[2Wycked]

From Psychology Today, The Big Stall



Facial hair? Check
Big man boots? Check
Ugly tattoo signifying he ain't nothing to fuck with? Check
But why is he cupping his balls?

The great, overarching question always presented in these thought pieces concerning "men and gender" is thus: What does the author want to be true? Are we advancing as a society? Are men's wayward penises still the problem? How can feminism cure these problems caused by "progressive social policies" the lingering hangover of white male patriarchy?

Tagline:

Quote:

At school, on the job, and in mating life, young men are making no progress and even backsliding. This isn’t the way women’s advancement is supposed to work.

Nothing is quite so irksome like all the supporting characters in a woman's life not behaving like they should. How come [not enough] men are advancing alongside their female peers?

Quote:

He was born Roberto Valero in Bolivia and grew up as Richard Holler, first in Washington, D.C., then in Philadelphia, the adopted son of Caucasian parents. After graduating from Penn State, he spent a year interning at the University of Texas with one of the rock stars of evolutionary psychology, wending his way toward a Ph.D., which he hopes to ply in some unorthodox way—maybe in law, or in education, or as part of a traveling delegation. His friends consider him that rare specimen, an emotionally expressive male. “I’m not pure anything,” he says proudly. “I have a multifaceted identity.” And from it he draws an unusual degree of motivation. “I’m aware of the stereotypes of Hispanics,” he says. “Part of my success comes from being in a group often seen as inferior. I see that as not true. Now I’m proving it.”

Inferior? As perceived by whom? Assuming this amorphous group of individuals could be reasonably ascertained, his bright idea to disprove these irrational beliefs is to get a Ph.D. in psychology -- evolutionary psychology, no less. Doesn't he know people who think wetbacks were created to serve Joe Blow usually hate the monkey-science mumbo jumbo of evolution? Book-learnin' is for fags. Relax, jeez.

Anyways. What is important about this passage isn't this story about Jose Chung, but about how journalists use personal stories to frame particular issues. Instead of exploring a particular issue or demographic from multiple angles, these sorts of manipulative pieces pick a person to frame the issue in a decidedly non-objective way.

Here, Roberto is held up as an example of the right kind of male: inoffensive, marginally of color and emotionally expressive. He believes in evolution, can sympathize with being "seen as less" like women are and despite the crushing indignities visited upon him, still believes the best lies ahead of us as humans, not behind. Impressive.

Quote:

As women advance, however, men are stalling in their development, increasingly stuck in place and even backsliding

Ah, the great question: Are women and men battling it out in the eternal struggle between the sexes and women are "finally" besting men? Or have men simply left the battlefield? Remember, we don't have Mulan without a bunch of men who look down on the wee little woman eventually getting one-upped by the woman.

What has to stick in the craw of many women is, despite all the social advancements conferred upon them, they feel a lingering sense of in-authenticity, fraudulence -- while they should be enjoying having it all, it doesn't quite work. It can't be that the whole system is rotten, corroded and based more out of economic exploitation than anything else, so the problem has to be men.

Quote:

Behind the big stall lies a new fact of life. In our increasingly complex economy, education is ever more tightly tied to work and family. Not only are the three domains together the pillars of the American Dream of mobility and success, but with rising gains in the payoff from formal and informal education, it’s no longer possible to advance in one sphere without taking steps to improve the others, contends a new report on poverty and the American Dream jointly issued by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. Increasingly, education determines economic prospects, and education and earnings prescribe relationship prospects. And family functioning, thanks as much to social-emotional advantages as to the cognitive ones that stable adult relationships confer on the young, is now a significant determinant of educational attainment.

Go ahead and try to summarize her point here. I dare you.

Regardless of the author's convoluted language she undoubtedly learned getting educated, her point here is clear: this isn't how it is supposed to work for women. The restrictive, dully unimaginative gender roles of the past have been dismantled and women have finally been taught to go out and "conquer the world," embracing it in all of its glorious complications. But men haven't gotten the message. Or have they?

Quote:

It may be that while many males openly welcome the progress of women, deep down, beyond even their own awareness, they can’t help interpreting it as their own failure. And a dented sense of self-efficacy is highly subversive, derailing achievement motivation and destroying resilience, among many effects.

Apparently we haven't. Men just can't handle a strong, successful woman. While women bask in the glow of their partner's accomplishments (meaning it adds to their identity), men don't do the same.

