Back in 2014, Matt Taylor was condemned by the media for wearing a shirt depicting scantily clad pinup girls with guns, cars, and helicopters during a press conference about his achievements surrounding the ESA’s Rosetta mission. The man landed a probe onto a comet, but had to deal with such accusations as “one small step for man, three steps back for women,” and other radical feminist nonsense.
Amusingly enough, the shirt was designed and made by a female friend of his by the name of Elly Prizeman, who now sells a line of similar clothing. Naturally, being the provocateur I am, I had to have my own. A few months ago, I ordered the same shirt from her site. For awhile it sat in my closet more or less unused, because I was waiting for just the right sort of moment to wear it.
Some time ago I decided to try a social experiment of sorts. I wore the shirt to the family-friendly Food & Wine Festival at Busch Gardens. I was hoping to get a rise out of people, to see offended scowls, muttering tones of disapproval, or even outright confrontation. I saw none of this. There wasn’t a single scowl, muttered remark, or disapproving glance. The shirt did, however, receive a number of compliments, an enthusiastic vote of approval from a few tattooed bikers, and joy from one of the park workers who actually recognized Elly Prizeman’s work for what it was and was thrilled to see the shirt that launched the shirtstorm in person.
So, while I was pleased to note that I could wear the shirt in public without a mob of angry feminists coming after me, I was disappointed that I was unable to offend anyone with the shirt. So I decided to try the same social experiment at a different venue: a local car show. Hundreds of muscle cars lined up in the hot Florida sun for this particular event, and it was likewise a family-friendly affair, so I brought along my 18-month old son and donned the shirt.
Everybody wanted to know where I bought the shirt, so that they could get one (Elly, I may have just sold a bunch of shirts for you). One of the female muscle car drivers was downcast. Not, I should note, because the shirt offended her, but because everyone was checking out the scantily clad women on the shirt instead of her (she was half-joking, mind you, but still). She asked if the shirt-maker also made dresses, to which I replied in the affirmative. I wouldn’t doubt if she patronized the seamstress in the future, also.
Again, not one unkind word or furtive glance. And, if anything, an even more enthusiastic reception for the shirt from both men and women. Forget my car and the work I’ve done to it — everybody wanted to know about the shirt.
The lesson from this little social experiment is that radical feminism, while it controls media, college campuses, and has a strong voice in government, has little impact on the sensibilities of the common man. Go to a theme park or a car show, and far from being offended by such things, they want to know where to buy one themselves.
Matt Taylor’s mistake wasn’t to wear the shirt, but rather to do so around a hostile media establishment. I doubt his coworkers, male or female, cared one whit. In fact, if the reaction at both of the venues I mentioned was any indication, people probably admired him for wearing it. Once again, modern feminism is making mountains not just of molehills — but things that weren’t even molehills to begin with.
The SJWs in science are setting up their favorite damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario for male scientists. If you don’t bring young women along with you on your trips, you’re a damnable sexist. And if you do, you’re a sexual predator.
That’s the nature of the beast. The only way to win is not to play. SJWs count on this, because their goal is to drive white men out of positions of power whenever they get the opportunity to do so. Indeed, that is their stated mission, to dismantle what they call “white male privilege.” So your choices are to risk being tarred as a sexist, and losing your job, being accused of sexual assault, losing your job, and being thrown in prison, or leaving your field voluntarily (thus losing your job).
Danilo Libre, of course, provides the ultimate in SJW power fantasies. He just wants to fire them all:
The point is to put you in between Scylla and Charybdis, where there are no options left for you to retain your livelihood. Once, you were innocent unless proven guilty. More common of late, since the Duke lacrosse case, you are guilty until proven innocent (and perhaps not even then). Now you are guilty without even being accused. Your skin color and genitals are all the proof required to convict you.
Since the government continues to maintain the illusion of justice, they can only bend the rules in the courtroom, they cannot break them openly. But in the private sphere, they are free to apply whatever punishment they desire, with no restraint. College campuses around the country have already embraced this.
But now SJWs will come for you via other means. They will contact clients, email employers, harass family members and friends in order to apply a social punishment. Again, your skin color and genitals are all the proof required for tarring you as a racist-sexist-homophobe. Anything you say can be twisted so as to serve as “proof.” And in the event nothing can be found, it doesn’t matter anyway. Nobody needs anything as silly as proof.
Unlike in the Christian world, your Original Sin cannot be expunged or forgiven by a benevolent deity. You are guilty forever, and damned for eternity, for daring to have the temerity to be born.
So now in a scientific community, everybody is talking about the sexual assault charges, and not science. And whether or not the scientist is guilty will never truly be known, because the word “guilty” has just come to mean “defendant.” Because, didn’t you know, people only get defensive when they have something to hide.
This is my take on Feminism, particularly the Radical varieties of today:
It isn’t about cat calling, or rape, or women’s liberation. It’s not about sex, violence, or discrimination. It’s not even about reproductive freedom, abortions, or some supposed sexual revolution.
It’s about hating men, and blaming them for their own unhappiness. It’s about using men as a scapegoat for all the poor decisions they’ve made in their lives, for their own moral failings. It is their own subconscious shame spilling over into a conscious mind filled with so much solipsism and narcissism that it cannot continue to exist without projecting the shame onto a perceived “other.”
When such women come into contact with one another, they reinforce their own delusions, creating the notion of an all-powerful male force for evil, dogging their every step, holding them back, creating this consuming shame and depression. They don’t understand that their unhappiness is their own fault, that if they truly desire self-responsibility, they must exercise it on their own rather than petition the very supposed evil force they decry with every other breath to do it for them.
Someone told these women, once upon a time, that being women, and feminine, was somehow a great injustice. That biology made slaves of them, and that the life of a woman was filled with misery and subservience. Children, caring for others, family life… these were great evils at worst, and inconveniences at best. But their equal hatred of men prevented them from finding pleasure in the masculine sense, too. The dirty jokes and foolish acts that, paradoxically, often bond groups of men together were denounced by them as sexist-racist-homophobic. Notions of hard work and meritocracy, usually paramount among men, and the satisfaction of achievement were not enough.
So nothing in life, whether masculine or feminine, could ever make them happy. Their sole remaining purpose, the only thing that gave them even a shadowy reflection of satisfaction, became to destroy the happiness of others. To hate upon the house wife, to become angry with the nurse, to call all men rapists and pig-dogs. Even women who thrived in the world of men were decried as internalized misogynists. Even men who worshiped at the altar of feminists were to be scorned and spurned as lower than slime.
And when a woman is broken, and a man penniless, they can feel a moment’s pleasure at having shared their misery and spread their poison. Misery doesn’t love company — it craves it. But like any drug, its pleasures are fleeting, and ever-greater amounts of the drug are required to obtain the high.
Only when the entirety of civilization is brought low, and humanity reduced to barbarism will they be satisfied. Of course, when that happens, they, themselves, will finally be put out of their misery.
I’ve seen several of these “modern men are feminine” articles going around. Larry Correia certainly deconstructed one of them rather handily. But this one caught my attention on Fecalbook the other day, and it just begged for a good fisking. The notion of old-fashioned masculinity as evil is a subject I’ve written about before. Progressives want to destroy traditional masculinity, and replace it with radical feminism. This article is perfectly in line with that thought.
As far as I’m concerned, most of what “Gen-Y” has given us is best dispensed with and lobbed into the nearest dumpster. But then, my own “Gen-X” is not innocent, either, nor the Boomers before us. America has been getting progressively (pun intended) worse since at least the 1950s, and perhaps earlier than that.
But let’s see what Lewis Howes, the author of this particular drivel, has to say.
Traditional gender roles are becoming a thing of the past.
We know for certain the roles of men in families have changed in our culture.
Fathers are now seen changing diapers and staying at home with the kids, and they have babies strapped to their chests now more than ever.
There is a new type of man emerging. Move over Renaissance Man, the Millennium Man is here.
Traditional gender roles are just men being men, and women being women. But we can’t have that in the modern, Progressive society, now can we? Men acting like men is terrible. Men need to act more like women. If this is what the “Millennium Man” looks like, count me out. He’d get beat up for his lunch money by a bunch of elementary school kids.
The Millennium Man is still tough, but he now comes with a side of tender.
He isn’t afraid to show the world he cries, and he encourages other men to drop the machismo and let it out, too. He is one of the guys, but he has at least one best friend who is a girl.
Real men cry. Really? That’s the best you can do, Pajamaboy? Look, there are a few instances when it is acceptable for men to shed tears. At my grandfather’s funeral, I saw my father shed a tear or two. He was quiet about it, of course, and turned away so that others did not see him. But I knew he shed them.
It was the first time in my 35 years that I saw him cry. And it was for just a moment. Then his normal stoicism returned, and he moved on.
But the point is a man’s lot in life is to be the rock that others lean on. He couldn’t bawl like a baby in the corner, because others were depending on him to be strong for them. When your wife cries, it is not your role, as a man, to bawl with her. Rather, it is your role to be strong for her. She will lean on you.
This notion of having a female best friend is equally ludicrous. There is nothing wrong with having female friends, mind you, I have a few myself. But there is no requirement to have one, let alone for her to be your “best” friend.
He is not afraid to go deep in conversation with his male friends.
He doesn’t take himself too seriously, and he’s open to learning.
Deep conversation is fine. Indeed, Plato lecturing his students could be said to be engaging in deep conversation, much more meaningful than whatever the “Millennium Man” talks about. Unfortunately, feminine conversation is rarely about what interests men, and vice versa. Pajamaboy here, no doubt, considers Kim Kardashian and male tears as “deep” conversation. I would suggest better topics: cigars, whiskey, philosophy, politics, and history.
Men can have absurdly deep conversations about engineering and car parts too, mind you, to such extent that spectators unfamiliar with the topic just stare blankly into space.
But Pajamaboy here believes that deep = feminine. No thanks.
This non-manly, vaguely male individual wants to have “deep” conversation with you…
This man is more connected to his body than his father was because he has spent time meditating, doing yoga and practicing mindfulness.
Mindfulness is not bad advice, actually. If you’ve read Mike Cernovich’s Gorilla Mindset (a great read for all men raised in this mushy, feminine world), he extols the virtues of mindfulness and being aware of your surroundings repeatedly. But this concept has absolutely nothing to do with yoga and meditation.
Worse, meditating at an inappropriate time is the inverse of mindfulness. Mindfulness is merely being aware of who you are, where you are, what your doing, and the world around you. You can be mindful at any moment. Yoga pants not required.
Comfortable enough in his own skin, his masculinity shows through even when he’s wearing hot pink shirts or indulging in a facial.
Hot pink shorts and facials… I’m not sure if the author is discussing millennial masculinity or being gay. Or maybe there isn’t much of a difference.
He is the soccer player who comes out to the world and keeps playing, with the support of his friends and family.
What does soccer have to do with anything? Vox Day plays soccer and nobody would call him a pussy for doing so.
He may even come to your Zumba class, just because he wants to try something new.
No. Just no. Zumba is more of this new age hipster bullshit. It reminds me of those old workout videos Richard Simmons used to make. This is not masculine in any fashion whatsoever. Want to work out and be masculine? Go to the gym. Problem solved.
He willingly signs up for salsa dance classes and isn’t ashamed to tell his friends.
The only excuse to go to a salsa dance class is if your wife is Spanish, and you’re going with her because you don’t want to look like an idiot in front of your Spanish in-laws. Otherwise, no, there are better things you can do with your time.
He’s not afraid to make a fool of himself and looks amazing when he does.
No, making a fool of yourself is categorically not masculine. It is foolish. Now, don’t misunderstand me, everyone will be foolish at some point in time. It is human nature. But it is important to acknowledge this as a failure not as a success. Note that the “Millennium Man” is more or less pretending that anybody likes him, or that he does anything useful. In the world of Progressive Feminism, pretending to be something is more important than actually being something.
Millennium Man has learned to appreciate the intellect and earning power of his partners, recognizing they are with him because they want to be, not because they need to be.
Their power and beauty don’t threaten him, and he doesn’t mind if he’s not the biggest earner in the relationship.
Millennium Man doesn’t understand that women don’t want lesser husbands. They want men who earn more and are stronger than they are. For a case in point, take a look at this guy, who can pick up women without even talking to them, just by driving an expensive car:
So it doesn’t matter whether or not the man appreciates a woman’s earning power. What matters is that she appreciates his earning power. And that is not likely to happen if she is making significantly more than he does.
When he settles down with a family, he takes his share of nighttime feedings and knows his family is the most important thing there is. He cherishes the messy and mundane moments.
He is just as likely to throw a meal in the crockpot in the morning as his partner is, and together, they have a tag-team partnership that keeps the household afloat.
Is this an article about men, or about lesbian relationships? Because in my household, my wife does more of the “nighttime feedings” and I do more of the “clean shit out of the gutters” and “unclog toilets.” Being a man is about doing the shitty, dangerous, and crappy jobs. It’s not about bottles and crockpots.
Millennium Man knows his way around the bedroom. He is self-aware and listens to his partner’s needs and desires.
He recognizes there is something sacred in sexuality and isn’t afraid to explore it.
Sexuality isn’t sacred, per se. It’s natural. Otherwise a dog humping the couch is practicing some kind of sacrament. It is marriage that is sacred, at least if you are a Christian, because the union has been blessed by God. That’s what sacred means, you know.
Also, the Millennium Man doesn’t mind if he “loses to a girl” because he doesn’t see her as “less than.”
I have a great story about this very phenomenon. In the local Mustang club I am a part of, there is a guy who has an older, crappy Mustang he more or less assembled from junkyard parts. He doesn’t have a lot of money, but he loves to race at the dragstrip anyway, and he’ll pretty much race anybody, any time. He’s a great sport, even though he usually loses, and everybody loves the guy.
A woman joined the club, and she had a considerable amount of money. She bought a newer Mustang and put some money into it, then challenged him to a race. Of course she won, her car is newer, faster, and has more money in it. But then she proceeded to gloat and brag, covering the club forum’s page with “how does it feel to be beaten by a girl?” I found this to be seriously unsportsman like, and the poor guy didn’t know what to do or say about it. I haven’t seen him at the dragstrip since.
Losing didn’t bother him, since he lost all the time. Losing to a woman didn’t bother him, else he never would have raced her in the first place. But he was put in an impossible position. If he would have won, she would have made fun of him for beating a girl. When she won, she made fun of him for being beaten by a girl. And when he dared to respond to her taunts, he was accused of being disrespectful to a woman. His only solution was to leave.
That is the real reason men don’t like competing against women, even in areas like car racing where physical strength doesn’t make any real difference. Modern feminists are horrible sports about everything. The honor and camaraderie among men is shattered by women (at least modern, feminist women), more often than not.
This man is innovative in his work and is more concerned with doing what he loves than making a fortune.
He works from anywhere in the world and wears whatever he wants to work. The culture and integrity of his business is his highest priority.
This “doing what you love” crap that millennials spew really irritates me. If this were true, nobody would pick up your garbage or fix your toilets. Work is work, and a man does what he must. If he loves his job, great. But it doesn’t really matter. And you don’t wear what you want. If your job requires you to wear a suit, you wear it. If you’re a welder, you wear your damned face mask. Dress for the job, because it’s a fucking job, not a fashion show.
He understands living is giving, and he is happiest when focused on others.
Millennium Man isn’t afraid to ask for help, to say “I love you” to his buddies or admit his fears. He is an avid reader and loves a good football game.
He speaks at least one other language besides his own, and he has traveled enough to know the world is a big place and he is not the center of it.
He spends more time following his passions than his account balances.
This is all spew. Happiness is giving? What are you giving? And to whom? Progressives love open-ended statements like this, because they can then say that you are a greedy bastard when you don’t feel like having your taxes hiked to the moon to pay for drug addicts. It’s because you hate giving, dontcha know. I’ll give to those I care for, as they need my help. And I won’t give to those I don’t care for, and don’t approve of.
And sorry, no. Men don’t say “I love you” to their casual friends, except in extreme circumstances. If your friend just saved your life in a firefight or rescued you from ISIS or something, it is permissible, one time. Otherwise, fuck off with that nonsense. As for admitting fear, well that can be permissible, at times. Just don’t overdo it. Fear is natural, but men ought to discuss overcoming their fears, not submitting to them.
Football has nothing to do with anything. I loathe football, personally, and much prefer ice hockey and racing. Some people prefer boxing, or baseball. None of them make you more or less of a man.
The Millennium Man is not the stoic, inhibited type. He doesn’t subscribe to the “men don’t do that” stance. He doesn’t say, “That’s just me” and pretend he can’t transform. In fact, he is eager to grow.
I disagree. Stoicism is, in my opinion, one of the most important things for a man to understand. It took me a long time to figure it out, since I’ve had my head filled with this feminine man crap since I first entered school. But a good analogy is this: a man is a rock. The waves are sometimes powerful, and can sweep the sand away. But the rock remains. The Bible has a parable that speaks to this.
The rock is stoic. It is not overly prone to excitement or depression, but remains firm in its foundation. Mastering your emotions is a skill men need. How else can you be there for when your wife needs you, or when your children need you? When disaster strikes, you must keep your head and guide them through it, not “get in touch with your feelings.”
