Tag Archives: women

Meninist –joke in jest or a spit in the face of humanity…(a blog by Jack)

A pseudo-popular cult-like phenomenon that has gone relatively viral, it is a means to poke satirical fun at the feminist movement through pointing out “ironies” that men have to go through. It is meant to be taken in jest, and those who self-proclaim them-selves as meninist always claim that it is not to be taken seriously. It is meant as a joke pointing out the difficulties men have to go through in this politically correct stringent society.

Although, I do see the point that these men are making—we live in a hyper-sensitive “pc” society that protects any and everyone—why don’t men get equal protection? In particular—white males—those who presumably developed the idea, because that is who is seen mostly propagating this meninist “movement”. And there lies the majority of the problem. Not only does it undermine the struggles of a particular group of people, it makes light of their issues. And believe me, I get it, it’s just a joke bro: chill-out! Yes, not only does it make light of another group of people’s plight it makes a joke out of it.

This concept in itself is quite disconcerting, but it is of no surprise. Making fun of people is seemingly human nature. And in a lot of ways, it is how we, as humans, cope with our differences. We tend to make fun of it as a shield to understanding it. This concept I am quite familiar with, but the meninist movement does not stop there. It goes a step further—it then puts itself as the victim. The same group of people who have conquered this country, established the laws in this country, control the majority of major industry in this country, who propagate the media in this country, who dominate this country social-politically are now claiming to be the victim.

This is where the whole meninist movement took a turn from harmful fun, to me, to exceedingly damaging and quite a slap in the face. It’s as though, a particular group of people are saying—hey we don’t have enough supremacy, you guys over there are making too much sense and being too logical standing up for yourselves—look over here, we’re victims too. And as much as I’d like to even joke that I was a meninist, and as much as I believe feminist take their ideals way too far, I could never support such an agenda. I would not dare dignify it with a laugh. Because if I did, I’d be laughing at all of my ancestors who were hung from trees because of the same “Sense of entitlement” these meninist feel they deserve. This manifest destination that they have enacted on American Society and have convinced us all is the only means of living.

I do not see this as a joke, but a surriptious means of undermining any and all injustices put forth by this particular classification of people: a patriarchal-white establishment. 

 

Advertisements

Bros over Hoes? Perhaps they’re on to something…(a blog about affection)

Is affection a one way street? Or can platonic affection be exchanged between the sexes…

The following question was recently raised to me: “Did your father hug you or tell you he loved you while growing up?”

My initial response was no, (If so, few and far between) but I never believed for these acts to be necessary. I know my father loves me without a shadow of a doubt and his actions more than corroborate that. He has always loved me. He understands me to a degree that is beyond any other being—this is without question, for I am his seed.

But this strand of thought led me down another particular path… The topic of affection… Is it a one way street?

Is Brotherly love the saving Grace of man’s ability to have a sustainable existence?

The question got me to thinking. Has any woman openly displayed affection for me? That answer is few and far between. During the above discussion it was alluded to, because black fathers don’t hug and tell their kids “I love you” that in turn the children do not know how to display affection growing up. I would beg to differ. I would argue that man are among the most affectionate of creature roaming this earth.  In fact they have so much affection—they tend to create creative means for displaying and enacting this affection. You see, men are the only creatures who have never been afraid to display affection towards me (not so much in the romantic sense, but in the platonic-fraternizing sense).

IMG_4332I’ve rarely had a woman excited to see. This includes close relatives as well girlfriends and so forth (Although, I’ve had one girlfriend consistently express her joy in seeing me). Yet, I’ve had plenty of men “dap me up”, give me a hand shake, give me a head nod, give me a bro hug and a smile or all out laughter upon seeing me.

Is that not affection?

I’ve rarely had a woman sit down with me and enjoy meaningless banter without some undercurrent of sexual tension being evident; but plenty of men have been quick to “shoot the shit” with me–Men that I do not know and have no apparent vested interest in—from homeless men to guys at the gym to the random guy standing in line at a grocery store.

Is that not affection?

I’ve had many men open up and vent just so they can have some semblance of connection with someone. I’ve yet to meet a woman who would even bother to hear me out. Or fully attempt to understand my prospective on much of anything (I mean it occasionally happens but it is quite the anomaly).

Is that not affection?

I’ve had random men pick me up when I was at my lowest… Lend a helping hand and a kind word without expectation in return…I’ve reciprocated the notion to others as well…

Is this not affection?

IMG_4333I compete against men daily. I enter the gym, and engage in man on man competition. A sadomasochistic outlet towards the lack of affection received from women. In some twisted way the brutality stands in substitute for the soft caress. The soft caress may come once a month or so but the brutality is dependable– I can always count on it. And so as warriors, we as men willingly enter this make-shift arena and grapple—my arena of choice is basketball. We physically beat each other up, but have this deep rooted understanding that we need this in order to survive—in order to thrive and keep going.. We may be at each other’s throats on the court, yet as soon as the game is over it’s back to smiles and meaningless convos. It’s just an unspoken axiom, and all who participate in it: “get it”.

–If this isn’t affection… What is?

Men are scarred, and by function of cause and affect direct their actions accordingly. I can’t speak for all men but those I know are in similar boats. There is very little trust of women, very little understanding of women, and plenty of dysfunctional relationships with women.

Who is to blame?

I do not know.

Yet, to say men aren’t affectionate is to not understand the nature of a man.

I would beg to differ. Men are men’s only saving grace. Without the life vest that we toss each other daily we may be made to drown in our own emotion. Often, men are treated as a “function” as opposed to people. His worth is often derived from what he can provide. His worth is placed in his sexual prowess… His worth is placed in his athletic ability… These are all functions… The “person” gets buried underneath all the “functions” and it slowly chokes him. And maybe it does take another man to understand the depths of this box we’ve been placed in …Whether we are consciously or subconsciously aware of the box: we all tend to act out in a reactionary way—in our own unique way.  Men tend to gravitate towards men—and I believe the lack of affection plays a large part in this—whether it be through gangs, clubs, teams or whatever.

But I would never say men don’t know how to show affection… They display affection towards each other every day in every way… Fulfilling the void that society left in the best way they know how.

Now I don’t believe the mantra “bros before hoes”…or “Bitches and shit”… or “Money over bitches”…I believe that is simply the lashing out of the inner boy, who has yet to mature beyond a particular stage of emotional development—he is stuck,in a sense, in a phase of neglect and has not been able to psychological develop beyond this stagnation, and these phrases are evidence of the neurotic residue. But on some twisted level, I understand and I can relate…

Now, insert the bitches and hoes and sluts… Because,after all, women are reduced to their function:  A function that is reactionary to the story men have been told and have been showed. Our interactions have not been conditioned to be that of man and woman: but the function of what man can do for woman and vice versa. Hence, the accurate yet inaccurate titles of bitches and hoes– a self-fulfilling prophecy if you will.

I suppose we can blame the victim for not exuding affection in a manner deemed fit by society. But the truth of the matter is that the affection is there, it’s just waiting to be received and exchanged in a healthy manner.

Or perhaps I have it all wrong… Perhaps we are being shown affection by our women, and we’re simply misinterpreting it. And our gross misinterpretation of this affection is the catalyst for all the dysfunction.  Perhaps the cold stares and avoidance of eye contact and curt language is a woman’s manner of displaying affection towards a man, and I’m too blind to see it.

Or perhaps this social divide is all in my head…

Hmmm…Thanks for reading!

Reactions and opinions are welcomed.

IMG_4331

Alpha Male vs Beta (Why the Beta man wears the crown..)

Alpha Male Vs. Beta Male:

“How can those women fight over such a loser?”

“They are fighting each other and looking foolish when really they should be fighting him?”

“What’s he got that I don’t got?”

You often hear these phrases or phrases such as these uttered from the lips of so many. You may have uttered them yourself, and sat in awe as to why some women would be so foolish as to give their “all” to some “unworthy” individual. Even to go as far as fighting a complete stranger for their prized possession.

The following discussion may shed some light on the phenomenon—depending on your perspective.  Allow me to set a precipice for our discussion.

We live in a multi dimensional reality. Allow me to define what I mean by such. We live in a superficial or sentient reality that constantly has to reinforce its value structure upon us—the individual, and exert itself upon society as a whole. We also live in an actual reality that is hidden behind the superficial reality but prominently exerts itself upon us—because it is who we are. The two coincide and often clash for one is constantly trying to circumvent the other and prove that which is false.

I entitle the superficial reality the matrix. It is a holographic universe—an illusionary universe built on commerce—the commodity of goods bought and sold.  This reality’s infrastructure is built on the free flow of the commodity market. In this reality, the worth of things is based on a dollar amount. Every item and every transaction has a dollar amount. Even to the point that time equates to money. People become only worth as much as the amount of revenue that they can generate for the system—the matrix. Labor is bought and sold, ideas are bought and sold, services are bought and sold, items are bought and sold, dreams are bought and sold, love is bought and sold, women/men are bought and sold, children are bought and sold. In this reality everyone and everything has a price. This is the reality that we are taught from birth–the reality that is so vigorously instilled in our heads throughout out our matriculation through the institutions of education. It is constantly reinforced through media, entertainment, and pretty much any outlet that you can name.

And then we have the actual reality that is in completely juxtaposed– one that remains perfectly hidden in plain sight. And this is the fact that we are spiritual beings having a human existence—rather some of us are spiritual beings having a human existence. This existence does not place “values” on the individual. This reality knows very little bounds if any and is forever changing and evolving, but its basis stays the same. It is a dual reality– one of physical existence coinciding with that of a spiritual existence. This creates a dualism in itself. This is because these two realities are merged through mediation, by the instrument of the brain, through the function of the mind. Thus you will have individuals with great physical prowess that are deemed alpha and those with great spiritual prowess that are also deemed alpha. One translates very well in the holographic universe the other isn’t always as evident.

These precepts form the basis of our discussion. How is one defined as alpha and how is one defined as beta?

In our current state of existence the idea of an alpha male is very muddied.  The term doesn’t hold wait because the individuals that comprise our society have so many different value structures. You have some who hold money as omnipotent and will deem those with money as alpha males to be revered.  These same people will look down on a man without possessions as being “worthless”.  Some will hold a great athlete in high regard and deem them as being alpha, because of their great physical prowess.  Yet others, will uphold some great musician as being alpha, because they have such a great talent intertwined with a captivating aura—ie more intuned with their spiritual side.

So who indeed is correct?

Is it subjective? –Arguably.

I offer this commentary.  Anything that the holographic universe holds up on a pedestal is more than likely a falsehood.  Individuals have input a system in the place that has allowed them to accrue vast “wealth” and “power” through this current economic structure.  These individuals are seemingly “God’s” of the system because they have the ability to manipulate and dictate so much.  This is counterintuitive to the natural principle of survival of the fittest.  It places a corrupt variable within the equation—which doesn’t allow the fittest of body and spirit the flourish–but the fittest of manipulation to flourish.  And I would argue that these individuals and blood lines are the among the very weakest among us which is why they require this system to survive and maintain their power.

I digress, many among us in society have gift that aren’t necessarily able to be commoditized.  In such, these gifts are never fully developed, never recognized, and often seen in a negative light.  For example, take your typical child diagnosed with “ADD or ADHD”.  This is a phenomenon not understood by society but is treated as something negative that needs to be “solved” with medicine.  When in actuality it could something in the exact opposite light.  It could be a child with such a hyper developed mind that there is no way they can sit still and incur such a remedial –retarded manner of education that the school system forces upon our children.  Their mind is racing to infinity and back and the teachers teaching are stuck on “123” & “ABC”.   This is just one example of many.  We as a society are taught to kill anything not able to be made into a commodity.  In essence we kill everything spiritual unless it is spiritual convenient—ie religion which happens to generate billions upon billions.

So, I believe women tend to be more in tuned with the intuitive: their “feelings”.  Thus they will tend to pick up on these gifts with an individual unknowingly and unwittingly and take a liking to said individual-which brings us full circle.  Perhaps they are not fighting over a “worthless” individual.  Perhaps they are fighting over someone who is really special–someone who is quite the opposite.—someone who has been psychologically traumatized by society.–someone who doesn’t understand their gifts.  Someone who has been convinced their gifts are worthless and have in turn internalized this sentiment and outwardly manifested this pervading motif.–someone who hasn’t found motivation to succeed in the holographic reality and appears to be a “waste”.

This argument provides insight as to why the Beta male wears the crown.  There are many launch points from here that can be expounded upon.  But I will leave it here and leave those thoughts for another blog.

 

Thank you for reading and your responses are welcomed.