Thursday, January 31, 2002

Zenpriest #31 - If Things You See Just Don't Seem To Make Any Sense, Check Your Assumptions. You Will Find That One Or More Of Them Is Wrong.

After spending years in exactly the same sort of "what the fuck is going on?" state, I began to apply the principle Ayn Rand states over and over again in "Atlas Shrugged" - if things you see just don't seem to make any sense, check your assumptions. You will find that one or more of them is wrong.

The situation as I see it for a lot of guys is like a mosaic - specifically, like one of those composite pictures which are made up of thousands of little pictures. If you stand with the thing right in front of your face, all you see is a few of the little pictures and they seem random and chaotic and don't add up to anything. But, if you start stepping back and work to detach yourself and separate your observations from what you want, at some point the larger picture appears and snaps into focus.

If you take the simple phenomenon of physical obesity, I think people are following exactly the same behavioral patterns when it comes to relationships that they are following when it comes to food - short term gratification of sensual indulgences without regard to the longer term consequences.

[Nice] Guys are being pushed out of the reproductive pool in two ways:

1- Genetically, because the EvilGuys™ are out there snapping up all the breeding opportunities with the stupid cows.

2 - Valuewise, because a lot of your potential mates have already gotten themselves pregnant with demon spawn. You would have to take on a woman with a few of these bastard kids and try to teach them your values, along with any kids you might have. One paradox there is that in order to do that you would already be violating part of that value system you are trying to pass on.

Even if you were able to find a woman who hadn't shucked out a bastard or two and had kids of your own with her, there are absolutely no protections for your ability to stay in their lives and pass on your values. Fathers have been completely marginalized out of the family and dads today are fighting like hell for just the ability to see their kids on a regular basis. Once cupcake has dropped the nuke of "abuse" on you, you could end up like those poor bastards who have to pay $85-$300 per hour for "supervised visitation." Great. You get to shell out a few hundred bucks to spend 2 hours in the equivalent of an interrogation room interacting with your kid while a lesbian wimmins's-studies/socialwork major breathes down your neck and watches your every move under a microscope.

How do you play the game if you are after a reward which is no longer a part of the structure of the game? Answer: you can't. It's like Global Thermonuclear War – the only “winning” move is not to play.

Where does a nice-guy like you fit in? He doesn't. The feminidiots declared open season on guys like you and you are being hunted into extinction.

Those are hard answers, and I know they aren't the ones that NiceGuys™ are looking for, but those are the answers I see.

Being an old-style male and having fierce pride in men and maleness, I have great faith that men will be able to adapt and find a way to beat the game. I don't have the answer, because my choice was to refuse to play - or more accurately to choose to play only limited parts of the game.

What I'm trying to do is pass on what I have learned so that younger guys can build on it and come up with some innovations - exactly like science and technology have progressed on the work of each generation and added new ideas and knowledge to it which led to new techniques.

If I were going to make some suggestions for approaches which might be more useful than others, I would say start with looking at older style courtship processes. When I was a kid, the first question parents would ask their child who had a new love interest was "Do they come from a good family?" That one simple question contained a huge amount of wisdom. Look at the value system they were raised in and thus are likely to hold to. Try to meet a woman's family. If her mother or sisters are skanks, or her dad is an asshole, or gone because he either got pushed out of the family or was a deadbeat, look somewhere else.

There is another factor in that as well. There really is something which might be called "social capital." A good family reputation benefits all the members of a family and a bad one harms all of them. If your brother fucked someone over, you automatically became less trustworthy, so families exerted a great deal of internal pressure on their members to behave ethically.

Does the tradition of "honor killings" start to make sense?

Another suggestion would be to take a real hard look at yourself and get real honest with yourself regarding any degree to which you behave like a skank behaves. As irritating as she can be at times, MNIK points out that a lot of guys are just as picky about women and have just as shallow criteria when it comes to looks as NiceGuys™ complain about skanks being.

If a flat-chested 2 otherwise met all your criteria, would you consider her? Any NiceGuy™ who cannot answer an immediate and unconflicted "yes" to that question is carrying around some internal hypocrisy which is going to keep tripping him up in his quest for a NiceGal™.

As the old saying goes, you cannot con a man who is honest with himself.

Guys [often] talk about wanting intimacy and closeness, and I can tell them that I have personally experienced the old "Ugly Duckling" fairy tale and watched a 2 turn into a solid 7 right before my very eyes when snuggled up against her. I have also gone to bed with 9s who morphed overnight into -1s.

Even for the guys who want to be "playas", if we put strictly in cash terms, if you had one 10, and I had four 5s, would you trade me even up? If not, the guy would be a fool, and if so, I would be the fool.

Like I keep saying, I am not without sympathy for the situation of younger men. But I have been through enough of the territory to know that what many of them think it looks like out there, is not what it actually looks like. I'm a hard-assed old codger throwing buckets of cold water on some guys who have illusions and fantasies which I don't see as being any different than the illusions and fantasies young women hold these days.

Female infanticide and selective neglect of female infants resulting in their deaths have been very real things in the past. A few hundred years ago, the average ratio of men of breeding age to women of breeding age was about 130:100. Female sexuality (breeding capacity) really was a commodity for which there was far more demand than supply, which explains the high cultural value which was placed on it. Not only does our biology drive us men to compete for desirable females, cultural circumstances and values amplified this even further.

I was raised to be a NiceGuy™, but women of my generation were also raised to be NiceGals™. Then feminidiocy came along and convinced them that being a NiceGal™ was proof that they were "oppressed" by the dreaded evil "Patriarchy", and that in order to combat that they had to become skanks - so, many of them did.

A lot of NiceGuys™ think that the way to cope with the situation is to become EvilGuys™. The problem is that they can't - most of them just don't have it in them. Let just one woman scratch them where they itch, and they instantly revert back to being the NiceGuys™ that they really are, which gives the skank the chance to revert to her real type.

A lot of people think I'm an EvilGuy™. (MNIK thinks I shave with a blowtorch.) But, I'm really just a HardGuy™. The world wants us to be hard and will either beat us into being hard, or beat us to death trying. Contrary to all the crap women have put out, they really want us to be HardGuys™ too, which is why they beat the shit out of us.

The reason that women seem to go for EvilGuys™ is because they are the only HardGuys™ left. All the NiceGuys™ are really SoftGuys™ and they are about as appealing as oatmeal when the Rottweilers that women have become really want to sink their teeth into a flavorful but tough steak.

The course [which I think is the right one] is - harden yourself, become successful, demand fair compensation for what you have to give a woman or don't give it.

You may still end up without a woman, because women really have become ruined by feminidiocy, but you will get to keep your soul. Every man has to make the decision for himself which is more important to him.

Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Wednesday, January 30, 2002

Zenpriest #30 - Gurl Math

Quote: "The changing ratio of female to male students is a social phenomenon worthy of speculation. As women assume the role of breadwinner, are men becoming less economically driven? Does an anti-male bias in education discourage males (advancement), as another study suggests?"

Y'know, it takes a full PhD in something like sociology to become so stupid as to seriously ask such questions.

"If you fill your living room with wadded newspapers, and then throw a match into them, do you think your house will burn down?"

Take away not only the motivation, but the means as well, for men to become financially successful, and d'ya think men might actually become less financially successful?

Give women more than 50% of college degrees (since 1980) and more than 50% of all management level jobs (since 2001) and just where are these financially successful men supposed to come from? Out of the same ass that all the cooked statistics came from? I guess gurl-math somehow sees it as being possible for women to get 60% of the best paying jobs, and for men to get the other 60% so all those high achieving women can find an even higher achieving man, all the while also making $1 for every $1 a man makes.

The law of summation of paradoxes dictates that at some point the entire system of delusion has to collapse.


"No matter how strong a woman is, no matter how much of a feminist a woman is, she still tends to look down on men who are not sufficiently aggressive and successful... We still want men to achieve as much or more, and we have contempt for those who don't. They're marginal; they're losers." -- writer and professor Jane Young in Good Will Towards Men by Jack Kammer

"[S]leek young women in the Prada-handbag crowd... cast chilly, appraising glances around the room at power-lunch restaurants and dot-com launch parties. You can almost see the thought balloons over their heads: 'Anyone here making more than me and worth talking to?' Most of [the] female clients [of one professional matchmaker who worked at two dating services in San Francisco for ten years] were over 30. They made a lot of money but were determined to find a man who made even more. Their happiness seemed to depend on it." -- columnist Sue Hutchinson, San Jose (California) Mercury News, October 1, 2000


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

Zenpriest #29 - The Future's Cultural Time-bombs

As pissed off as you guys are at women, most of you remember a time when women were something other than distilled viciousness. You seek and yearn for a different type of woman, you at least believe that such exists.

[The boys today] are growing up in a world where their mothers are the biggest skanks of all, because they should know better and because the boys feel instinctively that they should be able to trust mom.

Trying to explain to such boys that women who are capable of anything other than extreme cruelty will be like some of the things I have tried to get across to younger men here - they won't believe you.

Some of these boys will hate females with an intensity which makes arthur look like Alan Alda.

I see the potential in a few years for unprecedented levels of violence against women. A permanent social and economic underclass, deprived of breeding opportunity and ANY sort of positive deeply emotional contact, isn't going to like a bunch of older guys who found one way or another to do ok within the system that they are locked out of any more than they are going to like women.

As more incidents like Columbine happen, and these cultural time bombs go off, there are going to be calls for ever more laws to restrict your behavior, and be as intrusive into your lives as they want to be. Men accused of molesting children these days are routinely required to undergo a test in which their penis is wired to a machine and he is shown violent and kiddie porn and his sexual reaction is measured. Of course, the test doesn't mean shit and it will register anxiety and it gets interpreted as arousal.

I understand why guys want to run away to other countries - what is called "the Geographical Cure" - but all this shit will be everywhere in another generation or two. What then? Gonna leave it for the little boys to sort out?

A couple of generations of men have dropped the fucking ball that they ended up handing off to most of the guys here. My gang of idiots let this get started, and our little brothers and sisters - or first kids of those who had them early - just followed in our ruts.

But, some of us have got to turn around and do something to help these little boys and not abandon them to the all-consuming harridans.

This thing has such immense cultural momentum, it's unbelievable. Women are cutting the arms off little girls and letting them bleed to death, and everyone rushes to comfort her, because we know that women are always the victims.

Monsters are running loose among us, and they are creating new monsters every day. The media tries to paint Aileen Wuornos in a sympathetic manner. It's ok to be a monster, if you are woman, everybody understands. Murder is cool, if a woman gets off on it. I think that was Karla Faye Tucker, but it might have been Karla Hromolka.

Guys need to start screaming about how this culture of hatred is going to backfire in a big way, and worst of all on women.

Hate bounces. Anyone here heard that before?

You need to start screaming because when it starts to happen "they" are going to start blaming you, and passing more laws to make your lives hell.

This is the one and only time I am going to use this particular word, because it has entered the junkfood category of meaningless words - empowerment.

All power comes from willingness to act. I hear a lot of helplessness from the guys here, and I keep preaching that they aren't as helpless as they think. But they keep going down the same old ruts because they feel safer and less risky.

But, those ruts keep leading to the same dead end.

When a person isn't getting what they want, it is pretty much a habit to do more of the same. But there comes a point when you are doing as much of it as you can, that you really ought to ask yourself what it is going to take to prove to you that it is NOT going to work. And, once you have figured that out, make the decision to try something else.

Somebody has to defend the boys, and stand up for positive maleness, and try to get bright lights shown on the stories of corruption and plain vileness of women.

Because as long as "The Feminine Mystique" is not shattered, women will be able to appear to men any way they want to appear.

Be prepared guys. And help out the little guys whenever and wherever you can.

Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Monday, January 28, 2002

Zenpriest #28 - Ethical Sociopaths

[One reaction to feminism] is what I term "becoming an ethical sociopath." What I mean by that is embarking on a path of spiritual and self development which leads to coming to terms with or eliminating one's faults, and becoming confident enough about one's virtues to self-validate and no longer need the validation of women.

It may seem like a very fine line I am drawing here, but I believe it is a significant one. If a woman tells me every day what a rotten asshole I am, it is still my choice and something within my power to regard her opinion as insignificant. It is a mental battle that I must win against myself, but one that can be won.

The reason I may seem to harp on this, is that I am dedicated to helping men get their feet back under them and reclaim their power. I am not saying that it is easy, I am just saying that it can be done.

When a woman tells me I am a rotten asshole, there are basically two possibilities - 1) she is right, I really am a rotten asshole, or 2) she is wrong, I'm really ok, and she is a complete idiot.

I'll take what is behind door number 2.

This is what I mean when I keep saying that women have thrown away their own power. Yes, in times past, women did really have immense amounts of power based on the desire of most men to please them. But, by going so absolutely insane and self-absorbed, what they have ended up doing is training men how to live and survive mentally and emotionally without their approval.

I mean, really who can take seriously the opinions of creatures afraid to go out of the house without troweling a layer of paint on their faces?

Why in the world would I elevate the opinions of someone who is afraid of her own face over my own knowledge of myself?


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Sunday, January 27, 2002

Zenpriest #27 - Ignoring Women

Quote: "If there is one piece of tactical knowledge modern man needs to add, it's the female hot button: being ignored."

I would like to take your tactical point, and expand it to show how it works strategically.

Once men understand why being ignored is so devastating to women, we will have a weapon of unbelievable power.

I'm not going to write a thesis on this, so just let me say that I have researched the hell out of this and can provide all the citations and evidence – the outline will be presented in sound bites.

Everywhere in nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female. This goes down to the level of plants which have "male" and "female" parts.

The ripening of an egg, or ovum, is a time and energy intensive job, so the male is designed to be ready to fertilize that ovum when the female notifies him that she is "ready."

In the rest of the natural world, females announce their readiness to the entire world with a variety of cues - smell being the most significant, but visual cues come in a close second.

When a female chimpanzee is in estrus, her genitals swell up and become a SPECIFIC shade of bright pink. Jane Goodall observed one such female whose genitals could be seen from across a valley - nearly a mile or 2 away.

There is a species of fish in which the belly of the female turns a particular shade of red when she is gravid. A block of wood with the lower half painted that exact shade of red will drive males into a mating frenzy.

Smell is even more important. There are MANY species in which a female in heat gives off pheromones which are specific to that species which can be picked up by males as much as 5 miles away.

Ok, now here is the bombshell which usually blows a lot of men's groups apart. One of the most destructive concepts we have against us is creationism. Unless people are able to see that humans are part of the natural world and ruled by the same influences as all other living things, they are able to believe that change can be imposed "top down" by some sort of outside authority, instead of arising inevitably from our inherent natures.

This would be our "is-ness" - our inherent nature which makes us what we are, and not what we are not.

Mating behavior does NOT get mediated in the new brain, or the cortex. It happens in the brainstem and spinal cord, the old or "reptile" brain.

In the days when such experiments were still allowed, you could open a cat's skull and suck out all the cortex. Sexual and mating behavior was not affected at all, but social behavior was destroyed.

Human females have introduced a new factor in the game - they ovulate covertly. There is no way to tell when they are fertile and when they aren't - although we are beginning to hear about studies which suggest that women on the pill smell differently.

The human male adaptation to this has been to pay greater attention to women and the subtle cues they give off that they are fertile. These are these "signals" that women always talk about giving off and getting so angry at men when they don't pick up on them.

The problem lies in the fact that women have become adept at faking these cues in order to trigger men's mating responses - thus giving them huge amounts of power to manipulate men. Men react in their spinal cords to a woman's facial lips reddened with lipstick, exactly the same way they would react to a different set of lips reddened with sexual ripeness.

Purely female power depends entirely on how many males she can capture the attention of. The more males vying for the chance to fertilize her egg, the more choices she has.

So, when women like Andrea Dworkin say they have no power, they are speaking the absolute truth. She has no female power because she is ugly as sin and men run in the other direction screaming. So, she wants male power. In Warren Farrel's one really good book, "Why Men Are The Way They Are" he talks about females becoming used to being "genetic celebrities" and men being "genetic groupies."

Women grow up being accustomed to having to do nothing more than show up in order to be the center of male attention. Like any child, their behavior gets shaped to maximize the rewards they get, and by two years after they hit puberty most females are masters of the art of sexual manipulation.

This is the reason for the extreme restrictions placed on girls in tribal cultures where the kind of endlessly self-centered manipulation of immature females would destroy the tribe. Women in the middle east wear the burqa and women in Africa take little girls and cut their genitals off because purely selfish behavior will destroy the cohesiveness of the tribe which is essential for its survival.

The old structure of marriage was designed mostly to benefit older women because the power of a young fertile female over men of all ages is universal. By locking people into a marriage which could not be broken, women were guaranteed to be cared for into old age. The smarter ones used the years of their peak sexual attractiveness to build emotional bonds with their husbands which would endure into their "not so pretty years."

When women got "liberated" from all this, the culture was thrown back to a situation where sexual power was everything. And, so far the first 2 quarters of the gender war have been fought in women's territory when they did still have sexual power.

But, things are changing. The boomers are getting old, and boomer men are losing interest in women at the same time that boomer women are getting so ugly that no one takes an interest in them. Chapin's series about the "Quagmire of Older Women." is dead on target.

If men allow women to get away with the shit they have gotten away with, and come in and rescue women from the painful consequences of it, there will be no learning at the cultural level.

The strategy which I believe will work for men is the equivalent of the labor management practice of a "lockout." Women wanted out of the system as it was, ok. Now that they are out, we don't let them back in.

There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting "This way to see the great EGRESS!"

The herd surged through the gates and found out that "egress" means "exit."

I believe that natural forces are going to rule the day and that they are already in motion and already having an effect - I believe they are what is responsible for the effects that you are seeing. As decent men have gone on a marriage strike, the sneaky fuckers have moved in. (that is the actual name of an anthropological theory)

The birth rate in the black community has not fallen a bit from the destruction of the black family. I know one black guy who has 6-7 women he boinks on a regular basis. Black women are pretty hard up because so many black men are in prison and so many of them are dying so young.

So, back to the point about ignoring women. It is more than just a tactic for an individual man to use, it is a culture level STRATEGY for men which will have women screaming for their men back in no time at all.

And [it] is completely full of shit [to believe men should] "turn the other cheek and don't take revenge on women".

Boomer men OWE it to younger men to make life as miserable as we possibly can for boomer women.

Ok, now here is where the fact that I am NOT a christian really begins to come out.

Buddhists don't believe in "salvation." We believe in kharma. Everyone suffers according to the level of their own bullshit.

When that dumb motherfucking televangelist called for "forgiveness" of Karla Faye Tucker because at the last moment she "found the lord", I went berserk.

Women have made their bed, and if men do not make them lie in it, then men have asked for all the shit they have gotten and I will cease to have any sympathy at all for them.

I simply cannot go back to the innocent optimism that I had when I was a teenaged boy. I have personally been burned so many times, and seen every man I know burned so many times, that I am no longer "Charlie Brown, the sincere BLOCKHEAD", willing to be made a fool of ONE MORE TIME by Lucy who suckers me into believing that she will do what she promises, but a cagey old curmudgeon who simply expects women to lie and cannot be hoodwinked by their lies.

Men now must completely destroy marriage. It is too corrupt and too fouled to fix. It is a derelict building which MUST be torn down so that something useful can be built in its place.

We cannot stop the marriage strike. The real "men's movement" is millions of wildcat strikes of one man who has woken up to what bullshit "marriage" as it exists today really is.

No matter how big a dam one builds, a river will always overcome it. We cannot either push, or hold back, the river. It will proceed at its own pace.

We can, however, clear out the snags which naturally hold it back and let natural forces speed up the current.

Women have turned their backs on us when we needed them, now we must turn our backs on them when they need us.


I must now discuss the "uniting" impulse of women, for that plays the chief, if not the sole part in her sexuality. But it must not be supposed that this is greater in one sex than the other. Any such idea comes from a confusion between the desire for a thing and the stimulus towards the active part in securing what is desired. Throughout the animal and plant kingdom, the male reproductive cells are the motile, active agents, which move through space to seek out the passive female cells, and this physiological difference is sometimes confused with the actual wish for, or stimulus to, sexual union. And to add to the confusion, it happens, in the animal kingdom particularly, that the male, in addition to the directly sexual stimulus, has the instinct to pursue and bodily capture the female, whilst the latter has only the passive part to be taken possession of. These differences of habit must not be mistaken for real differences of desire. -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Male and Female Sexuality


Further reading:

EOTM: Why Men Go For "The Look"

EOTM: The Biological Foundations of Sexuality 
Your Attention Please -- by Rollo Tomassi
Getting What You Want, Wanting What You Get – by Fred Reed


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Saturday, January 26, 2002

Zenpriest #26 - Second Wavers vs. The Suffragettes

Quote: "The Women's lib movement started off like ours, with some legitimate grievances and a desire to right them."

That is one of the most dangerous and destructive myths of our time. Virtually all the early names of "Women's Lib" - Friedan, Steinem, DeBeauvior - were dedicated radical Marxists, or virulent man-hating lesbians like Kate Millet and Valerie Solanis.

I have a copy of The Feminine Mystique that I purchased and read (if I have your age right) 2 years before you were born. This is what is says on the cover: "Today American women are waking up to the fact that they have been sold into virtual slavery by a lie invented and marketed by men."

Another interesting tidbit from the cover - "For years American women have been assured that they had all they needed to be perfectly happy and fulfilled - hard working husbands, lovely houses, and wonderful babies, babies, babies."

Fast forward the 41 years since TFM came out and what do we have? Women who want (high-earning) husbands, lovely houses, and babies enough to have them as single mothers or go to court and fight their husbands tooth and nail for those babies, babies, babies. Gee, the brainwashing they have endured to make them want these things must have been subtle indeed in a country swimming in feminist propaganda.

Feminism has always been about women blaming men for the choices they made and how things worked out as a result of those choices. Frieden goes into a huge long diatribe about the contents of women's magazines without ever once seeming to grasp the notion that women were buying the things voluntarily.

DeBeauvior, in a now very famous quote, even went so far as to state that she believed no woman should be given the choice to stay at home and raise her children, because too many women would make that choice. Thus, feminism has actually been the opposite of what its PR has said - it is about giving women fewer choices rather than more choices


"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18


I just think we need to be very careful in identifying the social movements that are being discussed. The movement for suffrage accomplished its goal, and then had no further reason to exist. When you called it "Women's Lib" I assumed you were referring to the movement which sprang up in the 60s based on victimhood. As far as I know, that term was never used to describe the push for voting rights.

I think it also clouds the issue terribly to over-simplify the issues which went into voting rights. The current notion of popular democracy was considered and specifically rejected by the architects of the US government. It was intended as a Republic and federation of States, and was never intended to be as powerful as it has become. One of the framers of the constition even went on record as saying that a pure democracy will always degenerate to mob rule. Institutions such as the Electoral College were designed specifically to moderate the effects of large population centers being able to impose their collective preferences on less populous states.

Just as today we are told that driving is a privilege not a right, the franchise was never intended to be handed out to anyone and everyone simply because they happened to be born here. At the very beginning, only landowners were given the vote, because they not only had a vested stake in the community, but they were also instrumental in building it. Interestingly, the "Poll Tax" which was later used to deny people the ability to vote was originally conceived as a way to expand voting rights beyond land and business owners. It was a measure of fiscal responsibility and success very similar to the requirement today in many states that one cannot license a car without proof of insurance or other demonstrable means of fiscal responsibility.

What women had to do was to convince those in control of the system that they (women) would use the franchise wisely and responsibly, and not frivolously by doing things like voting for a candidate because they liked his hair or the way he kissed his wife. In short, there was a sort of voting test much like today's driving tests which serve the purpose of testing certain basic minimal qualifications and competencies required for a complex process.

Such principles were not directed toward women specifically, because the franchise was also denied to most convicted felons, transients, and people who could not read well enough to know what the ballot said. The concept of women as flightly, irrational, and irresponsible certainly has more than enough proof today to make the point that concerns over whether they would use the franchise responsibly were probably quite justified in the 19th century. The overall risks and fragility of the country were certainly much greater then than they are today.

I know it is a sound-bite world, but I think we do need to be very careful in how we state our points. The "Women's Lib" movement of the last part of the 20th century relies heavily on the suffrage movement for its legitimacy, but I believe there is no continuity at all between them aside from the fact that they are both about women.


Further Reading:

Republic versus Democracy?


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Friday, January 25, 2002

Zenpriest #25 - The 5 Best Arguments for Staying Single I Have Ever Run Across

Harpie Quote: "but why is housewife heralded as the best woman's job, while men actually get to produce, create, and imagine!!!"

Y'know, [Harpie], you are the 5 best arguments for staying single I have ever run across.

You have that incurable female tunnel vision. SOME men get to " produce, create, and imagine", but for every one who does there are 19 who crawl into holes in the ground to mine out the coal that provides your electricity, or the ore that gets made into steel for that nice new car you want, or cut down the trees that go into the lumber to build that nice house in the 'burbs you want, or go to work on construction when it is blistering hot or freezing cold to build that nice environmentally conditioned office you work in.

Kathryn Hepburn was one of the greatest actresses of the 20th century, and unlike women today was smart enough to know that she couldn't "have it all." She knew that choices had prices and when she chose to "produce, create, and imagine!" she knew that she was chosing not to have a family.

I have no problem at all with women having careers. However, I am not willing to be item # 4 on a "to do" list - a disposable accessory which enables her to get to # 5, having kids.

The only woman I ever made the mistake of "oppressing" into living expense-free on my generosity was a trained chef. I had to apply my boot to her ass frequently to get her off said ass and out looking for a job where she could "produce, create, and imagine!" instead of watching Oprah. Being in the habit of doing the household laundry myself, I simply kept doing it after she moved in. I also had a housecleaning service which kept the house up, so the sum total of her tasks at keeping house were to buy groceries, which I split the costs with her, and cook. It took me at most 10 minutes to load the dishwasher and clean up the kitchen after a meal, no matter what a god-awful mess she made.

So, go ahead and have your "career", and keep turning up your nose at men who work as garage mechanics. And, when you are in your mid-40s and going home to a cat named Fluffy and lean cuisine in the microwave, maybe you will wake the fuck up to how thick you were in your late 20s.

"There was a struggle going on inside of me. I mean, he lost his job at the auto body shop when they went [bankrupt] and closed down. Then he couldn't find another one. But it was months and months, and I was trying to live on my welfare check and it just wasn't enough. Finally, I couldn't do it anymore [because] it was just too much pressure on me [even though] he is the love of my life. I told him he had to leave even though I knew it wasn't really his fault... I couldn't take it, so I made him leave." -- A woman interviewed by Kathryn Edin, reported in The American Prospect, January 3, 2000


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Thursday, January 24, 2002

Zenpriest #24 - If a Woman Goes Into a Bar Wearing Sexy Clothes and No Panties...

If a bunch of guys saw a man walking down the street waving a handfull of $100 bills, and he later got mugged, virtually to a man we would say "he asked for it." Translated out of PC-prohibited-speak, that means he engaged in stupid, high risk behavior.

If I go out and buy a few thousand $$$ worth of electronic equipment, and leave it in the back seat of an unlocked car, that is entirely different from leaving it in a locked trunk. While stealing it from either location is a crime, there is a significant difference in applying some common sense and awareness of one's surroundings to a situation, and stupidly blundering through it blaming every bad thing that happens on someone else.

Someone with good deadbolt locks on their doors, an alarm system, and bars on the windows is going to get their house burglarized much less frequently than someone who leaves the blinds up with stereo gear etc. clearly visible through a window, and the door unlocked.

Read my story under "ex GF stories" entitled "jerkus aroundus maximus." This was a woman with whom I had argued in the past over "if a woman goes into a bar wearing sexy clothes and no panties, and later gets raped, did she 'ask for it'?"

If a store put a sign out front that said "free merchandise" and then when people walked in expecting to get "free merchandise" they were refused, the store could be sued for false advertising or possibly fraud. If they advertise a product they do not have at a low price, and people come in and ask for it, unless they have specifically stated in their ad that "supplies were limited", they have to issue rain checks.

Male "attention" is not "free" and women are not "entitled" to be the center of male attention the way many of them seem to think they are. They are playing a high risk game which will sometimes get them hurt, and very often will incur the hostility and animosity of men. A woman who attracts male attention by wearing low-cut tops forfeits the right to bitch about men paying attention to her tits, because all of her actions are designed purely for the purpose of attracting attention.

Men are not warm-blooded vibrators who exist for women to flip on and off like light switches purely for women's entertainment. There is a joke going around about a guy who takes his wife on a big shopping spree, then says he never intended to pay for any of the stuff.

That is interpersonal fraud at the most fundamental level. It is essentially the same as a man who lies through his teeth and says "I love you" frequently just to get women to sleep with him. People who play that sort of vicious exploitive game have already violated the social contract of mutual civility, and thus do not deserve to have the benefit of it keeping them safe.

Yes, some innocent women get hurt, but the reality of rape statistics is that few middle-aged and older women get raped compared the vast majority who are in the 18-35 age range.

But, none of this has anything to do with Kobe Bryant. The girl went up to his room and by her own admission engaged in what most people recognize as "foreplay." IF she "changed her mind" and clearly said "No, I don't want to do this", unless Kobe was so far gone in the throes of "passion" (which women supposedly love) it would be hard for me to imagine that he stupidly pushed the issue.

Like most men, I believe she went up to the room of this famous sports star, acted like a typical groupie and had willingly sex with him, and now is ducking behind the feminine mystique to pretend that a virtuous girl like her was abused by this nasty brute.

Most men aren't falling for it, but that still may not be enough to keep him out of prison.

If the only value women put on sex is the power that it gives them to jerk us men around, I can testify that eventually a man will lose all interest in women entirely. Supporting women like this will turn out to be very destructive toward women because as they age men will no longer do the shit work of initiating sexual relationships and taking all the risk. Women get to go along for a free ride letting the man do all the work and take all the risk, and still get half the goodies.

I had no sympathy at all for the stupid bitch when she whined about her husband not wanting her any more, because she stood up so firmly for women's right to use sex to jerk men around.

And, I have very little sympathy for a woman who engages in a high-risk and very vicious exploitive game, and then gets burned by the fire she played with because it was so exciting.

The real question boils down to: - if a woman goes into a bar wearing sexy clothes and no panties, and later gets raped -- who gives a shit?

I don't.

Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Wednesday, January 23, 2002

Zenpriest #23 - Marriage Is Becoming the Social Edsel of the 21st Century

I like to point out some of those assumptions which I see people making and pose them as additional questions to be considered - often that ends up changing the question that the person ends up asking.

So, the first question I would like to re-ask is - are women really any better off than they have been in the past, and/or are men really any worse off?

I believe the answer is "no."

In any sufficiently large and complex system it is impossible for things to become grossly out of equilibrium or balance.

Try this experiment - take a yardstick (or meter stick, for our non US friends) point both index fingers straight out and put one end of the yardstick on each finger. Then, by moving only one finger, try to move that one to the middle of the stick. It can't be done. As one finger moves in, the amount of the stick beyond it starts to extert leverage and put more pressure on the finger. This creates more friction, and soon the other end of the stick starts to move instead. The same process then starts to happen on the other end of the stick. This process flips back and forth until your two fingers are together in the middle of the stick, never more than 1/2 inch from the exact center.

So, what does this have to do with men and women? For everything women have supposedly "gained" en masse, individual women have lost something. Men and women were under equal pressure to marry in the old social system, so the moment women started gaining "independence" they started losing the cultural belief that they needed to be protected and supported. Women were having difficulty getting men to marry them by the early 80s.

There have been dozens of stories told here on this board about fathers, grandfathers, uncles, etc. married to overbearing, controlling, harpies. 50-60 or more years ago, men had far less freedom to not marry than they do today. A great many men were trapped in situations just as unhappy, just as unbearable, as men talk about today. The difference is that now we men have much more choice to not get trapped in such misery.

Marriage is becoming the social Edsel of the 21st century. Would you buy any product which failed more than 50% of the time?

As more and more women are forced into careers as a result of the lack of men willing to marry and support them, women's values will gradually shift away from careers and marriage will come back to being valued more. And, given how poorly men regard marriage, those values will eventually have to include major enticements to get men to sign on.

Will these changes happen in your lifetime? Probably not.

Which brings me to my second philosophical point - I will leave arguments about how the world "should" be to the theologians. My challenge is to figure out how to survive the world as it IS. Given things like disease, and a much higher rate of truly grisly work-related accidents, the world of today is still far better for men than it was 100 years or more ago.


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Tuesday, January 22, 2002

Zenpriest #22 - "Broken" Men and Women's "Fixing" Them

About 40 years ago, a few women were allowed to become so out of control with their mental illness and megalomania, that they declared men and maleness in general to be "broken" and called upon women in general to "fix" them. Of course, we all know that there is nothing women like more than fixing men, so millions of women enthusiastically signed on.

The problem was that these women didn't know jack shit about what maleness was about or what men or men's world was really like - they simply declared men to be defective females and set about changing males into females, and coincidentally changing females into males.

Just like any marxists, no matter how many times their grand experiments failed, they blamed the victims of those experiments instead of their own stupid ideas.

"What happened to men" is women pushed other men and maleness out of the lives of males, but did not get the results they were expecting.

As women took on more and more masculine traits, it really should not surprise anyone that their subconscious still forced them to seek out men who were more masculine than they were, so in order to pick up chicks males adapted by assuming a totally stereotyped "hyper-masculine" persona.

And, it worked. The more a male lived up to the stereotype of the worthless hyper-masculine male, the more short-term success he had with women. The more a man fought it and tried to live up to a more classic male model of rational honor, the more he got ignored, insulted, and screwed over by women.

A huge percentage of the men you deal with were raised by single moms who are clueless about maleness - they only know what they want. So, instead of seeing their sons as real human beings, they attempted to raise them to be projections of mom's fantasies. Up until puberty, these boys attempted to make mom happy by being exactly what she wanted him to be, the less like his worthless father, the better.

However, when puberty hits, and the reality that nature will always win out and nurture don't mean shit starts to become apparent, these square pegs which have been forced into round holes begin to revolt.

The men you are encountering today are ones raised essentially entirely by women. Either mom dumped dad because he wasn't paying her enough attention, and not making her feel speshul enough, or dad was simply away breaking his back 60-70 or more hours per week trying to keep up with cupcake's cancerous spending habits. So, after being away all day, he came home to a kid who had been told all day to "wait until your father gets home" so dad could be cast into the role of the heavy - all the kid ever saw of his father was his temperament.

So, the short answer to your question about "what happened to men" is that women tried to raise boys into men without a man's input, and TOTALLY fucked up the job.


Further Reading:

Zenpriest #1 – Women Raised Without Fathers

Pathologizing the Male Sexual Response -- by Rollo Tomassi 


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Monday, January 21, 2002

Zenpriest #21 - The Terrible Twos

I think this issue needs to be looked at in a larger context. If one looks around at today's culture and takes note of all the destructive effects of the female attitude of entitlement, then went on to devise social controls which would prevent such destructive effects in the future, I think you would end up with social values very much like the ones currently labeled "patriarchal."

Rather than viewing feminism as "conditioning" women to behave in completely self-centered ways, I see it more as a case of feminism regarding the socialization process which countered the natural tendency of all organisms toward selfishness - as "oppression."

Every parent who has had daily involvement in raising a child is familiar with the stage called "the terrible twos." This is the stage during which the naturally selfish infant is forced to come to terms with the fact that their desires will not always be met and their will not always prevail. I have no doubt that if the child were able to express what it knows in its "special infantile way of knowing", that it would consider the imposition of external values on it to be "oppression."

The vast majority of women I have met have seemed to be stuck emotionally at about age two. Any frustration of their desires would result in a tantrum. In many cases these were more subtle than throwing herself on the floor and thrashing around, but it was a tantrum nonetheless. So, rather than saying that feminism "conditioned" women to behave in an immature, selfish, and totally self-centered fashion, I would describe it as feminism destroying the social value system and the process of conditioning women out of their infantile and narcissistic world view.


This my gravest concern, and the reason I feel such a sense of urgency to get some resources for men to help them cope with the coming onslaught. I think this current generation of women - raised completely under feminism's complete control - is ruined beyond redemption.

Women of the boomer generation were at least raised with a value system other than "it's all about ME", and yet they adopted it enthusiastically. Gen X women were raised during the transition period, so some had parents who still held the old value system. But, this current generation, which has been completely dumbed down by the education system, and pandered to every second of their lives, is going to be totally useless and completely insufferable.

Imagine growing up with Lynndie England as your mother.

“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 #41 - Feminism is an Extended Infantile Tantrum

Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager in the House

Philalethes #10 – Male vs. Female Thinking

Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Sunday, January 20, 2002

Zenpriest #20 - There Is Nothing More Lonely Than Being With Someone You Cannot Talk To

QUOTE: When you go home and shut that door your spouse will be there for you. I am not telling this for the victim spin, just driving home the point that you can rely on your spouse in a different way than friends.

Yeah, right. And I have a great bridge for sale.

While that is the ideal of marriage - the "for richer or poorer, better or worse, sickness or health" thing - fewer things could be farther from today's reality.

Being one of the original marriage strikers gives me a strange perspective. If I had actually ever met a woman who I had believed would "be there for me", and who I "could rely on", as a spouse, I would be either married or divorced today, instead of congenitally single.

Keep in mind the statistics, and the fact that they represent real people. Somewhere around 80% of all divorces are initiated by the woman. I had friends who were shacking up freshman year of college whose parents forced them to get married, who were divorced before we graduated. Since I was in my early 20s, I have been fishing in a pond in which the concentration of divorced women has been growing until by now it is distilled to about 190 proof.

And, having dated dozens of divorced women, I can tell you that the reasons they give for the divorce virtually always boil down to one thing - "he wasn't paying me enough attention."

As Wanker just said -

"There is nothing more lonely than being with someone you cannot talk to."

Around here there is a joke about why men barbecue - it gives them a chance to retreat to the farthest corner of the yard to get away from the perpetual bitching.

Loneliness? Depends on how much you accept and like yourself versus how much validation you need to get from other people. Being an introvert, people do not energize me, they drain me. And, nothing in the world drains me like listening to a woman's incessant whining, complaining, and nagging.

I don't ever get lonely, but I often do feel the urge to resort to a baseball bat to get someone else who is lonely and who is using me to dump her emotional shit onto - to shut the fuck up.


Further reading:

Zenpriest #12 - Happiness


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Saturday, January 19, 2002

Zenpriest #19 - How Women Keep Score

Quote: Zen,I don't follow. Since when did the supermodels ever act relatively decently compared to their less physically attractive sisters? Are you telling me that I'm better off asking out the Stereotypical Babe than an okay looking woman "in my league"? I don't get it.

I know it is pretty subtle, but follow me here because it really does make the female enigma a bit easier to sort out. I'm talking averages and probabilities here, individual instances may have a lot of variation.

And, let's leave the category of "supermodels" out of the picture - they aren't real women, they are mutants with serious mental disorders. Look at how screwed up Michael Jackson is as a result of living his entire life from the time he was a child under the microscope. The Olson twins will never be able to live normal lives, and any poor fool who gets tied up with them probably deserves the mind-fucking he is going to get. Paris Hilton is famous, not pretty. I wouldn't fuck her with your penis.

I'm talking about your average, garden variety, babe next door.

I don't think they have high school dances any more like they did when I was a teenager, but I'm going to use a hypothetical scenario of one of them to illustrate something. The girls stood on one side of the gym waiting for guys to approach them, the guys stood on the other side screwing up the courage to make the journey across the floor and ask one of the girls to dance.

Of course, the first guys to venture out into the wilderness were the most confident most aggressive males - the football stars, etc. And, not surprisingly they headed straight for the social queen bees - the cheerleaders and gonna-be prom queens. Then, after the supermodels of both sexes paired off, the real mating dynamic kicked in. The less aggressive non-prom-kings eventually worked up their courage, and of course went for the most attractive woman left. Thus, people were sorted into their positions on the ladder - women based on looks and men based on level of confidence and aggression.

Now, you gotta get inside the heads of the women in order to really understand how the whole process works. They were trapped in the passive role and really did have to just stand there until they attracted a man's attention enough for him to ask her out. The longer it took and the further down the female's "ladder" the male who finally did ask her was, the angrier she had gotten about the whole thing.

When Brad Pitt set out on his trek from the male side, the Roseanne Barrs wanted him every bit as much as the Jennifer Anniston's. And, when he of course gravitated toward Anniston, Roseanne began to hate them both. She still wanted Brad, but she hated him for picking Anniston over her, and she just hated Anniston for being so damn pretty and having her pick of men.

So, instead of being "grateful" or "appreciative" when a man finally does ask her out, "average" women are more often than not seething with buried rage. And, because it is buried there will be a fake smile covering it. It will never come out clearly and honestly, but will seep out as passive/aggressive bullshit that is totally confusing to men.

Keep in mind that women keep score and hold grudges. Believe me, guys, an average woman today is going to punish you for every time a prettier girl was asked to dance 10-20 years ago. (I know someone has posted a link to the recent book about the hidden culture of aggression among girls.)

You need to understand the scorekeeping system, and realize that men and women keep score completely differently. Most men won't even bother with anything less than about 20 points - they blow it off because it is too much trouble to keep track of. A woman scores every action, no matter how tiny, and calculate fractions of a point based on things most men don't notice.

Ok, so every time a Brad asks a Jenn to dance, Jenn gives men at least one and usually 2 points - one for asking her to dance (assuming she wants to) and one for raising her status based on her desirability among the other women present.

Roseanne, on the other hand, is adding up negative points for men every time. She really doesn't want to dance, so that point is irrelevant, but she really does want to be asked, so every time Brad asks someone else to dance, men get a -1.

So, at the end of 5 dances, Jenn is glowing, feeling great about herself and great toward men and has a mental attitude score toward men of +10.

Roseanne, on the other hand, is seething behind her fake smile, resentful as hell, and has a mental attitude score toward men of -5.

Women really can't grasp the concept of "teams" so they are constantly covertly competing with other women. In Roseanne's book, Jenn has a +5, while she herself has zero. What happens next has absolutely nothing at all to do with the male, and has everything to do with the competition between women.

Because she wants Brad so badly, while he isn't even aware that she exists, he really does have a lot of "power" where she is concerned. So, in her little pea-brain, she equates the ability to reject with having power. She decides to give women 5 points for being asked and turning the guy down. That will show those assholes for not asking her!

Ok, the 6th dance starts, and all the Brad-types are elbowing their way to the front of the line waiting to ask Jenn to dance. Whoever gets there first has a virtually 100% chance of getting yes for an answer. Why the hell not - she gets another point up on the women who aren't getting asked.

Meanwhile, Mr Average Niceguy has finally haired up to make the trek across the gym floor. He started late, so he doesn't want to try to elbow his way to the front of the line of prom-kings, so he veers toward Rosanne. "Hey, she is a nice average girl and no one has asked her to dance yet, so she will probably appreciate being asked and say yes" - he thinks.

Men really do not understand women.

Roseanne sees this as a chance to even the score with Jenn. She will get one point for being asked, and give herself 5 points for turning the guy down. She may even give herself bonus points for being extra creative in her cruelty.

Jenn is out there dancing away on her 6th being-asked-to-dance point, and Roseanne books one point for being asked, 5 points for turning the guy down, and gives herself a bonus point for being extra creative in how cruelly she does it.

Now the score is Jenn-6, Roseanne-7 -- she has just catapulted herself into the lead by rejecting rather than accepting you! She is now "better" than Jenn because she is so "superior" now that she has had a chance to pretend that she is too good to dance with an "average" guy.

Exactly the opposite of what a lot of people think, beautiful women never feel the need to elevate themselves by putting everyone else down - but "average" and less attractive women do.
Further Reading:
Bonecrker #57 – Approaching Fat/Ugly Chicks is Harmful to Your Self Esteem


Previous Zenpriest Index Next 

Friday, January 18, 2002

Zenpriest #18 - The Designated Initiator

This one point is probably the sorest spot in the whole battle of the sexes right now, and one of the most poisonous parts of the legacy of feminism and consumer culture. The age differences here create a staggering difference in experience. When I was a teenager, we had not yet been bombarded with quite so many media images intended to brainwash us into what was "beautiful" and what was "average."

The mating instinct is so powerful that at a distance of 10 feet or less, a woman at her peak of reproductive ripeness - from about age 14-15 to about age 25-26 - has to work really hard to not be "attractive" in the sense of pure animal magnetism. Sex is about reproduction and a woman who is reproductively ripe is sexually attractive at the purely instinctual level.

However, the multiple layers of social bullshit which have been laid down in the past few decades have attempted to completely deny that we are biological beings and force the entire mating game into a purely mental structure. At that point it ceases to be anything about real animal attraction and becomes entirely a contest for status.

You would be absolutely astonished how easy it used to be for men and women to meet and get to know each other in contexts other than the pressure cooker called "a DATE". There were all kinds of social mechanisms, many of them quite simply and accurately called "mixers", where men and women could interact and get through all the first levels of getting acquainted without the sense of it being judged like an Olympic performance.

Today, the entire process is so obnoxious and demeaning that when a guy works up the intestinal fortitude to give it a go, he figures he might as well "go for the gold" - ie. the most socially desirable woman in his field of vision.

This is the area which men feel that women have most severely stiffed us on the promises of feminism. The "designated initiator" job sucks, and men who are non-players generally hate the shit work of having to be the ones to make the first obvious move and take all the rejection that is required to move a relationship to intimacy. Studies have shown that a man must overcome 150 rejections on the average between first contact and intimacy.

So, knowing in advance that he is going to have to endure that kind of gauntlet, one of two conditions are necessary to motivate him to take his beating - either extreme loneliness and hornyness, or the woman is so staggeringly beautiful that he goes after her as a trophy.

As long as women absolutely refuse to give up their power position of the passive role of making men do the asking, 10s are going to get asked out more often than 5s or 6s.

And, the strangest paradox of all, I have found that the 5s or 6s are the ones with the most need to feed their egos by some really cruel forms of rejection. The 10s know they are good looking, the 5s & 6s get to pretend they are 10s by turning guys down.

People used to understand that flirting was a dance that involved 2 people, the recent notion that a woman is totally passive in the face of a ravening male beast has only really taken over since the mid 1970s. Granted, women were often subtle about the ways they attracted men's attention - dropping a handkerchief was the quaint old classic - but everyone in the damned world knew what mini-skirts were for. This recent insanity of "we should be able to wear anything we want and you shouldn't notice unless we want you to notice" could only happen in a world ruled by feminidiocy.

The most beautiful women are not the most cruel ones. They get enough attention that they have learned a certain grace about receiving it. It is the butt-ugly ones who are mad as hell at the beautiful girls for all the sexual power they have, and mad as hell at men because they won't give her the same kind of power over them, that are really sub-human.

It is more a case of not wanting to have to compete with all the other jackals circling - some of whom are majorly aggressive. Actually, the most cruel women I have known in my life have actually been some of the ugliest ones as well. Ugly women envy beautiful women, and deeply hate men for being attracted to beautiful women, because they covet the same power over men that a beautiful woman has. Exhibit A - Andrea Dworkin.


“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


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. -- Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"? Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.Department of behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University



Bonecrcker #48 – Sexes Approaching Eachother

Philalethes #29 - They Can Do It Because They Really Believe It!


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Thursday, January 17, 2002

Zenpriest #17 - "e-kwuhl pay fer e-kwuhl werk"

ZenPriest said: "Those social values required a social environment which no longer exists. They relied on clearly defined and largely separated sex roles. They cannot exist in a climate where the collective financial success of a lot of individual men - who then used that success to benefit the women in their lives, and their children - is being cast as a way that women are victimized at the cultural level by being paid less."

A Harpie said: What about all the men who abandon their wives and children-I think this has something to do with why women want equal pay for equal work, because many of them support families. I've seen more than a few traditional-type women (they stayed home while he worked and took care of the house and kids) who then got left by their husbands
What about them? Destroying the social value system which supported, constrained, and rewarded men into the protector provider roles actually makes it easier for men to abandon families, not harder.

I really don't think anyone in the world is truly against "e-kwuhl pay fer e-kwuhl werk", the issue all boils down to an argument over what is equal. The feminists are pushing for equality of outcomes regardless of effort, which men do not see as having anything to do with real equality.

When someone takes time out from advancing their career, for whatever reason, that career is not going to advance as far and as fast as someone who dedicates more than full time and effort on it. A few years ago, a popular buzz phrase was "giving 110%". As much as that is complete nonsense, it could be literally looked at as comparing those people who work 40 hours per week with those who work 44 hours. Whether you are making widgets or commissioned sales, the person who puts in more time and effort is going to produce more results for their employer and be of more value, and thus earn any higher compensation they receive.

Someone who excercises for half an hour 3 days per week, when they feel like it, and often takes a week or few off, is not going to be in the same physical condition as someone who trains 2 hours per day every day and the fact that they are not has nothing to do with "discrimination" and is just simply the way things work.

In a basketball game, points get put on the scoreboard for getting the ball into the basket, not for "trying", not for "intending to put it in", but for actually accomplishing something.

Women can scream for "wage parity" all they like, and it ain't never gonna happen until they start being under the same pressures to earn money that men are, start putting in those extra hours to get those extra widgets or sales made, and start really accomplishing something like getting the goddamned ball into the basket.

And, that is going to happen because all this blather about "wage-parity" has convinced people that the men who actually did go out and put in the extra effort required to get results, so they could turn around and use that money to provide a better life for their wives and children, are actually proof that women have been victimized throughout history so the jobs are now being handed to women regardless of whether they can do them or not, simply because they have the primary qualification which is a noticable absence of anything dangling between their legs.

Everything, and I do mean everything which used to motivate men to make that extra money and stand by their family has been destroyed. It used to be that a man who would abandon his family experienced a sort of social death and became a complete outcast and pariah. But women are the ones who initiate 80% of the divorces in the US - so it is the female side who is pulling men's families away from them and making it damn near impossible for men to stay involved.


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Wednesday, January 16, 2002

Zenpriest #16 - The Gender War

I think this is the saddest outcome of the gender war. [Previously it was mentioned] that one role of a woman was to inspire her man to better things (paraphrased). Now we have a situation where both sexes are pointing at the excesses of the other to justify the excesses of their own.

This is a bloody god-damned war in which a whole lot of women are the enemy and younger men need to learn the tricks of a wiley old coyote like me in order to survive. More than 15,000 men kill themselves in the US every year because they cannot sort out and resolve all the mixed cultural messages they are getting and either take on the failure as their own, or just give up because they can't stand it any more.

I [previously commented] about the massive rise in female violence which we have seen over the past few years. This is the pond that many men on this list will end up fishing in, and they need to be warned and prepared for the great white sharks they are going to encounter.


This is a war that can have no leaders. There is no field of a gender Falkirk where a gender William Wallace can lead a group of rag-tag men to victory over a cruel and brutal tyrant. This war is fought every day in bedrooms and board rooms and restaurants and dance clubs and online dating sites. It is millions of individual wars of one man against a cultural zeitgeist that hates and devalues him simply because he is male.

The biggest mistake men have made is in being gentlemen toward women who were most decidedly NOT "ladies."

The majority of western women today are emotionally abusive. They have fallen in love with ”THE BITCH” as their only model of female strength. Western men are collectively in an abusive relationship with western women collectively. Few women will pass up the chance to manufacture an opportunity to belittle an individual man and all men.
I am speaking less to you than I am with you. You have already learned what is important - it is the bewildered and confused young men attacked and brainwashed since birth with undeserved guilt and shame for their crime of having made the mistake to be born male, who need to hear what we both have to say.

Most of the men here really are gentlemen - gentle men - nice guys. What women have forgotten is that there is a vast difference between gentleness, or kindness, and weakness.

Gentleness is the force which controls the hand which can break your neck, but instead caresses it. Gentleness is not male or female, but human. I am a gentleman, you are a gentlewoman - a lady. What young men have to realize is that women in general have lost ALL gentleness.

They see it as weakness, both in themselves and in men. Female violence is skyrocketing as the moral character of women heads for the ground in a power dive. Emboldened by men's passive acceptance of being attacked verbally and emotionally, women are now escalating those attacks to physical. They now see force as a viable means to get their way, and count on men's hands being tied by chivalry and the legal system to keep men from fighting back. They are killing men by the thousands, and so far have managed to keep that from being realized by a combination of outright lies and major mind games.

No one is going to help men. There is no one to help us. Men rescue women. They rescue children. They do not rescue other men.

The karate kid was challenged to a blood match. He asked his sensei, Miyagi, "Who is going to referee?" Miyagi laughs and says "No one." Well, how do you know who won?" the kk asks. "The one who isn't dead when it is over" Miyagi replies.

Hardly a week goes by that I don't hear about some book or study that it is all over for "men." "The future, if there is one, is female" "The decline of males" "The death of the Y chromosome" The culture is very clearly and very literally trying to stamp out maleness - to completely destroy it.

Men today are fighting not just for their own personal survival, but for the very right to survive of the male spirit itself. In order to "win", we must not be dead when it is over.

Instead of the term "leader", I prefer the term "teacher", sensei. I can teach younger men how to value themselves and, perhaps more importantly, why to value themselves, but when the match starts I cannot be in the ring with them - that is where they must prevail on their own.

Yeah, war sucks all the way around. But, I have to ask the men here, if your own lives and honor are not worth you fighting for, what could make them worth anyone else fighting for?
“Among the low-income couples we observed, the battle between the sexes often looks more like outright war, and many women say that they regard men simply as ‘children,’ ‘no good,’ or ‘low-down dirty dogs.’” – Researcher Kathryn Edin, as reported in The American Prospect, January 3, 2000


Previous Zenpriest Index Next

Tuesday, January 15, 2002

Zenpriest #15 - Regarding the Marriage Strike

Regarding the "Marriage Strike" - I think there is a great deal of deep and subtle meaning in choices of words. Simply calling it a "strike" as opposed to some other term says a lot about the fundamental concepts which people use to construct this larger concept called "marriage." One goes on strike against a "job", therefore if men are on a marriage strike, marriage must be a job. That fits in completely with my experience of the past 20 years or so that first dates tend to turn out like long, unpleasant, job interviews that I pay for the privilege of having.

As a first stage in developing a more powerful thinking/emotional position, I would prefer to term what is happening as a marriage "boycott." One goes on "strike" with a job, and a job is something most of us have to have. But, is a marriage something we really have to have? And a strike basically always has to end at some time, once the workers demands are met. So, what are our "demands" and who is doing the negotiating for us?

A "boycott", on the other hand, connotes being against some sort of consumer goods, which are optional. A boycott can go on for a very long time, even forever. I have been boycotting TV since 1974, and I can't imagine ever stopping my boycott.

So, is marriage our "job" which we will return to once our demands are met? Or is marriage something we "purchase" and are deciding not to purchase at the present time? And, during the time we are refusing to purchase, might our consuming habits not change, and even if the product start to be of better quality, we have learned that we can live just fine without it?

So, in terms of strategic psychological bargaining position, I'd like to see guys start calling it a marriage boycott. The owners of the means of (re)production can just try shutting down the factory until the strike funds run out and the strikers start to get hungry. But, the producers of the boycotted item see their cash flow dry up and fear the risk of losing brand loyalty.

However, I think what is really happening is something else - I think some core social concepts are changing at a very fundamental level. In the past, men were more or less forced into marriage - because someone had to support women and children - mostly by social pressure. The only "safe" role for men was "husband and father" and single men were very suspect. Only those single men who were financially successful and involved in the community were able to escape the taint of pariah-hood which came from not being married. And that came about because a lot of men followed the path of building a career and then getting married about age 40. If a man reached 40, and had a successful career, he could get by with that. But, non-successful single men were always pushed to the fringes of society and regarded with great suspicion.

By destroying the role of "husband and father", women have actually knocked down the walls of men's prisons. Where before, men were trapped by social censure into the role of specialized beast of burden bred for the purpose of dragging around a financially and emotionally dependent wife and family, men were forced to find alternative means of getting validation and largely learned to self-validate. I don't really think the "strike" will ever be over. I don't even think that the commodity of marriage will ever get back the market share it has lost during the boycott. I can't imagine myself ever getting married. Not even one of the single men that I know has any desire at all to be married.

I think the net long-term effect will be that women get trapped in the jobs they were so anxious to take from us, and that men will end up being quite happy to have been relieved of the burdens of supporting a family's consuming habits. Someone has the sig line that a woman will spend $1 for a $2 item she doesn't need, where a man will spend $2 for a $1 item he does need. Men don't have the same need to consume and spend money, so when we only have to cover our own consuming habits we can work less hours at more fun jobs, enjoy life more, and probably end up living longer.

So, to return to the language you used, or close to it, I think we have several related mutations in the memes related to pair bonding and family structure. The first actually began back early in the century with the advent of mass produced manufactured goods which transferred the functions previously performed mostly by human labor, into commodities for which "labor saving devices" were purchased. With a washer, dryer, microwave, and no kids, I really don't need a wife that much.

The massive explosion of consumer goods after WWII led to several major inter-related effects. First, the cost of essential items like food and shelter decreased as a percentage of family expenditures. The amount left over for discretionary spending, or "disposable" income created many new or expanded markets - entertainment for example and the explosion of consumer electronics starting with music. Then, when women entered the workforce in massive numbers, service industries which performed the functions previously performed by stay at home spouses grew.

In effect, the family had been "outsourced." Everything which 75 years before had taken two people working as a team to accomplish, could now be had in the marketplace.

Lacking any real role or significance any more, women searched around for the meaning of life and decided "Let's take over men's." This threw men into free-fall basically having no ideological meme by which to define themselves.

Men who grew up under the old value system really floundered. Someone who had grown up and spent all his life shoeing horses, didn't immediately adapt to being an auto mechanic. But, the next generation was born with the technology and embraced it.

Likewise, younger men were born into a world in which the old male role was obsolete but there was not yet any substitute. Of course, the feminist fantasy was that men and women would just switch places and lots of men become house husbands. The reason that didn't work is because feminism is fundamentally wrong about female psychology. Even as women crowded men out of their old roles, those same women still wanted the men to fulfill them.

Thus, we had the Kobiashi Maroo.

So, men changed the rules of the simulation. I think the reason that the new meme is so virulent is because it is a survival adaptation. You cannot put pressure on every part of a system indefinitely and expect it to continue functioning and not break. The system became terminally broken when the old male roles got redefined from being "good" into being "evil" - when supporting a woman and children became "oppression" and when wiping one's own ass became "unpaid work."

Where you and I might differ in our formulations, I think is mostly due to the perspective of age and awareness of history. I liken your situation to the convicts hauled down to Australia, dumped out on the beach and told to "survive." The virulence and intensity which you describe as a feeling from the inside out, I think comes from the survival instinct and the need of men to survive emotionally and psychologically in a culture which seemed determined to pound them into dust. And, the anger and rage so many men feel toward that culture and women comes from the sensation that they were both out to destroy men and maleness.

Innovation has always come from men, and I would sum up by saying that I think we essentially agree, and that you are the first generation of men to have come up with the adaptation to the post-modern world.

None for me, thanks. I doubt that marriage will be the norm for people born after some time in the 80s. Social values and expectations are notoriously slow to catch up with the reality of what is going on in the culture. Future women are groomed to be such total consumers that the first thing they are going to consume is any man they can get their hooks into. The social and emotional value of marriage is already dead.


Previous Zenpriest Index Next