Monthly Archives: February 2013

Obliviousness, Incivility, and the Destruction of the Old Order

I came across this article from some feminist who, according to the little blurb at the bottom, has written for “Jezebel, The Frisky, The Huffington Post and The Good Men Project.” In it she complains of the incivility of men in public:

It’s a drizzly Friday in Chicago and I’m leaving a bar with my roommate sometime after midnight. We’re on a quest for tacos and we’re discussing the finer points—Should we get pork or beef? From where? How many?—when you decide to make our conversation your business. You’ve been loitering outside the bar with your friends, but you hear the word “taco” and soon you’re in lock step with us, asking us about our “tacos,” laughing, hooting back to your friends. We push past—literally shoving you—and continue on our way.

Here are some things you should know about my week: I’m on the phone with my mom on my way to yoga when a guy leans out of a doorway, drags on his cigarette and gestures with his pelvis how much he is enjoying my yoga pants. I’m walking home from the grocery store and a middle-aged guy, maybe high, maybe drunk, yells at me, “Get back here, girl!” I’m waiting for the bus when a carful of bros whips by; one leans out the passenger window, points at the girls waiting at the bus stop and yells, “Yes, Yes, No…Yes!” After work, I’m walking from the train to my apartment and four teenagers are trailing me, discussing my body, guessing measurements; they know I can hear them.

This behaviour causes her to feel unsafe. This is understandable as she is a young woman and these men are quite obviously under-civilized brutes; rape or violence would not seem to be an impossibility in some of these situations and given the inherent physical inequalities between the sexes there is little she could do to defend herself (excepting carrying a gun, which someone who writes for Jezebel is unlikely to do).

This is not my issue with what she has written. The incivility of modern times sometimes irks me as well, although, as a tall, broad-shouldered man with confident bearing, I rarely worry for my physical safety.

Rather, my issue is that, as feminists are wont to do, she blames “the patriarchy” for the incivility of ruffians.

She, of course, being an miseducated feminist is oblivious to the twin facts that:

1) Men being uncivil is not “the patriarchy”, it is the breakdown of the patriarchy. It is men being freed from the constraints which the patriarchy put upon them.

2) The left-wing feminist politics she advocates are the primary cause of this breakdown.

Because of this her analysis, such that it is, is flawed.

****

Men’s sexuality, absent civilizational constraint, is naturally aggressive and promiscuous. These men laughing at a woman’s “taco”, grabbing ass, and doing pelvic-thrusts, are acting out their natural sexuality.

At one point in our society, this would have been unacceptable behaviour. Under the old order, lovingly referred to as the patriarchy, but probably more accurately referred to as civilization, civility towards woman was standard; it was called chivalry.

Men raised under this order would have been loath to issue even a mild oath in the presence of a woman, let alone crassly harass a woman over her “tacos”. Had a man been uncivilized enough to harass a woman in such a way, he would have suffered immediate consequences in the form of violence from other honourable men, and more permanent consequences from a loss of social status.

As an example of the sort of man the old order raised, we can use one Samuel Proctor, who tipped his hat towards a woman. When said woman asked what that meant he replied:

Madame, by tipping my hat I was telling you several things. That I would not harm you in any way. That if someone came into this elevator and threatened you, I would defend you. That if you fell ill, I would tend to you and if necessary carry you to safety. I was telling you that even though I am a man and physically stronger than you, I will treat you with both respect and solicitude. But frankly, Madame, it would have taken too much time to tell you all of that; so, instead, I just tipped my hat.”

A man raised in the old order as Mr. Proctor was, would never have even considered joking about a woman’s “tacos”.

Civilization was used to control men’s natural sexual aggressiveness to create men like Mr. Proctor, who acted civilized and would control their aggressive sexuality for the betterment of society and the safety of women.

Some decades ago, a cabal of dissatisfied women under the label of feminism and a small, but vocal minority under the banner of affiliated progressive ideologies decided they did not care for civilization and its constraints. They rebelled against it and fought a long, hard ideological war to destroy it.

They won.

This cabal destroyed the old order and with it the control it had over men’s sexuality.

Men are now free to be uncivil brutes. Civilization no longer holds full sway over them.

Hence, “tacos.”

****

So, in finale:

Dear Feminist,

This is the world you desired.

You and your ideological kin spent decades ruthlessly destroying the old order which kept men civilized. You smashed the patriarchy which kept men’s naturally externalized sexuality healthly internalized and productively directed.

You denigrated the institutions which controlled men, smashed the civilization which ordered men, and have created a generation of brutes and half-men.

You asked for sexual license. Men are now free to express their sexuality without consequence.

You asked for freedom to pursue hedonism. Men are now pursuing hedonism.

You asked to be freed from the rules of civilized conduct. Men are now freed from these rules as well.

You rejected your role as a lady. Men are rejecting their role as gentlemen.

These rules were made to protect you, dear woman. The patriarchy was made for your benefit. The old order existed to serve you.

You desired, nay demanded, them destroyed, and destroyed they have been.

When you destroy civilization, incivility will be the order of the day.

You have got what you asked for, enjoy it.

Regards,

A Traditionalist

Lightning Round – 2013/02/06

Veteran being screwed by government. Donate here.

What are you going to write?
Related: When can we start shooting the bastards.

Just as you are not entitled to sex; you are also not entitled to respect.

Death will come; what will you leave?

“So we’ve wrecked the family wage, destroyed the labor market, created a generation of fat, depressed, unhappy, stressed out children and for what?  So women can utterly fail to compete with men in any meaningful way and then declare men “useless”?”
Related: The triumph of feminism.

A nice destruction of the idea that you can’t improve your attractiveness.

A dark thought.

Roosh on the poor people are happy meme.

Reactionaries and MRA’s. I’m definitely in the reactionary camp.

For women: How to properly reject a man.

The reality and motivations of gun control made plain.
Related: Just another example of self-defence with a gun. (ie. the people gun haters would like to see dead.)

Is cuckoldry less common then thought?

That’s a red flag if I ever saw one. What would possess someone to marry that?

The destruction of the economy in action.

A further point on women in combat.
Related: Marines’ biggest worry over integration: being falsely accused sexual harassment.

Science: Intelligence and extraversion explain 70% of GDP.

Science: Birds, promiscuity, and societal cooperation.

Science: Men, don’t do housework.

Reality strikes one idiot.

The kept conservative.

Really? Barely half of science majors say that astrology is not at all scientific.

The pretense of non-power.

Humour: 6 Ways Your Brain Sabotages your Sex Life

(H/T: The Captain, GLP, Instapundit, SDA, Foseti)

Adventures in Juicing

I started juicing today. Based on the recommendations of Juicing for Men and Hawaiian Libertarian I asked for a juicer for Christmas, and received Jack Lelanne’s Power Juicer as a gift.

I used it once immediately after to make sure it works; I threw whatever I had lying around into it to create a single glass. But I haven’t used it other than that until last week.

I decided to try to make enough for one cup each weekday morning, as I no longer eat breakfast, and would like a nutrient boost as a replacement for breakfast.

I ended up making a litre (4 cups) worth in about a half hour from the following ingredients, which ended up costing less than $20:

  • 1 large bag of brussel sprouts
  • 1 large bag of spinach
  • 6 bananas
  • a handful of leftover blueberries
  • 1 pineapple

Here’s what I found:

I didn’t notice any real improvement in my life from a week of juicing in the morning, but I did enjoy having something to fill my stomach early.

Costco did not sell either kale or collard greens, which is why I used brussel sprouts and spinach. I need to find a source of kale.

The taste was unpleasant, but not overly so. It’s something that seems like it could grow on me, or at the very least be tolerable.

My juicer had a hard time with the pineapple and the brussel sprouts tended to get clogged. It also needed frequent cleaning and even died on me a couple times (which was rectified by cleaning and restarting). If I end up doing this regularly I’ll definitely need a more efficient juicer.

Bananas are not good for juicing. They create a slime, rather than juice and made the consistency of the juice really weird. They also tended to clog the machine.

Pineapple is good in the juice. It adds a nice sweetness.

The berries and spinach juiced easily, and the spinach made a nice dark green juice which looked pretty cool.

The brussel sprouts had a harsh taste and tended to clog easily. I’d like to replace them with Kale or more Spinach.

The berries give very little juice. In my original throw whatever I had in glass to test the machine experiment, I used a whole package of blueberries and got only a tiny amount of juice. I don’t think berries are exceedingly cost effective for this purpose, but I might add in one pack each week for flavour and nutrients.

Conclusion:

I’m going to continue to try juicing to see if any effect takes place over a longer time period, but if I decide to make this a permanent part of my diet, I am definitely going to have to buy a better juicer.

I might occasionally post more on juicing as I do it. I can’t say that I recommend it at this point and haven’t noticed any real life improvement, but I’ve only done it a week. After a longer period, I’ll have more information to share.

Any advice or comments any of my readers who juice might have would be appreciated.

The Bookshelf: Three Years of Hate

The now defunct blog, In Mala Fide, (archive here) was a cornerstone of the manosphere and the linkage I received from Ferdinand was instrumental in building my blog’s reader base. While I didn’t always agree with Ferd, his posts always got you thinking and I enjoyed them thoroughly for the last few months of his blog.

So, when I heard that Ferd was releasing a book of his best posts, I immediately went to Amazon and purchased it. Three Years of Hate arrived a few days ago (Amazon.com takes forever to be delivered to Canada and .ca didn’t have it) and I read through it within 3 days.

The book is essentially one man’s cynical raging against the world. If you’ve read In Mala Fide, you obviously know the style. Ferd writes cogent essays that seethe with a cold, burning hate.  You can feel his animus, directed at everything and anything, as you read. This is nihilism distilled to it’s essence and applied to a random smattering of topics. If you are looking for positivity, look elsewhere. If you are looking to see a number society’s untouchable shibboleths virulently attacked, then you are in the right place.

His writing style is somewhat more in the style of academic/intellectual literature than most blogs in the manosphere, as can be expected from a literary major, but never veers into the realm of intellectual masturbation or unnecessary verbosity or complexity for their own sake. It also does not forsake the use of low humour or foul language. The humour section (particularly the aforementioned article on radio PSA’s) had me laughing to myself.

Ferd covers a wide variety of topics, from radio PSA’s to solipsism to America’s ‘War on the Catholic Church’, all divided into four major sections of the book: Sexuality, What’s Wrong with the World, the Tao of Ferd, and Humour. Sexuality is self-explanatory and includes an expanded version of the manosphere classic “The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind”. What is Wrong with the World is primarily socio-political essays. The Tao of Ferd is a random mishmash of articles that seem to be grouped together because they didn’t really fit elsewhere; it includes a few book reviews, some literary analysis (more enjoyable than it sounds), and other miscellania. Humour is self-explanatory and is most definitely humourous.

I only read IMF for the last few months of its existence, so I can’t say much about the essay selection chosen for the book and if any important ones were missing. The essays in the book were all excellent. Each one was well-written and thought-provoking (although, Ferd did criticize the use of thought-provoking in book reviews, so…). Because of this diversity of views, if you know a disenfranchised young man or someone new to the alt-right, this book could be nice intro, as long as they aren’t too easily offended.

Overall, the book is amazing. There are only two reasons I could see not to get it.

1) If you’re really cheap, you could all the essays on the archive free either now or some point in the future (I haven’t checked if they’re all available yet), but you should buy the book anyway to support those who do good work.

2) The book is offensive. If you are easily offended by, well, anything, this is not the book for you. As a random example, one of the essays is titled, The Necessity of Domestic Violence

Recommendation:

Read this book. It is thoroughly entertaining, and will give you a lot to think on. The only reasons not to buy it are if you are going to read the archives instead because you’re cheap (don’t you have a measly $5 to support the guy who wrote In Mala Fide for 3 years) or easily offended. And if you’re easily offended, buy the book anyway, it will be good for you to experience more beyond your narrow experience. It might get you thinking and questioning the socially-created assumptions you hold.