Trust me, I am not setting myself up in complete disagreement with some of the ideas presented, but I am trying to point out some of the potential errors in too extreme a view.
For example this formulation: (Ryan)
"Because spiritual strength is derived though an asexual and solitary existence, and that type of life is totally inconceivable for women. All their desires are totally counterintuitive to spirituality; all she can do to a man is drag him down to hell with her."
When I read this I am reminded of some of the rantings of the early Christians, wandering through the desert, totally given over to their extremes.
I think looking at the initiation rituals of more primitive cultures demonstrates this pattern---shamanic initiation, separation from the tribe, special rites for young men. But the purpose is not in creating an 'asexual and solitary existence'. I would imagine that this is what closeted homosexuals do and recommend. It is an idea that springs from a strange form of homo-eroticism, and I'll be goddammed if I'm gonna allow some fag, like Socrates, to rub up against my son, even with his downy first beard growth! (That for writerly effect). I am reminded of the Alexandrian quartet, and Lawrence Durrel writing about people 'deeply wounded in their sex'. Sorry, my darling neanderthal neo-nazis (writerly effect), but you can't fool ole Alex.
What you fellows are talking about are some extreme trends in culture, that seems to be a significant complain in these recent pages: my wife fucked me over, she got the house and everything, and now I'm 60 and pissed.
It is quite likely that media culture and even institutions and schools are dominated by an essentially pro-female ethic, but a large part of that is a contrivance of consumer culture, and advertising directed to the woman. Real estate agents know that they are selling the house to the woman, not the man, and this is probably true for many different sales. Faced with certain cultural and social facts, I agree, it is necessary for men to redefine who they are and what their values are. But one thing to remember is that the whole rest of the world ain't America, Canada or Europe, and there are other possibilities open to men.
"Causality or connectivity of all existence shouldn't become an excuse avoiding the needed separation when attempting to think, clarify and regain consciousness. Actually, to focus on the unity aspect one might lose consciousness faster than you can type "for writerly effect".
I am completely in agreement, provided one proceeds in 'the correct way'. Not only is time to think necessary, I personally think one needs to completely come to terms with one's power base. One needs to plan on all levels to have and control one's own power, emotionally, intellectually and economically. This is the sort of thing that should be taught to young men, in my opinion. I think though that one needs to realistically assess the masculine role, but that it is absurd to rule out or cancel away women, the feminine, etc. I have read some strange formulations in these pages and they raise questions---about the psychological state of those formulating.
"Perhaps you should reconsider the possible influence of the feminine on masculine orientation, or in other words: how materialism can subvert and then annihilate consciousness if not guarded well."
Again, with qualifications, I am strongly in agreement with you here. I see this in terms of a more simple interest in and involvement with 'the world of ideas'. There are forces that are working against a good thinking mind, an ability to think and reason, and in so much of culture this is sacrificed and appetite is encouraged, appetite and mood. But farther beyon this you seem to be hinting at a 'metaphysic'---that this material reality is essentially female, and that masculine consciousness is an anomaly, and yet a thing that arises to struggle against material subjugation. It is a far-reaching idea, and worthy of consideration. But it is also quite tricky as a territory, and when things move from the outer world and all its manifestations to an inner world, some of the dynamic changes.
AJ: A far stronger position, I think, is to genuinely know yourself, and to know the different parts of yourself. Psychologically, I think this is far more wholesome.
Diebert: That would be a very masculine activity which doesn't come easy.
Well, that 'work' could very easily be derailed through a wrong approach, say through 'misogyny', through 'psychological errors', through incorrectly identifying the problem and an incorrect proscription to deal with it. Like it or not, what has given women in our culture a certain ascendency has been their own 'work', netowrking, communication---an expression of will. It would be absurd, I think, to take a stand against all of it. I am not sure what y'all are proposing in terms of organization of culture, but without a clear program I doubt much of this will get anywhere. Sixty year old men bitching that the wife got the house don't do shit. (Writerly effect again). Teaching young men an angry flippancy won't do it either. Men have lost a definition of what is 'paternal culture' and do not seem to have really know what they are proposing.
"Men always have been flirting with the grandiose, the times they were not enticed elsewhere anyway. So yeah, it's perhaps indeed a matter of becoming stronger than the game. It's like calling being alive: cheating on death."
That is true. And I am completely interested in that question.
Ni ange, ni bête