Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Social Slavery" (satire) [Men's Rights Theory counter-theory to Feminist theory]

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Social Slavery" (satire) [Men's Rights Theory counter-theory to Feminist theory]

    So I've been exploring something, I wondered how it would look if other groups would express the conspiracy theory-level insanity of "Feminist Theory". And my conclusions... were as to say... not that far off how other groups like the followers of Alex Jones think. Conspiracy theories have always fascinated me, especially the ones that have been debunked for a long time. Of course "The Patriarchy" is not Feminism's only conspiracy theory as they include a plethora of whacky hypotheses that they have yet to prove... the gender wage gap myth... claiming that women were never employed before Feminism, claiming that there is "a war on women" in those United States of America. The list goes on and on, so here's something I devices of my own, using Feministspeak against Feminists to show that with their same level of non-thinking one can come up with something equally stupid.




    In short: This post is to sort of represent a satirical "Men's Rights Theory" as a direct counter-theory to "Feminist Theory" which has been (almost) universally accepted as "fact" by many circles of scholars.




    Ladies & Gentlemen, I present to you "Social Slavery" (I originally intended for this to be an April Fools joke for my blog post, but then I realised how stupid people are and would actually call me "a misogynist" for ever daring to write it, so here it is...):




    Men are basically "social slaves", this is because from birth a boy is expected to provide for his family the moment he is capable, treat his future wife as if she is his daughter rather than an equal companion, and for him to ever fall out of this idea of "masculinity" he will be ridiculed and called terms like "a coward", "a weakling", "unworthy of female attention" (as if his entire life is defined by this), "not a real man", and many, many other things. For women gender rôles have broken, but for men and boys these expectations still exist, men who choose to become "house husbands" will have a lot of trouble finding a mate, and men who openly proclaim this desire are shamed, men who share their emotions are equally ridiculed, in popular media men are universally the butt of the joke because of how many men "fail" to meet these expectations, and therefor they are called "unworthy mates".




    [Here is where it gets a bit trippy as I remember reading some Feminist post somewhere that white female slave owners were somehow "oppressed" by her black slaves, because the author wanted to re-write history to make female suffering seem to be the worst thing to have ever happen in human history, the reason given for this "oppression" was the "freedom" the male slaves had to work while the white women were "bound to the house".]




    Men, unlike women are still bound to their gender rôles, they have to work for women, while no woman is expected to work for any man, men have to provide for women, while providing for men is seen as "protecting the unworthy men", and to top that off the notion of a woman providing for a man is seen as ridiculous as the existence of space aliens living on earth, in fact I can't remember the last time I've seen a family with a working mother and unemployed father portrayed as a good thing on the telly, while the opposite is never seen as something bad. Men are expected to always care for their female companions and friends emotionally, while a man who can't handle something on an emotional level is seen as "weak", and speaking of emotions, female emotions are to be catered to, while male emotions are to be laughed at, unless he's happy, then it's because he is somehow "selfish" to not share that happiness with a woman, female selfishness is applauded, male selfishness is seem as "irresponsible", while at the same time men with hobbies that aren't considered to be "traditionally masculine" are seen as "eternal virgins", while women are encouraged to do whatever they like, any hobby, any profession, any partner, but men who have partners richer than themselves are seen as "the male version of gold diggers", while "gold digging" is not really acceptable for women, they do tend to still be seen as accepted if "he truly loves her", but then again the term is mostly used by other women to denounce their intentions and try to lower their chances of scoring a wealthy mate, et all.




    In countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Russia, Kazakhstan, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Austria, the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece, Serbia, Slovenia, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Japan, South-Korea, Croatia, Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, The Former-Yugoslavic Republic of Montenegro, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, the Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria, Moldova, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, San Marino, Andorra, Switzerland, Austria, Monaco, Hungary, Belarus, Transnistria, Cyprus, Israel, Malta, Iceland, Greenland, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Viet-Nam, Canada, Tajikistan, the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela, Jamaica, the Bahama's, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Dominica, Bermuda, Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint-Eustasius, Sint-Maarten, Suriname, Guyana, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, South-Africa, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Trinidad, and Tobago, French Guyana, Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, the Caiman islands, Jersey, the Isle of Man, Australia, and New Zealand women no longer have their gender rôles and expectations laid out for them, but men, and boys do, this is unacceptable.




    [at this point, I really wanted to hammer the point down, so I tried to find a Feminist theory, and re-worded it, to completely match it, while still trying to present it as something serious.]




    For over centuries men have been expected to work, care, provide for, handle, tolerate anything, and accept any flaw in their wives, while women have been applauded for leaving men who present the same flaws as men have been accepting of women, this is most common in the way dating advice columns are written, to women it writes to dump every other man simply because of random aspects, while men are taught to tolerate even the worst attributes a person can have that aren't directly violent, in fact women who have fetishes for men who fight is not only applauded but mainstream, while men who are violent are seen as being "toxic", and affected by "toxic masculinity", indeed, this can only translate into the same violent relationships Feminists dread so dearly, men with violent tendencies are applauded, but violence committed by them dæmonised, so these men can only find hail for their tendencies at home, and unlike the physically abusive female, these men will face even more harm.




    In direct social situations and dating the male is expected to pay for dinner, "make his date feel safe", "make her feel loved", pay attention to everything she says, while the same amount of attention isn't expected from her, walk her home, while she never has to "walk him home", he has to make "the first move", while she is never expected to do this, and men who are too shy to "make the first move' are seen as "unworthy of female attention anyhow", men are also expected to check for danger, for example if they lie in bed and a strange noise happens downstairs, he is thus expected to give his life for her, while no woman is ever expected to do the same, as society dictates that men who can't save themselves "aren't worth female attention, anyhow".




    When proposing men are expected to go on their knee like some sort of servant, while women are never asked to do anything so symbolically submissive, in fact, in many other species of Great Apes a subordinate male presents himself to a superior male by kneeling, in fact even in humans this is a recognised behaviour of submission, so making men kneel for a proposal is not "romantic' but simply "putting him in his place", even the whole act of proposing is only expected of men, that is not to say that women don't propose, but they don't have to kneel, in fact even things like an expensive dinner, a gift, a ring, any form or surprise, or anything else is expected, her being is simply "enough', while men basically need to "bribe to make her the bride''.




    When they get married the male may only have one "best man", but the female may bring as many friends as she wants, as these will be her "bridesmaids", in many poorer cultures it is expected for the family of the male to pay for all the expenses, while the female's family can "enjoy the fruits" of it, this on its face value is not only unfair, it's evident of how men make their entire families "social slaves" for simply being born, yet the females in these societies are seen as "oppressed", even as "slaves", which is as ridiculous as can be. Personally, I have been to many poor countries, in Asia the man is a toy for women to play with, but at least there are still gender rôles and expectations for women, here men still have all traditional expectations, but women don't, men need a same "liberation" from these rôles as women do, in fact even more.



    At best, men are seen as "providers", but at worst men are seen as "below women", and due to women gaining more freedom, and men not this will only work against men, men as a group need to organise, and say that we want freedom, we want choices, we want protection, freedom from expectations, and change our culture into accepting this freedom, only then can men be "equal" to women, but until then we will have to face these expectations.



    Even for children boys are expected to "play nice" with girls, but girls who bully boys are protected by teachers under the guise of "boys shouldn't hit girls", yet the same is never expected from girls, female teachers who place girls first, or even male teachers for that matter aren't seen as disadvantaging boys, in fact they are praised for somehow being "the only people to place girls first in this patriarchal society", yet any reverse of this trend would be universally hated, if not scorned.



    In the Media men are portrayed as dumber, physically weaker, mentally weaker, less important (think of all the stories where "only girls/women can save the day"), seen as bumbling idiots, in many pop-songs it's about a male romancing women, while female pop-songs are mostly about apathy towards males, how break-up's never affect them, how a man's opinions aren't important, how women are important to men but not vice versa, I can't remember how often I've hear the phrase "strong, independent woman", while I've seen men been shamed for not needing a woman, in fact songs about men being dependent on female attention get popular, while I've seen heard of a modern song where a woman tries to "romance" her male peer, in fact, this would probably never become popular, regardless of "the beat".



    Double standards even extend to clothing, and all walks of life, think... men who wear female clothes are "drags", and "cross-dressers", but women who wear male clothes are "showing off their independence" and "how modern they are", women who drink beer are seen as "breaking the stereotypes", while men who drink appletinis are seen as "weak", and "effeminate", men who do traditionally female fields of work as seen as "taking away women's jobs", and "less of a man", while women who take jobs in mostly male fields of labour are seen as "pioneers", men with traditionally "female hobbies" are seen as "creeps" and "geeks", while women with traditionally "male hobbies" are catered to with no end, in fact even more than the male audience of that same hobby, think gaming, death-metal, nu-metal, other forms of rock, computer information technology, yu-gi-oh, pokémon, rapping, hip-hop, collecting things like stamps, coins, banknotes, or whatnot, and when these markets have completely catered to women various other fields will almost exclusively market to women because they already have "the male audience" like all the commercials for "female beer", these are sweeter versions of beer, while you'd never see an American wine ad for men, or an ad for yoghurt directed towards men, in fact I can't remember the last time I saw a yoghurt commercial where the men in it weren't either baffoons, there to show how to be unhealthy, objects to be desired, or even present at all, in fact the same goes for many sports like yoga, and tennis, despite these being for both men and women.



    At some point marketers would realise that men are a demographic to cater to as well, especially with the whole gender wage gap myth, but then again women spend more, which is odd since they "earn less", but then again logic and consistency has never been a point for marketers to follow. Women beating up males in cartoons is "funny", but the opposite is "tragic", in junk food ads they never show females eating their products, despite the fact that the males are usually portrayed as dumber, and the females as smarter, most ads directed towards women show men getting hurt, while most ads directed towards men show men getting hurt, despite initiating most divorces in real life, women are somehow portrayed as "the victims" of divorces, and in films and other media it's almost exclusively the male that asks for one, and if the female asks for a divorce she'll get it whether she wants it or not, while if the man asks for one on the telly he needs her permission, imagine the reverse, people would go bonkers, mad, crazy, and see all colours of anger, madness, and rage.



    Who get mad, cry, have trouble coping with things, act irrationally, think of themselves first, ignore their (female) partners, female family, female friends, or just females in general, spend too much time with their hobbies, friends, movies, books, work, shopping, sporting, strolling, walking, running, eating, drink too much, or show their violent sides are met with universal apathy, while women who get mad, cry, have trouble coping with changing situations, act irrational, hormonal, place their own needs ahead of others', ignore their (male) partners, male friends, male family, or just males in general, spend too much time with their hobbies, books, movies, labour, friends, work, shopping, make-up, sporting, strolling, walking, going out, running, dining, eating, drinking, or anything else, and even show their violent sides are shown understanding.



    Men who are single are "losers", women who are single are "independent", men who are unemployed are "irresponsible", women who refuse to work are "placing themselves first, and rightfully so", while a man who wants to divorce a woman who still loves him is "a bastard", while a woman who does the same is "doing the right thing", men who don't listen to their wives/girlfriends are seen as "bad partners", while a woman who does the same simply "has her own opinion", yet, men simply socially pressured into doing these things, men who don't call their (Female) partners beautiful (even when they're not in their own eyes) are seen as "bad partners", while the opposite is never expected of women, in fact this is somehow seen as "a female virtue", saying that women don't care about looks, while in reality this just means that she "settled below her", men can never "settle below his standards", because men are ALWAYS regarded as "lower" than females, regardless of if he's rich, and she's poor, he's handsome, and she's ugly, he's kind-hearted, and she's mean, he's loving, and she's apathetic, he's a good dancer, and she isn't, he works hard, and she's lazy, he does everything for her, and she does nothing for him, he always listens, and she always ignores, he always keep his promises, and she never keeps her promises, he is housed, and she's homeless, he's forgiving, and she's violent, he's intelligent, and she's less so, he's strong, and she's weak, for society, it doesn't matter, he'll always be "below her", "less valuable", and "unworthy", while she'll always be seen as "above him", "more valuable", and "worthy".



    Men who earn less "don't deserve a rich woman", women who earn less "deserve only the best", men who are well educated "don't deserve a woman of the same caliber", women who are uneducated "deserve only the best", men who are insecure "don't deserve anything", women who are... L.O.L. we all know that doesn't happen, men who are shy "should change their personality to find a woman", women who a are... again L.O.L. never going to happen, men need to change their personalities to find a mate, women should just be "accepted for who they are", and any man that denies them this is "unworthy of her love", and "not a real man, to begin with, anyhow", no matter her flaws, she can be a criminal, abusive, or anything else, society doesn't care, "she deserves a man", "she deserves to be loved", "she deserves the best", "she's important", "she's worth it", "she's valuable", so in conclusion men are "Social Slaves".



    [End of "the theory".]



    Anyhow, ¿is it any good? I personally wanted to chisel it, add more stuff, and leave some things out, ¿Could "Men's Rights Theory" work as a satirical counter?

  • #2
    Originally posted by MarioHong View Post
    So I've been exploring something
    Very cool.
    Personally, I'd edit it down a little for publication.

    The sad thing is, it is not over-the-top enough.
    The even sadder thing is, it's almost impossible to overtop feminist theory, it's so weird.

    M

    Comment

    Working...
    X