On Medium: Woke Culture and Toxic Femininity
This article is about the less familiar type of personal toxicity, the feminine kind: how it evolved, the values that emerge from it, and how both male psychopathy and toxic femininity might be surpassed by hyperrational existentialism.
Women tend to be significantly more shy??? Unlikely.
ReplyDeleteMy concept for toxic masculinity and feminility based on territoriality index:
Toxic masculinity: overflowing territoriality resulting in verbal and nonverbal agressive behavior or nonexistent ponderation of other's opinions//feelings and facts.
Toxic feminility: lack of territoriality resulting in excessive unreflected sensitivity and excessive consideration of other's opinions/feelings and facts.
I believe on avg women want the ideal man: romantic as gama, provider as beta and "sexual" and "protector" as alpha. But i think there are different types of women and progressive ones are not as conservative attracted to very masculine men. To be realistic, majority of women marry with a provider beta. This alpha fetish look more a urban myth than reality. The women who prefer masculine men tend to be poorer, less educated even because toxic males tend to be disproportionately found in "lower" and "higher" classes (lower classes are more common than higher). The psychopath asshole with impulsive control and higher inteligence and also those who are heirs and the impulsive lower intelligent sociopaths.
ReplyDeleteThe alpha fetish is how men analyse women sexual desire and not how they do objectively, analysing the women behavior per se. Remember: women are less sexually inclined than men... seems men admire more alpha ones than women themselves. Women are characteristically less likely to separate sex from love.
ReplyDeleteTypical progressist women want a cooperative men. May most of these archetype super heroes shows the ideal man than just the alpha one. And super heroes tend to be far more empathetic, isnt??
Women who fall in love for toxic or ultraconservative males often regret soon. It's like fall into a trap.
I don't believe truly psicopaths fits well in largely cooperative communities. I think truly psicopaths emerged specially with the advent of civilization in which the briggest of them are highly adapted. Yes, i know traditional communities reports high levels of mortality during intertribal conflicts but probably because lack of proper war equipment to protect the body but also by lack of proper accumulated knowledge and rational approach to deal with these challenges.
Based on women vote pattern they disproportionately vote against toxic politician males.
ReplyDeleteAre you tried to analyse women (s) behavior and reasons or just ponctuated what you think??
ReplyDeleteI think Nietzche is one of the greatest artists who pretend to be philosopher. I loved his books but not philosophically. As a writer he was great but as a pretend to be philosopher...
Feminine women are less likely to advocate for egalitarian measures and more likely to be toxic feminine.
Heroic are intrinsically psychopaths not otherwise??? Those who confront nazis were psychopaths?? Those males who saved jews and others from nazi beasts were psychopaths??
Interestingly the not so manly males who/mostly invented technology while manly males who play with it..
Take care when you think "offense is equal to say the truth".
Do you think a male who want to be equal in conditions to another is a unmanly thing and those who accept the condition of "inferior" or "slave" are manly??
There are certainly cultural influences on our character and on how we express our gender, so it’s not as though our behaviour is always purely primitive or instinctive. Culture can reinforce our instincts or provide counter-conditioning. As I say in the second-last section of the article, the advent of machines has feminized the majority in industrialized societies, whereas in earlier generations only the wealthiest members could have afforded to be decadent and infantile.
DeleteThis cultural conditioning can explain why a certain class of women will consciously prefer beta-type providers. If these women are nevertheless instinctively or unconsciously drawn towards heroic alphas, that should show up in experimental settings.
I don’t say women are “shy.” That word doesn’t appear in the article. I said women are more likely to be modest than reckless. You can see this in the difference between how men and women negotiate for pay raises. One of the reasons women are paid less than men is that women don’t stick up for themselves with male-caliber aggression. Again, some of that may be due to cultural conditioning, but we have to ask why cultures tend to push women to be feminine and men to be masculine in the respects that are at issue. One simple explanation is that culture is generally nudging us towards the behaviours we’re more likely to accomplish because of our genetic predispositions; when culture goes too far against our natural grain, the society could be expected to collapse in short order.
I don’t know where “territoriality” fits in, since women own property too. In the patriarchal past women were treated as property, but again we face the question of why men were able to dominate women. One reason seems to be that men exploited some of the relative weaknesses of women’s inherent gender characteristics. Men dominated women for the same reason that men often earn more than women for doing roughly the same work: men are more aggressive and less emotionally complex, because men’s prehistoric jobs as hunters were more straightforward and required more cold-bloodedness.
