A Poor Example

I have been reading with some interest this post over at Scott’s blog. The comments in particular have made for fascinating reading. It has been something of an encapsulation of years of discussion in the ‘sphere in just one comment thread.

I am still trying to put together my own response to the post. My suspicion is that it will result in several separate posts, as there is a lot to cover. But before I go there, I want to make an observation about myself and my own writing.

One of the problems in my writing that has plagued me since the beginning of my time in the ‘sphere has been projection. I have projected far too much of myself into assessing how others (mostly men), would act or react in different situations. That is a problem because, as the post title suggests, I am a poor example.

I am abnormal. Heck, even for the manosphere I am abnormal. I am an outlier among outliers. Which means, frankly, that any advice I give is suspect if it is based on an assumption of what a man other than myself would do.

This has held me back from a lot of writing, especially when it comes to advice. I used to do that often in the beginning. With all of that in mind, I won’t bother trying to give advice any more. I don’t think it can really help anyone.

However, I would like to think that I am good at analyzing systems. So when I get a chance I will try and apply that skill to what is discussed in Scott’s post and comments.

Looking Back- What A Bleak Ride

As of late I have been reviewing a lot of my old posts, especially from the first few months of blogging. In so doing I have been struck by the differences in what I wrote about, and cared about, back then as compared to now. It has been an interesting experience to see how much change I’ve experienced or gone through since then.

Man, have I become cynical. I had plenty of dark posts in the past, but there were still plenty where I evidenced some hope I might be able to work some change in the future. Those are pretty much gone now. Nowadays I have been given up any notion of actively making a difference in society, and frankly, I am cynical about even making a difference in any particular church.

I don’t cover “Game” or technique, or whatever you want to call it, anymore. It has been ages since I have given it any serious mention. Partly this is because much of the ‘sphere has moved past that. But also partly because I don’t see much point in it in the first place. What good is it to learn such things when it won’t help you?

I also haven’t been doing as much systematic analysis as I used to. A lack of time plays a role here, for sure. But I also think I don’t see it as making any kind of difference.

I could probably go on, but I think I’ve made my point. What I am curious about is what I might be able to discern about myself if I keep going through old posts until I get to my most recent ones. Perhaps there is a pattern to be found there. If I had to guess, it would be a greater trend towards faith and spirituality, and living in an age of wickedness.

For Old Time’s Sake

Vox’s most recent post caught my eye when he mentioned this:

I noticed a long time ago that while I still have pretty much the same friends that I did in high school, virtually no woman I knew hadn’t changed out her entire set of friends more than once. There are exceptions, of course, but it does seem strange that the supposedly social sex tends to be less inclined to maintain lasting friendships.

That got me thinking about the differences in friendship between men and women. As I thought it over, I came to the realization that I have never heard a woman do something for a past friend “for old time’s sake.” I’ve only ever heard that language, and behavior, from men.

I’m curious if any of my readers have noticed the same as well. Perhaps it is simply my limited experience, and thus limited data set. Or maybe there is something to this.

If it is “a thing”, then I wonder if it might have to do with male notions of honor and obligations. Perhaps for women it might also have to do with their more pragmatic (in theory) natures, especially when it comes to relationships.

So please folks, chime in and let me know what you think.

Masculine Monday- Defanging The Dragon

Somehow I missed this post by Bonald over at Throne and Alter back in January. In a surprise me (at least to me), Bonald was able to take My Little Pony and create an effective social observation and argument from it. Mind you, with the great name for the title, he had better have.

