This article's pretty relevant to a recent call Stef had

[jzd19]

http://markmanson.net/vulnerability

 

 

[MMX2010]

Rollo Tomassi, of The Rational Male, counter-attacks.

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/

 

"For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

 

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

 

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

 

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself."

[J. D. Stembal]

Rollo Tomassi, of The Rational Male, counter-attacks.

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/

 

"For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

 

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

 

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

 

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself."

 

A much simpler way of looking at the situation is that women are holding their eggs hostage, and we are compelled to play ball if we want access to the eggs. We have to be everything - wealthy, smart, funny, sweet, and brave - (happiness is optional) to gain access to those eggs. If you start showing vulnerability to a woman, she will sell you short the first chance she gets. I've seen it so many times. It all starts with mom, really. You were the reason she married your dad. In most cases you've already outlasted your utility to her, but what if mom and dad divorced and she never got remarried? You will start to be called on as the dutiful son if she needs support.

 

This is why we need to open up child surrogacy to the free market. Political feminism has poisoned the male/female dynamic beyond repair. Statistics show that women are far more abusive towards children than men. Men are already starting to see that the healthier and more ethical choice is to seek families without the legal state-sanctioned bond of marriage to a woman. Marriage is a business arrangement, but one where women hold all the trump cards. Men are seeking to take it one logical step further and use the free market to promote child surrogacy. Women can sell their eggs and labor for the necessary compensation. Men can raise these children as they please, keeping them out of harm's way, and above all, bring back the benefits of strong male influence in the lives of the next generation.