Saturday, April 28, 2012

Revolt

One of the things I've been ruminating about on my vocation has been a topic that has captured my attention for some time---male disposability.  Despite what occurred with the Costa Concordia (which I believe is not the only incidence of apparent lack of selflessness on men's behalf for women) there has been a strain of belief even in the MRM that most men are somehow hapless in a sense regarding protecting and providing for women.  It's ingrained in us, it's in evolutionary psychological make up of men, it's in our DNA.


Argue as many might attest to this, it's obviously not completely set in stone.  


I do believe that our Western culture amps men's alleged "drive" to engage in self-sacrifice not just because of civilization's sake; it's because someone is benefiting and even exploiting a huge percentage of men.  Whatever belief system you come from perspective-wise, clearly there are forces out that that are pretty darn insecure about men losing faith and trust in society and the tenuous pact between men and women.  Now days, our culture wants women to be supported no matter what foibles and failures they engage in; if men don't comply, the state will, although the state often garners financial and the toil of men by "legalized" extortion.  


We're supposed to be content with being model beta males, and if we don't like it, it's tough shit---even if we are given nothing return.  This is not the most healthy condition, obviously.


Men's interests and needs are always at a backseat, if salient at all.  We're supposed to be happy being fem-serfs (although so many women incessantly seem to be happy at being unhappy) and not place our happiness first.   A man that does strive to carve is own path is somehow seen from anything to useless or a pariah.  He's a narcissistic jerk even if he's not intentionally harming someone else.   Shame and even vile contempt are often heaped upon men who break ranks and even question why men should ultimately appease your modern Ameriskank; nevermind parasitical sociopaths that are no good for society get admiration by the truckloads---that are at or near the apex of popularity---and are rewarded by so many women who are eager to even be in a harem of sorts with them.  And, of course, the rest of us have to scramble for the leftovers or don't have a good mate to spare.  


If you don't kow tow, you're a self-centered, misogynist asshole.  Hell, there are some women online practically screaming it and demonizing any man that they deem as such.


If men really understood the biases and embitterment against them and let it sink it permanently, the landscape of the dynamic of between the sexes would be very, very different.  It truly terrifies women if men were to stop self-sacrifice and expect women to own up.  Real, raw equality is something that very few women can rise to the challenge and uphold.   While there are no hard and fast rules for MGTOW, I do believe there is a strong, deep undercurrent that is the root of men's rights issues---acknowledged or not---that more men are gradually perturbed by being perceived and treated as second class citizens and are waking up to that fact.  

And no, "bitter" or not, it goes deeper than not getting a date for a time or just not looking like the cool metrosexual Ameriskanks claim they want.  It cuts to the core of our souls, and it's surprising that more men aren't downright furious about it.  Feminists have no idea how much men show restraint and control in this aspect; we are not given merit points or anything of the sort, and no matter how much scorn and abuse are lobbed at us, we are supposed to be still loving and forgiving at the end of the day.  



Whatever the reason, there are people who have an awful time of seeing men as human beings rather than just human doings.  The irony is that feminism has been stated as the belief that women are people, too.  This is hogwash; feminism was (and is) about female supremacy and having women possess ultimate say-so on anything to legalities to sexual intimacy; somewhere along the line men's priorities were not of import.  


Now, I do think it will come to pass that men will have to be viewed as people, too, regardless if feminists and their cohorts like or not.  Perhaps it will not be in my life time, but the meme is out and about, and no amount of politically correct brainwashing or grooming men to be white knights will dampen the word.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

In a word: Feminism is hipocrisy.

Brazilian Woman.

Sociopathic Revelation said...

Indeed.

njartist said...

There is no biblical support for male disposability; therefore, there are no moral grounds for society to impose such a demand.

Zorro said...

Repeal the 19th Amendment. Let the whores figure it out for themselves.

Sociopathic Revelation said...

njartist;

I suppose it comes down to just a couple of verses like this one:

1 John 3:16

"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers."

Of course, who the brothers are up for theological discourse, typically I'd say other faithful ones.

I was raised Lutheran although I've become an Agnostic later on, but as far as I'm concerned even with interpretation I don't think it's on par with the sentiment, "You should engage in social obligation even if it means throwing yourself underneath a bus for those who care nothing if you live or die." There's a difference.

I think someone said it succinctly (yet very well), we saying, "Why not live and love for each other?" But that's not on the agenda for those who creep around for prey to exploit.

Of course, you and I know that scripture can be employed for selfish ends and use others for nefarious purposes. I know women out there that think that they don't have to show restraint and respect for their husbands (this includes a large amount of Christian women) while the husband is used to be the protector and provider role no matter what. Biblical injunctions or not, human nature doesn't work that way very well, even with men that purport to be happy by acquiescence all the time at their expense. Even they get resentful, as just as a wife that will get resentful at a man that is a drone for her even if that's what she claimed she wanted all along. Not to mention the verses that state women should respect their husbands in turn, but feminists pretty much don't like that very much, obviously.

Sociopathic Revelation said...

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were the writers of the initial draft of the 19th Amendment. I'd still like to know why after all this men still have to sign up for selective service in order to vote (among other things) and women don't. The old guard wanted "equality" but I suppose men's rights got lost as real issues and considered axiomatic in a "patriarchal" culture.

It was projected by some that women would eventually become like a massive voting block. Eventually, that become more Leviathan-like than the original critics ever expected, I'll bet.

But hey, you get anything from the Jessica Valentis of the world, who want men to be suspect/guilty before innocent in rape accusations, to rep Yasmin Neal, who openly stated that the will of the government as substitute of the will of men and wants to regulate an even control men who want vasectomies as a form of vindictiveness for those restricting abortion terms (which is an apples to orange comparison; if anti-abortion lobbyists were restricting/limiting tubal ligations, that would be the equivalent). Neel is not only creating a false equivalency fallacy, but trying to spearhead MORE of control of male reproduction---women still have say-so in sexual reproduction above men for quite some time.

Feminism was never really about justice, equality . . . or men's needs, for that matter. The eerie part is that so many people not only believe this, but also think what a Cantrell, Neel, Valenti, Futrelle, or else are doing good when they are so controlling and destructive.