Category Archives: male space

DIY or die! A ramble on doing things yourself. (And various other semi-related topics)

This is a guest post from Moiret Allegiere.  He has a great deal to say about our plight as men in today’s insane misandrist world. You can find his blog here.

There is nothing better, in the humble opinion of this sleepless cripple, than the satisfaction of finishing some project or other. This goes for most everyone, I would assume. And it applies to any project one could imagine, from the artistic to the mundane, from the impractical to the practical.

I will focus on the mundane and the practical in this ramble, I think, following on a bit from my piece on hobbies. That is to say, I will try to the best of my abilities, seeing as my current struggle with insomnia leaves me a bit unfocused and weirdly scatterbrained.

I was fairly pleased with the piece I did on hobbies. That I was pleased with it tend to mean that very few enjoyed it. One of those strange quirks of the realm of artistic illusion, I suppose. In this realm, the pleasure of the artist does not necessarily translate to the pleasure of the beholder. The opposite also hold true; when I find myself severely displeased with some artistic project, people tend to enjoy it. It is really strange. Not that it matters all that much.

In some way or other, it evens out. I think it is a fairly funny observation, though.

In the dark days, in the long-ago time, when I still inhabited Facebook I posted a picture of some wooden planters I had built from the leftovers of another project I had been building. My caption for these photos were something like: “I built this using primarily my beard.”

I very much enjoy working with plants, tending to them, watching them grow from seed to fruit and everything involved in this process. I also very much enjoy working with wood, and would do so much more than I currently am doing had I only the room. The picture of these wooden planters were very well received. Particularly by women on my friend-list. This is something I found to be very interesting. Especially so since a few of these women, one who commented in particular, presented themselves as ardent feminists. The feminist in question who happened to comment, commented something along the lines of “Your wife must love your handyman projects!” There is absolutely nothing wrong with this comment, of course.

Quite the contrary.

I found it incredibly interesting, however, that it came from the hands of a feminist, seeing as it is very much gendered stereotyping, is it not? Wife enjoys her husband fixing and building things around the home, while the husband enjoys the wife doing whatever it is a wife traditionally does.

I am given to believe that a lot of the differences in the choices men and women make, as well as the interests of men and women, are driven in no small way by us being differently wired biologically.

There is nothing wrong with this either, of course. Were we only able to accept this tender little factoid instead of assuming some manner of discrimination every single time these different choices and priorities, strengths and weaknesses present themselves as differences of outcome. That is to say: were we only to accept, cherish and nurture these differences for what they are instead of fighting against them at every turn.

This is not to say that one should accept every difference as a rule, nor is it to say that you either have to do this or you have to do that, are you a man or a woman. I am not a fan of rigidly enforced social rules, norms and regulations as a general rule. With exceptions, of course.

What I mean to say is that people should be free to do with their lives as they wish to do with their lives, be they male or female. That, whether people chose a traditional path or not, it should be accepted as the choice of that person and that person alone. Of course, in regards to relationships, it should be accepted as the choice of that couple or that family. It is not the place of anyone else to force someone to do something they do not wish to do. And it does not reflect well on any movement when a movement attempts to tell someone that their choices are the wrong choices. As feminism is known to do, should a woman chose something particularly traditional – or something that she wishes to do that falls outside the very narrow realm of accepted professions for a woman as feminism sees it.

Which brings me to my point in regards to the comment left by the feminist – whom I know to be a feminist, because she stated as much quite a few times. As feminists are also known to do. That point being: at the moment I showed some manner of practical ability, some manner of doing and making, the distaste feminism usually shows in regards to the traditionally masculine and the traditionally feminine – man provides and protects, woman receives and is protected (in excruciatingly simple terms – I am aware that this dynamic is far more complex than this) – evaporated and gave room for what I would dare say is some manner of admiration. And that is admiration for traditionally masculine traits, in essence: protect and provide. There is nothing wrong with this admiration. Nor is there anything wrong that men lean towards this, or take pride and enjoyment in the admiration gained from doing things of this nature. Or take pride in these kinds of projects as they are, for that matter.

This sort of behaviour from the feminist, this small and – on the surface – insignificant thing did actually significantly alter my way of thinking where gender and feminism is concerned. It fixed, cemented and set in stone my conviction that people refer to themselves as feminists by default because they have been spoon-fed this hideous lie that it is the only force working towards equality between the sexes, and that is all that it is. So why not label oneself a feminist? It’s only muh equality, ya know.

But, yeah, my scatterbrain scattered its seeds and took me in a different direction yet again. I’ll do my best to get back on track. It was the pleasures of doing things yourself I wanted to ramble about a bit, and that strange sensation of fulfilment and pride that comes from being able to take care of oneself and whatever family one may have through doing so. From small projects to big projects, it does not really matter – the satisfaction remains the same. It does, in no small way, make one feel a bit manly, a bit masculine. And this is a good thing. That feel-good testosterone fuelling that toxic and fragile masculinity; that horrible urge to protect and to provide and to be able to do things on ones own. Terrible. Just terrible.

I am of the humble opinion that doing things yourself is the best course of action to take for most things – provided one has the know-how to do so. Or the ability to learn how to do so. And most things, I believe, one can learn for oneself.

Granted, this DIY-ethos of mine may very well have trickled down from the first time punk-rock filled my soul and body with all its wondrous tricks and trance-inducing rage and riot against the establishment.

What better way to tell the establishment to fuck off than participate as little as possible in the well-trodden paths; that is to say: do as much as possible yourself and be self-reliant, self-sufficient and self-fulfilled, needing little help from the established powers-that-be and any authority left therein? Which, in the end, may very well be a naturally well-established path for men to take. Interesting, is it not?

For full disclosure – I am receiving disability from the government for my severe chronic illness.

So I am not self-reliant in any financial way.

Which is a bother and a burden to me and to my toxic and fragile masculine pride (trademarked). My main wish, or hope, or goal, if you will, is to somehow manage to make enough money on my art and writings to be able to make a living off it. I am absolutely certain that it will never be enough to live some high-and-mighty life of overabundance. But a modest living is within the realms of possibility. Through hard work and sacrifice. And, rest assured, this art and writing I do requires a lot of hard work and even more sacrifice. I have lost friends and family due to the topics I have chosen to write about, and this is no fun.

No fun at all.

No matter how much it hurts, it will be worth it in the long run, as the topics I chose to write about are incredibly important to write about, talk about and learn about. And speaking honestly is good for the self. My choices were to write honestly on these topics, or succumb to clinical insanity from bottling all these thoughts, speculations and knowledge within.

No good fight is fought or won without sacrifice. And the sacrifice is most often severe and most definitely personal.

And were I not entangled and entwined in all this god-damned gender-stuff, all this strange and peculiar culture-war-stuff, I would be writing far more on various DIY-projects. With home-brewing and plants being my main focus, as those two are what gives me the most pleasure and consumes most of my time where DIY-stuff is concerned. With woodworking and carpentry most likely being a close second, the moment I get enough space to really start going to town on projects of that nature. In a couple of years, we will be buying a small farmstead. There will be room enough then. Room to breathe, to move around. Not infected by the inevitable stress and insufferable horror of city-living.

Raising a plant from seed to fruit and then using this fruit in various home-brewed concoctions that will be stored and matured for a year, in order that it is ready to be enjoyed when next years batch is being made is one of the greatest of small pleasures in my life. Of course; foraging plays a part in this, and picking plants in the wild for use in home-brewing or in teas or for food or whatever is a fantastic endeavour to embark upon. There is so much growing out there in the wild ready to pick and use in whichever way one would like that it boggles the mind that so few actually do things of that nature. In nature. And it is done by oneself. By hand. Bit by bit and piece by piece; projects that require patience and knowledge.

