The Media is Spineless Puppet of Feminists

A few days ago Glamour magazine published an article with 13 tips for women to make a man fall in love with them. It created such an uproar on Twitter that they had to take it down with an apology for publishing “sexist” and “misogynistic” advice. The link to that article now displays the below message:

If you are looking for 13 Little Things That Can Make a Man Fall Hard for You, it is no longer available. For a quick explanation of why, here’s our response, posted Monday.

We’ve been taking some heat for a post on man-pleasing tips that ran here a few days ago—and honestly, we kinda asked for it. (That’s the consensus across the Internet and even within our own ranks). We hear you, tweeters—and we agree.

Below is the original list of 13 things for women to make a man fall for them:

  1. Stocking the fridge with his favorite drinks. Bonus points: Bring him back to his fraternity days by handing him a cold one as he steps out of the shower.
  2. Making him a snack after sex. It doesn’t have to be a gourmet meal—a simple grilled cheese or milk and cookies will do.
  3. Emailing him the latest online gossip about his favorite TV show. You don’t have to have a BFF at HBO. Just share applicable links from your Twitter feed and pat yourself on the back.
  4. Bragging about him to your friends, family, the stranger on the street corner—whomever. Proclamations of pride will make his chest puff out and his heart swell.
  5. Answering the door in a negligée—or, better yet, naked.
  6. Being open to what he wants to try in the bedroom and out. An open mind is attractive no matter your playground.
  7. Letting him help solve your petty work problem. Many men don’t do gossip, but they do like to fix things.
  8. Spitting out sports stats for his favorite team. Showing an interest in his favorite players will earn you points on and off the field.
  9. Making a big deal out of his favorite meal. Does he like hot dogs cut up into his boxed mac-and-cheese? Serve it on a fancy tray in bed to really see him smile.
  10. Treating his friends as well as you treat your own. If you win their affections, you’ll win his heart.
  11. Sitting side-by-side while he watches his favorite TV. It may not feel like quality time to you, but it’s the besttime to him.
  12. Giving him a massage—happy ending completely optional. In fact, a foot rub works just fine.
  13. Taking him back to third grade with a gentle tease over anything from how you’ll dominate him on the basketball court to the weird way he just styled his hair.

It is an excellent list, and I am pleasantly surprised that in this age of cultural degeneration and civilizational decline a mainstream women’s magazine could come up with such high quality advice. It is a shame that they succumbed to the pressures from the feminists.

It shows that the power of social-media-in-the-wrong-hands has reached alarmingly dangerous heights. The media have become mere puppets of the politically-correct, with no spine of their own, spreading only ideologies which the masses choose for them.

Rape Through The Lenses Of Sexual Economics

Rape is robbery of sexual resource that a woman possesses. It is akin to a man getting robbed of wealth. Both are essentially taking by force what someone else has that one desires. Sex is a resource that women possess and men desire.

A somewhat effective (and not the only) way to reduce instances of rape would be to view it as robbery as described above and expect women to exercise the same caution that men are expected to exercise to guard their wealth.

Sex is a powerful resource that women possess. More powerful a resource than is wealth for men, and hence more tempting, for obvious reasons. Seen in terms of sexual economics in nature, the purpose of man’s existence is to attain this resource, and the purpose of woman’s existence is to give this resource to a worthy man. Everything else is only the instruments to the species’ biological purpose. That is theory of evolution which does not require proof. It is a fact of nature. Now, as in any system with economic forces there is propensity to cheat (short-circuit the moral way to attain what one desires) which in this case is to rob. We have people for whom money is a resource, and they rob money. Likewise, we have men for whom sex is a resource, and they would rape. It is a fact of society. Deny these facts of nature and society and it is the end of a meaningful discussion.

