A female commenter going by the moniker paigeu, left an interesting comment on the Hooking up with the Dark Lord post.
I can see the truth in it all but it is very embarrassing. I grew up with the idea that women were the moral sex and were responsible for taming men.
The average manosphere blogger or commenter would guffaw at such a statement and immediately relegate it to just another manifestation of the solipsistic superiority complex of the typical modern,Western female.
Worse still, it is the attitude instilled by the modern White Knights of Churchianity. This is the precise attitude that shaped the unhappy home I grew up in, and drove me from the church's regular membership.
But on further consideration...there is truth to be found in this statement.
As women are the gate keepers to sex, they ARE the "moral sex." The morality that women ascribe to their sexual behavior is responsible for the state of morality in society and the general culture at large.
In other words, there cannot be a few alpha players banging multitudes of women, if there are no large number of sluts willing to sleep with men they just met. There cannot be a rash of husbands abandoning their wives for younger women, if there are no younger women willing to be home-wreckers.
The only way men can be "tamed" by the "moral sex," is when the female sex adheres to a code of morality that promotes the building of civilization...Patriarchy.
This is essentially what you see manifest in cultures for which the morality of matriarchal promiscuity is it's centerpiece: untamed males, running wild, contributing to the decline of civilization.
But when women channel their sex into the system of Patriarchy, requiring them to submit to chaste monogamy and embrace their femininity to be complementary partners to their husbands, the male is "tamed." She doesn't truly tame her through force - since a man who can be cowed into submission by a woman's sheer will of force is most likely tame to begin with - she inspires him to tame himself.
My ruminations on paigeu's comment brought one of my favorite movies to mind, Clint Eastwood's The Unforgiven.
The background story of his character, William Munny, demonstrates this principle. A former scoundrel bad boy thug who was inspired to change his carousing, wild ways into becoming a family man.
Men are not "tamed" by chaste, virtuous women because the woman demands it. Not because she forces him against his will either. No, she tames her man by inspiring him. By giving him a happy home graced by her femininity, he is content to forgo the hedonistic pursuits of the untamed culture of rampant female promiscuity. Eastwood's character stopped drinking, gambling, gun-fighting and carousing in saloons to become a farmer and a family man.
Even after his wife died and he decided to try and gain the whore's bounty to get some desperately needed money, it took him a long, long time to awaken the beast within, the one that he had tamed for such a long time. Throughout most of the movie, it is comical to see him try and regain his former "bad guy" ways.
It takes the sheriff displaying his best friend's body in an open casket for the entire town to see that William Munny finally unleashes that long-tamed beast within, and in the film's climax, he walks coolly into the sheriff's office full of armed men, outnumbering him 10 to 1, and guns them all down in a cold blooded, unflinching manner. The untamed beast wiped out the entire organization of law and order in that town in under 10 seconds.
This is exactly what is happening in our current society that celebrates and advocates female promiscuity. This is why we have overflowing prisons of young men, most of whom come from single mother households.
Our current system is designed to empower women by dis-empowering men. To promote their competitive role with males, and to remove any personal consequences for female promiscuity.
When the majority of a society's women embrace this, the men have no reason, motivation or desire to even try and tame the beast.
20 comments:
This was so well said, I don't know what could be added to it.
Thank you for sharing it, Keoni.
While I can't say that I disagree with you on the macro-level, I still find it obvious that everyone is responsible for their own actions. I will tame myself, instead of waiting for society or a woman to do it for me.
A tour de force. What Terry said.
Women are an empty vessel. They'll hold whatever they're filled with--if it's evil, they'll take evil, if it's good, they'll be good. If general society will not force them to uphold goodness, they will gravitate toward evil.
The only thing I would add is my thoughts to the nature of the beast. It doesn't have to be sex, or violence. It could be wild parties, heavy consumption of drugs/alcohol etc.
Though I agree with you, I'll play devil's advocate just because I think it's an interesting line of thinking. When men choose to abandon patriarchy in favor of matriarchy and the promise of free milk, then a dearth of leaders emerges. It is then incumbent upon the real men that they reclaim their leadership roles and tame the shrews. To go ghost or go our own way, in the strictest sense of the concepts, is an abdication to the whims of matriarchal nonsense. That is not to say that the answer is to man up as that often implies accepting present reality, but to reclaim our thrones and say "enough." William F. Buckley was far from perfect, but his famous saying about standing athwart history and saying enough is highly applicable to our modern decline. We have to be present for our declarations of "enough" to be heard.
Let the dogpile commence.
[i]When men choose to abandon patriarchy in favor of matriarchy and the promise of free milk, then a dearth of leaders emerges. It is then incumbent upon the real men that they reclaim their leadership roles and tame the shrews. To go ghost or go our own way, in the strictest sense of the concepts, is an abdication to the whims of matriarchal nonsense. That is not to say that the answer is to man up as that often implies accepting present reality, but to reclaim our thrones and say "enough." William F. Buckley was far from perfect, but his famous saying about standing athwart history and saying enough is highly applicable to our modern decline. We have to be present for our declarations of "enough" to be heard.[/i]
Dude, I do believe that there what you have written is an example of "Pure Poetry".
One of my favorite movies too.
And they way Munny's friend died is part of the equation too. Men, even Alpha men, are willing to tame themselves and give up the wild life because, frankly, the life of an Alpha in an uncivilized society sucks. Life as a beta sucks more, but every Alpha eventually gets old or unlucky and ends up some rival's trophy.
Chimps have a polygamous-hypergamous society, and Alpha males get the majority of females. They also tend to die alone and in pain, some distance away from their nuts, face, and hands. They get ambushed by a gang of wanna-be alphas, and sooner or later, the old man is too old to win that fight.
Civilization has tremendous advantages. Women agreeing to be dutiful, loyal wives instead of ditzy sluts is the key to it. Someone needs to remind them.
"... It is then incumbent upon the real men that they reclaim their leadership roles and tame the shrews. To go ghost or go our own way, in the strictest sense of the concepts, is an abdication to the whims of matriarchal nonsense."
Uh, haven't you forgotten something? Like:
-- biased Domestic Violence laws, with 'must arrest the man' regulations
-- the White Knights in Blue Uniforms that eagerly and mercilessly and unthinkingly enforce such laws
-- the misandric court system with their 'police state' powers
You go right ahead and be a 'real man' and go and 'tame the shrews' -- I'll read all about your arrest, trial, and sentencing...if not your funeral.
A wise man knows to pick the right time and place to fight, and it is not now. True, the feminist-controlled system is full of lard and excrement, but it is presently protected by twelve inches of armor plate. A frontal attack is suicidal -- go guerrilla, and also hit from the sides and the shadows...remember how the VC fought in 'Nam.
Going Your Own Way or Going Ghost isn't giving up, it's surviving and living to fight another day -- on YOUR terms.
Or you can go ahead and be a 'real man' -- every revolution needs martyrs.
"When the emperor is good, serve.
When the emperor is bad, recluse."
-- Confucius
Terrific post. I don't remember the story line (although I believe it did win the Best Picture Oscar the year it came out), but I do remember seeing it on my first (and only date) with a single mom. I can't help but wonder what happened to her then 7-year old son.
This concept is also part of the social contract between the genders that was so well established for so long. But we all know that certain political and social forces rewrote the social contract for women and made a rather failed attempt at rewriting the contract for men.
So now men are having to rewrite that contract and it's proving difficult with all the white knights trying to hog the keyboard.
...."This is exactly what is happening in our current society that celebrates and advocates female promiscuity. This is why we have overflowing prisons of young men, most of whom come from single mother households"
This statement is about the only thing I don't agree with. I come from single mother household, and i'm doing ok. Its not as cut and dry as you make it sound here to emphasize your point. Everyone has a choice. It could equally be said that drugs and poor socio demographics cause incarceration. America's drug laws are ridiculous with mandatory sentencing and the like. Coming from a single parent home is not helping but I would also suggest in alot of cases there could be multiple reason's for the marriage breaking down and the father or mother deciding to leave, particularly in areas that are poor. Id be careful of making sweeping statements like this, it creates resentment in the reader when you make these kind of claims to enforce your point.
great post though.
@Jace, more power to you for overcoming the odds. Seriously.
But what HL's describing here is a complex social trend and process. Unlike the measurement of events in the physical sciences, the correlations between outcomes like this (incarceration rates) and their behavioral causes (divorce, promiscuity) are a little less precise. Yet the correlations don't need to be a perfect 1.0 before revealing a positive relationship.
It's correct that not EVERY child of a single-parent household will serve time in prison. But the share of men in prison who come from divorced and single-mother households is so overwhelmingly high, it now boggles the mind (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/responsible.html).
...And while drug abuse, poor educational attainment, and household poverty also correlate with later incarceration, one must recall that divorce and single-parenthood are exactly the key antecedents to an increased risk of child drug abuse, poor educational attainment, and household poverty in the first place!
The claim that, "I know so-and-so and their kids turned out okay after divorce" or "I know so-and-so who slept with the entire college lacrosse team and now look how happily married she is", are flawed arguments. The large-sample social statistics from the CDC and GSS consistently point in the exact opposite direction. ...Yet these statistics continue to be ignored by those who naively wish it were otherwise--such as those who prefer to re-label promiscuity and divorce as "empowerment".
WooZoo
Dude, I do believe that there what you have written is an example of "Pure Poetry".
can't agree more
mnl - thanks, I couldn't have responded to Jace any better.
I am just now seeing this. Good post. When I first saw my name I got a little nervous. lol.
I am just now seeing this. Good post. When I first saw my name I got a little nervous. lol.
I know this post is very old, but I only started visiting your blog a couple of days ago and found this post. Anyway, I just wanted to leave my two cents.
While I understand what you're saying, I don't agree with the idea that the onis should completely be on the women when it comes to sexual morality, or that it should only be dependent on women.
Why not teach boys that sexual morality is important and not encourage the idea that they can't possibly think for themselves and have their own self control when it comes to sex. Yes men and women are biologically different, but that's no excuse to not teach or expect sexual morality in males. To say that males sexual morality is dependent completly on women almost absolves them of any moral responsibility and expectation for them to think for themselves and practice self control.
As for the sexual standards, a guy can be alpha or have an "aura" of alphaness and not be promiscuous (at least that's what I believe).
I know we've had this conversation before over at the Spearhead...it's just that the mindset under discussion seems very problematic to me. I mean, wouldn't it be more effective to teach sexual morality to both sexes and not be dependent on just one?
I pretty much agree with Thomas Amundsen's comment:
While I can't say that I disagree with you on the macro-level, I still find it obvious that everyone is responsible for their own actions. I will tame myself, instead of waiting for society or a woman to do it for me.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote here at all, I certainly do not advocate that women bare all the responsibility of societies morality. I'm merely observing here that the health of any society can be ascertained by the sexual mores of the women and the choices they make in mating, procreating and rearing the next generation.
Hey did our two comments dissapear? I'll respond to your response anyway.
If I recall correctly, you agree with my comment pretty much. My thing is, wouldn't it be better if the onus was on both sexes, or that parents teach both girls and boys abstinence and/or to refrain from casual sex?
Post a Comment