through the years and the tears
under black cloud skies
seems the lower that I go
is where my true heart lies
and when I'm stuck in the thick of it
there's no need to roam
some think of me as fried but it's a choice all my own
I've been called a dinosaur relic
stuck in the twilight zone
but stickin' in the sub-basement
keeps me lit to the bone
like the bats hanging dormant
in their nocturnal fleet
I'm still around underground
gettin' my peace without sleep
"Sub-Basement" ---Pentagram
I admit I was rather depressed today. Not to the extremes that people in the throes of serious depression experience, or seasonal affective disorder even though I care little for the bitter cold Northern Indiana is engulfed in. I wanted to go out, and do the things I wanted to normally do; practice mixed martial arts training and either lean heavy on striking or grappling depending on my mood. No dice; our training is temporarily on hiatus. I have little debt, but the past two months I spent way too much, money which I should have stowed away. I may have even stopped at a Thai restaurant that I have skimmed over for months; my desire to curtail my spending make me skirt mid-town and go home to raid my cabinets instead.
But there's still my personal outlets. Our team is re-locating and the price for training is still the same, no contracts. My debt so low, my credit card bill just under---gasp---eighty bucks. My world, despite hiccups and hurdles, is absent of the travails that others seem what to punish themselves with, in the roundabout search for the dead American dream they still insist on exhuming.
It stinks. And I refuse to live the life of a rat race that ends in heart failure and dismay.
A good friend of mine felt similar around the holidays. He found himself still rather alienated in his own family, who parrot the same things every time they congregate. To them, perhaps avid interest in RPG video gaming and other pursuits would be deemed fruitless, or simply a matter of not being grown up.
Our gynocentric culture demands men to be real men. What does that mean?
If anything, it's a code word, a shaming tactic to push men into going against their own instincts of self-preservation and engage in sacrifice at their expense. It's often due to unscrupulous figures in our life; whether it be a hypocritical politician that would never put his or her self on the line for a political cause, or a skank that is ever unhappy and a financial and emotional vampire on her mate, who was duped as a youth to treat women with chivalry and deference, all the time being blamed for what's primarily wrong in a relationship; you're damned if you do, if you damned if you don't.
Solace, that ever-elusive quality ultimately comes from within. If anything, the only definition of a real man is one that makes decisions for himself, and lives with both the good and the bad. Feminism will not solve that problem for us. Our government is unreliable and bullying filled with would-be aristocrats, and provides illusionary comfort at best to placate the masses, often at social ills they urged on themselves. We can try to find fulfillment in a loyal mate; the nature of post-modern woman is fickle and self-absorbed, and often quite unhealthy for men despite cries that marriage enable men to live longer---the studies of which are sponsored by organizations with an agenda; "Get married, and everything will be more blissful."
Yeah, right.
If serenity means removing oneself from the feminized madness, that churning maelstrom of anti-male bias and the burden to emasculate his own integrity and masculinity, so be it. One may choose to be a semi-hermit and indulge in activities that are escapist to our society that's deemed inane, if a man makes that conscious choice and decides it enriches him. Another becomes extroverted and uses his personal powers to better his life and others. The next employs his position and authority to fight against unjust and unlawful policies. And so on, and so forth.
As men, we are castigated for being single and bachelorhood, despite the benefits attached to being single. The real trick is to be okay with yourself, and being in that state. And if we must surround ourselves with others, make them mentors and proteges that nurture and encourage us. We've read all the lies and shaming barbs designed to get men to commit. Despite what feminists might think, many, if not most, men have a basic drive for honor and integrity. When their sense of these traits and the actualization of them yields painful lessons and the scorn, men eschew the twisted norms that work against them and re-learn to be on their own side.
With women, they are generally terrified of rejection (hence the lack of asking most men out unless they are certain of a good reaction), and although the verbal and online assault against men is seemingly endless, deep down they are also afraid of being alone, hate the idea they are not desirable for a relationship, and don't carve the brave paths men do when striking out on lonely and uncertain ventures. They will blame men for not wanting them after we refuse to jump in the precarious fire again and again with them, but we are learning. We are learning that the women that decry, "We don't need a man" is usually bullocks, and that we responded on our terms and survived without them in kind---even when society dubs as losers and nobodies without female approval. We are learning that if the hedonistic and feminist-minded will not be lawful and honorable with us, we will reject them as they have countlessly rejected us . . . and move on. When men are considered nothing more than tools and walking ATMs ripe for exploitation all under the banner of social obligation and the ersatz ideal of being a "real man," the only thing we really are obliged to do is be true to ourselves above all else.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Beauty Is Only Razor Deep, Part I
Recently, I offered more unorthodox commentary on the blog End of Men and a recent article on alcohol, responsibility, and feminism. Although my perspective is more combination of the archetypal with a smattering of sociobiology at times, I figured it was too important to be missed although right at this moment it's awaiting moderation. I'll let the feminist minded go round and round with as the blog creator permits, since I have low tolerance of them here, and let them chew on it for a time.
My counterpoints are addressed in typical fronts here, their reactions in italics from here: End of Men
I don't dismiss women's accountability in creating the grave problems we are seeing now. Feminists have blamed men for so many evils underneath the sun---it's backfiring, including with the spotlighting what women are doing to men out of entitlement and selfishness.
"Having worked in a public environment among alcohol consumption, I truly have witnessed more males acting like **ses than women “acting like sluts.”"
Apparently someone here hasn't spent as much time in bars and lounges as I have. I work within strolling distance of more than one of them, and work beside one. For years. There's a lot of foolish female behavior there, and women will often rationalize it one way or another.
"Let’s not forget the male’s part in this, and the fact that a “single parent” always involves one side scampering off (usually the male) into unrestrained oblivion, also burdening the “taxpayers” to finance rearing the innocent young."
Those taxpayers are often men forced to pay for women's mistakes and taking on the burden for women sleeping with the wrong guy and getting impregnated. Women are still the gatekeepers of sex, unless you're an alpha male that gets women knocking on your door 24/7. Meanwhile, the good men are holding up the machinery of society and get little or no credit for it. It's invisible, and expected by us from women who take everything about for granted.
