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.

Brokeback Mountain was/is an immoral mess not a LGBT Landmark

Back in 2006 the movie Brokeback Mountain was released to critical acclaim and the word on the street was it was an LGBT landmark; a gay cowboy movie. However, I would argue it is not a landmark of any kind. In fact, the main characters of this movie are immoral and vile men whom should not be admired in the least. The truth is that we have no evidence that both of the main men are even Gay let alone that it is a wonderful story one should embrace. 

Take for example the infamous tent scene with the two men having sex. Nowhere in this scene does it seem that we are seeing two gay or even bisexual men. It seems in all aspects of the situation like situational homosexual behavior and not homosexual or bisexual men. When Jack has to leave our other lead does cry at first true, but, he soon gets married and he seems very content. His face is filled with smiles and Jack does not even seem to come to his mind at all to be honest. It seems that he has moved on. 

It is not until Jack Twist starts to communicate with Heath Ledger's character that he seems to even begin thinking about him at all. Although, this does not make the proceeding story anymore moral. As the rest of the movie consists of nothing, but, evasion of reality after evasion of reality. Not too mention that it is all one big game of dishonesty and infidelity. Just because you have same sex attraction does not mean you get to run out all the time to fuck while your wife is at home being left in charge of your kids. To say that the behavior between the leads in this movie is some sort of big LGBT thing is madness. 

It promotes the worst stereotypes of men that like other men and it makes them seem like they cannot be trusted. It makes men that like men out to be promiscuity laden unprotected (Yes, they do not use condoms) male-sluts. Whom cannot control their own manhood and take off at any chance to get away from the world and bed each other. If you are in a relationship with a woman and like the same sex you let them know this and then you make sure they are OK with it. Now, in this case that might have been dangerous, and, not telling for self preservation would be in order. Yet, that does not mean that you do not get a divorce. Which they did eventually anyways. 

The fact that Jack was possibly in love with Heath Ledger's character is not an excuse. He is interfering in a contract between Heath's character and his wife. This is wrong on two fronts; one legally he is interfering in a contract he was not asked to be a part of. On front two he is thinking he is entitled to a man vowed to be a woman's simply because he has feelings for him. Neither of these scenarios are OK in anyway. It is an immoral mess of a story and frankly I no longer even see what the appeal is of this monstrosity of a story. 

Come Dine With Me and assumptions of gayness.

I want to start off this article by stating that I am against bigotry and prejudice towards people based on some sort of assumed collective label one is given by society. I want no one whom reads this to think I am anyway homphobic or even biphobic. I wrote another article similar to this previously about assumptions of orientation on a game show from the UK. This too is about a series that began in the UK, but, was extended worldwide that would be the cooking/reality show Come Dine With Me. 

As much as I enjoy the series in most of its incarnations I have noticed something very annoying. The assumption of male contestants sexuality based on stereotypes and pre-existing assumptions about men in general. For some reason if a man is a "pretty boy" he is assumed to be gay. If someone is fashionable he is assumed to be gay. If a man makes the amazingly crazy decision to wear pink to the dinner he is assumed to be gay. In all of these examples each man turned out to be 100% heterosexual and in certain cases to be married with children.

Yet, each of these people were assumed to be gay based on stereotypes about maleness vs femaleness. Each of them handled the accusations of being gay very well. None of them freaked out, but, they did all assert they were straight when asked. The idea that these people was automatically gay based on their ways of expressing their manhood is very annoying. It is also very sad that people must be gay to express themselves in the way they did. 

I say every dude that is hetero, but, mistaken to be gay should declare if asked the truth in a compassionate, but, powerful way. They should not be afraid to push back assertively the truth if their truth is questioned. Do not be a douche, but, do not let people disrespect you by not accepting your orientation or preferences. Nor should a straight man be afraid to be a pretty boy or wear pink. Do not let society label you with an identity that is not true for you. Express you manhood your way and rock on. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aggressively virile 

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

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

Spanish, literally, male, from Latin masculus

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

Spanish, from macho First Known Use: circa 1948

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

 having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man 

• a masculine voice

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

• masculine nouns

  

 qualities associated with men : manliness

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

: adult males : men

 having qualities generally associated with a man : strong, virile

: appropriate in character to a man 

• manly sports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Masculine traits, feminine traits and just plain 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. 

This is not due to being told not to cry I was far from told boys do not cry during my childhood. It is because my way of behaving during times of sorrow is different from the way the average woman would because I am a biological male. It is in large part due to the fact that mens tear ducts literally work differently physiologically than a womans does. It literally takes a lot more for them to get the equivalent physiologically to what something small can do to a womans tear ducts. This is a masculine trait based completely on what happens to males when they go through puberty. It is biological differences which make men seem to be less compassionate when we simply show emotions differently. 

What about men that do cry a lot? Well, odds are they had something else happen to them in the womb to make it so they were less masculine and sex typical in that way. 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.  

Dancing is not at all non-conforming nor Gender Queer in anyway. Dancing really is a Man's Game!

One of the metrics in the studies on non-conforming or so-called gender queerness in men; AKA gay traits is actually of all things dancing. One of a few metrics that are considered non-conforming in studies to which I facepalm and shake my head. The claim is that dancing is an "effeminate" trait and thus makes one gender queer or homosexual typical/gaydar inducing, This makes no sense to me at all and is counter to all of ones personal experience of men that do dance. The human experience is filled in our history with men whom were not effete whom danced and also sang as well.

One of the biggest names in this history is Gene Kelly whom famously said in his day, "dancing is a man's game." The truth is that men have been dancing since time immemorial and at no time have these men dancing been considered effete or "Queer." In fact, women love a man that can dance with them. Men that dance show how well they move which is often very sensual and ones dancing style can tell a woman a lot about how that man will partner with them in the bedroom. Dancing as Gene Kelly mentioned is also a form of athleticism.

How dancing became associated with men being womanly or associated with gayness, or with being effete is beyond me. The truth is there is nothing more traditionally part of the heterosexual mating game than cutting a rug with your woman. Was Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing being queer and a fag? Or somehow being non-conforming to having a penis and testicles? I do not think so. How about Frank Sinatra? Fred Astaire? Danny Key? Clark Gable in his musicals? Carey Grant in his musicals? Gays do not own dancing in anyway at all. "Queer" is not at all a word that describes men dancing in anyway either.

Dancing is a human thing and it is not an effete thing at all. No man should feel less than for loving to move on the dance floor; nor should they feel less than for loving to sing along with it. This also connects to the odd idea that musical theater is gay, queer and effete for young boys or grown man. Once again dancing is a form of athleticism it just does not use a bat or a ball. It uses the body and a solid dance floor. It uses sometimes props which are associated with the dance this is the dancers own bat and ball. People whom classify this as non-conforming behavior in metrics for studies need to have their head examined.

No young boy whom likes dancing should be labeled as pre-gay children. Nor should they be labeled as gender variant or queer or pre-trans or effete in anyway at all. Nor should boys whom like to be singers be considered effete or pre-gay or anything. These things are not unmanly and these things are not to be attempted to be pushed out of a person. Let people be and let men enjoy singing/dancing to their hearts content.

CT-GRI/BSRI Gender Role Test results: Masculine 100% and Feminine 44% making me Typically Masculine.

Results on the Open-Sex Role Inventory test : masculinity 118 and femininity 75.