Friday, November 2, 2012

Loose terminology: a question of semantics? Or a concerted effort?


My first instinct was to give this post the title 'the loose terminology is killing us!'

Then I calmed down.
:-)

Then I picked what I believe is a better title, because it addresses wider issues.

I love to dissect 'language'. As is probably evident from my posts.
I spend hours looking for word associations and seeking the emotion underlying words.

I am not unique. I know that words mean a lot to women. We are indeed 'word-sensitive' creatures.
There is a  reason that many women are 'auditory'.
There is a reason that 'sweet nothings' work.
:-)

But the following is anything but 'sweet nothings'.

Because it is not 'sweet'.
And it is certainly not 'nothing'.

It is so much of a 'something', it is killing us.



Metak pre-empted me a little when he made this comment in a recent post:


From what I can see around me, most of those men enjoy sex and casual relationship while women believe it's a "relationship".



Even worse, there is a category on Facebook called 'it's complicated'.

The men who comment here might well say this is just hamster-spinning by women.
This may or may not be true.
But if this is true, then these hamsters are getting an awful lot of help.

This 'loose terminology' is institutionalised.

A change of definition is all it takes to allow a woman to destroy herself.

In the style of Metak when he is in advice-giving mode, here is an all too common dialogue:



The powers-that-be: Woman, press here on this button that says 'touch me and your head will explode in 50 seconds'.
Woman: Of course, not! I am not in favour of suicide.
The powers-that-be: Oh alright, why don't we call it 'touch me and see what happens'?
Woman: Oooooh, I am not sure...
The powers-that-be: Hey! It's a button that says 'touch me - complications might ensue...'
Woman: Complications?
The powers-that-be: 'Touch me and there will be fireworks...'
Woman: OK.
The powers-that-be: '...of the unpleasant kind...
Oops, too late.


Is this a conspiracy of some kind?

Fudge the edges so that the hidden dangers are smoked out of view for millions of unsuspecting people, especially women?

Is this something of our own creation or was this the legacy we inherited with feminism, I wonder?



In the UK, it is almost a crime to mention the word 'husband' or 'wife' anymore. Everyone is a 'partner'.
In the french-speaking world, everyone is a 'compagnon'.

Is this political correctness on speed?


Slowly but surely, the definitions of everything is loosened around the edges to give things of lesser value a status equal to the gold standard.
Which lets in practices that were deemed unacceptable a half-century ago into the mainstream via the back door when no-one was looking.

With the result that everyone gets confused, especially children.
And soon, the confusion is forgotten and the new status quo is accepted and assimilated.
And soon no-one feels the need to question the smokey atmosphere...



Are we being 'gaslighted' into accepting fuzzy definitions?

There is nowhere worse than in the SMP to do this.

There used to be clear distinctions of marital status. One was either single, married, divorced or widowed.

Some accepted 'courting' or 'engaged' as acceptable additional categories.

But now, the choices are endless.
But also more vague.

No-one has a standard definition of the term 'hooking up'.
I used to wonder why.

Then it became clear to me that there is an incentive to keep this expression deliberately vague.

But who does this benefit?
In the longterm, certainly not the women who get caught up in it.


So why is this happening?
In a feminism-ised state, why are there counterproductive strategies seemingly designed to harm the very women that feminism apparently wants to protect?

Who is saying, 'keep the language vague and the definitions broad'?

Anyone have a clever answer to explain this beguiling smokescreen puzzle?

Does this go beyond 'inclusivism'? Are we legislating well-defined terms out of existence on purpose?

If so, why?
I really don't understand this phenomenon.

It would be cool to get to the bottom of this...



62 comments:

Bob Wallace said...

The Manosphere is full of bad terminology. It's a private language, which is a sign of a religious cult. Alpha and Beta refer to canines, not people. Female Solipsism doesn't exist. Solipsism is a philosophical problem, specifically an epistemological one. Hamsters? Now that is a contemptuous and insulting word is there ever was on.

When words don't have precise definitions, all kinds of havoc will happen. And when people try to change definitions, again, havoc.

This Old Man said...

@Grasshopper:

I came at you like a freight train and that was wrong.

I apologize.

It is easy to lose track of the humanity of other people when staring at a blank page and I did that, and that is not acceptable.

If you still do not wish to dialog with me, I understand. But, if you do, I will try to be a better person next time.

Whatever you desire, know that I am sorry.

This Old Man said...

@ST,


(Sorry, maybe some day I'll get the hang of posting correctly)



This is a hard one. In some senses it has been going forever. You can see it in the etymology of words:

vir --> virtue
liber --> liberal arts

To name something is to constrain it, and to control the definition is to have the power to limit how it will be perceived and what can be said about it. This is why political parties give themselves good and wholesome and uncontestable names such as Republican (who can be against the Republic?) or Democratic (who can be against the rule of the people?) or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (who can be against the Nation, society, the workers or God forbid, Deutschland?). Even Communism was widely thought of en the early 20th century as a good thing, hence the name of the parties.

And, of course, Humpty Dumpty knew this too:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, 1871

And so did The Party:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

George Orwell, Nineteen-Eighty-Four, 1948

Though, of course, Orwell was responding to the widespread use of these techniques by the Communist parties in Eastern and Central Europe


We do it to geographical features (La Manche, English Channel) and we can do it to virtually anything. That is a key political insight of the 20th century and for this you can blame the Americans and the French (Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan) and Ludwig Wittgenstein or at least the application of their Theories in American Academia but mostly, I am afraid, you can blame the Americans (Yes, I am one and I am not knocking my own Country but faults are faults).

It has been going on in increasing earnestness for about 60 years now.

More to follow...

This Old Man said...

@Bob Wallace:

+1

just visiting said...

If you control the meaning of words, then you control how people think. Political correctness is connected with that. Orwell's 1984 also showed how that is engineered.

But, human's are rather sophisticated too. We can use code words to convey ideas. Sometimes this is for decorum other times it's to decipher intent.

A good example of this is "The strong and independant" woman. The men of the sphere instantly think "ballbuster" or "bitch".

But code words can get tricky. Especially when they mean one thing to men and another thing to women.

The comment thread at Private Man's blog has blown up. A thirty something careerist has asked for advice about men. She describes herself as strong and independant, and when defending herself, she says that she doesn't need a man, that she want's a man.

I've spent a year in the sphere. And I'm aware of what Strong and independant means to men. But I don't think that they know what it means to women. It's code. That's why you keep seeing women saying it in profiles.

Just as the careerist claims, it means "I don't need you so if we were together, I would want you." This is the equivallent of a man saying that he's not a player looking to use a woman, but is looking for love.

Which brings us to the difference in men and women. Why we sometimes think that the other is incapable of love.

When a man says that he needs a woman he's thinking love or oneitis. When he says he wants a woman, he means her body.

A woman can need a man, but love or even lust doesn't enter the picture. She can even despise him.

This is sort of like how men can have sex with a woman but not love her. A woman can need a man but not love him.

This is why it is better for a woman to want you instead of need you. We are wired differently than you guys. And it occurs to me, that there is no getting around this. Your red pill sisters in the previous threads have basicly said the same thing. Just in different words. PVW's biblical rendition of a good wife comes to mind. She doesn't need a man to survive. She wants him.

(And yes, I realize that women and men are not truly independant of one another, but I'm using a broad generalization.)

Grasshopper said...

@This Old Man… “…know that I am sorry…”

No hard feelings. I am equally guilty of behaving badly. I regret some of the things I said to you and I apologize also.

To reopen our dialog – do you mind if I ask how you found this place? What terminology were you searching for on the internet that landed you here?

(I used the word ‘terminology’ in my question so our hostess cannot claim we are off topic in this thread which is about terminology. Not that she minds conversations straying off topic. That is common here and part of the charm of the place).

This site reminds me a bit of a British neighborhood pub where people of all ages can gather for a pint of ale and some conversation. ST is British so maybe this is what she had in mind. I’m a Yank’ myself.

So pull up a chair… this round of brew is on me…

Grasshopper

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Spacetraveler

The vagueness in the relationships came about and exists because women thought it would benefit them. After/during the sexual revolution, they didn't want to be judged as sluts, but also didn't want to have to go into a marriage. So they invented other relationship status's that would allow them a shred of commitment to hide their slut behind. As morals got looser and looser, the vagueness of the terms had to increase at the same rate as the size of their slutty behavior. A bigger portion of slut in your behavior needs a bigger portion of vagueness.

When women as a whole decide that vague definitions don't benefit them, the vagueness will likely disappear overnight. The majority of men will do whatever it takes to make women happy for a chance to get laid. The rest just laugh at their desperate attempts.

cadders said...

@ just visiting;
Your comments re 'needing' vs 'wanting' a man are interesting. Particularly this statement; 'This is why it is better for a woman to want you instead of need you.'

As a man my gut disagrees with this 100%. Combining natural feminine traits - solipsism, a tendency to live in the moment rather than with a view to future time orientation, the prediliction to make (sometimes important) decisions based on emotions rather than facts, and the generally weaker grip on cause & effect (when compared to men) - with a legal framework that actively facilitates (and sometimes rewards) women for the destruction of families and relationships creates a huge risk for a commitment minded man.

If I am going to commit to a women (i.e. give her everything I own, everything I am, and everything I will become) then she damn well better NEED me.

We all know what it is like to want something. Once attained we frequently lose interest and move on to the next thing we 'want'. I think this is why a lot of men switch off when women bang on about 'not needing' a man and that a women 'wanting' a man is better. Such talk is an immediate attraction killer (of course feminist boilerplate would have it that men are 'intinidated' by such women - the truth is that this attitude lowers a woman's commitment value in the eyes of many men and they simply pass these women over)

I don't beleive this is learnt behaviour either - one of the things I have come to realise is that I need to be needed. And if my women doesn't need me then my needs are not being met. Ask any husband in a functional marriage if he would rather lose his wife's love or respect - 90% of the time most most men would rather lose the love.

just visiting said...

@ Cadders

In the spirit of this post, which is about terminology, I'm going to point something out that really needs to be said.

When a man says he needs a woman, he means love or oneitis. When he says he wants a woman he means her body or something that wont last.

When a woman says she needs a man this is more about resources and survival. To want a man is to go into the love/lust compartment. Something that is far more combined for women than men. Something that is meant to be long term.

When a man says he needs a woman it means something entirely different than when a women is referring to needing a man.

This is because men have not evolved to need protection and resources from women. A woman has from men.

As I said before
A woman can need a man, but love or even lust doesn't enter the picture. She can even despise him.

It doesn't mean the same thing to us.

This is because women compartamentalize between need and love/lust. Men compartamentalize between love and lust.







Bob Wallace said...

@ This Old Man

Many of the men (sic) in the Manosphere are stuck in groupthink. They were never taught what a man is supposed to be. They march in lockstep, and they imitate their "leaders." Someone came up with Alpha/Beta/etc., "female solipsism," hamsters, and they latched onto it and won't let go. Their fear of women is painfully obvious, and that's why they degrade them. I get the impression many of them were picked on in middle school, unpopular with girls, and never learned how to talk to them. So they look to the Manosphere for guidance, and lo and behold, it's not really them that has the problems, it's women! Who lust after "alphas" but want to marry "betas," who are incapable of love, who have to dominated...what a pitiful bunch.

just visiting said...

@ Cadders

You said:
one of the things I have come to realise is that I need to be needed. And if my women doesn't need me then my needs are not being met. Ask any husband in a functional marriage if he would rather lose his wife's love or respect - 90% of the time most most men would rather lose the love.

My answer:

Love and respect are intertwined for a woman. A woman who doesn't respect a man will not love him. So wanting one without the other isn't going to happen.

The other point. If you want to feel needed in the way I think that you mean, you have to have your wifes love and respect.

If doing things for a woman made them love and respect a man, beta orbiters the world over would be jumping for joy. Trust me. You want a woman to want you not need you.

Now, if you have a woman's love and respect, she will love and respect you more for the things that you do that fulfill her survival needs because she also has her emotional needs handled.

PVW said...

@ST: the semantics about relationships, I believe it is found among those who have developed a mindset in that they believe there is no certainty, there should not be any, or if there isn't any, it is a good thing. Flexibility is good, it is more responsive to the reality of today.

In intellectual history, it is called the rise of the postmodern...People are constantly in flux, reality is constantly shifting, and so everything else responds.

Where earlier groups were modernist in looking for progress into absolutes and certainty, the postmoderns don't believe in it, or they are more willing to tolerate it and go with it.

It is an attitude that definitely fits the province of people who see the sky as the limit, who don't want to be tied down, and who want to be free to explore and so forth.

Those who still adhere to a modernist sensibility struggle with this. They want to adhere to older models that offer security and certainty. They see that there are limitations and boundaries which must be worked through or around.

Now, some of the postmodern types might eventually return to modernist sensibilities once they experience a moment where they "hit the wall," in whatever manifestation it takes.

As for wanting v. needing a man, I want Mr. PVW because he is a valuable part of my life, I need the comfort of his presence.

Do I need him financially? I've always worked, so does that mean I don't need him? That is where a lot of the radical feminist types go wrong; the financial isn't the only thing. The emotional counts as well. Some, though, are willing to forgo both the financial and the emotional.

And that is where some traditionalist men might think, I want her dependent and to need me as a result; that is when I know I'm wanted emotionally.

But she might need him financially but not want or need him emotionally...Thus, the rallying cry of the EPL divorce, "I'm not haaappy."

The emotional is most important, in my view, because without it, a married couple might as well be roommates The emotional is what will keep her over the course of the years, through the ups and downs.

As I have said before, the most troubled marriages I can think of involve those cases where women shut down emotionally because something in their husband's behavior led them to feel less connected emotionally--not loved as before, not respected, etc.

metak said...

Hahaha! ;-) After I'm gone... this will be written on my gravestone. ;-)

Metak style: to offer a new or different perspective on reality and humanity in a humorous manner. Most popular form by far, is short 'sirius' story structure that takes 'sirius' concepts and applies them in completely new situations to show you that you're wrong! ;-)

I'm not giving advice to no one. I'm just telling them what to think and do... that's all. ;-)

Joking aside... People seriously underestimate the power and wisdom that comes from the heart. Heart will always tell you what's best for you. Man demanding respect above else is a clear sign that he's so caught in 'reptilian brain' thinking.. dominated with hierarchy, fear, territorially...
To keep things vague and all these categories are a reflection of your inner state. Either you don't know what you want or you do know and you're abusing those vague definitions to justify your actions. Excuses.

"Does this go beyond 'inclusivism'? Are we legislating well-defined terms out of existence on purpose?"

Yes. Well-defined terms are basic building blocks. How we express ourselves and communicate with each other depends on that. Now we have new vague definitions replacing the old ones and causing chaos on purpose.

Methinks. ;-)

metak said...

New: Jimmy calls his old friend Sam and leaves a phone message for him..
Jimmy: Hi Sam. This is your old friend Jimmy.. I'll be in town next week and I want to introduce you to my partner... (end of the message...)

Now Sam is wondering who could be that partner? Jimmy's wife? Maybe he came out of the closet and he wants to tell him that..? Maybe he started a new business with this new partner..?? His partner in crime maybe? What??

Old: Jimmy calls his old friend Sam and leaves a phones message for him..
Jimmy: Hi Sam. This is your old friend Jimmy.. I'll be in town next week and I want to introduce you to my wife...

