Pulled Every Which Way

One of the points I have made on this blog before is the following:

~Women live in a perpetual state of contradiction~

It isn’t a unique claim, other bloggers have made similar statements before. But it is still an important point to make, because men do not grasp this at first and need to in order to truly understand women.

In today’s post I want to explore one dimension of this crucial aspect of female behavior: that Mate “Idealism” versus Mate “Pragmatism.” You see, women have two opposing natures which are always fighting against each other when it comes to selecting a mate. I don’t think I am going to cover any new ground here, but if anything I hope this post will serve as a bit of a recap.

The first of these is what I will call “Idealism.” This is expressed in the female desire for the best mate possible. Sometimes this is called Hypergamy, but that isn’t really an accurate descriptor of the behavior involved. Rather, what women experience is a sort of “Ruthless Idealism” which screams for the best possible man possible, compromises be damned. They will ignore the good or even the great in a mad desire for the perfect.

On the other end of the spectrum we have what I will call “Pragmatism.” This can be summed up by the expression “any port in a storm.” Otherwise stated, women can experience a “Ruthless Pragmatism” which will find that any acceptable man (and that can be very generous indeed) will do and try and lock him down as swiftly as possible.

These two… forces… are naturally opposed to one another. And as a general rule a woman is guided by either one or the other at any given time. However, there is usually still some “play” or flexibility. After all, the other force is still there, even if suppressed. Also, I suppose it is possible that a woman might fall somewhere in the middle for some reason or another, but I believe this to be a temporary state. Given any appreciable period of time she will revert to one of them.

My personal belief is that while genetics likely plays some role in where a woman falls on this spectrum, the primary guide is the environment. The environment that a woman lives in will shape her perceptions and beliefs, and possibly the deep seated neurological functions which control her mating behavior. Some environments will naturally favor Ruthless Idealism, and other environments will favor Ruthless pragmatism. My educated guess is that a forgiving environment with plentiful resources and a great deal of safety will encourage a woman to favor the Ruthless Idealism force. On the other hand, an environment which is unstable, or has limited resources, or is dangerous will likely cause her to favor Ruthless Pragmatism.

Now, because of changes both in herself and in the environment, a woman will not be stuck in one direction forever. It is possible for her to favor one most of her life, and then to move to the other and stay there. Or she could shift back and forth several or even many times. It all depends on the particular woman, and the environment she finds herself.

This can be very problematic if one supports lifetime monogamy, as it means a woman’s perception on what men are “acceptable” mates or not can shift over time. This means that she might marry a man while she finds him acceptable, and then later when she shifts he is no longer acceptable- meaning of course she will want to dump him.

A common trope in the ‘sphere is the former carousel rider who gets close to the Wall, develops Baby Rabies and then tries to lock down a nice, pliable Beta. In that example, we have a woman who was riding the Idealism train for years, only for the environment (featured in her fading looks and fertility and possible social cues) telling her she needs to settle, and fast. She then switches over to a Pragmatism mindset, during which she tries to lock a “good man” down. And she succeeds, only for her to divorce him a number of years later. My speculation is that she has switched back to an Idealism mindset, perhaps guided by the fact that she has a few kids now and so can afford to be more reckless (after all, her genetic future is now relatively secure). Also, her financial status and security are likely much better than they were before marriage.

In the past, the general layout of society was to create an environment which fostered the Pragmatism force within women. A good example was ancient Israel, which was no favorable towards unmarried women in its economics or laws. Given that kind of environment, it isn’t shocking that the writer of the Book of Sirach might note that for a woman, any man will do. After all, the alternative to having a man is to be a social nobody with basically no rights or power. That kind of environment would naturally encourage a Ruthless Pragmatism.

In the present age, however, the environment has changed dramatically. Women have financial and political and social power on a mass scale they have never experienced before. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they are guided by Ruthless Idealism. The risks to them are relatively low, and the potential gain of locking down a top notch male, or at least bearing children by him, are great. One might go so far as to say that this is the default  setting for women these days, and only certain factors will push them towards Ruthless Pragmatism- and that only for a limited time.

I will try and wrap this post up by noting that men must understand this feature of women if they are actively trying to find a wife. Marrying a woman who is in the Ruthless Pragmatism phase is dangerous. After all, that pragmatism is bound in desperation, and desperate people do stupid things. Not to mention, that her “attraction” to you is bound up in a perceived pragmatic need. If she no longer feels that need, than any prior feelings towards you are likely to disappear. Unless you have managed to meet the expectations of her Idealism, she will reject you as a possible mate. This means, at best, a miserable marriage, and at worst adultery and/or divorce. So my advice is simple: men need to avoid women driven by that force.

Of course, that leads to the question of how one determines whether a woman is driven by Idealism or Pragmatism. But that is a subject for another post.

Those Who Really Get It And Those Who Really Don’t

One of the things that I have noticed over the years, but haven’t really addressed in this blog, is how certain professions seem to be rather extreme in their “red pill” or “blue pill” viewpoints. By that I mean that members of this profession are rarely “in the middle” when it comes to their understanding of human nature. They either really get it, or they are completely clueless about it. The two that come to mind right away are cops and priests.

I have a few friends who are police officers, or are otherwise connected to law enforcement, plus some I know through church. And they fit this profile perfectly. There is one former cop whom I am familiar with who, to best of my knowledge, has never heard of the ‘sphere. And yet he gets women better than almost any non-Spherian I have ever met. Correct observations, correct analysis. The works.

At the same time I have encountered cops who were the biggest White Knights you would ever encounter outside works of romantic fiction. Always blame men and defend women? Check? Pretend women aren’t running wild? Check. And the list goes on. The messed up aspect of all this is that they often would make correct observations. Or at least be exposed to events which should show the truth.

With priests I have noticed the same. Some are very much attuned to “real” human nature, especially of women. And others are the biggest excusers of it that you can find.

I am curious what my readers, if there are any of you left, that is, think of all of this. What are you theories?

My own theory is that people like cops and priests, since they are exposed to the nittiest and grittiest of human behavior, can’t really ignore everything they are exposed to. They have to try and make sense of the madness of it all. But for many, the conclusions reached by a “red pill” analysis are too bitter a pill to swallow. They don’t want to accept everything that comes with a full recognition of reality. So they retreat to the mental and emotional safety that “blue pill” thinking provides. Say what you will, but that kind of mentality demands much less of a man than acknowledging the truth does. At least, that is my operative theory.

 

A Farewell And A Remembrance

It has been two weeks now since I learned that Zippy Catholic, or Matthew to those who knew him outside this part of the web, had passed away. When I first learned about it I knew that I had to write a post in tribute to him. But for the past two weeks I have been unable to do so. Nothing I could think of seemed fitting. But I cannot put it off any longer. So here is my best attempt at my thoughts on Zippy/Matthew, unworthy as they are.

---

It is no joke that finding the ‘sphere was a monumental point in my life. It began a series of changes within my life which radically altered the path that I have taken since. The ‘sphere forced me to examine many, no, most of my core beliefs. And as a result many of those beliefs have changed (and I would like to think for the better). Others have become firmer, and my conviction more resolute. I could count on one hand the number of individuals who were part of the reason for that massive shift in world-view. And Zippy, no, Matthew, would be one of them.

Matthew forced me to examine everything I believed about politics. He forced me to examine core concepts like authority and power. He turned over rocks in my mind I didn’t even know existed, and forced me to look at the things which crawled out from beneath them. I cannot look at the subject as I did before, because I cannot deny the truths he laid out in front of me.

Matthew’s style was not for everyone. Many, many, many people found it quite off-putting. But they failed to understand his approach. Matthew was not some soft school-teacher who gently guided his students through lesson after lesson. No, Matthew was a wizened old sensei, a teacher who would not hesitate to slap a student who failed or was out of line. He didn’t hold back his thoughts or his wit or his tongue. If there was anyone who fit the epitome of this proverb better, I don’t know who:

As iron sharpens iron,
    so one person sharpens another.

(Proverbs 27:17)

He expected his students to do their homework- to follow his points back to their origin and know where they started so they could understand where he was and why. Every lesson was not a repeat of what had gone before, but something new, either in angle or context or subject. Furthermore, he knew how to use examples to get at people in ways that upset them. I rather imagine that he and Jonathan Swift would have gotten along, at least in their style. Many missed the point, but that was on them and not Zippy.

I haven’t met many people from the ‘sphere, in truth only a couple, but there were some I hoped to meet in the future and Matthew was one of them. Now any meeting will have to be in the next life. But until then I will keep what he taught me in mind. Which is more than just what to think, or even how to think, but start thinking in the first place- about everything. Before I ran across Matthew there were too many things I took for granted, and never thought about. Not so much any more. That is a gift I cannot repay him for. But if I learned anything about him, he would find payment in my using it to the best of my abilities.

I know there is more I should say, but I still cannot put it to words. I will leave it at this, and hope it is enough. Goodbye Zippy, you will be missed.

 

Masculine Monday- To Command And Obey

It has been a long while since I wrote one of these post, and thus long overdue. Today I want to examine the subject of authority and leadership as it relates to masculinity.

Before I continue, I would direct my reader’s attention to this post by Cane Caldo. It helped stimulate the present post.

I believe that one of the essential qualities that makes a man a man is his ability to function effectively within a hierarchical structure. It is his ability to lead others below him in authority, in subjection, and his ability to follow orders of those in authority above him. In my opinion a man is not a man unless he is firmly capable of both task.

To Command and Obey go hand in hand.

From my experience, most men who come across as unmanly fail in at least one, if not both, of those areas. When it comes to authority, they come across either as weak or overbearing. And when it comes to obedience, they are either rebellious or spineless drones without initiative.

Creating proper men, that is, instilling in them the essence of command and obedience, must start at an early age. Deviations from acceptable behavior must be spotted and corrected. Creating a man is not an instant process, nor an automatic one. It can, I think, be likened to the forging of a sword- a process which takes time, patience and hard work. Yet the end result is a sharp tool, waiting to be used.

Unfortunately we don’t have the structures in place anymore for this transformation to take place on a mass scale. Point in fact, we have been actively working to dismantle them for generations. And that process yet continues.

So it is up to individuals and small groups to continue this essential work. Men who are fathers of boys are especially demanded upon. Most of the work is up to them- and in a hostile work environment, no less.

I would like my readers, especially fathers, to give their thoughts on the subject. Both in terms of general views on whether I am right or not, and also as to specifics on how to achieve this.

Incentive V. Motive Force

I recommend that my readers, if they haven’t already, read Dalrock’s two most recent posts: “Headship makes all the difference”  and “Incentives matter.” There is an important point or clarification that I think should be made here, especially with regards to the first post.

People like Gilder believe that women civilize men. Another way of putting it is that they feel that women are the motive force which pushes men to become civilized. Women push, and men are moved. This is not at all how it works.

Rather, women can act as an incentive to men to civilize. However, it is men who civilize other men. [And women too, while we are at it- but that is for another post.] And the approach used, if one wants to succeed, is always the tried and true method of the carrot and the stick.

The stick takes the form of punishment and discipline. Discipline must be taught, must be encouraged, and perhaps even beaten into a man growing up. Without it he will revert to his “factory default setting” and become a thug. [At the same time it is possible to go overboard and beat out the masculinity from a boy- in which case he doesn’t truly become a civilized man at all, as he is not a man.]

The carrot, however, can be a couple of things. Respect being one of them. Access to a good job and position in society being another. But the most powerful carrot is the promise of a woman… and with her a family. The promise of locking down a loyal woman, and the attendant sexual access that comes with it, is a powerful incentive for men. The kind of incentive which will make them endure the “stick” and become civilized.

However, as others have pointed out, that only works if the carrot is edible. When women are no longer seen as marriageable, when men no longer see them as ‘worth the effort’, then it all falls apart. Without the carrot, men won’t finish the “civilizing” process. It seems that there are two primary outcomes from this: they resist the discipline, and becomes thugs, or they  simply endure it as long as they have to and then become the so called “grass-eaters.” Either way, the fail to live up to their potential and the civilization they live in suffers for it.

This is something that used to be understood in the past. Unfortunately our society has thrown it out, along with so many other necessary bits of knowledge. As things continue to fall apart, I anticipate efforts will be made to try and address this. There might even be an effort to seek out what was lost. But I do not anticipate any actual solution happening- society won’t want to give up what it has “gained” for itself.

When Compassion Becomes Divorced From Reality

Reader Michael K alerted me to this this article yesterday, and I thought it was worth remarking on. The tagline is “Beware of false compassion in implementing Amoris Laetitia.” Its not long, but I won’t quote the whole piece. Instead, here is the relevant section:

Maybe my experience is atypical. But I doubt it. Statistically speaking, men are more likely than women to remarry after a divorce. And that’s just one way in which men typically fare better than women after the breakdown of a marriage. Divorced woman are disproportionately likely to have financial problems, health problems, emotional problems. In a word, they are apt to be women in need.

