Writing Uploads

I made the mistake of making the last thread (see here) exclusively about creative writing uploads but that's not what I typically write about. So in this thread, I will just have occasional uploads on topics ranging from masculinism/politics to creative writing, general feelings and sexual abstinence.

 

Feminism Does Not Offer for Young Men: Masculinism Does
We are dealing with a crisis in men's issues ranging from the increased prevalence of violent assault rates, higher incarceration, higher professional death toll, mental health issues and increased suicide rate not to mention more sexual and romantic isolation among young men than ever before. Feminism wants to dismiss these issues either as paling in significance to what women face somehow or as being symptomatic of broader patriarchy or "male-centred hegemony". These, along with other such tongue-tied, verbally pompose expressions which feminism proposes to dismantle as the main component of its larger scale strategy to approaching women's issues "anyway".

Ignoring the fact female leadership from politicians like Theresa May, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel or Penny Mordaunt doesn't seem like a particularly effective way of addressing issues for young men, I can't see that feminist prescribed alternatives like Jess Philips would be especially productive either. It doesn't seem like the gender of the person in charge is what really matters so much as the efficacy of their personality and uppity "emotionally-in-tune" feminist males like Sadiq Khan typically have poor attitudes towards the prevalence of male issues if it feels like they are somehow marginalising women's rights.

But the aspect of gender in leadership and the attitudes of the leaders in charge towards gender is supposed to be just one component to what feminists purport "patriarchy" to actually mean. The other component is related to attitudes people have towards gender in the public at large. Things like assault rate and incarceration are thought to be due to "toxic masculinity" - because men are expected to be aggressive and so they simply become violent and end up hurting each other and ending in prison.

It's possibly true that there may be biological or social factors that influence this but focussing on this exclusively betrays a severe limitation in the feminist narrative. Cultural conditioning is just one thing. Economic conditions like poverty can affect higher rates of violence too. Self-respecting men who do not have a naive interpretation of feminism but understand that at its core, it is just about collective female self-interest should not adopt the term unless their goal is to deceive and impress "woke" middle class girl friends at college.

Masculinism is the new ideology for young men alienated by the cancerous growth of judgemental and hypocritically self-righteous misandry. It's the way forwards from the history of conscription, 20th century wage slavery for the working man and modern-day feminism towards a brighter future that doesn't pine for a return to traditional conservatism.

 

Masculinism - Liberation for Young Men Series (Part 2)
This is only a thought: I just came across a clip where Jordan Peterson breaks down in tears in a TV interview saying how badly it felt to be villainised for representing the disenfranchised. It did seem dramatic, as if he were only doing this for show, however he raises a very valid point. Whenever the media attacks incels, they always go for the absolute worst traits and behaviours from the absolute worst individuals, save for the psychologically vulnerable who are easy to exploit and villainise. Rarely do they address the underlying theme about social, sexual or romantic isolation and the psychological effects this has. The narrative is such that the writer has to severely moderate their tone and words to minimise the offense that is received when discussing such topics. So to this extent, he's not incorrect.

 

Masculinism - Liberation for Young Men Series (Part 3)
This one is about masculinism's relationship to politics, again just a brief entry because I haven't got the energy to do a deep dive into the citations and research necessary. It's not like I can't come back to all that stuff in the future. I have come to the conclusion for myself lately that identifying as either left or right in politics is disastrous for the masulinist's personal identity because both sides are inherently flawed. We have the left's effective castration and social ostracisation of the romantic and sexually isolated for displaying rational anger as well as the erosion of individual autonomy and sense of self-responsibility that comes with ambition expressed as the right to work and be successful.

However, we also have traditionalism and conservatism from the right which has historically sent young men to die in wars so women could play happy family and be house wives in the meanwhile - not to mention the inability of privileged older generations to take responsibility for their own fuck ups or accept how their decisions can affect young people's psychology, success, autonomy or prosperity. None of this is good stuff for the masculinist, however centrism is just a combination of those flaws so while attractive at first glance to seek a middle ground, it is an overly simplistic answer (another one of those instances where Occam's razor falls flat on its face).

Unfortunately, I have to take something useful from fascism here which is that economics should be adaptive to the underlying social or political theory. For fascism, that is a strong sense of authority through the rebirth of the State (radical reform by revolution or coup d'etat) and the instilment of national values - which coincidentally tend to be very similar to traditional conservatism although the fascist rarely admits this. For masculinism, it is the idea that economics and even social or political theories are only useful in so far as they promote men's collective rational self-interests as a weapon against feminist and traditionalist dogma (the political representation of the male identity).

To give a broader example, let's use some reductive Keynesian boom and bust theory that disregards both laissez-fair and socialist economics. During a recession, you raise spending and cut taxes. During a boom, you cut spending and raise taxes. Austerity happens when when a government doesn't have the economic growth or public coffers to successfully apply such measures. As you can see, the economic policy of the State depends entirely on the conditions of the time and not some dogmatic or ideological way of thinking. It can flux between Libertarianism, Socialism and everything in between.

For masculinism this could mean, not allowing the State to tax blue collar men more to fund benefits for single mothers who don't stop at just one or two kids. Or it could mean redistributing more money into education, qualifications and apprenticeships for young working class men to help them improve their quality of life. These are broad examples, of course there will be exceptional circumstances and reasons for adaptivity but you can see how masculinist economic and social policy can be entirely adaptive to the needs of men at the time. It has nothing to do with any other "-ism" or "-ology" except for the ones that serve men, and in this respect truly is no different than feminism which underhandedly proposes to do the same thing for women under the guise of "equality".

 

Women Are Not Inherently More Effective at Communication Than Men
An anti-masculinist trope that exists among feminist circles - who believe that women are inherently worse off in society in spite of the prevalence of higher violent assault rates, incarceration, professional death toll among men - is that men are overall poor communicators compared to their female counterparts. That in relationships, they do not talk very often about their feelings or in ways that build rapport with their partner and that in professional and friendship circles, they interrupt women or condescendingly explain things that the women already know.

I believe that neither of these stereotypes are correct. I had a connection with a woman where the communication was all the time, when I pointed out this was too much she lost interest and her messages dwindled to barely a few. Another woman I was passionately engaged with effectively ghosted me for a year in spite of the obvious chemistry we had and the numerous things we related to on, before re-sparking our connection out of the blue and then doing the same thing all over again.

It is like an "all or nothing" mindset with many women when it comes to communication but surely the healthiest mentality is a level of deep, passionate engaged interaction at times of day when you can focus and aren't preoccupied with the stress of work, chores or family. At the same time though, you don't cut somebody out for weeks or months then expect to be able to pick back up where you came from: communication requires investment, commitment. If you can't acknowledge a middle ground then you are not capable of healthy, mature communication.

Similarly with feminists, there is the whole thing about "manterrupting" and "mansplaining". But what nobody talks about is "femtalking" where a woman will passionately engage in a subject she is so fiercely convinced she is absolutely right about, she will talk about it for so long using emotionally charged rhetoric and repeating points she believes are crucial but which everybody already understands again and again. Typically, this is when a rational communicator would realise that what we're dealing with here is a train that needs to be slowed down or put onto a different rail, so yes that is when interjections happen or patient, calm explanations of a complex subject that is not intended to degrade the perceived intelligence of the person being explained to. This is actually a very appropriate and masculine way of dealing with a "fem-talker".

 

Masculinism and Rational Anger
I preface this by saying that I do not believe all of our feelings must be rational for them to be legitimate but anger is something that gets a lot of bad rap in society. Yes anger can be realised as destruction but it can also be an instrument for political change, for realising ambition and for releasing your inhibitions. When it comes to sexual and romantic isolation a lot of feminists simply believe that a man has no right to feel anger. The days, weeks, or months gone spent trying to improve yourself realised as only a solitary pursuit for nothing. The vapid nature of modern dating and the wasted energy trying to appeal to these women ... fruitless.

You can call it entitlement if you like but the self-aware masculinist has evolved beyond catering to the sensitivities of the morally self-righteous. That is not liberation, that is not self-respect. A generation of self-castrated, emotionally placcid low libido half-wits lacking spine or courage - that's what contemporary feminists seek to inspire in men. Be better, be stronger than that. A woman said to me some years back on another community that sometimes I sound more like the Unabomber than a thinker who wrote in a more pacifist style on the connection between social isolation and the growth of technology (can't remember his name).

So to voice a desire for change you must either be a wet noodle or a psychotic nut job? To express anger and not be a psychologically placid eunuch, you must be a terrorist. The rational, self-respecting masculinist rejects both extremes, seeing otherwise only his vision as realised through the instruments of technology, law, politics, philosophy and economics. Own your anger and be real, do not succumb to the pitfalls of inhibition or neurosis.

 

Masculinism and Physical Retalliation
Most reasonable people can agree that physical retaliation to an initiated assault does not need justification however when the subject of other forms of violence is approached, most shy away. I'd argue that this fear of invoking offence is a form of "cancel culture" in itself, just not in the ridiculous way that a lot of alt-right thought insinuates. There are other forms of violence, I would argue than the physical. When I heard about the Johnny Depp case, it occurred to me that there was always the possibility he really had committed domestic abuse against Amber Heard: maybe he was fed up of finding human excrement in his bed, after all. The comedian, Bill Burr did a hilarious gig once on "there's no reason to hit a woman" - he points out that while, in his words, there may be no excuse to hit a woman, there are plenty of reasons.

But I actually don't think adultery or soiling the sheets are sufficient reasons to hit a woman because you can always walk away from a toxic relationship (except when ... you can't). What I am going to identify is that there are forms of violence often far worse than mild physical battery: I am talking about forms of coercive control that manipulate legal systems, financial instutions and even the education system to exert pressure and project your will onto another human being from an early age and then gaslight them that these things ever happened to begin with. Sometimes we have to be kind and acknowledge what the circumstances are in a person's life that leads them to make mistakes are not the kinds of pressure the best among us could just tolerate without taking some kind of aggressive action to improve your circumstance. Unless you've been there, you'll never know.

So I'm going to argue that on the broader subject of violence and gender, gender doesn't really matter because there are more ways for a person to be violent than just one.

 

Masculinism Against Intersectional Theory
Crenshaw wrote about "intersectionality" in the late 1980s and actually had a good point: that if it was true that people could be more severely marginalised across one group, what about if we considered somebody who belonged to more than one marginalised group? In this case, the instance was black women. However the usefulness of the theory stops there because it does not seriously consider individuals who belong to a group historically considered oppressive. Due to the wealth and influence of the Caucasian landed gentry, especially men in this group, men are not considered part of a marginalised group (historically).

This is in spite of, as mentioned in an earlier entry, the prevalence of higher violent assault rates, incarceration and professional death toll among men. What we know is that working class men have not historically belonged to the political categorisation of wealthy, aristocratic or royal Caucasian males. Minority ethnic men have not and neither have neurodivergent, homosexual or gender dysphoric individuals who may loosely be categorised as "male".

But due to the linguistic categorisation of "historic oppressor", the study of masculinism is not treated seriously by academia. It is ridiculed, berated and there is not the funding for empirical research or studies to be conducted like there is for women's issues. As stated in an earlier entry, men's issues are dismissively and simplistically reduced into the "caused by patriarchy" category and all other underlying social or economic causes that could also explain the existence of men's issues get hand waved.

This is all because intersectional theory only considers the existence of marginalised categories like ethnic minority groups, neurodivergence, mental health, economic class, gender dysphoria and sexuality among women. So this is why the study of masculinism has to be considered the anti-thesis not only of feminism but also intersectional theory.

 

I would argue that where there is an action, there is an intention and that wherever there is an intention, there is an agenda. As to whether my agenda is something other than what it is portrayed as, then no - I say and do as what is written on the tin.

So far, this is actually true. When I revise some of these opinions I'll start digging up sources but in the mean time if there is something specific you think needs citation, I'd be happy to find it.

Yeah, I always thought it was a cliche how people that would be into kinks like femdom or chastity would also see "feminism" as some kind of furtherance of goddess worship mentality. I'm just trying to separate politics from kink here. Being a masculinist or even just a non-feminist identifying egalitarian doesn't mean you have to hate women. Worshipping women in a roleplay setting doesn't mean that fantasy has to translate into reality.

Debate is just a difference of opinion - which is fine, and healthy. Antagonism would be trolling - which is either an art, or a blunder. If that is what I'm doing, I'd argue that it is an art, and that is more of a journal style of posting rather than the sort of forum where it is more natural for everyone to contribute, I should at least be allowed to paint away in my own journal.

Being kind means you let people express themselves. People may express themselves in my journal - may I express myself?

Well, the difference between say, the KKK and more of a conservative style of group that wants to protect localised labour sourcing, encourage the flow of white collar labour is probably that the latter allows debate. It's easy to find a hardcore, misogynist anti-feminist group, it's not so easy to find a critical non-feminist identifying one - for the latter, you have to plant the seed and wait for it to grow. All I'm doing is trying to nurse a dying flower back to health. May I water the soil, please?

