You know, your happiness actually IS in your hands…

Tip 1:

“-How to make people happy?
- First make their lives worse, then make it like it was to begin with”

Recently, I read some articles that asserted that our happiness is in our hands. I thought about it, and it seems mostly right.

1.I think many people in the West are their worst enemy. They say “I want to achieve X”, but they don’t act like it. A lot of people have a whole lot of time on their hands, and more resources than they know. There are some people with obstacles outside themselves in their lives, but they actually seem to overcome them!

2.People also never appreciate what they do achieve. So, you achieved a degree, and a mediocre job. Well, some people are not smart enough to even do that, or don’t have the opportunity. People who live mediocre lives seem to think it can’t get any worse. But yes, it can, and once it does, they want things to be at least mediocre again.

3. If you appreciated your life and current achievements, you’d also whine a lot less about minor things. That thing that seems overwhelmingly scary right now, will it kill you? Doom you to a lifetime of torture? If not, perhaps it’s not worth so much emotion. A lot of things people complain about are only serious inside their heads. Otherwise they would be miniscule problems.

4. Imagine you lived in Zimbabwe, where you can get killed for writing a political play, and get raped and have your baby thrown into acid so “he doesn’t take revenge”. How much would you wish to have what you have now? How many of your dreams would you finally fulfill, once you escaped a highly restrictive life, and had the freedom you have now?

5. If you wanted it as much as you say you do, you’d be doing a lot more to achieve it, right now. And if you never try it, you will never know whether you have the ability or not.

Examples:

This old lady has a great figure and quite a lot of muscle. If she can do it, no one else can excuse themselves by saying “I’m a hard-gainer” or “I’m too old” or “don’t have enough testosterone”.

http://ernestineshepherd.net/

This lady has no lower half, but she’s a car mechanic and has a family. Seems happy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/rosemary-siggins-mom-with_n_1864411.html

And there is my granpa. He built a dacha (Russian summer house + agricultural garden) out of planks he found on the ground everywhere, survived cancer, stroke, broken ribs, punctured lungs, although obviously he doesn’t have iron health. He’s also an inventor, a morally and physically strong guy, and incredibly good with children. He’s probably the person I look up to the most.

6.Cool links:

Deserving What You Get – Facebook Edition (although I don’t think we deserve what we get, I agree with the overall mood of the post)

Apply An Abundance Mindset To Life (that’s right, you have more resources than you think).

Hump Day lite reading: "My vagina is beautiful" and other classy feminist memes.

Reblogged from Sunshine Mary:

• 

As Eve Ensler of The Vagina Monologues has made oh so painfully clear, vaginal self-love memes are part and parcel of feminism.

Any suggestions for this lady's next tat?

Moving on, this next story contains another seriously overused feminist meme.  It's time to play Feminist Meme Scavenger Hunt!  Spot the over-used meme in this story and be the first person to correctly identify it in the comments, and I'll send you a friendly Christian side-hug  across the internet as your prize.

Read more… 619 more words

In the last few months, Norwegian feminists were agitating for more internet speech to be illegalized. This time, "antifeminist harassment". Many wrote articles, whining about receiving rape threats for being public female figures. This type of incident only ads one more reason for why I don't think they suffer from a big rape threat problem. The thing Meg Simons wrote to herself is not even a real rape threat (but is to be taken seriously if it was real). I wouldn't be surprised if most of it was made up by Norwegian feminists, because the end (anti-antifeminist speech laws) justifies the means (lying).

Female and Male Sexual Interests Are in Conflict: Must Someone Lose?

I recently had another long and unproductive debate with an MRA, which lead, unfortunately, to nothing good. However, this post is not about him. It can apply to feminists, MRAs, and the religious people.

It’s known that women want one thing from men, and men want something different. One can say that an ideal fantasy life for a man would be sex with lots of hot women, and perhaps love on the side. For a woman, it would be, perhaps, serial monogamy with hot men (or just one awesome man). To give the other what they want, a person has to give up something they wanted. It is true on the individual level.

