Branching from that post, and thinking about Mr. Elliot Rodger, the gamma male Santa Barbara serial stabber/shooter, perhaps he is an exponent of this phenomenon as applied to men. Like those women in London over New Years Eve two years ago, he found he had very little to offer his female counterparts in the old qualities of dependability, responsibility, integrity, strength, and protective covering--these traits having been widely declared as immaterial by the majority of women--thus, with displays of resources and status failing to secure the sex that he so coveted, he too measured himself and found himself wanting:
Like most of us, he wanted something more. He wanted something good. A car, games, medicine didn't help him. In a culture that doesn't value men as protectors and fathers, all there really was to hope for was sex; this was his only idea of any semblance of pursuing happiness. "This makes perfect sense, because deep in even the most deluded and anesthetized heart, we cannot fail to know that sex is meant to connect us to an Other," says Ed Mechmann, director of the Safe Environment Office at the Archdiocese of New York. When he couldn't get what he wanted, there was an "existential anger" about him, "not just against his situation but even against who and what he is," Mechmann comments. "And so he tried to destroy all that reminded him of the hurt he couldn't get rid of or make sense of." [bolded emphasis mine].While I bolded that clause above to highlight just how upside-down our culture has become, the title of the article from which this quote was drawn actually says it all for me..."toxic loserdom". The epithet "loser" being defined these days as (1) a man without value as protector and father--those qualities being next to worthless in the modern SMP and practically so in the MMP--and (2) as a man without dominance or status (or unable to emulate it sufficiently), well, it appears that Mr. Rodger was a "loser" under both the Old Rules (i.e., the dreaded Patriarchy™) and the New (our present gynarchy).
Perhaps Mr. Rodger's folly--indeed the folly of a great many men--was to define masculinity in terms of the feminine and his sense of self in terms of Others. Under his own version of the apex fallacy, he saw other men "succeed", hated both them and himself for their success, and salved his bruised ego in the echo chamber of PUAHate. Moreover, he pedestalized women, particularly blonde Caucasian ones (which he, again, considered the apex of female beauty), yet deeply resented their rejection of his too-subtle-to-detect offers of provision and protection and attempts at displaying higher value and dominance and status.
Unfortunately, Mr. Rodger's masculinity was defined in terms of what the apex women around him wanted and the behaviors to which they responded, a poor reference upon which to base one's identity. He found himself caught between the rock of the liberated unrestrained feminine and the hard place of Victorian chivalry.
This, then, appears to be the mission field for the brotherhood of men and the manosphere. To come alongside younger men (or better yet, educate them as boys) and coach them to live out their God-given masculinity without reference to what the feminine, corrupted by feminism or not, thinks. If She wants to come alongside and audition for the part of co-captain of the journey through life, She can. Otherwise, he is self-contained, secure in his sense of self, his relationship to his Creator, and with a masculinity defined by his Creator's timeless wisdom. In other words, truly going his own way. The alternative for men in this context is the same nothingness that Mr. Rodger felt...a chasing after sex, with nothing beyond that and nothing to show for it. Instead, Mr. Rodger would have done better to pursue that for which men were created to do...to protect, to sire, to lead--to love a woman and be loved by her. But above all, live the life his Creator has laid out before him.