Was Elliot Rodger a Magnificent Gentleman?

We all remember the Elliot Rodger shooting in California.  It was a horrific event to be sure but this time the killer was a lonely man, born into wealth, that struggled to meet any women and ultimately decided to take revenge on them.  He wrote a manifesto in which he sang his own praises as a “magnificent gentleman” and denounced women for desiring to mate with “brutish, alpha males”.  So he decided to take revenge on women for rejecting him.  The thing is, he acted nothing like a gentleman, and a person who calls himself a gentleman is not a gentleman.  Gentlemanly ideals could be misunderstood if gentlemen are associated with Elliot Rodger.

How do I know Elliot Rodger was not a gentleman?  Because gentleman first of all are not awkward, they are socially adroit, genuine, respected, and well liked by their peers.  Elliot Rodger on the other hand was definitely awkward.  I can’t find it now but I recall seeing a video of him with his father meeting some famous Hollywood types and there he was, awkwardly standing there with a blank expression on his face when everyone else was smiling.

As well, the videos he posted of himself aimlessly driving around in isolation and moaning and decrying the injustice of never having a woman approach him and ask him out are not gentlemanly let alone manly.

Yes, I recall him writing about his attempts to meet women.  His plan was to convince himself he was “the image of beauty and supremacy” and then go out and women were supposed to be so enthralled with how he looked that they would approach him.  He said “to my utter dismay, I saw that no one turned their head to look at me at all”.  He considered this to be effort.  His making an effort consisted of expecting women to approach him.

Lastly there was his story of listening to his sister have sex and becoming jealous that she had lost her virginity before him.  This is something no gentleman does.

My point here is this, there is a dichotomy that Elliot Rodger played into that I think is wrong.  The belief is that you are either a brutish, alpha male that gets the girls, or you are a polite and civil loser.  This isn’t true.  There are many who fall into a professional, gentlemanly group but they don’t have the same problems Elliot Rodger faced.  Elliot Rodger couldn’t be farther from a gentleman.  He was a socially awkward man and for all his griping about brutish people, he was an extremely hostile, jealous, narcissistic person who did some extremely violent and depraved things.  Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that Elliot Rodger was right about anything.

Women, How to Get Chivalry Back

Feminism killed chivalry, let’s get that tidbit out of the way first.  It wasn’t even because feminists disliked chivalry, they very much rely on it even if they won’t admit it.  Men simply stopped getting any benefit from being chivalrous and thus it died.  But chivalry had a great purpose and therefore is ready for a return.  It simply eased social interaction between men and women, and gave both men and women benefits they could find from each other.  For women, it helped them navigate everyday things and gave them some protection in a hostile world and for men it acknowledged them and rewarded them for their efforts.  But this second part, the part about the things men got from it, ceased to be.  So men abandoned it.  But it could certainly return pending a few tweaks in overall female demeanour.

Chivalry died because the benefits men were supposed to get from it went away.  You see, men like being acknowledged for their efforts.  Chivalry is kind of like a trade between men and women.  Men will do things like offer protection, courtesies, and perhaps some spoils to known and unknown women alike.  But in return, women thank, praise, or in some other way reward men for this.  In this way, things turn out evenly.

When chivalry is a part of the social code, it guides social interaction.  Men have a well known role to follow, and women do as well.  No awkwardness ensues.  It is not only a lubricant that greases the wheels of social interaction, but it provides some of the necessities each gender needs in life.

But when feminism became popular, the male haters decided it was no longer part of the social code to in any way acknowledge or thank men.  What this leads to, since chivalry was not entirely deposed, is that men are sort of like a butler class to women.  They serve and support, but it is not expected that they be perceived as equals or receive any social benefit for their service.

In practice, this means that women feel entitled to men’s things for no reason at all other than that they are women.  So for example, rather than a woman thanking a man, and perhaps returning some small talk for giving up his space on a train, a woman simply takes the seat and does not acknowledge him in anyway, and yes I have not only received this treatment but I have witnessed it.  Or women will simply cut in a queue because they feel they can get away with it and then they pretend they did nothing wrong.  Or they subtly expect someone will open the big heavy door for them but then storm through it as if it were opened automatically as soon as someone opens it for them.

