men going their own way


37 minutes of hard truth from a man that inexplicably just keeps getting better. PE

About VFM News and Commentary

VFM News and Commentary is part of the news service for A Voice for Men, allowing news stories, commentary and opinion pieces to be published on the site from outside sources.

Main Website
View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    Nails it. Barbarossaaa makes clear that traditionalism is synonymous with gynocentrism.

    Love his mocking of the douchebags who say “I dunt even know what traditionalism means”. With the publication of this video nobody will ever again be able to claim they don’t know what traditionalism is… and if they do then we can send them the above link.

  • ComradePrescott

    Ahahah, beautiful video. This guy is smart! I quite like it.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    If anyone has more popcorn left here is one of Barbarossaaa’s earlier videos on the same topic: Traditionalism and chivalry = the other feminism

  • Dean Esmay

    Possibly his best yet. Worth all 37 minutes. And yeah, anyone who says “I don’t know what a traditionalist is” can watch this and shut up.

    Amusing thing is I was once a colleague of all three of the gentlemen in that opening video with PJM. And I don’t dislike any of them. But they’re as clueless as feminists when it comes to these issues.

    • Kimski

      Usefull idiot soldiers, marching on to the beat of the everlasting misandry drum of selfsacrifice.

      I especially liked his pointing out that 22% of the women aboard Titanic had no problem with filling up the seats in the lifeboats, that could have saved all of the kids.
      Shocking news to me, actually.
      I won’t forget that anytime soon.

      • napocapo69

        Kimski, I would agree with you if I only believed for a moment that they were sincere.
        They are not soldiers but mercenary, disposing the life of others for money.
        They were selling a product, to an audience. An audience made of men willing to be praised for the disposability of others, and women willing to be acknowledge of a primary role in a society, a role that they not pursue anymore.
        In other words, they were dispensing prozac over the air.

        • Kimski

          You’re absolutely correct, Napo. My mistake for not elaborating more clearly.

          I’ll bet you anything that if push came to shove, you won’t be seeing any of these 3 volunteering to go down with the ship.

          If that actually happened, they of course were only speaking hypothetically, or will flat out deny ever having said anything like it.

          It’s so easy to be a hero from the comforts of an armchair in a cozy studio, when you’re not looking down on 30 foot waves in a blizzard at sea, knowing you’ll be dead in less than 5 minutes after you get in.

          I still recall being an lookout during the winter storms of ’81 in the Baltic Sea, from my time in the Marines, and under those conditions only suicidal idiots pretends to be heroes.

      • John A

        There were 700 empty seats on those life boats – that is the real eternal shame.

        • Kimski

          Yes, I know.
          Must have been hell on earth in that last hour before the ship finally went down, if they weren’t even capable of getting organized enough to fill those seats.

          I don’t buy into the statements for a second, that everything went about relatively peaceful and quiet, as it has later been presented. People in mortal fear normally acts like headless chicken, and not like civilized individuals.

          • scatmaster

            Anyone who attempts to keep me on a sinking ship because of the genitals with which I was born is attempting to murder me. I have the right to respond accordingly.

            Since a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, it is not right that a man should sacrifice himself for her.

            The Spearhead.

      • sadman365

        How is it shocking? Women never risk their lives to save a child, or anyone else, unless the risk is very very small. I mean, why would a woman sacrifice her life or put herself at risk when there’s always a man around willing to do it, shamed into doing it, or just plain forced to do it? Don’t you know, women in general are narcissists who think their lives are more important than the lives of every one else, children or adults? How many women do you know of that willingly put their bodies in a path of a bullet to protect someone they love?
        What’s disgusting is, NO one ever points the finger at them or shame them for being cowards who would happily leave a burning building leaving children behind, or jump into life boats leaving children on a sinking ship…. Of course, if a man does it you can be guaranteed he’d be shamed to death and called a “coward” for not wanting to sacrifice his own life to save that of someone else he doesn’t even know. It’s like it’s a man’s job -and only a man’s job- to always be willing to sacrifice his life to save someone else’s.
        Disgusting double standards.

  • JedaChz

    I hadn’t listened to Barbarosssa for a long time, but I did check his channel several hours ago. Those were 37 fast minutes, definitely one of his best videos.

  • Ken

    I don’t always agree 100% with everything Bar Bar says. I often find myself at odds with certain aspects of MGTOW in particular.

    Bar Bars ability to make statements and explain them at the same time has opened my eyes to many facets of situations that I would not have otherwise considered.

    He is one of the best……..

  • Syme

    I think this is Barbarossaaa’s best video yet.

  • MRA Greatest Hits

    You can see why his critics resort to name calling like ‘extremist’, ‘leftist’ etc. Devastating, every time. There’s no coming back from a Barbarossaaa video. I love how no punches are pulled, no matter who you are.

    • knightrunner

      “I love how no punches are pulled, no matter who you are.”

  • TPH

    Incredible! His best video commentary yet! Impeccable logic and wonderful concept narration.

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    Men Commit Suicide Four Times More Than Women

    “Here are reasons men might become depressed: Unemployed, financial problems, slow learner, too short, overweight, hair loss, poor work evaluation, stressful job, not living up to parents expectations, pressure from women, going through a divorce, relationship problems, baby mama drama, loneliness, separation from children, unable to perform sexually, death of a family member and health problems. Enjoy reading more about why men commit suicide more than women.”

    Maybe the common thread of all these reasons can be distilled down to one single word:


    Could it be men are made to feel shame four times more than women?

    • Theaverageman

      No!, its all the patriarchy!

    • Allan

      SHAME. exactly.

      Makes me think of Brene Brown’s (feminist professor of social work) TED talk about shame:

      “…a man looked at me one day after a book signing, said, “I love what you have to say about shame, I’m curious why you didn’t mention men.” And I said, “I don’t study men.” And he said, “That’s convenient.” (Laughter) And I said, “Why?” And he said, “Because you say to reach out, tell our story, be vulnerable. But you see those books you just signed for my wife and my three daughters?” I said, “Yeah.” “They’d rather me die on top of my white horse than watch me fall down. When we reach out and be vulnerable we get the shit beat out of us. And don’t tell me it’s from the guys and the coaches and the dads [i.e. Michael Kimmel], because the women in my life are harder on me than anyone else.”

