We live in a society with few real men, and, as a consequence, fewer real women.

Radical feminism is a logical reaction, but it’s not the solution.

“Unconditional surrender” (only possible with full trust.) by Joseph Corl

I wrote the piece below about two years ago as a kind of hypothesis. At the time it didn’t quite fit with my other work, so I left it in my drafts. But since the topic has recently been in the news here in The Netherlands more often, I feel it’s the right moment to share it.

---

Most men have not experienced an initiation process, a coming-of-age ritual to get into manhood, nor have they seen many examples of actual masculinity, of “real” men.

Sorry to start with a side note after only one sentence, lol, but I think it is necessary to quickly explain what I mean by the terms “real” men and “real” women. In short, a real man or woman is someone who lives according to who they truly are/feel themselves to be. Not putting on a mask of “manhood” or “womanhood.” So I don’t believe there is an actual objective definition of real men and real women—though I would say some major traits are much, much more common among one group vs the other and vice versa, that’s what I’m talking about below.

In any case, I do think YOU have a version that is true to you in your mind about your manhood or womanhood. So it’s fine to go with that.

As a consequence, they have not learned to serve and protect (what I see as some of the important traits in masculinity). Instead, they only take or receive, i.e., “momma’s boys” or “spoiled boys” that turn into fiends.

And because there are so few men who lead, protect, and serve by example, these spoiled men have not learned that with greater (physical) power comes a greater responsibility. So the greediest of these manless men use their power to take what they want from the “givers,” universally understood to be the feminine, nourishing, and accepting, though physically weaker.

In historical (maybe idealised, probably simplified… hunter-gatherer) times, there would be equality and an equal transaction; women would nourish and give, and trust that the men around them would serve and protect.

A WIN-WIN.

So, now that the game is more and more a WIN-LOSE game—I would say due to society becoming so large that immoral people can reign free—the rise of radical feminism is an understandable reaction to the unmanhood of many men; better to be on the winning side of a WIN-LOSE game, right?

But attacking masculinity—what seems radical feminism is about, as opposed to non-radical feminism, which seeks to have equal rights for men and women—has the exact opposite effect. It tries to win a WIN-LOSE game, but actually leads to a LOSE-LOSE outcome.

This happens, imo, because radical feminism conflates the power grab of immoral men with true manhood. And thus tries to feminize men (even more), creating a feedback cycle of "spawning" more immoral men. This happens in at least two ways (that overlap):

• men who grew up to see themselves as so weak or guilty for being a man that they become the human version of a castrated cat. (Easily swayed by others due to insecurity, no woman trusts them to protect them, higher chance to stay alone, possibly grows resentful. i.e., an “incel”¹…)

• men who lean into the bad things that are said about masculinity (if you say, “you’re a bad boy!” long enough, some really do start to turn into a bad boy/man) and who might follow, say, a toxic masculinity guru (which, imo, is far from actual masculinity).

I don't know the answer to the broader societal issues at play (were it so easy, we wouldn't have these conversations), but I’m sure the answer is not to deny our femininity or masculinity. I.e., “castrating” men as opposed to helping them feel strong enough to sit comfortably and vulnerably with their own feelings, or teaching women to constantly put on a cold steel harness as opposed to helping them become confident and caring and willing to trust, is a harmful knee-jerk reaction.

It’s also not becoming a radical feminist, an incel, or a follower of Tate, btw.

The best, I think, is to just be kind to yourself and to others, and whether you are (very) feminine or masculine—no matter your gender—just to be yourself and accept others as they are.

And don’t forget, luckily, most people are good.

Jibran ❤️

---

PS. Maybe a small endnote: The premise is “fewer good men lead to fewer good women.” But it’s equally true the other way around. “Fewer good women lead to fewer good men.” (Men get raised by women as well, as just one data point.) But, as a man, I feel it’s more appropriate for me to write the male side of things, because there’s an actual lived experience there. So if I were to write the “other side,” so to speak, I would need way more research and conversations. But maybe there is a woman among you who has comments on this.

PPS. Ok, another endnote, lol. I speak here of masculine, feminine, man, woman; if you identify as one or the other (or none, or in between) but feel more masculine/feminine, read it as if it speaks to you. In the context of society, psychology, and all the issues surrounding this, I find the metaphor of manhood/womanhood/feminine/masculine much more interesting than our actual physical gender phenotypes.

1. “a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile towards women and men who are sexually active." - dictionary.com