I'd say it was more decent than I expected, though I definetly see a lot less lights up this year, it would figure that people have a lot less to cheer about this year. Well, without the bad times, we wouldn't recognize/appreciate the good times.
I believe that even if you are in the trenches fighting the good fight, or simply in this when you have the time for it, you should maintain a disposition to enjoy yourself when you can, let the stress and distress leave you for a day, it'll feel so much better in the future.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
-AmStrat
Friday, December 25, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
A Downright Decent Post by Zed.
That's right, Zed, I'm capitalizing your name, even if you don't.
For a bit of background, Zed is one of the most-first writers on MRAesque musings I've ever read. Having a site on geocities for a while, which I can no longer find, I believe he went into semi-retirement from posting for a while. Well, he writes magnificent posts on The Spearhead now.
To put it in context, this is in the comments section of a piece title "Think Twice, Young Man," about how young Men should be warned about the dangers of marriage (divorce, etc.) like they are warned about the most obvious and painful possibilities of all things (perhaps being killed if you enlist in the Military for example). A troll showed up and attempted to strike a few nerves, large amounts of posts were used to refute her arguments and insult. THEN a poster comes in playing the triangulation card, after admitting to skipping the first 40 or so posts, at which Zed comes in and explains something everyone should hear. Clicking the link I just made out of the word "Triangulation" will explain what it is and why it's illogical, thank you PMAFT.
zed December 9, 2009 at 11:18 am
Then you missed most of the point.
We’ve been living through a remarkable social transition, which has left a debris field of broken families and damaged institutions miles wide in its wake. “Marriage” as a social institution has probably been damaged beyond repair and in 20 more years there will probably be little left which people who came of age before the 1990s would recognize.
I think the “provider” role for men is another casualty. The last vestiges of it are being desperately pursued by the family court system, but no police state which is not also a theocracy has ever been able to maintain the degree of social control which would be necessary to keep men trapped in that old provider role while at the same time allowing women to do whatever they want.
The most likely scenario for the immediate future will probably be usage and counter-usage as both sexes continue to try to get what they want out of the other while at the same time giving the minimum possible in return. It’s something of a relationship “arms race” which neither side can really win. Strategies for “Smart Hookups” will probably see-saw back and forth with each sex having a few months advantage from an innovation until the other sex comes up with a counter-measure.
Through it all I think you can expect to see relations between the sexes continue to degrade as both sides react to being used by members of the other with loss of trust and willingness to give another the chance to use them again. There will be a lot of “collateral damage” as members of both sexes who are not taking part in the cycle of usage and manipulation nonetheless find their pool of potential mates more and more polluted by the exploitation by other members of their own sex.
Regardless of what anyone reading this thread does, people are going to end up drawing their own conclusions from their own life experiences. Those who see working and relatively happy marriages around them will likely continue to believe in marriage and try it themselves. Those who see little besides carnage are unlikely to be convinced that they have much chance of their experience being different.
Through it all, you are going to hear more and more from men like the ones you refused to read here. The entire gender dialogue has been very one-sided for the past few decades as women’s subjective experiences suddenly got elevated to the most significant thing in the world, and men’s subjective experiences were denied, refuted, or simply dismissed as being due to “bitterness and anger.”
I realize that it is quite threatening to most women that their hegemony over the gender dialogue is about to end, but part of the reason for that is because they have worn out all their tools which have worked so well to silence men for so many years. As you have seen here, a large and growing number of men no longer care in the least what women think of them, and see women like Lady Raine and Amanda Knox as the prototypes for contemporary womanhood.
Survival amongst enemies requires a certain set of skills and attitudes which men are adopting. The choice of whether to adopt them or not is based on the individual man’s belief about which will insulate him best from loss. If he regards women as probable net losses, he will regard them as something he needs to protect himself from. If he regards a realtionship with a woman as a probable net gain form himself, he will likely take the risk while doing whatever he can to minimize that risk.
Where the eventual balance point will be reached as far as percentage of men who view women as a net loss versus net gain is anyone’s guess.
But, whatever that percentage is, unless the ratio is similar among women, and for every man who is just totally burned out on women there is a Lady Raine to offset him in the population, it is likely that a substantial number of people who might like to have mates will not end up finding one.
I boldened part because I can't take anyone seriously who skips anything that still has a grain of reasoning in it. feminist hate-speech, sure, because it tells you nothing and doesn't provide evidence. When these things known as "feminists" DO post something attempting to reason, it's usually easy enough to spot out of the fat and gristle of curses and shaming language anyway.
Zed often has a few grizzly predictions of the future, but this one speaks to me. It reminds us that no matter how powerful we are or become, we can't avoid this fate entirely. To put it in imagery; We are climbing a steep incline, and Zed has shown us where the boulders will fall. We cannot stop these boulders, they are already set in motion, it is too late we are "water balloons and they are tons of rock, but we can dodge them as best we can, or MGTOW and find another Mountain entirely. The point is, people are right now, at this very minute, living their lives in the squalor prequelling this, and their attitude will be nigh unchangeable after being wronged as such.
For a bit of background, Zed is one of the most-first writers on MRAesque musings I've ever read. Having a site on geocities for a while, which I can no longer find, I believe he went into semi-retirement from posting for a while. Well, he writes magnificent posts on The Spearhead now.
To put it in context, this is in the comments section of a piece title "Think Twice, Young Man," about how young Men should be warned about the dangers of marriage (divorce, etc.) like they are warned about the most obvious and painful possibilities of all things (perhaps being killed if you enlist in the Military for example). A troll showed up and attempted to strike a few nerves, large amounts of posts were used to refute her arguments and insult. THEN a poster comes in playing the triangulation card, after admitting to skipping the first 40 or so posts, at which Zed comes in and explains something everyone should hear. Clicking the link I just made out of the word "Triangulation" will explain what it is and why it's illogical, thank you PMAFT.
zed December 9, 2009 at 11:18 am
You know, I stopped reading the comments at about entry 40, because I just couldn’t process the anger, bitterness, and self-righteousness.
Then you missed most of the point.
We’ve been living through a remarkable social transition, which has left a debris field of broken families and damaged institutions miles wide in its wake. “Marriage” as a social institution has probably been damaged beyond repair and in 20 more years there will probably be little left which people who came of age before the 1990s would recognize.
I think the “provider” role for men is another casualty. The last vestiges of it are being desperately pursued by the family court system, but no police state which is not also a theocracy has ever been able to maintain the degree of social control which would be necessary to keep men trapped in that old provider role while at the same time allowing women to do whatever they want.
The most likely scenario for the immediate future will probably be usage and counter-usage as both sexes continue to try to get what they want out of the other while at the same time giving the minimum possible in return. It’s something of a relationship “arms race” which neither side can really win. Strategies for “Smart Hookups” will probably see-saw back and forth with each sex having a few months advantage from an innovation until the other sex comes up with a counter-measure.
Through it all I think you can expect to see relations between the sexes continue to degrade as both sides react to being used by members of the other with loss of trust and willingness to give another the chance to use them again. There will be a lot of “collateral damage” as members of both sexes who are not taking part in the cycle of usage and manipulation nonetheless find their pool of potential mates more and more polluted by the exploitation by other members of their own sex.
Regardless of what anyone reading this thread does, people are going to end up drawing their own conclusions from their own life experiences. Those who see working and relatively happy marriages around them will likely continue to believe in marriage and try it themselves. Those who see little besides carnage are unlikely to be convinced that they have much chance of their experience being different.
Through it all, you are going to hear more and more from men like the ones you refused to read here. The entire gender dialogue has been very one-sided for the past few decades as women’s subjective experiences suddenly got elevated to the most significant thing in the world, and men’s subjective experiences were denied, refuted, or simply dismissed as being due to “bitterness and anger.”
I realize that it is quite threatening to most women that their hegemony over the gender dialogue is about to end, but part of the reason for that is because they have worn out all their tools which have worked so well to silence men for so many years. As you have seen here, a large and growing number of men no longer care in the least what women think of them, and see women like Lady Raine and Amanda Knox as the prototypes for contemporary womanhood.
Survival amongst enemies requires a certain set of skills and attitudes which men are adopting. The choice of whether to adopt them or not is based on the individual man’s belief about which will insulate him best from loss. If he regards women as probable net losses, he will regard them as something he needs to protect himself from. If he regards a realtionship with a woman as a probable net gain form himself, he will likely take the risk while doing whatever he can to minimize that risk.
Where the eventual balance point will be reached as far as percentage of men who view women as a net loss versus net gain is anyone’s guess.
But, whatever that percentage is, unless the ratio is similar among women, and for every man who is just totally burned out on women there is a Lady Raine to offset him in the population, it is likely that a substantial number of people who might like to have mates will not end up finding one.
I boldened part because I can't take anyone seriously who skips anything that still has a grain of reasoning in it. feminist hate-speech, sure, because it tells you nothing and doesn't provide evidence. When these things known as "feminists" DO post something attempting to reason, it's usually easy enough to spot out of the fat and gristle of curses and shaming language anyway.
Zed often has a few grizzly predictions of the future, but this one speaks to me. It reminds us that no matter how powerful we are or become, we can't avoid this fate entirely. To put it in imagery; We are climbing a steep incline, and Zed has shown us where the boulders will fall. We cannot stop these boulders, they are already set in motion, it is too late we are "water balloons and they are tons of rock, but we can dodge them as best we can, or MGTOW and find another Mountain entirely. The point is, people are right now, at this very minute, living their lives in the squalor prequelling this, and their attitude will be nigh unchangeable after being wronged as such.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Equality Redux, by Novaseeker
Novaseeker may not be one of my original inspirations, but he's definetly an asset to hang on to once discovered. His realism and sensibility are hard to match, and the fact that he can put MRA in a religious perspective is a plus (Most of what I see is from Atheists or those who just avoid a religious context, that is, how to fight for Men's rights when you come from a white-knighting, collaborationist church). One of his few weaknesses is that he can be too pessimistic of the future. This piece itself speaks to me, there's no new content for myself, but it connects dots and puts things into words I had trouble with. Without further intro, I present Novaseeker's "Equality Redux"
This is a post I made on my blog several months ago, which I am resurrecting because it may be of interest to readers here.
Equality.
We often hear from feminists and their supporters that this is the goal of the feminist movement: true, full equality between males and females, and full freedom for all, in all walks of life. While I do not doubt that some of the Marxist radicals of the 60s and 70s honestly believed that feminism was aimed at bringing about equality for all, clearly feminism-in-fact — that is feminism as it has developed over the past few decades — has neither brought about, nor been terribly focused on, equality.
Oh? How can you say that? Haven’t women made great “gains” over the past few decades? Surely this brings about more equality?
It’s true that women have made gains in educational access and the workforce. But even these gains are quite revealing, in terms of new inequalities that feminism has instituted:
Women outnumbering men in college admissions and graduations, based on girls outperforming boys in elementary and secondary schools
Women having parity or majorities in all academic disciplines other than the STEM subjects, a disparity which is now the focus of measures to adjust it, while areas of female advantage and, in fact, domination, are ignored
Women virtually always obtaining custody of children in divorces, even in cases where their husbands have been the primary care-giver
Numerous fields being completely female-dominated (nursing, psychology, social work, primary and secondary education, numerous academic disciplines), with feminism not expressing any interest in adjusting such inequalities
And that leaves aside the substantial inequalities around reproduction that effectively give women totalitarian power over the means of reproduction, sidelining men as having only the decision as to whether to contribute sperm — so far, yet that right may itself be eradicated at some future point, in the interests of women and society, under some predictions.
What happened here? Why did feminism not succeed in its utopian goal of achieving “equality” between men and women?
The issue was that academic and radical activist feminism had to, at some point, come to terms with the concerns of women as a whole — and women as a whole had largely different interests from the academic and radical activist feminists. While the radicals and the academics sometimes talked about getting rid of female privilege (saying things such as “a pedestal is a small space”), this was never taken seriously by women as a whole, because the wider world of women had no interest whatsoever in shedding female privileges. Why would they? As Chinweizu points out in “Anatomy of Female Power”, these privileges and ideas were the ones that helped women control men behind the mask of patriarchal power and privilege. So, in fact, women as a group took a “cafeteria” approach to what feminism offered — taking what they wanted, and resisting what they did not want.
In effect, this meant that women accepted the gains women made in the areas of educational access, workforce presence and earning capacity, sexual freedom, reproductive power and so on — while resisting, tooth and nail, the abolition of any of the traditional female privileges (courtship and dating privilege, sexual power, military draft exemption, day to day deference, general conceptions of women being more moral, upstanding, empathetic, kind and so on, privileges around children). So, in effect, what happened was that the feminist leaders learned that women, as a whole, were interested in advances for women (as were the feminist radicals), but were not interested at all in giving up their traditional privileges. And so, in order to remain politically relevant for women, feminism largely confined itself, beginning in the 80s, to advancing the interests of women, rather than even attempting to achieve actual equality between men and women.
Because of that, we see the women’s groups thoroughly disinterested in the advantages women have over men outlined above. Where women are ahead, feminism defends the status quo, while where women are behind, feminism demands changes to ensure parity or better for women. The end result is that women will have parity in some fields, and domination in others … while men will have at best parity, and in many areas relegation to minority status. This is not only the case on the university level. It’s also happening in the workforce and the society in general. Women choose the fields they wish to focus on, and then they tend to dominate them. Men are increasingly relegated to the kinds of work women do not want to do — work that is either physically demanding, dirty and dangerous, or involves less life flexibility or longer working hours. And as between what was, prior to second wave feminism, the male sphere and the female sphere — women have consolidated their stranglehold over the female sphere while aggressively colonizing the male sphere … again leaving men with no space of their own, while reserving for women a huge space where their power is absolute.
In effect, one can say that when feminists speak of “equality” what they mean is equality in what was previously the male space. The female space was, by contrast, shored up by laws supported by feminism — laws covering the areas of marriage, divorce, child custody, child support, sexual harassment, and even domestic violence and rape, have all been altered in ways that decisively shift the power balance in any area relating to relationships, sex, marriage and children to women in a very substantial way. Equality was not the goal for the female space, but only for the male one. The female space, and female hegemony over it, was reinforced and substantially buttressed by feminist legislation, whereas the previously male space has been aggressively colonized, and it remains a key goal of feminists today to take over the highest echelons of power in the previously male space — again leaving men with nothing, no place where their power even comes close to the kind of total power women have over the female space.
Women may object, saying that they would be happy to cede a good amount of control over the female space to men in the name of equality, but this rings false. Even leaving aside the more controversial areas of rape and domestic violence law, family law indicates that this is simply not the case. There have been numerous cases noted by observers where a breadwinner mother and a stay at home father have divorced, yet the mother still insisted on mother custody, and succeeded in obtaining it in court. Even in cases where men are actually providing the main child care effort, courts, backed by feminist-inspired laws, award custody to mothers — ensuring that the power of women over children and divorce is absolute in nature.
This is hardly equality.
In fact, it’s female supremacy over all places where men and women interact relationally, combined with female colonization of the previously male space. It isn’t equality in any reasonable construction of the word, but an absolute power gain for women, at the expense of men, who are to be left with no space of their own, and a relegation to second class status in the female space as well.
In closing, I’ll note that it’s quite telling how this overall trend manifests itself in contemporary culture. Some of my readers may recall that feminists spent a lot of time and energy in the 80s and 90s eliminating male-only spaces, claiming the exclusion of women was discriminatory. Well, things in our species have a way of coming full circle. The recent trend of women’s only hotel floors — the creation of the type of sex-specific spaces that feminists so recently dismantled, when men were the “permitted” sex — almost perfectly demonstrates how feminism, and women more generally, are totally uninterested (in fairness, at least one feminist objected to these arrangements, but most women do not) in equality or exclusions, when men are the ones who are excluded or disadvantaged. Rather to the contrary, the movement today is simply about empowering women full stop, and if men suffer as a result of that, men be damned.
Posted at The Spearhead
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/05/equality-redux/
This is a post I made on my blog several months ago, which I am resurrecting because it may be of interest to readers here.
Equality.
We often hear from feminists and their supporters that this is the goal of the feminist movement: true, full equality between males and females, and full freedom for all, in all walks of life. While I do not doubt that some of the Marxist radicals of the 60s and 70s honestly believed that feminism was aimed at bringing about equality for all, clearly feminism-in-fact — that is feminism as it has developed over the past few decades — has neither brought about, nor been terribly focused on, equality.
Oh? How can you say that? Haven’t women made great “gains” over the past few decades? Surely this brings about more equality?
It’s true that women have made gains in educational access and the workforce. But even these gains are quite revealing, in terms of new inequalities that feminism has instituted:
Women outnumbering men in college admissions and graduations, based on girls outperforming boys in elementary and secondary schools
Women having parity or majorities in all academic disciplines other than the STEM subjects, a disparity which is now the focus of measures to adjust it, while areas of female advantage and, in fact, domination, are ignored
Women virtually always obtaining custody of children in divorces, even in cases where their husbands have been the primary care-giver
Numerous fields being completely female-dominated (nursing, psychology, social work, primary and secondary education, numerous academic disciplines), with feminism not expressing any interest in adjusting such inequalities
And that leaves aside the substantial inequalities around reproduction that effectively give women totalitarian power over the means of reproduction, sidelining men as having only the decision as to whether to contribute sperm — so far, yet that right may itself be eradicated at some future point, in the interests of women and society, under some predictions.
What happened here? Why did feminism not succeed in its utopian goal of achieving “equality” between men and women?
The issue was that academic and radical activist feminism had to, at some point, come to terms with the concerns of women as a whole — and women as a whole had largely different interests from the academic and radical activist feminists. While the radicals and the academics sometimes talked about getting rid of female privilege (saying things such as “a pedestal is a small space”), this was never taken seriously by women as a whole, because the wider world of women had no interest whatsoever in shedding female privileges. Why would they? As Chinweizu points out in “Anatomy of Female Power”, these privileges and ideas were the ones that helped women control men behind the mask of patriarchal power and privilege. So, in fact, women as a group took a “cafeteria” approach to what feminism offered — taking what they wanted, and resisting what they did not want.
In effect, this meant that women accepted the gains women made in the areas of educational access, workforce presence and earning capacity, sexual freedom, reproductive power and so on — while resisting, tooth and nail, the abolition of any of the traditional female privileges (courtship and dating privilege, sexual power, military draft exemption, day to day deference, general conceptions of women being more moral, upstanding, empathetic, kind and so on, privileges around children). So, in effect, what happened was that the feminist leaders learned that women, as a whole, were interested in advances for women (as were the feminist radicals), but were not interested at all in giving up their traditional privileges. And so, in order to remain politically relevant for women, feminism largely confined itself, beginning in the 80s, to advancing the interests of women, rather than even attempting to achieve actual equality between men and women.
Because of that, we see the women’s groups thoroughly disinterested in the advantages women have over men outlined above. Where women are ahead, feminism defends the status quo, while where women are behind, feminism demands changes to ensure parity or better for women. The end result is that women will have parity in some fields, and domination in others … while men will have at best parity, and in many areas relegation to minority status. This is not only the case on the university level. It’s also happening in the workforce and the society in general. Women choose the fields they wish to focus on, and then they tend to dominate them. Men are increasingly relegated to the kinds of work women do not want to do — work that is either physically demanding, dirty and dangerous, or involves less life flexibility or longer working hours. And as between what was, prior to second wave feminism, the male sphere and the female sphere — women have consolidated their stranglehold over the female sphere while aggressively colonizing the male sphere … again leaving men with no space of their own, while reserving for women a huge space where their power is absolute.
In effect, one can say that when feminists speak of “equality” what they mean is equality in what was previously the male space. The female space was, by contrast, shored up by laws supported by feminism — laws covering the areas of marriage, divorce, child custody, child support, sexual harassment, and even domestic violence and rape, have all been altered in ways that decisively shift the power balance in any area relating to relationships, sex, marriage and children to women in a very substantial way. Equality was not the goal for the female space, but only for the male one. The female space, and female hegemony over it, was reinforced and substantially buttressed by feminist legislation, whereas the previously male space has been aggressively colonized, and it remains a key goal of feminists today to take over the highest echelons of power in the previously male space — again leaving men with nothing, no place where their power even comes close to the kind of total power women have over the female space.
Women may object, saying that they would be happy to cede a good amount of control over the female space to men in the name of equality, but this rings false. Even leaving aside the more controversial areas of rape and domestic violence law, family law indicates that this is simply not the case. There have been numerous cases noted by observers where a breadwinner mother and a stay at home father have divorced, yet the mother still insisted on mother custody, and succeeded in obtaining it in court. Even in cases where men are actually providing the main child care effort, courts, backed by feminist-inspired laws, award custody to mothers — ensuring that the power of women over children and divorce is absolute in nature.
This is hardly equality.
In fact, it’s female supremacy over all places where men and women interact relationally, combined with female colonization of the previously male space. It isn’t equality in any reasonable construction of the word, but an absolute power gain for women, at the expense of men, who are to be left with no space of their own, and a relegation to second class status in the female space as well.
In closing, I’ll note that it’s quite telling how this overall trend manifests itself in contemporary culture. Some of my readers may recall that feminists spent a lot of time and energy in the 80s and 90s eliminating male-only spaces, claiming the exclusion of women was discriminatory. Well, things in our species have a way of coming full circle. The recent trend of women’s only hotel floors — the creation of the type of sex-specific spaces that feminists so recently dismantled, when men were the “permitted” sex — almost perfectly demonstrates how feminism, and women more generally, are totally uninterested (in fairness, at least one feminist objected to these arrangements, but most women do not) in equality or exclusions, when men are the ones who are excluded or disadvantaged. Rather to the contrary, the movement today is simply about empowering women full stop, and if men suffer as a result of that, men be damned.
Posted at The Spearhead
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/05/equality-redux/
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving!
To everyone who celebrates it, and even those who don't (in which case, I hope you at least have an above average day).
To tell the truth, I've never really like the blog-reading aspect of holidays. Why? Because like this post, most posters are out doing their thing, which is fine, but it is really boring when everyone does it on the same day. No new news, no new discussions, more or less all the new posts merely wish "Happy/Merry".
I suppose I am selfish, I love reading everyone else's pieces... at least those that are in the least bit coherent (this cuts out almost all pro-feminism posts), but I don't in particularly enjoy writing down things.
Part of it is because if most of what I want to write is what I just read, because it's brilliant, or it makes sense, or maybe it can help someone in some way.
The other part is because I'm driven mad by repetition. How is this repetiton? Well, I already KNOW what I'm going to write, so when I'm writing it, and necessarily RE-writing it, that's a lot of repetition. Even twice is quite a bit for me. If I hear a story or funny joke, I can repeat it once, but if someone's walking into the room just as it ends, I'm NOT the one telling them that same story or joke. Just my personality I guess, that doesn't mean it is insurmountable though.
I'm finding this to be good writing exercise though, not to say I'm a bad writer, but I'm needing less and less revision as I continue, which can only be good. From here on, I think I'll aim at posting every Saturday.
Which reminds me, the reason I started this blog, even though I've been reading MRA/MGTOW blogs for a long time now, is because of a blog named "What Men are saying about Women"
The author was at the time concerned with little exposure or growth in similar blogs. He understood he had many readers, but none of them would then spread the message. He ran a rally for some of his readers to start blogs of their own, and only one or two answered. I can't find this post, because Christian J. is the opposite of me. I do a post every 30 days, he does 30 posts a day (or did for a while, anyway, and I'm going to boost my number). In case you are wondering, or your name is Christian J. I started one because of that post, but didn't reply. I don't know why I didn't.
The hierarchy of MRA "action" for me goes like this.
Doing absolutely nothing -> Only reading the ideas -> Reposting the ideas (AKA, whining to those who actually act) -> organizing actions -> carrying out said actions.