 

Masculinism on Rationalism
Google search defines rationalism as:

the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response

... but any knowledge acquired from the outside world is a posteriori, meaning that facts are not in fact logically acquired but known only by emotion and reason. Confirmation bias means that we often tend to align "facts" with what we know or believe. That's to say that whether you round up 33mph to 35 or 30 may depend wholly on whether you are the driver or the police man. Self-proclaimed "rationalists" like to say things like "emotion doesn't matter when you are the speed camera" - well ok, Rain man: show me the human being that thinks and acts like a speed camera in everything he does and I'll show you a robot that is not fit for purpose and needs reprogramming.

Rationalism also seems to have a precarious place in art. If a portrait is so accurate to the flesh and bone of a living, breathing human being what really separates it from a photograph? If a landscape is so accurate it could be used by someone that want's to geographically survey the area, is it a painting or a map? For our purposes then, the rational masculinist is someone that comes to their conclusions about the world based on a combination of logic and emotion.

When it comes to citation, rationalism is again a tricky thing. Due to intersectionality, as written in a previous post mainstream academia either doesn't take men's issues seriously or approaches them from the so-called perspective of "positive masculinity" where every male issue in society is caused somehow by "toxic masculinity" from incarceration to professional death toll to violent assault, rather than other issues like economic purpose, the unfulfilled dreams and ambitions of a young generation of men, the misandrist ridiculing, shaming and belittling of the sexually and romantically ostracisation, or the feminist enforced assumption that natural proclivity towards feminine and virile traits are because of "porn" and "the media".

So where is all of the government funding and academic support for the research that explores male dominated issues like higher violent assault rates, incarceration, sexual/romantic isolation, the mental health crisis and higher suicide rates from the masculinist perspective? When are we going to get to the meat and gravy of what's really going on, rather than just eating bread and butter?

 

Y u mad bro?

Lol no, but seriously:

Actually, I have been looking for likeminded individuals for a long time. It's not as easy as you think.

As per the post above on rationality, I don't think anybody ever really researches everything before making their own conclusions on the world, or even expressing them. Expressing views and debating them is one of the ways we shape our mind after all. I mean, if you came across one paper that flied in the face of everything that you know and believe about the world, everything you were raised to believe, everything you've ever read, everything life had taught you, would you change your mind on all that? I hope not because it would be open-mindedness to the point of insanity. We can only do what we do best. But for the record much of what I have posted is cited quite strongly, like the dogma of intersectionality in academia, higher violent assault rates, mental health crisis, suicide rate, incarceration and professional death toll among men, etc.

What is not cited so strongly are non-patriarchal or otherwise non-feminist causes for such events but again, they are not extensively researched due to intersectional dogma, lack of government funding and academic berating of such issues. Because they are politically sensitive topics is what I would attribute this to rather than some underlying conspiracy theory, by the way. You look at the reaction towards these talking points by mainstream media or people like yourself telling me I should "go some place else", you see that there is in fact an implicit cancel culture. It is just not the ridiculous hyperboled phenomena the alt-right exaggerate the situation as. I can talk about these things, my silencing is just less intrusive, more subtle - mainly from expressions of disgust or anger about how certain things are worded if they are not very specifically expressed in such a way to absolutely minimise all offence. And then I am just a troll, an antagonist.

Firstly, I have no choice but to practice sexual abstinence and for me that is chastity. Secondly, I don't believe I've said this in so many words, I just happen to dislike many of the things that are projected as if they "go along" with chastity.

 

Anyway, anyone that wants to can find out more about what I have to say on chastity in my introductory thread and it is not what you characterise me as:

Heteronormative Chastity | Chastity Mansion


_____________________________________________

But I will update this, as since then I have gone through some hiccups and unforeseen personal difficulties in my journey. Perhaps a writing on something like, "Masculinism, Stoicism and Chastity" or "Sexual Abstinence" or some such. I think I'd have to include on something about kinks that deem from the norm, especially if they are only borderline heteronormative - how masculinists would then respond to the nature of control/manipulation by the feminine disposition through sexual infatuation with women. That's a tricky one to address though and it is surely two subjects, not just one. But yeah, it may make the theme of masculinism more relevant to a place like this though, so I will explore. Hopefully we'll get it on page one here rather than page two. "Masculinism, Stoicism, Sexual Abstinence and Heteronormative Chastity", perhaps.

 

Masculinism, Stoicism, Sexual Abstinence and Heteronormative Chastity
I think a word needs to be said about men's attachment to women, how it is commercialised and reinforced through media and pornography, even though in an earlier entry I said that this was a feminist narrative designed to "explain away" real and serious issues. For me sexual abstinence - whether you would call it voluntary or involuntary depends entirely on how you use abstinence. Regardless it is undesired however it has also become a point of pride for me how I've managed to soldier through these years in spite of my attachment to women.

I think that the feminine disposition in some of the above mentioned media narratives successfully traps and subdues men into psychological servitude in many ways by manipulating male sexual infatuation. Over time I came to eroticise my own virginity and it was femdom pornography that led to this aberration. Even though I use "heteronormative chastity" as a term to distinguish myself from men that engage in more gender dysphoric and sexually fluid practices, it is not, truthfully "heteronormative" in the mainstream.

I have came across Red Pill blogs that talk about the importance of disconnecting your mind from femdom influence if what you want to do is pursue your stoic vision as a man. I think there is an important point here as someone who was submitted to psychologically coercive control through legal, financial and education-based institutions from a young age. It makes sense why I don't want to succumb to feminine influence, and why I would see it as a particularly insidious influence for any young man.

And stoicism is an important element to authentic sexual abstinence. But at the same time, I don't believe men should be shamed for having feminine desires as this doesn't seem productive to men's collective self-interest. It reeks of conservative traditionalist dogmatisation of masculinity which is no more helpful than feminism in promoting "our" (collective) goal. If it's true that left wing feminist ideologies psychologically and sexually castrate young men while destroying their dreams and ambitions, categorising them as "toxically masculine", it's also true that right-wing conservatism has historically conscripted men and engaged them in dangerous, low paid labour conditions so that women could play happy family at home.

While young men are emasculated trapped in never ending schemes of dependency and entrapment by left-wing feminist agendas, conservatives tell them to tighten their boot-straps and blame themselves for not breaking the shackles society has fastened on instead of given them the means, the qualifications, the education to improve their circumstances or the political platform to express their frustration while pinning them down further with "forced monogamy" and subject them to low-paid, dangerous work conditions. I want to help create this masculinist platform.

Anyway, while it does lead to a seeming conflict to embrace feminine sexual desires through "heteronormative chastity", or more generally, "heteronormative femdom", I think the answer to this is to accept my desires while practicing moderation and abstinence for the sake of character and sanity rather than trying to inflate my own self-perception of "masculine". So regardless which path I choose, sexual abstinence and thereby chastity is an inevitable future for someone like me and one way or another I must learn to come to terms with it, using my own self-identity as "masculinist" above any other "-ism", "-ology" or categorisation - because I want, above all else to promote my own goals and vision as the way I am a man helplessly reflected onto the world - and the world projects its unstoppable vision back on to me.

 

It's ironic because I have spent much of the past few months both working on something productive and spending time in nature. Truthfully, I'm finding the present circumstance both stressful and limiting of my own potential and ambition. I'm glad to have some "me time" and vent my frustrations. Every now and then, you need to let steam out of the pressure cooker. That said, I have got things to be doing, some of which involves being outdoors, funnily enough but I said I'd write this journal entry in particular, lest I be "unrelevant to the subject of chastity" so the one above will probably be my last entry at least until the evening. It was rushed though so at some point I may decide to revise the entry.

_____________________________________________

Anyway, a word while I have to wait a few seconds longer before I am permitted to submit this next post. I have looked for places where people will listen and understand, and decided upon the best possible places. This forum is about chastity. As stated, chastity and feminism are not mutually inclusive. You can be interested in chastity or any female-dominant oriented kink (is chastity even exclusively female-dominant?) without being a feminist, or believing in female supremacy as a social or political construct. All that is required is you divorce fantasy from your perception of reality. This is one of the few places I have chosen to post and I will continue to exercise expression unless I am banned. In the mean time, you are free to contribute - with hostility if you like, I don't mind - or to ignore it and move on, which is what I recommend if it raises your blood pressure so much.

I said "Y u mad tho" earlier as a joke because it shows that trolling - when correctly applied - truly is an art form. It shows people their vulnerabilities by making them the joke, it reveals to that person how they became agitated, or took something seriously or literally when it was never intended as such and it shows them that they do not always need to respond to anger or irritation in such a manner. Of course, what I am doing is different to trolling because I sincerely mean every word - and in that regard is far more valuable, even than high-skilled trolling - nonetheless I do see what I do as an art, a drama, a philosophy, a way of life and much more.