I encourage everyone to read the whole thing, if only to make sense of the parts I am about to quote:

In the season 2 episode “Dragon Quest”, Spike, finding his alienation from his nature unbearable, sets out to join the Great Dragon Migration and learn “what it means to be a dragon”.  He meets up with a gang of unsupervised male teenage dragons at a volcano.  The gang tease Spike and subject him to a number of difficult and embarrassing tests to prove his worth.  Three of Spike’s pony friends, watching in disguised, are shocked to find Spike responding with enthusiasm.  What’s brilliant about this episode is that it’s shown from the perspective of these girl ponies who can’t understand the psychological forces at play.  Probably most of the little girls watching don’t understand it either.  Spike is getting his first taste of male companionship and camaraderie.  Having to prove himself is important to him, although he is frightened and probably doesn’t understand it himself.  What the ponies don’t recognize, but adult viewers will, is that although the teenage dragons are acting tough with Spike, they’re actually showing quite a bit of restraint and accommodation to this baby.  Belly flopping into lava is not actually impressive, but it lets them give him the sense of having earned membership.  Men being the ritualistic sex, Spike is them put through an initiation ritual, followed by a night of revelry with his new companions.  Again, the ponies are horrified.  How can Spike want to stay with these awful dragons?

…

It is a disturbing ending, at least to those who understand the episode fully and realize the magnitude of the tragedy.  There is nothing wrong per se with the moral principles the ponies have given Spike.  What the ponies haven’t given him, because they cannot give it to him, is a way to relate these abstract moral imperatives to his own nature, a way to see his own abilities and inclinations in their light.  So it is as well with boys in today’s world, deprived of natural law and traditional culture.

What we are seeing in our society right now is an ongoing process to defang dragons- that is, men. To strip them of their masculinity, with special care and attention given to the male capacity for violence. Which just happens to be the subject for today.

I’ve written about men and violence before, including in this Masculine Monday series. Today’s post is a chance to discuss the subject again, as it has been some time. Back in July of 2013 I wrote The Latent Threat: Male Dominance and the Capacity for Violence. In that post I examined, among other things, the latent male potential for violence and how it intersects with sexual attractiveness. One section of that post:

It is easy for men to forget how much more powerful we are than women. We just take our strength for granted. But because they are the weaker vessel women must approach the world in a very different way. Sometimes they express this consciously, but most of the time subconsciously. Women are fearful because they must be fearful, they can’t defend themselves like a man can. How do women compensate for this?

Well, they act as a herd with other women, for one. You ever notice how oftentimes women will all go to the restroom together? As a group? Myself, I see it all the time. What I’ve never seen is men do the same thing. I suspect the reason for this behavior is because women subconsciously know that when you are relieving yourself you are even more vulnerable than normal, and so for protection women will group up, counting on numbers to protect them. Men, who can both relieve themselves more easily and are more capable of defending themselves, experience no such compulsion.

But the most important way that women compensate for their weakness is by associating with men. But not just men in general. Or any man. No, the Man. The Alpha Male. The big, strong man who can defend her, and her children, from harm. The Man who makes her feel Safe. This is where a man’s capacity for violence is important, even essential. Because a man who has a strong capacity for violence is a man who can keep his woman safe. Of course, sometimes this violence is directed at the woman herself, a perfect example of unintended consequences. Yet even those women who suffer at the hands of their man will often go back to him, perhaps driven by the subconscious belief that while may hurt her, he can also protect her from greater harms at the same time.

In my 13th Masculine Monday post I examined violence in a more limited context:

I suspect that I were to try and create a list of different traits that men “need,” that it would generate a lot of debate. Some would say I am missing traits, while others would argue that I am including some unnecessarily. There is one trait, however, that I would wager very few would disagree with if it were included in such a list.

That trait? A capacity for focused, disciplined and effective violence.

Note that I say a capacity for violence, not a propensity for violence. Those are two very different things.

There is a time and place for all things, including violence and refraining from violence. But I would argue that a man who is incapable of exercising violence when needed isn’t much of a man at all.

Looking at those posts again, and Bonald’s most recent posts, it reaffirms for me again  that violence and masculinity are inextricably linked. Any attempt to separate a capacity for violence from men is to separate them from, and deny, their basic masculinity. And as I think on it, it really isn’t just a capacity for violence. There just is a certain amount of violence that is  natural to masculine behavior. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Something which our society tries vehemently to deny, of course. Violence is wrong. It is EVIL. Period. End of sentence.

But we men know better, or at least, we should. Force and the exertion of force -violence- is part and parcel of being a man. In my opinion, we need to start standing up for that. We need to defend the truth that “boys will be boys” and rough-house each other. And everything else about men which is inherently forceful and turbulent.

And no, I am not defending violence for the sake of violence. There is good violence, and bad violence. But good violence exists, and not only has a right to exist, it needs to exist.

The alternative is a bunch of dragons raised to be ponies.

4 years

Today I happened to be looking through some old posts of mine in order to get ideas on what to write. Imagine my surprise when I saw that my first post dated to March 10, 2013. It has been 4 years since I started this blog. Hard to imagine that much time has passed.

Over time I have become far less prolific in my writing, especially in the last year or so. Some have even expressed concern that I will shut down the blog. I don’t intend to do that, but I cannot promise I will return to previous activity levels any time soon. Perhaps, in time, things will change.

Setting that aside, I would like to thank the readers and commenters who have contributed to my blog. You have helped keep me at it, and many have inspired me to write yet more. Thanks to all of you. Here’s to another year.

Set Up To Fail

Today I would like to revisit this comment from “Hungarian Girl,” one which I have addressed already in my post Tissue-Paper Walls. Here is the same money paragraph again:

it’s very difficult to have high self-esteem when you do everything “right” but still have poor luck with the opposite sex, and it creates a very lonely feeling when you follow your values but end up getting victimized for it. Our society is simply set up so that selfish people appear to get ahead–that goes for Chads sleeping with hundreds of women, and the slutty girls having “fun.” Eva is the equivalent of the beta male looking on confused, and just because you can’t imagine a woman sharing that experience with you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. In fact, most women are profoundly insecure. The ones who are open about it–like Eva–haven’t learned the lesson that YOU perceive all women to be adept at–hiding their feelings and vulnerabilities.

I have put in bold those parts of the paragraph that I want to go over this round- most of the beginning, as you can see.

Before I go further, let’s break this comment down into its constituent parts:

• A lack of success with the opposite sex + doing everything right= lack of self-esteem
• Following your values + being victimized for it= extreme loneliness
• Society is set up for the selfish folks
• Women can experience the same kind of confusion that “Betas” feel when the market runs over them

Now to tackle each of those points in order.

The first point is something that many men, especially the young ones, in the sphere completely understand. Anyone who has spent time as a “Beta”, or whatever point in Vox’s model that you think applies, knows the confusion that this system creates. We have been told many things which, when applied, fail utterly. Or when we compare what see with what we have been told, nothing adds up. And over time, that just crushes your confidence and spirits.

The second point is again pretty easy to understand. That is just human nature. We will just naturally feel lonely when we do what we think is right, and get blasted for it.I am sure the Prophet Elijah felt that way after he fled Ahab into the desert.

As for the third point, I think our society goes beyond just being set up for the selfish. It is also set up for the short-sighted and the short-term focused. It benefits those looking for immediate gratification (pretty much always sexual), and punishes those who try to plan or optimize for the long term. Otherwise stated, short term relationships are favored (and the shorter the better), and long term relationships are disfavored. We have set up a SMP/MMP which is an enormous version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, only this one is far more likely to end in betrayal.

The fourth point is one that I think many, if not most, men in the ‘sphere have trouble with. However, if we look back to the first point here, they can see there is nothing which really restricts the principle of crushed self-esteem to men. Women can experience it too, although the circumstances might be different. Now, their confidence won’t affect their attractiveness like it does for men, but it will impact their desire to play the market. So there is a strong negative effect, even if it is less direct that men feel.

Now that is just self-esteem. There is nothing which makes it so women cannot face a similar kind of confusion that men feel. Do I think it is less common for women to experience that confusion? Yes. But some will no doubt experience it.

So where does all of this take me? It goes back to a simple conclusion that I made in my post Market Failure:

However the Marriage Marketplace worked in the past, one thing is abundantly clear about how it works today: it doesn’t. The current Marriage Marketplace is broken, and is almost completely subsumed into the greater Sexual Marketplace (“SMP”) which has largely taken its place. This process has been a complete and utter disaster, whose consequences will be felt for generations

The present Market does its very best to set up for failure anyone who aims to “do it right.” In fact, it goes even further than that. It attempts to hide what “doing it right” actually is, and also creates confusion about what constitutes “doing it right.”

The end result is that the present Market is really great for short-sighted and selfish people who are only looking for immediate gratification. They benefit while everyone else suffers.

Tuesday Tips #6 Stay In Control Or Get Out

The series continues. As always, these do not necessarily represent my opinion.

———————————————————-

Tuesday Tips was started for a singular reason. I presumed (rightly or wrongly) that Donal was weary of blogging and might close up shop. Tuesday Tips was an attempt to give him a breather.

My motive was and is entirely selfish. As a father (many time over, from ‘moved out’ to newborn) I unfortunately can’t just ignore the modern ‘religious’ SMP. I may not be interested in it, but it sure as hell is interested in me! So I’m doing my small part to help keep this blog alive in order to keep up with what’s going on out there.

For this tip, I’m going to tell a personal story reinforcing the need for a man to maintain his balance in a relationship. It’s a bit dated, but still applicable to today I think.

I was about 21 (early ‘90s). I had a kinda “girlfriend” I had met in my former coed dorm. Blond. Total ditz. I found her addictive, but honestly have no idea why. She was at best a 6. My friends found her ridiculous. But she “clicked” something deep and primordial in me. Beauty or personality certainly had nothing to do with it.

Anyway, we were out on a Friday night playing a sport with friends. She did something clumsy (not uncommon) and broke her nose. Blood everywhere. I wasn’t involved in the accident itself but as the informal “boyfriend” I took her to the emergency room.

Guys, you know where this is going. She called her mom for the insurance number, got her nose taped up, and everyone closed out the ruined night with cards and beer. Or so we thought.

Within hours, cops were banging on the door. Why? Her mom had “intuited” I smacked her around and requested the cops investigate.

I will never forget those cops. They flanked me, armed, visibly threatening, while I stood gaping incredulously. They didn’t even seem to want information, just an excuse to bash somebody’s head. Specifically, mine. They wouldn’t let it go, no matter what I (or she) said. Eventually, a roommate corralled a few people who had personally witnessed the injury. The cops finally left. Grudgingly.

I was inflamed, to put It mildly. I remember thinking: what if we had been alone when she broke her nose? What if she wanted to get even with me for something? I demanded answers. She actually had the nerve to kind-of/sort-of defend her mom’s behavior. I was aghast and stated flatly we were over, it was her mom or me; I wasn’t going to keep dodging cops. She burst into tears. I should have just walked, but I was obsessed. And thus a fool.

I’m humiliated to admit that this “relationship” lingered for years after this event. I didn’t actively pursue her, but I couldn’t move on. I remained infatuated. In fact, she was the one who finally “manned up” to initiate a formal breakup. Thank God.

So where did I go wrong? Where to start?

1)      Never answer your door to cops, period. Set up a door microphone (I have one now) and don’t be afraid to ignore the bell. If they threaten to break in (in supposed DV cases like this one they may) just send out the required parties one by one. But never talk. Record everything. Keep control.

2)      Never date women from bad/broken homes who haven’t dealt with their dysfunctional parents. I know this flies in the face of many people’s interpretation of “honor your father and mother” but they forget the second part of the commandment, which helps to explain its proper interpretation and application. In this case, her mom was divorced (natch) and I must wonder with chuckle what her father would have said about the situation. Regardless, I should have been far, far more careful. And critical. The danger signs with that woman were everywhere.

3)      Get control of your emotions regarding women, or prepare to reap the whirlwind. It’s better to just not get involved with any woman who pickles your emotions to idiocy. Lose control and command of the relationship? It will likely end badly. Get out long before then.

4)      Try to date various women. Never get oneitis like I did. There is no “one”.

5)      Pay close attention to what others think about your girlfriends (spoken or unspoken). Do so with an open mind; you may have lost your head. I certainly did, and I’m not the type to do so.

This tip is so obvious I’m skeptical it’s even worth sharing. And a lot has changed since then; today I’m not sure the cops would have even came by, don’t most places have mandatory arrests in DV callouts and this was just a hysterical mother?). But regardless, if I can prevent even one man from being the fool I was, it’s worth the pixels and the time. Be careful out there, guys.

Dressed To Impress

Women like to get dressed up. They like to look their best.

But for whom?

One of the interesting surprises of “the Red Pill” was that women don’t really dress up for men. Or at least, men as a whole. Reader/Commenter Ame had this to say in my post Tissue-Paper Walls:

a woman can pick another woman apart in a nano-second with one eye covered and the other only half open. women dress for other women more than they dress for men. as has been stated in the manosphere … women compete with other women – some much more fiercely than others.

Women dressing for other women [over dressing for men] was something that I had no clue about before finding the ‘sphere. And what is interesting about this particular tidbit of RP knowledge is that it was a woman who passed it on to me shortly after I found the ‘sphere. She of course thought it was common sense. Which just goes to show the gap in understanding that exists between men and women.

What is interesting to think about is the motivation behind this behavior. What we have is women dressing the best, but not to try and attract men in general. Instead they are trying to show off to other women how attractive they are in order to one-up other women. Otherwise stated, they are showing off how they could pull a quality man, without actually aiming to do so (at least as their primary interest).

Let’s add together a couple of things: 1) The vast majority of men are normally of little concern to women. 2) Women compete fiercely with one another over sexual attractiveness. From this we can extrapolate a significant amount about female behavior, especially socio-sexual behavior.

For one, we can see that women are clearly able to evaluate each others attractiveness in the eyes of men.

Second, we can see that the hierarchy

among women is dominated by their sexual market value, or at least their perceived value.

Third, we can see that this isn’t an objective value by any measure, at least as men evaluate it. The 1-10 scale, for example, is subjective between men. But for an individual man he will generally rate women independent of one another. That isn’t how women do it, however. Instead, women rank each other on their attractiveness as much as gauge their actual SMV value. So it isn’t enough to be an 8, you have to be a higher 8 than the woman over there.

Nothing I’ve said is an kind of revelation, naturally. However it is a good thing to remember. Plus I will try and work it into my next Selected Sunday Scriptures post.

Tuesday Tips- #5 Reject It Unless You Would Have Created It Yourself

Reader MK provides us today with another guest post. As always, these opinions don’t necessarily represent my own.

———————————————————————-

This tip seems a tad antisocial, but it’s precisely the opposite.

I recommend critically examining every cultural event then ask: “Would I have created this myself? If the answer is no, just walk away. Life is too short.

In this light, here’s some events I (and now my family) gratefully sidestep:

Proms

Valentine’s Day (modern version)

TV parties (e.g. sports, movies)

Birthdays

Birthday/Christmas cards

Secular holidays

Secular anniversaries

Expensive, garish weddings

Expensive recreation

Non-active, non-local vacations (rare exceptions)

I feel deep discomfort watching men chase the modern rat race. They rush to the florist, obligated to support a fem-centric commercial “holiday”. Or even worse, an unsung anniversary. How many men would create these customs on their own? Very few, methinks. Yet they participate like a chained bear at the circus. Tragic, to my mind.

What’s even more sad? Everyone therefore lacks the time to celebrate life. Most who have families work endless hours. For what? To buy throwaway things. To fund an irresponsible wife. Maybe to impress their fellow bipeds? Or so they can gallop through Disneyland or Paris only to return more stressed out than before? Meanwhile real life (that is meaningful, healthy, exciting life, to be lived deliberately) passes them by. Until the divorce. Or heart attack.

Personally, I like the term “converged” to describe modern holidays (which ironically used to be called “Holy Days”). Indeed, all of the events and activities on the above list are fully converged into the commercial culture. The marketable expectations are there and they can’t easily be extracted.

I’ve long held this “sidestep” viewpoint, even as a kid. I skipped prom without regret. That just whetted my appetite: I haven’t bought flowers or candy for a woman on her birthday or on V-day ever. Not even Skittles. It certainly hasn’t hurt my romantic life, either.

I don’t celebrate birthdays at all, and have no regrets. Heck, with a family of my size birthdays would a monthly event anyway. I’ll pass. What a modern, self-absorbed invention birthday celebrations are, anyway; egomania, greed, and gluttony are now being taught to kids from the earliest age. Sad.

So what do I do instead with my saved time? Religious feast days, for one. The RC liturgical cycle (e.g. Easter, Lent, Christmas, etc.) is how celebrations are done for real. This is the way my ancestors did it, and they definitely had perfected things. The dozen or so Holy Days are carefully timed to the seasons, balancing both fasting and feasting. This way, one can stay in shape, remain healthy, and yet celebrate with abandon. And it’s plenty sufficient; about a dozen celebrations a year is enough! We do massive feasts, with rich, real, expensive, wholesome foods: delicious fruits, nuts, fish, muffins, pies, cakes, cream, meats, and cheese (we skip processed sugar, junk, and commercial crap).

Look: there is simply not enough time to engage in the tomfoolery of the American holiday rat race yet still live an active, happy life. It can’t be done. So I advise men to Just Say No and cheerfully reject anything they wouldn’t have created on their own. This culture has turned men into a slaves supporting the fem-centric beast; why play this dirty game? Do only what makes sense for you and yours.

And start living!

Tissue-Paper Walls

A few days ago a first time commenter left a comment on an old post of mine, A Must Read Story. There is a small part of her rather longish comment that I want to examine. The key part is in bold:

it’s very difficult to have high self-esteem when you do everything “right” but still have poor luck with the opposite sex, and it creates a very lonely feeling when you follow your values but end up getting victimized for it. Our society is simply set up so that selfish people appear to get ahead–that goes for Chads sleeping with hundreds of women, and the slutty girls having “fun.” Eva is the equivalent of the beta male looking on confused, and just because you can’t imagine a woman sharing that experience with you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. In fact, most women are profoundly insecure. The ones who are open about it–like Eva–haven’t learned the lesson that YOU perceive all women to be adept at–hiding their feelings and vulnerabilities.

Most women are profoundly insecure.

That little tidbit is the subject of today’s post. I’ve written on it before, in my post Beta Farming. I explained my reasoning at the time of why women might be insecure. Some of my reasoning:

Much of this insecurity comes from the gap in physical prowess between men and women. We men are much more capable of defending ourselves and imposing our will on our environment than women are- at least at the individual level. But whatever its source, it has a profound effect on female behavior. Women are constantly, and often at an unconscious or subconscious level, trying to alter their environment to make it feel more secure.

Having thought about it more, I can think of additional reasons for female insecurity.  One of them is that women know (mostly at an unconscious level) how vulnerable pregnancy and child-raising makes them. Another is that women, again unconsciously, realize how limited their peak fertility and SMV window is. They worry about optimizing that time, and covering for when they are no longer at their peak. There is plenty of room for speculation there, and my commenters can feel free to contribute.

However, I want talk about how the insecurity should be handled. One of the problems with that insecurity is that ill-intentioned men can exploit it. Often times quite easily. And course, it usually isn’t entirely unwillingly. But exploitable it still remains.

At the same time, I think that this insecurity is something that good men can relieve or buttress. They can, in the right scenario, build up women’s confidence in a positive way. This can help women resist that lure of exploitation or build up a wall against it. Men can supplement the tissue paper or paper mache walls that women may have with walls of stone and gates of iron.

Unfortunately, our society isn’t exactly eager to see this happen. Fatherhood has been trashed, both as a social as well as a legal force. Fathers are essentially powerless to protect their daughters these days, especially when they are older. Likewise, our society does its level best to keep women away from actual good men, who though few in number still exist. Certainly it tries hard to keep women from marrying such men when they are young.

Now, what I am saying gets awfully close to white knighting. I will admit that gives me pause. All the same, I think the argument is potent indeed that strong men are needed to protect women- from themselves. But for that to happen men need actual power to go with that responsibility. Our present cadre of White Knights, especially in Churchian circles, is what you get when you take that power away from men. Men become modern caricatures of Don Quixote, assaulting windmills left and right and ignoring the real threats all around them.

I will leave with two questions I want to pose to my readers.

First, what methods can be used to protect women, assuming the necessary social structure was in place?

Second, if that structure is not in place, how can it be created, or what workarounds can be used if it cannot?