The Political Incorrectness of Masculinity
Has anyone ever wondered why pro-male, pro-masculine voices are as scarce as a four-leaf clover in the Western world? Why is it that discussions that pertain to the unique challenges that men as a sex face in the modern world are ever considered a viable talking point within academic and political spheres-at least until quite recently with the rise of the podcasting world, where heterodox views gained wider traction?
The answer to this question is complex. One that combines a variety of factors with the most critical being the ceaseless expansion of the State: notably its welfare arm. One that has continued to gobble up an ever-increasing proportion of the public budget in Western nation-states, and with the greater pressure it asserts on its productive citizens (1). But at a more fundamental level a key factor has been the political incorrectness. The idea of speaking up for, on behalf of (heterosexual) men has become anathema in the elite political circles. The question again is: why?
When it comes to men, women and the relational dynamics that govern the sexes, the variable that has exerted the greatest (negative) influence has been the State. As I argued in the last essay: Men should Stop Blaming Feminism, the bigger the State the smaller and weaker the role and agency of its private citizens (2). And since women are an electorally favored group that pro-welfare State parties who are mainly found, but not limited to the Left whose rights and privileges they seek to elevate and defend, it logically puts entrepreneurial, visionary, economically independent class of men, or at least males who aspire to becomes so, in their cross hairs.
The Empowered Sex
From an ideological standpoint, the most notable culprit that has stayed the emergence and development of voices and institutions that make the case for men and masculinity, at a policy level has been feminism, but underlying it has been, quite interestingly, liberalism.
The liberal political order that arose in the aftermath of WWII has dominated Western politics, subsuming the ideological aims of the mainstream Left and the Right parities into adopting policy frameworks that embrace versions of neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and social democracy. This led to what is known as the post-war liberal consensus, one that reflected a deliberate rejection of the groundbreaking insights of the German political theorist Carl Schmitt on the “friend-enemy” dichotomy—a framework that defines politics as an existential struggle between adversaries with generally irreconcilable differences.
The postwar order that arose this side of the Iron Curtain prioritized stability, advanced through the agendas of overwhelmingly centrist parties that worked through compromise and favored technocratic governance exercise through a bureaucratic class, giving rise to a form managed capitalism involving varying but significant levels of State intervention, that among other things sought to limit the emergence of overt ideological conflict between the Left and the Right.
Today, liberalism as a political theory and movement curiously defines the worldview of mainstream parties on both sides of the spectrum: Democrats and Republicans; Conservatives and Labor; who operate within narrow ideological boundaries emphasizing consensus over confrontation, social progressivism built around the welfare state with limited but adequate freedoms for private enterprise.
In the process keeping in check the emergence of nationalist sentiments and in turn exemplifying a natural disdain towards traditional masculine ideals, which knowingly or otherwise, is associated with a more confrontational form of politics. This was the status quo in ‘the West’, until the rise of populism in the middle of the 2010s, culminating with the rise of Donald Trump.
Feminism’s role in reshaping perceptions of masculinity negatively in the West may seem counter-intuitive at first glance. Its intellectual acceptance, cultural dominance, and political achievements stem not from its confrontational nature to showcase resistance and willingness to protest, but from its ability to exploit the paradoxically non-confrontational nature of liberal politics that characterize Western societies.
Unlike explicitly combative political movements of the past, such as the Brownshirts (SA) of Weimar Germany, or the Bolsheviks in the Russian Empire, feminism operates within a framework of ideological persuasion that seeks favorable change through institutional reform. Yet, within the gender-related initiatives, debates, and discourses it generates, the latent potential for coercive pressure remains. Having entrenched itself deeply into the working of Western institutions, feminist activists and their supporters in government and elsewhere do not hesitate to use social, professional, or legal threats such as cancellations, disciplining, firings, demotions or even arrests to achieve their ends when faced with resistance.
