Writing Uploads

Masculinism and Aggression
Aggression is one of those things feminists see as a "toxic masculine" trait, even though to thrive in competitive society, it's an essential trait to achieve success with endeavours such as business, physical achievements, popularity and women. Such ambitions are also written off as "toxic masculinity" as though it were sufficient for the young contemporary masculinist to find prosperity and happiness through asceticism, meagreness, political subservience, mediocrity and psychological self-castration.

In sports and sum-zero games like bridge, chess and poker, winning moves can only be aggressive tactics where your gain means another's loss, even when playing within the established rule set. This is often confused with assertiveness but in sum-zero games, assertiveness only leads to drawing positions and mutually beneficial situations in civilised reality. Fortunately, real life is not purely sum-zero where one man's gain can only translate into another man's loss.

But it does often culminate in said situations and aggression can only be understood as a positive trait, especially if it is the talented, the ethical and the merit-worthy we want to achieve positions of power and influence. So no, aggression is not exclusively a "toxically masculine" trait, that said, I don't believe that the decent, young, contemporary masculinist is naturally instilled with aggressive traits but with age may become more aggressive in response to the way the world treats him.

Who are we really going to treat as the aggressor here? Someone that acts out through frustration, or those that seek to frustrate, castigate, ridicule, trap and ensnare?

 

"Masculinist Allies" and Internalised Misandry
In a previous entry, I wrote about the insidious "Good Man" narrative - "Good Men" are, essentially, feminist men or "feminist allies". They are considered "good" because they support the feminist narrative and are therefore of useful service to women's collective interest. Feminist intersectionality is essentially a cut-throat ideology that either downplays the existence of legitimate men's issues ranging from the increased prevalence of violent assault rates, higher incarceration, higher professional death toll, mental health issues, increased suicide rate and sexual/romantic isolation ... or explains them away as being symptomatic of broader "patriarchy" rather than concerns such as economic poverty or feminist attitudes towards these issues.

Since it is a cut-throat ideology, you need to fight fire with fire, that is to say, be aggressive in the dismantling of feminist diatribe. It is not sufficient to intellectually dismantle the numerous erroneous misconceptions and fallacious reasoning that is characteristic of feminist ideology. There needs to be activism, online drama and even trolling to defeat a particularly malicious beast. The young masculinist may find he has to roll his sleeves up and get his hands dirty to beat the feminist dogmatist in his social circles at their own word games.

We notice the underhanded nature of feminism in the way they reward the psychological castration and ideological subservience to feminism in their so-called "male allies" while castigating, shaming, ridiculing and ostracising any and every critical thought that deviates from the norm. "Devil's advocacy" is frequently admonished by feminist allies because rather than strengthening an idea, as you would expect to be the outcome of rational debate if that idea is strong enough, it exposes the weaknesses and inherent flaws of the ideology. Meanwhile, women who themselves express doubts about feminism or see themselves as "non-feminist identifying egalitarians" are equally castigated as possessing "internalised misogyny".

To play dirty then, masculinist culture needs to actively recognise and reward traits in the female allies of masculinism while shaming and berating the internalised misandry of those men who are clearly no longer naive about the true nature of feminism but instead persistently and actively support it. Rational debate has to be welcomed inside the masculinist circle because it can only strengthen our ideology but clear feminist trolling will and must be castigated. To some this would be considered insidious but as it is only a proportionate response to the sinister tactics of feminist ideology, I would say that after attempting reform, expelling the self-hating men and warmly welcoming our masculinist allies among women can only be considered prudent. An insidious method would be something like denying social funding for young feminist men and women to achieve their hopes and dreams through attaining new qualifications, scholarships and apprenticeships. Ostracising non-conformists from their social circles just happens to be something that comes naturally to feminists and it's time the matter was addressed through an optimistic strategy.

 

Masculinism Against Sneering Condescension
It's easy to prey on the vulnerable, to castigate the socially isolated, to reprimand the frustrated, to moralise with the despairing and to ridicule the emasculated. It is more of a challenge to champion a cause and fight for the truth. Why side with group think when you can promote authenticity? Why sneer at those for trying when you can shine a light in a darkened tunnel? You won't ever make conviction irrelevant but in turning your back, you may silence your own.

 

The sheer irony of such a remark given the way Azov militias and Ukrainian military generals have treated Russian separatists and local peoples in the Donetsk oblask, the nature of Europhilic and Americophilic war hawks in securing oil interests in Ukrainian regions is equally as bad as Putin's vested interests in Ukraine. Of course had you not added me to your ignore list you'd be able to inform yourself on the subject but no doubt you will continue to expose your ignorance, spewing venomous bile on something you know little to nothing.

But yes, replace whatever words you like, you are only exposing your own vile contempt for others, not mine.

 

Masculinism Against Blood-Spill for Oil
For hundreds of years, men have performed dangerous and low-paid labour whether for working on coal mines and oil rigs or being conscripted to fight for the wealthy landed gentry. Of course, feminists complain about the domestication of women and lack of suffrage during these periods but it's only half the story since working class men did not initially have the right to vote either. But critically thinking masculinists do not actually bitterly harp on about the past in the way feminists insist history is crucial to understanding their doctrine. What we are interested in is the present, so let's talk about the Ukrainian blood-spill.

Everybody knows that Putin does not care about Russian seperatism or the cultural histories of the local folks in Eastern Ukraine and their nostalgia for the past and communist ideology. What he wants and has always wanted is to secure a pipeline through the Donetsk oblast and Crimea to Russia. His military conquests merely serve an additional notch on his belt. But this does not justify the appalling nature of the war in Ukraine on either side, since the Western war hawkism from the Europhiles and the Americophiles is simply an attempt to secure vested oil interests in eastern regions of Ukraine as well. That a Ukrainian military general burned a crowd of Russian seperatists in a building for not supporting their ideology? That's not interesting enough to talk about. The nature of Asov and how they have connections to American politicians through lobbyists? Are you diminishing the appalling nature of Putin's war here?

The divide between the Europhilic "pro-democracy" west in Ukraine and the Russian separatist East is a huge ruse. Like the never ending war in the middle-east, this is blood-shed for oil and the actions and rhetoric of the West have been responsible for provoking conflict for a long time. It is another pointless war like any of the historical conscriptions of men during World War I or the Napoleonic war. European men, British men, American men, Ukrainian men and Russian men will die for this war and it will largely be men that are signed up, not women.

No doubt feminists will try to marginalise this issue - the "toxic masculinity" of the working class men that take on the profession of execution to help their families pay rent because they believe it is in the best interests of their country. The nature of oil? The nature of poverty and living from check to check? Irrelevant. But none of that matters because these men voluntarily signed up. Oh but the Ukrainian men defending their territories in the East and West? The men Putin forcefully conscripted and are attempting to flee the country? Did they all have a choice as well before the West used propaganda to provoke a war in Eastern Europe? No, no - all of this is just sexist masculinist rhetoric: I'm making it all up.

 

I guess the mods thought there were already enough little sausages in cages without feeling the need to "balance things out" with large free sausages.

This may be difficult to comprehend but it's possible to have a reasonable and civilised conversation on any so-called "controversial" subject raging from race through to religion, politics, culture and economics. Discussing any of these topics could cause offence to some, yet conflicts between identity groups in society does exist and part of resolving those issues to live in a civilised society is discussing them. Funnily enough, it's possible to do all of these things without inciting violence. Not sure where you get the calls to arms for but like I said before, since this isn't on a main forum for chastity device discussion, I'll continue to write about what I like on my journal until and unless I get banned for "inciting violence" or whatever trumped up charge you can muster. It's curious how you made a long sentimental post about enforcing whatever it is you think is right in the world when really you just want to smother another human's voice into silence.

Yes, let's also ban video games and hardcore pornography because it inadvertently leads to violence in society.

The only people I have villainised are the ones that would villainise people who do not conform to their hateful ideology. But women are neither a minority, nor are they marginalised.

If it came to a battle of truth, you'd be "dangerously unarmed" as well.

Actually, I find it quite easy to dismiss, ignore or laugh such ridiculousness.

Not everything is about you, just like when a feminist talks about her own experiences, it does not necessarily correlate to the experience of every lived woman.

A relationship you are no longer involved in. What does this have to do with "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."

Nothing. Getting a few bruises in an isolated event by a perpetrator who was clearly immediately remorseful and actually realised the impact they had on someone doesn't even compare to what I described in the above, you've got no fucking clue whatsoever.

I'm not talking about alimony. I'm talking about working-class men paying taxes for benefits that aren't mean-tested, therefore subject to abuse by women who do not genuinely want to nurture children, they just want more cash cows. Nobody should have to pay for the abuse. Means test benefits so only compassionate mothers can raise children they actually want. This is obvious and should have been done a long time ago.

 

No, you just didn't feel like waiting for a more in-depth response.

I am not claiming to know shit about the mechanisms of calcium-regulation in muscle contraction, or use some de-contextualised statement about proteins to lazily further some personal agenda.

So maybe you should make the case for silencing through moderation somewhere that there is a "more provocative topic".

The entry was quite clearly titled masculinism on blood-shed and oil - no "agenda" was hidden. Blood-shed and vested interests in Ukrainian oil are quite clearly correlated to the male professional death toll. It is not difficult to identify such a correlation, hardly "propaganda".

I just happen to dislike ideological dogmatism to the point where I am quite happy to fight fire with fire.

 

Actually, more angry that people don't consider the impact of the war on the Russian people and the separatists in East Ukraine because they have a pro-Western, Europhilic/Americophilic mindset so all they can think about is West = democracy, Russia = tyranny. Even though our "democracies" are undermined by the financial influence of oligarchy everyday and organising a simple market crash can replace a leader that was elected by her own party over the course of a couple of days or so. But no, we are superior and more civilised, ethical, democratic and culturally righteous simply because we live in the West.

 

Masculinism and Red Balloons
When I was at school, my history teacher once showed us a WWI illustration of a man cleaning in a trench when a bright red balloon flies over his head. The question, which probably has an obvious answer for most of my readers was, what do you do? Ignore the balloon and go about your duties as normal? Or, look at, maybe even investigate the balloon to see what it's about. I have a naturally curious mind so I was tempted to say that the soldier should at least look at the balloon but everyone else in the class already knew that you have to ignore it. Turns out that balloon symbolises false hope. Enemy snipers would use the balloon to distract soldiers from what they were doing and then shoot them as they got high enough to take a closer look at what the balloon was about. Just looking at the balloon cautiously, from a distance could crush soldiers' morale by implanting false hope.

This is another entry on sexual abstinence and chastity, desired or not, voluntary or involuntary. I think as a young man I was too often tempted by the red balloon that women offered when I just wasn't in a position to win dates. Pornography, nightclubs, online dating, Tinder profiles, sexy advertising, women's yoga video thumbnails ... all of those are red balloons that feminine influences in commercialised media may distract the young masculinist from the self-improvement and productivity he needs to be engaged in. They implant a sense of false hope where investigation of the red balloon can only destroy morale and distract the young masculinist from what he's doing.

I still see red balloons now. Women love my journal entries but they don't say much. When I look at the red balloon more closely, I notice that these women are typically just friend collectors, they love many random entries and pictures and whatever else on fetlife because it boosts their popularity and attracts interest to their Onlyfans profiles and whatever else their commercial agenda entails. And lots of the content they produce is certainly very enticing - the red balloon is effective here. Lots of people clearly want to see what they have to produce. But the "love" is the give away.

Ironically, some will love this entry as well and that is fine. But a comment tells me that the person is actually invested in what I wrote in some way - the more detail, the better. Comments usually come from masculinists and occasionally, my feminist detractors. Which is what I want: I want to engage my audience, even if it is to identify something you disagree with. But sadly, a red balloon can be something very detailed, something very engaging - more so than a few enticing pictures that I can move past when my hormone levels reset to normal.

I identified this in my story about the winter resort (and here). A connection with a woman that can last weeks or months, that you think is meaningful but ends faster than it ever began. That is a subtle red balloon that somebody has invested time and effort into. For the young masculinist to stay true to himself and identify red balloons is an art. If sexual abstinence and chastity is a path that life has presented to him, or that he has chosen, stoicism is not something that will come easy. The path must be forged and I still struggle to ignore those red balloons. Such a simple, yet deadly trap that can destroy everything simply by manipulating the natural inclinations of the inquisitive mind.

 

Masculinism on Therapy and the Mental Health Crisis Among Men
It's no secret that men are dying. They're dropping like flies in fact. I've already discussed the higher professional death & injury toll among men and historical conscription rates in certain countries (presumably the higher violent assault rate towards, and incarceration of men has a significant death impact also) because these things can't be described as voluntary. But because some men find the burden of life too difficult, their problems laughed at or marginalised by feminists and traditionalists, they choose to end their own suffering and for that reason, some may dismiss these events as "true" men's rights issues because of the perceived "voluntary" nature.

I am not going to do that. And also, I am not going to say that the mental health crisis among men is because of toxic masculinity, an inability of men to communicate or express their feelings (which has already been discussed and demonstrated as incorrect) and see a therapist. Instead I am going to make the case that young masculinists who attend therapy are bombarded with dangerous and destructive feminist narratives, so understandably they do not see the point in continued attendance.

The therapy profession largely consists of women and male "feminist allies" of "positive masculinity". They want to hear about the issues and traumas of women and hold their hands through a life crisis. But for men - especially the sexually and romantically isolated - a feminist therapist's guideline is simply to impose some form of convergence with mainstream narratives which ensure everyone in society functions like a fluidly oiled cog in the machine. Deviations from the collective hive mind are confronted with newspeak, imposed therapy techniques like "ACT" and "CBT" which demand the young masculinist take "personal responsibility" for their failure to conform and should they not, the young masculinist may even face institutionalisation in the unluckiest of scenarios.

Feminist therapists do not seriously want to hear the concerns of the young masculinist and in spite of what they claim, they are just as subjective as any other human being. While the private therapist needs to meet the expectations of the market (supply and demand), the State-funded therapists has to meet government demands. This means that conservative expectations of young men to fight wars and work demeaning or dangerous jobs are imposed in equal measure to feminist expectations, with the justification of "accepting your life's circumstances".

The feminist therapist wants to castigate male sexuality, impose toxic positivity in "acceptance" of the young masculinist's inability to tolerate intolerable circumstances of life and encourage the young masculinist to embrace "fem-talking" as a healthy and suitable mode of communication. As explained in another entry, fem-talking is 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.

Unsurprisingly, female therapists that adhere to feminism will frequently interrupt men's explanations of their thoughts and feelings either with intrusive questions or counter-narratives that are essentially characteristic of fem-talking. This derails the young masculinist's thought train and effectively blocks his ability to communicate his thoughts and feelings on important subjects that affect his life.

 

Masculinism on "Patriarchy"
"Patriarchy" in a general sense is rule by male, or perhaps more accurately it is either rule in a way that serves men's collective interests or else reinforces male-centric norms. By feminists it is thought to be the leading cause of women's issues in society, the symbolic denigration of women's purpose (by not representing women at the top of the human ladder, rendering them worthless as human beings) and to both manifest itself as, and be reinforced by, cultural norms of "toxic masculinity" which are thought to culminate in men's issues as well.

I'm going to argue that feminists can't get a consistent stance on this. Firstly, the fact that leadership by women like Theresa May, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel or Penny Mordaunt doesn't seem like a compelling case for solving gender-centric issues in society, is put down to "male traits" in the aforementioned. Ok, so does that mean we assume that "feminine traits" in a leader are what feminists really mean when they say "women leaders" will restore some sort of gender-egalitarian balance in society. Or do they mean specifically feminist leaders? Feminist women leaders with feminine traits? Because we can probably agree that simply having more women at the top rung of the ladder as window dressing doesn't ensure quality of leadership.

As a masculinist I have to object to "feminist women leaders" like Jess Philips of the Labour party who's chief objection to Corbyn seemed to be that he was a "white man from London" ... this was at a critical time for her own party during Brexit negotiations that the leadership really needed support and all she could do was backstab the man who had secured more seats in an election than was historically precedented. And I also have to object to "feminist male leaders" like Sadiq Khan who seems more interested in identifying "toxic masculinity" and promoting the "Good Man"/"feminist male ally" narrative than legitimately recognising men's issues.

But ok, we can assume for now that I am wrong about all of this. Jess Philips was essentially right: Labour needed a female leader a long time ago, preferably one of colour. Sadiq Khan is correct to identify physically or sexually violent traits in men that could make life worse for both genders. Let's not nit pick where feminists stand on non-patriarchal leadership. They want more women at the top without internalised misogyny, or the mirrored traits of a toxically male leader, and there is presumably room for feminist male allies and trans leaders too, if we are excluding trans-exclusionary radical feminism from our definitions. What then, is the solution to 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? Is it toxic masculinity? You know, it's hard to get a straight definition of toxic masculinity from feminists.

