The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

On ‘Fragile Masculinity’

Posted on | November 20, 2015 | 43 Comments

Sarah Taylor Gibson (@s_t_gibson on Twitter) is a young Christian college student who also calls herself a feminist, evidently having failed to understand what feminism actually requires.

“There are no Christian feminists, because feminism is a sort of narcissistic idolatry, wherein women deny God and instead worship themselves as their own divinity.”
Robert Stacy McCain, Dec. 17

Feminism permits women to view their own selfishness as altruism. Feminism also justifies cruelty and dishonesty. By telling themselves that they are oppressed — and that males are both the perpetrators and beneficiaries of systematic injustice against them — feminists grant themselves a license to be deliberately cruel toward men because all men are oppressors and thus deserving of such cruelty. Feminism is a radical egalitarian ideology that tells women “equality” is the only true moral ideal (the summum bonum), a goal which can only be achieved by the destruction of a social order that feminist theory condemns as a manifestation of male supremacy. Everything men do is wrong — an exercise of unjust privilege — and nothing any man says is valid. Because its condemnation of males is without limit or qualification (all men are guilty of oppression, simply because they are male) feminist theory destroys any basis of trust, respect or cooperation between the sexes. Yet feminists typically deny the implications of their own theory, resorting to dishonest sophistry to conceal from critical scrutiny what feminism really means. Feminists refuse to debate their critics, instead seeking to silence all opposition, especially in media and academia. Because the movement’s naïve young followers never encounter any articulate criticism of their ideology, they seem to imagine that all intelligent people support the feminist cause.

Here is a Tumblr mini-lecture from Sarah Taylor Gibson:

What perplexes me the most about the fragile masculinity of straight men is the fact that machismo is not what women want. Lets look, for example, to the men girls have plastered all over their bedroom walls in highschool. What could be a better insight into the deeply personal sexual psyche of a girl figuring out what she wants? Sometimes the posters are of jacked action movie heroes or football players, but I would argue you’re more likely to find those in a boy’s room, not a girls. When I remember my friend’s bedrooms in highschool, I remember willowy anime heartthrobs, singer-songwriters in eyeliner and tight jeans, soft-lipped big-eyed child idols, and rock stars that kissed other boys on stage. When I think of the two biggest movie dreamboats from the 2000s I think of Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean and Legolas from Lord of the Rings. Every other girl in my high school had posters over her bed of a swaggering trinket-laden trickster diva and a flawlessly blonde gymnastically graceful Elvin beauty. Both excellent examples of masculinity, neither at all traditionally macho.
It’s almost like boys model their sexual expression off what other men perform for one another instead of actually listening to what women want or, God forbid, performing their own personality.

Notice how easily Ms. Gibson arrogates to herself the authority of an expert, qualified to issue sweeping condemnations of male behavior. Feminists do this routinely, never expecting anyone to challenge their judgment or demand any credentials. Any college girl can just log onto the Internet and deliver such indictments of males without fear that anyone might question her analysis. Ms. Gibson knows “what most women want” and yet “straight men,” whom she diagnoses as afflicted with “fragile masculinity,” instead foolishly pursue “traditionally macho” behavior as a “model [for] their sexual expression.” Why do men do this? Because, Ms. Gibson informs us, men refuse to listen to women.

Translation: Guys are so stupid they don’t even know how to be guys and therefore they need feminists to tell them how to do it.

Ms. Gibson perfectly expresses the feminist presumption that not only are all males inadequate and incompetent, incapable of doing anything right, but also that males are so ignorant they do not even realize why everything they do is wrong. Men are mentally inferior and lack any capacity for self-awareness, the feminist believes. No one ever points out to Ms. Gibson that her beliefs amount to an insulting anti-male prejudice.

Notice how it is only “straight men” whom Ms. Gibson condemns for their “fragile masculinity,” implying that the masculinity of homosexual men is robust and healthy by comparison. Furthermore, notice how Ms. Gibson assumes that “traditionally macho” behavior is never authentic, but is rather always a performance, an artificial façade that does not reflect a man’s “own personality.” Insofar as any heterosexual man behaves “traditionally,” Ms. Gibson would have us believe, this can only be explained by his mimicking the “sexual expression” of other men — perhaps “movie heroes or football players” — because there can be no such thing as original and authentic “machismo.”

Instead, we are informed, men should be “willowy anime heartthrobs, singer-songwriters in eyeliner and tight jeans, soft-lipped big-eyed child idols, and rock stars that kissed other boys on stage,” because this is what women actually want men to be, based on Ms. Gibson’s memory of posters with which high school girls decorated their bedrooms.

And if any man should express doubt about the validity of Ms. Gibson’s judgment? Well, that’s just evidence of his “fragile masculinity.”

Feminists know everything, you see, and men know nothing, which is why feminist discourse is always a lecture, never a dialogue. This is probably also why feminists assume all men are hopelessly stupid, because smart men avoid feminists. Why would any intelligent man with a modicum of self-respect subject himself to such insulting treatment? Only a masochist with a damaged ego and a craving for humiliation would associate with a woman who never says a word to him except to belittle him, bossing him around as if he had no will of his own.

As to why so many teenage girls prefer pouty “sensitive”-looking boys, psychologists long ago explained this as a manifestation of sexual immaturity. Conventionally masculine adult males are too intimidating for the adolescent female to imagine them as romantic partners. The implications of her own role in a relationship with such an imposing figure — what it would mean to be a man’s partner — understandably frighten the girl; it is more comfortable to focus her affection on a somewhat effeminate boy/man. Indeed, from the perspective of developmental psychology, it might be considered inappropriate if a 13- or 14-year-old girl chose an overtly “macho” romantic idol. However, it is even more inappropriate to expect adult men to conform their behavior so as to appeal to the immature emotional needs of adolescent girls, and yet Ms. Gibson sees no problem in demanding that men emulate “excellent examples of masculinity” like a make-believe pirate from a Disney movie or an elf-prince from Middle Earth.

We see, then, why feminism’s one-sided analysis of sexual behavior is so misleading. The feminist is always willing to excuse women’s immature attitudes and selfish behaviors; because every woman is a victim of oppression, she is therefore never responsible for her faults and failures. Exempting herself from critical scrutiny, the feminist then proceeds to pronounce insulting judgments against men and, if they should object to her criticism, she interprets his objection as proof of his misogyny. Merely disagreeing with a feminist proves that he hates women and, therefore, his objections are automatically invalidated.

The circular logic of Lewis’s Law, whereby opposition to feminism is cited as a justification for feminism, should raise the question of why feminism inspires so much opposition. The obvious answer is that men do not enjoy being rudely insulted, told that they are deserving of no respect or consideration. What have I done — or what have my sons done — to be subjected to such hateful rhetoric? And what has Helen Lewis ever done that qualifies her to stand in judgment of anyone?

No one ever questions feminist authority. Nowadays, it is just assumed that all men should be treated with scornful contempt, merely because they are male. The ideological basis of this assumption — i.e., that men deserve such treatment because they are perpetrators of unjust oppression — is never disputed, although it is difficult to find any objective evidence of this. How is it, after all, that complaints about women’s oppression are most often heard from women who are themselves manifestly privileged? And how are we to supposed to interpret the fact that the majority of college students (57%) are women? If this is oppression, then what would equality look like? Will women finally consider themselves “equal” if they are 75% or 80% of college students, or is anything short of 100% unacceptable to feminists?

These questions are never asked, however, because no one on the 21st-century campus is permitted to do anything other than nod in agreement when feminists speak. A college student like Sarah Taylor Gibson probably doesn’t even think of feminism as a political ideology, but rather accepts it as reality, the only valid way of understanding human behavior. The fact that feminism is epistemologically incompatible with Christianity is either not yet apparent to her or else she is unwilling to alienate her Christian parents by admitting her apostasy.

What Ms. Gibson fails to see is that the “equality” demanded by feminism requires us to deny the actual differences between men and woman, thus to bring about an androgynous utopia. No such society has ever existed in human history, of course, nor will it ever exist at any time in the future. Feminism is as incompatible with human nature as it is with Christian theology, and yet neither science nor faith can dissuade Ms. Gibson from embracing the folly of feminism, which flatters her vanity in much the same way as the serpent beguiled Eve: “Ye shall be as gods!”



43 Responses to “On ‘Fragile Masculinity’”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    November 20th, 2015 @ 8:26 pm

    You are a professor emeritus on this subject

  2. LLC
    November 20th, 2015 @ 8:49 pm

    She tweeted that Bernie Sanders was “a gift from God”. Tells me a lot about her.

  3. Prime Director
    November 20th, 2015 @ 9:15 pm

    I c yourdilemma, re:finishingthebook

    No natural stopping point, endlessparadeofhorribles, some reallybad some just shakeyourheadsadtsktsk

    Dontstare intotheabyss toolong

  4. Fail Burton
    November 20th, 2015 @ 10:06 pm

    Lady elves and bejeweled divas are “examples of masculinity”? I knew it; Conan was gay. He was always chasing after Frost Giant’s daughters and haughty slave girls. Oh, Cristo! I’m gay too!!!


  5. Mike G.
    November 20th, 2015 @ 10:22 pm

    My freakin’ head hurts! So how much stupid can you pack into a college age girl’s brain?

  6. WarEagle82
    November 20th, 2015 @ 10:36 pm

    I don’t think my masculinity is quite so fragile as these loonies suppose.

    I am equally at home at the range with my M1911 or in my kitchen cooking up a turkey breast, paella or lamb stew.

    I admire Robert E. Lee, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Julia Child and Jacques Pepin.

    I don’t like modern art and think Juan Miro was probably a better house painter than “artist.” But I do like the Dutch Masters and Impressionists.

    I think my masculinity is far more secure than the mental state of these young heads full of mush.

  7. Finrod Felagund
    November 21st, 2015 @ 1:25 am

    She doesn’t even know how to spell ‘elven’, the silly wench.

    Besides, Legolas isn’t even an Elf of the Light, like Galadriel.

  8. Finrod Felagund
    November 21st, 2015 @ 1:30 am

    She’s got the wrong God, that’s for bloody sure.

  9. Fail Burton
    November 21st, 2015 @ 2:27 am

    I love Lewis’s Orwellian logic; the reaction of Jews towards Nazism justifies Nazism. It’s squirrel logic: throw rocks at squirrels, squirrels get angry, squirrels are angry animals confirmed. It’s how Sarkeesian works. She defames all men on Earth, many get angry and tell her to eff off, and she says “See?”

  10. ndmike12
    November 21st, 2015 @ 3:00 am

    To be fair, I am eternally grateful that Twitter was not around to memorialize any of the inane pronouncements I made when I was a stupid college kid.

  11. The original Mr. X
    November 21st, 2015 @ 4:23 am

    Furthermore, notice how Ms. Gibson assumes that “traditionally macho” behavior is never authentic, but is rather always a performance, an artificial façade that does not reflect a man’s “own personality.” Insofar as any heterosexual man behaves “traditionally,” Ms. Gibson would have us believe, this can only be explained by his mimicking the “sexual expression” of other men — perhaps “movie heroes or football players” — because there can be no such thing as original and authentic “machismo.”

    Makes you wonder how machismo ever arose in the first place. I mean, you can’t have an infinite chain of men all learning inauthentic macho behaviour off each other, can you?

  12. DeadMessenger
    November 21st, 2015 @ 5:15 am

    Damn right. “Masculinity” and “fragility” are mutually exclusive terms.

    But Ms. Gibson is correct about one thing; girls don’t want boys. They want men.

    My husband stands between me and other men and essentially says “She belongs to me. Try me, b1tch”, then he pulls out a lethal weapon. Does this mean I’m his property? Yes. Do I want it this way? Damn skippy, I do. This is the natural order.

    If Ms. Gibson would like another woman or a pajama boy to stand between her and danger, then more’s the pity for her.

    I pity feminists. They are f**ked up in the head. I hope their parents are proud of what they have spawned.

  13. DeadMessenger
    November 21st, 2015 @ 5:19 am

    No. Ms. Gibson is a retard, no offense to actually retarded people, who are wiser than Sarah Gibson.

    Sarah Gibson is what happens when idiot kids erroneously think they know sh1t, but in reality don’t know doodly.

    I’d like to think that life experience will bring her wisdom, but I seriously doubt it.

  14. The original Mr. X
    November 21st, 2015 @ 5:51 am

    no offense to actually retarded people, who are wiser than Sarah Gibson” — Plus, unlike most leftists, they didn’t choose to be retarded.

  15. NeoWayland
    November 21st, 2015 @ 6:32 am

    Now now.

    It’s just the “lamentations of the women.”

  16. NeoWayland
    November 21st, 2015 @ 6:38 am

    First, not all feminists. But you expected me to say that.

    Second, there comes a point when a girl graduates from Ken dolls and becomes a woman.

    A man’s body may be wired to respond to the feminine, but eventually The Pillow Talk Problem™ hits. That requires adults to solve. Without that solution, sex is a pretty lonely thing no matter how many are involved.

  17. Jeanette Victoria
    November 21st, 2015 @ 8:40 am

    All the women I know who dated “sensitive men” are now old, obese, alone and miserable. I on the on the hand never wanted a guy who told me his feelings. I am old, but I’m not nearly as fat and I’m most definitely not alone and I’m very happy.

  18. Jeanette Victoria
    November 21st, 2015 @ 8:40 am

    All the women I know who dated “sensitive men” are now old, obese, alone and miserable. I on the on the hand never wanted a guy who told me his feelings. I am old, but I’m not nearly as fat and I’m most definitely not alone and I’m very happy.

  19. Jeanette Victoria
    November 21st, 2015 @ 8:41 am

    Where is her father?

  20. Jeanette Victoria
    November 21st, 2015 @ 8:41 am

    Where is her father?

  21. RS
    November 21st, 2015 @ 9:03 am

    Dovetailing with War Eagle’s comment above, Ms. Gibson sets up a straw man by defining masculine or male behavior as set of behaviors denominated with the epithet “machismo.” Yet it is unclear precisely what that set of behaviors encompasses. As War Eagle points out, masculinity is more than owning a firearm or having a good jump shot. Masculinity is practicing those behaviors which C.S. Lewis described as the “Cardinal Virtues:” Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude and Justice. (N.B. no modifier to “justice.”) Ms. Gibson, however, posits a vision of masculinity which a caricature, just as Andrew Dice Clay was/is a caricature.

    Even if we accept her unsupported assertion that the action hero or football stars are examples of “problematic” masculinity, what do those archetypes actually stand for? I would suggest, the action hero is one who places himself in danger to protect the weak and defenseless. The star athlete learns to persevere in the face of both victory and defeat and demonstrates loyalty to his comrades for the good of the group. These are bad things? I would suggest that if Ms. Gibson were to have the maturity to actually think about these things, she might discover that the sorts of traits and behaviors she lampoons are, in fact, the ones she would want in a mate and a father to her children.

  22. Adobe_Walls
    November 21st, 2015 @ 9:27 am

    Well if there’s nothing else in there, it’s a lot of space to fill.

  23. Jeanette Victoria
    November 21st, 2015 @ 9:37 am

    I’m a Christian But I’m Totally Not

  24. kilo6
    November 21st, 2015 @ 9:48 am

    Some of it is social engineering rather than lax parenting, most folks don’t know it’s even happening while they’re watching the Tee Vee. Revolutionary ideologies embedded in movies and shows are subtle.
    Heck, even The Count from Sesame Street was more masculine than the vampires from the Twilight movies:

  25. Adobe_Walls
    November 21st, 2015 @ 9:54 am

    Her life experiences will only bring her disappointment and pain. As all her premises are gradually destroyed she’ll have nothing to replace them with.
    Her comparisons of the posters on teenager’s walls is quite revealing. The football player on a teenage boys wall is real, the Legolas or Jack Sparrow on a teenage girls wall are characters played by Orlando Bloom and Johnny Depp. The character played by Orlando Bloom in Pirates is fairly macho and represents some fairly conventional male/macho traits. The character William Turner is much more real than Legolas but she’ll never figure that out.

  26. Patrick Albanese
    November 21st, 2015 @ 1:17 pm

    As your average guy, neither overly macho, but not girly like the boys teenage girls like, I have never had trouble finding women to date.

    So, if what women truly desire is an effeminate man, someone better tell all the women that like more macho types.

    If being girly really helped men get sex, then they’d do it. Do you think any straight man really wanted to Disco dance? They only did it to get women.

    So I blame women. They gravitate toward normal, masculine men. The kind of men that won’t go near a woman/child like Gibson.

    You can’t change human nature. Try to do it, and subject yourself to a life with cats.

  27. CSL595959
    November 21st, 2015 @ 3:04 pm

    Immaturity and hormone altering birth control pills are the reasons a girl or woman would describe Jack Sparrow and Legolas as masculine or hot. They are fem. They are what was once referred to as “pretty boys.” Now, for the record, I am not necessarily anti-birth control–at least within marriage. (Although as a Christian I was very upset to find out there are pills that cause fertilized eggs to implant and ones that cause you not to ovulate, and I don’t know which I had. That information was kept from me by Feminists and the culture) But, after I had my second child, I decided not to go back in birth control and holy moly my body changed like crazy in a good way. Suddenly I didn’t want my husband to shave (traditional masculine thugs were dude key very very sexy in a way they had never been when I was on the pill) and my libido increased. That’s not to say there aren’t other factors that could be involved; I am older and having children also changes your body chemistry, but I would not go back on the pill if you paid me to. And Feminists absolutely do not want to acknowledge that there are *any* negative side effects to birth control, because they are all about the unnatural idea that humans are entitled to sex without its natural consequence.

  28. CSL595959
    November 21st, 2015 @ 3:05 pm

    *cause fertilized eggs *not* to implant–which is basically abortion

  29. CSL595959
    November 21st, 2015 @ 3:06 pm

    Wow autocorrect messed this post up: suddenly masculine things (not thugs) were very sexy

  30. Daniel Freeman
    November 21st, 2015 @ 4:52 pm

    Typical kafkatrapping.

  31. Daniel Freeman
    November 21st, 2015 @ 5:14 pm

    Several studies have strongly indicated that birth control pills make women prefer less masculine men (the middle two links are different representations of the same study). So, it’s not just you.

  32. Daniel O'Brien
    November 21st, 2015 @ 8:42 pm

    He could get a real PhD in womyn’s studies.

  33. Rose Calton
    November 22nd, 2015 @ 4:28 am

    .?my neighbor’s mom is making $98 HOURLY on the internet?….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
    ??? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportDaily/GetPaid/$97hourly… ?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?

  34. News of the Week (November 22nd, 2015) | The Political Hat
    November 22nd, 2015 @ 4:55 pm

    […] On “Fragile Masculinity” Sarah Taylor Gibson is a young Christian college student who also calls herself a feminist, evidently having failed to understand what feminism actually requires. […]

  35. Ilion
    November 23rd, 2015 @ 12:48 am

    The phrase “fragile masculinity” has as much relationship to reality as does “strong, independent woman”.

    When a “strong, independent woman” accuses some man of having “fragile masculinity”, what she *means* is: “Waaa! He’s ignoring my commands!

  36. Quartermaster
    November 23rd, 2015 @ 7:47 am

    I doubt he wants that on his wall. The name is beyond redemption.

  37. Hillary: ‘All Sexual Abuse Accusers Deserve To Be Believed’; Bill Victim Agrees | Regular Right Guy
    November 23rd, 2015 @ 1:18 pm

    […] On ‘Fragile Masculinity’ […]

  38. Quartermaster
    November 23rd, 2015 @ 4:22 pm

    Unless you run into one of your old college buddies and they say, “remember when you said….” The retrieval system just isn’t as efficient or wide ranging.

  39. Quartermaster
    November 23rd, 2015 @ 4:23 pm

    I’m sure the effects will start showing when he’s about 65. then the poor saint he’s married to will have to care for him.

  40. feeriker
    November 24th, 2015 @ 12:02 am

    What is the name of the “Christian” college that this repulsive little creature attends? This inquiring mind wants to know, for the simple purpose of preventing any of his offspring from ever going anywhere near such a cesspool of fraudulent, heretical immorality.

  41. feeriker
    November 24th, 2015 @ 12:07 am

    If she’s spewing this sort of nonsense, it’s highly likely she never had one in her life.

  42. Critical Eye
    November 25th, 2015 @ 10:29 am

    The Pickup Community has an aphorism: You don’t ask a fish how to catch it; you ask a fisherman. See also “revealed preferences”; watch what women do, not what they say.

  43. ndmike12
    November 25th, 2015 @ 9:36 pm

    That’s true, of course, but the efficiency and the wide range are the difference between harmless ribbing from your friends and serious damage to your career.