Monday, May 9, 2016

We are 'about' what again???

This post was originally written May 2014

I want to take a minute to address a topic that has increasingly come up in the mensrights subreddit, and one that is increasingly getting play elsewhere in the MRM.  The subject known as 'Gender Roles'.  Over and over again I hear 'MRAs' complaining about traditional gender roles, and how the MRM is 'about' abolishing them somehow.

I lay the blame for this square at the feet of two entities: klootoyou, and Paul Elam.  This is not because they did anything in particular, but because these two folks had/have control over the widest read aspects of certain portions of the Manosphere - the mensrights subreddit, and A Voice for Men respectively.  And both of them seem to have missed a fundamental truth: we cannot criticise others for behaviour we ourselves engage in, there is no compromise with evil, and hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter who engages in it.

Strong words, I know.  It's a personal failing.

But I meant it.  Paul, I think, learned a Wooly lesson in this regard.  I think Kloo, as well, might be a tad horrified at what has become of his creation.  And even if not, the point of this article is still relevant to a potential future, not only for those sites, but the Mens Movement as a whole.  The general point to be made, is that adopting the frame of reference of your ideological opponent virtually guarantees you'll be fighting at a disadvantage.  There was a time when this tactic was advantageous as well as necessary, but no more.

We are at risk of losing the window of opportunity we are currently presented with.  And wilful ignorance and ideologically hidebound behaviour are what are killing us.

This goes back to the old Game argument, along with the circular firing squad we usually form.  I hope to convince more people that for God's sake, just fucking read something for yourself for once, would you?  Sorry, did the frustration come out there?

There was once a time when Game meant PUAs bent exclusively on picking up women.  Sure.

There was also a time when the Mens Rights Movement was equally focussed on a narrow portion of what it is now working on.  Do I need to say more?

Ok, fine then.  Many of the Philosophically minded among us often make reference to The Art of War and knowing the enemy and shit...but display precious little actual knowledge of anything but spoonfed shibboleths, first by Feminist society, then by MRAs.  FAR too many 'MRAs' parrot talking points they barely understand, let alone grasp the theory and reality behind.  This is inevitable in any popular movement, sure, but in this case, it is encouraged and furthered by much of the 'establishment MRM'.

The rabid anti-Game response among many MRAs has not been lost on our opponents, as is evidenced by the regular posts/comments/articles bemoaning being associated with Game Theory, the Manosphere , etc that are transparent attempts to drive wedges between the factions involved.  Guys like Keyster might have experience with past PUA shysters, they might be on a mission from God to stamp out PUAs as a social scourge.  But they are also exactly like Inquisitors in the middle ages, stamping out BadThink wherever it crops up.

This is the source of my personal severance with the website A Voice for Men, frankly, and it has spread among the MRM so pervasively, I have essentially stopped calling myself an MRA out of disgust.  This is not because I disrespect many of the people involved.  It doesn't mean I disrespect or even dislike Paul either.  And in fact I greatly respect the man and hope to have a beer with him in Detroit this summer (after all, he owes me a couple).  I like Paul on a personal level quite a bit.

But I can't countenance throwing away the work of so many MRAs like he has done and is continuing to do.  It's a fixable problem, but it requires actually making an effort to fix it.

I will demonstrate why Game is important in any MRAs bag of ammo:

Take the issue of 'Traditional Gender Roles'.  What are they?

Ok, the male one we object to so much at least...

Well, tall dark and handsome are niceties women insist on, but they aren't really a 'Gender Role' in the traditional sense.  Let's focus on 'Provider, Protector, Stoic, hyperagent' type stuff.

Who forces men to be providers?  Ok, more to the point (since no one forces men to be a the State), why is providing a male 'gender role' as opposed to a female one?  Well, because women sexually select for the providers, because they naturally like not having to work hard for the niceties in life if they at all can.  Men would do this in a heartbeat if they could.  But they can't.  It is the fact they can't, that makes this a 'gender role'.

Ok, protector.  People say this is because men are bigger and stronger.  Well, I'm 5'7", and weigh considerably less than a lot of women I see, so I am free of this role, right?  Nope.  This is because I am a man, and am expected to help.  By who?  Women.  Why?  Because for eons, men would help a woman in distress fairly automatically, it's a pretty natural assumption.  So natural, in fact, that the notion men may stop giving a shit about women is the most attention grabbing aspect of this movement.

So, legitimate 'gender role'?

Let's momentarily move on to the other two, 'stoic' and 'hyperagent'.  Who expects men to be stoic?  Well, everybody, right?

Uh, no.  How many of you men have had the 'I love you man' conversation when really drunk with a good friend?  How many really involved conversations about relationships, women, marriage, prospects in life, fear, etc, have you men had in your lives?  I've had plenty.  Men do this all the time, to the point where women jealously refer to 'bromances', it's so common.

Men are not expected to be stoic by society.  They are expected to be stoic by women.  Why?  Because it is something that women tend to find attractive.  The guy who shuts up and gets things done instead of endlessly whining about it is infinitely more attractive to women.  Gee, I wonder why?

Bosses likewise prefer someone who shuts up and gets to work, to someone who endlessly creates drama and a poisonous office environment with constant complaining.

But men have the close friendships that women are typically 'secretly' jealous of because men have literally no one else to talk to.  And all of this pivots on a simple fulcrum: women are not attracted to whiners.  This 'gender role' is no such thing, it is merely a code of conduct at the office, and a sexual hurdle in the home.  It is female sexual preference, and not a lot more.  Because a genuine Gender Role(tm) would mean men would not tolerate non-stoicism in men either, and it's plainly obvious this is not the case - considering the existence of the MRM and bromances the world over.

Hyperagency is another aspect of the elephant we attempt to describe.  It is well known, even among MRAs, that roughly all women are chasing after the top 20% of men.  Sure, the metric used to determine that 20% varies slightly by woman, but anyone who has exposure to the exhaustive list many young women have for 'the perfect guy' can see quite a few items pop up consistently.  It's a truism in the Mens Movement, one based on significant evidence, that women simply don't notice the existence of a good portion of men.

So naturally, the men they focus on, the ones they are attracted to, the top 20%, seem incredibly capable.  They likely ARE incredibly capable, frankly.  The kicker though, is that if women are only paying attention to the cream of the crop, and thus generalize those traits to men in general, it would naturally follow that it would be 'common knowledge' men are hyper capable.  We know this as the Apex Fallacy.

If true, this would mean that as women are freer to choose their sexual mates, without needing to secure commitment first, the common understanding of male agency becomes increasingly skewed.  The longer women are socially permitted to YOLO their way from man to man in search of 'Mr Right (perfect)', the more likely they are to either believe all men are able to accomplish incredible things, or all men are losers and why can't she find the 'average' guys she hears about all the time?

I dunno, you read any "where have the good men gone?" articles lately?  Anything about women having increased expectations or being unhappier these days?

Let's go back to that 'protector' bit again.  Why are men expected to protect women, and were they really for true always expected to do this?  Yes and no.  As Typhon and GWW have often made plain, the protector role used to be largely restricted to protecting you and your own.  A man could reasonably be expected to protect his wife and children, his family, at the least.  The case might even be made for friends.  It is only when men began to be driven from the family that it became important to browbeat men into 'social responsibility' (gee, sounds Marxist).

So what do we have there, one legitimate Gender Role (protector), one sexual selection criteria (provider), and two effects of self selection in perception (stoic, hyperagent).  And the question remains, how exactly would an MRA 'end' any of this?  When we are 'about ending gender roles', what exactly are we saying, do you think?

We are saying effectively the exact same thing Radical Feminists say, when they bitch and complain about Frat Boys and Rock Stars only finding younger hotter tighter attractive, and not their corduroy wearing asses.  It is every bit as much railing against human nature, and every bit as butthurt pathetic.

