Welmer

I’ve chosen a name and a domain for the new publication, and now all I need to do is design the site, which won’t be easy, but I’ll enjoy it nonetheless. For now, I’m going to keep the name to myself, because I don’t want it to get any traffic while I’m still testing and implementing the CMS, but it combines elements of masculinity, purpose, action and even classical imagery in one simple word. Beta Revolution offered to help design a logo, and I’d like to take him up on that. We can come up with a pretty cool logo for this one.

So the idea is to have a system where writers can log in and post their material, just as one might with blogger or wordpress.com. It won’t be particularly difficult to do so, so I don’t foresee many problems with this. However, if contributors want, I can add some perks, such as personalized email handled by gmail and a google docs group for sharing files. Personally, I think this would be kind of cool and probably helpful for organization/coordination, but I’m not sure whether others feel this is necessary.

Basically, this publication will be an online structure that will allow us to have a larger impact than we can with a bunch of disparate blogs. Naturally, everyone should keep their own personal blogs for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the links they will provide to the publication, but having the ability to concentrate content on one site will greatly enhance traffic and exposure for our writing and ideas. It will also be a place to share ideas amongst each other.

Perhaps nothing illustrates our society’s blindness concerning the true nature of female sexuality as clearly as the widely held belief that rape is anathema to female desire. If my suspicions are correct, this fiction is likely tied to the same paternalist sub-theology that is responsible for feminism, the family law industrial complex, and widespread, legalized discrimination against men. However, before I get into any speculation here, let’s take a look at the evidence.

Matthew Hutson, writing for Psychology Today, raises the question “Why Do Women Have Erotic Rape Fantasies?” To prove that they do in fact have these fantasies, he points to studies and statistics, including the following:

A recent analysis of 20 studies over the last 30 years indicates that between 31% and 57% of women have rape fantasies, and these fantasies are frequent or preferred in 9% to 17% of women. Considering that many people are ashamed to report rape fantasies, these stats are most likely lowball figures.

If Hutson’s inference is correct, more than half of women likely have fantasies of being raped, and in perhaps up to one in four women these are their preferred and most common fantasies. Other studies are referenced in the article as well, if you care to research them yourself.

Although not a scientific study, I also found the following quote particularly revealing:

In one survey of romance novels (which tend to be written by and for women), the lead female character was raped in 54%.

If anything caters to tawdry female fantasies, it is romance novels (as well as soaps and dramas). 54% is no coincidence here. Furthermore, Whiskey remarked in one of the comments on my “Mad Men = Female Porn” post that “Mad Men had a couple of rape scenes where the bad boyfriends rape the women the they love.”

So, it being established that rape fantasies are a core component of female sexuality, Hutson goes on to explore why this might be the case. He offers up a number of potential explanations, including, among others, sexual blame avoidance, “male rape culture”, and biological predisposition to surrender. While I reject outright the “male rape culture” explanation (I will explain why shortly), sexual blame avoidance makes some sense, and probably is more relevant to American culture in particular, but I think the biological predisposition to surrender is the most likely explanation.

Suggesting that some “male rape culture” that makes rape normative exists in America is ridiculous on its face. For one thing, rape was originally treated as a crime against men first, and society second. In Deuteronomy, for example, the rapist is punished mainly for his transgression against the husband if the woman is married, and against the father if she is not. This concept continued to be reflected in criminal law until quite recently, when the state took on the role of the father, and then finally the husband as well. In fact, the spate of Mexican rapes of young women and girls that accompanied mass immigration over the last fifteen years or so was in part the result of a cultural misunderstanding. In the old Catholic tradition, which still has considerable influence in Mexico, rape was not considered much worse than fornication (which was a big no-no), and could in many cases be expiated by marrying the victim — this is why the victims of these rapes were almost exclusively unmarried young women; raping a married woman is seen as a far more heinous crime in that particular culture. Rather than a cultivating a “rape culture,” what we see men doing in societies around the world is criminalizing and discouraging rape because it is contrary to their interests.

As the authority of the state has increased over all Americans, we still see the same principle of rape being a crime against more than simply the female victim, but the offense against the husband or father is no longer relevant — instead it is the jealous state (paternal authority) that is now the aggrieved party. So morally speaking (from the feminist point of view), there is little difference between now and then, but practically speaking the scope of prosecution has widened considerably. Given these circumstances, any suggestion that there is a “culture of rape” in America is absolutely ridiculous.

Because rape is a very primal threat to men, acting on a deep-seated insecurity about his relationship to the women in his life, it is likely that the taboo against acknowledging this aspect of female sexuality is rooted in men’s desire to have a more comfortable and less stressful view of the women upon which they have invested so much of their emotional well-being. It is little different from the husband who sees his wife as a “good girl,” only to find out the truth the hard way when she commits some sexual indiscretion.

Despite the comfort that this taboo may bring to some, I would argue that it is a dangerous thing to deny the truth of human nature — even sexuality. Not only does this blind men and keep them from gaining a deeper understanding of the women around them, it also leads women to feel confused and ashamed about feelings and desires that they apparently have little control over. It is possible that the high rate of false rape accusations and obsession over the subject in America is in fact a result of confused, repressed feelings, which lead some mentally disordered women to project their fantasies onto innocent men.

We have to accept that there are dark, uncomfortable aspects to both male and female sexuality, and that neither gender in particular is any more guilty than the other. In fact, neither is guilty at all; we are sexual beings equipped with emotions and desires that, although often mysterious, serve a greater purpose than our rational minds can comprehend.

In a pathetically misguided attempt to save itself from oblivion, the sinking ship of the traditional publishing industry has taken to purging young staff — especially if they happen to be white and male.

Lukobe sent me an AP article, the title of which, “APME survey: Newspaper cuts clip younger workers,” is somewhat misleading. In fact, if you read the text it is pretty clear who is getting the axe:

Most of the survey respondents said cultivating an ethnically diverse staff remains a high priority, even as their newsrooms shrink.

Strike one.

The more recent survey by the Associated Press Managing Editors didn’t seek to quantify the percentage of minorities currently working at newspapers. But diversity isn’t just about ethnicity, said Tom Kearney, managing editor of the Stowe Reporter, a weekly newspaper in Vermont.

“Because Vermont is soooooo white, diversity doesn’t involve race as much as it does gender and background,” Kearney wrote in his survey response.

Strike two…

“We did not have enough diversity to begin with,” wrote Lyle Muller, managing editor of The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “Cutting positions put us more at risk. Meanwhile, our community is becoming more diverse so we are getting farther behind in our efforts to reflect it.”

Steerike three! You’re out white boy!

Before anyone gets too hot and bothered about this blatant discrimination, I should point out that newspaper management is stupid. The vast majority of readers are white (Asians, for all intents and purposes, mesh with the white demographic). Blacks see newspapers as “white” publications and have never been a core demographic in their market, and many, many Hispanics don’t even read English, whether or not they are able.

Furthermore, women have already reached saturation in traditional media. I can’t see how adding even more women could do anything to increase readership. In fact, my money is on the opposite effect.

Although this trend of firing young white men at newspapers may be frustrating to readers, I actually welcome it, because it will simply hasten the newspapers’ demise. The sooner the old media goes down to its watery grave the better. Unless the papers can import Hindus and Chinese as replacements, they won’t even be able to make a decent transition to digital media, and from what I’ve heard, insourced workers tend to have some serious problems with the English language — not a good thing for communications companies.

So I see this as a wonderful opportunity. Young men have to quit seeing themselves as having a place in the system, and instead seek to beat it. The newspapers are reeling, and this is the perfect time to stand up and go toe-to-toe with them. When it really comes down to it, all they have is an audience, and that audience is dwindling. Time to take it away from them.

Over at Roissy’s blog commenter Doug posted a link to a blog called “Female Misogynist,” where a self-proclaimed lesbian has been writing anti-feminist posts for well over a year now. Given my experiences with lesbians, who have been feminist to the point of being psychotic, this is like coming face to face with bigfoot in my backyard.

She writes very well, has a sense of humor, and is obviously quite intelligent. If I take issue with anything, it is her self-description as a misogynist and male chauvinist. She seems to be more of a classic masculinist, to me.

I tried posting a comment on her blog, but there seems to be some kind of malfunction with Blogger (typical), so I’ll simply urge readers to check out the blog and behold the wondrous diversity of humanity — and read some of the thoughtful posts, of course.

A couple weeks ago, after seeing the buzz over the “Mad Men” TV series, I flipped on the tube and watched most of an episode. The visual presentation was pretty well done, with the period cars, clothes and hairstyles. However, it seemed that the emphasis on this may have been a little overdone, and the female actresses seemed positively giddy about the clothes, proudly thrusting their bosoms out at every opportunity in a display that appeared overly eager. I got the impression that they were excited by the opportunity to participate in a period piece, much as schoolgirls might relish the opportunity to overplay the part of an antebellum Southern belle.

The setting is an ad agency – hardly an original idea these days – and other than the smoking, drinking and style, it appeared to be pretty much what one might expect in a modern office: chock full of women with a few “big men” running the show. As a drama centered on Don Draper, an alpha male stud around whom revolves a society of women, the show had something of a soap opera feel to it. Rather than a human being, Draper came off as a big, hunky prop. Only the women acted like real people — they were the primary actors in the show.

Male porn is primarily a visual exercise. It is really kind of a monotonous, predictable thing. Men perform a physical act, and women are generally the passive partners. In soaps and other dramas aimed at women, the main act is social and the sex – although an important component – is secondary. The lead man is a prop, passed from woman to woman like some phallic ark of the covenant that gives its bearer dominance.

Men have often been accused of objectifying women, but popular culture objectifies men to at least the same degree, just in a different way. The cheap thrill that women get out of dramas that portray men as shallow facsimiles of human beings whose only relevant appetite is for glamorous, socially dominant women (the self-fantasy evoked in female viewers) is every bit as sordid as the release men achieve from formulaic, ritualized porn flicks.

I’ve been doing some technical research for a good consolidated blog CMS, and have decided upon a theme (WordPress template) and general structure. However, I’m having a bit of trouble finding a good name.

Concepts that ought to be incorporated into the name include:

• Freedom
• Action
• Confidence
• Purpose
• Masculinity

A short name, preferably only one or two words, would be best. A name that would allow for a good logo would be helpful as well. Suggestions for names or additional concepts are welcome — I need some food for thought.

Justin has a very funny post titled “The Origins of Game: Jesus” over at his Religion News. As far as I can tell, it’s a combination of parody and truth. Perhaps one of the most amusing things about the post is that it’s pretty much right on the money (although the game terminology could use a bit of editing).

Here’s a passage:

Jesus, master of the alpha demand and validation (as recorded in John 4):
Coming upon a strange woman at a well, Jesus starts off by straight up ordering her to fetch him a drink. The woman gives him a shit test, throwing up some religious bullshit excuse not to do it for him. Jesus responds by elevating his own status: “If you knew who was asking this request, you would do that and more, because I give the living water.” The woman continues her shit test, asking him to prove it.

Jesus then validates the girl, shifting the subject, demanding “Where is your husband?” This begins to break her down, shifting the ground to her uncomfortable zone, as she admits she has no husband. Jesus drives the woman down even harder: “Darn right you don’t have a husband, you are a little slut [five previous husbands, living with man currently].” The woman is totally owned by this, and sees to it that Jesus is fed and housed for the next couple days in her village.

This is the most clever exercise in bringing the proponents of game down to earth that I have seen yet.

For a somewhat lighter subject, I’d like to discuss the issue of women in pants. For some reason, pants have been cast as “liberating” for the modern woman. Exactly what pants liberate is a mystery to me, but I suppose they do have their practical uses. Pants are essential for horse-riding, mining, hunting in thick brush, fishing, and other rough jobs. Perhaps this is why they are seen as having some symbolic value in terms of gender equality; they are traditional gear for manly pursuits that have generally been off-limits to women. However, given the fact that even your typical urban man of today would hardly be inconvenienced by wearing a skirt and carrying a purse in his day-to-day activities, what purpose could the modern pair of trousers serve in the continued liberation of women? Does wearing pants prove anything anymore? I don’t think so.

My argument with pants on women is largely aesthetic. Not just on the individual level, but as far as society at large is concerned as well. Although fit young women can be quite appealing in a pair of pants, your typical pant-wearing woman – especially here in Seattle – is a slob. In public, there is no social elegance to speak of, but rather a mass of gender-undifferentiated proles, all wearing pretty much the same thing. The women may as well be stunted, wide-hipped and narrow-shouldered men stuffed into denim a few sizes too small.

Just as the American man’s principal weakness regarding the relationship between the sexes is his inattention to the social aspects of manliness, the American woman all too often neglects the sensual elements of femininity. By this I do not mean the obvious physical attributes that distinguish women, but rather the entire package — dress, bearing, tone of voice, choice of words, gait, expression and much more. A brash, loud woman – even a well-built one – stomping around in a pair of jeans, baring her teeth as she laughs (I really can’t stand how American women bare their fangs constantly — it is so far from demure) can be a real turn-off.

In the home, pants are entirely unnecessary. Sweatpants may be the worst offense. The popular image we have of the disgusting American husband sitting on an easy chair in front of the TV, hand in pants and belly sticking out from under the shirt, is more than matched by the wife parked on the sofa like a basking sea-lion in an old T-shirt, sweatpants and flip-flops.

Certainly, it is incumbent on American men to learn to behave in ways that are socially attractive to women (known to some as “Game”), but as part of the deal we should also expect a bit more from women. Women should learn to dress, behave, speak and move more like women. Part of that should include abandoning the default status of pants as female attire. If a woman wants to go herding cattle, prospecting or fly-fishing, by all means she should go to Cabela’s and purchase a sturdy pair of trousers, but what’s the point of purchasing that cheap pair of women’s pants at Eddie Bauer? Why not choose an attractive, feminine skirt?

One often finds magazine articles about independent, glamorous women earning big bucks who are disappointed only by the fact that there aren’t enough “available men.” It’s easy to get the impression that working women are mainly engaged in lucrative, fulfilling careers. Perhaps the women who work in the traditional publishing industry – which is sinking like the Titanic – really believe that their unsustainable lifestyles are enjoyed by a majority of working women. However, all it takes is a walk about town to see that this is far from the case.

Go to a nursing home sometime, and you will see women working for low wages in an undesirable occupation. At the grocery store, girls are bagging groceries. Hospital orderlies who clean up the messes and push wheelchairs are largely female, and even being a doctor – female or not – is far from the glamorous lifestyle portrayed on so many TV shows. In fact, going into the medical profession is something like signing up for indentured servitude.

Most working women have jobs I woudn’t want. Neither would most of my readers, I imagine. Most of their jobs are support for the broader economy, and are drone work. Sure, we’re seeing more and more female managers, but most of them are managing drones in strictly confined institutions. Then there are the waitresses and bookkeepers who work at small businesses, and the government employees at the courthouse, DMV, etc. Most independent, female-owned businesses seem to be preschools or day care, boutique bakeries and small clothing stores. It is all part of a dreary service economy that has grown like so much vegetation around the core engines of economic progress.

Of course, there are women involved in high-powered, important jobs. Most of these, however, are in social rather than creative fields. For example, one can find plenty of women with power in politics, education and even law, but in engineering, building and entertainment they are rare indeed.

What this says to me is that there is still room for men in our economy (if it can regain its health), but somehow we have shifted from creative jobs that produce wealth and economic progress to jobs that sustain the status quo. How did this happen? I suspect it has something to do with government spending, which has thrown us into the deepest debt we’ve faced in generations. Perhaps the recent emphasis on tricky finance rather than productive endeavors played a role as well. Either way, I doubt that this new female-centric economy is actually sustainable. The math simply doesn’t work out, for one thing — how can we rescue the economy by spending more money on the non-productive service sector while the true creators of wealth are failing or moving overseas?

The emergence of a rift between the younger proponents of Game and the older conservative establishment has come to expose some of the pathologies that have festered for many years beneath the surface of American society. One, in particular, can explain many of the symptoms of our social decay and the deconstruction of marriage, that bedrock of civilization. Interestingly, it is not radical liberals who bear the most responsibility in our ongoing national tragedy, but rather a close and curious bond between America’s young women and the paternalist elements of society.

Many have blamed “chivalry” for the breathtakingly irrational and hypocritical actions and views of the American establishment when it comes to gender equality and justice, but that is an insufficient explanation. Chivalry, even at its most vile, is a mere juvenile sort of commingling of morality and sexuality — a youth’s fantasy of winning a fair maiden through acts of valor. However, for the aging man who sits on the bench and dishes out judgment, the gray-haired politician who casts his vote, and the polished executive in his suite, there is no fantasy of slaying dragons and storming castles, for he has already done those things. Yet there remains the smoldering desire for the maiden, and it is reciprocated.

Of course, it is natural for men to retain an attraction for fertile women throughout their lives, and this is recognized in all cultures. However, in America it appears to have become a pathology because of American family dynamics.

In my article on Carl Jung and Game, I quoted Jung and his analysis of American marriages. One theme that Jung found particularly problematic was the mother-son relationship of American wives to their husbands. Jung states:

[...] up to this time your American man isn’t ready for real independence in woman. He only wants to be the obedient son of his mother-wife.

Jung goes on at length about the dysfunctional husband/wife dynamic in American marriages, suggesting that something is seriously askew in our society’s management of sexuality. Jung focused on the damage this was doing to American women, and how they were wandering confused, unsure of what they really want or where they belong. But Jung did not address the effects this sexual confusion might have on men. It would be natural for a man, married to a woman he sees as a mother figure, to transfer his passion elsewhere, and this is what has happened in the American family and American society.

As the woman who becomes a wife becomes the mother figure, the husband’s passion – both emotional and sexual – is transferred to the maiden, who is the daughter figure. The American man, who is the “obedient son” in his marriage, becomes the lover in paternal relations with younger women, and the confused American woman (whether actually a maiden or not) develops a romantic attachment to men who are father figures.

This principle is illustrated by a number of American and British works of art. It may be Charles Dickens who, in one of the defining works of Victorian fiction, best demonstrates this dynamic at work. In Tale of Two Cities, Lucy Manette, the epitome of woman as doll on a pedestal, is depicted as having a very intense relationship with her father, Dr. Manette. Dickens’ portrayal of Lucy as pious, beautiful girl, whose father fondles a lock of her hair, is positively orgasmic. There is nothing unnatural about a father’s love for a daughter, but Lucy clearly plays the spiritual and emotional role of wife in her relationship with her father. It is ironic that Dickens transfers this very Anglo relationship to a French family, because there is typically a closer bond between father and son rather than father and daughter in France.

An even earlier rendition of this peculiarly British tendency exists in Tom Jones, one of the first English novels, written by Henry Fielding in the mid-18th century. In Tom Jones Squire Western has an especially close relationship with his daughter Sophia. Western, a boorish man with excessive appetites and a fondness for the hunt, is violently protective of his daughter, who cares for him and sings to him when he is drunk and sentimental. So we see that our American dilemma is nothing new, and was in all likelihood inherited from the motherland.

Not long ago, I watched a very American portrayal of the same dynamic at work. Lonesome Dove, the iconic American TV series about a great Western cattle drive, plays directly to the paternalist fantasy. In Lonesome Dove a couple of old Texas rangers, Captain Augustus “Gus” McCrae, and Captain Woodrow Call, decide to drive a herd to Montana and establish the first ranch in the territory. In the most important subplot, former colleague Jake Spoon, who is significantly younger than Gus and Woodrow, decides to take the town hooker, Lorena Wood, to San Francisco. Gus has an ongoing relationship with Lorena, which combines both paternal and sexual elements. Jake Spoon follows the drive for a while, leaving Lorena for a time while he goes to town to gamble. Gus, naturally, has at her, winning rights to a “poke” through a card game, in which he cheats to win. Lorena apparently doesn’t mind so much that he cheated.

Lorena is stolen by an Indian named Blue Duck, and subsequently rescued by Gus. In the meanwhile, Jake Spoon takes up with some bandits, hoping to get some money out of the deal. Jake’s bandits turn out to be murderous bad men, and Gus eventually catches Jake Spoon after killing the bandits. Gus stoically hangs Spoon, acting as judge, jury and executioner.

The rivalry between Gus and Jake Spoon hinges on Lorena, who is a beautiful and very young woman. Gus plays the father figure to Lorena (despite having sex with her from time to time), while Jake is the husband figure. The climax of the subplot is clearly the hanging of Jake Spoon, which symbolizes the killing of the husband by the father. This act epitomizes the relationship of the paternalist power structure to the American husband and wife. It is, in essence, the father murdering the husband to assert his authority over and rights to his daughter. This act is played out in millions of divorces across America, sometimes quite literally. It is the secret, smoldering passion that drives the abuse of American men by the paternalist power structure.

This is why social conservatives often come off as inarticulate when defending “traditional” marriage. They may point to social benefits of marriage, and virtually everyone would agree, but when they attempt to find someone to blame, their finger always ends up pointed at young men, upon whom they heap abuses such as VAWA, summary arrests and dispossessions based on a woman’s crocodile tears, unconstitutional and coercive child support and custody laws, and slanderous accusations of sloth and effeminacy.

They are not driven as much by an altruistic desire to improve society as they are by the lack of sexual and emotional fulfillment in their own relationships with their mother-wives. They find fulfillment of these desires through an incestuous relationship, both symbolic and real, with the daughters of America, and they wage war against America’s sons with all the primitive passion of savages raiding a village to carry off its maidens.