The Daily Dot and the rest of the feminist sympathetic internet sphere – emphasis on Salon – came out with fists clenched with yet another cultural scalp; “mantouching”. This accursed and wretched action has most recently been noticed at the pinnacle of the political liberal and hollywood elite – Joe Biden and John Travolta.
At the Oscars – a presentation of rich people giving awards to each other – Travolta mustered up all of Saturday Night Fever self and touched the face of Idina Menzel. Nico Lang, the author of the piece described this travesty in a very visual way,”felt up”. Human faces are getting closer and closer to becoming interchangeable with our private areas. No, I don’t think hes trolling.
Before I go any further – remember that Nico Lang is a cis-white homosexual male which immediately means that he is guilty of “gay misogyny” and white cis privledge. Everything he says that involves women should be assumed to be an act of atrocious mansplainingwith deliberate Patriarchal menace.
Let’s call a spade a spade. This majestic article is meant to make men mad and to coddle the heartstrings of the usual rad-feminist choir.
At this point, I don’t know how many more sharks this “4th wave” feminism can jump. Perhaps a few more. Nico – that cis white male full of privilege -begins to enlighten us with a context involving “manspreading” and it being a means of male dominance and a “performance of masculinity”
“Mantouching operates in a similar way. It’s an assertion of one’s masculinity, at the expense of the personal comfort of those around you. When a man touches a woman without asking, he’s doing so because he feels entitled to access to her body. For him, it might feel like a meaningless or friendly gesture. After all, what’s the matter with touching the small of a woman’s back? It’s not like you’re sexually assaulting her.”
Think about that for a moment. If you are male and you touch ANYONE, its an assertion of masculinity that comes at the expense of the comfort of the victims you violate with your touch. We can only assume that these kinds of vicious assaults are being conducted at an all time high in Eastern Europe, The Middle East, ect. I can only begin to guess how feminist dogma such as “multiculturalism” fits into this detestable mantouching.
“While a recent Cosmo survey showed that an alarmingly high 1 in 3 women reported beingsexually harassed in the workplace at some point in their lives, the prevalence of mantouching is likely much higher, simply because no one ever talks about it.”
If we throw mantouching into the category of “sexual assault” which rad-feminists secretly desire, that 1 in 3 should escalate to a 3 in 3 women being harassed at a rate equal to atrocities like the Rape Of Nanking. Maybe that’s the goal of these internet rad-feminists. Our mansplaining friend concludes his lecture with this piece of wisdom:
“You might not think a pinched cheek or a shoulder caress is something to lose sleep over. But the next time you see a man put his hand on the small of a woman’s back, look at her eyes. Look at her smile. If you’re looking closely enough, I bet you can see her faking it. I bet you can see how painful it really is.”
Let’s open up Pandora’s Box of nasty unintended and un-anticipated consequences when we apply this standard to all genders – however many there supposedly are anymore. Waitress incidentally touches me. Sexual assault. Co-Worker puts hand on my shoulder. Sexual assault.
How far is this shit going to go?
That was somewhat rhetorical, because it’s going to go very far before people are finally rudely awakened. Soon physical consent/non-verbal consent won’t be enough. It will be too vague. I predict there will eventually be an attempt to mandate consent through only “verbal” means.
Even that won’t be enough. A verbal yes might not even mean “yes” when you’ve requested that now awkward feeling hug.
Nothing can destroy your career, cost you Facebook friends, and present many other life-enduring difficulties such as people believing that you are racist or have done something racist. Being declared as a racist is almost like being labeled a heretic in the 14th century, except you might not be burned at the stake… yet.
“Cultural appropriation” is just the newest frontier in the fight against racism – a struggle that looks like it will never be overcome, not even in the most luscious of utopias. It is also a cleverly designed tactic by certain folks to not only stop “racism”, but to make sure that it continues to endure and spread. You can shout cultural appropriation when a member of a different race, culture, ethnicity, ect does something similar to your own. Once they stop, you can then shout, “Non-inclusive environments and ingrained structural racism is preventing them from appreciating the unique aspects of our culture in society!” It’s a brilliant Catch-22 and a way to always have something “ethno-centric and racial-centric” to criticize. Page views over controversial headlines anyone?
Now, I’m half-white and I can play the “genocide” card, so luckily when I enter into specific left-wing conversations and “internet spaces”, nothing I do can be racist because there is no such thing as reverse racism, members of the oppressing class can’t be oppressed ect. Sweeping labels and generalizations really are a wondrous thing.
“I felt nothing but frustration and anger watching Swift’s quirky twerk and even more anger as I watched her crawl on her knees beneath a line of twerking bodies. The coy look on her face as she stared at the bodies above her made me sick. It wasn’t just problematic. It was racist.”
She ends this article with a stern warning about the effects of cultural appropriation.
“Cultural appropriation might be a current hot topic for bloggers and those who consider themselves to be allies of women of color, but for women of color like me, it’s another reminder of all the ways in which my identity is constantly being devalued, mocked, and trivialized by the media and its stars. “
Remember the white girl who donned some lengthy braids a few weeks back? She was eviscerated on social media, because apparently people of African descent own braids. Apparently, there are many styles, foods, ideas, ect owned by certain cultures and those of us not in those particular cultures are left in stark and utter confusion as to whether we can make their food, listen to their music, or become Hindus. At this point, we might as well throw Eminem to the dogs because “rap” is clearly owned by black folks.
There seems to be this fine line between “appropriating minority culture” and embracing someone’s cultural ideas, styles, ect. Can it happen in the reverse? Is all of history simply “cultural appropriation”? Tumblr of course tells us that cultural appropriation can only happen one way, specifically when concerned with “White supremacy, white privilege, entitlement, colonialism, ect.” There is a GIGANTIC elephant in the “cultural appropriation” room. It’s called multiculturalism – a deeply held value by many of those who also hold onto the idea of “cultural appropriation
It is very disturbing that in one breath people can rage about about society not being “inclusive” and then in the next use phrases like cultural appropriation? The entire idea of cultural appropriation seems to be a direct contradiction in the embracing of the values of multiculturalism. Or we can embrace the segregation of cultures with concepts like, “cultural appropriation” and then rage as to why racism and cultural conflict is “still” on the never-ending rise.
Wherever this “line” is, I’m still not sure.
A sneaking suspicion arises in my mind. Those who claim “cultural appropriation” and offense from are desperate to find something to label, “racist”, so that people will pay attention to them. Rising to the number one slot in the “Oppression Olympics” is far more important than real racism, because in order for the country to supposedly conquer racism, there must always be perpetual outrage concerning the subject, even if no racism is witnessed in one’s daily life.
Simply put, if you can’t find racism in someone’s actions or words, find something new to insinuate as “racist”. I am however starting to not care about claims of cultural appropriation, whether someone else commits them or I do.
If you do want to call out and maintain a consistent platform that prohibits “Cultural Appropriation”, here are some great places to think about and start!
“1. Eating at Chinese restaurants by white Americans and other majority non-Chinese should be looked down upon, as it entails the physical ingestion of Chinese culture.
2. Anyone who suffers a serious but non-permanent physically debilitating injury shouldn’t be allowed the use of a wheelchair, as this is an ableist appropriation of differently abled culture.
3. Members of the privileged and oppressive white majority should never, under any circumstances, expose themselves to black entertainment or express an appreciation for it. Jay Z is for black men and women only and the producers of 12 Years a Slave should give back the film’s Best Picture Oscar in the name of making a direct statement against appropriation. The same goes for Latino entertainment. Production on Machete Kills in Space by Open Road Films should be halted immediately.
4. Under no circumstances should members of the privileged class give their children ethnic names without the express written consent of a majority of that culture or a dual ruling from the staff of Salon.com and that woman who runs Shakesville. Anglo Americans specifically should be required to research proposed names for their children to ensure that the meaning of each name has no ethnic connotation going back at least four generations. Also, no Biblical names unless one is Jewish or otherwise related by blood to the cultures of the Middle East and holy land.
5. Heterosexuals or members of the heteronormative patriarchy may not, during karaoke, perform the version of Willkommen made famous by Alan Cumming in the 1998 Broadway revival of Cabaret, as that would be an immeasurable appropriation of gay and bisexual culture. Likewise, no one outside of the LGBT, specifically the trans, community should be allowed to watch and enjoy RuPaul’s Drag Race.”
For those of you who don’t know, I was raised as a Christian. In fact, I still retain many elements of a Christian worldview. However, it would be disingenuous to call myself one considering I am not practicing nor embracing key parts of the faith. I am still highly sympathetic to the overall Christian community
To be honest, I’m not completely sure what I believe. Most of those who leave the faith usually do for reasons of outright rebellion. It is fair to say that I am in a rebellion of sorts, but I still don’t see it as a enough of a reason to completely throw out my worldview.
