The above title comes from Norwegian, my favourite language.
Translation: The cross little boy. Or the Angry little boy.
Norway is a country that is fiercely proud of its cultural heritage.
Ancient Norse mythology is alive and well in modern Norway.
For the classical fans, composer Edvard Grieg and pianist Leif Ove Andsnes are kings.
For the contemporary lot, followers of the Eurovision Song contest, for example, you will know that Maria Haukass Storeng ruled the world as far as Norwegians were concerned even though she only came 5th in Belgrade in 2008, and Alexander Rybak really did rule when he won in Moscow in 2009.
Frogner Park in central Oslo is the open air gallery of Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland.
There are many famous statues in Frogner Park, but the most famous one is 'The cross little boy'.
He is nicknamed 'Sinnataggen'. He is arguably Norway's favourite son.
The 'cross little boy' is the title of many an essay on cultural issues not only amongst Norwegians but around the world.
Like his Belgian brother in Brussels, he is naked, but this little guy ain't peeing. He is peeved.
Who does he remind me of?
Not who you would expect.
There are lots of angry men around.
For that matter, there are lots of angry women about too.
Both have their grievances. Some are vocal about it.
In a way, the Angry Man and the Angry Woman are chasing each other round and round an empty park.
The Angry Man is shouting at the Angry Woman: You are not woman enough!'
The Angry Woman is shouting at the Angry man: You are not man enough!'
Neither of them is wrong. But neither is totally right either.
Suppose we could somehow take away the reason they are both angry and just focus on getting them to calm down.
(Did I hear, 'dream on SpaceTraveller'?)
Never said it would be easy, but let's try. Let's all revert to childhood for one little second.
Suppose the Angry Man just followed the example of the 'cross little boy'.
Hear me out.
Suppose if instead of running around after The Angry Woman and shouting abuse at her, he just stopped in his tracks, lifted one leg off the ground and just dug his heel in.
And then just stayed like that and didn't move. For a few long minutes.
What would the Angry Woman do?
How might she react?
She might be stunned.
She too might stop running around and start to wonder what just happened.
The 'cross little boy' is a little alpha.
He is cross. And we all know it. Oh yes.
But he ain't running around. He is not throwing himself on the floor of the supermarket. That would be beta behaviour. He is literally standing his ground in no uncertain terms.
I bet you he got his way, regarding whatever he was cross about.
Without ever leaving this position.
(Somehow, the 'cross little boy' looks like he is about to cry...no, no, no, not the look he needs to project right now!)
I think in fact some men are already doing what the 'cross little boy' is doing.
The Angry men with Inner Game are just as angry as the Angry men without.
The first group just know how to use their anger effectively to get what they want.
And they do get what they want. Eventually.
The second group are running around in an empty park. Unproductively of course.
Nth wave Feminism changed womanhood into something it was never meant to be. One of these traits is the permanently angry woman.
Feminism had less of an impact on men because men as a whole did not change too much as a result of feminism.
Some just dug their heels in and continued as men (red pill).
Some got burned when their previously 'good boy' beta habits were thrown back into their faces (blue pill).
Some became ultra bad boys to survive (overdose of red pill).
Some kept the balance between alpha and beta and were the outright winners (purple pill).
But they all remained on a fairly tight and narrow spectrum.
The largest swings of the pendulum occurred on the other side of the fence.
There are some old ladies who wouldn't even recognise some female teenagers today as fellow women.
The old men don't see anything new in their grandsons.
Nothing much has changed about male behaviour, really. It is (mostly) the same as it always was.
Vigeland sure knows his own.
Question is, can or will the rest of the men who are not already doing this, handle things in a way that is...I dunno...more manly?
Where there is no leadership, there certainly will be chaos. Lack of patriarchal leadership breeds anarchy.
17 comments:
Actually, male bahavior has changed a lot. It used to be a given that a man should be able to support a family starting in his early or mid twenties. Now it is practically unheard of. It is men who have changed and NOT for the better.
@ Charming Disarray,
I am especially glad you commented on this post.
Disagree with you on this one.
Funnily enough, I used to believe what you just commented.
