Masculinity and the State

Feminists, utilizing democracy and the fact they are the majority of voters, easily dismantle one masculine institution after the other. Recently, Price wrote about this phenomenon with regard to the American Army. I served three years in the Israeli army as an infantry solider and can share my observations on the effects of feminism on the IDF.

The so-called “prestige” of the Israeli army comes mainly from the wars waged from 1948 to 1982 where Israel was not supported by the US, had a weak economy and fought against multiple enemies. During that time the IDF was a huge part of Israel and Israeli men developed rugged masculinity and bravado unheard of for the timid Jews in exile. Unlike the common conception, only extreme minority of combat soldiers are or were women (probably 0.1% to 1%). Civilians tend to assume that any person in uniform and with a rifle is a heroic solider, where in fact 90% of soldiers in any modern army are support and basically all women in the army were (and still are) support.

The army wining the Arab-Israeli wars was a bastion of the new ‘Jewish masculinity’ and won wars by utilizing the eagerness of 18yo boys to prove their masculinity in the battlefields.

After feminism took hold women were forcefully inserted by laws into the most prestigious positions (fighter jet pilots, ship captains etc), but the hard grueling work of the infantry dogs, which is by far the most needed combat position, is done by men. Don’t expect for a feminist quota for body bags. The body bags still consist very mainly of dead 18yo males. While the IDF did not reach the ridiculousness of the american army just yet (women marines, etc.), is still a far cry from what it used to be. See the last few wars, the failure to win the last Lebanon war. The ruthless killing machine protecting Israel is getting softer and weaker every day.

The IDF is getting weaker and weaker since the IDF ability to confer masculinity was reduced by introducing women into the most prestigious combat roles. The relation between service and masculinity was systematically eliminated by the feminists and the IDF, as an institution, will very probably follow the US Armed Forces.

For the long run, the feminist dismantling of male institutions might yield unexpected consequences. If there are no state institutions to confer masculinity to young boys, boys just might discover a way to be masculine on their own (thugs culture, PUA culture, Emo culture? etc.) outside of the state funded establishment. Masculinity in innately intertwined with power and social status, and if boys cannot realistically achieve social status within the institutions of the state, they will make their own institution, their own gang and redefine the status structure so that they are on top once more. In the end, for the first time in history, masculinity might be completely disconnected from the state and its institutions.

As a man, this new situation mainly suggests that reliance on state institutions to achieve masculine social status is ill-advised. While it is preferable to have such support, for example a prestigious employment, your dominance must come from within you, not by your relation to the state or society, since the men’s relation and status in modern society is consistently undermined by feminism. In PUA terms, you must master the deep inner game. This might be a silver lining, in a way, for the individual man who can achieve this since it gives you independence. As a patriarch you must master the inner game and control of the frame to achieve inner-based social dominance, to stand strong in your resolve, even if things around you fall down, and it will fall down for many men.

Taking a broader point of view, states need to be able to forcefully deal with other states. And a state losing its ability to confer masculinity loses control of the amazing ability to violence and self endangerment contained within the restless testosterone infused blood of young men. This might be the reason of the inability of western states to decisively win wars against Muslim forces with much less funding and technical abilities. The state losing control over masculinity might also lead to the rage of young men lashing out (e.g. London riots).

(For the new reader, here is a link to the latest draft (pdf, 14/Jun/2012) of the Guide for a Young Patriarch which is based on the posts made in this blog and attempts to organize them into a consistent message.)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Masculinity and the State

  1. jbamai says:

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this dicipres since you are indeed a veteran of the IDF. However, just because I’m giving you a pass doesn’t mean that you’ve satisfactorily connected the dots in order to prove women “forcefully inserted by laws into the most prestigious positions (fighter jet pilots, ship captains etc)”.

    “The IDF is getting weaker and weaker since the IDF ability to confer masculinity was reduced by introducing women into the most prestigious combat roles.”

    Correlation does not automatically confer causation. I see the point you are trying to make, however, having served with women in the military and currently in a civilian capacity that was once a bastion of male only masculinity I fail to see the connection.

    “This might be the reason of the inability of western states to decisively win wars against Muslim forces with much less funding and technical abilities.”

    Really? How about Korea, Vietnam, or the Russians in Afghanistan? I think a more causative factor is the rise in asymmetric warfare. The WWII conventional metrics of winners and losers just don’t apply anymore. Before I digress anymore….back to feminism…

    Of course, there is a lingering stench from the overreach of the feminist agenda that is damaging society no doubt. However, men pointing at feminist bogeymen where there aren’t any smacks of mental mental masturbation.

    There is enough damage being done to families by feminism without having to fabricate it elsewhere a la Senator John McCarthy style. The US military as well as the IDF is populated by not 90% heroes but 100% heroes dedicated to stamping out the evil virus of terrorism.

    Again, its an asymmetric war we are fighting. These wars are fought in the shadows of the night and within the arena of public perception. If you think they’ve won…they’ve won decipres…and no unlimited number of tanks and testosterone infused uniformed men with M4 rifles can change it.

    • dicipres says:

      Jbamai,

      “However, men pointing at feminist bogeymen where there aren’t any smacks of mental masturbation.” I like this sentence, and I guess there is truth in it regarding many aspects of the manosphere, but I had an argument to make: When I was 18yo and selected infantry, it was mainly to prove my masculinity. If the connection between infantry and masculinity was already dismantled by feminist policies (as part of removing gender roles) I would probably not made that choice. My desire to prove my manhood was very effectively utilized by the state as a tool of violence. Since you write “having served with women in the military and currently in a civilian capacity that was once a bastion of male only masculinity I fail to see the connection.” I guess that you do not share my experience, but still I am certain I am not unique in my motivations to serve in a combat role.

      Regarding “The US military as well as the IDF is populated by not 90% heroes but 100% heroes dedicated to stamping out the evil virus of terrorism,”: 1. This is an emotionally charged statement. Emotions hurt our ability to observe our world. I am not writing to feel good or make friends, but to share ideas (“Truth is more important than feelings” is the motto of his blog). Red pill men should not utilize emotions in conversations about ideas, leave this to the political candidates. 2. I am not sure what is your definition of a hero, but for every reasonable definition, the content of this statement is easily refutable. If you wish I will expand on this.

      Regarding war, “Correlation does not automatically confer causation” as well as the fact that there are many other parameters in play (part of which you mentioned), I agree. I made a hypothesis, basically stating that if the army don’t confer masculinity, men would have less motivation to endanger themselves, however I cannot prove how significant this reduction in motivation is and how important it is to the effectiveness of the army under the changing conditions of modern warfare.

  2. jbamai says:

    Good response and point well taken. Furthermore, while I did serve in the military, it was NOT in a infantry (grunts we call them) or combat arms unit so that’s why I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I know there IS a difference in experience between those units who train WITH WOMEN and those who are SEGREGATED FROM women. Just how much of a difference I don’t know.

  3. Pingback: Catching Up « Manosphere Links

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s