Sometime in March 2024 authorities in Germany conducted raids targeting 45 individuals on the suspicion of posting hate speech against women online. The operations were part of the so-called “combating misogyny on the internet day of action”, which comes a day before International Women’s Day. The operations led to searches, detainment and interrogations. The operations were sanctioned by the then Interior Minister Nancy Faeser from the Left-wing (SPD), who encouraged women to report such incidents, stating: “When the police show up at the door, it is a very effective signal: for the perpetrators who have felt safe in supposed anonymity, but especially for the affected women” (3).
Feminism, like other grievance-based movements that claim to represent the rights of supposedly marginalized groups like ethnic and religious minorities or persons with disabilities; derives its legitimacy and power from the political order that does not view such categories of people as problems or outcasts. The fact those who exercise political power: local representatives, legislators, bureaucrats, law enforcement officers etc. consider such groups of people as vulnerable, needy, and worthy of special attention, even going as far as prosecuting those who voice opposition against them, is a sign.
The question is: how did things become this way?
Well, it is because people with real power: healthy, strong, industrious men in the West, who as a collective, haven’t deemed such groups and persons as problematic to start with! Interesting isn’t it? When feminists cry about double standards in the workplace, or when social activists complain about “hate” online, or wives allege misconduct or abuse from their husbands, they are acting on the confidence that the social system in place will work in their favor. Always. A belief that is broadly true in Western, and particularly in Anglo-American nation-states.
But wait, doesn’t this sound like a contradiction?
If feminists, and other groups that claim to be marginalized can rise and make the case for their “liberation”, “empowerment” or whatever, in the very same societies that they claim are “oppressing” them?! Doesn’t this imply the opposite? I cannot remember where exactly, but a version of this point was made by Andrew Tate in some discussion about male and female power, and who wields more of it. The former kickboxing champ and now global influencer observed that ultimately men do: from law enforcement officers, soldiers, firefighters, engineers, prison guards and virtually any position that involves the exercise of coercive power and structural power, the men are invariably in charge. But feminists, and other pro-woman (anti-masculine) activists still have their way. Why?
Consider this rather extreme scenario. Say a woman gets beaten up by her husband and decides to call the cops. But the officers who walk in, both male, decide to follow ‘the patriarchy’ script: that society is (or should be) dominated by men and proceed to ignore her complaints and decide to side with the husband take his statement: that she had fallen from the stairs and knocked her head! Such a scenario is highly unlikely to transpire in Western nations. Invariably law enforcement officers and men in authority overwhelmingly tend to side with females, even when the girl is at fault. Women in the West know this, and feminists, exploit this.
To provide a real example. Several years ago, due to a variety of circumstances I had to put up with an obnoxious close female relative for some time. A woman in her early 30s or so, rather dim but tactlessly opinionated, with a sense of activism that can only be found in a Leftist crank. One of those overtly ‘helpful’ types that pokes its head into everything. I tried tolerating her, which seemed manageable for a while until it wasn’t. Leading me to cut her dead.
What followed was interesting. Her kindhearted but rather naive and somewhat sanctimonious big brother came calling. Trying to defend his sister’s, I don’t know, whatever. Since I respected the guy, who had helped me out many times before, I played along, feigning regret, and followed it up by sending her a blatantly insincere “apology”.
Taking a step back, and analyzing the behavior of the said female relative, I’m reminded of C.S Lewis’s words that “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies” (4). Obviously, men do not wish to be perceived as victims but, feminists certainly consider themselves to be so. But are they really?
If men in the modern world look back on their experiences involving the opposite sex, particularly with women who haven’t hit menopause in professional, romantic and even competitive settings, there is a certain degree of caution and restraint that men instinctively display. Why is that?
Going deeper, when confronting women in the Western world, what men need to understand-because women already do-is there is always a fallback option. For them. When going up against a female, as a guy you are invariably confronting a system. A system, that despite feminist complaints, exists to defend and advance the health and safety of women first. A system that involves supposedly patriarchal institutions like the State and the family.
Women in the modern world, particularly in English-speaking countries located in the Anglo-American sphere know full well that when they cry, complain, and protest the system in place, one that is ironically dominated by men, will come to their aid first and prioritize their well-being first. The aforementioned example of the two male officers siding with an abusive husband is the very antithesis of reality.
So to pose the question again: Why do the institutions that men have built and type of institutional relationships they give rise to and the social order that results, contrary to what gender theorists claim, work to advance the rights and privileges women, and often at the expense of men in the Western world? In other words, why is the West so pro-feminist and pro-female despite its (supposedly) sexist nature? The answer is that we men have permitted it.
The Decline of
Non-Confrontational Politics
Men are generally apprehensive and more careful around women. Whatever the context, women, young attractive girls in particular have a certain effect on the men around them. There is something about the female half of our species that exerts a moderating and at times enchanting effect on males. Compelling us to restrain our chaotic energies, discipline our behavior and direct our focus towards the fair maiden who is to be approached, courted, and if all goes well, seduced.
Whether men admit it or not, this is what goes on through the minds of males in the presence of a beautiful girl. Men not only are prone to showcase a more vulnerable side towards the opposite sex, but are also far more disposed to being protective, and defensive of women, even if the girl in question is not a romantic/sexual partner or a close relative. I’m sure the reader can recount such instances, and there are many viral clips online where a girl gets hurt by some guy, driving the men around her (related to otherwise) to jump to her defense.
The feminist movement throughout its history has operated from this favored status that men have rendered to women. Not only from the standpoint of young girls who are valued for their beauty, femininity, youth and their ability to bring forth life but females of all ages in general are viewed with greater sympathy than men. This state of affairs is observable even at the level of competing cultures, peoples and nation-states.
Gender movements whenever they arise, emerge within the social order of their respective polities; polities that are invariably characterized by representative governments. In other words, it is difficult to envisage a scenario in human history where a gender movement that campaigns solely rights of women emerges within totalitarian systems of government, and by extension in a period of constant war, where nation-states are in, or face constant risk of violent conflict.
In his book War! What Is It Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots (2014) historian Ian Morris states that the feminization of society is a consequence rather than a cause of the decline in societal violence. Arguing that:
“The empowerment of women played little part in the ancient decline [of conflict] and is hard to spot in the modern version until the nineteenth or even twentieth century, by which time Leviathan [the government] had already driven rates of violent death lower than ever before [..]. It is only when societies are so pacified that violent death falls below 2 per cent that women become sufficiently empowered to challenge male aggression. This was never consistently achieved anywhere before about A.D. 1750–1800, but the moment this level was reached, in Europe and some of its settler colonies, we begin to see signs of feminization” (5).
Morris’s main argument, one that gender activists may not wish to hear is that men ultimately call the shots when it comes to what women can do politically. The reason why the feminist movement has been tolerated for so long, despite some of the legitimate claims made by the first-wave activists, is that men are extremely good at tolerating women. Indeed it is a requisite on the part of men when it comes to sustaining a long-term relationship. A mindset that spills over into the public sphere.
Building on this, one of the reasons why feminism has gained such a firm foothold in the West is the liberal character of Western societies, that is built around compromise. Since democratic nation-states are not in a constant state of war and tend to prioritize the welfare and comfort of their citizenry it reflects on the kind of social policies they seek to pursue, which tend to be more equity-focused.
This combined with men’s biological propensity to not perceive women as a direct threat to their safety and survival, means that women-led movements are generally perceived as a distraction or a nuisance at best. This has empowered feminism to thrive and exert greater influence on public policy to the detriment of the very men who have indirectly enabled it.
Further, since men are characteristically solitary creatures or at least are less group-oriented in their thinking in contrast to females, they tend to be more distrustful of outsiders, besides close friends, trusted associates and family. Which weakens the urgency for men to band together and form an alliance to make the case for the rights of men. However, given the trajectory of Western societies, where (most) men seem to be getting the short end of the stick, combined with utter indifference from the powers that be, this status quo may not last.
In contrast, most or arguably all women tend to view men, particularly younger men, who do not play a significant part in their lives as fathers, husbands, brothers, sons or known benefactors; as either threats, inconveniences or impressionable simps to be used for their wealth, intelligence or connections. Which is managed by using their sexuality as leverage.
