Saturday, March 9, 2013

Zeta masculinity...what a concept?

I am interested in a collaboration of sorts, in the exploration of the concept of 'Zeta Masculinity', both in the hopes of further defining it, as well as utilizing the concept to give men a way forward.

I particularly want to extend this invitation to those in the Game community, as well as the Traditionalist community, simply due to the probable assumption that this is a 'MRA concept'.

I propose Zeta masculinity will by nature encompass Sexuality and SMV issues, self-worth and -improvement issues, critical thinking skills and logical reasoning skills, and all manner of related issues.  The idea is to identify major obstacles men face, and to give them the tools to figure out how to overcome those obstacles.

There are five main principles that I believe do a nice job of providing a scaffold on which to hang our theories, provided by James Huff.  They are, in James's words:

1) Personal Accountability – An internal measurement of Merit. This is defined through self-sufficiency without resorting to violence and coercion, and the willingness to face natural consequences for your decisions. It is primarily used as an honest form of self-assessment. It keeps unrealistic expectations and narcissism in check.

2) Personal Responsibility – The measure of external actions that can also be seen and judged by others.. This one has a twofold process, one of which is redundant to personal accountability, but creates a tie between the self and the world outside of the self. This is the physical manifestation of personal accountability as judged by others in both deed and word, and the barometer of basic relationships with other people.

3) Characterization by Merit–The ability to judge others based upon their personal responsibility. This means other people should be judged by whether or not they are moving toward self-sufficiency without resorting to violence and coercion and whether they demonstrate a measure of personal accountability by facing the natural consequences of their actions. This is true regardless of external features of the individual being judged.

4) Non-Aggression/Non Violence – Simply put…… Thou shalt not enforce thy will upon others through the use of threat of the loss of life or liberty, or by injury, or through the threat of loss of personal property (or by making good on said threats and simply taking what you want). This can be altered only in the scope of upholding contractual law in which consequences for breaking the contract are fully understood between both parties, or in defense of personal property rights.

5) Respect for Personal Property Rights – By which the fruits of all time and labor by an individual gained through self-sufficiency in any environment, or property gained through contractual agreements with other individuals is solely the possession of that individual and is not to be removed by any form of force or coercion. Another way to put it is the actual body of the individual and anything created by the body (the tool of consciousness) is the exclusive property of that individual unless contractual agreements are signed between parties for the exchange of goods and services.
 The challenge here is to fit the many themes and aspects of an as yet to be determined model of masculinity as we can into this framework on a formalized basis.  You may have noticed, however, that these five principles are already fairly well represented in the Manosphere as a whole.

That's why this doesn't require much from most bloggers out there, I'm not asking for articles, or some kind of collaborative site or anything.

What I would like is for you to add a tag to your posts when you think it addresses this sort of an issue.  When you, or someone you edit, post(s) an article dealing with an issue you feel particularly helpful to men, as strategy or warning, just add the tag 'zeta' to the post.

The only criteria I personally would ask you to apply other than your own personal judgement on relevance, is the five principles listed above.

The idea is to find many ways to live as you see fit, that also fit within a framework of generally accepted 'rules', formed with an eye to improving our lot, and that of society (maybe).

Then, I or anyone interested can read the articles based on that filter in searches...I likely read your blog anyway, but this sort of thing would make my job a lot easier.  What I hope to do is gather over time a good sample of articles over a wide range of issues, and create either an Anthology, or some kind of searchable database, or both.

I hope this post can be taken in the spirit it was posted in, as a serious attempt to get a handle on a deceptively simple concept.  The answer to the question "What do we do now?"

If you're reading this and you blog, please spread the word...I would love to find new blogs via the keyword.  Specifically those of the Gamesphere, who are quite a bit further along than the rest of us in this regard, cooperation would be GREATLY appreciated.  And thanks in advance for getting on board and spreading the word.

Here, I even made you a picture to help sell the idea to you.  I hope you like it.


  1. All of these qualities fit into the traditional concepts of chivalry, which many in the Manosphere misunderstand since they think it means mangina when it really means the exact opposite. The idea that thinkers in the past have not figured these things out is a sign of the cluelessness of many guys in the Manosphere.

  2. The point of these philosophies is not to limit the choices available to men, but to expand them. Sure, it could be argued that Chivalry fits in these spaces, but then again so does a Game oriented lifestyle.

    Which is, of course, the point.

    Everyone seems to have their own personal little model of what men 'should' live like, the idea here is to 'define masculinity' in a way that expands personal potential without infringing on the lives of others, and also without encouraging a nihilistic hedonism.

    It's a thin road to walk on, and I think James did an outstanding job here, myself.

  3. In the original definition of chivalry a man didn't alter his behavior to merely get laid. That is something that Roissy and Roosh and the rest of those frauds will never understand: women are running their lives since they've changed themselves to suit women. And as for "Game," the idea that men in the psst didn't understand what is is, is again a sign of the ignorance and lack of education among what I call the Lost Boys of the Manosphere.

  4. Bob, the dismissal of the concepts of Game and the Manosphere is plainly obvious. What isn't is the rationale behind your proclamations. For instance, I have never seen anyone declare Chivalry is about getting laid (far from it, usually that's the accusation levelled at Game)...what I HAVE seen is the accusation that Chivalry as advocated today is Gynocentric. Hell, I've made that accusation. But 'Chivalry' (as in the teacher trying to indoctrinate his students in...Colorado I think it is?...into the whole pulling out of chairs and opening doors variety) is more the purview of the more sexless among us. I know a guy who actually thinks the way to a woman's heart is to quote Orwell and Kafka, and read poetry to her.

    Of course, this will work on some of the women some of the time...if you're not also a balding socially awkward old guy chasing 20 year old tail. So circumstances alter some extent.

    Simple fact...not any one aspect of the Manosphere has it 'right'...not even the Traditionalists.