Storytelling

storyteller2

“If a story is not about the hearer he will not listen. And here I make a rule – a great and interesting story is about everyone or it will not last.”  – East of Eden

About 3 months ago there was a very interesting side conversation of the main article topic in the comments. The movie 300 came up and how it was or wasn’t a good illustration of conventional masculinity. I’ll just say that from a purely pulp fantasy perspective I loved the movie. And as a fantasy it was great, but both men and women like to romanticize various times and stories in history to suit their desires, as well as reinforce their beliefs.

I think many retromasculinty subscribers get caught up in what YaReally calls LARPing – live action roleplaying – with regards to how these fantasies become romanticized ideals that were neither true of that period, nor are they really relevant for contemporary times. With today’s communication and ubiquitous movie animation it’s all too simple for the less socially savvy to latch on to old books heroic ideals.

But as I said, I loved the movie and I can see how heroic movies in this theme appeal to men frustrated by modern societal circumstance. If that mythological fantasy inspires them to greater aspiration I would say they do serve some purpose – for personal visualization if nothing else.

Unfortunately anything that celebrates masculinity today just becomes a target of ridicule and homosexual shaming for heterosexual men. It’s ironic how a fem-centric society will embrace flagrant homosexuality as normative yet when a heterosexual man celebrates his maleness he’s shamefully suspected of being homosexual himself. This in effect is a way to contain conventional masculinity in something that the Feminine Imperative hopes will control it.

I have on 3 separate occasions at 3 separate evangelical churches seen the ‘going off to war’ scene from 300 used as a ridiculous marketing tool to inspire ‘christian’ men to go to a Christian Men’s weekend retreat. It’s the part where the 300 are ranked up in front of Leonidas and he’s surveying their fitness for battle. The language is in french and the english subtitles are swapped in for some suitably ridiculous dialog between the men and Leonidas and Leo’s wife (whom he refers to as “snuggle bear” or some shit).

This is a good example of the feminine-primary ridicule of masculinity that Churchianity co-opts into Christian Culture. They are all too ready, maybe even more ready, to pander to men’s LARPing instinct while simultaneously ridiculing anything that might hint at men celebrating their maleness – much less finding any realistic empowerment from it. And the real tragedy is that it’s these self-same christian men who are creating these parodies of themselves.

The Imperative Awakens

I’m going to paraphrase a bit here, but there’s an idiom that states if you can control the art and imagination of a culture you can subdue that culture. I may be butchering that, but the drift is that when you supplant an ‘organic’ idealism with the ideological seeds of what you believe ‘ought to be’ you begin by stirring the imagination at an early age.

When we’re in our early youth we’re like intellectual sponges from the age of 5 on into (and beyond) our teenage years. So it should come as no surprise that male idealism finds its most formative roots when we’re kids. Even when our imaginations aren’t fed by myths and stories boys will take up the role of creating them for themselves. The details of exactly what we create and romanticize are less important than how we came to identifying with it and how it influences our identities later in life.

I’m prefacing here with this to give you an understanding of just how easy it’s become for a feminine-primary social order to influence this nascent idealism in boys and later men. The human race is one based on stories. First it was oral histories and later those were recorded in written languages. Telling stories is how we used to learn, and really still do in a more detailed fashion with the rise of technology and global communications. When boys are playing out the roles of characters presented to them they are enacting the ideals of what’s represented in those stories.

SPOILER ALERT – If you haven’t seen Star Wars, The Force Awakens yet, you’ll want to skip this next part until you do.

I recently watched the latest installment of the Star Wars series, The Force Awakens, and as you might guess it’s virtually impossible for me to see any popular media without my Red Pill Lenses on. Going in I had no doubt that I’d be subjected to the messaging of the Feminine Imperative, but I loved the original series and even the much maligned prequels, so I knew I’d want to see this one.

I fondly remember seeing the original Star Wars in the theater when it released in 1977. I was 9 years old and I absorbed the fantasy and mythology of it as you might expect a boy would. Heroism, daring, fighting, and all the comic book bravado I was already steeped in was more than satisfying, but there was also the element of mythology and moralism that crept into the story arc in the sequels.

Of course I couldn’t appreciate it then, but that mythology was a carefully crafted aspect of the original stories. There’s a great book, and I think documentary, called The Power of Myth about the Star Wars series that I later found an appreciation for as I got older and made the connections with the classics I also loved in college.

So with this in the back of my head I went to see The Force Awakens, and with a Red Pill perspective I could appreciate the complete, feminized, bastardization of this original, well crafted mythology.

Granted the story arc carefully followed from the original Star Wars movie; Death Star, small weakness, heroic last minute attempt to destroy it, galaxy saved when the bigger Death Star explodes, the end. The basic plot is essentially the same and left me thinking that this was more of a rewrite than any real progression from the original trilogy.

Overall it felt very hurried. There was the presumption of familiarity with, and between, all of the new characters, but within the familiar formula-theme (you know the Titanic sinks and you know the Death Star explodes) the lack of character development is obviously something the writers will explore in future sequels.

It’s important to keep this copping of the old formula in mind, because what J.J. Abrams does in this effective retelling is important when you begin to see the bastardization and the influence of the Feminine Imperative in the story. For the past decade there’s been a popular push to assimilate old, formulaically successful films and story franchises and retell them from a feminine-primary perspective. Recently that was the Mad Max rehash that casts the main character as an ambiguously masculine woman. In 2016 the ‘all-female-but-don’t-call-it-all-female’ version of Ghost Busters is slated for release. Hell, even 300 got the ‘make it feminine primary’ treatment with its sequel.

It’s no secret that there’s been a dearth of original storytelling in Hollywood for the better part of the 21st century. Thus, the want to return to the old magic that got the last 3 generations inspired. 80’s cartoons, now classic sci-fi and fantasy franchises, and golden era comics serves as a deep well of movie-ready stories, but none are retold without the ubiquitous pervasiveness that the Feminine Imperative requires of its storytellers today.

Killing Heroes in Male Space

I was not shocked in the slightest that the first heroic casualty of the film would be Han Solo; and slain by his neurotic, identity conflicted son no less. It was apropos for a retelling of the classic formula that would see all semblances of conventional masculinity erased from what is intended to be a new classic. Han Solo represented the last of a kind, the brash, self-assured, cocky scoundrel that women cannot resist – the “I love you.” “I know.” brand of rake.

In an earlier iteration Captain Kirk from the original Star Trek series held the same old books bravado, and minus the outlaw, anti-hero aspect of Solo, Kirk was essentially the same character (if not with a bit more responsibility). If I had the stomach to do so, it would be an interesting social experiment to do a cross-generational comparative analysis of the characters from the original Star Trek series cast with the Next Generation cast of the early 90s. Even if you only have a cursory understanding of both series, you can see the generational capstones evident in the main characters of each generation, separated by less than 30 odd years.

It might seem a bit foolish to use flights of fancy as archetypes that define the character of a generation, but remember this is science fiction, and that genre describes a want for how that generation sees the future unfolding – even when it is just fantasy. Were it not de rigueur for the franchise I might expect J.J. Abrams to delete the iconic “A long time ago”, part of a galaxy far, far away.

What Star Wars and other long established story franchises represent to the prophets of the Feminine Imperative is twofold. First and foremost they represent familiar vehicles into which the ideological messaging of the imperative can be palatably digested. Second, they represent opportunities of the retribution and restitution for perceived wrongs that feminism has always sought after.

Paint it Pink

As I mentioned earlier, these classic feminine-interpreted remakes are glaring examples of the lack of any truly creative storytelling for some time. I had to laugh a bit when I’d seen that The Mighty Thor (classic conventional masculine archetype) had been “bravely” replaced by a female Thor in the comics recently. The story formula remains the same, but the gender is swapped. Not for nothing, but if Marvel were truly ‘brave’ about a gender swap they’d make Red Sonja a ginger male barbarian who goes around wantonly killing women to prove he’s as good as any woman in combat.

However, the gender swaps, the killing of long established, storied masculine characters, and the appropriation of classic, heroic masculine story formulae (even all-male comedies) all represent the jealous need to retell and rehash in a way that denies and discredits Male Space. The attempts (like Star Wars) are feeble retellings of exactly the same stories with women characters and women’s interests inserted into what formerly accounted for male space storytelling.

Blue Pill readers may read this last assertion and think, well, that’s kind of a stretch, but what you should ask yourselves is why those well established franchises are such attractive, more attractive, endeavors than making the efforts to create a new story to tell that conveys the same, feminine primary, social narrative? Why remake Mad Max as a woman? Why give Thor a sex change rather than create a new character in a new franchise that embodies the same ideals the imperative hopes will ride on the old ones?

Because that ideology, by and of itself, is neither believable nor admirable to men. Those bastardized, contrived notions of feminine empowerment are only legitimized in a world, fantasy or otherwise, that was created by men. So we get a girl Jedi (my guess is Disney will eventually make Rey a princess) who is all things to everything. And we get a bumbling, reluctant male “hero” who’s stumbles along needing her aid at every obstacle. Compare the character of Finn with that of Han Solo and you begin to understand why Solo needs to die when the Star Wars franchise playground passes into the hands of a director who’s been steeped in feminine-primacy for a lifetime.

Now, all of this might seem like an effort in pointing out the obvious for most Red Pill aware men. After all, it was this time last year that I wrote the Red Pill Lens, and even if I hadn’t most Red Pill men are painfully aware of how saturated in the imperative that popular media/culture truly is. Bear in mind, the Disney marketing juggernaut had the entire world aware of all the new characters’ names, the basic plot and a million different co-branding effort in every imaginable, and unrelated, variety since the beginning of June this year.

But all this comes back to the stories we tell ourselves. What flights of fancy we romanticizes and idealize (idolize?) in our youth, as well as the ones we reminisce over later in life. It’s one thing to point out how boys are taught to gender loathe in school or how our teachers instill us with their own ideological bents, but that learning goes far beyond the formal institutionalized kind. Flights of fancy, imaginative storytelling, the games we play as children and adults are indulgences we want to play a part in willingly. We like that kind of teaching, we look forward to it; but even so, feminine-primacy is ready to co-opt that desire for it’s own ends.

And that is how you subdue a culture.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

248 comments on “Storytelling

  1. What is that Keyser Soze, the MGTOW fight song?

    You have me confused with someone that is not an optimistic red pill aware game enthusiast.

    Lord help me, I got itchy keyboard fingers. And my pressure of speech is coming back.

    By the way, I’m having a wonderful holiday season. Can’t remember one this good. Very much thanks to Rollo Tomassi. I’m making it work out here in the trenches. I hope that you can coax many more men through triage.

    Best of wishes for you and your family in the new year Rollo!

  2. There’s a giant elephant in the room everyone’s ignoring.

    The Spartan men, those mighty, manly 300, were all bisexuals and were raised to have sex with men beginning in boyhood. In fact, many ancient Greek thinkers (and a few moderns) argued male relationships to be far superior to male-female relationships, the later being lower because they are nearly always, always, always for most heterosexual contacts connected to the female instinct to breed. When Aristotle discusses the superior good it’s an activity that is done for the sake of the activity itself, it’s not difficult to put sex into the formula. Women have sex with most men for many reasons and sexual pleasure is only one of those reasons.

    It’s more than a little funny that Christian evangelical men would hero worship Spartan solders.

    That said, the problem most American men face in the sex market is simply a matter of supply and demand. For most men, their demand for sex greatly exceeds the supply of pussy. This gives women tremendous power over most men (90%? 95%? 99%?). Game teaches men to mimic the characteristics of the few alphas. The ancient pagan solution was to foster bisexuality in men.

    Now, it’s even more than a little funny that feminists would embrace male homosexuality. I’ve asked feminists if they really want to lift the ingrained cultural prohibition against male homosexuality. They ask why? I respond, “men won’t need you.” This is typically followed by your typical childish female shaming. I’ve asked most of my buddies if they would have anything to do with women if they didn’t need them for sex. Would they purchase an overly priced rock, get down on one knee, ask dear princess for marriage, and work in a soul crushing job and put up with an abusive boss to support her? They don’t like that question. In fact, the more beta they are, the more they hate it.

  3. Omg. You have a guy who everyone says is a loser and who the woman is too good for….somehow gain her admiration and respect and attraction through the force of his charisma (bonus points for those who spot which DHV Finn hits)….sounds like something we all have experience with…..rhymes with name.

    Remember….she starts giving him her hand, she wears his jacket, she still smiles at him even though he confessed to lying to her and literally being her enemy, and the only reason she uses her grrrrl power is to help him. As soon as the fight is over she runs to him and cries over his body.

  4. “The Spartan men, those mighty, manly 300 . . .”

    . . . gave so much social power to their women that it was blamed for the eventual fall of Sparta.

  5. “There’s a giant elephant in the room everyone’s ignoring.

    It’s more than a little funny that Christian evangelical men would hero worship Spartan solders.”

    YGBSM. Who’s room and what Christian evangelical’s are you describing?

    Please state your bias before waltzing in and blithely commenting making shit up. Or, what is that Q.E.D thingy that KFG keeps mentioning? Last time I checked there was not any homo-eroticists here.

  6. @YGBSM and KFG – He’s not “making shit up”, he’s misrepresenting it slightly. When he says Spartan soldiers were trained for bisexuality, what he’s not describing is that Spartan older Spartan soldiers were supposed to have sex with younger Spartan boys in training, but that these relationships were to cease in adulthood. There were some boys who still fucked their adult Spartan mentors/sex partners in adulthood but they were shamed and most Spartan men took wives and were encouraged to do so.

    This is also a common practice in numerous primitive societies today, in say Afghanistan and numerous Arab countries where men have sex with adolescent boys, but are otherwise heterosexual and have sex with women, and not adult men.

    This is an adaptive strategy for men who are denied sex in other ways in repressive cultures like Islam, and in the case of Spartans, they thought that love and erotic relationships between experienced and novice soldiers would solidify combat loyalty and encourage heroic tactics as men vied to impress their lovers.

    But yes, indeed it’s hysterical that Evangos would use the iconography of Spartan soldiers given their overt homosexual behavior. However, I’m not sure why any of this matters…

  7. @KFG – Focus, please. My retort to you was that I’m having a hard time finding fresh cukes in my world, given my situation in it (53, single). I’m picking from the cukes available now, you are not. You didn’t really offer any response to that, other than to be better at Game – this is obviously what we are all doing.

    The ecology and culture really matter. I’m not hopeless, I’m just dealing with what I see every day. Let me offer the categories of women I meet and how I see LTR potential as an illustration, not meant literally but rather as a thought starter:

    – Under 25yo. Only short term for me. I cannot marry them and have a life with them.
    – Over 25yo and still single, low N. Still hard, and really, I don’t want to have any more children at my age. Such women don’t want to marry guys who don’t want kids. And they are very rare these days.
    – Over 25yo with an N over 10. What’s the point? She’ll likely leave and also will want kids when she changes lanes.
    – Wall hitters. Such a woman is fucked in the head and looking for beta provision. I would rather fucked prostitutes.
    – Divorcees in their 30s and early 40s. I could just as easily put a hand grenade up my ass and pull the pin.
    – Women in their 30s and 40s who never married. Every last one of them that I’ve met is completely fucking insane. Seriously. They have been ruined by FI enabled narcissism irredeemably.

    The only chance for LTR seems to be widows. Now, I do take your advice from the other day to heart. I’m taking it all as it comes and working what comes my way in whatever way I can. I’m also bringing a much higher level of game and social intelligence to it. But the above seems to be the world I encounter every day.

  8. @Scribbler: “He’s not “making shit up” . . .”

    I’ve read Xenophon.

    ” . . . it’s hysterical that Evangos would use the iconography of Spartan soldiers . . .”

    They never have and likely never will be able to reconcile their Christian faith with the fact that the classical world, both Greek and Roman, the foundation of western civilization, was pagan.

    And for the Americans there is also the issue that the Spartans were essentially commies to deal with.

    “Focus, please.”

    Ditto; weren’t me.

    “– Divorcees in their 30s and early 40s. I could just as easily put a hand grenade up my ass and pull the pin.”

    I’m with ya, dude.

  9. ScribblerG:

    Agree with you on your assessment of LTR viability.

    Something I learned about the workforce a while back. I have always been an employee, never managed or ran my own thing. My experience is that it matters the most what your boss thinks of you, not what you actually do.

    Now you need to be competent, and people who get a rep for troublemaking or incompetence, that will follow them. But I’ve had bosses who thought I was great, others who eliminated my position or wouldn’t promote me. There is only so much you can do to make an impression. Best advice I would give anyone if your boss doesn’t like you, try a little bit to change it, then just give up and find another position. You aren’t going to change their assessment of you.

    This can be used for LTR assessment. I know divorcees are high risk and I will probably not be respected by them long term. No matter what I do. My marriage was cooked from Day One because of my ex, and it really didn’t matter what I did.

    So I suppose it’s possible that you or I will just have a great fit with a carousel rider or divorcee, but I would set expectations low. That’s just reality today.

  10. @SJF

    “Please state your bias before waltzing in and blithely commenting making shit up. Or, what is that Q.E.D thingy that KFG keeps mentioning? Last time I checked there was not any homo-eroticists here.”

    Sorry. Had I known you were such a sensitive baby I would have toned down my rhetoric.

    @scribblerg

    I’m not misrepresenting anything. This information widely available. Most pagan men were bisexual. Suetonius wrote that Julius Caesar was known as “every woman’s man and every man’s woman.”

    When Spartan men were eventually married to a woman, to re-acclimate them to heterosexuality, they would glue whiskers to the bride’s cheeks. Know what Spartan men made the boys swallow to give them courage? I’ll give you one guess.

    “However, I’m not sure why any of this matters…”

    As I wrote, It has to do with the supply and demand in the sex market place and how most heterosexual men today struggle to get sex and most often have to resort to these shameful and lopsided marriage contracts that are, in essence, prostitution contracts.

  11. I finally saw Star Wars, and for the “losers” who think Rollo spoiled it, you missed nothing. I agree it’s a kid’s movie, geared for kids, it’s not great, even by a long shot. This film won’t win any awards for acting (some characters had “high English” and some talked like they were from Jersey), it was just sloppy, poorly done, and every PC/FI thing was hit. All the “in the know” or “leader” characters were women, or female. I saw it, only because I was a kid, was with kids, and wanted to see what the hype was, plus I love popcorn. The movie is indeed hurried, it’s FI drenched, and it’s a rewrite of the original. There were no “plot twists”, except Han getting killed, and you could see it coming a million miles away. Fen is “sensitive” man, who “lies” and “fakes” his way to the resistance, and Ren is the “bad ass” who flies anything, fights anything, and masters Jedi traits in minutes. I wouldn’t even say it was that entertaining, it felt sloppy, and literally, every scene as I stated was a re-write…even the Star Wars Catina scene. JJ Abrams will be lauded, but it’s really a poorly put together film, with the same script as the original, except “Princess Botox” is 100 lbs heavy, bloated and looks near death’s door. Chewey hasn’t aged a bit, and still could pull late 20’s girls if he developed his Game! 🙂

  12. @Bachelorocles

    “Sorry. Had I known you were such a sensitive baby I would have toned down my rhetoric.”

    Thank you. I appreciate the thoughtfulness on my behalf.

    But I still don’t get your message.

    As you wrote, “It has to do with the supply and demand in the sex market place and how most heterosexual men today struggle to get sex and most often have to resort to these shameful and lopsided marriage contracts that are, in essence, prostitution contracts.”

    Nor do I understand what this thirst has to do with anachronistic practices of the Spartans and the Romans.

  13. @SJF

    I’m simply discussing the methods used by the ancients to address the problem of the imbalance between male demand for sex and the supply of pussy. There’s clearly imbalance, otherwise game would be unnecessary, no? Otherwise, women would be unable to so manipulate most men, no?

    I’m not sure what you’re after here? Are you joining my discussion? Or are you demanding I account for my existence to you?

  14. @Bachelorocles

    I’m not sure what you’re after here? Are you joining my discussion? Or are you demanding I account for my existence to you?

    he is trying to figure out why you haven’t yet discussed how some men fuck sheep as part of the imbalance problem, and what point in general you are trying to make

  15. @redlight

    I am saying a society that does not regulate or reduce male births and which raises men to be sexually attracted exclusively to women will, by the numbers and via biology, be of necessity fem-centric because most of the men will be beta males and women will be able to manipulate them to enter into exclusive prostitution contracts and to be their work slaves. It will be a society that worships the female body, the female reproductive function, it will worship breeding, and will worship, especially, motherhood.

    My other point is the hilarious picture I get of Christian Evangelicals hero worshiping gay Greek men. It’s funny, admit it.

  16. Joseph Campbell wrote The Power of Myth as well as several other excellent books on mythology; The Hero With A Thousand Faces, Myths To Live By, and several others. Bill Moyers interviewed Campbell after the original Star Wars and discussed the reasons for the massive success of the movie because of its mythological appeal. My father and I spoke personally with Campbell via telephone when I was in highschool in 1978. Another excellent read concerning the subject is The Golden Bough by James George Frazer.

    For a mythology to endure it must be analogous to reality in some way. It must satisfy a cooperative symbolic integration with the human subconcious and reality. The human subconcious is at least partially defined by the realities of natural phenomena as defined by the physical realities of the universe. For a mythology to be valid in the human conscious, it must symbolically represent a satisfaction of basic human instinct (a desire to kill other humans who are competing for mating rights and provisions includes that instinct). Otherwise, the mythology is soon discarded. Mythologies that do not satisfy basic instinct are not satisfying to the human intellect. The human intellect is at best apathetic to mythology that contradicts basic instinct, regardless of the gender of those exposed to such mythology. This is why Superman is infinitely more consumed than Wonder Woman and why remakes of Batman continue to rake in millions but Bat Girl never made par. Why do we continue to make James Bond, but never made “Jane Bond”

    Hunger Games style feminist fairytale mythologies promoting masculine acting female characters will not endure because they do not coincide with the reality of human instinct. This most recent bitch-turd-azation of Star Wars may be a hugh flash in the pan monetary success, but it leaves both men and women with a subtle level of dissatisfaction, dissonance and awkwardness not experienced by the previous.

    It is important to understand that these frivolous “mythologies” being originated by the “FI” are nothing more than failing pathetic attempts to deny reality. They will not alter human instinct or the physical realities of the universe. They only have power over you if you give them power over you; if you subjugate yourself. If you feel threatened by them, then you have not recognized them for the pathetic frivolous nonsense they are and you are preconditioned to subjugate yourself to them. No amount of “evolutionary psychology” will alter reality either. By wasting your time and energy (your power) analyzing them and worrying about their potential effect you slip into the rut of this subjugation. And no, you don’t have to cut your dick and balls off to get out of the rut. The FI wants you to think you have to cut your dick and balls off to get out.

  17. @Bachelorocles

    a society … which raises men to be sexually attracted exclusively to women

    so you are saying that heterosexuality happens as part of the raising process of society, compared to some biological hardwiring that would aid in the reproduction of the human species

  18. @redlight

    “so you are saying that heterosexuality happens as part of the raising process of society, compared to some biological hardwiring that would aid in the reproduction of the human species”

    What do you think? Have you studied ancient Greece and Rome?

  19. @Bachelorocles

    Have you studied ancient Greece and Rome?

    As I type this I’m two feet away from my Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, so no

    As to what I think, I think most men are hardwired for pussy, but if that is unavailable, such as in jail or when herding sheep or in the navy at sea, there has been a tendency for some to make do. When pussy is available, even if it has to be paid for, then most men go for what they want

  20. @redlight

    I agree nearly all men are hardwired for it. However, we can examine societies in the past and learn that we can raise men to be bisexual or to even prefer male relationships over male-female relationships. In ancient Greece and Rome the male was considered the beautiful gender.

    My point is, so long as we do not reduce male births and so long as we raise boys to be sexually attracted exclusively to women, we will be a fem-centric society that worships the female body and raises motherhood, to sainthood, that coddles women and views them as victims despite that they’re coddled, a society that creates lopsided divorce laws that result in transfer of billions or trillions of unearned wealth from men to women, a society that views prostitution or marriage contracts as sacred, and views as sacred the male duty to sacrifice for women, etc etc etc.

  21. @NBTM,

    No amount of “evolutionary psychology” will alter reality either. By wasting your time and energy (your power) analyzing them and worrying about their potential effect you slip into the rut of this subjugation.

    And this is where your otherwise excellent observation fails. The Evo-Psych you seem to think only wants to alter reality actually better defines exactly the reality you outline in the first bit of your comment.

    You seem to equate analyzing and understanding reality with ‘worrying’ about it or struggling to alter it. You do so because you believe men, even RP aware men, are in someway still beholden to the want of changing it or serving it in new ways.

    No one here believes they must emasculate themselves to better serve. That’s your straw man.

    All you do here is ask men to put their heads back in the sand. Understanding the nature of women in a social or evolutionary sense is not preoccupation or worry, and certainly not some path to the nebulous subjugation you think it is. It’s a means to awareness, and one not based on the idealistic neomasculine faith you and the rest of Roosh’s LARPers want it to be.

  22. Your argument seems valid until one considers the reality that nothing new is occurring with women and men. We are the same as we have been for many thousand years. Technology has advanced but our physiological make up has not changed much if at all. Yet you and some others seem to cling to a hope defined by “new understanding”. This “new understanding” is not discovering anything new. You have articuately connected some dots and that is excellent. But the dots have been around a long time and you aren’t the first by a long shot. Your analysis morphs into an attempt to reexplain reality in new terms from a different perspective and the real hope involved is the hope that we can “better understand” or “better cope” with the unavoidable challenges by redescribing those challenges. Redescribing a challenge does not meet it or overcome its obstacles. In fact, this effort to redescribe reflects a reluctance to just move forward and conquer. You are understandably mistaken by including me in the Roosh LARP camp. It is almost impossible to avoid pigeon holeing anyone and especially those we don’t really know and those whom we disagree with.

    Your “stick their heads back in the sand” option confirms your unawareness of options existing outside the frame from within which you operate. Understand, your paradigm is similar to the religious doctrine “those who choose not to believe have made a choice” where all people are defined by a binary choice and any awarness that threatens the frame within which that binary choice is cast immediately and automatically defines the choice for those who experience that awarness. Essentially, the frame is created to force the choice upon each individual. It is this frame that you are unwittingly and ardently defending. Perhaps you do not realize that what you once set out investigate and possibly battle against is what you now ardently defend. This is what concerned me when I read your second book and encountered your defense of romantic idealism when excecised within an alpha frame. My friend, there is no romantic ideal. It is all flame and air as Don Miguel De Servantes wrote. It is nothing. It is mush. It is BS in any context.

    1. @NTBM,

      Technology has advanced but our physiological make up has not changed much if at all. Yet you and some others seem to cling to a hope defined by “new understanding”. This “new understanding” is not discovering anything new.

      Oh, but we are learning new things. With our understanding of the human genome, the fundamentally different wiring between the brains of men and women, and countless other evidences that contradict or confirm the old “understandings” we begin to see much more clearly whose interests those understandings served.

      What you and the neo-classicists want confirmed is old order “I told you so” aphorisms and science seems only to serve the liberal factions you hate. That’s simply not so.

      If anything evo-psych confirms a majority of long held complementarian beliefs. One would think that would be useful but it’s not an understanding based on a faith that seems palatable to you.

  23. The issue with the comment system here isn’t so much the lack of nested comments – it’s more that it’s really difficult to navigate through 8-9 pages of comments on a big thread to find what you want – it takes a lot longer (and the navigation is a pain – for eg the Older and Newer comments links are at the bottom of each comments page when there should really be two sets – one at the top and one at the bottom to save scrolling to the end just to hit “Newer comments”)

    If we could have all the comments on one page (or atleast the option to do that for people who want it) that would be a much bigger improvement than nested comments. I mean, it’s not 2011 – most modern phones (and definitely any desktop browsers) can handle a page with 800 comments – it’s mostly text anyway.

  24. @NBTM

    This “new understanding” is not discovering anything new

    Sure, and while gravity has been around for a very long time, the understanding of gravity has not been. Likewise the Earth is round, but Galileo got tortured for disagreeing with the Church’s understanding. If you go around openly talking about Rollo’s understanding in your workplace, you will find what the Church of the FI will do to you.

  25. OT Point of Order:

    “Likewise the Earth is round, but Galileo got tortured for disagreeing with the Church’s understanding.”

    The Church accepted the sphericity of the Earth, and even knew its approximate diameter. What it would not accept is that it moved.

    Galileo wasn’t tortured, he was confined to his villa, except for those times when he wasn’t, and it wasn’t for disagreeing, per se, but for violating a direct order of the Pope not to publish the claim of a moving Earth.

  26. Welp, kfg beats me to the punch again.

    Ya, the Church’s actions against Galileo have been somewhat exaggerated in the popular imagination. The Church didn’t tend to display levels of barbarism greater than customary to its cultural surroundings. To its credit, my impression is that it tended to show very slightly less.

  27. Confusing sentence. The Church didn’t tend to display levels of barbarism greater than was customary to the culture surrounding it.

    Tiny words important.

  28. Culum Straun has it. Comment pages are a pain in the ass when they get 7 deep, especially on a phone. Especially when WordPress starts fucking up the pagination.

  29. Now for something a bit more substansive:

    @NBTM

    “Essentially, the frame is created to force the choice upon each individual. It is this frame that you are unwittingly and ardently defending. Perhaps you do not realize that what you once set out investigate and possibly battle against is what you now ardently defend. This is what concerned me when I read your second book and encountered your defense of romantic idealism when excecised within an alpha frame. My friend, there is no romantic ideal. It is all flame and air as Don Miguel De Servantes wrote. It is nothing. It is mush. It is BS in any context.”

    So has everything you’ve written here the last bunch of months been an exposition upon a single point which you misinterpreted?

    I mean, maybe I’m the one who misinterpreted Rollo here. Always possible. But it seems to me that Rollo never defended romantic idealism in any prescriptive way; he merely noted that, in a relationship where the man held the power and the frame (as was once common), his innate idealism would tend to act as a buffer against the relationship being temporary or unstable. Since his decisions tended to hold the most weight, and he tended to idealize his relationship, strong measures were taken against its dissolution.

    It makes good sense to me – my previous LTR was a disaster for my health and sanity, but I tried like absolute hell to save it. Didn’t care if she was good, it had to be HER and no-one else. Had I more power in relationships, as men sometimes have had, and I’d probably still be there today.

    I think we would all mostly wish for our LTR’s to be other than temporary and unstable, and so it’s easy to see this as being a statement of value. But it’s not. It’s simply noting the dynamics in play.

    You seem adverse to the word ‘idealism.’ We all have our pet peeves. It has the same effect on you that ‘pretty fairy princess on a pink butterfly wings unicorn’ has on the rest of us. But idealism is. If you don’t have it your mind is the more rational (though less normatively human) for it. But denying its existence, or its utility, in other men is no more helpful than denying the existence (and utility) of hypergamy in women.

  30. They’re getting their panties all wedged over at SJW-control, VoxCulture, frantically denying that Rey is the very model of a modern Mary-Sue. Just like that one-armed chick in MM:Furry Road.

    Because if she is, then Luke was, or something. Or just about anybody doing anything is. The main aim seems to be to wilfully ignore observed gender roles and the assumption that it is .. what could one say, to keep the shreiking hordes of Twitter etc. at bay? .. *ahem* remarkably uncharacteristic in the Real World to have any woman, ever, living and performing in that way, from childhood on.
    And therefore the character violates that invaluable dramatist’s prop, suspension of disbelief through seeming, at the very least, plausible. The day I see Chewy giving birth and lactating is when I’ll know it’s all over.

    The worst film I endured this week was some art-house atrocity called “The Lobster” (she had free tickets. I’m not surprised they were free).
    I don’t know where to begin. So I won’t. “Astounding. A racist rom-com. Was it made by students?” was all I could muster when repeatedly and eagerly pressed for my opinion over a few badly-needed beers immediately thereafter. Couldn’t say much, since I closed my eyes and drifted off after about half an hour of trite bluepill/incel/radfem tripe. Two fucking hours!! of the same conceit, on a five-minute loop along with a bit of Chopin or summat. Unbelievable.
    Thing is, she’s not stupid. Got me disks of the Coens’ remake of “True Grit” and the orig. “3:10 To Yuma” for crimbo. So why she couldn’t guess that this pozzed abortion of a Greek non-drama would annoy the tits off me, I fail to see.

  31. “shrieking”,
    like I was when That Girl hopped into the sacred and venerable Millennium Falcon and Just Got It without even trying. As do we all dear, as do we all.
    By God am I ever grateful that Carrie, bless her, didn’t get shoved into the slave-girl outfit for this iteration though. Between her, and Han’s teeth (WTF I thought he was a rich guy?), I didn’t know where to look.

  32. “a ginger male barbarian who goes around wantonly killing “
    Ah. I see you’ve already been introduced to my friend Mr Kovacs aka Rorschach.

  33. “White Men Are Nazis.
    They threw in the resistance fighter pilot to be able to refute this argument.”

    Whoa there, young Matatan padawan! Brother Bo is a less-than-three-dimensional guido caricature somewhat cruder than da Fonz. And therefore in the collective subconscious of the storytellers, whoever they may be, Not Quite White.

    The game is to get all the “Minorities” onside and propping up The Noble White Ladies, in their epic struggle against the Meal Ticket Evil Patriarchy Dark Side. Like Ewoks.

    Thing I couldn’t get over is the fucking size of ‘Finn’s’ head. Massive, like a Shire horse. Worried it’s going to give him arthritis and spinal column problems, by the time he gets to my age. I thought the whole point of Stormtroopers was you only needed one size of helmet and stuff. And since when was Boba Fett a Sarflandan yoot? Or did the cloning fuck up somewhere, like Dolly the Sheep?

  34. @Tam

    Well I for one am enjoying the commentary.

    Heh, I did think the actor who played Finn was kinda weird-looking. He did a solid job in my estimation, though, so no harm no foul. His role and competency was not unlike an Episode IV Luke.

    Well, I saw the movie now and as I anticipated I quite enjoyed it. Expected the feminist shit so I just didn’t let it faze me as I watched. The complete ripoff of the third act of EP IV was a touch rolleyes but I dealt just fine, and I thought the mythological character that made the original trilogy great was less but still distinctly present. The sorta-reversal of the father-son dynamic from the original, and the death of Han, was good storytelling.

    It occurs to me just now that if they had omitted Rey from the story it would have been just fine. Her place was not essential whatsoever. In fact, she seems weirdly tacked-on for being one of the two most important characters, and for being not poorly acted or designed.

    That’s maybe a bit inevitable in a movie with two joint protagonists who aren’t foils – give a few attributes over and either could take over – but I give Finn precedence here, not really due to gender considerations so much as the fact that he seems a lot more accessible and interesting. He wasn’t designed to be – look at all the interesting things she is and does! – but that’s the result when you push a character’s badassery too hard and end up with a Mary-Sue.

    Ah well. It still feels good to have fun at a Star Wars movie. Guess the prequels just set the bar too low for me, lol. This is the first time an enjoyable star wars movie has come out in my lifetime.

    Went with a diverse group of people and everyone liked it – even my sister who hates sci-fi stuff.

    One of the tween girls was obsessed with Kylo Ren, lol. She thought he was so cool. At least the other girls were more about Po, who I think is solid, and kinda rolled eyes at that. It’s like this girl’s going through her ‘Twilight’ phase. “He’s so dark and mysterious! And powerful!” I’m just like, bitch, I don’t care. He killed Han Solo and has the psyche of an 8-year-old.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: