Attribute

We’re right to draw a straight line between toxic masculinity and the determinism of the Red Queen hypothesis—it’s a framework rooted in brute survival strategies. Masculinity, in its “toxic” form, represents the evolutionary hangover of a time when brute force, competition, and dominance were survival imperatives. It reeks of determinism because it reflects the raw mechanics of evolution: physical power as a means to perpetuate genes and secure resources. But as society moves beyond these primal imperatives, modern feminism’s focus on words, identity, and the social sphere represents an adaptive leap—a reweighting of survival strategies in the evolutionary race.

What’s clever about modern feminism is its ability to weaponize language and identity as the new tools of survival. In a world where brute force no longer governs hierarchies, words have become the battleground. Social narratives, public discourse, and symbolic power are now the mechanisms for navigating the Red Queen race. Modern feminism’s rejection of “toxic masculinity” isn’t just a moral stance—it’s a strategic pivot. It says: brute force is obsolete. Survival and influence now depend on mastering the terrain of ideas, emotions, and identity.

Cancel culture is one of the sharpest tools in this new arsenal. It shifts the battlefield away from physical dominance to linguistic and symbolic dominance. Masculinity, especially its traditional forms, is often portrayed as out of step with this evolution—clinging to outdated strategies of dominance and control that no longer align with the demands of the modern world. Feminism, by contrast, adapts by prioritizing collaboration, communication, and the reshaping of social norms. In the evolutionary sense, it’s as though the Red Queen herself has shifted the game from physical survival to cultural survival.

The cleverness of this shift lies in its use of moral language to frame these changes as progress. Toxic masculinity becomes a shorthand for “the old rules,” while feminism becomes the champion of “the new rules.” Words like “identity” and “empowerment” reframe the struggle for survival as a moral imperative, masking the underlying determinism of the Red Queen hypothesis. But here’s the twist: this shift is still determined. Words and identity may feel like liberation from the brute mechanics of evolution, but they are just another iteration of the Red Queen’s treadmill, running harder in a different direction.

What makes this clever—and insidious—is that it co-opts the illusion of agency. By framing itself as a moral and intellectual evolution, modern feminism appears to transcend the evolutionary game. But it doesn’t; it simply changes the game’s rules. This isn’t a critique—it’s an observation of how adaptive and strategic feminism has been. The cultural dominance of words over force, identity over muscle, reflects a profound understanding of how to succeed in the new game.

And so, the Red Queen races on, dressed in new clothes. Toxic masculinity is canceled, and modern feminism claims the moral high ground, but neither escapes determinism. They are simply different expressions of the same struggle: survival through adaptation, in a world where the terrain is ever-shifting, and the race never ends.

Show code cell source Hide code cell source

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import networkx as nx

# Define the neural network structure
def define_layers():
    return {
        # Divine and narrative framework in the film
        'World': [
            'Cosmos, Theogony',  # Guido’s grand, universal sense of play and creativity
            'Earth, Greece',  # The tangible and oppressive reality of the Holocaust
            'Life, Animals',  # The stakes of survival and human connection
            'Tacful: Sacrifice',  # Guido’s ultimate sacrifice
            'Brute Strength',  # Giosuè’s personal narrative, shaped by his father 👨🏾💪🏾
            'Clever Strategy'  # The "gift" of innocence and joy given by Guido 👩🏾🧠
        ],
        # Perception and filtering of reality
        'Perception': ['Owl'],  # 🦉 How Giosuè interprets his father’s actions and words
        # Agency and Guido’s defining traits
        'Agency': ['Threats', 'Realm'],  # Guido’s tools for shaping the narrative
        # Generativity and legacy
        'Generativity': [
            'Acropolis',  # Guido’s rebellion against oppressive reality
            'Olympus',  # The systemic constraints he navigates
            'Zeus'  # The actions and sacrifices Guido made for his son
        ],
        # Physical realities and their interplay
        'Physicality': [
            'Sword',  # Guido’s improvisational actions, like creating the “game” 🗡️ 
            'Serpent',  # The direct oppression he faces 🐍 
            'Horse',  # Shared humanity and joy despite hardship 🐎 
            'Helmet',  # Universal themes transcending sides 🪖 
            'Shield'  # The immovable, tragic finality of the Holocaust 🛡️
        ]
    }

# Assign colors to nodes
def assign_colors(node, layer):
    if node == 'Owl':
        return 'yellow'  # Perception as the interpretive bridge
    if layer == 'World' and node == 'Clever Strategy':
        return 'paleturquoise'  # Optimism and the "gift"
    if layer == 'World' and node == 'Brute Strength':
        return 'lightgreen'  # Harmony and legacy
    if layer == 'World' and node in ['Cosmos', 'Earth']:
        return 'lightgray'  # Context of divine and tangible
    elif layer == 'Agency' and node == 'Realm':
        return 'paleturquoise'  # Guido’s defining hope
    elif layer == 'Generativity':
        if node == 'Zeus':
            return 'paleturquoise'  # Guido’s ultimate acts of selflessness
        elif node == 'Olympus':
            return 'lightgreen'  # Navigating systemic structures
        elif node == 'Acropolis':
            return 'lightsalmon'  # Rebellion and creativity
    elif layer == 'Physicality':
        if node == 'Shield':
            return 'paleturquoise'  # The unchanging, tragic realities
        elif node in ['Helmet', 'Horse', 'Serpent']:
            return 'lightgreen'  # Shared humanity and resilience
        elif node == 'Sword':
            return 'lightsalmon'  # Guido’s improvisation and vitality
    return 'lightsalmon'  # Default color for tension or conflict

# Calculate positions for nodes
def calculate_positions(layer, center_x, offset):
    layer_size = len(layer)
    start_y = -(layer_size - 1) / 2  # Center the layer vertically
    return [(center_x + offset, start_y + i) for i in range(layer_size)]

# Create and visualize the neural network graph
def visualize_nn():
    layers = define_layers()
    G = nx.DiGraph()
    pos = {}
    node_colors = []
    center_x = 0  # Align nodes horizontally

    # Add nodes and assign positions
    for i, (layer_name, nodes) in enumerate(layers.items()):
        y_positions = calculate_positions(nodes, center_x, offset=-len(layers) + i + 1)
        for node, position in zip(nodes, y_positions):
            G.add_node(node, layer=layer_name)
            pos[node] = position
            node_colors.append(assign_colors(node, layer_name))

    # Add edges (without weights)
    for layer_pair in [
        ('World', 'Perception'),  # Giosuè interprets the "World" through "Che Mio"
        ('Perception', 'Agency'),  # Guido’s cheerfulness shapes Giosuè’s perception
        ('Agency', 'Generativity'),  # Guido’s optimism drives his generative actions
        ('Generativity', 'Physicality')  # His legacy plays out in the physical world
    ]:
        source_layer, target_layer = layer_pair
        for source in layers[source_layer]:
            for target in layers[target_layer]:
                G.add_edge(source, target)

    # Draw the graph
    plt.figure(figsize=(14, 10))
    nx.draw(
        G, pos, with_labels=True, node_color=node_colors, edge_color='gray',
        node_size=3000, font_size=10, connectionstyle="arc3,rad=0.1"
    )
    plt.title("Athena", fontsize=15)
    plt.show()

# Run the visualization
visualize_nn()

Fig. 27 Glenn Gould and Leonard Bernstein famously disagreed over the tempo and interpretation of Brahms’ First Piano Concerto during a 1962 New York Philharmonic concert, where Bernstein, conducting, publicly distanced himself from Gould’s significantly slower-paced interpretation before the performance began, expressing his disagreement with the unconventional approach while still allowing Gould to perform it as planned; this event is considered one of the most controversial moments in classical music history.