Go Beyond

Only read if you don't mind being offended.

Leading Women vs Controlling Women

If it weren't bad enough that "intersectional" feminism was at its hey-day, male feminism is starting to blossom and compete for angsty movement of the year. Allow me to explain.

Movements tend to start off well intentioned.

  • I can't vote. I would like to be able to vote.
  • I can't sit in the same bus seats as white people.
  • If she doesn't have to pay child support, I shouldn't have to pay it, either.

These eventually become:

  • I DEMAND equal pay, paid maternity leave, paid abortions, and paid hysterectomies!
  • 2% of whites and 40% of Jews enslaved us 200 years ago, so I deserve priority in job placement, free education, and a free phone.
  • Women are disgusting pig whores who need to be controlled to protect them from themselves!

Whether or not the people behind the original movement ever wanted it to go that far.

As with my previous post, I believe that people tend to get alienated by the dramatic split of those who will not consider controversial opinions in the slightest and those who take them to the extreme. In my mind, there's obvious merit to women not being able to vote, seggregation, and men being entirely responsible for child support. But does it outweigh the counter arguments? I don't think they do.

Today, I'll focus on what I'm calling "male feminism". I don't really know what else to call it. It's a mixture of the Incel movement, The Red Pill movement (only some parts of it practiced by some people), Men's Rights Advocate movement, and the approach taken by Emergency Nation.

There's a lot here that I can get behind or at least entertain.

  • It's ridiculous that many women are clammoring for equality but aren't part of the draft and have a huge advantage in child custody cases and in divorce court.
  • A huge number of women who pursue careers instead of families are quite unhappy for it.
  • In the US, in today's day and age, men tend to get the short end of the stick.

Now, the next-generation mindset I am seeing tends to go like this:

  • My mom never loved me and all of my exes were bad to me.
  • Women are terrible, but I still want to have sex.
  • I'm going to find a way to get women to give me what I want.

Sounds familiar?

  • My dad never loved me and all of my exes were bad to me.
  • Men are terrible, but I still want to have sex and be bought things.
  • I'm going to find a way to get men to give me what I want.

Hmm. Worked for women really well. I'm sure the results will be different with men.

Hurt begets hurt

Unfortunately, once someone is hurt, unless they process and come to terms with that hurt, they usually just spread it around until everyone else is hurt and doing the same thing back to them, if they weren't already. I certainly empathize with men who have had terrible experiences with women and women who have had terrible experiences with men. But to me, it's settling, avoiding the best parts of life, and ultimately tends to involve controlling the opposite sex to get what you want, rather than any sort of healthy relationship.

Now there's a couple parts to this. There's the angst and the rational arguments. I'd like to address both.

Bitter and probably trying to control

Let me start with Emergeny Nation. This is a group who are trying to start a new nation. It's very active on Voat and I commend the group, especially the founder 7e62ce85, for his investment in it. They're very serious and have lots of good points. In a way, they are a lot more bold than Goat's Gulch and have an actual constitution together.

One of the primary tenents is that women cannot vote. I'll get to that in particular later on, but I don't think it's just a rational decision when one in every few posts is something about women being the worst thing since moldy bread.

Emergeny Nation on Voat

Keep in mind, Emergency Nation has been a while and they seem to focus more on making fun of feminism than solving for how to actually start a country. They do a bit of both, but this gives me a feeling that the movement is more anti-women than pro-setting up a country. What does that solve?

Oddly enough, Voat's Red Pill subverse is actually a lot more well rounded than Reddit's. Reddit's is actually the extreme one in this case. This is less less about being bitter and more about trying to find ways to use women.

The Red Pill on Reddit

One of the posterchild posts is this one: 10 mistakes I’ve made in game; avoid these pitfalls (Archive link)

Here's a quick quote from it:

Yoga Girl

Leading vs controlling

The rational side of this can go into many, many tangents. I'll try to boil it down to a few.

Are women worth objectifying?

I'm going to say no, but this generally applies to anyone. In my own experience (and yours may vary), opening up to someone generally goes a lot better than not. Shallow connections don't really add any value to my life. Actually getting to know someone as a means unto themselves and not as a means unto an end can be difficult, but gives me the opportunity to grow in the process.

I've learned so much from women that I know if I had been trying to keep them in a distant cage in my mind, I would not have benefitted so much. Were all of the experiences good? Absolutely not! But by and large, even with all of the painful experienes I've had, I'm a better person for it. If women were solely for sexual gratification in my life, I would be a worse man for it today.

