Although what you are about to read is not actually an analysis of the Three Witches of Shakespeare’s MacBeth, the general meaning of a part of their famous incantation “Double double, toil and trouble” is just as it sounds: the intent to cause toils and troubles for humankind for the sake of causing them. Perhaps it is apt to use the Three Witches as an analogy for those that demand and expect toil and trouble…in particular for malekind. It is worth seriously contemplating whether women of gynocentric society wish to see more trouble in the form of men’s chivalric self-abnegating behavior, and toil for men as a way of life. Here are some thoughts on these two kinds of demands on men.
“I Would Die For You”: The Male Expendability Kink
Whenever we see men in the business of saving lives, the praises of these men tend to have a common denominator: hooray for men risking their lives and well-being. These men, sometimes even boys, end up damaged in the process of performing their given heroic act. More than enough of them die. News of such occurrences make women who profess to long for the gender roles of old gush and fawn for these men willing to offer their lives. Men who invest a lot in what women think of them follow suit by saying this is what manhood is about and declares “not men” those who would dare to complain about this role they are placed in.
Just as a thought experiment, what if a man devised a way to save more and more lives while rendering the necessity of risk to the rescuer negligible or completely obsolete? Call me crazy, but I’ll bet that the fawning will subside. In fact, I would dare say that it is not the wonderful act of saving a life that these women are grateful for, or these ever-chivalrous men want to measure up to. What they profess to be grateful for is rather the willingness for the man to be of service and self-expense for the good of our gynocentric society. When a man is expended or put in a position where he may be expended, it is a sensation for those who believe in the so-called traditional gender roles. If a man doesn’t, it doesn’t matter then if he did engage in a life-saving act; self-preservation is seen as cowardly and unmasculine. Whether it is a neotraditional or a feminist society, the standard for men and masculinity is based on the altruism of men on women’s behalf. I will note that altruism is not compassion, but the act of living for the sake of the designated others. For some reason, this is seen as virtuous.
Whereas a feminist society upholds abnegation of masculinity as an end in itself in practice, gynocentric neo-traditionalism claims to esteem masculinity only where men are prepared to die in service towards the feminine ends. Women in the latter category appear to behave as though this the chief sexual and relational appeal of men, often more so than the well-known attraction to “loaded” financially successful men. In fact, if these two masculine “virtues” are combined, then ultimately it means she inherits the money of the dead husband, and she is all set.
How many times have we heard stories in which a woman or girl fantasizes about a crush, love interest, or ideal partner and the magic phrase uttered by the man to express his love to her is “I would die for you” or something to that effect? Preparedness to die is presented as a criteria for a male object of romance, it seems.
Why is a woman enamored with the idea of a man wanting to die for her? Granted, it is dangerous enough for the man to profess to live for her as that is a gynocentric folly in itself, but that’s beside the point here. In human history, we have not appropriately questioned the societal romanticizing of self-sacrifice and the worship of death, especially that of men. Women act consistently as if they are attracted to the male act of self-destruction, as it serves their ends. Why are women appreciative that someone dies for them? Why is anyone thankful instead of horrified?
Anti-Automation: For Male Jobs, or Male Toil?
Now, to switch gears quite a bit, let’s talk about automation and men’s work.
Everything mentioned thus far can apply to the idea of male toil and labor as well. How many times have we heard that automation is killing men’s jobs, as is the advent of artificial intelligence? Are those that profess to be on the side of men really expressing concern about men’s income, or are they after something else?
Well perhaps the women may have some investment in men’s income, especially since men’s income too often becomes women’s income if the man isn’t smart enough. What I really want to address here however is the fear of automation, and how some allege that automation is a men’s issue.
Automation is all about the development and usage of technology to aid in life so we can earn the space and time to self-actualize. Automation is devised largely by men; this means that to attack automation is to attack the hard work of these men in the information age. Automation can liberate men from unnecessary toil and allow men to accomplish tasks more efficiently; this means that it is of great value to men as they can do tasks better, and save room for whatever the next frontier might be. To attack automation is to want men to toil; it is to want men to set aside any desire to self-actualize and instead labor for the sake of laboring. Sadly, too many men can’t seem to define themselves as men without this canned distinction brought to you by the “fairer sex.”
Oh, I’m not saying that the abuse of automation and artificial intelligence by the powers-that-be isn’t a genuine issue. I’m not saying you should take technology for granted and not be cautious. However, that is a discussion for another time and is certainly not specific to men’s issues.
When automation is presented as a problem (leading to the destruction of men’s jobs, and so forth), what can the response be except for calling for a return to labor with decreased level of technology and tools, thereby ensuring more toil? These doomsayers forget that automation actually creates jobs, perhaps way more than it destroys. That is what is meant by the next frontier. Or should they just admit that all they want to do is to make men go back to their vision of “traditional” masculinity again, in which they are simply a laboring class?
And on top of all this, what’s more masculine than tools and gadgetry?? What’s so unmasculine about a sense of tinkering to make something creative that actually lightens the load and speeds things up? Invention is what I wholeheartedly call a masculine virtue. It ironically smashes traditions, though it can set the stage for new ones, until they get smashed! Also, I doubt automation will keep us from wanting to enjoy the great outdoors and play sports if we desire to, so no need to fear and bellyache about that in my opinion.
Women have vastly benefitted from automation as well. I suspect that some of the women fearmongering about automation don’t expect the convenience of their own lives to decrease if all that nice automation would be reverted somehow. I guess we all know who picks up the slack here.
Furthermore, if you think harder on the subject of male toil, you would also realize that this just as well has to do with the idea of the female disgust for the “idle man”: a male, who in the female’s eyes, isn’t doing anything. The solution, according to her amounts to “Men: work, work, work!” The fear of automation is the fear of the non-toiling man.
What Do You Really Want Out of Men?
This has been a set of premises put together in one stream of thought that asks the question of what do the women and men of gynocentric society actually love about men, and what do they even think their place is. I hate to sound cynical, but it does seem to me that these women have a fetish for the male intent on disposing himself, or else working and laboring, all for her as the woman, that royal class. I think we could stand to be a bit disturbed by this. It all resembles a desire on the part of the women of gynocentric society to just see men perform for their amusement. And who are the classic collective archetype of those that want to cause all this toil and trouble for their enjoyment? The Weird Sisters, or the Three Witches.
I think it would be an interesting experiment to see in action, to respond appropriately to gynocentrists who fawn over men’s physical damage and those that voice disapproval of men they refer to as idle, that is, not toiling and getting into life-threatening trouble. Just imagine these neo-traditionalists chanting “Double double, toil and trouble” and giving a shrill cackle of amusement.
In closing, I dare say that it has even got to the point that so many of us don’t know what love and appreciation for men for being men even looks like, and we can’t even describe it without resorting to the tired buzzwords such as labor, service, protect, provide, self-sacrifice and others that speak only of men’s utility and not as an entity to be valued in himself. So what do women really want out of men anyway, after all is said and done? Are men lovable because they’d die for these women? Are they valuable because they’d work to the ends of the earth do whatever Princess wants? Do the scars on a man’s body and face make him more sexy and exciting for women? The implications are worse than anyone can imagine if the answers are “Yes.”