If you were raising animals and the males changed the way Western men have, growing weaker, more emotional, less fertile, directionless, and with shortened lifespans, you’d conclude that whether by accident or through malice, your animals were being poisoned. You’d put all your effort into figuring out why. In a sane society, the question of what has happened to men would of interest to everyone. It’d be in the news nightly.
Indeed. However, since we do live in huge human farms (states), it’s apparent that the self-appointed farmers are purposefully neutering the population to make it more manageable.
I wouldn't say "poisoned" but famished and debased (haha "based"). This has happened before as the French Revolution and Great Depression, where Peter Turchin's prediction that polarization, free immigration, credential inflation, and high inequality, are locked in with lower wellbeing and birth rate. It is how the public thought of "useless eaters" (bureaucratic middle class left) and "proletariats" (laborites AND welfare bums) are cooked up on each sides of the political spectrum. Overcrowding with a lack of livestock feed will lead to cannibalizing madness.
Famished - yes. Debased - yes. Poisoned? You argue no. I argue yes. My ancestors knew well that allowing usury (which always leads to high inequality) would poison wellbeing and lead to pathocracy. Which we have today, no?
To use agriculture as an analogy, every morally questionable tactic, including usury, propaganda, nepotism, and surveillance, are all part of the human equivalent of "factory farming", as the sacrifice of quality (free agency) for quantity (wellbeing). Occasional breakdown of wellbeing in exchange for raised average wellbeing, or "repugnant conclusion" is subconscious pragmatism of the masses. Then again every system has its own "black swan", and over-optimization leads to destabilization, for example usury and inequality in exchange for a less restrictive economy for trade (compared to gold or BTC based systems). https://archive.fo/d5VLshttps://archive.fo//uQANOhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox
If you truly desire "organic" humanity, certain luxuries would have to be given up, starting with the elimination social technologies, as either cultural luddism (return to "tradition") or cultural anprim (return to the stone age). Anything that relies on groups larger than ten thousand, including bureaucracies, markets, and free-flow military tactics, would be discarded in this utopic thought experiment. Every idea would be tribal, pragmatic and spiritual, rather than dogmatic, transcendent, or rational. http://www.nordicbildung.org/metamodernity/
Then again, the ability to complain about X causing suffering, suggests reduced suffering since X has been introduced. Conversely, inability to claim that X causes suffering makes X suspicious (Zizek's Red Pen logic). X can be capitalism for the right and "rule of law" for the left. Oligarchies are only there to stop social collapse, like loose bandages to a wound, and the collapse is more due to failed function rather than conspiration (Hanlon's Razor).
I've read that communication across a gap of more than 30 IQ points is difficult or impossible. Maybe that's why your comment above is nearly incomprehensible (and/or replete with error?) to me? I follow your first two sentences. I strongly disagree with your apparent implication that usury benefits average wellbeing.
In my map, there are major differences between normal (Western) people and sociopaths of the type Matthew Crawford refers to as Kunlangeta. I submit that kunlangeta currently hold the levers of power, and that this is very bad for the wellbeing of westernkind, while being seen and sold as beneficial by said kunlangeta/pathocrats.
I completely disagree with the assertion "Oligarchies are only there to stop social collapse". Rather, I argue that Oligarchies are there to enable continued parasitization.
Spiral Dynamics is a good spiritualized abstraction on "Curse of Development" principle, which states that (a) those with around two years of advanced experience cannot convince the average that they know better, (b) those with around five years of advanced experience can teach the crowd, and (c) those with seven or more years of advanced experience are practically incomprehensible.
the 18 IQ rule of leader (middle manager) advantage over the group applies to here as well (Antonakis, House, & Simonton, 2017). Likely that an IQ gap of around 136 or top ~1% would be unique enough to qualify as part of upper management in an average organization.
(a) The "oligarch" is a seat/role fought between the kunlangeta and men of noble spirit.
(b) Any call for the collapse of the seat/role itself rather than the kunlangeta, desire the collapse of the world
(c) This seat/role is the keystone of the arch stretching between monarchy and populism
(d) Some men stand under the arch (noble men, most of the populace) but others stand outside it (kunlangeta, the downtrodden) and does not care about the arch
(e) pathological tactics only targets those who care e.g. usury is only harmful to those insistent that hard money is the utopic ideal (trap for noble spirit), NOT to those that insists that money is a kind of arbitrary mythology (downtrodden)
Maybe further analysis into how the concept of money and the infeasibility of naive usury-free systems, reinforces usury, or in shorthand "all currency contains usury, to escape it eliminate the importance of money". This pattern also applies to electoral theory against naive populist ideals and bureaucratic reality.
I disagree with most of that comment. Far too much emphasis and judgment based on the current paradigm cost/benefit assumptions. The current paradigm is dying rapidly, IMO. As it should. Nothing equitable or sustainable about it. Self-destruction and nest(Earth)-destruction writ large. It's insane, though familiar and comfortable.
Move to a Nature-based paradigm. Nothing Luddite or Stone Age about it. Natural Law and associated ethical systems will flesh out into all manner of practical and livable culture. Nature works. Always has and always will. Biomimicry across the board. Any problem we think we have, Nature has already dealt with it in countless ways. As well, a far more spiritual attitude will come to the forefront, instead of bio-destructive techno-savior approaches.
Never underestimate how both AI development and cost/benefit oriented economic theory are beginning to regress to a more nature-like form, from neural networks to Lotka-Volterra Equations of population change.
The prime assumption is that nature's self-correction looks beautiful, but are bloody when one has a run-in with nature. Not everything is like Disney or NatGeo, the world does not care what the hippies think.
For techno-economic models, the hatred for correction is uniquely anthropocentric. Turchin's "Age of Discord" and Howe's "Fourth Turning" are all regression towards nature. Natural Law however is the exception and not the norm, or at the very least not equally distributed amongst different social castes.
So true. And we have been poisoned, in countless ways. e.g. Industrial seed oils, junk carbs, poison 'entertainment', poison injections, ruined families, subverted religions...
A few years ago my brother came back from a tour in Afghanistan, and it quickly became apparent that he'd brought the war home with him. Nightmares, an explosive temper. The military put him in therapy, which he's been in for years now. No pot, but CBD oil was recommended - I don't buy that that isn't a drug. In any case it seemed to calm him down. Yet, the therapy never seemed to end.
I've often thought precisely as you do, therapy is fake and gay. Every male therapist I've met is a soft spoken, uptalking spiritual catamite. What, I wondered, could such a person offer a blooded combat veteran? Surely it would be better to find a priest of severe countenance and dry humor, a man who understands but does not excuse the darkness of the human heart? Or to take refuge in the arms of a willing and sympathetic lady of the night ... the traditional companion of the soldier since time immemorial?
In ages past there was no such thing as PTSD. Perhaps modern warfare is uniquely capable of shattering a man's nerves. Yet the horrors and terrors of war are hardly new. In ages past, a soldier would return with his comrades - the bonds forged in battle were bonds for life. Now, they disperse to their various points of geographical origin, stripped of the ersatz tribe of their platoon and left to confront the demons they've returned with surrounded only by those who cannot comprehend them.
>Now, they disperse to their various points of geographical origin, stripped of the ersatz tribe of their platoon and left to confront the demons they've returned with surrounded only by those who cannot comprehend them.<
I think the WWII era description was the most accurate- “combat fatigue”. They have studied this over the past 100 years and after a certain number of days in combat, psychological symptoms start to manifest at a predictable rate.
I think modern wars have created a situation where soldiers are in permanent semi-combat mode, which may explain why it seems to be a modern condition. Evidence for the symptoms we call PTSD is very thin in the historical record prior to the 20th Century.
When I retired they made me go to therapy. 4 different years in combat over the 20 in the military. It’s not worse now, it’s because we tell all these kids it’s okay to be fucked up and put them on drugs. Hell there were popular tshirts vets were wearing that said “dysfunctional vet”. That wasn’t the way 30 years ago and prior. You sucked it up and moved on. That’s what we are missing. Just some good old fashioned shut the fuck up and get on with life.
You may be interested in Sebastian Junger's book Tribe. He noted that PTSD doesn't occur X time after the supposedly-triggering event, and that it occurs more often in non-combat troops than combat troops, who would generally see more traumatising things. He noted too that mental health presentations go down during times of natural or man-made disaster, like London during the Blitz.
His theory is that the real issue is loss of tribe, that sense of community and common purpose. Soldiers have this, and combat soldiers even more - but once they go back to the atomised civilian life, they lose it. And so he views PTSD more of a painful awareness of alienation.
This is also backed by statistics in Australia that service members tend to have a lower suicide rate than civilians while in uniform, and a higher one outside (for a lifetime slight reduction in suicide rates, or overall about the same).
A sense of community and common purpose. Anyway, perhaps a book you'll be interested in.
You do realize warfare of old involved warrior classes and mercenaries correct? Warfare was not a "man's duty" but a warriors duty. It was knights, samurai, mercemaries who fought wars, the average men had no expectation to fight, they did not have knowledge of tactics, nor did they posses the strength and endurance to march on long campaigns carrying heavy weapons... warriora are accustomed to battle, but ordinary men are not and they break, not because they are weak but because they were not meant to fight, ever. It was the invention of the firearms and subsequent advancements with rifiling and long range artillery as well as social changes brought on by the Napoleonic wars and nationalism that caused nations to forgo professional armies or employ mercenaries in favor of conscriptinf ordinary men...
He probably didn’t want to get killed for corporations. He probably didn’t want to kill anybody that he didn’t know just because some idiot told him to.
CBD won’t get you high. There is a school of Ayurveda that considers Marijuana the king of herbs. However, you have to detoxify it before it becomes that. They are essentially making a hash made of CBD. The getting high part they consider toxic and must be removed.
What regiment or corps did he serve with? This makes a big difference as others have noted. I know a lot who came back, got out and that is when the problems started. Far too many that I know have killed themselves.
Somatic modalities are useful insofar as I have personal experience with them, and for a lot of things beyond dealing with emotions. It's all about self-mastery, which I think is a better descriptor than 'therapy' for such techniques in general. To be fair to Megha, her critique was aimed more at the endless emotional scab-picking of talk therapy.
A good therapist won't try to do that, but judging by how many people are perpetually in therapy I'm skeptical that there are many good ones out there.
You're exactly on point regarding what I meant by a priest or a courtesan. I should have added, a close friend. These days though, a lot of people don't have access to any of those, deep friendships especially.
The key reason I mentioned female companionship is precisely the somatic element. There's a magic to erotic touch that no amount of talking can replicate. That was really driven home for me after lockdown. I went out to a bar one night, and for the first time in several months a girl touched my arm ... the emotional reaction I had from that, after so long in de facto house arrest, was more visceral than anything I'd expected. And that wasn't even erotic, it was just a drunk girl being a bit flirty. For some guys, I think, that's all they really need. It's a matter of using the least invasive medicine first, in a sense. Obviously a real relationship is ideal - but that's not an option for everyone, especially not these days, and historically not really at all for soldiers, on campaign or otherwise.
The military use of sex workers results in abuse, violence and sometimes death of those workers. That's a known fact worldwide wherever military is stationed. I think a better somatic option would be massage - by other soldiers. Though not neccessarily erotic (though it can be) massage is healing on multiple levels.
I suppose I can forgive your naivete, becasue you are young. I can only assume by your fairytale-esque view on gender that you have not experienced a long term relationship with a man.
In warror culture, the men went on raids and conquests and only consorted with women for domestic service (sexual releif, child-rearing, food preperation, etc). From a cultural point of view, this societal construct was designed for women to essentially produce more boys to be groomed as warriors in an unending and unrelenting quest for territory or bounty.
You could say that these aspects were tamed in the "modern" 1950's (e.g Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, Mad Men). But, is that what women really want? A Don Draper who has succeeded in "business conquest," but has no ability to emotionally connect in intimate relationships with his wife and kids?
I'm a pretty tough ass guy. My wife likes it when I put on the tool belt and build something. She likes the fact that I am a strong provider. I do wear the pants, so to speak. But she also likes kindness and sensitivity. Is that gay? Is getting help in talk-theapy for uncontrolable anger related to an abusive childhood also gay? Therapy did not emasculate me, it just made me more stable by processing my held feelings and emotions... that were bottled up in the first place, because of asanine cultural tropes like, "man-up, get-over it, and don't cry."
It's all about balance. Nothing wrong with "classical" gender roles. But, these can be opressive to both sexes... there is a dark side to limiting the expression of "humanness" which is beyond gender.
A recomendation... watch "Some Kind of Monster" on Netflix. Its about the band members of Metalica in group therapy. It might be interesting to you.
No where in my article have I suggested that emotional sensitivity in men must be discarded completely. The purpose of my article was to highlight the harms of therapy for men as a way to manage their emotional and psychological problems. Furthermore, there are many women who make life hell for their men by expecting them to process emotions in just the same way that they do. Everyone is different, everyone doesn't need to constantly talk about things in order to resolve their problems.
I don’t think women ever ask men to process emotions in just the same way that they do. The only thing they ask men is to process their emotions in some way because let me be very honest if a man has ever processed his emotions in a way that would help him live his life he would be kinder to himself and to the people around him. He would be generous and brave hearted and not avoid his feelings by “waking up in the morning and getting a job and having competency”. I’m sorry to say but a woman who thinks and believes like you will also justify rapes in your own stone aged societal thinking.
Sure, talking to your buddies is helpful. Yea, a lot of therapists and theapy is bullshit. Like any other service, you have to shop around to find a good professional and or technique that works for you.
EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprograming) is a technique that has worked wonders for post combat PTSD as well as other traumas. It's not you average talk, talk, talk, crap.
What I don't get it the generalizing. As if all men should be "one" way, or "all therapy" is absolute bullshit. Really? Maybe that is your experience, but there are plenty of men that have improved their lives with a good therapist using a good technique that fit for them. Its all the rage in Evangelical Christianity these days. So you don't have to go to a "woke" liberal to get help.
Anyway, maybe check out Jordan Peterson... he's all over podcasts, YouTube.... Perfect balance of the need for modern masculitniy but without all the dimwited macho posturing.
The dimwitted part is insuating that therapy is "gay." What do gay men have to do with a strait male who may find therapy helpful?
Really, no insult intended.
I've been acused of being macho, sexist, and a misygonist because I defend traditionl gender roles. I worked hard to allow my wife to stay home with the kids and certain people think that's 'holding her back." Total bullshit. She absolutly loves her role as mother and wife and she does plenty of work to support the family. Anyway... I've been maried for 25 years, and I had to tone down certain steriotypical masculine atributes to save my marriage.
Being "tough" is important, but so is softening up a little with the wife and kids. Especially kids. They need a father that is both firm enough to dicipline and sensitive enouth to give them a hug and listen to their little problems.
All I can say, is that I'm a typical male that went to therapy and it helped me tremendously. And the author insuinating that I'm gay for doing so is just perpetuating sterotypes (like showing feelings turns you gay) that keep men from emotionally maturing.
She wasn’t insinuating people like you are ‘gay’. She was making an interesting point in that society today has emasculated men and that therapy forms a part of that. It’s a very interesting point but is not saying ‘everyone who goes to therapy is gay.’
The articles criticisms of modern therapy aren't incorrect , but I'm wary of the implication that no modern man needs therapy.
Being emotionally stunted is not masculinity . Every unpleasant man I've ever known has been in some way in denial of his own emotions and therefore his own self , which was the Fundamental issue which stopped him addressing his issues and growing as a person and as a man and lead to outpouring of emotion like extreme anger, extreme cowardice or extreme laziness.
I can see therapy being that solution for plenty of men , especially in the absence of communities equipped to fulfill that same function.
What they did to men was much more oppressive than any gender roles. Women are the most unhappy they’ve ever been in history. Look at the statistics. Most are on drugs and women’s alcoholism doubled during the Covid and stayed that way
We won't slay dragons without aid from Heaven. We have to submit to the truth that there is a dimension higher than the psyche. The goal of every institution of modern society is to convince us that there isn't. As the author says, therapy is is a parody of Confession.
I generally agree, but I think that it is a mistake to blame individualism here. I would posit that the exact opposite is driving the problem: modern society demands men conform to the norms of the group, and that group must be one all encompassing one. If your group contains men and women, and they must all behave in the same manner, then you get the modern US issue of men forced to act like women who are acting like men.
I don't think individualism gets you there, unless we have different definitions for it. A focus on the needs of the individual makes modern therapy for males look insane, as you rightly point out. Modernity makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of the planner, looking to control groups of infinitely replaceable grey people who are equally blank slates.
Aristotle in Politics, suggests the family (mom dad and kids) is the smallest unit we can be divided into without becoming absurd. That we are political (in a non-government sense of the word) by nature is one of the building blocks of the West. Individualism leads to exactly this fake (right/ left) class we have. They both fundamentally believe the same. Unencumbered personal license with no obligation towards the social structure is the axiom of both American “wings”. The only distinction is whether that’s in the bedroom or the wallet.
His way of ordering health of each group type: Resurrected (DM/IRL mutualism) > Precipitated (Blog/Meetup organization) > Atomized (Twitter/LinkedIn individualism) > Circled Wagons (Reddit/Discord collective)
Therapy, depression and mental health are all girly/gay topics that I never even think of and no man should. Being all sad all the time is for pussies. Removing mental health words from a man's vocabulary completely is the first step.
I don’t talk about my mental issues in confession, though. I talk about the sins I committed and receive absolution for them. I don’t go to therapy but I don’t think it serves the same purpose as confession at all. Confession isn’t where you talk about your need to wash your hands 50 times a day.
Claiming mental illness doesn't exist at all is a fallacy that hurts people with mental illness. I hope no one with a mental illness is neat, lest you imply their struggle is non-existent.
How do you mean ? The dsm might incorrectly label the cause or unnecessarily muddy the waters but I'd say it's undeniable that people with dysfunctional ways of behaving/thinking/feeling exist and should be fixed .
For example , the aforementioned person who feels an extreme compulsive need to wash their hands 50 times a day, or someone who hallucinates. Or someone who gets set off by an event in their environment and mentally regresses to the time they killed a man in the desert. Or someone who operates under extreme delusions .
You aren't surely suggesting that no such people exist ?
I agree 100% people are sick of this shit! It seems that from the time a boy is born people are trying to stick him into a box. If they don't get the desired outcome, they fault the boy. The boy is *not* the problem -- it's the fucking box!
The "stick people in a box" thinking is why so many people have been "diagnosed" with ADHD. It's nonsense, and it has to stop.
The problem is, now so many people have been brainwashed into believing this tripe that it's become complicated to get away from it, but we must!
If you have to homeschool, or virtual school your kids -- do it! Because sure as the world, your son will come home from government school calling himself Sally. And your daughter "Dave" will be transitioning into a fruitcake. Because that's what the government is pushing now.
They are/have passed laws in California and Washington -- to allow the state to take children away from their parents, if the parents don't support their child's "transition" to a different gender.
This shit is sick, the people behind it are sick, and the people at the top simply want to demoralize and fuck up as many families as possible. Because that's obviously the outcome. There's no world in which a child has surgery to permanently alter their body, and everything just "works out" and they're accepted. Why? Because *everyone* knows it's a lie -- even the kid having it done. And one day it's going to hit them, and when it does, they'll hit rock bottom -- and hard. They probably won't make it back.
Allowing a kid to permanently alter their body, because they're throwing a fucking tantrum -- is the literal opposite of parenting. And everyone instinctively knows this. Everyone can understand how allowing a kid that's too young to have a beer or drive a car -- shouldn't be in charge of life altering decisions, for themselves or other people. That's why we have laws that are age based.
All of this is seriously fucked up and *not* buying Budlight isn't going to fix this. People need to stand up, and push back against this shit everywhere they see it. Just don't go along with it.
Exactly. My library has a pride month so I will not step foot in it. If every single person did that they would stop this nonsense. that’s not a violent thing or pushy, just don’t show up. Easy.
I used to, not so much now, but before I had the best focus of anyone I had ever met. Laser like for as long as needed. I filled out a questionnaire on ADHD. I had ADHD!! ‘Have you ever lost your focus when you didn’t want to?’ Well, duh. Who can answer that any way but yes. Ten questions like that. If you answered 5 yeses you need Ritalin.
