Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The Black Pill On How Men Are Rejected More Than Women

I would like to direct your attention to a recent post by The Black Pill titled Men Get Rejected More Than Women by Any Metric.

BP is  correct about how men largely face rejection far more than women.  Men still do much of the asking out, women generally don't---unless you are some perceived alpha that other women are tripping over themselves to date/have sex/have a relationship with.  Women will often go after what other women want; the goal of getting a man that other women desire is no exception.  Regardless of his worth, a man who as a potential harem of sorts has women after him because other women value him.

But this is not common at all.  Even so-called liberated women will often expect men to initiate and face rejection.  Hypergamy is a subject that comes up on many MGTOW boards and videos; women that claim they want equality can be summed up by their hypocrisy by a couple of things; desiring to get a higher status man, and expecting men to do the work gaining her approval while she has veto power.  By having this choice, it shunts the onus onto men while women do not have to face the pain of rejection; they are in the driver's seat, while men have to sink or swim.  The righteousness in this dynamic is frustrating; women can be petty and nitpick about the dumbest crap in mate selection while not sharing the same level of approval winning.

In reality, many (if not most) women take rejection worse than men.  Men have to inure themselves to it; hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.  

Let's face it.  Despite complaints to the contrary, even women of subpar physical looks, low-paying jobs, and other flaws can snatch a man far easier than a man in the same equivalence.   Hell, even a man of higher attributes often have difficulty in dating and attracting a suitable mate.  Women typically do not date/marry down as much, while men are supposed to demonstrate clemency to women that are of lesser socioeconomic status as them.

Since women have a better time attracting men, many believe that men can pick up women with the same ease and frequency.  This is nonsense; men have to prove themselves far more unless they are at the top of the heap.  There are women who complain about the quality of men out there, but they are usually focusing on a narrow spectrum of men.   Even a recent article stated that anyone outside of being white collar are "non-negotiable" as far as dates are concerned---they are not dating material these pseudo-elist women mentioned in the post.  Nevermind that many blue collar men can make good money, but I digress.

Looking into it further, the typical moaning and bitching often includes that men aren't even "manning up" to improve themselves and make themselves more potentially good date/mate material.   Of course, there are women who decry that men will not take up their responsibilities.  When Western culture is swimming in misandry, it's not too hard to understand why men will not "man up" in first place.  When being loyal, honorable, honest, hard-working, genteel, and generous is not mutually rewarded or even outright exploited, a man seeing clearly will wise up.

This is evident with the dating scene as well.  The cards are stacked against men, and there are women who will not give up their social and personal power so easily  . . . even if it harms them in the short term.  They are refusing to accept that there are men who will not let their own self-respect dwindle or be used in the dating process while sweety wants to reap the rewards.  If some sort of mutual equity was widespread, it would be different, but it is not the environment we observe now.

A good friend of mine summed up things nicely, although he was speaking about the workplace when he was getting the brunt of crap jobs and lost much of his motivation when he knew it was a losing battle to hold on to his job at the time:  If you don't care, why should I.  There are women out there that do not want to understand this about men, and will continue to blunder and largely blame men while living in denial about what is actually happening.

Over the years, the shaming language loses it effect, and the women that are upset that men would rather play an X-Box in their thirties or keep their money for retirement.  Women need acknowledge why this is more common rather than remaining smug and single (all the while still thinking about men at every turn).  In the mating dance, even with the dating scene, it's not being intimidated by a "strong, independent" woman that stops men from approaching/making the first move.    Those same men are tired of running the gauntlet for little result, disappointed by the arbitrary whims, never being good enough, and the exhaustive and trivial lists judgmental women draw up for them.  And who can blame them?

This post was made under the influence of Hexvessel, Blood Ceremony, Lycia, and, of course, Black Sabbath.  All bands I can't get enough of, if anyone is wondering.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Non Serviam

I was thinking about a gal I had a relationship with years ago that I'll dub as "Amy" here.  I shared a few thoughts with a good friend and his wife while talking about women I dated over the years, and why my proverbial red flag radar was now permanently up. 

I have never married, and will for all of my life never take the plunge and tie the knot with an Ameriskank.  I do proudly state that.  I could say marriage is for suckers and leave it at that, but over the years watching marriages either turn sour or gradually unravel made me cold.  As a youth, I swore that if I ever made serious vows to one woman I would devote myself to someone worthwhile.  Obviously, that woman never arrived, and I did not want to make the same mistakes I saw in either marital "bliss" turned to failure, or those marriages tattered and worn. None are perfect, but there you go.

