
u/UnidentifiedFlyinOni

Camp, Fire And Stardust
I started writing this after I had a debate with my mother, she lost and started calling me names and stuff because exposed flaw in her logic and showed that she harbored misandrist views.
She reacted with threats and hit me with a rolling pin.(I'm fine it was my left leg, a little bruised but nothing much)
What I really want to say is that the mens right movement needs more magic and more fluff to it.
What we want is that it should be more vibrant,more stardusty and have more culture and weight to it.
I want it ideally to focus down to the individual and also have intergalactic levels of reach(aim for the stars).
I want it to capture the human imagination and spirit the way feminism did but even better, it can't just be about the complaints of how men are treated,logical debate, we want it to have a soul, an essence to it.
Being a man should have a new meaning wrapped in a narrative that people want to belong to, an awe-inspiring take wrapped in stardust,magic and mystery, we want to have cultural weight, we want to make a dent in how people perceive men, a dent so elegant people will think it's natural.
We want ours to be an even better cultural movement.
Feminism did not spread because of just legal arguments; instead it created a powerful,romantic narrative of liberation, it created mythos of liberation,sisterhood and reclaiming stolen power-its own stardust.
The problem with most existing mens groups is that their still stuck in a boring, reactionary, jargon-filled, defensive loop.
They focus extensively on statistics,court cases and pointing out double standards
What we want is for our movement to hit on the individual level, oppressed or not you can feel it within your soul.
We need a new more positive mythos.
We want a visionary path for male excellence, spiritual sovereignty,brotherhood(not ur typical bro/bro type that's kinda cringe tbh) and creative-intellectual power filled path;
It needs to harness art, media ,aesthetics and all other kinds of viral media
We will need novelist, writers, directors/filmmakers, actors etc.
We want to spread through music,art,fashion,literature and embed itself into Hollywood and pop culture making it the default aesthetics of modern life.
We want them to make us beautiful and culturally irresistible.
While we aim high we must also aim "low" so that even the uneducated can understand our vision.
The problem with mainstream feminism is that it becomes hypocritical and dogmatic when challenged which is negative or positive depending on how we use it.
We want is to define the "Enemy" and the ultimate "Promise", the future that should've been but was stolen from us.
We need to paint an undeniable and highly attractive picture of what the world will look like if we have our autonomy.
People won't listen to our complaints but they'll surely rally around a vision of freedom.
We want our own visual aesthetic, appeal and lexicon to keep it alive.
We want neither to be women nor the traditional old male who was dehumanized but instead a newer, better version of what so eone can be.
We don't want passive consumers instead we need active zealots.
To do those well need to
Show, Don't Tell;
Establish The Point Of No Return;
Establish The Narrative Of Decay;
We need to make it undeniable that playing by old rules will get us stuck in the mud.
What if?
It is said that women under "patriarchy" are treated as sex objects and men violence objects;
Is this why women don't like men?
I mean it explains why women are attracted to each other more than men.
Axioms
Women don't reciprocate they like being desired.
They desire to control desires and make those desires revolve around them
Women like to and are desired by other women
They don't like desiring others that are men or male-looking
They desire to only receive and not give their desire
They desire being desired
Some of these people are so weird ever since the latest trailer came out about how much they don't like the major being bisexual
It is widely considered accepted that Mediterranean cuisine is a strong contender for the best cuisine in the world because unlike modern slop it's been tried and tested by our ancestors.
The Olive oil was sourced straight from the trees
The cheese from milk straight from the live stock
And the wheat from the farms.
What I am trying to get at is thats why women are considered beautiful and men not so much.
Women have been genetically chosen and we're able to pass their lineage by looks so on avg the woman is better looking than the man.
And thats why the saying if a man is beautiful he looks like a woman.
But heres the catch the characteristics of beauty were not selected by gender, women just ended with beautiful half and then it was slowly associated with them.
So yes "beautiful men" look like the "avg women" but no, you can simply adopt a routine that helps you get that look and be considered beautiful if you already have a symmetric face.
Relevant articles:
How American Dads Became the Parents Their Fathers Never Were
Women asked for equality; they were given equality. They asked for better men; they were given better men. They asked for better husbands; they were given better husbands. They asked for feminist men; they were given feminist men. They asked for risk-free sex; they were given risk-free sex. They asked for risk-free pregnancy; they were given near risk-free pregnancy. And yet, women have never hated men as much as they do now.
I have heard some objections elsewhere to the framing of relationships, particularly sexual relationships, as a reward for good male behavior. Namely, that framing it this way implies that men are owed sex simply for what should be bare minimum.
- Here's a simple fact: this is exactly what we were promised. Better male behavior = more willingness of women to have sex. It's a common talking point starting with second-wave feminism that patriarchy is what is poisoning hetero sex and that feminism held the singular opportunity to make it better (often, these feminists would point to bad isolated examples from bonobo primatology, inapplicable to humans, to make their points). This is partially the justification for political lesbianism (and the more recent 4b reincarnation): refusing to engage with men until they get better. Even sex-negative feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon were making these arguments. But men have gotten better, and yet, it's precisely the men that have gotten better that are being punished the most.
- Here's another fact: society won't exist without sexual relationships. You want your feminist ideology to continue? Start having kids and teaching them feminist ideology. Some feminists seem to have caught wind of this. Expect to hear a lot about maternal and pro-family feminism in the upcoming years. Progressive feminists like Darby Saxbe and Zawn Villines, for example, have already started talking about it, and they seem to be getting fairly popular. Likewise, conservative feminists have also started using the term.
- Here's yet another fact: women already frame the question of sexual relationships as a matter of reward. Everyone here is already familiar with that pesky natural selection argument. While the argument is self-defeating and improperly named, the argument does frame the question of sexual reproduction and specifically the question of fertility as a matter of women rewarding good men with sex and kids.
Even if none of this was true, it stands to reason that you should expect fertility to increase, have more relationships, and have more sex as women are subject to less abuse, have access to more risk-free sex, have access to more risk-free pregnancies, and have access to better men. Not as a reward to men, but simply because the main complaints that women have that we are told serve as barriers to full free engagement with the other sex are no longer applicable.
And yet, none of that is happening. So guys, it's not your fault. You did what was asked and demanded of you. You followed through with most of their suggestions. You did become better. You are better now than you'd have been a few decades ago as a young man. If you live in the so-called developed world, you are better (by feminist standards) than the undeveloped (so-called under-development) world. And yet, your women have never hated you more. Make of that what you will.
Male attention is extremely common and very easy to access look at the trend of men just looking up at the sky when they hear the sound of a plane. Or just digging a hole.
Female attention is seen as rare and valuable because women withhold and don't give to men, maybe its just their nature maybe it's just their choice but in the end it's all the same.
You find women stimulating,interesting yet women find you dry, shallow, attention starved , barren of no life it's because you gave it away unto women but women haven't, women know better.
You are the reason the saying goes "men are simple" 'men are like dogs"
Will you learn from them?
Please read the first one before reading this it helps misconceptions from arising
In the last post I argued that men's heterosexuality and carnal desire for women's bodies arises from many things.
In the last post I argued and feminists have argued that men heterosexuality is deeply rooted in misogyny
I have also noticed that when men don't thirst or lust for women's bodies they start acting more fruity as in homosexual to other men.
Since the vast majority of men are heterosexual or at least they think they are since they don't question their sexualities I can thus prove that the source of misogyny is misandry and desire for validation from women for your body or lack of it and you wanting to control it to let neither exist in peace.
So I can point out that men who are heterosexual have much to discover and appreciate about heir bodies, because if you don't love yourself first you cant love others,
Which what Ayn Rand had argued.
And that's why women like men loving men relationships and generally like homosexual men more than heterosexual men.
So I can also point out that misogyny exists because of homophobia which a form of misandry.
So one could say heterosexuality has origins in homophobia which is a form misandry which is deeply ingrained in societies.
And women a might say "misandry doesn't exist" and that "misogyny kills, misandry doesnt'' which is false.
And that's why women are more fruity and thus more liked by all genders is because they appreciate their and one that are similar to them.
So men must appreciate their bodies,themselves more and should and definitely can be homosexual but society has prejudices against it.
And that's why women don't like men, because love creates a deep sense of self-preservation.
And one who does not care for himself can't care for others.
So one could say in extreme cases heterosexuality is the projection of your own self-hatred towards others.
So love yourselves first.
Prioritize yourselves first.
rad fems have already argued that male heterosexuality is deeply rooted in misogyny and I have proposed that's exactly why men focus on the female body and the male gaze exists.
And that's why "straight" women focus on the emotional, intellectual,nonphysical aspects in men rather than the physical, this is exactly why women don't see beauty in the male form just utility.
But again one could argue that misogyny is deeply rooted in misandry or as feminists and etymologists say that men "created" "Patriarchy" because of anxiety and fear of revenge from their "captors" so therefore we can put forth that heterosexuality is misandry,misogyny and gynophilia along with bio-essentialism neatly packaged that deprives men of self-love,emotional-stability and makes them dependent upon women for their entire lives and keeps them oppressed and in a loop of "I not good enough" "she doesn't like me" "I must get her to like me". In heterosexuality you become the sacrificial lamb.
Heterosexuality in men is a disease that manifests as anxiety,impulsivity and rare cases violence.
It deprives them of what was for them to what is they have to do to keep the system and rigid limitations masculinity in line, after all Bell Hooks told that the first victims of "Patriarchy" are men or little boys who must engage in psychic acts of self mutilation that emotionally kill men.
men should never make the first move since its a womans right to ask and choose who she wants in a relationship women should be the only ones who need to act first afterall its seen as creepy and predatory to ask women out its certainly predatory to ask them out after theyve already said no(basic rule of consent) its should be our right to say yes or no to a women.
After all statistically women have significantly higher chances of receiving a yes than no plus women have a higher quality of life than men its her duty to date and shoot her shot at men not ours.
if theyre the choosers they should ought to be the seekers.
After all if it comes naturally to them.
We need not bear the yoke of their laziness, fears of rejection.
A onesided relationship benefits no-one.
its not our job neither nor it is good for a women to shove us down their throats if they dont want us.
Plus society expects men to have woman in their life which is toxic masculinity.
If a woman has options she is ought to try them.
Why should your options come to you?
You women should pursue your options if they are truly yours.
If a woman receives violence when she says no its her job to seek her suitor thats best for her.
if equality doesnt mean being the same than it also doent mean being priviledged either.
Men should stop wasting their lives on someone that'll never love them.
Men should not waste their energy,time,money resources on someone they only see them as a living paycheck.
Men should not be the victims of fantasies that they conjure for themselves neither should they be victims of scams that are sold to them and leave them heartbroken.
Men deserve better.
If women have already chosen the better option so should we.
looks like a girl.
If that's not telling I don't know what will.
His existence inspired the 'beautiful boy' trope in anime.
He had an androgynous/feminine face.