Selling Pride

I commented over at Uncle Bob on his post about Promiscuity as Self Mutilation. I appreciate it when people attempt to inspire good behavior in others. Of course, all the reactionary blogosphere can do is react negatively to the disgusting behavior around them. Liberals love it because they get to chastise the reaction as judgmental. Being judgmental is one of the worst things possible in the liberal mindset. If you're truly open minded, you don't say anything about the behavior of others - unless they're filthy rotten conservatives. Then you can have at it.

Commenter Glen Filthie raises a good point that it is a hard sell to young people when you're competing with all of the partying and hoopla offered by the other side.

Think about what your morals and ethics offer to today's young man:

critical thinking
responsibility
self restraint
responsibility to others
work ethics

It's true, I respond, but you're missing the key ingredient in the sales pitch - pride. Go and read it there.

It is true that I am trying to instill pride in my son. I think this is the utmost importance in his healthy development. A proud person will have no fear facing difficult situations with critical thinking. A proud person will make the responsible decision, showing self restraint. A proud person will keep his responsibilities to others and develop a strong work ethic.

A proud person would never rape someone. Why would he lower himself to such a horrible crime?

A proud person would never steal. He doesn't need to take something he hasn't earned from someone who has.

A proud person wouldn't assault someone, although he would certainly be willing to fight for a just reason. Harming another person causes harm to oneself.

A proud person will always make the best decision for himself which means making the best decision for those around him.

A proud person will not destroy themselves with promiscuity instead of seeking loving relationships.

Pride, as long as it is balanced by the right level of humility will guide one through life's challenges and help overcome temptations along the way. Bring back pride.

It is nearly impossible to sell good, restrained behavior without allowing the well-deserved feelings of pride  as a reward. It's time that we start promoting pride as a positive emotion that everyone deserves to feel - if only they behave in a way that builds pride.

Lesbian Feminist Haunted House

Do you think, perhaps, that the current status of government funding of "The Arts" needs to be rethought?

Leave alone the fact the arts people waste money and space on monstrosities like the OCAD building, instead of funding important courses like making gender. It doesn't matter; with the magic of government funding, they can afford both.

It's amazing that some people claim that there is no such thing as a feminist art degree.

 

I disagree; they're all feminist. I even have one. Of course, it's just called a Bachelor of Arts - English Literature, courtesy of a misspent youth, but it in fact it was a feminist, Marxist art degree. If you're lucky enough, and you follow the same path I did, you'll run into a teacher like David Gilmour (the other one) and you'll only get a Marxist art degree - at least only a partially feminist degree since you will have to take other courses.

Take a look at all of these things together: publicly funded buildings hovering above the street, sponsoring anti-man art projects and movements to remove people who merely claim to be pro-male (not anti-female) and what does it amount to? It would seem to me to be a clear-cut case of structural sexism.

Bake Sale Guilt

There was a bake sale today at work. Someone was raising money for something, I don't remember. We have these all the time and everyone feels the need to consume fattening baked goods which make my stomach ache and my head spin with the blood sugar spike. I couldn't afford the carbs after three weekends of binging, so, I just walked past on my way to the bathroom. I heard someone mention a spelt/flaxseed cookie which almost got me to stop, but, I just said to myself that it probably wouldn't be worth it. It's just food. I eat every day.

A co-worker mentioned that he didn't use the washroom all morning, just so he wouldn't have to deal with the hopeful glances from the bake sale people and deal with the guilt of not buying anything. I told him that he has a guilt addiction.

The fact is, he shouldn't feel guilty at all for not buying something. He's under no obligation to help other people by spending money on harmful goods. Giving money to charity makes us feel good because it assuages feeling of guilt. Even if we have a nagging feeling that the money is not doing much good. Even if we realize that the people running the charities are capitalizing on guilt to justify their existence.

Every time I see someone ask for money, I see an industry built on the guilt addiction of others. It's not that I don't believe in charity. It just seems that there are too many people working on keeping people helpless, in order to skim money off of industrious people and carving out a supposedly morally righteous living.

Am I too jaded in my middle-age? Either way, my eyes are open to the motivations of many of the guilt industry zealots and their vapid, thoughtless justifications for their work have no affect on me. I have heard too many people trying to vilify the hard working people just to guilt them into giving up hard earned cash. I am no longer vulnerable to the guilt balms they peddle.

Twisted By Knaves to Make a Trap For Fools

Now two men have been called up in front of the feminist firing line too feed the pious cravings of the masses. Paul Elam bravely appeared on ABC's 20/20 to be roasted like a Thanksgiving bird for the pleasure of the main stream media audience. (Has that aired yet? I can't view it online in Canada.) Now Gavin McInnes has appeared on Huffington Post Live to be tarred and feathered by the self-righteous inquisitors of the Church of Social Justice. The entire mano/alt-right sphere might as well be a flock of roosters to the elite liberals they were facing - all they'll hear is roosters crowing. See, it doesn't matter what you want to say to these people, they will not listen to anything that doesn't conform to their world view. If you start to challenge their pre-conceived notions, they will quickly put you into one of the categories of daemons that can be disposed of without due process.

Seriously, you have no right to share this planet with them. You should just stop taking up oxygen that could be used by some young open-minded gullible student who is willing to just accept the truths presented by their sociology professors and get on living in the brave new world. In their minds, you've given them the right to destroy you and pretend you never existed.

To them, you are outdated. You represent the powerful old-guard, afraid of threats. Thomas Sewell said, in Intellectuals and Society, that one of the technics that intellectuals will use to discount the reasoned arguments of those not espousing the anointed vision is to project emotional motivations upon the presenter of the argument, reducing their logic into emotion that can be brushed off. Count how many times Mary Anne Frank referred to Gavin's fear. Funny, I didn't sense any fear in him. All of the panelists completely missed the nuance, not hard when it's Gavin's nuance is masked by his showmanship, and plopped him into the evil category and went on spouting their nonsense about there not being any differences between the sexes. 

I think Gavin could have done a better job of making his points, but, it wouldn't have mattered. Personally, I would have stated outright that the attempts to stunt masculinity are damaging to men, boys and society. The ivory tower ideas being forced on society are trying to reverse the realities of nature and turning people into neurotic fools. I would have asked them to face the problems that feminism is causing to both men and women - and he did bring up the problems faced by women, but it was supposed to be a show about masculinity.

Look at Hugo Schwyzer. The man was raised by a feminist single mother to be basically ashamed of his masculinity. When it inevitably began to form, it was psychopathic. Without a strong example of masculinity and permission to explore his own masculinity, he never learned to express and control his own emotions and he turned into the fraud artist we all know and mock.

Mary Anne Frank believes that masculinity is just a construct. She states that there are no innate differences and we are moving to a healthier society. How, please tell, can we be healthier if we deny our own nature which rules us?

I am coming to realize that it is pointless arguing with feminists. I am still not done yet, though. I realize that it is impossible to defeat those who will not admit they've lost; victory should not be the goal when arguing with feminists. The first goal should be to make them uncomfortable - they have felt free range to spout idiotic tenants of an disproven theory and they should no longer feel that their BS will go unchallenged because of the sympathy garnered for women. The second goal should be to show those watching that it is ok to challenge feminism with observable facts.

Gavin allowed himself to be made fun of. That's not that bad. Enough people understand what he's saying even as the three effeminate men and the woman guffaw and laugh arrogantly to gain some new supporters. I think it is entirely reasonable to call someone a fucking idiot when they're being a fucking idiot and insulting you by putting words in your mouth. They chose him specifically because he is known for being outrageous. That makes him easy to mock as long as they continue to misrepresent his ideas - remember he's a daemon who no longer exists in their world. It would have been more constructive to calmly point out that they were putting words in his mouth, but, allowing them to mockingly dismiss truth presented so will, eventually, backfire.

Contrary to what these people say, we still need men who are tough, as Gavin argues. They seem to be under the impression that the world is suddenly going to turn nice and then everyone will begin working together. They don't really believe this. If they have children, they're enrolling them in competitive sports, fighting classes, dance classes, gymnastics and extra studies, precisely to prepare them for the tough world ahead of them. They simply have to spout this rhetoric to keep their positions in the hierarchy of madness that is the Politically Correct Left.

The ivory tower priests act high and mighty, but, they are simply the knaves that all men must learn to bear.

Thank You Paul Elam

Although I've not visited AVFM for quite some time, I still have an appreciation for the work that they do. Some time ago, AVFM changed the name of their movement from the Men's Rights Movement, for which I had a modicum of support to the Human Men's Rights Movement. It seemed like a petty change, but, it meant that ideologically, they were aligning with Human Rights, identity politics. It made me uneasy to see them taking this direction, even knowing that some of the leaders of the site are libertarian leaning. Karen Straughan and Paul himself are two that come to mind.

So, even though I felt that they were alienating a lot of Manosphere people, like me, I could see what they were doing as an important step forward for men's rights, or rather, the anti-feminist movement as a whole. To look like a worthy movement, you need to have an organization that follows the norms of society. The norms, at this moment, are a sticky mess of politically correct rules about proper discourse. If the rules are not followed and the wrong kind of words are allowed to be spoken, the main-stream media will automatically write everything off as hateful, backward, harmful, evil and whatever terms they save for the most vile creatures with whom they would rather not share the world’s oxygen. It's a good thing that the entire planet is covered in a layer of oxygenated atmosphere, because, if leftists could remove a person's right to breathe the air, they would.

So, when Paul allowed his site to become a bastion for Men, as an oppressed class, ideologues and began moderating comments, I understood why, even as I became disenfranchised from it. I commented along these lines at Chapin's Inferno. I realized when they began moderating comments on simple discussions between disagreeing parties, such as Greg Swann and Steve Moxon that it was not a place that I'd like to hang out. When the moderator pled for Greg to "stick around" while deleting his arguments, I laughed. How can you expect someone to participate in a site when you've sent the loudest possible message that they are not welcome?

So, I said adieu to AVFM. I could still follow Typhon Blue and Karen Straughan on their You Tube accounts; while AVFM became one of those sites I just stopped visiting - not because I made a conscious decision, just because it didn't seem worth my time anymore. I knew what men were facing, for me, it was more about politics. Men's issues and fighting the feminist regime are only one part of my goals, but, I see the importance of a site that focusses on men's issues while following the church of political correctness's rules. The vast majority of men have not learned about the problems with feminism. They still believe that women are all oppressed by all men, even if only sub-consciously. They've prostrated themselves to allow room for gentler women and then they wonder why they are getting stomped on. Even leftist men are suffering and they need help.

A socialist man simple writes off any conservative or libertarian speaker who tries to raise men's issues. But, they still live under the lies of feminism and suffer. They still meat out abuse to their sons by denying them the ability to feel proud of whom they are while being unable to discipline their daughters leading to sons with poor self-esteem and daughters with poor self-control. They back down when their wives or girlfriends get angry in every single argument and wonder why they end up losing their respect. AVFM is still, open to these men, once they open their eyes, ever so slightly, to the realities of women the feminist regime has hidden. Once they start to witness the truth of feminism, it is possible that the truth of leftism as a whole will begin to creep into their minds. Well, maybe I’m thinking wishfully, but it is inevitable that some will realize that pitting one interest group against another is not going to produce anything worthwhile.

So, Paul wanted media attention. Now he has it. When ABC pounds AVFM with a sledge hammer and then dances around the ring celebrating victory, won't they be surprised when AVFM gets off the canvas and yanks the sledgehammer out of their hands. They can't knock them out, because AVFM has built themselves according to the rules of the church. When people see the sincerity of the folks at AVFM, and I don't doubt their sincerity, combined with the lack of so-called "hate speech", the tide will turn. When every accusation from SPLC rings flat and more stories of male victimization or unfairness rings true, another hole in the veil of feminism will be exposed. Paul had his media friendly message ready and they can't deny the truth that he presents.

Here is where Chapin's points are worth mentioning. Men will never garner as much sympathy as women.  Our biological tendency to protect and sympathize with women will make many laugh when men stand up and say they've been wronged. But, when they see how feminism has exploited this tendency, more will realize that identity politics as a whole is just a power grab. Again, this may be over optimistic. Maybe it is impossible for people to want to stand up as individuals when they can push government to give themselves more and then blame government when things go bad. Taking responsibility is not in everyone's immediate best interest when there is always more money to be taken from “evil rich people”. Until you realize that the evil rich people are the ones running government so they'll never ruin their own interests.

Still, feminism is the biggest dealer in the feel-good drug of leftist politics. Along with other identity politics groups, anti-poverty groups and environmentalists, they trick people into feeling guilty and bad about them and then give them a shot of euphoric accomplishment by voting for the right candidate or donating to the charity. The money or votes, however, are accomplishing nothing but empty emotions and ceaseless dependency. It entrenches the power of the government and starves the working class of jobs while claiming that they help them.

So, Paul's plan is working. Did he expect to be given respect right off the bat? I don't think so, unless he thinks the bat coming down on his head is a sign of respect. Take your licks Mr. Elam and get back in the fight. In the end, even the conservatives who are laughing will have your back. For as long as you speak truth, your message will help everyone.

Addendum: I wrote this piece before it was supposed to air, but, wasn’t able to publish it until after. Apparently, the 20/20 piece wasn’t aired. I can’t imagine that someone at ABC actually found something wrong with the report and decided it wasn’t worthy for television.

Atheist Free-Market Thanksgiving Blessing

Thank you to all of the people, around the world, who have worked hard so that the world may become a better place and that we may enjoy some of the fruits of their labour in this glorious meal. May they receive proper compensation for their toil and may that work lead them to their due wealth and happiness. Through each individual's efforts, day by day, may we keep working, as each person can best contribute, to make the planet a better place to live.

At my thanksgiving dinner this weekend, I actually said a blessing somewhat similar to this. Most of the people present are atheists and I think it went over well. Someone mentioned farmers and I began spouting off the other jobs that I was thinking of that directly contributed to the meal - food processors, truck drivers, store workers, business people and yes, bankers who finance the operations.

All people who work to support themselves are contributing to a better planet. We owe it to each other to keep this whole system working.

FYI, Today is Thanksgiving Day in Canada. Happy Thanksgiving.

Five Reasons I'm Glad I'm Married

Greg Swann challenges me, directly or indirectly, every time I go over to his blog. This time, he's taking Dr. Helen's challenge to name 5 reasons for a man to get married.

I crossed that bridge 10 years ago, so, I'm taking a slightly different approach. Personally, I have a different take on marriage the Greg. I believe that the purpose of a marriage is procreation. I understand why people might want to be married without the desire for kids, but, personally, I don't think marriage is necessary without the possibility of progeny.

Here are the five reasons why I'm glad that I am married.

1. Kids: This could be all I need, 1 to 5 right here. I truly think that having children is the highest expression of splendor available to humanity, sorry Greg. Every time I come home to see cheering faces expressing my own genes back to me, I thank the natural world from which I was spawned for this magical feeling. Having kids of one's own - just paused to get a massive, good-night hug from my younger of two, wow - is the greatest source of joy in my life. It really ties my heart to my neighbourhood. I have a connection to the future that wouldn't be possible.

Giving my children a stable family, based on a loving relationship between the two people with whom they share the greatest likeness in appearance and behaviour  is, to use Mr. Swann's word again, absolute splendor.

2. Confidence: The non-denominational minister* who married us said something when I mentioned that my career wasn't exactly where I wanted it to be yet. He said, "Wait until you have your wife by your side supporting you. She'll give you the confidence you need to walk into an interview and land any job you want." There was some truth to that prediction. My wife is all the support group I'll ever need.

*I'm atheist, but when we met this man, who was recommended by the wedding venue management, we knew that he'd be just fine. He was funny, agreed not to say anything religious and it just saved our devout parents feelings somewhat. I'll never forget his booming voice proclaiming that we have forged a bond so mighty that "nothing on this earth can blow asunder!"

3. Devotion: Knowing someone will do what she can to help me achieve my own desires within this partnership. I am also bound to do what I can so that she can achieve her own desires. Luckily, we found each other and realized that our desires were aligned enough to agree to the contract. Marriage is a 1 for 1 deal. Each of us has given ourselves completely, 100% to the other. It's a big responsibility to accept another person completely and requires reciprocal, complete, devotion. We don't quibble over household chores. We each do what needs to be done to the best of our abilities and get on with our lives.

4. Challenge/Responsibility:  The expectation to hold up your end of the deal keeps you focused on what matters. Sharing the responsibility of heading an organization devoted to supporting the health and happiness each other above all else is a feeling like none other.

5. Efficiency: Of course, I think about what would have happened if I hadn't gotten married and lived the bachelor life of some of my friends. The freedom I would have had in my career and finances might have been enjoyable and made things a lot easier. Would I be sitting here in front of my computer tonight or would I have been out seeing live music, on a fishing trip or visiting an exotic city. But the wealth I have attained now would be unattainable - no magical hugs, coaching youth sports or investment in the next generation. Considering the effort expended to obtain, grow and maintain this wealth, I need the efficiency that a marriage brings by sharing work load, doubling income and sharing of imaginations.

Knowing what I know now, I can't recommend marriage for every man. I believe that most men don't understand the risks and don't know enough about women and human nature to enter a marriage contract.

I lucked into a good marriage, because, I accurately assessed the quality of my wife's character when I decided to get married (and she must have seen something in me I didn't realize I had). Once I learned about female hypergamy, game and the other "red pill" truths, I realized what it took to be a strong husband in a good marriage and happiness flourished.

CDSH

Males Need to be Proud

Greg Swann goaded me into speaking again. Truth be told, I've been feeling guilty about all of the loose ends I haven't tied. I have unfinished posts about rape and the rational human mind that need to be posted, but, they're not easily completed.

I've been thinking a great deal about pride lately, since reading and digesting Greg's excellent e-book Man Alive and what it says about egoism.  I realized that fostering pride in youth is important because it is pride in oneself that helps us avoid bad decisions. Pride helps one resist harmful temptations. When I read the post that Greg's tweet was referring to, I realized that pride works right into that subject. I wrote the following comment there, incorporating the concept of pride:

Boys need something that they can feel good about. Mastering the kick-flip is a reason to feel proud. It gives you membership to the kick-flip club. You're inspiring others who now look up to you. You get cred from those who are already in it. You're bringing your own style to the move and expressing yourself to this society, earning a unique spot in the hierarchy.
In Dogtown and Z-boys, technical prowess was highly prized, but it was nothing without good style. You couldn't look like a dork on the board and hang with them, even if you were a good skater.
Boarders are creating their own world. It's come a long way from its subversive, anarchic beginnings, but, it has kept its rebellious nature. It burst forth from the streets to demand acceptance. Skate parks were built to contain and disperse its energy.
The question is, what is the boy looking for when he makes his way to the skate park? He is looking for something he can take pride in. Meaningful pride, not the fake "self-esteem" they manufacture at school. Pride is meaningful when it can be expressed outwardly, when the source of pride can be demonstrated. Self esteem is inward, feminine. It's the image one has of oneself. Pride is affected by how others view you. There's nothing worse than the poseur with false pride, the guy that acts the part but can't back it up. Skate parks obliterate that.
In the older days, everyone played baseball. Kids hung out at the diamond and played pick up. Bikes were utilitarian. No bar spins. No jumps. No bunny hops. No half pipes. My father used to put is .22 over the handlebars and ride out to his favourite bush for some rabbit. Riding home with dinner hanging over the handlebars gave him a sense of pride like no other. He understands pride. He may not understand skateboarding, but, he knows why it exists.
Boys today aren't allowed to feel proud of themselves. Pride is masculine. Boys being proud are shamed for the "sins" of their fathers. The masculine has been demonized, poisoned. Masculine pride is sullied by its supposed connection to the patriarchy.You want to be a proud father and husband, you're proud to be an oppressor. Proud to be part of a system that abused and enslaved women.
Skating rolls right around all that bullshit. Its as artistic as painting. It's a dance with no partner. A sport with no rules. No one gives a fuck where you're from or what you think. Land that trick and you're cool. You're allowed to be proud.
Pride is not a negative trait. It's essential for a person to make good decisions. When every action is first acted upon oneself, only a proud person can be counted on not to commit malicious acts against others. Want to prevent rape? Want to reduce bullying? Want to reduce suicide. Foster pride. Foster pride by self-expression and self-determination.
Want good men? Pride will turn more boys into good men. Men who can stand alone and be admired by women.

Who knows? Prideful men might even inspire women to show develop some pride.

Kevin Ware - Men Are So Unemotional

If men are so unemotional, then why do these tough elite athletes break into tears when one of their fellow players suffers a devastating injury?

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2013-03-31/kevin-ware-injury-gruesome-leg-louisville-duke-ncaa-tournament

What is Your Desired Outcome?

I have not had a lot of time to blog, my familial and corporate duties are demanding at the moment, but there is much going on in my mind.  I have managed to take time off from colouring Easter Eggs with my family to point out the parallels between recent events and my own blogging life leading into a brief statement of my mission.

I have serious disagreement on parts of Amanda Blum's measured take on Donglegate, but I appreciate her tone and agree on the overall point, that Adria Richards made it harder for women in tech and we all lost because of her actions. I would just like to point out the advice provided for anyone faced with a similar situation:

All she had to consider was “what outcome am I looking for?”.

In Adria's case, if she had asked herself the question and her answer was to gain more attention for herself and her blog, destroy the life of the offender and raise a hoopla over nothing, then she accomplished her goals and much much more. One should also consider the potential negative outcomes of one's proposed action.

I remember thinking that exact phrase when debating what to do in my own situation when faced with offensive material displayed publicly. My primary desired outcomes were: to stop this person from spreading hatred more towards men, make a point about the true nature of contemporary feminism and to put feminists on notice that their public displays of hatred will not go unchallenged.

I admit that the idea of gaining notoriety was enticing, but, this was not the way I really wanted to go about it.  If that was really my primary motivation, it was certainly a risky method - there obviously were people supporting this author of the posters. I did not want to hurt anyone, including the author, despite her opinion of me. I thought long and hard and initially tried to send this to a prominent MRA, but, had to post it myself when nothing came of it. Once the ball was set in motion, I was not going to let it go, so the AVFM article came about.

In the end, my decision to take the actions I did was demanded by the primary goal of this blog - to inspire others to challenge ideas - any ideas - which seem contradictory to reality or common sense. I am not afraid to challenge ideas which are generally accepted by the masses, simply because they are told that they must and they do not have the tools or knowledge to challenge them themselves. If I was truly The Cul-De-Sac Hero, it was time to stand up and show it.

Science and the lexicon of political ideology are weapons used against individuals who would challenge the powers who use them. I am not the best equipped to fight them, but, I have the most important weapon in anyone's arsenal, no matter who the foe. I have an independent, human mind.

With this tool, anything is possible. I hope that more people read this and make the same choice that I did - stop accepting the lesson presented by The Greater School System that is contemporary media and take appropriate action to bring more rationality into the common discourse.

Subjective Sexual Harassment -

Let's think of a reverse situation to the forking dongle episode experienced by Adria Richards.

There was an office party thrown by the executive in charge of my group. A few of us decided to share a cab, just because we were all working on a project together and working late. I sat in the front seat and three ladies sat in the back.

These ladies were a little older than me. I think of them with a twinge of sadness because they are the type of women who sacrificed their chance at raising families for their careers.

One of them once awkwardly mentioned how she wanted to have kids, when we were talking about mine. This was before I found the Red Pill, but I still realized that, pushing forty, she had little chance of meeting a man and having kids with him. I felt sorry for her because she seemed not to realize that her strategy for getting married and having kids was just not working out for her and the time was nearly up. I knew women her age that were hitting menopause. It was very awkward.

So conversation turned to our houses and gardening and one asked me if I enjoyed gardening. I do, in fact, since it was one of the first activities I enjoyed with my father who taught me a lot about growing vegetables and flowers.

"I like to watch things grow." I said, innocently.

"I like to watch things grow!" One of the women said.

I have to be honest, the joke went right over my head, partly, because I was facing front and couldn't see the facial expression and partly, because I was thinking about the state of the plants in my garden at that time. The snickers made me wake up to the connotation that had been made to the male member, but I was too slow and it was too late to make a come-back.

Now, it was a little uncomfortable to be in that situation because I was the only guy in the car (besides the driver) and I hadn't caught the joke. I realize that this is different than the situation in the conference, but, I bring it up to show that women are just as capable of making rude comments. I've been in many a public situation where similar things happened with women making lewd comments. Why are women making lewd comments empowered, while men doing so are harassing?

The problem with the word harassment in this situation is that focuses on the listener. It's subjective on the situation. If you make a joke to one person, everyone has a laugh. Another person becomes deeply offended by the exact same joke. Richards brings her traumatic past into it, her misinterpretation and the trigger of a little girl brought up in the speech to register action-worthy offense. I'm sorry, that's just too subjective to condemn a man or woman as a bad person who doesn't deserve to be included in society. People deserve leeway when it comes to their interactions. You can't designate one segment of society as the arbiter  of offensive comments and give them the power to ruin others. Feminists like to talk about language being a form of violence, but, the real form of violence is the action taken to silence and punish, especially when it's done on behalf of authority.

If I had been trained to see every awkward inducing comment as harassment and punishable, and men were seen as victims by society and society even considered harassment of men a problem, perhaps I would have felt obligated, empowered to report the comment in the cab. What would it have accomplished? Nothing but misery on all sides. I might have lost a coworker and created distrust at my workplace.

It's interesting, because I have done something similar to Richards. The artist who created those posters directed them toward the public, not a private conversation. They were blatantly hateful toward men in general, not a puerile joke. For holding feminist to the same standards to which they hold men, I was laughably accused of appropriating the language of the oppressed and using it against them. But, in Feminist Land, two wrongs make one wrong and a right (when the oppressed group performs one of the wrongs). Richards has received much praise and support as well as backlash and the loss of her job. No doubt, feminists will rally around her to support her chastising of behaviour that everyone does.

Richards doesn't know it is an unwitting victim in the feminist play. Now that she has been fired, she becomes a martyr for the cause, a casualty of the war on men. Trained to sacrifice her happiness for the feminist agenda like a foot soldier in the army.

I hope, at least, that she demonstrates to all, the pitfalls of the victim mentality. You can't rely on authority to protect your delicate sensibilities. This will only lead to a world with animosity and suspicion.

Rape Culture vs. Chivalric Code

It seems harder to get Feminists to challenge their belief in Rape Culture and Patriarchy than it is to get a devout theist to question the existence of perfect beings capable of creating imperfect worlds and then abandoning the inhabitants to go it alone. Both usually come by their beliefs through indoctrination and intense psychological abuse. Religious people are indoctrinated in churches, synagogues, temples and mosques. Feminists receive their beliefs from government institutions called schools.

Both groups have unfounded beliefs and customs that seem bizarre to the uninitiated. Religious people believe that they must adopt certain formalized manners of dress and behaviours as dictated by the leaders of their faith. Feminists have no formalized codes of dress, but many have fashions that could be described as counter-cultural identifying their members through rebellion against perceived oppression. Feminist orthodoxy states that adherents must believe that women are oppressed by the Patriarchy. This Patriarchy is not indestructible, but, it is enduring, ever-present and oppressive, a bit like the omnipotent beings believed to exist by many religious people.

Well, I am not trying to draw comparisons to famousphilosophers, but, this has to be said:

The Patriarchy is dead.

How do I know that Patriarchy is dead?

Women can vote.

Women can own land.

Women can hold positions of political power.

Women can work anywhere.

Women can start businesses.

Women can hire people.

Women can fire people.

Women can marry a man and keep her original name.

Women are not considered property.

Women can divorce their husbands.

Women usually have custody of children after a divorce.

All of these things were not true under the patriarchy. Today, women have equal or greater rights in every modern Western country. Due to intense indoctrination techniques feminists still believe that patriarchy exists, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Another odd belief related to Patriarchy, Rape Culture. Oddly enough, I’ve never seen it. Somehow, these feminists have grown up in another culture within the same culture in which I grew up.  I grew up in a culture of chivalry. There was nothing rapey about the culture in which I was raised. The rape narrative went something like this. If a member of your family was raped, your whole family was destroyed and shamed. You failed to protect her and you must avenge the act to achieve justice.

Here are two examples of common narratives of this culture:

1. A girl is raped. Her brother kills the rapist. He now lives in jail where he is regularly raped by the scum of the earth who also reside there.

2.  A father dies in jail where he was spending time for fighting. His last words to his son are that there is no honour in fighting and it shows more character to be passive. His son lives by these words, but, this perceived cowardice means that worthless thugs believe that his girlfriend is unprotected. He becomes enraged when he discovers she’s been raped and realizes that his ethos must be adjusted in certain circumstances and enacts his revenge.

How is rape excused in this culture? Did I miss something? I find this behaviour rather chivalric.

Feminists in this case are kind of putting the cart before the horse. They assume that rape exists because it was allowed by society. Well, this is completely backwards. Rape has always occurred since the dawn of humanity. As society became more civilized, it began finding ways to reduce the risk of rape, first, by civilizing men. Institutions like marriage were developed to protect women from opportunistic men. Chivalrous knights and later security forces, police and courts were formed. Of course, incest and other types of rape still occurred, but, as society became aware of more types of rape, and more techniques were invented to prevent rape more efforts were put forth to stop it.

The risk of rape is reducing as time and civilization progresses, much like the risk of being eaten by predatory animals has been all but eliminated. Every decade, fewer and fewer lives are lost due to predatory animals because we are dealing with the problem with increasing knowledge and techniques. 200 years ago, the land where I live was populated by bears, wolves and probably other predators that caused the residents a certain amount of realistic fear. These days, people react with hysteria when a coyote approaches their pet dog's kennel. The risk has been largely, but not totally, reduced due to the increase in civilization. If you were to say that coyotes attack dogs because society allows it, I'd say you're attributing a little bit too much power to the organs of society. We are trying to deal with coyotes, but, dammit, those creatures are wily and their nature makes them much more difficult to eradicate than wolves were.

If you don't believe that society is dealing with rape better than ever, look at the amount of furor and the level of punishment leveled for the Stubenville assault case.  If this type of assault is treated with every bit as much outrage as a brutal, traditional rape, we must realize that the world is much nicer than at any time in the past. Mind you, the publicity of You Tube makes this case unlike any other in the history. The outrage over rape is actually increasing even as the expanding definition of rape makes the crimes covered by the term less extreme and traumatic.

