Consent and Non-Consent/Freedom and Force is a Binary

Some people have commented in the past that I am too extreme or too far rightist. In the sense in which right means being for Capitalism VS Anti-Capitalism of some form. However, they are philosophically incorrect and not understanding of the essentials of right and left, of freedom and force or of consent and non-consent. You see force or breaking of consent is a binary and you either have consent/freedom or you have force/compulsion of the innocent. There is no such thing with this in mind as too in favor of Capitalism. There is no such thing as being too pro-Consent. There is no such thing as "extreme-right" or "Far-right" other than to separate yourself into being the pure form of rightism if needed. However, it is in the end an oxymoron as there is no degrees of Capitalism. There is no degrees of Consent Society and of freedom for the innocent. You either are free; to live, to think, to judge and then to act or you are not in which case you are a Surf.     

The options (Right or Left; Top or Bottom) are the binaries at the heart of all philosophy how mankind qua mankind should treat each other while living on Earth. It is a humane Ethical code put into practice in the political realm of the world and of philosophy. Anything that is not Right (On the Right) is Wrong/Evil and not correct or moral. Thus it is not I; the moral man with the fully coherent and fully rational moral code of conduct expanded to politics that needs to explain things. It is the immoral, the vile, the vicious and pernicious parasites that think government exists to cater to their entitled attitude that need to explain why they are not in the realm of politics either evil or wrong. Why is it right to force all other moral men and I's minds? What is your evidence for the need and moral backing of stopping our minds? Of squashing our very Human Spirits at the barrel of a gun? You do not get to control others because you grew up in a padded Snowflake friendly entitled world. 

I am not your Surf, I am not your Slave... I am a human being, a human mind and a living entity of your species. You have no right to make me your surf or your Slave. You have no right to demand my time or money be spent on what your values are at the expense of my own. I do not live for those whom demand sacrifices at every turn like I am a stuffed Turkey at your Thanksgiving. I am a man qua man and my freedom is Binary. As is all of yours. Freedom/Consent or Force/Non-Consent. It is a Binary; it is Right (Morally and Politically) or it is wrong (that which the Left politically represents and the Moderate Muddled compromise allows to poison the broth.) Even if one uses the term Top for Freedom and Bottom for degrees of force it is still a Binary one direction or the other. There is no other direction it is either Freedom/Consent or some level of evil, of wrongness of the vile thing known as force/non-consent in dealings with your neighbors. The Anti-Capitalism in any degree is the anti-mind, thus the anti-human and the anti-life. Moderates; those whom call me too extreme or too far-right are the ones that are wrong for they are in the end compromising with their own deaths. 

Masculine traits, feminine traits and human traits

If one actually looks up on Google or some other search engine the words masculine traits one is sure to find numerous results. Some of them will be your generic "be the Alpha" sort of sites. Some will be the average dating type website. Others will be about Evolutionary Psychology an actually backed up science of human nature. Meanwhile still others will be "game" websites which preach their ways will get you the girl if you work it right. 

Sometimes you can find very useful and truthful claims about what is masculine psychologically and feminine psychologically. Other times what you find is snake oil salesmen pitches. Still further there is also a whole bunch of blatantly anti-male feminist crap online as well which calls masculinity toxic. When one is wondering what is masculine and what is feminine the net can harm as well as help your mindset. There are some really good websites dedicated to men and masculinity. There is also a bunch of junk. 

Let me state first of all I do not think being feminine actually makes you less of a man. However, I do find there to be a difference between a masculine and feminine man. These are not matters of one being worth more than the other when it comes to human worth and value. Just because people are different even within the same sex does not mean those differences have any moral or ethical weight. You judge a person by the contents of his character and not how limp or firm his wrist is. However, I do find that the differences do exist for sure. 

I have taken more than one Gender Identity Expression and psychology test on the net. I find I always get the same results more or less. I end up with either a standard or very high masculine metric on each one of them simply by answering authentically about how my brain works when presented with certain situations. Some of these situations are more generic than others. Further still some psychological testing simply uses descriptors and sliding scales of where you sit in regards to it. 

Also, one must differentiate between what ones brain thinks or responds like and whether said person actually acts in accordance with those thoughts. A person could think in a more masculine way than they act in the actual environment around them. One could also think more feminine typical than they act as well. Not every little reflex, thought or desire manifests in behavior or mannerisms. The point being that metrics do exist that are not just some airy fairy nonsense and I would never argue otherwise. 

Yet, some things that seem to get lumped into the feminine side sometimes is to me patently bullshit and not feminine at all. For example the BEM sex role inventory puts compassion in the feminine box. So, I get like 20% -40% feminine on some tests along side 100% masculine in the same exact test. Mainly due to things like compassion being coded as being feminine instead of just being a human trait and perfectly compatible with being in the masculine box. So, men whom take these tests get coded by default as some sort of androgynous being simply for being human. 

So, men are incapable of being caring of others is basically what this misandric anti-male nonsense is trying to say. The standard non-androgynous man is an uncaring, cold hearted prick? This is complete nuttiness to say that the moment you might somewhat care about anything you are becoming like a woman. There are things that are definable and masculine or feminine, but, that is not one of them. It is a human trait that manifests irregardless of what is in between your legs. Often men's compassion is shown differently, but, it sure as hell exists.

A good example would be crying and I will use myself as an example of men's feelings. If I were to be super sad about something to the point I was possibly going to have my eyes become watery I would never cry around a stranger. I just would not if I cry it needs to be around someone I trust or better yet alone with no one around. During my more depressive days at work for example I would never cry if I were to work in the center. Tears do not help me work at all it is an unproductive behavior. Now, when I got home if the issue was bad enough a small little bit of water might come down my chin, might, but, maybe not either. 

The point I am trying to make though is that just because emotions are expressed differently by men does not mean we do not have them. To argue we do not simply because men do on average have more emotional mastery in that way is to misunderstand human nature itself. It is to in essence make an argument that men are not human and never can be unless they deal with emotions the way a woman would. To argue that I see the word compassion and say I agree makes me or any man any amount of less masculine is absurd.

When it comes to myself I do not plan on dropping my masculine self-identification simply because some test tries to say I am whatever percent feminine. That would be equally absurd as some of the tests assumptions are. In the end of the day I am just going to as Allan J. Frantzen puts it Grab My Balls and own my manhood not some random testers that know nothing about me. I refuse to put the source of my own self-esteem at the mercy of people whom obviously do not think very highly of men in general.  

Shoshana Milgram - Frank Lloyd Wright and The Fountainhead

This talk was recorded at Objectivist Summer Conference 2018 in Newport Beach, California.


Frank Lloyd Wright and The Fountainhead: The Full Story

To what extent (if any) was Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark really Frank Lloyd Wright? The parallels between her fictional hero and an actual architect have, over time, been exaggerated, denied and distorted. This talk, drawing on Wright’s archives, uncovers key relevant facts. You will learn the full story, including Ayn Rand’s remarks on a never-reprinted Wright article and the secret negotiations regarding the prospect of his working on the 1949 film.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

Being Selfish : The Virtue of Selfishness | Dr. Yaron Brook | Full Length HD

Dr. Yaron Brook (M.B.A., University of Texas at Austin; Ph.D., Finance, University of Texas at Austin) is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a leading advocate of Rand's ideas. A former finance professor, he speaks internationally on such topics as the causes of the financial crisis, the morality of capitalism, and ending the growth of the state. Yaron is a columnist at Forbes.com, and his articles have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor's Business Daily, and many other publications. A frequent guest on a variety of national television programs, he is co-author of Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea and contributing author of Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. His newest book, Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government, co-authored with Don Watkins is now available. To follow Yaron and see his most current activities, please check out Yaron Brook and Don Watkin's blog Laissez-Faire: The Uncompromised Case for Capitalism. Born and raised in Israel, Yaron served as a first sergeant in Israeli military intelligence and earned a BSc in civil engineering from Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. Yaron admits to being a socialist until the age of 16--then he read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Despite his best efforts to poke holes in Rand's arguments, he couldn't, and went on to become a student of Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. In the late 1980s, Yaron and his wife started thinking about where in the world they would want to live their lives and raise a family. Where could they find the greatest amount of freedom and the greatest amount of opportunity? The answer was clear, so in 1987 they emigrated to the United States. He would go on to become an American citizen in 2003. Yaron received his MBA and PhD in finance from the University of Texas at Austin. For seven years he was an award-winning finance professor at Santa Clara University, and in 1998 he cofounded a financial advisory firm, BH Equity Research, of which he is presently managing director and chairman. While in America, Yaron continued studying Ayn Rand's philosophy. In the mid-1990s, he joined the Ayn Rand Institute's new educational program, the Objectivist Graduate Center. It was in the OGC (now expanded into the Objectivist Academic Center) that Yaron deepened his knowledge of Objectivism.

