Men are not all capable of being on the same “team” because men are not all equal.

Tonight I read a post from a participant on AVFM’s forum named Wio, and here’s the snippet I’d like to zero in on:

Taking a risk does not make you less of a man and taking precaution does not make you a greater man, so I see no contradiction here. MGTOW is not some standard of how to be a “real” man, and I’m pretty sure we all agreed such standards need not exist.

 

Are there not better men than others? Men more deserving of being esteemed and treated with honor and respect more than some others? And couldn’t the same also be said of women? Even while taking into account whatever differences we generally may have.

The question really is where we draw the lines, and obviously that can divvy up in countless ways across the spectrum. I understand what I personally esteem and appreciate in men, as well as what strikes me as notably honorable in women. A bit tricky trying to spell that out for others since it’s a nuanced understanding within myself that has evolved over time (and likely will only continue to evolve). But I do distinguish between people and don’t pretend they/we are all constituted equally. No. We are not all equal, and that’s not just solely determined along sex/gender lines. Simply put, some men are pieces of shit, as are some women, for whatever reasons. How many? Who can clearly say? But we know lowlifes exist across both of the sexes. Fact of life, subjectively determined as it can’t help but be.

So let’s stop for a moment and think about how it divvies up among males in particular, since some in the conversation pertaining to the in-fighting between “MGTOWs” and MRAs, particularly folks being haphazardly labeled as “traditionalists” simply because they choose to marry (or at least might be open to and tolerant of marriage). That’s somehow “the enemy” now, yeah — I’ve read and watched some of this shit unfold. Makes me long for a better hobby.  LOL

not_equalMen are not all equal, just as humans in general are not all equal. Can’t force us to all be either. Different natures, different genes, different socialization experiences, different drives. Etc. Not one and the same. Might be equal in some sense under that which we like to call God, or perhaps to a larger extent nowadays operating according to that which has been deemed The Law — that much I agree with. But each and all equally constituted? Not a chance.

A few are very sick and demented, as we’re all aware of and crime stories attest to. Some others out here are feeling very jilted, and perhaps in however many cases justifiably so through no fault of their own (at least initially). But a number of these jilted people are working with very limited experiences that they feel profoundly impacted by; sometimes legitimately so, but for others it’s like they fixated on the loss or heartache so intensely for so long that it warped them. They became a hater. That is, in this case, one driven to destroy that which is sacred to others out of covetousness and spite. They who began desiring to paint it all black. Some envy you and yet cannot or will not be like you. Some scorn you for having access to what they think they want and should be entitled to. And however many believe they ought to act on impulse and work to take away what another has because they’re so damned miserable with their own existence that they have grown to strongly resent others with lives that resemble their idyllic fantasies. That serving as just one example of how destructive drives may play out. There unarguably are those who aim to directly prey on folks who threaten their own insecurities. We know these cases do exist.

That initial comment just tapped into a can of worms I’ve been pondering on a while now. In reality, not all men are on the same side. Can’t be. Fundamental differences between them do exist. Just as not all women are on the same side as one another, though females are generally reported to be more collectivist or at least communal in nature. But in terms of masculine ideologies — doesn’t work that way. Impossible to all be on the same “team.” That’s gender-ideology-taken-too-far way of thinking, and it won’t work, not unless the haters all came to rule key social hierarchies and sufficiently intimidated most other males into adapting to their ways of being or standing down — not likely to happen.

All women aren’t one way and looking for the same things necessarily in a mate, same as with men. We know this. And yet people sit there and debate as if they subscribe to some universalized truth. Like the sexes, categorically, having irreconcilable differences and therefore sex segregation is in order (?). Some people online like to get nuts on this shit, especially young people operating with rather limited life experiences while saturated with ideologies. What’s most important winds up being obscured by comparably trivial distractions. But there are strikingly different worldviews among men that will prove every bit as irreconcilable as, if not more so than, the natural divide between the sexes.

But getting back to the original YT topic threads in question…  Simply enjoying one’s marriage, even if both spouses work, is now considered “traditionalist”? Living together is now deemed “traditionalist”? What next? Gonna label having a girlfriend as “traditionalist”? Having sex with women? Even acknowledging women? How Orwellian. Seriously.

People are blowing my mind. Not sure what to make of what all we’re trying to do here. I can sympathize to varying degrees, but damn. We’re not all on the same team here, not according to sex or race or class or whatever else we may identify with. And the “enemy” of my “enemy” isn’t always necessarily my friend by default. Not a secret.

This notion of all men coming together won’t happen because males tend to be more individualistic. That unavoidably matters. So males are forced to adopt different strategies as a result. However many clans wind up going their own ways. It will be interesting to observe how that may unfold. That is, if the online “manosphere” can manage to not get mired in unproductive drivel the way Feminism has.

Anyway, enough rambling for tonight.

____________________________________

March 18, 2015: Decided to record reading this post aloud:

“Glimpses into Existence” series by Dr. Sadler, lectures 1-4

Finally took time today to get caught up on the following lecture series.

The intro, “Glimpses into Existence, Lecture 1: ‘What is Existentialism?'”:

“Glimpses into Existence, Lecture 2: ‘Lessons of Socrates and Abraham – Søren Kierkegaard'”:

This was actually the last video of the series (available up to this point) that I watched, having started with Fyodor Dostoevsky and the Nietzsche (posted below). A couple years back or so I read Kierkegaard’s Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing and took what I could from it. Actually brought it along on a trip to Mississippi for reading out on the porch. But it helps to have Dr. Sadler break his philosophy down in a general, overview sort of way.

“Glimpses into Existence, Lecture 3: Underground Men, Inquisitors, and Saints – Fyodor Dostoevsky”:

This one I found very helpful as well, after having only listened to Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment on audiobook in the past. Maybe someday I’ll listen to The Brothers Karamazov, but I’m most interested in his The Demons and The Idiot.

“Glimpses into Existence Lecture 4 Overcoming Nihilism After The Death of God – Friedrich Nietzsche”:

Still haven’t picked back up my copy of The Portable Nietzsche lately, though eventually I will. It rides around in the car for days I forget to bring along another book. For as much as I understand of his writings, I can’t help but take issue with Nietzsche’s definitive atheist stance. It rules out too many possibilities, IMO, though I’ve found his writings on nihilism and individualism pretty interesting.

Looking forward to the rest of this series very much so. It appears existential philosophy is the branch of philosophy that interests me most and seems especially relevant in modern times.

One inquiry into what is religion

Tonight I came across Suicideforcelluloid’s video “What is religion?”:

Have only maybe maybe watched a video or two by him in the past, so not too familiar with that YTer. Mostly I viewed that in preparation for listening to Prof. Anton’s reply:

I’ll post here what I left in a comment on that video:

Wow. You said it ALL in this video! Thank you for responding on this topic — this inquiry is so important for all of us right now.

“Dogmatically committed to a hyper-hyper-rationality” — very good way to state it plain.

“Hyperationality…it’s imagining what will never be. To that extent it’s an irrationality…There’s more rationality in the person who accept the limits of rationality.”  Great explanation there.

That’s the problem in a nutshell with so-called “scientism” and is why atheism is coming to look like dogma dressed up in scientific cloaks. People collect and then conform and before you know it turn dogmatic in their share beliefs. Appears it goes hand in hand with rising populations and widening the net in how we’re affiliated.

“What is community?” really is the deeper question. We as individuals can’t survive without some form of community, yet what we’ve created is now causing us so many problems and is breaking up tight-knit communities everywhere. They’re rapidly going extinct—first tribes, then towns, then neighborhoods, now families are feeling the pressure—leaving us all out here to float around looking for what feels missing in our lives and trying to figure out how to connect and bond with very little knowledge of wisdom that might help. Instead we’re flooded with insecurity-poking magazine articles and fiction.

I really liked what you said about kids and parenting, because it is true that some people are made better people by becoming parents, and their children benefit from this. Love is what it’s all about, it’s what we need more of. Just sucks that there’s so much pressure on everybody to breed, as if that in itself is the key unlocking a meaningful life. Winds up becoming about adults using kids to satisfy their own longings, which rarely works out well for all involved. Would be ideal if we saw less of that and more parenting that comes from a place of wanting to pass on love and guidance and being able to do so.

You spoke about people being “sentenced to life” and on putting more weight on the death that will inevitably follow — that ties into my own views on abortion and why it can be seen as merciful (though many people react badly to hearing that). Life is sacred, so bringing people in willy-nilly without much forethought, not caring if they wind up raised by the foster care system because they weren’t adopted out, leaving them to the mercy of society without any promises of love and devotion from the people who created them — that’s just so incredibly harsh. If we accept that and wish to prize life, it seems to follow that it’s also our responsibility not to bring new life into being if we can’t provide love. To do so is cruel and creates broken people who then may turn around and take out their pain on others.  And being reminded of that by the news nonstop makes us feel all the more cautious and untrusting and disconnected.

What do you think the future may hold in store for communities?

“Where is the world heading?”

Food for thought:

Sunday thoughts on collectives and groups, feminism and MRAs

I continue pondering over here where to take the conversation on feminism. Having made a couple videos speaking out against feminism and a couple in general response to MRAs I’ve come into contact with on youtube, I haven’t really fleshed out the topic in greater detail on this blog. Been hesitant to do so because I’m still collecting my thoughts. But one thing remains a constant: I continue to care about the rights of womankind. Just as I also care about the rights of mankind. My own views, however, break apart from the politically-minded feminist bandwagon, because I do not believe social problems can be remedied by legal means alone or primarily (as I will keep repeating). Much of what we face today stems from economics, which cannot help but deeply impact the social sphere because we are its workers competing for wages and we are its consumers. Our economy is largely backed by our government, so we are in a serious conundrum at this point. What’s even more unfortunate is how people have come to view everything as a legal contest and join sides and battle one another as groups on ideological grounds, creating deeper divisions between the people and painting complex issues with broad brushes that ignore relevant nuances and undermine further attempts at effective communication. In other words, people are declaring war, social and legal war, on other groups of people.

That I am tiring of. Is there not enough competition already to satisfy us that we must create more?

I do not automatically view men as my enemy, nor do I automatically view women as my enemy, nor do I automatically view members of either sex as compadres. This life has shown me firsthand some horrible people of both sexes, and wonderful people of both sexes, to where I am unable to take gender-related generalizations too seriously. People are people, it is true. We are individuals who must be known as such, and these generalizations tend to dehumanize us, robbing us of our individuality, ignoring our perspectives and histories and choices, rendering us nearly invisible to those who lump us into association with whoever or whatever else appearing to possess something in common, no matter how trivial or tenuous, and then dismiss us out of hand on that account. How is that respecting individuals? So many claim to care about individual rights, and yet they have blinders up when it comes to the individuality of those they stand in opposition to. Blinded by group affiliation, people demonize the “others.” As has been common all up through human history.

Makes me wonder why we like to boast how we’ve come so far when it is apparent we have so much farther to go, assuming we are able and willing.

There are men who had dramatic impact on my life. I do know what it’s like to be mistreated a bit, by men and by women, by family members and people I once looked up to, as well as relative strangers. I do not live in some fairy tale where all has been given to me or where others have walked as if on eggshells to appease and protect me (though perhaps to avoid arguments — I do get riled up at times). The reality I’ve witnessed, whether directly or through those I’ve met along the way, has been raw and has left scars that I am coming to terms with being a part of me for the rest of my life (as I’m certain I’ve left scars on others). There is nowhere to run to escape the reality we’re all helping bring about, so I turn to us—to myself and to others—to seek remedy. Because the power has always lied with us, much as we struggle to grasp that concept. Changes take time and there’s no way to rush these processes. But there are ways to hinder them, and we’re proving to do a fine job at that.

I don’t particularly get along well with other people. (Laughter and grimaces there — it’s not by deliberate intent, but whatever, that’s a separate topic.) With a few I do, and I love them dearly. But I don’t expect to win many more friends in this lifetime, and that’s all right. Striving for popularity never made much sense to me, because then you wind up acting in accordance with what members of your group expect from you, which is limiting. It cages you in and polices your thoughts and words, ridiculing you for speaking out of turn or saying something they don’t want to hear. Much has been documented about group dynamics and how we tend to behave differently when group-minded or in a group setting versus when we act and think on our own accord. But I do not say any of this to give the impression that all groups are worthless all the time — no, they have their benefits and purposes. But when group membership or classifications come to eclipse the individuals therein, as they always have, we then lose ourselves to them, and this I take extreme caution with.

Out of loyalty for the group, we tend to overlook the fanatics and extremists within, preferring to ignore them, thinking their views will shrivel up and die away eventually. Just as the majority of religious persons assume to be the case with fringe cults — until those cults gain enough followers to seriously challenge and contend with the wider religion, as happened over and over again. Extremists draw attention and their words appeal to the core where we desire radical change, tricking some into believing shortcuts are possible if they are willing to go on the offense and use whatever tactics are at their disposal to undermine their “opposition,” even if that leads to outright war. The more tensions mount on each side, the more that members within either “camp” become unwilling to criticize their own, especially publicly, because they are locked into a contest where they don’t wish to display “weakness.” Admitting there is flawed thinking within the ranks of the group you belong to apparently is viewed as “weakness” to people in a competitive mindset. So the extremists within each camp continue on largely unchallenged except by the supposed “opposition,” and the silence of their more moderate group members is taken as a sign of consent to the message being put forth. With no obstacles aiming to challenge the extremist message, newcomers take it in as representative of the larger group. If that weren’t the case, debate would be taking place, isn’t that so? And this is how feminism is being framed by people calling themselves MRAs. And I see where MRAs are doing the exact same thing without realizing it, as the video above helps point out.

I don’t know what to think of humanity most days. Not sure where we might go from here. Not convinced we’re willing and able to change direction from this path of least resistance, this descent into incessant bickering and fighting and feuding and competing. If enough people want it this way, they will have it this way. If people prefer to fight rather than seek outside the box for possible solutions and ways to work together, we will experience history repeating as it has so many times before. And we will demonstrate that we have not evolved near as far as we like to think we have — despite all of our modern technological gadgetry and scientific innovations, we are animals at war with our own selves, with both our potentials and our base natures. Collectively this problem cannot be adequately addressed because fundamentally it is an individual concern that requires each individual to grow as we are able. Collectives tend to take on lives of their own and come to discourage this sort of personal growth and exploration so as to use its members to suit its own political or social ambitions (and whatever those ambitions morph into over time).

And now I must head back out to work. I hope to return to this subject later today, if I feel up to it.