As the Mens Movement grows, both in size and in social awareness, there has been a similar growth in the calls for moderation, for a publicly palatable presentation of mens issues. Nearly universally, these calls come from those who are new to the movement, or of a Socialist ideological bent. And there is good reason for this commonality, the same reason why following this approach is foolhardy.
Men are controlled in society primarily through the use of the stick, rather than the carrot. Anyone with a Y chromosome growing up in the political West is familiar with the concepts, if not particularly aware of them:
I'm sure you get the picture. One thing that seems to be a common thread among these social narratives is the acceptance of men, by women, for sexual relations. That, in essence, is the stick being used to beat men with. And it's an obviously powerful one as well, given that all the narratives outlined above, including the interconnected nature of the narratives (female sex objects, male success objects) is shamelessly hypocritical, yet widely supported.
This is cognitive dissonance on a mass scale, and in my view is akin to a deeply held Religious belief shared by an overwhelming percentage of society, including nearly all of it's power structures. So, how does one fight this sort of entity?
The key to winning this fight is a bit of Guerilla tactics, combined with a multi-pronged approach. And like any tactic designed around using the enemy's strength against them, our best approach is to make criticism of our goals an open admission of hypocrisy on theirs. In short, as is the case with nearly everything Feminists do, the best method of attacking them is to use their own projections against them.
Patriarchy Theory is nothing more than Feminist gendercide fantasy projected onto men.
Rape Culture is nothing more than a projection of female attitudes towards male sexuality, and men in general, onto men instead.
Obviously, the minds that swallow Feminist bullshit are damaged in some way, are they not? Or perhaps they are merely misinformed, and once they learn the truth they will fight for what's right?
There's a problem in this kind of thinking. Actually, two. First, women tend to get their 'facts' from what is called 'Social Proofing'. Basically, a popularity contest for ideas or actions. If a lot of other women like it, then it must be good.
The other problem is the male compulsion to please females. Rather, the distortion of the compulsion to attract females.
This leads to a startlingly simple to state strategy, sure to be far harder to implement than it may seem:
Make women feel 'unpopular', or 'unattractive', when engaging in undesired behaviours...but do it in a way that makes them want to fuck you. And anyone who knows anything about women will tell you, one naturally leads to the other.
I don't think I need to go into basic SMP ideas here, but it should be obvious that the Rebellious persona is a hell of a lot more compelling than the Conciliator persona. A 'damn the torpedoes' attitude is FAR more attractive to women than a soft, respectful tone will ever be. And any woman will tell you, when a man asks for permission he loses her respect to some degree, when he 'takes charge', on the other hand....
Men are controlled in society primarily through the use of the stick, rather than the carrot. Anyone with a Y chromosome growing up in the political West is familiar with the concepts, if not particularly aware of them:
"Get a good job, or you won't get a quality woman. Break your back every day to ensure she can sit on her ass if she chooses to, do so while also taking on half of the household responsibilities, and don't even think about making less than last year. Man Up motherfucker!
"Your sexual desires are dirty, disgusting, sexist and Patriarchal. You should be ashamed of yourself for being attracted to a woman based on her looks, that's objectification! Your natural impulses are oppressive, evil, 'sick', or even violent, and they should be suppressed at all costs. You should never judge a woman for her sexuality or sexual history, anything she chose to do was her right to do as a woman. If you ever engage in sexual activity that is not 100% enthusiastically consented to - in the Legal sense - then you are a dirty rapist scumbag. No, you do not get to know what 'consent in the Legal sense' actually means. Stop whining about 'fairness'. No one ever said life was fair. Now get back to twisting yourself in knots trying to live up to these expectations, or you'll never find True Happiness.
"Of course we provide extra incentive and help to designated groups, they start from a position of disempowerment and need a little more to make up for it. No, we don't apply this same principle in all cases, because some designated groups are more designated than others, if you know what I mean. Men, for example, and more specifically white men, make up almost all of the world's richest elite (we only count the elites that have a job title, but don't bother with that), so while there are some disadvantaged white males, as a group they still have privelege. So we can't help them - it wouldn't be fair. What's that? You think actual need is more important than serving political ends? What are you, some kind of sexist bigot?
I'm sure you get the picture. One thing that seems to be a common thread among these social narratives is the acceptance of men, by women, for sexual relations. That, in essence, is the stick being used to beat men with. And it's an obviously powerful one as well, given that all the narratives outlined above, including the interconnected nature of the narratives (female sex objects, male success objects) is shamelessly hypocritical, yet widely supported.
This is cognitive dissonance on a mass scale, and in my view is akin to a deeply held Religious belief shared by an overwhelming percentage of society, including nearly all of it's power structures. So, how does one fight this sort of entity?
The key to winning this fight is a bit of Guerilla tactics, combined with a multi-pronged approach. And like any tactic designed around using the enemy's strength against them, our best approach is to make criticism of our goals an open admission of hypocrisy on theirs. In short, as is the case with nearly everything Feminists do, the best method of attacking them is to use their own projections against them.
Patriarchy Theory is nothing more than Feminist gendercide fantasy projected onto men.
Rape Culture is nothing more than a projection of female attitudes towards male sexuality, and men in general, onto men instead.
Obviously, the minds that swallow Feminist bullshit are damaged in some way, are they not? Or perhaps they are merely misinformed, and once they learn the truth they will fight for what's right?
There's a problem in this kind of thinking. Actually, two. First, women tend to get their 'facts' from what is called 'Social Proofing'. Basically, a popularity contest for ideas or actions. If a lot of other women like it, then it must be good.
The other problem is the male compulsion to please females. Rather, the distortion of the compulsion to attract females.
This leads to a startlingly simple to state strategy, sure to be far harder to implement than it may seem:
Make women feel 'unpopular', or 'unattractive', when engaging in undesired behaviours...but do it in a way that makes them want to fuck you. And anyone who knows anything about women will tell you, one naturally leads to the other.
I don't think I need to go into basic SMP ideas here, but it should be obvious that the Rebellious persona is a hell of a lot more compelling than the Conciliator persona. A 'damn the torpedoes' attitude is FAR more attractive to women than a soft, respectful tone will ever be. And any woman will tell you, when a man asks for permission he loses her respect to some degree, when he 'takes charge', on the other hand....
No comments:
Post a Comment