It is not really clear to me why this is, but it seems to be very much the case:
Introverted people are often perceived not to have feelings. To be devoid of emotion.
So when once in a blue moon, an introverted person shows some emotion, everyone gets a surprise. :-)
Yes, the problem is, when Mr.or Ms. Introversion decides to let rip, it is usually akin to a volcanic eruption. :-)
I remember when I was a child, a teacher at school asked me, 'why are you Catholic?'
Given that it was a Catholic school, I felt justified in answering, 'cos everyone around me is'.
Looking back, that was quite a lame answer.
Why a religion?
Nowadays, in accordance with my new-found Red Pill faith, I would answer differently:
'Religion provides a good infrastructure for 'reframing'.'
'Cos this is one of the skills of life. One we all badly need in this modern world, I believe.
Over the course of blogging, I have come to notice that some commenters take on certain personas which is unique to them, and forge a relationship with the blogger based on this unique persona. It is quite an entertaining phenomenon. :-)
I notice this sort of interaction between blogger and commenter on almost every blog I visit, so I know this is of course not unique to this blog.
Speaking of commenters, I would just like to say that newcomer Mortan has brought me many great insights via his visit to the MGTOW post. In particular, his words about the phenomenon that is 'contentment' has prompted me to look into this further. I was going to post about this...
But as is usual with me, I got distraced by a comment from someone else.
This someone else is 'Live Free or Die'.
LFOD has, I think, assumed the role of 'court jester' here. My reaction to his comments tend to range from something between 'yeah, whatever, mate' in response to his boundary-pushing hyperbole, to 'oh no, he didn't just say that!' in response to his more outlandishly outrageous posts (Answer being, of course, yes he did just say that). :-)
Exchanging friendly fire is good for the soul, or something to that effect. :-)
I welcome commenters like LFOD, because I realise that I learn a lot from them. Not to talk of incredibly entertaining.
This latest comment, however, from LFOD, unleashed an emotion in me that I did not really expect to feel.
"Happy MGTOW Day everyone!
No dinners bought today.
No jewelry bought today.
No flowers bought today.
No chocolate bought today.
No wine bought today.
No cards bought today.
No obligations to anyone or anything.
Live Free or Die!"
I was just about to (robot-style) respond (with my usual attitude) to him:
'Happy MGTOW Day to you too, LFOD. Enjoy.'
But something stopped me.
I thought, not this time.
This whole post is of course unsolicited.
But that's just it. No-one wants to ask for this sort of rant from a stranger. :-)
This is not personal to LFOD. In fact, from this point onwards, let's all have a frank discussion about this, only referring to LFOD where absolutely necessary.
Back to childhood...
Back to the playground:
Boy A has a scuffle with Boy B and ends up 'winning' Boy B's shirt. Boy A tries on Boy B's shirt and finds it doesn't fit. Boy A then sulks off to another child, let's say, a girl, and complains to her that Boy B's shirt doesn't fit.
She doesn't get it. To his constant reminders that he won the shirt 'fair and square', all she can say is, 'but it's not yours! Wouldn't it be better if you returned Boy B's shirt to Boy B and you just wear your own shirt?'
The girl does not get it because perhaps she is not meant to. She doesn't understand the complex rules by which Boy A and Boy B are playing.
But this girl does. Which is why she feels the raw emotion of deep sadness. In typical exaggerated hyperbole (to resort to tautology!) she would call it a tragedy.
Yes, Boy B is analogous to mainsteam media/current culture/feminism/whatever. Boy A and the girl need no introduction, I hope.
Why would anyone take on the views of someone else and whine to a third party that it does not sit well with them?
Who told LFOD that Valentine's Day is all about wining and dining a lady and bringing her flowers, chocolate and diamonds?
And more importantly, why did he buy into this harmful piece of information?
To conform?
To comply?
Because he had no other solution?
But there is always another solution.
Some people know when the are being taken for a ride. They shrug their shoulders and go along for the ride anyway. Others in the same boat have no idea what's happening...until...they finally wake up... when the vehicle they are in...crashes.
Someone won the booby prize (considering it was won from Mama Feminism, this is not a bad pun!) and now doesn't like his winnings.
Someone should give back the shirt that doesn't fit. It is not his. It will never fit.
St. Valentine's Day is a religious festival. Like Christmas, or Easter, or the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul.
It was never meant to be hijacked by our materialistic society for the gains of chocolate makers or florists.
If we buy that lie, that it is a day to give women cards or seven course meals, it is our fault for absorbing bad information.
St. Valentine was a Catholic priest who sought to take a stance against a cruel emperor who was so keen to win wars that he made it a law that no man should marry in order not to 'distract' them from fighting. Emperor Caludias wanted to make every man a MGTOW whether he liked it or not. :-)
St. Valentine knew there were men and women in his diocese who wanted to marry. So he married them, in secret. For this cime, he was imprisoned, tortured and eventually decapitated.
But before dying, he healed the (blind) daughter of one of his jailors, and his very last words were to her, in a note he signed off with the words, 'from your Valentine'.
Cue the association with romantic love. :-)
St. Valentine, much like St. Jerome must be turning over in his grave by now. He made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that the young people of his era received one of the most enriching sacraments of life. St. Jerome warned against marriage, of course - but only for those who were not ready for it, I conclude. These two saints teach us a lot about real love, and not the 'fairies in a cloud' variety that is sold to the general public in bucket-loads on one day in mid-February.
Instead of absorbing what is routinely sold to us in the mainstream media, and then moan about it, why don't we see things for what they really are? Why don't we 're-frame'?
Why don't we stop this rot by re-framing in our own minds what is right?
What is wrong with going to a lecture on St. Valentine, on St. Valentine's Day?
What is wrong with going to Mass on St. Valentine's Day and praying that the love which St. Valentine had for his fellow man would be bestowed on us too?
What is wrong with asking a girl to 'be your Valentine' without giving her a truckload of shiny objects?
What is wrong with a woman giving a man something, no matter how small, on St. Valentine's Day?
What is wrong with a kind act towards a stranger because it is for the love of St. Valentine, on St. Valentine's Day?
Answer: nothing.
Gentlemen, feminism may have taken over in a big way, but it is still your duty to...
Civilise us!
Honestly, we implore you...
You show the way, you decide how an important feast day is to be celebrated, you lead the way.
I promise you, we women will follow.
If you fail to take the lead, we ladies are left scratching our heads and wondering where all the good men went...
:-)
Important note:
This post is not, I hope the violation of Nature that one might conclude it is. I am not telling you men what to do, really...and certainly not how to do it...I am just throwing a favourite catch-phrase of mine around...:-)
My hamster spins it thus: I am reacting emotionally to what LFOD may see as a triumphant 'throwing down of the gauntlet', but which I (being of the feminine persuasion) see oh so very differently.
I mean well though. I hope that much is clear.
Sometimes, (I think), it is better to show someone why he is not a victim, than to commiserate with his perceived victimhood. I hope this post achieves the former and not the latter.