This subject has been explored in detail by the Red Pill community. Almost too well, which is a discussion for another time. But the broader sociopolitical consequence of this is the tribalistic loyalty women in Western nations have built with each other, one that tends to view men as a problematic out-group, unless we can prove to women otherwise.
So adding it all together: the tendency of males to instinctively view the opposite sex favorably, nonthreateningly, and desirously combined with the innate unease that females feel towards men, especially outsiders, which combined with their innate tendency to form group connections with outside females, which probably is a holdover from the hunter-gather times, has fueled its modern political outworking: gender politics. A case in point is the 4B movements in South Korea and recently in the US.
This now takes us to the liberal political landscape of the West. One that-at least until the rise of populism and its possible evolution towards nationalism-has been characterized by a non-confrontational form of party politics where consensus, compromise, incremental change and non-ideological decision-making have ruled. The so-called post-war order was characterized by the dominance of a crude mix of neoliberal and Keynesian policies at an economic level, that fed an expansionist agenda: enlarging the size and role of the State through higher taxation, the provision of merit goods usually at the expense of crowding out the private sector, and expanding its regulatory reach.
The postwar order’s aversion to conflictual politics has consequently reshaped the nature of the discourse that is permitted within mainstream party politics. So whatever ideological differences that may or may not exist between mainstream political parties on the Left and the Right these ultimately converge on maintaining and pushing the following:
Technocratic Governance:
– Where social and economic issues are depoliticized and perceived as technical problems solvable by experts. Both the Left and the Right converge on policies that for the most part are ideologically uniform, with only managerial differences separating them.
Welfare State Lite:
– Support for social safety nets, that whilst avoiding radical redistribution, exert great pressure on productive sectors (and individuals) of the economy. Engendering an attitudinal opposition towards more disruptive forms of entrepreneurship. For example, the idea of a self-made man who can be the provider, leader and master of the household, and thus has less need for the long arm of the State, is disempowered.
Feminism:
– Traditional masculine ideals and their social outworking: militarism, nationalism, rugged individualism, and hierarchical religion are stigmatized as regressive and strategically marginalized in popular culture. The rise of strong (sexless) female characters, neutered males, and anti-traditional stories exemplify this shift. Combined with the growth of State-led initiatives that emphasize “diversity, equality inclusivity” that in practice marginalize White, masculine, heterosexual, men.
The growth of the State is supported by feminist movements because it is a fallback mechanism for women who no longer seek or are unwilling to be reliant on the support of a man. And men in the West in turn have permitted this state of affairs to grow and fester, for they (we) have not recognized the long-term consequences of these developments to our well-being. Especially now, when policymakers view ‘women’ as a special constituency whose interests they must appeal to.
The Political Antidote
Before the 2016 election, in an interview with the Catholic news host Raymond Arroyo, then-candidate Trump was asked “We’re talking about women there’s been a lot of confusion controversy out on the trail when I travel the country people say I’d like to vote for Donald Trump but I don’t think I could look my wife and my daughter in the eye if I did so” (6).
A lot can be gleaned from this question regarding the (sexual) state of affairs in the West. Much has and still is been made of the status of women in the modern world: that females are marginalized, overlooked, objectified, discriminated against, and short-changed. But the fact of life, particularly in the English-speaking world, is that women are an empowered group. Inordinately so, given the factors that I have outlined above.
The cultural antipathy towards (heterosexual) men and masculinity, and the dominance of feminism exemplify the underlying strength and relational power that womankind wields in the Western world. If men feel compelled to reconsider their political allegiances solely because their candidate’s non-criminal private words and actions might offend women tells you something about the true state of society.
An external reality that persists alongside the significant influence women wield on the domestic front: pop-culture tropes—such as wives “kicking husbands out of the house,” “taking the children,” or relegating them to “sleep on the couch” are reflections of the hostility men are compelled to navigate in the domestic sphere.
The threat of no-fault divorce, 50/50 martial asset split, limits on paternity testing to determine fatherhood, biased criminal laws where women get lenient sentences and are more likely to walk free, and general partiality that females of our species receive when they break the law exemplifies the disempowered state of modern men. With the notable exception being men who command great wealth, power and status (7).
