AdamC

This is well explained, though I'm not certain what you mean by open borders. For reference: “the branch of libertarian philosophy which deems the natural rent to equally belong to human beings" (Foldvary also envisages rent-sharing beginning on a local scale.) This is the moral *should* I have trouble accepting – and perhaps I'm unnecessarily complicating the issue. I understand that a location becomes even more valuable due to the economic and social activity of the community members working and living nearby, but the idea that they are *owed* that value seems off to me. We don't own value, we only own things (property) that are valued. Since land value (rent) isn't a thing, the members of the community cannot have been deprived of it and so cannot be *owed* it or claim it *should* be returned. (The complaint of being owed value also arises from the notion of inflation of the money supply being a "theft" or a "tax". Whilst it is true that inflation causes a reduction in the value or "purchasing power" of the money one holds, it doesn't deprive one of any amount of the money one holds. No-thing has been taken away as it would have been with a theft or a tax.) The community members cannot create value in the sense that they can demand that potential joiners *should* give any particular market value to their presence and activity. And those existing community members excluded from superior locations cannot demand that the excluders give any particular market value to those exclusions. So the excluded are not *owed*. Because the notion of being *owed* the value or a "return" of the value seems to falsely imply a deprivation, I can only agree that members of the community can (rather than should) voluntarily agree to share land value to compensate each other for exclusions, and because it is generally true that their activity further increases the market value of locations, it is better that they, rather than a speculative rent-seeker, capture that value and distribute it amongst themselves in proportion to the value of their exclusions. Again, I could be unnecessarily complicating the issue. My aim is to avoid the advocacy of unreasonable moral shoulds, particularly where those shoulds would adversely impact those not in agreement, e.g., Geoists/Georgists forcibly redistributing land value amongst non-geoists on the basis that they *should*.

Same here. It's heartening to know there are others who make the crucial distinction between land and capital (and thereby avoid the unnecessary polarization of capitalists vs communists). I'm not in agreement with the Georgist/Geoist moral theory that land value (rent) is owed to all of humanity. I see voluntary (Geoanarchist) rent-sharing as a practical (not moral) solution to settling disputes over who gets to exclude others from supra-marginal land, and to protecting the economic growth and social stability of communities from rent-seeking behaviour. You might enjoy these articles: The Geolibertarian Ethics of Land Rent The Rent, the Whole Rent, and Nothing but the Rent Is the Real Estate Market Voluntary?

Ultimately, present and absentee exclusions are only as secure as the reciprocal agreement of community members to respect exclusions (optionally upon condition e.g., Georgist/Geoist rent-sharing), as well as a likely commitment to protect exclusions from roaming outsiders (justified to the outsiders as the protection of body and other property resting there). Claiming an exclusion of spatial land is an "ownership" or a "property right" doesn't create any additional security or binding obligation upon others since neither physical nor spatial land can be owned as property, if property is strictly the result of transformation: Transformed (e.g., relocated) physical land is called "property". Untransformed physical land is called "land" (not property). Spatial "land" cannot be transformed.

It is true that land is not the result of human action. And without a consistent principle to appeal to, "land" ownership seems completely arbitrary. The problem is the definition of "land". There is physical land (rocks, minerals, water, soil, vegetation, animals, etc) and spatial land (geographical "space" or "location"). The "Homesteading Principle" says that the transformation of physical land AND the exclusion of others from spatial land ("embordering") is sufficient to establish property. When Anarcho-Capitalists claim they "own" land, they are not claiming to have transformed spatial land (which is impossible) but are claiming to have made an effort to alert others of their wish to exclude others from a location (by "embordering" that location with a fence) in order to protect the property resting there, property which is the result of their human action (e.g., a planted field, house). Some (but not all) Geoists (of various political stripes) argue that valid property is only the transformation of physical land, and that exclusion from supra-marginal spatial land should be compensated using a land-value "tax" (statist) or rent-sharing/land dues (voluntaryist). This reciprocal compensation is intended to prevent rent-seeking on rising land values in those locations that have become especially attractive due to the supra-marginal economic and social opportunities available there. Even in a stateless society absent the state's expenditure on public works, some locations will be desired above others and competition for access to those locations will result in higher land-values ("rent"/"geo-rent"/"ground rent"). Because of the "Homesteading Principle" derivation of property and the ability to capitalize land values (rent) into money stuffs, Anarcho-Capitalists don't easily recognize the distinction between land and capital. And because of Robinson Crusoe economics, Anarcho-Capitalists don't easily understand how economic progress leads to poverty in those locations where rent-seeking on rising land values is rife. Fred Foldvary explains how rent-seeking on rising land values initiates the credit (mortgage) expansion phase in each business cycle. Where Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarchist-Geoists can agree is that IF rent-seeking is a problem in any particular location, people will find voluntary geoist (or other market) solutions to prevent adverse accumulation. But Anarcho-Capitalists and Geoist are certain to disagree if the Capitalist asserts that anything other than transformation/human action results in property, and if the Geoist claims that "land" (in total or portion) is owned collectively by all mankind as a "birth right" absent any human action. If ownership derives from transformation/human action, then it is property that is owned and not physical "land", physical "land" being that which is left remaining after transformation. If spatial "land" cannot be transformed, then spatial "land" cannot be owned as property, it can only be used exclusively (or collectively). In short, despite verbal claims to the contrary, "land" cannot be owned and should not be heard to be "owned." I favor the geoist conception of property derived strictly from transformation/human action, and I reject spatial exclusion (as in the "Homesteading Principle") as any basis of property ownership, recognizing "embordering" only as the means by which others are alerted to an intent of exclusive use of a location/space. The concept of property is supposed to prevent disputes. Ultimately, it is the agreement of those local to one's "homestead" that is the reciprocal security of local "homesteads". Agreement requires clear principles that are sensitive to local conditions, particularly market demand for locations since space cannot be produced: In those locations where competition for exclusion is high, it seems likely voluntary geoist rent-sharing would be the easiest means to secure an exclusion of space for oneself whilst respecting the spatial exclusions of others. Where competition for exclusion is low or none at all, then mere verbal claims of ownership of "land" (physical or spatial) have no consequence for the validity of property since there is no one there to contest such claims.

