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.
Yes, the worldview that now prevails is both individualistic and hedonistic to the max. No society can endure for long on that basis. We can surely do better. Even the dissolute Romans understood that Christianity offered a powerful moral alternative to decadence. As I say in my comment, though, much depends on how we define "sacrifice."
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'm not sure that I understand your comment, Conrad. Why is "equality" incompatible with "Genesis style separation of sex and role"? The ancients did not think about equality in any abstract or theological sense. No word for it exists in ancient Hebrew. But they did understand that both men and women were divinely created and fulfilled at least two distinctive functions to make communal continuity possible. In other words, they understood what modern feminists and other ideologues do not understand: that different things can nonetheless be equal in value.
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.
What you say about self-sacrifice as a cultural ideal of fatherhood (a masculine virtue) is true, Steven, as long as you add that it has always been a cultural ideal of motherhood as well (a feminine virtue). You do say that, actually, but that message gets lost in your final statement about "parenthood." Until the late nineteenth century, pregnancy and childbirth were very dangerous and required considerable cultural support. Maybe we're all so used to criticism of men who become selfish fathers ("deadbeat dads") that we forget about women who become selfish as mothers in other ways (such as single mothers by choice or even murderous moms ones who resort to abortion).
I found Nuzzo’s essay interesting enough, and important enough, to put aside until I had more time to think about it carefully. Maybe I waited too long, though, because almost every comment has already either expanded the original essay or taken it in a new direction. This suggests to me that, apart from anything else, the topic is central to any discussion of what manhood has meant, still means, could mean or should mean. This confirms my decision several years ago to give war an entire chapter in the book that I wrote, with Katherine Young, on the history of masculinity.
In Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men (2015), we discussed masculinity not as a fixed and universal pattern due entirely to male biology, let alone to some biologically reductive evolutionary theory, but as a somewhat more complex pattern that interprets masculinity in the changing contexts of technological revolutions. We began with the transformative rise of agriculture and pastoralism during the Neolithic period and included the much more recent rise of conscript armies. The latter are of great importance for this discussion. I won’t repeat here everything that you can read there. Instead, I’ll comment on many of the comments—that is, by examining some of the words that can confuse any discussion of either masculinity or femininity.
Consider the word “sacrifice” (in English but also its equivalents in other languages). Dictionary definitions can take you only so far, because words keep taking on new connotations, ones that go far beyond and sometimes even contradict earlier definitions. At one time, communities sacrificed what they valued (food, say, or even lives) in order to receive favors (such as protection) from spirits or gods. This was a practical measure, a business arrangement, although it could also cement communal identity by means of ritual. It had nothing to do with altruism.
Gradually, though, sacrifice took on a connotation that applied symbolically to everyone—that is, to all men and all women. Life was precarious for our very remote ancestors, both personally and collectively. Predators (animals, not humans, before the rise of settled communities and raiding) often killed young men. Childbirth often killed young women. Their lives and their fates could at least have meaning, however, in the larger context of perpetuating communities. For both men and women, in one way or the other, accepting death meant giving life.
But eventually, the notion of sacrifice evolved in the direction of altruism. That’s because it took on the connotation of “self-sacrifice” (not being sacrificed by others but sacrificing yourself for others). The most admired people were those who chose to sacrifice themselves in one way or another, willingly and even spontaneously, for the good of their communities or families. But as several comments (let alone the writings of Ayn Rand) have already suggested, these altruistic behaviors are notoriously easy to challenge. From a cynical perspective, after all, those who sacrifice themselves actually receive rewards in return for doing so—if not personal gratification in this world (seeing your loved ones live or prosper), then at least postmortem fame (a memory revered in epic folklore, public monuments and so on) or eternal glory in some other world. In my opinion, this cynical approach is both unnecessary (because no one has access to anyone else’s inner world) and undesirable (because no community worth perpetuating can afford to ridicule or denounce self-sacrificial behavior, no matter what the underlying motivation for that behavior might be).
That brings me to masculinity and its relation to war in the modern world—that is, one that relies on conscript armies. Conscription by the state, for either labor or war, is not a new idea. It was common in agrarian states of the ancient Near East, for example, but also in feudal Europe, China and elsewhere. But it never applied to all men, per se, because most men by far were serfs (or peasants). Even the most bellicose rulers knew that most men had (at least) non-military value as those who produce food by working in the fields for much of the year. Engaging in warfare as a “vocation” was a marker specifically of masculine identity, therefore, only among those who belonged to a class of warriors (that is, aristocrats, especially those in the ruler’s entourage). In feudal Europe, moreover, even those men could choose between the “chalice” and the “sword.”
