I chose the pseudo-man to focus on because I am a man myself. (I have my man-faults, but attempting to be a pseudo-man I don’t think is one of them.) I also am not convinced being a pseudo-woman is all that prevalent in the culture. Although girls that appear to be pseudo-girls are common, that, in my humble opinion, is an entirely different thing.

“Pseudo” in this context implies “trying to be something you should be, but aren’t.”

What I see going on with young pubescent girls shows no attempt to be something they should be, they don’t seem to have any desire to be healthy, well integrated “girls.” It is more like they are trying, and for the most part succeeding, to be something the culture is defining for them. Which isn’t very pretty (literally and metaphorically).

I don’t feel there are many pseudo-women because women who are trying to be mature women generally succeed. Some don’t, I realize that, but I don’t see it as being as major of a problem as what I see happening with men.

Men, for the most part, don’t even know what being a man actually is (I am not so sure myself). Throughout history boys had to be trained and taught to be men. Girls don’t have to be taught to be women. They just know how to be one. It is in their bones.

Sure, the culture can try to trick them into believing they don’t know (take the radical women’s movement as an example of that trickery—oops, did I actually say that??) Maybe I will write an article to further explain all this about women some other time. I know so much about them (ha ha).

So, now that that is out of the way—explaining why this article is not about women or girls—let me get on with it.

What is a pseudo-man?

Assuming the assumption that boys have to be taught how to be men is correct, we will run into a problem if there are no men left to teach those boys. The agenda, or culture, has intentionally seen to that. There are very few mature men out there. The few that do remain are kind of in a state of shell shock. The last viable men in the culture probably disappeared sometime after the Second World War (when I say “culture” I am referring largely to North American culture, but we see this in other parts of the world as well).

This loss of men is due to a lot of things, some organically natural (such as, in this current culture, we have no place for a man to constellate his “warrior” archetype—except as a criminal) and many are developed and implemented by the agenda. A big one of those is the concept of “masculine toxicity.” A man must become accustomed to the use of his metaphoric sword. He must learn how to wield it, when to pull it partially out of its scabbard so the sun can glint off of its shiny surface into the eyes of his opponent, and when to pull it all the way out and start slashing. Men today either slash before thinking, or don’t even know they have a sword to begin with. The nefarious and malicious agenda wishes to label any use of a man’s sword as toxic (or even if he only just thinks of his sword, God forbid). Any aggression at all is considered toxic. Thus, we have “toxic masculinity”—or in other words, all men who are actually men, are toxic.

This is only one thing in many that renders a man emasculated. Since men are no longer taught to be men by the elders of the community (including their own fathers), he doesn’t even know what being a man is about. He may learn a bit from television, books, and movies, but usually these templates are not very reliable—and these days they are teaching all the wrong things). He does get some hints from the collective archetypes all humans carry within them, but men are “doers” and cannot wholly rely on subtle instinct-like murmurings hidden deep inside his psyche. Also, many of these subtle indicators are pushed down by the culture, which is rather bent on cutting off access to “manly instruction.”

Some of the things he has a difficult time accessing is how and when to be dangerously aggressive—he doesn’t know when to use that aggression or know when to keep it at bay. Many adult males do not know how to be a provider to his family. Many are still locked to mother and have no idea how to function autonomously and be separate from the mother archetype. Many do not know when to stop having “the boy” in them run their life.

Many have lost a sense of purpose, meaning, and direction. Many have no clue as to how to relate to the feminine embodied in their wives, girlfriends, or partners. Rather than relate to the feminine in their female partners with regard, respect, love, consideration, and cherish them as the precious entities they are, they relate to them as a boy relates to their mother—often with resentment, “mommy love,” anger, or dependence on them as a “golden child” expecting mother to do everything for them.

Many men today had tyrant fathers, or fathers who were never present and emotionally available. They may have had alcoholics for fathers, narcissists, or fathers passive to their medusa mothers. So the father was not in their life as a mentor and a teacher to teach them how to be men.

The culture has all but destroyed masculinity. And in my opinion, again, I believe this is intentional. Gender/sex in general has been decimated intentionally. Family has been decimated. Being an organic human has been decimated. Motherhood has nearly been decimated, although that one is a tough one to kill, and is even coming back to a degree after the radical “feminists” nearly eliminated it (oh gosh, I said it again!)

So, what are pseudo-men then?

The pseudo-man is one who has some inkling of what at least appears to make a man a man and goes out and tries to dress himself up in behaviours and yes, even clothes and accoutrements, that make him appear to be a man.

This is the man who “compensates” for the things he is not really aware he is missing. These men are certainly not conscious of what they are missing, in fact, a lot of their impulses are natural compensations. Some of them are indeed caused by pathology and past trauma (like the domestically violent man) but most are benign and although in and of themselves these compensations are harmless, they cover up something that in the long run if remained covered can indeed be harmful—not only to others, but to the man himself dressing himself as a pseudo-man.

Examples? Well, the obvious ones are clothes, shoes, watches, jewelry, fast noisy cars, motorcycles, tattoos, jet skis, boats, and guns, as well as many other material things. Behaviors? Being the tough guy, fighting, crime, drugs, domestic violence, misogyny, drinking, cheating on their partner, porn, non-stop video gamer, excessive working out, and picking up women, among others. These are all things that have on the surface the “man thing” about them, but do not actually represent a “superior man.”

What constitutes the “real man” as opposed to the “pseudo-man”? Sacrifice, restraint, honesty, loyalty, dedication, being present, holding their partner’s emotions, taking care of their body in a balanced way, respect, monogamy, work, a capable listener, a critical independent mind, defining oneself from within rather than externally, a purpose driven life, empathy—and many more, but you get the picture.

Pseudo-men are everywhere, and God love the poor pitiful beasts, most of them are desperately trying. Some of them are mucking things up quite a bit, but most of them are just lost and trying things that may, for a moment, make them feel like men, but ultimately, they will slip right back down to the bottom of the pole. And as I said, I blame the agenda/culture for this, not always the men themselves. The agenda want men to think they are men, so it supplies them with all the consumer delights, bells and whistles with the promise a man will feel and look like the real thing.

After a few generations of beating the “man” out of “men” there is no one left to teach the new boys coming up—no one but the agenda itself, and we all know what they are after, and it certainly is not to create a strong male in our crumbling society. Strong males cannot be as easily controlled.