>>41035880
Ah then I agree.
What I noticed is that everyone overhype the "active" aspect of humans, of which masculinity is the prime example. If you are passive (or feminine) then you are doing it performatively, or you are supressing something. In other words, you are not living life in its full potential if you are a feminine male.
Personally, I agree with prof. Kagan.
https://youtu.be/AGXYeV2v5fU
Being alive is about experiencing stuff. A masculine man acts just as a computer is programmed to act. If he suppressed his emotions, forced himself to conform to a standard, then he less of a human being (and because of that, less of a man, and because of that less of an active agent) than any of the feminine people around him.
The truth is that what is emotional is perceived as unreliable because (supposedly) irrational, and everyone want reliable bugmen useful for their purposes.
Last but not least, being the active being makes you in control of your actions (and of your being in the broad sense). Which, again, is not really what bugmen do, since they are very much predictable. But at least they cope by claiming to have the aforementioned control.
>>41035953
Nah, your genetics does eventually determine how much effort you need to put into learning something. The majority of people just stop bothering and go with the flow (a man will "naturally" gravitate towards porn, a woman will "naturally" gravitate toward smut).
>>41035890
>women's normal position in society is a consequence of nature
Women's "normal" position is society is caused by the violence of men, anon.
If men would transcend this violent nature and become civilized, then women would be free to stop being the punching bags of men, and, at last, be able to self-express (hopefully, on par with their male counterparts).
The goal of civilization is to achieve the light of reason that is beyond the chaos of natural instincts.
