role of male necessity

i’ve noticed that in many western countries the decrease of widespread labor-based male necessity has been roughly proportionate to how much preference for femininity there is.

in older cultures, it seems that men hold an honoured and desired role for creative, laborial, audacity/daring and other factors engaging and envaluing personal entrepreneurial capacity.

but with female nature coercing governance to reduce or eliminate barrier of entry exclusively to women this type of respect and honor for male disposibility has gone out the window in favour of tacit/explicit female entitlement.

i see this as women’s biological in-group bias, and historic social entitlement to the redistribution of good to lead to heavily feminine styles of dredging content. where there is little new or insightful or valuable in any sense of the word; value has devolved into marketing and want it seems. and female entitlement seems to be making allot more female authors and main characters in narrative, even using cliché tropes.

these higher- more abstract forms of literary expression and associated careers; and their parallels of incredulous university declarations of capacity and merit. seem indicative of a growing shift of cultural values relegating men towards the outlying danger roles, while neglecting any traditional responsibility/recompense for the projected labor.

this comes across to many it seems as part of a more general shift towards more specially normal manners of being. in general a shift toward hunter gatherer diet, group size, and social-group identity. but when it comes to gender roles and sexuality, it seems to be a shift towards the hypergamous matriarchy where women return to mating with the ‘highest value’ man (of greatest attraction) now that the state and child-support can forcefully reallocate resources to her, and that industrially there is such a small pool of men being abused they have become invisible  and often mythically distant necessities; social cogs that are in many ways not recognized as human.

socially women seem conditioned to believe that as an ethical choice. rather than making themselves subhuman they see going for the highest value mate as attempting an honourable ideal, rather than an evil in fact alienating the lower-value good guys who are still operating from the false monogamy construct of reasoning.

all of these decisions come from a two-way-mirror floor, where women aren’t seeing the men who are their equals as such due to false (yet enforced) presumptions of female fundamental reproductive value. it comes for the esteem/monetary disconnect of globalized labor and middlemen removing the content, utility, and value/product creators from their audience for purpose of marketing in order to bulge up the costs via presentation or association.

due to preference of females by both genders, and sexist attitudes/interests by most members of both anatomies, male necessity and relevance is slowly being covered up through various means of parenthetical irrelevance.

issues which men face are often ridiculed because they are face by men, and the notion of straight men facing adversity is considered ridiculous  it relegates dissimilar need for public rights advocacy groups to separate gay males from their status of being classically male, while no similar thing- and perhaps the opposite occurs- for lesbians, where they have to embrace social en-valuing tropes to a T or get excommunicated from the sisterhood; there is never any violence in a lesbian relationship.

both it seems must supplant and demean male relevance and significance to advance how the general society favors their demographic. not by saying we are good, but that men are they- and they are bad.

now as with all popular notions this prejudice/stereotype liking is based on truth if only anecdotal, or of dishonest doctrine. there certainly are some bad males, who do completely unnecessary things. but there is a problem with changing the rules of the game too much without informing all the players which causes the people changing the rules to abuse the genuine genius of the other players. but what happens when all the players are using different rule sets?  some rule sets will simplify out needless variables, like men.

dogmatic conflict based on the contradictions and the dissonance of the ideological inconsistencies and incompatibilities. so even if the generality is true about a negative quality in a large and ambiguous group like men, does shaming language work to mediate and refute the behaviours or does it solely work as a dehumanizing force blaming and distancing-self through asserting a universality when a generality could be worked upon with less alienating repercussions?

can you use pejoratives in a general sense? or can pejoratives only be used in an absolute and universal sense where you are distancing yourself from the other party and claiming moral superiority to back up the legitimacy of saying ‘they’ need to be taught a lesson; like not to rape. and is their any point to do this if not to demean and dehumanize the other party so you don’t have to take any responsibility for that party’s actions- or at least aren’t socially expected to, by manner of playing the victim or victim’s advocate.

and does any of this dehumanizing of others (aka ‘othering’) do anything except dogmatically create psychological distance between the speaker and the object/subject they refer? does it do anything except try to change how things are by making it more acceptable for bad things to happen to this group of people because they as a group are responsible of one another’s actions even if there is no formal nor informal group structure except the label projected upon them by third parties?

and is there a purpose except to obfuscate and coerce how general culture reacts towards the group to change in accordance to the wish/whim of the privileged group who presume to judge? do they not do it to further subjugate the minority they seek to disenfranchise and enslave, while retaining their own inherited legitimacy, control, capacity/entitlement, and choice?

is this not neglecting the value and significance and capacity of the group by relegating the generality/universal to a group of criminals, which handicaps culture by disenfranchising and enslaving and corrupting the creative labor to the dredging life of a slave?

    • Interesting. I would argue, when was there a time when males were not “devalued” by society? There really hasn’t been. Men have always been valued for how well they can take of/provide for their family or what they can give to “society”. Females have always chosen males based on their society’s/culture’s meaning of “taking care of their families”. I am guessing men in more “traditional” cultures feel marginalized if they don’t measure up against other men in their society. Humans have always had to compete with each other for mates. I don’t see this changing any time soon. What is valued in a mate will change; the fact that women will always be the ones who choose (and therefore decide what the society values) is likely not to change at all.

      Modern society makes it easier for women not to have to depend on men, both feminism and technology had a role in that. I can’t argue against the misuse of child support laws, or they fact that men are seen as the cause of all of society’s ills. While child support laws have good intentions, they do allow women to be irresponsible about reproduction and child rearing. It allows women to play the victim card if they choose to get pregnant outside of a relationship where their mate is not going to leave. Child support laws definitely set things up so that the male has to provide money for the family (no other thing that the father provides is valued). There should be an option for males to opt out of providing for children they do not want, as women have this right through abortion. It is unfortunate for both the male and the children when courts automatically see the female as the best choice to be the parent with full custody.

      It is unfortunate that abuse of men is a joke, ignored, or the male is blamed for being abused (he must have done something to make her mad). I am not sure what role feminism had in this as men have always been viewed as “strong” and therefore if a man is victimized, especially by a woman, he is less male. Feminism definitely has a role in keeping this line of thinking alive, through campaigns like the one advocating teaching men not to rape, instead of advocating teach people to respect the boundaries of others

      “Othering” is a result of humans need to compete. It is both a good thing and a bad thing. It definitely creates disenfranchisement, but it also generates a reaction to being disenfranchised, and this is how changes occur in society.

      (This was not meant to be in response to the first poster, I was testing something out and it didn’t work)

    • I do not think anyone benefits from male devaluation. Anytime a significant portion of society is disenfranchised, a society will fail.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: