Very often we hear the notion that all people have both a masculine and feminine "side" to their personality, and that it's important for men in particular to be in touch with their feminine side.

Is there any truth to that idea?

In my opinion, no.

Let's take cooking as an example.

It's often said that when a man cooks for his mate -- or perhaps just for himself -- he's getting in touch with the feminine side of his nature.

Is there any reason to believe that's so?

After I was hospitalized, my husband Patrick, who's bisexual and very masculine, cooked for me.

In order to do that, was it necessary that he access some feminine part of his psyche?

No.

Patrick as cook was no different than Patrick in his other aspects.

He didn't act differently, he didn't wear a dress or put on make-up or do anything else stereotypically feminine.

Yes, he was caring for me, and taking care of me, and nurturing me.

But those are things he could do as a man and as a masculine man.

Without any recourse to his alleged feminine side.

Redd: "Men don't have to be feminine to be compassionate, caring, gentle, etc."

That's correct.

Patrick doesn't have to call upon the woman within in order to make a meal.

He's more than capable of doing it just as himself -- a man.

Yet we often hear that for a man to be compassionate, caring, and gentle, he has to become more feminine.

Interestingly, we don't hear the same arguments when a woman acts as a chief executive or even head of state.

No one said of Golda Meir or Indira Ghandi or even Margaret Thatcher that she had to call upon her "inner man" to do her job.

Indeed, when these women were criticized, their critics used feminine references:

President Sadat of Egypt referred to Meir as "that old lady," while Thatcher was often called "the iron maiden."

Why is that?

Why is it that a man who does something allegedly feminine -- like bake cookies -- is claimed to be in touch with his feminine side; while a woman who behaves in decisive fashion is not said to be in touch with her masculine side?

The answer is -- politics.

The politics of sexuality.

Within the feminist system which rules the cultural roost in the West, and increasingly in the rest of the world, masculinity is bad, and femininity is good.

Since masculinity is the root of all evil -- violence, aggression, war-mongering, oppression of women and minorities -- no feminist is going to be eager to say that a powerful woman has a masculine side.

And since femininity is seen as the root of all good -- nuturance, toleration, compassion, conciliation, intution, etc -- men are encouraged to let go of their masculinity and become more and more feminine.

In reality, the feminists and feminist theory are wrong.

The idea that people have a masculine and feminine side is trendy but dopey.

Because as a practical and real world matter we can say that femininity is unique to women; and

MASCULINITY UNIQUE TO MEN.

A man may mimic feminine traits -- which is what the effeminate do -- but that does not make them authentically his.

They're just a parody.

Once again: The idea that people have a masculine and feminine side is trendy but dopey.

But, and as a practical matter, it's used by feminist cultural critics to beat up on men.

And by analists to encourage men to be penetrated.

Recently the media has been full of articles about the "boy crisis"; in fact, the NY Times is doing one of its seemingly interminable multi-article series on what it calls the gender gap among college students.

But the reason boys are in crisis is because the culture, in the form of feminist critics, keeps beating them up and telling them that they're bad to be boys.

The Times makes passing acknowledgment of that in its first article, while talking about boys in primary and secondary school:

And some experts argue that what is being seen as a boy problem is actually maleness itself, with the noisy, energetic antsiness and high jinks of young boys now redefined as a behavior problem by teachers who do not know how to handle them.

[emphasis mine]

Boys are being attacked for being male; and their behavior is being medicalized "by teachers who do not know how to handle them."

It's interesting that Redd said something very similar in one of his first posts:

I think young boys who are reared in single-parent mothered home then go to school to be surrounded by women teachers telling don't do this and don't do that are frustrated and tired of women quelling their masculine excitement.

I think most women don't intend to quell masculinity, but women only know how to be women and would that boys appease women's inclination for order. "Sit down, don't move, don't say anything" are the conversation women often have with boys. Men know to let boys be boys. I romp with my nephews on the floor slugging it out, and they love it at three and four years old.

Redd's correct.

What boys need are strong masculine role models and lots of time with other boys and men, without having heterosexual -- mixed sex -- environments and heterosexuality and even dating forced on them when they're too young to deal with it.

The Times acknowledges that too, again only passingly, in its second article, which describes how some colleges are instituting football programs to attract male undergraduates, programs with stadiums and coaches and fitness facilities.

Yet, the Times admits,

Sometimes, the allure is more primal.

"Heck, guys who play football just like to hit somebody, and the guys not playing like to watch the guys who are hitting each other," said Trey Kern, who was raised in Winchester near Shenandoah and who transferred from another Virginia college to play for the new team in 2000. "It's America's game. And, who doesn't like tailgating before the game?"

[emphasis mine]

Right:

"Guys who play football just like to hit somebody, and the guys not playing like to watch the guys who are hitting each other."

In other words, men have a need to be aggressive with and in the company of other men who are experiencing aggression.

A primal, basic, and completely natural male need.

Now, although I've quoted the Times to the effect that boys will be boys and guys like to be guys, it should be clear that the Times does not consider these serious arguments in explaining why female students are doing so much better in college.

Nevertheless, we need to look at what happened in traditional societies, and even our own until very recently, in which the sexes were kept separated for much of the time.

Boys spent the bulk of their time with other boys and men throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

Traditionally, boys didn't start dating girls at the onset of puberty.

Instead they spent lots of time with other boys and men.

And even as married adults they still had lots of time to be males -- men among men.

This is from allafrica dot com in a story about the increase in AIDS among traditional peoples in northeast Uganda:

The Karamajong cattle herders traditionally interacted little with communities outside their region. Sexual promiscuity was unheard of: girls remained virgins until marriage; warriors, though polygamous, stayed within the bounds of marriage; HIV/AIDS was kept at bay.

Drought and hunger are recurring features of life on the semi-arid grassland of Karamoja. Competition for water and pasture to feed the herds, regarded as a source of wealth and status, have produced a culture of raiding and warfare in which men are noted for their bravery and social standing.

That's a typical warrior society.

Little-to-no pre-marital sex; boys and men spending lots of time together; warrior virtues valued.

That's how it worked.

And in such a culture, AIDS wouldn't stand a chance.

Nor would there be a "boy crisis."

So: if there's a "boy crisis" today, it's been brought on by feminism and its allies, multipartnered pansexualism, and of course ANALISM.

Intellectual constructs which teach that men have a feminine side are not only invalid, but are used in the culture wars to destroy masculinity and injure manhood.

In the meantime, the scientific evidence is building that not only do men and women have different reproductive strategies and different sociobiologies, but that the genetic differences are deeper than previously believed:

Gene study shows sex differences go deep.

July 7, 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Thousands of genes behave differently in the same organs of males and females, researchers reported on Friday, a finding that may help explain why men and women have different responses to drugs and diseases.

Their study of brain, liver, fat and muscle tissue from mice showed that gene expression -- the level of activity of a gene -- varied greatly according to sex.

The same is almost certainly true of humans, the team at the University of California Los Angeles reported.

"This research holds important implications for understanding disorders such as diabetes, heart disease and obesity, and identifies targets for the development of gender-specific therapies," said Jake Lusis, a professor of human genetics who worked on the study.

Writing in the August issue of Genome Research, the researchers said that even in the same organ, scores of genes varied in expression levels between the sexes.

The smallest differences were in brain tissue, they found.

"We saw striking and measurable differences in more than half of the genes' expression patterns between males and females," said Dr. Thomas Drake, a professor of pathology. "We didn't expect that. No one has previously demonstrated this genetic gender gap at such high levels."

...

How bout that guys?

A GENETIC gender gap.

Not in brain tissue.

But most everywhere's else.

Men and women are different.

Men are masculine, women feminine.

Social and cultural forces can corrupt a man's natural masculinity, and replace it with a "cultural masculinity."

But it's NATURAL MASCULINITY which matters.

The further removed males are from their NATURAL MASCULINITY, the more miserable and indeed endangered they become.

Our job is to recall MEN to their NATURAL MASCULINITY, which by nature is Phallic, Faithful, and BONDED -- requiring the presence of other MEN.

MEN need to be with other MEN.

MEN need the FREEDOM to LOVE other MEN.

And MEN need to express that Love Phallically and Faithfully.

In a way which exalts and honors their Manhood.

Because all MEN are, potentially, BROTHERS.

Redd:

We're brothers of the masculine, not the feminine. Men don't have to be feminine to be compassionate, caring, gentle, etc. Those qualities are a part of their masculine composition.

Both men and women can bascially do all things without the other save reproduce. Men don't need to be women, nor women men to be whole.

Thank you Redd.

You're a true Warrior.

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Boomer

Re: THE FALLACY OF THE FEMININE

7-12-2006

It's this hyperpolarization between what is considered masculine and what is considered feminine, that is a sad result of feminism and the "gay identity" of recent years.

Things such as education, empathy, and effection are now seen things of the pure feminine attribute. Boys are looking for new and more dangerous ways to be Male. Whether it's the over-glamorization of the thuggish lifestyle, or the renegade attitude of blatantly not giving a fuck about anybody but yourself.

I do agree that men are feeling squeezed out by women to a degree. They are expected to get too large a proportion of their emotional fullfillment through the opposite sex.

I knew guys in highschool who paid more attention to and had more admiration for their coaches than their own mothers. It's not that they didn’t love their mothers, it’s that a man can only get so much from a woman who never knew what it's like to have a set of balls.

Bill Weintraub

Re: THE FALLACY OF THE FEMININE

7-12-2006

Boomer says

"men ... are expected to get too large a proportion of their emotional fullfillment through the opposite sex"

Right.

When Robert Loring says our way of life is UNnatural, that's one of the things he's referring to.

Men didn't use to look to women, and in particular one woman, for all of their emotional fulfillment.

Rather, they were able to bond deeply with other men.

One of my correspondents says that society has undergone a "heterosexualization," in which the man-woman dyad has become the ideal, and men are increasingly cut off from other men.

In this brave new world, only heterosex is validated.

Homosex is shunted off to an analist ghetto --

of which masculine-identified men want no part.

The choice offered the masculine-identified man -- who society now calls "straight" but who might be same-gender-loving or more likely just plain bi -- is either sex with a woman;

or a bunch of feminized fairies waving their butts in the air.

What the masculine man is never offered is the option of loving another masculine man.

Yet historically that was available to him.

That what's Robert keeps telling you -- and Robert's telling the truth.

WARRIORS.

Warriors used to be able to freely love other warriors.

Boomer: "I knew guys in highschool who paid more attention to and had more admiration for their coaches than their own mothers."

Right.

But it's not just the coach.

This is from EROS V; it's titled

This is a classic Warrior situation.

These guys have competed, and now they're turned on.

Their bodies are flush with testosterone and adrenaline.

Is the guy on the right "gay"?

Isn't it more honest to say that he's a MAN?

And that MEN have sex with MEN?

If we show MEN there's a way for them to love other men phallically and faithfully --

in a way that honors their MANHOOD and exalts their MASCULINITY --

what will they do?

What will they do?

And what will YOU do?

Will you reach out to your brothers to help them see they have a choice?

Will you?

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

PS Boomer is the author of The Princeton Club -- among other stories and essays.

Boomer keeps reaching out.

Boomer's a true Warrior.

Are you?

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.