Männerbund And The Sexual Dynamics Of Coordination

Something we’ve noticed in our research is that throughout history nearly all effective, purpose-oriented groups are straight men only, especially in political matters.

But in modern times, our culture is uncomfortable, or even hostile towards such restrictions. In the 20th century, we de-segregated men and women, and de-stigmatized homosexuality.

This happened essentially as a result of a great deal of political and social force put behind the idea that sexual diversity is beneficial for effective organizations, while also being more socially just. This process remains ongoing.

If sexual diversity is actually a good idea, one might ask two questions: Why did it take so long to discover such a simple, good idea? And why does it take active political force to put it through?

The progressive worldview has plenty of answers, but in this essay, I’m going to explore an alternative hypothesis, which is that sexual diversity is actually just a bad idea, which is the primary reason why political force is needed to put it through. I will not be exploring why it is being advocated for, nor will I address claims about social justice.

My core thesis is that coordination is maximized in an all-male, all-straight group, which we call a männerbund, that actively develops a “Cult of Masculinity”. Contained in that is the claim that the presence of women and homosexuals significantly degrades these natural coordination mechanisms, without offering adequate replacement or compensatory benefit.

Assumptions and Methodology

My methodology will be to first examine some important factors for close coordination of the type that humans do, then to see how that applies to an ideal group of men, and finally to add women and homosexuals, in order to explore their effects on coordination.

A big background assumption is that coordination, the ability to act as a unit to achieve a shared purpose, is the relevant factor in the effectiveness of purposeful groups and in the quality of organizational ideas. So, this is really an analysis of how coordination problems interacts with sexual diversity.

A further background assumption is that we are dealing with “normal” men and women as we know them, that is, the kind that tend to form families and reproduce. Modern progressive folk-sociology has a tendency to drop this assumption to allow for arbitrary cultural and psychological reconstruction, and some modern people run with this to reconstruct themselves at the expense of family formation and reproduction, which makes it hard to confidently say any generalized thing about sexual dynamics at all. But practically speaking, in the context of social technology for civilization as we know it, we are dealing with men and women as we know them, so the assumption of relative psychosexual normality is appropriate. Still, I have tried to make my assumptions about the nature of men and women, beyond basic biological fact, as lightweight as possible, to make the argument as strong as possible.

The Needs of Coordination

To accomplish a purpose as a group, there are a few things you need:

1. You need everybody to have the same or similar interest to pursue the purpose. If people are working for different purposes, different factions will conflict with each other and try to steal resources. This is what we call the “Primary Interest”. The associated conflict being “Primary Conflict”.

2. You need everybody to not have conflicting “secondary” interests, or you’ll get fighting and disunity again. Secondary interests are everything people care about outside the core goal of the group. Two people might agree on the goal, but if they are also locked in a dispute over ownership of some asset, or in some kind of jealous love triangle, they aren’t going to be able to cooperate. That would be a “Secondary Conflict”.

3. People need to be able to understand each other fluently, which requires significant psychological similarity, and a very open and fluid social vibe to test limits and get to know each other in deeper ways. Mutual understanding is greatly helped by displays of closeness and and familiarity. This is necessary for trust and such.

4. The folks involved need to have the right skills, mindset, and social technology to cooperate, be trustworthy, follow through, work closely, and create mutual knowledge of these conditions being met.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but it gets the basics, and so will be sufficient for our purposes.

Any group that cannot achieve the above points of coordination will be plagued by faction, drama, distrust, apathy, and other dysfunctions. The better a group can achieve coordination on these points, the better it will work.

The Cult of Masculinity

Let’s apply this to the normal case first. In a traditional all-male group, which we call a männerbund, these things are accomplished with relative ease:

1. Everyone is a man of similar culture, so they have similar interests. They came together over some shared purpose, so are all there for roughly the same thing. Counterfeit motivation is rare. The interests of men tend to be well-aligned, as they face the same group threats, share in the spoils of collective effort, and tend to be well enough coordinated that they can achieve collective goals.

2. Secondary conflict is managed about as well as it can be with a culture of conflict-preventing social norms and resolution rituals–for example, property rights, codes, ritual fighting and forgiving to resolve conflict, collective discussion in moots, justice and penance, and so on. There is little secondary conflict within the group itself, social acceptance being non-competitive, sexual and material interests, and social status rivalry, being possible to regulate and channel in cooperative directions by social norms.

3. Understanding and trust are accomplished by a “Cult of Masculinity”, where men loudly test the limits of similarity and understanding, conform themselves to a shared conception of masculinity, express affection for each other, place themselves in the organic hierarchy, and compete for respect by vigorously cooperating on minor shared goals. The result is that a great deal of potential conflict or miscommunication has been systematically tested, so that everyone has mutual knowledge of a wide space of commonality and basic trustworthiness.

4. Men are evolutionarily and culturally constructed to be good at this kind of thing and have long traditions of social technology that help achieve coordination. In fact, one of my core claims is that almost all the cultural trappings, traditions, and associations of “masculinity” as a concept are directly related to this process of exploring the possibilities of cooperation, hierarchy, and trust, establishing shared primary interests, mediating conflict between secondary interests, and so on. The nature of a man is to cooperate in this way with other men. Much of this nature is so old and foundational as to be encoded in the genetic essence of maleness, but most of it is a culturally constructed tradition and skill, taking on almost spiritual significance: a Cult of Masculinity. This Cult of Masculinity, the tradition of what it means to be a man and of how to cooperate as men, is the soul of männerbund.

