Acting straight

gender footprint on social and physical ecosystem

World as a masculine word

Feminism is often seen (by whom, really?) as the luxury of the post-modern world. Too much free time perhaps. Too much free thinking? There are more important things to do, more serious problems to resolve in this world. This perspective parallels with what generations of the queer men fighting for their legal liberation and equal rights have experienced – the bewildered wall of rational men’s faces (or rather their backsides) having more important matters on their desk. Involving gender studies (or "gender ideology" for some) in the "serious debate" evokes humiliating sneers from the technocratic supremacists. Talking about sex, gender or particularly masculinity in politics and economics is still seen as somewhat inappropriate, artsy.

Switching the news channels, one learns about the environment destruction, caused by the competitive economies hungry in resources – producing weapons, cars, electronics – and other "must have" toys to amuse the bored boys. The economic crisis that broke the whole countries, expelled families from their homes – caused by the irresponsible speculations – corresponding with images of overexcited men on the stock exchange (what a wonderful game, the economy as the toy, millions of dollars power in their egomaniac hands). A war here and there – men invading each-other’s territory, raping women, killing children, appropriating wealth. Terrorists convinced that their ideology is the right and everyone else is wrong – blow themselves up with civilians. Peaceful countries labeling the sinners (women revolting against masculine dominance, gay men following their natural attraction) and executing them as examples to the others. Tribal honor killings? Mafia brutality? Destructive nationalism as redressing of the stadium costume-play? What does toxic masculinity have to do with anything in this world?

There is lot of male scientists – who analyze those situations with emotional detachment, through their logical-technical perspective, performing rationalist analysis of the parameters – focusing on the details unable to see the (metaphorical!) parallels, the recurring patterns, unable to see the whole. As if the peculiar male wiring prevented the science to take its course. Don’t take me wrong, I honor science as the precious methodology counterbalancing obscurantism, but where the latter lies really? Masculine egos compete – even in presenting the most revelational study, beating their colleagues, acquiring honorary titles. They disassemble situations and dramas as the clockwork, indulge in devising technical terminology, come up with formulas – missing out on the "soul" or human dimension of it all.

If masculinity and its pillars (competition, possession, hierarchy, territory, victory, strength, survival of the fittest) are taken for axioms, and the research rambles around them, no analysis can result in naming them as the possible root causes. I – the way I think, the way I was raised, the way I look at the world, the way I was taught to painfully self-adjust, the things I enjoy – cannot be the problem! It’s just the "evil in the world", "how the humans are" - retreating into the mystified realm of phrases. Be it higher power, destiny or coincidence. It comes out of the blue. But I can give you a precise technical analysis how "the Evil" operates, with what tools and parameters. How the bombs tear the flesh, with what speed, what probability of survival, what count of casualties, what frequency of recurrence.

Essentialist perspective, male-female archetypes, can help uncovering the sources of this world’s dramas and traumas. So far the history was written by men – and as a character in a movie notes: "What is history? History is commentary on male incompetence. Women following with a bucket." History was rationally analyzed (male mind), the material wins (trophies) and human losses (attrition) calculated in numbers (technical perspective). Even today, the history channels’ and magazines’ target audience seem to be men – and so it takes a form of a rather unemotional list of battles, strategies, tactics, masterminds, great action, suicide missions, super-heroes, leaders, victories and defeats, border changes, the fascination with autocratic power, technical parameters of the weapons and vehicles and gear.

Nowadays, it has become fashionable to seek vindications why we are as we are in prehistory, in our biological genes (nature) or social memes (culture). Paleolitic man had to survive, he had to hunt for food, protect his family from the imminent menace of elements, beasts and other uncivilized proto-humans. Therefore it was expected that he will be capable of controlling his emotions, not whining, self-suppress, be obstinate, endure. (suppressed emotions.) His life, offsprings and mate were constantly challenged by the competitors. (low empathy) Sufficient resources had to be guarded within the reachable territory. (tribal identity, nationalism) Skills and abilities to use tools like a flint, later a spear or sword – improved his survival prospects. (focus on technique and technology, tools and toys) Success in hunt and protection from danger increased through group cooperation. (wolfpacks, gangs, teams) The individual failure could threaten the common endeavor or the whole group. (peer pressure to comply with the group’s rules, prove the masculine traits) Those more apt were more likely to ensure the success for the whole company. (hierarchy) Riskier specializing evoked a notion of merit and claim for special gender privileges (sexism).

Evil has a gender

If we lay aside natural causes (age, disasters, accidents, predators, venomous creatures), how did people die in the course of history? They killed each other. Why? Because that other thing stood in their way, they wanted something from it, it wanted something from them, it had different opinion and did not let itself be convinced otherwise, it insulted their pride by compromising their social standing. It was not behaving as they wanted it. The it is an intentionally chosen pronoun. It makes the killing easier, right?

The war is a battle and that is just a competition. Competition is a fundamental trait of machismo, toxic masculinity, or maleness as such – both in nature and culture perspective. It is supported and cultivated from the early age – through games, sports, political and economical set-up – until it is difficult to tell if it is immanent. Nations (different by costumes and customs) are tribal identities, kind of bloated families. States are just territories, resource pools, with borders as the "civilized" pheromone markings. Fatherlands and motherlands are emotional (!) personifications to induce associations in the crowds with systematically derailed emotions. A person who is capable of loving, loving a human being, cannot "love" artificial concept of a country.

Man with the suppressed emotions won’t empathize with his "enemy" and find it easy to eliminate (=exterminate) him. Man with the suppressed real emotions will buy into any created pseudo-emotions they imprint in him. Man with the suppressed emotions is in a perpetual state of thirst - prey, trophy or loot are saccharine substitutes easy to insert into his needy state of mind. Wars are extrapolations of selfishness. Wars start clearly to grab someone else’s resources, females, eliminate his offsprings, not rarely through pretext of hurt male honor, family reputation or nation’s glory. All the artificial concepts. I want that. I want them. My genetic pool must survive. Only my genetic pool – because I am the best specimen among men.

* The thriving and mutually beneficial European Union (with a potential to become even more tightly interconnected federation) is being dismantled from inside (of course with external help: competition, competition) through mechanism of deluded sport-team fans, who transplant their different-colored dress mentality (my club, my town, my country, my nation) into reality. The irrational and masculine hate of the union in contrast with prefabricated tribal identities leaves everyone worse off. Walking proud in flags spilled from the stadiums into the street politics and parliaments.

There’s hardly more enjoyable game (especially for those who play it on the map, in the offices, designing the drama) than the one of war. Boys love it from early childhood – including the torture of the captives. It’s a masculine Valhalla – nothing but the epic battle and the heroic death – the ideal simplified male world for which they were conditioned (to win, to thrive in, to love). It’s an ultimate expression of liberty – anarchy of men out of schools, out of factories, running around the earth with big toys, testing new weapons, destroying, appropriating, taking what they like when they like - occasional rape. (No conversation, no courting – just the male way. Want it? Do it? Right here, right now. Then go do something else.) No bothering web of complex laws, unnecessary prohibitions, annoying preachers of compassion inducing guilt. Just the fallout of the battle, expected losses, overlooked excesses, pardoned atrocities. No veggies, just meat or sweets. Distilled boy’s wonderland.

Quite significant ratio of wars happens justified by religion or ideology. Despite the fact that those often condemn violence and war as such. Yes those ancient stories where the patriarch-God forces his commandments down the throats of heathen by hands of the chosen. Women must obey men, queers must die, with a long list of what is masculine attached. Still no one winks. Let’s look at these inspiring myths. But first at those of the queer folks. Yes, we have them as well. How come the straight man did not know? A portion of true history with a bit of artistic license. Same as snake and apple, parting of the seas, commandments and recitations, virgin conception, water turned into wine, resurrection.

Extrapolating the two-spirit mythology, queers carry an experience of natural-born in-between-ers. Living, moving and mediating between the world of straight men and straight women (with their distinctive essentialist features), translating between the material/human world and that one of the spirits. As such they become shamans (priests), healers and caretakers (doctors and nurses), storytellers (chroniclers, historians, artists), preservers of knowledge and rites (scientists, artists, masters of ceremonies, priests, drag queens) of their tribe. Honored, valued and needed. All those occupations that evade fighting and focus on service, helping, sensitivity, insight, art.

On a different timeline, in western tradition, this suitable position for in-between-ers, those with increased emotional response and lower need to compete, hunt and kill – becomes a subject of envy. Yes, there is prestige and influence involved. Something to be had. The priesthood is invaded by highly competitive jocks, who establish a hierarchy of church, where they can vie for ranks and titles and hats. The organization that was supposed to mediate understanding becomes a tool to normalize female submission and queer genocide (those who were supposed to be there). Religion becomes the tool to wage wars abroad as much as eliminating foes at home. All the soft professions - arts of storytelling, provoking, challenging the status quo, or sciences of human body, psyche, social relations, history – become stadiums for competition. Sport the title. Become a subject matter expert. Beat the others. Be famous, renowned, rich, star, celebrity.

Now and then the thinkers – whether gay or straight – come up with the ideas how to better human life, reorganize the society, help those most oppressed in the bottom of the hierarchies. Unfortunately, there is lot of well-fed and well-groomed thugs eager to help preserving the old order. If the new ideals catch the momentum, they are carried, pushed and implemented by the same or new bunch of thugs, who do not care much about the nuances or even the content of the thinkers’ contemplation. They introduce the ideology (mechanically followed rules, sometimes selected per convenience) instead of the ideals. My religion" is a matter of denomination (name, label, identity) not a faith in humanist tenets. It’s a banner (think war, tournament, football match), not the concept.

Angry young men are quite instrumental in revolting against both the ossified and the functional fundamentals of the society. The youthful energy, the invincibility, the zeal overshadow the lack of experience, insight into the complexity of the situation or even the compassion. Their revolutions are brutal in the most simplistic masculine way. Not seldom abused by those high-standing alphas. Hippie revolution drowned in drugs (toys!) and was partially commercialized by the fashion and entertainment industry. Mao manipulated the masses of the rebellious youngsters to terrorize the whole country under the headline of Cultural revolution. Iranian thugs decommissioned the rule of Shah and his Savak just to pave the road for even more wolfish pack of clerics, who sent the boys into the minefields on the border with Iraq. Eastern European paternalist dystopia, particularly in Russia, got born as a cargo cult of caricature hyper-masculine VHS action movie heroes that flooded the empty post-totalitarian culture space. Who are the most feared fighters nowadays – remorse-less child soldiers of Africa or disillusioned young men recruited into the brutal Islamist militias? Devaluation of masculinity ideals, missing tribal identification, lack of clear wolfpack rules in the liberal society – are cautiously named culprits.

A share of violence against women occurs in absurdly high proportion but exasperatingly low in discussion. The domestic violence is omnipresent around the Earth. Some cultures dare to name it, some close eyes, come even codify it. Non-voluntary cultural submission of women through dress, mistreatment, social stigma, forced marriage or even under law – was characteristic to the Judaeo-Christian world, currently persists (and pokes eyes) in the Islamic space. Regardless how much cooperative are some elder women in its enforcement. Honor killings are still prevalent in Islamic countries, but also in Hindu society. Latin America recently revolted against the intrinsic machismo, not long time ago culturally imprinted and glorified. All these cases feature the same dynamics. She is my trophy. She is my property. She is my toy. She represents me. She must obey me. I am the alpha. She must worship me. I am the perfect being. It’s my masculine right. It’s my male honor.

Inability of adult but immature boys to treat human being not as an object. Inability to treat female differently then their wolfpack mates and foes (constant biting, fighting, competing, climbing in hierarchy, challenging each-other’s status). Deformed emotional responses (punching bags), self-suppression (kind of male corset that creates inhuman pressure and induced anger), culturally erased empathy, compassion or sensitivity. Continually bloated ego, spoiled-brat personality, that can’t deal with loss, denial or resistance, dissent and disagreement, concurrent will – in presence of the other person.. "I want it. Give it to me." The fake sense of pride that does not accept critique, humiliation, insignificance.

The domestic violence extends to the children as well. Sometimes it is raw underdevelopment (men do not need to be that bright, thoughtful or empathizing – what matters is their physical aptitude, strength, muscles, ferocity, bravery, victory) and kids become just another punching bags for the unmanaged paleolithic emotions (I am hungry. I am angry. I want. They don’t give me. Something didn’t work as I expected. The tool broke.) Sometimes it’s a violence of expectations (be like father, continue in my footsteps, win the match, make me proud), the demands of masculinity (stop crying, stop talking, stop bothering), the "radiant source of imitation" complex (I tell you how it is.), or the proper masculine methods of upbringing, inability to scale down his male-to-male interaction habits to the fragile soul’s dimensions (Throw him in the deep water. Push harder. Stop whining.). Men are raised as warriors, not fathers. There are no fatherhood books (just vague notions of vain authority, obedience), no fatherly skills passed on. What for? Just man up, that’s what matters.

Not the last, not the least – homophobia, institutionalized in masculine traditions and religions. Un-men. "Men do not cry. Men do not show emotions. Especially not towards each-other. Men are not cowards. Men are not girls. Men are not sissies." Won’t those who don’t give a fluff about all those "not(s)" enrage? How does it "feel" to a man who spent all his life acting up manly, proving his masculinity – that there is this male-bodies creature who doesn’t care about doing it? He just grants himself a freedom to be as he is. Oblivious to hierarchies, competitions, school football team achievements – and its cocky stars. He does not perceive them as strong, victorious, lethal – but as judges and evaluates them in terms of beauty – that they do not grasp or have under control. He moves undercover in the locker-rooms, showers and all-male spaces, if he wants totally invisible, listening to the male-talk. The different attitudes, ambitions, personalities. The contrasting conceptualization of women ("I have to do it to make her shut up.") than what they perform facing them ("I would do anything for you love.") They are intruders. They do not play for our (boy’s) team. They ignore teams in general – they would not mind fucking the guys from the other school, district or state.

If queers are the easiest targets and usual victims of bullying, the masculine wrath befalls on nerds (brighter!), goths (unconforming!), sportive anti-talents (weak!) alike. It is almost exclusively committed by men, the particular jock type. The prehistoric pretext for oppression (not playing by the team’s rules endangers the group’s safety and success) does not apply, because they do not wish to be on the team at all, nor do they want to participate in, support or undermine its endeavors. It’s just so easy to contrast one’s oppressive strength (alas, nothing else to sell) with someone so low on that scale. The weaklings are objectified and used as things to boost one;s self-confidence, to impress the (unimpressed) females, to promote the group’s oppressive power in the social hierarchy. The teachers penalize the incidental bullying actions (if they are ever witnessed, the organized groups are capable to create momentary lawless bubbles) but rarely denude and flay the masculinist misconceptions that perpetuate it over the centuries of existence of state education. They even encourage the selection of the fittest and assumed toughening-up.

The intellectual believes that once the school drama ends, the bullies end up on subsidies, in a factory, with a necklace of recklessly conceived children, or the one of rope – on the gallows. The bending reeds survive the storm. Unfortunately the bully trait penetrates the "real life" as well. Often, what they can’t achieve through wits, they manage through extortion, bribery, theft, loot or other forms of unhindered actions. Masculine aptitude is the only moral criterion. There’s ample opportunities to continue the bullying in the workplace, neighborhood, or abusing ones own professional position? The nerds end up as scientists, the thugs as the politicians. Or more likely, those exceptional only in their musculature often navigate to use that physical strength in the professions where it is of any use: police, army, militias. They carry weapons, vested powers, unquestionable authority, disparate credibility and a support of tightly-knit gang of similarly-carved colleagues. Goddess help us!

Some of the most monstrous crimes in history were committed by he street gangs and organized mafias. The most gruesome pictures come from these structures parallel to the state. Some alpha decides that he is a too much of an alpha to submit to the laws of elected alpha. He establishes his business that fills the gap in prohibited products and services, organizes it by more draconian (simplified rules) than the regular lawful enterprises. He sets up and efficient repressive mechanism that contests the state police. He welcomes those brutes that are usually banished from structures supervised by the law. Those higher in the hierarchy are rewarded much more – so that they are reliable in intimidating those below. And each individual is infinitely week against the loyal rest of the organization running on fear. Chopped limbs. Bodies burned alive. Soaked in acid or lye. Families ruined or exterminated as a whole. Group punishments. The absolute masculine world with all the traits purified, polished and perfected. Wolfpack hierarchy, obedience, respect and loyalty, group pressure, objectifying, toys, self-interest, rule of muscles, overvalued strength, business opportunity above the morals or consequences. Looks like school thugs have found the perfect job.

Some of these traits may feel somewhat too familiar even from the regular life. Companies, businesses and corporations are the micro-worlds that implement their own rules within the state’s jurisdiction. While nations must at least pretend that they are intending to co-exist, firms are competing and vying to exterminate their competitors. The spirit of the battle is not only welcome, but required – often these boys clubs substitute male passion for war. At work, they don’t have to play love or family, within the business world’s detachment they can unleash the worst of their inherited and imprinted masculine characteristics. While the countries may appear democratic, the corporate culture is designed and suited to male taste – it is often copy of the feudal states, with ultimate authority coming from above, those higher up deciding on "tribal rejection" of those below. Not seldom the business reminds of mafia – just acting more-or-less in compliance with the state’s law. And paying taxes.

The competition is said to support innovations (better products) and progress (better lifestyle) for everyone involved in the economy. However, little is said that the point of business competition is not to get the absurd medal, but to annihilate the rivals. Corporations do not compete to provide better products and services – they compete to earn, to increase their share on behalf of the rest, regardless of how much resources they extract, how much damage they cause. Finally - once the competition is won, there is no more competition. Some jobs are lost, some diversity disappears. How sad. There is no more pressure to offer better products – just that single victor. Sometimes there are more winners who - in mutual complicity, unilaterally - establish prices and services without any external challenge. No market processes, no competition, no evolution. For the competition to really work as designed, the intention of improvement and mutual benefit must be clear … and pursued. Left to take its own course – the outcome is not the overall better of the possible solutions, just the one that serves the momentary pleasure of the winner. Fear of shame of losing and desire to win by any means – is the single masculine motivation behind any business. How many men enjoy football for the sake of the play, fun, the social event – and how many see nothing but the victory?

Speaking of the sports – hooliganism is a specific form of violence, that sometimes has no victims. It’s just those aggressively-wired specimen of men who visit the auditoriums, unleash their rage and sometimes beat the hell out of each other after the match. Though not seldom violence spills out of the stadiums – the warmed-up bullies destroy someone’s property or face. It is generally hard to distinguish – and no straight man will be ever able to take perspective and evaluate this – how much sports and matches waste or reroute the aggression and how much they support it and imprint it into the culture. Thugs or scientists, blue collars or white collars – they all fall for the "bread and games" charm.

Since antic times, sport is the working political strategy how to spend excess masculine aggression – to allow the rest of the society to engage in business, science and arts in peace. Patting on the shoulders and shaking hands by politicians is sometimes sarcastic, sometimes genuine – depending to what group the politicians belong. Impossible to deny, that associating with sport/war heroes was always a good aura for the political profession. The sports lend an aura of genuineness, something purely physical and masculine, untainted. The best of the best compete – and get their cups, crowns, medals, ceremonies and sense of importance – while the rest "plays" the game on the seats, engaging in game through mind, vocal cords and muscular tension – as far as men get to experience the empathy. Is this the safety-valve of the society? Does it serve it – or rather shape it?

Some even more interesting alchemy processes happen in the stadiums. The artificial game, with artificial tools, by the artificial rules – is taken seriously as a matter of life and death. People get excited or devastated within the substitute reality of the play. Is it the same dynamics as aligning with the characters and storyline in the books, movies or theater? Is the real life too boring and uneventful? Is it devoid of real drama or real feelings? Or is it the reality of emotional cripples – learning to suppress their emotions from early childhood – attempting to feel something? The victory (or loss) of a handful of stars on the pitch is appropriated by the whole district/town/country and not rarely even culture or religion. They do the work – I win (too). What sort of thinking pattern is devised here – and how does that correspond to the dysfunctionalities of human society? I recognize the same pattern – tribal identification, bullying, hooliganism, war-inducing nationalism or club fandom – the logic of "my people" above the other ones. Are we letting the worst in us out – or do we so imprint this pattern?

Many magazines have barely any arts, science or nature dedicated sections, but the large back-pages part (even half) is filled with abysmally boring pictures (same positions, same tools), debilitatingly un-literary and surreal texts and absurdly extraterrestrial numbers, scores and tables. The numerology of matches has transformed into a betting business and almost a science itself. What "serious stuff" in this superstitiously masculine culture can be taken seriously then? The exceptional sports victories fill the newspapers on the same pages as politics, economics or arts. It is absurd, that games and matches – where more or less the same absurd drama, same storyless story (running to one side or the other side, this team taking the ball, that team taking the ball) happen each time, with outcome of someone winning and someone losing (so what ...?) with some semi-random numeric result (and ...?) happen over and over again – are enjoying the same (and higher) cultural significance as the masterpieces of art, where a complex story is told, knowledge shared, message passed on, new perspectives provided, situations analyzed, opportunity to empathize with the non-popular characters presented. If the sport wastes or perpetuates the evil in human, the art may cultivate the better.

No wonder that the religion, economy and politics are permeated by "who will win and who will lose" "who is with us and who is against us" mindset – rather than the one focused on help, service, mutual benefit or well-being of the whole. Competition over the cooperation. This faith has to win more followers over that faith, persuade the others, scare the others, annihilate the others. This company has to destroy that company – and not to enlarge variety by a different product or better product. The political parties enforce the will of majority over the minorities, viciously smear the opposition voices - instead of seeking consensus, the solutions good for the whole, where individual discontent is heard and responded. Politics are just macho battles with a saccharine dream of shining on the winner’s platform – and later project to milk the opportunity to ones personal benefit. It’s not just a human malice, unfortunate biological trait – this ethos and ethics are being manufactured, commended and imprinted every day.

Aside of wars, the most serious human-induced calamities on Earth seem to be the economic crisis. They precede the wars or at least degenerative trends in society. In the storm of analysis and documentaries of the 2008 bubble-burst that swept the globalized world economy, the most outstanding image was the one of a day on the stock-exchange. If anything described above and below feels "slightly exaggerated", what that these over-motivated, over-excited, over-zealous brokers do in reality beats the levels of satire. It’s an absurd caricature of macho world – a war, a sports match – with brutal fierceness, screams, tears. It is a boy’s game, doped and inflated to lift the ceiling. It’s the world’s economy, the excess and hunger in various regions, the jobs and family lives of billions of people. Played with like a game of cards. There’s no way to describe this as "machismo employed" to serve the humanity like a tied Golem, this is machismo distorting the world to its own image, toxic masculinity getting out of hands.

The ultimate disaster comes with the ecosystem collapse. The competition overheated not just the economy, but the whole ecosystem. Both terms come from the same root – Greek "oikos" – that stands for the home. Male home is his castle, his fortress, his property – the living content included. It’s a thing. A thing to use. A thing to exploit. It feels a bit absurd (and late) trying to instill an ecological sensitivity in humans – if, in direct contradiction, all the culture propagates toxic masculinist thinking. I. Mine. For me. My genetic pool must prevail. Copulate and populate. My family must get larger. It’s a race to flood the Earth with oneself. Hunting for food and extracting resources beyond Earth’s capacity. it’s all just tools and toys in a great boy’s play. The famous corporate greed – yes it matters, it is built on masculine competition and self-adoration, it extrapolates self-interest to individually impossible scale, it is a wasteful war of banners. Corporate industry polluted the soil, the rivers and seas as much as the air.

Why? Because men like to make machines. They like to play with toys. Yes – the cars and planes pollute – but I have to travel, I have to be entertained, I can’t get bored, I have to show off in front of my friends, I have to attract and please my girlfriend, I have to do the shopping in out-of-town mall for my family, or take my children for that extracurricular activity. The abstract masculinity is constantly being invented – some time ago it was a warrior with a horse and sword, today it is a thick chain around the neck, smartphone and a car. Men admire, talk, boast, fondle, treat vehicles as their precious appendages, sometimes seemingly more important than the vaginas, women or any living beings. Beautiful car - "It’s the male thing." The ultimate boy’s toy? A real man doesn’t eat veggies – he has to have meat, three times a day. Even as a computer geek he still feels like the hunter and warrior with excessive consumption needs. Booze. Electronics. Stadiums. Sport equipment. All those iconic items of masculinity that the economy seems to whirl around. The world as a great playground.

Men do not only entertain themselves with toys, in a masculine ideal they intentionally suppressed their sensitivity – becoming the constructing or destructing machines themselves. Erecting the skyscrapers, widening the highways, turning the ground upside-down with bombs, burning down the tens-of-thousands years old primeval forests to grow food for their manly stakes and burgers, or inventing an industrial agriculture built on oil, fertilizers and pesticides – to the fallout of the male religious imperatives (copulate and populate) and political programs (let’s not allow our nation to go extinct). One of the recent documentaries describes male treatment of the Earth (in many cultures personified as feminine, Demeter, Ceres, Mother Nature, Pachamama) as a woman, constantly objectified, exploited and raped by male self-interest and his technology - boy’s unquenchable need to be amused. The strong image causes an outrage (pride - somewhere over there?) but there’s hardly any better metaphor grasping the contemporary disaster.

Of course, there’s no time to resolve effeminate whining of the Nature. The world is preoccupied by the recurring specter of personality cult. Alpha male comes back – and doesn’t satisfy with less than everyone’s attention. Napoleon. Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Putin. Xi. Erdoğan. Orbán. Salvini. Trump. They introduce a way-to-similar blend of nationalism (my territory) that transpires into an outward aggression against the other countries or minorities within (my resources), protectionism, clientelism and nepotism (my family, my wolfpack), illiberalism (my rules), paternalism, conservatism, traditionalism (my father’s religion), homophobia, almost comical misunderstanding and demise of "gender ideology" or feminism. Many of them implement a jaw-dropping cargo cult of one-dimensional masculinist action heroes – as impersonated by Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Stallone, Lundgren, Seagall, Norris, Lee – the doers, the fixers, the winners that flooded the post-communist space. Thanks to the decades-long cultural and economical stagnation of these regions, the idea of men of the day who resolve all the problems resonates again.

Homophobia combines both ancient and acquired features of hate towards gay men, or even masculine body, intimacy and closeness. The "gender ideology" represents the opponent to the endangered traditional masculinity, questioning its foundations and manifestations. In typical male framing, the feminism (the foe) is to overthrow the rule of men – replacing the patriarchy with matriarchy. In the male thinking (with me/against me, my team/their team) machismo and feminism represent just another match, battle, war, where the point is who wins and who loses (not who’s right or if the truth might lie somewhere in between male and female perspectives and desires). However, the whole grasp is masculine – someone wins over someone else, someone is on top and rules the one on the bottom. Either-or logic. Power sharing, equality, balance – seem as alien concept, that as imaginary numbers do not compute in masculine algebra. In fact, the machismo/feminism war is a conflict between maturity and infantility.

Gender studies are based on the contemporary scientific knowledge – something that the traditional men with their "ancient ways" resist. Man shares a common origin with large apes (not monkeys) – Bonobo, Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans. Unfortunately, the cliché instilled through popular culture (Planet of the Apes) presents a fictive contrast between the thuggish gorillas (bullies) and intelligent chimps (philosophers). This image is quite far from the reality. In fact, the bonobo and chimps are our direct predecessors – and according to life-long research conducted by Frans de Waal, they represent our contradictory traits much better. Chimpanzees live in patriarchy, actually quite iconic sample of the species organized around their male members, who establish hierarchies (alphas, helpers, omegas) to bully, punish, oppress, exploit, compete. They engage in brutal tribal wars, casual murders, infanticide (killing other male’s cubs) – and as far as the "intelligence" goes they sport alliances, betrayals, plots – simply the politics that we thought were unique the the human race. Bonobos live in matriarchy. As the lineage derives from the mothers (all kids are hers, whoever male they come from), there is no point in infanticide. Everyone belongs. The species respond to joy or stress with sex – in all its forms (oral, vaginal, manual – hetero or homo – trans-generational) - sex is their peacemaking strategy. If multiple groups meet, the female tame down the overexcited males, tribes engage in orgy, feeding and grooming – and even graze together for some time. There’s less plotting, killing and generally more pleasant life for the whole community, regardless of the gender. If transposed to human world – men do not feel their male pride being compromised, because no such artificial concept exists. They get food, they get fun, they live with less stress, war and violence, with less chance to be murdered.

Somewhat ironic to the "masculine" practice of "rational analysis with a strict emotional detachment" is that in order to see the features of toxic masculinity as the recurring pattern in the problems of this world – one needs a detachment from it. Men definitely do not have any perspective on their maleness, do not question its tenets and do not like to look at its side-effects. If female are not so impartial in this either (sometimes even accomplices, constructing the man as the heroic muscular doer that complements them conveniently) and feminism is looked at with suspicion – queer in-between-er experience might be exactly the right source of perspective. As the ancient two-spirits who stood in-between male and female worlds and mediated between them. With a bit of metaphor, queers represent almost a different species, having some detachment from the straight affairs and squabbles. Who else has better predisposition to look at the dubious invention and inclinations of masculinity from above? Who is better endowed to provide the feedback, sanity check?

In this sense, it does not puzzle that the last iterations of the superhero masculine leaders profess so much dislike for feminine, queer or generally the evil "gender". (Even if they embody a gender stereotype themselves.) Questioning, analyzing, deconstructing and ridiculing their dubiously manufactured self-importance, the mythical masculinity – hurts. Very similar perspective comes through the constellation play with kinks. Fetish uncovers the foundations of the economics (needs, associations, advertisement, frustration, consumption). BDSM inquires into, takes control over, rearranges, parodies and above all exposes the power-dynamics, so essential in the masculinist hierarchies. Top/bottom, dominant/submissive, master/slave, janitor/prisoner, teacher/pupil, father/child, doctor/patient – all those power imbalances reclaimed and played with. Certainly, the religious and secular patriarch do not commend non-traditional sexuality. Where man is not in charge, on top, the stronger, the penetrator, the impregnator, the creator, the source, the hero, the star. Where we might accidentally learn something.

Did we forget to name any evil of this world, that does not have combat boot footprint?

No, this is not another masculine battle with intention to defeat and submit the man. Describing the various known shades and manifestations of man, male, masculine, masculinist, macho – expose the existing and still popular shallow, vain and damaging preconceptions. Knowing what to part with on the path of controlled evolution, we can start imagining what maleness, malehood or masculinity could be. Two ways are pursued. One dissolves the antagonist masculine/feminine dichotomy and introduces the extensive mosaic of identities. It offers liberty to self-define, self-invent, in all directions, from the very scratch. Who you are? What you like? What feels good? To make one’s identity a dress to serve their needs, instead of being a tight corset or armor that suffocates. You can be as vulnerable as you want, sensitive, emotional, empathetic, curious, you can play with whatever and whoever you like, you can sleep with whom you want and love whoever you find yourself loving – without becoming less you. However, this approach may leave many lost in the sea of possibilities. It is hard to wipe out prevalent and perceived masculine/feminine residue and replace it with Brave New World.

The other path reclaims the old essentialist principles, without dividing the world among them (strong/weak, tough/soft, beautiful/ugly, giver/receiver, do/feel) according to the ancient role models. It recognizes male and female energy, predispositions, but closely looks in what healthy and damaging ways they may manifest. How to employ the masculine – the nature and culture part of it as it is known to us today - in a beneficial fashion? The goal is clear – to make the world bearable place to live for everyone, to discover more satisfactory way to live for the man.

If masculinity becomes less tough – will we miss it in case of an urgent need: a plague, a catastrophe, a war with more ancient masculinist beasts? Do we have to raise soldiers in order to protect ourselves from other soldiers, raised as soldiers because we tutored our men as soldiers? The circular argument is clear. Even if many boys believe that their Valhalla is the ideal way of being, perhaps there is a better one – and if it really is, it will be worth protecting and fighting for (if needed be). It is said that the strongest and meanest prevail – precisely because they don’t have those obstructive humanist inhibitions. But what if those "inhibitions" are the extra capabilities, that they possess on top of being aware of how the thug thinking works? The shared experienced of the millennia of male rage can’t be erased and shouldn’t be forgotten. We remove the debris and toxic fallout and build on top of the wasteland, with robustness and caution for what has already happened.

The obstacle occur in the reform camp as well. The Western society now aims to raise more mature and emotionally complete men over here. Within the ideology of "cultural differences" we resist to call this a supreme culture – and try to "respect" different perspectives on it. We allow the existence and rearing of spoiled brats over there. Grown boys instilling an infantile masculinity in the next generation of boys. Do they see the masculinity differently? Do they see masculinity? Do they have a perspective? Different costumes are not different customs and they are not different treatment of human beings. If over there it is manly to execute queer people or a matter of male honor to kill disobedient wife, is it inferior or different culture? Western or liberal world fails to realize that we are not "just another culture" in multicultural world, we are to some extent acultural or above culture.

Isn’t it up to them what mess they do in their own home? It’s not their home, as this is not our men’s home. Speaking of home – "oikos" - economy and ecology transgress the cultural borders and influence the climate, the resources, the well-being of all of us. The way men are manufactured somewhere far and exotic leaves a direct trace in how they act in the shared economy and shared ecosystem. They may be more resource hungry, more aggressive, more homophobic – and if they gain advantage or an opportunity, they may start spreading those "possibilities of how to be a man" even back here. Re-defining masculinity cannot be localized, it has to be take into account all the different grasps of it around the world, their interaction, possible danger. Masculinity has to evolve with sane awareness of what it once was.

How to apply one’s distinctive male qualities non-destructively? How to preserve the protective strength without becoming a bully, without perpetuating power disbalance, without being the problem itself? Is it possible to approach the shared masculine experience playfully, symbolically, maturely, without self-aggrandizing, with a humility and respect towards everything different and equally needed?