In September of 2023, actor Kevin Sorbo, famous for his starring role in the 1990s television show “Hercules,” wrote an article for Fox News titled, “Let’s make Hollywood manly again.”
Interesting and thoughtful article, but I disagree about the aversion to sacrifice. A world where men and women recoil from sacrifice is one with unhealthy societies - we cannot navigate our lives only through the lens of rational self interest. One of the huge advantages of Christianity is that it articulates the social benefits of sacrifices by mothers and fathers. These are powerful role models for children.
Equality is another way men demonstrate superior moral development. Through logical consistency. And matching rhetoric with reality (acta non verba).
If we're prizing equality above Genesis style separation of sex and role... Then we should be logically consistent.
Do we want equality or not?
I think Feminist Marxists want to say we want equality, but theirs is a fixed oppression hierarchy. So they want to use it to demand superiority but call that equality.
If we want it then we'd have to pass the equality amendment to constitution, and ban all discrimination in favour of females, in courts, education, complications, government, taxation, family law, selective service etc.
Paradoxically, this might bring us back into alignment with genesis 'go forth and multiply' as it'd radically impoverish women who could no longer unequally tax men.
Impoverishing women increases their birth rate. Indeed it's the only observed way to do it.
I'd say equality means shequality in our culture, i.e. the divisive cultural revolution on natural order that uses oppression matrix, resentment, and gullibility to convince angry women to push harder for more privileges. The concept is comprehensively flawed as different things aren't equal and that's the undoing of postmodernity.
I don't really agree with this. I think good societies require a level of altruism, which at an individual level means some self-sacrifice, especially beyond your family (which is really just an extension of you). Where Sorbo goes wrong is in claiming that sacrifice is at the heart of masculinity. In fact, you can be very masculine without practicing self-sacrifice, and many of the most powerful and masculine men in history were basically self-serving conquerors who took a lot more than they ever gave. Masculine men can sacrifice for others, or not, it doesn't affect their masculinity. It is also not a unique obligation of men - women have an equal obligation to practice altruism if we are going to have the kind of high-trust society that maximises human welfare.
Altruism, system level thinking, deferred gratification, and sacrificing hedonism for leadership and legacy. All universal goods.
Now what are women's duties under the above?
Men increasingly object to the double standards.
Two tier injustice breaks the system.
Responsibility without authority is slavery.
Men cast a minority of votes, obligated to selective service, while paying majority of taxes, and encounter zero sum pro girl policies in education, academia and the work place via DEI programmes and feminisation of culture and demonization of masculinity.
Feminism is sawing off the branch women sit on. They're Marxists' useful idiots. Literally depopulating us worse than the black death. 1.5 babies per woman is minus 25% per generation. Do that once and you're liquidating your human capital and can't get it back.
I agree with you on all these points about double standards and the democratic state becoming a big rip-off for men. But requiring equal altruism from men and women isn't quite the same as the Nuzzo article which basically supports the Randian philosophy of selfishness as desirable.
Flawed argument from a flawed premise. It's Rand who has 'sacrifice' wrong, not Sorbo.
Protection and provision ARE core to the concept of Masculinity. What are those? Protection is the willing transfer of a risk or danger from others to yourself. Being a protector demands the willingness to self-sacrifice. What is provision? The willing giving of your own resources to others. Being a provider demands self-sacrifice. Both require accepting a cost to oneself made primarily for the benefit of others: you assume otherwise unnecessary risks upon yourself and lose resources you could have kept. Any Masculinity without the value of self-sacrifice is a crippled concept that has amputated an essential root and thereby stunted itself. Even moreso, self-sacrifice is absolutely essential to either role of parenthood; if a "Man" unwilling to sacrifice has a defective masculinity (which it is), a "Father" unwilling to sacrifice for his children isn't worthy of the term. Selfishness is for immature children, mature adults have responsibilities to others that they strive to fulfill whether they receive a payoff or not.
That's why MGTOW is effective negotiation, our next best option determines our position, as we can walk away.
Since freedom from family court is worth so much under the rules of the game, our position is dramatically strengthened by going our own way.
Women will need to put something on the table to deal, they can no longer extort commitment and compliance.
Female Supremacy as a movement has a shelf life. Just as women lost 90% of eggs by age 30. The female collective loses it's value through the motherhood strike. Since our species must protect mothers - not barren boss babes.
Women's insufferability and insubordination is acceptable if she's putting out children at an adequate rate. But they're not...
It's a Marxist feminist salt the earth strategy that'll act like a great flood on the dating and mating market. So climb aboard the arc lads.
The characteristics of femininity and masculinity can be interpreted in Shakespeare's great play
"Hamlet". How is that ? Well in the beginning Hamlet returns home from studying abroad to find
his father has been murdered. As the tale unfolds Hamlet finds his uncle was responsible for the crime. Hamlet's father had been the King. What astounded Hamlet was that his mother remarried
his uncle within a month "the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage table"
was his vitriolic comment. What was his mother doing ? Was she having an affaire with his uncle
or was she just protecting the special privileges which she got while remaining the "Queen" ?
How can one trust women ? So Hamlet's girl friend, Ophelia, was insulted by him after his mothers marriage.. But unbeknown to Hamlet, Ophelia was pregnant. Her one true love had rejected her while she was carrying his child of which he was as yet unaware. Her hurt was so profound Ophelia committed suicide.
The next step Hamlet left his home country and went to London for a couple of years. There it occurred to him that his mother had remarried his uncle because if she didn't some other young
woman would so. If that new Queen had a child then Hamlet would lose his entitlement to
the throne. So in order to protect her son's inheritance Hamlets mother had remarried for a second time.
This story makes the point that a woman's maternal instinct to protect her offspring knows no bounds. It also shows a woman in love who is rejected by her lover may no longer wish to live.
What is masculinity in this story ? Masculinity is Hamlet's pursuit of the truth no matter what the
consequences may be for his own life. While pursuing truth Hamlet was murdered but he too dealt
with his uncle, his father's murderer, by turning a deadly sword on him..
That is why the play Hamlet is one of the great plays of all time.
The post modern intersectional meat grinder has liberated women from men. Meaning they get mens resources without acting as wives.
Paradoxically this exposed mens greater moral development of universal concern and willingness to sacrifice themselves - we have the muscle to fix the system in a day if we chose to.
The core logos of our civilization is God so loved man he gave his one begotten son.
I reckon babies placenta drills into mother to access her resources. Women drill into mens arterial flow via marriage or Vis the state. Our continued existence as a species is dependent on sacrifice on that order.
We should re-sacredify it!
New red letter day: Good Men's Sacrifice day, remembering not just the men who laid down their lives for their nation, but those dying on the job, those paying majority of taxes, those being ritually sacrificed on alter of female supremacist Marxism in family court, etc.
Interesting and thoughtful article, but I disagree about the aversion to sacrifice. A world where men and women recoil from sacrifice is one with unhealthy societies - we cannot navigate our lives only through the lens of rational self interest. One of the huge advantages of Christianity is that it articulates the social benefits of sacrifices by mothers and fathers. These are powerful role models for children.
Rational self interest and altruism and sacrifice align for men at very high levels of moral development and conscious awareness.
As in son of man who is divine.
But I agree the women voting for family court are morally stunted and so are the men who allow it to exist another day.
Paradoxes accelerated as the Marxists like to say.
Equality is another way men demonstrate superior moral development. Through logical consistency. And matching rhetoric with reality (acta non verba).
If we're prizing equality above Genesis style separation of sex and role... Then we should be logically consistent.
Do we want equality or not?
I think Feminist Marxists want to say we want equality, but theirs is a fixed oppression hierarchy. So they want to use it to demand superiority but call that equality.
If we want it then we'd have to pass the equality amendment to constitution, and ban all discrimination in favour of females, in courts, education, complications, government, taxation, family law, selective service etc.
Paradoxically, this might bring us back into alignment with genesis 'go forth and multiply' as it'd radically impoverish women who could no longer unequally tax men.
Impoverishing women increases their birth rate. Indeed it's the only observed way to do it.
I'd say equality means shequality in our culture, i.e. the divisive cultural revolution on natural order that uses oppression matrix, resentment, and gullibility to convince angry women to push harder for more privileges. The concept is comprehensively flawed as different things aren't equal and that's the undoing of postmodernity.
I don't really agree with this. I think good societies require a level of altruism, which at an individual level means some self-sacrifice, especially beyond your family (which is really just an extension of you). Where Sorbo goes wrong is in claiming that sacrifice is at the heart of masculinity. In fact, you can be very masculine without practicing self-sacrifice, and many of the most powerful and masculine men in history were basically self-serving conquerors who took a lot more than they ever gave. Masculine men can sacrifice for others, or not, it doesn't affect their masculinity. It is also not a unique obligation of men - women have an equal obligation to practice altruism if we are going to have the kind of high-trust society that maximises human welfare.
Altruism, system level thinking, deferred gratification, and sacrificing hedonism for leadership and legacy. All universal goods.
Now what are women's duties under the above?
Men increasingly object to the double standards.
Two tier injustice breaks the system.
Responsibility without authority is slavery.
Men cast a minority of votes, obligated to selective service, while paying majority of taxes, and encounter zero sum pro girl policies in education, academia and the work place via DEI programmes and feminisation of culture and demonization of masculinity.
Feminism is sawing off the branch women sit on. They're Marxists' useful idiots. Literally depopulating us worse than the black death. 1.5 babies per woman is minus 25% per generation. Do that once and you're liquidating your human capital and can't get it back.
I agree with you on all these points about double standards and the democratic state becoming a big rip-off for men. But requiring equal altruism from men and women isn't quite the same as the Nuzzo article which basically supports the Randian philosophy of selfishness as desirable.
Flawed argument from a flawed premise. It's Rand who has 'sacrifice' wrong, not Sorbo.
Protection and provision ARE core to the concept of Masculinity. What are those? Protection is the willing transfer of a risk or danger from others to yourself. Being a protector demands the willingness to self-sacrifice. What is provision? The willing giving of your own resources to others. Being a provider demands self-sacrifice. Both require accepting a cost to oneself made primarily for the benefit of others: you assume otherwise unnecessary risks upon yourself and lose resources you could have kept. Any Masculinity without the value of self-sacrifice is a crippled concept that has amputated an essential root and thereby stunted itself. Even moreso, self-sacrifice is absolutely essential to either role of parenthood; if a "Man" unwilling to sacrifice has a defective masculinity (which it is), a "Father" unwilling to sacrifice for his children isn't worthy of the term. Selfishness is for immature children, mature adults have responsibilities to others that they strive to fulfill whether they receive a payoff or not.
I disagree.
Movie should show Men Going Their Own Way.
We need to get men independent from women.
Men need a formal apology the the Oligarchy and the Government for the last 40 years. They have been destroyed in all front by the Government.
First, if the Government want now men to be men again (curisously, there is a potential war in the horizon), then, first, we want an APOLOGY.
Our strength is strategy.
Rationally, response to the rules of the game.
That's why MGTOW is effective negotiation, our next best option determines our position, as we can walk away.
Since freedom from family court is worth so much under the rules of the game, our position is dramatically strengthened by going our own way.
Women will need to put something on the table to deal, they can no longer extort commitment and compliance.
Female Supremacy as a movement has a shelf life. Just as women lost 90% of eggs by age 30. The female collective loses it's value through the motherhood strike. Since our species must protect mothers - not barren boss babes.
Women's insufferability and insubordination is acceptable if she's putting out children at an adequate rate. But they're not...
It's a Marxist feminist salt the earth strategy that'll act like a great flood on the dating and mating market. So climb aboard the arc lads.
The characteristics of femininity and masculinity can be interpreted in Shakespeare's great play
"Hamlet". How is that ? Well in the beginning Hamlet returns home from studying abroad to find
his father has been murdered. As the tale unfolds Hamlet finds his uncle was responsible for the crime. Hamlet's father had been the King. What astounded Hamlet was that his mother remarried
his uncle within a month "the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage table"
was his vitriolic comment. What was his mother doing ? Was she having an affaire with his uncle
or was she just protecting the special privileges which she got while remaining the "Queen" ?
How can one trust women ? So Hamlet's girl friend, Ophelia, was insulted by him after his mothers marriage.. But unbeknown to Hamlet, Ophelia was pregnant. Her one true love had rejected her while she was carrying his child of which he was as yet unaware. Her hurt was so profound Ophelia committed suicide.
The next step Hamlet left his home country and went to London for a couple of years. There it occurred to him that his mother had remarried his uncle because if she didn't some other young
woman would so. If that new Queen had a child then Hamlet would lose his entitlement to
the throne. So in order to protect her son's inheritance Hamlets mother had remarried for a second time.
This story makes the point that a woman's maternal instinct to protect her offspring knows no bounds. It also shows a woman in love who is rejected by her lover may no longer wish to live.
What is masculinity in this story ? Masculinity is Hamlet's pursuit of the truth no matter what the
consequences may be for his own life. While pursuing truth Hamlet was murdered but he too dealt
with his uncle, his father's murderer, by turning a deadly sword on him..
That is why the play Hamlet is one of the great plays of all time.
Widow marrying brother in law is an old idea from bronze age. It makes sense financially. And genetically.
This gets us on to the "inheritance gap" how nearly all female billionaires took their assets from a man via legal means.
Women out live men.
And then there's the "tax gap" and "gender entitlement welfare gap" how IRS says women pay only 20% of tax while casting more than half of votes.
I get it.
Sacrifice is paradox.
Sacred is root and Sorbo is a man of faith.
The post modern intersectional meat grinder has liberated women from men. Meaning they get mens resources without acting as wives.
Paradoxically this exposed mens greater moral development of universal concern and willingness to sacrifice themselves - we have the muscle to fix the system in a day if we chose to.
The core logos of our civilization is God so loved man he gave his one begotten son.
I reckon babies placenta drills into mother to access her resources. Women drill into mens arterial flow via marriage or Vis the state. Our continued existence as a species is dependent on sacrifice on that order.
We should re-sacredify it!
New red letter day: Good Men's Sacrifice day, remembering not just the men who laid down their lives for their nation, but those dying on the job, those paying majority of taxes, those being ritually sacrificed on alter of female supremacist Marxism in family court, etc.