PatrickC

Cannot argue with those 5 principles James and I liked that you see this as a long term goal requiring generational changes. That's entirely rational of course. Oh and welcome to the boards as well James.

Really fascinating synopsis Adam. You really added to some very interesting thoughts I'd already gleaned from Farrell and GWW. Now that evidence of the effect of fatherlessness is widely distributed, and perhaps even accepted, I think we can agree that parenting can't improve without men having first healed themselves such that they can start new families. How can childhoods ever improve without the involvement of fathers? How can fathers parent effectively if they can't choose high quality women to parent with? How can they choose high quality women if they don't have high standards? How men they have high standards without going "MGTOW" for a while and getting their heads together? How can they take these timeouts if "blue pill" men and radicalized women keep attacking them with self-serving "Man up!" shaming? This is an interesting point of view that I hadn't really considered before. But ironically kind of find myself in at the moment. Certainly I think men as do women need to make better choices in their partners as a means to improving that quality overall. However, meeting philosophically minded women is pretty rare frankly. But then again this may well be about my choices, so the jury is still out on that one (for me at least). Which is perhaps exactly your point, that in taking time out from relationships we are more able to re-evaluate those choices and desires more rationally. Thanks Adam, I have really enjoyed your insights and thoughts on this topic and wish you all the best.

Wow, the detail in your analysis puts me to 'shame' [] Whilst I thought you commented on some fascinating topics, the above particularly caught my attention. I'd never thought of some aspects to male shaming as being similar to hazing or a male initiation test. This would make sense of course, since it's a very obvious way in which men are granted status within a group. How you handle or rebuff humiliation as a man will be a deciding factor for female appreciation. Since the world has it's fair share of humiliators out there in positions of power. A man that can handle humiliation with grace (for himself), without complaining will be seen as a good catch by some women. This clearly puts some men in a difficult quandary of course. Learn to handle humiliation and rejection and get women’s appreciation or don’t and isolate yourself from them. Perhaps that thinking is little simplistic, but I think it often fits for men at different points in their lives, depending on their relationship status. It's all part of the risk and reward culture that men are expected to partake in. I think Warren Farrell discusses this at length when he says, "men's weakness is their facade of strength; women's strength is their facade of weakness". I'm still not entirely convinced that 'some' of these cultural expectations are unreasonable. Providing a woman with resources whilst she produces and nurtures our children is a very reasonable trade-off I think. However, I do think that as people develop more universal ethics and as child rearing improves that the sort of things men and women find attractive in each other will change. We kind of live in a state of nature for now, for which some of those attractions are frankly reptilian and largely unnecessary in the modern world. This partly fits with how I've decided recently to break from my previous deliberate seeking out of women. Concentrating more on my own life, pursuing my passions and interests and enjoying the friendship’s I have already developed. Since I am still single and 44 I must take some responsibility for the situation I find myself in. A period of honest self-reflection has made me realise where some of my deficits have arisen. Which is all for the good, because I'll be that much more conscious of them in future.

[Y]

This is the trouble with the UK and Europe generally frankly. I've been raised on a plethera of this marxist, socialist nonsense. Either that or a bunch of authoritarians, of which I would count the polemic Peter Hitchins as one. I'd be very surprised if any of them would even consider an interview with an anarchist. Perhaps Galloway might, since he likes courting with fringe groups. What would we learn though? A lot of rhetoric about how socialism and stalinism has been misunderstood all these years.

I think you'd get more interesting dialogue with the British listerners than with anyone in the public eye over here. There really is no one that interesting worth listening to generally, apart from Jake of course. Having said that Chris Mournsey of Devils Kitchen fame has recently taken a long hiatus from blogging and effectively arcived his site. I get the feeling that getting married, a burgeoning business and the abject failure of the British Liberatarian party has probably had an interesting effect on his outlook with life. "However, despite all of this, I have felt for some time that politics is an utterly futile endeavour. For the last few years, I have found that my work has allowed me to make a real difference to people's lives (not least my own) in a way that politics—let alone the libertarian position that I occupy—can never do.Remember, politicians only ever make your life harder—they never make it better, or easier: you have to do that for yourself. And I have found that this positivity is far more healthy and rewarding than wallowing in the stye of negativity and managed decline that is the political arena." I'm quite sure he is familiar with Stef and wonder, given the above statement how much influence if any Stef may have had on him. Despite his more than colourful approach to politics in the past I am genuinely curious about what changed for him, as I'm quite sure it would make for an interesting and perhaps insightful listen. Just a thought.

Yes, this has also been my experience of them at the more extreme end. One of my thoughts on this was, since they are not investing in 'self knowledge', then it's probably for the good that they don't attempt a bad investment in a relationship with a women. Whilst it can perhaps be considered as the path of least resistance, at least they wont go on wrecking their lives with more woman and having children with them.

You raise a very good point about 'male shaming' Adam. It does appear to be the default position for attacking men by both genders. Female shaming is generally frowned upon and seen as an unreasonable attack on them, which for the most part is probably true. Except when it comes to men, the shame can be piled high without even a whimper from the male victim. This was quite a recent discovery for me and has radically transformed my empathy for other men. Personally I have adopted some of what I consider to be the better ideas of MGTOW. Making my own way in the world, concentrating on my own self development and happiness, without necessarily always looking for the romantic angle. I have and do reject some women in my life because of their behaviour, attitude and circumstance. Even when sex is an offer on the table. I still engage with women socially and intellectually and I certainly consider many of those women as my equal. I have had a few relationships with women and each time they have been an improvment on the other, despite their eventual failings. But with all this I am still open to the idea of meeting my eventual wife someday. I'm just not going to accept half measure from that lady, anymore than she should expect of me. Feminism has already dealt a number of hefty blows to the family unit thus far. Any idea that this will be resolved by men is somewhat short sighted. It's like expecting someone walking into battle, already badly wounded.to weild a sword accurately. It will certainly take both genders to resolve this together I have no doubt. And a big part of that resolve will come when both men and women understand that 'male shaming' is no longer a legitimate way to get men to do things.

To be fair MGTOW is unlikely to be the catalyst to the death of the family. Staism, feminism and the current economic conditions are primarily to blame. MGTOW is just a way some men have decided to react to the current state of things. Not sure you can catagorise them in the same vein as radical feminism. Since RadFem is always demanding more goodies (rights) for women and less for men. MGTOW is just about men walking away from relationships with women. A form of ostracism if you like.

Naming and shaming exercises have become a popular political past time in recent years in the UK. Here's another one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21536171 "The publication of these names sends a clear signal that cheating on tax is wrong and reassures people who pay their taxes - the vast majority - that there are consequences for those who refuse to tell HMRC about their full liability," said Treasury Minister David Gauke. "It also encourages defaulters to make a full and prompt disclosure and cooperate with HMRC to avoid being named."

Very sorry to hear about the way your mother is acting. It's a dreadful imposition to put on a person, particularly when it's your own children. Personally my instinct is to say run, very fast and very far, but I recognise that is easier said than done. One of the ways you can approach this is by asking yourself which of the parts of yourself are stopping you. What (and why) do they fear about no longer interacting with your mother. The part that fears losing her might have some useful insight for you which you may have not understood before. You can then start the process of gently and firmly negotiating with yourself. Of course since you mentioned the possibility of an anxiety attack, there can be some very conflicting parts competeing to be heard. Concentrating on the needs of these parts will go along way in calming them down, and in turn will bring you to a more agreeable solution. Unfortunately it's often just not enough to have the moral intellectual grounding from first principles. Very often we must explore the seemingly irrational sides of ourselves, as a means to becoming more rational. Sometimes those irrational parts were once very rational whilst we were defenceless children. However, as adults we no longer need them, but we remain respectful to them as parts that protected us as children. The process is similar to (peaceful) parenting yourself, using reason and evidence as the cornerstone to that negotiation. Best wishes.

Likewise. I now no longer debate statists anymore. The whole process is just a reminder of those annoying contradictory conversations about religion and politics I had with my father over the years. An old chestnut I heard after recently discovering anarchism, from my then girlfriend was, 'Who would build the roads Pat!?' I recall spitting my coffee out in sheer wonderment at hearing this much loved statist of statements for the first time.. []

Well done Stef!... Mind you, gotta wonder what Putin and his cronies would make of it. Guessing as long as it's only an international audience and not the poor Russian civilian, it's good to go.

From a political point of view I quite agree with you. However, the irony is that socialism tends to take on those very same christian virtues and values of alturism and collectivism. At least from the new teatament perspective.

Just another example of marxists attempting to comandeer the latest popular debate.

Yes I accept it of course. Clearly you feel very passionately about the effects of ostracism and I certainly don't wish to belittle that feeling you have with it. Certainly ostracism that has been unfairly applied to an individual, can be a very hurtful.and painful experience sometimes.

Excuse the extreme metaphor, but trying telling that to a rape victim or the family of a murdered loved one.. Indeed imagine I punched you in the face rather than just walking away. I recommend you read Stef's books Everyday Anarchy & Practical Anarchy. Murray Rothbard has some useful insight that can rebut those claims you have made rather well. I understand why people think this way, but frankly I just have to remind myself of the world we currently inhabit. You could call it one giant DRO overlord if you will.

I'll go further and say that contracts are immoral. They're not in the moment, they restrict mobility, and prevent the changing of one's mind. Verbal agreements and reputation should be as far as it goes. Trust in people you CAN trust. It's a personal thing. Who ever said we have to control, or trust people that we don't know? Keep it simple, and personal. Sure it could damage many areas like medicine, infestructure, and technology, but personally I think liberty is far more valuable than those things. It's not clear to me how signing a contract voluntarily is more tyrannical than statism and laws. Bear in mind that we have little to no control over what laws are passed, but we do have considerable control over what contracts we sign. However, I think I might understand where some of your fears might be coming from perhaps. Certainly contracts we have to sign these days all too often work against us, particularly contracts we make with corporations and large organisations. They often intertwine law with statist contract law which is all too often indecipherable and verging on the relative at times. We are also striving towards a society that is based on universal and consistent ethics and not arbitrary ones. So in that regard it's perfectly fine for people to disengage (ostracise) with those they don't agree with. However, depending on which values win out within a free society, they are most likely and indeed highly likely to be considered the best ones economically. People are entirely free to make their own course in the world, it's just their decisions, beliefs and way of life may not be considered as congruent with others. So in theory, If they happen to be in a very small minority then they could risk the possiblity of subsistence living. But I have to ask, who is really going to subject themselves to this. Since insurance companies will be entirely beholden to what the market wants, as in individual customers. If their contracts become so invasive, then people will simply use a company that is less intrusive. The market will find a respectable balance that will meet the needs and demands of everyone. Ostracism and voluntary contracts should not be considered similar to theft, imprisonment and murder, which is what the state indulges in continually. I hope that helps.

Yes it's entirely feasible that some children will still be abused. However, abusers will be impoverishing themselves economically. For instance some people have suggested that in a free society races can voluntarily segregate themselves from other races. Which I agree, they will be entirely at liberty to do so. However, upon making those decisions the free market itself will punish them, by making the goods and services they wish to provide each other as more expensive. More expensive because they will only want to employ people of their own race, thus eliminating a much wider (and cheaper) population from their workforce. Even if they do decide to employ people of different races, how likely are those of a different race to work for them? And if they do, then they are still likely to have to pay more for them. They also risk being ostracised from specialised and cheaper markets elsewhere outside their community. All in all racial segregation will likely lead to more expensive goods and services and general economic impoverishment. The same risks go for abusive parents. If parents want all the benefits of a state of the art and cheap health service, then many insurance companies will draw up contracts which will want to avoid future liability from the results of poor parenting. So testing children for those signs will be a part of any contract these companies will have with parents. Of course there may well be insurance companies that might be less stringent, but this will be reflected in the overall higher cost of the premiums the parents pay them. Depending on the cost difference, this may well encourage abusive parents to seek help. But as you suggest, it's impossible to say that abuse will be entirely irradiated, it's just that abuse will no longer be a profitable or benign investment for anyone.

The question you have to ask yourself is, 'do I care enough about the poor, sick and infirmed?'.. If you do then it's very likely that you will contribute towards these people either by direct donations or through some organisation that has set itself up to help people in these situations. I imagine you would'nt be alone with this belief either and many more people would join you in contributing to such an organisation. The second question you want to ask yourself is 'how well are current state provided services working out now?' In the case of free, such as the NHS in the UK you have a sub standard care that barely reaches their own standards. In the case of the US you have an over regulated private market that whilst probably providing better care than the NHS, costs a small fortune to insure oneself and their family. Private charity used to work more than adequately resolving issues around peoples health and welfare. Friendly societies or mutual associations were enormously successful organisations that were able to provide cover to those invested in them the proper care when needed. They were able to get massive discounts based on their massive member base. They were basically able to barter rather efficiently with the free market, particularly in health services. These organisations were often able to meet the demands of specialised need, such as cover for serious accident to coal miners. They were often able to provide a spouse with a welfare check that had lost her husband for the rest of her life. Unfortunately when the govt decided to provide these services either for free or funded via a basic (much lower back then) tax rate taken directly from a mans wage. No one felt the need to invest in these organisations anymore and so they slowly disappeared for good. Of course since govts monopolised these services there was no longer a barter mechanism to decide on price either and so eventually costs have just escallated to where they are now.

I have to agree, a lot of nonesense has been made about RP's integrity, particularly the voluntaryist claim. I do hope he is the last political Libertarian messiah we see.

Bread, water and a blanket perhaps? I really have no idea what other peoples basic needs are. I know my own of course, but that includes a laptop and an internet connection for me. The ability to choose my own diet and clothes, where I live etc. I was curious since your introduction stated that these needs would be granted by right of birth. Who or what would grant this right and decide on what those needs were and how would it be enforced?

Interesting analysis Lowe. I think in war they might call this a 'flanking' strategy. Still fraught with danger and risk, but likely to bring about submission. I think many PUA's see their relationship with women as war like. Anyway regarding the creep term, I listened to this rather interesting video recently that I thought might be useful for people. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaxKR4CAKf8]

It's shaming language that is the problem and this often applies to the term 'creepy'. the trouble with the term is that it doesnt really describe anything, not even a feeling. It's an observation that causes anxiety would be the best way to describe it. Slut and whore which are often used as shaming terms for women are rightly considered unacceptable words to use publically. However, culturally when a woman accuses a guy of being a 'creep', she is much more likely to be believed and the term is considered inoffensive and so the 'mud sticks' so to speak. I think we've all experienced being creeped out, insofar as we meet certain people that just dont meet our subjective or aesthetic needs. They might be a mixture of clumsy, foolish or nervous. We may not find them attractive or charasmatic and so dismiss them from our minds as unappealing. But if they are misreading our reaction and carry on persuing an interaction with us, we are likely to experience anxiety. If people and perhaps woman looked at it this way I think they might realise that there is nothing personal here. Your subjective preferences were just not being met and they misread you. A little embaressing for you both perhaps, but not one we can lable either with some tacit judgement of their reputation and character. Of course creeps shouldnt be confused with people that are downright dangerous. People that use thrreats against us or others are quite different from those labled as creep.

I have both.. Oooh the pleasure... and the pain.. [8-|] On an aside it is funny seeing MS's attempt to be more 'mac like' with changing paradigms. They decide to change the start menu making it easier for the relatively smaller tablet device market, rather than for the ubiquitous mouse and keyboard. At least when Apple removed the floppy and CD drives there were some fairly well acknowledged alternatives to this hardware. Even more ludicrous when MS decision is software based and therefore easily adaptable for all devices.