Transcription
Thank you to Climate Power for sponsoring this video. I'm not sure why, but I had a hunch that a book titled "Why Women Deserve Less" might not be, you know, good. But after reading it, it was actually pretty bad. I'm sure you can guess why.
So, why in the hecking world would a good, SJW, transgendered, lib cuck soy jerk like me even interact with such obviously fallacious ideas as if they had any legitimacy? I get it. But today, I'm not here to spread the SJW, transgendered, lib cuck soy jerk agenda. Well, only in the subliminal messaging. Instead, let's try to understand the social conditions that made this book possible. In other words, we have to think like sociologists.
In the world of sociology, we often intentionally seek out the opinions of people we know to be morally questionable, ignorant, and sometimes, is really smelly. PE. You sociologists purposely seek to understand all types of people because even the most bigoted and fringe perspective tells us something about the social world that created it, and us.
Do you know what else affects all of us? Climate change. Toxic masculinity isn't the only toxicity affecting the health and wellness of our communities. That's why I've partnered with this video sponsor, Climate Power, to spread awareness about how the clean energy bill passed into law last year helps the environment, and how we can keep this momentum to maintain a positive future for the communities near our hearts.
The clean energy bill dedicated $369 billion to, you guessed it, clean energy. But it also creates jobs and lowers costs for marginalized communities. Clean energy jobs are especially growing in communities of color. I know a lot of you guys are fellow Latinos, and in the Latino community alone, clean energy projects are creating 46,660 clean energy jobs in states like Arizona, Nevada, Texas, California, and Colorado.
As a SoCal native, I've always been told that all we Californians have to worry about is earthquakes and traffic. But recently, we experienced a hurricane and an earthquake at the same time. Um, though extreme weather events aren't an everyday thing now, eventually, you will be affected one way or another. Every year, you might notice yourself turning on your AC more and more for extreme heat waves. July 2023 was the hottest month on record. That's a lot of extra money on the energy bill.
Research shows that of those households who report struggling to pay their energy bills, 40% are Latino and 50% are Black. Our communities continue to be the most vulnerable in the face of the climate crisis. We must continuously support meaningful efforts to combat climate change and environmental injustice. If you care about climate, about our communities, and the ways the clean energy plan can meaningfully help combat the crisis, then text AVILA to 43464 to join the fight and protect the clean energy future. It's a super easy first step you can take right now. Again, that's AVILA to 43464.
When I told people I was reading "Why Women Deserve Less," their first reaction was, "That has to be bait, right?" And when I told them it wasn't bait, their second reaction wasn't one of shock, horror, or disgust. Instead, they asked, "So, what's their argument?" And these weren't men seeking to justify their hatred of women through a new provocative text. These were other progressives, some of them women who identified as feminists, curious to know how someone could live in the 21st century and say something that seems so obviously and universally wrong.
People want to know. And because of that curiosity, it's important to carefully talk about these ideas. Not because I think it's appropriate to debate whether or not women deserve less, but because when we understand the social conditions that made this book possible, we understand where to direct our movements for social change.
In this video, I won't be going over this book point by point to debunk every single claim. Rather, I think it's important to speak the context around it, the ways this book exemplifies a certain subjective experience of masculinity, especially pertinent at this particular moment. This book emerged in the context of 21st-century anxieties over masculinity, a moment in time some have been calling a crisis.
Recent articles in major outlets draw attention to epidemics of male loneliness and isolation. Fingers point in every direction as people look for someone to blame. It's women. It's men. "How are men supposed to grill when there's pronouns in the beer?" No one understands each other. No one wants to. The continuity in all of this, the belief in a sort of crisis of masculinity, all levels of society.
One recent social critic writes, "The whole generation is womanized. The masculine tone is passing out of the world. It's a feminine, a nervous, hysterical, chattering, canting age. An age of hollow phrases and false delicacy and exaggerated solicitudes and cal sensibilities, which if we don't soon look out, will usher in the reign of mediocrity, of the feeblest and flattest and the most, most pretentious that has ever been." The left blames capitalism, and the right blames cucks. Maybe they're on to something.
If only, if only we could return to a great and simpler past. A year like, I don't know, 1889, when society was in order, men were confident, and the world seemed full of possibilities. Oh, um, wait a second. That quote I just shared is actually from 1888-89, from the famous Henry James novel "The Bostonians." So why does it sound like it was typed by a Redditor with crumbs all over their keyboard?
You know what? Forget 1889. No way to microwave a Hot Pocket. What about the 1950s? An age of harmony, closeted gay fathers, and Cold Wars. Let's open up famous men's magazine *Esquire* to 1958 and check out some of that confident male wisdom that the 21st century desperately needs.
"What has happened to the American male? For a long time, he seemed utterly confident in his manhood, sure of his masculine role in society, easy and definite in his sense of sexual identity. The way by which American men affirm their masculinity are uncertain and obscure. There are multiplying signs indeed that something has gone badly wrong with the American male's conception of himself."
Oh, the crisis of American masculinity. God damn it. Even the 1950s. I thought they had their stuff figured out. I mean, what, what kind of problems are they even dealing with? "It appears no accident, for example, that the changing of sex, the Christine Jorgensen phenomenon, so fascinates our newspaper editors and readers, or that homosexuality, that incarnation of sexual ambiguity, should be enjoying a cultural boom new in our history. Such developments surely express a deeper tension about about the problem of sexual identity." H blaming the transgenders and gays, huh? I guess times never change. I should have known better than to romanticize a mythic past.
Before 5:00 p.m. Well, it seems like this crisis isn't going to resolve itself. People often criticize feminist movements for not speaking on men's issues as much as they probably should. One of these people was one of the most prolific feminist theorists of all time, Bell Hooks. She was so frustrated, in fact, that in 2004, she wrote a book called "The Will to Change: A Feminist Analysis of Men and Masculinity Under a Patriarchal Society." And even then, almost 20 years ago, she wrote with a sense of urgency about the need to address today's crisis of masculinity.
And I'm starting to think that maybe that's just what masculinity is. At least the mainstream version of masculinity. Maybe masculinity has always been in crisis and will always be in crisis. We will never save or recover traditional masculinity because traditional masculinity depends on a perpetual crisis state. But why? How? What does that mean? Does that mean we have to give up on all men except for the niche internet micro-celebrity kind?
Well, I hate to break it to you, but uh, we live in a world, a society even. And for better or worse, men are a part of it. And it would do us well to understand why so many men for centuries have felt anger, isolation, and emptiness. How men can have power and still suffer because of it. And how men have taken out that suffering on others, particularly women. To have power is not to be healthy or happy or well. To be a successful man in a patriarchal and capitalist society is to excel at a game that doesn't actually intrinsically value your well-being or your mental health, but the ways you succeed and maintaining the dominant social system.
There are men who don't want to excel at that game and suffer because of it. Men who do want to excel but fail to excel and suffer. Does that suffering excuse any men's actions or make shitty men any less shitty? Of course not. But it's worth investigating. In the social sciences, when people report certain experiences, it's not the researcher's job to dismiss the participants' reality. We might interview someone who says, "I think women deserve less." And although in our hearts we might think that person has a horrible view, it isn't our job to tell them why they're wrong in that moment, at least. Instead, we try to understand the social contexts that make it possible for someone to believe such a thing.
In other cases, someone's views may not be directly horrible, but they might contradict established fact. We might interview someone who believes that the Earth is flat or that celery tastes good. And again, it's not our job to debunk them or to find out their secret nefarious intentions. We take their word at its face and uncover the discourses that make their feelings possible. And in discovering those conditions for possibility, social scientists uncover the tools for social change. That is what I want to do here.
Perhaps there isn't a problem with masculinity today. Maybe the structure of traditional masculinity lends itself to crisis, and to maintain the dominance of that tradition, masculinity must always be fragile. It must always be in crisis. To understand how this happens, I'm going to take you on a sociological journey through the life of a man. We'll cover all the greatest hits: exiting the canal, casual homophobia, capitalist alienation, and much more.
And I know that not every man lives the same life, experiences the world through the same identity, or even began their life in the world as a dude. As a transgendered individual, I didn't even start my path to broom until age 14. Horrible age to start being a guy, by the way. Every 14-year-old boy is a menace to himself and others. But hopefully, walking a sociological lifetime through a man's shoes might help us understand why so many men are broken and what breaks them. Them.
The process of being gendered under a patriarchal society creates deep psychic trauma in everyone. Trust me, I went through it twice. My only ask is that before you start tweeting, writing a blog post, or planning your podcast, let's all just put aside our assumptions for a moment. Let's forget everything we know, everything we've ever lived, everything we feel, and start over.
It's a boy. Hey, welcome to the world, little guy. Well, hope you're happy with the gender category we just gave you, 'cause it'll affect every aspect of your waking life for the rest of your conscious and unconscious experience. Damn, 5 seconds of a human life, and they start by giving you a gender. What? They're not even gonna offer you a beer or anything? This place sucks.
Though we like to think that the whole idea of male and female categories determining your entire life trajectory is a little out of fashion, elements of the idea still persist throughout all of society. It's a widely held belief that this thing we call biological gender fundamentally separates the people we call men and women. According to a 2017 survey, nearly half of all people still attribute differences in emotional expression, workplace abilities, and personal interests to this nebulous little concept that we call biological difference.
And hey, half of all people, I get it. You know, I didn't take testosterone for nothing. Testosterone roughened my skin, and my body now produces enough grease to fry an egg. Given these average differences, the feelings of an essential difference between men and women feel like common sense. But there's a reason that sociologists across the board claim that gender is a social construct.
Puzz word alert. Now, when I say social construct, I mean a thing, concept, framework, or idea that humans invented through communication. And if we really want to get rock and roll in, I could have stopped that sentence at "a thing, concept, framework, or idea," thereby making everything a social construct. Because nothing in this world exists with its name written on it. We, as humans, draw boundaries around things we call objects and then give the objects names and connotations.
If we look at all the stars in the night sky, we might see a bunch of dots. But people, over the course of our messy history, have given those dots stories, meanings, things we call constellations. This one is the Big Dipper. This one over here is Orion. And even though the stars that constitute Orion exist, even though we can measure and observe the physical matter that makes Orion possible, Orion is a social construct. Humans decided that this particular clump of matter means something to us. Orion might appear in our stories, we might feel attached to Orion, we may have memories of loved ones pointing Orion out to us on a wonderful night. And although through these experiences, Orion has become a real part of our lives, Orion is simultaneously a socially constructed concept.
In the same way, gender is also a social concept construct. But unlike a star, gender is a concept that has more direct and significant effects on human life and consciousness. People possess more attachments to gender since it's much more personal and political. And thus, a statement like "gender is a social construct" causes even the most reasonable person to scream, cry, throw up, and start a podcast.
So, before we get on with our guy life and get to the bottom of this crisis of masculinity, we have to thoroughly understand a fundamental component of that guy life: gender. First, I think we can all agree that gender roles and expectations are at least partially socially determined. Here's that famous picture of President Franklin D. Roosevelt rocking a dress because at the time, it was socially acceptable for boys to do that, and now it isn't. Powerful social institutions shape our expectations of gender difference.
Even the red pill, "Why Women Deserve Less," people believe in the power of institutions to create our social reality. Just in the opposite direction. Society, through these various institutions, must convince women that traditionalism is bad and that there is a much better life for them. It's interesting how the author can simultaneously believe that biological hardwiring is an insurmountable force, yet institutions can so easily convince women to go against their alleged programming. The point is, we all believe in the power of institutions to create gender as we know it. It's undeniable. Yet, some people still believe that we're born with unchanging biological essences that hardwire us to be a certain way, and that our society should reflect our innate biological beings.
There are two major problems with this. Even if we were to assume that we have gendered biological programming, there's no reason to structure society around that programming. There's a crucial difference between observing an empirical reality and the actions you take in light of that observation. Just because we may have certain predispositions doesn't mean that we should structure society around those predispositions. Humans are predisposed to enjoy foods with high fat and sugar content, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we should eat pizza and ice cream for breakfast. Just because something is, doesn't mean something ought to be.
But that's assuming that gender exists in the way the biological account suggests that it does, which brings me to the second problem with the biological account of gender: the operationalization problem. What does it mean to operationalize something? Well, some things in this world aren't directly measurable or observable. They might be too abstract or complex. Say, for example, we want to measure whether or not someone is healthy. Healthy isn't really a thing that we can directly measure. There's no health bar that tells us how many health points people have. Different people consider different things healthy, and so we make choices as a society and operationalize abstract concepts like health by turning the concept into a set of measurable characteristics that we think gets at the idea of health.
While we can't measure health directly, we can measure something like blood pressure, signs of disease, heart rate, body temperature, and a host of other characteristics. But then you might see the problem: who gets to decide what constitutes a healthy person? A person might have perfect blood pressure but experience debilitating anxiety that doesn't show up on an X-ray. What if your BMI says that your weight is unhealthily obese, but you're a weightlifter carrying extra weight and muscle mass? Or what if you're from a culture whose conception of health rejects these instrumental measurements altogether and instead evaluates well-being in relation to one's ability to fulfill a specific relationship to the natural world? No, no, just spitballing.
The reason this is all so tricky is because abstract concepts like health are social constructs. But even if measuring heart rate points to a real process that happens in a material reality, our decision to measure heart rate and then use it to tell us about this abstract thing we call health only exists in a world where these measurements hold a social value. And you know, I think our concept of health was a banger in some areas, and so let's keep measuring those heartbeats and doing the doctor stuff. But the critical ability to ask these types of questions remains important as our values and needs as a society shift over time.
In the past, social norms tied the Western concept of the healthy individual with Christian piety and rules of propriety. But as our values shifted, we did away with understandings that no longer worked. Essentially, the world is complicated. We invent abstract concepts like health and then operationalize these abstract concepts into measurable variables so that we can work with abstract concepts. Health doesn't exist in some pure or essential form. You can't pee it out of a cup. Instead, we project our concept of health onto the world's material face.
You might see where I'm going with this. The concept of gender or sex isn't something that we find in nature in some pure essential form. Instead, we project the concept of gender onto the material world to make sense of its complexity. You might be thinking, "Um, but penis, vagina." And that's a fair point. But is gender really about those objects? It's been a while, but last I checked, people aren't born with "I am a man" or "I am a woman" written on their genitals. We, as a society, have assigned those labels onto those objects because we find utility in doing so.
At this particular moment, there might be another universe in which we find utility in dividing all of our societies into ginger and not ginger. Another universe where gingers live on one side of town, and where non-gingers disproportionately earn less money, and where we have contests in which the person whose hair looks the most like a ball of fire wins. And in this world, if anyone asks, "Um, why did we decide to divide the world by these socially constructed categories?" a member of ginger society might respond, "Um, ginger isn't a social construct. Don't you see my hair? My ginger genes aren't a goddamn social construct."
But the point isn't that gingers and non-gingers aren't real. Instead, the point is to investigate why we chose to invent those concepts in the first place. Why do we assign value to those concepts? Characteristics we often think give sex and gender its objectivity, like chromosomes or genitals, are the things we reference the least in daily life. Everyday gendered life is constituted by the clothing we wear, our hobbies, ways we carry ourselves, the length of our hair, and a whole list of characteristics that have almost nothing to do with a chromosome.
Just think about all the social concepts we attach to men and women: honor, tenderness, active, passive. These are all abstract concepts that we socially operationalize through the characteristics we call biological sex. Yes, we can observe that people born with XY chromosomes generally produce more testosterone, and that generally leads to higher levels of muscle mass. I mean, how else do you explain these guns? But again, think about how we then project social concepts of masculinity, strength, and honor onto that difference. I just don't buy that we can attribute an abstract and variously defined concept like honor, its history, its connection to empires and wars, all of that, because a chromosome tells certain bodies to produce certain hormones in a particular way.
Really? All of it? According to Pew Research, 54% of men believe that women's emotional expression is the result of biological differences. You might find yourself believing that it's just obvious that, you know, women cry more, and uh, men get angry and punch walls and stuff. But think about all the operationalization that goes into that narrative. Emotion is a complex and abstract concept. Different cultures express emotion in different ways. Emotion involves not just physical expression, but an internal experience of processing, regulating, and applying feelings that we can never know are felt in the same way by all people.
What does it even mean to feel? Our tiny human brains can only see like 0.35% of the visible spectrum of light, and we live in a universe where 95% of the matter and energy is literally an unexplained mystery. And you want to tell me that we can even be skin to measure the complex cultural and evolving concept that is the experience of sadness? Not only that, but you also want to tell me that we have access to the ways the complex cultural and evolving concept of emotion intersects with the complex cultural and evolving concept of gender?
Okay, but you know, let's try to do the science thing. Let's say we're going to go ahead and operationalize concepts we barely understand, like emotion, and then layer them on top of other concepts we barely understand, like gender identity. Interestingly, although women may be more expressive of most emotions, at least in Western cultures, men show equal or greater levels of physiological arousal. For example, with men showing greater blood pressure and cortisol responses to emotionally arousing stressors. This may mean that men are aroused internally but keep in emotions, whereas women freely express emotions, as proposed by Buck and others. We still come out getting results that break with our so-called common sense.
Now, I'm not going to ignore the likely scenario in which the literal matter of the body influences the ways that we understand gender in society and ourselves. I'm sure that the material of human bodies has played a complex role in the history of the creation of gendered social roles in ways we don't fully understand. But that doesn't mean we need to retreat back to a biological essentialist model of gender. I mean, even the concept of a body as this mechanism that carries and controls our consciousness, that idea is a construct of early modern Western societies, and a pretty limited one, if you ask your local postmodern degenerate.
Personally, I think it would be an insult to human creativity to claim that we have access to some gendered origin point to the reality of the biological essence of our sex, because there's an infinite amount of ways of understanding this stupid world, and we have yet to scratch the surface of a future in which live liberation is possible.
So, in summary, two reasons why trying to structure our society around biological sexual difference sucks: Number one, if we believe gender to be a biological programming, it does not necessarily follow that we ought to structure society around that programming. We can do better. For fun. Number two, the concept of gender as we know it in Western society requires imperfect operationalizations that suck balls, man.
F five seconds into life, and we already effed up by doing gender the way we do. Welcome to the world, little guy. It sucks a lot, and you're not going to know why. In fact, you're going to become super attached to all the things that suck about it. You're going to internalize all of the world's shittiness, and you're going to love it.
[Music]
Oh, I can see you've started forming memories now. You must have forgotten our little chat. It's probably for the best. We can save the existential crisis for sixth grade. By the time you're 4 years old, you'll begin to grasp that the world is divided into things for boys and things for girls. And by age six, all this gender stuff that previously only mattered to others will start to matter to you too. At some point, you'll learn to stop talking about your fear. One day, you will want to cry for the last time.