The disempowerment of modern men is entrenched and perpetuated by the prevailing political order that dominates post-war liberal democracies. A system, with its inherent reliance on incrementalism, environmentalism, paternalism, corporatism, and statism, functions as an antagonist to the kind of disruptive change required to recalibrate politics toward an equilibrium where the gender dynamics are fairer (8). Because rather than fostering fairness, the current political order and the statutory architecture it has engendered remains disproportionately tilted in favor of the ‘fairer sex,’ thus stifling the chance for disruptive movements that are required to address systemic imbalances that undermine men and boys.
Populism whilst still in its early stages in its political evolution might be the necessary antidote to the non-confrontational politics of our time. However, the gender movement that is single-mindedly focused on advancing the well-being of one sex, whilst being dismissive, inconsiderate and indifferent to the plight of men and boys is but a manifestation of a deeper problem, that points to the character of the extant political order that is defined by its non-confrontational nature.
Whilst the influence of Western feminism on the intellectual debates and cultural narratives surrounding sex and gender appear to be waning in recent times, an ideological alternative that makes the case for men, specifically the emergence of a developmental matrix that is conducive to heterosexual men and boys that safeguards and fosters mental stability, physical fitness, academic/professional excellence facilitating financial independence, and personal growth. This remains lacking at a cultural level mainstream at present and needs to change.
In Conclusion: Women – Partners No Longer
It is time to face reality. If women in the modern world ‘don’t need men’, and can rely on the State to take care of their needs and wants, in addition to what they can gain in the (regulated) marketplace, and in addition to what they manage to siphon off the men in their lives; isn’t it time that we men lay claim to the power of the State? Having a meaningful say in enacting favorable laws, implementing supportive policies, removing oppressive regulations, and establishing a level playing field is the long-term solution.
Men going into the world of work and relationships in the 2nd and 3rd decades of the 21st century must know that the biblical conception of womanhood is but an ideal, a fantasy almost. One that may be doctrinally true but often does not correspond to reality. A reality of life where money is power, and power is security, security indicates status which enhances your romantic and sexual prospects and as a defense against future legal and physical threats. So whilst the personal development and wealth-seeking mantra of the hustle era must continue, it must be matched with greater political awareness that views it as an extension of the personal.
References
Our World in Data. (2024). Public social spending has increased very substantially in the 20th century. [online] Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/public-social-spending-has-increased-very-substantially-in-the-20th-century [Accessed on February 24 2025].
Tharcisius, D. (2025). Men Should Stop Blaming Feminism. [online] Substack.com. Available at: https://damiantharcisius.substack.com/p/men-should-stop-blaming-feminism [Accessed 23 Feb. 2025].
AP News. (2024). German police conduct raids against people suspected of posting misogynistic hate speech online. [online] Available at: https://apnews.com/article/germany-women-misogyny-raids-internet-hate-crime-31d3e61aab90bdce3f6f0d96e21d0fe4 [Accessed 23 Feb. 2025].
Goodreads (n.d.). A quote from God in the Dock. [online] Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/526469-of-all-tyrannies-a-tyranny-sincerely-exercised-for-the-good [Accessed 23 Feb. 2025].
Morris, I. (2014). War! What Is It Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots. London: Profile Books.
EWTN (2016). World Over EXCLUSIVE – Donald J. Trump with Raymond Arroyo. [online] YouTube. [Accessed 23 Feb. 2025]. Available at: https://youtu.be/-PCsZ_x9Z6s
FT (2023). London’s reputation as divorce capital could be tested by legal shake-up. [online] Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/2552f4c7-3121-4f4f-8ff6-e1e5ce2fc81f [Accessed 23 Feb. 2025].
Rogers, M. (2017). Don’t Confuse Capitalism with Corporatism. [online] International Policy Digest. Available at: https://intpolicydigest.org/don-t-confuse-capitalism-with-corporatism/ [Accessed 23 Feb. 2025].