Keep it simple, stupid.

Bob Wallace said...

"Heart will always tell you what's best for you."

That is not true. People are mislead by their feelings all the time, and it's worse in the case of most women, who are ruled by their feelings.

When reason and feelings work together -- i.e., they both agree -- that is when you are rarely mislead.

metak said...

@Bob

Compared to innate knowing that comes from the heart, "reason" is like a young child trying to argue with wise old man. Heart is not just "feelings". Shamans and ancients knew that very well hundreds of years ago... Even scientists are starting to realize that more and more.

I would say that when reason understands about it's limitations...
then the heart can come in...

Reason can justify and rationalize all kinds of things. Making it illegal to feed homeless people for an example and everyone would say: well it's the law... bla.. bla.. But the heart would say that's BS.

Ceer said...

@ This Old Man

There are some men who find it difficult to find it difficult to understand what goes on in the mannosphere due to the investment in the culture. Other men can't help picking at others because it makes them feel powerful.

It's part of our duty as human beings to look beyond first impressions.

@ Spacetraveller

Part of your confusion is that you're coming at this problem from the perspective of faith. Look at the suffragettes of the early 1900's, then contrast with the feminists of the 1960's. Note the lack of faith...both in terms of secularization and human relationships.

Compared to a context where over 90% of men and women were able to marry, I'd say today we're definitely worse off. Yes, marriage had its problems, but all in all, it was a good system.

If you go for evo psych theory, marriage was doomed to failure because it wasn't able to keep track of giving women what they really wanted.

In corrupting any ideology, it's necessary to do it piecemeal. Humans are much better at detecting radical shifts from social norms rather than something slightly outside. Today, women still try to use the language they did when marriage was around, but the meaning has shifted. Even if they don't realize. Remember the specialty type of female violence...demanding an altered perception.

*Stretches fingers*

From the point of view where actions speak louder than words, happenings like lack of marriage, divorce, and using children as instruments, are all intended. From the point of view where women are describing what they want from life, few of them will ever say spinsterhood, divorce, or family court madness. Looking at the situation logically, we can come up with some theories:

1) Women don't have the education to get what they really want out of life.
2) Women lie about what they really want for whatever reason.
3) A combination of 1 and 2.

From what I gather, most of the mannosphere goes for a combination of 1 and 2. Personally, I emphasize 1 because I find it in societies best interest for me to help out. So much real information is being passed to women, looking from the outside, it's appalling.

Personal experience tells me that any well defined term is thought of as "compartmentalization" at best and "judgemental" at worst. One previous girlfriend would never admit that she and I were boyfriend and girlfriend even though we had been going out for months. She couldn't have said any louder "don't get comfortable, you're not hanging around long". I don't have any ill feelings towards her, she did her duty to help give what was then a thoroughly bluepill me some education in women. Keep in mind this was a self-professed catholic girl.

Perhaps that's part of the intent. Men should not get comfortable with where they are in a relationship.

@ Bob Wallace
Ooh, Bobby, welcome back. You now have the biggest weewee of all of us! Your logic is undeniable and everything you say makes sense. Now run along and play with your toys while the adults have their boring discussion.

This Old Man said...

@Grasshopper,

I thank you for your gracious hospitality; next round will be on me.

I came here in an kind of old-fashioned way. I read an article in a magazine which led to a search for Susan Walsh, which led to HUS. After a while of trying to figure out the conversation I started clicking links, which led me here, where I encountered a curious conversation which, unlike many others I had ran across, was not asinine and offensive.

Here I also ran across two appealing characters, I won’t say who but let’s just call them ST and CD, two earnest but sensible young women trying to sort out existence in a messy world. Oh, they weren’t perfect like stock characters. One of them seemed rather frustrated with certain aspects of her world which she considers wrong and the other one seemed (to me at least) a little too accommodating of certain concepts and attitudes maybe she should be more skeptical about. At some point, one of them became too frustrated with the temporizing and picked up and left. Still, I stayed.

I read because I wanted to understand and did not add because I did not figure I had that much to say which would help. Then a big confusion arose about pity and mercy and the seven theological virtues and I believe some other things that I forget, and I am afraid I could not help myself and had to pitch in. That seemed to go over well and so, it fed my ego which freed me to be more forward the next time around. The rest you’ve witnessed or can go back and read.

This is my story, how about yours?

This Old Man said...

@Bob Wallace:

I am new to all of this. Earlier this year I had not heard of colored spheres (except for Christmas) or blue and red pills (except for the movie in which, by the way, they are not pills but gel capsules), or hypergamy, or hookups (hookups? Sound like something you would do with one of Metak’s drug dealers) and games were, to me, things that you played, not mean things that people do to each other routinely in their daily lives (and yes, I’ve read Machiavelli). Where alpha and beta were subatomic particles or terms in equations or highly disputed terms in animal ethology.

The whole thing simultaneously mystifies me and appalls me (and the femmosphere too, is that a word? should it be? can we just call it the crazysphere?). I live in a universe where the people who are around me are selfish, and lazy and, given a chance, will try to seek their own advantage but, at the same time, they are generous and tolerant and enterprising and loving and many other things too numerous to mention. They try to live honorable and virtuous lives most of the time and do their best to be good parents and sons and daughters and husbands and wives. They speak in plain words and do not use mysterious codes full of words that don’t exist elsewhere or that are supposed to have meanings they don’t have anywhere else. To me a wall is a structure built to keep things in or out (or the metaphorical sports one, saccharide depletion, really but I digress), not another issue to obsess about and make your life less happy than it already is.

I live in a midsize city so; maybe I do not encounter this because it is a big city thing? It’s all over the mainstream media now, as well as the internet, so there must be some reality to it. It is in a blog from Switzerland, so it cannot only be an American thing.

To me, it seems as a world where men and women have ceased to be able to talk to each other (always a shaky thing to begin with) and even to see each other as fellow human beings. Instead they coin secret languages (patriarchy, male privilege, misogyny, misandry, hamsters, really?) which they yell past each other and make each other miserable.

Color me confused, the deepest shade you’ve got.

This Old Man said...

@Metak:

I think you have put your finger on one thing about the manosphere that I could not get straight. They “demand” respect. But respect cannot be demanded (Oh, you can but it will not do you any good). Respect must be earned. If you are powerful enough you can demand it and get some kind of groveling servitude but that is not respect.

Respect is one of those magical things like love that cannot be bought or stolen or compelled. Be the type of person who deserves it and it will be bestowed upon you. Or, if you are really, really lucky you will get it anyway and then you should count your blessings and try your very, very best to live up to your luck, least you be found out and have it taken away.

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. (The law, in the grandeur of its equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.),

Anatole France, Le Lys Rouge, 1894

metak said...

@ This Old Man

I wasn't talking about the Manosphere. I was talking about certain men in general that appreciate some kind of respect more then anything else.

just visiting said...

@ PVW

Exactly.





This Old Man said...

@Metak,

Sorry if I misread your post. I too have encountered this in real life, though it seems to be a theme in the manosphere, in my limited experience. Still, I stand by the observation.

Bob Wallace said...

@ This Old Man

"I am new to all of this"

In some ways you will be appalled. I've been reading the Manosphere for about six months. I see it as a reaction to feminism, which I now overwhelmingly see as a bad thing.

I see feminism as almost completely based on the envy of men, and in response I see the Manosphere as based on the envy of women, which is why women are put down as mercenary whores who lust after Alphas but when they can't get them to stay settle for Betas (BTW,I have never seen this in my life - the closest are groupies I have known), incapable of love, don't respect a man unless he dominates them.

My days of posting on Manosphere are over, except for here. Many of these Manosphere bloggers and posters are obsessed with lifting weights (cuz ooh the chicks did these guys) and when I pointed out about 90% of the guys who bulk up to the point of being grotesque are homosexual, they had seizures and I was viciously attacked. That's not even adolescent; it's childish.

It's pointed out here these guys DEMAND respect without doing anything to earn it. That's is indeed the truth. "I am a man; give me respect. You are a woman; you're a whore and a slut and you don't deserve any."

just visiting said...

@ Bob

Yes.

When I first came across the sphere, I'd hoped that there was room for classical masculinity. But I've pretty much given up on that.


















Bob Wallace said...

The Lost Boys of the Manosphere don't know what classical masculinity is and don't want to know. They'd rather live in the Matrix of the Manosphere. They think they've taken the Red Pill and now see reality clearly. I told them they've traded one Matrix for another and in this one they're on top and women are on bottom, and for almost of them that's just fine. It's all about turning the tables and now it's women's turn to be humiliated and degraded.

Grasshopper said...

@This Old Man…”…This is my story, how about yours?...”

I first stopped by here this past January or February. ST posted something on another site to draw men here – I think it was the MGTOW site but I can’t remember for sure. I had been a regular lurker on MGTOW for about a year after the article in the Wall Street Journal drew me there.

The MGTOW site is part of what is referred to as the manosphere as you probably know.

I see the manosphere as a virtual encyclopedia of the various behaviors of females as they relate to men told by men sharing their personal stories and experiences.

Many men (myself included) had bought into the romantic fairy tale notion of relationships that saturate the main stream media. That may sell books and put people in theater seats but it far from the reality on the ground.

That reality was learned through a series of painful eye opening lessons. What you may have referred to as the ‘School of Hard Knocks’ back in the day.

The manosphere is that wisdom shared and discussed openly. It will help men better navigate these waters and achieve more satisfaction in their dealings with women. It also legitimizes, in my view, the option of remaining single or going your own way.

So for these reasons and some others I am a great fan of the manosphere.

Grasshopper

Bob Wallace said...

There is at least 3000 years of history of what a man is supposed to be. The Lost Boys of the Manosphere know none of it. They have no idea of what true chivalry is - to protect the weak and powerless by armed violence if necessary (which means to be armed), to be brave, to be loyal, to not steal of lie, to be noble.

Instead, they read clowns like Roissy and Roosh in hopes of just possibly getting laid. They have no clue they are altering their behavior to get women's attention - and past thinkers much smarter than me have said: real men do not do that.

The fact these guys are so desperate for guidance is proof they did not get it from their families, from school, from church, from mentors, or from anybody.

metak said...

@ This Old Man

No need for apology. ;-) As you've probably noticed by now, I have a crazy sense of humor and view on life. In that joke, ST's the drug dealer and because she makes a great curry (The Gospel According to ST ;-)) the Police caved in the first time. ;-)

@ ST

"And, I am not addicted to The Manosphere, lol. I take the good bits and leave out the rest..."

I know that you're not addicted.. ;-) and I know there are also good bits in Manosphere. What bothers me the most is that all these different things are more important than the actual well being of men and women. That's why I mentioned all those things last time. No one in Manosphere is talking about them.

Ceer said...

@ This Old Man

I appreciated hearing your story, even though it wasn't directed at me. We all bring our past experiences to the discussion when we comment. If you'd like I could share some of my backstory.

In a previous comment thread, I believe I called you a troll (someone who provokes others on a comment thread for amusement). Based on your comments on this thread, I was probably mistaken about that.

@ Grasshopper

Thanks for sharing.


@ Just Visiting

May I ask about what specifically your view of classical masculinity entails?

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bob,

Yes, I agree with you that the manosphere language is very much a private language. But one thing that I will say in its favour is that at least it is CLEAR. No vagueness about it. In this sense it is very much a masculine language. Now, it will not appeal to a lot of women, and I understand why.

The language that modern women have adopted is far from clear... And it seems, even the women themselves don't know what these words mean. This is crazy!

"When words don't have precise definitions, all kinds of havoc will happen. And when people try to change definitions, again, havoc."

+ 1000.


@ Grasshoper and TOM,

"This site reminds me a bit of a British neighborhood pub where people of all ages can gather for a pint of ale and some conversation. ST is British so maybe this is what she had in mind."

Oh yes! If you guys would buy me a beer, I am joining you in the pub!
TOM, I really liked CD, you know. Still do. I regret that she is no longer part of this community. Of course I don't know her in real life, but I really do suspect that if I did, she would be one of those people I would regularly clash with, but still have a great deal of respect and affection for. I think I went too far in ruffling her feathers and I am genuinely sorry about that. Perhaps I was a bit of a bully. I envy you and Grasshopper that you are able to make up and have a beer together, metaphorically speaking. When women lock horns, it is much harder for them to make up...
*sigh*

@ JV,

Boy oh boy, did TPM's blog light up like fireworks after that post about the 30 something woman!
I know what you mean about the 'Strong and independent' label, JV. I never did understand that term, and in fact, I made a comment about that on TPM's blog, and Deti corrected me on that because it turns out MY definition is neither what men nor women define it as lol.

Yes, it was unfortunate that this woman used those words. As I can see now, men will run a mile from any woman who uses those words, whether or not she intends it the way that men have come to loathe.

@ JV, PVW, Cadders,
Very interesting this debate about 'want' and 'need' as women and men see it.
Welcome to The sanctuary, by the way, Cadders!)

I think when women say they 'want' a man rather than need him, they are trying to distance themselves from goldiggers, and want the emotional connection that PVW talks about.. And it starts right from the first date, where some women feel awkward allowing a man to pay for their meal or drink. And yet, a man is wired to want to provide, certainly for a woman he loves. I get your argument, JV, but I think Cadders' gut reaction should tell us something. Besides, I DO think that women, even financially solvent women really do NEED a man too, including his money, in order to feel feminine. But of course, we are all being told not to need a man, so we beigin to internalise this message and that's bad for us. Of course, there are also those who really do NEED a man for their basic survival, but because they are a turn-off because they usually don't offer a man anything in return, they are not attractive to men either!
The best combination is a woman who NEEDS a man (but could survive on her own if she didn't get one) and a man who also NEEDS a woman (but could manage if he didn't get one). And that neither is ashamed to admit their needs.

Also, to a woman who says 'I don't need a man', the best response is not to shame her, but to appeal to her sense of vanity :-)
AKA, you may not need a man, but there is a man out there who may need you!
In this waay, she is validated. And, very importantly too, we use language that she understands, as per TOM's advice in the last thread...
Winsauce, as danny would say...

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

You do come up with some howlers! LOL.
But they make sense to me.

When you say 'heart will always tell you what to do', I see what you mean, but of course Bob is also right, in that we have heads for a reason, and sometimes both heart and head should act in accordance with each other. That is what I mean when I say 'the ducks are all lined up' to describe certain people who 'have it together'. Such people display a complete lack of cognitive dissonance because everything is correctly aligned. That must be a state of pure bliss. Most of us only dream of being in such a place in our lives.

Ceer,

"Part of your confusion is that you're coming at this problem from the perspective of faith."

I didn't think I was! I was speaking in purely secular terms here. In many ways, this is a secular issue.
But this brings me to a quasi-religious point.
Re your girlfriend, may I offer a possible explanation for her actions? Now don't get me wrong. I am NOT defending her actions. And I realise it must have hurt you not to be given the proper 'title' of your status as her boyfriend. I am not to know, of course if this was the case with her, but I can offer some kind of consolation for you that COULD explain her behaviour. I went through this same scenario myself, and I am sure there are many women 'trapped' in this situation too.
This ties in very much with what I am talking about in this post. This scenario with your girlfriend is the 'forgotten' aspect of the consequences of loose terminology. This had me confused all through my twenties and beyond...
I might be giving my age away a little, but I must lay the 'background' to this...
When I was very young, the word 'boyfriend' meant (at least to me) a male friend you were going out with (no more than that!) that you intended to marry sooner or later.
When I was in my 20s I suddenly realised that that definition no longer applied. Your 'boyfriend' was someone you were sleeping with (temporarily or longterm), or who you may actually live with. No mention of impending marriage.
So when I started dating, I couldn't bring myself to call my male friend my 'boyfriend'. And when once, he introduced me to someone else as his 'girlfriend' I almost died of shame, because I knew exactly what the other person would be thinking of me. All of a sudden, I needed a new word to describe my relationship.
I don't know for sure because I was never made aware of this before, but I am sure my 'boyfriend' wasn't too impressed with me introducing him as my 'friend'. But now that you tell me of your situation, I can understand...
But I do not blame myself. I was the victim of 'loose terminology'! And perhaps, so was your girlfriend.
:-)
I can tell you, many a Catholic/Christian/Muslim/whatever girl is just as confused as I am. Remember that for a woman, her public image is everything. Whether or not she lives up to that image...
See? So whilst the 'loose terminology' works very well for those who want to blur the picture, it works against those who want to keep the waters clear. But then again, maybe that's exactly the point!

Spacetraveller said...

@ Ceer, TOM, Bob, Grasshopper, Metak,

(I am agreeing with Grasshopper and Ceer):

I too am a fan of the Manosphere simply because I admire its availability as a tool for those who need it. Bob and TOM and Metak: You don't need the Manosphere because your lives are fine without it. I say Good for you!
But there are men who need it. Even if temporarily. I daresay there are women who need to heed their message too. That woman that JV mentions who is the current subject of The Private Man's blog should heed the voices of the men and women who are talking to her, no matter how painful and difficult to digest their message might be. Because things are not working out for her at the moment anyway. Which is precisely why she wrote to The Private man for help.
I think under all the bitterness and rage against women, deep down some of these men really just want women to be women. As God intended. And frankly, we as women are NOT (the majority of us anyway) as God intended, because we have been too busy listening to the snake in the Garden of Eden...aka feminism. And we ate the fruit we shouldn't have touched. And now we have given that forbiodden fruit to the men, and we both now have indigestion...
Time for a stomach pump...

And besides...I do not believe that The Manosphere's message is contrary to Christianity. Many of these men are actually Christians, at least the ones on Dalrock's blog. Sure, their version of biblical correctness may sometimes be 'unusual' to say the least, (and maybe to be taken with a pinch of salt) but at least it is not downright false.

@ Leap,

"The vagueness in the relationships came about and exists because women thought it would benefit them."

"When women as a whole decide that vague definitions don't benefit them, the vagueness will likely disappear overnight."

Nailed it.
I think we are beginning to 'get' that the vagueness benefits no-one, least of all us.

@ JV,

"When I first came across the sphere, I'd hoped that there was room for classical masculinity. But I've pretty much given up on that."

Hahahahahahahahaha!
This is hilarious, JV.

I too, like Grasshopper, am interested to know what you define as classical masculinity. I thought The Manosphere was all about this, or at least parodying this until it became part of one's persona?
Did I miss something here?
:-)


PVW said...

ST:

I think when women say they 'want' a man rather than need him, they are trying to distance themselves from goldiggers, and want the emotional connection that PVW talks about.. And it starts right from the first date, where some women feel awkward allowing a man to pay for their meal or drink. And yet, a man is wired to want to provide, certainly for a woman he loves. I get your argument, JV, but I think Cadders' gut reaction should tell us something. Besides, I DO think that women, even financially solvent women really do NEED a man too, including his money, in order to feel feminine.

Me: You have made some important points here.

I can see the gold digging point, but to me gold digging has traditionally been indicated in a woman wanting more than the mere paying for a meal, ie., she is with a man solely for what he can give her, without a care for what she can give him.

And she wants more than a meal, it includes him shelling out for a lot more.

Yet, some gold digging types are taking it to that level, as I think of stories I read about women who go out on dates because they like the idea of getting free meals....

Here is the thing, when Mr. PVW and I were dating, I never paid for anything, but that is because I knew about the other meaning of what it means for a man to pay.

How a man spends his money says a lot about what he values. Him paying for me showed that he valued being with me, spending time with me, and that included spending his money on me, sharing his resources with me, which is an important part of being married.

I didn't see a contradiction between this, male provisioning, and me avoiding being a gold digger. I wasn't all about what I could get him to do for me financially....But I did appreciate that he was willing to take care of me in those ways, although I could certainly pay for myself.

This didn't feel strange, because I grew up with this model of manhood in my family, of men who gladly share their resources; it felt natural.

More women need to let men be men, but that is hard to do if you didn't see it growing up, perhaps that motivates a lot of the feminist types?

And it still applies today. My phone hasn't been working, so I was going to get a new one. I asked Mr. PVW if he might get a deal for me as he just got his own phone recently.

He was quite glad to do the research, take care of the details it took to get me a phone just like his. He is quite glad to pay the bill when it comes in...

This makes me feel nurtured and taken care of.

Yet, I do the same; he mentioned earlier this week that he would love to have pancakes for breakfast. So before I went to work yesterday, I was making pancakes for us to eat....

metak said...

@ST

Of course head+heart in right proportion is perfect. But as I tried to say there's no heart anywhere to be seen. Some men fail to see that the main problem today is the glorification of the mind, and instead of heart they listen to their gut. Ahhhh... it's their choice...

“The heart has reasons that reason does not understand.” Jacques Benigne Bossuel

just visiting said...

@ ST

In regard to want and need, yes I think that most women say it to distance themselves from gold digger labels. Or gold digger lite labels.
And let's face it, the sphere spends a lot of time discussing women and not investing resources into them. Still, I think that a lot of men do get emotional satisfaction by being needed emotionally and resource wise.
And I have no argument with this. It's normal.

But what isn't normal is the mentality that I keep running into about how marriages that are survival based are ideal. That women will somehow magically love a man for it. Hypergamy doncha know. So there are two ideas being supported in the sphere that are contradictory.

1. Doing things for women and spending money on her will not build attraction.

2. Survival marriages fullfilled women's hypergamy, so built attraction and love on her part.

As for classical manhood, no,it isn't supported in the sphere.

This Old Man said...

@Ceer,

It is Grasshopper’s table but I don’t think that he would mind. Pull up a chair.

Also, fair is fair. Maybe the manosphere deserves a second look. How about you give me the names of a couple of sites you think represent the best of it, I’ll be happy to check them out.

@ST:

It’s your pub! Maybe there should be beers on the house for such good customers.

About your “girlfriend” problem and Ceer’s, part of the problem is that along with fixed meanings we have jettisoned all formality. In my time, a boy would take out a girl a few times and, when he thought it felt right, he would as her to be his girlfriend. If she said yes, everyone would find out. If she said no well, it was time to move on. Now people text each other at 11 o'clock "How 'bout some brewskis?" How is anyone supposed to derive much meaning from that?

If I were dating a woman in this day and age, when I felt close enough I would ask her if I could refer to her a my “girlfriend” and she to me as her “boyfriend.” If the answer were other than “yes” it would speak volumes to me.

Ceer said...

@ TOM

Your point about formality touches on an important point.

When I met one of my female friends, she mentioned about guys wanting to "date" her. To me, playing by retro (faith-based catholic) rules, a date is a very different thing than it is in hookup culture. By "date" what she meant was sex.

Part of it IS the loss of formality...meaning people are less comfortable with it. Today, any time you ask a girl out on a "date" there isn't any real standard definition. Many women read that as "be alone with"...and immediately shut down.

The mannosphere sites I usually read include:

Captain Capitalism
Dalrock
Danny from 504
Married Man Sex Life

Also, any comment by Deti is good. He still refuses to make his own blog, but is an epic commenter who's at/about my BEST level every comment.

There are a few others, but those are the main ones. TBH, I haven't REALLY found a mannosphere blog by a faithful catholic man.

Captain Capitalism is an agnostic.

Athol Kay is a fallen away evangelical.

Dalrock is a committed...some type of protestant.

Danny is a catholic...I think, but probably not a very active one.

Bob Wallace said...

@ Spacetraveller,

"But one thing that I will say in its favour is that at least it is CLEAR."

I have found that a fair amount of it is not clear. A definition of an Alpha has never been agreed on, because they don't really exist.

I can't remember who it was, but he was trying to claim some drug-addicted loser was an Alpha. No, I responded, he's not an Alpha; he's a drug-addicted loser.

I do remember that Roissy posted a picture of Prince Harry with his chin in his hand (and a beautiful but I suspect supremely stupid) young women whispering in his ear. The caption was "This is the pose that an Alpha assumes!"

The first thing I thought was a bunch of guys sitting in a bar with their chins in their chins, thinking, "I'm imitating an Alpha! Where's the babes?!?!?"

These guys make up their own definitions of Alpha and Beta. They have little to do with reality. They're trying to make reality conform to their opinions, and that doesn't work. I see this over and over - hamsters spinning their wheels, female solipsism, women aren't really capable of love, they're mercenary whores and sluts, men have to pretend to be Alphas otherwise they're Betas, Gammas, Omegas.

These guys really need to get their act together, because right now, they surely don't.

This Old Man said...

@ST

I read most of the postings on the 30-something woman in The Private Man (eventually they get repetitive). People criticize her, sometimes helpfully and sometimes just meanly. She is already a lawyer, she can’t help that and, besides, the lawyers I have met are people too. Some are bad, some are ok and some are even good but they are all shockingly human. She gets advice on strategy and how to change her personality to snag a man and how she needs to be less self-centered, etc.

The one thing I did not see anyone point out is that she does not seem to think of that hoped-for man of hers as a person. She speaks of him as if he were a pet or an appliance where, if she finds the right one with the right features and a good enough temperament she can she can keep it (I mean him) and it will make her life better and more comfortable.

She does not seem to be able to see him as a fellow human being with hopes and dreams and wants and needs and faults and virtues. Someone with whom she will disagree and struggle and compromise, with whom she can build a life together, full of joys and sorrows, creating a cupboard full of memories to sustain her soul when the time comes for her to need them. Someone besides whom, with a great deal of luck, she can get to that point where, after 40 years of nagging about the dirty underwear on the bathroom floor, she cannot bear to go in there because there is nothing she has more achingly wished-for, ever in her whole life, than to see that underwear lying there, just one more time.

(I would quote here from Mark Twain’s “The Diaries of Adam and Eve” but I don’t want to spoil it. I think you might want to read it and it may make him one of your favorite author’s ever.

@The Guys: this was written by Twain as a paean to his dead wife whom he loved desperately all their life together and before. You read it at your own peril.)

This Old Man said...

@ST, BW, JV
I also think the manosphere should find a term other than “submission”. I know the biblical quotes and all but, since the feminists have created a historical fantasy of women’s enslavement by men through the ages which they have managed to pass-off as history, I suspect these blue-pill women they want to reach, hear it as “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and, by the way, there is a hickory switch behind the door.” That’s just poor salesmanship. As I have said elsewhere, if you wish to talk to the Slovenians, the Slovenian language would seem like an excellent choice.

Ceer said...

@ TOM

The one thing I did not see anyone point out is that she does not seem to think of that hoped-for man of hers as a person.

This would be an example of what they call "female solipsism".

@ Bob Wallace

Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Allow me to take your logic and apply it to another disciplne: Automobiles.

People tell me drivers exist. Some say drivers have to drive safely, while others say they go upwards of 50 mph. That's faster than a person can run, and it's CERTAINLY not safe. Mutual contradiction. The auto website put up a picture of a woman behind the wheel of a car, grabbing the steering wheel. But I got in a car, grabbed the steering wheel, guess what...NOTHING HAPPENED!

Bit by bit, all of this means that drivers don't really exist. People should just grow up and start using terms that make sense.

-- Bob, this is about how you sound to me.

metak said...

@TOM

In the previous thread you mentioned that manosphere could be American 'thing'.. etc.

I think you're right on that one. It's not present in my area as nearly as much as I thought and probably that's why it's so 'strange' to me. Finally, I just ended up replacing in those blogs men/women, with western (US,UK,Australia..) men/women, raised in Judeo-Christian Culture... case closed.

Bob Wallace said...

"-- Bob, this is about how you sound to me."

Dalrock made a post one time claiming the male version of a slut is a coward. I said that's true, but the term has always been "a cad." I've known some cads: popular, charming, well-to-do - and self-centered and cowardly. And this is what the naive call "Alphas."

They're not Alphas. They're self-centered, insecure cowards. Yet some call them Alphas.

Then you have the exact opposite of the cad: a chivalrous man, in the original sense of a man who tries to be brave, who is willing to defend the weak and helpless, who tries to be honorable and noble.

Both are supposed to be Alphas, but this cannot be, because one is the exact opposite of the other.

And that is why Alphas do not exist. And those who claim they do are trying to impose their concepts on reality, which never works.

metak said...

@Bob

Am I right in my observations that there's very little of moral courage in manosphere? To stand for what is right, no matter what?

just visiting said...

The extremism of the words dominant and submissive have been tackled before by various bloggers. Requests for words that are more socially acceptable have been made, but so far.....nothing. I suspect that we may have to delve into foreign languages.

@ Bob

I've commented here before about the slut/coward equivellance. That the social contract is about honor.
Sexual honor for women. Protection honor from men.

This is why I have always seen the anti chivallry rants in the sphere as the equivallent of slut walks.

Ceer said...

@ Bob Wallace

Both are supposed to be Alphas, but this cannot be, because one is the exact opposite of the other.

False dichotomy. They are both a mix. All real life men are mixed alpha/beta/omega to some extent.

Take the chivalrous man in the original knightly sense. Strong, physically robust (or would have been in youth), brave -- all alpha traits. Take the same chivalrous man. Willing to defend others, tries to be honorable -- that's his beta

For your cad example, he's a mix too. popular, charming, self-centered -- alpha. Well to do -- beta. cowardly -- omega.

Can't you see you come across like a 12 year old trying to play word games, and spring a "gotcha" on a minor point by finely splitting some hairs? Alpha and Beta are concepts. They are not real people. Different people will have differing opinions as to what specifically applies to these terms. That's because they all have a different experience and values setup. It's a very inductive type process.

As an aside, I've theorized before that chivalry is a form of beta game taught to European knights who were probably too busy keeping fit and knocking each other around to learn how to be acceptable marriage material. Today, the opposite problem is rampant.

Bob Wallace said...

@metak

"Am I right in my observations that there's very little of moral courage in manosphere? To stand for what is right, no matter what?"

Physical courage is cheap and overrated. It's because there is so much of it that men march off to war when it's for the wrong reasons. What is lacking is moral courage, to say "I'm not going to do this just because everyone else is."

Many of the guys in the Manosphere imitate each other's ideas. Few can say, "That's not right..it doesn't make any sense."

"I've commented here before about the slut/coward equivalence. That the social contract is about honor.
Sexual honor for women. Protection honor from men."

My experience has been that sluts are also cowards. When a woman is very promiscuous when younger, and cannot find a man, and ends up alone in an apartment with a cat, blaming all her problems on men, that to me is cowardice.

"False dichotomy. They are both a mix. All real life men are mixed alpha/beta/omega to some extent."

That is my point. There are no Alphas, no Betas, no Gammas. Every man is mixed. So the terms are not useful.

If these terms ever become commonly used, most guys are going to claim they are Alphas/Sigmas and everything else is going to an insult.

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

I can clearly see the problem here!
Your husband and you were dating in an environment where you both felt safe in the knowledge that neither of you would be taken advantage of. Him for his generosity towards you, you for your loyalty towards him. That is sorely missing in today's SMP, so everyone has to overcompensate for that, to some degree. And those who 'opt out' of the madness would have to make their own rules and ignore 'conventional wisdom'. It's crazy.
And this is why I think it is so nice to hear stories like yours, because it cements in the minds of the rest of us that such a situation DID exist and still can exist.
Familiriaty is the name of the game. Keep telling us great examples of this sort of thing, please! It is so rare nowadays to hear of success stories. It's all so jolly depressing!

Ceer and Bob,

Yes, the alpha/beta thing has been a source of confusion for me for ages! But it IS important to realise that these are traits, not whole persons, as Ceer says. And for success, men really DO need both. Here is one case where I can't think of another way to describe these characteristics other than to say 'be confident' and have a soft side too, so a woman will be attracted to you (in the first scenario) and keep being attracted to you/have comfort in your presence (second scenario) - and in that order.
I really don't see the conflict! Those guys who are nice, nice and NICE are shot down by women all the time. This is because they just are not attractive as they are. However, when a woman is already attracted to you, then she would love your niceness too. It really is that simple, as I have found out myself. So I see what these Manosphere men are saying!
But of course some take it too far (and these, perhaps I would label 'PUA') - those who think that a simple mimicry of Prince Harry being 'cheeky' is all it takes to build attraction with a good woman. It might certainly get them a woman, but not necessarily a good one...
It should be more about life principles, and being one's best self. I would certainly vouch for guys like Danny who preach this. Even if their message is mixed in with a little 'locker room' stuff which may not be to everyone's taste :-)

@ TOM,

Yes, that 30 something woman got into quite a bit of trouble as people identified her email as a 'me me me' type request for a man. I think there were men on TPM's blog who wanted to know: 'What do you offer this man that you seek?'
Her being a lawyer should not be a hindrance to her finding a husband, unless she makes it to...
I agree with you that she probably wants a 'possession' other than a human being. And that attitude, in today's SMP would get her nowhere. Thirty years ago, she might have got away with it... Not any more...

Spacetraveller said...

JV,

Yes, foreign languages are the way forward, LOL!
I realise that there are several words and expressions that I just cannot find the correct equivalents for in English...
Seriously.
In real life, I often use foreign words to describe what I mean if I cannot find the equivalent in English. And somehow, I am understood, even if the person to whom I speak doesn't speak the other language...
It's uncanny how that works, but it does.

Metak and Bob,

Hm...moral courage in The Manosphere? Not sure...
Perhaps you are right, there might be a shortage of that, if I am completely unbiased.
But the explanation for that might be that when people feel that their backs are to the wall, the first thing that flies out of the window is 'moral courage'. It takes time to rebuild it.

@ TOM,

"I also think the manosphere should find a term other than “submission”. I know the biblical quotes and all but, since the feminists have created a historical fantasy of women’s enslavement by men through the ages which they have managed to pass-off as history, I suspect these blue-pill women they want to reach, hear it as “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen..."

Absolutely. I love your point about speaking Slovenian to the Slovenians! In the same way as men would hear 'strong and independent woman' and run the other way, women will hear 'submission' and run too.
We really have to learn to speak to each other in a way that the other understands. Otherwise, it's 'epic fail', as Danny would say...

Thank you for the recommendation of Mark Twain's 'The diaries of Adam and Eve'. I never heard of it before, but I shall look it up. Of his books, I only know of 'Tom Sawyer' and 'The adventures of Huckleberry Finn'!
:-)
Great childhood favourites of mine...

Ceer said...

@ Bob Wallace

That is my point. There are no Alphas, no Betas, no Gammas. Every man is mixed. So the terms are not useful.

Moving the goal posts. I didn't see anything like this in your previous comments. You claimed mutual contradiction from alpha/beta theory and proceeded to create a strawman to argue against.

Assuming that:

-- Every man is partially alpha AND partially beta as part of his persona
-- Every man can affect changes in his persona over time for his benefit

How is studying the alpha/beta concept NOT useful? My claim is simple. That it is possible for a man to make himself a more attractive person overall via studying alpha/beta theory and applying the knowledge gained from the new perspective.

blackbird.young said...

I don't know who you are, however I just read your blog's header (I assume that's what it's named - at the top) & I presently believe you are curiously awesome.

Hopefully this isn't a misgiven projection, & in reading what you've written particularly I'll again be pleasantly welcomed by what words abound.

Currently, I had to chime in. See ya around.

Now I'll judge your writing.

Ceer said...

@ blackbird.young

Welcome to the Sanctuary.

This Old Man said...

@Ceer and ST

If alpha and beta are archetypes, they need to be clearly defined. Fuzzy archetypes are of no use to anybody. I am having trouble finding clear definitions. Definition by example does not exactly lead to clarity.

If they are archetypes of adoptable social modes (such as manners), then the oft-encountered derisive trope “She had 15 minutes of alpha and now she wants a lifetime” does not seem to make any sense. Any sufficiently enterprising and clever girl should be able to build her own alpha from a sufficiently compliant boy.

Any thoughts?


@Bob

Allow me to take issue with your comment about the cheapness of physical valor. Real physical bravery is, in my experience, quite rare. Otherwise, Medal of Honor recipients would be everywhere. What we usually encounter is the enormous power of social coercion (let us call it “the power of the herd”). Even though every fiber in my being is telling me to run away, I will face a wall of a thousand spears over the shame and censure of my fellow soldiers. Two spears in a lonely road and I am out of there as fast as my legs can take me.

Moral valor, on the other hand, requires you to confront the power of the herd, the scariest thing you ever saw. No wonder we see so little of it.

I would have let it go but I think it brings up a useful point. As every good sheep dog and cattle rustler knows, if you turn the herd to where you want it to go, pretty much every member will follow.

All that is needed is someone to turn the herds in the spheres in the right directions. The question, of course, is how?


@ST,

The Diaries of Adam and Eve by Mark Twain, Don Roberts and Michael Mojher Fair Oaks Press (2002) ISBN-10: 0965881156, ISBN-13: 978-0965881159. This is the edition I can vouch for. In this presentation the book was assembled from separate but related pieces of Twain. The editing, however, is perfect. Every single word in it is Twain’s.


@Metak,

I thought that it must be an Anglo thing at first but if so, how does it come to affect persons moving at near-the-speed-of-light through mountainous regions? Maybe not the on-line spheres phenomenon but the social conditions that give rise to it?

Ceer said...

@ TOM

If alpha and beta are archetypes, they need to be clearly defined.

There are several definitions of the terms floating around. Mostly, it's based on what a writer would like to emphasize. Made up terms were given a new meaning for a good reason. There isn't really a concise and accurate way of stating their definitions that creates little room for interpretation. I'll go for a concise but not quite all-encompassing definition.

Alpha:
male-centric view - a man who is able to live life on his own terms for his own betterment
female-centric view - any man able to generate consistent vagina tingles over a first meeting to sex time frame
neuroligical view - a man capable of eliciting strong dopamine response in women

Partial List of alpha traits:
aloofness, bravery, physical strength, charisma, leadership, cockiness, social savy


Beta:
male-centric view - a man who lives by a specific code for the betterment of society
female-centric view - a man who is good at investing and raising children
neuroligical view - a man capable of eliciting and experiencing pair bond hormones

Partial List of beta traits:
loyalty, hard work, friendliness, intelligence, caring, frugal, good with children

Note the two definitions aren't mutually exclusive. Some writers like Heartiste and Yohami may emphasize the conflict beta traits pose with regards to displaying alphaness. Others, like Athol Kay and Dalrock take a "both are needed and should be displayed in the proper situation" approach. Part of this difference lies in the value of long term relationships. Athol Kay and Dalrock are married. Heartiste and Yohami are not.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Blackbird.young,

Yes! Welcome to The Sanctuary!

Thank you for your compliments too :-)

What brought you to The Sanctuary, may I ask?

@ TOM,

"Any sufficiently enterprising and clever girl should be able to build her own alpha from a sufficiently compliant boy."

Agreed! I think this is so true...
But it is easier said than done, because many women who would so dearly love to do things a certain (correct) way, are led down the garden path by so-called conventional (feminist) wisdom, and are derailed for a huge chunk of their reproductive lives.

But it is a recoverable situation, yes.

Thank you for the details of 'The Diaries of Adam and Eve'.
Sounds like an interesting book to read! Perhaps it could be the subject of the very first book review on The Sanctuary??
:-)

@ Ceer,

That was a brilliant summary of the alpha/beta traits. Thank you.
In many ways, people pick and choose what definition they want to use. But I still say that they are clear, in the sense that one can identify what each definition means.
And it is also something that is understood when the desire to be 'alpha' is discussed by men. That makes sense. Competition is a normal masculine drive, no? Who wants to be at the bottom of the pile? Of course everyone wants to be king - at least in his own world. And with respect to women, of course that is going to mean having the best women, or at least one good one. It makes sense.
The equivalent for women is to get the best man and to have therefore the healthiest possible offspring...
I see nothing unclear about this...


Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

Male competitiveness is more about challenging yourself to improve. Loosing, while not fun, provides learning opportunities.

You're absolutely right that looking at the same thing from different angles can yield apparently different explanations.

Bob Wallace said...

"Partial List of alpha traits:
aloofness, bravery, physical strength, charisma, leadership, cockiness, social savy"


Alpha cad: cowardice, insecurity, lying, using women for sex with no concern for them, drug addiction, regret over ruined life, no serious relationships.

Alpha chivalry: bravery, nobility, noblesse oblige, not lying or stealing, loyalty.

This is why Alphas do not exist: one is the exact opposite of the other. Unfortunately, people imitate "leaders'" ideas, no matter how nonsensical they are.

Bob Wallace said...

"How is studying the alpha/beta concept NOT useful?"

Because it shows utter contempt and a complete lack of understanding of 3000 years of thought on what a man is supposed to be.

If these terms actually referred to anything in real life thinkers in the past would have commented on it. They don't.

As I have said before, there are no Alphas and no Betas, because they are concepts with no referents. They refer to nothing that exists in reality.

I'll say it again: just because some self-appointed leaders in the Manosphere write about these concepts is no reason for the confused to imitate them.

Thinkers in the past also noticed that those who devote their lives to physical pleasure invariably become degraded. That is why Roissy is a degraded man, and anyone who believes him and imitates him is looking for some very big trouble in his life.

As for Roosh, the day might come when he falls in love. If that happens, he will write a post apologizing for misleading young men and saying he was wrong and gave them terrible advice.

Bob Wallace said...

What some people have written about Roissy:

"Roissy chooses to rebut this claim about female moral superiority by revealing that he has regularly slept with other men’s wives. He also describes both men and women as vile in their natures, this being the “ugly truth” about humanity. He admits too that he is attracted to what is degraded in human behaviour.

"I do remember that you predicted such an outcome for Roissy quite early on. That people were overstating what he offered politically and that you felt instinctively repelled by his selfish nihilism.

"I thought of your assessment as I read Roissy’s post. The selfish nihilism of it was unmistakeable.

"I repeatedly said not just that Roissy is selfish and nihilistic, but that he is evil. And that was why I didn’t—and also strongly urged others not to—read his site, because to read it was to be in the presence of evil.

There is an element of truth in Roissy’s advice that Mark quotes, But it’s mixed up with something false and negative. To say that men need to be strong, that they need to be the leader in the relationship, and that that is what women want, is not the same thing as the deliberate manipulation that Roissy counsels. What he says is not good. The badness of Roissy simply radiates from everything he writes. And frankly, not intending disrespect to anyone, I feel that people who do not see this about Roissy have gone astray.

"Evil always comes mixed with good, otherwise it would have no power to attract. So Roissy offers some things that seem helpful. But (1) Roissy is evil; and (2) whatever truly valid element there is in Roissy’s advice could be found and practiced without Roissy and his baggage.

"Everything I know about Roissy, which is far more than I care to, is from the discussions of it here at VFR. Perhaps, as you say, his philosophy is evil.

"Of what there can be no doubt is that it is incredibly banal. Who can take seriously or spend time discussing a philosophy who’s main concern is ‘How To Score More Chicks’? He is no Plato.

"A lot of commentors get hung up on the question of whether what Roissy says about women is true. I believe that much of what he says is true, and it is truth, moreover, that is largely unknown because (1) The fact that women desire dominant men has been actively concealed by modern liberals/feminists; and (2) Earlier, in Victorian times, women were idealized in popular culture—they were portrayed as angelic. Roissy’s claim to fame is that he reveals the concealed truth about women.

"But Roissy is still a nihilistic destroyer. To preserve civilization, men and women must form strong families that can raise good children. Because Roissy focuses instead on how a social atom succeeds at bedhopping, he is anti-civilization."

Unfortunately, the slavish followers of "Alphas and Betas and all the rest of stuff really exists!" don't want to hear anything to the contrary. For the most part they can only engage in ad hominem attacks and attempt to scapegoat and ostracize those who point out the Emperors have no clothes.

Ceer said...

@ Bob Wallace

People have a basic nature. Those who study that basic nature have something to teach. It's not that you don't understand what those people are trying to tell you...you simply don't want to listen. This goes to the heart of the matter. Your view of Roissy, Vox Day, Roosh, and some other mannosphere bloggers puts you off. Everything in your Alpha chivalry category is what the mannosphere terms beta. Much of what you put in your Alpha cad category is what the mannosphere terms omega.

The reason why I don't take you seriously is the constant 1-2-3 punch of
1) straw man specific terms
2) Ad hominem attack
3) Claim that you know more based on the preceding 2 logical fallacies and vague reference to you being learned.

No logical thinker with any experience fails to see through this.

You occasionally come up with some good thoughts. Mentioning the lack of an american rite of passage comes to mind. I'm sure you have some other useful thoughts, but unfortunately, you spend lots of time focusing on the semantic differences rather than getting to the heart of the discussion.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bob,

I think your view of 'masculinity' is the 'classical masculinity' that JV often refers to.
It is certainly different from the type of masculnity that Roissy and Roosh preach.

I don't really know, but I suspect that if I were male, those blogs would not be my bible per se, but I have to admit that they have pretty interesting things to say. Some of what they say are downright true.
But I still wouldn't endorse their (presumed/alleged) actions.

But there is something else about these men. They both (at least it seems to me) don't have a problem with truly 'good girls'. They only want to hurt 'bad girls' or those who pretend to be 'good girls'.
This still does not excuse their behaviour, yes, but I respect them for at least differentiating between differnt types of women. I am afraid I cannot abide men who believe that all women will act a certain way if one would just push a few psychological buttons. Yes all humans are predictable to some degree...but this mindset is a dangerous one to cultivate because it leaves no room for hope or faith.
So yes, in that sense, I agree with you that should someone like Roosh fall in love with a woman, he would be completely lost. It would certainly be an interesting situation for him. Of course whilst I would be happy for him ('cos I am inclined to be, lol) I would be worried for the woman!

:-)

Ceer,

Isn't it interesting that one man's alpha is another man's beta...

It all boils down to one's own value system.
This is one reason The Manosphere cannot be written off. Because it is a mix of many value systems. Some good. Some undoubtedly unhelpful and perhaps harmful, as Bob points out.
A true melting pot.