The oddest moment in a game show ever (great example of how to deal with someones assumptions)

I found a very interesting new game show on YouTube called Distraction from the early 2000's. It is all about distracting contestants while they answer questions usually in very humiliating ways. Consider it like a UK version of a take on the sort of thing in Fear Factor mixed in with questions. I was quite a ways into the second season when I came across an interesting scenario I was not expecting.

Out of nowhere the host assumed that someone named Vee which looked more like an RSD trainer was gay. RSD means Real Social Dynamics a PUA group whom has some controversy among some of its people. This person reminded me more of them and their peacocking ideas about dress than gay. I am not sure if it was because he was wearing a dollar sign gold necklace. That might have been it that made me think more of a club going fellow over a gay man.

Yet, for some reason this person whom looked nothing like the gay stereotype to me was called out as being gay. He starts out by saying it was quite a feet that this fellow slept with 50 people over the course of the last year. Then out of nowhere he said that was a lot of cock. As a response to this Vee said "whom said anything about cock?" Which is an appropriate response to such an out of the blue assumption. Then he went onto simply say he was not gay. The host asked if he was heterosexual and he said, "I am." He then ignored all the following jokes at his expense. He just went on with playing the game.

The crazy response to his affirmative on his heterosexuality was to be told that he was setting off alarms. Despite him not really showing off any of the stereotypical gaydar things he said it was going off. I am still not sure what the fuck he was on that he thought this PUA-ish looking peacocker was a poof. I can sometimes see with the stereotypes that exist why someone whom has "gaydar" might mistake someone for gay, but, not this fellow. Yet, Vee just stood there and let it all fall off his shoulders. Which is the best way to deal with such a misunderstanding.

Other peoples assumptions about ones identity based on BS do not matter. It is not your problem as the person whom is misunderstood and assumed about. The problem belongs to the person making the assumption about you. One should never let other peoples assumptions control their life. People need to live for themselves and their values. They do not need to nor should they live for what ignorant neanderthals think of them. If you are not what someone assumes it is not your problem. The person should not be assuming the things to begin with. It is a case of failed paternicity and everything is eh OK.   

The Good and Bad of the Core of Manliness/Masculinity from The Art Of Manliness

One of the newsletters I have been subbed to for a while has been The Art of Manliness. Which is a website all about manhood and being the modern man in this age. One of the things they talked about in one of their many articles was a breakdown of the core of masculinity and manliness. It is an older page now and they tend do things have podcasts nowadays. 

I have a jaded relationship with their masculinity core articles and the sort of factors they mention. In one light it removes the more subjective nature of masculinity for a more objective one. It also puts it into a certain light which even someone that does not necessarily meet all the stereotypes still can be classified under the masculine category. Specifically it does not mention voice, walking or anything like that related to expression in their definition. Instead it uses other metrics for manliness and masculinity. However, the metrics themselves could be considered themselves restrictive despite being broad as well. 

According to The Art of Manliness being masculine and manly goes back not to expression or conforming as a male to anything outside of what they deem the 3 P's of masculinity. The 3 P's listed are protect, procreate and provide. This means that as long as you are falling into these 3 P's they consider that manliness and masculine. In some ways this could be quite broad as different individuals can protect, provide and even aim towards procreation differently. It also totally removes other stereotypes needing to be met. It removes the idea that expression really matters it is all in accepting your role instead. 

Let's start with protection that can be done by someone no matter how they express themselves. Any man can learn to use a weapon if they study. Or learn a Martial Art no matter if they swag or strut down the street. Any man can learn to step in front of the innocent and protect them. You do not need a 6 pack of abs to protect people although if you have them they might help in some ways. Nowhere in the article does it say you can only have one method of protecting. Nor does it say you are protecting just women or children. However, it does say the mans role is to protect in a way which makes it seem like some sort of evolutionary duty. Something which needs to be met to be manly and to truly be taking on the masculine role.    

Next let's move onto providing or provision the second core of masculinity. The jest of this would be exactly as it sounds that it is your role to be a provider to other people. Mainly to your partner and children when in a long term committed relationship. Traditionally that partner would be a woman, but, could be a man as well as long as there is provision. This makes a base assumption that you will have a long term partner and children. If someone ends up being a life long single man this role could extend to ones highly valued friends possibly as an alternative. However, it makes the assumption you are even making enough to do so. It also makes an assumption there is anyone of high enough value to you to provide anything to them. 

The final P is procreation and this is pretty self-explanatory that one of your roles as a man/the masculine is to spread your seed into a female for the purpose of reproduction. Although if you are into other men it could be interpreted as the drive to man dive. That procreation and the drive for it are integral to being a manly or masculine man. This includes though not only the desire to reproduce, but, other corollary ideas like men should be the initiators and pursuers. As well as that your pursuing of wealth and status is necessarily tied to trying to reproduce with women or whatever partner you have. Where does this leave men that pursue wealth simply to be a flourishing human being? Not for the sake of what it will give them, but, for being a content person in this one life we have. Where does this leave shy men or nervous men? Are they not men? 

I take issue with the fact that there seems to be this idea that just because men have done these things in the past men need to do them in the modern day to be a "real man." While it is in a sense less restricting in using roles like this over talking about other forms of behavior. It seems to base a man's worth as a man on whether they decide to protect, provide or procreate toward others. Which means that it seems anyone that does not fall into one of these categories in their relationship with others is not masculine or is less than a man. Or as it says is not good at being a man. It seems to pull a phrase out of the manosphere to be basing men's worth on a Gynocentric view of men. The idea that our worth as men comes from being free bodyguards, walking wallets and living sperm banks.

I am not going to argue this has not been the role of the masculine sex since time immemorial. I will not deny that these roles are part of the male evolutionary history and psychology. Hell, I am not even going to deny that one major fuck ton of men in modern day society will naturally feel drawn to these roles. However, there seems to be a sense wherein people that fall outside of this are deemed not to be good at being their gender/sex because they do not fall into the roles. Men are individuals and not all of them fall into archetypes that would encompass such roles in life. These men are just as much men as the next man. I do not think masculinity comes from living a life in service to others. To me that comes across as very much asking men to live a life counter to what their happiness would be. 

Androgynous and Feminine men are also on the Anti-males shit list.

Due to my writing about manhood on this blog some might think that maybe I have issues with gender-non-conforming men. The truth is I have no issues with gender-non-conformity at all and one does not need to be ruggedly masculine to be all man. There are non-conforming men out there that are just as great as the most masculine men. However, this does not mean that non-masculine or mixed men are off the shit list for those whom have issues with men.

Even if you are an Androgynous male you are still a male and you are still considered to have so-called Male Privilege. You will still be considered to be the enemy of the most screeching feminists and of the patriarchy theories behind all feminist philosophy. It is men as the enemy and the biological male as the oppressor not just masculinity. It is a collectivist war of women against men no matter how you express yourself. Anyone that questions the orthodoxy will be considered the heretic.

All heretics will get burnt at the steaks of social condemnation despite being more atypical in some regards. I say in some regards as Androgynous men are still men and still have at least a good deal of male traits. Even men that express in the most feminine way have a males brain and will have some very male typical things about them. It is the being biologically male and a man that feminists do not like. It is not just their calling card of "toxic masculinity." It is all males and any amount of mix of the masculine/feminine, even the more Androgynous mixes.

For most ideologically true feminists you would need to literally make yourself effete by castrating yourself to please them. They are not fans of any men from masculine straight to the most "flaming" gay it is all men. In fact, feminists of pure ideology have long sense believed that gayness was a form of Misogyny and outright women hatred. Which is completely insane and shows that no man is safe from the ideologically pure feminists scorned wrath. It is men against women; males against females and not masculine vs feminine that the ideology want to perpetuate. 

It is also a Straight and Heterosexual vs everyone else narrative that is pushed as well. It is not called heteronormative-if-masculine that is hated and called the enemy. It is heteronormativity altogether and essentially heterosexual attraction patterns of any sort; even if part of an actual bisexual possibility. Opposite sex pairings are considered oppressive and women supposedly do not really desire to be with men. The very idea of heterosexual attraction to the radical feminists is a social construction based in male domination and female submission. Showing a hell of a lot of projection on their part.

This is why even a bisexual attraction pattern is considered to be an enemy of the "Queer" community. A community that is filled to the brim with radical feminist Social Justice Warriors. Even a hit of a straight possibility is considered to be a traitor to the collective. It is sleeping with the enemy and not liked very much. When I say that men need to be proud of themselves as good men I do not mean just Butch or gender typical men, but, all men. When I say that males need to not feel shame I mean all good males not just a particular type of male.

Whether you are a Butch, hypermasculine, average masculine, nerd masculine, or Androgynous. Whether you are gender typical or gender atypical. All men need to be able to be able to feel pride in themselves. No men should feel they are bad because they have a cock and balls. Bad men are those individual men and not all other men as well. Being a man is not an original sin of determined evil or badness. Being a man is being a man. We should strive to be the best person we can be. Our expressions of doing so can and will be different between men. This is not a bad thing at all. It is what makes us, well us.

