Goldie Blox

Aaron linked to this ad for toys called Goldie Blox.

Unlike Aaron, I’m not quite so dismissive. I like the commercial, but I’ve always had a fondness for Rube Goldberg machines.

I also think the toys are a theoretically good idea. While most women don’t like math and won’t go into non-biology STEM, a few do and will. Why not make toys for those atypical girls?

My sisters had pastel-coloured Legos and they played war with them with my brother and me as we used our primary-coloured blocks. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with girl versions of boys’ toys.

On the other hand, there is something wrong with these toys.

THere is an interesting incongruity between the toys themselves and the purported feminist message. Whatever Goldie Blox’ intentions and advertisements and despite all the hype the toys are getting from the feminist-types, when you actually observe the toys you can’t help but notice the makers don’t really buy the message they’re selling.

Pastel Tinkertoys

These toys are essentially Tinkertoys and Tinkertoys have always been fairly gender-neutral, which makes them an odd target to feminize. Rather than being a leap forward for gender-neutral toys or equalism, these Goldie Blox are actually gendering toys and promoting inequality.

What idiot made Tinkertoys plastic and colourful?

The toy makers are banking on the fact that girls don’t want to play with gender-neutral Tinkertoys, but would instead prefer these gendered, feminine-themed Goldie Blox. That seems to be putting little girls even further into the gender box rather than moving them out of it.

Second, despite their anti-pink attitude, the colours of the toy are simply changed to other feminine colours, particularly a golden-yellow and a pastel purple. There’s not the primary colours of Legos and browns of (old, real) Tinkertoys. I don’t see how changing the gendered pink to gendered pastels is a particular “leap-forward” for getting girls out of the “pink ghetto”. Merely painting the ghetto a different colour is not going to change anything.

Third, look at the toys themselves. Tinkertoys are just Tinkertoys, they have no themes, while Lego’s are occasionally without theme but usually something boyishly cool like rockets, planes, or pirates. The Goldie Blox sets available are a parade float and a girly ribbon “spinning machine”.

Parade Floats – The Height of Imagination

The joy of Tinkertoys was simply building whatever came to your mind at the time. The imagination and the ability to build was the lure. Even with Legos sets, how many kids actually concentrated on the sets themselves, rather than tearing them apart as soon as they were built to build something else or play war?

These toys have been dumbed down. Look at how few pieces you get and how limited they are. And a parade float, really? You makes toys that can be used to build anything the imagination can conceive and a parade float is the best you can come up with? Is that the best you think young girls can aspire to?

I’ll see your parade float and raise you a rocket-ship.

How much of an “improvement” for gender neutrality in toys or for getting girls out of of the pink ghetto is it for little girls to simply be building girly things?

How much engineering/building skills and imagination will such simple, limited sets instill in young girls?

Finally, look at the sets, what do you see?

That bear has some swag.

Cute little animals. There’s a dolphin in a tutu, a bear in a pastel suit, and a cute little doggy with big floppy ears.

What do you see in Tinkertoys? Nothing but blocks and sticks (or plastic in the new and crappy form; that annoys more more than it should. At least I’m not the only one).

What do you see in Legos? Articulated figures capable of action (with guns and swords).

The girl-oriented engineering product is not enough of a draw in itself; it needs something cute, something personal to draw the little girls in. To increase the narrative and personalization, each even comes with it’s own storybook.

Every machine needs a back-story.

How much do you want to bet that most little girls who receive this toy will spend more time playing house or tea with the little animal figures rather than building, destroying, and re-building weird contraptions?

Here we can see the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the whole ‘girls and boys are equal meme’ displayed in one little children’s toy.

Even the equalists who specifically created a feminist-vaunted engineering toy to get girls into engineering know that most little girls don’t want to build and destroy for the sake of building and destroying like little boys do. They know full well they can’t just market Tinkertoys to girl straight-up; they know they can’t simply tell girls build this and make a profit.

So, to convince most girls to give an engineering toy a try they have to regender a gender-neutral toy, make the toys as girly as possible (while avoiding the dreaded pink), dumb the toy down while destroy the creativity of the toy, and introduce cute little animal figures in tutus simply to make them palatable to little girls.

I’m an evil supporter of the patriarchy and I would be hard-pressed to think up a toy that is more patronizing to little girls than this.

If you want pastels and dollies for your daughter buy some My Little Pony toys; there’s nothing wrong or inferior with young girls liking pink, pastels, and relationally-based toys.

But if you want an engineering toy by some Tinkertoys or Legos.

Uncountable hours of fun.

Avoid this drek; it’s insulting. “Hey little girl, you can’t handle 65 pieces of Tinkertoys ($16.40), so here’s 35 pieces to build a parade float ($20) because that’s all we expect you to be able to imagine and create. The boys will go over their and play with their underwater base.”

When even the gender-warriors implicitly state their cause is lost whenever it comes to something that actually effects reality, you know there’s something flawed with their ideology.

****

I must say though, I do admire the business acumen of the creator. What an idea:

I’ll take a classic toy, make it worse, colour it in pastels, attach some feminist ideology to it, and sell less of it at a higher price, then have the feminist press rave about my awesome new toy providing scads of free publicity.

That’s a pretty good business plan.

Lightning Round – 2013/11/20

Advice to those struggling in the faith.

“Christianity is not about acceptance. It is not about tolerance. It is about separating the wheat from the chaff and dividing the sheep from the goats. In his own words, Jesus makes it perfectly clear that he did not come to bring peace. He is, in fact, the dividing factor.”
Related: Christians are required to be dicks.

Are women attracted to evil? And the righteous alpha.

Of love and lust.

If you stopped something, would anyone care?

ABlack spade (cards) recommends LARPing.

The discounting of lived male experience.

Vox with some marriage advice.
Related: Badger responds.
Related: Rules for fighting.

Feminists are bad at economics.

Why do feminists think women are only good for sex? What else of value does a feminist contribute?

A failure of leadership in churches concerning women and home-making.
Related: A disgusting pedestalization of women.

You’re likely to get a lot less sex in marriage than you desire.

Backleading is unattractive.

Women: keep your hair long if you want to attract a guy.
Related: Zhai2nan2 has a great suggestion.

Rebellion as deadly threat.

Black-knighting: mutual rape.

Man’s attraction is stable, woman’s is dynamic.

Calling women ma’am.

A letter about someone I once knew.

The decline of the cultural foundation.

The rumblings of discontent and our future.

Heaven on earth.

Does Europe have more hope than the US?
Related: A bit more on immigration in Europe and the US.

Neoreaction in the Daily Caller. Good on Bryce.
Related: Outsideness is weirded out.

Radish knocks it out of the park on democracy and intellectuals.

Anti-anti-reactionary FAQ: Sluts.

Why do so many liberals want the government to behave like a plantation owner?

You can never know where the edge is, for unexpected equilibrium forces may arise.

Neoreactionary economics.

Democracy as warfare.

The problem with “we need religion”.

My take: All right-thinking, orthodox Christians should work together in our war. Our differences are petty compared to the what our common foes wish to unleash.

America should treat its young better.

On Alger Hiss.

Conservatives are turning against cops.

Stupid U.
Related: Explaining the college bubble.

They have this at my work, but it is entirely optional. I don’t donate and dislike the United Way because my first year working I used the workplace campaign to donate to World Vision and a local Christian soup kitchen and the UW took about 10% off for administrative costs. I do still go to the pizza and chili fundraisers. Also, it is horribly inefficient as the amount of time (ie. government salary dollars) and resources spent on this campaign far outweigh the meager amounts they do fund-raise.

Advice for media interviews.

Hazing is good.

An interesting Augustine quote to ponder.

A Watsoning in Denmark.

Why the left hates Tom Kratman.

Thank you Military.”

France, ADHD, and school shootings.

Police your institutions or the leftists will overtake them.

HR women discriminating against pretty women.
Related: Abolish HR

Gays can now enjoy the wonders of the alimony system.

If you can’t get them from the front, take them from behind.

You can really tell the demographic Obama is reaching out to with Obamacare.
Related: Roissy comments.
Related: A little more Obamacare schaedenfreude.

Death panels may be the only ethically justifiable aspect of Obamacare.

The 97% consensus “factoid” is false.

Kerry O’Brien, Walter Forrest, Dermot Lynott, and Michael Daly are publishing bad science.

16 things foreigners couldn’t believe about America.

Slate makes one of the best anti-food stamp arguments I’ve read in a while.

For the Canucks: Trudeau’s greatest hits.

(H/T: SDA, Foseti,

The Grand Inquisitor

From a story in the Brothers Karamazov in which the Grand Inquisitor speaks to a returned Jesus, captured and imprisoned:

“‘Is it Thou? Thou?’ but receiving no answer, he adds at once. ‘Don’t answer, be silent. What canst Thou say, indeed? I know too well what Thou wouldst say. And Thou hast no right to add anything to what Thou hadst said of old. Why, then, art Thou come to hinder us? For Thou hast come to hinder us, and Thou knowest that. But dost thou know what will be to-morrow? I know not who Thou art and care not to know whether it is Thou or only a semblance of Him, but to-morrow I shall condemn Thee and burn Thee at the stake as the worst of heretics. And the very people who have to-day kissed Thy feet, to-morrow at the faintest sign from me will rush to heap up the embers of Thy fire. Knowest Thou that? Yes, maybe Thou knowest it,’ he added with thoughtful penetration, never for a moment taking his eyes off the Prisoner.”

‘Hast Thou the right to reveal to us one of the mysteries of that world from which Thou hast come?’ my old man asks Him, and answers the question for Him. ‘No, Thou hast not; that Thou mayest not add to what has been said of old, and mayest not take from men the freedom which Thou didst exalt when Thou wast on earth. Whatsoever Thou revealest anew will encroach on men’s freedom of faith; for it will be manifest as a miracle, and the freedom of their faith was dearer to Thee than anything in those days fifteen hundred years ago. Didst Thou not often say then, “I will make you free”? But now Thou hast seen these “free” men,’ the old man adds suddenly, with a pensive smile. ‘Yes, we’ve paid dearly for it,’ he goes on, looking sternly at Him, ‘but at last we have completed that work in Thy name. For fifteen centuries we have been wrestling with Thy freedom, but now it is ended and over for good. Dost Thou not believe that it’s over for good? Thou lookest meekly at me and deignest not even to be wroth with me. But let me tell Thee that now, to-day, people are more persuaded than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet. But that has been our doing. Was this what Thou didst? Was this Thy freedom?'”

‘For now’ (he is speaking of the Inquisition, of course) ‘for the first time it has become possible to think of the happiness of men. Man was created a rebel; and how can rebels be happy? Thou wast warned,’ he says to Him. ‘Thou hast had no lack of admonitions and warnings, but Thou didst not listen to those warnings; Thou didst reject the only way by which men might be made happy. But, fortunately, departing Thou didst hand on the work to us. Thou hast promised, Thou hast established by Thy word, Thou hast given to us the right to bind and to unbind, and now, of course, Thou canst not think of taking it away. Why, then, hast Thou come to hinder us?'”

“‘The wise and dread spirit, the spirit of self-destruction and non-existence,’ the old man goes on, great spirit talked with Thee in the wilderness, and we are told in the books that he “tempted” Thee. Is that so? And could anything truer be said than what he revealed to Thee in three questions and what Thou didst reject, and what in the books is called “the temptation”? And yet if there has ever been on earth a real stupendous miracle, it took place on that day, on the day of the three temptations. The statement of those three questions was itself the miracle. If it were possible to imagine simply for the sake of argument that those three questions of the dread spirit had perished utterly from the books, and that we had to restore them and to invent them anew, and to do so had gathered together all the wise men of the earth- rulers, chief priests, learned men, philosophers, poets- and had set them the task to invent three questions, such as would not only fit the occasion, but express in three words, three human phrases, the whole future history of the world and of humanity- dost Thou believe that all the wisdom of the earth united could have invented anything in depth and force equal to the three questions which were actually put to Thee then by the wise and mighty spirit in the wilderness? From those questions alone, from the miracle of their statement, we can see that we have here to do not with the fleeting human intelligence, but with the absolute and eternal. For in those three questions the whole subsequent history of mankind is, as it were, brought together into one whole, and foretold, and in them are united all the unsolved historical contradictions of human nature. At the time it could not be so clear, since the future was unknown; but now that fifteen hundred years have passed, we see that everything in those three questions was so justly divined and foretold, and has been so truly fulfilled, that nothing can be added to them or taken from them.

“Judge Thyself who was right- Thou or he who questioned Thee then? Remember the first question; its meaning, in other words, was this: “Thou wouldst go into the world, and art going with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which men in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even understand, which they fear and dread- for nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom. But seest Thou these stones in this parched and barren wilderness? Turn them into bread, and mankind will run after Thee like a flock of sheep, grateful and obedient, though for ever trembling, lest Thou withdraw Thy hand and deny them Thy bread.” But Thou wouldst not deprive man of freedom and didst reject the offer, thinking, what is that freedom worth if obedience is bought with bread? Thou didst reply that man lives not by bread alone. But dost Thou know that for the sake of that earthly bread the spirit of the earth will rise up against Thee and will strive with Thee and overcome Thee, and all will follow him, crying, “Who can compare with this beast? He has given us fire from heaven!” Dost Thou know that the ages will pass, and humanity will proclaim by the lips of their sages that there is no crime, and therefore no sin; there is only hunger? “Feed men, and then ask of them virtue!” that’s what they’ll write on the banner, which they will raise against Thee, and with which they will destroy Thy temple. Where Thy temple stood will rise a new building; the terrible tower of Babel will be built again, and though, like the one of old, it will not be finished, yet Thou mightest have prevented that new tower and have cut short the sufferings of men for a thousand years; for they will come back to us after a thousand years of agony with their tower. They will seek us again, hidden underground in the catacombs, for we shall be again persecuted and tortured. They will find us and cry to us, “Feed us, for those who have promised us fire from heaven haven’t given it!” And then we shall finish building their tower, for he finishes the building who feeds them. And we alone shall feed them in Thy name, declaring falsely that it is in Thy name. Oh, never, never can they feed themselves without us! No science will give them bread so long as they remain free. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, “Make us your slaves, but feed us.” They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man? And if for the sake of the bread of Heaven thousands shall follow Thee, what is to become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly? Or dost Thou care only for the tens of thousands of the great and strong, while the millions, numerous as the sands of the sea, who are weak but love Thee, must exist only for the sake of the great and strong? No, we care for the weak too. They are sinful and rebellious, but in the end they too will become obedient. They will marvel at us and look on us as gods, because we are ready to endure the freedom which they have found so dreadful and to rule over them- so awful it will seem to them to be free. But we shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name. We shall deceive them again, for we will not let Thee come to us again. That deception will be our suffering, for we shall be forced to lie.

“‘This is the significance of the first question in the wilderness, and this is what Thou hast rejected for the sake of that freedom which Thou hast exalted above everything. Yet in this question lies hid the great secret of this world. Choosing “bread,” Thou wouldst have satisfied the universal and everlasting craving of humanity- to find someone to worship. So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship. But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but to find community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they’ve slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, “Put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!” And so it will be to the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same. Thou didst know, Thou couldst not but have known, this fundamental secret of human nature, but Thou didst reject the one infallible banner which was offered Thee to make all men bow down to Thee alone- the banner of earthly bread; and Thou hast rejected it for the sake of freedom and the bread of Heaven. Behold what Thou didst further. And all again in the name of freedom! I tell Thee that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born. But only one who can appease their conscience can take over their freedom. In bread there was offered Thee an invincible banner; give bread, and man will worship thee, for nothing is more certain than bread. But if someone else gains possession of his conscience- Oh! then he will cast away Thy bread and follow after him who has ensnared his conscience. In that Thou wast right. For the secret of man’s being is not only to live but to have something to live for. Without a stable conception of the object of life, man would not consent to go on living, and would rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance. That is true. But what happened? Instead of taking men’s freedom from them, Thou didst make it greater than ever! Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering. And behold, instead of giving a firm foundation for setting the conscience of man at rest for ever, Thou didst choose all that is exceptional, vague and enigmatic; Thou didst choose what was utterly beyond the strength of men, acting as though Thou didst not love them at all- Thou who didst come to give Thy life for them! Instead of taking possession of men’s freedom, Thou didst increase it, and burdened the spiritual kingdom of mankind with its sufferings for ever. Thou didst desire man’s free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide. But didst Thou not know that he would at last reject even Thy image and Thy truth, if he is weighed down with the fearful burden of free choice? They will cry aloud at last that the truth is not in Thee, for they could not have been left in greater confusion and suffering than Thou hast caused, laying upon them so many cares and unanswerable problems.

“‘So that, in truth, Thou didst Thyself lay the foundation for the destruction of Thy kingdom, and no one is more to blame for it. Yet what was offered Thee? There are three powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness those forces are miracle, mystery and authority. Thou hast rejected all three and hast set the example for doing so. When the wise and dread spirit set Thee on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Thee, “If Thou wouldst know whether Thou art the Son of God then cast Thyself down, for it is written: the angels shall hold him up lest he fall and bruise himself, and Thou shalt know then whether Thou art the Son of God and shalt prove then how great is Thy faith in Thy Father.” But Thou didst refuse and wouldst not cast Thyself down. Oh, of course, Thou didst proudly and well, like God; but the weak, unruly race of men, are they gods? Oh, Thou didst know then that in taking one step, in making one movement to cast Thyself down, Thou wouldst be tempting God and have lost all Thy faith in Him, and wouldst have been dashed to pieces against that earth which Thou didst come to save. And the wise spirit that tempted Thee would have rejoiced. But I ask again, are there many like Thee? And couldst Thou believe for one moment that men, too, could face such a temptation? Is the nature of men such, that they can reject miracle, and at the great moments of their life, the moments of their deepest, most agonising spiritual difficulties, cling only to the free verdict of the heart? Oh, Thou didst know that Thy deed would be recorded in books, would be handed down to remote times and the utmost ends of the earth, and Thou didst hope that man, following Thee, would cling to God and not ask for a miracle. But Thou didst not know that when man rejects miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot bear to be without the miraculous, he will create new miracles of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and witchcraft, though he might be a hundred times over a rebel, heretic and infidel. Thou didst not come down from the Cross when they shouted to Thee, mocking and reviling Thee, “Come down from the cross and we will believe that Thou art He.” Thou didst not come down, for again Thou wouldst not enslave man by a miracle, and didst crave faith given freely, not based on miracle. Thou didst crave for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has overawed him for ever. But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves, of course, though rebellious by nature. Look round and judge; fifteen centuries have passed, look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he do what Thou didst? By showing him so much respect, Thou didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too much from him- Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself! Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked less of him. That would have been more like love, for his burden would have been lighter. He is weak and vile. What though he is everywhere now rebelling against our power, and proud of his rebellion? It is the pride of a child and a schoolboy. They are little children rioting and barring out the teacher at school. But their childish delight will end; it will cost them dear. Mankind as a whole has always striven to organise a universal state. There have been many great nations with great histories, but the more highly they were developed the more unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people the craving for world-wide union. The great conquerors, Timours and Ghenghis-Khans, whirled like hurricanes over the face of the earth striving to subdue its people, and they too were but the unconscious expression of the same craving for universal unity. Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar’s purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him. Oh, ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, “Mystery.” But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men. Thou art proud of Thine elect, but Thou hast only the elect, while we give rest to all. And besides, how many of those elect, those mighty ones who could become elect, have grown weary waiting for Thee, and have transferred and will transfer the powers of their spirit and the warmth of their heart to the other camp, and end by raising their free banner against Thee. Thou didst Thyself lift up that banner. But with us all will be happy and will no more rebel nor destroy one another as under Thy freedom. Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only become free when they renounce their freedom to us and submit to us. And shall we be right or shall we be lying? They will be convinced that we are right, for they will remember the horrors of slavery and confusion to which Thy freedom brought them. Freedom, free thought, and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: “Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!”

“‘Receiving bread from us, they will see clearly that we take the bread made by their hands from them, to give it to them, without any miracle. They will see that we do not change the stones to bread, but in truth they will be more thankful for taking it from our hands than for the bread itself! For they will remember only too well that in old days, without our help, even the bread they made turned to stones in their hands, while since they have come back to us, the very stones have turned to bread in their hands. Too, too well will they know the value of complete submission! And until men know that, they will be unhappy. Who is most to blame for their not knowing it?-speak! Who scattered the flock and sent it astray on unknown paths? But the flock will come together again and will submit once more, and then it will be once for all. Then we shall give them the quiet humble happiness of weak creatures such as they are by nature. Oh, we shall persuade them at last not to be proud, for Thou didst lift them up and thereby taught them to be proud. We shall show them that they are weak, that they are only pitiful children, but that childlike happiness is the sweetest of all. They will become timid and will look to us and huddle close to us in fear, as chicks to the hen. They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at our being so powerful and clever that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of thousands of millions. They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their minds will grow fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like women and children, but they will be just as ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song. Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a child’s game, with children’s songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission, that we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have children according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient- and they will submit to us gladly and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy, all the millions of creatures except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond the grave they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity. Though if there were anything in the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they. It is prophesied that Thou wilt come again in victory, Thou wilt come with Thy chosen, the proud and strong, but we will say that they have only saved themselves, but we have saved all. We are told that the harlot who sits upon the beast, and holds in her hands the mystery, shall be put to shame, that the weak will rise up again, and will rend her royal purple and will strip naked her loathsome body. But then I will stand up and point out to Thee the thousand millions of happy children who have known no sin. And we who have taken their sins upon us for their happiness will stand up before Thee and say: “Judge us if Thou canst and darest.” Know that I fear Thee not. Know that I too have been in the wilderness, I too have lived on roots and locusts, I too prized the freedom with which Thou hast blessed men, and I too was striving to stand among Thy elect, among the strong and powerful, thirsting “to make up the number.” But I awakened and would not serve madness. I turned back and joined the ranks of those who have corrected Thy work. I left the proud and went back to the humble, for the happiness of the humble. What I say to Thee will come to pass, and our dominion will be built up. I repeat, to-morrow Thou shalt see that obedient flock who at a sign from me will hasten to heap up the hot cinders about the pile on which I shall burn Thee for coming to hinder us. For if anyone has ever deserved our fires, it is Thou. To-morrow I shall burn Thee. Dixi.'”*

* I have spoken.

Prescient; yet it is not the Catholic church to which they bow for their bread, but unto the non-theistic ideological sons of the puritans.

$5 a Day Paleo

It is often said that good food is expensive, while unhealthy food is cheap. Today, I’m going to show you how you can eat healthy, eat paleo, for $150 a month, about $5 a day. It’s not as cheap as KD (which would come to about $70/month with milk and butter) or ramen (of which you could eat 4 a day for <$30/month), but it’s much healthier and far more satisfying.

It is also said eating healthy takes too long too prepare. That is also incorrect, I spend about 15 minutes a day preparing food, and most of that is spent surfing the net.

This will require some small upfront investment, specifically a Costco card. It’s $55/year in Canada; it’s probably less in the US, not a big deal and it will save you a lot of money in the end. This will also require a decent kitchen knife, get one if you don’t have one. (Believe me, cutting some of this meat without a decent knife is a, literally, painful experience).

Cost: $5/month.

Drink

Drink water.

Water is free and water is good. If you don’t have a Brita filter water jug, get one; it makes water taste much better. It’s only $10, $20 if you get a bigger one, less than a pack or two of water bottles or pop. Make sure to add new water as soon as you drink to keep the container full; that way your water is always cold. It’s well worth it.

I can not stress this enough; if you only ever make one healthy change in your life, stop buying pop, juice, beer, milk, or other beverages. When at home drink nothing but water. (When out with friends, have some fun). It will have amazingly effective results for something so small.

Cost: negligible.

In fact, if you drink just one 2L of pop every two days, I just saved you about $30/month for a single $10 investment.

Dinner

Go to Costco, to the meat section.

Find the pork loin; it’ll be about $20-25 for about 10lbs. This works out to about 15-20 portions of just over a half pound each. That’s about $1.50 per meal.

Nearby should be the beef eye round. It’s about $18-20 for about 6lbs. This works out to about 10-12 portions at just over a half pound; about $2 per meal.

Go home, cut them up into either 1/4 or 1/2lb chops/steaks/cutlets (give or take) and put about a half lb of meat into sandwich bags (which you bought in bulk at Costco). Put one beef and one pork bag in the fridge, the rest in the freezer.

To prepare, simply fry in some butter or oil, put on a couple spices, and flip once.

Every time you eat one from the fridge, replace it with one from the freezer, so it defrosts for next time.

Cost: $40 for the month.

Prep Time: 30 min/month to cut meat; 15 min/day to fry meat.

Lunch

In the same meat section by some chicken breasts or thighs. The thighs are cheaper, but a pain to cut because they are more fatty. I usually get the breasts.

Buy one pack of breasts about 6 lbs each; it comes to about $20 each.

Go to the produce section. Find this:

It’s about $3-4 for a bag of sweet kale, 3 bags should last a week.

Cut the breasts up into small chunks and fry up it all up at once. It should all fit in a larger pan. Stick it into a container.

Every day take out about 1/14 of the chicken, mix it with a bit less than a half bag of kale. Add the dressing that comes with (or make your own*).

Do this once every two weeks; 6 lbs of chicken and and 6 bags of kale comes to about $40 for two weeks; about $3-4 per meal.

Cost: $80/month.

Prep Time: 45 min/bi-weekly to cut and fry meat; 3 min/day assembly.

You are now eating 2 satisfying, 1/2lb+, healthy paleo meals a day for $120 a month.

Breakfast

Skip breakfast. I rarely eat it; it is unnecessary. But if breakfast is a must, 5 dozen eggs are $10.  If you buy two, that’s 4 eggs each morning for a month for $20, buy 3 for $30 if you want 6 eggs a morning). Boil them, scramble them, or make an omelet. Throw on a bit of salt and pepper.

Cost: $0 ($20-30/month, if you must).

Prep Time: None (5-20 min/per day depending on how you prep the eggs).

Snacks

For snacks, bananas, apples, and other fruits are a few bucks for a large bushel, a large box of berries is usually only a few bucks (prices vary, so always check which are currently cheap), bags of dark chocolate squares are <$10, a 12-pack of Greek Yogurt is about $12, and large bags of almonds are $15. Mix and match as you like; the non-perishables in Costco size will usually be good for a couple of months.

Cost: Variable, $10-30.

Prep time: Negligible.

Other

Butter or coconut oil is a must for cooking. A stick of butter costs a few bucks and should last a month or two; a large container of coconut oil is about $10 at Costco and should last a few months (at least).

Buy some BBQ sauce to dip the meat in for flavour. I like to use a lot of Bullseye BBQ sauce; a large container usually lasts me a month. At Costco, it comes in packs of two large containers for about $10.

Get some spices, some salt, and some pepper. Some of my favourite spices include Montreal Steak Spice, Seasoning Salt, and Lemon and Herbs. If you buy a bunch at once, it will be a fairly big initial outlay (my first spice shopping was about $80), but spices, especially when bought in Costco sizes, last for a very long time, so they very rarely need to be replaced. After the initial investment, the cost becomes negligible. Or you can go slower and buy one new spice a shopping trip, which will be about $5-10.

Cost: $5-20/month

Prep time: Not applicable

Total Cost

There you have it, that’s two meals a day, each over a half pound of healthy food, for $125 a month. That’s about $4 a day.

If you add breakfast it’s about $145-155. About $5 a day.

When you add snacks and condiments, it’s about $140-$175. About $5-6 a day.

If you add both it is about $150-$200/month. About $5-7 a day.

That’s cheaper than a single Big Mac Meal. In fact, you can eat healthy for a whole day for the price of a Starbuck’s coffee.

Total prep time is about 2 hours a month and 20 minutes a day.

You really can eat healthy, real food for relatively low cost with little time investment.

Saving More

If $5 a day is too rich for your blood, you can save even more by:

  • Cutting out the snacks.
  • Reducing condiment and spice usage.
  • Reducing beef consumption and eating more pork.
  • Eating more eggs and reducing meat consumption.
  • Replacing chicken breasts with thighs, pork, beef, or eggs.
  • Remove the meat from the salad entirely and replacing with more greens.
  • Changing from kale mix to cheaper greens.
  • Intermittent fasting: periods of fasting are good for the mind, the soul, and the wallet. I went a week this summer eating only a salad a day for lunch, simply because that was all I needed.

You could probably eat paleo for under $100/month if you tried. That’s just over $3 per day.

I have done this once or twice when facing self-imposed financial restrictions; sometimes you just need ammo more than food.

****

Now, this is my base. I generally buy more than this. I like BBQ ribs in the summer and both yogurt and jerky as a snack. I also keep a supply of Coke and some chips for when friends come over; the occasional family BBQ can also get expensive. The berries usually tempt me, so I almost always buy more than I eat.

But all that is luxury I choose because I can afford it.

Just because you can eat cheap, does not mean you have to; you can always buy better cuts of meat or organic food or extra snacks, or whatever.

But just because you are on a limited budget does not mean you can’t eat healthy (unless it is exceedingly limited). Also, saving money for better things than food is nice.

Eat only what you can afford; but eat well with it.

****

* My salad dressing recipe: 2 parts vinegar, 1 part olive oil, a dash of lemon juice, and a splash of worchestshire sauce. Throw in a pinch of dried mustard and garlic powder, and a tiny bit of salt. Shake well. It’s cheap, easy to make, and tastes good.

Lightning Round – 2013/11/13

A shorter one today. I have some new responsibilities at work which may decrease the reading I do, leading to shorter LR’s in the future.

18 things every 18-year-old should know. Don’t agree with every one of them, but it’s mostly excellent advice.

Stop searching for secrets to success; take action.
Related: How to get everything you want.
Related: Where to find motivation.

Women, value, and praise.

Female beauty is a gift from God, appreciate it; have standards.

Stoics and romance.

Post-scarcity and the sexual marketplace.
Related: Crowding out the private sector husband.

The new script is nothing like the old script.
Related: Our society knows nothing of marriage.

Female divorce calculator. The women I want to marry would have a 7% risk; not bad.

A defence of duty sex.

On ethno-nationalism.

Potential approximations of neoreaction.

This history of the nations of North America reads awfully like neoreactionary history.

The primacy of scripture: Ballista recommends I use scripture alone.
Related: Protestantism, Catholicism, and the Bible.

Satanism in the church.

Reality fails the Bechdal test.

The lie of “feminism is believing men and women deserve equal rights.”

Gender equality measures “work”.

“Men do not need a “movement”. Men do not need to “go their own way”. Men like women need truth.”

Is paternity fraud worse than rape?

Why women oppose prostitution.

Orson Scott Card’s interview answer.

The new rules of engagement.
Related: Helena Kincaid demands free stuff.
Related: TV is evil.

The difference between totalitarianism and our modern petty authoritarianism is the totalitarians assumed you would become a man, our authoritarians assume you will remain a boy.

The failure of conservatism.

The wages of socialism. Coming soon to a country near you.

More indoctrination in the common core.

Minimum wage destroys the black working class.

The success of Zimbabwe.

On right-wing authoritarianism.

An experiment on the racism of liberals.

The left pursues solidarity over truth.
Related: Remember, the barbarians hate the very concept of beauty.

Is the Flynn effect due to life becoming more like an IQ test?

(H/T: SDA)

Self-Esteem is for Losers

Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor
than to divide the spoil with the proud. (Proverbs 16:18, ESV)

The Bible warns against pride numerous times, but I think a better word would be hubris.

The problem with the word pride is that it holds different meanings, all of which are used interchangeably.

a :  inordinate self-esteem :  conceit
b :  a reasonable or justifiable self-respect
c :  delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship

The biblical injunctions against pride concern themselves with the first meaning; a belief that one is higher than one truly is.

Pride is the original sin and the sin from which all sins flow.

Lucifer, the morning star, thought himself above God and tried to ascend to His throne. His fatal sin was hubris.

Eve’s original sin was pride:

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

She wanted to become as God; she thought herself greater than she was. For that she was forever cursed.

All sin is man thinking his own reason and his own ways are superior to the reason and ways of God. But as God pointedly asked Job:

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”

Man, in his pride, thinks himself wise, but his wisdom is foolishness. He elevates himself in his own mind above His creator and suffers for it.

In Proverbs humility is linked with fear of the Lord:

The fear of the Lord is instruction in wisdom,
and humility comes before honor. (Proverbs 15:33, ESV)

The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
is riches and honor and life. (Proverbs 22:4, ESV)

It is clear, humility is knowing your right place before God and before other man.

A humble man may still have pride of the second and third definitions: he may respect himself because he is made in God’s image which is reflected through him, imparting upon him value; he may take joy in doing acts of right, knowing these acts come from God’s providence.

The pride of a humble man and the pride of the hubristic man are as far as the east is from the west.

A man of hubris thinks himself higher than he is, a humble man knows himself for who he is.

A humble man has true confidence, for he knows who he is and accepts his lot. The hubristic man’s confidence is but a mirage.

****

Respect is something that is earned. It is primarily a masculine concept; where a man earns the respect of his warband (or a functional equivalent) by contributing to the warband. A man who is not worthy of respect, who does not contribute leads his warband to its death.

Respect is esteem given to you by others in recognition of your deeds.

A humble man’s contributions usually relate to or exceed how he thinks of himself, so he is oft respected in proportion to or exceeding his beliefs of his own station.A man of hubris is rarely respected according to his belief, as his empty thoughts of pride far exceed his contributions.

A man should strive to be both humble and respected.

Know your place, accept your place, contribute the best you can, and let other raise your esteem.

“When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 14:8-11, ESV)

This is the masculine form of respect.

Respect is very different when framed in a feminine mode of thinking. This mode of thinking is devoted to a close-knit family where everyone is valued because immediate survival is not on the line and division in the home can rend the clan’s survival as surely as a rival warband.

Man is to be respected not for what he contributes, but simply for existing.

Treat everyone with respect.

This, as with most feminine modes of social interaction, works well on the small scale, in a tight knit family group apart from the immediate demands of survival. When applied to the immediate kin group, it leads to harmonious family relations working together for survival and against foreign threats.

It does not work in an extended group or when the lion is skulking in the bush. When applied to a survival situation, respecting the incompetent leads to a swift death.

When the feminine mode is applied on a greater scale, respect becomes meaningless. If everyone is respected, then what good is respect? If you give the same esteem to the criminal as to the saint, how is your esteem of any value? If one is respected regardless, why should one contribute?

In greater society, respect must be of the masculine form; it has to be earned for it to be of any meaning or value, otherwise it is naught but dust.

Not everybody deserves respect.

****

We come now to self-esteem.

Self-esteem is always based within the feminine mode of respect. “Everyone should have good self-esteem“, regardless of their actual contributions or abilities.

One should esteem oneself regardless of whether one is worthy of said esteem.

To this end, the dullard is praised as highly for butchering the English language as the wordsmith is praised for his beautiful sonnet evoking ancient imagery.

Under the cruel tyranny of self-esteem, man’s hubris is raised far beyond any reasonable estimation of his proper place. His elders, those wolves in sheep’s clothing, lead him into the violent trap of the sin of pride.

To add to the cruelty, he is incapable of developing proper self-respect or respect from others. His hubris overtakes him, but he knows in his heart of hearts, that something is not right. He knows in his heart of hearts he does not actually measure up to his own hubris, for reality continually and brutally contradicts the words of those sweetly poisoned tongues. His true confidence is eaten away nibble by tiny nibble, while he invests ever more heavily in his false hubris to keep from emotionally drowning.

Eventually, he will fall and self-immolate.

But, to twist the knife ever deeper, despite his inflated opinion of himself and the false praise of his elders, he will never earn real, masculine respect. His words will always exceed his deeds for how could he learn to contribute when he is taught to value his failures as highly as his contributions?

He will never earn the true respect of others. Because his self-esteem to be based solely on honey-dipped falsehoods, rather than the confidence of real accomplishment, this will eat away at his emotional and spiritual core. He will need their praise and their false respect, for his self-esteem depends on it, yet he will never have true respect and genuine praise for he is incapable of earning it.

He will never know and accept his proper place; he will never have the true confidence of the humble man. He will always think himself better than he is and pine for the respect and rewards he believes himself entitled to, but because he is not as high as he thinks he is and he has not earned them they will forever elude him. This will cause bitterness, as he questions his whole self, never knowing why he is not in “his proper place”, yet never being able to truly find his proper place.

Thus we end, self-esteem is for losers.

It is a false confidence that robs one of true confidence and replaces it with a sinful mirage. It erodes your emotional and spiritual core and makes you dependent on others for your confidence.

Winners gain confidence by trying until they succeed. They put in the effort, improve themselves, and eventually, their pride comes from knowing they have earned their place and being confident because of it.

Losers have no success upon which to build their confidence. They do not know their place, or they know and shudder at their worthlessness, so they demand others’ praise to inflate their sinful hubris.

****

I say this to you:

If you have any love of a young one, fight his self-esteem, crush it ruthlessly. Praise his true successes, but never let your praise be inordinate. Do not praise his failures; when he fails encourage him to try harder, to practice more, to push himself beyond what he currently is, so he can truly succeed.

Build in him true confidence, so he can climb to the mountain-top, look down, and know his place.

Only those who hate their children develop their self-esteem.

****

Also know this, if someone demands your unearned respect or curses you for lowering their self-esteem, they are a loser. They are drowning themselves in the sin of pride and demanding you help them do so. They need your accolades to prop up their ego because they lack the true confidence that comes with success, with genuine contribution, with real respect.

By demanding unearned respect they are only showing they are not worthy of it.

Cheers to Rob Ford

Some of you may have heard of Toronto mayor Rob Ford and his current cocaine scandals. Its one of the few times that a Canadian politician has gotten this much international attention, and from a simple mayor no less.

Fellow traditionalist Richard Anderson thinks he should leave his office, but I disagree.

Sadly, Rob Ford is one of the few vaisya politicians in Canada willing to stand against a political culture made almost entirely of Brahmin. Because of this he’s popular, at least in Toronto’s suburbs, which “aren’t part of the real Toronto” if you ask any of the elitist Brahmins who oppose Ford.  Some thought Harper and his conservatives might fight, but aside from a few minor changes (the gun registry and dismantling the wheat board) their rule has been almost insignificantly different from those of the Liberals prior.

He’s not a reactionary in any sense, but he is a vaisya’s vaisya, because of this he has earned the enmity of the brahmins far out of proportion to his actual power and status. He has been hounded mercilessly by the Cathedral. Really, has any other Canadian politician, even our prime minister, received as much international attention, all negative, this year as this one mayor?

His cocaine scandal has dwarfed that of a national (socialist) party leader being caught naked by police in a massage parlour known for trafficking in underage prostitutes. In fact, shortly after those revelations, “Smiling Jack” was all but deified upon his death. They dwarf the revelations of another national party leader. Trudeau, who admitted to smoking weed while working as an MP. despite this, his hereditary assumption to the liberal throne was all but a given despite his sole qualification consisting of being substitute teacher (and being named Trudeau).

Nope, Rob Ford has been demonized because he is not one of them. He is not the inner party, the enlightened. He is an outsider that dares defy the brahmins in their Citadel; the home of the (Red) Star and the state controlled CBC. Even worse, he has the unmitigated gall to be successful in opposing them and being popular while doing so, turning democracy against the champions of it.

The fight over Rob Ford is one of the prime examples of the democratic, class war between the vaisyas and the brahmins. The brahmins control every bit of leverage, almost all the press coverage, most of the major blogs, all of the universities, and the bureaucracy. The entirety of the Cathedral in Canada, along with parts of international Cathedral, has been been arrayed against him, yet he stands against them where they are strongest, with only the quiet support of his class.

So here’s to Rob Ford. Long may he govern.

Is Rob Ford a good politician? No, not really. But, he is the best the vaisyas have in Canada. He is the only one sticking it to the Cathedral; the only one even trying to fight the left.

Every day he remains in office is one more day the brahmin’s are blasphemed in their strongest cathedral. That alone makes him worthy of support, whatever his other failings.

The system has failed, as it was designed to, and the collapse is inevitable; at the very least we can enjoy the mockery Ford is making of of our self-proclaimed betters.

The only sad part is, that this is what one bumbling man with a spine fighting for the vaisyas can accomplish. What if the vaisyas could actually produce real politicians that had the courage of their convictions? What if we had a charismatic, competent leader who was ideologically strong and firmly loyal to his class?

Think of how successful he could be; we might even be able to turn the tide against the collapse.

If only better men of our class would stand and fight as Ford has.

Lightning Round – 2013/11/06

Science and game: flirting trumps looks. Great post.

The female fear of male standards.
Related: The loser mentality of the left.

Submission and corrupted authority.
Related: “Why do modern women try to use sex to secure commitment from men?”

On gender constructs.
Related: Why sluttiness is unattractive.

Victim-predators.

Testing a wife: is she a good worker?

Micro- and macro-game.

Social Pathologist thinks the Cathedral is lining up for a major attack on the manosphere.

Even old women hate gammas.

As outside, so inside: you can judge a book by its cover.

7th century BC poet on women.
Related: An African folk tale.

Good advice on ripping off restaurants and credit card companies. I do both.

Two books by John Durant that look worth reading.

20 signs he’s a player.

Where have all the good women gone?
Related; Women’s worst enemies are other women.

Savages and the post-civilized world.

The end of the grey middle.

Making neoreaction simple.
Related: The conceptual tools of neoreaction.

Anti-anti-reactionary FAQ: ever-leftward movement.
Related: The anti-anti-reactionary FAQ: freedom and monarchy.

The neoreactionary racial litmus test. I do rather like Sowell myself.

The shibboleth threat.

Entryism and apostolic succession.

Orson Scott Card on the SFWA.

Hitting the left where it hurts.
Related: Punch back twice as hard. Don’t support the left.

Rumblings of the Catholic right.

Tradition and broadway.

3 possible reasons for leftist behaviour.

Rollo, Susan Walsh, and SMV.
Related: Some more on Walsh’s errors. And some more.

Things seem to be going well for Chad.
Related: He’s voting no longer.

A letter to millenials.

How Alger Hiss explains the Tea Party.

Leftist propaganda in Toronto.

The pull of Harvard.

Another story of life in liberal academia.

The degeneration of language.

Week of praise: Zooey Deschanel.

Vaccines are racist.

The pro-Vietnam war hard hat riots.

Women should not be held responsible for their actions after drinking.
Related: Fixing rape culture in 3 easy steps.

Looks like the MRA’s are getting some support from feminists.

Feminism: Marriage for me but not for thee.
Related: More from Tracy Clarke-Flory, where she becomes an unfeminist bridezilla.
Related: Hehe… Talk of feminist weddings. Feminists are funny.

Slate XX feminist engages in beard shaming. I love the hypocrisy of feminists.

How feminism undermined itself.

Gamers, Anita Sarkeesian, and narcissism.

Study: Paid maternity leave doesn’t work.

Murdering grandma does not reduce health care costs.

Canada has lotteries for a family doctor. I have a family doctor I haven’t seen in 5 years; I usually just use a drop-in if I need. The only reason I got to sign up was because I phoned the clinic the first hour on opening day.

DC Court of Appeals strikes down birth control mandate.

A small list of Obama’s lies and abuses.
Related: The NYT covers for Obama.
Related: It is now acceptable for the president to directly influence journalists. Wonder what the reaction would be if his name was Nixon?

Whitehouse pressuring insurance insiders who speak about ACA.

““Can’t you email it to me?” Alice asked. We’re not set up for that, the Obamacare operator replied.” Everything you need to know about government in one sentence.

Matt Walsh becomes a liberal.

Your Brahmin superiors lecturing you on your mode of transport.

How are you enjoying the ice-free Arctic.

The stupidity of forcing your parenting strategies on others.

Rules of writing: the four elements of a novel.

 

(H/T: GLP, Instapundit, SDA,

Study Resources

I recently started running a young adults small group at my church (as part of my quest to become more of a leader). Right now it’s just four guys, but it’s open to both sexes. The last month we’ve been doing casual topical bible studies, but we want something more structured.

I’m brainstorming what to go through. Can any of my Christian readers recommend some good study resources or books I could use?

Nothing overtly Catholic or Orthodox; the materials need to be approved by an elder and one of the guys is very anti-Catholic.

Thanks.

“The List” and My List

Donal makes a list of what he requires in and offers to his future spouse, and suggested others do the same. I will, but first I’ll talk a bit on lists.

Unlike many in the ‘sphere, I do not have a negative reaction to a list; in fact, I support “the list”. I think it is a positive if a woman rationally plans ahead and has a strong list of non-negotiables she would require of a spouse before marriage and even a list of negotiable preferences. I think every single person, both men and women, should have a list.

A woman should have high standards; in fact, I think women should demand more from men than what they currently do. Women should not settle and should refuse to settle. Many of our modern difficulties come not from women with “lists” or high demands, but rather from women lacking either.

Men should have high standards and a list as well. In fact, I encourage any man reading this who is considering marriage to go and make a list of non-negotiables once they’ve finished reading this post.

****

The purpose of the list is something that should be kept in mind when making the list. The list exists, or should exist, for two main reasons:

1) To clarify what you are looking for in a relationship so you can focus your romantic efforts where they would be most valuable and avoid wasting time on people who are not what you need in a relationship.

2) To create a hard standard to prevent you from making a bad choice while being swept away in lust and emotion.

A list exists to protect you and your time from those who would use and waste both.

Leap stated:

The underlying subtext of this is all wrong. It’s a beta list for Beta’s and women who feel guilty about not dating them. She actively admits dating men that contradict these values.

He understands the proper subtext but misses the point of the list; the list, for women, is and should be to keep her from dating the alphas who would ruin her. It exists to protect her from her emotions so she doesn’t go through “alpha now -> beta later“.

A man’s list should exist to keep him from marrying the blonde bombshell with BPD. It serves as a firm anchor point when the tidal wave of lust overwhelms his good sense.

Every list should have this, not just as the subtext, but as the main point. Remember one of the main points of Proverbs, protect yourself from the adulteress.

Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. Proverbs 4:23 (ESV)

****

The problem is not the concept of the list itself, the problem is with some women’s poor and irrational attempts at creating a list. They go about it the wrong, resulting in the incorrect use of the list. Here are some of the errors people make:

1) Creating a list that is unmeetable, but still expecting to get married. Too many women make a large list that no man can possibly live up to, than wonder why no man lives up to it. You must accept the reality that the higher your standards and the longer your list, the less likely anybody will meet it and the less likely marriage will be. If your standards are too high, you might remain single for the rest of your life.

My list of standards is fairly high (at least for our modern world) and I’d be surprised if even 10% of the single female population met them. In fact, my original list had more points (13) than the list Donal criticizes (12) and my new list below has the same number. But I recognize that my standards are high and accept the reality that I might remain single for the rest of my life. I simply know that I would prefer singleness to marriage to a woman that did not meet these basic standards.

Rule of thumb: Something should not be on your list unless you would rather remain single for the rest of your life than compromise on it.

2) Focusing on frivolities, ignoring the important – What matters for a marriage is underlying character, behaviours, and values related to a successful marriage. A list should focus on these. A list should avoid things unrelated this.

Too many times, when people speak of standards, of demanding more, they think of the superficial standards (absurdly high income,  a height requirement,  unrealistic standards of attractiveness). You should demand more and have high standards, but of character, not the superficial.

3) Making a list, then ignoring it – It is my impression many women make a list, sometimes reasonable, sometimes not, then, if they don’t meet a man who meets that list, rather then reconsider some parts of the list or simply go without a relationship, they completely ignore the list out of desperation. Usually when they ignore the list, it is the more important parts (character, values) they ignore in favour of the more superficial parts that shouldn’t be on the list anyways.

The list exists for a reason; if you make a list, stick to it. A non- negotiable list should be just that, non-negotiable; if you can’t meet anybody who meets the list’s requirements, either modify the list to something more reasonable or accept that you may be single for life.

4) Vague emotional standards, rather than concrete rules – I know romantic love can not be reduced to a formula, but a list should primarily be of concrete attributes, not vague emotions. A list which focuses too much on how someone makes you feel is counterproductive. It violates the purpose of a list, which is protecting you from your own emotions and lust. One or two points about emotions and attraction may be fine, but the bulk of the list should be observable traits independent of your emotional state.

****

Donal criticizes a particular list, but I don’t see much trouble with the actual points of the list in themselves. My only real problem with any of the particular point as written is #11 because it is theologically inaccurate, even though I have no problem with women expecting a certain, reasonable level of romance.

The problem is, as Donal mentions, the attitude behind this list and the way certain things on the list, particularly those related to emotions, may be (mis)construed could be problematic, but the list itself, as written, is not really offensive.

Also, the lack of concreteness is a problem: #7,10, and 11 can all be summed up as gives me good feelings. Good feelings should be one point on the list, if that, because good feelings are what the list should be protecting someone from; not a quarter of the list itself.

Irrelevant side note on the comments debate on attractiveness: The lady who wrote this is extremely attractive, both subjectively and objectively; a solid 9 at least (but I’m partial to blondes). On the other hand, I find Angelina Jolie unattractive, while I recognize she’s probably objectively attractive. There’s something I can’t quite identify about the fat lips that I find off-putting and her eyes always seem to look either cold, hard, or dead, none of which is attractive in a woman.

****

I’ve created a list of indicators of a good wife and mother on here before and in rel life I made a list of my minimum requirements for a wife. I’m not sure where I left the RL list, so I’ll try to recreate it here.

1) Christian – I am not too particularly worried about denomination, as long as it is non-heretical and non-liberal (but I repeat myself). I would even be willing to seriously consider converting to Catholicism and Orthodoxy if that was important to her, given that I’ve been leaning more in that direction over time.

2) Virgin, or has a low count but is genuinely repentant – My wife has to have a right view of sex. A virgin would be ideal, but I would not absolutely rule out a low count non-virgin if I knew she was honest about it and genuinely repentant and had enough positive traits to make up for the deficit.

As I’ve said before, I find the problem with marrying a genuinely repentant ex-slut is how accepting the church is of female fornication. When even “Christian” women accept the slut culture, how much can you trust a woman’s repentance?

3) Sufficiently attractive and healthy – Essentially, is she attractive enough to arouse me to the degree sufficient to desire and enact the procreative act and will she be so 20 years down the road? Is she healthy? Healthiness and attractiveness are strongly interrelated, hence why they do together here. It’s not a particularly high bar; most white or Asian women who take care of themselves would probably meet it.

(Note: #3 effectively rules out marrying outside of the white or Asian races, as I am generally not attracted to any but the most unattainably attractive women from non-Asian minorities).

4) Pleasant – Is she a joy to be around or is she a pain?

5) Not stupid – My wife needs to be someone I can genuinely converse with. She doesn’t have to be super-intelligent, I phrased this point as I did on purpose, but I don’t want to spend the rest of my life exasperated with and rolling my eyes at everything she says. Also, included under this would be sufficiently low time preference that she would not take drastic, unthinking actions that could destroy.

6) Not emotionally volatile – I am a calm, non-emotional INTJ. I simply can’t handle emotional outbursts all that well.

7) Prioritizes motherhood, family, and children – My wife who primary earthly goal will be motherhood and the family and she will need to be willing to have many children (I don’t have a non-negotiable number of children, but she’d have to be one amazing prize for it to be fewer than four).

8) Good mother – This is kind of vague, but does she demonstrate traits that indicate she would make a good mother?

9) Believes in traditional Biblical marriage – She needs to accept the model of marriage provided in the Bible. I am willing to date a Christian without this, given the sad reality of modern thought on marriage, but she must convert to this model before we marry. She also must be willing and eager to take my last name, no hyphens.

10) Willingness to homeschool – My children are not going to public school. Out of all of these this is the weakest on the list; it’s on the border between non-negotiables and strong preferences; I considered moving it to the top of my preferences list. I would be willing to accept alternatives such as Catholic private school or possibly Montessori education.

11) Responsible/Reliable/Loyal/Disciplined – Essentially, can she be relied upon. Marriage is essentially a business partnership based around running a household with the added bonus of sex; so, would I be willing to run a business with her? Does she wastefully spend and get into debt? Can she be counted on to keep her word? Can I depend on her to be responsible for those areas under her care? Etc.

12) Under 30 – I’ve written about this before, so I won’t say much more here. Under 30 is required, under 25 is a high priority, but negotiable.

My original list had 13 requirements, so this is not exactly the same, but I can’t think of anything that’s missing. The difference is probably because I mixed a few requirements together in this list that were discrete in the original.

Now, I don’t think I’ve made a list that is unreasonable. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that 100 years ago 90% of the single, white, Christian female population would have met this list. Even 50-60 years ago, I’m sure more women than not would have met this list (excepting some of the religious requirements).

In this fallen age, most women would not meet my list, but I think that says more about the decline of our civilization than any unreasonableness on my part.

****

Lastly, what do I bring to marriage. I’ll start with Donal’s LAMPS:

1) Looks – I’m tall and broad-shouldered, with a decent jawline. I have some muscle mass but I also have a bit of a gut. I’ve been told I’m handsome by a number of older women from church and my family’s social circles; I’ve never really inquired about it from women my own age. I’d guess I’m above average in this regard (but one must always remember the Dunning-Kruger effect).

2) Athleticism – I participate in a few sports, but they are less intense ones, and a martial art. I started lifting recently, but my lifts so far are not all that spectacular. I have a strong handshake and have decent burst capabilities but I’ve always had low endurance; but it’s been improving these last few years. Again, above average.

3) Money – I have a respectable, but not particularly exciting, middle class government job. I’m not yet 30, but I have a salary significantly above my province’s average. My salary is about average, maybe small amount above, for my peer group. I own my own home, have a decent amount of savings, and have a gold-plated government pension. There is a good chance my current career path could lead to six figures by retirement.  Above average here.

4) Power – I am extremely confident, dipping into arrogant at times, but I am not particularly dominant and rarely take the lead due to my introverted nature and my natural apathy to the social hierarchy. I’m working on becoming more dominant though. Probably below average here.

5) Status – I have no idea. I have a respectable but unexciting job. I generally have the respect of my elders; among my peers, I’m thought of as a bit of a right-wing nutball. I’m Probably average to below average here.

Overall, I’m probably average to somewhat above average (hopefully, Dunning-Kruger isn’t rearing its head).

I scored a 4 on Roissy’s Dating Market Value Test, lumping me in the Classic Beta category.

As for the counterpart to my list above:

I am a conservative Christian who believes in traditional marriage Biblical marriage, a virgin (but I do have struggles with pornogrphy), moderately attractive and rather healthy. I am intelligent and emotionally controlled (perhaps too emotionally controlled, according to some). I earn enough to be an excellent provider.I’m also responsible, loyal, disciplined, etc.

I’m probably not very pleasant, but I am fairly easy-going. My major deficits are my social skills are sub-par, I am devoid of charisma, and many women find my views of marriage, society, politics, religion, etc. off-putting.

****

So, am I worthy and capable of achieving the marriage partner I desire?

I’m not sure, but for now I’ll keep trying and improving myself and we’ll see.