If Catholic pastors adopt a more open attitude toward divorce, along the lines suggested by Amoris Laetitia, will that attitude benefit the people most in need? As a practical matter, if pastors make a special point of welcoming divorced-and-remarried Catholics, will the benefits flow to the spouses who are abandoned, or to those who abandoned them?

Since the publication of Amoris Laetitia, much has been written about women who have been abandoned by one man and subsequently formed a new union with another. For every wife who is cruelly abandoned, there is a husband who cruelly abandoned her. He, too, might feel more comfortable if the Church relaxes her traditional insistence on the permanence of the marriage bond. Should he?

…

If women typically suffer more than men after a divorce, the children of a broken home often suffer even more. What sort of message do those children receive, when they see their father, who deserted them to live with another woman, sitting in the front pew with his attractive new partner, while they huddle in the back with their mother, all dressed in second-hand clothes?

Anyone notice a possible problem with what he said?

Well, lets start with the fact that the author mentions some statistics about divorce. Specifically, about who does better afterwards. But then he stops there. No further statistics come into play. Which is a pity. Because if they were, it would help show the error in his argument.

Because from there he essentially makes the argument that men are the primary beneficiaries in divorce, and thus are responsible for the problem.  In other words, all the blame falls on them. There is this implicit assumption throughout that men instigate divorce more than women. We know this isn’t true; in fact the complete opposite is the case. Women initiate most divorces.

Furthermore, look at that final sentence. Does anyone else find that, well, questionable? I mean, has the author ever heard of child support? The truth is usually the opposite- it is the mom who enjoying her ex-husbands income, while he is making do with less- living in a smaller apartment, driving an old car and struggling with finances. Of course, not always; but there are always exceptions.

Also consider this: if mom makes the poor decision re: divorce, why shouldn’t we expect her to make other poor decisions? Decisions which end up with her in a bad financial state? Poor decision makers have a habit of making poor decisions. That is common sense- which we all know is anything but common.

This is just another example of a classic white knight in action. [If I was Rollo I would probably insert here some comment about how this Catholic is saying that loosening the  Catholic approach to the divorce should be rejected because it interferes with the feminine imperative.] Compassion is a good thing. But we must not divorce compassion from reality, else wise we end up doing more evil than good. In this case, it would be poisoning the argument against AL by using faulty examples of where it fails Catholic teaching.

Power And Control

Zippy has a new post up which demands a follow-up: With great power comes great incontinence. Short and to the point, I am tempted to repeat all of it. Instead I will merely quote what I see as the key parts. They are:

 

• The most primal power of men is violence

• The most primal power of women is sex

• [O]ur society is willing to punish crimes of violence but is not willing to punish crimes of sex

I think it should be readily apparent to all my readers, but I will repeat it all the same-

Society and Civilization can only exist when there are structures in place which control the base, primal natures of human beings. Failure to control that primal nature leads to savagery in the end, and that means chaos. Towards that end, the building and the maintenance of civilization requires that the primal nature of both men and women alike must be strictly controlled and regulated.

For men our most primal power is violence. Thus, to control our primal nature requires the strict regulation of male violent tendencies. Fail to do so, and you have disorder.

For women, their most primal power is sex. Thus, to control their primal nature requires the strict regulation of female sexual tendencies. Fail to do so, and you have disorder.

The problem right now is what Zippy notes- we regulate violence extensively, but not sexuality. The result is that women are now the primary source of disorder in the “Civilized West.” This will not change until sexuality is regulated with the same fierceness as violence is.

Unfortunately, what we see now is that efforts are being made to double down on the regulation of the male capacity for violence. And further efforts are being made to double down on the deregulation of female sexual tendencies. Rollo has a new post  where this is discussed in the context of The War on Paternity. While most previous efforts to ensure paternity in the past have been dismantled, new technology has changed the field. DNA testing means that a man really can be certain, for the first time in history, that a child is truly his. That naturally conflicts with female sexual power. Thus, it has to go. Hence we are seeing increased efforts to limit when paternity testing can take place, and when it can be used to change a man’s situation (legally, at least).

I have some more thoughts I may add to this post as I develop them. In the meantime feel free to comment below.

Der Kommissar

Scott is once again lamenting the current state of affairs in our society, in particular the madness of the “Watermelon purge.” The part that caught my attention is this:

They have no idea the purging pogrom that is coming if this stuff is not stopped. No one will escape it. If you have ever posted something online that looked like a watermelon, smelled like a watermelon or had the word “black” in it, you will be dismissed from polite society. It’s just not your turn yet.

Scott is correct- the new Commissars are indeed coming. The West is in for a series of purges, the likes of which haven’t been seen for a very long time. I use the word Commissar because the allusion to Communist enforces of “orthodoxy” is quite apparent. The same level of viciousness is to be expected, although perhaps not the same level of violence. Rather, I predict that social, political and economic sanctions will be the primary means of enforcement. All the same, it won’t be pretty.

Watermelons are far from the beginning, and far from the end. I’ve written on this many times before. Sadly, I will be writing on it in the future- at least, until I am forced to abandon this blog… or it is shut down.

 

Misunderstanding The Motive Force

I have thus far stayed away from the “flag controversy”, but with today’s post  I will touch on it a bit. [My next post might be even more on point.] Scott examines the so called “narrative collapse” over at his blog and notes that “Narrative collapse” is not working. The key part of his post is this here:

 Colin Kaepernick started this whole thing–based on his own comments on social media–as a solidarity gesture with folks like BLM and the whole “hands up, don’t shoot” crowd.

But that entire narrative has been shown over and over to be false. So exactly what “racism” was Colin Kaepernick “noticing?”

And this is why the latest rhetorical device of gentile mainstream “conservatives” pointing out “narrative collapse” is failing. It appeals to an objective standard of truth that can be known irrespective of race, ethnicity, etc. But the other side does not care about any of that. Therefore, there is no authoritative source of truth that can be appealed to show, definitively that there is no epidemic of “racist” white cops gunning down innocent black kids in the street while they surrender. “Hands up don’t shoot!” is impervious to reason and facts.

The last sentence is key. The reason that the narrative in question is immune to reason and facts is because it isn’t based on reason and facts. The motive force behind this burgeoning movement is not reason or logic, but rather emotions and feelings. Anger, fear, envy, etc.; those emotions drive the movement.

Unfortunately, this is something that so called “mainstream conservatives” fail to understand. Now, don’t get me wrong, conservatives and liberals alike are all caught in the gravity well of the black hole that is liberalism. However, from my experience (and those of others), conservatives tend to be more fact oriented. However, most conservatives (being clueless in ways beyond count) don’t grasp this. Perhaps they do intellectually, when they stop to consider it. But most of the time they don’t get it.

This is why the idea of a “narrative collapse” will not work. The “narrative” isn’t collapsing because while facts might be changing, the emotions and feelings are not. As long as people feel the way they do, facts won’t matter. If forced to confront them, people will simply call them lies and the product of deception. Because, after all, it isn’t facts which are real- it is emotions and feelings.

A Helpful Reminder

In my life I have heard plenty of Christians complain about what was in the Old Testament. They complain of the violence, the treatment of people, especially women, and the overall awfulness of the law and on and on. What I have explained to many of them is this: those were pagan times- awfulness is to be expected.

Most don’t get it. I don’t think it is because they are incapable; rather, I think most don’t want to really process what it all means. It demands too much of them, especially giving up on comfortable notions of how things are, or should be.

Which brings me to the main point of this post, and the reminder I try to keep in my mind all the time now:

America is a pagan country.

[And by extension, so is the whole of the West.]

When something horrific happens here, we shouldn’t be surprised. That kind of behavior is to be expected of pagans. Which is what the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans are.

Sure, the majority of the country might identify as Christian. But their everyday actions show them to be anything but disciples of Christ. The percentage of actual Christians, and I use that term very broadly, is probably in the low single digits.

My experience has been that some people (folks sincerely trying to be Christians) will not get this.

Others will get it on a surface level. They will know it is the case, but have trouble really grasping the full extent of what that means.

Only a handful will be able to appreciate the full magnitude of what living in a pagan country entails.

Unfortunately, I think that as events move forward, more and more people will end up in that latter camp. The cruel instructor that is reality has many harsh lessons in store for all of us in the years ahead.

However, I think we can do ourselves a service by keeping that reminder in place. We can prepare ourselves for what is to come, if only mentally.