The study cited is dubious, most clearly because it sounds jerry-rigged (the study's author expected men and women to rejoice in each other's accomplishments and she just magically found out that men behaved in a sexist manner? Please.). Further, and most importantly, it sounds like the men and women in the relationship weren't on the same page -- they do not share similar values or outlooks in life. When women aren't fully connected and happy with a relationship, the man is the problem. When men aren't fully connected and happy with a relationship, the man is the problem. Point taken, Hillary.

Quote:

When asked what bothers them most these days, many said, in the words of one 34-year-old, “the fear that they will not be enough for the women they love.” “We’re scared that we won’t have the ability to keep up,” said a 29-year-old.

I blame TV, action movies and relentless attacks on male and female usefulness in the home, but the author and the study seem fine with blaming ingrained gender roles and sexism. Gotcha.

The rest of the article is a predictable hodgepodge of selections from radical feminist theory and pseudo-psychology whisked together with a few dashes of evolutionary theory and Warrell Farrell-esq appeals. It is fine in the terrible and banal way most mainstream articles read about the crisis facing men, but the article wraps up with a bracing, fleeting bit of insight:

Quote:

Caught in a no man’s land between identities, many young males feel “pressure to be ‘masculine’ while not being antisocial,” says Grant Turner, 33, a human-performance coach in Victoria, British Columbia. “We’re really like pioneers. Each man is left to define dating and fatherhood in a way that is different from previous generations. As we move toward a more open society, those living the change will be the ones who experience the most growing pains.”

His conclusion is wrong, but the feelings of homelessness and abandonment are what is salient here. He isn't saying that his is free to define himself however he wants, he is saying what is important is to define oneself as a man as opposed to what came before. The article takes for granted that this isn't the '50's, we have had decades of gendered social upheaval, these men can't define themselves against their "sexist, macho" dads because they don't exist. That worked for their own fathers.

For these wayward young men of today, to define themselves against the wretched masculinity of the past is to cling to ill-formed and confusing stereotypes they have read about in school and watched on TV. Don Draper is nobody's role model, but Mad Men was wildly popular with the liberal demographic precisely because it afforded them peace of mind -- a batch of easy stereotypes to define themselves against. When you have such "clear" examples of who not to be, it is easy which path to chose. These men's fathers rebelled against the lazy, macho masculinity of the past and embraced a world full of meaning, life and decency, right? Isn't that what Kramer v. Kramer is about?

No. If these men are going to rebel against their fathers, it would be to chose apathy, self-neglect and stagnation. To piss on their father's world of unbridled consumerism, pansexuality and stale, idle preachments. These men aren't sundering under the yoke of sexism, they are struggling to identify in a world demands they achieve but saddles them with obscene amounts of student loan debt for an education. Then this world expects them to yield to women in the workplace, to fight for some vague, undefined future with women, but woo the dollies tenderly -- but not in a sexist way! -- on dates after work. Madness! Sheer madness!

The author of this piece -- The Big Stall -- merely hopes that the problem is sexism. With more feminism, more socialism (but all the brands of capitalism) and more androgynous males, the author thinks the storm of these "growing pains" will break and the healing sunlight of equality will brighten the land. That isn't what will happen because between the glib observations of male stagnation and increasingly fragile identities, the article manages to wrest up the belly of the beast -- that modern men are rootless, directionless and don't even have an sexist, macho father to define themselves against. But -- hope against hope! -- for something borrowed, something blue with a woman:

Quote:

Young males understand that they potentially have a lot to gain from women’s advancement. Which may be why so many, asked what they expect out of a relationship, responded: “Reciprocation.” “To be understood.” “Someone who will add a new dimension to my life.” As a 28-year-old says, “More and better-quality shared experiences.” And, at some point, perhaps when young men and women have found a new rapprochement, “more dancing.”

It is true that both men and women will have to learn to live with sexual tensions more gracefully if we are to have a future worth fighting for, but I'm not holding my breath on that happening any time soon.

[Paracelsus]

(04-11-2016 02:57 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Quote:

Behind the big stall lies a new fact of life. In our increasingly complex economy, education is ever more tightly tied to work and family. Not only are the three domains together the pillars of the American Dream of mobility and success, but with rising gains in the payoff from formal and informal education, it’s no longer possible to advance in one sphere without taking steps to improve the others, contends a new report on poverty and the American Dream jointly issued by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. Increasingly, education determines economic prospects, and education and earnings prescribe relationship prospects. And family functioning, thanks as much to social-emotional advantages as to the cognitive ones that stable adult relationships confer on the young, is now a significant determinant of educational attainment.

