Thursday, April 3, 2008

Suffering and the Defacto Matriarchy in America.

At a commenters request I have decided to first expand and defined the following point of this post. (http://innomen.blogspot.com/2008/02/masculism-now.html)

7.Men must suffer in order to acquire any sex.


By suffering I mean the dictionary definition... “feelings of mental or physical pain “

Men as a rule must suffer to acquire a mate as a result of competition or the demands of their mate, which must be satisfied . This is so basic I am having trouble finding a way to explain it more simply. But I will try.

First you must grant that in the majority of cultures acquiring a mate is a rite of passage for men. In fact in recent years being a man has literally become synonymous with suffering to archive a goal.

(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=man+up)

Second, you must grant that the exact revere is true for women. Though it is somewhat derogatory, the term “being a pussy” means being like a woman, or doing what feels best, or what is safest and most rational. I have particular loathing for this phrase because it illustrates the enslavement of men and the objectification of women simultaneously.

Look at the mating process. It can be summed up as men competing for the approval of women. Men must get a job, fight for power and money, condition themselves physically, and defeat other men in various ways. and before you even say that women compete too, understand that they choose to compete because they are trained to want President Brad Pitt with super powers and an Aston Martin collection. Men are forced to if they want a mate of any kind, the only difference is the degree of suffering. There is no such thing as a zero maintenance mate. Even superman must suffer to please Louis Lane.

In fact suffering is the entire point, because even if a man had super human powers, a normal woman has the option of raising the bar at will. In short Louis recognized that superman could out compete any normal man without suffering and so she raised the bar until she found a way for him to suffer, she made the plight of the world his responsibility, or made him feel guilty about being super powerful in the first place, depending on media, comic, show, or movie. This is best illustrated in the series, Smallville, where we have a extremely sensual girl (not Louis) judging superman in subjective ways on matters of morality and social correctness, ares where he had no super powers, and always her judgment was final. His competition was Lex, a super rich, handsome, super genius. Now, for her, this is a win/win situation. This is an extreme, but the concept fits almost everywhere, the only thing that changes is the matter of degree.

They as a group suffer to please her, individually they try to shift suffering to the other, and please her more than the other so they may have access to her. This is the case in at least 80% of movies shows and songs. Just look for it. Its right there. From Disney to Romero, from The Beatles to Slipknot, men are told over and over that they must suffer to obtain a female, or they will suffer infinitely more from loneliness.

Obviously those that compete must suffer and those that judge do not, or, being ultra conservative here, must suffer less. As with any competition, it is always harder on the competitors than the judges. Take a foot race for example. Who has it harder, the runners or the guy with the stopwatch?

I hope I've made my point, It really is difficult to explain something this fundamental.

Edit: Found this image.

Seemed to illustrate a point made above nicely.


3 comments:

Sunny said...

Sorry for not posting sooner.

I don' think the reverse is true for men. Competition is always present where there is an attractive male or female. I have seen women compete for an attractive man and a man choose between several women that had an interest in him. I have also seen women rejected by men who had no mate at the moment but were simply not interested.
For example, Brad Pitt probably has millions of devoted fans and potential mates, whereas the fat girl next door has a hard time finding a single suitor.
What I'm really saying is that you're not a woman so you lack perspective. We are fiercly competitive. We try to make ourselves physically attractive(and go to extreme measures to accomplish this goal), because we value ourselves as men value us, on basis of our physical appearance. We are very much aware of how we measure up to every other woman present in the room at any given time. We wear make up, uncomfortable clothes, wax, have manicures and pedicures not because these are fun things to do, but because it moves us up the ladder in mens eyes. If we choose not to do so then we will have to "settle" for whomever comes our way. Exceptions are very rare. Some refer to them as true love because love is said to be blind, meaning you are able to ignore your partner's physical appearance.

Oh and it's Lois, not Louis Lane. Check out the image you posted:)

Sunny said...

I see now that I've made a few grammatical errors in my second sentence. It should go: "I don't think the reverse is true for women." Also, it's fiercely and not fiercly according to Merriam-Webster. My apologies.

Innomen said...

Competition is always present where there is an attractive male or female. I have seen women compete for an attractive man and a man choose between several women that had an interest in him.

Note that you recalled this as an anomaly. That supports my point. Also, the women have the option of sharing the man, he is at their mercy ultimately. He would prefer to share, genetically speaking. He has choice here only superficially, his choice is heavily constrained. Sure, since the women are monogamists and each want the man to themselves they are forced to compete, but that is a choice for them. Where as for the man it is not, since he is the pursuer and they are the judge(s) of fitness, or the chooser.

I have also seen women rejected by men who had no mate at the moment but were simply not interested.

Again, because women enforce monogamy this behavior becomes rational. Also because women demand 'commitment' or a long term investment of energies, the man as a result if he is reasonably sure he can please a more appealing mate shortly down the road, will wait again, this behavior is rational. However, at no point does the entire situation ever fail to be dominated by women. Because if it were up to the man he's have both.

For example, Brad Pitt probably has millions of devoted fans and potential mates, whereas the fat girl next door has a hard time finding a single suitor.

Brad Pitt and the girl next door are apples and oranges. Mr. Pitt, is extremely 'fit'. He's attractive, wealthy, famous, powerful, and by all accounts a rather moral individual. But despite all of that, a woman of equal standing will have a distinct advantage. He will always have to compete with the others on his level for the type of mates men on his level strive for. In short, he still must suffer to maintain Ms. Jolie.

What I'm really saying is that you're not a woman so you lack perspective.

Perhaps, but that is an argument from ignorance none the less, I could just as easily say the reverse. But I do not make that argument. I grant that from your association with men you've had the opportunity to get to know them. I could also argue that as a women, because of the assured powers I'm speaking of here, you'll not have had the motivation to explore the nature of the relationship on a sociological level. Many people don't, simply as a matter of motivation and interest. I'm a macroscopic thinker and for all intents and purposes live outside of society. Things look different from out here. I could argue that you're too close to the problem to see it clearly. Again however, I do not. You could just as easily be as distanced, further, you could be right despite my advantages. My gender is irrelevant with regard to the veracity of my claims, even if my gender has a statistical impact on the likelihood of their correctness. I may too be right despite disadvantages.

We are fiercely competitive. We try to make ourselves physically attractive(and go to extreme measures to accomplish this goal), because we value ourselves as men value us, on basis of our physical appearance.

Again, that's because of the profits your gender reaps as a result of monogamy, and I might add selling unreasonable demands. Every form of media talks about love in mythic godlike proportions. So if you're going to charge a goddess's fee you must attempt to live up to a goddess's image, at least during the contract negotiation period.
The difference is that while you indeed compete you do so for quality of mate, where as a man is forced to compete and suffer even if he chooses to settle. No woman is zero maintenance. Some men however are, when you consider that many are willing to have sex only when the female actively desires it. To put it another way many men are content to go about their lives until called into sexual service, in fact, many men find this desirable; “Friend with benefits,” and so forth. A woman will always be able to find a mate she can distaste terms too, but this is not true for a large number of men. As a side note, this is testable, but I'm not sure if any studies have been done, mating statistics are hard to find. Durex occasionally funds research of this sort. I'd be happy to write up the surrey's etc, but I'm not accepted by the cult of academia nor do I have the funding.

We are very much aware of how we measure up to every other woman present in the room at any given time. We wear make up, uncomfortable clothes, wax, have manicures and pedicures not because these are fun things to do, but because it moves us up the ladder in men's eyes.

Yes, but ultimately this is still a rational behavior because of the objectification training you've received and ultimately accepted. I rejected mine, and one could argue it cost me my life in terms of what a man's life in America is supposed to be. The cost of this rejection for women is much lower for reasons explained above and elsewhere.

Women are told from an early age, in innumerable ways, that landing a good mate is a valid and rewarding career choice effectively. I would tend to agree from a purely mercenary individual standpoint. This situation does benefit women individually. In fact that would be my whole position generally. There are however options that benefit both. This is why Women generally don't have CEO jobs. Because they merely have to compete with each other sexually for the same rewards. Some woman somewhere is going to be the CEO's mate (homosexuality not withstanding). It's easier to bed a CEO than be one on a work-for-work individual basis.

So no. No pity for your waxing pain because you could just as easily choose to be a hairy lawyer or a doctor and suffer in that way instead, as men do. But you have the choice. Deep down you're likely to know which is more likely to be profitable. I've written about this extensively, and soon my book will be ready, I'll link here to it when that time comes. It will be free to read.

If we choose not to do so then we will have to "settle" for whomever comes our way.

Men never get to settle, because as above, even the lowest quality mates are still women and thus have a sexual advantage since men generally want sex more than women. This is basic game theory.

Exceptions are very rare. Some refer to them as true love because love is said to be blind, meaning you are able to ignore your partner's physical appearance.

Defining true love as a facet of physical attractiveness in any way upsets me. Saying you love someone despite being ugly, is on the same spectrum as saying that you love them because they're hot. No human can engage in a truly selfless act because we are built from the cell up on selfish genes. This undercuts the existence of any sort of “true” love if that love is defined by devotion independent of rational loss/gain analyses, which it typically is. (Again, study worthy.)

Love is a genetically driven psycho chemical bond developed expressly for the preservation of genes. ALL our emotions stem from that. To pretend fairy tale love is to aid in the mythology that has enslaved both men and women since we were tricked into thinking women and sex are dirty.

I thank you for your responses and your time. I work best in response to stimuli.

About

My photo

I'm a politically and culturally subversive author with obsessive tendencies and a lot of free time. I feel a sense of personal responsibility for the fate of my species. My writing is the result.

My primary blog is at http://underlore.com but this G+ profile is a far more active representation of my viewpoint.

Generally I feel the answer to society's ills are technological in nature not political or cultural.

Having said that, I do have political positions of course and I strongly feel that we need to embrace nuclear power and deploy a universal basic income.