oh reeeeeeeeeeally?

In which I voice my disapproval of a slab of writing perhaps meant to be an essay.

DECLINING MANLINESS


[P1]Am I still a man? Was I in the past?

If you say "still" in your first question, you imply that you definitely were.

Shall I still be in the future to come?

As opposed to in the future past?

Nowadays, this dubitative triptych mirrors many male adults’ restlessly efforts and concerns to shed some light on their own identity.

"Dubitative triptych"? Do you mean a trio of doubts, or do you doubt that there are three questions? Or that "triptych" is the best word to describe them? Also, you surely mean to say restless since restlessly is an adverb and its place in that sentence, i.e. modifying a plural noun, requires an adjective.

Even me, for I am a man. I have always sensed and pulsed this inner self beyond any lurking logical or organic doubts.

What do you mean by "pulse"? Merriam-Webster gives: 1 : to drive by or as if by a pulsation; 2 : to cause to pulsate; 3 a : to produce or modulate (as electromagnetic waves) in the form of pulses b : to cause (an apparatus) to produce pulses. I don't see how any of those apply to what one does to one's inner self. And you have logical doubts about being a man? Really? And "organic"? What are we talking about there, that you have doubts based on biology, or that those doubts affect your biology? Or do your doubts develop as if they were living organisms? Or are coordinated as part of the whole of your personality and therefor inescapable and ineradicable?

Yet, I have never exactly ascertained what being a man really entails, bar the key physical and physiological attributes one is assigned from the moment of conception.

This is the only thing you say clearly.

[P2]At least, manliness has more to do with the type of mental attitude we men embrace in keeping with a succession of particular situations that put ordinary people to the test.

But not extraordinary people?

Men are supposed to possess more body strength which enables them to vigorously cope with extra-risk adventures in the blink of eye whereas women are known to ruminate ways to downplay the side-effects of a weaker consistence.

"Supposed to" or tend to possess more body strength? Didn't you just say manliness was more of an attitude than anything physical? What are these "extra-risk" adventures you refer to? What does "weaker consistence" mean? Are you saying women are made of pudding?

[P3]Moreover, going hand in hand with the precursors Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer, rampant feminism cracks down on men as the backbone of a political campaign whose ideology advocates the deconstruction of any signals of men’s actions over the course of the Western civilisation.

Since when is feminism rampant? Like most social movements, it's been embraced as an ideology by a very small portion of society, although many of its ideals or tenants have been accepted by the broader population. I don't think the idea is to eliminate the "signals" (I suppose you mean signs) of men's actions, but to point out that people who weren't rich white men (don't forget that other groups have been oppressed too) were also doing things and contributing to society. Some radicals would certainly eliminate any evidence of men accomplishing anything, but they are just that: radicals. They don't represent the movement, or even a large part of it, they just have louder voices.

This neutralises the two genders and prompts a one-sided single status where any differentiation whatsoever vanishes into thin air – the neutral gender.

Why should there be differentiation in terms of value to society? How would you propose we rank people? Your tone implies that you support a gender-based hierarchy, but how can you reconcile that with universal respect? Oh wait, you can't. That's the point, isn't it? The only place where gender really has weight as an argument for discrimination is in biology and, by extension, romantic or sexual relationships. In other fields, such as employment or friendship, other qualifications are important although they may give an advantage to one gender over the other, e.g. jobs requiring physical strength will favor men over women because of biology. But in most cases in modern society, the qualifications are based on mental or emotional abilities that can be cultivated by either gender to much the same extent. There is no reason to insist that everyone identify first and foremost as their gender. What's next, religious markers for every sleeve? Everybody obligated to wear the traditional costume of their ancestors because wearing jeans, suits and business skirts makes everybody vanish into - the neutral culture???
Nevertheless, few of us, men and women, see ourselves as hermaphrodites.

No, most people see themselves as people, and anyway being a hermaphrodite is not the same as being of neutral gender. I am not aware of any movement for making all people hermaphrodites. I can only suppose that you equate certain emotional and intellectual behaviors with masculinity and femininity, and anyone daring to blur the lines a little is the mental equivalent of a hermaphrodite. What's more troubling to me than that, is that you seem to reserve things like strength and critical thinking for the masculine side, and that jabbering in the tertulia about virtue and virility being etymologically connected makes it sound like being virtuous, i.e. a good and respectable person, is something only a man should aspire to. But, of course, actually taking the time to consider personality traits and lay them out on their appropriate sides with an argument to their placement behind them is much too unimportant for your manly, manly mind.

[P4]A bitterly resentful newly-divorced ma’am sprang on me yesterday: “Come on, bloke, do you think that fucking bastard had ever been a man since I got hitched with him”. She bumped into me when I left the courtroom after interpreting one former-Nigerian Spanish-national woman who had fallen out with her Spanish husband over his ex-girlfriend. Eaten up with jealousy, the former-Nigerian flung their honeymoon candlestick down on his back. Now he is crippled for life.

What a sad story. What's your point? If he was a manly man, he would have broken her arm before she even thought of reaching for that candlestick? If he was a manly man, he would have married a more suitable woman in the first place? Oh, oh, no! Now I get it! It's a snotty allegory! Right? The Nigerian woman represents all women, the Spanish husband represents all men, the candlestick represents the relatively recent legal rights of women (honeymoon=new), and the bashing is the loss of male privilege! Yeah, it totally makes perfect sense! Because no man ever uses the law to screw over a woman, or another man. Take that candlestick away, women should be kept in the dark. See? I can make literary associations with my puny female brain too.

[P5]Not surprisingly, a newly-revised decaffeinated interpretation of Marxism has been heralded by a soaring proportion of Western women.

What was the old decaffeinated interpretation? This "soaring proportion" must be based in Europe, because most American woman are still staunch capitalists.

“We women are exploited and bastardised.

You're not seriously saying that's not true. Not that it's only women, but my deities, open your eyes.

Let’s take over the economy. Now it is our turn.” Which leaves them in the self-complacent paradigm that there is Nothing after a woman.

Do you really think that feminists consider themselves to be the end of history? Some could, I guess, but I certainly consider this just evolution of society that will continue in one direction or another until the end of the human race. Uh oh, I'm lumping men and women into one genderless group again. Shame on me.

Will Friedrich Nietzsche not be frolicking in his grave right now?

I doubt it, unless he has an entire mausoleum to himself.

[P6]In essence, we people of the universe need to gain momentum and reconquer the soil where one day, by virtue of a sound yet not insane virility, Aristotle plucked up the courage to tackle one’s existence as a man.

Oh, now we're all people. Call up girls to turn on their sisters, eh? Your statement implies that only people with masculine tendencies can think and ponder. Philosophy is the exclusive realm of the man, in other words. Are you insecure in your intellectual ability? Afraid somebody without a penis will out-think you? Maybe you should concentrate more on whatever it is you're supposed to be thinking about and less on conspiracy theories. And what's with this name dropping? How is feminism an interpretation (decaffeinated at that) of Marxism? What did Nietzsche actually say about removing gender from society? How did Aristotle define a man, since you obviously can't do it in your own words? I have serious doubts that you have ever even read any significant amount of work by De Beauvoir and Greer, much less understood the message. Do you even know what any of these people actually said or are you just hoping nobody else knows and everybody will think you're just fantastically well-read and oh so very clever at applying a new interpretation on old philosophy?

You know, some people, and I do mean people, can get away with being obscure in their communication. The simplest thing can sound like an unbelievable breakthrough of human thought if only it's said with the right words. Some people can make very simple observations that others take as genius, as in the fictional example of Chance the gardener. But this, this slovenly pile of fluffy, whipped-up hooting and squealing, this logorrhea of complaint, this plaintive whining bleat of outraged offense and pompous self-importance, this is NOTHING. That's what I said, nothing. You make no argument, your thoughts have no connection between them except your obvious wounded pride in the face of feminist activities, or at least what you assume to be feminist activities. Your premise was ostensibly to talk about manliness, but all you can do is attack feminism, only mentioning the word in the second paragraph of your rant. Do you really think the best way to define a term is to talk about something else? You don't even explain how manliness really differs from feminism.

This is what really gets me, and offends me, not just as a woman, but as a thinking human being: you can't be bothered to say anything coherent, cogent, or removed from your personal tragedy regarding the topic you proposed. You only want an opportunity to whine about some hurt feelings and have everybody say, "There, there, we know you're a fantastically valuable person to society. If only the women could see what a good catch you are, they'd be coming all over themselves just to see your holy form walking down the street." If you need to be patted on the head and given candy constantly, and I'm speaking metaphorically, you are not an adult and by playing at being one you only make yourself look like a jackass.

I would like to comment on your other anecdote, which was given in the tertulia, about being brushed aside and disdained by your female colleagues in the interpretation booth. Like so many professional victims, your automatic response is to cry anti-me discrimination, "It's because I'm a man that they don't respect me!" you howl. Now, it is certainly possible that those two are just bitches. Even misandrist bitches. But it's also just as possible, in fact more likely, judging by your performances in the tertulia, that they think you're an arrogant, obnoxious jerk, a puffed-up gas-bag of empty opinions and a puling, socially retarded blubberer.

By the way, I don't think any of my opposition to accepting your tripe as worthy of being called philosophy, even pub philosophy, makes me in any way a feminist. It really makes me an intellectual elitist. So, think of me like that and not as a simple woman, since I'm sure intellectual elitism is something you can easily identify with.