RSS

Father Knows Best: 12 Links Which Helped Bring Me Around To ‘Red Pill’ Thinking

16 May

In the vein of ElectricAngel’s last linkfest, and my last post of an essay that influenced me greatly, I’d like to share some links that had an major impact on me, in terms of leading me towards a ‘Red Pill’ worldview.  This list is by no means exhaustive; there are others, like many, many posts at Roissy’s blog itself when it was at its best (2008-2009, roughly), including the one EA already shared, and several at the Spearhead in its early days, and some others I can’t recall now.  Nevertheless, here are some of them, some of which I stumbled upon long before the manosphere began to coalesce around 2008 – 2009 or so, onwards.

1. Several years ago, a good friend of mine sent me a link to this article at McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, when he saw I’d been very much in the “guy friend” role, with respect to a girl I was smitten with, at the time.  It was perfect, and along with the next link, helped the scales begin to fall off my eyes.

2. Shortly after that, I stumbled upon the so-called “Ladder Theory” of male-female relations.  It made me realize the futility of, once “friend-zoned“, stuck in the “guy friend” role with a particular girl, of ever thinking one could transition from that to the “boyfriend” position.  I realized how often I’d played the “guy friend”, and been “friend-zoned”, stuck there, with no hope of escape, with many girls, through high school and beyond.  I resolved never to be a “guy friend” ever again; I ended my friendship with the one girl I was stuck in that role with, at that time, and since then, IRL, the only female friends I’ve had are girlfriends / fiancees / wives of my male friends, outside of acquaintance-level group settings, such as church groups.  Apart from that, IRL, I either date women, or have nothing to do with them; no more being the “guy friend”, forever stuck in the “friend zone”.

Now, I don’t think the Ladder Theory is perfect, by any means; one could certainly validly raise “NAWALT!”-type objections about it, and it is from a heathen POV and largely focused on sex, as the prime objective.  Nevertheless, I think Christians can mentally translate it into a more appropriate form, and its main point still holds largely true: that men and women think differently, and therefore consider members of the opposite sex in different ways from each other, in terms of sexual attraction / dateability / marriageability, as a result.

3. Some years back, Fred Reed wrote a hilarious piece about marriage in the contemporary context, which made me more aware of the dangers of what we call ‘Marriage 2.0′.  And while, as a Christian, I nevertheless believe in the rightness of marriage, and can’t endorse the ‘gather ye rosebuds while ye may‘, pro-fornication sentiment Reed extols as an alternative (partaking of the free milk offered without buying the cow), nevertheless, the points he makes about the dangers of modern-day marriages are as worthy for Christians to consider as for heathens, IMO.

4.-12. When I first stumbled upon this essay by F. Roger Devlin at The Last Ditch, it opened to my eyes to the deficiency of many traditionalist conservatives in comprehending our current social circumstances, and their tendency to unwittingly embrace feminist ways of thinking.  The Last Ditch followed it up with an equally excellent six-part essay by Devlin on feminism and the social status quo today:

¶ “Home economics” I, sections 1 and 2: “Two conflicting conceptions of feminine dignity; feminism as male-role-envy.”(May 15, 2008)

¶ “Home economics” II, sections 3 and 4: “Modern neglect of the economic side of marriage; female attraction to ‘providers’ natural and unchangeable.”(May 30)

¶ “Home economics” III, sections 5 and 6: “No property rights within the traditional family; family as primal form of community.”(July 20)

¶ “Home economics” IV, sections 7 and 8: “Consequences of ‘unlimited choice’; reasons for considering marriage an irreversible covenant.”(August 26)

¶ “Home economics” V, sections 9 and 10: “Natural erosion of male role under modern conditions; deliberate erosion of male role by feminism”(October 13, 2008)

¶ “Home economics” VI, sections 11 and 12: “Practical consequences of domestic androgyny and role reversal; What is to be done?” (April 8, 2009)

And here are a couple other great essays of Devlin’s, hosted elsewhere: here, and here, originally published at either The Occidental Quarterly or Counter-Currents Publishing, I believe – both of which have other articles of his on their sites.  (Some additional pieces by Devlin on related subjects may be found here.)

(N.B.  BTW, for those who may object to the websites that have published Devlin’s work – The Last Ditch, The Occidental Quarterly, Counter-Currents Publishing - because they don’t embrace racial egalitarianism; or who see hints of some similar thinking in Devlin’s work: stuff it!  I’m not interested in your complaints; truths may be found in the strangest places.  For instance, some of the first scientific research that uncovered links between cancer and tobacco smoking, was done in Nazi Germany.  Does that make their findings invalid?  Of course not.  Anyone who bitches about Devlin’s work being hosted on such sites, or that he appears to hold some opinions in common with them, please keep your opinions to yourself, or risk having your comments deleted or Moohammered / Baahammered, or even being banned from commenting here ever again, if I or my fellow Patriactionaries here feel like it – even if you’re someone I consider a friend.  You’ve been warned; keep your objections to yourself – ditto anyone who objects to Fred Reed, for similar reasons.  STFU!  Thank you kindly.)

About these ads
 
25 Comments

Posted by on May 16, 2012 in Linklove

 

25 responses to “Father Knows Best: 12 Links Which Helped Bring Me Around To ‘Red Pill’ Thinking

  1. electricangel1978

    May 16, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    There’s also a Devlin archive at Vdare.com, and I think he’s written some for TakiMag.

     
  2. Will S.

    May 16, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Ah! Thanks EA! I wasn’t aware of his writings at those places.

     
  3. Svar

    May 16, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    Another reminder to our racially egalitarian friends:

    P.S. As a clarification of our racial stances before either the race-egalitarians or the race-haters get all excited, we are race-realists and racial moderates. Personally, my racial views fall inline with that of Thomas Fleming’s. I can not speak for the other men on this.

    That is the sole and only clarification that I will give. Now quit your bitching.

     
  4. Will S.

    May 16, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    Like Svar, I’d classify myself as a race-realist, as well. Being mixed race, I’m not exactly a candidate for WNism; racial moderate probably describes me, too. ;)

     
  5. Will S.

    May 16, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    Great song, Svar. :)

     
  6. electricangel1978

    May 16, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    @Will,

    Am reading this Devlin essay now. He really is magnificent as a writer.

    I love these excerpts:

    It seems clear enough that the postwar system of gargantuan, publicly funded research universities will soon become unsustainable. The subsidies just won’t be there anymore. Americans’ quasi-religious faith in the power of anything labeled “education” is finally beginning to waver, as students realize that college degrees are not worth piling up debt to pay for. Young men are staying away to avoid what their enemies would describe as a “hostile learning environment.”

    Eventually, the money coming in won’t be enough to maintain the capital invested in the institutions. I hope to live long enough to see huge state universities reopening as storage facilities.

    (emphasis added)

    We have one consolation denied to the left: human nature. However completely our universities betray their mission, the natural curiosity of intelligent young people will always be there for us to build upon. In the years ahead, our principle challenge will be reaching them.

     
  7. Will S.

    May 16, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    @ EA: Ooh yes, that is an excellent essay. Indeed, he is magnificent.

     
  8. Will S.

    May 16, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    In the Fred Reed essay:

    “One of nature’s more disagreeable tricks is that while men are far uglier than women, they age better.”

    Case in point.

     
  9. katmandutu

    May 17, 2012 at 3:01 am

    Wow, she has certainly gone off, Will. :P

    The short greying hair is really ageing!
    .
    McGillis is in a lesbian relationship, and let herself go (as many of them do). Greying short hair has added ten years to her , as has the lack of exercise and a few pounds that she has put on.

    The typical butch leso look.. o-O.

     
  10. Will S.

    May 17, 2012 at 7:48 am

    @ Kathy: Yeah, being butch also adds years to one’s age. :)

     
  11. David Collard

    May 17, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Camille Paglia, I think, said that women stay thin to please the aesthetics of men. Lesbians probably care less. That said, there are a few thin Lesbian actresses.

    Men, not “males”, need to regain the language. Dalrock seems to get this. In general, I try to use old-fashioned words and blunt language in relation to women.

     
  12. Will S.

    May 17, 2012 at 9:31 am

    ‘Male’ is scientific terminology, as well as having the advantage of covering adolescent boys as well as adult men, so it is useful in some contexts. But in others, I completely agree; better to use ‘men’ as much as possible.

     
  13. David Collard

    May 17, 2012 at 9:53 am

    BTW, I have been trolling a major femdom site and I think I may have succeeded in shutting it down. Surprisingly easy. The woman who runs it, who apparently has led her husband around on a leash in public and has encouraged the emasculation of her son-in-law, has had to take a blogging break.

     
  14. Will S.

    May 17, 2012 at 10:17 am

    Good for you! That’s just sick.

     
  15. Will S.

    May 17, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Though I can’t say I’d be able to stomach visiting that; not sure why you put yourself through that.

     
  16. David Collard

    May 17, 2012 at 10:35 am

    Sociological curiosity leads me to all sorts of places. It is very easy to socially engineer people, and fool them. Especially on the ‘net, and especially on unmoderated sites. I think women are a bit easier to fool and they are not tech-savvy.

     
  17. Will S.

    May 17, 2012 at 10:37 am

    I see.

     
  18. electricangel1978

    May 17, 2012 at 10:47 am

    @DC,

    It is very easy to socially engineer people, and fool them.
    Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion, by Robert Cialdini, is highly recommended here.

     
  19. samsonsjawbone

    May 17, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    One of the pieces leading to my (pre-)awakening was Jeremy the Perfect Boyfriend, which explained some of the oddities I noticed among Christian women:

    http://johnlarroquetteproject.com/2004/03/06/jeremy-the-perfect-boyfriend/

    The part about sense of humour is gold, and this long before Roissy or anyone else ever existed.

     
  20. Will S.

    May 17, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    Ha! That’s great. Too bad the writer feels he displayed ‘hostility towards women’ in retrospect… Ah well. Glad he kept it and saw fit to share it, it’s too good to discard.

     
  21. Sis

    May 27, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Devlin article: A normal man feels morally committed to a woman who is bearing him children he can feel certain are his. Are there no men of their word anymore?

    II. I think there are plenty of females who would reject polygamy regardless of economic advantage.

    I think I’m done reading anything Euripedes wrote. Crossing him out of my future education.

    Why does feminism get blamed for Hollywood’s stupid movies, can’t Hollywood just be their own entity of evil and temptation.

    III.They do not live beyond their means; their wives do. this is extreme, men spend money too.

    Defining work as a calling instead of a job is better, I like how the purpose of wealth is for family and not for resources.

    IV. Motherhood is what really forces young women to grow up True
    Pretty much agreed with his writing here. Esp. irreversible covenants changing perspectives

    V. I’m tired of people using the statistics of female-initiated divorce to prove their arguments. All it means is that females might be more unwilling to live with infidelity or abuse than men. It might even prove that men are the true culprits in wrecking marriages, thereby forcing the females to go get the papers.

    “nurseries for public school system fodder” –clever!

    “parallel play” I’ve never seen a title given to this before, but I see how it damages families. Mom with an ipad sitting next to her two children on computer devices also. All three together ignoring each other.

    VI.“full-time working women’s wages were 57 percent those of men; by 2005, they were “earning” (in a manner of speaking) 77 percent as much as men. The men, of course, need that money to start or maintain families; the women do not.” It’s much easier to see this as unfair and ignore the impact on families. People will say “well, why don’t you just send the wife to work if you’re unhappy”

     
  22. Will S.

    May 27, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    “I’m tired of people using the statistics of female-initiated divorce to prove their arguments. All it means is that females might be more unwilling to live with infidelity or abuse than men. It might even prove that men are the true culprits in wrecking marriages, thereby forcing the females to go get the papers.”

    In some cases, it may be that. In others, like the “Eat, Pray, Love” scenarios, which Dalrock has shown at his site are all-too-common even in Christian circles, boredom and unhappiness with their marriages are also reasons women initiate divorce.

    “Why does feminism get blamed for Hollywood’s stupid movies, can’t Hollywood just be their own entity of evil and temptation.”

    Of course there’s much else wrong with Hollywood movies besides only feminism – sexual libertinism, and liberalism in general – but both those ideologies AND feminism, reign supreme in Hollywood, in the mindsets of filmmakers, and all influence their movies’ themes.

    “this is extreme, men spend money too.”

    Certainly.

    “I think there are plenty of females who would reject polygamy regardless of economic advantage.”

    Ah, but the prevalence of polygamy in Islamic societies, as well as its presence in the past in Africa, and in ancient Israel, show there are plenty of women who will accept polygamy rather than be unmarried. Maybe not so much here and now in the West, obviously. Yet that could change.

     
  23. electricangel1978

    May 27, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    @Will, Sis,

    “I think there are plenty of females who would reject polygamy regardless of economic advantage.”

    Ah, but the prevalence of polygamy in Islamic societies, as well as its presence in the past in Africa, and in ancient Israel, show there are plenty of women who will accept polygamy rather than be unmarried.

    I quote here from the excellent evo psych book, The Intelligence Paradox, which discusses a number of problems with respect to intelligence. One interesting tidbit: you can tell from sexual dimorphism how polygynous a species is. Kanazawa, the author, cites the example of South American elephant seals, where one male can expect a harem of 50 females. As a result, the male is MUCH larger than the female, and females are often crushed to death by the males, who need their bulk and muscle to defeat other males to win the right to breed.

    Kanazawa talks about humans, as well. Given the slightly larger size of men over women, we can thus conclude that humans have been mildly polygynous in the past. It would be interesting to see if, over a few generations since Mohammed, the Islamic societies have evolved more dainty women, while the monogamous (once, and future!) Christian West has had men and women move closer in size. Maybe that’s the cause of the obesity epidemic?

     
  24. Will S.

    May 27, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    Interesting suppositions, EA. Amongst Pakistani and East Indian Muslims, one often finds women who are smaller on average than their western female counterparts; I once met a tiny little thing who weighed only 85 pounds! She was short, and thin… That does seem common enough.

    As for the obesity epidemic here in the West, though, that seems to have struck both sexes fairly evenly, IMO. You see more big men and big women around, than used to be common… I don’t think that’s related to anything other than poor diet and exercise habits, in most people of either sex; I certainly don’t think it’s much to do with genetics. Yes, there are different body types – endomorphs, mesomorphs, and ectomorphs – and so obviously there can be differences arising from that, to some extent. But there have always been such variations of body types, yet the obesity epidemic is a modern phenomenon, really. A First-World economy providing enough wealth to eat well and even overeat, oversnack + lack of hard manual labour + not enough exercise, = obesity.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 323 other followers