Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Gaydar is Bullshit; based on stereotyping, generalization, collectivization and false assumptions.
A vast number of people have the idea they can tell if someone is gay without asking them. That there are certain indicators of someones sexual orientation which you can identify in a person. However, recent research done by University of Wisconsin at Madison Department of Psychology researchers completely debunks the so-called idea of Gaydar. Gaydar is based on stereotyping and false assumptions. Not only that, but, previous studies had completely faulty samples that do not match the real world they were supposed to be studying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://aksarbent.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-big-flaw-in-stanfords-junky.html
https://www.queerty.com/sorry-guys-science-confirms-gaydar-isnt-real-20170318
http://aksarbent.blogspot.com/2017/03/gaydar-myth-busted-by-u-of-wi-madison.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26219212
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2017.1278570
https://theconversation.com/debunking-the-gaydar-myth-73750
I will go even further and say there is even more of a good chance you are wrong than they mentioned in their research. This is due to the fact that from a statistical and math point of view most of the LGB is actually the B, and, in the research on people whom are bisexual or with bi tendencies identify as mostly straight. Most people whom have or had same-sex attractions fall under the mostly heterosexual category. With this taken into affect your chances of being right in your assumptions about someones orientation being gay goes down even more in a real world situation."We’ve been able to show in two recent papers, all of these previous studies fall prey to a mathematical error that, when corrected, actually leads to the opposite conclusion: Most of the time, gaydar will be highly inaccurate.How can this be, if people in these studies are accurate at rates significantly higher than 50 percent?There’s a problem in the basic premise of these studies: Namely, having a pool of people in which 50 percent of the targets are gay. In the real world, only around 3 to 8 percent of adults identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual.What does this mean for interpreting the 60 percent accuracy rate? Think about what the 60 percent accuracy means for the straight targets in these studies. If people have 60 percent accuracy in identifying who is straight, it means that 40 percent of the time, straight people are incorrectly categorized. In a world where 95 percent of people are straight, 60 percent accuracy means that for every 100 people, there will be 38 straight people incorrectly assumed to be gay, but only three gay people correctly categorized."
University of Wisconsin at Madison Department of Psychology researchers found that “Those who were told gaydar is real stereotyped much more than the control group, and participants stereotyped much less when they had been told that gaydar is just another term for stereotyping.”I go once again even further and doubt previous studies as they so highly used young children's actions as connected to adult orientation. Previous studies looked at everything from play styles to how one sets their legs when sitting down as proofs of gayness. A young boy wanting to play game show host does not indicate anything about what sexuality they will grow up to have. Also, people of all 3 sexual orientations sit with their legs in different ways. Looking as vocal fluidity and voice pitch or talking is also flawed. It is possible a straight man whom learned to talk from a family made up of mostly women might have picked up their talking mannerisms when they learned to speak. Same for someones walk. As one could pick up the mannerisms of those around them when learning to walk. Correlation is not causation; scientific method 101.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://aksarbent.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-big-flaw-in-stanfords-junky.html
https://www.queerty.com/sorry-guys-science-confirms-gaydar-isnt-real-20170318
http://aksarbent.blogspot.com/2017/03/gaydar-myth-busted-by-u-of-wi-madison.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26219212
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2017.1278570
https://theconversation.com/debunking-the-gaydar-myth-73750
Friday, August 30, 2019
The Cause of America's Mixed Economy - REVEALED
This video was created by Christian Jackson. Taken from Lecture of Yaron Brook on morality of capitalism presented in Warsaw, 20 April 2015. Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).
Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.
Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.
Race and IQ Obsessions with Falsehoods
his video was created by Christian Jackson. Taken from IQ, the Individual & Evolutionary Psychology, Yaron Brook, Living Objectivism Episode 9, Part 2
In this segment, which aired on August 28, 2017, Yaron looks at IQ as a result of environment and genetics.
Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.
Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).
Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.
In this segment, which aired on August 28, 2017, Yaron looks at IQ as a result of environment and genetics.
Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.
Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).
Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Ayn Rand and The Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged (archive.org)
Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged is a feature length
documentary film that examines the resurging interest in Ayn Rand’s epic
and controversial 1957 novel and the validity of its dire prediction
for America.
Set in what novelist and philosopher Rand called ‘the day after
tomorrow,’ Atlas depicts an America in crisis, brought to her knees by a
corrupt establishment of government regulators and businessmen with
political pull – the ‘looters’ and the ‘moochers’ – who prey on
individual achievement.
Less a conventional work of fiction than a philosophical manifesto in
the form of a romantic novel, over the course of a thousand-plus pages,
Atlas tackles no less an essential argument than the one debated by
philosophers and theologians since time immemorial: altruism vs.
self-interest. Am I my brother’s keeper – or not? For Ayn Rand, the
answer is an emphatic no. To Rand and the disciples of her Objectivist
philosophy, self-sacrifice is as heinous an act as murder…murder of the
soul.
Upon publication, Atlas Shrugged was widely scorned by critics for
its ‘preposterous’ plot and one-dimensional characters. Intellectuals
and academics from across the ideological spectrum roundly dismissed the
new and original philosophy called ‘Objectivism’ that Rand so
compellingly illustrated in the novel.
Despite this pummeling, Atlas became a best seller and has remained
in print ever selling a healthy 75,000 or so copies each year. Then
with the new century, sales began to increase dramatically. In 2007,
its fiftieth anniversary year, Atlas sold a record 180,000 copies.
Since then Atlas Shrugged – published over a half century ago – has
sold over a million copies.
Why? Because – as evidenced by pointed and frequent references to
Rand and Atlas Shrugged in the media – an increasing number of Americans
– right or wrong – see their society devolving into a nightmare
scenario like the one Rand projected over a half century ago.
Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged looks into Rand’s
background for the ideas and philosophy that inspired and shaped her
novel and seeks to determine whether America is indeed headed for the
disastrous outcome she predicted.
