Traditional Masculinity Is A Shield Against State Power

By Jason Newman: “We must redefine masculinity”. This is now the war cry from the gender feminists and those on the regressive left. Of course, this is postmodernist newspeak for, “make men act like women.” Unlike the useful idiots who awarded Bruce Jenner woman of the year, I (like many) think women do a damn good job of acting like women themselves.
Not content with redefining the nation, the family and the truth they have now moved onto another sacred cow in their sordid quest to destroy a culture and society that they quite openly and obviously despise. They have realised that by sweeping away masculinity and the characteristics most often associated with men - stoicism, self-reliance and duty - they can hasten the fall of all they hate and bring about their utopia. (I am not by the way asserting that women cannot have these traits either, but merely stating that utilising these characteristics often manifests itself differently in men and women).
Stoicism is not, as many claim, the absence of emotion, but rather the practice of dealing with any one emotion good or bad and not letting it overwhelm oneself or lead to any knee-jerk reactions. It is an intrinsically conservative trait and the enemy of those who wish us to hear a phrase like “rape culture” and react with a hysterical mea culpa.
It is rationally and critically to evaluate what you are being told and stops one spending every waking hour “self-reflecting” and turning into a whining narcissist. To deal with emotion is to realise that bad things happen, that perfection and utopia are unattainable and that most importantly this is alright - a dangerous idea to those that seek absolute parity and are hell bent on egalitarianism.
To scrap self-reliance and duty as admirable traits is also quite a useful move when attempting to create the new HomoSovieticus. Self-reliance is the enemy of any self-respecting regressive leftist. When individuals are self-reliant they do not need the State and when the State is not needed it cannot justify its overreaching control and therefore must be shrunk. The regressive Left’s hostility to families where dad goes to work and mum cares for the kids is quite telling. The traditional family unit itself is quite an impressively self-sufficient body, both childcare and income are taken care of, ensuring interference and subsidies are not needed. This is precisely why the institution of the traditional family has been so insidiously attacked in recent decades; it stands in the way of state infiltration of the private sphere.
There is a wonderful exchange available online of the late Christopher Hitchens (hardly an ardent social conservative) explaining to an utterly shocked female interviewer that men are generally fairly hopeless with newborn children and so impressed are they with how mothers take to motherhood that they think, “well I’ll go off and work to earn some extra money.”
What he is explaining in this instance is a sense of duty, a man’s duty in the face of the obvious biological difference between the two sexes. This is not biological determinism but rather biological realism and a clear practical move by both parents to do what is best for the child in its early formative years - i.e. to have the parent best equipped to care for the child caring for the child.
But now in the new order of redefined masculinity, as redefined by the regressive Left, men should be just as ready to step up to the role of mother as women themselves. However the interesting question remains not what they want men to become but rather what they want men to give up. Why be so opposed to the gender division of labour?
By subverting parental roles a message has been sent that it’s wrong to expect men to feel a sense of duty, that by feeling a sense of duty they are merely “performing gender” as the cretinous theorists would put it. This has permeated the culture. Examples of bad male role models and fathers can be observed by flicking through the television any night of the week. It is now perfectly acceptable, even humorous, to be less masculine. In their rush to “destigmatise benefits”, successive governments not just in Britain but across Europe have destigmatised fathers who don’t provide for their family and those guilty of absentee fatherhood. Don’t worry if you can’t or won’t provide, the State will be there to pay out and infiltrate the private sphere yet again. It should not be surprising that when a certain model of what it means to be a man is degraded and scrapped, men stop living up to it.
There is a danger of this all sounding conspiratorial, I know, but I assure you it is not, pick up any postmodernist book and it is all there. Walk into any arts or social science lecture in any university and it is being taught to the leaders of tomorrow, as it has been for the last 40 years. These ideas have been fragmented and disseminated to the so called “educated classes” since the rise of the French postmodernists. They explicitly state the need to redefine the concrete standards of Western society in order to throw things into disarray with the ultimate goal of destroying the idea of private life and expanding the State.
All too often defending masculinity can lead to genuine expressions of chauvinism and misogyny, just look at any internet comments section. It is, however, an important thing to do when done right. Traditional masculinity and its associated traits, combined with femininity and its associated traits, create a bulwark against the State in the form of the family unit that utterly terrifies any postmodernist, gender feminist or Marxist. This is why they are so hell bent on destroying it, and this is why it is so important to defend it.

Source