Go ahead and try to summarize her point here. I dare you.

It's chuckleworthy. Education = economic prospects (tell that to the thousands of unemployed university graduates out there) = relationship prospects. That is: women are hypergamous. If education = economic prospects = relationship prospects, it's saying that women gravitate to the dudes with means and/or money.

Also chuckleworthy: though she can't write a sentence without channelling the Architect, she's restating that single parents suck, and stable adult relationships (which homosexual ones are not, whether you pick assfucker or carpetlicker) determine whether you make it to university or not. This dipshit actually is admitting that coming from a nuclear family is the best indicator of educational success, and therefore that women, who initiate the majority of divorces and who have the lion's share of the children after divorce, are fucking up their own kids' futures. As we already knew.

[Guriko]

Dear 2Wycked, a wonderful post. Thank you so much for clearing the on-purpose-mumbo-jumbo-libscience-talk with clear and concise points.

This is exactly how I’ve felt until recently. I’ve felt like a knot. The world pulled me in two ways simultaneously and tangled everything into an unimaginative mess: be gentle but aggressive! Dominant but subordinate! Desire but not too much! It was a world full of paradoxes which simply drove me mad because you did not know where to go anymore.

What is right, what is wrong? Everything is relative. Nothing matters. Rejoice women advancements but be better than them. Don’t belittle them but at the same time strive to be a man of power.

It’s a swamp, morass, a jungle, a cave, a labyrinth you believe you’ll never exit. My brother is going the same motions through right now and I’m trying my best to guide him out of this shithole.

The delicate balance which combines and separates men and women at the same has been destroyed and we’ve seen the effects by and larger. Distraught families, millions on psychiatric and pain medications, suicides… chaos.

Men and Women are not fighting on the same battlefield. We were never meant to fight on the same battlefield for the same riches. Our fights are our own and the treasures we conquer combined make for a glorious civilization.

They lie and even may try to make themselves believe in what they tell – but deep down they know it not to be true. You can’t change Nature. You can’t even try to fight it because Nature does not even acknowledge you as an opponent. They’ve tried and like the communists of old they shall fail in the end.

The only question which remains to be answered is: how many innocents lives have they claimed?

[Matsufubu]

Another herp derp article saying the same thing that's been said for ages and still not getting it.

This 'Battle of the Sexes' is a myth, invented by I don't know who.

We aren't meant to be fighting each other for supremacy, we're supposed to fighting together for supremacy. In that lies the advancement of civilisation, with both sides working together and pulling in the same direction. It's not about subjugation of women - I've no desire to live in some stone-age society where the only pastimes are fucking goats and killing people of another tribe just so I can boss my wife about.

That society has been duped into thinking that happiness is a zero-sum game is the reason we have these articles and these phenomena.

Our success as a species relies on division of labour, and we've been made different by biology for that purpose. Not by the 'cis-het white men' boogeyman.

The West is hell-bent on making women into pseudo-men and men into pseudo-women, and we've fucked it all right up. The only thing that will reverse this decline is danger, real 'total war' danger that will re-establish what our ancestors always knew.

What woman wants a shitty man? What man wants a shitty woman? This is why we aren't marrying, aren't breeding. No incentive.

Nature loves balance - fuck with it at your peril.

[Oz.]

Quote:

"I’m aware of the stereotypes of Hispanics,”

[Fortis]

Lol, that plaid wearing fagazoid is about as far from a man as you can get without mutating into an androgynous puddle on the ground.

Seriously, who the fuck creates these people? I'm far and away from normal, but guys like that make me shudder. I'm glad my social circle doesn't include that sort of shit.

My testosterone levels plummeted looking at him, then they took an even further nosedive into the estrogen pool after reading that drivel.

[Sumanguru]

I miss The Last Psychiatrist, too.

Quote:

Young males understand that they potentially have a lot to gain from women’s advancement. Which may be why so many, asked what they expect out of a relationship, responded: “Reciprocation.” “To be understood.” “Someone who will add a new dimension to my life.” As a 28-year-old says, “More and better-quality shared experiences.” And, at some point, perhaps when young men and women have found a new rapprochement, “more dancing.”

I bet it never occurred to the author that these responses could very easily be interpreted as a lot of men feel that a lot of women are greedy, and selfish, and don't know how to *give* in a relationship...

[sixsix]

(04-11-2016 02:57 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Anyways. What is important about this passage isn't this story about Jose Chung, but about how journalists use personal stories to frame particular issues. Instead of exploring a particular issue or demographic from multiple angles, these sorts of manipulative pieces pick a person to frame the issue in a decidedly non-objective way.

Great description of modern journalism: +1.

It should be about dispassionately analyzing what is happening in the world using numbers and general trends, and reporting on that. An anecdote is only to be used to illustrate the larger picture, making it easier to relate to.

Nowadays it is all about what the journalist wants to be true, or more importantly what his/her paymaster wants to be true or wants you to believe. Instead of forming conclusions based on the data, they have a preset point to make and find some stories that confirm that narrative.

Migrant crisis: Everyone is indeed a fragile refugee fleeing terror and hoping to build a better future for their children. They're exactly like us and want to be happy and safe, just look at this photograph of this Syrian surgeon Fatima sitting with her two scared children behind a metal wire fence.

Do not write about the number of migrants, their countries of origins, their sex, their superb physical fitness, their average intelligence, the beliefs they hold about the balance between religion and freedom, and the problems already caused by unassimilated communities already here. No, instead write about friendly Rashid who just graduated at the top of his class.

Do not write about the effect of terrorism on our freedoms, how it is used to push for more surveillance, how unsafe the natives feel when they walk the streets, how alienating it is to have groups living among you speaking a different language, unwilling to look you in the eye. No, instead write about how young Muslim girls now have to fear a backlash that never seems to come.

Racial injustice: Minorities are oppressed by the white majority who benefit from persistent systemic racism. Jobs and opportunities are unfairly given to white men. Minorities are mocked and assaulted on a frequent basis. They fear walking down the street and being killed by police officers just for having the wrong skin color.

Do not write about research on differences in attitude and aptitude, ranging from intelligence to impulse control. Do not write about the effect of the destruction of the nuclear family on the young men and women. Never mention the effect diversity has on peaceful communities where people just want to be left alone without having to worry about their children. No, instead write about Jamal who didn't get picked for that internship.

This is how they operate.

It is the same with every topic. A sociological and political framework has been established that obfuscated what is really going on and can always frame problems as being caused by invisible forces. When the data helps their story, they fucking love science. When the data destroys their story, that data is forbidden and they use anecdotes instead.

Blacks underachieve? Institutional racism. Jews overachieve? A culture of excellence.

Oscars so white? Allowed. Hollywood so Jewish and NBA so black? Racism.

What we see in the current culture regarding sex is the same. Undesired differences are the result of discrimination and desired differences are just the way it is. Women now getting more degrees is seen as great and proof of their ability. Women can indeed be better at things. Men can never be better at things, despite their falling behind is the result of social engineering.

Too many men in top positions is cause for concern but too many men at the bottom of society just goes to show how bad men are. Men's risky behavior is an acceptable explanation for their problems, but can't be brought up as the reason for their successes.

Destroy every normal form of masculinity while promoting a caricature of what it means to be a man, and men without strong role models will indeed be confused and exhibit fake forms of masculinity. Then you can point and say that you were right all along: masculinity is indeed hurting these young men.

[TheOllam]

Prior posts summed everything up.

Still a realist with my Red Pill Goggles, able to see right through this BS.

This article just completely ignores the masculine imperative of "dominance".

Men need it somewhere in their life, or existence becomes bitter and flavorless. When applied to families, Men are the Backbone that supports the unit. For all the talk, women cannot replace Masculinity.

Here's another guy seemingly doing everything right, but it's not enough. And the Fems jump all over it, blame the guy.

We all see it coming, all those barren, dried up professional women and their careers spent on consumerism. That's the REAL story, this article is the smoke screen.

It's now the Men's turn to reject and move on, it's the right thing to do.

[Foolsgo1d]

No major war.

You set small fires to prevent larger ones but every now and then a huge fire comes to burn the forest but this isn't the end of it, in fact you could see it as refreshing the forest so new growth can take place. Not to say you should burn down the forest every year but it doesn't hurt every 10/15/20 years.

Short of an ecological disaster, plague or massive natural event we only have war to turn to.

[Quintus Curtius]

At the very minimum, it's at least good that mainstream publications are trying to identify the malaise. All of us here know the reasons for the crisis in masculinity.

Where I get angry and contemptuous with magazines like this is that they identify the problem, but never draw the ultimate conclusions. And they never give any credit to the guys who are working hard to try to fix the crisis. When has any of these pudwacks ever said anything good about the manosphere, Roosh, or any of the writers in it?

Never. Not once. They don't want to give us any credit for anything. Women, freaks, degenerates, and wackos can get toilet paper published, but they run scared from us like we're zombies from "21 Days Later."

So it's hard not to be scornful of them.

So it's like one big game. They're too chickenshit to say what needs to be said. So we have to do that for them.

[kaotic]

(04-11-2016 02:57 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

From Psychology Today, The Big Stall

Facial hair? Check Shitty patchy facial hair
Big man boots? Check Big Man Boobs***
Ugly tattoo signifying he ain't nothing to fuck with? Check Shitty Tattoo
Doesn't lift and has a gut.
But why is he cupping his balls? Because he's in touch with his feminine side.

Doesn't look like much of a man to me.

I stand by my analysis.

[ElFlaco]

(04-11-2016 02:57 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

The great, overarching question always presented in these thought pieces concerning "men and gender" is thus: What does the author want to be true? Are we advancing as a society?

I think it was Steve Sailer who pointed out that female journalists always advocate for a specific world that would coincidentally increase their own relative status. This is always couched in terms of fairness or some other general good rather than bald self-interest. They don't even do it consciously.

In terms of effect, this is no different than a corrupt politician who promotes policies that will personally enrich him.

[germanico]

(04-11-2016 02:57 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Quote:

He was born Roberto Valero in Bolivia “Part of my success comes from being in a group often seen as inferior. I see that as not true. Now I’m proving it.”

Inferior? As perceived by whom?

You surely like your women with big asses.

[LongDongSilver]

The pool of women we have to pull through in the states is fucking PATHETIC. If theyre not mean as fuck and fat, theyve fucked 30+ dudes and are on some sort of zombifying medication.

It is a veritable tightrope males have to walk with disaster on both sides. I consider myself a pretty smart, handsome dude, but still have just got shit on trying to traverse this modern mess. Luckily for now everything is good and im feeling some stability, i feel for my brothers out there ducking land mines though.

[kbell]

Nice article. Its been along time. They never ask "why should a male even bother?" The system is rigged. You get a decent job and attract a wife, but that has been on the carousel too long. You start pushing for raising the value of female chastity and I think guys would work harder.

[Laner]

My observation is that men have no place of their own anymore. Without realizing it, most men have invited or allowed women into their space, thereby changing the whole dynamic from experimentation into status whoring.

When men get together, they try and fix things. When men and women get together it becomes about something entirely different. Not necessarily bad, but different.

A lot of young men have been groomed to never disagree with a woman. I have no idea where this comes from, but it seems socially ingrained now. So much so that women the shit test has turned into an Olympic sport. And most men fail miserably.

If men go through their formative years without acquiring the skills and knowledge to build, create, repair, either in a solo or team dynamic, then they miss out on the basic fundamentals on masculinity.

Men that did not get these requirements sometimes overcompensate and I think this is where we get the PUA crowd. The other side of the PUA crowd is the 'appeasement man', the poor soul of a man that gets visibly uncomfortable at any sign of argument between men and women.

[eatthishomie]

"We've been actively destroying men in every possible way for the last 40 years........... what's wrong with men today?"

[AnonymousBosch]

(04-11-2016 02:57 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

But why is he cupping his balls?

What I suspect you're seeing in this picture is a Hipster or Progressive who has read enough about social dynamics that he is trying to Fake Alpha, like this:

Expectation:







Reality:





Whilst they know they're supposed to tilt their head upwards to project dominance, they always tilt it back to ridiculous extremes to compensate for their level of insecurity. You learn to recognise it in time.

The guy in the article also knows he's supposed to take up space with a wide foot spread, but it just ends up reading 'off' if he's not projecting physicality with it.

The true giveaway: He's instinctively-guarding his testicles. It's very common body language in young boys when they're submitting to the demands of parental, peer or educational authority. They're hiding their masculine shame.

You can recognise the military and law enforcement tribes, (such as a picture of Quintus Curtius that was discussed a few weeks back), by their 'natural parade' rest - straight frame, hands behind back. I suspect this is how the military trains men to be confident and to project authority by learning to leave the testicles unprotected.

[samsamsam]

I thought he was just holding up his belly.