MALE PRIVILEGE – Ironic Male Privilege Checklist

She’s right that people probably won’t assume you’re a “quota” hire”

The fact that it could be a quota hire, or a cleavage hire, are female privileges to begin with. All else being equal, even a similarly competent women will be resented by coworkers if she gets a job without having to climb a similar ladder, no matter what that ladder may be.

She’s right that people probably won’t assume you’re a “quota” hire”

The fact that it could be a quota hire, or a cleavage hire, are female privileges to begin with. All else being equal, even a similarly competent women will be resented by coworkers if she gets a job without having to climb a similar ladder. From the tiniest acts of chivalry to being able to skip hazardous duty (military and otherwise) that other workers cannot, people notice. Men and women aren’t any different in noticing it, either. Men also notice it outside of work – when they earn the same money for the same work, but still expect to be treated with chivalrous deference outside of work. When you’re both working at mid-level jobs but your coworker pulls up in a Range Rover because she got to marry a doctor and you’re a man, then fuck her and the equality she rode in on.

“All else being equal, even a similarly competent women will be resented by coworkers if she gets a job without having to climb a similar ladder. ”

And that’s where I theorized long before that a sizeable chunk of homophobia directed towards men from men comes from.

A sort of “I paid my due, toughed it out, sucked it up, and didn’t do ANY girly thing. And you didn’t do that (maybe you didn’t suck it up, or like dress up or w/e), why should I respect you?”. Some are so threatened by it that they beat the person.

“I’m not having a good commenting night…”

When you drop a line like this one:

“then fuck her and the equality she rode in on.”

I’d say you’re doing fine.

Paul,
“She’s right that people probably won’t assume you’re a “quota” hire (assuming you’re white of course) however, if the job is high status enough, people will attribute it to the “old boyz club”

“Male privilege”? Hello….!

“@Schala, I don’t know why that made you think of homophobia. I’m not aware of any special privilege that gay men have which lets them get ahead of straight men in the workplace. Or am I missing something? Even if there’s jealousy involved in someone’s homophobia, it doesn’t mean that having a sense of fair play in is wrong in any way.”

1) I’m no talking about workplace

2) I’m not talking about gay men, but about feminity in men.

Homophobia is very very often directed towards this. Towards “not performing enough” male (meaning sucking it up, manning up, shutting up about it, no whining ever), or doing anything feminine (ie anything that could be perceived as vanity for most men, but as normal for most women, like taking extra care of hair).

So in short, straight masculine men are beating up perceived-to-be-gay-because-feminine men (regardless of them being gay), because those men don’t feel as constrained as them (say, they think they should have the right to wear more than monochrome clothing in 2 varieties, or something), so they must pay for it, and/or fall in line with others (eat shit for dinner, like everyone else).

Ironically these netwoprks arose for mutual protection in very hostile environments,

Sounds like that has to do with the fact that being gay can be hazardous to one’s health. Gay men are just as obligated to work as straight men are with the additional risks imposed by being gay. Not what I would call an advantage, especially since it might limit gay men to professions that already have these fraternities in place. I admit, though, my original interpretation was of the military and I had to wonder how in the hell being effeminate would get someone a promotion or something like that – it’s certainly not the reason why tradcons fought so hard to keep gays out.

It doesn’t come from fair play. It comes from jealousy about others “getting it easier”

But that’s just fair play. “Getting it easier” is fundamentally unfair. I don’t think anyone is jealous of men who opt out of society, can’t find a wife, can’t earn a good income, etc. They get nothing special from society in return for being effeminate. So what advantage does it offer for anyone to be jealous of? Nothing. People shame effeminate men not out of jealousy, but because that’s part of the gender enforcement that obligates men to work and provide for women and society at large. It’s simple misandry and has nothing to do with jealousy. Women, for one thing, are a primary source of male gender enforcement. Not because they’re jealous, but because they expect chivalrous behavior.

“They get nothing special from society in return for being effeminate.”

They’re perceived as not paying their dues. That’s “getting something”.

Consider how the rich view people on foodstamps. That’s roughly the same. The rich abhor having taxes “steal money from them” to give them to “those people” who merit nothing.

Never resented someone because they’re better than you at everything you like by more than a notch, above “I can compete” level? A “I lost, screw it” level of not measuring up. And it’s not measuring up against Olympic athletes, but against your neighbor, best friend, etc, someone you can’t just shrug off as not-knowing you.

People will resent people who have good consequences without putting in as much work (say, lottery winners), and will resent people who have no bad consequences even though they go against social norms blatantly enough.

If the system doesn’t punish the latter (through bullying), some will make it their mission to make their life hell. As a sort of karmic retribution for opting out of the man code. Wearing skirts, doing figure skating, or hair styling – will have be seen as threats.

They’ll be seen as usurping women’s thunder (ie being good in figure skating is stealing the spot away from women athletes), which provides an opportunity for White Knights to slay the usurper. They’ll also be seen as getting success too-easy, without putting out like “the real men” do. If they do anything feminine, it will be seen as a reason for them to not have success. Because men shouldn’t be good at feminine stuff, if they had time to be good at it, that’s time they didn’t spend learning to shoot guns, and dying on a battlefield.

Schala,

Strictly personally and anecdotally:

Whenever I have not been very good at living up to the male gender norm and display a mannerism perceived as feminine, it has usually been women, not men, who have most ruthlessly used gay-shaming (and the social circle I have moved through has not generally been particularly homophobic). My ex-girlfriend especially was very zealous in making sure that I did not do something she perceived as “gay”.

Men (in my adult life) have generally not cared. This seems to me that there are other forces at work in gay-shaming – at least in my experiences with it – than “not paying one’s due”.

Not paying one’s due should be a childish, schoolyard-level maturity way of dealing with it. It’s kind of illegal to do in adulthood, since men-on-men bullying usually involves physical and sometimes aggravated assault. Children are not punished, unless someone is sent to the hospital for days, because the authorities prefer looking the other way, or blame the (male) victims for daring to be a victim.

But by then its so instilled it becomes self-policing and friendly ribbing (no homo and that kind of deal).

They get very jealous of men who do succeed, but aren’t the image of manliness… Like Justin Bieber. Or the Twilight guy.

Oh come on, not that old canard. Saying that these sort of things are despised by men because they think it’s unfair ‘cos they’re girly-men is a fucking strawman. Yeah, there’s hypocrisy, but it lies in the sheer shallowness and objectification that entire legions of feminists are up in arms about when men do it. It’s more like Tod Akin and Bieber having the same fucking view on abortion. Another part of the damn thing is that you’ve got an exploited underage boy who gets sexually objectified by 40 year old married women in a culture that so utterly fails to deal with male rape. These phenomenon are in no way a departure for traditional gender roles for men, they just make it worse. They promote chivalry and erase men, rather than promoting an alternative that men themselves could actually embrace. That’s really the bottom line.

There’s also the huge issue of how women play these fucking codependent shell games with their sexuality which is as difficult to articulate as it is infuriating. On the one hand, women objectify themselves by putting their pussy up on a pedestal and stipulating all sorts of conditions, pointing to it like it’s the prize that men have to earn. This forces men to adopt traditionally male gender roles. Women never approach men, never initiate sex, until the one day that they’re walking through the mall with a boyfriend who went through gender-role-hell to be with her and suddenly they start oozing sexuality at the sight of a cardboard cutout. And when men invariably get livid, the women start playing the victim card, saying that it’s men’s faults for not being able to express their sexuality.

Men (in my adult life) have generally not cared. This seems to me that there are other forces at work in gay-shaming – at least in my experiences with it – than “not paying one’s due”.

@RocketFrog, that’s exactly right. Gay shaming far less prevalent in men-only spaces than it is in open society. Even if there’s bigotry to be found against actual gays in those spaces, inexcusable as it is, often times it gets turned into more of an inside joke. Like Marines talking about getting fucked by the big green dick “again.” You have to consider what these men are doing together to begin with. Like communal showers and nudity in the military, sports teams, etc. Things that women feel comfortable to talk about in public, such as their medical issues, self-image, financial troubles, various doubts and fears about various things, etc., are relegated to men’s locker rooms, away from the prying ears of judgmental women.

I really don’t know where either of you are coming from with the Bieber and Twilight comparisons. First of all, how are either of them “feminine”? Bieber is a child, true, but when it comes to hi public image he (or rather his manager) has spent a lot of time trying to position him in the same way many other male pop singers have been viewed and I can’t think of anything that would mark him as “feminine” or “un-manly” besides his barely pubescent physique. You’re on even shakier ground with Edward Cullen, who’s character, what little of it there is, consists of practically nothing but traditional alpha-male traits. The only thing anyone can point to and call “feminine” is the sparkling, which really doesn’t come up very much.

My take on the hatred directed at both is that they are the very public objects of an actively expressed sexual desire on the part of large numbers women; a kind of desire that most men will never have expressed to them by even one woman. Note that the most vocal haters are young men, who would be particularly sensitive to this disparity. They often express their dislike by calling the objects of their envy feminine, un-masculine or gay both because they view these as the most damning of insults one can make against a man and because they are conditions which would often be considered to put a man out of the running as a potential mate.

It certainly doesn’t help that both are inescapable social phenomena which hold no possible interest for any person in whom they do not inspire sexual attraction.

“Not really. Women’s fashion yes, but that’s only tangentially related to gender roles. If all a guy wants out of life is to talk like a valley girl and wear a tiara, more power to him, but that doesn’t even begin to broach the reality of what the male gender role is all about.”

Showing off material possessions is considered feminine, and for financial reasons, is also the province of rich people.

At the cross we have Hollywood celebrities, especially female ones.

” who show off their cars and motorcycles ”

Usually the PERFORMANCE of their cars and motorcycles.

Rarely its look by itself. If a Lamborghini car looked that way but had average performance, it would lose its meaning to male customers. It’s precisely because its incredibly fast that men even care.

Goes very well with the male gender role: Performing something to prove your worth.

As opposed to the female gender role: Being female is enough, no need to perform or prove your worth, your worth is inherent to your sex.

Usually the PERFORMANCE of their cars and motorcycles.

LOL and then there are Harleys

@dungone,

Re: Harleys

lulz

As far as showing off material possessions, it is neither the bailiwick of femininity or masculinity. But the types of possessions shown off is definitely split on a gender line. Men tend to show off possessions that enable them to do things, i.e. bikes, cars, loud stereos, big tv’s, etc. Women tend to show off things that allow them to be things, i.e. clothes, jewelry, houses, fake tits, etc.

I am going to use a Dr. Seuss analogy here. Let us imagine the men who conform to proscribed masculine gender roles as star-bellied sneeches, and those that do not as the non-star bellied sneeches. But let us also add a stipulation (or simply just remember that), “earning your star” is a process that is self destructive, limiting, and painful. Now imagine what the star bellied sneeches would feel when they saw happy non-star bellied sneeches, treated just like the star bellied sneeches are. I would guess they would have a little bit of “buyer’s remose” for the painful process of purchasing their “star”.

But the whole discussion relates to the “man box”, “man card” or whatever you want to call it, and the “srsly, teh patriarchy hurts teh men tooooo!” argument thrown up by feminists. Which is bullshit, because it isn’t patriarchy that is doing anything, because it doesn’t exist. Its called society. And it only works because it is internalized by men, each and every generation. I think dungone, the issues that drive you are the issues that are more to do with external factors, such as male disposability, female privilege to the protection and providence of men, etc. etc. Both are valid points of contention. Both are issues that face men.

For what it’s worth, feminists have actually been pretty good about identifying the solution to the “man card” issue. Its about each generation of fathers teaching their sons about how its total bullshit, and with each generation, it gets a little better. That doesn’t mean that they don’t perpetuate the societal pressure to earn a man card with their encouragement of pedestalization, gynonormitivity, white knighting, etc. etc. But the area where they haven’t addressed any solutions, and indeed don’t even acknowledge an issue exists, are the other areas. Male disposability, the inequality of parents’ rights, the conviction and punishment gap, and so on. It seems to me that those are the issues that you focus on the most, which I actually agree with, since the solution to the man card issue is already in our hands.

(meant to include this as part of the last post)

* ‘out kicking your coverage’ is a phrase that comes from american football. Its a very descriptive term if you are familiar with the game, and it rolls off your tongue, which is why I like it. It essentially means the same thing as ‘over playing your hand’ in poker, or literally, to behave as if your position was stronger than it really is. I don’t know if you watch soccer/football, but you might call it ‘throwing too many men forward’. Anyway, I know you Danes speak incredible English, but that is one phrase you might not pick up unless you come to the US. (True story, when I was living in Sweden, I met a 9 year old kid with whom I had a full and complete conversation in English. He told me he learned how to speak it from video games. To this day, I don’t speak more than a few words and phrases of Swedish).

The only thing feminists actually did on that front is destroy families and remove as many children from their fathers as possible. It’s a complete joke to hear them trying to lecture men about how to be a father, like a 2 year old trying to teach arithmetic to a math professor. It’s been women who have been handing out “man cards” in the first place and fathers have always tried to teach their sons that it was bullshit.

I agree completely that it is women who hand out “man-cards”, and feminists have often participated actively (white feathers, anyone?), but I have to give credit to them for saying, if not doing anything about it. And you are correct, a women will never, ever be able to tell a man how to be a father. It just can’t happen. And its an annoying trope that women are such good parents they get to inform us dweeby men exactly how it is done. Annoying and dangerous, actually.

<blockquote> and feminists have often participated actively (white feathers, anyone?), <blockquote/>

White feathers were just a small part of it. The 1950’s housewife is a direct product of the women’s rights movement. You can think of the women’s rights movement like a marriage. The Suffragists were after a dependable provider husband, the 2nd wavers were the dissatisfied housewives filing for a divorce, and modern feminists are the post-divorce single moms. That’s pretty much what the demographics looked like, too.

Remember that, for at least a century of Industrial Revolution, women participated in the workforce in large numbers. But whereas men’s movements were focused on reaping the benefits of the new economy, women’s movements were focused on control over men’s money and children. The biggest women’s rights issue for an entire century was Temperance, which targeted men, and the moral justification was that a man’s duty was to his wife and children. This sort of social engineering is literally what created 20th century gender roles. Guarantees such as lifetime alimony and child custody were some of the bargaining chips that allowed women to abandon the workforce and stay in the home as soon as men started making enough money to be worth a damn. If it weren’t for that, women would have stayed in the workforce and fought for their rights just like everyone else. Only in the 1960’s, during an era when women no longer wanted marriage, did these women start to demand equality in the workplace, claiming to be entitled to the same working conditions that men had secured through decades of brutal and deadly strikes.

Yeah, I have been involved in the labor rights movement since I was at least 6 or 7. Dad was a teamster, what can I say? (Was there, was 13 –> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8SilDfH4as). And I find it annoying, but typical, that laborers (mostly men) were beaten, killed, starved and spit on when they earned their workplace rights. But women whined and whinged their way to ‘equality’ which is why those rights are now being taken away. Because rights given are no rights at all. 40 hour work week, anyone? Pensions, anyone? Vacation, sick leave, weekends? All products of the labor rights movement, which was closely associated with the civil rights movement, of course. But now as more and more women are entering the workforce, and it is shifting/has shifted to a service economy, that those rights are flying out of the window. Sad for the US, really.

EquilibriumShift:

Sports references usually fly right over my head. I actually taught myself English too, although primarily by reading books – I could read and write English *before* I was able to speak it.

As regards that aforementioned liberation, in my case it was not really about being “allowed” to fart and burp and such things – the gender-policing I have been confronted with has primarily been about my “nerdy” nature being perceived as unmasculine, my complete lack of interest in competitive and aggressive posturing behaviour, my similarly complete lack of career ambition (I have no need for large amounts of money, and I do not want leadership or authority over others), and parts of my body language and speech patterns sometimes considered unmasculine. I also have no interest in many subjects typically associated with masculinity (sports, violence, motor vehicles). I spent my 20’s trying to adapt parts of that to a form that women might accept (the only thing I have been consistently uncompromising about is my resistance to the rat race). I also have trouble keeping track of which conversation topics are considered acceptable for men (largely because I have not been able to see any consistent system in it).

When I finally realized that women are generally not interested in autistic computer nerds with at best mediocre-looking bodies, that I would never be able to change myself into something other than that, and that for every woman who might be interested in a man like me there are 8-12 men she can pick from, I stopped trying.

I sometimes get terribly lonely and depressed, but at least I have stopped caring when people tell me that I need to stop doing such-and-so or start doing this-and-that lest I be considered not-a-real-man or gay, and that women will not be interested in me. They will not be anyway, so I have nothing to lose. The billy club of the gender police is reduced to a squeaky toy.

I like your point that “2nd” wave feminism completely ignores the fact that women were a large part of the workforce during the industrial revolution.

It’s not that they forgot per se, it’s just that they never understood it. They were a movement of middle class housewives that tended to exclude actual working class women. There were groups of black women going on strike in Georgia in the late 1800’s and plenty of other women who had been involved in the labor movement for over a century, but feminists just don’t seem to get them, if they even know about them.

Yeah well, if Daisy wants to be a Log Cabin Feminist of sorts, more power to her. I’ve come to a completely different set of conclusions than she has over the years. I’m also noticing that a growing number of women actually see things the same way that I do and refuse to call themselves feminists. I’m still not done arguing about Emma Goldman with her, but I’m tired of that debate right now and it will have to wait for some other day.

By the way… I can’t post on the other thread, regarding the erasure of various groups of people throughout history (Poland, Irish, etc).

A person’s spending habits can be altered and manipulated by their childhood environment.

Eg. Compare the spending habits of black athletes/entertainers to black businessmen/business owners to rural/suburban blacks.

Black entertainers are overwhelmingly the result of single mother homes. Those same men have gripes the diamond/gold/shiny thing industry for over three decades (and even farther back, if Earl “The Pearl” Monroe and Walt Frazier, with their furs and jewelry can be used as an example.) Their spending patterns emulate their environment (women who like sparkly things and men who wore sparkly things to attract women.) Ostentatious items are the rule of the day (eg. Superstar entertainers with diamond-encrusted pendants that look like Spongebob or bottles of Alize.)

Black businessmen, OTOH, are (in the black community) stereotypically frugal. The majority of them come from dual-parent homes or were exposed to plenty of dual-parent homes as a child. If their business doesn’t specifically require eye-catching items, they don’t wear them. Preachers and car salesmen will have some “bling”, but restauranteers and stockbrokers usually won’t (one of my older cousins made a killing in the stock market. He stopped wearing jewelry as soon as he was married, aside from his bands.) Their toys also tend to be “bigger” while being useful (the 15mpg pickup that can pull stumps, not the 8mpg Escalade that looks pretty but with a readily detachable bumper. Or the mini-yacht with a deck that you can fish from, instead of the “ballin'” movie star yacht that is too heavy to use a sail.) And when they wear jewelry, its the type that can be deconstructed into sellable precious metals and gems (eg. The gold rope chains that old-school rappers wore was based on economic deprivation. The majority of them were Caribbean immigrants or the children of immigrants, and the base metal was a way to bypass weight/money restrictions on removing value from their islands.)

And for rural/suburban blacks, they mimic the mores of their area. If they’re surrounded by non-black people, they act like the racial group that’s in the majority (eg. if all of their white neighbours have brick frills and ATVs, they get those things. If they end up in a Silicon Valleyesque area, then they’re dropping coin on the Acer computer and private violin lessons. Etc.)

But the tendency towards flash is a universal trait of a female-empowered society. Even as I type this, I’m listening to two grown women sizing up the two smokers outside of a municipal building. Guy 1 is wearing a designer shirt, tight blue jeans, calf leather shoes and a wrought silver chain/crucifix. Guy 2 is wearing off-the-rack, K-Mart grade clothes and shoes with no jewelry. They have similarities in height and haircut, but guess which one received the wink and smile? Guess which one was telling his subordinate what needed to be done over the weekend?

Dungone on the Second Wave: They were a movement of middle class housewives that tended to exclude actual working class women.

Gingko: dungone, I have just stopped wondering if you and Daisy will ever find common ground.

One cannot find common ground with someone who consistently denies that I exist. POOF, all Second wavers are magically “middle class housewives”– never mind that I have never been 1) middle class or, 2) a housewife. He has his mind all made up, don’t confuse him with the facts.

He erases me because my very existence proves him wrong. Thanks for reminding him that I do exist. I have avoided posting here because I dislike constantly being erased. It just gets SO tiring.

I have to remind the feminists of the same thing… Dungone is exactly like them. They have written working class women out of the movement, and he buys their version of feminist history, successfully collaborating in erasing us.

He helps them erase me, and he doesn’t even get the joke. He is dancing to the radfems’ tune. Finding common ground with ME? No, I don’t exist–he is too busy trying to get the pretty, popular, middle class cheerleader’s attention, all while complaining about how spoiled she is.

It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

Seriously, Daisy, the only weirdness is that you stopped calling yourself a feminist. I hope you open your eyes and start to notice that the growing number of women who refuse to call themselves feminists aren’t just brainwashed little victims of the Patriarchy. Your fundamental problem is that you’re unwilling to consider the idea that someone, a woman especially, can stand up for women’s rights without actually agreeing with the idiocy that we all know as feminism.

I stick my fingers in my ears and say LALALA

That’s certainly another way of describing the issue.

Evil Green Ranger,

Also, he refers to the fascist mass murderer Anders Breivik’s killing spree as “activism” (and Breivik himself as a “formidable activist who would show the world what Vikings are made of”), and at one point mentions that he himself was driven by his celibacy to consider committing murder in order to be known as a violent criminal who would then be considered attractive by women.

I am not sure why namae thought I should take a look at his blog. I did, and found it mostly unnerving and disturbing.

I would expect there to be some reaction.

@Evil Green Ranger, only if people were interested enough to look at that link. It was directed at a single commenter.

Berge is exactly the guy who anti-MRAs point to

That may be a problem, but for every Berge there are countless feminists in every country and throughout time who can be used to point out that feminists should worry about their own lot. It’s hard to say if his writings serve more than parody – he does have a graduate degree in English – and he is no doubt familiar with the sort of tactics used in the SCUM Manifesto.

Daisy & Dungone:

I’ve been meaning to ask you: At what point do you consider it reasonable to say that the meaning of a word has changed? Plenty of usages have altered radically even within my own lifetime (significantly shorter than yours). How meaningful is it really to say that a term like ‘feminism’ has any fixed definition at all? After all, is there or has there ever been any person with the sort of authority necessary to make one definition stand superior to all others?

The meaning of ‘feminist’ differs not only across decades and generations, but across cultures and localities. Just as the ‘feminist’ of the 1960s differs from the ‘feminist’ of today, the ‘feminist’ of the contemporary united states is not the ‘feminist’ of France or Japan (where ‘feminist’ is universally used to describe a man who behaves chivalrously and indulges women). Can we really look at this organic sprawl and state with a mechanical certainty: “Yes, this is the one and only immutable definition”?

Daisy:

As before, I have deep misgivings about such a definition, especially in applying it backwards in time and across cultural boundaries. Within our own culture, you have argued for the inclusion of influential early figures on the basis of influence and of adoption by later groups, creating a sort of continuity. Can you say the same thing for fundamentally separate movements for the rights of women, such as that which took root in China? Were the groups who ‘discovered’ writers like Goldman also reading their Ding Ling and their Lu Xun? Certainly they could hardly have observed much of the tradition which sprang from that source until decades after the fact (and it is a rich and a unique tradition). Can they really be said to have belonged to the same movement as those who coined the name your words would hang on them? Would that not take something from the very essence of what they were, what they represented?

I would also point out that your definition excludes more than a few persons generally considered to be notable feminists. What would you propose to do about that?

On a more personal note, I dislike your definition because it erases my right to choice. To say that “Feminism is merely a word describing the movement for equal rights for women… no more and no less. Anyone who engaged in this movement, is a feminist,” is not only to remove all choice from the label, but to state outright that any person who does not bear it must be opposed to equal rights for women. You are, in essence, telling me that I have no right, no possibility, to exist as I tell you I do. The entire formulation is a tactic of the very “middle-class/bourgeois revisionists” you rail against, and to employ it is to commit the same erasure against others which you complain (and rightly) has been practiced against you.

Whoops, sorry for the editing fail in the 4th paragraph 🙁

HidingFromtheDinosaurs: Feminism is always good and always correct, regardless of the time, the context or the particulars. Feminism is always good and always correct, regardless of the fact that ‘feminism’ means different things to different people. It is always good and always correct regardless of the number of times they’ve reversed their positions over time to the point that they now oppose what they once backed during the ’60s.

In fact, feminists are always good and always correct, despite the fact that half of them seem to hate the guts of the other half at any given time.

It’s the only group of people in human history to be 100% correct on all matters throughout all space and time. Despite being human beings.

Miraculous, is it not?

Evil Green Ranger,

On Berge: I think the reason they do not link him is because he is obviously unbalanced, in much the same way that someone criticizing feminism might be setting themselves up if they linked TheFemitheistDivine (whose blog has since been taken down – but who was in favour of instating an “international castration day”, and had a post about “heroes”, women who castrated and murdered their sons).

I tend to get disturbed when I read things like that – both Berge’s and TheFemitheistDivine’s rantings, in fact – and I am not very good at pulling myself away before my brain gets all messed up.

I remain confused why namae thought I should read Berge’s blog. Do I come across as a sympathizer of fascist mass murderers?

On incel:
I am aware that this is an unpopular opinion, but I do not think it can be fixed. Some men are just considered unattractive by women; nobody wants them and nothing they can do can “fix” them into something women are attracted by (I should know, I am such a man). This can be quite painful, lonely and frustrating (especially over time), but when all comes to all, there is nothing that can be done about it, for the simple reason that nobody should be coerced into sex or romantic relations with someone they are not attracted to. Therefore the only thing that such a man can ethically do is to grit his teeth and accept things as they are.

Unfortunately, this particular type of man seems to be the most popular target of shaming by both feminists and certain MRAs (the “cannot get laid” shaming tactic you mention is applied diligently by both, and serves only to shame men of low desirability (or, by extension, to shame “real men” by implying that they are such men)).

“Do I come across as a sympathizer of fascist mass murderers?”

Not in a million years.

About in-cels: fix the shaming first, that’s the unambigous part.

he is obviously unbalanced, in much the same way that someone criticizing feminism might be setting themselves up if they linked TheFemitheistDivine

@RocketFrog, I thought that TheFemitheistDivine was pretty much in keeping with a lot of 1960’s radical feminism. The difference is that the MRM doesn’t take someone like Berge seriously, whereas things such as the SCUM Manifesto are taught in schools and all the unbalanced materials are constantly downplayed by feminists. Any movement does have a responsibility to, at the very least, disassociate itself with harmful rhetoric. To the extent that anyone at all within the MRM associates with or incorporates Berg into their own activism, that would be a problem worthy of criticism. But I’m not aware of that happening, beyond an occasional individual asking someone else, “hey what do you think of this guy?”

Yeah, pretty much nobody but feminists consider Berge an MRA, and come to think of it, they probably also consider RadFem Hub sociopaths feminists.

I was under the impression that the “big tent” approach prevented people from repudiating Berge/Solanas types

What makes you say that?

Dungone: But then something happened in the 1960′s. Some of the very first women who actually referred to themselves as feminists were people like Valerie Solanas who came up with shit like the SCUM Manifesto (1959).

Robin Morgan included the SCUM Manifesto in “Sisterhood is Powerful” (1970)–which was an anthology as regarded as historical, like “The Federalist Papers”–it was not initially regarded as anything but darkly funny or psycho, like Abbie Hoffman’s manifestos (and written in that vein). Nobody outside of New York had heard of Solanas until that book came out… most people outside New York and rich artists/educated circles did not even know who Warhol was, except that he produced the Velvet Underground and weird movies. Most people did not know he’d been shot, let alone by whom.

SCUM Manifesto was published in 1969, not 59. I strongly recommend the movie “I shot Andy Warhol” for background on Warhol and Solanas, her association with The Factory and relationship w/Warhol and the whole scene. Really good movie that I thought captured the era very well.

NOW has called her the first outstanding champion of women’s rights and Some of the first women who actually started calling themselves feminists were putting out stuff like the Feminist Mystique and the SCUM Manifesto.

What’s wrong with the Feminist Mystique, and why are you putting it in the same category as a man-hating tract? I think the idea that women should stop being housewives and support themselves was a great idea, and I am surprised any men’s rights person would think otherwise? (?)

Don’t get that at all.

I’m not really aware of an earlier work, although there may have been one. Then there’s the Feminine Mystique, which is pretty much officially cited as the kick-off for “2nd wave” aka the actual feminist movement.

Um, “The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir, was the official kick-off of the Second Wave. (1949) Feminism had already been popular in Europe before arriving in the USA.

Masters and Johnson would also be part of that movement.

Friedman, of course, didn’t want to have to be a housewife, so she hired a housekeeper, wrote about how oppressed women are, and became the first president of NOW (obvious privilege denial is obvious).

Her name was Betty Friedan, not Friedman. She wrote that women were pampered, not oppressed. I don’t think you read it, did you?

The word “oppressed” came from her socialist background, and those are the words lefties used, to counter the Freudian idea of “repressed”…

I could go on, but I’d be here all night. Suffice to say, Dungone’s history is lacking, to say the least.

Hiding, check out that linked comment, which was addressed to Danny… what word(s) could we use for the feminist ‘excesses’ or hate faction? I prefer the term “female supremacist”–since the term “male supremacist” is already well known to people and you wouldn’t have to teach the definition. Also, we need to further develop the concept of “misandry” and make that a well-known and identifiable thing. As it is now, most people don’t even know what that means.

Both terms also have the appeal of applying to people of both genders as well as ideas, politics, etc. Very useful in criticism and analysis, due to specificity.

At least, these are the terms I have decided to use.

SCUM Manifesto was published in 1969, not 59.

It was written in 1959, self published in 1967. “My Bad” but you still managed to be wrong. Not sure what other point you’re trying to make besides trying to downplay that god-awful piece of drivel, as is to be expected.

Um, “The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir, was the official kick-off of the Second Wave. (1949) Feminism had already been popular in Europe before arriving in the USA.

The French coined the term, which I’ve already said. As I understood it, she was an existentialist and her book has been criticized as misogynistic in it’s own right. Existential feminism didn’t exactly take hold – anywhere.

What’s wrong with the Feminist Mystique, and why are you putting it in the same category as a man-hating tract?

Oh, that’s a huge can of worms. I didn’t think the book was particularly anti-male, but rather it facilitated the hate that came by being wildly off-base and ill informed. It really set the stage for the classist upper-crust white women’s movement that was to come. Here’s a photo of her house, where she hired her maids so she could go do her feminist thing: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-76y6NwmwHsU/UFISbK0vDGI/AAAAAAAAB3k/Qg_t1z_kwBE/s1600/house+pics+006.jpg

@dungone: Very informative comments.

Within a few years you’d get a bunch of homophobic bigots called the Red Stockings concoct the idea of Patriarchy, all the while claiming that men owed women a great deal of servitude

I was wondering who exactly coined the patriarchy theory.. A search for ‘patriarchy theory’ in Google NGram shows that its first use in 1968.. and looks like Kate Millet used it in some essays. A quick look at the RedStockings manifesto from 1969 doesnt contain the words.. but does talk about the “oppression”.. III We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination ….
We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Women’s submission is not the result of brain-washing, stupidity or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men. We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men.

But for the notion of of changing men, doesnt the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments convey pretty much the same ideas of oppression?

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyrranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
…
He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

One thing that I dont understand well is the complaint that women were not allowed into some professions.. From reading AngryHarry, I get the impression that till the 1900’s, there was truly no way a woman could handle the logistics of such a job.. for e.g a doctor was expected to ride good distances on horseback, at unearthly hours if necessary, to see a patient. And given the oft mentioned fact that women’s participation in the workforce between 1860-1930s dropped massively…and voluntarily.. why did Betty Friedan in the 1950’s think that women’s lives/involvement in workforce was better in the 30’s and earlier?

While I agree that there’s plenty of shaming of in cels in the MRM I don’t think it’s accurate to refer to PUAs as MRAs. Both groups seem contemptuous of each other.

@Ranger

Well said, thanks. 🙂

@Evil Green Ranger, that’s not the ‘big tent’ approach. The ‘big tent’ theory says that everyone’s rights/concerns can be addressed by the movement, including that of women who disagree with one another. That doesn’t mean, however, that feminism or the MRM is a purely opt-in movement that can’t reject anyone, nor does it absolve either movement from repudiating ideas that it sees as harmful. Besides, the MRM has never claimed to be a ‘big tent’ in the first place. Nothing stops other men from repudiating people like Berg on account of some idea that any man’s notions of men’s rights must be respected by the overall community.

As another example, the MRM is, for instance, completely set against the PUA movement and will likely never emulate feminism by creating “PUA MRA’s” who it forever downplays as having “some good ideas” that addressed some pressing need of its time, the way feminists often defend bigoted radical feminists who called for male genocide. The difference between feminism and the MRM is that feminism does have a set of widely agreed upon theories – such as Patriarchy – that invariably blame all of women’s rights issues on male oppression. That is why people like Daisy find it altogether inconceivable that religion itself could be a problem for women; instead she sees it as something that men did to women through the use of religion and refuses to budge in spite of all evidence that men are running away from religion, that religion also subjugates men, etc. The MRM has no such theories – it simply doesn’t need them – it is at this point nothing more than a collection of real-world issues that affect men, including the defense of men’s reputations against feminist accusations (Rape Culture, Patriarchy, etc).

dungone,

I know “big tent” from politics originally — I may be misapplying it here in the gendersphere. Big tent seems to me to be defined by the absence of a test that would show if you are really a member or not. That directly implies that you cannot throw someone out of the tent. I can personally reject Berge, but I can’t declare that he’s not part of the MRM.

If the MRM is not “big tent”, what is the test that shows if someone is “really” an MRA? There’s certainly an occasional scuffle between the traditionalist and egalitarian MRAs.

Many MRAs seem to use PUA concepts, and I’ve even heard people say that “game” is a necessary component of becoming an MRA. It doesn’t look to me like MRAs and PUAs are set against each other. (I personally don’t like mixing dating advice in with social change — it seems like a distraction.)

I don’t know if you call the discussions of male disposability, female hypoagency, and the actor/object socialization theory or not. I do. I’m not sure that I’m ready to adopt it all, but it seems like a theoretical model that can be used.

I guess I’m a bit confused — I seem to be seeing a different MRM than you are.

I guess I’m a bit confused — I seem to be seeing a different MRM than you are.

Yes, it’s confusing. First of all, feminists aren’t really a “big tent” group because they do require a very rigid ideology for women – namely, they blame everything on men. In the sense that they are a “big tent” group, it’s owing to the fact that they will happily blame everyone’s problems on men, including the problems of men themselves. In that sense, they’re able to represent anyone and everyone. But in no other sense.

Feminists make it even more confusing because of how they try to twist “big tent” principles to exonerate completely inexcusable bigotry among their own. It’s really more of a wildly self-contradictory cross between a “big tent” approach and “lone wolf” theory. Sort of like if a white supremacist pledged allegiance to a terrorist but refused to admit that he supports terrorism.

Many MRAs seem to use PUA concepts, and I’ve even heard people say that “game” is a necessary component of becoming an MRA.

And they’re every bit as idiotic as the feminists who claim that wearing heels and makeup is using the “tools of the oppressor” to subvert the system. Other men completely denounce these “MRA’s” and will fight tooth and nail to refute them.

I don’t know if you call the discussions of male disposability, female hypoagency, and the actor/object socialization theory or not.

These are indeed theories that are being formulated as we speak. But instead of the warped “big tent” approach of feminism, the MRA movement is fighting tooth and nail to formulate specific definitions of itself. To the extent that they disagree on fundamental approaches, they should be considered separate movements. If one group of men’s activists creates a huge mess for other men to clean up, you won’t find too many men looking for ways to blame it all on women.

“A gay PUA is a contradiction in terms”

It’s not you know. There a few coaches out there teaching men to be better at attracting other men. They just get ignored since there aren’t any white knight points to be had for attacking them. Also Mehow.

The difference I can see between PU and the MRM is that the MRM is focused on helping men through societal change, where as PUAs try to create personal, internal change. Societys attitude towards unattractive men sucks and needs to change, which is why we need an MRM, but I personally needed to learn game to deal with what was stopping me from forming relationships with women, which was that women weren’t sexually attracted to me on a personal level.

Me?
I don’t identify as MRA because it’s too exclusive, even though I support 90 plus percent of everything Glenn Sacks and NCFM and AVFM have ever done. I’m an equalist.

Ginkgo is right though, the PUA movement is strictly for heterosex. At best, perhaps a menage a tois type situation. But the fundamental aspect of it is this breakdown of cultural assumptions and expectations between men and women, and how to use those to your advantage. I am not familiar with the gay community, but I don’t see that there is some sort of expectation as to which person will do the approaching, paying for dates, sexual escalation, etc. etc.

@ Equilibriumshift: Tell that to the Lesbian PUAs I know. I’m not going to, I think game can potentially help everyone.

Shoutybloke.
“A gay PUA is a contradiction in terms”
It’s not you know. There a few coaches out there teaching men to be better at attracting other men. They just get ignored since there aren’t any white knight points to be had for attacking them.”

They get ignored because they are irrelevant. If a gay man wants to get laid, he goes to a bathhouse. Or he goes to Manhunt or any number of hook-up sites. Or he trawls in a park or any number of other places listed in the Damron, which will tell you where ever cruisy park and beach is for practically every city in the world.

Because men like to hook up and that really includes gay men. And we really don’t find the arts of PUA to be much help. You eegt rejected because the guy you are going after has a set type and your’re not it and no amount of PUA is going to change you from oats to rice or rye or whatever his type happens to be, or he doesn’t like your age, or some other non-negotaible reason.

It may indeed be that he’s playing hard to get. But if he is, nothing PUA has to say will change his attitude, because that attitude is not the same complex of gender indoctrination that a woman brings to the table, and nothing like the same sense of inherent sexual value, that you can crack with a glib tongue. If you get turned down, just move on because there is no negotiating and besides there are plenty more, and probably more fun.

@dungone

But the PUA movement is simply using the tools of the oppressor to achieve liberation! How can you not get behind that?

@Scala, in other words she didn’t get it. She couldn’t connect the dots between the cruelty and the isolation. Fortunately we can go by her physiological reaction if not her intellectual one 🙂

“I’m not sure what PUA has to do with Men’s Rights. It might have a side effect, as Ginkgo suggests, of making things better, but for the most part (as I understand it, anyway), PUA is about having better access to sex and has little or nothing to do with what most MRAs are looking for.”

yeah, uh, as someone who participates in the so-called manosphere…

…towards the end of Inmalafide there was a debate between Paul Elam and a blogger who was named Frost or something like that. The split between PUA’s and MRA’s is somewhat recent although Roosh was calling them incel whiners and such for awhile. I think Roissy/Heartiste also insulted MRA’s. Many in the manosphere call PUA’s “pussy-begars”–in fact the harshest critics of PUA will say it is better to be incel or hire a prostitute than to alter your personality to what a woman finds attractive. That’s also a somewhat complex topic as doing some things that might make you more attractive to women overall will also help in other areas of your life. IE working out to improve your health, appearance and strength. Reading to become knowledgeable on many topics and well spoken. Traveling or trying new things to become more “rounded.” The critics of PUA mostly bring up the fact that many men, especially shy men will find doing cold-approaches a soul crushing process. They will also talk about how PUA coaches often exploit inexperienced men. Also, while many people find the number system of rating women to be misogynistic, a lesser talked about form of misandry is how men are ranked as Alpha, Beta and (in some caste systems) Omega.

anyways, these movements will become more fragmented. Paul Elam finally started listening when people complained about the racism of the manosphere. Still, I think MGTOW will fragment from MRA. MGTOW will be men who want to “opt out” rather than fix the system. They won’t care so much about the inequality of divorce laws. They will be the guys who talk about living on less than 20k a year and starving an unsustainable system by paying as little as possible in taxes. They will be the guys who won’t be shamed into “manning up” or “marrying the sluts.” They will be the guys who won’t become cops or military. They will become the guys who fight male disposability by not giving a damn about a government that wants to bleed them dry. And the best part-they won’t need to shed a drop of blood and there isn’t a fucking thing that David Futrelle, Amanda Marcotte, Hugo Schwyzer or David Duke can do to stop this….

EvilGreenRanger:

In a world where feminism is (only) about equality, then MRAs are also feminists, and there are very few of either.

It seems to me that “big tent” is used in at least two ways, both in the sense Dungone refers to, and in the sense that the movement is big enough to both encompass people like, say, NSWATM’s ozymandias42 on one hand, and raving gendercidal lunatics like Mary Daly on the other. I was referring to the latter usage of the term.

Sometimes, feminists will refer to the dictionary definition and say that feminism just means gender equality (and that by extension, anybody who is not a feminist is also a male chauvinist bigot). But this is demonstrably false: Mary Daly and Valerie Solanas were not in any way pro-equality, and yet they are considered feminists, even by feminists themselves. So many feminists operate with the “big tent definition” that a feminist is someone who self-identifies as a feminist – but even that is obviously not how the word is actually used; witness the discussion between dungone and Daisy about Emma Goldman. Goldman never self-identified as a feminist (the word was not in wide use during her lifetime). Mary Wollstonecraft also never called herself a feminist (the word had not been coined yet when she was alive), but she is usually held by modern feminists to be one.

All of this boils down to: Feminism has a meaning beyond “equality”, and “feminist” has a meaning beyond “someone who calls themselves a feminist” (the latter one should actually be pretty obvious: If, say, Mitt Romney declared himself a feminist, would any self-respecting feminist therefore consider him one? Of course not, and they would be right not to).

I have come to think that the best informal definition of “feminism” is “pro-woman” – which is not necessarily a bad thing (especially considering that someone who is pro-woman can also be pro-man). In my opinion, however, it is often somewhat mistaken to be either “pro-woman” or “pro-man”, for the simple reason that not all women have the same interests. Working class women are not likely to benefit from having women quota’ed into the boardroom of large corporations any more than working class men have benefited from having men in those positions. Some women (such as religious conservatives) are against free access to abortion, other women regard it as an inalienable right. Defining one’s political affiliation as “pro-woman” is at best incomplete: Which of these women are you sympathizing with? It cannot be both; their interests are at conflict.

The same applies to the MRM. As a left-wing North European pacifist man with a mental disability and who until about a year ago worked in the public sector, I have often felt completely alienated by the rhetoric employed by many MRAs – they are pro-man, but the men they are pro- are usually nothing like me.

I suppose this is also why sites like the GMP seem so bizarre to me; they are discussing Very Important parts of All Men’s Lives that are not even peripherally connected to my own life, and are so alien to me that they might as well be describing the plot of a movie (and one I likely would not want to watch). Usually when they write something that has any degree of connection to my own experience it is from a position of contempt or in an attempt to whitewash feminists’ use of ableist shaming, see the latest NSWATM post for an example of the latter (it amazes me that ozy can keep maintaining that creep-shaming is an important defense against evil rapists and not at all ableist or classist shaming when in the very discussion thread for that post, women are openly stating that they use it against homeless men and men with speech impediments).

On low-status men: I think this is related to apexuality — anyone below you on the status ladder becomes invisible.

A friend of mine once described hierarchical power structures as a ladder on which shit obeys the law of gravity: When looking down, all you see is shit, and when looking up, all you see is assholes.

I suspect that the lack of compassion for low status men stems from a lack of compassion for men in general, and for themselves. After all, if you’re busy beating yourself up for being a loser, you won’t have any time to extend compassion to those below you. And the male gender role is designed for failure — you can’t actually perform it up to spec. So everyone gets to hate themselves, and, by extension, anyone doing worse than them.

I think that it is also close to impossible to perform the female gender role up to spec. I have known many women who suffered mightily under that pressure. It is just that the feminist movement has been relatively successful in teaching women that they do not have to adopt the rigid classical female gender role (unfortunately, some variants of feminism have then constructed their own female gender role, which is usually just as rigid).

AVFM has an occasional discussion of “zeta masculinity”, which I keep hoping will eventually give us a male gender that isn’t defined by self-hatred. Right now, though, zeta is defined by what it isn’t — service based, violent, disposable. Zeta needs a positive definition — a definition of what it is, rather than what it isn’t. (And a big set of role models.) It would be nice if they came up with it soon. I have two sons.

I sort of hate the “Greek System”. It is based on canine ethology, and even there it has turned out to be wrong, except in prison populations: In a natural wolf pack, the “alpha male” and “alpha female” are usually the parents of all the “betas”, and the “betas do not have sex” rule is not because the alphas do not deign to have sex with lesser wolves, but a simple behavioural adaptation that reduces the risk of inbreeding. Even the guy who coined the terms (who chose Greek letters specifically to avoid ascribing human social roles to wolves) has stopped using them.

I would very much like it if it was possible to be a man without chafing under a stupid gender role that makes no sense without being constantly verbally beaten up by society for failing to live up to a gender role expectation. I would actually have believed that feminists were a natural ally in this endeavour, but it seems to me that many modern feminists get very upset when men stray from their expected roles (or, at least, when they do so in ways not planned and approved by feminists themselves). Witness how intensely they shame men who give up on romantic and sexual relations with women (such as the MGTOW movement), and how quickly they slip into conventional, patriarchal language while doing so.

(Like you, I don’t consider myself an MRA. I used to consider myself a feminist, but I got better. Right now I’m just exploring the larger gendersphere.)

I grew up in a very feminist environment as a child (I was never in any doubt that it was a disappointment to my immediate surroundings that I had not been born a girl), and when I was a young adult I was a “pro-feminist” political activist for some time (in my particular community, it was considered deeply controversial for men to identify as “feminist”, because men could not truly understand the lived experience of women under patriarchal oppression, and because men calling themselves feminist was regarded as a “colonization” of women’s spaces). Eventually the shame, self-hatred and verbal self-flagellation drove me sort of insane, and I spent first some years abusing alcohol and drugs, then spent some years dragging myself through a difficult recovery process, and spent the rest of my 20’s and early 30’s pretending gender debate did not exist. I would get triggered into various forms of self-harm (but never substance relapses) when I got reminded about how much I hate myself for being a man. It is relatively recent that I have dared to follow this debate again. I have ranted at length on this subject elsewhere on this blog.

“In positive politeness you are nice to other people, talk to them, offer help and make them feel included.

In negative politeness you back off and give people some personal space.

Both types of politeness are equally valid; it really comes down to personal preference. So I see absolutely nothing odd about Nora using the word “respect”. If you are the kind of person who prefers negative politeness it would come across as respect. And if you’re raised in a culture that promotes negative politeness than you intend it as respect, even if it would be perceived differently.”

“Negative politeness” isn’t politeness. Or respect. Except when done with people you consider your betters (ie mafia people with The Don). Most men don’t consider other men “their betters”. Most women don’t consider men “their betters”.

Heck, baby boys are given “this respect” more, because they’re boys. Less cuddled, less talked to, less interacted with, etc.

They’re less loved, given less attention, and made to feel like their very existence is barely to be tolerated, as long as they have some use.

As a woman, I don’t feel like I’m treated as a hammer, only useful until it breaks. Pre-transition I felt no value, except in as much as I could “do the job” and “pay the bills”.

In other words, as a woman I feel more than adequate (without doing a thing, including grooming), when perceived as a man, I was always told I was inadequate. No inherent value to maleness, only value as to what it does. And large inherent value to femaleness, regardless of child-bearing capabilities (I’m infertile and trans, people don’t enquire upon that to treat me this way).

Lillies, welcome!

“There are two types of politeness. Positive politeness and negative politeness.
In positive politeness you are nice to other people, talk to them, offer help and make them feel included.
In negative politeness you back off and give people some personal space.”

Nice and concise and accurate.

Negative politeness – that’s why privates or even sergeants don’t walk up to generals. Which is Schala’s point.

As dungone points out: “But if they don’t take some steps to make women feel included, most women readily feel rejected.”

I remember an article of the moaning-about-the-hardhsips-women-face type in which the writer detailed how now that she was older, no one (men of course) looked at her, she had become “invisible”. I guess the only thing worse that the male gaze is no male gaze.

It’s the lack of this tyupe of politieness that gets called street harrassment etc.

The new “democracies” are thinly-disguised and criminalized plutocracies (recall the Russian oligarchs), authoritarian regimes (Central Asia and the Caucasus), or pupeteered heterarchies (Macedonia, Bosnia, and Iraq, to mention three
recent examples). Tags bout US trend has been stimulated with a involving complicated social, politics, and also monetary elements:.
Then, when I was still at campus, I saw a smoke, and no
longer after that, lots of people living bear
our campus almost provoked us to join them, but we decided to stay inside.

Link exchange is nothing else however it is only placing the other person’s blog link
on your page at suitable place and other person will also
do same for you.

Hey there! This is my first comment here so I
just wanted to giv a quick shout outt and say I genuinely enjoy readingg through your posts.
Can yoou suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that deal with the same subjects?
Thank you!

Ahaa, its fastidious dialogue on the topic of this paragraph here at this website,
I have read all that, so at this time me also commenting at this place.

Something else that you may be very happy to hear is that this is not a plan where you have
to measure or weigh portions, as you determine how much you need to
eat, therefore, making it a much easier to stick with.

Unlike most fruit and vegetable coconut contains saturated fats.
“Your brain is 60 percent fat; it’s built from the fats that you consume in your diet, and fat can reduce inflammation.

Here is my webpage … paleo diet