I am going to get a little polemical here. Furthermore, I will differentiate between generalized ‘subjectivities’ which, in my view, are the product of subjectivation, not conscious choice. There is no hierarchy here. No human enemies. The only enemies I see are imperialism, capitalism, and patriarchy.
Before I start pissing you off, let me explain what I mean. The categorizations I will be using need some explaining:
The Patriarch: Archetype of person who owns or seeks to own property of any kind (including family members and spouses) and engages in value negotiations rooted in a history of imperialism, colonialism, and gender essentialism.
The Bad Boy: Archetype of person with stereotypically superficial masculine traits, and displays a mere narcissistic concern in regard to sexual attention rather than seeking ownership as is the case with patriarchs.
Neither of these archetypes has a gender. It is merely an archetype of a power-network and the subjectivities produced, maintained and negotiated within it.
Now let me make some claims:
In this brave new world of podcasters and other minions of Western polarization efforts, people who are not attracted to the patriarch (biological sex is irrelevant here) get accused of wanting the bad boy. This somehow implies a kind of desire for self-harm, or simply stupidity. It also implies an interest in superficial status over personal contentment. In turn, this is then commonly perceived as an expression of resentment coming from the patriarchal archetype driven by envy due to the patriarch’s lack of physical or mental appeal. And while that is somewhat true, there is also another aspect of this which is commonly ignored. And that is what I would like to explore here in this essay.
The Bad Boys
The true reason the bad boy archetype appeals to certain oppressed persons more than the patriarchal archetype lies in emotional understanding and the perception of equality or a closer proximity to some form of equality. Those who reject the patriarchal archetype are often more interested in the "bad boy" archetype because they feel a deeper connection based on shared experiences of oppression.
This shared level of connection is a product of patriarchy. It is a space constructed and maintained by patriarchal forces, existing for the pleasure of the dominant patriarchal framework. Consequently, this space results from the same type of oppression inherent in the patriarchal system, specifically through mechanisms of objectification and fetishization.
The people who actually prefer the bad boy archetype are people who simply want to know what they are signing up for and do not have trust in the patriarchal archetype.
The bad boy archetype and the "female" archetype exist on the exact same level on opposite sides and you, the patriarchs, have put them there. And you know why? BECAUSE YOU FETISHIZE THEM IN COMBINATION.
The Creation of the Bad Boy Archetype
Let me give you a brief history of the ‘bad boy’ archetype.
The appeal of "bad boys" has been imposed on society for generations and is deeply rooted in the ideology of biological essentialism. This narrative was invented by envious patriarchs, who cloaked their fear and entitlement in an attempt to counter the perceived threat of natural selection. They did this by asserting that the EXTERNAL body's relevance was confined to its capacity to be used, either physically or metaphorically.
The sexualization of mating scenarios and the objectification of bodies became deeply intertwined with patriarchal identity, and is - to this day - propagated through media representation. For instance, classic Hollywood films often glorify the ‘bad boy’ persona, presenting these characters as desirable yet dangerous. We are taught that is what sexual desire should be focused on. Similarly, advertising campaigns frequently use the image of the rebellious, unattainable man to sell products, suggesting that adopting this persona equates to success and desirability.
This is precisely where the patriarchy's reign faltered and why -nowadays- we have people on podcasts literally crying over the loss of the patriarchal ideal image. But this is your own fault, patriarchs.
You simply underestimated your own greed and vanity, and over time, convinced yourselves that you were the moral, stoic and civilization-building saviors of mankind. The nice guys. The poor sad souls who no longer get appreciated.
Let me give you an example of what happened: The rise of male-dominated industries such as film and fashion - where images were sold by patriarchy to its oppressed subjects - created a feedback loop. And this feedback loop allowed for the ‘bad boy’ archetype to continuously be reinforced and commodified, leading to a disconnect between the patriarchs' intentions and the actual societal impact.
The Awakening of Patriarchy's Commoditites
Let me explain this by using the framework of Deleuze and Guattari:
Deleuze and Guattari introduce the concept of desiring-machines and the Body without Organs (BwO) in their work Anti-Oedipus. Desiring-machines represent the flows and processes of desire that circulate within society, while the BwO is a field of potentiality that resists organization and control. The patriarchs attempted to control the desiring-machines by creating and perpetuating the "bad boy" archetype, encoding desire in a way that served their interests.
However, capitalism—another desiring-machine—began to decode and reterritorialize these flows of desire in unexpected ways. As industries like film and fashion commodified the "bad boy" archetype, they also began to dismantle the rigid structures the patriarchs relied on. The relentless production and commodification of these images led to the proliferation of new subjectivities that no longer aligned with patriarchal ideals.
The BwO, representing a space of resistance and potential, began to surface as individuals started questioning and rejecting the imposed narratives. The patriarchs, having underestimated the power of capitalism's desiring-machines, found themselves facing a society where their control over identity and desire was slipping away. The very mechanisms they used to enforce their dominance became the tools of their undoing, as commodified identities gained awareness and agency.
In summary, Deleuze and Guattari's framework reveals how the patriarchy's attempts to control desire through the "bad boy" archetype ultimately backfired. The feedback loop of commodification and representation in capitalist industries disrupted patriarchal power, creating new spaces for resistance and the emergence of diverse subjectivities. This unraveling of control highlights the inherent instability of oppressive systems when faced with the dynamic forces of desire and capitalism.
You Did It To Yourselves!
So capitalism produced a desiring machine which, in turn, produced the commodities the patriarch needed to cope with their own fading identity. It disseminated the patriarch identity as universal even to patriarch-adjacents or imaginary patriarchs who had no deviant plan or family bloodline to back up that identity.
Because thats what capitalism does. Its takes your identity and it waters it down and makes it stale and available to anyone who has even the slightest bit of a similarity to it.
So your plan to not only demonize (by presenting the bad boy archetype as dangerous) but also objectify (by presenting them as capable of being a danger) and fetishize (by presenting a narrative of them as the ultimate representation of masculinity or some other spook for strength) in an attempt to control the production of identities for the common folk, backfired.
You thought you wrote the story and then watched us hurt and use and turn on each other to cope with the greater narrative of your superiority, while selling your own agenda to us as protection.
But we were never that stupid. And the monster you underestimated - i.e. capitalism - doesnt see us as different. It wants the same from me as it does from you. But your stakes in it are so much higher.
So...the reason why the people who built society, then called themselves protectors and healers while lying to us and playing us against each other did what they did is because they wanted to own us as commodities. Even just in their minds.
And idk about you but I am pretty sure that the world is developing toward the consumer good owning the consumer and not vice versa.
And its hilarious how you shitheads are being outed as addicts at this point.
The commodity is seeing its value (the bad boys and other sexual object) and since you never actually tried to become the thing you commodify (because it’s easier to just go with ownership, because ownership made you feel less envious), because thats too much work, your commodities are leaving you.
Your sex dolls are becoming conscious.
SO NOW, DESPERATELY, YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE ANOTHER NARRATIVE: The commodity is superficial. The commodity is evil and amoral and thats why its picking YOUR OTHER FETISH COMMODITY to be with.
But let me tell you what that really means: we just dont want to be with someone whose ego is the size of the monster you created.
Watch Ex-Machina again! You'll get it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this essay. I think you make valid points and I love the use of archetypes.