For Young Men on Boys’ Day (May 16th)

I suspect the focus of Boys’ Day is on the younger boy, and upon activities rather than introspections. Well, outdoor activities are rather problematic at present, and my own “boys” are not only well past that description but are rapidly leaving “young man” behind in favour of encroaching middle-age. That being the case, I shall indeed be introspective and shall address this article as if to an older boy or a young man.

********************

It is a difficult time to be a young man. In truth, it has probably always been a difficult time to be a young man, though that is not what you will have been told. You will have been told that it is – and always was – young women that face the problems, and that you and all your sex are privileged in comparison. Yet a young man in the past faced the prospect of dying prematurely in war or in an industrial accident, or dying young of a work-related illness due to unsafe working conditions. And until my parents’ generation, even in the UK, 95% of men faced the prospect of a life of unremitting hard labour, with scant likelihood of living to enjoy retirement. At least we have progressed beyond that – well, many of us have.

Some of the difficulties facing a young man today are the same as they ever were – unemployment for one. But difficulties of more recent vintage are what I wish to consider here, not least because being male has been declared a problem in itself.

I recall, many years ago now, The Guardian asked a number of celebrity types to write an imaginary letter to their early-teenage younger selves. I was surprised at their offerings. Every one of the faux letters took a lecturing tone, instructing their younger selves in what they should and should not do. Every letter appeared to be an instruction manual on “how to get where I am today – but quicker”. Every one stank of self-satisfaction. Not a single letter took the line I would have taken – apology. “I’m sorry I drifted so far away from your clear sighted simple verities. I could excuse myself by observing that life turned out to be a myriad of distractions, confusions and practical difficulties. But it would be a weak excuse. I do feel I could do better given a second chance, but the fault was mine not yours”. Something like that.

So, I’ll not be telling you what to do or what to think, then.

I have a message, though, or I would not be taking up your time.

The message is this: you have a moral duty to think for yourself.

Ah, you are surprised – not that I exhort you to think for yourself – you’ve heard that one before – but that I call it a moral duty. I’m guessing it’s the phrase “moral duty” that makes you uneasy.

I’ll not be telling you what to think, but if I may be so insufferable (oh, I may) allow me to make some observations on why thinking for yourself is a moral obligation. But first, let me set the scene a little.

I do not know what it is like to be a boy growing up in today’s social climate. Forgive me if my guesses are wide of the mark. But I guess that by the time you were seven you knew that everyone expected girls to be cleverer than boys – and you agreed. By a few years later you would be familiar with the idea that girls had a much tougher time than boys, and as a boy you should be especially considerate towards girls. You would already have absorbed the notion that men treated women very badly in the past, and, as a boy, you had some making-up to do on behalf of your sex.

At primary school you most likely accepted all this without question. But by the time you were in your mid-teens, perhaps you had started to question such things. You might have noticed that many girls were hardly blameless paragons. You might have started to question of what the “male privilege” you kept hearing about was supposed to consist. You didn’t seem to have any privilege yourself. You might have been puzzled about the fuss over girls in STEM subjects when it was clear that girls did better than boys in everything else – and often in STEM too – and always had. Perhaps you even tried to say something about these things but found that you were met with a well-honed barrage of slogans and accusations which you had not the vocabulary to counter. Nor did you receive any support from adults on the matter. So you shut up and kept your thoughts to yourself.

Am I anywhere close?

After puberty, things got even more confused. The ever-present atmosphere of accusation turned serious, relating to violence and sex. Your own riot of emergent sexuality made the accusations so very believable. You were, it seemed, the very monster they were warning you not to be. All you could do was to keep it hidden. On no account say anything, and still less do anything. Enter the uncommunicative, monosyllabic teenage boy.

But beneath the silence was a cacophonous stew inside your head. Here there was something very different, but equally impossible to talk about. Your fantasies, those that related to girls but were not frankly sexual, were dreams of the utmost tenderness, and of service. Your fantasies revolved around rescuing damsels in distress. Such thoughts are simultaneously nothing to be ashamed about and also a source of coruscating shame, for reasons you cannot fathom but may be related to arising unbidden, from nowhere. These tendencies too joined the throng of imperatives for tongue-biting silence.

Then they told you to open up and show your feelings.

Your problem, you see, is that you are suffering from a mental illness called “traditional masculinity”. That is what the ambient social narrative will tell you, perhaps reinforced by what you heard at school. You catch this disease from other men, and you catch it at a remarkably early age. Tiny babies are sometimes claimed to be already infected. There are some problems with this theory, not least that it appears to affect those boys most virulently who are least exposed to adult men.

There is another theory of which you may have heard. This is the theory of evolution. As I’m sure you are aware, this theory has been very successful in rationalising much about the evolution of the species on planet Earth. In this context do please note that evolution acts every bit as much on the behavioural characteristics of organisms as it does on their anatomy. There would be little evolutionary advantage in acquiring the anatomical attributes of a carnivore if the animal in question displayed no interest in hunting and devouring prey. Similarly, the herbivore’s evolutionary strategy is successful only because anatomy, metabolism and behaviour are all consistent with that ecological niche. I’m sorry to labour the obvious but I do so because the ambient social narrative is to deny evolution in the case of human behaviour.

So you are indeed “suffering” from traditional masculinity – and whilst some bits of it will undoubtedly be culturally imbued or enhanced, there is also a big fat chunk of it which your genes have dumped upon you. And – this is the important bit – it isn’t all bad. But if some part of our psyche is inherited from our primate past – and indeed further back than that – we might expect to fall rather short of being “noble in reason, infinite in faculty, in form and moving express and admirable, in action like an Angel, in apprehension like a god, the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals”. To appreciate just what a grip evolution has upon your psyche, just consider sexuality. Contemplate, if you will, how utterly absurd is the act of copulation. And yet it is the motivation for much behaviour.

Some people oppose explanations of human behaviour based on evolution. They regard it as making excuses for bad behaviour. But actually it is quite the opposite. It is a recognition that our civilised behaviour is but a thin veneer. It is a warning that our animalian inheritance may lead us to bad behaviour and we should be on our guard. By denying this reality we are exposed to this danger. It also provides explanations. For example, the odd dissonance between your secret sexual fantasies and their seeming basis in a profound tenderness and desire to cherish, nurture and love. Both arise from the same evolutionary imperative for successful reproduction – and this entails not only the conception of offspring but also their survival to maturity so they may reproduce in turn. It takes a long time for human children to mature. The human inclination to pair bond, a behaviour not shared by our primate cousins, is one of the keys to our evolutionary success. It enhances the likelihood of offspring survival over the 15-plus years required. To copulate is clearly necessary to evolution’s “purpose”. But it is not sufficient in the case of humans. The creation of a pair bond which is stable over the long-term is also required, and this is promoted by the emotional complex called love. Thus, both lust and love, whose natures are in tension, are nevertheless both products of evolution and both based in the emotional psyche.

And this is the point at which the evolutionary – or biological – perspective comes into direct collision with the dominant narrative on gender, namely feminism, because the latter has always had as its main objective the obliteration of the nuclear family. It is worth considering why – but I’m going to leave you to find that out for yourself.

I want to return to my theme: my claim that it is a moral obligation to think for yourself.

Let us suppose you are a kind, considerate and generous person. It’s quite possible that you are, within limits. And let us suppose that you have occasion to exercise these kind and generous attributes to the benefit of an acquaintance whom you have been led to believe is in need and has not had your advantages in life. Clearly you have earned some moral Brownie points. Good for you. My question, though, is this: if it turns out that the recipient of your beneficence is a fraud, they were never truly in need, they had no greater disadvantage in life than yourself, and have acted a part merely to con you – does this diminish the moral validity of your own actions?

It is an instructive dilemma. Many decent people would immediately opine that the wickedness of the recipient of your succour in no way diminishes the moral worth of your actions. But actually it is not so simple. Suppose many people were of this view, and so were inclined to be generous towards undeserving fraudsters? Such conning would catch on. You would end up with a society in which half the people were happily defrauding the other half. From the utilitarian perspective, this is hardly optimal. Does this observation diminish the moral worth of your original action?

It depends upon you. If you have no way of knowing that you are being conned, then your action is beyond reproach. But what if, with sufficient thought, with sufficient effort on your part, you could have discerned that you were faced with a fraudster? At best you are then a fool, but possibly also a coward, and hence have behaved incorrectly.

Suppose we make the situation more challenging. Suppose the bulk of society has fallen for the con trick because it allows them to present themselves as morally upright citizens, and perhaps also because they have not seen through it. If you now, as an individual, refuse to play along, what will happen? You will meet with universal condemnation, both from the fraudsters themselves and from those they have successfully conned, as well as from those who choose to go along with the fraud because it is the easiest course and makes them look good.