I agree that a pathological kind of psychopathy would have developed only with the rise of civilization, because nomadic hunter-gatherers couldn’t have afforded to be antisocial. With sedentary civilization comes competition and social hierarchy, so that would exacerbate the worst in masculine tendencies, leading to the hypermasculine tyrants. In prehistory, the same underlying character traits would have found much different outlets, leading to different social roles. Male aggression would have been channeled in hunting and defense of territory. Hunting was less important after the rise of agriculture, so aggression was then channeled into war but also class-based sadism, in the hunting of people rather than animals. The slaves and lower classes took on the role of wild animals as far as the aristocrats were often concerned.
You say, “Feminine women are less likely to advocate for egalitarian measures and more likely to be toxic feminine.” I think you must mean “feminine” in the politically conservative sense, but that would be a culturally-conditioned femininity, not the underlying kind that corresponds to our prehistoric behavioural foundations. In conservative cultures, men mold women to suit patriarchy, so “feminine” women are those who obey men as slaves, who cook and clean and support the man as the head of the household. Those women aren’t likely to support socialism, because they have to obey the corrupted males who naturally want to eliminate a welfare state, to make for a more social-Darwinian arena to honour their dominance. In prehistory, there was no such patriarchy, but only nomadic, pragmatic egalitarianism. This isn’t to say everyone in prehistory was equal or identical in terms of their gendered traits, but everyone was respected as a valued member of the tribe. Women’s femininity in prehistoric times, before the corrupting influence of patriarchy, would have been shaped by their role as mothers, which obviously separated women from men. That was the main source of the asymmetry between the character traits of our genders.
DeleteI don’t think I said that all heroes are psychopathic in the worse sense. I had in mind the type of hero who’s celebrated in action movies. By “heroes” I meant men of action. Now these heroic characters are expected to be good rather than evil; otherwise, they’d be villains rather than heroes. Nevertheless, the heroes must have the same underlying traits as the villains. Again, the difference is in how the traits are channeled according to the roles which society supports. Our heroic males express their cold-bloodedness, aggression, and rigid focus on plans of action at the expense of any larger perspective that takes into account the potentially debilitating context, and they do so on the police force or in the military or in capitalistic rituals of dominance.
I think you were asking whether I believe socialism or egalitarianism is “unmanly.” That’s tricky, because prehistoric human behaviour would have featured a kind of egalitarianism. There was no competition because wealth couldn’t be hoarded. Thus, there wasn’t a hierarchy of social classes exactly, but only a reverence for elders. Prehistoric men were manly in that they had little in the way of cultural conditioning to tamp down their instinctive reactions. So there’s a kind of egalitarianism which is manly, namely the kind that’s practically forced on a small, nomadic tribe that has no time for societal games.
In our late-modern context, socialism in the sense of the enforcement of equal outcomes, regardless of our actions, comes across as unmanly because it’s devoid of honour or responsibility. In a peaceful, self-sustaining socialist society (one that doesn’t collapse into a dictatorship), we can do whatever we want and face no negative repercussions, since the welfare state catches us when we fall. I have an article coming out in a week or so in which I talk about the Nordic democracies. Those are the most successful social democracies, but they seem to me more feminine than masculine, precisely because they go against the prehistoric grain. They don’t allow men to act as reckless or aggressive hunters or dominators.
The question is whether we can conceive of a new ideal of manliness, one which we’ll need especially because machines are evidently taking on all the traditional manly jobs.
''There are certainly cultural influences on our character and on how we express our gender, so it’s not as though our behaviour is always purely primitive or instinctive. Culture can reinforce our instincts or provide counter-conditioning. As I say in the second-last section of the article, the advent of machines has feminized the majority in industrialized societies, whereas in earlier generations only the wealthiest members could have afforded to be decadent and infantile.''
DeleteWhen conserf authoritarian is dilluted humans just show how naturally diverse they can be. That's what is happening today.
Well... I still prefer "decadent" than poor, extremely oppressed and exploited (even more than today's standard at least in "developed" world) and "infantile" than a "matured" believer in rampant bullshit as happened in the golden past...
Even the diversity we can see emerging, majority stay normie, isnt?? Or i'm losing something??
Again, i believe you are not analysing so called modern western society objectively but based on your own subjective opinions.
I agree with some topics like mostly stupid mainstreamed music, arts, in general, today. But i don't know if i can call this "feminization", at least in brazil, the two most popular and antagonistic new music genres which i can describe "mostly idiocratic" 'urban sertanejo or countrylike music" and "funk carioca" (from Rio de Janeiro favelas), are not efeminate.
Indeed my impression is that the western world has becoming more negrophilized and or cultish of poor class in behavior and in manner. Don't look like significantly homogeneizing to "efeminate" path, only if you are seeing by "pop divas" and K-pop.
''This cultural conditioning can explain why a certain class of women will consciously prefer beta-type providers. If these women are nevertheless instinctively or unconsciously drawn towards heroic alphas, that should show up in experimental settings.''
Ok... then when "women" prefer alphas they are instinctively or naturally. When "women" prefer betas they are culturally conditioned..
I think media just love to show alpha types in the same way love to show black males as supremely manly figures, isnt?
There are different types of women. The avg women are not as visual as men in searching for mates. That's my perception, i don't know how precise.
I also think we, generally, are plastic enough to modulate prefferences. I may agree majority of people if they have the chance they would choice the most beautiful to mate but... I think it's would be different regards personality. Interestingly majority would not choice the smartest.
It's pragmatical exagerate sexual differences to make less likely both sexes engage in non procreative sex. But, typical women are like travestite with vaginas. Since they are born society exagerate, even create inatural cultural markers, for example, earrings for female babies to differentiate them from male babies.
DeleteWomen look far more "androginous" without all these "feminility" body cultural markers... (long hair, earrings, make up, clothes...)
Women has been selected to be more cautious to deal with children and communities while men has been selected (both on avg) to be agressive to lead with nature's dangers and challenges. In nature, the irreflexive logic is the strong dominating the weaker..
I'm talking about psychological territoriality.
Women are not more emotionally complex than men on avg but more precisely fair or morally correct because their historical role dealing with life while men have the historical role to deal with death. Emotionally speaking, men are on avg stupid. That's why our beautiful history of endless fullshit.
Progressive women are on avg less "feminine" than conservative women and considerably more likely to be favor social justice//harmony.
DeleteI think you are overcomplexizing the concept of hero. Yes, there are from true heroes, complex figures (heroes and vilains in the same individual) and true heroes.
I don't believe "manliness" is intrinsically the same as instinctiveness or lack of tame-proneness, absolutely speaking. In the end of day, manliness is based on what womanliness is not, and it's far from perfect quality of human character as masculinists dream.
I really don't believe a real communist society would be totally indifferent to individual behaviors consequences. I think the current political and historical correctness from the progressist side is exactly the opposite if it is about responsibilization of our behaviors BUT it's target disproportionately white people probably because white or western significant/negative role in a variety of very relevant topics from environment to colonialism.
Is my analysis objective or subjective? It’s philosophy, so it’s a mix of both.
DeleteI never said feminization is the only cultural factor in industrialized societies. Sure, there’s multiculturalism, globalization, neoliberalism, technological advances, and so on. Feminization helps explain the difference in mannerisms between conservative and liberal men, especially in the US. As I say in the article, another factor is how machines are taking over the manly jobs.
I think you’re saying I’m trying to have it both ways when I say that when women prefer alphas they’re being natural, and when they prefer betas they’re culturally conditioned. But beta males became prominent only with the rise of large-scale societies, which created underclasses and later, middle classes. First we tamed animals, using them as livestock. Then the upper class domesticated the lower classes, to prevent a revolt against the inevitable corruption of the royal family. The royals used religion to tame the majority, as I suggest in “The Theistic Priming of Oligarchy” and “Psychopathic Gods and Civilized Slaves.”
So of course a preference for beta males in our species indicates cultural conditioning. Our beta classes were created by such conditioning, long after our social instincts were established.
I agree we’re plastic enough to moderate our sexual preferences (within our orientation). My point in the article is that there’s a universal admiration for alpha male handsomeness, which can be explained by positing the foundational role of what became traditional masculinity.
We certainly do exaggerate our characteristics with makeup, fashion, signs of our conspicuous consumption, and so forth. Again, I’d say that conditioning can go with or against our instinctual grain, as it were. The most obvious reason why we exaggerate certain aspects of our appearance is to exploit what evolution has already laid down, to take advantage of our natural reactions and biases.
Where's all the hate mail?
ReplyDeleteI agree that toxic femininity is a thing. In my opinion, testesterone & estrogen are mind altering drugs that simply give rise to different kinds of stupid. Ideally, men would strive to be less masculine & women less feminine, but without falling into the trap of becoming sexually inverted.
The problem is this: who would voluntarily agree to have sex & procreate unless they were under the influence of sex hormones? We would either need to induce test tube pregnancies or designate a class of 'breeders' to keep our species from going extinct.
Actually, I got a little hate mail on Medium. You can read it in the article's comment section. It starts off with, "This could use a rewrite it’s muddied confusing full of hyperbolic statements and grand conclusions which make it hard to read or even to determine the point or objective of the author."
DeleteI responded and the commenter got more and more annoyed. Still, it wasn't a serious response. The article's going up on another publication soon, so we'll see if it gets more attention.
I'm not sure hormones are needed to convince people to have sex. The pleasure receptors should suffice for that. Oxytocin and the rest of the love bond are needed to keep the parents around long enough to care for the helpless offspring. Pleasure from the sex organs likewise serves that evolutionary function.
I think there's a more rational justification for having sex and offspring, though, which is to maintain our human lineage of existential rebels against nature's absurdity. We need future generations to maintain the revolt for as long as possible. Obviously, nature doesn't care about or even register that revolt, but the opposition remains as a metaphysical anomaloy.
Sex is pleasurable in & of itself, but I'm not sure if that would be enough to motivate an adult. As a prepubscent kid I once fooled around with a little girl & it felt great, but as an adult I've just decided that women aren't worth the trouble & I'm in good company on this. If adult men did not have such demanding libidos would sexual pleasure alone be enough to motivate them to get out there & pursue women? Add to the enormous effort of seducing a woman the risks of the #MeToo era & it just doesn't hold up under a cost-benefit analysis.
DeleteI totally agree that we should reproduce, though. For all our flaws, I believe the world is much more interesting with us in it than it would be without us. Would that be enough to motivate most people to have sex? Maybe.
Well that's why they are so succesfull. The most toxic masculine society tend to be completely disastrious. Indeed, civilization need also some degree of "feminization" of man to work, very imperfectly as has been or ideally.
ReplyDeleteBissexual doesnt look traply inverted enough..
ReplyDeleteWomen tend to be uglier than men, specially some types of caucasians which the superficial ritual to appear less androginous create a huge gap between a natural looking and a achieved looking.
Without all the prejudices and rules society inculcate on us since the first years of life i believe we would have much more non heterosexual behavior or more fluidity among genres.
I can see how culture may have drastically reinforced certain behavioural tendencies and discounted our natural flexibility in sexual relations. But if culture has biases, we have to ask why certain biases come to prevail. Those that work with our natural divisions, strengths, and weaknesses would seem to have an advantage.
DeleteWould you say that masculinity and femininity have no evolutionary basis at all? That prehistoric men and women were neither masculine nor feminine in any way we’d recognize today? Of course they would have lacked the niceties, the makeup, fashion, and other cultural cues. But they wouldn’t have had to reinforce their social roles, because the division of labour would have been primitive and thus obvious. Women would have been closer to the children and to tending to the shelter than men. Men’s role was to hunt and to protect the clan.
I don’t see how women are uglier than men. Uglier to whom? Heterosexual men obviously find women more attractive than fellow men. Women have rounder, fattier forms, which attract masculine men for likely the same reason these men today like to squeeze toys to relieve stress.
You say toxically masculine societies tend to be disastrous. But Yuval Harari points out that patriarchal empires have been instrumental in spreading civilized norms too. Somewhat paradoxically, these empires have been both brutal and civilizing. Without masculine aggression, we wouldn’t be living currently in the Anthropocene. It’s a yin and yang dynamic, with femininity and masculinity complementing each other, sometimes checking the other’s excesses even as we swing back and forth between the extremes (although mostly we’re stuck in the nadir of hypermasculinity).
