Sex: Part One


For too long, the SJWs have told us nonsense such as “gender is a social construct” and other crap of this sort.

Well, sorry stupid people, but you are going to be disappointed.

To begin, “gender” is a linguistic term in reference to nouns. Whereas “sex” is about sexuality. So, you “gender” people make you sound either evil, stupid, or liars, pick two.

There are only two sexes. Period. And it, generally determined by the Twenty-Third pair of chromosomes. Now, I do admit that there are a very small percentage of mutants with that 23rd chromosome of x, xxx, xyy, xxy, and xxyy. However, these mutants do not have an indeterminate sex,

  • a person with a single x chromosome (known as turner syndrome) is a female,
  • the xxx (known Triple X syndrome, triplo-X, trisomy X, XXX syndrome, 47,XXX aneuploidy) is a female,
  • the xyy (known as 47,xyy) is male,
  • the xxy (known as Kilnefelter syndrome or 47,xxy) is male, and
  • the xxyy (known as 48,xxyy syndrome) is male.

You can use duckduckgo.com, or some other search engine and find the relevant facts on wikipedia.com. {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder}.

So, all this crap I have been hearing that sex is a social construct is pure, unadulterated, shit. It is something used by the dreaded Social Justice Warriors to have something to complain about. But it lacks no merit, no evidence, nor any scientific evidence.

A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. And if a man “feels” like a woman, of if a woman “feels” like a man, that is, a “transgendered” person, is a person with a serious mental illness. And the worst thing you can do is to encourage that mental illness.

For those of you who disagree with what I have said, I would suggest that you point your browser to: http://www.sexchangeregret.com/ and read some of the entries.

So, in essence, do not encourage mental illness, please.

Music (Symphonies): Part One


I like music. I am constantly listening to music in my apartment, except when I am watching a movie.

I like some Heavy Metal, Rock, Folk Music, Jazz, The Blues, Alternative music, Baroque, and Romantic music. However, I do not like genres, I like artists.

I have a complaint that I have had for about the past 20-30 years. Specifically, I have some modern renditions of Beethoven’s symphonies. In particular, the Ninth symphony. Someone, for some reason, the classical four-movement ninth symphony is now a five-movement piece of music, with the break in the middle of the, former, fourth movement.

I don’t care if some conductor “thinks” that it forms a more natural break, when Beethoven wrote the piece, it made sense to him. Who has the gall to claim that the composer knows more about the natural progression of the symphony that the man who wrote the piece of music in the first place. And, over the past years, I have only seen the Ninth Symphony with five movements rather than four movements.

In addition, the symphony is traditionally a four-movement piece of music, so the conductor is also breaking with the traditional symphony. And for what reason? And, more recently, I have seen a five-movement Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony. In my opinion, this is a tragedy. The old masters, who have survived for several hundred years, are being ruined.

Why?

A few years ago, I had the displeasure of hearing a ruined rendition of the Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony in Salt Lake City, Utah. This disappointment was as follows. There was a break between every movement. I have seen this piece of music several times in the past, and while the piece had four movements, the entirety of the music was a single continuous work, without a pause. However, in Salt Lake City, there were pauses of at least a whole minute between the first and second movements and between the third and fourth movement, and a ten minute pause between the second and the third movement.

Who the hell does this?

For me, the symphony had been ruined because of these damnable pauses. If a symphony cannot play the whole piece in entirety without a break, they are not true musicians. This symphony should fire the people who cannot play a single work without three breaks, since this is the way the music was written to be played.

Dammit!!!

 

The NAWALT


After my second divorce, in 2013, as a result of my stroke in 2011, I figured that I was entirely done with women except on a superficial level. However, in February or March of 2016, I had met an unusual woman.

The term “NAWALT” (an acronym meaning “Not All Women Are Like That”) is a thing that may or may not exist. It is like the unicorn, it is a very rare women who intentionally ignores or overrides her hypergamous nature.

Now, this woman of which I speak may be a NAWALT. I don’t know. We have gone for walks with each other, we have drank coffee on occasions, we have even gone out to eat with each other. And in every event, aside from our walks, she has always paid her own way.

She would not allow me to pay for her meals or coffee. At all.

That makes this woman a very rare woman.

And while all men with any brain would willingly die for this woman, since she pays her own way, is stunningly beautiful, and is built perfectly. I have sadly come to the conclusion that we are not compatible.

Yes, I have stopped pursuing the perfect woman because of our differences in politics, movie preferences, music preferences, book preferences, and some other minor differences.

Perhaps, in time, we can become friends, by my definition of a friend, but we can never be more than that. I was hopeful, and I was under the delusion that I could change myself to measure up to her. But, as I have said, that is a delusion.

But, I have saved myself from having a relationship that could go bad. It was a brief fantasy, but reality reasserted itself and I know that we could not work.

And so, I regain who I am. I regain my true nature. And I go through life, as usual, yet again.

But it was still a good fantasy for a short while.

 

Catastrophic Disk Failure


Hello, On Saturday, 23 April 2016, I suffered a disk crash.

Now, first, I should say that I am not the kind of man who doesn’t make backups at least once a day. However, I had just done a backup on my backup disk. I then physically disconnected all drives except my main drive. And I initiated a fresh install to a new Linux distribution.

The install was completed, I had then plugged in my other drives, and my backup drive could not initialize. It made an expensive sounding “click”, I guess that the read/write head could not find anything.

After a few hours to try all sorts of utilities to read the drive, I gave up, put the backup drive in a box, and fell asleep.

The only irreplaceable thing I lost was sixteen years of cat photographs. Since three of those cats are currently dead, these photographs are precious to me.

In addition to my cat pictures, I also lost all of my Linux articles, my economics articles and e-books, my massive music collection (approximately 300 GB of music), my e-book collections (approximately 150 GB), all of my technological articles, my resume, and more.

I have been accumulating these files over the past eighteen years, and their loss hurts me. But, as I have said, my cat photographs are priceless to me.

I have emailed a man in Fargo, that might be able to grab my files from that disk. However, as of right now, he has not yet responded to me. I have been told that data recovery from such a crash is not expensive as it sounds. I hope that fact is true.

Now, I am still somewhat distressed at my recent loss, so forgive me if I do not post for a short while.

 

What Do I Think About Cultural Appropriation: Part One.


On 10 April, 2016, I wore a kilt to “church”. More accurate it was a “Utilikilt” that I had purchased on http://Amazon.com. Some people in “church” had asked if I was of Scottish descent. I didn’t think anything of that question, as I was more concerned in answering another question “What do I wear under my kilt?”

Anyway, it wasn’t until the next day, 11 April 2016, where I had figured out the meaning of that question, for some questioners. I think that at least one questioner may have thought that I was “guilty” of “Cultural Appropriation“. And that very concept is meaningless and makes me feel angry.

See, my position is now, who cares if I am of Scottish descent or not?

And I imagine that some people may be offended by my position on this matter. But, I don’t care if anyone gets upset at my wearing a kilt. As a matter of fact, you may throw all the hate you want at my attitude in this matter. I will not apologize, I will not even state if I am of Scottish descent or not. Essentially, you can piss up a rope and suck on the other end, for all I care.

“Cultural Appropriation” has no meaning, as far as I am concerned. The people who even claim a person is appropriating some other culture seem to have nothing better to do other than hassle other people who are just wearing a hairdo or a style of clothing that “offends” you.

Get over it!

In my opinion, when I wear a kilt, most people would probably not do that themselves. But my wearing a kilt is an expression of my masculinity. My utilikilt is not a tartan, it is plain black, or olive drab, but that does not detract in my expression of my masculinity.

And if someone wants to buy and wear a kilt, why should I be concerned? Of course, I will comment on his expression of his masculinity, because only when men have the freedom to express their masculinity, these men have the ability to form bonds, friendships, and deep male-to-male relationships, in a strictly heterosexual manner, that our society is lacking. So, why should I care if anyone is “allowed” to wear a kilt? In my opinion and observation, men need to form bonds, if that bond is because of wearing a kilt, good for them and good for us.

Our culture, in the United States, has been described as a melting pot. However, I will say that once upon a time, the United States was a melting pot of cultures. However, ever since the dreaded “Social Justice Warriors” (SJWs) have gained power around 2011. It seems to me to be an expression of Third-Wave-Feminism. And that is the source of this nonsense about cultural appropriation reared its ugly head.

However, since the United States culture is composed of all other cultures throughout the world, the best way to honor the other cultures, and to express our American heritage is to appropriate things from other cultures that we may like. It is the American thing to do. This appropriation does, in my opinion, not harm other cultures, does not insult other cultures. The only people that get hurt are the SJWs, an we can safely ignore those people, as we should.

See, if the American culture is, essentially, all cultures throughout the world. What is wrong with that? When we appropriate other cultures, we are calling attention to those cultures. And if the other culture gets upset by that, I don’t care. If these other cultures didn’t want to be imitated, maybe they should have thought about that and not allowed those pieces of those cultures into the American culture.

See, I am under no obligation to let other people know a part of my culture. I can keep it secret, if I so desire. But if one person speaks out, it is fair game for appropriation. Again, if you don’t like that fact of reality. Sorry, deal with it, shut up about it, and accept the fact that a piece of your culture has been appropriated.

I would like to see my American culture a true melting pot, once more. It seems to me that the SJWs want to forget that melting pot, want to impose harsher set of restrictions on our ability to act. And I disagree with that fact.

I will never again state my claim on whether I am “allowed” to wear a kilt. I will wear a kilt, I will wear it proudly, as I drip masculinity all over the place. And if people don’t like the fact that I will not state that I am “allowed” to wear my kilt, it sucks to be you, I guess.

Concerning The Kilt: Part One.


A Brief History Of The Kilt.

The kilt is a knee-length skirt-type garment with pleats at the rear. The origin of the kilt was first worn as a traditional men and boys in the Scottish Highlands in the 16th century. However, since the 19th century it has been identified with the wider Scottish culture in general, and with the Gaelic heritage even more broadly. The kilt is generally made of wool and with a tartan pattern.

Although the kilt was originally worn on formal occasions, at the highland games and sporting events, in todays society, so some small degree, it had been adapted as an informal male clothing in recent years. And, thus, has become an everyday garment.
{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilt}

Me and My Kilt.

I have an authentic real live kilt, with an almost full kit. I do not have a pair of Ghillie brogues. These things look ridiculous, and are uncomfortable. Instead, I wear wing-tips. Other than that, I have a full kit. The problem with kilts is that they are made of wool, my kilt is made od heavy, winter weight wool, and they require to be dry-cleaned. And, I don’t really trust a dry-cleaner to not mess up my pleats. So I don’t wear tham very often.

But, I have just purchased a utilikilt, it is made of cotton, and is easier to clean and press. Now, as I live in North Dakota, it is still a little cold to wear it out and about, but perhaps tomorrow will be a good day to wear my utilikilt.

So, why do I want to even be caught dead in my utilikilt?

First off, the kilt is an expression of masculinity. It is much more masculine than anything a man can wear. I say this because I get some really good “feedback” when I wae my kilt. I have had women hit on me, out of the blue. Some men, however, have reacted negatively, not because I am looking “unmanly”, but because they seem to view me as a threat.

Whatever.

However, when I am wearing my kilt, I think it is possible that I behave somewhat differently. I would guess that I may be, to some extent, expressing my masculinity, almost dripping with masculinity. I don’t know, but I do get reactions that I will interpret as positive.

So, possibly tomorrow, I will be walking around downtown Fargo, dripping masculinity all over the place.

Heh!

What is Love? Part One.


