Authors note: This essay is a revision, a radical overhaul and expansion rather, of an earlier piece, “Killing the Alpha Male.” Writing that piece caused me to rethink and revisit the subject of modern masculinity. I was also prompted to consider other factors after reading Pelle Billing’s piece “Feminism and Chivalry” and the comments there regarding the symbiotic relationship between feminism and masculinity. It is part of a developing treatise on modern masculinity so criticisms are most welcome, either in the comments or by email. Thanks.
Scores of our young men today are stranded at an impasse on the road to realizing manhood. They are bogged down in the confusion of a generation lost to treacherous forces they never saw, for reasons they were never able to comprehend. They are struggling and starving; unable to feed their souls in a world that finds them increasingly unnecessary and burdensome.
They have come of age in a time of coerced impotence, their nascent masculinity gutted and stripped long before having the opportunity to shape their character and their destiny. In that they are suffering from the loss of things never held, from things missing but never known. They are, quite literally, a lost generation of the walking wounded, wandering blindly from a battlefield on which they never knew they stood.
In that light, the path they are on is not really the road to manhood, but simply a retreat from the effacing malice woven into the very fabric of their developmental lives. And it takes them not to safe ground, but directly into a dismal culture of shallowness and self indulgence; a realm of options without obligations; of self gratification without self awareness or self discipline. It is the death march of the western male, destined for a withering end ensured by intellectual, psychological and moral atrophy.
This aimless, narcissistic existence is a forced escape from lives shrouded in shame; from manhood being reduced to an evolutionary joke in the eyes of a culture that holds it in contempt, even as the elders deny it is happening. With the wholesale whitewashing by society and abandonment by the fathers more or less complete, the newly (de)engineered young man is all but defenseless against this downward spiral into terminal insignificance.
It’s happening all around us. One only need look at current events to see that the world of men is quite literally circling he drain; disappearing from the stable foundations of education and employment. They are targeted with disinformation about crime and domestic violence, and about deviant sexual proclivities with women and children. These are no longer just the ruminations of twisted ideologues. The demagoguery now emanates directly from the government, backed by men with gavels, and men with guns. The judicial apparatus has been reshaped, not to pursue justice, but to incarcerate men at every opportunity, even to enable and encourage false accusations to accomplish that goal. This isn’t just about male bashing any more. It is about male subjugation. And it is not being executed by feminists or women, but by men.
We might proffer that the solution is a redirection to days past, when we imagine that men made masters of sacred codes; when they possessed strength and purpose and would stand against this growing tragedy and defeat it. We would be wrong. We can only find that Thomas C. Wolfe was right. You can’t go home again. And what’s more, you really don’t want to. It was, in a sense, home that got us here. And that is a truth we must face, no matter how natural or compelling the tendency to point to any other “outside” force and satisfy our frustrations with the simplistic convenience of an easily identified enemy.
As always, our true enemy is in the mirror. The only thing that will save us is to face up to that and act accordingly.
In the fitful and often strange world of the men’s movement, we attempt to answer this social malady; to create a haven, if only an intellectual one, for the refugees of this godforsaken gender war. It is a mission often hobbled by our own hands, yet the work goes on, limping toward solutions. We strive, I think, as men who have taken the red pill and seen through the Matrix, to formulate an appropriate response, and in our own way to push some sanity and balance back into the collective consciousness; to force it past the architects of institutional misandry, both male and female. But even as we exert pressure, we don’t have a firm grasp on what it is we are fighting.
We have not ascertained, nor have we even really thoroughly tried to, what role traditional manhood plays in the problem. Unfortunately, what we have too often done is practice the obstinate politics of wounded children who insist that they have no role in whatever befalls their lives. We have, at times, angrily and energetically reacted to misandry, but have balked with equal vigor at seriously examining how we fostered and enabled it with masculine codes of conduct. Consequently, all of our efforts rooted in this approach have failed, and miserably so. We have made some progress, and will no doubt eventually mature into a more effective movement, but not before we embrace more than the hostility we feel for perceived enemies.
Our most functional response thus far is to check out and go our own way, but I contend that an exit is not a destination, but just a needed removal from the line of fire; a chance to collectively regroup and rethink. Remember that the young men festering at those crossroads have, in their own way, checked out, too. It isn’t looking too good on them.
And it forces us, sooner or later, to swallow a pill that some will find bitter. And to face a reality that some will find unconscionable.
The feminists were right. Masculinity has, as it relates to modern realities, corrupt, oppressive and destructive elements that need to change.
And yes, I mean that literally. And no, I’m not kidding.
In fact, the entire thrust of my argument is that the monstrous social degeneration we are now witnessing, more than anything else, is the result of outmoded and horribly misguided masculinity.
Of course, once we dig more than a nanometer deep into the subject we find that objectivity and reason veer us onto an entirely different philosophical trajectory than the pathologically twisted and apoplectic mindset of feminist ideologues.
To chart our course, we will do two things that feminists never did. First, we will look at the subject without a politically driven agenda for unjustified revenge, or a mandate to dominate the other half of the population. And two, we will proceed with the sincere goal of benefit for everyone, not just an elite group.
The only sensible place to start is with a more grounded understanding of masculinity itself, something that can’t be done in a 3,500 word essay, but can, with even marginally appropriate treatment, arrive at far better conclusions than the last forty years of women’s and gender studies. We can rely on the combined contributions of history, mythology, politics and, most importantly, human sociobiology. For in the end we are a species of animals whose very existence depended on the development of reproductive strategies, the primary of which is that the most aggressive and powerful males are selected for mating by the most reproductively viable females. Those strategies arose from an environment of necessity and produced an effective way to produce offspring with the highest probability of survival. As a function of survival, that strategy, and not patriarchal conspiracy, shaped the male hierarchy, as well as what we now call masculinity.
Some dry facts- The hierarchy of men:
Despite the numerous male archetypal figures of history and legend, there are truly only four basic types of men. Three of the more commonly known are the alphas, betas and omegas. The fourth I will address later.
Alpha males are a very, very small fraction of the male population. They are highly dominant men who reside at near the top of all populations, from social groups to national governments. These men are generally characterized by the ability to force the deference of other men, often mistaken for leadership, and to obtain and hold power, which lends them dominance in being selected for mating by the most desirable females. There is no evidence to suggest this is any different now than at any other time in history, and there is no way to underestimate the importance of the mating strategy in the phenomenon of the alpha male.
Success often has its price. Alphas also tend to be obsessively controlling, abusive and megalomaniacal. If you point to any despot in world history that slaughtered scores of his own people, for the need to maintain control, or for sheer sadistic pleasure, you are pointing at an alpha male. With alphas, you can throw your imagined codes of honor out the window. Those codes are nothing more than tools used to force betas and omegas into compliance with their agendas. All romanticism aside, the code of the alpha male is to conquer and control, both the objects of his desire and the men he exploits and expends to acquire them. Characterologically speaking, they are a minute, worst representation of the male of the species. But they also get things done, and with great efficiency if you don’t factor weigh the loss of freedom and human life.
Incidentally, their characteristics are also the same ones that feminists have erroneously used to define masculinity in one broad stroke, painting all men as domineering and oppressive. Success at this enabled them to take other microscopic minorities of men and attribute their characteristics to men in general as well, e.g. abusers, pedophiles, rapists, etc…
Historically, the challengers to alphas frequently came from other alphas and often from the ranks of beta males, who form the next tier down in the male power structure. Betas serve as the alphas enforcers, the strong-arms used to maintain control over greater numbers. They also play the role of “yes men,” affording them their own realm of power and putting them within striking distance (or scavenging proximity) of the alphas position and status, including sexual primacy. Like roadies for a rock band, fortune often filters its way into their hands, and beds.
At the bottom, and most heavily populated part of the hierarchy, are the omega males. These are the pawns on a chessboard, often under the direct control of alpha, or by proxy, beta males. This is the common man, and the one most vulnerable to the hazards of common life.
A good way to look at this is to take a look at the military chain of command. The general tendency is that the alphas, betas and omegas shed increasing amounts of blood in descending order and claim the spoils of victory in ascending order.
Government runs in the same way. In the simplest of terms, alpha lawmakers use beta law enforcement officers to exercise their will on the generally omega population.
Or rather government used to work that way, but it really doesn’t any more.
The political sell out that changed the world.
Alpha males in government didn’t just collude with feminist ideologues in order to garner a sizable and dependable voting bloc. They had wives to contend with, many of whom were supporting feminism, which effectively reduced everything to the biological imperative. Alpha males are no less, and arguably even more disposed to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure sexual status. Faced with a perceived threat to that, they effectively ceded the alpha position and became beta enforcers for the feminist agenda. You won’t find better examples of that than Barak Obama or Joe Biden, or George Bush for that matter. These alphas became the beta muscle for a feminist Mafioso, maintaining rank and privilege through enforcing ideological imperatives on the defenseless masses beneath them. They became cops hauling men to jail on the simple accusation of their wives. They became judges bludgeoning men with their gavels in corrupt courtrooms; politicians passing ever more misandric legislation; C.E.O.’s of pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs like Ritalin to sap the vitality and strength out of our boys, to make them more malleable in female hands once the father had been removed from the home.
Isn’t this ironic? The supposed pinnacle of strength in the male hierarchy was revealed by feminism to actually be the pinnacle of sexual weakness. This series of events is also a lesson in real power, and where it resides, which in the realm of sexual selection has always been in the hands of the women who did the selecting.
But an even greater irony is revealed. Women, who have bemoaned a lack of power for ages, and in fact still do, found out four decades ago that all they had to do to gain almost complete control was step up and demand it be handed over, playing the sex card as they did so. And it was handed over, by the most powerful men in the world, who in the presence of these women became like butlers offering cocktails on a serving tray.
I am not fond of that conclusion. In fact, as a man who continually struggles to break old world ties, I am rather embarrassed by it.
Nothing learned, nothing gained.
Nonetheless, what happened here on the whole was that women, their raw biological power masquerading as feminism, have taken the dominant alpha status in our culture, and the result is quickly becoming an age of oppression and injustice more insidious and intractable than any other. It is in the biological, survival oriented nature of women to enhance their lives through the utilization of male labor and male expendability, without compunction or moral constraint, and that is exactly where our culture has ended up on an Orwellian scale.
Defeating this monstrosity requires the insanely formidable task of battling (figuratively) through beta enforcers masquerading as alpha controllers, not to a command post with someone in charge, but through a pervasive ideology that snakes like countless invisible tentacles through the consciousness of the population at large, and that emanate from the very heart of human evolutionary psychology.
And the first strike in that battle should be, must be, at the elements of masculinity that allowed it all to happen.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
They say there is nothing new under the sun. History infers wisdom in those words. We can see with proper discernment that the women’s movement was not really a new era for women at all. It is, on close inspection, just women and men practicing their biological strategies in a highly successful manner. So successfully, in fact, that it is rendering large portions of the male population even more expendable. So expendable, in fact, that we are now creating reasons to get rid of them.
It was destined to happen once male control of the environment made it safe enough for women to start acquiring power and resources outside the traditional and protected realm of the home. This is why you see feminism with its strongest foothold in industrialized nations founded on the rule of law. And it is why you see that law itself is now being manipulated away from the idea of justice (which was its intent in a man’s world) and toward the funneling of added protection and resources to women (which has always been the intent in the world shared by both sexes).
It is not the pursuit of equality or the love of egalitarian values that has led to feminist governance, but pure blind human biology, practiced in the same way it was on the plains of Africa a million years ago. And the stunning successes of men making all manner of advances since then has now begun to take us out of the picture.
Quite simply, men have worked themselves out of a job.
As noted earlier, we have already begun to disappear from the ranks of the employed and educated, and the government is adopting policies to accelerate that process. It doesn’t take a conspiracy nut to understand that this will eventually become a disappearance from the planet. In practical terms, there are not near as many men needed proportionally as there once was. The ones that remain will be of increasingly lower status and will be subject to ever more draconian control.
But of course, there is one factor that will turn the tide before it’s over. It is the instinct for survival. It is the only instinct stronger than sex, and it has already shown signs of emerging. We call it the men’s movement; MRA’s, MGTOW, and the like. We are the evidence that men transcending biology is possible; proof that there actually can be something new under the sun. And we are growing rapidly because more and more men are beginning to see misandry for what it is; a loaded gun pointed directly at their heads, and at the heads of their sons.
Unlike feminism, which is simply a normal, functioning part of the female sex role advanced to destructive levels, masculism is the exact polar opposite. This is the first time in human history
And this is precisely the battle we need to fight! Not with women and not with feminists of either sex, but with the aspects of masculinity that are leading to our destruction because they are now outmoded, archaic and self defeating. What remains of chivalry is better described as toxic waste in the water supply. And just as we depart from the old definitions of masculinity, we must do the same with chivalry. It may have once also been a code of honor used by alphas to control other men, but in the modern world we all know it has but one meaning- female privilege. And so now we can call chivalry by more modern, more appropriate names, e.g. VAWA, primary aggressor laws, Title IX, rape shield laws, Title IV-D, family court, prosecution on false accusation, media bias against men, or, if you prefer the short and simple version, misandry.
The fourth type of man- the zeta male.
As previously noted, the men’s movement is a unique and literally unprecedented phenomena. It will bring with it some other firsts. One of them is the socio-sexual warrior, and I refer to him for the purpose of this discourse as the zeta male. The tag remains faithful to the Greek alphabet classification of the other three types of men, but there is more purpose to the label. I took it from the star Zeta Persei. I liked the navigational metaphor of the star as it is applicable in the context of the lost generation. But I was also intrigued to learn that Persei is a variation of Perseus, the first of the Greek mythological heroes. Perseus had a remarkable talent for slaying archaic monsters, Medusa the Gorgon among them, who as a mortal woman possessed great beauty, and was self enamored and struck with the power of her sexual allure until she was turned into a hideous monster by Athena, who later used her severed head as a weapon on her shield.
In 1940, an article by Sigmund Freud was posthumously published, entitled Medusa’s Head (Das Medusenhaupt) in which he postulated that Medusa represented castration in a child’s mind related to discovered and denied maternal sexuality.
Even more interesting is that in modern times, feminists (Women: A Journal of Liberation, 1978) adopted and reinterpreted the image of Medusa as representative of women’s rage, and it served as a binding symbol of feminist solidarity.
So Perseus, namesake of Zeta Persei, was the slayer of oedipal shame (control) and the murderously powerful raging feminist archetype.
The zeta male.
This classification of a male is new because this is a male that until recent times was never needed, and indeed was never there. He is emergent and unpolished and struggling to find his legs, but is doing so thanks to the fertile, safe ground, provided by, of all things, other emerging zetas on the internet. He has no allegiance to tradition or nostalgia for the past, and in fact is charged with plotting a new course. He cannot be shamed into control or intimidated into silence or seduced into capitulation. He doesn’t fit in the classic hierarchy, and would gladly bring it down in the name of his cause. When someone says he needs to act like a real man, he smiles and says, “No, thank you.”
He doesn’t seek power, but justice. And he has one overarching feature largely absent in the world around him.
He cares about those lost young men who were ambushed coming out of the womb. And he will strive to make himself an example, living proof that there are other roads to take than the ones that lead to self hatred and self destruction.
Tags: Culture, explorer, Feminism, Masculinity, Men's Issues, Zeta Masculinity
660 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Near Earth Object:
Rick Westlake:
Tom (cough) Martin:
yinyangbalance:
strix:
I’m sorry that I don’t have time to do this topic justice, but I did want to type a few lines in and would like to continue this later.
As you know we have our differences regarding Chivalry so we don’t have to go in that direction, but I agree that masculinity has been under attack for decades. Not to say that Masculinity is dead, but in a dormant state waiting to emerge. I think the problem with the stereo typical “Alpha Male” is that he cannot understand why his own kind have turned their backs on him. Honor and Integrity are no longer a driving force behind many males in this society. They scurry like mice if confronted instead of taking their lumps and standing for their principles. IMHO, the Metro-Sexual Male is still in the closet but afraid to turn the handle to come out.
Cheers
“In that light, the path they are on is not really the road to manhood, but simply a retreat from the effacing malice woven into the very fabric of their developmental lives. And it takes them not to safe ground, but directly into a dismal culture of shallowness and self indulgence; a realm of options without obligations; of self gratification without self awareness or self discipline. It is the death march of the western male, destined for a withering end ensured by intellectual, psychological and moral atrophy.”
The flipside of this is a life of obligations without options, which is/was the only life many men have known for centuries. Self-gratification or self-indulgence doesn’t have to be a ‘death march’ (if you don’t gratify or indulge yourself, nobody will do it for you.)…it can be the ‘road of excess’ that leads to the ‘palace of wisdom’. Naturally, a lot of men will crash and burn if they choose this road, but not all will. Men can always opt out, and return to the tyranny of the status quo.
@ KK
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, but let me play devils advocate.
I don’t think we are that limited in options. What about a flip side being an obligation to yourself and a community of men, which includes a great deal of latitude in choosing how you want to live?
I really don’t think this is an either/or situation.
Alas Gary, we do have areas where we agree. While I don’t agree with you verbatim, I certainly embrace the spirit of what you are saying.
Here’s the rub Paul. Feminism is the enemy of not only Masculinity but of Femininity too. Feminism is Not the champion of Womanhood that it pretends to be, instead it attacks it. Their Goal [the Feminist] is to completely eradicate natural and learned sexual tendencies from our society on what they believe to be on the intellectual level.
The way the Feminist attack womanhood is by not supporting Motherhood. The Feminist are the first ones on the block to say that the Fetus is not a viable Human Being and that Abortion is a woman’s Right instead of Motherhood being a Responsibility.
They want to elevate a 12 year old girl “a baby as far as I’m concerned” to adulthood when it come to pregnancy. The School Nurse can’t dispense an aspirin to our kids without special permission from the parents, yet the ACLU and other Feminist organizations think that it is OK, for a teacher to drive a young girl to an abortion Clinique without parental consent or knowledge. I do not listen to him much, but I do like Rush Limbaughs comment about the Feminist movement is just a political organization to bring ugly women into the mainstream. The Feminist Hate Pretty Women, but they can’t launch a Overt Attack against their own Gender so their campaign against Masculinity [which they envy] is really a covert offensive against womanhood. Confusing? You’re damned right it is, it is very Sun Tsu in it’s nature. They can’t create a single sex being, but they can create an androgynous society through fear and political blackmail.
In reality, it doesn’t matter what the true Feminist Agenda is, what is important is for Males to once again STAND UP for Masculinity. Little boys scrap around the playground to test their strengths, through this they learn their place in the pecking order. As Fathers, we should wipe their noses, bandage their cuts and bruises and guide them to where they want to be once hey reach manhood. I realize that I may sound like a Neanderthal, but lets face it. Life isn’t Fair or Just, it is survival of the fittest [not just physically] and it is our responsibility to Teach our Sons what it means to be a Man, not the Feminist. This is where We as Men have gone wrong. When we allow the Village to raise our children and indoctrinate them with their agenda, we end up with a generation of Village Idiots.
I do believe this is why so many young males are angry today, they are lost because they we haven’t set a good example for them. They do not have respect for themselves or anyone else, especially young women. Not too dissimilar to the juvenile delinquent behavior displayed by young Bull Elephants where the Adult Males have been hunted out. Basically, young males do have an idea what it means to be masculine, that is in their nature, what they don’t know is how to be a MENSCH!
Cheers
@ Gary
No, you don’t sound like a Neanderthal at all. And I know you to be a good man, a mensch if you will. But like a lot of good men you tend to see human beings in ideals rather than realities. And it is not that I frown on reaching for ideals, but I do when those ideals are counter intuitive in the real world.
I would argue that young men today do know how to be a mensch, and they also know that the odds are it will get them nowhere, and fast, in a great many circumstances. How many mensch’s get ripped to shreds in family courts because they kept acting like a boy scout with women who were savvy to the legal system and used it to eviscerate them?
How many mensch’s get ditched like a bag of dope in a drug raid by women who ride off with the nearest thug? You know the answer to that.
This is a generational problem. You are looking at young men today and imagining their worlds would be better if they just acted like “good guys.” And while I certainly respect your intent when you say that, I am sure my reaction, were I 30 years younger, would be an eye roll and a “yeah, right.”
And I would be totally justified to feel that way. Lest we never forget, it was our generation that had the first shot at standing up to misandry. We failed to do so and now they are paying for it. I don’t say that to saddle the older guys with the problem. The young ones aren’t standing up to it either. No one did. We were too busy being mensch’s.
But I think the other part of the problem here, my friend, is that you, like a lot of other men our age, have a very convoluted idea of what the real nature of women is. There is a tendency to see them in this delicate, Victorian, Princess and the Pea persona that just does not exist, especially any more.
Women are hypergamous. Period. And they proved it once given the opportunity to. Once no fault divorce was allowed, and birth control became available, and the social stigma was taken off sex outside marriage, women have been pathologically trying to “better deal” themselves ever since.
Feminists didn’t make them do that. All the feminists did was give them the opportunity. They jumped all over the deal. They, women, not feminists, have been wrecking families and ripping off men every since. And of course, NAWALT- Not All Women Are Like That- But let’s face it, most of them are, and in the world of younger men, almost all of them are. That is not a reality we can just ignore, or solve by being one of the “good guys.”
You said, “it is survival of the fittest.” Absolutely spot on correct. 100%, 24 karat truth. And being fit for young men today isn’t about being a nice guy with women. It is about surviving their treachery and by toughening up enough not to take shit like we did when this whole shebang got started.
With all the respect I have for you personally, I am not going to be just another old man telling the younger generation of men, whom we have abandoned to wholesale misandry, that they need to just “be a man,” as though we ever really set that example to being with.
What I think these young men need to hear, for the understandable few that will listen, is that we see their lives with women are lacking, out of balance and dangerous; that they are not crazy for looking at the average 23 year old girl and seeing that she is a shallow, self serving bitch who will turn on them in a New York second.
I know how cold that sounds. But these guys, if we are going to be honest, aren’t just being lied to by feminists. They are being lied to by basically decent men, who believe what they are saying, but only because they are not seeing things clearly.
Peace.
Being a relatively young guy, I hear one thing when someone says that obligations go with being a man – the need to provide and protect for your woman, by stabbing your brothers in the back if need be. I might well be missing something, having probably never experienced real masculinity firsthand.
From what I can tell, ‘women and children first’ has existed long before feminism, and the disposability of men could well have stared before we stood on two legs. Feminists may have hijacked and exasperated the problem, but it seems rooted in nature. No appealing to a golden age, looking for justice in the past, or clinging to traditions, if we want to overcome the problems that have always dogged men we need to overcome nature and build them; with feminists stomping their jackboot on one hand and white knights on the other it can be hard to construct anything. workplace accidents and deaths still occur primarily (>95%) among men, but I can’t see the absolute figures not being limited by man-made technology and artificial safety regulations; health, education and lifespan disparity exist between men and women, but the extent to which we overcome them we appear to do so inspite of our nature and even this demented and demeaning society. As I say, i’m young, and could have just been indoctrinated to a greater extent than i’ve been able to shake.
“Be a man” means get your identity not from your abilities, personality, or desires, but from your posession of a Y chromosome. Variation within groups is usually bigger than between them, it seems an inefficient way of assigning roles. But we must identify ourselves and group together as men if we’re going to stand a chance of ending the tyranny of “women and children first.” Re-reading this i sound more Zeta than i suspected.
Alphas and betas are probably just as much a threat to the majority of men, the ones who die on the battlefields and in the mines, and we need to open our eyes to that as well, IMO
Unassumption, I don’t getyou last line….
“Alphas and betas are probably just as much a threat to the majority of men, the ones who die on the battlefields and in the mines, and we need to open our eyes to that as well, IMO”
How are Soldiers or Miners a threat to the Majority of Men? If they are dead, they can no longer be a threat. I was a Soldier once and so was the Author of this site. Are we included in you definition as being threatening? Please Clarify.
Well Paul,
I remember on another site, you described me as being a Paladin riding on my white horse defending the honor of young maidens, LOL, Perhaps. Sometimes I do believe that I was born in the wrong era. I may be a romantic my friend, but I am not ignorant of what is causing the decay festering throughout our society.
That said, I am not under the assumption that every Woman is an angel who deserves protection. There are many Evil Man Hating Bitches out there that delight in destruction of Men. I do believe that they are few in numbers, but they have risen in power by deceiving their own sisters that they represent them. As to our Laws, I absolutely agree the cards are stacked against Men and need to be reformed. After all, Women do want to be treated as Equals, Right? Then let it be so in the eyes of the Law.
The Feminist, like most Special Interest Movements is not interested in Equality, but Revenge and Special Rights for their membership. The Gay-Lesbian movement and the NAACP Agendas are aimed to bring down and punish the “White Male” establishment. One way is by social castration in which they have been successful thus far. Their tactic is classic Divide and Conquer.
The problem is that we have weak Law Makers and Judges on the Bench who flex under the pressures from these Special Interest Groups. Some even share in the Ideology driving this Politically Correct Agenda. The question is what to do about it.
The first thing is to properly identify the disease and find the antidote.
The Feminist have successfully waged a campaign against the Family being the foundation of our society. This especially evident in the Black Community, but it is not solely their problem. The truth is it is everyone’s problem but it is a subject for another topic. Feminist HATE the Family as a unit for if it is strong it weakens their position. Their attacks against Parenthood fall upon deaf ears or laughed at a dribble. Unfortunately, over the years they have successfully eroded those societal bonds that the Family once held and have replaced them with their egocentric, hedonistic and over inflated sense of entitlement.
Cheers
I hear you Gary, I just don’t see your plan to make any of this happen. Men, almost ALL MEN stood by while this crap happened with their mouths shut. Many of those men were the ones on white horses. Hell, they didn’t even TRY to fight back.
Sorry, but you are not getting around the fact that all of this here because men who supposedly knew how to be men folded like cheap suits when the bullets hit the bone. And they folded the way they did because they were following mindless codes to give women what they want.
And if they were not out their in force to stop this from happening then, then they are sure not going to be lectured into being the kind of man to organize to stop it now.
Sub culture is the only way to go. They system is burned toast, because men let it happen.
I look forward to Unassumptions response to your point here.
Peace
Actually Paul, I agree with context of your argument, it just the syntax we seem not to agree upon.
You are absolutely correct in saying that WE just stood around and kept our mouths shut as things fell apart. That’s because we didn’t think that it could happen, and when it did we didn’t know how to stop it. So where do we go from here? A Sub-Culture? An Underground Movement? Who in fact is the enemy?
We both agree that the Feminist are Public Enemy Number One, but who else? There are Males [I refrain from calling them Men] like the Alan Alda’s, Phil Donnahue’s and their ilk [mainly Hollywood types] that are Anti-Mensch, if you pardon me saying. Many Males in Political leadership positions too have joined the Anti-Male bandwagon for their own political gain.