A Major disagreement with Yaron Brook in regards to Objectivism and the political spectrum
I have been watching a lot of Yaron Brook videos recently and I noticed a pattern lately. The insistence that Objectivism is neither left nor right. That a free society is neither a rightist or leftist government. His view being that right and left are no different with rightism supporting Donald Trump or being the home of reactionaries/white supremacists and the like . Rightism meaning somehow just as an authoritarian of a vision as leftism. However, this is a major fallacy as mentioned by Craig Biddle in The Objective Standard.
" You’ve heard the claims:
- “The whole political spectrum is statist.”
- “One end is communism, the other end is fascism.”
- “One end is socialism, the other is nationalism.”
- “One end is progressivism, the other is conservatism.”
- “The political spectrum is all just variations of collectivism.”
And so on.Such claims are rampant. But they make no sense. And understanding why they make no sense is vital to the defense of individual rights, freedom, and capitalism.
Many people (including some advocates of capitalism) claim that the political spectrum consists of communism at one end and fascism at the other. But, as Ayn Rand noted, this claim is “fraudulent,” its origins are “shameful,” and its implications disastrous:
Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left.”4
This fraud may have collapsed in the 1940s, but it has been resurrected in recent years.
In terms of logical fallacies, the notion that the extremes on the political spectrum are variants of statism is, among others, a false alternative. It omits the possibility of a political system that recognizes and protects individual rights. It omits the possibility of freedom. It omits capitalism.That is as clearly erroneous as a false alternative gets.What are the practical implications of this false alternative? What happens when otherwise freedom-loving people accept the idea that the political extremes are variants of statism? As Rand pointed out, when people are faced with such alternatives, they tend to choose “the middle of the road”:The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, “moderate” middle—with a “moderate” amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a “moderate” amount of government handouts to the poor—with a “moderate” respect for rights and a “moderate” degree of brute force—with a “moderate” amount of freedom and a “moderate” amount of slavery—with a “moderate” degree of justice and a “moderate” degree of injustice—with a “moderate” amount of security and a “moderate” amount of terror—and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.5This false alternative not only drives otherwise good people toward the unprincipled middle; it also empowers the truly committed statists by creating the appearance that they have a monopoly on principles, consistency, objectivity, morality. It makes everyone else look morally compromised.That is not a good spectrum for advancing truth, justice, and the American way.
Despite being so logical on so much and an amazing Objectivism proponent I find the facts support Objectivism and Objectivistish politics to be the proper definition of right or right-wing, or rightist. Along side the better Classical Liberals; supporters of true Constitutional Republicanism, and the rest of the individuals that are for Global Capitalism, Freedom and Individual Rights. In the further words of Craig Biddle below;
The essential issue in politics is not the size but the function of government; it’s not whether government is big or small but whether it protects or violates rights.The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. A properly conceived political spectrum must reflect this fact. Whatever terms are used to identify the positions of political ideologies or systems must be defined with regard to the fundamental political alternative: force vs. freedom—or, more specifically, rights-violating vs. rights-protecting institutions.Because the term “left” is already widely used to denote social systems and ideologies of force (e.g., socialism, communism, “progressivism”), and the term “right” is substantially used to denote social systems and ideologies of freedom (e.g., capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism), the best approach for advocates of freedom is not to develop new terminology for the political spectrum, but to define the existing terminology with respect to political essentials—and to claim the extreme right end of the spectrum as rightfully and exclusively ours.
Indeed, we should speak in terms of individualism vs. collectivism and freedom vs. force. We should also speak in terms of capitalism vs. statism, egoism vs. altruism, honesty vs. dishonesty, reason vs. mysticism, and various other opposites. Such pairs identify and differentiate concepts that are essential to clear thinking and effective communication.
But the idea that the entire left-right political spectrum is statist is not merely wrong; it is disastrously wrong.You can read the rest of the facts underriding freedom and capitalism to be rightist in the article from which the above section is taken. Finally, I want to leave you with the final paragraph of the fallacies article I linked to above. (No IP or Copyright infringement intended.)
Although the terms originated in 18th-century France (where they referred to seating arrangements of legislators), “left” and “right” in America have come to represent the basic sides of our political debates. Boiled down to essentials, “left” refers to advocates of statism, “right” to advocates of capitalism, and the middle area to advocates of mixed ideologies and systems. (For elaboration, see “Political ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ Properly Defined.”)1The problem is that few people think in terms of essentials. And many treat the term “right” not only as representing capitalism, but also as representing ideologies such as conservatism, fascism, and nationalism. This is an instance of what Ayn Rand called the fallacy of package-dealing, which consists in conceptually packaging together things that are essentially different and thus logically do not belong together.
It makes no sense to package capitalism with those other ideologies because capitalism is fundamentally different. Whereas capitalism holds that the individual’s life belongs to him and that government must protect his rights and leave him fully free to act in accordance with his own judgment, the other ideologies hold that the individual’s life belongs to the state and that the state may force him to act against his judgment for an alleged “greater good”—whether the will of “God” (conservatism), or some racial or economic group (fascism), or the nation (nationalism), or some mixture thereof. (For more on such differences, see “Capitalism and the Moral High Ground.”)2This package-deal is a serious problem for advocates of capitalism because it blurs the distinction between capitalism and statism. The solution, however, is not to label the right as “statist,” but to define the relevant terms objectively—as when addressing other such package-deals.
