"I'm a peacock, you gotta let me fly" - Maverick Journal 2023

[Johannesbrst]

Day 179,

Another big thought I've been sitting on for a while.
Once you've striped away all of the layers of sophistication and rationalization, every major ideological group - including feminists - believe that men are inherently superior to women. This is not an argument about material fact, but an explanation about the world acts so strangely, so do hear me out.

They idealize us and see us as Superman.

• On the physical plane, they see man's strong back. Men toil in the sun and build the major infrastructure.
  
• On the psychic plane, they see man's ambition and indominable spirit.
  
• On the intellectual plane, they see inventions and the rapid development of technology.
  
• On the financial plane, they see men heading companies. They see men's leadership and direction.
  
• On the romantic plane, they see men in fearless pursuit. No doubt. No shame.
  
• On the dominance plane, they see guts and sinew. They see callous warriors and ruthlessness.
  

Accordingly, they see the archetype of Man™ as a Titan; a bulletproof demi-god who can weather any storm.
Obviously, we are not Superman; of course, the title is nice, but then they fire live bullets at us and expect us to stay standing.

I remember when I was 19 and in a class project with only women; they elected a team leader, then every one of them, including the team leader, was turning to me for important leadership questions, then shunned me for not giving complete answers. I was so confused at the time.
My tomboy-ish cousin, who came out as bisexual about 4 years ago and now only dates women, complained that the other woman would turn things over to her to pursue; my cousin felt like she had to do all the work in initiating and planning, which she did.
To her advantage, she was given all the work, and still did not have to face the social mechanism which would shame her if she pushed things too far.

This framework also does such a good job at explaining comically-glaring double standards.

• When a grown man and a grown woman get drunk, and have sex, many people - even feminists (FEMINISTS!) - will believe that the man took advantage of her. This is because he is always the mastermind; how could he not be?
  
• (This opinion is less popular nowadays, but) feminists also used to argue that a woman who has taken as much as a sip of alcohol is too compromised to make sexual decisions. The man can drink a lot and still be seen as more culpable. Consider how infantilizing this is, as algebra can tell us what is left over if you start with (a woman too dumb to make decisions) and take away (the sip of alcohol that took her there).
  
• Basically every major calamity is seen as "affecting women more"; war, climate issues, guns, cancer. Because the implicit assumption is that men can weather these things.
  
• If a man loses big in family court, the world accepts it because we hold the opinion that the man ought to be enough of a rainmaker to make back the money, and then some.
  
• If a woman is required to make alimony payment because of her greater income, she drops all egalitarian pretense and resents it because "she's the woman" and "he's the man, damn it."
  
• The major "equalist" movements to 'destigmatize' mental health and sex, and to contribute therapy, a soft life, and body positivity are for women only. Men are openly called small-dicked balding losers who live in their mothers' basement if they disagree with a woman about the wrong topic.* A man is blamed for the degradation of a relationship; she whole "he cheats and he's an asshole, she cheats because he must have driven her away" talking point, applied to a variety of areas; decision-making, finances, child-rearing.
  

The world expects Superman and deducts points.

Society actually believes that we can withhold guidance, encouragement, and interest in young men for a 20 year period and still have them turn out bulletproof, mentally resilient, and tough as nails. That we can talk down and disband their spaces, to run negative PR, to push their shame and guilt buttons, and not expect them to have psychological and social deficiencies.

They actually expect a plant that grows on its own, without sun or soil or water. Because we are already supposed to know what to do and to just figure it out, right?

I'm not sure if the somewhat reductionist statement "men are inherently superior to women" is the correct way to examplify how the hero archetype is materialized in our society. 

Sure, men are expected to find their inner strength and have a drive that comes from within resulting in a clear direction, but is that really equal to being "superior"? That's only true if one views that the qualities of a human solely consist of those that the hero archetype holds.

Men are by nature and by societal expectations more prone to identify with the hero archetype, which result in leadership and creation often being done by us. However as most of us know, we long for resting and coming together in the stillness of a female energy. We long for it so much we sometimes put women on piedestals . Aren't we men prone to see women as superior in those cases as well (as much a fallacy and over-reductionist thinking as the other way around of course).

The issue of seeing things a superior or not, is coming from a binary way of thinking, short-cutting the duality of life, the need for the two poles to co-exist and their both inherent qualities along with the other nuances and contradictions that exist beside the two obvious polarities.