Männerbund and the Cult of Masculinity are powerful social technologies, in that they singularly drive the success of entire cultural systems. They are the foundation of patriarchy, warrior culture, strong social fabric, complex economics, complex political organization, and the most effective purpose-driven groups. Historically, patriarchal männerbund cultures, once they exist, reliably out-compete and conquer their neighbors. The power of männerbund coordination is why all civilized cultures are patriarchal and dominated by relationships between men.

The Woman Question

When you introduce women to a purposeful group, many of the ways the necessities of coordination were achieved are compromised:

Women Have Different Primary Interests

Women and men do not have the same interests:

The most obvious example is in politics and war. For men, victory means conquering other men and seizing their women and resources. For women, victory only means a share in the resources, and additional female competition. For men, defeat means death. For women, defeat means getting new husbands. So men’s interests are much more tied to the interests of the group.

In cooperative productive activity like megafauna hunting, barn raising, or business, men who do well get more out of it than women: from success on some venture, men get access to better and more women, and more security, whereas women only get the resources. By their cultural position as cooperators, men also are going to get more return from cooperative activity by having more developed cooperation skills and having more time for it.

Building on factors like the above, different biological roles in the family, and feedback effects on specialization, men are naturally more occupied with the larger political and economic world, and women are naturally more caught up with the smaller world of the home and children. This leads to a different set of interests that don’t always perfectly align.

We can go into infinite detail on why things are this way, but that’s not our subject here.

We see these differences most obviously in politics, where women generally support progressivism at much higher rates than men, especially single women who don’t have their interests tied up with a man’s.

We also see women more often interpreting social status and power not as a functional part of coordination, but as a spoil to be redistributed or used for her own ends. For example, the whole feminist “lean in” and “interrupt your boss” phenomenon seems to be the result of women having interest in misusing the status signals used by men to coordinate. This would be expected from women’s biologically more self-centered world of interests.

A group of all women, by the smaller and more isolated concerns of women, will not be as aligned as a group of men. A mixed group of men and women will have fundamental mismatches in what they want and why.

Women Invite Sexual Conflict

If we add some women to a male group, we get a few new opportunities for secondary conflict:

Sexual Bidding Wars. If there are women around, men have the choice to pursue the primary mission, or pursue the women. With multiple men competing for female attention, there can be something of a “bidding war” dynamic where whoever dedicates the most time and resources to pursuit of the women has a strong advantage. This leads to dramatic neglect of the primary mission.

With women watching, there is also incentive for a man to guide his actions towards impressing the women, rather than being effective or legible to the men. This degrades cooperation and communication.

Männerbund coordination avoids this by two methods:

* Sexual Segregation. Primary work time is men-only time. It is impossible to impress women during that time, so there can be no immediate secondary conflict.

* Monogamy. Men are taken out of sexual competition once they are hitched, and they are hitched at least somewhat permanently. This causes men to be more cautious and choosy, limits direct bidding war, and takes a lot of men out of the game, all of which reduce the problem.

Both of these mechanisms are a sort of rationing. With a fixed pool of “consumptive goods”, restricting demand allows more men to be satisfied with less invested effort.

Women, especially less attractive women, get more attention and better position from a sexual “bidding war”; the men have to pay them more attention to keep them, and they have more access to the top alpha males. So women have a tendency to undermine segregation and monogamy and create sexual competition between men. This is a source of conflicting interests once women have a voice in the group.

Love Triangles. The classic secondary conflict is two men fighting over the same woman. This is a secondary conflict in four ways:

* The above bidding war problem. The men have strong incentive to divert effort to securing dominance in the love triangle.

* Incentive to fight and undermine each other. If two men are in sexual competition, undermining the other man or directly fighting with him can be an advantage. At the very least, it will be difficult for the men to sincerely cooperate. This creates division and conflict in the group that can become quite damaging.

* A tragedy of the commons. The woman is a commons in the case of a love triangle, which gives the men perverse incentives against investing in her, and towards short-term exploitation. This interference with the secondary goals of the men can cause motivational instability, and is thus a problem for the group.

* Psychological trauma from relationship insecurity. A man should have a secure relationship with his woman. If he doesn’t, his self-doubt about his manhood makes it harder for him to participate in the Cult of Masculinity, and thus harder to coordinate with the group.

Love triangles are again greatly diminished in impact and frequency with segregation and monogamy.

Relationship Fallout. With women in the group, sexual relationships are likely. Sexual relationships can have drama. This additional sexual drama is an additional source of conflict and inability to cooperate in the group.

Sexual Harassment. With a mixed group, there is always the problem of communication sometimes turning from functional to sexual. Besides being a distraction from functional communication and cooperation on the primary purpose, this can be unwanted. Unwanted sexual advances create drama and conflict, and non-functional power dynamics.

