[dropcap]I[/dropcap] walked up a mountain today. A small mountain – it only took me an hour. During this hike I had a conversation, described here shortly. On this particular mountain there are a number of trails – most of which have names, known to many of the visitors and hikers who visit there. On the lower part of the trail head I encountered two women in their mid thirties; attractive women. They were occupying (obstructing) the trail, and I passed them by detouring momentarily into the underbrush. They were loudly broadcasting their lack of knowledge of the location of a trail I routinely use to reach the peak, and towards which I was headed this day as well. Like an idiot, I said: “Oh, I’m headed up that trail. Follow me.”

There was some kind of comment along the lines of,“Hey, this guy knows where the trail is, he’ll show us where.” They said some more stuff, but I wasn’t listening – until they called out to me to tell me, “I hope you don’t mind, we usually talk about boys.” I turned around at this point, not because I cared what two strange women chose to talk about – but to see if they were still following me, and if I was still showing them where the trail was.

[quote float=”left”]I only regret now that the next thing out of my mouth was not, “There’s no need for grunting, when gestures are more efficient,” followed by a demonstration of a hand gesture.[/quote] They mistook my look for interest, and one offered the comment: “Not boys, men, we talk about men – okay?” This seemed pretty condescending to me. But the reason I didn’t care is that my private opinion is most women have a view of masculinity so distorted that female discussions of men or of boys will be of wholly fictional constructs – regardless of the labels they use.

However, in that statement: “Not boys, men, we talk about men – okay?” there was a strong upward inflection on the “okay.” It was a question. In an unplanned impulse to mask my indifference – I replied, “Oh that’s fine, I often talk about women.”

This was met with the hilariously original and clever witticism, “You talk? I thought all guys could do is grunt.” This came from a woman who does not know me and who less than 2 minutes earlier accepted my offer to be shown the location of a trail in steep mountainous terrain which she and her friend apparently intended to hike.

I don’t regret the offer of assistance. I don’t regret showing two ignorant tourists the location of a trail they would not have found without help. I only regret now that the next thing out of my mouth was not, “There’s no need for grunting, when gestures are more efficient,” followed by a demonstration of a hand gesture.

I didn’t offer this comment or a hand gesture. All I said was, “The trail is marked on the left hand here in about 200 meters.”

The woman who’d just suggested I represented a species of sub-verbal grunters didn’t thank me. She just said “cool.” I picked up my pace and left her and her friend to talk about boys, or men, or whatever without me to oppress them or interrupt their civilized philosophical discussions with my primitive ape noises.

I ditched this pair of obnoxious and entitled princesses, and I hope they didn’t fall to their deaths into a ravine, or get eaten by a bear. Mostly. I spent the rest of my hike moving uphill fast, and thinking, and I came to some interesting conclusions. Some of which are even publishable.

Through experience, I have come to expect in dealings with women, to be insulted, abused, exploited and maligned. Many would rightly point out that this contributed to my self identification as an MRA. However, I am increasingly convinced that men outside the men’s rights movement are also coming to a conclusion similar to my own.

[box type=”alert” size=”large” style=”rounded” icon=”none”]The end of the free pass[/box]

Opponents of the men’s rights movement encountering MRA writing on sites like this one, or MRA video and audio content might be surprised to discover that a great many “active” MRAs are cheerful, polite and tolerant individuals. Blog and video-blog appearances to the contrary – even being a loud and active MRA – I don’t indulge in arguments or offer my ranting commentary every time I’m figuratively slapped across the face with a casual comment that due to my sex, I’m either stupid, sex obsessed, or otherwise defective.

In fact, being an adherent of an unpopular, contrarian political philosophy has greatly honed my “nice guy” diplomatic skills. I say that admitting that MRA writing tends to be direct, rather than diplomatic; I have always preferred to lead towards my points of view by entertainment and charm rather than by overt argument or direct debate.

When told by a woman I’d just agreed to guide to a difficult-to-locate trail in mountainous terrain “I thought all guys could do is grunt” I didn’t tell her to find the trail herself, then abandon her. The decision I’ve mentioned formed over the next hour as I made my way up the mountain.

Because MRA discourse on women is so often derailed by lying accusation from a feminist viewpoint – it’s necessary to explain my position with detail and precision. When faced with male-targeting hatred, disdain, or abuse from women or on behalf of women I will adhere to my own new personal policy, that is: to afford to blue-pillers and feminists no tolerance, and no patience. Now here comes the clarification required due to routine accusatory distortion by feminists :

[box type=”note” icon=”none”]No tolerance and no patience for abuse, lies and assorted routine male-bashing does not mean I’ll be arguing, lecturing or correcting the embedded and unconscious misandry now normal in everyday dealings with women, blue-pillers and other unidentified feminists.[/box]

To argue with an individual necessitates some stake in their opinion. This is a cultural assumption that I’ll assert all women hold. It’s the assumption that men value their approval. For most men, including many MRAs before full internalization of a “red pill” ethic – this assumption is true. Social acceptance for the blue pill world rests substantially on collective female approval. Even as an MRA the learned ethics of a lifetime make this difficult programming to break.