What is a healthy relationship?

Now I agree with the growing trend of traditionalism that things generally work better when a man is leading and a woman follows. Most of the time, it's playing to the strong suits of both. But leading isn't easy and following isn't, either.

I would say a healthy relationship is one that isn't catching you off guard. You both know the other's expectations and why you're each there. Creepiness is the feeling you get when someone appears to want something from you but they won't say what. Unfortunately, that happens a lot, even as a man I've experienced it a number of times and leaves me pretty uncomfortable. I imagine it's a lot worse for women. Generally speaking, it doesn't matter what you want. If you say it openly and you only want that thing as long as the other person is happy with it and not hurt in the process, you're golden. A lot of people are uncomfortable with what they want, so they spring it on someone and both get hurt in the process. There's 7 billion people on the planet, odds are what you're looking for isn't that impossible or that strange. And maybe it's unreasonable and won't make you happy, but that's another matter.

I think a lot of men are getting tripped up thinking they're leading when they're actually controlling. The Reddit Red Pill example is a perfect one for that. It's all about "game". I have approximately zero game and I'm proud of that. Game definitely can work, but it's generally going to get you weak, insecure women who won't add a lot of value to your life, or good women who you'll simply hurt. The concept of game is that you act in a certain way to play someone into giving you what you want from them. It's not to say that it's wrong to have a shower before a date or actively choose to not harp on about something she has no interest in. What you don't want to do is act like someone other than yourself. Be authentic and honest if you want someone to respect you back. It's okay to say you're only looking for someone to sleep with (even though I don't think that's a good idea). It's not okay to play interested, get what you want, and leave.

Interestingly, women often seem to use game. Like men, many women are insecure and think they can only get what they want by being indirect. Even though I'm extremely upfront, I've had cases before where a woman thought she had to sleep with me even for me to keep talking to her. This is sad and completely unhealthy. It makes the sex bad as well, because she's doing it to keep you and you think she might actually be enjoying it. If people are honest with eachother, eventually this should happen less and less.

I'm going to give two examples of women with zero game.

Zero game woman #1

I drove up to Wyoming to meet a woman who actually asked me out. This was a bit odd, naturally I was expecting a no-show or a man to turn up. Instead, it was a beautiful woman who drove up in a truck for sushi. She was intelligent, witty, very funny, and completely captivating. She had absolutely zero game. She took bites that were way too big, she told me all kinds of details about her family but never for me to pity her (it was pretty obvious), that she had cheated on her ex while he was in basic, and that she drank a lot. While there is nothing attractive about a cheater or even drinking in my mind, she was so authentic that I couldn't help but like her. She seemed to care what I think, but not enough to act differently so I would like her. Nothing she did was just to try and get me to like her. She wasn't trying to use me in the slightest, even to validate her own emotions. This made it one of the best dates I've ever been on.

Zero game woman #2

I met a woman on Tinder who said she was only looking for friends and that she had moved down to Colorado from Oregon. She wasn't sure where she would settle in Colorado, but wanted to make friends and get to know the area. I thought that was fine. I let her borrow one of my bicycles and I took her downtown. She flew off the sidewalk and into the creek. Pretty funny first impression and she handled it really well. I never found a ton in common with her, but ended up becoming good friends. She was upfront about everything, bad news first. She asked me how I thought she looked on a scale of 1-10. She emphasized that she wanted me to be honest and that she actually wanted me to answer the question. I told her 3, she said that she thought it was more like a 1 and I didn't get slapped or any funny looks. She actually meant it.

I think what made both of these women likeable is nothing unique to women in general. It's the same thing when you approach a woman. If you're authentic and not narcissistic, if they have much humanity in them they will appreciate you for it. In my experience, you're more likely to connect, to learn, to grow, and even to get what you want, or something better than what you thought you wanted.

It's completely okay to tell a woman that you want a relationship where you will listen to her, but that you are ultimately in charge. It's then up to her to decide if that's what she wants or not. On the other hand, part of leadership is also letting people making their mistakes and learning from them, being willing to give advice if asked along the way. But most of all, being a leader is living in such a way that others want to follow you.

Should women vote?

Now, the stats don't lie. Women tend to vote a lot more liberal than men, especially college educated women. A lot of women are not hard workers and a lot of women are not resilient. And women, generally, are more emotional and less rational.

That said, everyone is on a bell curve. I've met women who were way more rational than me, with higher pain tolerance, and probably harder workers, too. This also means that if women aren't qualified to vote, plenty of men aren't, either. Now I think democracy is quite overrated and the idea that no matter what you do, you're only worth one vote is just absurd to me. But that's a whole other topic. The real question should be about whether women should be involved in government or not. I think a healthy skepticism is good, but it doesn't make sense to make one arbitrary distinction and divide on that line. While some things, no doubt, will be better of women aren't voting, I don't think that would hold very long. And the thing is that men gave women the right to vote. And women have influenced Monarchs for thousands of years. They already have an influence whether you like it or not.

If, you're going to have a society with a voting concept, and if you care about the quality of the voter, set some kind of arbitrary standard. A test that's purposeful, shows rational thought, knowledge of what's being voted for and whom, and let whichever citizen vote. There are going to be 14 year old girls who are qualified and 50 year old men who are not. Not normally, but enough of the time. This way, there is a bar that anyone can reach if they have the will to. And it demonstrates, naturally, the differences between men and women without an unnnecessary and artificial means. While I appreciate the controversial opinion of women not voting (and if you know me, you probably know that I like keeping controversial opinions alive), but sadly I cannot get behind it as it solves nothing, makes women upset for a pretty valid reason, and ultimately resets us to arbitrary distinctions rather than merit being the deciding factor. The thing is, if you think you shouldn't vote, if you're a man, a woman, or something else, then don't. Way too many people go to the polls with no idea of what they're voting on, with no concept of economics or government, and think they're "making democracy stronger". That's foolish.

One vote per family

By far the most sensible part of the argument for women not voting is the concept of a vote per family. To me, it doesn't make sense for households to be voting against eachother. If you can't agree on how the country should be ran, or reach a compromise, what kind of family is that? As a man, you should always listen to your woman, whatever the topic, and depending on your relationship, make the decision and stick with it. Or, defer if she's genuinely more qualified than you are with the matter at hand.

She's going to have very, very valid points. And some that are completely off the wall. But whatever the case, women have always had an influence even if not direct. In my mind, the family unit is one of the greatest pillars of a successful society. But to me it is not one ran by force. If you are a man who genuinely believes a woman will be happier following, tell her that and show her why. Don't write the laws so it's her only choice, then there's no pride in it if she does. Instead she is only following what she must follow, less any consequences that would befall her.

This is the carrot vs the stick. If a traditional family is such a grand idea, why do you have to force it? A good follower follows even when they are unsure. A good follower also knows how to decide who to follow. A good leader sticks his neck out first every time, takes responsibility, and admits when he's wrong.

The downfall of the modern woman

The downfall of the modern woman is predominantly the fault of men. Men raising their daughters with no expectations, with all of the freedom of a man but none of the responsibilties. With the idea that being cute is a virtue in itself and makes up for incompetency, poor character, and dishonesty. If women want to be treated as equal, they must take the good with the bad, and we must give them that. Otherwise, we are just enabling the behavior, giving absolutely terrible women the time of day just because they are women. Women need to work just as hard as men, maybe in different ways depending on your view. If they don't work, if they don't cry, if they don't have hardships, they will not turn out to be anyone notable at all. Worse, they will probably become monsters just as men do under similar circumstances.

Wrapping up

I think traditional families are not for everyone, and that's fine. I may not agree, but I don't have to. Men being leaders is not for everyone. You can pursue whatever you like.

As far as Emergency Nation goes, I think they have every right to pursue what they have been. I just want to point out the glaring error I see and while there's much I like, the arbitrary line and blatantly anti-woman stance is not for me. It's one thing to be pro-man, it's another to be anti-woman which is being against the very fabric families are built on. We cannot survive without women. We can either try to put them in a box and use them how we please, or offer them a compelling argument for a better life. If we're right, women will listen to us and in many cases not vote, or let us decide whom and what to vote for. If we're right, feminism will continue to prove the miserable single cat lady life while making our case better and better.

Obviously, I'm not the best example and I don't completely know what I'm talking about as I'm 27 and not married yet. But I'm grateful for the failings I've had as they've taught me many things that I wouldn't have learned otherwise.

Make up your own mind, don't let me decide for you.

If you're curious, here's the Emergency Nation Handbook.

If you want to understand more about having healthier relationships and/or pursuing a mate, I highly recommend the following books:

  • Models: Attract Women With Honesty
  • The Subtle Art Of Not Giving A F*ck
  • Everything is F*cked

All by Mark Manson.

Thanks for reading!