Friday, February 10, 2012

The Costa Concordia; Chivalry's Corpse, and Men and Self-Sacrifice


A while back, MarkMark had a post on the Costa Cordordia ship disaster and a poster named  Ping Jockey had had this to say:




This has shown them something that they hadn't planned on -- that men are fed up with their hypergamy, solopsism and entitlement attitudes, and are becoming more indifferent to them and don't really care about what happens to them. (Witness the recent articles about the concern of some women about the growth of MGTOW and growing male indifference to women. The getting scared about what could happen when enough "Good Men" become totally indifferent to them and their interests.)
It's been said that women's greatest nightmare is not men's hate, but men's indifference -- because it is only the concern of Good Men" about women that protects women against the depredations of "Bad Men". When women lose that concern, they have a LOT to fear.Based upon what has happened in this incident, I have a feeling that the next large accident or disaster where women are thrown upon their own resources without government intervention, protection or assistance is going to be VERY, VERY interesting indeed!


Much could be said about the phenomenon on the ship and the heavy-handed articles that followed.  Not surprisingly, there was an outcry about the alleged selfishness and shamelessness about the men who clamored to protect themselves first---women be damned.  Even (so-called) conservatives demonstrated their hypocritical true colors on this issue---it's okay for women to have equal rights, but when it comes to self-sacrifice, especially in a dire circumstance, men have to be expendable.  I wonder if these same people would do the same; I have a distinct feeling that they would not.  I would bet even a few sell their own mothers to save their own skins, yet have the stunning audacity to imply that men who do not abide by the (fairly modern, by the way) quasi-dictum of "women and children first."


It was the same message.  Women can have their cake and eat it, too, and glean the benefits of both "equality" and the protections that traditionalism yields.  Men have to bear the brunt of societal situations that call for it---whether we let it or not.  And if we don't like it, we are heartless, misogynist bastards to boot.   


I have had a rather passing interest in how organisms survive despite environmental stressors and conditions, and human beings are on the apex of that list.   Do men really have a genetic proclivity be the ones who are willing to sacrifice their very lives more than women when needed?  At first observation, it seems to be the case.  Superficially, at least.  After all, it was all part and parcel of the order of things, and Western culture hinged on this bedrock of sorts . . . right?
   
After many years of witnessing what had happened to other men---and not just myself---and even possessing a keen sense of self-preservation despite societal attempts to dampen it, whatever left of that attribute of self-sacrifice is now numbed.  I became disgusted by with a misandrist culture that exalts women at the expense of men.  I viewed self-abnegation as no virtue whatsoever, and getting rid of traces of it became far easier over time.  


While much has been debated about how true sociobiological drives are truly involved in this or not, there has sprung up more examples that if this somehow has some biological fact, it can be overridden.  Even more so,  it can be changed in the long term.  Feminism is quite the culprit.  Despite the concept that feminism is all about equality, it never was whatsoever.  One its latent---but very powerful and ingrained---thrusts of feminism is that men are here to ultimately serve men.  If we do not in some fashion, we are not just considered useless, but even possibly dangerous in some manner.


I've always thought that as a man that a woman by my side would make rational self-interest one of the main roots of our relationship.  It would be paired with a mutual understanding and trust that would serve us both.  This is not just from my experience alone, but I have discovered that there are women out there that refuse to grasp this as a concept, much less in practice.  So many expect men to love them unconditionally while they walk all over them; they expect men to work soulless jobs and not complain while women discover themselves and dump men on a whim.   


On top of this, they've gotten Betty Friedan's disease; forever happy being unhappy, and what "beta males" do for them is never enough while rewarding the perceived alphas ceaselessly.  Even women who believe themselves loyal engage in shameless hypergamy. Of course, men are supposed to accept all of this, and when we don't there are women out there who express shock and anger when we don't "know our role."  My retort to them is thus; what the hell do you expect?  


There are lessons from the Costa Concordia disaster.  This is where Ping Jockey's post comes into play here, and his statement has been concurrent with one of my themes for MGTOW; women have a lot to fear when good men show indifference or turn their backs on them---or decide the alternatives---foreign women, minority women, expating, womanizing, engaging in semi-reclusive modes, or simply waiting it out until a better woman comes along.  


Deep down, it is an absolutely terrifying thought that men can up and leave any time a woman that gets too out of hand and abusive.  It should be, but the intriguing thing is that so many women still do the wrong actions and behavior that do not make men more willing to make it a go.  This is far more dangerous and still alien for many women, who would rather risk a known evil in a man who is corrupt and brute than compassionate and tender.  


