The Boondocks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1T-pnpsb3k&feature=fvwrel "Why not give her the money I'm using to pay for the dinner and let her buy groceries with it!"

Response Come Yet

I wrote a poem/lyrics to a famous Ratatat song called loud pipes. --the song doesn't matter, what I wrote does though.

I wrote out a deep frustration of mine and I think I did it rather well. Here is the link for you to check it out: "A Popular Part of Society"

Now that you have read it and listened to the tune and imagined me rapping it, let me explain it.

I am utterly frustrated and disgusted with our modern society's women. It's almost as though it is just the last two generations, of which I am part and I don't want to be. You see, young women these days have their brains filled with fantasies. They want something that they can't have: they think they want a boyfriend who will make their life exciting and "fun" and "passionate" who can make them "sensual" and cause them to laugh every day and be ultra sweet and protective and "treat them like a princess". Really, what that means is they want someone who will be their slave. They think they want someone who will treat them like they are the "only girl in the world", who will save them from everything in their life. Basically they fantasize about what they think they want out of a boyfriend and a husband.
And since reality is not some stupid fantasy, they don't want to give anyone a chance. They wait around until they think they "click" with someone, but it's just the passion that clicks--its the short-term excitement and butterflies that make them THINK that they are getting everything they want. In fact, the reality is that their brain shuts off certain judgmental skills and they float around aloof. This leads them to THINK that they have everything perfect, and then when it all subsides they THINK things are going bad and then things end and they over-dramatically weep and wail over the loss of their significant other--really, it's just a relapse of their brain shutting off, convincing them that the thing they can't have is the thing they want most and that they screwed good things up.

Such is the story of young girls, and young women. And they marry foolishly because they have no common sense when they get married and people like their parents and like Disney feed them a bunch of bullshit about how prince charming is supposed to sweep them off their feet and be the perfect gentleman. It's such a conflict that they don't realize the truth.

Relationships are build over time, over compromises, over commitment, and over love--not passion. Passion may spark the fire, but if there isn't any fuel or oxygen then nothing is going to work out. Love means caring for someone else, fulfilling their needs because of your commitment to them and your realization that you NEED to be loved. I don't think most young women realize that they NEED to feel loved. I think they believe their their parents are good enough, or their roommates are good enough, or their friends are good enough, and then the way that our working society is structured these days encouraged the workplace to be their family and to love each other. Women are drifting away from the root of what our society is founded on: families.

And families are really simple: parents come together with love and commitment and compromises, they bear children, raise those children to an age where they can leave home and continue the process. That is how society advances. Each generation is meant to be better than the last. And yet...I think we as a society have de-evolved into lesser than even the animal kingdom. Animals continue this pattern, husbandry encourages this pattern so that young are raised to where they can mate, and they mate and then fulfill their purpose in life, whether it is in the racetracks or in the glue factory.

Families are the most crucial unit of society and of God's plan for us. As a sociologist, meant to be THE expert on the necessary components of society, and he or she will tell you that the family is the most important institution. As a religious man what the most important unit in society is and he will respond with the family. The Family IS important. More important than school, more important than work, more important than church, more important than the local bar. Family. Yet young women these days fail to see that. They are trained not to, they are exposed to hegemony that they don't understand and that convinces them that they do not need or should not focus on starting a family. They fear what family is like. They fear what would happen to them if they branched out into the real world.

Why do I only say women? Why not men? --Because men have always had an innate desire for companionship. True, men can be at fault for making companions of men and never marrying, but at least they understand the desire for companionship. And in fact, most men desire female companionship, however they are being neglected by women. Men are trained so that they turn to women for their suckling--for the nourishment, for their survival...women too are trained to turn to women for their suckling. It used to be that after they were suckled, the women would be raised to desire a husband who can provide for their needs. Now they are raised to provide for their own needs. Where do men fit into the course that women are plotting?

As you know, or should know if you are reading this blog, I am a relationship coach and manage a blog titled Dating Zion. What that ultimately means is that I have devoted an intensive portion of my life to studying how relationships are formed and how dating ties into relationships. I have written a book that I am weighing whether I should get it published. I have done my research. Whether others desire to refute that, or they desire to challenge my results, I am all for that, but I have found more followers than opponents when I begin to explain relationships.
So when I say there is a problem with our society, and that contrary to what women and men are lead to believe, it isn't the men's fault, I should have some credence. I know more men who mope around wishing they had some female to turn to to encourage and nourish them, than I do women. And coming from my position that I have, I am privileged with knowledge about their characters and their lifestyles and I can honestly say that there is nothing wrong with these men. There is no reason why any girl wouldn't want to marry these men. They are in fact just that: Men. They work, they are attractive, they are incredibly kind and  many of them are quite powerful and confident. What more could a woman want?

--They want excitement. They want passion. They want to engage in risky behavior, or they don't recognize that they have needs. They don't realize that OTHERS have needs as well and that it is THEIR duty to fulfill those needs.

I for one am sick of hearing the "chivalry" bullshit. Women complain about how men are not chivalric these days. Men too, will side with them and say that other men are just rude. Yet I would argue that it is a false notion of society to think that women can expect men to lay down their coat in the mud for them to walk across when the women are not encouraging of the men, they are not willing to talk to the men or listen to the men, they are so self-absorbed that they don't see that there are starving men around them and the only thought on their mind is how inconsiderate men are for not holding the door for them.

In America, the colonists were fed up with certain aspects of their lives. They didn't appreciate that the British held guns in their face and forced them to comply in giving them a % of their wealth without giving them an opportunity to speak. To open their mouths and protest. To be represented. They did not have any of this and they rebelled. They founded a more perfect union. They made things just where there was injustice. I would compare the current society in a similar manner. Women may complain, but they are well favored in the world. They are privileged to more things than men are, and men are downtrodden by women  to the point where hegemony steps in and they actually THINK that the way women act is appropriate and fine. --This behavior may have been fine years ago when women were not allowed educations, were mistreated, and were ever malcontent. But not in these times.

We are in a new dawn for society. The fall of the communist empire, the rising influence of non-profit organizations, the spread of democracy around the world. All of these things signify that we are in a new world, we are playing a new game. And with a new game, there are new rules. I can go no longer in my patient walk. Women may wine and complain, they may consider me a jerk, they may refuse to hear me out, they may hate my ethos. --I do not care. In the new society, everyone is equal. Equal in blessing, equal in punishment.
I see no difference between the rich young man who refuses to help the poor beggar, than I do between the rich young woman who refuses to help the poor beggar. I also see no difference between the snobby white-trash girl who thinks she is better than her nerdy white-trash neighbor, than I do between the douchebag who thinks women are objects.
All I am saying is that women use men as objects when they look at posters of their favorite male singers and crush on them and then refuse to talk to the nice young neighbor boy because he is both young and neighborly and not famous and wealthy. Men are not objects to fulfill your wildest fantasies of power, wealth, entertainment, or sexual pleasure.
Women can be players just as much as men can.
Women can be jerks just as much as men can.
Women can break hearts just as much as men can.
Women can be as unchivalric as men can.

We just call all of these things differently. Yet our society condems the uses of words that such women can be referred to.
If a girl nearly ran me over in her car and I called her a bitch for doing so, not only would I be looked at by those around me as lacking temper, but her boyfriend would come after me, and she would likely run home and cry.
Yet if a man nearly hit a young woman on his motorcycle, it would be perfectly fine for her to call him a prick. No one would think lesser of her for doing so.

In our modern society, no one has an excuse. If we are to be liberal in our treatment of women, then we are to be liberal in our treatment of men. It should be okay for us to call women cunts and bitches and whores and flayas and pussies and pissy PMSy. We should be able to say them in public. However, I would rather we refrained from using any of those words and in fact did not call men dicks, players, jerkoffs, douchebags,  pricks, or other such terms. Why can't we all just be civilized and treat other people the way that WE would like to be treated, whether they are men or women?

Why can't we just overlook the nerdy, creepy, ridiculous, or unsocial behavior and forgive the rude, crude, snobbish, lazy, or 'otherwise' behavior.

I will never turn down the opportunity to build a relationship. I will be anyone's friend who so desires. I will even put up with the behavior of those around me because I so desire them to put up with my behavior. And I have a hard time when others place reservations on a relationship and forming a bond of friendship with someone simply because they spot things they don't like in the other person. For starters, you can never fully know a person--not even after 50 years of marriage. Second, people change daily, and to pass up the opportunity to help those people change to form more in line with your own reality would be foolish, because it is society's rejects who attempt to follow the crowd, the real "crowd" is the one that is lead by a leader capable of convincing his or her followers to agree with and apply his or her philosophies. Don't be fooled.

If someone takes an interest in you, do all that is in your power to retain that interest. --oh, let me tell you! In marketing, it is too hard to win someone over who is not interested in your product, yet it is easy to reach a mutually benefiting outcome with someone who already has an interest in the product. The same is true for relationships. It is easier for you to have a friendship with the boy next door who has taken an interest you, than it is to have a friendship with the poster on your wall who you will never meet, never share a connection with, who will never get your back when others will not, who will never comfort you when you are down, never encourage you when you need encouragment.

Oh, and one more thing: If he gives you a chance, do not fail him.
I wish I could rely on the principle of Karma: what goes around comes around. But alas, it is not an actively taught aspect of my religion nor do I believe my audience would believe in it. But I have seen that those who are rude recieve rudeness in return--not from those they were rude to, but to those closest to them. Karma, in an odd sense, is real. And if you turn down your one chance with a mysterious stranger who you have already prejudged, you may be turning down the next poster on your wall.


To conclude, I MUST voice the meaning of the final lines:

If it comes to it, I will trade in my relationship coaching and all of the help that I provide people with their relationships, and I will turn to a form of condemnation. I will condemn men and women not because they are a man or because they are a woman, but because they are a blotch, a spot, a pock, a cancerous cell in society that must be removed. I will trade in my helpful attitude for an attitude of disgust. Why? Because people respond better to the realization that they are worthless and insignificant, more than they respond to that it is not their fault and that they can improve. My white shield will become a black one, and I won't defend them much longer.

Draw

I realized today that my personally draws, more than comes.

What I mean is that I have a lot of mannerisms that invite people in--whether it's my natural body language or verbal language... I just have a lot of aspects to my life that pull people into my world.

I also noticed that a lot of the time that I explore other cultures or people or venture in their little worlds to gain an understanding of them, it's relaly just to get them figured out so that I can convince them to join my own world.

Ethnocentrism? No. Because I see their world and I really do take things from it--but only the best things or the things that I think are worthy of taking in. The rest of it is that stuff that just doesn't work out and I throw it out.

I suppose this sound like I'm a very persuasive and possibly manipulative person. But I beg to differ--I'm just a rare breed of people who have natural tendencies for leadership and who people find it easy to follow.  

The real point that I want to make is that there are SOOOO many people who don't let others into their lives. That don't branch into other worlds. That don't know how to organize things or coordinate things--These are the ethnocentric people. Why? Because they are STUCK in their behavior and they blame others for being out of it. --I think there is a difference even though it might not sound like it...

put myself out there

Now that school is in again, I have a lot more opportunity (plural...ies) to open my mouth and state what is in my mind. But I am finding as I put myself out there, I don't entirely know how my opinions or thoughts are going to be recieved or if they will be understood.

I'm not as good as speaking as I am at writing. This I do know, because when I write I often go back through and correct everything that I wrote, but in speaking I do not have that privilege--I have to ramble on and on, and I don't like ramblers so I avoid becoming one. --I'm still learning :) that's why I'm in school derrr. But I must point out, that it isn't the lack of reasoning capabilities that  prevents me from coming up with meaningful things to say and bring into life. It is that I don't know how to put into words the things that are in my head. (funny, because the way I am writing this blog is really raw and unedited--just straight from my head with few changes on'ce it's out there)

So that leads me into the truth I want to really bring up: that sometimes when I walk away from a class or from a discussion, or what-have-you, I question just how well I conveyed an idea that was in my head...You see, -I- see certain connections in my mind, some of them are subconscious hints, others are glimmers of conscious thoughts that disperse so quickly through my mind that I forget what point I am really trying to make and are more like notes I would put on a cue card.
And then I open my mouth and speak in a way that I think can really be riddling. --Riddles such as these make for good poetry, but not for common tongue.

**NOTE: Remind me to write about the common tongue idea sometime, because it's really itneresting: the difference between modern english that you speak to your friends, and english that you speak in the intellectual world.***


So I guess what I am saying is taht I put myself out there a lot and I have reached a point where I am either too tired (I HAVE been up at nights unable to sleep on this aweful mattress) or I have had so many experiences otherwise (I HAVE been well accustomed to speaking my mind, sometimes to the point where it makes enemies of people who misunderstand me) that I don't care what I say. If I say something and it is misinterpreted, I care very little about that. But when I REALLY want someone to understand me, I'll write them a letter or email or something (text message?) The common tongue is limited in its ability to convey important information because the common tongue is meant to be fast, not slow and rhetoric, intellegence, knowledge, --it all takes a long time to learn and convey.

20 min

It's a race. I have 20 min about before my clothes get done drying and I can take them out and shower and go to bed. But I wanted to write a quick article of something that popped into my head thanks to a friend of mine and a conversation we had while driving in the car today.

The jist of the conversation was that she claimed Utah, LDS boys (I'm paraphrasing and so I hope I'm not taking extra liberties) think that girls are all about getting married. At the time, I didn't have an argument for her, so I settled on an old principle I learned long ago, made a movie about, wrote several articles about on my blog, and am here before you today: I don't think anyone knows what they really want. --She went off about all sorts of things related to that topic and she appreciated my comment, but I think she missed the real point I was making: little LDS Girls are the same way. No one REALLY knows what they want until they proceed with it, so you're not going to know if you want to get married unless you proceed with it. These little LDS boys and girls will not know whether they want it or not until they try it, so I don't think it's fair to judge anyone under that mindset--to do so would to judge an innocent man or woman (that's a play on words and I DO mean both of them)

What I wish I had a space to gripe and complain about is this very topic, and thankfully I started this blog up for that very purpose, for me to argue and expound things I have come to know in an atmosphere where it is less likely to damage readers of my other blogs. So here goes:

LDS girls don't serve missions, they don't know what the world is about, they think that life is about 'figuring out' what life is about. They go on little 'quests' to realize what they want out of life, they turn into little flayas and then they have the nerve to go around saying how they hate that "-all-" LDS guys are about getting married.

To these women, I say: you women have lost your sense of position in life. You are like the englishman who left his home in china, fleeing the revolution, and returned and was upset when he could not obtain possession of it again.

It's true, there ARE men out there who only talk to women to marry them, but guess what? the rest of them only talk to women because they want to have sex with them. You're growing up in a world that you know nothing about, and when you have finally come to the conclusion of what this world is about, you'll regret not getting married sooner, not settling down, and not enjoying life the way you are supposed to.
And then for the small percentage of guys who aren't about getting married or sex, (which is smaller still because a lot of the guys who think they are the exception to this really have deep down intentions for one or the other), their reasons are platonic only because they ALREADY have someone who can provide for their sexual or marriage needs.
Yes, NEEDS that's what it comes down to. Men have needs, as do women. Women just have a way of not realizing that they can fulfill their needs through marriage. As far as I am concerned, only an idiot would pass up the chance to get married, and only the fool would sincerely complain about the opportunity to get married being right in front of them. --I say sincerely because I believe most women do not know what they are saying (again, most women do not know what they want).
Let me portray this logically: when you're married, you have someone who supports you and your endeavors (emotional), when you're married, you have someone who you can learn with and from (mental) and you can fulfil any sexual desires you might have without commiting crimes against God (physical). [there are other things, but each falls under the physical, mental, emotional domains, and I'll let you use your imagination here because I am under the assumption that you are smart]
Again: Only an idiot would pass up the chance to get married.

What those women who complain "guys are just about marriage" are really saying is that they haven't found anyone who fits into their plans. What that REALLY means is that they aren't on the right level that THEY need to be to have a marriage relationship. It means that these women have thus far FAILED in life to run with the herd. There is someting wrong with THEM.
Why do I say that? Why don't I say that there is somethign wrong with societY?
Because Society ISN'T complaining. The opposite end is quite happy with how things are and change is slow, so I can assume that they are going to continue being happy...

This all comes back to that one principle: You can't change anyone but yourself. If YOU have problems with the way guys are and act to/with you, it's probably something YOU are doing wrong. I am fulheartedly a believer in the power of leadership, and I know that any TRUE leader can get people around them to whatever they want--if these women had more of the substance of a "gorgeous woman" they would have EVERYTHING that they want out of life and have LITTLE to complain about--especially other people.



***As a side note, I'm not sure I mentioned this anywhere on my blog, but I HAVE written a book on what it means to be a gorgeous woman, as I kinda touched on in this article. It's more than physical beauty, it's more than emotional or intellectual prowess, it's an overall package. These women lead in society, they control rather than are controlled, they accomplish and are a GREAT contribution to the good fight. What woman would not want to be that? It encompasses everything, so why would they not want to be a gorgeous woman? --because they set their standards too low or sights too low, and they care about things of...
Ya, let's just say if YOU have a problem with your world. Change it. Don't blame other people. You NEVER have an excuse to blame other people for things you dislike in life. And I am one to say that: I spent a great deal of my life complaining about how life was treating me, and it got me no where. But then -I- changed (not the world) and I am happy. I am on the good path. I am a worker and a spreader of good everywhere.

Gross

Not everything grosses me out. Blood doesn't phase me. Most horrific sights don't phase me. I guess smells phase me a little if they are disgusting enough or associated with disgusting things. I used to think poop was abhorrid, but not so much anymore. Old, fermenting saliva though, that's a smell I definitely do not like, and the other day I had to experience it once more when I opened up the machinery of my sink's drain due to a clog. yuck!

But among physical things, I'm not all that grossed out by very much. What gets me is human nature.

I recently began re-reading the novel Frankenstein for a class. I appreciated it the first time, but this time certain details have been brought to my attention that are conflicting within me. You see, Frankenstein is largely a feminists' story...a story about how "the men's world" is monstrous and to be abhorred--or so they claim. As I read the story again, I notice how Shelly is setting up the story in a way that tears down the cultural structure she lived in. --It isn't that I feel she had good reason to do so, because I believe in her time women were considered lesser beings to be subjected to the whims of men, but what I am conflicted about are HER reasons for doing so.

Let me just jump to the case, otherwise this article will be too lengthy, and without pointing fingers at specific people, because no matter how I put it, it is controversial:

Women will never be on the same intellectual, spiritual, emotional, or physical level that men are. --Now before you jump the gun and accuse me of being sexist, let me state something about men:

Men will never be on the same intellectual, spiritual, emotional, or physical level that women are.

How can that be? How can they both be that way? How can men and women NEVER cross paths?--Because they ARE men and women. We are different.

A comment was made today in class that "that's what women do...they give birth to women". What do men do? They do not hold the keys to life. Men go to war and bear the burdens of death--or they ought to.

My ethos may betray me, but I am under the experiences in life to say that women ought not enter man's world, just as men ought not enter women's world. And I don't mean to make a clash between definitions here. I mean to say that women are in the sentries of life. They are the guardians of all godly powers of procreation.

In my religion, there is a document that explains what the purpose and definition of a family is. In that document it explains some details about what the role of husbands and fathers are, as well as the role of women. Paraphrasing, it states that women are in charge of nourishing the family and children. It says little more than that about women, and yet it goes into quite a deal of depth about how men are to preside over the family, to ensure the proper material provisions, etc. etc., and then it states that men, too are to nourish the family and children. For quite some time in my life I have wondered why women would be given a charge over something that men were also meant to do, and that was the only thing they were to do. I believe very much in my religion and am under the understanding that this document is from God, and so the thought of questioning hasn't ever conquered my soul. But still (let me put yourself in my position), if God told you this, would you not wonder what the grand meaning of it was?

A week or so ago, I believe I have come to an understanding of the meaning of this, and it has only solidified my understanding of humanity and how a perfect society would exist. (That's what religion is all about isn't it? explaining how perfect society functions and seeks to work towards that perfection [heh, don't quote me on this, it's a thought provoking question])

In the perfect world, one which will one day encompass this earth, women WILL nourish the family. Not in an intellectual, cultural, emotional, physical, or spiritual sense, no. To nourish is "to strengthen, build up, or promote", to "sustain", or to "cherish, foster or keep alive". In the perfect world, women will be the guardians of relationships. They will protect and encourage the development of relationships. They will build a home where friendship, loving, bonding, respecting, and leading and following is permitted. For, without relationships, what are we as a human race? We are nothing. We have nothing if we are not connected in some way.

It took me quite a deal to realize this; but the more I look for evidence of it, there is a copious amount of evidence for this truth. What does Satan do that is one of the banes of women? He encourages them to gossip--to tear down relationships. He forces them to be timid, so that when dignity and honor and respect and love are on the line, they are too scared to permit it. He attacks their ability to give birth to God's spirit children, and when they lose their virginity in a bloody mess of disgust, not sanctioned by a committed relationship of marriage, he causes them to question the existence of true relationships.

To keep alive. Women are to devote their lives to keeping alive relationships, particularly the important ones.  If a person were to be dying--dying an emotional death in which they had no friends, no family, nothing. Would not the Samaritan woman rescue him?

Men, too, have a responsibility to nourish relationships, but in the perfect world, men will provide the bulk of the physical work--the work that brings in food and shelter and continued prosperity. This isn't to say that women won't work--relationships are formed by working together. What this DOES mean, is that men are to be the leaders. they are to preside. to be the head. And a good leader knows that his best employee is himself, he leads by example, he does what he can to reach the goals that he and his followers are trying to accomplish.
In a family, the man is to be a leader and the woman is to ensure that the relationships are fused tightly together. If either party fails to fulfill their purpose, then the whole structure crumbles, because a leader can only lead if the communication lines are in place so that his ethos supports following. If the son and the father are at odds with one another, the woman should step in to assist a tighter connection between them. Leaders never maintain their rule by themselves, but they require the help of others. The wife should help the husband.

Let me clarify something important: Women and Men CAN be equal, but they cannot be compatible if they are equal. What I mean is (insert some philosophy here) that if two people who were identical, except for their genders were to meet, they would not be compatible. They would likely be at odds with one another. They would not get along. This is because good relationships are formed when different people come together and bring their own pathos, ethos, and logos to the table. Opposites attract best because they balance each other out and create order. Two ends of a magnet repel one another because they are too similar.

So Mary Shelly brings up an interesting social ideal, but I do not buy into it. If I lived in her time I would fight against it, because I see now that what she wanted was a great social change. She wanted women to be on an equal plain as men were, yet their society was structured in a way that it was prosperous to the purpose of men and women. I largely believe that Shelly's argument is fallicious(sp?): what she is really at odds with is the intellect of man. Men of her day were stupid. They were pompous, they were arrogant, and to be such is no crime if they truly are what they say. But these men did not possess the wisdom to understand that women had a greater purpose that they were not permitting.

As I study this gross history of ours, I sometimes recognize where society got off track. I believe that these notions of equality in men and women are so off track now that our society has become worse in this area than it was back then. We were fools to stray from the system of Judges and families. And ever since we took our own path, we have ever been striving to fill in holes that 'our' system could never facilitate. This has made for a gross looking, odd smelling, complex machine.