I've seen some transcendence in the past year. I believe Counter-feminist went from just being an influential blogger to actually organizing to save his fellow man, ala Kevin Driscoll
I've also seen some bloggers go "ghost". I don't know if they still read or if they are just doing "nothing" related. Some still post on other blogs, but a lot less than when they ran their own blogs. I look forward to when I begin working into actual actions, words can be powerful and encourage action, but I can't really feel I've been the change I seek in this world (citing Ghandi on that one) unless I actually do something. When will that be? Good question. All actions need strategies, and all strategies deserve plans. I'm planning now so I'm not actually HARMING my own cause.
Well, as said earlier, Happy Thanksgiving, I understand there will be others who will rather read in their off time than be missing all day. Don't get me wrong, I have plans, but not for every minute tomorrow (today).
To tell the truth, I've never really like the blog-reading aspect of holidays. Why? Because like this post, most posters are out doing their thing, which is fine, but it is really boring when everyone does it on the same day. No new news, no new discussions, more or less all the new posts merely wish "Happy/Merry
I suppose I am selfish, I love reading everyone else's pieces... at least those that are in the least bit coherent (this cuts out almost all pro-feminism posts), but I don't in particularly enjoy writing down things.
Part of it is because if most of what I want to write is what I just read, because it's brilliant, or it makes sense, or maybe it can help someone in some way.
The other part is because I'm driven mad by repetition. How is this repetiton? Well, I already KNOW what I'm going to write, so when I'm writing it, and necessarily RE-writing it, that's a lot of repetition. Even twice is quite a bit for me. If I hear a story or funny joke, I can repeat it once, but if someone's walking into the room just as it ends, I'm NOT the one telling them that same story or joke. Just my personality I guess, that doesn't mean it is insurmountable though.
I'm finding this to be good writing exercise though, not to say I'm a bad writer, but I'm needing less and less revision as I continue, which can only be good. From here on, I think I'll aim at posting every Saturday.
Which reminds me, the reason I started this blog, even though I've been reading MRA/MGTOW blogs for a long time now, is because of a blog named "What Men are saying about Women"
The author was at the time concerned with little exposure or growth in similar blogs. He understood he had many readers, but none of them would then spread the message. He ran a rally for some of his readers to start blogs of their own, and only one or two answered. I can't find this post, because Christian J. is the opposite of me. I do a post every 30 days, he does 30 posts a day (or did for a while, anyway, and I'm going to boost my number). In case you are wondering, or your name is Christian J. I started one because of that post, but didn't reply. I don't know why I didn't.
The hierarchy of MRA "action" for me goes like this.
Doing absolutely nothing -> Only reading the ideas -> Reposting the ideas (AKA, whining to those who actually act) -> organizing actions -> carrying out said actions.
I've seen some transcendence in the past year. I believe Counter-feminist went from just being an influential blogger to actually organizing to save his fellow man, ala Kevin Driscoll
I've also seen some bloggers go "ghost". I don't know if they still read or if they are just doing "nothing" related. Some still post on other blogs, but a lot less than when they ran their own blogs. I look forward to when I begin working into actual actions, words can be powerful and encourage action, but I can't really feel I've been the change I seek in this world (citing Ghandi on that one) unless I actually do something. When will that be? Good question. All actions need strategies, and all strategies deserve plans. I'm planning now so I'm not actually HARMING my own cause.
Well, as said earlier, Happy Thanksgiving, I understand there will be others who will rather read in their off time than be missing all day. Don't get me wrong, I have plans, but not for every minute tomorrow (today).
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
On the Importance of Firebrands
I believe I actually wrote this several weeks ago in Markymark's Thoughts, in response to some of Christopher in Oregon's comments, alongside some comments that he may be scaring away valuable allies from our side. Well, any good strategist can see the benefits of all his members/contributors/allies, and I think that we should at least acknowledge the good. I would've posted this earlier, but certain circumstances prevented it from happening.
--------
---------
I believe that even if we were all opposed to Chris (and I'm not), he wouldn't go away, nor stop what he's doing. Chris isn't the only one either, we have some real power in some of our more extreme members who are defending our positions and changing minds in ways and places we haven't seen. I'd like to personally thank all who bring our side together, and vanguish our foes. Whether we like it or not, they're there, and they do what they do, if you knew you were on the right side, you wouldn't change your position just because of a fellow member's more aggressive stance, would you?
--------
I think it's time I commented on Chris.
"The mere presence of heroes can break the chains of destiny" -forgot who said it.
I don't disagree with Chris, I also have my differences in opinion with him, however, if he is who I have observed him to be, he won't care either way.
As you will note, Chris writes and comments a bit more "polarized", some would call it radical, but his accessions appear to come from his own heart/mind, if they WERE based on pure anger, there would be few crannies where his alleged anger's persuasion wouldn't influence. As such, I have seen a couple to a few areas in which he is unparticipated to the extremity of "hatred of women" or any other controlling viewpoint.
However, don't let that fool you, he is a firebrand, some of his words can burn. Some of the more "moderate" in our ranks would see him as overdoing it.
Any movement needs its firebrands though, and I believe Chris to be one of the stronger. One of his qualities is the fact that he hasn't "burned himself out", thus he is not consumed with all-controlling hatred. The reason (I view) that feminists can go on for years hating men is because they have constant repetition from others, and even hypnotic effects from "classrooms" to change who they even are. That and I suppose most Women are predisposed to holding onto every grudge, whereas Men tend to let go easier.
What if Chris isn't in "the movement", you say? We are all in the movement, even those not reading this, never been to MarkyMark's Blog, or even heard of anti-feminism. Your futures intersect into the sphere of the ongoing and upcoming battles ahead, even the MGTOWs and Ghosts who've taken the greatest of care removing themselves from the system. They've done their part, and continue to do A part in this world against feminism whether they see, notice, or want to or not. If you don't have a plan, assuredly you will be in someone else's plan.
Chris' part is fairly natural to him, he educates and influences. The more moderate who would never dream of saying such things subtly get a bit more shifted across our side of the line. It's very subtle because even if they are opposed to such descriptions, they now are more familiar with them, they are no longer alien, and maybe, just maybe, they are a little more acceptable.
Another aspect would be that a lot of people, even on our side, don't like being on the "extreme". Even if your view is currently "moderate", imagine if you lived in an alternate world where most things are the same, but the most extreme our side would get is what qualifies for "moderate" here. They would feel that "maybe I could be wrong, I AM being as far from the opposite side as possible, maybe I should give in MORE", not so much for their opponent, but for themselves, uncompromising behavior broods feelings of self-viewing tyranny in some. They would never feel on the side of Justice. Some who don't like being on the edge, to be the most extreme of a group, no matter what they personally believe, can point the ACTUAL extreme to others and feel relieved. Relieved to themselves that being on the "inside" makes them more benign, more understanding, and yet they keep their position. Our side doesn't backtrack a step.
I have considered the possibility of firebrands scaring away newer recruits, and I have a lot to say on that, perhaps in the future.
I can sing many people's praises, and that would not mean I admire them most, nor should any care for my admiration, I am a mere Amateur and a contest of internet popularity only ends poorly, I will say one more thing of Chris, however.
He is like a Master Monk, a Martial Artist. They have very powerful blows that they pull right out of any stance. Yes, many new Martial Artists who come with strength already can put up nearly that kind of power, but they haven't learned how to without exhausting themselves. The Master understands the need to simultaneously relax and yet be alert, even in the middle of a fight. It is unwise to completely tense up and stay that way until the end, you lose all your energy and you did nothing with it. I see Chris' ability to constantly vigil, and effortlessly respond, yet keep his own distance as a clear indicator of a fortified individual and personality.
I think we all have a part in this, even on the local level, but sometimes; even the little things can spread to affect the global atmosphere.
As I said, I don't agree with Christopher from Oregon on everything, and we even differ on KEY ISSUES, in some spheres, he may even be my opponent. But that is what makes us individuals, our differences, and to roll with the energy from your allies (even if they are only allies in just a few spheres) is a Grand Strategy for Success.
---------
I believe that even if we were all opposed to Chris (and I'm not), he wouldn't go away, nor stop what he's doing. Chris isn't the only one either, we have some real power in some of our more extreme members who are defending our positions and changing minds in ways and places we haven't seen. I'd like to personally thank all who bring our side together, and vanguish our foes. Whether we like it or not, they're there, and they do what they do, if you knew you were on the right side, you wouldn't change your position just because of a fellow member's more aggressive stance, would you?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Last day of August
August has come and gone, and with it some of my more time-restricting activities, I'll have more time to write now, but most of it will be spent reading, absorbing, and planning.
So much has happened I didn't get to comment on, nor does it feel all the proper to when so much has been explored already. It'd be "beating a dead horse".
So be on the lookout for my September posts on new things, and the most basic things we can't ignore!
-Amateur Strategist.
So much has happened I didn't get to comment on, nor does it feel all the proper to when so much has been explored already. It'd be "beating a dead horse".
So be on the lookout for my September posts on new things, and the most basic things we can't ignore!
-Amateur Strategist.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Feminism Vs. Men's Rights
It was my pleasure to catch this at Counter-Feminist a few days ago (I think), Anyway, it just goes to show how experienced our veteran thinkers are. The Logic is so simple, yet indesputable, I hope to come up with thesis(es) half as good as this in the future.
I believe it's important for all of us to realize first and foremost our purpose, and our reason for being. Afterall, to use an analogy, the best way to bring down a tree is not to cut the branches from the top down, but to strike it's core, it's trunk. I think our core-reasoning is that trunk, and the more we realize how necessary our actions are, the more powerful and strengthened the rest of our efforts will become.
Whether MRA, FRA, or MGTOW, or even PUA we can all see that our rights are important to us, and we'll need to act, to argue, to vote, to FIGHT to keep our rights.
EDIT: This video is originally made by Factory, of "Hunting for Archtypes" fame, which was then watched (repeatedly) by Counter-Feminist and then transposed into text on Counter-Feminist's Blog. I'm just spreading the word, as the basics are always the most important.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Learn something everyday
Hello, friends, today I was reading Markymark's comments (that is, comments from others in MM's posts), when a post by Novaseeker struck me.
Novaseeker said...
Groups like the Amish and the Hasidim work precisely because they are small, isolated groups who do not seek to change the broader culture (because they can't), but rather simply isolate themselves from it to the greatest degree possible.
I'm not saying that doesn't work for the people who are in those groups, but it needs to be remembered that (1) these groups have very old traditions (which is much of what gives them their power within their groups), and are not trying to break new ground in the current setting and (2) while this may work for a limited number of men/women, it will not change the culture as a whole at all.
So, to be honest, while that may be a solution for some men and women, it is simply that -- a personal solution. It is, in effect, a way of devising a coping mechanism for avoiding the current system, rather than trying to find a way to fix the system -- precisely because it seeks to live in isolation from the system. In that respect, it is like any of the other strategies that men are adopting to adapt to the current system, which these guys all basically dislike for varying reasons: (1) PUAs who work the system for personal gain, (2) ghosts who avoid the system and go their own way, (3) MGTOWs who may have relations with women but try to do so in a way that is independent of the system and (4) your own proposed isolated community idea, which also seeks to live outside of the system.
All of these are legitimate responses, but none of them is an adequate criticism of MRA/FRA. MRA/FRA is actually trying to engage and change the system, whereas the rest of these are coping strategies for dealing with a system which is admittedly bad for men (and women).
07 July, 2009 10:35
It reminds me precisely about one's main goal; is it to actually CHANGE the way things are? Or do you believe such doing is folly and suicidal, and you want to avoid the fallout? More comment on my personal view on this later.
Novaseeker said...
Groups like the Amish and the Hasidim work precisely because they are small, isolated groups who do not seek to change the broader culture (because they can't), but rather simply isolate themselves from it to the greatest degree possible.
I'm not saying that doesn't work for the people who are in those groups, but it needs to be remembered that (1) these groups have very old traditions (which is much of what gives them their power within their groups), and are not trying to break new ground in the current setting and (2) while this may work for a limited number of men/women, it will not change the culture as a whole at all.
So, to be honest, while that may be a solution for some men and women, it is simply that -- a personal solution. It is, in effect, a way of devising a coping mechanism for avoiding the current system, rather than trying to find a way to fix the system -- precisely because it seeks to live in isolation from the system. In that respect, it is like any of the other strategies that men are adopting to adapt to the current system, which these guys all basically dislike for varying reasons: (1) PUAs who work the system for personal gain, (2) ghosts who avoid the system and go their own way, (3) MGTOWs who may have relations with women but try to do so in a way that is independent of the system and (4) your own proposed isolated community idea, which also seeks to live outside of the system.
All of these are legitimate responses, but none of them is an adequate criticism of MRA/FRA. MRA/FRA is actually trying to engage and change the system, whereas the rest of these are coping strategies for dealing with a system which is admittedly bad for men (and women).
07 July, 2009 10:35
It reminds me precisely about one's main goal; is it to actually CHANGE the way things are? Or do you believe such doing is folly and suicidal, and you want to avoid the fallout? More comment on my personal view on this later.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Brilliant post by Black Sea
As a quick intro, I was reading at Whiskey place (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3893665144141962944&postID=4615454965905533997) and a dispute began about JUST HOW MANY Sex partners does the average young Woman have these days? Well, Black Sea breaks it down and gives some good points: (Mostly I want to reference this later, and hate losing posts to obscurity)
Black Sea said...
I'm not nearly as statistically inclined as many of the commenters here, so my observations will have to be more hypothetical or anecdotally driven, but this topic does interest me.
From what I can gather, for middle class, suburban reared, university educated women with some career orientation and -- more importantly -- the income to support a single's lifestyle, "normal" expectations would involve becoming sexually active in high school, having an active sexual/romantic life through most of ones 20s, then getting serious about settling down around the age of 28. Bear in mind, that doesn't mean getting married at 28, but rather, making the psychological transition toward getting married, so that one might actual snag a suitable fiance before the dreaded three-oh. And this is for the more realistic ones, who realize that their market value will diminish rapidly in their 30s.
Let's assume that such a woman first has sex at age 15, that she remains monogamous in every long-term relationship that she considers serious, and that in her own mind, she's leading the normal life of an educated young woman in your typical metropolitan area.
Let's further imagine that she is not particularly promiscuous, and between the ages of 15 and 28 she has four "serious", long-term relationships, which average a duration of 1.5 years each. Thus, within those serious relationship phases, she has four sex partners, over a total of six years. The end of each of these relationships constitutes something of a psychological trauma for her, since she was seriously bonded to each of these boys or men, even if she is ultimately the one who initiated the break up.
Let's then consider her seven "off-years" during which she may be dating guys for a couple of months here, a couple of weeks there, and a few one night stands in between. At other times, and for considerable periods, she is more or less celibate. Let's say that during the off years, she averages only three sex partners per year. Hardly "sluttish" by today's standards. Indeed, almost virginal as compared to "Sex and the City."
Neverthless, such a woman will, by the age of 28, have accumulated a total of 25 sex partners, and will have undergone at least four difficult, emotionally traumatic break-ups (she may have become pretty attached to several of the two or three month boyfriends as well). Furthermore, there could well be a pregnancy (aborted) and an STD thrown into the mix.
So now she's 28. After all of this, she's going to form a durable, powerful bond with a normal man, not an actor or professional athlete, or multi-millionaire, or whatever? And that bond is going to sustain her and her spouse through 40 to 50 years of marriage?
Almost all of her experience, from childhood really, has taught her that relationships are fragile and temporary, that men, or at least exciting, attractive men, are not to be trusted, and that when lovers quarrel, or grow bored, or meet someone newer and more interesting, the relationship ends. This has been her life since she was a teenager.
We rarely consider the extent to which the "rules of the game" are laid down for us between the ages of 12 and 25, when we really come into self-awareness, and ultimately, into adulthood. One of the first things I observed when I began dating in high school was that girls from divorced homes were somehow different, both quicker to go to bed and, ultimately, angrier toward men.
Such a woman as I've imagined above (even if not a child of divorce) is going to have to overcome and awful lot of engrained expectations to make a durable marriage with anyone, and the resultant divorces and prolonged, or lifelong, unmarried status of many can hardly be surprising.
Eventually, even romantics grow wary of hot stoves.
June 28, 2009 10:40 AM
Truly good stuff, if I may comment, it seems to put things in perspective for even the "best case scenario" when it comes to most American Women (really, it might as well be "all" with those odds). With the spread of STDs and the whole psychological support (or in this case enfeeblement) for long term relationships, well... How is this going to work?
Black Sea said...
I'm not nearly as statistically inclined as many of the commenters here, so my observations will have to be more hypothetical or anecdotally driven, but this topic does interest me.
From what I can gather, for middle class, suburban reared, university educated women with some career orientation and -- more importantly -- the income to support a single's lifestyle, "normal" expectations would involve becoming sexually active in high school, having an active sexual/romantic life through most of ones 20s, then getting serious about settling down around the age of 28. Bear in mind, that doesn't mean getting married at 28, but rather, making the psychological transition toward getting married, so that one might actual snag a suitable fiance before the dreaded three-oh. And this is for the more realistic ones, who realize that their market value will diminish rapidly in their 30s.
Let's assume that such a woman first has sex at age 15, that she remains monogamous in every long-term relationship that she considers serious, and that in her own mind, she's leading the normal life of an educated young woman in your typical metropolitan area.
Let's further imagine that she is not particularly promiscuous, and between the ages of 15 and 28 she has four "serious", long-term relationships, which average a duration of 1.5 years each. Thus, within those serious relationship phases, she has four sex partners, over a total of six years. The end of each of these relationships constitutes something of a psychological trauma for her, since she was seriously bonded to each of these boys or men, even if she is ultimately the one who initiated the break up.
Let's then consider her seven "off-years" during which she may be dating guys for a couple of months here, a couple of weeks there, and a few one night stands in between. At other times, and for considerable periods, she is more or less celibate. Let's say that during the off years, she averages only three sex partners per year. Hardly "sluttish" by today's standards. Indeed, almost virginal as compared to "Sex and the City."
Neverthless, such a woman will, by the age of 28, have accumulated a total of 25 sex partners, and will have undergone at least four difficult, emotionally traumatic break-ups (she may have become pretty attached to several of the two or three month boyfriends as well). Furthermore, there could well be a pregnancy (aborted) and an STD thrown into the mix.
So now she's 28. After all of this, she's going to form a durable, powerful bond with a normal man, not an actor or professional athlete, or multi-millionaire, or whatever? And that bond is going to sustain her and her spouse through 40 to 50 years of marriage?
Almost all of her experience, from childhood really, has taught her that relationships are fragile and temporary, that men, or at least exciting, attractive men, are not to be trusted, and that when lovers quarrel, or grow bored, or meet someone newer and more interesting, the relationship ends. This has been her life since she was a teenager.
We rarely consider the extent to which the "rules of the game" are laid down for us between the ages of 12 and 25, when we really come into self-awareness, and ultimately, into adulthood. One of the first things I observed when I began dating in high school was that girls from divorced homes were somehow different, both quicker to go to bed and, ultimately, angrier toward men.
Such a woman as I've imagined above (even if not a child of divorce) is going to have to overcome and awful lot of engrained expectations to make a durable marriage with anyone, and the resultant divorces and prolonged, or lifelong, unmarried status of many can hardly be surprising.
Eventually, even romantics grow wary of hot stoves.
June 28, 2009 10:40 AM
Truly good stuff, if I may comment, it seems to put things in perspective for even the "best case scenario" when it comes to most American Women (really, it might as well be "all" with those odds). With the spread of STDs and the whole psychological support (or in this case enfeeblement) for long term relationships, well... How is this going to work?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Personal Improvement Log #1
This blog will also be about some personal improvement, which is mostly in the mental aspect.
This isn't to be taken as "gospel" for a healthy growth in ability, but charting what I (an Amateur in this field as well) have found to work for me, and possibly others I know who've tried it.
Our first schema: Short-term memory.
I had thought I'd start my logs with my worst vice, procrastination, but that is a LONG road to walk. One step at a time now.
I've had problems remembering things in the short-term; people's names, important numbers (parking, serial, anything I don't get to choose for a password or location), a lot of things, unless I really made an effort to repeat it at least 3 times aloud. It rarely happens to me anymore, and here is why I think that is.
I believe your mind/brain (from here on mind) is like your muscles: Parts of it are meant for certain tasks, and though you may for instance, exercise your legs/feet, it won't help your arms or trunk. Well, I think the Mind is just like that, parts are for planning, memory, logic, art, math, writing, you name it. You may be familiar with right brain/left brain writings, but I think this isn't part of that, necessarily.
A couple of years ago, I borrowed my friend's Nintendo DS, because he wanted me to try this brain training game. I got bored with all the easy math and right brain/left brain stuff in it, but then hit a game similar to this:
http://flashfabrica.com/f_learning/brain/brain.html
Same sound effects, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this were a computer trial of the game itself, but since it's in Japanese, I'll never know.
The rules are you see the numbers, and then click them in the order low to high (the game on Brain Age 1 on Nintendo DS is called "Low to High" by the way).
With each successful sweep, it'll add another number. Remember, it's not just where the 1, 2, 3 and 4 are, it could have 1, 9, 6, 4 and 3 on there and you'd have to click the right order: 1, 3, 4, 6, 9.
At first, I played it and could only get 3 numbers (on the DS, I saw this in an e-mail, and it reminded me of how much it helped), but I became slightly possessed about it, I hated losing, yes, but I could feel that something was... shall I say... waking up in my skull. I never considered myself stupid (or smart for that matter), but it's entirely possible I let an important part of my Mind slip into atrophy like this, only to be reawoken by this after several years of bad short term memory.
I started to remember people's names, and after I had trained on this every day for 3 months (I missed a couple days, but eh), I could remember people's phone numbers WITHOUT pen/paper, and without reciting it into a song/poem and reciting it 3+ times... I'd say that's progress, but I remember (haha) that I started to retain things much better.
The way I THINK it works is that this game makes you more perceptive when you decide to be. Remember, you only get 2 seconds to look at all the numbers, that's how long it takes to say someone's name. I think whatever part of your mind "opens up" to new information is exercised in this part, and the retaining part is in how well you can remember the sequence.
This was two years ago and my memory's been better since... so if you think it can help you (remember, it's not 2 straight hours of this right now and then never again, it's maybe a few minutes everyday), you may as well give the link I put up a try, it's in Japanese, but I liked hitting each bubble on the Nintendo DS better.
I'm not advocating going out and buying a video game system just for this, which is why I decided to spend a few minutes finding the "free" version, which I think gets the job done just the same. I make no guarantees, but it sure helped me, I have many of these logs to write, so this isn't a one-time thing, I hope.
One last note, the number that appears after you're "done" (when you've done 9 waves or so, I think) with each session is how old your brain is, the closer to 20 the better apparently. Just letting you know in case you think your score is getting worse with time. Also, don't let the score get you down, if anything it can show maybe that you're tired, but keep at it and you will improve!
Let me know what you think!
This isn't to be taken as "gospel" for a healthy growth in ability, but charting what I (an Amateur in this field as well) have found to work for me, and possibly others I know who've tried it.
Our first schema: Short-term memory.
I had thought I'd start my logs with my worst vice, procrastination, but that is a LONG road to walk. One step at a time now.
I've had problems remembering things in the short-term; people's names, important numbers (parking, serial, anything I don't get to choose for a password or location), a lot of things, unless I really made an effort to repeat it at least 3 times aloud. It rarely happens to me anymore, and here is why I think that is.
I believe your mind/brain (from here on mind) is like your muscles: Parts of it are meant for certain tasks, and though you may for instance, exercise your legs/feet, it won't help your arms or trunk. Well, I think the Mind is just like that, parts are for planning, memory, logic, art, math, writing, you name it. You may be familiar with right brain/left brain writings, but I think this isn't part of that, necessarily.
A couple of years ago, I borrowed my friend's Nintendo DS, because he wanted me to try this brain training game. I got bored with all the easy math and right brain/left brain stuff in it, but then hit a game similar to this:
http://flashfabrica.com/f_learning/brain/brain.html
Same sound effects, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this were a computer trial of the game itself, but since it's in Japanese, I'll never know.
The rules are you see the numbers, and then click them in the order low to high (the game on Brain Age 1 on Nintendo DS is called "Low to High" by the way).
With each successful sweep, it'll add another number. Remember, it's not just where the 1, 2, 3 and 4 are, it could have 1, 9, 6, 4 and 3 on there and you'd have to click the right order: 1, 3, 4, 6, 9.
At first, I played it and could only get 3 numbers (on the DS, I saw this in an e-mail, and it reminded me of how much it helped), but I became slightly possessed about it, I hated losing, yes, but I could feel that something was... shall I say... waking up in my skull. I never considered myself stupid (or smart for that matter), but it's entirely possible I let an important part of my Mind slip into atrophy like this, only to be reawoken by this after several years of bad short term memory.
I started to remember people's names, and after I had trained on this every day for 3 months (I missed a couple days, but eh), I could remember people's phone numbers WITHOUT pen/paper, and without reciting it into a song/poem and reciting it 3+ times... I'd say that's progress, but I remember (haha) that I started to retain things much better.
The way I THINK it works is that this game makes you more perceptive when you decide to be. Remember, you only get 2 seconds to look at all the numbers, that's how long it takes to say someone's name. I think whatever part of your mind "opens up" to new information is exercised in this part, and the retaining part is in how well you can remember the sequence.
This was two years ago and my memory's been better since... so if you think it can help you (remember, it's not 2 straight hours of this right now and then never again, it's maybe a few minutes everyday), you may as well give the link I put up a try, it's in Japanese, but I liked hitting each bubble on the Nintendo DS better.
I'm not advocating going out and buying a video game system just for this, which is why I decided to spend a few minutes finding the "free" version, which I think gets the job done just the same. I make no guarantees, but it sure helped me, I have many of these logs to write, so this isn't a one-time thing, I hope.
One last note, the number that appears after you're "done" (when you've done 9 waves or so, I think) with each session is how old your brain is, the closer to 20 the better apparently. Just letting you know in case you think your score is getting worse with time. Also, don't let the score get you down, if anything it can show maybe that you're tired, but keep at it and you will improve!
Let me know what you think!
On Shaming Language:
Hiya! It is time to discuss one of our enemy's most used and more powerful (but not most powerful) weapons, Shaming Language.
Shaming Language is any kind of insult meant to shut you up, first and foremost. It isn't to add to the discussion, it's not to explore new angles of the problem, it is to cause you shame and to cause you to give up.
Shaming Language is a very poor way to choose to "win" an argument, but it has been shown to be effective to those not expecting it, especially if they don't have a few minutes to ponder what's really going on. Remember, it doesn't add anything to the discussion, it's an assault on your character that if not prepared for, you could end up believing.
Shaming Language is really more like several types of such interjections, and it comes in all forms, both slightly flattering to you, and very very hostile, new forms are probably trying to be made everyday, but ever since it's first usage, we've been on the upperhand, countering it at every move. Our motives are just, and our movement is good, never forget what you're fighting for.
I've read many influential posts, but this is one of the most powerful I've ever read about actually taking them down, or at least one of their advantages. The link is from dumpyourwifenow.com, but it could've been from somewhere else first, I don't know, however, if the writer is who I think he is, it's meant for all to see regardless.
http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/
It's a long read, and I considered just pasting it here, but I figure things will be more manageable this way. If it disappears one day, I have a back up to make sure it survives.
Now that you've read (most or more) of it, it is time to comment:
I like how it's very specific about the direction of both incoming attack, and why it doesn't matter, how it isn't true, and the perfectly logical response to such language. It lists every tactic I've seen used in such a way, though I'd like to see them developing something against the "kindness" technique they are using; the one where (basically) they "agree" with your position, and say that we should "work together".
Make no mistake, these people are not on your side, my side, or anyone who supports the rights of Men, it's merely a way to try to get you to support their side while they give yours lip service, of course after they "allegiantly" debunk most of your serious issues and claim to support the smaller ones.
Remember, Shaming Language is something said to put YOU on the defensive, giving them the initiative. I remember reading a post that put that very eloquently, I shall try to find it for next time.
I know I can put that into better words eventually, with examples, but for now the post is going up.
Shaming Language is any kind of insult meant to shut you up, first and foremost. It isn't to add to the discussion, it's not to explore new angles of the problem, it is to cause you shame and to cause you to give up.
Shaming Language is a very poor way to choose to "win" an argument, but it has been shown to be effective to those not expecting it, especially if they don't have a few minutes to ponder what's really going on. Remember, it doesn't add anything to the discussion, it's an assault on your character that if not prepared for, you could end up believing.
Shaming Language is really more like several types of such interjections, and it comes in all forms, both slightly flattering to you, and very very hostile, new forms are probably trying to be made everyday, but ever since it's first usage, we've been on the upperhand, countering it at every move. Our motives are just, and our movement is good, never forget what you're fighting for.
I've read many influential posts, but this is one of the most powerful I've ever read about actually taking them down, or at least one of their advantages. The link is from dumpyourwifenow.com, but it could've been from somewhere else first, I don't know, however, if the writer is who I think he is, it's meant for all to see regardless.
http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/
It's a long read, and I considered just pasting it here, but I figure things will be more manageable this way. If it disappears one day, I have a back up to make sure it survives.
Now that you've read (most or more) of it, it is time to comment:
I like how it's very specific about the direction of both incoming attack, and why it doesn't matter, how it isn't true, and the perfectly logical response to such language. It lists every tactic I've seen used in such a way, though I'd like to see them developing something against the "kindness" technique they are using; the one where (basically) they "agree" with your position, and say that we should "work together".
Make no mistake, these people are not on your side, my side, or anyone who supports the rights of Men, it's merely a way to try to get you to support their side while they give yours lip service, of course after they "allegiantly" debunk most of your serious issues and claim to support the smaller ones.
Remember, Shaming Language is something said to put YOU on the defensive, giving them the initiative. I remember reading a post that put that very eloquently, I shall try to find it for next time.
I know I can put that into better words eventually, with examples, but for now the post is going up.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
About the Amateur Strategist
Such a self-doubting name, isn't it? Not necessarily so. You see, the word "Amateur", though used often in derogatory fashion, actually means "for the love of doing it" roughly. A strategist is one who thinks far ahead, and treats every action as a chain into the future, arranging those chains in such a way as to effect eachother or not, to achieve objectives that are impossible to pull of with "touching up at every seam".
I'm not necessarily saying I'm a true strategist, but one who subscribes to the disciplene of always putting logic and future-thought to the highest priority whenever an action is considered, or even just to see where something is going.
Why MRA/MGTOW? Because I believe the pendulum has gone out of shift way too far and things are in desperate need to change before totalitarianism or collapse ensue. I believe that feminism (the followers, not the leaders) thought they were getting equality, but now have kept their original rights and surpluses while removing the any responsibilities, while picking up new freedoms and positives without the counteracting negative tradeoff. What this does is put all the responsibilities on Men, and all the freedoms with Women, Men have no rights, and Women have no responsibilites, both are cause for much MUCH trouble.
When you give someone, the average person, the choice of improving their own life at the cost of someone elses, chances are they will do it. This isn't necessarily you in particular, or the incredibly pious people we know, but the average person. And if even only half choose to do so, we end up with disbalance, with haves and have-nots, not by choice, but forced onto people for no reason and order no longer rules.
I believe that feminism, and parts of traditionalism, allowed Women to ignore the original responsibilities while encroaching freely into the workplace without having to prove worth (affirmative action), so basically, Men are left with no power, and their original area, the workplace, is not disadvantaged to them point for point with Women. (I.E. a Man and Woman of equal stature, the Woman will have a better time negotiating a better position, Men only rise above this because they work even harder)
I believe the laws are so against your average Man now, that it's wisest to not be in a relationship with a Woman, due to government now somehow "owning" your relationship and making sure your soon to be ex-wife gets "her fair share", which is way more than half via alimony and child support. I believe the laws are now against Men seeing their own children or disciplining them in proper fashion and are now actually afraid of Men, thus they have to be controlled at every leypoint, and there's enough muscle in the government from old-way chivalrous judges who can't understand that things are different now, to the enforcers; police just following orders.
I will not marry, but I'm not sure if it's mostly that Women are like hand-grenades , in that the payoff is several Miles short of break-even with the most likely demise of my freedom, finance, and contentment, or if I believe I was not one to marry, perhaps a biological/Divine design that some Men would be free to produce and support society, as well as guide it. (At least until recently, more Males have been born than Females)
I've been asked why my picture is of a "Go" Board. Go is a game of strategy, so is Chess you say? I agree, I like Chess as well, but it always felt more like tactics than strategy, as you always are more keen on crushing your opponent than controlling the board, maybe I played Chess wrong, but Go makes me feel like I'm naturally planning ahead, 3 or so steps in advance (I'm not great) for every move I'd consider. Both games are great and easy to learn, but very VERY hard to master, perhaps I'll talk more of Go in later posts, but my priority is MRA.
Thanks for greeting me, all of you, it is nice to be in good company.
I'm not necessarily saying I'm a true strategist, but one who subscribes to the disciplene of always putting logic and future-thought to the highest priority whenever an action is considered, or even just to see where something is going.
Why MRA/MGTOW? Because I believe the pendulum has gone out of shift way too far and things are in desperate need to change before totalitarianism or collapse ensue. I believe that feminism (the followers, not the leaders) thought they were getting equality, but now have kept their original rights and surpluses while removing the any responsibilities, while picking up new freedoms and positives without the counteracting negative tradeoff. What this does is put all the responsibilities on Men, and all the freedoms with Women, Men have no rights, and Women have no responsibilites, both are cause for much MUCH trouble.
When you give someone, the average person, the choice of improving their own life at the cost of someone elses, chances are they will do it. This isn't necessarily you in particular, or the incredibly pious people we know, but the average person. And if even only half choose to do so, we end up with disbalance, with haves and have-nots, not by choice, but forced onto people for no reason and order no longer rules.
I believe that feminism, and parts of traditionalism, allowed Women to ignore the original responsibilities while encroaching freely into the workplace without having to prove worth (affirmative action), so basically, Men are left with no power, and their original area, the workplace, is not disadvantaged to them point for point with Women. (I.E. a Man and Woman of equal stature, the Woman will have a better time negotiating a better position, Men only rise above this because they work even harder)
I believe the laws are so against your average Man now, that it's wisest to not be in a relationship with a Woman, due to government now somehow "owning" your relationship and making sure your soon to be ex-wife gets "her fair share", which is way more than half via alimony and child support. I believe the laws are now against Men seeing their own children or disciplining them in proper fashion and are now actually afraid of Men, thus they have to be controlled at every leypoint, and there's enough muscle in the government from old-way chivalrous judges who can't understand that things are different now, to the enforcers; police just following orders.
I will not marry, but I'm not sure if it's mostly that Women are like hand-grenades , in that the payoff is several Miles short of break-even with the most likely demise of my freedom, finance, and contentment, or if I believe I was not one to marry, perhaps a biological/Divine design that some Men would be free to produce and support society, as well as guide it. (At least until recently, more Males have been born than Females)
I've been asked why my picture is of a "Go" Board. Go is a game of strategy, so is Chess you say? I agree, I like Chess as well, but it always felt more like tactics than strategy, as you always are more keen on crushing your opponent than controlling the board, maybe I played Chess wrong, but Go makes me feel like I'm naturally planning ahead, 3 or so steps in advance (I'm not great) for every move I'd consider. Both games are great and easy to learn, but very VERY hard to master, perhaps I'll talk more of Go in later posts, but my priority is MRA.
Thanks for greeting me, all of you, it is nice to be in good company.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Beginnings
I guess in such a complicated world we live in, living by very simple basics, one must find what path to follow. This includes such processes as finding your beliefs and seeing how they will collude with our changing universe.
A few starter questions:
What's in "it" for you? What's in it for anyone?
Do you believe Women were oppressed for millennia?
Do you believe the scales will change? When? 10 years? 50 years?
Where should you be if it happens?
Where should you be until it happens?
Should you stoop to the level of the enemy? (important)
Do you believe you can make a difference?
There are probably many many questions one should ask and answer before setting off on your final plan, which will modify during execution, but once you find your way, you'll more easily react to situations when they occur.
This is, perhaps my first real blog post, so I'll start with some of what I believe in.
I believe government is like fire; a very important tool if used in moderation, but it quickly becomes fierce and uncontrollable at a point, I fear we are nearing or have touched that point.
I was neutral until about 10 months ago, I suppose I'll discuss the events that led up to my polarization in later posts, since it's a long story.
I suppose I shouldn't delve into everything that makes me myself in one post, but rather sparsed accross many posts in the future.
A few starter questions:
What's in "it" for you? What's in it for anyone?
Do you believe Women were oppressed for millennia?
Do you believe the scales will change? When? 10 years? 50 years?
Where should you be if it happens?
Where should you be until it happens?
Should you stoop to the level of the enemy? (important)
Do you believe you can make a difference?
There are probably many many questions one should ask and answer before setting off on your final plan, which will modify during execution, but once you find your way, you'll more easily react to situations when they occur.
This is, perhaps my first real blog post, so I'll start with some of what I believe in.
I believe government is like fire; a very important tool if used in moderation, but it quickly becomes fierce and uncontrollable at a point, I fear we are nearing or have touched that point.
I was neutral until about 10 months ago, I suppose I'll discuss the events that led up to my polarization in later posts, since it's a long story.
I suppose I shouldn't delve into everything that makes me myself in one post, but rather sparsed accross many posts in the future.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Thank you, Marky Mark!
As you may or may not know if you read Marky Mark's thoughts on various issues, he gave my blog a head's up, which gives me more fortitude to begin writing.
http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/06/yet-another-mens-blog.html#links
Marky Mark is one of my main inspirations, next to Mirror of the Soul, Rob Fedders and the others listed on the side there.
I suppose I should start writing at where I agree with them and my beliefs as well as how I view the world.
http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/06/yet-another-mens-blog.html#links
Marky Mark is one of my main inspirations, next to Mirror of the Soul, Rob Fedders and the others listed on the side there.
I suppose I should start writing at where I agree with them and my beliefs as well as how I view the world.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Starting up slow, but sure
I realize it's been about a month since my first post, so I'm posting once more to get used to the consistency.
Just read some groutesque news from False Rape Society and Counter-Feminist about potential new rulings to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense in all cases of sex, which will then be presumed to be rape...
I'm kind of disgusted, so I'll need to comment a bit more on it later.
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2009/05/false-rape-is-red-hot-and-getting.html#links
http://tinyurl.com/chub6j
Just read some groutesque news from False Rape Society and Counter-Feminist about potential new rulings to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense in all cases of sex, which will then be presumed to be rape...
I'm kind of disgusted, so I'll need to comment a bit more on it later.
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2009/05/false-rape-is-red-hot-and-getting.html#links
http://tinyurl.com/chub6j
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Hiya!
I finally worked up the determination to get this created, as I have somewhat of a procrastination problem, but once I start, I'm pretty thorough in getting it done.
I wanted to wait until I had the perfect first post, but I now think that doesn't matter, I suppose I'll just tell you a little about myself:
This will be mostly an MRA/MGTOW blog (Men's Rights/Men Going Their Own Way) from my perspective. Hopefully I can start getting good material in and linking to my favorite bloggers sooner or later.
Nice to meet you!
I wanted to wait until I had the perfect first post, but I now think that doesn't matter, I suppose I'll just tell you a little about myself:
This will be mostly an MRA/MGTOW blog (Men's Rights/Men Going Their Own Way) from my perspective. Hopefully I can start getting good material in and linking to my favorite bloggers sooner or later.
Nice to meet you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