When Ameriskanks smashed the social compact between men and women, the old role of man-as-pack-mule gradually become more of a source of drudgery rather than pride.  As much as I detest feminism, there is a good thing that has come out of it; if women do not obligate themselves to men in a fashion, men need not, either, and we are freed up to seek out what our true bliss.  Whether or not American women will get the hint and decide to grow and learn with men or still mournfully cry out for the "traditional" roles they damned in the first place remains to be seen.  

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"When Ameriskanks smashed the social compact between men and women, the old role of man-as-pack-mule gradually become more of a source of drudgery rather than pride."

Under the old contract, men worked and served as "pack mule".

Here's the rub: in return, women were expected to respect the husband, submit to his leadership, accept his provisioning with grace, gratitude and humility, make a home for the man, and have sex with him at reasonable intervals.

When a man receives these things from his woman, he will gladly serve as pack mule and lay down his life for her. That is the way it is supposed to work.

Women's complete repudiation of the social contract has caused men to rethink their roles, too. This was absolutely inevitable.

deti

Southern Man said...

You nailed it; feminism has made us indifferent to the plight of women. And I say this as a long-time chivalrous male who would, like Sir Walter, gladly spread his cloak for a woman. I'd like to think that a hundred-odd years ago I'd do "the right thing" as a male passenger on the Titanic. But today? I'd make sure my family and traveling companions were safe and then take care of myself. And if you're a single woman who expects a man you don't know to rescue out of chivalry, too damn bad. You wanted equality; this is what it looks like. Blame feminism, not me.

Anonymous said...

Thanks God I live in Brazil. I still can find respectful men here. Unfortunately Chivalry isn't part of Brazilian Culture, I wish it was. But feminism here in Brazil is so unimportant that men haven't reached the point of indifference!

Brazilian Woman.

DaisyDeadhead said...

It's been said that women's greatest nightmare is not men's hate, but men's indifference

Ever heard of separatism? The Second Wave feminism of my youth thought this would be the best outcome for women. So this statement is inaccurate. Please learn the differences between Second and Third Wave feminism.

Not that I expect much from a man who proudly labels all US women "Ameriskanks"--but I can hope. (Is "Ameridicks" sexist? Or is that okay too?)

deti: Women's complete repudiation of the social contract has caused men to rethink their roles, too. This was absolutely inevitable.

And this is a good thing, not a bad thing. We should be encouraging this so there is fairness for all.

Take The Red Pill said...

DaisyDeadhead--
"...Please learn the differences between Second and Third Wave feminism."

Despite it's never-ending claim of "equality", Feminism is actually the anointment and exaltation of all females, and the demonization and de-humanization of all males -- we non-Alpha men have come to learn that. The only difference in the 'types' of feminism is the same as in degrees of tyranny.

"...(Is "Ameridicks" sexist? Or is that okay too?)

Females can call males EVERY kind of name under the sun -- no matter how hateful, filthy, false, cruel, or undeserved; and females are seldom (if ever) called upon to face censure for it. This is something else we non-Alpha males have also learned.

"...We should be encouraging this so there is fairness for all."

Feminism has demonstrated that it is not the last bit concerned with "fairness for 'all'", only for 'all' females (and at the expense of males).

Females have also demonstrated that they are interested in 'equality' ONLY as long as 'equality' gives them a privilege or an advantage over males.


As long as Feminism exists, there will always be MGTOW.
Because GYOW is the only protection a man has.

Rob said...

@DaisyDeadhead,
The only difference between 2nd wave and thrid wave feminism is "2nd" and "3rd". Both waves were female chauvinist pigs. Indeed, feminism is sexism.
Additionally U say we should be encouraging repudiation of the social contract so there is fairness for all.
Well where is the fairness in Ameica's feminist kangaroo Family Court??? Why arent more women paying child suport and alimony??? 38% of wives make more than their husbands - BUCK UP!! Why arent 50% of husbands gaining custody of their children?? Why is paternity fraud still legal????
When U talk about fairness what U really mean is maintaining the system of female chauvinist double standard. Ever wonder why the marriage rate is decreasing????

MarkyMark said...

Good post, sir...

djc said...

And of course DaisyDeadhead is now silent.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Thanks God I live in Brazil. I still can find respectful men here. Unfortunately Chivalry isn't part of Brazilian Culture, I wish it was. But feminism here in Brazil is so unimportant that men haven't reached the point of indifference!

Brazilian Woman.

February 23, 2012 11:27 AM

You mean how cheap you Brazilian women are and how quickly you turn your boyfriends and husbands of long date away as soon as a white man/rich older guy/good-looking guy comes along and notices your existence?

You also must be from one of the most backwards of regions to still have men act like suckers; I have met many, many Brazilian males and they all treat women like women deserve to be treated.

Like garbage.