 

By the same logic, if you have to explain the answer to a riddle to someone who doesn't understand it, then it was never a riddle. That content is not communicated does not mean there is no content to be communicated, it means that it was lost in translation.

 

The second one at least involves a hand that seems to have a female appearance.

 

It's weird how often well-paid, often high libido actresses consenting to so-called "degrading" acts is portrayed as "misogyny" or "violence against women" but most of these feminists don't bat an eyelid when it's a broke straight guy having to do gay-for-pay. You go on fetlife and the amount of women that hate regular porn because it's fake but "occasionally enjoy gay porn" because the guys get hard-ons, supposedly making the scenes more authentic is surreal. It's almost as if they're just straight women that dislike the inclusion of other women in their viewing material. The amount of women that enjoy 50 shades of grey would infer that nobody seriously believes sexual degradation is actual misogyny.

 

I dedicated this next one to your's truly.

 

Masculinism on "Bad Debate", Trolling and Drama
Intersectional feminists have published a number of articles over the years about how men's rights advocates invade feminist spaces and "concern troll" or derail with subjects regarding men's rights issues (which feminists claim to resolve by dismantling "patriarchy"). This reminds me of a video I watched recently about how people can win debates against "stronger" opponents by using "bad debate" strategy.

I actually don't recommend infiltrating echo chambers but regardless, a lot of the causes of issues predominantly affecting men (like violent assault, incarceration and professional death toll) are poorly documented because as mentioned in a previous journal entry, intersectionality in academia effectively kills research that doesn't explore men's issues but from the "positive masculinity" angle. That means "toxic masculinity" is the only cause of men's rights issues feminists recognise.

This means that a lot of bad debate strategy is already justified because the empirical research just isn't there to build a solid case - not because these things aren't true, they just aren't documented. But is it really "bad debate" strategy? One thing that alt-right ideologists and conservative politicians get charged with is so-called "whatabout-ism". But in the case of women's issues, this misses the point.

If a feminist makes a case that women are more likely to experience sexual assault and a masculinist responds that men are more likely to experience violent assault, the point is not to marginalise the existence of sexual assault or take attention away from this fact. The point is to identify that this cultural narrative that women are inherently more disadvantaged than men is false. The "what about men" slant makes a legitimate point, it's not a logical fallacy in this case because it was never intended to refute the argument that women are more likely to experience sexual assault.

This next thing is about trolling. High level trolling in online spaces is truthfully a sophisticated art. When you are dealing with obstinate people that berate, undermine or are closed-minded to truthful, rational perspectives then trolling is a legitimate strategy. Even worse is when dealing pseudo-intellectual, cultural snobs who pronounce their alleged ethical superiority to masculinists then try to beat you down with witless "snark". Troll the trolls, don't try and play their game.

But to troll effectively, you have to understand that it is sophisticated art form that is all about having a flair for drama. I have been told by women on fetlife and other places that my efforts would be better placed into "meaningful contributions" than sparking drama. But none of these same women ever participated in a single entry of mine that was not centred around drama in some way. On my first fetlife account, I attracted about a hundred followers, a female friend I met in real life and much hatred and negative attention simply for making a post about the difficulties men have in dating.

None of these people would have posted on a single entry of mine that had been about the nature of art or something about using language flow creatively. This makes artistic use of all three - drama, bad debate and trolling - powerful instruments for the young masculinist to effectively communicate his message to as large an audience as possible. If you're reading this, were you one of my many victims? Did you get burned by the power of my language? "Gaslighted" by the truth? Blinded by my ability to force self-reflections. Come and share your experiences in the comments - we shall treat it like a support group.

 

Masculinism Against the "Good Men" Narrative
A common trope in feminist circles is the theme of the "feminist ally" or "good man" that get's his ass kicked - I mean, stands up to and confronts "bullies" that are perceived violators of feminist standards for engaging with women. The fact is, it's no longer sufficient for men to quietly ignore feminist dogma and keep their business to themselves to avoid shame, ridicule and castigation by the "girl power brigade". Now they have to be vigilantes, protectors of and political advocates of women's collective self-interest to be perceived worthy as men. There is already a higher professional death toll among men which includes police, military and fire service but that is not sufficient servitude towards society and women's collective ability to have equal privilege without responsibility. As this entry speaks for itself, I don't think it needs to be any longer.