Societal divisions/cliques - the empowerment of men vs women

From this outlay - it's clear to see that - the leverage of the female is, come "approach" me - they incite approach.
Dressing provocatively etc.

And just to highlight - this is no anti-feminist proposition.
Forever was, and forever will be - I make no bones about that.

The "leverage" of the man, however - does not seem to be as clearly defined.

Typically, in Ireland - there's certainly the "jack the lad" culture?
Go out with mates, make lots of noise - I dunno?
I'll be honest - it's not particularly relevant to my ultimate end point but, I'm trying to characterize the scene as it currently seems to be.

What I'm alluding to here is, the "clique" culture - seems to be the premise or basis upon which Irish males base their ability to integrate with the superior gender.
Outside of Ireland?
Apparently main land Europeans have their own thing going on - but I'm not familiar with that.

Now - of course their are exceptions, so I will expect the occasional, "Oh no my friend Jim - he's so super cool. Goes out by himself, meets new people chats all night, girls all over him even though he's a huge loner...." etc etc.

I'm speaking, in general terms.

Alright - what's my point here?


Cliques.

In broader terms.
Subcultures.

In even broader terms - whole cultures.
Religions.
Communities.
Masses of people who adhere to similar thought and behavioural concepts - becoming more specific through the culture, as subcultures etc, develop.

In terms of their establishment - was their initial purpose - just something as simple as, the will/desire to effectively, assist in engaging with the opposing gender?
Adhere to a mentality, that allows one to be part of a group - for there is security in that group.
Those outside that group, part of no other one, alone and isolated, shall be shunned and labelled as outcast and strange - no?
In general terms - does that, or does that not, seem to be the case?


Now - hypothetically - purely on paper, what if - there were a means to establish a male role, not identical to, but with a similar end product - to that of the female.

That end product - the formulation of a male "leverage", as it were.

Picture the loner at the bar, waiting on the hot temptresses to approach and proposition him.

Purely on paper - if there were a means to have this fantastical imagining, to come to a realistic fruition.


In theory, if that began to transpire on a grander scale - the dissolution of the "clique" based culture.
The disbandment of "clique" divides - divides of upper and lower class cultures, belief patterns within cultures, national divides, religious divides.

The promotion of a greater sense of human, and humane - integrity.


All starting with a dude stood alone at bar.

Theoretically.

The greatest structures started with a single brick.

I think it's important to note also that - whilst being an outsider/isolated/loner, can be at one end of the spectrum in terms of attractive appeal - being a part of a "clique" culture, and being, if you will, a foremost member, can and does seem to be a highly attractive feature.

I think that's plane to see often times, perhaps particularly amongst youth groups, where individual mindedness has not yet had the opportunity to fully come about?

Or perhaps the self assurance it yields in terms of being around a group of people who provide just that.


The bottom line being - transcending the necessity for that situation.

Female culture - whilst not necessarily promoting individuality - as noted above, can, or has the ability, to assert a very individualized presentation of oneself, without personal compromise.


The point being - if male culture can reach something similar, could the implications be as profound as I've alluded to?


And what specifically, SPECIFICALLY - is it, that gives rise to that individuality, confidence in oneself, autonomous confidence, as it were.


I mean, every second thread on this forum, and probably the majority of sub-forums with remotely similar discussion all carry the same catch phrases:
"Be confident, be yourself etc etc" - which is subjectively prone to massive ambiguity, and lacks any real definition.

A prime example of a means to circumvent this imbalance of leverages is, as we all know - Islamic culture.

If of course it's not taboo to mention that.
I certainly don't want to be accused of bigotry, nor do I advocate it.
I lived in an Islamic community for many years, worked with Arabs, trained in a gym with Arabs, actually shared an apartment with Arabs - I do not consider myself an authority on their state of affairs - but, this information is not coming off the cuff, or by way of some partial media informed musings.

When there is such a disproportionate state of leverage between genders, there can often come - unpleasantries.
That's just a fact, that I don't dispute.
Their general sentiment is, "all women are cheating, lying, manipulative individuals of incredulously low moral fibre".

As a means to balance out the ascendency, as oppose to devising means to raise, their own empowerment potential - the culture is instead aimed at, diminishing that of those whom they seek.

Not to dance around the subject - we're all grown ups here - the end goal of man, is ultimately, sex with women.
And of course, in this imbalance of leverage or "appeal", embodied by each gender, there comes the potential for all those unpleasantries.

Thus - the oppressive nature of the culture.
The "clique", en masse.
And because it's so, "popular" - it's become accepted.


However - consider a situation where, very simply put, as oppose to, oppressing the opposition - there was a move toward, equalization via, development of the self, in some capacity?

Now - this is all theoretical.

The means to this end - we have no idea.

But - theoretically - let's just hypothesize this being the case.


In a farcically straight forward analogy - your neighbour has a lovely Mercedes.
You are driving a ten year old Nissan.

Instead of forcing your neighbour to constantly wear a car cover, so as not to raise your ire, and inspire jealousy and resentment - which may be inevitable - hmm?
Which is the comparison to Islam (covering, etc).

Instead of that, you go out, and get yourself, I dunno - what's a popular car these days?

A Lamborghini.
I see Conor McGregor drives one - they must be pretty flash.

So, now that you no longer have this sputtering road worn work horse car in your driveway, and have instead replaced it with a V8 loaded beast, with chrome rims and snarling bonnet vent - that very pretty, admirable Mercedes in your neighbours drive - I mean, for sure, it's nice - still.
You wouldn't decline a spin in it.

But it not longer induces that intolerable vexatious animosity, resentment, frustration - cause that's the way these things work.
You, got the Lamb.
Mercedes no longer draw your attention.

I do think it's important to note - perhaps imperative to note that - among primarily males, and to a lesser extent, females, there is this subculture....

Now - how to define it exactly, maybe a challenge.

I have little doubt its purpose is, again - ultimately, the impetus to promote appeal to the opposite gender.
Embody something which they, in the most misled sense, feel is attractive.

"Bad dude" culture, perhaps?
Prominent amongst lower income brackets, but seen across all, particularly in youth.

The will to promote an image of being, intimidating, perhaps?
For there is a sense empowerment is inherent in that?


I have little doubt, this is ultimately a means to compensate of personal or character deficits - for often these, "bad dudes", well - they take a true ass whoopin', certainly not like the figurative, "real man".

But ultimately a means to attempt to compensate for a lack of true leverage - true attractive leverage or embodiment that is infallibly attractive, pertaining to the opposite gender.


And perhaps that is because there is not a well defined characterization of, what is - truly attractive.

Misled.

But - non-the-less, and very prominent subculture in and of itself.

Then of course with that clique/culture - or group/gang mentality - you must also factor in the manifestation of strong egocentric tendencies, more often than not, with negative consequences.

And let's face it.
This is ultimately aimed at inciting a "confidence", which is lacking - as is also the case with the addition of the dissociative property of alcohol.

Again - we see this in social settings, more often then not, where the underlying intention is, engagement with the opposing gender.
As referred to in Irish terms, very much a "jack the lad" type of presentation.

Often times, egocentricity is coupled with the inherent need to undermine others - thus inciting a personal feeling of being the, "alpha dog".

In other words - negative consequences of what is effectively underlying personal incompetency, in some capacity.

Due to the group nature of these actions - opposing genders will often validate this negativity, very simply because, "everyone's doing it".
And buying into that - establishing a connection with the clique "ring leader", as it were, the transference of egocentricity also transpires; in and of itself, this validation translates as empowerment (albeit at the cost of non-clique affiliates) to those administering it.


And finally - within an established subculture or clique therein - comes, somewhat of a comfort zone, which contributes directly to the inhibition of the impetus toward personal growth.

"I had to get a change of environment, get myself out of that comfort zone..." - etc etc.





More to follow:

But let's stick with the principle.

Indifference.
Genuine indifference - to the hot girls, that everyone simply CANNOT ignore.

Let's revisit my laughable analogy above - hmm?
The Mercedes versus the Ford.
And then, the Mercedes, versus the LAMB.


