Modern Man is Supposed to be a Pussy

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.

The title of the article is How The Gen-Y Men Are Reinventing What Modern Masculinity Looks Like.

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:


Fisking the UN: United Nutjobbers

It’s rant time again, this time combined with the fisking of a United Nations twit who is engaged in the transparent use of Weaponized Empathy to secure funding for his pet projects. The usual language warnings apply. If you’re offended, I don’t give a shit.

As my readers may already know, I was not exactly a member in good standing of the George W. Bush fan club. But, he was what the Republican party offered us at the time, and better him than Al Gore. Bush II was too squishy, too prone to compromise with the Left. Yet he had one moment of greatness, one act that took me by surprise and made me suspect that a real Conservative might exist underneath all that Establishment chicanery.

He appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN. This was a thing of beauty, and I was in awe of it. For a moment, the polished turd yielded a diamond. The skies parted, the angels sung, and I could just imagine the UN building vanishing from the sheer level of internal contradictions contained therein. Reality would have been too much for it. Couldn’t handle, couldn’t keep it together. John Bolton, of course, said the following of the UN, echoing my own sentiments perfectly:

There’s no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.


This man is a visionary.

Brilliant and on point. He was probably the only figure to walk into that building who wasn’t knee-deep in sex slavery, bribery schemes and the like. But, like all good things, John Bolton’s tenure did not last. Instead we get today’s fisking target, Michael Møller, Director General of United Nations Office at Geneva. His article on the Syrian refugee issue was so full of idiocy, wishful thinking, lies and blatant stupidity that it could only be written by UN Official. These people make Used Car Salesmen feel honest.

Let’s begin, shall we? What can the Director General of United Nations Office at Geneva tell us? The title of his article is instructive: “The Negative Narrative on Refugees Is Changing – But Not Swiftly Enough.” It is a tacit admission that, to the trolls at the UN, the Narrative is to be elevated above all other concerns. And he is impatient that the propaganda is not working swiftly enough.

As the refugee influx continues unabated, it is gratifying to see that our humanity is finally showing signs of life, thanks to generous German, Serbian, Austrian, Greek, Italian and other European citizens. They follow the proud example of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Egypt. Our leaders are at last heeding what their voters are telling them and starting to question the pandering to anti-immigration voices.

This is absolutely rich. First, he sets the stage by suggesting that it is inhuman to let the refugee influx abate.

[CORRECTION]Merkur pointed out that I incorrectly identified the states taking in zero refugees. Therefore, this item is withdrawn and conceded. However, it still stands Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and other wealthy gulf states have, indeed, taken in Zero refugees. Perhaps the UN should bark up their tree, no?

If Germany followed the example of those countries, there would be a sea of humans filling up the Mediterranean right now. Instead, they are tearing up Greek ports. Apparently it’s just fine for the Muslim world to be anti-immigration. If the West does the same it is “inhuman.”

The negative narrative on refugees and migrants is beginning to change, allowing the facts to prevail: there are clear economic and social benefits to those countries receiving migrants. And most European and other developed economies need immigration to meet present and future workforce requirements. This is a positive development, but it is not enough. All countries should contribute towards solving the problem.

What clear economic and social benefits? The rape rate goes up in Oslo? The welfare system, already a disaster in Europe, and little better in America, will suffer even greater strain? Nothing improves a nation’s economy like millions of Muslim freeloaders, right? But, get this. There is suspicion that 2 out of every 100 migrants is an ISIS operative looking to spread terrorism. 100,000 migrants would thus mean you have just brought in 2,000 terrorists. This is a positive development, according to the Mr. Møller. What’s next, you ignorant pile of rhinoceros dung, concentration camps as a fucking vacation destination?

In finding the necessary international solution, we can draw on our collective institutional memory. This is not the first time we have faced a refugee exodus of this magnitude. In the 1980s, thousands of Vietnamese boat people took to the seas to reach neighbouring countries and, from there, the US, Canada and other nations. Thousands died, human traffickers made fortunes and the countries of first asylum sealed their borders.

The Vietnamese were refugees from Communism and were not loaded with boats full of Muslims looking for handouts. They were also a mixture of women, children, elderly and every other sort from all walks of life. And when they arrived, they worked themselves half to death to support themselves. The Muslim refugees are 75% young men, and they have cell phones, brand name clothes, Ray Bans, etc… Interestingly enough, The Right Scoop proves that the UN knows this fact and is singing the praises of the refugees anyway.

This is Weaponized Empathy, certainly, but it is also profoundly insulting. How stupid does the United Nations think we are?

The problem seemed intractable – until enterprising staff at the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) devised a comprehensive plan of action, approved by an international conference in 1989. Bringing together the international community, it created an orderly process that distinguished between and established procedures for asylum seekers and economic migrants. This mechanism successfully resettled thousands of refugees, all of them now productive members of the societies that welcomed them. It is a good example of how things can be done when there is the will and the means to protect and assist in a humane and dignified manner.

So, let’s appoint an expensive Blue Ribbon commission to come up with a comprehensive plan of action, and have it approved by a conference, then adopted by the international community. Right. Blue Ribbon commissions exist to do one thing, and one thing only: nothing at all. Then he makes the absurd rhetorical claim that “all of them are productive.” Really? I remember reading a story some time ago about two Muslim thieves in France who ran away from the cops and hid in an electrical transfer station, then died by being shocked to death. Protip: don’t hide in a giant capacitor. How productive were they?

Take the Syrians sitting around at Greek ports right now, productively stripping the places bare:


Tear apart the country you flee to. Great idea. Also, notice what a sausage fest this is. I wouldn’t attend this party.

5. Fund these measures on a global level and assist with meeting the costs of primary receiving countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Greece, as well as funding more targeted development interventions in the countries of origin.

This asshat just got done explaining that the migrants were of great economic benefit, and then, in the same article, demands that we foot the bill and pay for all the migrants ourselves. Aren’t they a blessing and won’t they generate piles of positive income for their host nations? Then why would we have to pay anything at all? Furthermore, three of the four countries he lists aren’t taking in migrants at all. Just what the hell are we supposed to pay for in the first place? Why doesn’t he just come out and say it: pay Islam the Jizya. That’s what this is really about.

Because you know that as the Director General of United Nations Office at Geneva, he’ll get his cut of the inevitable bribery. Give the UN money, he says, and we’ll be responsible with it! We promise to not give it all to sex traffickers this time around. Cross our hearts and hope to… well, not that, of course. Dying is for other people. Like the victims of future terrorist activity from thousands of ISIS fighters we made you pay to import.

Here’s my proposal Mr. Møller: we’ll take in a Muslim migrant for every UN official that promises to leave America and never come back.

7. Change the negative narrative in receiving countries based on social and economic facts.

Translation: propaganda time. The social facts are these: the Islamic world is a shithole, and its economy is, despite the general malaise of late, far worse off than anything in Europe. Greece looks like a paragon of financial responsibility next to, say, Afghanistan. That’s why we call it the Third World.

At the operational level, the agencies that manage asylum and migration issues are overwhelmed and underfunded. At the policy level, apart from the loosely organised Global Forum on Migration and Development, there is no formal international structure to provide options for future flows of the victims of man-made or natural (read climate-related) disasters, both of which will define our daily lives far into the future.

Underfunded is the key word here, Mr. Møller. You’re just crying out for more money which the United Nations will promptly flush down the toilet in corrupt carbon credit schemes, or just use to buy sex slaves from Africa. But look at this, he’s framing the argument around man-made “climate change” disasters, as if that is why Syria is a clusterfuck. No, of course it doesn’t have to do with a genocidal apocalyptic death cult fighting a life-or-death battle with an insane dictator with a proclivity for chemical weapons.

Why, like the State department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, told us, they just need a jobs program and everything will turn out great!

These actions may prove that enlightened self-interest, humanity and international solidarity can produce a win-win outcome. But this will only address the current temporary spike in refugee numbers. We need to deal with the much broader, long-term migratory trend.

Any one of us may one day need refuge

Yeah, we might one day need refuge ourselves, because we imported millions of Muslims and thousands of terrorists. But then where will we go, if you destroy Europe and America? Anyway, anytime some idiot blathers on about international solidarity it can only mean that he is a Marxist. Do you think ISIS gives a fig for your solidarity? Or maybe the Taliban? I’m sure the Ayatollah is just waiting for the right time to express unity, love, peace and understanding with the world. That’s why they want nuclear weapons, right?

But he goes on to tell us about the long-term migratory trends. That’s right, it’s not enough that we are taking all of the migrants today, Mr. Møller tells us. He wants us to make provisions so that we can take in as many people as humanly possible. 1.5 million migrants to Germany is not enough.

In the absence of such a body, we need to give Sir Peter Sutherland, the UN secretary-general’s special representative for migration and development, the mandate and wherewithal to catalyse action. One way to start the process may be to decide on greater integration of the work of UNHCR and IOM, and allowing them to propose new long-term global policies. The humanitarian summit in Istanbul next year, the meeting called by the UN secretary-general in New York in September and the November meeting in Valletta between the heads of state of Europe and Africa are opportunities to move this forward.

Let me interrupt this fisking for a moment to laugh my fucking ass off at this phrase: “The humanitarian summit in Istanbul…” What next, Mr. Møller, are you going to host the Women’s Rights convention in Saudi Arabia? Or, perhaps, you would like to conduct a gay parade in a Muslim neighborhood. Oh wait, sorry about the last, I forgot, that might offend Muslims. Yeah, because Turkey has such a great record on Human rights, right?

But, admittedly they are better than the current human rights chair, Saudi Arabia. What’s next, Mr. Møller, will your ilk appoint Lucifer as the chair on the righteousness council?

Finally, we need to capitalise on the policy frameworks the world is adopting this year: the sustainable development goals (SDGs), a climate agreement and the disaster risk reduction agreement. If we successfully implement the 17 SDGs we will stand an immeasurably better chance of dealing with future migratory flows.

This idiot interrupts his tirade about migrants to tell us about Global Warming. Because sitting around talking about carbon credit taxation schemes is obviously better than doing anything important or intelligent, right? I am sure that if we just make the Earth cooler, all the Muslim terrorists will just give up and go home, right? Bankrupt welfare systems will recover all on their own. Unicorns will fly, and pigs… fuck, they’ll go to outer space.

Any one of us may one day need refuge. Empathy, generosity and sound policies today will greatly improve the chances of the same being applied to our calamities tomorrow.

Translation: I’ve deployed my Weaponized Empathy. Obey us in all things or be called mean names.

In the tradition of John Bolton, a man of few words, I have a diplomatic and reasoned reply to the Director General of United Nations Office at Geneva: eat a bucket full of cocks.

%d bloggers like this: