Post: #26

(05-07-2017 10:39 AM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  Leadership does not make superiority inherent. Nor should it. Neomasculinity does not say that either women or men are superior to one another - merely that they are different, and thus unequal. On top of which, the symbol would need to be one unitary design or it loses symbolic effect.

This is one unitary design.

I think inequality between men and women in a relationship is implied in neomasculinity. The median male who is able to get laid is superior to the median female who is able to get laid, because women consider the men who are equal or inferior to them to not be worth mating with. What makes a woman highly attractive is her averageness (i.e. she looks like a composite of women in the population); what makes a man attractive is his superiority (in ability, height, maturity, social dominance, etc.). Men demand a woman's faithfulness, while women prefer to share a high-quality man rather than have a low-quality man to herself.

Neomasculinity combines masculinity with nationalism, but not everyone agrees with the globalism-nationalism dichotomy; libertarians like Adam Kokesh view nationalism as merely globalism's little brother, and call for localism instead. Looking at Europe, for example, should we consider the continent one brotherhood of Christian whites who should unite under one government, or should Spain be a sovereign country? What about Catalonia and the rest of Spain; should they be united as one country, or should Catalonia be allowed to go its own way? What's the most "masculine" solution?

What's the role of the individual in society? Should his first loyalty be to himself, or to his tribe? What's more masculine? Situations can arise where the individual says, "I don't fit into my tribe very well" or "I don't agree with how my tribe is being led, yet I lack the power to take over and become the new leader, so what do I do?"

What about the tribe; where does the tribe strike the balance between preserving enough individual liberty to accommodate personal preferences and styles, and allow from some experimentation (e.g. in child rearing); and preventing the tribe's culture from being undermined? For example, how do you balance free speech (which can help correct errors and bring about progress) with the need for tribal unity?

Libertarians take a propertarian approach to the situation, which seems to me to be the best way, since market forces tend to ensure efficient allocation of resources. But there are some ambiguities about the compatibility of libertarianism and patriarchy. Libertarianism also gets a bad rap as being effeminate because the libertarian movement tends to be tolerant of faggotry, plus there are a lot of omegas in its ranks. But that's partly because omegas don't have a lot to lose, and therefore have more freedom to speak freely.

Post: #27

(05-08-2017 12:41 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Does anybody ever really write or talk about neomasculinity anymore?

It felt like a very interesting idea that unfortunately never took off. I can't remember the last time I've seen anything written from a neomasculine perspective, or anybody who describes themselves as a neomasculine writer. Even Roosh doesn't seem to use the term much anymore. (He's never referred to it in his newsletter writings, for instance)
...

I think it wasn't long before people realised that the term neomasculinity was just another way of saying "our great grandfathers were right", and that adding "new" to the front of it was simply another way of saying "we fucked up".

Post: #28

Masculinity and "Neo-masculinity" don't need a symbol.

Masculinity is not something that is kept under cloak and in secret, even if the overarching culture is itself anti-masculine.

You'll know masculinity when you see it, even if from afar.

It is a man who can maintain frame.

A lot of proper frame comes from experience, so you will see more of it in older men -- though the single mom epidemic is fettering young men and hobbling their potential.

Nobody needs symbols when a man's "tell" screams louder than any fucking logo bullshit.

DISCLAIMER: I design art/logos, etc. for a living, so I try to soberly analyze any vehicle of persuasion to weigh effectiveness.

Post: #29