True indifference, may transpire - if, the male, was, truly more developed in areas that pertain to sexual attraction, than the female in question.

I'm not claiming this has realistic translation potential.

This is all, super hypothetical.

But I like playing around with hypothesis so - let's stick with it for a moment.


Area's that pertain to sexual attraction.

Let's flip that back.

Area's that pertain to indifference.

If indifference is the male version of "tantalizing" the female - then, it has a proportionality to attraction.
Make sense?

Much like the female leverage is, being provocative, dressing alluringly, "come 'approach' me".
Bang in "provocative" into the thesaurus - and the first result you will get be, sexual appeal.
Attraction.


And then compare the two end results there - if someone is truly indifferent - truly oblivious to your presence - that can be kind of provocative in itself, can it not?
Kind of, "make you crazy" - provocative.

Tremendous leverage, in a way.

Leverage - just like an attractive female has leverage via her alluring presentation, which typically and historically - has been the sole form of social leverage.
i.e. woman being the dictators of when a sexual transaction will or will not transpire.

Would that be fair enough to say??

As above - there are exceptions but, few and far between would also go in tandem with that.


Therefore - the male version of being "provocative", is being, indifferent.
And both are, as outlined - forms of leverage, in the sexual transaction.

And I think in that sense - personal indifference - the male denomination tend to do fairly okay.

Historically, role of women in society, whether that was just how things unfolded, or whether male induced repression played a factor - but in terms of "personal" indifference, historically at least, maybe women fell a little shorter than men.


More contemporary generations, that is of course being modified - or having the opportunity to be modified, as there is a precedent of women establishing themselves in the work place etc.


Curiously - one thing that is notable, or apparent from my own point of view at least is that - some women endeavour, to - have babies - curiously enough, and it seems that, from a point of view of almost, self validation, they feel this action asserts themselves in some capacity.

As in, being a mother - gives them a well defined purpose.
And actually lends itself to establishing this particular component of indifference.


Now this might really seem like I'm slating the hell out of a certain, but not entirely miniscule, subculture - but it is what it is, and for the purposes of this outlay, I'm merely highlighting it.

A girl - not even a woman - maybe still in her teens - with kids.
An individual whose not done raising themselves, put in a position of such tremendous responsibility as being self delegated the welfare and prosperity of a child.

And having kids at such a young age, and in a state of such lack of personal accomplishment - it's almost considered, "trendy".

Much like the embodiment of certain behavioural characteristics, such as traveller culture emulation, by those who do not originate from traveller backgrounds.

Why?

Because it's empowering.
As alluded to previously, the embodiment of something which is potentially considered intimidating perhaps?

And empowering in this sense - empowerment orientated endeavours, can also be labelled as, "trendy", amongst these sub-cultures.

The will for a sense of empowerment - egocentricity - engaging in what is "trendy" - alluding to a very bizarre, almost counter good sense and rational, type of subculture.


In any case - the ultimate point being - these counter rational behaviours, are means to, or intention toward - the establishment of personal validation.

As - synonymous with indifference/attraction - excelling in this area, is a form of leverage.

Having babies and bad behaviour - perhaps compensation for a lack of personal validation in this life.
Compensate for the lacking of ability to be indifferent to society - on a personal level.

And the following two areas, that do pertain to indifference, completing what is, in my opinion, the overall picture, are:

1) Physical indifference

2) Presentational indifference.

Like this guy.

Super jacked but..... something's just not clicking for him on the indifference/confidence/attraction spectrum:

lol - that video gets me every time.
Some of the comments are gold:

"lifting will make me more c-confident... r-right guys...?"

"I wish I was at home eating oats
the music is too loud
my feet hurt
i'm lonely"

"how to get no girls at a pool party"

"hey, that's like me at parties/clubs, except with no muscle" - I'm sure this one resonates with plenty of you guys - lol.

Anyways - fun time over.
We're coming full circle in terms the "confidence" - "what is confidence" - "how do I BE confident" etc.

All good questions.

Confidence is largely based on, how other react to us.
If we get consistently good reactions - out confidence tends to grow.

Like - and I'm going to do the unthinkable and use myself as an example here.

Sometimes I walk up in the nightclub, and I'm like, "ohfukohfukohfukohfukohfuk - don't know anyone - look like an awkward loner" etc.

Then I like to chill, get a drink, cruise about, and get a sense of how others are reacting to me - conveyed of course through body language, eye contact, subtlety's in these areas which, are generally speaking, fairly evident - provided, you know, you're not an autist.

And when I see girls eyes go a little wider, or sometime looking down, conveying shyness, sometimes giving direct looks and obvious smiles etc - I understand where I stand, juxtaposition if you will, of them to me - in terms of my leverages, their leverages, and striking up a (with sexuality as the base) conversation, is the most natural thing in the world - because it's apparent the reaction will be favourable.

No "playboy'esque" suave, no well though out chat up lines.
Depending on how I feel, sometimes the most asinine braindead crap known to man.

But - enough about me.


The point here being - it's these latter two points of attraction - two point which lend themselves tremendously to visual and sensory stimulation, inciting a sense of sexual desire - perhaps where, there was none.

Perhaps some chick is just hanging with her friends, no intention of meeting a dude - but the effect of visual stimulation is enough to get her keen with interest.


As men - we can relate to this readily.

A glamorous looking girl in high heels, dressed provocatively.
We may be thinking about the soccer match, or who's getting the next round, or what a trout our wife is and it's good to be out of the house - mind a million miles from potential engagement - but then our senses are hit with something like this:





And what - are we seeing here?

**Drooling mouth reply** - "A hot girl"

When we explore specifically what 'makes' her hot:


1) A high level of presentational refinement (re: presentational indifference)

2) The body. What specific aspect of the body? The aspect, that men check out first and foremost when determining whether a chick is hot or no (and perhaps contrary to popular belief, women check out on men with equal cognizance and regularity - oh yeah, believe it).
The - again, not to dance around the subject - the ass (re: physical indifference).
Glutes - if you want to be technical.

The ass (and I will continue using this reference, as it is the most relatable one - so pardon me if that impinges on anyones tender sensibilities), the ass - is the focal point, of physical attraction.

Let me say that again.

The ass - is the focal point of physical attraction.

For women - but, again, supposedly contrary to popular belief - for men alike.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He thinks that all social structures arise from the desire to mate and it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone bucked the trend.

Firstly, I don't want to disrupt my flow.

Secondly, I don't want to get side tracked.

But, I simply have to outline - as a matter of opinion - "mating", just happens to be another one of the uses of sexuality.
But reproduction/posterity, is the farthest thing from what I'm alluding to in any capacity - lol.

Okay - so in my most recent posts, I had alluded to, basically, men, who focus on aspects of personal development, which are, normally - in pretty much every culture I'm familiar with at least - neglected by men, or the importance of the development is certainly not emphasized - men with such priorities, would be very much regarded as deviating from the norm; being unorthodox, and more often than not - would be suspected of having homosexual inclinations.


Now - homosexuality has become a hugely sensitive subject, with this push to have it acknowledged as acceptable, and even normal.

And I'm not against that. In contrast to historical views on homosexuality, it's a huge step in the right direction.

But I'm not here to offer views on that topic, one way or another.

That being said, I do intend to explore matters pertaining to leverages stemming from sexuality, endeavours of personal development as mentioned previously that carry gay connotations etc - and basically, I want to address the P.C. crowd right off the bat.

I will refer to matters of homosexuality - in the objective sense.
From a detached point of view.

I neither condemn nor endorse it.
Them views are merely conincidental.
I intend to refer to it, in an almost scientific manner.
In a drastically oversimplified sense - much the same way that, scientifically we could say, an object accumulates heat, when it is exposed to waves of radiation.

It's an objective observation.
There is no endorsement, or condemnation.

I have spent time outlining this prelude, as I WISH THERE TO BE NO QUESTION ON THE MATTER.

If you (you the reader), has beef with the very clearly outlined and impartial material I shall present on the matter - then REFER BACK TO THIS POST WITH ALL YOUR GRIEVANCES.