Like the word “stallion” the word “man” is a compliment.
Like the word “stallion” the word “man” refers to a prison.
Stallion literally means a horse in a box. And man means a person in a box.
The man box does not teach men to behave badly, no. The man box teaches men to be useful. Instead the man box _induces_ bad behaviour.
Just like the isolation of the stall induces bad behaviour in the “stalled one”, the stallion.
Stallions are lucky there isn’t a movement blaming their bad behaviour on some sort of stallionarchy in which stallions get together to teach each other how to be assholes.
Instead people are waking up to the fact that if you put a horse in a box that horse will go nuts. But if you instead raise that horse in a herd, that horse will be well adjusted.
That’s such a deep insight! Not obvious in the slightest.
Let’s extend this to human men. When you put human men in psychological boxes that isolate them from humanity using the conditional word “man”, some of them will behave badly.
The abusive behaviour of the stallion is a result of being locked in a cage; likewise with men. And just like stallions, they most often direct their aggression at other men.
Macho behaviour, so decried by feminists, can be likened to a stallion pounding his stall with his hoof. It’s an attempt to be assertive in a position of extreme submission.
Male disposability is induced by placing men in the man box. Male disposability makes men useful because when a man learns he’s disposable, he also learns that his positive social identity exists only insofar as he benefits others. As soon as he stops he’s a “bad man”, “not a real man”, “what kind of man are you.”
Male disposability is what makes elaborate hierarchies like armies, governments and companies possible. Without millions of men willing to sacrifice themselves bodily either violently or bit by bit through the loss of time, there are no armies, governments or companies. Similarly there are no CEOs, politicians or generals.
And CEOs, politicians and generals are often as disposable or more disposable then the disposable men whose sacrifice created the possibility of them existing in the first place.
So when feminists point to the fact that 99% of all leaders are men, remind them that those men couldn’t be there if men weren’t disposable. If men weren’t disposable men who treat other men as disposable wouldn’t rise in prominence.
The entire foundation of “patriarchy” is based on male marginalization; It’s based on the inherent weakness of the male identity, the willingness for men to box themselves just so they can feel wanted.
Not only is the homeless man, the maimed man, the suicide an illustration of male disposability. So is the male CEO, the male politician and the male general.
Since they’re the best at disposing of other men, they benefit from being disposable just a little bit more.
That is as long as they’re more useful alive than glue, of course.
Latest posts by Alison Tieman (see all)
- How men’s issues show men’s strength | Negative Sum Game 2 - May 19, 2018
- Youtube’s first sandboxed video; white women get out! – Polecat News 124 - August 29, 2017
- Youtube Censoring Wrongthink – Rant 88 - August 2, 2017