I recently had an exchange on Twitter with Khensu the Reminder and FraterIAO regarding something that proved to be incredibly significant. Basically, the gist was that the term “divine feminine” was actually a flawed term, because the concept of femininity is not inherently equivalent to the concept of the “mother.” It might not seem like it yet, but this is a hugely important distinction- remember, SEMANTICS ARE IMPORTANT. Clarity of word is clarity of thought. With that being said, we’re going to take this and run with it, because I can tie this in to some of the larger issues regarding our modern conceptions of the masculine and feminine.
We’re going to start with a disclaimer here-
For all intents and purposes, my philosophy is only concerned with masculinity and femininity so far as they pertain to heterosexual relationships with the intent to procreate. Because my philosophy is built on DNA and Life as foundational concepts, any sort of lifestyle that is not intended to lead to reproduction is not going to be covered.
As a result, it would be a mistake to interpret anything I say in this regard as pertaining to any other sexual orientation or lifestyle choice. I have exactly zero interest in what consenting adults choose to do so long as it isn’t a violation of anyone’s rights and I don’t have to watch or hear about it.
If you have a problem with that, write your own goddamn philosophy.
Now that we’ve gotten that (hopefully unnecessary) bit out of the way, let’s jump in.
One of the things I attempted to lay the groundwork for in The Desert of Nihilism and the Throne of God is that our culture seems to be at a point where we must transition from the “worship of the Son” to the “worship of the Father.” Now, this isn’t a call to go start a dad-cult, this is more of a metaphor for the shift in values that is required to move past the problems created by the Death of God.
[You could use Child as a gender-neutral equivalent here for Son, but there’s usually a difference between the responsibilities expected of sons and daughters. There’s definitely a difference between the role of the Father and Mother. The role of the Son should be preparatory for the role of the Father, and likewise for the female inverse. Additionally, I’m not qualified to write a philosophy as it pertains to women and will not attempt to do so beyond what is required to write a philosophy for men. Ladies, there’s a great opportunity there if you’re so inclined and capable.]
In essence, the “worship of the Son” is what modern Christianity represents- here, worship means that the role of the Son is enshrined as the highest aspiration of society. There are certain things associated with the role of the Son- “honor thy mother and father,” “not my will but thy,” the notion of worship (the actual practice of worship- bowing and praying, etc) and submission to the Will of God as a core value. These are all things that, more or less, mirror what is expected of the child in a family. Because of ritualization, we enshrine these values in mythic/religious fashion, and with that, the story of the Christ models the ideal man.
However, the state of the world as it is now, we’re no longer in a position where submission to an external Will is ideal. In fact, much of the issues we see today draw from the externalized locus of control. To put things bluntly- we’re “old enough” to know the consequences of our actions, and the innocence of childhood is over because we know what we’re really capable of. Look at the Holocaust, fascism, and the horrors inflicted by communism. All of this widespread hell-on-Earth was unleashed not as a plague loosed from a divine vial, but as the direct consequences of our attempts to externalize our locus of control.
We desperately want to return to the belief that our actions do not have consequences, that we’re not the ones responsible for the way our lives are, that the world is a bad place because of some mystical karma, malicious devil, or perhaps even the demiurge. Because responsibility is fundamentally a requirement for those who choose to live, the desire to not be responsible (we’ll call this the Will to Abnegation) is fundamentally a naive component of the Will to Death.
We have outgrown the role of Son, and the attempt to cling to it at this stage in some sort of Peter-Pan man-child state is wildly irresponsible. Where, before, we could write off the ills of the world as problems for God, we’re left realizing that, barring natural disasters, most of the world’s problems are our own fault. Even as it pertains to natural disasters, we’re not so powerless as to be unable to prepare: if a hurricane is coming and you fail to prepare, it’s not God’s fault that your family dies, it’s yours.
That is the core difference between the role of the Son and the role of the Father- the Son, being a dependant role, can blame his Father. The Father has no one to blame but himself.
Now, how does this relate to what I learned on Twitter?
One of the things that’s been bugging me for a very long time is this sort of subtle distaste I’ve found with both the Red Pill philosophy and with Feminism. It should be clear that I’m neither an adherent nor a proponent of either, but I do try my best to keep up on major cultural movements for the sake of being informed.
As I discussed in The Problem of Solipsism, one of the preeminent issues of our age is the extreme degree to which people seem to be stuck and limited exclusively to their own perception. If men tend towards the Order Mind (rules and systems thinking), then the Red Pill serves as a way of understanding the opposite sex not through interaction, but by creating a simulacrum of the feminine built on rules. Ironically, (most) women don’t run primarily on rules and systems like men- the Chaos Mind is more responsive (to input and environment) and social than the Order Mind. Feminism seems to represent a Chaos Mind solipsism, where the actual intentions of men are replaced by perceived intention. Interestingly, there’s a similar attempt to systematize the opposite sex, albeit in a rough, inverse (perhaps darkly complementary) way when compared to the Red Pill.
If you’re a returning reader, you should have identified that these paradoxical positions indicate that neither is a good solution to the problem. At its core, the issue is that modern men and women lack proper roles to model their behavior on- because the Death of God caused the basis of the old roles to fall apart. You can’t go hit on some chick at a bar and say, “God ordained that woman serve man, so come hither, wench.” (Well, you could, but I wouldn’t recommend it. If you decide to, please video it and send it in. You know, for science.)
I would argue (perhaps controversially) that this intrasexual tension is probably largely due to the men. If the dominant archetype of our culture was the Son, and the Son is refusing to become the Father, then it’s no surprise that women aren’t comfortable with the raw deal they’re getting. Masculinity is fundamentally about responsibility- it’s something that is attained. No boy turns 13 and is suddenly well respected in his community. Instead, masculinity is something that is worked at and improved on over time. Women mature faster than men, and, fair or not, the world treats girls as women far sooner than it treats boys as men.
One of the most fascinating things that we’re seeing in the culture is related to the identity fragmentation (expanded on in Fragmentation and Reconciliation). Because the basis for the culture’s masculine role has failed (via the Death of God), individuals have attempted to devise a number of different styles of gendered (or non-gendered) identity. This brings us back to the Twitter discussion- masculinity and femininity have, for better or for worse, been severed from their original direct attachment to the biologically male and female.
This is why the “divine feminine” is an inferior concept to the “divine mother,” because as it stands now, the concept of femininity has expanded beyond the purely biological quality of bearing children. This probably sounds really contentious, but try and track with me here. As Khensu said, “Feminine is mere aesthetic- a shoe can be feminine.”
What I’m getting at here is that our concepts of masculinity and femininity have actually become much more broad than simply referring to men and women, respectively. A man can be masculine and not be a Father, and a woman can be feminine and not be a Mother.
This is incredibly significant, because if we’re going to devise a philosophy that is to promote the acceptance of the responsibility of being parents, we have to distinguish between the advocacy for a return to traditional masculinity and femininity (which is probably unlikely at this point- the problem arose because the old roles are insufficient for the modern age) and the advocacy for modern men and women to accept the burden that parenthood represents.
Where the Red Pill seems to be largely concerned with single men, and Feminism seems to be largely concerned with single women, we need a philosophy for people who have accepted that the purpose of sexual relationships is not solely about love or companionship, but the furthering of the species. RP and Fem. both seem to be strategies for individuals to compete in the sexual marketplace, where what is actually needed is cooperation and the dedication to something beyond purely hedonistic gratification.
(Historically, I tend to think that certain articles are going to be controversial, and then I’m surprised when they aren’t. Honestly, I think a lot of the time people don’t understand what I’m actually getting at, or maybe my readership is comprised exclusively of intelligent people. Proud of you. I have a feeling that this one may be controversial, but I’m going to remain optimistic that I’ve made myself as clear as possible until proven otherwise. You’re smart enough to know that I’m not advocating anything preposterous here. At least, it shouldn’t be seen as preposterous, but if it is, it should be indicative of where our culture is at, presently.)
What does this mean for the man of today?
If you haven’t gotten this already from this site, the most important thing you can do, as a man, is to take responsibility for the state of your life, as well as the state of the world. The culture is going downhill specifically because you and those like you have not accepted the mantle of the Father and the responsibilities that such a mantle entails. It’s not enough to simply be masculine- the playboy bachelor is the antithesis of the Father. Commitment, effort, dedication, and culpability are all virtues required in this age, and these are not virtues possessed by the flighty man-child.
I should distinguish here- we need to move from masculine and feminine virtues (or attributes) to paternal and maternal virtues. Where Red Pill advocates plate-spinning and Feminism is against slut-shaming, we need to advocate for committed relationships because it’s what’s best for the children. The rise in marriage failure and the declining birth rate is certainly linked to these childish attitudes towards relationships.
I’m not going to go on about this, and I probably won’t talk about this subject this overtly in the future because:
A) MasterSelf is primarily about making you a good, responsible person, and good, responsible people tend to make good, responsible choices,
B) because I really don’t care to write about relationship issues, since most can be solved by you sacking up and being a decent person, or leaving a relationship that you don’t want to be a decent person in,
and C) because we can’t just acknowledge the problem’s symptoms (social roles and failed relationships), we have to attack the problem on the level it originated from, which is on the level of philosophy, myth, and religion.
Mostly C, because that’s what I’m good at.
The major takeaway here is that the Red Pill and Feminism are not primarily systems of meaning. Whether or not either side will admit this about the other, there’s a lot of good that each system has done for their respective adherents. However, because they’re attempted solutions on the level of role and relationship, they aren’t complete answers- because the problem they are trying to solve goes far deeper than most realize. Philosophy, myth, and religion are all areas that deal directly with meaning itself, rather than simply solving the problem that meaning’s absence presents. In all things, we need the right tool for the job.
The moral of the story is that you need to accept reality and get your shit together, preferably sooner rather than later. If you accept Life as the core source of values, then you have to accept that perpetuating that Life is part of your responsibility, and when you accept that, our intrasexual issues become a bit simpler. Childhood, like all things, comes to an end, and you have to accept that it’s your turn to become the parent.