This month, Roosh V raised the topic of “neomasculinity”. Neomasculinity is, in essence, the same Red Pill philosophy that Roosh and other masnosphere authors have endorsed for numerous years. It is unclear if this is a re-branding of Red Pill philosophy (given the terrible reputation it and its proponents have on the internet and in mainstream media). Neomasculinity embodies all the Red Pill dating “truth” coupled with right wing politics and social views (“anti-socialism” and pro “nuclear family”, as it reads on Roosh’s neomasculinity table of contents). What is clear is that the manosphere is now incorporating a known right wing fantasy to its dating philosophy.
Conservative-minded people (including myself) have a propensity to romanticize the 1960’s. That incarnation of social roles, the family, and masculinity strikes a chord within the hearts of conservatives for some reason. Its no surprise to me that neomasculinity includes certain standards of economic policy and openly calls for (according to Roosh) patriarchy. Free market, anti-socialist/communist and patriarchal sentiments were all a part of the 60’s, an era that still holds a place in the hearts of many conservatives. While men certainly held more social capital in the 1960’s, I wouldn’t exactly say things were “better” for men then than they are now.
“Better” is a pretty subjective term, but since we’re (mostly) talking about America when we talk about Red Pill philosophy, I’d say a good metric for measuring happiness is freedom. Men in the 1960’s (at least upper middle class men) certainly had more economic freedom. Economic freedom translates into better living standards (health, housing) a greater ability to settle down (think of the average age of marriage then as opposed to now), and a greater ability to travel. However, all of these freedoms existed within the cultural context of the 1960’s. Sexual experimentation was still somewhat taboo (meaning one could end up marrying someone they were sexually incompatible with). The draft was mandatory (and still remains mandatory in many countries). Patriarchy greatly limited the experiences of men and women in the 60’s, forcing them into rigid social roles that did not account for the needs and desires of these individuals.
It seems to me that a lot of men who take great interest patriarchy and being the leaders and protectors of society (and to some extent women) don’t fully understand what that responsibility entails. The inability to express true emotion (a compulsory standard applied to men until relatively recently) can be mentally crippling. The expectation that you will always be self-sacrificing in the name of God, country, or “The Women & Children”(TM) can be incredibly stressful. Men simply did not have the right to define their own lives in the 60’s. They were slaves to the social standards of the day. They answered to God, the military, and their wives, whom depended almost entirely on their husband from their early marriage to their deaths many decades later.
I don’t know about you, but I quite like the idea that I’m not expected to be the sole provider in the lives of my children and wife. There’s no appeal to my ego or to the caveman warrior remnants in my brain that can make me take on the role of this cold, emotionless, perma-leader. Nor do I think its fair for me to have the expectation that the men and women in my life will fall into those archaic gender roles.
To prove just how silly oldschool male gender roles look in the present day, lets take a look at two world leaders. The first is Vladimir Putin, the sole dictator of a greatly socially conservative Russian Federation. The other is Barack Obama, leader of the increasingly liberal United States. Putin is the brooding, sulking, cold, unemotional man a lot of Red Pill men want to be. However, his body language is completely ridiculous and his stunts (in an attempt to assert his masculinity) only make him look like an insecure fool to the Western audience. Obama, the cool, calm, collected, yet pro-social world leader captures the hearts of people who don’t even agree with his political views with his charm. One of these men is capable of laughing at himself, letting his wife shine, and showing some raw emotion when the occasion calls for it. The other rigs hockey games with professional players because he can’t ever be seen as the weaker man. Not the greatest of analogies, but I hope it somehow translates how ridiculous the emotionally guarded, macho-posturing, perfectionist looks like in 2015.
I agree that men should exercise and educate themselves, not because it’ll earn them sexual market points, but because these activities are intrinsically fulfilling. Men need to stop thinking of attraction and self-improvement as a video game. SMV (sexual marketplace value) is not this magical health/special move bar that you can fill up to level up and face the sex boss. Attraction goes along a continuum, with people being attracted to those that reflect their values. Women like athletic men, for the aesthetic reasons sure (and for the deep biologically programming that says skinny = better genes) but also because women like men who have passions, interests and goals. If SMV were a fixed standard set by women, there would be no overweight or effeminate men regularly sleeping around and getting married.
Some of the neomasculine standards are also quite laughable. Anti-socialism? Are one’s economic preferences tied to one’s masculinity? I find socialists to be repulsive, but I’ve never judged the value of a man by his interpretation of the economy. People should oppose socialism because it is a proven failed and dangerous economic philosophy, not because it denotes a lack of manhood. The nuclear family? Are men who choose not to form a family now less masculine? Entrepreneurship? So we must all take incredible economic risk if we want to save our balls from “the authoritarian whims of the female-dominated Human Resources department”. Oh dear God, gone are the days when I could grope a female at work and not face repercussions. Pity me, Lord.
In summary (because I do feel I am starting to ramble) I don’t long for the good old days when a man was the “Head of the Household” (TM) and his “Subservient Wife” (TM), who was completely swoon by his “Superior Masculinity” (TM) and nothing more, raised a good, traditional, problem-less “Nuclear Family” (TM) before passing away gracefully, reveling in ecstasy at their perfect, American lifestyles on their death beds. Neomasculinty sounds like the Republican party swallowing up the Red Pill movement more than anything else. I think the Red Pill should stick to teaching people that there are biological and psychological drives behind attraction, that manhood is something to be celebrated instead of relegated to punching lines on TV sitcoms, and that self-improvement is a blessing instead of a burden.
Thanks for reading. Be sure to follow me @IMindOfficial for the latest. You can follow my Tumblr and ask me any questions you’d like. My Facebook page reminds you of all of our events and new stories.