Privilege = "I am a Victim. Therefore you are either a Persecutor or a Rescuer. If you don't rescue me from my victimhood then you must be a Persecutor. Stop persecuting me!" See: The Victim Drama Triangle / The Three Faces of Victim

The money/property paid to exclude others from occupying land (location) within a geographically-defined community can be distributed equally amongst the members of that community. A member's ongoing payment of "geo-rent" (in proportion to the market value of their exclusion) secures the community's agreement to their exclusion and guarantees a share of the distributed "geo-rent" in compensation for being excluded from other locations. See Fred Foldvary on Geolibertarianism and Geoanarchism

Thanks for this. Perhaps you can type out the circle if you can't get your image to embed.

When we protect ourselves ... from a too intensive or too quick living out or living up, we feel ourselves guilty on account of the unused life, the unlived life in us. -- Otto Rank, in Irvin D. Yalom, Existential Psychotherapy p.146

Good message. Respect the "No!" Love the "No!" Only then can be free to hear the "Yes!" Procrastination is just a form of waiting. And part of this comes from waiting for your parents to love you; waiting for those around you to take an interest in you; waiting for those around you to treat you well; waiting, waiting, waiting. Procrastination can swallow decades of your life. The False-Self wants you to do that which will gain external validation. And the True-Self doesn't. So you end up with ambivalence. Your False-Self wants the effects of having done something rather than the enjoyment of the cause itself. And that causes your True-Self to say, "No, that's just shallow; you just want social approval." When the False-Self no longer believes that it will get praise for doing something then motivation disappears completely. Procrastination is ambivalence about what it is you want to do: You have a good motive for not doing it and a bad motive for doing it – and the good motive won't win and the bad motive won't let go – and so you end up stuck. -- Stefan Molyneux 0747 (Paraphrased) What is it that you actually do when you don't have to do anything? What are you doing when there is nothing else you'd rather be doing in that moment? Do that. -- Stefan Molyneux 0747 (Paraphrased) The work you do while you procrastinate is probably the work you should be doing for the rest of your life. -- Jessica Hische You can only procrastinate in relation to your goals. And there's only choosing and choosing again. Moment by moment choosing, and asking two questions: "Am I having fun right now?" and "Is this what I've set out to do?" -- David D. Nowell Work like a dog being taken for a walk, instead of an ox being yoked to the plow. -- Paul Graham

Shame can be understood as a state following relational failure. By failure, I'm not referring to the final ending of a relationship (though that can add to shame if one is shame-prone); rather I'm referring to the repeated failure of repair within rupture-repair cycles: A relationship is a delicate fabric of non-verbal information flow between two people which regulates each of their attachment systems through their relational right-brains ( ). Each time there's a misattunement of this flow (a millisecond of gaze that isn't returned, a subtle twisting of the body in attempt to reach out, a hotflush of discomfort at something said), the fabric is ruptured. Such ruptures are inevitable as we repeatedly come in and out of relationship. The quality of the relationship is dependent upon how quickly ruptures are repaired.Relationships grow stronger through successive repairs. If one has enjoyed a securely-attached relationship during childhood, then one is far more likely to expect a rupture to be quickly repaired, and will have no hesitation in reaching out with, or receiving, attunement. But if one is shame-prone from having an insecurely-attached childhood, then one naturally hesitates given that, historically, such ruptures were seldom repaired: Misattunement (and thus shame) doesn't only run in the direction of neglect. An angry, crying baby will experience as much distress because of her mother's attempt to shift her out of her current state with excessive smiling or even laughter (to which the baby will turn her head away as if to say "That's not it! I'm upset, not happy! That's too much of the wrong kind of stimulation! You're only adding to my pain by not seeing me!") as she would if she were to receive no response at all ( : "There's no reparation and [the baby] is stuck in a really ugly situation"). To avoid causing the baby shame, what is required of the mother is a contingent, empathetic response. Going back to the baby of the second paragraph of the Shame article ... The failure to be responded to an attuned way during early childhood is the cause of "toxic" or "core" non-verbal relational shame. The earlier these relational failures occur in childhood, the deeper and more toxic the shame. Being unable to regulate himself, the baby had reached out seeking his mother's regulation. Her lack of attunement meant he was left in a dysregulated state. He wasn't met in relationship; his feelings weren't fully felt and empathetically mirrored back to him as being tolerable and therefore acceptable. Because at that young age he is his feelings (he's too young to have thoughts), and his feelings are evidently too much for either he or his mother to bare – he experiences a profound loneliness and unworthiness. Given enough of these failures in repair after rupture (the reaching out for regulation), to create some sense of his self, and to defend what little remains of his self-worth, he will develop an adaptive interpersonal coping strategy and script decision with regards to attachment: Moving Towards (Anxious/Angry/Preoccupied/Ambivalent Attachment); Moving Against ( ); Moving Away (Avoidant/Dismissing Attachment) Shame anxiety is likely the underlying cause of various manifestations of the approach-avoidance conflict. The three coping strategies (Moving Towards, Against, Away) are all ways to avoid coming into "true" or "real" relationship for fear of relational shame. The Moving Away strategy ("introversion") is about staying out of relationship in an attempt to regulate oneself using Autoregulation: "My needs are way too much for even me to tolerate, and so I must deny their existence as best I can." Shame is experienced when startled out of "alone time" and into relationship, revealing relational inadequacy. The Moving Towards strategy ("extroversion") is about using others (often by caretaking) in an attempt to regulate oneself vicariously using External Regulation: "My needs are too much to be ever satisfied, so the best I can do is to meet other people's needs." There's proximity-seeking in the moving towards style but only a very superficial relationship. Shame is experienced when alone. The Moving Against strategy is pre-emptively combative so as to make relationship almost impossible: (Julie: "I think the so-called borderline rage isn’t necessarily a defense only against their own core shame, but can also develop as a defense against other people’s projected shame. When you think about the kind of environment a BPD-sufferer survived growing up, it’s kind of a battleground for who can project their shame onto whom first, and sometimes this shame can come in veiled or sugar-coated forms or mixed with elements of truth. In the moment, it can be VERY hard to sort out which parts or communications if any are valid and accurate and which are projections and subtle manipulations. If there’s any doubt about the content, it can actually be better to simply fly into a rage and reject everything wholesale than to risk absorbing whatever part of the message may essentially be poison. Rather than swallow the shame pill you are being offered, you puke it back in the other person’s face. The problem arises when you do this reflexively whenever you get the slightest whiff that someone may be trying to shame you, even when that isn’t actually what’s going on.")

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMj_P_6H69g:560:315] "Through the very act of asking people, I connected with them. And when you connect with people, they want to help you. "

You are welcome, and certaintly, my statement needs far more explanation. Answering your question presents me with an opportunity to test my understanding of shame. I hope to post a full reply sometime next week. I can say something similar with respect to my attempts to satisfy unmet needs: I was doing the best I could with what little I had. And I'm really glad for it all because it gives me so much raw experience to process. And some of it was very raw.

And thanks for your replies, xelent. Your replies have really helped me to appreciate the value of sharing and discussing my research into men's issues. Having "empathy for men" is a very challenging and (evidently) animating idea for me. I notice I didn't respond to your earlier disclosure. I'm in a similar situation with regard to romantic relationships. I've taken a time-out whilst I work with a therapist to process (very, very gently, and very, very slowly) how shame has shaped all of my relationships (including the therapeutic relationship) – and now also to process the effects of fatherlessness – something that, until very recently, I had previously denied was worthy of any contemplation whatsoever. This denial likely the result of a series of isolating core beliefs: I am unworthy of a father and his contemplation of me; I am unworthy of any man's contemplation of me; I am unworthy of my own contemplation of me; I am unworthy. Shame. I haven't yet fully connected with the sadness of all that, to the loss of potential. AVoiceforMen: Mother of Violence TyphonBlue: ...there's a distinct correlation between violence and the lack of father involvement in raising children. [When] there's a huge cult of motherhood and the father has almost nothing to do with raising children, [there's more violence in society]. There's an intersection of various factors. [When] women are playing the hypoagent, playing the victim to get what they want out of life – that naturally imprints upon their children – and then you have that combined with boys who are raised without a really strong sense of the masculine, which is what an involved father would give them. So they have a very fragile male identity. And in combination with that, because they don't have an involved father, because they don't have that emotional resonance with the masculine, they feel like they're expendable. On a fundamental level they feel like they're worthless unless they go out and find an identity. You've got all of these boys who have a sense of having no identity, feeling like they're completely expendable in service of an identity – and what do they go do? They go beat the crap out of each other to try to get an identity. Or strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up to be a martyr. JohnTheOther: ...they're doing this violence in service to somebody else's needs, particularly a mother figure or a wife figure... TyphonBlue: The problem with a lot of these [fathers] is they don't have intimate connections with their own fathers. So it's really easy to get in between a man and his relationship to his children because he doesn't really understand it, he thinks it's "woman's work." I really wonder about the whole "wait 'til your father gets home" thing, and how that estranges the father – basically he becomes a tool or an instrument of the mother's wrath so she can maintain the positive relationship and whatever is negative accrues upon him. TyphonBlue: There's this lack of intimacy between fathers and their children, lack of emotional intimacy, lack of father involvement, and that's what is creating this violence with boys... they don't grow up with the sense that the masculine is valuable, or a sense of a connection with the masculine, and then they are unleashed on the world. They've learned all this victimhood rhetoric from their mothers so they can drop immediately into "I'm a victim, I'm a victim" that justifies all kinds of violence towards other people, and so suddenly you get these war zones... ...you get a lot of enforcers because you get those young men that want to "roll", they want some skulls to bash in to feel like they're men. TyphonBlue: ...depending on a woman's benefit is where a man is on the scale of good-to-bad. And I think what fathers can do is give children the opportunity to develop their own sense of a moral compass, as opposed to it being defined by outside factors... ...an involved father lays the emotional foundation for being able to define yourself... ...what teaches boys to see themselves as disposable is this lack of intimate connection with their father, this lack of being valued by their father, and taken care of by their father... ...which indicates to his son that he has value and he's getting value from his masculine role-model, which in turn insulates against treating himself as disposable, or allowing other people to treat him as disposable, which in turn insulates him from being proxified. JohnTheOther: ...to have a rudderless identity where your identity is dependent on fulfilling somebody else's needs at the cost of your own safety or the cost of your own mortality. TyphonBlue: ...a guy, preferably the father, who shows his son that he is valuable, doesn't necessarily show him how to be a man but that it's valuable to be a man. And then the son can find out what it means to be a man, for him.

Long post... somewhat repetitive and rantish... "Women's traditional support systems support women being vulnerable; men's traditional support systems support men being invulnerable. This creates a paradox; the support men get to be invulnerable makes them more vulnerable; the support women get to be vulnerable makes them less vulnerable. It is just one example of how women's strength is their facade of weakness and men's weakness is their facade of strength." -- Warren Farrell, Father and Child Reunion The various branches of the "men's movement" (MRA/MGTOW/PUA) are helping men cope with the challenge of testing and rejection. And learning how to approach women requires high degrees of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and situational empathy. I wonder if much of the popularity of PUA is that it has given men permission to access the touchy-feely psychology stuff without stigma and under cover of being "alpha." In podcast interviews, Dr. Robert Glover, author of No More Mr Nice Guy, has said girlfriends and wives have called to thank him for curing their partners' of Nice Guy Syndrome i.e., a passive/pleasing, shame-based self. I haven't read the book yet. Here are links to the podcasts: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Totally agree. These basic expectations of both men and women are not in least bit unreasonable. But these expectations have been caricatured ("hyper-agent"/"alpha"/"patriarch" and "hypo-agent"/"victim"/"feminist"), both sexes have played up to the caricatures for their own "profit" thus attracting more entrants. The states ("Apexual/Male Disposability" pyramids) have, of course, cashed in. Regarding resource-provision and trade-offs... Perhaps I've caused confusion about what is meant by "Male Disposability." A man will sacrifice for his biological family. That's not what is meant by "Male Disposability." "Male Disposability" is about the demand that a man sacrifice for other non-biologically-related individuals and families. It's the difference between voluntary charity and state welfare programs. So a man will naturally sacrifice for his biological family, but he has to be propagandized into sacrificing for other, non-biologically-related individuals and families. And I'm going to suggest that men have never really been directly propagandized to do that, rather women's fears have been manipulated by propaganda such that men couldn't allow themselves to be seen by women as not responding to their fears. "Apexual" statism is the manipulation of the male protector instinct via women, and that's why the Typhon's "Harem Patriarchy" makes so much sense. Women have been corralled by their fear and desire for protection by a few "patriarchs" (not "men" but male-bodied apexuals who have more in common with each other than they have with "men") where men (men who more or less still identify with other men) are disposing of themselves in a crazed competition to get into the harem. This mirrors the church's "where the women go the men will follow" strategy. AVoiceforMen: The Patriarchy at Feminism's Core, Part Deux: TyphonBlue: “The problem with traditionalism is the Apexual. What I mean by that is, when these men get to a position of power, they have no sense of any sort of fraternity with other men. So when these powerful Apexuals gather – what are they going to do with it? They’re going to give it to women to create a virtual harem for themselves. The phenomenon of Apexuality (as I describe it) is based on male disposability: you have no worth outside of your function in the hierarchy because you’re disposable otherwise.” TyphonBlue: “It’s male disposability that creates Harem Patriarchy. As soon as these Alphas acquire enough power, what do they do with it? They create for themselves a harem. By ‘empowering’ women with boonies, with cushy jobs and welfare and healthcare – gender-based healthcare – and all these other gender-based government services. It’s just a huge harem.” At the level of society, "Male Disposability" isn't talking about the expectations of any one woman or even "women" as a group or class. Rather it's talking about how "Apexual" other-sacrificing elites (and their radical feminist foot soldiers) exploit the legitimate fears that women have of being left without protection – and thereby also exploiting men's fears of failing to be seen as capable of providing that protection. As you suggested earlier in the thread, this fear of failing drives men to seek even more opportunities to signal protection provision. It's that desire to signal protection that leads to the one-upmanship ("white knighting") via the shaming ("Man up!") of MGTOWs or any man that isn't doing his duty to "women" or "society" i.e., to non-biologically-related individuals and families. I'll hazard a guess that Perpetual War (maim don't slaughter) is the most efficient vector of attack in order to set up an "Apexual" "Harem Patriarchy." War takes the men away from the home and leaves women feeling defenseless. After enough wars, women, as a group, were helpless against the poison of radical feminism and the welfare statism that promised to fix their broken men. Radical feminism attacks women with the idea they are only powerless victims, and then misidentifies the villain as "men" as a group (a group that can't even see themselves as a group let alone act as one). But the villain is the "Apexual" sociopathic elite. There is no "patriarchy", there is only the "Male Disposability" state. It's likely men couldn't see this attack on women (or themselves) for what it was because it was made under the colour of reasonable female protection. It has always been so reasonable. But the reasonableness of that protection is now being challenged at every possible level – within the family, within the workplace, within the media, within society, historically, and personally e.g., men asking themselves deep existential questions about what all this female relationship pestilence is for? What a piece of work is a man without a woman? How noble in MGTOW, how infinite in felicity! ... A man will sacrifice for his biological family. What else but a threat to this family will make a man sacrifice? Men are highly practical. No man is going to go into berserker mode without a credible threat. Therefore, frighten the women (the wife, the girlfriend, the cute girl next door). Then the man has to "Man up!" to protect them no matter what the stated reason – their fear is enough. So absent these reasons and the resulting "Male Disposability" for the protection of other families, there likely could be no state. Thus Apexual sociopaths need to create perpetual wars and propagate self-flagellating "original sin" fantasies in order to make people "other" themselves and thereby make it easier to "other" others. 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? MGTOWs (men who, through delayed gratification, are building up their self-worth and setting far higher standards for female selection) are relieving women and society of the yoke of radical feminism. MGTOWs may in fact be the best thing to happen to non-radicalized women. Rather than crushing the spirits of men under the weight of the "Apexual/Male Disposability" hierarchy, radical feminism has only pushed men right out of it. Ooops! . And now we're seeing the inevitable – but highly disturbing – demonization, shaming, and out-grouping of MGTOWs – both by "blue pill" men and radicalized women. Why? Because women want continued protection and even further provisioning (which still manages to sound reasonable) and "blue pill" men don't want to accept how much they've invested in getting inside the harem (which just sounds weak).

I think you're on to something here... "Shit tests" might be on a spectrum from passive-aggressive to passive-assertive. If the "just get it" theory is correct, then a woman rarely wants to be actively assertive because then she'll be leading and implicitly devaluing the man. This she really does not want to do because she wants to feel protected without prompting for it. But she still has her doubts – will always have doubts – and so she "shit tests" somewhere on the spectrum depending on her current level of crazy. Regarding the passive-aggressive end of the spectrum... It's passive-aggression because she's not being upfront and honest about her concern/"shit test." (She'll never admit to her testing; you don't get to prepare for the exam.) You pass "shit tests" by not caring about them – since there's nothing for you to care about. She's not giving you any honest information to work with, so why would you attempt to work? She's testing for that oh-shit-mother-is-upset response. She wants to know if you're easily unnerved. Go wrestle with an alligator, tussle with a whale, handcuff lightening, throw thunder in jail, murder a rock, injure a stone, hospitalize a brick, act so mean you make medicine sick. Go do anything other than attempt to rescue her from one of her moods. It's just a mood. It'll pass. You're her Man. She has girlfriends. Calmly hand her her phone. Only care about what is in your control. If you're so easily unnerved by a passing mood, then how well can you really protect her? = The rationale for her periodic "shit tests"

Be grateful for "bitch shields" since, as , women use them to keep themselves safe.And the issue of "bitch shields" can only come up because you want the woman behind them. Otherwise, what do you care about her "bitch shields"? Why would you deal with that crap?

Thanks for your reply, xelent. I felt vulnerable and exposed after expressing my anger about male-on-male shaming, especially that aimed at further already wounded men.Empathy for men... Warren Farrell's Father Child Reunion really opened my eyes to the issues both sexes (men and women, boys and girls) are facing and how they interrelate. "...men's biggest fear is emotional insecurity; women's is economic insecurity." That's also how I interpreted the MTGOW/"Zeta Male" perspective: take time out of romantic relationships to reassess your values and standards. Even men within much maligned PUA community recommend doing "inner game" self-knowledge work before playing the field. It's inspiring that you have the humility to learn from relational setbacks and the drive to pursue your goal. I agree, all shaming has to stop. The underlying shame that shaming language taps into is just too toxic. (I speak from experience of being both the shamed and the shamer.) Perhaps women didn't help men before because they've wanted them to "just get it" – to just step confidently around her " " and "shit tests" (both of these being instinctual, self-protective, male-qualifying mechanisms) without any hesitation or instruction. But it would seem men really haven't been getting it. This could be due to the increasing fatherlessness of boys who have learned to invest their self-esteem in how well they can manage mother's moods via an appeasing and pleasing strategy that they, as adults, take into romantic relationships. But (and this may be putting it crudely) a woman wants a leader/protector more than she wants a follower/nurturer; in actual fact she wants both, but on her terms, except when she doesn't – because a woman doesn't want to openly dictate terms to a man because then she'd be the leader, and that would reveal the man as "useless": ("Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.") So women, still with hard-wired dreams of being swept off their feet by dominant protectors, likely feel frustrated, unprotected, and abandoned by men who are far too preoccupied with pleasing them. Perhaps in exasperation they resort to shaming tactics (*malign* "shit tests") in an attempt to provoke the protective instincts they want extended to them. And then there are those deeply insecure and wounded women (radical feminists) who constantly employ preemptive shaming in attempt to rid themselves of shame. In its benign form, male-on-male shaming could be equivalent to "hazing": a "shit test" used to qualify a candidate for group membership. But, again, given the prevalence of fatherless... and then the feminization of workplaces, malespaces, and the general culture... Now a man can't be sure that another can withstand hazing and so he can't trust his resilience in the face of danger. And given that many men really can't handle hazing (I certaintly couldn't) – or rather, just haven't been initiated into manhood by a father who presented them an ongoing series of challenges throughout boyhood into manhood – that can leave a man with a fundamental weakness. And aspiring "alphas" seem to have taken it as great sport to exploit this weakness to get a rise up ("Man up!") on the "Apexual/Male Disposability" ladder. See: [TyponBlue] [GirlWritesWhat I wonder if so called "extreme MGTOWs" are quarantining themselves due to shame. Failed relationships create shame. Shame creates avoidance. Avoidance causes relationships to fail. It's a downward spiral. And since shame doesn't just come from nowhere (it comes from relational failures in preverbal childhood), the only real solution is a healing relationship with a relationally-oriented psychotherapist. But all previous relationships have failed. The impulse to connect itself becomes the source of pain. So relationship is simultaneously the problem and the solution. And if you've repeatedly experienced failure in relationships – if you've only ever known relational failure – then you really have nowhere to turn, no one to turn to. Having no hope for relationships, having no way to heal, your only strategy is immediate pain management and containment. Quarantine, in other words. If the "extreme MGTOW" impulse is to avoid all relationships in an attempt to override and disavow one's own psychobiological attachment system due to the pain it causes – then that suggests deep, deep shame.

Procrastination Is Not Laziness by David Cain: It turns out procrastination is not typically a function of laziness, apathy or work ethic as it is often regarded to be. It’s a neurotic self-defense behavior that develops to protect a person’s sense of self-worth. You see, procrastinators tend to be people who have, for whatever reason, developed to perceive an unusually strong association between their performance and their value as a person. This makes failure or criticism disproportionately painful, which leads naturally to hesitancy when it comes to the prospect of doing anything that reflects their ability – which is pretty much everything. A person who does not have this neurosis might wish they didn’t make a mistake, whereas the neurotic procrastinator perceives the error as being a reflection of their character. In other words, most people suffer mainly the practical consequences of mistakes (such as finishing with a lower grade, or having to redo something) with only minor self-esteem implications, while neurotic procrastinators perceive every mistake they make as being a flaw in them. So what they are motivated to do is to avoid finishing anything, because to complete and submit work is subject yourself (not just your work) to scrutiny. To move forward with any task is to subject yourself to risks that appear to the subconscious to be positively deadly because part of you is convinced that it is you that is at stake, not just your time, resources, patience, options or other secondary considerations. To the fear centre of your brain, by acting without guarantees of success (and there are none) you really are facing annihilation.

Talk of narcissism can feel like further rejection because it taps into shame. Narcissism is one of many defensive strategies against feeling shame. Narcissism is so often discussed in both overt and covert shaming language because people are unconsciously trying to vomit their own shame into others to relieve themselves and to premptively defend against further shaming. In addition to being injected with another's shame, it can feel hopeless when reading about narcissism (or anything that truly resonates with your particular defensive strategy) because you can feel that your "rising above" defense – a defense that is often the very basis of your identity and productivity – is being stripped away, and ... up rushes the underlying shame. Interpersonal Process in Psychotherapy: When developmental problems are pervasive or severe, clients often adopt one of three interpersonal styles: moving toward, moving against, or moving away. This inflexible coping style is a habitual way of relating to others that is also reflected in vocational, marital, and other defining life choices. There are many exceptions, of course, but individuals who move toward may find that careers in nursing or counseling are a good match for their caretaking skills and needs. Individuals who move against may find that careers in law, medicine, or money management are congruent with their interpersonal style of taking charge and needing to be in control. Individuals who move away may feel comfortable as researchers, artists, technical experts who work alone, or individuals in a meditative lifestyle. In their self-concept, many clients will privately frame this defensive coping style as a special attribute or virtue and use it to feel special and rise above their core conflict. That is, clients do not experience their interpersonal strategy as a defensive coping system to avoid anxiety and low self-esteem but as a virtuous way of relating to others that may make them feel special. However, this unrealistic sense of being special is compensatory and actually reflects their low self-esteem or shame-based sense of self. Their self-worth is brittle and vulnerable – it relies too much on their ability to rise above their core conflicts by pleasing others, by achieving and succeeding, or by withdrawing and feeling cynically superior. In these ways, clients frame their defensive interpersonal coping style as a superior quality or virtue. More contemporary therapists write about "narcissistic" element in many types of clients who are defending against a shame-based self. They describe what clients do to "restore" their sense of self-worth or power when they (too readily) feel shamed and overreact to feeling rejected or diminished by others or that they have failed in some way.

Men – at least those that are waking up – are tired of having their virtue (in this case their protector instinct) used against them, which is precisely what shaming always attempts to do. Shaming is a vicious, verbal assault aimed to steal away someone's own self-approval and have them jumping through hoops in the hopes of getting it back. (Hint: It's never given back.) You say men are not honoring their "obligation" as if men have somehow willfully denied their protector (and nurturer) instincts and are walking away from their families just for the hell of it. That's just more shaming on top of the shaming radicalized women used to drive men away from their families – or made them too frightened to start a family in the first place (hence MGTOW). If a man was heartless enough to maliciously walk away from his children, then you wouldn't appeal to his protector instinct since he obviously doesn't have one. For shaming to work, you first have to assume possession of the very virtue you then deny exists: "You don't have a protector instinct!" "You don't care about the poor!" "You're evil!" Performative contradiction! Go inject your self-attack poison elsewhere. RockingMrE: Being single is not a choice I'd deny anyone. But if you get enough people living that way then nothing will progress. You'll just have a world predominantly made up of hedonistic narcissists. Keeping the nuclear family alive is essential if human beings are going to continue to move forward as a species. An appeal to the cult of the family – FAMILIES THAT DON'T YET EXIST! As if anyone within a family benefits from either parent being there just to avoid further shaming. Nothing is more narcissistic than to shame people for the sake of self-serving collectivist concepts like society or "species". The very idea that men don't want to enjoy being a fully valued and respected member of a nuclear family. If men truly don't want that then why would you attempt to shame them into it?? "Man up!" Cui bono? "You'll just have a world of... <shaming label>" See, you can have any choice BUT you can't choose not to be shamed because then you'd have the power of your own self-approval! I'm just not a fan of ABBA; I hadn't thought to tell anyone about it before. You've already named names so take up their behaviour directly with them, and please stop shaming those men who have decided (for whatever reason) to opt out of relationships with women. Go shame the radicalized mothers holding their children hostage for ransom. Go shame the radical feminists for spewing their hate. Go see if you can manipulate their protector instincts.

I don't think these wounded characters have much influence – certainly not enough to overcome the male protector instinct. Whilst I appreciate RME's evolutionary and biological perspectives, I remain senstive to language that shames men into compliance with appeals to what are referred to as "traditionalist" notions of gender roles where men self-sacrifice for the sake of the "family" – and where feminists have redefined the "family" as a woman and her children, and "society" as women and their children. If "family" has any virtue it is due to being a voluntary arrangement not an assumed obligation, particularly when men now have so little control over reproduction or any "right" to guarantee paternity of their alleged offspring. Emotions run high when it comes to post-divorce parenting arrangements. Given the urgency of this particular situation, the "rights" part of "Men's Rights" will inevitably tend towards state activism. Marxists rely on exaggerated claims of victimhood to garner popular support. Excepting male feminists, are the majority of men going to exaggerate their victimhood? I don't think so. Male victims aren't sexually attractive to women, and men don't enjoy sympathy from either sex unless they are members of an "oppressed" "class" that includes women. There are likely many intentions within the movement but I am yet to encounter any marxist/socialist/communist Mens Rights Activists. Those affiliated with A Voice For Men seem to be on the libertarian spectrum. For example, JohnTheOther has promoted Freedomain Radio for its "first principles" and voluntaryist perspective. I don't identify as an MRA but I do have empathy for the MGTOW perspective because it is voluntaryism in (re)action. Sadly – but understandably – it is fatalistic. Male FDR participants would be highly unlikely to opt for MGTOW since exposure to the discussions here about male-female relationships foster male self-empowerment and optimism with regards to women. It's easy to forget how most in the MRM – men and women – have yet to be exposed to the philosophy discussed here. .

I don't see any substantive parallels with feminism since MGTOWs/"Zeta Males" are not advocating as a group (men don't easily see themselves as a part of a group) and are not proposing to use state violence to achieve their ends because to do so would be to risk putting women in harm's way. "Men Going Their Own Way" equates to each individual man going his own way and not to an alleged or feared state-sponsored "gender separatist" movement in the manner of radical feminism. To gain any traction at all, such a male separatist movement would have to first overcome men's biologically hard-wired protector instinct – and that's not going to happen any time soon. Plus most men want secure relationships and happy families. MGTOW = Can't live with feministic women; can't possibly put any woman in harm's way; the only dignified and honorable option is to go my own way.

Unfortunately, that sounds like a typical "Man up!" shaming tactic: “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.” Any man possessing the virtue of responsiblity will recognize when his own virtue is being used against him in the service of another's power over him. MGTOW/Zeta Male seems to be a spectrum of perspectives that range from abstaining from ALL relationships with women (because women are too dangerous/"hypergamous"), to raising the standard of expectations for relationships with women (because women are desirable for relationships and necessary as partners in parenting). It should go without saying that all adult relationships are improved by the mutual recognition that all adult relationships should be voluntary, and that this recognition is a precondition to a healthy family where children can draw additional strength from the earned security of their parents' relationship. Thanks for the links to RockingMrE. He does a good job of warning against the sort of polarization that inevitably arises in any sustained discourse.

On the contrary, it would seem consistent with the MGTOW and "Zeta Masculinty" perspective that they would opt out of toil and sacrifice for the state or any other collective. AVoiceforMen: Men Going Their Own Way: JohnTheOther: "The collective/social-approval definition of male identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other people." Many (perhaps a majority) in the MRM recognize the state as a tool of male self-sacrifice that primarily serves the exaggerated vulnerabilities of women and the power lust of apexuals: AVoiceforMen: The Patriarchy at Feminism's Core - Part Deux: TyphonBlue: “I think that feminism really is better termed 'Harem Patriarchy'. And what I mean by that is: when alpha males – through the process of male disposability, the various social powers that enables – they start to centralize power, they start to look at women and start to want to gather them up in a quasi harem that’s circling around them. And in our society, that quasi harem is essentially the woman’s vote. This is what is happening. Our politicians, our male politicians who have achieved their power through male disposability, they have come to the point where they want to have a harem. It’s a psychological harem of female voter approval, but it’s still a harem. A lot of people say the huge thing about sex is getting approval. Well, what is voting but approval?” GirlWritesWhat: “Single women are more likely to vote Democrat, and married women are more likely to vote Republican. And its because single women want to protect their entitlements, and married women want to protect their husband’s ability to provide for them." The Apexual sees all male-bodied-individuals below itself in the hierarchy as pawns to sacrifice in its attempt to rise within the hierarchy. While it identifies with the status of the male-bodied-individuals above it, the male-bodied-individuals inhabiting those positions of greater status are merely objects to be removed. In that sense, the Apexual shares no identity with other male-bodied-individuals, but a desire to see them as tools to its own advancement in the hierarchy. And those male-bodied-individuals who either don't have power in the hierarchy or are useless to assist other male-bodied-individuals within the hierarchy – they are treated as pariahs, as untouchables, by the Apexuals, by the hierarchy, and often by male-bodied-individuals in exactly the same position. Also: GendErratic: MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, and How the MRM Is Not a Monolith "Now they're staying single, working fewer hours, and barely paying any taxes!"