Sharp Dichotomies for Thee, But Not For Me?

☸

I’m going to start by making a seemingly disconnected point:

Humans are not “built” for physical fights. All fighting features/instincts are tacked on to a *comically* fragile body, and it remains that way no matter what you do. Learn to fight because you need it or you just enjoy the rush. But there’s nothing deeper there.

You’re probably not going to win an armed street fight, it’s actually much likelier your wounds will be fatal. You’re probably never going to get a chance to be a hero , and if you do, it’s probably going to be a chance that would be unwise to take.

If you do win the fight, whether you live or die, the fight will probably be too small and insignificant to ever be remembered or to really “inspire” anyone.

Because of the past trajectory of civilization and society, most women understand this instinctually and experientially: only skill with a weapon, brains and experience can truly improve your odds when things go bad (pro-gun people get this). And community/social power, after.

So instead of whining that the world has gone “soft”, understand that our world was always “soft” and HAS to be unless you want to take a drastic trajectory into transhumanist genetic engineering and cybernetics (something “nerds” understand that “trads” and “alphas” don’t).

The hankering for a good fight men feel is real, no doubt: it’s a varying mixture of hormones, restlessness, fear, instinct, anger issues and a lack of purpose. There is no deeper meaning. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to fight. It doesn’t mean you “evolved” to fight.

Evolution is not magic and does not build perfect, happy solutions. Human bodies are Bambi with the aggression of a territorial apex predator, even at peak condition. If you’re “meant” for anything– you’re meant to use your brains. So tough luck if that’s too “soft” for you.

The most based, swole fighter you simp for could die with a single unlucky strike to one of several and often individually variable unlucky spots on the body on a bad day. (ASOIAF made this point beautifully with Drogo)

A true, no-rules bloodsport or battle is not dramatic, and would only appeal to psychopaths: fights last seconds and darkly, gruesomely reveal our biological fragility each time. That is why the fights we can enjoy employ illusions of “warrior” values and strong aesthetics.

So you probably don’t want to self-goal by linking your masculinity to it. Instead, democratize. Help everyone to get ripped and healthy on their own terms. If you *really* crave to define masculinity, define it in terms of individual values & duties, not rights & restrictions.

Let plasticity & social structures change your tastes in what men & women should look and feel like. Stop trying to fight the minimization/shift in sexual dimorphism (if it’s really happening), it’s a kind of evolution too, one that might actually help survival and strength.

If you don’t want to do that, fine, yours is a legit worldview: but then you have to accept your interests and aesthetics as niche, and let people come in all shapes and sizes, weak and strong, passive and aggressive, and don’t pathologize and philosophize them for it.

Stop whining about feeling “cucked” by civilization, “feminism” and peace. You and all those you love are alive because civilizations cucks you with peace. Most people are embarrassed by being in the vicinity of your whining, not impressed or intimidated.

Ironically, most Trad cravings are cravings for a deep comfort: the comfort of the known. There is nothing wrong with this except the lack of self-awareness and the hypocrisy against other people looking for other types of comfort and boundaries (and they return the sentiment)

“Hard”, “soft”, “masculine”, “feminine”, these are two sets among many dichotomies that liberalism pioneered pointing out as more nuanced than we think in modern times, but they have probably been examined or lived in some form by all ancient cultures, all balancing yin and yang.

Conservatives tend to be more resilient, stoic, happier, physical, more likely to sacrifice their lives for the country, martially-oriented, dependable, self-sufficient— what we call “hardness”.

But that hardness is entirely dependent on “softness”— take away their god, their family, their community and in some cases their suppressed, submissive wives or “masculine” husbands and they are rendered entirely useless at life and just as prone to mental illness.

“Liberals” tend to be more explorative, fun-loving, unstable, innovative, sexually libertine, people and scale-oriented, non-martial, emotional, scattered, unfocused and hypersensitive— “soft”. But:

.. that softness is based on “hardness”— they are much more accepting of the harsh existential truths of uncertainty and science, and are able to brave them without pretense or masking, and leaving aside their adherence to social democratism, they are usually individualists.

Christianity is often considered “soft”— its principal values are helping others without care for reward, and hospitality, pacifism and non-materialism. But it is founded on hardness— incredible austerity, discipline, and strength of purpose in the face of persecution and death.

Islam is often considered “hard”— its principal values have been strength, conquest and religiosity. But it is built on softness— submission to the word of allah, a base of community and fraternity, family life, and even the importance of material and sexual satisfaction.

Since there are so many fans around these days of being “tough loved”: Your inability to find purpose and transcendence beyond the impulses constructed by your evolutionary trajectory as a gender and species is your fault alone, and society’s problems are emergent from individual problems.

I think there is wisdom in building people up around concepts of cosmic order, like Dharma or Tao. A “dharmic” individual and society accept that specifics change with time and place, but not their discipline & commitment to the concept and all that those two things entail.

It’s the virgin evolved ape vs. the chad cosmic. I often mention “trying to combine humility and ambition” when introducing my bio online. Dharma is in many ways exactly that. You can call it anything if you think it offends your specific deity, but I suspect they probably dig the concept too.

Life-affirming, cosmic-scale, intimidating and non-anthropic concepts paradoxically force you to prove yourself in tangible ways, and it vastly expands the variety of things one considers tangible. It enables individuals and societies to play very, very long games.

A true 21st century “prophet” will free trads of their insecure copes for scripture, gendered traits and rose-tinted pasts and their opposite demographic of their copes for constantly playing with labels, categories, neophilia and unimaginative “freedom.”

“Trads” and “liberals” freed of these copes are yin-yang in the best sense, and will do massive good in any space they choose, despite (and because of) being on different sides. And some will probably make great couples and excellent parents, too, for the same reason.