“Feeding The Trolls 92: Roosh V” (plus my response)

Cute Fuzzy Weasel is a dork, but I happen to like dorks. Prefer guys like him heads and shoulders above any and all pick-up artists, that’s for sure. Having watched several of his videos over the last year or two, Weasel’s humor is playful and cheeky, not mean-spirited or below the belt. And unlike Roosh, he doesn’t harbor deep, unabating resentment toward women for adapting to modern life.  (How dare we! WHORES!! lol)  Thankfully, there remains a broad, diverse, and infinitely more alluring world outside of that strange little online circle-jerk known as the “manosphere.”

Still spitting in manospherians‘ direction since they never cease clamoring on about the unique evils of us womenfolk. As if members of one sex are automatically more prone to being more cruel than the other. But biases abound and some people do everything within their power to shut out any information that doesn’t confirm what they wish to believe were true, especially when they’re bound up with like-minded others in affiliation under a banner for some political/social cause. If that’s not in itself viewed as yet another manifestation of so-called “social justice” warring, then apparently the definition is being skewed in order to accommodate select groups who refuse to take a long, hard look in the mirror. Said that before and will keep saying it.

Spoken as a true American woman. Flip-flop-wearin’, comfy cozy loungin’, late-night pizza-munchin’ and all.   american_smilie

Now it’s time to get back to work.

“Why Happy Couples Cheat | Esther Perel | TED Talks”

Having previously listened to Esther Perel’s audiobook Mating in Captivity, I am glad to stumble across her talk here on TED.

“World Views and Values: Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Women” — lectures by Dr. Sadler

“World Views and Values: Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Women” presented by Dr. Gregory B. Sadler.

Lecture 1 in the series follows:

Lecture 2:

Lecture 3:

He’ll undoubtedly be uploading more as time goes on, and I’ll add the rest here once I’ve had a chance to view them as well.

What I appreciate most about these lectures, along with most provided by Dr. Sadler, is he takes material many of us normally thought of as bland and dry and difficult to relate with and presents it in such a way that is very engaging and brings the subject matter to life. I’ve been lectured on Mary Wollstonecraft by college professors during my undergraduate studies, but always my eyes glazed over so I never much cared. Somehow Dr. Sadler manages to make such information and ideas interesting and to show how they remain relevant for us today.

“Indoctrinate U”

A good documentary on the “Leftist” indoctrination occurring on some college campuses across the United States:

Further thoughts on men’s rights in relation to unwanted pregnancies and single mothers’ reliance on the State

Came across this exchange this evening.

Here’s TheSkepticalHeretic’s video titled “Bodily Autonomy and Bad Decisions”:

I didn’t look into who he was originally debating, but Justicar made a response video:

This is a topic I’ve been thinking about quite a lot since coming across arguments on YT last year. Some of my earlier video attempts captured my reaction to arguments I listened to back then, a notable one coming from johntheother. And still my thoughts revolve around children’s interest and how economics isn’t the only factor deserving grave attention. However, it’s continued gnawing on me, this notion of basically being enslaved by the system and forced to work so as to provide financial support for another being that one took reasonable precautions to avoid creating. Yes, that’s a very serious dilemma, and I appreciate how Justicar laid out his rebuttals there.

In a perfect world I’d say, hey, go your own way then if you’re notified of an unintended pregnancy and choose to opt out of further responsibility. But my contention remains that there is one major fundamental difference between a woman’s choice to abort and any opting-out strategies a man might ever employ, and that is in one case the newly created life is terminated, whereas in the other it very well may still be brought into existence. I’m seriously not trying to stubbornly remain adhered to my previously (poorly) expressed viewpoint on the matter, but the fact remains that SOMEONE is going to have to support this new living being. If the father won’t, the responsibility falls to the mother, and if the mother won’t then responsibility for the child is transferred over to the State with the possibility of being adopted if he or she is lucky enough (plenty of unadopted kids grow up in our fucked up foster care system in the U.S., and they tend to face much harsher realities as a direct result).

Much more than money goes into rearing kids who won’t wind up being a detriment to society, as we all know. And frankly I cannot stomach the idea of the government becoming any more involved in the lives of kids — what’s next, State-ran boarding schools that people can just relinquish their kids to? It’s this weird trend of having the government increasingly dominating our lives from cradle to grave, pushing its (frequently propagandist) educational curricula, having us pay it money when we decide to marry or divorce, agents of the State mediating our heated conflicts and stepping in to investigate wherever it can. Then there’s men (and relatively fewer women) being ordered in each state to pay child support or risk imprisonment, which sets up the fearsome debtors’ prison dilemma (same treatment for “tax evasion,” I might add).

Looks like the State has everybody by the balls.

My own personal position on this is to not grant the State that power. Why offer the System more children to indoctrinate and to use as tools to manipulate their parents? Also allows parents to manipulate one another, and that’s never good for the kids to be involved in either.

I’m fierce in my defense of my right to do with my own body as I see fit. That’s just concrete, no getting around it for me. If ever I get pregnant, I will opt to abort. And I actively take precautions to avoid that outcome. There are numerous reasons that factor in, but this is something I will not compromise on with anyone for any reason.

SO…I have to then flip that over to examine a male’s perspective who might feel exactly as I do there. Let’s say he did undergo a vasectomy, yet he wound up being one in the tiny minority whose vas deferens mysteriously managed to fuse back together — must he still be forced into parenthood against his will? Wouldn’t a situation where such extreme measures were taken allow for some sort of out in the event of an unwanted pregnancy? I’d say so. That’s like signing a contract in a way — you’ve explicitly demonstrated intention to avoid creating new humans. What more can a man do other than completely abstain from hetero intercourse and take precautions to reduce the chances of a woman somehow violating his will? Get a vasectomy and practice abstinence? That’s just being silly.

And yet, legally-speaking, a man indeed has no protections from parenthood in the event of accidental conception occurring. I get it. But I’m not sure what to do about it. If we simply say a man, once notified of a pregnancy, has the option to financially and legally opt out, the mother will likely receive some sort of benefits from the State, which is to say from all of us. It just winds up distributing the burden to everybody else instead of the biological parent(s). Much as I hate that so much talk revolves solely around the economic concerns, these are real and unavoidable problems. Do we want to create even more “welfare queens”? Is there a way around that?

Seems we’d have to severely limit government-funded social programs if the goal was to deter women from going that route. Already living in a society with enough people relying on State aid in some form or fashion, plenty as lifelong recipients by claiming disabilities (even when self-induced through years of drug abuse). We see this and we know.

Ugh. It’s such a frustrating conundrum. Do we say “oh well, all new kids brought in are your responsibility, lady!”? And what about those women who turn their kids over to the State through safe haven drop-offs? Those children exist and require care, so somebody’s gotta tend to them. And I’m willing to bet if government aid was cut tomorrow and people faced a limit on how much longer they’d receive housing assistance and foodstamps/WIC and whatever else, a bunch of parents in financial dire straits would probably abandon their kids, starting with ghetto hoodrats. Because the cold, hard truth is that unfortunately having children can provide a meal ticket and keep a roof over mothers’ heads. Not saying that to be hatin’, but it’s undeniably true. We all know this, even as no one is willing to admit that this describes them — it’s horribly taboo to divulge such unwholesome ambitions.

But it’s true. That’s humans for you — opportunists. How many look at it this way? Hard to say. But we all calculate what appears to be within our own best interest. That so many seem to think it’s perfectly fine to lean on the State is what really worries me, because that just helps perpetuate the bullshit and feeds it more and more power. The last thing the State needs right about now is more power to dictate and control and interfere and fine and imprison. Got quite enough of that going on already. Way more than enough.

So then what? Men deserve more rights here, yes. But children and future generations deserve more care and forethought given to them as well. Can’t just breed and then let the child bear most of the consequences because his or her parents are selfish jerks who care more about themselves than anything else. Putting children in the middle of nasty back-talking and competitive feuding or subjecting them to abusive homes is messing people’s minds up, and that matters.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — most people have no business breeding. BUT, I can’t accept some eugenics program handed down from on-high. No, it’s a decision we need to be making our own selves so far as we’re able. But the laws do need to change somehow to accommodate this shift and also to reduce the incentive for women to birth babies knowing that the State will provide for them. That’s the situation in a nutshell, and it’s not an easy one to crack. First things first, we take power into our own hands to the best of our ability. It must start there because that’s where we each possess the most power. But when it comes to laws, how do we approach this in a way that doesn’t expand the welfare system that’s been tearing our families and communities apart for decades now?

That appears to be where I’m stuck currently on this topic.

[Lightly edited 10/16/2014 for typos and greater clarity.]

I went my own way, for better or worse, and ultimately don’t regret it.

The following read aloud:

Gets under my skin some nights when I watch videos or read comments or articles where men are talking down about women as if we’re second-class citizens. Don’t get me wrong — I understand it’s no prettier running in the other direction. And that’s just it. More and more it seems many folks are intent on behaving like assholes toward one another.

Don’t agree with a woman’s sexual choices? Then openly degrade her and call her out as a “slut,” recommends Davis M. J. Aurini. Ugh. He went on to say that men should also call us out as “fat” in their efforts to restore our “virtue.” Huh. Well, lemme know how that works out for all of you. Because I’m betting on that being yet another recipe for breeding resentment possibly to the extent of hatred, and Lord knows that’s all we need right about now.

For a man to stand there and act like members of his own sex can behave in a way that members of my sex should be restricted from is pompous, arrogant blowing of hot air, and little else. While our history has shaped what humans have become, we also live in unprecedented times where technologies make so much possible, including allowing us greater control over our fertility, which then loosens up the concerns that historically women have been bound by. Do people really think women should not be exploring this new terrain and seeing for themselves what possibilities exist? Should we instead content ourselves with Old World roles and collectively close our eyes to what all is unfolding around us in this new Day and Age? What would be the point in that?

Ya see, I, as one individual out here, inherited the earth the day I was born, just as you all did. And in this journey we call life there are drivers and there are passengers. Women are not automatically relegated to the role of passengers regardless of what some people might wish. We each possess the power to pilot our own existence, to explore on our own terms, and to gain knowledge directly through trial and error. This notion that women more often should learn vicariously through others and not engage in risk-taking themselves can have the effect of actually weakening women and narrowing our worldview. And, again, what’s the good in that?

See, sometimes we have to go through hell to recognize it for what it is. This is just the way life tends to operate. Yet some folks hold onto this idea that women are better off living on a shelf where they can be protected from the evils of this world, and these people tend to shame the women who climb down and go in search for themselves for what’s real. Because, think about it: when we women exist up on a shelf or pedestal, sheltered and shut off from that which is touted as “dark” or “bad,” we’re really being rendered ignorant and dependent on what we’re told by those claiming the power to protect us. Is it any wonder how this scenario might lead to women becoming infantalized?

Yet the same men griping about this trend are helping promote it when they take the stance that women should abide by different standards than men and that those who deviate deserve to be verbally abused and harassed. Aside from deeply hurting others, it’s an effort to restrict them, to cage them in, to set boundaries for women and determine the rules of engagement women are expected to follow. Why? Because males are inherently pillars of wisdom and fountains of integrity? Not hardly.

It assumes that a man, any man, knows better than a woman does when it comes to her navigating in her own life, and that frankly is unsubstantiated bullshit. We’re all so keen to zoom in on a woman’s choices and behaviors and style of dress and habits, and to then talk trash about her, oftentimes with little more than superficial information to go on. Yet who are we out running around and getting into trouble with? Who’s right by our side, helping encourage bad situations? Men. All those wise, strong-willed men people like Aurini speak so highly of. And the mixed message is so glaringly obvious: how a woman behaves or acts is a matter of public concern, less so when those same behaviors are observed among males.

Let a man sleep with 20 women and who really cares? Yet a woman with 20 or more partners is all the rage in discussions. She’s automatically a “whore,” a “slut,” a “tramp,” a “nobody” — and all because she used her body to explore her environment with others in the search for pleasure. Well, damn. Yeah, it’s so obviously a big, bad sin when women do it. Riiiiight.

Why? If not for Judeo-Christian ethics, then why?

Look, folks, we’re all busily creating hell at this juncture, in one way, shape, or form, knowingly or unwittingly. The reality is men, aggregately, apparently are no better at maintaining hold of the reins in their own lives. Not really. Look at where we all stand today. If you ask older people, they’ll tell you that they felt swept along by the tides of changing times, a sensation that’s only grown more intense among younger generations. Are the old roles in flux and out of sorts? Yes, and that’s true for pretty much all of us. Hell, even the role of parenting is actively being undermined and redefined. Nothing has been left untouched. Yet, when it comes to women’s sexual expression and exploration, we think that should’ve been a rock left unturned? That’s not what the actions of many, many men helped encourage; in fact, quite the opposite. But now that society has sunken into deeper depravity, this looks to some to be primarily due to women’s shortcomings? Really? How convenient.

One thing Aurini said in his most recent video on women and restoring virtue is that women wish to look up to men and to receive guidance from them, and that’s true, in so far as men are worthy of respect. And realistically-speaking, how many can claim to be? On what grounds? See, there’s not much worthy of respect in general occurring at this point in time, and that’s true of both men and women and so many of the constructs humans created and then corrupted.

What is respectable in a woman? That she be sexually modest, first and foremost? So much for assessing an individual based on their personal merits then. There’s much more to the life of a woman, just as with a man, than her sexual escapades. Yet that’s all anybody seems to want to talk about. Been with 40 sexual partners? Boo, you slut! Dismissed! I don’t get how others can’t see the ridiculous tragedy in holding such a harsh and limiting attitude.

What makes a man worthy of respect? The fact that he has a job, or perhaps a high-paying job? So proving yourself to be a skilled corporate whore is all that’s needed to qualify as respectable? Ah. Seems we fall in the same trap here too where men’s worth is gauged according to their income-generating potential, first and foremost. And that’s basically saying the fatness of the wallet determines the value of the man, which I consider to be utter rubbish. These are completely misguided and narrow-minded ways of judging one another based on shallow, self-serving motives, and what else?

How simple-minded are we? Is this really the best we can do with these complex brains of ours? Better to avoid thinking too deeply or taking time to know people; quicker and easier to leap to rash, oftentimes unwarranted, conclusions that allow us to stereotype and then categorically dismiss one another. You’re either “one of the decent women” who helps support the men who promote these double-standards, or you’re a whore and you’re the problem. Right? Sheesh.

Ya know, I’m not saying this in defense of all of my lifestyle choices, because I’m well-aware some of what I’ve been involved in left scars on my psyche (and perhaps others’ psyches also). In fact, my experiences have led me to be very critical of this porn-celebrating, youth-obsessed, sex-everywhere, exploitative, uncompassionate culture as well. Its pitfalls are clear to me, and I wouldn’t want other gals to have experienced much of what still bothers me. BUT, it is my life and I’ve actively lived it, and I’m learning a good bit along the way. In a sense, it’s all been worth it for the lessons it’s taught and the problems it’s illuminated in myself and others and wider society.

Without having grabbed the bull by the horns and directed my own life, who would I be now? Probably a lot more scared of what’s out there. Life experiences provide us with new perspectives, some of which we’d never sufficiently grasp if all we had to go on were stories told to us by others.

One lesson I picked up along the way and consider valuable came through reckoning with who I am and what I am capable of. It’s very easy, very tempting, to stand in judgment of others—those people over there—while masking our own sins and closeted depravity, but I’ve grown quite familiar with my “darkside” over time. And who’s to say that knowledge isn’t valuable in the sort of world we’re forced to contend with today? We live in the land of corruption, and yet should avoid exploring our own potential for being corrupted? The thing is that we’re corrupted simply by being born in these crazy times, whether we care to acknowledge it or not. And I think the people chomping at the bit to spew insults at others are those with shadow sides they’re unwilling to take a long, hard look at. Because if they did, they’d realize their own hypocrisy runs deep, as is common, and if they have a well-developed conscience wouldn’t that make it difficult to keep casting stones like that? But people’d prefer not to broadcast who they really are; they’d rather take the heat off themselves by redirecting it onto others.

That’s what irritates me about many feminists and MRA-types alike: they both seem all about refocusing attention on the other sex so as to deflect attention from not only their own sex but most especially their own selves. People don’t care to admit where they are part of the problem, no. Much better to talk about her and him and all those others over there, far removed from me, right? Why? What’s so scary about recognizing in them some of what resides also in you? What is it about a woman’s sexual exploration that is so intimidating to some people that they advocate verbal slamming and ostracism for those who don’t conform to their ideals? And are the ideals they profess in alignment with the actions they carry out in day-to-day life? How often do you figure the two jibe? I’d bet not as frequently as people would have each other believe.

A man who admits to behaving as an opportunist who manipulates women to satiate himself, yet turns around and condemns women for our “whorish” stupidity, is no man worth respecting. He’s every bit responsible for helping create the problems, but he’s willing to accept none of the responsibility.

I know I’m part of the problem and have no trouble admitting it. The soul-searching involved in that inquiry follows me around day-to-day and I cannot (or am currently unwilling to) escape it. Because I want to know where I fit into this, what harm my actions and choices have caused to both others and myself, how pain pays forward and suffering tends to beget more suffering, how sadistic and masochistic symbiosis pans out and is very frequently confused with genuine love, how sexuality can be wielded to do harm just as it can bring people together to form bonds, how selfish interests compete with social obligations, how putting a price tag on what we consider sacred winds up diminishing what we value, etc. These are all inquiries I’ve actively taken up time with over the last decade, though nowadays I turn my focus more toward reflecting and reading the works of others who aid in breaking it all down in new ways. In short, to me this feels like a worthwhile endeavor whether others understand and/or condone it or not. And why ought I, for one, be socially mistreated any more than I’ve been already on account of this?

If all it took was name-calling and ostracism to force us all to conform, I’d have changed my ways a long time ago. Instead I’ve had to grow more accustomed to the insults and abuse, though it’s proven quite alienating and in recent years induces social anxiety. But yet I carry on doing what I do, because it’s not about all of you and your wishes and whims. People are fickle — one minute they claim to want this and the next that. It’s impossible to keep up with and cater to, so why even sign up for that hoop-jumping contest? Can’t please everybody. Can’t even please most people, and honestly, why would anyone want to? Sounds like a recipe for a schizoid, heavily repressed existence, and where’s the fun in that?

I’m only here for a relatively short while, and I’d prefer not to spend much more time lamenting my inability (blame stubborn unwillingness) to live up to everybody else’s foolishly unrealistic fantasies. I went my own way, for better or worse, and ultimately don’t regret it.