Three times in the past, I had told a woman that I loved her. I was mistaken. Two of those women were my wives. I was married the first time in 1984. I was too young to understand anything about love, and I got my first divorce in 1988. I was married the second time in 1999, I thought I was old enough to love the woman, but I discovered that I didn’t love her and she left me, because of my stroke, in 2013. Both of my marriages ended tragically, but I did not have to pay any alimony as a result, which was very good for me. And in the end, while I didn’t come out ahead, I came out of my two failed marriages mostly intact, fortunately. The second time I told a woman that I had loved her, she was a girlfriend, in 1991. That was a good relationship, it ended amicably, in the end. We had eventually parted on good terms.

But I never understood a single thing about love, even though I am now Fifty-One years old. Is that a failing for me? Or is it the fact what many people call love, really isn’t love? This feeling that we call love could be just habituation.

Now, I have experienced tenderness, and some other fantastic emotions, and things that other people might call love. But I have never experienced the end-all, be-all, mind-numbing emotion for which I would live for and die for. And perhaps my conception of love is unrealistic, a pipe dream, an illusion that is better than life. But I don’t think so.

I think that most other people also do not understand love, but they think they understand love. And that is sad for them, because these other people have also never experienced love, but because I admit that I have never experienced love, I guess I could be ahead of the game.

Or not.

I think that my “habituation hypothesis” is a more accurate assessment of what people call love. We get used to a person, we learn the ways of the other person, and we “get in a rut” that we call love, but isn’t. We, essentially, get used to the other person, we overlook things that we would not tolerate except we are used to the other person’s shortcomings, and we eventually accept these facts because accepting these things is far more comfortable than if we leave the other person.

Again, I ask you, have you been in love? Or was it merely habituation?

 

In Defense of Masculinity: Part One


First off, I must say that there is no such thing as “toxic masculinity“, nor is there anything called “testosterone poisoning“. These things are a total fiction and they come from people who hate men, masculinity, and testosterone. Make no mistake that people who “think” these, and assert these things, hate men and hate manhood.

The official definition of masculinity, according to the dictionary, is “pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men.” Thus, masculine is a trait of men. And manhood is the normal behavior of a man, or of manliness.

In addition, “manliness” is sometimes a synonym for masculinity. In addition, the antonym of masculine is femininity, and femininity in a man is also called effeminacy. Now, I would imagine that some people may disagree with my definitions of masculinity, the relationship between masculinity, femininity, and effeminacy. Nevertheless, I will stick by my definitions, and if you dislike my definitions, I acknowledge your diversity.

Masculinity is based on genetics, and it has nothing to do with any sort of social constructs. That is because human beings are sexually dimorphic. That is, the two human sexes exhibit very different characteristics beyond their sexual organs. That is, male humans and female humans are inherently different from each other. That is an undeniable fact of life. Anyone that chooses to ignore that simple fact is under some sort of delusion.

The essence of masculinity is to defend and to conquer. The path of masculinity is, essentially, the way of the warrior. A man is almost always a warrior and a protector. A man is willing to die for his beliefs. and more importantly, a man is willing to kill for his beliefs. A man who is not willing to die, and to kill, for his beliefs is no man, in my opinion. A man will protect his larger group, his family unit, and himself. A man is willing to die for these things, and he is willing to kill for these things.

Thus, the role of masculinity is, to be a warrior.

Men have strength. This strength is a result of testosterone. Let’s face it, in general, men are stronger. In the Olympic games, the best women cannot compete with the strongest man, or even the weakest man in the Olympics. This is a hormonal thing, pure and simple. During puberty, a man’s strength increases drastically {Mooradian AD, Morley JE, Korenman SG (Feb 1987). “Biological actions of androgens”. Endocrine Reviews 8 (1): 1–28. doi:10.1210/edrv-8-1-1. PMID 3549275.} {Bassil N, Alkaade S, Morley JE (Jun 2009). “The benefits and risks of testosterone replacement therapy: a review”. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 5 (3): 427–48. PMC 2701485. PMID 19707253.}

Now, these are simple biological facts, and I am merely stating these facts for this article. In no way, do I dislike women at all, nor look down on women. I am just saying that men and women are different from each other. And that difference is a matter of biology, nothing more and nothing less.

Let us address the issue of testosterone. More specifically, what are the effects of testosterone on the male? Now I have heard some of the effects of testosterone, but I have not included these thing in this article, due to lack of sources.

One effect of testosterone is that testosterone seems to increase truthfulness and social behavior.

“… Researchers have now been able to demonstrate that this sex hormone surprisingly also fosters social behavior. In play situations, subjects who had received testosterone clearly lied less frequently than individuals who had only received a placebo.”
{https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121010172212.htm}

Additionally, testosterone reduces fear and anxiety, and to some extent, calmness, in men.

“These data provide the first direct evidence for fear-reducing properties of testosterone in humans. Furthermore, by dissociating specific aspects of fear and anxiety in humans, this outcome highlights that testosterone’s effects on motivation and emotion concern the subcortical affective pathways of the brain.”
{https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15939408}

So, men, rejoice that you are a man. If you didn’t know, as a man you are not flawed, not damaged, and absolutely not a “broken female“. We are a part of a sexually dimorphic species, and as such, we are as necessary as a woman is. Always remember that simple fact, do not allow yourself to be shamed, do not apologize for being a man.

Ever!

Concerning the Utilikilt


I have recently purchased a “utilikilt” through Amazon.com. I haven’t worn it out and about, yet, because I forgot to purchase a buckle for it. Now, I should first mention that I have a real live authentic kilt made of heavy winter weight wool that I purchased in 1999. And while I have a Sgian-dubh, Sporran, Flashes, and Hose for my authentic kilt, these items are for my authentic kilt.

This is because my utilikilt is separate and distinct from my authentic kilt. So, there! I have other similar accessories for my utilikilt, but no flashes. But I forgot to purchase a buckle for my belt… no worries, it will be here tomorrow or Thursday.

Now, while I will be wearing my utilikilt around and about in downtown Fargo, as I go for my daily walks, I have no idea what the response I will get. The thing is, when I have worn my kilt, it is a severe expression of masculinity. And some people have noticed that. And while I think that some people have an appropriate response, whatever that means.

I was in Washington DC in 1999 for about a week. And during that entire week, I only wore my kilt. In 1999, the response was fine, I did think that some people were intimidated by my kilt. But that could have been seeing a crazy man wearing a kilt, or my immense masculinity.

I had also worn my kilt at a Christmas party in 1999, when I was working for NSC Systems Group, wherein I had “upstaged” a man that was known to be wearing outrageous, but sane, clothing during the yearly Christmas party.

I had gone to another Christmas party in 1999 from my ex-wife’s employer, and I wore the kilt then, also. However, the boss said something to the effect that he like the fact that I don’t take myself seriously. Then my ex-wife mentioned to him that he misunderstood, she said that I always take myself seriously.

In June of 2000, when Ed Learning Systems was being sold, we had a “good bye gathering” party. I wore the kilt, again, and even though my ex-wife was there, I do believe that a female employee was “hitting on me”. It went over well for me, but my ex-wife didn’t like it a bit.

So, in every instance I wore my kilt, I got a good reception from my kilt.

But, now I live in Fargo, North Dakota. I do not know if the Fargoans (is that a word?) can and will understand me and my utilikilt. I guess we shall see.

In addition, I did not buy my utilikilt to “pick up women”. That isn’t even on my radar. I bought the utilikilt because I like wearing a kilt, and the utilikilt is affordable. My authentic kilt cost me $300 in 1999, which translates to be about $425-$450 in 2016. And that was just the basic kilt, with the full kit, which was about $150.00, $220 in 2016. The basic utilikilt costs about $55, with about 25 for the kit. So, I bought this because it is much more affordable than authentic kilt.

Note, however, an authentic kilt is made of wool, whereas a utilikilt is made of heavy cotton. That is fine for me, as I will not be wearing it during the cold.

So, those who live within a five mile radius of the “Hawthorne” neighborhood of Fargo, look for me!