But aside from that for now, I'm not saying someone else doesn't benefit from all of this; obviously, psychotherapists, the pharmaceutical industry, divorce court lawyers, politicians, and feminists in academia have quite a stake in perpetuating men's miseries in Western society. There's nothing conspiracy theorist about how denying men more rights (which many didn't have to begin with) and penalizing men more and more with inane laws to criminalize human behavior fuels political careers and deepens pocket books. I roll my eyes at the idea feminists truly believe women are exploited, when men are far more, even at the threat of a lawsuit or jail time. Which they will bear the brunt of more than women, usually.
Women can and often do invent their own problems, many of them more than you might think, and believe one personal or social savior should come along with a safety net and rescue them. If women wanted things to be different, the face of this nation would look far different. What you see is often what women have desired by their own manufacture or design; demanding proof is absurd because it's quite obvious. Women have reproductive choice and men have little or none; in Michigan alone a woman can do just about anything to claim her offspring, kill it off (abortion), or give it up, and men have to bow to consensus when the State backs women via enforcing anti-male bias in laws that expect men to pay up and still support a woman's decision no matter what. The list could go on and on.
I could even state the very politically incorrect sentiment that the sex that has more power in reproductive choice (women, of course) by extension, should be the one that ultimately ponies up for it, on purpose or on accident. But that's too harsh for most to take; there's always someone, usually a man, that has to foot the bill. If not, still blame men by default. Why not; feminists have been doing that for decades.
Fmwatkins states feminists don't represent women; I don't think they represent all women, but women have clung to feminists memes and have wielded myths and punishments about men out of brutish nature. Feminism appeals to female selfishness and superiority, and when something goes wrong, it's a convenient tool to scapegoat others without much merit.
Most feminist radicals are too extreme for many to accept; there is a continual rumble of the concept that masculinity is faulty and either should die off or even be eradicated. Not every woman is prepared to embrace such a nasty paradigm (at least not yet, thankfully) despite incessant resentment Western women seem to have against so many men. Just read any dating forum with a significant amount of women ranting about men, if you don't believe me.
Women wanted men to protect them in one capacity or another in the past, so most men responded because they felt that was the right thing to do. Then women wanted "freedom" from the restrictions of what they felt confining, such as home, hearth, and childbearing, and despite what feminists say, men where often backing that as well. True freedom comes with tremendous responsibility, and despite the cries that men are all pigs and not living up to being real men (i.e. supporting women and their options), I don't think a good chunk of them realize what true latitude entails, and the consequences mean. There is also another crucial factor; more men are perceiving the "strong, independent" woman as a exercise in affectation, and the huge side effect of double standards that come along with it that benefit women and harm men. And men aren't liking it too much.
Several American women have made particularly bad choices and skewered judgments for a decent portion of their lives. The above article is simply another illustration of that, just as with their selection of mates to sire offspring, the laws they clamor for, or any other major push they engage that ultimately serves myopic short term gain and long term pain. And society suffers because of it.
"You seem to place all the blame for unwanted pregnancies on women. It takes two to tango. What of the responsibility of men to act with restraint and to be sure to engage in safe sex in order to minimize pregancy?" ---Z
Boy, do I hear that from feminists a lot. It rests on more than one false premise; do you know what the reality is? Women still have the final say in whether or not sexual congress happens or not. It may take two to tango, but one still has more fundamental say so. So much for sexual equality (although it goes further than that, even). Or the fact when men do take responsibility for their sexuality, they are seen as no fun or has not having the bravado to take risks---men who want women to get checked for STDs possess "trust issues," men who get vasectomies are denying women out of a child, god forbid. There are even scores of women who get a thrill out of "flirting" with the possibility getting pregnant and will lie to men about it, even though, again, that's something we can't bring out in the open because women wouldn't ever be willing to take that kind of risk, right? And blame men for being so weak to be duped into it, correct?
But back to the article . . . women wanted to party hard like men (although many men give up the party scene or tamper off), and now that the consequences are steep---acquired STDs, unwanted pregnancies, alcohol-related diseases, flattened pocketbooks,and hollow one night or brief liaisons . . . so really, who wanted the endless joy ride---sans responsibility---to begin with now?
My counterpoints are addressed in typical fronts here, their reactions in italics from here: End of Men
I don't dismiss women's accountability in creating the grave problems we are seeing now. Feminists have blamed men for so many evils underneath the sun---it's backfiring, including with the spotlighting what women are doing to men out of entitlement and selfishness.
"Having worked in a public environment among alcohol consumption, I truly have witnessed more males acting like **ses than women “acting like sluts.”"
Apparently someone here hasn't spent as much time in bars and lounges as I have. I work within strolling distance of more than one of them, and work beside one. For years. There's a lot of foolish female behavior there, and women will often rationalize it one way or another.
"Let’s not forget the male’s part in this, and the fact that a “single parent” always involves one side scampering off (usually the male) into unrestrained oblivion, also burdening the “taxpayers” to finance rearing the innocent young."
Those taxpayers are often men forced to pay for women's mistakes and taking on the burden for women sleeping with the wrong guy and getting impregnated. Women are still the gatekeepers of sex, unless you're an alpha male that gets women knocking on your door 24/7. Meanwhile, the good men are holding up the machinery of society and get little or no credit for it. It's invisible, and expected by us from women who take everything about for granted.
But aside from that for now, I'm not saying someone else doesn't benefit from all of this; obviously, psychotherapists, the pharmaceutical industry, divorce court lawyers, politicians, and feminists in academia have quite a stake in perpetuating men's miseries in Western society. There's nothing conspiracy theorist about how denying men more rights (which many didn't have to begin with) and penalizing men more and more with inane laws to criminalize human behavior fuels political careers and deepens pocket books. I roll my eyes at the idea feminists truly believe women are exploited, when men are far more, even at the threat of a lawsuit or jail time. Which they will bear the brunt of more than women, usually.
Women can and often do invent their own problems, many of them more than you might think, and believe one personal or social savior should come along with a safety net and rescue them. If women wanted things to be different, the face of this nation would look far different. What you see is often what women have desired by their own manufacture or design; demanding proof is absurd because it's quite obvious. Women have reproductive choice and men have little or none; in Michigan alone a woman can do just about anything to claim her offspring, kill it off (abortion), or give it up, and men have to bow to consensus when the State backs women via enforcing anti-male bias in laws that expect men to pay up and still support a woman's decision no matter what. The list could go on and on.
I could even state the very politically incorrect sentiment that the sex that has more power in reproductive choice (women, of course) by extension, should be the one that ultimately ponies up for it, on purpose or on accident. But that's too harsh for most to take; there's always someone, usually a man, that has to foot the bill. If not, still blame men by default. Why not; feminists have been doing that for decades.
Fmwatkins states feminists don't represent women; I don't think they represent all women, but women have clung to feminists memes and have wielded myths and punishments about men out of brutish nature. Feminism appeals to female selfishness and superiority, and when something goes wrong, it's a convenient tool to scapegoat others without much merit.
Most feminist radicals are too extreme for many to accept; there is a continual rumble of the concept that masculinity is faulty and either should die off or even be eradicated. Not every woman is prepared to embrace such a nasty paradigm (at least not yet, thankfully) despite incessant resentment Western women seem to have against so many men. Just read any dating forum with a significant amount of women ranting about men, if you don't believe me.
Women wanted men to protect them in one capacity or another in the past, so most men responded because they felt that was the right thing to do. Then women wanted "freedom" from the restrictions of what they felt confining, such as home, hearth, and childbearing, and despite what feminists say, men where often backing that as well. True freedom comes with tremendous responsibility, and despite the cries that men are all pigs and not living up to being real men (i.e. supporting women and their options), I don't think a good chunk of them realize what true latitude entails, and the consequences mean. There is also another crucial factor; more men are perceiving the "strong, independent" woman as a exercise in affectation, and the huge side effect of double standards that come along with it that benefit women and harm men. And men aren't liking it too much.
Several American women have made particularly bad choices and skewered judgments for a decent portion of their lives. The above article is simply another illustration of that, just as with their selection of mates to sire offspring, the laws they clamor for, or any other major push they engage that ultimately serves myopic short term gain and long term pain. And society suffers because of it.
"You seem to place all the blame for unwanted pregnancies on women. It takes two to tango. What of the responsibility of men to act with restraint and to be sure to engage in safe sex in order to minimize pregancy?" ---Z
Boy, do I hear that from feminists a lot. It rests on more than one false premise; do you know what the reality is? Women still have the final say in whether or not sexual congress happens or not. It may take two to tango, but one still has more fundamental say so. So much for sexual equality (although it goes further than that, even). Or the fact when men do take responsibility for their sexuality, they are seen as no fun or has not having the bravado to take risks---men who want women to get checked for STDs possess "trust issues," men who get vasectomies are denying women out of a child, god forbid. There are even scores of women who get a thrill out of "flirting" with the possibility getting pregnant and will lie to men about it, even though, again, that's something we can't bring out in the open because women wouldn't ever be willing to take that kind of risk, right? And blame men for being so weak to be duped into it, correct?
But back to the article . . . women wanted to party hard like men (although many men give up the party scene or tamper off), and now that the consequences are steep---acquired STDs, unwanted pregnancies, alcohol-related diseases, flattened pocketbooks,and hollow one night or brief liaisons . . . so really, who wanted the endless joy ride---sans responsibility---to begin with now?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Unorthodox Words on "Equality" and other things
Occasionally, I read about men even saying things about the divide between the sexes I don't care for. Sometimes I think men blame other men almost as much as women. It's an amazing testament that MGTOW has taken off in the past couple of years---I am pro-masculine, yes, but men can lock horns on issues they would be stronger as a group with mutual respect. One thing that strikes me is the notion that men are responsible for this mess we're in, even for feminists, politicians, and male-firsters for getting away with acting like aristocrats over us.
I realize that our opinions are diverse, far more than feminists would give us credit for, or that they would care for. I also realize there is a certain truth in the above sentiment, our generalized notions of fairness and honor be damned; perhaps men have been letting this social malaise we're in drag on for too long. I could cite even personal examples of men committing the dumbest fucking crap in their lives that made me wonder why they were so self-destructive. There is a reason for it, yes, but there also comes a time for self-responsibility, too.
And as much as I have barbs against the Democratic party, the Republicans are not better. Not one bit. What's the difference between a Joe Biden and a George W. Bush? You really believe there actually is? Do you entertain the possibility that either party is going to care about men's issues on the level of attention that women receive? Both were major figureheads in in getting VAWA reauthorized, one of the biggest anti-male federal laws ever fashioned and implemented. NOW were doing cheers when it was official. Does it really matter if one is a Dem or Neocon? Zenpriest was correct in the allegory that one is either choosing for the Bloods or the Crips---only one is more overtly concerned about women's rights at the expense of men, the other expects us to man up.
And man up for what?
Most men, outside of selfish politicians pushing their agendas to keep secure office, thought they were doing the right thing be promoting another insidious form of chivalry re-packaged as seemingly positive and progressive: feminism. After all, isn't it a noble thing to liberate women and support them in their quest for "equality?" And what, if a few men get trampled in the carnage, it's all for a good cause, eh?
But, if anyone is going to surmise that men have gummed things up, they're not completely correct. If anything, it doesn't matter if you can quantify it or not---women have created this culture by the extension of their powers in realms that have great impact and importance. They cry and moan about there are no nice guys out there, but have wanton sex with thugs and players. They blame men for wars and in-fighting, yet vote en mass for male politicians that instigate battle under the guise of patriotism. Thus insuring that women can have a hedonistic heyday on the home front (ever hear about the stories of infidelity women commit well the soldiers are deployed? Or the Unconstitutional debtor's prison solders find themselves in since CS payments weren't deferred while overseas?).
And all the while disrespecting, shaming, and dishonoring men. And if you discuss politically incorrect topics too much at work or, the Gods forbid, denote that there are sex differences at all outside of the obvious, watch your ass if someone gets wind of your "hatespeech" and sends you to HR for alleged sexual harassment. Men are called cowards for inaction, politically or otherwise, but when going beyond defending themselves and counterattacking, suddenly find they are getting legal or social beat down one way or another. And yet again.
Single moms, teachers, their influence on young men, using men by proxy, and sexual and emotional power women have on men is profound and leaves a major deep swathe that sets the tone for the the social dynamic between men and women. It amazes me that even men underestimate this, but women do as well. Don't think for a moment that power would be given up, instinct or not.
Women have created us, literally, and on a metaphorical level, they don't want to completely accept the fact, with all the decrying about male irresponsibility, their own distinct complicity. The hand rocks the candle is the hand that rules the world.
The single mother that expects little Johnny to be a productive citizen and "better" man, more than the father she pushed away with sexist laws or because she chose a bad boy to be her mate (dumb) will find that he'll grow up with more strikes against him. Maybe resenting mother by taking it out on other women when he's older. Maybe rebelling, perhaps, and seeing that women get much of the perks and privileges in Western culture, he feels the weight of inequality even if he isn't a MRA. Every. Damn. Day. Never mind that little Johnny is, quite literally, an extension of her on a primal and psychosocial level.
And do women truly desire "equality"? The real thing? Do you want to know what's that's like if men honestly dealt with you in that manner?
Get into a fight with a man, fuck you, take your lumps. You cares if you're not as strong. It's only fair.
Don't want to get shot or blown up on the front lines in war? Hey, fuck you, you're stepping up with the men and risking your life and limb, regardless of the studies of lowered female morale and less ability to deal with violence.
Valentines Day? Buy me flowers, woman. Better yet, I buy you flowers, you give me a passionate blow job.
Marriage? You pay up for your wedding dress, your share. This wedding cake doesn't just magically appear out of thin air.
Can't keep up with me sexually or athletically? Get out. I'll find another hottie that will keep in shape and rock my world.
Ask me out on date for once. I'll let you pay for dinner for the reward of screwing me. Or maybe I'll bitch at for you objectifying me as a hot stud---I'm not just a good lay, I'm human being. How dare you think I'll just bang you for a dinner date, Virginia. What about my mind? My heart? My dreams and aspirations?
Oil change? Garbage taken out? Cooking for yourself? Self defense? Deal with it. You wanted equality, you got it. Now man up like that strong independent woman you are . . . I thought feminism was about equality.
Bah . . .
I realize that our opinions are diverse, far more than feminists would give us credit for, or that they would care for. I also realize there is a certain truth in the above sentiment, our generalized notions of fairness and honor be damned; perhaps men have been letting this social malaise we're in drag on for too long. I could cite even personal examples of men committing the dumbest fucking crap in their lives that made me wonder why they were so self-destructive. There is a reason for it, yes, but there also comes a time for self-responsibility, too.
And as much as I have barbs against the Democratic party, the Republicans are not better. Not one bit. What's the difference between a Joe Biden and a George W. Bush? You really believe there actually is? Do you entertain the possibility that either party is going to care about men's issues on the level of attention that women receive? Both were major figureheads in in getting VAWA reauthorized, one of the biggest anti-male federal laws ever fashioned and implemented. NOW were doing cheers when it was official. Does it really matter if one is a Dem or Neocon? Zenpriest was correct in the allegory that one is either choosing for the Bloods or the Crips---only one is more overtly concerned about women's rights at the expense of men, the other expects us to man up.
And man up for what?
Most men, outside of selfish politicians pushing their agendas to keep secure office, thought they were doing the right thing be promoting another insidious form of chivalry re-packaged as seemingly positive and progressive: feminism. After all, isn't it a noble thing to liberate women and support them in their quest for "equality?" And what, if a few men get trampled in the carnage, it's all for a good cause, eh?
But, if anyone is going to surmise that men have gummed things up, they're not completely correct. If anything, it doesn't matter if you can quantify it or not---women have created this culture by the extension of their powers in realms that have great impact and importance. They cry and moan about there are no nice guys out there, but have wanton sex with thugs and players. They blame men for wars and in-fighting, yet vote en mass for male politicians that instigate battle under the guise of patriotism. Thus insuring that women can have a hedonistic heyday on the home front (ever hear about the stories of infidelity women commit well the soldiers are deployed? Or the Unconstitutional debtor's prison solders find themselves in since CS payments weren't deferred while overseas?).
And all the while disrespecting, shaming, and dishonoring men. And if you discuss politically incorrect topics too much at work or, the Gods forbid, denote that there are sex differences at all outside of the obvious, watch your ass if someone gets wind of your "hatespeech" and sends you to HR for alleged sexual harassment. Men are called cowards for inaction, politically or otherwise, but when going beyond defending themselves and counterattacking, suddenly find they are getting legal or social beat down one way or another. And yet again.
Single moms, teachers, their influence on young men, using men by proxy, and sexual and emotional power women have on men is profound and leaves a major deep swathe that sets the tone for the the social dynamic between men and women. It amazes me that even men underestimate this, but women do as well. Don't think for a moment that power would be given up, instinct or not.
Women have created us, literally, and on a metaphorical level, they don't want to completely accept the fact, with all the decrying about male irresponsibility, their own distinct complicity. The hand rocks the candle is the hand that rules the world.
The single mother that expects little Johnny to be a productive citizen and "better" man, more than the father she pushed away with sexist laws or because she chose a bad boy to be her mate (dumb) will find that he'll grow up with more strikes against him. Maybe resenting mother by taking it out on other women when he's older. Maybe rebelling, perhaps, and seeing that women get much of the perks and privileges in Western culture, he feels the weight of inequality even if he isn't a MRA. Every. Damn. Day. Never mind that little Johnny is, quite literally, an extension of her on a primal and psychosocial level.
And do women truly desire "equality"? The real thing? Do you want to know what's that's like if men honestly dealt with you in that manner?
Get into a fight with a man, fuck you, take your lumps. You cares if you're not as strong. It's only fair.
Don't want to get shot or blown up on the front lines in war? Hey, fuck you, you're stepping up with the men and risking your life and limb, regardless of the studies of lowered female morale and less ability to deal with violence.
Valentines Day? Buy me flowers, woman. Better yet, I buy you flowers, you give me a passionate blow job.
Marriage? You pay up for your wedding dress, your share. This wedding cake doesn't just magically appear out of thin air.
Can't keep up with me sexually or athletically? Get out. I'll find another hottie that will keep in shape and rock my world.
Ask me out on date for once. I'll let you pay for dinner for the reward of screwing me. Or maybe I'll bitch at for you objectifying me as a hot stud---I'm not just a good lay, I'm human being. How dare you think I'll just bang you for a dinner date, Virginia. What about my mind? My heart? My dreams and aspirations?
Oil change? Garbage taken out? Cooking for yourself? Self defense? Deal with it. You wanted equality, you got it. Now man up like that strong independent woman you are . . . I thought feminism was about equality.
Bah . . .
Thursday, November 22, 2007
For the Dearly Departed
I will not sleep tonight
too many thoughts, muscles too tight
here in the dark I'll replay
all that has passed, my youth, the glory of broken
days
cold winter sun, rises, decays
I'll just get up to stay drunk all day
too many doubts, thoughts that delay
it is now gone, it's gone, the glory of broken days
There's so much I could write in this post. So much. Perhaps, like other posts I haven't expanded on---just yet---some other time I shall.
Several people in my life close to me have passed on, and left an impact on me that will always be remembered. It wasn't just me, far from it---even at his funeral, my friend Marshall was honored with a sign near a highway that displayed WE MISS YOU from his co-workers. As I drifted off last night, although he wasn't in the forefront of my mind, I dreamt of him and his older brother---also a good friend of mine, were eating ethnic cuisine, drinking, and chuckling at stories from both past and present. When I woke up, the pang of of loss flooded back with an intensity only surpassed at his abrupt death, one that occurred in his early thirties as he laid down to rest from a lengthy work day.
It bothered me that a few wondered if he was "slow," and perhaps, if they had any clinical background, may have misdiagnosed him with Asperger's Syndrome. Marshall may have been plunged headfirst into video games for hours on end by himself nary little interruption, or become engrossed in a fantasy tale from a tome that sparked his interest, but he was sensitive to his environment and in his social interactions with others, and possessing alexithymia? It was certainly not in his personal makeup---he was a creature of habit, a comfortable semi-stoicism at times, and self-absorption, but no one who knew well enough could accuse him of out of touch with himself or the others close to him. He was quite the generous individual, even if not materialistic on his own front.
I dedicated a post on another forum to a semi-public figure I dubbed as "Byron," one I knew off and on for almost fourteen years. Strangely enough, Byron and Marshall would meet only on a few occasions, but those events were both intertwined with humorous good times and mystery. I remember Byron laughing heartily at Marshall's antics of playing an oddball superhero for a moment, and in another more sombre session after midnight, contemplating in a serious depth questions about life and if the divine even exists---almost to the point teetering on the edge of recreating those eerie spectral invitations into the astral that William James himself would have raised on eyebrow on. We had also, as a motley group, sauntered out into the backyard and the mist of a rather ethereal and chilly October night, gathered to get away from the den of iniquity filled with beer bottles, brandy, vodka, cigarette and incense smoke, to stop and meditate for a time about both the jovial and the profound.
The magical circle of friends would eventually end. It is depressing, and not surprising, either. And in as much as I maintained contact with Marshall for those years before he had left this earth, I can still recall the nights we stayed up until the nocturnal hours crept near the dawn, "talking shop" about work, our growing cynicism and foibles with young women, or otherworldly tales of ghosts and shades from a documentary or text we had watched or read, I do wonder if own his spirit has made a visit or two on us, if only to remind us of those times with him again. Perhaps it is a selfish gesture on my part or wistful thinking, but to relive that period would be welcome. However, there is no going back, only the good that knowing his life enriched ours.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Roe Versus Wade for Men Revisited
Like the Duke LaCrosse case, many MRAs are aware of Dubay's struggle, although the latter did not receive the same spotlight and media treatment. His main thrust was to prove fraud with his partner, Lauren Wells, and promote, perhaps, what could be considered a groundbreaking precedent with men; that men should have the same equivalent rights as women do in reproductive choice. It stems from a couple of things.
When Matt Dubay got sexually involved with Lauren Wells, he was open about the fact he didn't desire to be a father at the time. Wells made it clear that she was incapable of getting pregnant, although she claimed she was used contraceptives to reassure him. Neither, apparently, was true and she got knocked up. When discovered, they had both considered adoption, but later Wells changed her mind; Dubay didn't want to raise children---eventually however, she was adamant about him providing child support.
While critics believe Dubay wanted to bail from paying CS, but Dubay's attorney, Jeffrey Cojocar, was of a different mind; the contention is that Michigan's Paternity Act gave exceptions to women eschewing supporting children and abandoning them if they didn't want to fulfill motherhood, and fathers did not have the same option---which violates the Equal Protection Clause. The judge could have cared less in this case. Supposedly, Dubay did not provide evidence to prove fraud on Well's behalf, until he maintains his stance from then up to the present. The case is being appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as of this writing, so keep that in mind.
Now, I realize that some women, in particular, may believe Dubay is lying. I still find this difficult to entertain, simply because this has gone beyond the same court in which he protested this situation, and he has always maintained he did not want to be a father. Wells targeted Dubay for the inverse of why women go for bad boys---he was potentially a good provider, and a good catch. Not to mention, in a "he said, she said" situation, the court is honoring her by default, not him, because he's the dad biologically. So the ruling from the first court didn't allow Dubay to bow out of unplanned conception, and because of the interests of the child and the fact she filed for CS, it was mandated.
It's clear from all of the following what's going on. Women, at least in this State, have the choice of sexual congress, whether or not they are using contraceptives, can resort to giving up on motherhood at any time, through abortion, adoption, dropping the child off at a hospital. The Paternity Act gives reproductive license to women---and when men are subject to a woman's desire for CS, men cannot make the same choices to refuse to be involved. Hence, the inequality That Roe Versus Wade for Men addresses.
But it gets worse---there is a mounting amount of evidence that women are using deceptive means to get pregnant. One story had a thirty-something woman, convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy, had been required to pay CS from their illegal coupling. Talk about outrageous. Another had a young male roughly the same age---not at adulthood, to start paying CS even though she was also older. There's been more than one insistence of women having oral sex with a partner and inserting the semen into her vagina to promote impregnation. And so on, and so forth.
The feminist party line is always to support a woman' s choice regardless of outcome. So much for equality. What I find troubling is that more women are getting caught red-handed lying to their partners about conception, or sabotaging it. Of course, when in doubt, if a men trusts a women to ensure usage of conception and it fails or she's lying, it's may be his fault for being naive. If he doesn't trust her and uses it, he's a wary asshole.
Is this "blame the men" game still prevalent, or what? Granted, I realize some men engage in risky sex, but an enormous amount of women do exactly the same in hasty drunken nights of debauchery and stoned-drenched clubbing, and although you'll hear from that men will state condoms are unromantic, there are women who will openly risk pregnancy and STDs before being sexually responsible.
Hopefully, male contraceptives such as reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG), which in phrase III of human testing, and vas-occlusive contraception, which involves temporary plugs in the vas deferens, will hit the marketplace as affordable products with easy access. Obviously, the condoms and vasectomies are the norm, but it isn't helping things with the former isn't flawless, and the latter has troubles with vasovasostom if a patient ever wants it reversed, which can be costly. We have to educate and stress to men, young men in particular, if our culture is still going to promulgate inequalities towards men when it comes to reproductive choices; if the push is to force men to be more responsible, we'll respond in kind, but if we are to have that responsibility, we have to have choices, too.
And a final thought for now, but isn't it funny how feminists get pissed when men don't take responsibility for contraception and risk taking in sex (and some online have stated how much of drudgery it is on their own account), but when men do use them responsibly, they are blasted for having more personal and sexual power? Maybe we should, as some women have suggested, "keep it in our pants," put when we do that, suddenly we're trolls and losers opting out of the game that "can't get laid" even if women are attracted to us, and upset that we don't jump into the fire automatically. If anything, it's another cautionary tale for men to be cautious about dating, marriage, and raising children, and the more it's told, the more men are questioning the very foundation of women the were ingrained by society to trust, with that trust shattering into fractures and fissures that might not mend again.
UPDATE: A recent press release states as follows:
A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
It's not surprising to the jaded ones, I suppose. That includes yours truly.
When Matt Dubay got sexually involved with Lauren Wells, he was open about the fact he didn't desire to be a father at the time. Wells made it clear that she was incapable of getting pregnant, although she claimed she was used contraceptives to reassure him. Neither, apparently, was true and she got knocked up. When discovered, they had both considered adoption, but later Wells changed her mind; Dubay didn't want to raise children---eventually however, she was adamant about him providing child support.
While critics believe Dubay wanted to bail from paying CS, but Dubay's attorney, Jeffrey Cojocar, was of a different mind; the contention is that Michigan's Paternity Act gave exceptions to women eschewing supporting children and abandoning them if they didn't want to fulfill motherhood, and fathers did not have the same option---which violates the Equal Protection Clause. The judge could have cared less in this case. Supposedly, Dubay did not provide evidence to prove fraud on Well's behalf, until he maintains his stance from then up to the present. The case is being appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as of this writing, so keep that in mind.
Now, I realize that some women, in particular, may believe Dubay is lying. I still find this difficult to entertain, simply because this has gone beyond the same court in which he protested this situation, and he has always maintained he did not want to be a father. Wells targeted Dubay for the inverse of why women go for bad boys---he was potentially a good provider, and a good catch. Not to mention, in a "he said, she said" situation, the court is honoring her by default, not him, because he's the dad biologically. So the ruling from the first court didn't allow Dubay to bow out of unplanned conception, and because of the interests of the child and the fact she filed for CS, it was mandated.
It's clear from all of the following what's going on. Women, at least in this State, have the choice of sexual congress, whether or not they are using contraceptives, can resort to giving up on motherhood at any time, through abortion, adoption, dropping the child off at a hospital. The Paternity Act gives reproductive license to women---and when men are subject to a woman's desire for CS, men cannot make the same choices to refuse to be involved. Hence, the inequality That Roe Versus Wade for Men addresses.
But it gets worse---there is a mounting amount of evidence that women are using deceptive means to get pregnant. One story had a thirty-something woman, convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy, had been required to pay CS from their illegal coupling. Talk about outrageous. Another had a young male roughly the same age---not at adulthood, to start paying CS even though she was also older. There's been more than one insistence of women having oral sex with a partner and inserting the semen into her vagina to promote impregnation. And so on, and so forth.
The feminist party line is always to support a woman' s choice regardless of outcome. So much for equality. What I find troubling is that more women are getting caught red-handed lying to their partners about conception, or sabotaging it. Of course, when in doubt, if a men trusts a women to ensure usage of conception and it fails or she's lying, it's may be his fault for being naive. If he doesn't trust her and uses it, he's a wary asshole.
Is this "blame the men" game still prevalent, or what? Granted, I realize some men engage in risky sex, but an enormous amount of women do exactly the same in hasty drunken nights of debauchery and stoned-drenched clubbing, and although you'll hear from that men will state condoms are unromantic, there are women who will openly risk pregnancy and STDs before being sexually responsible.
Hopefully, male contraceptives such as reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG), which in phrase III of human testing, and vas-occlusive contraception, which involves temporary plugs in the vas deferens, will hit the marketplace as affordable products with easy access. Obviously, the condoms and vasectomies are the norm, but it isn't helping things with the former isn't flawless, and the latter has troubles with vasovasostom if a patient ever wants it reversed, which can be costly. We have to educate and stress to men, young men in particular, if our culture is still going to promulgate inequalities towards men when it comes to reproductive choices; if the push is to force men to be more responsible, we'll respond in kind, but if we are to have that responsibility, we have to have choices, too.
And a final thought for now, but isn't it funny how feminists get pissed when men don't take responsibility for contraception and risk taking in sex (and some online have stated how much of drudgery it is on their own account), but when men do use them responsibly, they are blasted for having more personal and sexual power? Maybe we should, as some women have suggested, "keep it in our pants," put when we do that, suddenly we're trolls and losers opting out of the game that "can't get laid" even if women are attracted to us, and upset that we don't jump into the fire automatically. If anything, it's another cautionary tale for men to be cautious about dating, marriage, and raising children, and the more it's told, the more men are questioning the very foundation of women the were ingrained by society to trust, with that trust shattering into fractures and fissures that might not mend again.
UPDATE: A recent press release states as follows:
A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
It's not surprising to the jaded ones, I suppose. That includes yours truly.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Who's Objectifying Who?
This is another response to a woman I'll call UB from another forum. Since it's in the spirit of the blog, here's more fuel for the fire.
UB: Objectifying men is the new trend.
LL:
Well, it's not like that hasn't been going on for ages. The actual new trend is men are increasing becoming the gatekeepers, the cautious sex. Hence the need for women to develop a "seduction plan", as you put it.
Unfortunately, it seems that there's a lot of women that want men to work at "romance" and seduction, and put less effort into it. It's been a while since I had a woman earnestly enter the stages of seduction, whether its to finalize intercourse or not. It's not that there are an absence of women in my life; usually those going after me are single moms (which is a BIG no-no) or drunken party girls that go from A to Z without much fanfare. No one seems creative anymore, or employ alcohol for the purpose of letting go.
It seems to be a lost art on them, or they just don't care about it as much as fulfilling their own needs, perhaps? So many women have complained about being objectified sexually, and yet there are several that have no problems with utilizing their sexual powers in order to use men to obtain their wants. Men, in our current state of existence, cannot do the same thing, unless they are fawned over by hordes of women. Most men basically do not have this power to an Nth degree, and more and more men not only realize that women have this gatekeeper advantage and the possible hypocrisies it might entail. If women were, as UB suggested, objectifying men in this fashion in the inverse---men could use more primal sexual power to their own personal gain. It doesn't work as easily as women's. And when pointing this out, I hear, "oh, that's the way it is, just deal with it."
As far as objectifying men, it's been going on for ages, indeed, LL, but it's of more impact. How many men here have expressed their desire that they don't care about their partner's career as much as they are employed, make concessions about looks as long as they are fit and healthy, and don't mind quirks and foibles as long as these women aren't mentally unstable? A hell of a lot of them. But when women state their standards, it appears as a strict laundry list. True, some men are picky, but then again picky men that hold out for the women of their dreams usually wait a long time, or are damned with the label as being "judgmental" if they refuse to date low income single moms or corrupt female wolves-in-sheeps clothing. Perhaps, there is a truth in how women date men to approve their situation, and men are supposed to date women to, well, approve women's situations again. How men fair in that dynamic is a matter of risk, and often serious.
Personally, I know women that would pick apart the fact men wear generic shoes or drive a used compact auto to work. He has the wrong hair cut or appearance, even if not outrageous, he's just not as hip or attractive. I've pretty much got the physique part down (and I'm not kidding when I say this, but I'm fairly along the lines of what UB is looking for in that department), but as much as she usually is more progressive, it's surprising how many women fall back on traditionalist or sociobiological modes of being when it suits them, and feminist basics when it comes to next aspect (hence the phrase equality when the paychecks are distributed, but chivalry when the bills roll in).
This is where her argument isn't complete and only applies to women with her particular brands of viewpoint---a more of tat for it relationship holds more merit to myself (like her), but in the process of objectifying men, women will often resort to hypergamy and cognitive dissonance to rationalize and iron out any personal inequalities men face. If women were objectifying men directly, there would be far less confusion and everyone would know where they stand, even if stranded by the wayside. For example, if I was garnering attention from women, superficially speaking, equivalent to myself, she would be in great shape, have a interest in many subjects, frugal with money, no children, roughly my age, above-average in being proactive in her life, with no serous mental or physical ailments. This isn't happening, and more than myself are experiencing this.
Generally speaking, in a UB world where the sexes played fair and sex would not be used in deceptive matters or as a bargaining chip (and withdrawal of affection) a true exchange would not be perfect. But far better than the sins of omission or hollow promises that people commit in order to gain the upper hand.
A "wallet" is not a man, nor are we walking ATM machines. Curious how women view men as men, before human beings.
UB: Objectifying men is the new trend.
LL:
Well, it's not like that hasn't been going on for ages. The actual new trend is men are increasing becoming the gatekeepers, the cautious sex. Hence the need for women to develop a "seduction plan", as you put it.
Unfortunately, it seems that there's a lot of women that want men to work at "romance" and seduction, and put less effort into it. It's been a while since I had a woman earnestly enter the stages of seduction, whether its to finalize intercourse or not. It's not that there are an absence of women in my life; usually those going after me are single moms (which is a BIG no-no) or drunken party girls that go from A to Z without much fanfare. No one seems creative anymore, or employ alcohol for the purpose of letting go.
It seems to be a lost art on them, or they just don't care about it as much as fulfilling their own needs, perhaps? So many women have complained about being objectified sexually, and yet there are several that have no problems with utilizing their sexual powers in order to use men to obtain their wants. Men, in our current state of existence, cannot do the same thing, unless they are fawned over by hordes of women. Most men basically do not have this power to an Nth degree, and more and more men not only realize that women have this gatekeeper advantage and the possible hypocrisies it might entail. If women were, as UB suggested, objectifying men in this fashion in the inverse---men could use more primal sexual power to their own personal gain. It doesn't work as easily as women's. And when pointing this out, I hear, "oh, that's the way it is, just deal with it."
As far as objectifying men, it's been going on for ages, indeed, LL, but it's of more impact. How many men here have expressed their desire that they don't care about their partner's career as much as they are employed, make concessions about looks as long as they are fit and healthy, and don't mind quirks and foibles as long as these women aren't mentally unstable? A hell of a lot of them. But when women state their standards, it appears as a strict laundry list. True, some men are picky, but then again picky men that hold out for the women of their dreams usually wait a long time, or are damned with the label as being "judgmental" if they refuse to date low income single moms or corrupt female wolves-in-sheeps clothing. Perhaps, there is a truth in how women date men to approve their situation, and men are supposed to date women to, well, approve women's situations again. How men fair in that dynamic is a matter of risk, and often serious.
Personally, I know women that would pick apart the fact men wear generic shoes or drive a used compact auto to work. He has the wrong hair cut or appearance, even if not outrageous, he's just not as hip or attractive. I've pretty much got the physique part down (and I'm not kidding when I say this, but I'm fairly along the lines of what UB is looking for in that department), but as much as she usually is more progressive, it's surprising how many women fall back on traditionalist or sociobiological modes of being when it suits them, and feminist basics when it comes to next aspect (hence the phrase equality when the paychecks are distributed, but chivalry when the bills roll in).
This is where her argument isn't complete and only applies to women with her particular brands of viewpoint---a more of tat for it relationship holds more merit to myself (like her), but in the process of objectifying men, women will often resort to hypergamy and cognitive dissonance to rationalize and iron out any personal inequalities men face. If women were objectifying men directly, there would be far less confusion and everyone would know where they stand, even if stranded by the wayside. For example, if I was garnering attention from women, superficially speaking, equivalent to myself, she would be in great shape, have a interest in many subjects, frugal with money, no children, roughly my age, above-average in being proactive in her life, with no serous mental or physical ailments. This isn't happening, and more than myself are experiencing this.
Generally speaking, in a UB world where the sexes played fair and sex would not be used in deceptive matters or as a bargaining chip (and withdrawal of affection) a true exchange would not be perfect. But far better than the sins of omission or hollow promises that people commit in order to gain the upper hand.
A "wallet" is not a man, nor are we walking ATM machines. Curious how women view men as men, before human beings.
Friday, November 2, 2007
A Different Take on Sensitve Men and "Fragile" Men Egos
Recently, I wrote this in response on another forum to some gal who dubbed herself as 'funnygirl.' It pretty much explains itself.
What funnygirl probably won't admit, is that women's egos are easily just as disrupted. I work in a profession that has a slightly more amount of women than men, and there has been a plethora of women who are hypersensitive to issues they often take men to take for, and we're supposed to accept it. It could be anything from diet and weight, to career options/roles, to sexual choices and religion. Politics, too.
There are women that constantly place men on the defense, in catch-22 situations, and openly use personal attracts in order to gain a reaction, prove something that may not be normally factual 24/7 about a man, or obtain and upper hand in an argument based on "emotional truths" rather than seeing the global picture.
If a man did the same, he'd be accused of emotional abuse.
Eventually, the more you send barbs and personal jabs against a man, eventually, he'll probably give you a negative response one way or another. But you gained his attention, didn't you? I suspect funnygirl28 fell for the idea that she can treat men as emotional and sexual inferiors, and when men protest or become defensive, they are either assholes or exhibiting a "fraile male ego" of sorts.
You kick someone around long enough, no matter how seemingly passive, they will kick back. Hard.
It's curious that some women just refuse to understand this basic truth concerning most men. Most men put up with so much stress and bullshit, if they opened their eyes to even the daily effrontery that goes along with their workloads and responsibility they carried on their shoulders, I'm honestly not sure if they could handle it. And on top of that notion, men still must prove themselves and gain respect from women, some (more than you think) of whom play games, give off mixed cues, and favor one type of men that's not good for them while shitting on another they believe can "take it." Female players may not always sleep with a legion of men, but they are still players even if they don't see it in themselves.
This is the secret behind the desire to find a "sensitive man;" what that particular woman really means is she wants someone who is strong and traditional for her when she breaks down, but also listening to her wants and desires when using him for a counselor figure. When his insecurities or weaknesses crop up, they are generally meet with apprehension or scorn, and I've even seen women outright blast them to the point of violence; it probably goes without saying that funnygirl doesn't want to deal with emotionally deep men. That would mean she would have to treat a man as true equal, a human being in totality, and it's something she positively doesn't want.
Truly sensitive men who protest their treatment in a relationship, who don't put up with being an emotional punching bag are attractive to women for the same way they are eventually replaced or shunned; they are complicated and don't fall in the idiotic matrix of the nice guy-bad boy continuum. They are "fragile" because they can only accept so much abuse. There are women that enjoy the passion and drama it might bring, but eventually settle with a semi-stoic man that they can complain about to their friends and peers about how their emotional needs aren't met, all the while still "stuck" in a dull relationship that they seem to have created, anyway.
What funnygirl probably won't admit, is that women's egos are easily just as disrupted. I work in a profession that has a slightly more amount of women than men, and there has been a plethora of women who are hypersensitive to issues they often take men to take for, and we're supposed to accept it. It could be anything from diet and weight, to career options/roles, to sexual choices and religion. Politics, too.
There are women that constantly place men on the defense, in catch-22 situations, and openly use personal attracts in order to gain a reaction, prove something that may not be normally factual 24/7 about a man, or obtain and upper hand in an argument based on "emotional truths" rather than seeing the global picture.
If a man did the same, he'd be accused of emotional abuse.
Eventually, the more you send barbs and personal jabs against a man, eventually, he'll probably give you a negative response one way or another. But you gained his attention, didn't you? I suspect funnygirl28 fell for the idea that she can treat men as emotional and sexual inferiors, and when men protest or become defensive, they are either assholes or exhibiting a "fraile male ego" of sorts.
You kick someone around long enough, no matter how seemingly passive, they will kick back. Hard.
It's curious that some women just refuse to understand this basic truth concerning most men. Most men put up with so much stress and bullshit, if they opened their eyes to even the daily effrontery that goes along with their workloads and responsibility they carried on their shoulders, I'm honestly not sure if they could handle it. And on top of that notion, men still must prove themselves and gain respect from women, some (more than you think) of whom play games, give off mixed cues, and favor one type of men that's not good for them while shitting on another they believe can "take it." Female players may not always sleep with a legion of men, but they are still players even if they don't see it in themselves.
This is the secret behind the desire to find a "sensitive man;" what that particular woman really means is she wants someone who is strong and traditional for her when she breaks down, but also listening to her wants and desires when using him for a counselor figure. When his insecurities or weaknesses crop up, they are generally meet with apprehension or scorn, and I've even seen women outright blast them to the point of violence; it probably goes without saying that funnygirl doesn't want to deal with emotionally deep men. That would mean she would have to treat a man as true equal, a human being in totality, and it's something she positively doesn't want.
Truly sensitive men who protest their treatment in a relationship, who don't put up with being an emotional punching bag are attractive to women for the same way they are eventually replaced or shunned; they are complicated and don't fall in the idiotic matrix of the nice guy-bad boy continuum. They are "fragile" because they can only accept so much abuse. There are women that enjoy the passion and drama it might bring, but eventually settle with a semi-stoic man that they can complain about to their friends and peers about how their emotional needs aren't met, all the while still "stuck" in a dull relationship that they seem to have created, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