Try imagining a world where men roam around wearing diamonds and gold and conspicuously stuffing wads of cash in their pockets to show off their wealth or to give off vibe of powerfulness, and there are no robberies. Anyone with common sense would agree that it is a Utopian ideal. A woman is equivalent to a man with wads of dollar bills dangling out of his pockets. Because a woman’s bare body is already resourceful. A woman dressed to show skin and/or create sex appeal is all the more so. Both a man with wads of dollar bills and a woman have resources of value to others, some of whom would do anything to get them.

All would agree that women already show more skin than men. They wear skirts and sleeveless blouses even to work, whereas for men wearing shorts or sleeveless t-shirts to office is unprofessional. Where I work, I see women wearing body-tight trousers and cleavage showing tops, but for men wearing collarless t-shirt is against the HR policy! Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Men are not vulnerable if they show muscles by wearing clothes to exhibit them, whereas women are. No one is going to stare up men’s shorts, pass sexual comments, and certainly no one is going to rape them. As this was not enough of contradictions, our movies are selling sex, magazines are selling sex, music videos are selling sex. Bare skinned women are shown through every media one can name. Women are freely using their sexual resources to attain all sorts of ends in the society. It is like dangling bones to the dogs and expecting them to not advance and bite. A society where women want to exercise this kind of freedom can not expect that there should not be rape.

I have seen kids of modern generation publicly criticize and condemn their own parents for not giving their daughters the freedom to go out late at night while giving the same freedom to their sons, and those parents later admitting to their “flawed” thinking. Let me say this: Their thinking is anything but flawed. And I am sorry to see them succumb to the pressures. It is not sexist to say that women should not go out at an unsafe hour and in an unsafe place. They should not.

I am grossed out by the fake morality of modern women and the society that padestalizes them. I must say that at some level I sympathize with rapists and feel no sympathy for women. In normal circumstances I won’t sympathize with robbers, but in normal circumstances men showing off diamonds on them and getting robbed would admit that it was their mistake as well for carelessly putting themselves in the way of danger. Women of the day are not normal.

I urge intelligent people to view men and women from the lenses of sexual economics, then see the sexual dynamics at play to understand the issue in a more meaningful way.

Sexual Economics by Roy F. Baumeister

Condition of Modern Relationships

A relationship can be lasting only if the man and woman require each other beyond emotional and sexual needs. In a modern-day relationship, once the “novelty effect” wanes, there is little else to fuel the relationship.

Women today are not happy to cook for their men, there are no large families to look after, household work is done by maids while women work in offices,.. (Hail feminism and women’s “liberation” movements.) What, then, is the usefulness of women to men in the society?

Similarly, “empowered” women don’t need men for survival and protection. In the technologically advanced world, women can do almost everything for which in the past they needed a man in their life. Thus, as far as comfortable survival is concerned, women don’t need men. They would do just fine on their own.

Usefulness of men and women to each other, therefore, has reduced to gratifying sexual and emotional needs of each other.

Sex drive and emotions are fickle. Hence, fulfillment of sexual and emotional needs would only keep the man and woman together till the spark remains.

It is very easy to lose the “spark” or the “connection” in the world with virtually unlimited choices of, and easy access to, potential mates (Facebook, WhatsApp,..) and where sexual freedom is celebrated as a development.

In the world where women don’t need men for survival and protection, marriage (even a long-term relationship) can’t sustain. In absence of any real practical use for men in their life, women feel no pressure to be useful to men. Manifestation of brutal market forces in nature.

From here:

A marriage will survive if two people need each other to be happy and if they need each other to live well. If they are self-sufficient, and each can do anything that the other can also do, the stability of their marriage is going to be an uphill struggle. There will be frequent validations required, a search for ways to “keep the spark alive”, a persistent need of expressions of love, chronic feelings of inadequacy, and a predilection to go one’s own way if the going gets tough.

In the past, if the man was being a good provider and protector, and the woman remained pretty or in shape, was a good homemaker and a mother, it was very easy to have a happy home. Now-a-days, if both earn, and both act as a mother to the children, and both do housework, it is not easy to see why a marriage will last long. Emotional bonds, in the absence of other factors, are fickle. Sexual desire, or shared hobbies, or shared values, can bring two people together, but cannot sustain their being together.

People who seek the amorphous goals of “fulfillment” and “growth” through their relationships are not going to have an easy time. Fulfillment and growth are side-effects, as it were, of a healthy relationship. A relationship can’t be based on these goals, but needs to have something more concrete at its foundation.

Consider two scenarios:

A: A wife tells her husband that she is going to be away for two weeks, and the husband says, “No problem, I’ll manage without a hitch.” Or, a husband is to go on a business trip for a week, and the wife says: “Have fun! I will too.”

B: A wife tells her husband that she is going to be away for two weeks, and the husband says, “Aw shucks, how will I manage?” Or, a husband is to go on a business trip for a week, and the wife says: “Oh dear, it is going to be so difficult for me alone.”

Which scenario makes you think that the husband and wife are going to have a long, stable, happy marriage?

And which scenario is the current ideal for an individual in our society?

I think increasingly, due to prosperity and various other factors, people are relating to each other for purely emotional or sexual reasons, and they can manage their lives and homes and careers just fine (or so they think) on their own. They want to feel great with each other, to spend time with each other, and so they invent activities (mostly related to vacuous show-business events or to spending money eating out, shopping or seeing a “new place”) to do together. They have a nagging suspicion that it is too much effort and that they would rather spend time with themselves.

We are told by the media that emotional or sexual reasons are primarily why we should get married. That love is all-important, and nothing else matters. I think that is a very wrong message. A couple certainly needs emotional and sexual compatibility, and for them to love each other is great, but that is not enough, not by a long shot, to want to spend their lives together.

A nut and a bolt may love each other, but even if at times they don’t, they are and will feel incomplete without each other, and will not be fulfilled for long on their own. Two nuts, on other hand, may decide to be together because they feel they have a “connection”, but they are tempting fate.

Modern men and women won’t feel fulfilled living alone, either. For when it comes to emotions and emotional needs, humans have not evolved as they have intellectually. Men still have the instinct for protecting, and women still have the instinct for protection from a strong man. That’s why women find strong men attractive, and men find women who are not strong more attractive. The instinct served well in the state of nature. In the modern world, the instinct is misplaced, and would create a void that can’t be filled.

Peacock Theory of Mate Attraction and Decline of Culture

Among modern urbanites it is becoming fashionable to look like a hippie. More and more men now get themselves tattoos and piercings. Long hair for men is also increasingly becoming acceptable. Not to forget various accessories that urban hippie men now wear which in earlier times were only seen on women.

Need I spell out that fundamentally it is all about sex appeal? Maneuvers for mate attraction. It is what Neil Strauss in his book The Game describes as Peacock Theory. An excerpt from the book goes as follows:

Peacock theory is the idea that in order to attract the most desirable female of the species, it’s necessary to stand out in a flashy and colorful way. For humans, he told us, the equivalent of the fanned peacock tail is a shiny shirt, a garish hat, and jewelry that lights up in the dark—basically, everything I’d dismissed my whole life as cheesy.

As the world gradually transforms into an unregulated sexual marketplace, I postulate that we will see more and more men taking cues from our primal animal nature to attract women.

While women use makeup, flashy clothes, hairstyles that make them distinct, piercing and ornaments etc. to stand out and attract men, culture has taught that the way for a man to deserve a woman is to be socially productive and responsible.

Unlike the state of nature the civilization demanded of a man to form a family and provide for the woman and children for better part of his life. Civilization also expected a man to contribute to the growth of society by participating in production processes. This a man could do only if he was productive and possessed socially desirable qualities. A man who proved himself worthy in this way would be accorded high status by the society. And through social conditioning and mechanisms culture made sure that such high status men top the positions for most desirable marriage candidates.

Women on the other hand have been free of the responsibility of providing for a family, much less contribute majorly to the larger entity that is society. Culture put no pressure on women to prove themselves worthy by being socially productive in the same way it pressurized men to do.

