Matt Forney
Spread the Word!

Douchebag vs. Gable: The Clash of Masculinities

This is a guest post by Maximus.

Fellow troglodytes in arms…

Master Forney has graciously allowed the return of Maximus to stir up a hornet’s nest of indignant fury from all sides of the masculinity debate.

I stumbled upon Matt’s new rebel base one day when scouring the universe for any accessible Hoth archives of In Mala Fide on the inter-web. Having found Yavin 4, I have returned to the hot and steamy jungle of Matt’s rebel scum writings on and off again to peruse here and there, but had no wish to write again for the manosphere.

No wish, that is, until I found this gem of an article:

A Middle Class Douchebag is a Thing to Be.”

Matt and I have different worldviews, as every independent man should have. Where we agree, nothing but high-five’s all around. Where we disagree is the fulcrum by which we both may blindly stumble upon the real truth of our lives and times.

Matt’s article attempted to defend the middle class douchebag lifestyle as something to aspire to, “a thing to be” as it were. (Never mind the fact the middle class no longer exists so it begs the question, just what class does a douchebag belong to? But I digress.)

Hot chicks, after all, is what we are all after right?

And douchebags get hot chicks right?

That is the life then… being a douchebag, bedding hot chicks… right

Right?

I beg to differ.

I actually found Hot Chicks with Douchebags a few years back and laughed my ass off.

Far from finding the comments on the heavily tattooed boys and super-implanted-all-but-naked girls from being blue pill and therefore nothing but the frustrated keyboard curses of tissue-wanking-box-but-a-hand-reach-away nerds and chocolate-and-cream-cheese-face-stuffing femi-hags, I found them to be a sense of comic relief that some people can see just how fucked up the sexes, both of them, have become in the 21st century.

Quote:

I’ve figured it out: “douchebag” is shorthand for “man who is unapologetic about his masculinity.”

This is where I disagree with Matt. It is the very reason I am writing.

Even though we have the same functioning eyes, we don’t see the same thing.

Douchebag is shorthand for one thing and one thing only: an immature boy with false ideas and aspirations about manhood and masculinity.

Does a douchebag get hot chicks? Clearly, no one will argue against this.

But is that the goal?

Are you still chasing after hot chicks to define your sense of masculinity, of being a man?

A loser is a girl without a hot chick. A man is one with a hot chick?

You think that’s air you’re breathing now?

If a douchebag is unapologetic about anything, it is the fact he is a total and complete failure of the Y chromosome, and therefore masculinity and being a man. It does not matter how many hot chicks he can grope throughout his life, he is, and always will be, viewed as an immature loser by mature men and women. (And the mature ones are far and few between in our culture today.)

The same goes for the “hot chicks” in the photos as well, for they are also on cultural trial in the same way the douchebag is: immature girls pretending to be women (but we don’t need to correct the women, they will self-correct when men become men again).

It is called Hot Chicks WITH Douchebags for a reason. Both genders are being drawn and quartered, but the girls get away with their form of douchebaggery because they are “hot.” (yawn, can you say pussy worship?)

It’s like this: what links a douchebag with a hot chick is one and the same…

Immaturity.

Far from owning their own balls and being unafraid of their own masculinity, the douchebag is the zenith of the elite’s control over the emotional, intellectual and spiritual life of their beta male slaves. Yes, even if you have a hot chick, you can still be a beta slave to the alpha male elite. (Which is exactly what they want you to be.)

To wit…

The men they snottily label “douchey” are all successful in some fashion—money, power, women…

Ah yes… money, power, women.

That is the definition of masculinity… right?

Hmmm… and these boys think they have taken the red pill.

That sounds like how a woman would define masculinity, does it not? The giveaway is the fact that woman is included in the trifecta of masculine “success,” as of course, every woman would narcissistically assume would be in a man’s definition of success and masculinity.

And that is precisely what is at stake in the manosphere and for young men of the 21st century: the definition of masculinity, what it is to be a man.

Are we to let one angry gaggle of women (feminists) define masculinity (i.e. men are all rapists by nature but you should be nice to us and just be friends) only to let an immature gaggle of women (hot chicks with implants) define it for us all over again (i.e. be a douchebag if you want to get laid)?

I have a radical idea…

How about men decide what it is to be masculine and a man?

My friends, and I do hope we can be, the battle of our times is not for money, power and hot chicks.

The battle of our times is for truth and justice—to be MEN—not boys. 

Truth… and justice.

No woman ever wants masculinity to be defined along such philosophical lines because she knows, to her uterus, that it will be game over for the sisterhood if that happens. And curiously… the same goes for the elite psychopaths currently hell bent on starting World War III with this Ukraine/Russia gong-show right now. (Again, I digress, but I hope you can connect the dots.)

No my friends, anything, and I mean anything, but truth and justice as the foundation of what it means to be masculine. To stand for something other than money, power and women.

And to make my point crystal clear, I turn to two photographs, two images that say far more words than I could ever possibly (or want) to write.

douchebag-gable

Fellow troglodytes…

The two above men walk into a room full of hot chicks and beautiful ladies (there is a difference, boys)…

Which man will all the girls be straining their eyes and necks to sneak a peek at, hopefully without him noticing? (And with dutiful and wonderfully sexy submissiveness.)

I rest my case.

If you want to be a douchebag who gets hot chicks… go nuts, go all out, you are free to do so. God knows you have more than enough role models to look up to on Hot Chicks with Douchebags to figure out how to be the best middle class douchebag you can be.

But if you want to be a man?

Hmmm… where does a boy look for that?

Don’t be surprised when that hot chick who used to be all over your tats and club baring muscles leaves you to “accidentally” bump into Rhett in hopes of making submissive eye contact with him.

When a real man walks into the room… the douchebags don’t stand a chance.

Power. Money. Women. A man craves not these things.

Maximus out.

Read Next: A Middle-Class Douchebag is a Thing to Be

  • Virtue. Manly virtue. Courage, Truth, Honor, Self-control. Mature men respect men who display these virtues.

  • Correction: “Hot chicks” should read “Immature girlskanks lacking self-control.”

  • I like the bigger picture Maximus goes for here. As Maximus describes his position and Forney’s, I would take elements of both and discard elements of both to get mine. IMO, the problem with Maximus’ ‘truth and justice’ is that the rubber never hits the road of power, money, women. The problem with Forney’s view as described is exactly what Maximus said: “beta slave to the alpha male elite.” But truth and justice as universalist ideas are cultish globalist ideals of the beta slave. I choose a two-layer shell application of higher and lower masculinity. I have my personal and social values on the inside only for fellow patriarchal brothers to know. I realize that most social interactions I have are not per my sovereignty and so to bear the burden of responsibility of my values but to never get any reward would be idealistic foolishness. Got the T-shirt. My societal values are not The societal values in play. I aspire to make them so, and for that I need power, money, chicks. I play by the rules that are in fact under the current order, a particular version of might makes right, and if I can ever become the establishment, I fucking will and enjoy the process as the greatest experience of my life.

    What i believe Maximus and most others overlook all the time is the laws of nature are evolutionary laws of discrimination, of culling, of growing stronger as a group, as a culture, by culling and outright conquering the weaker. Truth and justice at one level of development is blasphemy at another. Religion pulled men out of the muck of pack animal social norms, but it is a mill stone now. Rationalism based on evolution is the truth now. Will it always be the best truth to guide independent (i.e. masculine) men? I don’t know. Maybe in some form, yes. Evolution is our process of living. It is our morality (of cooperation as mortals in an evolutionary race condition), our truth, our master. Please the master best, and you have the power, money, pussy—reproductive success, be it genes or memes or the next big evolutionary substance of competing ideas.

    All I ever wanted was to be left in peace to pursue my potential. As a somewhat old man I realize you can’t be left alone without holding the power to impose upon inferior others. Parasites are a part of master’s kingdom, and if you do not stay vigilant, they will lead the destruction for a new kingdom because master expects progress and results.

    Not incidentally, the Jews were given special permission by Christendom to be the only lenders (financial engineers) during the Middle Ages. It didn’t help that the Muslims destroyed classical knowledge more than they preserved it. The Renaissance did not happen until Europeans controlled banking and investments themselves. It would be better if each individual have the privileges and responsibility and accountability of investments management, of personal welfare management. Only civilized men can do that. Masculinity has evolved, and we are in the throws of an evolutionary fight for masculinity = independence. That is why PUA had to become a political movement. Control of the pussy is like control of the spice. Control it or it will control you either in a feral way or under the sovereignty of a hostile, alien masculinity. That is the fulcrum of my truth at present.

  • @ “Reality” Doug

    “Religion pulled men out of the muck of pack animal social norms, but it is a mill stone now.”

    Religion also restrained women’s hypergamy. Anti-religion released women’s hypergamy. Maybe you need to do a little more thinking.

  • Taylor

    What you’ve written is pretty close to the truth behind the scenes. Men should define themselves apart from the how women view them. This list goes on and on. You draw a difference using your own terms and decide what you want them to mean in the context. It’s still good, they’re something different between what you define as manhood and masculinity.

    Look back at the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s. There existed books on how to be a gentleman, and that was the pinnacle of being a man. They mixed good rules for conduct in mixed company or any company with advice for respecting women. How to breed good character. Only the new gentleman’s conduct toward ladies has changed.

    The braggart is far of from the mark of a true man. The boorish one is the same. Present in this world are men that will say how to run it, but can’t even govern their temper if they speak to somebody totally opposed to it. Are you getting my point? We are all judged by our behaviors. Let’s look at the most conspicuous examples of error in your post:

    The two above men walk into a room full of hot chicks and beautiful ladies (there is a difference, boys)…
    A woman taking care of her physical appearance can be described IDENTICALLY with both. You are just varying your tone. Nothing else.

    Power. Money. Women. A man craves not these things.
    Craves is projecting your own feelings on the matter into the speech. Try this: A man is expected to influence the world around him. To be otherwise is variously called beta or dork. I’ve entered the room, the conversation, the profession … I’m changing it, I’m developing it, I’m impacting it. “Craves” is letting your emotions cloud your judgment. If you’re a man you have goals.

    Do you want a family? Find a good woman. No crave needed. No projection.
    Do you stand up for yourself? Are you an individual? You exert and develop power.
    Do you not accept laziness in your life? You gain money. Maximus uses trite phrases, so I’ll pull out my own. Money is success. If you’ve become good at it, you find somebody to pay you to do it. I’m specifically contrasting this with the opposed notion. You exist as a nonprofit individual and seeking betterment is always bad.

    Let’s un-bury manliness, through whatever definitions and illustrations of distinctions between douchebags, manliness, manhood, boys, girls, chicks, women, and ladies.

  • Pingback: Links, Links, Links, get your links…()

  • Aaron

    I admire idealism but we simply don’t live in that sort of world anymore. In fact, And I’m uncertain to what extent it ever existed, uncertain what portion is reality or romanticizing. Catullus wrote about the douchebags of his day. If we work into the definition of douchebag the attribute “over prioritizing women” then even Rhett Butler was a tragic douchebag of a sort, carrying a torch for a woman that didn’t love him.

  • Great Post Maximus!

    Its true there is more to being a man than Power, Money and Women. Those things are just distractions that modern men use to define self-worth. Being a man is about being confident about himself without “Peacocking” Its about walking into a room and people noticing you without you saying a word. Masculinity is about self-respect, dignity, cultured and worldly among many other positive traits.

    Being a douchebag is being ignorant, lying to yourself and needing outside reinforcement to keep you manhood from collapsing. My money is on Gable rather than the douche!

    Great post Maximus!

  • Finally, a Manosphere writer who actually understands masculinity! Excellent post!

  • AAB

    Out of curiousity, is this the same Maximus that published at ‘In Mala Fide’, and also at ‘dapook.blogspot.com’ under the name of ‘Pook’?

  • Great article. The bottom line appears to be this: the fact that one or more really hot chicks like you says nothing positive about you. Unless that hot girl is also the smartest and the most interesting girl and finds you to be the same as well, no credit can be given for being able to attract or sleep with hotter girls. The only achievement under the circumstances is that you managed to insert yourself in a social or professional context that allows you to be around those girls and interact with them.

  • Pingback: Lightning Round | Free Northerner()

  • Jack LaBear

    “Which man will all the girls be straining their eyes and necks to sneak a peek at, hopefully without him noticing?…
    I rest my case.”
    All the girls will go for the douchebag.
    The women will go for Rhett.
    I rest your case about immaturity.

  • Jack LaBear

    ” then even Rhett Butler was a tragic douchebag of a sort, carrying a torch for a woman that didn’t love him.”
    Oneitis is characteristic of betas.
    PUAs are interested in picking up women. Money, power and (the attraction of other) women is what women are attracted to.
    What Maximus is saying is that there is more to masculinity than attracting women.

  • Jack LaBear

    A scientific understanding of women’s behavior and its origins is enough reason restrain their hypergamy. No religion needed.