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.

Masculism Now!

This is a position list meant to express why I feel that men are an underclass in contemporary American society. It is under construction, and open to debate. If you disagree with any of these choose one and meet me on debate.com.

Your comments will not be censored.

1. Men die sooner.

2. Men suffer a great statistical disadvantage when it comes to fighting for their children in court.

3. Men are ridiculed for social expressions of emotion.

4. Men are forced to compete with each other, or capitulate to a woman if they want a mate at all.

5. Men must live up to their mates idea of what it is to be a man and a father.

6. Men must work or risk destitution, homelessness, and social ostracism.

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

8. Men are expected to maintain the home with no say in its appearance.

9. Men are constantly required to tolerate inconsistency and irrationality, especially from a mate.

10. Men who use their body to manipulate women are considered abusive and monstrous.

11. Men have an extremely narrow range of options for potential dress and hair style.

12. Men are constantly told by society that they are ugly and not successful enough.

13. Men are constantly told by society that without a woman they are utterly worthless and pathetic.

14. Men are constantly told that a father is replaceable.

15. Men as a gender are given no assistance what so ever in job placement.

16. Traditional man's work is dangerous and difficult.

17. Men lose jobs to women because of their gender alone.

18. Men who express their genetic desire for sexual exploration and polygamy are perverts.

19. Men have almost no organized assistance as a gender.

While simultaneously...

1. Women live longer.

2. Women get a disproportional advantage in court when fighting for parental rights.

3. Women are encouraged to express themselves emotionally both publicly and privately.

4. Women compete for better mates, but even when they settle they have the power.

5. Women get to define what it is to be a man and a father.

6. Women have the socially acceptable choice of not working.

7. Women typically profit from the acquisition of at least moderately enjoyable sex.

8. Women are typically allowed total control of the home's decor.

9. Women are socially allowed to issue conflicting and irrational edicts.

10. Women who use their body to manipulate men are considered strong and clever.

11. Women are allowed a much greater degree of freedom with regard to dress and hairstyle.

12. Women are constantly told by society how beautiful they are.

13. Women are constantly told that they are the sum total purpose of men's existence.

14. Women are constantly told that the most important thing a human can be is a mother.

15. Women are given preferential selection in almost every job market.

16. Traditional woman's work is simple and safe by comparison.

17. Women who work profit socially because of the women who choose not to work.

18. Women who express their genetic desire for sexual exploration and polygamy are sexy.

19. Women have hundreds of social groups to protect their rights and interests.

Masculism: a social theory or political movement supporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on males must be removed in order to bring about such equality.

Materials Economy and Monogamy.

Many of the people that speak with me often or read my work, know how I feel about monogamy.

In my view monogamy is one of the most atrocious civil systems ever devised. And I'm on a passive crusade to eliminate it. Now, I don't go around spotting couples and yelling at them, or try to break up marriages.

I go with the flow. I try to make people realize just what it is they are signing up for and the damage it can do. I try to empower both men and women so that they can be happy with each other as equals, and thus fail to need state and corporate reassurance that their mate actually loves them.

Single people working as close friends, are the political and economic equivalent of a polyamorist society. So basically my approach is to discourage people from joining relationships. This does not mean the life of a monk, it merely means life without regard for what the state the church or the government has to say about the status of your intimate relationships, and a whole sale rejection of the idea that in order that one be valuable, he or she must have a single 'mate'. This does not mean do not have children, it just means that there is nothing wrong with being a single parent with a lot of friends.

I seek to empower people.

Monogamy at its core is the idea that a relationship between one human and another must be regulated and sanctioned by both the state and the corporation, and neither of these groups will ever sanction third party or more family units. Now, the state's involvement is pretty obvious, they issue marriage licenses, they issue tax breaks, they handle divorce proceedings and impose limits on when and how a person can get married, always to only one person.

But it doesn’t come close to ending there. The corporation gets in on the action by using the media to tell everyone things like “if your husband loved you he’d buy a diamond” or “if your girlfriend loved you, she’d cook with Kraft cheese”. And they are getting ever more invasive. Think of the insidious nature of “choosy moms choose Jiff” the implication being that if you buy Skippy, you’re a lousy mother.

What does this have to do with monogamy and the materials economy? Well, all of these advertisements have background. Very rarely is a commercial these days merely a notice of product on a plain background. Typically they present the product in some sort of context, and as any student of logic knows, context alters meaning. The context most commonly chosen to hock a product, is the nuclear family context. Because that is the most profitable for outside parties.

Now, I ask you, if you were a corporation, a non human immortal entity with no ability to feel pain or compassion, and the function of your existence was to take money, and you had the ability to control how Americans perceive what a family is, would you? The smart answer is another question. Does the structure of family have an impact on how much money I will spend? Yes, yes it does. And here we get into the meat of this post. The most profitable type of family unit, is a monogamous one. I’ll bet you had never even considered other types. That’s not surprising. Corporations, government, and religion have conspired for centuries to convince you of one simple idea, monogamy is the only way. But the fact is, many cultures enjoy extended families, and do so for economic reasons as well as emotional and cultural ones.

The economic reasons are the focus of this essay. A corporation wants to sell as many products per person as they can. So I ask you, which group would buy more toasters, 10 people living together, or ten people living in units of two? I lived with 6 people once, and we only had the one toaster. It worked out fine. Why? Because we shared it. Also, when it came time to buy new appliances we could have all chipped in, and ended up with the best of the best. This is bad for corporations as they do best selling tons of cheap fragile products, compared to selling one durable product.

This is why the corporations want monogamy around. Because so long as we pair off, we’ll buy more, buy cheaply, and complain less. Pooling resources means more power. Corporations have known this since birth. In fact a company is based on this idea. The simple non-zero sum game where by two people working together produce more than three people working separately, is the very foundation of tribalism. It is a the human expression of a fundamental fact of nature, so much so that multi cellular life is the result. Two cells working together produce more than three working apart.

They want us separate, they want us alone, so that they can exploit us, and continue to exploit the planet.

And their chief tool is monogamy.