When you separate masculinity & dominion or reject dominion altogether, masculinity is reduced entirely to protecting the weak, which is necessary due to disordered masculinity. Hence what is distinctive to men has no natural end for itself & its only end is dealing with itself.

But if masculinity has a telos in dominion, "protecting the weak" is a *consequence* not the ultimately end of masculinity, for the weak receive protection in dominion.

This is one reason why rejecting dominion is both unnatural and harms men. Their physicality has no purpose except to deal with its abuse, which is a consequence of the fall, not nature. Hence, masculinity has no natural end, only an ad hoc post-lapsarian end.

You can see this here and in the other replies. https://twitter.com/sometimesalight/status/1390045125934526466?s=20

And again. The logical end to this is that only femininity has an end unto itself, and masculinity serves it. https://twitter.com/sometimesalight/status/1390282407857823748?s=20

For people like Hannah Anderson, the end of what is distinctive to men is the empowerment of women, and what is distinctive to women has a natural telos and is an end unto itself.

And it is emasculating, because she strips masculinity of a natural end. It has only an ad hoc, post-lapsarian purpose of dealing with its abuses. The man exercising what is distinctive to him is *entirely* due to the fall. Masculinity, therefore, has no natural telos.