It was also during this time that Yaron launched Lyceum International, an organization that for many years ran conferences on Objectivism. In 2000 Yaron left teaching to become the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and go-to source for laissez-faire policy. Yaron's field of speciaties include Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), capitalism, finance, business ethics, venture capital, economics and foreign policy.

Yaron Answers: What's The Difference Between Altruism And Benevolence?

Yaron Brook answers a question from Robert: "What's the difference between altruism and benevolence?" www.laissezfaireblog.com

The Virtues are the core of it all and a refresher on what Objectivism actually means.

Previously I have posted up a copy of The Objectivist Virtues which are the core of Objectivism and its ethics. This is what an Objectivist should look out for in the character of other people and not whether they are an Objectivist themselves. While I definitely have a view which says that Objectivism whether you agree with the applications has a core of reality and reason. Thus that it is consistent in its virtues with the objective reality. It would be a mistake to judge others as having a good or evil nature based on not being an Objectivist.

What matters are the virtues such as rationality, honesty, integrity, independent thinking, justice, productiveness and pride. If someone has good character traits such as these he does not need to declare he is an Objectivist he is a good person of good character. He might fervently disagree with the other parts of Objectivism and be a perfectly good person. What matters is the person is living in reality, using reason and has a good character. Their status when it comes to being an Objectivist is not a primary even if Objectivism contains all the above virtues of a person of good character. In fact, not all Objectivists understand nor practice these same core virtues of their very own philosophy.

As Diana Brickell said on her now defunct, but, archived philosophy radio show "some of the best people you will ever meet are Objectivists and some of the worst people you will ever meet are Objectivists." She herself is an Objectivisr or Rational Egoist, but, she still made this declaration about the reliability of Objectivism being a test of anything with a person. I feel the same way and would put forth the same notion. People that are toxic can and do misuse philosophy to meet their own ends that are itself vile. This is what I feel has given Objectivism a bad name as people take on the label and espouse it without as much as knowing the very ethics they say they agree to live by.

It is not about doing whatever you like because it feels good or because you desire it. It is about long term overall during the course of a living human what is best for the self or individual. That is not saying hedonism is good. Whatever you want should be. It is about long term rational self-interest and flourishing on Earth. Rational, based in the facts of reality AKA using reason. What actions will give you the consequences of the best life possible given the facts of reality and of human nature. Ayn Rand was against hedonism and nihilism explicitly and implicitly as well as any kind of emotionalism or Whim Worshiping within her philosophically based work.

Anyone can rationalize what they want using whatever philosophy they want to believe supports their views. From the moment Ayn Rand first uttered the words "The Virtue Of Selfishness" people whom half the time act and think like they never even read The Objectivist Ethics have been calling themselves by the label Objectivism. However, that does not mean they are. Or that they are not totally misunderstanding what Objectivism defends and what it does not. For example; to follow the philosophy of Aristotle one needs to actually understand and then follow what his core ethical and virtue code said. Even if he himself at some point missed his own mark and forgot the essence of his own ethics at sometime in the future after developing it. That would not mean Aristotle was wrong with his virtues, but, that he failed to meet his own standards.

This is why I consider myself an Objectivist even when I disagree on personal matters of application or personal life decisions of Ayn's. The Philosophy is so rooted in reality, the philosophy is not the same as the end result persay of anyone's application of it. Reality as Objectivism and Ayn Rand herself said is the arbiter of what is true not what Ayn Rand believed on subject X or V. The bases of Objectivism is sound and does match facts of reality here are the bases Objectivism begins on.

Existence exists and reality is objective, it is real and it is measurable. Consciousness is not existence itself and does not make existence exist, but, is what views the objective reality. We then use what our Consciousness perceives and separate misunderstandings of perception through our reasoning facility. Through our big 5th Ape brains, through using our minds to look at the facts and bring them into the picture. In other words we use our ability we have evolved to try to be as rational as possible to find the truth. However, doing this is a choice one can choose to try to be rational and live in reality or to evade reality and to face the consequences. Humans also have free will even if just to think or not to think and then act accordingly. We also have an evolved human animal nature which can also be found through reason and science.

Due to the above the mind is our means of survival and what else could be? You are your mind you are your brain and when it dies you stop existing? So, that is all you can use to survive even if you use your hands or anything else your body has your mind in it there is no soul that makes the mind work. The supernatural is BS and it makes no sense because even the term is an oxymoron. Supernatural would indicate something other than that which can be proven to exist exists and that there is something other than existence and natural laws. Which as everything requires laws of nature to work at some level is from the ground up impossible to exist.

