Reddit mentions: The best men gender studies

There are a few core psychological drives that compel men to do what they do. In no particular order:

Sex, obviously. Sexual dimorphism results in males on average having stronger libidos than women of similar demographic. Year+ dry-spells often lead men to suicide ideation.

Female companionship Ties in closely with sex, but is moreso the emotional connection component. Sex alone isn't enough to satisfy men's psychological needs; a supportive and loving partner is necessary. But on the flipside, a supportive female companion but lack of sex is also insufficient for healthy psychological functioning. Case study: /r/deadbedrooms

Male companionship Men generally seek esteem and reputation among their peers. For reference, the feeling a man gets when his fellow men look to him for leadership or admire his skills is similarly emotionally pleasurable as sexual release or close romantic moments. It's a very different type of emotional gratification, but is on a similar level of pleasurable intensity. This is what fuels male competitiveness.

Competence Along with social gratification from other males, men need to convince themselves of their own competence. A man that does not believe in himself is not psychologically healthy, regardless of how others view him.

Independence For most men, there is no greater disgrace than being a burden to others. Case study: chronic unemployment or underemployment is strongly correlated to suicide.

Purpose Ties in a good bit with male companionship and independence. Men want a cause. I know that personally, I feel much more driven, dilligent, and psychologically healthy when I know people are counting on me. I'd postulate than a cultural "lack of feeling of purpose" has contributed to increasing suicide rates as well. I'd also postulate that desire for purpose leads many men to military service or radical social movements. (Case study: Disaffected European men joinging ISIS)

There's a comment I read a while back about the "male romantic fantasy" which is incredibly insightful into the male psyche. I'll see if I can dig it up.

EDIT: Found it! Incredibly insightful comment chain on "the male romantic fantasy" (The third comment down is the one I want to especially draw attention to. Quoted below)

> The Male Romantic Fantasy
I'd say that men usually feel most loved when this normal state of affairs is negated; when they are made to believe that a woman's love is not conditional in the cause-and-effect manner described in the parent post. Love is work for men, but it can be rewarding work when things are going smoothly and the woman is happy as a result. But the male romantic fantasy is to be shown that the woman feels the same way and stands by him when he's down on his luck, when the money's not there, or when he's not feeling confident. He wants to know that the love he believes he's earned will stay even when the actions that feed it wane (however temporarily). A good woman can often lift a man up in his times of need and desperation and weather the storm even when things aren't going well. The male romantic fantasy is an enduring and unconditional love that seems to defy this relationship of labor and reward. A man wants to be loved for who he is, not for what he does in order to be loved.

> An interesting way to examine this is to look at what women often call romantic entitlement. An entitled guy is a dude who maintains an unrealistic notion of men's typically active role in love. Before acknowledging reality, this boy uncompromisingly believes that he shouldn't have to do anything or change anything about himself to earn a woman's love; he wants to be loved for who he is, not what he does.

> All men secretly want this, but there comes a day when they eventually compromise out of necessity. After that day, they may spend years honing themselves, working, shaping themselves into the men they believe women want to be chosen by. A massive part of what causes boys to "grow up" is the realization that being loved requires hard work. This impetus begins a journey where a boy grows into a man by gaining strength, knowledge, resources, and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world might harden and change him into a person his boyhood self wouldn't recognize. He might adopt viewpoints he doesn't agree with, transgress his personal boundaries, or commit acts he previously thought himself incapable of. But ultimately, the goal is to feel as if his work is done.

> When he can finally let go of the crank he continually turns day after day in order to earn love and, even if only for a moment, it turns by itself to nourish him in return, that is when he will know he is loved.

If you're up for more in depth reading, I recommend, "The Way of Men" by Jack Donovan. (Disclaimer: towards the end of the book, the author espouses some rather radical personal philosophical views. His personal views in no way reflect my own, but I still see his book as a fantastic window into the baser male psyche)

There are many who exhibit the traits that you consider "alpha"; leadership, firm character, integrity (maintaining their frame). The issue is that their goals may be terrible for others. Many incarcerated murderers are attractive to women, but are not "great men".

Jack Donovan touches on the dual concept of "being a good man" and "good at being a man". To summarise in a sentence: the first is creating a good society with men while the second is surviving as a man in a tribe. The Way of Men is about this concept; read the book as my one sentence summary does not do the subject any justice.

/u/RedSunBlue has a good description. Traits that are associated with "alpha" are those that demonstrate good health and genetics (women want to reproduce with you); "beta" traits are those that make men good providers (women want a LTR with you).

Alpha traits are said to be best because they create value; beta traits give value.

You have it made, little brother. You're beginning this journey at an optimal age. Your life, starting now, will be an amazing climb into all manhood has to offer the bold. Congratulations.

Now. Here are the instructions I would've given 17-year-old me.

Read:

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.

The Way of the Superior Man by David Deida.

Everything by Robert Greene.

The works of Rudyard Kipling, Jack London, and Mark Twain. Plus Jules Verne if you enjoy science fiction. Read as many other classical authors as you want, there's a very good reason their work has stuck with us.

Psychology texts. Philosophy texts. Study how to think, what it means to think, and how the way people think has changed throughout history.

Speaking of, history texts. Learn from the triumphs and failures of men before you.

Do:

Study nutrition & exercise science. I recommend looking into the Paleo nutrition philosophy, but make up your own mind based on your own research. In fact, making up your own mind based on your own research should probably be the number one thing you focus on. Never follow the lead of the herd.

Learn how to build habits. This will help to increase your productivity throughout your life. Find your ideal routine, and stick with it until it's natural; then feel free to deviate occasionally. Practice mindfulness at all times.

Learn to fight. Martial arts, boxing, wrestling - study some form of self-defense, preferably more than one. When you can handle yourself in a fight, you've taken one step further along the path of truly understanding yourself.

Study people. Talk to people. Befriend people. Piss people off when you have cause. Ultimately, lead people.

Pursue your passions. Explore what makes you tick. Know your strengths, and excel at them.

Above all else, remember:

Think with your mind. Act from your balls.

INTP/ENTP "spiritual person" here. Your routine and motivation is not the root issue. The self-hate is the root issue. The way you view yourself and how you relate to yourself (and by extension, the world) is very very dysfunctional, and I guarantee it's fucking up your life in more ways than one.

The negative self-talk is not reality, not objective, and not who you really are. The voice in your head is not only wrong and destructive, it's not even you.

You have a disconnect between different parts of yourself. You hate being "grounded" because when you're in that state, your ego isn't in charge, and you're forced to look at everything inside you you've been fighting. Learn to sit with that pain and not fight it... just let it happen, and watch it swell and then recede. This is, in essence, mindfulness meditation.

Try reading some of these, based on what stands out to you. They are all helpful.

• The Power of Now --A book about the true nature of self and reality. Heavy Eastern influence. This book has influenced me the most out of the list, and maybe even altered the course of my life.
  
  
• Radical Acceptance --A Buddhist book about loving yourself fully and completely. You are worth it!
  
  
• 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos --A book by a brilliant man about how to live in a world defined by pain and suffering. Heavy Jungian influence. Quotes and references the Bible a lot, but from a Jungian/Campbellian perspective. Occasionally questionable politics.
  
  
• Iron John --A sort of esoteric book filled with poetry and fairy tales about how to be a man. Heavy Jung/Campbell influence.
  
  
• The Enchiridion by Epictetus --This is one of the best introductions to Stoicism, and it's free. Written circa 125 CE.
  
  
• Feeling Good --CBT book clinically shown to be as effective as antidepressants. Your post is filled with things this book addresses directly. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
  
  
• The Happiness Trap --A book about ACT, which is similar to CBT with more mindfulness. Basically CBT tries to get rid of/replace the distorted images of yourself and the world, and ACT tries instead to see them for what they really are, which are meaningless ramblings of an organ using evolved mechanisms to protect its host, and as such are safely ignored.
  
  Tl;dr: Learn to be kind to yourself, love yourself, and accept yourself just as you are right now, flaws and all.

> MGTOW Doesn't Get The Respect It Deserves

Now why is that? We know that its not respectable for a man to quit, to run away from that which he finds appealing (all healthy young men find women appealing). Let alone walking away from a challenge, which women today are.

Lets set a definition. From our side bar glossary:

• Men Going Their Own Way; the growing contingent of the male population who are saying “Fuck It All” to the Mating Dance.
  
  MGTOW are committing an act of self-betrayal. Especially the younger ones. They don't seem to realize an important fact: Eventually we all go MGTOW. Its called "Getting old".
  
  MGTOW just gives a feeling of validation to a generation of young men wasting their days on videogames and porn, completely hoodwinked into thinking that they are wasting nothing by doing so. There is no book, no art, no website that will teach a young man more than he would learn by going out and socializing. Particularly with women he is interested in.
  
