-men, she herself is the direct result of the feminine social contrivances that grew from the 1965-70, 26 y.o. old guy backlash of the time. In typical female emotive fashion, women of this time didn't know what they wanted while they were asking for it. Now almost 40 years later they want men to Man up? Where have all the cowboys gone? Now she finds that all the things that she thought would be so beneficial for her gender in delimiting men are the very same things that remove the ambitions that make him attractive, responsible, accountable, etc.
Now, all that said, I agree with her. Men are less ambitious now. AFCs are the easiest target, I know, but they exist because their AFC father's and grandfathers we're shamed for being so ambitious, so controlling, so masculine, or are themselves the results of pacified, lazy, irresponsible, child-men. And even the Men who do see the Matrix for what it is and tenaciously stick to their masculinity in spite of it being ever present are the ones ridiculed for being so. The guy with the solid career, the man in control of his direction, the rare gentleman who does "measure up" to this feminine standard is then ridiculed for his masculine determination. Why does he feel the need to excel so passionately? "Oh his ego is fragile or he must be compensating for something, hur, hur, hur,.." And again, the social contrivance of masculine shame is used to limit him, but from the other side. It's a gender Catch 22. Shame him for not being a man, shame him for being one, in either case the feminine maintains the frame.
Before I go into detail, let me qualify this by pointing out the most glaring motivation behind this entire article; the feminine social contrivance of shame. This is a textbook example of feminine shaming. The very premise of this woman's dissatisfaction is founded in men's perceived responsibility to be committed to a woman in marriage, parental investment, and the motivation for his ambitions ought to be prompted by a desire to better accomplish measuring up to a female specific goal-set. Anything less than this, anything that does not directly lead to this feminine idealization of security provision, and the man is automatically cast as being "child-like", immature or in some way retarded or stunted in his inability to recognize that her gender specific goals should necessarily be his own. Therefore a man without these recognitions needs to be ashamed of himself - so much so that he cannot be a "man" until he does so. This is the essence of shaming as a feminine social convention.
In addition to this, we are to understand that women are themselves more responsible and mature, not just for recognizing this, but for exceeding it themselves (or at least the perception of having done so) by fulfilling the masculine role on their own while the shameful man-child blissfully sits at home, plays x-box and masturbates to his latest issue of Maxim. Her position is empowerment by default in assuming the responsibility of providing for her own security (which should be his, remember?) that he is too immature to be trusted with. And again, this is the upside for she and her gender's interests as a result of this shaming. While simultaneously playing the responsible adult herself (dubious at best), she uses shame that appeals to his uniquely masculine sense of responsibility. He can't be wishy-washy, lacking ambition or indecisive to be defined as masculine, but she will gladly use this thumbscrew to shame him for her own gender's unique prerogative - the inalienable right to change her mind - literally, to be blamelessly indecisive.
As much as she relishes in her bemoaning the state of child-men, she herself is the direct result of the feminine social contrivances that grew from the 1965-70, 26 y.o. old guy backlash of the time. In typical female emotive fashion, women of this time didn't know what they wanted while they were asking for it. Now almost 40 years later they want men to Man up? Where have all the cowboys gone? Now she finds that all the things that she thought would be so beneficial for her gender in delimiting men are the very same things that remove the ambitions that make him attractive, responsible, accountable, etc.
Now, all that said, I agree with her. Men are less ambitious now. AFCs are the easiest target, I know, but they exist because their AFC father's and grandfathers we're shamed for being so ambitious, so controlling, so masculine, or are themselves the results of pacified, lazy, irresponsible, child-men. And even the Men who do see the Matrix for what it is and tenaciously stick to their masculinity in spite of it being ever present are the ones ridiculed for being so. The guy with the solid career, the man in control of his direction, the rare gentleman who does "measure up" to this feminine standard is then ridiculed for his masculine determination. Why does he feel the need to excel so passionately? "Oh his ego is fragile or he must be compensating for something, hur, hur, hur,.." And again, the social contrivance of masculine shame is used to limit him, but from the other side. It's a gender Catch 22. Shame him for not being a man, shame him for being one, in either case the feminine maintains the frame.
.