Work Smarter not Harder
Do you or someone you know need a job? If you have a cam, microphone and reasonable Internet bandwidth, then I have a job for you that you can start right away on. Contact form:
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at jobsyt @ h20ho.com
I need to collect data for research I am completing. Please fill in this quick 30 second long survey.
Thank you very much.
It is ubiquitous, this image of a dumb man, father or typical man married to a stunningly beautiful genius woman. This is the norm for many of television’s sitcoms for decades such as Bewitched, Married with Children, Everyone loves Raymond and The Simpsons to just name a few. Is this a reflection of reality? There are many sitcoms that try to imitate reality. These shows are not comedies usually and if they are, the humor focuses on different types of humor.
However, shows that depict men to be characteristically stupid tend to be comedies. When we were children and we cruelly called an overweight child fatty or fatso, we were being mean and unmindful, and we usually hurt or harmed that subject child with our words. Sometimes we laughed but this was a humor that caused cognitive dissonance. However, if we called that overweight child Slim, then the humor, although still harmful, was easier to accept. It’s OK to call a smart person stupid. They are smart and calling them stupid is not only not true, but they are smart enough to not be bothered by this. You don’t call a stupid person stupid and expect the stupid person to be impressed or find the remarks funny. You can call them smart though and even have it interpreted as humor.
Portraying men as stupid in a sitcom has not really bothered men. Some men are stupid and don’t see any issues with portraying men as stupid. Other men are smart and are not bothered by these sitcoms. However, as women begin to believe that this is how men are naturally, then men begin to be bothered by this. Now we hear a lot regarding equality and even the subject of who is smarter, men or women is being discussed more often.
Who is Smarter: Men or Women?
This topic of who is smarter, men or women, for the most part, is not allowed to be discussed or this dialogue initiated by men. If you do, you are a misogynist in the eyes of many people, men and women included. However, if women bring up the topic, they are not looked at as misandrists. The default for most men is the debate, the dialogue, the facts, the data and the topic itself being introduced by a woman does not make men hate that woman as being misandrist, but challenges men competitively to enter the debate, to get to the truth with data, logic and anecdotal evidence regardless as to where the obvious results lead.
If we produced a lot of sitcoms where the women were stupid, many things would happen. Firstly, unless the plot was good, the sitcom would probably be boring and unentertaining and cancelled. Secondly, the woman being stupid would not be funny. That’s like calling a fat boy Fatboy. It’s not funny. The boy is fat. Calling him fat is describing reality and it is not funny. If anything, one should be concerned for the health of the child. Thirdly, women would lose their shit. Feminist’s would pop forehead veins and hours of wonderfully humorous footage would appear on YouTube. This is not funny to women. Calling fat people fat is not funny to fat people.
Data show that men are much stupider than women. However, data also show that men are much smarter than women as well. The reason men are portrayed as stupid in sitcoms is because portraying men as stupid is funny. It is not the shared reality that most of us have. This fact that portraying men as stupid is funny proves how society, both men and women, perceive men. Solidifying this genre of sitcom in the playlists of television stations across the world only reinforces a notion, whether true or false, that men are smarter than women.
The real problem is that women are fooled, conditioned and constantly exposed to this message and they do not have the analytical abilities to not let it affect them and they resort to believing the narrative.
Recently, there has been a lot of adieu about the censoring of YouTube videos and channels that promote messages that advertisers do not like. This is normal, fair and natural in capitalist economies. After all businesses are not in the business to not make money. As their goals, usually, include making money, it is in their best interests to not upset people if possible. Well, it’s not people they do not want to upset, it is the purchasing decision makers they do not want to upset.
If people do not agree with the company’s position, then we, as consumers, have the right to let the companies know how we feel and the best way to do this is to not buy their products. This quickly and definitively sends the proverbial message directly and in a crystal-clear manner to the company.
This seems fair. The problem is this, women spend 85 cents of every dollar spent in the US today. They do not earn 85 cents of every dollar, they just spend it. Therefore, it is important not to upset women. Messages and ideologies women do not like will become muted because of the machine-like workings of capitalism. There is no bigotry, unfairness or cohesive underpinnings hell bent on marginalizing men at play. There are only economic concerns.
Even men’s only products have an equal or more than equal feminine slant behind their marketing efforts because if you can get women on board for the purchase of men’s products, success is more realistic regarding conversions or sales.
We have heard many times that men’s voices, needs and desires are muted in media. Logically, why would any company spend resources such as time and money on messages geared towards men whether it be regarding their needs or desires in their expensive marketing materials and media? They would not, they should not and they do not.
Now, we find ourselves helpless as we, men, once again see our energies to articulate our lives and reality demonetized. This will not stop us but it will set us back substantially in our efforts. For men to have our own spaces to discuss issues important to us and our lives, we need to organize what we do as men on an individual basis if we desire to save, protect and grow solutions which improve our lives.