The Quest to Revive Macho and Machismo as a Positive Masculine Archetype -- Double Edged Swords and Package Deals

The other night I wrote an article about how there is a revival of macho and machismo to be a positive thing for men. I also wrote how I did not know if it needed reinvented when it really only meant male or masculine pride. It also meant virility and strength as well. However, having searched over more dictionaries it comes to my knowledge that there is some not so nice baggage with the term as well. Looks like it really depends on which dictionary you look at what the full meaning is of the word machismo.

a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude  that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.

a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate

 Having an unusually high or exaggerated sense of masculinity. Including an attitude that aggression, strength, sexual prowess, power and control is the measure of someone's manliness. 

A strong or exaggerated sense of traditional masculinity placing great value on physical courage, virility, dominationof women, and aggressiveness. 

So, it looks like it really depends on where you get your definitions from what it entails. For me I used the good old classic Merriam-Webster which simply states, "a strong sense of masculine pride." This still does not answer the question I posed in my last article about if the revival was worth it or even needed. For one, it is actually the word Macho that takes precedence in the revival. It is not the word machismo even though the two are linked in the dictionary. For two, part of the quest is a reclaiming or rewording as it were.

The question overall is the worth of reviving and using the term for something positive. If that means the term changes with the times somewhat that could easily be part of that reclaiming. However, the idea of changing the term also comes with its own risks. One of those is changing so much it loses any meaning at all. The other is changing in the direction of just being whatever the ubber-feminists want men to be. There are lots of ups and downs to using the term as an archetype of masculinity.

Within my last article I was clearly on the side of using both terms positively provided on using the proper contexts. Has my view on this changed since I have been researching further? Do I now think men are better off not using the term at all? Or am I on board with it as long as it is a reclaimed version minus the domination/superiority some definitions use? Well, I plan on hopefully answering this main question in this follow up article with more information at hand.

The issue with the word is it is a package deal; in other words traditionally there is both good and bad in it. It means pride, strength, virility, and control of a situation. It also means domination of women and male superiority as well though in some definitions too. So, there is good and bad in the definition as found in a lot of dictionaries.

It also needs to be put into context if it is in the bedroom or in everyday life. There are lots of women that like their men to be in control in the bedroom as a sign of their masculinity. Not just within the Kink community, but, just in general. Of course, a woman into BDSM would not want a man that was not about domination and controlling them. Context does really mean everything when it comes to traditional machismo.

The word macho has slightly less baggage to it than machismo and that is the word at hand. Does that word need reinvented or reclaimed as something new? Or can it be kept as it meant originally without being negative? Let us take another look at the word macho once again as it has linguistically meant. If we want to know if it can be positive we need to go back to the etymological root of the term. What does macho mean again?

It turns out that Macho is actually defined in a couple of different ways by Merriam-Webster dictionary.

aggressively virile 

having or showing qualities (such as very noticeable strength and aggression) that agree with traditional ideas about what men are like : manly or masculine in a very noticeable or exaggerated way

It looks like macho simply means a very noticeably masculine or manly man. However, there was also an additional line talking about it being characterized by displaying machismo. That other word we had been talking about above. Once again we have a package deal of lots of neutral traits mixed with a possible negative trait depending on your definition. However, the root is simply being male. The actual etymological root is to be male and thus to simply be a man. 

Spanish, literally, male, from Latin masculus

It has the root literally in a male being a male; in a man being a man. Which fits in perfectly with the idea of male pride put forth in my previous definition. Now let us see what the root word is for machismo regardless of its current baggage. According to Merriam-Webster the etymology of machismo is as follows;

Spanish, from macho First Known Use: circa 1948

So, in essence of the word and its root a synonym for macho itself. It is another translation of the same meaning. So, what other synonyms does machismo mean? According to the same dictionary they would be virility, macho, masculine, manliness and manhood. So, going by this let us trace to its root words mainly masculine, manliness and manhood.

 having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man 

• a masculine voice

: of, relating to, or constituting the gender that ordinarily includes most words or grammatical forms referring to males 

• masculine nouns

  

 qualities associated with men : manliness

: the condition of being an adult male as distinguished from a child or female

: adult males : men

 having qualities generally associated with a man : strong, virile

: appropriate in character to a man 

• manly sports

So, essentially machismo and macho go back to simply being an expression of manliness/masculinity. Etymologically the words macho and machismo are both value neutral. They are simply other words for masculinity and manhood. So, where do I stand on the revival of the term as a good thing? I think it is very commendable. After all neither word originally had any negative association.