From this Ayn Rand also realized that minds are individual and so individuals need to be free to think and to act to gain/keep their values in life to survive. For this reason she coined the term Virtue of Selfishness to mean that long term long range well thought out best course of action within the light of reason to reach your goals. However, in order to gain and keep values as Aristotle before her stated one needs virtues. Rules of  Ethics to live by on Earth and to use to gain/keep those values. Those virtues are the ones I detailed above. No where does it say being unjust, being a douche, being abusive, or being heartless or not helping others is a virtue of Objectivism. Far from it in fact! In Objectivism it would be a sacrifice if you had a cause you supported and decided not to help that cause. For it would be sacrificing the higher value; for example getting a homeless person of good character help for a lesser value of spending your investment elsewhere.

This is what Ayn Rand means when she says she is against Altruism she does not mean she is against Benevolence, good will or human kindness. She means that she is against sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value. For example; in the John Galt Speech at the end of Atlas Shrugged she calls completely immoral any Mother that would forsake taking care of her own children for a materialistic value of a new fashion item. A Mothers higher value is taking care of her Family and not buying expensive materialistic possessions. Helping people you want to help because it is a cause worthy to you when you can afford it and when it will not leave you yourself homeless is a moral act. Objectivism is compatible with Benevolence and in fact it is mentioned in many of Ayn Rand's Essays.

The philosophy of Objectivism does not contain any of the toxic sludge that it's detractors blame on it and is compatible with a lot of things considered not be so. What makes most people dis Objectivism is its political and economical views of a total separation of economics and government. However, that is not where the philosophy has its roots metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics/virtues all come first one after the other in the hierarchy of ideas in the philosophy. Plenty of Objectivists do not even bother with the political portion of the philosophy as you cannot have such a government without a massive change in the culture first.

This brings us back to where we began the virtues are the thing, the rub and what matters here. However, those virtues also are tied with the metaphysical and epistemological which is why you need someone that lives in reality, which requires use of reason first. From that you get the virtues which are tied to that rational faculty of human experience. So, as long as you live in reality and have a good character this is what is of upmost important and whether you agree or disagree with the political implications of this can be debated fiercely.

However, first in doing so you are acknowledging that Ayn Rand at least got something right and was not all wrong. Even if you disagree with the rest of her views. Existence does exist, reason is man's means of survival and we do need a secular, reality based list of virtues which very well could include everything she believed even if it was not complete. My view on Objectivism is it is part of all good and true philosophy, but, it is of course not all of philosophy and not even all of morality persay. Also, of course Ayn Rand was not a Goddess she was a human flesh and blood woman with many faults. However, when she was right and reality has bared it out give the lady her due she was right on at least a certain amount of her philosophy even if you disagree with everything else she put forward.

 
  

What are the virtues required from being an Objectivist?

Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Virtues&oldid=9256"


“The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics ... are: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.”
   ~ Ayn Rand



The virtues on which the primary values depend are rationality, productivity, and independence. The man who is successful in living is able to derive the values necessary for his life and to translate them into the virtues necessary to gain and keep them. Some skeptics might say that this is a "cold, unemotional, and rationalistic" way to go about life, but nothing can be further from the truth. The man who confidently acts to achieve the values necessary for his life knows that it is his life he is acting to further, and that it is his values that he is achieving. The emotional state of knowing that one is an effectual, capable, productive individual, who is master of his own destiny, is self-esteem. Self-esteem is the confidence one has in his own worth as a human being and his ability to achieve his values. When a man makes the achievement of his values a way of life, happiness is the state of consciousness that results. Thus, the rational, productive, and self-confident man knows the values of their life and takes pride in their achievements.

List of Objectivist Virtues

• Rationality - this is the cardinal virtue, which leads to all other virtues. Rationality means using reason (and rejecting emotions) to identify reality.

• Honesty is the refusal to fake reality.

• Integrity is consistency in the application of reason.

• Productivity means working to create one's values.

• Independence means being first-handed, or refusing to leave one's thinking to others.

• Pride is the pursuit of moral perfection. Pride is related to self-esteem - the belief that one is capable of gaining and keeping one's values--and that one deserves them.

• Justice is the principle of applying reason to the actions of other men, or giving other people what they deserve.

No, Jennifer Objectivism does not endorse taxation in any forms

Recently I watched a video on Facebook entitled "Objectivism and Libertarianism better together." It was a plea that libertarianism and objectivism were not counter one another and could work together. For the most part I found it a somewhat interesting stream, but, ultimately I found it wanting to say the least. In fact, I found some parts of it downright deceptive. Which is nothing new for the current head of The Atlas Society.

It was not that long ago that Jennifer G. was making a plea to reach out to the religious for support in spreading Ayn Rand's ideas to the masses. A pure contradiction as Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy and more even than that is a reason/reality based philosophy with no room at all for the supernatural period. It is a departure from Objectivism itself and turns her philosophy away from being Objectivism as such at all.

This was the worry for those whom argued against David Kelley and his selling of Objectivism as an open system decades ago. It was not just that he talked to libertarian audiences, but, also that he argued Objectivism was an open system like a complete school of thought. However, this is incorrect Objectivism is Objectivism as A is A. Objectivism is the philosophy discovered and named by Ayn Rand as it was discovered and given said name. You cannot add to it nor subtract from it as switching A to B makes it B and not A. It is closed and was closed with Ayn Rand's death and cannot be altered while maintaining the name she gave it.

This is not dogmatic, insular or intolerant it simply says you can be an Objectivist and believe anything extra you want on top of it. However, the other things you support outside of the virtues, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and politics of your Objectivism is not Objectivism it is your additional views built on top of your Objectivism. This does not make these extra things wrong it can be totally in accordance with reality, but, it is not the philosophy that you used to get there. Objectivism is the philosophy the actual outcome of its application is not Objectivism it is the outcome.

Objectivism is Objectivism and because of this it cannot be allied with anyone on the Religious Right period. Objectivism is also against all forced confiscation of wealth AKA all taxation. In replacement there are a ton of different voluntary forms of payment and fees possible outside of confiscating peoples income for use for the government. However, Jennifer G. specifically said Objectivism was not against taxation in her interview. This is dead wrong Objectivists are against taxation all taxation and wish to replace it with voluntary payment systems. If you support taxation as an end as opposed to the least offensive forms as a band-aid towards a gradual removal of all taxation you are not an Objectivist.

In doing the interview Jennifer was revealed to be actually not an Objectivist at all. Instead a libertarian already and one of the more vicious kind that says taxation is not to turn people into surfs. That says taxation is not exploitation, expropriation, theft, extortion and also a form of social engineering. Instead that forcing a gun to peoples head at the end of a long sting of attempts to get their money by force and throw you in a prison for tax evasion is a just act. While it is anything, but, and taxation is anti-Objectivist and anti-Objectivism.

However, there is even more as she failed to denounce in the highest degree Jefferey Tucker whom is an anarchist for presenting an immoral and unjust worldview as legitimate. Anarchism is not a liberty ideal it is a no holds barred, no laws, no rules chaos ideal. It is the creed of those whom think that in a state of nature others will all just take stock and refuse to infringe peoples rights. It is the blank out and evasion of a people whom cannot tell a bottle from a jar. Government is a necessity in a civilized society. To quote Paul McKeever, "to be pro-reason is to be pro- (rights respecting) government." Anarchism is an unreasonable and irrational callback to a time of animals playing a dangerous game of might makes right and winner takes all. Anarcho-Capitalism is the doctrine of the uncivilized brute.

Jennifer Grossman is not an Objectivist at all from what I can see. She is an anarchist and theist neutral libertarian scoundrel of the highest order. Whom has no right to use that term for defining her own views that are not part of Objectivism at all. She refuses to denounce mystics and she refuses to denounce brutes whom would cause the world to go to hell in a hand-basket if their views ever got power among the mainstream. She praises the likes of Laura Ingram as being an A-OK Gal. Someone whom would have a Theocracy if she could. A Fundamentalist Christian nutcase of the highest order. Whatever The Atlas Society is peddling under Jennifer it is not Objectivism it is Grossmanism in disguise and it is disgusting.

George H. Smith helps clarify Altruism VS Benevolence and good will or helping others

Christopher Hitchens ---- The Morals of an Atheist

Christopher Hitchens talks about the morals of an Atheist from his book 'God is NOT Great'. Sorry for any audio sync issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aggressively virile 

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

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

Spanish, literally, male, from Latin masculus

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

Spanish, from macho First Known Use: circa 1948

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

 having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man 

• a masculine voice

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

• masculine nouns

  

 qualities associated with men : manliness

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

: adult males : men

 having qualities generally associated with a man : strong, virile

: appropriate in character to a man 

• manly sports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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