"One way in which people commit this fallacy is by assuming that we can abandon the left-right political spectrum and speak strictly in terms of a statism-capitalism spectrum or a collectivism-individualism spectrum without correcting misconceptions about the left-right spectrum. That may sound great—until we think about it, reflect on the broader context, and realize that a two-pole spectrum by its very nature has a left side and a right side.10 No matter which words we place on the opposite ends, the spectrum will still have a left side and a right side; thus, people will still think about it and refer to it in terms of left and right.11Because the terms “left” and “right” are so deeply embedded in political thought and discourse, and because any two-pole spectrum has a left side and a right side, attempting to abandon the left-right spectrum and establish a “different” one is futile. What is fruitful is to embrace the terms “left” and “right,” define them objectively (in terms of force and freedom), and help people to understand why such definitions are essential to clear thinking.As long as people conceive of political left and right in terms of undefined (or vaguely defined) words, package deals, false alternatives, frozen abstractions, or stolen concepts, their thinking about the political spectrum will be discombobulated. The only solution to this problem is to establish and promote clear, objective definitions.Ayn Rand wrote in 1971:Since, today, there are no clear definitions of political terms, I use the word “rightist” to denote the views of those who are predominantly in favor of individual freedom and capitalism—and the word “leftist” to denote the views of those who are predominantly in favor of government controls and socialism. As to the middle or “center,” I take it to mean “zero,” i.e., no dominant position, i.e., a pendulum swinging from side to side, moment by moment.12Those provisional definitions and that usage made sense at the time. And with the refined definitions we have today, that usage makes all the more sense. A rightist is an advocate of individual rights, freedom, and capitalism. A leftist is an advocate of government controls, the initiation of force, and statism. Those in the middle are confused and/or unprincipled, and they ought to do the necessary thinking and choose a side.Our alternatives are to use the terms “left” and “right” and define them rationally (which fosters clarity and thus advances capitalism), to refrain from using the terms (which is nearly impossible and condones conceptual chaos), or to use the terms without defining them (which is non-objective and irresponsible).Of course, if someone doesn’t want to use the terms “left” and “right,” that is his prerogative. And it is possible (albeit exceedingly difficult) to speak about politics without using the terms. But to claim that the whole left-right spectrum is statist (or collectivist) is to commit a host of logical fallacies, to perpetrate a fraud, and to harm the cause of capitalism.A great deal is at stake here. Let’s do this right."
Shattering the veil of ignorance: Taking on the misunderstandings and downright falsehoods about Objectivism.
Usually even the mere mention of Objectivism leads to scorn and a crazy hatred that is something so negative a believer in Woo Woo fluff would say would bring ruin. Most people whom hear the term think of some sort of secular Cult built around unquestionable ideas of one woman; that woman being Ayn Rand. They think to be an Objectivist; thus agreeing with her on philosophy and its proceeding politics means that you worship the ground she walked on. That you are a dogmatic and unthinking kool-aid drinker. That you are in fact a Randroid.
However, to say that is to not understand Objectivism VS Ayn Rand worship. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with a philosophical world view and agreeing with the personal opinions of the philosopher. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with the overall world view presented and to agree unquestioning that the outcome of that philosophy is X, Y or Z. One of the biggest misunderstandings about Objectivism is that it promotes a dog-eat-dog world of chaos.
At the core of Objectivism is indeed the virtue of selfishness in fact it is all about following your own personal and rational selt-interest. VS living a life based on otherism where others determine your life and journey over your own self. However, there is no reason for rational self-interest for selfishness to lead to chaos. Far from it chaos does not let us achieve our goals to keep and maintain our values in life. One needs some sense of stability to be able to know how to keep and maintain said values. The chaos of people crushing each other to get ahead is antithetical to being able to live a rational life.
Thus one of the biggest hard-ons against Objectivism is on its face dead wrong and not correct. Let us take charity for one. Charity itself is not persay a virtue, but, it can be virtuous to be charitable to causes you really do care about. If you have a cause you are rationally passionate about and it is not self-destructive to give to it that is selfish. Charity in order to be moral must be based on a context in which you are not destructive of your own wellbeing. Some people find it amazing to give to others because of the cause being something they love. In addition one can get great joy and happiness from helping others and being benevolent.
Just because a philosophy has selfishness at its core does not mean it preaches "me, me, me." Another example is people providing protection and provision to others. If someone has a loved one in their life; be that a lover, friends, family or even fellow community members of good character one is unrelated to. If someone is giving to them in the form of protecting them or providing for them it is not selfless unless it is self-destructive. Protection and provision spurned on by how important of a value someone or something is to you in a non-destructive way it is selfish to take up such a role.
The truth is most people would not want pure altruism to take hold in a society. It would lead to said societies complete and utter destruction. Even something such as national security is based on people selfishly protecting that which one cares deeply about. Ones ability to be free and thrive in a safe, stable and of course most importantly liberty based society. So, soldiers volunteering to be in an all volunteer army because they have thought, thought, thought and rationally want to protect the nation and its allies are being as selfish as can be they are not selfless altruists at all.
It is not selfish to let your child starve either. Or to look at the poor as scum beneath your feet. It is very selfish to help a poor person that genuinely wants to be on their own two feet. That genuinely wants to not be poor and to have their own job. Whom generally wants to have a good life and be a productive person in their own life. People that have thought about peoples characters and decided out of benevolence to help the downtrodden and the disabled/disordered are also being selfish provided they are not being self-destructive. Feeding your child is selfish because you are maintaining your genes in the pool of our species. Only a pure altruist would let their child starve.
Now let us return to the criticism of Objectivism as being some sort of Ayn Rand circle-jerk cult. To be deadly honest some people whom call themselves Objectvists can be jerks, can be Randroid like worshipers and can be cult-like dogmatists. However, that is not Objectivism that causes this these people would act like this with philosophy and the philosophers no matter which one they chose. These folks just have that sort of temperament and no matter what they were they would act like this. If they dropped Objectivism for say Christianity they would become the fundamentalists. This is an individual issue that should be taken up with those individuals and any groups which share their unthinking narrative view.
For example; Ayn Rand thought homosexuality was immoral. However, 99% of all people whom are Objectivists disagree with this stance vehemently. Ayn Rand denied evolution had a role to play in human psychology. This too a good deal of Objectivists disagree with. She thought that your sense of life determined whom you wanted to bang. This too most Objectivists would disagree with as well. She was herself anti-porn and this is not true of Objectivists everywhere. She had many personal opinions she came to on any number of matters. However, agreeing with her philosophically does not indicate you agree with any of her opinions she nor any other Objectivist "claims" comes from agreeing with the philosophy.
I am an Objectivist and I will not deny this nor have I ever denied this on this here blog. However, I also disagree not only as vehemently with Ayn Rand as many other Objectivists with thinking brains, but, often times I disagree even more with her than my fellow Objectivists do. Topic after topic that would take up paragraphs I disagree and find evidence based on our current knowledge is black and white against Ayn Rands personal "outcomes" of her philosophy. However, philosophically Ayn Rand was absolutely correct on the proper world view for a free and prosperous life. I agree with her philosophy completely. I not only know it, I understand it concretely and put it to use in my life all the time.
Towards a Male Liberation based on a Man's own rational happiness.
There a few schools of thought in the Men's Movement and often times they are seemingly contradictory. One one hand you have the traditional conservative view of going back to traditionalism ALA the Leave It To Beaver 1950's. Of course, no such 1950's existed it was a fictional version of an ideal people had in Hollywood. On the other hand you have MGTOW that goes anywhere from just rejecting male/female relations to outright dehumanization of women. Both sides call the other traitors to the cause.
The MGTOW set thinks any man that deals with women and trusts any woman is a gender/sex traitor as women cannot be trusted with the way things are. Some go so far as to say due to female nature men will never be safe and it is to go back onto what they call the plantation to deal with women in anyway.
The trad-con set thinks that the other extreme is being a traitor as they are sacrificing the continuation of the species by not breeding. Their solution is to go back to traditionalism or their view of it and to have things as they think they were back in the 1950's. They call out MGTOW as being men that have given up and deride their choices they disagree with.
You also have the Return of Kings Neo-Masculinity crowd which is yet another whole kettle of fish on the fire. I contend that there is a major error with all of these views in that each one tried to prescribe what men do with their lives. Whether towards traditional families or away from women altogether. Or in the case of Neo-Masculinity towards a sort of odd combination of PUA and traditionalism. In truth the Men's Movement should instead be based around an individual man's own rational happiness. About men each and every individual man being an end to himself towards his own standards of value in life provided he does not ask others to sacrifice their happiness for them.
If a man wants a long term more traditional setup and the other person agrees let him have it. If the man wants to remain a bachelor and eligible so be it. If a man wants to go nowhere near women so be it. If a man wants to date casually so be it. I am not saying that all choices are good ones. I am simply saying that methodological individualism should be the guiding light of the Men's Movement. The movement should not become a collectivist movement like the feminist one. Nor should it become about becoming what women want which is just another form of otherism and self-sacrifice to a collective "women." It all starts with men being able to feel worthy as people without needing to feel like utilities used for the worlds benefit.
Men are human and not machines one needs to keep that in mind. Being a man should not be about being a walking wallet, a free bodyguard nor a baby batter dispensing machine. Men are human and men need to learn to be comfortable without being some perfect ideal man that might never exist. Men need to begin with understanding our human nature and why we can be so great. I am not saying human nature has no dark side it certainly does. However, men need to stop feeling they are toxic just for being men and liberate their minds from the constraints of the sexes are at war narrative. A narrative which is nothing more than collectivization around biological sex and a denial of individual personal identity as a man.
The MGTOW set thinks any man that deals with women and trusts any woman is a gender/sex traitor as women cannot be trusted with the way things are. Some go so far as to say due to female nature men will never be safe and it is to go back onto what they call the plantation to deal with women in anyway.
The trad-con set thinks that the other extreme is being a traitor as they are sacrificing the continuation of the species by not breeding. Their solution is to go back to traditionalism or their view of it and to have things as they think they were back in the 1950's. They call out MGTOW as being men that have given up and deride their choices they disagree with.
You also have the Return of Kings Neo-Masculinity crowd which is yet another whole kettle of fish on the fire. I contend that there is a major error with all of these views in that each one tried to prescribe what men do with their lives. Whether towards traditional families or away from women altogether. Or in the case of Neo-Masculinity towards a sort of odd combination of PUA and traditionalism. In truth the Men's Movement should instead be based around an individual man's own rational happiness. About men each and every individual man being an end to himself towards his own standards of value in life provided he does not ask others to sacrifice their happiness for them.
If a man wants a long term more traditional setup and the other person agrees let him have it. If the man wants to remain a bachelor and eligible so be it. If a man wants to go nowhere near women so be it. If a man wants to date casually so be it. I am not saying that all choices are good ones. I am simply saying that methodological individualism should be the guiding light of the Men's Movement. The movement should not become a collectivist movement like the feminist one. Nor should it become about becoming what women want which is just another form of otherism and self-sacrifice to a collective "women." It all starts with men being able to feel worthy as people without needing to feel like utilities used for the worlds benefit.
Men are human and not machines one needs to keep that in mind. Being a man should not be about being a walking wallet, a free bodyguard nor a baby batter dispensing machine. Men are human and men need to learn to be comfortable without being some perfect ideal man that might never exist. Men need to begin with understanding our human nature and why we can be so great. I am not saying human nature has no dark side it certainly does. However, men need to stop feeling they are toxic just for being men and liberate their minds from the constraints of the sexes are at war narrative. A narrative which is nothing more than collectivization around biological sex and a denial of individual personal identity as a man.
Uncivilized behavior is not hypermasculinity it is not a sexed trait
I would like to dissect an idea that is prevalent within ignorant circles. Mainly that extreme aggression or other unruly behaviors are hypermasculinity. I saw this within the binder belonging to the group as well. This is absolutely an incorrect name for unruly or predatory behavior. The truth is that both of the sexes have the capacity to behave unruly or predatory towards other people. It is not something found exclusively in the male genome.
Calling this sort of behavior hypermasculinity is totally without context and shows someone has a very biased point of view. Aggression is aggression and being a predator or sexually unhealthy is just that. Ones biological sex nor Gender or Gender role has nothing to do with these sorts of things. They are maladaptive behaviors that can be coming from any individual. The linking bad behaviors with masculinity in some form or other is just another manifestation of the feminist idea of "toxic masculinity." A term which serves a similar purpose of removing from ones mind female aggressors and predators. Is the Cat Fight between two women not a show of extreme aggression in a female?
It is seeing crap like that in the literature of the groups intended to help men that is part of the reason men do not look for help. Why go somewhere with a vocabulary that makes ones masculinity something that needs to be thought of as possibly ones own enemy? Masculinity is not toxic and uncivilized behaviors are not some hyper version of it. Being a man is not some sort of original sin curse that men need to unlearn and undo in order to be happy or relieved of their issues. Learning managing skills for issues does not mean convincing men they need to be more feminine or more like women. Managing skills means teaching what works regardless of ones sex.
Calling this sort of behavior hypermasculinity is totally without context and shows someone has a very biased point of view. Aggression is aggression and being a predator or sexually unhealthy is just that. Ones biological sex nor Gender or Gender role has nothing to do with these sorts of things. They are maladaptive behaviors that can be coming from any individual. The linking bad behaviors with masculinity in some form or other is just another manifestation of the feminist idea of "toxic masculinity." A term which serves a similar purpose of removing from ones mind female aggressors and predators. Is the Cat Fight between two women not a show of extreme aggression in a female?
It is seeing crap like that in the literature of the groups intended to help men that is part of the reason men do not look for help. Why go somewhere with a vocabulary that makes ones masculinity something that needs to be thought of as possibly ones own enemy? Masculinity is not toxic and uncivilized behaviors are not some hyper version of it. Being a man is not some sort of original sin curse that men need to unlearn and undo in order to be happy or relieved of their issues. Learning managing skills for issues does not mean convincing men they need to be more feminine or more like women. Managing skills means teaching what works regardless of ones sex.
An old article from 2011 on A Voice For Men provides an excellent definition of manhood/masculinity.
Normally I do not actually go onto A Voice For Men, but, I was on another site which linked to it. So, I began looking through the articles by a fellow whom got into a huge argument with the Alt-Right homo darling Jack Donovan. He was arguing that the colors on the Male Studies home page back in 2011 was not Queer against Jack whom called the program a home for "sissy faggots." It was an old article, but, I was interested to see what else B. R. Merrick had written for the site.
Low and behold I came across a ton of articles over the years on various different topics of note. One of them was just simply entitled, "What is Masculinity?" I found myself intrigued as his interaction with Jack showed whatever his definition would be it would not be what the Barbarism movement of Donovan wanted to release on the world. Much to my surprise I found a very well written article all about essentials and concept formation more or less.
This much broader and yet still fundamental definition was as follows;
He continues on in his article after asking a trick question of whether the more emotionally contemplating music or the aggressive music above is by a man. The trick being that both are by a man writing his music about different topics and in different moods. He follows from this to explain what he means in more detail VS what he does not mean.
It is both defining and freeing all at the same time. By defining masculinity as a definite objective thing. Yet, does it in a way in which one is also acknowledging not everyone that tosses around that term knows what it in fact means. The answer to the man or boy that is "different" is not to make him feel like he is less than his sex. Is not to label him "effeminate," but, to understand this might be just aspects of "masculinity" miss-labelled as"feminine," It is instead once more as B. R. Merrick put it so well;
Low and behold I came across a ton of articles over the years on various different topics of note. One of them was just simply entitled, "What is Masculinity?" I found myself intrigued as his interaction with Jack showed whatever his definition would be it would not be what the Barbarism movement of Donovan wanted to release on the world. Much to my surprise I found a very well written article all about essentials and concept formation more or less.
This much broader and yet still fundamental definition was as follows;
The existence of manhood; and the perception, recognition, and application of reality through it.This frees up men to both have a broad brush, but, also still have fundamental differences to women in many ways. It essentializes; thus separating masculine from feminine. Yet, it does not render a man against any particular desire, interest or trait that might be within the man.
He continues on in his article after asking a trick question of whether the more emotionally contemplating music or the aggressive music above is by a man. The trick being that both are by a man writing his music about different topics and in different moods. He follows from this to explain what he means in more detail VS what he does not mean.
....both musical examples above fit nicely within this definition, as both were written by one who existed in manhood, and who perceived, recognized, and applied the principles of the universe in which he lived to create his music. His contribution is different from a football player’s, from Jack Donovan’s, from mine, and from every other man who ever walked upon this earth, or whoever will, but it is still masculine.Least you think his brush is still not broad enough he goes onto describe his Men's Group Therapy sessions which included many Gay and Bisexual men. In which he says the following;
Over the next several months, or perhaps it was longer than a year, this group of men became my lifeline, my outlet, my anchor, and my friends. They were the genuine article..... I wasn’t the only masculine entity walking around on that campus that initially dismissed them as less-than-manly. I’m sure I am not the last to have been proven wrong. The masculine qualities these guys expressed were different than most. But there was no mistaking that each of them had a penis and testicles, and that the unavoidable, external acknowledgement of the possession of those members, along with the internal surging of testosterone, had its influence on their behavior and their manly bodies. None of these guys wore a dress. None of these guys wanted a sex change. None of them was under the impression that he wasn’t really a man.
Masculinity, whether we choose to define it or not, will continue. It’s natural law. What is required at this point in time is not to abandon the word, any more than I think we ought to abandon the word “honor.” What will benefit us the most is understanding, whenever we encounter it, those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood.I think this is one of the best descriptions of a definable, but, yet less perfectionist driven version of masculinity. It lets us men be men, but, also does not deny men access to full humanity in the name of being masculine as opposed to feminine. It also lets into the masculine club if you will lots of men that get labelled by society as womanly or effeminate even if they do not match the actual Biological or Psychological definition of that term in anyway at all.
It is both defining and freeing all at the same time. By defining masculinity as a definite objective thing. Yet, does it in a way in which one is also acknowledging not everyone that tosses around that term knows what it in fact means. The answer to the man or boy that is "different" is not to make him feel like he is less than his sex. Is not to label him "effeminate," but, to understand this might be just aspects of "masculinity" miss-labelled as"feminine," It is instead once more as B. R. Merrick put it so well;
....... those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood.
"Hypermasculinity" has its origins in gender studies and colonial studies.
I pointed out to my men's group on its last evening the problem with its defining of certain things. I pointed out that the term hypermasculinity as the term for male avoidance or faking masculinity was not accurate. As well as that aggression should not be defined by some sort of extreme masculinity.
I pointed out; if anything a hypermasculine man based on traditional roles would be hyper-protecting and providing of those around him. Not dominating of others or extremely aggressive against innocent people around them. That they should simply say violent and aggressive, or abusive and domineering if that is what they mean not putting into a form of masculinity.
I pointed out that women are also aggressive and violent; even domineering over others. Should we I asked call these acts hyperfeminine of these women? Or should we I pointed out; if hypermasculine means acting out or faking masculinity call women that are ultra-feminine be called hyperfeminine?
How is one supposed to know if masculine traits are being faked or it is just the man is like this? Unless they come out and say they are faking it. Even in that case it is the opposite of being hypermasculine, which would be called Hypomasculine and masking the fact. Let us just call that being a phony or hell, "masking."
The truth is the very definition and terminology as it was being used in the documentation of the group does not come from a reasoned and scientific source. Instead it was first used academically and in literature in 1994 by Ashis Nandy. It was used from the very beginning from a radical feminist worldview which ignored all conquering Queens in the past for the idea colonialism was interlocked with gender.
Specifically it came out of a warped view of an Indian psychologist. It was from its formation with this sort of definition a demonizing of men and males in general associating masculinity with all the horrors of the passed and the future. It is of a gender studies origin and always was a radical-feminist term.
I refused to use invalid terms for invalid ideas and ridiculous demonizing feminist terminology for various ways of being a man in this world. I refuse to do so in the future as well. Men and their various ways of being; the various shades of masculinity are not something to be demonized. I cannot abide by demonizing masculine men anymore than abiding people demonizing feminine men as cucks by Ethonationalists and douchebags online.
Aggression has a word aggression. Faking things has a term faking it or masking. There is no reason to conceptualize these things as hypermasculine; they show up in all humans in different contexts and are human traits not just masculine ones on hyper drive.
I pointed out; if anything a hypermasculine man based on traditional roles would be hyper-protecting and providing of those around him. Not dominating of others or extremely aggressive against innocent people around them. That they should simply say violent and aggressive, or abusive and domineering if that is what they mean not putting into a form of masculinity.
I pointed out that women are also aggressive and violent; even domineering over others. Should we I asked call these acts hyperfeminine of these women? Or should we I pointed out; if hypermasculine means acting out or faking masculinity call women that are ultra-feminine be called hyperfeminine?
How is one supposed to know if masculine traits are being faked or it is just the man is like this? Unless they come out and say they are faking it. Even in that case it is the opposite of being hypermasculine, which would be called Hypomasculine and masking the fact. Let us just call that being a phony or hell, "masking."
The truth is the very definition and terminology as it was being used in the documentation of the group does not come from a reasoned and scientific source. Instead it was first used academically and in literature in 1994 by Ashis Nandy. It was used from the very beginning from a radical feminist worldview which ignored all conquering Queens in the past for the idea colonialism was interlocked with gender.
Specifically it came out of a warped view of an Indian psychologist. It was from its formation with this sort of definition a demonizing of men and males in general associating masculinity with all the horrors of the passed and the future. It is of a gender studies origin and always was a radical-feminist term.
I refused to use invalid terms for invalid ideas and ridiculous demonizing feminist terminology for various ways of being a man in this world. I refuse to do so in the future as well. Men and their various ways of being; the various shades of masculinity are not something to be demonized. I cannot abide by demonizing masculine men anymore than abiding people demonizing feminine men as cucks by Ethonationalists and douchebags online.
Aggression has a word aggression. Faking things has a term faking it or masking. There is no reason to conceptualize these things as hypermasculine; they show up in all humans in different contexts and are human traits not just masculine ones on hyper drive.
The Psychologies of Masculinites and the APA's Guidelines for men/boys are institutionalized Radical Feminist Theory.
Not too long ago the American Psychological Association released what they considered guidelines for working with men and boys. What some people might not know is that it was nothing more than institutionalizing within the American Psychological Association of radical feminist Patriarchy theories about masculinity not being a name for certain traits, but, instead an oppressive ideology. Supposedly, masculinity is a socialized for violence male.
Actually, the full preamble or summary states;
"Traditional masculinity-- marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression-- is on the whole, harmful."So, being stoic is somehow pathological as is being competitive. Not only that they are completely socialized and there is no human nature aspects to any of these things. They also lump those things in with being domineering or aggressive. When both men and women can be aggressive or feel the want or desire to take control depending on how they deal with lack of control issues. Oh no, it is traditional masculinity that somehow forces aggressive men to be aggressive or domineering. This is not factually accurate. Nor is it scientifically accurate.
In the words of Steven Pinker on this issue;
"The ludicrous new APA report on masculinity embraces Men and Women differ only due to socialization & the false romantic theory that stoicism and self-reliance is pathological."What can be seen here is an embracing by the APA of the feminist theory of masculinity being some oppressive top down ideology that men are brainwashed into. Just like the APA has now accepted that you can be something other than your biological sex and the Trans Activist narrative on gender identity. They are applying the socialization narrative and pointing the finger at masculine traits as being somehow harmful socialized behaviors. However, I bet if any of them are ever hurt the first thing they will call for is a stoic rescue-person which will statistically more than likely be a man whom is acting in a traditionally masculine behavior of protecting and providing for their safety with unflinching water-less eyed stoicism.
Also, the report does not understand stoicism and what that term refers to. A man being stoic does not mean he is not emotional nor that he never cries. It just means when push comes to shove and the heat is on, when life is happening he does not stop and ball over it well the action is happening. You can be both stoic during most things in life and yet still break down crying around the right people and at the right time.
Similarly, one can be competitive and yet still co-operate with others. In fact this is how people behave when free under Capitalism all the time. Sure people try and compete, but, there is often co-opetition. In which people co-operate together in order to compete to provide the best goods or services at the lowest price. Capitalism or markets in general work because in competing they without even knowing it as if guided by an invisible hand (as Adam Smith would say) they are co-operating with people most of which they do not know and do not personally care about in anyway or shape or manor. Yet, they depend on them. I recommended reading Laurence Reed's Seminal I Pencil for understanding this. Or watch The Movie on YouTube.
Self reliance does not mean you are treating life like living on a desert island that would just be ridiculous and get you nowhere in life. Hell, dominance is not even always negative either. Dominating life for example and taking the bull by the horns VS being domineering over others is a very admiral way of living. It also could very well be that the APA is mistaking assertiveness in males for Dominating behavior.
As is aggression not necessarily a bad thing. For example if someone tried to harm you or the people you are with you might need to use aggression including violent force to defend yourself from the attacker or attackers. Traditional masculine aggression is why we are alive as a species now and others are dead. It is why the human bloodline even still exists. If not for the aggressive and violent force used in defense of our ancestors by aggressive mainly men the current generations would be dead by hoards of savage thugs. During our ancient past.
Traditional masculinity might be stoic, competitive, be misunderstood to be dominant and be in certain instances aggressive. However, that does not make it a bad thing let alone to be considered a pathological way of living in the world. Nor does saying so addresses all of the women that are aggressive in an abusive way or dominating over men. Nor does it address stoic women and whether that too is a pathology as well. It simply smears masculinity and masculine traits in the name of wanting to make men like women, just like women and removing their sense of individuality for a collective borg of their own making. It is Feminism of the most radical and anti-male variety institutionalized into American Psychological Guidelines and it is fucked the hell up.
Mass Shootings are not the result of men or masculinity
The Feminazi side of the far-left is now parading around the idea that "toxic" masculinity holds responsibility for the recent mass shootings that have taken place. Further than that they went onto try and say all mass shootings are a product of this "toxic" masculinity. This is nothing less than the pure unadulterated hatred of men and their core characteristics as men known as masculinity.
Somehow being masculine has been once again interchanged for mental instability possible in any member of the human species. It has been tagged with being the worst of human traits with women and the feminine being pure as the driven snow never violent or insane. This is historically and objectively wrong. In the real world any woman you meet could turn out to be a hysterical psycho as much as any man. Women also rape, women also pillage, women also shoot other people and women kill all the time.
It is in human nature to have the possibility to embrace either being a good person who does not harm others or to embrace instead the evil part of human nature and go on a rampage. It has nothing to do with what is between your legs if you are going to do vile things. It comes down to the way your brain is functioning and also how your mindset is within that brain. It comes down a lot of times to brains that are damaged. For example brain tumors have turned sane folks into pedophiles and violent dangerous individuals.
It is not just men that are violent all humans have the ability to do violence and sometimes that is completely justified. What people do not want to admit is people that people misusing violence are in fact choosing to use something that could be used for great good for the wrong things. Violence is not interchangeable with harming innocent people that is only one manifestation of this very important part of our human nature. No humans have ever been the so-called Noble Savage, but, we have been a savage alright. Violence can and has historically been used over and over for great good.
Fighting off the barbarian hordes that want to rape and kill your tribes is built into our evolutionary psychology. It is in our deepest levels of our brains wiring to be prone to violence and extensive violence if needed in order to defend the village innocent from the barbarians at the gates. This is just in our nature as the species that we are. Sometimes that nature also can be misused for great evils and people can be manipulated into doing horrible things with the great power called violence. As Uncle Ben said "with great power comes great responsibility." It is something that we hold in our hand at any time which is why we need institutions that work to mitigate the violence. We call them governments.
The truth is that masculinity is all about historically the opposite of harming others. It is the men that have historically fought off the predators and protected the innocent. They are the ones that were majority in the role of defenders and fighters on the front lines against the psychopaths that killed. It is the men as hunters that protected the women and children of the tribe living lives as disposable to the needs of the tribe for protection and provision. Indeed these men were often fighting other men whom themselves were also intending to protect their own tribes and too being disposable for their own tribe. It was a fight of two groups of men both considering what they were doing as protecting their own.
Far from being the cause of mass shootings and modern day violence masculinity is most embraced in the people that jump in to help people out from that violence. All the security, police, firemen and so forth that jumped in for example in Las Vegas are portraying masculinity and embracing their manhood. Just like the women that jumped in and helped were showing the best in their femininity and womanhood. Mass shooters and other scumbags are embracing the darker side of human nature and anyone can do that the gender does not make a difference. Masculinity is not toxic being a dangerous psychopath is which is genderless. To say masculinity is toxic is to collectivize all people with a penis to being x, y or z.
We are in a weird time where all men are being called the bad men. We are constantly being told by the fem-fem the nutters in gender that all men need to repent for the actions of a few. That being a man is an original sin no different than being born into a world as fallen by Fundamentalists. Men are not bad because some men do bad things. Men are not all rapists and murderers. Men are simply usually going through our daily lives trying to show to the world we are people of good character. Trying to have good friends, decent families and find our partner or companions. Most men you meet will not be assaulting you or harming you in anyway.
In the end of the day we are all just upright walking 5th apes with penises and testicles. That is all we are and that does not determine anything about whether we will pick to embrace the good side or the dark side of broader human natures. Masculinity is not in anyway toxic it exists for a very good reason. Men are not toxic we exist for a very good reason we need to for the species to remain alive. This crazy perpetuated "war of the sexes" needs to stop and we need to get back to a decent level of sanity. Well, as sane as upright 5th apes can possibly be.
Manhood and masculinity exists minus women. If you call someone a cuck you promote a males as utilities view of men.
There is a growing word being used in the manosphere especially on YouTube when it comes to criticizing feminist men. It is the use of the word cuck which is short for cuckold. It basically means a man whom has his cock in a device while having to watch their female partner being banged by another man. It paints any man that is not getting women as being less of a man. A man that is not in a position where he is giving sexual pleasure to a woman he is not a man.
I find the use of such a word to be totally asinine for the manosphere. It makes it seem like men have no value when women are not involved. Do not worship at the lips of the vagina and you are not a man. Does this mean bisexual and homosexual men that do not give women pleasure are not men? That men that are going their own way (even if not associated with the MGTOW movement) are not real men? That masculinity and manhood does not exist as having its worth outside of women?
This is not helping men being looked at as more than utilities or boy toys for women's pleasure. It is not helping men be able to live their life as they see fit. As fully human men away from the need to please and do for women. Men need to be able to liberate themselves from needing to live for women. They need to learn to have themselves as their own mental point of origin. To live a life filled with their own virtues and values. To go towards their own happiness without needing to think about women as some huge hive mind they need to give a fuck about.
Men should be living for themselves and not for the need for sexual gratification or the need to be in a relationship with some woman. They need to be able to not be with women and be happy. They need to live not for women. but. for themselves and making their life the best that it can be. Men should not be called cuckold for being SJWs or feminists. As evil and I mean evil as both ideologies actually are. It does not mean people get to make it seem like men are defined by women in order to be men. Such an idea is insane and stupid. Masculinity is psychological and biological, and women can change nothing about that.
In fact, by being so concentrated on women as ones view on the world. So obsessed with pussy or needing a woman around is putting women you have not even and might never meet in charge of your happiness. As well as in charge of considering yourself a man. It is to suffer from grave shame for not meeting the requirement of getting laid or a girlfriend. It is all very men as utilities to others and it needs to stop. It is utter bullshit! Men need to stop making women the center of their manworld and make their manworld center on the man himself.. on them.
I find the use of such a word to be totally asinine for the manosphere. It makes it seem like men have no value when women are not involved. Do not worship at the lips of the vagina and you are not a man. Does this mean bisexual and homosexual men that do not give women pleasure are not men? That men that are going their own way (even if not associated with the MGTOW movement) are not real men? That masculinity and manhood does not exist as having its worth outside of women?
This is not helping men being looked at as more than utilities or boy toys for women's pleasure. It is not helping men be able to live their life as they see fit. As fully human men away from the need to please and do for women. Men need to be able to liberate themselves from needing to live for women. They need to learn to have themselves as their own mental point of origin. To live a life filled with their own virtues and values. To go towards their own happiness without needing to think about women as some huge hive mind they need to give a fuck about.
Men should be living for themselves and not for the need for sexual gratification or the need to be in a relationship with some woman. They need to be able to not be with women and be happy. They need to live not for women. but. for themselves and making their life the best that it can be. Men should not be called cuckold for being SJWs or feminists. As evil and I mean evil as both ideologies actually are. It does not mean people get to make it seem like men are defined by women in order to be men. Such an idea is insane and stupid. Masculinity is psychological and biological, and women can change nothing about that.
In fact, by being so concentrated on women as ones view on the world. So obsessed with pussy or needing a woman around is putting women you have not even and might never meet in charge of your happiness. As well as in charge of considering yourself a man. It is to suffer from grave shame for not meeting the requirement of getting laid or a girlfriend. It is all very men as utilities to others and it needs to stop. It is utter bullshit! Men need to stop making women the center of their manworld and make their manworld center on the man himself.. on them.
Men need to be able to love themselves and live a life which nurtures the self not live a projection of what others want.
The only website on masculinity that I ever really found that was based on manhood from the view of the man is Allan J. Frantzen's website. He is the man whom came up with the term being a GYB man or a Grab Your Balls man. Which I found to be a very refreshing site to find and it also called out calling men effeminate or emasculated without having their testicles removed. In fact, it was finding his website that helped light the spark of an idea for my own website you are finding yourself reading right now. I figured maybe I should do my own blog about manhood and maleness that looked at things from a different view point than Game players or attraction gurus.
My personal mindset has been from the very beginning that manhood is not based on "otherism." It is not based on what women or other men define as manhood, but, instead by manhood itself. That ones sense of worth as a man should not come from an external source, but, instead from ones own view of themselves as worthy. That a mans worth exists in a world where no women or other men even exists. That men have their own value as people regardless of whether they slay the ladies or turn them all off like vinegar. That men need to put their own well-being first and foremost which means to put the needs for women's and other men's attention as last.
In fact, the theme of so many sites dominated only by what women want means men are constantly living for women and not themselves. Even if said sites are right about what they say women want they are about women and not best practices for men. There is no emphasis on the best and most healthy or whole way for a man to live. There is no emphasis on the mental, physical or emotional needs of men. It is all about the desires of women so much for being sites for men. Masculinity becomes no more than another word for what women want and not about a man at his core. In essence manhood is no longer about being at peace with your core as a man. Instead it becomes placating for the chance to spread your seed.
Masculinity is not just what women want it is much more than that. Men should be able to embrace whom they are no matter how it affects women's attention to them. Nor their fellow man's. At the end of the day it is not the woman nor other men that they see in the mirror before bed and as they rise. It is themselves that a man sees and it is themselves they need the most to have reverence for. It is the self they need to love, to nurture the most and the self they need to honor. The self they need to see as their target of loves arrow. Not in some narcissistic sense, but, in a very much rational sense. If you cannot love yourself whom can you love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)