The Apologists


Posted this morning, Obsidian at Just Four Guys had an excellent 10 question interview of Professor Michael Kimmel who has been so concerned about the male anger simmering in the manosphere that he was distracted from his professorship of Sociology and Gender Studies and executive directorship for the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University that he was forced by academic passions to write such titles as Guyland and Angry White Men (not to be confused with Stupid White Men).

The open format interviews of semi-mainstream authors are starting to carve out a missing manosphere niche for J4G, so I don’t want to steal any of that thunder with this post, but since “angry manosphereans” was the topic du jour at Aunt Giggles’ echo-chamber (“Oh my stars and garters! Tindr is really a hook up app populated by men and women who just wanna fuck?”) I thought I’d riff a little on a few of his answers and what I think are the esteemed Professors’ most glaring problems.

But the real answer to your question is not “why am I so different from other men?” but rather how am I so similar to other men? I grew up breathing the same air, and drinking the same water as you did. I believe firmly in the ideals of American democracy, and so I feel compelled as a citizen to speak out against inequality and injustice. Supporting gender equality is right, fair, and patriotically American.

He is correct, he’s JUST like the majority of ‘other’ men – suffering from a  lifetime of thorough social feminization conditioning to become the champion of feminine-identification Game. His Beta mindset is easily recognizable, but his Game is still the same ‘like attracts like’ mentality that’s characteristic of a solid insaturation in blank slate equalism. Hugo Schwyzer left a vacuum, Kimmel is just stepping into it. Be more ‘like’ a woman and they’ll appreciate your efforts in supporting and understanding them, and you’ll be rewarded with reciprocal sexual interest.

It is a compassionate look at the lives of young men, and especially the things that those young me are being asked to do – by other guys – to prove their manhood. And the argument of the book is that proving masculinity becomes a sort of relentless test for guys, and that THAT is what we have to pay attention to. The book is a sort of catalog of how guys feel they have to prove it — video games, porn, sports, binge drinking, hooking up, initiation and hazing. All of it. It’s not about how awful guys are because they are doing it. It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.

This is the hallmark of a feminized Beta mindset – to believe that “guys being guys” is inherently aberrant. It’s something other guys do. I could go into detail about how men giving each other shit is an evolutionary (and useful) vestige of tribalism and how men would use this “challenging” to ensure the strength and survivability of the collective, but this will only grate against his ‘gender-as-social-construct’ belief.

Why do men think they’re so great? Because that’s the kind of men women love.

This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity. Risk taking, physical aggression (constructive and destructive) and physicality in general, ambition, team reliance and individualism are all part of this masculinity. That potential for violence scares the shit out of men like Kimmel, but that potential is also precisely what’s need for survival and success of a species.

Betas like Kimmel who grew up in fear of Alpha aggression instead of embracing and matching it directly, see bullying in every marginalized form of boys being boys, to say nothing of Men being Men, when they reach adulthood and still haven’t figured out how to relate to men and the masculine beyond what the easy answers feminization has provided for them. These are the men who’ll explain their feminine identification Game as being a personality issue, “I’ve always related to / better with women.” For feminized male apologists anything resembling an intrinsic understanding of masculinity is indistinguishable from Hypermasculinity.

Because of this embrace of feminine-primacy, the Professor is probably not the best equipped to educate men on issues of anger. As such, my guess is he cannot discern the difference between aggression born from anger and aggression as a vetting and honing mechanism of the male psychology.

Kimmel, presumes that men don’t want to participate in this vetting, but as always, want’s got nothing to do with it. It’s easy to characterize this vetting in the context of Bro Culture, but the fact of the matter is that it exists in every masculine subdomain from Frat Brothers and the football team to coders, gamers and 4Chan /b/rothers.

What’s “wrong” with the pickup seduction manuals is not so much that they treat women as objects, the means to get laid, notches on belts etc., and not as whole people. That’s pretty silly in the modern era.

Apparently Kimmel’s has yet to discover Tindr in this modern era. Someone ought to link Kimmel and Aunt Giggles to @Tinderfessions on Twitter – don’t say I didn’t warn you. It may be silly, but it’s reliable in the context of reality. If women have to be “warned” about this or that PUA tactic, it stands to reason said tactic will be effective. It also stands to reason the technique was based on a provable, intrinsically valid, female dynamic to be effective.

But what bothers me about these books is that they treat men as pathetic losers, utterly incapable of honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion. So they male-bash. They treat men as such losers that they have to be inauthentic game players in order to be successful with women. I have a much more sanguine view of men than that. I believe that when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships.

What if these pathetic losers could become ‘authentic’ Men by learning how women actually relate to them on every level; from sociological to psychological, from evolutionary perspectives to the underlying biology that motivates women’s behaviors not only sexually, but emotionally, pragmatically and sympathetically? Would they still be pathetic losers?

What if these men could be ‘authentic’ in their understanding the nature of women and how women solipsistically and subconsciously institute their own Game socially and psychologically to ensure optimizing hypergamy to their best benefit?

What if these men could “Just Get It” and leverage that understanding not only to improve their own lives, but also the lives of other men, their sons, their brothers, and the lives of the women they involve themselves with? Would they be pathetic losers then?

What if these men’s genuineness in honesty, conversation and emotion were the result of red pill truth and having the blinders removed that a feminized acculturation fitted them with for the better part of a lifetime? The nature of that honesty, conversation and emotion might be something quite different than what your own feminine conditioning would have you envision Professor Kimmel. So are they pathetic losers because their genuineness derives from the red pill, or are they genuine because they buy into what you and a feminine-centric culture tells them they should adopt and internalize in order for women to love them? In other words, what are you selling that’s any different?

I agree, if men could be honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships, but how a guy comes to being honest with himself after shedding his blue pill programming, how he learns women ‘actually’ communicate, and how he becomes ‘authentic’ after having internalized Game-awareness and red pill truth is a far different prospect than telling men to just be themselves and trust in the alleged rationalness, equalism and zero-sum goodness inherent in ‘most’ women today.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

160 comments on “The Apologists

  1. Rollo, agreed. Meself, I am a plumber, the jabbing happens on the job, in the wholesalers, in the work truck, etc. It is mens’ way of communicating. Leave the blubbery stuff to the wimminz.

  2. Re: hormones and scent.
    1) “High quality” men’s hormones do not differ significantly from “low quality” men’s hormones. Other things may be causing differences in odor, but it’s not hormones.
    2) Female’s hormones DO vary wildly through their cycle and DO cause very detectable changes in odors. These odors are very much more noticeable in the women’s crotch areas than anywhere else (and all the men are saying “Duh.”). FWIW pheromones are compounds that *females* produce to signal fertility. Not males; males are fertility embodied; nobody *wants* a fertile nerd male. .
    3) Additionally, fertile women produce very pleasing scents at the greasy area at the top of the spine (the base of the skull, where scalp hair is thickest), and the greasy area at the base of the spine near the cleft of the buttocks. Underarm odors are bacterial odors. Period.

  3. FWIW I bet Martie knows about the scent at the back of the head. I bet she didn’t know about the greasy spot at the base of the spine.

  4. Re: stench. I have no doubt that men are stinkier than women, and that the intensity of human odor is correlated with the intensity of stress in mice. I do have grave doubts whether it is advantageous for *male* mice to bother discriminating between men and women. Men’s feet are not that much bigger and/or stompier.

  5. Further off topic. I’ve had long, thick body hair since my preteen days. Yes, I was one of those guys with (some!) dark chest hair at age 12, and I still have to shave twice a day most days, to avoid scrubbing my wife’s face raw. And I am uncoincidentally quite smelly. But definitely not in a good way.

  6. Forgot to add to previous comment: in the case of the mice, I’m 100% certain that “similar to a woman” was merely “much less overall odor”. That is all.

  7. Rollo,

    “I’ve got a Bro Culture post in the works as a result of this conversation, however, I should point out that …”

    I agree with you, and I am looking forward to your post.

    My point, which I probably should have made clearer, is that the important distinction is between Bro Culture among those accepted as adequate, and Bro Culture directed at outcasts.

    For example, “male-exclusive forms of communication, testing, encouragement and shit talking” in the form of “oh look, here comes the little pussy who can only bench 300” is communication, bonding and encouragement.

    But taunting the “90 pound weakling” is counterproductive. Women own the patent on “just get it”, people with a big problem are often dealing with many problems, and piling on more shit is not a way to help.

    That monologue in my first comment is pretty close to what I said to someone I was trying to help. And that first step, “this is what you are doing”, turned out to be the biggest hurdle.

    His father had been expelled from the home, and he was also having to deal with a huge pile of unnecessary problems that had been manufactured by others.

    What he saw, as he looked out from that pile of crap, regarding himself, his potential, and other people, was not even close to what other people saw as they looked in at him.

    Once I got him to the point of seeing things differently, the rest was ridiculously easy. I just showed him what to do.

    This was something that nobody, not his missing father, not his nonexistent friends, not the fucking coaches whose job it was to do so, and certainly not the clique of “we are so special” athletes, had ever tried to do.

    I took him to an old old-school gym, which was without machines, camel toes in leotards, and Planet Fitness grunt alarms, lulz. All that it had were free weights and serious men. These men were not there to preen or posture, or act like those silly “tough guys” who are like women in that they seem to expect guaranteed limits on retaliation.

    The men at that gym were various blue collar types, some of whom had been in prison. They treated each other with the respect of cooperation, but also restraint, since they knew what they were capable of doing, and expected no less from others. They were there for a serious personal purpose, and not to prove anything to anyone.

    As I said, they were serious men. And yet they had much more genuine camaraderie than I have ever seen among the immature, the insecure, and the shallow.

    He went in there and focused on what he needed to do, pushing himself to his limits, while being quiet and civil, but not obsequious, to the others. The others started out being neutral, and they understood that there was no honor in belittling those who are weaker.

    After a few weeks, they started to accept him and, after a few months, he was fully “one of the guys”.

  8. Rollo,
    I find the compensatory or complementary immunity idea fascinating and I am of the same opinion that pheromones exist and matter. I am about to read the articles you linked, but before doing so here’s a story:

    Easter weekend we had friends and thier families over. A young old girl was among the people gathered. Right after church, but right before Easter lunch I went running.

    Before I showered and changed I was just standing in the living room talking. This girl came right up, she was not more than 1 foot away, and was standing there smelling me and looking almost like a mild daydream state.

    I always thought sweat was a turnoff for women, but as I have gotten older, it seems that our body “odor” may actually be invigorating to the opposite sex.

  9. Color me skeptical, or spritz me skeptical, that good looking guys just naturally smell better. This discussion has the aroma of the halo effect, deriving from the apex fallacy.

  10. Eon – great post and personal anecdote that elucidates the perspective. Agree with your paradigm. Without lending both the ‘respect of cooperation, but also restraint’, there’s an active disrespect present and that’s counterproductive. The absence of these basic ‘respects’ also tilts a male environment towards imbalance and ridicule-worthy pettiness (i.e. whether we actually ‘blame’ Incognito or Martin, it seems everyone agrees that situation made an unusually pitiful joke of locker room culture at a professional level.)

    Also a good pro tip re: being ‘quiet and civil, but not obsequious’. obviously no man who enters a ‘male space’ bragging obnoxiously or trampling existing personal boundaries in a try-hard display of faux-alphaness is going to garner respect. Neither will being a meek overly deferential pussy garner respect.

    I look forward to Rollo’s post because there are great insights and reminders that I find personally helpful. I work in an all-male dept within an otherwise typical corporate environment, and this content brings me back to after my brutal breakup with a live-in gf i earlier referenced – these guys all knew and liked my ex-gf – and also believed at some level that i should’ve put a ring on it like they all had – as they’re all married. during that period of time where they could see i was evidently down and out, i got some overt raw disrespect from 1 guy who’s actually been a friend of mine for 10 years, stemming from that dynamic. and i could’ve handled it better.

  11. @SteveH

    It took me a bit of contemplating and re-reading Rollo’s post before I could post a response

    The chief defense – the primary clarion call in striking down Kimmel’s argument – is *rooted* in espousing allegiance to a greater vision, to greater ideals than merely satiating one’s appetites in however destructive a manner one finds necessary.

    I have to disagree. Kimmel asserts that locker room “smack talk” is unbeneficial, and stems from peer pressure. Rollo’s counters by showing that it has an evolutionary basis, and can be beneficial. His argument does not “espouse allegiance to a greater vision,” though reading between the lines one could certainly infer that Rollo likely does “espouse allegiance to a greater vision.The argument he provides, however, is descriptive, not prescriptive (to echo Rollo’s own words in past comment threads). It does not say that men *ought* to engage in locker room style antics, it posits that locker room antics stem from evolutionary selection, and that they can be beneficial.

    On a personal level, I do see myself pursuing ends outside of just getting laid, but I am pursuing them for my own satisfaction. While it would certainly be a nice “add-on” if my actions benefited the greater society as a whole, I personally don’t care if they do anymore. Society has shown not only that it does not care about my personal well-being, but that it does not care about the personal well-being of men in general. In my mind, that means it forfeits any claim on the productive efforts of myself and other men. Therefore, it does not bother me on a philosophical level if other men decide to merely pursue the gratification of their base desires.

    I would certainly agree that there is both power and fulfillment in groups of men working together to achieve something greater than themselves…but incentives are required to achieve that. If you want other men to join you in an endeavor, then you must either build a sense of community that inspires these men to join you, or you must alter the structure of society so that it rewards them for such behaviors. Those with an intrinsic desire to achieve will already be pursuing “greatness,” so for those without that internal drive, external rewards are necessary.

  12. For the record, I have historically been somewhat luckier when *slightly* smelly, e.g. a morning after not showering the night before. And I contend that the slightness proves the lack of effect. I think it’s probably more important to smell “different” than “smelly”.

  13. Regardless of pheromones, I think the most significant effect of (excessive) masturbation is behavioral.

    I’m going to go on a little aside here just because this was a big event in my life and I owe a lot to this community, so I want to share it. I hadn’t gone on porn in about a month, and I hadn’t masturbated in a couple weeks, and the other night I gamed a girl for the first time in my life.

    She showed interest in me, which I’d normally ignore. I remembered to focus on her behavior instead of her words and to keep my frame, and then I just threw it on the table. Said I wasn’t looking for a relationship and that I wouldn’t put up with possessiveness, but if she could accept that and would want to hook up sometime, I’d be up for it. She said “definitely,” then I asked her what she was doing for the next few hours. She said now wasn’t a good time and maybe we could get together tomorrow. I kept pushing and pushing for that night, I could tell she was shit testing me, the more she said we should wait until tomorrow the more I pushed for tonight.

    And before I knew it I had her convinced, we were back in my room, I put some Motorhead on in the background, and the rest is history.

    I still can’t believe I did that. Was that really me? Personally I believe it’s a combination of reading this blog and the RM book every day, doing “faster EFT,” and the final push was cutting out porn and masturbation.

    Don’t know if it would’ve happened if I’d been going on porn and masturbating. I really do believe it defuses not only ambition, but natural instinct. The sexual desire just took over and it was a mix of pure instinct and what I’ve internalized from everything I’ve read here. Words were just coming out of my mouth and none of it felt fake — I meant every word I said, and I didn’t even have to think about what I was saying. So I ended up having a completely honest mutual sexual experience on my terms that I initiated myself, and it was great.

    It also made me realize how high of a pedestal I was putting intimacy on. It was fun, but the best feeling is the feeling of empowerment and independence — and I was able to have that experience because I was embracing empowerment and independence. I’m a big fan of “faster EFT” and I think that being able to acknowledge and come to peace with our emotions is an extremely important part of being a man.

    So that’s tangentially related to the ‘locker room’ debate. Here’s my take:

    Rollo’s mentioned how teaching PUA techniques to guys who haven’t truly changed inside is like giving dynamite to kids, and it’s true. The real and only aim we all should have as men is true, complete metamorphosis on a regular basis. For me, coming to terms with my past (growing up emotionally and physically abused and being socially isolated and sexually deprived almost my entire life), and taking responsibility for my peace of mind, is the current metamorphosis I’m going through.

    The biggest problem isn’t having vulnerabilities. It’s being too open about them. Instead of dumping all this emotional garbage on this girl (like I did to every other girl in my life previously), I chose to keep my personal struggles to myself and to focus on just having a fun one night stand with her.

    The hold women have over so many men isn’t sex. It’s the emotions and intimacy the men believe is attached to the sex. That’s why loving ourselves and taking responsibility for our own emotions and making ourselves and our peace the #1 priority in our lives is the best safeguard we have.

    I think sarcasm and teasing can be helpful by toughening kids up. Get them used to not taking things so seriously. But it’s equally important to not run away from emotions. It isn’t weak to have vulnerable feelings. The key is to be able to cope with them on your own, while realizing at the same time that coping with them on your own does NOT mean that your interactions and relationships with other people have to suffer — in fact, it makes their potential to be better far greater.

    I have struggled tremendously in my life with psychological/emotional problems and we have to acknowledge that these things exist and have to be dealt with. There’s no escaping it, and some kids like me that grew up in abusive households can take locker room teasing and bullying as traumatic experiences. I have almost committed suicide more times in my life than I can remember. Men will feel better about themselves when they feel emotional empowerment and control and independence by facing themselves head on and acknowledging all the pain they’re in while understanding that simply having that pain does not emasculate them.

    So yeah…scent. I use essential oils personally. I’m into spiritual stuff so it all started with frankincense and myrrh. That’s all I have to say about that for now :p

  14. Hey Softek – awesome! Applauding your success out loud over here. Sounds like a great night all around, and a key personal breakthrough. Big moment right there. Excellent.

  15. @ Steve H

    Thanks, I really appreciate it. I don’t want to let it get to my head and my main focus is making a habit out of this and living the way I really want to, but a little celebration is okay 🙂

  16. @Softek, yes behavioral. re: “I hadn’t masturbated in a couple weeks, and the other night I gamed a girl for the first time in my life.”
    Although I don’t read Roosh, he was very recently as quoted as nowadays waiting ten days to build up enough Thirst to bother picking up women.

  17. Softek, it is great to hear about your breakthrough and my utmost congratulations to you for climbing over the hurdle of accepting yourself. Very happy to hear your news and it will only get better from here.

  18. @jf12

    That sounds about right. I also realized after that experience that my compulsive masturbation has been a result of anxiety because of isolation and a complete lack of options. If I really felt confident that I could go out and get a girl to have sex with whenever I wanted to, I would probably end up craving it a lot less. I actually felt satisfied and calm after last night.

    @ New Yorker

    Thanks, I appreciate it! I never had any friends — or anyone at all — in my life who respected my desire to have sex and tried to help me rationalize it, work through it and make it happen. No support at all in that area of my life until I found this blog. It means a lot to me to be able to share this here and get support and congratulations.

  19. Red pill/game/manhood…you name it, should be the battle for knowledge and freedom. But knowledge has to be applied. If we have honest knowledge about women and hyperagmy then…how could we enter into senseless slavery ..aka..marriage? You would not enter into serious and dangerous business with inherently disloyal (hypergamy) creature, would you???

    Yet we have many married men, endlessy writing about this mythical “game”, knowledge, feminine imperative, or trying to discuss this topic with women. So – how they apply this knowledge in their own life? Even many game “gurus” like mystery, de angelo, tyler durden, etc. end with bastards from, or married to, under/average bar women.

    So the question is not “what women want” – we already know it – she wants her slave, that will sacrifice his very life for her, work for her, make her children and generally provide her with everything she wants, otherwise she would dump him, robbing him of his very property in the process. Married men know better that they are able to cohabite with their women more or less peacefully, only as long as they are doing precisely what she wants. And she excells in her game, indeed..producing and ruling millions of slaves every fucking day.

    The question is “what do men want”??? What will they do with all those informations about women? Why do they seek the knowledge about women in the frist place? I am afraid that when we give this question a honest answer, it would be something like ” to find goood girl, have a relationship with her, have family….” aka – to be another poor sucker in the marriage market..

    Why are we still blabbing about this “honest, direct approach” or apologizing ourselves for every little trick we employ? Why are we trying to explain our behaviour to women – revealing every little bit of our strategy to them???? Women use every trick to subdue and rule the male, they are indirect, covert, using every advantage they have…..and they have enough sense not to reveal their strategy to male. They control infomations about this strategy to confuse male…and prevent detection of their own game.

    We should use those informations about women to cure us of our emotions of slave, our silly romantic soul…in order to be able to see clearly, to obtain empire of ourselves and to rule women as they have to be ruled. DO NOT TRY TO EXPLAITN THEM ANYTHING … master your emotions and master women. Rule them or be ruled!

  20. gregg makes a number of on-topic points. “Married men know better that they are able to cohabite with their women more or less peacefully, only as long as they are doing precisely what she wants.” harking back to “Why am I so similar to other men?”

  21. @Softek, you may still wrongly feel the first one is a fluke, or wrongly that you have to repeat your procedure for it to work. After the third or fourth success, you may notice that nothing else matters to pickup sucess except you good-humoredly pushing to make it sexual (i.e. “intimate”) quickly.

  22. gregg – salient points. i for one fully acknowledge that men are the true romantics – that i am in fact a true romantic – no matter how feminine that may sound. and i don’t apologize for my romanticism.

    in the rush to be crowned king alpha, logically we would deny and deflect the parts of our own inherent nature which prevailing social mores would deem expressly not-alpha.

    perhaps this is why the ‘sigma’ archetype has always appealed far more to me; although admittedly, this too could well be in deference to the Cathedral definitions of masculinity that, at my best, I indifferently sneer at…

  23. Re: applied knowledge, from Badger. “Then consider going out with her and chatting with other women and not hiding the fact that other girls are into you”. This is what works.

  24. “For all their chatter about self-esteem, these women are possessed of a vapid and amorphous insecurity that motivates a complete avoidance of intimacy and emotional contact for the purpose of incubating their own emotional immaturity. The dude can’t care, because if the dude cares, then they might feel obligated to care as well, and they can’t have that.”

    Is this a true statement?

  25. Nathan – in my experience that statement is utterly true of women without fathers (unless he died after some period of being a good father) and women with absent/abusive fathers. It’s uniformly true, to a woman (maybe two). Excellent piece – thanks to Rollo for the link.

  26. steve H is, I fear, deep in the Madonna/Whore rabbit-hole and desperately needs his life to be about something bigger while assuaging his ego that his momma and sisters were somehow above the fracas.

    they weren’t dude.

    i think you need to look at intersexual relationships more like husbandry. get down closer to the ground where the bugs and slithery things live and pull the down the pedestal you seem to be putting women and then because you so identify with the FI,yourself.

    you’re a caricature to most of us here but i truly hope you can learn, for you.

  27. Ah yes, Tilikum. Here come the wildly speculative (falsely) emasculating canards of pure self-loathing projection. Here’s one problem with that: it’s distinctly feminine to believe in your magical intuitive power to psychically divine data about a complete stranger. I don’t even have sisters.

    What threatens men who hurl these concocted-out-of-thin-air invectives at me? I can only suppose it is my ideological consistency, but that is merely a guess. It is a guess because I don’t know, and I don’t attribute any feminine psychic divination capabilities unto myself.

    Thanks for the half-well-wish at the end though. I think.

  28. “They treat men as such losers that they have to be inauthentic game players in order to be successful with women”

    The aforementioned quote beautifully exposes not only the author’s self-loathing, but his inauthentic misdirected attempt at ‘helping’ men become ‘better’. In one sentence he manages to :

    – Imply that men who seek alternative strategies (often after experiencing much pain, resentment and loss concerning life, women and love) are losers.

    – People who do play the game, and play it successfully are in actuality, ‘inauthentic’. Not only does he ignore the validity of such strategies, he deems it necessary to label player’s as fakers and liars, not worthy of the goals they achieve. A standard ‘hate the player’ complex.

    Finally, most insulting of all, he claims that “when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships”.

    [sarcasm] Yes, I’m sure we could all learn so much from his shaming tactics, invalidation and underhanded insults. [/sarcasm]. His preferred method of communication speaks for itself.

    It’s clear that he doesn’t give even two Sh*ts about men, much less understand our motivations and desires.

    Beware men such as these, they will drag you to the bottom no matter what the subject matter.

  29. Pingback: Male Space |
  30. Falling in love is inherently dangerous for a woman. If she does fall in love she will do ANYTHING for her man. See the Las Vegas shooter and his girlfriend. Or hookers and pimps.

  31. While looking for info on recharging my car’s ac, I came across this video of a girl pole dancing on a tv show Ukraine’s Got Talent.
    This guy’s comment and the reaction to it made me think of this post.

  32. Okay, I thought it would just show as a link. But go to what mistervanderveer says and the responses to it.

  33. water cannon boy
    July 12th, 2014 at 4:21 am

    Had the woman been costumed differently and been in a gymnastics competition….

    I was impressed by her performance. What did I get out of the comments? “Slut” = out of my league. Put down required to explain her lack of interest in me.

  34. Researched Men’s Studies on Google. In 2017, Michael Kimmel is launching a Master’s Degree in Masculine Studies’ at Stonybrook.

    “We want to make the study of masculinity specific within the frameworks that have already been worked out by gender studies,” he says.

    As expected, it’s Feminine Imperative goods rebranded as Masculine Studies to market male prospective students. Curious to see if there will be a demand for prospective students to pay for the academia female definition of 21st century masculinity.

    A complementarity teaching point of view can only come to academic spotlight if the US came out of a crisis similar to the crisis discussed in The War Brides of Europe. A societal shift in lack of safety and a realization men aren’t protecting society would reinforce masculinity into education and culture.

    This leads to the final question. Will Kimmel’s Masculine Studies course catalog label Open Cuckoldry a requirement or elective?

  35. “Will Kimmel’s Masculine Studies course catalog label Open Cuckoldry a requirement or elective?”

    Either way, I’m sure it will be a practicum.

  36. Masculinity = a man going off to war. Killing a couple dozen of the enemy, then getting his legs blown off by a landmine. Returns home to blighty to recuperate before going off to run a marathon.

    Physically imposing bully uses wimp to make himself feel better about his dyslexia. Wimp has enough, buys gun and ends the bully.
    Is the wimp more masculine now?
    Or is it a case of once a wimp always a wimp?

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: