Victim is not code word for female or feminine. Being a victim does not remove a man's balls.

Recently the #MeToo has blown up on Twitter following the exposing of Harvey Weinstein within Hollywood. During this time many men started trying to include their own stories of being victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Yet, as soon as these men came out as being at one time victims they were told they were not to talk because it was taking the light off of "the real victims women." That they were trying to take the wind out of the sales of the hashtag.

There was a serious lack of any empathy for victims that was not within their own sex/gender. A serious lack of any caring about the stories that men had to share. Men came out about being molested, raped, harassed and what are they told to sit down and shut up because the women are talking. Or even more shameful when it was looked over these men were told they knew what it was like to be a woman. Or told other men would now be their enemies because they were exposing feminine traits.

No, these men are not now "female typical." No, these men are not now feminine because some low life abused them and used them. In fact, a fair number of the people that came out talked about women as perpetrators and not other men. So, where is the "toxic masculinity" in these experiences? Surely, if you were to call it toxic anything surely it would be toxic femininity. It does not take having a vagina to be a victim in this world. Any human can be a victim and any other human could victimize as we are all human.

Victim is not a code word for females or feminine. The last time I checked male victims of sexual predation did not get their genitals cut off. Nor the last time I checked is there any sort of historical standard of only women or feminine people being victims. Men die all the time at the hands of both sexes. Men get abused and attacked by both sexes. Men get raped, molested and exploited as well not just women. Men of all shapes and sizes. From the most chiseled abs to the skinniest bro all of them can become victims at the hands of a vile piece of trash low life.

There is an empathy gap here between men and women. Women like those seeming to pop up in this hashtag are actively helping to widen the gap between this empathy. Men whom are victims should not be met with women saying they matter more because they are women. There needs to be just as much acknowledgement of men being human and worthy of empathy as any woman that has been abused. In addition, men should not be seen as having their balls removed due to being a victim at some point. Men do not become more feminine due to being victims at some point. Male victims remain all man.

I am Not A Feminist nor am I a chauvinist

Neuroscience supports the existence of Free Will and it is not a delusion nor an Illusion

There is a very dangerous myth that is out there surrounding free will and neuroscience of the human mind. There are people whom are spreading misinformation out there and unfortunately one of them is Sam Harris. Someone whom in so many other ways has always been so great at defending the reality of The Universe against the unreality of theistic mysticism. Yet, on and on in the passed decade he has slowly faded into insanity which includes denying the existence of the self and the will of that self.

The idea that the self is not real is not scientific at all. The self is the way of identifying all of the processes within your brain between your ears. The fact that the self is a natural thing that is your brain and not supernatural does not mean the self does not exist. The nonexistence of a literal soul does not mean there is no mind as your mind is the workings of your brain. Thus your brain is that which mystics call your soul and that is itself the humans individual mind.

Within the workings of your mind of course is cause and effect. It is a naturalistic and materialistic in the meaning of the word vs immaterial nonexistence of a supernatural soul or spirit. However, that does not all mean we have no free will at all. In fact, quite the opposite we have in a sense been determined by the very nature of our homo-sapien brains to be free in our wills. In this sense there is for sure determinism in our nature.

We do have evolved psychologies and many of our predispositions and tendencies certainly are coming from this evolved nature of our psychology. No doubt many of those very true sex based differences between males and females have came from these evolved differences. Our instincts that we do definitely have come from this very evolved nature. However, the existence of these evolved traits of our both divergent and shared human traits does not in anyway equal us not having self-regulation, self-control or a will of our own. The existence in us as in all material in this world of a cause and effect does not mean we are predetermined by these instincts and lower order natures as it were.

Yes, evolutionary psychology is more than likely the least incorrect view of psychology that humans would fall into. However, the fact that there is cause and effect. The fact that were are determined in this way does not make us deterministic creatures in the sense of hard determinism and predetermined to be x, y or z. We are in fact as I mentioned earlier determined to be free and science is showing that this very evolutionary psychology is what causes that sense we have known as free will. Of course, where else would a will come from, but, evolution we are evolved animals it could come nothing, but, evolution.

We can know free will exists very easily and this is an experiment done by Daniel Dennett in his lectures on free will. Which is that if someone throws a ball at someone that person can either move and not be hit or not move and be hit dead on. The fact that you can choose to move or choose not to move is in fact a very fundamental evidence of at least a decent enough sense of freedom to matter to anyone. The fact that people could stay at his lecture or leave or not even have came is also an evidence of free will.

There is measurable free will and it literally can be measured in experiments. We have a will, we have self-regulation and self-control. We also above all else can choose to think about a matter or not to think, and, then to act accordingly. It is this that is one of our main freedoms of will as the animal we are as a homosapien. As long as one can choose to think or choose not to think of the consequences and then act accordingly we have as free of a will as we as a species would ever want. Free will does not mean there is no causes and no effects. It does not mean there is no predispositions and no tendencies or pushes or pulls of primordial pre-modernity within our minds at all.

We have all kinds of subconsciousness within our minds no doubt and no one that has ever defended the existence of free will would say otherwise. This does not invalidate the idea of freedom of will which is based primarily on the reality that we are not predetermined entities where everyone man, woman and child will always act the same way and will make many different decisions in their lives. Neuroscience does not as some have said disprove free will in fact neuroscience is proving the existence of this aspect of human nature more and more over time. Despite what the really delusional anti-free will hard determinism myth preaches free will is alive and well.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/06/free-will-exists-and-is-measurable/486551/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201606/free-will-is-not-illusion

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/neuroscience-proves-however-reluctantly-that-we-have-free-will

http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/fwill.htm 

http://www.medicaldaily.com/free-will-exists-even-though-our-brains-know-what-were-going-do-we-do-it-304210

http://www.slate.com/bigideas/are-we-free/essays-and-opinions/alfred-mele-opinion

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17835-free-will-is-not-an-illusion-after-all/

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/september/compatibilism-perry-philosophy-091511.html

https://www.wired.com/2014/09/belief-free-will-threatened-neuroscience/

https://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2013/03/neuroscientist-says-humans-are-wired-free-will

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Machan/Proof_of_Free_Will.shtml

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/freewill

https://artplusmarketing.com/free-will-in-a-deterministic-universe-7bde2860213

http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/free-will-volition-conscious-choice-and-the-changing-brain

https://www.benbest.com/philo/freewill.html 

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/november-december-2014/philosophically-speaking/determinism-free-will-and-moral-responsibility

http://www.101bananas.com/library2/machan.html

https://www.salon.com/2014/12/28/the_truth_about_free_will_does_it_actually_exist/

https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/a-neuroscience-finding-on-free-will.html

https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/objectivism-q-a/objectivism-q-a-blog/3795-what-is-the-objectivist-view-of-free-will

http://optimal.org/voss/freewill.html

https://aphilosopherstake.com/2012/08/10/neuroscience-and-free-will-new-study-debunks-libets-interpretation/

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.

Mystery Method Madness on VH1, pseudo-confidence and the Pick Up Conception of the Alpha Male.

Last night I watched a major trainwreck of a reality show called "The Pick Up Artist." A reality show on The Mystery Method of Pick up and the training of several men bad with women into master PUA's. They essentially took several men and trained them in techniques used within The Mystery Method. It consisted of people ranging from the overly single to no less than 3 men mistaken to be gay by women. It also consisted of a virgin as well and two people that wanted to find the love of their life not just hook up. These men I bet had no idea what they were in for when they signed up to be on the show though.

The first thing they do on the show is have them walk into a club to try and chat up women. Within 10 minutes of arriving to the show not ready at all for a night on the town the men are thrown to the fire. They are monitored via cameras setup in the club by Mystery and his wing people which changed from Season 1 to Season 2. The men are critiqued on everything from the way they walk into the bar to the way they stand. As well as their willingness to as they call it "use an opener and get into a set." The men with the worst criticism are those men whom do not try to approach women. The men whom are too scared to open a conversation with a woman are "average everyday chumps."

In one case one very shy man decided to dip his toe into the anxiety ridden waters of clubbing by chatting up some bros first. To this Mystery questions if they are sharing the same "kind of targets." Thus insinuating that said man is gay or bisexual, so, looking for other men for sets not women. Oh, women "in a set" are called Mysteries "targets." Even though approaching women and getting laid is not in anyway predatory the wording used throughout the show at times is quite unnerving. It is clear that it is because Mystery has a system and uses it. So, for him picking up women is simply using his system to achieve his goals. It is in fact a system that does indeed work as is shown throughout the process of training these men.

However, just because something works does not mean you should use it. Yes, the Mystery Method does work on at least a certain number of women. Yes, it does contain some parts within it that are not themselves bad or wrong, or anything. However, the good is covered in a lot of shit. Body language for sure can be very important. Yes, touching absolutely when appropriate can help escalate the mundane to the sensual for sure. Yes, tone and way of speaking can change someones impression of you. Yet, the first thing they do is to begin a process of complete change for these men. Starting with creating an Avatar almost like a new identity via switching how they dress. Some of the men even change their names.

From here things are beginning to ramp up for the men as they are introduced to opening, displaying higher value and getting into "a set." The first thing one notices is a stack of papers like 15 pages thick dropped in their lap. A first look at how literally systematic the method Mystery uses is. To the point of having written out what openings that can be used that work. Written down also are examples of dropping as they call it displays of higher value in a short time and the art of stacking. This leads to 5 minutes of the show with a condensed version of all the men literally memorizing all aspects of the 15 papers. Which includes reading back every single line to themselves like practicing to put on a play or a movie shoot. The audience already knows what these women will hear line for line and word for word before the approach happens.

This becomes what the audience will see every episode as the men are treated to lesson after lesson. Which they memorize like homework and are expected to play out and use with every single experience with the women they meet. So, it comes time for the Field Test as the men are going to be driven to the club for trying out their new techniques. Sure enough in they go and slowly they approach women. They begin saying the same words we have heard in the memorization faze. Mystery and his wing people watch from a van outside and critique them. However, not everyone is happy with canned lines and dropping hints of higher value that are predetermined by Mystery and the show.

Several of the men do not use the material given to them and wing it. Mystery and his people are not happy when their material is not used. They get quite agitated to see the men say what they want and not just regurgitating lines. They really get upset with men that use their own jokes or whom do not touch when they think they should. You should have rubbed her arm there, you should have kissed her there and so on. If a man gets a woman alone, but, does not escalate his desire to get a woman is questioned. Or if they decide to keep being around a woman's friends as opposed to spending time alone that too is frowned upon. Oh and too much in the comfort faze means they are just friends now.

If a man talks to a woman, has an amazing interaction, but, does not get a kiss, make-out or sexual vibes of some kind it is considered a failure to complete a challenge. Why? I guess in the minds of Mystery and his people a great and amazingly positive night of conversation without ending up all over each other is a waste of their time. So what if these men could not even talk to women without literally shitting themselves inside and now can talk up a storm and women do not scare them. Who cares that they kissed their hand or forehand, but, just not their lips and even got their number to contact them out of the interaction.

These men now have confidence and a feeling of being more than enough which is all they needed to have instruction in. They did not need instructions on how to tell compliance or escalation of Kenostetics. Although there is nothing wrong with knowing when to tell that a woman is showing indicators of interest it is clear Mystery only wants it done within his own system with its own goals. One does not need to go through all the shit infested in the half decent stuff here to be good with women. Knowing if someone is showing interest is not something that needs to be infested with Mysteries talk of "targets." The last thing that any man should have on his mind is anyone being a "target." That does not mean just women... any other individual should never be a "target."

As the series goes on occasionally the term "Alpha" shows up in things like the body language section of the show. Mystery will comment on the men sitting in an Alpha style or standing in an Alpha style. Also, there is somewhat talk here and there of taking control of the situation. The term Alpha Male in its entirety is not used all that often which was a surprise. Normally Pick Up types will use terms like Alpha Male quite a lot, and, so, it was interesting to see only certain traits called Alpha and not the man himself. It is surprisingly lax of use of the word which was a break away.

Yet, the confidence that is newly found is it really confidence at all? If these men needed to be made over to feel self-esteem and confidence did they really gain any? Every night they go out in the same Avatar outfit and eventually use the same or similar lines and get the same results. Is that really confidence? What if the lines blew? What if the woman knows all the lines? What if they had to walk into the club in their old clothes and were told to meet women? Could these men do that be whom they were and approach women? We will never know because they were in their Avatar persona every time expect one that they met women. So, is it confidence or a mask that they are comfortable acting through like acting out a part in their favorite play?

The Pick-Up conception of confidence and Alpha Males when they come up as well are often times shallow and based on a fake it till you make it sort of theme. The problem is that fake it till you make it was never intended as a psychological trick to erase your own self and replace it with a fake facade. Even in the broadest terms fake it till you make it would mean faking confidently being really you and showing up powerfully. Showing up as yourself and not going out for an entire new wardrobe to mask your insecurities with a veneer of ladies man. This is I fear a trap a lot of Pick Up men fall into and it is not healthy at all.

While by the end of the series some of these men seem to be better off we do not really know if they are as we never have any follow ups. They might have crashed and became socially anxious the moment they did not have a script and some nice clothes to wear. Mystery does teach these and other men some important skills and traits within his method. However, it is so top heavy with being fake and disingenuous. It is so filled with its own coded language that has no relevance to the real world. No one goes out "looking for sets." They go out look to socialize to have fun and hopefully for us that are into women a woman that clicks with you. I do not go out looking for "targets." Most men do not go out looking for "targets."

In fact, if I heard any man using the term "target" for anyone I was with regardless of sex I would tell them to get the fuck away from them. This is not some White Knighting; poor women being called targets by the big bad Pick Up artists. This is a genuine no one should be your "target." I would not care if women said the same thing about men I am not a woman's target either. In the end Pick Up Artistry contains a hint of OK truths, but, it is packed upon a mountain of bile that reaches the sky. I would not recommend Pick Up Artist training as a way to gain confidence. It definitely will not teach you long term "Alpha" to use a phrase traits either. It will only paint a fake coat of paint on you to make you look like something or someone you are not.

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. 

Mass Shootings are not the result of men or masculinity

Earlier today I took a look at my Google News feed only to see misandric bullshit flash at me as headlines. It looks 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 brans 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. 

  

Reach for being your best and not perfect.

The negativity within the MHRM is the same that is in the Social Justic Movement and GBLT.

I have been listening to HoneyBadgerRadio for sometime now and most of the time it is fine. However, sometimes I come across something that makes me uneasy in some of their commentary and something I have seen elsewhere. That is a string of negativity within the MHRM (Men's Human Rights Movement.) Not the sort of women hating stuff feminists blame it for though. Instead a self-negativity and victim complex similar to the feminist movement, SJWS and GBLT people.

All of these groups are made up of people with a self-loathing and victim complex. People whom think the entire world is out to get them and they are powerless. That somehow there is some Universal Satan stopping them from getting things done. This self-loathing causes an insecure outrage and an external hate towards others or systems they do not understand. They are filled with people that always talk about how "the man" is keeping them down like old hippies. Both these types of Men's Right activist and anti-MRAS are just as toxic. Not all MRA's, but, only certain ones.

For men for example with depression being told that somehow there is a Universal Feminist Agenda that will stop them from being free is going to cause them to be worse. That is a toxic message and men are being told they are somehow weak against the World. Which is not true. Men are strong, triumphant, courageous, masterful, and are at their best when living from a place of Pure Value Driven Masculine Positive energy. I fear Jack Donavan had a point when he warned the MHRM if not taken the right way could make men as in learned helplessness as feminism does for women.

It does no good to have men go out into the world with a view that the Universe is Malevolent and out to get them at every turn just for being men. That is hates masculinity and men. Or any men for that matter no matter what your expression. By having men think such in such a toxic way with garbage in you are going to get garbage out. Negativity is never good at all! Even if in the name of a good cause. One should not be filing men with the idea the world views them as evil or that the world outside is evil and they are the one good thing. We should be approaching MHRM causes with a positive approach. With an approach of the Universe does not hate you for it determined you to be a man!

I am not getting all New Age here. Nature evolved men to have male brains and existence is not against men. Nature wants men to be themselves and to express themselves their way. In all places; from bedroom to boardroom. Positive masculine energy driven like a fusion engine by The Universe and existence is from that Universe, from that existence and not hated on the level of our species. Men need to be shown how to tap into their inner man of value in any situation. All of us men can be men of value; unless you are seriously nuts. Men should be told about how to express themselves authentically and powerfully. How to be a powerful storm of masculine prowess and value laden strength.

None of what I said above requires a "higher power," non-material or any sort of second-handed view. None of it requires abandoning reason or rationality. None of it is emotionalism or requires the belief in things based on Faith. I am an atheist there is no supernatural and no god. However, that does not mean one does not need to be really serious about airing on the Optimist side and Positive Attitude, or The Benevolent Universe. The opposite leads to panic, fear and irrationality itself. Benevolence is important to the Universe and existence. Mindsets are in an integral way the basis for self-regulation in all aspects of life.

I am not a victim as a man whom is not in the middle of being a victim. Whomever is an individual man whom is being victimized is, but, they are not me. We need to both treat male victims as much more serious and stop the empathy gap, yes! We also need to stop telling men because THEY can BE Victims they are thus A Victim of an entire system that hates them. Or that the Universe just because it has major Gynocentric elements is against men or hates men. Men do not need their own "Patriarchy Theory" to be serious about male suffering and the imbalances in society. Sorry, SOME MRA's, but, Gynocentrism is part of human nature. It is not imposed on nature it is inside our nature.

That does not mean men should now or should have ever been seen as walking utilities, wallets or dildos, or baby fluid makers for women either. Admitting something is in nature and is not imposed on people and thus not part of some Illuminati like Conspiracy against males is not to say being degraded is good. However, to be mad at it or the Universe for existence view on men is just nothing, but, toxic shit. It is garbage in and produces garbage results like people whining instead of fighting for their own life and their love of it. The world needs Positive Strong Men and this is not doing them any good. The world needs them because men need it for themselves.

This world can be harsh and only a Positive Approach to life can give the proper results. Masculinity is positive by nature as are most men. Deep inside all men can be a positive light for good! Any that are too forgone and evil were made evil. I firmly believe evil men are made evil and evil women are too. Something happened it is an output of being given a horrible input. This comes from someone whom also believes that Biological Determinism is true as well as existence of free will. So, I am not saying that no one just might have bad genes or something. However, most men and women whom are evil are made that way. This is a benevolent universe and perhaps that "belief" is this atheists "faith," or "spirituality." minus any supernatural bullshit or after life crap. 

 

Both Biological Determinism and Free Will/Self-Regulation are both true.

Lately, I have been doing a lot of research into the science of free will and determinism to see is there in fact science/evidence of such thing as a free will in neurosciences. Among my journey I have found a disturbing trend that a lot of neuroscientists are doing whatever they can to prove we have no human free will. That our reason and rationality is itself nothing, but, an illusion. In fact, further from that our "self" is an illusion we are only chemicals and neuronetworks with no ability to even really make choices.

This is not something I have seen in the actual science itself about free will. It does show that in many ways free will is not what we think it is. That in some ways it could be called free wont and not free will. However, it is there in the very existence of self-control and regulation of our behavior and cognitive behavior therapy which works on internal mindsets. However, there are absolutists in the free will debate which wish to ignore that "free will or wont" is an upgraded or a downloaded add on to an already formed older physiology.

One could argue not all of our choices are the completely conscious ones and that a lot is subconscious. It also is in addition true that not all of our decisions are like cold-calculating rational mathematical tools or anything. We often will make decisions based on a hybrid of reasons, but, we can chose to act or not on the desires we have come to our mind. We can divert our attention to one thing or another. We can distract ourselves or we can free wont or free will ones ideas. Even if simply by not acting in one way or another. Self-regulation does exist and that very well could be just another word for a scientific free will.

I am not arguing that evolutionary psychology is not real. Not at all self-regulation is a new module added to all the old modules evolution already developed in our brains. Self-regulation, reason and self-control, thought control and self-actualization is all biological processes. They are physiological and materialistic process in our brains. That which we call our mind is the content of our brain. Both that which is rational and reasonable. As well as that which is irrational or unreasonable. Our emotional whims and our other evolved functions are all just that an evolved process. An evolved motor in between our ears and behind our eyes.

