Dunno, must be the source of their power of masculinity as today fewer men have a moustache and fewer men are masculine 🤔
Do you think there are too many oestrogens and too little testosterone nowadays?
@devilhand42 Ancient Greek men did not have a moustache and Vikings only had a beard and that’s why they had butt sex together? Butt sex is a lack of masculinity or too much of it?
Japanese men at the time had moustache too? Although I think Asian men are less prone to have as much bodily hair. Some say the Japanese eat much soy.
feminist men and soy boys not standing up for their country are 2 good examples I would suggest
I would definitely say that more men than ever before are more Archetypically feminine than masculine. Archetypical femininity is focused on group consensus, being accepted by society's systems, and recording your self-worth by how you are perceived by your social group. Archetypical masculinity, by contrast, is focused on individual virtue and strength, successfully achieving things regardless of society's systems, hierarchies of competence, and recording your self-worth individually and instrumentally.
All individuals have elements of both archetypes, but the postmodern world is absolutely one of the most archetypically feminine in human history.
It's interesting to see, that you even have to be careful within the so-called manosphere spaces, because a lot of them are a lot more are typically feminine than they would like to admit. My favorite is Andrew Tate in this regard, because his entire worldview is very much Archetypically feminine. I think that's one reason why the establishment hates him so specifically. He isn't a counter to their ideology, he is a product of it. He was raised by a single mother, and has all of the attributes of someone who's raised by a single mother.
I think the reason Jordan Peterson pisses them off is that he is actually archetypically masculine, but every external marker he has is feminine. He's an establishment University professor who worked at harvard, he's worked with all the technocratic organizations in Europe, he's got a high pitched soft-spoken voice, he openly cries on camera, and yet almost none of the things that he advocates for are related to being accepted socially, and rather simply about becoming a better person regardless of what's going on around you.
In that sense, Tate is someone who was born and raised on the reservation that reflects poorly on them, and Peterson is someone who has wandered off the reservation, and that also reflects poorly on them.
All individuals have elements of both archetypes, but the postmodern world is absolutely one of the most archetypically feminine in human history.
It's interesting to see, that you even have to be careful within the so-called manosphere spaces, because a lot of them are a lot more are typically feminine than they would like to admit. My favorite is Andrew Tate in this regard, because his entire worldview is very much Archetypically feminine. I think that's one reason why the establishment hates him so specifically. He isn't a counter to their ideology, he is a product of it. He was raised by a single mother, and has all of the attributes of someone who's raised by a single mother.
I think the reason Jordan Peterson pisses them off is that he is actually archetypically masculine, but every external marker he has is feminine. He's an establishment University professor who worked at harvard, he's worked with all the technocratic organizations in Europe, he's got a high pitched soft-spoken voice, he openly cries on camera, and yet almost none of the things that he advocates for are related to being accepted socially, and rather simply about becoming a better person regardless of what's going on around you.
In that sense, Tate is someone who was born and raised on the reservation that reflects poorly on them, and Peterson is someone who has wandered off the reservation, and that also reflects poorly on them.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2