Now please correct me if I am wrong, but your argument is basically anti-feminist. I know plenty of women that would support you argument on that. Remember, to win a war one must enlist the support of Allies.
The Feminist declared war on the Family back in the 60’s and 70’s under the Banner of the ERA. Many women [and Men] supported the ERA, but didn’t understand that the true goal which was the destruction of the establishment, i.e. the Great White Male. He or We were the target because in order to destroy the Establishment they had to attack the Family unit by removing it’s keystone, the Head of the Family. They had to convince society that the Father was no longer a necessary component to having a family. Splinter the Family and you have torn the fabric of a society. YES, this tactic used by the Communist to “CHANGE” (where have we hear that) or Sabotage the current culture. Karl Marx describe this in detail in “Das Kapital” So, your first article, which I haven’t read yet, regarding Feminism as a Communist Plot [more of an Arm than a Plot] sounds correct by it’s title.
I’m sure there will be more to come.
Cheers Mate.
G
I love your articles so much.yes,it is time we all men should know our rights and stand united and continue to dominate the earth.well to all feminist,i have one question,If all our previous men would not have done anything,we all would have been in forests with animals.so,why you hate man instead of respect we deserve?Tell me all feminist seriously,what you had and have done to the development of our species from pas to present?
What if the thing you are railing against has nothing to do with either men or women, but simply the choices we employ in realting to one another?
What if the issues for both genders boils down to choosing to act in strength rather than power?
What is the difference? Power is insatiable. Power wants more always. Power is diluted when it is shared Power comes from outside you. To power the body is irrelevant. Strength is infinite. Strength requires conscious choices and discipline. When you are operating in strength respect for the body is paramount. Strength is increased when shared. Men and women are designed to share and balance power and strength. Operating in power is natural and purposeful for a man. Operating in strength is natural and purposeful for a woman. No one is free until we get this one right. The stain from the oil spill in the golf in on our bedsheets. We are designed to exchange and balance our power and strength with our sexuality. When we sort that one out we will have a better world. This is not a man problem or a woman problem, this is a people problem.
@ Sullivan
You have provided a great example that good writing, no matter how fluid and articulate, does not always convey cogent ideas.
Like it or not, there are problems in this culture that belong disproportionately to men and women as identified groups. When our laws are full of sexual bias, as are our social norms and expectations, then the result is sex based problems. To say otherwise is myopic. Not only myopic, but obfuscating.
The very balance you spoke so eloquently to, that of the yin and yang between men and women, has been thrown out of kilter based on sex, not humanity.
Until we get that right, nothing is ameliorated. Just as it wont be until enough people understand the difference between railing and unblinking candor.
I posted on your YouTube, and I first want to apologize because I was a little heated for a couple reasons which I will explain, but I do want to have a conversation. Let me first off say if I truly believed that feminists were taking over the world by subjugating Alphas, it would be a concern. However, that is not a concern I have.
First, if I were to entertain your theory I would first have to say that if there were men pushing feminist agendas, they are not alphas. They are pseudo Alphas manifested by their female counter parts. While fiction a good story that kind of emphasizes this possibility is Macbeth, Macbeth was not an alpha, he became one through influence of his wife.
A lot of your arguments hinge on this idea that everything is being driven by sexual gratification and or reproduction. Humans, contrary to the rest of the animal kingdom don’t make social decisions based on reproduction. Let me give an example, Hilary Clinton runs on the platform “If I become president the population of earth will double.” She wouldn’t win, this is because we have evolved to a level where reproduction doesn’t necessarily equate to survival, if 5 people can survive on a certain amount of food for a long time versus 10 which would wipe out the population, we choose not to reproduce. Next males do not need to obtain sexual gratification from females, and many don’t.
I have a hard time believing that an Alpha would go through all this effort to push feminist agendas and to maintain, as you put it, sexual gratification, and then this same alpha goes out and has sex with a prostitute. Honestly what do you think would be more likely to stop a man from getting laid, not supporting his wife’s agenda, or sleeping with a prostitute?
Next women don’t want submissive men, in general, they want aggressive and powerful men, this is a biological directive, a man who caters to every whim of his wife would not be an Alpha male. In fact I have witnessed first hand a federal politician publicly disagreeing with his wife on political agendas. Since I know this person, and there are connections involved, I can’t say his name, but I did witness it.
Also this whole idea of women “choosing” men as their mates is a relatively new phenomenon, if we go back in time we can see all kinds of references to arranged marriages. If we venture out of humans, to other mammals, females also don’t choose their mate. A new Alpha male lion will actually kill the previous’s Alpha’s cubs, the female lions don’t really get a say in which lion they actually choose. We’re humans, not birds, men get mates through aggression, not by folding out their pretty feathers and putting on a display like peacock.
Next you made this deduction that since Alphas are passing laws that work against men, that they must be supporting female agendas. This doesn’t make any sense because you yourself said that females can control males through sex, so why would they need to use Alphas to control men. However, you talk so negatively about Alphas saying they are morally deprived, you missed one huge logical point, an Alpha is an Alpha and they will undermine ANY other male who may challenge them. So what you may perceive as an Alpha supporting feminism, I see as an Alpha just being an Alpha and jeopardizing other males.
Next I challenge you to find me an extremely attractive extreme feminist, if you can do that, I will show you a rift in the space time continuum. The most extreme feminists, such as Catherine MacKinnon with her quote, “All sex is rape” was over weight and incredibly unattractive. Men don’t pursue them, they become -extreme- feminists as a way of rationalizing their lack of procreation. Alpha’s have no interest in extreme feminists, and they never will. Now I will heed that potentially the Alphas could be dating mild feminists.
Now I talked about history, I am going to give all kinds of examples. First the bible, if you read any of the genealogy you will notice a trend it is always male, next in the very first book, you have eve as the irresponsible one. All kinds of references to stoning. Next let’s goto egypt, compare the ratio of male pharaohs to female. Getting a little closer to modern times, we have islam, females have to cover their body, oh and if they get raped – might as well kill them to avoid the shame. However male dominance is also present in christianity, you can read this http://www.missionislam.com/comprel/womenbible.htm (ironically this is an islam site talking about the bibles sexism) In the last 200 years, women could own real-estate, or vote. If they were married, didn’t have a son, and her husband died, the land would goto her husband’s family.
I don’t understand how you think females are taking over when men still control all the major corporations. It is a HUGE non sequitur to say that just because an Alpha has a wife and is making what appears to be female biased decisions that he is being controlled or influenced by her.
Lastly I want to go over the things that made me angry. You talk about how solutions are not gender specific but in your video you go onto say that if men don’t do something their numbers will reduce and they will come under draconian rule? That is flat out sexist to assume that if women got into control they would destroy men. If I pump you with testosterone you are more likely to get angry then if I pump you full of estrogen, that is not science fiction, that is science fact. Up to that point, I was partially following you, but that really revealed your true self. I don’t know what kind of experiences you have had with females that make you think they want to destroy males, but I haven’t had those experiences, so I am not jaded.
Next you talk about hitler, and I have read mein kampf, and you employed the EXACT same method he did for perpetuating his extreme ideas. You started out by talking about scientific fact and obvious nature, and then you built up to the crazy. Stating that alphas are being controlled by feminists is not a fact, it is a theory at best, but you are preaching it like it is fact.
Now don’t get me wrong, I believe there is inequality between the sexes on both sides. When I first met my girlfriend she had a lot of feminist views, some fueled by extremist and radical websites, and I helped her question some of those beliefs and made her change her mind on a lot. I think taking one side or another is a horrible idea, because you demonize the other gender (and yes saying women are going to take over and put men under draconian rule IS demonizing them). You can be a humanist and fight for equality for both sides. However, the moment you call yourself a feminist, or an MRA, you’re picking a side, and neither side is more right then the other.
Just as a side note, I am not gay, and I have never been manipulated by a girl who has tried to use the sex card. So I personally find it insulting that you think I am so weak willed and can be so easily controlled. I am not easily controlled by sex, are you?
First, no apology necessary.
Before we proceed, I want to ask you how you feel about my converting this thoughtful post to a feature piece, with our exchanges in the comments. You are responding to an old article, somewhat buried in the back pages. I’d like to put it front and center where it will be seen by a lot more people. I will ask readers to allow the debate to go without sidetracking or “ganging up.”
I prefer to allow you fair circumstances, especially given the environment here.
As a men’s advocate, your thoughts are very important to me, as you appear to question the very core of legitimacy for the MRM. It deserves that kind of scrutiny and I think will hold up to it with clear and honest answers that directly address your questions and challenges. I ask that you respond with the same.
Let me know what you think and I will set it up.
Just a quick note, I got the name of the feminist wrong, it was Andrea Rita Dworkin who said all sex is rape.
To me a dependent woman is a dependent woman, whether she depends on the State or depends on her husband.
Either way, it wold probably be in our best interests to encourage women to be as independent as possible. Men too. Fuck the State.
Paul this is a really excellent article. I wonder if it could be reposted? Beautiful work.
Chalk one up, I’m another guy that’s taken the red pill. So when’s the war start?
“we are a species of animals whose very existence depended on the development of reproductive strategies, the primary of which is that the most aggressive and powerful males are selected for mating by the most reproductively viable females.”
Not sure. Like “survival of the fittest, FITNESS does not refer to strength, but rather adaptability to circumstances. A “weak” male who was smart might well get the best females when the “stronger” males lose fights they should have avoided.
The best boxers are often the smartest in terms of tactics and strategies. Few barroom brawlers will prevail against a trained boxer. Similarly, someone “weak” who knows how to avoid fights will likely outlive those who “win” Pyrrhic victories.
On another, perhaps related, note: I’ve never understood why “nature” would care if anything reproduced or not. Nature could care less if Earth is barren or not. So there must be something else propelling us other than mere survival (especially since we all die).
Which is to say, life is very complex.
Also, we are told men are “competitive” when, in fact, males are mostly cooperative. Few males raise barns by themselves. And a guy who spends all day raising sheep can’t fashion the wheels his cart needs to bring butchered lamb to market.
I think the idea that men are innately competitive is something instilled in us so we won’t see/feel our common bond. Because if we DID feel those bonds we might just decide to live differently…and not feel constantly under the gun to “prove” ourselves (often at the expense of other males).
Paul, love your work.
Now, I’m not contradicting you, just offering some other views/explanations.
Much is made of men’s kryptonite being pussy. That is, we’ll do most anything for sex. My take is a bit different. I think it’s “non-intellectual belonging” that many males seek. Most modern men were “allowed” to be dependent children until about age 5. At that point, mothers (often pressured by other mothers) began putting conditions on young males to get love. Up to that time, if you skinned your knee you ran crying to Mama who then held you, comforted you, kissed your boo-boo…and watched you go back to playing in about 5 minutes.
Now suddenly you’re out at a park. Mama is sitting with other mothers. They give her the stink-eye for picking you up. They warn her about creating a wimp. So, needing love at any price, you learn you will get hugged and kissed and comforted if you DON’T cry. Ergo, boys learn to mask feelings to be accepted.
Time continues and soon were are in highschool, “playing hurt” to please the coach and girls and teammates who were similarly taught to mask (not openly express) certain feelings.
We become hyper-vigilant, ever on the watch for bottled-up feelings oozing out. We can cry, but only when our team wins/loses or someone dies. That is, under very exceptional circumstances.
Under such constraints, females– especially sex with them– become drugs. We learn we can “let go” (if only for a few moments of orgasmic ecstasy) when we’re with them.
Even then we are taught not to “prematurely ejaculate” (as if ecstasy can come [!] “too soon”). We are told to think of baseball scores lest our pleasure ends before hers. But still: it is that oceanic, non-intellectual, right-brain, non-THINKING experience…a sense of belonging without having to EARN it…that we seek.
Part of that need, of course, gets used by women. They call us “gay” if we are too emotional around other males. In essence, they insist all our “magic moments” get experience with one gender: THEIRS!
Of course, we are permitted to get drunk with buddies. Occasionally.
Women don’t have this burden. They are considered female just for breathing. They don’t have to “earn” femininity like men have to masculinity.
Yet how much of that “having-to-earn” is started by females who raise us? And was it this way in agrarian times, too? What was it like to be a boy on a farm when you worked in fields with Father and could show feelings to him (assuming he was allowed to do so)?
DH Lawrence wrote a lot about what the Industrial Revolution did to men’s souls/heads. Guys left the world of nature and family, often alone, to work in cities and mines. They were uprooted emotionally, separated from wives and children.
And, of course, boys grew up without seeing how their fathers lived, loved, and worked on a daily basis.
I read somewhere that most Italian men live within 3 miles of their mothers. Americans mock them as “mamas boys.” Yet why would anyone NOT want to be near someone who truly loves them, has their backs? I’m assuming, of course, that the mothers are enlightened beings, and not effed-up scolds seeking to keep their sons “near the nest” for their own stunted needs.
Anyway, look how often adult males get shamed for being “whiners” or “crybabies” when they honestly vent feelings? A man who grew from a boy allowed to know and express his feelings would either ignore, laugh at, or say “Screw you!” to such shamers. But again: look how often it shuts men up!
A supposedly rough-tough hombre might well be willing to storm a machinegun nest to protect his army buddies. Yet the same man will stop in his tracks and go mute if a woman says he’s “angry” or “a hater” or a “wimp” for protesting the loss of his children in divorce court.
There is also a strong Western taboo about men being too emotionally close to other men. This, too, probably starts in the family…where Dad is either gone a lot (to work) and/or was himself raised to act stoically. Boys learn not be too emotional with anyone but females.
Sons raised by stoical fathers tend to get similarly emotionally constipated. Yet if you’ve ever met men with emotionally open fathers, they seem much more alive. And fearless. The problem is few males had healthy male role models. If they spent too much time with other boys, beyond a certain age, they were called “gay.” They became unfulfilled Billy Elliots.
It’s not sex healthy hetero men want with other men. It’s emotional closeness. The kind women take for granted with other women.
Hence our current cultural calamity. Males put all their emotional eggs in female baskets (especially when married), giving females tremendous power. Guys lose contact with other males as they age/marry and so have no support when divorce looms. And not wanting to appear “needy” or “wimpy,” they think “real men” not only don’t mention problems, they handle them on their own.
Of course when such “armies-of-one” inevitably confront feminist army regulars they get slaughtered. A guy might send up a final flare for help, but there is none. No male reinforcements arrive since each man lived like an island (to mix metaphors). So it’s a perfect storm for feminists. A married guy has no use for “whiners” in the men’s movement…until he DOES. Then, too late, he learns there is no aid because millions of other men thought they could go it alone, too. Just like he did.
Meanwhile, Susie Creampuff has only to make one phone call to unleash nukes in her defense: female-only DV hotlines, college course, loans, laws, lawyers, holidays, conferences, plays, etc. etc. etc.
How did WWII males, who made the world safe for democracy, let it become unsafe with femocracy?
Alas, one thing men know all-too-well is war. So they need only to start taking the “gender war” seriously. Their and other men’s lives (and children’s fates!) are at stake. The bad new is that it’s taken sooooo long for men to even BEGIN to organize effectively/politically. The good news is that feminist armies heretofore have mostly won by default. Men failed to show up on battlefields. That is changing. I strongly suspect when women’s groups start seeing MRA skirmishers mustering for throw-downs the former will quickly flee the field.
One can hope. It can’t happen soon enough.
Shlomo, thank you for this. Do you write anywhere else? I would really like more.
Actually I have.
I am, I suppose, what you’d call an “OG” in the non-moving men’s movement. Some 20 years ago I did radio/TV gigs for TEAM TESTOSTERONE, having met Warren Farrell and others years before THAT (I did some shows with Warren, too). But I got burned…and burned-out.
Too many times I found myself leading attacks against feminist redoubts, waving our battle flag, only to find myself alone…or being shot at from other men. Or watched men’s groups form inevitable circular firing squads. Or watched gullible, willing, needy (in the best sense) men being led by megalomaniacal douchebag “leaders” more interested in being small frogs in tiny ponds than heading larger, more effective organizations.
I could tell some stories.
As I said, after several decades I burned out. I withdrew, watching from sidelines, taking notes and writing mostly for myself.
Now? Dunno. I’m testing the waters.
I like what I see in terms of AVFM, Spearhead, etc. I particularly like the filtering of distracting manginassholes and femininnies. Men need a place where they can go full-bore ahead and not be Hamletized into endless dithering by those who ask, right when we’re ready to ACT, “But have you thought of THIS?”
There IS a time to contemplate the world situation. Another time to plan D-Day. But ultimately, there is also a time to take action…and establish beachheads.
Time has long since passed for men to unite and get into feminists’ faces. Not because women are evil or feminism was totally without merit. But because the women’s movement metastasized into a male-bashing anti-eqalitarian movement straight out of “1984″ central casting.
It’s not without precedent. The French killed a king, ironically just when he was reforming that country. Instead of peace and equality, tumbrils followed, filled with rogues and innocents alike (including those who’d started the revolution). Thing got so bad that an EMPEROR had to be crowned to bring back order. Only Napoleon then plunged the continent into chaos.
Twice.
Similarly, the women’s movement began with a promise to bring peace and happiness, merely wanting to redress a few legitimate grievances. Over time it wanted, then demanded, and GOT more and more and more power. Female stock skyrocketed while male worth bottomed-out.
Hence our situation today.
I suspect Camus and certain English/American statesmen were right: There is always a need for “loyal opposition” forces to keep things in balance. Unchecked power is dangerous, like an car without brakes.
What happened with the women’s movement is that men failed (for various reasons) to oppose its excesses. Foxes were given unlimited access to, and operations of, hen houses.
It’s not that women are evil. It’s just that their movement is like an ill-raised child, running amok because no one showed it how to live and act “right.”
Now, hopefully, men seen what happened when they “let the little ladies do their thing.” Left to their own devices, ardent fembots become bullies. And like most bullies, they can’t get enough “humiliation highs” from seeing the “enemy” (Men!) grovel and suffer.
But also like most bulllies, they ain’t prepared to have their own noses poked.
THAT time is at hand. We just need to keep informing open-minded men about the issues while fielding those ready to take on Steinemites.
Like I said, it might be a whole lot easier than we think because, truth be told, feminists have not really faced real (much less sustained) “enemy action.” They act like Hitler waltzing panzers into Poland. Everything seems a piece-of-cake. Men, meanwhile, have felt like England staggering under buzz-bomb blitzes. But now? Things have begun to turn. Males have more and more fighters willing to hit back. And tactics and weapons to employ.
We shall see how “brave and feisty” women’s groups really are. I suspect their will be few touting their feminist credentials as they quake in Berlin bunkers after our D-Day advances are followed by night bombings.
Oh happy day!
So hit the beaches runnin’, boyos! And take no prisoners.
Brilliant.
I am very pleased for you to be back in play. A seasoned veteran like you is a tremendous asset to MEN. AVfM, The-Spearhead, Anti-Misandry, ManwomanMyth, etc., there are indeed some great works and gatherings.
Are there any available archives of your work online?
> Are there any available archives of your work online?
Sorta. Under my real name. A few radio/TV interviews, too.
I’m creating an archive, though some of it may be boring (ancient?), like when I was on ‘The Phil Donahue Show.’ I may password-protect it to allow selected viewing.
The sadness/irony today, aside from the relative political inactivity of men per gender issues for the past 4 decades, is the shift from it being scary to “come out” as gay to it being verboten to standup for equality (that is, advocating that men get a fair shake socially).
If you speak well of males these days, out come feminazi goons trying to silence you by threats and all sorts of dirty tricks. At that time, you will look in vain for other men or men’s groups to protect you.
That, if fact, is why feminists feel so free to do what they do. They know their is no cost to their attacks.
It’s like when women feel free to slap men in public. Men know if they slap back they will get their asses kicked…mostly by other men. Still, once in a while a martial artist will deck the women who felt she had the “right” to hit him….and would-be white knights “get” the situation and do nothing.
I’m certainly not advocating violence. Just saying that sometimes the best way to stop a bully is to make him/her FEEL the pain they’ve been inflicting heedlessly.
I contend there is nothing like an effective “fuck you!” to get folks’ attention. Men’s groups have to reclaim their balls and start letting it be known, far and wide, that if you attempt to harm men your ass WILL be kicked.
Alas, I don’t know if guys are ready to do that…especially if a gal is the perp.
There’s a wonderful scene in THE VERDICT when Paul Newman walks into his bar and decks the woman who betrayed him. It should be the men’s movement anthem.
There is no reason on earth (though certainly many reasons in our current hell-on-earth) why a male should counter an attack by a penis-bearer, but willingly accept a similar attack by a vaginate.
Anyway, been through it once per fighting lone battles. Don’t know that I’m ready for another crucifixion.
Everything you’ve said here is gospel, every piece of it infuriating. Despite the shame of naivete, it has been a hell of an epiphany for me to come to grips with the fact that contrary to my former perspective of females as the bearers of existential virtue, instead they are the original gangbangers of our species (pardon the insult to gangbangers).
Females are truly disgusting in their herd/gang mentality, their complete inability to stand as an individual, entirely dependent on the herd’s opinion of them. Devoid of an identity apart from that defined in relation to the herd. Fucking pathetic. Their sole loyalty is to the herd, the gang, above their own children and above the fathers of those children, the female’s loyalty is to the crass cackling soulless herd. They laugh at male genital mutilation- THEY HAVE SONS. I continue to struggle to grasp the depth of the demonic deviance of this creature that walks among us which we call ‘female’.
Note I have ceased with the shallow contrived distinction between ‘feminist’ and ‘female’. For all intents and practical purposes nearly ALL females have been conscious and willful enablers, facilitators, contributors, collaborators and beneficiaries of ‘feminism’, female supremacy and misandry. At this point upon reflection it becomes clear that feminism is not some aberration of female behavior, rather it is the nurtured and unrestrained realization of their TRUE nature. At the heart of woman there lies no secret garden of goodness or virtue. At the heart of woman lies a rotten rancid core with maggots having eaten out any semblance of humanity. It is vacant, it is void. It is MAN, himself, who brings virtue to humanity. Whodathunk.
In assault, the sexual anatomy between ones legs is irfuckingrelevant. Self-defense and retaliation are the rule.
I will find that clip from the verdict.
I’ll look forward to a link to your material.
Cheers
Paul, please forgive me. I am not trying to highjack the forum, but I figured that since the Hypergamy thread is kind of old, by Internet standards, I wanted to get some live feedback on some thoughts I had about the PUA/Game side of the confused masculinity problem that men are faced with today.
I wanted to ask this of “gamers” everywhere. I am having an extremely difficult time swallowing that portion of the red pill cause most of my self confidence is based on illusion. At what point do you come to balance and equilibrium with the fact that you are NOT everything that you project yourself to be. Cause honestly, the more I read into “Game and PUA” theory, the more it sounds like “fake it till you make it”. I understand that women are fraudulent creatures and lies and deception are the syntax and diction of their language, but at a certain point they will be able to point out your bullshit that you are trying to deliver as confidence. The way I see it, most men are not born alpha’s, hence the relatively “high price” for them in the SMP. Therefore, there are only a few men who have had that “right mixture of physical and psychological traits” that tend to attract that modern woman. When you introduce game, what you are trying to do is go against the very blueprint schematics of who you are.
Frankly, it is the entire “fake it till you make it” paradigm that is built off of fraud, which I don’t have such a problem since women are creatures of deception and lies and therefore the very syntax and diction of their language is predicated upon lies and misdirection. However, the concern comes in when you are found to be a fraud yourself, cause despite what all those “playa’s” want to believe that the game can go on forever…it can’t.
“You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time” Eventually you will be found out to be the fraud that you are presenting to others. For a man to be truly confident, he has to have experienced a modicum of success and use that as a driving mechanism to prove to himself that he can do such a thing again. Now, if you have never really succeeded, than at that point you are playing a game that is based on how sure you are that you will win, when the rules are never revealed to you in the first place. I’m sorry, but then it becomes a matter of mental chess to overcome your rational brain and fool it into thinking that you are everything and a bag of chips, when in reality your rational brain is giving you a very hard honest self-assessment of who you really are. At that point you are simply betraying who you truly are and how long can that facade continue. When the curtain pulls back, you are left there in the proverbial nude in front of an audience totally speechless.
Recommending to those who have been marginalized, denigrated, and mocked for their humble, honest, and hard-working natures to simply “get game” is similar to a fucking SoCon telling these men to “man up”. It is a useless and contrived option that offers no clear solution other than the false delusion of getting a good fuck in. Sorry gents, but just as woman’s body is hers, so is a man’s body and if we are to face this evil, we must face the weakness within ourselves. I have always admired men’s ability to evolve from their station and shortcomings in life and to reshape their world to adapt to their new realities. Now PUA may be the adaptive strategy that is employed by “beta’s” but frankly it is only like placing a bandage on a mortal wound instead of dealing with the root cause of the problem.
This might be a bit too forward, but telling young men that all they have to do is forfeit their character and adapt a set of traits that would make them total assholes is a temporary solution. I am brought to understand the something my father shared with me before he passed away regarding confidence:
“Confidence is a process that is lifelong, one in which you build character from life experiences. It is not overnight and cannot be fucking faked. Matter of fact, usually confidence means that you stand by your convictions but don’t search for trouble or seek out opportunities to show how tough you are or exude false bravado.”
Stay true to who you are and forget about women. They have proven their irrelevance and their inability to live amicably and peacefully. I say this to all the guys who are completely depressed because they were told that the ultimate form of acceptance is to be able to have a good lay with a woman. I don’t mean to cause strife or rifts in this forum, but I wanted to present the other side of the coin.
So I did some reading about Medusa and what Perseus needed to defeat her. Then I tried to think about what these things could metaphorically represent in our world:
” her face so terrible to behold that the mere sight of it would turn onlookers to stone”
I believe this represents the common tactic of feminists to demonize anyone that doesn’t conform with their beliefs. By falsely labeling them misogynists, rape-supporters, and hate groups, they are effectively “petrifying” and silencing anyone they turn their ugly gaze upon.
“he received a mirrored shield from Athena, gold, winged sandals from Hermes, a sword from Hephaestus and Hades’ helm of invisibility.”
I would postulate that our Athena is the prominent “GirlWritesWhat” and her mirrored shield is her lucid and honest female perspective of feminism.
Our helm of invisibility could very well be our online forums (perhaps Paul is Hades?) where we can discuss our ideas freely without being subject to the silencing (petrifying) tactics of feminism (Medusa)
I believe that our golden, winged sandals will represent some form of large funding and our sword will represent significantly strong legal representation.
I believe our myth will come alive.