"Listeners of this show are by definition podcast listeners..." I rarely listen to podcasts except when a topic comes up that I find irresistible. This was one.
This was a really great discussion. I am simultaneously fascinated and repelled by the cultural phenomenon called "The Manosphere." To me it is just another manifestation of the same dynamics that drive the rest of the antisocial "influencer" culture.
Yesterday I watched the recent documentary by Louis Theroux "Inside the Manosphere" and the thing I took away matched up with a lot of your points. I look at these influencers who are sculpted in body and embodying the libidinous freedom of the adolescent male. They are manscaped and obsessed with their looks to a degree that when I was a kid we would have thought them gay. The Tate Brothers look like they just walked off a fashion week runway.
There is a certain homoerotic thread that runs through all of it. There is also a thread of self hatred demanding to be comforted. If you don't love me I will burn the house down. In all of these influencers on constant factor was absent fatherhood. Women are at once their saviors and also nothing but masturbation machines who exist only for their use.
I was raised in rural America we knew what being a man meant. It meant getting a job and perhaps a career. It meant working to support your family so that the next generation could go forward to find their own flourishing. It meant being a stand up person who could be trusted by others in the community. That is what defined masculinity for us. No cosplay required. These are the "lost boys" of the urban and suburban cultural wasteland.
These influencers are about getting rich without having to do real work. Monetizing edgy behavior is nothing new. Their self obsession is the exact opposite of masculinity. They have a posse of sycophants and hangers on who either are or wannabe influencers themselves. They are building a brand built on sand.
And as I watch them strutting and posing I am reminded of the song by Dire Straits:
"Oh, that ain't workin', that's the way you do it
Get your money for nothing, get your chicks for free..."
Do you remember the Harris-Walz campaign ad from last year? You can still find it on You Tube. It's title is "Are You Man Enough?" Man enough, that is, to vote for a woman. Frankly, yes, I am man enough to vote for a woman and I have. The ad, though, shows male models doing things like working on a motorcycle, lifting weights, standing next to a horse, and saying things like "I braid my daughter's hair", "I'm not afraid of women", and "Think I'm afraid to rebuild a carbuetor? I eat carburetors for breakfast!" It was the cringiest political ad since Michael Dukakis rode a tank. The campaign ad told me that the only reason I might not vote for Kamala Harris is that I harbor an unmanly, neurotic fear of women. Her policies were identical to those of an ineffective, unpopular President, but the ad told me I was just afraid of women. Why would the ad agency write an ad like that, so contemptuous of men? Because that is what they actually think of the male sex.
Michael Dukakis did not make an ad of his ride in the tank and the helmet was required for the ride he was taking. That was a photo-op gone wrong not unreminiscent of the Kathy Griffin pic holding the head of Holofernes that was never intended for release. The campaign never released that picture but the photojournalists made sure it went viral or at least as viral as things could go in 1988.
The whole Harris campaign was cringy from beginning to end and I think race, when combined with sex, and her lack of authenticity, was simply insurmountable. Not just to men either.
Let's face it, the consultant class and the ad agencies they hire, are horses asses.
I had a much longer bit about authenticity, it's schtick in politcs and how she was actually exactly who she presented herself but you know here's the thing, no woman gets to be her authentic self. To be one's authentic self is to be considered not just unattractive, but unfeminine. Hillary Clinton, while listening to the state of the union, (after numerous series of international visits) wore a scrunchy and was castigated for days--weeks even.
But even an ordinary woman just walking more or less without adjustments other than basic clothes is considered unfeminine. (There are I'm sure a few wildly beautiful young women who wouldn't get that tag, maybe, they might be criticized for being so careless even so). By this I don't mean, men aren't expected to present a civilized appearance, but when they don't, their entire gender expression isn't questioned. Often it is enhanced.
No woman leader could get away with the fashion equivalent of what Trump does, let alone that hair. Gosh.
So saying she wasn't authentic is the same as saying she wasn't male. It is all sexism. The sexism is heightened because she was going against the biggest liar since the Izuza man. He literally can not finish a paragraph without lying, among other soul deep phoniness. And by now, everyone knew this.
"Hillary Clinton, while listening to the state of the union, .. wore a scrunchy and was castigated for days--weeks even."
Who cared about this or how women or men dress as long as it is not clearly done to shock or to standout for the situation?
F-ing women, and gay men!
Universal suffrage is nationhood suicide when it's only men that vote, but giving women the vote is .. well, look at this insanity-evil accepting level of Hell we live in where; our unborn babies silently screaming tortured to death because mother couldn't keep her legs close or accept the responsibility for what she opened herself up to the motherhood, and since 1973 this is gov forced insanity-acceptance, and it broke all our minds - espectually being raised with it. Now open genocide - televised is .. accepted, as is children being groomed for sexual mutilation and suicide, and divorce-rape on her whim, children and father separated when the fathers protection is most needed, especially from the self-centered walking nightmare that destroyed the family and will cripple the children for life, and destroys society .. and so many others.
Healthy normal masculine-virtue raised Fathers are so much more important a roll for children to have a successful, joyious, meaningful life with minimum mind-raped delusional psychopathy that women can't not abuse children and us all with. Once a child is 4 or 5, these days it would be best for all involved for most children if sick psycho devouring mother went away, or God Forbid - dropped dead before she poisons everyone around her, if he hadn't already.
Mother raise children - fathers raise adults.
So, please don't blame this twisted hell for now suffering on men of what was once a sane virtuous Western majority-white Christian society, because since the early 1960s women and government and powerful institutions have poisoned ot and warped it and mutilated us all, kicking and standing on male testicles and screaming insanities and abuse.
Maybe I got a little off the point. but consider how 'grandmothers wisdom' once was a blessing to an entire family line, and now they are walking plague and suffering death, as most post menopause women have become, and more and more have passed the sacrificing unborn and everything we love to Satan for more power to spread their delusional psychopathy and insanity, ..
"What we having dinner mom?" "Your tortured to death unborn brother, baked"
"oh, mom, not again!"
That is nearly normal in this hyper-feminize Hell.
Satan's 5th Column at all our families' roots.
Here is the YouTube mirror of audio overview of the following article addressing this. YT watch? v=eCUeA7MxxtI {rebuild URL}
No, I don't think you got off the point because I think you made your point abundantly clear. You regard being female as the lowest of the low. That's how you regard the people you owe your life.
And yet you lecture us on morality, on godliness on anything good moral and true. You don't know it. I'm sorry.
If you were specifically abused as a child, I am sorry for it, whether it was by a women (yes of course it can happen, but it is significantly more rare) or a man. Still, the answer is not in abusing all women but getting appropriate therapy for it. I reccommend a male therapist given your trust issues.
And if you were not, well still therapy. Because this an entire screed is not the screed of a well mind. That's the kindest thing I can say. And the desire to deny suffrage from all people who are not you, reveals a level of cruelty and weakness of character that is not to be respected.
I could rebut your points about the state of the world but your mind is too disordered. If you are unable to see women as anything but filth, and clearly you cannot, there's really no point. You need help, morally, spiritually, emotionally. Get some.
Please! You are an example of vicious sickness. You assume bad intent, and false-witness to try to amplify the badness. I never said that women or men or me shouldn't vote - I said universal automatic suffrage.
If it's not too painful, try to think of what else it could allow, and realize your psycho-programmed to believe in the delusions that pass though you guts as facts worthy of insulting and spreading lies.
Oh, yea, I didn't realize the audience would have the simpletons that need the disclaimers #NoAllWomen #NotEatingBabiesFoReal .. the kind of charityless walking abusive assumer of Bad intent, reflection of self-projected onto others, perhaps.
And the typical knife in the gut - I care about you so I will suggest you get therapy because if someone as small minded and shallow as I'm use to said anything that disturbing to my Vag-Feelies then they must be crazy or dangerious .. "I'm only burning you with the tube of scolding water because i love you dear." F-ing evil passive-aggressive psycho that desire to emotionally scar others to get-off. You must be a fatherless witch raise 'gender study' graduate. Like too many in this toxic viciou7s insane Hell.
But perhaps not. Maybe the only one in your witch coven.
The biggest problem with the Harris campaign actually was in the way it was born and that is due to Biden's decision to make a late exit. Historically Vice Presidents have a hard time running on the heels of the President they served unless they actually assumed the office. They can not distance themselves from the policies of the administration they served and cannot walk away from the perceived weaknesses of them either. That is the authenticity of which I was speaking. What was Kamala Harris' actual political base? We will never know because there were no primaries to determine that. The logic of her running would have been strong had Biden died or removed and she had assumed the office. Even then there would/should still have been primary challenges. Running as the heir apparent was a problem. Had there been a normal primary process I doubt that she would have been nominated.
Perhaps baseline sexism can be attributed to her loss at the ballot box. Hillary actually won but sadly her votes were all concentrated in the wrong places to win so clearly a woman can get the votes. I voted for both Hillary and Harris not because of any commitment to or belief in them or the Democratic Party but because they were the only rational choice considering the alternative.
Had this been a normal candidate she ran against all these political theories might be legit--though it is pretty normal for a VP to be a front runner & the idea that Harris couldn't have managed it seems suss. But for the very reason you voted for Harris despite not feeling it, is the reason her losing, and Hillary not quite getting it, is in fact very much sexism.
Trump was a candidate that should have been drummed out. I've deleted the list of his greatest hits because surely we all know them but even his B-side comments would have thrown any other candidate never to return. He drove such died in the wool R's as Bill Kristal and Jack Welsh to fight against him.
And when his presidency proved to be exactly the worst fear of our founders, and even involved a pandemic in which he infamously suggested we take in bleach, did that dissuade people from his potential to be a good president?
Nope. Meanwhile, serious journalists and talking heads were wondering if Harris had the experience to be President. A woman who was asst. DA, DA, Sen from one of our largest states, and then VP. Who in this mythical, beautiful primary had more experience? The mayor of South Bend? A Sen from our smallest states who in 30 years hadn't created any major legislation? Oh, oh right the governor of Pennsylvania because he built a bridge fast. (Never mind that when she chose the effective governor of Minnesota with actual disaster experience and who was head of the governor's organization, he was considered a nobody, good only for a catch phrase .)
We didn't have a primary because there was nobody with "an authentic following" or at least not one that won't turn an equal amount away. I for one would never vote for Bernie unless it was a choice between him an a moral monster (As you did for the Hillary/Harris.)
That's not even getting into the C word, the accusations of sucking her way to the top etc. etc. It was a campaign that humiliated woman, clearly and distinctly. Before it happened, I'd said that the land of Trump would not vote for a women, so much as I wanted it, it was a nope. Then there was that big turn around, Harris brought everyone to her, it was so exciting--it was VERY authentic let me tell you, and I thought, ok, go big or go home, what else is more of a middle finger to him than this. I should have trusted my cynicism.
The entire campaign was women sit down and shut up, we men lead you follow. And men, and some women said, yup your right, because the worst man in the world is better than a woman leader.
And even now, now when he is so, so much worse, when America's reputation is in ashes, when we are being destroyed, nobody can say yeah, that was wrong, that was sexist. They still talk as if this was something she didn't do quite right. If only Biden, If only it wasn't Harris...
Mr. Olson have you just red SV & Nigel who are exactly that. Or the oodles of men who believe just that? It is very frustrating to encounter again and again exactly what is described and then to be told oh men aren't like that.
What an absolutely *insert your negative term here - I have a few* piece.
I stopped reading when two men couldn't even figure out what men really want at the outset. lol
It's really easy: Men want to provide, protect and take care of their families and they simply want the people they help to be grateful for it. Not gush about it. Not get payback in some way. Just be sincerely thankful for it.
Any entity that attacks that ideology is an enemy to manhood and by extension womanhood.
What do women want?
Women want men who provide a safe place for them to feel secure and safe in, and then they ALLOW themselves to enter this safe space to start a family.
Women LOVE men's strength because it's the way they protect and provide. In fact, you CAN'T have the same protection and providence without that strength.
Yes, yes, yes, there are exceptions but these are generalization based in the truth.
The Liberal cult is so lost in it's subjective ideology that they've turned to opposing REAL men and women while making sacred people who claim to be men and women but aren't.
By extension, it's an attack on real women, who are the true majority in society.
Subjective Liberal ideology has become a cult that has strayed from it's primary objectives and is lost in the weeds.
The worst people in the world are weak people, because weak people grow in bitterness and resentment, and they harm other people.
While purporting to invalidate stereotypes, this article presents a stereotype -- a caricature -- of the backlash to feminism, and then proceeds to invalidate THAT. Its supposed "steelman" is itself largely a straw man.
I have my own dog in this fight. According to Buckle, "It’s all very well to say you have the freedom to lead a particular lifestyle, that you have the freedom to be gay, for example. But if no one else in my society is gay, then that’s a pretty thin form of freedom. I need to see people living that lifestyle so I can model it myself."
Meanwhile, at age 76, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there’s nothing “Queer” about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to other guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud to be — as an individual, simply and uniquely — myself. But I never signed up to “smash cisheteropatriarchy” in the name of some Brave New World.
This isn’t about “assimilation”; it's about being myself -- refusing to assimilate to an implicitly adversarial identity called “Queer.” To whatever extent I felt "different" as a teenager, I felt like Piggy in "Lord of the Flies," and wanted to be around the hippie boys (and to be intimate with the cute ones). The gay subculture, taken by itself, was a turn-off -- deploying a set of stereotypes that I found both alien and unappealing -- if anything, delaying my recognition that I was gay. So much for "people living that lifestyle so I could model it myself."
I finally recognized that I was gay when I realized that it was the answer to my grandfather's question, "Why ain't you interested in girls?" (The people whose hearts I sought to win were boys!)
That's not about subjugating women; it's a matter of indifference. Indeed, my advice to an incel (especially if he's cute) is, "Why stake your self-esteem on the approval (or even the acquiescence) of a woman? I'll get you off!"
And none of the men I know -- including straight men, many of them happily married to women that they love -- needs to see a woman's lips painted bright red as advertising for a kiss. (Responsibility for the entire world of "make-up" and "beauty" paraphernalia is on the women that consume it, and feminists need to stop blaming that on men.)
As for "adolescence" as the eternal whipping boy for males? Suffice it to say, on that score, that I get my perspective from the KKK: Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka.
Back in the day, we were about disposing of all this "gender" nonsense. Indeed, the very point of drag was to repudiate and ridicule (and ultimately to invalidate) the entire notion of "gender identity," not to "affirm" it.
As I lament to my cat, "Lucy, I don't think we're in Woodstock anymore!"
Much could be said in opposition to "toxic masculinity" (and toxic femininity, too), but articles like this merely perpetuate the problem. In fact, by promoting their own stereotypes, selective details, and caricatures, they only stand (both directly and by provoking transgressive resistance) to make things worse.
You know, women are not responsible for the beauty industry they don't in most cases even get to run it an this nonsense that straight men don't demand women be in make up is just wrong. Women go go without make up are regarded as unfeminine. And being unfeminine has a lot more negatives than simply not getting dates.
Make up and heels can be the difference between being hired and not hired. For a job. The more important the job the less you can get away with not wearing make up. It wasn't until the 2000's that women could even safely where pantsuits to work! It's only been maybe the past 10 when wearing flats is truly acceptable.
Business attire everywhere has relaxed but make up, it has gone "natural" which is an even harder look to put off, than the old blue eyeshadow years.
That was merely a parenthetical remark. Particularly as applies to the corporate world -- you might very well be right.
Then again, the most egregious abuses (of power) are fundamental to the everyday workings of that world, and they're even described most often with a sexual metaphor: Everyone is expected to kiss ass (especially, to kiss the ass of their "superior").
I detest hierarchy, so I avoid engaging with it wherever possible. For that very reason, I've avoided the corporate world (especially for work) like the plague. That's why the remark you're pouncing on was in parentheses -- indicating that it was merely an aside.
(For that matter, no matter who runs the so-called "beauty" industry, women continue to buy that crap -- and it's not all for work!)
Meanwhile, I'll stand by the rest of what I wrote.
Manosphere was a term created to group together a bunch if diferent people, from people who talk about domestic violence against men to stupid puas. It was never a thing thing and anyone who uses the term should not be considered a real journalist or serious individual.
When I was an older boy and started to watch and struggle to understand the society and world beyond my family and in the early 1970s the masculine virtue values as an ideal that was still what parents, community including public school and media, and we all struggled to be the best we could be like that ideal, truth, Justice (righteousness), better-Ordering of self and the world we have influence over, honor, courageousness, charity, .. protect, provide, ..
.. we judge others and ourselves by those standards, and society did also. Most teen and men would support even strangers that needed help if possible.
Satan's 5th Column at all our families' roots.
Here is the YouTube mirror of audio overview of the following article addressing this. YT watch? v=eCUeA7MxxtI {rebuild URL}
"Listeners of this show are by definition podcast listeners..." I rarely listen to podcasts except when a topic comes up that I find irresistible. This was one.
This was a really great discussion. I am simultaneously fascinated and repelled by the cultural phenomenon called "The Manosphere." To me it is just another manifestation of the same dynamics that drive the rest of the antisocial "influencer" culture.
Yesterday I watched the recent documentary by Louis Theroux "Inside the Manosphere" and the thing I took away matched up with a lot of your points. I look at these influencers who are sculpted in body and embodying the libidinous freedom of the adolescent male. They are manscaped and obsessed with their looks to a degree that when I was a kid we would have thought them gay. The Tate Brothers look like they just walked off a fashion week runway.
There is a certain homoerotic thread that runs through all of it. There is also a thread of self hatred demanding to be comforted. If you don't love me I will burn the house down. In all of these influencers on constant factor was absent fatherhood. Women are at once their saviors and also nothing but masturbation machines who exist only for their use.
I was raised in rural America we knew what being a man meant. It meant getting a job and perhaps a career. It meant working to support your family so that the next generation could go forward to find their own flourishing. It meant being a stand up person who could be trusted by others in the community. That is what defined masculinity for us. No cosplay required. These are the "lost boys" of the urban and suburban cultural wasteland.
These influencers are about getting rich without having to do real work. Monetizing edgy behavior is nothing new. Their self obsession is the exact opposite of masculinity. They have a posse of sycophants and hangers on who either are or wannabe influencers themselves. They are building a brand built on sand.
And as I watch them strutting and posing I am reminded of the song by Dire Straits:
"Oh, that ain't workin', that's the way you do it
Get your money for nothing, get your chicks for free..."
It’s all gobbledygook! “Fantasy” about masculinity is a misnomer. What choice you really have when it comes to masculinity? Zilch.
You just live masculinity unwittingly without any choice.
Do you remember the Harris-Walz campaign ad from last year? You can still find it on You Tube. It's title is "Are You Man Enough?" Man enough, that is, to vote for a woman. Frankly, yes, I am man enough to vote for a woman and I have. The ad, though, shows male models doing things like working on a motorcycle, lifting weights, standing next to a horse, and saying things like "I braid my daughter's hair", "I'm not afraid of women", and "Think I'm afraid to rebuild a carbuetor? I eat carburetors for breakfast!" It was the cringiest political ad since Michael Dukakis rode a tank. The campaign ad told me that the only reason I might not vote for Kamala Harris is that I harbor an unmanly, neurotic fear of women. Her policies were identical to those of an ineffective, unpopular President, but the ad told me I was just afraid of women. Why would the ad agency write an ad like that, so contemptuous of men? Because that is what they actually think of the male sex.
Michael Dukakis did not make an ad of his ride in the tank and the helmet was required for the ride he was taking. That was a photo-op gone wrong not unreminiscent of the Kathy Griffin pic holding the head of Holofernes that was never intended for release. The campaign never released that picture but the photojournalists made sure it went viral or at least as viral as things could go in 1988.
The whole Harris campaign was cringy from beginning to end and I think race, when combined with sex, and her lack of authenticity, was simply insurmountable. Not just to men either.
Let's face it, the consultant class and the ad agencies they hire, are horses asses.
I had a much longer bit about authenticity, it's schtick in politcs and how she was actually exactly who she presented herself but you know here's the thing, no woman gets to be her authentic self. To be one's authentic self is to be considered not just unattractive, but unfeminine. Hillary Clinton, while listening to the state of the union, (after numerous series of international visits) wore a scrunchy and was castigated for days--weeks even.
But even an ordinary woman just walking more or less without adjustments other than basic clothes is considered unfeminine. (There are I'm sure a few wildly beautiful young women who wouldn't get that tag, maybe, they might be criticized for being so careless even so). By this I don't mean, men aren't expected to present a civilized appearance, but when they don't, their entire gender expression isn't questioned. Often it is enhanced.
No woman leader could get away with the fashion equivalent of what Trump does, let alone that hair. Gosh.
So saying she wasn't authentic is the same as saying she wasn't male. It is all sexism. The sexism is heightened because she was going against the biggest liar since the Izuza man. He literally can not finish a paragraph without lying, among other soul deep phoniness. And by now, everyone knew this.
"Hillary Clinton, while listening to the state of the union, .. wore a scrunchy and was castigated for days--weeks even."
Who cared about this or how women or men dress as long as it is not clearly done to shock or to standout for the situation?
F-ing women, and gay men!
Universal suffrage is nationhood suicide when it's only men that vote, but giving women the vote is .. well, look at this insanity-evil accepting level of Hell we live in where; our unborn babies silently screaming tortured to death because mother couldn't keep her legs close or accept the responsibility for what she opened herself up to the motherhood, and since 1973 this is gov forced insanity-acceptance, and it broke all our minds - espectually being raised with it. Now open genocide - televised is .. accepted, as is children being groomed for sexual mutilation and suicide, and divorce-rape on her whim, children and father separated when the fathers protection is most needed, especially from the self-centered walking nightmare that destroyed the family and will cripple the children for life, and destroys society .. and so many others.
Healthy normal masculine-virtue raised Fathers are so much more important a roll for children to have a successful, joyious, meaningful life with minimum mind-raped delusional psychopathy that women can't not abuse children and us all with. Once a child is 4 or 5, these days it would be best for all involved for most children if sick psycho devouring mother went away, or God Forbid - dropped dead before she poisons everyone around her, if he hadn't already.
Mother raise children - fathers raise adults.
So, please don't blame this twisted hell for now suffering on men of what was once a sane virtuous Western majority-white Christian society, because since the early 1960s women and government and powerful institutions have poisoned ot and warped it and mutilated us all, kicking and standing on male testicles and screaming insanities and abuse.
Maybe I got a little off the point. but consider how 'grandmothers wisdom' once was a blessing to an entire family line, and now they are walking plague and suffering death, as most post menopause women have become, and more and more have passed the sacrificing unborn and everything we love to Satan for more power to spread their delusional psychopathy and insanity, ..
"What we having dinner mom?" "Your tortured to death unborn brother, baked"
"oh, mom, not again!"
That is nearly normal in this hyper-feminize Hell.
Satan's 5th Column at all our families' roots.
Here is the YouTube mirror of audio overview of the following article addressing this. YT watch? v=eCUeA7MxxtI {rebuild URL}
".. Question|Perspective: Poisonous Gate-Keeper Grandmother with Hyper-Power, Catholic Apologetics" https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2232
https://archive.is/Xkbcn
No, I don't think you got off the point because I think you made your point abundantly clear. You regard being female as the lowest of the low. That's how you regard the people you owe your life.
And yet you lecture us on morality, on godliness on anything good moral and true. You don't know it. I'm sorry.
If you were specifically abused as a child, I am sorry for it, whether it was by a women (yes of course it can happen, but it is significantly more rare) or a man. Still, the answer is not in abusing all women but getting appropriate therapy for it. I reccommend a male therapist given your trust issues.
And if you were not, well still therapy. Because this an entire screed is not the screed of a well mind. That's the kindest thing I can say. And the desire to deny suffrage from all people who are not you, reveals a level of cruelty and weakness of character that is not to be respected.
I could rebut your points about the state of the world but your mind is too disordered. If you are unable to see women as anything but filth, and clearly you cannot, there's really no point. You need help, morally, spiritually, emotionally. Get some.
Please! You are an example of vicious sickness. You assume bad intent, and false-witness to try to amplify the badness. I never said that women or men or me shouldn't vote - I said universal automatic suffrage.
If it's not too painful, try to think of what else it could allow, and realize your psycho-programmed to believe in the delusions that pass though you guts as facts worthy of insulting and spreading lies.
Oh, yea, I didn't realize the audience would have the simpletons that need the disclaimers #NoAllWomen #NotEatingBabiesFoReal .. the kind of charityless walking abusive assumer of Bad intent, reflection of self-projected onto others, perhaps.
And the typical knife in the gut - I care about you so I will suggest you get therapy because if someone as small minded and shallow as I'm use to said anything that disturbing to my Vag-Feelies then they must be crazy or dangerious .. "I'm only burning you with the tube of scolding water because i love you dear." F-ing evil passive-aggressive psycho that desire to emotionally scar others to get-off. You must be a fatherless witch raise 'gender study' graduate. Like too many in this toxic viciou7s insane Hell.
But perhaps not. Maybe the only one in your witch coven.
God Bless us all.
The biggest problem with the Harris campaign actually was in the way it was born and that is due to Biden's decision to make a late exit. Historically Vice Presidents have a hard time running on the heels of the President they served unless they actually assumed the office. They can not distance themselves from the policies of the administration they served and cannot walk away from the perceived weaknesses of them either. That is the authenticity of which I was speaking. What was Kamala Harris' actual political base? We will never know because there were no primaries to determine that. The logic of her running would have been strong had Biden died or removed and she had assumed the office. Even then there would/should still have been primary challenges. Running as the heir apparent was a problem. Had there been a normal primary process I doubt that she would have been nominated.
Perhaps baseline sexism can be attributed to her loss at the ballot box. Hillary actually won but sadly her votes were all concentrated in the wrong places to win so clearly a woman can get the votes. I voted for both Hillary and Harris not because of any commitment to or belief in them or the Democratic Party but because they were the only rational choice considering the alternative.
