Not All Men

In the Comments to Random Partners below, Reader Egregious Charles takes issue with my statement about treating woman as the gentler sex.

Women have never been the gentler sex; notice how tribal people turn over captives to the women when they’re to be tortured, as in the Congo and Native American tribes in the Old West? There’s only one way men are less gentle, and that’s to other men when it’s on behalf of women (or to show off for them).  

Well, yes. Except that I’m sorry, but I refuse to use the rituals of primitive peoples (e.g. the Congo and Native American tribes, also Islam) as an example for anything other than something to be avoided. Western civilization has improved the lot of both men and women immeasurably by improving on the customs and mores of primitive peoples, while holding on to those aspects that actually improve society. This includes institutions like marriage (which formalizes the family structure), and treatment of the weaker members of society (e.g. forbidding that women to be stoned to death for adultery, genital mutilation to “curb” the female sex drive, etc.)

I would suggest that much of today’s societal woes in the West have come about because we’ve taken a step backwards — undermining the social institutions and mores upon which Western civilization was built, to where we arrive at revolting outcomes such as Tinder.

Most men don’t use Tinder.

Of course not, and nor do most women. But countless millions do, according to the app’s download statistics, and my commentary is based on that fact. I don’t ever buy into the “NAWALT” (not all women are like that) or, on this case, “NAMALT”, because the fact of the matter is that when something becomes widespread, especially in a certain segment of society (e.g. Millennials, in this case), it’s worthy of commentary.

Men aren’t generally speaking assholes except to each other, and I’m sorry but this is just an example of posturing to look better than the other men. 

To take your points in order: I would respectfully suggest that the coarsening of society has enabled men to go back to treating women like shit. Here’s what people seem to forget. The laws which make divorce so advantageous for women in terms of child support and property division didn’t appear out of the blue: they were a reaction to the fact that men often deserted their wives and refused to live up to their responsibilities as parents. Of course, not all men behaved that way towards their wives; but enough of them did to make the passage of such laws possible. That women have turned around and used divorce against men is terrible, but that’s just an example of laws often having good intentions but unintended consequences. (This is true of most laws, by the way, but that’s a topic for another time.)

So your comment that “Men aren’t generally speaking assholes except to each other” is factually incorrect: men are assholes quite promiscuously, whether to each other or to women. We can talk all day about why this is or is not the case, or who’s to blame and so on, but you’ve committed an egregious [sicfaux pas on this website, which is to take an obviously-flippant comment seriously.

My position on women behaving like assholes, by the way, is well documented — a reading of my essay, “The Pussification of the Western Male“* might be salutary — and yes, I am (and was then) perfectly aware that Not All Women Are Like That (the latter being tiresomely pointed out to me in the thousands of angry emails I received after the publication of said screed).

As for “posturing to look better than the other men“, you will find, as you read more of my writings, that I don’t ever “posture” or, to use the current en vogue expression, “virtue-signal” in any way. I state my position on matters quite clearly (and often bluntly), and how people take those positions is a matter of utter indifference to me. To restate that (because it’s quite important, in visiting this website): I once stated in an earlier time that you may agree with me, and stay; or disagree with me, and move on: either choice is irrelevant to me, because I really don’t care about other people’s opinion of me, one way or the other. I live my life in splendid isolation [sic] from the opinions of others. If you understand nothing else about me, you need to understand this.

So if you excused me of “posturing” out of ignorance of who I am, that’s okay; if you used it as a debating trick or insult, it didn’t work.

By the way, Readers can expect a lot more posts on topics like Tinder, the male backlash against modern feminism in the PUA (pickup artist) and the  MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movements, and so on. I find the whole thing fascinating, and visiting the various websites dedicated to the above has been at times hilarious and at others, deeply disturbing. I once predicted the MGTOW action, but I did not foresee the PUA activity or the industry is generated. Watch this space.


*At some point, Tech Support v.2 and I will figure out how to import various of my earlier essays (Pussification, Let Africa Sink, The Gun Thing etc.) from the old websites and post links somewhere on the sidebar of this site. It just won’t be today.

12 comments

  1. People tend to be individuals. I am. Lumping people into groups based on race/sex/origin/culture is the first step in collectivism. That one’s race/sex/origin/culture background can provide some clues to the individual’s thoughts and actions is true in the same way a map provides clues to the terrain one is hiking in. But the map is not the territory, and an individual’s background is not the sum total of his personality.

  2. RE: women and primitive torture, I think this example shows not that women are less gentle, but that women are more easily damaged. Torture isn’t normal. Torture is something you relish and get creative with when you are are hurt, damaged, and broken.

    That these savage cultures turn prisoners over to women to be tortured shows how poorly the culture treats women more than it does the nature of women.

  3. If you haven’t already, check out Return Of Kings. It seems to be one of the stronger, and more fascinating, of the PUA/MGTOW/Red Pill sites. I’m glad you are back. This is a topic I’ve wanted to hear your take on for a long time.

    1. Been reading RoK since it first opened. The articles are a little spotty — some excellent, some too superficial, and some just awful. Lots of lists: “5 Reasons Why…” etc., no doubt because most of their readership is male, and men make lists.

      1. Dalrock is another good manosphere blogger. Not into the whole PUA thing, and devoutly Christian, but I find his insights into marriage and it’s modern problems very insightful.

        Of course as a middle-aged bachelor with no romantic prospects, the entire topic is rather academic to me. Doesn’t stop me from having my own opinions of course:-).

      2. RoK can definitely be hit or miss. I understand they need content, but they should be a little more discriminating in what they accept. Some of it was definitely (poorly) written by immature twits.

  4. When some of the previous essays make it back, might I make a humble request for the, “Burn in Hell, Ted Kennedy, and here’s why” one? I sent it to a couple friends who were going on about what a great guy he was, and it spoke the truth better than anything I could have come up with.

      1. Actually, it didn’t. Here ya go:

        Base Spaniel Fawning

        May 22, 2008
        8:30 AM CDT

        I was watching Fox News last night, and Brit Hume’s “panel” (Barnes, Kondracke and Krauthammer) were asked to comment on the imminent demise of Senator Ted Kennedy. To a man, their praise was fulsome (even Krauthammer said good things about him—with a couple of subtle digs, however), and I suddenly felt the bile rise in my throat.

        One should not speak ill of the dead, they say, and one should not rejoice in the misfortunes of others. Well, I’m not going to do that here. I am truly sorry for Kennedy, as I would be for any man stricken with so terrible an illness.

        At the same time, however, I’m not going to let his illness cloud my judgement of what this unspeakable traitor has done to the United States in his sorry lifetime.

        We all know about Chappaquiddick: how a young senator let a woman drown instead of trying to rescue her or calling for immediate help, because the circumstances under which they were together might have proved injurious to his career as a politician.

        We all know that Kennedy was a philanderer, a divorced Catholic who did not hesitate to use his church as cover if attacked, playing the “Irish Catholic” card to the hilt, and parlaying that factor into a political career which started shortly after one of his heroes Fidel Castro came to power, and has outlasted even that foul dictator’s reign.

        We all know that the disgraceful fundraising for the Irish Republican Army, a terrorist organization, took place in Kennedy’s own bailiwick and with his full knowledge (and tacit support) of the slimy NORAID organization. (NORAID claims that it only provides money to the families of imprisoned IRA terrorists. Right.)

        We all know that Kennedy visited the Soviet Union with the express purpose of undermining the U.S. government, and seeking to coordinate that effort with our enemy.

        We all know that he has used his family’s wealth and connections to keep not just himself, but the many branches of the licentious Kennedy clan out of prison.

        All that pales, however, compared to how Kennedy’s political philosophy, and the legislation which has flowed from it, has damaged and undermined this nation.

        Kennedy personifies the term “limousine liberal”: a person who can argue for and implement social policies which are ruinous to the nation, but who would be forever protected from those policies’ vicissitudes by virtue of his own inherited, immense, and sheltered wealth.

        From the beginning, Kennedy has had a vision for this country: a vision which includes odious socialist principles such as inheritance taxes, regressive and punitive income taxes, vastly-increased government powers, and costly, federally-funded programs such as welfare, a nationalized healthcare system, and an overly-generous government pension program.

        Unable to achieve his changes through the Executive branch—he lost the Democratic primary to the equally-repulsive Jimmy Carter in 1980—Kennedy has since devoted his career to changing society into his image through legislation. Indeed, if you look through all the legislation of the past half-century which has been anti-capitalist, anti-free market, and in some cases un-Constitutional, you will find Kennedy’s signature proudly emblazoned on each of them.

        Kennedy has been a disgrace to this country: a wealthy socialist, anti-military, a hypocrite, and an espouser of many ruinous liberal causes such as eco-activism (except when it comes to wind farms near the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport—see “hypocrite”, above).

        There is not a single thing that this man has touched that has not somehow undermined the principles which have made this country great. Indeed, this country has become great despite the efforts of Ted Kennedy, and his acolytes.

        I’m sorry that he faces terminal illness, but at the same time, I also know that this country will be made immeasurably richer by his passing, and that’s the truth of the matter.

Comments are closed.