It’s the holidays and I’ve got some stuff I’m trying to work on, so blogging will be very light for the next couple weeks.
I don’t have any major posts planned. There will be no Lightning Round on the 2nd; there might be one on the 9th, there might not, we’ll see. If you need to read something, enjoy previous Lightning Rounds here.
I might throw up some random garbage or post something substantial if the urge strikes, but don’t expect much.
Happy Boxing Day
The struggles of a Christian male.
Related: Men and the Church.
A dad is the 10th most popular Christmas gift request.
Be an oak.
The female cartel.
Marriage is inevitable.
Blaming the other.
Related: It’s not rape with a women does it.
Holy Hand Grenade is a lucky man.
Don’t marry a women in her late-20s.
Related: Bad news for post-marital spinsters.
Gentleman-up. Conservative feminists.
How to be effective with a friendzone strategy.
On grooming. Something I need to work on.
Good for CT.
An opinion on gun control. Read it.
Related: Liberals are ignorant of guns.
Related: And they lie.
The NRA did not fold, but I am definitely against their idea to put armed police officers in schools. Private security guards, sure, armed teachers, excellent, but not cops.
Related: By rejecting gun freedom, you are rejecting your own humanity.
Related: Gun amnesty programs are a win-win for both cops and robbers.
Related: What you won’t hear the media talk about endlessly.
The moral of the story: outlaw divorce. Also, why does it always seem in these kinds of anecdotes that liberals poor impulse control and broken families? Is there some kind of connection?
Related: Talk about making the problem worse. There’s a crisis of masculinity, so let’s attack it further.
Related: Our disintegrating society is poisoning us.
“Tip: If you find yourself in total agreement with people you wanted to murder in the last election, you’re wrong.”
Why gun deaths are high.
Related: The Drudge paradox; who are the real racists?
Related: 5.3 Newtown massacres every hour, every day.
Related: 10 shot in Chicago on Friday. Not white and Chicago has a gun ban, so no one cares.
Simon grey smells conspiracy.
The Boy Scouts are under attack because it’s the last bastion of positive male development.
Vox’s Holiday survival guide, parts 1, 2, & 3. Only a day late, but next year.
Are the women at Jezebel incapable of telling the difference between TV and real life?
VR sex is almost here.
The culture of liberty is necessary for liberty to take hold.
Poverty won the war on poverty.
Bill thinks the earth is gonna cool.
Keoni agrees.
The EU hate’s Switzerland’s success with low taxes.
The morality of the people is important, probably more important than the economic system.
Are liberals almost beginning to discover that you can’t just switch millennia of evolution off?
Hehe… The left is funny.
Anarchism is retarded.
Wright discusses hell.
Elihu on Christianity.
The internal illogic of solutions to declining birth rates.
Science: Hypergamy confirmed.
Investment: Ape the Rich.
(H/T: Smallest Minority, SDA, M3, the Captain)
Merry Christmas.
Aurini over at Stares at the World has written a post-apocalyptic novel called As I Walk These Broken Roads. I don’t normally review the fiction I read on here, but Aurini is a part of the manosphere/alt-right blogosphere, so I thinks it’s relevant to the blog.
The books is set in post-nuclear holocaust Ontario. The setting is enjoyable; Aurini built a believeable post-apocalyptic world to set his story in. I look forward to the rest of the series where the origins of this world are more fully explored.
The book centres around Wentworth, a mysterious, deadly loner who beings his quest wandering in the figurative desert. Wentworth is a solid, but not particularly original, take on the hypercompetent anti-hero archetype. I like that her was a realistically hypercompetent anti-hero. He never becomes a self-parody and remains solidly in the realm of beleivability, which given the nature of the setting is important. A James Bond or Mike Harmon type would’ve been out of place. As the story progresses Wentworth becomes more fleshed out and takes on more depth. He’s a strong lead for the book.
The other main character is Raxx, a mechanic in a small-town who hasn’t been fully accepted into his adopted home. He has somewhat more depth than Wentworth and complement the main character quite well. Overall, he’s a good character; not as “cool” as Wentworth, but more relatable and “human”.
The villains fit their purposes well and are fairly well developed; their motivations and actions are heinous and interesting, but never unbeleivable. The other minor characters don’t have much depth, but they fill their roles adequately.
Overall, the book is well written. Aurini writes in a straight-forward style with just enough style to pull you in. The action scenes are realistic and well-written. The dialogue is solid and beleivable, while the philosophical conversations are interseting, but never extend too long or interfere with the story.
The book’s story is divided into three general arcs:
The first arc extends over the first few chapters and introduces the setting and characters. This arc is solid and moderately entertaining but not overly engrossing. It functions well as an introduction and leads nicely into the main arc, but is somewhat lacking a certain je ne sais quoi. It feels like Aurini was finding his fiction writing style during this arc.
The second arc comprises the bulk of the book and contains the main storyline. The story picks up here and it was thoroughly enjoyable. The story and villains are excellent. This arc is fantastic, it read like Aurini really got the hang of writing fiction by this point. Whatever the first little arc was missing, Aurini found it here.
The third arc comprises the last few chapters. I thought it was somewhat unnecessary, the book should really have ended after the main storyline was resolved with maybe a short epilogue. The last part extends the book with adding much to it; I started to lose interest and left the book for a few days, before finishing off the last couple chapters. It seems to have been included as a set-up for the next book in the series, but I think a short epilogue would have set the stage better.
Overall, the book was really good output by Aurini. It started wobbly, but really picked up steam and I ended up thoroughly enjoying it. I am definitely purchasing the next book in the series whenever Aurini releases it.
Recommendation:
This was a good book; if you like the genre or the concept interests you, pick the book up. It is a entertaining read and definitely worth the time investment.
If you don’t care for post-apocalyptic science fiction and the concept of the book doesn’t interest you, the book probably won’t change your mind.
Now that a respectful amount of time has passed, here is my obligatory post on the Sandy Hook massacres. May God take His children to rest in His grace.
As is usual for these types of events, most seem to want a convenient scapegoat for the massacre.
Guns are easy to blame, but tools have no volition of their own.
Some blame mental illness, but only the perpetrator’s psychologist can possibly speak to that. Mental illness might explain some of it (or it might not, I’m no psychologist) but most mentally ill people do not shoot up a school.
Some blame cultural entertainment products: violent video games, movies, etc. Although, I’ve seen less of it this time around than when Columbine occurred, it’s still as silly as it was then.
Some blame the media for giving fame to losers. While achieving infamy may be a contributing reason to public violence, this again strips the perpetrator of their own volition and begs the question: why did the perpetrator choose to pursue infamy over the lives of others and continued living?
Some blame the sidelining of males, while others blame the loss of male privilege. I’ve warned about this trend in the past, but it only shows a trend; most males do not engage in such nihilistic violence.
Essentially, it seems everybody uses these kind of events to simply confirm the validity of their pre-existing bugaboos. I am guilty of this as well.
In the end, I think the most likely societal explanation is simple probability. In any society of 300+ million people, there will be some people at the nihilistic violence end of the bell-curve. This is not a societal trend, it is simply probabilistic reality.
****
Instead of looking for some great cause to blame, let’s put the blame where it belongs: the perpetrator.
Adam Lanza was a free individual, with his own will. and his own moral decisions to make.
He made them.
People have their own values, their own goals, their own choices to make.
They have agency, they are not simply the products of culture. People, even the mentally ill, are not empty cyphers of whatever societal trend we fear. They are human they make choices.
We should not dehumanize them.
We should not dehumanize Adam Lanza.
He made his choice.
Adam Lanza chose to shoot his mother, little Emilie Parker, baseball fan Jack Pinto, young Dylan Hockley, and 25 other individuals, may they rest in God’s peace.
Adam Lanza saw the mother who raised him and killed her. He saw the innocence of young ones and decided to snuff it out.
He chose to end dozens of young lives and destroy hundreds more.
Societal forces didn’t kill these people, Adam Lanza did.
****
If we look at all the great causes, no matter which it is, the “answer” is always the same: less freedom.
Guns are deadly: ban them and take them from law-abiding citizens.
The mentally ill are dangerous: lock them up against their will and drug them.
The entertainment and cultural industry is perverse and degenerate: institute content controls.
The media are vicious, amoral, parasitical vultures: regulate the press.
Males are losing their place in society: re-institute enforced patriarchy.
Males are angry at their loss of privilege: indoctrinate them further.
And on and on.
One person in 300+ million* commits a heinous act and everybody cries for the upending of society, for the expanded regulation of behaviour of other people. (Funny how it’s always other people that have to be regulated).
Because of these extreme, outside the normal events, everybody must be controlled. Somebody must do something to prevent these future black swans.
Something must be done, the government has to act. We have no idea what specific actions, but do something, anything. We have no proof any of these suggested actions will be helpful, but do them anyway. We have no rational basis for believing any of these actions will actually prevent the next nihilistic individual from committing extreme violence, but action must be taken.
Please do something, anything so that the placebo can give me back my piece of mind.
I can’t rest unless I know someone better than me is actively looking like they are doing something that vaguely resembles protecting me from extremely low-probability danger.
Fie on that.
Nothing should be done.
Shut the hell up and stop using dead children as political pawns for your anti-freedom crusades.
Shut the hell up and stop letting your mindless fear and inability to control your own peace of mind dictate society.
****
School massacres and other mass acts of nihilistic violence have been occurring since before there was a public school system and have occurred in many different countries and cultures. They have occurred with firearms and without. They have occurred whatever regulations may or may not have been in place. This is not a problem solely of our time and culture. It is not a problem of our regulations or lack thereof. It is not a problem of whatever other bullshit pre-existing ideological war you want to fight on the graves of dead kids.
It is a problem of individuals.
Some individuals choose to do evil things.
Adam Lanza did.
Adam Lanza was free to choose, and choose he did.
****
Here is the thing we must understand:
Sandy Hook was the price of freedom.
The freedom to make choices is the freedom to make bad choices, to make evil choices.
The only way to eliminate bad choices, is to eliminate freedom.
It is horrifying, but it is reality.
The only way to stop another Sandy Hook is to completely give up our freedom, to submit ourselves wholly and completely to another’s control.
The only way to stop bad choices, is to completely remove the ability to make choices.
However horrible 28 deaths is, on a societal level the loss of freedom is even worse.
Freedom is naturally a frightening thing, the comfort of giving up our right to choose, to let others choose for us, can be tempting. Do not give into the fear.
Individuals should be free to make choices, even if those choices may be frightening and may lead to suffering.
Individuals should only be punished or controlled for bad choices once they have actually made them.
Anything else is tyranny.
Sandy Hook is the price of freedom, but it is a price that must be paid; the alternative, a world without freedom and choice, is worse.
****
* If we include others who’ve engaged in nihilistic acts of public mass violence, it’s probably “only” on the order of one in tens of millions. I’m not going to calculate exactly, but still one person out of a few dozen million is still a very low probablility occurance.
Canadian right-wing blogger Blazing Cat Fur is being sued for linking to Steyn. Donate to his legal defence.
The shooting was what a society on the decline looks like.
Related: Bill thinks Sandy Hook was a false flag. He has proof. I’m doubtful, but I do agree the elites will spin it for their own purposes.
Related: Francis Begbie’s thoughts on the shooting.
Related: Electricangel’s thoughts.
Related: An interesting letter.
Related: Roissy’s thoughts.
The war on gun freedom set to begin anew.
Related: The magical thinking of freedom-haters.
Related: Do not give the haters of freedom an inch.
Related: Tim lays out pro-freedom arguments.
Related: It’s time for an outright ban…
Related: Ban gun-free zones.
Related: Time to look at repeal.
Related: Do gun control supporters have the blood of children on their hands?
Related: When you say “we” should control the guns, you really mean “they” should.
Related: Time to ban schools.
Related: Home school or die.
Related: A school shooting thought experiment.
Related: The facts about mass shooting.
The depravity of journalists.
Related: The media should be ashamed.
Quote of the week: “The sheep chooses to be frugal. The lion chooses to make more money.”
Sentence(s) of the week: “Well Kirsty, the reason I’m interested in politics is for much the same reason that farmers are interested in wolves and locusts. I feel my property and years of painful toil slip away every time I hear an elected official open his or her mouth. And those are the politicians I like.”
The culture of “blame someone else” has to end.
To the left you are a dog; a part of the unthinking masses.
Giving the system a blowjob to punish it by making it want you more.
Gresham’s Law applied to sex.
Related: The economics of sex.
The Private Man gives an exercise he got from Danny.
Deti comments on the necessity of dark, emotional posts.
6 Harsh Truths to Make You a Better Person.
Related: What’s the hell’s your excuse?
When churchians attack.
Related: The Pharisees win one. Joseph did good.
Related: 22to28 comments.
Dr. Illusion’s thoughts on the old order and feminism.
Manly barbarism and conspicuous consumption.
The stupidity of some pro-marriage advocates. Do they not know they basically sound like they’re advocating slavery.
Don’t marry a girl who believes in soul mates.
Hehe… The side hug. I made the mistake of a sidehug at the end of my most recent date. I planned on a front hug but when the moment came automatically did an obtuse angle side-hug. I cursed myself out for my betaness on the way home. It’s something I need to work on.
Mormon patriarchy.
We are free.
Related: The tale of the slave.
Related: Slavery is the highest form of socialism.
Aurini with some prognostications. $85-billion/month inflation: the mind boggles.
Praise the Fed.
Matt Forney Francis on depression and eating well.discusses douchebags. He’s in favour of them.
Francis on depression and eating well.
For the women: girl game.
Feminism degrades women by wishing to remake them into men.
How to be more productive.
Blacks speak about being black.
Women should stop discriminating against fat men.
The necessity of shame.
The myth of the Peter Pan Manboy in statistics.
Related: Danny on herbivores and isolation.
The public school system is working as intended.
Where radicals and traditionalists overlap.
Related: The left rediscovers traditional home roles.
Related: “Also, people who want to take care of people and can’t stand doing work that doesn’t relate to that should probably be parents. There are very few jobs that are truly just taking care of people. And most of them pay very poorly, if at all. So you may as well do it for your own family, where the pay is not so important.”
Just another example of delusional, narcissistic entitlement.
It’s old, but it’s funny. Princely adventures in online dating.
Women wants to have it all; wants others to give it to her.
53% of all infants on WIC.
Related: The US has enough welfare spending to pay each household in poverty $50k/year.
Related: Stop social safety net child abuse.
Economics is not meaning; it is simply a means.
Right-to-work states have better employment and wages.
Related: Unions doing what unions do. Keep on doing.
A eulogy for the OWS. My take: they saw what was wrong, demanded more of what was wrong, then were angered when they got what they wanted in the form of a nightstick.
Related: A syllabus for OWS.
Once again for good measure; Krugman is a vile hack.
Related: A brilliant plan.
The Soviet war on individualism.
The decline of the Inuit man.
How to guard your privacy.
A discussion on the limits of free will.
Retrophobia, political correctness, and fantasy.
Related: Vox’s take on retrophobia.
Related: More on SF from Vox.
Treating the church as a corporation.
The degeneracy of the modern church in pictures. (Hopefully it’s satire/secular).
Neo-conservatism is leftism for uncool people. I disagree with his assertion that Beck should advocate creating an alternative; while an alternative is good, the state will simply make state-regulated common-law relationships mandatory for anybody living conjugally (as it has here in Canada), so it’s accomplishing nothing but kicking the can down the road.
The problem of females on TV.
Advice for GOP donors: pander to ignorant women.
A model for how homosexuality is passed down.
Infographic: Abortion in Canada.
Fraud in the peer review process. I’m shocked.
(H/T: Althouse, Conservative Sociologist, Maggie’s Farm, Primordial Slack, GLP, Instapundit, SDA, Borepatch, the Captain, Elusive Wapiti)
Commenter an observer posted this in the comments at the Woman and the Dragon. I could not let it get lost in the comments, so here it is reproduced as is for your enjoyment:
On the train, here i sit
Riding the rails, hating it
Going to work, another day
Same old shit, just new day
Surrounded by women, i just want to scream
All playing for women, the indivisible team
Heads up their arses, eyes on their phones
Praying for affirmation, dont throw them a bone
I roll into work, early as hell
Hope for a good day, too soon to tell
Boss bitch aint here yet, thats a good start
On hubs number two, no way shes all heart.
Blondes to the right of me, cows on all sides
Land whales are common, stretched clothes dont hide
Hr’s been regraded, jobs for the girls
Salute team woman flag, whilst it unfurls
I did the right thing, and got a degree
Born the wrong gender, dont waste tears on me
A middle aged man, bottom of the hierarchy
A much hated member of the oppressive patriarchy
Oh cubicle world, such a strange place
A sanitised and identical, six by six space
Privacy and respect a thing of the past
Enjoy the decline, eat and drink whilst it lasts
Corporate busywork beckons, perhaps i should go
Producing report, tables and graphs for people who dont know
Corporate climbers, back stabbers and sociopaths are thee
That rule cubicle plebs, and failed professionals like me
Land whales, and entitlement hangs in the air,
If only policies and guidelines meant it would go nowhere
With saturnalia coming soon, most parents take leave
So the childless, and the single, keep working to breathe
Let think i a grinch, keep reading to see,
The effect the holiday season, really has on me. . .
One late Christmas Eve after I’d staggered to my bed
Reeking of booze and sore in the head
I woke with a headache to the barking of dogs
Cursed neighbours at length and sought out my clogs.
‘Twas on hands and knees that I fell down the stairs
Wishing I’d never matched drink-for-drink those damn Bundy bears
The atm receipts told their own sorry tale,
A long night of woe consuming too many an ale.
Downstairs in the lounge was the big Christmas tree
Lights blinking and flashing but no presents for me
The high cost of toys meant nothing was free
Except the pain of paying for it all, you see.
The credit cards were nestled with their overworked credit lines
The banks were making money, with many fees and fines,
I couldn’t remember how I fell into such debt
But recalled record bank profits, no end in sight yet.
In the kitchen, there was candy and chocolate and sugar,
My waistline was expanding and becoming more fuller,
The end of year showed as there was nothing to see,
With dreadful shows screening all day on TV
The lounge looked a mess and the kitchen no better,
The fridge gaped open and spilt milk made it wetter,
The kids dirty washing was draped on the floor with much care,
In hopes that a washerwoman, soon would be there.
I’d driven up to the house over a drive strewn with toys,
Doubtless left out by hurried girls and boys
High as kites on fast food and red cordial to boot,
But they still managed to sleep, without giving a hoot.
Twas late that same night and still wide awake
Guzzling wine and many biscuits lest someone else should take
A soft knock at the door brought my AK to heel
Clicking in the first cartridge, the lead warm to the feel.
Ho ho ho, outside softly whispered a big man in red,
I’ve got something for you, was the last thing he said,
Yes, thanks for that, you housebreaker, I’ve seen your boot tread,
For you I have plenty of hot, shiny lead.
The sack full of “toys” fell straight to the ground,
And many bags of white powder were spread all around,
At least I’d made good, my much hurried aim,
It was in self defence, I still had to claim.
I couldn’t believe it when finally it was done
That fake jolly fat man selling drugs on the run
The irritating Christmas music and extra pay lost in tax
Perhaps over this break I could finally relax
Santa looked up to smile, one last time at me
I smiled and smiled back as happy as can be
I said to the kids “move on, back to bed, it’s too late for tea”
Their grief at a shot Santa was not good to see
Soon after many police came to see me,
And after taking a lengthy statement, as efficient as can be,
They guided me back to my warm comfy bed,
Where visions of presents and sugar plums danced right through my head
In my dream the solicitor yelled in that cold winters night
“Ho Ho Ho, Merry Christmas to all and to all a goodnight”
The very next morning when I woke from my dreams,
My sanity was back in its place so it seemed.
I knew it was real as the lawyer left me a note
Merry Christmas you Grinch, while I enjoy my new boat
He’d left his invoice at the end of my bed
A jolly big total at the end of it said:
“My very best helper the best of them all
Thanks to you, a new Beemer, much sooner than ‘Fall.”
After waking I dressed and stumbled to the tree
I looked at the presents but what could I see
Shocked children so traumatised their gifts were still wrapped
The spouse winked and I yawned, needing a nap
Now every Christmas since then I remember the sight
When a lowlife drug dealer slid into the night
So what if the gang should decide to revenge kill
The AK is waiting, and a cartridge is filled.
Every year since then when bells make their way down
To ring out the fun when another Santa comes to town
I will always remember that magical night
When bad Santa rode to the moon wishing us a good night
Some chick at the Atlantic is asking for chivalry to come back. As is standard is many modern pro-chivalry arguments, she is talking only of men treating women as special, not about women’s corresponding duties under chivalry.
At one point in the article she asks:
Feminists want men to treat women as equals; traditionalists want men to treat women like ladies. Are the two mutually exclusive?
She then goes on about some stupidity about respect and civility.
The simple answer though is yes.
Chivalry and equality are not and can not exist simultaneously.
Chivalry is based in a hierarchical world-view and can not be separated from that worldview.
Chivalry is far more than simple respect and civility. Chivalry is a code whereby the stronger and superior man (the knight) extends his strength and protection to his inferiors who were too weak to protect themselves (women and children).*
In the chivalric hierarchy knights were strong protectors, women were weak and in need of protection. Inherent inequality is built into chivalry.
In exchange for this protection, women submitted to men and acted like ladies. They complemented the men’s strength.
Chivalry rested on this traditional order of society, where inequality and feminine submission is an accepted fact of life. Without this old order, chivalry is impossible.
****
Besides inherent inequality, chivalry also requires on other thing: that women act like ladies.
If either of those two conditions is broken then chivalry can not exist. Any acts you do to be “chivalrous” are nothing more than chumphood and supplication.
A lady was originally a noblewomen. Over time, in romantic chivalry it came to refer to a virtuous women. Nowadays, its usually used as somewhat more polite/formal term for women. Only ladies deserve gentlemen, a term with similar origins and complementary meanings as that of lady.
Fundamental to the conception of both the lady and the gentleman is the concept of honour. A man’s honour in the romantic realm was found in his protection of and graciousness towards women. A women’s honour was found in her chastity and her graciousness towards men.
We already know how a gentleman acts; we call it chivalry. So, I will not go further into his duties. But how does a lady act?
A lady is chaste; she does not slut it up, she does not dress like a cheap hooker, she does not tease, and her flirting is light, discrete, and indirect. A lady does not compete with men. A lady acts with propriety and decorum; she is gentle, polite, well-mannered. A lady is feminine, she knows her nature and acts according to it. A lady is beautiful; she knows that her natural god-given beauty is a delight for the rest of the world, so she seeks to maintain it rather than destroy it. A woman who acts this way is deserving of chivalry.
Chivalry is for ladies. It is not for modern, independent women.
****
Women, you have a choice.
You can like ladies and accept either inequality or submission or you can cast these off.
If you decide to act like ladies, men can act like gentleman and be chivalrous in return.
If you decide to act like modern, independent women, then you have made the choice to reject chivalry. If you ask for men to be chivalrous, all you are asking for is unearned privilege. You sound like a spoiled brat.
If you do not hold up your end of the chivalric bargain, why the hell should men be expected to hold up their end?
Do not ask for or expect chivalry; in fact, you should be repulsed by chivalry.
Enjoy your hook-ups.
****
At this point some may be wondering if I am anti-chivalry. The answer to that is no, I am very pro-chivalry.
But chivalry exists as a part of the old order. Apart from that old order it is meaningless.
I am pro-chivalry, because I believe in resurrecting that old order. Within that old order, chivalry is a wonderful thing for both men and women. Outside that order, it is nothing.
As long as the old order remains buried, no male has a general duty of duty towards women.
In fact, every male should refuse to extend chivalry to a modern, equal, independent woman.
****
If you are thinking of being chivalrous ask yourself three questions:
1) Does the woman I am about to be chivalrous think she is my equal?
2) Does the woman I am about to be chivalrous to think a women’s place is to submit to a man?**
3) Does this women I am about to be chivalrous comport herself as a lady?
If the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, treat her as the equal she believes herself to be. (If you do not know the answer, use social cues to determine the likely answer).
Do not give her chivalry. Do not hold the door open for her. Do not pay for her. Do not fight for her. Do not die for her.
As well, I would suggest not marrying her, but that’s an argument distinct from chivalry.
To give chivalry to any women who believes she is equal to you is to insult her. Chivalry implies and necessitates inferiority; by giving it to her you are telling her she is either inferior to or in submission to you. Given her stance on equality this should be repugnant to her.
Any women who believes they are equal yet demands chivalry is either insulting herself, selfish, or just plain stupid. Refuse to play into her stupidity.
Respect a women who thinks she’s your equal by treating her like an equal.
If the answer to the third question is no, then she is not a lady and not worthy of knightly protection. Do not waste yourself on her.
If a women acts like a lady, and believes in either male superiority or complementarianism, then be chivalrous. She is submitting to you, your protection, and your providence and is deserving of having it provided to her. Do not fail her.
****
* The worldview of the chivalric code was also based on militarism, fuedalism, and Christianity. From these flowed other parts to the code such as knightly honour, duties to countrymen/Christians, and duties to God, which are also intrinsic to the code, but these aspects are not what most discuss when talking of chivalry nowadays. For this particular post, chivalry will refer only to knightly duties to women as distinct from the other parts of the code, unless otherwise stated. I’m not sure if it is possible for the part of the code dealing with knightly duties to women can be separated from the rest of the code and remain logically coherent, but in practice it has been, so I will assume for this post that it can be.
** This second question allows for complementarians/first mates who may hold to metaphysical equality, but not practical equality. I would argue that practical inequality is all that is fully necessary for chivalry to be extended, so complementarians and first mates should be provided with the protection of chivalry. But I could see where it could be debatable to hold metaphysical inequality as being necessary for chivalry; in which case you would withhold chivalry from most complementarians/first mates.
Badger had a post today outlining the basic game toolbox.
Essentially, it says to be actively disinterested, pass shit tests, and approaching. These sound like good skills to learn, but…
My question for today is how does the young, single Christian man develop these tools for monogamous marriage?
Any new social tools are developed through practice. When I wanted to learn how to hold up a conversation, I took the Dale Carnegie course*. Yes, I was socially awkward enough that I had to take a course simply to learn how to hold conversations with strangers and make small talk. As I’ve said, I was an omega loser.
I was taught the skills in the course, I then went and practiced by starting conversations. After a few months, I was able to talk with strangers, after a year or two I was able to hold real conversations with people I didn’t know; nowadays I’m not really noticeably more socially awkward than your average male.
When I wanted to be confident, I simply acted confident; I practiced. After months/years of this, I became confident (some would say arrogant) to the point where I’ve had to dial it back a bit.
I’m trying to improve my posture, so I make sure to practice walking with my back straight, chest out, my head up, and my eyes forward. Slowly this position is becoming increasingly natural.
I’m trying to improve my eye contact after my dad mentioned my lack of it a few months ago. When talking with someone I make a point of looking them in the eye. When walking down the street I’ll make a point of occasionally just looking whoever I’m passing in the eye (it’s amazing how many will then just look away). If it’s a women, I’ll then try to give them my patented half-smirk/half-smile. It’s slow and difficult to change a lifetime habit of avoiding eye contact, but I’m improving.
I’ve digressed. Improving social skill requires practice, but I’m not sure how to get it.
Being an emotionally detached INTJ, disinterest is rather easy for me. I’m naturally aloof and unemotional involved in other people. Although, with the few women who actually managed to make me care in the slightest about them, I used to slip into showing too much interest too early (I believed the women want marriage, so actively express your intentions early mentality), but that’s disappearing. The active part is more where the problem is. How to interact and ‘show interest’ without showing interest.
As far as I can tell, I don’t really get fitness tested. Occasionally, the wives of friends will through out something that may be a fitness test (or not), but I usually just laugh, smirk, “meh”, or agree and amplify, but I’ve never noticed one from a women I’ve just met. Maybe I’m lucky, maybe oblivious. I don’t know, but practice would let me know
My problem comes with approaching and with conversation.
I’ve demonstrated to myself I can approach with moderate success, but I can still use practice.
While I can hold a conversation, but when in a one-on-one setting, like an approach, coffee, or a date, I usually can’t think of things to say, so it ends up being kind of like an interview, which will not attract women.
For example, a few weeks back I was at an event and during an icebreaker opened up a very cute girl (18, brunette, thin, pretty smile). I remembered what I read. I talked with her, but focused a lot of conversation on her less attractive friend (active disinterest). Left her to do other stuff to avoid showing neediness. Noticed her looking at me sidelong a number of times (yeah); met her gaze, gave a little smirk; she looked away. Met up with her later, talked some more. Walked out with her and her friend to my car, asked for her number so we could go for coffee on a specific day, she accepted. There were some mistakes, but I mostly kept my frame. It was my first time getting a number close with a stranger (huzzah).
We went for coffee at appointed time; we talked, but it kept up in the interview format mostly. She displayed a number of traits indicating a potential good wife. Phoned her for another date a few days later; rejected.
Now, had I been able to better establish a mutual connection over coffee, this could have gone somewhere. So I need to get better, so next time it does.
But the only way to get better is to practice one-on-one conversation with women.
But how?
The married man has his wife to practice on. The player-to-be can just hit on any random girl. But who can the single, monogamy-oriented male practice with?
Female friends?
I have a good female friend I see for coffee regularly, which gives me some practice, but talking with someone I know is fundamentally different from a stranger.
My friends’ wives?
I practice a little on them, but there are some very narrow limits in which to act.
Random Women?
I could approach random women, but to what end other than the practice itself?
Approaching and going out with women I know I’m not going to pursue; learning to build attraction with women I know I am not going to have sex with or marry seems pointless. I also don’t really care for conversing with females, I generally don’t find them very stimulating conversational partners. We rarely share interests and they illogically emote too much rather than think logically.
Even if I do succeed, what then? I would have a girl desiring sex with me, when having sex would be a sin. This would be throwing myself purposely into major temptation, which I know I would have a hard time resisting.
In essence, I would put in all the effort, deal with all the hassle and annoyance, and have little to show for it other than increased temptation. I don’t have the draw of casual sex to work towards that players have.
One of my friends (who’s anti-game) has suggested I do this but without the sexual/relational angle, but I find I have no motivation to do so without it.
I see a woman, think about approaching, ask why, then simply can not come up with a worthwhile reason.
Women at Church or in social group?
I could take the random women approach, but at church. The problem with that is it poisons the well. In close social groups word gets around. If I practice much within them, what I do will become known and the type of a girl I am interested in would likely be put-off by that kind of knowledge.
So what to do?
Does anyone know how a good way for a single Christian man go about practicing his game skills so he can land a good wife?
Or should I just force myself to start talking up random women and hope I don’t run myself headlong into sin.
****
* I’d heavily recommend the Dale Carnegie course to any person who has a hard time in social situations. It’s extremely expensive, but if you can afford it or convince your work to pay for it, it is well worth it. That course was far more use to me than anything else I ever learned in six years of university. At the very least buy and apply the book. It won’t turn you into an alpha stud, but it will let you function in social situations, make friends, and hold small talk, which to socially awkward folks like me is a godsend.
** I’d also heartily recommend Toastmasters to everybody. It’s relatively cheap and great for practicing speaking skills. If you can’t afford the Carnegie course, do Toastmasters.
12/12/12 – Cool.
Comment of the week by Badger.
Private man gives some advice for new bloggers.
Build the foundations of your life project.
Related: Change your environment.
M3 chooses his path.
The lifecycle of game.
Related: The limits of western game.
Badger: Basic game skills.
The attractiveness of Batman and Superman.
A new strain of shaming language identified.
Tim’s thoughts on marriage.
Why men hate hypergamy.
I might feel sorry for these females if I didn’t feel such Schadenfreude.
Related: Your dealbreakers may be eliminating your dating pool.
Related: Which trade is superior?
Men don’t have commitment problems.
Related: The market-price mechanism of dating.
Related: Irresponsible men are the primary beneficiaries of feminism.
Related: Remember, women want the privileges of the old order but not the responsibilities. Work for your masters, slave.
Related: If you don’t get sex, why get married?
Men are deputy fathers serving at the pleasure of the mother.
Unpredictability is necessary for a marriage.
Childhood today lasts too long.
The hatefulness of a feminist extends even unto her own son.
Related: Something from the Atlantic that’s not entirely wretched. Sweden is going to have a lot of screwed up kids. Expect a lot of school shootings and/or suicides about a decade and a half down the road.
I occasionally feel the same way.
Related: The pot gender gap.
The real “War on Women”.
Vox asks why some people hate women.
My guess: most female rape fantasies are not the same as male rape fantasies. Their fantasies are not about rape per se, but are more about a very dominant man having a very strong passion overcoming his self-control. Read: Atwood’s Rape Fantasies. Although, there are probably a few outliers who have real rape fantasies.
Woman claims rape because sex was bad. I wonder why it would be bad?
Even those outside the church can see its crookedness.
Related: SSM looks but cannot find.
Feminist gets scienced on evo psych.
Are feminism and MRM biologically sane? Probably not.
Science: Marriages where women are thinner are happier.
Feminism is its own worst enemy.
It’s enjoying seeing liberals discover what everybody already knew.
How to act at a funeral.
The importance of the division of labour.
Why the left hates the division of labour.
The economic stupidity of the left brings some amusement.
Related: The intellectual bankruptcy of Keynesians.
What government dependency looks like.
Vox on intellectual discourse. And again.
Calling women pet names.
What hair length can tell us.
Where homosexuality and masturbation do not exist.
Dearest Citizen of the World…
Related: The death of privacy.
The police state in action.
Conservatism defined.
Leftists are all liars.
Related: The racial hypocrisy of the liberal.
Related: Very shocking.
56% of Mexican immigrants on welfare. Open borders FTW!
Feminism in Israel.
Related: Press freedom in Scandinavia.
On “sexism” and historical fiction.
Modern dietary science: salt.
Related: A possible connection between eating wheat and schizophrenia.
(H/T: Mangan, GLP, SDA, IP, John Wright)