My “deviation” from the faith has taken place within the last year or so and has been for mostly carnal reasons – engaging in pre-marital sex and a kind of enjoyable narcissism – yet I remain very conflicted. I enjoy my current life of sinful pleasure, to the point of willful rebellion, but I am fully aware of it.
My father raised me with a Christian worldview, specifically one that deals. heavily with presuppositional thinking – something that I filter every idea through. It has caused me to become somewhat of a philosopher at heart. I’ve looked for alternatives to the faith, but I have not found any viable ones. I know I am not alone in this predicament.
Most of my friends who became Atheists, Agnostics, or whatever else did so for the reason as to be absolved of responsibility to a specific moral authority. They are essentially advocates of a moral relativism that allows them to do whatever they wish at this particular time. I see why they do this and it is an easy route. I however feel that is shallow.
At my core, I am desperate for a worldview that isn’t dependent on human reason for it’s moral standards, its tenants, and its suggested purpose of life. Because of this, I find the concept of appealing to human reason through human reason to be circular logic and foolish.
The problem for me is that if I ditch religion, science can’t actually provide me with answers to the major questions of reality, not to mention that science is totally useless on moral questions. One person pointed this idea out on a comment thread:
“Science, properly defined and understood, explicitly refuses to even get involved in the most important questions. Life, the Universe, Everything. Science stops with a firm thud at the Big Bang, saying nothing at all about what came before or even if that question is even a meaningful one. Science can’t come to grips with Why.“
Currently I am at this odd crossroads of depressing philosophical thought: If there is no absolute truth of any kind – might makes right. Influence, power, and money make right. The implication is too scary for me to accept. Instead I suggest like the X-Files says, “The Truth Is Out There.” I really hope it is.
I have come to ponder upon the idea that life is short. I could die tomorrow. Any of us could.
I am not daft however.
What To Do?
I don’t want to live as a hedonistic narcissist because of this acknowledgment, but I also want to enjoy every last second I have – while still planning and anticipating the future. Yes, I feel as if I am consumed by cognitive dissonance.
In the Bible, the first chapter of Ecclesiastes covers the concept of vanity, something that has created in me a philosophical mood and outlook that is seriously and worryingly quite pessimistic.
16 I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.”17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.
18 For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
Hate the Bible or not, this is a valid and important point. The more “knowledge” we acquire, the more despondent and pessimistic we become. Getting that college degree, large house with a white picket fence, a family and children, ect seems almost useless and vain. What’s the point? Shouldn’t I just become a complete hedonist and live every moment like it’s my last?
We all die at some point. Nothing can go with us, and we have no idea if there is any kind of afterlife or not.
This disturbs me because the idea of an afterlife is often the only thing that inspires people to be “good” – and I shudder at how relative the idea of what is “good” has become in modern society. In the modern world, “good” is simply determined by who has the biggest megaphone on social media and who is driving the current accepted cultural narrative of “good.” That is comforting, and yes, anyone with a brain can see that the assertion I just made is correct.
People mention we are progressing in concern to humanity and what is “good”, but no one seems to have a destination in mind as to exactly where we are progressing. I.E. -” Like in art when a work is described as ‘significant’ – Significant of what?”
If good is as relative as everyone these days insist it is – because absolute truth is such a dangerous concept – then what is there to stop us from evil besides the threat of punishment from a government for whatever is accepted as “evil” in our current time?
Quintus Curtius from the manosphere brings up an important point about this:
Man cannot be exhorted to do good by words alone; he must be held in the grip of terror by a religion that promises damnation if he misbehaves. Religion provides the backing to a moral code that rises above man; the myths, fables , and stories of religion are there for a purpose, and that purpose is to impart a moral code that can keep man’s baser instincts in check.
“He also needs myths to sustain him, to console him in his bereavements, to provide a code to anchor his life, and to impart a sense of meaning to this mortal existence. Snatch away his mythos, rob him of his ideal, and you banish his spirit to a rudderless drifting in life’s drama.It is a cruel fate, and one that is far too common. But for some men, the myth is strong. And it is the last thing to die.”
As the great Christian thinker and philosopher Francis Schaeffer would say, “How then should we live?” Like Shaeffer, I desire an absolute of some kind – in his case the Bible – as to which I can conduct my life and evaluate society. There is an interesting point about Schaeffer’s interpretation of the moral quandary impacting modern society in his, “How Then Should We Live” series:
“When we base society on humanism, which he defines as “a value system rooted in the belief that man is his own measure, that man is autonomous, totally independent”, all values are relative and we have no way to distinguish right from wrong except for utilitarianism. Because we disagree on what is best for which group, this leads to fragmentation of thought,which has led us to the despair and alienation so prevalent in society today.“
I am feeling this despair. I don’t know honestly know how to solve it, but I fear that the longer I go without an answer, the more worried I become about my future. I want to retain the Christian faith that I had, but the “faith” part is lacking.
I am eagerly exploring “alternatives”, but there seems to be no worldview out there which doesn’t require a fundamental leap of faith at its core to begin it’s particular journey. Yes, science can give us facts, but it can’t answer metaphysical issues nor these two questions which pop into my head every day:
What is my purpose in this life? How should I live my life knowing that tomorrow isn’t guaranteed?
In fact, where do I go from here? What do I do? How should I live? Is there any conclusion whatsoever that isn’t fallible and based on the assumption of humanity? I have become stuck in a circular spacial vacuum of uncertainty and I don’t like it.
I had the fortune of finding an article posted about 4 weeks ago on “We Hunted The Mammoth” in which the sites owner and noted male feminist – David Futrelle – promoted an article on The New Statesmen about how liberating men sexually would bring about an end to the problems women face concerning sexism.
Liberation usually sounds like a phenomenal idea. Well, what kind of liberation is the the author – a dominatrix by trade named Margaret Corvid – talking about?
Let’s get started. There are plenty of anticipated attacks on MRA’s, the manosphere, and the ever present Patriarchy. Before we go any further, she makes a very important point about feminism and how it relates to men.
“As feminists, we rightfully put the interests of women first, and we are skeptical of ostensibly feminist arguments that appeal to men’s interests.”
Straight from the horses mouth. It’s statements like this that should convince anyone with a pair of testicles that any men’s issues the feminist movement claims to advocate for are at most lip service. When it comes to the lip service, she barely even does that with her suggested feminist skepticism of anything that appeals to “men’s interests.”
The sexual liberation she talks about later will specifically not appeal to the interest of most men in the general population. Throughout this piece she implies, but never explicit states this idea that men should be vulnerable during sex. However, the kind of vulnerability she refers to is that of men being dominated or “penetrated”.
“He is allowed to penetrate, but not to be penetrated; to control, but not to surrender; to enjoy the grace, sensuality, and sex appeal of a woman, but never to wish to express these traits himself.”
Okay, fine. What disturbs me is that she continually suggests that men who don’t enjoy or being dominated are somehow suppressing their full sexuality. Perhaps its not fear preventing an embrace of this kind of sexuality, but rather a majority of men who really don’t want anything put up their ass.
Even now, what feminism asks of men – that they be conscious of their privilege and respect the agency of women – can lead them to truly satisfying intimate relationships.
Notice how she mentions that being aware of privilege and “respecting the agency of women” whatever that actually means and/or exactly how one goes about that somehow equates to satisfying intimate relationships.
Think about that. Since when has checking, being aware, and acknowledging, one’s privilege automatically translated to successful intimacy in relationships? Acknowledging your male privilege isn’t going to get your wife or girl-friend to put out more. It’s not going to land you any dates.
In fact, I would suggest that “privileged” checking in front of women for well intentioned reasons of modern SJWs communicate a lack of confidence and assertiveness. It is the equivalent of undermining yourself – which essentially destroys your chances of landing that date.
Later she makes a similar claim in the ending to this piece:
“For men, a true feminism offers liberation and sexual fulfillment, through the very process of coming to a fuller understanding of their privileges, and burdens, under patriarchy. “
Quite an assumption. Again, how? Having a full and thorough understanding of your burdens doesn’t translate to liberation and/or sexual fulfillment.
“We may not be able to reach the most hateful misogynists, but feminists must directly attack the false ideology of men’s rights. We must offer a real answer for men consumed by anxiety, and especially those who feel a sense of sexual frustration.“
Yet again, I don’t think the answer to sexual frustration for many men is being dominated and/or having things shoved up their ass. Being dominated by a dominatrix might appeal to a small segment of the male population, but what about the rest of us?
“It is feminism that offers men the chance at a sexually fulfilling life. When rape culture is extinguished, when patriarchy subsides, all genders can realize their full sexual expression in safety.”
Checking our privilege and patriarchal burdens doesn’t seem to give us a clear picture and game-plan for improving our sex lives if it doesn’t involve anal penetration by a foreign object. Being forced to rain in our “toxic masculinity” in concern to our sexuality as feminism demands also doesn’t seem to sound like a fulfilling proposition.
I’ll make a brave and shocking assertion; a fulfilling sex life for men can’t be achieved by concentrating specifically on the issues of women and ignoring those of men which today’s radical feminists seem to do quite often.
Self-reflection is often something we neglect – or perhaps I simply avoid. I’d like to give a shoutout to DCLlive for his post, “Don’t Lose Your Identity”, that got me reflecting honestly about where I am at in my own life after discovering the manosphere and principles of TRP. If I am brutally honest, I feel like a pampered failure who has squandered his inheritance in a pig’s snout.
My pride hurts. While other people I know might believe I’ve got it together, I know deep-down that I don’t.
Change is often something that must come directly from within. Family, friends, and worldview can help prod me along, but ultimately I must have the drive and ambition to lead the charge within myself. Unfortunately, I really don’t.
I discovered the manosphere a bit over 6 months ago and it’s most certainly had an effect on my life. I’ve gotten laid more, become much better at talking to girls, and have gotten them coming to me – woman want me and that’s not an egocentric statement.
I’ve gained a better understanding of attaining the kind of relationship I want, started to understand what becoming a man requires, the importance of developing and improving myself, and making use of my time – thanks to being introduced to “Minimalism” through Captain Capitalism and one of his books, “Enjoy The Decline.” Things are looking up. They also are bugging me though.
The more and more I think about it, I realize I’ve wasted alot of the time of my early 20s. I managed to get out on my own for a year and rent an apartment with my friends. Even though it was a mistake, I learned a lot. I then took a few years off school, but didn’t do much besides work.
I’m one of those lucky individuals who has free tuition because my father works at the school. (I have no debt.) That being said, I still have squandered the time, barely made an attempt to get anything more than passing grades, and essentially have been fooling around while living in my parents basement. Even the time I dedicate to homework I waste playing games, watching movies, ect.
I can pick the time and days I work because of my job at my school and I can literally work it around my class schedule. Even then, I choose not to work nearly as much as I should. I essentially have no bills, besides a phone bill and gas as my Dad has been covering my car insurance and even currently the phone bill.
How’s that for independence?
It scares me. I don’t want to be one of those losers going into their 30s who really is still dependent on their parents.
Even when I graduate from college, which appears to be the next semester, I’ll have turned 27 in October. I don’t even know what I will do with my degree, besides be happy that it was free. I am already ashamed of the fact it will have taken me that long to graduate, besides the fact that I’ve been able to take alot of non-related degree classes allowing me to really enjoy my college experience.
Even most of my family makes comments about how long it has taken me and my uncle asks me what I plan to do when I get done with it all. I honestly don’t have a good answer to give him. This also scares me. What am I actually going to do for a career? I’m still not sure at this point.
I know I should acquire as many skills as I can at this point, but I can’t motivate myself to form any kind of ambition, despite things being handed to me on a plate. I’ve actually attempted to learn some internet coding languages, but I can’t seem to force myself past the initial steps. This even occurs when I try to learn basic video editing – I get too lazy to bother following through.
How can I actually allow myself to blow this kind of opportunity?
I barely bother to apply myself with my homework, and as I type this, I’m mightily behind in a Spanish class this semester I’ve barely applied myself to – despite actually wanting to learn Spanish.
Being brutally honest with myself, I’ve come to this conclusion: I’ve become a nasty internet cliche of everything I don’t want to be.
I need to get my shit together. Change starts from within. I want to become a real man with real responsibility – actually becoming mature. Can I motivate myself to do that? I hope to God that I can.
I like to say things in Spanish with an Antonio Banderas accent. In fact, my goal is to sound like Antonio Banderas with every word. The only problem is that my laziness and refusal to practice my Spanish, go through the flashcards, ect is preventing my Antonio Banderas future. This should be me:
However, it is not. Google translate isn’t all it is cracked up to be, and quite often, it’s dead wrong – no wonder some native speakers look at me weird when I try to compose some crumbled phrases together. Talking like him is impossible if I can’t conjugate my verbs right. I did manage to say this to my girlfriend though, “Ella es hermosa.” It felt good. I felt good.
What worries me is that I won’t feel good about the grade when I finish my second semester of Spanish for my foreign language requirement. Getting graded should inspire me to “really” learn the language, something I already planned to do, but it still hasn’t resulted in me doing much of the homework.
It is the response to sentences in Spanish that I struggle to respond to in kind. You see the subtitles on the screen when watching something in Spanish, so you can pick up the word easily. There is however no subtitles in life when trying to pick out words between two people conversing in Spanish.
If I watch La Liga enough, just perhaps I’ll pick up a few more words. In fact,I challenge myself now; Watch the El Classico between Barcelona vs Real Madrid in Spanish.
Lesson that I will apply when I become a parent: Make my kid learn Spanish as a second language starting at age 5.
– Villains live more fulfilling lives than heroes.
– Villains command much more respect than heroes.
– The hero never gets the girl while the villain is always up to his eyebrows in pussy.
So essentially, you have to sell your soul if you want to get the girl and enjoy life. I firmly disagree with this. On our deathbeds, do we really want to have lived a life that deep down we were ashamed of? No, I am not encouraging you to be a White Knight. In fact, refusing to be an asshole doesn’t automatically mean the only alternative to that is “White Knighting.”
Don’t get me wrong, because I actually see his point. Yes, the bastards/assholes get laid and the nice-guys flounder in the wind. This is why it might be necessary to invoke just a bit of your inner asshole to get your foot in the door to meeting a girl you are actually interested in. However, do you want to be an asshole for you entire life? In marriage, work, friends, life?
Becoming What You Hate
Notice one of the core tenants of becoming a villain: Being an asshole. The kind of women who are attracted to “bad boys” are likely not LTR material and certainly aren’t marriage material. They might be good for a one night stand, but you will never be able to be “bad enough” before it catches up with you – either legally or through isolating your friends and family – in the long run.
What makes a “bad boy” or an asshole? Let’s think about it for a second. Knowing exactly what you want in a relationship and when to move on doesn’t make you an asshole, rather it makes you carefully think through what you are seeking for in any relationship – including all of the pros and cons. Mike Cernovich makes this point about becoming “Alpha”:
I’d never hate on a man who went monogamous. Being alpha is about getting what you want. If you’re in a relationship that makes you happy, good for you.
If you are looking for a romantic relationship with a girl who only is interested in being your friend, move on immediately as you will be disappointed.
SBK writes: “Bad boys tend to have lots of positive traits that come along for the ride of the badness such as good looks, confidence, creativity, humor, charisma, high energy, and good social skills— all things women find attractive.”
He also found that for men “one striking direct path to mating success stood out… low agreeableness; the lower the agreeableness, the more sexual partners.”
If there is anything TRP has taught me, it’s that confidence is the most important thing anyone can have and that there is a difference between being an asshole and having confidence. It is often “confidence” – more on this later – which helps to create all the “asshole” attributes mentioned in the quote above. The article “Do Assholes Really Finish First?” went into some detail about the success of Tucker Max, who has been able to make a name and a prosperous living off his tales of being an asshole.
However, it seems the shallowness of being an asshole as burnt him out. He literally is doing a form of penance with a reverse pendulum swing to his new site, “Mating Grounds” which is essentially a politically correct tip site on dating advice that we all know doesn’t work too well. Being an asshole however, did burn him out as he points out when he finally came back “online” after years of hiatus:
I was a ridiculous narcissist in my twenties. It’s not even that I didn’t care about other people. It’s way beyond that. I just didn’t even understand that other people even existed or mattered. I do not believe I was a true NPD [narcissistic personality disorder] in the clinical sense. But, dude, I was close.“I ended up hurting a lot of people and not even realizing it. Because of that narcissism, I didn’t connect well to other people. I used a lot of people a lot of times, in ways I didn’t understand.
Separating Confidence From Assholes
The reason why people aspire to be “assholes” is that they don’t realize it is the confidence that assholes have that enables them to be successful with women and other endeavor in their lives. Assholes often show signs of being willing to take risks, being brave, and having ambition. For some reason however, people forget that they can be all of these things – an develop all of those traits in the quote mentioned above – without actually being an asshole.
Let’s face it; assholes are often shallow people. They become the narcissists that we despise. One reason so many of us rightfully dislike feminism is because it turns people into “victims” in which everything is about them and is the fault of somebody else. These people continually attempt to “out-victim” each other and get enraged when you refuse to accept their bullshit.
We all want to enjoy life. We NEED other people around and with us to do exactly that. Like it or not, it is other humans – that unique component to life – that make it worth living.
If you want to attract girls and be someone who other men want to be around, become a man. Act like a man. Develop a character that bursts from the seams with masculinity. Make sure they can see it through what your actions and what you say. This is where a lot of confusion has taken place in what society – specifically Social Justice Warriors and feminists have defined as being an asshole. Ignore the repugnant nonsense they spew about what makes an asshole, especially considering that this exactly what they have turned into themselves.
Despite what feminists say about what is “toxic masculinity” in men and how it equates to being an asshole, I encourage all of us to be men and to let our masculinity pour from every fiber of your being. Their definition of toxic masculinity is often exactly what men should strive to become. Never forget that.
You don’t have to be a boy scout for the sake of others. You do however want to be a man of courage, honor, and integrity because it is a masculine virtue that will improve your life. It will build up networks of real friends who can become like a second family. The key concept there is “Real Friends”, something which is non-existent for assholes whose “friends” amount to people dedicated to using and manipulating each other.
It will help you to see through the bullshit of the deceitful and at the same time let others see you for the real man that you are. People want to be around men who are actually courageous and honorable. Real virtues are something that the epic heroes of history have aspired to and they attracted the sort of motivated, ambitious, and honorable companions that we all at our very core desire.
Yes, we can romanticize “heroes” to the point of a fantasy that serves no purpose toward improving ourselves and our character. Will aspiring to be a villain as a replacement construct any better of a fantasy? Do any of us – hero or villain – really want to die alone?
Being a villain – specifically one who is an asshole and a narcissist is shallow as people will eventually see you for what you are; a man whose narcissism which will eventually destroy himself. It’s like getting credit card debt. You can spend all the money you want now, but later you will still have to pay the piper, most likely with interest. It may be “easy” and profitable in the short-term, but it will have negative consequences in the long-run. Perhaps those may never actually be financially, but living with yourself and the destruction of your soul will take their own toll.
Go ahead and lie to yourself about how satisfying it supposedly make your life. If we are actually honest with ourselves, we full well know deep down that there is so much more to a fulfilling and enjoyable life then the supposed romantic allure of “living like a villain”. Real life satisfaction comes from becoming a man and living like one.
We are often told in life that many things are “bad”. Some are obvious – theft, rape, murder, ect. Others such as “cat-calling” are not. I ran into this article on XoJane in which this smoking hot babe was catcalled. Determined to do something about it, she confronted every last one of them. Either there were only 3 encounters worth mentioning, or she was only catcalled three times – group encounter for one of those – in a week.
Something that kept popping up in my mind: Why actually is catcalling bad? Most men – and I use that concept sparingly – know that it often doesn’t work, hence it usually is employed as more of a “I’m messing with you” kind of interaction. Well these days, almost any kind of interaction can become undesirable, offensive, and even become capable of being defined as harassment.
Catcalling has been a bullet point for most of today’s modern first-world feminists. We know they don’t like it, but they never have really set up a “doctrinal statement” with all the trimmings as to why catcalling is offensive. (1) “I’m offended”, is not an actual valid argument. Why should we care? Just to get the cycle rolling, perhaps we are offended that they are offended. (2) Just because certain women are offended by it does not actually make it offensive. (3) Interactions that make you uncomfortable aren’t inherently wrong.
Her main “argument” against catcalling seemed to be that it makes women feel afraid:
How can you explain to a stranger that a compliment makes us feel afraid? That words like gorgeous and beautiful sound like threats when we hear them whispered to us on an empty street late at night? That we feel uneasy, objectified, and uncomfortable when you say this to us while we’re going about our normal routine, not asking to be judged on our appearance out loud? That this thing they do for fun is at the expense of our peace of mind?
So if something makes someone afraid, we shouldn’t say it? Where exactly is the line drawn? So what if it causes fear? What if this women actually causes fear just by the sound of her voice?
That’s not a quick chat you can have with a stranger on a street corner. It needs to be part of a bigger conversation, earlier on, by the people who are in charge of shaping you into a respectable human. When we’re being taught as young women not to respond to this kind of attention, we need to also be teaching our young men not to engage in this behavior in the first place.
Until she and the rest of these radical 3rd wave feminists provide a thorough methodology as well as a strong philosophical foundation for why young men shouldn’t cat call, we should ignore and dismiss her demands as illogical and irrational. In fact, I’ve talked to girls who claim they like and enjoy cat-calling. While it is a somewhat mundane form of validation, why should I encourage others to acquiesce to the demands of this writer vs these other girls I’ve talked to? It’s also not just the ladies I’ve talked to but ladies online, including self-identifying feminists. Decisions, decisions.
I very much dislike in today’s polarized and vitriolic climate. I also take issue with the constant refusal and automatic dismissal of people based on what they identify with as well as the labels others give them – yes that includes radical feminists and all other “labels” I disprove of. We should never become these irate walking narcissists who will only associate with others who think as we do. However, we must be careful as well.
In the end, if a woman confronts you about “catcalling” its an immediate, glaring, and vibrant red flag that you should ignore her and refuse to converse with her any further. Walk away, and if she refuses to stop following you, threaten to call the police. The chances are high she could be a radical feminists who has a score to settle with the male half of our species and defining your words as “harassment” is her logical next step. When you run into the Jezebels of the world, it’s best to avoid them, or face their wrath in which the ends always justify the means.
This always depends on whose money the “political party” and advocates are receiving. Ultimately, it is it’s own time held tradition of American hypocrisy that can be summed up as, “It’s wrong when you do it, but okay when I do.”
I came across this article in The Washington Post detailing a list for 2014 revealing the donors for the Center for American Progress. CAP finally decided to do this after taking some criticism for a lack of transparency from fellow progressives as well as conservatives only too eager to point out flaws in their opponents.
Notable top donors include Walmart, financial giant Citigroup, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and some large biotech and pharma firms. Walmart is actually particular shocking, considering unions’s attitude toward them and their top-dog status as a progressive punching bag. This however, is not what what we should apparently be paying attention to.
“We’re proud of our donors,” CAP president Neera Tanden said in an interview. “We’re very diversified. We have a very low percentage of corporate donors. We have a wide panoply of individual and foundation supporters.
In political campaign financing and lobbying, there seems to be this odd disconnect between who you should take money from and why. Most progressives will insist that money in politics is bad, but won’t hesitate to ask and accept plenty of it in order to win political races and advance certain agenda’s. It was not too long ago when Michelle Obama decried the influence of money in politics, only to request campaign donations in the same speech only minutes before.
The irony of this hasn’t been lost on those on the left. This was brought up by The Atlantic in an article a few months back, “Is Philanthropy Bad for Democracy?” in which Gara Lamarche made this point about his fellow progressives:
Why are they are not more concerned about the undemocratic and largely unaccountable nature of philanthropy? Why are we—since I too have failed, for years, to ask these big questions—hypersensitive to the dangers of big money in politics, and the way it perpetuates advantage and inequality, but blind, it seems, to the dangers of big philanthropy in the public sphere?
A prevailing question that continues to remain is as to why money from “corporations” is dangerous, but money from huge political PACs, non-profit organizations, ect are not. The CAP president emphasized the variety of donors and foundations contributing money as somehow not as “bad” as receiving money from more “acceptable” sources. Why?
The fundamental question we must ask is rather simple: Do the end’s justify the means in regards to where the cash comes from? There is no gray area. Either money in politics is bad or it is not. People with strong political involvements are willing to make all sorts of exceptions about where they get their money from while condemning others for doing the exact same thing.
At some point, there must be some consistency or the whole argument breaks down into what it has become now; decrying others for doing the exact same thing that you are doing. While you may be right about the destructive influence of “their” money in politics, it doesn’t make your identical actions any less destructive.
Either we get rid of money from politics all-together, or we quit pointing fingers at people getting funding from places, people, and worldviews we don’t like. This of course brings up another issue: Is money free speech? That is another debacle with it’s own mess.
The more and more I see posts by feminists – particularly the radfems- there appears to be this vitriolic disdain for the penultimate height of evil that infests our world; the ever dangerous white male.
Many of the things said about these “white males” are deemed acceptable statements of “uncomfortable truth” though one would not dare utter similar things about anyone else who either wasn’t white and/or male. Society is full of double-standards which we usually make excuses for with concepts like Standpoint Theory (Privilege) and the notion that if you are supposedly a member of the opposing group in society, you can’t be oppressed, marginalized, disadvantaged, ect. no matter if you are a homeless “white male” on the streets in Chicago’s terrifying winters or not.
A clip from The Amazing Athiest on “Tumblr Feminists” sums up the self-loathing that white males are supposed to feel at all times:
In a feminist’s world, I suppose it’s a good thing I’m only half-white so I experience just a little bit less hate and vitriol.