This social contract changed radically with the rise of “universal” conscription during the French Revolution, which replaced it with a radically new one. It allowed all men to enjoy the benefits of full citizenship in return for risking their lives, by virtue of maleness (not personal proclivity), in the revolutionary or imperial armies. Because this bargain with the state did not apply to women (or children), combat, or at least readiness for it, now became an inherent feature of masculinity.
But modern states do not rely entirely on law (conscription) to enlist armies. (I refer here to Christian or residually Christian ones and would have to discuss other states, notably Islamic ones, separately.) To produce compliant and therefore “willing conscripts,” they rely also, even primarily, on religious symbolism that so far remains deeply embedded in collective consciousness. The ultimate act of self-sacrifice, for Christians, was the Crucifixion. As a man, Jesus was not only a victim but also a martyr. As Christ, moreover, he was not only the divine savior of all humans but also the divine paradigm to be imitated by all men (just as Mary was the divine or quasi-divine paradigm to be imitated by all women). Consequently, the ideal Christian man became a self-sacrificial man—even if the state actually sacrificed him, by law, and thus made his personal motivation (and moral agency) irrelevant. This is what even partially secular states still demand: not obedient but sullen victims of intimidation but willing martyrs who “lay down their lives on the altar of the nation.”
It seems to me, therefore, that Sorbo’s view of masculinity is just as “toxic” as that of either feminists or evolutionary psychologists—and most unlikely to find favor with healthy men. As Nuzzo points out very cogently, the argument “that ‘sacrifice’ is fundamental to masculinity and that selfishness is counter to masculinity—is problematic. It teaches boys and men not to value their own needs—i.e., themselves. It tells them that their lives hold no intrinsic worth, and that their value is predicated on serving the needs and desires of others. The male sex is mere cannon fodder.” No one who cares about boys and men can tolerate that premise.
Nuzzo is surely correct, therefore, in arguing against the idea that masculinity amounts to self-sacrifice in the negative sense of self-denial as an end in itself. That amounts to neuroticism, which is what Ayn Rand had in mind. She turned everything upside down by giving priority instead to self-interest (or “selfishness”)—which can at the same time, as she noted, enhance the interests of others. But this debate ignores the fact that self-sacrifice (or altruism) can have a much richer field of meaning than self-denial.
Neither Nuzzo nor Rand, let alone Sorbo, goes beyond a superficial understanding of altruism. “My purpose here,” Nuzzo writes, “is to highlight why Sorbo’s definition of masculinity based on the concept of “sacrifice” is flawed. Sorbo suggested that sacrifice and the ridding one’s selfish desires is peak masculinity. Sorbo implied that raising one’s kids, defending one’s home, and providing for one’s family are sacrifices. But why view fatherhood and masculinity in this way? Why frame these responsibilities and commitments as ‘sacrifices’? Does a man not receive any personal boost to his ego or self-esteem when he completes these acts successfully?” Nuzzo’s argument is correct, of course, and valuable in the context of current ideologies that dehumanize men. But he could have tried a more subtle and useful argument: that altruistic people are compassionate, not selfless (let alone selfish, a word that, as he says, usually means evil). What makes compassion a moral virtue, after all, is precisely the fact that it emerges from self-made choices by real people, not out of thin air by angels or gene-carriers.
There’s so much to say about all of this, almost all of it controversial at the moment. I’ll conclude here, though, by applauding Nuzzo’s effort to oppose sacrifice as a feature of any coherent definition of masculinity. That definition is a dead end, both figuratively and literally. As I’ve said elsewhere, many times, healthy definitions of both masculinity and femininity rely on neither the allegedly innate “selfishness” of one sex nor the allegedly innate “selflessness” of the other but rather on distinctive functions of each that allow reciprocity in daily life. Ideally, this reinforces a social contract that gives meaning and value to the lives of both men and women.
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.
They're born with ovarian egg reserve of 1-2 million that falls and doesn't rise. Whereas men produce a hundred million sperm a day.
There are lots of other ways to compare and contrast too.
I agree that equality needs to be properly defined and considered and we ought to be reasonable about it.
And, as you say, certain Ideologies are dogmatic about equality. Often using motte and bailey argument for shequality. Or animal farm style equality where some farm animals are more equal than others. Like the two tier injustice so many men perceive.
I wonder how much of the radical equality comes from Christianity too which came later than Genesis. And outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition of pagan Gods of the Greeks, Romans, Germanics, how much did they prize power in the sense of might is right? Like leaving sickly babies to death by exposure or the common practice of senicide where the elderly person walks off to their death.
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.
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.