But does it have to be so on the grand scale? One can say feminism is on the side of women, working to give women what they want, at the expense of men. Not to mention they frame the female fantasy as moral, and the male one as immoral. A sexually expressive woman is confident, a sexually expressive man is an objectifying pervert. We consider it wrong, when feminists throw men under the bus for the sake of women’s happiness. Should the opposite be considered good, then? Or is it just more of the same?

I got this reply:

“It seems we agree that male and female sexuality conflict, and therefore we have two choices – getting male sexuality to conform to female sexuality, or getting female sexuality to conform to male sexuality. I say men and women would be happier if women could be like men, you say civilisation would be better if men could be more like women [not an accurate representation of my opinion, see next paragraphs – EE]. Well this is a men’s rights site, existing in the context where men are forcibly being made to conform to female sexuality, so I have no apologies about choosing male sexuality over female sexuality. We have also suffered numerous feminist troll ‘feMRAs’ using the old trick of suggesting that feminists are ruining civilisation for men and women and…guess what? Men should be more like women, instead of women being like men (which feminists supposedly suggest).

If our sexualities conflict (which evolutionary psychology, common observation, and it seem we ourselves agree) then there is no avoiding a men’s rights being ‘like feminists’ and choosing the side of men. How we can differ from feminists is in telling the truth and being honest.“

Do we really have only two choices, when it comes to the big picture? Either make men’s sexuality conform to the female one, or make women’s sexuality conform to the male one. How about a middle ground, where both give something up (lifelong monogamy)? Or perhaps choose a hands-off approach, where men can freely earn money and status without affirmative action in their way, and let women choose whom they please?

Does anyone want to be like these two? I’d rather not.

First, I will explain why I think lifelong monogamy is a compromise for both sexes. I was surprised when my conversation partner said that lifelong monogamy was a way to make male sexuality conform to the female one. Depending on whom you talk to, lifelong monogamy is interpreted as

a)      Men being subjugated to women’s will

b)      Women being subjugated to men’s will

c)      Both being limited

I believe c) is correct. While this arrangement does give benefits to the woman, it also locks her in without access to men she would normally “test drive”. She might be stuck with a boring beta man, who otherwise would not have gotten her. While my conversation partner will say monogamy is just a way for older women to eliminate younger competition, I will say it is also a way for each man to have at least one woman close to his own attractiveness, and not lower. I think it makes men calmer and stabilizes society.

I will also say, to clear up any misunderstandings, that I’m not pro enforcing strict monogamy, but would rather let the free market fix it.

I’d rather have this. Men and women as friends, whether they choose a relationship or just sex.

Now, onto the discussion of female interests vs. male interests. The man I debated with admits that, like feminists, he is willing to elevate his sexuality over the one of the opposite sex. However, he at least doesn’t lie about it, and isn’t willing to use forceful, oppressive measures to make it happen. I’ll give him that. But I see issues with the goal itself.

1)      Feminists do exactly the same. They say “we just want equality between the sexes, not female supremacy”, but they at the same time define male sexuality as lower than the female one. Then they either demand men turn into women (because it’s better for women AND men), OR they simply pretend men are ALREADY like women (like when they say their reaction to waking up to sex with a woman is the same as a woman would have).

2)      If you admit you want to remake the other sex into your own image, you are on the same level as those who demand the opposite. Technically, both are insolent to demand such things. They are simply two rival factions, two among thousands, who want people on Earth to have sex in the ideal way they created in their heads.  It becomes even worse, when your enemy has strength, and you don’t. Then all it is, is one selfish faction wiping out another selfish faction. Neither memorable, nor a tragedy.

When one fights for freedom, justice and truth, and against REAL abuses, one at least has something on the selfish enemy, even when they are much stronger. A higher moral ground. When one fights for those things, yet would like them more for themselves and somewhat less for others, all one has is those who want the same things – and the same number of people who want exactly the opposite. It’s like a war, where everyone fights for resources, and no one is really right or wrong. Although I admit it can still help free people, if the new winners can live up to their promises and not exploit their new position of power.

At last, I will say that I have no problem at all that the MRM is mainly about men’s issues. It is in the definition. It is as it should be. Those things need to be done. However, since I don’t suffer from internal inconsistencies, I frown upon any side (MRM or feminism) when they try to grab more than they earned; more than justice, truth and freedom.

