Thursday, May 17, 2012

Sinking the Men of the Yamato

Through my own personal conversations, the conversations retold to me of other men, and even those conversations I've heard on the Tom Leykis Show, all of us men have at one point in time or another been asked by women,

"Who screwed you over in the past?"

or a variant

"What girl did this to you?"

Usually this happens when women ask you about your opinions of dating, courtship, romance, etc., and when you speak the truth they are shocked and horrified that you have such a cynical or pessimistic attitude towards dating or women in general.  The logic they employ leads them to only one possible solution or explanation:

That ONE girl completely screwed you over and thus, unjustifiably and unfairly, soured your opinion of ALL women.

They believe there was this ONE, SINGLE, SOLE perpetrator that did not represent or resemble the majority of women and that is why you have this "irrational" or "inappropriate" response or view of women.  That the majority of women are too numerous and prevalent that it was only sheer dumb luck you ran into a single, sole, renegade operator who warped your perception of women so unjustifiably so. 

So let me introduce a little reality into the situation.

For the most part, I believe most women subscribe to the theory that "ONE" person did this to you, and therefore scarred you for the rest of your life, because it's simple.  The human brain (male or female) is more prone to select the simpler theory because it takes too much effort to accept and rationalize complex ones.  This is not a criticism of women, because men are just as susceptible to believe in a "simple" theory than a complex one.  But it's just easier to believe there was this ONE, SINGLE, MEAN, BADDIE of a girl that did something really mean to you and thus you swore off women forever. 

The REALITY is however, quite the opposite.

Yes, there are men who unfortunately suffered one, single death-knelling blow and they never got up again.  But for the majority of men, it is more akin to the sinking of the Yamato than anything else.

The Yamato was the premier Japanese battleship of WWII.  It was more or less unsinkable from sea and thus they had to resort to aerial bombing to sink her.  She took an AMAZING amount of punishment.  Three separate waves of attacks, from air and sea and she still kept on going.

Inevitably she DID capitulate and sink, but understand it was no one single bomb or torpedo that did her in.  It was a relentless, constant, repetitive, barrage and assault that essentially bludgeoned her into submission and defeat.  And thus is the way of most men you will face today above an age of 25.

The sheer hell and punishment, NOT in terms of single punishing blows, but in terms of constantly repetitive, NEVER ENDING attacks is what molds or galvanizes men into what they are today.  The accomplished Hugh Grant-like bachelor that eschews meeting your friend that is "perfect for him" was not sunk by a single woman, but a barrage of flake outs, stand ups, drama queens and suicide threats.  The confirmed bachelor who prefers to hang out with his buds instead of go to a club and meet a girl has had his deck strafed repeatedly.  The 40 something executive, committed to his job and his career and maybe calls you when he's in town, remembers starkly those days of getting the hell bombed out of him by ditzy girlfriend after cheating girlfriend after money-sucking girlfriend.

Did some girls cause more damage than others?


Did any one of them sink the individual man?


And so in the end if you look at the autopsy of this former "good guy" or "reliable man," you'll find that the cause of death was no single girl that hurt his feelings "really bad" back in college, but a never ending litany of flakes, frauds, drama queens, liars and just plain evil women/girls that were never strong enough or significant enough on their own to cause major damage to such a vessel, but a never ending barrage of them that just plain wore him down to the point of defeat.

Ergo, stop trying to blame the sinking of "good men" on mythical single, sole villains and start casting a wider net.  It is a problem that is more pervasive and wide-spread than most women will admit. And much like Christianity did, and Islam must in the future -have a reformation- so too must modern day women purge and shame through their ranks the women who find it fashionable, funny, entertaining and enjoyable to bomb, strafe, torpedo and attack men.

Because understand, those of us men of the Yamato class are simply forced to make a decision based on statistics and probability.  Enough girls attack, drop their bombs, and shoot torpedoes into our sides, we have no choice but to treat you all as enemies and give no one the benefit of the doubt, even the genuine and true "good girls."  And so there you sit at the age of 32 wondering "where have all the good men gone."  Whether you're a good girl or a bad girl, it doesn't matter.  By this point in the game it's revenge by proxy time.  If you're upset about that, then take it up with the feminists and evil women in your ranks that found it so necessary to villainize, mock, stand up, play mind, etc. with young men/boys, not the sinking Yamato's themselves.

Regardless, I sure hope it was fun (not to mention, worth it) playing with young boys' feelings and emotions in middle school through college.  Hope it was fun with the drama and suicide threats, and ultimatums and mind games and sh!t tests and whatever else Cosmo told you to do.  I hope "playing hard to get" and stringing along men/boys provided invaluable entertainment.  Because there couldn't possibly be a consequence to all that now could there?

You lovely western ladies enjoy that decline!

On a intellectual note, from Wikipedia about the sinking of the Yamato and just what kind of punishment it endured:

 Yamato avoided being hit for four minutes until, at 12:41, two bombs obliterated two of her triple 25 mm anti-aircraft mounts and blew a hole in the deck. A third bomb then destroyed her radar room and the starboard aft 127 mm mount. At 12:46 another two bombs struck the battleship's port side, one slightly ahead of the aft 155 mm centreline turret and the other right on top of the gun. These caused a great amount of damage to the turret and its magazines; only one man climbed out alive.[48][N 7] At 12:45 a single torpedo struck Yamato far forward on her port side sending extreme shocks throughout the ship. Because many of the hit's survivors were later killed by strafing or were trapped when Yamato sank, the details are uncertain, but authors Garzke and Dulin record that little damage was caused.[48] Shortly afterward up to three more torpedoes struck Yamato. Two impacts—on the port side near the engine room and on one of the boiler rooms—are confirmed; the third is disputed but is regarded by Garzke and Dulin as probable because it would explain the reported flooding in Yamato's auxiliary steering room. The attack ended around 12:47, leaving the battleship to list 5–6° to port; counterflooding—deliberately flooding compartments on the other side of the ship—reduced the list to 1°. One boiler room had been disabled, slightly reducing Yamato's top speed, and strafing had incapacitated many of the gun crews who manned Yamato's unprotected 25 mm anti-aircraft weapons, sharply curtailing their effectiveness.[48]
A large area of ocean with a warship in the middle distance. A plume of smoke is coming from the rear of the ship's superstructure, and the ship appears to be leaning to the left.
Yamato photographed during the battle by an aircraft from USS Yorktown (CV-10). The battleship is on fire and visibly listing to port.
The second attack started just before 13:00. In a coordinated strike, dive bombers flew high overhead to begin their runs while torpedo laden aircraft approached from all directions at just above sea level. Overwhelmed by the number of targets, the battleship's anti-aircraft guns were less than effective, and the Japanese tried desperate measures to break up the attack. Yamato's main guns were loaded with Beehive shells fused to explode one second after firing—a mere 1,000 m (3,300 ft) from the ship—but this had little effect. Four or five torpedoes struck the battleship, three or four to port and one to starboard. Three hits, close together on the port side, are confirmed: one struck a fireroom that had been hit earlier, one impacted a different fireroom, and the third hit the hull adjacent to a previously damaged outboard engine room, increasing the water that had already been flowing into that space and possibly causing flooding in nearby locations. The fourth hit (though unconfirmed) may have struck aft of the third; Garzke and Dulin believe this would explain the rapid flooding that reportedly occurred in that location.[49] This attack left Yamato in a perilous position, listing 15–18° to port. Counterflooding all of the remaining starboard void spaces lessened this to 10°, but further correction would have required either repairs or flooding the starboard engine and fire rooms. Although the battleship was in no danger of sinking at this point, the list meant that the main battery was unable to fire and her maximum speed was limited to 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph).[50]
The third and most damaging attack developed at about 13:40. At least four bombs hit the ship's superstructure and caused heavy casualties among her 25 mm anti-aircraft gun crews. Many near misses drove in her outer plating, partially compromising her defense against torpedoes. Most serious were four more torpedo impacts. Three exploded on the port side, increasing water intake into the port inner engine room and flooding yet another fireroom and the steering gear room. With the auxiliary steering room already underwater, the ship lost all maneuverability and became stuck in a starboard turn. The fourth torpedo most likely hit the starboard outer engine room which, along with three other rooms on the starboard side, was in the process of being counterflooded to reduce the port list. The torpedo strike increased the rate of water intake by a large margin, trapping many crewmen before they could escape.[51]

At 14:02 the order was belatedly given to abandon ship. By this time Yamato's speed had dropped to 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) and her list was steadily increasing. Fires were raging out of control in some sections of the ship and alarms had begun to sound on the bridge warning of critical temperatures in the forward main battery magazines.


Anonymous said...

Very very ture..big scars and little scars..death by a thousand cuts.

Anonymous said...


James Wolfe said...

It took about 8 women to do me in. One lying cheating wife, five neurotic / psychotic girlfriends, and two work friends that were just using me to get ahead. I finally realized it just wasn't worth it anymore. When women wonder where all the good men have gone, in naval terms, they're either at the bottom of the ocean or they beached their battered hulls on some nice tropical island and are sitting under straw hats sipping drinks with umbrellas in them.

Jim said...

Some of the worst one's:

One was actually married and claimed to have Hep B passed to her from her father who got it in Vietnam.

Another told me to scat to the bedroom as her fuck buddy unexpectedly knocked on her door one morning to pick his clothes up. And no, I didn't hide.

Another was the mothers of all psychos, tried to separate me from my friends, pulled the suicide card on as a threat.

Another fell head over heels for some loser who BTW did a stint in jail for stealing. At least she blew me when he was in jail.

Boy oh boy I'm just salivating for more drama.

Anonymous said...

Wake up white man.

sisterbrat said...

Ouch. Very ouch. I wish I hadn't seen myself when I was reading your post. Thanks for more insight. Insight is like spinach, yucky but good for you. I guess.

Arch said...

Pure win.

Anonymous said...

In a perverse way they create the men that women crave after - a guy with money who shows no interest in them.

He has money due to dedicating his life to career after years of put-downs & abuse from women in his younger days.

The problem then for the guy is wrapping his head around now being desirable to women with the anger there from knowing that if it wasn't for the well-paid job they'd have no interest - hence the guy is genuinely not interested & out of reach.

Do women then take their frustration out on guys their age by giving them shit, creating a vicious circle?

Anonymous said...

Good analogy.

We all expect to take a little damage in the dating game, and battleships are designed to absorb it and keep going.

(See also every major Dreadnought action WWI and WWII. )

But nothing can take a pounding forever and if you can't achieve a victory, eventually it comes time to break off ( if you still can) and head for port and wait for a better day.

CBMTTek said...

The problem here is, (and I have to add, this is from personal experience, nothing more) most woman have absolutely no problem pointing at a single man they dated and claiming it was him that caused all her dating angst.

Most of that time, that one man varies depending on the story, it could be Bob this time, and Stan the next. Steve taught her that men cannot be trusted, and Mike stole her self esteem. But, invariably it is ONE SINGLE MAN that provided all of her baggage.

Not trying to be sexist here or anything, but it does seem that a lot of females have difficulty understanding that it is a lifetime of emotional bombardment, not a single event.

Anonymous said...

Really? The Yamato? I wish you'd stop using the Imperial Japanese Navy as an example; their anti-aircraft systems were sub-par as far as direction and caliber, and that particular class had TERRIBLE arcs of fire for its AAA layout to boot.

Not to mention the Iowa-class firing BuOrd superheavy shells could have taken them in a surface action, due to an inefficient armor layout. Sheesh.

Apart from that, I guess your point stands.

Robert Hewes said...

Have you read any of Fred Reed's writing Cap? Among other things, he has some great insights into the pussification of American men and assholification of American women.

Aurini said...

That ain't scar tissue, honey - that's a callous.

The damage women do is proportional to how important they were in one's life. Personally, I can point to a couple who did the most damage, but that's because of what they meant to me. What they actually did is no different than what any other girl would do; I just happened to love them.

The reason I made myself so vulnerable was that I thought we'd make great partners in life. And the sad part? I still think that was true. If not for their typical North American attitude, we could have been happily married by now and living a life of adventure. Instead, I see them on facebook, getting older and riding the carousel, losing their beauty, and the edges of their eyes speak of a bitterness that didn't used to exist.

Today's women just don't seem to care about the damage they can inflict on men. They sexually-tease constantly (particularly cruel to guys without game), and are callous in their treatment of men's feelings. Pump-and-dump is just as damaging, but it's often the only sane response.

It's a sad state of affair.

Anonymous said...

Captain, you have hit the nail right on the head. A series of nagging, wishy-washy, and ultra-controlling girlfriends, plus a 16 year marriage to an evil, forked-tongue, adulterous shrew, have permanently sunk this battleship. I'm long Gone My Own Way, and I won't be coming back. Ever.

Anonymous said...

Sweet jesus..this is your masterpiece Cappy. Bravo to you sir. My cap is doffed. I think you have earned your Rumpie.

Jamila said...

I've come to believe that men never love any woman as much as they love the first woman who broke their heart. Yeah, they can go own to love again, but they never love with the level of reckless abandon that they did that first time. It's like there is a switch that is forever switched off once their heart gets broken.

Long ago when I read In Mala Fide on a regular basis, Ferdinand said something that I though really profound. He said that men tend to see their relationships in parallel, all the women they've been with can be seen clearly at the same time and easily compared. Whereas women tend to view their relationships in a sequence--once we fall in love again, we focus on the new love and whatever we experienced in our past relationships get blurry. ( Or something like that.)

Thus, men are less likely to love any woman like they loved the first one; while us women are more likely to go on and have that intense passionate love with another man.

I actually think that when men love, they tend to love harder than women, which might be why men nowadays (well, on the internet anyways) don't seem to rushing to love anyone.

V10 said...

"Usually this happens when women ask you about your opinions of dating, courtship, romance, etc., and when you speak the truth they are shocked and horrified that you have such a cynical or pessimistic attitude towards dating or women in general."

On that note, how do you, Captain and fellow readers, explain your position when asked? What's your "THIS where all the good men have gone" speech?

I've been asked this general question 2 or 3 times, but it always comes out of left field, so I'm not ready and end up rambling.

NAWALT is a predictable enough rebuttal though, to which I explain that it doesn't require all woman to be like that, just a significant percentage. How many loaded chambers in a revolver does it take before playing Russian Roulette is not worth any prize?

Captain Capitalism said...

V10, if I read your question correctly, I think you answered it.

1/6 is bad enough with Russian roulette. But with the girls...ehhh....historically speaking I'd say about 80%, maybe even 85%, it wasn't worth my time/resources/money.

So when they say "NAWALT" you respond as you did.

"True, but most are, and I have to decide based on likely statistical outcomes. Life is short, and I'm not wasting it any longer."

V10 said...

Not exactly my question. You've just been asked "Why aren't you seeing anyone?", or something along the lines. Usually by a relative or a co-worker (and possibly female herself) so the answer has to be tactful, but brutal enough to cut off any cheery encouragement about plenty of fish in the sea and assurance I'll find that special someone.

I'm still not satisfied with my short answer. The Russian Roulette example is the follow-up when they insist NAWALT or I'm being a pessimist.

Paul said...


If the question "Why aren't you seeing someone?" is coming from a woman, than you're looking at it wrong by taking it at face value. It really is an example of pre-selection in action, what the question means is "What's wrong with you that some woman hasn't already taken you?"


The other part is that men tend to be better at that thing called 'abstract reasoning', which means that we can watch all the other ships taking on water and decide not to join the fray. Women have a harder time relating to this, which is why they 'reason' by example and have to assume that we do it to.

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen, at what point do you take responsibility for the choices that you have made?! You can't place yourself in the hands of flakey, liar, unreliable women, and then complain that they broke your heart and that you are permanently damaged because of it! You chose them.

Why do men choose the attention seeking drama queens, over the women who know how to care for a man? Why not look for the chicks who learned by example within their own families?! I just don't believe that most men take the time to get to know who they are dealing with before they dive in, and confuse cute sex for true love and connection...

It has always fascinated me when guys go for the LTR with young, slutty, faux lezzie drama queens with the poor reputation, and zero home making skills because "she's pretty", or "she's hot", and then complain about not being able to link up with quality women?

I'm convinced that men confuse drama with excitement, and then live to regret it later on, once married and with kids. Nice girls finish last dude...