Again on the incompetent male.
The last article had a certain following, judging by the statistics, so I would like to spend a few words on the concept of "incompetent male". It is a strange concept, which however answers the question "what happens to a child if he is not educated?"
Let's start with a definition. What is an incompetent male?
I define an incompetent male as a male who has never been educated in the tasks and functions that are characteristic of an adult man.
Listing all these characteristics would be confusing, so I will base myself on the most obvious: physical aggression, or if you prefer the use of lethal force. It's the most flashy, of course, because it gets in the papers when there's trouble.
The traditional method that society has always had was the so-called "male education", which produced what feminists like to call "toxic masculinity".
This education was based on the suppression of emotions and their expression. And often (wrongly, and I'll explain why) a “boys don't cry” film is used as a stereotype, to represent the suppression of emotions.
But the pattern is not as simple as feminists describe it. First, a society that inculcates toxic masculinity is a society where fathers are absent. They are absent because they work too much, or they are absent because they have "important" things to do at the bar, or for a thousand other reasons and excuses.
IN that society they are regularly raised by their mothers. The father exists only if the boy does not obey the mother. The famous "I'll tell dad".
And then you wonder if these women were stupid, to educate psychopaths who would have accumulated anger, resentment and resentment, along with frustration, until the moment of the outburst.
In no way. The women of that society projected themselves onto the children. Because in those days married women with children …were subjected to things. They were overwhelmed. “Here we do as I say”. They were subject to their father's bullying at home, and to the cruel gossip of other women when they went out. And they suffered all this in silence. The child who caught his mother crying in a corner of the kitchen would hear an apology in reply. It's not like they let their emotions out. They suffocated everything.
Those women taught "boys don't cry" for the simple reason that, in that society, "moms don't cry". They taught what they knew: to suffocate their emotions, not to let them show. This thing, done to a testosterone-fueled male, slowly turns him into a covert killer, but it has one major advantage: It teaches a discipline of self-control so ferocious that society need not fear the lethal force the boy is developing. He'll be too inhibited to let it out on a woman, just like tears and all other emotions.
And it is obvious that this education also contained mum's wishes: "every woman is a princess", "women don't even touch each other with a rose", "woe to you if you raise your hands with a woman", etc. And I'm not saying that this prevented femicide: apart from delaying it a lot, males often reached exasperation in old age, with little testosterone and therefore less aggression.
I underwent a male education of this kind, for generational reasons, and I have no doubts that the resilience to pain, the suffocation of emotions, the suppression of physical instincts, the tolerance of malaise, were nothing other than the education of my mother. All women of the period were educated to accept sacrifices, repress anger, repress frustration, suffering, pain. Those women cried less than men. Boys don't cry was the inevitable reflection of moms don't cry.
Then, always in the chapter "lethal force and aggressiveness" came the external company, where we had to think carefully about raising our hands, because we didn't know how it would end. After all, by fighting with a tall male, even if you win you take two less, but you take anyway. You quickly learn that physical confrontation carries risks, and that if you're not a Van Damme, you should probably keep your fists in your pockets.
With this bizarre recipe of female education projected onto males and calculated risk, the male arrived at the adult age apparently competent in managing his own lethal force.
And even if someone had been annoying enough to break the taboo against hitting women, it would have happened in adulthood. Since women were educated to endure, it rarely happened, usually for real or hypothetical betrayals.
You can apply this maternal projection in all other fields of male expertise, and you will easily find a mother's words there. The trouble is that projecting the education of oppressed women onto children is not a good practice, and the resulting culture is improperly termed "toxic masculinity."
But in reality, it was spread from mother to son, and as if that weren't enough, it then supported the system that oppressed women, who then passed it on to males.
In any case, wrong, deformed and cruel, males received some form of competence. Bossy, vulgar, and archaic, but at least competent and able to contain the use of lethal force to acceptable levels. I mean, in some ways, competent males.
Of course, from the boy's point of view, a form of discipline based on the weight of harassment of adult women produced the same suffering that we were educated to ignore and repress as much as possible. A sort of rite of passage, in which you were a man only if you knew how to bear the silence, the endurance, the repression, which belonged to your mother and which she threw at you, in the form of education.
With the 80s and 90s, I saw a new type of mother arrive, daughters of a new era, who didn't suffer as much as my mother the "here I decide" of the heads of the family. The fathers have remained absent, but so have the mothers, who are too busy worshiping their own bodies.
The result is that young people no longer receive any education, and remain incompetent. Something still gives him the school, which however has less and less power (and less and less punishments available), military service no longer exists, and the result is that every year a new year of incompetent males enter society. .
What can an incompetent male do if he wants to fit into a society where, in power, there are competent males even if obsolete?
Most will dress up as a competent male. There are many ways to do this.
- A nice uniform. You see a man in uniform and you automatically see him as a competent male. Whether it is or not. The uniform, the hierarchical position, are a fantastic disguise for the incompetent male who wants to look like a competent male.
- Homophobia. If you hate random strangers so much because they love each other, you do it because you want to appear competent, that is, perfect heterosexuals. Shout "death to fags" and the result is that everyone hears "I'm straight, and I'm prepared for this."
- Fascism. Another disguise for competent males, which does not have the high price of the real uniform (sometimes one dies) is wearing a kind of political uniform which claims to contain the same competence as the military uniform, but without ending up at the front. We say that fascism is a safe, comfortable uniform that allows the incompetent male to appear competent.
It is always and in any case a question of forms of disguise, which serve to make society believe that they are competent males.
And that's why I'm not at all surprised if the police become increasingly violent, or if homophobia is rampant, or if fascism is rampant. More and more males, who have not received any education in masculine roles, dress up as males using these roles as masks.
There are also escape roles, such as different types of homosexuality or a radical discussion of genders themselves. The reason why I don't believe it is simple: that you can discuss gender and non-binary as much as you like, but an average male who is 14/15 years old can literally beat a woman to death.
You haven't solved the lethal force problem by calling it demi-anarcho-sexual-metro-romantic.
I focus on the problem of lethal force, as I said because it is the most obvious source of problems, but I could use other characteristics that are typical of expectations of male competence, such as honor, reliability, generosity, etc.
After all, if I look back I see a high school boy on the Rugby field, taking blows that are impossible for a woman. Sure, women do rugby too today, but you don't have a one ton scrum pack. For your bones, it's different.
I see myself young on the tatami doing Judo, I see myself a few years later doing Muay Thai. I'd die today if I tried to do those things. The problem of lethal force exists, and we wouldn't be mourning murdered girls if it weren't.
And you will say "I was drunk, and now how do you get out of it?".
You certainly won't go back to the old "toxic" male education: to get it back you need a generation of women educated to always suffer any bullying from their husbands, and then to project resilience, silence and self-control onto their sons. I don't think the club can go back to that point. And I don't think anyone would.
It sounds good to say "fathers have to do it", but there is a problem: fathers are incompetent males themselves.
And then women have to do it? Oh, many have tried. Have they tried and failed? They tried and died. (cit.)
With this quote I mean that women cannot educate males because they are alien to the problem of testosterone at the ball, and they do not understand how to live when you have lethal force and others have it too, but not women.
If women perceived the problem (or the mere existence in being) of lethal force, say, they certainly wouldn't go on a last date with the bastard boyfriend. They would avoid it like the plague. Instead, they try, and die.
And an incompetent mother can't solve an incompetent son's problem.
Personally, I don't know how it will come out. I think these incompetent males will produce violence, while other incompetent males will swell the ranks of the uniformed males, and the violence of one will compensate for the violence of the other.
I also think the family is collapsing, so I don't even know if parental figures are going to stay around, and for how long.
It must also be said that I have had too much to do to get rid of the consequences of male education to really devote myself to this issue.
Honestly, I was keen to clarify how I view the issue of male competence today, and I did.