A few years ago, Paul and I and a few other guys explored a concept called Zeta Masculinity, in an attempt to formulate a coherent response to the situation men are in.  A scaffold to hopefully hang a coping strategy on, and eventually a means to success.  It might horrify some of those involved to now hear that the Red Pill subreddit has taken up that challenge.  But the MRM abandoned it long ago, so stop complaining.

I encourage MRAs to read Game Theory websites like Rollos, and Dalrock's, and Roissy's.  Return of Kings is now where A Voice for Men was a few years ago, and if kept in that light, it is also a good source of learning what modern Red Pill theory is all about.

The best professor I ever had, would say the same phrase at the end of every class.  "Don't let Colloge interfere with your Education".  The MRM could use such kinds of advice.

Affirmative Consent

This blog post was originally written in August, 2014.

So, as of this writing it hasn't been signed into Law, but it looks like California is going to pass the Affirmative Consent law.  Quite a few people have expressed alarm over the implications of this law already, and I'm sure there's more to come, but I'm not one of them.

I know, weird.  Allow me to explain.

First off, the gist of the law in question:

Every 'stage' of sexual contact must be agreed to clearly ahead of time, any touching at all without express permission constitutes sexual assault.  Further, this consent can be revoked at any time at least during, possibly even after any contact.  Revocation of consent does not have to be communicated.  Instead, if there's any 'confusion', everything stops until clear verbal consent is again given.

It is also plain the accused is guilty until proven innocent, since the revocation of consent does not have to be proven...the continued existence of consent does.  So, the RadFems got their legal definition of 'all heterosexual sex is rape' after all.  Color me surprised.

Oh, and this is all with a Preponderance of the Evidence standard, no right to representation for the accused, indeed no right to see the evidence gathered against you, and no protection from public exposure.

Sounds pretty damned scary doesn't it?  Well, if Gerry Brown signs that document, returning and Freshman University students will be facing this environment in a few days.

And I hope he signs it, I truly do.  And here's why:

Not one sane man in California is going to attend college this September.  Those with the means will instead go to out of State universities, and those without the means will put off their education for one year.  To do anything else would be outright suicidal.

But some men will go anyway.  The True Believers will go.  The blase will go, thinking themselves immune from disaster.  The Male Allies will go.  Basically, the people propping up this ridiculous Politically Correct Totalitarian State will attend, to support the cause, to show they are good little citizens, or to show they really are above 'all that'.  Sadly, the uninformed men will attend as well.

In a Just world, those men unaware of the legal minefield they are enrolling in would be made aware as soon as possible.  And I believe a good portion of those men are going to hear the warnings, and educate themselves, and comport themselves, accordingly.

The remainder will wilfully remain ignorant.

I predict an absolutely massive drop in male enrollment in California schools this fall, just because this law got this far.  Even if it doesn't pass, the disparity in education in California will grow massively.  If it does, I fully expect well over half of the men currently enrolled will not be showing up for class any time soon.  And don't count on many applications from men any time soon either, Dean-O.

To me, this is a fantastic activism opportunity for MRAs, doubly so if the law is enacted.  And all we have to do is simply tell the public what the law says.  Tell men what they face, and cite the actual law.  Maybe throw in a quote or two from legislators saying they have no clue how an accused could prove consent.  It's sure to make an impact.

The silver cloud in the lining, is that the only men to be hurt by this are White Knights, True Believers, and the wilfully ignorant....all of whom have no one to blame but themselves.

Why should this law go into effect?  Not because it will help lawsuits.  On the contrary, it will make such lawsuits impossible.  This law should go into effect because they have finally, FINALLY gone so far over the top the damage they cause cannot be denied.  That, and the fact this will push so many men so far away from women in general women will have no choice but to finally open their mouths and speak up, makes this a watershed moment in the Mens Movement.

Am I crowing over the corpses (figuratively) of the men mowed down by this travesty of law?  That depends.  If it's some guy who simply had no option, had to attend a CA school, and had to do it this year, then no.  Ditto if it's a guy who genuinely had no idea.  But if it's some dude thinking himself immune?  Or a white knight?  Fuck no, I don't feel bad at all.

SO here's what I suggest.  We need to tell the young men of California what is what with the Law.  We also need to demand mandatory 'rape education' sessions include an accurate representation of the law to the young men they speak to, and detail the full scope of their rights.

As Carnell Smith says, we need to allow them to take full credit for their actions.  We need to broadcast their accomplishments as far and wide as we can.  We owe it to the young men of California.  We owe it to the legacy of the people who made all of this happen.

I'm sure it will look fantastic on them.

Friday, February 14, 2014

I want to tell you a story...

A few years ago, I was occasionally employed as what is known as a 'photographer's assistant'.  A better term might be 'sherpa'.  But I'll get to that.

The particular job in question involved a commercial/industrial shoot in the far north of Saskatchewan, my home Province.  Mining is a huge industry here, employing thousands, thus the annual reports and advertising images are important.

This particular job, I was mostly loading film in the helicopter while the photographer was hanging out the door, feet on the rails, while we banked so a straight down shot could be taken.

Some of this work involved going underground, though.  What this meant, was getting into a small steel 'box' with 7 other guys, with no light other than one man's headlamp (those lamps on the helmets of the guys in coal mining pictures), and swapping places with a giant bucket of slag in a 2.5km trip into the bowels of the Earth.  The 10 minutes or so you are travelling undergound with almost no light, it's hard not to fixate on the fact that you are in a box at the end of a mile and a half long cable, with a mile of air beneath you, and no brake system to save you if things go pear shaped.

Friday, January 31, 2014

The protective instinct

I just watched the movie 'Homefront', the storyline of which is geared straight into the heart of Divorced Dads everywhere.  Jason Statham plays a Widower (I guess that's the easy way to explain why Dad has custody) who is an ex-DEA agent with a Death Warrant hanging over his head, and that of his 10 year old daughter.

I mean, what guy like me wouldn't love this storyline.  Normally quiet and reserved (yet ruggedly handsome and intriguingly single) Dad is up against a gang of Bad Guys threatening the only thing in his life he cares about....his daughter.  Of course Badass Dad triumphs, and the trepidation on his daughter's face saves the life of a somewhat in-over-his-head baddy in the end.

Just like any narrative that appeals largely to men.  We like to think we are protective of our families.  Especially so when 'family' is largely a matter of imagination in the first place.

I have no real idea of what it is like to raise teenagers, for example, even though my daughters are late teens / early 20's now.  I am, in fact, a Grampa as of a few days ago, to be honest.  But whenever I see this kind of movie I eat it up.  It's like a surrogate form of parenthood.

My youngest daughter doesn't speak to me anymore, maybe that's why I usually picture her in the 'Damsel in Distress' role in these father/daughter dramas (It's a psychological thing older daughter, don't be jealous).  It seems to me maybe that's the purpose of these films, to re-awaken that protective instinct in men that have had it beaten out of them.

In this movie, the only adult woman portrayed in even a moderately congenial light has about three lines (and is amazingly attractive...that hair, never been attracted to that before...).  All the other women are utterly reprehensible.  Almost as if they were taken from the worst stereotypes of women the Manosphere complains about, x10.

And this leads me to Hollywood extending an Olive Branch in times like these?  And if so....why?


I've been having more and more discussions with Atheists about this whole God thing, and I've found the typical assumption is anyone pro-Christian is obviously a Bible Thumping Zealot.  And I think that's fucking ridiculous.  It's reductio ad absurdum, or whatever.

Here's the thing.  I'm one of those newly convinced guys, after looking into this stuff more out of interest in the story and my typical love for conspiracy theory type stuff.  I've also seen more than my fair share of Biblical quotes in the Manosphere drawing parallels to Game Theory, as well as a virulent, almost rabid hatred of anything Christian both in the general culture and more specifically (and more vitriolically) from 'Atheists'.

Now, before I go on, I should point out why I put Atheists in scare quotes just then.  It comes from my (admittedly rudimentary) knowledge of Satanism.

