On Half Men: A Rant Againt Feminism and the Neglect of Virility

Men were once heads of their households (kyrios). We understood and valued honour, and we once strived for andreia and virilitas. We knew what was expected of us as men, and it conformed well with our nature as men (please read this link).

But just like in Eden, things changed. Like Adam, men were not up to the burden of being kyrios; and so the order of our houses and the polis fell to the feminist movements (yes, even the first-wave feminism). And now, slowly, as feminism mutated more perversely with each decade, it has even attacked the very distinction between men and women. It is clear that this assault is motored today by a gnostic, modern liberalism, but this motor is ultimately a consequence of our failure to act as men (for an interesting theological standpoint, see this).

What happened to us? When did we lose our balls? Why did we allow ourselves to be cuckolded by modern liberalism? I mean, shit, we’re in bad shape, guys. To be fair, not everyone is Bruce Jenner, but too many of us are living as half men, distortions or perversions of a truer masculine form. Let me point to some examples.

Take a look at the philosopher Brian LeiterHe’s a snarky, insulting and arrogant critic of Rightly Considered, so I’m going to be a more pointed than usualWhen I first saw a picture of him, I just thought that he looked like a fatter and less handsome James Spader. But then I saw this video of him. He was notably fatter than what I had thought, which isn’t itself indicative of a vice (gluttony aside), but it’s his presentation that concerns me. His hair is disheveled. He’s passively sitting in a chair, almost slouching while speaking in a milquetoasty manner with a soft tone. He also has this weird and smug smile throughout the whole video. This is not a manly and respectable presence – there’s no virility there. He presents himself as a soft whimper of a man – a fatty goob like Pearl from the film Blade.

Please don’t misunderstand me: I’m not simply picking on his weight or style of clothing. This is about presence and manner. This is about how men present themselves and act, and how they carry themselves. Perhaps a comparison will help make my point.

A good example of virility can be seen quite clearly with Russel Crow’s character in Gladiator.  Here we have a character who stands tall and speaks assertively, one who walks with conviction. He has an active and assertive presence. But yet he admits himself to be a loyal servant. He’s a devoted father and husband, one who also displays courage, prudence, temperance, and mastery of his emotions. We don’t respect such men as men because we’re nice (civility and affability are confused with respect), but because they command it. A bad example of virility would be his nemesis within the film, Commodus. Commodus is politically powerful, but he lacks temperance, honour, humility, and he is controlled by his passions. In these ways, he’s effeminate and unmanly. Commodus’ problem is that he tries to be virile, but he gets it wrong. Leiter’s problem is that he doesn’t even try at all.

Let’s move on. Consider Justin Trudeau, my Prime Minister. He’s not a fat, nearly slouching glob of goo, nor a sloth-looking man of any sort (sorry, Brian). In fact, he’s really skinny – it’s as if he is pre-pubescent, in fact. Hence, it wouldn’t kill him to pick up a weight every now and then, but that’s not his main problem. Instead, his main problem is that he’s effeminate.

Trudeau prances around meetings with the world’s leaders while wearing the gayest socks ever; he is a drama teacher; he tells everyone he’s a feminist as a point of celebration; he marches in gay parades; and he repeatedly cries during public apologies to sodomites and aboriginals for stuff that happened decades ago. This is not virility – this is not a man who commands respect. He evokes pity and ridicule. With his manner and presence, along with the fact that he’s built like an 11-year-old vegan, it’s amazing that Russia hasn’t invaded us. He should be leading Las Vegas’ showgirls, not a country.

Trudrea is the result of the over-feminization of men – it’s what happens when men are conditioned to castrate themselves to appease progressive politics and ideas. If this man still has his balls, I’d be amazed if he isn’t embarrassed by the sight of them.

And again, this is not about his size and physical power. He doesn’t need to be a big man, but he needs to act as a man. That’s all I’m saying here. So if you’re a skinny dude who is triggered by what I said, please relax. It’s not about your stature. There’s more to virility than that – it’s about presence and manner. It’s about how you carry yourself in the world.

Okay, so let’s move on. I’ll consider one last example: the gamer guy. This is a guy who isn’t necessarily a fat goob or a beta male who tucks balls into his stomach. Instead, he is a guy who spends his time surfing the net and playing video games, refreshing reddit over and over again.

The world passes by this man. His time is wasted and his potential spoils. He makes no claim to the world; and thus, he has no virility because he has no presence and ambition. There’s no real engagement, struggle, conquest and domination. Thus, there can be no development in the virtue of fortitude or temperance, nor even in boldness. There is thus no opportunity to be a man of arete. And despite being 50% of the population, women are foreign to him. He likely masturbates excessively, and promises himself each year that the next will be different. It’s not, of course, but he still tells himself that, because he sees the waste.

In a roundabout way, gamer guy is being effeminate because he is soft and yields under pressure. That is to say, rather than suffer the discomfort of participating in the world, it’s easier to surrender and let life pass. It’s a shame, really.

So men, what do we do? Well, if you’re like Brian Leiter, sit up straight and have presence. Tame your hair. Speak confidently and clearly. Lose weight. Get fitter. But again, let me be clear on something: This isn’t about vainity. Vainity is a sin. Instead, I say this because you’re an embodied person, and so who you are is partially reflected in how your care for your body and how you present yourself.

