Five sharp minds, independent thinkers, curious and passionate about building a healthier society. This is a highlight of the advocacy for males on International Men's Day.
didn't the dinosaurs die because they refused to changed?
Notice I used the word 'refused'.
Sometimes it is hard to change, but I've noticed with two Lesbian acquaintances that they seem to want to spew their toxicity over everyone rather than shut their f*cking mouths...
Big blow up in a 'queer' group I'm in and it happened because I posted 'Happy International Mens Day'. The two lesbians got triggered and they haven't learned to keep their opinions to themselves..
Fair point. Also, no species "chooses" to change. That's not how evolution works. But I'm glad Jamie triggered the misandrist lesbians. It was the right thing to do.
That, though, only just came to me after many decades of hearing about the alleged failure of dinosaurs to evolve. (I am sure there is a word or term for this type thinking)
You and Duncan said it well though. I shouldn’t be using unknown information and bad quotes without researching first.
However. What I did think about was, is it true , how they both have/had fathers and one still has a living brother. So what do they think of these men? Really! It alerted me to how one can compartmentalise people, things …..
And how one insinuated that homosexual men are not really Men which I then thought ‘but are you really females’ based on that assumption. Even my assumption..,,
Phillip thanks for pulling me up though. I had a mini epiphany About gay language and it’s use. 🙏
The phrase, "Dinosaurs went extinct because they refused to change", or variations of it, have been used to shut down discussions or conversations. Or to criticise older people and their beliefs or thinking.
My own epiphany occurred today, after hearing variations on the idea that extinct dinosaurs for many years. That concept was used to shut down discussions.
Namely, that their extinction was due to a cataclysmic event rather than to their failure to evolve.
Triggering people is what feminists are rather good at doing and once they triggered a person, they then either play the victim or take the high ground
For me right now: "they then either play the victim or take the high ground"
They both reacted to someone else's text, he was trying to slow/stop things going further, and they both did the '👍 thumbs up' in agreement with the guy posting the request and in that moment I thought, 'you ladies are the ones who escalated this and now you act as if you are innocent' 🤬🤬(I would see this as taking the 'high ground'. When I discussed this with the guy posting, he agreed.. I thought I'd gone made..
Phillip would you see them as 'taken the victim' when they say 'its mens day every day'... !!! the swing between these two behaviours is gobsmacking to me.
My friend has a name for these two ladies, in German : 'falsche Schlange' and it translates into 'back-stabber' or snake in the grass'... but I don't want to insult snakes now... schlange = snake.. just to be clear...
I thought I knew a lot and now I discover that this is new.. but I'm glad to experience it. I'm all about being more conscious than anything else.
It's funny how something can hide in plain sight until just the right time or circumstance reveals it perfectly.
It's that way with the woke/socialist agenda. Lately there have been several articles that show it's just an extension of normal female behavior into the public sphere: emotion over logic, "compassion" vs hard facts, outcomes over opportunity.
So how did this happen? It happened when women got control over their own fertility. Driven by idleness and the gub'ment's ever-increasing costs - all of which are paid by taxpayers, since gub'ments make NO goods or services - women abandoned managing the home and decided it was time to manage society in general. No where is it more apparent than the 17-point gender gap in my home state of Virginia, with the communist Abigail Spankbottom our governor-elect. I'll be moving my guns back to West Virginia until the unlikely event that Virginia comes to its senses or it doesn't and I have to move elsewhere.
"The Relentless War on Masculinity: When Will It End?"
Unfortunately, there is very little chance this will ever end because most men on "both" sides of the mainstream political spectrum are feminists and support the destruction of all things male, even at the expense of their own blood.
That was an excellent discussion, Tom. My only comment is that the title of Maywald's book (The Relentless War on Masculinity) is somewhat misleading. We are at war, to be sure, and that does need to be said clearly and often. But it's not only a war on masculinity (a cultural system now known as "gender"). In addition, it's a war on maleness (nature itself).
