@Caldero I tend to agree. Doing something decidedly non-masculine, but calling it manly because you think being true to yourself is the real test of masculinity is what trannies do for their gender.

They say they're something they're not, and you're required to pretend that it's true if they say it.

Along those lines, if a non-manly man is really and truly comfortable letting his wife have sex with other men because that leaves him more time to practice his ballet, so he's being 10000% authentic and true to himself and passionate and committed to his mission and owning himself while his wife fucks other men and he dances - some people would swear up and down that this is true masculinity.

Obviously, that's utter bullshit. But that's not too far away from the feel-good Red Pill idea of putting your mission first and not giving a shit what people think or what women do. If mastering ballet is a man's "mission", so he's foregoing sex, money, and manly skills and hobbies in favor of his mission...that's probably not actually masculine.

Which means conventional societal rules about certain things counting as masculine and certain things not counting may serve a purpose.

Most societies promote rigid gender roles. Working a construction job by day then working on your car by night is manly. Working in a nail salon then putting on a ballet performance later that night is not manly.

Various liberal ideologies have declared that these rigid gender roles make men unhappy. That men are actually just like women on the inside, but we pretend to be conventionally masculine so that other men don't make fun of us, but deep down inside, we're all desperately unhappy because of it. When a man acts in a conventionally "manly" way or has "manly" hobbies, these ideologies assume that the man isn't really like that, and is putting on a mask and pretending. When a man acts in a very unmanly way, he is praised for being courageous and true to himself.

Various conservative ideologies have also declared that these rigid gender roles make men unhappy. That it's unfair to expect men to perform to intense masculine standards, and just being an average man should be enough to garner success, women, and happiness.

In fact, many of these conservative ideologies have passed so far into the realm of individualism that they're nearly the same as the liberal ideologies. A modern "masculine" man might try to tell you that the real key to manhood is being genuine, authentic, true to yourself, and so on. If you like ballet, and you do ballet hard, with 1000% commitment and passion, and you own it, that's totally manly, even though it's ballet, because you're owning it like a man.

Do gender roles serve a purpose? Is there a reason why construction is manly and ballet is non-manly, or is this some random, arbitrary societal rule?

Is masculinity something you do, by cultivating masculine skills and hobbies and behaving in a socially-accepted masculine way? Or is masculinity purely internal, and by simply being a self-determined man who does what he wants and owns it, then calls himself masculine, you're manly?

@CainPrice

Why do you get off put by violence and masculinity being tied together? I suspect it has to do with your belief system that has been ingrained within you from a young age.

Humanity has had a violent history and those who did not like violence died from it. Women judged men who feared violence negatively.

The preparation for violence and the corresponding exertion of the Will is what made Men and gave them names.

A Hippy doing drugs and refusing to go to Vietnam is not "brave" or "courageous" as to be brave/courageous there had to be an element of overcoming fear. Hippies did not overcome their fear and did not overcome themselves. Society (particularly women) co-opted the meaning of bravery and twisted it for their own interest. And weak, cowardly men agreed because of their cowardice. It was easy to stay home from Vietnam and claim virtue, it was much harder to overcome the fear of the Vietcong and fight them in jungles.

Ghandi and MLK where admirable because like Alexander the Great observed when a soldier of his demanded that a yogi in the path of Alexander move out of the way because: "This man has conquered the world! What have you done?" The philosopher replied without an instant's hesitation, "I have conquered the need to conquer the world." To Alexander Yogi who sat in the cold, rain, sun and drought - imbibed no water and took no food and ignored the pleasures of the flesh to achieve nirvana where very much like soldiers - as soldiers also had to stand in the cold/rain/sun and endure countless hardship for a cause. Ghandi and MLK where in many ways similar. That is why they are admired - not for their pacifism. They are admired for their ability to endure hardship just like a soldier.

Man is tied to the soldier and manhood is tied to war. Therefore every act you make to overcome your own weakness is similar to the act a soldier does on the field of battle to overcome himself.

That is why i wrote previously that masculinity has not changed between 219 BC and 2019 AD.

My entire life, I've been drawn to guns, knives, martial arts, and violent video games, movies, and TV shows. Nobody ever taught me these things are cool. I've just always thought that wicked-looking knives are awesome the same way I've always been turned on by a nice pair of legs 18 inches below a nice pair of breasts. Growing up, me and the other dorky boys would grab big sticks and have fake sword fights, karate matches, and wrestle all the time.

One of the larger criticisms of masculinity in the modern day is that men are inherently violent. If there weren't significant consequences in place, the popular theory is that men would run amuck, beating, killing, robbing, and raping everything in sight, ruled not only by our selfish urges, but also fueled by a natural and innate love of the violent acts themselves. Simply exerting power over someone else through violence can be just as pleasurable as actually gaining something you want through that violent act.

On the other side of the coin, lots of very famous and accomplished men (as well as non-famous but socially accepted men) preached non-violence, ranging from Gandhi to Martin Luther King to plain old hippies in the 60s. There was a time when people thought Gandhi was truly brave and manly, while the bullies who harassed him were cowards. There was a time when people thought that a long-haired, drug-using, unemployed hippie who refused to go to war when drafted was braver and more of a man than a soldier who was shipped to Asia to fight and die while society regarded him as a coward.

Today, nobody would argue that a brutal prison thug, while not an admirable man, is still a very masculine man. And very few people consider scrawny bisexual nu-males with hipster beards and feminist posters who march in protests to be very masculine, despite the fact that they are every bit as committed to their ideology as Gandhi, MLK, and the hippies were to theirs. Maybe they're admirable men, at least to some circles, but even their own circles don't think they're very manly.

On one hand, it's off-putting to think that violence and masculinity go hand in hand. But on the other, I've definitely always thought knives are cool while looking scrawny and standing around protesting with rainbow posters is very uncool, even as a young child before I knew a thing about masculinity. I wouldn't call myself a violent man, but if somebody attacked me or someone that I cared about, violence would definitely be my first response. We couldn't say the same about Gandhi.

Is violence inherently a masculine act? Is strong commitment to an ideology and being willing to sacrifice for it a masculine act? Both? Neither?

@Aurelian I think that the same way physical muscle is unmistakable and there's only one way to look big and strong, social muscle is similar.

For example, nobody actually respects the "quiet, stoic individual" who sits in the corner making "piercing and consistent eye contact". That guy is creepy and strange and is not well-regarded socially. Everyone wonders why he's not talking to anybody and what his deal is. Men who try to pass themselves off as the strong, silent type are usually socially awkward men who fear social rejection. Social cowards. And they are frequently treated that way.

If you are not social, your social muscles are weak. Nobody cares about a man's "social awareness" if he's socially weak. That's like a scrawny man who's knowledgeable about the gym but doesn't actually work out.

@CainPrice Definitely a component of modern masculinity.

Though, this muscle can be flexed in a variety of ways, no true one size fits all. Some men get away with flexing it as a quiet, stoic individual. Piercing and consistent eye contact and measured movements. Definitely holds social awareness and internal control, probably gives people he interacts with the tingles. On another hand, the man who's standing up in a group to toast someone, crack some jokes, full of smiles and a booming laugh who can light people up also has that muscle. Probably gives people the tingles too.

Common elements I think is awareness of the dynamics in these interactions, and enough self control to maintain behavior in it to assert that they are leading the interaction, or at the least, are not sacrificing control of their own behavior due to the whims of the dynamics. A bit more nuanced to pick apart the "alpha" modes in this topic, but probably at the bottom of it all is confidence and embracing the vulnerability of a social interaction with raw individual personality.

Would you agree on the idea that this muscle takes different forms? What would you consider to be common elements if so? Perhaps if men on this site looking to improve themselves master or practice those common elements, their personality and natural inclinations take care of the rest to flex that muscle.

Great posts!