It is possible for people to behave themselves and be professional and asexual, but this is usually achieved by dulling the masculine (and feminine) vitality. A dulled sexual vitality is better than the drama of unconstrained sexuality in a mixed group, but it comes at the cost of deeper coordination, because the Cult of Masculinity and the ability of men to coordinate deeply and fluently is closely linked to male sexual vitality.

I remember talking to an HR woman once whose job was partially to manage sexual harassment drama in a startup. She had multiple stories even of incidents just involving herself. Whatever is going on there, it can’t be good for coordination.

Adding women to the group either creates sexual harassment drama, or dulls sexual vitality. Either way, it is a conflict with the core functioning of the group.

The Power Slut. An ambitious and shameless woman can gain disproportionate social power in the group by giving or teasing sexual access to multiple men. She gains influence over the men, and they become her orbiter thrall power base. This kind of power is rarely used for the good of the primary purpose of the group, but rather for her own ends.

Power in a purposeful group is not just a goodie to be distributed, but an important functional aspect of coordination. Ideally, power is given to those judged capable of using the power to lead the group well, and of managing the organization of the power. So the power given to a woman just because she sleeps around is a misallocation, besides her probable conflicts of interest.

This can happen even in a weakly monogamous culture if the power slut is able to hop between partners quickly enough. The usual solution is again, full monogamy, and sexual segregation.

This usually only happens in groups beset with a weak Cult of Masculinity and full of sexually deprived, thirsty men. Men with options and a strong Cult of Masculinity will collude to either deny her or use her without giving her power. Thirst and weakness of masculinity is especially a problem in “nerdy” groups, so the power slut is mostly found in those environments.

Sexual bidding wars, love triangles, relationship fallout, sexual harassment, and power sluts are all examples of how adding women to a functional group creates more sources of secondary conflict from sexuality.

The traditional solution is to simply exclude women from functional masculine business, which makes all of these problems just disappear.

It’s Harder to Communicate With Women

Communication relies on shared psychology, or accurate modelling and translation of each other’s psychology and concepts. The closer two people are psychologically, the more communication context context there is, and the less information is needed to convey ideas.

Men and women, by our different biological and cultural roles and lifestyles, have different psychologies. This makes it harder for a man to communicate accurately with a women than it is to communicate with a man, all else equal. Ever heard the saying that women seem to be from another planet, in that they are often inscrutable?

And all else is not equal. Men actively construct themselves to have deeply similar psychology, or at least a shared psychological framework. This is one of the major functions of the Cult of Masculinity. We strive to each become a shared archetype of masculinity, not just because that archetype is good at coordinating, but because that predictable and uniform shared role-play makes communication much more fluid. You don’t have to speak to other men as special snowflake individuals, which requires the overhead of maintaining a separate and more detailed model of everyone you interact with. You can interact with them simply as men, and as members of your männerbund. It’s not that simple in practice, but uniformity in the Cult of Masculinity makes communication much simpler than it would be if we were all unique snowflakes, especially group communication.

Can women partake in this psychological uniformization? Can a woman be one of the bros? Not really. Much of the most powerful uniformization is necessarily around the archetype of the man, rather than around some abstract, sexless professional. There is too much inherent difference and necessary cultural role difference to make this work. Further, a woman can try to be one of the men only at the expense of her womanhood.

Besides the psychological component, there are the conventions of communication.The man-woman communication script is not optimized for tight coordination. It’s asymmetric, flirty, circumspect, polite, and social, or alternatively, purely professional. You might imagine a highly developed functional communication script between men and women that somehow avoids sexual problems, but it doesn’t currently exist; it would interfere with the normal man-woman script.

In the modern world, you don’t see this contrast so much, but only because masculinity is often so underdeveloped, and masculine communication is generally suppressed.

A big part of the masculine communication script, and the ability to communicate deeply, depends on displays of trust and familiarity. For example, some casual touching, hugs, play fighting, jumping and smashing chests together, boisterous joking, etc. With a mixture of men and women, this becomes awkward, or even takes on a sexual character, and gets misinterpreted as sexual harassment or sexual advances. This misinterpretation potential corrupts the signal, which causes men to avoid that set of misinterpretable signals. This is a loss of ability to communicate.

Thus, inclusion of women in a group lowers the ability to communicate smoothly.

Women Aren’t Psychologically Constructed for Männerbund Coordination

We’ve seen that the very concept of masculinity is tied to this type of close coordination that we want: männerbund. Men have a psychology specifically constructed to do männerbund, while women don’t, because men have evolutionarily and historically needed to be constructed for männerbund, and women didn’t.

This difference derives from the feedback effects of men and women specializing in different cultural roles. It does not derive directly from the fundamentals of male and female, but it is still a very real difference that we have to take into account.

This difference means that it is men who have all the social and psychological technology of deep coordination built into their fundamental character. This specialization further entrenches men as the only proper participants in männerbund.

So, in purposeful groups requiring aligned interests, lack of sexual and other secondary conflict, fluent communication, and the psychological technologies of coordination, there should be men only.

Homosexuality vs Männerbund

Our baseline idea of männerbund was straight men only. Let’s see what happens if we allow homosexuality, using the same methodology of going through possible conflicts with the needs of coordination.

Let us briefly define terms here. “Homosexual” means the modern western type of homosexuality: a psychological desire to engage in sexual relations with other men. Thus by “homosexual” I refer to the orientation, not the act. The act itself is “sodomy”.

This specificity is needed because other societies, for example some of the ancient Greeks, had different constructions of male sexuality, and engaged in some sodomy for different reasons than modern homosexuals do. Because things can be done differently, context-free generalizations are difficult, so we have to be specific that we are talking about roughly the modern type of homosexuality.

Progressives will object that because we can’t generalize to all possible social constructions of sexuality, none of this applies, and we should engage in experimental utopian total reconstructions of society that promise to deliver the “pleasures” of sodomy without the downsides described here. But again, as stated in the “methodology” section above, we have to design for civilization roughly as we know it, and assume sexuality roughly as we know it. The burden of proof is on the utopians to show that their designs are practical and don’t fall into either the usual well known problems with sodomy, or the coordination failures listed here:

Some Incompatible Primary Interests

There are two ways that homosexuals tend to have primary-purpose conflicts with normal men:

1. In matters spiritual, social, and political, there is a danger that the implicit politics of homosexuality will cause a conflict. The kind of social order that favors an open homosexual is very different from one that takes the Cult of Masculinity seriously. Compromises are unsustainable; it is critical to männerbund that everyone’s goals be in fundamental alignment. For example, many on the far-right think that alliances with homosexuals might be useful to solve the shared problems between right-wing homosexuals and normal men, but we see even in the early stages disputes about the proper sociosexual order, pagan vs. Christian religion, and even things like nationalism vs imperialism splitting on sexual lines. Thus, the “movement” becomes a big tent, fundamentally unable to agree on the envisioned goal and vulnerable to factioning and divide and conquer.

2. In matters and projects relating to family, one way or another, homosexuals inherently don’t have the same situation or drives as patriarchs and aspiring family men. A good fraction of the kind of problems männerbund is used for are implicitly at least partially about acquiring wives, either directly through “wife raids”, or indirectly through material success, or about managing or protecting the family social ecosystem. The presence of homosexuals in the discussion and in the männerbund obfuscates and dilutes these concerns, causing those purposes to be lost, and projects organized implicitly around them to work less well.

Homosexual Relationship Drama

Similarly to women, homosexuals bring the possibility of männerbund-internal sexual relationships and attendant drama. The direct drama potential is mostly limited to between the homosexuals, but bitter relationship fallout can distract and affect the mood of the entire group.

Signalling Hazards

If homosexuality is around and able to openly express itself, it becomes possible for otherwise innocent signals to be interpreted as gay. At the very least, this is an unwanted confusion. The possibility of confusion, especially of a confusion that could compromise one’s core manhood, will cause men to stay away from any kind of expression or communication or idea that could be misinterpreted as gay. Thus, the mere possibility of open homosexuality immediately cedes entire areas of thought, action, and expression from the normal Cult of Masculinity to the deviant Cult of Homosexuality.

If it is not possible to be interpreted as gay because all gays have been rigorously excluded from the group, so that one can be certain the sexuality of one’s männerbund brothers, then whole areas of otherwise ambiguous symbology become usable. The only question is how useful these areas of expression are to the cooperative Cult of Masculinity.

The most obvious casualty is passionate displays of affection, trust, and close friendship between men, as Mark Yuray described in his piece on this topic. These signals are important to developing and maintaining the closeness and trust and mutual understanding of a männerbund. Without them, the männerbund is anemic and weakened, and less able to coordinate closely.

To the post-modern sensibility, discussions of männerbund, the Cult of Masculinity, and how these are connected to vigorous male sexuality are little more than nascent expressions of homosexuality.

We have already, in previous discussions, had concepts around homosociality mistaken, sometimes deliberately, for being inherently homosexual. That kind of thing poisons our ability to talk and think about social technology, and if one cannot talk and think about one’s social technology, it will be lost.

Discussion and application of these ideas is only fully possible when paired with an overt and credible group-wide denunciation and exclusion of homosexuality, whether it’s the subtle “no homo”, or something more extreme. Otherwise it will be possibly misinterpreted.

The Gay Mafia

Empirically, we observe homosexuals forming subversive conspiracies within larger projects, sponsoring each other, and coordinating among themselves to achieve purposes disaligned with the formal primary interest of the host group. There are many such examples. This has been called “the Gay Mafia” effect. What’s going on?

* The “foot in the door” effect of entryism. Once a group is compromised with at least one homosexual, it’s hard to be principled about excluding further homosexual entrants. The way people think about the definition of the group has to change to accommodate the homosexual, which makes it hard to think about excluding them in general. It then also becomes awkward to talk about. And then the homosexuals already inside can apply pressure to sponsor the next batch.

* With sexual relationships going every which way among them in ways we would rather not imagine, gays have mechanisms of trust-building and coordination beyond those of the host group(s). This gives them an advantage in internal politics, which distorts the natural power structure.

* The shared identity and implicit political agenda of homosexuality becomes a political uniform to form a tighter coordinated group within the männerbund, again distorting the natural power structure, and making the group less unitary.

We can see that some of the same principles apply to the Cult of Homosexuality as we have been applying to the Cult of Masculinity, in terms of the mechanisms of effectiveness. But the Cult of Homosexuality is missing the key pro-social features of the Cult of Masculinity that would make it generally useful as a foundational plank of ordered civilization.

Incompatability with Cult of Masculinity

The homosexual is incompatible with the Cult of Masculinity, as we have described it.

First of all, the most obvious thing is that the difference in sexuality makes bonding over shared experience awkward–at best. Imagine a conversation of the sort men have, about hot or crazy women, about where to find wives, about youthful adventures. The homosexual either keeps quiet or pipes up with a story about a sexual encounter with a “hot guy”. The conversation instantly goes dead, and everyone feels awkward and disgusted. This is not something normal men can empathize with at all. If you can’t empathize with your men, they can’t be your men.

Beyond shared experience, the whole conception of what a man is, and what masculine virtue is, which is at the heart of the Cult of Masculinity, is subverted by the presence of homosexuality. Instead of the all-encompassing holistic conception of masculinity that addresses every aspect of men’s lives, the presence of homosexuality forces either a retreat of the conception from all areas related to sexuality, or a split into different “kinds” of masculinity.

The former, a de-sexed conception of masculinity, straightforwardly limits the ability of men to empathize in these areas, hold each other to standards of virtue, talk about what is correct, work on sexual cooperation as a first-class problem, and help each other stably achieve the sexual goals to be able to focus on the primary mission.

All cooperation takes place in a social context within which all the problems of life must be solved. To remove sexuality from the problems addressed by männerbund is to force it to be addressed elsewhere in life, with other institutions. First of all, this is redundant and less effective. A whole second male culture has to be built up and supported purely on social and sexual needs, which doesn’t work as well and requires more effort. And second, desexualizing the “workplace” group, leads to a lowered allegiance to that primary männerbund. The männerbund no longer solves your other life problems, but instead is only about the work. This makes it less stable as a cooperative group.

So, de-sexualizing männerbund and the concept of masculinity is a bad idea, dissolving both the ability of men to bond and the strength of the primary männerbund.

But the presence and acceptance of homosexuals poses a problem for a conception of masculinity that includes sexuality. Either we de-sexualize the männerbund to avoid the awkward disgust conflicts, or we somehow compartmentalize homosexuality into some different but still acceptable kind of man.

This split into different “kinds” of masculinity does not entirely solve the disempathy problem. You can’t bond with a guy over his homosexual “adventures” no matter how much you accept his lifestyle. But let’s suppose this radical acceptance to be possible, and see what else goes wrong:

The split into multiple “normal” “kinds” of men becomes the seed of internal conflict and factioning, as described in previous sections. But it also becomes a nucleus around which dysfunctional behavior can accumulate without being questioned. You have to accept the different sexual behavior. What about the string of one-hour “relationships”? What about the orgies? The bugchasing? The lisps and effeminacy? The weird religious hang-ups? Without a shared conception of virtue, there comes to be too many unregulatable differences and loss of virtue.

This is hard to see in modern society, where shared conceptions of virtue, and the idea of holding each other to standards, has been removed by other means. But it is a very relevant problem if one does want the benefits of shared virtue standards.

Also consider that the concept of masculinity is part of a larger concept of a natural social order. This natural social order traditionally includes a normative masculine sexuality whose purpose is procreation with women. This is not an arbitrary choice; it is part of a heavily interconnected holistic conception of human life. Adding homosexuality requires either a large-scale re-engineering of social philosophy, ignoring the incongruity, or deconstructing the philosophical basis for society. These are not healthy options. Homosexuality provides no compensatory benefit that is worth it, from a social perspective.

So, we are constrained to deal with known conceptions of human life and of virtue, which do not have an accepting solution to homosexuality, if we want our Cult of Masculinity to integrate holistically with the rest of our social order.

This basic philosophical incompatibility between a traditional natural order and Cult of Masculinity on one hand, and homosexuality on the other hand, makes homosexuality not just a personal sin, but a spiritual and philosophical attack on the shared traditional social fabric. Homosexuality is not an arbitrary personal preference, but implicitly–and sometimes explicitly–a political act of total opposition to the traditional social order.

Classical Homosexuality is not Modern Homosexuality

There is an apparent contradiction between the arguments here, and the seemingly non-disastrous practice of ancient Greek and Roman homosexuality.

The contradiction is resolved when we note that classical homosexuality, with erastes and eromenos, was very different from modern homosexuality. For one, it was something normal, part of the normal social process, that normal otherwise straight men engaged in. It was not a replacement for normal sexuality with women.

The ancients did not have the concept of “the homosexual” as a type or identity. They had specific social technologies that used homosexuality. This is very different from modern homosexuality, which is much more of an identity, a property of the self and the desires.

It is the modern conception of homosexuality which is addressed here. Modern homosexuality is incompatible with männerbund coordination.

A full treatment of classical homosexuality, and what’s wrong with it, is a subject for another time. For now, we will say that whatever they were doing doesn’t fit at all in our culture, and still has many of the other known problems with sodomy and homosexuality.

Even in the ancient world, the philosophers denounced that version of homosexuality as degenerate. Plato’s concept of love without sex, now called “platonic love”, was about love between men, meaning that he advocated non-homosexual relations between men, and denounced the impurity of the homosexual relationship.

Complications with ancient practices aside, these reasons: that modern homosexuality is inherently incompatible with the Cult of Masculinity, that homosexuals empirically tend to form dangerous conspiracies, that the signals of friendship and trust get perverted when homosexuality is around, and that the social interests of a homosexual are often fundamentally disaligned with those of normal men, make it necessary that any social fabric or männerbund that takes the Cult of Masculinity seriously should exclude homosexuality.

In the modern world, excluding women offers more immediate returns than excluding homosexuals, because it takes longer for the social effects of homosexuality to metastasize, and longer to heal. Still, the benefits are there and substantial, and the resulting rule for purposeful männerbund is very simple, but cuts out a huge class of conflict and dysfunction.

That was very long, so let’s review some major points:

* The bottleneck in many problems of getting things done as a group is tight coordination, such that many people can work together on a shared goal efficiently and without conflict. The bottleneck being coordination implies that in principle, other goods like inclusivity of group membership can be productively traded off for coordination benefit.

* The kind of tight coordination we are studying has four needs: Aligned primary interests, non-conflicting secondary interests, fluent deep communication and mutual knowledge of good character, and psychological construction and social technology for coordination.

* The classic “männerbund” social technology does not guarantee good coordination, but eliminates many fundamental barriers to coordination by selecting only straight men, constructing a “Cult of Masculinity” that homogenizes motivations and psychology, imposing rules to manage secondary conflicts, and allowing deep communication and mutual understanding. Männerbund is a sensible baseline framework for coordination social technology that is so necessary as to have completely dominated the space historically.

* The männerbund style of coordination is so powerful that the associated archetype of masculinity is the majority of what it means to be a man in society. Our traditional masculine culture and even masculine genetic development is aimed at männerbund. The essential nature of a man is to be the kind of person that coordinates in a männerbund. The “Cult of Masculinity” in a männerbund is the social nature of man.

* Accepting women and homosexuals, and other deviants that don’t fit the complete masculine archetype, breaks the simple and effective coordination mechanisms of männerbund.

* Women have different primary motivation from men. In particular, more interest entanglement with the smaller world of the home and family, and less interest entanglement with the larger world of civilization, polity, and economy.

* Women invite sexual conflict: sexual bidding wars, love triangles, relationship fallout, sexual harassment, and power sluts.

* It’s harder to communicate with women. Women can’t participate in the Cult of Masculinity.

* Women aren’t psychologically and culturally constructed for coordination. Men, and the archetype of masculinity, have most of the deeply integrated coordination social technology.

* Homosexuals often have different fundamental motivations from men. In particular, in the kind of spiritual, social, political order they favor, and in any interests that relate to the family. This is a significant fraction of the kind of motivations for which männerbunds are formed.

* The presence of homosexuals creates signalling hazards that make it harder to bond as men.

* Homosexuals often form “gay mafias” that subvert the natural power structure of the group.

* Homosexuality is incompatible with the Cult of Masculinity. If they are accepted, this poses a deep philosophical problem for the nature of men and greatly weakens the shared concept of masculinity. Open homosexuality is a spiritual and political attack on traditional masculine society.

* When we talk about the problems homosexuals bring, we are referring specifically to the modern type of homosexuals. Ancient homosexuality may be different.

Because of these problems involved in including women and homosexuals in männerbund groups, the rules are simple.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. “When we talk about the problems homosexuals bring, we are referring specifically to the modern type of homosexuals. Ancient homosexuality may be different.”

    In essence, modern homosexuality represents an attempt by physiological males to imitate or capture the essence of femininity. It’s not surprising that the rise of “LBQGT” has led to transgenderism (which largely consists of male-to-female transitions)

    Ancient homosexuality was ritual and symbolic in its orientation (no pun intended). Modern homosexuality is explicitly about “identity” and its supposed fluidity.

    1. Indeed, it’s almost like modern homosexuality was created as a specific attack on the concept of masculinity and male coordination.

  2. An excellent piece, but it could have included at least a short section on how lesbians, especially ‘butch’ ones, might play into this.

    1. Presumably
      -different incentives; lesbians are less likely to be planning for families
      -mentality differences and inability to fit into masculinity
      -drama with more than 1 lesbian
      -encourages women to identify as lesbians in order to be around men

      1. Good response. Seems correct.

  3. Interesting piece. Evidence of different mannerbund forming different masculine norms was interesting, and upon reflection apparent in my own youth.

    My group of male friends was always more combative and explicitly competitive, but less sport oriented and implicitly competitive than other groups, which made cross group interactions awkward since our competition’s were formal and ritualistic, and theirs were informal and based on social cues.


  4. Excellent writeup.

    In summary: heterosexual male teams are extremely effective, but women and homosexuals undermine their cohesion and effectiveness.
    Solution: exclude women and homosexuals from certain (and certainly core) male groups.

    Segregation works.

  5. Very well described.

    The sad thing is that any of this needs to be argued. These dynamics were as obvious as the sky being blue even to so-called ‘primitive’ societies.

    I like to bring it to attention by asking my male friends: what have you ever gotten out of platonic relationships with women? I haven’t received more than blank stares yet.

    Segregation is not just a necessary social constraint for the purpose of social cohesion and efficiency; it is our preferred natural state. The irony that children understand this too well (the opposite sex having ‘cooties’ and all that), but we adults think ourselves enlightened because we can share social spaces with opposite sex..

    1. Chiraqi Insurgent March 24, 2017 at 6:58 pm

      So true. I went to an all-boys, Catholic high school, and socially it was so easy because we weren’t trying to impress each other, aside from the typical sportsball one-upmanship. Also, it was easier to simply concentrate on the material, except for my female geometry teacher sophomore year. Many a boner had come and gone during that class. Nowadays the poz is so deep in the Church that these schools have gone co-ed. Homeschooling is the only way forward for the foreseeable future.

      1. I too attended an all-male Catholic high school and can definitely backup the social ease without the pressure of impressing the opposite sex. In my my school there was one class that was co-ed: band. This class clearly demonstrated the difference between male and females. The females tended to be complain more; guys tended to talk back at the band director. If there was anyone we wanted to one-up it was those who we were competing academically as well as sport-wise.

        My high school recently decided to go co-ed based on the fact the our “sister” school, an all-girls high school, would be closing down due to low enrollment this upcoming May. Absorbing their students, as some alumni put it was the “Christian” thing to do. Maybe so.

        The president of my high school, holding an MBA, strangely said that trends in Catholic schools point to co-ed as the future. I wanted to send him an email debating about this point but figured not to. In my mind going co-ed is simply due to the high tuition which makes cash struggling parent opt for the cheaper product, public school. Going co-ed is simply the way – a quick way – to boost enrollment in hopes for long term gain. I can’t say it doesn’t work, but I was not pleased with the shallow analysis on his part.

        If anything, the hopeful blessing would be that the school would somewhat cater to the fine arts since I felt the school’s curriculum was becoming too one-sided (STEM/STEAM heavy). Ever since the new president took over it was clear, to me at least, he wanted to make it into some type of mini-West Point (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing). And because his MBA taught him to see business trends (too bad what’s he is seeing and analyzing is rather off the mark).

    2. Well, I got a maturity out of female platonic relationships. What I mean is that for every feeling of lust or yearning – not necessarily love – I kept those feelings in check. I examined my feelings and asked myself quietly “Is she worth it?” Is the girl worth the time, the heartache, the pining, the money, the patience? It helped me carve out what is now the standard I seek in a girlfriend/fiance/wife. In other words just because your phallus becomes a bit hardened doesn’t mean you should act on it; or that if you get “the feels” for an XX it should be reflected in an honest manner.

  6. This is very good, should be mandatory reading in any men’s organization.

    “For men, defeat means death. For women, defeat means getting new husbands.”

    This should be the basal assumption of any reactionary psychology. Very clean, succinct, and to the point.

  7. Excellent exposition of what we all feel and everyone used to know.

    Now the question is how to defend such groups from integration. For now the solution seems to be to keep the units small.

  8. This may be the best post on the internet. When I was in Marine Corps basic training ~10 years ago (the only branch with gender segregated boot camp) the cohesion was downright inspiring. Despite having an ivy league degree, I now fix houses and cars for cash because I simply cannot work in an environment where females are present. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to circumvent the current forced desegregation, to no avail.

    Excellent work, sir.

  9. A few thoughts:
    Firstly, I think your analysis insufficiently takes into account the way in which men and women are designed by nature to be complementary/compatible, not only biologically, but also psychologically. Simply put, men need women emotionally/psychologically as much as women need men physically/materially. Male and female are two halves of the human psyche. Humans need a balance of feminine and masculine influence, and this is true at the individual level, the familial level and at the societal level. I will certainly grant that our society in its present state is far too feminised, but the solution is not to go to the other extreme of ultra-masculinity. Ancient Sparta may have been extraordinarily militarily effective, but it wasn’t a particularly pleasant place, was it? I, at least, would not wish to live there.

    Secondly, your argument that women should be entirely excluded from the professional/political sphere, and that close-knit, effective, mixed-sex working environments simply cannot function seems to ignore an abundance of empirical real-world evidence that points to the contrary. Male and female firefighters and paramedics, for instance, seem to do a fine job of working together professionally, and in my own experience of the academic sphere, the greater preponderance of women in a space, the quieter, more civil, more focussed and professional the space is. Women are simply much more pleasant to be around and to work with (and that’s me speaking as a man).

    Also, you say that homosexuals disrupt this ideal all-male ‘Mannerbund’, but it’s hard to see how situational homosexual behaviour (i.e. sodomy) can possibly be avoided in an environment when men are exclusively/primarily associating with other men, and have no sexual outlet. Just think of the popular stereotypes surrounding navies, or *shudder* all-boys private boarding schools.

    Sex segregation is totally unnatural and unhealthy, and is prone to produce emotionally and relationally stunted homosexuals (homosexuality being, according to interesting theories proposed in some radical feminist circles, a manifestation of extreme misogyny) with a warped and misogynistic view of women. Just think of Saudi Arabia, where you have an entire generation of damaged young men who have been raised to hate and fear women. It would also have been totally alien to our ancestors who lived and worked (apart from monks and soldiers) in mixed environments for most of history. If you visited a European village in the Middle Ages, you’d see women working the fields right alongside men. The “Mannerbund” ideal is thus at odds with millennia of European Christian history, as well as human nature itself.

    Furthermore, in failing to condemn the depraved sexual practices of the Ancient Greeks and Romans (whose decadence led to their fall and replacement by Germanic cultures, which were decidedly intolerant of sodomy), you ignore the particular evil of sodomy itself, which has been historically regarded in Christianity as one of the worst, if not the worst, sin imaginable. It was viewed by Church Fathers and Saints as a soul-destroying sin, a violation of the most egregious kind, worse even than murder.

    1. Michael Perilloux May 12, 2017 at 8:04 pm

      >Simply put, men need women emotionally/psychologically as much as women need men physically/materially. Male and female are two halves of the human psyche.

      Yes, and this is what I called a “secondary interest”.

      >I will certainly grant that our society in its present state is far too feminised, but the solution is not to go to the other extreme of ultra-masculinity.

      You are far too feminized if you think an organization of only men that excludes women is “extreme ultra-masculinity”.

      Is your priest a woman? Would you hire women for a company that needs cohesion and directed competence?

      >mixed-sex working environments simply cannot function seems to ignore an abundance of empirical real-world evidence that points to the contrary.

      I didn’t say “simply cannot function”. I said reduced cohesion and competence.

      >Male and female firefighters and paramedics, for instance, seem to do a fine job of working together professionally and in my own experience of the academic sphere, the greater preponderance of women in a space, the quieter, more civil, more focussed and professional the space is

      Interesting observations. In my experience, the phrase “cucked and distracted” is more descriptive.

      In the normal course of things, extraordinary coordination is not needed, so a “quietly professional”, i.e. sexless and atomized, is perfectly adequate. This is not an argument that it is adequate in those extraordinary circumstances, which often see the men springing into action, and the women slowing them down and needing to be bailed out.

      Nor does it address the other problems of mixed workplaces. Would you let your wife or daughter work with a bunch of firefighters every day, sitting around bored with nothing to do but flirt?

      >but it’s hard to see how situational homosexual behaviour (i.e. sodomy) can possibly be avoided in an environment when men are exclusively/primarily associating with other men

      Good thing I didn’t propose exclusive socialization with men, to the point of celibacy. Secondary (i.e. sexual) needs do need to be filled.

      > Just think of the popular stereotypes surrounding navies

      You must think it is superior to have female sailors mixed in who are airlifted out at great expense when they get pregnant. There are many challenges with boats, but women are not the solution.

      >Sex segregation is totally unnatural and unhealthy, and is prone to produce emotionally and relationally stunted homosexuals (homosexuality being, according to interesting theories proposed in some radical feminist circles, a manifestation of extreme misogyny) with a warped and misogynistic view of women.

      You seem to be afraid of men organizing without the oversight of women to keep them soft and cucked, and overly worried about latent homosexuality if men should ever be out of the presence of women. These fears are unfounded, in my opinion.

      I also find it interesting that you cite radfems as an authority on male psychology.

      >Just think of Saudi Arabia, where you have an entire generation of damaged young men who have been raised to hate and fear women.

      Because they have no access to women, because they have polygamy and no mannerbund.

      > It would also have been totally alien to our ancestors who lived and worked (apart from monks and soldiers) in mixed environments for most of history. If you visited a European village in the Middle Ages, you’d see women working the fields right alongside men. The “Mannerbund” ideal is thus at odds with millennia of European Christian history, as well as human nature itself.

      I’m sure it is also traditional, in your view, to have female soldiers, engineers, and priests. I’m sure our ancestors would congratulate you for the brave stance you are taking against toxic masculinity.

      Or perhaps you should consider that subsistence farming is not a mannerbund activity, not requiring extraordinary coordination, value alignment, and courage, nor even really a civilized activity.

      Your general failure of understanding here is thinking that I’m saying men and women should be entirely separate, which is so stupid I’m not sure how you managed to come to that interpretation. A better refutation of that interpretation than your own is simply that most of life doesn’t need the especial focus and coordination which calls for mannerbund. Done.

      Just to be clear, I am proposing only organizational separation, only on those tasks for which especial focus and coordination is needed, not social separation in general. Please try to be more careful in your reading.

      >Furthermore, in failing to condemn the depraved sexual practices of the Ancient Greeks and Romans (whose decadence led to their fall and replacement by Germanic cultures, which were decidedly intolerant of sodomy), you ignore the particular evil of sodomy itself, which has been historically regarded in Christianity as one of the worst, if not the worst, sin imaginable.

      That’s because this article was not about the sinful nature of sodomy, but rather the organizationally corrosive effects it has. I chose not to engage with ancient practices because they are different enough, and unknown enough, that it would have been an entire other study in itself. Yes it’s bad, but I don’t feel the need to launch into tangential polemics when writing careful theory.

Comments are closed.