Understanding Men

Author’s Note: With the Women’s March, the #MeToo, and #TimesUpNow movements taking center stage I think it’s time we look at what really has inspired them, Men.

Some of you women may have been wondering what the hell is wrong with these men? Is it all about power and control? Is it that they wish to dominate everything that badly? Did mommy and daddy not teach them to respect women? Is it genetics? Are they just plain stupid? Or just brain dead? The short answer is, well, boring.

A multi-disciplinary research study in areas from genetics to behaviorism, psychology, and physiology have concluded that the main drive for men falls into three categories and little else. Men are motivated only by three things,

Food
Sex
A way to do as little as possible with the least amount of effort and the greatest amount of gain.

Every single human endeavor from the dawn of time created by men can be thought of as a way of achieving one or more of these goals. From understanding the secrets of the universe to Velcro, it’s all about food, sex, and the desire to be lazy. Now, these are not in any kind of order of importance and they do tend to overlap on many occasions. As a matter of fact, if more of these goals can be achieved at the same time, the better. Take for example strip joints that feature all-you-can-eat buffets that are so popular among men. Here men can eat, enjoy sex, and achieve a high amount of self-gratification without doing anything at all (I always thought that if all of this could be done in a tasteful way, men doing these things while sitting on the toilet would be Nirvana). Men will pay top dollar to go to these establishments.

Another example is agriculture.

What motivated humans from leaving the comforts of the jungle to go trudging into the dangers of the outside world? Food (and if it was a woman who led the way- sex). Tool making? To do as little as possible with the least amount of effort and the highest amount of gain (opening a coconut, or the head of the person trying to steal your coconut). Combining the two we became hunter and gatherers (please note that its “hunters” then “gathers”, you’ll understand in a minute). Men developed societies in which women did most of the gathering (a laborious back-breaking effort requiring a great amount of time) while the men did the hunting (requiring a lot of wandering around not really sure where to go, eventually running into something, tracking it, killing it, skinning it, chopping it, and after much revelry, back patting, and a lot of “atta-boy, Og”, finally dragging it home to eat it- after the women prepared it, of course). It only took a mere 2 million years (and a long time of nagging from cave wives) for men to go to the next step and invent agriculture. Now, all that men had to do was to go out into their back-yards and kill it, skin it, chop it to bring it in and eat it (again, after women prepared it).

What about other inventions, you say? Cars- come on, aren’t they supposed to be sexy? Yes, if you consider a noisy, smelly, polluting machine made of cold steel and plastic that provides transportation with the least amount of effort (on the driver’s part) can really be an object of sexual desire (on a personal note, I prefer woman. It looks a lot less strange talking to one of them then to a machine that should not have anything interesting to say back to you).

Sports? The object of any sport to aggressively overwhelm your opponent through aggressive acts, and outscoring him with a lot of display. Ever watch deer rutting or any other phenomenal display of sexual competition? Compare that to something like football or boxing, same thing. I mean, how many times have men been heard using sport terminally to the ability to “win”, or “score” with women sexually? Isn’t the sweat in sport the same as in sex?

Ok, what about religion? What’s that all about? Religion is the set up (as thought up by men) of a moral code (as determined by men) of conduct (regulated by men) in which society (men and women) can live by. All religions include in their doctrine rules that govern sexual behavior- specifically, a woman’s sexual behavior. Why is that, you ask? Well, if a man can control a woman’s sexual activity he is guaranteed a source of sex (and food preparation) that requires as little effort as possible. I mean, that’s what marriage was really all about, wasn’t it (“until those goddamn women libbers and fags had to ruin it all for us real men”)? If a woman broke the rules she is labeled a whore. If a man does the same with a woman, he is considered doing God’s will and there is a lot of show of high fives all around and a lot of drinking and celebrating (and by the way, I know I sound like I’m religion bashing, I’m not. I’m a good little Catholic boy- well, most of the time). And don’t get me started on the many dietary laws religions have (that’s food, by the way).

Power is about sex. Before Catholic priests were made to take an oath of celibacy they were screwing anything that moved (and thinking about screwing anything that didn’t). Money is about power and the ability to get as much of it while doing as little as possible with the least amount of effort has always been looked at as a high achievement Communism failed because even though through sharing the work meant there was less effort, there was little gain as well. With power getting more food and more sex becomes easier.

What about understanding the secrets of the universe? Here you have men (and though there have been many strides made by women it is still men for the most part) sitting looking up into the sky, sitting considering a microscope, sitting looking at a difficult mathematical problem, sitting- well, you get the point. Possessing knowledge is power (“I know more than you do, nya-nya-nana-nya-nya”). Power there is prestige. And with prestige comes invitations to all those high-class celebrity parties that all the “In” people go and where there are a lot of food and women. Seeing the pattern here?

So, women, that’s the secret to understanding men. The Golden Grail to the basic psyche of men. The essence of maleness. The rhyme and reason to all the silly things that men do. So, accept them for what they are. After all, this study about men was conducted by men and men wouldn’t to women to make there lives easier. Now, I’m going out for lunch.

-A. M. Holmes

Guess Who’s Coming to Davos?

170526-macron-merkel-trump-feature

The World Economic Forum, WEF, will be held January 23th through 26th in Davos, Switzerland and guess who’s coming? President of the United States Donald J. Trump and he will the first since President Clinton did so 17 years ago. Meetings are held annually in January and carry themes like, for example in 2000, “New Beginnings: Making a difference”. This year’s theme for the forum will be “Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World” and considering President Trump after one year in office is turning to be a most divisive leader not only at home but abroad as well what says or tweets will be interesting, to say the least. But there is another twist to this that may make even more interesting, German Chancellor Angela Merkel may be coming and if she does she will join French President Emmanuel Macron in support of what could most fittingly call a “Europe First” economic policy.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Swiss non-profit foundation, based in Cologny, Geneva, Switzerland who is “committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas” and is made up of the top 1,500 business leaders, drawn from 1,000 of the world’s top companies; 219 public figures, including 40 heads of state or government, 64 cabinet ministers, 30 heads or senior officials of international organizations, and 10 ambassadors; and 432 from civil society, including 32 heads or representatives of non-governmental organizations, 225 media leaders, 149 leaders from academic institutions and think tanks, 15 religious leaders of different faiths, and 11 union leaders. It is the who’s who of the world’s top economic brass. It is also an institution that runs contrary to Trump’s professed dislike for “globalists” and elites. So why is he going? According to a Wall Street Journal article, https://www.wsj.com/articles/transcript-of-donald-trump-interview-with-the-wall-street-journal-1515715481, Trump wants to be “a cheerleader for the country”. He wants to tell the “story of what’s happening in the United States …and of tremendous things are happening in the United States”. In other words, he wants to boast about his claimed achievements to an audience which, for the most part, couldn’t possibly care any less. But crow he will for nothing feeds Trump’s ego more than to show off in front of a crowd he considers, though not mutually shared reciprocally by some, as his equal. Two individuals who do not agree with the President and who will also be speaking are German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron and that’s when things will get interesting. Why? Both Merkel and Macron will be speaking on the 24th, two days before Trump’s speech, and if they stick to the theme of the forum, theirs will be a plan for global economic unity and if the U.S. wishes not to be a part of it “very well and good wishes”.

In January Reuter’s article, Merkel is described as “the last defender of liberal democratic values” and whom Trump has accused of “ruining Germany” (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-merkel/merkel-could-join-macron-in-davos-for-epic-clash-with-trump-idUSKBN1F30HB). Macron, who is a pro-European centrist and supports free trade with the global rules-based order, is believed by some, including Robin Niblett, director of the Chatham House think tank in London, that he will speak not only “about Europe. He will try to take up the mantle of the free world under Europe’s wing”. This is a post-Brexit Europe with strengthening economic ties to the Trans-Pacific Partnership of China and other Pacific region nations and who are looking for more partners in South America and the Middle East, two other regions where Trump’s popularity is nothing less than questionable. This will put to test the idea of “strength in numbers” against Trump’s “America First” and see who wins. Before you place your bets let’s take a look at a few things to consider.

First, has President Trump really wrong in boasting about his achievements in office? I guess that depends on whether he deserves the credit or is it just latent results from the Obama administration’s economic plans finally coming to fruition? The latter makes more sense because economies do not grow merely because you will it with threat or rhetoric or by having a garage sale of government property, stripping the power of agencies you believe hamper businesses, give more money to the top 1% through tax cuts, and declaring “America is Great Again”. If it were that simple more would have tried it in the past and we wouldn’t have to make anything great again because we would already be just that. No, economies do not grow on charisma and showmanship they rely on ties with strong partners you can trust and businesses who see gains in the long term. So far, Trump is not seen by most to be trustworthy nor as a visionary.

On the other hand, there’s the European Union whose members have seen better economic days and their leadership are in a constant struggle to keep office. It’s a Europe which is witnessing one of its strongest, Great Britain, leave with no way of stopping it and may see further disintegration if it can’t turn things around quickly enough. Then enters China, the leader apparent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the U.S. withdrew, with it’s continually growing economy and yuan it’s willing to invest. The question now becomes one of whether you are willing to sell everything to the Dragon of the Far East with its monetary market manipulations and strict market practices that favor Chinese interest over investors. Then, there’s Russia, how will they react to the possibility of a Sino-European Union trade pact? This is a course that only a modern day Ulysses. Is French President Emmanuel Macron that man? Some believe he is but it all depends on how quickly he can bring to order a France plagues with its own economic problems as well as conflicts between the far right and left and terrorist attacks. If he can hold his nose above water long enough to stem the tide and keep his office he might bring in the ship in for France and even Europe. He’ll need allies, though, and that’s why German Chancellor Angela Merkel is so important for Germany is one of the only other economy Union. Unfortunately, Merkel shares many of Macron’s problems within her own country and may just barely remain in office in time for the Davos forum.

A globalist’s “Strength in numbers” versus isolationist’s “America First”, who has the better plan? In the past, close trade ties have proven to be a setup for world economic depressions. As one government goes terribly into debt others fall as their confidence in the markets fail them. What follows is a domino effect of global proportion that will not stop until all have fallen. But that was in the past at a time before international corporations and global multi-conglomerates. Our world today is one where borders, at least in a business sense, are completely meaningless. A world where information moves at the speed of light, and so does innovation and research. A world that can make anyone does not connect with it a pariah and one that can’t be trusted. Even Russia knows not fall into the trap of isolationism that its predecessor, the Soviets, clung to hard to maintain up to the bitter end. And yet, here we have a U.S President carrying on about how wonderful things in his government now that he has removed the reins that bind it can negotiate “a better deal”.

Scenario: It’s a world dominated by global corporations that provide and trade in contracted services and are regulated only marginally by countries sharing trade interests, trade without borders. The U.S., playing the isolationist game, participates only in those areas of negotiation it sees it will gain the most in spite of that fact the largest of its “American-based companies” are also part of the global network. No matter how hard the U.S. tries to increase its productivity and exportation of goods it never seems to do as well as countries in Europe and Asia. It finds its increasing deficit, the inability to control sudden stock market shifts and legacy obligations such as infrastructure rebuilding is to shake off thus stifling any possible gains it can make. The country tries through austerity programs to get the situation under control but is undermined when it finds itself having to rely more heavily on contracted private companies to provide basic services. Then one day, the unspeakable happens. It may be a war that engulfs several nations, famine, drought or any other natural disaster of some kind, either way, the markets begin to panic. Without any regulatory controls, the crash begins in, say Europe, and travels quickly around the world even before the markets open in their respected countries. In the U.S. there’s nothing to stop it for most of the regulatory tools set into place to prevent something like this were removed previously in order to see if by making it easier for revenue flow it would improve the economy. As the windstorm of economic disaster spreads it demolishes everything without something it could be anchored with. Then it hits China with its relatively high regulated market and a strong economy. It plays the part of much-needed firewall and the selling and devaluation come to a screeching halt. What comes next all depends on who your friends are and how close they are to you to be willing to back you up?

Fiction? Are you willing to bet “America First” on it?

“Smug feeling …from the rich and famous”, The Golden Globe Awards 2018

A local reporter tweeted, “Here we go again. A group of rich and famous “stars” celebrating each other’s careers while pretending to laugh at jokes that are falling about as flat as the champagne sitting on the tables draped with white table clothes. Privileged? Yep. Relevant? Funny? Dare is say, no.” (https://twitter.com/rooprajfox2). In a later tweet, he explains that he wanted to spur “a conversation that is long overdue both in Hollywood and our world …I don’t like the smug feeling I get from the rich and famous in that room.” What he perceived as “smug feeling …from the rich and famous” I saw as a reward for many years of dedication and hard work against the odds in an industry set up for you to fail.

Ninety-nine percent of the individuals in that room started out with practically nothing, working in service and manual labor jobs, trying to stay one step ahead of homelessness, just to make their dream come through. They spent backbreaking hours trying to make a living before going to school, tryouts, rehearsals, or home to work on a song or a script, sleep a bit, and all to state all over again the next day. Weeks and weeks, months and months, years and years of disappointments may go by before that special moment, or song, or book, or script happens, and you make it, or at least get your foot in. But it’s not champagne and laurels yet. No, the struggle to maintain the momentum begins and here is where some make it and others fail. For every Oprah, Jackman, or Spielberg there are hundreds of thousands who couldn’t do it. Then, if that wasn’t enough to discourage you, there are the “Power That Be”, usually men, who saw their position of status as an opportunity for abuse.

Many of those “Rich and Famous” people in that room at some point in time have had to do things they didn’t want, and many are ashamed they had because those who had the power to fulfill their goals had the means to “make or break” their careers. Some of those things may have been as innocuous as a particularly bad role, a change in wording, a costume that showed a bit more than modesty would allow. Other times not so, and for many, especially if you were a woman, you had to “perform” to win the favor from the plutocrats that ran the business. This is a culture of the truly Rich and Famous preying on the innocent.

Care to judge them for what they had to endure? Let me ask you this, how much better are you, as an observer, an audience or viewer, how much better are you when you remark on an actor’s appearance, clothing, physical features without giving credit to their craft? Now, tell me, how would you like to be judged on the same criteria, not for who you are or what you can do, but how you look. Honestly tell me that those people in that ballroom, or anyone anywhere, should be made to feel that way. To change this practice is the struggle and challenge of the MeToo (@MeTooMVMT) and Time’s Up (@TIMESUPNOW) movements. They have pointed out to all of us that the culture of harassment, abuse, and intimidation must come to an end. I see it as a noble cause and pray they succeed. But, back to the “smug feelings of the rich and famous”, at least one final word on the subject.

These people were not born rich, they weren’t born privileged, they didn’t go to Ivy league private schools, or had a corps of lawyers removing every obstacle, they worked hard to be where they are. And if they wish to throw a party, or several parties, to honor some of their own for their hard work, then they deserve it. After all, many in that room didn’t have daddy give them $1 million to kick-start their careers.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: