I have an old friend named Graham. He is a descendant of John Graham the Marquis of Montrose. That might sound familiar to history buffs and those who saw the movie “Rob Roy” with Liam Neeson. The story is historic fact, just prior to the Jacobite Rebellion the entire McGregor clan was proscribed as outlaws and suffered grievous persecution for the reasons told in that movie. Robert Roy McGregor was even made to forfeit his name ( or my name’s not Rob Roy McGregor) until after his duel with Archibald Cunningham. The story is a great example of the archetypical standards to live by that men choose for themselves. For John Graham, nobility and greatness were matters of eugenics and class system acquisition of wealth. For Rob Roy, “Honour is the gift a man gives himself”.

For Archibald Cunningham, life was about opportunism, deceit, manipulation, and learning to please in a sycophantic and shallow, deceitful way. “At your service”. He was also, unlike the Scot ruffians around him, a gentle man. The 1700s saw the greatest flowering of the sort of manhood that Sir Hugo and Sir Ampersand advocate. Men were expected to be effeminate, lisping, graceful, and sycophantic, especially around women. Archibald was also a fatherless son of a whore. There was a time (before political correctness) when calling someone that would account for their utterly amoral behaviour. Charles Manson would be a good example, but these guys really seem to be able to charm women…like a snake charms a bird. Charlie spent most of his life, prior to his infamous episode, in trouble with the law for being a pimp.

For all of his “metro sexual” charm, Archibald Cunningham was “a liar, a thief, a murderer, and a violator of women”.

The epitaph “Rob Roy McGregor in spite of them” seems to be the last word in this debate.

Not all “gentle “ men are like this of course. The late Tiny Tim was an utterly harmless and charming fellow. There are certainly Miss Vickeys out there who just adore men like him. I wonder if anyone has ever done a statistical comparison study of the fan mail received from female admirers by guys like Mel Gibson or Brad Pitt vs. Tiny Tim or Tom Alda.

It would seem that Bonnie Raitt does not see things Hugo’s way.

Here is my notion of a hero:

The Men’s Prayer : “I’m a man, but I can change, if I have to, I suppose” -----Steve Smith (AKA Red Greene).

Hugo and Ampersand are both really nice guys. I am not saying this to be sarcastic. There is a part of their message that is absolutely true. I do not believe that men aught to be any particular way. The man who sits next to me at work is soft, gentle, effeminate, and moves with a dancer’s grace. If you heard his voice on the phone you would assume he was gay. He is actually in his second marriage with many of the blended family shared custody issues talked about in MRA forums. He gets a kick out of my shenanigans. He sends me jokes over my e-mail that would mortify a feminist gauleiter. He is very much like what Hugo and Ampersand would have men be, except he does not sing in the choir of those who have capitulated to feminism. Would I wish him to be any way other than the way he is? Certainly not.

I have seen the picture of Hugo in the playground.. I do not agree with the disparaging comments about it that I read on Stand Your Ground. I do have issues with what he teaches, but I have no issues with the way he is. When I look at that picture, I instantly understand why his fiancé likes him. I do not share the view of those who look at that picture and speculate that Hugo is a paedophile. In fact it is that sort of thing that I detest the feminists for, witch hunts of sexual misconduct based on speculative profiling. What I see when I look at that picture of Hugo is a remarkably brave man. I see a man who is perhaps a better man than me. I see a man who is not afraid to go out into the world without his armour. I understand perfectly what Hugo and Ampersand are on about in that regard.

It is a dreadful burden the armour that men wear. Inside that armour there lives a gentle harmless Hugo in each and every one of us. Again I say, I am not being sarcastic. It breaks my heart to look at that picture. Just like it breaks my heart to look at the class picture of me in junior high school, the smallest boy in the school, the day I put on that stinking suffocating ugly soul smothering armour. Hugo and Ampersand are right on that point. Men who wear that armour are a grotesque caricature of the creature that it protects.

As a Buddhist, warriorship is a process of removing that armour. Not very long ago, about three years ago, I had done this. It was an elating liberation. I detest that armour. So what made me put it back on? A three titted diesel dyke control obsessed feminazi lawyer with a lumber jack butch strut that would intimidate most of the men and all of the women I have ever met. This is the real face of feminist matriarchy, and this is where Hugo and I differ. I also do not think it is particularly right or consistent to on the one hand expect other men to give men like Hugo the benefit of being free from allegations of being gay and/or a paedophile based on stereotypes and profiling when he himself characterises older men as Svengali seducers of younger women. I also heard it remarked by a couple of people that his fiancé is young and strikingly beautiful. Did he not have some disparaging remarks about men who choose mates for their beauty? Really Hugo, why are you not engaged to a fat and frumpy older feminist as you have previously advocated? Are you now, in the face of the reality of that inconsistency, willing to admit that your teachings are wrong and that it is not a man’s will to be socially unjust to women that causes his penis to get erect.