      Look at how male victims and men generally are treated at The Good Men Project. (crickets)

      She says:

      “If we’re going to find our way back to each other, we have to understand and know empathy, because empathy’s the antidote to shame. If you put shame in a Petri dish, it needs three things to grow exponentially: secrecy, silence and judgment. If you put the same amount of shame in a Petri dish and douse it with empathy, it can’t survive. The two most powerful words when we’re in struggle: me too.”

      Except feminism can never give up it’s judgement of men, it’s silence and secrecy about men’s experiences.

      She appears completely blind to how “not studying men” is feminist shaming. It’s silence, secrecy and judgement. It’s “shame is a bad thing if it’s a woman” but a very useful weapon against men.

  • Mark Trueblood

    As a society, we could have avoided so much turmoil if when women said “We’re strong and independent!” we had said “Cool! Go be strong and independent. You won’t be needing chivalry, provision, or special deference from men anymore then, either!”

    Instead, this hypocritical situation has developed that we are immersed in, that I frankly doubt we will ever be rid of.

    • feeriker

      ..[Man] “Cool! Go be strong and independent. You won’t be needing chivalry, provision, or special deference from men anymore then, either!”

      I’ve begun using this type of response regularly over the past few years whenever women spit out the “we’re strong, independent, and don’t need you!” line (which is always music to my ears, by the way). Their response to it is nearly ALWAYS either a hissy fit or a sarcastic ad hominem attack – especially when I act on the sentiments expressed above, usually in the workplace, by FORCING them to be the “strong, independent women” they claim to be by declining to assist them in a difficult task or do their jobs for them.

      Asking such women to put their proverbial money where their mouths are is not only a great “hypocrisy finder,” but is usually good for some refreshing entertainment as well.

      • Mark Trueblood

        I agree, I do this too. I also expect girlfriends to “hold up half the sky” when I’m dating. It’s a good policy to have, ultimately, because it treats women as adults. Which is how they should be treated.

        The problem is, for every couple of us who do that, there are about a dozen enablers.

  • napocapo69

    A great video, and overall I tend to agree 100% with Barbarossa takes on gynocentrism.
    Gynocentrism is the core ingredient of the blue pills; pills packaged in “feminist” flavour for women, and in “traditionalist” flavour for men. Of course there are men that like the former and women that like the latter, but the products have clear market targets.
    Overall I can’t take seriously the three monkeys, but Barbarossa analysis is outstanding, and I really I do not find that much to add.

  • donzaloog

    Barbossaaa completely dismantled those pathetic manginas. I agree with everything he said. I’m so glad I found his channel on YouTube.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Good men want to die so good women can shop and sleep around.
    Here is some eye-popping info on the issue of military service:

    Helen Drexler Ferguson: A Champion War-Marriage Vampire’s Lucrative Career – 1922

    Thousands of Fake War Brides in World War I (“War Marriage Vampires”) – USA, 1918

  • knightrunner

    Great video. Bar is one of the greats when it comes to dissecting bullshit. He has a mind like a computer.
    I live in the deep south. All the people I know are traditionalists. I have never seen this kind of traditionalism. Never. Not even from the people of advanced years. I would call this radical traditionalism. Don’t get me wrong. Im not defending traditionalism in anyway. Traditionalism has many sins to answer for. But all the men I know that are my own age would look at those three and call bullshit on most of what they had to say.
    What human being wouldn’t let children have the first seats in the life boats. All the men I know would make sure that there wives had seats. Not because they are women but because they love them. But after that its every PERSON for themselves.
    As for my wife I would have tie her up and load her unconscious body onto the boat myself. Because if I were headed to my death, she would fight me just so she could die with me because she loves me.
    Again Im not defending traditionalism but I have never seen or heard anything like that.

  • onca747

    It always amazes me that NOW devotes about 50% of its resources to fighting violence against women.. and about 0% fighting violence against children. (A notable exception being their rabid opposition to Parental Alienation Syndrome). There’s a good reason for this, as the far greater rate of female violence and murder against their own young sorely demonstrates. NOW and other feminist groups cling tightly to the “women and children first” trope, minus the children.

    • keyster

      NOW devotes at least 80% of it’s resources fighting for “reproductive rights” at the state level. The other 20% is equal pay, govt day care, health care and social entitlements. VAWA is a done deal in perpetuity.

      • Fredrik

        Funny how the renewal of VAWA was so bipartisan. Almost makes me think that maybe we’re fighting on an orthogonal axis to left and right. Like neither side would give a damn about mens’ human rights, if it came into conflict with their top three (or more) issues.

        I firmly believe that in the U.S., what we really need is re-introduction of fusion voting, so that “third” parties can (once again) impact policy.

    • knightrunner

      Yeah. We should always remember that while men bare the brunt of feminist ideology children also experience sever negative affects. Case in point, a guy believing his son to be a rapist for kissing a girl.

  • Alphabeta Supe

    Another dose of hard truth comes courtesy of Judge Judy. Watch her dismantle a whole bunch of pretty lies right here. Trust me, this will absolutely put candy sprinkles on Barbarosssaaa’s ice cream.

    • onca747

      Frickin *beautiful*. My respect for Judge Judy just went up a few notches. I know she is all about ratings and sensationalism.. but the fact she (and the network) spoke out to slam a false accuser, speaks volumes on how the tide is beginning to turn.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Does anyone think this would have gone down this way in a “real” courtroom?

      …I don’t. Not where I live, anyway.

    • JFinn

      9:18 – 9:22


    • Perseus


  • JFinn

    To me, men’s human rights isn’t a fight about the changes during the past 50 years. It’s about the past thousands of years.

    Barbarosa is great at delivering pink pills to the purple pillers. Both to the people who say “men used to have it good,” and to the people who say “[only] women used to be marginalized, but now the pendulum has swung too far.”

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Barbarosssaa makes a strong argument that the authoritarians (cultural Marxists particularly) that are controlling education did not create the conditions which they are manipulating in their striving after utopia. The biological differences are real and the technological advances are real – and they must be looked at realistically. The utopians are control-freaks whose theories are false but who are nevertheless talented in fostering discord and Statist hell.

    On home-schooling: We should note that home-schooling does build intelligence in parent-teachers. Stay-at home mom does not necessarily mean TV, shopping, vacuuming, phone-gossip. Teaching Latin grammar and basic biology to toddlers at home is better than turning them children over to go-along-to-get-along indoctrinated statist Skinnerians whose only aim is to “socialize” them (make them pliable for the state).

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      You are correct. The problem some people have (including myself) with Barb is that he does not even acknowledge that cultural Marxists exist – let alone the ideology and the concepts behind it.
      The only difference between classical Marxism (that people like me have seen in Eastern Europe) and cultural Marxism (or post-Modernism) is the total embracing of political militant feminism. And in this part, Barb is right that modern day political feminism exploits biological trends within men and women – because men are generally willing to let their freedom go out on the window if it is for teh womenz and women are generally willing to let the State take care of them.

  • Jay

    Great stuff by BB. And I think it’s key to realise that this lack of value for male life has existed for thousands of years. Yet we still get fed the same apex fallacy – that because a man is president, all men have it good. What utter BS.

  • keyster

    Fighting windmills.
    The Cultural-Marxists have won the culture war.
    The next step is Egalitarian Utopia.

    “Traditionalism” has been around for 5,000 years. Cultural-Marxism is a social construct that’s been around less than 100 years. At the most base level of humanity women are innately more valuable than men, because they give birth. 20,000 eggs and a 10 year fertility period vs. a bazillion sperm and almost a lifetime.

    Traditionalism is not the enemy of men (as much as Leftist MRA’s like to fantasize it is). Cultural-Marxism (feminism), social/economic “justice”, collectivism and gender egalitarianism is the enemy of men. Men WANT to marry and have families. Yet this “progressive” culture, as opposed to the “traditional” one, impedes it at every step.

    • knightrunner

      I see your points and I agree with some of them. I also see bar’s points and agree with some of them. I guess Im somewhere in the middle.
      For the men who want families, the mrm should focus on making marriage safer and child custody equal. As for the idea that marriage is something that should be destroyed and traditional relationships avoided I disagree. Marriage and traditional relationships should be a choice that a man can make and feel relatively safe in doing so. While I don’t see normal traditionalists as the enemy of men I do see that traditionalism, in its current form, needs to grow and change. The traditional role of men being a utility is out dated and should change.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      @Keyster “Traditionalism has been around for 5,000 years.”


      Brabarossaaa says in that video that chivalry (what he means by traditionalism) has been around for about one thousand years. And he’s right… study your history books if you want to see when chivalry was invented.

    • Theaverageman

      Speak for yourself ,not everyone who believes that men should be able to define themselves independent of women is a cultural marxist. Live your traditionalist fairytale but don’t point the finger at other people and say you can’t live a life of your own because I want things to be a certain way.

      Im sick of this McCarthyism by social conservatives within the MRM who claim to speak for boys and men.

    • Fredrik

      So how did cultural Marxism win so quickly and easily, when it was framed in terms of gender? I would like for you to ask yourself whether anything in the previous thousand years might’ve laid the groundwork for that victory.

    • Sting Chameleon

      Speak for yourself, I refuse to be an indentured servant. Even if feminism and its ideologues vanished overnight, we’re still expected to work ourselves to death in order to support fucking EVERYTHING in society. Women get to choose whether or not to take part on it, we get no such choice.

      • Patrice Stanton

        You are indentured for reasons beyond “simple” feminism. The Welfare State/aka Lyndon Johnson’s (D) Great Society (HA!) and its attendant dependent mentality, kicked off the latest incarnation of tax-slavery you’re now – and forever – chained to.

        [The early 1970’s were the beginning of the end for so-called traditionalism, for several reasons, but particularly as two incomes started to become the “norm” for economic survival. “The (intact/two-parent) Family” started to go to Hell from there. Funny how kids raised w/both Mom & Dad do better (even today) than those w/o…]

        Did you know the early feminists felt all American women were “indentured” too? Like “slaves” having to do Master’s will – even in the bedroom. Oh yeah, they were so put-upon, so trapped by those old white-picket fences and bundles-of-joy. Yup. But, Lordy-lordy, they got free, didn’t they…got free to STILL hate men, STILL hate kids (to the tune of scraping millions into the trash each year) until they hit 40-something and decide to adopt or have one “alone” then throw it at strangers when it’s 6-weeks old so they can go back to the career-competition they STILL bitch they don’t get “paid equally” for.

        Well, Joe McCarthy WAS right (Venona Papers, etc.) about Communist-infiltration of the highest levels of U.S. government (he was blocked in large part because he was “R” and during WWII the admin. was “D” – and the Soviets were “our friends” then). You feeling like an indentured servant is merely a by-product of that governing totalitarian philosophy McC was so fired-up and determined rout out of the halls of power. Too bad he failed.

        The 60’s “radicals” (imbued in their formative college years with Communism’s “promise of equality”) now have the reins of power, so don’t expect any change to your servitude soon. Rather, expect it to get a lot worse.

        BTW: I’m NOT down-voting. Haven’t even up-voted on this particular comment-stream.

  • Near Earth Object

    “37 minutes of hard truth from a man that inexplicably just keeps getting better. PE”

    And the evidence for your claim…
    This thread is just littered with down-votes.
    Major General Barbarossaaa has to be hitting yet another tender spot.

    I have not watched the video yet—off to dinner and a movie with The Squeeze—but it is priority one when I return.

    Someone FaceBook Joel…
    I highly doubt it, but one of these “trolls” may conjure up the requisite courage to actually SAY something.

    • Near Earth Object

      “I highly doubt it, but one of these “trolls” may conjure up the requisite courage to actually SAY something.”

      Come on you down-voting troll…
      use your “outside words”! :)

      • Near Earth Object

        Come on you down-voting troll…
        use your “outside words”!

        Shall I begin by teaching you the alphabet?

        And then we can move onto the small words :)

        • Near Earth Object

          “Shall I begin by teaching you the alphabet?”

          ‘A’ is the first letter in the alphabet.



          You are an asshat. :)

        • Near Earth Object

          The third letter in the alphabet is ‘C’.



          Clueless is a newly minted synonym for feminist.

      • Near Earth Object

        ‘B’ is the second letter in the alphabet.



        You demonstrate how very butthurt you are, when you rendezvous at one of my replies for a collective down-vote. :)

        • Grumpy Old Man

          Dang NEO, stop talking to yourself! :)

          • Near Earth Object

            Your point is not lost on me, GOM.

            Attempting to converse with down-voting feminists, who are too “askeerd” to use their out-side words, is not unlike having a conversation with one’s self.


  • keyster

    Hold the friggin’ phone!

    Some D-List “TradCons” that no one’s ever heard of on an obscure web site claim men aren’t men anymore because they aren’t protecting women – and this is supposed to be proof that “traditionalists” are bad for men’s rights?

    Maybe Bill Bennett will write an article for CNN shaming men soon, just to prove it’s a trend. One can only hope.

    • Fredrik

      Are you for real? As an ex-Republican, ex-Catholic, ex-conservative, I know exactly how much tradcons value men. If you’re lucky, someone will put a $1 yellow ribbon magnet (made in China) on their black SUV, until it fades and looks tacky and has to be removed.

      They can barely even stand to credit the sacrifices of men anymore — and even if they did, that would just be encouraging male disposability. They never even hint at any kind of intrinsic value for the lives of men and boys.

      The death of a woman is either a tragedy (the poor victim!) or a tragedy (the poor misguided soul!). The death of a man is either awesome (the brave hero!) or awesome (the fucking scum!). How much clearer does it need to be?

  • HieronymusBraintree

    Wow. That was totally brilliant.

  • Disorderly Conduct

    Has he stopped censoring people who criticize his videos?

    • Booyah

      barbarossaa has clearly stated why he censors dissenters in one of his videos. His reasoning is he is not interested in the opposing viewpoint and would rather spend the time educating men than using his limited spare time arguing with the dominant narrative. The feminist view is well documented and entrenched in society, it needs no publicity and I would agree that it is a waste of time he could be using to produce the excellent videos so many of us enjoy and grow from.

      His interest is in helping men, not arguing with gender ideologues who will not listen to any rational exchange of ideas anyhow. In fact he found himself having to counter the same non arguments over and over again. He also clearly stated he would do this before he started doing it. Also he is MGTOW foremost and MRA second. MGTOW is more interested in avoiding the broken system than circle jerk arguments with feminists. So really his censorship policy is in line with that.

      Things like the ongoing circus at University of Toronto prove exactly how right he was in that call. Look at how big red “discussed” the issues….

      • Disorderly Conduct

        That’s a bullshit excuse. MRAs criticize feminists all the time of performing censorship on opposing viewpoints, but when “one of our own” does it everyone looks the other way. It’s a double standard, and it goes against everything the MHRM stands for. GWW has stupid debates going on in her videos all the time but she has maintained her non-censorship policy with integrity, and all her points still stand. If his videos are really that brilliant they’ll stand on their own without him resorting to censoring anyone who disagrees with him. If he wants a “safe space for men” he should create a private forum for it, not a public youtube channel where he can spout out whatever he wants and silence anyone who calls him out.

        By the way, he censors anyone who says NAWALT. Not “not all feminists”, “not all WOMEN”. It’s no different than radscum championing “all men are bastards/rapists”, and moderate feminists cheering them on. I don’t care how much abuse a person has experienced at the hands of the other gender, by giving them a platform to speak their bigotry you are encouraging and exacerbating discriminatory and dangerous beliefs that they should be seeking professional help for. If you want to criticize a biased ideology that virtually all feminists are guilty of following that’s debatably fine, but demonizing an entire group of people based on what they were born as is NEVER. ACCEPTABLE.

        • Booyah

          That is totally laughable when you can not even rate down the paid drivel pumped out by feminist frequency, who IS advocating for global and political change which does affect all of society. Barbarossaa’s work is a free community service on an alternative society to men willing to listen. Note the difference one demands compliance from the masses, the other is a choice.

          I repeat barbarossaa is MGTOW not MRA. His motivation is to avoid the system and to educate other men in the pitfalls that they face if they embrace the system. Feminism has no say in MGTOW. Essentially they have handed society to feminism and only ask for their own space away from the feminist. That is perfectly reasonable and if they no longer even wish to participate in a feminist world, why on Earth would they wish to discuss things with feminists?

          It essentially boils down to “okay you guys can have all the goodies, now just leave me alone.” The fact that this position causes outrage in feminists who also consider men who embrace relationships with women default rapists really demonstrates how men are in no mans land with the feminist movement. You’re evil no matter what you do.

          Why they heck should a MGTOW have to defend his position against feminists? The short answer is he shouldn’t and babarossaa refuses to.

          I do see your point. Big red shows what happens when everyone talks and no-one listens, however MGTOW is not about political change and as such barbarossaa is not in a place where he has to defend his position.

          • Booyah

            On the NAWALT part, he himself admits in all his videos NAWALT so NAWALT deflections are somewhat redundant. In my own mind the issue isn’t NAWALT its that the law provides the opportunity for all women to be like that. If women are not like that why do we have legislation they have demanded enabling them to be like that? Furthermore many women that are in fact like that simply use a mechanism to project their misdeeds onto the victim (man) and will still claim that they are not like that. How often do you actually see a woman taking accountability for destroying her relationship? I can’t recall ever seeing it in the myriad of online discussions on relationships I’ve witnessed. It’s always his fault and she is not like that. In fact to observe women speaking on relationships (outside the MRM) you would conclude that no women are like that. Yes NAWALT obviously exists. I’ve experienced it personally and the presence of women in the MRM is ample evidence, many of whom have both my gratitude and respect, but its a dangerous game to gamble on.

          • Near Earth Object

            “Barbarossaa’s work is a free community service on an alternative society to men willing to listen.”

            I am indebted to this man, and Stardusk as well.

            I go. I listen. I think about it. I communicate my satisfaction or dissatisfaction (never happened yet) with a thumbs up or down (never happened yet).

            Both of these men have lives and they are very busy, but they give the time to help their fellow. I am grateful.

          • Disorderly Conduct

            If barbossaaa is not an MRA then the MHRM should not associate itself with him. The MHRM is an egalitarian movement. Barbossaaa is not an egalitarian.

            Barb claimed in his NAWALT video that “MOST women are like that. MOST women initiate divorce and then proceed to steal money and assets that do not belong to them”. This is misleading, because 70%* of marriages don’t even end in divorce, 40%* of women won’t even get married, and I haven’t actually seen any statistic that proves most marriages end in unfair settlements. I’ll probably get the number wrong if I try to estimate the total % of women who do commit this injustice, but I’m damn well sure it’s nowhere near “most”.

            Of course, divorce settlements are still a major problem for men despite this, but fluffing up data with pseudoscience is how gender feminists keep women bent over in submission to their agenda when the problem is much less severe than they’re making it out to be. I’d inform him of this fact myself, but as he said, he’ll block me if I try (ANY mention of NAWALT = warning then block, real facts be fucked). Similar to rape hysteria, he’s fear-mongering to a group of people vulnerable to exploitation by it and creating an environment falsely portrayed to be more dangerous than it really is – and worst of all, he’s preventing others from making them aware of it. It’s a disservice to both the men’s rights movement and the male gender in general.

  • Malestrom

    While I am a fan of Barbarossaaa and have a lot of time for much of what he says and writes, I think that his recommendations and predictions for the future are becoming too theoretical and losing any anchoring in the real world. The simple fact as I see it, is that a return to traditionalism really is the endgame, this is whether any of us like it or not. It will not come about because we push for it, it will not come about because of bufoons like the three in the clip he showed, it will be reinstituted by the same force that brought it into being in the first place; neccessity.

    Simply put, it fell to pieces because the world men created, the safe world of technology and machinery, devoid of starvation and predators, where it is possible to earn a living answering phones or manipulating a keyboard in an air conditioned office, removed the need for women to any longer aquiesce to any of the demands it placed on them. Well, the living standard of the West will, in the very near future, fall precipitously and dramatically below that level as our consumption is brought by market forces back in line with our production. Basically, once society becomes wealthy enough women don’t need men anymore, but we aren’t going to be that wealthy for much longer. And for all of you who are going to say ”I won’t go back to the old sex roles”, fine, good for you, neither will I, but the overwhelming majority of men will and you know it. Think about how hard it is now to convince men that women have essentially turned on them, this is when they’re in the act of doing it, think how quickly women are going to shut the fuck up and fall back into line once things like food and safety are no longer gauranteed? Think how hard it will be then, to convince the everyman that his wife looks at him as an appliance. If he won’t believe it as she takes him to the cleaners in a divorce court and steals his children how is he going to believe it when she’s smiling sweetly and playing the adoring helpmeet?

    There’s no further progress down this road, we’ll soon be forced back as the threats and demands of nature, kept at bay by wealth and technology, reassert themselves.

    • Theaverageman

      I respectfully disagree.

      I don’t see how humanity would suddenly plunge into the stone age again. We’re programmed to be utilities however it isn’t a genetic destiny, as the MHRM grows so will practitioners of zeta masculinity. Recal from the myth of male power that stage one societies only existed when technology wasn’t available to the average person.

      • Malestrom

        We dont have to go back to the Stone age, it will be sufficient to go back to a time where if you do not work you do not get to eat or wear clothes and where working = producing something.

        Besides which, ‘zeta masculinity’ is all about starving the beast right? Well what if it succeeds? We’ve starved the beast, society collapses because men no longer exert the collective effort needed to maintain it, what then?

        • tallwheel

          Although I love everything Barbarossaaaa is saying in the video, and I’m not a traditionalist by any means, I have to agree with you, Malestrom, that I unfortunately see a return to traditionalism as being more likely than all men(/women) “waking up” and rejecting chivalry/male disposability. (I really hope I’m wrong and Barbarossaaaa is right though.)

          We humans are much more flawed as a species than most of us care to admit. As GWW has often put it, our brains are running very old software/hardware and a lot of that is pretty much impossible to reprogram. Although our technology keeps getting better, you can see plenty of mistakes throughout human history that keep repeating. Even if most men wake up in the near future, I think traditionalism will probably have a resurgence eventually – even if society doesn’t get blown into the stone age.

          Maybe I’m just a pessimist. Again, I hope Barbarossssaaaaaaa is right.


    Brilliant video!

    I am posting this video on as many high school facebook pages as can.

    We need young men (teens) understanding the content of this video at a deep level.

    • Poester99

      lol.. how many have defriended you?

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Traditionalism and its definition aside, as a father and husband my family will be the first on the life boats. I would respect this position with other men if they respected my position, esp. if we are on a sinking ship. I believe that is the genesis of the women and children first idea. With this said I do not abide by Barbies opinions in this video. He has never been married or been a father as far as I can tell based on listening to his videos and therefore in my mind he would never understand the bond I have with my wife and particularly my children. The only leverage I’d have in keeping my wife on the life boat would be the care of our children, unless it is the last seat and it is needed for a child. I would be the guy saying women and children first based on one thing, he would be the guy saying no for another. This would put him at war with the men who have children in a crisis situation such as a boat sinking and it would have nothing to do with his premise. His view is too narrow on the social mechanics. Now if you think I’m a mangina or white knight for this, you’d be very wrong. Just saying.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Grumpy, what if you are on that sinking ship without your family… would you be a sacrificail sycophant unto-death for childless women whom you have no connection with? Y’now, like the staff and many of the passengers on the Titanic? THIS is the point Barbarossaaa is making, didnt you get that? Are you a tradcon feeling defensive about his logic re respecting male life? I won’t assume but will be interested in your answer.

      • Grumpy Old Man

        LoL, I’d probably be throwing kids around left and right!

        I’m not disputing all of Barbie’s notions that is why I’m not debating line for line. I see where he is coming from.

        I’m just asking viewers to take a Father’s/parent’s perspective, which I’m sure would change the way folks view or interpret this video.

        The two comments I challenged specifically are pure prejudice and hateful on his part in my opinion

        • Peter Wright (Tawil)

          As a father who raised two children as a full-time sole parent, and who is fiercely protective of them, let me say of course I agree I’d do the same- protect my kids. However that is not the basis of “Women and children first”…. it isn’t about fathers, its about all men sacrificing to all women.

          So while I take you point, I think its a cheap shot at Barb (whom you insultingly call “Barbie” without clear reason) to say he’s childless…. I have kids and i totally get his logic. And in his defense he was very clear that he thought it rediculous to be asked to save people he “didn’t care about” – the implication being that if he did care about a particular female passenger he would feel differently. Moreover, he made it clear that women were being preferenced for saving over kids. Did you even listen to it?

          • Grumpy Old Man

            Thx, I’m just pointing out that there is much more to the simplistic story being told, on the Titanic or other.

            We can all scream about this “women and children first” idea, but I think it goes deeper than some guy feeling he is being slighted.

          • Peter Wright (Tawil)

            Deeper, how? The ‘protecting your family’ motive only covers a tiny portion of male sacrifice for women.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            As I said, I’m not here to challenge all od Barbie’s notions…just the ones I mentioned and the fact that he made hateful and angry comments to a particular group of people.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            OK, let me be clear, If there are TRADCONs out there who believe what they do, these comments are disrespectful, hateful and bigoted. If this type of name calling is acceptable to you whether it pertains to men, women or whoever, that’s on you. The down votes are of no concern to me or what I believe. I’m standing on my words. P.S. We call that being a man!

            “Self hating traditional imbeciles” “Disingenuous family Values”

        • Peter Wright (Tawil)

          Where on earth do you get prejudice and hate from his video? Please be specific about which “particular group of people” you think he is unfairly hating on, or you wont make sense. Are you saying that his critique of one *specific behaviour* of social conservatives is the “hate” part? Y’now, the sacrificing your life for undeserving women part? What exactly is it that bothers you? Trying to understand here.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            Here is my quote from a previous post on this thread…please review: “Self hating traditional imbeciles” “Disingenuous family Values”.

          • Peter Wright (Tawil)

            I seriously don’t get your point… but I’ve dwelt on it long enough so will move on. I’ll assume you hold tradcon values and you took it all very personally, feelings-wise.


          • Grumpy Old Man

            LoL, you’re going to pigeonhole me on this TRADCON BS too. His comments (which I quoted) were pretty hateful regardless of my personal beliefs. Nice little jink you did there.

          • Peter Wright (Tawil)

            No no, I clearly said I would “assume” you were, not “pigeon hole”, simply because I cant understand your argument, or more accurately you have not made one. So I’ll continue to assume unless you can be clearer.

            Barb was slandering tradcons for a specific kind of behaviour, and with him I’m willing to call tradcons fucktards for their lack of regard for male life and thier worship of undeserving females.

            Other than that I actually respect many elements of tradcon belief and live by them myself, so where does that leave you, Grumpy?

            Make yourself clear or drop it… you have not made a believable case and you appear to be expressing nothing more than emotion at this point. If you have a logical argument, make it.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            No Mr. I have been clear…you need to make yourself clear!

          • Peter Wright (Tawil)

            Whether or not I have been clear and correct about your lack of logical argument i’ll leave for others to judge. :-)

          • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

            Mr Grumpy.

            You are looking at this issue after watching the film in your head showing your protective nature to your kids only.

            What a greater movie there is right before you, yet your eyes are clamped tighter than the pursed lips of a prudent Victorian gentleman. Your thoughts are understandable, yet they do not a template build. In other words, your stance has been battered to a narrowness that excludes all other points of view, and to be sure they reflect your own eyes looking right back at you and nothing else.

            You don’t get it. You will sometime I hope, and when that day comes perhaps you can step down from your long legged mule and admit it.

            Narrow? That’s you, not the video of a broader and more telling brush from Barbarossaaa.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            Thank you for the feedback. I expressed my perspective from that long legged mule and stated as such. I am not in disagreement with the message in the main and this I want to be clear about. I do take exception to the flaming comments made at the end (which I quoted in a previous comment) on motive and individual perspectives. As a movement the MHRM will have many men from differing perspectives and backgrounds. When I listen to Barbie I get it bit I also see anger towards a group of men which I do not accept. It’s not just the disapproval/disagreement but the vitriol I take exception to.

        • sadman365

          can you STFU and stop calling him Barbie?

          • Grumpy Old Man

            Barbie came from his YT channel and those that watch him…You should know that! Being a fan and all.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    “Self hating traditional imbeciles” “Disingenuous family Values” WTF. I’m sorry right there Barbie lost me…by circumstance I’m in the position I’m in and this shows exactly his blind spot to what is meaningful to men like me who chose to be married and have children. His blatant disrespect for them is clear and has nothing to do with others who chose another path.

    To give your life for someone is not about the afterlife, women, or children it is about what you can live with in this life, I know I put my ass out there and nearly killed myself to save another “Man”. I suspect if I was in the position with my wife and kids or one of my fellow men’s wife and kids it would be the same.

    • Theaverageman

      The problem is men don’t have a choice, if you aren’t willing to die for a woman you’re not a “man”.You may disagree with barb but you can’t challenge the status quo without pointing out everything that you perceive is wrong with it.People like you will keep on living their lives as they wish (which you should be able to)but for others they don’t see any alternative.

      • Grumpy Old Man

        “People like me”? You mean a father who understands that bond and will put my children and their care including respecting another’s children and their care ahead of my own. To be clear on my position!

    • tallwheel

      What about your life? Isn’t it important too? Why should it be only the men who are expected to risk their lives to protect other men, women, and children? Shouldn’t your wife, and other men’s wives, have the same obligation to protect other women, you, and your children as well then? Oh wait, I forgot, women are weaker and that’s why it’s men’s obligation to protect them. Well, if that’s what gives your life meaning…

      Barbarosssaaaa is not blind to people such as yourself. The fact that he recognizes the existence of such traditional male values is exactly the reason why he made this video and others in the first place.

      • Grumpy Old Man

        You know very little about me, neither does Barbie. Try not to inject what you perceive a man like me is…

        As for meaning, yes my children and their care gives me my life meaning. Is there a problem with that?

        Now I shared another perspective from a fathers point of view, I made it very clear when I’d put my life behind another, do you have a sound argument for or against that or are you just pigeonholing with me with this TRADCON BS.

      • Grumpy Old Man

        Long answer to your questions:

        “What about your life? Isn’t it important too?”

        Yes, I set the value for my life in each instance. As I mentioned I risked it for another man once and if the situation arises I’d sacrifice my life for my children and other men’s children, If it included their care (mothers/fathers) that would be next in my priorities.

        “Why should it be only the men who are expected to risk their lives to protect other men, women, and children?”

        You need to read my entire 2 posts to see that my imperative is the children.

        “ Shouldn’t your wife, and other men’s wives, have the same obligation to protect other women, you, and your children as well then?”

        Yes/no, read my first of two posts.

        “Oh wait, I forgot, women are weaker and that’s why it’s men’s obligation to protect them.”

        This is a smart ass comment with no relationship to my position.