So, you're a boy. We live in a society where people are going to act as if the observation we just made about what's in between your legs should mediate your entire experience of reality. Sublime. But if biological sex isn't the fundamental driving force of gender difference, then what gives? Why do boys play in the mud, and why do girls pretend not to?
Well, let's say we agree with those wacky sociologists who say that gender is socially constructed and that gender difference is the result of social conditioning. That still leaves us with the need for an account of those social conditions, something that gets at why gender, for so many, feels so instinctual, common sense, even obvious. What's the process by which an infant becomes a boy, and a boy becomes a man?
Oh, it turns out this guy wrote a book about it. Pierre Bourdieu. And these French people really got to stop naming themselves. Pierre Bourdieu. Oh, now rings a bell. We used to be drinking buddies back in undergrad. Now I'm banned from every Olive Garden in the state of Connecticut. Rest in peace, man. This is Pierre Bourdieu, one of the most drawable men of the 20th century. His career as one of the most prolific sociologists of all time spans over 5 minutes of work that still influences the discipline to this day. His model of the social world as a diffuse series of complexly layered social fields has enormous potential for application in a feminist context. But despite the immense influence of his sociological models, his model of patriarchy and masculine domination didn't receive as much attention as his other books, and it wasn't super well received by feminist theorists upon its publication.
Oh, right, the patriarchy thing. I haven't explained that. Well, young sapling, society is structured as a patriarchy. That means that we live in a society where boys, dudes, men, and guys hold form of social status that society values. They use that status to dominate people who don't identify as dudes, like you. It's a little abstract, but my buddy Bourdieu created one of the most useful models of patriarchy and gendered socialization that we have.
According to Bourdieu, the social world is composed of fields. In his work, he provides a definition: "The field is a field." Okay, F this guy. In the broadest sense, a field is a social setting or context organized by probably stupid rules, systems of values, and relations of power. So, for example, the field of sociology has rules about what is considered good sociology. Usually, the gayest person in the room. Sociologists value certain characteristics about the type of work produced, and there are norms that structure how people within the sociological field do their gay science.
Another example: the field of art. The art world has implicit rules about how people in the art business value good art. There are norms around how art is evaluated and advertised, around how you're supposed to act in a gallery, and so on. It's kind of like a game. Some people know the rules, and some people don't. But a field isn't just a professional field. You could use field theory to analyze any social context that has its own rules, norms, values, and taken-for-granted understandings. Things like an organization, a town, an economic market, a mosh pit, a line of urinals.
You shouldn't try to think of a field as a natural thing that you find in the world. A field is a conceptual framework that helps us understand the social world a bit better. That's what good social theory does. Over the course of our lives, we come to know different fields in different ways. We're raised from birth to understand these different fields: culture, the continuities between different fields, and the ideas that we're supposed to take for granted. Like, "Of course you're supposed to be quiet in class." And, "Yeah, I guess credit scores are important for some reason." And, "Sure, it's fine that I need a car to go anywhere in America because public transportation is communism, I'm told." Things are the way they are because that's how they are, and how they'll be, and that's just how it is.
As we're raised in particular cultures and move through different fields, we internalize norms, ideologies, values, and roles. We learn to coordinate our actions from a limited toolkit of possibilities deemed socially acceptable. As we internalize these social conventions, we act in ways that follow social rules and conditions. In doing so, we acquire a habitus. The habitus: embedded history, internalized as a second nature. And so far, good. As history is the active presence of the whole past of which it is the product, habitus is a preconscious disposition. A habitus is the totality of a person's habits, mannerisms, ways of speaking, tastes, and inclinations. It's a person's way of being in the world.
So, for example, someone raised as a high-income person, through their socialization in a high-income background, will acquire a high-income habitus. They've read the right books, attended the right schools, know which old white dudes they have to reference in fancy conversation. They've acquired the mannerisms, ways of speaking, tastes, and inclinations that society associates with those from high-income backgrounds. Like I said, the social world and its fields act like a game. We are socialized to understand unconscious rules for behavior and internalize the modes of action that society deems acceptable or respected for the identities that you hold. When you move about the world and do existence stuff, you unconsciously act according to a changing set of rules that maintain a social hierarchy and importantly, your position within that social hierarchy. Grossly, grossly simplified, we do things according to how we're socialized, and we take for granted how this ends up maintaining various power relations in society.
So, Bourdieu spends several decades of the 20th century having an unusually fun time developing these depressing concepts, doing statistics that give them empirical validity, and unironically using the word "neoliberal" as he writes and theorizes. He watches the world change. New identity groups emerge and demand civil rights, and over time, things do change. The world of the 1990s feels different from the world of the 1950s. But in other ways, Bourdieu notes that the world hasn't really changed that much. Somehow, the same hierarchies from the so-called Old World insidiously maintain themselves in the new.
These questions inspire his book, "Masculine Domination." How can there be permanence in and through social change? Well, to answer that question, he turns to the concept of patriarchy. For him, gender in society represents a perfect example of the ways old hierarchies maintain themselves even in the face of new social movements. For example, society may grant women access to the workforce. However, society will encourage women to pursue jobs that aren't valued as much as male-dominated jobs, or previously male-dominated jobs may begin to lose their value as more women enter that particular role.
And in "Masculine Domination," Bourdieu argues that culture is structured around the division between the idea of the active male and the passive female, and this opposition operates at all levels of society. Women and men, respectively, through socialization, acquire a female and male habitus. They are trained from birth, as you will be, young fella, to live their life according to their gendered habitus. When you express this gendered habitus throughout your life, that habitus often feels like a natural part of your personality. But in reality, all of your actions, all of your thoughts, your perceptions, are mediated through the gendered habitus that society gives you. Little bro, you will become a man. You will learn to carry yourself like a man, and you will learn to dominate like a man. Culture will consistently value your male habitus across social fields. And even if gender norms change over time, our culture's values will shift in violent ways to to maintain the social status of men. Domination might become subtler, but the structure of that domination remains.
As someone who's dabbled in a bit of gendered socialization, I can tell you on both sides, the effects are pretty all-encompassing. When I transitioned from one category to another, I could feel the process of gendered socialization take hold. I felt male habitus begin to solidify itself in every part part of my waking life: my stance, the tone of my voice, the way I used my body, my tastes. And slowly, a new set of predispositions appeared, as if they were inscribed in my soul from the beginning.
In a memoir written by transwoman Jan Morris, the author notes how her transition from one gendered habitus to another influenced every part of her life. "We are told that the social gap between the sexes is narrowing, but I can only report that having the second half of the 20th century experienced life in both roles, there seems to be no aspect of existence, no moment of the day, no contact, no arrangement, no response which is not different for men and for women. The very tone of voice in which I was now addressed, the very posture of the person next in the queue, the very feel in the air when I entered a room or sat at a restaurant table, constantly emphasized my change of status. And if others' responses shifted, so did my own. The more I was treated as a woman, the more woman I became. I adapted willy-nilly. If I was assumed to be incompetent at reversing cars or opening bottles, oddly incompetent I found myself becoming. If a case was thought too heavy for me, inexplicably I found it so myself."
Now, there's a reason for Bourdieu's work received criticism. If men acquire a male habitus, then women also acquire a female habitus, and thus women are trained to play the game of social life in a way that contributes to their own domination. Society trains women to express themselves in ways that maintain the cultural division of the active male and the passive female. Some feminists saw this dynamic and said, "Pierre, doesn't it sound like you're kind of blaming the victim here? I mean, women contributing to their own domination. Let's not forget who's been doing the oppressing here." And that's a totally fair skepticism.
But the important thing to note is that the real reality of social organization is uncomfortable. It should be. Good sociology subverts everything we believe to be common sense, natural, and universal. If we want to accomplish social change, we have to speak honestly about our social reality. Of course, just because we're having an honest chat doesn't mean we can't preemptively clarify our stake in the conversation. Bourdieu emphatically states that even if men are unconsciously trained to dominate, their individual actions are their responsibility. And even if women contribute to their own domination, it's only because they've been trained by birth to maintain a culture in which they're unconsciously compelled to submit.
Or do believe in the possibility of social change, but not without first breaking the cycle of socialization that produces the gendered habitus we're compelled to internalize. Boys do not choose to become men, and they don't choose to learn masculine domination. Boys enter this world as children, vulnerable in their search for love. But they are then compelled to become men, and a part of them dies.
Listen, little dude, I know it's your first day of kindergarten and all, but it, it's probably best if you learn about the psychic trauma of imposing hegemonic male habitus in a patriarchal society sooner rather than later. I'm just trying to warn you about the stuff that lies ahead. A few kids in middle school might call you gay, like as an insult. Your parents might violently force you to conform to a masculine role. I'm sorry, but I really am.
Social scientists have studied the way school children learn to perpetuate gender stereotypes, and from their qualitative studies, you get a deep sense of the shame that's integral to the experience of boyhood. Here's a real quote from a real boy in one of these studies: "We have great fun playing just by ourselves. There's no teacher there. It's just us boys playing our games. There's no teacher controlling our games. During break on the playground, it's just us boys. We're free to play whatever we want to play. We're free to do anything we want to do." Okay, a little exclusionary, but that's nice, Pete. At least you're enjoying yourself. "Girls and gays always want to irritate us when we play football, but we always say no, and they want to come and play with us. We don't play with girls, and we don't play with gays."
Well, that is quite eloquent of you, Pete. Listen, dude, the moment you begin to socialize with your peers is the moment you'll learn what it means to be different. Even though we are all boys, we are not the same. We are different in many ways. Some of us have chosen to be different. The shame forces you into hiding, into silence. "Well, everybody, all the sort of like rough guys, like all this Nana and stuff. Okay, what do you like then?" "But I'm scared to say what what I like. It's like, what do you like then?" "Yeah, we like soft music. We don't like all this heavy metal."
You learn to listen to the music, to acquire the right tastes, mannerisms, ways of speaking, and being. Then, offer an escape from the shame of difference. Things that you previously loved get absorbed into a silence of fear. Before you know it, that fear turns you into a man. You learn to live for the fear. You learn to perpetually grieve something missing within. "Was a self-description I heard from many men as I went around our nation talking about love. Again and again, a man would tell me about early childhood feelings of emotional exuberance, of unrepressed joy, a feeling connected to life and to other people. And then a rupture happened, a disconnect, and that feeling of being loved, of being embraced, was gone. Somehow, the test of manhood, men told me, was the willingness to accept this loss, to not speak it, even in private grief."
Sadly, tragically, these men, in great numbers, were remembering a primal moment of heartbreak and heartache. The moment that they were compelled to give up their right to feel, to love, in order to take their place as patriarchal men. Though the road to manhood and masculinity promises status and power, does not promise love. But hey, buddy, congratulations on graduating middle school. In the past 7 minutes, well, I'm sure the loss of a joyous childhood and society, why emotional neglect made you an upstanding young gentleman, eh?
When young men fail to conform to the dominant image of masculinity, society doesn't provide young men and boys the tools with which they can heal themselves from the effects of patriarchal conditioning. Instead, society encourages men to conform further. Young men turn to men's movements that ultimately reinforce the same old patriarchy and toxic masculinity that messed us all up in the first place. It's a common misconception that men aren't allowed to express or feel emotions. On the contrary, society permits, or even encourages, men to express rage. Men and boys who fail to meet patriarchal male roles often turn to anger. Emotionally abandoned by parents and by society as a whole, many boys are angry, but no one really cares about this anger until it leads to violent behavior.
If boys take their rage and sit in front of a computer all day, never speaking, never relenting, no one cares. Angry young men mistakenly turn their hatred towards women. They seek to dominate in the name of acquiring status instead of seeking human connection. Men are further primed to seek domination. For example, what rewards do patriarchal males reap when following the advice of our old friends from "Why Women Deserve Less"? By being a superior man with an exceptional life and an excellent income, you piss off everyone who's been brainwashed to hate you or blame you for their problems. You make them jealous. Ruin their day, and your existence constantly reminds them that they are responsible for their shitty lives. You piss off the precise exact people you want vengeance on, but not at the expense of improving your life. Understandably, you want your pound of flesh out of society. What does society hate more than a successful, wealthy, happy male? Accommodate their hate by becoming one.
Patriarchal standards of masculinity promote suffering and alienation, but when men try to find movements that speak to this suffering, these movements end up pushing them further into patriarchy's violent grasp. And it's not like men are blameless children who accidentally fall into misogyny. But our society creates the conditions for millions of young dudes to turn to extremism with ease, and society has done a terrible job in offering an alternative with the potential to undo that toxic patriarchal conditioning.
I'll repeat it a million times: individual men are responsible for their individual decisions. But we live in a patriarchal society that creates the conditions for toxic masculinity and the conditions that push men towards anger. It is a patriarchal society that shames young boys out of femininity from the beginning. We have to acknowledge the pain of going through that shame as a literal child.
I transitioned to male during adolescence, for 14 years. Before that, others saw me as a young, obviously not straight, Hispanic girl. Because of that, society didn't really expect anything from me. No one really expects ambition from young girls of color. But suddenly, when I transitioned in high school and started to pass as a teen boy, people began to expect me to prove myself. I felt a different type of pressure I hadn't before. As a girl, people don't intrinsically expect you to chase success or status that's valued by society. You're trained to aim for passivity or forms of status that only serve to make you sexually desirable. And if you want to excel, then you have to work extra hard to not just gain status, but to even get into a position where people expect you to desire status. And as someone who was on that Sigma grindset since age three, that was pretty discouraging.
When I transitioned, people's expectations shifted. They expected me to chase status and become self-sufficient. And while that totally validated my Sigma grindset, it created new anxieties. Is it worse to hear "you can't" or "you must"? I don't know. It probably depends on the person. But we never get to choose what's asked of us. As a male, my relationship to others and the world shifted dramatically. People respected me more. They allowed me to take up space, and my jokes got bigger laughs. People cared about what I had to say, what I could do, and what I could make. But they stopped caring about how I felt.
Back in the day, as a girl, people used to ask me how I was doing. In the average female friendship, you open up to each other, support each other, seek vulnerability, and talk deeply about relationships. Male friendships are quite different. There isn't much opportunity to share emotions or to support your buddy with care. As I transitioned into male social circles, I found myself with emotions and no place to put them. Slowly, I learned to stop having them. I stopped crying. I learned to feel differently.
Listen, I love being a bro and I'm happy with my transition. I got lucky and I ended up finding healthy social circles. But if I were to characterize the experience of becoming a man, it was as if the world had lost its warmth. Patriarchy pushed me more and more to picture life as a series of objects around which to strategize. Patriarchal norms changed how I perceived the world, and I can't imagine how I would see it if I was so socialized into the alienating grasp of masculinity from the beginning. I acknowledge that there's many ways in which I've experienced the effects of male privilege, but the loss of emotional connection isn't a small sacrifice to pay for that privilege. It is a fundamental human need that millions of men lock away.
But now I'm a man, in most states, and so are you. And you'll return to this fact over and over as it chips away at a piece of yourself you can no longer name.
[Music]
Oh, uh, how do you do, sir? You are now a patriarch, or on your way to becoming one. The world offers you a path to respect, status, power, and opportunity, but it does not offer you love. Modern market economies don't exactly care if men are loved or if men are happy. They function well when men become patriarchs, consumers, and productive workers. Happiness might indirectly facilitate that, but it's not necessary or encouraged.
After years of study, hard work, a sprinkle of nepotism, and a fat dose of male privilege, you may find yourself in a pretty good position: CEO, CFO, COO, PO, or any number of fake jobs. Or perhaps you're not in in a good position because while masculine norms encourage men to pursue high-status careers, not all traditionally masculine careers confer social status. Some men grow to be construction workers, plumbers, factory workers, or other low-status workers. These are the men that often cling onto masculinity the most because it may be the only access they have to status. As working-class laborers, they may channel their hopelessness into domination over the women and children in their lives.
Men aren't the only people forced to take on shitty, undervalued, and underpaid jobs. 29% of the US manufacturing workforce is women, and you don't see them asserting a patriarchal dominance. There are millions of men who don't hurt others. No.
matter how much they hurt themselves. So then, why are there then millions of men who terrorize others in the name of their own insecurity?
Well, society doesn't socialize men to care that the pursuit of domination hurts others and themselves. Patriarchy breaks men so that they can break others. The unhappiness of men in relationships, the grief men feel about the failure of love, often goes unnoticed in our society precisely because the patriarchal culture really does not care if men are unhappy.
When females are in emotional pain, the sexist thinking that says that emotions should and can matter to women makes it possible, possible for most of us to at least voice our heart, to speak it to someone, whether a close friend, a therapist, or the stranger sitting next to us on a plane or bus. Patriarchal mores teach a form of emotional stoicism to men that says they are more manly if they do not feel. But if by chance they should feel, and the feelings hurt, the manly response is to stuff them down, to forget about them, to hope they go away.
Now, men aren't the only people that patriarchy psychologically ally warps. This happens to all of us. But the same sexist logic that places emotion and feelings in the feminine realm simultaneously undermines men's mental health. In the face of social stigma, men refuse to seek help for their pain. Men constitute 75% of suicides and 75% of substance abuse cases. Yet, compared to women, men are only half as likely to utilize mental health services.
Like many social problems, this stigma isn't just the result of men's individual choices. Studies show that mental health professionals are less likely to probe for emotional or psychological suffering in men, and that healthcare providers are less likely to diagnose mental illness in men than women. And even when diagnosed with a mental illness, men are less likely to seek treatment or support.
The point of all this isn't to show that men are more oppressed or have it just as bad. I think that type of language is worthless. Instead, it demonstrates that systems of power affect all people in various ways, and it does everyone well to understand systems like patriarchy beyond simplistic narratives that pin two groups against each other. Gender is a force that psychologically and emotionally grabs people on a mass scale. In their suffering, people long to reach mythical visions of a good life where there's no more confusion, no more pain. But sometimes, the more we reach, the more we hurt.
In 2011, as the world was reeling from the throws of a recession and the anticipation for the upcoming Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part Two, Lauren Berlant published a book called Cruel Optimism. In the work, she describes a concept called, wait for it, cruel optimism. She describes the concept as a type of relationship or attachment in contemporary Western culture. People are psychologically attached, pre-rationally clinging or emotionally bonded to unattainable objects or ideas that hurt us. We attach ourselves to unreachable cultural objects that society tells us will lead to a good life. But the more we pursue these objects, the more we suffer.
This might look like our aspiration towards the American Dream. We chase it continuously, but it's by its very nature a dream, an unattainable fantasy. We get lost in the chase at the same time that this chase becomes our identity. We can't imagine ourselves without it. The effective structure of an optimistic attachment involves a sustaining inclination to return to the scene of fantasy that enables you to expect that this time, nearness to this thing will help you or a world to become different in just the right way.
