Like my first thing posted; Written around '97. (I posted first at a now dead site connected to my old isp and then later at delphi forums.) It has many of my general motifs in it, in early demo form.
I reposted it to usenet like half a dozen years ago with a little intro. I found that version with the intro through google usenet now.
(I had a HDD crash in 2001, losing all my early everythingS --writings, art, music, photos, porn.)
Here it is. Make of it what you will.
In the begining I wasn't as, um, able to get my ideas out as, um, concisely as I do now (ehem). (I'm a tortured genius and the torured part comes across in my prose. How impolite of you to notice.)
I am self taught at everything I do (a remarkable list of skills, trust me), including speaking properly and writing. I was raised like most by a single fem parent and I was a bit of a social victim (like most) and a wanna be hood [dropped out while still in freshmen year of HS, dealt drugs, "ran with the wrong crowd" and etc].
When I first matured in the mid 90s (becoming say 25), I was full of ideas (which had been brewing before that even) but I didn't know how to write properly and I didn't know how to type. So my early sorties into the great wide open called the 'net were sort of, um, "interestingly formed up"; and spelled less well than I do now, if that's even imaginable.
"E=boybad girlgood squared" was my first literate attempt to make sense of what has happened here and to fight back. It is a general open response to the anti male demonization that defined and defines our world; my goal was attempting to counter the myth of female cosmic justice saintlyness (which is apparently the main left rally standard that motivates them [: "males have fucked 'it' up. Now lets let wymyn try"]).
(Some might notice that some of my schpeel has become part of the anti fem [my coinage too] lexicon now)
To da schpeel...
E=boybad girlgood squared
OR Hedonism Uses Sophistry To Legitimize Oppression.
Its relativity dear Watson...
Has anyone noticed that 19 Cent. 'phrenology' and anthropolgy and Nazi-science were subtle and sophisticated compared to the modern anti male bigotry "sciences".
Contemporary society has a multitude of non-compatible gender assertions about Nature, mammalology, primatology, paleo-anthro, anthro, history/archeo and psyco/soci babble. Most are cult delusion or hedonism and most of the rest are embarassing displays of academic hack conformity, relativism and ignorance. One particular contemporary paradigm says males are mean. Other paradigms say Nature is female controled utopia; e.g. bonobos (fading pygmy chimp species). What these paradigms say instead is gender science is very, very relativistic. The people who assert the "demonic males" thing should debate the "matriarchies of the past" crowd.
As for males being bad... Yes, I agree-- males ARE bad.....to other males. Males fight each other to the death over females overtly far more often than females do over males. To the extent males are bad to--controling of--females, males are protecting themselves from other males by preventing the female's purposeful selectively-bred flirtation from enticing other males into the arena (of male against male death) and secondly males are reacting to her stress inducing allusiveness and control-tactic provocation (in human parlance= "Head games"--emotional abuse). females have their strategies and males have different ones; female strategies are for hurting the males while male strategies are for hurting other males, over females as catalysts.
female hammer hitting male knee. Contemporary relativism blames kicking foot for breaking vase but doesn't trace causation back to hammer. Why? Simple: female value deserves payment; for humans this payment is obsequious, hipocritical (down right delusional) connotation of female character and male self effacing and abasing chilvalrous self-imolation (e.g. man throwing himself into the water around the sinking Titanic etc.). That is, its self effacing self-imolation when the payment isn't directly fighting to the death over female value and female provocation (and her RICO Statute crime commissioning).
Dimorphic Sexuality-- 800-500 Mill.Yrs for animal kingdom:
It is a stuntification (emasculation) attack. "I got your nose" on the scale of Sexual Reproduction. This impulse was selected as efficient in some niche of hermaphroditic critters and has been variating into different organisms ever since. [vertebrates: 450MYR]
females don't volunteer this and they don't remain female if given a choice--they become males and stunt their own underlings.
Gender is not static/permanent (hardwired), even if it appears so. It is constantly branching into different things over the long haul. We can see it unfolding "over the short haul" in the gender-softwired organisms (from some, the vertebrates come). E.g. some mollusks (et.al.). They're born hermaphrodites and the ones that mature first stunt (emasculate) and enharem their younger siblings. If something happens to the mature sibling --the male-- the second most mature sibling of the harem --a female-- will, unstunted, mature into the male and continue to stunt "his" females(stuntoids), including the ousted ex-male; Or if you remove and isolate a female from a harem, she will continue growing and become an hermaphrodite again until it is pit against competitors and the whole Ugly-truth [crushing Beautiful-lies] plays out all over again [whether academia and media likes it or not].
females are reproductive portals and therefore unwittingly more valuable than males and males are better at doing stuff, because of this. Males are fighting each other to get through the "bottle neck" and this is a selection pressure.
The modern anti male "sciences" conjure narratives about dimorphic sex social-sexual dynamics without explaining underlying dimorphic sexuality fundamentals because, I assert, they stupidly don't know them or are egregious censors.
Or some anti male "scientists" conjure their narratives but contest emasculation-attack-dynamic as the vector of dimorphic sex (for political empowerment reasons more than any other) and assert in its stead that dimorph sex is a voluntary partnership symbiosis. Well of course dim. sex. is a symbiosis, thats obvious, but females[immature hermaphrodites] obviously, don't voluntarily give up their male appendages. If the left's belief--"dimorph. sex. creation is voluntary"--is true then the females are even Less excusable for the male under-value problems and violence in the male eschelon and certainly less excusable for the "male redundancy" praying mantis-like dynamics which abound.
Exclusively, the dimorphic sex dynamics which include death during the breeding event are female controled dynamics; E.g. praying mantises, black widows, lighting bugs, hives, scorpions, spiders, etc etc. (maybe a majority of arthropods[2Mill spp] and maybe some fish and birds[which is the redundant male potential getting way to close to home]). Misandrony passes itself on more easily than misogyny, because of the reproductive mechanics of dimorphic sex--sperm egg ratio and females' seminal reservoir.
Many "science" venues that point this "male redundancy" out do so in a "BEHOLD... the mighty female--she is strong and wise" way. This exposes the contemporary cult-like political relativism once again: if the contemporary pro female chivalrous relativism sees Nature filled with strong and cruel females--strong and cruel is a positive--females (killing males) are mighty and good; if this relativism sees Nature filled with strong and cruel males (strongly and cruely beating each other, over female value)--strong and cruel is a negative--males are cowardly and bad or demonic even.
And certain male humans--often ones who lost their battles against other males in childhood(practice fighting over females, ultimately)--use this "male-is-bad" paradigm as a courtship display. Many male humans throw pro female grenades at competitor male humans. These chivalrous males can't see this grenade has a kill radius larger than its throw radius.
Along with those female-bads above, the "boy bad girl good" "sciences" ignore, or spin into pro female narratives, the following:
females engage in parasitism more often, injecting their eggs into all manner of victims(the young eat their way out): males of their own species, siblings, competiting females, children, other species.
Hives are overwhelmingly matriarchies yet hives are perpetually warlike and non self-aware dumb, selectively breeding kamikazees, slaves and males as infantile sex fodder and food.
female mammals abuse children and the weaklings around them. E.g. female lions kill others' children but don't eat them--and females of other species--incl primates--do this same thing, And female hyenas, when not eliminating other's young, kill each other and males from childhood to adult hood, over status. And of course human females beat and kill their own children more often than biological fathers do; first violence human child experiences is at female hands, say left studies. And "gendercide" political belief is exclusively a female construct and option.
A key male-as-demonic narrative, while ignoring the above female-bads, looks at males that kill young. Just like when the females do it, this is unwitting way of increasing individual reproductive--evolutionary--success (Nature is unwitting variations being unwittingly selected). Nature is always--and will always be--red in tooth and claw -- period. The left believes--in delusional cult like fashion--that it has some solution to Nature; the left --and america in general-- believes in cosmic justice utopia like a religious cult of loonies--a cult that goes uncontested as it brainwashes.
Yes, getting rid of the males Will cause the males to no longer be 'perpetrating' the unwitting acts but it won't change the underlying pressures (Nature) that selected him to be the way he was from then selecting out the same traits again in the next dominant type to ascend. As stated immediately above, females eliminate competition too(female hyenas for example). Its the unwitting way Nature does business: Limited/finite amount of energy(food) available, too many extended sibling variants fighting over it; the siblings are energy(food) too.
One point the relativism overlooks in the "male as killer of young" narrative is that the mother of the young being killed enticed the male on to the territory with her sexual display. E.g. female lions spray all over the place and cause new males to come to the territory and fight the established males to the death(female is oppressing males) and if the new males win they proceed to kill previous males' cubs (eliminate the competition) the mother bode them to (aint Nature great?). This is female lion's unwitting way of passing her own genes* on more successfully by tieing them to the best possible males--males selected as best or worst by arenas she unwittingly created. (*chemical chain reactions creating impeteuses[e.g. impeteus to spray all over])
female mammals and reptiles are generally weaker and slower, smaller, stupider(for relevant species) and more timid than the males (as a side effect of males fighting over females). This is an echo of the emasculation battle that created dimorphic sex. But female weakness, which is at once denied and praised, is not more noble its just weak and sneaky and obviously outside of Man's chivalrous relativistic lensing.
Relativistically processing relatives. Historically, male strength in primates etc was once denied by the left while the right (hint: not the GOP or christians) used male strength in primates etc as example of male supremacy. Now, in classic political flip flopping fashion, certain portions of the left agree--males are strong in Nature(at least in hominoids) but now strength is bad --unless of course the females have it.
liberalism's latest "poster chimps". Hedonists and humanists find their latest "golden-calf" to support their "sacred cow"(feminism) in bonobos. Bonobos(pan paniscus), according to contemporary relativist's assertions, are female dominant lovers and don't fight. The fact that the male paniscus do fight--leading to acute or atricional death--over female sexual provocation and the fact that paniscus has the best food supply of the hominoids--leading to less acute competiton--is not developed by the boybad girlgood "sciences"(its not the supposed female dominance that causes their supposed peace, its the economy, stupid). To show how flip flopping relativism works just look at history: most of the species asserted as bad--especially normal chimps(pan troglodites)--were held up as exemplary utopianites during the 1960s and before; now the boybad-ites say they are killers--demonic killers. Of course they are! Everything stomps and kills in Nature (one way or another) its just a question of political spin. Eventually the antiseptic eye of reason will study bonobos and the hedonists and humanists and hacks will move their relativistic false-utopia myopic lense somewhere else.
Hedonism disclaimer: I am not a moralist. I'm simply not delusional or insane. I'm NOT a mindless gland without a brain, like hedonist cultists are.
As far as gender utopia primates, Gorrilas have the least chaotic and least violent social sexual dynamic. Autocratic Patriarchal Polygyny [APP, yeah you know me]; One breeding age male per territory, approx 20 females per group. Infidelity--i.e. female emancipation[choice, "divorce", status, control]--is not possible.
Political propaganda, physchological warfare. These non compatible "modern science" narratives are examples of the endless ubiquitous derision from all caste of society stigmatizing males.
Even if female dominance does create a world of peace without killing (it doesn't everywhere else though) why would a man want to be controlled by a female? Why would a high IQ man want to be a bonobo? A bonobo male is an isolated loner on the outskirts of his tribe who has no children he knows and no control over the conspiring manipulating females. You, as males, never felt the stress in your chest over being an isolated male in a world of cliquish misandronistic females teasing and controling you with secretive conspiratorial betrayful manipulation? And FYI, female dominace for humans is much closer to hive dynamic than to anything seen through relativistic interpretations of mammals. Why would a man want to be an idiot droned slave , disposable --"redundant"-- laborer in an ant hive?
There is no reason to let the human females get above the men, because the females will do the same to men men did to females only the men won't have as much leverage because of the sperm egg ratio--females will be in a cliquish sorority conspiracy against men. females will have the reproductive advantages, unless of course the females are successful at becoming men and making men females--ala softwired hermaphrodites(bio techs or freaky variations getting selected and replacing original Mankind could do this). But that defeats the whole narrative which claims "female is oppressed and freeing females offers the Universe(Nature) something different--a cosmic justice utopia". It doesn't -- no reason for the males to abdicate.
It could also be easily said that male humans don't have the power to abdicate in the first place. The human female is the most dependant female mammal ever(excluding mole rat); shes like a baby. The human female is the only mammal on the planet that crys as an adult, because the male human is a born protecter and the female human is a born manipulator. It is obvious that one would be hard pressed to find another female mammal with the kind of leverage against her species' males that the female human has against male humans in our species' social sexual dynamic. One would be hard pressed to find any creature with the life the female human has. The male human, other than his genius, is not dissimilar to other males as far as the way he fights and dies over females--his wounds, scars and battles and such; the time scale and scope has changed very recently, from males fighting to the death one on one/few on few every season, to males fighting every couple of generations in huge hive against hive slaughters. We are not talking about the men abdicating power in the name of an unachievable delusion called equal/freedom, we are talking about eliminating the male as the service class in favor of a female exclusive caste structure--protector and protectee--leaving the males without Any leverage and protection against the obvious real misandrony which is always more abundant than misogyny. All of this wrapped up in the blather of Fair/equal utopia.
Life is not fair. Fair--like equal, freedom justice, rights--is a political euphemism--a tool of war for achieving victory, superiority and dominance, unwittingly or not. Different variations form in a world with not enough to go around and these variations fight in sibling rivalry battles; some variations(species) snowball down the path of "strength-in-numbers sibling rivalry" strategy--"hatfields and mccoys". Freedom/equal etc etc demagoguery is simply a tool for holding together the strength-in-numbers coalitions; ants have pheromones and humans have bullsh!t narrative-- "liberte e' equalite".
Our fore fathers--normal men--were very silly for being so sappy and decent--er ah... I mean demonic--that they fought and slaved so hard for the "equal *time* under the law", utopia we are now enjoying.