It's Time to Break the Ancient Taboo of Male Vulnerability

[MysterionMuffles]

http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/10/28/its-time-to-break-the-ancient-taboo-of-male-vulnerability/

[MMX2010]

I was very much impressed with this series of articles at therawness.com - http://therawness.com/the-myth-of-female-maturity-part-1/

 

The shortest possible summary of those articles is: (1) "Girls mature faster than boys, but men mature much more deeply than women."  (2) "Everything a woman does is to acquire safety and security, while men display their superior maturity by knowing, deep down, that there IS NO safety and security." 

 

Because there is no safety and security, men remain stoic in the face of uncertainty - (whether financial, familial, marital, or all-at-once).  Because there is no safety and security, men's stoicism allows them to do their damn jobs - without complaint - in the face of uncertainty. 

 

Women, in their immaturity, believe that there is safety and security, so they either: (1) petition their men to acquire more resources, or (2) petition the government to confiscate more resources.  And you would think that the massive influx of women into the workforce would make them realize how replaceable and disposable they are as workers - which would in turn make them realize that men have faced these challenges for centuries.  But it doesn't work that way.

 

So men aren't allowed to be vulnerable, because male vulnerability threatens to expose the female-centric delusion that safety and security can be attained.  Thus, I don't expect males-en-masse to be able to express their vulnerability within 200 years. 

 

Rollo Tomassi, at therationalmale.com, did an excellent job of explaining this lack of female empathy for men in this article - http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/

 

Best quote of the article: "Women cannot bear to see a Man experiencing negative emotions such as extreme anger, rage, fear, despair, despondency or depression for extended periods of time. You say you want to “be there” for your Man; but you cannot do it. If it goes on long enough, it kills the attraction; it sets off your hypergamy alarms; and subconsciously causes you to start hunting for a replacement Man.

 

A woman seeing a Male go through the above will seek to replace that Male immediately.

 

Women cannot listen to Men talking about or working out their dating/mating/relationship issues or problems. Women reflexively view a Man discussing such issues as “whining” or “complaining” or “bitterness” or “sour grapes” or “well, you just chose poorly, so sucks to be you” or “suck it up, no one wants to hear you bitching about it”.

 

As to both of the above principles; when a Male is involved, ratchet up by a factor of 5 the disdain and repulsion a woman experiences when seeing a Male do or experience the above."

[J. D. Stembal]

MMX, you have me reading another RT article. Just when I thought I was out...

 

I need clarification. If a woman believes in safety and security and that she currently has it, why would she demand more resources in response? Then, when the future of her resources is in jeopardy, she would again demand more resources by seeking another provider? It seems more logical to me that a woman would desire more resources when security is tenuous, and less resources when security is nearly guaranteed, a wealthy husband with a tremendous life insurance policy, for example.

 

We could boil it down to another question, assuming that the above statement is logical. Do women tend to follow the logical necessities of their biology?

 

PS: I find it interesting that RT writes about game and he's married with children. I figured incorrectly that the guys that blog about game sought to remain bachelors.

 

I wish Rollo had gone one step further and riffed about why the female inability to empathize for men has evolved into total misandry - #KillAllMen, etc. Personally, I don't believe that women's lack of empathy for the suffering of male mates is necessarily a biologically determined fact. I put it back on parenting, and the curious absence of fathers in the lives of their children. Rollo is too quick to blame nature, and does not even consider the relevance of fatherlessness.

[MMX2010]

MMX, you have me reading another RT article. Just when I thought I was out...

 

I need clarification. If a woman believes in safety and security and that she currently has it, why would she demand more resources in response? Then, when the future of her resources is in jeopardy, she would again demand more resources by seeking another provider? It seems more logical to me that a woman would desire more resources when security is tenuous, and less resources when security is nearly guaranteed, a wealthy husband with a tremendous life insurance policy, for example.

 

In my opinion, there are only three ways to acquire safety and security: (1) Get someone else to provide it for you.  (2) Acquire it yourself through your own efforts.  (3) Just be it. 

 

A woman who acquires a husband primarily through her sexual attractiveness is engaged in the first way.  Unfortunately, that way is easily seen as the most tenuous, because men can get bored, can stray, can get fired, can die, and so on.  So any woman who engages in this pursuit must bombard her man with constant "tests" that he must continually pass - from as simple as, "Does he notice the other woman over there?", or "Does he quickly and easily accomplish every item on the To-Do list I gave him?", to "Does he believe me when I lie?" 

 

Rarely, a woman can acquire safety and security in the second way.  They value their jobs, they make good money, and they're not actively on the hunt for a long-term mate.  When Christina told Stefan, "If we were to ever divorce, I wouldn't want anything.", that was a very Second-Way statement.  And it's very admirable that she, a woman, has achieved this level of security. 

 

Even more rarely, a woman can acquire safety and security in the third way.  A third-way secure person knows that they can be fired tomorrow, can be homeless next month, can be stricken with a debilitating disease next week - but they stoically face life anyway.  They're secure Just Because They Are Secure.  They say things like, "Even if I were homeless, I'd be perfectly at peace with that.  I'd find a way to survive, to fulfill my mission, and to be happy." 

 

Any First-Way woman who has achieved safety and security doesn't really believe that she's achieved safety and security - so there must be a demand for more resources.  And there must be that unspoken rule, "He never gets to relax and enjoy himself in my presence, because something bad might happen, and he needs to protect me." 

 

For the record, I know a couple of Second-Way women, but I know no Third-Way women.  And almost every woman is First-Way. 

 

 

 

 

 

We could boil it down to another question, assuming that the above statement is logical. Do women tend to follow the logical necessities of their biology?

 

Every woman lacking in self-knowledge follows the dictates of her biology.  Worse, her biology is double-minded AND deceptive.  "Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks" isn't frightening because a woman can pledge her life to you today, and dump you tomorrow.  It's frightening because her brain convinces her that her coldness isn't cold, her deceptiveness isn't deceptive, and her selfishness isn't selfish.  Being dumped sucks, but being dumped by a solipsistic woman is scary.

 

 

 

 

PS: I find it interesting that RT writes about game and he's married with children. I figured incorrectly that the guys that blog about game sought to remain bachelors.

 

Rollo's best trait is his writing - direct, sharp, and utterly non-hateful.  His second best trait is his long-term, happily married relationship.  He's even written about his conversations with his daughter over what types of boys she likes and dislikes. 

 

 

 

 

I wish Rollo had gone one step further and riffed about why the female inability to empathize for men has evolved into total misandry - #KillAllMen, etc. Personally, I don't believe that women's lack of empathy for the suffering of male mates is necessarily a biologically determined fact. I put it back on parenting, and the curious absence of fathers in the lives of their children. Rollo is too quick to blame nature, and does not even consider the relevance of fatherlessness.

 

His argument in favor of nature is solid, though. 

 

His best post is War Brides, which argues that, "Because women have been victims of centuries-long male violence, women have learned to quickly adapt to the needs and desires of any man they're under.  They anticipate his needs, laugh at what he finds humorous, enjoy his hobbies - like beautiful social chameleons.  But when they're displeased with him, out he goes, and another man is acquired." 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

 

(Rollo doesn't go into what he means by "the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era" - but Matt Ridley's book "The Rational Optimist" contains one very chilling sentence, "It was a very common experience for a woman of the Paleolithic era to have her children murdered before her eyes, and herself kept as a sexual prize."  Doing such things to women for thousands of generations simply must've hardwired their brains in certain ways.) 

 

Personally, I do hope that women's biological nature for deceptiveness and constant anxiety can be mitigated by peaceful parenting.  But such a hope rationally means that, although I'm 38 right now, I should still ONLY marry a woman between 18 and 20, who has never formed a serious sexual relationship with anyone else, and who was raised by Peaceful Parents.  But such women are extraordinarily rare in modern society, and there are very good reasons why her family wouldn't want her to be with me. 

 

Otherwise, I can marry whomever I want, whenever I want - but I shouldn't never expect her to be with me forever.  (Ironically, by choosing this option, the only way for me to achieve security and safety is Third-Way, to Just Be it.  And consequently, I can never express my "vulnerability" to such a woman, because she is acquiring her safety and security through my lack of vulnerability.) 

 

If I want to piss myself off, I can casually comment that today's women have the greatest number of personal, professional, economic, educational, leisurely, and sexual opportunities than LITERALLY EVERY OTHER WOMEN IN HUMAN HISTORY, and there are no friggin' Third-Way Secure women - but I don't want to piss myself off, and I've already forgotten what I just typed.  And you can't make me re-read it. 

 

Or I can remember what I just typed and say, "Well, at least expressing my vulnerability is really awesome NAWALT-detection." 

[Ken Cotton]

No it isn't. The world stands poised to engage in another World War, perhaps the most lethal and thorough of them all. MAD from nuclear, chemical, and biological stockpiles will encourage the deployment of ground forces. The hell on earth that will be realized when the super powers of the world collide will be unknown to mankind. In the depths of carnarge, amongst fiery twisted metal and heaps of blown apart bodies, weakness and vulnerability will be rewarded only with pitiless death.

 

The voracity and appetite of capitalism is not sated by world saving technologies with small profit margins. Electric cars and renewable energy could be mastered, but there isn't enough money in it and too much infrastructure is built around fossil fuels. It is only a matter of time before our easily accessed stores of oil run out. It is only a matter of time before global warming opens the arctic to competing claims of sovereignty and resources.

 

Our FIAT currencies are run by parasitic international bankers with no allegiance to any particular state. Globalization in the hands of crony capitalists will turn entire nations into resource sectors. Fresh water sectors, manpower sectors, oil deposits, ore deposits, farmlands. The concept of the nation is already being whittled away as self-sustainability diminishes and countries rely increasingly on trade. Not trade for the goods needed to survive, but trade for hard currency dictated by powers held accountable to none. Areas that formerly grew crops for the local population instead turn to growing one large specific crop and exporting it for a profit.

 

 

If you choose to embrace vulnerability, the given trait of women and children, expect to be crushed and raped as they have been through the countless years of human history. The only force that has ever stood against evil men of insatiable appetite and ruthlessness has been good men willing to do anything necessary to stop them. You are the only thing between the future of humanity and the gnawing hunger of the dark, you are the only thing that ever has been and the only thing that ever will be. It is up to you to own your destiny and to defend the genetic legacy imparted to you by hundreds of thousands of years of stuggle.

[King David]

Danger Theory:
As a society becomes objectively and empirically more safe, women will feign or invent issues of alleged subjective danger and/or oppression of women so as to advance and entrench the cultural, social, and legal powers, goals, and agenda of organized gynocracy.

[J. D. Stembal]

Rarely, a woman can acquire safety and security in the second way.  They value their jobs, they make good money, and they're not actively on the hunt for a long-term mate.  When Christina told Stefan, "If we were to ever divorce, I wouldn't want anything.", that was a very Second-Way statement.  And it's very admirable that she, a woman, has achieved this level of security

 

I would argue that the Second-Way woman has less self-knowledge than the First-Way, because she's been misled (by feminism) into thinking a career is more important than raising children. I expect that there are way more Second-Way women out there than you suggest. They wake up in their late-30s realizing that no men are interested in dating them, and if they are, they don't want kids since the men who want kids will aim for a woman 20 years old or so. When they had the opportunity to have children in their twenties, they were more interested in their education and career prospects, and probably shunned the attention from older men who wanted families. I've seen women like this up close, and it's pitiful.

 

I have much more respect for a First-Way woman because at least she is being true to her biology. This is why I asked the question, "Do women tend to follow the logical necessities of their biology?" Second-Way women don't start thinking about kids until they get baby rabies, which is way too late.

 

 

His argument in favor of nature is solid, though. 

 

His best post is War Brides, which argues that, "Because women have been victims of centuries-long male violence, women have learned to quickly adapt to the needs and desires of any man they're under.  They anticipate his needs, laugh at what he finds humorous, enjoy his hobbies - like beautiful social chameleons.  But when they're displeased with him, out he goes, and another man is acquired." 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

 

(Rollo doesn't go into what he means by "the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era" - but Matt Ridley's book "The Rational Optimist" contains one very chilling sentence, "It was a very common experience for a woman of the Paleolithic era to have her children murdered before her eyes, and herself kept as a sexual prize."  Doing such things to women for thousands of generations simply must've hardwired their brains in certain ways.) 

 

I haven't yet gotten around to reading Ridley, but it's been on the list. I did read the War Brides blog. However, I'm still not convinced by the strength of the nature argument. I'm not saying it doesn't play a factor, but I believe that what we see when we are growing up has a greater impact on us. If genetics and evolutionary biology trumped childhood, why do you see so many women focusing on careers at the expense of their fertility? Feminism and the cult of the working mother has swayed women away from acknowledging their reproductive potential. They have internalized this idea that their mothers were held back in their careers by choosing to have them, so they view having their own children as "option b" until they start frothing at the mouth in their 30s.

 

I also have a problem with the idea of historical female oppression because feminists, especially the radicals, love to use this as a central theme in their rants against men. If we want to go as far back as the Paleolithic, we need to first acknowledge that none of us were around back then. Hell, there wasn't even a state. Infanticide was practiced out of necessity since a woman, by design, cannot have more than two infants at one time. If they couldn't feed or carry the children, they got left behind to be eaten by scavenger animals. Children didn't often make it to age five as they were last on the list to get food. Children weren't even considered to have personhood until they survived to age five or six because that was when they could start hunting, fishing and gathering. Also, women and babies were much more likely to die during child birth than today. I forget the figures I read, perhaps a 20-25% death rate for the mother and about 30% for the baby. I'm not going to say that women didn't have a rough time of it for a while, but this was entirely predicated by their biology, childbirth and the lack of advanced medicine, not some sort of twisted male on female systemic oppression, like feminists paint it out to be.