So I’m thinking, what the hell…maybe I can get some momentum with repeat readers, so here’s another post, quick and dirty.
I’ve been participating in the comment section of the post “Fat Women And Fat Men Aren’t Equally Repulsive” dated 10 December by Château Heartíste. I notice that comments on the subject of fat vs. thin and short vs. tall fall into two distinct logical realms: the general and the specific.
Attention sex shoppers, personal interactions are based on specifics! Generalities sometimes are the specifics, but sometimes not. You must learn to read people. I know it’s hard, but I’m a guy who could not read crap—except that disheveled lonely chick who’s so obviously DTF 15 minutes before close on a rare Saturday night, hardly a read even for Helen Keller—yet because of the teachings of the Manosphere, after 9 months, I can read. I am looking at group social dynamics. I am opening sets and letting the available women announce themselves, and whatever platonic opportunities may manifest. Reading people is specific. Having sex is specific. Getting screwed is general, like a commoditized piece of meat. It’s still personal too, but enough philosophical boilerplate.
This just in, I am on a free dating site and another chick would rather be alone than ‘settle for less’. You get what you pay for, I know. Does anybody date? I can’t afford it, and I’m against it on general principle. If you put feminist regulations backed by overwhelming force between me and my labor, kiss my ass, I ain’t paying willingly. I’m resisting passively. For what my life has lost I expect a lot more ‘service’ than I’ve gotten, so yes, I have a sense of entitlement, or necessity, or fairness, or the short end of a dubious stick of civic morality. The only red flags she can see are in men from the dating pool. Dames. Anyway…
A healthy personal interaction is not playing the percentages. It’s playing the lay of the land. Playing the field well is based on specifics. If you know all roads lead to Rome, you just need to keep the social interaction on the road. If you are a short guy with low sexual market value (SMV), it would be in your best interest to go for that taller chubby chick (without looking desperate) and to increase your at-bats. If you look desperate, you will lose opportunity with other women who are in eye shot. Women are all about plausible deniability. If you frame, she will come. And frame it right, of course, if she is not enamored with another dude’s frame already in place. If you pass muster with such a women, she often has a friend who deserves a cool guy like you. If you don’t have too many women to do, stop filtering based on brain-dead odds that might even be wrong in general, Einstein. We test our hypotheses and theories in the field.
Civilized men must dominate wisely in their sphere of influence, or they are not civilized. We are not civilized, fellow Westerners, but we can maintain civilized values on the inside and hope to one day fill a vacuum. The Manosphere came to be because we instinctively got tired of filling in the holes of corruption by digging holes in ourselves and wanted to understand a way out of celibate slavery. We are grasping for functional civility. You will be inept at that until you can understand that context is half the truth, and the general is not the specific.
A great place to apply that distinction is in the discussion of feminism and women’s rights. I take it for granted, as space is limited for my developmental arguments, that:
- Women are politically incompetent in general with astronomically slight exception at most.
- Consumption requires prior production or it terminates.
- Feminism and matriarchy are not viable so long as there is material scarcity and money as a medium of rationed exchange is useful.
- Before the Industrial Revolution, death was a regular hazard of life, and women enjoyed personal protection from men.
- The technology and wealth of post-industrialism made viable the feminist illusion of female independence political, material, and sexual at the expense of men who practice the arts of male popular sovereignty that makes civilization possible.
In a post-industrial civilization, there is nothing wrong with having political leaders who are women or with women owning property and businesses. There is something wrong with women being politically equal in matters of social governance: that is the family and the government institution. The governing institution of a free civilization are we the people of full citizenship.
I am half-hearted working on a manuscript, so I will not give all my reasoning away, but let’s talk about electing a president of the United States. The best person for the job is the best person available to elect. It is theoretically possible, on a huge evolutionary fluke of meiosis, for that person to be a woman. A Sandra Fluke is commonplace, which is why civilized men keep their women in line.
Philosophically sound judgment adequate for free civilization is a rare quality in men, and of no more than trace amounts among women in societal numbers. With history as a spotlight on the obvious hidden in plain sight, it is not so much as wise but simply not incredibly stupid to let women in society to have aggregate power approaching that of the men in society. Before the Industrial Revolution, if men are fortunate enough to have acquired voting rights, no doubt through male blood and wisdom of their own or their forebears, with death a daily possibility, women as a group are not emotionally fit for voting rights. Yes, that puts men in a position to abuse women. Is the other way better? People abuse people. If is was not so terrible for women at large to have political power, there would be examples of societies with women having more political power than men. Queen Elizabeth I was an astronomically rare woman, and a female patriarch forced to keep her virginity (by all appearances) to keep her power. No, as I have already studied and elaborated in my unfinished manuscript unseen by you, the Iroquois and Mosuo tribe were not matriarchies in the scrupulous sense of matri + archy. With more wealth to go around, the ability to meet people’s needs and wants improves. Women are actually people but not generally adults. Hell, most Western men are delinquents these days too. Hence, we are scattered far and wide, fellow philosopher-patriarchs.
In post-industrial society, I would recommend to experiment with setting the cumulative women’s vote to half that of the cumulative men’s vote. If enough men would choose Sarah Palin over duh O-man, then maybe that would be the better choice. For president I’d rather see a system of choice voting with three ranked preferences so that
voters sheeple could vote their consciences not their vanities and fears, but I only note that for the curious reader. Yes, it would hurt minorities who don’t bask in the glories of where they are the political majority. Boo hoo. And you can’t fix stupid, so at some point let the people with authority get what they want collectively if they insist. White men wanted this state of affairs after being handed the most precious thing in the world by their forebears? Idiots. I want a divorce and my autonomous piece of the house. Color blind and culturally blind are not the same thing.
With an appropriate system of freedom and discrimination, good things must happen. Men and women must face risk and reward commensurate with ability to allow natural selection to work for net societal positives. Causality works the way it works, ecologically. There is system, and there is the individuality.
The world threw itself into the laps of the Romans, citizens from a city, because they had the virtus that is as useful today as back then. Context is half the truth. Maintaining a feckless frame is not maintaining frame. Romans had slaves, but they also stopped piracy. Romans conquered, but they also taxed the conquered freeman less. Resources where put to better uses, humanity advanced and we enjoy its fruit, and there were more winners and less losers in the world. Roman virtus worked better than the alternatives, like barbarism and multiculturalism.
Give unto generalities what is generalities’, and give unto specificity what is specificity’s. Women can do more in modern society, just not certain things. A short man can do taller women in modern society, just not most, as always with liberated hypergamous woman.
Cherchez la femme.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 11 December 2012
P.S. I’m just noticing spell check on wordpress, cool.
P.S. P.S. Where do you bloggers get great pics served online? I’d like to add some without worrying about copyright issues using the <img> tag.