        “Well, if that’s what gives your life meaning…”

        My children give my life meaning in addition to many other things! Is there a problem with that?

        “Barbarosssaaaa is not blind to people such as yourself. The fact that he recognizes the existence of such traditional male values is exactly the reason why he made this video and others in the first place.”

        I’m not expressing Traditional male roles…I’m expressing fatherhood! In this respect Barbie is blind as fuck!

        • sadman365

          You really need to shut the f**k up now. A wolf in a sheep’s skin. Aren’t you?

          • Grumpy Old Man

            Kiss my aXX unless you have something tangible to add.

  • Redfield

    Perhaps this behaviour by males is in essence putting themselves, more specifically the gender in the position of guardianship or custodians of societal power by elevating maleness to the imperative to self sacrifice, or is it? As a mating strategy it is a fairly redundant behaviour because when you’re dead so is your ability to pass on your genes to the next generation.

    The mating strategy may only really exist in the words of men, like a guarantee, an insurance policy that says when push comes to shove I will pay up by sacrificing my genetic line by insuring your genetic line gets passed on … So as a biological imperative it is redundant!

    But is a successful biological imperative for men that go to war and survive! In the case of the 1st world war men on their return home would have been able to pick a mate with far less competition than four years earlier … But again as a biological imperative the risks would far out way the benefits.

    But for a woman, the biological imperatives are clear, survival and the opportunity to pass on their genetic information to the next generation! So does this explain the white feather brigade of the 1st World War by women?? And why a larger percentage of children than women perished on the Titanic, because they were not at an age to pass on their genetic information to the next generation, and the biological imperative of breeding females outweighed that of children?

    So wouldn’t it be an investment by women to shame men into acts of chivalry to ensure their own genetic information gets passed on?

    Clearly for the majority of males, chivalry as a biological imperative is bovine faeces (bullshit), and is pursued and enforced by females and males (with political power) that are advantaged by a culled male population after a war!

    Perhaps what we are seeing now is a re-alignment of the biological imperative to where it has always been in our evolution??

  • Perseus

    Having blown chunks all over the room after viewing that intro clip …

    A monumental fuck yes. Agape, Barbarossssa.

    MHRA, MGTOW and other like male advocators rejecting feminism is counter cultural. Feminism may be considered to be roughly anywhere from a 50 to 150 year old movement, really coming to a head in the last 50 years. Traditionalism, however you want to define that, goes back to medieval times.. civilization itself.. the beginning of time? So rejecting traditionalism may be considered in a way more radical a notion than rejecting feminism? But this brings us to a good point to note the value in clearly defining what we mean by traditionalism. That’s not to say that the video at top didn’t do so abundantly, but maybe it was more illustrative than articulately definitive. So it seems that our working definition of traditionalism is gynocentrism, misandry and male disposability, and of course the same definition applies to feminism. So this is naturally and elegantly consistent. So the upshot is that what we are doing here, in this movement, is totally revolutionary. Something maybe never before seen in society? For males to be treated equally to females with regard to the law, human dignity and worth? I mean you have to sort of step back and look at that in a bit of awe as no minor ambition. Is it even feasible based on the physical biology? Can it be done? And what the hell will it look like? How will it work? How will males and females negotiate conflicting interests? …No less than this is the great endeavor in which we find ourselves..

    To quote an old friend here, with fraternal love to all my brother suffering

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Let me add to this thread, Bigotry under any guise, whether you justify it or not is not acceptable. Men’s rights should not be selective, be it TRADCON, SOCON, NOCON, or how ever else you want to classify it. Men are men, when you start to dissect them based on their beliefs/ideology it becomes something else. Feminism.

    • Dr. F (Ian Williams)


      It’s plain that a nerve has been plucked in you and this tells more about your “being a man”, as you say, than your words themselves.

      Is it assumed that being a tradcon is good or bad?

      This is the question that can bear more edible fruit on it than anyone who binds their identity as a tradon with the assumption that that way of being is best.

      The deeply cut flaw in your post is where you conflate bigotry with the MHRA selection of who “qualifies”. To take your position would I be bigoted to exclude neo Nazis, Gypsy-haters, the deranged and feminists? Is it wrong or bigoted to close the door on those folk who want “admission” and their want of being folded into our ranks?

      If that is bigotry then yes so be it, I am guilty because I select those sorts out when I make an assumption as to what makes an MHRA. As for the other bit where you say, “men are men” well yes we are aware of that and your saying that without subsequent building upon it means nothing. It’s just a phrase and no more.

      “Men are men” can be taken as a title for a feminist website, a juice factory or a book all about gardening without gloves. It’s fluff without legs.

      It is not the way of this organisation to rhetorically assume that all questions have been addressed, yet you proffer yourself as someone who has all the answers. You don’t and nor do I. This video stands as someone who uses inquiry, with its own take on the matter. It is done with a grace and intelligence that begs discussion only. Your absolute defiance with revulsion and focusing on a word here and there exposes rigidity of position. Yours.

      “Self hating traditional imbeciles” as Barbarossaaa says refers only to the negative behaviour of socons and trads and not to the totality of their beliefs.

      This is the point you are refusing to acknowledge as seen through your emotive lens smeared in Vaseline.

      • Grumpy Old Man

        In this we’ve passed each other bows.

        • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

          We have and my boat’s robust. I wish you luck with yours.

      • Grumpy Old Man

        Manhood is a funny thing it hurts to have it challenged for some…not so much for me. I have proven my worth in the only mind that counts and if I find the need to call something out I will do so with no trepidation. Nor will I fall into group think and let hate speech slide. There is a difference between expressing a hatred of a belief/ideology; Feminism and expressing a hatred for the individuals that follow that belief/ideology; women. Let’s contextualize this:

        “Self hating traditional imbeciles”

        Or maybe: “Self hating male imbeciles”

        Or: “Self hating female imbeciles”

        In reference to the men he opposes: “These Traditionalist white knight monkeys”

        Now if I were leading an organization, which I have on several occasions and have a diverse group of people from many backgrounds. These words would be deemed inflammatory, bigoted, hateful and not appropriate. These comments set a negative tone with me for the position Barbie took in this video, even though I’m on board with his male disposability and traditional values message. Consider that feedback.