Over time, I've seen Ameriskank behavior has gotten worse.  Granted, I am from the women are women camp, but variances, cultural decay, and memes do make a difference.   It's not a matter of, "You haven't found the right woman yet"---which mostly comes from women who believe they mean well.  NAWALT aside for a moment, even someone with similar, complementary attributes has not shown me consideration in the long haul.  And I am done with hearing that's all our fault for not attracting the rights ones, especially in an era of rampant hypergamy.  Just looking at the dating pool a(s of late) would have filled me with dread when I was a romantic teen.  It's a source for my grim aloof demeanor, and even though I'm not a complete introvert, it has turned me into a distant cynic.

Amy, of course, was the final nail in the coffin.  I dated her for the longest time, because I believed she was making progress with herself.  She even wanted to prove herself worthy to me, something that had not always happened in a while with my foibles with women in the past.  It was impressive at first, and she was fairly attractive and affectionate during our first year together.  It was almost like we were married, and when everything went grey---and then ugly in the last four months---it was also like a soiled marriage ending in wreckage. And Amy treated it as such. 

It was hard to tell who the "real" Amy was; either a warm and almost bubby, voluptuous, girly-girl like woman . . . that would become a brooding, quick to anger spoiled brat that would get drunk and stoned while making various threats.  It was to the point where I thought I would have to literally restrain her during her worse bouts.  Considering that if the cops were called on us, I'm sure I would be the one arrested despite being on the physical defense. Amy pushed and emotionally bullied, and I stood my ground as she resented me.  She resented me for not being a pushover and independent, the very qualities she was attracted her to me in the first place.  I was her alpha with bad boyish appeal.  Now I was her nemesis because I would not bow down on hand and knee. 

Her idea, eventually, was to domesticate me---but what that really entailed was to lick her self-inflicted wounds, be a lap dog,  and a sounding board.  Before, for the longest time, I was respected and even rather lionized.  When it slowly came to the fore that she wanted a man that was part pack mule, part counselor, I became disgusted and upset.  She knew way beforehand what I was like, and that it would not make me happy in a relationship whatsoever. 

I swore a covenant to myself that I would never seriously get involved with an "Amy" again.  I did date.  I had FWB situations.  But anyone who reassembled her was immediately passed up.

It has come to the point where I really believe that Ameriskanks feel like their self-entitlement includes that men have to feel happy to succor to them---although we dare not look like we are kow towing too much.  If all men are dogs to a skank, kicking a lowly dog for misbehavior and watching it cower even more is weakness in their minds.  Yet, on the converse, a dog who snarls back after continued abuse is somehow a dangerous threat. 

Ameriskanks know very little balance in relationships towards men, it is often close to an all or nothing affair.  It has often been stated a truly healthy man ready for a commitment is neither Caspar Milquetoast or a brute, but since AWs make poor decisions in mate selection (and blame men often for the blunders and ruination of a pairing, anyway), an AW will rarely heed for what is good for them in men. 

And it's little surprising when they find more men are not willing to submit to the act of marriage.  By its very action, kneeling and presenting a wedding ring is a sign of submission; it is a man yielding, even giving up his freedom in a symbolic and very real sense.   It makes it even more precarious and ominous in light of the fact women have the power of the state to decimate what a man has built with her over the years.  Don't even get me started about accusations and custody battles. 

There are a growing number of us not being happy at all with the AW desire to have the veto power above men sans accountability, and it is to their own damn determent that they refuse to acknowledge this and the societal implications. 

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Something To Ponder

There's been a glut of articles about how men are anything from child-men to the erroneous charge that men are finished, and among much of the muck and blather that has raised its ugly scathing head, it seems that a fact gets lost in the maelstrom that never is on the forefront of women's minds.

Someone along the line, men's wants and needs have seemingly become irrelevant.  From a MGTOW perspective, many see that Western society caters to women ceaselessly at everyone's expense, and the feminist lie that patriarchy controls women at every turn seems just that: a lie.  Even men have argued on various videos that traditional women still demand men as beasts of burden and take advantage of both license and protectionism.  

With all of this, someone has forgotten to ask what makes men truly happy.  It is as if we are supposed to fill those roles of protector and provider without complaint, no matter how much misandry we have to wade through .  . . or that those roles could be still damned by a vindictive bitch with a ravenous lawyer and false accusations.  Hell, when a man does actually follow the beat of his own drum, he's called anything from creep, gay, loser, child-man, and even more vile barbs have been spat forth.

All the legal traps and social malaise aside, I made an offhand comment the other day that I wanted to focus more on----it seems so many women want to make themselves less interesting and even repulsive to men than ever, and yet somehow we are supposed to still offer unconditional love to them at the end of the day.  Only a deluded fool or masochist would dream of such rotten bargain, and yet when men balk at it---for pretty damn good reasons---we are dubbed as anything from bitter to even possibly dangerous.  It's pathetic.  

Men's happiness----and their insistence on rational self-interest---is seen as antithetical to the whims of women, and the cries of asshole and misogynist abound.  But as society might, when discovering men's real motives, it would be hard pressed to blame us for resorting to such a stance.  But it does.  Constantly.  We are viewed as guilty as charged.  It's damned if we do, damned if we don't.  

There's a plethora of reasons why men concur with a MGTOW mentality.  But what is curious is that women do not think men's happiness is paramount .  . . or even an issue.  When men start to deeply mistrust a woman that they would willing find solace in her arms with, and that does not abate, more women are apt to find men that "won't commit" but still remain clueless about it.

They remand clueless, because they don't realize their behavior is part of the cause.  Without serious self-examination, there are women that spend a good portion of their lives fouling up what could be a deep, profound bond between the sexes.  When they tire of the drama and conflict (often self-created), it's typically too late.  

It's my belief women are inclined to be, well, women, but at the same time are quite capable of change and being the agents of adapting.  The big question is thus: will they ever treat men's happiness as anything of import?  Will they espect men as much as they expect it in turn?   On one hand, I believe it is quite possible; however, it remains to be seen.  Perhaps they will only bother when enough men tire of the emotional games, power trips, and toxic relationships.  After all, despite feminist myths to the contrary, many women have benefited from both traditionalism and "equality," and they aren't prone to give up their own privileges any time soon.  

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Succinct, Yet So True . . . Zorro Speaks Up

This was taken from The Spearhead, if anyone was wondering.  

Zorro June 16, 2012 at 13:29

Considering the way our culture is diving into the Estrogen Swamp, the only way a man can remain a man is to keep his hands clear of wedding rings.

Great job, fembots. You’re creating a society where the only man women will want is a man who will not want women.

You idiots.

I Wanted to Say A Belated Happy . . .

.  . . Father's Day for all the fathers out there, and also that I have had the luck to spend time with my own father---who despite his problems as managed to live to a ripe old age.  I very grateful to be able to see him when I can.

Cheers! SR

Monday, April 30, 2012

Dismantling The Nice Guy Stigma, Notes About MRA+, and Gaming And Intimacy

I think the idea of the "Nice Guy Syndrome" has to be revamped, especially when dealing with feminists.

I lurked on a blog which there was rather extensive discussion about it.  It's a fairly trafficked feminist one with an OP that has made quite a name for herself, including not apologizing for attaching stigma to white men she blasted years ago.  It's curious has to why exactly she feels the need to perpetuate the nice guy mythic nonsense.  Of course, she's a towering moralist so she's above the very subject she claims righteous indignance.  But being a feminist, that's a given.

It was also worthy of note the virtually all of the posters blamed the "nice guys" they interacted with were at fault for their own behaviors.  Nevermind these same feminists attested quite many experiences with them.  Give me break; if they detest the mentality so much, perhaps shunning them would be in order if possible.  Is this an option they would rather not eschew?

Also don't even bother to think for a moment that these women are capable of the traits they state they abhor.  They are, but will not readily admit it even under pressure.  This includes passive-aggressiveness, selfishness, ulterior motives, self-entitlement, and even feeling scorned if not expecting the sex they want at command.  It's quite concurrent with Ameriskank behavior.  Too bad they largely refused to see their own projection of those attributes themselves.  

If they were so adamant about not rewarding "nice guys," they would procure not even dating them in their personal lives.  Before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy, if I continued to date clear cut Ameriskanks and got burned over and over, I wouldn't expect a lot of sympathy once I woke up to the fact my attraction was part of the problem and did nothing to curtail it.  These same feminists don't bother to proclaim they are rewarding those same men they bitch bitterly about.  Again.  And again. 

I'm sure they believe they are the better half of their foibles concerning their toxic relationships.  They are egregious liars.


I think the term "nice guy" should be laid to rest.  

It's intriguing how everyone believes they aren't, or don't want to be perceived as such.  Granted, I think that the expression should be purged and another take its place; one that would describe certain levels of traits that can be identified.  Social introversion isn't a handicap or synonymous with dysfunction per se; it has some aspects it can be positive or self-defensive (such as avoiding toxic relationships), but so many people seem to get the term confused.  

Not to mention the moronic pseudo-adage, "Nice guys aren't really nice guys anyway."   Okay . . . you towering moral bastion of feminist morality---ahem, to pardon the phase---nice try.  

It's often employed as an excuse to gravitate towards creeps and cads.  And treat good men like shit.   It's truly a pathetic rationalization.  

Contrary to common belief, you push a man against the ropes enough, even all but the most Caspar Milquetoast of men will come out (proverbially speaking, at least) swinging.  It's human nature.  It's inevitable.  Men have a large capacity to take a good heap of dung they shouldn't without much complaint (as women think they do often).  But some people have more sensitive triggers than others, and saying and doing anything and expecting a man to take abuse as a "real man" is the hubris of fools, masochists, fake alphas, and, of course, feminists.

The stunning conceit of an Ameriskank is thus:  "I can get away with anything I want with a nice guy, he should be a real man and take his lumps and not bitch too much and still cherish me." 

By dubbing someone as an average frustrated chump or nice guy---in the negative sense that many utilize---people categorize someone in a confining box and give excuses to treat them as such.  And they are surprised when that same labelled man defies expectation or protests being a doormat.  Suddenly, he's a royal prick when he's not ripe for personal (or other types) of exploitation.   And yet the social perps who treat a man as such get dumbfounded and pissed because men refuse to conform to the false dichotomy of nice guy/bad boy, and clearly don't want to acknowledge that they created the problem in the first place.


There has been some heated debate about MRA+ and how men can possibly find real love despite the pitfalls and dreaded landscape of US relationships, whether it be casual dating up to marriage and family.   I ultimately believe that it is the choice of each man whether or not he engages women---and what type of woman he desires and the nature of his relationship to that said woman.  Men who choose not to involve themselves with women should never be shamed or stigmatized; it is obvious that there exists risks for men dating US women and I don't have to craft a list for many to understand that point.  But it is not my position to belittle those who seek the depth of a profound bond.

Unfortunately, most men---myself included---grew up with an idealized conception of what their mate was going to be like.  And had their hopes dashed and crushed again and again.    By leading men down the primrose path and not providing them with a grounded sense of realism and what women can be like is anything from naive to irresponsible.  There are quite a good percentage of them that are reproductive opportunists; even irrational self-interest in a woman is still self-interest.  Men who are practicing rational self-interested are often viewed as selfish misogynists; a woman doing the same is pragmatic and smart.

For the longest time, I pined for my own Kate Beckinsale, a woman who possessed a set of qualities so many women profess they generally have without feeling a need to demonstrate them very much.  Even those who are not starry-eyed dreamers will wax that if I don't believe in it somehow, it will never happen no matter what the odds.  

Trouble is, I actually did believe I had a soulmate that would fulfill my desire for a deep companionship.  It took some doing, but after a time I awoke from that dream.  I cannot tell you enough how painful and even traumatic it was in the process---I made it on the other side, although I'm not entirely unscathed.

Even seeking the equivalent in a mate is exceedingly difficult as a realist; and as a man you are typically blamed if you don't attract the right women---even if you avoid the bad and walking damaged for a legitimate female cohort.

It is for the better I no longer buy into the feminine mystique and peer behind the veil; I honestly believe this wonderment was one of the main factors why a good friend of mine slowly drank himself to death.  Granted, it was one of a few core elements, but it was obvious to myself.  After the second break up of the only woman he openly declared his love for, he went into a such a bout of heavy drinking and depression he almost died two years before his actual passing. 

It is truly up to us to educate ourselves on the nature of the female dark side, feminism, and Ameriskank behavior and spread the word.  Men have been living under the lie of how without women they are nothing; we have to smash this modern myth like Thor wielding his Mjolnir hammer with a calculated fury.


Zed/Zenpriest has stated something profound about gaming a future wife or one in practice; if one feels the need to constantly employ player tactics to gain the upper hand with a spouse, you will never feel true intimacy.

There's a lot to be said about that.  I'm not as overtly critical of pick up artistry all the time, but "game" has little answer to obtaining real trust and intimacy with someone you must constantly game in order to dominate and lead.  If you are not in the position to steer naturally and have to employ a set of manipulations to keep personal power going, it is not exactly a happy situation and can even lead to resentment and mistrust.  

If you have to game your wife so she doesn't move on to the bigger, better deal or gradually steamroll you, you don't have a marriage that is wholly sound.  It's just a matter of fact.

Trust is vital to any healthy relationship.  Many relationships aren't always short-lived, but those that don't have trust as a cornerstone are certainly strained to begin with.  In all seriousness, those who practice game may have some answer that could help, but I haven't seen one outstanding one that would work in a satisfactory manner.  

If one wishes to have that deep bond between husband and wife, brinkmanship should not be an overriding portion of it.  Sadly, even in marital situations where gaming hasn't been known, it's often present as well.  

Saturday, April 28, 2012


One of the things I've been ruminating about on my vocation has been a topic that has captured my attention for some time---male disposability.  Despite what occurred with the Costa Concordia (which I believe is not the only incidence of apparent lack of selflessness on men's behalf for women) there has been a strain of belief even in the MRM that most men are somehow hapless in a sense regarding protecting and providing for women.  It's ingrained in us, it's in evolutionary psychological make up of men, it's in our DNA.

Argue as many might attest to this, it's obviously not completely set in stone.  

I do believe that our Western culture amps men's alleged "drive" to engage in self-sacrifice not just because of civilization's sake; it's because someone is benefiting and even exploiting a huge percentage of men.  Whatever belief system you come from perspective-wise, clearly there are forces out that that are pretty darn insecure about men losing faith and trust in society and the tenuous pact between men and women.  Now days, our culture wants women to be supported no matter what foibles and failures they engage in; if men don't comply, the state will, although the state often garners financial and the toil of men by "legalized" extortion.  

We're supposed to be content with being model beta males, and if we don't like it, it's tough shit---even if we are given nothing return.  This is not the most healthy condition, obviously.

Men's interests and needs are always at a backseat, if salient at all.  We're supposed to be happy being fem-serfs (although so many women incessantly seem to be happy at being unhappy) and not place our happiness first.   A man that does strive to carve is own path is somehow seen from anything to useless or a pariah.  He's a narcissistic jerk even if he's not intentionally harming someone else.   Shame and even vile contempt are often heaped upon men who break ranks and even question why men should ultimately appease your modern Ameriskank; nevermind parasitical sociopaths that are no good for society get admiration by the truckloads---that are at or near the apex of popularity---and are rewarded by so many women who are eager to even be in a harem of sorts with them.  And, of course, the rest of us have to scramble for the leftovers or don't have a good mate to spare.  

If you don't kow tow, you're a self-centered, misogynist asshole.  Hell, there are some women online practically screaming it and demonizing any man that they deem as such.

If men really understood the biases and embitterment against them and let it sink it permanently, the landscape of the dynamic of between the sexes would be very, very different.  It truly terrifies women if men were to stop self-sacrifice and expect women to own up.  Real, raw equality is something that very few women can rise to the challenge and uphold.   While there are no hard and fast rules for MGTOW, I do believe there is a strong, deep undercurrent that is the root of men's rights issues---acknowledged or not---that more men are gradually perturbed by being perceived and treated as second class citizens and are waking up to that fact.  

And no, "bitter" or not, it goes deeper than not getting a date for a time or just not looking like the cool metrosexual Ameriskanks claim they want.  It cuts to the core of our souls, and it's surprising that more men aren't downright furious about it.  Feminists have no idea how much men show restraint and control in this aspect; we are not given merit points or anything of the sort, and no matter how much scorn and abuse are lobbed at us, we are supposed to be still loving and forgiving at the end of the day.  

Whatever the reason, there are people who have an awful time of seeing men as human beings rather than just human doings.  The irony is that feminism has been stated as the belief that women are people, too.  This is hogwash; feminism was (and is) about female supremacy and having women possess ultimate say-so on anything to legalities to sexual intimacy; somewhere along the line men's priorities were not of import.  

Now, I do think it will come to pass that men will have to be viewed as people, too, regardless if feminists and their cohorts like or not.  Perhaps it will not be in my life time, but the meme is out and about, and no amount of politically correct brainwashing or grooming men to be white knights will dampen the word.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

It's Truly Lamentable, It Really Is . . .

From the spirit runs poison, and the wheel of
Fortune is ever still,
Sweeter than the light, the darkness of your soul,
Immaculate, deception.

Something has touched, the spirit inside,
Once there was love now there's a void.
Nights of deception, ghosts in my mind,
Am I bewitched, slave to desire.

It's knowing that times keeps rolling on, night after
Day, day after night,
It's knowing that feeling of coming home, to where
My spirit lies.

"Immaculate Deception"---Black Sabbath

The curious thing is that as I grow older I don't feel the need so much for companionship.  Sure, I lament that feminism, as well as certain factors have made things highly difficult for men to find a truly decent partner and I certainly don't dismiss the pain from that---notice I didn't employ the word "frustration," it implies that the yearning so many men feel for a woman that would stand beside (them regardless of what happened) is trivial, when it's certainly not.  It truly is a deep human need to desire a profound bond with the opposite sex, and so many sources seem to make it trite when men express it while thwarted, as if it's always their fault.  

Of course, if a woman can't find a man and desires to have one, it's not her fault.  There's no good men out there, right?  

And after all, withholding affection, acting superior sans merit, lack of human decency---and even being callous and emotionally cruel---are more hallmarks of Ameriskank breed.  It's a way of control and passive-aggressive dominance.  If men returned the favor in kind, they would have a pulmonary infraction.   Men desire to be with women, and despite the fact women have a level of desire for men, the malignant maze that is erected in order to obtain affection could make one question why men have to "earn" something women just should receive bountifully because of their gender.  Men have been subjected to such misandry to view themselves as lesser than women, and that will be never be good enough for what Warren Farrell dubbed as the "genetic celebrity."   And Ameriskanks believe that they are that genetic celebrity by simple virtue of their vagina, even though very few will look remotely like Monica Bellucci when they are her age.  

Not that I don't think about it time and again.  When I was a teen and a hopeless romantic, I found even then that one could cry to the heavens for love and receive nothing.   Now that I'm a doer more than a dreamer, the shine that our culture regards the feminine mystique has turned lackluster.  It's been said before, but very few women really love and respect men for what they are.  We truly are a means to an end, and if we treated women with the same behavior it would be deemed exploitative and selfish.  I can visualize  women having serious breakdowns when men have conditioned themselves against the same.  

Even more troubling is how men's issues are viewed as trite compared to the smallest whims and fancy if a woman.  Our society, in this aspect, is guilty as charged.  If it was the opposite----men's needs trumping women's every time---I could see why feminists would protest and have a legitimate gripe, but it's far from the truth and proof our culture smacks of a matriarchy with the external trappings of patriarchy.  

It's also been said that men don't just look for relationships just for sex.  Some do, but many are looking for that very love, respect, comfort, and admiration that just doesn't seem to be happening so much.   If you are a sensitive man and long to show yourself openly, flaws and all, expecting kindness and warmth in the arms of a woman is a mistake; you are going to eventually have a rude awakening.   Not to mention that a really sensitive man would be upset at continued mistreatment and the experience that he is not on par with the woman he is interacting with.  An Ameriskank cannot possibly have this because she must have the upper hand no matter how she would be resentful of a man that isn't the leader.  Hence their cognitive dissonance concerning men; despite being attracted to alpha traits, they disapprove of men taking the lead because of feminism and perceived "inequality."  But a man that will acquiesce is a doormat, a pushover.  A dull beta male.  

As a youth, there was a period where I found little solace in many things and would have given a welcome relief if a young woman had been even mildly supportive.  I let that go by the wayside even with a couple of serious relationships.   Despite what anyone has told you, Ameriskanks despise "weakness" (i.e. kindness and empathy) in men because it would mean that they would have to see us as truly human beings rather than second class citizens.  Or worse.  One could argue it is an extension of an Ameriskank's own self-loathing; treating a man has fully human and a deep well would mean that perhaps her vain illusion of her own superiority (in a culture that constantly polishes her bloated ego) would shatter . . . and she would have to re-evaluate her own self-worth and deal with her inner anger.

At the beginning of my post I mentioned I don't concern myself with being with a woman in the long haul.  I still wish something good could have happened between myself and a decent woman, but I don't waste time wishing upon a star.  I have to live my life, and hope springs eternal.  Even finding someone roughly equivalent seems improbable.  

The really damning thing is that men like me are "dangerous" in some sense, but not in the way feminists want to portray us.  We stand up for ourselves, do activity in our own circles, and while societal demands us to be slavishly obligated to women without reward, the more it does so, the more we push away.  This is truly frightening to those are championing their lie of being strong and independent while ever being resentful of the fact they can no longer use a man who's eyes have been opened.  They condemned good men as boring and useless, once they truly need us we will give them what they really deserve .  . . even if it is nothing but scorn and silence.  I truly believe that given the chance most men would be loving and compassionate with women, but after a large part of a lifetime of embittered male-bashing and resistance, why are they still surprised when men opt out?   

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.