If we assume women naturally pretend to be victims even when they aren’t to get what they want …
… we must also assume that people notice this every now and then …
… which results in women then not getting help when they actually need it …
… which becomes a “valid” complaint of theirs and furthers their victimhood …
… so they have to exaggerate and perfect their displays of innocence and victimhood further and further to still be convincing.
So in a way … them being manipulators is a slippery slope. They can’t stop manipulating because then they would not get anything at all. So they have to instead rise to the top of the manipulation-foodchain.
When you assert that something matters, you are expressing a value. But a value does not exist as an objective truth in a vacuum. Rather, a value is something that is held by a person capable of judging.
You can not talk about what matters without talking about the individuals that it matters to.
When you tell me that black lives matter, then I must ask: To whom?
To be realistic, I would expect this to be followed by the loaded question: So you think black lives do not matter?
And I would say: Not to me, no.
And I would expect to be guilt-tripped and shamed a little, back and forth, blah blah yada.
But seriously, why should I – me as an individual – care about black lives? What does that even mean?
This is not an MRA article demanding that women desire weakling men. It is nobody’s responsibility but your own to love all aspects of who you are. So take this as an invitation for self-acceptance, not for another crusade for justice.
When it comes to healthy sexual relationships between the sexes, I pretty much share the – generalized – view that the man plays the dominant part, while the woman is submissive. This may not be the absolute truth in every last case, but I think it is a very fair generalization that at least describes a valid tendency.
But, if I were to give any advice, I would tell you to immediately forget this observation once you make it. Why? Because you should not have to be thinking about things like that. If it is the truth, it is the truth because that simply is what happens when you stop trying to control the situation or bring your ego ideas about correct or good relationships and interactions into it. Once you start acting dominant to do it right, you practically defeated the point of making such a point. If all of it was simply an act, all the time, in everyone, you could actually claim that it is a social construct. Hence I believe that the only way you can make such an observation in an honest way is to introspect and make some personal experiences.
You can only make a valid observation when the observed ones (that can include you) feel no obligation to support either view. That is, when they feel free to express themselves fully without thinking about it.
If you have to tell a man how to be a man, then you can not claim that you are making him more of a men, rather than less. At least when you, like myself, assume that being a man means to have the male biological sex – instead of abiding by some ideological construct like neo-masculinity. If being a man does not flow naturally from being born a man, then our concept of being a man logically must be flawed. Of course, that presumes that there are no forces in place during one’s formative years that restrict this natural flow.
Liberals usually claim that homosexuality is inborn. Religious people and manospherians usually claim that homosexuality is a mental illness. Both commit the same fallacy, an appeal to nature based on personal bias. Both assumptions, when declared doctrine, are potentially harmful.
If we declare that homosexuality is inborn, we take all hope away from those who truly suffer from emotional disturbances and developmental setbacks. They are left in a desperate situation and when trying to reconcile the conflicting voices in their heads, they feel forced to support the voice that urges them into homosexuality, inflicting strong pain on themselves from even thinking about it.
On the other hand, I think it is plausible to make room for the assumption that some people are truly homosexual at their core and suffer gravely from having to repress that. Telling them that homosexuality is a mental illness hurts them just as much as those who experience the dilemma from the other perspective.
To make a little analogy, there may be a man who truly enjoys photography and art. And there may be another man who truly enjoys hard work and carrying around big bricks at the building site. Now let’s assume that each of them thinks that his profession is the only true and natural thing to do for a real man. They get children. The artist’s kid would secretly love nothing more than to be a hard worker. The hard worker’s kid would love nothing more secretly than to be an artist. Let us assume that both shame their kids for not doing what they think is the right way. Both kids suffer for having to be something they do not truly wish to be, feeling guilty towards their parents for not truly wanting to be their narcissistic mirror image. And yet, the fact that the kids suffer from having to live a life that does not fit them does not mean that this life would not perfectly fit somebody else.
I will try and make a logical argument that morals are an exclusively human invention and therefore less important in the big picture than we may think. A part of the argument is of Machiavellian nature, but without the negative connotation.
A fine conclusion from it is that it is okay to forgive ourselves and others even the most so-called heinous crimes. And let go of pain.
My argument is really simple. I will give you the short version now and then elaborate a bit. It goes as follows:
Morals in the way we know them are exclusive to the human species. God likely does not punish animals for acting in a manner that would be considered immoral from a human perspective, nor is it likely that they feel guilt or shame for such behavior. Also very likely, our soul – the essence of our being – is not human. Therefore, it is unlikely that God favors human souls over animal souls, since the soul in itself is not human and is thus equal to any other soul. Hence, morals are an exclusive human instrument, primarily used for intra-species power plays – be that a good or bad thing, if you get the pun.
Well, that turned out to be not quite as clear as I hoped it would, but it should suffice to give you the gist for now.
I am prone to judging myself pretty strongly. In those situations, my thoughts often revolve around what other people will think. I think this is a trick of the mind. Who is really the author of your pain? The thoughts and opinions of others? But when you are alone in your room, there are no thoughts of others. There are just your own thoughts thinking about what others will think. Your own self-judgment disguised as judgment of others. This is ideal for the mind that wants to convince you you are powerless. I mean, if your mind told you that you are an asshole all the time, you might tell it to shut the fuck up. But your mind hides its madness behind a pretense of rationality: It is the others who think this and you have no influence over it. I am just the messenger.
Thus, the destructive thoughts your mind fabricates seem like they are not even your own. So it seems impossible to stop them. How could you stop a thought that is not your own? And ideally, it is the thought of someone you are afraid to question.
If a kid was spewing bullshit, you could call him out. But then the kid comes and says: But this is not my opinion. Obama (or insert random important figure) said that!
So you start thinking about whether you have the right or power to question Obama (or insert random important figure).
But in the end, it is your own fucking mind that brought up the self-loathing. It just prepended “Obama (or insert random important figure) said …”.
So maybe it is wise to not let your mind hide behind the backs of others and hold it responsible.
I remember that I read Atlas Shrugged. I remember it made me feel fuck confident. With time, the ideas in my head faded. Then I read The Fountainhead and refreshed that spirit. But something kept nagging at my certainty. I suppressed it until that little tear of doubt turned into a hurricane.
Each day I progress, I start thinking and feeling differently about things that had felt the same way for 26 years. Absolutes turn into relatives and by now, it is becoming comfortable to question myself just as the world around me.
There were times I wished for a fixed set of rules that would make me perfect – long as I followed it, anyway. Like fucking cops.
I think this is good. A person that is able to get absolutely and unlimitedly stuck in a set of ideas would make the perfect slave, but nothing else: Ready to receive the initial instruction but rejecting everything else.
So, next time you feel cognitive dissonance, do not beat yourself up for not knowing absolute truth. Rather, congratulate yourself for being too smart to actually believe in one.
For being smart enough to detect inconsistencies. For the virtue of the pain of your head when confronted with nonsense. For the ability to adapt and free yourself from lies.
Envy is decried as unvirtuous and seen as an emotion directed at somebody’s success, but it is not. Envy is an impulse to compete, but this impulse – in the case of envy – is compulsive. That is, the envying person like an addict is not free to choose whether he wants to be better than the other person.
He simply must be superior. He does not even know why.
Logically, this compulsive obsession is alleviated the easiest way by crushing the tall poppy rather than outcompeting him.
The envious person feels bad when he sees success, because he feels the compulsive need to outperform the other person. How annoying to him. Best to create a microcosm where his superiority is never in doubt.
In any case, why the compulsion? It is the compulsion to escape self-hatred, triggered by being inferior. We learn how to treat our self – read: us – by how our parents treated our self.
We learned to hate ourselves when we were not the best. Or loathe. Or despise. Because we did not get the love we needed when we were not somehow superb.
The doctors think I am schizophrenic, because it seems bizarre that I would get into a fight with a cop. So, am I? Well, I think I actually am. That is, I think that the extended definition that spans three papers fits me often enough. But so do some personality disorders.
Is schizophrenia a firm thing that the definition hints at or is the definition the thing itself? For example, there are intuitive concepts like an honest smile that healthy people will recognize as a distinct thing while mentally impaired may not.
Schizophrenia is, first and foremost, a word.
Is schizophrenia like a smile? A distinguishable aura that healthy people clearly see? Or is it a rather nebulous concept used whenever something a person says or does seems bizarre? I can clearly see how my behavior seems bizarre to an outsider. And yet, from my own standpoint, it seems almost perfectly logical.
Without wasting time about the question of whether schizophrenia is a real thing, let me just ask: What are delusions?