Let’s face it, women aren’t as strong and sturdy as men, and don’t have the same ability to stay balanced.  They know this because they experience it when they try to navigate their way through the actually harsh environments of both country and city alike.  I have seen women tear every tendon in their knee from simply slightly misjudging the depth of a curb.  I have also seen women lose balance from slight nudges.  Not to mention, they can’t keep the same pace as men when walking and they know it.  Lastly, can you blame them for being slightly uncomfortable in densely crowded areas surrounded by strange men?

Women definitely benefit from chivalry, as could men.  Life is actually easier for men and women alike with chivalry.  But it is gone now.  Let’s be clear that chivalry is not about men ranking themselves beneath women, it is more of a trade.  So, if women want it back, they need to buck up and have the decency to respect and observe men for being chivalrous.

P.S.

It is mostly youngish women that lack social graces.  Older women are usually happy when a gentleman helps them in some way.

Reverse Dowries

A dowry is a payment or transfer of wealth from the father or family of a bride, to that bride’s husband to more or less help the groom be able to provide for his wife and any children they might have.  In some cases, the dowry could be quite large and it may have made that man very wealthy.  Regardless, it was rooted in practicality and perhaps at least implicitly acknowledges that marriage is not easy for men.

The practice of giving a dowry died out at some point.  With the rise of stupidity and primitive behaviours under the title of ‘modernity’ came women seeking to do more independent things.  More women than ever attend university, many of them taking on debt to pay for it.  They are getting degrees in things like psychology, sociology, and communications and paying quite a sum for it.  Of course it is a fiction that anything is being learned when one acquires one of these fake, but easy to get degrees.

Women are also more susceptible to credit debt than men are.  So women in the ‘modern’ era are putting themselves into debt.  Relating this to marriage, the cost of a wedding is also similarly rising.

In the modern era, it is immoral and socially awkward for fathers to meddle, interfere, dole advice, make suggestions, or attempt in any way to alter one’s daughters choice in relationships, style, or career.  As a result, fathers have backed away from involvement in their daughter’s marriages.

The middle classes will, as a result, experience a vast transfer of wealth from young men marrying debt laden women, to the father’s of these women.  How is this a wealth transfer?  Well, it is not exactly, it is actually a debt transfer.  These young up-and-coming men will now be paying for their wives’ credit and school loan debt unburdening fathers from it, which creates an even stronger death spiral of relations between daughters and fathers as fathers feel relief from the debt they might have had to pay.  Not only this, but young men will be contributing substantially to the cost of the marriage itself.

So what we have is a situation where young men will be given more debt, will be told to pay more for the wedding, and will get less out of a marriage with a ‘modern’ woman.  This to me seems like the opposite of a dowry.

The implication of this is that men in the middle classes will probably begin to educate themselves less so as to save money.  Men will also put off marrying until older age, pushing the average age of first marriage ever higher.  But of course, people won’t be saving themselves for marriage until their thirties, so marital bonds will be weaker.

To reverse this, what is needed is sincere criticism of the way that women take on debt, debt being most harmful to the middle classes.

The Scourge of Human Resources

Practically every large and medium sized corporation has a human resources department.  The departments are almost always entirely made up of women, in fact, according to this study, they were 93% female.  This is a massive conflict of interest given that human resources will be tasked with the job of hiring, firing, and resolving conflicts between people but as well they usually are tasked with enforcing PC standards on employees.  So the problem is that all these jobs that human resources does will take on a distinctly modern, female character.  Human resources departments are nothing but a source of problems and obstacles for men in the workplace, and optimally would not even exist.  Human resources needs to be “disrupted”, as the tech crowd would say.

In that study, it was found that attractive women were less likely to receive a callback from HR departments and attractive men more likely.  The suspected reason is that women in HR did not want to invite female competition into the company.  As well, they seemingly viewed the attractive men as potential romantic partners.  So they were clearly biased towards serving themselves.

Normally, HR departments try to portray themselves as impartial but this study shows they clearly are not.  But not inviting attractive women to fill vacancies, and preferring handsome men, is not even the beginning of the problems HR departments cause.

Recently, someone I know told me about an HR training course he has to complete annually.  The course is about how to properly behave in the work place and what actions to avoid.  He said he had to sit through a video in which a ridiculous, caricature of a male would call one of his female co-workers “Princess”, and denigrate her for being female.  He threw out her work before looking at it because it was “done by a girl”, and would frequently announce that women are less capable than men.  He also expected her to work overtime for free, and to contribute to her charity that aids women less so she could work more.  Apparently, he also made the disgraceful act of “leering” at a female co-worker that was dancing.  No word as to whether provocative dancing is acceptable behaviour in the office.  The purpose of the video is to threaten men, and it suggests that men are the source of all conflicts and problems in the work environment.

I personally have heard other similar stories from people, and I very much doubt that anyone in any HR department is as free from bias as they think they are.  I think all the normal human incompetence and corruption are present there, and all the cattiness and resentment that you find anywhere else in the modern world, except that these people are in control of enforcing ethics and hiring and firing.

I recall overhearing a few women, all in HR, gossiping to each other on a train about what they disliked about all their coworkers, openly insulting them behind their backs.  I can’t imagine that these people can then advocate on behalf of someone they regularly trash.

Obviously, HR is as susceptible to human pettiness as anywhere else.  They obviously have a female-inclined bias, given women’s over representation and I doubt they can hire, fire, mitigate conflicts, and whatever else any better than if they simply did not exist.  Probably, they view things in terms of a modern feminist perspective and will seek to apply that lens to whatever issues they face.

Men need to be aware that HR is not on their side, and is probably completely incapable of advocating for them.  HR should be viewed as a department that exists to resolve minority and women’s unsubstantiated complaints in the work place at the expense of others, and as a biased group in charge of hiring and firing that does not place corporate interests above its own.  Beware when dealing with HR.  Human resources is not beneficial for men, it needs to go.

The Left is About Hate

People often wonder why leftist ideas keep returning, perhaps with slightly different language but the same intent and effects as previously failed policies.  For example, Marxism, under all its guises, despite a plethora of evidence that it is inefficient at best and destructive at worst, continues to rear its ugly head.  Why don’t people ever learn?  The reason is because leftist plans are not meant to be more efficient or do things better than they are done now.  “Progress” is not the goal.  In fact, leftist ideas are merely about hating others whilst pretending to house intellectual value.

Marxism is hatred of wealthy and successful people which seeks to blame them for the failures of others thereby justifying confiscations.

The homosexual agenda is about hatred of traditional moral values and in truth barely cares about marriage rights, the very thing they claim to be singularly focused on.

The diversity propagandists hate the current inhabitants of any place they argue for more diversity.

Feminism is about hatred of men.

Anti-colonialism is about hatred of Western nations.

The reason these ideas keep returning is not because people believe that their new variation will work this time around, or that situations have changed since the past warranting their return but because people will never stop resenting others.  Leftist ideologies are entirely about the politics of resentment.

Men Aspiring to be Pretty

I have witnessed, particularly in the most recent of times, that men are trying to be more pretty, more fashionable, and more stylish.  I constantly see young men with exceptionally well manicured hair styles, crisp designer jeans and flannels, and perfectly clean, vintage style, retro shoes within the most recent fashion trends.  There is a little bit of a problem with all of this primping however.  Don’t get me wrong, men shouldn’t ignore the way they look, and being fashionable is hardly a bad thing, but there is a correct and an incorrect way to do it.  The correct way is not to compromise one’s masculinity in the process and this is where I see the issue; men are choosing a feminine role in fashion.

Of course, it is difficult to say what precisely a masculine style of dress is, and to some extent this can be subjective based on a variety of things cultural.  But what is feminine about what men are doing can be very precisely stated.

Cuteness is something seen in the young of man and animal alike.  It may be a survival mechanism whereby cute traits cause adults to desire to take care of those that are cute.  So another way of saying what it means to be cute is, is to evoke a sort of pity that causes others to actively be merciful and take on a caregiver role.

Men are trying to be cute.  The skinny jeans, the long, girly hair, the man buns, the eccentric beards, the horn rimmed glasses, the button ups with infantile fabric prints, the extra small t-shirts, the Converse All-Stars worn with a blazer, the swag, the pristine chukka boots, the neon fitness accessories, and the delicate, soulful, Bieber-esque, eye squinting, self photographs.  Whether the style is nerd chic, or swag boy, or plain old dandy, pretty boy, the conscious or unconscious goal is to be cute.

As we have seen, cuteness is an attempt at evoking pity, it is a plea for care.  It wants to call out to others to get them to take on an active role.  In the case of the modern man, the goal is of course to be sexually desirable to women.  The perversion is that by trying to be cute, men are waiting for and hoping that women will actively reverse the gender roles and do the approaching, the flirting, and take all the risks while men have to do nothing but sit back and work on their cuteness and their prettiness.

In a certain sense, trying to be cute is dropping out of life.  It is hoping that the burden to take risks in dating will simply be taken on by someone else.  Of course, not all men are doing this, but I see a good number of men that have opted for a more, feminine or androgynous look.  I also see the deliberately pathetic or quirky look.  There certainly is a large enough contingent of people doing this that it merits paying attention to.

I can’t help but think the goal is to reverse the gender roles and get women to take on a masculine, active role through pity, or by exuding feminine beauty.  Something about this is deeply wrong and disconcerting to see.  It is perfectly acceptable for men to work on their appearance, provided that they want to look like men.  Men trying to be cute, likely caused by man-shaming, however, is a bad trend for society and unlikely to be successful.

British Sperm Bank Only Has 9 Donors

It seems the NHS has a bit of a problem recruiting men for their National Sperm Bank, story here.  I’ve wrote before about why men should not donate sperm.  So now I feel it is my mission to disrupt the new recruitment efforts because this sperm bank should never have existed in the first place.

Some Dutch woman, Laura Witjens, is apparently the chief executive of the National Sperm Bank.  She talks about her efforts to recruit more men and people’s problems with fertility here on her site.  I am certain that being infertile is a terrible pain but a National Sperm Bank, run by avowed feminists is probably the absolute worst idea to fix infertility, in fact, it doesn’t even fix infertility, a sperm bank is for fertile women.  It just creates a national centre of cuckoldry for women that might have an infertile husband.  She says she doesn’t want to link masculinity with fertility, but her sperm bank’s agenda has no room for infertile men and is seeking to replace them.  But of course, that is not the only goal of a sperm bank.

Reading the Daily Mail’s article on it, the National Sperm Bank is responding to demand from single women that don’t want to wait for men and lesbians.  Apparently they only offer £35 per donation.  I think the ideology behind this sperm bank is the real issue, that there are occasionally women with infertile men seems like a trojan horse.

What do I mean by that?  Well first of all, why would anyone in the UK want to create more single mothers?  Single mothers qualify for all sort of welfare benefits and their children are underachievers.  They are a drag on society.  Not to mention, the type of woman that doesn’t want to wait for men is one that I believe may be questionable for the role of motherhood, given that naturally a mother must have done enough right to not need a sperm bank.  Single mothers are not a positive thing for society, I strongly encourage men not to create more of them.

Then there is the issue of lesbians.  Being raised by two lesbian mothers is at very best sub optimal.  The tendency for the gay community to deliberately subvert norms for themselves is not something I think children should be a part of.  Sorry, but I do not recommend that men participate in the process of allowing children to be raised in this environment.

Lastly, the terminology of “donation” and the tiny payment for it are subtle but disingenuous.  A sperm donation is not merely just a donation of bodily fluid, like blood, or simply just an act of charity that happens to also be masturbation.  It is going to be used to create a child.  A child is a significant thing, who will eventually reach adulthood and participate in society, and the way that sperm bank phrases things, in terms of a simple “donation” is misleading.  It should be made very clear that this sperm will likely be used to create a human.  This is not a light thing to consider.

This National Sperm Bank is clearly a part of the feminist agenda that in a way makes the male contribution minimal and encourages trends in society that are destructive.  The removal of privacy from the donors in recent times reflects this and opens the door to potential cases in which sperm donor’s money is extorted.  Further, I think reproduction should not be something the government has the power to do and in this case, when a man surrenders his sperm, the power of reproduction is ceded and now in the hands of government officials with their own agendas.  For this, I recommend that men not donate any sperm to the National Sperm Bank, or any sperm bank.