Quote: "Thank you for the compliment-just one thing-if I said anything like this to my female friends they would get offended, and wouldn't want to BE my friends anymore. It's been my experience that women don't mind if you speak unfavorably about men in general-but you can't do the same thing if the topic is women-they're very touchy. I think though that it's pretty clear that the men here that are severely disappointed with women aren't just sexually frustrated, though, because that's something that's easily remedied by other means-that part in the Bible that calls woman man's "helpmeet" is accurate, I think-man is the main actor, and woman is the assistant-the best name for it is "consort". Being the consort of someone I consider a very fine man gives me great satisfaction."
You remind me a bit of my sister, whom I idealize because she has so much sense.
Yes, women certainly don't mind blasting men all to hell, but let a man (and perhaps even a woman, as you indicate) say one tiny critical thing about any woman, and every woman within earshot will pulverize him in defense of womanhood in general.
You are also one of the first women I've ever heard "get it" when it comes to what men really want and need from women. I absolutely hate the stereotype of men as unrestrainedly horny beasts in a perpetual state of rut. It bites us both ways. First, any sexual accusation toward us is automatically believed. And, second, a whole lot of women have totally lost track of the connection between their part of the mating dance and men's response. Thus we get women playing turn-on games with no intention whatsoever of following through - so that they can play the victim - at the same time we have women who really do deal with us as though we were flesh and blood vibrators who should "turn on" just because they show up and want us turned on.
I still have a lot of the egalitarian idealism in me, and I have no particular desire to be "head" and would be perfectly happy with a fair and equal relationship - if such a thing were possible. One difficulty is that someone does to have the tie-breaking vote in cases of sincere disagreement.
However the larger and more poisonous issue is wonderfully illustrated by the joke: "If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to correct him, is he still wrong?"
What I have noticed among women since my college days is that they are so paranoid about being "dominated" that they react with an obsessive-compulsive need to argue with every word which comes out of a man's mouth. It is totally tiresome and completely destructive because it destroys any real communication or cooperation, and turns dealing with women into an exhausting ordeal.
The result of this is that all the emotional needs that men used to get met through sex - the intimacy and connection - no longer get met in any way. Sex has become very mechanical and impersonal, and sex toys and vibrators have really urged that along. Sex a lot of the time turns out to feel mostly like masturbation with an accomplice, who turns out to be someone you really don't like all that much.
The convergence of the problems you pointed out - the fact that women don't seem to start to get things figured out until about age 35, coincides quite tragically with the time that male ardor begins to significantly cool. Under the old structure of marriage, a couple would have had about 15 years by then to become friends and partners, and that would begin to pay dividends as they matured.
Under the new timetable of "career first, then children, husband optional" by the time a man has had 15-20 years of complete female self absorption, he has grown some very thick calluses over those emotional parts of himself where bonding takes place.
Women don't seem to have a clue about the way that all the clobbering they do of men fundamentally changes men's ability to feel about them in certain ways. Those changes are not reversible - as I've said many times, you cannot change a pickle back into a cucumber. The innocent crushes which young men have on women which can mature into deep long-term caring love, make men terribly vulnerable to women's ability to use men's feelings to manipulate them. Men have to protect themselves, so they become jaded and cynical and lose the ability to experience those feelings. Often, by the mid-30s which has become the target age for marriage, men have simply been jerked around enough by women that living alone looks like the better option.
Feminism really has left a horrible legacy for young women. Sadly, most of them are so brainwashed that when you try to tell them to lose the attitude, all it does is cause them to intensify it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
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:
Bonecrker #3 – Shaming Language
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Monday, January 14, 2002
Sunday, January 13, 2002
Zenpriest #13 - Prove to Me You Aren't a Bad Guy!
Quote: I feel that in order to prove to other women that men are not inherently evil, women have to know that not all men will dick them over. And if you intelligent men don't realize this about women, what makes you think an emotional women realizes this about men?
That is the nebulous fog which men have been chasing for decades. It is not possible to "prove" anything to someone who bases belief on emotion. Emotions change from one moment to the next, and if beliefs follow them the world becomes an eternal fog in which nothing can be accomplished.
There is something at work here that I call the "responsibility transfer." - "Prove to me you are not a bad guy." It starts from the presupposition that I have something to gain from you believing that I am not a bad guy. In the case of being falsely accused of something, there certainly is a benefit. But, in all other cases it comes down to who has more to gain or lose from which belief.
Up to this point in time, the entire game has been based on the public fiction that men want relationships with women more than women want relationships with men, and that men benefit more from those relationships than women do.
I think that 40 years ago, things were pretty much balanced, but that today men have very little to gain from having a relationship and a great deal to lose.
Take the following scenario. I, who own a house and some other properties, marry a woman who has kept more abreast of consumer culture and has basically no assets. Five years down the road, she decides that the marriage is "stifling" her, or that she "deserves more". In the meantime, she's gotten pregnant and has one kid. The marital property gets divided, and she gains half the assets accumulated from nearly 30 years of savings, without herself having to contribute anything. I lose half of everything I have worked all my life for, plus have the additional burden of monthly child-support, backed up by the threat of incarceration.
So, going back to just prior to the marriage - which belief of hers do I stand to gain more from and which one do I stand to lose more from?
If she believes I am a "good guy", one of the kind she wants to marry, I lose half my life's work - let's say 15 years of my life - plus my freedom, because I am now basically under control of the criminal justice system for child-support obligations.
If she believes I am a "bad guy", she doesn't marry me, and I save a couple of hundred thousand $$ as well as retaining my freedom. So, having her think I am a "bad guy", creates the best possible outcome for me, while having her think I am a "good guy" creates the worst possible outcome.
Now, if you emotional women cannot understand how much more it is to your advantage to view us as "good guys", I can't see any reason to shoot off my own foot to convince you otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Women invent rules, manipulate men to obey them, and in this way dominate men - but in no way apply the rules to themselves." -- Esther Vilar in her 1972 book The Manipulated Man
“It is an amazing thing to see in our city the wife of a shoemaker, or a butcher, or a porter dressed in silk with chains of gold at the throat, with pearls and a ring of good value… and then in contrast to see her husband cutting the meat, all smeared with cow’s blood, poorly dressed, or burdened like an ass, clothed with the stuff from which sacks are made… but whoever considers this carefully will find it reasonable, because it is necessary that the lady, even if low born and humble, be draped with such clothes for her natural excellence and dignity, and that the man [be] less adorned as if a slave, or a little ass, born to her service.” – Lucrezia Marinella of Venice, Italy, 1600, The Nobility and Excellence of Women Together With the Defects and Deficiencies of Men
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
That is the nebulous fog which men have been chasing for decades. It is not possible to "prove" anything to someone who bases belief on emotion. Emotions change from one moment to the next, and if beliefs follow them the world becomes an eternal fog in which nothing can be accomplished.
There is something at work here that I call the "responsibility transfer." - "Prove to me you are not a bad guy." It starts from the presupposition that I have something to gain from you believing that I am not a bad guy. In the case of being falsely accused of something, there certainly is a benefit. But, in all other cases it comes down to who has more to gain or lose from which belief.
Up to this point in time, the entire game has been based on the public fiction that men want relationships with women more than women want relationships with men, and that men benefit more from those relationships than women do.
I think that 40 years ago, things were pretty much balanced, but that today men have very little to gain from having a relationship and a great deal to lose.
Take the following scenario. I, who own a house and some other properties, marry a woman who has kept more abreast of consumer culture and has basically no assets. Five years down the road, she decides that the marriage is "stifling" her, or that she "deserves more". In the meantime, she's gotten pregnant and has one kid. The marital property gets divided, and she gains half the assets accumulated from nearly 30 years of savings, without herself having to contribute anything. I lose half of everything I have worked all my life for, plus have the additional burden of monthly child-support, backed up by the threat of incarceration.
So, going back to just prior to the marriage - which belief of hers do I stand to gain more from and which one do I stand to lose more from?
If she believes I am a "good guy", one of the kind she wants to marry, I lose half my life's work - let's say 15 years of my life - plus my freedom, because I am now basically under control of the criminal justice system for child-support obligations.
If she believes I am a "bad guy", she doesn't marry me, and I save a couple of hundred thousand $$ as well as retaining my freedom. So, having her think I am a "bad guy", creates the best possible outcome for me, while having her think I am a "good guy" creates the worst possible outcome.
Now, if you emotional women cannot understand how much more it is to your advantage to view us as "good guys", I can't see any reason to shoot off my own foot to convince you otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Women invent rules, manipulate men to obey them, and in this way dominate men - but in no way apply the rules to themselves." -- Esther Vilar in her 1972 book The Manipulated Man
“It is an amazing thing to see in our city the wife of a shoemaker, or a butcher, or a porter dressed in silk with chains of gold at the throat, with pearls and a ring of good value… and then in contrast to see her husband cutting the meat, all smeared with cow’s blood, poorly dressed, or burdened like an ass, clothed with the stuff from which sacks are made… but whoever considers this carefully will find it reasonable, because it is necessary that the lady, even if low born and humble, be draped with such clothes for her natural excellence and dignity, and that the man [be] less adorned as if a slave, or a little ass, born to her service.” – Lucrezia Marinella of Venice, Italy, 1600, The Nobility and Excellence of Women Together With the Defects and Deficiencies of Men
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Saturday, January 12, 2002
Zenpriest #12 - Happiness
Am I "happy"? - compared to just about every man I know, deliriously happy. "Happy" is not an absolute state, but a relative one. Just think about your friend [who committed suicide after divorce]. Would he be alive today if he had not had that woman in his life?
When I go to the dentist and have a horribly painful throbbing tooth removed, I am "happier" with it gone than I was with it.
Other than restricted by the demands of work, I go where I want, when I want. I answer to and am accountable to no one but myself. I only have to pay bills which I generate, so I am not trapped into any particular job or income level. If my boss pisses me off too much, I don't have to "suck it up and take it" (like a man), I can do the Johnny Paycheck thing of "You can take this job and shove it."
A few years ago, I decided to take some time off from the corporate world of wage slavery, and spent a total of 3 months riding around the entire western US on my motorcycle. It was the most glorious feeling of freedom I have ever had. In 3 months, I spent only about 14-15 nights with a roof over my head.
I can't remember a time in my life I have ever been happier.
Certainly, all those times I was being emotionally punished by a woman for not getting her the "right" birthday/Valentine's/xmas present weren't any happier. The silent treatments for what I had no clue about, were not what I would call "happy." The arguments where I would get things I said in the most tender and vulnerable moments between us twisted around and thrown back in my face in the ugliest most hurtful fashion possible, were not "happy."
What happened was that the feminidiots brainwashed women into believing that doing ANYTHING kind or loving toward a man was being "under a man's thumb." So, in order to prove how "strong" they were, women devolved into hateful, hurtful, demanding, cruel bitches.
Pulling them out of my life has been like having a horribly infected, inflamed, and painful tooth pulled. I am ecstatically happy with the result - the pain is gone.
Lonely? I know lots of people I can call up if I want company - people that I can actually have a 2-way conversation with, instead of just being an audience for the ceaseless yammering of women like the one Dietra told about, or KJC's grandmother. Most of them are male.
For years, men have been talking about how truly horrible women have become, and just about every time a man says anything - just as predictable as the sun coming up, someone will say "but, not all women are like that", as though that means something.
Well, tell your friend that "not all women are like" the one who made his life such hell that he killed himself.
And, in order to understand what I am trying to get across, ask yourself how much "happier" he would be today - still alive - if that woman had never come into his life.
Can you imagine that? Can you imagine your friend still alive? Can you imagine him wanting to be alive more than he wanted to die as "happiness"?
Can you imagine how NOT having such a woman in my life, really is happiness to me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance
Motorcycles do put one into a zen state. There is something about their marvelous simplicity. So much that what we thought was essential turns out to be excess baggage. Our lives depend on being totally aware in the moment and clearing our minds of things which are not significant at the present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
When I go to the dentist and have a horribly painful throbbing tooth removed, I am "happier" with it gone than I was with it.
Other than restricted by the demands of work, I go where I want, when I want. I answer to and am accountable to no one but myself. I only have to pay bills which I generate, so I am not trapped into any particular job or income level. If my boss pisses me off too much, I don't have to "suck it up and take it" (like a man), I can do the Johnny Paycheck thing of "You can take this job and shove it."
A few years ago, I decided to take some time off from the corporate world of wage slavery, and spent a total of 3 months riding around the entire western US on my motorcycle. It was the most glorious feeling of freedom I have ever had. In 3 months, I spent only about 14-15 nights with a roof over my head.
I can't remember a time in my life I have ever been happier.
Certainly, all those times I was being emotionally punished by a woman for not getting her the "right" birthday/Valentine's/xmas present weren't any happier. The silent treatments for what I had no clue about, were not what I would call "happy." The arguments where I would get things I said in the most tender and vulnerable moments between us twisted around and thrown back in my face in the ugliest most hurtful fashion possible, were not "happy."
What happened was that the feminidiots brainwashed women into believing that doing ANYTHING kind or loving toward a man was being "under a man's thumb." So, in order to prove how "strong" they were, women devolved into hateful, hurtful, demanding, cruel bitches.
Pulling them out of my life has been like having a horribly infected, inflamed, and painful tooth pulled. I am ecstatically happy with the result - the pain is gone.
Lonely? I know lots of people I can call up if I want company - people that I can actually have a 2-way conversation with, instead of just being an audience for the ceaseless yammering of women like the one Dietra told about, or KJC's grandmother. Most of them are male.
For years, men have been talking about how truly horrible women have become, and just about every time a man says anything - just as predictable as the sun coming up, someone will say "but, not all women are like that", as though that means something.
Well, tell your friend that "not all women are like" the one who made his life such hell that he killed himself.
And, in order to understand what I am trying to get across, ask yourself how much "happier" he would be today - still alive - if that woman had never come into his life.
Can you imagine that? Can you imagine your friend still alive? Can you imagine him wanting to be alive more than he wanted to die as "happiness"?
Can you imagine how NOT having such a woman in my life, really is happiness to me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance
Motorcycles do put one into a zen state. There is something about their marvelous simplicity. So much that what we thought was essential turns out to be excess baggage. Our lives depend on being totally aware in the moment and clearing our minds of things which are not significant at the present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Friday, January 11, 2002
Zenpriest #11 - Emotional Deficit
Think of things like "compassion" and "understanding" as being like commodities which are not in unlimited supply - like a holding tank full of water. If a man gives some of his compassion to a woman, the level in his tank drops. If a woman gives some back to him, the level goes back up.
Throughout the whole victim hysteria, women have demanded and consumed more and more compassion and understanding from men, and have actually used both against men, and given absolutely nothing back. A woman accuses a man of "rape" or "I'm afraid of him" and the jackals howl for his head. Deadbeat dads go to prison, "rapists" get castrated.
For some of us, the compassion well has run dry. We really don't give a shit any more. The old fable of the boy who cried wolf is coming into reality. When a woman cries "victim" today, I do not feel compassion, I feel rage. When she cries "victim" I ASSUME IT IS A LIE!!.
I do not believe women. I do not feel sorry for them. I do not help them.
Your initial posts, and those of some other females, came off sounding like "c'mon, guys, get back out there and give another ameriskank a chance to ruin what you have left of your life that none of the skanks so far have gotten the chance to ruin."
The answer to that is "no." And, no really does mean no - when a man says it.
I'm in my early 50s, I've gone through male change of life - which I call "horny-pause" to correspond with female "meno-pause", and unlike some of the younger horn-dogs here, consider the sexual demands of women my age a HUGE annoyance rather than something positive.
GDaddy is my age, and still trying. Good for him. But, he is not going to try with another ameriskank. Even better for him.
So, the point is that I have lived through the part of my life where it mattered to me whether a woman was one of the "exceptions" or she wasn't. I am no longer even interested in one of the exceptions.
Boomer women are going to learn the hard way that their sexual power over men does not last forever. They live in a comfortable little fantasy world that there will always be more men who want them than they want.
But, that mean, ugly, and evil game they have been playing of using our desire for them as the weapon to jerk us around, is coming to an end. Any sports fan knows that a game only lasts a certain number of periods, then the scoreboard is shut down, the lights are turned off, and everyone goes home.
And, my goal is to see that as many women as possible my age go home - alone. The post I quoted in the marriage strike thread has one of the most eloquent expressions and summaries of it I have ever seen -
Quote: "Ok, women win. I confess. You proved you don't need us men more than we don't need you. Now go away and don't need us somewhere else."
Yeah. Go away, and don't need us somewhere else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Throughout the whole victim hysteria, women have demanded and consumed more and more compassion and understanding from men, and have actually used both against men, and given absolutely nothing back. A woman accuses a man of "rape" or "I'm afraid of him" and the jackals howl for his head. Deadbeat dads go to prison, "rapists" get castrated.
For some of us, the compassion well has run dry. We really don't give a shit any more. The old fable of the boy who cried wolf is coming into reality. When a woman cries "victim" today, I do not feel compassion, I feel rage. When she cries "victim" I ASSUME IT IS A LIE!!.
I do not believe women. I do not feel sorry for them. I do not help them.
Your initial posts, and those of some other females, came off sounding like "c'mon, guys, get back out there and give another ameriskank a chance to ruin what you have left of your life that none of the skanks so far have gotten the chance to ruin."
The answer to that is "no." And, no really does mean no - when a man says it.
I'm in my early 50s, I've gone through male change of life - which I call "horny-pause" to correspond with female "meno-pause", and unlike some of the younger horn-dogs here, consider the sexual demands of women my age a HUGE annoyance rather than something positive.
GDaddy is my age, and still trying. Good for him. But, he is not going to try with another ameriskank. Even better for him.
So, the point is that I have lived through the part of my life where it mattered to me whether a woman was one of the "exceptions" or she wasn't. I am no longer even interested in one of the exceptions.
Boomer women are going to learn the hard way that their sexual power over men does not last forever. They live in a comfortable little fantasy world that there will always be more men who want them than they want.
But, that mean, ugly, and evil game they have been playing of using our desire for them as the weapon to jerk us around, is coming to an end. Any sports fan knows that a game only lasts a certain number of periods, then the scoreboard is shut down, the lights are turned off, and everyone goes home.
And, my goal is to see that as many women as possible my age go home - alone. The post I quoted in the marriage strike thread has one of the most eloquent expressions and summaries of it I have ever seen -
Quote: "Ok, women win. I confess. You proved you don't need us men more than we don't need you. Now go away and don't need us somewhere else."
Yeah. Go away, and don't need us somewhere else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Thursday, January 10, 2002
Zenpriest #10 - When Men's Trust Is Gone
No fault divorce, paternity fraud, false allegations, the DV Gestapo and the fact that a woman can have a man turned into a criminal with one phone call - the list of reasons why men are absolute fools to trust any woman today just goes on and on. Sure, there are "exceptions", but that argument by itself pisses me off because it fails to recognize the personal devastation that so many men have been through and any man who embarks on a personal relationship with a woman risks these days.
As I frequently point out - only one out of six chambers of the gun is loaded in Russian Roulette, but you still don't see everyone playing it. The 16.67% of getting your brains blown out is still far better than the approximately 40% chance a man has of having his life destroyed by a relationship with a woman.
Men today are hyper-aware and hyper-critical. Because the law provides men absolutely no protections whatsoever, men have to protect themselves. Thus, any and every misstep by a woman, every tantrum, every irrational argument, portends the day he will be facing her in court - either in a divorce proceeding or defending himself against charges of rape.
Pay attention here, MNIK - women today are under such an extreme level of scrutiny by men, looking for any sign of the crazy bitch lurking inside and hiding and waiting to come out until she has the guy over a legal barrel, that no human being can pass the test. Men are like the soldiers who sit watching the radar screens trying to catch the nuclear missiles coming over the pole in time to shoot them out of the sky before they leave nothing but a crater where his life used to be.
Women have really fucked themselves, and all other women by this process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's tough to trust a person who holds a club behind her back and says, "A club? What club? I don't have a club." -- Jack Kammer in If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules?, p29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
As I frequently point out - only one out of six chambers of the gun is loaded in Russian Roulette, but you still don't see everyone playing it. The 16.67% of getting your brains blown out is still far better than the approximately 40% chance a man has of having his life destroyed by a relationship with a woman.
Men today are hyper-aware and hyper-critical. Because the law provides men absolutely no protections whatsoever, men have to protect themselves. Thus, any and every misstep by a woman, every tantrum, every irrational argument, portends the day he will be facing her in court - either in a divorce proceeding or defending himself against charges of rape.
Pay attention here, MNIK - women today are under such an extreme level of scrutiny by men, looking for any sign of the crazy bitch lurking inside and hiding and waiting to come out until she has the guy over a legal barrel, that no human being can pass the test. Men are like the soldiers who sit watching the radar screens trying to catch the nuclear missiles coming over the pole in time to shoot them out of the sky before they leave nothing but a crater where his life used to be.
Women have really fucked themselves, and all other women by this process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's tough to trust a person who holds a club behind her back and says, "A club? What club? I don't have a club." -- Jack Kammer in If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules?, p29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Wednesday, January 09, 2002
Zenpriest #9 - The 90's were the Make It or Break It Decade and I Don't Think We Made It
Looking back, I regarded the 90s as the "make or break" decade - the time when men and women either successfully negotiated a changing and rebalancing of male and female roles, or didn't. I don't think we made it.
.
But, I think we would have except for the efforts of two women - who I would dearly love to see publicly hanged for crimes against humanity: Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf.
.
Coming out of the 80s, the Reagan years, people were beginning to adjust to a lot of the changes in roles. Most men had good naturedly made room for women to take their places next to men with their noses to the grindstone and shoulders to the wheel trying to climb up the career success ladder - except those men at the top whose purpose in life had always been to make it as difficult as they possibly could for those below them to advance, so they could retain their positions at the top.
.
I'm sure that if real social research could have been done, that women who really did work hard and well really did advance as quickly as their male counterparts. There were just proportionally fewer of them and they started later, so naturally there were fewer of them at the highest rungs of the income ladder. This was the way that business worked then.
.
We stupid men assumed that women would realize what it took to be really successful, and that we would benefit from their appreciation of the fact that "careers" were not as much fun as they looked from the outside, and that men who were successful were actually sacrificing a huge amount for the sake of their families. What fools we were.
.
Faludi single-handedly turned this natural process into "The Backlash" and ignited the fire of victimhood in women's minds. Even at the time the public was aware that feminism was dying. There weren't any real causes any more, men and women were getting on with their lives as men and women always have, and even the rape hysteria being cooked up by Mary Koss and the witches as MS was getting a "ho-hum" reception from most women.
.
But, Faludi re-ignited the fires of righteous indignation and female rage by replacing her stupid victim-centered view of the world for the evolutionary "achieve and earn" one. Then Wolf added her part of the 1-2 punch, by blaming men for the fact that women want to and try to attract them, with her "Beauty Myth."
.
From then on, "feminism" became about "women are weak, women are helpless, women are stupid, women need to be rescued from men, all men are rapists and abusers, all men are jerks, all the evils of the world are due to men."
.
Oprah, Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, and all their clones, Anita Hill, Lorena Bobbit, and the Duluth Model dumped millions of gallons of gasoline on the blaze, and the entire culture erupted in flames.
.
--------------------
In the late 90s, that queen-bitch Susan Faludi came out with a companion book to her screed that kicked the gender cold war into a full-fledged shooting war. Her second book was called "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Male."
The entire premise on which millions of middle class men were convinced to move over and give women equal space on the wheels and grindstones to place their shoulders and noses, was that the entire structure of gender roles would be redistributed. The lie was that when women were allowed to make their own money and have success in their own careers, that they would become less obsessed with male success as criteria for a partner, not to mention that they would become more sexually open and giving and less inclined to use and withhold sex as a bargaining chip for power in a relationship.
And, if you believe that, as the old saying goes, I have a really fine bridge for sale in Manhattan.
What women actually did was not change their expectations in the slightest. They still only considered men "eligible" if the man made more than she did, so they simply raised the bar and shrunk their pool of "acceptable" mates.
The wannabe-princesses never once lowered their gaze from "prince" Charming, and considered "mechanic" Charming, or "fry cook" Charming, but instead continued to focus exclusively on the top 10% of all men.
Think about this the next time some bitch says that there are "no good men" left. Tell her there are plenty of good men, but that all she shows them is nose hair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Looking at how easy it is for women to treat men in cruel ways is oddly liberating.” – Naomi Wolf, in her 1993 book Fire With Fire
"I personally am livid... Have you considered castration as an option?" -- NBC co-anchor Katie Couric to a bride who was left standing at the altar, The Today Show, November 25, 1997
"The more famous I get, the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
.
But, I think we would have except for the efforts of two women - who I would dearly love to see publicly hanged for crimes against humanity: Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf.
.
Coming out of the 80s, the Reagan years, people were beginning to adjust to a lot of the changes in roles. Most men had good naturedly made room for women to take their places next to men with their noses to the grindstone and shoulders to the wheel trying to climb up the career success ladder - except those men at the top whose purpose in life had always been to make it as difficult as they possibly could for those below them to advance, so they could retain their positions at the top.
.
I'm sure that if real social research could have been done, that women who really did work hard and well really did advance as quickly as their male counterparts. There were just proportionally fewer of them and they started later, so naturally there were fewer of them at the highest rungs of the income ladder. This was the way that business worked then.
.
We stupid men assumed that women would realize what it took to be really successful, and that we would benefit from their appreciation of the fact that "careers" were not as much fun as they looked from the outside, and that men who were successful were actually sacrificing a huge amount for the sake of their families. What fools we were.
.
Faludi single-handedly turned this natural process into "The Backlash" and ignited the fire of victimhood in women's minds. Even at the time the public was aware that feminism was dying. There weren't any real causes any more, men and women were getting on with their lives as men and women always have, and even the rape hysteria being cooked up by Mary Koss and the witches as MS was getting a "ho-hum" reception from most women.
.
But, Faludi re-ignited the fires of righteous indignation and female rage by replacing her stupid victim-centered view of the world for the evolutionary "achieve and earn" one. Then Wolf added her part of the 1-2 punch, by blaming men for the fact that women want to and try to attract them, with her "Beauty Myth."
.
From then on, "feminism" became about "women are weak, women are helpless, women are stupid, women need to be rescued from men, all men are rapists and abusers, all men are jerks, all the evils of the world are due to men."
.
Oprah, Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, and all their clones, Anita Hill, Lorena Bobbit, and the Duluth Model dumped millions of gallons of gasoline on the blaze, and the entire culture erupted in flames.
.
--------------------
In the late 90s, that queen-bitch Susan Faludi came out with a companion book to her screed that kicked the gender cold war into a full-fledged shooting war. Her second book was called "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Male."
The entire premise on which millions of middle class men were convinced to move over and give women equal space on the wheels and grindstones to place their shoulders and noses, was that the entire structure of gender roles would be redistributed. The lie was that when women were allowed to make their own money and have success in their own careers, that they would become less obsessed with male success as criteria for a partner, not to mention that they would become more sexually open and giving and less inclined to use and withhold sex as a bargaining chip for power in a relationship.
And, if you believe that, as the old saying goes, I have a really fine bridge for sale in Manhattan.
What women actually did was not change their expectations in the slightest. They still only considered men "eligible" if the man made more than she did, so they simply raised the bar and shrunk their pool of "acceptable" mates.
The wannabe-princesses never once lowered their gaze from "prince" Charming, and considered "mechanic" Charming, or "fry cook" Charming, but instead continued to focus exclusively on the top 10% of all men.
Think about this the next time some bitch says that there are "no good men" left. Tell her there are plenty of good men, but that all she shows them is nose hair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Looking at how easy it is for women to treat men in cruel ways is oddly liberating.” – Naomi Wolf, in her 1993 book Fire With Fire
"I personally am livid... Have you considered castration as an option?" -- NBC co-anchor Katie Couric to a bride who was left standing at the altar, The Today Show, November 25, 1997
"The more famous I get, the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Tuesday, January 08, 2002
Zenpriest #8 - The Big Truth
While a lot of the guys on this board are planning on getting out of Dodge and abandoning the US, there are some of us who for various reasons have chosen to make our stand here and slug it out with the feminidiots to the bitter end.
The baffling lack of unity and cohesiveness among men which has kept us from mustering a coherent response to feminidiocy has been sad and frustrating, but at this point must simply be considered a condition of the environment in which we have to fight this war. What I see emerging is a relatively spontaneous, not at all organized, generalized change in the behavior and choices of men - the marriage boycott being one example, the boycott of institutions of higher Indoctrination being another.
It is too bad that the whole Hitler/Nazi analogy has been so overused, because next to Machiavelli, Hitler probably understood the mechanisms of power better than anyone else in history.
The fundamental strategy was "telling the BIG LIE" - something outrageously untrue, but repeated enough times that people either begin to believe it, or at least become afraid to let anyone know that they don't.
Feminists have told millions of "BIG LIES" about men - about Domestic Violence, Rape, "Glass Ceilings", "the Patriarchy", etc, etc, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda, ad nauseum.
"Political Correctness" has made it a near crime to even challenge the BIG LIES™.
Men have lost as much ground as they have in this war because they were intimidated into silence by the millions of fembots and their near-male syncophants screaming the BIG LIE in unison.
The fundamental weakness of the BIG LIE strategy is that it only works when it IS a lie. If men had ever hated women as much as the feminidiots claim men have, the femdroids would have never gotten to first base. It is has been men's desire to maintain some social honor that led to them being silenced by accusations that any criticism of feminism equated to "hating women."
There is a principle of ceremonial magic that one only has to speak a spell 3 times to make it binding and make it become true. Women have spoken the "you hate women" spell many more times than that, and it is beginning to come true.
The feminidiots have thrown away their most powerful weapon by overuse - when they try to silence a man by saying "well, you must hate women" and he responds "you are right, I do" - they have no "plan B."
So, now freed from the fear of being called "woman haters" which silenced them for so long, men must now begin to speak the BIG TRUTH!
The illusion that women are "the kinder, more caring, fairer sex" has allowed them to get away with murder, literally. But, it is now being swept away by images of Lynndie England, cigarette hanging out of her skankish mouth, grinning at her power to humiliate men. It is being swept away by by news stories of gangs of girls stomping other girls into comas or even to death. It is being swept away by story after story of mothers killing and horribly abusing their children.
It is now time for millions of men's voices to start being heard, screaming the BIG TRUTH at the top of their lungs.
Screw the assholes who want to copyright it and put their names on it so they can sell their books and fill their seminars and make a buck off the pain and confusion of other men.
I got a real chuckle out of Verlch's recent mining of my site. He is using my writing exactly as I wanted men to use it - to spread the BIG TRUTH without regard to what clever asshole first wrote it down, to say it and spread it and speak it any and every time the opportunity arises.
My words are yours to use to OUR benefit, guys. I am an above-average word monger, but I put my words out in the public domain for men to pick up and use as their own swords in the battle against the BIG LIE.
If what I write resonates with any man, he has blanket permission to use anything I have ever written as his own words that he would have come up with if he had had the time.
I believe that most men know the truth - in their guts. They feel it in their guts, and it is only when people fuck with their heads that they lose that knowing.
We need millions of men screaming the BIG TRUTH from the rooftops.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." -- Adolf Hitler
"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." -- Adolf Hitler
“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few” -- Adolf Hitler
"The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it." -- Dr. Joseph Mengele
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #56 – MGTOW’s Trademark Copyright Philosophy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
The baffling lack of unity and cohesiveness among men which has kept us from mustering a coherent response to feminidiocy has been sad and frustrating, but at this point must simply be considered a condition of the environment in which we have to fight this war. What I see emerging is a relatively spontaneous, not at all organized, generalized change in the behavior and choices of men - the marriage boycott being one example, the boycott of institutions of higher Indoctrination being another.
It is too bad that the whole Hitler/Nazi analogy has been so overused, because next to Machiavelli, Hitler probably understood the mechanisms of power better than anyone else in history.
The fundamental strategy was "telling the BIG LIE" - something outrageously untrue, but repeated enough times that people either begin to believe it, or at least become afraid to let anyone know that they don't.
Feminists have told millions of "BIG LIES" about men - about Domestic Violence, Rape, "Glass Ceilings", "the Patriarchy", etc, etc, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda, ad nauseum.
"Political Correctness" has made it a near crime to even challenge the BIG LIES™.
Men have lost as much ground as they have in this war because they were intimidated into silence by the millions of fembots and their near-male syncophants screaming the BIG LIE in unison.
The fundamental weakness of the BIG LIE strategy is that it only works when it IS a lie. If men had ever hated women as much as the feminidiots claim men have, the femdroids would have never gotten to first base. It is has been men's desire to maintain some social honor that led to them being silenced by accusations that any criticism of feminism equated to "hating women."
There is a principle of ceremonial magic that one only has to speak a spell 3 times to make it binding and make it become true. Women have spoken the "you hate women" spell many more times than that, and it is beginning to come true.
The feminidiots have thrown away their most powerful weapon by overuse - when they try to silence a man by saying "well, you must hate women" and he responds "you are right, I do" - they have no "plan B."
So, now freed from the fear of being called "woman haters" which silenced them for so long, men must now begin to speak the BIG TRUTH!
The illusion that women are "the kinder, more caring, fairer sex" has allowed them to get away with murder, literally. But, it is now being swept away by images of Lynndie England, cigarette hanging out of her skankish mouth, grinning at her power to humiliate men. It is being swept away by by news stories of gangs of girls stomping other girls into comas or even to death. It is being swept away by story after story of mothers killing and horribly abusing their children.
It is now time for millions of men's voices to start being heard, screaming the BIG TRUTH at the top of their lungs.
Screw the assholes who want to copyright it and put their names on it so they can sell their books and fill their seminars and make a buck off the pain and confusion of other men.
I got a real chuckle out of Verlch's recent mining of my site. He is using my writing exactly as I wanted men to use it - to spread the BIG TRUTH without regard to what clever asshole first wrote it down, to say it and spread it and speak it any and every time the opportunity arises.
My words are yours to use to OUR benefit, guys. I am an above-average word monger, but I put my words out in the public domain for men to pick up and use as their own swords in the battle against the BIG LIE.
If what I write resonates with any man, he has blanket permission to use anything I have ever written as his own words that he would have come up with if he had had the time.
I believe that most men know the truth - in their guts. They feel it in their guts, and it is only when people fuck with their heads that they lose that knowing.
We need millions of men screaming the BIG TRUTH from the rooftops.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." -- Adolf Hitler
"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." -- Adolf Hitler
“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few” -- Adolf Hitler
"The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it." -- Dr. Joseph Mengele
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #56 – MGTOW’s Trademark Copyright Philosophy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Monday, January 07, 2002
Zenpriest #7 - Women's Aggression
Ever hear the old saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"? A guy might get disgruntled and a bit pissed off when a woman he wants to sleep with turns him down, but turn down a woman who wants to have sex with you (for whatever convoluted reasons) and she will absolutely hate your guts.
During my freshman year in college, my Residence Hall Assistant (upperclassman with light admin duties for the floor and the general purpose of helping kids adjust to college life) was a guy who was 6'8". For part of that year he "dated" or hung out with a woman who was 4'10". One day I heard terrible crashing sounds coming from the hallway and poked my head out to see her kicking the $#$% out of his door. "He's not there" I said. "YES HE IS" she shouted back at me. She kicked the door a few more times and I said "If he was in there, he would surely come out to see who was trying to kick down his door and why."
I invited her into my room to sit down and calm down. She was babbling on about how she knew he was in there and was just afraid to come out and face her. Now there is a fascinating concept which shows the lie in all the feminist drivel about Domestic Violence. At 6'8", the guy weighed about 250 lbs even though he was skinny as hell. This "little woman" weighed maybe 90 lbs, if that. Yet, she was totally convinced that he was afraid of her. Why? For the same reason that a badger or wolverine can drive a bear many times its size off a kill - pure, raw, unbridled aggression unrestrained by any decency or civil/interpersonal values.
Now, the really interesting part is just why she was so pissed off. "Do you want to hear the lame-assed excuse he gave me for not sleeping with me?" she asked. "No." I responded. "First of all, I am not the least bit interested in his sex life. Second, he has a right to his privacy."
Men apologize to women because if they don't women will continue to attack them viciously, relentlessly, in any way they can until the guy does apologize. The guy could have batted her away like an annoying pup if he had chosen, but he was restrained by a value system which limited his aggression and the level of his attacks, while she suffered from no such limitations of civility and decency. Women throughout this culture are given social permission to go as psychotic as they feel like and they know it will be excused by the cultural perception of women's uncontrollable emotionality. Look at all the people who jumped to the defense of Andrea Yates for killing her kids or Clara Harris for killing her husband while his own daughter watched.
Over the years, the most vicious attacks I have endured from women have come as a result of refusing to sleep with them. Flying into a screaming hysterical rage is one of the favourite tactics of women to take men off guard and manipulate their reflexes to throw them into the fight or flight arousal complex. Because men are so socially conditioned that they should "never hit a woman" under any circumstances, the option of fighting is unavailable to them so they flee the emotional battleground by admitting guilt and apologizing. It is the equivalent of waving the white flag of surrender.
.
.
Most of the women I have observed over the years are emotional terrorists. It is so acceptable in this culture that women can proudly wear "Bitch!" t-shirts etc, and also love the saying "if mom isn't happy, then NOBODY is happy." Men apologize because women wear them down with these tactics and most men are worn out enough from trying to make a living that they will give away just about anything for a little peace and quiet when they get home. I just saw a post (I think it was here on NG's site) to the effect of "A guy gets up at 7:00 so he can make it to the work battlefield by 8:00, why the hell would he rush home so he can get to that battlefield by 5:30?"
This is just one of many areas in which women quite successfully play both ends against the middle. They have the cultural fiction behind them that women want relationships more than they want sex, and more than men want relationships. But, they count on the fact that the man actually wants emotional intimacy and closeness more than they do so they can use that as a weapon against men and hold the relationship hostage to their whims - "you'd better do what I want, or I will 'break' the positive feelings between us!"
Men are always going to lose this game of emotional brinkmanship unless and until they learn how to play it and become willing to play it. When a woman says "I want you to leave" or sets your stuff by the door, say "OK" and be outta there. It won't be 24 hours before she is calling you begging for you to come back and playing all sorts of sweetness and seductive games to try to lure you back within her range.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following quotes were taken from If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make The Rules pp. 43-44
"In studying female aggression, Dr. [Wendy] Craig [a professor of developmental psychology at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario] found that girls are just as aggressive as boys. Unlike male aggression, which is physical, female social aggression is covert and, therefore, hard to detect. 'Girl aggression tends to be social in nature -- that is, emotionally rejecting, dismissive, and verbally abusive,' she says. 'This kind of aggression has as many negative consequences as physical aggression. The victims of social aggression become anxious, depressed, fearful, and have a lower self concept.' The implication is that, as future parents, socially aggressive females have the potential to inflict great harm, which can go undetected by society." -- Queen's University Press Release, March 18, 1997
"[Women] bully in more or less the same way [as men] with the exception that females are actually much better at it, they're much more devious, much more manipulative, much more subtle about it and they leave a lot less evidence as well - and they often do it with a smile." -- Tim Field, who established Britain's National Workplace Bullying Line in 1996. The Australian, July 12, 1999
"[T]he central organizing principle of primate social life is competition between females and especially female lineages... Females should be, if anything, more competitive than males, not less, although the manner in with females compete may be less direct, less boisterous, and hence, more difficult to measure... We are not yet equipped to measure the elaborations upon old themes that our fabulously inventive, and devious, species create daily." -- Sarah Blaffer Hrdr, Ph D., in her 1981 book, The Woman That Never Evolved
"Most of the damage women do is indirect. If she only bats her eyes to induce a guy into a fight, nobody's going to blame her. Women do a lot of things that provoke and trigger responses in men. But nobody seems able to see that." -- Herb Goldberg, Ph D., author of The Hazards of Being Male, in an interview with Jack Kammer, December 2, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the MGTOW Library:
“Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.
There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who have experienced dismissals by the junior high school girl's clique could hardly, with a straight face, claim generosity and nurture as a natural attribute of women." -- Elizabeth Fox-Genovese in her 1991 book Feminism Without Illusions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
During my freshman year in college, my Residence Hall Assistant (upperclassman with light admin duties for the floor and the general purpose of helping kids adjust to college life) was a guy who was 6'8". For part of that year he "dated" or hung out with a woman who was 4'10". One day I heard terrible crashing sounds coming from the hallway and poked my head out to see her kicking the $#$% out of his door. "He's not there" I said. "YES HE IS" she shouted back at me. She kicked the door a few more times and I said "If he was in there, he would surely come out to see who was trying to kick down his door and why."
I invited her into my room to sit down and calm down. She was babbling on about how she knew he was in there and was just afraid to come out and face her. Now there is a fascinating concept which shows the lie in all the feminist drivel about Domestic Violence. At 6'8", the guy weighed about 250 lbs even though he was skinny as hell. This "little woman" weighed maybe 90 lbs, if that. Yet, she was totally convinced that he was afraid of her. Why? For the same reason that a badger or wolverine can drive a bear many times its size off a kill - pure, raw, unbridled aggression unrestrained by any decency or civil/interpersonal values.
Now, the really interesting part is just why she was so pissed off. "Do you want to hear the lame-assed excuse he gave me for not sleeping with me?" she asked. "No." I responded. "First of all, I am not the least bit interested in his sex life. Second, he has a right to his privacy."
Men apologize to women because if they don't women will continue to attack them viciously, relentlessly, in any way they can until the guy does apologize. The guy could have batted her away like an annoying pup if he had chosen, but he was restrained by a value system which limited his aggression and the level of his attacks, while she suffered from no such limitations of civility and decency. Women throughout this culture are given social permission to go as psychotic as they feel like and they know it will be excused by the cultural perception of women's uncontrollable emotionality. Look at all the people who jumped to the defense of Andrea Yates for killing her kids or Clara Harris for killing her husband while his own daughter watched.
Over the years, the most vicious attacks I have endured from women have come as a result of refusing to sleep with them. Flying into a screaming hysterical rage is one of the favourite tactics of women to take men off guard and manipulate their reflexes to throw them into the fight or flight arousal complex. Because men are so socially conditioned that they should "never hit a woman" under any circumstances, the option of fighting is unavailable to them so they flee the emotional battleground by admitting guilt and apologizing. It is the equivalent of waving the white flag of surrender.
.
.Most of the women I have observed over the years are emotional terrorists. It is so acceptable in this culture that women can proudly wear "Bitch!" t-shirts etc, and also love the saying "if mom isn't happy, then NOBODY is happy." Men apologize because women wear them down with these tactics and most men are worn out enough from trying to make a living that they will give away just about anything for a little peace and quiet when they get home. I just saw a post (I think it was here on NG's site) to the effect of "A guy gets up at 7:00 so he can make it to the work battlefield by 8:00, why the hell would he rush home so he can get to that battlefield by 5:30?"
This is just one of many areas in which women quite successfully play both ends against the middle. They have the cultural fiction behind them that women want relationships more than they want sex, and more than men want relationships. But, they count on the fact that the man actually wants emotional intimacy and closeness more than they do so they can use that as a weapon against men and hold the relationship hostage to their whims - "you'd better do what I want, or I will 'break' the positive feelings between us!"
Men are always going to lose this game of emotional brinkmanship unless and until they learn how to play it and become willing to play it. When a woman says "I want you to leave" or sets your stuff by the door, say "OK" and be outta there. It won't be 24 hours before she is calling you begging for you to come back and playing all sorts of sweetness and seductive games to try to lure you back within her range.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following quotes were taken from If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make The Rules pp. 43-44
"In studying female aggression, Dr. [Wendy] Craig [a professor of developmental psychology at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario] found that girls are just as aggressive as boys. Unlike male aggression, which is physical, female social aggression is covert and, therefore, hard to detect. 'Girl aggression tends to be social in nature -- that is, emotionally rejecting, dismissive, and verbally abusive,' she says. 'This kind of aggression has as many negative consequences as physical aggression. The victims of social aggression become anxious, depressed, fearful, and have a lower self concept.' The implication is that, as future parents, socially aggressive females have the potential to inflict great harm, which can go undetected by society." -- Queen's University Press Release, March 18, 1997
"[Women] bully in more or less the same way [as men] with the exception that females are actually much better at it, they're much more devious, much more manipulative, much more subtle about it and they leave a lot less evidence as well - and they often do it with a smile." -- Tim Field, who established Britain's National Workplace Bullying Line in 1996. The Australian, July 12, 1999
"[T]he central organizing principle of primate social life is competition between females and especially female lineages... Females should be, if anything, more competitive than males, not less, although the manner in with females compete may be less direct, less boisterous, and hence, more difficult to measure... We are not yet equipped to measure the elaborations upon old themes that our fabulously inventive, and devious, species create daily." -- Sarah Blaffer Hrdr, Ph D., in her 1981 book, The Woman That Never Evolved
"Most of the damage women do is indirect. If she only bats her eyes to induce a guy into a fight, nobody's going to blame her. Women do a lot of things that provoke and trigger responses in men. But nobody seems able to see that." -- Herb Goldberg, Ph D., author of The Hazards of Being Male, in an interview with Jack Kammer, December 2, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the MGTOW Library:
“Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.
There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who have experienced dismissals by the junior high school girl's clique could hardly, with a straight face, claim generosity and nurture as a natural attribute of women." -- Elizabeth Fox-Genovese in her 1991 book Feminism Without Illusions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Sunday, January 06, 2002
Zenpriest #6 - The Death of Marriage
The so-called "Heterosexual family" is a horse so dead that flogging it a bit more is not going to be noticed by anyone, least of all the horse.
.
.
I truly do not understand men who are adamant about defending an institution which has a 2 in 5 rate of destroying their lives through divorce and god only knows what percentage of the other 3 simply stick it out no matter how bad it is due to their values.
Marriage was long ago redefined as a temporary contractual arrangement which existed only for the purpose and gratification of the adults involved and was only binding on the male and only existed at the pleasure of the female. The average marriage today lasts 12 years.
Keep in mind that what is being discussed is not just homosexual marriage, but same-sex marriage. Marital rape laws have eliminated any requirement that there be an actual sexual relationship between the partners (along with the radfem's hatred of male sexuality) so the legalization of same-sex marriage will simply knock down the last of the hollow shell which marriage has become.
Personally, I think that embracing same-sex marriage and fully exploiting the benefits of it is one of the best ways to scare the $#$% out of American females and finally mobilize them to stop riding along on the coattails of their feminist sisters and sucking everything they can out of men. Give 2 heterosexual men the right to pool resources, share work benefits, and the same rights as gay men to engage surrogate mothers to bear children for them, and the only thing American women will have left to offer which is unique to them will be sex.
American women have gotten a free ride for far too long - being able to take anything they want from men, including their jobs - while men steadfastly stuck up for the rights of those women to take men to the cleaners. They have done so secure in the belief that men wanted relationships more than women did - because they fell for the whole line of feminist $%#@$#%@.
Same-sex marriages will bust wide open the cult of the moral mother and the presumption of female custody, and force courts to contend with issues other than whose sperm fertilized the egg when awarding child support. Brain-dead judges will no longer be able to sleep-walk to work and check their crib sheet for every case which tells them to "rule in favor of the woman and against the man."
As more and more women assume the traditional male role of the breadwinner, more and more men are going to become "primary caregivers" and they are going to be able to use precedents set in same-sex divorces to force the court to evaluate custody issues on something other than genitalia.
If men play this right, it can turn out for us about the old joke about 2 warring gangs/armies - one side started throwing sticks of dynamite at the other, and the 2nd group started lighting them and throwing them back.
If women had a lick of damn sense they would be in the streets in numbers many times the recent marches for abortion, screaming their heads off against the imminent destruction of their traditional meal tickets.
But, we all know that women don't.
I think [there is a] generational divide at work here. This is why I keep saying that the "save marriage" people are at least 30 years too late.
I am of the generation to whom "marriage" was "for richer or poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, as long as we both shall live." The term discussed in another thread - "starter marriage" - was as nonsensical as "temporary homicide." The marriage vow for men also included "with all my worldly goods, I thee endow." Marriage was a lifelong partnership in which both parties were bound by common interest and mutual interdependence. Most enforcement was social rather than legal, and while it did have some overtones of being a "contract", the biggest thing which made marriages work is they improved surivival and did create the best environment for all members of the family to thrive.
No amount of top-down enforcement can replace that. There is an old joke about why people in small towns lock their cars - to keep their neighbors from filling them with zucchini and tomatoes (in season.) Among people whose value system simply precludes lying and theft, enforcement never enters the picture. By the time it has, social disintegration is so advanced that enforcement fails as often (or more often) as it succeeds.
Real "marriage" is an all-or-none deal. It is like pregnancy - you either are or you are not. The second you go into a partnership of that nature reserving some portion of your resources against the chance of failure, you starve the marriage of what it needs to survive. Marriage boils down to "I give you all of me, in exchange for all of you." And, you never argue about who is getting the better deal because you both value each other and yourselves.
As a practical matter, in this day and age it is virtually impossible to trust another person based solely on their word.
And, all of us are much the poorer for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
.
I truly do not understand men who are adamant about defending an institution which has a 2 in 5 rate of destroying their lives through divorce and god only knows what percentage of the other 3 simply stick it out no matter how bad it is due to their values.
Marriage was long ago redefined as a temporary contractual arrangement which existed only for the purpose and gratification of the adults involved and was only binding on the male and only existed at the pleasure of the female. The average marriage today lasts 12 years.
Keep in mind that what is being discussed is not just homosexual marriage, but same-sex marriage. Marital rape laws have eliminated any requirement that there be an actual sexual relationship between the partners (along with the radfem's hatred of male sexuality) so the legalization of same-sex marriage will simply knock down the last of the hollow shell which marriage has become.
Personally, I think that embracing same-sex marriage and fully exploiting the benefits of it is one of the best ways to scare the $#$% out of American females and finally mobilize them to stop riding along on the coattails of their feminist sisters and sucking everything they can out of men. Give 2 heterosexual men the right to pool resources, share work benefits, and the same rights as gay men to engage surrogate mothers to bear children for them, and the only thing American women will have left to offer which is unique to them will be sex.
American women have gotten a free ride for far too long - being able to take anything they want from men, including their jobs - while men steadfastly stuck up for the rights of those women to take men to the cleaners. They have done so secure in the belief that men wanted relationships more than women did - because they fell for the whole line of feminist $%#@$#%@.
Same-sex marriages will bust wide open the cult of the moral mother and the presumption of female custody, and force courts to contend with issues other than whose sperm fertilized the egg when awarding child support. Brain-dead judges will no longer be able to sleep-walk to work and check their crib sheet for every case which tells them to "rule in favor of the woman and against the man."
As more and more women assume the traditional male role of the breadwinner, more and more men are going to become "primary caregivers" and they are going to be able to use precedents set in same-sex divorces to force the court to evaluate custody issues on something other than genitalia.
If men play this right, it can turn out for us about the old joke about 2 warring gangs/armies - one side started throwing sticks of dynamite at the other, and the 2nd group started lighting them and throwing them back.
If women had a lick of damn sense they would be in the streets in numbers many times the recent marches for abortion, screaming their heads off against the imminent destruction of their traditional meal tickets.
But, we all know that women don't.
I think [there is a] generational divide at work here. This is why I keep saying that the "save marriage" people are at least 30 years too late.
I am of the generation to whom "marriage" was "for richer or poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, as long as we both shall live." The term discussed in another thread - "starter marriage" - was as nonsensical as "temporary homicide." The marriage vow for men also included "with all my worldly goods, I thee endow." Marriage was a lifelong partnership in which both parties were bound by common interest and mutual interdependence. Most enforcement was social rather than legal, and while it did have some overtones of being a "contract", the biggest thing which made marriages work is they improved surivival and did create the best environment for all members of the family to thrive.
No amount of top-down enforcement can replace that. There is an old joke about why people in small towns lock their cars - to keep their neighbors from filling them with zucchini and tomatoes (in season.) Among people whose value system simply precludes lying and theft, enforcement never enters the picture. By the time it has, social disintegration is so advanced that enforcement fails as often (or more often) as it succeeds.
Real "marriage" is an all-or-none deal. It is like pregnancy - you either are or you are not. The second you go into a partnership of that nature reserving some portion of your resources against the chance of failure, you starve the marriage of what it needs to survive. Marriage boils down to "I give you all of me, in exchange for all of you." And, you never argue about who is getting the better deal because you both value each other and yourselves.
As a practical matter, in this day and age it is virtually impossible to trust another person based solely on their word.
And, all of us are much the poorer for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Saturday, January 05, 2002
Zenpriest #5 - Addicted to Attention
At some point, previously purposeful behavior which gained a reward simply becomes habit. Take for example the phenomenon of obesity. Eating is purposeful behavior. Because we have to do it in order to survive, there are both physical and psychological rewards. Even in the case where there is no real physical need, the purely sensual and psychological rewards are still there, thus people continue to engage in that behavior even there is no physical need.
It appears to me that there is assumption embedded in your question that once "empty attention got old" that women would cease seeking it. But the realities and mechanics of human behavior in a host of other examples don't work that way. People continue to engage in all sorts of behaviors long after the reward which initially resulted from that behavior ceases to exist.
Probably the simplest example of this is addiction. At first, drugs like heroin and cocaine produce an intense rush of euphoria. But very quickly the body begins to habituate and requires increasing dosages to produce decreasing effects. Over time, the baseline physical/emotional condition changes so that instead of beginning from a state of "normal" and being moved to a state of euphoria, the lack of the drug produces withdrawal symptoms which are uncomfortable and fit perfectly within the operational definition of "pain". Thus, the drug becomes necessary to avoid that "pain."
I really should draw a diagram to illustrate this (I think much more visually than verbally) but let me try to describe it in graphical terms. Imagine an ordinary XY graph with the Y axis representing emotional state. And, let's simply define zero on the Y axis as the normal emotional state of most human beings most of the time - neither euphoric nor painful. (this point will become very significant in a moment).
Starting at zero, a person takes a euphoriant and is moved to a +5. When the drug wears off, the state returns to 0. They do it again, and the process of habituation starts. There is no way to objectively quantify or measure emotional states, so every person judges their own emotional status by comparison to their other emotional experiences. They don't measure their emotional state against an objective yardstick, but compare it to how they felt before. At the pre-conscious level, the mind is saying "Wow, a little while ago I felt GREAT, but I don't feel nearly so good now." Thus, even though an outside observer would say that they are back at zero, their subjective experience puts them at -.1. Each iteration of that cycle moves their perception of their state further below their previous baseline: -.2, -.3, -.4, and so on.
Eventually they reach the condition where the non-drug state instead of being zero on the scale has reached -5. A jolt of the drug still produces the same movement of +5 on the emotional scale, but due to their progressively depressing baseline the subjective result is that they now take the drug to reach the state of zero.
So, it might be more accurate to replace the term "attention whores" that is used here with "attention addicts." Women literally are attention addicts, because without it they cannot feel normal and feel a state of emotional deficit. Thus, like any addict as soon as they get their last fix they go start looking for their next one.
The differences between men and women are due to their different baselines. From the male baseline, the state that women live in looks like a +5, so we can't understand what the hell they are bitching about. From the female baseline, the state that males live in feels like a -5 and is painful as hell to them.
The creation of this difference in baselines begins at birth. There are numerous studies out there which show that baby girls get picked up and comforted when they are crying much more quickly than boy babies. The toughening of males begins the moment they leave the womb.
If you can for a moment imagine and crawl into the consciousness of a neonate, they are learning about the world and that learning shapes their developing nervous systems. It literally occurs at the level of developing neural connections and powerfully shapes the neural structures which develop.
The moment babies start to cry they are developing internal benchmarks for "crying work I have to do in order to get my needs met." Picking arbitrary numbers simply to illustrate the principle, let's say that the girl infant gets picked up and comforted after one minute of crying work while the boy infant has to cry for a full five minutes in order to get his needs attended to.
Thus, if a baby of each sex starts to cry at the same time, after one minute the girl will get her reward while the boy still has 4 more minutes of crying work to do until he gets his needs met.
You are sharp enough that I probably don't need to use a cluebat to point out the obvious parallels between this scenario and what happens in the adult workplace.
Now, let's look very closely at the infants at the one minute mark. The girl baby is thinking "HEY! I've done my my work, WHERE'S MY REWARD?!?!?" while the boy baby knows he is just getting warmed up and has 4 more minutes of crying work to do before he gets HIS needs met. At the 2 minute mark, the infantile female is starting to get seriously pissed, while the little boy is just hitting his stride. She has already had to do twice as much crying work to get her reward as she is used to having to do, while he has only done 40%. By the 3 minute mark, the infantile female is approaching a state of rage - "HEY! THERE'S A GODDAMNED 'GLASS CRYING CEILING' IN HERE SOMEWHERE!", while the boy baby now has his eyes on the prize and knows he is in the home stretch. At 4 minutes, the infantile female is beginning to lose hope - "$#$%, I'm never going to get what I want!" - and actually begins to give up and develop a sense of helplessness. Many of them simply quit before they reach the male benchmark, and thus never end up with the reward that a male who is used to that benchmark achieves.
Again, do I even need to point out the parallels between this and "wimmins's STILL only make 75 cents for every $1 a man makes"?
Males are conditioned from birth on wards to expect fewer rewards, and to expect to have to work harder for the ones they do get, than females. The lives of most males are so far outside of the female experience that most females cannot even imagine it.
Now, the reason's for biomech's observation that younger and older women get it, while women in between do not, is that neural development continues up until about age 21. There are reasons why this particular age shows up throughout history as the point at which people have been allowed to take on adult responsibilities and privileges.
Prior to that, neural structures - which literally determine the way we think - are still flexible and new information can lead to new perspectives. Once these are fixed, however, it takes years of failure of one's developed paradigm in order to force the person to acknowledge its failure.
When this whole eek-wallet-ee nonsense started, a lot of guys signed on because it sounded great to them that they would be able to share in the easier rewards that women were accustomed to. But, we were young and $#%@ and naive and totally underestimated the impact of both biology and thousands of years of social tradition. Life is inherently a challenge because it is through surviving and overcoming challenges that living things remain strong, resilient, and viable. Culture is simply not prepared to make the reward system for males any easier.
It was also a mistake for boomer males to assume that women would ever be held to the same standards as males. We just assumed that it was obvious to everyone how much work was required to gain the rewards we got, and expected women to work as hard as we did if they wanted those same level of rewards.
Culture is at a fork in the road. Having completely destroyed the old merit/earning/reward connection for males, it either has to face the fact that males are going to quit doing the $#$% work which keeps the culture going - like initiating relationships - or force women to take on their share of that $#$%-work.
Individual males who are not in positions of power can do nothing to affect what happens at the policy level, but we can go on strike against the $#$%-work and force women to do it if they want it done, because we now refuse to do it without any reward for doing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male." -- Newsletter of the Women's Freedom Network, Spring 1997
Related: Pook #45 - Attention Whores
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
It appears to me that there is assumption embedded in your question that once "empty attention got old" that women would cease seeking it. But the realities and mechanics of human behavior in a host of other examples don't work that way. People continue to engage in all sorts of behaviors long after the reward which initially resulted from that behavior ceases to exist.
Probably the simplest example of this is addiction. At first, drugs like heroin and cocaine produce an intense rush of euphoria. But very quickly the body begins to habituate and requires increasing dosages to produce decreasing effects. Over time, the baseline physical/emotional condition changes so that instead of beginning from a state of "normal" and being moved to a state of euphoria, the lack of the drug produces withdrawal symptoms which are uncomfortable and fit perfectly within the operational definition of "pain". Thus, the drug becomes necessary to avoid that "pain."
I really should draw a diagram to illustrate this (I think much more visually than verbally) but let me try to describe it in graphical terms. Imagine an ordinary XY graph with the Y axis representing emotional state. And, let's simply define zero on the Y axis as the normal emotional state of most human beings most of the time - neither euphoric nor painful. (this point will become very significant in a moment).
Starting at zero, a person takes a euphoriant and is moved to a +5. When the drug wears off, the state returns to 0. They do it again, and the process of habituation starts. There is no way to objectively quantify or measure emotional states, so every person judges their own emotional status by comparison to their other emotional experiences. They don't measure their emotional state against an objective yardstick, but compare it to how they felt before. At the pre-conscious level, the mind is saying "Wow, a little while ago I felt GREAT, but I don't feel nearly so good now." Thus, even though an outside observer would say that they are back at zero, their subjective experience puts them at -.1. Each iteration of that cycle moves their perception of their state further below their previous baseline: -.2, -.3, -.4, and so on.
Eventually they reach the condition where the non-drug state instead of being zero on the scale has reached -5. A jolt of the drug still produces the same movement of +5 on the emotional scale, but due to their progressively depressing baseline the subjective result is that they now take the drug to reach the state of zero.
So, it might be more accurate to replace the term "attention whores" that is used here with "attention addicts." Women literally are attention addicts, because without it they cannot feel normal and feel a state of emotional deficit. Thus, like any addict as soon as they get their last fix they go start looking for their next one.
The differences between men and women are due to their different baselines. From the male baseline, the state that women live in looks like a +5, so we can't understand what the hell they are bitching about. From the female baseline, the state that males live in feels like a -5 and is painful as hell to them.
The creation of this difference in baselines begins at birth. There are numerous studies out there which show that baby girls get picked up and comforted when they are crying much more quickly than boy babies. The toughening of males begins the moment they leave the womb.
If you can for a moment imagine and crawl into the consciousness of a neonate, they are learning about the world and that learning shapes their developing nervous systems. It literally occurs at the level of developing neural connections and powerfully shapes the neural structures which develop.
The moment babies start to cry they are developing internal benchmarks for "crying work I have to do in order to get my needs met." Picking arbitrary numbers simply to illustrate the principle, let's say that the girl infant gets picked up and comforted after one minute of crying work while the boy infant has to cry for a full five minutes in order to get his needs attended to.
Thus, if a baby of each sex starts to cry at the same time, after one minute the girl will get her reward while the boy still has 4 more minutes of crying work to do until he gets his needs met.
You are sharp enough that I probably don't need to use a cluebat to point out the obvious parallels between this scenario and what happens in the adult workplace.
Now, let's look very closely at the infants at the one minute mark. The girl baby is thinking "HEY! I've done my my work, WHERE'S MY REWARD?!?!?" while the boy baby knows he is just getting warmed up and has 4 more minutes of crying work to do before he gets HIS needs met. At the 2 minute mark, the infantile female is starting to get seriously pissed, while the little boy is just hitting his stride. She has already had to do twice as much crying work to get her reward as she is used to having to do, while he has only done 40%. By the 3 minute mark, the infantile female is approaching a state of rage - "HEY! THERE'S A GODDAMNED 'GLASS CRYING CEILING' IN HERE SOMEWHERE!", while the boy baby now has his eyes on the prize and knows he is in the home stretch. At 4 minutes, the infantile female is beginning to lose hope - "$#$%, I'm never going to get what I want!" - and actually begins to give up and develop a sense of helplessness. Many of them simply quit before they reach the male benchmark, and thus never end up with the reward that a male who is used to that benchmark achieves.
Again, do I even need to point out the parallels between this and "wimmins's STILL only make 75 cents for every $1 a man makes"?
Males are conditioned from birth on wards to expect fewer rewards, and to expect to have to work harder for the ones they do get, than females. The lives of most males are so far outside of the female experience that most females cannot even imagine it.
Now, the reason's for biomech's observation that younger and older women get it, while women in between do not, is that neural development continues up until about age 21. There are reasons why this particular age shows up throughout history as the point at which people have been allowed to take on adult responsibilities and privileges.
Prior to that, neural structures - which literally determine the way we think - are still flexible and new information can lead to new perspectives. Once these are fixed, however, it takes years of failure of one's developed paradigm in order to force the person to acknowledge its failure.
When this whole eek-wallet-ee nonsense started, a lot of guys signed on because it sounded great to them that they would be able to share in the easier rewards that women were accustomed to. But, we were young and $#%@ and naive and totally underestimated the impact of both biology and thousands of years of social tradition. Life is inherently a challenge because it is through surviving and overcoming challenges that living things remain strong, resilient, and viable. Culture is simply not prepared to make the reward system for males any easier.
It was also a mistake for boomer males to assume that women would ever be held to the same standards as males. We just assumed that it was obvious to everyone how much work was required to gain the rewards we got, and expected women to work as hard as we did if they wanted those same level of rewards.
Culture is at a fork in the road. Having completely destroyed the old merit/earning/reward connection for males, it either has to face the fact that males are going to quit doing the $#$% work which keeps the culture going - like initiating relationships - or force women to take on their share of that $#$%-work.
Individual males who are not in positions of power can do nothing to affect what happens at the policy level, but we can go on strike against the $#$%-work and force women to do it if they want it done, because we now refuse to do it without any reward for doing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male." -- Newsletter of the Women's Freedom Network, Spring 1997
Related: Pook #45 - Attention Whores
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Friday, January 04, 2002
Zenpriest #4 - The Two Faces of Masculinity
Masculinity, like every other force and characteristic in the world, has two sides - a dark side to that force and a light side. What I "hear" [people] talking about is defending the honor of masculinity, particularly the positive side of it.
We've all heard about the heroics of the firefighters and police on 9/11. That's the heroic side of masculinity. The guy who listens to his wife nag and berate and wear him down day after day and doesn't black both her eyes is also being "heroic", simply because he doen't knock the $#$% out of her. And, when the day used to come that he fought back and did knock the $#$% out of her and let her know where the limits were - that was being masculine too.
Marc LePine and the boys at Columbine HS were acting in a masculine manner - they were fighting back against a culture out to destroy them in any way they knew how. They were POWs in the gender war, brainwashed and tortured. They didn't cave in - they attacked back.
There is an aspect of masculinity that I can best summarize as: "Hit me in the face, I will break your nose. Hit me in the chest, I will break your ribs. Leave me alone, and we can live in peace."
Women really do need to start standing up for masculinity - not because men need them to defend it, but because the relentless attacks on it are only going to destroy the heroic side of it and push all its energy and power into the dark side.
You may remember Alicia's statement on SYG about how she got groped one night by a drunk in a bar and bunch of guys came to her rescue. She tossed a bit of lip service at the guys "Hey, keep on rescuing us, we really do appreciate it, even if we say we don't." My response to her was "too little, too late."
You're right, christianj, that force of masculinity can never be stamped out because it is born again in every new generation of boys. But in order for it to be the positive force you describe, it must be channeled, shaped, guided, by older men. We know how to bring a boy's masculinity out as a positive force, not try to beat it down and suppress it until it explodes in a destructive outburst. I have no doubt that Gary Ridgeway was raised by either a single mom or an overbearing mother in the presence of a weak father. Two dozen corpses of pretty young females later - the rage he still feels at the attacks on the core of his being is a danger to all women.
It would have been "nice" if women had had the sense to call off their attacks on us before men started to turn against them, and to really step up to the defense of men and masculinity - but they didn't, and you are seeing the price that their daughters and granddaughters are going to pay for that &%^&*&^% in the attitudes of young men here. Some guys here still like women a little bit, and are willing to try to love them. As NK put it, he loves the hell out of women, but he doesn't like them.
A whole 'nother group here no longer either loves or likes women, and are not even willing to f**k them. What they are doing is taking their masculinity away from those who would destroy it and them, and away from those who stood idly by and let the femin$%#@!# try.
We've all heard about the heroics of the firefighters and police on 9/11. That's the heroic side of masculinity. The guy who listens to his wife nag and berate and wear him down day after day and doesn't black both her eyes is also being "heroic", simply because he doen't knock the $#$% out of her. And, when the day used to come that he fought back and did knock the $#$% out of her and let her know where the limits were - that was being masculine too.
Marc LePine and the boys at Columbine HS were acting in a masculine manner - they were fighting back against a culture out to destroy them in any way they knew how. They were POWs in the gender war, brainwashed and tortured. They didn't cave in - they attacked back.
There is an aspect of masculinity that I can best summarize as: "Hit me in the face, I will break your nose. Hit me in the chest, I will break your ribs. Leave me alone, and we can live in peace."
Women really do need to start standing up for masculinity - not because men need them to defend it, but because the relentless attacks on it are only going to destroy the heroic side of it and push all its energy and power into the dark side.
You may remember Alicia's statement on SYG about how she got groped one night by a drunk in a bar and bunch of guys came to her rescue. She tossed a bit of lip service at the guys "Hey, keep on rescuing us, we really do appreciate it, even if we say we don't." My response to her was "too little, too late."
You're right, christianj, that force of masculinity can never be stamped out because it is born again in every new generation of boys. But in order for it to be the positive force you describe, it must be channeled, shaped, guided, by older men. We know how to bring a boy's masculinity out as a positive force, not try to beat it down and suppress it until it explodes in a destructive outburst. I have no doubt that Gary Ridgeway was raised by either a single mom or an overbearing mother in the presence of a weak father. Two dozen corpses of pretty young females later - the rage he still feels at the attacks on the core of his being is a danger to all women.
It would have been "nice" if women had had the sense to call off their attacks on us before men started to turn against them, and to really step up to the defense of men and masculinity - but they didn't, and you are seeing the price that their daughters and granddaughters are going to pay for that &%^&*&^% in the attitudes of young men here. Some guys here still like women a little bit, and are willing to try to love them. As NK put it, he loves the hell out of women, but he doesn't like them.
A whole 'nother group here no longer either loves or likes women, and are not even willing to f**k them. What they are doing is taking their masculinity away from those who would destroy it and them, and away from those who stood idly by and let the femin$%#@!# try.
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
“In their book Raising Cain, psychologists Dan Klindon and Michael Thompson point out that the Bible story of Cain and Abel is about a man who kills his sibling because he feels his parents love, respect, and appreciate his sibling more than they do him.
If females can be thought of as males’ siblings, males have a lot of reason to feel like Cain these days. And that’s not good for anyone.” – Jack Kammer in If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make The Rules? p89
If females can be thought of as males’ siblings, males have a lot of reason to feel like Cain these days. And that’s not good for anyone.” – Jack Kammer in If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make The Rules? p89
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Thursday, January 03, 2002
Zenpriest #3 - Repressing Sexuality
There is a huge wide gap between loudly and publicly proclaiming something - like the Vagina Monologues with the shouts of "CUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNT" and the mortification and shaming of young men because they feel sexual desire and think "impure thoughts." During one year in the late 1800s, there were more patents issued for anti-masturbatory devices than for any other type.
My overall theory is that many if not most of the worst truly foul excesses of human behavior are due to extreme measures of sexual repression. The mating instinct is part of life - and life is persistent enough that sexual desire is going to persist no matter what is done to try to stamp it out.
The fossil record indicates that at the dawn of Homo Sapiens, the average life span was about 8 years and about 80% of the population died before reaching reproductive maturity. This means that 20% of females had to do the job of reproducing for the entire species - which they did by spending most of their life spans after reproductive maturity either pregnant or nursing. That level of sex urge is built into our genetics and a few decades of modern medicine have done nothing to change that.
With the advent of death control - first through the stabilization of the food supply via agriculture a few thousand years ago and next through modern medicine, birth control became inevitable in order to keep humans from running into the yeast problem and being poisoned by their own excrement. (Rhetorical - the problem is both waste and shortage of food)
The first means of birth control was obviously abstinence from sexual intercourse, which also served the purpose of the ruling elites of giving them a tool to use to control average men by controlling their access to female sexuality. What was the reward offered to the 19 male hijackers on 9/11? Not just one, nor even one dozen, but 72, six dozen, virgins.
Since reproduction is the only real meaning of "life" any deal up to death in exchange for it is acceptable to our genes, and those who controlled the hijackers even found a way to get around that.
It takes a lot of effort to control access to women's sexuality via supervision and outside controls, so the next step was to make women so neurotic and #$%#@# up about sex that they would hate it. And, since the consequences of unprotected sex with a man who isn't bound in some way to stick around and support her fell disproportionately on the female, that played right into it as well.
Anthropologist Marvin Harris has an interesting theory that only religious shaming is a powerful enough force to prevent people from engaging in some kinds of hedonistic and self-gratifying behaviors - like eating pork in desert climates and unrestrained sexual activity. Thus, shaming people into neurotic craziness about their sexual desires is the original form of birth control.
I believe that overcoming sexual shaming is key to men regaining their own power. The sex drive is as natural as breathing and as much a part of life as eating. As long as a man carries around shame for his desires, he is easy prey to women who can use that shame to play the game that they have done him a huge favor by sleeping with him - as illustrated by the phrase "getting lucky."
Obnoxious women like spitfire who come in here flaunting their sexuality - whether it be by bragging about the size of her tits, or how great her sex life with her husband is - are playing the DeBeers game - keeping demand up by advertising at the same time "supply" is kept artificially low.
I don't think that men need to brag about jerking off, but neither do I believe they need to be ashamed of it and feel like they are somehow less "manly" because they do. Eating grub worms may be a poor second to eating sirloin steak, but if you are hungry enough you do what you gotta do. And, that is what sex is - a hunger.
As part of the original sexual revolution, I would not call a woman a "slut" simply because she owns her own sexuality and chooses who she is going to share it with and doesn't play $%#@$#%@ faux-virginal games with it. However, I would also have no problem at all calling a woman a "whore" who uses her sexuality purely for the purposes of extracting something from men - whether it be money or attention.
My preference is for honest relationships conducted with integrity, and beyond that I do not have many strong feelings about how people "should" behave. But, the guys who are indirectly bragging about how big their dicks are by way of bragging about how many women they have lied into bed - bore the $#$% out of me and disgust me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
19th Century Anti-Masturbation Devices
"Masturbation or what was termed the "solitary vice" or "onanism" emerged as a veritable epidemic, especially amongst children. This forms the core around which the modern child becomes engulfed in what might termed the sexualisation of modern society. A medical and moral campaign was waged around the sexuality of children. Parents, educators, doctors were all alerted to hunt out any traces of child sexuality through a myriad of surveillance techniques and upon discovery subject to a seemingly inexhaustible array of corrective measures. One nineteenth century doctor invented a device which administered electric shocks to a sleeping boy's penis upon erection.
.
.
The insane, pale, quivering masturbator along with the lascivious barren prostitute emerge as creatures spreading contagion and weakening the modern social body. The masturbator and the prostitute both disrupted the boundaries surrounding the emergent bourgeois family. Prostitution because it directed sexuality outside the family to non-reproductive ends and masturbation because it turned sexuality inwards to the core of the family - the child and solitary adult. Sexuality in general becomes dominated by men’s fear concerning women’s sexuality, expressed as a threat to public rational masculinity."
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Medicalized circumcision began during the 1800’s to prevent masturbation, which was believed to cause disease.
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Q: Why do you think male circumcision exists?
A: To reduce male libido, or as Rambam (the most famous Jewish Rabbi) wrote:
.
"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.
.
It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member?
.
In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.
.
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished.
.
The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable.
.
For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"Dr. John Gordon, a professor of English at Connecticut College, says that in the 1800s anti-male novels and anti-male tracts - thousands of them - "were part of a campaign to represent men as barbarians whose urges had to be leashed in by the forces of decency - meaning women - if civilization were to survive." -- Jack Kammer, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? p30
"Pre-Nineteenth century Western culture assumed that women, not men, were the insatiable sexual aggressors, with men as vulnerable creatures in need of protection." -- Historian Peter N. Stearns in his 1990 book Be a Man: Males in Modern Society
.
Re: Women viewed as insatiable sexual aggressors:
Women and Lechery -- from The Lamentations of Matheolus, 1295
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
EOTM: Sexual Psychology – Part 2 – Puberty to 40
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
.
My overall theory is that many if not most of the worst truly foul excesses of human behavior are due to extreme measures of sexual repression. The mating instinct is part of life - and life is persistent enough that sexual desire is going to persist no matter what is done to try to stamp it out.
The fossil record indicates that at the dawn of Homo Sapiens, the average life span was about 8 years and about 80% of the population died before reaching reproductive maturity. This means that 20% of females had to do the job of reproducing for the entire species - which they did by spending most of their life spans after reproductive maturity either pregnant or nursing. That level of sex urge is built into our genetics and a few decades of modern medicine have done nothing to change that.
With the advent of death control - first through the stabilization of the food supply via agriculture a few thousand years ago and next through modern medicine, birth control became inevitable in order to keep humans from running into the yeast problem and being poisoned by their own excrement. (Rhetorical - the problem is both waste and shortage of food)
The first means of birth control was obviously abstinence from sexual intercourse, which also served the purpose of the ruling elites of giving them a tool to use to control average men by controlling their access to female sexuality. What was the reward offered to the 19 male hijackers on 9/11? Not just one, nor even one dozen, but 72, six dozen, virgins.
Since reproduction is the only real meaning of "life" any deal up to death in exchange for it is acceptable to our genes, and those who controlled the hijackers even found a way to get around that.
It takes a lot of effort to control access to women's sexuality via supervision and outside controls, so the next step was to make women so neurotic and #$%#@# up about sex that they would hate it. And, since the consequences of unprotected sex with a man who isn't bound in some way to stick around and support her fell disproportionately on the female, that played right into it as well.
Anthropologist Marvin Harris has an interesting theory that only religious shaming is a powerful enough force to prevent people from engaging in some kinds of hedonistic and self-gratifying behaviors - like eating pork in desert climates and unrestrained sexual activity. Thus, shaming people into neurotic craziness about their sexual desires is the original form of birth control.
I believe that overcoming sexual shaming is key to men regaining their own power. The sex drive is as natural as breathing and as much a part of life as eating. As long as a man carries around shame for his desires, he is easy prey to women who can use that shame to play the game that they have done him a huge favor by sleeping with him - as illustrated by the phrase "getting lucky."
Obnoxious women like spitfire who come in here flaunting their sexuality - whether it be by bragging about the size of her tits, or how great her sex life with her husband is - are playing the DeBeers game - keeping demand up by advertising at the same time "supply" is kept artificially low.
I don't think that men need to brag about jerking off, but neither do I believe they need to be ashamed of it and feel like they are somehow less "manly" because they do. Eating grub worms may be a poor second to eating sirloin steak, but if you are hungry enough you do what you gotta do. And, that is what sex is - a hunger.
As part of the original sexual revolution, I would not call a woman a "slut" simply because she owns her own sexuality and chooses who she is going to share it with and doesn't play $%#@$#%@ faux-virginal games with it. However, I would also have no problem at all calling a woman a "whore" who uses her sexuality purely for the purposes of extracting something from men - whether it be money or attention.
My preference is for honest relationships conducted with integrity, and beyond that I do not have many strong feelings about how people "should" behave. But, the guys who are indirectly bragging about how big their dicks are by way of bragging about how many women they have lied into bed - bore the $#$% out of me and disgust me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
19th Century Anti-Masturbation Devices
"Masturbation or what was termed the "solitary vice" or "onanism" emerged as a veritable epidemic, especially amongst children. This forms the core around which the modern child becomes engulfed in what might termed the sexualisation of modern society. A medical and moral campaign was waged around the sexuality of children. Parents, educators, doctors were all alerted to hunt out any traces of child sexuality through a myriad of surveillance techniques and upon discovery subject to a seemingly inexhaustible array of corrective measures. One nineteenth century doctor invented a device which administered electric shocks to a sleeping boy's penis upon erection.
.
.
The insane, pale, quivering masturbator along with the lascivious barren prostitute emerge as creatures spreading contagion and weakening the modern social body. The masturbator and the prostitute both disrupted the boundaries surrounding the emergent bourgeois family. Prostitution because it directed sexuality outside the family to non-reproductive ends and masturbation because it turned sexuality inwards to the core of the family - the child and solitary adult. Sexuality in general becomes dominated by men’s fear concerning women’s sexuality, expressed as a threat to public rational masculinity."
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Medicalized circumcision began during the 1800’s to prevent masturbation, which was believed to cause disease.
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Q: Why do you think male circumcision exists?
A: To reduce male libido, or as Rambam (the most famous Jewish Rabbi) wrote:
.
"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.
.
It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member?
.
In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.
.
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished.
.
The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable.
.
For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"Dr. John Gordon, a professor of English at Connecticut College, says that in the 1800s anti-male novels and anti-male tracts - thousands of them - "were part of a campaign to represent men as barbarians whose urges had to be leashed in by the forces of decency - meaning women - if civilization were to survive." -- Jack Kammer, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? p30
"Pre-Nineteenth century Western culture assumed that women, not men, were the insatiable sexual aggressors, with men as vulnerable creatures in need of protection." -- Historian Peter N. Stearns in his 1990 book Be a Man: Males in Modern Society
.
Re: Women viewed as insatiable sexual aggressors:
Women and Lechery -- from The Lamentations of Matheolus, 1295
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
EOTM: Sexual Psychology – Part 2 – Puberty to 40
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
.
Wednesday, January 02, 2002
Zenpriest # 2 - You Can't Change a Pickle Back Into a Cucumber
This is a very important principle which is invariably dis-understood when I try to explain it. Not misunderstood, but disunderstood - as in the same difference between misinformation and disinformation. Feminism and women have been proceeding on the unshakable belief that men are still going to want and care about them no matter how awful they get. Then, when a man reaches a state of complete indifference, they insist that it is temporary and is only because he is angry and that he will get over it.
It is more like a state of emotional numbness akin to what happens physically with scar tissue. Scar tissue has little if any feeling to it. It is simply the body's repair material doesn't replace the original tissue's full function - it is nothing but patch. After years of women having such fun ripping into my guts, there is nothing left but emotional scar tissue.
Or, using another body analogy - if a guy steps on a land mine and gets his leg blown off, it never grows back. The deep, overwhelming, all-consuming love that a young man is capable of feeling for a woman is only possible from a state of innocence and the ability to trust absolutely. Once a man has had that love used one too many times to exploit him and f**k him over, he loses his ability to trust in it. Use something as a weapon against a man too many times, and he will find a way to disarm you.
I think women have #$%#@# up something beautiful and wonderful, and it is very sad that they don't think so - but they obviously don't. Once men have turned against them, it will take an entire new generation of innocents for men's ability to love women to be reborn. You can't change a pickle back into a cucumber, and men my age have become so pickled in women's hatred that our revenge will be to watch them grow old and die alone.
It is more like a state of emotional numbness akin to what happens physically with scar tissue. Scar tissue has little if any feeling to it. It is simply the body's repair material doesn't replace the original tissue's full function - it is nothing but patch. After years of women having such fun ripping into my guts, there is nothing left but emotional scar tissue.
Or, using another body analogy - if a guy steps on a land mine and gets his leg blown off, it never grows back. The deep, overwhelming, all-consuming love that a young man is capable of feeling for a woman is only possible from a state of innocence and the ability to trust absolutely. Once a man has had that love used one too many times to exploit him and f**k him over, he loses his ability to trust in it. Use something as a weapon against a man too many times, and he will find a way to disarm you.
I think women have #$%#@# up something beautiful and wonderful, and it is very sad that they don't think so - but they obviously don't. Once men have turned against them, it will take an entire new generation of innocents for men's ability to love women to be reborn. You can't change a pickle back into a cucumber, and men my age have become so pickled in women's hatred that our revenge will be to watch them grow old and die alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Wisdom of Zenpriest Index Next
Tuesday, January 01, 2002
Zenpriest #1 - Women Raised Without Fathers
There is a longitudinal study which started back before 1920 which found at all ages women who grew up without a father had significantly more relationship and emotional problems than women who had a father. Such girls miss out on the primary and prototype NON-sexual relationship with a man. All the lies and hysteria about fathers "abusing" daughters to the contrary, most men consider their own daughters the ultimate of "off-limits" and also try to protect them from destructive relationships with other men ("NO! You are not going to marry the bongo player, nor are you going out of the house with your butt-crack showing!!")
Without this example of how to relate to men non-sexually, and compounded by the fact that she sees her primary role model - dear old "mom" - relating to a series of men purely and only in a sexual manner, these girls simply do not develop ordinary social skills and clobber every male "nail" with their hammer of seductiveness. Their approach to men is fundamentally dishonest and manipulative, and they draw in predatory men who are equally dishonest and manipulative, then turn around and blast ALL men for their poor choices.
As the years go by, the cumulative failures of their dishonest strategies lead them to become bitter and hate-filled toward the entire male sex. No self-respecting man would put up with their gauntlets of emotional barbed-wire in order to get close to them, so they end up locking themselves into prisons of their own creation.
Then, they get jobs as "wimmins's studdees" professors.
The problem I see is that thousands of years of oral tradition of teaching kids how to live within a family and get along, have been virtually completely destroyed in a couple of generations. As we all well know, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to get a woman to acknowledge the responsibility of her own actions and choices in the results she gets - so most of these women are going to go to their graves without ever wising up.
Divorce seems to function like an infectious disease - once the parents get it, they pass it along to generation after generation of children. The divorce rate among children of divorce is much higher than the average for the population, which points to the obvious fact that for children of intact families it is much lower.
Without this example of how to relate to men non-sexually, and compounded by the fact that she sees her primary role model - dear old "mom" - relating to a series of men purely and only in a sexual manner, these girls simply do not develop ordinary social skills and clobber every male "nail" with their hammer of seductiveness. Their approach to men is fundamentally dishonest and manipulative, and they draw in predatory men who are equally dishonest and manipulative, then turn around and blast ALL men for their poor choices.
As the years go by, the cumulative failures of their dishonest strategies lead them to become bitter and hate-filled toward the entire male sex. No self-respecting man would put up with their gauntlets of emotional barbed-wire in order to get close to them, so they end up locking themselves into prisons of their own creation.
Then, they get jobs as "wimmins's studdees" professors.
The problem I see is that thousands of years of oral tradition of teaching kids how to live within a family and get along, have been virtually completely destroyed in a couple of generations. As we all well know, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to get a woman to acknowledge the responsibility of her own actions and choices in the results she gets - so most of these women are going to go to their graves without ever wising up.
Divorce seems to function like an infectious disease - once the parents get it, they pass it along to generation after generation of children. The divorce rate among children of divorce is much higher than the average for the population, which points to the obvious fact that for children of intact families it is much lower.
Here are some of the observed effects of removing a father to the position of a visitor in a child`s life.
"Based on our clinical experience with a number of latency aged and adolescent girls whose parents divorced during their oedipal years, we postulate that particular coping patterns emerge in response to the absence of the father, which may complicate the consolidation of positive feminine identification in many female children, and is observable during the latency years. We illustrate both the existence of these phenomena and implications for treatment:
1. intensified separation anxiety
2. denial and avoidance of feelings associated with loss of father
3. identification with the lost object
4. object hunger for males."
"In an earlier study by Kalter and Rembar at [Children's Psychiatric Hospital, University of Michigan], a sample of 144 child and adolesce atients, whose parents had divorced, presented [for evaluation and treatment] with three most commonly occurring problems:
63% Subjective psychological problem (defined as anxiety, sadness, pronounced moodiness, phobias, and depression)
56% Poor grades or grades substantially below ability and/or recent past performance
43% Aggression toward parents Important features of the subgroup of 32 latency aged girls were in the same order:
69% indicating subjective psychological distress 47% academic problems 41% aggression toward pa ts.
Clinical Observations on Interferences of Early Father Absence in the Achievement of Femininity by R. Lohr, C. g, A. Mendell and B. Riemer, Clinical Social Work Journal, V. 17, #4, Winter, 1989
Excerpt from Baskerville, S. Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing, 2007
“Virtually every major social pathology of our time: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy and scholastic failure, unwed pregnancy, suicide and other psychological disorders – all these correlate more strongly to fatherlessness than to any other single factor.[1] According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, “Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional, and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than those who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.”[2] The overwhelming majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists all come from fatherless homes. Children from affluent but separated families are much more likely to get into trouble than children from poor but intact ones, and white children from separated families are at higher risk than black children in intact families. The connection between single parent households and crime erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime[3].”
[1] Attempts to attribute these behaviors to poverty or racial discrimination have been refuted by studies that control for these variables. See Urie Bronfenbrenner, “Discovering What Families Do,” in David Blankenhorn, et al. (eds.), Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family (Milwaukee: Family Service America, 1990), p. 34; Ronald Angel and Jacqueline Angel, Painful Inheritance: Health and the New Generation of Fatherless Children (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), p. 188. Even left-wing scholars concur: Norman Dennis and George Erdos, Families Without Fatherhood (London: Civitas, 2000).
[2] Horn and Sylvester, Father Facts, p. 15.
[3] Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and William Galston, Putting Children First (Washington: Progressive Policy Institute, 1990), p. 14.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisdom of Zenpriest Index Next
Sunday, February 25, 2001
The Salesman and the Pick-Up Artist
(This post comes from No Ma'am Capital)
If there ever were two unsavory characters our society likes to portray as dishonest scumbags, it has to be the used-car salesman and his social contemporary, the pick-up artist (PUA). The relationship deepens when I see high profile PUA bloggers sometime make the connection between "the game" and sales as well - often falsely concluding that sales is now being influenced by "game" rather than sales influencing the PUA's "game."
Before I begin, I have a dirty secret to confess. I sold cars for eleven years. I was not a "used" car salesman, but worked at a new car dealership which, of course, also involved selling used trade-ins... so, lol, I can't claim to never have been a "used" car salesman either. But, I did this job for a long time and learned an awful lot about human nature along the way. I also see that both salesmen and PUA's are often thought of as unsavory and manipulative, but that at the end of the day, what the successful salesmen and PUA's are giving to their "customers" is exactly what they wanted.
The best salesmen are the ones who have properly "sold" their customers on the product. This was clearly evidenced to me over and over again, as the customers who paid higher prices would regularly report significantly better customer satisfaction with their experience than customers who paid a lower price and arguably got a better deal. The difference was that the first customer believed the cost of the car matched or exceeded his perceptions of "value" while the second was not convinced he was getting good value for his dollar. The actual dollar amount was not the deciding factor in whether this was a good deal or not - the subjective perception of whether value was met or not was the deciding factor. In other words, it was the salesman's ability to create value and "sell" the customer that decided their satisfaction more than any other factor. This is not much different than in the "game-o-sphere" where it is often acknowledged that women who have been properly seduced (and believe they are having sex with a high value man) are the least likely ones to become abusive, or to falsely claim abuse, or whatever other host of things women try to do to make men miserable. The "gamed" woman is a happy woman in the same way that a "sold" customer is happy customer who believes he got great value, regardless of the actual price. It is his perception of value met that creates satisfaction.
By the way, when I walk into a car dealership today, I ask for the top salesman and only deal with him. It is far more satisfying to simply start off with the guy who makes the most customers happy. Most customers have already decided to buy a car when they come in and are now looking for the right salesman - they aren't really being "sold" anything, which is not much different than women in the dating game. So, your experience will most likely be best with the top salesman, just like women are far more likely to feel satisfied by sleeping with a man who properly seduced them, but bitter and resentful towards a man who begs, pleads and cajoles them into bed while at the same time reducing his value in her eyes.
The similarities between sales and game are so numerous that it is obvious that they are both doing the same thing, merely with a different product. The product of a PUA is "selling himself" as a sexualized male and recognizing what values he has to portray about himself to the consumer (women).
An example of this is what PUA's called "congruence." Basically, it is about subtly taking charge of the situation and "leading" the customer to the conclusion you both wanted, rather than being led around by a customer's endless psychological protests. Most often this is done simply by which words you choose to use, which limit the negative responses available while making it very easy to be positive.
The first time I heard of this was in the early 1990's, while reading a sales book written in the 1950's or 60's. The anecdote used was of the greatest "make-out artist" the author had ever seen who used the principle of congruence to pick up girls in the bar. As the story loosely went, this fellow would go to a bar or a club and simply start giving orders to the women he met. His questions were carefully designed to eliminate (or make-it-difficult to give) yes or no answers while making it very easy to follow the guy's lead. He would walk up to a woman and instead of asking "Can I buy you a drink?" (which leads reflexively to a "yes" or a "no" answer - more often no than yes), he would say, "What are you drinking?" After she answered he would state to her, "Wait here, I'll be right back." Off he would go to get a drink and if she was still there when he returned, he just kept stating orders to her and assumed that she wanted to progress further. Instead of asking "Would you like to come sit with me at my table?" he would simply state, "Come sit with me at my table," and walk over to his table without waiting for a response. In 90% of cases, she will follow. If she objects, so be it - if you can overcome her objection, do it, - if not, you don't need to waste your time either. But no matter if she does object because a significantly higher amount of women won't object and you will double, if not triple or quadruple the amount of women you progress from initial meeting to landing her at your table for furthering your goal of getting together with her. (It's harder to get to home plate from first base than from second or third, right? One step at a time, trooper!) This guy would simply tell her, in a nice way, to do what he wanted, and the more she complied the more she started following his lead. At the end of the night, after regaling her with stories of his stamp collection, he would ask a simple question he knew the answer to such as, "Did you bring a jacket?" and when she answered "Yes," he would respond with an order, "Go get it and meet me at the front door. I'll take you home to see my stamps and..." (and he rounds second base on his way to third!)
It works in PUA game and in the selling game.
As a car salesman, you want to have the customer take a test-drive. In fact, it is ridiculous to waste any time discussing "prices" on various cars beyond a range of MSRP's until the customer has decided on a specific car - so that the exact costs and "deals" can be evaluated. Until the customer has actually decided that, "Yes, that exact model there is the one I want," there really isn't much point in going further on prices. And, if a customer does not drive the $30,000 car they are supposedly serious about, there is no way you ought take them seriously. However, if you as a salesman walk out there and meet the customer, show it to them, and spend time with them - and then ask them, "Would'ya liket'a take a test drive?" the majority of people will reflexively say no and come up with some excuse or objection, just like a woman shit-testing. It's human nature, especially when nervous. However, if you realized 95% of your sales only come from people who have actually driven the car first, you will begin to understand the importance of getting that test drive out of the way before prices are discussed beyond various ranges.
When I changed my routine and the way words were said, the amount of my test drives drastically increased, and so did my subsequent sales. Instead of asking, "Would you like to take test drive?" after I finished my initial demonstration of a vehicle, I started simply stating to the customers, "Wait here. I'll be right back." and I would walk inside and get a demonstration plate, return to the car and put it on. I opened the door for them and let them into the passenger seat while I went around to the other side and began our demonstration drive - I assumed they wanted to... why wouldn't I? The amount of people who objected to this were minimal - in the 5% range - and my sales went dramatically higher as I moved far more people further along in the buying cycle than I did before. The words I chose had a significant impact on the people I interacted with and once I realized that, it was pretty simple to choose the words that furthered both theirs and my goal of having them drive my car home. This does not mean slick routines, though. It merely means choosing words and actions that lead to success rather than failure - in the same way that PUA's often talk about "anti-game" and how guys would do dramatically better with girls if they just stopped doing certain things - something which certainly is not "manipulative" at all.
I see hundreds of examples like this between salesmanship and the game of romance & seduction. I have taken an extensive number of sales courses over the years and even though I haven't been involved in that industry for well over a decade now, I still remember many of the principles quite clearly and the similarities are too close to ignore. If you are one of those who finds "game" to be fundamentally dishonest and manipulative, I can understand that. It comes across that way, and just like in car sales the people who stand out are the bad ones who don't give good value to their customers. But, many PUA techniques are based in solid sales-tested techniques which were developed over decades, if not centuries. There are good salesmen and bad salesmen, just as there are good men who are seductive and bad men who are seductive. The basic underlying principles that makes both game and sales successful are almost identical, and they are based upon real human psychological traits and emotional responses that are not widely recognized by the average lay-person who doesn't take the time to study them.
There are more similarities between sales and "the game" than I can list in one post, but I think this will be a theme I return to from time to time. The reason I believe so much in the general principles of game is mostly because I so strongly believe in salesmanship principles, which have been proven to me through experience as the correct ones that underlie the "surface issues" which falsely lead most people astray
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Bonecrcker #64 - "On Players"
Zenpriest #33 - Salesmanship 101
If there ever were two unsavory characters our society likes to portray as dishonest scumbags, it has to be the used-car salesman and his social contemporary, the pick-up artist (PUA). The relationship deepens when I see high profile PUA bloggers sometime make the connection between "the game" and sales as well - often falsely concluding that sales is now being influenced by "game" rather than sales influencing the PUA's "game."
Before I begin, I have a dirty secret to confess. I sold cars for eleven years. I was not a "used" car salesman, but worked at a new car dealership which, of course, also involved selling used trade-ins... so, lol, I can't claim to never have been a "used" car salesman either. But, I did this job for a long time and learned an awful lot about human nature along the way. I also see that both salesmen and PUA's are often thought of as unsavory and manipulative, but that at the end of the day, what the successful salesmen and PUA's are giving to their "customers" is exactly what they wanted.
The best salesmen are the ones who have properly "sold" their customers on the product. This was clearly evidenced to me over and over again, as the customers who paid higher prices would regularly report significantly better customer satisfaction with their experience than customers who paid a lower price and arguably got a better deal. The difference was that the first customer believed the cost of the car matched or exceeded his perceptions of "value" while the second was not convinced he was getting good value for his dollar. The actual dollar amount was not the deciding factor in whether this was a good deal or not - the subjective perception of whether value was met or not was the deciding factor. In other words, it was the salesman's ability to create value and "sell" the customer that decided their satisfaction more than any other factor. This is not much different than in the "game-o-sphere" where it is often acknowledged that women who have been properly seduced (and believe they are having sex with a high value man) are the least likely ones to become abusive, or to falsely claim abuse, or whatever other host of things women try to do to make men miserable. The "gamed" woman is a happy woman in the same way that a "sold" customer is happy customer who believes he got great value, regardless of the actual price. It is his perception of value met that creates satisfaction.
By the way, when I walk into a car dealership today, I ask for the top salesman and only deal with him. It is far more satisfying to simply start off with the guy who makes the most customers happy. Most customers have already decided to buy a car when they come in and are now looking for the right salesman - they aren't really being "sold" anything, which is not much different than women in the dating game. So, your experience will most likely be best with the top salesman, just like women are far more likely to feel satisfied by sleeping with a man who properly seduced them, but bitter and resentful towards a man who begs, pleads and cajoles them into bed while at the same time reducing his value in her eyes.
The similarities between sales and game are so numerous that it is obvious that they are both doing the same thing, merely with a different product. The product of a PUA is "selling himself" as a sexualized male and recognizing what values he has to portray about himself to the consumer (women).
An example of this is what PUA's called "congruence." Basically, it is about subtly taking charge of the situation and "leading" the customer to the conclusion you both wanted, rather than being led around by a customer's endless psychological protests. Most often this is done simply by which words you choose to use, which limit the negative responses available while making it very easy to be positive.
The first time I heard of this was in the early 1990's, while reading a sales book written in the 1950's or 60's. The anecdote used was of the greatest "make-out artist" the author had ever seen who used the principle of congruence to pick up girls in the bar. As the story loosely went, this fellow would go to a bar or a club and simply start giving orders to the women he met. His questions were carefully designed to eliminate (or make-it-difficult to give) yes or no answers while making it very easy to follow the guy's lead. He would walk up to a woman and instead of asking "Can I buy you a drink?" (which leads reflexively to a "yes" or a "no" answer - more often no than yes), he would say, "What are you drinking?" After she answered he would state to her, "Wait here, I'll be right back." Off he would go to get a drink and if she was still there when he returned, he just kept stating orders to her and assumed that she wanted to progress further. Instead of asking "Would you like to come sit with me at my table?" he would simply state, "Come sit with me at my table," and walk over to his table without waiting for a response. In 90% of cases, she will follow. If she objects, so be it - if you can overcome her objection, do it, - if not, you don't need to waste your time either. But no matter if she does object because a significantly higher amount of women won't object and you will double, if not triple or quadruple the amount of women you progress from initial meeting to landing her at your table for furthering your goal of getting together with her. (It's harder to get to home plate from first base than from second or third, right? One step at a time, trooper!) This guy would simply tell her, in a nice way, to do what he wanted, and the more she complied the more she started following his lead. At the end of the night, after regaling her with stories of his stamp collection, he would ask a simple question he knew the answer to such as, "Did you bring a jacket?" and when she answered "Yes," he would respond with an order, "Go get it and meet me at the front door. I'll take you home to see my stamps and..." (and he rounds second base on his way to third!)
It works in PUA game and in the selling game.
As a car salesman, you want to have the customer take a test-drive. In fact, it is ridiculous to waste any time discussing "prices" on various cars beyond a range of MSRP's until the customer has decided on a specific car - so that the exact costs and "deals" can be evaluated. Until the customer has actually decided that, "Yes, that exact model there is the one I want," there really isn't much point in going further on prices. And, if a customer does not drive the $30,000 car they are supposedly serious about, there is no way you ought take them seriously. However, if you as a salesman walk out there and meet the customer, show it to them, and spend time with them - and then ask them, "Would'ya liket'a take a test drive?" the majority of people will reflexively say no and come up with some excuse or objection, just like a woman shit-testing. It's human nature, especially when nervous. However, if you realized 95% of your sales only come from people who have actually driven the car first, you will begin to understand the importance of getting that test drive out of the way before prices are discussed beyond various ranges.
When I changed my routine and the way words were said, the amount of my test drives drastically increased, and so did my subsequent sales. Instead of asking, "Would you like to take test drive?" after I finished my initial demonstration of a vehicle, I started simply stating to the customers, "Wait here. I'll be right back." and I would walk inside and get a demonstration plate, return to the car and put it on. I opened the door for them and let them into the passenger seat while I went around to the other side and began our demonstration drive - I assumed they wanted to... why wouldn't I? The amount of people who objected to this were minimal - in the 5% range - and my sales went dramatically higher as I moved far more people further along in the buying cycle than I did before. The words I chose had a significant impact on the people I interacted with and once I realized that, it was pretty simple to choose the words that furthered both theirs and my goal of having them drive my car home. This does not mean slick routines, though. It merely means choosing words and actions that lead to success rather than failure - in the same way that PUA's often talk about "anti-game" and how guys would do dramatically better with girls if they just stopped doing certain things - something which certainly is not "manipulative" at all.
I see hundreds of examples like this between salesmanship and the game of romance & seduction. I have taken an extensive number of sales courses over the years and even though I haven't been involved in that industry for well over a decade now, I still remember many of the principles quite clearly and the similarities are too close to ignore. If you are one of those who finds "game" to be fundamentally dishonest and manipulative, I can understand that. It comes across that way, and just like in car sales the people who stand out are the bad ones who don't give good value to their customers. But, many PUA techniques are based in solid sales-tested techniques which were developed over decades, if not centuries. There are good salesmen and bad salesmen, just as there are good men who are seductive and bad men who are seductive. The basic underlying principles that makes both game and sales successful are almost identical, and they are based upon real human psychological traits and emotional responses that are not widely recognized by the average lay-person who doesn't take the time to study them.
There are more similarities between sales and "the game" than I can list in one post, but I think this will be a theme I return to from time to time. The reason I believe so much in the general principles of game is mostly because I so strongly believe in salesmanship principles, which have been proven to me through experience as the correct ones that underlie the "surface issues" which falsely lead most people astray
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Bonecrcker #64 - "On Players"
Zenpriest #33 - Salesmanship 101
Saturday, February 03, 2001
MGTOW Manifesto
MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY (MGTOW)
The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!
By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent.
By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible.
By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice.
Women having "other qualities" is not interesting to men because we don't need them! Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men!
This is the aim of "Men Going Their Own Way".
By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, we are helping boys grow up to become men.
This goal is to take away everyone's "right" to vote on other people's affairs thus rendering it impossible for political organisms and ideologies to impose their personal will on everyone else. It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights or making socialism illegal. It might have this as a side effect - but not directly and not as a political ideology. Only the future will show what happens and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys for that future.
It is important for men to have a practical approach to implementing our strategies.
PRIME STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS
We have 3 main strategies:
1. Instilling masculinity in men by:
- Demanding respect for men
- Serving as good male role models
- Living independent lives
- Fighting chivalry
2. Instilling femininity in women
- We will hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun those who refuse to take any responsibility for their own circumstances. Thus we induce women to take a complementary position with men instead of a competitive position, as is now the case.
Feminine qualities we want from women:
- Nurturing
- Supportive
- Responsibility
- Respectfulness
- Honesty
3. Limited government
In order to be independent of society, and live within it, while at the same time work for limiting governmental influence upon our daily lives, men will:
- Go Their Own Way
- Support other men
- Legally reduce any taxpaying
- Truthfully act out any duties in accordance with their conscience
- Use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves
It is those 3 strategies that come together in one.
MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY
This is the logo:
.
.
Every man supporting this idea is welcome to use the logo in this or similar contexts.
What we do as activism or the way we behave personally are the main tactics.
- Use of a logo which symbolizes the strategy.
- Run one or many web-sites and fora that promotes this.
- Run one or more web-sites which tells the truth about feminism.
- Provide stickers, T-shirts, etc., with various statements such as "Chivalry is dead!".
- Writing articles supporting our product.
- Producing music promoting our product.
- Hold international events and local meetings.
- Establishing men's clubs.
- Boycotting certain products.
You will basically be alone doing this. There is no organization supporting you. You just go your own way and do what you believe is right. You are never obligated beyond your own conscience. True masculinity is also about accepting the rights of other men and not letting them down for any short term personal benefits.
The men's movement does actually cover a much larger picture. By instilling masculinity in others, as well as yourself, you will actually be improving the lives of everyone, including women and children.
IF IT’S NOT RIGHT, GO YOUR OWN WAY!
Take care brother!
The MGTOW logos and the MGTOW Manifesto are public domain, explicitly designated so by their creators (the men of MGTOW) to be used by anyone for the purpose of promoting MGTOW. May 1, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
