[2Wycked]

Read this very short article and the few comments.

The article itself, to me, shows a man who is starting to reconsider the debate over gender in society, but ends up agreeing with prevailing dogma, as he claims the commercial is tying masculinity to excluding women.

Of course, he gets it wrong. What the commercial is playing to is the idea that men are wanting to identify as men without needing female approval. Men are sensing that women are living without men and living lives without male approval - why shouldn't men?

That can't be the case, as women are only interested in their own lives and need men to be objects that further their self-identification. Consider a few issues.

First, is the false idea - that he points out - that the commercial is about men blowing shit up and driving jeeps around - it is about the idea that by showing off you drink a particular soda, you get your masculinity approved by others. It is a childish approach that accurately reflects the psychological state of America. It isn't good enough for a man to drink a soda in his own home so as to remind him he is masculine, he needs to drink it in public or tweet about it in order to get other's approval.

Second, is the idea of excluding women. What he doesn't say is that men are trying to have their own form of feminism - men's rights - that is aimed at men trying to self-define apart from the opposite sex. Feminism failed at that, as they transitioned from fathers/husbands to authority figures, which is exactly what MRA's want. Liberation from mothers/wives to female authority figures. Check out "A Voice For Men" these days. They have gotten exactly what they asked for.

Further - and I have been thinking about this lately personally - I have been observing Facebook just from a sex standpoint. Women are overwhelmingly likely to post the picture of a degree, pictures of their office/classroom/latest promotion letter. Why? It is because the system knows women are far more likely to value the trappings of power over actual power. I recall a survey in Canada in which around 85% of men said college was for getting a job and 90% of women said it was to better themselves and further their career.



The system knows women don't want actual power - then they would actually become somebody - they want the trappings of power so they can fantasize what it would be like if they actually had power. They will always say, "When I get X, Y or Z." What they mean is, "When I fantasize about getting X, Y or Z." In your head, you can be anything. When you don't get everything, you can blame it on whatever you want.

If I was a business owner, I would hire women over men. Women aren't just more likely to show up on time and obey, but they make great cogs. I would promote women at the expense of men (unless I see some real potential in him) as I know I can expect her to accept less pay, more work and all that in exchange for a fancy title, a special parking space when she invariably gets pregnant or a fiery speech decrying sexism in the workplace at a staff meeting.

I can imagine a scenario in which I gift a woman a promotion with little pay increase, vastly increased responsibility but a fancy title and a special parking spot out front. I would light up a cigar as an exploitative asshole (in theory, don't think I could do it in real life unless she was a feminist) in my office.

If she strolled in and realized my plans I could imagine this conversation - in theory, of course:

Woman: How dare you! You lied about being an ally for woman!

2Wycked: So? I am here to ensure this business is successful. So are you. You know your place.

Woman: My place? What is this, the 1950's? I am a woman deserving of respect, dignity equality.

2Wycked: This is 2013 and your place is to make your business owner money so we all stay employed. Nothing has really changed in society since the 1950's except your independent income. How is that fancy apartment treating you romantically? What did you think was going to happen when you ladies get careers - oops! I mean jobs - alongside men?

Woman: (Self-righteously) Men have always enjoyed the privilege of working outside the home and having real indicators of their success, such as inventions or promotions. Women have longed to have the chance to achieve that. All we wanted was a chance and, even now, we can't be too sure of our achievements.

2Wycked: Who told you work outside the home was superior to the work inside the home? Your dependent two year-old son? Or the latest edition of Cosmo you read while absentmindedly changing his diaper? What made you think that having a job was superior to caring for a family or home? You claim to be independent while still 100% adhering to the standards laid out to you.

Woman: Women fight every day against standards dictated to them. We fight against beauty standards, harassment in the workplace and cat-calling in the streets. We fight, bravely, everyday to secure our place as equals with men.

2Wycked: You lump everything you have been told to abhor into inequality and expect me to believe that everything that you have been told to fear is about power imbalances? The mere existence of sociopathy crushes your argument, but does that matter? You have been told what to think and feel, not how to think and how to feel. You are just a cog and always will be - just like men.

Woman: Wrong, wrong, wrong! Men have enjoyed so much more privilege and autonomy than women! They didn't have to stay home and watch wretched children - they got to be Deputy Vice President of Stuff and Things at Worthless Corporation! They got to drive to work every day instead of walking down the hall to care for their children! On that note, please alter our policy on commuting - my commute is too long and I could do my job from home!

2Wycked: Men are cogs just like women have been. Your so-called righteous fight to equalize the playing field has done little more than signal to some men that they are nothing more than window dressing. Why bust your ass at a job that you hate --

Woman: -- that is typical male privilege. Denying women the joy of a job, a job you work hard at and get recognition for. We don't fall for it anymore, you are just hiding the ball from us. We are achieving, succeeding and smashing the sexist glass ceiling. You fear us.

2Wycked: We don't feel much about you. We don't fear your salary or your make-work position at your job. We feel that working jobs we hate don't further our happiness. I promoted you over a male precisely because your happiness is tied to signaling your professional status vis-a-vie others. You may tweet about your sexist boss, but you will be here tomorrow and the next day. You are nothing but a cog, a follower - a person that only expresses themselves in ways you are sure that will get approval.

Woman: This conversation is so backwards --

2Wycked: Is it? A man laying out what is going on? I don't give two fucking shits about the temporal aspects of my points - just whether they are true or not. I am on point. You just happened to have a fleeting realization that you are trapped in the matrix and fantasize that if you were a man - the men you want to get fucked by - you would be liberated or whatever you want to be seen as.

All you ever wanted was approval from others. You have it. You got the promotion and the special parking spot. Enjoy it.

Woman: All I ever wanted was respect and being treated like an equal, not hateful and confrontational conversations with privileged men. This whole conversation has been demeaning and proves we need so much more feminism. Men like you need the love of a woman so you can change.

2Wycked: Feminism led you here. You just want to live out the delusions of your reality in your head. Keep telling yourself men have it so much better in society. Keep fantasizing that you would be an alpha male if you had a sex change tomorrow. The world does not revolve around you, but you can feel self-important tomorrow cruising into your parking spot tomorrow.

Woman: I see you for the sad man you are. I will prove you wrong, just like I have proved other horribly sexist man wrong. Just you watch - I will prove you wrong and every other sexist man wrong - women are more than deserving at the table of power.

2Wycked: Ah, good! So I will see you at 7 AM tomorrow?

Woman: I will be here at 6, working harder than you or any other man!

2Wycked: [No words, just watching as she leaves, her clearly not understanding why I promoted her.]

[kbell]

I see sexual harrassement suits if you actually did this. Also she would not be as rational with lots of name calling and attacks on your sexuality. Women tend not to work as much as work they tend to gossip with other women and impose codes of conducts.They also tend to gang up on men who think outside their way of thinking.

[Wadsworth]

2Wycked,

Some great points, but I disagree with one thing. I don't think the author of the original article is reconsidering anything. In fact, I think he's making a strong bid to enter the mangina hall of fame before the year ends.

His contention is basically that an independent masculine identity is sexism against men, but is this even someone who cares about sexism against men? If you ask this guy if women-only reproductive rights is sexism against men, what do you think he'll say? What would his opinion be about VAWA, or the corrupt domestic violence industry? What would he say about Schrodinger's rapist and all the rape culture hullabaloo that paints all men as potential rapists?

He'll probably give you the same standard Marxist fare about oppression and privilege, and will explain how patriarchy and rape culture are real.

This is what happens when men don't have an independent male identity. Anything that appears to separate itself from the feminine is considered sexist. It's normally considered sexism against women, but this guy is actually going over the top and trying to make the case that this is what sexism against men looks like. In doing so he's coopting an important discussion on "sexism against men" and retooling it for gynocentrism.

My take on this guy is that he's a female supremacist that's coming very close to a blue pill overdose.

I wonder if he thinks an unapologetic independent female identity is sexism against men. Probably not. Yet an unapologetic independent male identity somehow is sexism against men. This guy qualifies his entire position by claiming an independent male identity is exclusive, but I call bullshit on that one. He thinks an independent male identity is exclusive because he's a mangina. He wouldn't use the same standard for an independent female identity.

If the last 50 years have proven one thing unequivocally to me, it's that men need male spaces. Where women and men coexist, women attempt to shape and conform male identity. It's what happened in the corporate world. All this sexual harassment BS is the politics of female sexual dominance over male identity. It's what's happening in the atheist world right now. There was an influx of women in that community and it didn't take long for them to demand everyone change. As is standard fare, they're using their sexual victimization as the vehicle to attempt to domesticate male identity. It's happening in the gaming world and comic culture right now. Women have entered the culture, and everything needs to change and conform.

This is even starting to happen in the manosphere.

If men have no place where they can unapologetically express an independent male identity, they rapidly become manginas and the culture begins a rapid (possibly irreversible) decline.

Anyone who claims an independent male identity is sexism is a problem. Anyone who claims it's sexism against men is probably beyond help.

[Statsi]

Pretty sure objectively women contribute less and cost more, they are also much higher risk when it comes to law suits and career breaks. Run your business however you want though, however every attempt at creating an entirely female private business has been a disaster. They can survive in the public sphere where they don't have to compete or produce anything, such as domestic violence shelters and care.

[Gator]

Quote:

They can survive in the public sphere where they don't have to compete or produce anything

Women are basically great employee choices in very bureaucratic settings, whether that's a government job or a big Fortune 500 type company. Their obedience to career in this day and age makes them very valuable as middle managers and more willing to go with the flow and not speak out of turn.

I do agree that I would strongly prefer men for smaller companies and entrepreneurial ventures where you need innovators rather than caretakers. Women are better at following rules; men are better at thinking outside the box.