Male Authority – Be a “Man”

How women and a feminine-primary social order control men by reserving the title of “manhood” for men who comply with female primacy.

In the Manosphere we often discuss the dynamic of men holding the burden of 100% responsibility yet are conferred 0% authority when it comes to intersexual relationships. This didn’t used to be the case. There was a kind of default authority imbued in men that was part of simply being a male under the old social contract. A lot of western societies still presumes this is the case in fact. It’s one reason popular culture presumes such a thing as ‘male privilege‘ exists today. They may even have a case with respect to the Old Set of Books; being a “man” inferred that a male had some degree of power, authority and decision making capacity over the course his life would take, as well as the lives of any women or children or extended family members who were dependent upon him being a “man”.

Responsibility is what defines men to this day, but the utility in this being hammered home into the psyches of men has become something the Feminine Imperative has found very useful in consolidating power in the hands of women. We’re ceaselessly told that responsibility is something men need to assume, but under the old set of books the incentive for a man assuming that responsibility came with a commensurate portion of authority (power). That was what used to earn a man the title of “manhood”; men were expected to possess the competency to produce surplus resources, enough to ensure the security and survival of his immediate and extended family, and then his tribe, his clan, his nation, etc. We still call this “being a productive member of society”, but now the incentives of a default authority that made assuming that responsibility a reasonable exchange have been stripped away along with all the grounding that a family name or tribal identity used to mean to men. In their place is all the same expectation of responsibility, but not even the pretense of male authority that stems from it.

In prior posts I’ve defined power thusly:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

How many men today have real power; power to direct the course of their own lives? As we commit to various aspects of life, family, business, the military, a woman, we incrementally exchange power for responsibility. Wealth often enforces will, but unless we can be one of the moneyed outliers in life there is no true authority granted to men now in exchange for that responsibility. A man who would even presume to use an authority that might still be implied in these exchanges is labeled a tyrant; a vestige of a Patriarchy that’s now painted as a net negative to society. And that’s just the societal level. In a legal sense that man has no authority with respect to his power over virtually every aspect of his interactions with women or a wife. A gynocentric social order’s prime directive has been to remove all vested male authority and by extension almost all power the man has to dierct the course of his own life.

There are numerous ways a feminine-primary social order removes the teeth from male authority today. First and foremost is the social pretense of blank-slate equalism. A default presumption that men and women are coequal agents in every aspect – physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual – is the cover story necessary to remove an authority that was based on the conventional differences between the sexes. To the blank-slate equalist gender is a social construct, but gender is only the starting point for a social constructionist belief set. Social constructionism is a necessary foundation upon which blank-slate equalism is built, but ultimately it’s a means of control. By denying each sex its innate differences social constructionism denies men their innate advantages and strengths. Once this became the normalized social convention it was a simple step to remove male authority.

In order to destroy that authority it was necessary to destroy men’s grounding in the identity of their own gender. The first step was to deliberately confuse men about the evolved nature of conventional masculinity. Thus, masculinity became subjective. Never has the idea of being a ‘man’ more reviled, obfuscated, blurred, ridiculed, demonized and loathed by men themselves. Wait for the “masculinity is toxic” articles to follow the next mass shooting incident. The worst shame, the worst clichéd vitriol, will come from male authors stepping up to apologize to women on behalf of all men for the violent ignorance of what they think is a learned toxic masculinity. It’s these Vichy men who’ve been taught that gender is a social construct, so there’s really no definitive answer to what makes a man a Man. These ‘men’ who’ve been conditioned in their feminine-primary upbringing who are so confused or gender-loathing with respect to masculinity that they feel compelled to believe they speak for all of ‘mankind’ when they apologize for all of us.

Blank-Slate Equals

But none of this works unless men and women are blank-slate equals. One reason a guy like James Damore is hammered down and erased with such zealotry for suggesting men and women are inherently different is because so much of gynocentrism rides on the social belief in the blank-slate. What’s offensive about it isn’t the idea that men and women might be prone to innately different strengths or weaknesses so much as it’s about the entire system scaffolded by the falsity of equalism.

You see, the confusion, the subjectification of masculinity has a design underneath it. This confusion is a means of control; a means of not just denying men authority, but to systematically remove anything inherently male from the whole system. I’ve detailed this removing the man in prior essays so I wont dig into it here, but it’s a means of control in an age when men are expected to know their utility and their role in women’s sexual and life strategies.

As we progress towards a social order based on a consolidated gynocracy it becomes more important that men not only be confused about masculinity, but also that men be dispersed and isolated. Men who would challenge this social order must be made into suspects and the suspicious of an “outdated masculinity” – a masculinity that pretends to be about innate authority based on evolved gender differences. Male Spaces must be outlawed, ostensibly for the misogyny they will surely lead to, but actually because men gathered together as men is a threat to a gynocentric power base. This is why the Manosphere and events like the 21 Conventions are so egregious to the feminine-primary social order; they connect men and their experiences about women. So men must be taught to be suspicious of each other. While masculinity might be loathed or confused, men gathered together can only mean homosexuality – because what other purpose could men exclusively gather for other than to fuck one another?

This is where the facade of blank-slate equalism conveniently slips when it suits the purpose of gynocentrism. Men and women can be innately different, but only on the occasions when innate differences would prove that men are violent, abusive, potential rapists, sex addicts or incorrigible homosexuals. On those occasions, the occasions when it serves the Feminine Imperative, women will gladly agree that Boys will be Boys and men are naturally beasts. Through this caveat in the blank-slate society men can be justifiably hated for being men if only because some nebulous male-chauvinist ‘society’ taught them to be so. So the clichés and the old lies get perpetuated because only a belief in the ‘masculinity-is-toxic’ narrative can justify teaching the next generation of boys to hate their own sex and sustain a gynocracy.

Men must be taught to hate themselves for their maleness. Thus, a form of institutionalized gaslighting of men about the nature of masculinity became necessary, and it is primarily men who sustain it. When men are conditioned to be both gender loathing and suspicious of the worst aspects of ‘masculinity’ in other men the result is a self-perpetuating cycle of policing ones thoughts while policing the thoughts of other men. There’s a default belief that this policing is part of identifying with the feminine that will make these Vichy Males more attractive to women of the gynocracy.

But what makes a man a Man in this social order?

As we’ve moved from a blank-slate basis of gender to an ambiguous, subjective definition of what a man is the Feminine Imperative has found a utility in assigning the title of ‘manhood’ to whichever man best exemplifies this utility to the gynocentric social order. In other words, the more a man meets the shifting needs of women the likelier he is to merit the title of being a “man” or a “real man”. In fact we hear this last one all the time in the memes that serve the Feminine Imperative. A “real man” does [insert whatever serves women’s long term sexual strategy] and Betas gleefully retweet it to prove their quality. In our feminine-correct paradigm, the authority that was inherent in masculinity which allowed men to declare what qualities make a ‘man’ has been casually assumed by women to be tossed around as whim and necessity makes convenient.

In Rites of Passage I elaborated on how, to an older conventional masculinity, Manhood was something merited and conferred onto a boy by his adult male peers. There were rites of passage, rituals, tests and qualifiers that transitioned boys into the world of men. This was a part of his grounding in a tribal belonging that used to at least somewhat direct his purpose in life. To be a ‘Man’ was to be a part of a sum whole – E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one. It was the collective of men who conferred manhood onto another. How this actually played out in real life and the integrity of that collective was always particular to the character of the tribe, but prior to the rise of gynocentrism conferring manhood on an individual was something unique to masculinity.

Today, the Feminine Imperative’s efforts to disempower and subdue men means destroying the legitimacy of the tribal aspects of all this. As I mentioned earlier, men gathering together, and pretending to authority is something threatening to a gynocentric power structure. Destroying, shaming, ridiculing, etc. the whole of men, keeping them dispersed and isolated, meant usurping the authority men had in assigning ‘manhood’ to one another.

Aspects of the old masculine social order, including men’s natural inclinations towards duty and honor amongst each other, have always been dynamics that could be turned to the uses of the Feminine Imperative.

From The Honor System:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

In a gynocentric social order both the concept of honor and masculine responsibility is set by whatever is ‘correct’ for feminine utility. If that means only ‘real men‘ do something to satisfy women’s imperatives, it implies that men who don’t are ‘false men’. Those men are outside the tribe called ‘men’ as well as being unacceptable for reproduction, intimacy and love.

It also implies that only women have the authority to bestow ‘Manhood’ on men, and then only for performing specific behaviors or believing correct beliefs as set by womankind. It’s as if women uniquely hold the ‘medal of manhood‘ to give exclusively to men who can qualify for her wanton needs. The authority men used to claim innate legitimacy of in the past is now only legitimate when a woman wields it.

Men need to retake this authority and own it as is their birthright once again. I realize that sounds kind of LARPy but it’s the best way I can put it. One thing the Red Pill has made men aware of is the social machinations of the Feminine Imperative. Amongst Traditional Conservative ‘thought leaders’ a popular idea is that we find ourselves in the intersexual conditions we do today because men have dropped the ball. Men have shirked their manly responsibilities and women are the way they are because not enough men care to correct women’s behaviors. This argument fails on two counts. The first is that it presumes women bear no moral or behavioral agency and as such cannot be blamed for their own participation in our social condition. This presumption, I should add, is actually indicative of exactly the manipulation of honor I mentioned above.

And secondly, more importantly, it presumes men hold an authority they simply don’t have. Even claiming masculine authority would smack of misogyny today. Churchy, moralists pretend that men have a headship / authority that our gynocentric social order empirically contradicts. To paraphrase the MGTOWs, your headship counts for shit when all a woman has to do is call 911 and police will physically remove what you think is your authority from the family home, no questions asked. This is a result of the Duluth Model of Feminism which I’ll be covering in an upcoming part of this series on Male Authority, but the short version is feminism’s design is to remove men, maleness, masculinity from our social consciousness and this begins and ends with which gender has an enforceable authority.

There are guys who’ll challenge this idea of female authority. Red Pill thought emphasizes men disconnecting their sense of identity from a female-correct paradigm. In my own work I’ve stressed that the most important aspect of Red Pill awareness is men making themselves their Mental Point of Origin and this necessitates a realigning of oneself as his first priority. It’s easy to make declarations about how your self-worth begins and ends with you and that no woman can influence that image, and in a way that seems liberating. Like you’re taking at least that much authority back for yourself. But it’s another thing entirely to wrestle with a social order that’s now founded on a consolidated female-primary authority.

In the coming series I’ll get more into this question as well as what men can do to take back the authority of assigning manhood. Thanks for reading, more to come.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

348 comments on “Male Authority – Be a “Man”

  1. “He was willing to impose dignitaryand possibly other harms on her. To claim that, say, disguising the truth inthe form of hiding blemishes with makeup is of similar moral substance as this type of behavior defies the internal compass of most members of society.”

    Dignitary Harms?

    Be like most members of Society?

    I call B.S. on that.

    Merely Power Playing.

    Sex is always with the woman in a defensive crouch. Good sex is when she is not in power. She can’t have it both ways. Be in power and logically reason vs. be anxious and submit. She will never submit with logical reservations. She has to submit because of desire. For her own good. For her to enjoy.

    For everyone’s good.

    Put a million safety issues on it? Good luck with That.

  2. One disclaimer deserves another:

    For a few weeks when I was in college, I used to go clubbing with my cousin’s new 750L and 400 dollars wrapped around a stack of cut newspaper to look like a crazy knot of cash. I made sure I’d pull up while chicks were lined up to get in, I’d get out and say some superfluous shit to the doorman, and leave to come back later.

    When I came back and entered the club, like clockwork bitches would be like ” hello!!” as soon as I walked in. They’d keep ” bumping into me ” and apologizing then starting up conversation, hair flipping, eye batting, arm rubbing.

    It was really very silly. No matter what I said, they’d laugh and laugh and laugh. Lotta downshirt exposing and the like.

    I felt ridiculous. Like walking into a room filled with mice while covered in cheese.

    Wrong frame.

  3. Wait, that sounded stupid. She can be in power and give a good blow job, reverse cowgirl and then get rear endend because she was topping from the bottom. and fuck the hell out of her guy.

    What was I thinking? Maybe I haven’t watched porn in a while….

    Scratch that comment at 5:27.

  4. Don’t know what the trend is now, but back in the days when I was more likely to be rubbing elbows, the most popular car among wealthy people was the tan Dodge Aries.

  5. I think we (teenagers) used to drive a Plymouth Reliant back in the 70’s. (UMC Parent’s extra cars we used to drive to high school.) It used to stall all the time when accelerating from a stop light. I can’t remember if it was the exhaust gas re-circulation valve or not. It wasn’t fun to stall.

  6. From that article, for the pedestalizers here:

    ““As I passed George Stephanopoulos’s office, I kind of looked into the open doorway,” she said. “And Bill happened to be standing there. And he motioned me in — I don’t think my heart had ever beat that fast.”


    Lesson – be The Boom…

  7. Well of course Monica flashed Slick Willie. All snark aside, she was the kind of gal many of us saw in high school, one look and you just knew she was trouble. DTF for the right guy(s) but a handful to manage before and after, flaky, capricious, dangerous, a bit mad.

    Since no one else has said it I will: wanna talk about an Alpha widow? She’s it. She still pines for him. Everything she’s saying since she got famous up to now makes sense knowing that fact.

    She knew full well Slick Willie was a horndog, so did his staff. Ironically it was the government shutdown that made it possible for her to get at him. The white house staffers who were steering her away from him got furloughed and weren’t there to stop her. THEY knew she was trouble.

    Capt. Obvious cries from the depths of Cthulu’s palace in R’leyh: we have had no shortage of horndogs in the WH: Harding, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, the current God Emperor. Some notable Exceptions including but not limited to the fastidious Harry Truman, who barked angrily when an attaché offered to procure him a lady companion during a European trip.

  8. First thought:
    When all masculinity is declared toxic, only toxic masculine men will remain. Those will convert ever more betas because they grant exterior alpha attributes. (Aka your average working Joe transforms intoman exterior alpha just by wearing a Taliban scarf or a SS uniform – just ask the old French ex-HBs about that one🙄)

    The strongest of the toxic groups (really strong aka able to exert power as defined by Weber) first slowly, then increasingly faster takes over the bedrooms/baby cribs, then the streets, the city quarters and then the whole culture.

    Hypergamy is first satiated and then supressed until those men get weak and the cycle starts again.

    Simple logic really.
    Whether this “toxicity” (?) takes the proto-forms of mgtow-like behaviour (extreme egoism, withdrawing, hoarding your stuff, denying attention/ beta behaviour), playerism (PUA as extended lifestyle), aggression (various radical and fun ideologies/sub-cultures are up for offer) or plain old hedonism as a lifestyle (hipsters, working like a women, focus on the self in all matters) does not matter. Because soon, biology finds a way to form social conventions/ mindsets to let young, virile men fuck hot chicks, whether those chicks want to or not. (Most of them want to but say they dont like it)

    Sooooo….drink deep from the bad evil toxic men-well…good things happen when you do 😁

  9. @kfg

    “… but the normalcy bias i was referencing was faith in the ability of the US to actually pay it’s debts…”

    When it can’t anymore, it becomes an irrelevancy. You don’t have to fight it, you can just ignore it.

    been thinking about this some more… (and that’s always interesting…lol)… that^^^ is the definition of normalcy bias…lol… and you’re right… the ‘just ignore it’ will continue… right up until you can’t…lol

    and it seems that the ‘markets’ (ie computer trading algos…lol) read TRM comments…lol


    at some point, even the fed won’t be able to ‘paper over’ the issues inhering in the system of debt-based economy… it’s already ‘down’ some 9+ trillion in off-books emergency bandaid ‘stick saves’…lol

    good luck!

  10. Modern world adventures from the big city.

    Man and his “husband” go to NYC spa for massage and facial, man is shocked when male masseuse works on his butt way too much. Legal hijinks follow.

    This matters why? Well, when people say “Eh, no way that crazy law professor’s idea of suing men for catfishing on Tinder could really happen” I look around at lawsuits already filed…

  11. When the FG’s budget starts to stall, it will likely start reducing aid to the states, which will mean that the states won’t have to enforce federal compliance, which will mean a shift of power and freedom to the citizenry.

  12. The market can remain irrational longer than most entities can remain solvent.
    Fighting the Fed is a losing proposition.
    Just saying.

  13. “Monica Lewinsky admits her 22 year old self flashed some panty at Bill Clinton because, well, she wanted to. ”

    they wears thongs for a purpose

    when she shows you, it’s on

    just make sure that purpose is siimply your delight

    because women usually have ulterior motives for trading their pussy (think slick willy would take that one back if he could?)

    always good to ask, “how does she benefit?”

    if it’s in any other way besides just keeping my attention, pause and reevaluate

  14. @AR

    The market can remain irrational longer than most entities can remain solvent.
    Fighting the Fed is a losing proposition.
    Just saying.

    true enough…lol… on an individual entity level… one of which is the fed itself…lol

    but the market itself as a whole is subject to its own rules of math… and when the critical mass number of those individual entities are no longer able to ‘push on their strings’ bc of that math… leading to the ‘market’s’ aggregated insolvency… the fed will not be able to ‘stick save’ THAT situ…

    god luck!

  15. lol…

    “good luck!”

    also, forgot to add… THAT^^^ (meltdown analysis) is just a systemic risk inhering in the system…

    good luck!

  16. lol…

    let’s try that again…

    “good luck!”

    and also, that^^^ (meltdown analysis) is just systemic risk that inhers in the system…

    good luck!

  17. @habd

    A bug on a leaf floating down a river looks around and says “Sure is a lot of water…”.
    What does the bug’s opinion matter?Why waste time with a bug?

    If you aren’t providing a clear action item, like someone in 2007 saying “Short the house builders and Countrywide! Short Lehman!”, then you’re just blackpilling and that’s frankly boring. Look at the 200 SMA vs. 50 SMA for NFLX…that’s more interesting.

    Got point?

  18. Guys, I’m trying out a new comment/discussion plug in. Tell me how you like it.

    You can finally edit your posts now.

    I’ll also be experimenting with a new WordPress theme soon. Please pardon my mess when I do. Thanks

  19. @HABD

    Another interesting piece of the normalcy bias is the media input into what is normal,fiction becomes felt as fact until one day we wake up to that fiction became a true story and we just accept it as normal. Most people can see there is something amiss and don’t know what to do other than what they have been normalized to do with the new twist.

    I would have to agree with @kfg that the government will fade out or in as the case may be and demographics dictate,possibly martial law to keep some inner city in control with a touch of freeforall in the gated and rural communities. Todays youth won’t support big govt. It takes more than 1/2 the populace to support the other 1/2 that is guarding them.

    The new world order totalitarian looks like a boycot round robin for control ,where the survivors suckup or go reniassance , still the lack of loyal support by top producers will be the sycophants final demise.

  20. 1) Oxford Dictionary names “toxic” as word of the year for 2018. As in toxic you-know-what.

    2) Rugby posting Dio? Even walawala’s gotta be OK with that!

  21. “Egalitarians murder missionary on sight.”

    Or,bible thumping attention whore’s short term goals become long term, as unpolluted remote tribe dodges bullet by delivering ass full of arrows.

  22. In strong defense of their national borders.

    My spin relates to previous conversations here about primitive egalitarian societies being peaceful and sexually free where a PUA with solid game could have his way.

  23. Or entire world stayed from judgment by Sentinelese tribe.

    “An American man has been killed on a remote island by hunter-gatherers from the Sentinelese community, believed to be the last pre-Neolithic tribe who have avoided contact with the outside world for the past 60,000 years.”

    Mathew 24:14
    ‘And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.’

  24. “My spin relates to previous conversations here about primitive egalitarian societies being peaceful and sexually free where a PUA with solid game could have his way.”

    Or not. Sarcasm duly noted.

  25. The natives of North Sentinal island are obviously reactionary anti-globalists.
    Clearly they require more education.

  26. “We still call this “being a productive member of society”, but now the incentives of a default authority that made assuming that responsibility a reasonable exchange have been stripped away along with all the grounding that a family name or tribal identity used to mean to men. In their place is all the same expectation of responsibility, but not even the pretense of male authority that stems from it.”

    I’d be curious to know if you think that women are now enjoying this grounding incentive that a family name or tribal identity used to provide to men. Because they’re not. Children are for the most part still bearing their father’s name, although it is now possible to give them their mother’s name. The death of the tribal identity has nothing to do with sex or gender and everything to do with the rise of individualism and consumerism.

    Yet for some reason you seem to think that those things are any less important to a woman. You seem to think that because women historically did not mean much with regard to lineage or tribal identity, that they never cared about it. Back in the old days, a man’s household wasn’t much without a woman to take care of it. The woman had most of the responsibilities and she had no choice but to take on those responsibilities. What did she get for it? Not even a thanks, because it was expected of her. She didn’t have the luxury of forging her own identity. She had little of the authority and little of the power that you seem to think should come as incentives for taking up such responsibilities. Worse, her role in the family was despised. The idea that a man should ever be seen stooping down to take a share of those womanly responsibilities was met with shame and outrage. You should have seen those anti-suffrage propaganda posters that were running back then, depicting the “horrors” of a man having to take care of the household while the woman went out to vote, that made sure to drive home how shameful it would be for a man to find himself in that situation. Thankfully now, it is socially acceptable and expected for men and women to both take a fair share of those responsibilities.

    However, it seems like what you are saying is that for some men, this is just too much to ask. Yet, on the whole, in practice that incentive/responsibility ratio is still skewed toward being advantageous to men. It is still possible for a man today to find a wife who will take care of the household, raise the family, as well as hold a job while all the man has to do is hold a job and provide money for his family. The wife will probably not be happy about it, but it still happens and in the end, she works 16 hours a day, while the man works 8. Yet you’re saying that a man in such a situation is not getting the rewards of power and authority that he deserves. So what is the message that you’re really sending here? To me it sounds like the message you’re sending is that real manliness is needing more incentives than a women to take on less that one’s fair share of responsibilities. How is that good? Those you mock and who you call “betas” for retweeting “real man does x” memes because they celebrate taking one’s fair share of responsibilities, at least have honor and pride. You don’t. What I see here is a man crying about losing benefits that were never rightfully his in the first place and who is trying to convince himself and others otherwise.

    “By denying each sex its innate differences social constructionism denies men their innate advantages and strengths. Once this became the normalized social convention it was a simple step to remove male authority.”

    I also see a self-titled “rational man” making a whole lot of assumptions about what matters or doesn’t matter to women’s identity by making appeals to tradition that he tries to pass off as biological determinism in an act of complete intellectual dishonesty. Women have reclaimed what was theirs ; freedom to choose who they are, what they are and their place in society. It is a right that men used to reserve to men. If men based their entire identity on women not having these same rights, then your loss of identity is entirely your fault. As in every system, when the balance of something is restored, one of the sides loses what wasn’t rightfully theirs. Maybe you shouldn’t have based your identity on something that wasn’t yours in the first place.

    I also see a man who is resentful that his identity as a man cannot be based simply on his ability to provide for the family anymore, since women are now self-sufficient and are able to do that. Now men are forced to be more than “able to provide” to be of interest to women and you clearly resent that, seeing as you despise “betas” for being proud of being able to do just that. All I can say to this is tough luck. The only way this is going to change is if women become dependant again and the only way this is going to change is if we return to a patriarchal society where men have the power to deny women their freedom. This is hopefully not going to happen. You will have to find something else to base your identity on.

    You feel inadequate. But just because you do doesn’t mean other men should too.

  27. I can see that you have many, many deep thoughts. These would be great thoughts for detailed exploration at your blog. Please post the URL to your ton of thoughts so we can all share! Byeeee!

  28. I still like the art work , using Men’s heads for a chopping block. Basically what female commenters do.

    On the lighter side back in my school years I phoned this chic I was having romantic delusions about . Her dad answered the phone then he called out ” HEY WOODENHEAD IT’S FOR YOU”. Smart man helped me to get his daughter off the pedestal.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: