This Is Why the ‘Manosphere’ Formed, and What Should Replace It

This Is Why the ‘Manosphere’ Formed, and What Should Replace It

We have feminism. It’s time to match it with a men’s liberation movement

Photo by Toa Heftiba Şinca on Pexels

Women are the primary victims of the patriarchy. However, a flawed system hurts everyone. While we’ve had an effective, though not yet fully realized, feminist movement, we’ve never had a concentrated movement to free men from the shackles of the patriarchy.

I believe this is why so many young men have succumb to the darkness of the so-called “manosphere.” We’ve been tearing down a system that, despite being inherently flawed, gave men a sense of purpose. They were deemed “providers and protectors,” and in this, they felt they had a noble calling wherein they could channel their masculinity.

Of course, this was grounded in a society-wide self-deceit. They were made the providers because their female counterparts were relegated to domestic affairs, often against their own volition. Men were made protectors to protect primarily against other men. There were no doubt many who played this role with sterling intentions, but the system itself was flawed, and this inevitably taints even good-faith actors.

The patriarchy is inherently flawed because it requires the fragmentation of the individual. It says, “One is born to play this role, and the other is born to play that role.” The enlightened system acknowledges that people are whole people. One may wish to take on whatever role their being is naturally oriented towards, and more often than not, they’ll seek a state of flux and variation, so that they can sometimes pursue an ambition, sometimes be a warm nurturer, sometimes protect with bared fangs, sometimes be immersed in the warmth of domestic life, etc.

Relationships are a partnership. Whether they’re between a man and a woman, or any other combination the gender spectrum allows for, they’re just two people working at creating a life together. All the patriarchy ever did was tell people that they had to assume one fractionalized role or another based on the genitalia they bore at birth. Men were traditionally granted a position of power, but it was no more self-determined than the feminine position.

Having been seen as the beneficiary of the previous system, men en masse never sought to escape the confines of this trap. Thus, men now exist in an ideologically rudderless position. They don’t know what to strive for or what masculinity should look like, and as a result, we’re witnessing a mass movement among our young men to return to some caricaturized idea of what used to be.

The feminist movement has a clear goal, equality. And this equality is largely just based in: 1) self-determination, and 2) fair reward for one’s efforts. This is a decisive aim. Men, by comparison, never saw their chains as chains and are navigating the future in a place between longing to revert to some imagined past or a nihilistic lack of direction and personal value.

Well, luckily, the goal I would propose for the, dare I say, “masculinist movement” is exactly the same as the feminist movement. It’s to simply be a whole person. It’s to break free of societal expectations. It’s to tell young men that you don’t need to be a provider, or protector, or intimidating, or stoic, or whatever other prescribed notion of masculinity has been traditionally forced upon you. You can just be. Do whatever you want, and love yourself as the person you are.

Moreover, there is no need to disregard one’s natural masculinity to achieve this wholeness. I believe gender and sex are overblown notions, but they are based in some real, albeit slight, differences. Thus, there is a power to masculinity and femininity both.

When it comes to masculinity, I would offer that the ideal is represented in *gentle strength*. On a human-to-human level, men are on average physically larger and stronger. Thus, men are naturally more threatening. In a state of nature, we very likely would have served a role of protector and primary hunter of food due to this physical dominance. Statistical evidence today shows us to be more impulsive and more violent. And the male ethos seems instinctually driven by romantic notions of facing adversity, violent clashes, and glorious triumph.

All of the above speaks to the power of masculinity in human affairs. It is a hugely impactful force. Insecure men feel the call to exaggerate this predisposition, fearing that they fall short of being imposing otherwise. For this reason, they’re menaces who seek to constantly intimidate or otherwise prove themselves. A secure man knows his strength. Thus, he knows his capacity to do harm. This is why he instead strives towards gentleness.

Famous misogynist Andrew Tate has often advocated for men being “dangerous.” The more polished manosphere influencer, Jordan Peterson, has also emphasized the point that a man cannot be “harmless.” I’m here to reassure men that we are, as a class of people, dangerous. We commit almost all of the violent crimes and are in general physically much more imposing than women. We also tend to have an audacity that, foolhardy or laudable, is often consequential.

A masculinity based in insecurity directs one to become more dangerous, so that they don’t feel themselves to be less than. A masculinity based in self-esteem tells you that you are already a powerful factor in the social fabric — and are already a force to be reckoned with. For this reason, you should strive to be gentle so you don’t bring about unintended harm. This is how responsible actors wield real power, and it’s how we can truly be an asset to those around us.

Fire is a powerful force, so we handle it with care. If young men recognized their power, and were not persuaded of their own insufficiency, they would similarly handle their masculinity with care, which is a true acknowledgement of its potency. They would strive to control it, channel it productively, and work to truly be a “protector” by, first, ensuring they themselves are doing no harm, and second, by using that strength to do good.

What do we expect of a professional fighter? Would we abide them going around and beating up everyone weaker than them? No. We expect them to acknowledge the responsibility their dangerous abilities come with. In the ring, before an equal match, then we’re glad to witness them unleash their strength. All the rest of the time we hope they’re a soft touch and conduct themselves with dignity.

This is what it mean to be truly strong. You recognize your own formidability to such an extent that you never need to prove it. To the contrary, you need to make sure that you don’t accidentally do harm to anyone who’s not a real threat. Superman, an imagined hyper-strong being, doesn’t need to raise his voice, put down others, or make a show of his abilities. Quite the opposite, he constantly needs to moderate his natural power.

A notable success for me as a man has been that, at 6’3 and 215 lbs, my 14 lb cat feels truly safe around me. I have so much capacity to do harm to her, even accidentally, and yet I’ve managed to foster an environment of warmth and security for her. In this example, I’ve truly walked the narrow line of masculinity. And more importantly than that, I’ve walked the broad path of being a human being who isn’t a toxic factor in my social environment. I’ve managed, at least in instances like this, to be a good person. And that’s the crowning achievement in life.

The men’s liberation movement will take on a different face for every man. “Liberation” is the goal, and I’d encourage every man to first be a whole person. Live life however you like. But for masculinity itself, it really approaches its ideal in that single aim: gentle strength. And, indeed, it is gentle because it knows it is strong.

Enjoy this article? I’d recommend following it up with this one: “I’m a Case Study for Male Loneliness”