There are three things which we need to consider to not only provide vital information and dialogue on men’s issues, but to be on equal grounds we rightly deserve as 50% of the population. These are purchasing power, men rights advocacy and the empowerment of MGTOW content producers.
Men’s rights advocacy (MRA) is a waste of time as you need to logically and rationally discuss real and abstract concepts in depth and honestly with a gynocentrically-conditioned society of both men and women deluded by gynocentrism. MRA is not a total waste of time, it’s like when you do something that you know will not work so that when your interlocuter pompously attacks you and says “why didn’t you try this?” that you can say you did. It is a huge waste of energy, time, money and efforts but should be done because we need to stick fingers in every little hole of the dyke to stop the leaks.
Men need to start showing up in data of surveys as to who makes purchasing decisions. This is difficult as well. Men usually do not care about surveys or take part in them. When and where are most survey’s being administered and who are administering them? No doubt some studies are solid. However, a lot of marketing research is carried out by private companies themselves. Studies are carried out in stores where certain products are sold and when traffic in those stores are high. The surveys, like all surveys, are only indicative of reality to certain degrees. When a man goes shopping, it is usually with a list, goal and tunnel vision like a surgical attack unless they are accompanying their partner. It is my experience that men, for the most part, do not like shopping a lot, not as women do. Additionally, if we were to participate in a survey while shopping the data would probably be secondary to other concerns a man might have such as getting the heck out of that mall. Even if men did tighten the purse strings, I doubt studies would correlate such. Many women would still say they make the decisions even if they did not. Additionally, men might even state they do not make purchasing decisions even if they did.
Finally, the empowerment of MGTOW content producers is something you can directly contribute to. Personally, I do not create much MGTOW content other than the odd article so I am not implying any form of remuneration for me. There are many substantial MGTOW content producers, particularly on YouTube. We can, as men, as supporters, contribute financially to these providers. I am not suggesting anything but some form of fairness from you personally. Perhaps you can donate $20 per year, yes, per year to 10 or 20 content developers. That’s $1 or $2 per year.
This is not a big responsibility, quite the contrary. In fact, I am sure many of you would think this to be irrelevant. It is not. Many of the MGTOW content providers have many thousand subscribers and $1 from each of them would be HUGE. I strongly urge you to think about this. The content has helped me and helped you. Imagine if you had never stumbled upon any MGTOW content ever and what your life would be like if you had not. MGTOW is not a group or club. It is a life choice. It is difficult to organize but you only need to organize yourself. That is one of the nice things about MGTOW.
Additionally, think about the amount of taxes you pay in a year not just income tax but sales taxes. Of course, a major portion of your tax dollars are being spent on roads, utilities and military for our protection. However, there are billions of tax dollars being spent on services you do not qualify for although you pay for them. Allocating just $20 per year specifically for MGTOW issues is something you should seriously consider.
The decisions of YouTube to demonetize and or delete MGTOW channel content is an effect of capitalism. The fact that 85 cents of every dollar is spent by women is affecting capitalism. Capitalism affects men. The first thing is to understand this. The second thing is up to you.
If you consider the current state regarding reproduction rights between men and women, one can see that problems are prominent regarding men supporting children who are not theirs. Measures to ensure men are biological fathers are being subverted by laws in which DNA paternity tests are illegal. In fact, they have even tried to make it illegal for a man to secretly test his ‘own’ children decades ago.
Here are a few articles supporting the above position:
http://www.rense.com/general51/chsup.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/child-support_n_3672474.html
DNA prohibition:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1394653/Move-to-outlaw-secret-DNA-testing-by-fathers.html
https://www.ibdna.com/paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-france/
The male position is heading towards identifying DNA of all babies when born, whereas the political pressure against this position would rather not identify the biological parents. This same tactic is being used in countries such as Sweden where you cannot say a criminal looked like a 6’4’’ black Muslim male if that is how the suspect appeared to you.
When considering the two positions, the position in favor of mandatory DNA identification, for this writer, appears more accountable, more responsible, more realistic regarding reality and more prone to foster better relationships between the sexes. The position where enfant DNA identification is prohibited appears to have a bleaker, greyer future.
http://canadiancrc.com/Mandatory_paternity_testing.aspx
Not requiring DNA biological evidence regarding identifying the parents leads to not needing to be truthful, distrust, the enslavement of men, the destruction of the nuclear family and a strong washback on any desire for a man to enter a marriage contract or even a long-term relationship let alone living together.
Taking a few moments to think about where each of these roads take us in 100 years, mandatory DNA tests might not save the family, then again it might. One thing is for sure, the truth will be important. Reality will have a little bit more truth to it. Prohibitive DNA will lead to a parent-less family where children are raised by the state in some manner or farm as men will be repelled from any form of a relationship with women. The only men that will be willing, will expect to be a slave. That is not a problem though as there are lots of men that would be able to be legally tricked into being a slave.