Amazing article Megha, it really put to words exactly what I have been thinking and experiencing. As a man who was raised in a small town, in a conservative family, growing up and trying to find a place in the modern world is seemingly impossible. Everything I see around me screams that it's all wrong, I don't belong here.
Christianity is the only thing that’s ever explained this to me. The Bible calls it being a pilgrim in this world. Heaven is our true home, not here. Even in a golden age we would feel this dissatisfaction, though it’s even more prominent in our current age. I think it’s a blessing in disguise in propelling us toward virtue.
Megha all I have to say is thank you. This really hit home for me - “A modern man at unease with the world, is a man who is healthy. The degree to which he continues to resist it, is the degree to which his thymos is still alive.”
I find your writing to be an oasis in a barren land. I am tired but am not beaten! To know that there are women on our side is encouraging and appreciated.
Who wrote this? Not someone who works with men or the mental health system. Having treated servicemen with trauma you work with male and female patients in different ways but depending on the individual’s needs and strength. CBT stands for cognitive BEHAVIOURAL therapy. You can use behavioural activation just as effectively to treat depression which apparently, according to this writer is all men are capable of. Most of the time they just need help to form connections and some empowerment and self-belief and they can heal.
Porn addiction, cannabis use, alcohol use and video games are not viewed as benign by any therapist worth their salt. We specifically screen and address that.
Yes society is pretty sick and emasculates men but it also defeminises women, makes the elderly redundant and sexualised children. It’s a global sickness and I think it started with the breakdown of connections between generations with the “teenager” phenomenon before the systematic emasculation and toxic feminism agenda stepped up. Not changing nappies is not a sign of masculinity. Both grandfathers were strong military men and both could do everything including manage the kids and change nappies because they were strong men. Men with unprocessed trauma become self-sabotaging and a lot of the time violent so until you can fix the whole of this societal sickness, don’t tell men therapy is for wimps because it may be a poor proxy for what came before but it’s all we have right now. I also recommend talking to some of the child soldiers from Uganda. Many have killed and raped, all deeply traumatised, and can recover with therapy. And homosexuality is accepted in that society. Not that I agree with the homophobic sentiments because gay men, with intact self esteem and identity, are just as masculine as any other.
Because they felt like losers and/or had not faced their demons , and because they didn't process it or address it because "I'm a macho man" that metasticised into complete toxicity. Alcoholism , substance abuse , porn , domestic violence etc .
I would argue that an actual masculine man would be unafraid to face himself and his problems in order to fix them and heal . Which may well involve therapy .
The author seems to have no experience of genuine mental health issues. For example , I am incredibly driven and usually never let's things get in my way , but because of extremely horrible historic incidents (aka trauma) I sometimes find myself having panic attacks I can't control . According to the writer , that's just not possible and I'm imagining it all.
It's just detached from the reality of these things .
This author isn't feminine at all. She's not nurturing or humble in any way. "Mainstream normies, bitch tears, tHeRaPy." Does anyone know a single feminine, healthy woman who writes in this way? I don't.
Please point me to the sentence in the bio or the article where I said I am “feminine” or that this article is about the “femininity of the writer”. Sorry if you want nurturing pats on the head go find your mommy.
You're correct, it was so foolish of me to assume a woman writing about masculinity would have even a passing interest in being feminine. Men, do heed advice from this masculine, spiritually unbalanced woman.
Simply brilliant article. I am a pastor, so I counsel people from the Bible. Many come to me with a therapeutic diagnosis. It becomes their identity. It's tough to help them identify not by their diagnosis, but being an image-bearer.
For either of your absolute claims to be true (therapy is always bad, no proof it's ever helpful for men), you'd have to be.
I believe you when you say you've read the literature; bully for you. That doesn't make you an expert or temper headlines like 'therapy is gay' with wisdom or authority.
There's nothing wrong with calling out problems (again, I think I agree with you that feminized - neutered men is a problem and excessive therapy, or therapy with no Biblical framework can exaccerbate that problem and harm men). But where do you claim authority over every situation. Where do you get off saying I don't know what works and have no idea what I'm talking about?
I have a world of life experience, firsthand accounts, relevant reading, and walking with flesh and blood people through seasons of adult life that you don't have.
Again, you must be omniscient.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in something, or even in challenging convential wisdom. But calling for jihad against any and all situations involving men undergoing therapy is tilting at windmills, and apt to shame / deter / stigmatize some men from getting help they might actually need.
That's not a good thing.
I see I could have been more sincere and respectful in my earlier comment - I threw a punch so naturally you threw one back. Fair enough.
But respectfully, you're mixing some truths about men and male nature and the feminization of society with claims you can't possibly support, no matter how much you've read.
If you were raising animals and the males changed the way Western men have, growing weaker, more emotional, less fertile, directionless, and with shortened lifespans, you’d conclude that whether by accident or through malice, your animals were being poisoned. You’d put all your effort into figuring out why. In a sane society, the question of what has happened to men would of interest to everyone. It’d be in the news nightly.
Well, we do actually castrate male livestock - because if we don't they cause too much trouble. That's possibly the approach being taken here.
Indeed. However, since we do live in huge human farms (states), it’s apparent that the self-appointed farmers are purposefully neutering the population to make it more manageable.
I wouldn't say "poisoned" but famished and debased (haha "based"). This has happened before as the French Revolution and Great Depression, where Peter Turchin's prediction that polarization, free immigration, credential inflation, and high inequality, are locked in with lower wellbeing and birth rate. It is how the public thought of "useless eaters" (bureaucratic middle class left) and "proletariats" (laborites AND welfare bums) are cooked up on each sides of the political spectrum. Overcrowding with a lack of livestock feed will lead to cannibalizing madness.
Famished - yes. Debased - yes. Poisoned? You argue no. I argue yes. My ancestors knew well that allowing usury (which always leads to high inequality) would poison wellbeing and lead to pathocracy. Which we have today, no?
Look at this so-called food of course we are being poisoned
To use agriculture as an analogy, every morally questionable tactic, including usury, propaganda, nepotism, and surveillance, are all part of the human equivalent of "factory farming", as the sacrifice of quality (free agency) for quantity (wellbeing). Occasional breakdown of wellbeing in exchange for raised average wellbeing, or "repugnant conclusion" is subconscious pragmatism of the masses. Then again every system has its own "black swan", and over-optimization leads to destabilization, for example usury and inequality in exchange for a less restrictive economy for trade (compared to gold or BTC based systems). https://archive.fo/d5VLs https://archive.fo//uQANO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox
If you truly desire "organic" humanity, certain luxuries would have to be given up, starting with the elimination social technologies, as either cultural luddism (return to "tradition") or cultural anprim (return to the stone age). Anything that relies on groups larger than ten thousand, including bureaucracies, markets, and free-flow military tactics, would be discarded in this utopic thought experiment. Every idea would be tribal, pragmatic and spiritual, rather than dogmatic, transcendent, or rational. http://www.nordicbildung.org/metamodernity/
Then again, the ability to complain about X causing suffering, suggests reduced suffering since X has been introduced. Conversely, inability to claim that X causes suffering makes X suspicious (Zizek's Red Pen logic). X can be capitalism for the right and "rule of law" for the left. Oligarchies are only there to stop social collapse, like loose bandages to a wound, and the collapse is more due to failed function rather than conspiration (Hanlon's Razor).
I've read that communication across a gap of more than 30 IQ points is difficult or impossible. Maybe that's why your comment above is nearly incomprehensible (and/or replete with error?) to me? I follow your first two sentences. I strongly disagree with your apparent implication that usury benefits average wellbeing.
In my map, there are major differences between normal (Western) people and sociopaths of the type Matthew Crawford refers to as Kunlangeta. I submit that kunlangeta currently hold the levers of power, and that this is very bad for the wellbeing of westernkind, while being seen and sold as beneficial by said kunlangeta/pathocrats.
I completely disagree with the assertion "Oligarchies are only there to stop social collapse". Rather, I argue that Oligarchies are there to enable continued parasitization.
Also, communication across Spiral Dynamics levels of consciousness, more than one level away, are difficult or impossible.
https://www.thenextevolution.com/spiral-dynamics/
https://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/about-sdi/
What is up with that wig Ken is wearing now?
Spiral Dynamics is a good spiritualized abstraction on "Curse of Development" principle, which states that (a) those with around two years of advanced experience cannot convince the average that they know better, (b) those with around five years of advanced experience can teach the crowd, and (c) those with seven or more years of advanced experience are practically incomprehensible.
the 18 IQ rule of leader (middle manager) advantage over the group applies to here as well (Antonakis, House, & Simonton, 2017). Likely that an IQ gap of around 136 or top ~1% would be unique enough to qualify as part of upper management in an average organization.
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/04/14/the-gervais-principle-iii-the-curse-of-development/ https://archive.ph/dqNFs https://archive.ph/zDpYn
To put it more clearly:
(a) The "oligarch" is a seat/role fought between the kunlangeta and men of noble spirit.
(b) Any call for the collapse of the seat/role itself rather than the kunlangeta, desire the collapse of the world
(c) This seat/role is the keystone of the arch stretching between monarchy and populism
(d) Some men stand under the arch (noble men, most of the populace) but others stand outside it (kunlangeta, the downtrodden) and does not care about the arch
(e) pathological tactics only targets those who care e.g. usury is only harmful to those insistent that hard money is the utopic ideal (trap for noble spirit), NOT to those that insists that money is a kind of arbitrary mythology (downtrodden)
Maybe further analysis into how the concept of money and the infeasibility of naive usury-free systems, reinforces usury, or in shorthand "all currency contains usury, to escape it eliminate the importance of money". This pattern also applies to electoral theory against naive populist ideals and bureaucratic reality.
I disagree with most of that comment. Far too much emphasis and judgment based on the current paradigm cost/benefit assumptions. The current paradigm is dying rapidly, IMO. As it should. Nothing equitable or sustainable about it. Self-destruction and nest(Earth)-destruction writ large. It's insane, though familiar and comfortable.
Move to a Nature-based paradigm. Nothing Luddite or Stone Age about it. Natural Law and associated ethical systems will flesh out into all manner of practical and livable culture. Nature works. Always has and always will. Biomimicry across the board. Any problem we think we have, Nature has already dealt with it in countless ways. As well, a far more spiritual attitude will come to the forefront, instead of bio-destructive techno-savior approaches.
Never underestimate how both AI development and cost/benefit oriented economic theory are beginning to regress to a more nature-like form, from neural networks to Lotka-Volterra Equations of population change.
The prime assumption is that nature's self-correction looks beautiful, but are bloody when one has a run-in with nature. Not everything is like Disney or NatGeo, the world does not care what the hippies think.
For techno-economic models, the hatred for correction is uniquely anthropocentric. Turchin's "Age of Discord" and Howe's "Fourth Turning" are all regression towards nature. Natural Law however is the exception and not the norm, or at the very least not equally distributed amongst different social castes.
Hey, Hugh! Not too many of us out there.
“You’d put all your effort into figuring out why.” You run sheep or something?
Hoping to, actually. But no sheep yet.
Except female animals are generally the more aggressive and protective types, so this little simile doesn’t quite say what you think it does.
So true. And we have been poisoned, in countless ways. e.g. Industrial seed oils, junk carbs, poison 'entertainment', poison injections, ruined families, subverted religions...
Poisoner Oligarchs now rule us. They've been poisoning our men my whole life, and before.
Filter out and eliminate psychopaths, sociopaths, machiavellians.
It's the only way out for humanity, as far as I can see.
A few years ago my brother came back from a tour in Afghanistan, and it quickly became apparent that he'd brought the war home with him. Nightmares, an explosive temper. The military put him in therapy, which he's been in for years now. No pot, but CBD oil was recommended - I don't buy that that isn't a drug. In any case it seemed to calm him down. Yet, the therapy never seemed to end.
I've often thought precisely as you do, therapy is fake and gay. Every male therapist I've met is a soft spoken, uptalking spiritual catamite. What, I wondered, could such a person offer a blooded combat veteran? Surely it would be better to find a priest of severe countenance and dry humor, a man who understands but does not excuse the darkness of the human heart? Or to take refuge in the arms of a willing and sympathetic lady of the night ... the traditional companion of the soldier since time immemorial?
In ages past there was no such thing as PTSD. Perhaps modern warfare is uniquely capable of shattering a man's nerves. Yet the horrors and terrors of war are hardly new. In ages past, a soldier would return with his comrades - the bonds forged in battle were bonds for life. Now, they disperse to their various points of geographical origin, stripped of the ersatz tribe of their platoon and left to confront the demons they've returned with surrounded only by those who cannot comprehend them.
>Now, they disperse to their various points of geographical origin, stripped of the ersatz tribe of their platoon and left to confront the demons they've returned with surrounded only by those who cannot comprehend them.<
This hits hard. I couldn't have said it better.
"In ages past there was no such thing as PTSD. "
Of course there was. They called it "shell shock" back then.
I think the WWII era description was the most accurate- “combat fatigue”. They have studied this over the past 100 years and after a certain number of days in combat, psychological symptoms start to manifest at a predictable rate.
I think modern wars have created a situation where soldiers are in permanent semi-combat mode, which may explain why it seems to be a modern condition. Evidence for the symptoms we call PTSD is very thin in the historical record prior to the 20th Century.
Combat Stress or PTSD? How to Know the Difference:
https://www.military.com/spouse/military-life/wounded-warriors/combat-stress-symptoms.html#:~:text=Combat%20Stress%20Reaction%20(CSR)%20is,disconnected%20and%20inability%20to%20focus.
When I retired they made me go to therapy. 4 different years in combat over the 20 in the military. It’s not worse now, it’s because we tell all these kids it’s okay to be fucked up and put them on drugs. Hell there were popular tshirts vets were wearing that said “dysfunctional vet”. That wasn’t the way 30 years ago and prior. You sucked it up and moved on. That’s what we are missing. Just some good old fashioned shut the fuck up and get on with life.
You may be interested in Sebastian Junger's book Tribe. He noted that PTSD doesn't occur X time after the supposedly-triggering event, and that it occurs more often in non-combat troops than combat troops, who would generally see more traumatising things. He noted too that mental health presentations go down during times of natural or man-made disaster, like London during the Blitz.
His theory is that the real issue is loss of tribe, that sense of community and common purpose. Soldiers have this, and combat soldiers even more - but once they go back to the atomised civilian life, they lose it. And so he views PTSD more of a painful awareness of alienation.
This is also backed by statistics in Australia that service members tend to have a lower suicide rate than civilians while in uniform, and a higher one outside (for a lifetime slight reduction in suicide rates, or overall about the same).
A sense of community and common purpose. Anyway, perhaps a book you'll be interested in.
That sounds like a fascinating read . I must buy it .
You do realize warfare of old involved warrior classes and mercenaries correct? Warfare was not a "man's duty" but a warriors duty. It was knights, samurai, mercemaries who fought wars, the average men had no expectation to fight, they did not have knowledge of tactics, nor did they posses the strength and endurance to march on long campaigns carrying heavy weapons... warriora are accustomed to battle, but ordinary men are not and they break, not because they are weak but because they were not meant to fight, ever. It was the invention of the firearms and subsequent advancements with rifiling and long range artillery as well as social changes brought on by the Napoleonic wars and nationalism that caused nations to forgo professional armies or employ mercenaries in favor of conscriptinf ordinary men...
Why didn't you fight in the war alongside your brother?
He probably didn’t want to get killed for corporations. He probably didn’t want to kill anybody that he didn’t know just because some idiot told him to.
Too busy working in academia, lol.
CBD won’t get you high. There is a school of Ayurveda that considers Marijuana the king of herbs. However, you have to detoxify it before it becomes that. They are essentially making a hash made of CBD. The getting high part they consider toxic and must be removed.
What regiment or corps did he serve with? This makes a big difference as others have noted. I know a lot who came back, got out and that is when the problems started. Far too many that I know have killed themselves.
" No pot, but CBD oil was recommended - I don't buy that that isn't a drug. "
Why not?
Somatic modalities are useful insofar as I have personal experience with them, and for a lot of things beyond dealing with emotions. It's all about self-mastery, which I think is a better descriptor than 'therapy' for such techniques in general. To be fair to Megha, her critique was aimed more at the endless emotional scab-picking of talk therapy.
"Somatic modalities are useful insofar as I have personal experience with them, and for a lot of things beyond dealing with emotions. "
Such as?
A good therapist won't try to do that, but judging by how many people are perpetually in therapy I'm skeptical that there are many good ones out there.
You're exactly on point regarding what I meant by a priest or a courtesan. I should have added, a close friend. These days though, a lot of people don't have access to any of those, deep friendships especially.
The key reason I mentioned female companionship is precisely the somatic element. There's a magic to erotic touch that no amount of talking can replicate. That was really driven home for me after lockdown. I went out to a bar one night, and for the first time in several months a girl touched my arm ... the emotional reaction I had from that, after so long in de facto house arrest, was more visceral than anything I'd expected. And that wasn't even erotic, it was just a drunk girl being a bit flirty. For some guys, I think, that's all they really need. It's a matter of using the least invasive medicine first, in a sense. Obviously a real relationship is ideal - but that's not an option for everyone, especially not these days, and historically not really at all for soldiers, on campaign or otherwise.
The military use of sex workers results in abuse, violence and sometimes death of those workers. That's a known fact worldwide wherever military is stationed. I think a better somatic option would be massage - by other soldiers. Though not neccessarily erotic (though it can be) massage is healing on multiple levels.
I suspect people these days need more than touch, since the average modern human is missing ... pretty much everything. But it's an important start.
PS as far as I can tell, my brother is doing a lot better, although whether that's the therapy or just time is impossible to say.
I suppose I can forgive your naivete, becasue you are young. I can only assume by your fairytale-esque view on gender that you have not experienced a long term relationship with a man.
In warror culture, the men went on raids and conquests and only consorted with women for domestic service (sexual releif, child-rearing, food preperation, etc). From a cultural point of view, this societal construct was designed for women to essentially produce more boys to be groomed as warriors in an unending and unrelenting quest for territory or bounty.
You could say that these aspects were tamed in the "modern" 1950's (e.g Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, Mad Men). But, is that what women really want? A Don Draper who has succeeded in "business conquest," but has no ability to emotionally connect in intimate relationships with his wife and kids?
I'm a pretty tough ass guy. My wife likes it when I put on the tool belt and build something. She likes the fact that I am a strong provider. I do wear the pants, so to speak. But she also likes kindness and sensitivity. Is that gay? Is getting help in talk-theapy for uncontrolable anger related to an abusive childhood also gay? Therapy did not emasculate me, it just made me more stable by processing my held feelings and emotions... that were bottled up in the first place, because of asanine cultural tropes like, "man-up, get-over it, and don't cry."
It's all about balance. Nothing wrong with "classical" gender roles. But, these can be opressive to both sexes... there is a dark side to limiting the expression of "humanness" which is beyond gender.
A recomendation... watch "Some Kind of Monster" on Netflix. Its about the band members of Metalica in group therapy. It might be interesting to you.
No where in my article have I suggested that emotional sensitivity in men must be discarded completely. The purpose of my article was to highlight the harms of therapy for men as a way to manage their emotional and psychological problems. Furthermore, there are many women who make life hell for their men by expecting them to process emotions in just the same way that they do. Everyone is different, everyone doesn't need to constantly talk about things in order to resolve their problems.
I agree, there's not one way for everybody. And I agree that most men and women process their emotions differently. God bless you.
I don’t think women ever ask men to process emotions in just the same way that they do. The only thing they ask men is to process their emotions in some way because let me be very honest if a man has ever processed his emotions in a way that would help him live his life he would be kinder to himself and to the people around him. He would be generous and brave hearted and not avoid his feelings by “waking up in the morning and getting a job and having competency”. I’m sorry to say but a woman who thinks and believes like you will also justify rapes in your own stone aged societal thinking.
Nothing you’ve said logically follows to justify rape.
Or you could you know...just talk with your buddies. Therapy is absolute bullshit.
Sure, talking to your buddies is helpful. Yea, a lot of therapists and theapy is bullshit. Like any other service, you have to shop around to find a good professional and or technique that works for you.
EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprograming) is a technique that has worked wonders for post combat PTSD as well as other traumas. It's not you average talk, talk, talk, crap.
What I don't get it the generalizing. As if all men should be "one" way, or "all therapy" is absolute bullshit. Really? Maybe that is your experience, but there are plenty of men that have improved their lives with a good therapist using a good technique that fit for them. Its all the rage in Evangelical Christianity these days. So you don't have to go to a "woke" liberal to get help.
Anyway, maybe check out Jordan Peterson... he's all over podcasts, YouTube.... Perfect balance of the need for modern masculitniy but without all the dimwited macho posturing.
I don't disagree with you, but why do you feel the need to insult macho guys? we aren't all dimwitted you know?
The dimwitted part is insuating that therapy is "gay." What do gay men have to do with a strait male who may find therapy helpful?
Really, no insult intended.
I've been acused of being macho, sexist, and a misygonist because I defend traditionl gender roles. I worked hard to allow my wife to stay home with the kids and certain people think that's 'holding her back." Total bullshit. She absolutly loves her role as mother and wife and she does plenty of work to support the family. Anyway... I've been maried for 25 years, and I had to tone down certain steriotypical masculine atributes to save my marriage.
Being "tough" is important, but so is softening up a little with the wife and kids. Especially kids. They need a father that is both firm enough to dicipline and sensitive enouth to give them a hug and listen to their little problems.
All I can say, is that I'm a typical male that went to therapy and it helped me tremendously. And the author insuinating that I'm gay for doing so is just perpetuating sterotypes (like showing feelings turns you gay) that keep men from emotionally maturing.
Enjoy your day, and God bless you.
She wasn’t insinuating people like you are ‘gay’. She was making an interesting point in that society today has emasculated men and that therapy forms a part of that. It’s a very interesting point but is not saying ‘everyone who goes to therapy is gay.’
Yes , I could not have said it better myself .
The articles criticisms of modern therapy aren't incorrect , but I'm wary of the implication that no modern man needs therapy.
Being emotionally stunted is not masculinity . Every unpleasant man I've ever known has been in some way in denial of his own emotions and therefore his own self , which was the Fundamental issue which stopped him addressing his issues and growing as a person and as a man and lead to outpouring of emotion like extreme anger, extreme cowardice or extreme laziness.
I can see therapy being that solution for plenty of men , especially in the absence of communities equipped to fulfill that same function.
What they did to men was much more oppressive than any gender roles. Women are the most unhappy they’ve ever been in history. Look at the statistics. Most are on drugs and women’s alcoholism doubled during the Covid and stayed that way
We won't slay dragons without aid from Heaven. We have to submit to the truth that there is a dimension higher than the psyche. The goal of every institution of modern society is to convince us that there isn't. As the author says, therapy is is a parody of Confession.
I generally agree, but I think that it is a mistake to blame individualism here. I would posit that the exact opposite is driving the problem: modern society demands men conform to the norms of the group, and that group must be one all encompassing one. If your group contains men and women, and they must all behave in the same manner, then you get the modern US issue of men forced to act like women who are acting like men.
I don't think individualism gets you there, unless we have different definitions for it. A focus on the needs of the individual makes modern therapy for males look insane, as you rightly point out. Modernity makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of the planner, looking to control groups of infinitely replaceable grey people who are equally blank slates.
Aristotle in Politics, suggests the family (mom dad and kids) is the smallest unit we can be divided into without becoming absurd. That we are political (in a non-government sense of the word) by nature is one of the building blocks of the West. Individualism leads to exactly this fake (right/ left) class we have. They both fundamentally believe the same. Unencumbered personal license with no obligation towards the social structure is the axiom of both American “wings”. The only distinction is whether that’s in the bedroom or the wallet.
It is transactional atomization vs collaborative individualism vs organized tribalism vs mosh-pit universalism. Each modality cater to certain temperaments. https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/how-circled-are-your-wagons
His way of ordering health of each group type: Resurrected (DM/IRL mutualism) > Precipitated (Blog/Meetup organization) > Atomized (Twitter/LinkedIn individualism) > Circled Wagons (Reddit/Discord collective)
Stereotypical talk-n-labor therapy is for curing Reddit-esque modernist socialites (hypnosis goes here), Peterson's traditionalist craftsman therapy is for curing Twitter-esque idealists ("grindset" goes here), and group/action therapy is for nomadic and shamanic bloggers (politics goes here). https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/09/14/how-to-make-history/ http://www.nordicbildung.org/metamodernity/
Therapy, depression and mental health are all girly/gay topics that I never even think of and no man should. Being all sad all the time is for pussies. Removing mental health words from a man's vocabulary completely is the first step.
Mental health is a serious matter, it's not "girly" or gay". Ugh 🙄
I don’t talk about my mental issues in confession, though. I talk about the sins I committed and receive absolution for them. I don’t go to therapy but I don’t think it serves the same purpose as confession at all. Confession isn’t where you talk about your need to wash your hands 50 times a day.
the idea of mental issues at all is a modern invention. There is no such thing. It was invented by the DSL-5
Claiming mental illness doesn't exist at all is a fallacy that hurts people with mental illness. I hope no one with a mental illness is neat, lest you imply their struggle is non-existent.
How do you mean ? The dsm might incorrectly label the cause or unnecessarily muddy the waters but I'd say it's undeniable that people with dysfunctional ways of behaving/thinking/feeling exist and should be fixed .
For example , the aforementioned person who feels an extreme compulsive need to wash their hands 50 times a day, or someone who hallucinates. Or someone who gets set off by an event in their environment and mentally regresses to the time they killed a man in the desert. Or someone who operates under extreme delusions .
You aren't surely suggesting that no such people exist ?
What a seriously insightful piece!
I agree 100% people are sick of this shit! It seems that from the time a boy is born people are trying to stick him into a box. If they don't get the desired outcome, they fault the boy. The boy is *not* the problem -- it's the fucking box!
The "stick people in a box" thinking is why so many people have been "diagnosed" with ADHD. It's nonsense, and it has to stop.
The problem is, now so many people have been brainwashed into believing this tripe that it's become complicated to get away from it, but we must!
If you have to homeschool, or virtual school your kids -- do it! Because sure as the world, your son will come home from government school calling himself Sally. And your daughter "Dave" will be transitioning into a fruitcake. Because that's what the government is pushing now.
They are/have passed laws in California and Washington -- to allow the state to take children away from their parents, if the parents don't support their child's "transition" to a different gender.
This shit is sick, the people behind it are sick, and the people at the top simply want to demoralize and fuck up as many families as possible. Because that's obviously the outcome. There's no world in which a child has surgery to permanently alter their body, and everything just "works out" and they're accepted. Why? Because *everyone* knows it's a lie -- even the kid having it done. And one day it's going to hit them, and when it does, they'll hit rock bottom -- and hard. They probably won't make it back.
Allowing a kid to permanently alter their body, because they're throwing a fucking tantrum -- is the literal opposite of parenting. And everyone instinctively knows this. Everyone can understand how allowing a kid that's too young to have a beer or drive a car -- shouldn't be in charge of life altering decisions, for themselves or other people. That's why we have laws that are age based.
All of this is seriously fucked up and *not* buying Budlight isn't going to fix this. People need to stand up, and push back against this shit everywhere they see it. Just don't go along with it.
Exactly. My library has a pride month so I will not step foot in it. If every single person did that they would stop this nonsense. that’s not a violent thing or pushy, just don’t show up. Easy.
I used to, not so much now, but before I had the best focus of anyone I had ever met. Laser like for as long as needed. I filled out a questionnaire on ADHD. I had ADHD!! ‘Have you ever lost your focus when you didn’t want to?’ Well, duh. Who can answer that any way but yes. Ten questions like that. If you answered 5 yeses you need Ritalin.
Completely absurd.
More than absurd. Poisonous.
Amazing article Megha, it really put to words exactly what I have been thinking and experiencing. As a man who was raised in a small town, in a conservative family, growing up and trying to find a place in the modern world is seemingly impossible. Everything I see around me screams that it's all wrong, I don't belong here.
Me too. All I wanted to be was a housewife and have kids. I don’t belong here.
Christianity is the only thing that’s ever explained this to me. The Bible calls it being a pilgrim in this world. Heaven is our true home, not here. Even in a golden age we would feel this dissatisfaction, though it’s even more prominent in our current age. I think it’s a blessing in disguise in propelling us toward virtue.
Good point. I always felt this world is a learning experience, I guess we wouldn't develop as much if it was too easy.
Megha all I have to say is thank you. This really hit home for me - “A modern man at unease with the world, is a man who is healthy. The degree to which he continues to resist it, is the degree to which his thymos is still alive.”
I find your writing to be an oasis in a barren land. I am tired but am not beaten! To know that there are women on our side is encouraging and appreciated.
I’m 100% on your side
Who wrote this? Not someone who works with men or the mental health system. Having treated servicemen with trauma you work with male and female patients in different ways but depending on the individual’s needs and strength. CBT stands for cognitive BEHAVIOURAL therapy. You can use behavioural activation just as effectively to treat depression which apparently, according to this writer is all men are capable of. Most of the time they just need help to form connections and some empowerment and self-belief and they can heal.
Porn addiction, cannabis use, alcohol use and video games are not viewed as benign by any therapist worth their salt. We specifically screen and address that.
Yes society is pretty sick and emasculates men but it also defeminises women, makes the elderly redundant and sexualised children. It’s a global sickness and I think it started with the breakdown of connections between generations with the “teenager” phenomenon before the systematic emasculation and toxic feminism agenda stepped up. Not changing nappies is not a sign of masculinity. Both grandfathers were strong military men and both could do everything including manage the kids and change nappies because they were strong men. Men with unprocessed trauma become self-sabotaging and a lot of the time violent so until you can fix the whole of this societal sickness, don’t tell men therapy is for wimps because it may be a poor proxy for what came before but it’s all we have right now. I also recommend talking to some of the child soldiers from Uganda. Many have killed and raped, all deeply traumatised, and can recover with therapy. And homosexuality is accepted in that society. Not that I agree with the homophobic sentiments because gay men, with intact self esteem and identity, are just as masculine as any other.
"Who wrote this? Not someone who works with men or the mental health system. "
Obviously. She's a young 20-something from a cushy background lacking real world experience.
This is my thoughts too.
I grew up absurdly poor , surrounded by poor men.
Because they felt like losers and/or had not faced their demons , and because they didn't process it or address it because "I'm a macho man" that metasticised into complete toxicity. Alcoholism , substance abuse , porn , domestic violence etc .
I would argue that an actual masculine man would be unafraid to face himself and his problems in order to fix them and heal . Which may well involve therapy .
The author seems to have no experience of genuine mental health issues. For example , I am incredibly driven and usually never let's things get in my way , but because of extremely horrible historic incidents (aka trauma) I sometimes find myself having panic attacks I can't control . According to the writer , that's just not possible and I'm imagining it all.
It's just detached from the reality of these things .
This author isn't feminine at all. She's not nurturing or humble in any way. "Mainstream normies, bitch tears, tHeRaPy." Does anyone know a single feminine, healthy woman who writes in this way? I don't.
Please point me to the sentence in the bio or the article where I said I am “feminine” or that this article is about the “femininity of the writer”. Sorry if you want nurturing pats on the head go find your mommy.
You're correct, it was so foolish of me to assume a woman writing about masculinity would have even a passing interest in being feminine. Men, do heed advice from this masculine, spiritually unbalanced woman.
It’s really a disgusting shame how masculine women have gotten.
I don't know lady, you seem to have a sub/dom fetish. I'm not sure if you're to be trusted. "Dominate and lead women..."
🤨
And the womb of social circles? Sound's pretty "gay" lady to want some women's genitals...
Unironically used “normies” in an essay, doesn’t get much worse than that. Dogshit essay, dogshit idéals.
Wow. This article reads like a girl who’s high school crush was gay and she never moved on.
Give me a break we are sick of people like you
Simply brilliant article. I am a pastor, so I counsel people from the Bible. Many come to me with a therapeutic diagnosis. It becomes their identity. It's tough to help them identify not by their diagnosis, but being an image-bearer.
Megha, are you omniscient??
For either of your absolute claims to be true (therapy is always bad, no proof it's ever helpful for men), you'd have to be.
I believe you when you say you've read the literature; bully for you. That doesn't make you an expert or temper headlines like 'therapy is gay' with wisdom or authority.
There's nothing wrong with calling out problems (again, I think I agree with you that feminized - neutered men is a problem and excessive therapy, or therapy with no Biblical framework can exaccerbate that problem and harm men). But where do you claim authority over every situation. Where do you get off saying I don't know what works and have no idea what I'm talking about?
I have a world of life experience, firsthand accounts, relevant reading, and walking with flesh and blood people through seasons of adult life that you don't have.
Again, you must be omniscient.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in something, or even in challenging convential wisdom. But calling for jihad against any and all situations involving men undergoing therapy is tilting at windmills, and apt to shame / deter / stigmatize some men from getting help they might actually need.
That's not a good thing.
I see I could have been more sincere and respectful in my earlier comment - I threw a punch so naturally you threw one back. Fair enough.
But respectfully, you're mixing some truths about men and male nature and the feminization of society with claims you can't possibly support, no matter how much you've read.
Not a good take.