QUOTE: "When one considers that one must "game" a woman, even your wife, in order to keep her around, then it also means that you must always be operating at a "higher level" than her. It totally negates the whole notion of having a "soul-mate" and means that on many levels, a man will always be alone."
That is probably the most important lesson a man can ever learn.
Intimacy with a woman is impossible if you have any interest in being her lover. If you are fine with being one of her grrrlfriends, and don't mind the stupid messed up games women run on them, then you can share to your heart's content - and will always be on the LJBF ladder.
The fundamental problem with today's concept of marriage is that it seems both men and women expect their spouse to be all things to them - lover, confidante, helpmate, "soulmate", co-housekeeper, and co-wage-earner. With so many role demands, it is inevitable that everyone will fail at some of them. That is why the old division of roles worked fairly well for most people - each could concentrate on a few things they were good at, and leave the rest to the other person.
The fundamental dilemma for men is that as they age they slow down. They get tired and sometimes need someone to lean on. Marriage 1.0 worked fairly well in this regard, as it also worked for women who had lost all their physical attractiveness. If they had managed to become friends and partners in the early years, that would often carry them through the aging years when neither of them had what it took to find and snare a new partner.
Under the new rules of marriage 2.0 a man has a choice - being alone in an expensive manner, or a not-so-expensive manner. The loneliest men I know are married men trapped in a loveless marriage to a perpetually complaining slug who they nevertheless have to enslave themselves to support. I look at their lives and they are as good a definition of hell as I need. Alone = freedom.
The tiny crumbs of affection that WW dole out today are priced way way over what they are worth.
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #20 – There Is Nothing More Lonely Than Being With Someone You Cannot Talk To
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The average woman is not strategically capable of bringing
down the most tempting game within her purview, and must thus content
herself with a second, third, or nth choice.... A few women, true
enough, are so pertinacious that they prefer defeat to compromise. That
is to say, they prefer to put off marriage indefinitely rather than to marry beneath the highest leap of their fancy. But such women may be quickly dismissed as abnormal, and perhaps as downright diseased in mind; the average woman is well-aware that marriage
is far better for her than celibacy, even when it falls a good deal
short of her primary hopes, and she is also well aware that the
differences between man and man, once mere money
is put aside, are so slight as to be practically almost negligible.
Thus the average woman is under none of the common masculine illusions
about elective affinities, soul mates, love at first sight, and such phantasms. She is quite ready to fall in love, as the phrase is, with any man who is plainly eligible, and she usually knows a good many more such men than one...
Here we have a sufficient explanation of the general
superiority of bachelors, so often noted by students of mankind—a
superiority so marked that it is difficult, in all history, to find six
first-rate philosophers who were married men. The bachelor's very capacity to avoid marriage is no more than a proof of his relative freedom
from the ordinary sentimentalism of his sex—in other words, of his
greater approximation to the clear headedness of the enemy sex." -- H.L. Mencken
Thursday, February 28, 2002
Wednesday, February 27, 2002
Zenpriest #58 - The MRM's Perpetual War With Itself
QUOTE: "Actually, the whole black MRA thing on youtube is at war right now."
The whole MRA-etc. thing is at war right now - not just the black part of it. The issue of "Game" has just exploded of late, with lots and lots of guys weighing in on it. I've maintained all along that men would end up adapting to the changes in women - in ways that women were not going to like a whole lot. Women tried to shift the system so that everything tilted their way, so men are learning how to game the system.
Us old time MRAs probably have a blind spot when it comes to "unity." For so man years there were so few of us crying in the wilderness that we thought the only way we would ever make any headway was to try to get men to unify in the way that women always unify against men in their women-first-ism.
MGTOW got articulated when a few of us began to think that men would NEVER, EVER, EVER, YES NOT NEVER get unified. If you get enough men whose only thing in common is that they do not support the system, that will weaken the system even if the opposition is not unified. But, a lot of guys came to MGTOW still stuck in the old way of thinking and kept saying "we've got to get other guys to join us."
I've reached the point where I don't think that is needed. Anarchy and chaos are just as threatening to the system as organized resistance - and a lot harder to fight.
What I am seeing now is lots of individual men, and a few identifiable groups, attacking the system. They aren't cooperating with anyone else, but I don't think that really matters - with the system being attacked on a lot of fronts simultaneously, it will get weakened and eventually fall.
A lot of MRAs - maybe most of those who apply that term to themselves - basically hold feminist values -- "equality." They/we tend to be older and many are the ones who went along with early feminism due to the promise it would liberate men as well. At some point, they woke up to the fact that feminism was never about "equality", but wanted to go ahead and finish the job that the feminists started.
A lot of the men I am seeing show up now are a new and different breed. They don't care much that there are no DV shelters for men, because they pretty much reject all the liberal values of the boomers. They are just looking out for #1.
It wouldn't have been my first choice of how things would work out, but I do think it is better than what we have seen for the past 45-50 years.
QUOTE: "We all have different views, I guess thats the underlying prinicple of MGTOW but shouldnt we have the wellbeing of ALL other menin a female society at heart? Be he white, black, yellow, blue whatever? I personally am batting for all men opposed to feminist doctrine. If we are all supposed to batting for ourselves then why are we all here in this online commuity?"
MRAs have been attacking each other since the 1970s. That is nothing new. I've lost track of the number of men's groups, lists, and boards that I have been part of - I know that it is well over 100 - and it is very rare that they grow over about 50 active members before they start tearing themselves apart with internal conflict. We've just had an example of it here with the sudden introduction of the "incel" concept which in short order led to a suggestion to split the board.
MRAs are already "marginalized." In some respects that is to our advantage because no one takes us seriously and they don't pay much attention to what we do.
Certainly, I would like to see men get their shit together and mount some sort of organized resistance to the creeping totalitarianism being pushed by women. But, they haven't so far and there seem to be some very persistent reasons why they haven't. We seem to be hard-wired to compete with each other, and struggle and conflict come so naturally that cooperation takes more effort than most men are capable of.
What is more worrisome to me than some guy shooting off his mouth and upsetting some other guys, is the fact that so many men seem to be waiting for some sort of Moses to lead us out of our wilderness. I've reached the point where I am certain that there ain't no one going to "do it for me", nor are they going to listen much to me when I try to communicate my own vision. That leaves me to put it to work in my own life, and leave other men to do the same.
As long as someone is hacking away at the perverse trend which has taken over the culture, I'm content to let him keep at it - knowing that I don't want to join him in his ideas, and he won't join me in mine. But, we do have a common enemy and as long as we are both attacking it, we are "working together" in what is perhaps the only way possible for men today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
The History of MGTOW
A Leading Philosophy Rather Than a Leader
MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
The whole MRA-etc. thing is at war right now - not just the black part of it. The issue of "Game" has just exploded of late, with lots and lots of guys weighing in on it. I've maintained all along that men would end up adapting to the changes in women - in ways that women were not going to like a whole lot. Women tried to shift the system so that everything tilted their way, so men are learning how to game the system.
Us old time MRAs probably have a blind spot when it comes to "unity." For so man years there were so few of us crying in the wilderness that we thought the only way we would ever make any headway was to try to get men to unify in the way that women always unify against men in their women-first-ism.
MGTOW got articulated when a few of us began to think that men would NEVER, EVER, EVER, YES NOT NEVER get unified. If you get enough men whose only thing in common is that they do not support the system, that will weaken the system even if the opposition is not unified. But, a lot of guys came to MGTOW still stuck in the old way of thinking and kept saying "we've got to get other guys to join us."
I've reached the point where I don't think that is needed. Anarchy and chaos are just as threatening to the system as organized resistance - and a lot harder to fight.
What I am seeing now is lots of individual men, and a few identifiable groups, attacking the system. They aren't cooperating with anyone else, but I don't think that really matters - with the system being attacked on a lot of fronts simultaneously, it will get weakened and eventually fall.
A lot of MRAs - maybe most of those who apply that term to themselves - basically hold feminist values -- "equality." They/we tend to be older and many are the ones who went along with early feminism due to the promise it would liberate men as well. At some point, they woke up to the fact that feminism was never about "equality", but wanted to go ahead and finish the job that the feminists started.
A lot of the men I am seeing show up now are a new and different breed. They don't care much that there are no DV shelters for men, because they pretty much reject all the liberal values of the boomers. They are just looking out for #1.
It wouldn't have been my first choice of how things would work out, but I do think it is better than what we have seen for the past 45-50 years.
QUOTE: "We all have different views, I guess thats the underlying prinicple of MGTOW but shouldnt we have the wellbeing of ALL other menin a female society at heart? Be he white, black, yellow, blue whatever? I personally am batting for all men opposed to feminist doctrine. If we are all supposed to batting for ourselves then why are we all here in this online commuity?"
MRAs have been attacking each other since the 1970s. That is nothing new. I've lost track of the number of men's groups, lists, and boards that I have been part of - I know that it is well over 100 - and it is very rare that they grow over about 50 active members before they start tearing themselves apart with internal conflict. We've just had an example of it here with the sudden introduction of the "incel" concept which in short order led to a suggestion to split the board.
MRAs are already "marginalized." In some respects that is to our advantage because no one takes us seriously and they don't pay much attention to what we do.
Certainly, I would like to see men get their shit together and mount some sort of organized resistance to the creeping totalitarianism being pushed by women. But, they haven't so far and there seem to be some very persistent reasons why they haven't. We seem to be hard-wired to compete with each other, and struggle and conflict come so naturally that cooperation takes more effort than most men are capable of.
What is more worrisome to me than some guy shooting off his mouth and upsetting some other guys, is the fact that so many men seem to be waiting for some sort of Moses to lead us out of our wilderness. I've reached the point where I am certain that there ain't no one going to "do it for me", nor are they going to listen much to me when I try to communicate my own vision. That leaves me to put it to work in my own life, and leave other men to do the same.
As long as someone is hacking away at the perverse trend which has taken over the culture, I'm content to let him keep at it - knowing that I don't want to join him in his ideas, and he won't join me in mine. But, we do have a common enemy and as long as we are both attacking it, we are "working together" in what is perhaps the only way possible for men today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
The History of MGTOW
A Leading Philosophy Rather Than a Leader
MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Zenpriest #57 - Personal Attacks and Mind Games
QUOTE: "If anyone knows who wrote [The Feminist Shaming Tactics Catalog], I'd love to give credit where it’s due."
The author is a fellow who went by the handle of JadedGuy on Mancoat, and currently has the blog "Biblical Manhood" where I believe he calls himself Anakin Niceguy.
As useful as this has been for men, I have already noticed that women are adapting. I have been suggesting for some time that men anticipate this and up their side of the confrontation.
These really are "tactics", and those familiar with military terms will know that "tactics" are individual actions executed within an overall strategy, and strategies themselves are engaged in to support a goal or objective.
The goal, of course is to keep men silenced and refuse to hear what they are saying, the strategy is to twist the message so that it becomes about the man himself rather than what he is saying, and the tactic is person attacks and mind games.
From our side, I suggest strategically going on the counter-offensive. The reason that shaming tactics are so effective is that they trigger the reflex to go on the defensive and attempt to either deny or justify the accusation - in effect validating it.
eg. "You all just hate women.
response: "I don't hate women, I love women."
No matter what a man says at this point, he has lost the conversation because the woman has stolen it from him and made it about him rather than about the issues.
That is why I suggest calling them "personal attacks and mind games" instead of "shaming tactics" or "shaming language." Point out that the person is simply attacking you personally, for the purpose of changing the subject. This puts them on the defensive. Then, go on to restate your point. If they engage in another personal attack on you, simply point that out again, along with the fact that you have already pointed it out.
Remember that the objective is NEVER to convert the person you are arguing with - always, always, ALWAYS play to the lurkers. If you can keep control of the conversation, and make the feminist look foolish and hypocritical, as well as malicious, you will sway far more sympathy to your position than if you allow them to sucker you into chasing your own tail with attacks and mind games they don't believe but use because they have been proven to be so effective at confusing men and forcing them to give up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Social Strategy: How Men And Women Are After Different Things When They “Debate”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
The author is a fellow who went by the handle of JadedGuy on Mancoat, and currently has the blog "Biblical Manhood" where I believe he calls himself Anakin Niceguy.
As useful as this has been for men, I have already noticed that women are adapting. I have been suggesting for some time that men anticipate this and up their side of the confrontation.
These really are "tactics", and those familiar with military terms will know that "tactics" are individual actions executed within an overall strategy, and strategies themselves are engaged in to support a goal or objective.
The goal, of course is to keep men silenced and refuse to hear what they are saying, the strategy is to twist the message so that it becomes about the man himself rather than what he is saying, and the tactic is person attacks and mind games.
From our side, I suggest strategically going on the counter-offensive. The reason that shaming tactics are so effective is that they trigger the reflex to go on the defensive and attempt to either deny or justify the accusation - in effect validating it.
eg. "You all just hate women.
response: "I don't hate women, I love women."
No matter what a man says at this point, he has lost the conversation because the woman has stolen it from him and made it about him rather than about the issues.
That is why I suggest calling them "personal attacks and mind games" instead of "shaming tactics" or "shaming language." Point out that the person is simply attacking you personally, for the purpose of changing the subject. This puts them on the defensive. Then, go on to restate your point. If they engage in another personal attack on you, simply point that out again, along with the fact that you have already pointed it out.
Remember that the objective is NEVER to convert the person you are arguing with - always, always, ALWAYS play to the lurkers. If you can keep control of the conversation, and make the feminist look foolish and hypocritical, as well as malicious, you will sway far more sympathy to your position than if you allow them to sucker you into chasing your own tail with attacks and mind games they don't believe but use because they have been proven to be so effective at confusing men and forcing them to give up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Social Strategy: How Men And Women Are After Different Things When They “Debate”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Monday, February 25, 2002
Zenpriest #56 - MGTOW's Trademark Copyright Philosophy
.
QUOTE: "Mind if I work those sentiments into the series?"
Not at all. You've not been around long enough to have heard my standard "tgc public use license" spiel - Any so-called "men's movement", in order to be effective, will necessarily be decentralized, have no formal organization, and be entirely voluntary and viral in nature. The existing power structures support feminism because feminism supports the existing power structures and demands their growth.
I do not subscribe to the concept of "intellectual property" because I cannot claim that any idea I've had or expressed is purely original and came from nowhere besides my own brilliance.
I have some real heartburn with guys who try to copyright or trademark essential ideas - which men might use to improve their conditions - in order to make a quick buck. Phil McGraw and Warren Farrell are simply different points on the same spectrum.
All that being said, any MRA is welcome and granted a perpetual license to use or reuse anything I have ever said without wasting both of our time by asking me - as long as it is used to further the interests of men - with or without attribution, and preferably without.
Here is why - feminism was unleashed like a disease on an unsuspecting world. No woman claims ownership of the "69 cents" lie, or the "1 in 4" lie, so women in general own it and every woman out there will argue it as if it were her very own idea - because she believes it is. Men have to start doing the same. I would love nothing more than millions of men repeating ideas that I have articulated, and believing that they are their own ideas and they cooked them up their own clever selves.
MRAs are in general too damn polite. Scumbags will rip off anyone else's idea and try to make a buck off it, MRAs will stand around being "polite" and not do something which might help men because..., well because there might be something not-polite in there somewhere.
QUOTE: "I can't seem to find a way to contact this fellow through blogger. Do you know of any way i can contact him? i just prefer to be up front about this sorta thing, I just wanna avoid accusations of plagiarism, i think online the best way to do that is by going above and beyond to give credit where its due."
Don't be so fuckin' polite. Damn few MRAs have ever made one cent from being MRAs, and a lot of of us use pseudonyms purely because we avoid the limelight rather than seek it. I've had lots of conversations with JadedGuy and I can tell you that he would 1000 times rather that the ideas get picked up and spread among men and that they would catch on than he cares one shred about "credit." He is on at least his third or fourth blog (the previous one was "Scripturally Single", and I'm not sure what the one before that was called, I just remember that there was one.) He re-invents himself every couple of years, anyway.
The whole concept of Men Going Their Own Way came out of discussions on Mancoat about 3-4 years ago. Some of us long term activists were discussing if men would ever manage to get their shit together to mount any sort of organized pushback against femi-fascism. The consensus was that they never would, and it was observed that what was really already happening was that massive numbers of men were simply unplugging from the system of social values which was screwing them over and defining their own values for proceeding with their lives - Going Their Own Way. JadedGuy was as much a part of these discussions as anyone, and he clearly understands that aspect of needing to give ownership of any "men's movement" to any man willing to get off his ass and ”Shovel the Fuckin’ Gravel.”
.
The biggest challenge to the MRM is getting out of neutral - it has remained stalled for more than 40 years. One big part of this is that men have become passive as they have become feminized, and most boards have plenty of suggestions of great ideas for SOMEONE ELSE to make happen.
Which leads to another really good contribution by JadedGuy - "to suggest is to volunteer."
You are shoveling some gravel in making this happen. You have volunteered. Not one of us will do anything to hold you back.
Go for it.
Not at all. You've not been around long enough to have heard my standard "tgc public use license" spiel - Any so-called "men's movement", in order to be effective, will necessarily be decentralized, have no formal organization, and be entirely voluntary and viral in nature. The existing power structures support feminism because feminism supports the existing power structures and demands their growth.
I do not subscribe to the concept of "intellectual property" because I cannot claim that any idea I've had or expressed is purely original and came from nowhere besides my own brilliance.
I have some real heartburn with guys who try to copyright or trademark essential ideas - which men might use to improve their conditions - in order to make a quick buck. Phil McGraw and Warren Farrell are simply different points on the same spectrum.
All that being said, any MRA is welcome and granted a perpetual license to use or reuse anything I have ever said without wasting both of our time by asking me - as long as it is used to further the interests of men - with or without attribution, and preferably without.
Here is why - feminism was unleashed like a disease on an unsuspecting world. No woman claims ownership of the "69 cents" lie, or the "1 in 4" lie, so women in general own it and every woman out there will argue it as if it were her very own idea - because she believes it is. Men have to start doing the same. I would love nothing more than millions of men repeating ideas that I have articulated, and believing that they are their own ideas and they cooked them up their own clever selves.
MRAs are in general too damn polite. Scumbags will rip off anyone else's idea and try to make a buck off it, MRAs will stand around being "polite" and not do something which might help men because..., well because there might be something not-polite in there somewhere.
QUOTE: "I can't seem to find a way to contact this fellow through blogger. Do you know of any way i can contact him? i just prefer to be up front about this sorta thing, I just wanna avoid accusations of plagiarism, i think online the best way to do that is by going above and beyond to give credit where its due."
Don't be so fuckin' polite. Damn few MRAs have ever made one cent from being MRAs, and a lot of of us use pseudonyms purely because we avoid the limelight rather than seek it. I've had lots of conversations with JadedGuy and I can tell you that he would 1000 times rather that the ideas get picked up and spread among men and that they would catch on than he cares one shred about "credit." He is on at least his third or fourth blog (the previous one was "Scripturally Single", and I'm not sure what the one before that was called, I just remember that there was one.) He re-invents himself every couple of years, anyway.
The whole concept of Men Going Their Own Way came out of discussions on Mancoat about 3-4 years ago. Some of us long term activists were discussing if men would ever manage to get their shit together to mount any sort of organized pushback against femi-fascism. The consensus was that they never would, and it was observed that what was really already happening was that massive numbers of men were simply unplugging from the system of social values which was screwing them over and defining their own values for proceeding with their lives - Going Their Own Way. JadedGuy was as much a part of these discussions as anyone, and he clearly understands that aspect of needing to give ownership of any "men's movement" to any man willing to get off his ass and ”Shovel the Fuckin’ Gravel.”
.
.The biggest challenge to the MRM is getting out of neutral - it has remained stalled for more than 40 years. One big part of this is that men have become passive as they have become feminized, and most boards have plenty of suggestions of great ideas for SOMEONE ELSE to make happen.
Which leads to another really good contribution by JadedGuy - "to suggest is to volunteer."
You are shoveling some gravel in making this happen. You have volunteered. Not one of us will do anything to hold you back.
Go for it.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #8 - The Big Truth
The History of MGTOW
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #8 - The Big Truth
The History of MGTOW
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Sunday, February 24, 2002
Zenpriest #55 - Now, Please Explain to Me What the Hell Men Need a "Movement" For?
QUOTE: The one area where we get snagged: relations with women. That's because that's the one area where women have incessantly redrawn the rules in their favor. As a result that one particular area is a minefield for men, but otherwise in life, things are pretty good for us, hence why we are reportedly happier than women are, overall.
Read that about 50,000 times and really let it sink in. Men’s lives really are better today than they were 40 years ago, and can’t even be compared to 100 years ago when life was so tough for men that thousands of them would sign up to work on construction of the Panama Canal despite the fact that the work was so dangerous that more than 25,000 men would end up dying in order to get it built.
What is bizarre is that if there ever really had been a MRM that really worked for the best interests of men, it might have actually worked for exactly the same results we have today – increased happiness of men, less pressure to live up to the protector/provider role, more options for our lives, etc.
If you look at the reasons men used to marry, they basically boil down to 4 reasons:
1) desire for sex
2) desire for intimacy with a woman (homophobia ruled out getting it from men)
3) desire for children
4) social pressure to live up the protector provider role
Women themselves ruled out #2 by becoming so unrelentingly selfish and self-centered. #3 got pretty much destroyed by family courts. And, women themselves destroyed #4 because they really don’t need us to do that any more. In the US women are poised to become the majority of the workforce, and have pushed so hard and so long for “e-kwuhl pay fer e-kwuhl werk” that women in general have better opportunities to make a decent living than men do.
That leaves #1 and women’s attitudes and marital rape laws have pretty much demolished that as a fundamental aspect of marriage. High status men can shag their way through hundreds of beautiful young women and the only pushback they get is from conservative men and their dowdy wives. A lot of the rest of women are busy fantasizing being one of these guys’ harems – and of course being the one to “tame” him.
In the “goodle days” a man had to marry if he wanted a sex life, but he was buying a pig in a poke. The sexy young woman he married could devolve into a fat nagging shrew and he was stuck having to provide for her for life. Marriage was very difficult to get out of. Now, if he gets conned by a real loser, as long as he bails out before she spawns any annuities, he comes out pretty unscathed.
Yeah, the animosity, contempt, and often outright hatred of women gets a bit old to deal with, but there are lots of ways to avoid it.
QUOTE: There will be no men's rights movement that will demand changes to laws and so on - that isn't going to happen, folks. It is not in the nature of men to run to the state for protection, not least for protection from what women are doing to men with the power of the state.
Men don’t need protection by the law, mostly what we need is protection from the law. In the US, we used to have some pretty strong protections against runaway government interference and control of our lives. But, as women demanded ever-increasing government intervention into people’s lives to protect them from us, the systemic rights that people once had got entirely stripped away.
When we talk about “men’s rights”, it automatically assumes two tiers or sets of rights – one for men, and one for women. That goes against every foundation principle of US law and thinking – everything about it generally tries to establish one set of laws which apply to everyone. So, any true MRM would really have to be about re-establishing consitutional rights and reducing the size of government.
What amazes me about the people who think more government is the answer is that “government” is not some mystical, magical, inherently ethical ethereal entity. “Government” is a bunch of functionaries drawn from the very same population which supposedly cannot be trusted on their own. So, we take people who can’t be trusted with their own lives and put them in charge of other people’s lives.
Go figure.
The real MRM has being going on for years – millions and millions of individual “movements” (choices) by individual men. Men seek individual solutions, not collective ones, because we are so individualistic by nature that we don’t want to be forced by goverment to live the same life as the guy next to us. For every change in law that some men will fight for, there will be an equal number of men fighting against it.
The original MRAs were the first “marriage strikers” – like me. We simply implemented what the feminist movement was promising men in our own lives right away. Women don’t need us to provide for them or protect them – because the government will now do both? Cool! That frees up a whole lot of time to spend fishing or motorcycling. But wait, that makes us “Peter Pans” who “can’t make/are afraid of a commitment.” Why, yes it does, as a matter of fact. What can we say besides “First Star On The Right, Then Straight On Til Morning!”
Social pressure and social acceptability used to be the primary means of keeping men trapped in their old roles. But, women blew this when they started with the wholesale man bashing. Men got clobbered just as bad, or worse, for being upstanding guys than they got clobbered for being cads. Given that they were going to get clobbered no matter what they did, men naturally chose to do what was the most fun.
The culture used to have a “carrot and stick” approach – if you were a good beta provider you got – 1) sex, 2) family stability and intimacy, 3) children you could pretty well count on being your own, and 4) social respectability.
Then women and the culture said – “To hell with the carrot, gimme two sticks!” and figured they could keep browbeating men into living up to their old roles and the same time they browbeat men for living up to those roles.
It was confusing for a while, but now several distinct strategies have emerged for men which men choose based on their individual preferences. If a man wants sex, he learns Game. If he wants peace and quiet and freedom from nagging, ragging, bitching, complaining, whining pissing and moaning – he becomes a MGHOW or a Ghost. If we wants a family, marriage, and kids, he goes expat or imports a foreign wife.
Men have tons of options today and really don’t need the goverment to do squat. Meanwhile, the women who have “won” the gender war and now have “A Woman’s Nation” are left holding the bag of being the breadwinner and raising the kids by themselves, and some of them are still up for quick lays but not marriage – in other words, they are fine with being pumped and dumped.
Now, please explain to me what the hell men need a “movement” for?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
The Pitfalls of Inviting More Government Into Our Lives
Zenpriest #47 – The Future’s So Bright, I’ve Gotta Wear Shades
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Read that about 50,000 times and really let it sink in. Men’s lives really are better today than they were 40 years ago, and can’t even be compared to 100 years ago when life was so tough for men that thousands of them would sign up to work on construction of the Panama Canal despite the fact that the work was so dangerous that more than 25,000 men would end up dying in order to get it built.
What is bizarre is that if there ever really had been a MRM that really worked for the best interests of men, it might have actually worked for exactly the same results we have today – increased happiness of men, less pressure to live up to the protector/provider role, more options for our lives, etc.
If you look at the reasons men used to marry, they basically boil down to 4 reasons:
1) desire for sex
2) desire for intimacy with a woman (homophobia ruled out getting it from men)
3) desire for children
4) social pressure to live up the protector provider role
Women themselves ruled out #2 by becoming so unrelentingly selfish and self-centered. #3 got pretty much destroyed by family courts. And, women themselves destroyed #4 because they really don’t need us to do that any more. In the US women are poised to become the majority of the workforce, and have pushed so hard and so long for “e-kwuhl pay fer e-kwuhl werk” that women in general have better opportunities to make a decent living than men do.
That leaves #1 and women’s attitudes and marital rape laws have pretty much demolished that as a fundamental aspect of marriage. High status men can shag their way through hundreds of beautiful young women and the only pushback they get is from conservative men and their dowdy wives. A lot of the rest of women are busy fantasizing being one of these guys’ harems – and of course being the one to “tame” him.
In the “goodle days” a man had to marry if he wanted a sex life, but he was buying a pig in a poke. The sexy young woman he married could devolve into a fat nagging shrew and he was stuck having to provide for her for life. Marriage was very difficult to get out of. Now, if he gets conned by a real loser, as long as he bails out before she spawns any annuities, he comes out pretty unscathed.
Yeah, the animosity, contempt, and often outright hatred of women gets a bit old to deal with, but there are lots of ways to avoid it.
QUOTE: There will be no men's rights movement that will demand changes to laws and so on - that isn't going to happen, folks. It is not in the nature of men to run to the state for protection, not least for protection from what women are doing to men with the power of the state.
Men don’t need protection by the law, mostly what we need is protection from the law. In the US, we used to have some pretty strong protections against runaway government interference and control of our lives. But, as women demanded ever-increasing government intervention into people’s lives to protect them from us, the systemic rights that people once had got entirely stripped away.
When we talk about “men’s rights”, it automatically assumes two tiers or sets of rights – one for men, and one for women. That goes against every foundation principle of US law and thinking – everything about it generally tries to establish one set of laws which apply to everyone. So, any true MRM would really have to be about re-establishing consitutional rights and reducing the size of government.
What amazes me about the people who think more government is the answer is that “government” is not some mystical, magical, inherently ethical ethereal entity. “Government” is a bunch of functionaries drawn from the very same population which supposedly cannot be trusted on their own. So, we take people who can’t be trusted with their own lives and put them in charge of other people’s lives.
Go figure.
The real MRM has being going on for years – millions and millions of individual “movements” (choices) by individual men. Men seek individual solutions, not collective ones, because we are so individualistic by nature that we don’t want to be forced by goverment to live the same life as the guy next to us. For every change in law that some men will fight for, there will be an equal number of men fighting against it.
The original MRAs were the first “marriage strikers” – like me. We simply implemented what the feminist movement was promising men in our own lives right away. Women don’t need us to provide for them or protect them – because the government will now do both? Cool! That frees up a whole lot of time to spend fishing or motorcycling. But wait, that makes us “Peter Pans” who “can’t make/are afraid of a commitment.” Why, yes it does, as a matter of fact. What can we say besides “First Star On The Right, Then Straight On Til Morning!”
Social pressure and social acceptability used to be the primary means of keeping men trapped in their old roles. But, women blew this when they started with the wholesale man bashing. Men got clobbered just as bad, or worse, for being upstanding guys than they got clobbered for being cads. Given that they were going to get clobbered no matter what they did, men naturally chose to do what was the most fun.
The culture used to have a “carrot and stick” approach – if you were a good beta provider you got – 1) sex, 2) family stability and intimacy, 3) children you could pretty well count on being your own, and 4) social respectability.
Then women and the culture said – “To hell with the carrot, gimme two sticks!” and figured they could keep browbeating men into living up to their old roles and the same time they browbeat men for living up to those roles.
It was confusing for a while, but now several distinct strategies have emerged for men which men choose based on their individual preferences. If a man wants sex, he learns Game. If he wants peace and quiet and freedom from nagging, ragging, bitching, complaining, whining pissing and moaning – he becomes a MGHOW or a Ghost. If we wants a family, marriage, and kids, he goes expat or imports a foreign wife.
Men have tons of options today and really don’t need the goverment to do squat. Meanwhile, the women who have “won” the gender war and now have “A Woman’s Nation” are left holding the bag of being the breadwinner and raising the kids by themselves, and some of them are still up for quick lays but not marriage – in other words, they are fine with being pumped and dumped.
Now, please explain to me what the hell men need a “movement” for?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
The Pitfalls of Inviting More Government Into Our Lives
Zenpriest #47 – The Future’s So Bright, I’ve Gotta Wear Shades
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Saturday, February 23, 2002
Zenpriest #54 - The Way We Were
My high school girlfriend quite literally "fell into my arms." We were decorating a float for the homecoming parade and she contrived to get close to me, and then "slipped" off the box she was standing on forcing me to catch her while she threw her arms around my neck and we ended up standing there looking into each other's eyes with our arms around each other.
Pretty effective "first move." Got my attention.
If a woman is interested in a man, she will find a way to get in his face.
Now, contrast this with the way the mating game is played today, which reminds me of the grisly ritual of school dances when I was growing up.
The girls would all congregate on one side of the gym, the boys on the other. The band would start playing, and for the first couple of dances the already established couples were the only ones on the floor.
Then, the sorting began. The bravest and most cocky guys were the first ones to venture out and make the long trek across the gym floor to ask one of the wallflowers to dance. Of course, since they were the most confident, and felt like their boldness and work to make the approach deserved something - they approached the prettiest girl remaining unpaired. After all, the most literally "attractive" girls were the ones who exuded the magnetism to pull the boys across that great divide.
Over time, things worked their way down the prettiness/boldness hierarchy, with the shyest boys finally pairing up with the plainest girls.
Women who rely purely on the passive approach, even if it is the passive/aggressive approach of dressing and making themselves up like whores, and wait for men to approach them are at the mercy of both where they rate on the attractiveness scale and on the relative aggression of the boys. Such a woman will never get the best mates, because the prettier ones will draw his attention first.
Just like in every other part of life, a female who uses a more active approach to attracting the attention of a boy she fancies, as my HS girlfriend did, hugely tilts the scales in her favor regarding who gets noticed and who doesn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #19 – How Women Keep Score
Zenpriest #18 – The Designated Initiator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Pretty effective "first move." Got my attention.
If a woman is interested in a man, she will find a way to get in his face.
Now, contrast this with the way the mating game is played today, which reminds me of the grisly ritual of school dances when I was growing up.
The girls would all congregate on one side of the gym, the boys on the other. The band would start playing, and for the first couple of dances the already established couples were the only ones on the floor.
Then, the sorting began. The bravest and most cocky guys were the first ones to venture out and make the long trek across the gym floor to ask one of the wallflowers to dance. Of course, since they were the most confident, and felt like their boldness and work to make the approach deserved something - they approached the prettiest girl remaining unpaired. After all, the most literally "attractive" girls were the ones who exuded the magnetism to pull the boys across that great divide.
Over time, things worked their way down the prettiness/boldness hierarchy, with the shyest boys finally pairing up with the plainest girls.
Women who rely purely on the passive approach, even if it is the passive/aggressive approach of dressing and making themselves up like whores, and wait for men to approach them are at the mercy of both where they rate on the attractiveness scale and on the relative aggression of the boys. Such a woman will never get the best mates, because the prettier ones will draw his attention first.
Just like in every other part of life, a female who uses a more active approach to attracting the attention of a boy she fancies, as my HS girlfriend did, hugely tilts the scales in her favor regarding who gets noticed and who doesn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #19 – How Women Keep Score
Zenpriest #18 – The Designated Initiator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Friday, February 22, 2002
Zenpriest #53 - Feminism Really Is All About Projection
Just like psychological projection tests like the Rorschach, women's behavior when they think they are "acting like men" gives away what women really think of us. Their perceptions are completely distorted and they delete anything positive about men by simply refusing to see it.
Feminism really is all about projection. Women have all the same dark desires and qualities that men do, but as the experiment that shows women become more aggressive when they think no one is watching proves - women are masters of illusion and perception management. They have to keep up their act of being "the fairer sex" and ducking behind the feminine mystique in order to keep their feminine power base.
But, self-delusion always carries its own punishments built into it. As women become more and more violent, they will not contain that violence solely toward men and boys. As the posts here about female-on-female violence and the rising numbers of things like girl gangs should show to anyone who can see, women are becoming more violent and dangerous - and this will include violence toward women and girls. A lot of women are going to get seriously hurt as a result of this denial.
What men can do is see what women refuse to see, and take measures to protect ourselves from these violent women - just let them harm other women. Eventually it will boil down to the choice between maintaining their lie and self-preservation. It won't matter to men which way it turns out, because we will take the responsibility to protect ourselves, while the women will just whine "why doesn't some man do something."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
When Shit Gets Sold as Soap
Collective Projection
Projection – by Buster B.
Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind - By Ferdinand Bardamu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Feminism really is all about projection. Women have all the same dark desires and qualities that men do, but as the experiment that shows women become more aggressive when they think no one is watching proves - women are masters of illusion and perception management. They have to keep up their act of being "the fairer sex" and ducking behind the feminine mystique in order to keep their feminine power base.
But, self-delusion always carries its own punishments built into it. As women become more and more violent, they will not contain that violence solely toward men and boys. As the posts here about female-on-female violence and the rising numbers of things like girl gangs should show to anyone who can see, women are becoming more violent and dangerous - and this will include violence toward women and girls. A lot of women are going to get seriously hurt as a result of this denial.
What men can do is see what women refuse to see, and take measures to protect ourselves from these violent women - just let them harm other women. Eventually it will boil down to the choice between maintaining their lie and self-preservation. It won't matter to men which way it turns out, because we will take the responsibility to protect ourselves, while the women will just whine "why doesn't some man do something."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
When Shit Gets Sold as Soap
Collective Projection
Projection – by Buster B.
Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind - By Ferdinand Bardamu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Thursday, February 21, 2002
Zenpriest #52 - The Moral High Ground Always Goes to the Winner
Quote: "OTH the battle against Al-Qaida is first and foremost a battle of minds. The moral high ground always goes to the winner. Nature made it such that those who die out doesn't count anymore. No one pity us for dying out because we were Nice-Guy's."
You have just stated one of the most profound truths ever - the moral high ground always does go to the winner, because they are the ones still around to write the history books and to define what is moral and what is not.
But, it is the corollary of this statement which has the most profound implications for the MRM - you do not win simply because you believe that you hold the moral high ground. There is never a week that goes by that I don't hear some fool say "well, we don't want to be like the feminists" or some bitch saying something like that in order to silence a man or get him to give up what he is doing - because it is effective.
Those who die nobly, still die. And, their "nobility" is written out of the history books because despite their nobility, they lost and they died. The current hegemony of feminist revisionist history is the perfect example of this. Someone recently posted a description of a wall poster painting the founding fathers as deadbeat dads, or child molesters, or some one of the other stereotypes which have been used to collectively assassinate the characters of men.
I, for one, see no "nobility" in fighting ineffectively, and dying pointlessly leaving no legacy, simply because we believe that we are "nicer" than our enemies.
You have just stated one of the most profound truths ever - the moral high ground always does go to the winner, because they are the ones still around to write the history books and to define what is moral and what is not.
But, it is the corollary of this statement which has the most profound implications for the MRM - you do not win simply because you believe that you hold the moral high ground. There is never a week that goes by that I don't hear some fool say "well, we don't want to be like the feminists" or some bitch saying something like that in order to silence a man or get him to give up what he is doing - because it is effective.
Those who die nobly, still die. And, their "nobility" is written out of the history books because despite their nobility, they lost and they died. The current hegemony of feminist revisionist history is the perfect example of this. Someone recently posted a description of a wall poster painting the founding fathers as deadbeat dads, or child molesters, or some one of the other stereotypes which have been used to collectively assassinate the characters of men.
I, for one, see no "nobility" in fighting ineffectively, and dying pointlessly leaving no legacy, simply because we believe that we are "nicer" than our enemies.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Wednesday, February 20, 2002
Zenpriest #51 - What's Happening to Boys?
Quote: “If the policy these days is to go your own way…wouldn’t they be doing everything humanly possible to be financially independent enough to travel and enrich themselves free of womenfolk?”
What an interesting way to put it. First of all, there is no “policy” at work here. It is simply the individual decisions of millions and millions of men which add up to a trend. Men on the average are not nearly as materialistic as women. The reason they used to work so hard and be so concerned with making money was because they were locked into the old provider/breadwinner role. Every cultural institution and value pushed them into that role, supported them in it, and gave them no alternatives. Every bit of that has been destroyed in the past 40 years.
I had a really bizarre and terrifying exchange with a woman a couple of years ago. She actually made the statement that she had never given any thought to how men made money, she had always just thought of it as something men just did. I guess she thought we just sit around and grow it like we do hair.
That conversation alone explained so much of what I have observed during this whole social/cultural/economic “deconstruction” process. It was both enraging and terrifying. There was a perfect example of the magical mode of thinking which is the foundation of women thinking they were “oppressed” because they simply did not understand how things work. That woman never gave any thought to the long hours, hard work, high stress, risks, and major unpleasantness which are required to make much money. There used to be cartoon of a girl baby and a boy baby looking inside their diapers with the caption “Oh, that explains the difference in our salaries.” It was one of the most offensive things to men I have ever seen. I wanted to make up a cartoon (except I have no artistic talent and can’t even draw flies) of a woman breezing out of the office while the clock on the wall shows 4:30 saying “gotta pick up the kids”, next to a man still at his desk when the clock shows 8:30 with him saying “No, THAT explains the difference in our salaries.”
Quote: “Or is it another form of going your own way–in which the idea that you’re only a potential rapist and women are better at this and that girls are much more encouraged that somewhere along the line it translated into “well fine, if you don’t expect anything of me, I guess that means I don’t have to do anything.”
That’s part of it, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Any man who is successful will still be considered to be victimizing all women because ”Women still only make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes!" No matter what a man does it gets twisted into women being the victims of it somehow. The only way a man can really avoid victimizing women in some way is to leave them completely the hell alone and avoid them as much as possible.
What is the point of succeeding these days? All it does is make a man into a target for the looters who want to confiscate the fruits of his success in the name of “diversity.” Besides, no matter how hard he works or how successful he is, they will keep changing the rules until he loses. Look at what they do with the marathon races. If a guy works hard to become a great marathon runner, they will rig the game and give women a 15 minute head start. If a woman “wins”, then women everywhere will regard it as a victory of the entire female sex over the entire male sex and start chanting “girls rule, boys drool.” If 15 minutes isn’t enough to rig the game so a woman wins, the next race will give them a 16 minute head start. If a woman still doesn’t win, they will up it to 17 minutes, and keep giving them a head start until some woman finally does win - then they will trumpet to the world how superior all women are to all men.
The roots of this go back more than 30 years. Women have been getting more college degrees than men since the early 1980s. Schools beat down boys as much as they are allowed to get away with, and when the rigged educational system still wasn’t crippling boys enough to let girls win, they started medicating all the little guys who showed any promise at all. A 10 y/o boy on Ritalin in 1990 is today’s 26 y/o who knows through bitter experience that if he shows any promise at all, it will simply make him a target. The nail that sticks up is the one which gets hammered down.
Boys are not nearly as big fools as people have believed. There has been a war against them for more than 30 years, and they have learned to make themselves the smallest possible targets. They have also learned to not feed the system which has as its major priority to destroy them any way it can.
Why make money when any woman can simply trap a sperm and lay claim to most of what they make? It doesn’t even have to be his sperm - any old sperm will do. Women have been “daddy shopping” for ages - “hm, his wallet looks nice and fat, HE’S THE DADDY OF MY BABY!!!”
The H-bomb of the demotivation of males is this insane and evil concept called “imputed income.” Financial success is little more than an excuse to turn a man into complete and total slave of some woman and her new husband “the government.” If a guy is theoretically “capable” of making $100,000/year, it becomes a crime to not make that much.
Why show the world that you have ability when all that will result from it is that the looters will attach themselves to you like parasites, chanting “from each according to his ability, to each according to her need”?
It is fascinating and surreal that the writer would mention “Atlas Shrugged” because all one has to do is read that book and they will understand everything which has happened for the past 40 years and exactly what is going on. Men with ability are going on strike and have been since the 1970s. They are simply refusing to use their “abilities” to support a system which operates under the ideology of a cancer. Why function as a heart or lungs when the tumors suck all the blood anyway? No matter how much blood the heart pumps, the tumors will suck it all up and demand more, and keep demanding that the heart pump more until it bursts from overload.
Quote: “I think it’s disappointing that the article doesn’t throw more theories out there.”
The article is not about theories or finding answers, it is nothing but a propaganda piece continuing the policy of “blame men” that Khank pointed out. It is inconceivable to me that so many people could be so stupid as to not be able to see what is happening right in front of their eyes, so my conclusion is that it must be driven by malicious intent.
What no one seemed to count on, or the mediocre and stupid were just too stupid to figure out, is that men didn’t achieve at the levels they did because of some inherent characteristic of men that everyone else lacked. Just like the woman who thought men grew money like we grow hair, they just assumed men would keep doing it no matter how difficult they made it for men to do so.
Well, as Gomer Pyle would say - “Surprise, surprise, surprise!”
Women wanted to be trapped in our old roles as wage slaves, so they enthusiastically jumped in to pushing us out of them. The Powers That Be wanted docile little wage slaves to be the drones of their economic consumerist engine.
Simply because men are not as materialistic as women, the engineers of the velocity economy of goods and services made women their primary targets. And, also because men are not as materialistic and consumption oriented, getting the man out of the middle and preventing him from practicing fiscal responsibility and trying to hold on to some of the wealth he generated, was the best way to drive the velocity economy. So, they concentrated on putting women into the workforce and the $$$ directly into their hands, and coming up with laws which allowed for the confiscation of whatever wealth men were still able to accumulate on their own.
So, it’s pretty much a no-brainer to make the decision between working 60 hours per week at a job you hate, or working zero, or maybe 10-15 hours at something which isn’t too unpleasant, and fucking off the rest of the time - if both decisions give the guy the same results.
And, speaking of no-brainers, this article was written by one of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
What an interesting way to put it. First of all, there is no “policy” at work here. It is simply the individual decisions of millions and millions of men which add up to a trend. Men on the average are not nearly as materialistic as women. The reason they used to work so hard and be so concerned with making money was because they were locked into the old provider/breadwinner role. Every cultural institution and value pushed them into that role, supported them in it, and gave them no alternatives. Every bit of that has been destroyed in the past 40 years.
I had a really bizarre and terrifying exchange with a woman a couple of years ago. She actually made the statement that she had never given any thought to how men made money, she had always just thought of it as something men just did. I guess she thought we just sit around and grow it like we do hair.
That conversation alone explained so much of what I have observed during this whole social/cultural/economic “deconstruction” process. It was both enraging and terrifying. There was a perfect example of the magical mode of thinking which is the foundation of women thinking they were “oppressed” because they simply did not understand how things work. That woman never gave any thought to the long hours, hard work, high stress, risks, and major unpleasantness which are required to make much money. There used to be cartoon of a girl baby and a boy baby looking inside their diapers with the caption “Oh, that explains the difference in our salaries.” It was one of the most offensive things to men I have ever seen. I wanted to make up a cartoon (except I have no artistic talent and can’t even draw flies) of a woman breezing out of the office while the clock on the wall shows 4:30 saying “gotta pick up the kids”, next to a man still at his desk when the clock shows 8:30 with him saying “No, THAT explains the difference in our salaries.”
Quote: “Or is it another form of going your own way–in which the idea that you’re only a potential rapist and women are better at this and that girls are much more encouraged that somewhere along the line it translated into “well fine, if you don’t expect anything of me, I guess that means I don’t have to do anything.”
That’s part of it, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Any man who is successful will still be considered to be victimizing all women because ”Women still only make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes!" No matter what a man does it gets twisted into women being the victims of it somehow. The only way a man can really avoid victimizing women in some way is to leave them completely the hell alone and avoid them as much as possible.
What is the point of succeeding these days? All it does is make a man into a target for the looters who want to confiscate the fruits of his success in the name of “diversity.” Besides, no matter how hard he works or how successful he is, they will keep changing the rules until he loses. Look at what they do with the marathon races. If a guy works hard to become a great marathon runner, they will rig the game and give women a 15 minute head start. If a woman “wins”, then women everywhere will regard it as a victory of the entire female sex over the entire male sex and start chanting “girls rule, boys drool.” If 15 minutes isn’t enough to rig the game so a woman wins, the next race will give them a 16 minute head start. If a woman still doesn’t win, they will up it to 17 minutes, and keep giving them a head start until some woman finally does win - then they will trumpet to the world how superior all women are to all men.
The roots of this go back more than 30 years. Women have been getting more college degrees than men since the early 1980s. Schools beat down boys as much as they are allowed to get away with, and when the rigged educational system still wasn’t crippling boys enough to let girls win, they started medicating all the little guys who showed any promise at all. A 10 y/o boy on Ritalin in 1990 is today’s 26 y/o who knows through bitter experience that if he shows any promise at all, it will simply make him a target. The nail that sticks up is the one which gets hammered down.
Boys are not nearly as big fools as people have believed. There has been a war against them for more than 30 years, and they have learned to make themselves the smallest possible targets. They have also learned to not feed the system which has as its major priority to destroy them any way it can.
Why make money when any woman can simply trap a sperm and lay claim to most of what they make? It doesn’t even have to be his sperm - any old sperm will do. Women have been “daddy shopping” for ages - “hm, his wallet looks nice and fat, HE’S THE DADDY OF MY BABY!!!”
The H-bomb of the demotivation of males is this insane and evil concept called “imputed income.” Financial success is little more than an excuse to turn a man into complete and total slave of some woman and her new husband “the government.” If a guy is theoretically “capable” of making $100,000/year, it becomes a crime to not make that much.
Why show the world that you have ability when all that will result from it is that the looters will attach themselves to you like parasites, chanting “from each according to his ability, to each according to her need”?
It is fascinating and surreal that the writer would mention “Atlas Shrugged” because all one has to do is read that book and they will understand everything which has happened for the past 40 years and exactly what is going on. Men with ability are going on strike and have been since the 1970s. They are simply refusing to use their “abilities” to support a system which operates under the ideology of a cancer. Why function as a heart or lungs when the tumors suck all the blood anyway? No matter how much blood the heart pumps, the tumors will suck it all up and demand more, and keep demanding that the heart pump more until it bursts from overload.
Quote: “I think it’s disappointing that the article doesn’t throw more theories out there.”
The article is not about theories or finding answers, it is nothing but a propaganda piece continuing the policy of “blame men” that Khank pointed out. It is inconceivable to me that so many people could be so stupid as to not be able to see what is happening right in front of their eyes, so my conclusion is that it must be driven by malicious intent.
What no one seemed to count on, or the mediocre and stupid were just too stupid to figure out, is that men didn’t achieve at the levels they did because of some inherent characteristic of men that everyone else lacked. Just like the woman who thought men grew money like we grow hair, they just assumed men would keep doing it no matter how difficult they made it for men to do so.
Well, as Gomer Pyle would say - “Surprise, surprise, surprise!”
Women wanted to be trapped in our old roles as wage slaves, so they enthusiastically jumped in to pushing us out of them. The Powers That Be wanted docile little wage slaves to be the drones of their economic consumerist engine.
Simply because men are not as materialistic as women, the engineers of the velocity economy of goods and services made women their primary targets. And, also because men are not as materialistic and consumption oriented, getting the man out of the middle and preventing him from practicing fiscal responsibility and trying to hold on to some of the wealth he generated, was the best way to drive the velocity economy. So, they concentrated on putting women into the workforce and the $$$ directly into their hands, and coming up with laws which allowed for the confiscation of whatever wealth men were still able to accumulate on their own.
So, it’s pretty much a no-brainer to make the decision between working 60 hours per week at a job you hate, or working zero, or maybe 10-15 hours at something which isn’t too unpleasant, and fucking off the rest of the time - if both decisions give the guy the same results.
And, speaking of no-brainers, this article was written by one of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
Zenpriest #50 - Listening to What Men Really Say
QUOTE: Gee…I must thank all the guys who put forth their efforts to tell me just how idiotic, foolish, stupid, ridiculous, I am..and how all woman seem to be..whores, selfish, bitches and just how much happier men are without them…
These are the “feelings” I get from reading your responses.
some of your comments hurt me to the core…
You have taken away hope….
Because I have no hope to ever write what I feel again on this site without being torn apart.
Right here we all have fallen into the gender gap which keeps fueling this stupid war. Nowhere, in any of the responses by men, did I see any personal attacks on you. No one called you "idiotic, foolish, stupid, ridiculous”. Nowhere in any of the posts except your own were the words “bitches and whores” used.
In short, you are accusing men of what they did not do! What did I just say in one of my earlier replies? “Women will not hear what men do say.”
No one attacked you personally, they just responded to your exhortation to “get back out there and find one of the good ones” with -“No. And here is why.”
How are you the victim here? How did men expressing their own pain, their own frustration, hurt you?
No one “tore you apart”. They just expressed their own side of the story.
Yet, here we go - you have been “wounded”, you have been hurt and forced to “learn a painful lesson”. We have “taken away your hope.” Somehow, in being honest, the men who have responded to you have turned you into a victim. Your post is full of victim language.
So, yes, this is how and why the vast majority of American women are complicit in this monstrous tragedy. You do not want to hear what men have to say. You want to express yourselves, but when men express themselves in response, they wound the poor little sensitive person on the other side.
So, guys are backpeddling and apologizing for hurting your feelings. I’m sorry that your feelings were hurt, but I am not going to apologize because I never attacked you! I will not take on either guilt or blame for something I did not do.
I warned you not to try to blow sunshine up our butts. When you have walked a mile in our shoes, then we will listen to comments you make about the experience. Until then, you are speaking from ignorance. Sure, you try to spread the blame around and say everyone is guilty, but by doing so you gloss over the specific complaints men bring up again, and again, and again.
Go to the link I mentioned - specifically this post “What the Movement Has Taught me about men - so far.”
One major revelation -
"In listening to these men as they talked to each other and to me, I learned something that has literally changed my life.
It was this: men have feelings. Seriously."
Wow. What a concept! Men have feelings too! Men are not anvils that can be pounded on 7×24x365 and remain unaffected by it.
See, this woman is doing what you aren’t, and what most women won’t - she is actually listening to men, to what we really say. She isn’t putting words in our mouths that we did not say - like “idiotic, foolish, stupid, ridiculous, whores, and bitches.”
Those are your words, not ours, just as your feelings are your feelings and we won’t take responsibility for causing them by simply being honest about our real life experiences.
If women really want to stop this stupid perpetual war, then they need to start really listening to men. They need to stop trying to keep men silenced by playing “oh, you big mean brutes, you have hurt me.”
If you have been “hurt” by men’s honest expressions of their own lives and experiences, it is harm which you have constructed out of thin air. The ugly words are yours, not ours.
We just speak of our lives. If you do not want to hear it, and only want us to listen to you then I think that is the real lesson you should be taking from all this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Men like to please women and gain their approval, so they give their power away. Men are incredibly afraid of women; they have tremendous fear of women if they feel that the woman is going to criticize them. Frequently when he expresses himself, she says, 'Oh, don't be so ridiculous; I can't believe you're saying that!' or 'Why don't you ever talk about your feelings?' Then when the guy talks about his feelings, she'll often say, 'That's stupid!' or 'You can't really feel that way!' So the way he sees it is never right. And so the guy shuts down, and he refuses to talk. That's what I see in my practice over and over. The guy wonders, 'Why should I open my mouth, when every time I do, she tells me it's wrong?'" -- therapist Laurie Ingraham, in Good Will Towards Men by Jack Kammer
"As listeners, wives tended to display more negative non-verbal behaviour than their husbands. Wives were negative listeners 11% of the time compared to their husband's 3%."
.
"Negative face cues" include "frown, sneer, fear, crying, angry face or disgust."
.
"Negative voice cues" are "cold, tense, fearful, impatient, whining, sarcastic, blaming, angry, hurt, mocking or depressed."
.
"Negative body cues" are "arms akimbo (with hands on hip), tense neck or hands, innattentive, pointing, jabbing or slicing with the hand."
-- Clifford I. Notarius and Jennifer S. Johnson, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1982
The Lamentations of Matheolus: Dominating Clock, 1295:
This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #14 – If a Man Speaks in the Forest, and There is No Woman There to Correct Him, Is He Still Wrong?
Bonecrker #3 – Shaming Language
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
These are the “feelings” I get from reading your responses.
some of your comments hurt me to the core…
You have taken away hope….
Because I have no hope to ever write what I feel again on this site without being torn apart.
Right here we all have fallen into the gender gap which keeps fueling this stupid war. Nowhere, in any of the responses by men, did I see any personal attacks on you. No one called you "idiotic, foolish, stupid, ridiculous”. Nowhere in any of the posts except your own were the words “bitches and whores” used.
In short, you are accusing men of what they did not do! What did I just say in one of my earlier replies? “Women will not hear what men do say.”
No one attacked you personally, they just responded to your exhortation to “get back out there and find one of the good ones” with -“No. And here is why.”
How are you the victim here? How did men expressing their own pain, their own frustration, hurt you?
No one “tore you apart”. They just expressed their own side of the story.
Yet, here we go - you have been “wounded”, you have been hurt and forced to “learn a painful lesson”. We have “taken away your hope.” Somehow, in being honest, the men who have responded to you have turned you into a victim. Your post is full of victim language.
So, yes, this is how and why the vast majority of American women are complicit in this monstrous tragedy. You do not want to hear what men have to say. You want to express yourselves, but when men express themselves in response, they wound the poor little sensitive person on the other side.
So, guys are backpeddling and apologizing for hurting your feelings. I’m sorry that your feelings were hurt, but I am not going to apologize because I never attacked you! I will not take on either guilt or blame for something I did not do.
I warned you not to try to blow sunshine up our butts. When you have walked a mile in our shoes, then we will listen to comments you make about the experience. Until then, you are speaking from ignorance. Sure, you try to spread the blame around and say everyone is guilty, but by doing so you gloss over the specific complaints men bring up again, and again, and again.
Go to the link I mentioned - specifically this post “What the Movement Has Taught me about men - so far.”
One major revelation -
"In listening to these men as they talked to each other and to me, I learned something that has literally changed my life.
It was this: men have feelings. Seriously."
Wow. What a concept! Men have feelings too! Men are not anvils that can be pounded on 7×24x365 and remain unaffected by it.
See, this woman is doing what you aren’t, and what most women won’t - she is actually listening to men, to what we really say. She isn’t putting words in our mouths that we did not say - like “idiotic, foolish, stupid, ridiculous, whores, and bitches.”
Those are your words, not ours, just as your feelings are your feelings and we won’t take responsibility for causing them by simply being honest about our real life experiences.
If women really want to stop this stupid perpetual war, then they need to start really listening to men. They need to stop trying to keep men silenced by playing “oh, you big mean brutes, you have hurt me.”
If you have been “hurt” by men’s honest expressions of their own lives and experiences, it is harm which you have constructed out of thin air. The ugly words are yours, not ours.
We just speak of our lives. If you do not want to hear it, and only want us to listen to you then I think that is the real lesson you should be taking from all this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Men like to please women and gain their approval, so they give their power away. Men are incredibly afraid of women; they have tremendous fear of women if they feel that the woman is going to criticize them. Frequently when he expresses himself, she says, 'Oh, don't be so ridiculous; I can't believe you're saying that!' or 'Why don't you ever talk about your feelings?' Then when the guy talks about his feelings, she'll often say, 'That's stupid!' or 'You can't really feel that way!' So the way he sees it is never right. And so the guy shuts down, and he refuses to talk. That's what I see in my practice over and over. The guy wonders, 'Why should I open my mouth, when every time I do, she tells me it's wrong?'" -- therapist Laurie Ingraham, in Good Will Towards Men by Jack Kammer
"As listeners, wives tended to display more negative non-verbal behaviour than their husbands. Wives were negative listeners 11% of the time compared to their husband's 3%."
.
"Negative face cues" include "frown, sneer, fear, crying, angry face or disgust."
.
"Negative voice cues" are "cold, tense, fearful, impatient, whining, sarcastic, blaming, angry, hurt, mocking or depressed."
.
"Negative body cues" are "arms akimbo (with hands on hip), tense neck or hands, innattentive, pointing, jabbing or slicing with the hand."
-- Clifford I. Notarius and Jennifer S. Johnson, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1982
The Lamentations of Matheolus: Dominating Clock, 1295:
This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #14 – If a Man Speaks in the Forest, and There is No Woman There to Correct Him, Is He Still Wrong?
Bonecrker #3 – Shaming Language
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Monday, February 18, 2002
Zenpriest #49 - Let Women Win the "Battle of the Sexes"
QUOTE: I guess what I’m trying to say is that, if men and woman no longer believe that here is a companion or that one person out there for them, then that is bad news indeed.
Because our country is in trouble now, and the family unit, a man and a woman, is the best way to keep it. If you guys give up on finding someone, then the feminists and the left have already won.
So, are you guys going down with out a fight? Are you going to let the feminists win, looking to take over… a world without men?
That would make an awful lot of Muslims happy."
---
No, we are going to let the women win the “battle of the sexes.” You can thank Susan Faludi for single-handedly turning the battle into an all out war. You can thank Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Mary Koss, Naomi Wolf, Joe Biden, et al, for forging the nuclear weapons which created the situation of Mutally Assured Destruction. You can thank the Bradley Amendment for creating legal peonage again and re-establishing the debtors prisons which were abolished a couple of hundred years ago.
And, you can thank the millions of these so-called “normal good women” who sat passively and silently by and reveled in the fact that the tide of the battle was swinging in their direction in the short term. You can thank Oprah for peddling her message of female victimhood and male perfidy to millions of women who lapped it up - loving the hating of men. You can thank all the dozens of trailer-trash panderers - Sally Jesse, Maury, Phil, Gerendo, Jerry, and all the rest - for serving up their multiple daily servings of emotional road-kill which millions of women lapped up like flocks of emotional buzzards.
And, you can thank the millions of these so-called “nice, average, normal women” who just loved to bash men, complain endlessly about petty crap like toilet seats, cheered on Lorena Bobbit when she castrated her husband and played the “abuse excuse” card.
You can thank the lesbians who have dominated “wimmins’s studdees” programs turning out thousands of what Christina Hoff-Sommers calls “hate-intoxicated little zealots” and creating a climate that Daphne Patai calls “Heterophobia.” You can thank the millions of female teachers who have led the “War on Boys” and when they couldn’t stamp out the masculinity in boys, decided to dope them with dangerous drugs in order to turn them into compliant zombies.
You can thank the millions of these so-called “nice normal women” who circulate their endless man-bashing emails which are so creative that they contain “jokes” like - “What do you call a man with half a brain? Answer: gifted.”
You can thank all these “strong, independent, women” who don’t need NO mah-yaan” and who delight in telling men that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. And, then when men take them at their word and decide maybe it isn’t all that bad to not have their clean seats slimed up, then start bitching about how men are “afraid of committment, afraid of strong women, don’t know how to handle a strong woman, and besides they are just angry losers who can’t get laid and probably have small penises anyway.”
Do I care of the Muslims take over? Not even a little bit. At least in Muslim countries a woman like Mary Winkler would not be able to murder her husband by shooting him in the back with a 12 gauge shotgun and get all kinds of sympathy, including a woman blogger who says “thinks of her as a hero.” You would not have women like Mary McDonald lying in wait for her husband for an hour and half, emptying 5 high-power rifle slugs into him, then reloading and shooting him again, and still walking free.
Interesting how in this post-feminist world where “women can do anything a man can do” (as long as they get as many tries as they want, are held to lower standards, and get head starts) that you still see it as men’s job to defend and make safe the culture and the sex who have declared war on them, criminalized their deepest desires and longings, bashes them constantly, and is constantly dreaming up new ways to extort money from them and put them in prison.
nuh uh.
This is women’s battle to fight from here on out. I, personally, have been fighting it for over 35 years and have lost everything I started out fighting for.
It ain’t my job any longer to do the shit work of seeking women out, put up with their bashing, hostility, arrogance, contempt, and exploitation just so they can have the relationships which they will still endlessly complain about not being anywhere good enough.
Women have spent the last 4 decades alienating men from themselves, and all that emotional DDT they have been poisoning the social environment with has built up to toxic levels which are poisoning all relationships.And what is so funny, is that women still expect men to do the shit work that they have criminalized and endlessly spat on men for doing.
Sorry, [ladies], certainly there are bad men out there - but the difference is that up until recently “normal good men” did not cheer them on with shouts of “you go, guy!!”
Remember what women have been telling us for years - there simply are no good men. Actually there are, but “the men have left the building.”
You gals made your bed, we hope you like it. If you ever decide to get off your passive butts and come looking for us good men, court us, treat us decently, and stop playing victim, and give up your attitude of entitlement, we are here.
But now, you have to come looking for us. A whole lot of us don’t really want you any more - you have made yourselves unwantable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #13 – A Letter to Devvy Kidd
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Because our country is in trouble now, and the family unit, a man and a woman, is the best way to keep it. If you guys give up on finding someone, then the feminists and the left have already won.
So, are you guys going down with out a fight? Are you going to let the feminists win, looking to take over… a world without men?
That would make an awful lot of Muslims happy."
---
No, we are going to let the women win the “battle of the sexes.” You can thank Susan Faludi for single-handedly turning the battle into an all out war. You can thank Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Mary Koss, Naomi Wolf, Joe Biden, et al, for forging the nuclear weapons which created the situation of Mutally Assured Destruction. You can thank the Bradley Amendment for creating legal peonage again and re-establishing the debtors prisons which were abolished a couple of hundred years ago.
And, you can thank the millions of these so-called “normal good women” who sat passively and silently by and reveled in the fact that the tide of the battle was swinging in their direction in the short term. You can thank Oprah for peddling her message of female victimhood and male perfidy to millions of women who lapped it up - loving the hating of men. You can thank all the dozens of trailer-trash panderers - Sally Jesse, Maury, Phil, Gerendo, Jerry, and all the rest - for serving up their multiple daily servings of emotional road-kill which millions of women lapped up like flocks of emotional buzzards.
And, you can thank the millions of these so-called “nice, average, normal women” who just loved to bash men, complain endlessly about petty crap like toilet seats, cheered on Lorena Bobbit when she castrated her husband and played the “abuse excuse” card.
You can thank the lesbians who have dominated “wimmins’s studdees” programs turning out thousands of what Christina Hoff-Sommers calls “hate-intoxicated little zealots” and creating a climate that Daphne Patai calls “Heterophobia.” You can thank the millions of female teachers who have led the “War on Boys” and when they couldn’t stamp out the masculinity in boys, decided to dope them with dangerous drugs in order to turn them into compliant zombies.
You can thank the millions of these so-called “nice normal women” who circulate their endless man-bashing emails which are so creative that they contain “jokes” like - “What do you call a man with half a brain? Answer: gifted.”
You can thank all these “strong, independent, women” who don’t need NO mah-yaan” and who delight in telling men that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. And, then when men take them at their word and decide maybe it isn’t all that bad to not have their clean seats slimed up, then start bitching about how men are “afraid of committment, afraid of strong women, don’t know how to handle a strong woman, and besides they are just angry losers who can’t get laid and probably have small penises anyway.”
Do I care of the Muslims take over? Not even a little bit. At least in Muslim countries a woman like Mary Winkler would not be able to murder her husband by shooting him in the back with a 12 gauge shotgun and get all kinds of sympathy, including a woman blogger who says “thinks of her as a hero.” You would not have women like Mary McDonald lying in wait for her husband for an hour and half, emptying 5 high-power rifle slugs into him, then reloading and shooting him again, and still walking free.
Interesting how in this post-feminist world where “women can do anything a man can do” (as long as they get as many tries as they want, are held to lower standards, and get head starts) that you still see it as men’s job to defend and make safe the culture and the sex who have declared war on them, criminalized their deepest desires and longings, bashes them constantly, and is constantly dreaming up new ways to extort money from them and put them in prison.
nuh uh.
This is women’s battle to fight from here on out. I, personally, have been fighting it for over 35 years and have lost everything I started out fighting for.
It ain’t my job any longer to do the shit work of seeking women out, put up with their bashing, hostility, arrogance, contempt, and exploitation just so they can have the relationships which they will still endlessly complain about not being anywhere good enough.
Women have spent the last 4 decades alienating men from themselves, and all that emotional DDT they have been poisoning the social environment with has built up to toxic levels which are poisoning all relationships.And what is so funny, is that women still expect men to do the shit work that they have criminalized and endlessly spat on men for doing.
Sorry, [ladies], certainly there are bad men out there - but the difference is that up until recently “normal good men” did not cheer them on with shouts of “you go, guy!!”
Remember what women have been telling us for years - there simply are no good men. Actually there are, but “the men have left the building.”
You gals made your bed, we hope you like it. If you ever decide to get off your passive butts and come looking for us good men, court us, treat us decently, and stop playing victim, and give up your attitude of entitlement, we are here.
But now, you have to come looking for us. A whole lot of us don’t really want you any more - you have made yourselves unwantable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #13 – A Letter to Devvy Kidd
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Sunday, February 17, 2002
Zenpriest #48 - Social Breakdown and Civil Disorder is More Likely
Re: A questionable male-female revenge story
QUOTE 1: I think the story is bogus, just a revenge fantasy.
---
QUOTE 2: Whether or not the story is bogus, it brings out inner conflicted dilemas many guys feel. On the one hand it is disturbing, yet on the other hand american women have gone so extreme that them receiving such medicine may not be out of line.
There is one femi nazi that I know and it would not bother me at all if she received the revenge treatment in the story. Yet there are are other more tame decent women that it would bother me immensly if such a thing happened to them.
These inner conflicted feelings many guys feel nowadays need to be sorted out so the MRA movement does not throw bread at stone --and stone at bread.
---
QUOTE 3: Putting aside my serious questions about the story's authenticity, I'm not sure what good it does to post it here at Mancoat. Certainly everyone has the right to review it and draw their own conclusions, but I think that publishing it on this forum casts its members and our goals in a negative light.
---
QUOTE 4: You're right about that. [The person who provided the story] has already posted that we're all a bunch of bloodthirsty savages. So I think he's testing that thesis by gauging our reactions to an inflammatory story.
---
QUOTE 5: "We sometime forget we are in a war. Feminists have taken off the gloves a long time ago. By men not taking off the gloves when needed [we've] only given feminists countless hours of laughs. Still it seems many members of this forum are in the illusion that feminists can be rectified and changed --fact is we are slowly but surely moving towards violence and an armed struggle."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence? perhaps. But not an armed "struggle". I speculate that social breakdown and civil disorder is more likely.
I'm kind of leaning toward [the] interpretation that this is a little Rorschach ink blot thrown out to see what people see in it.
The theme of "righteous vengeance" has been a popular one in American media for as long as I can remember. From films like "Rolling Thunder", the "Dirty Harry" series (Clint Eastwood), the "Death Wish" series (Charles Bronson), and dozens of other lesser known films with the same theme, it is only a small step to "The Burning Bed" and "Kill Bill." The impulse for revenge seems to be as deeply embedded in the human psyche as the need to eat and to mate.
One aspect of the story which stands out for me, but about which I haven't seen many comments, is that the guy is a dope dealer. This guy is a lowlife among lowlifes. His lifestyle is defined by doing something few guys here would approve of - selling drugs - so it shouldn't be surprising that he does other things which are outside the bounds of civil society.
What one lowlife does to another is mostly beyond my control, thus excessive concern about it is likely to be wasted. Such people have existed in every culture in the history of the world and I expect that they will continue to exist in every culture for the rest of history.
Here's one for your "how it used to be" file - both the guy and the skank in this story are a type of people who were completely ouside my realm of experience until I was in my late 20s. People like that existed in subcultures which were shunned by and isolated from normal civil society. When one thief or drug dealer shot another thief or drug dealer, the police did their best to solve the case, but in most cases it was a coin toss which lowlife shot the other - simply existing within civil society was some degree of insurance that such things would not happen to you or people you knew.
With the breakdown of social values, that insulation is going away. There were no Nathalee Holloways when I was growing up, because girls living within the protection of civil society were bound by the rules of civility which defined that group, and dictated that young women of age 18 did not go out at 1:00 am with anyone they did not know well, and in most cases were related to.
The point I am making here is that is as the social values which define civilization break down, we will see more and more of this. Preventing occurances of this nature were the entire reason for those values. Just as the physical body gets sick when the individual practices very bad health habits, so does society become sick when it ceases to practice good health habits.
"Sarah" was a monster, not a human being. Someone so cold and callous as to wish that someone killed themselves sooner is barbaric at the level of Ghengis Khan. By her attitudes and beliefs she put herself outside the bounds of civil society, and among the company of lowlifes. She puts herself beyond the protections which the social contract provides to those to abide by it. Actions and choices have consequences.
It's all well and good for guys here to try to take the moral high road and practice christlike forgiveness and forbearance, but what we ourselves do will have absolutely no effect on whether things like this story happen, or how often they happen.
I am sure that few, if any, members of Mancoat would actually do what this guy did, but the more significant and ominous implication is that I also would guess that few if any would care in the least what happened to this girl. I know that I personally would not.
I think that the real danger to women comes from their destruction of chivalry and the protective instinct of men. If this girl had had a father, he would have warned her very sternly against getting involved with this kind of guy, against the party lifestyle, and would have done whatever he could to keep her from becoming such a slut. If she had brothers or uncles, they would have done the same.
It is indicative and symtomatic of the cultural decay we see all around us that this girl was surrounded by men who did not give a shit about her. And, it is perfectly understandable from her own attitudes.
Whatever our opinion of this guy's story, regardless of what we do, I believe that more and more things like this will happen. Men who would have cared about her have been forced out of her life, and she herself alienated those future men who were forming their opinions of her and could have just as easily seen her as "what a great gal" instead of "what a horrible bitch."
I don't think that most women have a clue about what deep and bitter hatred for themselves which they are creating among men - young and old. I don't have a link to the story titled "The Screams of Women" about a boat sinking and things turning out very differently than the sinking of the Titanic - with men pushing women out of the lifeboats - but I'm sure someone here does. I think it was Darren Blacksmith on his cooltools4men blog who linked to an article about how men will no longer stop to help a female motorist with problems.
Whether the men here react to the viciousness, exploitation, and arrogance of women with hatred or indifference does not matter. Some men will react with hatred, and those men will be enough to make life very brutal and ugly for some women, while the indifferent men look the other way and go about their business.
Yes, I do see an unbelievable deep and bitter hatred toward women growing among a lot of men. And, the generation of marginalized and narcotized boys getting ready to be launched into the population as whole frankly scares the shit out of me.
But, my concern about it is limited to the effects it will have on men. I am cold as dry ice inside when I hear about the "suffering" of women, because it seems they "suffer" equally from a hangnail as from being roasted alive on a spit. The old story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is getting ready to be played out on a culture-wide scale. There are no more heroes. There are no rescuers of damsels in distress left. Women have hated that part of most men to death.
So, Rich, if you are taking the temperature of the men here with that story, let me tell you what I think should be a lot more ominous and frightening than the rage and "hot" anger of some of these guys - the "cold" rage and indifference of men like me who will both argue against men getting caught up in the lust for vengeance (because of what it will do to the men), but at the same time turn my back on a woman who becomes the target of another man's rage.
To me, the key question regarding this story is - if I was an outside observer, watching this go on, would I lift a finger to stop it, and help her out?
The answer is - no, I wouldn't.
Remember, women "need" us like fish need bicycles. If she was stupid enough, and vile enough to get herself into this situation, then let her get herself out of it.
QUOTE: "It looks like 40 years of feminists trying to achieve 'progress for women' will in fact set women a good 4,000 years back."
I think that says it quite well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
QUOTE 1: I think the story is bogus, just a revenge fantasy.
---
QUOTE 2: Whether or not the story is bogus, it brings out inner conflicted dilemas many guys feel. On the one hand it is disturbing, yet on the other hand american women have gone so extreme that them receiving such medicine may not be out of line.
There is one femi nazi that I know and it would not bother me at all if she received the revenge treatment in the story. Yet there are are other more tame decent women that it would bother me immensly if such a thing happened to them.
These inner conflicted feelings many guys feel nowadays need to be sorted out so the MRA movement does not throw bread at stone --and stone at bread.
---
QUOTE 3: Putting aside my serious questions about the story's authenticity, I'm not sure what good it does to post it here at Mancoat. Certainly everyone has the right to review it and draw their own conclusions, but I think that publishing it on this forum casts its members and our goals in a negative light.
---
QUOTE 4: You're right about that. [The person who provided the story] has already posted that we're all a bunch of bloodthirsty savages. So I think he's testing that thesis by gauging our reactions to an inflammatory story.
---
QUOTE 5: "We sometime forget we are in a war. Feminists have taken off the gloves a long time ago. By men not taking off the gloves when needed [we've] only given feminists countless hours of laughs. Still it seems many members of this forum are in the illusion that feminists can be rectified and changed --fact is we are slowly but surely moving towards violence and an armed struggle."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence? perhaps. But not an armed "struggle". I speculate that social breakdown and civil disorder is more likely.
I'm kind of leaning toward [the] interpretation that this is a little Rorschach ink blot thrown out to see what people see in it.
The theme of "righteous vengeance" has been a popular one in American media for as long as I can remember. From films like "Rolling Thunder", the "Dirty Harry" series (Clint Eastwood), the "Death Wish" series (Charles Bronson), and dozens of other lesser known films with the same theme, it is only a small step to "The Burning Bed" and "Kill Bill." The impulse for revenge seems to be as deeply embedded in the human psyche as the need to eat and to mate.
One aspect of the story which stands out for me, but about which I haven't seen many comments, is that the guy is a dope dealer. This guy is a lowlife among lowlifes. His lifestyle is defined by doing something few guys here would approve of - selling drugs - so it shouldn't be surprising that he does other things which are outside the bounds of civil society.
What one lowlife does to another is mostly beyond my control, thus excessive concern about it is likely to be wasted. Such people have existed in every culture in the history of the world and I expect that they will continue to exist in every culture for the rest of history.
Here's one for your "how it used to be" file - both the guy and the skank in this story are a type of people who were completely ouside my realm of experience until I was in my late 20s. People like that existed in subcultures which were shunned by and isolated from normal civil society. When one thief or drug dealer shot another thief or drug dealer, the police did their best to solve the case, but in most cases it was a coin toss which lowlife shot the other - simply existing within civil society was some degree of insurance that such things would not happen to you or people you knew.
With the breakdown of social values, that insulation is going away. There were no Nathalee Holloways when I was growing up, because girls living within the protection of civil society were bound by the rules of civility which defined that group, and dictated that young women of age 18 did not go out at 1:00 am with anyone they did not know well, and in most cases were related to.
The point I am making here is that is as the social values which define civilization break down, we will see more and more of this. Preventing occurances of this nature were the entire reason for those values. Just as the physical body gets sick when the individual practices very bad health habits, so does society become sick when it ceases to practice good health habits.
"Sarah" was a monster, not a human being. Someone so cold and callous as to wish that someone killed themselves sooner is barbaric at the level of Ghengis Khan. By her attitudes and beliefs she put herself outside the bounds of civil society, and among the company of lowlifes. She puts herself beyond the protections which the social contract provides to those to abide by it. Actions and choices have consequences.
It's all well and good for guys here to try to take the moral high road and practice christlike forgiveness and forbearance, but what we ourselves do will have absolutely no effect on whether things like this story happen, or how often they happen.
I am sure that few, if any, members of Mancoat would actually do what this guy did, but the more significant and ominous implication is that I also would guess that few if any would care in the least what happened to this girl. I know that I personally would not.
I think that the real danger to women comes from their destruction of chivalry and the protective instinct of men. If this girl had had a father, he would have warned her very sternly against getting involved with this kind of guy, against the party lifestyle, and would have done whatever he could to keep her from becoming such a slut. If she had brothers or uncles, they would have done the same.
It is indicative and symtomatic of the cultural decay we see all around us that this girl was surrounded by men who did not give a shit about her. And, it is perfectly understandable from her own attitudes.
Whatever our opinion of this guy's story, regardless of what we do, I believe that more and more things like this will happen. Men who would have cared about her have been forced out of her life, and she herself alienated those future men who were forming their opinions of her and could have just as easily seen her as "what a great gal" instead of "what a horrible bitch."
I don't think that most women have a clue about what deep and bitter hatred for themselves which they are creating among men - young and old. I don't have a link to the story titled "The Screams of Women" about a boat sinking and things turning out very differently than the sinking of the Titanic - with men pushing women out of the lifeboats - but I'm sure someone here does. I think it was Darren Blacksmith on his cooltools4men blog who linked to an article about how men will no longer stop to help a female motorist with problems.
Whether the men here react to the viciousness, exploitation, and arrogance of women with hatred or indifference does not matter. Some men will react with hatred, and those men will be enough to make life very brutal and ugly for some women, while the indifferent men look the other way and go about their business.
Yes, I do see an unbelievable deep and bitter hatred toward women growing among a lot of men. And, the generation of marginalized and narcotized boys getting ready to be launched into the population as whole frankly scares the shit out of me.
But, my concern about it is limited to the effects it will have on men. I am cold as dry ice inside when I hear about the "suffering" of women, because it seems they "suffer" equally from a hangnail as from being roasted alive on a spit. The old story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is getting ready to be played out on a culture-wide scale. There are no more heroes. There are no rescuers of damsels in distress left. Women have hated that part of most men to death.
So, Rich, if you are taking the temperature of the men here with that story, let me tell you what I think should be a lot more ominous and frightening than the rage and "hot" anger of some of these guys - the "cold" rage and indifference of men like me who will both argue against men getting caught up in the lust for vengeance (because of what it will do to the men), but at the same time turn my back on a woman who becomes the target of another man's rage.
To me, the key question regarding this story is - if I was an outside observer, watching this go on, would I lift a finger to stop it, and help her out?
The answer is - no, I wouldn't.
Remember, women "need" us like fish need bicycles. If she was stupid enough, and vile enough to get herself into this situation, then let her get herself out of it.
QUOTE: "It looks like 40 years of feminists trying to achieve 'progress for women' will in fact set women a good 4,000 years back."
I think that says it quite well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Saturday, February 16, 2002
Zenpriest #47 - The Future's So Bright, I've Gotta Wear Shades
QUOTE: "I almost get the feeling that you feel as though the future is rosy for men because more and more men are going their own way and because women have, to some extent, dug their own grave.
I view the future with increasing alarm given that women are gaining power across the board, particularly in terms of the fact that women are rapidly becoming the more highly educated and privileged class. This will not be without its benefits for women given that knowledge is power. It is no good thing that more women come away with more degrees than do men. In the UK approximately 2/3 of law students are women. Just think about the future implications that holds for men!
In my opinion George Orwell was right, he just got the phrasing wrong. 'Big sister' would be more appropriate."
It isn't that I expect the future to be "rosy" for men, but I don't think it will be any worse than the past was. Men made it through hard times before, I expect them to again.
The reason I can take a long view is because of my decision to drop out of the game. I have no vested interest one way or the other, so I can look at the issues slightly more dispassionately.
I agree that Orwell was right, and so was Aldous Huxley and so was Ayn Rand. The simple fact that the situation we find ourselves in today despite so many people having read the classic dystopian novels, gives a certain sense of inevitability to it.
I really don't think that the average man thinks or cares much about the issues, which is why there has always been a ruling class - because some people do obsess about the issues and crave power over others.
The value of a college degree is vastly over-rated these days. Most of them are absolutely worthless, and there are self-correcting mechanisms built into any system. Economics is no exception although it does have more than its share of people meddling in keeping this fiasco running much longer than it should have.
A factoid in absolute means nothing. It is just an effective means of manipulation. "They" always tout the value of a college indoctrination, saying things like "a person with a college degree will make an extra million $$$ in his lifetime." So an extra million $$$ passes through his hands as compared to another guy. But, where does it go to? Bigger houses? More "stuff" and consumer oriented shit?
I would argue that the quality of life of a corporate lawyer these days is not significantly better than that of a HVAC worker.
Women can have all the power and money in the world, but that won't get them what many of them really do want - a husband and kids - unless they become willing to marry men who make less than they do. In the end, many of them will.
This whole long battle between the sexes has been waged entirely in the corridors of power. Feminism is a movement of the white upper class women, and what it mostly amounts to for the average man is that the ruling classes now contain both men and women, and the women he has to deal with are far less pleasant. But, the mythology of the pleasant woman has been far over sold.
I think men have gained different kinds of power at the same time women have supposedly been gaining power. It all kind of washes out - that yin and yang thing associated with my internet personna.
Life has always been pretty tough for men. I once read an account of an ancient battle where all the losers got their penises cut off. There was summary by rank of how many "phalluses were collected" and the total was something over 13,000. A hundred years ago, men who were building the Panama canal worked 12-14 hours per day, six days per week - basically all the hours of daylight. The only reason they got the 7th day off was because religion was still a given for most people. Thousands of them died from malaria. Life must have been pretty tough back home to work that hard in such dangerous circumstances just to make money.
Compared to either of those 2 situations, and thousands more I could describe, I think men today live mostly a life of incredible comfort and safety.
College degrees are now starting people out under incredible loads of debt. The differential in what they earn in many cases will not offset the costs of their education in every case, perhaps not even most. The few extremely highly paid assholes really skew the statistics for the average guy.
A degree used to mean more money because it actually meant something - you got prepared for career in which skill had value - like medicine or dentistry. But, with degrees now in "queer theory", the only place for such people is in the massive sucking bureaucracy. The US is bankrupt, and very soon will not be able to afford to be the nanny state.
Men adjust better to adversity than women do, which is why I expect them to come through the years when things get really rough as well or better than women do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most adaptable to change. -- Charles Darwin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #23 – Marriage is Becoming the Social Edsel of the 21st Century
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
I view the future with increasing alarm given that women are gaining power across the board, particularly in terms of the fact that women are rapidly becoming the more highly educated and privileged class. This will not be without its benefits for women given that knowledge is power. It is no good thing that more women come away with more degrees than do men. In the UK approximately 2/3 of law students are women. Just think about the future implications that holds for men!
In my opinion George Orwell was right, he just got the phrasing wrong. 'Big sister' would be more appropriate."
It isn't that I expect the future to be "rosy" for men, but I don't think it will be any worse than the past was. Men made it through hard times before, I expect them to again.
The reason I can take a long view is because of my decision to drop out of the game. I have no vested interest one way or the other, so I can look at the issues slightly more dispassionately.
I agree that Orwell was right, and so was Aldous Huxley and so was Ayn Rand. The simple fact that the situation we find ourselves in today despite so many people having read the classic dystopian novels, gives a certain sense of inevitability to it.
I really don't think that the average man thinks or cares much about the issues, which is why there has always been a ruling class - because some people do obsess about the issues and crave power over others.
The value of a college degree is vastly over-rated these days. Most of them are absolutely worthless, and there are self-correcting mechanisms built into any system. Economics is no exception although it does have more than its share of people meddling in keeping this fiasco running much longer than it should have.
A factoid in absolute means nothing. It is just an effective means of manipulation. "They" always tout the value of a college indoctrination, saying things like "a person with a college degree will make an extra million $$$ in his lifetime." So an extra million $$$ passes through his hands as compared to another guy. But, where does it go to? Bigger houses? More "stuff" and consumer oriented shit?
I would argue that the quality of life of a corporate lawyer these days is not significantly better than that of a HVAC worker.
Women can have all the power and money in the world, but that won't get them what many of them really do want - a husband and kids - unless they become willing to marry men who make less than they do. In the end, many of them will.
This whole long battle between the sexes has been waged entirely in the corridors of power. Feminism is a movement of the white upper class women, and what it mostly amounts to for the average man is that the ruling classes now contain both men and women, and the women he has to deal with are far less pleasant. But, the mythology of the pleasant woman has been far over sold.
I think men have gained different kinds of power at the same time women have supposedly been gaining power. It all kind of washes out - that yin and yang thing associated with my internet personna.
Life has always been pretty tough for men. I once read an account of an ancient battle where all the losers got their penises cut off. There was summary by rank of how many "phalluses were collected" and the total was something over 13,000. A hundred years ago, men who were building the Panama canal worked 12-14 hours per day, six days per week - basically all the hours of daylight. The only reason they got the 7th day off was because religion was still a given for most people. Thousands of them died from malaria. Life must have been pretty tough back home to work that hard in such dangerous circumstances just to make money.
Compared to either of those 2 situations, and thousands more I could describe, I think men today live mostly a life of incredible comfort and safety.
College degrees are now starting people out under incredible loads of debt. The differential in what they earn in many cases will not offset the costs of their education in every case, perhaps not even most. The few extremely highly paid assholes really skew the statistics for the average guy.
A degree used to mean more money because it actually meant something - you got prepared for career in which skill had value - like medicine or dentistry. But, with degrees now in "queer theory", the only place for such people is in the massive sucking bureaucracy. The US is bankrupt, and very soon will not be able to afford to be the nanny state.
Men adjust better to adversity than women do, which is why I expect them to come through the years when things get really rough as well or better than women do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most adaptable to change. -- Charles Darwin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #23 – Marriage is Becoming the Social Edsel of the 21st Century
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Friday, February 15, 2002
Zenpriest #46 - Twenty Years From Now This Will Be "The Good Old Days"
QUOTE: "And the women my age - good God - maybe ZP can back me up here, the ones who were OK back in 1972 have shot through two or three good men and a half dozen bad ones, and they think that the pinnacle of feminine desirability is to be as demanding, as histrionic, as psychotic, and as self-obsessed as their daughters."
Yeah, I'll back you up on that one. Being a part of the counterculture, I got exposed to radical feminism early. I have a brother 10 years older than I am, and by the time I graduated from HS his wife was already using his kids to jerk him around, so I wasn't all that hot on marriage from the get-go. After encountering radical feminism with all its hatred, distortions, and anger in my freshman year of college, I copped an attitude and basically made the decision that I was going to force the fish to live without this bicycle. I met many women over the years who would have loved to be supported to stay at home, but my brother's wife was so useless and helpless and suffered from a perpetual broken wing, that I really did react to marriage like a jail sentance - "none for me, thanks."
But, as I have said before, I think that men and women had a chance of sorting things out but for the poisonous influence of Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf. Right after their books came out was when things turned really ugly. The 90s were a nightmare. There was a period of several years when every day I got several man-bashing supposedly "funny" emails that were making the rounds - "what do you call a man with half a brain? gifted."
What makes me have no hope at all for the future is the way that little girls and boys are being programmed to hate each other now. Young women when they reach your age, Kelly, will pay a terrible price for their stupid bitches of mothers buying them "boys are stupid, be violent toward them" T-shirts, jammies, and the like. Boys today are forming the opinion of girls which will be with them the rest of their lives, and that opinion is largely that girls are violent, hateful, and vicious.
Twenty years from now, young women like you will look back on today and think of it as "the good old days."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Yeah, I'll back you up on that one. Being a part of the counterculture, I got exposed to radical feminism early. I have a brother 10 years older than I am, and by the time I graduated from HS his wife was already using his kids to jerk him around, so I wasn't all that hot on marriage from the get-go. After encountering radical feminism with all its hatred, distortions, and anger in my freshman year of college, I copped an attitude and basically made the decision that I was going to force the fish to live without this bicycle. I met many women over the years who would have loved to be supported to stay at home, but my brother's wife was so useless and helpless and suffered from a perpetual broken wing, that I really did react to marriage like a jail sentance - "none for me, thanks."
But, as I have said before, I think that men and women had a chance of sorting things out but for the poisonous influence of Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf. Right after their books came out was when things turned really ugly. The 90s were a nightmare. There was a period of several years when every day I got several man-bashing supposedly "funny" emails that were making the rounds - "what do you call a man with half a brain? gifted."
What makes me have no hope at all for the future is the way that little girls and boys are being programmed to hate each other now. Young women when they reach your age, Kelly, will pay a terrible price for their stupid bitches of mothers buying them "boys are stupid, be violent toward them" T-shirts, jammies, and the like. Boys today are forming the opinion of girls which will be with them the rest of their lives, and that opinion is largely that girls are violent, hateful, and vicious.
Twenty years from now, young women like you will look back on today and think of it as "the good old days."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Thursday, February 14, 2002
Zenpriest #45 - I am a Strong Believer in Natural Processes
QUOTE 1: Forget about women and LIVE!
QUOTE 2: How to forget? Do you have some links on that, keywords for memorable posts? I read a lot of JadedGuy, but somehow it didn't click, maybe we're on different wavelengths (we're obviously in different phases of life).
Your advice reminds me of the initiation to "the inklings", where they'd make someone sit in the corner for an hour and NOT think of a white polar bear. Damn near impossible.Again, how?
QUOTE 3: Well, a divorce when I was 26 and betrayal by every girlfriend I ever had (-1) helped quite a bit. I lowered my standards for my last girlfriend (physically.) She is very bright, has a master's degree, and is interesting to talk to (and enthusiastic in bed) but she wanted to be even more of a player than really hot girls. Once she had me she had to see someone else at the same time and take me for granted to prove to herself that she could be just like super hot skanks. She did it for me. If I never date another woman I am ok with that. I realized that the emotional terrorism that women put me through was too high a price to pay for poontang and female companionship. That and I bought a motorcycle.
----------
I am a strong believer in natural processes. I have contended since the 1960s that women's claims of "oppression" were completely bogus and that cultural values were a natural result of a negotiated balance between the sexes. Or, in other words, women had every bit as much a role in the creating the old social values that the feminidiots wanted to destroy as men had in creating them - more, in fact, due to their role in socializing and educating children.
I think men burning out on women and just getting so sick of dealing with them that they start to avoid doing so is another natural process. Men put all the benefits of dealing with women on one side of the scale, and all the costs and unpleasantness on the other, and one day it just reaches the tipping point and his gut starts telling him that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
B.F. Skinner would call what is going on today "aversive conditioning." It's a lot like the alcoholic who takes Antabuse which will make him sick if he drinks. The power of his addiction to make him want another drink is offset by the powerful sickness he will experience if he does. Eventually, the nauseating behavior of modern women makes a man so sick that his nausea overpowers his pussy addiction and makes avoidance the less painful option.
It becomes like those old word association tests. When younger men hear the word "woman", the words that come to mind are "sex, attractive, love, enjoyment." However, unless a man lucks out in the split-tail lottery, his own experiences begin to shape his automatic reactions to "bitching, drama, bullshit, manipulation, hostility, mindfuck, disgusting, demanding, selfish, unpleasant, fuggit."
No one besides Maureen Dowd had to do anything to get most men to regard her as worthy of nothing more than a quick fuck, if that. Likewise, I seriously doubt that there is any answer that any man here could give to your question - except "keep right on doing what you are doing now, until you get so sick of the results that it turns your stomach to think about continuing to do it." Given enough time, dealing with women will produce the result you are asking about. Until then, there is no magic spell any of us can give you to make it happen.
But, once it does happen, the change is not reversible. Once you burn out on women, you are burned out and will remain so for the rest of your life. As you begin to choose more pleasant ways to spend your time, your attention will naturally begin to turn to toward those pleasant pursuits and away from the people whose sole purpose in life is to jerk you around and make you miserable just to entertain themselves.
Women are not going to change as long as they keep getting everything they want from men despite their obnoxious unpleasant behavior. I hear a lot of younger guys saying, in effect - "Hey, I have this fantasy of what women are, and I am so in love with it that I will not give it up, so how do we get women to change so that they are more like I wish they were."
The answer, of course, is that you can't and won't - not ever. Women are what they are, the choice men have basically boils down to take them or leave them. What you see is what you got to pick from, and one of the main purposes of Mancoat is to expose the lies women have used to hoodwink men into believing they are something else.
As one of the posters here recently quipped - this is the red pill, it is not Zion. The situation men are in today sucks, but if any of us knew how to make it better we would have done so long ago and we would not be here talking about it.
Those of us who have survived the gauntlet can pass along tips for how we did it, but that is about all we can do. Life is still pretty much a do-it-yourself deal for men, and each man seems to build his own individual strategy from all the pieces and parts other men give him.
So, the short answer to your question is that you are going to keep on getting what you have been getting as long as you keep on doing what you have been doing. By all means, continue to think about women like you do until your own experiences sour you on them so much that thinking about them begins to trigger the reflex to hurl. Then, it will be very easy to start avoiding things that make you feel like puking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
QUOTE 2: How to forget? Do you have some links on that, keywords for memorable posts? I read a lot of JadedGuy, but somehow it didn't click, maybe we're on different wavelengths (we're obviously in different phases of life).
Your advice reminds me of the initiation to "the inklings", where they'd make someone sit in the corner for an hour and NOT think of a white polar bear. Damn near impossible.Again, how?
QUOTE 3: Well, a divorce when I was 26 and betrayal by every girlfriend I ever had (-1) helped quite a bit. I lowered my standards for my last girlfriend (physically.) She is very bright, has a master's degree, and is interesting to talk to (and enthusiastic in bed) but she wanted to be even more of a player than really hot girls. Once she had me she had to see someone else at the same time and take me for granted to prove to herself that she could be just like super hot skanks. She did it for me. If I never date another woman I am ok with that. I realized that the emotional terrorism that women put me through was too high a price to pay for poontang and female companionship. That and I bought a motorcycle.
----------
I am a strong believer in natural processes. I have contended since the 1960s that women's claims of "oppression" were completely bogus and that cultural values were a natural result of a negotiated balance between the sexes. Or, in other words, women had every bit as much a role in the creating the old social values that the feminidiots wanted to destroy as men had in creating them - more, in fact, due to their role in socializing and educating children.
I think men burning out on women and just getting so sick of dealing with them that they start to avoid doing so is another natural process. Men put all the benefits of dealing with women on one side of the scale, and all the costs and unpleasantness on the other, and one day it just reaches the tipping point and his gut starts telling him that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
B.F. Skinner would call what is going on today "aversive conditioning." It's a lot like the alcoholic who takes Antabuse which will make him sick if he drinks. The power of his addiction to make him want another drink is offset by the powerful sickness he will experience if he does. Eventually, the nauseating behavior of modern women makes a man so sick that his nausea overpowers his pussy addiction and makes avoidance the less painful option.
It becomes like those old word association tests. When younger men hear the word "woman", the words that come to mind are "sex, attractive, love, enjoyment." However, unless a man lucks out in the split-tail lottery, his own experiences begin to shape his automatic reactions to "bitching, drama, bullshit, manipulation, hostility, mindfuck, disgusting, demanding, selfish, unpleasant, fuggit."
No one besides Maureen Dowd had to do anything to get most men to regard her as worthy of nothing more than a quick fuck, if that. Likewise, I seriously doubt that there is any answer that any man here could give to your question - except "keep right on doing what you are doing now, until you get so sick of the results that it turns your stomach to think about continuing to do it." Given enough time, dealing with women will produce the result you are asking about. Until then, there is no magic spell any of us can give you to make it happen.
But, once it does happen, the change is not reversible. Once you burn out on women, you are burned out and will remain so for the rest of your life. As you begin to choose more pleasant ways to spend your time, your attention will naturally begin to turn to toward those pleasant pursuits and away from the people whose sole purpose in life is to jerk you around and make you miserable just to entertain themselves.
Women are not going to change as long as they keep getting everything they want from men despite their obnoxious unpleasant behavior. I hear a lot of younger guys saying, in effect - "Hey, I have this fantasy of what women are, and I am so in love with it that I will not give it up, so how do we get women to change so that they are more like I wish they were."
The answer, of course, is that you can't and won't - not ever. Women are what they are, the choice men have basically boils down to take them or leave them. What you see is what you got to pick from, and one of the main purposes of Mancoat is to expose the lies women have used to hoodwink men into believing they are something else.
As one of the posters here recently quipped - this is the red pill, it is not Zion. The situation men are in today sucks, but if any of us knew how to make it better we would have done so long ago and we would not be here talking about it.
Those of us who have survived the gauntlet can pass along tips for how we did it, but that is about all we can do. Life is still pretty much a do-it-yourself deal for men, and each man seems to build his own individual strategy from all the pieces and parts other men give him.
So, the short answer to your question is that you are going to keep on getting what you have been getting as long as you keep on doing what you have been doing. By all means, continue to think about women like you do until your own experiences sour you on them so much that thinking about them begins to trigger the reflex to hurl. Then, it will be very easy to start avoiding things that make you feel like puking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Wednesday, February 13, 2002
Zenpriest #44 - The Box Feminism Builds for Women
QUOTE:
"Once feminist ideas are discarded the answers to your questions will become self evident."
I agree with this statement in principle, but in practice it has been tricky to figure out which of the ideas I've grown up with were the feminist ones, in the same way that I now forget what people who haven't been immersed in ship education for 6 years know about ships. Again, this forum's been very helpful for that.
Regarding some of the recent threads: I continue to work to become a better woman and to learn the housewifely arts, and being a wife and mother is my ultimate goal, but in the meantime (until a good man considers me to be Miss Right) I'm grateful that I can work in a field that I am suited to and that I don't have to depend on my non-existent man to provide for me. It seems that some are advocating just this dependency be required of women, and I wanted to point out that while perhaps ideal this situation is unrealistic unless you don't mind seeing innocent people starving to death while preparing for and awaiting marriage. This is why I'm sure I must be misunderstanding those posters. What exactly are they advocating?
-------------
As [was previously] said, we are all over the board. That is fallacy one that you have to overcome. So, the first feminist belief you have to discard is that all men are the same. We are not.
Fallacy 1a woud be that any of us can give you meaningful advice regarding anyone we don't know - ie a potential mate for you. The best answer I can give you is "ask him what he wants, then listen to what he says, and I mean really listen.
If you want to understand feminism in a nutshell, take the current joke men understand perfectly:
"If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to correct him, is he still wrong?"
The feminist position is that men are de facto wrong and women are de facto right.
The whole "oppression" bullshit has been used to make women fear being dominated, used, and messed over, so they reflexively and habitually resist anything a man tries to say or do. This leads to nothing but a power struggle which leads to people hating each other's guts.
The #1 issue men have with women these days is the inherent double standard almost all of them seem to assume is their birthright. When the economy was such that most families could live on one income, it was a pretty natural division of labor for the man to do the earning - often doing jobs women simply could not do when pregnant - and the woman to stay home, take care of the house and kids, and let the man go along for the ride with the comforts. Children were a team effort and both members of the team were specialists, not generalists.
But, now women not only get pretty much any job they ask for, under threat of lawsuit, but they always pick the plum jobs - the highest paying ones. This would be fine if they let go of the double standard and were willing to accept a man who cannot have her job because she has it, and has to settle for one making less. In general, women refuse to marry down because even as their earning power has increased, they have refused to change their expectations that men will be the breadwinners. Women are not clamoring for the jobs of garbage collectors, nor are the female Advertising executives etc marrying such guys.
So, women have manipulated law in such a way that "we get the cream, and you guys get the dregs, and BTW you are such LOOOSERS that we would never dream of marrying you."
No one is going to get into or stay in a relationship with someone whose primary purpose in life seems to be to tell him how flawed and insignifcant he is. The glue that holds a relationship together simply does not exist. Under constant demands to "perform", and now minus any objective standards save her ever changing whims, the relationship turns from one where there is any sort of "equality" at all, to one of mother and child.
Contrary to feminist bullshit, most men do not want to sleep with their nagging shrew mothers. Regarding the list, why in the world is "be nice to be around, rather than nasty, nagging, unpleasant, and tearing him down every chance you get" even need to be explained? Isn't that just common sense?
If someone told you all day every day how insignificant you were, wouldn't that qualify as "abuse"? You could probably even go to a "wimmins's shelter" and have him arrested for it. So, women can keep up a never ending psychological and emotional bombardment, from behind the shield of laws everywhere to protect her.
So, you don't "need a mayaan", because you can support yourself. A man in your life is an optional fashion accessory like Jimmy Choo shoes or an Armani handbag. This removal of real dependency, which creates a very strong bond of love much like parent-child, turns a relationship from long-term interdependence into one of moment to moment satisfaction.
QUOTE: "Also, your list and recommendation of The Care and Feeding of Husbands saw me through a relationship with a fantastic man."
What an interesting statement!! Saw you "through" it? Are you no longer in it?
If having a "relationship with a fantastic man" has become the equivalent of watching an extended movie, that is a core of the problem right there. Putting that together with "(until a good man considers me to be Miss Right)" and "I'm grateful that I can work in a field that I am suited to and that I don't have to depend on my non-existent man to provide for me" you give the impression that this "fantastic man" passed into and out of your life with hardly more than a "ho hum."
It is that very dependency that bothers you, which was what made marriages work. People really did need each other - they were far more significant than just for their entertainment value.
That is the core of your feminist beliefs.
So, you are very unlikely to find a man who is capable of and willing to support you for the following reasons:
1) you really don't need him to. You want someone who can give you an extended vacation from the rigors of earning a living, but
2) as a result of your "independence" and probably comfortable salary combined with no dependents, you have probably become accustomed to a lifestyle in which all your income goes to entertaining yourself, thus you limit your choices of mates to those men who make enough to support and entertain both of you in that fashion, plus the kids. Very few men make that kind of money, for many reasons including the fact that
3) YOU have the job that he might have had.
So, if you were to ever find such a man, given the fact that every other woman in the world is looking for pretty much the same things and the men who can do that are getting pretty scarce - what do you have, expect, or are willing to offer him in exchange other than sex?
If that is all you have to offer, then you'd better be damn good in bed.
Do you see the box that feminism and your own beliefs have built for you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
"Once feminist ideas are discarded the answers to your questions will become self evident."
I agree with this statement in principle, but in practice it has been tricky to figure out which of the ideas I've grown up with were the feminist ones, in the same way that I now forget what people who haven't been immersed in ship education for 6 years know about ships. Again, this forum's been very helpful for that.
Regarding some of the recent threads: I continue to work to become a better woman and to learn the housewifely arts, and being a wife and mother is my ultimate goal, but in the meantime (until a good man considers me to be Miss Right) I'm grateful that I can work in a field that I am suited to and that I don't have to depend on my non-existent man to provide for me. It seems that some are advocating just this dependency be required of women, and I wanted to point out that while perhaps ideal this situation is unrealistic unless you don't mind seeing innocent people starving to death while preparing for and awaiting marriage. This is why I'm sure I must be misunderstanding those posters. What exactly are they advocating?
-------------
As [was previously] said, we are all over the board. That is fallacy one that you have to overcome. So, the first feminist belief you have to discard is that all men are the same. We are not.
Fallacy 1a woud be that any of us can give you meaningful advice regarding anyone we don't know - ie a potential mate for you. The best answer I can give you is "ask him what he wants, then listen to what he says, and I mean really listen.
If you want to understand feminism in a nutshell, take the current joke men understand perfectly:
"If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to correct him, is he still wrong?"
The feminist position is that men are de facto wrong and women are de facto right.
The whole "oppression" bullshit has been used to make women fear being dominated, used, and messed over, so they reflexively and habitually resist anything a man tries to say or do. This leads to nothing but a power struggle which leads to people hating each other's guts.
The #1 issue men have with women these days is the inherent double standard almost all of them seem to assume is their birthright. When the economy was such that most families could live on one income, it was a pretty natural division of labor for the man to do the earning - often doing jobs women simply could not do when pregnant - and the woman to stay home, take care of the house and kids, and let the man go along for the ride with the comforts. Children were a team effort and both members of the team were specialists, not generalists.
But, now women not only get pretty much any job they ask for, under threat of lawsuit, but they always pick the plum jobs - the highest paying ones. This would be fine if they let go of the double standard and were willing to accept a man who cannot have her job because she has it, and has to settle for one making less. In general, women refuse to marry down because even as their earning power has increased, they have refused to change their expectations that men will be the breadwinners. Women are not clamoring for the jobs of garbage collectors, nor are the female Advertising executives etc marrying such guys.
So, women have manipulated law in such a way that "we get the cream, and you guys get the dregs, and BTW you are such LOOOSERS that we would never dream of marrying you."
No one is going to get into or stay in a relationship with someone whose primary purpose in life seems to be to tell him how flawed and insignifcant he is. The glue that holds a relationship together simply does not exist. Under constant demands to "perform", and now minus any objective standards save her ever changing whims, the relationship turns from one where there is any sort of "equality" at all, to one of mother and child.
Contrary to feminist bullshit, most men do not want to sleep with their nagging shrew mothers. Regarding the list, why in the world is "be nice to be around, rather than nasty, nagging, unpleasant, and tearing him down every chance you get" even need to be explained? Isn't that just common sense?
If someone told you all day every day how insignificant you were, wouldn't that qualify as "abuse"? You could probably even go to a "wimmins's shelter" and have him arrested for it. So, women can keep up a never ending psychological and emotional bombardment, from behind the shield of laws everywhere to protect her.
So, you don't "need a mayaan", because you can support yourself. A man in your life is an optional fashion accessory like Jimmy Choo shoes or an Armani handbag. This removal of real dependency, which creates a very strong bond of love much like parent-child, turns a relationship from long-term interdependence into one of moment to moment satisfaction.
QUOTE: "Also, your list and recommendation of The Care and Feeding of Husbands saw me through a relationship with a fantastic man."
What an interesting statement!! Saw you "through" it? Are you no longer in it?
If having a "relationship with a fantastic man" has become the equivalent of watching an extended movie, that is a core of the problem right there. Putting that together with "(until a good man considers me to be Miss Right)" and "I'm grateful that I can work in a field that I am suited to and that I don't have to depend on my non-existent man to provide for me" you give the impression that this "fantastic man" passed into and out of your life with hardly more than a "ho hum."
It is that very dependency that bothers you, which was what made marriages work. People really did need each other - they were far more significant than just for their entertainment value.
That is the core of your feminist beliefs.
So, you are very unlikely to find a man who is capable of and willing to support you for the following reasons:
1) you really don't need him to. You want someone who can give you an extended vacation from the rigors of earning a living, but
2) as a result of your "independence" and probably comfortable salary combined with no dependents, you have probably become accustomed to a lifestyle in which all your income goes to entertaining yourself, thus you limit your choices of mates to those men who make enough to support and entertain both of you in that fashion, plus the kids. Very few men make that kind of money, for many reasons including the fact that
3) YOU have the job that he might have had.
So, if you were to ever find such a man, given the fact that every other woman in the world is looking for pretty much the same things and the men who can do that are getting pretty scarce - what do you have, expect, or are willing to offer him in exchange other than sex?
If that is all you have to offer, then you'd better be damn good in bed.
Do you see the box that feminism and your own beliefs have built for you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Tuesday, February 12, 2002
Zenpriest #43 - There's Nothing In The World More Over-rated Than A Good Lay...
I think it was Norman Mailer who quipped that there is nothing in the world more over-rated than a good lay, and nothing in the world more under-rated than a good shit.
.
It seems the only cliche that artful left out quoting is that the guys here must have small penises. These types certainly know how to punch the buttons of a lot of men, and the biggest challenge for us is to overcome our reflexes and examine what is being played upon us before we react.
This mind game is a great example of being able to play all ends against the middle. Already having an overinflated sense of their value, women naturally assume that men are going to get angry over being deprived of access to their gold-lined panties. The truth comes out when one of them offers a man access and he turns them down, as predictable as the sun coming up will come the comment "What is wrong with you, are you gay?"
To me, there is nothing in the world more annoying than the stereotype that every man is always dying to fuck any available pussy. The truth is that the vast majority of women consider their part of sex done when they show up, and sex with them is about as much fun as masturbating with a cheap cut of round steak wrapped around your schlong.
It is important to keep in mind that women define themselves and their self-worth by the amount of male attention they can attract and hold onto - along with the material resources which go with it. Otherwise, makeup would just be seen as foul-smelling paint. Having men ignore them or be indifferent toward them literally induces a loss of sense of self - they cease to have any identity because they define themselves entirely by the male attention they attract, in much the same way that some men define themselves by their material success.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that if you bite, then the feminidiots and the manginas have won - you have allowed them to define you and reacted to their infantile games.
---------------
QUOTE: "The most important thing to keep in mind is that if you bite, then the feminidiots and the manginas have won - you have allowed them to define you and reacted to their infantile games."
Yes, true enough.
But, what solution for basic human desire ("if you bite...") are you offering?
Everything you have stated is true.
Everything you have stated is irrelevant to a man infatuated (re: in "love') with a woman.
Everything you have implied is irrelevant to any politician who just voted for VAWA 2005.
If you bite ... you are prey.
If you don't bite ....
Sounds of one hand clapping, yes?
(Recall that great koan about the monk hanging off the cliff holding onto a tenuous vine while fearlessly gazing up into the eyes of the tiger about to devour him if he decides to climb up the vine, and not let go and fall to his certain death on the rocks?
That's exactly where men live now, IMHO...) :lol:
-----------------
There are several vague concepts floating around in this discussion which I believe it will be to men's benefit to clarify.
When I said "if you bite, they win" I was referring to the manipulative tactic of insulting and offending you in order to get a reflexive reaction of trying to disprove the accusation, not to the issues of desire or infatuation. Take a meaningless phrase like "self-loathing closet (or basket) case" or "misogynist" or "homophobe" and apply the solution "if you were not _______, you would eat dog shit" and I think you can see the irrelevancy of the manipulation.
The largest essential energy of feminidiocy is "the whole rest of the world has to change, so I don't have to." I don't want men to fall into the same trap of helplessness. All real power begins with mastery of self. If jedmunds or another mangina or feminidiot tries to insult and offend me, I can choose between changing their actions or my reactions. It is the outward focus and insistence on changing other people instead of changing themselves which makes the feminidiots so offensive and destructive. Let's not fall into the same trap ourselves.
Who the hell is jedmunds, or Amynda, or Hugo, or any of the other femnag/maginas, and, really, why in the world would I give a flying fuck what they think of me?
The first thing a man has to do when he starts to go his own way is to claim the power to define himself and take that power away from people he has absolutely no reason to respect or care about their judgment.
To illustrate a major but subtle drift in cultural values - the attempted putdown/dismissal "you're just angry because you can't get laid" could not have existed in the world I inhabited up until I was about 21. Sex was something which happened only within marriage, or at least that was the way it was supposed to work and if it was otherwise people did not make it the subject of daily conversation.
When the social roles of breadwinner versus homemaker began to blur, and the great social reconstruction experiment of unisex was being forced on a population who really didn't want it, identity for both sexes became shallow and superficial. Women began acting and dressing like sluts so they could prove to the world and themselves that they were still female. That definition of femininity began to blur over into the definition of masculinity and men were also defined purely by their sexual appeal - ie. how often they could "get laid". The paradox in the values operating in our culture is perfectly illustrated by the fact that "getting laid" is also referred to as "getting lucky."
Female sexuality is way overvalued in western culture. It has become the unsatisfying substitute for deeper emotional connections. It has become just another commodity to brainwash people into chasing, and spending money on so that they get trapped into the work-earn-spend-work more-earn more-spend more trap of wage slavery.
It is far easier to get laid than it is to get loved, which is what I think most of the guys here really are looking for. When such men allow the jedmunds and Hugos and Amyndas of the world to dehumanize them by defining them by only one supeficial aspect, they allow those other people to do violence to them - in the literal sense that "violence" means "to violate." Most guys here would understand the principle that if someone attempts physical violence against them, they have both the right and responsibility to stop that other person if they can.
The same is true of mental and emotional violence. When someone attempts to redefine me in bullshit terms, I can choose either to go along with it and follow the rest of the lemmings off the cliff of insanity, or I can reject those values. It reminds me of old kids' jingle "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Words can hurt us, but only if we allow them to. The emperor has no clothes and if we allow fools to make us feel badly for saying so, then we are participating in the very problem we are bitching about.
The secret of power is the willingness to act, and to ignore all those who try to demand that we become as helpless and powerless as they are.
QUOTE: "(Recall that great koan about the monk hanging off the cliff holding onto a tenuous vine while fearlessly gazing up into the eyes of the tiger about to devour him if he decides to climb up the vine, and not let go and fall to his certain death on the rocks?
That's exactly where men live now, IMHO...) :lol:"
But, you left out the punch line. While he is hanging there, the monk notices a strawberry growing out of the side of the cliff - a big, ripe, juicy strawberry. He plucks it and eats it and says "ah, it is so sweet."
"That" is where men have always lived. "That" is part and parcel of what being a man has always been. Anyone who thinks men in the past had it better has fallen for the feminidiot bullshit.
In the words of a man who was once clued in, before he caught the creeping necrotic groupthink fungus:
I grew up down in the valley
where, brother, when you're young,
they bring you up to do
like your daddy done.
<...>
Then I got Mary pregnant
and, man, that was all they wrote.
For my 19th birthday,
I got a union card and a wedding coat."
He "got laid" and the consequences of that "getting lucky" was that he was trapped in wage slavery for the rest of his life. Doesn't sound all that fuckin "lucky" to me.
Since we are talking about eastern principles of thought and action, let's take one from the practice of ju jitsu - use your opponents' weight against them.
Once someone has found and knows how to keep their psychological/emotional center, just like their physical center in martial arts, it becomes easier to keep your own balance while using your opponents' moves against them.
A great counter-move to the "you're just angry because you can't get laid" feint is to reply "Nah, I've gotten 'laid' plenty. What I'm so pissed off about is how useless and awful American (or whatever group the woman or mangina represents) are when you get them into bed."
I guarantee that you will put the would-be gamer on the defensive and that you will start getting some variation of the old saw "but, not all women are like that!!! You have just been meeting the wrong kind of women."
The response to this needs to be "yeah, whatever. Gotta go. C'ya, bye."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
It seems the only cliche that artful left out quoting is that the guys here must have small penises. These types certainly know how to punch the buttons of a lot of men, and the biggest challenge for us is to overcome our reflexes and examine what is being played upon us before we react.
This mind game is a great example of being able to play all ends against the middle. Already having an overinflated sense of their value, women naturally assume that men are going to get angry over being deprived of access to their gold-lined panties. The truth comes out when one of them offers a man access and he turns them down, as predictable as the sun coming up will come the comment "What is wrong with you, are you gay?"
To me, there is nothing in the world more annoying than the stereotype that every man is always dying to fuck any available pussy. The truth is that the vast majority of women consider their part of sex done when they show up, and sex with them is about as much fun as masturbating with a cheap cut of round steak wrapped around your schlong.
It is important to keep in mind that women define themselves and their self-worth by the amount of male attention they can attract and hold onto - along with the material resources which go with it. Otherwise, makeup would just be seen as foul-smelling paint. Having men ignore them or be indifferent toward them literally induces a loss of sense of self - they cease to have any identity because they define themselves entirely by the male attention they attract, in much the same way that some men define themselves by their material success.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that if you bite, then the feminidiots and the manginas have won - you have allowed them to define you and reacted to their infantile games.
---------------
QUOTE: "The most important thing to keep in mind is that if you bite, then the feminidiots and the manginas have won - you have allowed them to define you and reacted to their infantile games."
Yes, true enough.
But, what solution for basic human desire ("if you bite...") are you offering?
Everything you have stated is true.
Everything you have stated is irrelevant to a man infatuated (re: in "love') with a woman.
Everything you have implied is irrelevant to any politician who just voted for VAWA 2005.
If you bite ... you are prey.
If you don't bite ....
Sounds of one hand clapping, yes?
(Recall that great koan about the monk hanging off the cliff holding onto a tenuous vine while fearlessly gazing up into the eyes of the tiger about to devour him if he decides to climb up the vine, and not let go and fall to his certain death on the rocks?
That's exactly where men live now, IMHO...) :lol:
-----------------
There are several vague concepts floating around in this discussion which I believe it will be to men's benefit to clarify.
When I said "if you bite, they win" I was referring to the manipulative tactic of insulting and offending you in order to get a reflexive reaction of trying to disprove the accusation, not to the issues of desire or infatuation. Take a meaningless phrase like "self-loathing closet (or basket) case" or "misogynist" or "homophobe" and apply the solution "if you were not _______, you would eat dog shit" and I think you can see the irrelevancy of the manipulation.
The largest essential energy of feminidiocy is "the whole rest of the world has to change, so I don't have to." I don't want men to fall into the same trap of helplessness. All real power begins with mastery of self. If jedmunds or another mangina or feminidiot tries to insult and offend me, I can choose between changing their actions or my reactions. It is the outward focus and insistence on changing other people instead of changing themselves which makes the feminidiots so offensive and destructive. Let's not fall into the same trap ourselves.
Who the hell is jedmunds, or Amynda, or Hugo, or any of the other femnag/maginas, and, really, why in the world would I give a flying fuck what they think of me?
The first thing a man has to do when he starts to go his own way is to claim the power to define himself and take that power away from people he has absolutely no reason to respect or care about their judgment.
To illustrate a major but subtle drift in cultural values - the attempted putdown/dismissal "you're just angry because you can't get laid" could not have existed in the world I inhabited up until I was about 21. Sex was something which happened only within marriage, or at least that was the way it was supposed to work and if it was otherwise people did not make it the subject of daily conversation.
When the social roles of breadwinner versus homemaker began to blur, and the great social reconstruction experiment of unisex was being forced on a population who really didn't want it, identity for both sexes became shallow and superficial. Women began acting and dressing like sluts so they could prove to the world and themselves that they were still female. That definition of femininity began to blur over into the definition of masculinity and men were also defined purely by their sexual appeal - ie. how often they could "get laid". The paradox in the values operating in our culture is perfectly illustrated by the fact that "getting laid" is also referred to as "getting lucky."
Female sexuality is way overvalued in western culture. It has become the unsatisfying substitute for deeper emotional connections. It has become just another commodity to brainwash people into chasing, and spending money on so that they get trapped into the work-earn-spend-work more-earn more-spend more trap of wage slavery.
It is far easier to get laid than it is to get loved, which is what I think most of the guys here really are looking for. When such men allow the jedmunds and Hugos and Amyndas of the world to dehumanize them by defining them by only one supeficial aspect, they allow those other people to do violence to them - in the literal sense that "violence" means "to violate." Most guys here would understand the principle that if someone attempts physical violence against them, they have both the right and responsibility to stop that other person if they can.
The same is true of mental and emotional violence. When someone attempts to redefine me in bullshit terms, I can choose either to go along with it and follow the rest of the lemmings off the cliff of insanity, or I can reject those values. It reminds me of old kids' jingle "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Words can hurt us, but only if we allow them to. The emperor has no clothes and if we allow fools to make us feel badly for saying so, then we are participating in the very problem we are bitching about.
The secret of power is the willingness to act, and to ignore all those who try to demand that we become as helpless and powerless as they are.
QUOTE: "(Recall that great koan about the monk hanging off the cliff holding onto a tenuous vine while fearlessly gazing up into the eyes of the tiger about to devour him if he decides to climb up the vine, and not let go and fall to his certain death on the rocks?
That's exactly where men live now, IMHO...) :lol:"
But, you left out the punch line. While he is hanging there, the monk notices a strawberry growing out of the side of the cliff - a big, ripe, juicy strawberry. He plucks it and eats it and says "ah, it is so sweet."
"That" is where men have always lived. "That" is part and parcel of what being a man has always been. Anyone who thinks men in the past had it better has fallen for the feminidiot bullshit.
In the words of a man who was once clued in, before he caught the creeping necrotic groupthink fungus:
I grew up down in the valley
where, brother, when you're young,
they bring you up to do
like your daddy done.
<...>
Then I got Mary pregnant
and, man, that was all they wrote.
For my 19th birthday,
I got a union card and a wedding coat."
He "got laid" and the consequences of that "getting lucky" was that he was trapped in wage slavery for the rest of his life. Doesn't sound all that fuckin "lucky" to me.
Since we are talking about eastern principles of thought and action, let's take one from the practice of ju jitsu - use your opponents' weight against them.
Once someone has found and knows how to keep their psychological/emotional center, just like their physical center in martial arts, it becomes easier to keep your own balance while using your opponents' moves against them.
A great counter-move to the "you're just angry because you can't get laid" feint is to reply "Nah, I've gotten 'laid' plenty. What I'm so pissed off about is how useless and awful American (or whatever group the woman or mangina represents) are when you get them into bed."
I guarantee that you will put the would-be gamer on the defensive and that you will start getting some variation of the old saw "but, not all women are like that!!! You have just been meeting the wrong kind of women."
The response to this needs to be "yeah, whatever. Gotta go. C'ya, bye."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next