July 19th, 2013 by vir

your_little_princessI ask all young men to indulge in a thought experiment.

Assume for the sake of argument that your life goes really well. You find a career you totally enjoy, meet a woman who floors you and isn’t a passive aggressive parasite like most people, get a killer house in a perfect subdivision, and find a way to practice your hobby in such a way that makes you world-renowned. You’re set, and living the good life.

I know you have doubts about this happening, but everyone does, especially those that it happens to. So you know it’s possible and despite your negativity, which is really your way of defending your lifestyle against the possibility of something that resembles (yuk, spit) “growing up,” you have to admit this could happen.

Say it’s ten or fifteen years in the future.

Somewhere in there, you and the little lady got busy, and had two perfect children. A girl and a boy, both beautiful and intelligent. You love your kids more than anything, and you never thought you’d say this, but you’d rather see your X-Box, record collection, and stash of rare baseball cards go up in smoke than see something bad happen to either one. Even a little something.

Let’s say your daughter is eleven. She is 1.5 years away from menstruation, if she’s an average girl. She is 5.3 years away from her first sexual experience, on average. But that’s not to say it won’t happen sooner. You’ve got a full life, and sometimes the months and years zoom by. Are you ready to even think about this?

The real question upon you is not whether you can ignore it or not. It’s what steps you’re going to take to make it work out for the best. And that requires another question, and this one is a real doozy:

What type of sexual experience do you want your daughter to have?

And as a corollary, what kind of life experience do you want her to have? And what about your son?

People — especially drunk people at college parties — like to pitch to you the idea that all lifestyles are different and there’s no real order to them. It’s just whatever you want. In the adult world, however, the rankings are clearer. Everybody wants to be somebody. Who is that? The divorced career woman? The sexy swinging single? Or what everyone seems to work for, which is the nuclear family with stability and love?

Everything fits into a new context when it’s your kid. When do you want her to have her first anal gangbang? Your princess, penetrated by many penises. What about her first bukkake? Her first one-night sexual encounter with some guy whose name she forgets by morning? Her first anonymous blowjob at a blindfold party? What about her first three-way, and double penetration?

Your little princess. What kind of future do you want for her?

You can hide beyond, “Whatever she chooses, they’re all equal,” for only so long. At some point you realize there’s a number line between the drunk cocktail waitress aging without grace and taking home whatever man she can grab, and the nuclear family with a loving husband and stability and kindness.

But of course, you don’t get that outcome by sleeping around. In fact, you’re mostly likely to get it by being the 31% of American women who have only one sex partner in their lives. When you haven’t experienced others, you hold nothing over your husband or wife. You give it all to them. There is trust and love uninterrupted by fear and cynicism.

The scary thing is that we all know this underneath our cynical outer selves. Inwardly, we long for the fairy tale. The two people without cynicism who meet each other, fall in love, and have a life-long love affair based on selflessness. The happy family, united in belief in each other and uncritical adoration. The people who escape the negative experiences that some thing make them seem worldly and edgy.

You know what you want for your little princess. You’re afraid to say it because it will break a social taboo. But no, all choices are not equal. And you know what you wouldn’t want her to experience, which in turn implies what you hope will happen to her.

Now look at the women around you. Each one of them is someone’s princess. Unless you’re a sociopath, you don’t want bad things to happen to them either. Does this change how you view women, and perhaps, yourself?

Male, female, other?

June 4th, 2013 by Josh Roberts

male_female_otherAn emerging trend exemplifies the utter insanity of social reality trumping what should be painfully obvious common sense. For decades now, “social scientists” have insisted on detaching the notion of biological sex from its psychological, behavioral, and cultural aspects called gender. The prevailing idea has long been that while sex is clearly a binary, gender is an expansive and complex continuum. As troubling and misleading as this idea is, it at least has a grain of truth to it. However, this prevailing attitude is slowly being replaced by something worse.

The new hip “scientific” view is that biological sex as a binary is false and that sex comes in a wide range of variations. The underlying concept is that sex can be defined in a variety of different manners (e.g. by genes, genitals, etc) and there exist pathological abnormalities (e.g. extra chromosomes, ambiguous genitalia) that cannot be clearly framed in a strict binary. Thus, traditional concepts of sex must be overturned in favor of the new “science” of many different sexes.

To the average person with just decent enough common sense, this seems absurd. However, some may find it difficult to properly articulate exactly why. My hope is to do just that.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s ignore the problems inherent to the gender sex divide. In addressing the concept of biological sex, the issue has been convoluted by attempts to understand sex from an individualistic, humanist perspective. When a person’s sex is understood as an identity within a social context, the idea of drastic variation seems almost downright plausible… the way pretty much anything seems plausible if you have your head buried in the sand. Sex is not an identity in that sense. A person’s sex is determined by their relation to a larger biological process, namely sexual reproduction. This biological process transcends human dynamics and is part of the larger natural order. Therefore, inherent principles and standards arise in relation to this process.

The evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction is an interesting topic but are not necessarily relevant to this discussion. The principle of real concern for humans involves the necessity of two qualitatively distinct types to fulfill this process. That is, there is a male type and a female type. One of each is needed to partake in the process. There are not several unique variations that interact in different ways. There are only two that interact in a single fashion.

Once this completely self evident truth is realized, the sea of confusion the left has brought splits open. Effectively what the left is attempting to do is normalize pathological deviation from natural standards, because the left hates standards, even more so here since these deviations are generally the result of genetic abnormalities completely outside the control of the individuals involved. This cuts right to one of the fundamental delusions of left, namely that people are born perfect and corrupted only through culture. To say that certain persons are born inherently defective is unthinkable to someone in that mindset. Furthermore, individuals suffering from such abnormalities are easily made into sympathetic victims given the extremely intimate and unfortunate nature of their problems.

Regardless of any judgments to be made with respect to this issue, there are a more fundamental concerns at hand. Truth should never be feared, and nature should be respected, not fought. In an age of misplaced good intentions, distorted values, and warped perspectives, there are certain grounds which simply cannot be ceded. I believe this is one of them.

Server rooms

May 15th, 2013 by Jason Bryan

pac-manThe modern dating playground feels like a game of Pac-Man. You know, the little mouth-shaped yellow blob, running through a maze eating dots, chased by ghosts. Only in this case, the ghosts are the ideas of monogamy, love until death, love for better or worse, and the idea of the family. The dots are the next vagina made available to a man through online dating, and the never-satisfied mouth is the modern urban male. The game sits with 99 credits, waiting for the next to play, the buttons missing paint from endless taps, a bald-spot on the joystick rubbed clean from palms. Another man steps up and takes control, or so he thinks.

He presses 1up, and another round starts. Thrust into the dating world, he’s soon out with some pretty girl, the typical modern night out turns into a liquor-fueled hot fuck. Friendship isn’t needed, and getting to know someone starts after nudity. The single-point connections in each others’ lives provided by online dating makes us into generic holes and pegs. It’s more intimate to ask for a spotting partner at the gym. Fed by a steady diet of modern mainstream media, and washed down with a flood of hardcore pornography, this generation is full of hearts that only serve to engorge genitals, rather than forge bonds.

Sex begins in server rooms.

Online dating has revolutionized human society by becoming the new arranger. What is the difference between meeting someone organically, in person, or through a website? Simple, the website becomes the new digital chaperone. I think many of us begin to trust the website’s suggestions and pairings more than our own inner voices, leaving the subtle nuances of attraction drowned out by a mass of smiling, available-with-one-click potential sex partners. Shopping for someone has never been easier, our selections available in drop-down boxes. Selling yourself with an ad is important, after all, you’re now a competing ad in the window of modern love. With these embodiments of who we are placed online for cupid to find, perhaps our own abilities to connect with people in person suffer as we can mail-order another partner at will. Plenty of hubs for mating provide an ample source for sexual relief, but does this same easy sex lead us to a naturally more instantly-gratified lifestyle?

Could it be that easy is not, in fact, better?

Destroying gently

April 13th, 2013 by vir

gentle_destroyersMost people fear destruction because it involves that roll of the dice called combat. When you step into that ring, you can lose. The other guy can be better or stronger. Or fate can deal a blow.

Somewhere between stupid and intelligent is a zone reserved for people who are clever. They are not intelligent enough to be creative and constructive, but they are smart enough to be manipulative. They specialized in using the goodwill of others to deceive them.

Their greatest deception is pacifism. There are no real pacifists. If someone truly wanted to avoid conflict, they would simply detach. If they want to achieve their ends without the possibility of losing, they become pacifists. That means they work through passive means.

Such people specialize in gentle destruction. Their goal is destruction; they choose soft, gentle, passive, non-threatening means to do it. This means they attack from the details, and don’t go for the main point. Again, they are smart enough to be manipulative but not creative.

Of all their weapons, the most powerful is separation. They separate the multiple results of an act from each other. They separate an act from its consequences. They insist on dividing up time, so we don’t see how things actually work out, only the intermediate step where things aren’t so bad after all.

When sexual liberation came about, it was offered to us through separation. We can remove sex from its role in love and the family, they said. It will bring pleasure to many. There are no consequences; people will be the same, everything will be fine.

And five years later they were declaring victory, trotting out studies that showed things were improved, claiming that “science” proved the legitimacy of their viewpoint, etc. All were lies and remain lies.

