Shack: from van Rooinek in the comments on Dalrocks latest post:
Guys don’t turn MRA because they hate women – they turn MRA because they loved women, and their love was repaid with hatred. This hatred could be expressed in decades of baseless and rude rejection — being passed over in favor of bad boys — losing kids, home, and even freedom in an ujustified divorce… being cheated on…. many things could be the trigger.
But every MRA started out with LOVE… and was burned.
Wow, typically I leave the emotional response to the women, but this is the flip side of Keoni Galt’s post on Justified Anger (see below) It hurts just thinking about the suffering and unrequited love that is the kick in the manhood of probably every red pill man in the interwebz that enabled them to swallow the bitter pill. This hits a little too close to home for comfort, although in my case I found Athol Kay in time. Women accuse men of not having feelings, when the truth of the matter is that they, perhaps unwittingly in the charitable cases, ruthlessly crush innocent “nice” — that is to say Beta– love. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and they WILL get more of what they incentivise with it. Women seem to understand emotion better …I challenge Christian men and MRA to use emotion, the women’s favorite tactic, or perhaps better stated as what they understand best, in any attempt to help them understand. Probably they will just ‘out emotion’ any attempt at this understanding. Ah well, hope springs eternal. All of this should make people upset, as Keoni Galt said:
How about fucking furious?
I’ll pose the same question back to Ms. Duffy and the commenters who are troubled by the fact that people are angry with the gross injustice which is being done to men, children, and the very institution of marriage: Why don’t you care? Why aren’t you angry?
Anger at a system and a society that indoctrinates us all to believe that we live in the greatest civilization in the history of mankind because we are a society founded on freedom and justice…and yet you wake up one day and SEE quite plainly the destruction and havoc it wreaks on the personal lives of the people you know and love.
You bet the denizens that make up this thing we call the “manosphere” are angry.
To not feel anger at the current situation is inhuman.
The future belongs to those who show up, via instapundit: feminists w/o furniture
As surprising as some might find it, one can mount a vigorous defense of the family without resorting to holy books, the commandments of supernatural beings, or the misogyny of monotheism. At the same time, and without the least bit of flip-flopping, one can just as vigorously defend the right of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual citizens to opt out of traditional family life, resign from the gene pool, make any cohabitation arrangements they please, and live out their lives in peace. By all means, go forth and cease to multiply.
Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein argued tellingly in their 1994 book The Bell Curve that 20th-century American society had become a remarkably effective machine for spotting the cognitively gifted of all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds and tracking them into careers that would maximize their output. They pointed out, though, that the “educated class” produced by this machine was in danger of becoming self-separated from the mass of the population. I agree with both arguments, and I think David Brooks and Will Collier are pointing us at the results.
In retrospect, I think race- and class-blind meritocracy bought us about 60 years (1945-2008) of tolerably good management by Western elites. The meritocracy developed as an adaptation to the escalating complexity of 20th-century life, but there was bound to be a point at which that adaptation would run out of steam. And I think we’ve reached it. The “educated classes” are adrift, lurching from blunder to blunder in a world that has out-complexified their ability to impose a unifying narrative on it, or even a small collection of rival but commensurable narratives. They’re in the exact position of old Soviet central planners, systemically locked into grinding out products nobody wants to buy.
Since we can no longer count on being able to plan, we must adapt. When planning doesn’t work, centralization of authority is at best useless and usually harmful. And we must harden: that is, we need to build robustness and the capacity to self-heal and self-defend at every level of the system. I think the rising popular sense of this accounts for the prepper phenomenon. Unlike old-school survivalists, the preppers aren’t gearing up for apocalypse; they’re hedging against the sort of relatively transient failures in the power grid, food distribution, and even civil order that we can expect during the lag time between planning failures and CAS responses.
CAS hardening of the financial system is, comparatively speaking, much easier. Almost trivial, actually. About all it requires is that we re-stigmatize the carrying of debt at more than a very small proportion of assets. By anybody. With that pressure, there would tend to be enough reserve at all levels of the financial system that it would avoid cascade failures in response to unpredictable shocks.
Cycling back to terrorism, the elite planner’s response to threats like underwear bombs is to build elaborate but increasingly brittle security systems in which airline passengers are involved only as victims. The CAS response would be to arm the passengers, concentrate on fielding bomb-sniffers so cheap that hundreds of thousands of civilians can carry one, and pay bounties on dead terrorists.
Yes, this circles back to my previous post about the militia obligation. I’m now arguing for this obligation to be seen as, actually, larger than arming for defense (although that’s a core, inescapable part of it). I’m arguing that we need to rediscover CAS behavior in politics and economics — not because financiers or bureaucrats are dangerous or evil, but because even with the best will in the world they can’t cope. The time when they could out-think and out-plan the challenges of the day operating as an elite has passed.
Update: Patriarchy has a pejorative connotation these days in large part to the feminists constantly crying wolf accusing men in general of misogyny. When they say Patriarchy sneeringly, the Princess Bride quote is apropos, “(Feminists) keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
what we’ve come to know as Patriarchy wasn’t meant to oppress or subjugate women, but to harness the creative resources of men.
Can one NOT see why Patriarchy existed? Yes it was to provide men incentive for opting into society by giving them something to LOSE by not doing so, but also to protect the interests of women IN that society. Imagine what the Black Community would look like without the social services provided by the Government in present day, THAT horror show was what our ancestors were trying to avoid!! Patriarchy didn’t work 100%, let’s be realistic, but it worked by and large far better than this society does. Men and women are different, and the truth is that Feminists aren’t wrong when they state that there are inequalities both genders face. However, the inequalities they are trying to alleviate are completely out of their hands and unravel the fabric of the very benefits they sought to achieve. Bluntly, women and men aren’t interchangeable in many of the most basic ways available; men do not have children, and women simply can’t work in the same capacities that men can.
The link to the current state of the black community below is a sad post about the future that feminism portends unless we can change course soon. The black ghettos serve as a stark warning or the proverbial canary in the coal mine.
The reality is, female independence is nothing but a fallacy, it only seems that way due to male investment in society. It’s due to current social norms and laws which level’s the playing field allowing women admission and this fact seems to be either ignored or forgotten about by and large. If any company were to hire mostly men, it could be reasoned that they may be more effective, but employment laws offer penalties, which makes this approach undesirable.
I’m sure many feminists will disagree, (like I care) but without Patriarchy, women are left with little leverage over men and essentially at men’s mercy in the event of an economic crash. They can no longer use the ‘Marry me or else no more nooky’ ultimatum as a man of means will easily replace her with a younger and more willing model. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, one needs to simply look at the Black Community to see just how much leverage Black Women have over their men. They have none, and no manner to make them commit if a man doesn’t wish to. The large hue and cry we hear regularly from Black women is the lack of good Black men, now we’re starting to hear the very same thing from Whites…don’t worry though, good thing Patriarchy or anything resembling it is a thing of the past!!!
We are unwittingly becoming the victims of our success as we drift away from the foundations that created the success such as the Patriarchy in this case.
Notable comment on Dalrock’s recent post that started quite a ruckus in the comments.
St. Thomas Aquinas on the frailty of women. (Frailty, they name is woman!)
(explanation: he lists the objection then refutes it)
“Objection 5.On the contrary, It would seem in this matter the wife ought to have the preference. For the more frail the sinner the more is his sin deserving of pardon. Now there is greater frailty in women than in men, for which reason Chrysostom [Hom. xl in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says that “lust is a passion proper to women,” and the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that “properly speaking women are not said to be continent on account of their being easily inclined to concupiscence,” for neither can dumb animals be continent, because they have nothing to stand in the way of their desires. Therefore women are rather to be spared in the punishment of divorce.
. . . .
“Reply to Objection 5. In adultery there is the same sinful character as in simple fornication, and something more which aggravates it, namely the lesion to marriage. Accordingly if we consider that which is common to adultery and fornication, the sin of the husband and that of the wife are compared the one to the other as that which exceeds to that which is exceeded, for in women the humors are more abundant, wherefore they are more inclined to be led by their concupiscences, whereas in man there is abundance of heat which excites concupiscence. Simply speaking, however, other things being equal, a man sins more grievously in simple fornication than a woman, because he has more of the good of reason, which prevails over all movements of bodily passions. But as regards the lesion to marriage which adultery adds to fornication and for which reason it is an occasion for divorce, the woman sins more grievously than the man, as appears from what we have said above. And since it is more grievous than simple fornication, it follows that, simply speaking, the adulterous wife sins more grievously than the adulterous husband, other things being equal.”
Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.
When dealing with situations that inflame the passions it is difficult to remember what the ultimate objective is and focus your energy into obtaining the outcome with as little collateral damage as possible. I think the general inclination away from piercing and shaming language to be proper but sometimes a malformed bone needs to be broken before it can heal properly. Likewise we are foolish to not recognize the times when words of truth, despite the obvious hurt they may bring, are required. The completion of the analogy might be to wield the sword of truth not in a caviler manner , but with grace and force of strength.
“My husband is so nice. He’s a good guy. I just wish he would have an affair!”
I have heard these comments, or comments very similar to this, numerous times lately. What’s going on? I’m not sure I have an answer. In fact, I know I don’t have an answer…
Further down she elaborates:
These women are done. They say they aren’t happy. They say they aren’t in love with their husbands (or any other man — they aren’t having affairs). They say they simply wish they were no longer married to him. They aren’t fulfilled. They wonder if this is how they are doomed to live the rest of their lives (and God-willing, most of them have another 40+ years ahead of them).
The common factor amongst all of these women is that they say that their husbands are really solid, good, nice men. They are not victims of physical or emotional abuse. They are not married to felons. They are not married to alcoholics or drug addicts. Their husbands are not having affairs. In fact, they tell me, there really isn’t anything “wrong” with their husbands … they just don’t want to be married to them anymore because they have fallen out of love.
Dalrock’s two takeaways:
There are two key things we should all take away from this. The first is that a divorcée with a seeming good excuse very well may not be as innocent as she sounds. The profoundly biased family courts and the thorough corruption of modern Christianity create a huge incentive for wives to willfully maneuver their husbands into playing the patsy. He may have hit her, he may have even cheated on her, but that doesn’t mean she was an innocent victim or is a good bet for (re)marriage. Some number of women are certainly blameless, but unfortunately we typically can’t tell. This is made all the worse by the bizarre willingness, often eagerness, of the blameless to stand in solidarity with the frivolous.
The other thing men especially must take away from this is to be aware of the risk. As Devlin describes, “I’m not haaaapy!” isn’t just an innocent expression of marital dissatisfaction. It is typically an indication that you are already well down the path of marital destruction. Men need to be aware of this to protect themselves from false charges, and they need to be smart, restrained, and moral enough not to actually play the patsy. No matter how much she communicates through her attitude and her actions that she wants you to hit her or cheat on her, don’t take the bait.
A lot of nice men don’t even stand a chance against the emotional manipulation of an unhaaaapy female. Women are so natural at manipulation and dissembling and men are so unsuspecting of the root causes, and hence righteously angry, it is surprising that such things don’t happen more often.
This reminds me of the Aurther Schopenhauer excerpt on women:
(Women) are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them. But this fundamental defect which I have stated, with all that it entails, gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on.