Category Archives: Men

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.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Civilization, Femininity, Masculinity, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sex, Sin, State of Nature, Women

Just How Universal Is the 80/20 Rule?

Deep Strength had a post up a few weeks ago where he looked at how Tinder reaffirmed the 80/20 rule. The post is short, so go there to read it in full. I was not surprised by this result, in fact I would have predicted it if asked given the OKCupid numbers.  What led me to create this separate post is the following comment by Deep Strength:

The ‘most attractive’ men have a disproportionate amount of female attention and can pretty much pick and choose who to bang (if secular) or to marry (if Christian).

I happen to agree with that statement. But it got me thinking about the assumptions involved in it. What I would like to know is this:

Is the 80/20 rule truly universal? That is, does it apply to every “market?”

Tinder and OKCupid are specific markets. They cater to specific (and somewhat different) crowds. Those crows would be secular in nature, and with Tinder especially, focused on those looking for casual sex. So I would expect people to argue that the numbers apply only to those markets.

But my own experiences back up the 80/20 rule. I see which men in Christian (specifically Catholic) circles the women crush on. And it is the same handful of men. I hear this same thing from other Christian men- especially here on the sphere.

Everything leads me to believe that the rule is universal one, and doesn’t depend on the particular market in question. I invite my readers to offer their own take on this. Am a right? Wrong? Somewhere in between?

 

57 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Marriage Market Place, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Women

The High Ground

I came to an epiphany recently, and I lay the blame at Cane Caldo’s feet. Three of his recent posts made something “CLICK” inside my head and I can’t let go of it. The three posts are the following:

Real Men Don’t Impede Her Desires

Her Buck Stops Here

A Caned Response to the Nashville StatementsA Caned Response to the Nashville Statements

Read all three (they aren’t that long) before continuing. The rest will make a lot more sense that way. Each one, in its own way, address the nature of men and women, and how we are to relate to each other. A (very) brief summary of them could be as follows:

  • Men are no longer able to tell women No in any meaningful way
  • Men can no longer enforce male spaces, and in fact none exist in any meaningful way
  • Men in Christian leadership positions (and in general) won’t teach the truth about women in marriage in any meaningful way

The bit in particular which was the “light bulb” moment for me was this:

Where is the article in which they deny that wives should be irreverent, rebellious, or usurpers? Where do they affirm that wives are to be sexually available to their husbands except for agreement of a limited time? What is more important to marriage than that the wife be submissive to her husband? These are serious and timely issues of marriage worthy of writing in these statements; more so than sodomy and transgenderism.

Cane is right, these are more serious issues. And I think I understand why. Perhaps he has already figured this out, or maybe I am going beyond the scope of his original idea. But everything makes sense to me now. You see, you cannot win on issues like “gay marriage” or “transgenderism” after yielding up the high ground in this battle.

Let me explain.

To begin with, high ground often has two different common meanings. The first is a “safe place”, out of the reach of danger. The second is a height which has strategic military value. It is the second meaning I intend. After all, we are in a war- a spiritual war. Now, the war has already been won, thankfully. However, the fighting has yet to stop. In some respects it is like the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. It was fought after the war officially ended. And while it didn’t change the outcome of the war, it was still meaningful to the men who fought in it. And so it is today- we are fighting a battle in a war the enemy has already lost. But he can still inflict casualties- take souls – and so he fights on. No surprise, really- he was a murderer from the beginning.

The strategic high ground in this battle was twofold- the nature of men and women, and the rights, roles and responsibilities of men and women in marriage. Those two things were places to make a last stand- a metaphorical hill to die on. Unfortunately, they were yielded to the enemy generations ago. And when they were, the battle was lost at that point.

Why are they necessary positions to hold? To begin with, they lay the foundations for any defense of everything to come after. Lets start with “transgenderism.”

The whole point of that particular “theory” is that there are no fixed genders. Male and female, man and woman, are social constructs. They exist because society says they exist. Take that away, and people revert to whatever they want.  On an intellectual level, a strong, vigorous defense of the nature of the masculine and the feminine will over course reveal this to be the rubbish it is. But as is the case with so many things in life, personal experiences which shape someone will trump intellectual argument.

For transgenderism to succeed, people need to grow up where man and woman don’t really mean much. And how do you get that? Simple- you create a society with the following:

  • No task or vocations or opportunities, and so on, which are the sole prerogative of men or women.
  • Men and women are interchangeable in the various roles and positions which people occupy in life.
  • You eliminate any spaces which are reserved for men or women.
  • You eliminate any activities which are reserved for men or women.

And on and on.

When this is the society you have- the society we have today- then men and women essentially become interchangeable- fungible even. If that is the case, then the concepts of “man” and “woman” will lose any sense of meaning in the minds of those exposed to it. And this is what everyone is exposed to these days, especially youth. It should come as no surprise that “transgenderism” is on the rise right now. They don’t see any real difference between men and women, save minor biological differences, and those can be changed by surgery. The truth is, “transgenderism” was an inevitable byproduct of this organization of society. It was just a matter of time.

Let’s look now “gay marriage” in the context of the rights, roles and responsibilities of men and women in marriage. In the past they were clearly defined. Now, no one dares to defend any real difference whatsoever. At least, a meaningful difference. What is the end result of this? Well, when men and women have the same rights, roles and responsibilities, they become… you guessed it, fungible. They can be swapped out without changing the fundamental makeup of the marriage unit. After all, husband and wife are both equal, right? And since they are equal, they both can do whatever needs doing, right? And are deserving of equal, well, everything, right? In that context husband and wife are no longer meaningful terms.

Instead husband and wife are replaced in the minds of people with “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” [Update: Reader Lost Patrol suggests Partner 1 and Partner 2 work better, and I agree. I’m going to update the rest of the post to fit that.] And of course if mother and father are also essentially the same- equal- then they are likewise fungible. And so you get “parent 1″ and parent 2.” Well, if spouse/parent replaces husband/father and wife/mother, you get some interesting outcomes. Because, after all, if marriage in the eyes of people is Partner1 + Partner 2, then does it really matter who happens to be Partner 1 and Partner 2? Of course not! It is all about two people who love each other who decide to becomes spouses.

And when you think about it, there isn’t really any reason to restrict it to just two spouses together. After all, love is the important part, right? As long as you have that, the nature and number of spouses doesn’t really matter. Dwell on where that line of thinking will take you.

I could continue at length, but I think I’ve made my point. Without a viable, effective and vocal defense of those two principles, nothing else can be defended. The battle will be lost- guaranteed. And it isn’t merely about logic. In fact, I believe that logic takes a distant backseat compared to the way that people’s common experiences affect their perception of the issues. Those experiences shape their views to a degree that rational argument never does.

If Christians want to have any, and mean any chance of turning this battle around, then those two strategic positions must be re-taken. There is no other recourse.

 

48 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Churchianity, Femininity, Marriage, Marriage Market Place, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Sin, The Church, Women

An Inquiry About Love

I am hoping that my Christian, and Catholic/Orthodox in particular, readers will do me a favor here. I have something I want to try and nail down, and could use help.

You see, something which is not uncommon to run across is a variation of the following notion:

Women love more than men.

Sometimes it is as simple as that. Other times you will see it as “wives love more than husbands.” Or “mothers love more than fathers.” And so on.

The point being, it is all an example of the above idea that women are more loving. Nevermind what particular notion/definition of love is intended.

What I am asking from my everyone is if there is any scripture which justifies this notion. Anything at all, please mention in the comments. And for my Catholic/Orthodox readers, are there any writings of the Church Fathers or saints which say something along these lines?

I am quite curious about this. My gut tells me this is a modern notion, something which has appeared since “Chivalry” in the west was perverted. [If I was Rollo I might say something along the lines of “feminine primacy socialization” or the like] However, I might be wrong. So I’m asking for your help here. Anything you find, just leave in the comments.