Therefore, in order to win women men had to earn high status in the eyes of the society. In order to win men women mostly just have to look attractive for which they use various attention capturing maneuvers.

While beauty-enhancing makeup, nose and ear piercing and wearing rings through them, tattoos (in Indian tradition it is known as mehndi for women), long hair and creative hairdos with them,.. is considered adding grace to woman’s appearance, the same maneuvers when applied by men have been considered indecent and cheesy by culture. A man using those maneuvers is agreeably described by the term hippie, which explains how little the mainstream society valued them. Even today most traditional societies would be scrupulous to accord high respect to a man who wears an earring, has tattooed his arms and other visible body parts, has long hair etc. And these societies have a point.

Sex is a fundamental goal of our life. If culture has to develop it has to do so by strategically exploiting man’s sex drive. By forming mechanisms wherein men get women, and thereby sex, only if they prove their worth by being socially productive, culture ensures its continuation and growth. In the state of nature a man could attract women by killing mighty animals and other men, thereby establishing himself as alpha male – and it works even today as far as attracting women is concerned. (Evolutionary biology has plethora of evidence that women are sexually attracted to bad-boys and psychopaths.) But letting men get sex by such displays of strength is not conducive to development of the civilization. Hence, culture would form mechanisms to ensure that such men got no sex, by putting the men into prison and making outcasts of them.

Likewise, culture discarded many a way of men that worked for attracting women in the state of nature, and retained only those (like accumulation of wealth) which would help the culture grow. So much so that the most worthy man in the civilized culture is such that he would have hardly attracted any woman in the state of nature (a beta male). And a man who would have attracted most women in the state of nature is such that he would stand on the lowest rung in the civilized culture (a sociopath). This is because of disconnect between the goals of rationality and the biological goals of the species.

Culture is a product of human rationality, whereas in the larger picture human beings are organisms with biological goals. The goals of culture I would call human goals, and the biological goals are nature’s or evolutionary goals. Nature’s primary goal is propagation of genes and expansion of gene pool by reproduction. Survival of the fittest is the law, and nature has no regard for human well-being or prosperity. Those are the goals of rationality, the human goals. Hence the disconnect between the two types of goals that direct human organism. It is man’s fight with nature.

To attract mates by appealing to biology is to take cues of animal nature. It works for we are animals. When women attract men by using aforementioned maneuvers they are appealing to men’s biology, not rationality. (That is why we say it is irrational to get influenced by women’s outer beauty, and all the talks of “inner beauty”.) In the same way when a man attracts women by being a hippie he is appealing to women’s biology, and it works. Except that if men got women, thereby sex, that way then why would they employ their rational faculty to achieve high status by being socially productive? What will happen to culture then? Because society and culture are products of rationality and their growth is dependent on its members being driven by rationality instead of mere biological cues.

Culture, mostly through religions, formed mechanisms whereby men employing their rational faculty in ways that helped the culture grow were promised women. This was enforced mostly by religious teachings of virtue (which is also a product of rationality) and conditioning of women and society at large, so that they would value virtuous and socially productive men and view the likes of hippies as unworthy of having a woman.

This, however, is changing rapidly. With erosion of religious teachings and traditional values from modern societies, culture seems to be going downhill. A culture that allows its women to get attracted and won by men employing animalistic maneuvers and fails to reward virtuous men in the sexual marketplace, faces grim prospects survival. It would likely spiral into the state of nature from where it evolved.

Verdict on Freedom of Expression

Anyone who says that freedom of expression should be protected in all circumstances because the right is inherently sacred is either lacking in maturity or being dishonest. No right is inherently sacred. A right is good or bad depending on the end it serves. Freedom of expression is not always good, and like any other right it is prone to abuse.

Should certain expressions be restricted in the society? Certainly. Should they be criminalized, declared illegal? I don’t think so.

My earlier position on freedom of expression was this:

Disregarding its effects on temperaments of other people if certain expression is harmful to the society then such expression should be considered as abuse of the right to free expression and should be checked.

The above rule still serves me well, except that I don’t think it should be checked legally. I have arrived at this conclusion after thinking long and hard about it.

I now stand in favor of freedom of expression in the discussion of whether or not to criminalize the freedom when the expression is offensive, even if it is harmful in itself. This is not because I consider the right to be sacred, but because otherwise the issue is tangled up in who will decide what should be considered offensive and what is harmful, for which I perceive no viable solution.

There should be restrictions on the freedom of expression, but they should be socially enforced, not legally. Social restrictions are in the form of family restrictions, biases, boycott and ostracism etc. I as the head of the family decide what kind of speech is allowed in my family. I am biased against people with feminist leanings. I boycott certain films and actors for the ideas they espouse. I would not hire someone who spreads harmful ideas in the society. These are the ways in which the society has been imposing restrictions on people directly or indirectly for as long as the civilization has been. And it is always necessary. Only a morally bankrupt society would be without any restrictiveness.

However, all that is not moral is not necessarily criminal. Every issue cannot be effectively addressed by the law. Morality, therefore, is more suitably a purview of the society than of the law.

Socially enforced restrictions are not a foolproof way to prevent abuse of the right to free expression, but I believe it is as good as we can have it as a society.

Below are a few types of expressions I feel very strongly against especially when spread through the mass media (radio, print or electronic), but for the reason that not everybody may feel the same way about these things as I, they may not be declared illegal.

  • Expressions which are not the carriers of ideas and opinions and are directly harmful to the society. For example, a range of pop songs with sexually explicit or otherwise vulgar content.
  • Profane media bits tailored for no better reason than mindless entertainment.
  • Mockery, because I believe if one has an opinion against something, one can make a rigorously structured case, or use satire (if one is not capable of rigor in thought but is creative) to make one’s point. One can even resort to creative humor to channelize one’s convictions and observations if one finds that easier. Mere mockery is the way of the mind empty of substance.

There is a lot of gray area. In the society with socially enforced restrictions on the freedom of expression, the final balance would be affected by what ideas are in fashion at a given time, which would be influenced by the media not run for the best interests of the society. Therefore, as I said above, social enforcement of restrictions on the freedom of expression is not a foolproof way to prevent degeneration. And looking at the current trend I don’t think that the society is doing a good job at it.

Unfortunately, however, there is no viable legal alternative.

Provocation and Sharing the Blame

Originally written in June 2013

A woman goes out wearing revealing clothes, gets raped. Does she deserve the blame for provoking the rapist? Could she be said to have provoked it, simply because she wore revealing clothes? An adult woman can’t be so naive as not to know the laws of sexual attraction. Does she deserve partial blame at least, for wearing revealing clothes in the world with sexual predators? Ignorance is not a crime, but is willful ignorance to be tolerated? Let’s analyze.

You go into the jungle unprotected for pleasure. A tiger pounces on you and you are badly wounded. Who is to blame? The tiger? All would agree that it is foolish to blame the tiger. All would blame you for going into the jungle unprotected when you knew there were tigers in the jungle. Did you provoke the tiger? You may not have, but it is tiger’s nature to attack humans entering their territory. To walk in there is nothing short of provoking. You didn’t know that? Well, then you should have known better, that’s what is called being adult. In any case, one can’t blame the tiger, for it merely acted according to its nature.

The man who walks into the jungle unprotected and gets attacked by a tiger deserves the full blame. And no one would disagree. Because tiger is an animal. It can’t be expected to know that the man was there just for pleasure and would not have caused any harm to it. Tigers don’t have advanced thoughts as humans. They act on instincts. Nature, not intellect, directs them. They are heteronomous beings. They don’t have free will. It is for this reason that we can’t blame animals for their actions which may be harmful to humans. Since the tiger doesn’t have autonomy or free will it couldn’t be expected to behave differently. Therefore, it was entirely the man’s responsibility to gauge the danger and act accordingly.

There is, however, a difference between animals and humans. Humans are expected to contain their nature, because unlike animals humans are autonomous beings. They are not slaves of their nature. Therefore, when a woman dresses revealingly, we expect men to control their natural urges and behave in a civilized way. If a woman gets raped we place the full blame on the man, because he could act differently owing to his free will.

The decisive element, here, is free will.

There is large body of scientists and philosophers who are determinists, that is, believing in determinism. According to them, we don’t have free will. In determinist view free will is merely an illusion. I personally don’t subscribe to the determinist view for practical reasons, but I can’t (and no one can) refute the view either. At large, I am a proponent of free will, but being also aware of and humbled by the philosophical truths of our existence I think it would be fair to say that what we have, at best, is partial free will.

We are like a dog tied to a truck by rope. The truck is nature. We can move around a little bit believing that we have autonomy or free will, but ultimately we have to follow the truck, or be dragged by it. Therefore it is partial autonomy.

Think about some mental states like romantic love/obsession and its suffering. The one suffering from the obsession wants to get the person of fixation out of one’s head but can’t, because one’s nature is in control, not the will. From sexual desire to craving for a smoke, there are many urges that we know we would be better off without, but we can’t always control them. We have to indulge them against our rational nature which gives us the so-called free will.

Science is now finding that our forebrain (neocortex), the house of rationality, has evolved only to rationalize the proclivities of our hindbrain, the house of animal nature. We never really have total control over our animal nature. Even when we feel we are fully in control, it may well be an illusion created by our forebrain.

It is not true that humans are virtuous beings capable of animalistic behavior. We are animals capable of virtuous deeds. Fundamentally we are animals. Animals with partial autonomy.

In the example quoted above, the man who becomes a victim by walking into the tiger’s territory is blamed fully, for the tiger does not have autonomy. A woman who dresses revealingly and gets raped isn’t blamed at all – and the rapist is fully blamed – because here the attacker is believed to have autonomy.

What if autonomy or free will is shaky? We have partial free will at best.

If the blame was placed because the attacker had free will then if the free will is partial, the blame too has to be partial, not full. Where do we factor in the other part of the blame then? Clearly it has to be shared by the victim. After all, she too has the “autonomy” to act diligently.

When a woman puts herself in the way of danger and gets attacked, she has to share part of the blame even if she did not mean to provoke the attacker. Considering the natural laws of sexual attraction and the kind of partial autonomy we have, getting in the position of being attacked is nothing short of provoking the attacker. If an adult woman does not know that then that is willful ignorance which a virtuous society should not tolerate.

Note that I am not saying that the rapist does not deserve the full punishment, or that the victim has to share the punishment. In the eyes of the law the rapist is the criminal and the woman raped is the victim. Because we would want a society where rapes don’t take place even if women dress revealingly. Therefore, in practical analysis we must lay the full blame on the rapist, for otherwise we won’t get the socially desirable conclusion or outcome. In pure analysis, however, we must look at the full reality of our existence and draw the conclusion without regard to what is socially desirable outcome. In pure analysis the provoker as well the provoked deserve the blame.

While criminal justice system should take care of punishing the attacker, the morally conscious society should impart values and create pressures for its members to not behave in a way which would create undesirable disruptions in the society.

Individual Freedom and the Collapse of System

Originally written in May 2013

The more connected people are, the more is the need to control individual behavior.

A man living alone is free, but a man living in a family has responsibilities. He can not think for himself alone because he is connected. His life’s decisions affect those he is connected to.

Today we have technologies that have got the world closer and the countries and the people connected in an unprecedented manner.

The entire world is interconnected and interdependent as never before. One mostly hears of globalization as a positive development in the history of humanity. I doubt it is such a good thing.

Greater connection calls for greater cooperation. That means lesser individual freedom. But paradoxically, ours is also the time that has given individual freedom the highest importance.

The two lines of progresses – integration of the world’s systems and rising importance of individual freedom – are incompatible with each other.

The extent of integration the world has gotten into requires the level of cooperation man is not capable of. And individual freedom that the system affords would undermine the system and will eventually bring it down.