Feminism, Femininity, Toxic Masculinity

[There is an extremely half-arsed pretence to a dialogue going on below.]

“Obviously any kind of oppression or violation of anyone is wrong - just to get that out of the way - but you know why feminism can be so unpleasantly dry and aggressive?”

“Why?”

“Energies can be divided into masculine and feminine and, in terms of this archetypal divide, the masculine particularly relates to exertion of the will within the physical world, and the feminine energy is more a soft, yielding nature, and especially relates to the feelings in the benevolent sense - thus what is evoked by the descriptive term of “motherly”. 

And it is in the arena of masculine energy - specifically  the exertion of the will on the external, material plane - that the feminists, in the sense it will be obvious I am talking about, are set on showing themselves the equal of men. This is at the expense of the wholeness of being and the dual energies of masculine and feminine; instead it is a felt conflict in which the feminists must succeed in showing themselves to be as energetically masculine as men. That is the plane on which this is being enacted: the field of archetypal masculine energy. And here femininity is not just irrelevant but is actually an encumbrance, and a negative value judgement, as all this plays out and extends, is being implied and imposed on the feminine energy.

“And also to add, conflict, where one person’s will is attempting to assert itself over another’s, is obviously again particularly the masculine energetic field, and which logically extends beyond unresolved dialogue onto the decisive plane of physical force. Heavyweight boxing is this masculine field at a very pure level - of the extremes of physique and willpower fighting for dominance. The more purely masculine or feminine the domain, the less present is the other energetic pole within that field. Thus there is very little feminine energy in two huge men trying to knock each other out, but even here if one of them has a grace to his movements, then this could be said to be the presence of the feminine energy, and so  even at this extreme here we see something of the balance of energies and wholeness of life.”

“For feminists, within this described competitive scenario on the energetic masculine plane, because they are not males but female, they end up falsifying themselves to try to attain equality or victory - to be aggressive so as not to supposedly be weak and feminine. They’re trying to show themselves equal or even better on masculine terms, and since they can’t be secure in their masculinity this insecurity is in a state of constant need to display and prove to itself and others the security it doesn’t inwardly possess. The felt energetic deficit on this masculine plane is dealt with by behaving aggressively - exactly the traits of “toxic masculinity” in its genuine sense, where the softer feminine energy is not balancing the self-imposing masculine.” [I’ll provide a video below where we see this in a very pronounced manner, where rather than enjoy the pleasure of conversation with an intelligent male guest, the female BBC journalist  seems to be primed to engage purely on the level of conflict.]

“The greatest problem they have, in terms of this being a great conflict, is that within this competitive playing field, in physical terms, the masculine is far stronger. There are for example zero world records where the female record is greater than the male equivalent.”

“It might change if they allow men to compete as women.”

“True, and, who knows, underneath everything that might even be at play here - the woman will prove herself equal to the man by recruiting a man in her place! Only someone very neurotic would view this physical divide as a problem or something to deny, as an inferiority to overcome. But for these neurotics of course it is a problem, because they have invented a conflict on these terms, and conflict, as said, in terms of its own energetic nature, naturally extends to being resolved physically, and here they meet a very physical brick wall.”

“So anyway for the feminist to achieve parity or victory in the broader sense of life, besides the female forcing herself to become more masculine and deny her femininity, what is also necessary is the male to deny his masculinity, to feminise himself and to abdicate, within the field of masculine energy, his superiority. Thus as a weapon the focus on the negative value judgement of “toxic masculinity” and the blurring of genders in general. The desirability within all this state of conflict is the female behaving more aggressive and masculine, and at the other end the yielding male behaving more feminine. This is all obviously extremely stupid and crude, but that’s what we’re dealing with - extremely crude stupidity!”

“And this subversion of masculinity doesn’t just suit the female measuring herself in masculine terms. Ideologically all this is coming from and fostered by the academic world. Masculinity in the energetic sense particularly relates to the physical sense, and so in these terms the typical male in academia is inferior compared to the typical male say on a building site - which in itself is energetically a very masculine domain. So for the academic, or comparatively thought bound male to measure himself against other males in terms of classical masculine, physical energy, he is a complete loser; and so for him also and his insecurity, the subversion of masculinity as a negative also serves towards his neurotic, inverted victory. Because of course if the feminised male is now the ideal, he is the victor, and his felt opponent, the more classical male type, is labelled a toxic neanderthal. Victory, again in this self induced sense of conflict, is in the denial of masculinity.”

“One other problematic point though for such subverting and more academic types, if they cared much about intellectual consistency - which they don’t seem to - is that within a revered academic ethos like Darwinism, in terms of survival of the fittest the classical male is endlessly superior to the feminine male. So on the level of biological survival the feminised male for instance sacrifices his power as a hunter - the energetic masculine plane - but is completely useless in terms of his ability to be a mother, which is the classical feminine energetic domain! Thus this overall ideological subversion is even extending into this madness of pretending the biological role of mother is not gender based. Obviously this kind of supposed intellectualism is completely in the service of emotive and neurotic agendas and impulses rather than any kind of honest, intellectual integrity.”

[After this pretty abrupt and random end, the earlier mentioned video below]