It doesn't matter if the rapist is the Gattlin boys in the Kenny Rogers tune or football players, rapists are considered the lowest form of criminal.

A burgeoning Rape Culture (later snuffed out by Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little)

Childhood Creativity

Somebody once told me
The world was macaroni
So, I took a bite out of a tree

It tasted kind of funny
So, I spate it at a monkey
And the monkey just stared at me.

Then Darth Vader
Threw his light saber
And missed me be metre
And hit Justin Bieber
Who said, 'Baby, baby, baby Oooohhh!"

My seven year old son picked this song up at school and taught me. By taught me, I mean repeated it over and over until I couldn't get it out of my head. It's a thoroughly annoying little ditty. I only hope that it stays with you, dear reader. If you do not get any enjoyment, enlightenment or perspective from my blog, at least you get a stupid song stuck in your head. If you don't have any children, this just gives you a tiny taste of the warfare they wage on your mind.

I do have a serious point. Songwriting such as this is ingrained in human behaviour. It is as natural as language itself - I believe it is the one of the most important instincts in the development of human intelligence and language.

When I was seven, we had many of our own little songs like this. However, I don't remember anything like this one. Here's why, it's a take off on a late-90's song by Smash Mouth called All-Star. Children have taken the basic lyrics and twisted them around using current pop-culture icons. The Justin Beiber part could have been added to an older rhyme - I just googled it and found many You Tube versions going back to 2009.

Who knows how many versions are going viral around school yards right now or what new creations will catch on and get spread around in the future. I just find it fascinating how people constantly twist the language and pop culture into all of these new forms. Modern technology lets us document it and spread it quicker, but this has been since the dawn of man. My sons still sings the old Jingle Bells, Batman Smells parody every Christmas that used to get punished by detention in my old school days.

Is it evidence of a rational, creative mind or genetic determinism at work?

BTW, here is the original song, All-Star by ska-rock band Smash Mouth:
http://www.slack-time.com/music-video-3228-Smash-Mouth-All-Star

I kind of like it.

Edited, March 16, 2013.

The Destruction of Female Through Sport

Back in 2010, I blogged about transgendered people and sport. I have no idea what has become of Lana Lawless. A cursory google search showed only outdated links.

The issue has come up again now that female male Fallon Fox has admitted to fighting in MMA in the women's division. I commented at AVFM and GLPIGGY.

My argument is that Hormone Replacement Treatment (HRT) amounts to doping. Although estrogen is not considered performance enhancing, it is in the same category as testosterone which is definitely performance enhancing. Paul Elam states in his response, "without the estrogen the individual would not have qualified to compete, it would make sense to me that this is a form of doping."  I agree.

Taken to its logical end, the argument that a man should be able to compete with women if he undergoes gender reassignment (GR) and HRT means that the reverse should also be true. This is why, in my comments at both places, I posed the question: when will women be allowed to dope with testosterone in order to "fairly" compete with men in men's only divisions?

I don't think that this idea quite sunk in with readers yet.  This is the inevitable conclusion of this gender defining nonsense. If gender is only a construct and we consider someone who undergoes HRT and GR to be identical in every way to a naturally born member of the chosen sex, then a woman should have the right to compete with men and use PED's (testosterone) to level the playing field. In the Liberal, post-modern mindset, giving women this advantage would only be fair since without it, women are excluded.

I'm taking this line of thought to its inevitable conclusion. It starts as allowing only male females (women who have been given GR to become men) into male sports division. But eventually, more and more women will want to compete and will start altering their bodies to become more male-like. If they can take that advantage in order to compete, some will. The flood gates will open and soon you'll have divisions filled with men competing against steroid-pumping females and nobody will be able to say one word or even construct an argument within their own mind because they won't understand how wrong it is.


Secondary Point:
The Science Whore is in full view in this issue. Fox uses the argument that "Doctors" have stated that using HRT negates all advantage of being born a man. I'm assuming that "Doctors" means her own pro-Gender-Reassignment doctors. This appeal to authority is pathetic. "Doctors" are not scientist. The opinion of two doctors is not substantive evidence any more than the opinion of 2 out of 3 dentists means that one toothpaste is better than another.

Define Rational Mind

I haven't had time to post anything recently. So, in light of the recent long discussion about moral free agency over at AVFM, in which I argued with Steve Moxon (who seriously out classes me in the academic department, but I will not agree to his statements about free will and rationality), I am going to post a question/challenge to anyone who happens by.

Can anyone provide a definition of a rational mind? What could possibly be capable of producing a rational mind? Would a rational mind be capable of performing anything of its own volition or would it only be capable of thinking if challenged by outside forces - less rational minds?

Steve Moxon states that evolution could not possibly produce a rational mind. It begs the question, indeed. For, evolution has produced the only mind of any kind that we are aware of.  So, is it even possible for a rational mind to exist? To answer this question, first the term must be defined.

Please send any links or publications that you might think help to answer this question.

CDSH

Conscious Agency Discussed Tonight on AVFM Radio

I noticed that AVFM radio is going to be talking about moral agency on tonight's show.

The very first comment on the show page by Steve Moxon said this:

It’s well-known through famous experiments that we do not have ‘conscious agency’: experiments reveal that we are conscious of decisions we make a considerable time (by brain-processing standards) after the neural processes that in fact produce them.
 

I blogged about this idea, championed by Sam Harris, awhile back.

I made this comment (quickly typed right before my sons' bath time, so slightly editted here - good night kids):

I'm tired of hearing that we do not have 'conscious agency' or free will. I think Sam Harris is the champion of this belief and the designer of the experiments your thinking of. 

While it may be true that thoughts arise deep inside of us at a sub-conscious level. But, you must understand that these thoughts and feelings are in response to stimuli (external and internal). As they develop into coherent thoughts, they become the mind's assessments of reality. Each separate thought is a assessment of reality within the mind and as the conscious thinker becomes more aware of them he can choose amongst the myriad of these competing assessments which ones are most relevant to his situation. You can't pass them off as simple animal urges translated into language. They are complex analyses, the likes of which only humans are capable. There is no other thought process like it in the universe that we know of (unless you believe in a god). 

Each person is socialized and culturalized to understand human interaction and each person (agent) chooses how they like to interact and be interacted with. This lets the person decide how to behave in order to appear like the person they want to be seen as.

The REALITY of free will is demonstrated in your ability to be who you are. Who you are is a human being with the capability of consciously choosing which feelings to act upon and which to ignore.

Academics have tried to remove this sense of free will from their audience in order to appear more intelligent and to give more power to their own ideas. When the audience members allow academics to take their moral agency and free will away, their minds become easier to control and academics gain more power over people.

I credit Greg Swann at www.selfadoration.com for re-enforcing and solidify this idea in my mind. The thoughts on academics are definitely his. For more on this, I recommend reading his marvelous, concise book Man Alive: A Survival Guide For Your Mind(pdf). It's a short read and I found it highly inspirational.

Swann insists that you should not let supposed thought leaders, like journalists, teachers and politicians take you're moral agency away. They'll do this by training you to think like them and convincing you that you don't have the power to question what you're teaching. Within academia, there are enough people willing to surrender their own power to the thought leaders that any single individual truly does not matter. If you, as a student, refuse to accept the leader's power, you can just be thrown aside and some other willing participant in the fraud will come forward.

I truly believe that feminism is both a result of and a perveyor of this phenomenon. It spreads by insisting that everyone take up its tenants without question. Each person, once indoctrinated, begins to spread the ideas with plenty of armour against contradictory evidence in the form or religious belief.

Whenever I think of this subject, I think of the old Spirit of the West Song.

I'm hoping to tune into the radio show tonight.

Using Science as a Whore - How to Increase School Resources

This CBC article showed up on my Google News Search. Toronto District School board published a study showing that its students are worried about the future and losing sleep over it.

Toronto public high school students are more worried about their future than their relationships or family matters
 

...More worried about the future than they are about their relationships and families? I'm not sure if I should be more alarmed about the ranking of the level of worry on these subjects or whether they are worried about them at all.

This was the first time the board surveyed its students on mental health issues.
"What our research showed us is that there's certainly a gap in the area of mental health and we need to focus more of our resources in the area of mental health," Schwartz-Maltz told the Canadian Press.
"These surveys drive programming in our schools, they give us a snapshot of the way our kids are feeling and they drive what we do."

Read: We need more resources to fund more staff to provide more programs to "help" young people.

The TDSB is trying to inflate its importance, just like every single government body. When a study like this is performed, the actual results are at the same time irrelevant and predetermined.

The questions are tilted to favour the desired outcome - 'Are YOU concerned about YOUR future?' As far as I'm concerned, the more youth that answer, yes, to that question the better. Frankly, kids need to be concerned and, in this economy, you'd be nuts not to be concerned unless you're filthy rich. It's a perfect example of a leading question. When you hear the question, it immediately puts worry into your mind and you start to ask questions about your future. The wacky thing is, the psychologists who phrase the question know this perfectly well. They know what confirmation bias is. They study, negativity bias and framing affect in school - many probably wrote final papers on the subjects. They understand that double-blind studies should be used to ensure their own biases don't affect the science. I'm tempted to blame this on the Dunning-Kruger affect, but, it seems more likely that they use their vast knowledge of the human psyche to ensure the results match their desired outcome.

The numbers, inflated as they are, make no difference to the study's conclusion. Someone thought it would be a good idea to put more psychologists, social workers and other programs in school, or some such measure. If there isn't a problem, they need to find one and make sure that it is the school board's problem to fix. So, they performed a study on their students to support this desire. How many students need to be concerned about their future to justify spending X million dollars on better mental health support? One is not related to the other, so the whole exercise is meaningless.

The sad part is, they're talking about taking dollars that could be spent on music, sports, arts and other educational programs so that schools can do more about mental health issues. Why not have a school system focused on school issues, and health departments focus on health issues?

Once again, science whores are trotted out to the public to give the illusion that we're thinking about important issues, when we're really trying to increase funding from taxes to hire more social workers. The full colourfully graphed report is here.

Women Rule

In Canada, women are the ruling class.

Exhibit A:
A woman wins a divorce settlement whereby the man is forced to pay for 3 children who are a result 3 separate extra-marital affairs.

Exhibit B:
An employer is forced to accommodate an unusual shift request so she can save money on childcare. (Huff-Post, G&M)

Exhibit C:
Video evidence is not enough to convict a woman of conspiracy to commit due to allegations of abuse (direct link to RCMP footage at CBC).
Here is the testimonial of her ex-husband she wanted murdered - testimony the court did not want to hear.

Gay Men Really Are Oppressed!

I'm now convinced that gay men are oppressed.

I was always wondering what people meant when I read that every gay person lives in fear for their lives and can't function because of the oppression that us straight people cause by our actually living and being us.

Now, I totally understand.  Watch and be informed...

Arun Smith's Final Assignment: Free Speech is Liberating

Arun Smith has been at Carleton University for seven years. He says that it is because he has worked full time for the first 6 years to support his studies without taking loans. I'll take that claim at face value. I admire perseverance through difficulties.

Obviously, he is a dedicated student. However it appears as though he's gotten himself into a little bit of trouble with his tearing-down-the-wall stunt.

He doesn't appear bothered that the university might decide to punish him. He believes that it any punishment, "no matter how unjust," is worth standing up for his beliefs. I respect that. I just don't respect his beliefs. I also don't respect destruction of property, but as a Marxist, Arun probably doesn't believe in property.

Well, in the unlikely event that Arun finds himself expelled or has any other trouble gaining his human rights degree (could he really face year 8 if required?), I am making an offer to help him.

 

Since he's obviously desires a degree, I will offer him a degree from The Culdesac University.  All that he has to do is write one essay. I will publish it here, reserving the right to critique and respond.

 

The essay must be titled Free Speech is Liberating. It must cover the role that freedom of speech has played in liberating marginalized groups and people throughout history and explain why this tool of freedom is or is not still necessary today in the industrialized world where suffrage has been granted universally across the population.

 

If he receives a passing grade, he will be granted a certificate granting him all of the rights and responsibilities due to the holder of a degree in Political Freedom Study from The Culdesac University.

 

If Arun is not up to writing this essay, I will grant a Junior Associate Certificate in Political Shutzpa if he writes out the words Free Speech is Liberating 2000 times and hands it in. I think that work will probably have more content than any essay he wrote in his studies at Carleton.

 

 

Disclaimer: This is satire. I do not run a university or school of any kind. I have no qualifications as an examiner and no authority by the government of Ontario or Canada to grant a degree of education. Any endorsement granted by The Cul-De-Sac Hero will have no weight at any accredited institution in Canada or any other benefits.  But, I will make a neat looking, certificate that says that he has completed my course.

 

 

Two Thoughts on Censorship and Activism

Manwomanmyth has a real world experience with a poster that belittles men and boys in a school setting. He has some thoughtful insights about what it means to take offence and censor words.

Arun Smith tears down a Free Speech wall at Carleton University, because it might have something hateful if left long enough.  He believes that he has the right to decide which opinions are valid.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/01/20130123-174253.html

 I think that the most ridiculous portion of his Facebook statement about his action is this:

In organizing the “free speech wall,” the Students for Liberty have forgotten that liberty requires liberation, and this liberation is prevented by providing space for either more platitudes, or for the expression of hate.

What purpose does free speech serve more important than liberation? Is anything more liberating than free speech?

Arun and others like him currently enjoy the fruits of freedom of speech that we have enjoyed in our history but now they want to cut it off. Neo-fascist identity politics idealogues are a dangerous threat to freedom of all kinds, especially when they call Free Speech a "buzzword". Want some buzzwords? How about triggering, inclusion, invalidation or marginalized communities?

RAPE CULTURE - I DON'T GET IT

I love it when someone tries to argue that they are right because the other person just doesn't get it. Never stop to consider that maybe your argument is flawed. Just accuse the other person of not getting your argument and move on.

Maybe your argument is ungettable.

Let's look at what our famous young art student has been up to defending her "Nice Guys Rape" poster.

http://feministartdegree.tumblr.com/post/39442800441/trigger-warning-rape-rape-culture

Someone called Loaded For Bear posted a fair rebuttal. He basically says that, once someone commits rape, they prove that they are not a nice person. The rapist was only pretending to be nice in the first place.

This makes sense to me, but of course, I just don't get it.

Feminist Art Degree sets me straight (in caps, so  I know she's serious).

BY TELLING ME HOW TO DEFINE MY ASSAULTER YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN RAPE CULTURE.

Hmm... Nobody told you how to define your assaulter. They simply defined your assaulter. Assaulters aren't nice people. You can believe whatever you want to about the person.

BY TELLING ME TO DEFINE MY ASSAULTER AS SOLELY “A MONSTER” YOU ARE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHT TO DEFINE THEM AS I SO PLEASE.

Again, believe what you want to believe. Reality is separate.

BY TELLING ME TO DEFINE MY ASSAULTER AS SOLELY “A MONSTER” YOU ARE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHT TO MY OWN ASSAULT NARRATIVE, WHICH I ALONE LIVED.

That narrative in your head is your own business. Again, narrate away. The truth exists independant of narrative.

BY TELLING ME ONLY MONSTERS RAPE YOU ARE NEGATING THE INFINITE ASSAULT STORIES OF PEOPLE WHO WERE RAPED BY NICE PEOPLE.

Negating? I'm not sure that's the word. Infinite assault stories? Wow, does that mean the stories are infinitely long or that there is an infinite supply? Human existence is finite, so... stories of any kind are kind of finite.
Let's offer some creative criticism here. Let's say that nice people don't rape, but, many people have been raped by nasty people pretending to be nice.

BY TELLING ME ONLY MONSTERS RAPE YOU ARE PERPETUATING RAPE CULTURE’S IDEA OF THE “IDEAL RAPE”; THAT ONLY CERTAIN ASSAULTS COUNT BY BEING DEFINED WITHIN NARROW PARAMETERS; THAT IF YOU “DIDN’T FIGHT BACK/WERE DRUNK/WERE BOUGHT DINNER/THEY WERE NICE”/ETC, IT WASN’T REALLY RAPE.

By telling me that only certain assaults count, you are being asked to define rape. Rape has a definition. For a general definition, see Wikipedia: Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.

BY TELLING ME NICE GUYS DON’T RAPE- “WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING”- YOU ARE LETTING SAID NICE PEOPLE WHO DO RAPE OFF THE HOOK.

No, you are denying me the right to define nice guys as people who do not do things that are not nice. Pretending to be nice in order to get into a position where one can commit rape is not only a crime against the victim, it is an offence against nice guys. The deception is just another part of the overall malevolent nature of the person.

BY TELLING ME NICE GUYS DON’T RAPE- “WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING”- YOU ARE CONTINUING TO PERPETUATE RAPE CULTURE’S IDEAL RAPE NARRATIVE AND IGNORING ALL THE ACTUAL, REAL, LEGITIMATE RAPES THAT OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THOSE DEFINITIONS.
D O
Y O U
F U C K I N G
U N D E R S T A N D

 No, I don't understand. Rape Culture is a myth. I might as well say, by not clapping your hands behind your back three times before speaking you are perpetuating the evil reign of the Invisible Monkey Brain.  In order to understand, I'd have to believe in it. You are trying to control the narrative.

Say I have a friend named Barry.  Now I think that Barry is a nice guy. But, when I invite him into my house, he waits until I'm comfortable and then punches me in the face, knocks me unconscious and steals my belongings. "Well," I say, "he's really a nice guy." If you try to tell me that Barry is really an asshole pretending to be a nice guy is that defining my narrative? Is it participating in a theft and assault culture? No, it's telling it like it is. Barry was never a nice guy.

If, on the other hand, Barry and I participate in Mixed Martial Arts and he knocks me unconscious, it is entirely possible that he is a nice guy. Even if, one time, I tried to tap out and he didn't see it and knocked me silly. It was a mistake, and nice guys do make them.

So, I can say that someone punched me in the face and is still a nice guy, but, I can't say that someone assaulted me and is still a nice guy. There is a big difference. Assault is a crime and it is intentional and involuntary on the part of the victim.

Rape is a crime. It is not allowed or enabled in any culture in which I participate. I find rape repulsive and I also find it repulsive for someone to include anyone who commits rape in the category of nice people.

I refuse to "get" any statement that makes such a claim.