In the post Men, some really great comments were made that I wish to highlight regarding Fitness testing and how one man views women (I would really like to hear other men’s thoughts on this). These were fantastic comments that should not get buried. (it ended up having a really interesting comment thread that you may wish to read in it’s entirety).
We’re all sinners, and we all – consciously or not – know we’re bound to get ourselves into serious trouble if we’re left to our own devices. I submit fitness testing is a “safe” way to be (re)assured that there’s someone out there who’ll pull back on our reigns and “Whoa Nellie!” when we need it. This in turn means you don’t have to worry about running amuck in other matters and landing yourself in real trouble.
So, would you agree that the knowledge that there’s someone looking out for you who’ll keep you safe and out of trouble one of the best ways a man can “free” his woman to be all she was meant to be?
To which Phedre responds:
A woman fitness tests to ascertain the strength of the man’s boundaries. How well does he defend the perimeter?
If not well, then she cannot rely on him for safety and must therefore guard herself – so she retains or even amps up her masculinity.
If he defends it well, then she does not need to worry about her own defence and can focus on feminine development.
The reason then that a successfully passed fitness test can make a woman so elated is that it is a literal, in-the-moment confirmation of her freedom to become her highest self. We *can* defend our own perimeter, and pretty well at that, but it leaves us unable to fully realise our nature.
I think in a certain sense, when men in the past have described women as ‘lesser’ it amounts to this, that a man’s masculine nature is freestanding, whereas a woman’s feminine nature can only reach its full development under a man.
You mention “defending the perimeter”, and while I think I have an idea what you’re referring to, I’d still ask the next question – namely the definition of “perimeter” and “what is it he’s defending from”?
. . . If a woman’s feminine nature can only develop under the protection of a man, the next question is – why? What is it about “femininity” that it requires a protective, freestanding “covering” from a man before it’s flower can open up and blossom?
Q: Is it because it’s like a delicate flower that can be easily damaged? For example, being nurturing and caring requires lowering one’s defenses, which in turn leaves the person open to attack and injury.
Q: Is it that there are certain aspects to it that are potentially “dangerous” or “damaging” and need to be “shushed” back where they came from when they appear? Take for instance women saying they want a “nice” guy, and “just be yourself”, and then they proceed to nuclear reject or LJBF them.
I think the perimeter is between the home (or, historically, the community) and the outside world. The things that need to be protected are any persons, possessions, or ‘cultural’ constructs that are a part of this home/community.
I think you can look at it two ways though,
a- there is no inherent danger or badness to women or femininity, and the negative and damaging behaviours we observe in women stem from the masculinised state. Therefore, surrounding women with a strong masculine support wall will enable them to set aside incongruent masculine features and develop feminine ones.
b- negative behaviours in women are in fact manifestations of an unbridled feminine state (‘the feminine imperative’ or some such thing) and male-imposed strictures simply put the brakes on this.
I know the latter view is the common one in the manosphere, and I am willing to entertain it as true (and have prior to this), but the former feels closer to reality to me. It also accords with the fact that seemingly all of us women here felt somewhat masculine pre-man, and only really flourished in our femininity in the presence of a man.
Commenter Sherlock and his thoughts on women (emphasis mine):
I`ve thought that when men before described women as lesser it was mainly about seeing her as lesser for certain tasks. Lesser in her ability to fulfill the masculine task. Usually, or at least often, I think the talk of women’s lesser nature was combined with talk of her higher nature and worthiness.
Lately I`ve come to the conclusion that I don`t really respect women in the sense that I thought I did before. I used to think that I respected the intelligence and competence of women in the same way as men because women did seem to do as good a job of most stuff as we did. To some extent I still see it that way. But there is a certain deep respect that is in fact lacking. Even amongst that are in fact strong and “independent” there lacks the deeper form of independence that a man CAN have and that many men have to potential for. Even those women who do stand very strongly in the face of social pressure tend to really want to win everyone over eventually. They don`t have the actually independent mindset of TRULY not caring what other people think and just wanting to create their own world. They don`t really enjoy pissing everyone of the way some men do. These women are really strong but they are strong enough to tolerate their own initial discomfort at the pressure which is not the same as being virtually immune to it. So will I can respect them a lot in many ways for competence and strength I don`t give them the ultimate respect I could give to some men.
A lot of it also boils down to wether you want to adapt to the fast at hand or adapt the job to your comfort. I`m seeing this everywhere now. Women see the job as about them not about the task of the job. They want to make the job fit their needs for comfort and enjoyment. This I have zero respect for. What gives respect among men is being able to tolerate the hardship of a task, not creating a comfortable existence for yourself where you don`t need to endure hardship. So in this sense I just can`t respect women in the same way I can respect men.
But this is just about respect in a masculine hierarchy concerned with masculine virtues. Women can do well in this but not in the fundamental sense. The lack of respect is not about not respecting women per se it is just about not respecting their masculinity. The lack of respect for women’s masculinity go together with an adoration for their femininity and a respect for the powers of their femininity which in an ultimate long term sense is more powerful than masculinity. So the positive feelings towards women will still be there and can be very strong there just won`t a fundamental masculine respect for women.
My guess would be that many writers from the past went over board with this. The fear men have of women running wild and of having women exert their tremendous power over them has probably lead to fear based exaggerations and animosity creeping in to their writings.
I don’t really have anything to add. These comments really stuck out and I didn’t want others to miss the chance to read and discuss these ideas.
**Update: Phedre was on fire during that thread and I forgot to add this one. There are a lot of theories out there regarding masculinized women. Roissy had a recent post up about this as well. Here is Phedre’s theory (Personally, I think this could have a lot to do with it, but is probably an amalgamation of several factors, including diet and environmental):
I was reading some studies the other day that showed that when men engage in masculine behaviours – competing, winning, etc – their testosterone levels go up. One study mentioned that the same effect was observed in women, only on a much smaller scale, since a woman’s T levels are a fraction those of a man. Since the study was only interested in male levels this was only mentioned in passing, but I think it’s very relevant to what we’re talking about here, as well as a number of common manosphere observations.
If a woman is living alone she is forced to deal with more conflict in her day-to-day life than if she has a man to help take care of things. If a woman is working, especially trying to climb the corporate ladder, she is dealing with a lot of conflict and competition. If a woman is constantly trying to control her man and argue with him, she is generating competition and conflict.
Maybe as a society we’ve simply created a self-perpetuating cycle by allowing or forcing women to live and behave in ways that raise their T levels and thereby bring out masculine behavioural traits – which in turn leads to more conflict and a sustained raised T level.
On the flip side of that, does behaving in a feminine way raise estrogen or some other female-primary hormone? And is this also a self-perpetuating loop? And, could this mean that the general unfemininity of today’s women is a contributor to women’s growing fertility problems?