Intro:
What they didn't teach you up in college...
...'bending towards his dear, adorable and execrable wife, his inevitable and pitiless muse, he kissed her respectfully upon the hand, and added, "Ah, dear angel, how I thank you for my skill!" -Charles Baudelaire, French Poet, 'The Marksman', 1857. |
...." (Universities) where what is said and thought and imagined is homogenized to a degree that teachers and students do not begin to suspect because they have never set foot outside the cage that they were born in. Like the gorilla who was taught to draw, they keep drawing the bars of their cage; and think it the world." -- Gore Vidal (American novelist, playwright, essayist) |
Excuse me for being a bit presumptuous....
And by that I mean the entire booklet as well as the intro title.
However am I the only one in the world who senses, borrowing from Hans Christian Andersen, that often the Emperor is wearing no clothes?
Obviously not. A random check of the Internet will find thousands of males, a growing subterranean mob of discontent and growing resentment like me who are slowly stirring from a strange deep sleep, a sort of spell, as I like to put it. This booklet and my ideas are unchartered waters in a formal literary sense. A small radical subset of Natural Theology and Sociology essays a posteriori. So I call it a rant a prose poetic rant that returns to the first principles of human expression: to legitimise my ideas using a basic intuitive sense of Truth. Most of what I say is intuitive. I am just trying to express simplistically things that I have observed, experienced or realised. The bizarre thing is we seem to exist and have organised ourselves in a counter-intuitive and dualistic way. This booklet tries to restore some natural intuition. Most of it is prose but in the seventh essay I include a couple of narratives in support.
Undertaking this project, and being a non-academic allows me the largesse I need. If, for example, I was a cosy evidence gathering social scientist I would be pilloried for producing something like this......but its time some of it was said.
[ Classic and post-modern feminine gender sex entitlement and its idiosyncratic effect on males and their host Society]
i.e.....The Dog's Manifesto
Yes, its meant to be a provocative title. Provocative because the owners of that power want to keep it at the sub-strata level of male consciousness. Like a stage magician concealing his money making tricks. Yet of course if you ask any hetero male, in a blunt simple way, is there such a thing in their opinion as "pussy power", they'll say that there is. At its base level its the denial of sex access to the female bodies they desire, while prepared to immediately offer sex access to their own bodies, even to a complete female stranger. It's also an intrinsic feeling of powerlessness in non-sexual encounters which could, for example, be moral intimidation, confusion or outright ignorance. All is pussy power for the purposes of this booklet..... or social derivatives of that power. Most males remain disorientated and somewhat hypnotised yet they can't forensically articulate that power's real source, its components and wide ranging force effects . Remember I said most males. Not all of us. And not this one. However those of us who have awoken somewhat don't know all of it, of course. And never will. But we can share the bits we've found. Or think we've found. And that's what this booklet's about.
The stunning thing is that while there is this recognised phenomenon of Pussy Power, nothing's been done about it. Nothing has been formally collected and catalogued like an entomologist might with an exotic beetle. It's arguably one of the most powerful motivating forces affecting males, therefore Human Society....yet it seems the scientists have left it flapping in the wind. Scientifically speaking we're still 250 years behind observing some lightning in the sky and wondering what it is. Well at least Benjamin Franklin had a crack....he ran a flimsy kite into the sky to meet with lightning....you had to start somewhere.
Which brings me to what scientists are supposed to do.
In the physical realm if a scientist observes an energy phenomenon they'll at first isolate in theory the entire chaotic complicated looking jumble into a set and attack the problem from there...slowly picking away at the edges and moving in. If they hit an impasse then perhaps there's another angle to observe and move in. In 250 years they've gone from looking at lightning in the sky to manipulating the atom. With mind control paralysed people can move external robotic arms, with implanted sensors, thanks to scientific enquiry. And the list goes on and continues. The physical scientists have not been sitting idle since the conclusion of The Dark Ages. However the offerings from our social scientists have been very paltry indeed. The social scientist, a relatively new breed of "scientist", comes under various guises. They could be Social Psychologists, Cultural Anthropologists, or outright Sociologists. I could also include other academic theorists, like Natural Theologians and Moral Philosophers.
So I ask what have they produced in regard to Pussy Power phenomena? What have the thousands of social science departments been doing with their social science undergraduates? And I'm sorry but Freud, despite great heroic attempts, didn't get close. Most males can honestly tell you that they have never, even in their wildest of wild dreams-- from farting in the bath as toddlers to fantasizing of harem orgies as young men--have ever felt like fucking their mothers. In fact they only heard of that notion when someone told them about Freud (more later). And in regard to another off-the-wall idea about males being sub-consciously resentful and jealous of their fathers; well I can tell you most toddler/child males think their father is Superman. And what about some other social sexual explorers, like Kinsey (bedroom statistics) and Havelock Ellis. Sorry chaps but you're never going to understand anything about Pussy Power by gaping at an open vagina and taking nude photos on the grass or watching a woman urinate ('undinism'). I'd dare to suggest that these social scientists have been of no help for their searching young male undergraduates. In fact we have to go way back--2000 to 3000 years-- to find 3 males that said anything of use about Pussy Power who are still miles ahead of the likes of Freud. And they are Homer (Iliad and the Odyssey) King Solomon (Proverbs), and Jesus (The Gospels).
Hopefully essays like those contained in this booklet set off a chain reaction of debate. This is important because to my mind it makes little sense in continuing with advances in technological living infrastructures when men's cognitive reckoning with females remains somewhat primitive. There are millions upon millions of males wandering the Earth ignorant, confused, dissatisfied, frustrated, and angry. They are certainly not at peace with themselves and Society. So what's the Government going to do about it? Kill them off in wars? Give them sports heroes and Internet Pornography? Give them Triathlons to compete in? Drug them down or lock them up forever? Meanwhile there's too many accidents, too much violence and killing. Too many good families recklessly ripped apart over illusions. Now I know there will be some sage Christians reading this and thinking: "Well that's what the Holy Spirit is for". I comment on that later. However these same sage Christians think it's o.k. to allow these unconverted suffering males to just keep on suffering. Well that's not good enough any more. Too many victims. And there are other options. For a start using our God given brains.
Okay, so this 'manifesto' will set out its case.
But before undertaking that experience I'll briefly outline to the reader why these essays are controversial and generate heated debate.
The 'Dog's Manifesto' is radical because it inverts generally 'accepted' Social Theory about Culture and Gender interaction. For example classic Feminist and Conservative Social Theory nominates the term "Patriarchy" to explain classic culture. Of course there are variants around that concept, the degrees of dominance etc. However Patriarchy remains at the apex. This patriarchal system had existed for centuries until the 19th Century campaigns began for women to gain "equal rights" to men. Some of the stand out issues were Property rights, Equal Pay and the right to Vote etc.
Well these essays argue that there has NEVER been a Patriarchy. The logic of the Patriarchy model goes something like this: 1. The Leaders of a Culture make up the Rules and have Power and Privileges. 2. Most Leaders have been male. 3. Therefore most males have power and privileges (as opposed to the female). The fallacy of this false logical conclusion doesn't warrant spelling out. The Truth is that MOST males have never had any real power or privileges, especially State or Sovereign Power. I show that the rare male Leaders served themselves. other leaders (a tiny subset) AND the general female population. NOT OTHER MALES.
I argue that for millennia Society has been a GYNOCENTRIC and CONSCIENCE culture...that females have always had "true power". So "true" in fact that it has had to be disguised and concealed. However there has always been a conscious or "unconscious'" practice of placing the feminine at the centre of Society. All of it emanating from the Mother "Supreme.". The most important person in the males' existence and at the centre of the Family Unit, the heart of all Cultures. The males in reality have generally been WORK SLAVES for the Capitalist owners and SEX SLAVES for the females. In terms of the "feminist revolution", the Manifesto argues that its a self-serving sham. In Centuries past women opted out of "Rights". Women have "camouflaged" themselves in the Family Unit for power, survival and a better "Utility" of existence in a pre-industrial world.. They presented as the weaker and dependent sex and keepers of the 'Holy Vagina'. They didn't want a part of the other parallel "real world"...i.e the men's world of long back breaking work, wars, duels. Or a life at Sea..
By now you can probably understand why this booklet stirs up controversy. But the chapters flesh out all of the author's outrageous claims.
Now to add further fuel to the fire, in reply many scholars will point to the plethora of Sociological and Anthropological studies to support their Classic theories. All have strong "evidence based conclusions." Well the Manifesto claims that so much is simply "half-baked". This is because most of those studies were undertaken by MALE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS who, because of their sexuality, have been unable to perceive the WHOLE environment in context. There are too many missing variables. For example most males cannot perceive properly the UTILITIES that a female enjoys that a male never experiences, or the mechanisms of those Utilities. The Manifesto theorizes that most heterosexual males have a Female Perception Disability, FPD, a mild form of autism that sits on the outer fringes of the autism spectrum, which leaves the males as an "intelligent" functioning human being...but with certain perception disabilities that the females don't have. This is why males don't understand females. Sure its an outrageous claim. So go to the chapter on FPD. See if there's enough "evidence." It's something that easily lends itself to some clever (candid?) empirical research. But so far, nothing. Yet it is SO IMPORTANT. Because if its deemed to be true and there's accepted "proof." It changes everything.
Finally I argue that rather than a crusade for change, "feminism" really heralded the unshackling of males. The Males had won the war against Nature. They had discovered or invented "food technologies", "work machines", "disease control" and "birth control" etc. The industrial revolution changed everything. The Hetero Manifesto argues that a lot of feminism is really an ALIBI for women to explain away and conceal their historic (and continuing) privileges while searching for NEW opportunities in a power vacuum created out of the Industrial Technological revolution.
The new danger for Society now, which I detail, is the tyranny of Bureaucracy and Government against the Male.
The females have the electorate power of Vote. The "femme vote" outnumbers the male vote and as such can use the "democracy" to create new laws and controls to enslave the males once again. There is evidence that this is already happening.
This work will of course be accused of being misogynistic. It will certainly flush out the misandrists, which can be convenient for you to identify. However I personally don't hate women per se. I adore their bodies and their mother love. I admire their power and my issue, if I have an issue, would be with God. Why he gave the females so much and the males so little (more later). When it comes down to the female types I should hate, there are no secrets. I hold nothing back. I'll let you know which ones. But even with them there's no genuine hate. I just think they should be marched off to the loony bin for hysteria and/or narcissistic psychopathologies. I should add that I have never a victim of the Family Court or involved as a Respondent or Applicant involving a female. These writings also don't stem from a broken heart. In my life I have had some wonderful relationships with females, even willing servants if you like. So no complaints there. I ended those affairs because of my own personal demons.
However this booklet's principal is to serve male interests. It's not about finding happy mediums or status quo or serving up issues for an inquiry. It's a revolutionary male rant designed to awaken and empower men with specifics. A self contained package, with an opening and closing, and its panacea intact.
And for all the professional male Sociologists and Cultural Anthropologists out there, I understand your reticence (more later) however get some guts and get to work.
Parameters :-
This booklet is a rant, as I stated earlier. You are allowed to treat it seriously. Or you can treat it like a Comedy.
A lot of it, of course, will be laughed off by 'serious' (i.e vested interest) scholars as being entirely without "evidence" and full of ad hominems. Fair enough. However this booklet is also designed to be read and understood by everyone. It uses "ordinary" language and if necessary, barges through. No tippy-toeing around semantics here.
So there are no pretensions that this is some sort of serious treatise. The topics and notions that pop up are too scattered, diverse and inchoate to be defined as a single weaponry polemic. A poem isn't a petition.
I should also state that I am not trying to deliberately line up evidence to empower an idea or dramatically de-legislate. The Truth will take its due time to foment...though I think there should be some legal immunity for adult males and females in a Family unit for 'low-level' transgressions; a sort of immunity or privilege that the Politicians enjoy in their Parliaments (more later).
Finally, when I make sweeping statements about males, I'm usually referring to a male age group, 18-45. I interchange between the terms "men" and "males". Importantly I am also referring in my opinion to MOST heterosexual males and not ALL heterosexual males. Obviously I exclude the gay males. And obviously there are a sizeable proportion of heterosexual males who genuinely don't feel, or have experienced, any of the things I mention. There are always plenty of exceptions but they don't make up the majority and including them just side tracks the main argument.
Let me officially commit to 51p.c. for my classic male and female archetypes.
Finally, when I'm on a roll I like to express myself using the odd dollop of slang (i.e "Pussy" etc).
© Copyright. All Rights Reserved. First published Australia 2012. Copies lodged with the author's solicitors and national bank security lodgement. The author is the copyright owner of this work. The Copyright for this text was created at its inception under Australian law ( Copyright Act 1968 ) and in those countries where the relevant Treaties apply. The work can not be used for any Commercial purposes but may be used partially, or in its entirety, by any Government funded enterprise such as a National Broadcaster or State academic institution, but not on-sold to subsequent parties, distributed, or used to collect any income (or fees). Enquiries: [email protected]
COVER: The Birth of Venus (1486), Sandro Botticelli. Uffizi Gallery, Florence.