Understanding 'masculinism,' a movement to restore the primacy of men
(Fresh Air) June 24, 2026: Terry Gross interviews Helen Lewis. Masculinism is a belief that feminism emasculates men [making them less masculine], and men should be in control while women stay at home [barefoot and pregnant or] raising children. The Atlantic writer Helen Lewis says the movement is becoming mainstream. More
In his ideal system, “we would do it in our politics the same way we do it in our church structure,” he told me recently. “And that is, we vote by household.”
Wilson is a co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, based in Moscow, Idaho. Over the past five decades, he has built a small empire there, dedicated to disseminating his theocratic vision for the United States: a publishing house, a school, a liberal-arts college, and a video-streaming service.
His denomination, which has about 170 affiliated churches, counts [macho drunkard] Defense SecretaryPete Hegseth as a member, and Wilson was invited to lead a prayer service at the Pentagon in February. So when the pastor casually suggests disenfranchising half of America, people listen.
When I asked him about this position, Wilson said it wasn’t his top priority—“We have bigger fish to [kill and] fry”—but something he sees happening in perhaps 200 years’ time.
I found this intellectual footsie maddening. “If I said to you, ‘I think all white men should be put in cages—but not now; it’s not my aspiration for now,’” I suggested, “then you wouldn’t be interested in a single other thing that I had to say at that point.”
Wilson chuckled. “Oh, I know you’d probably have all my attention.”
Bibi meets Petey to talk about more genocide.
This is twinkly, avuncularDouglas Wilson, the guy who joined a hippie congregation fresh out of the U.S. Navy because he liked to play guitar and ended up leading church services once the regular pastor moved on. This is the same guy who once went on a multicity debating tour with the New AtheistChristopher Hitchens, and bonded with him over their shared love of... More
[Though what most individuals in the West imagine a eunuch is may well be in doubt since it has more to do with testicles and testosterone production than the presence or absence of a penis after castration, which most think means "penis removal." Removal of the male gonads or testes, such as in the case of Italian Catholic castratos, will produce a "eunuch" with an intact penis but not a means of producing adequate male hormones.]
[What are testosterone, steroid hormones, and synthetic steroids? They are androgenic or masculinizing compounds, present and important in the development and of both males and females, is what makes a person "virile" (Pali viriya "energetic, effortful, industrious, heroic"). Although androgens are commonly thought of only as male sex hormones, females also have them, but at lower levels: They function in libido and sexual arousal. Androgens are the precursors to estrogens in all humans.]
Indeed, related terms are found in several Indo-Aryan languages (cf. Turner 1966;435, no. 7717, panda- [m.] "a eunuch, weakling"; Monier-Williams 1899:580; Childers 1875;328):
Sanskrit: panda-h (m.) "a eunuch, weakling"; pandaka-h (m.) "a eunuch, weakling"; pandaga-h (m.) (probably) "a eunuch, weakling"; pandra-h (m.) "a eunuch, impotent man"; pandraka-h (m.) "a eunuch, impotent man."
Pali: pandaka- (m.) "a eunuch, weakling"; pandika (f.).
Prakrit: pamda-, pamdaga-, pamdaya (m.) "a eunuch, weakling."
The Indo-Aryan terms are usually taken to be loanwords from Dravidian (cf. Mayrhofer 1956-1980.II:196; Burrow 1973:384):
That there is a second meaning is also not in dispute. However, what, exactly, that meaning is has been the source of controversy.
According to one interpretation, the second meaning of pandak is "male homosexual." This cannot possibly be correct and is based upon a critical misinterpretation of a key [Theravada Buddhist] text, namely, the story about a pandaka who was ordained as a [Buddhist monk or] Bhikkhu [1] and who, overcome by sexual desire, went around trying to persuade other Bhikkhus and lay persons to sodomize him.
[Indonesian Orang Pendek means "short person" or "little man," a kind of cryptid Bigfoot creature or bipedal primate from the remote, forested mountains of the island of Sumatra.]
After several lay persons did so, the Sangha [2] was criticized for allowing such a person to be ordained as a Bhikkhu.
As noted by Kelvin Wong (2005), it is clear from the Pali Tipitaka [3] that the Buddha was aware of the difference between eunuchs, hermaphrodites, and homosexuals.
1. A Buddhist Monk. A Buddhist Nun is called "Bhikkhuni."
2. The Buddhist Monastic Order.
3. The canonical scriptures of Theravadin Buddhism, preserved in the Middle Indo-Aryan language now known as "Pali," the original meaning of which was simply "text." These scriptures are divided into three-"baskets" (ti-pitaka): (1) the disciplinary rules for Monks and Nuns (Vinaya Pitaka); (2) the discourses of the Buddha and several of His chief disciples (Sutta Pitaka); and (3) the "higher doctrine" (Abhidhamma Pitaka) [or the Dharma explained in ultimate terms].
Touch me now. It doesn't matter. I've got breast armor. I'm failed pop idol Catty Purry Brand.
.
I wish, I wish I were Daisy from Great Gatsby
It seemed to begin when I was a kid in middle school. I couldn't wait to get to the ninth grade so I could be all grown up like the seniors. They had mustaches, cars, and girls fawning all over them. But a strange thing happened, and I saw and noticed it in slow motion. Neither I nor my classmates were ever getting any older. We were the same people being promoted through the grades. The older kids left school never to be seen again, so there was no direct comparison. But in my I remember thinking that by the 9th grade, there was no real noticeable change. Sure, there was progression. We didn't freeze in time. What I mean is, we didn't become them. The 7th graders did NOT grow up to look like the 9th graders of our youth. What was going on? It might all be perspective, but everyone began to notice.
There must be a "self"! Or else who's writing -- and who's reading? - There is a self, an atta or atman. Touch your chest; there's the self. It does no good to think, "Is there a 'self' or is there not a 'self'?" What is useful is to ask,What is the nature of that "self" that for sure is existing right here right now?
It is (as impossible as it will ever actually be to believe but actually possible to see) utterly impersonal. This is why Buddhism is not a faith.
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS "NOT SELF" BUSINESS? IT SEEMS LIKE A JOKE. - Yes. It is possible to explain with an analogy. Let's say I say, "There's no such thing as a 'car.'" Then pointing you'll say, "You're crazy. It's right there! They're everywhere. Cased closed!"
But I'll say, "I didn't say there isn't anything that looks like a 'car.' The illusion exists, and it's quite useful to designate assemblages of things and cling to them as real entities, but the fact is -- in an ultimate sense -- there is no such thing as a car. You might ask, "What is there then?"
To that I will point to all the parts that, when put together, give the illusion of a new thing coming into existence. It sure seems to come into existence. It can do things the parts couldn't, and conventionally speaking, it is new to existence. But it never really makes it. It is unreal, an illusion.
"What's the proof?" you say.
I say, "Let's take it apart and find it." We proceed to disassemble the whole assemblage, and when we come to the last two pieces and separate them, do you think a 'car' will fall out?
No, it was never like that!
Exactly! And what was it like? Let's say a car is composed of 5,000 pieces but really only needs five (5): wheels, frame, motor, steering wheel, and brake. Is there a 'car' in there, or do these exist independently?
They exist independently. We don't need those particular pieces. Any set of wheels, frame, motor, steering device, and brake will do.
Do you see? The 'car' does not come into being and, of course, never goes out of being, in an ultimate sense. An illusion arises, and an illusion goes away, and this "illusion" is a convenient descriptor of that assemblage.
I don't get it.
Let's make it easier. Fire does not exist.
That's easier?
Yeah, because now you can point and say, "You're crazy. That's it right there. There's fire everywhere. Case closed!"
I will then counter by pointing out that what we call "fire," what we regard as real and existing and being "fire," is actually an illusion that arises utterly dependent on five factors.
What five? It is just one thing, a fundamental element!
Not at all. The five (and there can be more, but let's keep it to five fundamental ingredients which, when present, reliably give the persistent illusion of fire): fuel, heat, oxygen, wick, and the mysterious process-of-combustion. (We can go on and on analyzing "fire" into parts, but the one thing that is sure is that it is all parts, not a compact thing in itself).
How do we know that?
We know that because when present, Bam! The illusion arises. When any is missing, the illusion goes away. Put the five together (in a functionally coordinated way) and there it is, "fire." Take any way, and where has it gone? Where does fire go when it goes out?
Up? No, I don't know, into oblivion?
Does it wait in oblivion to come back? Because, let's say we remove oxygen, it will go right out. Add the oxygen back, and it will roar back. Where was it in the meantime?
It was not anywhere. It does not actually "go" out. It becomes unmanifested.
It becomes nonexistent, except it doesn't really come into and go out of existence either. It just seems to. Why? Because it is conditionally originated, that is, dependently originated. When this is, that comes to be. When that is not, it does not come to be.
Oh, I kinda get it. I don't believe it! I think people, and fire, and cars are real. Real REAL.
Can you begin to see, however, how and why someone might say they're unreal?
Not really. That's crazy.
It's crazy to our conventional way of worrying and needing to cling to illusions. But let's say we wanted to be free of illusions, then wouldn't it be great to disillusion ourselves?
Disillusion?
Awaken, enlighten, clearly see what's really there?
Well, yeah, sure if we could be sure that that really is the Truth.
We can. The Buddha saw it, pointed to it, and invited us to come and see, to clearly see the Truth, not to believe him or anyone else. We with our own purified and intensified eyes, heart, mind could come and see. Where is the car before the parts-of-a-car are assembled?
It isn't anywhere.
Where will it go when disassembled again?
It won't "go" anywhere.
Now you're getting it! It doesn't come or go because it was never really what it seemed to be. Illusion arises, that's for sure, and the illusion of the loss of it, that, too, is sure. But it isn't reality.
Why would anybody talk like this?
One (such as the Awakened One, the historical Buddha) would talk like this because we are clinging to pain (suffering, distress, disappointment) and the unreal. He wanted to move us to reality, and that means waking up to what's REALLY there and what's been there all along.
What's that?
Self and not-self.
Aha! So there is a self?
Yes, conventionally speaking. But ultimately speaking, no. There is no self.
You're crazy. It's right there. I'm pointing at it. Case closed.
And what are you pointing at?
At you, Dummy! I can also point to myself, Smarty.
Good, good. I say you're pointing at a body.
Well, sure, but within that body there's a soul, and that's the self!
Good, very good. The body is an illusion; you can see that much. Now let me disassemble the soul/self you're sure is in there. What are the components of "self"?
There are no components! It's a highly mysterious fusiform whale carcass thingy with feelings.
Ha ha ha. There is a body; that's one thing, but it is no thing. It is components. We can disassemble, reassemble, add, subtract, but still it's just a functional assemblage of parts. The "self" is partly that and partly four other things.
Things? What things?
Invisible things -- feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and a mysterious process we call consciousness. Whatever else we want to add to "self," it is at least these fundamental five things, these Five Aggregates clung to as "self."
Oh. I think I'm starting to see. You're not crazy, but you're speaking dangerously. Aren't you afraid you're going to vanish in a puff of unsmoke for talking like this?
What would vanish, the illusion? I'd be glad to get rid of it. It has cause incalculable misery (dukkha) and disappointment, chasing after things for it, never being able to satisfy or fulfill it. Ah, to be free!
Free of "self"?
No, free of the persistent illusion of "self" traveling and rearising life after life in this samsara, this Wheel of Rebirth, of Life and Death, of endless suffering (unsatisfactoriness)!
Yeah, I guess that would be good, but what about taking rebirth in a permanent heaven and having a good time all the time till the end of time?
Nice alternative, but it doesn't exist. The longest most enduring heavens all come to an end eventually. It may take a great aeon (maha-kalpa), but beings (dynamic becomings) fall away to continue on according to their just desserts which we call karma. And because of greed, hatred, and delusion (lust, aversion, and ignorance), our many unskillful deeds in pursuit of things will yield many painful results for a long, long time. It would be far better to awaken to the Truth.
Well, I won't argue with that. But who can say what the "Truth" is?
The Awakened One, the Buddha, and those enlightened ones who have awakened by practicing the Teaching (the Dharma) of the Awakened One(s).
Faith (saddha, confidence, truth, conviction) is useful but not nearly as important as a shamanistic attitude to actually come see the Buddha's Teaching, investigate it, and confirm it. It won't liberate us because it's true; it will liberate us because we PRACTICED whether or not we "believed" (had faith) in advance. Better to doubt and question AND practice than to completely "believe" and not practice.
Modern Buddhists try to explain this away by various analogies, many of which amount to Hinduism with different gods and bodhisattvas. It's actually very easy to grasp intellectually and not be confused, almost impossible to accept, as if by accepting we would instantly disappear in a puff of unsmoke (as in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). We will not. The habitual tendency or "conceit" (mΔna) to conceive, think, and speak in terms of I-and-other is very strong and not easily wiped away, but actually wiping it away is key to awakening from illusion and clinging and suffering. It is the missing key to enlightenment.
Even Mahayana, which often speaks like a school of Hinduism, could understand this if it only paid attention to its most prized and popular discourse, the Heart Sutra. It's not about love, feelings, and emotions; it's about getting to the heart of wisdom through the perfection of wisdom.
What is there if not a self/soul? - There are Five Aggregates clung to as self. - Who clings?! - The aggregates, steeped in ignorance, cling and have aversion/fear. Released from the illusion (disillusioned), there is freedom and realization that the ultimate Truth was always true. - How does [the illusion of] self arise? - It comes about through Dependent Origination.
Talking about "Emptiness" (ΕΕ«nyatΔ) and "Suchness" (TathΔtΔ) obscures the fact that what the Five Aggregates clung to as self are devoid of is an abiding, enduring HEART, core, essence. Conditioned things do not last even one moment because in the sub-moments there is arising, turning, and falling away. This is true at a submicroscopic level of atoms (kalapas) and mind-moments (cittas), mind and body, name and form.
And this is great news because to really see it, even for a moment, transforms the heart/mind, releases us from illusion, as we are able to effortlessly let go of clinging and be free through the perfection of wisdom, the direct experience of the Truth.
This does not happen by accident. It happens by higher training.
Erin Brockovich, WQ: ABJ racked up another million views.
This academic book by American and other scholars explores historical, textual, and social questions relating to the position and experience of women and gay people in the Buddhist world from India and Tibet to Sri Lanka, China, and Japan. It focuses on four key areas:
And it covers Buddhism's entire history, from its origins to the present day. The result of original and innovative research, the authors offer new perspectives on the history of the attitudes toward, and of the self-perception of, women in both ancient and modern Buddhist societies.
They explore key social issues such as abortion, they examine the use of rhetoric and symbols in Buddhist texts and cultures, and they discuss the neglected subject of Buddhism and homosexuality (from pandakas and pederasty). (Edited by Jose Ignacio CabezΓ³n)
Pseudohermaphroditism leads to "intersex" (the "I" in LGBTQIA+ acronym, showing an unbelievable spectrum of biological sexuality and phenotypic gender expression).
Biology and hormones are a strange thing we share with plants. Yes, plants have hormones, too, as do animals. There are, for example, intersex pigs on Vanuatu, the island of kava kava, a recreational drug plant. Are the "Lotus-eaters" on this island, as mentioned in ancient Greece.
MYTHOLOGY: In Homer's epic, The Odyssey, Book IX, Odysseus tells how adverse north winds blew him and his men off course: "I was driven thence by foul winds for a space of 9 days upon the sea, but on the tenth day we reached the land of the Lotus-eaters, who live on a food [the "intoxicating pepper" kava, Piper methysticum?] that comes from a kind of flower. Here we landed to take in fresh water, and our crews got their mid-day meal on the shore near the ships. When they had eaten and drunk, I sent two of my company to see what manner of men the people of the place might be...." More
The Buddhist term pandaka refers to non-normative gender expression in ancient times. It might be translated as "pervert" but also crossdresser, transsexual, transgender, gay, lesbian, tomboy, effeminate male, butch female, sodomite, receptive males, active females, hermaphrodite, bisexual...or an intersex person to the extent such individuals were understood in ancient India, Southeast Asia, and surrounding areas.
INTERSEX people are those born with any of several sex characteristics, including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies" [1, 2]. The opposite of intersex is endosex ["cisgender"], which describes persons born with sex characteristics that are seen as typically male or female at birth [3]. More
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
%20wiki.jpg)