Patience being one of those things that seem to be dwindling alongside our attention-spans as our civilization descends ever more into the void of immediate gratification, into the nether realms of instantaneous satisfaction in place of delayed gratification. Fuelled, of course, in no small way by the dopamine-addictions shot into the central nervous system by social media, the tyranny of the stopwatch and various similar maladies of the modern era.

Long-term projects, projects that are determined by, and reliant on, the seasons is a great way to train patience, to cultivate patience as a virtue, to teach oneself to delay gratification and push away the press and desire for immediate satisfaction. Which of course, in itself, is a long term project. For if one has first fallen into the trap and succumbed to the allure of social media likes, clicks, shares and various harbingers of immediate joy and happiness-boosts, the path away from it is long and easy to stray from.

Patience is absolutely one of those virtues which I find to be the most important and the most lacking in society as it stands today, both on an individual level and on a societal level with the immediate and the instantaneous taking precedence, becoming more important than long-term plans and goals.

And here I speak from experience.

For some years back, in the throes of medicinally induced psychosis, I fell into the claptrap of social media addiction myself – completely and utterly sleepless and with faulty wiring in my brain making me erratic, I sough solace in the immediate and ultimately hollow boost of happiness and comfort earned from virtual clicks and likes gathered from social media nonsense. It brought nothing but further despair, making me dig the grave for my shattered glass-sanity ever deeper and, more like than not, prolonged the psychosis and made the path toward stability and sanity, healing and functionality a longer and more winding path. There is neither rest nor solace to be found in social media. The technology itself is neither good nor bad, of course. It is as technology is – completely neutral and dependent upon those that wield the tools and how they act and behave. It is a damned shame, then, that people tend to not know how to use their tools. Or their brains. Because the brain is most definitely a tool that can be sharpened and put to good use, were people only able to let go of the external world and the perceived happiness it brings for a little while to seek solace and happiness within, through meditation and deep introspection. And solitude. People, by and large, tend to gather their happiness from the input of other people. And only that, social pack-animals that we are. We are scared of solitude. This neglects the other, far more permanent and important happiness, which is finding solace and comfort in oneself, being safe and secure in who one is and – hacky as it well may sound – knowing oneself completely.

This also includes knowing ones abilities and what one is able to do. Or not able to do. Which of course translates into various DIY-projects. Having the strength, the belief in oneself that one will be able to complete the task at hand is not necessarily something that comes easily and fluently. In particular in these days, where mockery is thrown about at all things traditionally considered masculine.

I don’t think it is too much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine that traditionally masculine tasks, tools, abilities and so forth and so on is not something young men subjected to the ridicule of all things masculine on a daily basis cultivate all that easily. It is far easier to throw the traditionally masculine aside, to neglect and forget it as some shameful relic of the past than it is to cultivate it. That is to say – far easier to do on a superficial level. On a deeper level of consciousness, however, I fear that it is not all that easy. For the urges, the drive, the longing for the – for lack of a more fitting word – divine will still be there, festering in the subconscious, gnawing and biting and burning for wanting to come out and play, to be unfolded as the natural part of himself that it truly is. And all this and all that and all of the other which he has been told and taught as the gospel according to the feminist hive-mind is wrong and is bad and is poor within him lies neglected and dying for lack of nurture and sustenance, for shame and ridicule and all the clucking of the hive-mind, the buzz and the drone.

This becomes, of course, particularly confusing when he is told one thing and then shown the other. That is: the traditional expectations is still very much alive and well where men are concerned, enforced and rigidly expected by women he may wish to date and the society which surround him. Chivalry is expected. He shall still provide and he shall still protect, even as he is shamed for doing just that. He shall not, however, expect anything in return where the traditional gender-roles are concerned. He shall be enslaved to the role which he is shamed for wanting to fulfil. And she shall be free to do whatever, lest he be labelled a foul misogynist and abuser of his partner or prospective mate.

Should you be interested in some elaboration on these ideas, I delve into it in some rambling depth in my piece: ”What makes a man suicide? Rambling on traditional expectations and Suicide.”, which you can find on my blog or on YouTube or – preferably—BitChute.

I am aware that it may seem like a bit of a stretch, going from DIY to traditional expectations and shaming of all things masculine. The way I see it, it is interconnected and intertwined, which I think the comment on Facebook which I mentioned above points to directly. For feminism claims the eradication of traditional gender-what-cha-ma-call-its whilst expecting, and in no small way celebrating, the traditionally masculine… when it benefits women, and only then. Which, of course, protect and provide does. Now, obviously, a small planter built and small plants grown is not the biggest example of protect and provide. It still is an example, though, as I showcased my ability to build something that would hold something that would provide my family with food, even if it was not much food. And even if it was used for home-brewing. Home-brewing is, at the heart of it, only a week or two of fermentation removed from a reliable source of food.

And there is the thing of it, in my mind – men are drawn to these kinds of practical projects, in no small way due to their biological drive and innate desire to protect and to provide. This is not to say that men don’t do these things solely for themselves or merely for the pure enjoyment of it. That is not at all what I am speculating.

What I am speculating is that this drive to do things for oneself is a desire firmly rooted and embedded in the biology of men, a way to show and to prove that they are prime examples of their species, much like the Bowerbird and the nests he builds to impress and attract a mate. (Which is something of the most astonishing beauty; more amazing than I believe I have ever seen before.) We are really not as far separated from animals and from nature as we believe ourselves to be. Evidently so, if one but opens ones eyes and watches the behaviour of most animals and compare that with the behaviour of humanity at large. Particularly when attracting a mate. This goes for both men and women. We showcase our strengths based on what we know, deep down on a biological, reptilian-brain level, that any potential mate would desire. And we hide our flaws and weaknesses based on the same. We accentuate strength, beauty, youth, fertility, self-reliance, etc. etc. etc. in the most primitive, the most primal manner. Whilst subduing and hiding weaknesses, various faults and flaws, etc. etc. etc.

Simply put; some of the few things that separate us from the rest of the animal-kingdom is our intellect – which, more often than not, creates three new problems for every solution – and our nebulous, vapourwave-like civilizations and societies that are, as these things go, here in a flash and gone in an instant. It is built and it falls to ruin. And we believe that we have learned something the next time we rebuild. Then the process repeats.

All the while we believe ourselves separated from and, ultimately, superior to animals and to nature, never realizing that we are of the same thing.

All the while, we take things so incredibly serious, so absurdly seriously in fact that we feel some strange and peculiar need to categorize everything, to fit everything within neatly labelled boxes of this or of that. And we have the gall, the absurd arrogance to believe that smaller and smaller subcategories will fix all our problems when it, in reality, only creates more problems. For every category, every simple label and neat little box need its own sub-categories, need its own neat little labels that need their own and need their own, and so forth and so on. And every label, every category, every nefarious little box artificially creates and inflates a problem that must be solved through more labels and subcategories within subcategories.

So men doing what men tend to do, and women doing what women tend to do in general need their own labels, their own categories. And these need their own, and those need their own. On and on and on. And that must be fixed and mended in some way, because we are just as opposed to labels and categories for the simplicity that they bring as we are drawn towards them for the simplicity that they bring.

And all this instead of accepting and cherishing things the way that they are; instead of going with the flow of nature, the stream of time, the way of things as things are. Instead of accepting and celebrating, we slice, split and divide to infinity and beyond. We overcomplicate where we should just accept. Then we fight what we have made overly complicated, then we complain that things are so complicated, failing to realize that the only reason things are so complicated is because we made them so complicated in the first place.

And the solution is simple. Let people do as people do. Let people live as people wish to live. Go with what is natural. Don’t shame masculine behaviour in men. Don’t shame feminine behaviour in women. For that is the natural flow-and-glow of things; that is the river, the wind, the Tao, if you wish. Conversely – do not shame feminine behaviour in men or masculine behaviour in women. A real man does exactly what the fuck he wants. And so does a real woman. If that is traditional or not, who the fuck has any right to meddle? Or to care? Life is far too short for these small petty grievances, far too short to let it be bogged down by fighting things that come natural, by splitting, dividing, sub-dividing and so forth and so on. For, in the end, it does nothing but create more complication, more conflict, more ridiculously unnecessary time wasted that could be spent more wisely on something more constructive than fighting what is, in essence, biology and nature.

We tend to do as we tend to do, which is to say that we tend to do what we are wired to do. The differences between the sexes are evident in all animals. And humanity is no exception. We have just grown so smart that we have allowed ourselves to become arrogant in our proclaimed cleverness to the point of complete and utter stupidity.

This is not to say that one should accept everything from everyone based solely on the argument that “it is my nature that drives me to this destructive behaviour”. Of course not. That would be absolutely ridiculous. We are responsible for our own behaviours, in the end. And that includes how we treat others – man, woman and animal alike. We have grown clever enough to not run on pure instinct. This does not, however, mean that the instincts are not there. Ultimately, the main purpose of any biological organism is to reproduce before they die. Which means that, on a deeply subconscious level, most of what we do is done to attract a mate of the opposite sex.

And needlessly complicating matters does nothing but complicate matters needlessly. If there is one thing that you can count on humanity to do, it is to complicate matters to the point of absolute ridiculousness.

Just as I have done in this ramble.

God damn it.

Moiret’s Book, Howling at a Slutwalk Moon:

Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078

Gynocentrism 2.0, Compassion, and Choice: The Underlying and Hidden Root of Men’s Issues

 

I have long held that compassion and choice are two issues that play a part in nearly every men’s issue. But why? What do compassion and choice have to do with male suicide or male victims of domestic violence or just about any other men’s issue? Quite a bit actually. Let’s take a look at why compassion and choice are limited for men and then see how compassion and choice are essential ingredients to the issues.

fireman-100722_640The origins of the lack of compassion and
choice for men is gynocentrism. When you start to understand gynocentrism you will start to better understand the plight of men and boys. Gynocentrism at its most basic, is the mandate that women and children be kept safe and provided for at the expense of men. In other words, men are designated to insure the safety and provisions for women and children on an individual level, the family level, community level and on a macro level. This is not a totally bad thing. It has been what has created and maintained many cultures for millennia. As Stefan Molyneux says, “Eggs are scarce and sperm is plentiful.” This means we have needed to sacrifice our sperm in order to insure the safety of our eggs. Without women the culture dies a quick death. Women must be protected. Gynocentrism protects those who carry the eggs and does this at the expense of its men. This has been a very important element to our cultural success but it does come at a price.

One consequence of protecting the women is that the men will need to at times face danger. The women need to be kept safe and the men will protect the boundary and sometimes die in that process. Our human history of gynocentrism is longer and deeper than most assume. We think of the hunter gatherers as serene and bucolic but that was sometimes far from the truth and gynocentrism predominated.  Research shows that some South American hunter gatherer groups faced huge numbers of deaths of their men protecting the women and children1. One group averaged the death of nearly 60% of its males in protecting the women from inter tribal attacks that were among other things, designed to steal the other group’s women! (the average for the groups studied was near 30% male deaths as a result of raids, ambush or larger scale conflicts) He who had the most women wins and these groups made a huge sacrifice of their males to insure they kept their women and children safe.

In its most obvious we can see how gynocentrism plays out when we note that men automatically and without question are the ones facing danger in our culture. Our war dead are nearly 100% male. Our deaths in dangerous occupations are 93% men. Our trashmen and sewage workers are nearly all male. The dirtiest and most dangerous jobs are jobs for men. No one questions this. It just seems right. This is the hidden power of gynocentrism. No one questions and no one notices. Hell, if women actually got equality to the above it would be a huge step down for them.

wheel-1017023_1280

But gynocentrism runs much deeper than simply being about protecting the borders and doing the dangerous work. It has its tendrils into just about everything, silently and without fanfare. What happens when a woman has a flat tire? How many people have seen the help she will usually garner from men? Now think about what happens if a man has a flat tire. Does he get a similar treatment? Probably not. This is gynocentrism. When there are problems we jump to help women but expect the men to handle it themselves even in today’s atmosphere of “equality”.

What happens when a woman is upset and falls into a sea of tears? Pretty much the same thing as the flat tire. People hover to offer support and see what might be wrong and what they can do. But what happens when men fall into a similar sea? People ignore him and avoid him. It is almost as if a woman’s pain is a call to action while a man’s pain is taboo. Compassion offered to men is a fraction of the compassion offered to women.

There are a number of youtube videos that employ actors to portray men beating women in public. The women are shown to get immediate support and help from male onlookers who see the violence. They quickly jump to her aid not knowing it is an arranged scene. These same videos then reverse the roles and show the women beating men in a similar manner and no one lifts a finger, in fact, they laugh. This is gynocentrism. We expect to help the women and expect the men to help themselves. Note also that we allow women to be dependent but do not allow the same for men.

On an even simpler level think of a man and a woman at work who need to move some boxes from one location to another. Some are heavy, some are light. Who will be moving the heavy ones? It is a foregone conclusion that the man will most often move the largest boxes and will protect her from having to do hard labor. This is gynocentrism.

And then there is the question of attractiveness. When a woman is attractive she gets special perks simply due to her appearance. No man can come close to having a similar response. This is gynocentrism. The eggs are protected and the attractive eggs get very special treatment.

model-1056545_1280
Think of that attractive woman being tied to the railroad tracks. What does that do to the hearts and minds of most people? Most of us have an inborn reaction that says DO SOMETHING to help her. But what about a man tied to the tracks? Is your reaction the same or different? Yes, you likely want to see him helped but is it the same gut wrenching sensation? The plots of many movies and novels are fueled by this gynocentric scenario. We all want the woman tied to the tracks safely released even if it means the death of numerous men in the process. A woman’s needs are a call to action while a man’s needs are often just ignored. He needs to save her!

Just think for a minute what would happen to a man in the military who started complaining that we needed to have more female war deaths in order to make things equal for everyone. How would he be received?   All hell would break loose at this questioning of the gynocentric norm and disregard for the safety of women. We see something similar when the opposite happens and men voice their desires for equal opportunities for services for men in things like domestic violence. Those who stand up for the needs of men in our gynocentric culture are seen as misogynistic, that is, they are routinely accused of hating women simply for pointing out the needs of men. Can you see how the fuel for this is gynocentrism?

 

military-662872_1280Another example of extreme gynocentrism is boot camp in the army. What is done? The recruit is taught that he is nothing. He is now not an individual, he is a part of a fighting group. His personal identity is deleted and he is taught to fight for the group, for a cause. He no longer exists. There is no compassion for his personal feelings and needs. Those are a distant second. He also has zero choice. He does what he is told. That is the extreme gynocentric model that plays out to one degree or another in our everyday life.

Do we care about the feelings of the woman tied to the tracks? Oh yes. Do we care about the feelings of the hero who rescues her? No. We care about his actions. His emotions are not important unless his feelings are about HER. Do we care about the emotions of the boot camp recruit? Nope. We care about his actions and what he does. His feelings need to be kept to himself.   In the same way, under the gynocentric default we tend to care about the emotions of women but will be averse to the emotions of men. Our interest moves more towards his actions. Think about the last time you saw a woman cry in public. What was your reaction? Most of us want to help, want to offer support. We are drawn to her neediness. Now think about a man crying under the same circumstances you saw the woman. Are you as open to his tears as the woman? Most of us say no, we are not. We are repulsed by his neediness. The man is not expected to be needy, he is expected to have agency. If he is seen as needy he is judged harshly.  This is gynocentrism.

family-anno-1317978_1280These sorts of advantages for women have been going on for many years. In the 19th century men would strive to do the best job of keeping women safe and provided for. Just read their diaries and the diaries of their wives. These men put women on a pedestal. They thought of them as angelic and would try their best to not have them sully themselves with the grime of daily life outside the home. They worked hard to have them stay away from “dirty”things like the workplace or money. They did this because they saw women as worthy of protection (gynocentrism) and were happy to take on the extra burden in order to keep her safe. Then along comes feminism which makes the incredibly noxious and inaccurate claim that women were not held in high esteem at all, they were being oppressed. They took the protections that women had benefited from for centuries and spun them into being oppression. In my opinion this is the biggest lie of the 20th century and it has left a wake of chaos and vitriol. Women now actually believe themselves to be victims and that they have been shortchanged and oppressed.   These are the same women who didn’t have to go to war, didn’t have to do the dirty work of building or maintaining the culture, were  held in high esteem and basically worshiped (as American as Mom and Apple Pie) now see this as oppression. Houdini could not have done a more impressive magic trick.

So what do you think happened? It could be easily predicted that gynocentrsim would insure that when women appear to be in danger or need that men will jump and meet those needs as best they can. That’s the way both men and women are  programmed. And that is just what happened. The feminists claimed to be tied to the tracks and rode, and continue to ride the gynocentric wave of men keeping women safe. Their unfounded claims that women were oppressed and held back have been taken seriously by well meaning highly gynocentric males, including male legislators. These claims of women being tied to the tracks and needing government intervention were welcomed by our gynocentric legislators who wanted to bend over backwards to help women. Over the years women have been given more and more while simultaneously continuing to enjoy the same gynocentric advantages they have been getting for hundreds of years. Our legislators have backed themselves into a corner and are now afraid to say no. They know that they have been hijacked but don’t have the courage to say no to saving a damsel in distress. Saying no would insure a loss in the next election.

This was the beginning of what I like to call Gynocentrism 2.0.  The cultural imperative of caring for women continues and is now amplified by false claims of women having been oppressed.  Simultaneously Gynocentrism 2.0 showed not only increased focus on the needs and desires of women, it also made a dramatic switch.  Men in gynocentrism 1.0 were held in high esteem when they followed through with their role.  They were both respected and admired and this was fuel for the masculine. Both sexes were held in high esteem.  Now that fuel for men has run out as the admiration and respect has been gaudily replaced with disdain and blame. Incredibly, now men are seen as the problem and held accountable for social problems as if they were the cause.  It is all the men’s fault.  Much is said about men not doing very well these days but very few people note this important shift.  When you don’t put fuel in the engine it ain’t goin too far.

In Gynocentrism 2.0 entire bureaucracies are built to serve women and cater to their difficulties but there are rarely any such bureaucracies built for men. The women are left with a choice of whether to seek help at a government funded facility (payed for with mostly male tax dollars) built for them while the men are left with no choices.

 

stopviolenceagainstwomen2One of the best examples of this is the issue of domestic violence where we have known for decades that men are a sizable portion (likely nearing 50%) of the victims of domestic violence but all of the laws and services are built for women. We spend nearly a billion dollars a year for the Violence Against WOMEN Act (VAWA) that marginalizes the 50% of male victims. Recent research exposed the sad fact that when men who are the victims of domestic violence go to these government funded services for help they are treated very poorly. Often when the men are victims of domestic violence and they turn to the government funded services they are told that they are not victims of domestic violence, they are accused of being the perpetrators! They then send him to treatment for perpetrators! Researchers are calling this “third party abuse”, when the government bureaucracy as a third party, participates in the continued abuse of a victim. This is gynocentrism 2.0 which leaves no compassion for men and far fewer choices in seeking help.

I was involved in lobbying for male victims of domestic violence during the reauthorization of the VAWA in both 2005 and 2012. Our group was well received by then Senator Biden. He and his staff listened to our data and stories about male victims in several meetings at his Senate office. He assured us we would be a part of the hearings. When the hearing came not one of our group was allowed to speak. I couldn’t believe it. Biden was totally aware of the problem of male victims and intentionally sabotaged our efforts to find support for men. It was then that I realized how deeply our system is biased and non-functional. Gynocentrism 2.0.

It’s important to point out that our government has been pushing a gynocentric agenda for some time.  In the 1960’s President Johnson set in motion the “War on Poverty” which proceeded to demand the removal of black fathers from their families in order for mom to get welfare.  Now our family courts are doing something similar as they remove fathers from the home through no fault on the fathers part.  The woman’s needs come first, father’s a distant second.

My state of Maryland created a Commission for Men’s Health a number of years ago. I was fortunate to serve as the vice chair of that commission and wrote three of the four reports that were to be sent to the governor. The reports I wrote were what I call “male friendly.” That is, they voiced and considered the needs of men without bowing to the prevailing political correctness. The chairman of the commission wrote the other report which was a bit more what the Health Department, our host agency, was anticipating. All four reports were unanimously approved by the full commission. When the commission’s work was done and it came time to file the reports to the governor and a host of other Maryland politicians and get them into the Maryland State Library the Health Department only filed the report that was written by the Chairman. They were confronted with this and said, “ooops, we will file it now.” But they didn’t. It took a year to track down the files and finally get them into the Maryland system. The full story of this event will be told in a chapter in Janice Fiamengo’s upcoming book. It couldn’t be more clear that when the needs of men were given voice, the status quo balked.  It seems that our mid level bureaucrcrats are filled with gynocentrism 2.0.

I think you can see now how women’s complaints and our legislators zealous rush to help them have turned things topsy turvy. Rape shield laws have been written to protect the rape victims and this is a good thing. But those same laws failed to protect the accused man. His name can be released to the media prior to any conviction. Her name is permanently protected while his name is plastered all over the media and he has his life ruined simply due to an accusation which may or may not be proven false .   Gynocentrism 2.0.

 

blog-suicide

Another example is the issue of suicide where males are 80% of all completed suicides. (Chart above: rates are per 100,000 population from CDC WISQARS system.) Incredibly this 80% fact is rarely mentioned in the media leaving most people unaware that the biggest risk factor in suicide is being male.  It is not surprising that females get the majority of attention around suicide both clinically and in research. This even though men are the vast majority of those needing help. In 2009 the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) did some research on suicide. I was shocked to see it was a study on girls! I wrote to then NASW Director Elizabeth Clark and asked why the research focused on girls when it was men and boys who were the vast majority of suicides. She wrote me back and said that the funder for the research had specified to only study girls.   Just imagine for a moment someone who funded research for Sickle Cell Disease but stipulated the research had to be on whites. Can you imagine the outrage? Blacks are 60-80% of those with Sickle Cell disease and to study only whites would be seen as totally racist but somehow studying only girls and suicide is okay. That is gynocentrism.

Our gynocentric legislators have outlawed any form of genital mutilation of females but have failed to do the same for our baby boys. Boys routinely undergo a surgical removal of part of their penis without anesthesia. Of course the baby boys scream during and after this mutilation. Some nurses say they have seen baby boys scream for days after. Many are thinking today that this trauma creates PTSD for those males who have been circumcised and presently about four out of every 5 males in the United States has suffered this mutilation. Research is showing that psychological impact of circumcision on boys is similar to the psychological impact for girls who have undergone genital mutilation. This procedure is damaging our boys while most people think it is a simple little snip. Wrong. We care about our little girls but fail in mustering enough compassion for boys to shelter them from such barbaric treatment and we give them no choice. Gynocentrism.

In healthcare we have seen our legislators create seven national commissions for women’s health but none for men. We have official government web sites for womenshealth.gov and girlshealth.gov but just look at what happens when you go to menshealth.gov or boyshealth.gov. Nothing.   You find a 404 page not found error. It does not exist. Get the picture? focusWhen anyone starts looking critically at our world it becomes clear that gynocentrism is at its core. We constantly hear criticism of men not going to the doctor, etc, but look at the lack of concern for men’s health.  Yes, we have seven commissions for women’s health, but none for men.  The one bill to create a national men’s health commission has been languishing in congress for over 20 years, with too few sponsors and a general lack of interest.  You see this same lack of interest in not even creating a web site for men or boys.  Women in need get the help, and men just need to take care of themselves while simultaneously being blamed for their plight.   And no one is even aware this is going on.  Gynocentrism.

Screen Shot 2016-08-27 at 9.21.21 PM

Warren Farrell put together a group of clinicians, academics, researchers, authors and other experts on men and boys who wrote a proposal for a White House Council on Boys and Men. I was happy to be included as  one of those who put the proposal together. President Obama had created a council for women and girls as soon as he got into office. Now he was being asked to do the same for boys and men. One of our group members, a man named Willie Isles was an executive with the Boy Scouts and had a meeting scheduled with the President. The plan was for Willie to have two Boy Scouts introduce the idea of the White House Council on Boys and Men to the President. Just before that meeting was to take place the discussion of a council for boys and men was struck from the agenda. It was forbidden to even be discussed. Gynocentrism anyone?

There is an anti-male bias in mental health research. One study on teen relationship violence found that boys and girls are suffering from this problem at similar rate. But once the research is translated into news articles it only focuses on the hardships the girls face. Worse yet, once the study is translated by legislators into an action plan to help the teen violence problem the only ones offered assistance are the girls while the boys are blamed. Yes, boys are abused but they simply don’t get compassion. Gynocentrism

 

research-tableIn one study about childhood rape the researchers found that boys were more often the victims of actual childhood rapes than the girls. Then in writing up their research failed to specifically include this information about boys as victims of rape. Furthermore, when they went to the media they also failed to mention the fact that they have found that boys were raped more often than girls. Gynocentrism.

Title IX — Has been a great help to girls and athletics but has dismantled over 1000 men’s college teams. We focus on helping women but ignore the pain of men.

We have all heard of the racial sentencing bias where blacks tend to get stiffer sentences than whites for the same crime. But the research is telling us that there is a bias that is six times as large as the racial bias that sentences men to longer sentences than women. Yet, we hear nothing of this in the media and no one seems to care. Clearly the judges have less compassion for men and offer them far less choice.

I have seen a number of men in therapy who came to me when their wives wanted an abortion and they (the men) wanted to keep the child. The men were powerless to do anything. Can you see how these men had no choice in the matter? His wife said, “My body, my choice” and he said “My child, your choice, I have none.” He had no choice and if he had said something I feel sure he would have heard some variation of big boys don’t cry. Know what I mean? Can you see how no one really cares or offers them compassion for their plight? Compassion and Choice.

 

women-onlyLook at men’s clubs and men’s spaces that have been traditional places for men to gather. Gone. They have been opened to women and not replaced with anything that would give men a safe place to simply gather with other men. Men gathering became the enemy with the accusation of secret deals that would keep women out of business dealings. At the same time all women’s clubs have soared. Women only gyms, women only parking places, women only subway cars, women only everything….but no comparable opportunities for men. There are even groups that keep track of all of the groups for women. One is The National Association of Commissions for Women  which keeps track of the literally hundreds of commissions for women. That is gynocentrism 2.0 on steroids.

Instead of thinking of choice for men, the majority of our gynocentric culture are thinking instead the word “should.” Men should do this, men should do that and if they don’t, they are not really men. Most men are caught in this drama that researchers are calling “precarious manhood” where men are forced to prove their worth repeatedly in order to be called men. Women do not face a similar situation.

Professions are not immune to Gynocentrism. The profession of social work is a prime example. This group is focused on women and ignores the needs and the hardships of men. Their educational system offers classes on just about every possible client to work with including women, gays, handicapped, children but fails to teach their charges even the first thing about men and boys. This even though men and boys make up a good portion of the clientele they will be working with.

meninsw2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our focus thus far has been on gynocentrism on the macro level.  It is very easy to see the gynocentric imbalance in so many spheres. The point here is not that the services that have been created were not a good thing, or were undeserved. Many of the services offered have been very helpful to women and girls. The point here is that it has been a very one sided ride with nearly all the services going to women and girls, and the men and boys basically ignored. Men and boys have simply not gotten compassion and choice. Gynocentrism 2.0.

But let’s take a quick look at the impact of gynocentrism on a micro level. We have seen so far that the public has very little interest in men’s emotions. While that is surely true on a macro level it is also the case on the micro. What is the tired and hackneyed message that the some women offer her man? Oh, they say “You are not dealing with your feelings.”   I hope you can see now that this sort of shaming is really an excuse to NOT deal with his emotions.   Much has been written by gynocentric types about men’s not emoting in public, or men not emoting like women, while maintaining the underlying assumption that there must be something wrong with them. But almost nothing has been written about the brick wall men face when they do emote. When men have emotions people disappear. No one wants to hear it.

What I have seen repeatedly is that men have very different ways to process emotions. Ways that are invisible to most. They have likely developed these different ways due to the prevalence of gynocentrism and are happy with their paths to work with their own emotions and gladly take care of things on their own without fanfare and “help.” The saddest part of this is that most women simply do not see his different ways and assume he is “doing it wrong” since it isn’t like what she does.

red.pill_

Conclusion

Gynocentrism creates a cultural default both on a micro and macro level where women’s distress is a call to action and a man’s distress is seen at best as a distraction and at worst a taboo. This leaves men being offered considerably less compassion and fewer choices.  In the past 50 years the original gynocentric defaults have morphed into gynocentrism 2.0 which has seen a huge increase in both the lop-sided services favoring women and the disdain and blame focused on men.

Very few people are conscious of this habitual default, they simply assume it is just the way the world works.

Becoming more and more aware of gynocentrism makes it easier to see why men are 80% of the completed suicides but are basically ignored.  It makes sense now that men are nearly 50% of the victims of domestic violence but are routinely disregarded. It makes sense now why boys genital mutilation is the fourth most popular surgical procedure in the U.S. even though it is unnecessary and highly damaging.  The world is geared to have compassion for women’s needs but not as much for the needs of men. We could go on and on about each of the many men’s issues and see  how the lack of compassion and choice plays a part in their dilemma.

The unconscious nature of gynocentrism may be its most ruinous aspect.  People are simply unaware of the great differences in the way men and women are treated.  It is in some ways reminiscent of the racism I remember in the mid 20th century.  People were simply unaware of their treatment of blacks.  There were surely outright bigots at the time but the majority of people were basically asleep to the impact of their attitudes and behaviors and went along with the status quo that treated blacks and whites in significantly different ways.  The general public was duped by a media that portrayed blacks as inferior and an educational system and even academic research that did the same. With gynocentrism 2.0 we are seeing something very similar but instead of the blacks it is now our men.  Today’s gynocentrism is made up primarily of people who are basically unaware of the impact of their behaviors and are simply going along with the gynocentric status quo.

It’s time to wake up.

Knowing these things and taking the red pill* makes it important for us to start offering men and boys greater compassion and choice.

 

And let’s not forget.  Men Are Good!

__________________________________________________________________

 

*Having taken the “Red Pill” is the popular phrase used to denote someone who can see the gynocentrism clearly.

Men’s Issues and Creativity: An Excerpt from a male friendly novel The Coriolis Effect

 

We are living in a misandrist world and very few people are even slightly aware of this.  In order to chip away at this we need to work to inform the public with sites like menaregood and many others.  However, the power of story is what has gotten us into this mess with the feminists perpetual voicing of one sided narratives that focus on female victimhood and female positives and leave out men and boys except as the perpetrators.  Men are extraordinarily creative, just look at the world’s best writers, artists, composers etc.  We need to start using those skills to unearth the reality of men’s issues and that is just what is done by the book that is excerpted below, The  Coriolis Effect.  Read the excerpt, if you like it, buy the book, tell your friends, spead the male friendly creativity as far and wide as you can.  And remember, men are good.  Tom Golden



WEBSITE WITH REVIEWS
http://nynovel.com

 

SIMPLE INTRODUCTION

coverA novel—a crime thriller—on the goodness of masculinity in an era of toxic feminism.

