Masculism is an unpopular philosophy and for the artist creating his own belief system as well as creating art is a difficult business. Since it is such early days from the point of commitment to this outlook one may be forgiven, just eight months on, for being a little sketchy.  However this consists of some half dozen youtube videos and up to forty articles fully drafted in note form (around 12 or so) or as preliminary sketches (the remaining 30 plus) and indicative notations on masculist-art.com So far there are over 12,000 unique visitors to the site and 45,000 or so page views. The artist is no slouch on the web.

 

Phillip O’Sullivan Society With Signs Acrylic on canvas

 

The need for masculism is unfortunately easily demonstrated due to oversights within the tenets and axioms of critical theory, queer theory and post-modernist feminism. No axioms and tenets within Derrida, Foucault, Barthes and company you say? O, yes there are though they are hidden, assumed, as (axiomatic givens) and are deeply implied but never explicated. As is seen in one selected word for example.

 

The precursor paintings generally have an interpenetrative ‘transparency’ like aboriginal skeletal drawings; this was consciously done. Geometry represents the ‘structures of society’. Most are strongly coloured; their appreciation is very gender marked: as appropriate for masculist art; men tend to like or favour them; women tend to dislike and reject them.

 

My Quick Analysis of Art Philosophy

 

Take inclusivity for instance. Who is privileged within the inclusion; and who exactly is excluded? Feminists, minorities and gays are privileged in the post-modern discourse: men and heterosexual persons are vilified, disparaged, dismissed and basically excluded. The minority is advanced, the majority dismayed. This is to reverse a person centred and majority orientated democracy with a prevailing masked and veiled authoritarian and elite totalitarian order. Hence the criminalization of words and thoughts and ideas in a censorious hypocrisy. Code words for this ‘thought police ’ activity are slighting contexts giving ‘normative’ and male ‘patriarchy’ a bad name while the word for its own hegemony ‘matriarchy’ or even its possibility is never or rarely mentioned. Thus critical theory as a discipline is neither critical, self-reflexive nor unbiased. It doesn’t rate its pay. Post-modernism is one half of an entire range of binaries at best; no wonder it eschews discussion deconstructing binaries as it is massively involved in exactly one biased side of almost every possible one.

 

 

 

Patriarchy-matriarchy (silent) Feminism-masculism (ignored) Marxism- Capitalism (vilified)

 

 

 

Sexuality- Gender (gender engenders; the ‘other’ is frequently barren, culturally and socially).

 

Phillip O’Sullivan

 

Beach With Tax Signs

 

Oil Pastel on Archival Card

 

(This highlights another suppressed factor of feminism; the high cost of the state apparatus to support it: feminism is not a self supporting system it requires the agency of the state to avail its interests: thus feminism is neither reproductive nor productive- it gets its funding by taxing mens pro-duction efforts).

 

Feminism suffers from what I call the sugar and spice syndrome: ‘sugar and spice and all things nice, that’s what little girls are made of….’ Hardly an intellectually sustainable position. For what is absurdly attempted to be stated is that men are bad and women ‘good’: men are violent, evil, perpetrators of all the evils against women and women as victims are always somehow noble and innocent in the overarching matriarchal diatribe focussed as it is exclusively against masculinity by damaging men. By extension feminism is right and patriarchy wrong in a deft but totally dishonest switch of terms in order to a bias amidst the binaries by dancing from one foot to another. The binary opposite- critical theory hates exact matching across the avoided binary space- of feminism is masculisism, and the binary opposite of patriarchy is matriarchy; by avoiding this direct clear and consistent binary matching ‘across ’is a trick that has kept this post-modern, critical theoryand feminist ideology going so long. Men are only now beginning to see how much ground has been permanently poisoned by such lying devices in what amounts to ideological rape. Men in consequence are extremely angry as seen in the recent UKIP result for the interfering old biddy ‘Nanny state’ of Europe. Patriarchy, no matter how clumsily, has come back from the dead.

 

Phillip O’Sullivan City as built by men Oil on Archival Card

 

Almost all the built permanent world; bridges, roads, houses, rooms, doors, windows are built by men. To feminism this work is invisible and under appreciated. Womens work tends to be temporary and graciously people orientated; like cuisine, cleanliness and care. Female activity needs repetition; ‘a womans work is never done’.  Men’s work tends to be outside or remote. Or can be.

 

 

 

The last time patriarchy knew its own name unabashed and giving a clear self-knowing account of itself in the Western nations was over 300 years ago. And the deep practice of it was written as male right in roman law over three millennia ago and in direct contrast to how things are taken today. As we can see with the word rape which stems from rapere meaning grab; such as the theft of a man’s dignity through the touching of male genitals by a woman. A current female students recent Cenotaph project is from that point of view- and standing in the vicinity of an associate patriarchal culture, that of Maori- is an utterly tapu enterprise earning the utter disgust, repugnance of those aware of the war memorials  depicting the (maori) soldiers ‘last stand’ in a permanently erect phallus. The project is a kind of artistic violation and rape to all masculist men. No women should touch it. It is the soldiers tragic male generative faculty that is mourned in his collective death amoung comrades, a sacred honour to most men bring deep sobs from the most frozen hearts. How dare any woman coopt such sanctified moments. It is tapu. Forbidden. Death.

 

 

 

In any honourable culture except a matriarchal one.

 

 

 

Phillip O’Sullivan

 

Death is a constant with Men

 

Acrylic on card

 

Responsibility for Life is controlled by women

 

Acrylic on card

 

Yet Europeans for millenia, once twenty percent of the human family are heading for marginal status- possibly slavery- over the next sixty; at just one percent.

 

 

 

Proud Roman Patrician patriarchy then would have cut off a woman’s hands, even by the husband, if she grabbed his opponent’s genitals. This is given elsewhere at the time in Deuteronomy 25:12 written also over three thousand years ago. Current Christian societies advocate nothing anywhere so drastic; though Islamic ones do, following that exact law to the letter- though it is the very singular signifier of old style male right or patriarchy it is nowhere highlighted in post-modern critical theory. Thus the attack on men is based on straw man arguments from the ancient past.  One might sigh in deep resignation and come out in favour of sharia law and be done with it in exasperated sympathy with the Abrahamic patriarchy that Islam still represents.

   In New Zealand one might also beg to have real total maori governance as long as it floods over to rejuvenate male pride within the remnants of European society; for that of maoritanga is as a society of patriarchal order.  Yet it demonstrates that we can in no way be described as a patriarchal society when women voters outnumber men and widows hold the vast extent of our wealth. Women rule our matriarchal world. Cries regularly go out to cut off a mans genitalia: so he can still work presumably, yet often based on unproven disliked penetrations. No one suggests in a western context to cut off a females hands for molesting a boys penis, or touching in a morally polluted fashion a mans genitalia: after all he’s asking for it, right- a direct reversal of the situation if it were a woman who’s ‘honour’ or ‘dignity’ were at stake: - so it is a proven matriarchy then by that token. 

 

 Men wear dresses in a matriarchy, for that is where the unearned respect gets delivered in a matriarchy. In a feint female fainting patriarchy George Sand wore mens clothing to assert the indepence that is natural to a man: that was then this is now; a matriarchy.   Men are regularly arrested, tried, convicted and punished solely on the say-so of women, this is a matriarchy: the injustices rampant in our vile courts always discriminates against men in favour of women.  Shade of playground bigotry “puppy dogs tails and snails, that’s what little boys are made of”. What happens if law is so unjust that men cease to answer to it and silently refuse to testify against any man as protest upon so great a set of injustices?  As the law today unfairly awards women credibility, children, custody: and if guilty, lesser penalties in almost every level of anti-male ‘justice’.  If a false accusation carried the same penalty, if proven malicious, there could be far fewer unfair accusations, as they nevertheless destroy men’s dignity even if he is innocent: also perpetrates a slur on all other men. Yet the feminist literature itself shows that under male right remnants of just one hundred years ago there was far less violence against women- Kiwi Bloke article in Genders. It is men who are the victims and this knowledge is suppressed and repressed.  A search in any University library for the words of politicized gender discourse will show huge, massive and gigantic disparities between entries for  ’masculist’ and ‘feminist’ amounting to 403,000 (feminist) to just 16 for ‘masculist’ in one notable case.  

 

    Therefore we men are living in a matriarchy. And of the sixteen, six of them were for just two books by one author repeated across several branches, though the professor himself had written at least four more, also well-known volumes. The others were mainly articles about his books; thus one author represented an entire gender against maybe 350,000 female authors. And even that author, Professor Warren Farrell, supposedly a ‘former’ feminist – is suggesting ‘men enter beauty contests’ like wimpy new age guys and that women ‘marry, good looking studs; who are not competitive in the job market’. And who thus earn less than them. If he is a masculist: I am a lesbian who loves women ‘too’. No wonder your friendly local political fanatic aches to use exclamation marks in his texts.

 

 

 

Phillip O’Sullivan

 

 

 

Man in Defeat

 

 

 

Acrylic on Archival Card

 

The impossible lies we men have been asked to believe for nearly one hundred years, virtually without complaint, are of colossally monstrous and unbelievable proportions. And I have only begun part time during my studies thinking like this for under eight months. Lord knows what other nonsense I shall discover when heavier reading and deeper research gets under way. With such massive disparities everywhere we look how else can one describe what we are doing other than that we are living in a matriarchy!

 

Phillip O’Sullivan Feminist as Ogres Massey Life Drawing

 

 

 

Thus one must come-out masculist: for a kinder, less violent and more honourable world.

 

Otherwise it is absolutely understandable that baffled men be intuitively angry, they do not read the feminist literature of hatred borne against men, they just bear the brunt of the collective hatred. I never before realized until these recent years, thanks to critical theory studies in post modernism how much evil intent was ranged against men in a constant barrage of organized vilification and unreasoned hatred.

 

 

 

Returned violence will abate when mens rights are once again given equality. The disparity today is vast and irrational, it makes me feel I do not want anything whatever to do with any women whatever in any capacity at all. I tell young men to leave New Zealand it is so extreme here. Do not marry I say, a prostitute is cheaper, safer and emotionally cleaner. I hate feminism, feminism is evil. Underneath all men do to. I tell you. You would be surprised. No one ever says so. An artist knows these things. This has made me an artist. Now I believe in art. Art can say this thing that no politician can speak outright. We make the dangerous utterance safe; just as we gentrify neighbourhoods with our studios, lofts and coffeehouse galleries. Our art speaks the sullen stubborn stuff, the things polite society is afraid of. The new things that are now taboo. There are always new forbidden things.  Gay and lesbian and feminist are not new anymore, they have been out a long time; they are phony transgressives, the fully licenced and allowed transgression; ours is the truly unjust condition; ours is the aggressive transgression, our anger is totally legitimate. Ugly truth is becoming beautiful in our art. Masculist art is the new post contemporary art. We are the transgressive now.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!