Last week I shared the opening chapter of Seeing Men Clearly. This chapter introduces the central concept on which the rest of the book is built. My hope is not to assign blame, but to better understand the hidden forces that shape how we think about boys and men. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
Tom, this is an excellent introduction to the concept, but I think it would benefit from some practical grounding - either illustrative examples or statistical data. I realize you are going to talk about operational aspects in the next chapter, but you need something in this one so people can recognize exactly what you mean by the concept.
You are probably correct. The idea was for the first chapter to give numerous examples and for the second chapter to bring in the word. They are very short. Maybe combine? If read consecutively it would make sense but as a stand alone it seems to theoretical. I should probably either put some examples in there ro be as clear as possible.
"Gynocentrism" when I first encountered that word and concept, it felt extremely uncomfortable and I kept going back to it, exploring why I felt that way.
There is a subliminal message we are taught to absorb all our lives, from literature, to films, even down to "Chivalry" being chivalrious towards the female gender.
But going even deeper what instructions are coded into our DNA?
This is a little off topic. But I notice a news story about US Senator Bernie Moreno and his ex son-in-law U.S. Representative Max Miller. Congressman Miller has been accused of abusing his ex-wife and daughter. Naturally, everyone, men included are throwing Congressman Miller under the Bus. Men should be making noise and demanding some proof before everyone assumes Miller is guilty. Of course, men are silent.
I rarely forward videos; nobody has the time to devote to something that cost me only a half-second to forward, but I ran across this insightful woman yesterday:
I have no idea who she is, but I did watch the whole 25-minute video. Her take (Schopenhauer's, actually) on the implied - and at one time codified - transaction between men and women was just perfect. I was shocked by her (his) assertion that without sex in the bargain, most men wouldn't give most women the time of day, but looking back, I'd have to say that's right. I told my wife that once; she did not appreciate it, as you might imagine.
In any event, I have saved this one to "favorites." Maybe someone else will find it useful.
Any patterns for men and boys is missed deliberately, Feminisms goal is to destroy men altogether, they don't want us to have any rights at all. I HATE THEM.
Break out with the flaming sword of the Trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric).
Our systematising is our super power as men, empathy and merging with infants blinds us to situational awareness, and women specialize for infant care in human groups.
Men are the spiritual providers and protectors.
Only we can diagnose the systemic failure of majority female Suffrage as they reject objective truth in principle and war with reality internally, lacking boundaries or insight, they conflate oikos and polis, instituting communism.
Postmodernism claims all narratives are cynical power grabs by pretending to be objective truth. Believe them and reject Postmodernism as exactly that.
There is one truth and the same rules of pattern recognition govern the universe (one turn) at every scale, exceptions prove the rule dear. This is the archetype of God and fidelity will carry us through redpill hell until we level up and gain the tools to rebuild a new golden age of pattern recognition and patriarchal cross bearing sacrificial philosophical Kinghood.
Tom, this is an excellent introduction to the concept, but I think it would benefit from some practical grounding - either illustrative examples or statistical data. I realize you are going to talk about operational aspects in the next chapter, but you need something in this one so people can recognize exactly what you mean by the concept.
You are probably correct. The idea was for the first chapter to give numerous examples and for the second chapter to bring in the word. They are very short. Maybe combine? If read consecutively it would make sense but as a stand alone it seems to theoretical. I should probably either put some examples in there ro be as clear as possible.
How bout that excerpt??
"Gynocentrism" when I first encountered that word and concept, it felt extremely uncomfortable and I kept going back to it, exploring why I felt that way.
There is a subliminal message we are taught to absorb all our lives, from literature, to films, even down to "Chivalry" being chivalrious towards the female gender.
But going even deeper what instructions are coded into our DNA?
This is a little off topic. But I notice a news story about US Senator Bernie Moreno and his ex son-in-law U.S. Representative Max Miller. Congressman Miller has been accused of abusing his ex-wife and daughter. Naturally, everyone, men included are throwing Congressman Miller under the Bus. Men should be making noise and demanding some proof before everyone assumes Miller is guilty. Of course, men are silent.
I rarely forward videos; nobody has the time to devote to something that cost me only a half-second to forward, but I ran across this insightful woman yesterday:
https://youtu.be/iO503gY9N7E?si=jzLXejpH6B-nA_0X
I have no idea who she is, but I did watch the whole 25-minute video. Her take (Schopenhauer's, actually) on the implied - and at one time codified - transaction between men and women was just perfect. I was shocked by her (his) assertion that without sex in the bargain, most men wouldn't give most women the time of day, but looking back, I'd have to say that's right. I told my wife that once; she did not appreciate it, as you might imagine.
In any event, I have saved this one to "favorites." Maybe someone else will find it useful.
Yes, Kait Willet is great. She properly uses the literature and numbers to show the reality of present day male / female relationships.
Any patterns for men and boys is missed deliberately, Feminisms goal is to destroy men altogether, they don't want us to have any rights at all. I HATE THEM.
Pattern recognition.
Pattern from Pater, meaning father.
As matter is from Mater, meaning mother.
And matrix is Latin for womb.
Exit the terrible mothers safe space, her womb.
Break out with the flaming sword of the Trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric).
Our systematising is our super power as men, empathy and merging with infants blinds us to situational awareness, and women specialize for infant care in human groups.
Men are the spiritual providers and protectors.
Only we can diagnose the systemic failure of majority female Suffrage as they reject objective truth in principle and war with reality internally, lacking boundaries or insight, they conflate oikos and polis, instituting communism.
Postmodernism claims all narratives are cynical power grabs by pretending to be objective truth. Believe them and reject Postmodernism as exactly that.
There is one truth and the same rules of pattern recognition govern the universe (one turn) at every scale, exceptions prove the rule dear. This is the archetype of God and fidelity will carry us through redpill hell until we level up and gain the tools to rebuild a new golden age of pattern recognition and patriarchal cross bearing sacrificial philosophical Kinghood.