"In the beginning, there was the "Battle of the sexes", and it was bad enough. Then, on the end of the 2nd millenium, man and woman made "Gender War", and they looked at it, and it was worse. "
The following is a brief, rapid fire, summary of a variety of biological and social perspectives on the gender war. The social structures related to mating are undergoing a profound and radical shift. We need to set aside the issues of value judgements for a moment to see exactly what the trends are and speculate where they might lead if they continue in the present direction. Then we need to reapply the notion of values and decide whether that is truly the way we want things to go. We can shape the future by our choices.
Consider the following a "work in progress." It is an attempt to introduce certain radical notions in a way that will show how they all fit together. I will probably show disrespect to at least one of everyone's sacred cows. I mean these ideas to be provocative, and hope that they can help spark a new dialogue in which more of the basic assumptions regarding human behavior, and certainly the stereotypes, will come under deeply skeptical scrutiny.
One - If you are a dedicated creationist, read no further. Determinism and external causation are so central to feminidiocy that if you accept those basic premises then any battle with feminist theory will boil down to nothing more than Catholics fighting Protestants. Most of what I say is based on Darwin and Malthus and if you reject the work of those two then you will not see that my formulations have any power at all. However, if you can step back a bit you will see that the entire notion of "Patriarchy" is nothing more than a variation on Jehovah or Allah. The claims that wimminists make for the power THEIR male god, Patriarchy, even exceed the claims made by Judeo-Christians and Muslims. J & A at least give their followers enough free will to screw up and fail the entrance requirement to heaven. "Patriarchy" moves everyone like puppets.
Two - there will never be a mass men's movement in the same way that there has been a mass women's movement. Men simply are not joiners in the same way. Men "join" something for the status or other benefit it gives them - all the men's movements so far have been so silly that joining a men's movement is a step below seeking psychological counseling on men's list of things to do.
Three - Whether by genetics or socialization, and I really suspect a combination of both in which natural tendencies are maximized, men are more likely to deny their pain and tough things out. Back in the 1930s, Alfred Adler (an influential writer on the education of children) wrote about the drive to excell or be "superior" which was innate to children, boys in particular. Competition and "winning" are important enough that minor issues of pain are secondary for men.
Four - Feminism is a strawman, a red herring, distracting people's attention from a much larger philosophical war. A woman back in 1957 wrote a book in which all the words, arguments, and claims which the wimminists spout came out of the mouths of both men and women. Marxism is only part of it, but it is a central part - "from each according to ability, to each according to need." If you haven't already, you need to dig into some of the foundations of contemporary feminist theory, particularly the so-called "post- structuralist" notions of (Michael, I believe) Foucault. I have some links if you are interested. What these nutcases have done is to take socialism from an essentially economic theory and made it into a theory of cognition. He literally claims that reality is whatever we decide to perceive it to be. His work is what has given feminidiocy the "woman so oppressed that she doesn't know she is oppressed" notion. His discussion of "internalized social controls" puts the oppression and victim spin on what someone else would call conscience or a sense of ethics. Too bad Freud has taken such a beating by the feminidiots, because Foucault's "internalized controls" map perfectly onto Freud's "superego". Thus sociopathology, the ability to act any damn way they please any damn time they please, and have no concern for the consequences to other people, is the heart and soul of feminist theory.
Five - Thus certain aspects of feminst theory ARE true. Women have been restricted because their selfish nature unconstrained by social controls will be inevitably destructive. The entire foundation of civilization depends on containing individual behaviors within certain boundaries so that the rights of others are not violated. Feminism demands the right for any woman to be free to violate the rights of anyone at any time and suffer no consequences for it. The extreme of this is the right to murder unborn children, born children, and men and get away with consequences less severe than a man suffers for insulting a woman.
Six - Western Civilization is in decline. This gets real tricky because the points I make inevitably trigger knee-jerk reactions in both liberals and conservatives. I make and remark on observations without adding the baggage of judgement. The only way to understand a lot of this is to take an objectivist viewpoint. Western civilization is based on Imperialism, Judeo-Christianity, and urbanization. The American Empire was the successor to the British Empire, which learned everything from the Roman Empire. It is inherently expansionistic which brings us to the Malthus limit. Since Malthus was writing in essentially pre-technological times, he only talked about food supply. Since population increases geometrically while food supply can only increase arithmetically, there will inevitably come a point where the two curves intersect and population will over-run the food supply and mass starvation will set in. War and competition for territory have always been time-tested historic methods for disposing of excess population. About 110 years ago we (European Imperialists) ran out of continents that we could steal from the original inhabitants using our superior weapons technology. While military domination has remained an important tool of "foreign policy" right up to Kosovo today, there has been a switch to economic and industrial domination. The "bad news" side of this is that as other countries industrialize and the "standard of living" rises to match "the American Dream", the consumption of resources, both raw materials and energy, begins to follow the same geometric expansion as the pressure on the food supply. Thus, we must either continue to confiscate the resources and food of other countries at the point of our Armed Forces' guns, or find a way to live within the limits of our resources. That is most certainly NOT the "American" way, so what we have is increased competition for resources which is expressed as agression. While this aggression is temporarily hidden behind the smokescreen of the courts, and the thugs and hiwaymen of today are called "lawyers" and "international bankers", the function is the same: theft from the owners and producers (ability) to serve the self-defined "needs" of the non-producers and non-owners.
Seven - The most destructive notion in Western Civilization today is that of "entitlement". As a naturalist, I point out that no rabbit in the wild is "entitled" to live 10 more minutes. He earns that "privilege" each time he escapes the coyote and forfeits it the moment he fails.
Eight - About 40 years ago the US made a major transition in its economic structure which has gone largely unnoticed and its significance seldom understood and even more seldom remarked upon. In the late 1950s, at the peak of the US industrial success, domination of the world, and consumption of the world's industrial output, the percentage of the population which managed or sold something exceeded the percentage of the population PRODUCING ANYTHING. We made the transition from being a nation mostly of producers to being a nation of "handlers". I can't remember the name of the guy who postulated that a "service economy" (and by implication an "information" economy) was possible, but I contend that history will prove him completely, perversely, wrong. There's a guy in Canada who could be my clone who has done a GREAT job of laying this out, so I'll just refer you to his page and save myself the effort. (http://webhome.idirect.com/~andyt/) Trying to sum up my thesis as succinctly as possible - we have moved from an economy of value-ADDITION to an economy of value-DIVISION. We see this manifested everywhere, but most of all in the feminist demands for "wage-parity" and prating about "glass-ceilings" which absolutely deny and try to refute the principle of value-addition. Women (and minorities as well) are to be compensated NOT on how much value they add to a product or company, but on what they are ENTITLED to because the group to which they belong has never added enough value to have been worth compensating for it. It is no accident that one of the favored professions for these newly "liberated" women has been lawyer. The law gives them the structure to rob people at the point of a gavel rather than a gun.
Nine - At some point in time we will run out of pie to keep cutting up into smaller and smaller pieces while the legal system loots out the biggest pieces for itself. The notion of "capital" is dead in an information economy. We had this lesson presented to us once back in 1929, when capital still really existed, but we weren't paying attention. Keynes's method of counting the $$$ which a lawyer loots out of a productive company as part of the GNP, in effect counting it twice, is the worst case of cooking the books which has ever been perpetrated. A velocity economy MUST accelerate in response to an increasing population. Most of the acceleration since 1967 has been achieved by inflation and the creation of debt. I believe that there is a terminal velocity which will result in a dramatic restructuring of the economy, most likely nearly complete collapse.
Ten - The "glass cellar" will be the safe refuge for the majority of men. The less they earn and expect to earn, and the more directly their work adds real value, the better they will weather the collapse. I discourage every young man I can from going to college and joining "the professions". Attorneys are so common that they are being used instead of lab rats in medical experiments. People don't get nearly so attached to them. HMOs have turned the practice of medicine into piece-work, or worse into a turn-of-the-century sweatshop. MDs are now forming "Doctors UNIONS"! ( now how is THAT for surreal )
Eleven - The education system is not "failing boys", it is failing itself and the culture which supports it. It destroys motivation, rewards conformity and passivity, punishes merit, and totally inverts the contribution/reward system which made this country so phenomenally successful for nearly 3 centuries. The legal looters have turned achievement into a target and accomplishment into a crime to be punished. Boys are bright, they have caught on.
Twelve - The rise of feminism concurrent with the decline of compensation for value-additon is no accident. Feminidiots can NOT add value, so they will always perish in a free market based on value. Only in a government driven oligarchy can they demand high salaries and tenured positions for teaching that there is no reason, no mind, and that there should be no constraints on the behavior of women - including their right to commit murder.
Thirteen - (appropriately) Any bad idea is self-limiting. Even the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its stupid economic ideology. The US will do the same. It is inevitable. There are too many idiots in charge and giving the looters free license to loot.
Fourteen - ( and this one you may find one of the most controversial ) If you have been able to swallow what I said about Malthus, resource and energy consumption, and the notion of hitting a wall that cannot be moved or gone around, this next statement may not seem so hallucinatory: feminism, AIDS, Ebola, and a host of other "new" diseases are related. If you don't hold to the notion that some male all-powerful supernatural entity built the world in his garage with power tools about 6,000 years ago, and accept the archeological record, human beings as they are today have been around for about 60,000 years. Population estimates at the end of the last ice age, about 25,000-30,000 years ago, put the human population of the world at about 250 million. In 1850, the population was about 1.5 billion. It took roughly 30,000 years for the population to increase 6x. In the next 150 years, it increased 4x to approx 6 billion. There were a whole lot of factors which went into this, but Pasteur's germ theory and what I call "death control" is what I consider to be the primary factor. Population levels are the result of two vector forces. The fertility force pushes population levels upward. The mortality force pushes them down. Significantly reduce the mortality force and population levels will surge upward, geometrically, as they did after 1850. The world is one hell of a lot bigger and more complex than most people realize, and the "scientists" understand one hell of lot less than they claim to. Ever heard of lemmings? When their population reaches excessive levels they commit mass suicide. When other animal populations reach excessive levels and the gene pool begins to be compromised, suddenly live births will switch from a 50/50 ratio of male to female and will begin to produce a preponderance of one sex over the other. There are control mechanisms in nature that we haven't even begin to understand yet which reduce excess populations by either increasing mortality or decreasing fertility or both. Since humans are the most successful predator ever, and have killed into extinction all the larger predators who preyed on us about 11,000 years ago, the "new" predators on the human species are now the smallest: the microbes. And to end run the effect of antibiotics, they are the borg of the microbe world: viruses instead of bacteria. "Your T-cells WILL be assimilated. Resistance is futile." The rise of feminism and gay rights and the destruction of the traditional family are social adaptations requiring and causing a FUNDAMENTAL shift in the fertility-maxmizing social structures which have been so successful that humans have bred themselves to the brink of starvation.
Fifteen - So what does all this have to do with men, men's rights, and a men's movement? A couple of significant things. First, we have to look at the criminalization of fatherhood (divorce, child support, and false DV claims), sexual intercourse with women (expanded definitions of rape and statutory rape), and even finding women attractive (sexual harassment) as evidence that this culture has criminalized the male contribution and role in fertility. What women want be damned, what the culture wants is made clear by what it criminalizes: the male contribution to fertilty. C4m, or "non-fathers" rights will need to be an essential part of any coherent men's movement. An effective means of male birth control would go a long way but, for the time being, celibacy (remaining unmarried) and chastity (sexual abstinence) will have to do. By law, the government can confiscate any or all of a man's wages to support A) any children born by a woman married to him, or B) any child conceived by an unmarried woman using his sperm. To show you how radical I am, as a dedicatedly heterosexual male, I consider gay rights to be the only coherent "men's movement" to surface so far. They have found an end run for the wage-slave, specialized beast of burden to haul around a financially and emotionally dependent wife and family, role.
The social roles have been flipped. Where women used to be the gatekeepers (restrainers) of sexual activity, they are now the most ardent pursuers under the dishonest guise of seeking "love." (Not to go into here just how little real "love" there is to a High Maintenance woman who uses marriage to legally loot half or more of her husband's lifetime earnings.) Once large numbers of men figure out how well sexual withholding works, as it has for women for millennia, I expect lots more men to adopt it. This is where time is particularly on the side of boomer males. Just at the time that our hormonal drives are cooling off and the sexual attentions of women becoming almost more of an annoyance than a pleasure, is when we encounter the largest number of single women who have their precious fucking careers, no husband, and aren't attractive enough to deal with unless they COURT US. Revenge is a dish which tastes best eaten cold.
Second, since the "internal controls" of essential civility have been discredited by feminism, we don't even have to be civil to these women. In fact, I learned that when I stopped doing so that my life became many times more managable.
One of the grand old men of Macho, Norman Mailer, said one of my favorite quotes back in the 60s: "There is nothing in the world more over-rated than a good lay, and nothing more under-rated than a good shit." Thoreau said "At my age my time is too valuable to waste listening to some empty headed twit run her mouth simply because she has regular features."
What none of these idiots have figured out yet is that the men involved in today's "mommy and daddy wars" were socialized and developed their value system pre-feminism. Divorce has broken the transmission of viable culture by preventing these men from socializing their sons in the same value system which was based in fertility maximizing social structures. No matter how much the conservatives try to hold on to the old ways, they are dead - gone the way of the dodo bird.
I hope I'm still around to laugh my ass off when these idiots figure out that feminism actually freed men from their wage slavery and protector/provider roles while women pushed them out of the cages they were in because women wanted to take their place in those cages. And I will really split a gut when the post-feminist boys and girls default on the massive debt which the boomers piled up by borrowing their kids future.
Men built civilization for women, now women have tried to push men out and taken the civility out of it. Its gonna be fun to watch them shit razor blades while it crumbles around them. So-called "normal" women deserve what they are going to get because they have sat by in their smug moral superiority and watched the whole thing happen and enjoyed watching men squirm. Our time is coming soon.
I believe that the most important role for middle-aged men is to assassinate women's characters and destroy the mythology of innocence and female moral superiority in the minds of young men. Plus provide a countervoice to the relentless marketing of sex which is designed to make young men slaves and addicts to their sexual appetites. What we need most is a male Shere Hite who blows the lid off this whole best-kept secret of what bum fucks most women are and how obnoxious sex can be when it is nothing but a treat handed out by women in reward for jumping through hoops.
There has been a "men's movement" going on for years that no one has recognized because it looks like millions of wildcat strikes of one. Men are abandoning the culture which is out to kill them. But, in typical male way, they are coming to the decision individually and implementing it in their own unique way. Almost 1/3 of the men of marriage age in this country have never been married. This despite the two decades of whining about "men can't make a committment." Men are abandoning mass media and giving up the yuppie lifestyle. This is why advertising panders so much to women. Boys are jumping off the achievement track and the work-earn-spend treadmill because they know that even if they develop the skills that they will never be able to compete on merit alone and will always have to swim upstream against unfair advantages of women. It IS still "every man for himself" and I don't think it will ever change until this artificially created period of plenty is over.
Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
Gunderson, Obama, and lots of bankster stories
3 hours ago