A massive hurricane is descending on New York City, but Marco has bigger problems. His dad is a disgraced city cop who can’t accept responsibility for a fatal car crash. Fired from the force, he now works security for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which should be a safe gig… but isn’t.

A drug cartel is planning a museum heist. They will use stolen art to launder money from cocaine, smuggled inside eviscerated cadavers—and they are blackmailing Marco’s dad to assist. Meanwhile, in the face of the incoming cyclone, Marco must reconcile with his father’s past or be swept away, their relationship forever destroyed.

The tentacles of the drug cartel thrash against New York, Jamaica, and even Rome as the Coriolis Effect induces the cyclonic force that upends Marco’s life while he struggles to understand himself, love his father and stop the criminals who would disgrace his dad—again.

This is a story of a turbulent transition, and a man’s first time with a woman. It is a male-positive story in which the violence is extreme; the passion explicit; the love sublime. The respect for women is profound; the empowering of masculinity, unashamed.

 

 

DEDICATION

I dedicate this novel to the reader’s father

 

QUOTE FROM NOVEL

“For every crack in that glass ceiling, there is a man buried in Arlington for building this house.”

 

CHAPTER 1: A TROPICAL DISTURBANCE
The two tourists spent more time sightseeing than steering and didn’t see the yellow school bus barreling down on them as they rounded the crest overlooking Montego Bay.

After somersaulting off the cliff, their scooters sailed into the bay while their bodies plunged to earth and exploded in a burst that painted red blossoms on the plaza. Many of the onlookers got their first look at human organs, while children rushed into the waves to fish out two new motorbikes.

Locals said the gods selected their sacrifice by spinning the wheel of misfortune; but in the moon-shadows of the palm trees, they whispered another story: that someone needed two large shipping crates in a hurry.

Later that day the bodies were brought to the island mortician and his assistant, Astride. They worked in a small mortuary on a narrow dirt road that sliced through a canyon that was carved by the floods that follow the hurricanes.

“M’Lord, they were fat as whales,” Astride whispered, as she stuffed seaweed into the voodoo doll in her left hand.

“They’re just shells now,” the mortician replied, just before taking a bite of his tuna-fish sandwich.

“We are all to be forever,” Astride added. A second, finished, doll lay on the table by the rear door.

A lung and liver lay on a surgical table. On the bookshelf-a bag of potato chips, a Diet Pepsi, and a kidney. An eye floated in a dish atop a plywood crate kept as a spare for the next stray family that couldn’t afford a coffin.

“Please set that down, come here, and take this,” the mortician snapped, holding out a bloodied surgical rag.
“That eye be watching me,” Astride answered, pointing at the ownerless eye, while she shielded herself its gaze with the voodoo doll.

“Stop looking at it. And finish your project later. I don’t pay you to be a witch doctor. Put down the doll and come here and help me,” he snapped as he turned back to the table.

Astride took the bloody rag and tossed it to the table by the back door. She wiped her hands on the yellow and green stripes that zig-zagged across her black dress; but she only managed to smear the red blood into orange streaks.

The mortician was a large man. His belly folded over itself and new layers protruded each year. “My grandchildren use my belly as a staircase,” he often would joke, as if laughter and food could camouflage his work’s reality.

Astride avoided the eye and searched the distant hill beyond the window. When the bodies were delivered, they were told to prepare for a visitor.

“When will they get here?” she asked as she wrapped chaparral vines around the doll. She set down the doll near the first one on the table and took a step closer to the window.  “When they get here,” the mortician replied.

“Can’t think so good with this anxiety,” she continued as she fanned herself with her hands. Her crimson painted fingernails flailed around her head.

“You sound like you’re excited to see them,” the mortician said, and added, “I’d rather you focus on this work.”

“Hard to work with an eye on the coffin,” Astride whispered.

They heard a van drive up, a door slam, and the sound of approaching footsteps crunching the gravel in the driveway.

Astride looked into the mirror that hung near the rear door to the back garden and studied her face. She pulled down her dress, tightened her hair bun, smacked her lips and turned to face the front door.

 

LATER THAT NIGHT

 

Across town, Mr. Walker turned his head toward the orange glow in the distance. He stepped onto the newly orphaned sailing yacht and the warm scent of citrus followed him.

In the distance, he saw the yellow headlights of a van approaching. It drove along the pier and up to the where the boat docked. Several shadows emerged and transferred the caskets to the yacht. One shadow handed Walker an envelope.

“You’ll get the other half when you arrive,” the shadow whispered.

“Whom do I see when I get there?”

“They’ll find you,” the shadow replied as it dissolved back into darkness.

The van pulled away, leaving Walker alone under a mist of starlight.

He unlaced the mooring line’s knot, and pushed from shore.

The boat barely moved and only rotated in place as the Milky Way seemed to spiral above his head. He had to use the motor to slip into the wake of Hurricane Nicholas which had cleared the sea of ships earlier that week.

The scent of citrus he brought onboard was soon washed away by the salt air.

“Only thing to worry about now is sea dragons,” he thought as he gritted his teeth.

“Three of us on board,” he whispered as he steered out of the harbor. The shoreline faded into darkness as he added to himself, “and two of them don’t talk no more.”

He remembered the legends about the Bermuda Triangle and about the creatures that wash ashore on nearby islands.

“Don’t wanna be seeing any of them alone on this trip,” he implored the moon. “Only empty shells now and don’t talk—they be bones, no more.”

The stars reflected with pinpoint perfection on the sea before him. Behind him, the sailboat shed moonlit vortices over the ocean. The two diverging streams of the boat’s wake—a silver necklace adorned with white whirlpools—gripped his focus as he continued looking toward the past.

“May have to use this engine the whole way,” he shouted, as he turned forward. “No wind tonight!”

But he was wrong. A wind was blowing, and a storm was rising—two storms: two bodies and two stories.

Just off the coast of Africa, a high-pressure system was developing. This system would begin pushing warm air out over the ocean. The warm air would meet a low-pressure zone and the wind would stream inward. The earth’s rotation would redirect the streamlines into a vortex swirling around a central eye. This will take some time to develop.

Meanwhile, another storm was accelerating far to the north. This storm had been percolating for years; it had been simmering almost as long, it seemed, as the Red Spot has been fuming on the planet Jupiter. It is a storm between a father and a son who have forgotten how to talk with each other. Like any storm that was finally beginning to spin, it had its own center, its own voice, and its own eye.

 

CHAPTER 28: AND THE WOMEN WHO LOVE THEM

With her, I will share the man I will forever become. I love being a man, and she invigorates my respect for masculinity; helps me see the common thread all us men share. When my respect for the beauty of men flows spontaneously and without reservation, I feel connected to masculinity and its goodness. While I accept the gender fluid, I embrace the gender solid. For women are beautiful; and my way of transcending the binary and accepting my own femininity is by love for all women through one woman. My masculinity that I share with Cyrise, in fusion greater than its parts, is not a performance, and it is not one of many; it exists without an audience-it is the sound of a tree growing in the forest.

 

 

BIOSKETCH OF AUTHOR

 

The author holds a BA in Art History from Columbia University and a Ph.D. in Engineering from the University of California, San Diego. He is currently a professor in the US and also in Europe, where he lives with his wife and two children.

He wrote this novel as a gift to his son. It is a novel on the goodness and beauty of men and masculinity in an era of toxic feminism.

 

WEBSITE WITH REVIEWS

http://nynovel.com

 

Demonising Male Sexuality, Frustration and Loneliness

 

anger-1226157_1280We had a reunion for our summer camp. It was held at one of the attendees home, a young man named Jim. He had an older 20 year old sister, Dora, who was also there. Peter and I were both present having been two of the leaders of the camp.

As soon as Dora saw Peter, she went wild. All girls went wild as soon as they saw Peter – one of my biggest mistakes has always been going on any holiday with him. She hurried upstairs and came back, dressed in a delicious sexy outfit: a short dress, black stockings and ample make-up, hoping to get Peter interested.

But Peter didn’t get interested. The one who got interested was Bob, another teenager and an uncomplicated working-class boy. He made it very clear that he loved what he saw, even though he didn’t touch Dora or say anything indecent.

It was also clear Dora wasn’t happy about the situation at all. We laughed a bit about her, without any malice or disdain: what did she expect, dress up like that and then decide who could chase her and who couldn’t?

This all happened quite a while ago. Nobody would have thought about calling Bob’s behaviour ‘harassment’, even though we laughed a bit about him too, without the slightest malice. Nowadays, Dora would at least have given an interview to a newspaper to prove how sexist men are, that we live in a rape culture that is unsafe for women. Bob’s behaviour isn’t forbidden yet in my own home country, the Netherlands, but some women who are very concerned about human rights are working on it.

 

ADMITTING THAT SEX IS A PROBLEM

Feminists talk about male sexuality all the time. Anti-feminists and MRA’s hardly ever do, and then it is mostly about false rape allegations, not about (straight) male sexuality as such. Why is that?

Of course, men are already vulnerable protesting against anti-male injustice. They’re portrayed as ‘whiners’ or ‘crybabies’, who are ‘trying to divert the attention from much bigger injustice done to women’. Nevertheless, some brave men are willing to speak out when it’s about affirmative action gone too far, judges being unjust to men, and meta-issues such as free speech for MRA’s and anti-feminists. In fact, those meta-issues very often seem to be the main issue.

Admitting that sex is a problem, however, is lethal for men. Who will ever address the issue except when he is unattractive, clumsy with women, creepy (the word always used in this context) and blaming all his incapability on women and feminism? Men complaining about sex, or the absence of it, are seen as the very worst crybabies. So men shut up about it.

And to cite Warren Farrell: women don’t hear what men don’t say. That goes for anti-feminist women as well. So male and female MRA’s only touch the subject occasionally.

True, Katie Roiphe and Daphne Patai wrote books about it – long ago already. Since then things only worsened.

 

HARASSMENT

Male sexuality is demonized by the term ‘harassment’. That term confused me, because my idea of harrassment seemed to be about wilful insults from men who don’t respect women and love to humiliate them. At the same time I wasn’t too sure that bona fide approaching of women with erotic intentions couldn’t be interpreted as such, if only as a result of misunderstanding. So I googled it. What I found was confusing.

One of the more reasonable sites said that as a man (boy), you might unintentionally do things that a woman (girl) didn’t like, and then you’d better apologise to her and make it clear you didn’t mean it that way. No problems with that.

Other sites were frightening. No misunderstanding at all.  Asking a colleague out for a drink or dinner, phoning somebody and declaring your love, could all be included under their definition of harrassment. One site said: ‘If something happens that you don’t want, it’s harassment’, turning the whole world into one big therapy group for women that men have to adjust to. Remarkable detail: a questionnaire on one site where 30% of the women thought it ‘harassment’ when a colleague asked them out, made clear that 30% on the other extreme didn’t think it was harassment when somebody complimented their breasts or even bottoms. Goes to show how subjective these things are.

Feminist sites suggest it’s hell out there for women. They are teeming with anecdotes about men doing the most horrible things, grabbing intimate parts, calling women whores etc. If those things are so common, why did they even release the ‘catcalling video’, on which you hardly see anything more horrific than black men saying ‘Good morning beauty’ to a white woman (and that two minutes out of an alleged ‘ten hours’)?

Even more of an embarrassing failure was the video of the woman ‘turning the tables’ by going out on the streets and ‘harassing men’. The men hardly reacted, more surprised than indignant, she had to become very rude to get a negative reaction at all. She proved the opposite point she tried to make: men in the same position as ‘harassed’ women mostly don’t feel humiliated or frightened at all.

 

SELF FULFILLING PROPHESY

The double standards about ‘harassment’ and ‘objectification’ (that other word demonising male sexuality) are so ridiculous and very obvious that it seems useless to point them out. A Facebook photograph of John Travolta got the comment ‘juicy piece’ by tens of women. (No misunderstanding – I think they have the perfect right to do so.) Pictures of nice asses, whether of men or women, are routinely and enthusiastically complimented by women – men are wiser. Less known than the video’s mentioned above is the video about gays in Amsterdam who got ‘discriminated against’ because they tried to pick up random men on the streets! Of course, that video was linked by the same sites who post one issue against ‘street harassment’ after the other.

Screen Shot 2016-04-13 at 9.46.12 PM

There was even a video about an actress dressed up as a nurse, who offered to feel men’s balls in the street, to check if they had cancer. Some men accepted, some reacted a bit embarrassed, no one was indignant. Imagine a man offering to feel women’s breasts, let alone vagina’s! No doubt he’d end up in jail.

Screen Shot 2016-04-13 at 9.48.11 PM

So, in a nutshell: the criteria for harassment are vague, double standards are rampant.

The vicious part of it all is not just that some women may not like some men’s behaviour – tastes differ – but that the whole culture suggests men behave that way because they don’t respect women and they love to humiliate them. I find that outright misandrist slander. Even if a man approaches a woman a bit rudely, I think he approaches her because he wants to make contact with her. Possibly wants to have sex with her, but there’s nothing wrong with that either as long as he does’nt force her. (Some feminists will say it is wrong because it is ‘objectification’, but that word is even more meaningless than ‘harassment’, only suggesting it is wrong to find somebody sexually attractive.) But the idea of humiliation is a self-fulfilling prophesy in two ways.

First: when women learn to see compliments, and approaches with erotic intent, not as well-meaning behaviour that might even cheer you up, but as sexist and objectifying, it will be hard for them to take any other viewpoint. They will feel unease and even fear at about every approach by a man, and more and more behaviour will be seen as sexist.

Second: when men learn that approaching women that way is wrong, the nice ones will stop doing it and only the rude bastards will continue their behaviour. And women will complain men can only approach them so rudely…

 

ROAD IN THE MIST

I hope I made it clear now that the current approach of straight male sexuality is nonsensical and unjust, but so many things in life are nonsensical and unjust. Why then is this especially so bad?

Because it leads to a terrible amount of loneliness and frustration. It may be exaggerated that all the roads men have to approach women are blocked. There are still a lot of good heterosexual relationships, for a week or a lifetime. Nevertheless, for single men, the way to go there often seems like a long, winding road in the mist, littered with hordes, and always with the risk that at the end you turn out to have taken the wrong one. That is not exaggerated. In the Netherlands, there are 2.000.000 single adults on a population of 17.000.000. They they spend hundreds of millions of euro’s yearly on dating sites and organized dating events, often joyless projects which don’t bring them very far. This must be bad for women, too. Loneliness is a big problem, but the institutions fighting loneliness never address this point.

Probably lots of problems of boys between, say, 13 and 25 years old (maybe even the suicide rate) are also connected with this: approaching girls, which has always been a big issue for them and never was a piece of cake, is more frightening than ever. You don’t just risk getting rejected, which is bad enough. You risk getting accused of hurtful behaviour towards the girl, which is horrible, whether there is a real punishment or not. For the last thing a boy wants to do is to hurt a girl he admires.

Many interesting stories and talks about boys hardly mention this. An exception is the excellent articles ‘Sexodus 1 and 2’ by Milo Yiannopoulos (he’s not always excellent in my opinion, but here he is).

Like I said at the beginning: men’s groups and everybody criticising feminism should address the men’s sexuality issue much more often. Not just mention it every now and then, but make it one of the main issues of the movement. It’s worth it.

 

STAGGERINGLY SEXY

The girl behind the bar had her hair painted in four or five colors, it looked quite nice and I complimented her about it. A girl standing next to me remarked: ‘She’s staggeringly sexy, ain’t she?’

I took a deep breath and answered: ‘Well, I always learned that men are not supposed to say these things, but now that you ask me, yes, she ís staggeringly sexy.’

She told me she had a history of abuse, but still she could understand men’s problems, and her advice was: always be yourself, and that also meant: compliment women the way you feel like doing.

She had already told me she had a boyfriend, so I didn’t try anything with her. But when I left the party I gave her a big, long hug and said: ‘Thank you for what you said to me. And I’ll tell you: you’re also staggeringly sexy.’ And I meant it. And she loved it.

There is hope.


 

IMG_0936Eisso Post had his red pill moment in the second feminist wave
when he discovered a lot of ‘prejudices’ against feminism simply were true, and in the third wave when discussions online with feminists turned out to be impossible without being accused and insulted in incomprehensible lingo. He is still rather left-wing, but dogmatically undogmatic. He is an author and a coach for people writing novels and short stories.

Men Are Good and so are Male Only Spaces (Part Two)

Part Onelionsmen of this series described numerous male spaces which over the last 40 years have been dismantled. Nearly all of the examples of male spaces had something important in common: they focused on all male groups that gathered to be supportive to women and the culture at large. The armed forces, police and firemen are obvious examples of men being of service. The Lions, Kiwanis and Rotary are also obvious examples of men gathering in male space to be helpful to women and the society at large. These spaces harmonized with men’s traditional provide and protect role. Even the all-male colleges could be seen as ultimately preparing young men to be of service to women and to our culture, especially the military academies. The athletic groups were also similar and provided a competition ground that helped women in choosing which man might be best for her. Most of these male spaces had a similar objective to be of service to women and the culture by helping men perform their primary sex role of providing and protecting.

Then along comes the 1970’s with the battle cry that men and women were equal. No differences existed between men and women outside of socialization they said. When we run under that assumption, that men and women are exactly equal, it is easy to see that the need for male space that enhances his ability to provide and protect for women is no longer a necessity. If we are truly equal then women should be able to provide and protect on their own. Male spaces lose their cultural importance. If we are truly equal then it’s optional. The male spaces become something that is as disposable as the males themselves. They are no longer necessary.

This might have been an interesting development if men and women were truly treated as equal. Women would have been drafted and dying in wars at an equal rate, there would be no affirmative action if we were truly equal, those women’s commissions would have been people commissions to serve both men and women, the health laws and funding would have focused in a more balanced manner rather than focusing primarily on women, we would have a violence against people act rather than a violence against women act and on and on.

But that is not what happened. At the same time that equality was proclaimed we see the powerful and quiet hand of gynocentrism shaping our world. Prior to this gynocentrism helped our civilization by providing and protecting women at the expense of men. This insured the survival of our species. But now with the proclamation of equality​,​ gynocentrism continued its influence but in a different manner. Now the heading is that we are equal but as Orwell explained “some animals are more equal than others.” This is clearly seen in the dismantling of male space and the simultaneous expansion of female space. Yes, we are equal but females should get more. The ridiculous excuse for this is that males had it all for so long and now it is women’s turn. Okay, if that is the case then why not have women only battle groups, women trashmen, women sewage workers? We don’t see that though do we? Just more perks for women and tell the men they are equal and to sit down and shut up and keep those sewers running. This is a far cry from equality.

It is interesting to note that as male spaces that were meant to provide for women, children and the culture at large were being dismantled female only spaces were being built.  These female Screen Shot 2014-12-31 at 12.06.40 PMspaces seem markedly different from the males spaces that were intended to serve women, children, and the culture. The female spaces seem to focus only on helping women and sometimes children, especially female children.  Men’s service groups tended to serve everyone but themselves while women’s service groups seem to serve primarily only themselves.  Very different.  So if men “had it all” then women still don’t have it all since they have omitted a large part of what the men did when they were of service to women, children, the needy and the culture at large.

To make matters worse, the same gynocentrism that offers more to women by default, also continues to hold men accountable for women even though we are “equal.” If we were truly equal then women and the public would have no problem with men meeting in male only spaces. Why not? If we are equal and women can have private spaces, why not men? But we see the opposite. Men are discouraged from meeting together in male only spaces and even more discouraged to meeting together for their own benefit. The male spaces of yesteryear as we have seen had the open purpose of being of service to others, especially women and the needy. So these spaces are discouraged but guess what? Even spaces where men would meet just for their own benefit are greeted with shaming and harsh judgements. Let’s take an example.

Think back to the 1990’s and the Mythopoetic Movement started by poet Robert Bly. This movement began creating very powerful male spaces that had nothing to do with providing and protecting and these men paid a dear price for it. As we have seen, our culture has tolerated male only spaces in the past since they were mostly related to the gynocentric harness that held men to sacrifice their own needs and focus on the needs of the culture and of women and children. But these spaces were very different. The Mythopoetic groups offered spaces for men to enjoy each other’s company as men and to explore their vulnerabilities and woundedness in a non​-​competitive and supportive space completely void of any women. Sounds good right? The media had been blasting men for decades for being too violent, for being too silent, for being too insensitive, too competitive and well, just too “testosterone poisoned.” Then along comes the Mythopoetic movement which is the antitheses of all of these criticisms and what does the media and public do? They shame these men time and time again with insults like “all they do is go out in the woods and bang drums.” The public goes along with the media assessment and this huge shift is simply shamed and turned into a cartoon even though the men were doing the very things that the media and the public had complained that men had forever lacked.

The question is why would this happen? Why would people not see this important shift in men’s behaviors and applaud these men for breaking new ground? I think the answer is very simple. The answer is that the thing that most upset the public was that males were leaving their traditional roles of providing and protecting. It didn’t matter what else they were doing. All that mattered was that they were meeting as men, with other men, and not focusing on caring for women or doing anything that was related to providing and protecting. They were looking at their own wounds and supporting each other and this was enough to set off the media and the public into auto shame mode.

In​ ​so​​me ways I think these men got a taste of what gay men had seen for many years, shaming, harsh judgment and the assumption they just weren’t “real” men. Real men provide and protect​, and have an interest in women, not in themselves or other men​.

In some ways the mythopoetic men and gays were pioneers in the MGTOW movement. We can see the same shaming being dished out to the MGTOW men of today. All these groups have the common bond of not catering to provide and protect for women. When men meet on their own, in male only groups they become a target of the culture.

If I am correct it will help explain why men’s human rights activists are getting such an automatic shaming and hatred for standing up for men and boys. These men and women are focusing on an aspect of being male that has nothing to do with his primary sex role of provide and protect and has everything to do with his own needs, wants, and well being. This is seen as a threat just as the mythopoetic men, the gays and the MGTOW’s were likely seen as a threat since they were ignoring the provide and protect side of things and focusing instead on themselves.

And so it goes.

Let’s not forget, men are good. Gay men, straight men, MGTOW men, Mythopoetic men, MHRA men and on and on. Men are good.

Original Men’s Issues Video w/ audio

 

Here is the original Men’s Issues Video with the audio:

 

After being on youtube for nearly 8 years Youtube decided that the background music in this video was a copyright infringement and without any warning simply muted the audio.  This was the first video I had done and at the time I simply didn’t think that using background music in a free, non-commercial, educational video was going to cause a fuss.  I guess I was wrong.

 

Lesson learned.