''Would you say that masculinity and femininity have no evolutionary basis at all? That prehistoric men and women were neither masculine nor feminine in any way we’d recognize today? Of course they would have lacked the niceties, the makeup, fashion, and other cultural cues. But they wouldn’t have had to reinforce their social roles, because the division of labour would have been primitive and thus obvious. Women would have been closer to the children and to tending to the shelter than men. Men’s role was to hunt and to protect the clan.''
DeleteNever. They do. But they are not frozenly separated poles. They were, on avg, but in terms of appearence, it's evident a long hair on women and a short hair on men works to exagerate these differences.
I also believe most of sexes differences, on for example, in profession, is totally attributed to biology. What i' m saying is that contrary to conservative thesis of ultranaturalness of masculine feminine poles, this it's a forged product of evolutionary circumstances.
It's not that magically eternal as conserfs often think. What we have today with gender theory on the left is the opposite of the milenar conservative gender theory. The first say "heterossexuality is mostly cultural. The ultranaturalness of human sexuality is bissexuality or non heterosexuality". The late say "non heterossexuality is perversion, sin, crime, disease, just extreme opposite sexual poles which are natural". Both wrong.
Another problem of this current "evolutionary psych" narrative is that they love to conclude "if a behavior is common it's mean it's evolutionarily valuable thus incriticable" because it's politically convenient for them if majority of humans are more conservative than progressive. It's like use evolutionism to support reich wing populism. "If men is more selfish then it's because it is a good adaptive trait". As expected conservatives always flirt seriously with mediocrity.
''I don’t see how women are uglier than men. Uglier to whom? Heterosexual men obviously find women more attractive than fellow men. Women have rounder, fattier forms, which attract masculine men for likely the same reason these men today like to squeeze toys to relieve stress.''
Of course not because majority of heterossexual are as non heterosexual instinctively inclined to find more attractive based on these "prefferences" but analysing objectively avg men seems more good looking than avg women without into account all the massive tricks. What is the % of women who have facial hair without extract it time to time??". Look at poor or countryside people with little vanity and you can see this difference. I'm not saying all women are uglier, on avg, men which are more good looking.
''You say toxically masculine societies tend to be disastrous. But Yuval Harari points out that patriarchal empires have been instrumental in spreading civilized norms too. Somewhat paradoxically, these empires have been both brutal and civilizing. Without masculine aggression, we wouldn’t be living currently in the Anthropocene. It’s a yin and yang dynamic, with femininity and masculinity complementing each other, sometimes checking the other’s excesses even as we swing back and forth between the extremes (although mostly we’re stuck in the nadir of hypermasculinity).''
I disagree. What we have is an umbalanced or inhealthy patriarchy with toxic feminility hegemonizing the feminine pole and the toxic masculinity hegemonizing the masculine pole. Yes, but i'm talking about in qualitative and not in quantitative terms. Roman Empire was apotheotic but disastrious regards social harmony. Today we have nations with dilluted toxic masculinity as in Scandinavia and even with all its detects it's evident its philosophical superiority. And if we have beautiful monuments, paradoxically, it's aesthetical appeal cannot be attributed to whom despise arts.
Bear in mind we are more mixed with these major categories[alpha,beta,gamma-ray..] than pure breed.
ReplyDeleteSweden ia being raped and pillaged. That's what happens when you emasculate Vikings.
ReplyDeleteBlack women were been raped by uhrational White males during european "colonization"... were Black males "emasculated'' in that time??
DeleteWere vikings not those good guys (~1500 years ago) who killed, raped and looted their fellows White brothers??
Delete"THEY STOLE US!"
DeleteNope. https://archive.org/details/negroesinnegrola00helpiala
"THEY RAPED US!"
Take a look at domestic abuse (especially of children), incest and rape rates among blacks. Look at the number of white guys who actually want to rape a black woman in FBI stats.
Then you are trying to justify massive rape chains commited by White angelical guys (our "heroes") against Black women during the COLONIAL period and before civil rights moviment.. this is the basic of morality...
DeleteI know criminality rates among Blacks specially toxic males is rampant. It's doesnt mean White males who commited such criminal behavior is absolutely acquitted... one thing doesnt cancel another if they are the same.
When White owners possessed Black women as their objects Black males were emasculated??
Between viking period and today there is a very long time. Swedes and other nordic people has been CIVILIZED since then.
Interesting you use notorious criminal male groups (vikings) to cry about current Sweden situation and even worst, a group who raped, kill and stoled (supposed) fellow whites..