Daily Archives: February 12, 2017

The Masculine Men’s Club – An Open Membership Society

Jason Y: That sounds about right. If you’re in the company of rednecks or hypermasculine douchebags, then obviously they’re not tolerating any androgyny.

Men are very good at seeing masculinity in other men. Women are just idiots about this stuff.

Just my experience. It’s been women who have been telling me that I am not masculine enough. Guys, generally speaking, don’t say that to me. Even rough, tough, macho, redneck guys seem to accept me on some weird level.

I finally figured out that they can see the masculine side in me, and that it is extremely strong, about as strong as theirs. So while there is this weird feminine stuff going on with me too, at the same time, I know all of the hypermasculine codes, behavioral mandates, ways of moving, walking, sitting, standing, expression, proper emotions, tone of voice, muscle tone, along with all the myriad masculine social codes, etc. For instance, my feelings are very, very controlled. They see the masculine side, and they think, “Ok, grudging acceptance.” They see the feminine stuff, and they figure that the masculine side pretty much cancels that out or makes it so it’s not so important.

The big lie is that hypermasculine men hate feminine behavior. They don’t. They think it’s weird, and they don’t understand it, but they don’t hate it. What they do hate though is a lack of masculine behavior. That’s what they really hate. If you can mirror their hypermasculinity well (and I can), you can get away with a lot of stuff on the feminine side too. Men don’t think that feminine behavior cancels out masculine behavior. They just want to see that macho stuff. As soon as they see that, you are part of their special Club or in crowd and they will always accept you, even on some weird, grudging level.

To be a member of the Masculine Men’s Club, you have to be:

+masculine

Acceptable:

+feminine

– feminine

As long as you are +masculine, it doesn’t really matter if you are +feminine or -feminine. You’re allowed to have feminine stuff as long as that masculine side is solid and observable.

To disallow membership in the club, you have to be:

-masculine

It really helps if you are obviously heterosexual too. Men don’t really care about male feminine behavior as long as the guy is straight and especially if he’s really good at getting women, especially hot women. If a guy can regularly screw hot women, they pretty much accept him fully just for that right there, and they could care less about how he acts because to masculine men, how you act is not that important. That’s sort of one of the tests – the pussy test. Men are very pragmatic.

Hypermasculine men are not as stupid as you think. Actually, they are extremely smart, especially about this masculinity – femininity – heterosexuality, etc. thing. Generally speaking, if it’s pretty obvious you like pussy and even better yet you can fuck hot women, they will just blow off everything else and just assume you are straight.

This type of man is very willing to compromise, and he wants you to be in his secret club. His bias is to see you as one of the members of his club. He’s not going to be biased towards seeing you as not cutting it. Men will give you a lot of breaks and give up a lot of ground just to see you are a member of their club. They would much rather have you as a member of the Masculine Men Club than not a member. They don’t like guys who are not club members, and they would much rather you join up with them than be one of those idiots who are outside of the club. They will literally search around for reasons to see how they can weasel you into the club. I think most of these men would be perfectly happy if 99% of the men in their world were Masculine Men’s Club members. They would like as few men as possible to not be in the Club.

If they are not sure about you, if they even see you reading a Playboy, for instance, they will walk up to you with a big smile and shake your hand and maybe give you a high five. Because that means you’re straight. They wanted you to be straight, but they were not sure that you were. Once they find out that you are, Yeehaw! You are one of the boys.

It’s a big myth that hypermasculine men are always going around trying to exclude other men from the Man’s Club on some flimsy grounds.

Some men do this of course, but they are typically very insecure. These are the ones who run around gay-baiting straight men, accusing straight men of being gay and even gay-bashing straight men. You would be amazed how many straight men get gay-bashed. No one ever talks about this, but it happens a lot.

I think that the whole reason behind the homophobes’ behavior is “policing masculinity.” These men are very insecure for some reason because the more secure men, as mentioned above, are always looking to give you a break and see some evidence that you are part of their Club. These other guys are running around trying to throw men out of the Club for not meeting some exacting expectations.

Homophobes are weird. One of the worst and most violent homophobes I have ever met – this guy literally beat up straight guys accusing them of being gay – some almost to the point of unconsciousness – was known to collect gay pornography. I know this because his roommate told me that he found gay porn in the gay-basher’s room.

302 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Sex

A Look at the Chinese Model – A Non-Capitalist Mode of Development

Juanny Boy: Robert – I have a question about this.

What’s the benefit of Centrally planning industries that are largely not predatory like clothing, computers, etc.?

It seems they are produced less efficiently under Marxism.

But in industries like health care, water, it is a necessity because of the potential for abuse.

I am not a fan of central planning.

However, the Chinese model works very well. 45% of the Chinese economy is publicly owned.

  1. Force public enterprises to compete internationally. Sink or swim. The #2 leading producer of TV’s in the world is a state-owned company in China that is officially owned by its workers.
  2. Chinese public firms compete with each other. So a steel factory in City A would compete with a steel industry in City B.
  3. Chinese public firms are run to make a profit. The profits from public firms simply go back to the various levels of the state and these profits are distributed to the people in a variety of ways. That’s a really cool use of company profits!
  4. Many Chinese public firms are run at a low level such as the municipality level. In other words, many of the firms are run by small cities. The cities compete with each other. Workers own all the companies so as the company makes more money their paychecks go up. Also as the firm does better, the city invests more and more money in the city to make it a more attractive place for workers. For instance, they fix up the workers’ housing and make it a lot nicer. Hence you get a lot of workers coming from all over trying to get jobs in these booming city industries in part because the living conditions are so good.
  5. I understand that once an industry becomes a certain size, the Chinese government simply obtains ownership in the firm. Now how they do this, I have no idea whether they buy in or what. Maybe they own 51%. But I believe they then take a hands off approach and let you run your company any way you want. But I suppose they may want 51% of the profits. I am not sure how it works.

11 Comments

Filed under Asia, China, Economics, Government, Labor, Regional, Socialism

A Look at the Cooperative Mode of Development

Juanny Boy: Robert – I have a question about this.

What’s the benefit of Centrally planning industries that are largely not predatory like clothing, computers, etc.?

It seems they are produced less efficiently under Marxism.

But in industries like health care, water, it is a necessity because of the potential for abuse.

One thing we could do is to have firms owned by their workers. This is called the Cooperative Mode of Development and I think this is a great model. Many say it is a non-capitalist mode of development. For instance, in this model there is no exploitation of workers, no labor theory of value, etc.

In capitalist firms, workers and management and ownership are enemies. The management and owners are always trying to abuse the workers more and more because the worse they abuse the workers, the more money they make.

But when workers own enterprises, there is no incentive to reduce worker pay and benefits, force longer work hours, skip on regulations, disallow sick and vacation time or to abuse workers at all. Why would the workers who own firm vote to lower their salaries, reduce their benefits, make their working conditions worse, deregulate the firm, disallow vacation and sick time, or raid worker pensions. There is no incentive to do any of these things.

Further in capitalism, there is a tremendous incentive to replace workers with machines. But if workers owned the company, why would workers vote to replace themselves with machines? Which workers would be so stupid as to say, “Please fire me and replace me with a machine. I will just gladly become poor, broke and unemployed?” No one will say that.

One problem is that workers cannot be counted on to run their own plants. They tried this in Yugoslavia and it did not work. The revenue from the firm could either be taken home as profit or reinvested in  the firm. Workers generally chose to give themselves large paychecks and to underinvest in the firm. This eventually caused the collapse of the enterprise because if you stop sinking money back into your firm, eventually your enterprise falls apart from lack of internal investment.

The Mondragon cooperatives in the Basque Country of Spain have solved this. All the plants are worker owned and controlled, however the workers do not have the right to decide how much of the revenue to take home as pay and how much to reinvest in the firm. These decisions are made at the highest level. All of the co-ops are ultimately owned by several large regional banks. It is here that the decisions about how to allocate revenues are made. Workers cannot be relied upon to make these decisions because they consistently choose to take home too much as pay and to not reinvest enough in the firm.

In addition, at Mondragon, the workers hire and fire their own management. You would think that workers would abuse this also as they would hire the managers that let them slack off the most and did not force them to work hard or be responsible. However, there has been no such abuse. Workers make good choices for management – firm but fair managers. The important point is if the management becomes abusive, they can be fired by the workers.

This Cooperative Mode of Development works very well in  my opinion.

9 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Europe, Labor, Left, Regional, Socialism, Spain, Yugoslavia