I have the pussy, so I make the rules.
Most readers will already be aware that the author of this article does not posses female genitalia, so the preceding statement might seem, at first, odd. However, the sentiment behind “I have the pussy, so I make the rules” will be familiar as a thread in almost all modern discourse between men and women. Depending on who is asked, when this is pointed out, this elicits grudging acknowledgement, or agreeing nods, and in a few cases, resentment. What’s less common is a philosophical parsing of that narrative, usually left unstated: “I have the pussy, so I make the rules”.
Pretty obviously, this is an example of the formal logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Force. This might be argued as less a fallacy than an operational practice. Although it is usually unstated, this remains a major element in relations between men and women. In fact, in any masculine objection to this ideal the fallback narrative almost always present in modern sexual discourse is another logical fallacy, the charge of sour grapes. “you’re just bitter because you can’t get laid”.
The superb Shaming Tactics Catalog lists these as “The Pink Whip” and the “Charge of Rationalization,” respectively, and in the second case asks the relevant question, “what if the grapes really are sour?” In asking that, it must be noted again that “I have the pussy, so I make the rules,” rather than being an opening conversational gambit is a usually unstated narrative. This means that while it applies as blunt force trauma and a tool of manipulation and control, it’s more subtle application is in public popular definition of acceptable male identity. What constitutes a good man? what is a gentleman? and who ultimately determines any shared agreement of these definitions?
Another way to examine this is: who does the definition of good man benefit, and who carries the cost?
Unfortunately, most socially accepted models for male identity continue to depend on service to, or utility to the social collective, or to women. A “real man” is one who provides for, protects, or sacrifices on behalf of the collective, or of a woman. This is really just an extension of “I have the pussy, so I make the rules.” The rules in this case govern the acceptable definition of a real man.
Men, socialized in this framework are dependent for a positive social identity on the childish and selfish emotional caprice of women. If masculine adult self-determination was not sufficient to reject this model, the modern reality that females are neither socialized to acquire, nor often demonstrate any empathy, accountability or motivation beyond a narrow and short term self-interest; Men must reject both their socially conditioned model for being “good men” as well as learning a healthy contempt for collective approval.
However, development of a male model for self-value and positive identity apart from utility to collectives or females is not enough. Even as a growing culture of positive male self identity emerges from the men’s rights movement, it is necessary to publicly outline some of the emerging framework. Because of self-interested hypergamy, men not showing-off their utility to women are largely invisible to them. In fact, when such men are visible, it is through the filter of female defined male-identity, so Men Going Their Own Way are incorrectly characterized as failures. This is the opposite of the truth, men going their own way are winners by their own measure. The early adopters of this path are pioneers shedding thousands of years of behavioural programming and freeing themselves from a corrupt system of exploitation.
What are these pioneers winning? The answer to that being their own value as human beings endowed naturally and automatically with the human rights, justice, reproductive rights which under traditional frameworks men are denied in all cases except where they are of positive utility to collectives and to women.
The system wide impact of this new framework has positive benefits substantially beyond those accrued to individual practicing men. First among these is the removal from collective use of labor, money, the dispensation or absorbtion of violence on behalf of others, women, or a collective.
That collective which discounts the humanity of men and boys, and regards their worth as human beings conditional on their utility. Examining the near total failure of feminists, and women in general to respond to detailed exposition of human rights inequities impacting men, it becomes evident that women, as currently socialized, are immune to these inequities when expressed in terms of facts, logic, statistics or empathy.
Men continue to die, as they are legally marginalized and the gender-ideology driving this responds by portraying them as less than human. Rather than responding to evidence based arguments, feminists as well as non-feminist women have demonstrated no tendency except to react with accusations of misogyny to men stepping off the treadmill of service and disposability. To men arguing for human rights which women have long taken for granted, women have shown a collective refusal to acknowledge that such men are anything except criminals, monsters, weaklings, sissies, subhumans and failures. They are non-men, who in their stupid testosterone addled brains dare to pursue any path outside female-defined real-manhood. Bluntly, women, taken as a demographic have demonstrated an almost purely emotional and reactionary aversion to men’s attempts to address male disposability, marginalization, and legal disenfranchisement.
That women control the majority of discretionary spending and a small but real majority of the electorate means that women’s engagement with the human rights issues of men is a necessary component of resolving male disposability and marginalization. A demographic wide failure to respond other than by reactive emotionalism informs an alternative strategy in reaching women. A biologist does not reason with flatworms, rather – he steers their responses by modifying their environment.
The growing pathway of masculine self-actualization, in addition to benefitting men as individuals – has some significant potential to modify the political and economic environment in which public indifference to male exploitation and marginalization flourishes. As a courtesy to those few who might be moved to minimize the societal convulsion which might result, some specifics of these changes are explored here. It must be noted here, that women, taken as a subset of humanity currently operate under a few assumptions of rapidly diminishing relevance.
The first being that men, in their interactions with your female majesty are all enraptured by the prospect of access to the hole in the front of your lower torso. This is what men, as reproductively viable mammals are programmed to want, but the reductionist dogma of men as sex-obsessed troglodytes is the childish fantasy of feminine superiority reinforced in public zeitgeist. The reality is that “you’ve got the vagina, so you make the rules” is supremacist, infantile and no-longer to be tolerated bullshit.
For women, this bit of mythology is something to be abandoned, as growing numbers of men in the blue pill majority are rejecting their own expected male-as-manipulatable-lemming behavior. In the red-pill world of MGTOW, masculism, and Zeta-Male identity, men are increasingly unwilling to tolerate recitation of male-is-inferior mythology.
Regrettably, because much rhetoric opposing male human rights uses emotional rather than evidence based argument, some conclusions here might be redundant to logical thinkers. They have been listed here in spite of that hazard, because for those this is intended to enlighten, emotional reasoning will not have revealed these predicted outcomes. Some of you may be feminists, so I will type very slowly.
The hole in your lower torso which which bleeds every 28 days is of rapidly diminishing social or commercial value. This is not a new idea emerging exclusively within the men’s rights community. Naomi Wolf bemoaned the diminished market value of feminine orifices in her 2002 article “the porn myth”. What Wolf failed to grasp was that “young, hip, progressive feminists” continue to cling to the solipsistic view of the second wave, taken directly from Solanas: “Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female.“
Men’s failure to conform to this delusion provokes frustration and anger in those whose ideology informs the attempt to force conformity to their childish expectations rather than accept reality. Faced by a decades of blame, anger, manipulation and shame for failing to conform to “man-as-defective-woman,” men are, to state it mildly, weary of the ongoing abuse. Piled on top of this is that women are increasingly socialized to demonstrate violent, irrational, childish and openly sociopathic behavior, and we all go along with this as if it is normal.
All of this depends on men, for their part, allowing their self definition as “real men”, or as “good men” to rest on the judgement of women. The historical tendency of men to tolerate almost anything because positive self identity depended on valuation by women is rapidly waning. This is also why pussy’s market value is now at such a historical low. And it’s going to get worse. The recent phenomenon of slut-walk protests claiming among other things a positive cultural spin on the traditional criticism of the word slut is an expression of inability to understand having one’s cake and eating it. Widespread sluttism such as hook-up culture, cougar culture and other female driven casual sex means that sex, widely and easily available undermines women’s ability to manipulate men by controlling sexual access. Coupled with a feminine consumer culture in which young women have all the charm and wit of baboons, a feminine approved definition of male identity has rapidly diminishing currency.
What’s on offer is universally and freely available, but comes with grotesque entitlement, violent tendencies and, a broadly unpleasant demeanour. So thanks, but no thanks.
Western nations like Canada and the United States are, it must be admitted, coming late to the party. In Japan, an emerging model for male identity includes a growing majority of the male population. These men are called soushoku danshi, and are characterized by an indifference to social approval, an unwillingness to pursue women, and a rejection of self-destructive competition for status, high income or materialist consumer culture. And there’s a lot of them.
According to a 2009 slate.com article, “a consulting company that is a subsidiary of Dentsu, the country’s largest advertising agency, estimates that 60 percent of men in their early 20s and at least 42 percent of men aged 23 to 34 consider themselves soushoku danshi, which translates to grass-eating men.”
“Of the 1,000 single men in their 20s and 30s polled by Lifenet, a Japanese life-insurance company, 75 percent described themselves as grass-eating men”
Young men are deciding, en mass to avoid traditional romantic pursuit of women. This doesn’t mean they’re gay, or weak, its simply that they’ve decided that the quality of their own lives matters more to them than conforming to externally applied metrics of accepted male identity. The rise of this masculine model in japan has effects far beyond frustrating women who still wish men would compete for their attention, and pay for drinks, dinner, et-cetera. Japan’s soushoku danshi, in their indifference to traditional expectations are opting out of the corporate ladder and punishing career path of high status and high income, and in the process are collapsing the country’s economic growth. This is why japanese media uses perjorative and belittling language to describe these men, defining their own identity and self actualizing apart from their “allowed” role as disposable providers and protectors.
In fact, the Japanese media treat the soushoku danshi identically to the way the media in the west has begun to treat MRA’s and MGTOW’s.
Yoto Hosho, a 22-year-old college dropout who considers himself and most of his friends herbivores, believes the term describes a diverse group of men who have no desire to live up to traditional social expectations in their relationships with women, their jobs, or anything else. “We don’t care at all what people think about how we live,” he says.
That indifference to approval or censure is shared now by a growing number of western men, variously identified as Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) or Zeta Males. These are paths to positive male self identity de-coupled from the popular shared view of what a real man is, a protector, provider and self sacrificing dispenser of money, labor and sperm.
The issue of sperm and it’s theft, and the monopoly of reproductive rights owned by women, with the power to legally compel males to finance female exercised reproductive rights is leading many western men to carefully avoid sex. This has been so thoroughly discussed in men’s rights writing that even mainstream media has now begun to cover the issue.
James Taranto, writing for the Wall Street Journal, correctly pointed out that young men are increasingly aware that in the event of a pregnancy, males have no legal rights, and of which increasing reportage shows women willing to sabotage condoms or lie about birth control to achieve. Men and boys are also aware that should a woman they sleep with become pregnant they will be committed to nearly 20 years of financial service. Piling onto this is the growing climate of blood-sport in false accusations of rape, sometimes concocted from post facto regret by a woman who participated in sex but decided after it had been a bad idea. In this legal and social climate, men in small but increasing numbers are quite sensibly avoiding women.
However, this is men in the majority, blue-pill average-guy population. This doesn’t include men electing a purposeful MGTOW or Zeta Male identity. For these men who’ve taken the red pill and read the commentary on sites like this one, or written their own, they are defining a growing movement in which feminine approval or censure is irrelevant.
In simplified terms, the standard female assumption that a vagina commands respect is going to lead many women to bad decisions. Sadly, because many men are not yet prepared to discard a woman-approved definition of self identity, there remain plenty of white knights as the social enforcers of female deference. Coupled with the treatment by emotionally reactive feminists of men opting out of their traditionally allowed servitor status – these men will likely be targeted by feminist zeitgeist as enemies of all decency, and attacked at their identity, and in many cases, by the proxy use of force through blue-pill men.
This is where the wake up call in this article aims to enlighten feminist and nominally non-feminist women alike. The use of such attacks to force male compliance will likely be treated with more than the indifference many red-pill men now default to. In fact, attacks on male identity and coercion are increasingly understood for the bigotry and hatred they express.
The forbearance of men, treating attacks on male identity with patience is coming to an end. This patience was based on the social acceptance of female-defined manhood, which as mentioned above is increasingly obsolete. The acceptance of feminine attack on male sexual identity has also been based on men’s wired in behavior to protect and accommodate women – but this masculine tendency is counter-productive in a culture which exempts women from personal accountability.
Recent discussions within the feminist blogging community have endorsed the practice of “creep shaming.” This is cultivation of social shame and ostracism in men based on the internal emotional state of whatever woman offers up that insult. Of course, this method of social control depends totally on the assumption that identity-based attacks will be accommodated because of a female-defined positive masculine identity, or male desire for access to the magic vagina. That which even Naomi Wolf noted in 2002 now no longer carries much exchange value. I strongly encourage feminists to embrace and escalate this tactic, because if adherents to a doctrine of class hatred and violence continue to clearly identify themselves, treating them with appropriate respect becomes nearly automatic.
That truism “you’ve got the pussy, so you make the rules” it turns out was not an absolute law. Obviously, you’ve still got the pussy, but now it seems you’ve fucked yourselves. The game you’ve so long controlled is no longer worth the candle.
“The saying alludes to a game of cards in which the stakes are smaller than the cost of burning a candle for light by which to play.”
“occupations [...] so lacking in merit that it wasn’t worth the expense of a candle to create enough light to partake in them.”
- Substantive Equality, a golf handicap in the law - April 22, 2014
- Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund: The first rule of LEAF is don’t talk about LEAF - April 18, 2014
- Consent: You Don’t Have It - April 17, 2014
- What the fuck is infanticide? - April 12, 2014
- Danielle D’Entremont, Bellwether? - March 30, 2014