This is not an MRA article demanding that women desire weakling men. It is nobody’s responsibility but your own to love all aspects of who you are. So take this as an invitation for self-acceptance, not for another crusade for justice.
When it comes to healthy sexual relationships between the sexes, I pretty much share the – generalized – view that the man plays the dominant part, while the woman is submissive. This may not be the absolute truth in every last case, but I think it is a very fair generalization that at least describes a valid tendency.
But, if I were to give any advice, I would tell you to immediately forget this observation once you make it. Why? Because you should not have to be thinking about things like that. If it is the truth, it is the truth because that simply is what happens when you stop trying to control the situation or bring your ego ideas about correct or good relationships and interactions into it. Once you start acting dominant to do it right, you practically defeated the point of making such a point. If all of it was simply an act, all the time, in everyone, you could actually claim that it is a social construct. Hence I believe that the only way you can make such an observation in an honest way is to introspect and make some personal experiences.
You can only make a valid observation when the observed ones (that can include you) feel no obligation to support either view. That is, when they feel free to express themselves fully without thinking about it.
If you have to tell a man how to be a man, then you can not claim that you are making him more of a men, rather than less. At least when you, like myself, assume that being a man means to have the male biological sex – instead of abiding by some ideological construct like neo-masculinity. If being a man does not flow naturally from being born a man, then our concept of being a man logically must be flawed. Of course, that presumes that there are no forces in place during one’s formative years that restrict this natural flow.
I do meditation and I often say that my beliefs are close to Buddhism. But the more I know about Buddhism, the less I resonate with it.
The thing that I find most idiotic is also somewhat present in Christianity. It is a particular concept of selflessness. Serve others and find enlightenment / deliverance.
So, basically, it says that you should not focus on your own karma, but extend kindness and compassion to others instead.
But the hypocrisy becomes very clear when you realize that you are only doing this in order to become enlightened yourself. You basically want something for yourself – enlightenment – and thus you search for a way to bribe the universe into providing it for you. If you extend compassion and kindness to someone in this fashion, it is done out of a selfish purpose and I would not be surprised if – on a metaphysical level – you are giving up responsibility for your own karma that way. You do something good and expect karma to be taken away in turn. I would not be surprised if this act actually transfers some of your own negative energy or karma to the person you are pretending to be helping, making the whole thing more of a black magic act than anything of real value.
You walk the streets and you see some stupid protesters, do-gooder activists, hippies, oh damn, whatever thing you can think of that makes you want to throw up. You sneer at that thing or person. You say to yourself, society is going to hell. You say to yourself, but I know better. You say to yourself, I know who I am.
And you walk the streets and think of yourself and fancy what you see. A man of integrity, a man with a firm set of values, a man who thinks for himself. You know stuff like:
Homosexuality is a mental illness.
Liberals suck and are dumb.
Life is hard.
(fill in whatever fits you)
So that’s you. That’s your identity. You know who you are, because you know what you believe. You think, therefore you are. And the thing that keeps you You is the strength to stand by your beliefs. Standing by your beliefs is a good thing, you heard it many times. Not giving in to people who want to manipulate you, change who you are.
You grew up in a culture that constantly wants to feed you its propaganda, constantly wants to control your life in every which way. You are smart, because you look through it. You know who you are.
I wanted to go to the city today to buy something. As I contemplated the idea, I started to feel anxious. The idea of being in the city centre with lots of people around me did not feel absolutely terrifying, but still very uncomfortable. Social anxiety, or perhaps a mild agoraphobia, would be the correct scientific term.
Usually, I just push this stuff down and throw myself into the situation – or avoid it altogether. But in the long term, this kind of coping seems to make things worse, not better.
An idea that sometimes helps me be mindful about my emotions and thoughts is to see myself as pure consciousness or soul – let me call it operator for the sake of this article – residing in a human body, which I interpret as a computer with software on it. Or a tablet or an iPhone, whatever you can identify most with.
This concept helps me to detach enough from my emotions and reactions to observe them and try to understand them.
Social anxiety can be such a program. Its basic functionality is: Look for signs of social contact. If detected, create a push notification to notify the operator about the danger, and create physical resistance in the form of automated movements and/or pain to avoid exposure to the danger.
I have been pretty obsessed with the idea of unconditional love recently. And I still think it is an important thing to get to know, even if I am not there yet. But my obsession may have blinded me to other aspects of reality. Yesterday, I came over an article that elaborates on the power chakra.
It made me think about the ways in which I give up personal power in my daily life. The ways I either compromise my own boundaries or disrespect those of others.
A very good example of this is how I used to follow around women, listening to their personal problems and stories, in the hopes for more – which never came. It was draining, but I was not respecting my gut feeling there. In fact, I was ashamed of it. Recently, I have become angry about that and I have even written angry text messages to those girls.
But the important insight for me is that I have indeed allowed them to use me for their nonsense and then discard me, even if that was on an unconscious level. They were only doing what I, on an energetic level, gave them permission to do. I had hidden motives, sure, but they still did nothing I did not fully allow them to do in my heart (or power chakra?).
Proponents of grades often argue that they prepare you for real life where your efforts are evaluated based on merit. This is ridiculously wrong. The way your efforts are evaluated in real life is practically the direct opposite of how they are evaluated at school.
At school, you have an established authority. This person represents the standard and individual taste against which your efforts will be evaluated. Usually, this person is not even free in that. Rather, that person in itself is a representant of established globalized norms and standards.
A whole country learns the same things by the same standards and everybody’s efforts are evaluated against the codified rules of this standard.
This is the polar opposite of reality, where following the rules is the sure fire way to get absolutely nowhere.
I mean, sure, you always get judged. But in real life, people judge you by whether you fulfill some need of theirs. And people’s needs are diverse. And I promise you that no person has the deep-seated emotional need of a grade A from the federal government. Unless this person is an office shredder.
And since nobody really has a need for a piece of paper that says that you are smart, there is no need to focus your efforts on acquiring the skills necessary to get such a paper.
Envy is decried as unvirtuous and seen as an emotion directed at somebody’s success, but it is not. Envy is an impulse to compete, but this impulse – in the case of envy – is compulsive. That is, the envying person like an addict is not free to choose whether he wants to be better than the other person.
He simply must be superior. He does not even know why.
Logically, this compulsive obsession is alleviated the easiest way by crushing the tall poppy rather than outcompeting him.
The envious person feels bad when he sees success, because he feels the compulsive need to outperform the other person. How annoying to him. Best to create a microcosm where his superiority is never in doubt.
In any case, why the compulsion? It is the compulsion to escape self-hatred, triggered by being inferior. We learn how to treat our self – read: us – by how our parents treated our self.
We learned to hate ourselves when we were not the best. Or loathe. Or despise. Because we did not get the love we needed when we were not somehow superb.
Many successful people go on about their haters. Sooner or later, you will find some kind of post where they vent about all the haters. My former Muay Thai instructor did it almost constantly and this photographer here did it once, too. They go on about all the hard work they put in that nobody sees. You are just envious! You do not see those sleepless nights!
Well, I guess that people do become envious. Sure. Who does not. But sometimes even your favorite photographer can post a picture that you simply dislike. And what would you say if you wanted to be honest and the photographer was your friend? Well, you would likely say this is shit.
I once commented on a photograph of Ronda Rousey that I hate the fact that there are women out there who could beat me to pulp. The fitness coach who had posted it came-a-running and told me to do something about it! Yeah, yeah, I get it. We all push each other to greatness. Blah, blah. How predictable.
But what if my road to greatness does not lead through the gym? What if I just want to express an emotion here without having to already be on my way to be better? Hell, if I lept to my feet to work hard towards greatness every time I was envious, I would be on a quest to be better than everyone at everything. But my greatness is not necessarily your greatness.
Good question. What is an article? By what I gather so far, it is a arranged collection of anything between fifty and five thousand words. These collections of words usuallly carry a small phrase called title, meant to be representative of the content. But then, if it really was representative, you would only need to read the title and not the content, right? So the title is more accurately a small teaser to elicit associations with a particular topic. In a way, the title is more of a starting point for a chain of thoughts than a basket defining the boundaries of that which is to come. A title is an invitation to a dear friend, asking: Do you want to join me in following this particular chain of thought?
But I can also see how one would like to do it right and be structured and logical. To stay with the topic. But then, how much deviation is allowed? And before I write an article, do I already know exactly what I am going to say? If the title of an article is to define the boundaries of the content to come, it seems more reasonable to write the article first, see what comes out and then find an appropriate title.
But why would you need the title to be a boundary? Well, it is neat. You have a little box called How to become super muscular and everything in there is only there to precisely answer that question. It spans an idealized harmonical arc of narration, a perfect piece of art – and yet the idea is vague and once one starts writing, one starts to wonder how to translate this elusive ideal into actual words. One could argue that in such an article about muscles, it is pointless to even mention, for instance, women. One does not need to write about women to describe the motions of growing muscles. And yet, one may mention that women like muscular guys and this may, by pure accident, be the one raindrop of motivation surplus that the reader needs to get going. But strictly, it does not belong there, or does it? It would belong in an article called How to motivate yourself to become super muscular.
But then, what if women do not particularly motivate somebody? Does the article name then not promise something it does not deliver? Well, I guess you would need to become more precise: How to use women to motivate yourself to become super muscular.
And so on and so on, until the title of the article would in fact become the article itself. Because only the article itself represents the article itself perfectly.