To create a radically new form of masculinity, therefore, requires a massive cultural effort. This involves not only culturally intimidating boys and men who fail to conform (by imposing punishments such as shame and "cancelation" or even incarceration) but also culturally rewarding boys and men who do conform (by conferring symbolic status or material honors). Trouble is, not many boys and men are willing to conform. Historic versions of masculinity are under relentless attack and inaccessible (except to those who become feminist allies and those rebel against an indifferent or hostile society through crime or suicide). That's because feminist versions of masculinity are alien and unappealing. Most men (aside from academics who sustain themselves psychologically by virtue signaling as feminists) do not accept notions of masculinity that are defined by women and largely for the benefit of women. In short, most men remain "toxic" by default or by design.
One reason for the impasse is a fact that was obvious even to our remotest ancestors but is now either rejected or forgotten. Men and women are alike in many ways but not identical. This fact of life is now questioned along with the very notion of either innate maleness or innate femaleness (especially, but not only, in transgender ideology). Feminists, those who rely heavily on the naive theory of "social construction," claim that "traditional" masculinity is bad for women and must therefore be changed accordingly. They ignore the fact that masculinity of any kind is always closely related to (though not synonymous with) maleness, just as femininity is closely related to (though no synonymous with) femaleness. This is why the feminist (and woke) war on "masculinity" amounts to a war not only on "traditional" or "patriarchal" culture but also on its male foundation--which is to say, a war on all boys and men.
The Heretic Neil Lyndon, who wrote "No More Sex War" in 1992.
He later wrote an article, "The Return of the Heretic", where he documented the attempts at cancelling him. The tactics used were out of the playbook of "Relational Aggression".
1993, David Thomas wrote "Not Guilty in Defence of the Modern Man". A fantastic read.
Wow that’s awesome here is another one from Perth and from ECU! Great to see people begin to stand up to the nonsense ! Somebody has to be in the front lines we all appreciate your service!
Recently on Facebook Book, there is a growing trend of Inflammatory posts aimed at men, all designed to trigger emotions and have men falling into the trap of responding.
Only if men STOP bowing down at the alter of femininity and start fighting the misandry that is feminism and demand men's rights and issues be recognized and dealt with!
Let's for a moment investigate David's claims at the 8-9 minute mark where he's talking about spending on men's specific health versus women's specific health...
Not things shared by both sexes, just conditions that are specific to a single sex:
Men's specific health:
-Prostate Cancer
Women's specific health:
-Pregnancy and birthing issues (multiple)
-Menopause (multiple)
-Endometriosis
-Cervical Cancer
-Ovarian Cancer
-Uterine Cancer
Frankly, the number of female health issues requiring research and expenditure are vastly more numerous in women than in men. This is not an indication that men are not important, or that their issues are ignored. To suggest so is a complete falsehood.
And lets look at David's specific wording "announcements of new spending". Note that this is not a measure of spending generally. By carefully selecting the dataset, David picks the worst possible representation of government expenditure. This conveniently ignores the fact that in prostate cancer treatment alone, Australia spends 1.35 billion per annum.
Yes, every year, on a single illness, Australia spends what it does on the new female health programs announced in the budget over a 4 year period.
David knows this fact. It has been pointed out to him multiple times and yet he keeps presenting his distorted and misleading message that men's health is underfunded in Australia. He's been doing so for nearly a year. It's one of his go-to soundbytes, even though he knows it gives a false impression of reality on the ground.
I'm all for discussing areas where men need support, but blatant and deliberate misrepresentation is tiresome.
David keeps seeking an audience for his thesis that men are victims in society. He actively deletes any attempt at balanced discourse or where anyone points out his misrepresentations. If you want to celebrate propaganda, go for it, but don't present this as anything vaguely approaching objective, balanced or accurate commentary.
Men, in numerous ways are good, but the narrative that we are victims, that the world isn't already well stacked in our favour and remains so is false. David isn't helping matters.
Sad to see that those spouting that they want to be seen as "thought leaders" are completely incapable of actually participating in anything beyond an echo chamber.
Yet another case of preaching to the converted where you all slap yourselves on the back about how correct you are, while running in terror from anyone that might actually question what you say.
David knows he can't defend his repeated misrepresentations, beyond blaming the source that provided them to him.
And this is the guy who wants us to celebrate what he stands for. Wouldn't it be nice if the Emperor had clothes...
Hmm, apparently Tom Golden is similarly only capable of dealing with an echo chamber.
I’ve not been a huge fan of this backlash though I understand its position of origin. My critique of it is that if, at any moment, one were to ask her if and how women played a role in this illiberal zeitgeist, she’d readily have a brilliant and accurate response.
I find it unreasonable for someone to have all thorough answers all the time. It’s like asking for nuance in every comment. It just won’t always be there.
I guess what I’m saying is I’ll judge her by her body of work and not one section of one speech.
Five sharp minds, independent thinkers, curious and passionate about building a healthier society. This is a highlight of the advocacy for males on International Men's Day.
didn't the dinosaurs die because they refused to changed?
Notice I used the word 'refused'.
Sometimes it is hard to change, but I've noticed with two Lesbian acquaintances that they seem to want to spew their toxicity over everyone rather than shut their f*cking mouths...
Big blow up in a 'queer' group I'm in and it happened because I posted 'Happy International Mens Day'. The two lesbians got triggered and they haven't learned to keep their opinions to themselves..
Dinosaurs died from a cataclysmic event.
The concept that Dinosaurs died because they refused to change is a distortion of rational thinking.
Fair point. Also, no species "chooses" to change. That's not how evolution works. But I'm glad Jamie triggered the misandrist lesbians. It was the right thing to do.
That, though, only just came to me after many decades of hearing about the alleged failure of dinosaurs to evolve. (I am sure there is a word or term for this type thinking)
You and Duncan said it well though. I shouldn’t be using unknown information and bad quotes without researching first.
However. What I did think about was, is it true , how they both have/had fathers and one still has a living brother. So what do they think of these men? Really! It alerted me to how one can compartmentalise people, things …..
And how one insinuated that homosexual men are not really Men which I then thought ‘but are you really females’ based on that assumption. Even my assumption..,,
Phillip thanks for pulling me up though. I had a mini epiphany About gay language and it’s use. 🙏
Hi Jamie, it wasn't pulling you up.
The phrase, "Dinosaurs went extinct because they refused to change", or variations of it, have been used to shut down discussions or conversations. Or to criticise older people and their beliefs or thinking.
You are right 😅 and I shouldn’t spread disinformation on something I have never researched and just repeated the same old shit like the feminists do.
I was triggered when they both said: it’s international men’s day everyday 🤯🤯
My own epiphany occurred today, after hearing variations on the idea that extinct dinosaurs for many years. That concept was used to shut down discussions.
Namely, that their extinction was due to a cataclysmic event rather than to their failure to evolve.
Triggering people is what feminists are rather good at doing and once they triggered a person, they then either play the victim or take the high ground
For me right now: "they then either play the victim or take the high ground"
They both reacted to someone else's text, he was trying to slow/stop things going further, and they both did the '👍 thumbs up' in agreement with the guy posting the request and in that moment I thought, 'you ladies are the ones who escalated this and now you act as if you are innocent' 🤬🤬(I would see this as taking the 'high ground'. When I discussed this with the guy posting, he agreed.. I thought I'd gone made..
Phillip would you see them as 'taken the victim' when they say 'its mens day every day'... !!! the swing between these two behaviours is gobsmacking to me.
My friend has a name for these two ladies, in German : 'falsche Schlange' and it translates into 'back-stabber' or snake in the grass'... but I don't want to insult snakes now... schlange = snake.. just to be clear...
I thought I knew a lot and now I discover that this is new.. but I'm glad to experience it. I'm all about being more conscious than anything else.
It's funny how something can hide in plain sight until just the right time or circumstance reveals it perfectly.
It's that way with the woke/socialist agenda. Lately there have been several articles that show it's just an extension of normal female behavior into the public sphere: emotion over logic, "compassion" vs hard facts, outcomes over opportunity.
So how did this happen? It happened when women got control over their own fertility. Driven by idleness and the gub'ment's ever-increasing costs - all of which are paid by taxpayers, since gub'ments make NO goods or services - women abandoned managing the home and decided it was time to manage society in general. No where is it more apparent than the 17-point gender gap in my home state of Virginia, with the communist Abigail Spankbottom our governor-elect. I'll be moving my guns back to West Virginia until the unlikely event that Virginia comes to its senses or it doesn't and I have to move elsewhere.
"The Relentless War on Masculinity: When Will It End?"
Unfortunately, there is very little chance this will ever end because most men on "both" sides of the mainstream political spectrum are feminists and support the destruction of all things male, even at the expense of their own blood.
I agree with you that men who refuse to champion men - either through self-interest or confused moral thinking - are a huge part of the problem.
Thanks for all you do.
Be good if some of this was on Spotify.
Happy International Mens Day :)
I will use google if I have to, but I've started removing it from my computer. Google have not celebrated the day for men.
Brave browser, which you can download from Brave.com, has a built-in search engine that is much better than Google.
That was an excellent discussion, Tom. My only comment is that the title of Maywald's book (The Relentless War on Masculinity) is somewhat misleading. We are at war, to be sure, and that does need to be said clearly and often. But it's not only a war on masculinity (a cultural system now known as "gender"). In addition, it's a war on maleness (nature itself).
To create a radically new form of masculinity, therefore, requires a massive cultural effort. This involves not only culturally intimidating boys and men who fail to conform (by imposing punishments such as shame and "cancelation" or even incarceration) but also culturally rewarding boys and men who do conform (by conferring symbolic status or material honors). Trouble is, not many boys and men are willing to conform. Historic versions of masculinity are under relentless attack and inaccessible (except to those who become feminist allies and those rebel against an indifferent or hostile society through crime or suicide). That's because feminist versions of masculinity are alien and unappealing. Most men (aside from academics who sustain themselves psychologically by virtue signaling as feminists) do not accept notions of masculinity that are defined by women and largely for the benefit of women. In short, most men remain "toxic" by default or by design.
One reason for the impasse is a fact that was obvious even to our remotest ancestors but is now either rejected or forgotten. Men and women are alike in many ways but not identical. This fact of life is now questioned along with the very notion of either innate maleness or innate femaleness (especially, but not only, in transgender ideology). Feminists, those who rely heavily on the naive theory of "social construction," claim that "traditional" masculinity is bad for women and must therefore be changed accordingly. They ignore the fact that masculinity of any kind is always closely related to (though not synonymous with) maleness, just as femininity is closely related to (though no synonymous with) femaleness. This is why the feminist (and woke) war on "masculinity" amounts to a war not only on "traditional" or "patriarchal" culture but also on its male foundation--which is to say, a war on all boys and men.
The Heretic Neil Lyndon, who wrote "No More Sex War" in 1992.
He later wrote an article, "The Return of the Heretic", where he documented the attempts at cancelling him. The tactics used were out of the playbook of "Relational Aggression".
1993, David Thomas wrote "Not Guilty in Defence of the Modern Man". A fantastic read.
https://makuochiechebiri.substack.com/p/becoming-a-man-in-a-world-that-isnt
Wow that’s awesome here is another one from Perth and from ECU! Great to see people begin to stand up to the nonsense ! Somebody has to be in the front lines we all appreciate your service!
Hey Tom, I havnt’t finished an essay yet. But I think you asked me once to expand on this thought. This is roughly the issue as I see it here.
Couldn’t message direct (I should sub) but anyways. Have a good one,
https://substack.com/@smalltowncat/note/c-180738319?r=1izj1g&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Recently on Facebook Book, there is a growing trend of Inflammatory posts aimed at men, all designed to trigger emotions and have men falling into the trap of responding.
Only if men STOP bowing down at the alter of femininity and start fighting the misandry that is feminism and demand men's rights and issues be recognized and dealt with!
What is evil? .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16EbqdtjCpc
--
AI generated overview of this, ..
"What is Evil, and does feminism qualify?" https://brule.substack.com/p/what-is-evil https://archive.ph/U7LzJ
--
Insanities-Accepting .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI42veC7UiU
--
AI generated overview of this, ..
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2225:, 21st July 2025, The Profound Sickness: An Anti-Abortion Apologetic" https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2225 https://archive.ph/49BDF
--
--
How to Frame this with Truth .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks6MflGn65s
--
AI generated overview of this, ..
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2230: 16th November 2025, Catholic Apologetics: On the Threefold Unions, Crisis of the Modern World"
https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2230 https://archive.ph/yCCXt
-
God Bless, Steve
Let's for a moment investigate David's claims at the 8-9 minute mark where he's talking about spending on men's specific health versus women's specific health...
Not things shared by both sexes, just conditions that are specific to a single sex:
Men's specific health:
-Prostate Cancer
Women's specific health:
-Pregnancy and birthing issues (multiple)
-Menopause (multiple)
-Endometriosis
-Cervical Cancer
-Ovarian Cancer
-Uterine Cancer
Frankly, the number of female health issues requiring research and expenditure are vastly more numerous in women than in men. This is not an indication that men are not important, or that their issues are ignored. To suggest so is a complete falsehood.
And lets look at David's specific wording "announcements of new spending". Note that this is not a measure of spending generally. By carefully selecting the dataset, David picks the worst possible representation of government expenditure. This conveniently ignores the fact that in prostate cancer treatment alone, Australia spends 1.35 billion per annum.
Yes, every year, on a single illness, Australia spends what it does on the new female health programs announced in the budget over a 4 year period.
David knows this fact. It has been pointed out to him multiple times and yet he keeps presenting his distorted and misleading message that men's health is underfunded in Australia. He's been doing so for nearly a year. It's one of his go-to soundbytes, even though he knows it gives a false impression of reality on the ground.
I'm all for discussing areas where men need support, but blatant and deliberate misrepresentation is tiresome.
David keeps seeking an audience for his thesis that men are victims in society. He actively deletes any attempt at balanced discourse or where anyone points out his misrepresentations. If you want to celebrate propaganda, go for it, but don't present this as anything vaguely approaching objective, balanced or accurate commentary.
Men, in numerous ways are good, but the narrative that we are victims, that the world isn't already well stacked in our favour and remains so is false. David isn't helping matters.
Sad to see that those spouting that they want to be seen as "thought leaders" are completely incapable of actually participating in anything beyond an echo chamber.
Yet another case of preaching to the converted where you all slap yourselves on the back about how correct you are, while running in terror from anyone that might actually question what you say.
David knows he can't defend his repeated misrepresentations, beyond blaming the source that provided them to him.
And this is the guy who wants us to celebrate what he stands for. Wouldn't it be nice if the Emperor had clothes...
Hmm, apparently Tom Golden is similarly only capable of dealing with an echo chamber.
How embarrassing to be so impotent.
...And tumbleweeds from those incapable of defending their position.
I’ve not been a huge fan of this backlash though I understand its position of origin. My critique of it is that if, at any moment, one were to ask her if and how women played a role in this illiberal zeitgeist, she’d readily have a brilliant and accurate response.
I find it unreasonable for someone to have all thorough answers all the time. It’s like asking for nuance in every comment. It just won’t always be there.
I guess what I’m saying is I’ll judge her by her body of work and not one section of one speech.