Like A Girl

The filmmaker, Lauren Greenfield, created an advertisement to market and sell sanitary rags and other feminine products for the Always brand. This advertisement is a short documentary in which the filmmaker interviews folks on camera and has them act as though they are doing various physical activities like a girl. The video is titled Always #LikeAGirl and was published to YouTube a few weeks ago. At last check, the video has over thirty-four million views.

The advertisement is also accompanied by the hashtag, #LikeAGirl, on Twitter and there are thousands of folks tweeting about the video. The overwhelming response to the video seems to be positive. The video and hashtag are clever in that they invite consumers into a discussion about gender-related issues.

One of the primary issues discussed is the dive in self-confidence felt by girls during puberty—how being like a girl is supposedly the worst possible thing that a girl can be—how saying that somebody runs, fights, or throws like a girl is an insult that contributes to this decline in the self-confidence of girls.

Lauren Greenfield calls this a “confidence crisis” that is “profoundly disempowering” for girls. Greenfield also says that she is “excited to be a part of the movement to redefine ‘like a girl’ into a positive affirmation.”

The movie, The Sandlot, does a fine job of showing how this insult is typically used. Telling a boy that he plays ball like a girl is the ultimate insult to a boy, worse than scab eating, fart smelling, butt-lickers who mix Wheaties with their mother’s toe-jam.

The insult is used primarily against boys who are not very competent athletic-wise. If a boy is told that he fights, hits, or throws like a girl, it means that he isn’t valued as a man…and neither is he valued as a woman. As such, the boy is just plain old worthless.

If a girl is told she fights, hits, or throws like a girl, it means that she isn’t valued as a man either, but, assuming she identifies as a woman, she still may be valued as a woman (or girl). As such, the girl isn’t seen as plain old worthless, like the kinesthetically impoverished boy.

So, when feminists try to spin this insult, when they say that our culture disempowers women via this insult or that there is no worse insult than being like a girl, they are failing to articulate the depths of meaning within the insult. They are failing to comprehend how that insult applies to boys and men and how that insult is more harmful to those within the male body.

I don’t really expect much more from our gynocentric culture. That feminists would spin this insult as a form of misogyny is to be expected. When an ideology is primarily fixated on the problems of women, of course those ideologues wouldn’t bother to understand the nuance of the insult. Of course they wouldn’t comprehend how it harms boys more than girls. Of course they wouldn’t bother to articulate how this insult actually contributes to a culture of male disposability, sacrifice, and heroics.

The insult has more to do with reinforcing the traditional gender roles of men. Those roles are a form of cultural misandry. Those roles reinforce the notion that the male body is nothing much more than a tool—a labor machine. There is very little, if any, misogyny in the insult because it primarily targets and degrades men with a male body who don’t fit a certain stereotype—an athletic-aesthetic and prowess. It’s a way to enforce a sort of gynocentric masculinity—a masculinity marked by chivalry, disposability, sacrifice, and heroics—primarily for the benefit of women—in deference to them.  It highlights the distinction between the performance value of a man versus the inherent value of a woman.

As noted above, if the girl is told that she throws like a girl, nothing is subtracted from her value as a woman. That insult takes nothing away from her because she is…a girl. And there is nothing wrong with that. The female body isn’t typically expected to be subjected to use like a male body and neither is it expected to perform like one. So, if a girl is told that she throws like a man, she is being told that her body is mannish…and that’s probably a more harmful insult to lob at a girl who may already be suffering with self-esteem issues.

It would have been interesting to see the reactions of the folks in the video had they been asked to perform like a man. Folks likely would have walked with a swagger, opened their gait to seem macho, and moved their arms like an ape. Hidden beneath the surface of these machismo motions of the male body is the abstraction of manliness—the self that tries to exist in a space where he is valued primarily as a labor machine—something of a performing monkey. Telling a man that he acts like a man is telling him that he is valued for what he does. Our culture doesn’t really place much value on a man apart from what he does. He doesn’t have much, if any, inherent value outside of his performance. As such, his value seems tethered to the performance of his male body—while simultaneously and seemingly contradictorily being reduced to a thing of abstraction—a disembodied and disembedded self.

In contrast, a woman can do practically nothing, sitting on ass—watching TV all day. So long as she doesn’t eat like a hippopotamus and gets a couple hours of cardio or yoga workouts in every week, she has a sort of inherent value—even though she does barely anything above the level of a slob. She could be a damn princess and nobody would be able to distinguish much of a difference.

The female body isn’t expected to throw, fight, hit, or run like a male body. As noted above, if a boy is told that he throws like a girl, he is just plain old worthless…because not only is he not valued as a man in a male body, but he is also not valued as a woman in a male body. Aside from the misandric nature of the insult, it also has transphobic and perhaps homophobic implications too.

The insult, when hurled at a boy, is meant to demean and police that boy into compliance with a masculinity that submits the male body to a dominance hierarchy of status. The insult is the inverted way of saying man up or be a man. It plays on the chivalric tradition that binds men to the role of provider and protector of women through the use of their disposable male bodies.

Yet, feminists seem to see this insult as one that mostly harms and disrespects girls by supposedly being profoundly disempowering to girls. This focus on how the phrase primarily harms girls is also an example of the gynocentric and chivalric tradition that continues to perpetuate the cultural norms that place women first—at the expense and sacrifice of men.

So, the insult is more harmful to boys because it reinforces the gynocentric and chivalric cultural norms of the traditional male gender roles—something that feminists ostensibly claim to be fighting against. The population that needs liberated from these gynocentric and traditional gender roles is the male population. Women already experience a great deal of liberation from these roles. Women are empowered to be caregivers or breadwinners. Men are empowered to be breadwinners or bums.

 So, you’re a stay-at-home dad, like a girl? Why don’t you get a real job, like a man?

When I was in my early twenties, I watched Saving Private Ryan with a half-dozen or so of my friends. I’ll never forget that opening scene on Omaha Beach. I’ll never forget how my friend leaned in to ask if I was OK. I’d never really seen anything like that—the way Spielberg used the camera to move in and out of the action. The opening scene captured the fear and courage, the duty and sacrifice, the male body and heroics—the disposability of men.

This is what it has meant to be a man. Being like a man has been (and continues to be) tethered to the willingness of men to do things like in this opening scene–to throw one’s body into the water and run headlong for cover—up a beach peppered with bullets, grenades, mutilations, and death. Being like a man, like the men who stormed Omaha Beach, means using one’s hands to try and keep from bleeding out while crying out for mother. Being like a man, for thousands of men who suffered dismemberments, meant using one good arm to pick up the other arm—the one that had been blown to bits and now lays apart from one’s male body in the sandy blood-soaked beach. It means detaching. It means becoming a disembedded and disembodied self—a thing to be used like a pawn, a tool, an object-of-utility. Yet, according to feminists, being like a girl is so profoundly disempowering for women. Where is my fainting couch?

The opening scene of that movie made me feel queasy. Ever since I filled out my Selective Service card so that I could get my driver’s license, I’d wondered about what it’d be like—going to war. My friend’s father was a Vietnam veteran and had multiple purple hearts and stories from the injuries sustained in battle. He, my father, and my grandfather had tales of duress, disposability, combat, and war, but those stories were just words. The visuals from the movie gave more meaning to those words and suffering.

I’m sure that these men would not have reacted kindly to anybody saying that they do anything like a girl. However, if asked whether they’d choose to live their lives again, as a stay-at-home dad or as a veteran of war, they’d likely choose the former, assuming they had experienced liberation from their traditional gender roles.

So, when I see this moving advertisement about the confidence crisis that girls face, I can’t help but condemn it for being gynocentric, for its reinforcement of traditional masculine gender roles, for its callousness towards men, and for it being a piece of propaganda to sell sanitary rags to women and girls who may feel profoundly disempowered about being like a girl. If we want to be liberated from traditional gender roles, perhaps we should stop reinforcing them with empty, but feel-good #LikeAGirl propaganda.

Most sentences and blog posts are like a girl. They usually end with a period.

The Male Body And The Masculinity Police Part II

We live in a culture where violence against men is prevalent, normalized, excused, and celebrated by the media and in popular culture. Laugh if you want, but the best humor is practically indistinguishable from tragedy. The best comedians understand suffering. The best jokes are lamentations.

We have multi-billion dollar “sports” industries (e.g., the NFL and UFC) that glorify this violence against men. Families gather on Sundays to celebrate this violence. Corporations make billions on the cultural normalization of this violence against men–making the male body the most culturally acceptable locus of violence. All the while, folks scream “CONSENT,” failing to understand how these cultural norms influence consent, failing to understand that freedom is not the perpetuation of violence against men, failing to understand that consent does not change the underlying fact of violence committed against men. Freedom is not two men beating each other unconscious for entertainment or some false idea of sportsmanship and competition. If you believe such types of violence are freedom and sportsmanship, you have an impoverished sense of both and you are likely perpetuating a culture that glorifies violence against men.

We have a war machine that keeps turning–making billions more in profits off this exploitation, destruction, mutilation, and expendability of the male body. There is no end to it. It never stops because our culture demands it. We defend our freedom to consent to violence against the male body. We are proud of our “heroes.” We celebrate them. We love them for subjecting their bodies and the bodies of other men to violence.

If we learn to hate this violence against men and speak out against it, we are told to “shut the fuck up.” If we learn that all war is anti-male because all war is violence against men, our masculinity is policed and threatened because we must be “weak bitches” to complain about male suffering. Even feminists who claim to be working on male issues mock such complaints about male suffering as “man feelz.” Some of these feminists insist that male suffering is actually male privilege.  Anything else is “assholery.”

There is real “assholery,” our prison systems. They are monstrosities of prison guard unions, corporations, legal institutions, and law enforcement agencies that are partially sustained by our war on drugs. It is a war that throws men into cages and commits violence against them for non-violent drug “crimes.” Instead of “rehabilitation,” we punish these men with prison rape and other violence. Instead of recognizing our sick culture, we blame the drug addict for wanting to escape. As Krishnamurti said, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” While the “right” wags their finger of shame and screams for harsher punishments and more violence against these men, the “left” wags their finger of shame and clamors about “rehabilitating” these men to a profoundly sick culture that demands their submission, failing to recognize that our culture may need more rehab than these men, failing to recognize that these men are not dominating and that such violence against them is not male privilege and neither is it the privileging of masculinity. In fact, they often claim that such suffering of men is actually the devaluation of women.

Yes, in our sick culture of male submission, the suffering of men is caused by a society that doesn’t value women. In fact, it is claimed, that violence against men is actually the oppression of women. That’s what makes sense in our sick culture because the obvious truth is “assholery.” If a man learns to say that men suffer violence because men are systematically devalued in our culture—that man speaks pure misogynistic truth.

Only in a profoundly sick culture would violence against men be interpreted primarily as the devaluation of women, rather than the obvious–the devaluation and oppression of men. Only in a profoundly sick culture would violence against men be seen as the overvaluing and privileging of men and masculinity.

Fuck that and all you folks who fail to recognize that the male body is the most culturally acceptable locus of violence. Violence against one man is a “degradation, terror, and limitation to all” men. Most men and boys limit their behavior because of the existence of potential violence against them. Most men and boys box their emotions away to create a front of stolidity, an avoidance of the crushing reality that our culture demands their submission, obedience, oppression, and acquiescence to a culture that doesn’t value them, considers them cannon-fodder, expendable capital, human resources, objects-of-utility.

My dad is 76 years old. I had the “freedom” of watching him break into tears a few weeks ago as he recounted some of the horrors that he saw while in the Army. This is a man who never shed a tear or spoke a word about his suffering and the suffering of his Army buddies until he was no longer strong enough to “be a man.” At 76, he’s no longer strong enough to keep that shit boxed in. It was an emotional prison for him. There is nothing heroic about it. PTSD, survivor’s guilt, and being used as human cannon-fodder is not and should not be celebrated as awesome heroics of willpower. It’s a prison for men. It isn’t male privilege and it isn’t male domination. Such things are male submission. Such things are what my father did and experienced in submission to a culture that demanded it of him. Such things are what men do in submission to a culture that doesn’t value them.

This is our culture. This is violence against men. It is prevalent, normalized, excused, celebrated, glamorized, and glorified. If you speak out against it, you will be subjected to further ridicule, shame, aggression, and oppression by the masculinity and language police. You will be accused of misappropriating words that are reserved for women because there is no such thing as violence against men. It’s not a real thing. It’s just plain old violence. Laugh if you want. It’s funny how that works–how tragedy becomes comedy, how the best jokes are lamentations, how the suffering of men makes for the best punchlines.

The Male Body And The Masculinity Police

The most culturally acceptable locus of violence is the male body. The policing of masculinity assures this fact. Call this policing and violence whatever you want. Call these things The Patriarchy™ if you want, but neither of these things are male privilege and neither of these things are male domination. I prefer to call these things the lived-experiences of men.

I generally dislike “The Good Men Project” because most of their articles are milquetoast and because they try to understand the lived-experiences of men through the lens of feminism(s). This is problematic because ALL feminism(s) assume The Patriarchy™ (so far as I can tell) and proceed from that problematic assumption to make what are often wrong-headed assumptions about masculinity and men. However, I will give credit where it is due. Beth Leyba wrote this article the other day, “I Hate the Broncos: Daring to Question Whether Football is Worth It.”

In her “daring” article, Leyba gets a few things right. She writes. “Football is a brutal sport that sometimes ends up destroying the lives of those who play it.” She says that she was never a fan of football, but that her apathy about this sort of violence against men “morphed into moral opposition” because of the costliness of the sport.

She notes the physical damage done to men via multiple concussions and relates this to her own experiences with an injury that she suffered on a swing-set. She writes about football being a sport that “literally chews people up and spits them out.” I agree with her, but swing-sets, unlike football, don’t generally chew people up and spit them out. Note how it takes a remotely similar and personal experience of injury before she is willing to toss out her apathy regarding this sort of violence against men. I really want to give her the benefit of the doubt and be kind here because we have similar conclusions about violence against men; though we arrive at these conclusions through very different routes. From her feminist lens, a swing-set accident “has helped to crystallize” her feelings about the grotesque amounts of violence against men that exist in our culture.

I’m not sure that she understands the depths of this violence that permeates our culture, considering how it took the traumatic swing-set accident to cause her to shed her apathy, but she can see that our culture celebrates this violence against men. She notes that “football brings people together” for tailgate parties, for thanksgiving tradition, and etc. Hell, if not for this culturally accepted violence against men, most sports bars would probably not exist.

I just finished watching “Super Bowl XLVIII,” where millions of people all across our country and throughout sports bars tuned in to cheer about this violence against men. I’m not going to link to the tweets, but there were assholes celebrating the fact that Richard Sherman (a player for the Seahawks) suffered an ankle injury during the game.

There is also human cock-fighting, better known as the “UFC.” Yeah, sycophants can dress it up as strategy and as a violent form of chess, but it’s still primarily violence against men. It was only a few weeks ago where millions of people tuned in to watch Anderson Silva kick another man so hard that Silva horrifically broke his own leg.

Look at the suffering of this man. Anybody can see that these sports are a form of violence against men. This fact is so obvious…just look at him.

It shouldn’t take a traumatic swing-set injury for a woman (especially a feminist who is supposed to be knowledgeable about gender issues) to acknowledge this fact and sweep aside her “apathy” about this violence. It shouldn’t take one’s own personal experience with a loosely related concussive injury to bring about the empathy needed to understand such blatant suffering of men.

If you can’t see this suffering, or if you’ve only now begun to see it, perhaps you have been blinded to it because your theories about The Patriarchy™ have blinded you to it. Perhaps you have been so busy in-fighting with other feminists and jockeying for status on various feminist hierarchies of oppression that you have simply failed to see the obvious. These men are not dominating. These men are submitting to a culture that glorifies violence against them. These men are submitting to a culture that demands their suffering through the policing of masculinity.

We live in a culture where violence against men is not only culturally permissible, it is celebrated as heroic. Our president and congress perpetuates this norm. President Obama delivered one of the biggest standing ovations at the SOTU address. (You can watch the ovation here.) The ovation was for Cory Remsburg. It was an ovation to celebrate his heroics—being deployed 10 times by our military, having his body mutilated and sacrificed, paralyzed, blinded. The standing ovation was a policing of masculinity such that men-as-cannon-fodder are praised. Our entire congress cheered about the dehumanization of this man. They cheered that he was put through a meat grinder and spit out as a hero “who never quit.”

“Ahhh…but these are adult men who are well-paid to take these risks and subject their bodies to violence,” say fans and apologists of violent sports and the military. I say rubbish. These men were all conditioned via culture to “be a man.” One of the first questions I was asked when I spoke with military recruiters was whether or not I played high-school football. I don’t think this was any sort of unusual question asked by military recruiters. It makes sense that the military would want boys and young men who have a history of having had their personhood mutilated through violent “sport.” Hell, one of the first things done to young men, when entering the military, is the shaving of their heads—to try and strip young men of individual personhood differences—making new recruits a gaggle of “maggots.”

This conditioning (abusing) starts at a young age. Take, for example, the horrific show, “Friday Night Tykes.” It’s all about the policing of masculinity in boys, making them into violent monsters who are willing to harm other boys, robbing boys of their emotional well-being, robbing boys of their personhood, distorting masculinity into this grotesquery of socio-culturally acceptable violent behavior.

This kind of policing of masculinity ensures that the male body becomes the most socio-culturally acceptable locus of violence. This is not male privilege. This is not male domination. This is male submission. These are the lived-experiences of men.

So, when Ms. Leyba and other feminists write about shedding their apathy toward this violence against men, it’s hard for me to take seriously their often made claims about feminism working on men’s issues–how feminism cares about men, and how The Patriarchy™ hurts men too. If Ms. Leyba had actually cared about men, she would never have had apathy about them in the first place.

Ms. Leyba, take off your feminist goggles for a moment and try to understand the lived-experiences of men. You don’t need to be bonked on the head in one of your swing-set accidents to do this. Simply look around. You will see the policing of masculinity. You will see a culture of male submission. You will see the male body as the locus of culturally acceptable violence. That is not male privilege. That is not male domination. Such things are the lived-experiences of men.

[Edit: Part two is published.]

Women Are The New Jews

[Note: Vomit-logic has been brought to my attention. Women were in kitchens. Ovens are in kitchens. Jews were in ovens. Therefore, women are Jews.]

Free Cock Is Not Oppression

As you’ll answer it, take heed
This Slave commit no Violence upon
Himself. I’ve been deceiv’d. The Publick Safety
Requires he should be more confin’d; and none,
No not the Princes self, permitted to
Confer with him. I’ll quit you to the King.
Vile and ingrate! too late thou shalt repent
The base Injustice thou hast done my Love:
Yes, thou shalt know, spite of thy past Distress,
And all those Ills which thou so long hast mourn’d;
Heav’n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn’d,
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn’d. –Congreve, The Mourning Bride

The Jezebel ladies are busying themselves concocting evidence of their oppression. It’s a “spectacular tale” of a man who is too weak to last more than two hours online as a woman. In this tale, a man is said to have created a fake online dating profile of a “pretty average looking girl.” His inbox quickly filled with perverted messages and offers of free cock. The man was so disgusted at all the free cock thrown his way that he had to delete the profile and spend the rest of the night “with a very bad taste” in his mouth.

The tale is suspect, but we all know that free cock is everywhere. Men give it away like it’s worthless. There is no doubt in my mind that this is probably typical of the experiences of women with online dating profiles. I doubt that it is unusual at all for a woman to get 300 messages in her inbox from men who are desperate for female affection, approval, and sex. There is no doubt in my mind that men send “dick-pics” and clamor, bother, and sometimes harass women for their affections and attentions. There is no doubt in my mind that men deal with gobs of rejection and there is no doubt in my mind that some men handle this rejection in very poor ways—becoming relatively “hostile” after being told that they are not interesting, not good enough (too poor), or, in various ways, that they are not worthy of affection and attention. The harsh reality for some men is that some women will never bestow upon them a position high enough in the male hierarchy of dominance to be “worthy” of affection, attention, and sex. We all know it’s true in-general, even if this specific tale is suspect. Free cock is everywhere.

This is something that I’ve never understood about men. If women want to ride my cock, they gotta pay. I’m the one doing all the work in bed. It’s my sweat all over her and the sheets. It’s her fucking orgasm and foreplay that is a job. Yet, men give away cock like it’s worthless. Dudes, get a fucking clue and stop giving it away! For the sake of fuck, at least make her pay for a juicy sirloin to replace all the jizzed-out protein.

All you men who give it away, all you do is reinforce the entitlement mentality of women who believe that their being present is plenty. You reinforce the idea that women don’t owe anything to the relationship—that they deserve a free-ride of cocks and that they don’t even have to break a sweat. Even the most aggressive cock-breaking volley-ball girls barely break a sweat after saddling up. You may be able to find a few coked-up girls who really get into it—the kind of girls who end up with sweaty hair, mascara, and cum dripping down their cheeks, but those girls usually have emotional disorders and are simply trying to bury their emotional problems in various sorts of drug induced escapes.

Women typically feel entitled to free cock. Don’t believe me? Rejected girls are often the most vindictive, hateful, and slanderous cunts of thunder ever unleashed upon the world of men. Try telling a girl no. Tell her, after she makes it clear that she wants your cock, that you’re not interested in giving it to her. Tell her that she isn’t interesting, that her soul is dog-shit and that she has nothing to offer other than boobs and booty, that she is a piece of shit and a total failure as a human being, that you don’t find her attractive and that she isn’t even good enough to be a cum-bucket. Tell her that she is just a white girl with bird lips and that she is never going to be any good at sucking cock and that she needs to stop pretending that she is doing any favors and learn to compensate for her inadequacies by becoming “kinky.” Tell her that her vapid life of shoes and pop-culture and materialism are soulless pursuits of dog-shit. Watch what happens. If you Jez-ladies wanna know what “hostile” means, see this rejected woman.

It’s typical for these Jez-ladies to complain that men feel entitled to a shag after paying for dinner, drinks, and a movie, being chivalrous and paying compliments, but there is nothing like the hostility of a rejected woman who feels entitled to free cock…and for doing nothing other than being present with her pussy. So, before you Jez-ladies start complaining about all the free-cock-oppression, assess your own entitlements and privileges. Before you condemn men as being “hostile” about rejection, perhaps you should consider how well most men actually do handle rejection, for hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Free cock is not your oppression. It is your privilege. Get a clue.

Ms. Marcotte’s Sandy Vagina

The overall picture she offers, however, portrays woman only as victim—maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object…[Beauvoir]…expresses outrage at the selfishness, blindness, and ruthlessness of the men who benefit from the mutilation of the personhood of half the human race. –Iris M. Young, Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics

In a gynocentric world, mentioning an example of misandry is misogyny. Expressing dissatisfaction about men being used as objects-of-utility—that is radiated hatred of women. A man concerned that a woman might be more interested in his credit score, rather than his philosophy degree, obviously hates women. A man who challenges the gynocentric ideas about male privilege is a misogynist prick.  In a gynocentric world, men are human-doings; they are not humans-being. Men are maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society-in-general…and if a man expresses outrage at the selfishness, blindness, and ruthlessness of the women who benefit from the mutilation of the personhood of half the human race, the man can be expected to be further dehumanized with insults—troll, worthless tool, loser, dead-beat, whiner, and some form of a non-human Other.

If you think I’m exaggerating, check your privilege and consider what typically happens when a man challenges anything originating from a gynocentric point-of-view. Take, for example, what happened to me and to other men who challenged the notion of male privilege put forth by an entitled princess like Amanda Marcotte. In an article she put out on July 29th, she complained that men are not doing enough with their privilege. Men are not being quality objects-of-utility for her. As such, this irks her, like sand in her vagina, and she took to her keyboard to write an article excoriating men for doing too little and for doing romance all wrong.

Ms. Marcotte complains that she needs a giant douche nozzle to wash all the sand from her inflamed vagina.

What sort of sand seems to be inflaming the vagina of Ms. Marcotte today? Victimhood sand. Yes, the sand of victimhood is irritating the Marcotte vagina today. It seems that when men make public proposals for marriage, men are oppressing women. Yes, the evil patriarchy puts women at a disadvantage in these situations because a woman might feel like an “ungrateful” bitch for saying no.

That’s right. Options are oppression. The privilege of telling a man no isn’t really a privilege. According to Ms. Marcotte, the option of saying no actually disadvantages women. It’s oppression on par with slavery. Men have the “privilege” of making the first move, of putting their necks on the chopping block—risking public rejection and humiliation. Yes, in the twisty-straw world of Ms. Marcotte’s sandy vagina, it’s male patriarchal privilege—being expected to make the first move and take such risks.

It’s also male privilege to proposition women at bars or at night clubs. Making the first move in these settings also disadvantages women. Men who take the initiative and proposition women…those men are imposing on women the choice to say yes, no, or maybe. It’s like a big rapey “Penis O’ Freedom” that busies itself with raping women of their freedom to be free of making choices.

So, being filled with this irritating sand in her vagina, one would think that Ms. Marcotte would put forth a remedy for this oppression. Perhaps something like the importance of changing the social norms such that women are expected to proposition men—spreading out the risk equally between men and women. That way a woman gets the “privilege” of being full-on rejected by men who want nothing whatsoever to do with her.

Nope. Ms. Marcotte’s solution for this sand in her vagina is for men to do more. That’s right. Men who proposition women should do more to prove their worth. She writes.

Hitting on a woman in a public place by telling her she’s got some quality that sets her above other women, without explaining why he should be the natural recipient of all that unique goodness… [that is oppression because it is] …without nary a suggestion as to what he can do for her.

You see, if only men did more for her, then she wouldn’t have to worry about looking like an “ungrateful” bitch for rejecting a poor fool. She simply wouldn’t have any “reason” for rejecting him. If the man proves himself worthy to be up inside her, then there is no reason for her to say no…and this alleviates the oppression, effectively removing her from the slavery of choice—that big rapey “Penis O’ Freedom” that imposes itself on women via propositions.

In the comment thread to Marcotte’s piece of tripe article, I mentioned how this is one big lamentation about the quality of men who proposition Ms. Marcotte.

Moments later, a white knight who lives in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina rushes to rescue the damsel and to save her honor.

Being a black knight, I quickly agreed that panhandling is a lot like propositioning a woman. It’s called “pussy-begging.” Most men are happy to get a few strips of bacon flap, kind of like how a hobo is happy to get a few pennies. My comment didn’t go over too well…and neither did any of my other comments.

When I pointed out the blatant misandry and objectification of men as objects-of-utility, I was quickly excoriated and my comments were heavily down-voted. The problem is that “pointing” is very patriarchal and too much like a penis. Pointing is “mansplaining,” and so I was accused of “radiating hate.” Here is the “hate” that I initially wrote in the comment thread.

Instead of men expressing how they find a woman attractive, how about men simply plop down their credit report and wear a t-shirt imprinted with their credit score?

Essentially, what Marcotte is saying here is “what have you done for me lately?” That’s not very progressive, empowered, or independent, In fact, it’s very traditional in that men have to prove that they can afford her, [kind of] like a herd of sheep. She wants men to “pay” for her with reasons. That actually seems to objectify women and that’s not empowering for women.

Also, Marcotte is claiming that men dehumanize women as objects-of-sexuality that are pressured with an obligation to reciprocate interest, but at the same time, Marcotte insists that men should dehumanize themselves as objects-of-utility for a woman. Prove that you’re a good tool for the women, that there are reasons for her to bother with exploiting the fact that you’re attracted to her.

Nothing about the piece of tripe article empowers women or men. It’s more of the same old crap. Nothing about this article values humanity. It’s all degrading to humanity—to both women and men.

So, I actually argued that people are humans—that men should not be treated like tools and that women should not be treated like sex toys. Nothing controversial about that, right? Well, if you live in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina, what I wrote about human dignity is nothing more than raging hate—pure misogyny. Here is Ms. Marcotte’s moral correction of me and my reply to it.

 Ms. Marcotte never did bother to reply, but some white knight did so on her behalf.

I assume that a contractor who builds my house wants money in exchange for his time and labor. That doesn’t mean I radiate hatred for the contractor. Anyway, that was not my assumption, but it is Ms. Marcotte’s demand and main complaint about men—that they aren’t doing enough for her.

“…without nary a suggestion as to what he can do for her.” In her own words, Ms. Marcotte echoes the selfish and gynocentric idea that men exist for the purpose of doing something for her. Janet Jackson best sings about such things (men) in her song “What Have You Done for Me Lately.”

So, the white knight valiantly attacks the straw man and I simply point out that my assumption has nothing to do with money. My assumption is that these sorts of expectations are traditionalist in that men are still expected to prove their worth to a woman…and nothing about that is progressive. It is still based on the assumption that men must be objects-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society in-general.

The valiant white knight desperately constructs another straw man to beat.

Desperate gibberish. I never made any claim that both parties shouldn’t contribute to the relationship. If the valiant white knight had actually bothered to read my words, he’d realize that I’m arguing against the objectification of men as objects-of-utility. White knights have difficulty removing themselves from their gynocentric fog. If the white knight could remove himself from this fog for a moment, he’d realize that Ms. Marcotte doesn’t value men; she values what men can “do for her.” For gynocentric gender supremacists like Ms. Marcotte, men are human-doings, not humans-being. This is traditionalist in that men are tools. There is nothing “circular” about that statement and there is nothing wrong with making the comparison between men being tools and Ms. Marcotte’s demand that men be better tools.

And so…there are other “tools” that I had to deal with in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina. Take, for example, this person—“Kesh Meshi.”

Right. There are no social expectations on men to be objects of utility. What culture is that? Or, what crazy-straw universe does she live in? I have no idea. It’s “beyond me,” if it’s not the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina. As is usual when dealing with asshats, the conversation quickly degrades into name-calling.

Yeah, I know. I stooped to her level. My bad. Apologies to all, but her insult wasn’t the worst. I was called all sorts of meanie names and accused of bad things. All for supporting the radical idea that women and men are humans and should be treated as such.

“LJC” claims that I’m arrogant for being a man who thinks of himself as a person. “How dare that uppity man not present himself as a dog! Bad doggie! No treat for you!”

And then there is this insult—the one in which I’m cast as being entitled to a woman and that I’m just “upset” because I don’t meet the standard. Apparently, showering every day is the standard…and I don’t meet it. It’s kind of like a grade-school insult—you know, “stinky-head.”

 

There is the one by “Amazing Sandwich.” It’s an attempt to say, in some sort of pseudo-intellectual way, that because I value my humanity and the humanity of others, I “project” dehumanization of myself onto women. Yeah, it’s the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina. In that world, valuing my humanity is projected dehumanization of women. Go figure.

There is the “Shohanna” insult of even more incoherent gibberish. I’ve read her tripe multiple times and, giving her the benefit of the doubt, I think she is saying that I’m a “waste” (some sort of garbage) and that rejection is the best sort of attention that I will ever get from a woman. I suppose I should accept my lot in life of being thrown away by women…because at least a woman will take the time to bother with throwing me away. I don’t know.

“Shohanna” later makes some homophobic remarks. Clearly, being trash was too good for me. Being gay is worse than trash, according to her, so she feeds me some of that gay-hate. Again, being in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina, it’s fine to hate me and make homophobic slurs and call me a “misogynist prick” because I have the radical idea that men are humans too.

It gets worse, but I’ll spare the reader. I’ve only been on the thread for a couple days and the hatred for me continues to flow. I wrote about human dignity and for that I’m called an asshole, pretentious, a dick, arrogant, accused of radiating hate, accused of hating women, and, for some reason, my sexuality is made into an issue. None of this makes sense, unless you live in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina.

Again, in that world, it is male privilege—being rejected. Rejecting men is such a burdensome and oppressive task for women. I do not know how women manage to survive with all that victimhood sand in their vaginas. Take a look at all the oppression of women in this video.

Within only a few moments, 100 women were oppressed. Women were forced by this malicious and privileged man to make decisions about rejecting his proposition. Women were enslaved by the imposing and penetrating “Penis O’ Freedom” and burdened to reject this evil patriarch. As anyone can see by watching the video, women are worried about looking like “ungrateful” bitches.

Women shouldn’t have to worry about such things, as Ms. Marcotte argues in her piece of tripe article. Being burdened with the sand of victimhood buried in her vagina, Ms. Marcotte clearly lays out the solution. Men need to be better tools. Men need to be like a giant douche nozzle that washes away the victimhood sand buried in the vagina of oppressed women. Some little emo clown won’t work.

Nope. Ms. Marcotte needs to invite a big veined throbbing cock nozzle deep inside her—one that fills the hole in her soul and reaches every last grain of victimhood sand within her, scooping it out with a circumcised tip and then a rinsing with a massive shot of anti-inflammatory jizz cream.

Ms. Marcotte and her ilk have little (if any) respect for the humanity and dignity of men. From their gynocentric point-of-view, men cannot be dehumanized, for men are not human at all; men are less-than-human. They are patriarchy. As such, men are maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society-in-general—douche nozzles that exist to “do for her.” Ms. Marcotte and her ilk are the selfish, blinded, and ruthless beneficiaries of the mutilated personhood of half the human race. FTSU.

[Gynocentric] culture confines…[men]…to immanence. Immanence designates being an object, a thing with an already defined nature lined up within a general category of things with the same nature. [Masculinity]…is an essence, a set of general attributes that define a class, that restricts…[men]…to immanence and to being defined as the Other. –Iris M. Young, Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics

Fat Acceptance is Moral Bankruptcy

Don’t Be That Bitch

Misandry isn’t a real thing. Misandry is an empty word that doesn’t refer to any real thing or any real experiences of men-in-general. Sure. There may be one-off examples of individual women who hate a particular man or men-in-general, but that’s not misandry. Unlike misogyny, there are no widely exercised cultural norms that perpetuate misandry, not of the sort that men-in-general would experience. Misandry is simply a made-up word and may as well be the present king of France or the bald emperor of Kentucky. –Some Douche

If there is any doubt about the existence of misandry within our popular culture, consider some of the blatantly misandric things said by the pop-culture icon, Nicki Minaj. In this article by Gordon Smart, she says that men want to be treated like dogs and that there is nothing wrong with being a bitch to men.

Also consider that in one of Nicki’s music videos she had this to say about men.

Find me da best ass-eater…kiss my ass and my anus ‘cos I’m finally famous. Give me all of yo money and all of yo residuals…now suck on my ass!

The prurient talk doesn’t bother me. I’m no prude. However, the blatant misandry is troublesome. Her comments are representative of speech that normalizes the dehumanization of men.

If Nicki Minaj wasn’t a significant contributor to popular culture, she’d just be a “one-off” example as described above by Some Douche. However,  Nicki Minaj is a pop icon with a large fan base of “barbz,” as she calls them—her 16+ million twitter followers. Her “ass-eating” video (the one quoted above) has almost 60 million views. She has sold millions of albums and was the first female solo artist to have 7 singles on the Billboard Hot 100, all at the same time. She recently finished up the 12^th season of American Idol, serving as a judge.

Clearly, Nicki Minaj is a cultural influence. As such, there are a lot of people who listen to her and there are a lot of people who practically worship her, as if she bestows upon them great misandric words of ass-eating wisdom.

The illiteracy of her fans is irrelevant. They love her and she is “insperation” to many of them as their “Queen Bitch” and Nicki loves her “bad bitches.” That’s her “fuckin problem,” as she barks below in one of her tweets.

Regardless of what you think about her “ass-eating” music, her misandric comments, or her cultural influence, referring to women as “bad bitches” seems dehumanizing to women. Notice how one of the commenters on the Instagram photo below wrote that Nicki is a “horrible example for young kids.” However, her bad bitch fans quickly jump in to defend the Queen Bitch, saying that she is an example of success for other bitches…because ass-eating is the pinnacle of success for a Queen Bitch and all her bad bitch followers.

Perhaps I’m simply anthropomorphizing the Queen Bitch and all her bad bitches. Perhaps Queen Bitch Nicki and all her bad bitches really are just a pack of ass-eating dogs?

If that’s the case, then I suppose it’s my bad for projecting human characteristics on the Queen Bitch Nicki and her bad bitches. Yes, bitches will be bitches, not humans-being. Apologies to the Queen Bitch and her bad bitches for thinking that they might actually be humans-being. I won’t make that mistake again, even if the Queen Bitch asserts her humanity and claims to be a “genuine human being,” as she does when asked about her role as judge on “American Idol.”

The perception that people had of me completely changed because there are no cue cards, there’s no scripts, it wasn’t me performing a song…My core is a genuine human being who roots for other people. I didn’t want to blow smoke up their ass. I wanted every contestant to leave with something that they could remember.

Funny how she believes that at her core is a “genuine human being” who doesn’t want to “blow smoke up” the asses of other people, yet, at the same time, the Queen Bitch takes great pride in being a Queen Bitch who wants others to find for her “da best ass eater.” She has moral problems with blowing smoke up somebody’s ass, but no problem at all with dehumanizing men as ass-eating dogs—too incompetent to “touch the dishes or wash the clothes,” as barked in the tweet below.

Yup, “cleaning is 50/50,” but men shouldn’t be doing dishes or washing clothes. Nope. They should only be cleaning out the Queen Bitch’s asshole, like a good dog, getting every last “cornball” and dingle-berry—paying her with “residuals.” It’s a privilege bestowed upon them by the Queen Bitch. This seems more a 99/1 split against the guy, but Queen Bitch isn’t known for doing math, so I’ll let that math problem slide like a turd off the tongue of an ass-eating dog.

Here are some more misandric turd nugget barkings of ass-eating wisdom from the Queen Bitch’s Twitter account.

Even though it might be “cute,” men shouldn’t bother with cooking either. Their hands might smell of seasoning. The Queen Bitch prefers her dogs to smell of ass. The smell of seasoning isn’t nearly as sexy as the smell of ass, not for the Queen Bitch who prefers the butthole pleasures of “da best ass-eater.” Even though these ass-eating dogs may look “cute” while trying to cook, the Queen Bitch’s dogs have to learn their boundaries.

The Queen Bitch can’t have her dogs straying far from home.

It’s important for the Queen Bitch and her bad bitches to train their dogs right, giving them a treat or a scolding accordingly.

Bitches can’t have their dogs wandering about, off the leash—eating another bitch’s ass. Nope. Ass-eating dogs must learn to crave the Queen Bitch’s treats, a mash-up of some ass with some Queen Bitch cooking; keep that cute little doggie confused about sex and food and ass-eating.

Another lesson that the Queen Bitch bestows upon her bad bitches—the importance of extending that confusion on to her children.

The Queen Bitch barks that she wants to be a mom one day and that she wants to “start becoming the woman who I want to parent my child.” I’ve already apologized for anthropomorphizing the Queen Bitch, so I won’t make that same mistake here and again. I can only assume that when she barks of having a child that she actually means having an ass-eating puppy.

Given all the above examples, it’s clear that the Queen Bitch has very little regard (if any at all) for the humanity of men. The initial misandric barks made by the Queen Bitch—the ones that dehumanized men as dogs who want to be treated like pets, those are “widely exercised cultural norms,” as Some Douche would say. If they were not cultural norms, then they wouldn’t be part of our popular culture. As Madonna and other celebrities from years past brought forward into popular culture the humanity of folks within LGBT communities, this Queen Bitch does the inverse. She brings forward into popular culture the normalization of dehumanized men.

I am a man. I am not a dog and I do not want to be treated like a pet. I certainly do not want to be “da best ass-eater” for a solipsistic narcissist like Nicki Minaj…and neither would anybody who values their own humanity. If you’re a man and you value your humanity, realize that this Queen Bitch and her pack of bad bitches are nothing but ass-eating dogs and that is all.

Naomi’s Sweet Honey-hole

This book has been out for a while now. I recommend reading it. I like Naomi. She had me at pounding her sweet Princess honey-hole…you know, the one that bestows consciousness upon humanity, without which we’d all just be empty meat sacks, husks of men. Anywhore, this is not a review of her or her sweet honey-hole. This is a review of the reviews about her sweet honey-hole on Amazon.

 

Here is a photo of the person behind the sweet honey-hole biography. Notice how she drips with the sweet feminist nectar-of-life. Yeah, admit it. It’s OK to fantasize about being her Winnie the Pooh and invading her sweet honey-pot. I’ll bet it makes her produce even more feminist nectar-of-life to know that manginas fantasize about stimulating her sweet honey-hole, about blowing a massive load, a 300 million sperm army all up inside her honey-hole. It makes her nectar-of-life flow like the conscious-stream of an artist hyped up on cocaine.  Hell, billions of manginas beating off to her all at once will probably bestow upon humanity a unity-consciousness for all. Imagine it. Billions of manginas focused on her, beating off to her, all blowing their loads in unison, all for the sake of bestowing a unity-consciousness upon humanity.

Move over Wi-Fi. Naomi’s sweet honey-hole, in conjunction with billions of masturbating manginas, will raise consciousness to such a great degree that humanity will undergo a rapid evolutionary shift, the next great stage of humanity will be achieved—a gynocentric-telepathy. That’s right. “Ma Bell” and the old clamshell Nokia phones were a foreshadowing of the stylish new clamshell gynophones. You gotta do it boys. Beat your meat for Naomi—for all humanity.

So now that we’ve established the importance of mangina masturbation, the “Ma Bell” clamshell “Goddess Array,” the gynophone unity-consciousness, and the evolutionary shift, let’s have a look at the some of the reviews made by members of the Church-of-Vagina (and other non-denominational vagtheists), as well as some reviews made by anti-vagtheists.

 

I was pleased by this review. It’s the work of a medium-functioning semi-literate. Unlike so many full-blown illiterates, she manages to use written language as a tool to convey the fact that men need to read this book about Naomi’s sweet honey-hole in order to understand the “seemingly inexplicable” behavior of women. Ms. Bybee expresses that her sons should read about Naomi’s honey-hole, especially since they will start dating. Reading between the lines here, I see that Ms. Bybee is concerned that her sons should know how to read between the legs (if you know what I mean) of the women they will soon be dating. She doesn’t want to raise boys into men who don’t know how to stimulate the clit. Yep, gotta teach those boys to flick and lick—rock that little man in the boat.

I give this review 3 limp penises out of 5.

 

BooksJJS’ review is a must read for any woman gullible enough to believe that society and self can be healed through better stimulation of the clit and through a better understanding of the sexual wiring of women. This review is also important for women who are jealous of “high speed online porn.” For any woman who wants to shame her partner about beating it to somebody else, this review is important to you because you will learn how to shame your partner about his sexuality, all the while dragging him into a goddess-cult of beliefs that bolster your own sexuality as some sort of magical “Goddess Array.”

I give this review 5 limp penises out of 5.

 

This review by mangina “mack” explains that there must be some sort of science behind the goddess-cult that he has been worshipping. This review is important for any mangina who hasn’t been able to purge all his patriarchal logic. Shame on him and all his kind.

I give this review 1 limp penis out of 5.

 

Ms. McCall’s review is short and sweet and for anybody who loves pussy. If you want to experience “intimate love,” get down on your fucking knees and worship the sweet honey-hole goddess.

I give this review 2 limp penises out of 5.

 

Sir “eric” has provided us with a perfect review, flawless—a shining example of coherency, logic, and truth about the goddess-cult. “It’s a book about vagina.”

I give this review 0 limp penises out of 5.

 

This review by “douglas macnab” is a prime example of a practically illiterate mangina. Notice how there are 2 properly placed periods—something that manginas do understand about women, their filthy vaginas.

I give this review 4 limp penises out of 5.

 

This review by “Robert S. Blaisdell” appeals to any mangina who wants to make himself a useful tool to a woman’s sexuality. Robert is so happy to be able to please a woman that he practically spooged all over his keyboard while gushing about this book. He is such a good little boy and so proud of his learnings about female genitalia, neurotransmitters, and the brain. He can barely stave off an orgasm long enough to write this review. I’m sure mommy would be very proud of him.

I give this review 3 limp penises out of 5.

 

A stellar review by “Zidib” reminds us of the fact that if older women can’t find manginas willing to dedicate 3 or 4 hours per day to foreplay, she can always employ the services of a prostitute or even a gigolo. Excellent points, sir.

I give this review 0 limp penises out of 5.

 

“Physics Math” has provided us with a review appealing to manginas and other gynocentric sorts who believe that women are “the center of the universe.” If you worship women as goddesses, you should find this review helpful. If you ever feel like hacking off your balls with a machete because you’re not worthy, this book should compel you to find that last bit of courage to carry through with your self-mutilation and sacrifice fantasy.

I give this review 5 limp penises out of 5.

 

It may be hard for some of you men to render 4 hours of foreplay per day, but if you really love your woman, it’s a sacrifice that you must make to maintain a healthy relationship with your woman. If you don’t make this sacrifice for her, you are personally responsible for her lack of orgasms, for her incompleteness of being and for her diminished spirituality. Shame on you! This review by “Ellen E.G. Cusac” is a good review for any woman looking to blame and shame men for a woman’s own inadequacies in the bedroom, in her personal life, and in her spiritual life.

I give this review 3 limp penises out of 5.

 

Poor victim-women, nobody acknowledges or appreciates them, except for the few “spiritually advanced” mangina pussy-worshipers who pray to the divine mother-goddess for access to pussy.

I give this review 4 limp penises out of 5.

 

Yes, most books are organized into chapters. It makes them slightly more readable. “Alton L. Gilbert” gives us a review to be expected of a mangina struggling to purge his innate tendency to oppress women with patriarchal things like science and matters of fact. Notice how he ever so subtly attempts to oppress his goddess for making “universal conclusions.” He has to hide his “criticism” behind his being a “scientist.” Don’t worry Alton, mangina “mack” and “Physics Math” will give you the courage to sever your balls and put aside your oppression tendencies so that you can realize your true nature as a subservient worshipper of goddess-vagina and of Naomi’s honey-hole. Amazon can provide you with a fantastic “Estwing” hatchet for hacking off your balls.

 

There are many more reviews and I encourage all to check them. I also encourage all to read more about Naomi’s sweet princess honey-hole. It is important for a man to learn how to muff-dive and please a woman. It makes my cock throb just thinking about getting paid to stimulate a few dozen of Naomi’s multiple orgasms, making her 50 year old flab produce more quivers than a legion of Tolkien’s elves. I can count the money already…god, that money makes me hawt. Being a human-vibrator is so much fun. It’s like being a throbbing, big-veined, cock-god.

It’s also important for billions of manginas to masturbate and blow a load in unison over Naomi’s honey-hole. Until this happens, the “Goddess Array” and unity-consciousness cannot be created. Sadly, without the sacrifices made by these billions of manginas, humanity will be unable to make the next evolutionary leap. Hats off to Naomi for inspiring manginas around the world to worship and for encouraging them to spend 3-4 hours per day on foreplay. It’s a sacrifice all men should be willing to make to gain entrance and membership to the Church-of-Vagina or other vagtheist goddess-cults. It’s nothing but a small tithe to be paid for the privilege of a worldwide mangina circle-jerk of unity-consciousness load-blowing.

Special thanks to the musical genius of Frank Zappa. May he rest in peace.

Asshat trips and ruins X-Files

 

Women’s fashion is a subtle form of bondage. It’s men’s way of binding them. We put them in these tight, high-heeled shoes, we make them wear these tight clothes and we say they look sexy. But they’re actually tied up. –David Asshat Douchecovny

I usually don’t give a fuck about the dumb shit that oozes out the mouths of asshat celebrities, but this vomit needs cleaned.

It’s not typically men who buy all the imbecilic fashion magazines and it’s not men who typically obsess about shoes. I couldn’t (and neither do most men) give a fuck about such things. It wasn’t typically men who watched (or gave any fucks whatsoever about) that vapid show describing the entrails of women who live in the city—“Sex and the City.” And neither is it typically men who buy and read the “50 Shades” trilogy that infantilizes women and is literally about binding women.

By Douchecovny’s vomit-logic, I suppose it is the fault of men for shoving down the throats of obese women a diet of Big Macs and junk food. By this vomit-logic, these poor and helpless women are at the mercy of and bound to men’s influence on the fashion industry. As such, men are to blame for women who suffer with all sorts of eating disorders because men rule the fashion industry. Clearly, this must be true because men give so many fucks about fashion.

The fashion industry is a way for masochistic women to bind themselves. If women want to spank themselves by wearing the latest imbecilic fashions and shoes, don’t blame men. It’s women’s own vapid and materialistic behavior. Nobody, especially men, “forces” that on them. All I (and most men) ask of women is that they get their fat asses on a fucking treadmill a few times per week and to exercise some self-control over their fucking carbohydrate intake. Nothing about that entails imbecilic fashion or ridiculous shoes or absurdist expectations about beauty. The expectation is that women be humans, moral agents in charge of making their own decisions about their health, diet, and physical fitness.

Men, on the other hand, are expected to not only do all the fucking cardio, but they are also expected to do all the fucking anaerobic weight-lifting to build mass and look like a physically useful G.I.Joe/human-tool. On top of that, men also are well expected to regulate their diet and look ripped with no fashion at all—just their shirtless fucking chest protruding out from their human-body-tool, being a symbol of their alpha-male virility and utility. “Yeah, I’m your man ‘cause I can lift heavy shit for you and ‘cause I can beat up other beta-males, baby.”

It doesn’t end there. Oh fucking no. Men are also expected to earn a living and have a well-developed mind—a mind that is marked with a fucking science degree that earns him at least 6 figures of income. Even more, that income is expected to bring security to a wife and kids because that income is expected to be rendered to a wife and kids—without which, he is not really a man, probably just a loser or a homo or a child-man who refuses to “grow-up.”

Who is “bound,” you fucking asshat?