The separation of sex from family destroyed the family, and left generations of shell-shocked zombies who believe in their inarticulate hearts that their divorced parents never loved them, and that their existence was purposeless.

Sexual liberation made men and women antagonists, ensured that almost all relationships fail, and encouraged people to hook up at random and then settle for lower options. It has produced a non-stop flow of collateral damage, none of which has been acknowledged by its creators.

Recent research puts another nail in the coffin of sexual liberation. It turns out that being on the Pill does create changes in how women think. Specifically, they stop wanting masculine men, and start looking for more feminine ones. Hormones are powerful stuff as it turns out.

By accepting sexual liberation, and birth control, we did more than just be gentle to our own impulses. We wired ourselves for self-destruction. Perhaps that was the intent of the enemy all along which so hated the family it wanted to use our desire for sexual pleasure to ruin it.

More likely it reflects one of life’s greatest ironies, which is what happens to the pacifist. Unable to act from fear of reprisal, the pacifist becomes an embittered and negative person, sniping after the fact and attempting to sabotage what he could not intervene to stop. The life of a pacifist is entirely after-the-fact regrets.

If we learn a lesson from birth control pills, other than that they’re a good way to make your daughter whore herself for emasculated idiots and finally end up with one that she can later divorce, it’s that those who destroy gently are not gentle. They are parasites and predators both, and their mission is to destroy.

Sex and violence

January 21st, 2013 by Ted Swanson

discrimination_and_eleganceIf you are reading this, you exist, if you exist, you were most certainly born, and if you were born, you will most certainly die. There are few guarantees in life, but death is one of them.

Life and death are as complementary to each other as good and evil, light and darkness, sun and moon, woman and man. It has been said that woman is the gatekeeper of life. This is true. But if woman is the gatekeeper of life, then man is the gatekeeper of death. Life and death are not dual opposites, but a complementary duality. We like to view them as opposites because we fear death.

Consider the Octo-Mom, a modern day myth if there ever was one. The Octo-Mom is just like a serial killer; she is a serial-birther. Charles Manson may as well be the father. Indiscriminate killing is equal to indiscriminate birthing. We do not see her as a murderer, but this is pretense. Her goal was having children, and all else was indiscriminate. For her, it was like getting her nails done or buying a pet poodle.

A birth is in no way superior to a death. If anything they are equivalent. The predator needs its prey, but the herd also needs its predator or the herd becomes overwhelmed in indiscriminate and directionless individuals who weaken the herd. The herd can face death every day, or it can suddenly face failure through nonexistence. It fears death so much it makes death taboo, and failure much more likely.

Fertilizer is dead matter out of which life arises. Without the constant death of organisms to provide decaying matter full of nutrients, plants would not grow; without the death of (parts of) plants to be eaten, animals would not live. Life needs death much more than death needs life. If this was a poker game, Death would be on the button, with a 10 to 1 chip advantage, puffing away on a cigar (Death doesn’t have to worry about cancer).

Now consider the recent story of Suzy Favor Hamilton. Suzy Favor was an Olympian runner that recently revealed she led a double life as an escort. She was not bankrupt or in need of money. She is another form of the indiscriminate, essentially confusing lots of sex with the meaningful feeling that sex in the right context can deliver. She favored the indiscriminate “life” over death, and so encountered failure as a person.

As far as the excuses we give for the Octo-Moms and Suzy Favor Hamiltons of the world, these are mostly nonsense that we agree to pretend is important so people aren’t offended. Hamilton’s indiscretions were rationalized as “coping mechanisms.” Fair enough, but did you know that Ted Kaczynski’s mail bombs were also coping mechanisms? It may be hard to believe, but I am a psychoanalyst — just ask me!

You may recall that in the 90s, out of nowhere, rose yet another vague, nebulous “awareness campaign.” This one was essentially about safe sex and sex in general. We all needed to have lots of frank discussions about sex and be educated about sex, and who better to talk with you about sex than MTV and your gym teacher? They supported the indiscriminate, too, because they saw sex as a way of keeping death away. Maybe more of it will help.

Our society needs to own up to the importance of death. Without death, there is no life. Without life, there would still be death. Humankind has mastered many things in life, but even if we beat old age, we will not beat death. If I was a gambling man, and I am, I would wager that man will most likely never master death. I will give you 10 to 1 odds; my money is on death all the way. Man is not the master of death, for Death is the master of Man.

Sexual freedom crushed our souls

January 16th, 2013 by vir

The great ugly secret about “freedom” is that it becomes a goal in itself. The neoconservatives found this out when, in the name of sharing freedom, they ended up having more wars than they could fight.

Sexual freedom is a form of Iraq and Afghanistan. You can win the battle, but can you win the occupation? The ugly secret rears its head again: freedom replaces the goal, and becomes a new quest like any other “ideological” crusade.

In the case of sexual freedom, the absence of restraints means that there is no goal and thus, no time scale. There is no maturation process. There is no eventual goal to end up as an adult. Instead, one stays trapped in the teenage loop forever and ever.

As a result, the simple idea of “sexual freedom,” of separating sex from any sort of goal such as family or love, creates a mentality of the perpetual loop: act for the moment, and for the self. Do not think of future. Do not experience change over your lifetime.

Elizabeth Wurtzel, who wrote Prozac Nation back in 1994 and should have lived happily ever after, writes about how her teenage loop has led to an unfulfilling adult life:

It had all gone wrong. At long last, I had found myself vulnerable to the worst of New York City, because at 44 my life was not so different from the way it was at 24. Stubbornly and proudly, emphatically and pathetically, I had refused to grow up, and so I was becoming one of those people who refuses to grow up—one of the city’s Lost Boys…By never marrying, I ended up never divorcing, but I also failed to accumulate that brocade of civility and padlock of security—kids you do or don’t want, Tiffany silver you never use—that makes life complete. Convention serves a purpose: It gives life meaning, and without it, one is in a constant existential crisis. If you don’t have the imposition of family to remind you of what is at stake, something else will. I was alone in a lonely apartment with only a stalker to show for my accomplishments and my years. – “Elizabeth Wurtzel Confronts Her One-Night Stand of a Life,” by Elizabeth Wurtzel in New York Magazine, January 6, 2013

She goes on to detail how she fled responsibility at every turn, including sexually. There was never a plan to live happily ever after, but a chance to take someone home for the night. Eventually, the options dwindled and apparently, so did the fun.

The MRM is in freefall at this point because it never really took a stand. “Equality,” like “freedom,” is not a goal but the absence of a goal. It’s like dedicating yourself to not-growing-up or to not-eating-vegetables.

MRAs often talk about how they just want “equality” (and/or “freedom”) for men to be equal to women. This sounds good to them because, despite all their talk of red pill/blue pill, they’re still invested in the dominant narrative of their time.

Since the French Revolution, this narrative has been the hive mind. The individual, dedicated to himself or herself, joins with other individuals who want the same, and they smash down all real goals and replace them with not-growing-up and not-eating-vegetables.

When MRAs talk about “equality,” they’re following the same path. The actual goal is for men and women to have a place where they complement each other, and where they are each sacred and important. This only comes through traditional sexual roles, which have goals beyond the sex itself.

Anything else resembles a fear of growing up:

But when I became old enough to learn to shoot, I took one lesson from my father and then refused to go further. It was a rite of passage, a stage on the way to adulthood. But I did not want the responsibility of handling weapons. And, frankly, I just didn’t want to grow up. And because my parents were a little too liberal, and I was far too stubborn, they didn’t force the issue. So I went out into the world with a child’s salutary fear of guns intact. – “Gun Control & Personal Responsibility,” by Greg Johnson in Counter-Currents, January 16, 2013

Our modern society is based on not growing up because we fear the goal itself. Out of fear from becoming like our parents, who lingered neurotic in jobs they hated and endured marriages they claimed to feel enslaved by, we just avoided all of it. We dated or hooked up, but the second night, went home alone.

Sexual “freedom” crushed our souls. Feminism and sexual liberation were just one of many “revolutionary” movements that mimicked the French Revolution in that they overthrew the goals, and replaced them with personal whims. Like the others, they led nowhere.

This occurred because the absence of something is not a goal. If anything, it resembles a hate movement. If your gender does not feel equal, you might ask whether equality is necessary, or just a talking point. Most likely it’s just the drama of others.

What women (and men) lost was a sense of purpose to their lives. What they gained was a void in which they could project their egos, but which led nowhere but to the endless procession of days of getting up, going to work, amusing oneself with alcohol and sex, and repeating. It’s even more soulless than its antecedent, the grim 1950s “corporation man” and his house with a white picket fence in the suburbs.

Rather than crush our souls with these anti-goals, we should stop giving up on having what nature and common sense would have us possess, namely normal lives in which we mature and learn. Instead, we should crush the “revolutionary” notion that a non-goal is superior to a goal.


November 18th, 2012 by vir

What defines evolutionary success?

It is spreading your seed, or watching those seeds mature into healthy, intelligent and thoughtful future generations?

The conventional mythos is that men are seed-sprayers and women are child-raisers. In this narrative, men want as many sexual partners as possible and women want as few as possible, because they have different strategies for reproduction.

It turns out that the division between strategies is not one of gender, but of intelligence:

All of the research that we have show that it’s only a minority of guys who have multiple partners per year, and I typically talk about this as three partners a year because that’s the Casanova average. It’s actually a minority of guys who want multiple short-term partners — that even comes up in the evolutionary research. The evolutionary argument basically goes that guys have the ability, theoretically, to produce hundreds of children per year, and they can never quite be 100 percent sure that any child is theirs, so they should spread their seed widely. But what gets left out of that is the fact that if you want your genes to go beyond that next generation — beyond your children to your grandchildren, then your odds are better if you actually stick around and help raise that kid until that kid is old enough to pass on his or her genes. – “Expert: Guys don’t want casual sex!”, Salon, November 17, 2012

In other words, the popular myth that we’re wired as seed-sprayers and nothing more is wrong, because it’s mathematically wrong.

Nature rewards not the casual sprayer, who basically dooms his seed to poverty and dysfunction, but the committed raiser.

This means that those who want their seed to persist, whether male or female, are going to choose the “raising” strategy. It’s not just for women; it’s for anyone who wants to succeed at what they do.

This is borne out in some controversial but enduring research:

The symbols r and K originate in the mathematics of population biology and refer to 2 ends of a continuum in which a compensatory exchange occurs between gamete production (the r-strategy) and longevity (the K-strategy). Both across and within species, r and K strategists differ in a suite of correlated characteristics. Humans are the most K of all. K’s supposedly have a longer gestation period, a higher birthweight, a more delayed sexual maturation, a lower sex drive, and a longer life. Studies providing evidence for the expected covariation among K attributes are presented. Additional evidence for r/K theory comes from the comparison of human population known to differ in gamete production. – “Do r/K reproductive strategies apply to human differences?”, J.P. Rushton, Society for the Study of Social Biology, Fall/Winter 1988

r-strategy and K-strategy are opposite ends of the reproductive spectrum.

r-strategy is semen spraying. Get it into as many wombs as possible.

K-strategy is raising. Get semen into the right womb, which involves natural selection style choosing of a mate, and then raise the kid well so it in turn can prosper.

Across the board and worldwide, r-strategies lead to impoverishment and low intelligence, where K-strategies lead to higher levels of intelligence, health, wealth and beauty.

All men are wired for what again? The error is in the all men. Men are varied.

Good men — men with belief in life, in themselves and in doing right as a form of achieving good results — tend to use the K-strategy and aim toward marriage.

Broken men — raped men, beaten children, or just bad examples of humanity — tend to swing toward that r-strategy and justify it with some hollow self-serving logic about sexual freedom.

The same is true of women. Smart women pick partners carefully, and keep the value of their sexuality high by making it elite. They hand it out to no one except someone worthy of reproducing with. This is a zero-error strategy.

Dumb and broken women pop open the pouch for any Tom, Dick and/or Harry (sometimes simultaneously) and then try to compensate for lack of quality with quantity. They keep popping them out, and demand the rest of us treat their little idiot offspring as “equal” because that way these broken people don’t have to face their own errors.

Which kind of person are you? Basement-dweller, or future superman? Your sexual history reveals your quality. Your sexual choices reveal how much you think of yourself.

You can’t escape it.

Value and values

November 4th, 2012 by vir

The MRM is pitched to us as a battle between men and women, but really it’s a battlefield of values based on a single value.

On one side are the people who think values are arbitrary and women should be able to do whatever they want, and men should pick up the tab. On the other side is common sense.

It is common sense that traditional values originated in wisdom about the nature of reality itself. Feminists want to argue that values are “social constructs,” and that they’re arbitrary, but this denies the fundamentally practical nature of values from the past.

Right now, of course, values are fashions. Liberalism is a fashion, and it is the parent to feminism, so it’s no surprise that feminism is also a fashion. Modern people project their own behavior on the past, in order to make their own behavior seem less aberrant.

The center of this battle over values is the battle over value. The point of this battle is that there is a value to sexual selectivity if not chastity, and the cornerstone of modern feminism and liberalism is to deny any such value.

As the late (to the blogosphere) Ferdinand Bardamu wrote:

The more dicks a woman has been banged by, the less likely she’ll be satisfied by any particular one. As the number of he-rockets ravaging her she-pocket increases, her ability to bond with a man is accordingly decreased.

This clashes with the modern idea that women should not be idealized, but seen as beings with needs who can’t stop themselves. In that view, it’s acceptable that they behave like nitwits, because all we want out of them is that they be acceptable.

The ever-cheerful Athol Kay echoes this sentiment:

The fewer sexual partners a woman has before marriage the higher her marital satisfaction and the sexual satisfaction she has within marriage. You very much want your wife to sexually imprint on sex with you and completely bond to you. The sex is just going to be that much better over the long term. Not to mention no other ex-lovers lurking on Facebook, sexual diseases, bad experiences and regrets to worry about. The harsh truth to the modern hook up girl is that yes indeed every time you sleep with another man, you damage your long term wife potential. Plus the best predicator of future behavior is past behavior and highly promiscuous women before marriage are probably far more likely to cheat on you during marriage.

But how can this be? Our enlightened modern society teaches us that these are all lifestyle choices, and that we shouldn’t find a woman delectable because she’s virginal.

In fact, you’ll hear this from a lot of people: virgins are bad in the sack. Virgins are nervous and a mess. Stay away from virgins, you want someone just short of hooker.

The sexperts at the newspapers and high-ranked blogs will also rave on and on about “sexual experience” and pity those who are virgins, or condemned to date them.

There’s a simple explanation for this: they’re justifying their own choices. They settled for the girl with more than few dents, and now they want you to do the same.

In their distracted little brains, that validates their own choice, even though you have no intention to make any comment on their choice pro or con.

Many of them are even trying to use the moment to brag. “Yo, bro, you don’t want to be with a virgin. Trust me, I’ve had a million girls, and virgins are the absolute worst.”

If you were going to divide humanity by how stable they are, you’d probably have feminists, internet braggers, government experts and newspaper sex columnists on the side marked UNSTABLE. Everyone else goes in the ark.

Values of the past are not based on religion. They’re not arbitrary. They’re based on common sense, which includes basic economics. That which gives itself away too freely has no value. That which gives itself once has actual value.

Modern men are just beginning their backlash against feminism. They haven’t yet figured out that feminism naturally and inevitably arises from liberalism (heck, even the French did it back in their 1789 revolution). They haven’t yet understood what a Men’s Rights Movement would look like.

But slowly, values are changing. We went off on a bender with liberal values, and it created hell. Now we’re trying to retrace our steps, and find a path to not just “acceptable,” but actually good.

Feminism beats the men’s rights movement

September 8th, 2012 by vir

Several years ago, a small group of writers began warning the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) that it was trapped in paradox. In its effort to find a way to beat feminism, it had become feminism, and as a result, its efforts would collide with one another.

At that time, the MRM was divided into several groups: the leftist Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) who essentially wanted equality for men, the rightist MRAs who wanted complementary gender roles for men and women, the Game/Pickup Artist (PUA) community, the Men-Going-Their-Own-Way (MGTOW) community, and various splinter groups, some demanding truly radical solutions.

The observation that the MRM had no direction because its members could not agree on some direction in common was greeted with denials. How could this be so, they said, since the goal was in the title of the movement, Men’s Rights? But this ended up being self-serving for those who were essentially repeating feminist dogma: make us all gender-equal, and everything will be just fine.

An underlying problem here is that people repeat what they are told. They often do not realize this, because they have come to believe what they were being told was universally accepted, and thus was an assumption upon which we proceeded and not a conclusion in itself. This is how you brainwash a society. Convince them that “everybody knows” that something is true, and none will dare deny it.

This is designed to obscure what people have known for time immemorial, which is that the interaction between the genders is more complex than a simplistic concept like “equality”:

Masculinity and femininity are complementary opposites. That which is not masculine is feminine, and vice versa, such that a completed whole emerges only through the two parts.

When you think about it this way, the masculine and feminine roles are different approaches that balance each other and by doing so, enhance each other’s understanding of the other. Additional complementary opposites: hot/cold, dark/light, smart/dumb, fast/slow, wet/dry.

Complementary opposites are a product of a relative universe. To know what is hot, you must know what is cold, because without the other to define it in contrast, neither term means anything. If you lived in a climate where the temperature was 80 F year-round, you probably would not think of hot and cold as terms to describe a day.

This was what the best authors in the MRM offered up years ago. Most people, brainwashed into the social-symbolic consensual reality of modern media and status-climbing oversocialization, couldn’t accept this. It was simply too far from what their TV, politicians, friends, advertising, books, magazines, movies, pop stars, academics and comedians are all parroting, which are uncountable variations on the party line.

Naturally, ignoring a problem only makes it stronger. It owns you because you ignore it, and because instead of acting on what you need to act on, you’re chasing illusions or hiding from the ignored problem. It is not surprising that as a result, the “man-o-sphere” (which is not actually a ben-wa ball but sounds like it) has imploded.

And then there are the PUAs and Gamers, about whom this will be the last time I write, or that will ever again appear in an article on this site. They are comprised mostly of men who bear the deepest afflictions of a fatherless culture. Abandoned to feminist governance by their male elders and bereft of masculine guidance, they have been dropped into the solipsistic void that was the only existence feminism ever could have offered them outside direct servitude. Stripped of values and consciousness and the ability to be circumspect, they have turned feral; so unable to form community or embrace brotherhood that they have shrugged off the desire for either.

They never had a chance. They are the walking wounded; the children left behind from a sexual war in which their fathers refused to fight. I have been personally wrong to have engaged in conflict with them when I could have, should have, been working harder to provide them an alternative.

The very expression, man-o-sphere, implicitly paints an image of connectivity; of shared purpose and identity. Aside from distaste for feminism, which anyone capable of critical thought will share, there is no real or abiding connection; no universality or even commonality, and that lacking manifests in how we tear ourselves, and each other, down, and always have.

The point he makes is a good one: men are being destroyed in this country.

They are being destroyed by legislation, by the unstable social climate, by the ruin of the family and by a culture that is increasingly hostile not only to the needs of men and boys, but to what they offer.

It would prefer women that it can mould into obedient citizens, and make them feel proud of themselves for having cash incomes. (It’s not prostitution if you do it behind a desk, and only occasionally use your genitals in that pursuit.)

While the man-o-sphere was playing around trying to invent feminism for men, the real story that went untold — a story that the MRM should have had front and center, for its vast importance — was the ongoing and increasing marginalization of men:

The new service-based economy rewards communication and adaptation, qualities that women are more likely to have. Only about 3% of men have taken over raising children full-time while their wives support their families. Instead, many men, especially young ones, have retreated into a world of video games, drinking and prolonged adolescence—a phenomenon identified in “Guyland”, a 2008 book by an American sociologist, Michael Kimmel.

But what happens to men has great consequences for women, and vice versa. Many poorer women who are not well educated are forgoing marriage, believing that a man is simply a drag and an additional mouth to feed, Ms Rosin argues. Educated, wealthier women, on the other hand, are experiencing more fulfilling relationships in which they share responsibilities with partners as each takes up slack at different times. She calls these “seesaw marriages”. One result of women’s rise is that men have more retirement income, better health and happier marriages.

What any functional men’s movement — and let’s not kid ourselves, “men’s rights” is dead because it’s too confused to find its own hindquarters at twilight — needs to do is first find a definition of masculinity. It then needs to defend that definition and nurture it.

If you demand “rights” and “equality,” you’re imitating the feminists, who wanted a “Robin Hood” style program of taking from the stronger sex (men) and giving to the weaker sex (women). Feminism for men ends up being feminism. You agree with them that you want equality and then, because men are perceived as stronger, that becomes more subsidies for women.

The root of the man-o-sphere’s problem in finding a direction was the paradox of its outlook. To have a movement for men, you need to go against the biggest social trend in history. This trend has dominated the past 200 years. It is the notion that every person is equal, which means entitled to exactly the same things and interchangeable roles. This means women must act like men and vice-versa.

Bucking this trend scared the MRAs so much they backed down fast and got neurotic quickly. They wanted to act for men, but not in a way that might offend someone. Since the status quo came about by trying not to offend anyone, it was clear that the MRM was a circular firing squad which would return its members to the same condition it complained about.

Because the man-o-sphere could not stop infighting and agree on a definition of men’s needs, it quickly became irrelevant. Chattering nobodies like nothing better than the neurotic situation caused by a void of leadership. The ranks of the MRAs quickly filled with do-nothings, boys, angry divorcees looking to vent and nothing more, and so on. It all fell apart.

This is good, because now we can build a movement based on sound principles: Men and women are different. They have different needs. Society will subsidize women at the expense of men, like they attack any stronger group, in the name of “equality.” We need complementary roles so that men have a special and unique place in this society, and so that it can appreciate them again.


July 26th, 2012 by vir

We hear “do it for the children” all the time, but it seems to mean using the symbol of the children to justify what we want.

In my generation, it was the same way. Do it for the children meant make drugs illegal, stop Satanism, limit what music could be sold.

It was in fact an agenda of social control to make society more conservative, trying to un-do the 1960s legacy.

I don’t have a problem with its goals; in the intervening years, I’ve come to see how socially conservative goals are the only ones that make a happier, more stable society.

Conservative views are based on ends, liberal views are based on means. A conservative views the eternal, permanent and truthful as most important; a liberal views the novel, temporal and immediate as most important.

These two splits correspond to knowledge of the outside world versus knowledge of ourselves. The outside world is based on consequences, but the inner world on feelings, judgments and emotions.

Naturally, these aren’t pure categories. We must know ourselves to some degree before we think much of anything. And we can have a rich inner world without being consumed by it.

But in general, conservative views are more concerned with the end results of things, and liberal views, more with how they feel to those who must act them out.

In the grand liberalization of our society, feminism plays a major role: its goal is to make women equal to men. Since this cannot be done in results, it is done at the level of means and through compensation and subsidy like affirmative action, quotas, and penalties for men.

It has also resulted in a sexual liberation jihad which is inseparable from feminism; in fact, if you support sexual liberation, you are inherently supporting the feminist agenda.

As part of this, women have become disconnected from a role as mothers, and instead have become people of the means — people who act for their own pleasure, reward and public image only — and as a result are butchering the psyches of their children.

Looking back, I’m not quite sure when I noticed my daughter was watching the film The Parent Trap on a loop, but it definitely coincided with the arrival of my new boyfriend — the first man I’d dated properly since my divorce.

Olivia became incredibly clingy with me, even though she’d been independent and confident before. She would cry when I went on a date with Matt.

I once left dinner at his house with mascara running down my face, torn apart by guilt, feeling selfish for having a life of my own, even though the children were being babysat by their grandmother, who was spoiling them with bedtime stories, cuddles and hot chocolate. – Femail

What an epic conflict! Drama worthy of the modern woman! Did you hear her? It’s her pleasure, versus the kids. And she has chosen her pleasure.

Just as she chose divorce, her choice of pleasure is predetermined by feminism. Feminism puts the individual woman first before society, tradition or the family. Naturally, conflicts arise. When they do, the only sensible feminism act is to smash and destroy so that the individual female can be “liberated.”

If the marriage gets in your way, divorce. If the kids want a nuclear family back, smash their hopes and force your new boyfriend on them. It’s what dysfunctional families have done for centuries, only now it’s political dogma to consider it “normal.”

When you divorce, you’re sending a message to your kids. That message is: the events of your formation were wrong. We have fixed those, and now you are not a goal, but a byproduct.

Hey kids! Welcome to being pink slime, or cheese product. You’re not the main course, you’re the weird goo that’s left over. And yet this is what feminism says to all children.

Amy Sohn writes that moms in her affluent Brooklyn neighborhood are going through something called “the 40-year-old reversion.” The tedium of raising children, she says, is driving moms in her circle out at night to party to the extreme as if they were 25 again.

Sohn likens the scene to the HBO show “Girls,” which depicts life in New York for the post-college crowd: “…We’re masturbating excessively, cheating on good people, doing coke in newly price-inflated townhouses, and sexting compulsively—though rarely with our partners. Our children now school-aged, our marriages entering their second decade, we are avoiding the big questions—Should I quit my job? Have another child? Divorce?—by behaving like a bunch of crazy twentysomething hipsters. Call us the Regressives.” – CNN

What else would Mommy do, but act as self-centeredly as possible? Her kids can be so proud and can point and say, “Yep, that’s my Mom, the drunken coke-addled cougar, showing us how to live well.”

Feminism encourages it. You, the female, must always act for you. This requires the sacrifice of everything else, including your children’s need to grow up in a stable home and respect you.

In a quest to stay relevant, women have rejected the family-centric pattern of decent people. Instead, it’s all about them. Perpetual teenagers, they do whatever they have to in order to stay in the limelight.

This is the triumph of the meat-market. Instead of having roles in which we are important, we must all compete at all times to stay “relevant,” usually by whoring out our bodies:

For young adults today who were weaned on iPods and the Internet, the practice of “sexting,” or sending sexually explicit photos or messages through phones, may be just another normal, healthy component of modern dating.

University of Michigan researchers looked at the sexting behavior of 3,447 men and women ages 18-24 and found that while sexting is very common, sexting isn’t associated with sexually risky behaviors or with psychological problems.

The findings contradict the public perception of sexting, which is often portrayed in the media and elsewhere as unsavory, deviant or even criminal behavior. – CBS

Psychiatrists (who are always making broad conclusions and ten years later withdrawing them) haven’t yet found anything wrong with this, but it’s staring them in the face: it reduces people to meat.

If you aim for an eternal goal, like family and self-respect, you end up wanting to be chaste and to pick one partner that you then spend your life with. You’re not immortal, neither is she; you don’t deny that, so you plan for the whole life. And you plan for the best possible outcome, which is a family and a happily ever after. If we’re ranking life-paths A, B, C and D, having a single marriage and a single sex partner is an A+.

Your kids grow up with stability and are not neurotic. You have fewer “freedoms,” but in the place of those, you have a position of respect and purpose.

With “freedoms,” you are just another piece of meat in a world of people who act for themselves alone. Thus you must become relevant by whoring yourself, or you are forgotten.

Feminism by insisting on women placing themselves first before family has reduced women to pieces of meat, and as they contort to adapt to this, the results go from bad to worse.

MRAs, by holding up the banner of casual sex, are rejecting roles in favor of “freedoms” (means) in the exact same way feminists have. The result will be the same: alienated, shell-shocked, trustless people wandering through life, whoring for a permanent affection that will never be found.