        I’m not sure if we have Neo Nazis or Gypsy haters here and I’m sure if they show their bigotry they’d be sent to the door as with any other who wishes to express those types of sentiments. So conflating bigotry I see with these groups is appropriate. The point is it can only be identified if expressed therefore “men are men” until they demonstrate otherwise. That demonstration and discrimination of it will be based on the behavior not the fact they are men. It’s funny this comment is in contention because Barbie expresses the same sentiment in this video…”Were not real men, we’re not good men, we are just men”. I’m assuming this is until proven otherwise.

        My position, as narrow as it was, is based on how I believe me and other men (fathers) would react in a similar situation identified in this video. Not Chivalry or traditionalism but paternalism if you will. Barbie mentions this parental responsibility to children in this video. It is simply another layer to the tapestry of understanding male disposability, nothing more, nothing less and certainly does not detract from the other messages in the video. To pigeonhole it or claim it is from a TRADCON position or ideology is to dismiss it. The responses to my input were to challenge or refute and not to include or understand:”What would you do if your family was not with you”. “Men do not have a choice…” etc.

        Let’s go even further into this video. Barbie makes the observation that the numbers of women Vis children who survived on the Titanic is based on his assertion that women put themselves ahead of children; “women saw fit to save themselves over children by 22%…” “…selective pandering to the female”. Could it possibly have been due to the class provisions of the day in which mothers and fathers with children were more likely to be in steerage as opposed to the higher class accommodations? Again without researching this in detail it seems he came to a biased if not bigoted conclusion: “many Third Class men were wandering along Scotland Road, while many Third Class women and families remained in the Third Class General Room or Dining Room.” With this I’d go even further to say he is not only bigoted to TRADCON men but women in general too.

        Christians: “If you wonder why men are leaving your corrupt pussy worshiping churches in droves”. Now I’m not a Christian but I’d get pretty sideways at this generalization if I was.

        How about that Higher IQ argument: The last I checked both men and women with educations tend to stay married longer, have healthier marriages and have fewer children. Their focus is on the quality of life of their children and themselves. Is this a bad thing in the broader view of things…less world population, higher standard of living etc? Most poor countries do not have these same options for many reasons and it is not about having more or less intelligent women. Then he goes on to argue about women who stay at home Vis working women having less developed intelligence. WTF? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…think about it a bit! “Brood mare”, offsetting his argument about intelligent women who work with slamming women who chose to raise children? A little bigotry maybe?

        Now, I’m all in to men’s rights and illuminating the falsehoods of feminist/Traditional ideology and gynocentrism to improve all our status. The three men mentioned in this video are clearly miss guided and one of which I know is in his fifties and never been married…but I’m not interested in hearing it from someone who clearly has a stick up his arse. I don’t proclaim to have all the answers as you imply but I do know the road that does not.

        • Peter Wright (Tawil)

          Your concerns make some sense now that you’ve explained them in detail. I don’t agree with everything you’ve said but I havn’t got the energy or desire to debate it.

          You’ve devoted a lot of attention to what you see as the flaws in him and his talk, but devoted almost nothing to the positives other than a few one-sentence crumbs. You came off as needlessly aggressive and hateful yourself. I think thats why you got the reaction you did, it appears unbalanced regardless of the merits of your concerns.

          Anyways you are welcome to your views, and I’ve got nothing further to add.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            That’s probably because I’m being lazy… As far as the positives, that’s on him and his listeners to discern. He’s lost credibility with me so I find it hard to support his video. Aggression is only that passion that moves me to call out the BS as I see it. Now I’ve seen enough BS and tend not to feel the need to defend myself. Then again I’m also use to people who know me and understand there is much more thought to my ranting than meets the eye. It is what it is.

            As far as debate…I’m with you on that and tend to throw my thoughts out there for consideration only.

            Funny, most do not consider me a hateful man.

          • Peter Wright (Tawil)

            I don’t think of you as a hateful man, I don’t get that from most of your posts. I was referring to your feelings about barbarossaaa (or “Barbie” as you call him).

        • Fredrik

          The class differences are quite obvious, and pointing them out shows a missing of the point.

          For a counter-example, the upper class kid who died was because the family was looking for the baby that the nanny had already taken onto a lifeboat. So it was an excess of care.

          But for so many lower-class kids to have died, middle- and upper-class women must’ve deemed themselves more important. Yes class mattered, and that’s quite the point. Or didn’t you get it?

          • Grumpy Old Man

            EH? I’m talking about access to the life boats. Or didn’t you get it?

          • Grumpy Old Man

            You need to go read the stats again…

  • sadman365

    I love this guy’s videos.
    These three despicable self-hating, pussy BEGGING worthless gendercide supporting white knights can go to hell along with every piece of shit sorry ass of a human who shares their views and approves of them.

    Barbarossaa is 1000% right. Chivalry is all about pussy begging and worshiping. It has NOTHING to do with bravery or being honorable. If it were, those who like to call themselves chivalrous would -and SHOULD- be just as willing to also sacrifice their lives to save men or at least come to the rescue of weak men who are defenseless against much stronger men (in a fight for example). But apparently those brainless “chivalrous” morons only apply their values that they’re so proud of if the victim happens to have a vagina, as if having a penis excludes you from being a human altogether not worthy of their help. Little do these idiots know that they’re no better than DOGS that have been trained to react in certain situations and attack without even knowing why.

    A video like this should be mandatory for all boys before garbage like “chivalry” and “women and children first” is instilled in them. This (childhood) is the stage in life when all self-hating, self-sacrificing -although I know most of them would never really sacrifice their lives- manginas and white knights are made.

    Thank god I don’t have children -and never will- but if I had them I’d MAKE them watch this video every day until it’s engraved in their minds….FOREVER. But I hope you here who have children make sure you do this.

    One thing though, come to think of it, those men who went down with the ship deserved it I think. If you are some idiot who thinks your life is worth less than that of a woman or a child or their lives are worth more than yours, then I think you DESERVE TO LOSE YOUR LIFE. I think of it as a positive thing – less self-hating brainless men to deal with. So, good riddance.
    But to those men who were forced or shamed into doing it, I hope they RIP, although I’m sure if they all stood united no mangina (or woman) would EVER be able to shame them into sacrificing themselves.

    Seeing how society looks at men (disposable cannon fodder whose lives are worth less than the lives of dogs…) was the reason why I choose not to be an organ donor. HELL NO.