How Males Became Toxic

In the following essay MC digs into the core of the current Gender Wars.

How Males Became Toxic

by MC

It is true that many men beat their female partners, but in the UK the statistics show that more women use violence against their spouses than do men. It is just that the men do more harm because they are bigger and stronger — yep, men are physically different; both in their minds and in their musculature and skeleton, let alone other physical differences.

In time of war, when home and hearth are threatened, then the fighting male is a hero, but what happened in the Pax Americana? Just how did the male become ‘toxic’?

I was born six years after the end of WW2. I was born into a world where men had duties and responsibilities, and in which all men (in the UK) served ‘National Service’ during which they were taught to fight, to be warriors. I fired my first rifle at age 10, a .303 SMLE re-barrelled to take .22 long. We were not allowed to handle the bayonet; that was considered too dangerous.

That I could hit the target at age 10 (but could not even properly lift the rifle unaided) was a huge joke to the Royal Marine instructor.

Later, at the grammar school I attended, we had Combined Cadet Force (CCF) and I got to shoot full clips of .303. In an earlier age I would have been trained as part of a Lewis or Vickers machine gun crew.

Also, in the boy scouts (sea scouts) we had regular interaction with the Royal Navy, which was old hat to me, being the son of a Naval Officer. I have a vivid memory of standing on the quarterdeck of HMS Vanguard, the last of the British battleships, looking up at the 15 inch guns, and my father threatening to send me to crawl up the gun barrel to polish it…

In the 1950s and 1960s men (and boys) had a part to play in society. It was accepted that in the end, we had to send our sons, husbands and fathers to war to defend the homeland if necessary, and that we young lads were the last line of defence.

So boys could be boys — because boys had to learn to be warriors and to be MEN!


That all changed…

Hey, Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill?
He went out tiger hunting with his elephant and gun
In case of accidents he always took his mum
He’s the all American bullet-headed saxon mother’s son
All the children sing
Hey, Bungalow Bill
What did you kill

Deep in the jungle where the mighty tiger lies
Bill and his elephants were taken by surprise
So Captain Marvel zapped him right between the eyes
All the children sing…
The children asked him if to kill was not a sin
”Not when he looked so fierce”, his mummy butted in
”If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him”
All the children sing…

The slow poison of opinion changed. Martial male pursuits became toxic, and with it came the feminisation of society. But not female as such, a much more a male-envy form of female.

Unique to the female is the giving of life, and of nurturing and feeding that life, but these female warriors were not interested in motherhood; their war was against male ‘privilege’. The Pax Americana meant that in the short term males were superfluous, and could be dumped like so much military surplus, and as for motherhood — how uncool!. To share your body with an embryo human, one that would need effort and treasure for twenty years or so.

Men tend to compartmentalize home/family and work. This is a sort of self preservation strategy that allows the male to become a provider as well as a warrior, one woos and wins one’s girl in a series of exercises that, although perfectly normal, are outside of the work and warrior requirement.

A boy used to receive this training from an early age; society provided male-only activities so that the boy could become independent of his mother’s skirts. The boy had to learn to make decisions for himself, to lead and to nurture those for whom he was responsible.

But in the name of ‘equality’ that training was distorted and excised, and girls invaded the male hallows to the extent that it became a crime to exclude girls.

The problem with girls is that they are girls. They are, on the whole very attractive, distractingly so, but in that very distraction, they are dangerous and thus disruptive.

The feminisation of the (British) Boy Scouts started slowly with a change of emphasis away from the militaristic — the uniform was changed; the beret (and 4-denter) were dropped; the emphasis moved to ‘social responsibility’ and ‘service’; no longer was it about trees and (feathered) birds and the nature around us, no longer about reading a trail or building a raft or monkey bridge.

I held a Scouts ‘Grade B sailing charge’ overnight this was dropped, and I had to requalify to pass the RYA certificate which cost hundreds of pounds that I just did not have.

There had been some accidents in the water and on land, and instead of accepting that ordure happens, these accidents provoked a witch hunt. Safety became a major factor, and leaders found themselves having to learn to do safety assessments, or else they could find themselves personally liable.

Unintended consequence: leaders left the movement in large numbers and troops disbanded because there was no adult supervision.

Then the movement was opened to girls. This changed the face of the whole of British scouting. If you put boys and girls together the boys lose their ability to ‘compartmentalize’, which was the whole object of the exercise in the first place.

M.M. Kaye put it very well in her novel about the Indian Mutiny in 1857:

Not approved by the feminazis…

I cannot help thinking that in a sinking ship, the feminists would be the first to yell “Women and children first!”, or given the modern penchant for murdering unborn babies, ME ME ME…

The net result of the feminisation of males is confusion, dysphoria, and a lack of understanding of a man’s role in a modern world where ‘father’ is a buffoon with no positive role, and the woman is just a recreational sex machine…

Yet if one looks at school shooters, they all have things in common: they are male, they take SSRIs, and have single female parents with no mature male input. It may well be that fatherhood still has a balancing role in society which we are losing fast.

It is tough to be straight in modern society. It is tough to start at the bottom and take responsibility for oneself, let alone a family. There is no sympathy for the guy who seeks independence by flipping burgers at the big M; welfare is so much easier.

Society disdains the heroes who flip burgers, but if I were an employer, I would seriously consider an ex-burger flipper who has learned to work in a team environment and who has taken responsibility for him/herself.

Worse still is the masculinisation of womanhood. Only females can have babies, and once babies were born, historically they were cared for and nurtured by ‘mothers’. One must ask oneself why the feminista are so hateful about motherhood?

Motherhood is the most important role in a civilized society, but a feminist cannot recognise this. She sees life through the dark lenses of jealousy and wannabe maleness. The male role is that of provider and defender of the family group, and just as men are not equipped to be mothers, so females are not equipped to be fathers.

The feminista get hold of the young females and brainwash them into thinking ‘equality’; this is stupidity masquerading as ‘science’. It is a religious cult that severely damages its victims for life.

A female is not a male, so ‘equality’ is not possible. One can achieve a kind of congruence, where females are entitled to separate ‘feminine’ structures within society, in much the same way as there would be separate masculine structures. But if a female wants to participate in a male structure, then she must be prepared to sacrifice the special case consideration that a female (and mother) merits.

Thus feminism as currently practised is a disastrous fallacy, putting at risk the entire ethic of ‘family’ and thus denying Yah’s commandment to go forth and fill the world. In Judeo-Christian terms it is a blasphemy. Wives are supposed to “obey” their husbands, and husbands must love (agapao) their wives. Agapao not phileo. Agapao is the love of a man for his god, and it is used in classic Greek to describe Theseus’ ‘love’ for Apollo. Loving (agapao) your wife thus transcends the other Greek forms (phileo, storge and eroticao).

Some males are toxic, but then, some females are toxic too.

We live in a world where the enemy does not care and has no morality. For him or her, the ends justify the means and they will not hesitate to use our goodwill as a weakness.

Feminism is a direct attack on the family, on mothers, on fathers, on daughters and on sons. The object is to use envy and malice to divide and rule.

Yes, for some women there is a ‘glass ceiling’, but the same is true for many men as well. If one is disabled, one does not get promoted; if one is blind, one does not get the good jobs, either. Believe me, I know this first hand.

Feminism is a foundation stone of the New World Order, a tool to make unwitting males and females submit to “divide and rule” and accept their ever-increasing state of enslavement.

Historically it is toxic males who kept the slavers from the community. Without toxic males, the slave collars will once more be placed around the necks of the vulnerable, whether these collars be literal and made of steel or the psychological product of inexorable brainwashing.

The family is a balancing act. The male provides and protects; the female gives, nourishes and nurtures new life. Destroy either of these family roles and civilization perishes…

Yes, males are toxic, but they need to be if they are to fulfil their roles. They may well be a bit unpleasant in times of peace, but come the Morlocks, then their worth is uncountable.

War threatens once more. Putin is mobilising, calling up hundreds of thousands of MALE reservists. In October in Ukraine the rains start and the mud is deep, and then it freezes…

What is it that GI Jane can do that Napoleon and Hitler could not do?

MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.

14 thoughts on “How Males Became Toxic

  1. When the fun and reindeer games begin, this feminaxism is going to go the way of the dodo, for nothing kills a insane movement better than war. Just look at the women who where taken captive by the arab muslims in the various wars the Israeli’s fought against, the women where brutalized to the point they either died or where a shell of themselves, and that is what the US military is putting in charge of men. This coming tragedy could have been avoided if we had just nipped this marxist movement against the family in the bud, but no we have horror before anyone learns.

    • @ G

      Regarding the Israeli military and women, the history behind that is fascinating and instructive. Israel, especially early in its existence, was socialist in much of its worldview. Accordingly, alongside the men women were allowed to be a part of the paramilitary Haganah, a sort of militia which was eventually folded into the IDF later on.

      However, when these paramilitary units engaged the Arabs in combat, it was discovered that the Arab fighters – who were men – grew enraged at the fact there were women on the battlefield, and fought all the harder. And when these female personnel were captured by the enemy, the Arabs brutally gang-raped them, killed them and then mutilated their bodies as a show of disrespect.

      After this outcome had occurred a number of times, a great outcry went up about women being placed in such danger, and they were then prohibited from being in combat thereafter.

      And in today’s IDF – Israeli Defense Force – although women serve in a great variety of capacities, including as trainers for the combat arms, they are held out of direct-combat positions, in reference to what was learned in the early days of the nation.

      The feminists and their ideological allies like to claim that Israel uses women in combat, but that’s not true. The closest they allow women to get is in jobs like military police and certain intelligence functions. These personnel may come under attack in the course of their duties, but they are not, per se, combat troops.

      As usual, the left has their “facts” all wrong. No surprise there.

      • Well stated Georgia, even the females that were taken in the invasion of Iraq and the few that were never talked about in Azzcrackistan, were brutally gang raped and brutalized and most except 2, that I know of, lived to tell the tale and the military told them to keep their yaps shut or they would lose their benefits about the gang rapes they suffered.

  2. Men, WHITE men, are the most persecuted people in America.

    Even, my now deceased Father noticed that in films and televisions series, the men were stupid, nonsensical and a joke while the women were always the heroines and the most intelligent.

    War on White men has been going on for the last fifty years and it is getting worse.

    • No problem. All options being kept open. That’s only fair. At the end of the play feminist women really don’t have any.

  3. The war against men is of a piece in the war to bring down western civilization and Christianity, a conflict which has been waged by the globalist oligarchs for at least a century and with increasing intensity since the end of World War Two.

    Why attack manhood? For the very reasons mentioned in the article; men are the protectors of civilization and society. Not only that, they are its foremost inventors and explorers and builders. Attack the men – and you attack these things. Attack European (white) men, and you attack what is arguably the most-successful civilization in human history.

    Even among those who hate European civilization – the West, as it is often termed – there is little disagreement that the West has been dominant for the last several centuries. Not to sound flippant, but that’s one reason President Xi and the Chinese communists are gunning so hard for the U.S. right now; they want to knock us off our perch and be the king of the hill themselves.

    As for the globalists, they have telegraphed whom they fear the most – western/European man. And well they should fear him, for at his best, the European was one of the finest warriors in human history.

    It is fashionable on the left these days to belittle Rudyard Kipling, but the man certainly made his points in such pieces as “Beware the Wrath of the Awakened Saxon,” and “The Gods of the Copybook Headings.” Perhaps the plutocrats might want to reconsider getting that particular breed of western man too unhappy. History shows us unequivocally that when that happens, cities, even continents, can burn.

    No one, least of all your humble correspondent, wants such a tragic outcome to occur… but it isn’t up to me, and wars often are the most-unexpected of black swans that “no one” saw coming….

    • I think Kipling’s “Arithmetic on the Frontier” is more applicable to our present circumstances.

      Everywhere we are outnumbered and outbred by hordes of Afridis and other assorted orcs to whom life is as cheap as ours is dear.

        • @ The Moon

          Another Kipling work which is apt is “The Young British Soldier,” which was of course written about the wars of empire in Afghanistan. The Brits were old hands in that part of the world even then.

  4. “Unique to the female is the giving of life . . .”

    Eggs are dead.
    Sperm is alive.

    Males give life.
    Females gestate it.

    This is not a trivial point.

  5. Out of Ken Follett’s “The Evening and the Morning”

    At the Wedding ceremony between Lady Ragna and Ealdorman Wilf:

    Wilf gives Ragna the key to his house, because it’s now also her house, to make a home for him there by his side.
    Ragna gives him a sword with the words: “I give you this sword, so that you can guard our house and protect our sons and daughters”

    I rather doubt that this book is high on the “reading-list” of the Feminazis, more like on the “to burn list”.

    I was actually amazed that the Publisher was brave enough to print this.

    • I am reminded of the scene in the film “300” where Queen Gorgo tells King Leonidas – who is departing to fight the Persian Army of Xerxes – says to him in parting, “Spartan, come home bearing your shield… or upon it…”

Comments are closed.