Thursday 2 July 2015

Feeling Shame

Over on the RoK hit-piece, a commentor replies to me:
Bear Hands 
"Feel shame for what is shameful to you. Don't feel shame for what others tell you to feel shameful for." 
The first one comes from red pill men trying to make you better. The second comes from feminism.
My response:
Interestingly put, I kind of like that. To paraphrase: "Feel shame for what is shameful to you. Red Pill men trying to make you better." 
A question about this though. Ignoring the whole shaming attempt thing of calling these guys virgins who can't get laid - which some are definitely not.
It seems to me to be a lack of respect towards these men, of whatever stripe. These people (MGTOW) are nominally adults and in many cases chose their lifestyle. Whatever the events that caused them to go in various ways. Whether it's a cost-benefit analysis, getting screwed over by a really bad ex-wife, seeing what happened to a friend or family member, etc. 
It seems as though some Red Pill men are projecting their sense of "what is shameful to you" on to these others, who have decided their path through life. This seems to be a lack of empathy and consideration towards their fellow-men. A lack of respect for their choices in life. 
Very female- and feminist-like in it's way.
Ignoring the issue of the sub-rosa doublethink agenda behind these hit-pieces ("Pay me $$$ you losers and I will teach you how to fuck hawt chicks!").

Definitely a lack of respect towards others. Though what more can you expect - of a segment of men which advocates becoming somewhat sociopathic/psychopathic in order to have sex with naive women?

Uncle Bob has some great ideas regarding Shame and Guilt.


  1. 'Follow your personal interest, because nobody else would do that for you.' - another thought I like. Know any more concise version? - funny. My comment that in the initial infographic shouldn't be any 'Lamda' was deleted promptly. Anyway, if the score 0 (not counting paid sex) serves my interests the best, the score 0 it will be.

    1. Grief. He really is obsessed by the amount of sex that men get. Plus being obsessed with putting them into a ranking scheme of boxes to codify them by sexual-conquest-level. "This guy is a Level 69 sex-obsessed Alpha with a side-helping of grade-A surreptitious wife-fucker" bullshit theoretical construct. That offers a disturbing insight deep into his mind (and motivations?): "if you aren't getting (heterosexual) sex, the more the better, then you are a (temporary or complete) loser". This basically comes across as a shaming attempt.

      You are correct: adding Lambda/gay men into a Heterosexual chart is disingenuous at best. "The second subset is homosexual men who of course do not participate in the heterosexual market." Then why'd he add it in? To me it comes across as yet another sub-rosa shaming attempt, lumping in guys who (currently) get no sex (for whatever reason) with the gay guys. To me that is intellectually dishonest, comparing apples and watermelons rather than apples and apples. He is deliberately stigmatizing and polarizing - attempting to shame them into thinking as he wants them to think.

    2. I think his most honest part of the post: "The second set which is where this post focuses: men who are Zeros by Choice (ZBC). This group is actually quite large, but very fluid in nature as there are many temporary members." Emphasis mine. Yes, there are temporary members. Which makes me ask: if these people are temporary, why are they being labelled as Zeros? Even Alphas in the PUA sense go through periodic dry-spots and times of low motivation. Going by this logic, every PUA who takes a break (for whatever reason) would become Zeros also. (See RooshV below.)

      He can't quite bring himself to state explicitly that a message of "my way or the highway" and "I'm doing my thing, you can come along for the ride if you want" to a woman doesn't mean that a man gets no sex. More intellectual dishonesty?

      Interesting: "The ZBC subset who rebel against the market are made of up men who are frustrated, bored, angry, or disappointed." Or who have had a moment of clarity (as I think some recovering Alcoholics and drug-users put it) that has allowed them to make a rational decision about what to do with their time and money and effort and lives. Except that by definition, everyone who doesn't slavishly agree with him and follow his definitions of what a man's life-path should be is not rational. Therefore they cannot make a rational decision. Therefore they are Zeros.

      Note: This series of definitions means that RooshV, who once expressed boredom with being a "dancing clown/monkey" for women, is also a Zero. Or was for a while. Perhaps Vox will make a special exemption for such "high-quality thinkers" like Roosh.

      "The Importance" - of attempting to fuck anything and everything female that moves in sight. Obsession once more. If you aren't attempting to seriously fuck her (even if she's married? and you are married? what does SpaceBunny think of that?) then you are not his-version-of-Alpha. What if she's underage? What if you're 70 and she's 14? (Legal in New Zealand, with her parents consent.)

      "ZBC Can Contribute" - as he can contribute with advice on the care and raising of a Gamma son. Which probably disqualifies him from the running to advise others on how to be his-version-of-Alpha. If he can't raise an his-version-of-Alpha son, how can he honestly say to other men "this is what you do to be Alpha"?

      Overall impression: Shaming attempt failed. Miserably. Though some people will fall for and follow it.

      Which is really a shame. Vox has done some damn good stuff - just look at his Rabid Puppies thing, in conjunction with the Sad Puppies thing. He has some good ideas too. Some brilliant posts in the past.

      In the end, hopefully everyone will end up doing like what I wrote in the "The Final Answer: What Is MGTOW?" post - pick what works for you. "Take a bit of this, that, something else, no that's not useful, hmm that's interesting, that is such utter bullshit, that works for me, holy shit on a shingle what a nutjob, hey this is good." Other people's thoughts (even mine, even these) are irrelevant. Make your own path.

    3. It was something else. The first version of that table contained 'Lamda' instead of Lambda. As if written by someone who wasn't expected to know the letters of Greek alphabet. Strange, I remember learning it in high school.

    4. Very strange. I learned it in high-school also. Though I've forgotten most of my greek letters by now.

  2. Naive? Even if, then what? Naivete doesn't absolve of anything. How does it go? That the ignorance of the law is no excuse? It also applies to laws of nature. :)

    1. True enough HAH! Perhaps I should have put "willfully blind" in there instead. These women aren't naive, they simply don't want the laws of nature to apply to them.

      When they jump off the Empire State Building, perhaps the laws of Gravity won't apply to them either.

    2. Grrr... It's 'absolve from'. Having English as a third, de facto second language is a PITA.