The moral right is now as clear as it is difficult to carry out. You must stand against this falsity, alone if necessary, despite turning yourself into a pariah for your pains.

But to get to this point, you must first have thought for yourself rather than having the social narrative do your thinking for you. Ergo, independence of thought is a moral obligation as it may be essential to discern right from wrong.

It is deeply unfashionable to refer to the Cardinal Virtues, so let’s do so then. Prudence is one of them. The usage of “prudence” in antiquity differed from its rather prissy modern ambiance. It actually refers to wisdom or intelligence. So, you see I am not above deploying the Argument From Authority when it suits: the ancients also recognised the moral imperative of deploying intelligence in the service of correct action.

Let us look a little closer at why the deployment of fierce independent intelligence has now become so pressing. Though I shall couch it in generalities, you will easily apply the following to the particular.

That humans can live in huge societies in relative peace and harmony is rather a miracle. It comes about in large part due to a shared sense of what constitutes acceptable behaviour, and a strong tendency to abide by such “correct” behaviour most of the time. We self-police. Culture is what you do when no one is looking. This generally accepted code of behaviour constitutes what you might call the “social morality”. But social morality is mutable: it changes over time and is different in different cultures. What is acceptable today might have been beyond the pale a hundred – or even fifty – years ago.

Human history consists largely of the few exercising control over the many, to the benefit of the few. Power is the ability to impose your will on others. The dominant few are those who contrive to attain power and invariably then abuse it selfishly. But how can a few control the many? In history this was done in part by force. However, there has always been a more subtle element to the exercise of power than the threat of violence. Recall that social morality is the means by which people police their own behaviours, and that it is mutable. Manipulation of this social morality is the mechanism by which the few can control the many. In the past this involved the acceptance by almost everyone that there was a natural social order: one’s station in life. This included the divine right of kings, from which there flowed a hierarchy of patronage within which everyone knew their place and how they were required to act – even down to their allowed style of dress.

If you thought that the manipulation of social morality to facilitate the power of the few was a thing of the past, think again. It is no longer armour-clad barons who claim natural superiority over us, it is now the media, entertainment and academic celebrities who do so. From their possession of the ostensible moral high ground (won, as it were, through conquest of the mechanisms of its propagation) they dictate what we must regard as the moral right. The incipient rebellion is betrayed by the soubriquet of their propagandised morality: Correct Think.

Thinking is not a good in itself. The mere effort is not the point. The purpose of thought is to reach the Truth (yes, I give it a capital here though I shall try to be less portentous). There is such a thing as truth, and it is the purpose of thought to move towards it, though it is a destination never quite fully reached. It has become fashionable to deny that there is such a thing as objective truth. There is your truth and my truth, these people will say. But they say this to legitimise the illegitimate, that might is right, because that is all you will be left with if you abandon truth. This is why it is a moral obligation to think: because valid thought is a pointer to truth, and the moral right is always consistent with truth. Those who deny truth do so because they wish to exploit the mutability of social morality as weapon of control over you. Do not be fooled. To thine own self be true.

14 thoughts on “For Young Men on Boys’ Day (May 16th)

  1. paul parmenter

    I must admit i have never heard of “Boys Day”. But that is not in any way surprising, given the heavy reluctance of the MSM to promote IMD or anything else that might celebrate the lives and work of men; unless of course it is also placed in a context of snide criticism. But of one thing I am sure: nobody who picks up on Boys Day will come anywhere near approaching the advice offered here by William. Which is a great pity.

    Reply
  2. Stephen Timmis

    I just love reading your blog. Thank-you for the effort you make in bringing clarity to a sometimes over-emotional area.

    You say the Theory of Evolution rationalises much about the evolution of the species – Actually, I find this problematic. It is not the Theory of Evolution that rationalises anything, it is the proponents of the theory that “rationalise” what they insist is a non-rational process of alteration by means of randomness. The theory proposes natural selection of random mutation as the mechanism by which change occurs in the anatomical structure of living beings, and that the ongoing process of change this mechanism results in should be called “Evolution”.

    This means that the association of carnivore physicality with carnivore behaviour is not at all explained by the proposed evolutionary mechanism. It is assumed that the physical change was fortuitous in enabling superior performance of survival behaviours, but this actually suggests, if anything, the behaviour came before the physical attributes that enable it. In other words it is the fortuitous enabling of social behaviours that makes evolution work.