  Yes, dating sucks. Yes, it has never been this hard. No, young men should not give up. They should change strategies and improve their socializing skill while they have the energy and availability to do so. Throwing their opportunity in the trash is self-betrayal even if they don't realize the mistake they are making.
  
  Even worse, by accepting the validation that MGTOW provides, they are taking on an identity that other people have made for them.
  
  
  > backlash from women because it is a direct threat to their sexual strategy
  
  Absolutely not. Read the sidebar. They will happily move on to the available men, particularly the top 20%.
  
  > Even those that are in happy relationships seem to understand why MGTOW makes sense and can come to a rational agreement and support the freedom that MGTOW gives men.
  
  Running away is not freedom. Freedom when one is able to do something one wants to do. This is granted via the right perspective, which is for a man to put himself first. MGTOW cannot lay claim to this perspective or any other self-improvement despite its attempts to redefine itself.
  
  > However it is not meant to be a lifetime commitment as it directly challenges our biological need to procreate and reproduce.
  
  This is somewhat correct but for the wrong reasons. The challenge from MGTOW is not to our biology but to our freedom, which is (indirectly) what MGTOW will do to a young man as he ages.
  
  From the MGTOW subreddit sidebar definition:
  
  "We are men going our own way by forging our own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is."
  
  > forging our own identities
  
  Admirable try. Identity is created by harsh experiences and reactions from others, as undesirable as that may be.
  Also, interpersonal identity is not as self defined as one would hope
  
  
  > paths to self-defined success
  
  Here is the problem: If one does not know what a successful life is or its potential, how would one know what success is or can be? I ask rhetorically because its clear that younger men do not personally know their potential . They have no business writing off the things they aspire to, this is essentially why MGTOW gets a bad rap, as it should.
  
  The men who experience high levels of success do everything they can to continue it and increase it. They do not check out because of the complaints that MGTOW espouse.
  
  > cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.
  
  Thanks to feminists and gender identity politics "A man" is a murky concept that everyone believes they have a valid opinion on. Young men are understandably unclear about it.
  
  Here is a part of one of my definitions:
  A man changes his environment to his will, as best he can.
  
  Here is a good book on the matter
  
  
  In conclusion, game (Socializing) is a skill and if every MGTOW built up that skill instead of rationalizing away his retreat there would be no such thing as MGTOW. I have empathy for these boys but they are making the wrong choice. We only live once.

Fine, I did your work for you.

Feminism and Masculinities, part of the Oxford Readings in Feminism. Here's the description:

> This Reader provides an international mixture of the best classic foundational pieces and recent key works that investigate masculinity from a feminist perspective. The chapters examine a wide range of topics including gay liberation, the men's movement, black and working-class masculinities, homophobia and the Internet.

One entry is referenced as [11] in this wikipedia entry.

> The link between the biological male sex and the social construction of masculinity was seen by some scholars[10] as a limitation on men's collaboration with the feminist movement. This sharply contrasted with sex role theory which viewed gender as something determined by biological differences between the sexes. Other key elements of the men's liberation movement were the ideas that genders are relational and each cannot exist without the other, and that gender as a whole is a social construction and not a biological imperative. Thus, second-wave profeminist writers[11] were able to explore the interactions between social practices and institutions, and ideas of gender.

This book, Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory seems to undercut your argument completely. Instead of reinforcing masculine stereotypes, it tries to rethink masculinity.

The Amazon description:

> This collection overturns old paradigms about identity, victimization, and dominant and alternative forms of masculinity to advance new dialogues between masculinity studies and feminist theory.

>How are male power and privilege constituted and represented? What are the effects of men's masculinity on women and men? How can more egalitarian forms of masculinity be fostered? Looking particularly at literature, film, and classroom practices, Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory links the analysis of masculinities with feminism's ethical and political agenda for the future.

And the Columbia description:

>Why is there so much talk of a "crisis" of masculinity? How have ideas of manhood been transformed by feminism? Does feminism hold the key to the development of more egalitarian forms of masculinity? Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory addresses central questions about the analysis and construction of masculinity in contemporary society. The volume examines the ways male privilege and power are constituted and represented and explores the effect of such constructions on both men and women. With subjects ranging from Robert Bly's Iron John to Tom Hank's "niceness," this collection overturns old paradigms about identity, victimization, and dominant and alternative forms of masculinity to advance new dialogues between masculinity studies and feminist theory.

>Looking particularly at literature, film, and classroom practices, Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory links the analysis of masculinities with feminism's ethical and political agenda for the future. Its authors share a conviction that such a link not only reveals the persistence, now more subtle and varied, of male entitlement but also promises to create an enriched and reinvigorated feminism for a new century.

And that book is cited as [208] in this Wikipedia entry that also disagrees with your argument:

> Feminist theory has explored the social construction of masculinity and its implications for the goal of gender equality. The social construct of masculinity is seen by feminism as problematic because it associates males with aggression and competition, and reinforces patriarchal and unequal gender relations.[63][207] Patriarchal cultures are criticized for "limiting forms of masculinity" available to men and thus narrowing their life choices.[208]

I also found a blog entryclaiming to be part of the SIUE Women's Studies Program that portrays the evolution of feminism into gender studies into masculine studies, which implies that focus and questions about traditional began with feminism:

> over time, feminism has turned into feminisms, paying attention to global women’s rights, as well as to the issues of race, class, and sexuality. By the time the 1990s had rolled around, Gender Studies had started to emerge as an offshoot of Women’s Studies.

> In the 1990s, Masculinity Studies, a relative newcomer to the field of gender inquiry, began to pose questions about men and their relationship with patriarchal power (something that had hitherto seemed obvious and gone unquestioned). Do all men have power? Do all men want power? Is masculinity the same in every culture and time period? Is masculinity a word that has a plural, as well as singular, form? Does the performance of masculinity depend on the categories of race, class, and sexuality?

A blog isn't as good of a source, of course, but that entry seemed interesting.

Here's a book, Men Doing Feminism that looks interesting:

> "The wonderfully diverse entries in this volume investigate the tensions between feminism and manhood, engaging the personal and the political, the moral and the epistemological. The authors' explorations of the strengths and weaknesses of male subject position challenge simplistic interpretations both of the subject/object distinction and of epistemologies based directly on social identities. This collection makes an original and substantive contribution to feminist theory..""
-Alison M. Jaggar University of Colorado, Boulder

After reviewing this for you, I can't find anything about mainstream feminism that supports your argument. I could keep going, but I think I've gone well beyond satisfying your demand:

> How about you point me to some influential feminist sources that specifically fight against unrealistic beauty standards heaped upon men? Pointing me to a source that simply doesn't shit on men for not fitting into traditional male beauty standards is not enough. Also, pointing me to a source that gives only token acknowledgement to male issues is also not enough.

> I am a man who is very ugly and very unmasculine. Show me some serious feminist voices that are neither hostile nor indifferent to the issues I face.

> I don't care if it caused it. It condones and at times promotes it - that's my problem with it.

Everything I've cited seems to be the exact opposite of what you claim. Oddly enough though, TRP tells you to be a stereotypical hypermasculine male, so I don't know why you're siding with them.

I have to first nitpick that you provide a bad example with Mark Ripptoe being stronger than Arnold, if you look at their powerlifting records here and here respectively. If you take a look at the strongest people in the world, judging either by strongmen meets or by powerlifting, they are generally rather large. Not as large as their bodybuilding counterparts, but still very large. Before the topic of steroids is brought up, consider the size of men before the invention of steroids, like Clarance Ross.

The other point to make is that for Arnold, or any other bodybuilder steroids or not, to make his body look nice they must be very strong. The effort of building that body also makes you look very large. Most elite powerlifters don't have as low bodyfat or the concentration on symmetry as bodybuilders, but they are still very large. Take for example Konstantin Konstantinovs (I use him as an example because he does seem to keep a lower body fat).

One last point, if you look at the history of weight training the Greeks actually pioneered it at least as early as the 5th century(PDF warning). Another great resource for the strength feats of the ancients is Manthropology which has really cool stuff.

Also: opening up space and providing methodological instruments to allow for the academic study of men and masculinities - something that wasn't even on the horizon until early 3rd wavers rolled onto the scene.

If you're a dude looking for what the 3rd wave has done for men, I'd say that's a pretty big check mark right there.

Here are some resources for you to look at, if you're interested:

1. Masculinities, by R.W. Connell
   
2. The Men and the Boys, by R.W. Connell
   
3. Men's Lives, edited by Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner
   
4. Men and Masculinities, a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted entirely to the examination of men and men's lives.
   
5. Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, by Lisa Wade and Myra Marx Ferree. Features a whole lot of discussion about men and masculinities
   
   This is just the tip of the iceberg of academic research on men and men's lives, and the overwhelming majority of it is a direct result of the revolutions in feminist thought brought forth by what we now think of as 3rd wave feminists.
   
   Now bear in mind that this is all academic stuff, but think about what that means for a moment: each semester, tens of thousands of students from all over the world, are asked to think critically and sociologically (or anthropologically or psychologically, whatever your preferred brand happens to be) about men, men's lives, and the issues facing men and boys today. The textbook I'm currently working on has a whole chapter that focuses on the challenges young men and boys face in North American schools, and the textbook I'm using to teach a sociology of gender course this year devotes about half of its space to examinations of men of all shapes, sizes, orientations, and expressions. That's huge. That's really huge. It's huge because action - and activism - need to be grounded in knowledge, and that's what 3rd wave feminists have helped to provide; knowledge of the unique and often serious challenges facing men and boys today.
   
   So that's what 3rd wave feminism has done for men and boys in academia. I'm sure there are resources around online that can help expand on this.

This ruling never made any sense to me until a few days ago.

I am reading this book right now and there are some juicy little details in it, especially about Canada.

Here's a sample:

> Chapter 12: 5 Women's Rights v. Human Rights: The Case of Entitlements
>
> Of interest here are two sections of the Charter, which became law in 1982. Sections 15 and 28 must be seen as operating together. According to the first part of section 15, “[e]very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” According to the second part, that “does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” Now consider section 28: “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”40

[...]

> In 1995 pay equity was given legal status under Canada’s Employment Equity Act. “The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.”60

[...]

> Status of Women Canada is a government office, remember, but it acts also as a lobby group for women. Note the link between “equal outcomes” and “substantive equality.”) In addition, a new argument follows: “Gender-based analysis can prevent costly legal challenges under the Charter and at the same time promote sound and effective public policies.”64 In other words, forget litigation. Bureaucracy itself can take care of everything. Just leave it to us!

> The following statement of commitment leaves no doubt that gender-based analysis is really woman-based, or gynocentric, analysis: “The federal government is committed through the Federal Plan [Setting the Stage for the Next Century, which we have already mentioned] … to ensuring that all future legislation and policies include, where appropriate, an analysis of the potential for different impacts on women and men. Individual departments will be responsible for determining which legislation or policies have the potential to affect women differentially and are, therefore, appropriate for a consistent application of a gender lens.”65 The word “men” appears, to be sure, but – as the very next line indicates – only as a token gesture.

> Interpretations of the Charter have institutionalized equality of result as a goal. This clearly distinguishes Canadian law from American. (Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, the struggle for which is far from dead, would open up very similar possibilities in the United States. This is why feminists still want it). But all legislation that results from feminist agitation for equality of result, whether in the United States or Canada, is based on the assumption that women constitute a victim class. (Some feminists believe that women constitute the original and even the ultimate victim class.) Ergo, women both need and deserve special protection. And by “special” we refer to protection that infringes on the rights of other citizens. Like every other segment of society, women are indeed victims in some ways.

I'd never heard of Lionel Tiger, but I feel ashamed now that I hadn't. His book published back in 2000 looks interesting, and outlines trends that are well-known to MRA's today. A look at the reviews suggests to me that maybe his ideas needed some more refinement, but one can hope he has made some progress by now. I wish him the best of luck with the men's centre.

I have many gay friends, so when I first shifted from an ideological libertinism to traditional value set, I was having trouble reconciling my views. Isn't the right supposed to hate gays? I am against cultural degeneracy, and homosexuality seems degenerate, so what does one make of it? Furthermore, the science clearly shows that homosexuality, whether an aesthetic preference or
"sexual orientation," is generally not a choice (though there is nuance).

Reading The Way of Men by Jack Donavan, who is gay, helped to clear this up for me. He argues that what we need to fight is not homosexuality, but the men who work to upend and destroy traditional masculine values (strength, honor, courage, mastery). The two heavily overlap, especially in urban circles, which leads to the association, but this still leaves a quite significant percentage of honorable gay men.

Interestingly, a counterculture is emerging among male homosexuals to distance themselves from their peers. They've been coopted by the Left, willingly, in exchange for sinecures like gay "marriage." This is what happens when you sell your soul; you no longer get to determine how it is used, and they are now open to blowback. The risk is that the public will take back all of their gains and then some, which the gays with foresight recognize in leaving L-BT behind.

one question: you leave the kids in the car with engine running?

and. awesome. those are great books and good for you overall. don't let her twist you in "The manipulated Man" ( https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178)

don't punish the kids though, they may like your routine.

get them ready and skip the rest of the "nice guy" stuff.

There is a lot of research going on with organizations and journals dedicated to the subject.
American Psychological Association: Division 51 Society for Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. This is probably your best resource. They have a page dedicated Research Briefs. Their Div 51 Journal - Psychology of Men & Masculinity will provide a thorough review of research published in the area.
There is also the Men and Masculinities Journal, the
Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, and the
Journal of Men's Studies. I'm sure that I am missing some but these are the ones that I know of. You could probably also find a text book that covers a lot of these ideas. I think the standard is APA Handbook of Men and Masculinities, Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, and Masculinities 2nd Edition.

If you find anything you think interesting please post it over to /r/manfeelings. I'm collecting interesting articles and pieces over there.

Sure. I would argue that those stereotypes of sexual prowess and masculinity are very clear examples of how these standards can hurt men. I don't believe there is such a thing as 'perfect privilege' either. There is only more or less in relation to others.

Just like female beauty standards can keep all women, regardless of appearance, from experiencing their true potential in different ways, standards of masculinity inhibit men the same way.

Men are often robbed of emotional support by these unreasonable standards of masculinity. Just like women, men often feel deep, deep shame for not measuring up to these standards. Conversely, the men who do live up to these standards often live in fear of losing that status. This manifests as the stereotypical jock beating up the weak kid. It's the male analog to the thin girl who is constantly afraid of becoming fat.

Personally I think that's why so many male Redditors feel so angered by being called out for dog-piling inappropriate jokes and catcalling women in Reddit threads. They are essentially screaming "Don't you see? This is the only emotional outlet I have!" And they feel that to be true in a profound way.

I don't say that to make excuses for the behavior, but I can see it as an explantation for why so many otherwise decent guys do this.

Have you ever heard of RW Connell's theory of Multiple Masculinities? Like I said above, I'm not an expert, and I've only begun my reading on the subject, but her concept of varying types of masculine ideals makes a lot of sense to me.

here is her book

a jstor article

this looks like a good basic introduction

I really got a lot out of The Hearts of Men by Barbara Ehrenreich and I've recommended it to guys I know.

It's really very wonderful though it should be said that you won't so much "learn about feminism" as you will see the power of a robust feminist analysis. It was written in the 80s, but I found it extremely relevant as a guy born in the late 80s.

I recommend it if you want men to understand that feminism really is for everyone--it's not something to support "because you love the women in your life."

> Feminism, at least on here, seems to completely ignore those factors and jump straight for 'social construct' with no evidence, no reasoning, and no discussion.

This is a false assertion on your part. There is a lot of very powerful evidence that gender is in fact the product of social forces and has very little to do with biology. This evidence emerges from decades of intensive research by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and even biologists - who will often point out that while humans are a sexually dimorphic species, the extent of that dimorphism is fairly small.

One of the reasons you might not be seeing this evidence in discussions of gender online is because, frankly, having to stop a discussion to provide links to this exhaustive mountain of evidence every time someone with little knowledge of the material demands to see it is frustrating and tiresome. There are hundreds - thousands - of introductory textbooks from sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and psychology that talk about the social construction of gender; if you want to see the evidence, then look there. Most feminists accept the academic consensus that gender is primarily the product of culture, and because that consensus is grounded in the best possible empirical research, you should accept it too.

Or don't. I'm not your boss. But if you don't accept it, then you should accept that in rejecting the social construction of gender, you're also rejecting the preponderance of evidence, which might not be the best place to plant your flag.

>I think saying it's 100% socially constructed is probably wrong too...

Good thing that's not what most people are saying. Bodies exist. They are the things onto which we inscribe our cultural values. But they are also incredibly malleable and so they are shaped and reshaped by the dictates of culture.

Why do children raised in poverty have poorer health outcomes than those raised in middle class or rich environments? Because poverty correlates with poorer diets, fewer calories consumed per day, and a lack of regular access to gyms or after-school fitness programs. Poor bodies are shaped in different ways than rich bodies because of culture. I mean, hell, the foundation of epidemiology is the recognition that cultural forces have enormous impact on bodies.

Why are men bigger and stronger than women? Biology? Perhaps, but we also cannot overlook the fact that in our society - and in many others - men are expected to consume an average of 300-400 additional calories per day than women. Is this because men are "naturally" bigger and stronger than women, or are men bigger and stronger than women because they've historically had access to higher calorie diets (which we know result in bigger, stronger people)? Do men have more muscle mass because testosterone, or do they have more muscle mass because they are incentivized to be more muscled than women - who are treated worse if their own muscle mass begins to impact their perceived femininity? Men are supposed to be big and strong; women are supposed to be petite and "trim" or "fit but not overly muscled". Men know this and women know this, and our recognition of these normative standards will pressure us to sculpt our bodies in different ways.

What I'm saying is that the cliches of "men are strong because biology, men like blue because culture" is reductionist to the point of being useless. The reality is far, far more complicated than this, but in the end, in light of decades of research into the question of nature v. nurture, the broad consensus is "a little bit of biology, and a whole boatload of culture".

Side note that didn't get addressed by Dr. Nerdlove- The LW's family was not a feminist family even though her mother was the breadwinner. An abusive relationship cannot be feminist in nature because abuse (from any party in a relationship) goes against the very heart of feminism.

There's some great research being done by academics in gender studies on toxic masculinity and if anyone is interested in some reading material, there are some great folks like R. W. Connell, Michael Kimmel, or Tony Porter that might be helpful.

I say this as a fan of Evola and someone who embraces the idea that we are in the Kali Yuga: people have been complaining about the decline of their civilization forever, stop being so melodramatic about it. I get it, there is clown world shit happening that makes all of us see red, but that is no excuse to just give up. Stop waiting for some mythic event like the return of Christ, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, or whatever deus ex machina story people have been talking about since the beginning of time. Start your own damn thing.

​

Many modern oligarchs did not expect to be as successful as they ended up.

• Erik Prince of Blackwater (per Jeremy Scahill) - "Erk Prince might now see his empire as the fifth branch of the USA military, but his designs for Blackwater started off much more modestly."
  
• Elon Musk thought that Tesla would fail.
  
• In 2015 who expected Trump to end up as president?
  
  ​
  
  I also see a lot of complaining in here about the overwhelming amount of simps in the world. Simps aren't a problem, simps are an opportunity. Modern capitalism basically turned most of those bluepillers into serfs. Why shouldn't they be your serfs? Why should Jeff Bezos get serfs and not you?
  
  ​
  
  There are an incredible amount of people (99%?) who have completely given up thinking, which translates into an incredible amount of opportunity. Men have survived and even thrived despite incredible suffering throughout history. While we have dire problems to face, our ancestors went through shit like seeing 30-60% of their continent die.
  
  ​
  
  Fuck clown world. Build your own fiefdom. Most people are serfs and you don't need that many people to make a significant change in your own small corner of the world. Find a few people who are completely intolerant of clown world and start digging.
  
  ​
  
  From The Lessons of History:
  
  ​
  
  "So we cannot be sure that the moral laxity of our times is a herald of decay rather than a painful or delightful transition between a moral code that has lost its agricultural basis and another that our industrial civilization has yet to forge into social order and normality. Meanwhile history assures us that civilizations decay quite leisurely. For 250 years after moral weakening began in Greece with the Sophists, Hellenic civilization continued to produce masterpieces of literature and art. Roman morals began to “decay” soon after the conquered Greeks passed into Italy (146 B.C.), but Rome continued to have great statesmen, philosophers, poets, and artists until the death of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 180). Politically Rome was at nadir when Caesar came (60 B.C.); yet it did not quite succumb to the barbarians till A.D. 465. May we take as long to fall as did Imperial Rome!"
  
  ​
  
  Nassim Taleb: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority
  
  ​
  
  "It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences."
  
  ​
  
  Jack Donovan - Becoming a Barbarian
  
  ​
  
  "There’s an old Greek proverb that says, “society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” If you don’t like what’s happening around you, what’s happening to culture, what’s happening to men and women, what people are becoming — get out there and start digging. Plant the seed of something new. Of something better. Plant the seed of something you really want — not just whatever you think you can have. Show others that there’s a different way to live. Spend the rest of your life tending a root that may one day grow into a tree of liberty."

Ah, I study this literature. First, go read Matthew Gutmann's everything. Then, read all his articles, but especially 'Trafficking in Men' in Annual Review (1997).

Secondly, read a good part of RW Connell's Masculinities, which is theory heavy but very, very good.

More ethnographically focused work is [The Cassowary's Revenge] (http://www.amazon.com/Cassowarys-Revenge-Masculinity-Society-Sexuality/dp/0226819515/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344394669&sr=1-14&keywords=masculinities) and Dwight MacDonald's work in Palestine. That should be enough for now

There are several. Here’s just a few I’ve enjoyed.

King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062506064/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_04ugDbXGHB18G

Iron John: A Book about Men https://www.amazon.com/dp/0306824264/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_h5ugDb5X2WAJ8

The Hero with a Thousand Faces (The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1577315936/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_y5ugDbNTGC2GM

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201301/red-alert-science-discovers-the-color-sexual-attraction

"Overall, it appears that men perceive a woman in red as signaling readiness for sex. Female sex-readiness is attractive to men, partly because it is a relatively scarce resource."

I cannot find any articles on it now, to prove my point ,but I've seen research that says the similar things about brightly non natural colored hair and why women might be motivated to do it. Basically, when a woman dyes her hair purple it's because she's seeking new sexual partners. I.E cuckhold thier man. Similar in concept to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_copulatory_vocalizations. If your gal is a screamer, she has some other guy on her mind. ( This is why porn actresses exaggerate thier moans to comical levels, while making eye contact with the camera/viewer. It sells more videos, your lizard brain is hard wired to think she really wishes she was fucking you and not Ron Jeremy.)

Generally, K selected woman aren't going to engage in that sort of peacocking behavior, while R selected women will. R selected women are more likely to be SJWs. It's why cuckoldery is associated with SJWs.

This book explains the relationship between R/K selection and politics pretty well: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/mobile/w/the-evolutionary-psychology-behind-politics-anonymous-conservative/1109689556?ean=9780982947937

Stefan Molynuex on YouTube, a has a playlist called gene wars that explains this pretty well too.

Some other links:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002U8271K/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

https://illimitablemen.com/tag/branch-swinging/

The special editor of this issue was Martin Manalansan, who's done great work on queer diaspora! He also used to be the co-chair of the Association of Queer Anthropology, so I'm guessing he picked out the image. Nice to know he's a drag race fun! Here's his book Global Divas, which totally applies to Manila.

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.

It explores masculinity from a perspective of evolutionary psychology from Hunter/Gatherer societies and why certain masculine traits are valued.

After reading it its quite easy to look at how men interact and understand why they do the things they do, and how and why certain things are respected among them.

Like I said, somewhat of one. I'm getting a lot better. Actually, reading some PUA stuff helped, though I steered clear of most of the creepy stuff. This book was really good, even at helping me with everyday social interaction.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Here is one of the go-to works that really got this conversation going a few years back. And it's not "unlikely" at all, in a linguistic sense, for labels--especially those that refer to really broad things imbued with social and political import--to be multivalent, to have different definitions for different individuals, or to just be really vaguely defined. For example, go ask a hundred people to talk for a few minutes about what "freedom" means to them, or "America," or "education," etc. Cultures (and certain groups in the culture) sometimes have a vested interest in restricting the definitions of various terms, and this masks their true variety. For instance, many people believe that there is only one definition of "American," and might become angry if you explain that there are various ways to define that term.

"Masculinity" is very much like the examples above. I think some examples will demonstrate:

• In the domain of "grooming," a person can be very "masculine" by smelling awful and never shaving his face or trimming his hair, looking like a tidy lumberjack with a bit of stubble, looking crisp and James-Bond-like in a tuxedo, being perfumed and manicured all metrosexual, having just the right amount of rumple and scruff in a hipster way, etc.
  
• In the domain of "sexual fidelity," you can be "masculine" by being unfailingly faithful to your current partner, by sleeping with everything your junk is compatible with, by practicing "serial monogamy" with many partners in a row, and probably some other things.
  
• In the domain of "parenting styles," you can be "masculne" by being extremely patient and engaged with your child, by stoically modeling a keep-your-mouth-shut-and-get-things-done ethos, by being a cold and harsh authoritarian drill sergeant, by yelling and hitting your child, etc.
  
  All those examples are "masculine," and they don't all work together. You might say that some are more masculine than others. I'd say "prove it." I've met people who have very different core beliefs about what it is to be a man, or a "good man," or a "natural man," etc. (we can't even agree on that--what "masculine" actually refers to).
  
  There is a concept sometimes called "hegemonic masculinity," and I think it refers to what many people sometimes call "traditional masculinity." It looks a lot like the Hispanic concept of machismo. It is not a nice way of being a man; it usually includes dominating others, constantly being prepared for violence, being sexually promiscuous to a pretty riduculous degree, etc. It's not called "traditional masculinity" as much in scholarly circles, I think, for a good reason: it's no more "traditional" than any other conceptualization of masculinity; in the (admittedly Western) cultures I have experience with, there have always been multiple masculinities. They vary by geographic region, social stratum, personality type, family background, religious expression, ethnic heritage, education level, and probably more stuff. In fact, I think masculinities even vary within individuals--we are a different kind of masculine (at least many of us) depending on the situation we are in, or the life tasks we're dealing with (e.g., finding a mate in our 20s versus raising children or building a career later).
  
  So OP's question can't be answered as asked, because there is not one thing that is "masculinity."

> Well first of all you’re part of the problem.

Ah, I'm part of the problem - with my single motherhood and putting down straight white males and my man-hating. Interesting.

>I don’t know what you gain by denying what I have said but okay

I gain the truth, and I gain the opportunity to show others what the truth is.

>Like I said you don’t have to put men down to raise everyone else up.

Did you read ANYTHING AT ALL that I typed, or did you just assume what I said because that was easier for you to respond to?

>I think it is your false assumption that just because someone is white and male means they are somehow impervious from human problems specifically.

I think it is your false assumption that I believe anything of the sort.

>This is actually sexist and racist.

Sure thing, snowflake.

>In fact the things I have said would benefit society as a whole, specifically the African American community and even women.

Because a woman can't do anything "without her man"?

>Can I not advocate for white men?

Do white men really need someone to advocate for them? Is this another "War on Christmas" thing where someone in conservative media made up a bad situation so that they'd have something to rant about? Because white men are in an awfully good position in our society.

>Do you have a problem with this?

What I have a problem with is ignorance. Something you would appear to have in droves.

>If you do then fuck off. Label me alt-right if you want, makes no difference to me.

You absolutely sound like you get your information from the alt-right media, at the very least. What is most worrying is that you don't seem interested in correcting your poor information at all.

>The decline of men (https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Men-American-Getting-Flipping/dp/0061353159)

Your sourcing about the decline of men is a link to a book that some dude wrote. Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but that's not sourcing your statement at all. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone of anything.

>Side effects (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-14/the-side-effects-of-the-decline-of-men)

So my question here is...did you even read that article? Or did you just Google something and that title met the match so you included it? Because that article doesn't say what you seem to believe it is saying.

>I was referring to interpersonal male role models. A father figure. Not some guy on TV

First of all, that's not at all what you said. You said there were no positive male role models or models for masculinity. All of those I cited are exactly that (plus many more).

As for the ridiculous suggestion that there aren't positive role models for young men to look up to in their everyday lives, well I'm not sure how you could possibly know such a thing. Where is your documentation of this evidence? Or is it just something that you were told?

I've got to be honest - you're clearly not here to find out what we think. You're clearly here to rant at us. We're not going to buy into the idiocy that someone sold you on.

I'm sorry that your life sucks so bad that you fall for crap like this...I really am. Maybe you can find a positive male role model in your life to fix this...of course, my emphasis would be on "positive", because it's clear to me that you have more than enough negative influences in your media.

> female feminist here in good faith to learn and add new perspective for the sake of the evolutionary and ecological principles of diversity

What? That sentence doesn't mean anything. I have a PhD lady, big words don't impress me, only meaning does.

Men have a gang mentality, always have, always will. Go read Jack Donovan's book "The Way of Men". That has nothing to do with individual agency. Individuals acting in concert still maintain their autonomy. It is only when others want to tell/shame them into behaving in particular ways (as feminists/SJWs/progressives like to do), that they become hypo-agents.

Actually, you make a great argument against feminism, ironically enough.

Lodge 49 S01E06 The Mysteries

We are somewhere between Albedo and Citrinitas, or the White Phase to the Yellow Phase. Larry's memory is heavily cast in yellow light, as is his room and upholstered chairs, even his shirt. Cinitras is when we change from the Moon to the Sun, from reflecting the light of others to becoming a source of light ourselves.

In the three Pillars of the Tree of Life, Severity, Mercy and Balance, Dud seems to be taking the path of Severity (which starts with passivity), Liz the Path of Mercy (which starts with taking action), and Ernie the Path of Balance (living in the here and now).

“He who thinks a fire, is a fire.” is a hex being cast by Wallis Smith onto child Larry. What a dickish thing to do to your girl-on-the-side’s son. In real lodges, a President only serves a one year term, to keep their heads from getting too swelled like this, and the officer’s line keeps moving people up so that will be many Past Presidents lying around to check the power of the current year’s one should he get out of line. Those Thanksgiving decorations, including the bark canoe, are pretty sweet tho.

“Except we’re the Lynx. Not the Masons. The Masons were wannabe Rosicrucians. And the Rosicrucians were a hoax that pretty much just got out of hand. You know, there's a really great essay by this British junkie--" There have been so many conjectures about the origins of Freemasonry by so many authors, all of whom contradict each other, that this essay of Duds could be hidden among any of the Prestonian Lectures, the hundreds of books published by Lewis Masonic, or since Scotland is part of Great Britain, it could be Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland’s Century. But we see Dud has taken seriously Blaise’s statement that he wouldn’t respect Dud if he didn’t put in the work and study necessary to earn becoming a Knight.

[Edit: Hat tip to /u/ficta, who saw the clue was in "British junkie", which I completely missed despite it being there in the closed captions. This makes the essay most likely Historico-Critical Inquiry Into the Origin of the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons by Thomas De Quincey. Warning: It has a wandering, fatiguing intro, just skip to Chapter 2. ]

“Who’s not afraid of the dark, Liz? At least it makes sense. You know what doesn’t make sense? Being afraid of the light.” …says the guy starting a nightshift job where he will be chased by dark shadowy figures similar to the shadow man alchemical symbol for Earth.

Champ’s Marxist rants about corporations are self-fulfilling. He chooses to place himself in the pressure cooker, and refuses to step away. He chooses to work two jobs at the same time. I wonder if he also saves money by having no home or bed to sleep in. His anti-capitalism rants offer no solution, no way out, nothing to change to, just bitterness at his alienation and disempowerment. Maybe if he quit his speed habit he could afford to quit one of his bottom of the ladder jobs and be less stressed. While Dud idealizes pastoral naturalism, Champ demonizes industrial capitalism. Even a future when Champ retires and is replaced by robots is dystopian. Dystopian literature is a particularly bad fantasy genre that misleads angsty teen mid-wits into believing they’re in-on-the-secret visionaries.

Ernie is declared Sovereign Protector, which Jung would say now makes Ernie a Senex.

Larry “goes down swinging” in the same spot outside the lodge of his childhood fist fight.

Dud is quickly moving up in the world. From a Fool, through the three Medieval ranks of Those who Work, and now to Those Who Fight. (Er, those who drive away quickly.)

Notice what the thieves are stealing? They’re cutting out copper electrical lines from the Orbis warehouse.

Alice’s motivational exhortations ("You're so weak! You suck at this!") are all dude bro shit talking, which takes a shift in thinking for some to understand how it works: She challenges you, saying who you are is not good enough. You overcome her by proving her wrong and doing better. It’s her quick way of filtering for winners, which are people willing to push themselves to improve.

Alice has displaced the Father's "Relax" pillow, throwing it onto the floor, and taken the Father's position on the couch herself while she challenges Liz to "improve her core". She can casually do this because Alice's name means "nobility".

"You moved the couch". The couch for Liz is the structure that she has placed herself, her father, and her brother into since childhood, giving her comfort. Liz has finally developed enough core (spirit) to shift her couch, and shift the relationships that the three have all been locked in even past death, breaking at last the parent's hold over them all. This breakthrough was not without risk, and the power released by the child rebelling against the parent and breaking these relationship constraints has injured and hospitalized her.

Liz has destroyed the image of her old self, transforming into someone new. While Dud's changes come from study and learning, Liz's changes result from intoxication. She ends with a cable tow tied around her neck. She may have stumbled on the carpet in the same place a second time as when she went to answer the door earlier ...or she may have stumbled on her father's Relax pillow that was thrown there by Alice. And did she really stumble there earlier, or just injure herself in the same place Dud is injured when she said his name out loud?

The scrolls will now become the McGuffin of the show? They're going to feel really dumb when they find out the Corpus Hermeticum is available on Kindle. What about all the first editions already sitting in the rediscovered library? Are they chopped liver?

Avery again gets 15 seconds of screen time, now making the character a Chekhov's gun. His name means "counsel". Real lodges issue membership cards that travelling members use to identify themselves as "members in good standing" to other lodges that also shows their rank within the organization. There used to be certain phrases and handshakes, but are only used ceremonially anymore because frankly once learned those don't expire when members get cheap and stop paying their dues. We're all now trained to look for a current membership card to enforce against travelling cheapskates that aren't current in dues with their home lodge drifting around satellite lodges to continue milking unpaid for membership benefits. You quickly learn to flash your current membership card first thing to the bartender when visiting any of your order's out of town lodge's taverns to show you're in good standing with your home lodge, and the first thing every bartender looks for is the current year on your card. The Grand Lodge officers are particularly diligent on flashing their membership cards because they want to discourage lax security and encourage enforcing keeping everyone up in their dues. "Is there room at the Inn?", if a real Lynx phrase used to identify a travelling Lynx member to another lodge when they don't have a current membership card, has got to be the lamest phrase ever, and this kind of easy to fake impostor credentialism is precisely why all the fraternities have moved on from using secret handshakes and password phrases to rewarding paying your annual dues with a membership card with the new year's graphics, card color background, and the newly paid for year prominently displayed ...that expires when the next lodge dues are up.

There is a theory that Lodge 49 itself is a character, and that its spirits speaks to the main characters through birds and weather. If so, the happy bird chirps and bright light when Avery crosses over the threshold and under the lintel means at least the Lodge spirits like him.

Kenneth Welsh has his own theory why his character Larry punched Dud.

The closing a cappella version of “Nature Boy” was sang by Tom Patterson's wife Susy Kane in their living room.

I really loved Iron John by Robert Bly. It's a book that tries get at old wisdom of what it means to be man through myths and mythology.

My therapist from a few years ago, who was a woman, gave it to me.

It's hard to put it into words what it's about as the book is mostly allegory and metaphor. But I still recommend it.

>And then there is this thread of comments where one person asks why an article about bisexual males is included in /r/feminisms.

You'll notice that that person got pretty heavily downvoted and that a whole bunch of heavily upvoted people in that thread politely took apart the idea that feminism shouldn't involve itself in the issues of LGBT men, including one of the moderators. I would not take that as a sign of being unwelcome.

>The closest that anybody came was when somebody pointed out how feminism is concerned with the expecations placed on men and how they effect women's inequality.

I think that's an important issue to consider because it works both ways. The perpetuation of women's inequality also hurts men. There is a reciprocal effect in oppressive systems that necessarily create difficult situations for those who are supposed to be privileged within it; thus the genesis of many male gendered social issues and traps.

Sometimes one has to consider issues discretely, other times you can only consider them as part of an interconnected system of social relations. What happens to women impacts men and vice versa to varying degrees for different issues.

>Am I wrong about this? Is feminism concerned with men's experiences as well?

These days there as many feminisms as there are feminists. A welter of different responses could easily accompany your question. My answer is yes. It absolutely is. Partially for the reasons I outlined above- the interconnected nature of humanity- and partially because the business of undoing the various straitjackets of hegemonic gender require everyone's participation.

Men's Lives is one of the leading gender studies texts on masculinity; it's an anthology.

Masculinities is also a critical text. What I meant by 'hegemonic gender' is elucidated on in its pages, and as the title implies, Professor Connell's thesis is that there are multiple ways of 'doing' masculinity in our world that vary by culture, race, class, age, and so on. Her contention is that each plays a critical role in maintaining the established norms of gender, while some are more subversive.

Manhood in America analyses the relatively recent history of how modern ideas of what it means to be a man (the ideas of your father that you rebelled against, likely) came into being.

On Amazon's "Related Books" pane you can find several others on this subject by men and women alike and it'll give you some insight into the multiplicity of progressive and feminist perspectives on manhood in Western culture.

I think part of the issue that so many of us, men and women, still suffer from is that we do tend to see everything oppositionally. Even I'm still getting out of that Manichean mindset. However, as you read and research you'll eventually come to see the at times delicate but synchronous waltz of men and women's relations within feminism. You should understand that women discussing their issues vis a vis men they've dealt with or been hurt by is not an attack against you as a man, but attempting to guilt them for speaking up will be problematic.

Rather, try to understand where they're coming from and why. The vast majority of feminist women do not hate, automatically mistrust, automatically dismiss, or automatically marginalise men. But discussing feminist issues requires frank discussion of people's (men and women's) experiences with gender, which often includes conflicts with masculinity and/or men, as that's just how power is often distributed and flowing.

The trick is to learn not to be threatened by it and go "but not all men are like that!" and you'll be fine. Because we all know that. :P

Conflict is omnipresent in feminisms. Conflict is what gave rise to feminisms rather than just a continued unitary feminism. Disagreements are common, writers and bloggers go back and forth with each other, academic conferences can be acrimonious, battles of inclusion are still being waged in various sectors... It wouldn't be feminism without the arguing, I'll tell you that!

You learn to embrace it, after a while.

What feminism en toto consists of is thousands of groups, great and small, millions upon millions of men, women, and those otherwise identified, disassociated women's and gender studies departments in universities worldwide, tonnes of academics, writers, intellectuals, slam poets, street activists, clinic escorts, journalists, editors, web mavens, bloggers, artists, musicians, and more who inform feminism with their work, research, reporting, passion, art, and every day experiences.

They're never all going to agree with one another. :)

Feminism isn't one thing controlled from a central location wherein we all have nice matching hot pink uniforms- awesome as those would be. It's very widespread and diffuse. There's room for quite a lot within it.

If you look, you'll find your place. ::smiles::

> Esther Vilar truly is a brilliant author.

Thanks. I'm going to give The Manipulated Man a read.

http://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar-ebook/dp/B0047745S0/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

You might be interested in this, it was one of my college textbooks. The Media and Models of Masculinty. It's been about a year and a half since I had to read it, but I do recall some positive portrayals of masculinity, I think.

Masculinity Studies is a huge field in Gender Studies, there are shelves and shelves full of books about masculinity. This book sounds like a good starting place: http://www.amazon.de/Masculinities-R-W-Connell/dp/0520246985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414234224&sr=8-1&keywords=masculinity

Porter is so convincing to many gamers/nerds, I believe, because nerds traditionally did not conform with at least some aspects of the "man box," which just makes this rabid anti-feminism and misogyny even harder to stomach for me.

I highly recommend The Way of Men by Jack Donovan. One of the best books of this sort.

Yup, got some good ones for you:

Three Years of Hate: The Very Best of In Mala Fide: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Years-Hate-Very-ebook/dp/B00AWJVZXK

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan: http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-of-Men-ebook/dp/B007O0Y1ZE/

Here a good review of the Donovan: http://uncouthreflections.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/jack-donovans-the-way-of-men/

This isn't surprising. There have been numerous articles, like this and books like this around for years now. Some look at it as an opportunity to redefine masculinity, others take a more doom-and-gloom approach.

There is no Deus ex Machina in that story. It is all metaphor. There's an entire book that breaks down that one story.

https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/0306824264/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536061283&sr=8-1&keywords=iron+john

If books like that interest you I'd also recommend Lion's Honey. It breaks down the story of Samson and Delilah.

https://www.amazon.com/Lions-Honey-Samson-David-Grossman/dp/1841959138/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1536061367&sr=1-1&keywords=lion%27s+honey

I'd recommend the book Iron John by Robert Bly.

https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/0306824264

This book gives a high-level, in the clouds presentation of how boys become men. There's a normal attachment children have with their mother until about 10-12 or so. It's different for different kids; it's not black and white. But there comes a time when the boy must make a break with "the Mother". Bly goes through a few different cultures and how the break is made with some rite of initiation.

Your children will naturally listen to the mother until they get close to this "make the break" time. Too early of a break because of an unloving mother or problems in the home or whatever, and some problems can arise. Too late of a break with the mother ... well ... soy boys and men that can't adult and other problems.

I compare the book Iron John to TWOTSM ... just applied to raising boys. Kind of spiritual, kind of ethereal ... but the understand it can impart is great.

well, to be fair, people were stronger in the distant past

Sounds like you'd enjoy reading some Jack Donovan.

https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Barbarian-Jack-Donovan/dp/0985452358/

> Esther Vilar in "The Manipulated Man"

That book is almost 180 bucks on Amazon. I have it on my list, but I just can't see spending that kind of money for a book at the moment.

That's how important and controlled that book is in today's world. When I saw that price and how restricted/hard to get it was, that immediately setoff some massive Red Alerts.

It's easier for me to get Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf than it is a copy of that book.

Let that sink in.

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482345217&sr=8-1&keywords=Esther+Vilar+in+%22The+Manipulated+Man%22

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan is a great place to start.

Here is a video introduction.

Male 23 last year of university graduating in a Computer Engineering degree

http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Man-Corey-Wayne/dp/1411673360
Its basically a cross between a basic book like "Bang" and "The way of men". PUA crossed with some more serious/relevant messages about masculinity and purusing goals
http://www.amazon.com/Way-Men-Jack-Donovan/dp/0985452307

I have been in only one serious LTR. Girl broke my heart. I spent 1 year without touching a woman and wallowing in my own pity because the LTR cheated. I had a serious health issue that kept my bedridden for a long time. Other than that, I am just getting started with TRP and realizing my value in the sexual marketplace. So in short; fairly inexperienced. Just getting started. Thats why I am posting this topic

Well I guess that means I should just keep spinning plates till I get someone valuable. And if not, fuck marraige

>the manipulated man

It looks very interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

I like the top review.

Thanks for the recommendation!

Link to Amazon for others:

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=%22the+manipulated+man%22+from+esther+vilar&qid=1557272009&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull

The Way of The Superior Man

The Way Of Men

The Art Of Seduction

1. The Way Of Men.
   This book changed my life. Im sure anyone on this sub will recognize themselves and the situations Donovan writes about.
   
   
2. Anything by Robert Greene.
   How to become powerful, seductive and master yourself.
   
   
3. Meditations.
   This book helped me overcome my fear of death, which made me give less fucks. Because in the end, nothing matters.
   
   I dont have anymore than that at the moment, but i would suggest reading biographies of great men. Right now im reading Seven Pillars Of Wisdom, T. E. Lawrence(of Arabia)s first hand account of the Arab uprising during the First World War

> Can't stand his self righteous attitude.

As I said, it's a standard attitude among the wannabe alpha demographic. I don't generally read the manosphere on a regular basis, but occasionally one of them will say something vaguely interesting or intelligent. When they do, I just try to filter out the grunting and other bullshit, and get the actual information that they are offering.

As I also said in another topic, this sort of thing is pretty much a pure reaction to feminism. It's guys feeling threatened by women mobilising and becoming politically powerful, and thinking that they need a "me-too," movement in order to counter it. As a result, they have come up with a distorted Flanderisation of real masculinity to the same extent that feminism has done, where femininity is concerned. We've seen near-incoherent, ridiculous travesties like the one written by this idiot, for example.

Actually throughout history females were much, much more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. And they have always had their own set of privileges and their own forms of power.

Speaking of books/papers:

The Privileged Sex

The Myth of Male Power

Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance

Favored or Oppressed?

The Legal Subjugation of Men (1908)

The Boy Crisis

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys

Gender differences on automatic in group bias: whey do women like women more than men like men?

Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Intrasexual Competition Shapes Men’s Anti-Utilitarian Moral Decisions

Moral Chivalry: Gender and Harm Sensitivity Predict Costly Altruism

The Gender Empathy Gap: Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality

Note that with the exception of the first link, which leads to an historical study of female privilege written by a right wing military strategist, all of these books and papers were written by liberals and socialists.

Another recent [study](Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences) (conducted in Sweden, of all places) concluded that 'gender studies' is by far the most unscientific and biased discipline in all of the social sciences and possibly all of academia. Basically, if you've learned about gender solely through the lens of feminism, you've been wildly misinformed.

Speaking of redpill reading, I feel the need to shout out Jack Donovan here. Two of his books, "The Way of Men" and "Becoming a Barbarian" have been absolutely revolutionary for me. These are dangerous books, full of dangerous ideas. The former one, in particular, is an excellent primer in masculine virtue. I bet I've given half a dozen copies away. Read them, learn them, commit them to memory. Also recommended: "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius and "Letters from a Stoic" by the one and only Seneca.

http://www.amazon.com/Make-Her-Chase-You-Attracting/dp/1440461546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299380069&sr=8-1

"Make Her Chase You" by Tynan (Herbal). There's a kindle edition also. It's a very interesting read.

>Oh so you’re sexist against your own gender? Do you just say this stuff to make yourself look better than most women?

@ u/roccoseinfeld - May I recommend a book to you?

It's called: "THE MANIPULATED MAN"

It's author is: ESTHER Vilar

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

It's even available on Amazon. From their own description:

> A wave of sexual misconduct allegations about powerful men have exploded recently in the media (e.g., the news, Twitter #MeToo, etc.). A bold social movement has begun with brave women coming forward and being applauded for speaking out and sharing their stories of abuse, discrimination, and harassment. As a result, accused men like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and dozens more have been removed from power and are suffering the consequences.


> In How to Destroy A Man Now (DAMN), Dr. Angela Confidential (a business psychologist, consultant, and human resource professional) empowers women with a step-by-step guide for destroying a man’s reputation and removing him from power.


> In easy to understand terms, the handbook reveals and explains the fundamental dynamics between allegations, the media, and authority as they relate to male misconduct in today’s society. It also unveils and details practical real-world methods for leveraging allegations, media, and authorities to dethrone a man from power.

I'm torn. I really want to maintain the integrity of book reviews left by people who have actually read the book. But on the other hand, should anyone read shit like this?

Conversely: The Manipulated Man and The Feminist Lie: It Was Never About Equality. The first seems like it's worth a read. The second looks almost as toxic as DAMN.

Sex

The Way of Men – Jack Donovan***
Sperm Wars – Robin Baker
Sex at Dawn – Christopher Ryan
Why Men Rule – Steven Goldberg
The Manipulated Man – Esther Vilar
Is There Anything Good About Men? – Roy Baumeister
Demonic Males – Dale Peterson
The Essential Difference – Simon Baron-Cohen
The Mating Mind – Geoffrey Miller
The Red Queen – Matt Ridley

****

Government

Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers – Tom Wolfe
Public Choice: An Introduction – Iain McLean
On Government Employment – Foseti (blog post)
Yes, Minister – TV Show

****

​

They did a recent episode where they talked about this book and it was so ridiculous I just had to skip the episode. Threw up a couple red flags as well.

I was under the impression the manipulated man was the sidebar article. Is this the book you recommend?

Nah, guys with my mindset have been around for decades before that cringeworthy subreddit was created.

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.

Try this; https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/745489624?utm_medium=api&utm_source=custom_widget

Then this; https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

Message me if you want more!

You would like "The Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar. She basically blasts women for being infantile jerks who trade access to their vagina for material support.

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

The Way of Men, by Jack Donovan is a must read. Just finished it recently myself.

The Second Sexism.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Philosophy/dp/0470674512

The Decline Of Males

http://www.amazon.com/The-Decline-Males-First-Unexpected/dp/0312263112/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Take a look at the book "Legalizing Misandry"--written by two Canadian academics and part of their multi-volume series on misandry:

https://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Paul-Nathanson-ebook/dp/B00CS5BJ78/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512019773&sr=1-2&keywords=misandry

Then you can read this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar-ebook/dp/B002U8271K

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

> IIRC There's no hard evidence in regards to the softening of our culture.
>
> ​
>
> That doesn't mean it's not true, I personally do believe it plays some of a role.

Relevant book here--> Manthropology

The Manipulated Man

>Interesting point of view. I would say not having the right to vote and being considered “property” is oppression, but I can see why you would think otherwise.

Then men have just as much right to complain too, since most men in the west couldn't vote until the mid-19th century at the earliest, especially in the UK, where we couldn't vote until 1918, just a decade before most women could. Also, women might have been considered property but least society doesn't still treat you like a disposable utility. There was never much equality in the world, until recently. In fact, there still isn't.

>I don’t agree “protection” is the correct description.

It was in those days.

>It seems you don’t have a full understanding of why the feminist movement began in the 19th century, because there genuinely were unequal rights and women were seen as lesser than a man

When did I say they didn't have less rights? All I said was the movement was not entirely pure from the start. True equality was never their final goal.

>legally women are equals, which is what the movement achieved

And much more than that, of course.

>I would be happy to delve deeper into your perspective of the topic if you are willing to share links or names of texts.

This and this are good places to start. I also encourage you to read this to learn more about how women have more or less manipulated society to their liking and how men (especially those in power) will often betray their own gender to bow to the demands of women. I think you'll find these books very interesting and eye-opening.

>Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “today’s morals” because morals are timeless. There are different philosophies, so of course you may disagree.

What is considered "right and wrong" throughout history changes is what I'm saying. You can't apply our standards to the past. I'm sure people in the future will look back in horror at things we don't even consider to be bad today.

This post is contradictory, or at least a bit inaccurate. Potentially harmful, too (to a total newbie).

What is the definition of a nice guy?

• There's certainly the whiny little bitch who uses "niceness" as a way of manipulating other people into his fairy tales (as opposed to growing a pair of balls and taking what they want and/or saying it upfront, as it is). Once rejected, they throw emotional tantrums as the little kiddies they are. I would know, as I used to be (and still am, to an extent) this kind of a guy.
  
  
• There may be a more mature version of a nice guy - one who got burned in the past. They may recognize that altruism is the most beneficial strategy for humans as a whole; and yet, they know human nature - so they save altruism for those who are worthy. Either that, or they remain giving without an expectation of reciprocity, retaining their inner peace (but that is not a nice guy - that is a saint).
  
  Nice guys don't get nice things. Nice guys get shit on. What you are demonstrating is a change of attitude (seriously, good for you, as attitude is everything).
  
  I may not be expressing myself clearly here. That is because the subject is complex, and there are multiple layers of meaning to it. For example, on some level, you are a killer (unless you believe that meat grows on the shelves of supermarkets), and aggression is a means of self-preservation. The self-consuming rage of the frustrated nice guy may have something to do with rejecting these primal layers of his nature.
  
  Women's sexual preference has evolutionary subtext to it. This is because in pre-civilization days, nice guys didn't finish last. They finished dead in a ditch. Mating in today's world has, however, turned into charade - gym bros passing as highly fit males, no tigers to thin the herd of weaklings, etc.
  
  Then there's the civilization layer. Cooperation really is the best strategy there... but this goes against the evolutionary hard-wiring of humans. Many just "can't help it". Civilizations crumble as selfish behaviors infiltrate various institutions of the state. Modern man is thus essentially fucked.
  
  Recently, a book caught my attention. I liked the illustration on the cover, and the title (Becoming a Barbarian). I'm yet to order and read this book; and yet, I bet this book delves into this kind of a topic.

Fyi I updated the previous post so you may wish to check it for updates.

In smaller societies, men are treated pretty fairly, at least as fairly as nature allows. More fairly than today, certainly. Men are more disposable than women, of course, but that's necessary. Strong, smart men lead, and other men may choose to follow. Liberty exists. It ain't perfect, but at least a man can determine his own path, at least he can choose to have a family and raise his children as he sees fits. At least he doesn't have to worry that his wife will leave him and take the kids, or that his kids will believe him a fool because they are indoctrinated by the educational system and the media, he won't have to worry nearly as much about a false rape accusation, or that his kids will be taken away by the government because CPS is corrupt, or that his money will be stolen by the government to be granted to the leeches of the world. When an injustice is committed against him, at least he has the opportunity to fight back with violence and perhaps see justice. At least the things he does have meaning. At least things are simpler, and he can see his enemies when they approach; they aren't hidden in government bureaucracy he is powerless to pierce.

For men, real men, that world is far more appealing than the modern world, where feminine sensibilities that cater to women and manginas rule, where apparent safety and comfort are what matters and life has little meaning, where the population is drugged to make them compliant and anti-depressants and Ritalin are used to keep the populace numb.

Which would you rather have, typhon?

I choose The Way of Men.

As for Women who support or at least understand MGTOW I'd assume the two would be

Esther Vilar of The Manipulated man : https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178


and Dr. Helen Smith Of Men on Strike : https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620


It's going to be harder to find sources that rationally argue against MGTOW because the typical arguments against MGTOW tend to attack mens sexuality , sexual abilities( incel / virgin ) , or tend to call men who do not subscribe to traditional male gender roles cowards and similar emasculating claims to evoke an emotional response .

The most common arguments against MGTOW are probably going to be listed as arguments in support of men marrying .

Not to what I would consider a good academic standard. I mean, yes, he references where he gets his stats from, and dictionary definitions and a few other things.

But there's stuff he doesn't reference that he should. For example, in the above bit about powerlessness and crime, Farrell references nothing. And yet, there is (and was in 1994) a huge amount of crime research - you can even reference notions of power.

Farrell could have easily turned to the Groth Typology - written in 1979 - for rapists - which actually has categories for those who use rape as a means for power. It wouldn't have been hard for him to read about that, expand it, and then discuss it in more depth. Of course, then he would have to allow for the fact that not all rapists seek power through rape, and that this is not because men are powerless as a whole, but rather that it's about asserting masculinity.

Farrell chose not to do this. So we can assume that he either didn't read the work of other people far more qualified than he is, and therefore that he just liked the idea because it fit with his bias; or that he deliberately disregarded this research because it didn't paint men as victims of nebulous people who give commands.

Either way, he devotes a whole two fucking sentences to something that has had hundreds upon hundreds of papers done on it, and doesn't bother to elaborate or prove that it is a fact.

Not only that, but Farrell doesn't devote much time to proving anything - his book is a series of statements about what is really going on, without much proof at all to back it up. Most feminist books for example, have a far sharper focus with about as many references.

A recent one I read - Pornland by Gail Dines (fear not, I disagreed with her and her stance, but I had to read it for the same reasons I read Farrell) focused solely on sex and porn and women's role in pornography. Where Farrell would give about a page's worth to a subject, Dines made sure she gave a chapter, with lots of references. She didn't try to cram her notion of feminism into the pages - and even though I disagreed with her bias and her conclusion, I couldn't really disrespect the way she wrote it. It was in a university library because of the difference in the way it was treated.

Farrell's central point is that male power is a myth - and yet he devotes 350 pages to that - which is fucking pitiful - because he threw in every single man, so many men's issues and the kitchen sink. Considering that just describing masculinity as a concept took 300 pages or so for R.W. Connell. Here's her book - go and look at the references she uses and how much she references. Which is of course, also in university libraries.

Yet, Farrell deals with concepts with at most a page - for some a sentence or two - and at worst, a foregone conclusion. So rather than reasoning out his thesis that rape, murder, domestic violence are features of powerlessness - by, you know, going and talking to men who have done such things, then using research that fits with that view, he just declares it so, and shows none of the workings to get to that conclusion. That sentence alone should have warranted a chapter of its own, with lots of interviews with men, lots of statistics, lots of research - pointing out that the profiles of men who do such things includes features of men's powerlessness like poverty and lack of education. But instead, he just doesn't bother, gives a two-line throwaway and onto bigger ideas.

I always think about it like maths. You have to show your workings - same with research. Farrell is fucking sloppy - he shows none of his workings. He just gives you the answer, and you can't really see if it's right or not. It just is, as far as he's concerned. So he doesn't have enough references to show his workings.

u/Pleasedontstrawmanme u/Umbly u/maluno22

In context, its about a minority of women who claim the large F (feminism) who scream and bray about 'objectification' which was an invented idea by large F, as a means of shaming and dominating sexual discussion and behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVYiJV_1IwM


Consider the fact that women attack others through Reputation Destruction rather than punches to the face. Consider also that big F has always described and reduced sexual activity down to Power Games, Power Dynamic, etc.

Within the context of PD and PG, the term objectification makes sense. They have literally been pounding away at these memes since the 1960's, to shift the narrative from "people are selfish and sometimes want to just have sex with someone for pleasure" to "men, specifically, objectify women by desiring them sexually without knowing anything about their family life or their accomplishments, or lack thereof".

To put it another way, does a lion or chimp objectify potential partners because its horny and just wants to screw the other? if humans are an extension of basic animal behavior, then objectification has to be something all species do. But you can see the problem with this because objectification is defined by large F as willful and intentional degradation of others, and I don't think any animals, even humans, are doing that simply because they find something attractive.

If there's one thing you notice among large F people who discuss objectification, they typically fall WELL outside social norms of beauty. The suffragette panels of the early 1900's looked like a leper colony.

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

Consider the fact that today merely questioning the honesty and integrity of large F or people who cry about objectification gets you attacked and shamed nearly universally in the western world. Consider also the fact that narcissism, sociopathy, and psychopathy exist in women just as much as it does in men, and the fact that such people are NOT 100% raving lunatics, but often careful and meticulous in playing with others and looking for power and dominance over others. Consider that every group or movement can be co-opted by people with truly evil intentions and no actual connection to humanity.

Consider that all of this "women are wonderful" business has provided the PERFECT cover for female narcissists, sociopaths, etc, to abuse, shame, humiliate men in general or specific for any man transgressing against women by "objectification" while not being sexually valuable.

What's that joke? How to avoid sexual harassment. Step 1: Be attractive. Step 2: Don't be unattractive.

Women seem perfectly fine being "objectified" if the guy has some sort of value or attractiveness. I've met more than one woman who complained about their ex being "objectifying" or "sexist" AFTER breaking up from 3 years. And more than once this has involved really decent guys who actively tried to keep the relationship together.

In particular, there was one woman who claimed her ex tried to rape her, which is completely ridiculous because she was always a slut and was once fucking 3 different guys before she got with her boyfriend, he is not a rapist and he's now happily married to a non-psycho, and she consistently gets drunk and tries to have sex with the nearest pole. There's no need for him to try to rape her. And when she talked about it, there weren't any details, it was just vague suggestion. This same person also showed me texts of another guy talking about his dick to her, and she was pretending to be upset about it, but it was really a demonstration of sexual value because she had been fucking this guy previously and was using him as a form of narcissistic supply, for sex and attention, when she was lonely, and then shit talking him when she wasn't. She's been PUA spinning him as a plate for 2 years.

What this comes down to is Reputation Destruction as Revenge because of ill will and bad feelings, or laying the groundwork for sympathy, etc.

Maybe not all men have experienced the worst that there is in women, and they can count themselves lucky. Maybe they HAVE experienced the worst, but have been unable to understand it or reason it out because they've consistently been fed the narrative that men are predators and women are victims of men, and that "women are wonderful", so they can't conceive that women could be highly manipulative and that especially women who want to dominate would claim positions of authority, like large F, to manipulate men on a grand scale.

Just look at how women are benefiting from the double standard, able to behave that way while men basically cant. Look to who benefits and who is controlled, and you should see that its all a game of power.