 

The Blight of Third Wave Feminism: Part One


{{I have been asked about my opposition to Third-Wave feminism. This is my initial response to why I consider Third-Wave feminism is a threat to me, and to all people, not only men, but also to women}}

Once upon a time, during first-wave feminism, in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, woman had earned the right for all women to vote, and for equal pay for equal work. Under the “Equal Pay Act” of 1963, in the United States, the goals of first-wave feminism were officially over in the United States.

Although as a footnote, all men had gained their vote relatively recently prior to women getting the vote, and for that “privilege”, all men had obligations that women never had. Like military service, for one example.

So, first-wave feminism was focused on suffrage, and they won.

Second-Wave feminism, from approximately the late 1960’s to the late 1980’s, was focused on the issues of issues of sexuality, family, and workplace inequalities. Now, one thing to recall was the fact that the second-wave feminists had opposed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the United States.

We must question why.

See, there was much support for the ERA, and it had seemed several times that it would pass, but under the influence by the Second-Wave feminists, it had always failed. This is because if the ERA existed, then women, in general, would win nothing, moreover, women would lose what they had gained during Second-Wave feminism. And men would gain the rights that they had lost.

See, during Second-Wave feminism, since women had the same rights as men during First-Wave feminism, since Second-Wave feminism, women had more rights than men. If you disagree with this statement, you should ask yourself two questions: What rights does a man have that a woman doesn’t have? And what rights does a woman have that a man doesn’t have?

Every right a man has, a woman also has. But, there some rights that women have than a man does not. The primary right is biological integrity. In general, men are circumcised at birth, women are not. Yes, this is in the United States, it is a first country problem, nevertheless it exists and is acceptable, for some reason.

Also, with respects to birth, women have the option to be a parent, they can get an abortion or they can choose to not be a parent. Men do not have that option. At all. A man is not allowed to have a “legal abortion”, a man is not allowed to opt out of parenthood, a women is.

So, after that, you will realize, or you should realize, why Second-Wave feminists opposed the ERA, tooth and nail, and why the ERA does not exist, because under the ERA, women would win nothing, and would lose rights under the ERA.

Now, what in the world is Third-Wave feminism. More importantly, why does it even exist? During First-Wave feminism, the feminists won equal rights. During Second-Wave feminism, women have more rights than men. Third-Wave feminism is a blight on humanity, in my opinion.

First off, Third-Wave feminism started in the early 1990’s. It had arisen to the perceived failures by the Second-Wave feminists, and seems to be primarily focused on diversity, more importantly, non-white feminists.

The Third-Wave feminists are full of “body positive” rhetoric, bad rape statistics, even more control over their reproductive rights, bad statistics on gender violence, something called “man-spreading“, “man-splaining“, and more.

Because, lets face it, my statistics come from the Uniform Crime Report, produced every year by the Department of Justice, and are exclusively used by the FBI concerning all crime within the United States, and those statistics are in blatant contradiction to what the Third-Wave feminists claim.

So, essentially, the Third-Wave feminists are wrong about their statistics. All of them. In addition, the “hate all boys” thing is right from Third-Wave feminism, as are “I drink male tears“, “throw rocks at boys“, “cry me a river” (directed at males), and other such nonsense.

So, in my observation, Third-Wave feminists hate men, even though they claim that they do not. But, actions speak louder than words.

Additionally, the “body positivity” position is essentially fat acceptance, and … well…. ugly acceptance. Sorry if you disagree with that statement, but that is what I see, and that is what I feel. And if you dislike my statement, then communicate with me. Do not attempt to shame me, communicate with me like a real human being.

So, in conclusion, First-Wave was a good thing, they achieved their goals, and I agree with the First-Wave feminists. The Second-Wave feminism has overreached their bounds, and men have been losing rights since Second-Wave feminism roared its dangerous head. Third-Wave feminism is dangerous, not only to men, but also to women, and since Third-Wave feminism roared its horrible and sickly head, one is safe from its corruption.

It must be put to rest, and quickly, if it is not already too late.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers

%d bloggers like this: