Sunday, April 5, 2009

Women as comedians and musicians and other creative artists.

I wonder why women often say they like a guy that makes them laugh. I wonder why men never ask for the same. I wonder why men constitute the majority representation of all comedians, chefs, musicians and artists. I've seen women claim they are oppressed in the arts, are they? I wonder why women don't seem to play poker in nearly the proportions men do. Are women oppressed in poker? I wonder why as they complain that they are discriminated against in the sciences, technical and engineering fields yet they don't seem to populate the lower orders of these fields such as car mechanics, electricians, plumbers, construction etc. Are women oppressed here as well? If anyone has any comments, I'd love to hear them..

I believe comedy is a male "display" behavior and comedy can and is used by men to elevate status, diffuse conflict and attract mates. Comedy is an adaptive trait and an asset to which intelligence is correlated with as well. Women like men who are funny and can make them laugh. I believe perhaps that the selective and adaptive pressure for such traits weigh more heavily upon men. One must remember that men don't have inherent biological value as women do. Men must "be", they must "produce" and have qualities that are external that are useful to the pair bond and offspring. Can someone please tell me why the male has muscles? Can someone please tell me if the male is not valued for production and utility to provide and protect the mated pair bond what is attractive to females about muscles? Does female attraction to male utility extend beyond the physical?

Males to the chromosomal level are infact the variable of which is subject to change and of which to choose from. Everyone knows that there is much more selective pressure and more competition among men. Not to say that women don't compete for mates but that males do so under the pressure of many more variables, many more external variables included.

I suspect males are more driven toward expression of all externalities that are directly or indirectly of biological value. In essence men have inherent incentive to "produce". Would male cheerleaders at the sidelines of a woman's sports game have the same effect or purpose? Would they inspire the females in the same respect? Would all male cheerleaders at the sidelines of males competing have the same effect on males that female cheerleaders do?

Can one not see that women inspire us to compete and that by competing against men and acquiring for themselves the very things they seek in us they no longer inspire us? We loose incentive really. Men don't often "marry up" as women do, why is this?
Why are men more attracted to women of health, youth, symmetry (beauty) and nurturing qualities than a woman's resource potential?? Could it be that women have innate value and simply are not required to in order to garner mating opportunity? If so I would imagine that sex for women would be easy to come by with such innate biological value.

Many say men are intimidated by women of higher resource potential but I pefer the words "not attracted to" rather than ascribe it to "the fragile male ego" as this only serves to demean men and misses something very important that goes much deeper than calling men weak.

I can only wonder how many mating opportunities comedians, musicians and other men such as the President must get for producing so well. Women who produce simply don't get the same reward. Women who produce don't have the same effect on men. Women don't have the same incentive that men do.

One can say that we as men in real terms are paid more or have more incentive for such behavior in monetary capitol, status and mating opportunities for such production and expressions. Production and all that comes with it is of reward to men through the entire echelon. It makes sense that these pressures and propensities of the male will be represented in our social construct and gender roles, indeed they are. Indeed the needs and selective pressures of the female are represented through male production. The female in fact created men through selection of male variables from the beginning of our species existence. We are in fact what the female needed us to be.

One must understand that selective pressures are a major motivator for men. Look around you and you will see that everything around you was built by men and the essential materials derived directly from male labor.

I wonder if women are telling the truth when the Feminist Party that represents the voice of all women tells us they would support men entirely with their labor while we stay home with children. I wonder if women will ever protect and provide for us to though we can protect and provide for ourselves as they aspire. I wonder if they will ever buy us food and drink, protect and provide for us and display such utility and protective gestures by opening doors for us. I wonder why they ask us to support women's need not to need men and that men must contribute the extra work load it takes for them to do so in more housework and child care. I wonder if men are inherently resistive to these demands. It would make sense that they would be. I wonder why women believe they should do this. I wonder why they want to "produce" like we do when there is simply not as much incentive for them to do so. Why do they complain that they have not or can not do so and that we must get women to compete and produce on par with men? I wonder why they think that men do all this for ourselves. I wonder why they attack us as they have. I wonder why they find no value in themselves otherwise but more so in being "independent" i.e. becoming what men have always contributed to the pair bond i.e. to become in the respects they have needed us most for, to become "what men are".

I don't understand how they can become what they seek in us and then do not willingly give over the fruits of their labor to us as we have to them in courtship and in a mated pair bond. They have shed the "oppression" of their role as mother and nurturer in favor of the male oppressive role of resource provision yet they display no such willingness as men have to provide dedication of these resources to us. Instead they simply seek to nullify the need of a man all together, to become independent.

It stands to my reason that we should "depend" on eachother, is that not what a mated pair bond does? Is not that the reason we have two sexes that are virtual opposites? Don't we have or are meant to have different contributions to a mated pair bond? If so one could speculate what those contributions are by understanding what men and women look for in a mate.

Males that are present today are products of the variables females selected for in us. Why then do they shame us when of course we are designed by and for their benefit. In selective terms they asked us to be this way. Why be "independent" from the benefits of men? Is marriage and a mated pair bond between men and women oppression? Is not mutual need, dependence, devotion, trust and obligation the whole idea?

I wonder what happens when men start wanting to be "independent" from women? Can anyone see the potential detriment of this proposition were it to take place as females have done? Indeed in many respects Men's Rights is growing to fight for male independence from the female. To in fact not only not need her but to stop her demand for our resources in courtship, marriage and divorce. If women do not need us we sincerely would like them to stop needing us and furthermore to continue to force us to do so outside of a married relationship.

It makes no sense to produce for females that are now "independent" and produce for themselves. It makes no sense to dedicate to presenting, displaying, offering and strutting our "male variables" and willingness for dedication of such to females when they don't want them. To expect men to court women through resource provision is degrading to men. To support a woman that is not his wife is degrading to men. To support children he is not allowed to have joint custody of is degrading to the essential rights of a father and to men.

I am afraid that as marriage becomes more rare and divorce stays as prevalent and even more common than today and as cohabitation increasingly becomes the norm government will increasingly subsidize the dissolution of family through the ever growing government husbandry to support single mothers and enforce the resource provision by men while increasing the state of fatherlessness.

To have economic equality and self suffiecientcy in society yet look for such inequality in mate selection of males is hipocracy and creates inherent resentment in men. If women don't need us I'd rather sit around and watch sports, not attend college, drink beer, play video games and not commit to women or marriage but rather simply get laid. I'd rather not produce very much... With no sovereign territory or family of my own, no future in this respect and a perpetual single lifestyle I will have no obligations, nothing to loose. Are single wifeless and childless men more volatile and commit more crime and violence? After all what is there left to define yourself for or against but yourself and anything that gets in your way. He has no responsibility to anyone but himself.

Why do men produce and are represented in so many areas that women claim they are oppressed in, because even though by feminist doctrine instituted as law we are no longer needed for anything other than sperm and as an isolated resource provider after divorce, we produce because we are still required to by female selective pressures. I've asked many women that are friends of mine about paying for women on dates and they always reply that I have to pay. They can't explain why but that it is important that I pay. Women have an innate sense of entitlement to male resource provision. If I am dedicated to her as a mate I am expected to provide. In any other time this would be ok but now women have their cake and can eat it to. Men are now here to take or leave at the will of females, to court and to be of utility or none, to provide or not provide, to give her all the more choices. We are clearly at most an expendable accessory. Indeed as is evident by custody law, men are seen as no use to children as a father as well.

In order for men to no longer be oppressed by women we must withdraw from women as they have from us, namely through the requirement of resource provision in all aspects of our interaction with women in courtship, marriage and divorce. To in fact allow women to truly be "independent" women and to allow men to be independent from subservience to this modern female that does not need men but is glad to take. We must call her on her decision to be independent and force her to take responsibility, to be truly independent. Again anything less is hypocracy. We have clearly created a hybrid of polyandry and monogamy which presents itself in the current 40% single woman birth rate and serial monogamy. This institution is no doubt in the female favor from courtship to divorce.

The drastic decline in marriage and increase in cohabitation is not enough. We need this to continue to bring it to a head. Thankfully it is getting worse. This modern female that refuses to provide to us the fruits of her labor as we do and are willing to do for her in all aspects of our relationship to the female is unacceptable. I am quite aware I am no longer needed and so I demand to no longer be expected to provide in courtship and forced to provide in divorce..I will no longer be subject to military draft to defend the territory or resources for which she now competes for and acquires monetary capitol in. She must do so as well to be my equal. I demand reciprocation and responsibility from women.

I demand to have benefits without risk or obligation and choice to shed all roles that subjugate men to women or to male obligation to family or society as well as the burdens of responsibility of sexual reproduction as women now make and have such choices for themselves. I demand choice for all these things as well. I demand to be independent from women as they are to us.

I am tired of the female entitlement of what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine in courtship and outside of a mated pair bond. I demand not the same but simply what is mine is mine. I demand responsibility from women. Women can not have "choices" for choices sake alone. It is responsibility that gives power which gives forth to obligation and risk and then choices. This is something men have always known and abide by. Women need to realize that equality does not mean choices that fall on the shoulders of men. Women need to realize that to transfer risk and obligation defeats the purpose of the responsibility and power dynamic that men abide by. This is something men have and always will strive to do given proper respect. To provide and protect our mated female and offspring. Unfortunately women can take us or leave us devastated and they know it. Women have all the power, we have nothing. Fortunately but unfortunately men are responding to this accordingly and I can only hope we continue to withdraw from commitment to women, marriage, children and family.

I see no other way to correct the faults of "equality" but to exemplify the utter inequality that men face.

To continue the destruction of family, increase the single woman birth rate of 40%, continue no fault divorce, encourage single motherhood as a lifestyle choice,increase fatherless children, show men and useless idiots and fools in media and commercials, continue the current decline in marriage toward cohabitation, maintain marriage as nothing but an obligation and risk to all men, continue affirmative action, VAWA and special grants and scholarships to women. She must completely become on par in capital productive capacity in work as well. Title IX and affirmative action are doing well at this. Institute paid maternity leave for single mothers as well as benefits and welfare to single mothers.

Though he is quite crass I do enjoy Mark Rudov's approach on U.S. national news channels and his YouTube videos on doing away with male courtship through resource provision. To respect women's wishes of independence men must force them to take responsibility for such a request as to do otherwise makes men oppressed by women. I wish it was not this way... Mark Rudov's national acclaim and as a voice for men in my country is an important part of the Men's Rights Movement. He is forcing the gender war cards on the table. To make us think if we want to continue toward mutual independence or move back toward dependence and devotion to one another and to rebuild the dissolved American family. Mark is forcing women to think hard what they are pushing us toward and the consequences of their choices.


Anonymous said...

you are one very disturbed fella

Bwec said...

I am partly serious but mostly frustrated and upset when I say we must withdraw from women. Men are the last straw. Yes women have pulled away and their goal is to be "independent" but if men respond like women are pushing us to it will be disaster. It will also be the formation of something new. All civilizations and societies change through massive upheaval, are taken over by a society that made the right choices or simply die out.

If you read the rest of my blog you will see that I am presenting a picture that is very coherent and the subjective experience of a man in our culture. Though I may inject my personal opinion and feelings, this is after all a blog.

Anonymous said...

These lines are very important:

"If women don't need us I'd rather sit around and watch sports, not attend college, drink beer, play video games and not commit to women or marriage but rather simply get laid. I'd rather not produce very much... With no sovereign territory or family of my own, no future in this respect and a perpetual single lifestyle I will have no obligations, nothing to loose. Are single wifeless and childless men more volatile and commit more crime and violence?"

We know this is a real dynamic going on.

I studied politics (post graduate), and to me, this is explosive stuff.

It is the societal material, the social 'tinderbox' of a pre-fascist situation. The energy of these men will find a focus, but in a direction that their parents and teachers would not have predicted.

Bwec said...

"I studied politics (post graduate), and to me, this is explosive stuff."

Thank you kindly. I only hope that we can do something about it. I am so glad there are educated people like yourself who may help me make a difference..