The “good” males who say no.
Whenever some monkey commits some crime against a woman, be it a very heinous rape or a feminicide, a story is always brought up according to which "all" males should produce an ephemeral effort to change themselves to change the world. After that, there is the usual wonder why males, not even those who don't commit similar crimes, join this process. There's a reason.
The first thing that these ladies, but also gentlemen, should understand (and they would understand if they were on the right side of the fence), or ever want to talk to "us", is that they should not bow to what I have always called on this blog "education masculine”, (and which feminists call “toxic masculinity”, because they are not even able to do something that is not copied from the USA), however, rebelling against this education is above all a choice. And it's a rebellion.
When I say it's a choice I don't mean that someone starts to elaborate saying "but this is toxic masculinity, I don't want to become a Trump voter". In my day these words did not exist at all. “Feminism” barely existed.
The most frequent thing is that you simply say “ I don't go out with them anymore because I don't feel at ease/I don't like them/I'm not like them ”. Then it takes you forever to analyze yourself (and sometimes not) and understand that you have made a precise choice of field. That you opposed a certain male education.
Sometimes the mechanism is more conscious, usually when it involves conflict with the family. When there is no conflict because the family is already civilized, then you have an environment that you consider normal, and these choices in relationships and behaviors are an extension of it. Then you'd rather stop going to certain places, certain people, etc. But you don't pay too much attention to it.
It's not always an analytical thing. I didn't have the faintest idea that I was fighting "patriarchy" (also because it materialized very well in my mother 's words, that patriarchy didn't seem so much to me), nor did I seem to reject a "toxic masculinity" or a "misogyny". Truth be told, I didn't give a shit about girls at the time, I wasn't doing it for them, I was doing it FOR ME. I could not have defined myself as a feminist, and the word existed, because I wasn't doing something "for women" or "for equality": I was simply detaching myself from people, meeting places, interests, which caused me a very strong sense of unease , of malaise, they gave me a sense of dirt.
Now, perhaps, I could analyze myself and understand what I have done, together with some friends, and I am doing it. Now maybe I understand more. But at the time, certain behaviors simply made me unwell. I didn't know why, but I felt it clearly. I then had to verbalize it when I had against the family, yes. BUT let's get to the point.
First point: the males who have NOT joined what you call "toxic masculinity" are not the normal ones. Nor are we the majority. We are the rebels. All the others were either protagonists or simply indifferent.
But the indifferent is no less dangerous: it's the one who doesn't take a stand, who pretends not to see, who minds his own business.
We can divide the male population into 3 subsets. I'll use the term I used at the time for toxic males, because I don't like American girls.
- The gorillas. (those you call toxic males, and then you read their deeds in the newspapers). Let's say 5% of the population, at MY personal estimate. Maybe I'm wrong?
- The cowardly opportunists.. (those who are neither meat nor fish, but in fact help the gorillas and are often their clam). Let's say 92% of the population.
- The rebels. (those who couldn't stand it stammerda). About 3% of the population.
In this sense, feminists make TWO mistakes.
- The first is to equate the cowardly opportunists with the rebels. No, they didn't make any choices. They are too cowardly to join the rebels, and they don't want to pay the price of rebellion. They are the ones who tell you that “you take it too much”, or “but what's wrong with them if they like to be like this?”.
- The second mistake is to associate the useless with gorillas. The world of gorillas is competitive and violent, both in language and in actions. The useless are too cowardly to compete with the gorillas, in a competition that could be lost. They prefer to gravitate towards it, perhaps benefiting from some of the advantages of "going with the flow". I can agree that they are allies, but they don't take responsibility for it.
The thing you need to understand, sir, is that rebellion against male education had (and has) a price . It wasn't free. Sure, in today's adult's hindsight, it honestly was a price that seemed small. I would do it a thousand times. But for the time, the price was high for a boy aged 14 to 18: marginalization, derision, invisibility, gossip, everything.
Let's face it: my and my (equally rebellious) friends' youth would have been so much better without this pile of stalkers, bullies, gossips, people who ignored us (I didn't mind being invisible to girls, but some of my friends did they suffered a lot), and all the paraphernalia.
Rebelling against male education has a price to pay.
Today as today many scars are closed, today as today I'm glad I made these choices (even if I didn't fully understand their meaning), but the point is that the price was there, it was high, and we paid for it.
EVERY male is faced, at some point, with these choices of which male to become. To become a successful gorilla, to become a useless opportunist, to rebel.
The "middle" choice, the useless opportunist, is the one that has the best cost/benefit ratio, therefore it is the most followed. And I repeat, the choice is not always conscious. You just don't feel comfortable in two categories, choose the third.
- The gorilla has the benefit of being the cool one. Dominant. He has to constantly fight with others, but he has all the eyes of the most beautiful girls on him, and often a retinue of sycophants. I repeat, it's the cool one. Whether he is a bully or a leader of the left-wing (today right-wing) party, he has high risks and must compete, but the choice pays off very well.
- The useless opportunist doesn't have to compete because he acts like everyone else, since he substantially constitutes that mass called "everyone". Get by with the crumbs. every now and then a not so beautiful girl makes him touch a tit, and so on. It has no sycophants, it is not the center of attention, but it constitutes that mass which is convenient for the gorillas to say "we are all".
- The rebels have no advantages. They have to fight as if they were competing, but even when they win they are not seen as winners, because they are playing another game. They get no attention, no adoration, they are invisible to girls and they are the "abnormal" because the mass of "everybody" only confirms the gorillas.
Having clarified this point, now the question is: why one of the rebels, one of those who rejected male education, your "toxic masculinity", why not even as a group, we are not your ardent supporters and do not fight against you?
The reasons are two, maybe two and a half.
Someone says that we have a certain diffidence towards the female gender. I know, now you are grown up. I know, now you are women. Perhaps you are no longer the adoring slobs who always followed the gorillas. And I know, today we are probably no longer invisible to your eyes. You've grown up, it's no longer enough to do a war dance like a gorilla to attract you.
I can understand that.
But you left scars.
Personally, this is the thing I hear the least, and that people I know hear the most. But it's related to my personal history, so I can't swear to it, I can't tell you how long these scars will take. Personally I consider it a "half reason".
So let's go to the first reason.
I don't know if you realize it, but your dialectic constantly asks me to beat my chest, to make a mea culpa because I'm a male, because that would be "my" culture. Because according to you I would have a "collective responsibility" if not a "gender responsibility". And so I should take your side and give myself a nice mea culpa, a "self-awareness", and beat my chest.
I NEVER will. You can kill me, but I will NEVER accept being identified, lumped together, compared or compared to something I rejected already in my early adolescence, paying a price in terms of invisibility and marginalization.
Anyone who pulled himself out of that male education, paying a very high price (for me a terrible family conflict, which led me not to look at the family for fifteen years), DOES NOT ACCEPT and NEVER WILL ACCEPT, to come to beat their breasts in one of your processions.
On my body, sir.
You will drag my corpse to one of those demonstrations, but if I stay alive, forget that I EVER accept any "collective responsibility" or any "gender responsibility", for the simple reason that I got out of this shit, and I paid a HIGH price.
I will NEVER come and beat my chest in one of your demonstrations, admitting guilt, complicity or co-responsibility of any kind. Not even dead. It cost me too much, in my youth, to get out of this thing. It is a respect that I owe TO MYSELF and to what I have been. Or what they are.
Let's go to the second reason.
When you rebel against something, when you make a choice that has a price, you learn to recognize two things: the bars, and the warders. The warders, the aggressive and violent ones, are what I have called "the gorillas". They tend to be stalkers, because they can't stand you taking another path. The stalker does not accept the "no" (and you "feminists" should have understood this), because he considers himself inevitable. He doesn't even accept it socially. You can't leave the group without it being a personal insult.
The second class, the cowardly opportunists, you recognize because it prevents you, with their mass, from really fighting the gorillas. They are the ones you fear when you fear being judged. You are not afraid of the 5% of the troglodytes, you are afraid of that silent and opportunistic mass that builds the word "everyone". Are you afraid, sir, of what "everyone" will say.
The Gorillas and the cowards.
I know them well. I recognize them even today. Their way of doing, their way of occupying space, their way of eyeing each other, their way of placing themselves at the centre, of sending signals of competition. We HAD to learn to recognize them.
Oh, when I see a gorilla I know it well. And so I also recognize the cowardly opportunists. After so many years, I recognize them by smell, by sight, I don't know how to say it. I smell it.
And you know what? You are surrounded by them. Just like it used to be.
Of course, if I put a thousand sheep in a square, the wolves will come. So there is the fact that if I put a thousand women in a square, the gorillas arrive. “There is so much pussy”, they will say. Just as, in the hope of taking the crumbs, the helpless opportunists will arrive. In both cases, disguised as "feminists".
Oh, they'll beat their breasts. And the sloagan will shout with you. And they'll do anything you ask, hoping to get some crumbs. They are the "glebas", the "carpets", today we would say "the simp".
But the point is this: I refuse to blend into a mass of people who cannot represent the solution, because they are part of the problem.
And I'm not just referring to the gorillas, that you accept and adore, because they are the new leaders of the left-wing parties, because they are the new leaders adored by everyone (Ermal Meta, can you hear me? I see you. I know who you are. Can you enlarge tail like a peacock, but you can be recognized by the stench).
But most importantly, you are surrounded by a mass of opportunistic dupes. The masses, the ones who help the gorillas, who will come to the demonstration because they "pay", but let's face it clearly: when a woman doesn't report because she's afraid of being judged, who are the judges? Four violent gorillas? The rapists? Toxic males? No. You are afraid of being misjudged by "everyone", that mass that runs to the aid of the winner, and which is not represented by the gorillas, but by the cowardly opportunists.
And you are surrounded by it, wrapped up. Do you think you are launching the message "but everyone, the God of all, is with us".
But God All is opportunist, and is always either with the strongest, or with the most comfortable.
Today they are in the square with the most comfortable (the women), when they rape you they will be on the sofa, silent, supporting the strongest.
This is the second reason why I wouldn't come to the square: the police are prejudiced against flamethrowers.
But there is more, a problem of disappointment. I know, now you are grown up. I know, now you are women. Perhaps you are no longer the adoring slobs who always followed the gorillas. And I know, today we are probably no longer invisible to your eyes. You've grown up, it's no longer enough to do a war dance like a gorilla to attract you.
Or maybe not.
Because I've learned, we've learned, even to recognize you. The ones that locked us up in a cell of invisibility. And you are still there.
Because I see that you are still following the leader of the small left movement. Why are you still going after the very sensitive little singer, who is nothing but another very disguised gorilla, but will compete fiercely with anyone who tries to take on that role . Because if you put 1000 sheep in the square the predators arrive, if you put 1000 women in the square the gorillas arrive, only obviously they have to blend in well to recognize their prey. You are still there to adore them. You haven't grown that much, after all.
And your attitude towards the mass of dumb opportunists also disappoints me greatly. You want them on their side despite knowing that they would do it out of opportunism, and you still delude yourselves that having those characters on your side would help you win a political battle, when you haven't understood that that mass only serves the comfortable and the strong, and you ( excluding the neckline) you are neither of the two things, because the change you ask for goes against the strong, and is not comfortable at all.
You've grown up, but you're still the same. You drool over the gorillas (who have grown up themselves, but are still them), and luxuriate in the presence of the helpless masses. Sometimes I feel like shouting "he'll kill you, idiot, why do you love him?". But then I understand one thing: that it's a scene I've already seen.
I've been there before, and I know yelling would be pointless. In the future, he'll beat you to death, but for now, let's marry him.
There are therefore two big problems, for those who have rebelled against male education, in participating in certain activities:
- A "mea culpa" is required which is not compatible with one's integrity, history, dignity.
- Almost all males who are apparently endorsing these moves are not the solution, but the problem. And also many of the women who are part of it.
That's all.