A man has three hearts, an old saying goes. One for the world, one for his family and friends, and another for himself alone. When some “man” says “nobody understands me” I reply with “nobody is meant to understand you, except for God himself.” Don’t broadcast your feelings to the world.
Sometimes, your feelings will leak out, here and there, like my father shedding a tear for his father, laying still in his coffin. But then you must steel yourself and go to face the world again. The world doesn’t care about your feelings, or your wants, or your desires. It doesn’t want to understand you or get to know you. Your family and friends do, of course, but there are limits with them as well. You must be there for them, you must be strong for them.
Not some namby-pamby Pajamaboy ranting on about pink shorts, feelings, and facials.
Millennium Man doesn’t immediately raise his fists at the first sign of conflict; he’s a good communicator and wants to talk it out.
A woman’s strength doesn’t threaten him, and he cherishes the joy she experiences in her success.
He knows that when others win, he wins, too.
A man is always prepared to fight. That doesn’t mean he wants to fight, or that he will agitate for a fight, mind you. But a man understands that oftentimes, “being a good communicator” and “wanting to talk it out” wimply (I kept this typo – I liked it) won’t work.
A woman’s strength shouldn’t threaten you, because you are a man, prepared to fight and do battle if you must. If he cherishes joy, it is simply being happy for her and for his family.
A job well done is how a man wins. It doesn’t matter if others are winning or losing.
Ultimately, Millennium Man is a well-rounded composite of the best generations of men before him (just more worldly and technologically savvy, with a wealth of resources at his fingertips).
This isn’t a composite of the men gone before, else we would need to add Crusaders, Roman Legionnaires, gladiators, hunters, warriors, great philosophers, and theological scholars to our theoretical composite man. Such a man would not look anything like this wimpy, simpering fool, babbling on about emotions.
Most of us like what we see in this new kind of man, and we hope he keeps it coming.
ISIS sure likes them. The militants of the world are laughing at us. And I don’t blame them.
This picture explains all you need to know:
For his terrible proposition, feminine language, attempt to subvert masculinity, and ambiguous sexual orientation, I award Lewis Howes, the author of this steaming pile of horse manure, three golden turds:
I’ve spoken multiple times about the correlation between Islamic immigration and rapes. This subject fascinates me because it is a clear cut example of Progressive doublethink. Fraternities are condemned without evidence, and when the claims made against them are later revealed to be bogus. Due process suffers on college campuses. The possibility of false rape allegations is frequently dismissed in the service of the false statistic that 1 in 5 women are raped.
Yet the very obvious correlation between Islam and abuse of women is completely ignored.
Take a look at this video, a report from Germany, where 4 brutal gang rapes have occurred in the same city the last few weeks. In each case the perpetrators are described as “having southern features.” That, of course, is a euphemism for Arabic and/or Islamic.
I’ve spoken at length in previous posts about this phenomenon, as have many others far more notable than myself. Yet this all falls on deaf ears. There is weasel room in the statistics, as there is in most statistics. Correlation does not equal causation, they will say. And this is true.
At the same time, the anecdotal evidence confirms the statistics. We know with certainty that the rights of women in the Muslim world are far behind those of the West. So why is it a surprise that importing large numbers of Muslim men into Western countries is resulting in rape and abuse?
This isn’t rocket science, people.
The Muslim migrants do not magically embrace Western law and jurisprudence simply because they step foot in a Western country.
But, while this goes on, Radical Feminists are busying themselves blaming a heart icon on Twitter for promoting rape culture and make the platform “less safe for women.” Seriously.
This is insanity, absolute lunacy. Those who honestly believe that Twitter’s heart-shaped like button is more of a threat to women than gang-raping Muslim migrants need to be locked in a padded room and medicated to the hilt. This is evidence of severe mental illness.
Notice, of course, the implied connection to #GamerGate here, too. And before you say “no, Dystopic, this is just one loony, or just a troll. Nobody is that stupid.” There’s more…
These things are everywhere, and they spend their time denouncing men on Twitter for disagreeing with them, considering the matter the equivalent of violence against women or outright rape.
Muslims, naturally, are rarely mentioned at all, and if they are it is only to illustrate how Evil White Men have been oppressing them since the Crusades. Because, naturally, a war that was over centuries ago is far more relevant than violent gang rapes going on today.