If anything this video outlines how male "use" and utility has been exploited by culture, not only to hold up the operation of culture but to support the needs of such a culture even to the point of the disposability and expendability of male lives. Male use is also defined by women and their needs but also elements of biological imperatives placed upon him for the survival of our species.
I first noticed this video on The Conscious Men Facebook page. This is a group which seeks to apologize to women for the male condition and its effect on women. A follower posted the above video to seek guidance as to validating this view of men from the leaders of this group and the response is demonstrated from this captured screenshot:
This group of men have been outright rejected by most men as is evidenced by the comments on their YouTube videos but also strongly by the Men's Rights community. There is good reason for this, it is not male responsibility or male free will which is responsible for the human condition nor is it men who are the sole creators of it.
Carlin makes the mistake of placing responsibility of the male condition upon men themselves, particularly fathers.
He states that it is fathers who introduce men to male subcultures i.e. (tangential cultural expressions deviating from the cultural norm of male "use") in other words, ALL places and activities men can be themselves FOR themselves. He attacks all bastions of refuge but also the places where masculinity is literally used.
Car and machinery culture: Nothing inherently wrong with this, men gravitate to machines because we are the ones who invent them and this is so because it extends our capabilities to produce the imperatives defined by our use and utility. Machines and tools are an extension of men's drive and male purpose. Tools and machines are something integral to being male they are a physical manifestation and extension of ourselves.
The Police and Military Culture: Necessary to keep social order to protect and provide safety and security of our native culture but also to secure territory and resources to our native culture should they come in conflict with another’s. As we speak, mostly men are working around the clock to quell the raging reactors in Japan. These men, these military men are accomplishing a productive, useful and dangerous task. Men know from a young age their intended male "use" and even their expendability in order to secure the needs of culture, women but also children.
The Outdoors and Gun Culture: Stems from male independence and ability to provide for and protect one’s self. But also embodies the male spirit of Freedom, Liberty, Independence and the innate, intrepid, go it alone, independent spirit of masculinity. If a man is not self-sufficient how is he to provide his utility for the use of others? Men find the outdoors and wilderness a challenge. Men in the wilderness are facing what can be hospitable if he utilizes his self and abilities properly but also equally unforgiving. It is the epitome of the unique struggle that men face in the world. After all, if women sacrifice their own needs for children and men sacrifice our own need for women and children then who is there to sacrifice their own needs for men in this regard? What use and utility will voluntarily be offered to us and by whom? Who will court us in order to do so.....nobody.
Sports and Competition Culture: Elements of male-male competition are expressed here through the embodied biological imperatives the male serves. Sports and competition not only provide this but also serves to showcase who is of better use or utility essentially...it is a contest of who is better.
Drug and Alcohol Culture: Not an exclusive male bastion of culture but for the sake of argument may be primarily driven by the pressures of the lack of inherent value in men. Men are not men by default but instead must "be a man" and become a man as defined by our external utility and use. Being a man entails accomplishment, duty and responsibility and the pressure to achieve. Along with drugs and alcohol we also suffer early death and suicide.
Let’s mate with females, while exemplifying and devaluing a non-useful male i.e. ("go get pussy and pick on queers"):If one is labeled queer it does not necessarily denote a lack of acceptance of queer sexuality but rather what it represents...along with feminization insults such as "pussy" and "fagot" it denotes males that are not of use. If you are like a woman or queer, then you have no use or external utility to neither women nor culture. However, though I've seen men declare we as a group should go find women I have never heard men as a group declare that we should "pick on others" while doing this.
Carlin labels testosterone (a symbolic element meant to denote "male essential nature" as the source of male suffering or cultural ills but I disagree, men are not solely responsible for the advent of our own condition. Masculinity has an essential nature and is also defined by and created by forces outside itself. Again, this is largely defined by biology, particularly in relation to use and external utility to the female but also what is defined as male use for the benefit of culture and often times to the sacrifice and expendability of a man himself, his own needs up to and including his own life for the benefit of others, the group, or society as a whole or for a defined cause.
Homophobia: Again, this has little to do with homosexuals as it does to the need to exemplify one’s own use and external utility above other males. Alleging someone is queer or calling another man a faggot, along with feminization insults of other men such as "pussy" is also used to do the same. These insults are used also to inspire another man to be of use, to "man up" to a task defined for him though it may not be in his best interest but rather that of women, culture, the group, or society as a whole. When you hear men or women using male shaming language think of not just the current context and purpose it is being used for but also how the qualities he is being shamed into producing i.e. (overcoming fear, pain, suffering or self interest etc) are part of the larger construct of male use, utility and expectations upon men as a whole.