Yes, the worldview that now prevails is both individualistic and hedonistic to the max. No society can endure for long on that basis. We can surely do better. Even the dissolute Romans understood that Christianity offered a powerful moral alternative to decadence. As I say in my comment, though, much depends on how we define "sacrifice."
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'm not sure that I understand your comment, Conrad. Why is "equality" incompatible with "Genesis style separation of sex and role"? The ancients did not think about equality in any abstract or theological sense. No word for it exists in ancient Hebrew. But they did understand that both men and women were divinely created and fulfilled at least two distinctive functions to make communal continuity possible. In other words, they understood what modern feminists and other ideologues do not understand: that different things can nonetheless be equal in value.
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.
Yes, Duncan, and thank you. I made the same point in my own comment.
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.
What you say about self-sacrifice as a cultural ideal of fatherhood (a masculine virtue) is true, Steven, as long as you add that it has always been a cultural ideal of motherhood as well (a feminine virtue). You do say that, actually, but that message gets lost in your final statement about "parenthood." Until the late nineteenth century, pregnancy and childbirth were very dangerous and required considerable cultural support. Maybe we're all so used to criticism of men who become selfish fathers ("deadbeat dads") that we forget about women who become selfish as mothers in other ways (such as single mothers by choice or even murderous moms ones who resort to abortion).
I found Nuzzo’s essay interesting enough, and important enough, to put aside until I had more time to think about it carefully. Maybe I waited too long, though, because almost every comment has already either expanded the original essay or taken it in a new direction. This suggests to me that, apart from anything else, the topic is central to any discussion of what manhood has meant, still means, could mean or should mean. This confirms my decision several years ago to give war an entire chapter in the book that I wrote, with Katherine Young, on the history of masculinity.
In Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men (2015), we discussed masculinity not as a fixed and universal pattern due entirely to male biology, let alone to some biologically reductive evolutionary theory, but as a somewhat more complex pattern that interprets masculinity in the changing contexts of technological revolutions. We began with the transformative rise of agriculture and pastoralism during the Neolithic period and included the much more recent rise of conscript armies. The latter are of great importance for this discussion. I won’t repeat here everything that you can read there. Instead, I’ll comment on many of the comments—that is, by examining some of the words that can confuse any discussion of either masculinity or femininity.
Consider the word “sacrifice” (in English but also its equivalents in other languages). Dictionary definitions can take you only so far, because words keep taking on new connotations, ones that go far beyond and sometimes even contradict earlier definitions. At one time, communities sacrificed what they valued (food, say, or even lives) in order to receive favors (such as protection) from spirits or gods. This was a practical measure, a business arrangement, although it could also cement communal identity by means of ritual. It had nothing to do with altruism.
Gradually, though, sacrifice took on a connotation that applied symbolically to everyone—that is, to all men and all women. Life was precarious for our very remote ancestors, both personally and collectively. Predators (animals, not humans, before the rise of settled communities and raiding) often killed young men. Childbirth often killed young women. Their lives and their fates could at least have meaning, however, in the larger context of perpetuating communities. For both men and women, in one way or the other, accepting death meant giving life.
But eventually, the notion of sacrifice evolved in the direction of altruism. That’s because it took on the connotation of “self-sacrifice” (not being sacrificed by others but sacrificing yourself for others). The most admired people were those who chose to sacrifice themselves in one way or another, willingly and even spontaneously, for the good of their communities or families. But as several comments (let alone the writings of Ayn Rand) have already suggested, these altruistic behaviors are notoriously easy to challenge. From a cynical perspective, after all, those who sacrifice themselves actually receive rewards in return for doing so—if not personal gratification in this world (seeing your loved ones live or prosper), then at least postmortem fame (a memory revered in epic folklore, public monuments and so on) or eternal glory in some other world. In my opinion, this cynical approach is both unnecessary (because no one has access to anyone else’s inner world) and undesirable (because no community worth perpetuating can afford to ridicule or denounce self-sacrificial behavior, no matter what the underlying motivation for that behavior might be).
That brings me to masculinity and its relation to war in the modern world—that is, one that relies on conscript armies. Conscription by the state, for either labor or war, is not a new idea. It was common in agrarian states of the ancient Near East, for example, but also in feudal Europe, China and elsewhere. But it never applied to all men, per se, because most men by far were serfs (or peasants). Even the most bellicose rulers knew that most men had (at least) non-military value as those who produce food by working in the fields for much of the year. Engaging in warfare as a “vocation” was a marker specifically of masculine identity, therefore, only among those who belonged to a class of warriors (that is, aristocrats, especially those in the ruler’s entourage). In feudal Europe, moreover, even those men could choose between the “chalice” and the “sword.”
This social contract changed radically with the rise of “universal” conscription during the French Revolution, which replaced it with a radically new one. It allowed all men to enjoy the benefits of full citizenship in return for risking their lives, by virtue of maleness (not personal proclivity), in the revolutionary or imperial armies. Because this bargain with the state did not apply to women (or children), combat, or at least readiness for it, now became an inherent feature of masculinity.
But modern states do not rely entirely on law (conscription) to enlist armies. (I refer here to Christian or residually Christian ones and would have to discuss other states, notably Islamic ones, separately.) To produce compliant and therefore “willing conscripts,” they rely also, even primarily, on religious symbolism that so far remains deeply embedded in collective consciousness. The ultimate act of self-sacrifice, for Christians, was the Crucifixion. As a man, Jesus was not only a victim but also a martyr. As Christ, moreover, he was not only the divine savior of all humans but also the divine paradigm to be imitated by all men (just as Mary was the divine or quasi-divine paradigm to be imitated by all women). Consequently, the ideal Christian man became a self-sacrificial man—even if the state actually sacrificed him, by law, and thus made his personal motivation (and moral agency) irrelevant. This is what even partially secular states still demand: not obedient but sullen victims of intimidation but willing martyrs who “lay down their lives on the altar of the nation.”
It seems to me, therefore, that Sorbo’s view of masculinity is just as “toxic” as that of either feminists or evolutionary psychologists—and most unlikely to find favor with healthy men. As Nuzzo points out very cogently, the argument “that ‘sacrifice’ is fundamental to masculinity and that selfishness is counter to masculinity—is problematic. It teaches boys and men not to value their own needs—i.e., themselves. It tells them that their lives hold no intrinsic worth, and that their value is predicated on serving the needs and desires of others. The male sex is mere cannon fodder.” No one who cares about boys and men can tolerate that premise.
Nuzzo is surely correct, therefore, in arguing against the idea that masculinity amounts to self-sacrifice in the negative sense of self-denial as an end in itself. That amounts to neuroticism, which is what Ayn Rand had in mind. She turned everything upside down by giving priority instead to self-interest (or “selfishness”)—which can at the same time, as she noted, enhance the interests of others. But this debate ignores the fact that self-sacrifice (or altruism) can have a much richer field of meaning than self-denial.
Neither Nuzzo nor Rand, let alone Sorbo, goes beyond a superficial understanding of altruism. “My purpose here,” Nuzzo writes, “is to highlight why Sorbo’s definition of masculinity based on the concept of “sacrifice” is flawed. Sorbo suggested that sacrifice and the ridding one’s selfish desires is peak masculinity. Sorbo implied that raising one’s kids, defending one’s home, and providing for one’s family are sacrifices. But why view fatherhood and masculinity in this way? Why frame these responsibilities and commitments as ‘sacrifices’? Does a man not receive any personal boost to his ego or self-esteem when he completes these acts successfully?” Nuzzo’s argument is correct, of course, and valuable in the context of current ideologies that dehumanize men. But he could have tried a more subtle and useful argument: that altruistic people are compassionate, not selfless (let alone selfish, a word that, as he says, usually means evil). What makes compassion a moral virtue, after all, is precisely the fact that it emerges from self-made choices by real people, not out of thin air by angels or gene-carriers.
There’s so much to say about all of this, almost all of it controversial at the moment. I’ll conclude here, though, by applauding Nuzzo’s effort to oppose sacrifice as a feature of any coherent definition of masculinity. That definition is a dead end, both figuratively and literally. As I’ve said elsewhere, many times, healthy definitions of both masculinity and femininity rely on neither the allegedly innate “selfishness” of one sex nor the allegedly innate “selflessness” of the other but rather on distinctive functions of each that allow reciprocity in daily life. Ideally, this reinforces a social contract that gives meaning and value to the lives of both men and women.
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.
That's an interesting comment, Conrad. My own comment revolves around some similar ideas.
Well, women are more valuable.
They're born with ovarian egg reserve of 1-2 million that falls and doesn't rise. Whereas men produce a hundred million sperm a day.
There are lots of other ways to compare and contrast too.
I agree that equality needs to be properly defined and considered and we ought to be reasonable about it.
And, as you say, certain Ideologies are dogmatic about equality. Often using motte and bailey argument for shequality. Or animal farm style equality where some farm animals are more equal than others. Like the two tier injustice so many men perceive.
I wonder how much of the radical equality comes from Christianity too which came later than Genesis. And outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition of pagan Gods of the Greeks, Romans, Germanics, how much did they prize power in the sense of might is right? Like leaving sickly babies to death by exposure or the common practice of senicide where the elderly person walks off to their death.
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.