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.
Got time for some confrontation?!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
6 Responses to Got time for some confrontation?!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Given the prolific nature of xipetotec’s last 2 posts – Seems to me someone needs to chain his ass to a microphone, dictaphone, or a scratchpad and get him working on some lyrics or something. Channel it, baby ….
Either that or put those fingers to use around the Mosquito compound and prepare for hunkering down for winter… You’ve got a couple pre-cold homestead projects in the works, doncha bugwonder?
Idle hands are the devil’s tools… *snicker & snerk*
Skeeter has a couple of projects here at Hacienda del Buggo, but I believe he may fear setting me loose upon his fair home unsupervised. I am prone to wierd moments, and perhaps he thinks he shall find his soffet and facia painted in polka dots if I were left to my own devices; something I cannot rule out. I deeply suspect the only reason he set up this site was so he no longer had to bear the burden of reading or listening to my rants and tantrums on his own. Sharing his pain, so to speak. I don’t blame him. Could anyone?! Poor Bugboy, haunted by this crazed pseudo-intellectual brute of the first order, blathering around the living room in a cacaphony of useless rhetoric. In Guinness Veritus. Perhaps he is somewhat masochistic for even inviting my heathen self into his house. Whatever the case, so far my madness has not apparently left him quivering and unnerved. Quite the opposite, I think seeing the Devil daily has done him well, acted as a reminder for just how focused is his own life.
setting up this site served two distinct purposes. first and foremost was a delivery vehicle for choking sun. the second was as a “mouthpiece” for putting forth opinions like the last two posts. xipetotec’s verbal skills and mental capacity (or rather his intellect) are in excess of what anyone would use as a baseline for man. the months i spent anxiously awaiting his relocation to atlanta to “finish the puzzle” were borderline on intolerable.
in terms of the effiminization of the american male, i would have to say it is quite prevelant. i think the most telling sign is the new “category” of male: “metrosexual.” i won’t go as far as to say i loath the attributes, but it is not a label i would ever desire applied to myself. a quick search on the “definition of” turns up: “A young man concerned with self-image, self-indulgence and money.” those three things are at the bottom of the barrel in terms of what i hold in highest esteem. i would imagine that some would say that my obsession and drive with music is in fact a “self-indulgence;” that my constant acceptance of “freelance work” shows my concern with money. it isn’t the case. for one to be self-indulgent to me means a level of obsession with one’s self. i take freelance as a means to an end. in terms of music, as hard as it may seem to understand, i do not just do it because i enjoy it; i do it because i must for my sanity.
i am in fact a huge supporter of the equality of the sexes, because we are equal. however i do not understand why in this day and age why women have in general begun to look down on their “sisters” for “giving it all up” to raise a family. that is in fact the hardest (and in my eyes the most rewarding) thing life has to offer. i wonder if those that look down on their “sisters” realize that on some level they are thumbing their nose at their own mothers. it seems that we are all equal in our own abilities to exist within the “grey area” between the “black and white” of extremes.
i’ve said it before, but it deserves mentioning again. i am a simple working man. my ideal living environment is very eastern (xipetotec stated he and batterman felt my tastes were quite japanese) and uncluttered. i keep myself clean and “groomed” but if the “wage slave” were allowed to be somewhat unshaven, i would not shave every other day. i would shave when it itched.
the hacienda del buggo is a better place with the intellect of xipetotec.
I have no doubt that xipetotec’s presence has been a very positive influence. Based on all the activity I read about, mosquito hasn’t been this jazzed, energized, and excited about what’s going on in his life for some time. Despite all the negatives he’s faced in the past months – He’s really coming out on top with an outlook and approach to life that will do great things for him.
As for xipetotec’s verbal skills – he’s shur got a way with them purty words. I’m lucky if I manage to string a couple of grammatically correct 5 word sentences together. Actually, I directed a coworker to this blog so she could read his past two posts, particularly the Ginsburg-ish one. She was an english major and really enjoyed them… although this gender role post got her blood boiling (she’s also a fem-power cubed type).
I have to say that my limited life experiences taught me that women definitely want their men to be men – not necessarily in the classical bread-winner masogynistic sense, but emotionally. The whole “tell me what you’re feeling” and behaving emotionally like a chick will only make you the bitch of the relationship. The women I’ve know that say they want sensitivity doesn’t mean wear a skirt and watch Martha. If you toss out the typical emotional traits of being a man (assertive, driven, somewhat aloof and oblivious, oafish, etc etc)… I believe they will lose interest and go find a guy that still has them.
I would be just fine staying at home with the kids and my wife have the career. That wouldn’t make me less of a man. Cook, clean the house, do the laundry – whatever. Those things don’t imply one particular gender should do them. However – if the wife got home and I started into the “honey, how was your day… can I get anything for you… put up your feet and let me pamper you” routine… I’d be a bitch, not a man. The “manish” way to do that would be “Good day? Yeah, great. Want a beer? I made some nachos, you want some? Ok. I’ll let you chill. Gotta go make sure the kids aren’t juggling knives.”
That’s my shallow interpretation.
i would imagine that xipetotec’s post might infuriate some, but i think it is because of the medium of conversation more so than the actual words. while the saying holds truth that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” i think the direct oral communication and conversation carries with it a more cohesive transmition of the idea. i think everyone would agree that in person conversation has the added advantage of non-verbal communication. xipetotec will play the devil’s advocate not to get one’s blood boiling, but instead to make you think. the level of verbal tennis we play at time when speaking on items is more than invigorating.
personally i think over the past two years i found myself becoming less of man. over the past few months i’ve found myself return to what i am and striving for what i will become. in terms of the “line” between job duties for the sexes, i think it really boils down to mankind’s inability to operate in the grey. maybe i am just projecting my own inability in that regard as well. who knows.
suffice it to say, i feel quite honored to live with such a literary genius, even if he doesn’t feel the label is justified.
I agree with you, Garrett. Were I still married and had we, my ex and I, children, I would most happily consign myself to the stay at home role if she chose to work. That is essentially a part of my point. Men are quite happy leaving the brutal, take-no-prisoners work-a-day life for the rewards of maintaining the homestead. Why is it women feel this is of so low importance that they must “escape” it? Home-making is hard work, and the rewards are so much greater than those of the “bread-winner”. Women leaving the home is not the issue. It is the reasons they are leaving that baffles me. I certainly don’t like the idea of a family where both parents HAVE to work, leaving the state or strangers to raise the children, just so the home can be filled with luxuries that the family never shares because the parents are always at work. A kind of sick circle.
Yes, I have seen the effects of a male being too sympathetic to his mate. When my father was recently divorced, I asked his ex- why. He had put her on a pedastal. Treated her with near complete deferrence. She was given everything for which she asked. She was allowed to do as she pleased. Her response was simply that she wanted a man who took control and did not always buckle to her whims and will. She expressed that she had once thought she wanted a man to treat her like a goddess, but once she realized what that meant, she had changed her mind. She wanted a man to rebuke her on occasion. She wanted some rules to make her feel she inspired jealousy in her mate. She needed to feel the man was willing to “know better” than her. Now this is not a weak person. She is highly educated and more ambitious than a school of sharks cruising the breakers of a seal ridden beach. No stay-at-home mom here, not a mother at all. She did not want a mysogenist… but she did want to see some authority in her mate. My father had bent himself out of his own will to try to keep her happy, and it destroyed the relationship. She had wanted him to be a HIM, not a him.