Child Like Trust in Male Authority: This is false, the trust, following and development of male hierarchical social structure stems from following dominant males not simply other males or just any male authority. Individual enactments of male confidence, competence, bravado or otherwise demonstrating trust in one’s own authority and competence as a male, comes from the need to be dominant, and the need to be dominant stems from the need to be of use and of the highest utility and capability than the males around you but also of the highest capability and competence to be adequate to women and culture.
Fear and dislike of women: Perhaps can be described as more so the feelings of grappling and struggling with the area of ultimate authority and control that women hold over men and how this force powerfully places mandates upon us and defines us but also what it demands of men to be worthy, of use and external utility. Biologically speaking, men and our genes have no right to be passed onto life unless a female approves of this right. Lack of competence, acceptance and worthiness in the present moment implies that your genes have no right to exist in the present. By getting laid, men are able to validate their own right to exist. In this way, acceptance by women defines us. Likewise both male and female inherently know this and can be very demanding, vile, brutal and critical of the measurement of what constitutes a man’s own validity.
......He asks, why are men like this and concludes it is because men have no authority or control over whether they reproduce and yes, in simplified form this is on target. He asks, so what are men looking for. He explains that men are looking to gain the authority to reproduce which is correct but he states that "women do all the work of reproduction". What he does not recognize however is that "men also do all the work in our own fashion and in an external way in order to be able to reproduce. So where do we find ourselves.....back to the concept of male use and male external utility as defined by the mandates of engendered biological imperative pressures placed upon him and thus by extension, the pressures placed upon him by women and culture itself.
Carlin,... believe it or not is attempting to display his own use and utility. He asserts that the solution to the "male problem" (males other than himself of course) is the extermination of most all other males. Ironically, he is the embodiment of the same propensities he seeks to discredit. Men are brutal to other men and women are brutally critical of men.
He states, because men are excluded from control over reproduction they find ways to be of use and external utility. This is correct but men do not define this for ourselves and it is not entirely or mostly the product of male free will.
He continues with the fact that females are the constant and the base blueprint XX and males are the variable XY and as such, men are the primary variable that embodies the necessary traits or dictates of human survival, use, need and thus perpetuation of the species through such external variables embodied and displayed by him and this is correct. He states all men are modified females but it is equally true that all females are what males are not, never can be nor will be and this is good, it's what makes males unique, valuable, different, complimentary to the species and necessary.
He states that males are an afterthought so as to convey we are somehow deficient or a waste product of the essentialist design of female or even suggests that we are a deviation of what is essentially human, a thought perhaps a nazi might purvey.
He states, females create life and males end it: No, men are the embodiment of life’s self-actualization to perpetuate itself, refine itself and adapt itself not for our own ends but life’s own ends. Life wants to live. Men want to live on and pass on our genes. This is the biological portion of male use and external utility and why males are the variable. He is mistaken, men do not simply end life through culling out, challenging or destroying other male variables, we give it, shape it and its means of survival, this is embodied in us.
He states "war, crime, violence are primarily male but in reality they are primarily nature serving its own purpose through the culling of male variables represented in external utility and use. We must ask what war, crime and the byproduct of violence and male-male competition actually serve to this end.
To this I say ask these males:
Are territory, resources and male superiority and dominance over the ability of other males to acquire such things conveyed by these behaviors in the video above? Are human males any different?
He states that men start out as (female good) and end up as the "crappy thing" or (shit and waste) and this goes to show Carlin’s hatred not only for himself but life itself and life’s brutal struggle to perpetuate and refine itself. Life wants to be competent and able and this is embodied within male nature. Males seek competence, authority to be competent and dominance for a reason.
He says that men are not only responsible for the human condition but we are fully responsible for what we do to ourselves and what is done to men in this process and in this he is mistaken.
That male kangaroo shown in the video was sent off to die alone. If you look under a bridge in any city you will find males living out the rest of their lives there for the same reason. They have nowhere else to go, no value, no use or utility to provide. Women simply do not value men as much as they value themselves, men simply do not value ourselves and other men as much as we value women. I believe this might be true. A woman would never get up on stage to speak of women this way but it is quite possible she will speak of men this way. I have nothing but compassion and understanding for the male condition not hatred, misandry and bigotry.
Despite what Carlin and women say, men are human beings, males are LIFE and we deserve to live and be treated as equal and necessary to exist. No male scholar has ever contemplated the extermination of women but female scholars have contemplated the extermination of males and still do. Entire governments have and so do major female newspaper columnists.
The question of whether men have the right to live is obviously out there:
To answer the question that has been posed by feminists within their movement and even by other men (and Carlin himself), do males deserve to exist? Are males human beings which deserve to live?
Men, being the variable obviously have certain traits when contrasted to life's goals that are fit to survive, are successful and meant to be passed on and others that are not. Over time some of these variables are culled. Some survive and others do not. After all, DNA evidence shows that 80% of women and 40% of men reproduced in our evolutionary history.
Females, other men and culture can be brutal to men. They see this as their right to dictate and as such can be critical, cruel and inhuman to men and even question our right to exist or even our status as a human being. Likewise this brutality, critical mindset and cruelty is embodied in us towards ourselves as men (Carlin is a perfect example). As mentioned before, we are simply not as valued as women or else why would we be treated as less than them in this way??? However, males deserve to exist because females are static, they are the constant. Without males and the male variable, life does not go on nor do we adapt as a species to our environment to do so. Most of all men deserve the right to exist because we are human beings.
Though it has been questioned whether men or males are even necessary or have the right to live, to me it is quite obvious that we do. Men do not complain about our condition or seek to show how we are in pain, suffering or being used by women, culture or biology. We are also not critical of women as much as women and culture are critical and demanding of men.
Unlike women, we have no authority to complain and instead seek to hide weakness, pain suffering and the general brutal reality of the male condition. If we demand for this to be alleviated, provided to or protected for or even to have "choices" as women do we will thereby be announcing our own unworthiness and viability to exist, to be of use. Perhaps it is men's place in line of importance of gendered needs that we are put last. Perhaps this is the source of the imbalance that men now face under the current feminist hegemony. Men used to have the power over how we put ourselves last for women's benefit but how has female public, political and institutional agency exacerbated, increased and controlled this? What happens when females are given the power to dictate this?
Unlike what we have provided to women, they will not allow us a choice to escape the male condition as we have offered to make sacrifices for them to escape elements of the female condition. They will not be so kind. In fact I've found that what males are asked to do is provide something more to women and likewise female issues, needs, demands etc. and as such, this dominates the cultural dialog. Men have no needs that deserve to be addressed apparently. We will always be ordered to "man up" to this and take it.
Men have little healthcare funding for our health as women do. Men have little funding for our education, success, wellbeing and advancement as women do though men's health and educational success and general wellbeing is much poorer than women's. Men have no one to look after or support us. As men, for the most part we are all alone in this. We will not be cared for, we will not be protected and ultimately we will never be cared for as much as women. Under observation and practice female public and political agency seeks to expand this divide by providing ever more resources, programs, initiatives, funding and even anti male "women first" policies in college admissions and even business hiring. I guess it is the case that women put children before themselves, men put women and children before us but no one will ever put the needs of men before themselves...not women, not government and not other men.
The only people who can change the state of wellbeing of men in this regard is men. We must see ourselves and the male condition for what it is and address it as always...on our own..Women will not seek to care for us as we seek to do for them. It is up to us to see that we meet our own needs and that women meet our needs as well.
Women complain about their power over their sexuality, what a burden it is and seek to maximize it by "empowering" themselves for their own gain. The difference is that women own this power inherently along with the phenomena of being "sex objects" but do men own our "use"?
Women by default are on to the next stage..management of this for their own best benefit. Well, the way I see it, men are "use" objects. Men should become conscious of the ways in which we are literally used by women, law, social culture, family law etc. Men must own our gendered expectations and mandates of male "use". We must recognize our exploitation and how our inescapable biology and very lives are "used". Are our needs being met in return? Is there reciprocal obligation, responsibility, liability and accountability from women toward men?
Male "use" is something men need to empower ourselves with. Men, like women, must own our power. We must "empower" ourselves for our own wellbeing. Most importantly we must become aware of the ways in which male "use" and utility is used to empower women and give them "choices" at male expense. Choices of paternity, choices to be responsible for conception or not be responsible, choices to abandon their families, a choice to work or stay home, a choice to pay on a date or not to pay, and a choice to discard men from the family itself. In many ways female empowerment is defined by the "use" of men to enable it.
Also...may I ask...what are women required to "woman up" to? If they are asked to, do they have a "choice" to escape this?
-----
By the way….consider this article an apology on behalf of any “conscious women” (should there be any that are not victims of men) for treating men as “use” objects. Because unlike the manginas at the “conscious men” no women or culture will ever recognize the male condition for what it is, an equally valid part of the human condition.
No matter how misguided those men are at least they have offered to be of more “use”. You have to hand it to men, we are the most self sacrificial and giving beings I’ve ever witnessed. No matter how shallow and self loathing at least the “conscious men” attempt to take the world on the shoulders of men and to be accountable for EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE. This is what men have always done.
I am afraid we will receive no valid apology or accountability from any “conscious women” should they exist.
We will always be left catching our brothers in our arms. Quite frankly it is an honor to do so and be here for all of you. “You put your back up against me and I’ll put my back up against you (my fellow brothers), that way we don’t have to sleep with our heads in the mud”
Thank you all for contributing to the growing MRM. It is an honor to be a part of this.
Posts
7 comments:
PART 1:
> “Carlin makes the mistake of placing responsibility of the male condition upon men themselves, particularly fathers.”
True. And he’s wrong. In fact, most boys (post-Industrial Revolution) were raised by women. DH Lawrence wrote about how being separated from home and children and land harmed males.
Most modern mothers, when boys are around 5 (especially in public) start withholding the love they previously lavished unconditionally. Now, often to please other mothers (showing them they aren't raising a wuss), they hold their injured, crying son only AFTER he stops crying. The boy, who'll do anything to get love (and love-- like food-- is dispensed almost solely by Mom most of the day), learns the lesson. He "gets" that from now on, "maleness" means not expressing certain feelings...like pain, fear, suffering, etc.
> "The Police and Military Culture: Necessary to keep social order to protect and provide safety and security of our native culture..."
Why don't women do more? Does it come down to simple strength? If the enemy is Bluto, a group that sends Olive Oyl out to confront him will be conquered. Why blame men for this? Why aren't feminists DEMANDING that equal numbers of females help "quell the raging reactors in Japan"? Seems like the heavier the price of freedom-safety-etc. is, the lighter the female investment is. Instead, they act like children to whom things are to be given.
> "Men know from a young age their intended male 'use' and even their expendability in order to secure the needs of culture, women but also children."
Who teaches that? Who reinforces it? Why did only men have to "man" fronts in WWI? Why did only females hand out "white feathers" to men they felt weren't "doing their duty" (that is, risking their lives for poonani)?
> "The Outdoors and Gun Culture: Stems from male independence and ability to provide for and protect one’s self. ...the innate, intrepid, go it alone, independent spirit of masculinity."
I disagree. This is part of they hype we're taught. In fact, no man is an island. Even "mountain men" and hermits depend on others. You can't build an army or corporation or government, much less raise a barn, alone. It's a lie (a vicious, costly one that imprisons men in false beliefs) to say men are "self-sufficient." We are not, nor should we strive to be. History is much more filled with cooperation than competition. But, like "the news," we hear mostly about negative things.
> "Men find the outdoors and wilderness a challenge."
Some do. Many find it a refuge, comfort, sanctuary.
> "What use and utility will voluntarily be offered to us and by whom?"
Why buy into the definition of men having to be "useful"? Behold the lilies of the field!
> "Sports and competition not only provide this but also serves to showcase who is of better use or utility essentially...it is a contest of who is better."
"Better" defined as what? "Survival of the fittest" is not being physically "fit." It means fitting best into circumstances...often a matter of fate. A big, burly man is not "best" when escape from a fire means exiting through a hole too narrow for his bulk. John Henry was no match for a steam shovel in the famous coal-mining contest. The world is filled with highschool sports heroes who end up as drunks later in life.
> "Drug and Alcohol Culture...may be primarily driven by the pressures of the lack of inherent value in men. Men are ...defined by our external utility and use."
Exactly why we need to stop buying into that definition. Just like females decided to stop believing "woman can't do math."
PART 2:
> "Being a man entails accomplishment, duty and responsibility and the pressure to achieve."
Says who?
Besides, that contradicts the idea that guys are "self-made." How can men be "independent" if they depend on someone else's definition of manhood? Why isn't "manhood" simply being happy?
Maslow is instructive. His hierarchy of needs places food and shelter first. In primitive places and times, the person who can provide those needs matters most. Hence Paleolithic males that could kill mastodons and outfit caves. But Maslow says that's only the beginning. There are other levels to attain before "self-actualization." We need to see the definition of manhood similarly. When machines provide most needs, being "useful” is not a great "career" for males.
Why not teach boys that learning to sing well makes one more a man than becoming an "ultimate fighter" (who mostly hurts other males)? Top samurai were expected to write haikus and arrange flowers...as well as master swordsmanship.
> "go get pussy and pick on queers"
Not much "homophobia" is related to sexuality. It’s more about sensibility. Gays, like women, are culturally "allowed" to be sensitive, artistic, etc. Why buy into it? Straight men have historically been painters, musicians, dancers, etc., too. Why let "gays" own that? Watch movies like BILLY ELLIOT and AN AMERICAN IN PARIS. Straight men can dance, sing, live outside the box.
As long as the finer things in life-- the things that make life worth living-- are seen as "gay" (in the negative sense), men will continue to live diminished lives. You can't be "all you can be" if you can fight, but not express fear. Anyone who’s ever fallen in love knows what pimps-and-whores miss: If your heart’s not into something, you’re only half alive. A man who lives an unfeeling life is to be pitied. He's like someone permanently on Novocain.
> "If you are like a woman or queer, then you have no use or external utility to neither women nor culture."
So what? Why endorse the idea that men are valued only for "usefulness"?
> "When you hear men or women using male shaming language think...overcoming fear, pain, suffering or self interest etc) are part of the larger construct of male use, utility and expectations upon men as a whole."
Yes. Those who benefit want us to stay in-harness.
> "Fear and dislike of women...Biologically speaking, men and our genes have no right to be passed onto life unless a female approves of this right."
WTF? What "right" do women have to our "magic beans"? Without the "divine spark" we provide, a uterus is just a cold, useless oven.
> "By getting laid, men are able to validate their own right to exist."
Says who? A man’s "right" to exist is self-evident.
Or should be.
> "[Carlin] concludes...men have no authority or control over whether they reproduce…”
Neither do women. Many women want children, for example, but can't conceive. Or can't find men to impregnate them. So where is their control?
> "He explains that men are looking to gain the authority to reproduce..."
Heifershite! Who cares if anyone reproduces? Certainly not Nature. "Life" could well go on without humans. Maybe reality is a solid bock of blackness a zillion miles wide.
It's nonsense to think humans know what "life is all about." I mean, suppose you are God. Do you care whether germs in a lab grow or disappear?
Whatever the reason for "life," it's beyond our understanding. We can't know. That’s why we’re capable of faith.
For all we know, "existence" might deem us all dead now. Maybe we only glimpse real life when we dream…like what e experienced in utero. We might only "start" to live when we die. Who knows?
PART 3:
Still, children DO matter to us, even if we don’t know why. It's instinctual to protect life as we know it. It may make no "sense" to Martians that we live 4-score-and-20 (especially if Martians never die), but so what? Do you consult a philosophy text to find out what to do if a friend is drowning? No. You just act. Who knows why? As they sang in SOUTH PACIFIC, “wise men never try” to explain love.
> "women do all the work of reproduction".
Meaning? Most women don't even "show" for months. Then society provides them with much assistance. And hell, even brain-dead females have birthed. So why glorify female reproduction? Women no more "give" birth than they "move" their own bowels. Both are autonomic processes, not subject to will. You must force yourself to face combat, not create turds.
I've also often heard the lie that women are more valuable because if 100 men survive a battle, and only one female, that tribe will die out. But if 100 women survive, and just one male, that tribe will become slaves to another tribe.
Also, most "kick ass" female CEOs become whimpering wusses when electricity fails. Like too many women, they take for granted the many things men do.
Just because men are socialized not to complain doesn't mean their lives are easy...or complaint-free. Men have equal grievances. They’ve just been taught not to air them publicly.
Much "infrastructure" that makes modern life so "easy" is created and maintained by men. When power lines fall during ice storms, women make coffee and "man" phone banks while men hazard inclement elements to restore "normalcy." So where is "Honoring Men Day"?
> "Carlin...asserts that the solution to the 'male problem'...is the extermination of most all other males.... Men are brutal to other men and women are brutally critical of men."
Hopefully he was being ironic, like Swift urging starving Irish to eat their babies.
> "females are the constant and the base blueprint XX and males are the variable XY...”
So anything that wipes out an X will wipe out all women. How is that a "superior" genetic position for women to be in?
> "it's what makes males unique, valuable, different, complimentary to the species and necessary."
Yes!
> "He states, females create life and males end it"
Women do NOT "create" life. Like men, they are mere agents of forces beyond themselves.
On the other hand, women have historically been the prime killers of kids (by infanticide) and the biggest abusers/neglecters of live children and the elderly.
At the same time, most doctors, firefighters, police, and other protectors of life have been male.
> "Life wants to live."
True. And we will never fully know why. Nor do we need to. It's enough that we instinctively want ourselves and others to be happy, not suffering.
> "He states 'war, crime, violence are primarily male..."
More bovine poo. Mothers are the main inculcators of societal values. They urge sons to avenge crimes, restore national pride, remember grievances. Girls also use sex and shaming to shape male behavior. Plus, when it serves their politics, feminists will claim females have ALWAYS fought equally, and alongside men. Hell, the biggest champions of Hitler were women!
PART 4:
> "Males seek competence, authority to be competent and dominance for a reason."
"Reason" or "love"? We often act to meet needs. A prime need, after survival, is to matter, to feel loved. So what motivates boys? How do societies reward/punish boys… and for what? For example, in our so-called "equal feminist times," why are so many boys drugged in school? Who gains from the "Ritalin Solution"? Why are we punishing initiative-taking in young males? And why do young women seek out "bad boys" (all the while claiming to be the more intuitive and emotionally astute gender)?
And how much negative masculinity is due to the absence of good male role models? How many boys look at adult males and see football-addicted boozers, soul-less money-grubbers, or sterile wimps who did nothing while their families were destroyed?
> "If you look under a bridge in any city you will find males…. They have nowhere else to go, no value, no use or utility to provide."
How many could become violin players, artists, chefs, counselors, and visionaries if we helped? We provide tons of aid and assistance to women who lie during divorce. What do we do for lost, wounded, confused males (including vets)?
> "Women simply do not value men as much as they value themselves, men simply do not value ourselves and other men as much as we value women."
Why? Anything to do with, for the past 40-50 years, women speaking out while men (for the most part) remained silent? Did McCarthy run out of steam or was he finally confronted?
The problem is simple: the 'enemy' is female. Boys are raised, post agrarian times, primarily by mothers. Ergo, their earliest and deepest emotional connections are with females. Later life confrontations with women will feel life-threatening. It will FEEL like they are challenging the only being who can love and feed them.
Had fathers been more emotionally "there" (rare I know: most worked away from home most of the day), or friendships with other males not deemed “gay," males would be better able to fight feminism. As things are, a guy will punch a man who mocks his favorite sports team, but do nothing when feminists pass laws to take his kids away. Plus he knows other men will mock his manhood ("Take it like a man!" and "Don't ever-ever fight a woman!"). So guys’ geese are cooked. They are least prepared to fight the most common enemy: a female feminist.
> "female scholars have contemplated the extermination of males…"
Because we let them.
> "Females, other men and culture can be brutal to men."
Because we let them.
> "males deserve to exist because females are static, they are the constant. Without males and the male variable, life does not go on nor do we adapt as a species to our environment to do so."
A tepid defense. Think Patton would have rallied HIS troops so meekly?
Where are men's passions? Keerist! Most men's groups are small and irrelevant because they think small and are led by milquetoasts. Meanwhile, females fill auditoriums and slander males. They also yell "Cunt!" at the top of their lungs to empower themselves. So how do guys respond? By saying and doing nothing!
Where are our "Penis Dialogues?" Where do men fill rooms and yell "Bitch!" at the top of their lungs as pictures of Steinem, Abzug, and ex-wives are flashed on screens? Where is the Norman Rockwellesque male citizen who stands up calmly during a gender forum, takes off his hat, and says, "Fuck you, M’am!"?
> "Men do not complain about our condition or seek to show how we are in pain, suffering or being used by women, culture or biology."
And that's the problem. We play by the enemy's rules. We are nice, polite boyos as others stomp our testicles.
PART 5:
> "If we demand...to be...protected... or even to have 'choices'...we will
> "...be announcing our own unworthiness and viability to exist, to be of use."
Only if we buy the lie that our worth is solely utilitarian. Do you buy a car based purely on stats? What about look? Amenities? Aura?
> "Perhaps it is men's place in line of importance of gendered needs that we are put last."
WTF, dude: That’s Manginaspeak. Buck-up!
> "female public, political and institutional agency ...will not allow us a choice to escape the male condition
That’s slave mentality. Learned helplessness. The Stockholm Syndrome.
> "We will always be ordered to 'man up' to this and take it."
Even in the military, it is dishonorable, even illegal, to follow immoral/unjust orders. Why volunteer for a death march?
> "Men have little healthcare funding..."
Because we were raised to stuff painful feelings as boys. What male, 40 years later, even knows WHAT he feels? Think he'll go on national TV and demand rectal exams for prostate cancer?
Women know breasts are attractive to men...and men will be 'white knights' for female woes. That’s why fundraising for breast cancer has been such a lucrative cakewalk. But what female is sexually attracted to prostates? What women get wet for men who say they’re in pain?
> "Men have no one to look after or support us."
We have men who've escaped sexist enslavement. And women who actually love and care about us.
> "As men, for the most part we are all alone in this. We will not be cared for, we will not be protected..."
What army says that? Armies EXIST to protect, provide, and care for its members.
> "women put children before themselves..."
Some do. Feminists, on the other hand, use kids to benefit their groups politically. And to rob men of assets and status while burdening them with ever-more obligations.
> "We must see ourselves and the male condition for what it is and address it as always...on our own....Women will not seek to care for us as we seek to do for them."
Good women WILL help us. Many are just waiting for us to reclaim our balls.
> "Men... must recognize our exploitation and how our inescapable biology and very lives are 'used'."
True. Waiting for Mommy Dearest to treat us as equals will take forever.
PART 6 (final):
> "Is there reciprocal obligation, responsibility, liability and accountability from women toward men?"
Of course not. Because men have yet to demand it.
You can let yourself be exploited or you can protect yourself. You can take care of others or you can meet your own needs equitably.
So long as men pursue poonani at any and all cost, though, little will change.
Truth be told, much "pussy hunting" is a masked attempt to be loved and valued...however fleetingly. Under constant pressure to perform, screwing becomes something men can do to “let go.” And since it’s considered “gay” to be emotionally close to, much less hold, other men…the sole source of emotional comfort for most men is female. That gives women tremendous leverage. Plus most societies support females helping each other…making them less dependent on guys.
Since few people will let go of a trapeze unless another is at-hand (or a safety net below), it’s unlikely most men will change their ways unless support networks and outlooks change.
Men won’t let go unless they know other males will catch them, "be there" for them, help them out. Seeing other men acting like robots will only convince them opening up is futile.
Too many men think emotions are useless, if not dangerous. Yet tears water our souls. Cried tears reduce stress. They chemically change from ones in ducts. Yet what male will risk showing pain to a man who'll just tell him to "man up!"
Men need to become strong enough to feel weak (or what they THINK is weak). There's a famous scene in the 3-part movie about Japan's master swordsman where he's told, "You are too strong." Indeed, it was his weakness.
> "Male 'use' is something men need to empower ourselves with."
No. I suggest we let that hogwash go.
> "what are women required to 'woman up' to?"
Whatever modern men decide. Too often, though, pretty women aren't expected to do a damn thing. Hell, they can even “just lay there" in bed. We put women on pedestals, then complain when they look down on us.
> "no women or culture will ever recognize the male condition for what it is..."
Fools and their money get separated every day. Men who act like manginas aren't going to cow any feminist cows. Men today are respected like oatmeal because, by and large, that’s how they act. A macho man who works his ass off on an oil-rig only to spend his hard-earned money on a ditz is a tool.
> "men...are the most self sacrificial and giving beings I’ve ever witnessed."
How much is due to the price-of-poonani? That is, do guys “selflessly” play hurt in sports "for the team" or for themselves or to attract cheerleaders? There’s no need to make men into saints. It's enough to stop viewing them as sinners. Being "normal" should be enough.
> "I am afraid we will receive no valid apology or accountability from any 'conscious women' should they exist."
Not until we start demanding respect verbally and by our actions.
First, Carlin is a comedian. His job depends upon exaggeration. He understood that well. That's why he was a famous comedian and made a bunch of money. He knew how to make a point; however exaggerated it was.
Second, Carlin does not see the world as you do. He views our behavior through the perspective of evolution and nature. We are animals with primate brains. We are not God's beautifully created soul children. We are animals and we a judged in the same vain. Carlin is simply describing what is plainly obvious. If you don't see it the same, there's no use arguing against it. I think it's really that simple.
Post a Comment