There is only physiology/neuronetworks and brain chemistry that is correct, but, that is not same as having no self nor having no ability of will. Our self is all that our brain is both the negative and the positive. Both the good and the bad. Our brain both the subconscious, conscious, reasonable and most insane is our mind, our self and our individual "I," and our self. Both free will/free wont/self-regulation and biological/evolutionary/physiological determinism is true. The answer to this debate is compatibility. Other words the viewpoint known as "compatibilism." Which acknowledges the truth of both biology, our evolved natures and also our ability to regulate/mindset and free will. Removing the truth of self-regulation is very dangerous to a civilized society and to dealing with mental issues.

A MGTOW is not gay because he does not live for women nor is he a fag. Men are not walking utlities.

I want to start off by saying I know there are extremely nutty people whom use the term MGTOW for themselves and I am not saying there is not. There are legitimate things to be said about the "movement" with the name. However, I am not going to be talking about those people nor the "movement." I am going to be talking about the idea of MGTOW in general which is that men go their own way. Deciding not to be in a relationship with women, not having sex nor dating and shunning marriage. Which is all the term originated as meaning by it.

I recently saw the chat on a very famous Youtube channel in which the chat was nothing, but, a bunch of name calling. Basically calling the fellow whom was a MGTOW gay and a fag for his not even bothering to care nor wanting to have a woman in his life. Nor wanting to have sex with anyone and just living his own life. So, basically a man that is not with a woman or chasing women or caring is not a man? Is just cause to have slurs thrown at him because he has more important values in life to work towards?

This is just inane. Men do not lose their value or humanity because they have noticed things being stacked against them and choose to not participate in what a MGTOW sees as a rat race going nowhere. Not having sex with women does not mean you by default have sex with men. That is inane and stupid. It means you are not having sex period it is called "abstinence." When religious people do it they are often called "monks." It does not make you gay or a fag for not living your life with women as a center of it. It is simply putting yourself and what is best for you first. Which we all should.

I do not live in a Gynocentric mindset where my life is defined by the fact there is or is not women in it. I live in a Chriscentric mindset where I live for me, my bliss, my joy, my rational self-interest, my pursuing of my own happiness in life. Frankly, women I do not know already never enter my mind because they are not people I know and thus have no reason to be there. Nor do men I do not know enter my mind either. Strangers are well strangers, but, that seems obvious to most I would hope. I do not have an obligation to think about some random "women" nor "men" when I am living my life.

I am not myself currently in any relationship with anyone and nor do I have a want to get married anytime in the near future. This does not make me a fag or "gay" in anyways, but, it does mean I am sort-of MGTOW in my own way. In that I do not have any desire to get married nor to have children. Nor is my life built around the need for a woman; any woman because my duty is to some collective woman. My life is built around an individual called me and no one else. The idea that MGTOW is gay or fag is completely ludicrous.

I bring this back to the underlying view that men need to be somehow sacrificial to an alter of women to be worthy men. Or that somehow men are not of value and do not have basic human dignity absent women. All of which is both Gynotheistic in that they treat the female and feminine as a Goddess to which all males or the masculine must worship and live for to be worthy. It is totally bullshit and is a female oriented repainting of philosophical sacrifice making men into walking wallets and dildos. Something I find a lot of even well meaning people seem to still buy into.

Women like all men need to realize that respect is earned and not given like manna from the sky in a Garden of Eden. Which means for me to really respect you I need to know you and get to know you. Respect will be earned and not just dispensed like candy from a vending machine. This does not go by the genitals you have, but, is a general rule. This is real life and no woman is a goddess, queen or princess. They are all human. No man is a god, prince or king they too are human. We are all just walking naked 5the Apes and nothing more in the eyes of the broader existence we call The Universe and life itself.

Benevolence is not the same as respect and good will towards man-qua-man is not the same thing as respect either. One is a character trait related to ones view of humanity and how to treat people irregardless of respect. The other is something particular and earned by someone from someone over time. I have benevolence for humanity and all others outside myself. I do not have respect for everyone and I would even say I have lost respect for more people in life over time than I have gained it. So, I can say I have benevolence for others irregardless of gender, but, all people need to earn the later which is respect.

All people should be able to live for themselves no matter man or woman. All people should be able to decide if they have sex or no sex, or even want to try to have sex. All people should be able to pick to have relationships or none. All people should get to decide if they want married or to have kids. As well as whom they associate with. Or whom they disassociate with as well. People do not need to deal with each other. They get to decide based on "hopefully reasonable" metrics whom to deal with or not deal with. Whom to date or not. Whom to do business with or not. Et cetera.

That is what we call freedom people. Men get to be just as free as anyone else and get to decide whom to associate with. Whom to sleep with or not sleep with. Whom to do business with and whom they respect or have no respect for. In major situations even benevolence might need to be traded for pure righteous judgement which commands that one be completely unwavering in how evil another person or group of people might be. This is all part of not being a surf to others and their needs. Men either are free to choose or they are a surf to others be them other men or women.

If MGTOWS cannot be MGTOW then it means these men are slaves to all non-MGTOW and are living on a modern day plantation. With non-MGTOW of all stripes cracking the whip at them and making them stay in line. I am against surfs and I am anti-slavery. For this reason I would never criticize another man for wanting to go their own way and not have anything to do with women. I will and have criticize members of the "movement," and the "movement's" views. However, that is not criticizing the "going own way," but, the ides and that person that has those ideas.

I would never call a MGTOW gay or a fag for being MGTOW that is as I said inane. It means you support these people being surfs to all the people outside of their movement. Freedom means freedom of speech to say even some of the most nutso ideas. So, just because some say some very nutty things does not mean that the going your own way has anything to do with the other views. Freedom is freedom everyone that is peaceful has it or we are not living in a free society, period!

Love and emotions are not the domain of "women." Loving and emotion is absolutley masculine/manly!

One of the biggest misunderstandings of manliness and masculinity is that it means one is an emotionless entity. That just because of masculinity being associated classically with a form of stoicism means that manliness means to be unfeeling. To be an uncaring and callous domination over others and things. This could not be further from the truth of manliness and masculinity. The truth of the matter is that manliness is filled with emotion and love. Men do express and act on their emotions differently than women usually, but, they still have them. To argue I as a man do not love or have emotions is to deny my humanity. To deny masculinity has an emotional component is to deny men have a consciousness at all.

I am going to argue that manliness and masculinity are built on core principles of nurturing. Those principles are protection, provision and production. Men are traditionally and historically the human animal that protects, provides and produces for other individuals. This includes guarding against the barbarians at the gates in our human history. It includes being the hunters of our species food and protection of those around them. It includes being historically the workers outside the home whom made the money and then provisioned it to ones wife and children. It was about producing the things needed to help you and your kin to survive.

All of these things are emotional as much as material. All of these are forms of nurturing other than breaking down into an emotional honey trap of tears while arrows fly at you. Emotional mastery as found in traditional masculine and manly archetypes is a form of emotional strength and resilience. It is also a form of self nurturing which helps to be able to do the things needed to nurture other people; including historically ones kin. You cannot have emotional mastery without emotions; even very intense and overwhelming emotions which you learn to nurture and master. Mastery is a form of love in a serious way.

Men protect other people throughout time immemorial. Please do not listen the to the rabid anti-history feminists whom claim history is built on men oppressing women. The truth is that it is the total opposite. Every single strict rule for women was put in not to oppress them, but, as a form of trading freedom for protection. Why did women not work? Due to how dangerous it was for women to work at the jobs that existed at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution that is why. It was a continuation of the idea of women being safe at home protected while men were out hunting for food. Any man that oppresses another person irregardless of gender is an aberration from a man and a brutal, savage monster. He is the opposite of masculine he is damaged.

Oh, wait you say, what about the vote? The vote was not a right it was a privilege associated with going to war associated with conscription. It was a way of protecting women from war and destruction not meant as a form of oppression. Not only that, but, not all men could vote only certain sectors and classes could. Women eventually got their right to vote, but, men never did. To this day Men in the USA NEED TO BY LAW register with Selected Service (AKA the list used for Drafts). Women do not meaning they have no responsibility to the Military they have something for nothing.

Does this mean I support those security over freedom rules? Of course not, but, it is not oppression at all. There is a specific definition of oppression and that would not be it. The point is that masculinity is not and never has been about oppressing other people. It has always been about protection, provision, production and I will also throw in procreation as well. It has been all about nurturing, but, just in a different way from women. Men, manliness and masculinity has always been emotional, loving and these things are not "feminine" or "womanly" things. Masculinity is nurturing at its core and manliness is definitely not cold or emotionless. Love is manly and love is masculine. Love is human after all!

The role of Biology is right in your faces. A rejoinder to anyone that thinks we are a "Blank Slate" (even Objectivists and the MRM).

It gets very frustrating to see the role of biology in human behavior being eschewed for nonsense when the evidence is present right before your very eyes. You see this blank slate argument coming from every side of the coin. From the feminist on the left to the Objectivists on the right. I want to point out that all animals have natures something that Objectivism itself points out. I also want to point out that all animals have a biological disposition. The idea that we are separate from nature in this way is silly at best and ludicrous at worst. It is unscientific to claim that biology and evolution ends at the neck and does not extend into the brain and human mind. 

From the left you have the people that want a new Marxist man and also the feminist types. They both want to use social engineering to alter human nature due to not believing that humans have one. This is a sickening view that totally devalues human life and makes me want to vomit to be honest. Men should be able to break with masculinity because "testosterone don't do nothing." There is no biology to men being men. To men being masculine and tending to be certain ways with others and themselves. It is all nurture and nature plays no part in men being whom and what they are. It is sick and twisted to be sure. 

However, how are SOME Right Objectivists any better when they believe that free will is so absolute that we have no innate tendencies? We have no innate functions, emotions, views, predilections for this or that. That evolution does indeed stop at the neck and there is no innateness to the human. That we are all a blank slate if you will and have no human nature. Despite Objectivism saying we have one and must live by that nature. That man is qua man and cannot be anything, but, man qua man. Which means that if there is even a little bit of biology to anything it must be acknowledged and worked with in this framework. 

Evolution is real and biology is real it can be seen/studied/understood. How can it be that our biology not be a factor in the midst of our lives and choices? Of course it is and it is in the center of everything from mate selection to why we love Fast and fatty foods. The idea that we have no innateness is insane. The idea that we do not have evolved traits which helped to make our species survive and thus still survive even if buried deep is insane. I say to THESE Objectivists you are acting like cultists denying reality as opposed to letting reality be the final arbiter which is part of Objectivism itself. 

I have as much of an issue with those MRA's whom deny evolutionary reasons for various things they like to blame on other things like society. For example; it is not society that deems men to be in the most dangerous of jobs it is the biological differences between the sexes. Women could not and cannot still often times work some of the most deadliest jobs as well as men. Why? Do to their nature mainly pregnancy worries, but, also the differences in strength. The average "feminine" women and the average "masculine" man are just different in many regards to upper body strength it cannot be denied. So, jobs where lifting for example takes place will be mostly men. Construction will be mostly men and so forth. 

You will never get women taking over all the dangerous jobs; sorry, but, this is one of those Nature being a Tyrant things we will never escape. Most women just have different preferences than men. Which means that MRA's whom preach that everything is some Gynocentric Societal Construction are just as inane and loony as the feminists that preach about some Patriarchal Societal Construction against women. I have said it before and will say it again Gender Roles are the domain of nature the Tyrant and not absolute free willed choice. Unless you rewire women and men's natures we will never have "egalitarianism." The idea is against the very biology that makes our species survive and is an affront to Nature.    

All we can do is protect all individuals right to pursue their own happiness irregardless of if it is determined or absolutely free. By doing this one can act from nature, nurture or both and be safe in acting. Be safe in being whom and what they are. Be safe in being left alone instead of being a sacrifice to their neighbors needs and desires. This is what is required; the fire for the engine does not matter, but, to have a just society the engine needs to be able to run like clockwork. The fuel for that engine is irrelevant as long as it is not forced from others and is done via rational and voluntary means. The FACT that biology is a driver of many of our human actions does not alter what is moral or practical it all remains the same. 

Learning to be more grateful about the good stuff in my life.

I'm Bisexual and I Don't care literally it means Nothing to me! I am me! I am free I am all man! I am an Alpha Masculine Beast period!