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.

Death and Miracles

To whom it may concern:

Written in response to this video and the general social reaction to Kenadie Jourdin-Bromley who is a young lady with Primordial dwarfism and related social concepts. If you would like to help her, a PayPal donation link can be found from her official site, located here.


(My favorite picture of her, lifted from here)

For one, these parents are set for life if they play it right, as they should given what she's undoubtedly going to need. I'd say the instant Oprah hears of this young lady and her sickeningly clean cut family, its gold plated stroller / book deal time.

But seriously, with thousands of children living in poverty in our own country and countless millions more abroad, I don't think this particular child is any more deserving of help than any other, no matter how adorable she is. Perhaps even less so, if you want to look at the matter clinically.

I think all children deserve a shot at life, even the ones that don't get PayPal donate links.

I have to ask, why is it when something bad happens they always call it a miracle? Is it really a miracle that this poor person is effectively going to spend her whole short life in a hospital?

I love how 3/4ths of the video are about the painfully banal couple that produced her. I don't care about her parents, and neither does anyone else. All they care about is what they see as the cool freaky small kid.

Why is it when a bus full of school kids explodes and one survives with half her face burnt off its a miracle? If this is the best your god can do, you can keep him. I don't see this as a miracle I see this as a tragedy.

Gotta love the Internet, the modern freak show. Is everyone proud of their gawking? Would you care so much about this child if she were normal? Obviously not.

If she grows up normally in terms of intellect you think she'll appreciate being so objectified and showcased?

And yes mom, she would have been put down if she were a dog, whats so wrong with saying that? Its true. Pointing that out does not mean you agree with it or endorse it. Self righteous narrow minded twit. It's called freedom of speech. Google it. How quickly we turn into Stalin when someone flames us on the intarweb.

Besides, judging from the pastor or whatever you rushed to her side, you presumably think she has heaven waiting for her anyway, so whence comes the anger even if the poster did suggest euthanasia? By your logic would it not be in her best interest?

You Christians don't even act like you really believe in heaven. I mean if I truly believed in heaven and hell, and I truly believed that asking forgiveness saved my soul, and I truly believed, that after a certain age, hell, that is, being tortured brutally for ALL TIME, was a real possibility.

I'd quickly and painlessly murder my own children to insure their entry into heaven and to shorten their suffering. After all, this life is worthless compared to the next, right? And hell is a much bigger problem then death, right? As a parent would you not risk hell to ensure your child's entry into heaven? I would, and I don't even have children.

But no, Christians fight death just as hard as atheists, if not harder. So, I smell bullshit.

And where's the outpouring of support for the hundreds of families that actually lost their children this year? Oh right, they didn't make a cool little freak baby for the Internet to ooo and ahh over. They aren't interesting, right? And make no mistake, thats what they all see her as, the only reason they even pretend to care is curiosity and guilt.

You people disgust me.

Some of us know people who didn't get a miracle, and are infuriated at the implication that these people somehow deserved a miracle to keep their child alive while others did not. The ego of this implication is astonishing beyond words, and that comes from a guy who considers himself a latter day Buddha and potential savior of all sentient life. :)

The only real miracle here is that people will believe anything, even if its in complete contradiction.

Every living human is a miracle, or none of them are, not just the cute little white American female ones.

News flash, she's not an angel, or a doll, or a toy, or an object of wonder. She's a human being, which is more than I can say for most of you. I deeply pity what its going to be like for her to grow up surrounded by you people.

Fortunately for her, the media has the attention span of a 5 year old cocaine addict with ADHD, so she may get a bit of dignity in a little while.

I hope she makes it long enough to be repaired by future gene therapy.

I wish her luck, but no more than the rest of us.

We all deserve a good life, so long as we are sentient, regardless of size.

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.

Masculism, Cynicism, and Woman Hating.

This essay is out of date:: See the updated version here.

http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=1345

Many times when people read some of my work they come to the conclusion that I am cynical and that I hate women or view them in a bad light.

The purpose of this post is to answer that claim, so that I can have a full bodied response at my fingertips.

I consider myself a masculist, and here' I'll include the definition.

Well, in looking for a suitable definition, I found a lovely double standard.

According to Http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feminism ...

Noun feminism 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 females must be removed in order to bring about such equality.

According to Http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/masculism ... (until I edited it, I'm sure someone will put it back)

Noun masculism (plural masculisms) A belief in the superiority of men or the masculine. 1983, Sheila Ruth, quoted in Judith Evans (1986), Feminism and Political Theory [1], ISBN 0803997051, page 70: Fascism, fully revealed, is the extreme, exquisite expression of masculism, of patriarchy, and thus the natural enemy of feminism, its quintessential opposite. 1997, Nalini Persram, "In my father's house are many mansions", in Black British Feminism: A Reader [2], ISBN 0415152887, page 213: It often takes a crisis of some sort to initiate the difficult but empowering feminist process of renegotiating the masculisms that dominate the discourses of origin, authenticity and belonging in a way that transforms margins into frontiers, lack into (ad)vantage. 2004, Thomas Schatz, Hollywood [3], ISBN 0415281350, page 73: The Rocky-Rambo syndrome puts on display the raw masculism which is at the bottom of conservative socialization and ideology.

So, when one argues for equal rights from the man's perspective, they are a bigot, but when one argues for equal rights from a woman's perspective they are a civil rights figure.

Anyway, I'll define masculism correctly, and continue to answer the charge that I am a woman hater or am cynical etc.

Noun

masculism

1. 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.

For example, the social restriction on arguing that men are the oppressed gender in America. As if honor killings over the proper use of a burqa are common in the states.

No, I do not hate women, I just feel that they are in an undeserved socially superior position. Like the blue eye brown eye school experiment demonstrated, whenever an oppressed group is given power over their oppressors on equally flimsy grounds they will act as badly as those who oppressed them. This is a sad human fact.

Feminists in the modern American context simply want revenge. They want a period of social superiority to make up for the long period of inferiority.

Granted, the global picture of women's rights is a grim one, and feminists are indeed needed all over the world, and in those contexts I consider myself a feminist as well. But here in America, any disadvantages females encounter are consequences of their own choices.

For example, if a woman wants to complain about being a victim of violent crime then they should not subsidize violent men with mates. Time and again the smaller gentler man is disregarded in favor of the larger aggressive one. This means that what it is to be a successful man is inherently linked with violence because of the choices women make.

Rape is not a significant source of children anymore in the west on an evolutionary level, men desire sex more than women for hormonal and biological reasons, therefor women have more sexual power because more often than the man, the women becomes the gate keeper of sex, or as I like to put it, The Chooser Sex.

Women as a result generally get to choose when a family is formed. No glove no love, they can say. Thanks to legal favoritism they also choose who gets to be a father and thus THEY control what it is to be a man and father, because if a man or father does not measure up she can divorce him and take his child in the majority of cases.

Therefor it is not fair to blame men for how they are since how they are is largely under female control.

Pointing this out does not mean I hate or blame women. I consider this a social inequity perpetrated on both sexes by The Company (Corp/Gov/Church), using monogamy as its chief tool, for purposes of profit, as I have explained before.

I don't hate women, I love women. I personally consider them my superior by default, as they are physically built better, and they are calmer and more compassionate by and large, which may be a reason they tolerate violence too much, their forgiving nature, but in any case this situation is the result of sexual selection practices they have instituted, and perpetuate.

This may seem conflicted, one might ask :”but if you consider them your superior why do you complain about their supposed superior standing in society?”

Quite simply because why they are superior in this society has nothing to do with why I consider them superior as a gender. Women in this society are superior because they posses a vagina, not because they have a gift for compromise, compassion, diplomacy, and personal strength.

Women are on top socially because they are desired sexually. This has nothing to do with their general advantage in the traits I mentioned above, which means that women who possess none of those traits are still placed on top, like Paris Hilton for example.

I think most everyone can agree that she's a vapid monster. But she does not need to be hated because she enjoys sex or money, most of us do, and that's nothing to be shamed of. She needs to be hated because she sells sex covertly and is part of a culture that encourages others to do the same, with disastrous results. She demands pampering because she fits The Company's social definition of beauty.

I wish the playing field to be equalized so that the traits I mentioned above can be accorded their due respect. And I personally believe that in an equal society primarily women would be in charge until such time as sexual selection or transhumanist pressures begin to more evenly divide those traits up among the genders.

No, I do not hate women. No, my view is not cynical, it is in fact hopeful. Sex is something sacred and it is a human right. To trade it like so much beef is a grand sacrilege. It should be shared freely circumstances permitting. Sex is the perfect drug and we are all born with it, we should not have to pay third parties for it. And we should revere those who are kind enough to give it away or sell it at fair market value, not call them sluts and whores and attack them as if they were inhuman. Nor should we attack and humiliate those who wish to buy sex, or who want sex, for being perverts or pathetic, anymore than we should attack a starving person looking for a meal.

Some will blame men for their hunger, claiming sex obsession, but this is radically unfair. Sex is a basic animal need. And testosterone is what makes men different from women, and it is also the sex drive hormone in both sexes. Again pointing this out does not make me a woman hater.

No, the fact is, its everyone else that has the dark and cynical view of love and sex. I see it as a crystal pure flowing stream. Not a dirty six pack of Dasani.

Editorial addition:

I have a problem with cultural aspects of general female behaviors and choices. But to have a problem with women simply because they are women would be equivalent to racism. I have a problem with choices, not people.

I love people.

However, yes, I have a dim view of some people as they are defined by their actions because of the choices they consistently make. No cynic thinks of himself as a cynic, they all think of themselves as realists. I personally think of myself as an optimist.

After all, look at the hope I show is speaking at all, if I was a cynic would I not take the attitude "why bother"?

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.