Man is, quite possibly, the only creature who can suffer, know exactly why he is suffering, and go right back to doing the thing that caused him to suffer in the first place. Nobody, least of all women, blame "toxic dog culture" for the mad dog's aggression against humans. They look to the proximate cause of the dog's animosity and ask, "what did humans do to this creature to make it hate us so?" The first question any animal lover asks when encountering an aggressive beast is to ask himself "what did I do to provoke it?"

I find it deeply instructive that animals, even formerly wild and aggressive carnivorous dogs and cats, are given more of a presumption of innocence in gynocentric society than men. Many women compare men to dogs, but in reality, men are treated worse than dogs. For numerous animal shelters exist to shelter and rehabilitate dogs who have suffered abuse, showing them the compassion that was never shown to them, in the hopes that their aggressive and antisocial attitudes will improve. Yet no programs, and certainly no shelters, exist for abused men, outside of criminal incarceration.

If animal behavior science used the Duluth model to underpin its assumptions, the mad dog is a function of dog supremacy, where the dog is governed by problematic attitudes towards humans due to an inherent need to instill passivity among them through coercive methods. While this may be true, somewhat, when looking at pack behavior among canines, animal lovers certainly don't apply the solutions Duluth gives towards "problematic men" when thinking about problematic dogs. For if they did, animal lovers would treat the angry dog with even less compassion, and even less mercy, using the full force of society to show it who's boss, without even a second thought as to what is causing the dog's animosity in the first place.

Women show tears when an old, bitter dog is shot dead by police, or thrown in the pound and euthanized a week later, or beaten to death by its owners. They protest when nobody attempts to understand the dog's side of the story; they do not presume that dogs go into a violent rage as part of their nature (even if they should). And even when these changes in the dog's nature are irreversible, there is still this sense that we ought to be ashamed at the tragic necessity of putting these dogs out of their misery. In all cases, they ask the question that is never asked of men qua men: what happened to you to make you this way?

Examining the problem of sexual apathy in society, colloquially posed as the question "where have all the good men gone?," has often rested on the assumption that they are hiding somewhere, perhaps even in the very "icky men" that seem to be everywhere, according to women these days. Mark Regnerus and other traditional conservatives like Robert Stacy McCain will say that refraining from porn, increased physical fitness, and upwardly mobile employment will create these "good men," establishing the grounds for a kind of "Christian PUA" that would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously pushed. But they are fighting a losing battle, as it never dawned upon them that, if the man is already sufficiently soured on women, merely increasing his sexual market value will do nothing to supply this market for "good men" that the women seem to want. On the contrary, it will simply create more "bad men," like Roosh V and Roissy, who will exploit this market for good men more ruthlessly than any Lothario.

One of the first men who went his own way, Zed the Zenpriest, had a saying, ["you can't change a pickle back into a cucumber"]( https://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/06/zenpriest-2-you-cant-change-pickle-back.html). He posted this to counter the unshakeable belief of people like the feminists and traditional conservatives that the problems which cause men to "break bad" can be reversed if the right policies are in place:

This is a very important principle which is invariably dis-understood when I try to explain it. Not misunderstood, but disunderstood - as in the same difference between misinformation and disinformation. Feminism and women have been proceeding on the unshakable belief that men are still going to want and care about them no matter how awful they get. Then, when a man reaches a state of complete indifference, they insist that it is temporary and is only because he is angry and that he will get over it.

Merely dressing the pickle up by getting it into the weightroom, putting it in a corner office, and keeping it away from mold and bacteria (like porn) is not going to change it back into a fresh cucumber. It can no longer market itself in the produce section, like the fresh cucumber it was. You buy it off the shelf in the jar, and on the shelf it will remain.

How do you "pickle" a man these days? It starts with examining that list of assumptions about women that forms what I would call the "harmonious model" of male and female relations, a model that Zed would say is as natural as any other process. See, Zed was a farmer. He said he learned more from the natural processes of sex going on in the plants he grew than anywhere else. It makes me think of that old made-for-TV movie called The Blue Lagoon, where two children from boarding school are shipwrecked on a tropical island. With no forces from the outside world telling them what to do, they nevertheless did what nature wanted, and when puberty hit, they immediately formed a sexual bond and raised a family.

But for all of the marvel Zed had for natural processes, the one thing that he understood is that natural processes are fragile and easily disrupted when acted upon by outside forces. Pickles aren't natural. They are made that way through human intervention.

And anybody who is wondering why men seem disengaged from women ought to start, first, by asking themselves the same question as they ask the mad dog: what happened to you to make you this way?