If you’re like Trudeau, find your balls. Hang out in male social clubs. Join the military. Tell your wife that you’re the kyrios and mean it. Don’t speak in wishy-washy terms, nor even softly. Lift some weights. Stop calling yourself a feminist. Learn a trade. Quit crying during apologies – men can be emotional, of course, but we are expected to control our emotions. Part of virility is the mastery of ourselves; thus, sensitive and temperamental men are effeminate (oddly, that makes the Incredible Hulk effeminate, in a sense).

If you’re gamer guy, turn off the computer. Look people in the eye. Develop a firm handshake. Volunteer. Take a night course. Learn a language. Learn a craft. Socialize. Learn to hunt or fish. Force yourself to talk to women – but don’t be creepy about it. Work out. Get into a fistfight. Get a dog. Father a child and be a father (they’re different things). You won’t be Maximus in a day, but you’re on the path.

Those are my suggestions. They’re not exhaustive, but they’re a start.

But let me add something to one of my earlier points. I want to say that male social gatherings and final clubs are important, especially for boys and young men, because there males learn how to be men through modelling and conditioning, and it also provides fraternity and engagement with their peers. We thus need to be engaged in these sorts of social activists.

As you might expect, these fraternities are attacked by some feminists and progressivists for being exclusionary and even arbitrary. The undergirding idea here is that sex differences offer no good grounds for exclusive association: They thus treat our sex differences as if they were analogous to the colouring of our hair. Of course this flies in the face of commonsense and science, but feminism is not known to be aligned with either. Sadly though, their efforts are still sometimes successful, an example being the once prestigious organization Boy Scouts (regretfully now known as Scouts).

Other times feminists attack fraternities on the basis of maintaining hegemonic masculinity – they’re half right. What they’re tapping into is that these fraternities build virility, which translates into power and control, not just over ourselves, but the oikos and the polis. That’s a threat to them precisely because our headship, which just is the natural order and maleness properly expressed, endangers their own political endeavours toward progressive egalitarianism. Hence, for many feminists, men can’t be trusted to congregate together, for if we were alone, unmolested and unregulated by the panopticons of progressivism, we’d inevitability tap into our propensity for leadership, and develop virility and arete. In this way, feminism and progressivism is not just a war against men, but a rebellion against nature itself. For them, the political precedes the metaphysical; and once men also accept that, we are bound to produce half men. And we already are.

So my last and final suggestion is that we resist: I suggest that we do not give up our fraternities and that, moreover, we take time to be with other men. This is especially important if you have a son, or if you’re an uncle or a grandfather, because these gatherings are formative and integral in formation of boys to men.

TLDR version: feminism sucks.



  1. Hulk’s posts read like the product of a mind steeped lightly in the bible, the major classical works, and just about nothing else of any worth. In other words, he writes like a kid fresh out of a Catholic high school. Gee wiz.

    • Your stereotype betrays you, FW. A kid fresh out of a Catholic high school won’t know squat about the Bible or classical works. They’re steeped in the same worthless bullshit found in the public school you probably graduated from.

    • Without looking it up to confirm, I thought the panopticon idea originated with Bentham? Or some time well before the guy to whom Hulk couldn’t resists referring as a sodomite. Why not mention that he died from a disease aquired via sodomy while he’s at it. Sodomy sodomy sodomy.

    • Now that I looked it up I do see that it originated with Bentham but the concept was also invoked by Foucault (a fact of which I was vaguely aware, yes). But it’s not “from Foucault” in terms of origination. Anyway, I think Hulk’s main objective is to trigger PC-whipped fools and other leftists currently slumbering dogmatically.

  2. This is really good stuff! Do you think you guys could do a similar post but on femininity, i,e. how to be a real woman? As a man, I would love to hear what you guys think about this. I have the sneaking suspicion that the denigration of masculinity in our culture today has not led to a proper understanding of femininity.

  3. Somehow the name “Donald J. Trump” enters my mind in connection with this subject – maybe something about how he has an image of a sort of masculinity, maybe an aspect of him that appeals along those lines, even though other aspects of him thoroughly turn off a great many folks. There’s probably a lesson here that Hulk can expound on, having something to do with qualities to emulate in the Donald if masculinity is an aim, and qualities to eschew for the same reasons (as in how to properly identify faux-masculine traits, say). Where’s Aristotle to explain all this in popularized verbal-river-of-gold terms when we need him.

    • It also merits noting in this context that the term “virtue”, prefix “vir-“, has varying connotations historically; my understanding is that it is associated with manly qualities in the ancient Greeks. [PC-whipped obligatory mention that there was neglect in that culture of the potential arete of women.]

  4. Also, while Leiter is richly deserving of ridicule given what he dishes out, it is my sincere hope that, for the greater good of all concerned, he (and many others for that matter) manages to become more the ‘higher man’ (the magnanimous man? the noble soul?) envisioned by his favorite philosopher. (Can Aristotelianism and Nietzschean themes achieve a “higher” synthesis of some kind? Considering that one Ayn Rand is simply too taboo for the rest of time, we’re going to have to come up with an alternative, better, more perfect ideal of virtue than the one she proposed. Right?)

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)