I have looked it up, and the definitions always seemed dependent on a specific issue like "how toxic masculinity culminates in incarceration", for example. So I'll offer my own attempt at this: the best definition mustered from the literature I have read is some notion that destructive behaviours to yourself, others and the community among men are sometimes, or actively reinforced by culture itself, ranging from people's attitudes to media, violent video games, pornography and things that politicians and journalists say. Things that I say? Maybe I am now the chief cause of all toxic masculinity in society according to ferminists muahahaha. That's the power of language, I guess.

Anyway, it's abundantly obvious that violent assault rates and higher incarceration among men are not exclusively down to toxic masculinity. Impoverished and "ghetto-ised" neighbourhoods have higher rates of drug dealing, petty theft, vandalism and arson than middle class neighbourhoods. It's people from these crime ridden areas that by and large end up in prison. And once people end up in prison, they tend to stay in the system - after all, it is difficult to get good jobs and qualifications when you have to let all your future employers know you have a criminal records. That is, assuming you want to do something better with your life than cleaning shit out of toilets or whatever it is the parole board makes you do.

In America, the situation is worse. Politicians have gerrymandered communities by providing fewer political representatives in voting regions with high ethnic minorities, increasing poverty and poor education/literacy rates in those areas, and then explaining black on black violence with a racialist stance. Then the young black masculinist is further condemned by feminist detractors who say that it is aggression culminating from his culturally conditioned toxic masculinity and the fact of being male from which violence stems from. The answer is always to institutionalise the young black masculinist, conservatives want to throw him in prison and feminists want him to either go and be lectured about his flaws as per being male by the statistically higher prevalence of white female therapists or else get locked up in a psychiatric ward. The treasury of the United States government doesn't even subsidise therapy like we do in the UK, anyway.

But there are even more insidious causes of incarceration than ghetto-isation, gerrymandering, poverty and increased crime rates in America than this. It turns out that lobbyists get conservatives to incarcerate a higher proportion of the young black masculinist in the United States in order to complete actual slave labour for private corporations. In many of these cases, the criminal charges are dubious - corrupt conservative judges get to institutionalise a higher percentage of "violent black males" and nobody blinks an eye because as far as conservatives are concerned, "blacks are more violent" and as far as feminists like Sadiq Khan would care, "it was probably toxic masculinity that caused this anyway".

It's hilarious that feminists think military deaths among men don't count because in the present day people voluntarily enrol while ignoring the whole history of conscription in plenty of countries but then saying how vital history is to understanding feminist ideology and why it is necessary, in spite of the spiralling-out-of-control of women's "equal privilege without responsibility" in the present day. Well now, young black incarcerated masculinists are being conscripted for the professional death and injury toll in prison. And let's ignore all of the Russians that get conscripted or the Western and Ukrainian men that have to die defending their territories because western war hawks, their investors and their oil lobbyists provoked this war.

But Americans and Western European men had a choice, in spite of their poverty and the fact that, as much as some of us may hate patriotism, some kind of allegiance to a country's national defence is kind of important for security. Oh and of course, a small percentage of women sign up too, let's not forget that. The fact more of them don't is because of sexist attitudes and nothing to do with testosterone or the higher physical and psychological aggression levels among men that make them more prepared for the battlefield, thereby simply making combat a more practical career choice for the male gender.

So what about the professional death toll independent of the government funded career choice of "patriotic execution for our western nations' great oil corporations", the Western people of Ukraine, the Asov battalion and their American lobbyists (just not the Russian separatists in the east, not those people)? I guess men voluntarily sign up to work in fishing, haulage, oil rigs and construction to pay the bills day to day so none of that counts. We can gloss over this one because it's another example of toxic masculinity where more women would participate in those industries presumably, if only builders could stop wolf whistling at them as they go to work.

If they did, would feminists consider their professional death and injury toll as voluntary? Like Libertarians who say the young masculinist has the freedom to low paid, dangerous blue collar professions and or else starvation but no entitlement to negative income tax or qualification and education for better status and job security in life ... would feminists say that women should have the freedom to work in low paid dangerous conditions? If so, why bother legalising and regulating the black market for solicitation ... feminists should give female sex workers the freedom to decide their own lives.

 

Masculinism on "Culture War", Brigading and Obscuration
In this stand up show, Russell Howard ridiculed the notion that "cancel culture" exists because of some outlandish alt-right claims about "ultra woke" headlines designed to provoke gammon outrage:

- "Should we ban parents from cheering on their children?"
- "Is it right to remove church pews to help the obese?"
- "Is it really time to stop saying mums and dads?"
- "There is no place for headbands on babies?"
- "Sponge Bob is talking about global warming, and he's only doing it from one point of view!"
- "Is it selfish to use paddling pools?"
- "They're trying to bring race into Ernie and Bert!"
- "We're blighted by trans fish!"
- "The global tyranny of the metric system!"
- "Who knew that algebra was racist?"
- "Can the black panther be played by a white guy?"
- "How do I get pregnant?"

As hilariously cringe as this all sounds, the truth is that a far more insidious narrative from the left does exist but alt-right attempts at highlighting or changing that dialogue are blunt at best, misleading at worst. And Russell Howard does a poor job of getting to crux of the matter as later in the show he says (to paraphrase) "most of us with common sense in the middle of the spectrum don't get off on making outrageous claims - the culture war doesn't exist!".

I'm not going to deep dive into race or gender dysphoria because it doesn't have much relevance but I will drop in to the discussion what a linguist has to say about "how easy it is ... not" to correctly identify gendered pronouns across culture and language in different social circles. The fact is, from the masculinist perspective, "cancel culture" (cultural suppression?) does exist: moral outrage from slightly misspoken words or phrases, expressed in such a way to force advocates of a different ideology to constantly revise their terminology and invest energies into articulate word crafts in such a way that stifles free expression of their language lest they be ridiculed, castigated, undermined, subverted, misrepresented and ostracised through social media.

Let's use examples from my own writing:

"That's just men beating each other up"

"Men going to prison for violence ... duh!"

"Well if builders didn't wolf whistle at women maybe they'd go work on construction sites and die there too!"

"Men can't talk for shit"

"Incel! Misogyny! Entitlement!"

This is just from the first sentence of my first entry. As you can see, it's impossible to engage these people which means that the young masculinist cannot get his point heard but for his own smaller circles of the like minded. There is a real problem in today's society where the commercialised media promotes women's issues to the point that men's issues are drowned out, suffocated, marginalised and explained away as allegedly being symptomatic of "patriarchy".

So we have moral outrage, misrepresentation, fallacious reasoning and poor interpretation as the first instances of cultural smothering - and I am not even talking about mainstream media platforms, television debates, interviews or political platforms. This is just everyday conversation - things the masculinist has to engage within his own friendship circles, his family and social media. What else is done to suppress the young masculinist online?

Brigading. On my first fetlife account, I made a straight forward post detailing why I felt it was more difficult for men to date than women in the current dating climate and I received hundreds of antagonistic comments berating, castigating and ridiculing me and assumptions about my personality, my message, and the nature of male sexual and romantic isolation. This isn't enough though. What do feminists do when they see that the young masculinist will not delete, block or cower from hostility but continue to debate from a well-reasoned and informed position?

Silence. The feminist troll cannot engage in open and honest or well-reasoned, empathetic communication so it tries to smother its opponents words into obscurity on the online platform while pushing forwards hundreds of thousands of "girl power" posts and immature women complaining that they've been objectified by the existence of beautiful models, that boys don't know how to cry, that they shouldn't have to wear make up and how unfair it is they have a socially-accepted-for-women concealer for their acne scars. Issues like men literally dying are smothered into obscuration.

But the brave young masculinist soul recognises that obscuration is no different from brigading. It is just another machiavellian tactic employed to hurt the masculinist's self-esteem and employ cultural smothering. The creatively soulful and passionate masculinist intellectual doesn't back down - he keeps fighting the good fight and makes sure other young men hear his message and receive inspiration. Never be bullied or ignored into silent obscuration - make sure people know what you have to say. Views, comments and likes will come and go. Exchange of ideas with other souls will develop over time, they will not always be in agreement but that is ok - as I've said, constructive debate can only serve to strengthen the ideas of the bright and bold, young masculinist.

 

Masculinism on Zero-Sum Game
On a previous entry regarding aggression, there was some interesting continuation on the discussion about zero-sum game in human society. Of course, my position is not that all interactions are strictly competitive in the strive for resources because that would be too disastrous for mankind's evolution, let alone civilisation. My position is merely a step beyond Libertarian reasoning that only involuntary or "hegemonic" interactions can result in zero-sum scenarios. Prisoner's dilemma in game theory already rules that out but I suppose since the prisoners are being held against their will, the exception to the rule is questionable.

But it's alright because I can be more creative than that. Two wealthy CEOs can strike a deal that between them may be profitable but could be disastrous for the labour conditions or fair payment of their young, working class masculinist employees. A feminist journalist can write articles condemning the necessity of men's rights or else marginalising them as "issues stemming from androcentric leadership and norms established in society" - and this may be psychologically beneficial to her cosmopolitan-esque audience, her editor's pay check and those with vested interest in the widespread dissemination of anti-masculinist propaganda in society. But it is a "voluntary interaction" that does not benefit the lifestyle of the contemporary young masculinist - in mainstream economics, this is referred to as an "externality".

We have to understand then that traditional conservative economics and feminist liberal democratic economics are two heads of the same dragon and are the antithesis to the idealised masculinist social democratic economy. And Marxism is not an ideology that will ever support the masculinist ideal because it requires the support of too many different "marginalised-as-perceived" interest groups to fully support working mens' rights, privileges and needs. Masculinist social democracy supports negative income tax for the unemployed and blue collar labour masculinist while providing investing and funding opportunities that will boost the young masculinist and his masculinist allies among women with employment opportunities through apprenticeships, education, labour qualification and venture capitalists for the budding young masculinist entrepreneur.

So what makes the world so difficult to navigate for the assertive masculinist? Because crucial times in the young masculinist's life require aggression to survive and succeed in situations that are zero-sum rather than mutually beneficial situations, we have to understand how to make sure the masculinist and his allies thrive in said scenarios, winning key resources that are required for success rather than his feminist and conservative opponents. As mentioned in the entry about aggression, it is not sufficient for the young contemporary masculinist to find prosperity and happiness through asceticism, meagreness, political subservience, mediocrity and psychological self-castration.

In sports and sum-zero games like bridge, chess and poker, winning moves can only be aggressive tactics where your gain means another's loss, even when playing within the established rule set. This is often confused with assertiveness but in sum-zero games, assertiveness only leads to drawing positions and mutually beneficial situations in civilised reality. Fortunately, real life is not purely sum-zero where one man's gain can only translate into another man's loss.

But it does often culminate in said situations and aggression can only be understood as a positive trait, especially if it is the talented, the ethical and the merit-worthy we want to achieve positions of power and influence. So no, aggression is not exclusively a "toxically masculine" trait, that said, I don't believe that the decent, young, contemporary masculinist is naturally instilled with aggressive traits but with age may become more aggressive in response to the way the world treats him.

Let's look at this in terms of relationships (romance/sexuality) and economy retrospectively:

• monogamy means that one partner becomes unavailable as soon as a competitor has been selected
• polygamy theoretically means that one partner can have multiple partners but in practice means leaning towards monogamy with time as selectors develop higher standards and eventually become unsatisfied with non-exclusivity
• economy means that the highest paid, most fulfilling professions go to the most competitive

I realise caveats apply to most of these scenarios, and it's not my goal to apply anything more than a rule of thumb. Overall, I just resent the whole "seeking success is a toxically masculine trait" slant - if it's part of who we are then we need to reach out for prosperity and happiness through purpose because of how we identify.

Some people are just content without that but that not everyone is this way. And aggression is natural in society because it is a part of survival, even for symbiosis and nurture through compassion, it's an essential component. Perhaps over time, technological improvements and evolved civilisation can provide more alternatives to aggression but it's not who humans are on a more primitive level.

Taking a more in depth look into relationships, if you have a scenario like where two 3rds are orange and one 3rd are red and orange can only pair with red (and vice versa), eventually you're going to have situations where it is harder to pair the balls together. In human dating, it's much more complicated because we have league/attractiveness, religion, sexuality, gender fluidity, polyamory, monogamy, money, politics/ideology, personality, ethnicity, language/game/psychology, fear of male sexuality, imbalanced gender ratios and more.

You simply can't navigate the competitive landscape of human interaction without applying aggression at crucial moments. The point of self-improvement is so that when the time comes for fight or flight, you have what it takes. Even (especially?) in the developed west, economic competition is a stark reality. Even education, qualification and aspiration might not be enough to get you ahead. I have been to property listings in the city where the people who got the apartments were the ones who rushed ahead of everyone else to make the deal with and offer hard cash to the real estate agent - before even doing a proper survey or completing the tour of the property.

Why do you think so many people end up as janitors? Because the economy needs blue collar labour - there just isn't the infrastructure or technology available to provide basic needs for everyone if we all go to university, do apprenticeships and dream of being scientists, lawyers, surgeons, artists, writers, directors and actors. The reality is that social development relies on most people not making it. You can't sincerely argue that aggression has no place in aspiring to success.

On a chastity-themed website, a feminist detractor of mine accused me of referring to aggression as a call to arms, or an attempt to incite violence against women. I am not interested in absolving myself of responsibility for the psychologically unstable who will do what they will do regardless. However, to maybe take some measure against anyone like this from taking my words out of context and into misplaced aggression, here we can clearly see I was innocently referring to social, economic, romantic and sexual competition.

 

Masculinism on the Power of Hypocrisy and the Legitimacy of Counter-Narrative
Many will want to attack masculinism with some charge of hypocrisy. We focus on men's issues but do not offer much credit to feminism but for the most serious of women's problems in society. Our purpose, our goal is not to defend all forms of equality, it is to promote men's collective self-interest. Unlike feminism, we do what it says on the tin (masculinism). That does not mean equality is undesirable to the masculinist, it simply means that in any advanced negotiation, you do not begin bargaining with what you hope will be the final outcome. You fight tooth and nail from a well-sussed position, assuming that your opponent will do the same and that if you give an inch, they will take a mile.

Gender politics is not just advanced negotiation, though - it is collective advanced negotiation with conflicting interest groups, on behalf of people that may differ in race, religion, ethnicity, orientation and ideology. That makes it totally critical to have an ideology that is for men, by men. Why would men that are victims of violent assault, unjust incarceration, higher likelihood of death or injury by profession, alienated by the anti-masculinist mental health network ... why would those men want to be represented by somebody that says their issues are cause by masculinity itself (essentially)?

One of the greatest, most underhanded ideological strategies of feminism is to say that men's issues are addressed by feminists and that men can be represented by people who's purpose - in name and in principle - is to represent women's collective self-interest. Is masculinism really so underhanded simply because we claim to do no such thing? Surely not. But the charge of hypocrisy may be relevant nonetheless. Understand to act towards your goals in spite of past hypocrisy is liberating. To have been a naive young feminist but to have recognised you were wrong and to reform your ways is commendable and should be encouraged, praised and rewarded.

Yes, the masculinist narrative supports a one-sided ideology. It is not sufficient to bring non-feminist identifying egalitarianism to the table as I once believed. You never show your opponent all the cards in a vicious game of poker. You bluff if you need to - lie, cheat, deceive - if that's what's needed to make sure the right guys win. And by guys, I mean the young and the working class, those alienated men who's lives have been ruined by the collective tyranny of feminism and traditionalist conservatism in society.

 

Masculinist Allies and Female Domination
What is a masculinist ally? Is it possible to attract our female counterparts to female domination (femdom) - outside of the domain of "traditional gender roles" but adhering to "heteronormativity" in some broad sense regardless? As explored in a previous subject, a masculinist ally is somebody that does not downplay the existence of legitimate men's issues ranging from the increased prevalence of violent assault rates, higher incarceration, higher professional death toll, mental health issues, increased suicide rate and sexual/romantic isolation ... or explain them away as being symptomatic of broader "patriarchy" rather than concerns such as economic poverty or feminist attitudes towards these issues. We also explored why such behaviours in women (our masculinist allies) have to be rewarded and encouraged by masculinist men.

In another thread, I also explained why 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. I argued that while it does at face value 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 ultimately, to accept my desires. Heteronormative does not have to mean embracing all aspects of traditional gender roles, as previously mentioned.

So the question then is, how do masculinists that are interested in exploring their own desires away from the enforced facade of dominance and traditional D/s arrangements with women ... how do they attract masculinist allies that are also interested in female domination, without seeing submission as a form of servitude that must spill into everyday life ("lifestyle femdom")?

 

Attracting Masculinist Allies to Chastity?
So I posted this a while back about getting more dominant women involved in this but I wasn't very specific about what type of femdom because actually, there is a lot of moral outrage and uproar about the perceived "threat" of masculinism to gender equality among feminist circles. And dominant women in femdom tend to be predominantly feminist. In my journal, I defined a masculinist ally as someone who does not downplay the existence of legitimate men's issues ranging from the increased prevalence of violent assault rates, higher incarceration, higher professional death toll, mental health issues, increased suicide rate and sexual/romantic isolation ... or explain them away as being symptomatic of broader "patriarchy" rather than concerns such as economic poverty or feminist attitudes towards these issues (see here). I also explored why such behaviours in women (our masculinist allies) have to be rewarded and encouraged by masculinist men (here).

Anyway, my eroticisation of femdom has always been something I have struggled with due to my proclivity for heteronormativity. As mentioned before on the site, it's difficult to find suitable partners because of the high percentage of people that want to engage in feminisation and cuckolding (by penis), which is why I'm grateful for this sub-forum. As a user mentioned in this thread, there may not be a particular inconsistency between my leaning towards heteronormativity and the way I enjoy femdom because ...

But we can still see other issues that arise from my inclination towards femdom and eroticisation of my own virginity, as I mentioned in a journal entry on Monday:

We can see that I came to the conclusion though that being "heteronormative" may not mean the same thing as conforming to traditional gender norms and that the former may actually be more in line with masculinist interests, in the sense that it collectively serves men's interests, in a way that the latter cannot and is in fact destructive for men as a whole:

The main problem would be the difficulty with stoicism but would this even be an issue anymore if I found a partner? I would argue that what I really struggle with then in regards to my femdom infatuation is that it is just seemingly so difficult to find kind female dominants that are genuinely sympathetic and have enthusiastic attitudes towards masculinism as an ideology. I always wanted to be dominant as a young man and could not have that but as I became more driven towards masculinism I also eroticised my virginity and this was how a whole new standard emerged, which would explain the shift in psychological perceptions over time. But I think in general that this is not just about me but that there could be a growing trend of young masculinist men who would appreciate less internalised misandry from their male peers and more female allies in the femdom community. Does anyone have any ideas about how to attract these good women with strong characters to chastity and femdom in general?

 

Masculinism and it's Anti-Thesis Both Need General Definitions
As I explained to a feminist detractor on one of my journal entries,

But in the interests of ideological rigor and consistency (even though I sometimes favour the power of hypocrisy as the preferred alternative), I think all of this should apply to masculinism as well. Now as we know, we cannot define feminism as purely "a movement towards equality" since as we know political activists among feminists favour doing so through the pursuit of protecting women's interests first and foremost. They claim that women are the marginalised gender.

Within my own "uniquely stylised" branch of masculinism, I don't claim that men are a marginalised gender but that there is in fact not marginalised gender since while women experience sexual assault, men also have higher death rates (from violent assault, professional death toll, incarceration and suicide/the mental health crisis). However, I do claim that since the feminist narrative seeks to marginalise the existence of men's issues by claiming that they are in fact typically caused by men or that they are somehow "less severe" than the experiences of "lived women", I do argue that beginning from the point of "equality" or "non-feminist identifying egalitarianism" is a naive negotiating strategy for those interested in men's rights because it's clear that feminists aren't interested in approaching our concerns in a reasonable method.

But regardless of what other masculinists believe that may differ from me (typically from conservative, red pilled or "MRA" leanings) and in spite of the various branches of feminism, is it possible to have a fair and universal definition for both ideologies? Yes, of course - we simply need to look at the etymological roots of feminism and masculinism. Feminism is the political representation of the feminine identity - it purports to champion equality by protecting what it perceives to be the marginalised gender group above anything else it identifies as "obstruction" to its ends and means. Masculinism is the political representation of the masculine identity - it defends the interests of those that see themselves as men with the idea of equality as some final outcome from extensive negotiation with those that think it is safe to marginalise the existence of men's issues.

In both definitions, you can argue that what I wrote beyond the initial causes was ideologically biased because I do not claim to be anything else - I am interested primarily in men's collective self-interest in the same way feminists want to promote the goals of women as a group. But you cannot argue that the first clauses are anything other than neutral interpretations of etymology, which is why they are fair, they are universal and they surpass the "unique quirks" of individuals that want to claim they are about championing equality above the interests of another gender where they claim that genders' needs or concerns are not important for some reason they believe can be proven as justifiable. What I have offered are simple and straight forward definitions: representation of the respective gender identities to those whom it may concern and no claims of equality or the non-existence thereof.

 

Masculinism and an Update on Femdom, Sexual Abstinence and Stoicism
Today, I decided to restart my attempts at sexual abstinence. I have done this in October '22 for a month (no release) but this was with the guidance and encouragement of a Mistress and I also edged. This time I do not have a Mistress anyway, but I thought it was important to be able to do this without sexualising the experience and without edging. I have tried this before but it is surprisingly a lot easier when there is someone to hold you accountable. I am going to try this again by making regular journal entries on the subject but I think it is difficult to figure out what to write about in particular that will help me.

It is very difficult doing this on a site like Fetlife because of the commercialised aspect and all of the cleavage photos and the "young French mistresses" and so on who like my posts on Masculinism (but do not message back!). On youtube, I can remove thumbnails of all the female yoga performers, the acrobats and the dancers/pop artists from my viewing preferences that make it difficult but on fetlife I can't avoid all the commercial posts (in forums I'm in) and adverts (on any page).

(Un)fortunately plenty of these images I find to my distaste anyway or else I am simply not inclined towards the "gender fluidity" so I suppose it doesn't matter much but it's still difficult to manage on this site. That's because the site administration haven't figured out that making the image preferences relative to peoples kinks and sexuality would probably boost ad revenue but I digress. I suppose I don't get to rant about adverts if I use the site for free, I just don't think it makes financial sense to show me all these things I'd not even be incentivised to pay for!

Anyway, I have written before on masculinism, stoicism and sexual abstinence, as we can see below:

My eroticisation of femdom has always been something I have struggled with due to my proclivity for heteronormativity. As mentioned before, it's difficult to find suitable partners because of the high percentage of people that want to engage in feminisation and cuckolding (by penis), which is why I'm grateful for the existence of "masculine submission". As a user mentioned in a thread of mine, there may not be a particular inconsistency between my leaning towards heteronormativity and the way I enjoy femdom because ...

But we can still see other issues that arise from my inclination towards femdom and eroticisation of my own virginity, as I mentioned in a journal entry on Monday:

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.

We can see that I came to the conclusion though that being "heteronormative" may not mean the same thing as conforming to traditional gender norms and that the former may actually be more in line with masculinist interests, in the sense that it collectively serves men's interests, in a way that the latter cannot and is in fact destructive for men as a whole:

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.

The main problem would be the difficulty with stoicism but would this even be an issue anymore if I found a partner? I would argue that what I really struggle with then in regards to my femdom infatuation is that it is just seemingly so difficult to find kind female dominants that are genuinely sympathetic and have enthusiastic attitudes towards masculinism as an ideology. I always wanted to be dominant as a young man and could not have that but as I became more driven towards masculinism I also eroticised my virginity and this was how a whole new standard emerged, which would explain the shift in psychological perceptions over time. But I think in general that this is not just about me but that there could be a growing trend of young masculinist men who would appreciate less internalised misandry from their male peers and more female allies in the femdom community.

Fortunately, however I have come up with a solution which is that, I do not have to entirely write off the prospect of eroticising sexual abstinence/chastity in the here and now which is why for these next two months I am going to try more of an ascetic approach. In the future, I can still try to sexualise the process again, hence fulfilling more feminine sexual desires and comparing the experiences.

 

Masculinism and Ostracisation by the Feminist: Ridicule, Shame, Castigation #Day 2
So, in the last journal I wrote on my attempt to restart sexual abstinence without eroticising the experience yesterday. And I haven't caved in but part of my accountability measure involves writing on this subject and I can't really think what else needs to be said for now that I didn't yesterday. So I will discuss instead the nature of identity politics and the kind of discourse this leads to, unless I have thoughts on how this leads to chastity.

Anyone following me may know that my thread on "Masculinism and it's Anti-Thesis" got a lot of attention on Fetlife yesterday. Which is good to some measure because I want to promote my ideas and beliefs for wide spread discussion. I mean, if I am wrong I want to know why I am wrong and I want this to achieve exposure because it will help my detractors identify how it is possible to identify the root of these misconceptions and prevent them from taking place in others.

However, what has been achieved so far is not a purely constructive debate. Opponents who themselves were using feminist derailing tactics of the masculinist ideology themselves accused me of the following:

But the irony is that this user herself was employing bad debate strategy. She completely disregarded an analogy I have for why we may rightfully consider something that blames the greater death by gun violence of blacks in America on the black community itself as racist, but whenever discussions of male assault victim rates is arisen, it's considered totally legitimate to use "toxic masculinity" as an underlying cause. Aren't poverty, gerrymandering, economics, oil, drug trade, mining for minerals, ghettoisation, racial divide and religion strong determining factors for all homicides whether through violent assault or war?

This user also said that I made unsupported claims but as soon as I provided links refused to acknowledge them but immediately insisted I summarise them and when I said I would do, accused me of not answering her questions. Repeatedly. But I had answered all of them. This wasn't the worst however. Baseless accusations were made about me. Ridiculing, shame, castigation. Fear of male sexuality. One thinks I am obsessed, she made assumptions about me based on what I said about how feminists weaponise consent in society. One of them seeks to undermine the value I have to offer women and tries to use this as an insult to take away from legitimate arguments I'm presenting.

People that cannot be bothered to engage in rational discourse or engage in any extensive form of reading comprehension would just shut down the legitimacy of debate by saying it is "not worth replying anyway". For those who would wish to learn more about the feminist derailing efforts to the masculinist counter-narrative, please read on:

• feminist condescension
• attack by ridicule/brigade/obscuration (due to inability to deconstruct through debate)
• cultural suppression of rational counter-narratives
• the power of hypocrisy and the use of narrative in widespread political discourse

Thank you for those of you who make rational dialogue possible. Your contributions are greatly appreciated - let's get to the bottom of the existential, psychological, biological, economic and political causes of the gender divide. If I am wrong, show me why I am wrong, let people know through the honest exchange of opinions. Your help and efforts are of great merit. Let's make these discussions great.

 

So a third day gone by in sexual abstinence and I have not yet died from starvation. An interesting analogy about starvation and sexual abstinence is in my female employee analogy that I referred to in a masculinist group recently. But before I get to that bit, I want to remind people the severity of issues men are facing in society and how those are frequently undermined by our detractors:

On the subject of career promotion, the woman is professional, highly competent, diligent, intellectually competent and more than qualified for the job. But she doesn't get it because of political or social games in the firm. I point out how dismayed feminists are when this happens but at the same time they will completely diminish when the same phenomena happens to "stylish" guys suffering from romantic or sexual isolation. We know that isolation while not classifying as a "need" in the technical sense of starvation is still a need in a very real existential manner and can actually lead to literal death: youtu.be/MoqOm_EVR_g

Anyway, so here is the derailing tactic used against such an argument:

"But you are not entitled to sex," says the outraged feminist.

The thing is, this claim is very easily dealt with as I did recently in the midst of a trollish feminist brigade on one of my posts:

So as we can see in this instance, it was in fact my detractor who was missing something (or multiple things that were) "subtle".

 

^ The above thread was,

Masculinism on Abstinence and "Sexual Entitlement" (Never Fall Prey to the Entitlement Claim Again!)