Hopper wrote:
Well, you say a campaign by women to highlight female experience of male harrasment will turn men into killers. The obvious interpretation, seeing as no-one wants to see men being killers, is that the campaign should stop. The causal link suggesting it would, indeed, be women's fault. Please do clarify if I misread your statement.
I didn't argue that. I argued that it would reduce the Elliot Rodgers to Dylan klebolds and have no effect at stopping incidents like these. To the extent that it could be implied that I argued it, it is because there are social ills that are deeply rooted that are not being addressed that are certain to continue such terrible acts.
Hopper wrote:
Further:
What are these 'adult male ambitions'?
Since the public forum is supposed to be family friendly, I guess the word libido is the closest thing related to that phrase that is still over kids head.
Hopper wrote:
Why would the campaign repress them?
While the campaign is geared to stop the explicit mysgoyny of elliot, much of the campaign is likely to distort a youths healthy libido related development, and to make him ashamed of wanting it, thinking about it, or even looking at a woman. Almost every spree shooter at some point undergone a period of trying to undergo some time of positive change, and they would sacrifice their libido to achieve that change.
Hopper wrote:
What do you think the problem is?
The problem is vastly complex, and seems to take root in antisemitism. If you take the traditional Jewish stereotypes and compare them to traditional nerdy/aspie stereotypes there isn't much difference, and the problem has been going on since Theodore Kazynski's youth and probably far before then. This antisemitism is often reflected in the media as they make fun of braining people, even making it look cool to beat up brainy people, explicitly saying women won't even be interested in them, or using them for situational comedy or effect. That is a culture that is seemingly against against aspies. I guess it is getting better with Sheldon Cooper, but aside from south parks I stopped watching American TV. hmm, in mentioning south parks, consider the episode "the list" or the episode where the boys intentionally try to lose a baseball game so they recruit kyle's cousin who have more profound aspie traits. There was also an episode of family guy where meg asked a guy out, and the guy declines by shooting hiself in the stomach with a nail gun. Its virtually everywhere. In the media, there is a strong culture against aspies. But Rodger's wasn't an aspie, in fact he hated nerds.
Anyways, Kazinski blamed society and technology, even though most of his arguments are sound in their academic background he used certain keywords in his manifesto (control or brainwashed) that triggered a diagnosis of shizophrenia. He purposefully attacked technology leaders to gain a voice for himself because he felt that as an individual he had no voice, although he claims the trigger was when industry destroyed some mountain trail of something. Certainly not the best guy, he attacked women he dated-he also tried to go to psychologist for hep but was too poor.. He was exceptionally bright in math grew up having friends, skipped a few classes where he became heavily bullied, and proceeded to graduate an additional 2 years early just to get out. He blamed his advancement and the destruction of his bonds on industry, and he vowed to work in a university to build up a savings and then retire in the woods as to never support technology. Its been many years since I read his manifesto so I have trouble remembering each detail, but he blamed the reasons why bonds are weaker is because corporation kept saying people needed things, and had to be better than their neighbors, and that to achieve this people traveled thousands of miles to get a better job leaving everything behind. So in effect kazynski argued a type of technology coerced materialism for destroying bonds. He didn't blame people, he blamed technology. But ultimately the original trigger was loneliness.
Kazynskis argument was flawed in part. What often enabled materialism is because material goods often serve social purposes. Whether it is a video game, a basketball hoop, a boat, a corvette, a conversation piece. Absent of a society many of these, except for selfish indulgences, would serve no purpose whatsoever. That may be the reason depressed people lose interest in things as they withdraw, or as people move substantial distances and meet knew friends old items of value no longer have meaning. Kazynski only hit a tangent. Humans are for the most part social creatures. Sometimes exclusively givers, or takers, sometimes both. Sometimes people go into unmanageable debt just to be givers so the takers will continue to associated with them. Sometimes it doesn't have to be fancy cars,it can be becoming an officer in a charity pretending to do good things or to have influence, sometimes it can be intangibles attributes such as protection, whatever it takes, including criminal behavior, to have others drawn to them. A Black BMW doesn't have the same features as say a Red Corvette.
there are many economic factors involved too. Many of the jobs that used to command high pay and huge intellect have been offshored, and while there is still naturally a market here stateside with diminished wages, one has a better prospect making good money being in sales and marketing. The best jobs being commission based. Thus this global economy has catered to the who you know and not what you know as a measurement of economic viability. This is likely a shock for many people who worked their butt off in college at the expense of their social needs upon the discovery that the high paying jobs went to the partying types who never really cared about college. They were told in their youths that hard work and good grades would yield success in life, and once college is over and they are in the real world they missed one of their best opportunity to meet women. For the creative type of betas who create the better mouse trap and could possibly climb the corporate ladder they may not be able to obtain the money to commence production and sales. Even if they are able to, the government will tax them substantially to finance a social poison. A further problem is the economic crisis that we are in where it is difficult to have economic growth, invest in research, and create new jobs and technologies-and the higher cost to start a business. A further problem is that interest rates are terrible and there is very little incentive to save money, and in some cases it is better to engage in debt spending either because the item will be worth more in the future or cost more in the future-so those who are naturally risk adverse tend to suffer. In the case of Rodger's this aspect of economics had nothing to do with it, he was already wealthy, but this very well could have attributed to perceptions of being in this group.
naturally not all people who are extremely social are successful in sales. Those caught up in gangs may eventually be arrested, people can get injured horsing around, even people who were the supplier of illicit goods could be arrest or fall into substance abuse, even the alpha lifestyle likely includes alcohol abuse, and the irresponsible spender may have to declare bankrupcy. The second economic factor is in the flavor of socialism or more specifically government issued social equity. Because the government has a welfare system for irresponsible people to fall back on, it has the social effect where people don't have to think about their actions as much as they should. A further social factor could be said to be abortion and birth control which also encourages irresponsible behavior. As an aggregate, to climb the social level there is a diminished ability to look at the risks and the consequences of what traditionally would be irresponsible behavior. The government thus insures for irresponsible behavior, and in the process people are not able to see the consequences as it become hidden by government subsidies. And supposing that a woman climbs the social ladder and was successful and sees the marriage was a failure, she also has the ability to divorce the husband and take the home, collect child support, and live with a boyfriend. In an economic sense, it is very difficult for women to fail. This removes the incentive for forward lowing thinking with a focus on impulsive thinking, thus there is no value in a risk adverse male. In the worst case scenerio many men are finding that everything they earned and their families can be destroyed on the whim. A woman goes to the court and obtains an ex parte restraining order and kicks the guy out of the home without a trial, followed by filing for a divorce with money she already saved up already retained a lawyer. So the guy has to pay for the rent or mortage of the old home, has to pay for a new place to stay, sometimes child support at this point, and probably won't be able to afford counsel. Some have called this the "silver bullet" technique for divorces. As a consequence more and more males do not want to bother with marriage, more and more men don't even want to become attached to a woman, or even have kids. Effectively in this context a woman is reduced down to an object to fulfill the libido to these men who know it is too risky to really genuinely care about a woman.
Another problem, and it is Rodger's fault, is that the discussion is in part focuses on involuntary celibates. There are plenty of betas so far destroyed as to not having any biological urges that would still nonetheless just want female companionship. They are not even placed or considered or ever fortunate enough to ever be in the friendzone, they are just dismissed as worthless. Sometimes women just file civil complaints against them which further shows they are worthless just for speaking. Unlike Rodger's it usually isn't just a one time event but a continuous series of events, although social anxiety is likely a factor. There is a very destructive type of socially bullying and that is caused ostracism, and even the pain from remembered exclusion is more painful than remembered physical pain. Males are going their entire lives like this but they don't have any advocacy for them. If they are going their entire lives alone, odds are they won't even have the opportunity to cheat which most men and women do. No one to reach out to them, and even when it is clear that they are suffering, no one to stand up for them. Cho of virginia tech made some statements in his videos that few people understood that likely described his pain.
Other factors are still likely evolutionary based where a women needs a big strong protector, or the strongest hunter. Feminist encouraging women to fear all men are likely drawing them to big strong alphas who can probably hurt them the most.
A last factor is that Alpha males are not likely to appreciate how special a woman is and how fortunate they are that a woman chooses them and will not often recognize how precious she is and take them for granted. Even if they don't think they are entitled to procreate, they know they are getting action anyways without a second thought. If she doesn't put up, anther woman will. Or if he gets tired of her, there is someone else to replace her with ease. Beta's are the exact opposite and are more likely to appreciate a woman in a relationship and value her as a person.
Finally Klebold wrote in his journal, "Martyrdom is hope for others." that was over 15 years ago. Whose really been addressing the needs of betas? No wonder Rodger's found himself in an obscure underground hate group.
******************************************
Some of the things that need to be done are so far engrained in our society that nothing can be done. we can't ban divorce, we aren't going to ban birth control, banning abortion has proven rediculously impossible too, we can't stop the welfare state.
What we can do is get rid of protective orders which will protect women, and protects men's perception of women, and end women abusing them to people they don't like. We can bring a social awareness to the dangers of choosing alpha males. In particular the criminality either directly associated with some of them, or the substantial dangers in substance abuse. We can bring litigation reform to marriages to limit the amount of liability males face in child support. We can also focus on bringing awareness to the plight of the beta males, highlighting their best attributes, and also highlighting how much they suffer in isolation and to bring fourth a social encouragement for women to reach out to them and try to end the often invisible and unrecognized type of social bullying that is taking place. I also think highlighting that we would make great fathers and serve as great role models and bring significant stability to a relationship are important to. We may even need substantial financial government programs to encourage women to marry beta males-this still preserves choice mind you while dealing with the inequity. We also need to fix the economy and increase the inflation rate. This will help the risk adverse in their accumulation of wealth, and prove detrimental to impulsive spenders which would encourage forward looking thinking. Protectionism may have to be revisited to ensure that high paying beta-type jobs remain stateside. We can replace the free public school system with a tax per child which is likely the easiest way to encourage forward looking thinking. We need to try to improve the public perception of betas, starting with the media. Feminist could really help out a lot by identifying identifying the real enemies of woman as being the alpha males, and encouraging women that if they choose a starving beta that the women will have complete domination and control over the betas without any resistance. Feminist can help ensure the safety of women by encouraging them to choose smarter people who abstain from both drugs and alcohol-even if the women use it they can think of it as a free designated driver. Feminist can also try to encourage women to discourage professional athletics, which is likely to be helpful towards women, an both alpha and betas. Many studies suggest that the act of falling in love alone is substantial in overcoming anxieties, and people who study veterinary sciences know that male cats who are not neutered also are likely to suffer from increased anxiety. I also think the importance of doing well in school is so overvalued it is severely impairing beta's ability to develop normal social skills-and we need to track more beta males not into the hard sciences but towards business and to be able to focus more on social skills.
I am sure people have their own theories, and they can feel free to add them. But pretty much we need to substantially change the culture of our society. it isn't an entitlement as individual choice is still preserved. But the inequity that betas face shouldn't be swept under the rug, the discrimination is real, the problem has been going on ignored for decades. We are Smarter, kinder, and better people than the alphas, but the sociopolitical changes have proved devastating for our kind and the discrimination is horrible and we've substantially be lacked a voice government has pretty much erase the need for the stable and caring relationships that we can offer.
Both schizophrenia and aspergers have a substantially high suicide rate. For Schizophrenia it is recommended that they have a close friend. Yet, I haven't seen this advocated for aspies who probably need it more than the schizos. We need this same type of advocacy is needed for betas too.
Hopper wrote:
Why would people of 'average intelligence' see feminism as the problem?
The average person will look at the issue and recognize that time after time women are ignoring and overlooking the beta males. When they look to the arguments feminist have criticized they may tend to start to believe that divorce, abortion, birth control, is responsible for men not being able to be accepted by women.
Hopper wrote:
Why is feminism the 'most obvious' cause?
Because most people will identify with the arguments and not bother to investigate further. Most people are lazy.
Hopper wrote:
Where do you think the problem (see first question) is rooted?
What truth are feminists trying to obscure?[/quote]
What they are trying to obscure is how betas are being treated, and this problem has been going on for decades without an adequate discussion. In making this completely a mysogyny issue, the inequity of betas will continue to be ignored. Someone else will be driven to insanity and pretty much do the same thing, but he won't be spewing mysogyny but instead klebold style female companionship.
28 May 2014, 7:21 pm