But again, optimism is cruel when the object/scene that ignites a sense of possibility actually makes it impossible to attain the expansive transformation for which a person or a people risks thriving. And doubly, it is cruel insofar as the very pleasures of being inside a relation have become sustaining regardless of the content of the relation, such that a person or a world finds itself bound to a situation of profound threat that is at the same time profoundly confirming.
This is traditional masculinity, male identity, male habitus as we know it. In contemporary system society is an attachment to an impossible standard. It's an attachment of cruel optimism, always reaching, always hurting, always out of grasp. Men look forward by looking back to an era of perfect masculinity that was never there. Masculinity has always been in crisis because that's just what masculinity looks like under patriarchy: a fragility, a perpetual fear of not being enough, with the promise of social status and domination as a bribe.
I'm not the first person to make this argument. Jonathan A. Allen argues that any claim to masculinity is, I argue, always already a cruel optimism. It is cruel precisely because we believe, and we continue to believe, that it is attainable, even though we continuously fail at masculinity.
In the past, I've turned to toxic masculinity to justify my male identity, to prove myself to others. It's a phase a lot of trans men go through. Trans men have to build their identity from cultural material that can be ugly, toxic, and alienating. And in our suffering, our desperation to pass as male pushes us towards patriarchal attitudes.
Here are some statements from real transmen who've experienced what I just described:
"When I was a teenager, I used to pride myself s on not having cried for years at anything. Super unhealthy, obviously. But had girlfriends who cried at everything and didn't make fun of them for it. It made me feel more masculine just by nature of acting differently. But many of the things I did to differentiate myself from girls was putting toxic male standards on myself. And I also push the standards I was meeting on the guys in my life to make me feel more masculine than they were."
"You can push toxic masculinity without being outwardly misogynistic to women, but toxic masculinity is still rooted in misogynistic thinking. I'm pretty conscious of being actively not toxic, but I definitely fall prey to being so happy to be included in male spaces that I forget to make sure women are being included when and how appropriate and in an equal way. I.E., a small example: worked in a warehouse for a while with an older, old-school manager. Manager would often assign men to do certain jobs that 'quote unquote' women can't do or vice versa. Men usually did the much more fun tasks while women did things like folding and tedious things everyone hated. I was so afraid of outing myself and being disinvited from 'quote unquote' male stuff that I rarely spoke out against it, and I really regret that."
"I had a phase before I realized I was trans. Classic 'I'm not like other girls.' To be honest, for me, it was mostly talking about women the way my male friends did in an attempt to distance myself from being one of them, which was absolutely horrible, cuz my male friends were absolutely horrible also to me. Undeniably, my environment at the time sucked, and I was under a lot of pressure, mostly from women, to perform womanhood and dress and act apart, lest I want to get bullied or beaten up. And I coped by talking in a more sexually crude way about women. I was little, and I was very angry at the world. A lot of us were little shits. A lot of us were toxic. A lot of us are toxic. Though we've experienced the world differently from cis men, we share a complicated longing for an unattainable masculinity that we feel validates our existence. Often times, it's not even about being attached to patriarchy itself. Sometimes we feel like we have to be toxic in order to pass as male."
"I remember when I was younger, especially in high school, when I was stealth and let people assume I was cisgender. In interacting with men, I perpetuated toxic masculinity because I feared that being outed would threaten my safety, and I regret doing that. I'm sorry I did that. And that fear does not justify being a toxic man. But I hope that our stories as transmen serve to illustrate that you don't have to be an evil, terrible man to perpetuate toxic masculinity or misogyny. Often times, young men act out of fear and suffering and make the wrong choice. But trans men are living proof of men's ability to overcome toxic masculinity. As trans people, our expert sensitivity to gender dynamics allow us to become conscious of our mistakes and build our masculinity against domination. All people hold this potential to develop this sense."
There is a crisis of masculinity, but the crisis is a construction that keeps us searching and striving for an origin point that we'll never find. There is no great masculine past that calls for our return. Patriarchal masculinity is the fearful search. It is a striving at all these various life stages in which patriarchal masculinity is inscribed in the male psyche. We find that the the inscription is a habitus that edges on a perpetual failure to confirm one's self-identity. As Berlant said in her work Cruel Optimism, the male subject, or people who hold male identities, find their conditions of possibility within this cruel attachment.
It's so hard for men to shed toxic masculinity because often times we can't imagine ourselves without it. We're misled to believe that our lives depend on it. Our patriarchal culture has us believe that our lives depend on it. Just look at the ways that the author of "Why Women Deserve Less" talks about masculinity and patriarchy. A woman might be viewed as evil by insisting a man make a certain amount of money before she commits to him. But in insisting a man have his financial act together, stability would have often follow. Financial stability lays a solid foundation to stabilize a relationship and eventually a family. So she is demanding a man make money, not really. That insistence is hardwired and results in children and a family that brings tremendous joy, arguably the whole purpose of life itself for many men. Toxic masculinity isn't just a petty, egotistical exercise; it's the purpose of life itself. It's everything because society has told us that it's everything. But we don't have to listen.
Are you insulted when a woman rejects you? Indeed, women have lofty, if not impossible, standards. But if it were not for these standards, not a single innovation, advancement, or technology would have been made by men to convince women otherwise. Nearly every innovation or creation and almost all of society and civilization would not exist if women did not effectively insist men achieve some level of excellence before having sex with them. In short, everything good, meaningful, and beautiful in life came from the old contract between men and women. Every human advancement, including family, love, technology, history, the arts, or civilization, comes from men trading resources for. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's as if without patriarchal norms, men feel themselves ceasing to exist. Any barrier to masculine domination, any wrinkle in society's patriarchal plan, represents not just a challenge to a man's status, but a deeply existential threat. And even if many men don't consciously subscribe to the ideal patriarchal vision, society is structured in a way that ensures our everyday encounter with these masculine attachments and fears.
For the first time in human history, men face a problem they've never faced before: women no longer need them, and for the most part, don't want them. This is a more significant problem than it initially seems because if you think about it, life's whole point and purpose was to get together and to create future humans. Life's whole point, every human advancement, everything is at stake. But I'm not pointing this idea out as motivation in the search for the masculine blueprint that will save men from their crisis. This is a call to stop searching for a tradition that never existed.
[Music]
I don't think Pierre Bourdieu and Bell Hooks ever met. They never cited each other's works, and hell, I can't be sure they've ever read one another's books. Yet, curiously, in the final pages of the works of these disparate thinkers, their studies in masculinity led them to the same ineffable cliché: love, mutual recognition, exchange of justifications for existing and reasons for being, mutual testimony of trust. So many signs of the perfect reciprocity through which the circle in which the loving dyad encloses itself as an elementary social unit, indivisible and charged with a powerful symbolic autarchy, becomes endowed with the power to rival successfully all the consecrations that are ordinarily asked of the institutions and rights of society.
We cannot change men, but we can encourage, implore, and affirm their will to change. We can respect the truth of their inner being, a truth that they may be unable to speak, that they long to connect to, love, and be loved. It's perhaps a sickening cliché to say that love conquers all, and honestly, a deeply untruthful phrase that only a man could write. Love is connection. It doesn't conquer, it doesn't dominate. When you find real love, and I don't mean that from the movies or even an inherently romantic love, but real love, it's honest, respectful, and affirming.
In the will to change, B. Hooks proposed a model of masculinity built on connection, one that's stripped of patriarchal values and traditional male habitus, one that doesn't seek to dominate but builds itself out of mutual recognition, where the male subject doesn't seek status but relation. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. But as a trans man, I found it so incredibly difficult to build my male identity around something that wasn't dominating, violent, and oppressive. These are the representations of masculinity that exist in the world, and so how was I to define my male identity in the face of those representations?
This isn't an experience that's unique to trans people. This is just the process of becoming. Becoming a man. Well, I did graduate college like 2 minutes ago, so I'm not sure I'm even there yet. How do I become a man when manhood, as we know it, is inexorably linked to a history of violence and domination? How do I break the link? Can I break the link? These aren't easy questions.
Gender under patriarchy forces all of us to struggle against our identities in complex ways. Man, woman, non-binary, everyone has to face a social reality that shapes us against our will. I understand why women often feel the need to be suspicious of men. I parted ways with womanhood at age 14, and yet I sadly found out how predatory and dominating men can be to young women, even at that age. But I also don't want to be guilty for being a man after I have fought so hard to claim that identity.
If you come away from this video feeling like you found the right person or group to blame, you're doing it wrong. And if you've come away from this video feeling as if there are persons or groups who've done nothing wrong, then I haven't done my job. Patriarchy is an all-encompassing system. We can't escape the effects of socialization. Whatever identity we hold, we all inadvertently maintain the relationship of domination between men and women. It's the dad who tells their son to "man up." It's the mom who yells at her son for wearing her heels. It's the girlfriend who laughs at her boyfriend for crying. It's tradition. It's in the new. It's in me, and it's in you.
It's important to understand the ways everyone in a patriarchal society consciously and unconsciously maintains patriarchal power, or else we get feminist movements full of people whose goal is to pursue positions of status that maintain patriarchal and capitalist notions of power. The solution to patriarchy is not for women to acquire a male habitus and teach women how to dominate like men, but to end the hierarchies which create this division and their dynamics in the first place. If our current society defines power through masculine domination, and if we then build a feminist movement that simply strategizes how to attain power within the existing patriarchal structure, we actually end up affirming patriarchal power even more. And I know I'm a man, so what do I know? But but this is just what B. Hooks wrote nearly 20 years ago.
By placing the blame for the perpetuation of sexism solely on men, these women could maintain their own allegiance to patriarchy, their own lust for power. They masked their longing to be dominators by taking on the mantle of victimhood. Sexism benefits men. For example, men have an easier time acquiring white-collar work. But this is only considered a benefit if we choose to value traditionally masculine lifestyles. Our society defines benefit by valuing characteristics associated with the ideal male citizen. That way, society can easily train people to pursue the lifestyle of an ideal male citizen who ultimately works in the service of capital. But as we've seen, that process of producing ideal male citizens involves a society-wide act of psychic violence against young men and boys.
We can choose to do things differently. If we're going to feminists who want to challenge the root of patriarchy, we don't want to just target the way that power is distributed. We want to challenge the way we socially define power and the ideal citizen. We might even do away with the whole concept of definitions in the first place, or the concept of concepts. For now, I can only offer a blueprint, a hint, a few questions. Reorganizing the entire sociopsychological profile of social life is going to take far more than that. The undoing of social conditioning is a process rife with suffering and uncomfortable confrontations.
Did feminism fail men? If it has, it's only because patriarchy failed men first. As counterintuitive as it seems, patriarchy requires a structure of failure to maintain a domination predicated on fear. Men, guys, buds, it's going to take a lot of work, but at least take comfort in the fact that the personal or mythical past to which you long to return isn't there. It's a cruel reality, but fantasy is always crueler.
[Music]
M-6 slugs
Aaron Syler
Adeline Grub
Adrien Radley
Aiden Lisandro
Allison All
Pizzas Are Personal
Anna Arcino
Avery A
Barbie V
Beatric Dll
Brad The Great
Brandon Uzumaki
Catboy Girl
Charles Hero
Chester Snap
Cobalt Pink
Colin Ctera
Cooper
Cosmo Billing
CIS
Danne M
Danny Chalice
Don Hopkins
DRX
Dropout Ninja
Diane
Elena Amesa
Elizabeth Morgan
Emma Anastasia
Esper Lady
Florencia Rumple Rodriguez
Fuzzy Numbers
Gabriella Day
Gray Rainer
Hannah O
Hannah Chua
Hia How
The Magician
Ent Gray
If Being Gay Is A Phase Then The Moon Is Definitely A Lesbian
Irritated Nick
Isabella Fada
Jack
Jacob Palmer
Jade Persuades
Janon
Jess Imsley
Jiminy's Journal
Joe Liss
Justin Chapman
Just Sentient Matter
K Kale
K Bran
Kenneth Ferling
Kimmy Giggler
Knights Who Say Sledge
Levi Margoles
Lilron Ly
Shei Linds
Liz Hman
Luc CI
Lucia Garcia
Luna May
Malpertuis
Manway
Megan Mel
Mary
Michael Gisby
Moay
Mysterious Dii
Nicholas Bloom
Noah Evans
Nan
Oyster Philosophy
Paige
Paul
Rain And Chaos
Richard Knight
Rosa Mory Of The Sea
RSS
Sarah Parker
Shamil
Shannon Hutchinson
Solberg Beis Doer
Tanner Clark
Taylor White
The Bestie
Pepsi Boys
Tiff Rodriguez
Teimo Umaya
Beige
Urix 123
Valerie Astra
When Woa Ren Martin