You see, Satanism is publicly a mockery of the very idea of religion itself.  The basic precept of Satanism, is that there is no Satan to worship.  Nor is there a God.  therefore, do as thou wilt.  Because after this, there is nothing, no punishment, no reward, no afterlife at all.

Sound familiar?

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Just Who The Fuck Do You Think You Are?

His face was beet red.  This wasn't bullshitting me, he was genuinely angry.  My roommate really was kicking me out.

"I don't want to come home to some kind of mess.  You're really selfish.  How could you do that to me, to the people who care about you?"

It wouldn't be the last time I heard those things.  Nearly everyone that remained in my admittedly shattered life said pretty much the same thing.  And reacted in much the same way.

They ejected me from their lives.

My own father committed suicide when I was eighteen, and I remember feeling these exact same feelings, blaming him for taking the cowardly way out, for not thinking what it would do to me, his son he barely knew.  Since then, I have heard many times how mental illness runs in the family, how suicide can be 'contagious', all of it, really.

And as the child of a suicide victim, a man who was removed from my life and remained broken from that time until his death, I have seen this rationalization used many times.  As the mantra goes these days, correlation is not causation, and here it applies beautifully.  This is a moral resting stop, not an answer. 

Like most who end up in Hospital for self harm, I have struggled for years, decades really, with depression.  For the longest time I thought I was the wimp I was told I was for being so 'weepy' (morose really, since I never cried).  The 'fact' that I was never going to amount to anything became a self fulfilling prophecy, in many ways.

Like many depressives who believe they don't deserve good things, I had a tendency to self destruct whenever things started looking up.  I still, to this day, actively reject women who openly express interest - in an unthinking, kneejerk sort of way - likely out of some misplaced self preservation mechanism.  I have developed all sorts of weird habits over the years of isolation and depression that make it a little harder to re-acclimate to 'normal' society.

This made me a somewhat difficult person to know, to say the least.

Monday, January 13, 2014

New Slang, just for giggles.

Translate penises had by the female in question to 6 inch segments, then translate the number of feet into a typical boat.  eg.  "a skiff of penii", or as someone on TRP just said, 'she just bought a Yacht!'...

Thursday, January 9, 2014

The Manosphere in Geek Terms.

I just had a short exchange on reddit with a guy, where I explained my idea of the whole MGTOW 'definition', and it got me into an analogy I would like to share here if anyone is interested.

When I was a kid, like a lot of average guys my age, I played a game called 'Dungeons and Dragons' with my friends.  What the game was and how it works isn't really all that important here, but the system it used called 'alignment' is.

Actually, I guess some explanation is really necessary, so for the vast majority of you who know this already, slide on past the explanation if you like.  D&D is a Role Playing Game (or RPG) where the player assumes a persona, and 'plays that character'.  This meant a means of quantifying such nebulous characteristics as 'is this person a good person?  What is 'good' to you?' etc, had to be employed.

Saturday, January 4, 2014

I'm stealing this....

A commenter by the tag of 'Badpainter' leaves what I would class as an Epic Comment over at Dalrock's:

Ok, I’m a recovering nice guy beta currently going through the angry, cynical stage of readjustment. While I have to accept responsibility for all the decisions that got me here, I can’t help but note I am the product of lies.

I have been told my entire life that by virtue of being white, straight, and male that I am by default a racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, entitled, bigot, and potential rapist. I was told I don’t, can’t, and won’t be able to understand the plight of others because of my privilege, and unfair advantages. I was told repeatedly by teachers, clergy, politicians, and cultural elites the my life has no meaning unless it in service to others, the nation, the poor, a wife, my parents, my church, or my community, my employer. Never was it suggested my life was to be in service of myself, any suggestion that I would pursue personal goals not in service to someone or something else it was an indication of selfishness  or greed. I was told that I am expendable, disposable, and infinitely replaceable.  I am to provide service but never expect it returned to me.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Feminism, Fascism, tow-may-tow, tow-mah-tow

So it turns out Lenore Zann, a Nova Scotia Member of the Legislative Assembly (that's Provincial Law writing levels of power - and Provincial Law can actually override the National Constitution in Canada) used to be an actress.  Seems she did a part on "The 'L' Word" where she did some nude scenes.

Seems a 17 year old tweeted a link to a screencap from said INTERNATIONALLY TELEVISED program.

Seems the aforementioned MLA had said 17 year old put under investigation for 'cyberbullying', under new legislation introduced under the auspices of a manufactured moral panic over Retah Parsons.  Problem, reaction, solution: now, tweeting an image grabbed from a televised program, then getting pissed off at being put under investigation for it is an Indictable Offense (meaning jail time is possible).

And they didn't even wait for the Law to come into effect before attempting to use it to extend even more State power over our lives.

This Law was never put into place out of good intentions.  This Law was put into place to do exactly as this POLITICIAN is doing.  To intimidate and oppress.

Anyone in the Manosphere thinking this WON'T be swiftly applied to MRAs and the like is free to try and say it with a straight face.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

MRm! Magazine Anthology

Hi all.  I just posted the (almost) complete collection of articles from MRm! Magazine up on Scribd:

Here's the blurb:

A (nearly) complete collection of every article run in MRm! Magazine, in the order in which they appeared. Spanning some year and a half, these articles bracket the advent of the Manosphere, and the term 'Red Pill'.

Please do me a favour and pop a link up to it on your websites...?

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Satanic memes.

Seems to me that Feminism has encouraged women to take on the ethos of the Little Horn, as quoted from Anton LeVay Alister Crowley: Do As Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Seems to me men can, and should, answer with another Satanic quote:

Non Serviam.

Friday, August 16, 2013

And now, the PUAs...

The other day I wrote a fairly long post which addressed a part of future strategy recommendations and included a fairly strong diatribe admonishing MRAs for being so closed minded about PUAs and Game Theory.  I also pointed out the extremely useful aspects of Game Theory, and how it translates to the Political stage nicely.

In this post, I would like to address PUAs and Game Theorists.  Firstly, I would like to ask one simple question:  Are you fucking crazy?

Seriously, I can't think of a more likely group to fall afoul of the Feminist Police State than the aspiring PUA (experienced playas usually know how to navigate the shoals).  Why the Hell would you denigrate and ostracise those who are trying to let you know what dangers you are exposing yourself to?  It's the figurative equivalent to getting pissed off at the guy warning you of the deadly rocks below, because it fucked up your chance to impress the hotties with your cliff diving skills.

It is impossible to argue the MRM and Game Theory and all the rest aren't irrevocably intertwined as it is, let alone as it should be.  We use the same damn lexicon for the same concepts, we share the same opinion of our sociopolitical opponents, we face the same accusations of misogyny and are routinely lumped in together.

And the best I can tell, both groups are trying to dissociate from the other out of fear of 'looking bad'.

And that is fucking pathetic.

It's pathetic that MRAs are afraid of being tainted with the smell of unapologetic male sexuality, and it is equally pathetic that PUAs fear the association of actually giving a fuck about anything male related will lead to a pussy drought.

Sure, you might have contempt for the 'losers who can't get laid', and I fully acknowledge there are a lot of MRAs that can't.  A whole lot in fact.  If this differs from the general male population, I'll eat my own shoes, but sure I'll stipulate to that.  And you may even be narcissitic enough to let men you could help flounder so it makes your pickins easier.  But to contend that MRAs are somehow 'bitter losers' based on their (presumed) appeal to women is to utterly ignore the vast majority of neophyte PUAs are there *precisely because they can't get laid, and want to learn how*.

Chew on that one for a while.  The average PUA board is FAR more likely to be full of dweebs who can't get laid than an MRA board, simply because PUA boards are *about improving your success with women*.

So, like I said to the MRAs the other day, stop being such fucking hypocrites and grow the fuck up.  As a society, we are dealing with some pretty disabling shit, both socially and legally.  Each of these two 'movements' have much to contribute to the other, and the circular firing squad's utility is fast diminishing.

We can watch it all go to shit, or we can at least try.  Stop being afraid of looking bad for once, would you?