Had this been a normal candidate she ran against all these political theories might be legit--though it is pretty normal for a VP to be a front runner & the idea that Harris couldn't have managed it seems suss. But for the very reason you voted for Harris despite not feeling it, is the reason her losing, and Hillary not quite getting it, is in fact very much sexism.
Trump was a candidate that should have been drummed out. I've deleted the list of his greatest hits because surely we all know them but even his B-side comments would have thrown any other candidate never to return. He drove such died in the wool R's as Bill Kristal and Jack Welsh to fight against him.
And when his presidency proved to be exactly the worst fear of our founders, and even involved a pandemic in which he infamously suggested we take in bleach, did that dissuade people from his potential to be a good president?
Nope. Meanwhile, serious journalists and talking heads were wondering if Harris had the experience to be President. A woman who was asst. DA, DA, Sen from one of our largest states, and then VP. Who in this mythical, beautiful primary had more experience? The mayor of South Bend? A Sen from our smallest states who in 30 years hadn't created any major legislation? Oh, oh right the governor of Pennsylvania because he built a bridge fast. (Never mind that when she chose the effective governor of Minnesota with actual disaster experience and who was head of the governor's organization, he was considered a nobody, good only for a catch phrase .)
We didn't have a primary because there was nobody with "an authentic following" or at least not one that won't turn an equal amount away. I for one would never vote for Bernie unless it was a choice between him an a moral monster (As you did for the Hillary/Harris.)
That's not even getting into the C word, the accusations of sucking her way to the top etc. etc. It was a campaign that humiliated woman, clearly and distinctly. Before it happened, I'd said that the land of Trump would not vote for a women, so much as I wanted it, it was a nope. Then there was that big turn around, Harris brought everyone to her, it was so exciting--it was VERY authentic let me tell you, and I thought, ok, go big or go home, what else is more of a middle finger to him than this. I should have trusted my cynicism.
The entire campaign was women sit down and shut up, we men lead you follow. And men, and some women said, yup your right, because the worst man in the world is better than a woman leader.
And even now, now when he is so, so much worse, when America's reputation is in ashes, when we are being destroyed, nobody can say yeah, that was wrong, that was sexist. They still talk as if this was something she didn't do quite right. If only Biden, If only it wasn't Harris...
Mr. Olson have you just red SV & Nigel who are exactly that. Or the oodles of men who believe just that? It is very frustrating to encounter again and again exactly what is described and then to be told oh men aren't like that.
Help this old man understand. Who are SV & Nigel... AI didn't help!
She seems to refer to commenters on this topic, named as SV and Nigel.
Yes I was. Sorry Mr. Lofton, if that wasn't clear. They were the first few comments.
What an absolutely *insert your negative term here - I have a few* piece.
I stopped reading when two men couldn't even figure out what men really want at the outset. lol
It's really easy: Men want to provide, protect and take care of their families and they simply want the people they help to be grateful for it. Not gush about it. Not get payback in some way. Just be sincerely thankful for it.
Any entity that attacks that ideology is an enemy to manhood and by extension womanhood.
What do women want?
Women want men who provide a safe place for them to feel secure and safe in, and then they ALLOW themselves to enter this safe space to start a family.
Women LOVE men's strength because it's the way they protect and provide. In fact, you CAN'T have the same protection and providence without that strength.
Yes, yes, yes, there are exceptions but these are generalization based in the truth.
The Liberal cult is so lost in it's subjective ideology that they've turned to opposing REAL men and women while making sacred people who claim to be men and women but aren't.
By extension, it's an attack on real women, who are the true majority in society.
Subjective Liberal ideology has become a cult that has strayed from it's primary objectives and is lost in the weeds.
The worst people in the world are weak people, because weak people grow in bitterness and resentment, and they harm other people.
Physicians, heal yourselves.
What a crock of shit!
While purporting to invalidate stereotypes, this article presents a stereotype -- a caricature -- of the backlash to feminism, and then proceeds to invalidate THAT. Its supposed "steelman" is itself largely a straw man.
I have my own dog in this fight. According to Buckle, "It’s all very well to say you have the freedom to lead a particular lifestyle, that you have the freedom to be gay, for example. But if no one else in my society is gay, then that’s a pretty thin form of freedom. I need to see people living that lifestyle so I can model it myself."
Meanwhile, at age 76, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there’s nothing “Queer” about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to other guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud to be — as an individual, simply and uniquely — myself. But I never signed up to “smash cisheteropatriarchy” in the name of some Brave New World.
This isn’t about “assimilation”; it's about being myself -- refusing to assimilate to an implicitly adversarial identity called “Queer.” To whatever extent I felt "different" as a teenager, I felt like Piggy in "Lord of the Flies," and wanted to be around the hippie boys (and to be intimate with the cute ones). The gay subculture, taken by itself, was a turn-off -- deploying a set of stereotypes that I found both alien and unappealing -- if anything, delaying my recognition that I was gay. So much for "people living that lifestyle so I could model it myself."
I finally recognized that I was gay when I realized that it was the answer to my grandfather's question, "Why ain't you interested in girls?" (The people whose hearts I sought to win were boys!)
That's not about subjugating women; it's a matter of indifference. Indeed, my advice to an incel (especially if he's cute) is, "Why stake your self-esteem on the approval (or even the acquiescence) of a woman? I'll get you off!"
And none of the men I know -- including straight men, many of them happily married to women that they love -- needs to see a woman's lips painted bright red as advertising for a kiss. (Responsibility for the entire world of "make-up" and "beauty" paraphernalia is on the women that consume it, and feminists need to stop blaming that on men.)
As for "adolescence" as the eternal whipping boy for males? Suffice it to say, on that score, that I get my perspective from the KKK: Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka.
Back in the day, we were about disposing of all this "gender" nonsense. Indeed, the very point of drag was to repudiate and ridicule (and ultimately to invalidate) the entire notion of "gender identity," not to "affirm" it.
As I lament to my cat, "Lucy, I don't think we're in Woodstock anymore!"
Much could be said in opposition to "toxic masculinity" (and toxic femininity, too), but articles like this merely perpetuate the problem. In fact, by promoting their own stereotypes, selective details, and caricatures, they only stand (both directly and by provoking transgressive resistance) to make things worse.
You know, women are not responsible for the beauty industry they don't in most cases even get to run it an this nonsense that straight men don't demand women be in make up is just wrong. Women go go without make up are regarded as unfeminine. And being unfeminine has a lot more negatives than simply not getting dates.
Make up and heels can be the difference between being hired and not hired. For a job. The more important the job the less you can get away with not wearing make up. It wasn't until the 2000's that women could even safely where pantsuits to work! It's only been maybe the past 10 when wearing flats is truly acceptable.
Business attire everywhere has relaxed but make up, it has gone "natural" which is an even harder look to put off, than the old blue eyeshadow years.
You don't know what you don't know, dude.
That was merely a parenthetical remark. Particularly as applies to the corporate world -- you might very well be right.
Then again, the most egregious abuses (of power) are fundamental to the everyday workings of that world, and they're even described most often with a sexual metaphor: Everyone is expected to kiss ass (especially, to kiss the ass of their "superior").
I detest hierarchy, so I avoid engaging with it wherever possible. For that very reason, I've avoided the corporate world (especially for work) like the plague. That's why the remark you're pouncing on was in parentheses -- indicating that it was merely an aside.
(For that matter, no matter who runs the so-called "beauty" industry, women continue to buy that crap -- and it's not all for work!)
Meanwhile, I'll stand by the rest of what I wrote.
Gotta love that Powell wrote this: https://www.aaronrosspowell.com/3m33tl7oomk2y
It is a nice story. Shame that it is not true.
https://economics.uq.edu.au/article/2021/12/teacher-gender-bias-has-lasting-effects-on-student-marks-and-study-choices
Manosphere was a term created to group together a bunch if diferent people, from people who talk about domestic violence against men to stupid puas. It was never a thing thing and anyone who uses the term should not be considered a real journalist or serious individual.
When I was an older boy and started to watch and struggle to understand the society and world beyond my family and in the early 1970s the masculine virtue values as an ideal that was still what parents, community including public school and media, and we all struggled to be the best we could be like that ideal, truth, Justice (righteousness), better-Ordering of self and the world we have influence over, honor, courageousness, charity, .. protect, provide, ..
.. we judge others and ourselves by those standards, and society did also. Most teen and men would support even strangers that needed help if possible.
Satan's 5th Column at all our families' roots.
Here is the YouTube mirror of audio overview of the following article addressing this. YT watch? v=eCUeA7MxxtI {rebuild URL}
".. Question|Perspective: Poisonous Gate-Keeper Grandmother with Hyper-Power, Catholic Apologetics" https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2232
https://archive.is/Xkbcn
but they hate vice and... it is more complicated