    How correct our current “understanding” of species variation turns out to be only time will tell. I choose to be optimistic that humanity will persevere with the useful and effective generalised methodology of inquiry that has been devised and refined throughout the cultural history of human endeavour. However I think we are unable to truly join the dots in this area of study, and I think you are aware of this problem which leads to your paragraphs on the matter to be a bit of a confused fudge between your long introduction to the current socially and politically enforced mindset of boys and the clash between … well…Sorry, but what? Our “state of nature” ( i am unsure what you mean here). What is clashing with Feminism (the dominant narrative on Gender). The “Biological position” you outline is too confused.

    I could understand if you argued that “Gynocentrism” (The prioritising of the proclaimed needs of women as the limiting cause of reproduction, and therefore species survival) developed to facilitate species survival, but how this is a Biological rather than a Socially produced mindset is hard to say. I have read others stating that “Gynocentrism” developed in the Middle Ages, with the help of Troubadours and Eleanor of Aquitaine. This may be true, but I prefer to see such “Chivalry” as being a social codification, at that time, of a tendency as old as human survival itself. It is clear, from the proponents of the theory of gynocentric chivalry, that the process was clearly, in the middle ages, one of social construction, not one of biology. If the social construction of Chivalry was a codification of a randomly arrived at biological state of nature, I have yet to see any convincing evidence of the development of this genetic state. Having said that, I cannot imagine humanity surviving long enough to “evolve” physically or socially, if Gynocentric tendencies were not somehow hard-wired into us (which definitely insinuates a biological basis, even if it cannot be demonstrated).

    Reply
    1. Stephen Timmis

      Back again… Sorry…

      The foregoing leads straight to another problem. You state that, ” feminism… has always had as its main objective the obliteration of the nuclear family. ” This suggests that Feminism is, by definition, younger than the nuclear family. That may be true, but leads to a need to date the advent of the nuclear family. The nuclear family developed at the advent of Capitalism. Before Capitalism people tended to live in “Extended Families” rather than in “Nuclear Families”. The Capitalists needed to develop a means of production that enable them to control the workforce. In traditional cottage industries spinners and weavers worked to produce just enough cloth to meet their family needs, and the process often took a back seat to childcare, vegetable production or relaxation. Gran-parents were often involved in the raising of children, and there was a strong generational and variable gender influence on teh upbringing and education of all children that were brought into the family business by parents when they had developed. This was great for family life, but was an absurd procedure if profit maximisation becaome more important than the management of social and community wealth.

      Factories were developed as places to store machines en masse. All raw material was bought up by factory owners and people were made to come to the factory to work. They produced goods in large quantities as required by the factory and raw material owner. People now had to be removed from their home environment to earn money to live. This development of the production process we now call Capitalism separated Industry from Home life. Factory owners needed their workforce close to the factory and so small dwellings were built to house them local to the factory, but no room was made for unproductive family members, Grandparents, cousins etc were edited out of the family, which truncated from traditional extended form into the modern Nuclear Family form. This degradation of the family from extended to nuclear form is very important to note because it separated work life from home life, it separated a worker from the product of labour, it controlled the length and nature of the working day, it separated the main worker (the man) from the rest of the family (The wife and kids), it destroyed the family support mechanisms of an extended family base, it gave control to Capitalists, and took away the control a man has over his own life choices. This is a clear process that was not only enabled, but insisted on by the Capitalist System of production.

      Built into the process above is the clear demonstration that capitalism, as it developed, would maximise the separation of family from the process of production. The family was not to be a concern of the capitalist, merely a source of labour, something over which the capitalist would feel very limited financial obligation.

      Another major point in this process is that the means of production must be controlled by the capitalist in order to maximise profit. To maximise profit it is imperative that labour costs are reduced. As far as possible the production process must be automated to cut out the need for labour. The biggest problem for capitalists was Skilled Labour. Skilled Labour was expensive, it was hard to control because it was needed in the production process, it required dedication and intelligence to become skilled, and this aided the ability of such labour to become organised. Such dedicated labour (because family was separated from work) was MALE. The main focus of Capitalism, in order to maximise profits, is to make war on skilled (usually male) labour. From its inception Capitalism has been, by its very nature, an unrelenting war on working-class men. Women were useful as labour force production units, but the burden of paying for such labour force production fell on the men who were separated from the families they were obliged to care for, not on the capitalists that needed the labour force.

      I am trying to illustrate that Feminism, that developed over the period of Capitalist Industrial Revolution, was not the earliest form of war on the family. Feminism could well be seen, not as the cause of war on the nuclear family, but as a tool in the hands of the Capitalists to aid them in their ongoing war on the family, and especially their war against skilled labour.

      Science has developed, largely in response to the needs of the Capitalists for methodolies of production that minimise the need for skilled labour, and Capitalism has developed education along scientific and engineering lines in accordance with their need for profit maximisation through war on skilled labour. Governments are “sponsored” through “donations” from rich benefactors, who by means of money, but parliaments, buy lobbyists, buy the Law, write the law, and develop social policies in accordance with their economic needs. All else is considered and unnecessary tax burden on their “Freedom”.

      Erin Pizzey said rich men paid for her first refuge in Chiswick to help women, but would do nothing to help men. Feminism has been sponsored by Capitalist Money, developed in Capitalist education institutes, maintained by Capitalist purchased Governments, and has thrived in the prosperity developed by the Industrialisation process.

      It should be clear by now, that Feminism was made by Industrial capitalism, and continues to serve the needs of Capitalism, and operates in direct opposition to the needs and interests of Labour.

      Many Feminists claim a “Marxist” origin. Marx spent decades developing the theory that saw class production being a product of the mechanism of Economic development. In Capitalist societies, so the suggestion is, that One social class dominates all others by means of the mechanism of ownership of production, distribution and exchange. Marx developed a mechanism by which domination took place. When feminists claim to be Marxist-Feminists, they argue that it is the Male class that dominates the female class. As a person generously influenced by Marx, I ask the feminists, by what mechanism does the male class dominate the female class? How do all Men dominate All women? The mechanism of domination is not clear in Feminism because Feminism has assumed a mechanism without ever being able to demonstrate it. They have never had to demonstrate their mechanism because the Capitalist production base, and all of the capitalist sponsored superstructural developments that depend upon that base, have sponsored Feminism as part of its war on skilled labour, and on the minimisation of Capitalist obligation to labour-force production.

      Reply
      1. William Collins Post author

        Yes, I agree that the extended family was the first to be attacked and largely destroyed, and that (in the UK at least) the industrial revolution was at the centre of this process. I deal with those issues to some degree in my YouTube series Centuries Of Oppression, which uses the history of universal suffrage as the context for a romp through UK social history. I also agree that the overly naïve identification of feminism with “Marxism” omits a crucial aspect, namely that feminism drives economic inequality and is monstrously aligned with globalism. At this point a thorough analysis would need to distinguish clearly between capitalism (i.e., industry) and global finance/banking and the political aspects of globalism. So….there’s the subject matter of a couple of big fat books, then.

        Reply
    2. William Collins Post author

      The chief proponent of the medieval origins of modern gynocentrism is Peter Wright, but he also acknowledges (and emphasises) its earlier origins in evolution. In my book I distinguish the two under different names; the evolutionary tendency I refer to as matricentrism. I deleted this aspect from the essay simply to avoid excessive length, and because it has been dealt with elsewhere. Socially beneficial matricentrism is actually for the “purpose” of driving resources to the offspring. Matricentrism has been appropriated and corrupted by feminism, turning it into modern gynocentrism which hijacks evolution’s preferencing of the offspring and converts it into preferencing of women per se.

      Reply
      1. Stephen Timmis

        I agree broadly with both of your replies, just as I broadly agree with the main article overall. Thanks for your work. I think you have done more than anyone to clarify the average befuddled male mind. Stay safe.

        Reply
    3. Mike

      Stephen, you question that evolution theory explains carnivore adaptation because it assumes that “behaviour came before the physical attributes that enable it”.
      I suggest this is a misunderstanding of the theory. You are using a causal relationship (A caused B) when you should use a positive-feedback relationship (a bit of A led to a bit of B which led to a bit more A which led to a bit more B…..) This does not require us to choose ‘which came first?’. The same outcome is obtained if you start with ‘a bit of B led to….etc’
      The concept ‘positive feedback acting on variation’ is often called ‘evolutionary complexity’ or ‘system dynamics’ and has a wide application – for instance in explaining weather patterns.

      You also say that “The theory proposes natural selection of random mutation as the mechanism by which change occurs in the anatomical structure of living beings”. That is only partly correct. I was watching a dog chasing a rabbit yesterday. The physical adaptation of canine teeth, stereo-vision, leg muscles etc would be useless if the dog did not also have the innate desire to chase the rabbit. The dog’s ability to chase and the rabbit’s ability to run away also co-evolved. Suggestion a causal mechanism is not helpful.

