A Two-Headed Tale
"As a radical feminist, I say: Men, would you please stop and think with the right head?"And then Scarecrow makes his pointed, insightful response:
"HA HA HA.
"Straight from both the MRM and FEMINISTS.
"What does that say?"
This set me to thinking, and I replied to Scarecrow in the following terms:
@Scarecrow:
Yes, those are the same words on the surface. Yet how vastly different are the underlying messages which they transmit.
When the feminists say this, it is meant as a cheap Alinskyite insult. It is psychological warfare. And that's ALL it is.
But in reality, the worst thing the feminists should fear is that men in large numbers will INDEED stop thinking with their "little heads".
The feminists actually WANT men to think with their little heads. One of the main sources of feminism's power is that (too many) men think with their little heads.
And the day that men in critical numbers stop doing so will be a bad day for feminism.
When men stop viewing the world through a haze of sexual feelings, and commence to viewing it in cold, hard political terms, then feminism will be in deep shit.
And the feminists damn well know it.
By the way, that is the main reason that the feminists and the PUAs are actually on the same side -- even if both deny it!
You see, both feminists and PUAs have a vested interest in seeing men think with their little heads.
Labels: CF Memory Lane
posted by Fidelbogen at 10:45 AM
v>
16 Comments:
Nailed it. Feminists and PUAs use the exact same tactics in order to bully men into serving their own purposes. Hoisting irrelevant sexual insults is the go-to play for both.
Sorry Fidelbogen.
I am not convinced.
@Scarecrow:
What are you not convinced of?
"When the feminists say this, it is meant as a cheap Alinskyite insult. It is psychological warfare. And that's ALL it is."
Prove it. This involves you peering into the mind of another human being, and realizing their true intentions.
Also - prove that EVERY SINGLE MRA/MGTOW/PUA does NOT mean this when they say it.
Are you telepathetic? (that's a joke).
You are providing a speculative argument - no basis in fact.
Also, there is a chart somewhere that shows that prostate cancer has risen since the 60's. It also links prostate cancer to a "lack of ejaculation".
So, this means that men are having less sex - not more sex.
Are men really thinking with their "small heads"? If they are - why is the prostate cancer rate rising since the 1960's? That is, why would men be having LESS sex even though they are acting like dumb animals and "thinking with their dicks"?
"One of the main sources of feminism's power is that (too many) men think with their little heads."
This is strange... I thought that one of feminism's main sources of power was to extort money from things like the super bowl - i.e. we are going to continue telling people that your fans are pedophiles and rapists unless you give us money (sex trafficking lies).
There are also various other charities - like breast cancer, women's shelters, domestic violence charities (the lighthouse), rape programs - crap - just google it.
Here I thought that feminisms main source of power was not men's penises, but money.
Nah - I must be wrong about that.
Couldn't be...
Odd too - that all those fat ugly "hairy legged" women known as feminists somehow manage to get power through sex. (In all fairness - this is not your blog - but other blogs...)
All of this is getting laughable to me at this point.
@Scarecrow:
Yup. It is a cheap Alinskyite insult when the feminists say that. It is ridicule, and meant to trigger the kind of response that ridicule typically provokes. It is psychological warfare.
The feminists don't really want men to think rationally, intellectually, coldly, politically, etc. In other words, the feminists DO want men to be dominated by their (sexual in this case) emotions. And in turn, to be dominated (psychologically) by women, or any woman in question.
Yes, that is the feminist strategy at large. And no, I cannot peer into the mind of every single feminist on earth. Nor can anybody else. Therefore, any theory you might devise would suffer from the same difficulty.
"Also - prove that EVERY SINGLE MRA/MGTOW/PUA does NOT mean this when they say it."
PUAs don't say that, they practice it. Let's not throw PUAs in the same box with all those other people.
"MGTOWs" and "MRAs" using feminist rhetorical tactics against men? Nope, that doesn't add up. I know enough about the culture of those pro-male cohorts to know exactly where they are coming from. They are speaking from a place of frustration, because they wish that men would do better.
They genuinely WANT men to "think with their right heads", because they know that this would empower men.
The feminists only SAY they want men to do this. But coming from them, it is ridicule and nothing more.
Big difference there.
I understand how feminists operate in general, from years of studying their behavior. I know what makes them tick in general.
Men "thinking with their right heads" would eventually factor out to male power. And male power is not what the feminists want to see happening. Believe me.
And if the feminists don't like what I am saying here, then they can get busy and prove me wrong. And since they have been proving me RIGHT for half a century, they've really got their work cut out for them.
@Scarecrow (continued):
Sure, the feminists have many ways of squeezing out money for themselves. You have mentioned a few.
But a huge part of their (mental) power over men, is the proclivity of men to "think with their little heads." (That is a metaphor, which roughly translates as "being dominated by emotions of a sexual nature.")
This power channels through women at large rather than feminists per se, but any way you parse it, it means that men are more vulnerable and manipulable, and less inclined to view their political situation through an unclouded lens. And the feminists are quick to take advantage, either directly or indirectly.
You mentioned something about prostate cancer, but I don't see how that pertains to the discussion. This is about politics, power strategies, etc. Not about medical issues.
Oh, and forget about hairy-legged feminist stereotypology. That stuff has precious little bearing upon reality. We're not so stupid, but the feminists like to think we are, or at least say we are.
I ran this whole thing past some people last night.
Conclusion 1: The sex-robot is a threat to that woman, because it does in fact strip her yielding of sex (i.e. she can now be replaced by a machine for the low price of only 8000 dollars (was it 8000?) - as opposed to marriage which usually costs way more - even prostitutes over many years costs more). Hence - she mocks it - and - mocks men - or belittles them - shames them - because this is a threat to her power.
That makes sense - I am going to frequent that blog more often, and keep an eye on what those women write.
Aside: The rise in prostate cancer was something somebody I ran this past would NOT let go. He said it was proof that men today are having LESS sex than men in days past. I plan to talk to him more, and find out what his chip is.
P.S.
Seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLViERVYIs0
@Scarecrow:
Yes, there is no doubt that radical feminsts -- or any other kind -- will sense the threat to feminist(female) power which sexbots etc.. would pose. (And the imminent "male pill" -- now THERE is a threat! The biggest of the lot.)
Of course, that is not the main line of my own thinking here.
As for prostate cancer, that sounds like a pet obsession of the fellow you were chatting with. Sure, it's an important issue. . . but it does not pertain to what I am presently discoursing upon.
BTW: I like the expression "ridicule" better than "shaming language". Some day I must enlarge upon the reasons for this terminological preference.
@Scarecrow:
As an example of "thinking with the little head", consider how much online pro-male conversation revolves around women and relationships in one form or another. (Mostly in the complaint mode!)
All right. "Woman-centric" discourse counts as thinking with the little head.
But when you learn to think like a policy wonk, "women" become just another topic in the crowd. Just another factor in the objective definition of the situation. And "relationships" become almost a non-topic.
See, this is all a game, and it's all about power.
prostate cancer. He said that it is proof that men today are having less sex than men in days past.
Supposedly, along with women's liberation, sexual liberation was also a factor.
So, though it sounds as though people would be having more sex - the fact is, people (at least men) are having less sex.
He did give me a study that linked prostate cancer to a "lack of ejaculation" through out one's life.
He said that the two facts - less sex is the cause, and that type of cancer on the rise was proof that men today are having LESS sex, not more - despite what you might see on TV or read about in papers etc...
I think that is somehow a piece of the puzzle that should not be ignored.
sorry....
@Scarecrow:
Yeah, I suppose it is a piece of the puzzle. Everything is "a piece of the puzzle" in its own way, to be sure.
The cosmic puzzle. . . on and on it goes.
Smart ass.
Sooner or later, people are going to have to address the fact that - if the prostate cancer cause is sound, then it is a fact that men are having less sex today than in days past - even though women have been "sexually liberated".
The question at that point becomes, what exactly was that sexual liberation?
The lack of morals to use sex for manipulation?
The lack of morals to ride the "cock carousel" (I hate that term)
Fact is, if fewer men are having sex these days, then perhaps not that many men are actually "falling prey" to the manipulation tactics?
Anyway, your wise crack is very revealing.
No wise crack. Just a simple observation.
Yea, sooner or later, people will ask the questions they need to ask. No doubt. People do that.
As for those "manipulation tactics" -- they will go on as always, in a psychological way. That is what they mainly are -- psychological.Oh, and political. That too.
(I think we are not talking from the same page here.)
This discussion is so incredibly intuitive to me, forweg and others who get exactly what you mean Fidel.
I am so far removed from how Scarecrow interpreted it, that I wouldn't even know how to explain it to him.
It is possible he might have a bias toward not wanting to get the distinction between the feminist shaming line, and the MRA "older mentor" advice.
Alek, you have an interesting take on Scarecrow's POV, and I'm not sure what to tell you. Well, other than repeat what you said, that I am "far removed" from Scarecrow's frame of reference. But I took a shot at explanation, anyway.
The word "intuitive" nails it pretty well. Intuition is compiled observation, as I like to say. It is when you see and understand a complex situation in a flash, without consciously working through the steps of reasoning which it took to reach your conclusion.
What's happening is, that your subconscious mind is feeding you relevant information, from your memory bank, in the form of a "feeling".
Great discoveries arrive through intuition, and those who are truly ambitious might even take the trouble to document their steps of reasoning in a book.
That is, if they feel like being expansive. Intuition is the opposite of expansive. It is contractive.
Post a Comment
<< Home