Feminist Engagement with Male Emotions and Stoicism
Posted: 18 Jul 2025, 17:21
In recent years, feminist discourse has paid increasing attention to male emotional repression, particularly the social expectation that men should not cry, not express vulnerability, and must endure hardship without complaint. This analysis has often framed such behaviors as toxic or harmful to men, suggesting that emotional openness and vulnerability are healthier alternatives. What I mean is a reference to that barrage of info from mass media where was often BLAMED the man for his supposed inability to share emotional vulnerability or signaling distress, blaming effectively men for their own problems.
One strand of critique within this discourse argues that feminism conflated traditional male stoicism with emotional repression, portraying it as inherently damaging. I must also notice, due to publishing houses who broadly spam stoic authors, they came to be considered "right wing". So the association is stoicism = right wing also exists. This is more like a political appropriation, I wont talk about it anyway. This thread isnt about it.
Anyway, according to this view, men have been socially conditioned to suppress their emotions, and this suppression is seen as a root cause of various psychological and societal issues. Feminists have therefore advocated for men to "open up," to cry more, and to engage in emotional transparency. And I suspect, the feminist narration simply wanted to undermine "the right" and acknowledged stoicism was a foundation of it.
However, this position may involve a misunderstanding of what stoicism actually is. Philosophical Stoicism, as a tradition, is not about emotional suppression, but rather about emotional discipline and self-mastery. A Stoic is not someone who denies the existence of emotion, but someone who chooses not to be ruled by it. In this sense, one could be highly emotionally expressive, sharing thoughts and feelings openly while still practicing Stoicism. Conversely, someone might suppress their desires and emotions not out of mastery, but out of fear or social pressure, for example the cuckold does this.
This distinction leads to a deeper criticism: that the feminist framing may have replaced the ideal of stoic self-possession with a form of self-suppression that is, paradoxically, celebrated rather than critiqued, so cuckolds are now embraced. Where Stoicism involves owning and managing one's emotions with conscious agency, this newer model seems to favor a man who passively aligns with the dominant moral expectations laid out by feminist narratives. In this view, the ideal male is not self-directed, but compliant (cuckold) endorsing values that may not originate from his own sense of self but are adopted to gain social approval or validation = cuckoldry.
On a behavioral level, the outward expressions of stoicism and this new compliant masculinity may appear similar meaning calm demeanor, lack of overt emotional reaction and so on. But the internal structure is quite different. One is rooted in autonomy and strength of will; the other in deference and often unacknowledged resentment and cuckoldry.
Another observation relates to the way certain strands of feminist discourse have, at times, appeared to engage with disaffected young men particularly those identified with the "incel" (involuntary celibate) subculture. Feminist content creators have occasionally produced materials aimed at these men, encouraging them to reinterpret their masculinity in more emotionally open or relationally deferent terms. For some, this was welcomed as a spiritual or therapeutic reorientation, an alternative to the hyper-masculine "alpha male" ideal that many found unattainable or unappealing.
However, this approach may have INTENTIONALLY created a new kind of vulnerability. Rather than fostering resilience and agency, it sometimes encouraged dependence on new authority figures, figures who promised to interpret and validate their emotions in a maternal or quasi-spiritual role. I personally call them "female shamans" but that would be topic for another thread.
Instead of empowering these men, this dynamic may have further entrenched them in passivity, producing a compliant masculinity that lacks the very agency it was supposed to help them reclaim. The army of cuked people basically, people who are silent and passive, but not for mastery, simply because they are a perfect slave.
One strand of critique within this discourse argues that feminism conflated traditional male stoicism with emotional repression, portraying it as inherently damaging. I must also notice, due to publishing houses who broadly spam stoic authors, they came to be considered "right wing". So the association is stoicism = right wing also exists. This is more like a political appropriation, I wont talk about it anyway. This thread isnt about it.
Anyway, according to this view, men have been socially conditioned to suppress their emotions, and this suppression is seen as a root cause of various psychological and societal issues. Feminists have therefore advocated for men to "open up," to cry more, and to engage in emotional transparency. And I suspect, the feminist narration simply wanted to undermine "the right" and acknowledged stoicism was a foundation of it.
However, this position may involve a misunderstanding of what stoicism actually is. Philosophical Stoicism, as a tradition, is not about emotional suppression, but rather about emotional discipline and self-mastery. A Stoic is not someone who denies the existence of emotion, but someone who chooses not to be ruled by it. In this sense, one could be highly emotionally expressive, sharing thoughts and feelings openly while still practicing Stoicism. Conversely, someone might suppress their desires and emotions not out of mastery, but out of fear or social pressure, for example the cuckold does this.
This distinction leads to a deeper criticism: that the feminist framing may have replaced the ideal of stoic self-possession with a form of self-suppression that is, paradoxically, celebrated rather than critiqued, so cuckolds are now embraced. Where Stoicism involves owning and managing one's emotions with conscious agency, this newer model seems to favor a man who passively aligns with the dominant moral expectations laid out by feminist narratives. In this view, the ideal male is not self-directed, but compliant (cuckold) endorsing values that may not originate from his own sense of self but are adopted to gain social approval or validation = cuckoldry.
On a behavioral level, the outward expressions of stoicism and this new compliant masculinity may appear similar meaning calm demeanor, lack of overt emotional reaction and so on. But the internal structure is quite different. One is rooted in autonomy and strength of will; the other in deference and often unacknowledged resentment and cuckoldry.
Another observation relates to the way certain strands of feminist discourse have, at times, appeared to engage with disaffected young men particularly those identified with the "incel" (involuntary celibate) subculture. Feminist content creators have occasionally produced materials aimed at these men, encouraging them to reinterpret their masculinity in more emotionally open or relationally deferent terms. For some, this was welcomed as a spiritual or therapeutic reorientation, an alternative to the hyper-masculine "alpha male" ideal that many found unattainable or unappealing.
However, this approach may have INTENTIONALLY created a new kind of vulnerability. Rather than fostering resilience and agency, it sometimes encouraged dependence on new authority figures, figures who promised to interpret and validate their emotions in a maternal or quasi-spiritual role. I personally call them "female shamans" but that would be topic for another thread.
Instead of empowering these men, this dynamic may have further entrenched them in passivity, producing a compliant masculinity that lacks the very agency it was supposed to help them reclaim. The army of cuked people basically, people who are silent and passive, but not for mastery, simply because they are a perfect slave.