      Reply
      1. Stephen Timmis

        No, Sir – I am saying that a “random” mutation means there is no link at all between A and B, except for the retrospective assumption that “because B” then “A” must have happened. A feedback loop system suggests an iterative process, and no iterative process is random.So, Sir, with respect, I think it is you misunderstanding the theory.

        You do have to decide which comes first. If a vegetarian grows giant incisors then it will lose the battle for survival in a world of vegetarians. The only way incisors would be useful for survival is if you are already eating meat. It is therefore clear that the behaviour must already have been in existence, and the development of incisors must have come afterwards and proved beneficial rather than detrimental for survival as a meat eater.

        Reply
  3. Tony

    “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” which the late Arron Russo pointed out in his superb film America: Freedom to Fascism’ was one reason for the elites promoting feminism. If you watch it then you’ll also be able to work out why the destruction of the family is so important to them.

    Traditionally minded males do need to reclaim the environments we once occupied such as primary school teachers that is for sure.

    In the mean time we can see ‘young people’, a phrase that smacks of monoculture, have made efforts to correct the “disturbance in the force” through the mutability of society.

    An initial move to MGTOW, albeit in small numbers, as a reaction to the feminist emotional blackmail of ‘my way or the highway’ in relationships and probably also derived from being INCEL gave young men the freedom not to be burdened with guilt from failing to live up to ‘others’ expectations of how they must live their lives has now spawned what appears to be a reaction and rejection of feminism by young girls and women with a new TRAD WIVES phenomenon.

    I speculate this has come from many young girls growing up fatherless but also seeing their own future life destined to be cursed by INSPIN (INvoluntary SPINsterhood) unless they adopt a more traditional male friendly attitude, having witnessed the now brigades of devout 50+ feminists living without husbands, without children, but plenty of cats.

    Potted plants, dinner parties, nights out at the local am dram group or day trips to the NT are no substitute for the mayhem and joy of traditional family life.

    Gen Zed provides optimism and we need to get behind them and validate them so they can throw off the burden of a mind controlled societal morality and revert to What Works, and that includes not just the young men but the young trad girls.

    Reply
  4. Groan

    A very clearly expressed “letter” and I’m sure very accurate. The one observation I’d make is about how the various ideas are transmitted the the very young. For the majority of our young, Male and female, they are in fact in contact with far far more females than males. Think of mothers, mothers in law, female friends, mother and baby groups , toddler groups, nursery, primary school, junior school. Single mothers, mothers with custody. The truth is that boys and girls live in a world of women that only shifts a bit on entry to secondary school and teenage when the boys and girls get more choice in who they see let alone pay attention to.
    So in a way the feminists are right, what they call “the burden” of care and nurture does fall mainly to women. But that of course also means that it is women who are the primary agents of socialization. The agents transmiting masculinity to boys long before “gangs” or “male role models” or movies or other cultural products. It is women who choose the stories told, the examples given, the daily behaviours learned. If the Jesuits are right, and their view is supported by modern research, all essential is socialised by 7, then it is women who have far and away the greatest influence. How foolish of patriarchy to “force” women into the role of preparing the patriarchs. If patriarchy in the feminist sense existed it would be the worlds most useless conspiracy.

    Reply
    1. Mike

      I agree with Groan. Children are socialised by those around them and, in the early years, women predominate.
      The socialisation of boys to suppress their feelings, for example, is a successful adaptation for any society who want the young men to willingly work down mines and sewers, drive lorries, work on a trawler or go to war.
      If you train boys this way you should expect to see unwanted side-effects such as failing to seek medical help, violence (as most other emotions are blocked) and suicide.
      What is hideous is that feminists now blame men for the very traits they drained them for.

      Reply
      1. William Collins Post author

        The majority of “men not seeking medical help” can be attributed to full time working and the resulting greater difficulty in obtaining GP appointments (see my book).

        Reply
          1. William Collins Post author

            No it isn’t. But try reading that article again with the hypothesis in mind that the reason that men consult their GP less often than women might be a combination of (a) women consult for contraception, pregnancy, and post-natal reasons, and (b) far more men work full time and so find it harder to make an appointment. Is evidence against the hypothesis presented? I think not. Instead the observation of fewer GP consultations is simply assumed to be “reluctance”, without evidence. Almost everyone’s perceptions are moulded by gender scripts which demand that men are agentic, and so are only ever to blame for their own problems. The relevant part of my book is on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiFtsVsoEhU&t=15s

Leave a Reply to Tony Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *