Normalisation and ‘Manliness’

What does it mean to be ‘manly’? What exactly is this concept? And what is ‘normal’?

As each day passes, a new piece of insanity becomes the established reality. This is because we are under enemy occupation and those who seek to destroy us are intent on taking their perversions of the truth to its logical conclusion. Like a frog sitting in a pot of slowly boiling water, everyday people do not recognize the gravity of these small changes because they happen over a long period of time.

For them they see things like gay marriage as a normal societal progression and a harmless one at that. What they do not seem to grasp is that by normalizing marriage as something that any body and any thing can take part in, the importance of the act becomes nearly meaningless- a legal document and nothing more


The slippery slope fallacy is on show right away (emphasis mine). I would investigate the link, but it’s a PDF file that for some reason I can’t open.

Two consenting adults wish to get married. Does this impact upon anyone else? No. Will it lead to other things being legalised? Why would it?

In a true marriage the opposite natures of a man and woman provide balance to the union as their masculine and feminine energies complement each other. This in turn provides stability for a successful family which then becomes the bedrock of a functioning society- an idea almost exclusively tied to European people.

The author reveals a little more about what they think society should be. Men and women have defined roles in a marriage, and marriage is for the purpose of providing family stability. This notion has been debunked more than once – historically marriage has been about money, power and control – and the idea that having children outside of wedlock is bad is very much a religious construct. Let’s not forget that couples who marry do not always do so for the purpose of having kids – some choose not to, others can’t. Should marriage be denied to these couples too?

This argument, as mentioned, touches upon gender roles and ideas such as masculinity and feminity. These too are constructs, that trap men as much as they do women. I am not a ‘manly’ man – I can’t chop down trees, I don’t exactly have an impressive physique and guess what? I cry from time to time. I show emotions. I don’t believe I am absolved of responsibilities like washing up or pegging the washing on the line because ‘that isn’t my gender role’. I would never assume that because I’m a man I have the masculine right to ‘dominate’ women into giving their time or bodies.

Women too are not subject to these defined roles. Are we to believe they shouldn’t have careers? That their only function in society is to have children and look after them?

When a marriage becomes meaningless, the stability of families suffer and in turn society suffers. The nu-male of today, a psychologically meek and physically effeminate creature, is the direct result of the breakdown of the modern family. In most cases of a broken family, fathers become absent in the lives of boys whether by their own past bastardization or insane women and equally insane family laws. This creates an on-going cycle of males who do not know how to be men.

A marriage may fail from time to time. What this has to do with same-sex marriage is beyond me.

If there is indeed a ‘breakdown’ of the modern family (and this is a very vague notion, as this ‘nu-male’ business), its roots are not the result of ‘insane women’ but rather the failure to teach values like respect and appreciation of women (men have a problem with this, and expecting women to meekly conform to gender roles is but one example). In a society where men are taught they are entitled to a woman’s time, regardless of what the woman wants, you create the breeding ground for a backlash from generations of women who are fed up with being treated like second-class citizens. If men do not know how to be men, is this not actually our failure as men to reinforce values of love and respect towards women (and indeed, toward human beings in general).

The second link the author provides makes me angry. It probably won’t take you long to work out why.

It is unbecoming of a man to identify as a victim, thus I never encourage men to see themselves in this way. However, a boy raised by a single mother or family with a submissive father has been deprived his birthright. These are the lost boys, the unwitting victims of poor parenting. I label them victims only in the sense they have been done a great disservice, that is not to say this cannot be overcome, but that merely a most deleterious handicap has been conferred on them.


Wait, men can’t be victims?! We can’t experience events that we didn’t invite and that cause us suffering? Oh hang on, I get it. We can’t let stuff like that bother us right? We need to ‘man up’.

Notice the implication with the rest of the paragraph. A single mother or a dominant female parent is a sign of bad parenting. There are so many reasons why this is wrong and unfair. It’s anger directed at women, for no reason whatsoever.

Might there be relationships that fail because of the unreasonable behaviour of one parent? Of course. Whether this is due to the mother or father is irrelevant – what is relevant is that whomever gets custody is trying to raise their child or children in difficult circumstances, whilst also keeping a roof over their family’s head and food in their bellies. They will do the best they can, and that is all we can ask of anyone.

A boy raised by a beta is not taught social dominance, or how to protect himself physically or mentally. He’s not shown how to attract women, and chances are he will lack basic yet necessary life skills such as self-discipline. Like the boy of the single mother, he is forced to employ the internet as a surrogate for the father he never had. The need for young men, as well as lost boys who have grown into adult men to be “good at being a man” is dire. To any man masculinity is important, but due to paternal deprivation this need is even greater among lost boys. It is as such that in a time where there is little in the way of support for boys and men, the manosphere has manifest.image



What exactly is a ‘beta’ and who defines masculinity? The phrase ‘social dominance’ is frankly scary. Dominance over whom? Is being a man about wielding a metaphorical club and elevating one’s self through imposing one’s wishes and desires (hang the consequences on anyone else)?

As I read this second site, it becomes the author is a strong proponent of the ‘Red Pill‘. This notion more or less requires that men disconnect between what women say and instead assume much of a woman’s behaviour to be dishonest and based on manipulation of men. I can’t begin to tell you how wrong I feel that position is.

Let’s return to the first site.

Gay marriage is not the actual cause of this of course, as the sanctity of marriage has been debased for decades now. Instead it is a signal that under this enemy occupation things are always going to get worse. Every inch of our society has been attacked in some way, from the memories of our distant ancestors to our most intimate relationships. For instance, how can we successfully form a stable partnership with a woman if her idea of virtue is to completely go against her own nature?

The author links back to an article written at the second site. The suggestion is that feminism is out to destroy masculinity and oppress men. I quote:

Modern women are effectively raised not to view men as human beings with wants or needs.


Yet this is the attitude the Red Pill philosophy espouses. It is a tool for manipulating women and tying them to stereotypical gender roles.

I’m done for now. There’s far too much to digest in one go.

Please follow and like us: