April 28, 2014
The Apologists
Posted this morning, Obsidian at
Just Four Guys had an excellent 10 question interview of Professor Michael Kimmel
who has been so concerned about the male anger simmering in the manosphere that he was distracted from his professorship of Sociology and Gender Studies and executive directorship for the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University that he was forced by academic passions to write such titles as
Guyland
and Angry White Men
(not to be confused with Stupid White Men).
The open format interviews of semi-mainstream authors are starting to carve out a missing manosphere niche for J4G, so I don’t want to steal any of that thunder with this post, but since “angry manosphereans” was the topic du jour at Aunt Giggles’ echo-chamber (“Oh my stars and garters! Tindr is really a hook up app populated by men and women who just wanna fuck?”) I thought I’d riff a little on a few of his answers and what I think are the esteemed Professors’ most glaring problems.
But the real answer to your question is not “why am I so different from other men?” but rather how am I so similar to other men? I grew up breathing the same air, and drinking the same water as you did. I believe firmly in the ideals of American democracy, and so I feel compelled as a citizen to speak out against inequality and injustice. Supporting gender equality is right, fair, and patriotically American.
He is correct, he’s JUST like the majority of ‘other’ men
– suffering from a lifetime of thorough social feminization conditioning to become the champion of feminine-identification Game. His Beta mindset is easily recognizable, but his Game is still the same ‘like attracts like’ mentality that’s characteristic of a solid insaturation in blank slate equalism.
Hugo Schwyzer
left a vacuum, Kimmel is just stepping into it. Be more ‘like’ a woman and they’ll appreciate your efforts in supporting and understanding them, and you’ll be rewarded with reciprocal sexual interest.
It is a compassionate look at the lives of young men, and especially the things that those young me are being asked to do – by other guys – to prove their manhood. And the argument of the book is that proving masculinity becomes a sort of relentless test for guys, and that THAT is what we have to pay attention to. The book is a sort of catalog of how guys feel they have to prove it — video games, porn, sports, binge drinking, hooking up, initiation and hazing. All of it. It’s not about how awful guys are because they are doing it. It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.
This is the hallmark of a feminized Beta mindset – to believe that “guys being guys” is inherently aberrant. It’s something
other guys
do. I could go into detail about how men giving each other shit is an evolutionary (and useful) vestige of tribalism and how men would use this “challenging” to ensure the strength and survivability of the collective, but this will only grate against his ‘gender-as-social-construct’ belief.
Why do men think they’re so great? Because that’s the kind of men women love.
This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity. Risk taking, physical aggression (constructive and destructive) and physicality in general, ambition, team reliance and individualism are all part of this masculinity. That potential for violence scares the shit out of men like Kimmel, but that potential is also precisely what’s need for survival and success of a species.
Betas like Kimmel who grew up in fear of Alpha aggression instead of embracing and matching it directly, see bullying in every marginalized form of
boys being boys, to say nothing of Men being Men, when they reach adulthood and still haven’t figured out how to relate to men and the masculine beyond what the easy answers feminization has provided for them. These are the men who’ll explain their feminine identification Game as being a personality issue, “I’ve always related to / better with women.” For feminized male apologists anything resembling an intrinsic understanding of masculinity is indistinguishable from Hypermasculinity.
Because of this embrace of feminine-primacy, the Professor is probably not the best equipped to educate men on issues of anger. As such, my guess is he cannot discern the difference between aggression born from anger and aggression as a vetting and honing mechanism of the male psychology.
Kimmel, presumes that men don’t want to participate in this vetting, but as always, want’s got nothing to do with it. It’s easy to characterize this vetting in the context of
Bro Culture, but the fact of the matter is that it exists in every masculine subdomain from Frat Brothers and the football team to coders, gamers and 4Chan /b/rothers.
What’s “wrong” with the pickup seduction manuals is not so much that they treat women as objects, the means to get laid, notches on belts etc., and not as whole people. That’s pretty silly in the modern era.
Apparently Kimmel’s has yet to discover Tindr in this modern era. Someone ought to link Kimmel and Aunt Giggles to @Tinderfessions on Twitter – don’t say I didn’t warn you. It may be silly, but it’s reliable in the context of reality. If women have to be “warned” about this or that PUA tactic, it stands to reason said tactic will be effective. It also stands to reason the technique was based on a provable, intrinsically valid, female dynamic to be effective.
But what bothers me about these books is that they treat men as pathetic losers, utterly incapable of honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion. So they male-bash. They treat men as such losers that they have to be inauthentic game players in order to be successful with women. I have a much more sanguine view of men than that. I believe that when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships.
What if these pathetic losers could become ‘authentic’ Men by learning how women actually relate to them on every level; from sociological to psychological, from evolutionary perspectives to the underlying biology that motivates women’s behaviors not only sexually, but emotionally, pragmatically and sympathetically? Would they still be pathetic losers?
What if these men could be ‘authentic’ in their understanding the nature of women and how women solipsistically and subconsciously institute their own Game socially and psychologically to ensure optimizing hypergamy to their best benefit?
What if these men could “Just Get It” and leverage that understanding not only to improve their own lives, but also the lives of other men, their sons, their brothers, and the lives of the women they involve themselves with? Would they be pathetic losers then?
What if these men’s genuineness in honesty, conversation and emotion were the result of red pill truth and having the blinders removed that a feminized acculturation fitted them with for the better part of a lifetime? The nature of that honesty, conversation and emotion might be something quite different than what your own feminine conditioning would have you envision Professor Kimmel. So are they pathetic losers because their genuineness derives from the red pill, or are they genuine because they buy into what
you
and a feminine-centric culture tells them they should adopt and internalize in order for women to love them? In other words, what are you selling that’s any different?
I agree, if men could be honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships, but how a guy comes to being honest with himself after shedding his blue pill programming, how he learns women ‘actually’ communicate, and how he becomes ‘authentic’ after having internalized Game-awareness and red pill truth is a far different prospect than telling men to
just be themselves
and trust in the alleged rationalness, equalism and zero-sum goodness inherent in ‘most’ women today.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 11:27 pm and tagged with Michael Kimmel,
Stony Brook University
and posted in Game,
Operative Social Conventions,
Positive Masculinity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0
feed.
150 responses to “The Apologists”
-
ho
April 29th, 2014 at 12:02 am“That potential for violence scares the shit out of men like Kimmel”This is the crux of this situation. -
( @ Y @ )
April 29th, 2014 at 12:42 amGood read Rollo. This muppet Kimmel is lost, I don’t think he’ll ever “get it”. Looks like he’s balls deep invested in PC fembot group think. The scary part is someone actually pays this clown a wage? Sociology and gender studies ..HA ! Then to add insult to injury some poor bastard on Dad’s dime has to sit and listen to him “gender is a social construct” for hours on end. -
Jeremy
April 29th, 2014 at 12:54 amI believe I have in the past said the exact same things that Rollo quoted Kimmel as saying, and I meant it at the time.Acknowledging self-deception is the hardest thing humans ever do. It was something I was forced to do, having been raised in, and come out of a christian cult. Having gone through this many times now, in various stages of learning how I was lied to, I can tell you that those still wearing the blinders are truly unreachable. They must help themselves. Their minds have been equipped with the armor of all manner of justifiable lines of thought, and they themselves put the armor on, believing themselves virtuous for doing so. To shed that armor they would have to acknowledge the core weaknesses of human nature of themselves. They must acknowledge how that animal behavior, their behavior, interacts between the sexes. That is something they will not allow themselves to do easily, because they subscribe to the fantasy of the noble human soul. -
LiveFearless
April 29th, 2014 at 2:19 am“What if these pathetic losers could become ‘authentic’ Men by learning how women actually relate to them on every level; from sociological to psychological, from evolutionary perspectives to the underlying biology that motivates women’s behaviors not only sexually, but emotionally, pragmatically and sympathetically? Would they still be pathetic losers?”~Rollo TomassiAhhh… but a man involved in self improvement, in today’s world, is considered to be ‘selfish’ and inauthentic. It doesn’t matter if he is learning what improves the lives of men, women and children… if a man spends money, time or other resources to gain understanding of truth, no matter how it brings positive changes in the course of human events, he is in the ‘not being himself’ category. That is of course considered evil according to every popular source. -
April 29th, 2014 at 2:55 am@Rollo writes, “In other words, what are you selling that’s any different?”It’s like ‘Covert Selfishness’ vs ‘Overt Selfishness’“Average people think selfishness is a vice. Rich people think selfishness is a virtue.Everyone is selfish, but there are two types of selfishness: overt selfishness and covert selfishness. You want to be OVERTLY selfish. Covert selfishness is for chicken shits. When you come right out and say “I want it my way and I’ll have it my way” you will get what you want. When you play the covertly selfish guy, also known as nice guy syndrome, you are only going to get shit on. Nice guys aren’t nice guys, they’re chicken shits. They want the same thing overtly selfish guys want, money and women, but they’re too scared to come right out and demand it so they play nice and hope they’ll be able to manipulate that outcome. But it won’t happen, it’ll never happen. You want it? Take it. You want to eat shit? Play the nice guy game.”~Victor Pride -
BC
April 29th, 2014 at 4:48 am“An idea starts to be interesting when you get scared of taking it to its logical conclusion.”
-Nassim Nicholas TalebApologists like Kimmel believe the natural existence of the rabbit hole to be a Bad Thing and try to divert or shame men from seeing how deep it goes.Denialists like Giggles insist that there is no hole.
(Yeah, lady, in your case…) -
LordSuch
April 29th, 2014 at 5:47 amWhat I find scary is the 100% belief that ‘men’ like Kimmel et al have in their mindset of what females desire. They then guilt and shame (because betas can be) other blue pill sheep into further believing this feminisation, masculinity is further erroded and the cycle worsens.
Wake up, take the red pill, and you’ll see life in a whole different context! -
www.vinaywcmd.com
April 29th, 2014 at 7:16 amAs a fellow blog writer on the truth of sexual market dynamics and female emotional psychology, I naturally wouldn’t waste more than a few seconds of my time reading mainstream “advice” from a beta like Kimmel. Nevertheless, whether we like it or not, he is preaching to the vast majority of the male population.With this in mind, and with 99% of women – ugly, average, cute or hot – also distributing information to men with regards to acting in a way that inflates their ego but not their ultimate and sexual happiness, it is little wonder I see very little transition to a more rewarding course of events in heterosexual bonds.But the good news is that the minority of men (hopefully all those reading blogs of this theme), who take precedence to how they see women act rather than what they hear them say, will reap the rewards. This won’t be every time, as some women have such fragile prides and heightened egos that they take the decision for a life of contentment with an uninspiring, but giving and selfless, man. However, if you could reach the same destination in 5 minutes or 50 minutes, which option would you pick?The below link will illustrate further polar opposites of gender preferences and deliverables: -
Chokmah
April 29th, 2014 at 7:32 amThese are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity.For Kimmel’s information, this is my romantic view of how to deal with this societal dilemma.I agree, if men could be honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships, but how a guy comes to being honest with himself after shedding his blue pill programming, how he learns women ‘actually’ communicate, and how he becomes ‘authentic’ after having internalized Game-awareness and red pill truth is a far different prospect than telling men to just be themselves and trust in the alleged rationalness, equalism and zero-sum goodness inherent in ‘most’ women today.Bravo. That’s the essential problem. I do not see any easy solution in such a rigged ‘game’. In other other words, how to increase men’s sexual value if after all they have little or no sexual value anyway to women, biologically speaking? That’s a feminist utopia: men cannot adapt because they cannot adapt either. But being aware of the problem is a first major step, because it’s akin to realizing the risks and coming up with a plan at least to manage or diminish them, if not solving it entirely on a societal level. Shedding the “blue pill” programming contributes a lot for honest and genuine communication in a world where men are just afraid or even unable to voice what they really think and feel. It’s ironic that shutting down men’s honest expressions of their feelings and wants, women end up cutting themselves off a precious feedback which would enable them to build honest and genuine relationships. But then, realizing they cannot appeal to their reason if one of the realizations they “force” us to make as well. After all they were created to be led, not to lead. -
BuenaVista
April 29th, 2014 at 7:34 amKimmel’s bromides and crocodile tears for bro’-coding inauthentic men, trapped in their obsolete and cruel understanding of masculinity, are just pretextual. They exist to justify coercive rules and laws (that directly benefit women while punishing men, boys and the children of divorce), imposed by the State and such institutions as SUNY. When someone expresses great concern and compassion — while pointing a gun or slapping scarlet letters on dissident chests — we see an odd form of compassion indeed.Kimmel’s compassion, therefore, exists to justify direct discrimination and punishment. Once men are caricatured as game-playing thugs and fools, a male community becomes just another village that must be destroyed in order to save it. So here, Kimmel’s brand of “kindness” is merely the excuse for coercive control.Over and over and over again we see the red pill definitions of masculinity derided as false, cruel and delusional — as vestigial and pathetic. What’s completely illogical, however, is the obsession feminists have with this vestigial and pathetic subculture. Why do they care so much about some odd social phenomenon, of such little importance that it cannot last, owing to its artificiality? Why do feminists not patronize and even encourage such clever, misguided behavior?If red pill conduct is so obviously absurd and self-destructive, feminists should instead welcome it. The more ridiculous red-pillers out there, easily identified, the more easily the enlightened feminist view (as articulated by a Kimmel or a feminist blog) may be applied to more evolved men and women, who happily may mate assortively and breed more successfully; the sooner society may achieve a more enlightened consciousness.I thought that the quickest path to progress lies in ignoring, not targeting, society’s intransigent losers. Arguably, the HUS 78 have demonstrated far more influence, in other words, since being banned than when they were permitted dialogue. The HUS 78 certainly appear in every HUS thread, and not merely as strawmen to be knocked down. I would have thought that they’d have moved on by now. -
Just Saying
April 29th, 2014 at 8:07 am“seduction manuals is not so much that they treat women as objects”Men who are adept at getting women in bed are treating them the way that THEY want to be treated – without all of the BS about what they “say” they want – which is pure unmitigated horse-sh*t. And since women treat men as objects – why should they be treated any other way? We all perceive others as “objects” to a certain extent since we perceive them as “other” – to use, or not to achieve our specific objectives. So yes, I use women just like I use my car – to do something specific that I want to do. To somehow twist that into anger or aggression shows a deranged mind. Which is common among the apologist types and liberal pansy mind-set. They no longer see the world as it is, but rather as they “wish” it would be so that they are somehow “better” – even if all of the women, and power are flowing to the guys they think of as “wrong”.You cannot help that type – all you can do is shake your head and recognize them as delusional. And live your life as it benefits you. -
walawala
April 29th, 2014 at 8:16 amI discovered and learned game 4 years ago and even though I’ve made strides and banged 30 girls and had hot girlfriends…..there are times when i wonder if the path of least resistance would help to avoid the shit-tests and the bitchy paranoid girl-friends who after fucking them become super nuts.Then i realize this is the “burden” of being a man rather than a wuss who is content in his sexless relationships and never gets a chance to “lead” a woman for fear of losing her.This is the inner struggle that i’m dealing with.When I neg a girl and she leaves or if I game a girl and she doesn’t give me her number I wonder where in my game i went “wrong”.This attitude and frame is slowly shifting to a mindset of “just go for it…”The more i approach, the more i learn and the more enjoyment i get out of the entire interaction.i look back on my ‘beta’ AFC days and realize the lows were always longer and lower. Now I know what the tools are and the power rests with me not with the girl to make myself happy. -
-
Sisyphean
April 29th, 2014 at 8:55 amI understand exactly where guys like this are coming from. It’s why I wrote this post: The Mangina Monologues An excerpt: “I’ll never be a great shot or be able to hit anyone with a snowball at greater than arms length and my math skills are mediocre at best but that doesn’t mean manliness isn’t for me or men like me.” The thing to remember is that for the feminized male emotional anecdotes are the primary way to communicate effectively, statistics and facts will only make them shutdown and turn off. You have to tell them a story. -
Nathan
April 29th, 2014 at 9:29 am“What if these pathetic losers could become ‘authentic’ Men by learning how women actually relate to them on every level; from sociological to psychological, from evolutionary perspectives to the underlying biology that motivates women’s behaviors not only sexually, but emotionally, pragmatically and sympathetically? Would they still be pathetic losers?What if these men could be ‘authentic’ in their understanding the nature of women and how women solipsistically and subconsciously institute their own Game socially and psychologically to ensure optimizing hypergamy to their best benefit?What if these men could “Just Get It” and leverage that understanding not only to improve their own lives, but also the lives of other men, their sons, their brothers, and the lives of the women they involve themselves with? Would they be pathetic losers then?What if these men’s genuineness in honesty, conversation and emotion were the result of red pill truth and having the blinders removed that a feminized acculturation fitted them with for the better part of a lifetime?”You’re the man Rollo -
Nathan
April 29th, 2014 at 9:34 amI’m so tired of hearing women on the radio bitch about being objects. The more things fall apart the more I see the wisdom in NOT giving women suffrage.When did our fathers forget?Is this related to the loss of religion? -
LucasBly
April 29th, 2014 at 9:42 amI can’t decide if this post would fit better at the beginning of, or the end of, Preventive Medicine.Maybe both.“What if these men could “Just Get It” and leverage that understanding not only to improve their own lives, but also the lives of other men, their sons, their brothers, and the lives of the women they involve themselves with? Would they be pathetic losers then?”What if indeed. Preach on, Doctor Tomassi. -
GhostOfJefferson
April 29th, 2014 at 10:17 am@SisypheanI understand exactly where guys like this are coming from. It’s why I wrote this post: The Mangina Monologues An excerpt: “I’ll never be a great shot or be able to hit anyone with a snowball at greater than arms length and my math skills are mediocre at best but that doesn’t mean manliness isn’t for me or men like me.” The thing to remember is that for the feminized male emotional anecdotes are the primary way to communicate effectively, statistics and facts will only make them shutdown and turn off. You have to tell them a story.Fantastic observation. This is precisely why I generally include a homey anecdote when I communicate with men on other forums/venues. The red pill don’t need it and some get the eyes rolling at me, but the newly emerging or not yet emerged take something more from that kind of communication. It may be a bit Quixotic of me, but my purpose since having my son (some 17 odd years earlier) has been to men rediscover their manliness. Given blue pill going deep in society these days it only makes sense to use the best tools one can for the job.You can try to drive a screw into wood with a hammer, but it works much better, faster and easier for all parties to use a screwdriver.As to this apologist, somebody else already summed up my thoughts on it neatly. If we’re such a group of laughable malcontents then experience would see us soundly ignored or even encouraged. That we’re the growing focus of so many feminists and now even some mainstream anger tells me that we’re onto something much more in line with reality than they’re comfortable with. -
jf12
April 29th, 2014 at 10:46 am@GhostOfJefferson
interesting analogy. Maybe it’s got more legs like this: Men are like nails and get where they need to go best when treated straight and forcefully. In short men respond well to hammering with a hammer. In contrast, women are like screws, and you can complete that aphorism with the screwdriver.As you say, screws can be driven into wood with a hammer, albeit painfully and damaging to the wood and to the screw. In contrast, you can’t screw a nail into wood. At best, you just make dinky noises while damaging the screwdriver. -
-
TarzanWannaBe
April 29th, 2014 at 10:58 amThe “What if…” is what I translate/teach my 10 year old son about the world he is growing up in. He’s pretty astute at identifying “*those* kind of girls” as well as the men/boys that appease them. A succinct and structured book directed toward boys from Rollo someday would be golden! -
-
-
Rollo Tomassi
April 29th, 2014 at 11:20 am@Tarzan,A succinct and structured book directed toward boys from Rollo someday would be golden!In the meantime,..
http://therationalmale.com/2014/02/07/lessons-for-my-son/ -
April 29th, 2014 at 11:29 am@Nathan,I’m so tired of hearing women on the radio bitch about being objects.Women would rather be objectified than idealized.The biological fact is that all men objectify women because it is how our neural firmware evolved. The parts of men’s brains involved with problem solving and tool use are stimulated when we see sexually available women.Ask any woman if she wouldn’t mind being Christian Grey’s ‘object’ after reading 50 Shades of Grey. It’s all about context – women are only concerned about being objectified by men unworthy of using them as an object. -
April 29th, 2014 at 11:52 am@Rollo, re: tool use. Yes, a sexually desirous woman is seen by a man as needing his tool. Women, in general, are more attractive when they seem to need a man. -
zodak
April 29th, 2014 at 12:06 pmas a former beta, these blue bill guys repeating this nonsense fill me with such rage. i look back at how i embodied all their bad advice & how it was just disastrous. -
Nate
April 29th, 2014 at 12:43 pm” As such, my guess is he cannot discern the difference between aggression born from anger and aggression as a vetting and honing mechanism of the male psychology”This is one of the biggest divides between naturals and betas that, without acknowledgement, is a huge obstacle for men trying to improve themselves.Talking shit, fucking with each other, pulling pranks, calling each other fags and pussies and all that, it’s good fun and builds comraderie, sharpens the wit, and builds some backbone.Guys who can’t handle it or suck at it always seem to be missing something. That fun aggression is a good thing to have. I don’t know of a single dude who gets laid who isn’t also an adept shit talker. -
April 29th, 2014 at 12:50 pm@zodakDon’t feel rage towards them, they know not what they do and are acting logically within the framework of their lifetime programming. I feel pity for them, but not anger, they simply do not know better. So…educate them. -
caprizchka
April 29th, 2014 at 2:06 pmLove this and find it to be excellent advice for men geared to the way men think, how to combat prevailing attitudes that are not in men’s interest nor in the interest of women who, mostly, don’t know what will make them happy anyway (hint: it’s not hypergamy). -
April 29th, 2014 at 3:35 pmNow I know why men invented hammers.They needed a useful object that didn’t nag them. -
Mr. Roach
April 29th, 2014 at 5:20 pmI just want Kimmel to be straight about his own success or lack thereof with women before he starts telling us “how it works.” And the same for all the “man up” pastors and everyone else. And I this as someone who actually values authentic relationships, friendships, and connection with women. But I have learned, mostly the hard way, that all the PC/Oprah/Feminist claptrap is a bullshit enormous shit detection scheme where you don’t even get a consolation prize. -
BlackPoisonSoul
April 29th, 2014 at 10:17 pmBut what bothers me about these books is that they treat men as pathetic losers, utterly incapable of honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion.He hasn’t twigged that girls aren’t interested in honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion. They prefer innuendo, sly subtleties, plausible deniability, and other tingle-inducing things.Plus they prefer that sort of thing with their “girlfriends”. Not those hot studs that they just have to fuck within 15 minutes of meeting. -
April 29th, 2014 at 10:26 pmKimmel has yet to grasp that nothing is more gratifying for a woman than to believe she’s figured a man out using her (mythical) feminine intuition. -
Water Cannon Boy
April 29th, 2014 at 10:34 pmThis may be WAY off topic at the moment, but I was thinking that it may become increasingly relevant as the Donald Sterling case plays out. I think the circumstances of that will eventually be co-opted in some way to fit into supporting the usual chic logic argument I hear of freedom of expression as long as I agree with what you’re saying.
I have no sympathy for Sterling, however I see this as the thought police. Me, if I played for the Clippers I’d be gone as soon as my contract was up. But I’d still recognize the fact that this was a private conversation and expression of personal views. Anybody think this will be bent into trying to suppress any criticism of the feminized media, or feminism’s hypocrisy? -
April 29th, 2014 at 10:42 pmBut I have learned, mostly the hard way, that all the PC/Oprah/Feminist claptrap is a bullshit enormous shit detection scheme where you don’t even get a consolation prize…What I find quite interesting is the capacity of women to completely ignore and deny that they are entitled themselves (they perceive this is a “right”, or Rollo’s ‘Just Get It’, I think), and also to deny that any male/boys shaming have ever existed and the consequences on men’s behavior (again the ‘Just Get It). And Rollo would rightly remind me that trying to talk with them about this is trying to make them appeal to their reason. So, basically, women basically just respond to actual rewards and punishments/costs, in a very ‘solipsistic’ manner. I have to admit it: it’s scary. … Remnants of “blue pill” idealizations… But then who told us that they are rational: very likely our own projection.Rollo: we can state therefore that man essentially has an inner lonely existence? I mean, he’s completely alone? What are wife and children meant for in a man’s life? That looks like an interesting question. Do you think that the manosphere is nihilistic, in the psychiatric sense of the word? Are you nihilistic? Just some random thoughts… I will be checking out for a while. -
DeNihilist
April 29th, 2014 at 10:55 pmFuck! this guy would hate being on the annual fishing trip. That’s all we do is take the piss outta each other! Also no broads allowed. Been like this for close to 35 years now. -
Kr Eden
April 30th, 2014 at 3:54 amRollo, since you have solid understanding of psychology, maybe you could explain this logic in terms of game theory. It might be a little too mathematical for some, but it would help those that seek rational explanation for feelings and behavior. -
April 30th, 2014 at 7:24 amThere is only Game and the degree to which you accept it and are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define. [...] Just as Alpha is not inherently nobel or deplorable, Game is neither inherently good nor evil – the Devil is in the details and whomever’s defined context in which you use it. [...] Power is neither good nor evil, it simply is, and your capacity to use power, your comfort in using it, doesn’t invalidate the principles of power. Likewise, your discomfort or inability to accept those principles does not excuse you from the consequence of having that power used upon you.I see. But I myself being familiar with Machiavelli’s work, which I think is similar to Roberto Greene’s, as I see it he just laid out a very detailed account of the powers at be, historical and present, therefore paving the foundation for more democratic societies. In other words, understanding the dynamics of power gives us a freedom to make informed decisions, or enables us make more “rational” and “pragmatic” decisions as the circumstances dictate, either for our own benefit or for society’s at large. I think the latter is true if the knowledge is widespread and public.Hence it’s logical that understanding the dynamics of power is a major step towards having the conditions to make strategic decisions and therefore it paves the way to personal development, growth and, ultimately, inner freedom.Have you read Peter’s and Hull’s “The Peter Principle”? I have found it to be a very amusing and yet containing deep truths about the inner workings of bureaucracies, the corporate and governmental world and all hierarchies. At first I thought they authors were being satirical, but then I ended up quite convinced it’s a scientific treaty written in a rather satirical way, which sheds light about deep truths in human hierarchies and consequently in an inner level as well. And what is most amusing about the book is the author’s suggestion for the reader to be aware of and make an effort his/her own level of “creative incompetence”. As hilarious as it may be, it’s such a powerful concept for those looking for higher levels of personal and inner freedom.Do you think there might be a similar concept, applicable to dating and relationships, i.e., being aware of and making an effort to achieve our own “creative incompetence”, through the proper understanding of dating and relationship dynamics, and the ultimate incompetence of the… say… “feminine imperative”? -
BuenaVista
April 30th, 2014 at 7:47 am@water cannon: the Sterling fiasco breaks new ground in relationship betrayal and situational loyalty. Kareem correctly noted that the conversation was clearly manipulated by the gold digger to elicit the man’s worst impulses. While Sterling is a fool for trusting this sidepiece (seriously, did he think he could “just be himself”?) and a pretty disgusting one at that, this is essentially a false-rape, regret sex scenario. The woman who published Sterling’s comments had no problem hanging out with a fat geriatric racist billionaire — until she did.Going forward any man of prominence now will be patting down his office visitors for phones and recorders. Smartphone society makes any private comment of any sort now fair game for any schemer with an agenda. That schemer could be a girlfriend who uses a stray comment you issue about an ex-, it could be someone from work sharing beers in an airport, it could be a classmate on a campus like Duke where it’s now verboten to say such things as “don’t be a pussy.”The defense of such inquisitions will be Silver’s: “You wouldn’t have a problem if you didn’t have such thoughts.” This is akin to feminists saying, “You wouldn’t have a problem with your ex- and your destroyed parental relationships if you’d just chosen better, ha-ha, and NAWALT.” It doesn’t matter that the NBA is filled with black athletes who issue statements of racist ridicule any more than it doesn’t matter what an ex-girlfriend or ex-wife’s agenda is: once personal destruction is on the agenda, context and moral equivalence are irrelevant, and only one side of every story will be scrutinized. -
titanic
April 30th, 2014 at 8:06 am@Chokmah
Check out Venkat Rao’s Gervais Principle for a completely no-rose-coloured glasses look at corporate life. -
BuenaVista
April 30th, 2014 at 8:24 amChokmah, as a recent student of red pill, I would have to agree that an inner loneliness, upon discovering that men only have value to their women and children insofar as we offer *utility*, initially dominated my coming-awake experiences. Lately though (for me) this stark truth provides comfort, as it reflects reality better than the pretty lies we were taught, and are still told to practice, by most women.One reaction to accepting the truth is discovering freedom: the freedom to invest my utility according to my own priorities, the freedom to stop asking “Why?” when the contradictions and inhumanity of the pretty lies are laid bare, and the freedom to educate my sons so that they perhaps don’t spend a few decades wandering in dark alleys getting periodically mugged. In this respect I do see the sexual world as more accurately amoral. But paradoxically, it is in accepting its amoral, opportunistic, utility-prizing nature that one glimpses a new personal sovereignty.As a child, and well into adulthood I was a terrible sleepwalker: I would leave the house and wake up in a neighborhood I didn’t recognize (at age 10); in Scouts I had to tie myself to the tent or bunkframe or I would wander off into ravines and up and down mountainsides; I once drove my car through a blizzard in Nebraska when the snow was so bad I-80 was closed. It got bad enough that I stopped staying at friends houses; basically, I would fall asleep and then go mad. In my thirties business travel became a challenge. To this day I do not ever share a tent or hotel room.The vividness of these experiences remains after decades. What was so difficult about these fugal nightmares — what I recall as the central ‘problem’ in the nightmares — was thinking I was someplace and then crashing about trying to make the physical environment resemble the ideation in my head. (For example, thinking I was walking to my childhood home, but turning left and falling down and turning right and of course being in a completely different environment. I would think I’d know where I was but of course all of the actual circumstances did not correspond to the ideation of where I was. And I couldn’t wake up, even when I realized nothing fit.) These were terrifying experiences, when they weren’t humorous (e.g., waking up in one’s underwear locked out of one’s hotel room).This is how I see my three decades of pursuing the pretty lies we are taught: thrashing about in a fever dream according to an ideology of maximal provisioning, being unconditionally loved for “just being myself”, discovering joy once in a while when (unknown to myself at the time) my utility intersected with a woman’s opportunistic needs. Knowing how things work, in reality, by contrast, is extremely liberating. At least now I just wake up instead of having to safety-lock my balcony door, and I always know where I am. -
April 30th, 2014 at 9:17 am@BV adult night terrors supposedly are characteristic of two things, one being child abuse.There is a streak of childhood night terrors that runs in my family. My daughter had them, I had them, my father had them, my father’s father had them, and my father’s father’s mother had them, all bad enough for family to remember and talk about for generations. -
BuenaVista
April 30th, 2014 at 9:31 amYeah, though I’ve probably been forthcoming enough for one day.What’s the other one, incidentally? -
April 30th, 2014 at 9:46 am@titanic,I just read the piece on corporate culture you suggested.
This line jumps out: “creating a meta-culture of Darwinism in the economy…”Say what one will about Carl Jung, I do admire Jung for saying that Christianity is the counterbalance to the darwinian sociopathology. -
April 30th, 2014 at 11:05 am@BV, 2nd is a particular pattern of organic brain damage. I think it’s most often caused by an acute overdose of toxic chemicals, but probably also could be caused by infection or mechanical trauma. -
Retrenched
April 30th, 2014 at 12:37 pmAt its heart, the feminized beta mindset is that men should put the interests and well-being of women ahead of their own. Women’s desires, ambitions, needs and goals should ALWAYS come first, for both men and women. Both sexes must work together to make sure that women get everything they want and need, first and foremost. Women getting whatever it is they think they want or need at the time must take precedence over everything else. And any man who pursues his own interests, well-being, goals, hopes and desires instead of those of women will be labeled sexist, misogynist, a hateful patriarchal oppressor, etc.Feminized society and culture – the media, the government, the churches – all expect men to put women’s interests, goals, and imperatives ahead of their own. -
Steve H
April 30th, 2014 at 4:33 pmThere is WAY too much credit, all over this thread, passively bequeathed to the ‘bro-coders’, the gamers, the ‘american bro’ caricature. That’s the thing – a great many men have indeed become caricatures.While we’re tearing down the lies of the cathedral and the societally-saturated feminine imperative, and while we’re building up men who emerge, broken and bloodied, from blue-pill hell looking for answers, I don’t fuckin’ understand this rush to lionize dude-bro idiocy here.Yes, men calling each other out on their bullshit is a good thing. ‘Stop being such a fuckin’ pussy’, ‘grow up’, ‘ah, fuck you, cut the shit…’ – all well and good.But the reality for most men ‘in the middle’ isn’t quite as noble as some here presume. Porn and video games and alcohol and trolling for pussy (see also: the modern concept that a man has ‘wingmen’, not friends) does not a man make. This is all bullshit too, at least in a vacuum.I read this article (http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/anatomy-of-a-new-modern-douchebag) and saw a little of myself in it after a brutal breakup with a live-in girlfriend. I was nowhere near as obnoxious, far more sullen and sneering, but i completely understood how i was intentionally “trolling everyone’s sensibilities with (my) actions. Because when nobody wants (me), (I) can do what you want”.I highly recommend reading that VICE article, even if you’re in your 40s/50s/60s, and seeing if there’s a little of a reflection of yourself there. Don’t get me wrong – that’s a step up from blue-pill purgatory – but it’s nothing to celebrate too much. It’s no great victory. I suppose this sounds a bit like Matt King’s rantings. So be it. -
Fred Flange, S.J.
April 30th, 2014 at 4:46 pmDon’t cry for Donald Sterling, Argentina. There’s no big privacy issue there because he talked shit next to his chickie-pie’s cell-phone HD recorder. There’s big money, yes. And for big money people will do lots of bad things. To protect themselves from his Bad Things. Sterling’s no Sovereign Citizen or Master of the Universe. You know his type well: the Super-Beta with Super-Beta Bucks who thinks he is loved for throwing around pocket change, which the ex-cheerleader escorts hoover up whilst hoovering him (then vomiting in the loo). He is the kind of guy who, flying in first class, looks with interest at the SkyMall magazine’s matchmaking ads. If smitten with his Twu Wuv, he’ll build her a house and throw cars and rings at her, then be gobsmacked when he sees her screw the gardener or the neighbor’s teenage son. Then he’s gonna go to court to get it back? Oh yeah? The Botox Babe making secret recordings is just leverage, another tactic in the money game. Because remember that Don –Don, trying to make things right with Mrs. Don-Don, was suing her to get his “payments for services rendered” back. She no doubt warned him to back off, he persisted, then lookie lookie what TMZ put on the TV!! Still think you’re getting your money back from me? What else might I have up my garters?It’s like in Tom Wolfe’s “A Man In Full”: the first thing Mr. Mogul’s Trophy Wife #2 does is get preggers by him ensure she has the child support hook in him. (Real life examples of same: Mel Gibson, Sir Paul McCartney).A little discretion is advised, of course, in both professional and personal spheres. My rule has always been: I am ready for anything (and I mean ANYTHING) I’ve said or done online to be read back to me on a witness stand or at a press conference. All of which I will own, and not apologize for. It’s always possible I may get knocked down a peg or two, but I’ll deal. And I know all about surreptitious recording, and the reasons one might do that, having done some of that in my day, so I’m not afraid of that either. -
April 30th, 2014 at 4:50 pm@Steve H,There is WAY too much credit, all over this thread, passively bequeathed to the ‘bro-coders’, the gamers, the ‘american bro’ caricature….I didn’t read the entire thread… what are you talking about? -
Fred Flange, S.J.
April 30th, 2014 at 5:11 pmOh yes I read the Vice piece. Clive Martin is pretty sharp, his Vice video series on Brit club culture, Big Night Out, is good for some larfs. In general I like Vice (their piece on Japanese grass-eaters is fanfuckingtastic). They can be a bit blue-pill at times but when they’re on they are ON. -
-
April 30th, 2014 at 5:25 pmJeremy – I’ll contain my criticism to RT’s post but this criticism applies to scattered comments as well:“men giving each other shit is an evolutionary (and useful) vestige of tribalism and how men would use this “challenging” to ensure the strength and survivability of the collective”This is utterly unnecessary today. There is no need to prop up the collective with any semblance of tribal unity or struggle, let alone a pragmatic application of intra-male shit-talking to this end.“shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity. Risk taking, physical aggression (constructive and destructive) and physicality in general, ambition, team reliance and individualism are all part of this masculinity. That potential for violence scares the shit out of men like Kimmel, but that potential is also precisely what’s need for survival and success of a species.”tell that to richie incognito or countless other locker rooms where absolutely nothing positive results from such meaningless yet vulgar pubescent canards. that’s not at all about building a better man these days. and the notion that virtually any modern incarnation of violence is ‘constructive’ in effect – difficult to find any. of course overt violent machinations once served a vital function, but that’s from a long since bygone era. This isn’t to excuse Kimmel for being a pedastalizing pussy, but to intellectually honestly refute the nonsense that ‘survival and success of a species’ is what’s at stake. It isn’t.“It’s easy to characterize this vetting in the context of Bro Culture, but the fact of the matter is that it exists in every masculine subdomain from Frat Brothers and the football team to coders, gamers and 4Chan /b/rothers.”The existence of these particular masculine subcultures are better than a complete dearth of any male space whatsoever, but not by much. They *could* be great, but they’re only as good as the quality of the lesser men who inhabit those spaces. Which is to say, risible and juvenile – a paltry caricature of what your median man used to be.That’s what I’m talking about. -
Pellaeon
April 30th, 2014 at 5:59 pm@SteveHI just read the Vice article. It strikes me as just another hackneyed attempt to beta game (“Im not like those OTHER douchebags…ladies, you should like me”) and shame men who are successfully getting sex. While I can sympathize with an aversion to frat culture, I think any attempts to shame men away from it will utterly fail while it is being rewarded with access to pussy. If you want to campaign against “doucheification”, you’ll have to provide incentives for men to care.On a tangential note (comments from the Vice article led me here), it appears that Know Your Meme is characterizing NAMALT as a meme that sprouted out of nowhere, and barely even mentions NAWALT. I can’t even think of a single thread where anyone has said “Not all men are like that” in any form of seriousness, and certainly not without someone having already made a NAWALT comment.I know I shouldn’t be surprised…but I honestly am. The naked intellectual dishonesty of the feminine imperative is just astounding. Just when you think you’ve fully unplugged, you realize that your sight was slightly more blurry than you thought. -
New Yorker
April 30th, 2014 at 6:37 pmThe locker room culture is most definitely a necessary, evolutionary construct. It may not be fun for those on the lower end of the totem pole, but it is the most self-actualizing and determined who rule the locker room and they are the ones whom the team will follow into battle. Most of the Dolphins sided with Incognito for a reason. What we should do is raise our boys to thrive in the locker room, not claim that it is somehow outdated. -
April 30th, 2014 at 6:42 pm@Pellaeon, I certainly would be surprised to see organized Douche Walks around the country, but I’m sure the feminine imperative insists “these particular (“risible and juvenile”) subcultures” are all around us. Lock up your beer fridges, ladies! -
April 30th, 2014 at 8:23 pm@BuenaVista:Lately though (for me) this stark truth provides comfort, as it reflects reality better than the pretty lies we were taught, and are still told to practice, by most women. One reaction to accepting the truth is discovering freedom: the freedom to invest my utility according to my own priorities, the freedom to stop asking “Why?” when the contradictions and inhumanity of the pretty lies are laid bare, and the freedom to educate my sons so that they perhaps don’t spend a few decades wandering in dark alleys getting periodically mugged. In this respect I do see the sexual world as more accurately amoral. But paradoxically, it is in accepting its amoral, opportunistic, utility-prizing nature that one glimpses a new personal sovereignty. [...] Knowing how things work, in reality, by contrast, is extremely liberating. At least now I just wake up instead of having to safety-lock my balcony door, and I always know where I am.Thanks for sharing your experience. -
BuenaVista
April 30th, 2014 at 8:57 pm@Steve H., I have no idea why you even worry about this crap. Some keyboard jocks do some evo-psych lite, but seriously, is this a solution in search of a problem? I spent a lot of time in locker rooms, in college and after, and none of my buds would be confused for 5 seconds in regard to Incognito. He’s useful and entertaining, until he’s not. When he’s 45 no one is going to return his calls.However, they wouldn’t turn on him, either. Guys like that just exist. And they *should be allowed* to exist.So. BFD, he’s an asshole who benches 450 and plays a tough game really well. None of us should have to worry about maintaining an even strain by isolating zero defect associates. There are no zero-defect social circles. We regularly elect Incognitos to President, we buy products from Incognitos, we are stopped for going 62 in a 55 by Incognitos. When there are no Incognitos in HR, I’ll start to worry about purging Incognito. -
Senior Beta
April 30th, 2014 at 11:19 pmWhen I saw your several comments on the J4G interview with this turd I thought it would lead to something. Like Hancock said: Good job.As an old Navy guy I thought getting rid of the draft was good for the military and the country. We got a higher caliber of motivated guys and overall the results were good. Now I am not so sure. That assholes like this missed the most common male experience (at least in the old days) of eating shit in the Army (or Navy) is sad. No wonder he tries to play nice with the chicks. He never had any real male experience. -
Mark Minter
April 30th, 2014 at 11:59 pmI would describe Kimmel as being an “intellectual” of the ilk that thinks there is this duality between the body and the “soul”. Yet instead of it manifesting itself via religion, he believes as most “intellectuals” that the autonomy of the human soul manifests itself in the autonomy of the culture.Intellectual life in the Anglophone world is now increasingly divided between the mindset embodied by Kimmel and his fellow sociologists and the biocultural perspective exemplified in works by evolutionary biologists, social scientists, and literary scholars.”And few people have, as yet, bridged the gap between this science and the “culture” and for now, the contemporary American mind is suspended, at the moment, in the midst of a paradigm shift.I would classify you as an evolutionary social critic. Evolutionary social critics use concepts from evolution with social observation to describe the motives of to describe the motives of people as an explanation of behavior as a function of evolutionary adaptation.Inevitably, science is making the idea of “culture”, particularly that idea of structuralism creating gender, wholly laughable. In the face of the amount of research being done, and with the ready access to massive amounts of papers, scholarly works, that to adhere to it is almost foolish.One of the first papers I read on the subject of Evolutionary Pscychology and Evolutionary Biology after encountering your blog some year and half ago pertained to the climate at SUNY Stony Brook. And how some faculty meetings had turned into screaming matches between the scientists and professors of any form of social science. The catalyst had been a questionnaire that someone from Evolutionary Psychology had sent around to the various. The questions were of the sort, “Do you believe in Evolution? Are you a parent? Married? In which department do you teach?” Then the questions asked questions and animals and was a certain physical characteristic heritable? Was a certain behavior? It asked of wild animals, farm animals, dogs, cats. Then it got to humans.What the results showed were that almost all accepted evolution. And almost all accepted the biological basis of animal behavior and that behavior was a function of natural select. And the results anyone from any other department other than social sciences, especially Sociology, accepted a biological basis for human behavior and the most definite acceptance came from parents of children.And the members of the sociology department of which Mr Kimmel is a tenured professor, either skipped the questions, defaced the questions, or refused to return the questionnaire.It is wholly right of you to pick this man a subject of ridicule. It is fine with me if you call him a beta suckup pussy.I was forced to take some sociology classes years back, and the nonsense taught in those classes at one of the premier universities in my state that produced students that went on to become the elite of my state. They affected the laws of that state, which led to immeasurable harm perpetrated on the men by abusive family law, abusive police practices, divorce, and an ever encroaching loss of male rights in the workplace and society in general.So to me, this guy is more than a suckup writer to bitches, he is a fucking danger to the rights and liberties of men because of the position he holds. And the crap he teaches ends up in policy and law.Yes, one day, as we all plug away at bullshit like his, he will be held up a huckster fraud. that science will dominate the discussion.His time is over. Yours is beginning. And hopefully by the time you reach his age, you will receive the same access to the public that he currently has. -
-
Retrenched
May 1st, 2014 at 2:37 amIt is a law of nature that the male will adapt to become whatever the female chooses to mate with. Well, western females are choosing to mate with ‘douchebag’ types in great numbers, so it’s not at all surprising to see young men in the west trying to emulate ‘douchebag’ behavior.As long as DBs get laid more often and with hotter girls than non-DBs, you can forget about young men swearing off the DB culture and lifestyle. If they have to choose between the respect of the SteveH types on the one hand, and getting laid like tile on the other, well… -
Retrenched
May 1st, 2014 at 3:13 amBut, it goes to show you just how pervasive the feminine imperative is in our society, when we obsess more over stupid college boys getting drunk and being obnoxious than college girls killing their unborn babies by the thousands every day… -
Tam the Bam
May 1st, 2014 at 4:12 am“I highly recommend reading that VICE article, even if you’re in your 40s/50s/60s … “
Well Steve H, I am, and I did, a while back, in another place.
And I’m sorry to say it’s specious crap, in that it is a metrosexual confection, excreted for the delectation of persons unknown who don’t have any first-hand experience of Britain. A strange case, where I controversially find myself in agreement with a real live Englishman.I’m surprised that it does actually resonate with foreigners, rather than its insular audience.Frankly he lost me a couple of lines in, at the bit where he says young brit men “look up to” dear, daft Mario Balotelli. Not even wrong … -
May 1st, 2014 at 7:30 amThe locker room *can* be great. It’s only as good as its leaders, but also only as good as it’s lesser men. Where I’m from, we’ve got Brady and Belichick leading, while Belichick purges lesser men. Incognito would never be allowed to wear the uniform here. Aaron Hernandez fooled everyone, but that’s the outlier. But Brady and Belichick are superior men, most locker rooms don’t have presences like that.For another tangential angle, I invoke RT’s personal revelations. He doesn’t cheat on his wife. How many locker rooms have a simple majority of guys who don’t cheat on their WAGs? If the caliber of men were better, they wouldn’t cheat on principle. You only demonstrate character and integrity when you *could* cheat, but you choose not to. And I’m well aware of how easy it is to get pussy beyond professional locker room culture. I don’t begrudge any single man from fucking to his hearts content, in fact I encourage it. I certainly did during my most recent era of being single. But when men covertly cheat on WAGs (e.g. in any non-open relationship), it’s dishonorable behavior. I’m not an apologist for that. Let’s leave rationalizing dishonorable behavior to contemptible butthurt women, ok?The point is also that it’s so easy to get laid. So to claim that DBs ‘do it to get laid’ – so what. Everyone with a fuckin’ clue gets laid these days. After dialing down the aspects of ‘DB behavior’ I recognized in myself, while also tempering my own anger, I got laid more than ever but also drew more respect from others and myself. I get that It’s easy to cast stones without being self-revelatory (See also: Matt King’s blindspot). Self-reflection can be cringe-inducing.Back to Incognito. He turned into a simpering, butthurt beta pussy when the ugly Cathedral dug its claws in. If he ‘stood by his conduct’, there would be no problem. He would’ve been like ‘hey this is me, tough shit, i’m proud to be who i am’. So the question is: why was he so defensive? why did he ‘spiral out of control’ after that and ‘assure loved ones he would attend rehab’ and all that predictable, cliched beta bullshit? Risible and juvenile indeed.One great thing about this blog is it’s aversion to pedantic evangelism. There’s no need to be an apologist for the Incognitos, the Ben Roethlisbergers, the Chris Browns. Because if we do so, we are no better than Macchiavellian gender feminists. We can be better than that. -
May 1st, 2014 at 10:27 amTam the Bam – yes I did see that. However I hadn’t seen this comment til just now as you linked near it – https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/the-great-douchebag-mystery/#comment-118302 – in which ‘Boxer’ hits the nail on the head.Where Dalrock is misguided is that he believes that women ‘crave’ douchebags. This is a flawed, cursory cause-effect conflation. Women crave men who aren’t boring, who aren’t afraid of offending sensibilities, who aren’t afraid of judgement. And when a man becomes truly liberated from insignificant fears of societal (because he has ‘lost everything’), he is free to be that charming, charismatic, reckless, go-for-broke cad and *that* is what women find attractive. The ‘douchebags’ just happen to hit those right notes (while also hitting some of the wrong ones that can repel women when tastelessly applied). -
DeNihilist
May 1st, 2014 at 10:53 amJust watched Gran Torino last night. Scenes in this movie show exactly what our host is saying.Great flick -
May 1st, 2014 at 11:32 amSteve H “You only demonstrate character and integrity when you *could* cheat, but you choose not to.” apex fallacy. I’m wondering where Steve H’s gaze rests when he’s in a locker room. -
-
May 1st, 2014 at 11:39 amDon’t beat up on SteveH, he serves to illustrate the deliberate confusion of masculinity most guys have been conditioned for by the feminine imperative. Any application or even attempts to define masculinity outside the frame of what would best serve the FI is either ridiculed or equated with misogyny – even by the men who would attempt to define it. -
Fred Flange, S.J.
May 1st, 2014 at 11:39 am@ Tam and @ Steve H – a couple notes of catution again. I took the Vice piece as a satire more than accurate social commentary. Clive Martin is a snarkster so I filtered accordingly. No obviously I did not think all UK men acted like that, any more than all USA men act like the Jersey Shore guys (who wear a similar shade of orange and toned pecs). They are trying to be seen, and are getting on camera, hey ma lookit me, so having a bit of fun with them goes with the territory.My opinion on Incognito is not based on any of the so-called bullying. I get that NFL cred is based in large part on showing your own team as well as the other teams what a badass you are; Dick Butkus was the high priest of that in his day. My worry comes from those cell phone videos where Incognito, shirtless, wanders round a bar screaming at anything that moves. Drink? Roids? Combination of the Two? Dunno and don’t really care except if he goes one step too far and starts pummeling patrons or barkeeps. Then it is a team problem, a PR problem, and it won’t matter who started it – only the fracas video will be what everyone sees, and that’s good for nobody except TMZ or ESPN. -
May 1st, 2014 at 11:45 amThe fact that ‘Bro Culture’ is even a term, or go-to archetypal examples of it begins with jocks, douchebags and team sport locker rooms, illustrates the threat to which male-exclusive forms of communication poses to the feminine imperative. -
Fred Flange, S.J.
May 1st, 2014 at 11:46 amAhem – can’t spell caution it seems.
And I will second our host – I think Steve H’s questions are entirely appropriate, looking for the nuance, not conceding the point that “masculinity” is to be synonymous only with “douchebaggery” or “asshole game” as blue-pillers and “social construct” gender theorists insist, hoping to win everyone over through lungpower, not evidence. -
May 1st, 2014 at 11:53 am@SteveH, I refuse to concede that my lack of opportunities to be a cad made me MORE of a cad. -
May 1st, 2014 at 11:54 amI fully expect the very next words to be “Nice Guys are the Real Jerks!” -
eon
May 1st, 2014 at 11:58 amTo actually “build a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity”, instead of just showing off at the expense of others (and the collective of humanity), would involve something more like saying: “this is what you are doing [necessary because the views from the inside out, and from the outside in, are different]; this is why it is not good; this is how you can fix it; go to my gym and I will teach you; you have no choice but to start from where you are; but if you show that you are serious, then no one will laugh at you; and they will guide you with the respect of expectation that you are willing and able to improve, and without being asked”.Guiding with respect, as an absolute expectation that those who are less are willing and able to become more, is one aspect of another bro-code that has nothing in common with the modern version, which enables feral males just as the rest of society enables feral females. The bro-code of “The Jersey Shore” (a US “reality” show) would not have lasted very long in the more tenuous times of Homer (“The Iliad”, and “The Odyssey”).Respect, as an absolute expectation, facilitates success by removing backward pressure. It removes the necessity of believing in yourself (which can seem like lying to yourself), by replacing it with the certainty of others that you will ultimately succeed, even after failing.It has been my experience that when males bro-code in the modern way, to any significant degree, long after puberty, it is because they are:1) still immature, even to the point of competing with women for the position of “the most responsible teenager in the house” [no-maam.blogspot[]com/2012/06/woman-most-responsible-teenager-in.html],2) trying to distract from some self-perceived inadequacy, instead of trying to fix it, or3) using it as cover to engage in what Jack Donovan was trying to defend here: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/22/male-on-male-sexual-harassment/ -
Fred Flange, S.J.
May 1st, 2014 at 12:12 pmYou are making this too easy. Don’t you read Jezebel? NiceGuys(TM) ARE the new jerks. Always were. Scary thing when you think about it: they’re right. As the NiceGuy’s supplicating betatude fails, bitterness seeps in: I was told if I was nice I would ATTRACT the women who said be nice, but it ain’t working (misinterpreted as “a sense of entitlement” but really bewilderment at being defrauded – “the cake is a lie.”). And that anger seeps through and the women correctly sense that the NiceGuy(TM) isn’t so nice after all, and never was.What SteveH and the others are getting at is: how to manifest something other than the easily-dismissed PUA “jerk” stereotype, and not concede the field to the “just be yourself” smooth-talkers. -
May 1st, 2014 at 12:16 pmEon, be careful you don’t base your assumptions on romanticized interpretations of past ideals. I think you’d be surprised by the number of Mike “the situation”‘s in the Greek and Trojan armies. -
May 1st, 2014 at 12:24 pmRollo, I have probably missed many of your comments in deti’s post about “Path 2″. But I have got some suggestions for further themes in your site in this comment. Or perhaps you’ve already covered a lot of it in which case you might reference all the posts here. Thanks. -
May 1st, 2014 at 12:53 pmAnd that anger seeps through and the women correctly sense that the NiceGuy(TM) isn’t so nice after all, and never was. Next you’ll be telling us that “war is peace” and “2+2=5.” The whole “Nice Guy Tm” schtick is just the feminine imperative spinning up the propaganda engine to distract from the fact that THEY engineered the legions of “Nice Guys” in the first place. It’s the same thing that they’re doing now with NAMALT: for years gynocentrists have been spouting NAWALT like it was their job. The moment that same straw man starts getting turned on them, they hand wave away their extensive history of NAWALT and attempt to re-write history as if MRA’s pulled NAMALT out of thin air. I can certainly agree that I find the “Mike ‘the situations’ ” of the world distasteful…but this is more a matter of value preferences than it is an indictment of their masculinity. As someone who tends towards intellectuals (read: nerd), I find the “let’s get fucked up!” crowd rather annoying. With that being said, why should any of them care whether or not their lifestyle choices are “contributing to humanity as a whole?” What incentive does any man in modern America have to rise above the minimum effort required to meet their desires? Certainly, there are individuals who have a strong desire to shape the world according to their values, and who derive an internal satisfaction from achievement. Clearly, the “risible and juveniles” of the world do not share such an internal desire. To return SteveH’s question: so what? All we’ve heard so far is the subjective criticism “Well they’re not REAL men! (according to my personal, subjective opinion)” Great. Now they come back and say “Doesn’t matter, had sex.” Why should they, or I, care that they don’t meet your standards of “Great men?” -
Softek
May 1st, 2014 at 1:18 pmOne thing that helps me the most is taking long breaks from masturbation, and also quitting porn. I’m convinced that masturbation and porn play a large role in defusing not only courage and ambition to pursue real women and real sex, but courage and ambition in general.As far as authentic vs. fake behavior, quit porn, don’t whack off for a long period of time and see what happens to your personality, including the way you interact with women. The more I experiment with this, the more I believe that in all — or at least the vast majority — of men, there’s a sleeping lion, and porn and masturbation (and videogames to a large extent) are a big part (if not the biggest) of what’s keeping it asleep.When you have the discipline to deprive yourself of creature comforts and deliberately face your anxiety head-on when it’s at its worst, you see sides of yourself that you never knew were there. All the philosophizing about what masculinity is or isn’t goes out the window when you’re face to face with your anxiety roaring at you at the top of its lungs about what kind of way you’d *really* like to live. -
May 1st, 2014 at 1:30 pmPalleon – great post. To answer your question “Why should they, or I, care that they don’t meet your standards of “Great men?” – I respond by quoting Rollo’s fundamental criticism of Kimmel and his defense of masculine spaces – that AFAICT seems to Rollo’s founding basis for having written this post in the first place:“These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity.”The chief defense – the primary clarion call in striking down Kimmel’s argument – is *rooted* in espousing allegiance to a greater vision, to greater ideals than merely satiating one’s appetites in however destructive a manner one finds necessary. -
eon
May 1st, 2014 at 1:41 pmRollo,I was channeling da GBFM, and not using Homer as a reference for a specific point in time.The modern bro-code of the locker room often consists of the posturing of people like Mike, who are “the situation” and nothing more, and the idea that such people could have lasted long unchanged, for instance, when Genghis Khan was ravaging Civilization, is a romanticized notion.My point is that the development of individuals and teams that are capable of dealing with serious conditions requires an approach that is pretty much the opposite of what you get in locker rooms.When men are taught, by serious men, discipline, survival and how to accomplish something significant that is difficult and dangerous (and without referees, lulz), the “letting off steam” periods may resemble the modern bro-code. But this is merely a tangential effect and not a cause, and to think that it could instead form the basis for anything substantial would be to make an unworkable assumption.In the past, boys were taught both mindset and battle by respected and successful warriors. It never stops being necessary and important for young men to be mentored and guided, individually and in groups, by mature, powerful and successful adult men.Before they were removed, fathers used to perform this role, sometimes adequately, sometimes not. But when children are left to teach each other, in locker rooms and elsewhere, you can end up with something that is closer to “The Lord of the Flies”, and which lasts only until it encounters something substantial. -
May 1st, 2014 at 2:11 pmRollo – I just read the ‘Beer and Boobs’ post in full, and this is my comment on that:I’m not confused as to what masculinity means to me, nor am I confused as to the ‘positive masculinity’ I’d like to see actually lived-out in the real world. I wish more men were trustworthy. I wish less men were pussies. I wish less of my male friends and acquaintences bitched and moaned and attention-whored on social media.I’m well aware of how the FI would certainly sabotage any movements towards positive masculinity writ-large, and redirect that cultural progression for its own ideological ends. That is my concern in that I’d fight that tooth and nail alongside you; it is not my concern as far as my own criticism of modern Western men. My criticisms and concerns are wholly divorced from the manipulative hooks of the FI’s persuasive cultural phenomena.The ‘Man Show’ being a big dumb caricature illustrates this perfectly (and I too love Adam Carolla, have for 15 years). Which is to say even when modern men *are* given the reins and self-determinism to rise above and ‘be all that they can be’, they still opt for lazy, slothful, juvenile meaninglessness that sometimes borders on sociopathy. They become the caricature that the FI malevolently posits *of their own volition*. That’s what I hate, and where I ultimately don’t let middling modern men off the hook. -
May 1st, 2014 at 3:01 pmMale warrior culture is anything but a polite, serious endeavor. It is a no holds barred phenomenon where the leaders are the craziest, most resilient psychos who will persevere through any obstacles. That is the only guy who can lead people into the shitstorm of battle. Incognito, with all of his weaknesses, filled that important role for the dolphins. Somehow, people have this noble goal of the eunuch warrior. That is just not truth. The degree of motivation and psychosis required to rule men does not easily facilitate that attitude. Please stop idealizing. -
Spastic Monkey
May 1st, 2014 at 3:07 pmFeminine Beta male pussy role models like this is why bronies exist. I’ll quote Tyler Durden on this “A generation of men raised by women.” -
May 1st, 2014 at 3:12 pmre: “even when modern men *are* given the reins and self-determinism to rise above and ‘be all that they can be’, they still opt for lazy, slothful, juvenile meaninglessness that sometimes borders on sociopathy.” When does this occur? -
May 1st, 2014 at 3:46 pmc’mon jf12, you’re being obtuse. I was directly referencing the ‘Man Show’ there. Jersey Shore and that new ‘bastards’ show on Esquire I also find revolting. At least ‘Man Show’ had Carolla and *Jimmy* Kimmel who are pretty fuckin’ good role models for men IRL.Let me give a counterexample. I enjoy the show ‘Dude you’re screwed’ on occasion. That’s the kind of ‘male bonding’ I’d like to see more of in our society. -
May 1st, 2014 at 4:06 pm@SteveH, I don’t have examples from modern media; I don’t watch. I’m reasonably certain anything on there, including “reality” shows, is fake anyway. Is there an example from reality in which men “*are* given the reins and self-determinism to rise above”? If such an example putatively exists, is the men’s tendency to give up actually the same tendency observed in men who have concluded they will never have a real chance to be “given the reins and self-determinism to rise above”? -
Steve H
May 1st, 2014 at 4:47 pmI rapidly transformed from Howard Dean democrat to hardcore Ron Paul libertarian in 2006. The catalyst? A 1st trip to the ’3rd world’ – rural Nicaragua. Saw guys shucking papayas in the blazing 95 degree sun and then selling the fruit for about 7 cents each. And the folks were happier than we are, on the whole. I came back home to the states and could no longer fathom the welfare-state bullshit progressives spew in light of that experience.That being said, yes – western men absolutely have the wherewithall to take the reins, rise above, and self-determine. They have it in spades. No fuckin’ excuses. Which isn’t to say that men poisoned by this culture don’t need a hand up – psychologically and socially. But materially we are vastly ‘privileged’ (hate that term, but it applies) with the means to create abundance and help other men to do the same. -
Softek
May 1st, 2014 at 5:18 pm@ Rollo:That post was one of the inspirations I’ve been drawing on lately — that and the section you wrote about in your book that talks about the same thing.I was into the porn quitting movement for a while, then fell off the wagon, back on, then off…and now I’m back on.Instead of just quitting, now when I have urges to masturbate and/or go on porn, I’ve been holding myself to this:-Approach/interact with girls with Game in mind
-Improve my SMVThose are my two options. One or the other, preferably both. No excuses.The funny thing is, being so sexually deprived for so long, still stuck thinking “I’m still a virgin,” I’ve gotten so obsessed with getting laid, the idea of being able to get ANYTHING with women I’m attracted to……but taking on this practice, I’ve found my thoughts shift to things that have absolutely nothing to do with women. I want to be fucking women I’m attracted to *while* I’m pursuing my own life that I want to live.Even if I could be fucking beautiful women as much as I wanted, that’s like gravy without turkey and the rest of the dinner. I want the whole thing. I don’t want women to think I’m some awesome guy that they’d love to fuck. I want to BE an awesome guy they’d love to fuck, and I want to be that awesome guy whether I’m getting laid at the moment or not. I want to have my own life and command respect and have fun pursuing my passions and contributing what I have to contribute to the world.But that’s it — the whole dinner. I do NOT want to partition sex and my desired lifestyle anymore, as if they’re separate things. Nobody eats turkey and then a couple minutes later takes a sip of gravy. I want to look at it as one piece. Everything together.That’s why I like thinking of self-improvement as improving your SMV. It’s the same thing, it’s just that ‘self-improvement’ doesn’t take the whole picture into perspective. -
-
May 1st, 2014 at 5:42 pmNot buying the “take the reins” view at all. Most married men would have to physically wrestle the steering wheel out of their wife’s cold dead hands, for just a few moments of glorious self-determination “By golly I think I WILL go through the drivethru for a milkshake.” before he is arrested for murder.However, it is within Western man’s power to take his ball and go his own way. That is all. It’s Ozymandius’s Kingdom, boundless and bare to the horizon, without even the colossal ruins to break the monotony. -
May 1st, 2014 at 5:49 pm@Rollo, even too-frequent (and there is a definitive measure for it) masturbation does not deplete testosterone (although it certainly depletes several other things). In fact, a man used to daily ejaculations will experience a drop in testosterone after he ceases. And keep in mind the drop in testosterone that men experience after their wives give birth is 100% ascribable to the decrease in sexual activity.Even in these actually-measurable drops, the effects are subtle and could not ever be olfactorily determined. -
-
eon
May 1st, 2014 at 9:34 pm“Male warrior culture is anything but a polite, serious endeavor.”Male warrior culture is not a polite endeavor, but it damn sure is a serious endeavor.“It is a no holds barred phenomenon where the leaders are the craziest, most resilient psychos who will persevere through any obstacles.”This depends on what you mean by “crazy” and “psycho”.The great military leaders throughout history don’t fit the dictionary definitions, and present day unstable fanatics don’t last long against disciplined and serious special forces.“That is the only guy who can lead people into the shitstorm of battle. Incognito, with all of his weaknesses, filled that important role for the dolphins.”I don’t understand why Martin allowed himself to be bullied by Incognito.But the big problem is that, through Television (which is greater than even the Magic Vagina of Truth), “male warrior culture” has conveniently been redefined and redirected to mean yelling in support of “your” team of large, stupid children as they scamper across a field after a ball, into a “shitstorm of battle” complete with pink uniforms (for da tits), referees and incredible coincidences.And don’t forget that “hero” and “heroic” have also been negated by being redefined to include everyone and everything, and even cooking is like war, at least according to the Food Channel.“Somehow, people have this noble goal of the eunuch warrior. The degree of motivation and psychosis required to rule men does not easily facilitate that attitude. Please stop idealizing.”This is just your strawman, since you are the one bringing up “noble goal [?] of the ‘eunich’ warrior”, and “psychotics who want to rule” (which includes way, way more than is being discussed here).
jf12
Search
The Rational Male
Categories
- Alpha
- Biomechanics
- Case Studies
- Communication
- Foundations
- Game
- Hypergamy
- Idealizations
- Inter-gender Communication
- Iron Rules
- Love
- Operative Social Conventions
- Plate Theory
- Positive Masculinity
- Psychology
- Relationship Game
- Romance
- Sexual Market Value
- Social Conventions
- The Feminine Imperative
- The Matrix
- Uncategorized
- Unplugging
Blogroll
- 3rd Millenium Men
- Alpha Game Plan
- Chateu Heartiste
- Dalrock
- Danger & Play
- Donalgraeme
- Freedom Twenty-Five
- Just Four Guys
- Krauser
- Ladder Theory
- Manosphere Appendix of Acronyms
- Manosphere.com
- Married Man Sex Life
- On the Rock
- Paradigm Shift
- Playing the Devil's Advocate
- Psychology of Attraction PodCast
- Red Pill Pushers
- Red Pill Reddit
- Research of Martie Hasselton
- Return of Kings
- Roosh
- SoSuave Forum
- The DJ Bible
- The Obsidian Files
- The Private Man
- XSplats Ramblings
- Yohami
The Books
Top Clicks
Archives
Rational Twitter
- RT @RobertBurriss: Sperm motility and concentration are greater when men masturbate to images of women who are especially attractive http:/… 1 hour ago
- Why do I get the feeling the @icmi14 conference in Detroit is gonna look like this: youtube.com/watch?v=fOCD_T… 15 hours ago
- Scary. http://t.co/8p0utAp7QP 17 hours ago
The Rational Male
Copyright © 2009-2013
The Rational Male.
All rights reserved. All other copyrights remain the property of their respective owners.