“They’re Overweight, Entitled, and Liberal” - Nick Fuentes Goes Off on M... (Happy Us, or It's Bogus")

I love this back & forth between them when Tucker started dissenting, ppl say (ppl meaning conservatives too ngl) Tucker didn't push back on Nick. Yes tf he did, he just wasn't confrontational, he did it with class, calmly. Big brother energy without Little Broing Nick, respectful.

This is an important caveat whenever men go "off" on women or perceived double standards, be it behavioral, social, professional, or systemic  3:00  the only reason why women might do it or abuse the privilege is they're allowed to do it and not only enabled but men are part of the issue enabling. Thus they abuse it. Doesn't alleviate women choosing to do it, but it's an important caveat to not hold it against them for exploiting social leeway and cheat codes made available in the first place. Because the cheat codes have had & exploit  (physical exploitations & abuse, status) they do so too at women's expense.  Goes both ways, always.🧠

And "happy wife happy life" is bullshit, it's the mantra of a slave, a keeper: Womankeeping. 

• You're the partner, protector: You serve her needs, not her servant as she does for you. If yer not both happy or more importantly: if the consideration of happiness runs more than the other person gives a damn, there's no relationship. 
• That slogan is just code for idol worship which just enables low quality women thinking being vain & selfish is natural, it's what it's always been: Woman worship. 

Just like Nick said, it's a "pedestal", you can want her to be happy, you can make her a priority without disregarding yourself. Women can make men happy without service being an existential attack on modern rigid norms of perceived "autonomy".¯\_(ツ)_/¯

• And no, women are not complex: double meanings, Holding subtext back is a maturity problem. 
• Communicative incompetence even, that's a damn teenager. Stop enabling this crap as "girls being girls". It's not cute, and it's not attractive nor inevitable, it's a conscious tactic to get the man to give a crap, or get his attention. The same type of vehicle some women use through arguments, questions, or celebration. It's just a social vehicle.

Nick is 1000% correct, this complexity myth is just more enabling. If your woman is acting like a damn riddle, encourage her to communicate more effectively: She'll be more satisfied by not making her life more miserable because you didn't decode her brainteaser of the week because of something you did or didn't say on a Thursday 7 years ago.

• Women are encouraged to self-actualize & their actual gods are "agency", "Independence"  & the Holy spirit: "Autonomy" = Me me me, which is fine, find yourself but don't get lost in yourself.

Meanwhile the needs of everyone else in their orbit is thrown into a black hole, because if they do even a pinch too much, many burnout or some crap.

There's a lot of women out here holding it down, I see it everyday but a too many of us are using "Self-preservation" to mask fragility and adulting skill issues. Underdeveloped ENDURANCE skill issue.

Men are told to step up, do more and then when her priority is herself, his priority is also her, what happens to him? No one gives a crap, that's NOT the design of God or nature, brotha Tucker.

She submits to him in the first place to serve his needs as priority out of respect and he makes her the priority because he values her as his honor: That doesn't translate to "Happy wife, Happy life." that translates to a perpetual system  of give & takes = " We win." That's the design, that's how it works.

We're conflating male's natural proclivity for the well being of women with making women the only priority when One person doesn't make a relationship of TWO people. This is where both left & right wings get it wrong doing the same thing but having different values while making the same mistakes.

• One person being happy is not everyone being happy, women's progress in society is not everyone winning. Because if it doesn't work for you, if her mankeeping you is a problem, then it doesn't work at all even if she's benefitting instead at the cost of his womankeeping.
• Reciprocity is not what women say it is,🚨🚨🚨 I can't make that anymore clear.
• It's give and take on both ends of the spectrum, and no it's not about keeping score, because even Lesbians can't manage an algorithmic 50/50, by probability: it is impossible. It's solely about giving a shit which can exceed to 70/70 easily. 

So if men care about women's happiness more than women care in reverse? Or at least that's the perception?

 Or emotionally dense men that don't know how to initiate an emotional/social bonding moment with women without wives having to ask to talk every single time? You're not raising women or men, you have a generation of oblivious parasites that are harmless but too self-centered. 

Either you're in a RELAT+ionship or you're keeping someone's daughter or son-- for little to nothing for free.

Because the giving back is the payment, you're not getting that? Then It's for free fellas. Burnout doesn't just happen to women, there's a reason why men drop sooner than women, and it has as much to do with lack of support or consideration as it does diet & habits. 