The answer is not to sacrifice a word that could be perfectly suitable for a specific archetype of masculinity. It is instead to put it into context and define it properly. So, if someone asks if you are Macho or not provide a proper context and define it accordingly. The New Macho is really about removing the stigma from another word for masculinity and washing it of its bad associations. It is not so much about a new definition, but, rejuvenating the original meaning once more.

The Quest to Revive Macho and Machismo as a Positive Masculine Archetype -- Is it even worth it?

Every time I venture into the amazing world of The Flexuality Test I end up with the same result. The first time I took the test I identified as Bi, but, I knew what my sexual imagination always had as a mate was a woman. In my dreams at night and in my fantasies in the days. Thus it would not shock me at the time to have it come back as say heteroflexible or a lower Kinsey Bi.

However, what it gave me as a result after answers that went to my very core of sexual imagination was something different. "You identified as bisexual, but, according to your Flexuality test you are Macho Straight." Huh? OK, I am straight, sure I became a typical red blooded heterosexual/straight male as I grew older fine with me. That was not a major surprise to me as I knew I had 0 fantasies or attractions to any men in quite sometime.

What really caused me to almost faint away onto my bed I was sitting on was the macho part of the answer. What on Earth did I say that this test used such a term for me? So, I decided to look at their definition of Macho Straight. To summarize my findings I pretty much am their Macho Straight to a tea (at least in the bedroom). Without going into all the sexually explicit details it means that I am a top, or as they put it "I am the man." Which to break it down essentially I pitch I do not catch even when I have been with other men. This is absolutely correct I have never enjoyed sex any other way.

I still did not think the word macho was a good terminology despite it matching the summary of being such in their own definitions. Macho means a lot more than being a certain way during sexual encounters. By tagging me with a definition of not just Straight, but, Macho Straight it made me sound like something much different than what their definition pointed to. It was a very misleading thing to use as a description of myself. When I heard the term Macho Straight I automatically went to some Gym Rat with a 6 pack and whom was a douche with all muscles no brains. 

Yet, it turns out there is somewhat of a quest to revive Macho not to mean douches or Gym Rats. Instead they want Macho and Machismo to be simply men loving being men, but, not being douches. It is a quest claiming to want to make Macho a good term one to embrace as a man not rejected. It has been put forward by such groups as the ManKind Project and The Good Man Project. It has also been talked about in various papers and articles online. Yet, what is the new Macho? Is it a new definition? A reclaim of the original definition? Or somewhere in between? Or is it Macho at all?

Some of the things I found when I have been researching talk about the new macho are very much not gendered at all.

He cleans up after himself. 
He knows what he feels.

These things are not exclusively masculine or male traits and I am not sure why they are even being included in a new definition of an archtype of masculinity. After all that is what you are doing if you are attempting to reclaim the term you are attempting to resurrect a form of masculine archetype. Trying to carve out a place for specific men whom get with that particular sense of their manhood. A certain type of masculinity with certain qualities is a masculine archetype. Why would these not just be seen as human values or human adult traits? Why wrap them in a banner called a new Macho?

At other times I have found things which are both human and also part of traditional standard masculine archetypes that we already have. Such as the following;

He is a role model for young men.
He is rigorously honest and fiercely optimistic.
He holds himself accountable.
He knows how to rage without hurting others.
He knows how to fear and how to keep moving.
He seeks self-mastery.
He’s let go of childish shame.
He feels guilty when he’s done something wrong.
He is kind to men, kind to women, kind to children.
He teaches others how to be kind.
He says he’s sorry.

Nothing in the above list is at all traditionally not found within one of the many very much masculine archetypes men can already fall into within masculinity as it exists in history or in the modern day. What is New Macho? Is it simply traditional, ordinary being one of many kinds of men, but, not being a douche? If so, then this is not a New Macho it is plain old masculinity and manliness without being a dick in the process. Cause surprise masculinity is not the same as doucheness. Douches are douches and would be even if they were born a woman not a man. It is the persons personality trait.

Meanwhile the term new Macho is also being used by very much masculinity haters that want men to become more like women and somehow that is the new Macho to them. There is no one consensus terminology on what this New Macho is. Is it men being more like women? Is it traditional masculine archetypes repackaged in a nice bow? Or is it just embracing general human traits and niceties? Or is it being "a hunter in the sheets and a gentleman in the streets?" I really cannot find a true answer anywhere I look.

