Shooting an unarmed mother of three isn’t any form of masculinity
Cowardice is not toxic masculinity, it’s just cowardice. Invading Greenland because a billionaire told you to is cowardice. The stabbing of an unarmed girl in Adolescence because she made fun of you online is cowardice.
Germany taking on the world in WWII might be toxic masculinity, but quitting NATO because you feel threatened by Putin is just cowardice.
Some say Renee Gold was not scared of ICE and this emasculated the murderer and therefore it’s toxic masculinity. No you are a Montague and get into a sword fight with a Capulet — that’s toxic masculinity. If instead you are Romeo and stab Juliet for not being afraid of you that’s just insanity and cowardice.
Romeo is still trying to be attractive to women where much of the supposedly toxic masculine right has given up on sex appeal altogether.
Says Stephen Miller’s cousin of Miller after Renee Gold was murdered:
I can only surmise it was a perfect storm of ego, fear, hate, and ambition-all of it mangled into something cruel and hollow, masquerading as strength. You were born into privilege, into safety, and wealth. And somehow, you’ve weaponized all of it.
The distinction between “masquerading as strength” and taking masculinity too far is important because the cowards are trying to hide behind biology using a forest of lies:
- Vehicle is a weapon is an old law enforcement false justification for indiscriminate shooting
- Contrary to patriarchal myth hunter gather women hunted — a finding seen even in chimps
- Birthing and raising a human child is too prohibitively expensive for this kind of violence to be biological
Humans seem to have invented childhood, adolescence, certainly grandmotherhood, and sometimes grandparenthood for relatively long periods — up to 30 percent of the total lifespan is comprised of the post-reproductive survival phase.
This is by no means an isolated incident of ICE cowardice. ICE’s entire mission is based on cowardice:
For the first time in recorded history, immigration accounts for the entire growth of the U.S. population year over year.
and
Twenty-six percent of all children in the United States live with at least one immigrant parent — double the 13 percent share recorded in 1990. Of these 17.9 million children in immigrant families, 86 percent were U.S. born.
What causes an administration trying to have the “fertilization president” to reject our current only hope of population growth? — fear and cowardice.
Google “Reagan on immigration” and you get:
Ronald Reagan viewed immigration as central to America’s strength, emphasizing its role in national renewal, while also signing landmark legislation, the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which granted amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants but also increased border enforcement and employer sanctions to deter future illegal immigration. He believed America’s tradition of welcoming newcomers brought energy, new ideas, and economic vitality, seeing immigrants as vital to the “American Dream” and global leadership, yet sought an orderly system to manage flows and prevent dependence, balancing openness with control.
Reagan also had a pretty good old fashioned definition of toxic masculinity:
Some men feel their masculinity can only be proven if they play out in their own life all the locker-room stories, smugly confident that what a wife doesn’t know won’t hurt her.
The toxic masculinity that Reagan advises his son against is, for certain, rooted in biology. What murder suspect Jonathan Ross did is rooted in toxic culture, but wasn’t masculine or biological at all.
Along the same lines how masculine is a dating profile that’s looking for:
an unvaccinated Christian white woman willing to quit her job and commit to homeschooling children
That profile again sounds like cowardice and fear — of vaccinations, of woke women, of women with better careers, and an overall attempt to reject women before they can reject you.
This is a pattern in much of what is modernly being described as masculine — tremendous fear and insecurity of what other’s think of you. This leads to a bizarre combination of claiming rugged individualism while at the same time fully embracing authoritarianism.
Learn to be strong by submitting to a group like an evangelical church or ICE. Learn to be independent by having all of your decisions made by a leader you don’t question. When historically did we begin in anyway associating such a cowardly mindset with masculinity?
Historical roots of cowardice as masculine
Harry Potter is the quintessential toxic masculine male that’s still attractive to women. He is legitimately ruggedly individual, but also has some traditionally toxic masculine flaws.
Harry is quick to anger and sometimes accidentally uses magic angrily and endangers the lives of his extended family. He doesn’t disagree with Hermione saying that she could never be as brave as him. He won’t date Ginny without her brother Ron’s approval. He only has real relationships with male teachers. He regularly takes risks that defy common sense and force Hermione to mother him (emotional labor). He isn’t as good a student as Hermione or able to shield his mind like Snape, but gets by on the privilege of a mother that broke a curse, a family that provides immense wealth and support, and genes that make him instantly good at Quidditch.
So when did we go from Harry to oxymoronically describing a man not attractive to women as masculine? Masculine by definition means “having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with men or boys” — how could the traditional qualities of men or boys be antithetical to attracting a mate?
One possibility is the myth that women traditionally had no say in who they married. In that mythical world winning a wife would be more about appealing to a father or brother.
However in the real world of “Normal Women” by Phillipa Gregory:
Gregory argues that because ordinary women did not have massive estates, political alliances, or dowries at stake, their marriages were often based on personal choice, mutual labor needs, or affection rather than familial strategy.
Also included in Gregory’s book is the story of how women hunted the forests to provide for their families, equally ran many of the businesses, and even solely started and ran many businesses.
The version of toxic masculinity based on cowardice historically comes from very wealthy men, like Henry VIII, who murdered wives because he was afraid of a woman leading England. (Ironically England ended up doing great with one of his daughters as queen.)
But at what point did common people start associating enough with the very wealthy to adopt their bizarre form of masculinity? It’s not like any traditional farmer could have ever advocated for murdering mothers, such a society would immediately crumble. Even one tribe murdering another tribe’s mothers is just too wasteful.
Yes if you are Alexander “The Great” you could afford to kill 10,000 inhabitants of Tyre, but even he sold another 30,000 into slavery. Only with 8.3 billion people on the planet can such a callous disregard for reproduction be even partially accepted by ordinary people.
Another words cowardice as masculine for the masses has to be a modern trend, because any traditional society that accepted it for any extended period would cease to exist. Even now, with such enormous numbers, accepting cowardice as masculine will eventually destroy America.