It's about the team----Period (!) or not at all. 

It's that simple. 

"Happy US, or it's BOGUS." 👎👎 now put that shit on a t-shirt.♂♀

14:18 "-by serving each other" EXACTLY Tucker.✅ So logically If you're serving each other in the first place, that's the intended system, so naturally "happy wife, happy life" logically doesn't fit into that. Precisely my point.

Anime Overview: The Book of Bantorra (2025)

I put this one off for over 5 yrs, it wasn't worth it. It was promising initially, but getting through the middle was painstaking & the ending was not good. The flashbacks of the characters (minor characters included) was better than the current day plot. Will watch episodes (ex. Ep12) not be watching it in full again. The lore was too damn dry, not interesting at all. It's mature in it's themes but something in the execution is holding it back, a lot of set up was squandered horribly (example: Volken's lackluster subplot & wasted potential/ Hamyuts' potential). A lot of this in terms of worldbuilding should've been more simplified so immersion would be a better experience. That bootstrap paradox (?) love story was probably one of the most interesting elements & luckily it's in the first few episodes for anyone who wants to try it. Not recommended but it was definitely unique.

Avengers: Doomsday - Have Marvel Learned From Their Mistakes?

7:50 thats how this sex relations & the alleged loneliness epidemic will fix itself. Equity has to fail, female empowerment has to hurt women more than it has for everyone to realize it doesn't work, nature has to correct itself.

But only after it's too late and decline becomes about survival than statistics, that's when people will absorb the stakes. It's unfortunate.

So Pennywise is a simultaneous causal being. *Dr.Manhattan effect* (the show did it better than the movies)

TL;DR the specific way Pennywise expresses his his jaded perception of his own beginning and end is a cleverly written way to imply that Pennywise is in a bootstrap paradox and experiences his timeline simultaneously like Dr.Manhattan can. 

No surprise there btw. 

I still don’t rock with IT:Chapter Two, I hate how bro went out.

• specifically this thing they do when he’ll kill someone in seconds, no simmering, no fear seasoning, just straight up fatality (best parts of the show) but when it comes to others, all of a sudden he wants to play whack- a mole on level 0.
• Now it’s explained that he underestimates humans, plays with them, the problem is what happened to those kids in Episode 1 proved he can both season his food, underestimate humans, play games and finish his plate- all at the same time.
• The issue is plot armor, writing, not Pennywises hunting methods or hubris. Because thanks to Episode 1, we know the bullshit isn’t enough to stop him when he’s ALLOWED to go to work. It’s Michael Myers all over again. The writing ties his hands, but everyone else gets split second game overs.

If those kids had IT:Chapter Two Writing they would've all escaped that building in one piece or just traumatized Pennywise calling him a mean name which makes him hesitate & planting the foreshadowing his 2016 defeat. All of them would've survived because the Turtle willed it so, and it would've been a worse premiere for it. -- I digress.

Jeepers Creepers 2001 & The Descent Part 1 is how you do a survivor situation but the monster still gets to catch bodies in a realistic sense.

The finale reveal of his simultaneous temporal condition--

makes it clear that The Losers Club "victory" was just enabling his existence than ending it. Which thus improves what that movie did to Pennywise in terms of optics, which bothered me for years.

Not entirely a fix for that plot armor fest, but it’s been patched big time. All it took was a “Bootstrap paradox” (Little Nightmares 2)

He knows it's going to happen in the future, he already lost yet in the future but he's still in the past completely intact after and before his death, having the time of his life.

All the Losers Club did was diffuse his physical form, the lights, his true self, is eternal. They accomplished nothing but prevent his terror extending beyond their generation, but not only did not stop him in a non-linear sense, they saved absolutely no one.

His power extends beyond their understanding, so does his existentialism, and he knows it. They bullied him to death, but he's the one laughing because when they die of old age, he's still alive before they're born & his lights still exist their bodies reside in caskets, it's still alive after 2016, he just doesn't have a vessel. 

So despite his "death" they didn't kill him, they just stripped him of his costume. That is cosmic horror--

(I'd go so far as to ponder what's to stop him from getting another costume, perhaps the same as always: Turtle Plot Device "Maturin" 🐢🌍)

I wasn't trying to watch this show tbh: I had zero interest. It was going to be another one of those 'try it in 4-10 years' deals.

• But while I'm unlikely to watch it in full ever again (understandable representation & social overtones that unfortunately & slowly became ham-fisted in the writing department as the show progressed. It was excruciating not because of the historical nature but because American lens in general/ or more accurately their media masters have a serious racism misery porn fetish as if they or Germany are the ONLY civilizations on the planet to ever commit such an atrocity or have committed the worst of it as if evil has a skin color.

When the real point of the in-meta of Pennywise is evil does NOT have a color, it shapeshifts, which is a brilliant metaphor that I think (?) the show misses. American media act like the U.S invented slavery & racism or something.

• Too little nuance in this show in that respect, but in context — I get it. Derry was supposed to be an isolated dimension, an intentional exaggeration, but the saint POC’s trope is very tiresome and where the plot loses me around episode 3.

• Just like I'm tired of most adults being jerks in this universe, like I get the point is to strip away the children's line of defense to make them more vulnerable but holy shit.

(it's part of what makes "Little Nightmares" horror affective, Adult indifference or predation to small innocence but it didn't play favorites or race. All adults were an extension of a degree of corruption.)

-but that didn't seem to affect Will's parents (maybe because they're not Derry natives) or Ronnie's dad (who I assume is a Derry native?), so even the show's own rules is being spat in the face of, though adult indifference is a good mechanism to manipulate children's mental health and state of isolation.

• However it is refreshing to see another black couple in tact on-screen, enduring and functioning. 👍✅ Even Ronnies dynamic & bond with her father was very comforting to see. That much the show did right.
• It seems who's good or bad is very much color lensed, which is not how evil works lmfao, cause then the Ghetto would be a paradise.

(Imagine Pennywise setting up shop in Detroit or Chicago: Banquet💀)

Again, zero nuance.

Despite all that. I’m glad I gave it a try, good acting, the kids pulled their weight big time, solid performances. A lot of good directing decisions, good shots, good transitions, we get a pretty decent one-take style shot in EP7, the effects: The show was impressive stylistically. 

But that few seconds of dialogue in the final episode served Pennywise immensely, that's all I care about.

His "death" (not rly) is still whack but it has an extra dimension solely because now: it doesn't matter. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Edit 1-5-26:

I took a gander at Chapter Two just for the hell of it and stumbled on this--

"You haven't changed anything yet; you haven't changed their futures. You- you haven't saved any of them." - Pettywise (Chapter Two)

With the cycle in context, he said that to spite Beverly, and it is 100% spite because his eyes are tearing up, watery & red with apparent frustration, because he knows what he's trapped in.

Again, Episode 8 didn't fix Chapter Two for me, but it's clear that the seeds of Pennywises condition was planted even back then, props to the writers, clearly there's vision here. I respect that even if I don't cosign the executions here and there.

He knew what they did stopping him then, eventually saved absolutely no one now, then in the past, his future after his death, to the future birth after he dies all over again.

After they total his heart, it's fair to say those deadlights just went forward to his conception, extradimensional transfer.

But at the same time he simultaneously sees he's at the end of his rope in 2016, an animal acting on primal impulse, defiance even. He can't escape because he's a prisoner in that goddamn place called "Derry", hence the watery eyes and snot dripping nose: 

• Go watch that specific scene, pay attention to his eyes, & maintain this context and think "Why is he damn near crying?", bro was legitimately distraught. He knew.

Beverly was too far away to truly see his expression, but in terms of vulnerability?

 Very human level of presumable despair in something as old as dirt. And while I'm not watching CHP Two no time soon: Not only was Bev the only one of the club he Deadlighted but (I believe) she was the only one he showed that level of emotional compromise to & spitefully told her straight up their coming victory saves no one.

All that damn power and that Turtle has It by the balls, so much so he's done-in by some humans calling him names--

Pennywise has a lot more depth than we give him credit for, than I GAVE him credit for all these years.

He's not "seeing" the future nor travelling, that's a human dimension of understanding, he's not seeing or going anywhere.

He's present collectively in his entire timeline, his death is not his end, that's the point. *The Christ effect*

"(some articles debate time travel vs. pure simultaneous experience)."

Again, It's a little bit of both; because he is simultaneous, he's more so not travelling his knowledge back & forth because he's there now. 

• He can't travel knowledge back to himself that knows what didn't happen yet, because it happened already.
• Pennywise, like Osterman- can't travel to any time because they are already there, thus have access to all knowledge of it.

Mono can't do that, The Thin Man is simply an older Mono that remembers what happened before but the omniscience would apply if Mono maintained what The Thin Man will know, knows, knew.

This is why Pennywise had Richie's wanted poster. He's not physically travelling because to him it's presumably already happening, happened, dead, alive.

Like Jesus Christ, a much older example of this with knowledge of the full picture from jump, full control.

• Or Elizabeth Comstock (*after the Siphon is destroyed, thus she's closer to Mono's situation because she's not aware of the full picture the entire time but unlike him, she is not a prisoner.
• She has the agency to make changes like Osterman *Doomsday Clock when he created & unmade The New52* but she's only capable of that after when she wasn't aware of the grand tapestry of the cosmos, after the destruction of the Siphon, the tower, her limiter. So she's a hybrid of both categories.) both a good example, Christ & Comstock.

So when a Christian or the book implies or says "God is everywhere", they really meant "everywhen", leagues more daunting. You can't "find" something in space that has no location.

That makes as much sense as giving Pennywise a Birthday & SSN.

All they have to do now is adhere to this, & not negate or ruin that element with Native American plot device bullshit, or more importantly that goddamn turtle. 

Piers Morgan ROASTS Nick Fuentes for Praising Hitler And Being a Virgin - [I never understood the credibility assassination strategy of the word "virgin"]

[I never understood the credibility assassination strategy of the word "virgin"]

Piers conceded the second he took it to sexual mileage.

Sex life becomes the goalpost when you have no argument & need to tear a persons existential worth down (now what does worth have to do with clapping cheeks or not? Idk, Westerners are really REALLY bizarre when it comes to that) and I love that Nick said it with such confidence:

 "No, absolutely not." No stuttering, no Uhs or buts.

See if Nick was a woman, then it wouldn't be a ROAST, it'd be misogyny. If what a man does with his body is everyone's business & on top of that, a joke. Then what a woman does with her body isn't her business either.

• Either all of it's okay or none of it is. We have two different sets of rules of engagement when it comes to men and women, and men are open season for dehumanization. Straight up subhumans.

And then we have this psychotic preconception that's been a thing for years now, that lack of sex aka & specifically: 

A man's lack of using women's bodies as sex utilities is somehow a BAD thing & somehow that discredits his stance or legitimacy regarding women. Now, I've never done drugs, but I know not doing drugs/avoiding hard substance abuse is better for your health. And not having done crack before doesn't discredit my stance on the matter because I've never done the thing I speak on.

Piers didn’t say intimacy, or made love, he’s not talking about having a meaningful unity. He’s talking about sex for the sake of badges, the act.

 So the credibility of your views on women is put into question------ 

Because you haven't physically exploited women for sex yet?! Uhhhhhh ¯_(ツ)_/¯

You know how many men that get tail every other day of the week, kids all over the place, not taking care of them or the mother, and STILL are misogynist?

What, we think sex creates allies? HA! If only it were that easy.

This "virgin = credibility assassination" be it aimed at man or a woman: makes no goddamn sense, never did, never has, because some of the most misguided & misogynist peons on the planet regarding women have had sex with women already.

Met plenty myself, wouldn't do it again even for a check. Every other word out their mouth is "bitch", casually, it's a great time to never speak to em again.

The most despicable aspect of a misogynist is they've taken that intimacy for granted, hold it like a badge for the wrong reasons and reduced a woman's cosmic autonomy down to that one act that he's used women for already, cause he's not interested in anything else she has to offer. And yes he has a mother lmfao.

THAT IS LEAGUES worse than a virgin. Now can a virgin complaining about the opposite gender be ironic? Yes! 100% it's ironic but is what they're saying #1 in itself irony #2 is it true? #3 what was the actual point they were making beyond mindless monke brain venting?

Same goes for women with hot takes on men: Plenty of sex experience, but zero life experience with actual men. Don't know shit themselves, yet running their mouths anyway. 

• We can sit here & call those women cat ladies/ Sure her hypothetical underlying sexual frustration is relevant to her passion for the topic, but is her argument regarding men valid: [Yes or No ?]

The fact is: Did she make a point or not? That's the point. Her motives and her logic are linked but not mutually exclusive in validity. That Is the point, same goes for Nick or even Piers.

Regardless: The logic of the question "Have you ever had-" to discredit someone says so much about the person asking it.

 IMAGINE if Nick was a woman instead, I don't doubt Piers would be disrespectful still, he's been disingenuous with women before but the only reason he took it to sex is because Nick was young and a male & Piers was getting emotional & wanted to hurt him in some way, any way possible. And the fact that the best he could do to "hurt" another male was ridiculing lack of sex as an irony to his views is actually misogynist. 

The question itself is masked misogyny, because it implies or blatantly stating a woman's sexual use provides legitimacy or some kind of credit system, the caveat being rolling stones who are misogynists anyway. 

So I never understood that logic myself. So by Piers' train of thought, Nick would be vindicated in being a "misogynist" if he's had sex with women. 

• Otherwise, where the hell was Morgan going with that?! Lmfao. If Nick was gay: Okay Piers, what are you getting at about gay people?

What Morgan did is exactly what a mentally exhausted 15 yr old girl would do when she ran out of things to say on her pre-determined script. 

Which is an insult to 15 year old girls who can actually compose themselves & make a case. 

I'm not even saying I agree with Nick, I don't actually-- Things won't get better if women in general just "shut the fuck up", women repressing their grievances or forced to shut down is just another form of regression. Which is how you turn into the middle east.

Things will get better when activists with no arguments shut the fuck up, when academia & article authors stop preying on women's proclivity to accept a narrative if 1# Men are painted as the problem #2 Women/they are the victim #3 Women are not held accountable while men are dragged through the mud, yet again.

Like this 2025 "mankeep" shit, & the hypocrisy of women having the word "reciprocity" in their mouths. That whole topic wasn't because of women talking, that came up because the dumbasses in power & troublemakers running their mouths because peace for Americans is not an option.

Nick is overlooking an important caveat to oversimplify the matter to just boil it down to women sitting down and being grateful will make things better, it won't. It will grant men more agency & they probably won't feel like subhumans anymore if female centric narrative died down but then women will become the black sheep again. 

No one needs to shut up, women need to grow "the fuck" up & stop listening to the snakes in power convincing them to bite the apple & sabotage their standing with men over and over and over again. 

Women need to stop talking about "autonomy" and start exercising it against same oppressor system that feeds them new slogans every quarter. 

There's a lot more to this than women just shutting the "fuck up".

Otherwise this wasn't how to do this on Piers' part. He might've given Nick something to think about if he just got out his feelings & made an argument. 

I assume Piers has experienced the bed rock rumble before, and yet he's still a spineless goofball, so what was sex even worth by his own standard.

Sex doesn't make men, it's a vehicle to opportunity or misery, REGARDLESS of gender, like cut the damn shit already. 

He's the seniority in the interview & that's where he took it.

Just one question to assassinate someone's credibility & instead, obliterated his own. It's sad.

Gillette Lost $9 Billion Trying to Fix Men "A price worth paying" -- there is no "toxic masculinity"

“"A price worth paying"”

there is no "toxic masculinity", there's bad behavior, and bad behavior isn't gendered. The whole point of the term is to make certain  bad behavior a male phenomenon, a gaslight than a genuine call for accountability. And when its all said & done, it's not a razor company's job to tell people how to act. That's the parents job, a brand is not a parent.

This is the problem.

Asking a woman for her number isn't harassment, it's inconvenient. Persistence, ignoring context clues of visible disinterest is harassment.

• Because hypothetically: she dropped her wallet or something, would inconveniencing her in the street then be harassment because interacting with a woman AT ALL is now harassment? "Why aren't men approaching women anymore?"
• Or is simply wanting to talk to her on the basis of sexual pursuit specifically the problem? So what happens when women approach men? (And more are doing so, as I’ve personally seen)

Specifically it's inconvenient if the timing is inconvenient. Very simple.

Humans make the simplest human interactions as harassment then women wonder why no one approaches anymore, “what happened to men?” becomes the next gaslight. 

• When women silently want to be approached as if men are dogs to perform on psychic command, but should stay away when she doesn’t want to be bothered, that’s not how that shit works. At that point just wear a neon sign that says “approach” or “piss off”.

Furthermore, Women are some of the best bullies i've ever seen, as with female PDF’s: They’re not rare, they’re just better at it & way more subtle. 

Many of which are mothers, sisters, co-workers, & wives. Women are excellent at cutting people off, this narrative of fickle women with their heads hung low in the office is hilarious, especially when you’ve worked under female tyrants (co-worker or boss) who were untouchable because they could weaponize their womanhood against the bureaucracy:

But you’ll never see that reality in an ad.

 I've had to rewrite how I speak to people when starting a few jobs because the women I spoke to were so overbearing and toxic. I've had to adopt more controlled domineering composure in the past decade just to get women to respect boundaries. Many of these women had positions of power, most did not & shared the same bad behavior but had the "pussy pass" which is more than enough power. 

Is it women being toxic masculine? Is it toxic femininity, because they did the exact same thing but their sex gave them passes, even other women hesitated to say anything. Or are they just women with no house training, exuding bad behavior?

And not all the women I've talked to did this, but so many did I had to legitimately rework my social methodology & not just American women.

And sexual harassment, women do in spades, mainly verbally, touching arms, blocking doorways, groping. The difference is they get away with it AND without controversy or an article, & they didn't have to know the right people to get off. They were women, that's all it took.

"Girls will be girls" We saying this when another white woman is caught sleeping with another 12 yr old child & doesn't get 20 to  life in prison?

So is a tampon company supposed to press women about what women with bad behavior do? See how stupid this is? Despite what I’ve said in the past, this really isn’t all about misandry: it is, but it’s more so about a gaslight posing as accountability.

As i said. It's not toxic masculinity, it's bad behavior being universally unacceptable. 

The point of making "masculinity"+ toxic because a man is behaving bad at the time, is to make those specific bad behaviors an association to maleness as an existence. So then maleness is something to be “fixed”.

It's a cultural gaslighting OP/ operation and many people have taken the bait. Because that was the goddamn point, these labels are scientifically constructed to an intended affect.

That's why the ad didn't work, it's making behavior women do in droves into a male specific issue. 

•  women didn't ask for this, women are not the scapegoat here either. 

And no, it's not a price worth paying, because these companies aren't paying for it. Civilization is.

• Women's education delays having children, but men retreating, resentment, regression, frustration: DEMORALIZATION, guarantees babies/ family making doesn't happen, period.
• If boys remain boys, glued to fetishes & fantasy to run away from predatory society. Fertility rates become a statistical redundance. 
• Most Women aren’t studying to become astronauts, so education slows birthrates but it doesn't drop birthrates. So when studies & Ai chat mentions "education" take it with a grain of salt because those same sources will never admit that propagandizing American/Westernwomen into being undesirable is actually what killed birthrates, not women doing better vs the quality of woman tanking dramatically-- and because the women have tanked, the bar or length men go to to be decent drops. And yes, women do that have that effect and stake on men, as men do to the women.

The entire problem is we've told women that making a living makes men unnecessary, and so women think making money makes them sufficient without men and men are taking the bait thinking a woman making more means he's less than. 

The entire point is to make women into something they're not: "Independent", because autonomy (woman finds herself first) became Self-worship (woman lives for herself for better and for worse)

• Shit like this for 30+ years is what drops birthrates & demoralizes men AND women from trying. When people give up, when men give up, it’s game over. 
• Because if the women opt out and men still try, there's hope, men are persistent if they're allowed to be.
•  When the men opt to be boys forever while the women are still trying, multitudes of women in public places, available and waiting, nothing happens because the women have no game and all the males are either passing it up for their own safety or masturbating to goddesses, waifus, any stupid shit they can invent to replace women; or hooking up which means less than nothing Or running away to other countries because their homeland ruined men & women's future for the sake of female "self-actualization" Or "accountability" which means "Men on trial"

It WAS NOT WORTH IT.

Some behaviors are divided in disproportion (violent crime), however this is why I bring up female PDF’s, because you don’t see them doing it or it's not reported as much, is not admission of the absence of it happening. 

Women being better at bad behavior, more subtle at toxicity to the point it’s an artform vs the male tendency to use bad behavior as a louder statement of status, testosterone makes them less cognizant of consequence, thus they’re the mascots of it- 

doesn’t omit women as a participant in said behavior despite being majority of the species. To some degree, that is statistically improbable.

And it's not right to the cause of accountability, because you’re intentionally making it seem as if femaleness is an outlier to bad behavior. 

“Toxic Masculinity” The label is clinically & literally nonsensical.