October 26th, 2005 | xipetotec

There was a time when women respected men in all their hairy, sweaty machismo without feeling the need to hide the fact that they loved everything about the male aspect and character from their friends. I am suspicious that to many women the lack of “testicular fortitude” in the men with whom they are forced to associate disappoints them. Like all movements to change the character of a society, I think the effiminization of the American male will eventually be seen as the failure it represents. Men are being humiliated and de-masculinized in order for women to feel that much closer to ascending through the male dominated roles they were misguided into believing they wanted for themselves. If men are more like women, then the ladies are more likely to feel less inclined to assume the niche for which nature prepared them. Yes nature, not so much nurture. Testosterone is a powerful hormone. It gives a man the qualities required to assert authority and make the necessary quick decisions under duress. It stifles the frozen like a deer in the headlights fear, the “tharn” behavior as coined by Richard Adams in Watership Downs, so a man might take action to enforce his and his protectee’s life and property. Testosterone allows the male to push himself beyond what seemes physically and mentally tolerable to provide a better quality of life for those in his charge. One might argue that women bear the pain of childbirth, a pain so excrutiating that a man would quail. This is a moot issue. That pain is short-lived and the woman’s natural pain killers can work to help suppress the worst of it; but these substances have only a temporary effect. There are a limited number of receptors for these endorphins, and they are eventually used up. The potency of testosterone lies in it’s ability to DRIVE a man to IGNORE the pain of his situation, not to nullify the shock through a “high”. Besides, men secrete the same endorphins as women, making them just as capable at the base level of pain suppression. Males can take that a step farther and make the pain work for us, allowing it to carry us into the realm of the beserker warrior spirit… to focus our minds to clarity, not clouded with euphoria. As a point of medical fact, the endorphin rush does not take hold until well into the pain sensation, whereas testosterone is always “on”.
In any case, women are being taught that the male attributes are primitive and uncouth, something of an affect to be frowned upon. In most women’s hearts, I think they know this to be categorically untrue. I have had many an “honest” woman speak of the pleasure she gets coursing her fingers through a chestfull of hair, the arousal and sensation of a beard tickling her inner thighs, the pride in watching the swelling of her man’s physique as he prepares to launch himself against an unwanted rival suitor. Far more women enjoy these aspects of men than would care to admit. They want to feel a part of the culture that tells them they should abhor the qualities that define manhood. Everyone wants to belong to that “Grand Faloom” Vonnegut theorizes, and women have fallen victim to their own propaganda and need to join the new “empowered” clique of pant wearing gyno-monsters that the equal rights movement spawned. As if there was a nobler “profession” than the rearing of children and the logistical support of the hunter. There is nothing “easy” or “shallow” about being the shaper of the minds and bodies of children. This is a “job” for a strong individual, not a position of lowly importance and humiliating standing. I have always venerated the woman willing to raise the family… to be there with a warm fire and clean skins, after putting so much effort into the caring of the brood, when I return from a failed hunt, no rash words or finger-pointing, just a “You’ll get ‘em next time” word of encouragement.
What made women think they should seek out the stresses of a man’s life? I think it is related to the sale of goods and services by the greedy. If they didn’t plan this, they certainly do benefit from what is surely the most profitable coincedence in the history of capitalism and economics. I believe the seductive force of the purchasing power of two incomes per household has led us down this precipice-edged road. Not to say that there had to be some manner of real spoken collusion… perhaps it was simply conspiracy by default, though the human seeking to expand his greed is a smart animal, certainly capable of putting this thought into action (In other words, paranoia aside, humans can and do collude to attain the objects of their desire everday. It is dangerous to take up the call of the power-hungry that all “conspiracy theory” is a fable… that no two or more groups of individuals could get together and make a change to a system as their own lust to be at the top would stand in the way… this is patently false… just ask “big tobacco” or any political action committee). Some exec sat back and saw how much more product his company could sell if mom was on the nipple of wage slavery as well, and the idea took hold. World War Two was the example… men off to war, women in the factory (with the benefit of the women’s willingness to accept a reduced wage due to their lack of knowing any better). This was in no way a new idea; afterall, women have found positions to engage in the earning of a wage from the beginning of time. The only new concept that had to be pushed was that the women could enjoy a higher wage (read: more purchasing power) if they could but hammer their way into employment above the levels of domestic service that had been their exclusive domain to this point. This is why I don’t buy the argument that men are behind some plot to keep women from the same salaries as men. Women just don’t seem to hold out for the higher wage the way men usually will. Those at the top of the financial food chain want women to make more… so they can manage to BUY more. “You don’t have to be a maid… why you could be a manager at the bank!” It was uncommon, but women have had the ability to become educated and set forth in business for a few centuries now. They may have been somewhat cuckolded in the attempt, but if they did achieve their goal, man knew the money they acquired was just as green as their own. It didn’t take much to foist the belief that they should ALL despise the “drudgery” of home-making and proceed to drop the apron and don the “power-suit” (strange that they should frown upon men’s “affectations” and yet go to such lengths to mimic).
The end will come as women realize that the grass is brown and dying on this “male” side of the fence. The unholy toil and unabated humiliation of working simply to provide material possessions is a sad state to live. As mothers, they were able to see the fruits of their labors in a meaningful, spiritual way. To watch as their children grew to prosper and know they shaped the mind and soul that allowed that child to succeed, as opposed to the shallow pride a man has available for bringing home “things” for the family to turn to rubbish as it is used or consumed… a complete lack of creation. I think it is truly pathetic so many women feel that it is a better life to die early from the stresses of putting meat on the table than to live long to see their progeny prosper under their guidance and care into successful adulthood… starting their own families, that, because of the now grandmother’s efforts, have a better chance of continuity to the next generation. Men’s roles tend towards a finite effect on the future, whereas traditional women’s roles are the infinite future.
The effiminization of men has been attempted by “western” civilization in the past (those goddamn eighteenth century European nancy-boy men are a prime example) and it has always failed (look at photographs of the wolfmen of the nineteenth century). Women like men to be men, even if they do try to deny it for a time. When one looks at the man with all the girls flocking to him, one never or rarely sees the “sensitive” simpering poncie scum some women claim they want the most (unless you are in a gay club and then we are talking about the “fag-hag”)… one sees a man resplendent in all the attributes that make lesbians happy to be queer in the first place. I tell you, I will not be a victim to the will of Gillette and NOW (National Organization of Women). When I shave, it is to remove the facial hair that itches, not to have a mug as smooth as a rug-rat’s ass. One of my ex-girlfriends had never dated a man who wore their facial hair prior to meeting me, now she ONLY dates men with beards! As long as there are two sets of sex defining genes, men will be male and women will want them that way, in spite of the efforts of social programmers filled with a lust for control. “Mother” nature has been at the programming racket far longer than humans have been able to define the term “social programmer”.
Anyhow, enough of my thoughts (Advocatus Diaboli?! Perhaps…) on this louse-ridden topic. Suck it up, Buttercup.