Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Piotr Pachota's avatar

I think this is somewhat a semantics issue. Maybe we can break it down this way:

- Authentic womanhood -> womanliness (periods and stuff, as described above)

- Performative womanhood -> femininity

- Authentic manhood -> manliness

- Performative manhood -> gentlemanliness

Femininity and gentlemanliness are both performative, fake, tamed, less disgusting and somewhat submissive facets of man/womanhood created to cater the needs of the other sex in the courtship process.

If we had true gender equality, men would have similar issues with gentlemanliness as you have with femininity. However, it is not the case - femininity seems pervasive as you noted, while one can wonder if gentlemanliness is even a thing anymore.

"Femininity" seems like a default required state for women, while "manliness" is still a default required state for men.

I think this is yet another problem with enforcing feminism and gender equality while keeping hypergamy. With hypergamy, the male partner's ability to provide is usually more important than whether he is a gentleman (however, women consider men who both provide and are gentlemen a 'catch' or 'full package'). But for men, woman's ability to 'provide' in the financial sense is worthless (or even worth negative), so femininity becomes the only valuable thing women can offer men. In traditional sense, woman's 'ability to provide' was her readiness to bear and care for children, but in a culture of deliberately childless women you described in your previous post and are a part of yourself, women have even less to offer men but their femininity.

We also need to look at the social class. It seems to me that femininity is a must for upper and middle class women, but not necessarily for lower class. Poor women can afford to be non-feminine, as a poor man that doesn't have much to provide himself will happily settle for one to avoid loneliness and inceldom. Middle and upper class men would never do that. This is why poor women who adopt femininity have a shot at hypergamous relationships with middle/upper class men (as nicely described by Stella here: https://humancarbohydrate.substack.com/p/my-greek-town-doesnt-need-more-tradwives ).

Conversely, it seems that performative manhood - gentlemanliness - is now optional in middle and maybe even in upper classes. Man's status and ability to provide is more important, and gentlemanliness is just nice-to-have. And, as Rob Henderson described in his popular essay ( https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/no-one-expects-young-men-to-do-anything ), lower class women don't even require their men to provide, which leads to disastrous consequences.

Expand full comment
Sai Ψ's avatar

I also wondered how time and culture specific these observations are. As you know, I am from India and in my experience performative femininity is a niche that only some women leaned into. It is considered kinda trashy and desperate by the actually womanly women because it is still just as effective at getting the attention of men in the short term. You are right in that “feminine” behaviors of grooming and fawning are almost universally hypnotizing to men, but there seemed to be an overall cultural consensus back home that the women who hypothesize and the men who fall for it and enjoy being hypnotized are both missing the mark and acting kind of disgusting. Actually, in that cultural context, the women I know really do get so much more womanly(although they would call it becoming more feminine) when they are around each other instead of around men.

I am not entirely sure why the common understanding about these things doesn’t exist in the western world anymore. I have been wondering if the lack of any real divine female archetypes in the western Mythos has something to do with it. Traditional womanliness, as opposed to femininity, is also respected and even feared more than it is loved romantically, and perhaps that’s just too boring for the modern fast paced world?

As an aside, I wonder how much of the disgust women have for masculinity comes from endocrine dysfunction- or intentional disregulation in this case. I know I am like a broken record on this but for about 4 generations now quite a significant portion of western women have been on hormonal birth control for most of their fertile years. It is already well known that it alters women’s attraction to men in very significant ways that would fit this pattern. Of course, I am biased here, as someone who is very much attracted to extremely masculine men, but the data does speak for itself- since the use of hormonal birth control became so common, men have become biochemically less and less masculine. There is correlation, and a clear mechanism of causation. I don’t think I am letting my judgement get clouded by my preferences and attraction.

Expand full comment
189 more comments...

No posts