Wednesday, October 07, 2015

A Note On Bulging Biceps + Male Feminists

By now, you have probably read the blurb about how bulging biceps and lifting is unhealthy masculinity. Once again, the system or hivemind is out in full force to say lifting is toxic. This is an evergreen article that is written ever so often and focuses on lifting, supplements, the Adonis Complex or something about men trying to improve their physical fitness. The people stating this is toxic or bad are women and male feminists. There are just a few points I want to discuss or make.

1. One realizes these people do not lift at all. The easy tell is this: it takes long months or years of dedication in the gym with a proper diet to get bulging biceps. One also needs the genes. What will happen with lifting is you will shape up and fill out as your frame was designed. These fools automatically go to the Arnold or Stallone imagery, when in reality, many guys will just fill out their clothes they way they were intended to and not be fat ass Americans.

2. The seminar or lecture was kicked off by Jackson (((Katz))), who was the first man to minor in women's studies at UMass Amherst (or America, unsure?). This guy is a good example of something I will be writing on this next week, but the male feminist is a slimeball to not be trusted (Hugo Schwyzer anyone?). By losing out in life due to natural deficiencies (like his female feminists counterpart), his entire life is dedicated to denying any men from playing up their masculinity. He is also a rent seeking parasite, just read his biography. He trains our armed forces on bystander sexism and violence prevention programs. That is completely unnecessary if not for the prog requirement to do something about violence against women. "Gosh, what will we do? Oh you know of a recommended seminar we can have that will keep the progs off of our back? Thanks Dr. Katz."

3. Why the biceps obsession? Men with smaller biceps are more liberal. They want you weak. Weaklings want redistribution because they have no initiative to do anything on their own. Weaklings need protection. Weaklings are no threat to the system. Agreeing to be weak is submission to their system.

4. These writers are obsessed with the cajoling and male group reinforcement phrases like "be a man", "c'mon bro", and "Dude you're a fag, bro". That last one is a book title, and if you look at the UVa sociology department's website for supporting Jackie's fake rape, they cite that book in their notes about toxic masculinity. Not to dive too deep into the psychology, but how much of this male feminist obsession is rooted simply in their failure at some point to be one of the guys? They take a personal failing and spread it to everyone else as a horrible thing men must endure (hmmm, where have we seen this before). Now if this is a problem, the progs must want men to bond like women. Usually women bond through sharing stories of suffering, enduring a difficulty or some mishap. They want men to bond like women. They want men to feel like victims. Victims don't fight. Victims accept little morsels from authorities to soothe them for their tragic past.

5. I do agree with them that, in the public sphere, masculinity seems a bit narrower today than even just a few decades ago, but these same academics and media types are the ones who have done this. The rise of the "nerd" concept is a modern one since the Apollo scientists and engineers were family men and/or veterans. To be masculine and smart have diverged in popular culture. The thing these male feminists get wrong is that all they want to do is create a new, narrow role for men: the super sensitive mangina. It is not simply, think three dimensionally and different sometimes, but it is "be a PC SJW or you're a cishet patriarch evil bastard!". Calling for prog purity creates another narrow definition of masculinity. Note that this new male role would have to look at these sissified men as the leaders with special status for cues as to how to act and think.




PA said...

The upside to the establishment's ceaseless pushing of lies is that those of us who see through it stand to gain immensely. One example: children in traditional family structures and with patents in traditional roles, raised traditionally, are steps ahead of their peers whose parents bought into the lies. Defying SJW rules is like passing a macro-shit test.

The downsides are many. One, we continue to cede the public space in an ongoing retreat that began in 1954, in ever-expanding definitions of public space. Two, it's painful to see people we once liked and respected, or people who otherwise merit respect, fall for this. Three, politics of lies fosters a society of hypocrites and liars because people find ways of affirming the lies publicly while living at odds with what they profess privately.

Peñaflor said...

Regarding nerds, I was just reading a long discussion on John Craig's blog (Just Not Said) about Asperger's. One commenter, who is married to an Aspie, said that her husband would have well-suited for living in the Edwardian era, with its many social rules and conventions. Could it be that the nerd has become a distinct type from the family man because of the modern ethic of self-expression, the drive to relax moral prohibitions and social conventions? A society based on the modern ethic tends to become animalized - it respects intelligence and rationality less, while valorizing feeling and emotion. Whereas those on the spectrum would have found it relatively easy to fit in to a society in which everyone was expected to behave in a formal manner toward acquaintances, the informality of modern society makes it more difficult for Aspies to adapt. The intelligent eccentric would have found a more formal and conventional society more welcoming than one where the rules dissolve and where being unscrupulous and cunning (the animal forms of intelligence) are what makes for social success.

yuumuraj said...

Masculinity and intelligence have split because the modern upper-class has become effete. In the early 20th century, the WASP upper class was aware of the danger of raising soft boys and encouraged their sons to play violent sports or spend some time "roughing it" out West, as Theodore Roosevelt did. They knew they had to be vigilant in order to keep their class from becoming out-of-touch manboobs.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the elite class today is more Jewish than ever, or that Jews have more influence than ever in American life.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Yuumuraj - Yes, actually this plays much deeper into the pop culture split of nerd and jock. From my youth and even into college, many smart kids were athletic and many athletes were also good students. Methinks this was a creation by the Jewish Hollywood screenwriters.

Hoyos said...

On cultural masculinity narrowing, yes, it has. It's odd that, in some quarters, modern masculinity would exclude intellectual and artistic pursuits that have been the domain of men for millennia. Good art and good poetry are actually extremely hard and demanding. Engineering is dominated by men because it is a very male brain pursuit. Men invented monasticism, an incredibly demanding spirituality. Conflating masculinity with just the surface aspects ( mating, muscles, and money) isn't significantly superior to the hip hop mentality. "Monks ain't gettin' laid and gettin' paid, brah."

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

I studied under the Jesuits, who like to say: Mens sana in corpore sano ('A healthy mind in a healthy body'). Scholar-athletes and warrior-scholars. We need more of our young men to be like this.

Anonymous said...

"many smart kids were athletic and many athletes were also good students."

That's how it is today. There is no divergence between the smart, athletic and good looking except in the minds of failures. Everyone I know who is successful does some sort of strength training or masculine pursuit.

Revenge of the Nerds in complete fantasy.

No one thinks like that Katz guy. His kind are made to be looked and laughed at.

Suburban_elk said...

Fags are the worst. There is something wrong with them. In occasionally arguing with friends of liberal persuasion or whomever, on the topic of “homophobia” and gay rights and all that, i have consistently found that the real argument winner is simply saying, “Yeah but think what it actually is.” There is no retort for that.

Except there actually is a retort for that: that men and women also do anal, and now among the kids apparently it’s very widespread. Without getting sidetracked into that losing proposition - one has to admit that that is an irrefutable retort. How can somebody condemn men butt-fucking but advocate for men and women doing the same thing? And yet, … all across the Red Pill and all across society really, people do just that. With apologies in advance for the vulgarity, but it is necessary to make the point: a woman’s anal cavity is no more cleanly than a man’s. Every once in awhile at CH a fag will come online and try and sell the glories of homosex, and one such did so with this memorable line that i repeat for your viewing pleasure: “a sweet anal crescendo.” (Look he said it, not me.)

Obviously sodomy is gross and there is no excuse. Except that there is an excuse: the circumcised penis is less susceptible to delicate tactile stimulus. I only bring this up because it is an obvious question that is topical the post, and all questions of manliness: is there a correlation between circumcised men and a predilection for anal sex, homo and or hetero?

It is worth putting out there because it is such an obvious question, and for some reason it is avoided. I can’t help but think that having part of a person’s penis mutilated might have an effect on the development of their “sexuality” and its expression, and it might have an effect on how well they become men.

I would also think that such an impairment diminishes the pleasurability of the act of sexual congress itself, and consequently the intensity of any pair bonding that might occur.

If the topic under consideration is the diminishment of the masculine essence, then obviously the integrity and wholeness of their sex should be up for discussion.

As a counterpoint to my lament here - and i am not asking you to share in my sorrows like some bitchfest or as in a “lesbian coffee klatch” heavens no! - it is worth noting that our cousins across the Pond, our English brothers and whoever else, seem to be suffering the same crisis of confidence in regard to their place in society and what their role might be and how to fulfill it - and they did not suffer the knife. And yet still they are pussies. And actually from what i have seen, they may be more pussified, but then again i am a jingoist American and have not been to Europe for awhile.

Suburban_elk said...

In the comment on Asperger’s above by Penaflor it is suggested that the more formal social structures of times past would have been more of a fit for those personalities with less “animal” intelligence. That seems a generally reasonable idea. The social structures of society have decayed to the point where people are “on their own” in relating to each other. Some people do very well in this environment - yes perhaps those closer to their animal instincts - and some flounder about like a fish on the ice.

It is my interpretation that Asperger’s has become a catch-all to describe certain dysfunctional behaviors and personalities that are well removed from what it originally meant as a borderline case of autism. And so to put it simply, autists are unteachable but aspies can learn - but they have to learn. And if they exist in a social milieu where they don’t have to learn, then they don’t.

In this more general sense, many many people have Asperger’s syndrome: it’s really going around and it might be contagious. Recently outside the coffee shop a middle-aged woman walked by in a huff and said “Wow!” in that predictable tone angry and upset. So i said “Are you talking to yourself?” and she went on to describe how the baristas were not able to get her drink right despite her explicit instructions. It struck a chord because i used to give particular instructions for my drink - and they ALWAYS got it wrong - and so 1) i grew up and 2) stopped asking for a special drink. But the point is that those baristas are millennialls many of whom with degrees and their job requires two skills: making coffee drinks and listening to the customer, but almost none of them can do both things. And i describe all that because there is something going on where people don’t communicate. Is it Asperger’s or ADD or do those categories mis-represent what is really going on?

Suburban_elk said...

Look i know talking about penises and butt-sex is pretty gauche - but not gay! damnit, not gay, …

I have to rant about having my dick clipped every once awhile just for the hell of it. I also think that those who submitted to that ritual should at least once in awhile hear about it. I will bring it up on a dime, in real life, say to women of my parents’ generations (Boomers), who did it to their own sons (my peers), and tell them that i resent it and consider it sex abuse, and consider it a justification for payback of whatever means and measure. It is interesting (to me) that for the most part these Boomer women have never heard any complaints, or ever even once had a second thought about it all.

Jeez thx Mom! do i get to be your sex slave, then?

As i said on Takimag, “A skinned dick is the mark of a slave.” That is my line, but it does accurately reflect the ritualistic origins of the rite, and the symbolic and actual signifigance of its practice in America and the West in the 20th century and to this day. But whatever i won’t talk about it non-stop like a bore, there are other topics to complain about, such as women. Did i tell you about the fat bitch in traffic today, or the high school girls at the coffee shop? it’s hard on me but someday all that frustration will be gone and i will miss it. Oh bittersweet.

But to get off that loser (of a topic) - check out Greer the Archdruid this week, especially those interested in the historical cycle and how it is playing out today. Greer has liberal views on a lot of things, and he is not a white man “of race”, but is still worth reading for his take on current events and the collapse. This week he goes into the different approaches of Obama and of Putin in Syria, and suggests why Putin seems to be accomplishing more in a week than Obama has in a year-and-a-half. He suggests that Obama is interested in the “idea” of “fighting ISIS” whereas Putin is interested in results and simply beating them down. I don’t fucking know but it is a convincing take.

Deduction said...

FFS, Jews did not invent the intellectual - athlete dichotomy.

Here's a famous poem by a very English man about a certain English archetype.

A Wykehamist is someone who went to Winchester College, which is probably the best and and most intellectual school in the country, founded in 1382.

John Betjeman, The Wykehamist

Broad of Church and broad of mind,
Broad before and broad behind,
A keen ecclesiologist,
A rather dirty Wykehamist.
‘Tis not for us to wonder why
He wears that curious knitted tie;
We should not cast reflections on
The very slightest kind of don.
We should not giggle as we like
At his appearance on his bike;
It’s something to become a bore,
And more than that, at twenty-four.
It’s something too to know your wants
And go full pelt for Norman fonts.
Just now the chestnut trees are dark
And full with shadow in the park,
And ‘ six o’clock! ‘ St. Mary calls
Above the mellow college walls.
The evening stretches arms to twist
And captivate her Wykehamist.
But not for him these autumn days,
He shuts them out with heavy baize;
He gives his Ovaltine a stir
And nibbles at a petit beurre,
And, satisfying fleshy wants,
He settles down to Norman fonts.

An interesting aside, the protagonist of the poem went to the same school as Sir Oswald Moseley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists.

Deduction said...

I could not disagree more. The greater the preponderance of social rules the harder it is for the autist. There is so much more for them to try to understand and follow. You should read some English literature from the 18th and 19th centuries and you'll see just how difficult such a person would find it to navigate such a subtle milleu.

Or you could just watch Pride and Prejudice, the BBC adaptation...

Deduction said...

That's a very common saying. At least I've heard it from multiple sources. It is an obvious truth that's first recorded instance was by the Roman poet Juvenal.

I suspect that it has existed as long as humans have thought about these things.

I think it's better expressed as simply 'healthy body, healthy mind' as that puts more emphasis on having good physical health to have good mental health.

Another interesting aside, Maimonides (the most famous Jewish doctor?) is particularly noted for pushing this concept.

Deduction said...

I don't know. I've started being openly and casually reactionary with the wide range of well to do people I know in London and I guess because it's casual people really quite enjoy it.

T Maker said...

Bulging biceps are for slow posers like Chuck Norris. Real men have biceps like Bruce Lee. Check out this comparison:

Lifting and aerobics are okay in moderation, but Bruce could always kick Chuck's bulging patoot because Bruce put much more time into both striking practice and live sparring.

gaikokumaniakku said...

If you're going to diss Chuck, how do you feel about pro wrestlers and Ahhnold?