QUOTE: "I almost get the feeling that you feel as though the future is rosy for men because more and more men are going their own way and because women have, to some extent, dug their own grave.
I view the future with increasing alarm given that women are gaining power across the board, particularly in terms of the fact that women are rapidly becoming the more highly educated and privileged class. This will not be without its benefits for women given that knowledge is power. It is no good thing that more women come away with more degrees than do men. In the UK approximately 2/3 of law students are women. Just think about the future implications that holds for men!
In my opinion George Orwell was right, he just got the phrasing wrong. 'Big sister' would be more appropriate."
It isn't that I expect the future to be "rosy" for men, but I don't think it will be any worse than the past was. Men made it through hard times before, I expect them to again.
The reason I can take a long view is because of my decision to drop out of the game. I have no vested interest one way or the other, so I can look at the issues slightly more dispassionately.
I agree that Orwell was right, and so was Aldous Huxley and so was Ayn Rand. The simple fact that the situation we find ourselves in today despite so many people having read the classic dystopian novels, gives a certain sense of inevitability to it.
I really don't think that the average man thinks or cares much about the issues, which is why there has always been a ruling class - because some people do obsess about the issues and crave power over others.
The value of a college degree is vastly over-rated these days. Most of them are absolutely worthless, and there are self-correcting mechanisms built into any system. Economics is no exception although it does have more than its share of people meddling in keeping this fiasco running much longer than it should have.
A factoid in absolute means nothing. It is just an effective means of manipulation. "They" always tout the value of a college indoctrination, saying things like "a person with a college degree will make an extra million $$$ in his lifetime." So an extra million $$$ passes through his hands as compared to another guy. But, where does it go to? Bigger houses? More "stuff" and consumer oriented shit?
I would argue that the quality of life of a corporate lawyer these days is not significantly better than that of a HVAC worker.
Women can have all the power and money in the world, but that won't get them what many of them really do want - a husband and kids - unless they become willing to marry men who make less than they do. In the end, many of them will.
This whole long battle between the sexes has been waged entirely in the corridors of power. Feminism is a movement of the white upper class women, and what it mostly amounts to for the average man is that the ruling classes now contain both men and women, and the women he has to deal with are far less pleasant. But, the mythology of the pleasant woman has been far over sold.
I think men have gained different kinds of power at the same time women have supposedly been gaining power. It all kind of washes out - that yin and yang thing associated with my internet personna.
Life has always been pretty tough for men. I once read an account of an ancient battle where all the losers got their penises cut off. There was summary by rank of how many "phalluses were collected" and the total was something over 13,000. A hundred years ago, men who were building the Panama canal worked 12-14 hours per day, six days per week - basically all the hours of daylight. The only reason they got the 7th day off was because religion was still a given for most people. Thousands of them died from malaria. Life must have been pretty tough back home to work that hard in such dangerous circumstances just to make money.
Compared to either of those 2 situations, and thousands more I could describe, I think men today live mostly a life of incredible comfort and safety.
College degrees are now starting people out under incredible loads of debt. The differential in what they earn in many cases will not offset the costs of their education in every case, perhaps not even most. The few extremely highly paid assholes really skew the statistics for the average guy.
A degree used to mean more money because it actually meant something - you got prepared for career in which skill had value - like medicine or dentistry. But, with degrees now in "queer theory", the only place for such people is in the massive sucking bureaucracy. The US is bankrupt, and very soon will not be able to afford to be the nanny state.
Men adjust better to adversity than women do, which is why I expect them to come through the years when things get really rough as well or better than women do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most adaptable to change. -- Charles Darwin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #23 – Marriage is Becoming the Social Edsel of the 21st Century
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Saturday, February 16, 2002
Friday, February 15, 2002
Zenpriest #46 - Twenty Years From Now This Will Be "The Good Old Days"
QUOTE: "And the women my age - good God - maybe ZP can back me up here, the ones who were OK back in 1972 have shot through two or three good men and a half dozen bad ones, and they think that the pinnacle of feminine desirability is to be as demanding, as histrionic, as psychotic, and as self-obsessed as their daughters."
Yeah, I'll back you up on that one. Being a part of the counterculture, I got exposed to radical feminism early. I have a brother 10 years older than I am, and by the time I graduated from HS his wife was already using his kids to jerk him around, so I wasn't all that hot on marriage from the get-go. After encountering radical feminism with all its hatred, distortions, and anger in my freshman year of college, I copped an attitude and basically made the decision that I was going to force the fish to live without this bicycle. I met many women over the years who would have loved to be supported to stay at home, but my brother's wife was so useless and helpless and suffered from a perpetual broken wing, that I really did react to marriage like a jail sentance - "none for me, thanks."
But, as I have said before, I think that men and women had a chance of sorting things out but for the poisonous influence of Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf. Right after their books came out was when things turned really ugly. The 90s were a nightmare. There was a period of several years when every day I got several man-bashing supposedly "funny" emails that were making the rounds - "what do you call a man with half a brain? gifted."
What makes me have no hope at all for the future is the way that little girls and boys are being programmed to hate each other now. Young women when they reach your age, Kelly, will pay a terrible price for their stupid bitches of mothers buying them "boys are stupid, be violent toward them" T-shirts, jammies, and the like. Boys today are forming the opinion of girls which will be with them the rest of their lives, and that opinion is largely that girls are violent, hateful, and vicious.
Twenty years from now, young women like you will look back on today and think of it as "the good old days."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Yeah, I'll back you up on that one. Being a part of the counterculture, I got exposed to radical feminism early. I have a brother 10 years older than I am, and by the time I graduated from HS his wife was already using his kids to jerk him around, so I wasn't all that hot on marriage from the get-go. After encountering radical feminism with all its hatred, distortions, and anger in my freshman year of college, I copped an attitude and basically made the decision that I was going to force the fish to live without this bicycle. I met many women over the years who would have loved to be supported to stay at home, but my brother's wife was so useless and helpless and suffered from a perpetual broken wing, that I really did react to marriage like a jail sentance - "none for me, thanks."
But, as I have said before, I think that men and women had a chance of sorting things out but for the poisonous influence of Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf. Right after their books came out was when things turned really ugly. The 90s were a nightmare. There was a period of several years when every day I got several man-bashing supposedly "funny" emails that were making the rounds - "what do you call a man with half a brain? gifted."
What makes me have no hope at all for the future is the way that little girls and boys are being programmed to hate each other now. Young women when they reach your age, Kelly, will pay a terrible price for their stupid bitches of mothers buying them "boys are stupid, be violent toward them" T-shirts, jammies, and the like. Boys today are forming the opinion of girls which will be with them the rest of their lives, and that opinion is largely that girls are violent, hateful, and vicious.
Twenty years from now, young women like you will look back on today and think of it as "the good old days."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Thursday, February 14, 2002
Zenpriest #45 - I am a Strong Believer in Natural Processes
QUOTE 1: Forget about women and LIVE!
QUOTE 2: How to forget? Do you have some links on that, keywords for memorable posts? I read a lot of JadedGuy, but somehow it didn't click, maybe we're on different wavelengths (we're obviously in different phases of life).
Your advice reminds me of the initiation to "the inklings", where they'd make someone sit in the corner for an hour and NOT think of a white polar bear. Damn near impossible.Again, how?
QUOTE 3: Well, a divorce when I was 26 and betrayal by every girlfriend I ever had (-1) helped quite a bit. I lowered my standards for my last girlfriend (physically.) She is very bright, has a master's degree, and is interesting to talk to (and enthusiastic in bed) but she wanted to be even more of a player than really hot girls. Once she had me she had to see someone else at the same time and take me for granted to prove to herself that she could be just like super hot skanks. She did it for me. If I never date another woman I am ok with that. I realized that the emotional terrorism that women put me through was too high a price to pay for poontang and female companionship. That and I bought a motorcycle.
----------
I am a strong believer in natural processes. I have contended since the 1960s that women's claims of "oppression" were completely bogus and that cultural values were a natural result of a negotiated balance between the sexes. Or, in other words, women had every bit as much a role in the creating the old social values that the feminidiots wanted to destroy as men had in creating them - more, in fact, due to their role in socializing and educating children.
I think men burning out on women and just getting so sick of dealing with them that they start to avoid doing so is another natural process. Men put all the benefits of dealing with women on one side of the scale, and all the costs and unpleasantness on the other, and one day it just reaches the tipping point and his gut starts telling him that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
B.F. Skinner would call what is going on today "aversive conditioning." It's a lot like the alcoholic who takes Antabuse which will make him sick if he drinks. The power of his addiction to make him want another drink is offset by the powerful sickness he will experience if he does. Eventually, the nauseating behavior of modern women makes a man so sick that his nausea overpowers his pussy addiction and makes avoidance the less painful option.
It becomes like those old word association tests. When younger men hear the word "woman", the words that come to mind are "sex, attractive, love, enjoyment." However, unless a man lucks out in the split-tail lottery, his own experiences begin to shape his automatic reactions to "bitching, drama, bullshit, manipulation, hostility, mindfuck, disgusting, demanding, selfish, unpleasant, fuggit."
No one besides Maureen Dowd had to do anything to get most men to regard her as worthy of nothing more than a quick fuck, if that. Likewise, I seriously doubt that there is any answer that any man here could give to your question - except "keep right on doing what you are doing now, until you get so sick of the results that it turns your stomach to think about continuing to do it." Given enough time, dealing with women will produce the result you are asking about. Until then, there is no magic spell any of us can give you to make it happen.
But, once it does happen, the change is not reversible. Once you burn out on women, you are burned out and will remain so for the rest of your life. As you begin to choose more pleasant ways to spend your time, your attention will naturally begin to turn to toward those pleasant pursuits and away from the people whose sole purpose in life is to jerk you around and make you miserable just to entertain themselves.
Women are not going to change as long as they keep getting everything they want from men despite their obnoxious unpleasant behavior. I hear a lot of younger guys saying, in effect - "Hey, I have this fantasy of what women are, and I am so in love with it that I will not give it up, so how do we get women to change so that they are more like I wish they were."
The answer, of course, is that you can't and won't - not ever. Women are what they are, the choice men have basically boils down to take them or leave them. What you see is what you got to pick from, and one of the main purposes of Mancoat is to expose the lies women have used to hoodwink men into believing they are something else.
As one of the posters here recently quipped - this is the red pill, it is not Zion. The situation men are in today sucks, but if any of us knew how to make it better we would have done so long ago and we would not be here talking about it.
Those of us who have survived the gauntlet can pass along tips for how we did it, but that is about all we can do. Life is still pretty much a do-it-yourself deal for men, and each man seems to build his own individual strategy from all the pieces and parts other men give him.
So, the short answer to your question is that you are going to keep on getting what you have been getting as long as you keep on doing what you have been doing. By all means, continue to think about women like you do until your own experiences sour you on them so much that thinking about them begins to trigger the reflex to hurl. Then, it will be very easy to start avoiding things that make you feel like puking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
QUOTE 2: How to forget? Do you have some links on that, keywords for memorable posts? I read a lot of JadedGuy, but somehow it didn't click, maybe we're on different wavelengths (we're obviously in different phases of life).
Your advice reminds me of the initiation to "the inklings", where they'd make someone sit in the corner for an hour and NOT think of a white polar bear. Damn near impossible.Again, how?
QUOTE 3: Well, a divorce when I was 26 and betrayal by every girlfriend I ever had (-1) helped quite a bit. I lowered my standards for my last girlfriend (physically.) She is very bright, has a master's degree, and is interesting to talk to (and enthusiastic in bed) but she wanted to be even more of a player than really hot girls. Once she had me she had to see someone else at the same time and take me for granted to prove to herself that she could be just like super hot skanks. She did it for me. If I never date another woman I am ok with that. I realized that the emotional terrorism that women put me through was too high a price to pay for poontang and female companionship. That and I bought a motorcycle.
----------
I am a strong believer in natural processes. I have contended since the 1960s that women's claims of "oppression" were completely bogus and that cultural values were a natural result of a negotiated balance between the sexes. Or, in other words, women had every bit as much a role in the creating the old social values that the feminidiots wanted to destroy as men had in creating them - more, in fact, due to their role in socializing and educating children.
I think men burning out on women and just getting so sick of dealing with them that they start to avoid doing so is another natural process. Men put all the benefits of dealing with women on one side of the scale, and all the costs and unpleasantness on the other, and one day it just reaches the tipping point and his gut starts telling him that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
B.F. Skinner would call what is going on today "aversive conditioning." It's a lot like the alcoholic who takes Antabuse which will make him sick if he drinks. The power of his addiction to make him want another drink is offset by the powerful sickness he will experience if he does. Eventually, the nauseating behavior of modern women makes a man so sick that his nausea overpowers his pussy addiction and makes avoidance the less painful option.
It becomes like those old word association tests. When younger men hear the word "woman", the words that come to mind are "sex, attractive, love, enjoyment." However, unless a man lucks out in the split-tail lottery, his own experiences begin to shape his automatic reactions to "bitching, drama, bullshit, manipulation, hostility, mindfuck, disgusting, demanding, selfish, unpleasant, fuggit."
No one besides Maureen Dowd had to do anything to get most men to regard her as worthy of nothing more than a quick fuck, if that. Likewise, I seriously doubt that there is any answer that any man here could give to your question - except "keep right on doing what you are doing now, until you get so sick of the results that it turns your stomach to think about continuing to do it." Given enough time, dealing with women will produce the result you are asking about. Until then, there is no magic spell any of us can give you to make it happen.
But, once it does happen, the change is not reversible. Once you burn out on women, you are burned out and will remain so for the rest of your life. As you begin to choose more pleasant ways to spend your time, your attention will naturally begin to turn to toward those pleasant pursuits and away from the people whose sole purpose in life is to jerk you around and make you miserable just to entertain themselves.
Women are not going to change as long as they keep getting everything they want from men despite their obnoxious unpleasant behavior. I hear a lot of younger guys saying, in effect - "Hey, I have this fantasy of what women are, and I am so in love with it that I will not give it up, so how do we get women to change so that they are more like I wish they were."
The answer, of course, is that you can't and won't - not ever. Women are what they are, the choice men have basically boils down to take them or leave them. What you see is what you got to pick from, and one of the main purposes of Mancoat is to expose the lies women have used to hoodwink men into believing they are something else.
As one of the posters here recently quipped - this is the red pill, it is not Zion. The situation men are in today sucks, but if any of us knew how to make it better we would have done so long ago and we would not be here talking about it.
Those of us who have survived the gauntlet can pass along tips for how we did it, but that is about all we can do. Life is still pretty much a do-it-yourself deal for men, and each man seems to build his own individual strategy from all the pieces and parts other men give him.
So, the short answer to your question is that you are going to keep on getting what you have been getting as long as you keep on doing what you have been doing. By all means, continue to think about women like you do until your own experiences sour you on them so much that thinking about them begins to trigger the reflex to hurl. Then, it will be very easy to start avoiding things that make you feel like puking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Wednesday, February 13, 2002
Zenpriest #44 - The Box Feminism Builds for Women
QUOTE:
"Once feminist ideas are discarded the answers to your questions will become self evident."
I agree with this statement in principle, but in practice it has been tricky to figure out which of the ideas I've grown up with were the feminist ones, in the same way that I now forget what people who haven't been immersed in ship education for 6 years know about ships. Again, this forum's been very helpful for that.
Regarding some of the recent threads: I continue to work to become a better woman and to learn the housewifely arts, and being a wife and mother is my ultimate goal, but in the meantime (until a good man considers me to be Miss Right) I'm grateful that I can work in a field that I am suited to and that I don't have to depend on my non-existent man to provide for me. It seems that some are advocating just this dependency be required of women, and I wanted to point out that while perhaps ideal this situation is unrealistic unless you don't mind seeing innocent people starving to death while preparing for and awaiting marriage. This is why I'm sure I must be misunderstanding those posters. What exactly are they advocating?
-------------
As [was previously] said, we are all over the board. That is fallacy one that you have to overcome. So, the first feminist belief you have to discard is that all men are the same. We are not.
Fallacy 1a woud be that any of us can give you meaningful advice regarding anyone we don't know - ie a potential mate for you. The best answer I can give you is "ask him what he wants, then listen to what he says, and I mean really listen.
If you want to understand feminism in a nutshell, take the current joke men understand perfectly:
"If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to correct him, is he still wrong?"
The feminist position is that men are de facto wrong and women are de facto right.
The whole "oppression" bullshit has been used to make women fear being dominated, used, and messed over, so they reflexively and habitually resist anything a man tries to say or do. This leads to nothing but a power struggle which leads to people hating each other's guts.
The #1 issue men have with women these days is the inherent double standard almost all of them seem to assume is their birthright. When the economy was such that most families could live on one income, it was a pretty natural division of labor for the man to do the earning - often doing jobs women simply could not do when pregnant - and the woman to stay home, take care of the house and kids, and let the man go along for the ride with the comforts. Children were a team effort and both members of the team were specialists, not generalists.
But, now women not only get pretty much any job they ask for, under threat of lawsuit, but they always pick the plum jobs - the highest paying ones. This would be fine if they let go of the double standard and were willing to accept a man who cannot have her job because she has it, and has to settle for one making less. In general, women refuse to marry down because even as their earning power has increased, they have refused to change their expectations that men will be the breadwinners. Women are not clamoring for the jobs of garbage collectors, nor are the female Advertising executives etc marrying such guys.
So, women have manipulated law in such a way that "we get the cream, and you guys get the dregs, and BTW you are such LOOOSERS that we would never dream of marrying you."
No one is going to get into or stay in a relationship with someone whose primary purpose in life seems to be to tell him how flawed and insignifcant he is. The glue that holds a relationship together simply does not exist. Under constant demands to "perform", and now minus any objective standards save her ever changing whims, the relationship turns from one where there is any sort of "equality" at all, to one of mother and child.
Contrary to feminist bullshit, most men do not want to sleep with their nagging shrew mothers. Regarding the list, why in the world is "be nice to be around, rather than nasty, nagging, unpleasant, and tearing him down every chance you get" even need to be explained? Isn't that just common sense?
If someone told you all day every day how insignificant you were, wouldn't that qualify as "abuse"? You could probably even go to a "wimmins's shelter" and have him arrested for it. So, women can keep up a never ending psychological and emotional bombardment, from behind the shield of laws everywhere to protect her.
So, you don't "need a mayaan", because you can support yourself. A man in your life is an optional fashion accessory like Jimmy Choo shoes or an Armani handbag. This removal of real dependency, which creates a very strong bond of love much like parent-child, turns a relationship from long-term interdependence into one of moment to moment satisfaction.
QUOTE: "Also, your list and recommendation of The Care and Feeding of Husbands saw me through a relationship with a fantastic man."
What an interesting statement!! Saw you "through" it? Are you no longer in it?
If having a "relationship with a fantastic man" has become the equivalent of watching an extended movie, that is a core of the problem right there. Putting that together with "(until a good man considers me to be Miss Right)" and "I'm grateful that I can work in a field that I am suited to and that I don't have to depend on my non-existent man to provide for me" you give the impression that this "fantastic man" passed into and out of your life with hardly more than a "ho hum."
It is that very dependency that bothers you, which was what made marriages work. People really did need each other - they were far more significant than just for their entertainment value.
That is the core of your feminist beliefs.
So, you are very unlikely to find a man who is capable of and willing to support you for the following reasons:
1) you really don't need him to. You want someone who can give you an extended vacation from the rigors of earning a living, but
2) as a result of your "independence" and probably comfortable salary combined with no dependents, you have probably become accustomed to a lifestyle in which all your income goes to entertaining yourself, thus you limit your choices of mates to those men who make enough to support and entertain both of you in that fashion, plus the kids. Very few men make that kind of money, for many reasons including the fact that
3) YOU have the job that he might have had.
So, if you were to ever find such a man, given the fact that every other woman in the world is looking for pretty much the same things and the men who can do that are getting pretty scarce - what do you have, expect, or are willing to offer him in exchange other than sex?
If that is all you have to offer, then you'd better be damn good in bed.
Do you see the box that feminism and your own beliefs have built for you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
"Once feminist ideas are discarded the answers to your questions will become self evident."
I agree with this statement in principle, but in practice it has been tricky to figure out which of the ideas I've grown up with were the feminist ones, in the same way that I now forget what people who haven't been immersed in ship education for 6 years know about ships. Again, this forum's been very helpful for that.
Regarding some of the recent threads: I continue to work to become a better woman and to learn the housewifely arts, and being a wife and mother is my ultimate goal, but in the meantime (until a good man considers me to be Miss Right) I'm grateful that I can work in a field that I am suited to and that I don't have to depend on my non-existent man to provide for me. It seems that some are advocating just this dependency be required of women, and I wanted to point out that while perhaps ideal this situation is unrealistic unless you don't mind seeing innocent people starving to death while preparing for and awaiting marriage. This is why I'm sure I must be misunderstanding those posters. What exactly are they advocating?
-------------
As [was previously] said, we are all over the board. That is fallacy one that you have to overcome. So, the first feminist belief you have to discard is that all men are the same. We are not.
Fallacy 1a woud be that any of us can give you meaningful advice regarding anyone we don't know - ie a potential mate for you. The best answer I can give you is "ask him what he wants, then listen to what he says, and I mean really listen.
If you want to understand feminism in a nutshell, take the current joke men understand perfectly:
"If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to correct him, is he still wrong?"
The feminist position is that men are de facto wrong and women are de facto right.
The whole "oppression" bullshit has been used to make women fear being dominated, used, and messed over, so they reflexively and habitually resist anything a man tries to say or do. This leads to nothing but a power struggle which leads to people hating each other's guts.
The #1 issue men have with women these days is the inherent double standard almost all of them seem to assume is their birthright. When the economy was such that most families could live on one income, it was a pretty natural division of labor for the man to do the earning - often doing jobs women simply could not do when pregnant - and the woman to stay home, take care of the house and kids, and let the man go along for the ride with the comforts. Children were a team effort and both members of the team were specialists, not generalists.
But, now women not only get pretty much any job they ask for, under threat of lawsuit, but they always pick the plum jobs - the highest paying ones. This would be fine if they let go of the double standard and were willing to accept a man who cannot have her job because she has it, and has to settle for one making less. In general, women refuse to marry down because even as their earning power has increased, they have refused to change their expectations that men will be the breadwinners. Women are not clamoring for the jobs of garbage collectors, nor are the female Advertising executives etc marrying such guys.
So, women have manipulated law in such a way that "we get the cream, and you guys get the dregs, and BTW you are such LOOOSERS that we would never dream of marrying you."
No one is going to get into or stay in a relationship with someone whose primary purpose in life seems to be to tell him how flawed and insignifcant he is. The glue that holds a relationship together simply does not exist. Under constant demands to "perform", and now minus any objective standards save her ever changing whims, the relationship turns from one where there is any sort of "equality" at all, to one of mother and child.
Contrary to feminist bullshit, most men do not want to sleep with their nagging shrew mothers. Regarding the list, why in the world is "be nice to be around, rather than nasty, nagging, unpleasant, and tearing him down every chance you get" even need to be explained? Isn't that just common sense?
If someone told you all day every day how insignificant you were, wouldn't that qualify as "abuse"? You could probably even go to a "wimmins's shelter" and have him arrested for it. So, women can keep up a never ending psychological and emotional bombardment, from behind the shield of laws everywhere to protect her.
So, you don't "need a mayaan", because you can support yourself. A man in your life is an optional fashion accessory like Jimmy Choo shoes or an Armani handbag. This removal of real dependency, which creates a very strong bond of love much like parent-child, turns a relationship from long-term interdependence into one of moment to moment satisfaction.
QUOTE: "Also, your list and recommendation of The Care and Feeding of Husbands saw me through a relationship with a fantastic man."
What an interesting statement!! Saw you "through" it? Are you no longer in it?
If having a "relationship with a fantastic man" has become the equivalent of watching an extended movie, that is a core of the problem right there. Putting that together with "(until a good man considers me to be Miss Right)" and "I'm grateful that I can work in a field that I am suited to and that I don't have to depend on my non-existent man to provide for me" you give the impression that this "fantastic man" passed into and out of your life with hardly more than a "ho hum."
It is that very dependency that bothers you, which was what made marriages work. People really did need each other - they were far more significant than just for their entertainment value.
That is the core of your feminist beliefs.
So, you are very unlikely to find a man who is capable of and willing to support you for the following reasons:
1) you really don't need him to. You want someone who can give you an extended vacation from the rigors of earning a living, but
2) as a result of your "independence" and probably comfortable salary combined with no dependents, you have probably become accustomed to a lifestyle in which all your income goes to entertaining yourself, thus you limit your choices of mates to those men who make enough to support and entertain both of you in that fashion, plus the kids. Very few men make that kind of money, for many reasons including the fact that
3) YOU have the job that he might have had.
So, if you were to ever find such a man, given the fact that every other woman in the world is looking for pretty much the same things and the men who can do that are getting pretty scarce - what do you have, expect, or are willing to offer him in exchange other than sex?
If that is all you have to offer, then you'd better be damn good in bed.
Do you see the box that feminism and your own beliefs have built for you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Tuesday, February 12, 2002
Zenpriest #43 - There's Nothing In The World More Over-rated Than A Good Lay...
I think it was Norman Mailer who quipped that there is nothing in the world more over-rated than a good lay, and nothing in the world more under-rated than a good shit.
.
It seems the only cliche that artful left out quoting is that the guys here must have small penises. These types certainly know how to punch the buttons of a lot of men, and the biggest challenge for us is to overcome our reflexes and examine what is being played upon us before we react.
This mind game is a great example of being able to play all ends against the middle. Already having an overinflated sense of their value, women naturally assume that men are going to get angry over being deprived of access to their gold-lined panties. The truth comes out when one of them offers a man access and he turns them down, as predictable as the sun coming up will come the comment "What is wrong with you, are you gay?"
To me, there is nothing in the world more annoying than the stereotype that every man is always dying to fuck any available pussy. The truth is that the vast majority of women consider their part of sex done when they show up, and sex with them is about as much fun as masturbating with a cheap cut of round steak wrapped around your schlong.
It is important to keep in mind that women define themselves and their self-worth by the amount of male attention they can attract and hold onto - along with the material resources which go with it. Otherwise, makeup would just be seen as foul-smelling paint. Having men ignore them or be indifferent toward them literally induces a loss of sense of self - they cease to have any identity because they define themselves entirely by the male attention they attract, in much the same way that some men define themselves by their material success.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that if you bite, then the feminidiots and the manginas have won - you have allowed them to define you and reacted to their infantile games.
---------------
QUOTE: "The most important thing to keep in mind is that if you bite, then the feminidiots and the manginas have won - you have allowed them to define you and reacted to their infantile games."
Yes, true enough.
But, what solution for basic human desire ("if you bite...") are you offering?
Everything you have stated is true.
Everything you have stated is irrelevant to a man infatuated (re: in "love') with a woman.
Everything you have implied is irrelevant to any politician who just voted for VAWA 2005.
If you bite ... you are prey.
If you don't bite ....
Sounds of one hand clapping, yes?
(Recall that great koan about the monk hanging off the cliff holding onto a tenuous vine while fearlessly gazing up into the eyes of the tiger about to devour him if he decides to climb up the vine, and not let go and fall to his certain death on the rocks?
That's exactly where men live now, IMHO...) :lol:
-----------------
There are several vague concepts floating around in this discussion which I believe it will be to men's benefit to clarify.
When I said "if you bite, they win" I was referring to the manipulative tactic of insulting and offending you in order to get a reflexive reaction of trying to disprove the accusation, not to the issues of desire or infatuation. Take a meaningless phrase like "self-loathing closet (or basket) case" or "misogynist" or "homophobe" and apply the solution "if you were not _______, you would eat dog shit" and I think you can see the irrelevancy of the manipulation.
The largest essential energy of feminidiocy is "the whole rest of the world has to change, so I don't have to." I don't want men to fall into the same trap of helplessness. All real power begins with mastery of self. If jedmunds or another mangina or feminidiot tries to insult and offend me, I can choose between changing their actions or my reactions. It is the outward focus and insistence on changing other people instead of changing themselves which makes the feminidiots so offensive and destructive. Let's not fall into the same trap ourselves.
Who the hell is jedmunds, or Amynda, or Hugo, or any of the other femnag/maginas, and, really, why in the world would I give a flying fuck what they think of me?
The first thing a man has to do when he starts to go his own way is to claim the power to define himself and take that power away from people he has absolutely no reason to respect or care about their judgment.
To illustrate a major but subtle drift in cultural values - the attempted putdown/dismissal "you're just angry because you can't get laid" could not have existed in the world I inhabited up until I was about 21. Sex was something which happened only within marriage, or at least that was the way it was supposed to work and if it was otherwise people did not make it the subject of daily conversation.
When the social roles of breadwinner versus homemaker began to blur, and the great social reconstruction experiment of unisex was being forced on a population who really didn't want it, identity for both sexes became shallow and superficial. Women began acting and dressing like sluts so they could prove to the world and themselves that they were still female. That definition of femininity began to blur over into the definition of masculinity and men were also defined purely by their sexual appeal - ie. how often they could "get laid". The paradox in the values operating in our culture is perfectly illustrated by the fact that "getting laid" is also referred to as "getting lucky."
Female sexuality is way overvalued in western culture. It has become the unsatisfying substitute for deeper emotional connections. It has become just another commodity to brainwash people into chasing, and spending money on so that they get trapped into the work-earn-spend-work more-earn more-spend more trap of wage slavery.
It is far easier to get laid than it is to get loved, which is what I think most of the guys here really are looking for. When such men allow the jedmunds and Hugos and Amyndas of the world to dehumanize them by defining them by only one supeficial aspect, they allow those other people to do violence to them - in the literal sense that "violence" means "to violate." Most guys here would understand the principle that if someone attempts physical violence against them, they have both the right and responsibility to stop that other person if they can.
The same is true of mental and emotional violence. When someone attempts to redefine me in bullshit terms, I can choose either to go along with it and follow the rest of the lemmings off the cliff of insanity, or I can reject those values. It reminds me of old kids' jingle "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Words can hurt us, but only if we allow them to. The emperor has no clothes and if we allow fools to make us feel badly for saying so, then we are participating in the very problem we are bitching about.
The secret of power is the willingness to act, and to ignore all those who try to demand that we become as helpless and powerless as they are.
QUOTE: "(Recall that great koan about the monk hanging off the cliff holding onto a tenuous vine while fearlessly gazing up into the eyes of the tiger about to devour him if he decides to climb up the vine, and not let go and fall to his certain death on the rocks?
That's exactly where men live now, IMHO...) :lol:"
But, you left out the punch line. While he is hanging there, the monk notices a strawberry growing out of the side of the cliff - a big, ripe, juicy strawberry. He plucks it and eats it and says "ah, it is so sweet."
"That" is where men have always lived. "That" is part and parcel of what being a man has always been. Anyone who thinks men in the past had it better has fallen for the feminidiot bullshit.
In the words of a man who was once clued in, before he caught the creeping necrotic groupthink fungus:
I grew up down in the valley
where, brother, when you're young,
they bring you up to do
like your daddy done.
<...>
Then I got Mary pregnant
and, man, that was all they wrote.
For my 19th birthday,
I got a union card and a wedding coat."
He "got laid" and the consequences of that "getting lucky" was that he was trapped in wage slavery for the rest of his life. Doesn't sound all that fuckin "lucky" to me.
Since we are talking about eastern principles of thought and action, let's take one from the practice of ju jitsu - use your opponents' weight against them.
Once someone has found and knows how to keep their psychological/emotional center, just like their physical center in martial arts, it becomes easier to keep your own balance while using your opponents' moves against them.
A great counter-move to the "you're just angry because you can't get laid" feint is to reply "Nah, I've gotten 'laid' plenty. What I'm so pissed off about is how useless and awful American (or whatever group the woman or mangina represents) are when you get them into bed."
I guarantee that you will put the would-be gamer on the defensive and that you will start getting some variation of the old saw "but, not all women are like that!!! You have just been meeting the wrong kind of women."
The response to this needs to be "yeah, whatever. Gotta go. C'ya, bye."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
It seems the only cliche that artful left out quoting is that the guys here must have small penises. These types certainly know how to punch the buttons of a lot of men, and the biggest challenge for us is to overcome our reflexes and examine what is being played upon us before we react.
This mind game is a great example of being able to play all ends against the middle. Already having an overinflated sense of their value, women naturally assume that men are going to get angry over being deprived of access to their gold-lined panties. The truth comes out when one of them offers a man access and he turns them down, as predictable as the sun coming up will come the comment "What is wrong with you, are you gay?"
To me, there is nothing in the world more annoying than the stereotype that every man is always dying to fuck any available pussy. The truth is that the vast majority of women consider their part of sex done when they show up, and sex with them is about as much fun as masturbating with a cheap cut of round steak wrapped around your schlong.
It is important to keep in mind that women define themselves and their self-worth by the amount of male attention they can attract and hold onto - along with the material resources which go with it. Otherwise, makeup would just be seen as foul-smelling paint. Having men ignore them or be indifferent toward them literally induces a loss of sense of self - they cease to have any identity because they define themselves entirely by the male attention they attract, in much the same way that some men define themselves by their material success.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that if you bite, then the feminidiots and the manginas have won - you have allowed them to define you and reacted to their infantile games.
---------------
QUOTE: "The most important thing to keep in mind is that if you bite, then the feminidiots and the manginas have won - you have allowed them to define you and reacted to their infantile games."
Yes, true enough.
But, what solution for basic human desire ("if you bite...") are you offering?
Everything you have stated is true.
Everything you have stated is irrelevant to a man infatuated (re: in "love') with a woman.
Everything you have implied is irrelevant to any politician who just voted for VAWA 2005.
If you bite ... you are prey.
If you don't bite ....
Sounds of one hand clapping, yes?
(Recall that great koan about the monk hanging off the cliff holding onto a tenuous vine while fearlessly gazing up into the eyes of the tiger about to devour him if he decides to climb up the vine, and not let go and fall to his certain death on the rocks?
That's exactly where men live now, IMHO...) :lol:
-----------------
There are several vague concepts floating around in this discussion which I believe it will be to men's benefit to clarify.
When I said "if you bite, they win" I was referring to the manipulative tactic of insulting and offending you in order to get a reflexive reaction of trying to disprove the accusation, not to the issues of desire or infatuation. Take a meaningless phrase like "self-loathing closet (or basket) case" or "misogynist" or "homophobe" and apply the solution "if you were not _______, you would eat dog shit" and I think you can see the irrelevancy of the manipulation.
The largest essential energy of feminidiocy is "the whole rest of the world has to change, so I don't have to." I don't want men to fall into the same trap of helplessness. All real power begins with mastery of self. If jedmunds or another mangina or feminidiot tries to insult and offend me, I can choose between changing their actions or my reactions. It is the outward focus and insistence on changing other people instead of changing themselves which makes the feminidiots so offensive and destructive. Let's not fall into the same trap ourselves.
Who the hell is jedmunds, or Amynda, or Hugo, or any of the other femnag/maginas, and, really, why in the world would I give a flying fuck what they think of me?
The first thing a man has to do when he starts to go his own way is to claim the power to define himself and take that power away from people he has absolutely no reason to respect or care about their judgment.
To illustrate a major but subtle drift in cultural values - the attempted putdown/dismissal "you're just angry because you can't get laid" could not have existed in the world I inhabited up until I was about 21. Sex was something which happened only within marriage, or at least that was the way it was supposed to work and if it was otherwise people did not make it the subject of daily conversation.
When the social roles of breadwinner versus homemaker began to blur, and the great social reconstruction experiment of unisex was being forced on a population who really didn't want it, identity for both sexes became shallow and superficial. Women began acting and dressing like sluts so they could prove to the world and themselves that they were still female. That definition of femininity began to blur over into the definition of masculinity and men were also defined purely by their sexual appeal - ie. how often they could "get laid". The paradox in the values operating in our culture is perfectly illustrated by the fact that "getting laid" is also referred to as "getting lucky."
Female sexuality is way overvalued in western culture. It has become the unsatisfying substitute for deeper emotional connections. It has become just another commodity to brainwash people into chasing, and spending money on so that they get trapped into the work-earn-spend-work more-earn more-spend more trap of wage slavery.
It is far easier to get laid than it is to get loved, which is what I think most of the guys here really are looking for. When such men allow the jedmunds and Hugos and Amyndas of the world to dehumanize them by defining them by only one supeficial aspect, they allow those other people to do violence to them - in the literal sense that "violence" means "to violate." Most guys here would understand the principle that if someone attempts physical violence against them, they have both the right and responsibility to stop that other person if they can.
The same is true of mental and emotional violence. When someone attempts to redefine me in bullshit terms, I can choose either to go along with it and follow the rest of the lemmings off the cliff of insanity, or I can reject those values. It reminds me of old kids' jingle "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Words can hurt us, but only if we allow them to. The emperor has no clothes and if we allow fools to make us feel badly for saying so, then we are participating in the very problem we are bitching about.
The secret of power is the willingness to act, and to ignore all those who try to demand that we become as helpless and powerless as they are.
QUOTE: "(Recall that great koan about the monk hanging off the cliff holding onto a tenuous vine while fearlessly gazing up into the eyes of the tiger about to devour him if he decides to climb up the vine, and not let go and fall to his certain death on the rocks?
That's exactly where men live now, IMHO...) :lol:"
But, you left out the punch line. While he is hanging there, the monk notices a strawberry growing out of the side of the cliff - a big, ripe, juicy strawberry. He plucks it and eats it and says "ah, it is so sweet."
"That" is where men have always lived. "That" is part and parcel of what being a man has always been. Anyone who thinks men in the past had it better has fallen for the feminidiot bullshit.
In the words of a man who was once clued in, before he caught the creeping necrotic groupthink fungus:
I grew up down in the valley
where, brother, when you're young,
they bring you up to do
like your daddy done.
<...>
Then I got Mary pregnant
and, man, that was all they wrote.
For my 19th birthday,
I got a union card and a wedding coat."
He "got laid" and the consequences of that "getting lucky" was that he was trapped in wage slavery for the rest of his life. Doesn't sound all that fuckin "lucky" to me.
Since we are talking about eastern principles of thought and action, let's take one from the practice of ju jitsu - use your opponents' weight against them.
Once someone has found and knows how to keep their psychological/emotional center, just like their physical center in martial arts, it becomes easier to keep your own balance while using your opponents' moves against them.
A great counter-move to the "you're just angry because you can't get laid" feint is to reply "Nah, I've gotten 'laid' plenty. What I'm so pissed off about is how useless and awful American (or whatever group the woman or mangina represents) are when you get them into bed."
I guarantee that you will put the would-be gamer on the defensive and that you will start getting some variation of the old saw "but, not all women are like that!!! You have just been meeting the wrong kind of women."
The response to this needs to be "yeah, whatever. Gotta go. C'ya, bye."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Monday, February 11, 2002
Zenpriest #42 - Activism
QUOTE 1: "You know, once in a while I get a good gut feeling, like there is light at the end of the tunnel. Hearing you hit the root of the problem over and over in the previous post makes me feel like we're striking home runs. Why? because our very political system is breeding the men we need to beat this. The angry men here fall under that category.
You know it, I know it, and most of us here know it. One day there'll be enough single, disgruntled, assraped men that will repay the very system that enslaved them by voting it out.
The only way to pull this off is to educate every MRA, male-slave, or Real life activist...
QUOTE 2: What comes to mind when reading these posts is an issue I felt strongly about and was popularly opposed. I did the usual activist stuff: going to meetings, rallies, and writing letters to politicians and newspapers. The ONLY reward I got was some snippy responses from FEMALE politicians and a pair of gov't guns at the back door. The measure passed nonetheless.
My view is more of a list of Don'ts rather than Do's. My view of the feminist juggernaut is simple. It's like a drunk on a bender. Try getting in the way of one intent on staying drunk is an exercise in futility. However, there ARE things I CAN do. I can withdraw my financial support from the feminist cause as much as possible. The date/mate strike is a good one. I will NOT intervene to "rescue damsels in distress". I will NOT play "Captain Free Therapist".
Quote 3: My priority is to survive.
I'm trying to survive in a hostile system.
Marriage strike = only way to make an impact, and that's an indirect impact. One day the powers that be will wake up and maybe sweeten the deal for us. But we've come so far down the path of misandry there's no hope of fighting it all at once. You are met with a wall of emotion whenever you try. Emotion is saturated in the issue, becoming more important in law, family law especially, than what can be proven. At college feminist professors would tell me that emotions were a way of knowing, a superior way of knowing, than "patriarchal" logic and reasoning. Sounds funny until you see it's actually working out that way, that it's being put into effect. It's a losing game, playing by the rules established now. Don't play. It's the only way.
---
The fundamental flaw with traditional activism is that it validates by acceptance the view that politicians are our rulers rather than in service to us. Going to them begging for crumbs acknowledges the power they have over us and indicates acceptance that such power is valid.
It is not.
We are bound only by chains of our own making - addiction to comfort, instant gratification, and TV. The moment we "go to the other side" and become willing to live without such things, in that moment we become free.
The looters will continue looting as long as there is anything to loot. They will not stop because we ask them - no matter whether it is nicely or angrily. They will stop when we stop them, and not before.
The first priority is to survive, and that is done by not playing the game and withdrawing our support and participation from all who do. No rescuing the damsels in distress, no playing "Captain FreeTherapist", no feeding the beast.
Look at what happened to Larry Summers. It was that tsunami of emotion which left him groveling and backing away from a simple statement of the truth. Unless and until we can muster an equal tidal wave of anger in response to misandry, it will continue to exist and spread.
The thing that pisses me off most about MRAs as they have been for the past few years is that they insist on eating the whole elephant in one bite. Guys talk big about climbing Mt. Everest, before they have gotten their asses off the couch and walked to the front door.
Public demonstrations have never done shit and never will do shit. When I was the age of a lot of guys on this board I was active in both the civil rights movement and the anti Vietnam war movements. Yeah, it made us feel all warm and fuzzy inside to get together with a couple thousand of our closest friends and sing kum-ba-ya, and we could even take the fire hoses and the tear gas (which was a real drag, though). But, when the guns came out at Kent State and they started mowing us down, the children's hour was over for most of us and we realized we were just spoiled kids playing at adult activities.
I lost track of the number of buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to protest the war. It made the nightly news for one night, and then it was back to business as usual of robberies, car accidents, and celebrity scandals. BUT when LBJ looked at his poll numbers and knew he couldn't win because he had alienated so many people with his aggressive pursuit of the war, he knew he had to quit the game.
Every day the system recruits more men to our cause than we ever could. How many times has a guy come here and said "Geez, for so long I thought I was the only guy who felt this way." That is the fatal flaw in the system's game - they must keep us isolated and from talking to each other and feeling like we are the only ones who see the problem and therefore we must be wrong.
In the past couple of days I have read several posts of younger men who are flatly resisting the pressures to put themselves in a position where they can be looted - refusing to marry, refusing to sire hostages (oops, I mean "children"), refusing to willingly put themselves in chains. They are that light at the end of the tunnel you talk about. We did not create them, the system created them.
What we must do is keep watch for the men getting ready to turn, and the moment we sense that they have become ready to "go to the other side" to grab them and give them a moral sanction and validation for their choice. That is what many men are doing - every guy who responds to women's whining "there are no good men left" with "sure there are, we are just on strike against bitches like you!"
The only way they have left to force us to support them is with their guns and prisons. Social pressure to marry is no longer effective because women destroyed it in order to "liberate" themselves. With their wishful emotional non-thinking, they were able to delude themselves that they could be liberated while men remained enslaved.
Sorry, sweetcheeks. It has worked for a while, but you have looted out all there is to loot and men are wising up. Unless they can now find a way to get goverment thugs with guns to show up at them door and force a man to marry some parasite, he will remain free of their grasp.
Survival is going to mean going without things that we want - like a loving mate and children - but the reality is that we will do without them anyway no matter what we do. So we might as well do what it takes to survive.
All we have to do is wait out the system. No matter how much public acceptance and support a bad idea has, the fact that it is a bad idea and simply wrong will cause it to collapse eventually. We have seen collectivism collapse a couple of times in this century alone, so we know that it will eventually collapse in contemporary western civilization.
What we have to do is learn from those mistakes, in ways that our so-called "leaders" have not. Soviet men are in a world of hurt, but by studying their bad example western men can avoid the same pitfalls. Dozens of men on this board are doing exactly that - keeping healthy, working on developing a positive outlook and emotional independence from women, concentrating on building assets and resources and protecting them from the looters and looterettes.
When the day comes that there is a male equivalent of Emily's list, and when enough men are angry enough that they can put aside all their petty differences and decide that they are going to work together to punish assholes like Joe Biden for his anti-male VAWA legislation and do anything and everything it takes to get the sonofabitch OUT of office, then men's activism will have finally grown up.
While I certainly remember youthful impatience, anger, and energy, I'm going to use an old joke to make a point:
A young bull and an old bull were standing on a hill looking at a bunch of heifers in a field below.
The young bull says - "Let's run down there and fuck one of those heifers."
The old bull says - "Let's walk down there, and fuck them all."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
You know it, I know it, and most of us here know it. One day there'll be enough single, disgruntled, assraped men that will repay the very system that enslaved them by voting it out.
The only way to pull this off is to educate every MRA, male-slave, or Real life activist...
QUOTE 2: What comes to mind when reading these posts is an issue I felt strongly about and was popularly opposed. I did the usual activist stuff: going to meetings, rallies, and writing letters to politicians and newspapers. The ONLY reward I got was some snippy responses from FEMALE politicians and a pair of gov't guns at the back door. The measure passed nonetheless.
My view is more of a list of Don'ts rather than Do's. My view of the feminist juggernaut is simple. It's like a drunk on a bender. Try getting in the way of one intent on staying drunk is an exercise in futility. However, there ARE things I CAN do. I can withdraw my financial support from the feminist cause as much as possible. The date/mate strike is a good one. I will NOT intervene to "rescue damsels in distress". I will NOT play "Captain Free Therapist".
Quote 3: My priority is to survive.
I'm trying to survive in a hostile system.
Marriage strike = only way to make an impact, and that's an indirect impact. One day the powers that be will wake up and maybe sweeten the deal for us. But we've come so far down the path of misandry there's no hope of fighting it all at once. You are met with a wall of emotion whenever you try. Emotion is saturated in the issue, becoming more important in law, family law especially, than what can be proven. At college feminist professors would tell me that emotions were a way of knowing, a superior way of knowing, than "patriarchal" logic and reasoning. Sounds funny until you see it's actually working out that way, that it's being put into effect. It's a losing game, playing by the rules established now. Don't play. It's the only way.
---
The fundamental flaw with traditional activism is that it validates by acceptance the view that politicians are our rulers rather than in service to us. Going to them begging for crumbs acknowledges the power they have over us and indicates acceptance that such power is valid.
It is not.
We are bound only by chains of our own making - addiction to comfort, instant gratification, and TV. The moment we "go to the other side" and become willing to live without such things, in that moment we become free.
The looters will continue looting as long as there is anything to loot. They will not stop because we ask them - no matter whether it is nicely or angrily. They will stop when we stop them, and not before.
The first priority is to survive, and that is done by not playing the game and withdrawing our support and participation from all who do. No rescuing the damsels in distress, no playing "Captain FreeTherapist", no feeding the beast.
Look at what happened to Larry Summers. It was that tsunami of emotion which left him groveling and backing away from a simple statement of the truth. Unless and until we can muster an equal tidal wave of anger in response to misandry, it will continue to exist and spread.
The thing that pisses me off most about MRAs as they have been for the past few years is that they insist on eating the whole elephant in one bite. Guys talk big about climbing Mt. Everest, before they have gotten their asses off the couch and walked to the front door.
Public demonstrations have never done shit and never will do shit. When I was the age of a lot of guys on this board I was active in both the civil rights movement and the anti Vietnam war movements. Yeah, it made us feel all warm and fuzzy inside to get together with a couple thousand of our closest friends and sing kum-ba-ya, and we could even take the fire hoses and the tear gas (which was a real drag, though). But, when the guns came out at Kent State and they started mowing us down, the children's hour was over for most of us and we realized we were just spoiled kids playing at adult activities.
I lost track of the number of buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to protest the war. It made the nightly news for one night, and then it was back to business as usual of robberies, car accidents, and celebrity scandals. BUT when LBJ looked at his poll numbers and knew he couldn't win because he had alienated so many people with his aggressive pursuit of the war, he knew he had to quit the game.
Every day the system recruits more men to our cause than we ever could. How many times has a guy come here and said "Geez, for so long I thought I was the only guy who felt this way." That is the fatal flaw in the system's game - they must keep us isolated and from talking to each other and feeling like we are the only ones who see the problem and therefore we must be wrong.
In the past couple of days I have read several posts of younger men who are flatly resisting the pressures to put themselves in a position where they can be looted - refusing to marry, refusing to sire hostages (oops, I mean "children"), refusing to willingly put themselves in chains. They are that light at the end of the tunnel you talk about. We did not create them, the system created them.
What we must do is keep watch for the men getting ready to turn, and the moment we sense that they have become ready to "go to the other side" to grab them and give them a moral sanction and validation for their choice. That is what many men are doing - every guy who responds to women's whining "there are no good men left" with "sure there are, we are just on strike against bitches like you!"
The only way they have left to force us to support them is with their guns and prisons. Social pressure to marry is no longer effective because women destroyed it in order to "liberate" themselves. With their wishful emotional non-thinking, they were able to delude themselves that they could be liberated while men remained enslaved.
Sorry, sweetcheeks. It has worked for a while, but you have looted out all there is to loot and men are wising up. Unless they can now find a way to get goverment thugs with guns to show up at them door and force a man to marry some parasite, he will remain free of their grasp.
Survival is going to mean going without things that we want - like a loving mate and children - but the reality is that we will do without them anyway no matter what we do. So we might as well do what it takes to survive.
All we have to do is wait out the system. No matter how much public acceptance and support a bad idea has, the fact that it is a bad idea and simply wrong will cause it to collapse eventually. We have seen collectivism collapse a couple of times in this century alone, so we know that it will eventually collapse in contemporary western civilization.
What we have to do is learn from those mistakes, in ways that our so-called "leaders" have not. Soviet men are in a world of hurt, but by studying their bad example western men can avoid the same pitfalls. Dozens of men on this board are doing exactly that - keeping healthy, working on developing a positive outlook and emotional independence from women, concentrating on building assets and resources and protecting them from the looters and looterettes.
When the day comes that there is a male equivalent of Emily's list, and when enough men are angry enough that they can put aside all their petty differences and decide that they are going to work together to punish assholes like Joe Biden for his anti-male VAWA legislation and do anything and everything it takes to get the sonofabitch OUT of office, then men's activism will have finally grown up.
While I certainly remember youthful impatience, anger, and energy, I'm going to use an old joke to make a point:
A young bull and an old bull were standing on a hill looking at a bunch of heifers in a field below.
The young bull says - "Let's run down there and fuck one of those heifers."
The old bull says - "Let's walk down there, and fuck them all."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Sunday, February 10, 2002
Zenpriest #41 - Feminism is an Extended Infantile Tantrum
QUOTE 1: "Guys around here who talk about "feminism" and "Ameriskanks" and "female sexism" as exceptions to the basic goodness and fairness of women are missing the bigger issue: Many of women's worst traits seem consistent, if not hardwired.
The bad impulses will surface from generation to generation -- at most, we can hope to deny them legitimacy or free expression."
QUOTE 2: "Many of women's worst traits seem consistent, if not hardwired."
Exactly right. All feminism did was give women free reign to do what they have want to for centuries. And it is government sanctioned.
QUOTE 3: And you see this again and again if you review history.
Destructive female psychology is hard wired. It is not a product of feminism. Feminism is a product of female psychology. A culture can attenuate those worst female tendencies or it can not. American culture no longer does and most of the world is headed our way.
This is why I tend to stomp on any statement that it is only those nasty "bad" types of feminists which are the problem. Feminism at its very heart is part absolute self-centeredness, part fantasy and wishful thinking, part denial, and part infantile tantrum.
All people are selfish - it is simply called "self-preservation" which is a fundamental characteristic of anything alive. People living together without ending up killing each other over access to limited resources requires cultural and social values which restrain and limit the destructive impulses of people.
Feminism is an extended infantile tantrum over these limitations, with the rage fueled by fantasies and wishful thinking about the way they want the world to be (in order to gratify their constant infantile needs) and based on denial that the nature of the world itself imposes many of these limitations.
This is why the fundamental denial of nature is an essential part of feminist thought. They have to deny nature so they can blame men.
They have to blame men because female passivity is the real reason behind women's inaction, along with the inability to suffer discomfort. Notice how wymyn's "feee-yuhl-lings" have become elevated to be the most important things in the world.
Women's passivity will also be their downfall in this situation. Over the past 40 years, women have kept turning up the volume on their bitching, until they have reached the status of "Maximum and perpetual bitch."
What really chaps my ass is the way that men keep making excuses for women, and accepting the constant poison women drip out and praise them for being "less like that" than other women.
I can't remember if I posted a link to this comment about Kathleen Parker:
QUOTE: "I want you to observe how the first 8 paragraphs are full of praise for father's restraint, but then the ninth paragraph is this:
"Women are frankly better at defending themselves than men are, which may be a function of the fact that they were the underdogs for so many centuries. Under the heel of a boot, one learns to think creatively. Men are just beginning to feel the crunch of gravel pressing into their faces."
You see, according to her, we deserve it! Kathleen sows seeds of hatred by pulling the "I'm not a feminist, but..." and then states a feminist statement? If she's saying feminist things, then's she's a feminist! You, as a man don't notice these things, because the dose of misandrist poison comes from behind a facade of weakness, and is enough of a low dose to destroy over time, unlike feminists who use high doseages of manhating poison which would trigger something you could react to.
In fact, I would say conservative women and feminists are the "Good cop, bad cop" and both of them are working against you as a man, comprimising everything you are and do as a man. See here:
Good cop, bad cop
She also quotes the Gilder Fallacy of which I am posting a link to disprove her claims, and I am also reminded of Esther Vilar saying that men are praised for their qualities useful to women.
In short, don't trust conservative women any more than you would a feminist."
This is what many guys are saying. [It has been] pointed out many times that foreign women are not the magic solution that some guys seem to think they are. There is no hidden spot of uncorrupted women left. All restraints to women's behavior have been or are in the process of being removed.
And, what a lot of guys underestimate is the absolute degree of skankness that the current generation of girls is being raised into. A massive army of entitlement-princess-victims has been unleashed on an unprepared public.
Conservative women are no better, because they deliver their poison from behind a smile - or from behind the mask of a ditz.
QUOTE: "Women are frankly better at defending themselves than men are, which may be a function of the fact that they were the underdogs for so many centuries. Under the heel of a boot, one learns to think creatively. Men are just beginning to feel the crunch of gravel pressing into their faces."
And don't she just love it. Women are "getting men back" for all those mythical "centuries as the underdog."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Feminism starts out being very simple. It starts out being the instinct of a little child who says ‘it’s not fair’ and ‘you are not the boss of me,’ and it ends up being a worldview that questions hierarchy altogether.” -- Gloria Steinem, in the two hour HBO special on the life of Gloria Steinem entitled, "Gloria: In Her Own Words."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #21 – The Terrible Twos
Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager in the House
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
The bad impulses will surface from generation to generation -- at most, we can hope to deny them legitimacy or free expression."
QUOTE 2: "Many of women's worst traits seem consistent, if not hardwired."
Exactly right. All feminism did was give women free reign to do what they have want to for centuries. And it is government sanctioned.
QUOTE 3: And you see this again and again if you review history.
Destructive female psychology is hard wired. It is not a product of feminism. Feminism is a product of female psychology. A culture can attenuate those worst female tendencies or it can not. American culture no longer does and most of the world is headed our way.
This is why I tend to stomp on any statement that it is only those nasty "bad" types of feminists which are the problem. Feminism at its very heart is part absolute self-centeredness, part fantasy and wishful thinking, part denial, and part infantile tantrum.
All people are selfish - it is simply called "self-preservation" which is a fundamental characteristic of anything alive. People living together without ending up killing each other over access to limited resources requires cultural and social values which restrain and limit the destructive impulses of people.
Feminism is an extended infantile tantrum over these limitations, with the rage fueled by fantasies and wishful thinking about the way they want the world to be (in order to gratify their constant infantile needs) and based on denial that the nature of the world itself imposes many of these limitations.
This is why the fundamental denial of nature is an essential part of feminist thought. They have to deny nature so they can blame men.
They have to blame men because female passivity is the real reason behind women's inaction, along with the inability to suffer discomfort. Notice how wymyn's "feee-yuhl-lings" have become elevated to be the most important things in the world.
Women's passivity will also be their downfall in this situation. Over the past 40 years, women have kept turning up the volume on their bitching, until they have reached the status of "Maximum and perpetual bitch."
What really chaps my ass is the way that men keep making excuses for women, and accepting the constant poison women drip out and praise them for being "less like that" than other women.
I can't remember if I posted a link to this comment about Kathleen Parker:
QUOTE: "I want you to observe how the first 8 paragraphs are full of praise for father's restraint, but then the ninth paragraph is this:
"Women are frankly better at defending themselves than men are, which may be a function of the fact that they were the underdogs for so many centuries. Under the heel of a boot, one learns to think creatively. Men are just beginning to feel the crunch of gravel pressing into their faces."
You see, according to her, we deserve it! Kathleen sows seeds of hatred by pulling the "I'm not a feminist, but..." and then states a feminist statement? If she's saying feminist things, then's she's a feminist! You, as a man don't notice these things, because the dose of misandrist poison comes from behind a facade of weakness, and is enough of a low dose to destroy over time, unlike feminists who use high doseages of manhating poison which would trigger something you could react to.
In fact, I would say conservative women and feminists are the "Good cop, bad cop" and both of them are working against you as a man, comprimising everything you are and do as a man. See here:
Good cop, bad cop
She also quotes the Gilder Fallacy of which I am posting a link to disprove her claims, and I am also reminded of Esther Vilar saying that men are praised for their qualities useful to women.
In short, don't trust conservative women any more than you would a feminist."
This is what many guys are saying. [It has been] pointed out many times that foreign women are not the magic solution that some guys seem to think they are. There is no hidden spot of uncorrupted women left. All restraints to women's behavior have been or are in the process of being removed.
And, what a lot of guys underestimate is the absolute degree of skankness that the current generation of girls is being raised into. A massive army of entitlement-princess-victims has been unleashed on an unprepared public.
Conservative women are no better, because they deliver their poison from behind a smile - or from behind the mask of a ditz.
QUOTE: "Women are frankly better at defending themselves than men are, which may be a function of the fact that they were the underdogs for so many centuries. Under the heel of a boot, one learns to think creatively. Men are just beginning to feel the crunch of gravel pressing into their faces."
And don't she just love it. Women are "getting men back" for all those mythical "centuries as the underdog."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Feminism starts out being very simple. It starts out being the instinct of a little child who says ‘it’s not fair’ and ‘you are not the boss of me,’ and it ends up being a worldview that questions hierarchy altogether.” -- Gloria Steinem, in the two hour HBO special on the life of Gloria Steinem entitled, "Gloria: In Her Own Words."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #21 – The Terrible Twos
Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager in the House
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Saturday, February 09, 2002
Zenpriest #40 - Girls Just Wanna Have Fun
QUOTE:
Courtship Signaling and Adolescents:
"Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"?
Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.
Department of behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University
Cary (1976) discovered that the woman, through eye contact, controlled the course of interaction with a male stranger, both in the laboratory and in singles' bars. Perper (1985) gave a detailed description of courtship, stressing an escalation-response process in which women play a key role in escalation or deescalation. The steps in this process are approach, turn, first touch, and steady development of body synchronization.
Although these reports are clearly valuable, most researchers addressed courtship very generally, and some failed to recognize the importance of the female role in the courtship process .What was needed was a more complete ethogram of women's nonverbal courtship signals. To compile such a catalog of flirting behavior exhibited by women involved in initial heterosexual interaction, more than 200 adults were observed (Moore, 1985) in field settings such as singles' bars, restaurants, and parties.
Research has shown, therefore, that the cultural myth that the man is always the sexual aggressor, pressing himself on a reluctant woman, is incorrect.
Thus the old saying "she asked for it."
Two key issues related to the red highlighted part in particular, and the related information:
1) socially we have become so stupid, and so enmeshed in the "sex is a social construct" idiocy, that we now have to have extensive research projects to discover what the majority of people have always known. Ms Moore's next research project, for which she received a $10 million grant, took 10 years but was able to definitively determine that peanut butter is made from .... peanuts.
2) That mythology, which is part of the foundation of both the old Feminine Mystique and the modern Feminist Mystaque, allows the horny slut of tonight to revise history and become the reluctant virgin of tomorrow suffering so terribly from being "sexually harassed" or "rayyyppped".
This is the nuclear bomb of the gender war, in that it attacks the very foundations and mechanisms which draw men and women together in the first place. Given the universal lying about this by women, men are left between a rock and hard place. No matter how aggressively she may signal interest, in many cases completely faked purely for the purpose of extracting attention and resources from the male, in the light of revisionist history the man will always take the fall if he fails to please her in the way she expected.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #18 – The Designated Initiator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Courtship Signaling and Adolescents:
"Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"?
Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.
Department of behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University
Cary (1976) discovered that the woman, through eye contact, controlled the course of interaction with a male stranger, both in the laboratory and in singles' bars. Perper (1985) gave a detailed description of courtship, stressing an escalation-response process in which women play a key role in escalation or deescalation. The steps in this process are approach, turn, first touch, and steady development of body synchronization.
Although these reports are clearly valuable, most researchers addressed courtship very generally, and some failed to recognize the importance of the female role in the courtship process .What was needed was a more complete ethogram of women's nonverbal courtship signals. To compile such a catalog of flirting behavior exhibited by women involved in initial heterosexual interaction, more than 200 adults were observed (Moore, 1985) in field settings such as singles' bars, restaurants, and parties.
Research has shown, therefore, that the cultural myth that the man is always the sexual aggressor, pressing himself on a reluctant woman, is incorrect.
Thus the old saying "she asked for it."
Two key issues related to the red highlighted part in particular, and the related information:
1) socially we have become so stupid, and so enmeshed in the "sex is a social construct" idiocy, that we now have to have extensive research projects to discover what the majority of people have always known. Ms Moore's next research project, for which she received a $10 million grant, took 10 years but was able to definitively determine that peanut butter is made from .... peanuts.
2) That mythology, which is part of the foundation of both the old Feminine Mystique and the modern Feminist Mystaque, allows the horny slut of tonight to revise history and become the reluctant virgin of tomorrow suffering so terribly from being "sexually harassed" or "rayyyppped".
This is the nuclear bomb of the gender war, in that it attacks the very foundations and mechanisms which draw men and women together in the first place. Given the universal lying about this by women, men are left between a rock and hard place. No matter how aggressively she may signal interest, in many cases completely faked purely for the purpose of extracting attention and resources from the male, in the light of revisionist history the man will always take the fall if he fails to please her in the way she expected.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Zenpriest #18 – The Designated Initiator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Friday, February 08, 2002
Zenpriest #39 - Brer Patriarch
.
QUOTE: "This article is disturbing because they only relate it to how the hardships suffered by boys are affecting women. This is a product being sold with great bias, and in its method, the point of the article is lost to those that examine it closely.
On the one hand though, this can also be considered fighting fire with fire. If one adopts that philosophy for how they fight, then it's also got to be accepted that their cause will be pushed forward in ways that aren't agreeable to them. In this case, the reversal of feminist ideology will continue in small steps until there is social revolution. I don't particularly like McElroy myself, but she is speaking to 'feminists' in language that they will understand and what they don't is honor, morals and principles.
An article that is wolf in sheep's clothing indeed."
I read this 3 times and still didn't get what point you were trying to make. I really don't think she is "she is speaking to 'feminists' in language that they will understand". The most basic tenets of feminism are:
1) a fundamental disrespect for men, maleness, and the male experience,
2) the bedrock belief that women always have it worse than men and always have had it worse than men.
While she and some others of her ilk try to put a "rational" face on some aspects of feminism, I don't think they manage to pull it off. A perfect, but very indirect, measure of the belief system from which she operates was given in the thread over at MND which resulted in the female mod resigning. McElroy's husband jumped into the argument between Gonz and navyblue in which Gonz was explaining why he was not interested in going out and giving another woman a chance to totally fuck him over. NB was pulling the standard shaming tactic of "suck it up, get over it and move on" - with the implication of that being to go right back to courting women and currying their favor.
Brad jumped in with "blame yourselves, men!"
I see her entire paradigm as being simply wrong - trying to invert feminism and apply the same errors in reverse. Women felt that being shut out of major careers was "oppression" when in fact being pushed into them was the real oppression. Women then demanded to give up a huge degree of freedom in exchange for the same wage-slavery which the old protector/provider role forced on men.
Right now there are nearly as many men in prison for not paying child support as for all other crimes combined with the exception of drug offenses (another bogus, manufactured crime). Boys are accurately perceiving what slavery the old male role represents for them, and are opting off the track early on. Of course this "harms women" because it reduces the pool of potential providers for them to choose from. Many of these women will no longer have the choices which women of previous generations had, but will instead have the same 3 choices men have had:
1) Work full time,
2) Work full time, or
3) Work full time.
If one looks at the black community, which is where many say the white population is headed as well, black women have no problem at all finding plenty of guys willing to screw them, but very few who can and are willing to support them. This is already becoming the case with white women, and will become increasingly so over the next few years.
If one looks at the values of ghetto-ized black males (the black members of this board not being part of that group) they have little if any desire to support women, and have no problem at all taking money from them. They have learned the whole "independent woman" thing is complete bullshit, and have found that many black women will not only put up with, but will also give money to a man, simply to have one around to meet some of their emotional needs - no matter how sparsely he actually meets them.
The boys who are not going to college today got diverted off that track 15 years or more ago. No changes, no matter how big, would show any effect for a similar period of time. A great many of these women getting the majority of degrees and professional positions will simply have no one to marry, and will either have to support a man to some extent or remain alone.
The lack of males in college does not represent males somehow being "left out", but is more representative of them "opting out." Hunchback just cited the fact that 60% of women and at least 40% of men do not see fathers as necessary. That being the case, they certainly are not going to commit themselves to the hard work necessary to fulfill that role.
What is happening right now is akin to a wonderful old story by Uncle Remus called "The Tar Baby", here is the punch line:
QUOTE: "This article is disturbing because they only relate it to how the hardships suffered by boys are affecting women. This is a product being sold with great bias, and in its method, the point of the article is lost to those that examine it closely.
On the one hand though, this can also be considered fighting fire with fire. If one adopts that philosophy for how they fight, then it's also got to be accepted that their cause will be pushed forward in ways that aren't agreeable to them. In this case, the reversal of feminist ideology will continue in small steps until there is social revolution. I don't particularly like McElroy myself, but she is speaking to 'feminists' in language that they will understand and what they don't is honor, morals and principles.
An article that is wolf in sheep's clothing indeed."
I read this 3 times and still didn't get what point you were trying to make. I really don't think she is "she is speaking to 'feminists' in language that they will understand". The most basic tenets of feminism are:
1) a fundamental disrespect for men, maleness, and the male experience,
2) the bedrock belief that women always have it worse than men and always have had it worse than men.
While she and some others of her ilk try to put a "rational" face on some aspects of feminism, I don't think they manage to pull it off. A perfect, but very indirect, measure of the belief system from which she operates was given in the thread over at MND which resulted in the female mod resigning. McElroy's husband jumped into the argument between Gonz and navyblue in which Gonz was explaining why he was not interested in going out and giving another woman a chance to totally fuck him over. NB was pulling the standard shaming tactic of "suck it up, get over it and move on" - with the implication of that being to go right back to courting women and currying their favor.
Brad jumped in with "blame yourselves, men!"
I see her entire paradigm as being simply wrong - trying to invert feminism and apply the same errors in reverse. Women felt that being shut out of major careers was "oppression" when in fact being pushed into them was the real oppression. Women then demanded to give up a huge degree of freedom in exchange for the same wage-slavery which the old protector/provider role forced on men.
Right now there are nearly as many men in prison for not paying child support as for all other crimes combined with the exception of drug offenses (another bogus, manufactured crime). Boys are accurately perceiving what slavery the old male role represents for them, and are opting off the track early on. Of course this "harms women" because it reduces the pool of potential providers for them to choose from. Many of these women will no longer have the choices which women of previous generations had, but will instead have the same 3 choices men have had:
1) Work full time,
2) Work full time, or
3) Work full time.
If one looks at the black community, which is where many say the white population is headed as well, black women have no problem at all finding plenty of guys willing to screw them, but very few who can and are willing to support them. This is already becoming the case with white women, and will become increasingly so over the next few years.
If one looks at the values of ghetto-ized black males (the black members of this board not being part of that group) they have little if any desire to support women, and have no problem at all taking money from them. They have learned the whole "independent woman" thing is complete bullshit, and have found that many black women will not only put up with, but will also give money to a man, simply to have one around to meet some of their emotional needs - no matter how sparsely he actually meets them.
The boys who are not going to college today got diverted off that track 15 years or more ago. No changes, no matter how big, would show any effect for a similar period of time. A great many of these women getting the majority of degrees and professional positions will simply have no one to marry, and will either have to support a man to some extent or remain alone.
The lack of males in college does not represent males somehow being "left out", but is more representative of them "opting out." Hunchback just cited the fact that 60% of women and at least 40% of men do not see fathers as necessary. That being the case, they certainly are not going to commit themselves to the hard work necessary to fulfill that role.
What is happening right now is akin to a wonderful old story by Uncle Remus called "The Tar Baby", here is the punch line:
.
QUOTE: Brer Rabbit saw he'd been caught dead to rights and he talked mighty humble. "I don't care what you do with me, Brer Fox, so long as you don't fling me in that there briar patch."
Seeing as how it was going to be a lot of work to make a fire and apparently not caring whether lunch was cooked or raw, Brer Fox reckoned he could just hang the rabbit. "Hang me just as high as you please, Brer Fox, but for the Lawd's sake, don't fling me in that briar patch," said Brer Rabbit.
Seeing as how he had no rope, Brer Fox decided to drown the rabbit. "Drown me just as deep as you please, Brer Fox, but don't fling me in that briar patch," said Brer Rabbit.
Seeing as how there was no water around, the Fox said he'd just skin the rabbit. "Skin me, Brer Fox, snatch out my eyeballs, pull out my hair, tear out my ears by the roots and cut off my legs," said Brer Rabbit, "but please, please, Brer Fox, don't fling me in the briar patch."
Well, Brer Fox was pretty fed up with Brer Rabbit's whining. He really didn't care about eating him so much as he did hurting him as bad as he could. So he caught him up by the hind legs, pulled him out of the Tar-baby, slung him around in the air, and flung him right into the middle of that there briar patch.
There was a considerable flutter where the rabbit struck and Brer Fox hung around to see what was going to happen. By and by he heard someone calling to him, and way up the hill he saw Brer Rabbit sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur. "Bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox, bred and born in the briar patch. Briars can't hurt me," sang Brer Rabbit as he skipped off just as lively as a cricket in the embers.
.
Brer Fox thought he was doing something to hurt Brer Rabbit, when in fact he was giving Brer Rabbit exactly what he wanted. All Brer Fox ended up doing was throwing away his dinner.
Women have thought they were hurting men by pushing them out of the provider role. And, for the generation of men who had it pounded into their heads that they were defined by that role, it did hurt them. But, the generation of men who grew up after men had already been pushed out - it doesn't matter to them in the least.
Brer Feminazi has thrown them back into the briar patch where they were born and bred, and destroyed all the social mechanisms which used to force men to support women - thus throwing away all women's guaranteed meal tickets.
What we are seeing right now is a desperate attempt by women and chivalrous idiots to try to contain the damage with increasingly draconian laws. Some of the unwary will get caught, and the smarter ones will learn from the mistakes of their stupid brothers.
So, McElroy gets part of it right by getting it all wrong - women really are the ones who are harmed by pushing men out of college and out of the professions.
Several years ago, I got my mouthy ass fired by a guy who was a complete pathological liar. For years I had been living on not much more than 1/3rd of what I took home, because I didn't have the consuming habits of a female and her pups to support, and investing the rest. After the initial shock of being fired for the first time in my life, I began to feel an electrifying sense of freedom. I kept telling myself "I really gotta start looking for work, next week"
This went on for 6 1/2 years. I took a lot of long motorcycle trips, went to NZ, built Eye of the Mind, read a lot, slept late, and generally enjoyed life. I would have never been able to do that with a female parasite attached to me.
Being in my mid-40s, non-obese, and a true OB down to the colors and the tats, I had no shortage of middle-aged, mostly obese, mostly divorced, and truly desperate women wanting to bag me. They asked me out, and they always paid. And, they always went home alone. I took the basic attitude, "ok, you can buy me dinner if you want, but don't for a moment think it has bought you a guarantee that I will fuck you in exchange for it."
(sound familiar to any of you guys?)
McElroy continues to carry forward the same mistaken belief that underlies all feminism - that men did what they did for any reason other than society and women pressured them into it every bit as much as women were pressured into their old roles.
Men supported women because they were not given the choice not to.
Now that men are given that choice, far more men will take it than almost any woman would wish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further reading:
The Same Old Story – by Adam Kostakis
This Way to See the Great Egress!
Philalethes #1 – Feminist Allies?
Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
Philalethes #16 – Who Stole Feminism? Nobody!
International Women’s Working Day – by V.I. Lenin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Thursday, February 07, 2002
Zenpriest #38 - Mid-Life Crisis
Male change-of-life is very real. Calling it "male menopause" is simply an example of the way that language has been feminized and women's experience has become the standard by which all things are judged.
A frequent topic here is the life pattern of female fertility. Male sex drive follows exactly the same pattern as female fertility - it peaks in the late teens, declines very slowly for about 10-15 years, then begins to decline more rapidly.
Whether one believes in "intelligent design" (newspeak for creationism) or purely Occam's Razor, any other pattern would make no sense at all. All behavior is purposeful, and for a middle-aged man to have the same level of sex drive as he did when he was 18 at a time women his age are largely infertile would be the nadir of bad design.
Instead of calling it "menopause" or even "andro-pause", it should be called just what it is - horny-pause. Before the current obsession with avoiding aging, it was folk knowledge that men normally experienced a marked decrease in sexual desire by age 50, which also used to be the median age for female menopause. Now, pharmaceutical companies are making billion$ off "little blue pills" which do for the average male what steroids do for pro athletes - allow them to squeeze out just a little bit more and better performance.
Quote: "A MLC is when a man stops counting time from birth and starts counting time to death. It is when you reach the half way point, what ever you think that age would be."
Men have a biological clock just like women do - we have an awareness at the cellular level that we are running out of time. Sometime around age 40, a lot of men look around and ask themselves "Is this all there is? - bills, wage slavery, braces and tuition for the kids, and a nagging hateful harridan who owns the bed and lets me share it if I am a 'good boy'?"
The thing which makes it far more complex for men is the protector provider role which extends a minimum of 18-22 years beyond birth. When a man figures his "time left", he has to subtract about 20 years from his entire allotment of time in order to get the real time he has left. That leaves the magic numbers of 47 and 43 - the cutoff age beyond which they cannot have a child and get it graduated from college or just high school before they retire. Chaining backwards - add one year for the pregnancy, one to really get to know the woman, and one for courtship, when a man is 40-44 there are only a few minutes left on the clock. Some men fall prey to the same sense of urgency experienced by a 37 y/o childless woman.
All this simply cannot make any sense to a younger man who still has a sense of immortality and invulnerability. It is like trying to describe what it feels like to stand on the moon to all but the handful of people who had done it, or what riding a bicycle feels like to one who has never done it - there is no substitute for experience.
One of the best descriptions of what the mid-life crisis really is - how mundane the reality is - comes in the form of an old joke:
There was kid who wanted to join the grade school band. He and his parents talked to the band teacher who told them he had all the trumpets and clarinets he needed, and that the one real opening he had was for a tuba player. So the parents bought the kid a tuba and he joined the band. He kept at it through high school, then joined the armed forces and played tuba with the band. After he got out, he went to college and played the tuba. He got out during an economic slump and there weren't many jobs for Forensic Oceanographers, so he got a job playing tuba for the Boise, Idaho Brass Ensemble. In a few years he moved up to the Missoula, Montana Symphony Orchestra, then on to the big time - the Fargo Philharmonic.
The day before his 40th birthday he wakes up and thinks "My God!! I'M A TUBA PLAYER!!!!"
John Lennon said "Life is what happens while you are planning other things." A lot of guys simply drift into a rut while they are figuring out what they want to do with their lives, and once they do they find that not only is that rut worn pretty deep, but that there are also a lot of people very invested in keeping him in it - so they can keep milking his wallet. Attempts to break out of those self-created prisons are seldom any more elegant than breaking out of any other type of prison.
Mid-Life Crisis for a man really boils down to him asking himself - "Is this really the way I want to spend the rest of the time I have left?" - and coming up with "no" for an answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
EOTM: Sexual Psychology – Part 3 – 40 to Closing Time
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
A frequent topic here is the life pattern of female fertility. Male sex drive follows exactly the same pattern as female fertility - it peaks in the late teens, declines very slowly for about 10-15 years, then begins to decline more rapidly.
Whether one believes in "intelligent design" (newspeak for creationism) or purely Occam's Razor, any other pattern would make no sense at all. All behavior is purposeful, and for a middle-aged man to have the same level of sex drive as he did when he was 18 at a time women his age are largely infertile would be the nadir of bad design.
Instead of calling it "menopause" or even "andro-pause", it should be called just what it is - horny-pause. Before the current obsession with avoiding aging, it was folk knowledge that men normally experienced a marked decrease in sexual desire by age 50, which also used to be the median age for female menopause. Now, pharmaceutical companies are making billion$ off "little blue pills" which do for the average male what steroids do for pro athletes - allow them to squeeze out just a little bit more and better performance.
Quote: "A MLC is when a man stops counting time from birth and starts counting time to death. It is when you reach the half way point, what ever you think that age would be."
Men have a biological clock just like women do - we have an awareness at the cellular level that we are running out of time. Sometime around age 40, a lot of men look around and ask themselves "Is this all there is? - bills, wage slavery, braces and tuition for the kids, and a nagging hateful harridan who owns the bed and lets me share it if I am a 'good boy'?"
The thing which makes it far more complex for men is the protector provider role which extends a minimum of 18-22 years beyond birth. When a man figures his "time left", he has to subtract about 20 years from his entire allotment of time in order to get the real time he has left. That leaves the magic numbers of 47 and 43 - the cutoff age beyond which they cannot have a child and get it graduated from college or just high school before they retire. Chaining backwards - add one year for the pregnancy, one to really get to know the woman, and one for courtship, when a man is 40-44 there are only a few minutes left on the clock. Some men fall prey to the same sense of urgency experienced by a 37 y/o childless woman.
All this simply cannot make any sense to a younger man who still has a sense of immortality and invulnerability. It is like trying to describe what it feels like to stand on the moon to all but the handful of people who had done it, or what riding a bicycle feels like to one who has never done it - there is no substitute for experience.
One of the best descriptions of what the mid-life crisis really is - how mundane the reality is - comes in the form of an old joke:
There was kid who wanted to join the grade school band. He and his parents talked to the band teacher who told them he had all the trumpets and clarinets he needed, and that the one real opening he had was for a tuba player. So the parents bought the kid a tuba and he joined the band. He kept at it through high school, then joined the armed forces and played tuba with the band. After he got out, he went to college and played the tuba. He got out during an economic slump and there weren't many jobs for Forensic Oceanographers, so he got a job playing tuba for the Boise, Idaho Brass Ensemble. In a few years he moved up to the Missoula, Montana Symphony Orchestra, then on to the big time - the Fargo Philharmonic.
The day before his 40th birthday he wakes up and thinks "My God!! I'M A TUBA PLAYER!!!!"
John Lennon said "Life is what happens while you are planning other things." A lot of guys simply drift into a rut while they are figuring out what they want to do with their lives, and once they do they find that not only is that rut worn pretty deep, but that there are also a lot of people very invested in keeping him in it - so they can keep milking his wallet. Attempts to break out of those self-created prisons are seldom any more elegant than breaking out of any other type of prison.
Mid-Life Crisis for a man really boils down to him asking himself - "Is this really the way I want to spend the rest of the time I have left?" - and coming up with "no" for an answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
EOTM: Sexual Psychology – Part 3 – 40 to Closing Time
Mid-Life
Crisis -- Rollo Tomassi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Wednesday, February 06, 2002
Zenpriest #37 - How It All Happened
"How it all happened" was by a genius masterstroke of positioning. The feminidiots claimed to be speaking for all women, and were able to dismiss any attempt to refute their nonsense by the personal attacks of being anti-woman. Once they had constructed the elaborate hoax of "patriarchy" and "male power and privilege" they could dismiss any criticism by males as being nothing more than protecting that privilege.
The second part of their brilliant strategy was to make the personal political and the political personal. They thus destroyed the ability to have personal relationships. Friction between two individual people ceased to be about those individuals and became merely symbolic of the universal "oppression" of the larger culture. An argument between a man and woman invariably expanded to include the treatment of women in Afghanistan, and Female Genital Mutilation, and how men used to beat their wives with sticks as big around as their thumbs, and so many other totally irrelevant topics that the conflict between them could never get resolved.
For years, millions of women enthusiastically joined the "junior anti-sex league" (thank you, George Orwell) and were the zealous agents of big sister turning every slight mis-comment around the dinner table or in any social setting into an opportunity to climb on their soapboxes and preach to the unwashed masses. Men got sick of having feminist spies watching their every move, and self-absorbed women landing on them with hobnail boots for every politically incorrect statement, and ruining every social occasion with an ideological tirade, and a great many men just caved in.
Most guys when they come home want a little peace and quiet and maybe a bit of physical intimacy, not to have to engage the little woman in an ideological diatribe.
Women just wore men down. Some men fought, some fought hard and long, but in the end they got so confused by female doublethink that they lost focus on what they were fighting for and just caved in.
This is reason #1 why I hold women in general culpable for this mess.
But, the bigger reason is that during all those years women never spoke up to refute the feminidiots. Men couldn't because of the brilliant pre-emptive strike of the positioning of all men as simply defending their privilege. And women didn't, thus by their silence allowing the feminidiots to speak for them because the voices of the criminally insane were the only ones speaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
The second part of their brilliant strategy was to make the personal political and the political personal. They thus destroyed the ability to have personal relationships. Friction between two individual people ceased to be about those individuals and became merely symbolic of the universal "oppression" of the larger culture. An argument between a man and woman invariably expanded to include the treatment of women in Afghanistan, and Female Genital Mutilation, and how men used to beat their wives with sticks as big around as their thumbs, and so many other totally irrelevant topics that the conflict between them could never get resolved.
For years, millions of women enthusiastically joined the "junior anti-sex league" (thank you, George Orwell) and were the zealous agents of big sister turning every slight mis-comment around the dinner table or in any social setting into an opportunity to climb on their soapboxes and preach to the unwashed masses. Men got sick of having feminist spies watching their every move, and self-absorbed women landing on them with hobnail boots for every politically incorrect statement, and ruining every social occasion with an ideological tirade, and a great many men just caved in.
Most guys when they come home want a little peace and quiet and maybe a bit of physical intimacy, not to have to engage the little woman in an ideological diatribe.
Women just wore men down. Some men fought, some fought hard and long, but in the end they got so confused by female doublethink that they lost focus on what they were fighting for and just caved in.
This is reason #1 why I hold women in general culpable for this mess.
But, the bigger reason is that during all those years women never spoke up to refute the feminidiots. Men couldn't because of the brilliant pre-emptive strike of the positioning of all men as simply defending their privilege. And women didn't, thus by their silence allowing the feminidiots to speak for them because the voices of the criminally insane were the only ones speaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Tuesday, February 05, 2002
Zenpriest #36 - Feminism is Repudiation of the Law of Cause and Effect
If you look at every aspect of feminism, from blaming the dreaded "patriarchy" to the idiotic concept of "glass ceilings", it all boils down an abyssmal level of ignorance of the amount of work required to get something done. I just recently saw an article on how feminists were trying to suppress research that showed that females, both by the reports of their mates and by their own admissions engaged in more dating violence than the males did. The feminidiot commenting on it was afraid that people might draw the conclusion that women "asked for it" - it being having the man retaliate - by attacking the man first.
This is the level of criminal insanity we are dealing with. It is the key to understanding feminism at it's very core - women want to be able to attack men any way they want (or wear seductive clothes flaunting their sexual power over men) and never have to pay any consequences of their out-of-control behavior.
The core of feminism is repudiation of the law of cause and effect, and all those other "androcentric patriarchal constructions" and force the world to conform to female fantasies of what they want the world to be like.
It is the most dangerous mentality ever unleashed on an unsuspecting world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
This is the level of criminal insanity we are dealing with. It is the key to understanding feminism at it's very core - women want to be able to attack men any way they want (or wear seductive clothes flaunting their sexual power over men) and never have to pay any consequences of their out-of-control behavior.
The core of feminism is repudiation of the law of cause and effect, and all those other "androcentric patriarchal constructions" and force the world to conform to female fantasies of what they want the world to be like.
It is the most dangerous mentality ever unleashed on an unsuspecting world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Monday, February 04, 2002
Zenpriest #35 - How Was This Allowed To Happen?
The politicians knew full well what they were doing. It worked in Russia, it worked in China, it worked in Cambodia.
This big lie that feminists have been telling all the time draws its power from how false it is. Most men used to like women and have an incredibly strong urge to please them. Some of this comes from being conditioned to respect our mothers, and some it from the pussy power that arthur mentioned.
Taking the question of how it happened into a much larger context, even a cursory examination of history turns up enough examples of the same type of thing happening that I'm frankly surprised that anyone is surprised. After the holocaust, people could not understand how it happened. There have been a half dozen genocidal campaigns in the past 10 years alone.
I think most people have a very naive view of the realities of human nature. Looking back on slavery in the US, it is inconceivable to most people today to contemplate that many people believed it was ok to own other people, and the government of the day had no problem at all defining black men as 3/5ths of a person. It is exactly the same kind of blind spot which made it simply impossible for most Americans to even imagine that 19 young men would voluntarily commit suicide so that they could kill 3,000 people. Hatred is a much more powerful force which lurks in the dark recesses of the human psyche than most people realize.
I think what astonished most men was that we found it almost impossible to believe that so many women hated us so intensely. For about 20 years I watched guys act like abused children trying to make mommy happy so she would stop hitting them. Males are conditioned to take responsibility from birth, so they were sitting ducks for all the blame that women projected onto us. Plus, men are born problem solvers so they set about to remedy any real problems in the naive belief that once remedied women would call off their attacks on men.
I went through wave after wave of false hope. When MacKinnon and Dworkin, in conspiracy with the religious right and the John Ashcroft types, pushed through the Minneapolis and Indianapolis porn ordinances, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When the famous "1 in 4" faked research came out, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When Fruity Faludi came out with her book, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When Lorena Bobbit mutilated her husband and was cheered by millions of women, I thoutht that would be a wakeup call. But, I also watched the Crips-in-suits (color=blue) use Anita Hill to ambush Clarence Thomas, then the Bloods-in-suits (color=red) use whatever her name was to try to ambush Clinton, and it finally all began to make sense.
Everything about feminism is a lie, most particularly the part where men look out for other men. In fact, men compete with each other for just about everything, particularly women and the wealth it takes to attract them. Men will gladly knife each other in the back for some pussy, so given the opportunity to play hero and lock in the female vote, the lawmakers and judges trampled each other in the stampede to hand power to women - they were not threatened because they already had a lot of power and what did they care about all those guys who were just 3/5ths of a person out there just trying to get by and find love?
My question was and is - why do women love so much to hate us? I've told the story many times of a woman I was dating who referred to her feminist consciousness raising group as a "perfectly satisfying man-hating session." That was about 1972 before it became so deeply entrenched in academia, and the pattern was already established which is still being played out today in almost 1,000 "wimmins's studdees" programs.
At first I was bewildered. Then, I spent a lot of years being hurt by the whole thing. Then I got mad as hell.
Read some Maureen Dowd. Then try to step back and see the forest instead of that criminally insane tree. Why? Why is she being provided a platform from which to spew insane irrational hatred on a daily basis? Why is everyone jumping on the anti-male bandwagon, like that one article about fake engagement rings? Why is this shit dished up all day every day?
Somewhere back about 40 years ago, people seemed to generally lose the ability to recognize people who were criminally insane - Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, child-molesting Germain Greer - and instead elevated them to folk-hero status.
Since I don't own a TV, I read a lot. The more I studied human behavior in the form of history, anthropology, and the mind sciences, the less able I was to hold on to the Humanistic philosophies of my idealist youth. If you would like to read something which really gives an eye-opening perspective, I would suggest "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" by Erich Fromm. Don't read it, however, if you really want to keep liking people in general. We are a far less noble species that we would like to believe ourselves to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
This big lie that feminists have been telling all the time draws its power from how false it is. Most men used to like women and have an incredibly strong urge to please them. Some of this comes from being conditioned to respect our mothers, and some it from the pussy power that arthur mentioned.
Taking the question of how it happened into a much larger context, even a cursory examination of history turns up enough examples of the same type of thing happening that I'm frankly surprised that anyone is surprised. After the holocaust, people could not understand how it happened. There have been a half dozen genocidal campaigns in the past 10 years alone.
I think most people have a very naive view of the realities of human nature. Looking back on slavery in the US, it is inconceivable to most people today to contemplate that many people believed it was ok to own other people, and the government of the day had no problem at all defining black men as 3/5ths of a person. It is exactly the same kind of blind spot which made it simply impossible for most Americans to even imagine that 19 young men would voluntarily commit suicide so that they could kill 3,000 people. Hatred is a much more powerful force which lurks in the dark recesses of the human psyche than most people realize.
I think what astonished most men was that we found it almost impossible to believe that so many women hated us so intensely. For about 20 years I watched guys act like abused children trying to make mommy happy so she would stop hitting them. Males are conditioned to take responsibility from birth, so they were sitting ducks for all the blame that women projected onto us. Plus, men are born problem solvers so they set about to remedy any real problems in the naive belief that once remedied women would call off their attacks on men.
I went through wave after wave of false hope. When MacKinnon and Dworkin, in conspiracy with the religious right and the John Ashcroft types, pushed through the Minneapolis and Indianapolis porn ordinances, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When the famous "1 in 4" faked research came out, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When Fruity Faludi came out with her book, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When Lorena Bobbit mutilated her husband and was cheered by millions of women, I thoutht that would be a wakeup call. But, I also watched the Crips-in-suits (color=blue) use Anita Hill to ambush Clarence Thomas, then the Bloods-in-suits (color=red) use whatever her name was to try to ambush Clinton, and it finally all began to make sense.
Everything about feminism is a lie, most particularly the part where men look out for other men. In fact, men compete with each other for just about everything, particularly women and the wealth it takes to attract them. Men will gladly knife each other in the back for some pussy, so given the opportunity to play hero and lock in the female vote, the lawmakers and judges trampled each other in the stampede to hand power to women - they were not threatened because they already had a lot of power and what did they care about all those guys who were just 3/5ths of a person out there just trying to get by and find love?
My question was and is - why do women love so much to hate us? I've told the story many times of a woman I was dating who referred to her feminist consciousness raising group as a "perfectly satisfying man-hating session." That was about 1972 before it became so deeply entrenched in academia, and the pattern was already established which is still being played out today in almost 1,000 "wimmins's studdees" programs.
At first I was bewildered. Then, I spent a lot of years being hurt by the whole thing. Then I got mad as hell.
Read some Maureen Dowd. Then try to step back and see the forest instead of that criminally insane tree. Why? Why is she being provided a platform from which to spew insane irrational hatred on a daily basis? Why is everyone jumping on the anti-male bandwagon, like that one article about fake engagement rings? Why is this shit dished up all day every day?
Somewhere back about 40 years ago, people seemed to generally lose the ability to recognize people who were criminally insane - Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, child-molesting Germain Greer - and instead elevated them to folk-hero status.
Since I don't own a TV, I read a lot. The more I studied human behavior in the form of history, anthropology, and the mind sciences, the less able I was to hold on to the Humanistic philosophies of my idealist youth. If you would like to read something which really gives an eye-opening perspective, I would suggest "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" by Erich Fromm. Don't read it, however, if you really want to keep liking people in general. We are a far less noble species that we would like to believe ourselves to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Sunday, February 03, 2002
Zenpriest #34 - When Desiring Women is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Desire Women
Technically, the law is the law and while one might wish to disagree with it and perform an act of civil disobedience, one has to do so with an awareness of the consequences and a willingness to pay them. If the feminidiots want to define looking a woman in the eye as "rape" and can intimidate enough lawmakers into passing that law, then looking a woman in the eye is rape in every sense that matters to a man.
I'm sure you remember the controversy over gun control here in the US, and those bumper stickers that read "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Well, when desiring women is outlawed (which it basically has been in most English speaking countries) then only outlaws will desire women.
The feminidiots won that round, because they capitalized on historic prudish and puritan attitudes toward sex and succeeded in escalating those horrible "impure thoughts" that so many men have from merely shameful to criminal. And, the so-called "average good woman" dodge holds no water here because all these women sat around with their thumbs up their asses and either passively watched it happen or actively aided and abetted it through their sexual harassment lawsuits and endless repetition of the famous "1 in 4" lie.
You see the result today in the unrelentingly sluttish behavior of women. Because girls no longer have a female role from which they can draw their identity, and have been forced into the old male role, the only way a girl can announce her femininity to the world is by flaunting her sexuality in every blatant manner possible. Far from the bogus facade of confidence which the media has tried to brainwash everyone into believing that girls today have, girls are actually emotional wrecks. You don't need to look any farther than the "bogus beauty" pageant in China to see that normal young women in the peak of their sexually attractive years still are so neurotic that they feel a compelling need to spend thousands of $$$, and go through surgery after surgery in a vain quest for a sense of female identity and confidence.
[A commenter illustrated this well by saying] - while he still may have a few vestiges of physical attraction, he feels absolutely no emotional attraction. The men here have just had a verbal brawl over the best way to react to this - whether to try to beat women at their own lying game, or just quit and sit out the rest of the gender war.
While naive romantics may continue to live in a fantasy world where all this has no effect on men, the truth is quite different. Every act of sex today is a potential rape charge for the male, and one for which there seems to be no statute of limitations. Men have differing levels of awareness of this, but it is only the truly dense men who can escape the implications of a Kobe Bryant.
And, what [the above commenter] described is a fundamental change in the way men view women, and an irreversible one. I frequently use the saying that it is not possible to turn a pickle back into a cucumber. The NGs here who were once innocent and wanting nothing in life more than to find a woman to love with all their heart who would love them back in any sort of fashion, have lost the innocence and the ability to trust which makes that possible.
Women have destroyed men's ability to love them by turning it into a crime. And, they have further alienated the men who are even still willing to try by their arrogant and hate-filled demeanor and demands.
I've been arguing with the [Toxic Trolls] for all my adult life. In my younger days when I was still afflicted with the strong desires that many of the guys here are trying to contend with, I argued because I had a deep sense that I was fighting for my personal right to exist and emotional survival. That will to survive is one of the strongest forces on earth, so it kept me going for a long time. But, it eventually ran out, as did the last of my ability to feel anything positive toward women at all.
Another analogy I have often used is that situation we have today is like a large lake. On one side, you have armies of women pissing and shitting and dumping as much raw emotional sewage as they can create into that lake. On the other side, you have the group of so-called "nice normal" women who are beginning to realize that their drinking water is no longer as sweet and fresh as it used to be.
Now, the ordinary male response to a situation like this would be to run around to the other side of the lake, and stop those bitches from poisoning the water that everyone else has to drink from. For some odd reason, the female response has been to cheer the bitches for their polluting ways, with calls of "YOU GO, GRRL!!"
From my perspective, it is up to women to do something about the fact that men are no longer allowed to desire them. A lot of dickless men caved in to the army of ToxicTrolls, largely due to the fact that all other women kept silent and appeared to be complicit in what was happening.
One of the reasons that married women who brag about how well they treat their husbands or BFs draw so much fire on here, is that men have seen a lot of women who take the position "I got mine, so what do I care how badly these women are screwing things up for other women, men, and children?"
Nor will a woman like that get any kudos from this group simply because they haven't fucked a man over in the last week. The culture as a rule does not hand out gold medals to members of a group of known arsonists simply because they haven't burned anything down in the past week.
Nor will women who talk about "trying." The male ethic is to look at results. If your house is burning down, you don't want firemen who "try", you want them to be effective in putting out the fire.
"Do, or do not do. There is no 'try'."
I have been hammering on women for years to provide some kind of countervoice to the male-hating and bashing of the feminidiots on the one hand, and the smug sense of superiority of women who want men to continue in their traditional roles despite everything in the culture working to make that impossible, on the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
I'm sure you remember the controversy over gun control here in the US, and those bumper stickers that read "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Well, when desiring women is outlawed (which it basically has been in most English speaking countries) then only outlaws will desire women.
The feminidiots won that round, because they capitalized on historic prudish and puritan attitudes toward sex and succeeded in escalating those horrible "impure thoughts" that so many men have from merely shameful to criminal. And, the so-called "average good woman" dodge holds no water here because all these women sat around with their thumbs up their asses and either passively watched it happen or actively aided and abetted it through their sexual harassment lawsuits and endless repetition of the famous "1 in 4" lie.
You see the result today in the unrelentingly sluttish behavior of women. Because girls no longer have a female role from which they can draw their identity, and have been forced into the old male role, the only way a girl can announce her femininity to the world is by flaunting her sexuality in every blatant manner possible. Far from the bogus facade of confidence which the media has tried to brainwash everyone into believing that girls today have, girls are actually emotional wrecks. You don't need to look any farther than the "bogus beauty" pageant in China to see that normal young women in the peak of their sexually attractive years still are so neurotic that they feel a compelling need to spend thousands of $$$, and go through surgery after surgery in a vain quest for a sense of female identity and confidence.
[A commenter illustrated this well by saying] - while he still may have a few vestiges of physical attraction, he feels absolutely no emotional attraction. The men here have just had a verbal brawl over the best way to react to this - whether to try to beat women at their own lying game, or just quit and sit out the rest of the gender war.
While naive romantics may continue to live in a fantasy world where all this has no effect on men, the truth is quite different. Every act of sex today is a potential rape charge for the male, and one for which there seems to be no statute of limitations. Men have differing levels of awareness of this, but it is only the truly dense men who can escape the implications of a Kobe Bryant.
And, what [the above commenter] described is a fundamental change in the way men view women, and an irreversible one. I frequently use the saying that it is not possible to turn a pickle back into a cucumber. The NGs here who were once innocent and wanting nothing in life more than to find a woman to love with all their heart who would love them back in any sort of fashion, have lost the innocence and the ability to trust which makes that possible.
Women have destroyed men's ability to love them by turning it into a crime. And, they have further alienated the men who are even still willing to try by their arrogant and hate-filled demeanor and demands.
I've been arguing with the [Toxic Trolls] for all my adult life. In my younger days when I was still afflicted with the strong desires that many of the guys here are trying to contend with, I argued because I had a deep sense that I was fighting for my personal right to exist and emotional survival. That will to survive is one of the strongest forces on earth, so it kept me going for a long time. But, it eventually ran out, as did the last of my ability to feel anything positive toward women at all.
Another analogy I have often used is that situation we have today is like a large lake. On one side, you have armies of women pissing and shitting and dumping as much raw emotional sewage as they can create into that lake. On the other side, you have the group of so-called "nice normal" women who are beginning to realize that their drinking water is no longer as sweet and fresh as it used to be.
Now, the ordinary male response to a situation like this would be to run around to the other side of the lake, and stop those bitches from poisoning the water that everyone else has to drink from. For some odd reason, the female response has been to cheer the bitches for their polluting ways, with calls of "YOU GO, GRRL!!"
From my perspective, it is up to women to do something about the fact that men are no longer allowed to desire them. A lot of dickless men caved in to the army of ToxicTrolls, largely due to the fact that all other women kept silent and appeared to be complicit in what was happening.
One of the reasons that married women who brag about how well they treat their husbands or BFs draw so much fire on here, is that men have seen a lot of women who take the position "I got mine, so what do I care how badly these women are screwing things up for other women, men, and children?"
Nor will a woman like that get any kudos from this group simply because they haven't fucked a man over in the last week. The culture as a rule does not hand out gold medals to members of a group of known arsonists simply because they haven't burned anything down in the past week.
Nor will women who talk about "trying." The male ethic is to look at results. If your house is burning down, you don't want firemen who "try", you want them to be effective in putting out the fire.
"Do, or do not do. There is no 'try'."
I have been hammering on women for years to provide some kind of countervoice to the male-hating and bashing of the feminidiots on the one hand, and the smug sense of superiority of women who want men to continue in their traditional roles despite everything in the culture working to make that impossible, on the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Saturday, February 02, 2002
Zenpriest #33 - Salesmanship 101
Maybe Doc Love and DeAngelo have just found a way to package some universal truths in sound bites, but I didn't think of what I was saying as "relationship advice." It was more in the line of "how to get through this world without letting it drive you crazy advice."
Taking it completely out of the relationship realm, what is the first thing they teach in Sales 101 about the most important aspect of selling? ASK FOR THE SALE! If you go shopping for a car and one salesman stands around and yaks your ear off about how great the car is then just stands there expecting you to be spontaneously overcome with a great desire to shuck out thousands of bucks, and a different one says "I really, and I do mean REALLY want your business, what is it going to take to get it?" - which one are you more likely to buy from?
There is this insane notion going around among young men that the only way they can get a woman to sleep with them is to pretend they don't want her to. Guys complain about all the mixed messages they get from women, but don't realize that the messages they give out are no less ambiguous.
Yes, I know that for young men their internal hornies are screaming at them so loudly they just assume that everyone around them can hear too. It isn't true. Yes, in a general sense women are aware that most men want to sleep with attractive women. But, there is a huge difference at the interpersonal level between "yup, guys want to have sex with girls, and I'm a guy and you're a girl, soooo - draw your own conclusions" and "I want to sleep with YOU." The second is at least a departure from the "generic relationship" and acknowledges the other person as a unique individual.
It is also nothing but basic sales to QUALIFY YOUR PROSPECTS. Car salesmen know there are tire-kickers and there are buyers. And, they'll spend a few minutes with a tire-kicker, but the moment a buyer walks in the door they'll drop them like a hot rock and pursue a sale they can close.
This has nothing to do with being a "playa", and is in fact the antithesis of the assumed basic dishonesty which most people associate with the playa mentality. What I'm suggesting is to get MORE honest with yourself and other people, not less.
Yes, I know a lot of guys have been beaten down by feminist bullshit. And I know that a few posts aren't going to reverse that process. But, I also believe that guys have some responsibility for improving their own situations. If I try to tell a guy that there is nothing wrong with wanting what he wants, and he tries to argue with me -- WTF?? - ok, I give in, you're right, you really are pieces of shit!
There's nothing "bad" about wanting sex. If cupcake's father hadn't wanted sex, she would not be alive. But most guys carry around such a huge load of guilt and shame for it that they stand around looking like whipped cocker spaniels hoping some woman will take pity on them and hand out a mercy hump.
It don't happen!
What she wants is for the guy to take the responsibility for moving both of them into bed. She wants to maintain her fantasy of a being a reluctant virgin, and have him call out the wanton woman inside of her.
Guys who do this - get laid. Guys who won't, don't.
It is absolutely true that we suffer according to the level of our own bullshit. When we become willing to let go of our bullshit, then our suffering decreases.
Any guy who holds a woman in contempt and calls her a "slut" for sleeping with other guys is bullshitting himself if he thinks he is not going to hold a woman in subconscious contempt for sleeping with him. It is like the old Grouch Marx joke about not wanting to belong to any club who would have someone like him as a member.
It all boils down to accepting oneself as ok, accepting what one wants as ok to want, and then going about looking for it.
"Hey, you're cute. I want to sleep with you. Do you want to sleep with me? No? Ok. NEXT!"
"Hey, you're cute. I want to sleep with you. Do you want to sleep with me? Yes? COOL!"
Women have a right to not want to fuck someone, just as every guy has that same right to not want to fuck any particular woman. Find out if she wants to, and if she doesn't THEN MOVE ON TO ONE WHO MIGHT.
There's nothing "playa" about that - it is just being honest with yourself and with that other person and respecting both of your rights as human beings.
It is obvious as hell that most women really do want to fuck someone, because they ARE, and it would serve most guys really well to ask what the guys that they are fucking are doing which is different from what they are doing.
If someone sold cars for a living, and the guy next to him was whipping his ass in sales each month, wouldn't it make sense for him to study the other guy's sales techniques and try to emulate them if he really wanted to sell cars?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Taking it completely out of the relationship realm, what is the first thing they teach in Sales 101 about the most important aspect of selling? ASK FOR THE SALE! If you go shopping for a car and one salesman stands around and yaks your ear off about how great the car is then just stands there expecting you to be spontaneously overcome with a great desire to shuck out thousands of bucks, and a different one says "I really, and I do mean REALLY want your business, what is it going to take to get it?" - which one are you more likely to buy from?
There is this insane notion going around among young men that the only way they can get a woman to sleep with them is to pretend they don't want her to. Guys complain about all the mixed messages they get from women, but don't realize that the messages they give out are no less ambiguous.
Yes, I know that for young men their internal hornies are screaming at them so loudly they just assume that everyone around them can hear too. It isn't true. Yes, in a general sense women are aware that most men want to sleep with attractive women. But, there is a huge difference at the interpersonal level between "yup, guys want to have sex with girls, and I'm a guy and you're a girl, soooo - draw your own conclusions" and "I want to sleep with YOU." The second is at least a departure from the "generic relationship" and acknowledges the other person as a unique individual.
It is also nothing but basic sales to QUALIFY YOUR PROSPECTS. Car salesmen know there are tire-kickers and there are buyers. And, they'll spend a few minutes with a tire-kicker, but the moment a buyer walks in the door they'll drop them like a hot rock and pursue a sale they can close.
This has nothing to do with being a "playa", and is in fact the antithesis of the assumed basic dishonesty which most people associate with the playa mentality. What I'm suggesting is to get MORE honest with yourself and other people, not less.
Yes, I know a lot of guys have been beaten down by feminist bullshit. And I know that a few posts aren't going to reverse that process. But, I also believe that guys have some responsibility for improving their own situations. If I try to tell a guy that there is nothing wrong with wanting what he wants, and he tries to argue with me -- WTF?? - ok, I give in, you're right, you really are pieces of shit!
There's nothing "bad" about wanting sex. If cupcake's father hadn't wanted sex, she would not be alive. But most guys carry around such a huge load of guilt and shame for it that they stand around looking like whipped cocker spaniels hoping some woman will take pity on them and hand out a mercy hump.
It don't happen!
What she wants is for the guy to take the responsibility for moving both of them into bed. She wants to maintain her fantasy of a being a reluctant virgin, and have him call out the wanton woman inside of her.
Guys who do this - get laid. Guys who won't, don't.
It is absolutely true that we suffer according to the level of our own bullshit. When we become willing to let go of our bullshit, then our suffering decreases.
Any guy who holds a woman in contempt and calls her a "slut" for sleeping with other guys is bullshitting himself if he thinks he is not going to hold a woman in subconscious contempt for sleeping with him. It is like the old Grouch Marx joke about not wanting to belong to any club who would have someone like him as a member.
It all boils down to accepting oneself as ok, accepting what one wants as ok to want, and then going about looking for it.
"Hey, you're cute. I want to sleep with you. Do you want to sleep with me? No? Ok. NEXT!"
"Hey, you're cute. I want to sleep with you. Do you want to sleep with me? Yes? COOL!"
Women have a right to not want to fuck someone, just as every guy has that same right to not want to fuck any particular woman. Find out if she wants to, and if she doesn't THEN MOVE ON TO ONE WHO MIGHT.
There's nothing "playa" about that - it is just being honest with yourself and with that other person and respecting both of your rights as human beings.
It is obvious as hell that most women really do want to fuck someone, because they ARE, and it would serve most guys really well to ask what the guys that they are fucking are doing which is different from what they are doing.
If someone sold cars for a living, and the guy next to him was whipping his ass in sales each month, wouldn't it make sense for him to study the other guy's sales techniques and try to emulate them if he really wanted to sell cars?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Friday, February 01, 2002
Zenpriest #32 - The Glass Pussy Ceiling
I'm a male of the "old school" of masculinity. I realize that makes me a dinosaur in this day and age. But, having watched this whole slow-motion cultural train wreck from the beginning, I see men throwing away a lot of their strengths.
After all the yammering at them by women to become more like women, I see men of today doing just that. And the problem with that is that the female traits they are emulating are precisely the ones which tend to make women ineffective.
Let me use an example to illustrate. We all know by now that the whole "wage-parity/glass-ceiling" bit is complete horsehit. Women make less money than men because they work fewer hours, work less hard during the hours they do spend, take more time off work, and gravitate toward less risky jobs - thereby avoiding all the aspects of jobs for which higher compensation is paid.
What I see here is a bunch of NiceGuys™ complaining that there is a "glass pussy-ceiling." "Us NiceGuys™ only get 75 pieces of ass for every 100 that those EvilGuys™ get!" And, that's true, because EvilGuys™ do more of what it takes to get pussy than NiceGuys™ do, so they get paid more in the coin of the realm of the sexual marketplace.
Just like I have been saying to women all these years, choices have prices and consequences. You can play it safe, OR you can get laid - take your choice based on which results you prefer.
And, what I hear back sounds a whole lot like "But, we want to play it safe, and get laid." to which I say the same thing that I say to women whining about wanting a "woman-friendly workplace" - things just don't work that way. They never have, don't now, and I'm pretty sure they never will.
Guys who are aggressive and take risks, and who are thick skinned enough to ignore rejection, get laid more than guys who don't. And, because they take risks, some of them end up being Kobed. There's something inherent in the meaning of the word "risk" in that.
I don't want men to follow women down that primrose path to helplessness and ineffectiveness. Male values and ethics have served me very well in life and I have not only been able to survive pretty comfortably without massive and intrusive government intervention and protection, in many cases I have been able to survive, in spite of it.
You may have run across my notorious dictum that the best way to kill a bad idea is to implement it - as quickly and thoroughly and with as much fanfare as you can. As long as you fight it, the people pushing for it can paint you as obstructionist and claim that their hare-brained idea will be the salvation of everything. With no evidence to the contrary, their bullshit plays better to onlookers who want it all than your more disciplined approach and you get played to be the bad guy and lose in the court of public opinion. No matter how long and hard you fight it, people will find ways to push it through the back door and implement it incrementally, and the idiocy of it will be masked by the fact that you're keeping things working.
If, on the other hand, you implement it immediately and completely, making sure everyone knows who is responsible for it, when things go to shit the spectators start shouting for the heads of those who thought it up.
I have been fighting this progressive criminalization of male desire since the early 80s. I went head to head against MacKinnon and Dworkin and the religious right over the Minneapolis porn ordinances, along with a small handfull of other men. That was a lot of fun, NOT! The diabolical thing about criminalizing male desire is that we are all guilty of it - we walk around on the lam just waiting for some woman to drop the hammer on us.
If things get as much worse in the next 20 years as they have gotten in the last 20, when the 20 and 30 somethings are 40 and 50 somethings, are they going to be hanging around on forums like this one talking to the then 20 and 30 somethings saying "yeah, you guys sure have it bad!"?
The reason any culture criminalizes something is to try to stamp it out. Apparently, they are now trying to stamp out "unsolicited compliments" and any form of male initiative in starting relationships. And guys keep letting themselves get fined and tossed in jail for providing the benefits of relationships to women who aren't doing jack shit to bring them about.
hmmmmmmm
Yeah, I know guys are saying "But, if we don't pursue women then some EvilGuy™ will and then he will get the pussy we might have been able to have." Yeah, that's true, but he also might end up like Kobe Bryant, or paying child support to some skank for the next 18 years.
Young guys gotta take the risk, I know that. The screaming hornies demand it. So, if they are, at least go for the big payoffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
After all the yammering at them by women to become more like women, I see men of today doing just that. And the problem with that is that the female traits they are emulating are precisely the ones which tend to make women ineffective.
Let me use an example to illustrate. We all know by now that the whole "wage-parity/glass-ceiling" bit is complete horsehit. Women make less money than men because they work fewer hours, work less hard during the hours they do spend, take more time off work, and gravitate toward less risky jobs - thereby avoiding all the aspects of jobs for which higher compensation is paid.
What I see here is a bunch of NiceGuys™ complaining that there is a "glass pussy-ceiling." "Us NiceGuys™ only get 75 pieces of ass for every 100 that those EvilGuys™ get!" And, that's true, because EvilGuys™ do more of what it takes to get pussy than NiceGuys™ do, so they get paid more in the coin of the realm of the sexual marketplace.
Just like I have been saying to women all these years, choices have prices and consequences. You can play it safe, OR you can get laid - take your choice based on which results you prefer.
And, what I hear back sounds a whole lot like "But, we want to play it safe, and get laid." to which I say the same thing that I say to women whining about wanting a "woman-friendly workplace" - things just don't work that way. They never have, don't now, and I'm pretty sure they never will.
Guys who are aggressive and take risks, and who are thick skinned enough to ignore rejection, get laid more than guys who don't. And, because they take risks, some of them end up being Kobed. There's something inherent in the meaning of the word "risk" in that.
I don't want men to follow women down that primrose path to helplessness and ineffectiveness. Male values and ethics have served me very well in life and I have not only been able to survive pretty comfortably without massive and intrusive government intervention and protection, in many cases I have been able to survive, in spite of it.
You may have run across my notorious dictum that the best way to kill a bad idea is to implement it - as quickly and thoroughly and with as much fanfare as you can. As long as you fight it, the people pushing for it can paint you as obstructionist and claim that their hare-brained idea will be the salvation of everything. With no evidence to the contrary, their bullshit plays better to onlookers who want it all than your more disciplined approach and you get played to be the bad guy and lose in the court of public opinion. No matter how long and hard you fight it, people will find ways to push it through the back door and implement it incrementally, and the idiocy of it will be masked by the fact that you're keeping things working.
If, on the other hand, you implement it immediately and completely, making sure everyone knows who is responsible for it, when things go to shit the spectators start shouting for the heads of those who thought it up.
I have been fighting this progressive criminalization of male desire since the early 80s. I went head to head against MacKinnon and Dworkin and the religious right over the Minneapolis porn ordinances, along with a small handfull of other men. That was a lot of fun, NOT! The diabolical thing about criminalizing male desire is that we are all guilty of it - we walk around on the lam just waiting for some woman to drop the hammer on us.
If things get as much worse in the next 20 years as they have gotten in the last 20, when the 20 and 30 somethings are 40 and 50 somethings, are they going to be hanging around on forums like this one talking to the then 20 and 30 somethings saying "yeah, you guys sure have it bad!"?
The reason any culture criminalizes something is to try to stamp it out. Apparently, they are now trying to stamp out "unsolicited compliments" and any form of male initiative in starting relationships. And guys keep letting themselves get fined and tossed in jail for providing the benefits of relationships to women who aren't doing jack shit to bring them about.
hmmmmmmm
Yeah, I know guys are saying "But, if we don't pursue women then some EvilGuy™ will and then he will get the pussy we might have been able to have." Yeah, that's true, but he also might end up like Kobe Bryant, or paying child support to some skank for the next 18 years.
Young guys gotta take the risk, I know that. The screaming hornies demand it. So, if they are, at least go for the big payoffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Zenpriest Index Next
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
