The last post, in which I dared to say that a carrier of the uterus should not be at the ECB because she is inadequate (and not because woman: I explained the reasons for my opinion) brought me a series of criticisms, and to what I see around from referers a couple of FB groups have it with me.
I went to see, and these are groups of "feminists", who enjoy playing with dolls and shouting empty threats.
Well, you know what?
I don't care, because I'm a boy. And as such, I am expendable . Since I am expendable, why should I worry about all these assaults? Even if I were killed in retaliation, it would be an event that would not impress anyone, ie a non-problem.
The fact that the male is expendable has written several authors, so I don't think I can do better. I can only point out some hypocrisies, like this:
As you can see, this is the day for the prevention of suicide, and in the respectable cover there is a woman, who is presumed to be a victim of something violent. This is a trend in current politics, namely to say that if there is a victim then she is a woman, and that if you need to protect and / or defend someone, then she is a woman.
The problem comes when we compare this aesthetic with the facts, that is when we get out of politics. Because when you get out of politics and go into the facts, Istat shows us a very different reality.
It is interesting, because this fact is constant throughout Western civilization. I mean, suicide affects mainly males, practically 80% of suicide deaths . Logically, therefore, in the photo above there should not have been a woman, but a man. But a man-victim in that position of fear has no meaning: we are expendable, so we die in silence.
But I'm not so interested in determining who should be in a photograph, as I've already said, it's about politics, that is, about aesthetics, and the facts have nothing to do with it. So I will continue to explain the concept of "expendable male".
Because the problem is not only there: let's try to look at the statistics for the dead at work for a moment.
Interesting, isn't it? It is interesting for a reason: an argument of today's aesthetic feminism consists in saying that since women are largely dying at the hands of men, then one should speak of femicide. Interesting.
Here we have a pretty impressive statistic, because we see that when there is a job to be done where it is cracked, or is at risk of cracking, a man is almost always sent . Feminists shrug their shoulders by saying that males have a greater "risk appetite", but do not remember fatal accidents where women were present without dying.
I mean, if in a tragedy of an oil nozzle that bursts and workers are burned both men and women were present, but only men had been close to the fire, it would have made sense to say that it is “a greater propensity for the risk ": they will be put in front of the fire for some stupid male game, normally risky.
But the problem is that everyone present was male. No one died because of "a greater risk appetite", they died because in a dangerous foundry the males were sent, and there were only males on the spot.
Moreover, it is not clear what this "greater risk appetite" is: you mean that the workers of Thyssen have burned themselves alive because they joked with the risk of fire, in that stupid male bunjee jumping game on a foundry , or thing?
M go ahead, and go to the war speech:
In the second world war, the casuistry of the dead is this:
There are no infographics around (unless you do them yourself) for one simple reason: if we went to see what was happening, all the cakes would show that dying in war are sent mainly males. Embarrassing, to be "male privilege". If I were in the patriarchy, honestly, I would send women to die.
To tell the truth, even in the word "femicide" things are not going so well for us males: apparently, two out of three murder victims are males. But the absolute priority is the "femicide":
Apparently, now that the situation has "improved", only two men are killed for each woman. First they were also four.
The funny thing is that if we read ISTAT's work, to justify having written something blasphemous, that 2/3 of the victims of murder are men, they have dedicated two chapters to the fact that women they are killed by men, often by partners.
Interesting, but the fact remains that for every woman killed two men were killed.
Why is a woman killed by her partner more urgent than TWO men killed by any guy? Why is "femicide" more urgent than phenomena that kill twice as many males? What does this mean?
It means that in general our society considers the life of males expendable.
Sacrificable means that when it comes to saving someone's life, "women and children first", that is, someone's life comes before the lives of others. And the life of males is the one that is worth less.
It is not my intention to whine about something that I consider impossible to change: feminists will continue to tell you about the male privilege of burning alive in a foundry, or of being crushed by a tank, or of being reduced to despair to suicide, as of one of the benefits of "patriarchy" . It is a matter of politics, that is of a branch of aesthetics, so it has nothing to do either with facts or with logic.
Obviously the criticism will be that feminists are certainly not the ones to send males to die, while as it is known the local patriarchy meets to decide how much to lower the salary of women, in every job. This too ends up in the "aesthetic" chapter, I believe.
It could be argued, however, that several regions have made general screening using the PAP-Test (well), complete with a home letter and awareness campaign. I don't see the same approach for different male pathologies like prostate cancer, and this happens for the exact same reason: ultimately, a male who crack is not as important as a woman who crack. It is absolutely an emergency to prevent cancer in women, but it is not exactly a priority to do the same for males.
Moreover, it is full of psychiatrists who work to help women who have suffered breast mutilation to accept themselves, (well!) And support groups. If we talk about prostate cancer and relative evasion, social spending is exactly zero. Who gives a fuck? The males suffer in silence, and they die without giving anything to anyone.
Moral of the story: we are expendable.
And I'm not whining: I say it very honestly, I know very well that I was born male and as such I know I am expendable. As a result, I will accept to die (without saying a word) in any way the company thinks it wants to kill me by exposing me to any greater risk. When I did my military, we were all men on board: and we found it natural. Don't you want to send women to die in war? Those are precious! Today in the armed forces there is a small minority of women, but still a minority, and (by law) never in the front line: in short, the males have to die. I know that this is a fact that I cannot change, and I have learned to accept it: we are expendable.
But if I'm not complaining, what's the point? The point is those ladies who threaten me from the "feminist" forums of Facebook.
Feminists who are mumbling threats for what I wrote on Lagarde wonder: do you really think you are frightening a genre that is used to the idea that if someone has to die burned, then his name comes first?
Do you really think that your castration fantasies can scare a person aware of the fact that the government is fucking bitching about his eventual prostate cancer death?
Dear sir, every fucking male on this planet is used to those threats. Death and mutilation are a gender perspective.
The risk of dying or being castrated by prostate, work or war is a risk that we all know, that we all accept, that is part of our destiny, and that we accept without a word. I know very well that if there is one euro it goes to the prevention of breast cancer but not to prostate cancer: it is my inevitable destiny as a male. I have always lived there. Not for nothing I provide for my exams: I certainly do not expect the state to do so, and it does not change in the most "Nordic" countries: the males afterwards.
I know very well that in case of war we die like flies, while for you there will always be comfortable and safe shelters. How do you think you're scaring me with your threats of aggression underneath? Do you really think that a person can grow up knowing he is expendable, and afraid to find you under the door? And why did my generation do military service, but only males ? If you even managed to kill me, would it really be worse than being burned alive in a tank, or (in my case) drowning like a mouse locked in a sinking ship?
Do you think you are intimidating a genre that, statistically, thinks about suicide four times more than you in life, and you hear that the depression "only women know what it means"?
If you really want to threaten someone with something, see that you choose something that is scary. Because if the male gender always agrees to be expendable, if you go to die like flies in war, if you make yourself burn alive in the foundries, if you kill yourself with your own hands without a moan, if you let them always come first the women and children, starting from the fires until the death by cancer, is because to those like me, death is not scary. I don't want to die, but I'm not afraid to do it.
Perhaps you fool yourself that someone is hoping for your friendship or your benevolence, and that you allow yourself to be tamed, tamed by a promise of a world of harmony and equality: but if there is one thing I understood it is that males suffer in silence. Boys don't cry, beautiful. I grew up there. I hope neither seek any friendship, pity or kindness from you: I know very well that it is not possible to have them, and I have learned to live there.
You have NO POWER.
From the end of childhood, males are taught that for them there is no pity and there will never be . That if we fail financially or existentially the only option is to commit suicide in silence. Which is what we do: do you see alarms for "men killing each other?" We are taught to suffer without crying and to accept being expendable, to hear that women come first in case of danger, and that all this is right . And we are also taught that if we complain about this we look weak, and for the weak, no one pities, women first. They are the mothers who teach it to us, girls: it is you. We know you well.
Do you think the pain scares us? Pain?
Male education obviously hurts. And it does for years. Swallowing suffering without being able to express it is torture. Not being able to express feelings because "you seem without balls" is the quid of our education: it is a mutilation, and it is painful. Tortured and mutilated. But we are taught that the more pain you endure, the more male you are: and so we ask again. A precious teaching. Which comes mainly from women: we know well that the first to spit in our faces if we express "too delicate" feelings will be our mother , and if not she some other woman. We don't expect mercy from you, because this is how we are raised. From you.
Do you know where you can put your threats, dear "feminists"?