The Paradoxes of Being a Single Male

At this moment I’m sitting in a bookshop cafe in central Melbourne. It’s my best effort at finding the most tranquil place within a 5km radius that one can work in. It’s barely tranquil at all, but at least other people are relatively quiet here as they go about their business.

This is a topic that’s not often spoken about. That is because the people who are apt to do so, single men, are discouraged in various ways. I don’t mean to complain, but I’m also not really in the mood to not express myself about it. Maybe drawing light onto it in public fashion will alleviate a few quanta of pain and resistance from my life.

The pain point is a simple thing. The sort of thing that would make most people shrug their shoulders and look at me askance. That’s how these conversations usually go when you’re an empath talking about perceptions, people have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’ll try to explain. Whenever I leave my apartment in central Melbourne I find myself surrounded by people, hundreds of them. There are many beautiful girls around. As natural as anything, my eyes are unconsciously drawn to attractive women, especially ones that I’ve never seen before. Lately I’ve been noticing that most often, as soon as I can sense there’s an attractive girl there they will do this reaction that really bothers me. It’s like a rejecting sort of gesture where they cover their breasts (even though I wasn’t looking at them) or touch their face as if I’m being unseemly. I hate that gesture. As I go about my day it feels like I’m copping dozens of rejections when I’m not really even doing anything. If I had a choice I wouldn’t want to be out of control like this, but I can’t help it.

Probably seems like I’m being overly sensitive to complain about a gesture. It’s true that I am a relatively sensitive, empathetic guy. I have a libido as well. And a fine eye for beauty. Can’t really change that.

I don’t recall this ever being a problem in the past. Feminist vibes were always what bothered me the most (by the way I am endlessly vindicated for that nowadays and it feels so good). Maybe it’s because I wasn’t noticing it, maybe it’s because society has changed or maybe it’s because I have changed so women respond to me differently. In any case, this is what’s bothering me lately.

I think I’m ok looking. 180cm, boyish features and better dressed than average. Probably a solid 5 out 10 all in all, 6 if you count the long hair, approaching 7 if I’m been working out a lot and wearing a suit. Have got an eccentric vibe going on which only appeals to old ladies. I try very hard to be the best Tom I can be though because it seems like just about the only factor that I have any control over.

I’ve tried to shift my mindset. Shift my behaviour. Tried to look more discreetly or not at all, that ends up feeling like unhealthy repression. Nothing works. I just can’t help creeping women out. I’ve tried to outsmart the system with mental gymnastics, the product of my ruminations, this doesn’t work at all because then you find yourself getting friendzoned. An irresistible suggestion to get your head back in the game. It’s not about mentality it seems, but what is it about then? Maybe it’s on the level of choices or an intersubjective plane. I’m currently writing this blog post partly to try and un-mire myself from this quagmire.

Having a girlfriend is the best thing on Earth at first. But “being out of the game” makes you soft which soon comes back to bite you in the ass. And there’s the pain and grief if you happen to break up. And what if one simply doesn’t want to have a girlfriend, because it just wouldn’t add to their happiness right now? You’re fucked, that’s what.

There’s the classic paradox of tattoos and edgy hairstyles attracting the girls that you’re attracted to, but they have clear drawbacks when trying to get by in other ways. Such as getting paid which ironically the same women go for in a few years time. Doing it all is an impossibility for most people. I happen to be one of the select few who have managed to get a university degree, good job/business that allows travel and have an edgy haircut (long hair). It does feel good I must say, but then the cause of pain simply transmutes into something else such as being the creep who’s doing it all.

The lion’s share of social pressure is to make sure you just never approach. It’s quite remarkable. Just to tuck your dick between your legs when you’re outside the house. Near everyone else is doing the same thing. But there’s also pressure coming from inside your heart not to live one long dry patch of a life. Not approaching and just using porn is the path of least resistance, but that leads to frustration and habitualised self-denial. See unhappiness. Not to mention the disappointment on the faces of women who seemed to want to be approached. Faces who I suspect would be instantly creeped out, covering their breasts and moving away if you had even a slight inkling to talk to her.

Having an attitude of being willing to approach is the worst of the worst. I’ve seen an old lady get up and move to the other end of the tram because I made small talk with a girl that seemed to be strongly inviting me to do so. Oh yes, a special and rarely seen intensity of disapproval is reserved for the man who is thinking of approaching a woman. Palpable. I suspect it’s something like the derision reserved for female promiscuity. It seems that strong human drives need particularly strong countervailing social forces to control them.

When your dick isn’t tucked neatly between your legs people can tell from a mile away, and you get treated like a creep with 10x the intensity. It makes you question everything. Most of all it makes you stifle that little voice that wants to talk to her and crawl back in line. It’s the greatest feeling in the world being above this social control, women even seem to accept you feeling good for a while afterwards, but not too long.

I honestly believe that it’s not ok to approach women in my country purely because I’ve been repeatedly conditioned to believe that. And yet paradoxically it’s clearly the thing to do, what men do. There’s nothing at all wrong with it. In theory it’s ok to approach because it’s only natural, but on the ground approaching is treated as taboo. Paradoxical.

Perhaps it’s apt to formulate a conclusion here: right or wrong, it’s socially taboo for a man to approach a woman, but a man sometimes ought to do it anyway as an expression of personal truth and freedom. This is consistent with principles of our liberalist society so long as he doesn’t unduly impinge on her freedoms. She has a right to not be harassed but simply approaching ought not to be considered harassment, harassment might happen a minute or two after being unequivocally told to leave. She ought not be physically impeded (she might have somewhere to be), but some casual physical contact is ok unless she says not to. This whole conclusion needs to be alloyed with the somewhat naturalistic, common-sense sentiment that boys will be boys and girls will be girls. This interaction is between the two of them and so long as it doesn’t break laws or unduly impinge on the freedom of others, third parties or society in general ought not impede two adults from interacting. On a humorous note I wonder if under this line of reasoning cockblocking would be considered properly unethical.

Anyway, you can shift your attention away from the game entirely. Not being interested in reproducing has low survival and reproductive value though so you get treated like a enuch. This is a life devoid of validation and I honestly find it incredibly difficult to do even for short periods of time. This is how I find myself simultaneously conditioned to be in the game and also to feel bad about it.

And then there’s the elephant in the room. Relationships. I can think of maybe half a dozen times in my whole life I’ve seen a middle aged guy looking happy as he walks around with his homely-looking wife. The times I did see it they smelled of spiritual-type love and transcendence. There’s an expectation of getting married and having kids by a certain age even if that’s not really what you want. I personally don’t feel any great desire to enter into a family any time soon, my drive is generally towards freedom and I suspect in turn a kind of creative actualisation.

What if what you want is just a casual relationship without the weight of society’s expectations? What is wrong with that? And what if (God forbid) you just want to hookup, because it scratches that itch and temporarily shifts you up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Well then my friend, sounds like you are in the game and it sucks to be you.

There are undoubtedly other paradoxes involved. My point is this though: you can’t win. Or rather, you can’t expect to avoid the pain of social pressure and be happy as well. Although you can to a point, which is usually exactly where I find myself in life. I honestly wonder if sex robots, drugs or genetic reengineering can make this sweet spot a bit sweeter still.

“The problem is women… I’m just going to be gay”, I imagine some of you are saying. Very clever. Indeed, certain needs will be better met in doing so, but I’m convinced that any sensitive gay man will tell you there is greater pain in other areas, such as marginalisation.

“I’m just going to cut my dick off and live in a monastery”. I see the logic in that. However I would argue that it would have a net negative impact on overall well-being. It may be better to move to a monastery without cutting your dick off. Is this what you would want to do regardless though?

Sometimes I do feel happy. I feel validated. Then I leave the house and women smell it on me and simply won’t have it. Cue getting devalidated and treated like a creep. Any possible thing that can bring my state down happens. Validation never lasts long unless you’ve achieved it through courage and pain it seems, go figure. Unless you’re travelling, which seems to change things a little.

There are a few conclusions to be made here. The one I really want to internalise is the one that makes me literally not give a fuck what people think. The one that reassures me that what other people think, despite how real it seems to them and therefore also the empath sensing them, doesn’t have any bearing on me or my place in society.

Another is to be grateful because in the scheme of things this isn’t so bad. At least we’re not struggling for needs even more basic than love and sexual validation, such as oxygen or security.

Another is to not look so much for happiness in the opposite sex. I struggle with this so I’m not confident giving any epigrammatic advice. Let the development of ideas thus far speak for itself, perhaps as a cautionary tale. Bring it back to the basics though. The principles of happiness. Transcending the ego and societal planes of being.

Some Ideas on Metaphysics

54109432591607929.jpgI’m listening to an audiobook about modern philosophy and it’s got me thinking about the nature of reality. They’ve discussed Descartes, Locke and now Spinoza, to name a few. What I’m about to say may be well outdated by now in philosophical circles but I thought they were valid responses given what was being said, I’ll try to explain it in a way that’s meaningful to those who weren’t there when I was listening to it (which is everyone other than me).

Firstly, on dualism. Descartes was a dualist. It seems to me that dualism is the belief that there is mind and matter; and that’s the fundamental distinction. Mind includes soul. All of this is apart from God which to Descartes is like a third thing.

Part of the reason this debate about mind vs matter being a hard and fast distinction doesn’t ring true is because we inherently know that there is interplay between mind and matter. They affect each other. My suggestion is as follows. It is better not to think of it as mind and matter, but rather as mind, matter and organic matter. Organic matter is made of the same  subatomic particles as matter and is physical. However it is what we are made of and it is inherently in constant exchange with its environment. Deep down we feel that it’s true that we are in constant flux exchange with our environment rather than being purely mind within matter. Mind feels this quality of being porous, it’s not insular.

I like Spinoza’s pantheist thinking about how nature and God are one, and they are the entirety of everything. Thus everything in it such as mind or matter are both simply attributes of the greater whole. The way they spoke about mentality as being an attribute of the whole got me thinking about the nature of mentality.

Mentality, what is it? I think mentality is a lot like the workings of a computer. The things that make it special is that occurs on a conscious level. It is experienced. That is to say it occurs within the frame of consciousness. Importantly it is also subject to volition despite “having a mind of its own” sometimes.

In this way consciousness is seen as being like a new plane out of which attributes in nature spring and are entirely based upon. If consciousness ceased to exist then the mental would cease to exist in any vital way and become not more than machinations to connect dots and achieve ends.

If you made a computer out of organic matter and gave it consciousness of its own machinations and power/update/servicing needs, wouldn’t that be eerily like a little person? The thing that would give legitimacy to its plight would be if we could empathise through some kind of facial interface and it with us through sensory input. Then it could tell us what it was feeling and soon about 50% of people would be in favour of granting it more rights.


img_1298As non-fiction goes this is right up there with the best. I can hardly imagine reading anything that was more fascinating. For me the study of humans and where we came from has always seemed such a high yield topic for getting that dopamine rush of understanding.

The resounding beauty of this book is the voice with which he explains society’s institutions. He really makes you understand them objectively, like an outsider looking in. He shows you where they originated and developed: in the cognitive revolution and agricultural revolution respectively. How they’re “myths” that form an intersubjective reality to bind us together. This would otherwise be impossible in such high populations. Yet these myths of institutions have become studied deeply, layer upon layer. Exacted through numbers. They’ve become the fabric for much of life. We’re the fish in the fishbowl that can’t comprehend water.

I like that he began from the very beginning. Physics. Then chemistry. Then biology. And by the end he had covered what might be expected from the future of humanity. Really venturesome ideas that aren’t apparent today at all; such as genetically engineering super humans which don’t share our failures. Like greed, hatred or perpetual discontent. He by no means skipped on the philosophical discussion of these new areas either, going the extra mile like this are what I believe earns a book rating that fifth star. I presume his other book Homo Deus covers the futurism aspect in greater detail and I look forward to reading it.

Some things that stuck with me after reading it were:

  • The cognitive revolution is what occurred in the human mind to give us our intellect, including the ability to communicate and pass knowledge down the generations
  • The agricultural revolution sparked writing, marriage, class system etc
  • Total number of civilisations is decreasing as they merge into larger ones – trend towards globalism
  • Money, empire and religion are what first “globalised” the world
  • Capitalism and science are basically why Europe became most developed and conquered the world. Capitalism liked empire
  • Expected economic growth is a recent phenomenon but it underpins the modern economy and financial system (Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations). Constant growth becomes necessary to keep functioning properly because why borrow or invest otherwise?
  • Constant growth of demand requires consumeristic society and culture. It permeates our minds and controls our behaviour in profound ways
  • The market has replaced the family/community for meeting most of the needs of individuals: it demands individualism though
  • The poor have a consumerist ethic but the rich have an investment ethic, two sides of the coin
  • People may not be any happier now than in the Middle Ages, because of expectations, beliefs about an afterlife etc. What’s the point of progress without happiness?
  • Mathematics has brought exactness into life, hence why they teach it to everyone. Not a priori knowledge apparently
  • Standardised time replaced natural time and regional times. First standardised time was in Greenwich, England. Used initially in factories, then schools and shops naturally followed suit. In this way time is an extension of capitalism? Now time is incredibly exact, virtually inescapable.

Six Thinking Hats

I just finished reading Six Thinking Hats. Originally published in 1985 by Edward De Bono. According to Wikipedia:

Edward de Bono (born 19 May 1933) is a Maltese physician, psychologist, author, inventor and consultant. He originated the term lateral thinking, wrote the book Six Thinking Hats and is a proponent of the teaching of thinking as a subject in schools.

My copy of the book was an orange penguin classic. Big shoes to fill. I saw it on the shelves of the psychology section of a large bookstore in the inner city. Just from the title, I knew what it was about. Even so, I felt that I ought to read it anyway because that message was worth knowing in detail.

Having read it I would say that the idea itself is 4.5 stars. The book maybe 3 stars. It had a bit too much fluff for my taste.

The book has a central thesis or premise besides the six thinking hats themselves. It’s that in our normal everyday thinking, we cobble together different types (or directions) of thinking. And it is ineffective or even self-defeating. The specific term he repeatedly used was that the mind can only be “sensitised” in one direction at a time.

What gets me really excited about this is drawing greater power from thinking by using these different directions separately and single-mindedly, in their due turn. Noting the best fruits from each. In doing so building a more balanced mental landscape; one that has the positives, negatives, facts, emotions, new ideas and clear oversight neatly shown. Perhaps even making thinking and decision making like a fun game.

It should be noted that this book was rich in examples (perhaps 40% of the content was examples). I believe without exception the examples were a business or meeting context.

Enter the six thinking hats:

White. Like white printer paper from a computer. The white hat is about information. Objective or empirical facts. You may report the fact that someone stated an opinion but when wearing the white thinking hat you may not state your own opinion, this would be done wearing a different hat.

Red. Passionate like blood. About pure emotion and intuition. State how you are feeling about what is at hand in its raw form, without rationalising about it. What your instinct is beneath thought.

Black. Foreboding, depressing and where bad decisions lead. This is the hat of cautious, negative thinking. In other words fear, anxiety and pain: avoidance oriented. Of seeing the fault in ideas or arguments. The downside.

Yellow. Sunny and golden. The hat of hope. The bright side. Seeing the potential benefits or positive reasons for doing something. Seeing the good things about a proposal.

Green. Seeds and new growth. This is the hat of creativity, innovation and lateral thinking. “Off the wall” ideas are encouraged here. You can put on this hat when you need to come up with something new.

Blue. The blue sky. The hat of overview and control. Asking the right questions, summoning the right hats when necessary. The blue hat is what must chair the other hats, frame and direct the thinking. Perhaps it’s like the executive functioning mind?


I’m excited about being able to look at projects that I’m struggling on with each thinking hat independently. This is a highly unintuitive thing to do but to me doing so seems inherently powerful. A crucial step towards that ever-illusive control of one’s own mind. In particular, like most people I have the habit of letting cautious or emotional thinking in the moment ultimately control me. This is what we evolved to do because cautious or first glance thinking was statistically safer. However, this is no longer particularly useful, is it? If yellow, white, green or blue hat thinking got a chance to examine a situation as well, then there’d be a mindset that was superhuman in its intelligence. A chance to view things in a different light.

Competency Versus Accreditation

There is an often encountered but rarely spoken phenomenon in society. The dichotomy of competency and accreditation. Perhaps you have encountered this distinction at some point when you realised that generally certificates don’t get you hired but experience does. Yet accreditation lends prestige and well, accredits.
All my life I’ve wanted to get a black belt in a martial art. A few years ago I began Wing Chun because I liked Bruce Lee and its principled approach to fighting appealed to me. It was the thinking man’s martial art. And it only took 3 years to achieve a black sash which is very convenient for someone who likes to travel.
However, I had irreconcilable differences with the school. They were completely stuck in their habits year after a year and the whole place seemed completely numb in the head. They acted as if there was no revolution since mixed martial arts and refused to acknowledge any form of grappling or ground fighting at all. There was also a culture of misinformation, groupthink and rudeness. It was taboo to address reality. I gave up by the time I reached blue sash level – I simply couldn’t put up with it for another 18 months.
In my opinion, the premier martial art of today is Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. It’s dynamic, scientific and effective. Smaller people can use it to overcome larger people. You don’t get brain trauma from doing it. It’s spreading like wild fire while martial arts like Wing Chun and Aikido are walling themselves off and making ever more excuses. They’re becoming more niche in their value proposition. To me, a BJJ black belt represents elite warrior status in the modern day. The problem is that it takes 10 years of dedicated training to achieve it. It takes 2 whole years just to lose your white belt. As someone that wants to travel this is a difficult situation: it might be 20 years before I get a black belt.
This exorbitant time frame made me reluctantly shake my head. It was all about the black belt; that was the goal. You need to articulate a goal right? That’s what the self-help literature says. However, I’m now starting to see that there aren’t really any other graded martial arts of the same quality and it is better to learn the best art than to learn a questionable one. I have mentally decided to start learning BJJ. However in order to reach that decision I had to very much let go of the idea of getting black belt: It’s too far away to be motivating. That prestigious and accredited idea that is so easily incorporated into one’s identity is gone.
I’ve discovered that what necessarily replaces accreditation as a motivator is competency. Practising the art. Being able to kick someone’s ass if you both end up on the ground. Seems like a bit of a stupid thing to spend 10 years on, frankly.
Goals are a fact of life though. The question remains: what goal is both motivating and able to be articulated? If the basic drive is to be able to kick some ass and to achieve mastery of a high-quality art, what goal satisfactorily advocates for this? Timothy Ferriss likes phrasing goals in terms of doing rather than being. For example being able to kick the ass of someone bigger than you in ground fighting is a good goal instead of a black belt. Or knowing what to do in every situation and being able to do it. Or mastering the curricula of the program.
Phrased like this goals lack the prestigious simplicity, the cleanness, the symbolic quality which is easily relayed to others or able to be identified with. They make you think of actually grappling with people rather than having and being something for life. They make you smell sweat and feel social anxiety. They have a visceral realness to them. They focus the mind on competency rather than accreditation. They prime you to focus on your art or skill set rather than rocking up and doing just enough for long enough.
Another example of competency versus accreditation is in learning a foreign language. As someone who has studied Mandarin and likes to have goals; one of my goals over the years has been to achieve HSK6. This is the highest level of the Chinese government administered Chinese language proficiency accreditation. If you have HSK6 you know about 5,000 words and have the macro skills to effectively engage in communication with them.
Just like a black belt HSK can be quickly whipped out mid conversation or resume. You can put it on your wall to remind yourself that other white people aren’t as dedicated or wonderful as you. However, it lures the awareness away from communication itself. The mind will get you that certificate because that is what it does with goals, but actually being able to talk with a Chinese person after getting it will be a coincidence. How many hours would you spend actually communicating in your journey to get it?
These are two examples of a broader phenomenon which is often found wherever there is a skill set and a demand for accreditation in that skill set. What others can you think of in your own life? What accreditation have you been procrastinating getting which would take you to the next level and add to your prestige? Where are you merely seeking accreditation when it would be better to focus on the skills which underpin it? Do you have a deficit in theory or practise?

A Meditation on Inner Strength

Sometimes I like to think about what certain qualities would be like if taken to the utmost extreme. Perfected. Epitomised. This morning I was wondering about how when “weaker” people are in control they seem to be less graceful about it. They feel less secure and that feeling manifests itself in their behaviours and is felt by those who are lower than them on the ladder. Yet sometimes someone who is relatively weak or even sickly seems to take great responsibility in their stride. Emotionally they are able to handle it and remain feeling larger than it, in control. Think of Angela Merkel who is basically a little old woman or Gandhi who is 5’4” and led millions of people whilst wearing a robe and hunger striking. By comparison, sometimes I struggle to get to work without a coffee or to deal with the emotional burden of leading one person. Imagine doing this being famished and wearing a robe. Sounds like being a backpacker actually.

I believe the quality we’re alluding to here is loosely understood as inner strength. A quick google search indicates that inner strength is roughly synonymous with resilience to difficult circumstances. In other words, the ability to deal with difficulties without breaking down or giving up. The ability to look life in the eye and smile, when other people become depressed. Surprisingly it also seems to be an actual term in the dictionary. Its definition: integrity of character; resoluteness of will; mental resistance to doubt or discouragement (wiktionary). This last part suggests that it’s intrinsically linked to the social.

This definition seems close to what I’m talking about but isn’t quite there. I’ll draw an analogy to demonstrate what I mean. Imagine you spent your whole life bearing the most difficult and demanding job in the universe. Physical pain and danger, lack of necessities, social pressures of all kinds, uncertainty, responsibility for trillions, countless temptations, profound demands on every type of intelligence. All of these factors were off the charts. And then you suddenly found yourself with the most demanding job on Earth, such as being the leader of a great power. How would you react to this new role that would probably break most people?

I would argue that you would smile like a Budha at the emotional burden. You’d remain centred. You’d think optimally. You’d respond emotionally appropriately to the situation. The risks, responsibilities, the disapproval, imperfections of self. You would find your flow or even get bored. The neediness, frailty and fearfulness of others. You’d be aware of them, you’d look them in the eye but yet not feel overwhelmed by them. With God-like strength would they even be a blip on your awareness? Your sense of self-potential would just seem to dwarf those demands. True strength would be able to deal with those without being apathetic to others since they wouldn’t necessarily escape their humanity entirely. People would feel that. Or maybe it would corrupt them absolutely. In any case I think this sort of emotional strength is an eminently appropriate quality for a leader to have. It inspires confidence. You’re not likely to ever find one in this degree but it doesn’t hurt to imagine what the epitome would be as a thought experiment.

There is a premise here. It’s that going through great challenges builds greater inner strength. I love the story of Franklin Roosevelt. How he had Polio and that personal struggle seemed to build in him a strength and gracefulness. Now he is rated USA’s greatest president by an aggregate of ratings. I wonder if this inner strength can exist innately in a person, such as through genetics? Sounds like Achilles or Gilgamesh, to me.

One is reminded of Marcus Aurelius with all this talk of high office and nobility. The most powerful man in the world at the time. It’s well known that power inspires confidence and when one has power in this degree the anxieties rightfully fall away. It’s interesting what someone does when their anxieties fall away. Where does one turn for guidance when the normal motivators of pleasure and pain become distant? Marcus turned to philosophy. Stoic philosophy. You have to live somehow and decided to make his life a temple with the pillars of reason and stoic virtue. One can’t help but see the similarity between stoicism and the image of inner strength. The main difference is that the perfect inner strength I illustrated seems to be able to take challenge in its stride whereas stoicism struggles with it more. So does human nature struggle for perfection, though.

If one wishes to have inner strength but they don’t have it innately, what is required? Well, it seems that a full spectrum of challenging circumstances is both what builds it and what is required to make it demonstrated (although a sense of being larger than a situation can be felt without demonstration). One may be thrust into this or embark willingly on such a journey. Perhaps they could try to live their current life with principled perfection. Go without things you think you need. Bear risks and uncertainty. Be cut down and challenged by people. Be vulnerable. Aim higher and take on more responsibility. Be more in the spotlight. When leading or dating, be bold. We can see that above all one must have an attitude of courage. 

Why would one want to have inner strength at all, though? To attract women? Because it’s better than anxiety? To achieve some desired outcome? To be higher on the pecking order of humans? To be a better leader? It does have survival, reproductive and transcendent value. It seems to me that it’s something of a second order end in itself, though. Self-improvement is an imperative and inescapable part of quality personhood, but quality personhood demands more than focusing on oneself. I don’t recommend pursuing it wholly for more than a week since you don’t want to have an obsession with inner strength written on your face – that would be unwise and unsexy. I would recommend broader philosophies of life and growth-oriented action, however best they may be applied for you.

Ironically to the existence of this article, simply having a girlfriend or a child will cultivate this quality in you. Perhaps because evolutionarily, family needs more for you to be strong than to be happy, so they instinctively challenge you emotionally. Inner strength can be sexy or deathly real, appreciated or unappreciated. It’s correlated with maturity but also with uniqueness. It’s not ultimate good but it may facilitate a more glorious or robust existence.

Being a White Male Contrarian These Days

I wrote a few quick paragraphs this morning, as the ideas for a possible blog post rushed into my awareness. Since I was at work I didn’t have time to polish it up so never posted it. It was about gender and society. Since then I’ve cooled off about it, been offended by members of the people I was trying to benefit and become somewhat cynical about humanity’s hope in general. So instead of posting the original ideas I would like to include them with the broader context and story of my day.
Firstly. I would like to make the observation that over the last few weeks there has been a seachange in society. Let me explain. 3 months ago feminist narratives were dominating the mainstream media. Barrack Obama was radiating charismatic cuckoldry throughout the world. People were being shamed for suggesting anything that was politically incorrect. Basically, it sucked to be a white male because every other group owned a stake in what you were allowed to do or be but not vice versa. The would-be strong were necessarily oppressed and short changed by the agenda of equality and progress. Voltaire said: “to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise”. Well by this measure we were pretty much ruled by everybody else.
Brexit happened. Donald Trump won. These events are simply symptoms of a wider social movement, based on being justifiably angry at the left. These events of the highest global magnitude have come to legitimise certain sentiments: because the majority officially agrees. It justifies being able to speak in favour of being a man or conserving one’s country. I was certainly one of these people. I always hated feminists with the best of them, still do. Although now I’m starting to hate myself because I feel feminist sentiments taking root in me. I saw that western countries were giving so much on every level that they weren’t even winning anymore and too degraded to even call spade a spade or reject corruption. To my elation Trump won and as expected, the mainstream narrative has shifted to the right. The West is out of freefall. Common sense has become cool again. What I and others were always talking about to the derision of mainstream minds has now become the very thought process of those same mainstream minds. I have learned that most people simply don’t think independently, they just align with the mainstream and deride anything else.
Feminists have been most responsible for political correctness because they need it to control people. They need to be able to punish their enemies through shame and fear. They need big government to intervene intimately in peoples’ lives. They seem to want globalism for some reason. They want every other “disenfranchised group” to help them undermine heterosexual men and traditional institutions. They define and align with the left and absolutely loved Obama and Clinton.
What I’ve seen in the last 2-3 weeks is that critical mass has been reached and guys have given themselves permission to stop being walked all over by progressive ideas. I had a tram ride last night that felt like patriarchy on wheels based on the body language and vibes of fellow commuters. In Australia, there was a phenomenal Facebook page called “Yeah The Boys” which gave a public platform to vent all these pent up frustrations and it was deliciously offensive. The one rule it espoused was “don’t ever let me catch you dogging the boys”. Almost like an oracle that statement has seemed to become part of the fabric of Australian culture – and just over the last month. Although it does harken back to the WW2 value of mateship, though. To put it bluntly, guys have started running shit again like we mostly have for all time. The simple fact of the matter is that as a collective men are more powerful, and that’s what we’ve been seeing lately since they’ve stopped being marginalised by ideas.
Women seemed relatively happy and on board with it at first. Then not so much. Then yesterday you’d think they were in Saudi Arabia or something, the average woman looked completely depressed and angry. I felt bad. I felt I ought to try and not oppress them with my body language. While most mainstream types seemed to be behaving notably dominantly (whereas last year they were notably submissive) I resolved to behave, well, gentlemanly. In response to my feelings of injustice, the following ideas emerged. They are an attempt to think of a more win-win solution where guys would be empowered but women wouldn’t be completely depressed:
Feminism is suited for when women are being systematically oppressed or to systematically oppress men. Lately it struggles to justify its own existence in western culture and seems to unable to “back off” of its own volition or not constantly reaffirm itself publically. Personally I think its proper place in society is as a 1st and 2nd wave safety net.  But for the most part it belongs at the margins and out of mainstream media because it’s really quite weird.
It’s a shame really, the word feminism could refer to a positive philosophy about what it means to be a woman in this day and age. It would be nice if the ideaology known as feminism suggested even a little bit of femininity, personal accountability or duty. I can see the misdirection on a lot of faces because they simply don’t know what to be anymore – which institutions to listen to? Who to be most allegiant to? Same with guys as a matter of fact. These are fertile grounds for useful philosophical discussions.
There should also be a seperate philosophy of gender that isn’t owned by one gender but rather is owned by reason and is based on the greatest good for the greatest number. Feminism claims to be like this but its jsut public relations and in reality it isn’t. There are already positively connotated, gender neutral words for ideaologies like this such as egalitarianism.
However there also needs to be a counter argument to egalitarianism to represent that which egalitarianism disenfranchises. This would be politically incorrect by last month’s standards. The sentiments of this counter argument match what we’re seeing in alt-right  movements at the moment. Its tenets would include things like not intervening in peoples’ lives too much and respect for nature, tradition and religion. These ideas ought to be represented in public discourse because whilst they may not be politically correct, they are more objectively true than the alternative and people do care about them and will vote based upon them.
In summary there ought to be philosophies for what it means to be a man or woman, and philosophies for opposing equality and self-interest. I believe these represent the extremes and if they are allowed to flourish society may find a moderate balance based on the tension between them. Niches will also develop where more extreme views can find their homes. In addition to these positive philosophies there also needs to be some “negatives”. Directives such as “don’t dog the boys” are a good example.
Pretty innocuous right? Well, I don’t know if any of the readers know this but when you write something in the morning, the sentiments of it emanate off you for half a day or so. When I went on my lunch break I must have stunk of being a feminist or something because both women and men were treating me with disdain. I felt spurned. Like I was dogging the boys and was being cuckolded by women for it. Goddamnit, last year I was spurned for disliking feminists now I’m being spurned for sympathising with them.
That brings me to where I am now. Cynical. Frustrated. It’s not easy being a contrarian. But I’m a red blooded male that craves respect more than crave contrarianism. I endorse the above ideas because to me they obviously represent the best solution but as of now, I renounce any form of activism. I need more time to let who I thought I was ebb away with the changing climate.