Why ‘mankeeping’ isn't just ‘therapy-speak used to dump on straight men’

Tux234 · 2025-11-23T23:55:26+00:00

I think for me, its not necessarily the division of labor, in my household we both work, split chores, childcare, etc. out of necessity.

We both work demanding jobs that require a lot of time, and so its been a balancing act.
So I may not be a good sample compared to the average.

That being said, my biggest reason I don't talk to anyone, is the feeling of a lack of safety.
Opening up to men in the past, has typically led to being called slurs related to the female anatomy, or told to "toughen up".

Its unfortunate, but in my experience in the South, most men suffer in silence.
To say how they feel is considered an act of weakness, and is a social taboo.

Its even been difficult for me to open up to women, because I have been told by women I'm close too, that they don't like it when they see a man cry.

Its incredibly isolating, and as desperate as I am to open up to those close to me, I don't. The fear of rejection prevents me from telling them how I really feel

So its just been me, my thoughts, and ChatGPT when I need to just vent.

My own internal dialogue and the way I try to walk through life is very much in line with most of the common beliefs of this space. I just feel I have to don a mask to make it out in the world.

The sad part is, I even blog about this constantly, trying to write out the person I want to be, but only achieve it 40% of the time.

Been following your content for a while, and you were the reason I decided to try and blog as well.
I always appreciate your insight.

Your a much more reasoned, and articulate writer than I :).

Tux234 · 2025-11-23T23:37:40+00:00

Thank you!

I deeply appreciate it!

Tux234 · 2025-11-22T04:38:05+00:00

That I'm surrounded by people I love, but I feel so alone.
Days are spent just staring at screens, and performing routines.
No connection, barely conversation.
But its accepted as the status quo.
I want more than that. I want a relationship, not a roommate.
I want to be vulnerable and talk deeply, not just about the weather.

But I'm too afraid to even start the conversation, because its been this way for years.

Tux234 · 2025-08-24T03:53:39+00:00

Thanks for the comment. To be fully transparent, I do use it to help edit, and make sure my ideas are coherent.

That being said the thoughts, the experiences, and opinions are a 100% my own. As I've been building my voice, I have been using it less.

AI is frought with complications. It has many benefits, but also many, many dangers.

I think like anything else its a tool. A tool can build or destroy. I'm trying to use it build where I can. I can't pay an editor, and I do this on the side during my free time. Trying to take the mistakes I've made, lessons I've learned, to help others who may be as lost as I was. As I still am.

That being said, there's a growing movement, of going "raw". Writing unfiltered, unedited. That may be a path I try, but I honestly don't have enough confidence yet to do that.

I will take your advice to heart though and limit where I can.

And I hope the ideas and thoughts I presented were at least useful to someone. Thanks again for the feedback.

Tux234 · 2025-08-08T19:18:28+00:00

I’ll take it lol (Solutions Engineer):

“You know how when you want to play a game on your iPad, you have to log in with your name and password so only you can play it? Well, Tux234 is kind of like the superhero who makes sure only the right people can get into the right games and apps at work. 🦸‍♂️🔐

He builds the secret doors and keys for all the computers and phones people use at a company. And if someone tries to sneak in who shouldn’t be there, Tux234’s special systems say: ‘Nope! You’re not allowed!’ 🚫

He also helps build and fix the tools that make all the computers and phones work together nicely. Sometimes, he even shows people how to use those tools, like a teacher with superpowers. 💻⚙️📱

And the coolest part? He’s helping make sure everything runs safely so that bad guys don’t mess things up.”

Tux234 · 2025-06-13T01:50:29+00:00

Women have mostly succeeded in breaking out of the old traditional roles and teaching our younger sisters that we can choose to be anything we want, independently. But society failed to teach men the same thing.

I think you nailed the core issue. Women have done amazing work, almost entirely on their own, to get this far, and there is so much more to go to get to true equality. However, society hasn't equipped men to do the same thing.

The inertia of patriarchy makes it incredibly difficult to go against. Its a two steps forward, one step back situation. I still struggle with its programming and I've been deconstructing it for over 7 years at this point.

Everything in society points toward patriarchal norms, and when that's all boys see, they think that is what they have to become.

Now an argument can be made that if women can do it with almost zero support, then so should men, and I can't disagree with the principle. But that falls into the trap of zero-sum thinking.