What do you think?

Does criticism mess up the whole MRM?

After a long and unproductive discussion, I was told I was punching holes in the sex-positive men’s movement. And that my criticism of internal philosophy was ruining it. Maybe I should leave this  movement alone, but it’s kind of a bummer, isn’t it? To pretend everything is consistent, until they win, I guess? Maybe I should take my own advice (https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/beware-of-the-critical-thinking-criticism/ ) and just not say anything, even if I’d be pointing out a wrong?

On the other hand, have they any hope, if a little criticism supposedly breaks the whole movement? There is a ton of feminist varieties, yet they won a lot of reforms. They are strong in their “religious” fervor, and do often throw out those who they don’t see as feminist enough. So how come it doesn’t split them up into uselessness? Maybe perhaps because they actually do things, and we don’t. Action together binds, blog debates merely irritate.

And will it be possible to repudiate opinions you don’t like, when your group finally won? Or will you be held responsible for everything the group helped create, even the things you didn’t like or contribute to, yourself? In fact, shouldn’t you be held responsible for everything your group created, as long as you stood behind them and gave your agreement with your silence (in effect, voted for them to be in power)? If you’re willing to take that responsibility, can you be sure you’ll never lose yourself in the process, agreeing with things you’d normally never agree with, and have your own moral values bite you in the ass?

Do we need to apologize for our sexuality?

I recently had a conversation with another blogger. He called female sexual psychology maladaptive, and said women would be happier with male sexuality. I was asked why I wish to let women’s nature be as it is. What I said was essentially that I don’t see anything wrong with sexual pickiness of women, and don’t think it’s fair to discuss this as a flaw that needs to be fixed. Same way men don’t like to be demonized and pathologized for having a higher sex drive, women shouldn’t feel ashamed of being sexually picky, or wanting something more out of the guy than his cock.

The argument of my conversation partner was essentially this: Why would I want to preserve female pickiness, if it created false rape accusations and a high age of consent?

First of all, I don’t think pickiness leads to those things. Sexuality is sexuality, and morals are morals. To suggest otherwise makes us no better than fundamentalist Christians, whose understanding of sexual “morals” is questionable to me. High age of consent is likely a result of parents, trying to control the outcomes of their daughter’s mating, and thus ensure better reproductive success for themselves. And false rape accusations, while they are related to women’s pickiness, wouldn’t be very powerful without an army of manginas to back it up.

Second, the question itself reveals something very collectivist. “Why do you wish to preserve female pickiness?” I am asked. But shouldn’t the question be “Why should we ever tamper with female nature in the first place?”. The former version of the question reveals that changing the nature is seen as default, as if the morality of what should be done has already been decided, without even asking the owner of said nature. The owner of the nature (in this case, me), is asked to defend her innate desires, and prove they are moral and good for society.

Here’s a clip from a famous Russian movie called A Dog’s Heart. Unfortunately there are no subtitles, but I will translate (not too well, but bear with me).

-I offer you to buy a few magazines, to help the children of Germany. They cost 50 each.

-No, I won’t take them.

-But why are you refusing?

-I don’t want them.

-You don’t feel any sympathy for children of Germany??

-I do.

-Aha, you just feel greedy about your 50 roubles?

-No

-Then why??

-I don’t want them.

Like the woman in the clip, many people do not accept a simple “I don’t want it” as a valid justification for having the values you have and making the personal decisions you make. They feel you must justify them by either making them useful to other people, or by aligning them to theirs. They insist their values are better than yours. You accept their values without sharing them, but they can’t do the same for you.

Example 1: A woman driven by the feminine imperative tells a man his uncommitted sexual lifestyle is shameful and unmanly, because he refuses to marry and support a woman. She demands he justifies his desires and choices by proving they are good for women.

Example 2: A PUA who tells a woman that her desire for commitment is selfish and based on jealousy. He asks her to justify her desires by proving they are good for PUAs.

Example 3: A beta tells women hypergamy is unnatural and they should control and squash it, because it’s awful and amoral. He asks women to justify their desires based on what it good for men like him.

Essentially, they accuse you of being selfish because you refuse to give them what they want, or to live according to what will make their life most comfortable.

Those who demand that these things must be justified haven’t truly gotten it. Values need no justification. They are values, they ARE the justification for things we do, not the other way around.

*******************

When doing this, these people try to convince you to be like them by telling you you will feel happier if you changed your values. That might sometimes be true, and not everyone who tells you your values should be changed is a hidden selfish prick. But sometimes they are. Sometimes they don’t even realize they are, and sincerely think they are arguing selflessly (possible because they evolved to argue that way, without knowing the ultimate purpose). I will provide some examples, which will, hopefully, show exactly WHY the things they say are as offensive as they are. Imagine there is a cure for any value or trait a human might have.

Example 1: A feminist telling a celibate man he should stop wanting sex, if lack of sex is hurting him so much. Offering to cure his sick objectifying desire to have sex.

Example 2: A PUA telling a woman she will feel better if she got rid of her desire for commitment, saying she will be happier if her sexuality was like men’s. Offering to cure her sick possessive desire to monopolize a partner.

Example 3: A rapist telling a woman she would feel much better if she didn’t mind rape so much. Offering to cure her reaction to rape, so that she would learn to love rape.¹

Example 4: A homophobe telling a gay person they’d be happier as straight, and offer a cure.

It is true that many human desires hurt humans, when they don’t get what they desire. But most of us are not into Buddhism and don’t wish to get rid of our desires.  And people don’t usually want to start loving what is naturally repelling to them.  Some people do try to get rid of their desires, but I can’t think of a worse way to convince someone to do it, than to argue out of your best interest.

(1. If I was raped and very traumatized, I would want to get a cure that will make me untraumatized. But no way in hell do I want a cure that will make me love rape. Or love being pumped and dumped, for that matter)

People Should Love Their Partners Like Their Pets

Dalrock talked about how red pill knowledge increased his empathy for women . I’m of the same conclusion (although I’m not sure it means much, since I’m not a man). For me, red pill stuff means one thing: we’re all animals. Smart animals with the ability to learn and improve, but still animals. And instead of making me think worse of men and women, it actually makes me feel better of them. Because I like animals. You know how some people feel more sorry for an animal being hurt, than a human? Well, it’s that effect, except now it can’t go on.

It also makes me think we should love our wives/husbands/bfs/gfs like we’d love our pets. How do people love their pets? Unless there is something wrong with the human, they take care of their pets, feed them, pet them, play with them, and don’t spare money when their pets get sick. They also often treat them as real friends and don’t throw them away when the pet gets a little old.

Why I don’t like to ban and moderate

Feminists blogs are famous for being eager to block, ban and moderate. I want to avoid the same. It just looks bad, like you can’t answer their arguments, or you can’t stand the heat.

If trolls appear, it seems pointless to ban them. Unlike real-life debate, online debate allows all the debaters time, and quiet comfortable space, where they can think and respond well. In real life, the ones who outscreech everyone else, can’t actually win. Adding capslock just looks silly. Insults make them look like a bully with nothing of value to add. And the reader can choose whose comments they wish to read, since they are not listening to two people screaming simultaneously. I want to let the reader decide, instead of deciding for them what has merit and what has not.

Also, trolls and other unpleasant types will often just reinforce my points.

So, while individual MRA/Manosphere bloggers can do whatever they want with their blogs, I don’t think they should ban and moderate for any of those reasons. I can understand removing sensitive information about someone, or material that can land the blogger in jail. But banning and moderating to make the blog more pleasant seems superfluous. Free sharing of ideas is best, and we all become better and wiser people when we listen to everything that’s on people’s minds. Last thing I want is to become dumber or to lose out on more wisdom because I chose to protect sensitivity of my feelings. And I wish the same for any readers I have. You know, sticks and stones might break our bones, but words will never hurt us. If the insults of trolls hurt you, you must learn not to be hurt by them.

To end, I will link to this video made by Thunderf00t. He makes some great points. For example, that blogs are not like your private property/house, it’s more like a public space where people come to share ideas. Thus, extensive use of moderation is like conducting your site like a church. It’s allowed, but it says something about you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApozFPboUAQ