Men should be accepted for Who They Are

Males are groomed from boyhood by women to be defined as men (servants and pawns) for women. As for equality standards, they must be accepted in their own right, not women’s or by other men who have been sculpted from boyhood by women.

There’s no need to call them alpha either. That sounds like another male shaming device–Be ‘a man’, an ‘alpha’ man or ‘a real’ man, or a ‘man’s’ man. Just allow them to be themselves as men, not women. Using the term ‘alpha male’ places some males as superior compared to others as inferior (e.g. beta males)–a mere continuim of the very thing men are battling against in their fight for equality. Women aren’t categorized lesser or superior amongst themselves against each other. Males need to be rated equal to each other as well as to women.

Use of the term alpha male is likely coming from a reaction, in fact over-compensation, due to a male/masculine insecurity–a feminist-inspired campaign against masculinity. But unless masculinity is defined in a man’s own right instead of a woman’s, men will themselves instill another brand of toxicity to masculinity amongst men that will further oppress men and prevent them from being defined in their own right.

Males pitted against each other, rating some as thugs or bullies (alphas) above others (betas), instead of men coming together as a unified collective, further benefits women/feminists at the expense of men. Men, tough and calloused, won’t be recognized as victims if violated and assaulted as they are, with women getting away with assualts and violations of men, furthering injustices now taking place against men.

I had a friend tell me that his new wife said she was proud of him for being an alpha male, stroking a male ego that she, as a woman, helped develop. I said to him: Don’t you see what she’s doing? She’s grooming you through positive reinforcement, as her servant/pawn, just as Dr. Skinner (via operant conditioning) did with his subjects (e.g. that included dogs). The reference of ‘alpha male’ fits into this scenario very well–a personal servant and thug used and pitted against other ‘dogs’–and is certainly nothing to be proud of.

Once again it is women who control males in how they are being developed and sculpted to their preference, only now that preference has changed from what it was in the past. This really screws with one’s head who is designed per definition to blindly serve and has no existence defined is his own right.

If men are not careful, they will readily endorse this version (new mutation) of self-hate (real toxic masculinity), further instilling the very core problems that men are facing today, lessening their rights and status in favor of women. A thug, tough guy is calloused and fits the mold as a pawn for women–no rights, no feelings, and no existence other than as a mascochist to serve women at the expense of himself and other men. As some default computer program, he has no idea what it would be like to be defined as a real person in his own right. He only has what he–his father, grandfather, etc.–has been programmed with from boyhood by women. He is given no existence in his own right and works to take away that potential from others.