An introspective monologue on the challenge of absorbing truth and achieving RP excellence.
Readership: Red Pilled Men
“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” ~ Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Renewing the mind requires a bit of time, study, practice, and experience. Very seldom can a man pick up and grasp a totally foreign concept and master it within a short period of time. The learning curve can be improved exponentially by studying in a group, or from a master.
A large consumption of time and effort is required because the concepts that need to be explored while renewing the mind are profound, greatly nuanced, and subject to context. It also requires a good bit of introspection, and checking one’s self along the truth, which remains as the most difficult challenge for most.
In learning, some people require that the concepts be accompanied by a connection to something already known. For others (including myself), they need the lesson to contain an experience of joy hope, love, or poignant memories.
To this end, many bloggers, such as Dalrock, often embellish their story telling with presumed details that are realistically probable. I believe he does so to drive his point home with dramatic flair (which is delightful to read). But judging by comments on other blogs, I’ve seen that this arouses doubts and suspicion in readers who are untrained in TRP. Others tend to read too much into that and connect dots of logic that should not be connected.
Several impressive examples of said misinterpretation was recently showcased on a certain female hosted blog. I remember this blog had a theme of, “Two in the hand is worth one in the bush”, or something similar. Maybe my readers will know which one it is. Their recent post was a discussion of Dalrock’s post, Feminine Wiles (September 13, 2018). I was amazed at how well they jack-hammer-stered the concepts into an unrecognizable (and meaningless) form.
One commenter (who must have a particularly low libido) described women’s instinctive hypergamous nature towards the top 20% of males, and then labeled it as…
“a fantasy springing from a perverse form of the Patriarchy that suggests all the women will be competing and fighting over them.”
The denial is strong in this one. Another one commented,
“It’s pretty amazing how Dalrock et al. have been reframing being an assertive go-getter woman as the Red Pill dream girl. I hope the guys realize that that’s correlated with a whole bunch of “feminist” qualities…”
Right… LMAO! …and Sasquatch plays “Coming round the mountain” on a left-handed banjo!
Not surprisingly, the idea of expensive gifts received a lot of virtual ink. Most of the commenters claimed that gifts were not important to them, but they agreed that gift giving was a convenient way to “separate the wheat from the chaff”. Furthermore, they couldn’t understand why men are scared off by any exchange of gifts. I don’t know, maybe it’s because men have to cover the costs of such gifts, and the amount of gratitude received from this investment is always questionable.
Another woman believed that the Courtly Love model includes the reversal of sex roles in Tuchman’s description. But Dalrock never said this, and it’s a far flung idea. Then came the goose and gander incantation.
One of their big gripes was that men are too lazy, and that they want women to do all the work. Well, it’s human nature to desire a life of pleasure and ease. But if a person cannot recognize this and take responsibility for it, then it’s Projection.
Then came the master and slave trope, which revealed that many women are hung up on the idea that one person has all their needs and desires met, and the other person is doing all the work. In a well-functioning relationship, the experience will feel this way to both partners, but those who are immature will mistake this impression for an “inequality”, and seek to eliminate it by complaining that the other person should “do more” in order for this uncomfortable sense of personal contribution to be mitigated. They rightfully label the expectation of this arrangement as narcissism, but it’s not what Dalrock is getting at. Another instance of Projection.
And this one, following the last idea.
“…if wives are constantly enabling their husbands to act in a childish, immature way [by doing all the work], we are denying them opportunities to grow in virtue, and thereby get to heaven.”
We are approaching the slippery slope here. They obviously haven’t learned how to Respect the man and Love the boy.
Women might be surprised to know how efficiently a controlling wife’s micromanager-savior complex will send her harried husband to Hell in a heartbeat. But instead, women vainly believe they are domesticating him and saving his soul. (SMH)
Of course, a description of dating and marriage would not be complete without being Followed by the “live happily ever after” line. Childish fantasies (unless he’s MGTOW).
While reading through that thread, I felt the commenters all shared a general assumption that women are only motivated to either lead or submit out of their personal aspirations for attention or control, and not as an effort to inspire others with a larger vision (in the case of leading) or to be a loyal, faithful helper (in the case of following).
I regularly tell my readers not to admit women’s arguments. The above statements should explain why. They butcher the logic so horribly, and they don’t have the willingness to open their minds and study a matter diligently until they get it right. (In fact, they often want men, as well as female opponents, to get it wrong, just so they can consolidate their social power.) So I won’t exert any further extravagant efforts to set them straight here.
I feel sad to see that there are so many people who are presumably seeking to comprehend the truth, but they can’t grasp the point. (I’m being overly generous in my estimation of their motivations, and being somewhat facetious about it too.) My point in citing these comments is just to express how there is a big black hole in female education. But I’m sure this is not surprising to my readers.
This is why blogging is so important. It’s an ongoing disentanglement of the false notions that we have been lulled into believing.
And there are so many.
On a positive note, I learned that women will readily and vehemently disagree about Dalrock’s comparison of the Courtly Love model to modern Christian dating. This is because women are acutely aware that the current dating scene does not conform to the Courtly Love model at all, especially not within their myopic perspective. No, it is the men who have the idea of Courtly Love in their heads, and Dalrock does men a favor by pointing this out. Men subscribe to this model because this is the model that is so overtly presented as the model that women want, especially those “good Christian gals” they (((might))) want to snag for marriage. They have the notion that they can wind up in a “good relationship” if they would only follow the model that is presented to them in modern folklore.
It’s true that women do want the Courtly Love model, but women are a little more aware in this aspect, because they also know that it doesn’t work in today’s dating market, and that it’s not reality. They already know that any man who might give them flowers on the first date will be immediately dismissed to the Beta class, or else, sent to detention. But Blue Pilled White Knights cannot make this distinction. They are too focused on trying to please the women by following an outdated model that is no longer effectively utilized, and they never realize that the man is the prize. This problem continues because noteworthy authors, pastors, and teachers continue to press forward with the same Churched-up variation of the Courtly Love model that they enjoyed as debaucherous teenagers, and they do not care to admit that this is not a God honoring model.
And denial is rife.
Manospherians like Dalrock and Rollo have an impact largely because they keep reiterating the same ideas over and again, from a multitude of perspectives and applications, until readers can finally pick up the underlying concept. This is a habit I need to exercise more frequently as a blogger. I also need to refine my attempts at sophisticated humor and literary devices, because many readers have failed to recognize these as such.
Maybe it would be wiser for me to accept the fact that an artful usage of the English language died more than a century ago – another failure in public education, as the classics have long been replaced by a torrent of fem-globo propaganda.
No, I must press on towards excellence using hyperbatons. Understand my burden, Yoda shall. To do otherwise would admit defeat, it would.