11 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Christianity, Churchianity, Civilization, Men, The Church, Women

Masculine Monday- A Positive Approach

Rollo Tomassi has kindly reminded me that his newest book- Positive Masculinity, is now available. I would encourage my readers to give it a look. I haven’t had the time to grab or read it myself, but I intend to when time permits. A review will hopefully follow shortly after. While Rollo and I don’t agree on a fair number of things, I find that his work is always worth reading- if only to provoke one to reexamine his own beliefs.

Works like his are all the more necessary in this age, when masculinity is openly derided and masculine role models are all but extinct. Rediscovering the ways of the past will be the work of generations, and an endeavor that must be started right away.

It is especially necessary for Christian men to stand up and establish examples of Christian masculinity. For the most part most of the role-models out there, the purported Christian ones, that is, are basically just secular examples with a dash of Christianese painted on. That needs to change. I hope to explore how in future posts in this long dormant series.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Masculinity, Men, Parenting, Red Pill

A Lofty Double Standard

Vox over at Alpha Game has a great new post up today. Post being a somewhat loose term, as it is just an image. But as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. And boy does this 1k worth of words say a lot:

dfhumsdumaasmpm

 

I have seen and heard women be vicious about a lot of things. But without a doubt my experience has been that women are the most consistently savage when it comes to critiquing a man’s height. If you are of below average height… lets just say this: most women these days wouldn’t care if the average guy lived or died- but if you are short, well, many would rather you were dead.

Fortunately I’m not below average in height, much less short. But I have a lot of sympathy for men who are. A man needs to bring a lot more to the table to compete in the present SMP/MMP if his height is lacking.

Short Digression: One of the critiques aimed at my LAMPS/PSALM model was that there was no real place for height. I lumped it in with Looks, but given how much value women place in height, that moves Looks up way ahead of where I normally allocate its value. A few commenters have suggested I add Height as a separate attribute, and part of me is tempted. It is just that Looks is where it would fit naturally. Of course, in the simplified “APE” model it fits better into Appearance overall.

That aside done with, the response of the guy in that chat was the right one. There is a huge double standard out there when it comes to height. Women, for all their talk about not judging by appearance, will judge men unmercifully on that particular trait. And of course they blow up if men try and flip the tables on them. Imagine if that guy above had started by asking the woman’s weight. It would be the 4th of July. But her asking his height? Totally acceptable- or at least seen that way.

I am curious if any of my readers have been involved in conversations, discussions, debates, arguments where this particular topic has come up. If so, I would ask them to talk about how it all went. I don’t recall having been in one myself, so I am curious what would be said. And of course, I would like to prepare myself for that argument ahead of time too. So comment away if you have anything to add.

12 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Hypergamy, LAMPS, Marriage Market Place, Men, Red Pill, Sexual Market Place, Women

Random Thought on Hardship/Suffering

Thanks to some recent comments on this blog, and some e-mails discussions I have been participating in, I have been re-reading two of my posts lately:

The Misery of Too Much Comfort

The Necessity of Suffering

I have been thinking about those posts, and what I’ve written. The ideas I explored there were never fully developed, and I know I need to examine them again.

One idea that I had was the realization that suffering was still not necessarily the right word to use. I am still not sure on what word is right, although I am leaning towards hardship now. But that is a discussion for another post. Instead, I want to explore a rather simple idea with this particular post:

No man of worth has ever become that way without enduring hardship.

I cannot think of any man who is an exception to this rule. Indeed, I think that enduring and overcoming hardship is an essential component of becoming a man of worth.

At the same time, I think that men can, depending on their life circumstances, avoid suffering and hardship more easily than women. As someone recently pointed out to me, women, by virtue of their biology, will endure suffering on a fairly regular basis for much of their life. And certain other events and circumstances also involve suffering, and more specifically, pain. We men don’t really have that- unavoidable pain as a result of biology. At least, I cannot think of any examples (please correct me in the comments if I am wrong).

All of which together means that men can, if they are “lucky”, avoid a lot of pain, suffering and hardship. At the same time, our avoiding that pain, suffering and hardship is often the worst thing for men. It is a sure fire way to create a spoiled brat, and a pathetic weakling. At least, that is my experience. I am curious what my readers think on the matter.

8 Comments

Filed under Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Women