I was at a regular haunt last night in St. Petersburg, Florida - "Central Cigars." It is hands down by favorite cigar lounge because it not only has cigars, but
a bar
a jazz club
and assumes you are an adult capable of making your own adult decisions ergo serving you booze and (GASP) allowing you to take a GLASS CONTAINER OUTSIDE!
The other reason I like it is me and my buddy just pull off a Dean Martin and watch all the girls go by. THere is a college campus in town, plus the local ladies usually dress quite provocatively and sometimes quite pretty as well, that it really is a sight to behold. However, past experiences tell us the best thing to do is look. You never approach, you never talk. They are incredibly arrogant, incredibly snooty. The best thing to do is take a drag from your Cusano M1, take a sip of your scotch, while standing on the corner, watching all the girls go by.
But last night the ladies of St. Petersburg pulled off another one, further cementing their reputation.
My buddy and I are sitting at our outside table. A cackle of young 20 something girls walk past us, giggling, and strutting, as one in their cabal places her empty pizza cardboard container on our table, without a bat of the eye, and continues walking with her friends. Following my theory that if shit like this is "let go" it will simply reinforce behavior and turn her into an even more insufferable woman for some (or multiple) schmoes in the future, I grabbed it, darted after her and put in upside down on her head. Of course she just let it fall off and continued her little strut, but the cackle did stop giggling.
Now this is the epitome of a girl who is a genuine, 100% USDA certified "bitch." Her behavior was unacceptable, arrogant, cocky, and demeaning to everybody else to think she could just drop off her garbage at any ole table. She deserves to be called a "bitch" (and many other derogatory words).
However, this is ONE person. A SINGLE girl who may represent a sub-group of people, BUT NOT ALL WOMEN. And it's high time this be pointed out to a significant percentage of readers in The Manosphere.
I've instituted a new policy on comment approval - I'm no longer approving posts that call women in general names and other derogatory terms.
Do I use foul language to describe women at time?
Sure.
Is the language crass?
Of course.
But it is ALWAYS a specific girl. And anecdote. A single person. Somebody who deserves it.
Never women in general.
And when some basement, keyboard jockey says things like "Ameri-cunts" or "whores" or cannot help but put "gina" as a suffix to every word, I'm angry and therefore done. I'm sick of the childishness of it all. I'm sick of "faux Manosphere academians" who merely co-opt the manosphere as an excuse for their poor performance and fear of trying in life. I'm sick of people trying to paint the "Us vs. Them" when it is "Us vs. Feminism/Communism." I'm sick of seeing genuine, sincere, nice women being included with the vile scum ruining the country.
And so I'm instituting the new comment policy for these official reasons three.
1. You damn right NAWALT
We are fortunate enough to have scores of women on the internet coming to bat for men, family, and loved ones. They like men, they appreciate men, and they are spending their time defending them. And for every female blogger out there there are thousands of nice, wonderful, caring, traditional women. Just because they live in "America" or are "western" does not mean they all have their triple masters in Women's Studies and will die of old age with their cats.
2. It's childish to call women names
Name calling???? Are you kidding me??? Of all the legitimate and sincere criticisms that can be made about affirmative action, fake rape charges, lopsided divorce courts, feminist hatred, and insane unacceptable courting behavior of women, you have to resort to NAME CALLING???? First, it isn't going to work. Second, it makes you look like an idiot. Do you think that veritable bitch in St. Pete's would even be phased by calling her names? It won't be until she lives life and hits the wall will she even begin to get her comeuppance. Name calling does nothing but make you look pissed off, out of options, and one who has no legitimate beefs, just a genuine bigotry against women.
3. Real revenge
Name calling isn't revenge. There is really only going to be ONE source of revenge and that is your absence. I shall review it VERY briefly here, but, the most important thing in life is not material wealth, not income, not riches, but your husband/wife. A member of the opposite sex you fall in love with. They are likely to be the single greatest source of happiness in your life. So in you, and millions of other men, extracting yourself from the marriage market, you deny these women the best thing that can happen to them, and thus exact your toll of REAL revenge. But this is COMPLETELY dependent and presupposed on YOU BEING A QUALITY MAN.
If you are in shape, supporting yourself, are interesting, have a profession, have hobbies and have a life, then you in refusing to date certain types of women get your revenge. But if you are fat, uninteresting, can't support yourself, live with your parents, not hygienic, and just don't have anything going on, then you won't get your revenge, you ARE the revenge of others in that women are left with you to date. Ergo, not only is this a reason NOT to call women names, but it is a practical COMMAND for you to get off your ass, get in shape, becoming interesting, and become a man.
51 comments:
Top notch post.
The sputtering rage dweebs obviously don't spend much time interacting with real people in the real world. I have many pleasant conversations in my daily life.
It has gotten so silly that I'm on the verge of scrubbing much bs from my own mostly-dormant blog. What once sounded novel is now just cliched garbage.
I sat one of my kids down and calmly told him: "Do you know you cuss twice as much as I do?"
He was surprised. I told him to use a cuss word either as a) sparingly use language weapon effective because its scarcity or b) make people laugh.
And now he does.
But that's just it, isn't it? When did I figure that out on my own? I don't recall. But figure it out I did, because my stepfather left when my mother had an affair. No man sat me down and said "you sound stupid." No man told me "when you lump people together you're just as bad as all the rest of the collectivists."
So now we're left with setting obvious rules ourselves. I've often heard "let 'em vent, they need it."
But, as you said, there's venting, and then there's not being a lazy shlub.
Agh. Stupid blogger ate my comment.
This has been one of my major problems with a lot of men in the manosphere -- the love of a generality, mostly in comment sections. Everything doesn't always fit into the same mold.
It's not necessarily just the "Ameri-cunts" things, but just, "If you do X, that's BETA!"
Nah, y'know what? If you cow and live your life but what some anonymous dude on the internet says... that's pretty beta. Be a man, make your decisions and pursue what makes you happy.
You're absolutely right in saying that we should not resort to mere name calling, but on the other how do you describe women that strip their one time husbands of his children, assets and his self respect. What would you call a woman whose ex commits suicide because she has taken everything from him.
What about the men, that defend such actions?
I would think that some poetic license or flowery phrase to describe such persons should on occasion be permitted, if for no other reason than add a little spice to the article. All pepper all the time is tedious to be sure, but in the right circumstances a little pepper goes a long way to reinforcing the point.
I guess foul mouthed language against men is still OK.
GO AARON!
You climb right on and RIDE THAT BANDWAGON, BABY!
I call myself whiteknight after a video game character, not because I'm a feminist.
But here goes...
I am White Knight Leo, and I approve this message.
That woman had to be either high or drunk to leave the pizza box on your table. Maybe she didn't even notice that people were sitting there.
If not, then I think talking to her about it would have packed more punch.
"Excuse me, but do you know you just tossed your trash at me? Why do you think that's even remotely civilized?"
You probably would have gotten an apology.
Nice post and clever reference to the old Four Aces tune.
But the expression is "a gaggle of girls" not a "cackle." Cackle is a sound someone makes when they laugh harshly. Gaggle means group.
-- Days of Broken Arrows.
The whole He-Man Woman-Haters Club shtick has got to stop, and I applaud your efforts at checking this trend among the Manosphere commentariat. As a Man of a Certain Age I was disrespected and treated shabbily by women throughout my youth until I learned by happy accident (long story) how to act and interact among women. (My Red Pill Awakening was in the 1980s, so, yeah, I'm that old.) Part of my awakening was a resolution not to waste another second on hatred and resentment. I take responsibility for my own ineptitude and bad choices. You've got your good and bad actors. Seek the good, avoid the bad. How hard is that?
If all you know about women are feminists or bar sluts, you're going to hate women. There are so many women out there who are of neither category, but you'd never know it if you took the word of these bitter chumps. Of course, I'm just an old married guy (23 years last week) so what the hell do I know?
Yeah-Cigar Central is pretty awesome. The pizza place on the same block used to be very good, but I think there's new ownership who doesn't give a damn anymore and just looks to clean up on SPC students and local imbibers between the hours of 9pm and 3am when most everything else is closed.
You should check out the place just around the corner that used to be called "The Independent." I think it is called "World of Beer." They have some pretty rare drinks there that can be worth seeking out. For instance, I had a pretty good belgian sour ale there not too long ago-not easy to find in St. Pete!
@ Anon: Foul mouthing a particular man will lead to fairly instant retribution. Which is something most men know, and removing the others from the gene pool improves civilization.
@ Cappy: I won't date American women for another reason: not that there are not nice US women, who are conservative, pretty, care for themselves are faithful and cook...
... but because I am fortunate enough not to be an American and I don't want to have IRS or US immigration or any arm of your incredibly stupid and punitive federal system in my life.
(I say that I will date people from the USA who have left. But they will have to, now the CAPTCHA law is out there, renounce their citizenship and put all assets in the US into trust before I would give them a ring. Nothing personal, just biz.)
You used to be able to say not all states are like that, but that, unfortunately has gone.
And swearing would decrease the venom of my discourse on that subject.
Cappy, I read heavy cognitive dissidence in this post. From reading your blog over the past year or two, I've observed your need to be a nice guy with women. Women don't want a nice guy. They don't exactly want an asshole either. They want to be conquered by masculinity that can rule them well. Seems to me that you've spit up red pill to embrace the blue. You area a creative systemic thinker, as am I. You are not solving anything by ‘helping’ some schmoes down the line of Ms. Pizza Box. Those schmoes are the political problem. Talk to those hot women for your own benefit or not at all. Learn how to handle women as a civilized man must. Your blog seems to have become a White Knight fest. I have not checked in here for some time. No proof of the iniquity of woman-haters can change your SMV merits or political merits any more than denying the antecedent. Your left-right paradigm is false. Your dimensions of thought are irrelevant. You're trying the solve the Bridges of Koenigsberg problem the wrong way. You never will ‘get it’ if you don't let go of the false blue-pill it, Mr. Nice Guy. The fundamentals of sexual reproduction are fundamental to human civilization as much as constructive aggregate behavior, which does not happen without sovereign force of some kind. Practice seduction before pizza box revenge and try being a civilized country of one. Those hot women will respond to feral masculinity cues if you give them congruently. How you use those powers to manage women is up to you. Leaving them unmanaged means somebody else will, in government; hence, the decline. We need patriarchs not white knights. A brotherhood of white knights is suicide. Men can own women for their own good. The reverse is not true. Women destroy men they conquer. Equality is just a platform for shaming language and conquest. Women need to social climb, and are not happy unless they are working to please authority. Try dispensing some of your social authority but to the hindbrain, and try manipulating the perceived rank of people around you. Works better than playing pizza box. You want to talk to those hotties. Why not master talking to them? Oh, no…then you would be mastering women. So cruel.
Bravo Cappy! Keep those posts coming. You have female fans across the pond in the UK now!
Thanks for this post, Aaron. What feminism has done to our society is create a hostile environment not only for men, but for women who like and defend men and want real, caring, protective and masculine men in their lives. This insanity was set in motion long before any of us was born, and is promoted and supported by a socialist government movement because it plays so well into the hands of the powerful elite to divide and conquer. Unfortunately, as you can see from what some men do with your posts, it works very well to fuel anger and disrespect in sometimes inappropriate ways and toward many of the wrong people. The manosphere is a very necessary backlash against feminism, but we are not all the enemy. We are trying to make our way in this crazy world too, and often without very many acceptable choices. Women who have been raised with feminism as a religious belief against a doctrine of perceived victimhood fail to see that rather than being a solution to most problems, it has made life very much harder for all of us. Unfortunately, many men support the lie as well, often while professing otherwise.
@'Reality' Doug
Speaking as a female, I disagree with you. Cappy Cap is NOT a nice guy per se. He just uses his alpha-ness for good as opposed to evil. And that is hot and wanted.
This also reminds me of this post:
https://laidnyc.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/a-tale-of-two-alphas/
Are you suggesting men must all be like John? Lame of you.
I'm sort of confused here. Over the past year or so its been people who are lazy and live off the govt are the dregs of society except when you do it yourself then its ok, that women who act like street urchins should be treated like street urchins except we should never use words to describe what they really are because that would be offensive, that men should act like men and live our lives without excuses except when women want us to toe the line then we should toe the line for the good of society. I think my bookmarks have gotten mixed up and this is some parody website of Captain Capitalism. It sounds more like some feminist socialist please let me wear the captain's hat tonight honey badger website. I think I'll check back in few months and see if the Captain has returned.
"Are you suggesting men must all be like John? Lame of you."
No he's not moron.
@Anthony, I hope it wasn't the son you're holding in your arm in that photo...he's far too young for a potty mouth! Watch your language around the home. :-)
Thanks, for the post, CC. You're exactly right. Many posters in the manosphere have become a parody of themselves. Gendersturbation on the internet is their emotional tampon. It's hard for any grown up to listen to after a while.
Sometimes I think a few posters in the manosphere are actually feminists trying to undermine the legitimacy of male concerns. It's a smart tactic, really. Nothing poisons so well as a bad "supporter". A bad supporter can do more harm than the most vocal enemy. Game of Thrones comes to mind:
Sansa to Littlefinger: “And Lyn Corbray?”
Littlefinger: “Ser Lyn will remain my implacable enemy. He will speak of me with scorn and loathing to every man he meets, and lend his sword to every secret plot to bring me down.”
Sansa: “And how shall you reward him for this service?”
Littlefinger laughed aloud. “With gold and boys and promises, of course. Ser Lyn is a man of simple tastes….”
One Anon:
I guess foul mouthed language against men is still OK.
Yes, exactly, Captain Asperger. Because he did not explicitly address that, he is silently approving.
Do you even know which site you're on??
Dos Anon:
You're absolutely right in saying that we should not resort to mere name calling, but on the other how do you describe women that strip their one time husbands of his children, assets and his self respect. What would you call a woman whose ex commits suicide because she has taken everything from him.
First of all -- nobody can take your self respect or make you commit suicide. Second, yes, the laws in this country are horribly slanted towards the woman in divorce. However, given that your example is an individual woman and not women in general...
... I'm pretty sure we'd all say, "Man, what a cunt."
What about the men, that defend such actions?
Because we all hold Hugo Danger in such high regard here or something??
Also, WhiteKnight: Why not go with Paladin instead?
@ "John the Capitalist"...
Excellent insight. I developed the same notion, myself, straight from the title of his post.
There's no confusion here... because this is the way in which men conduct themselves, typically. I think it's rather interesting how these "Manosphere Chieftans" exclaim that the big difference between Men and women is that Men stand on principle. Yet everywhere I look in My daily interactions with Men; and with every Man-established blog-site I read, there seems to be nothing but misdirection and blurred messages. Mere words... nothing more.
Quick example: I met a man from the Jacksonville area on a different web forum and we seemed to have a few things in common - motorcycles, political and social positions, views concerning the state of affairs between Men and women. Turns out he grew up in the same state that I had lived in at the time. So, we arranged a meeting to get together and enjoy a good weekend in his old home town.
Now this was a dude who talked a big game about how he doesn't let women control him and he could care less about them.
What does he do as soon as he steps off the plane in the airport?
"Wow! Did you see her? Holy shit!".... with his eyes about the size of Jupiter acting like he's never seen an attractive women in his life. It was juvenile and embarrassing.
But this is how most "men" are... and puerile and disgusting hypocrisy doesn't simply evaporate once you start your own blog and label yourself a leader among your "lieutenants".
The messages I'm getting here are the same, John: Live your life without excuses, except of course, if your life includes actions or language that might be offensive to the poor, helpless women of a certain blog audience.
It's merely another white-knight realizing that his female readership might be negatively affected (and hence, the ridiculous hat-wearing, book-reading groupie photos that stroke his ego will cease to exist) and we can't have that happen when we're trying to show potential advertisers that our web traffic warrants the investment.
Men should be Men... except, of course, when they're Men - then we'll have none of that.
Get on your motorcycles... play your video games... take yourself out of the market... be a Man and do your own thing...
... as long as you can keep a lid on the swearing. Oh - and did I mention that playing video games (presumably in your parent's basement) means that you have no reason to bitch about women? Yeah - apparently playing videos games is acceptable if you're donning the Frank Sinatra hat... but not so cool while you're disparaging today's state of feminist affairs.
Sorry... but I'd rather not waste My precious time "watching the girls go by" holding up a corner of some meat market in My monkey-suit. The ROI is zilch.
Telling Men that they have no right to complain about women if they've chosen to detach themselves from the Matrix® and play video games all day is like telling Men they have no right to complain about their government for the same reason.
Get involved and vote! Really?
Get involved and chat women up for a date! Really?
Sorry... no ROI with either pursuit. Yet both certainly cause a guy like me to use "foul" language. I'm much happier staying home, entertaining the dogs and trying to reach the next skill level in Skyrim.
It is quite clear, at least to me, that the "Manosphere" is overrun by dudes with no principle whatsoever... who will sell-out based on the feelings of the "fairer side" of their readership. Gotta keep those advertising dollars streaming in to subsidize those motorcycle trips and not piss off anyone with brutish "foul" language.
It's a feature of capitalism, actually.
Like reading this blog... Doesn't really matter all the female Internet talking heads voicing their support and loyalty to men. It's all meaningless. Judge them all by what they do, not what they say. Posting a few supportive YouTube videos doesn't constitute meaningful action.
John the Capitalist:
"Over the past year or so its been people who are lazy and live off the govt are the dregs of society except when you do it yourself then its ok"
... This is strange and I've asked him about it but haven't received a reply.
He advocates "bleeding the system" or "hastening the decline" by taking advantage of government benefits, in I guess what is supposed to be a "red pill" reactionary way, but when I described people I know who are doing just that, he did call them parasites.
"that women who act like street urchins should be treated like street urchins except we should never use words to describe what they really are because that would be offensive"
He didn't say not to call or treat the street urchins like street urchins, I mean he did afterall toss that box on that woman's head. What he said is not to paint all women with the same brush like the Manosphere does.
Notice the typical female shaming language, the recast of what I said into a 'John'. That's why you don't feed the fem troll. That's why you don't give women equality. They climb relentlessly from the hindbrain. By ending men's groups as 'sexist', women have prevented regular men from organizing politically, from having political power.
Do you think the men of the Nu World Odor don't organize politically, that those men do not meet privately and talk frankly. I include Hillary as a lower ranking 'man' at Bilderberg 2012 with Barack, we can infer from the circumstances.
I don't respond to lame female arguments because in the end it's all about their precious feeeeeeelings. They are based on primeval reproductive strategies, and a woman's love is a false god as a result. Stop praying to it guys. It is a primeval scam. Respect is what you want from women, and men. A mother's infinite love is reproductive lust, not love. Men love. Men think rationally, appraise objectively. The ones who can. A woman like that is like finding a unicorn. Just because a woman acts or thinks a certain way does not make it intrinsic or lasting. Male authority makes a womans behavior, which is the whole real theory of feminism applied by the elite to your disrupted lives.
Correction: Bilderberg *2008*
Dot 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE-B5eJ24Xw
Dot 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIPik872K64
Dot 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group#Recent_meetings
Dot 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUCoKWbqoLU
Dot 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOIT-16sjjI
Connect the dots.
@Lone wolf: "I'm much happier staying home, entertaining the dogs and trying to reach the next skill level in Skyrim."
And I'm sure everyone else is much happier with you staying at home, entertaining the dogs, and trying to reach the highest level of Skyrim you can reach, also.
you wrote this post just for me, didn't you cap?
When I first read posts on the Manosphere, I was really taken aback by the language and the hostility. Over time I realized there was a reason for the anger, and that venting is a function of releasing it - and also of warning others of potential landmines.
At this point if people online call me names - and, honestly, it's more women than men, at this point - it's says more about them than it says about me, at least to my thinking. And, really, what does it matter who someone who never has and never will meet me thinks of the part of me that has been revealed on my blog? I used to worry about getting another job in my (very liberal) field, but now I have a job with a good boss, and what the heck, you know?
Blogging for me was - for awhile - a great way to release a significant amount of frustration that I'd been building up and holding in. Who am I to deny that to someone else?
What I do think is sad is the lack of respect men and women have for each other as groups. There's so much hostility and competition now. Maybe it's always been that way, but I don't think so.
I believe there is a part of many or most men that really needs to believe that women are good. And when men become disillusioned about this, they get angry. The "mangina" "white knight" accusations that fly about seem to ignore this - that if men were not predisposed to believe in, aid, and protect women, civilization, in any form, would not exist. So these conversations are essentially two warring instincts - the instinct to protect and aid your brother/yourself and the instinct to believe in and help women. Even when you've been bitterly disillusioned it's a challenge to resolve the two.
@ 'Reality' Doug and the anonymous lump that called me a moron with barely literate grammar
As if calling a female commenter as a feminist troll that can't think logically by default is not shaming...
My point is that you seem to assume that a man cannot be an alpha if he rightfully defends the women that merit it.
But I won't bother arguing with you further--if it's anything I've learned, it's that commenters like you will follow your feeeeelings and yell hamster over and over at female commenters like me without any proof.
Bitterness doesn't get you lust, cupcakes.
And no, I'm not a feminist. So quit your assumptions.
Apologies if this posts twice. The captcha decided to take a shit...
Anon: 'John the Capitalist:
"Over the past year or so its been people who are lazy and live off the govt are the dregs of society except when you do it yourself then its ok"
... This is strange and I've asked him about it but haven't received a reply.'
Reference Ayn Rand's Objectivist Newsletter, June 1966, "The Question of Scholarships." I don't know if this is a source that Cappy draws on, but there's an answer for you. It's about restitution. Alternatively, it's a useful weapon for destroying a corrupt and evil entity. That said entity created the weapon does not matter - use the tools you have.
So, NAWALT, but according to your own book, AWWALT? (All wyoming women are like that?)
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!
I was at the bar watching a Vikings game with my dad last year, and at a table across the room a slightly overweight balding guy was wearing an Adrian Peterson jersey. My dad said, "Look at that guy. What a loser. Only losers wear football jerseys of their favorite players."
I said, "I'm done ripping on men. Especially men I don't even know. This is probably the only time he's really happy. If he's happy wearing a jersey and cheering for his team, because the rest of his life sucks, good for him. Men get shit on all the time and I'm not going to add to it."
We all bring something to the table - and I would like to think it is a round table. In all areas of the manosphere, it appears as though that round table is turning into a circular firing squad.
Because that's what men do. We kill each other. Apparently, AMALT.
Taking the red pill for me is like going through the stages of grieving, one of which is anger. Run your site how you want, but anger is one of the natural stages of awakening, and excising it from your site is cutting out a large swath of people you are trying to help.
Ready! Aim! Fire!
Are you not gonna tell us who your new hottie is?
Joshua and all people on various Red Pill/MGTOW Forums etc.
All of your presumptions and speculations are 100% wrong. And I say that not as opinion, but fact. Every one of your speculations about me just getting new play, going soft, etc. are factually wrong.
Go back to the drawing board and figure it out.
Cpt.
Cara @ 7:35 PM - You said, "The manosphere is a very necessary backlash against feminism, but we are not all the enemy."
OK. As a man who can neither read minds nor look into someone's heart and see what is there, how can I differentiate the women who are the enemy from those who or not. Sometimes it's obvious. (read Andrea Dworkin) More often, it is not obvious.
Your suggestions are welcome.
Reality Doug said: " Women don't want a nice guy. They don't exactly want an asshole either. They want to be conquered by masculinity that can rule them well."
Women do want a nice guy, it just depends on how you define nice. Nice = assertive, confident, caring and willing to listen.
They don't want to be ruled, but they do want a sensible and considerate leader and if men abdicate that role, they will fill it to the best of their ability.
My two cents. Not that they're worth much in this economy.
"
Women do want a nice guy, it just depends on how you define nice. Nice = assertive, confident, caring and willing to listen.
They don't want to be ruled, but they do want a sensible and considerate leader and if men abdicate that role, they will fill it to the best of their ability."
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If you are willing to be led you are ruled. You obey his commands. And attraction depends on the capacity of violence on the part of the man.
The best way to kill a bad idea is to implement it -- as quickly and thoroughly and with as much fanfare as possible.
- The Book of Zed, pg 603
Anonymous @ 5:28 A.M.
I am sorry I don't have any easy answers for you. I suppose it takes time and some quiet observation. A few things I would look at are whether or not she goes along with male bashing jokes in her environment or objects to such hate speech, if she encourages your masculine pursuits and your "guy time" without interference, does she bother you about such nonsense as the position of the toilet seat when you're done (I always thought that was particularly stupid, sine all you guys are doing is avoiding peeing on the seat - which is considerate!). What are her political leanings, does she walk the talk come what may or is she going PC to make nice with the trolls? Is she kind and welcoming to your friends and does she encourage you to take the lead? A lot of us will take the lead if you fail to do so because stuff has got to get done, but not surprisingly, very few of us are excelling or happy about it. What about you? How do we know when we're dealing with a man who hasn't sold us out? I've often wondered if men who say they want an "independent" woman just mean they want her to do double duty so they can easily abdicate the responsibilities of manhood. Aurini made some excellent points not too long ago when he placed the responsibility for the rise of feminism squarely on the shoulders of men who have allowed or initially even caused it to happen. But that's another conversation for another time....
Long comment following. I will have to break it up into 3 consecutive comments because of character limit.
I'll be addressing Doug, Zimmerman and a few Anons.
1. Reality Doug:
" By ending men's groups as 'sexist', women have prevented regular men from organizing politically, from having political power."
- I've always wondered why some women have sought to gain entrance into all male spaces, like clubs, for instance, when women have always had their all female spaces such as their own clubs and groups.
Of course there has always been mixed-gender spaces as well, the family being the most ancient and prominant, but there is nothing wrong in maintaining some gender segregated social venues either.
I also disagree that women should be trying to change mainstream religions into more "female friendly" spaces. What women should have been doing all this time is walking away from mainstream religions and creating their own. Some of these religions could be co-ed, welcoming any men who wanted to participate, while some could be exclusively for female membership only.
In a coupling the husband can have his all male religion that he participates in, and the wife her all female religion. If they have children then the child can participate in either one until they "come of age" and then if they so choose, join the one that matches his or her gender, or join a co-ed religion, or create his or her own religion, or chuck religion out altogether.
There, all bases covered.
I have lived in cultures where husbands and wives, unlike the West, do not seek to get all of their emotional needs from their spouses. Even the family gender segregates to some extent and the men get a lot of their needs for affection and companionship from their male relatives and friends and the women get many of those same needs met from their female relatives and friends.
These are the same cultures where it is not a source of shame for heterosexual men to be seen showing physical affection to each other in public, such as hold hands.
My opinion is that Western marriages fail so miserably because husbands and wives seek to get all their needs met from their spouse. So a spouse is expected to be everything from a lover to a counselor to a best friend to a parental figure and basically the source of all of our intellectual, emotional and spiritual needs (on top of financial, domestic and sexual!)
This is a tall order for anyone to fulfill.
AYN RAND and Objectivism certainly promotes the "romantic reltionship" as the highest and I disagree with that emphatically and say its the reason why so many "romantic relationships" fail in the West.
I say that men and women should expect to get some of their intellectual, emotional and spiritual needs met in gender segregated spaces and not expect their spouses to completely fulfill all these needs.
2. Paul Zimmerman;
"Reference Ayn Rand's Objectivist Newsletter, June 1966, "The Question of Scholarships." I don't know if this is a source that Cappy draws on, but there's an answer for you. It's about restitution. Alternatively, it's a useful weapon for destroying a corrupt and evil entity. That said entity created the weapon does not matter - use the tools you have."
- Right. Well ALL the people I know who utilize either EBT or Section 8 housing are completely against a "corrupt and evil entitiy". They swim against the tide of our materialistic mainstream American culture. What to speak of watch, they don't even buy TVs. They don't wear makeup or expensive clothing, don't get their nails done, don't drink alcohol or hang out in bars, use EBT to buy healthy non-gmo organic produce and often seeds to plant and grow their own food, have a daily cognitive practice such as meditation, etc, etc, etc.
Even the outdated stereotype of the "welfare queen living in the projects".... if anyone here has ever known such types, and I have intimately, then you know they have a deep distrust of the US government. They are the ones that taught me, many years ago in my childhood, about the racist, eugenics agenda of Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood, and many, many other things that the very mainstream American culture following "Manosphere" and eve so called "alternative news media" thinks it just discovered last year.
3. Anonymous & another Anonymous:
"Women do want a nice guy, it just depends on how you define nice. Nice = assertive, confident, caring and willing to listen.
They don't want to be ruled, but they do want a sensible and considerate leader and if men abdicate that role, they will fill it to the best of their ability."
"You seem to be contradicting yourself. If you are willing to be led you are ruled. You obey his commands. And attraction depends on the capacity of violence on the part of the man."
- By "leader" what is meant is one who can lead himself and take full responsibility for every area of his own life.
There are many men and women out there who are functioning on the levels of boys and girls, no more advanced than teenagers.
Sure, he may have a "job" but is he budgeting himself efficiently?
Is he taking responsibility for his own health by researching the ingredients in the products he buys and cooking his own meals?
Is his living environment hygenically clean and orderly?
Is he managing and channeling his emotions in a healthy, positive way?
Is he allocated his time wisely?
If a grown man is significantly deficient in one of these areas, that is when you will hear women say, "I just wish he would man up and lead".
That means, "I just wish he would man up and lead - HIMSELF".
Cappy --
What that one woman did, the rest of her krewe tolerated, giggling while she behaved badly.
The cognitive shortcut is that "all women are like that", provided they're put in situations that allow it. Of course, a cognitive shortcut is what it is: a way to dispense with further thought on the matter.
However, when so much bad behaviour is tolerated, these cognitive shortcuts might seem like they're true.
You may be done with "foul-mouthed" language against women in the abstract, but I assure you, badly behaved women in concrete situations are far from done with you.
Actions truly do speak louder than words.
You shall know the people by the worst they allow.
It's not a great distance from knowing the people by how they treat their prisoners, dissidents, hack writers on blogs, and so forth ...
But don't take my word for it. Give Theodore Dalrymple a read, especially when it comes to his writings about the British underclass.
I say that it is fair game to treat someone who aligns with the behaviour of the underclass like one of the underclass. If that's "allowed" behaviour, I also say it's fair game to regard the society, local or otherwise, as supporting the underclass and to deal with them as a mass entity in an appropriate way.
"Lumping them together" works very well when you're expecting the worst of behaviour and often observe it. You might appreciate how easily the inference jump can be made to other things, even if the inference jump isn't entirely appropriate.
The exceptions are often exceptional, and you may deal with them as better expectations merit.
Lower your expectations for behaviour on the whole -- you'll enjoy your decline a lot more when you're not expecting much from below-average social encounters ...
C&S Management -
That completely misses the point. It's a matter of being for a welfare state funded via coercion, in which case you do not have a moral claim to the proceeds of it, versus objecting to the theft - from you and everyone else around you - for which justice demands that you receive restitution. The inclinations of the people you've described are secondary to that premise. If they are pursuing constructive ends with what they receive, great! That's the hoped for outcome. However, none of that matters, morally speaking, if they imagine that what they are given is justifiably taken from other people. If so, then they are nothing more than muggers by proxy.
"if they imagine that what they are given is justifiably taken from other people."
Paul, they don't "imagine" anything about it. Its available, they quality, they get it.
There is no discussion, no theorizing, no imagining.
When its not available and when they don't qualify, then they don't get it.
They don't feel they are "owed" or seek to justify it or anything.
They don't have an entitlement complex about it. They have no complex about it at all.
It simply is.... or is not.
Jones,
"The cognitive shortcut is that "all women are like that", provided they're put in situations that allow it"
- Yes and the corallary is "all men are rapists, provided they're put in situations that allow it.
Who believes that?
P. Zimmerman, what I think you are missing, and what I think C&SM is essentially saying to you, is that your morality is BS.
THERE IS NO SPOON!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaJPNrf1DPY
To wit, your tacit code of morality is NOT universal. Might makes right is universal. Rights are default privileges, but privileges must be earned, ultimately by conquest. White privilege was earned. White men have been conquered by abstract means psychological and economic. Once you understand that, you can straighten yourself out and see straight, but you will not see a spoon. That's impossible.
What you lack, P.Z., is situational awareness. There is a war on for our minds, and you have lost yours.
Reality D -
Actually, C&S is taking things out of context and evading, so there's no point in continuing to address him/her.
As for your statements, you're conflating rights with power, specifically coercion, which are opposite concepts. It also appears by your words that you're attempting to extract an "ought" from an "is."
"Rights" are simply the description we give to conditions necessary for a being that survives through the application of reason to continue to do so in a social context. They're not necessary to a man's survival in a solitary state; reason, particularly as it relates to production, is still necessary. When other people are present, rights, specifically negative rights, come into play, all of which essentially boil down to a prohibition on the use of force as a primary means of dealing with other people, in the absence of which it becomes practically impossible to produce. It sets the basis for a justifiable retaliatory use of force, in short to bring about justice and restitution. What you are describing is coercion as the primary social interaction, which is the abandonment of reason; reason is the trait that separates humans from animals, so your take on these matters reduces us to mere animals in a state of constant warfare. In such a state, production becomes impossible and ultimately even the mightiest starve. Your view of things then is at best a temporary, myopic observation of what appears to be the "benefit" of aggression, historically situated in a moment of abundance only made possible by a period of an opposite to this state of affairs, which you've hastily concluded is a sustainable constant. If that is how you see things, I and many others will be happy to leave you to it, with all of the consequences that will follow.
P.Z., there you go again being a beta universalist. Your the one arguing out of context. Your moral system has no hope of working because it has no hope of cohesion under the least amount of opportunistic exploitation. There is not way to make progressively higher pockets of universal quality (i.e. culture) without force. There is no way to progress without differentiation and discrimination. Nature recycles the weak forms into the strong forms: not your decision on how this works. You attach your hopes to every last wretch and then tell me you leave me to my fate. Your mind is hopelessly the property of others, and they will NOT take good care of you in the end. And I will be glad for the elbow room.
"Actually, C&S is taking things out of context and evading, so there's no point in continuing to address him/her."
Evading what?
I'm explaining to you that there are American citizens who simply do not follow politics or these issues at all.
If they qualify for something that can help them, they will utilize it. There is no discussion or head wrangling over it.
The people I'm referring to are not even registered to vote.
They simply have no dog in this fight.
The main point is that some women were aggressive
Post a Comment