American Masculinity Is Based On Female Approval

In 1963, radical liberal Betty Freidan released an earth-shattering book named the “The Feminine Mystique.” In it, she talks of the “problem that has no name,” referring to the supposedly stultifying confines of middle-class and white womanhood. In this terrifying maelstrom of oppression and misogyny, women were forced to be little more than a wife and mother. Freidan thought women needed independent income streams in order to smash this retrograde, oppressive construct. She also urged women to smash the foundations of femininity – encouraging rebellion against female norms and creating new norms for women to follow.

[Image: feminine%20mystique%20fondas.jpg]

This book is credited for kicking off second-wave feminism.  Women began to take jobs that men once had (doctors, managers, lawyers, etc.), divorced their husbands, and began to live lives without a boyfriend or husband. The giddy beginnings of second-wave feminism were far less hateful than some would suggest; it was not until women realized that financial independence and sexual independence were not quite the panacea that second-wave feminists promised that the knives came out.

Contrary to popular belief, early second-wave feminism was focused on legal systems of oppression as opposed to patriarchal modes of oppression based on gendered norms of male supremacy. If a feminist ever says she isn’t a radical feminist and she is a fan of the theory that patriarchal ideas of male supremacy are what oppresses women – inform said person they are a radical feminist. Unlike black people, second-wave feminists got their legal changes enacted in flip of a switch, providing real evidence that we live a female-dominated society, not a male-dominated one.

These changes did little to solve women’s “problem with no name.” Instead of engaging in real levels of introspection as to their discontentment, they continued to blame society, but began to shift to radical politics that blamed men and patriarchy for their psychological issues. This dumping on men has been overwhelming documented by the manosphere, but let’s segue into the burgeoning men’s movement that developed alongside feminism.

Throughout the sixties and seventies it was mostly quiet. In the eighties, men’s groups began to develop alongside the increasing misandry witnessed by prominent feminists that got reflected in the media – songs, movies, magazines, etc. The groups were heavily ridiculed by both men and women. Women complained that men had nothing to complain about as men – they were so blindingly privileged by being a man they could not see how good they had it.

In response to these sorts of ignorant opinions, Warren Farrell eventually broke from feminism and wrote his ground-breaking seminal work, “The Myth Of Power.” It did not go over as bad as you might think it would, but many feminists can be savvy and saw the writing on the wall and began to stress intersectionality hard so other feminists would have to start checking their hateful critiques of black men, poor men and gay men.

[Image: iron_john.jpg]

An interesting book was penned around the same time as “The Myth of Male Power,” called “Iron John” by Robert Bly. In it, Bly examines many cultures and their approaches to manhood and masculinity. He was roundly criticized for examining “backwards” cultures that were violent and patriarchal. He was also criticized for thinking that cultures that are “simple,” in which gender roles are clear, are superior to those that are not. What Bly was stumbling towards, whether he realized it or not, was questioning the fundamental nature of a boy transitioning to a man and how society influences that.

Consider this article from the NYT. It speaks, fairly derisively, of the self-styled “Male Identity Crisis.” It isn’t a fair article, but not bad at all considering it was originally published in 1994. It does a good job of presenting one the issues facing masculinity: its supreme mis-characterization in the media.


A man’s masculinity doesn’t flow from within but from without by authority figures in society. This picture represents that. Bushmaster’s campaign was wildly misunderstood – even in the manosphere. This poster isn’t about violent masculinity, promoting guns or misandric interpretations of men, but about that fact an authority figure in the media claims to be able to restore a man’s sense of masculinity.

Further, it isn’t just a claim, it is died-in-wool truth for most men – none of whom have taken the red-pill. Modern masculinity is based not a performance as feminists would claim, but based on men taught that their self-concept of masculinity should be based on approval from authority figures – at the home, in the media and women.


Consider Dr. Robert Glover’s book, “No More Mister Nice Guy.” In it, he notes the proliferation of single-mother homes and female dominated schools has completely blunted the positive growth of men. While he doesn’t explicitly say it, I think the best working definition masculinity would be a man who feels no shame or guilt for being a man. Without having fathers around to develop positive relationships with, boys are often adrift in their life with no masculine figure to secure their positive growth to. Then these boys go to schools dominated by women and centered around girl’s strengths. Boys are labeled troublemakers, listless and problems if they refuse to kowtow to the prevailing zeitgeist.

They also have to deal with the female-centric media leviathan. Many TV shows simply show male inferiors in juxtaposition with female achievers – all in the name of equality, of course. Many shows simply show soft men who spend their time being overly kind, deferential to women and supremely comfortable with expressing emotions—all the while to adoring female approval. The point of this media isn’t to help boys develop into healthy men, but to shore up girls self-esteem and encourage them to willing and capable cogs in society. Further, it fuels female delusion about how they really treat men; the media exists to help women paper over their mistreatment of men.

This dynamic set up forces a boy, maturing to a man, to rely heavily on female approval for his sense of “masculinity” to in order have self-esteem. The authority figures in his early life are mothers and female relatives. Boys go to school where the authority figures are women. This bleeds into the transition to adolescence as the new authority figures become the girls that boys become sexually interested in. We see this very immature behavior towards girls many boys take—needlessly worshipful, suborning their lives to them and general behavior that is classified as beta. Authority figures in media reinforce this dynamic. Boys and men are told that being nice, respectful and open with women will lead to love and happiness for men. Feminist-aimed media takes the issue farther, blaming men for being men, stridently criticizing them ways calculated to make men feel guilt for existing as a male.

We see these soft men often trying to do is reconcile their upbringing with the reality of female sexuality. Unable to properly value themselves as men separate from female approval, they double down on a system born out of boyhood that is not appropriate for manhood. Like any other psychological issue, such supplication served a boy well in his female-dominated childhood, but does nothing to help him as a man.

[Image: EWAdams300x300_11642_1292609948.jpg]

Ernest W. Adams

Even feminists recognize this phenomenon. What isn’t surprising is that they fall back on what they did to create this problem: problematize masculinity and its inherent socially constructed failure, then remedy it through shaming and guilt while reinforcing the need for female (feminist) approval to be a real man. The article has some very pointed things to say about men, using examples of individual men’s behavior to paint a broad picture about men as a class. Essentialism never sounds so good to a feminist as when it applies against men.

His working theory is that all boys grow up hating women and that hatred signifies immaturity. Right out the gate, this hypothesis is false. However, as is usual with anything liberal or feminist, it has its roots in complete falsehood. He needs to prove that all men hate women at some point in their life and the reason some men seemingly hate women is they have not learned the appropriate social comportment. This is incorrect, as children are born as narcissists and their growth into adulthood is marked by their shedding of this self-absorption. Still, Adam’s approach reeks of the typical interventionist type of feminist who feels the strong need to insert themselves into discussions about which they have no idea.

He presents the example of a man freaking out over a woman beating him in a game. First, he is assuming said man is doing so because she is a woman. Second, he neglects to mention many women – feminists – take great pride in besting men because they are men (female supremacism). As usual, it is just projection. Third, he ignores women who don’t sexualize men they feel superior to—a man’s anxiety over a woman besting him is understandable. Doubt he would know that though because this man clearly never has had consensual sex.

Telling men to treat women better will do little to change men who choose to hurt women. The article even mentions “anti-social” behavior as part of the impetus for men to behave in such a way. Telling anti-social men to behave in a certain way society demands is mindbogglingly ignorant because the definition anti-social behavior is that which expressly bucks social norms.


Further, it completely misrepresents men and masculinity. When I talked earlier of radical feminism bleeding into mainstream feminism, this article reflects that. Such strident and vociferous critiques of men can only spill from the ink pens of radical feminists – the complete devaluing of men while simultaneously pretending to offer the salve to save men from their misogynistic masculinity. Once again, the supreme ignorance of feminists bleeds through as Adams cannot even conceptualize of a male that does not care about social rules or anybody else. If he even admits that, he would chalk it up to misogyny, patriarchy or homophobia – whatever left-wing boogeyman he most recently got hard-on over. Most importantly, he cannot conceive of a man who can think for and value himself independent of female approval.

Consider the tone of the article. It reeks of a supreme air of arrogance only a completely delusional beta would have. He uses strong male shaming tactics in order to command men to stop engaging in hateful “gendered” behavior. Unwittingly, he makes a so-called patriarchal argument that men need to be successful, confident and live outside their parent’s home in order to be considered real men. What he doesn’t realize is these are markers of male marriageability based on “heteropatriachal” norms. He also calls for men to be better role models for boys. What a great idea – how about stop kicking men out of their homes via divorce courts, stop fueling the single-mother epidemic and start educating the public on the supreme importance of fatherhood. He would never criticize said institutions or women, as he knows his place in the hierarchy – his ideas, approaches and existence are completely suborned to women at large.

By writing this, he reinforces male subornation to female approval, as the reason he wrote it was to get female approval via comments, likes and retweets. He is fulfilling his role as a man whose masculinity is approved of by authority figures—in his life, women are the primary authority figures. He thinks he is ripping up gender roles and radically transforming society through his feminism. He isn’t.


All he desires is to toss out “patriarchal” and “misogynistic” markers for masculinity and replace them with ones that feminists would approve of. He isn’t changing the fundamental psychology here, he is just demanding a new set of even more female-friendly norms for male behavior. His new standards reinforce the idea that men need to have their self-concept of masculinity based out of female approval. His dogged insistence that men have it so much better than women is his way of justifying and papering over his own lack of true masculinity.

Since his sense of masculinity is wholly contingent upon female approval, he exists in a terrifying world than any single misstep of his could result in the crumbling of his identity by women withdrawing approval. He pushes hatred of men so hard because he knows it is the only way he has to not collapse into deep depression. Subconsciously, he knows how fickle female approval and any single act by him could result said approval being withdrawn with extreme prejudice.

It will be a cold day in Hell if any boy who has grown up in modern American believe men, collectively, have the power. Even when fathers are around, they are often betas who are subject to our narcissistic sexual hierarchy. Telling boys that men they will never be, meet or have their needs considered by is completely delusional. Men like him rapidly oppose the MRM precisely because he is terrified of men existing without female approval. He knows that learning to be self-sufficient, confident and masculine is something he could never do. So, he shames men for desiring to bond with other men, make them feel guilt for establishing male-only spaces—even if they are just to play video games. Men like him want men subject to eternal watchful of eye of the superior woman so he can grow into a better man. Of course, she is superior only because women are oppressed in society and the oppressed always have greater insight than the oppressors.

He really likes the idea of careful management of male behavior so as to produce a better beta. He is seeking men who will step off their “male privilege” into a world of equality with women, which requires rigorous standards, constant surveillance and incessant policing—all in the name of equality, of course.

This whole situation reeks of narcissism and codependency. Narcissistic women, who can’t live out their grandiose hypergamic visions, resort to draining codependent beta males who have been masterfully trained in the modern art of slaking modern female’s narcissistic thirst. The poorly socialized beta males take like a duck to water to this situation, as it is all they have ever known. Accusations of misogyny, sexism or not being a real man all reinforce that.  Ultimately, what the accusers are seeking is male worship. Unable to properly value themselves without narcissism, they desperately need beta male adoration. They can always find it, but slaking narcissistic thirst outright is never enough. It constantly needs new victims to drain, which is why feminists demand more men become feminists—so they can prey on them as an object to be used and discard, not as a person.

Re-imaging masculinity in our post-feminist world is little more than further twisting men’s arms in order to become better objects in the greater game of female self-delusion.

Read More: The Forced Transexuality Of David Reimer

174 thoughts on “American Masculinity Is Based On Female Approval”

    1. I’m adding that to my list of books to buy. Unfortunately, I can’t buy it today because I don’t see it for my e-book reader. But Amazon has it in hardcover for a decent price.

    2. Second. Every man should read that book at least once a year. To prevent backsliding.

  1. The day I let some fat, video game-developing nerd tell me what makes a man is the day I’ll let Hugo Schwyzer peg me.

  2. My pops died when I was 3 so It was basically my mom who raised me and my brother.
    She never taught me what it takes to get pussy, that’s for sure. had to figure all that shit out.
    I’m thinking what the fuck would I do if I had two daughters? I guess the way you raise your daughter and the advice you give is closely related to how pretty she is

  3. Read
    No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Make Up by The Last Psychiatrist and read
    Jack Donovan’s No Man’s Land – No es tierra de Hombres (Traducción)

  4. I just read Men on Strike by Dr. Helen Smith, a great read by this way. It supports the claim that “American Masculinity is Based on Female Approval” and that fact is one of the reasons this society is collapsing. Many men are Going Galt, just as I plan to at my earliest convenience. There’s just nothing to be gained by men turning themselves into little bitches that need to seek approval from man-squerading females.

  5. The feminist are simply cowards. They demanded all of the rights and advantages that they could and then discovered that it is a cold and cruel world when they had to compete as equals, Instead of depending on a man, they demanded that the government protect them from their own failings.
    The flaw is in the false thinking that they are equal to men. That is one of the biggest nonsensical lies ever produced. Women are physically, emotionally and psychologically different from men. The feminist fear that. The smart women, and there are a few, exploit those differences and live happy and content lives. They know how to please a man and to keep him happy.

  6. Women and Society as a whole has betrayed men so there is absolutely no reason for us to find grace in their eyes. Brothers, let us become great men regardless of what these traitors have to say. Live only for yourselves and your brothers; forget the rest. If anyone dares to criticize you and tell that you should deviate from your path and comply with societies demands, ask them why should you? Be selfish and ask them what is in it for you and the rest of your brothers and don’t forget to remind them of their betrayal.

    1. When women do it, it’s called empowerment and they are courageous for blazing new trails for other women. When men do it, well you know how that goes. The shaming catalogue gets thrown at them. Funny how that works.

  7. Socially engineered society. Deep down we all know and feel that the version of masculinity sold to us by the mass media is wrong.

    1. I thank the Lord, I never developed a sense of self other then what I saw fit to develop.

  8. This is one of the best articles I’ve read on the need for a men’s movement. Thank you. I hope I can look forward to reading more on this topic from you.

  9. Any masculinity is based on female approval.
    Same as femininity which is always based on male approval.This is why I disapprove fatties

    1. Maybe that’s true, but what kind of “real man” lets a bunch of whiny little girls tell them what to say, what to believe and how to act?

    2. Female approval? I don’t consider access to a vagina as a way of defining masculinity.
      I consider living my life the way I want to live it…while at the same time being a productive member of society as masculinity. Pussy is based off whatever emotion she gets by basking in your presence.

      1. Ya thats how it used to be, watch jersey shores for an updated version of man.

  10. Let me get some coffee. See, this is the problem with the digital medium – you can’t get a red pen and take it to screeds like this. I’ll respond to this with broad strokes criticism, mostly because I don’t want to spend eight pages responding to what amounts to a few points buried in extraneous flab. I would suggest however,
    after reading this essay, that you never submit it to any college-level course.
    First off, you present Betty Friedan as some kind of rabble-rouser who put ideas in women’s heads. You say that “women began to take jobs that men once had”, and present a small list of jobs. But your presentation makes it seem like it’s only right and natural that men hold those jobs, and that women somehow “stole” those jobs from poor, hard-working men in the 20th century. But your analysis is completely ahistorical. I can pull examples out of my ass that completely disprove your assertions – Ancient Egypt allowed women into its “guild” of doctors, and made legal provisions for women to own their own businesses. Even the Bible presents Dvorah, a Judge (a culture hero and legal intermediary) of the Israelites. Look to
    ultra-patriarchal Saudi Arabia, where women are chomping at the bit to practice
    law and control the contours of their own lives. The norms you talk about are not “foundations of femininity”, but assumptions about women that ignore women’s testimony about their own lives and desires.
    The idea that women have had their problems in the United States “turned off with the flick of a switch” is laughable on its face, and legally illiterate. Let me toss out a
    handful of legal cases that deal with women’s rights issues that have arisen since the 1960’s: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, California Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Guerra, International Union UAW v. Johnson Controls, United States v. Virginia, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, Harris v. Forklift Systems, and Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District. Moreover, the abortion debacles spreading
    across the nation should be proof enough that institutional sexism is still a
    crucial problem in the United States.
    Your claim that the 80’s heralded in some kind of “righteous” reaction against feminism is an awfully self-serving view of history. Ronald Reagan’s administration coincided with the growth of the Moral Majority, and the intertwining of socio-religious conservative extremism and ordinary political discourse. You didn’t mention that the growth of MRA’s in the 80’s happened at the same time as the upswing in “law and order” and “anti-welfare queen” movements which overwhelmingly targeted black Americans; and religious discrimination
    against LGBTQ Americans. The growth of MRA movements in the 80’s is nothing more than part-and-parcel of a conservative reactionary outcry against minority groups which made gains during the 60’s and 70’s.
    As for the racism, homophobia, and classism of second-wave feminism, congratulations. You managed to discover something that third-wave feminists have been critiquing about the second-wave about for decades. But to
    claim that modern feminism is identical to the feminism of the 60’s is, again,
    a self-serving and ahistorical reading of history. bell hooks and Sylvia Rivera would disagree with you. Ultimately though, your argument reads as nothing more than using a tu quoque to try and dismiss feminism – an attempt on your part to say, “How dare you feminists try and criticize us! You had racists and homophobes and classists! So your valid points suddenly become invalid!” But I think that’s your point. Really, you’re working off of notions of feminism that have been outdated since the 70’s. For instance, one of the most pointed critiques that third-wave feminism levels at the second-wave is the oppression of transwomen at the hands of icons like Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia. Modern feminism tends to accept the idea of gender essentialism, and intersectionality is an issue that we deal with on a regular basis. Your “critiques” are the equivalent of attacking modern psychiatry because Freud was wrong about things.
    I’m going to point and laugh at your essay for referencing a self-help book like “No More Mr. Nice Guy”. I have zero regard for pop-psychology put out by hucksters trying to get a buck out of people trying to validate their own lifestyle choices by pointing at someone with a “Dr.” in front of their names. I’m half-surprised you didn’t talk about gender essentialism by referencing “Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus”. Find some peer-reviewed papers next time instead of relying on the MRA equivalent of Dr. Phil.
    You talk about the “dumb dad” image that shows up in modern media as if it validates your point, but as feminists have been saying for years, the “dumb dad”, the “bumbling male who needs a woman to hold his hand”, they’re just a subtle form of patriarchal control. It tells women that the men in their lives are too “bumbling” to take care of anything domestic, so the burden falls on a
    woman to do the dishes and take care of the kids, to make dinner and clean the
    house, or her stumbling ninny of a husband won’t do any of it! I’m glad you realize that this image in the media is offensive to men who are capable of working around the house, but like the rest of your essay, you fail to realize that these sexist problems that burden men also burden women, but far worse.
    You complain about boys growing up in a world where they don’t feel like they have any power, but what kind of world do girls have to grow up in? A world in which women still make up less than 20% of Congress, despite making up roughly half the country? Girls grow up in a world in which we have to understand that men feel free to put their hands on us. We have to understand that men can stand around in groups and stare at us, and we can’t do anything but walk faster when they make horrible comments at us. We have to understand that men will tell us to our face that our feelings and experiences in the world are wrong. We have to understand that teenage girls will get gang-raped, and the only way for the offenders to be brought to justice is through blatant vigilantism and public protests. We have to understand that if we criticize men, we’re going to be called “whores” and “hamster brains.” We have to understand that if other men feel bad about the way we’re treated, they’re going to be punished by being called “blue pill entrenched omega cunts” because of that. That’s what women are made to understand about men in the world. Poor boys though! They live in such a tough world.
    And the rest of this essay is an angry commentary about how “real men” need to reassert themselves, without defining what a “real man” is. Dismissible.

    1. Sita:
      You didn’t read my piece.
      I clearly stated my working definition of masculinity is a man who feels no guilt or shame for being a man.
      Your feminist ramblings are predictable. Men make up 85% of violent crime victims, but women have to worry more.
      Your dismissal of Glover is telling.
      You have no business on a website about truth & self-betterment.

      1. Brohio:
        Of course I read your piece. It was largely centered around a piece of flabby pop-psychology that validated your worldview, sprinkled with raging against women, and bad legal and historical understanding.
        Secondly, this “definition” of a man you’re giving me is completely circular. What is a man, I ask you. You respond that a “real man” is a man who feels no shame for being a man. You’re using “masculinity” to define “masculinity.”
        Sure. Men make up 77% of homicide victims. They also make up 90% of offenders too according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. But the reason the number is so high is that there’s a staggeringly large number of young men dying in the inner cities. So, don’t try to hide behind young black men in urban gangs. It’s not impressive. Now, if I saw a single post on this site trying to analyze why there’s such gang violence in the inner cities and how racism leads to violent nihilism among young men, I would be incredibly impressed. But MRA’s are less interested in talking about issues that actually address men in favor of yelling at women and calling them sluts.
        As an aside, the Bureau of Justice Statistics releases information on other crimes. The BJS noted that they don’t compile statistics on rape because rape of men makes up less than 9% of all rape cases. Now, if I saw a single post on this site protesting the ignoring and dismissal of raped men, I’d be incredibly impressed. But MRA’s are less interested in talking about issues that actually address men in favor of yelling at women and calling them sluts.
        What I notice instead is that you toss your nose up in the air and refuse to answer any of my rebuttals to your “points”, claiming that I really just don’t understand what you’re saying. Funny how that works.
        But then, when you’re locked in epistemological closure, you assume you’re working for “truth and self-betterment”. So do the guys at Conservapedia.

        1. Well, I got into a duel with a samurai once. He took my eye. So now, I wander the earth with an eyepatch and my sword, searching for the samurai and castrating all the men I run across. They call me Sita: Lady Ninja Castrator.
          But seriously, your question is loaded to favor your worldview. Things have happened in my life — things that have happened to nearly every woman in the world — that make me angry about the way women are treated, and angry at the structural inequalities that make that sort of behavior acceptable and the burden of women.
          For the record, I wonder if you even looked up a single one of those legal cases I mentioned, huh, “aspiring attorney?”

        2. Sita, 8 large paragraphs of rant does not automatically equate to relevance. What is hidden in your texts, however, is your profile of instability.
          You maintain a surface level of awareness, in which your arguments clearly lay. You would love for someone to prove you wrong, but how does one teach a mind that fails to leap beyond the first broad connections?

    2. A lawyer…….my condolences. The sophism is strong in you.
      One of the reasons why I’m not a MRM advocate is that they employ the same logical arguments of feminism except with through and opposite gender frame. Both sides provide a list of legitimate grievances (which the opposite side dismisses) as proof of their oppression and second class status. Both sides operate within the Marxist Conflict theory frame and thus both sides have nothing interesting to contribute to the debate whatsoever. Including you sweetheart. (Yes, I’m being condescending.)
      Instead of using your reply as a forum to repeat feminist critiques of modern society, how about answering the topic. i.e American Masculinity is based on Female approval. Frame-shifting does not prove anything in an argument.
      Gender essentialism is the issue at stake. The fundamental premise of the manosphere is a reassertion of gender polarity. The premise of the author, that male notions of masculinity are formed by female approval, has significant validity in my opinion. Men, being highly sexual creatures, will do what it takes to please a woman in order to gain access to her favours., and in a society which gives women the controlling right of sexual access women can powerfully manipulate the behaviours of men who are controlled by their dicks. Before you start any of your Feminist bullshit, remember, rape is a punishable crime, sexual denial is not. The force of the state is there to back up the woman’s prerogative.
      The sexual revolution, in my opinion, been a solvent of masculinity, rewarding those who have strongest natural polarity, and ruining those in those whom sexual polarity is weakest. Young women and confident muscular charismatic males have made off like bandits. Those weak in natural polarity have had to adopt and learn new behaviours in order to gain sexual access. Men particularly, who have a stronger conscious sex drive are thus more motivated to comply with the conditions of sexual access as determined by women and hence assume a supplicant position. Thus, the group of behaviours which make up male identity (i.e masculinity) are shaped trying to please the nature of women. The author’s premise is plausible.
      Is it true though? Well, you don’t really need peer review journals (though they back up common sense) to prove this is the case. Since the nineties we’ve had the sensitive new age man as the ideal, then then the metrosexual and currently it’s the “thug luvin” ideal. The protean morphology is consequence of fickleness of women’s desires. Cue, Roy Baumeister and erotic plasticity.
      See, it isn’t that hard if you concentrate on the substance and not the fluff.

      1. Ohoho, aren’t you cute. I half-pictured you putting on a pair of sunglasses and flexing your biceps when you called me ‘sweetheart’. Or were you just wearing a fedora and pretending like you were Rick Blaine in Casablanca? I’m swooning, sweetie. Consider my feminist rebelliousness duly quashed.
        In case you didn’t read my post, and I’m sure you were too
        busy to bother with my simple hamster-mindedness, I rebutted 2Wycked’s premise. He argued that boys grow up in a country in which they’re taught that “masculinity” is a thing which has to be
        suppressed, leading to men whose basic response is to look to women to have their identity defined for them. I responded that’s nonsense, based on the fact that women still institutionally
        face discrimination (I cited legal cases in the contemporary period and the recent abortion debacles) and structurally face discrimination (the view that women are public property open to sexual commentary and harassment, and that women who publically comment on their harassment are shouted down as wrong or sluts by men), that men don’t have to deal with.
        Also, you might be surprised (if you didn’t read my post)
        that most modern feminists, including myself, believe in gender essentialism. The visibility of transsexual people has made
        that a mainstream concept in third-wave feminism. But your idea that the essential quality of men is “being highly sexual” is prima facie nonsensical. Here’s a news-flash (and you might want to
        hold onto your fedora): Women like sex just as much as men do. Being a female feminist and hanging around other female feminists, let me tell you that we can be some pretty raunchy bitches when we talk about how much we like having sex
        with men. As for control, I’ll agree with that women have marginally more control over sexual encounters, simply due to the fact that women have to bear more risks for having sex. But let me tell you a story. I have a friend, let’s call her “Susan”. Susan told me once that she had a sexual partner named “Jeff.” Susan told me that
        Jeff was something of a douchebag – a selfish, boring jerk. But she admitted that she kept going back to him for sex because he was a beast in bed. Susan wouldn’t have thought to be with Jeff at all if not for him “manipulating her behavior” with his dick. It’s
        self-serving to say that men don’t have any sexual charisma that affects people’s behavior.
        Really, I think your interpretation of the sexual revolution is also pretty self-serving. It sounds like you’re angry about the sexual revolution because it made a men have to appeal to women instead of being owed a woman as a sexual object for him to own, regardless of what kind of person he was or how little he appealed to the woman in his life. Poor dovecote. But again, I’ll refer back to my previous point – both men and women can have sexual charisma. Men can “dicknotize” women, and women can exert “pussy power” over men, and this has been going on since the beginning of recorded civilization. Also, as an aside, if you’re going to critique the “fickleness” of women’s tastes, I’d suggest taking
        a look at Peter Paul Reubens’ paintings and getting angry at how his tastes don’t match yours.
        Your idea of common sense, unsurprisingly, only deals with
        the “common sense” of men like you. If you were to talk to women, and more specifically, feminists, you’d find that our experiences in the world don’t match your condescending assumption of what we
        experience. Just remember to take off your fedora first, sweetheart.

        1. Your inane solipsistic ramblings prove the point of the article entirely leading me to the conclusion that you’re either:
          a. A ridiculous feminist caricature.
          b. A troll
          Either way drag yourself back to Jezebel because this is a site for men and nobody cares about what you have to say.

        2. “We’re men, we’re men in tights! We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that’s right! We may look like sissies, but watch what you say or else we’ll put out your lights!”
          Sorry. When you said “this is a site for men”, that immediately popped into my head. I laughed.
          If your viewpoints on men are so fragile that they have to be insulated from the (relatively gentle, I’d have to say) critique of a single woman, then they’re pretty pathetic and probably ought to be critiqued.

        3. The truth of the article stands.
          You and all others like you are just like a seagull shitting on a granite slab. After the rain washes it away, the slab is still there unchanged and unmoved.

        4. And then people realize how ugly the slab is with seagull shit all over it, and the city council decides to take the eyesore from the beach and smash it into backfill for the lot on which the local women’s clinic is going to be built in town.

        5. Or in other words:
          “I can’t find any way to argue with your points, and I can’t make you shut up, so I’m going to declare victory Danth’s Law style and stop talking to you.”
          If you were just honest, and admitted you wanted to stop talking, I wouldn’t have busted your balls, you know.

        6. Just leave. This site, it’s goals, arguments and content are not for you. You’re not wanted here and we’re trying to be as polite as possible in pointing this out.

        7. So…is that an admission that you see this site as an epistemologically-closed hugbox which can’t admit a woman criticizing your self-serving theories without the whole place falling apart?
          Also, if your idea of polite is a bunch of men calling me a whore when I disagree with them, saying that what I have to say is inane and solipsistic, that I’m worthless and ignorant, then you’ve proven exactly why women need to continue to be feminists.

        8. I’ll leave with a quote.
          “It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are
          given souls. Those who live rightly return to the stars, but those who are ‘cowards or [lead unrighteous lives] may with reason be supposed to have changed into the nature of women in the second generation’. This downward progress may continue through successive reincarnations unless
          reversed. In this situation, obviously it is only men who are complete human beings and can hope for ultimate fulfilment; the best a woman can hope for is to become a man” (Plato, Timaeus 90e).

        9. “she” proved she was a troll to me about 2 posts ago. Please stop responding! You don’t argue with trolls because they are insincere; they don’t truly believe what they are saying. Why argue and give them the negative attention they want?

        10. “This, then, is the source of our desire to love each other. Love is born into every human being; it calls back the halves of our original nature together; it tries to make one out of two, and heal the wound of human nature.”
          Plato, Symposium 191d

        11. It’s ab. A fetroll and I would like to hear what she got to say. I’m already amused by fedora and creeper stereotypes.

        12. A fetroll with a big book of Plato’s dialogues, an collection of arguments in ethics, and a book of legal cases of the Supreme Court.
          I’m here to kick misogynass and chew bubblegum, and I’m all out of bubble gum.

        13. HAHAHAHA! Can we chain you up to the stove? You don’t even need to know how to work it. You are kinda awesome.

        14. Hey, I’m six-four in heels. You want to try and get me over there without me breaking you, you be my guest, sugar.

        15. My friends neither wear fedoras nor do they try to gaslight me. In fact, I’ve found that my friends try to listen when I dissent from their views without trying to dismiss me.
          I bet you’re a PUA, aren’t you? You’ve got that vibe.

        16. Gaslight? Please don’t be upset! I didn’t mean it. We not gonna chain you up to the stove, we just gonna lock you up in a kitchen.

        17. The reason I don’t debate leftists is because it is like playing chess with a pigeon: no matter how good you are, the pigeon knocks the pieces over, craps all over the board, then struts around thinking it’s victorious.

        18. Ah, I’m good at picking out creepy patterns, aren’t I? You are a PUA. Now, you’ll have to bear with me, since I’m not too up on the PUA code-words. What’s the word you guys use for gaslighting? “Negging?” Are you negging me, sweetie? Trying to break through my bitch shield? Dish, dish!

        19. That would absolutely hurt my feelings if it didn’t come from some kind of backwards paleoconservative racist who sings the praises of empires which have been dead for millennia, but can’t talk about those empires without resorting to anachronisms which reinforce his Weltanschauung rather than stick to any historical accuracy that might not jibe with his views.

        20. I told you’re awesome. Stop fishing for compliments. So it’s a deal? We can burn bras together and chew bubblegum! I got cinnamon and peppermint!

        21. Oh, honey. I imagine that fedora must keep plenty of ladies away out of your life. Because if you really knew any women, you’d know that bras that people actually wear are expensive. I wouldn’t burn mine for a PUA like you.

        22. So, I see that you’re trying to get me to indulge in the usual stereotypes of basement-dwellers, and you’re likely to spring some kind of “aha” trap on me about how you’re actually six-five, and ripped, and you hump bitches all the time who love your fedora, culminating in a “take that, feminist scum”. Something like that. How much longer is this going to go on before we get to the point?

        23. What? I’m talking about burning bras silly. You’re too paranoid. I can’t simply like you? Men do that you know.

        24. One doesn’t “divest” oneself of misogyny. That’s the kind of nonsense that liberals try peddle in, so they can have a quick, easy fix for their liberal guilt. Misogyny, like racism and queerphobia, are products of privilege, and they mark the mindset of people in the dominant group.
          A person who legitimately wants to be fair to people in minority groups needs to be aware of that privilege, and what that privilege purchases. In this case, misogyny purchases men the ability to not have to listen to women, the ability to freely speak without being shouted down as a stupid whore, the ability to not have to be a representative of one’s whole gender at all times, the ability to be judged on one’s merits rather than one’s appearance, et cetera.
          I think, when it comes to the overwhelming majority of men, they don’t intentionally mean to dismiss and hurt women, but the problem with misogyny is that it makes men feel okay to not have to listen to women. It makes men subconsciously think that women aren’t human beings, but “women”, as some kind of alternative category of being.
          The ideal way to interact with women is to listen to what we have to say about our experience in the world while recognizing an instinctual, knee-jerk tendency to either dismiss us, or reinterpret our own experiences through your own frame of reference. It’s a process of listening and talking between human beings.

        25. My, and they call -me- the attention whore around here. But that’s okay — you’re just precious, Ivan. Don’t ever change.

        26. Well I’m listening and all I hear is inferiority complex. I cannot attribute this to anything besides feminism. It’s good that you at least acknowledge femininity but you don’t see women as human beings. You see men as oppressors and that’s sad. Can we get back to burning bras?

        27. Wouldn’t most women have an inferiority complex if they couldn’t have a conversation in public without some smarmy PUA trying to gaslight them?
          Begone! Before someone drops a house on you too.

        28. What you’re really saying is that you and all other women like you are unoriginal narcissists and that you can’t live without men or the things that men provide.
          Your infuriating sense of entitlement that you can somehow be privy to everything that a man does and that you somehow deserve this respect is what is ruining and emasculating men.
          Aren’t we entitled to our own privacy? I know of almost no men who care or are envious of what women do together but plenty of women who either dictate to men conditions of male happiness or want to be part of the so called in group while not understanding even at a basic level the motivations, therefore destroying anything worthwhile that men attempt to achieve.

        29. I thought you were leaving, John? You dropped Plato on me pretty superciliously a while back. Did you decide that, instead, you just had to scream at me a while more until I got back in my place?

        30. Yes, you piss me off that much. This is something that has always made me and many, many, many other men angry.

        31. Ah, still precious, Ivan. You’ve sure showed big nasty feminist me. I think that makes you chief red-pill Alpha-male around here for that one. Consider me duly chastened for making fun of you and your (obviously) natty fedora.

        32. Does that mean I get a boobie touch? I’m really confused now. We gonna do it or not?

        33. Well, John. If it makes you feel any better, I don’t hate you, and I don’t see you as my enemy. I legitimately want to have a conversation with you about this.
          In regards to your previous post:
          1. I think human beings are pretty awesome, and I think we work best when we work together to make a better and more equitable world. It’s sort of Star Trekky-idealistic of me, but I think men and women and all of the other genders rely on each other.
          2. I think as human beings, we have the right to privacy, but this site bills itself a place for commentary and gender discourse. I have commentary about the subject of this essay that disagrees with his premise. What you’re saying is that you want a place where everyone has to toe the party-line, and it sounds like you want to silence me because you just don’t like what I have to say. Women have historically faced a serious problem with being silenced when they disagree with men publicly, and I can’t think of many women who want to be in that category. Women want to be heard as much as men do.
          3. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which most public and powerful institutions have been historically monopolized by men, and unilaterally declared the province of men. Of course you don’t see men wanting to join the rare female-dominated institutions! Because they’re usually powerless institutions, or regarded as “meaningless” by men in power — institutions like child-care, prostitution, religious sisterhood, et cetera.
          I want to live in a world where 50% of the population can be free to express themselves freely, a world in which women flow into the STEM fields and come up with innovations and discoveries which rock the world. This is entitlement. But it’s what -all- people are entitled to, not just men.

        34. Well, you were the one who told me you had the moobs. Feel free to play with yours!
          Make sure you squeal real loud when you do, and be sure to put on a falsetto when you tell yourself what an amazing lover you are, and how big and manly you are for showing a nasty feminist on the internet.

        35. You’re full of it and you know it.
          Academia, government and other powerful institutions in the West are run by and for woman’s interests. In fact in New Zealand where I live recently a proposal was put forward to ban men from being elected within certain electorates.
          As for STEM careers, women choose these of their own volition not because some “big nasty patriarchy” is out to get them. Women tend to enjoy and do well in medical fields however I’ve rarely met any woman who enjoys programming or engineering type roles. The most you’ll see a woman do is manipulate Photoshop or some “artistic design” type role. Of her choosing of course.
          Women being herd creatures that they are would rarely face social isolation and possible danger to bring something useful and worthwhile to society irrespective of what others think of them. It’s easier than ever before for women to get grants or whatever they need for research because of affirmative action.
          So cut the crap, you know as well as I do that men are being hounded and bullied out of the few areas of control they have left in their lives. You want to take everything they have even their dignity away from them just so you can have total despotism over their lives. If I’m not right, then why are you here?

        36. So I made a comment and it therefore follows that I give a shit what you think about me. Guess you think the entire conversation is all about you. What a shock.
          Also if my comment was sour grapes, then you weren’t inb4.
          Anyway go ahead and explain how the patriarchy influences women’s career paths, I’ll be reading.

        37. I’m afraid, John, that you have me somewhat at a disadvantage. I’m not from New Zealand, so I can’t speak for New Zealand politics. Considering your angry vitriol towards me and other women, I’m inclined to believe you’re interpreting things in a way that makes New Zealand men martyrs for the MRA cause. If you could link me to some kind of article, I could read for myself?
          As for women not joining STEM fields, I think that’s a tremendous problem that needs to be addressed. The problem isn’t that women aren’t intelligent, so we need to find some way to encourage women to be more at home with science, technology, and math. I think your personal observations about women’s desire to do STEM are, frankly, irrelevant (because the plural of anecdote is data, right?). It’s not that hard to go to someplace like Wikipedia and find entire lists, lists after lists, of women in STEM fields. The fact that women even go into STEM fields seems to raise questions about your premise.
          I hate to inform you that men are, being Homo sapiens, social animals too. I’m laughing that you even tried to bring up “women are herd animals” as an argument after trying to justify the male-only nature of this site as a reason for keeping women like me out.
          And no, nobody’s trying to hound you out of anything. Like I keep telling you, I like men in general. I like living in a society with men. I want a society in which men and women aren’t waging a cold war based on gender. And, anecdotally speaking, every woman I know feels that way too.

        38. Ma’am I do apologize for making you the source of my Sunday night amusement. I hope there are no ill feelings. I respect bold action in face of overwhelming odds. Majority of people here got profound understanding of gender interactions, society and politics. It is simply irrational to argue your point and expect approval. From what little I know from our interaction, I see you don’t like women. You think they’ve failed and continue to fail. This is your perspective and yours alone. Women are wonderful, capable people. Don’t teach your self or your children inferiority. Read the article again and hear the message. It is self-actualization and you can benefit from that as well. I hope you find what you’re looking for here. Farewell.

        39. Oh, okay. So it’s just coincidence that you jump into the conversation right as I’m talking to someone. You just happened to fall onto that post button right after John’s comment and right before mine, making a prediction of what I was going to say, making some smarmy little comment made to needle me. No, no. That’s not about me. Perish the thought on my part, huh.
          And they say women are passive-aggressive.

        40. No, it’s not a coincidence. It just doesn’t follow that I give a shit what you think.

        41. Well, you keep right on yanking my pigtails, sweetie. Maybe one day, I’ll turn around and tell you I like-like you, and we can go to the spring dance together.
          My only question is whether you’re going to pass me a note asking if I like you. Because that’s way too much pressure now. I just hope you don’t try and hold out your leg and trip me as I walk to the bathroom.

        42. I’m fully aware of the satire of this comment but this is exactly what I mean about women ruining things. We can’t even have a conversation without them trying to turn it into as sort of sexual Hegelian dialectic therefore throwing intelligent and meaningful discourse out the window.

        43. Oh, Hegel. I’m a Schopenhauer girl, but we can still be friends. What sort of Hegelian dialectic did you see me invoke?

        44. That men and women are some kind of thesis and antithesis? That’s the only thing I can guess.

        45. No, the fact that women always have to revert to their sexuality to win any argument and the fact that they do use this to “win”. I’m sick of talking to you, troll and I should have shut up a long time ago.
          Also I apologise to Wycked for hijacking an otherwise brilliant articles thread. More things like this need to be known.

        46. Frankly, these types of conversations are boring and predictable; they follow a script. Women are underrepresented in STEM, it’s because of the decisions they made, their decisions are influenced by structural sexism etc. etc.
          That was the only point I was trying to make. Then all of a sudden I’m supposed to care that I’m being laughed at or something as though the notion of being laughed at by a woman would be too much to bear. It’s incredibly juvenile, but it is what it is.

        47. Haha, what? I honestly have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. How am I “reverting” to my sexuality at all?
          But if you’re done, feel free to toss another antiquated quote from a Platonic dialogue at me. I’ve got a big book of the man’s dialogues on my bed, and I can roll with the best of them.

        48. I know but it’s the mock flirting and use of sexuality as a weapon that is one of the reasons that women cannot and will not ever be taken seriously.
          She reads like a caricature and it’s boring me too.

        49. You’re not making any point at all is the problem. Women are underrepresented in STEM. Why is this the case? I deny any appeal to the claim that women are less intelligent. That claim is both contrary to empirical understanding and personal experience. You claim that humans have some kind of perfect ability to follow the desires of their will, but none of us is a tabula rasa. We are influenced by the people and pressures which surround us. Women weigh their desires against societal pressures, and choose against STEM because they’re afraid that going into those fields will make them seem unfeminine in the eyes of society (a gendering problem that affects men who try to go into female-dominated fields too, like floral art, child care, nursing, et cetera). Women avoid STEM fields too because they face pervasive levels of patronization and sexual harassment, because there aren’t many women in those fields (which is a disorienting chicken-and-egg dilemma).
          You don’t think these things are a problem because they don’t affect you. You get to blithely dismiss these issues because since they don’t affect you, you assume they don’t exist. For women, however, it’s a daily problem. And I assure you that if I showed this post to a woman in STEM, she’d likely agree with what I had to say 100%.

        50. Aw, boo-boo. Sorry I’m boring you. I’m glad to know though that no matter how boring I apparently get, you feel the need to inform me about it and not go away (which you’ve told me you’re going to do twice now). Which is usually what I do when I get bored.

        51. Ohoho, aren’t you cute. I half-pictured you putting on a pair of
          sunglasses and flexing your biceps when you called me ‘sweetheart’.

          ; )
          I responded that’s nonsense, based on the fact that women still institutionally
          face discrimination

          Focus…..focus, my little pudding. A counter statement is not a logical argument, don’t they teach you that in law school? The assumption that women are discriminated by the state does not logically imply that masculinity is not shaped by the approval of women. You admit as much in acknowledging the state sanctioned female power of sexual veto.
          Also, you might be surprised (if you didn’t read my post)
          that most modern feminists, including myself, believe in gender essentialism.
          The feminist notion of essentialism is deconstructed, in other words, it can mean anything you want it to mean. Transsexuals are sexual polymorphs or deviants, depending on how you consider them. Using them to support any argument with regard to essentiallism shows that you are bandying words which you have no familiarity with. The standards at your law school must be low.
          But your idea that the essential quality of men is “being highly sexual” is prima facie nonsensical. Here’s a news-flash (and you might want to hold onto your fedora): Women like sex just as much as men do.
          “Peer reviewed science is our friend. Unfortunately–for you–the facts of life are conservative. The truth is difficult to digest but if you take it in small quantities at first it becomes easier to swallow.
          But let me tell you a story
          Anecdote is not science.
          It’s self-serving to say that men don’t have any sexual charisma that affects people’s behavior.
          Strawman argument. Is English your second language? Clearly you lack comprehension skills. The question at hand is, “Is American masculinity based on female approval?” Not, “are womens notions of femininity based upon masculine notions of sexual desirability.” Stick to the subject and stop reframing Your misandry has unbalanced you.
          I’d suggest taking a look at Peter Paul Reubens’ paintings and getting angry at how his tastes don’t match yours.
          The exception does not disprove the rule.
          It sounds like you’re angry about the sexual revolution because it made a men have to appeal to women
          Wrong again. I’m happy for men appeal to women’s sexual natures. It restores the natural order and strikes at the heart of feminist bullshit. Sexual biology in non-egalitarian. A horny woman will do anything a hot man asks her to do. What’s wrong with that? It sounds like a win-win situation.He gets to happily dominate, she gets to happily submit. The cosmic forces are aligned.
          If you were to talk to women, and more specifically, feminists,
          Two mutually exclusive groups.
          you’d find that our experiences in the world don’t match your condescending assumption of what we

          That’s the great thing about being a man; one mood……all the time.
          Say goodnight to the cats for me.

        52. “”can’t admit a woman criticizing your self-serving theories without the whole place falling apart?””
          Whole place is falling apart because you’ve made like 60 rapid fire passive aggressive nonsensical posts.
          “Honey, sweetie, adorable ” jesus ,the big(heh) ball of hate is here to teach the silly man children seems to be your M.O. How’s that working out for you?

        53. One woman here… speaking out as on the STEM career..
          I’ve spent many many years, sometimes having to give my ideas to men so that they could be implemented. (In the worst of the organizations, they would not be taken seriously by the women, so I would have to let a man take the credit for the idea or design in order to get it implemented)
          Many many of my female colleagues were in the same exact boat in the worst of these organizations. (Only in the worst)
          So for every one of the females you describe “pushing photoshop” around, I can name another that had amazing designs that had the risk of being ignored by a still largely male-dominated engineering society.
          Luckily, this was still fairly rare, and our ideas, designs, and design improvements were more often-than-not taken for their actual value, and implemented.
          I know you may not want to hear this, you only want to hear that feminism is ruining mens’ lives everywhere. But I can assure you that the “Old Boy Network” still pushes women out of STEM daily…
          From a real-life STEM female, take my word for it. Feminist bullying is not the answer, but male bullying STILL takes place.

        54. Really?
          I strongly doubt your story.
          Most men are simps who trip over themselves seeking female approval.
          You know, the point of my article.

        55. Yes, I know that is the point of the article, but I’m here to tell you… In the working environment, especially in some very “Old-boy” networks, that absolutely HAS and DOES happen.
          As I wrote, I am thankful that it doesn’t happen 100% of the time. But I wouldn’t take the time to write my story here, on a very male-based blog, if I didn’t have a true story to tell…
          Men seek the approval of their bosses (and some men can NOT handle being equal to women in the technical field, they absolutely can NOT handle it. I have witnessed their refusal to accept this first-hand.)
          Thankfully, society is shifting, and I am seeing less and less of this, but it is still very real.

        56. See here, ladies and gents, is what we call a MASSIVE pseudo-intellectual.
          I have books like that too. I too have a college degree in a similar area. It doesn’t make me anything special at all, nor does it even imply that I’m somehow smart.
          The over reliance on faux psychologizing and use of debating terms (in the fanciest manner possible too) tends to seal the deal.

        57. Huh?
          A woman plays the victim card, and therefore no woman in tech is taken seriously anywhere?
          I repeat, “huh?”
          One example: I had at least 10 people in one manufacturing facility come up to me in one month telling me about “Sam” who was taking credit for my work. They were irate that he was doing this, and feared that he was actually succeeding. I figured, “if 10 people knew it was me, surely my management knew too.” I was right. I was just not the type to toot my own horn. And as long as the outcome was there (productivity results), I wasn’t overly concerned about who got the credit at the time. I figured he had his reasons for stealing, and let him be. (And was more careful next time.)
          Just one example, but …Trust me, for every citing that you can find, I can offer a first-hand example.
          And I repeat, “I am GRATEFUL that they are still only examples here and there, and that the majority of times women’s ideas CAN be taken seriously.”
          …That my colleagues’ and my ideas have each been responsible for patent after patent, for millions of dollars of cost savings in manufacturing and/or market value in new ideas that we are each very proud of. Men and women alike, working side by side, driving a culture of meritocracy, not worrying about gender on any given day.
          …It is the every once in a while that the “Old boy network” man who thinks the woman shouldn’t be there alongside them, that ruins our day.
          The old boy that uses a single example and says “All women are like that.” (As much as the feminist who is trying to create a culture of entitlement that also ruins our day, saying “All men are like that.”)
          A real woman in a real career in real tech with real examples to cite first-hand…
          More if you’d like them…

        58. Actually since you’re not so obvious a feminine troll as Sita I’m going to reply to what you wrote. The fact that you tend towards collectivism, needing approval from others(which you deny but you’ve written it into your writing) shows why women can’t differentiate themselves and become something truly original.
          Truly great people particularly men don’t actually care what others think of them, there’s no old boys network keeping you down at all(and a very real one propping you up called the state).
          The fact that the highest outcome that you can think of is cost savings and market value is also sad. When people implement truly original and groundbreaking ideas and technology they usually don’t do it with this idea, at least not initially in mind.
          You work in a cocooned corporate culture that was designed and implemented almost exclusively for you and the benefit of your kind. You might have had to work for your position partially on the backs of others but I doubt that you ever had to experience any real threat of hardship or risk. You can only copy, not create.
          I don’t deny that women don’t work in STEM careers I’m only saying that for you to get where you are today, many men have had to make sacrifices.
          Anyway, goodbye. This debate is pointless really.

        59. One more thing:
          The real reason that women are pushing for STEM careers is that they are attempting to break down one of the last bastions in Western Society of male pride and masculinity just as they did to the military.
          By neutering sources of male accomplishment feminists can claim a complete psychological victory over the self esteem of men therefore gaining total control over society. Another reason is that science is well funded and a prestigious subject, resources that women want to take for themselves as usual.

        60. I’m a woman in electrical engineering and pure math. It reflects who I am. I didn’t need feminist cheerleading to encourage me to be myself. Yet, year after year after year, the “outreach” propaganda continues.
          Pretend for a second that it is forty years ago. Pretend for a second that women were pressured to not go into engineering, and now, in our commitment to gender equality, in respect for individual human value and empowerment, we are going to reach out to them.
          But, we are going to consider the possibility that men and women are biologically different and so the final ratio might not be 50-50. At what point is the experiment considered done? The goal of the experiment is that there is no significant number of women in the population who would have wanted to be in engineering, but simply didn’t know about it, or felt pressured to be nurses, instead; the goal of the experiment is not to reach 50-50.
          By all common sense observation, the experiment is complete.
          It’s been decades. The percentage of female engineering students is steady. Other previously majority-male professions have been flooded with women, so it’s not that “majority-male” is a deterrent, per se. In societies where women are less free, like Turkey, there are more women in Tech. In exit surveys, more women than men report not wanting to have gone into engineering, but feeling pressured to.
          By all common sense observation, women are free people. We’re not living in an oppressive state. This is a society committed to gender neutrality. Men are more innovative. Men like understanding nonhuman systems more. These appear true by common sense observation. Women who are innovative and/or like understanding nonhuman systems have just as much opportunity. Life is good that way.
          But feminists won’t shut up.
          And public money goes to feminist activism. THAT is the injustice, as far as I’m concerned. Why should my taxes go to activists of different persuasions? That is unfair. The fraction of women in STEM fields has nothing to do with unfairness.

        61. Maybe a fraction of people will take advantage if you let them. And you let them. Those men who behaved chauvinistically toward you presumably are dicks, in general, not just dicks toward women who don’t know their place.
          That said, there must be a cultural component to these things, or they wouldn’t vary between the new and the old generation; though, presumably we have just as many assholes, we have fewer chauvinists casually denying women credit for jobs well done.
          I bet if engineers behaved in a less masculine way, nonetheless, tech would be mostly male. Other mostly-male things, like law, medicine… much higher ed, really… were flocked to by women so quickly. So, how much of a deterrent could men behaving chauvinistically really be? Not much, is what.

        62. No, she wouldn’t.
          For example, I mocked Women’s Studies to one of my female engineer friends recently, and she laughed, almost embarassedly but giddily, like it’s true but you can’t say it. We were talking about what our negative references are, academically. Hers is Film Studies, her engineer boyfriend’s is Sociology, and mine is Women’s Studies.
          Where you get the idea that empirical evidence supports the interchangeability of men and women’s intellects is beyond me. Women’s Studies textbooks, maybe?
          Not that anything you say matters. You won’t change human nature. But, it looks like feminists will be preaching women in engineering as victims for awhile still… Sigh.

        63. John,
          I will not deny the corporate culture “propping us up” with Women’s networks, etc.
          I completely disagree that there is a corporate culture designed “almoste exclusively for me.” Or my kind, or whatever you mean by that.
          And to get where I am today, I had to make sacrifice after sacrifice, the same way many men had to do (and some men got where they got by sitting on their asses, by “who they know,” by the old-boy-network. Some women got where they got by the feminist imperative. I avoided taking advantage of “feminist imperative” like the plague… I, like many of my engineer friends, wanted to live in a society of true meritocracy. I think that is why many engineers go into engineerings.
          Goodbye, John.

        64. Agree with you Alice.
          However, after reading John’s comment below, do you still not agree that a FEW men may be acting chauvenistic toward women in STEM?
          John says ” women want to take those resources for themselves (in STEM)
          While I agree that women are pushing for a potentially unnatural ratio of women in STEM careers, there are plenty like you and me (what I read of you in another post below) that chose to go into engineering because of our affinity toward that subject.
          As I noted in my very first post, and repeated often, I am VERY HAPPY to say that it is VERY few men.
          Women who go into STEM typically are the type that get along with guys very well, almost “one of the guys.” So the
          camaraderie is there among most coworkers, the harmony easy on most teams.
          Every once in a while there is a chauvenist or a feminist.
          Or sometimes just a plain a**hole of either gender, to your point.) who makes our lives hell.
          Most of the times, Engineers are easy-going, want to get things done and find a way to work around them. That is just who we are…
          Your last point about the flocking to the other areas. I can’t answer other than the potential natural affinity or nuturing STEM. The theory that it is nurturing is why there are so many high school programs that try to get girls interested in STEM early. (Because they think that boys are programmed, like Model Airplanes, Legos, Tonka Trucks) to love moving things…
          Without a Childhood Development background, I will stay out of that argument…

        65. I can tell you only from my experience, and from my close friends (maybe 20 female engineers)
          That we chose engineering not because we wanted to “stick it to any man.”
          But because that was our natural affinity.
          You see male nurses on staff these days. They would avoid that like the plague 40 years ago too. But now, there is more openness to doing what your nature calls you to do.
          –Should I have been a stay-at-home mom, so the bloggers can slam me for “using my man’s money while he works all day?
          -Should I have chosen a career as a receptionist or other low-paying job so the bloggers can slam me for having a “leech” job that does nothing but suck corporate funds?
          -or a corporate paper-pushing job based on a BA degree? That you will tell me the entire corporate culture built so I could have a worthless paycheck?
          -I am not seeking approval for being an engineer. And oh, by the way, when I did my career research 25 years ago, the predictions for my field was that there would be a constant need in the field, and it didn’t say whether men or women were filling that gap (or if enough Americans were filling that gap even.) I chose a field where meritocracy has the very best chance of thriving, where feminism has the very least chance of rearing its ugly head.
          Just because women are in the field of engineering, does NOT mean feminism won, it only means that meritocracy won and chauvenism was not necessarily present. If men lost their jobs to equal or less females in that same field due to equal employment laws, THEN feminism would claim victory, and I would claim a loss for meritocracy.
          And, oh by the way, Engineers DO describe their outcomes as money saved, as patents, as the dollars sold in the market. Some describe them as what cancer was surgically removed with a new instrument, what first flight was taken with a new engine… I could have gotten down y gritty like I would on my resume, but I stayed “high level” for the case of this blog… Since I was doing it to prove validtity (not to seek your approval) I know that I first have to be a strong enough engineer before you would take that aspect seriously, and therefore, the points I am making.
          Thank you,
          Good day

        66. I’ve read that men tend to be better at solving spatial problems than women are (which I think feeds into STEM professions in some ways), but saw a study that in ‘matriarchal societies in India,’ men and women performed equally.
          Of course a ‘matriarchal society’ could be a nebulous concept. But if feminists want more women in STEM, it MAY (I say may because one study isn’t entirely definitive) be the case that you need to get them interested while they’re young, really young.
          Feminists will then complain about culture and all, but I’m not sure there’s anything, much less any law, that can really change that. Better teachers maybe? I don’t know.

        67. yes, Spacial is certainly a large part of many engineering needs at least…
          …So your second paragraph would be why [Feminists] are working to get girls interested in STEM very very early. I know of programs in 9-10-11 ages. And then very intense programs at Jr High and High Schools that have popped up over the past 10 years or so… A law??? please, please please!! God help us all!! I don’t mind helping young girls get interested (I was lucky to get taught early to love cars with my dad, to be interested in how things worked, because I liked hanging out with him more than I did my mom… My personality was more like his…)
          Speaking of teachers… At the risk of going off-subject.
          They really DO seem to play a strong role in the upbringing of our young. The studies coming out showing how they are not teaching the boys effectively for the way boys learn, and that they are disciplining for being “too energetic” in class…
          THESE are the things that should be priority items to change if you ask me. (But I don’t have 100% oversight to know the top problems, this is just antecdotal)

        68. And you’re saying that despite that, women still tend not to go into STEM?
          Interesting, the second article had someone responding with comments akin smashing the patriarchy.

        69. “Luckily, this was still fairly rare, and our ideas, designs, and design improvements were more often-than-not taken for their actual value, and implemented. ”
          End of argument. This right here is the only thing that matters. Now quit your bitching.

        70. Nikoloz,
          As you might have been able to read, I was looking at the bright side already, as I wrote this.
          I didn’t want to come across as only bitching, as if it happens 100% of the time…
          If it happened 100%, I would have quit.
          Fact it, I did quit one job because of the “old boy network.”
          But, thankfully, I only “had enough” of the crap like that at one place enough to walk away to a more even-keeled environment…
          In my mind, the times that men treat women as second-rate developers at work, that is just as bad as the times that women HR treat men as “in the way” of their fulfillment goals…
          “A few times” is still not good.
          “A few times” is what the authors write about here.
          And “a few times” is what I am describing.

      2. Allow me to dissent somewhat. I’ve read this notion that the MRM is just like feminism elsewhere as well and it isn’t accurate for one simple reason. Feminism is fundamentally ideological, the MRM is counter ideological. Feminism is rooted in a Marxist framework that asserts that men are an oppressor class and that women are an oppressed class. It then selects data conforming to this dogma. This is the ideological nature of feminism. While the MRM does indeed point to male victimization, as feminism does, it does so without the ideological taint and academic fraud.
        I’d also add that I think you’re fundamentally mistaken in your statement that the premise of the manosphere is a “reassertion of gender polarity.”
        One of the driving forces of the manosphere is an acknowledgement of gender polarity. Our society is growing increasingly dysfunctional because it denies the existence of gender polarity.
        Reasserting gender polarity implies an imposition of gendered roles, and while there are some in the manosphere who believe this is the way forward, I am not one of them. I think women are women and men are men, with all the innate differences that implies, but I think people need to be free to choose how they wish to explore their humanity.
        P.S. debating this dysfunctional feminist troll Sita will bear you no meaningful fruit. She has nothing new or interesting to offer.

        1. Says the man who started an argument with me and then slunk off with his tail between his legs, huffing and justifying said slinking with the claim that “[he] had important things to do!” Instead of just admitting he didn’t want to play anymore.
          I think it’s totally adorable that you’re trying to hurt my feelings by talking about me in the third person, knowing I’m reading this. But I’m still laughing at you, sweetie.
          Also, you’ve got to know how much I’m totally nodding when reading your comment. I love hearing from a MRA wonk that MRA is absolutely pure and unsullied and objective truth, touched by the velvet hand of Man God, as opposed to us nasty, biased feminists. No conflict of interest there, right?
          Tell me, sahib. Enlighten my poor soul. What are the essential qualities that denote masculinity? Femininity?

        2. Wadsworth. The MRM is the mirror image of feminism. Not in that it is explicitly ideological, but more in the fact that it mirrors the ideology of feminism in an opposite sexual polarity.
          By using the same language and rhetoric as the feminists it gets the Marxism thrown in for free, so to speak.
          Reasserting gender polarity implies an imposition of gendered roles,
          I think that there are certain roles which are incompatible, or which wound sexual polarity. I think there is a fair amount of legitimate disagreement as to what are appropriate gender roles. I feel that the traditionalist strictures were far too harsh towards women. A woman may be quite able to work as a lumberjack but do you honestly think she is made more feminine by the role? I know a beautiful girl who works in an Eastern European delicatessen. She is a beautiful girl to look at until she comes within four feet of you, then she smells like a smoke house. It’s sort of yuk.

    3. The thing is, nobody believes in women’s rights or minority rights or equal rights here, so you’re wasting your time.

        1. Getting back on topic, as a modern woman, I much prefer these guys to the losers on the left who think and say whatever these whining feminists tell them to. You’re welcome your own opinion of course, but I don’t think anybody cares what you think about them.

        2. Oh, you’re a woman! Nice to see you around. It’s nice to not feel like the proverbial stranger in a strange land, even if you do think I’m wasting my time. I hate to tell you, but plenty of leftist men are misogynists too. It’s a nasty problem that transcends political posture, and my arguments aren’t rooted in leftism or rightism.
          But if you like these sorts of men, more power to you? I’m not criticizing your tastes.

        3. Seriously, why do women like you have to ruin everything for everyone ALL of the time? Are you all really that weak and insecure that you can’t ALWAYS stand being the center of constant attention and fawning?
          You make peoples lives a living hell, you scream as you stab others.

        4. Oh yes. We feminists are sitting around, twirling our paste-on mustaches, planning ways to take your toys away from you.
          Neener, neener.

        5. What’s not misogynistic nowadays? People just use it to complain about things they don’t like, from the economy to video games to masturbation. It doesn’t really mean anything anymore. As for these “societal prejudices” I don’t think of it as a problem at all. Men and women are different, what’s wrong with treating them differently? Yeah, I’m probably just as competent as the next guy at pushing papers at some desk job, but you know, there’s always going to be somebody dumber than you are. It doesn’t mean that we should pretend that sexes don’t exist, when there are really obvious biological and behavioral differences between them. I think the whole premise for feminism is faulty, and that these guys are spot on, since they’re working from their own empirical observations rather than some ridiculous ideological fantasy.

        6. I know you meant that first question rhetorically, but I chuckled. You didn’t mean it this way, but really, what isn’t misogynistic nowadays?
          You’re right. “Misogyny” is applied to a lot of things in our society, but the trick isn’t to ignore it. That’s the same problem that our society has when POC’s point out that things are racist. “Racist”, “misogynistic”, “homophobic” — these terms are declared to be meaningless, because they accuse the people in power, the people who are racist, misogynistic, and homophobic, the people who can control the dialogue in the nation. Dominant groups don’t want to listen to those terms tearing away their justifications anymore, so they declare them meaningless.
          You’re right. There are differences between men and women. Women need tampons, men need prostate exams, things like that. But science and personal experience tells us that women aren’t any less intelligent or have any less agency in the world, therefore it makes no sense to deny women all the same opportunities that men are given. Moreover, when you talk about physical differences, you start getting into a dangerously normative area. Are blind men less manly? Are women over six feet tall less womanly? Is a man who’s under five feet tall less manly? What about a woman who enjoys weightlifting? How does an XXY person fit into gender schema?
          Things that are claimed to be “natural” usually turn out to be merely societal standards that people are unwilling to challenge, and empirical observation is the thing that helps to dismiss the ridiculous ideologies about gender and sex that society sets up as normative.

        7. Science and personal experience tells us that men invented 99% of modern technology.
          Are blind men less manly?
          Are women over six feet tall less womanly?
          Is a man who’s under five feet tall less manly?
          What about a woman who enjoys weightlifting?

        8. “not feel like the proverbial stranger” lol you assign someone to your side based on sex yet call others sexist

    4. lol, would oppositional viewpoints be allowed to be posted on your “team’s” comment section? I think not. you actually believe the party line. either your a good foot soldier or one of the “inner party”.

  11. Every culture, has at the age of about 12, had boys go through initiation rites to remove them from the world of mothers and introduce them to the world of men. We no longer have those.
    The Manosphere is in some ways a poor substitute. For one thing, the readers are not 12 anymore. Worse, some of the “ideals” are not ideals. The accepted definition of Alpha is an almost perfect description of a narcissist – and a narcissist is not something you want to be. As for the Dark Triad, it’s far, far worse than a mere narcissist.
    I am still mystified as to why there is so much praise of incurable mental illnesses as something men are supposed to be.

    1. I sympathize with you Wallace, but to be honest, who can blame them? (i love your blog btw) Men built civilization, they created these cities full of wealth, security, and comfort and instead of being thanked for it, men get stabbed in the back. women claimed complete independence from men, thus this means that men no longer have any responsibility towards women. Will my views and the rest of the manosphere bring down society? probably. Will it be a painful downfall? most likely. I would prefer a traditional society but under the circumstances, it is very unlikely such thing will happen

      1. “Men built civilization, they created these cities full of wealth,
        security, and comfort and instead of being thanked for it, men get
        stabbed in the back. women claimed complete independence from men, thus this means that men no longer have any responsibility towards women.”
        You are exactly right, which is why the Manosphere is a reaction to men being pissed on by women and society.
        People think I am some sort of a foe of the Manosphere. I am not. But there are some very dubious concepts in it, and I just try to analyze them.
        By the way, all women are still utterly dependent on men and “patriarchy,” whether it is one man or many men gathered together as the government.
        Many women refuse to believe that.

        1. Women unfortunately are highly susceptible to bullshit and a sense of belongingment we cannot possibly uderstand.
          Women can simply be trained as better sheep by a cultural system that seeks to do such a ting- women seem to fall for a lot more shit ideas thsan men do- not stupid by any means but their conviction and enthusiasm is used to great effect to enforce indoctrination into this superficial, derogatory absurd man hatey cult that assumes the same of men.

        2. but mad people are just that- i meet a lot more sane men than i do women…in the city hives they reside in any case- these peacock women parading as if they had penises.

  12. Successful life in modern society is simply maintaining an Alpha Frame while brushing off the constant dust cloud of masculine detracting ideas, thoughts and new age beta supplicating conditioning.

  13. Masterful post. Every concept is sadly true. Our world was doomed to fall, yet decades ago people thought it would be an atom bomb. In actuality it was, in the form of female hypergamy as government policy.
    We may never recover.
    There are far too many betas, and so little time. It leaves me to wonder if being a beta is not a biological imperative sans cultural tradition. If it is only the latter, then it will be a century before we see the results of our movement’s fruition.
    If it is the former, well, those of you who know this site and others, count your blessings and realize that contrary to feminist doctrine women have always been the technical underling, but the actual master since time immemorial. Allow her cackling at your own peril; and promptly put her in her place. If you can’t, count that as the sure fire sign you need to replace her with a new girl.
    I offer up the concept of the rooster or wolf. Basically crow your heart out, impregnate as often as you need to, and don’t care if one or two hens get eaten by wolves. This is the life of the beta turned alpha. Or rooster.
    It is the rare man indeed who is the wolf. Lone Wolf, or leader of the pack makes no difference. For in his heart he knows the dark heart he wields against women is like the blood spattering on the walls of their ideological chicken coup. He merely leaves to howl in the distance like laughter knowing his prey cowers in fear. His is a job all men think they possess, but few know they do.
    In time, a tragic day is coming where the wolves will be heralded as societies apex of success. More so then now. As this is the only thing a women will go after, she knows that even though he will use and abuse her, she can’t help but thinking she can tame the beast.
    Feminism has failed to acknowledge this in public, but you can tell they know it. Deep down, they need the bad boy, despite knowing the consequences. Since we have allowed these sex mongrels, whores, and their punished cuckolds to own the run of the place we assume the whole thing is going to go up in smoke.
    That will be the tell tale sign. If our cities burn, we are meant for a different imperative. If they don’t, then wolves eating chickens will always be the dynamic, and marriage was merely the poorly maintained fenced-in chicken coup that no longer works.

      1. I read about the “Sigma” concept in Men on Strike, and that seems to fit me better. I can still bed women quite effectively (notch count of ~70 at thirty-something) but I am most definitely introverted.
        This is a good description of the Sigma I found: “The Sigma mostly wants to be left alone to forge his own path and is troubled by society’s constant attempted to draw him back in, imposing restrictions and demands on his time and freedom. The alpha actively engages in society to create or subvert these restrictions for his own gratification. Considered another way, the sigma is channelling Warrior energy and the alpha is channelling King energy. We were just watching A Fistfull of Dollars in our cinema room this evening and I was reminded what a perfect outline of the sigma archetype Clint Eastwood paints with his character. Just watch these opening scenes. Slow movement, disinterest, self-absorption, wanderlust, reluctance to get involved.”

        1. Alpha isn’t linked to your notch count, the two are linked depending on the life choices of the man. fuck alpha, just be yourself if yourself is someone with a backbone.

        2. Nah not clint eastwood- everyone walks that way already – the lone wolf?
          that is a false often copied stereotype too my friend-
          You seen the hurt locker?
          the lone wolf thing will do nothing BUT ensure you maintain involvement too
          transcend the ridiculous and patently failed hierarchy altogether.
          decisive cooperation is much more useful in the end-
          the enthusiasm and reasoning when engineering something perhaps!
          Now can i borrow your lawnmower or not or you gonna sit all moody because someone broke your last one?

  14. I admit my first reaction was “no shit”
    I’ve always enjoyed your articles Wycked. I hope this sends many blue pillers deep inside. To me this an argument about color of the sky and it isn’t limited to american masculinity. I call it slave masculinity. It’s fear. Fear of being ostracised from society, fear of rejection or criticism. It’s implemented from the cradle. How to be ‘real man’, self-police and how to perpetuate this ignorant mindset. Yeah we’re social creatures and we’re always influenced by others but this is more than that. It’s control. Men are allowed to have just enough self respect to keep them from committing suicide and serve the society. Fuck that noise. Be your own man.

  15. We need to remember women don’t give a shit about 90% of worthy male pursuits. All they want to see in men is money, prestige, and sexiness. And even then, they don’t want to see how the cake is made, they just want a piece.

  16. What I got from this article is being a man is being yourself with out shame and that their is a perverted version of man that is both shameful and shamed if you don’t fit it.

  17. I apologize to ROK readers for not banning Sita sooner, before she was able to vomit her nonsense all over the place.

    1. I was thinking the same thing. Something about the beard that’s seems to always be there.

  18. So I read this stuff and the linked articles.
    I am ready to give an intellectual response:
    Fuck a bunch of panty wearing white knight pussy mangina motherfuckers

  19. These 2 statements you quoted just completely baffle me:
    “His working theory is that all boys grow up hating women and that hatred signifies immaturity. Right out the gate, this hypothesis is false”.
    “He needs to prove that all men hate women at some point in their life and the reason some men seemingly hate women is they have not learned the appropriate social comportment”.
    How can someone say something like this when most boys are raised in broken homes these days by their single mothers? For his statements to be correct he would have to admit that women explicitly hate each other. And in some cases, for good reason.

  20. At first, I read this website as satire.
    But then I realized that if it was satire–it was poorly written.
    See, your website is beautiful… because it is so gloriously “informed” without much thought. I’m enjoying reporting your reader’s comments. Especially the ones on some of your posts that seem to be encouraging rape… Oh yes, those are lovely to report. I assume you don’t have a filter where you personally approve each comment. Surely you wouldn’t let those through. No, not a man of your wit.
    “Return of the Kings” I quite hope someone is able to enlighten you.
    Sadly it won’t be through dialogue, at least in textual format. Since that seems to be dismissed every which way in this forum.
    I suggest you “man up” as you so like to encourage and invite live dialogue into the forum. Debate time perhaps? Video? Conference? Or perhaps at a meeting of your Manosphere—it could be the great convention. I’m sure a consortium of all of these bright gentlemen would be world changing. Dynamic, I’m sure.
    I would have liked to be sitting next to you in a philosophy class in my college years. We would have fun there as you seem to be fairly smart.

    1. Debate? Has *anybody* refuted my idea that modern masculinity is based on approval from female authority figures?
      You can’t disprove it because it is died-in-wool truth. Jaclyn Freidman once remarked, when going on dates with feminist men, they were falling all over her – seeking her approval. She claimed it was because they haven’t internalized feminism.
      They had.
      There is a twofold lesson for women here, as well. If you want to fulfill your stated “goal” of equality for all (it isn’t the goal) then you need to stop forcing men to seek your approval. Let them define their own reality independent of women, just as it should be for women under your fundamental goal.
      The other lesson is that women are trapped in the matrix, as well. They are taught to seek approval from authority figures. Their case is more complicated, but I seriously doubt you want to liberate yourself.
      Admit it, you love Big Brother.

    2. This is one of the most arrogant comments I could possibly imagine. Try reading it in a snarky British accent for extra lulz.

  21. ” Subconsciously, he knows how fickle female approval and any single act
    by him could result said approval being withdrawn with extreme

    Think many men realize this and still try to play by that rule. Constantly second guessing, anticipating, estimating, and reorganizing to meet that approval. Getting just enough approval to keep going, while still saying that women are a mystery.

  22. This is an old article, of course, but something about this paragraph sprang out at me:
    “We see these soft men often trying to do is reconcile their upbringing with the reality of female sexuality. Unable to properly value themselves as men separate from female approval, they double down on a system born out of boyhood that is not appropriate for manhood. Like any other psychological issue, such supplication served a boy well in his female-dominated childhood, but does nothing to help him as a man.”
    And I realised: this is actually describing the classic White Knight.
    White Knighting is not solely about the hope of getting sex if you do a woman a favour, it is a more pernicious and more disturbing idea: that you are only a good man if you gain the approval of women. The act of White Knighting in itself provides a buzz of pleasure because they have very few ways to feel pleasure without the approval of a woman.

Comments are closed.