So I can see where you are coming from, bigtime.
I shall have to go think about how to best tackle this one.
Get back to you in a few hours.
Anger can be a good thing. There are times one can be legitimately angry at something or someone. When they cross a boundary or traverse over a ‘non-negotiable’ for example a measured anger in response is entirely appropriate.
The key is you have to be able to express it without drawing blood so to speak and not use it manipulatively.
I did not always believe this. I had been taught in church to just forgive transgressions. And to the best of my ability I tried to apply that to my life.
I had also believed that if you were good to and respected people they would respond by being good and respectful right back to you. And in most cases this is true.
I came to learn the hard way that this kind of behavior was also seen as a license to behave badly by some.
When someone crosses a boundary you have to let them know. An undercurrent of anger gets the point across in a way words alone cannot. From that point on at the very least the transgressor cannot feign ignorance at their offending behavior.
Church never taught this. But since I have accepted anger as appropriate I have had to forgive a lot less often.
Grasshopper
@ CD,
I had this niggling feeling that you are just playing devil's advocate. If so, I take it as a great opportunity for me to justify my thoughts.
I like it when you challenge me :-)
If however you really believe what you just wrote above, then nothing I say will convince you. You will just have to find out for yourself.
We already have the evidence that men have not really changed despite feminism.
You and I know that feminism is dying a slow painful death.
The Achilles' heel of feminism was the very refusal of men to change. Feminism was banking on men changing in the same way that women did. It didn't happen.
I say 'Alleliua'.
Why?
Because their staying true to their nature is paving the way for the solution to the problem.
Let's get biblical.
When Eve fed Adam a fruit she got from a certain serpent, he ate it willingly. What happened next?
Yes, that's right - he blamed her for his actions.
He said to God, 'this woman you brought to me, she made me eat of the forbidden fruit'.
What's changed in a million years since then? Absolutely nothing.
When a PUA 'pumps and dumps' a girl who gave it up to him without a moment's thought, what do you think he says?
She was a word rhyming with 'rut'.
That's son of Adam's code for 'she made me eat of the forbidden fruit'. In other words, it was her fault.
CD, in today's world, that serpent is feminism. Eve's daughter is taking fruit from a snake called feminism and feeding it to son of Adam.
Son of Adam has 2 choices here.
He can either do as Adam did and accept the forbidden fruit and then blame her (which is the equivalent of running around the empty park with daughter of Eve), or turn his nose up at the forbidden fruit, throw it to the ground and walk away. If that happens, guess who will be hurt? You guessed it, daughter of Eve. She wants to feed something to son of Adam. She was made that way, bless her.
If Adam had taken this option with Eve, you and I would not be here today :-)
Fruit-sharing is good. It should carry on ;-)
Daughter of Eve should just stop accepting fruit from reptiles (desired red pill option), or you might argue he should go pick his own fruit (MGTOW).
That brings us back to daughter of Eve's nature. She wants to feed fruit to someone. In the hope that that someone will bring home some bacon :-)
"It used to be a given that a man should be able to support a family starting in his early or mid twenties. Now it is practically unheard of."
Adam's son can still do this. But Eve's daughter is no longer requiring this of him.
When my proverbial grandfather wanted my proverbial grandmother, he was required to marry her first. Now my brother can have any girl he wants without so much as a shot of brandy. Both men have the same needs. My brother and my grandfather are the same. It is you and I (figuratively speaking) who are different from our grandmothers because we accepted a darn apple from a snake.
It's not like there aren't other fruit in the garden. We need to find good fruit.
Son of Adam can help Eve's daughter by looking at her with the facial expression of the boy in the post and get her to stop the foolishness.
She needs him to do this. Because she wants a strong man who can save her from herself when she goes off in the wrong direction.
These men are the red pill men with the complete Inner and Outer Game.
Men haven't changed at all. But a few enlightened ones are slowly getting us back to the garden of Eden.
@ Grasshopper,
You are right - anger is useful, to a point.
Then it gets all counterproductive and vindictive and destroys the person.
The permanently angry are the worst affected.
Agreed that the best way to deal with those who take advantage of your good nature is not to get angry. No, no.
Just get on with life.
No place for indwelling anger.
Learned the hard way too.
First you said that men haven't changed, then you said they changed because women are to blame for everything. Have they changed or not?
Society has changed and men and women have changed with it...so I'm not going to sit here and make excuses for men who are not holding up their end of the bargain when I am. There are some men who do hold up their end of the bargain as well, and they are the ones who deserve respect and admiration. I don't particularly care to be made responsible for how the rest are behaving, thanks anyway.
"First you said that men haven't changed, then you said they changed because women are to blame for everything. Have they changed or not?"
I am sorry I wasn't clear enough in my last comment. Perhaps someone else would care to help me out if they feel so inclined.
Memorise the following if you will: 'As women go, so goes society.'
A wise old man told me this.
It took me an awfully long time to figure out why.
In a previous post I mentioned the reasons why a woman is easier to sway or 'hypnotise' than a man.
This trait of women has its (good) uses. It makes women lesss stubborn than men (in general).
But with respect to feminism it was a major flaw.
Again I say to you: men haven't really changed.
My grandfather would be a PUA too if he was dating in today's world. But in his time, he didn't need to resort to that kind of tactic, because society (read: women) required a certain behaviour from him, and he was duly rewarded for that behaviour. I am not saying there were no 'casanovas' or 'don juans' in his time. Those have always existed, of course, nor that men of my grandfather's era were all angels. Not saying that at all.
I am talking general principles here.
Sure, there are men who are so bad even heaven would not please them. I am not referring to those men either.
Until women collectively become women again, nothing will change much.
Some individuals will always find their own way through anything.
The majority won't though, and will need the help of the masses to advance in the direction they want.
Do I think women are to blame for everything?
Actually no.
I do believe that like men, women were lied to. It's not women's 'fault'.
Someone really knew how to destroy society. Someone knew that to destroy society, one needed to get the women to self-destruct.
Guess what? It's working.
But...recovery is everything.
Requiring better behavior from men is EXACTLY what I make a point of doing. I'm sure you know as well as do how much men like it. They have to decide on their own to be better and be men instead of spoiled, angry boys because all the requiring in the world from women isn't going to make the slightest difference until they decide to grow up.
VoilĂ , in this we agree.
Hmm, I notice you and I usually reach the same conclusion. We just take different paths to get there :-)
The angry boys are angry because most women are not requiring them to be the men of old, yes. So they are doing what men do best to get what they want: finding solutions. Hence The Manosphere (which happens to be the 21st century way). Some do it right, some do it wrong. Nothing's changed.
We are both describing the same phenomenon, Charming Disarray. We just have different styles of self-expression.
Vive la différence.
I can see both sides of what ST and Charming Disarray are saying. I think you're both right. (If I've misread a point set me straight.)
CD,in your personal life you know that you aren't flakey like a lot of other women, and don't want a flakey little boy to share your life with. (An angry one even less so.) You take responsibility for your emotions and actions and require the same from your man. You have high standards mentally, emotionally and behavior wise for your self and a man you would share your life with would also have to have the same.
I think ST's point is that There's a lot of anger and demotivation on the part of men to be the kind of healthy man that you will eventually end up with. Society got a bit off track, and sick in the process. Some digging in will be required, and I don't think that ST is putting this all at womens feet, but on a whole, we've contributed to it.
I remember a few months back, one of the player blogs was challenging women to become more feminine. I mentioned that if women became more feminine en mass they wouldn't be attracted to assholes. Alphas would be competing with greater betas for the same women that both sets valued. There was agreement, and that the concepts of game would change when womens responses changed. As Susan has noted, nice guys are becoming jerks because too many of us are requiring them to be. And divorce theft is a whole other area that has damaged the male psyche.
The Man up theme is chaffing to a lot of men because they feel that the social contract between men and women has been broken. That we are rewriting it to the point that that there is no motivation on their part to be chivalrous or providing. That they are punished for doing so.
@ JV,
Thank you.
"I remember a few months back, one of the player blogs was challenging women to become more feminine. I mentioned that if women became more feminine en mass they wouldn't be attracted to assholes."
In other words, following the folly of feminism, the chain reacion has already begun. Started by men.
When women collectively take up this challenge they will elevate themselves in their own eyes and in the eyes of men. Then men themselves will have to up their game to keep up with these new chicks on the block.
So begins the dance of recovery.
Those who won't dance will have to leave the ball soon.
*Curtsey*
ST and JV, I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that if women either become more feminine, or require more of men, men will respond. In my life I have not seen this to the case. I know more good women than good men. In fact, I know a lot of flaky men who lash out at women when they don't get what they want, like spoiled little boys. They also refuse to do anything that's "required" from them and never hesitate to treat good women badly.
I also know some good men. They aren't like that because they were required to be that way--they're like that because want to be good men. And they generally attract good women because of it.
I'm generalizing, obviously, because this is a complex topic and there are a lot of variables, but I get very antsy whenever it seems like people are suggesting that "if only women would fix all these problems by being different then men would start acting like they should." That just looks to me like waiting for women to step up and be leaders, which in a traditional society is the job of men. Not women.
At the same time, I do hold women accountable for going along with what men want even if it's wrong. Those women make life harder for everyone. It's sad, frustrating, and lonely to have different expectations from nearly everyone around you. It's a sacrifice that has to be made--but it is NOT a magic solution that's going to suddenly inspire men to be better. At least not from what I've seen.
"I also know some good men. They aren't like that because they were required to be that way--they're like that because want to be good men. And they generally attract good women because of it."
There are 2 categories of good men: pre-feminism and post-feminism.
The former were required to be good men from birth. They generally held up their end of the bargain. Feminism shot them in the face. At close range.
Their sons saw what happened.
They will either stay away from women until they happen upon one who requires their good nature, or they will shed their good nature and run around an empty park with women all their lives.
In both cases, they are reacting in a masculine way to a problem their ancestors (except their fathers) have never seen before.
One group is doing it right, the other is doing it wrong.
Your job is to use your God-given 'filter' and stay away from the ones who are doing it wrong.
To give an example, 2 Manosphere characters: One's mantra is 'Woman up'. And then shuts up.
The other is bedding women all over town and calling them words rhyming with 'rut'.
Which one is digging in his heels and doing it right, in the manner of Sinnataggen, with the facial expression of the boy on the right?
Which one is running around an empty park, or in this case a bed with an angry woman in tow?
One will instil in me a 'Mark Wahlberg' type reaction. The other one I shall ignore.
They are both angry men.
One is the 'complete package' with both inner and outer Game. The other is 'sizzle without the steak'.
Most men are actually in the first category, or want to be, I think.
But unless women require some standards of them, many will just pick the low-lying fruit and curse the tree they plucked it from.
When women collectively refuse to woman up, even the good men who want to be good just for the sake of it will be reduced to living lonely, disappointed lives...or they will join their sizzle brothers.
As women go, so goes society.
Individuals are generally stuffed, in huge tidal waves like this.
But there is always a silver lining :-)
You just have to find it.
There is a third category. Men who no longer give a damn about women.
The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference.
Look for more indifference towards women, coming to a civilization near you.
@ Anonymous Reader,
You are right: MGTOW is the third category I failed to add in the post (was this a Freudian omission on my part perhaps?)
I have no doubt that indifference is already with us.
Do these men really have nothing at all to do with women?
Are they truly asexual? (Perhaps this should be an age-adjusted question?)
Or are they just living the life of the eternal bachelor but will still use a woman if the opportunity arises, in which case we are back to my PUA category?
No criticism. We get what we wish for in society.
I just want to be clear as to this man's real status.
If he is truly asexual and manages to avoid women totally, and is completely happy with that, good for him.
Happiness is afterall nothing but a state of mind. We should all aim for happiness wherever we can find it, right?
The answers to all these questions can be found in your own MGTOW thread.
@ Anonymous Reader,
I was kinda hoping for your own unique answer.
But it looks like one can't have everything one wants in life.
*sigh*
Post a Comment