We are taught by a continuous message of male inadequacy and female elan that as men, our compliance with a female approved model of self is essential to our success, acceptance, adulthood and self respect. This is all a farce – because compliance with what is now the normalized version of a “real man” displaces self respect with a servile utility and craven suppression of identity. My decision to cease entertaining even polite accommodation of male-hate rests on a bedrock of indifference to approval.

Right at this point is where the accusations should start that this is hatred of women, or misogyny, or some other ideologically driven lie to derail the conversation. I’ll admit that in the last few months, following the open televised female celebration of the vicious mutilation of a man by Katherine Becker, the excused murder of an infant by Casey Anthony and other recent events I found myself edging towards animosity to an entire sex.

However, an ideology is not a sexual demographic – regardless of the ongoing efforts of ideologues to conflate opposition to a hateful dogma with claims of hatred of women. I continue to enjoy the friendships of a handful of women I distinguish in my mind by classifying as adults. For others – rather than regarding them with an emotionally charged antipathy – I recognize them simply as large, dangerous children.

When faced by casual hate from individuals of entitled infantile character, I will not be trying through charm and finesse to hold up a mirror. I wont attempt to talk a blue-pill man or woman out of their unexamined disdain for masculine identity. Individuals indulging in anti-male bigotry will be figuratively swatted aside, without apology or explanation.

I will also encourage my brothers and sisters who see the world without a feminist lens to dispense with accommodation of unconscious, embedded misandry. This means discarding the illusion of a need for approval. The assumption of masculine need for acceptance by this consensus feminine approval is fundamental to the everyday demonstrations of not only male-bashing – but a growing body of normalized depravity by women in western society.

I know that this will be misunderstood, and mis-attributed and misrepresented by both men and women of the kool-aid drinking majority. However the failure to understand is rooted in the assumption of the blue-pill-normal masculine need for feminine acceptance. An assumption of feminist monopoly on the definition of correct manhood. Stated flatly, a definition of “correct” manhood or masculinity by anyone other than a man applying his own definition to himself is absurd. The abundance of female ideological definition of “real” men in culture and media shows a deep disconnect from reality.

[quote float=”right”]These are some of the consequences of a path which apart from that unwieldy set of initials – I’ll call “Going Full Zeta.”[/quote] For every man, blunt and unapologetic rejection of any feminist-definition of a “good man” is a great starting point. The predictable demands to “explain yourself mister” can also be cheerfully ignored. I wont belabor this with a tedious step by step path. I’d suggest that self actualization is best plotted individually, without apology or explanation. So I wont fall into the trap of hatred, and I’ve lost any interest in helping those whose actions and speech are poisoned by a mainstream ideology of hate.

That’s right princess – if you continue to cling to an outmoded dogma in which masculinity equates to stupidity, or to criminality, I won’t trouble to correct you. I’ve learned through repeated attempts that although most people don’t want to be racists, or bigots, or demonstrably ignorant of obvious realities – the idea of “we’re better than them” is seductive and satisfying. So what’s left?

MRAs reading this may recognize this as my MGTOW moment (Manuel Going His Own Way), but there’s more in play than wandering off to a monkish existence. In fact, a monkish existence is far from my reality. That kludgy acronym is actually a rather poor descriptor of where I find my life headed as a man.

Finances, freedom, fornication and fun. These are some of the consequences of a path which apart from that unwieldy set of initials – I’ll call “Going Full Zeta.” Various authors have belittled a masculine philosophy built on self actualization – such as Kimmel’s “Guyland” and Heimowitz’s “Child Man in the Promised Land.” In the cosmology of these feminists, “Real Men™” are defined by self sacrifice, servitude and utility to women.

While a philosophy rejecting this stifling mode of servile abasement is understandable to many MRAs, for the wider public, I have already seen a complete failure to grasp the consequences of men increasingly going their own way. This manifests in anger, accusation and condemnation of any male behavior which doesn’t comply to the feminist definition of “real man™”

The source of this persistent failure of comprehension lies in a set of idiotic false assumptions about men. A comprehensive list would be too long for the scope of this article, but a few items near the top are:

[unordered_list style=”green-dot”]

Men are basically stupid.

Men will tolerate any abuse for access to sex.

Male identity is defined by female approval.

[/unordered_list]

These three moronic assumptions underlie a pervasive and escalating flavor of hatred, abuse and violence against men – and most men and women still living in a blue pill reality cant even see it. As a man, discarding them opens a world of possibility, and relief from our culture’s feminist defined manhood. It is a relief from a mental bondage that is not excessive to denote with the word slavery.

For those in a blue pill reality, particularly women, a growing number of men freeing themselves from this conceptual fog is shortly going to force a sudden and unpleasant introduction to personal accountability. And for them, I have not a whisper of pity.