The Misogynist’s Manifesto

“You Sir, are a Misogynist,” a bird’s-nested underbint told me recently.  And it’s true, I shan’t deny that.  My misogyny comes not from jealousy or hatred.  I love women.   I just accept that we men are better than them.  How long does the war of the sexes have to rage before a winner is declared? 

Men are simply superior.  How else to explain us being the uninterrupted dominant force between the sexes for millennia?  Human history demonstrates the indefatigable unsustainability of one group’s dominance over another.  All empires fall and every dominion ends.   All, that is, except for one. 

We have been taking the piss out of our sisters, wives and mothers since time immemorial.   We all came from the primordial soup as equals, but at some stage in the journey of human evolution Man competed with Woman and Man defeated her.  She has been under his yolk ever since. 

This continues even in our civilisation today, despite the obvious and inherent powers women possess over men.    Sex is a powerful tool, used by women over men and very rarely by men over women.  I’m no expert but I’ll wager that a male prostitute should probably expect same-sex clients if he wants to earn a living in the way his female counterpart wouldn’t have to. 

But then of course, as soon as female prostitution became profitable men took control over that too. 

Of course men need women to produce progeny, even if the reverse, thanks to modern insemination and donation practice, is not strictly true.  And this is something that we should be developing further: studding the more desirable sperms among us as the basis for the next generation and eschewing the less desirable donors

But men still dominate.  And that’s probably just as well.  Women tell me that they definitely aren’t spending billions of their husbands hard-earned on cosmetics simply for the beholding of men, so it isn’t unreasonable to assume this waste would still go on should we men all emigrate to Planet Pipe and Beard and leave them to their Diet Coke adverts and sexism hypocrisies.

The hubris is of course unwarranted.  The coin-flipping of amniotic fluid and Y chromosomes determined for me my place in the superior half of the species.   And that there are many millions of women better than me at absolutely everything I do is not under question. 

But my collective remains better than theirs.  The scandal is not that the superiority exists, nor that it sustains, nor that it was worse for women who died before I was born and I am asked to reparate for that because of my gender. 

The real scandal is how we confuse representative democracy for governance and capability and how this confusion is manifest in our House of Commons, and delivering an absurb iniquity as a result.

If the Commons is not a House of representatives it is nothing.  That women constitute just 22% of it is the scandal.  That’s less than half of what it should be, and is a high watermark:  in the entire history of our Parliament there have only ever been 400 women MPs.  We have more men that than in Parliament today.

It is possible to both a misogynist and a democrat, because democracy, by definition, is the power of the half-girlified masses.  Even when the masses demand senselessness.  

The Commons is meant to represent the country, not be the exclusive pool from which we draw our government.  The Lords is meant to be the seat of sage advice to the rabble from the house under it.  This should be the place for your experts, your wonkery, and massive Oxbridge over-representation, not the bearers of the ‘new politics’ in the Commons.   

And of course if the Lords’ is the seat of all this expertise and about 90% men then that sounds about right to me. 

The solution isn’t in the typical let’s-solve-sexism-with-a-different-kind-of-sexism which even the Conservatives succumb to.  The only solution is in changing the absurd nature of how we elect the Commons. 

In selecting candidates for election, each constituency party – usually male dominated – select not for the good of the country but who they think can win for their team.   They judge potential candidates according to the template of successful politicians in the past: who are of course men.  

Those people need to select without the risk that we, the feckless public, will reject their average female candidates in the way we don’t their average male candidates. 

So we need to remove the power to select the individual candidate from the voter and leave the choice of the people in the hands of the parties.  We give the parties the votes, they choose the people to sit in the legislature on their behalf.

By and large, we vote for promises, Leaders, manifestos, ideologies.  And of course the old favourites of fear and greed.  This change would mean we can no longer vote for our MPs because they are the “local” candidate, or seemingly a good egg.  But are these good reasons for voting for parliamentarians anyway? 

It takes away personal mandates that MPs currently swell their chests with.  This means less opportunity for MPs to rebel from the whip.  But this is no bad thing.  If you voted for Labour then you might not want your Labour MP voting against things that the party promised because of one MPs hackneyed interpretation of what his constituents want.  Something which usually only materialises as important when the majority is thin. 

Let us vote for our parties’ of choice and let them have a list of candidates that are directly proportional to the demographic of the country.  If 352 Tory MPs are elected, 176 are men and 176 are women.  If 200 Labour MPs are elected, 100 each.  Yes its quota’s, but we are dealing in lists for 600 candidates, not one.  And it’s not a massive shift from when the party sends their chosen daughters to seats they cannot lose, except you remove those instances where a poor MP is imposed on an undeserving constituency.

Critics will say that this removes “the constituency link,” which is pompous, needy nonsense anyway.  I want a legislature, not a human magnet for a community’s collective whinge that can do nothing about most of what s/he is asked.

Critics say the public would not be able to expunge MPs who have transgressed.  But we wouldn’t need to.  An MP guilty of expenses abuse would taint the whole list with his avarice, and his Leader if he failed to remove him.  The party would take its own disciplinary measures.  It sounds undemocratic, but the reality is they do this now anyway

In the world of safe seats like Bexley and Sidcup, it was not the public at large making candidate decisions but instead a small cabal of people interested in power but not policy.  So if we’re going to let candidate selection be in the hands of these people, let’s at least require of them that their choices fill the first requirement of the job: which dangerous and troublesome as it is, is representing the people.   Not just the men. 

And as a side benefit, it means we might finally get some lookers in the Commons.

This entry was posted in politiczzz and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Misogynist’s Manifesto

  1. charlotteonia says:

    Women tell me that they definitely aren’t spending billions of their husbands hard-earned on cosmetics simply for the beholding of men, so it isn’t unreasonable to assume this waste would still go on should we men all emigrate to Planet Pipe and Beard and leave them to their Diet Coke adverts and sexism hypocrisies.

    Hmm… AGB, your point might have been better if you hadn’t linked to a report detailing how the cosmetic industry and the advertising with it, including for Diet Coke, is created by men for the profit of men.

    Not defending it, just saying that when you’re finally absconded to ‘Planet Pipe and beard’ the nonsense that gets to dictate what women should look like will evaporate into the sky with you.

    Charl x

  2. Joe says:

    Ok, let me try a different tack:

    I’m not a rapist or murderer; I’m not the Taliban; I’m not even gay. I’m a garden variety misogynist. I don’t like women.

    I could argue that in mankind’s animal origins, before civilization, women pre-empted the ever-present fear of rape by latching onto a gentle, yet strong man, and make him her project.

    He’d tolerate her because she was easy on his eyes and she’d screw him, but he’d bail on her, leave her in the woods to fend for herself if she irritated him too much. Then how could there be a family? How could she get him to commit to helping her with her needs, including motherhood?

    She earned it. She studied her man and learned everything about him. She learned his likes and dislikes, and she made them her own. And it was only after she demonstrated to him that she was sympathetic toward him, and cared about him, that she became front and centre in his mind, and so he came to love her, despite love being a largely foreign relationship to his mind. It was in this way that she could get her man to change, through sympathetic redirection, not whining or negotiating, or threatening.

    What do we have today? We have snotty twats who can’t figure out how to say ‘Good Morning’ to men they walks past every day; we get ridiculing ‘Poor baby’ from women who a moment before were whining, seeking sympathy about problems with their car or computer, or whatever, implying that they’d like that guy to fix it for her; we get indignant protestations when they’re told not to look like sluts when they go out (actually they start the whole Slutwalk movement); they’ll rattle on ad nauseum about some perceived injustice based on their perspective alone, until the guy gives in.

    As much as the male orgasm is the weekly equivalent to the woman’s monthly period, and nature intended for lots of fucking for the health of both man and woman, the whole relationship has gone sour. While civilization outlawed rape, that power men had over women, women continued to ride their advantage over men, pushing the curve button to get men’s attention as they flaunt the natural attraction they have over men, even making a science out of it. With civilization, man has largely been a good sport about the treatment of women, while women feel it’s OK to routinely humiliate the man in return. Men are always the evil, men don’t love the darlings that women are, men are horny bastards, men need to change. Women are innocent victims.

    Women are lazy, chickenshit assholes. They are NOT men’s equivalent; they were never intended to be equals in all matters. Human sexuality demanded that they be complementary, so that while the man was the interface between nature and the woman, the woman was the interface between the fragile existence of the infant and child, and the man. The man and the woman NEEDED to be of one mind, and it was the woman’s lot to negotiate and balance the needs of the man and the needs of the child, and to show the man how that could work. This defined the woman. To this day, she needs that love and respect to direct the family, and if he knew that he is well represented in her mind, he’d accept most anything she asks for. Compare this to the whiney-assed, self-centred, entitled women of today. The misogyny is logical.

    Then there’s the matter of the respect and dignity the woman demands from the man. Her body is hers to command, and if an ordinary guy should show any manner of sexism, given that his drive may be as much as ten times hers, he’s a wanton creep. Meanwhile, she’ll spread her legs in a second for the rich, the famous, or even a gorgeous himbo.

    Bottom line: If you can’t ‘respect the cock’ as Tom Cruise’s character declared in the movie Magnolia, or if you don’t know what Alison Krauss is singing about in ‘You Say It Best,’ perhaps you shouldn’t bother with nice guys. We’ll continue to suffer the mild humiliation of jerking off, despite the fact that half the world’s population is perfectly suited to help us.

    Finally, for those women reading this, and thinking this is a terrific affront to womanhood, you may want to hold off responding for a week or two. You may realize that you have been handed an enormous freedom, certainly of far greater value than the price of any perceived slight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s