Does Macho even need redefining? I mean according to the dictionary I found it to mean male pride. Which alone is not a bad thing depending on how that manifests in your behaviors. When I looked up Machismo which is linked off of Macho it talked again about being about male pride. Again this is not a bad thing at all if one is talking about a good man. A good man should be proud as fuck to be the man he is and that includes loving being a man. I see no problem with being Macho if that is all you mean by it. Not being a douche or an asshat.

I think it all comes back to the misunderstandings around the difference between masculinity, embracing your manhood and being a dickhead. I am a 31 yr old masculine straight male and I am not a douche. I am much more masculine now than I have ever been at any other time in my life. Perhaps that is other than when I used too be in my old friends Folk Band back in the day when I was dating his Ex (a woman). I was a pretty typical man then, but, I was a nerd man. I was a certain archetype of masculinity out of the many that exist. I was the type of young man you can find in a Comic Book Shop or Gaming store. I was not the cream of the crop, but, I was sure as hell not girly.

That is more or less how I am now, but, a little more socially aware and less awkward with women. Yet, I also fit into the warrior archetype too. I am not the peace-nick I was when I was younger and naive. If someone were to go after someone I care for I would be their worst nightmare. I refuse to initiate force under any means, but, I will damn well retaliate with coercion and immense brute force if it is required to defend the innocent.

That includes defending whomever I might be watching over at the time. That includes as well any future partner of mine. I refuse to be some random collectivized "women" I do not knows protector like I am am unpaid bodyguard. However, an actual woman I am with is protected by me and if anyone thinks I will not embody that "gender role" with the right person at the right time will be in for a rude wake up call if they awaken that beast within.

I also likewise have no problem at all providing for others when they deserve the benevolence of my providing for them and if they are in need of it. Again not just some random person, but, the people in my life I value. Which includes as a high value any woman I end up with. Again you do not get my money just for having a vagina, but, if I am with you and you need it I will provide it.

These things are all masculinity and fall into embracing your manhood without being a douche. Masculinity has nothing to do with being a dickhead the two things are not the same and never have been. So, if all being a Macho Straight means is being "the man in bed," and embracing certain archetypes of masculinity without being a douche then I guess I am after all. However, is the word really needing to be saved? Is it even worth mentioning the term at all?

I think it comes down to POV actually. If to you Macho means more than male pride (which can be there and tampered by reason) I think it does not help anything to use it. However, if you want to point out "hey I am a man and not ashamed" without any extra meaning to it go ahead and define it properly in your context for other people. However, I think really all you need to say is that you are masculine and that is enough. After all Macho is just being masculine and unashamed if all it means is male pride. Or it could mean just being a man and being unashamed as well for more Androgynous men out there. After all it does define as male pride and such a person would also be all male.

In the end of the day it is stopping ourselves as men from feeling self-hatred for not being able to be perfect and the ideal for everyone in the world that we need to work on. We need to work on realizing we have worth as men irregardless of our circumstances in life. No matter what archetype of manhood we embody or even if we do not actually end up falling into one at all. We are of value, we are worthy and we are enough just as we are we do not need to be the GQ model or the Billionaire Alpha to be worthy of a good life as men. A good life as people.

To the proponents of Anti-Male ideologies there is no Non-Toxic maleness and masculinity must die.

Yet again a horrid event brings out all the male-haters and misandrists whom hate men as part of their principles. Every time there is one of these horrid events like a shooting you find both man-hating men and women coming out of the wood work to hate on manhood. They use deceptive practices like calling it toxic-masculinity, but, they mean men as some sort of sex based collective. You cannot say you are just going after some toxic-variant of masculinity without putting forth a non-toxic variety. Yet, I never see a non-toxic form of masculinity proposed by these articles.

Make no mistake it is not just masculinity, but, maleness and manhood itself that the most purist of the toxic masculinity folks are talking about. Case in point that several groups now have thrown gay men under the bus and have told them to sit at the back like pre-civil war Blacks. They want to push them out because gay or not they are men and have in their own words "gay male privilege." All of a sudden just having a Penis automatically means you are at the top of the social hierarchy.

I really do not like the hole people are digging for men these days. The hole digging though has been ongoing under the surface for a long time now. What do these people want from men exactly? Once again I have read article after article, but, none of them have put forth what a "positive" masculinity would be for a modern day man. The truth is what is called toxic masculinity is anything that might be deemed bad for anyone like being a crazed murderer or a predator. These are not "masculinity" as they are not something that derives in anyway from someone being a man or a male. They are if anything toxic humanity available to either of the sexes.

By misinterpreting toxic humanity and the dark side of our nature as male, manhood, manliness, and masculinity it makes it alright to dehumanize and then toss under the bus men of any group based on their sex and/or gender identity. It lets people whom themselves are listening to that darker part of human nature filled with envy, hate and bile to project their own hatred onto the entire of a collective called masculinity and deem it toxic. To push it onto a collective called male and men wish they than let bile flow on without slowing down.

They are using classic threat narrative which was used in the past by some of the most horrid people that existed. The anti-male narrative is very reminiscent of the way Wiemar Germany treated Jews prior to the coming to power of the Nazi's and the putting into action the Holocaust. By demonizing and dehumanizing an entire group of people it makes it ever easier to use immense amounts of violence on them. It makes it easier to force them into social isolation as well in which some amount will die by their own hand.

There is a serious lack of the positive towards men, maleness, manhood and masculinity. By defending masculinity and manhood I do not mean defending being a douche or an actual predator. I mean defending masculine traits in men as being something to be able to affirm and embrace. That does not mean either that non-masculine men, androgynous men or sex/gender atypical men are any less men or a value in life or lack worth. However, being masculine should not be something men are pressured out of being anymore than they should be pressured into being.

The truth is there is no negative in actual masculinity as defined in any dictionary anywhere. Nor anywhere in dictionaries in the past. Masculinity is defined as;

pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men: masculine attire. 2. having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, as strength and boldness.

So, what is wrong with anything in this masculinity? Do you see predatory anywhere in the definition of the term? Do you see abusive in the actual definition? Do you see mass shooting nutcase or sexual deviant? The truth is there is nothing wrong with masculinity. We do not need a new Positive form we need to properly define and defend what is really masculinity VS what the anti-male ideologies preach about it. Every single man that jumps in front of a bullet for someone they love is being masculine. It is a form of protecting the ones you love and protection is one of the many things at the core of classical masculinity. This does not mean women cannot and do not protect others, but, it is classically a masculine arch-type which a woman could also fall into.

Of course, I am for defending men and manhood no matter how one expresses oneself as a man. So, wherever you fall within the myriad of expressions you as a man should not be thrown under the bus. Nor should you be seen as a lesser as a person. The misandry of individuals and groups of individuals that hate men does not care how you express as long as you are unashamed of being a man while expressing it. They push a collectivized original sin based on being born biologically male without being guilty of that fact. They are not against just bad men having personal strength, but, any man having personal strength and self-love.

Men need just the opposite the ability to have self-love and proper self-esteem to be able to be able to realize their objective self-worth in this world. Men need to know they are worthy of pursuing and obtaining their values in life. Our current discourse totally throws under the bus any needs men have for a healthy psychology separate from being seen as disposable, a utility, a walking dildo or a free bodyguard. Manhood no matter what way you express yours being seen as a good thing needs to become a norm in society. This does not mean we will ever get rid of Gynocentricism as there is a good deal of human nature behind that force in us. However, looking at all people through a lens of methodological individualism with their own worth means we have a way of muting the affects somewhat.

Men are good, manhood is good, manliness is good, masculinity is good and manhood expressed in many variance of ways is good. Never be ashamed of being a man and being a male in this world. You have not done anything wrong by simply being born biologically male. Maleness is not toxic, the Y chromosome is not a poison chromosome, and being a man is not a curse. Men need to quit having an internal self hatred of themselves and embrace the fact they are whom they are. There is no reason to dehumanize yourself based on a narrative pushed by those whom want you hating yourself and wracked with guilt. Each man needs to learn to be rationally-self interested and not interested in haters.

Each man out there needs to not base their worth on the outside worlds push towards self hatred. Instead, they need to realize how great they can be and to work to be it. This does not mean to be perfect as we are only walking 5th Apes and not supernatural. Be the best you you can be and not whom the world wants you to be as a man. Men can be and often are amazing people. Men are good and men need to realize this and act on the Angels Of our Better natures. Men are not toxic; they can be and very much are a force for good in this world. Masculinity is not toxic it just is; and it is beautiful and lovely just as it is.

Happy Belated Birthday Ms. Rand!

Is Selfishness a Virtue? A Debate With Yaron Brook and Gene Epstein.