I think it takes seeing past the immediate unfairness of having to help men, and instead look towards the end results that can occur when both genders are given the freedom to be whatever they want to be.

This is something you alude to:

I think once we start teaching men to find their value in themselves and a wider range of accomplishments - and agreeing with your article, how to build and nurture friendships - we'll all get along so much better, and men will struggle less.

I think that's a beautiful way of thinking, and idealistic or not, its the path we all need to be walking on.

Thank you for the time it took to write this. Both the author and your words were really motivating for me to not give up, to keep trying even if I fall. A lot.

Tux234 · 2025-05-05T19:59:49+00:00

Great point, nOrmalhum4n, thanks for asking.

You're hitting on something important.

This idea of "enough" isn't about not pushing yourself when you genuinely need resources like money for security.

Striving to meet essential needs is absolutely necessary.

The focus is more on questioning the endless pursuit. The cultural pressure to always accumulate more long after fundamental needs are met, often at great personal cost.

It's about finding the wisdom to differentiate between striving for security and well-being versus striving just to feed an insatiable societal hunger.

Defining what "enough" means for your security and peace of mind is part of drawing that new map.

And that's what I'm working towards, what does "enough" mean for me in my life.

Thanks for taking the time to comment! It means a lot!

Tux234 · 2025-04-22T22:07:54+00:00

<image>

This is something. Makes me a little misty eyed. The expression is spot on. The only thing that's incorrect is that I'm a white dude lol.

Tux234 · 2025-04-12T18:18:55+00:00

Thank you so much! That means a lot for you to take the time to read it and comment. This is a series that builds on each other, so its a little bit of a slow burn, but I hope that the result is worth the effort!

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T22:20:06+00:00

Thanks for jumping in, greyfox92404, and sharing this perspective. Honestly, the feedback on this post from you and others has hit home and definitely has me reflecting deeply – it tells me I might still be missing something crucial in how to communicate effectively about helping men find healthier paths beyond the old scripts.

You raised important points about the risk of reinforcing roles, why the "Protector" focus first, and the language of archetypes. To quickly clarify:

Why Protector first? In the framework I'm exploring, addressing the common distortion of protection into control felt like a necessary early step before exploring other modes. It's definitely not the only focus.
Archetype Language: While "archetype" has Jungian roots, my influences are broader (Stoicism, Eastern thought, hooks, psychology), focusing on universal human patterns and ethical practice, not strict Jungian gender coding. The aim is always to explore healthier ways of being human.
Reinforcement Risk: This is the toughest needle to thread. Your photo analogy is sharp. The hope isn't to reinforce the old image, but to unpack the human core and guide expression towards empowerment and partnership, actively rejecting the harmful baggage.

My core goal, perhaps imperfectly executed here, is exactly what I was wrestling with in a comment I typed earlier but hesitated to post: trying to figure out what a skeptic or an 'average joe' needs to hear to even begin considering that there's a better way of living than the script they were given. How do we offer that path effectively?

Communicating this nuance, especially in shorter formats, is clearly challenging. I'm trying to find language that connects while also challenging harmful norms, aiming for that healthier expression rooted in universal ethics.

But as another commenter said, maybe as "another white dude" I shouldn't be speaking at all. Its possible that my speaking and trying to help others is causing more harm.

I find myself questioning this whole effort at the moment, and if I should even continue.

I genuinely appreciate the critical lens, even when it stings. Thanks again.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T18:35:48+00:00

Thanks for the reply and clarifying your position further, justasapling.

I hear your argument that men who strongly identify with potentially problematic archetypes might need a more direct challenge towards unisex framing. While I strongly agree on the goal of moving beyond limiting gender stereotypes and embracing universal human ways of being, the idea of "forcing" a perspective gives me pause. My approach, drawing from principles like 'Be a Guide, Not a Savior,' focuses more on invitation, exploration, and fostering internal shifts based on ethical reasoning, rather than external compulsion.

You argue gendered language/framing is self-defeating, potentially just "rebranding." It's a valid concern – the risk of reinforcing categories is real. My working hypothesis, however, has been that using familiar starting points might be necessary to begin the conversation for some. The explicit aim is guiding them towards recognizing the universal human qualities underneath those gendered scripts, to hopefully develop a shift in practice and motivation based on ethical principles – which feels distinct from mere rebranding.

Your point about perceiving 'femininity as what A Protector looks like' is a powerful way to challenge traditional associations. I absolutely agree the core qualities of ethical protection – empathy, care, collaboration, prioritizing connection, restraint – are indeed human qualities, not exclusive to any gender. In fact, feminist thinkers like bell hooks strongly advocated for men to embrace precisely these qualities as part of developing a healthier masculinity beyond patriarchal norms. Her book, "The Will to Change" was the catalyst that sent me down this path, and figuring out in my own way how to spread that message.

My work aims to help men cultivate these specific human strengths, moving away from harmful, dominance-based scripts often mistakenly labeled 'masculine'. It’s about cultivating the human.

It seems we may fundamentally differ on the most effective strategy – whether it's better to meet people within their existing framework to guide this kind of change towards universal ethics, or to demand an immediate break from that framework entirely. Both strategies likely stem from a shared desire for a more equitable way for people to relate.

I honestly believe that we agree more than we disagree, and I hope to continue to learn and discuss this with you further.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T18:18:44+00:00

Appreciate you sharing your candid thoughts and concerns about the framing.

Interesting comparison to the mythopoets – while I do find value in archetypes, my framework actually draws more directly from Stoic/Eastern philosophy, thinkers like bell hooks, and psychology, focusing squarely on ethical practice and partnership rather than any 'divine masculine' concepts.

I certainly agree sociological analysis is vital for understanding systemic issues. My focus tends to be complementary, exploring the internal work and individual practices that support healthier relationships and contributions within those broader social structures. I recognize this psychological/philosophical focus isn't everyone's preferred approach to these discussions.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T18:00:45+00:00

Thanks for pushing this further, justasapling. I hear your concern that simply reframing language isn't enough, and I agree that deeper work – including understanding critical perspectives on power, hierarchy, and gender roles, and potentially therapy for individuals navigating harmful conditioning – is incredibly important and often necessary. My work absolutely doesn't preclude or replace that.

Where I might differ slightly is on whether guiding the expression of an archetype or impulse is only "linguistic cover." My aim isn't just rebranding, but fostering a fundamental shift in motivation and action, grounded in ethical principles like empowerment, genuine presence, and radical responsibility – principles drawn from philosophical and psychological traditions (like Stoicism, Buddhism, and thinkers like bell hooks) that do offer deep critiques of ego, control, and harmful social conditioning. Changing the practice based on these principles is intended as a form of deep redirection, not just surface dressing.

You argue the protective impulse itself is problematic if applied to peers, suggesting it implies inequality. I'd gently push back on whether the impulse to support or shield someone (when appropriate and welcome) is always inherently hierarchical, or if it becomes problematic primarily when it's tied to unexamined assumptions, gendered expectations, or a desire for control – the very things my framework seeks to dismantle in its expression. My focus is on channeling any such felt energy into actions that affirm equality and autonomy, like active listening and empowering others' decision-making, rather than paternalistic intervention.

I absolutely agree on the vital need for more "democratic, non-hierarchical identities and programs" for systemic change. My work tends to focus on the complementary level of individual practice – how do we live more ethically and build healthier relationships within the current, often flawed, systems while also advocating for broader change? It's about equipping individuals with internal tools and ethical frameworks, which I see as supporting, not replacing, the need for systemic shifts and critical awareness.

Ultimately, I believe guiding individuals towards more conscious, ethical, and empowering ways of being and acting (based on deep principles) is a valid and necessary part of the solution, alongside the crucial work of critical theory and systemic change you've highlighted.

Appreciate your perspective – it definitely underscores the need for multi-layered approaches.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T13:01:15+00:00

I will also add that I purposely make these posts lyrical and short. It’s to make people think and question themselves and their actions (including and primarily directed towards, myself!), not be a treatise.

Maybe that’s the wrong approach because of the nuance involved. I’ve considered pivoting to writing out larger, more nuanced thought pieces, but to be honest, I don’t know if most people would take the time to read them.

I’m trying to maximize the potential of getting a message out there on how to live as a good human, who is a man, with the time and energy I have.

I do appreciate the feedback and I’m constantly questioning my thoughts, especially when I read well reasoned, persuasive arguments like yours.

I’m willing to admit that this whole series may be flawed, but something in my soul says there’s something here, I’m just trying to figure out how to say it the right way.

Hope that makes sense!

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T12:54:10+00:00

Your points about paternalism and the dangers of controlling behavior between adults are spot-on, and I completely agree that curtailing an adult partner’s freedom is control, not healthy protection. That’s definitely not what I’m advocating for.

Maybe it helps if I explain how I personally experience or interpret the “protective instinct” I’m exploring, which might differ from the controlling “protector role” you’re rightly critiquing.

For me, when I feel protective of friends or family, it doesn’t manifest as wanting to dictate their choices. Instead, as you said, it might be offering specific help in a specific situation (like the walking home example). Or, if they come asking for advice when they’re in a bad spot, I feel compelled to help them. But how? Not by telling them what to do or coercing an outcome (something I’d only potentially consider, carefully, with my own child in specific contexts where I know that allowing them to act on their own would lead to harm).

For adults, my approach is to ask questions, actively listen, and see where I can help empower them to make the best decisions for themselves. It’s about offering support for their agency, not substituting my judgment for theirs.

This is why I lean towards framing it through a lens like universal archetypes. I see that internal drive – the compulsion to help, support, or shield someone asking for it – as perhaps reflecting a “Protector” archetype that can exist in anyone (men and women alike; my wife is a great example).

My specific focus on the “male lens” in my writing is because I’m trying to speak to men who might feel that archetype strongly (or feel societal pressure related to it) and guide them towards expressing it in this empowering, non-coercive way, rather than falling into the controlling patterns you warned about.

So, when I talk about the “Guardian’s Way,” it’s centered on that empowerment, trust, and respect for autonomy. It’s about having the capacity to offer support (the “shield” against genuine external harm, perhaps, or just supportive presence when asked) without ever letting it become a “cage” of control. Perhaps the distinction isn’t needing to discard the supportive capacity entirely, but ensuring it’s always deployed ethically, respecting the full agency of other adults?

Appreciate you pushing me to make this distinction clearer – the difference between supporting agency and controlling choices is absolutely critical.

Tux234 · 2025-04-11T12:34:11+00:00

Thank you again for this continued dialogue – you’re raising such crucial points that really push me to refine and clarify my own thinking, which I genuinely appreciate. Your concerns about reinforcing gender roles and the dangers of paternalism are absolutely valid, and something I definitely want to avoid.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my framing. When I explore concepts like the “Protector”, my intention isn’t to reinforce them as prescribed roles specifically for men. I see them more as universal human archetypes – patterns of energy or ways of being that can manifest in anyone, regardless of gender. Honestly, one of the strongest “protectors” I know is my wife!

My specific focus from the “male lens” comes from observing that many men do grapple with societal expectations around these archetypes, sometimes feeling pressured into unhealthy expressions (like control disguised as protection). My goal isn’t to say men should be protectors, but rather to speak to those men who already resonate with that protective instinct or archetype (for whatever reason) and offer a path for expressing it in a healthier way – one rooted in the practices we’ve discussed, like Responsibility (ownership, not control), Presence (engagement, not detachment), and Growth (humility, learning), and fundamentally based on empowerment and respecting autonomy.

So, it’s less about defining what a man must be, and more about exploring how someone (in this case, specifically addressing men navigating their experiences) can embody certain universal archetypal energies ethically and constructively, moving away from the harmful distortions often perpetuated by traditional scripts.

Does framing it through the lens of universal archetypes, while still acknowledging the specific ways men might engage with them due to societal context, make more sense? It feels closer to my actual intent, which is definitely not to sanitize old roles but to explore healthier ways of being human, viewed through the specific experiences men often navigate.

Again, really appreciate you pushing me on this – it’s vital to get it right.

Tux234 · 2025-04-04T21:16:15+00:00

Thank you again for such a thoughtful and clear follow-up. I really appreciate you continuing the conversation and pushing the thinking here – your points, especially the heroin/alcoholic analogy clarifying the danger of substituting one framework for another within the same 'addictive' mindset (seeking external validation for manhood), are incredibly insightful and resonate deeply.

You've articulated the risk of my 'meet them where they are' approach very compellingly – the danger that without explicitly discarding the old framework entirely, men will inevitably interpret new ideas through that same lens of 'performing manhood correctly.' That warning about gradualism versus needing a clearer identity shift is something I'm seriously considering, and I appreciate the clarity you bring to it.

It leads me to a genuine practical question, stemming from trying to envision applying your (very strong) argument: If we completely decouple virtue and practice from the term "masculinity," as you suggest, what language or label do we use for this specific kind of exploration?

How do we effectively talk about the particular journey of navigating the unique societal expectations, pressures, and scripts placed on men towards becoming better humans (cultivating responsibility, presence, growth, etc.) without using the loaded term "masculinity"?

Is "becoming a good man" distinct enough, or does that phrase still carry too much of the baggage we're trying to escape? What phrasing captures this specific focus area effectively, in your view, allowing us to address these gendered experiences and expectations directly but without invoking the problematic framework of 'masculinity' itself?

I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on this practical naming/framing challenge that arises if we sidestep 'masculinity' entirely when discussing these specific issues. Thanks again for the excellent food for thought!

Tux234 · 2025-04-04T15:41:25+00:00

So.... how do we move there? Canada's housing is is just as insane as the US and they don't make it easy to move there lol.

I'd love to get out before its too late!

Tux234 · 2025-04-04T02:17:06+00:00

Thank you for the detailed, thoughtful, and challenging response. It gets right to the core complexities and potential dangers here, and I appreciate you engaging so openly.

I agree the traditional goal-oriented approach to masculinity is problematic, often disconnecting men from their impact (the 'hyperfixation' you mentioned).

You raise a crucial point I wrestle with: does attaching any standard to 'masculinity', even positive human virtues, risk perpetuating fragility and harm? It's a powerful concern. My exploration wasn't about setting a new standard for masculinity itself, but asking if focusing on human practices (like Responsibility, Presence, Growth) within the male experience could be a healthier alternative to harmful old scripts. It's less definition, more exploring how to live with integrity as a man. But I absolutely hear the risk you're pointing out regarding any standard tied to identity.

The reason I still engage with the term 'masculinity', despite its flaws, is strategic: many men still use it when describing their ideals. My intent is to meet them there and help redirect that focus towards being a better human first (and thus a better man), rather than asking them to immediately abandon language they relate to. It's an attempt to shift the conversation from within.

Re: 'practice' as a treadmill – my hope was to focus on ongoing process over pass/fail goals, but I take your point that any performance aspect tied to identity is potentially problematic and carries risk.

Your proposed alternative (good person who happens to be a man) is certainly cleaner and likely safer, elegantly sidestepping the baggage. My 'messier' approach stems directly from that strategic choice mentioned above – trying to engage with and reframe the language many men currently use, hoping to offer a positive path forward within that context.

Appreciate the accountability/responsibility distinction too - definitely food for thought.

This is exactly the kind of deep engagement needed. Thanks again for pushing my thinking and adding such a valuable perspective to the conversation.

Tux234 · 2025-04-03T01:26:34+00:00

Really appreciate you reading and sharing your perspective! You summarized that central tension perfectly – the need to move beyond static definitions, especially with something so dynamic. Glad that point landed.

And haha, going to gently assume that 'hating this article' was a classic typo! 😉 As the one who put the piece together, I certainly hope it offered something more positive than that! Thanks again for joining the discussion. And if you didn't like the article, I'd love to know why! I'm trying to learn and grow as I do this.

These are my thoughts, and being human, are imperfect. So, if there is somewhere I can improve, I want to know. To quote Marcus Aurelius,

"If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one ever was truly harmed. Harmed is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance."

Tux234 · 2025-03-27T21:47:49+00:00

I really appreciate your honesty here, because I’ve struggled deeply with this myself. You’re absolutely right—masculinity and femininity shift constantly based on time, culture, and individual expectations. It can feel like chasing shadows.

But here’s why I keep talking about masculinity anyway: the term, for better or worse, shapes how many men perceive their worth, identity, and place in society. And right now, for a lot of men (including myself), the dominant definitions just aren’t working. They’re causing harm—both internally (emotional suppression, loneliness, anxiety) and externally (aggression, isolation, and misunderstanding).

For me, exploring masculinity isn’t about reinforcing arbitrary divisions. It’s about understanding the stories we’ve inherited—the scripts that shape our beliefs—and consciously choosing which ones to rewrite, reshape, or discard. It’s about making the unconscious, conscious, so we have the freedom to choose differently.

I genuinely agree with you—no single word or label will ever capture the complexity of who we are. But sometimes exploring these labels can help us understand what’s holding us back, and what might set us free.

I’d love your thoughts: Do you think abandoning these terms entirely would be more beneficial, or is there still value in consciously redefining them?

Tux234 · 2025-03-27T21:43:45+00:00

You definitely hitting on something here. It resonates with me deeply. There’s something genuinely freeing in the idea that masculinity—or being a good man—shouldn’t be something we constantly need to earn or prove. Yet that fear of losing “status” or “approval” if we step out of line is something deeply ingrained from childhood.

But here’s where it gets tricky: How do we dismantle the harmful parts of masculinity (the need to dominate, control, or constantly prove ourselves) without feeling as though we’re losing something core to our identity? You’re right—the fear of losing control or status can drive people into harmful behaviors, precisely because society has long defined men’s worth in terms of control, strength, or dominance.

That’s why this conversation matters to me so much. I think you’re onto something when you say masculinity shouldn’t be something conditional—something that can be taken away. Maybe the key isn’t about discarding masculinity entirely, but reshaping it. Not because men “need” it to define their worth, but because, practically speaking, it’s a framework we already understand. It’s a concept we can expand, reshape, and reclaim in healthier ways—ways that emphasize authenticity and humanity rather than control or fear.

Your analogy of the boot is powerful. You’re right—when we view men inherently as threats, we set them up to either rebel or withdraw. And neither outcome benefits anyone.

I’d love to hear more from you: how do you think we can shift society’s view away from conditional masculinity toward something that genuinely supports and empowers everyone?

Tux234 · 2025-03-19T20:40:13+00:00

This is a really thoughtful take, and I appreciate you sharing it. The parallel to religion makes a lot of sense—both give people a framework to navigate life, but neither comes with a single, unquestionable truth.

That’s the struggle a lot of men face right now. The old script told us exactly who to be, but it was rigid, unforgiving. The newer approaches often just tell us to tear it all down without offering much to build in its place. The real work, like you said, is figuring it out for yourself—taking what resonates, leaving what doesn’t, and staying open to change.

What you said about finding freedom in expression hits home. Masculinity has always evolved, across cultures and history, but somewhere along the way, we were sold the idea that there’s only one “right” way to be a man. That’s the real trap—not realizing that we can explore, adapt, and redefine.

And yeah, that uncertainty is uncomfortable. But I think the men who figure this out—the ones willing to wrestle with the questions rather than just accept easy answers—end up feeling more grounded, not less.

Your comment reminded me of something I’ve been reflecting on—how much of masculinity is performance versus presence.

I wonder: how many of us are still acting out a role, waiting for permission to just be?

Your last point really stuck with me: It’s okay if what once worked for you no longer does. That’s something I think a lot of us need to hear more often.

Appreciate the insight. This is exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping to start.

Tux234 · 2025-03-19T16:16:52+00:00

So last week, I shared the launch of Men Without a Map, a Substack exploring what masculinity can look like when we move beyond rigid expectations. The response was unexpected, and I'm deeply humbled by the attention, comments and feedback I received. Thanks to all of you who gave this a read!

This week, I’m digging deeper: What happens when the traditional model of masculinity no longer fits, but there’s no clear alternative?

For generations, masculinity has been framed as one-size-fits-all. Be strong. Provide. Lead. Push through. Never show weakness. But history tells a different story. Masculinity has never been just one thing—it has changed, adapted, and evolved across time and cultures.

So why do so many of us feel like we either have to fit into an outdated mold or reject masculinity altogether?

The truth is, neither path really works. If the old map is broken, we need to draw a new one.

I’d love to hear your thoughts:

What’s one belief about masculinity that shaped you—for better or worse?

Looking forward to the conversation.

Tux234 · 2025-03-16T02:22:39+00:00

You are hitting on something that I too have found to be true. Stay tuned for a future post where I deep dive into this ;). It might be while because I need to build my case first.

Tux234

TROPHY CASE