The daffy, excitable Man Going His Own Way who calls himself MarkyMark may be my favorite manosphere blogger of all. Not only does he bring the lulz himself – who can forget the time he wrote a completely unironic point by point rebuttal of an Onion article? – but he also helps to bring attention to the equally stupefying work of others.
In his latest post, he directs our attention to some observations made by fellow MGTOWer Spock’s Disciple on the Happy Bachelors forum on the subject of pussy and its discontents. “This is good stuff, stuff my boys need to read,” Mark writes. “[Spock’s Disciple], like his hero, applied cold hearted logic when analzying pussy. The Force is STRONG with that one!”
Yes, he actually wrote that. I don’t think it’s a joke. I think he honestly does not know that there is a difference between Star Trek and Star Wars. How that is possible, I do not know.
Anyway, on to the eminently rational Spock’s Disciple, reflecting on the irrational power of the ladybits:
Remember that pussy is a biochemical WMD; wherever it is used, there is mass chaos and destruction. How many wars and conflicts have been fought at the urging and behest of women? More than any honest man would admit to and would be proud of.
Young men are apparently helpless in the face of the punany:
The need for pussy is a very real and built in addiction for men. We are hardwired by nature for sex and procreation. … [T]he sight and sound of pussy blinds younger men and allows them to be controlled by women though their hormones.
The, uh, SOUND of pussy? If I had to pick just two (or three, or four) sensory experiences relating to the vagina that would be generally considered appealing to heterosexual males, I’m not sure “sound” would make the cut.
But eventually even the horniest dudes start to get less horny – and thus less hypnotized by the power of the pussy. The only trouble is that by the time they lose interest in sex most of them are married, and they’re now stuck with the woman whose vagina formerly had them in thrall. It’s a grave injustice.
[W]hen most men pass the age of 30-35, they begin to awaken from this biochemical “dream” and what do they awaken beside? What do married men look forward to the next 30-50 years of their lives? Sleeping with a living corpse, which continues to torture and destroy them day by day? Looking forward to the time when the woman undergoes the process of metamorphosis, into a completely insane mummy (menopause and post menopause)?
This seems a tad alarmist. I mean, if your wife turns into a monster zombie-mummy – as all women apparently do after they hit their mid-thirties – you could always get separate bedrooms.
But Obi-Wan’s Spock’s Disciple has a more radical solution: don’t get into bed with the ladies in the first place!
Pussy is indeed way overrated and if younger men could get a shot of “anti-testosterone” for a few weeks, they could see through the eyes of men who are 40+; without the haze of hormones, you cannot believe how much farther you can see! It’s the difference between seeing the horizon through LA style smog and seeing the horizon from a high mountain in the Rockies.
Pussy is a man’s Achilles heel; once that man realizes this and takes the appropriate steps, he’ll never lose his peace of mind again. To these skeptical young men I say, there is an infinitely vast arena where you can have anything you desire, and can succeed at anything you wish to try for; all you have to do is see women for what they truly are, and become a master of the beast within; once you do that women’s true face will be visible to you, and you’ll never again partake of that foul potion.
It is possible to tame that beast, and indeed it is a certainty that you will learn much from the process of taming it; all it takes is patience and time. Look at your fellow men, your brothers in arms, and look at their almost invisible chains, and wonder at why you would desire such an existence for yourself?
And, hey, if all else fails, MarkyMark adds some advice of his own: pay a visit to Pamela Handerson before going out on the town with one of those vagina-people.
[T]here is one thing that the younger men can do until their sex drives die down permanently: masturbate before going out with a woman. … To put it another way, since the little head had been, shall we say, quieted down, the bigger head could work properly; the bigger head will then allow you to see a woman for who she REALLY is.
If you’re a fan of Spock, and looking for appropriate masturbatory material, might I suggest this?
Wow, waking up to this was like Christmas and my birthday all rolled up into one. Amazing, Brandon. You’ve really topped yourself. Off to go running with a subset of sporty people at a city funded trail, while listening to Dan Savage AND perhaps even Katy Perry on my iPod! Science! Culture! Groups!
Oh, and Random, I hope you keep posting here at MB! You are awesome!
Brandon, have astrophysicists studied you? Your density is amazing.
I know I’m coming in late here, but when Brandon talks about fashion, does anyone else have The Devil Wears Prada flashbacks?:
Aw, Shora beat me to it.
@Pecunium:
An honest to goodness individualist would say “I like XYZ of feminism but not ABC”. They would talk about the -ism without labeling themselves an -ist. They also wouldn’t limit themselves to the group think that happens when you become part of a group.
Gumption for what? To slap a label on me? Ya. It doesn’t really take a lot of gumption to say “I am X-ism”. Is this like feminist writers that talk about how “brave someone is” when that person does something everyone else is already doing everyday.
So I go “ya, I am a feminist”
You, or every other commenter on this site says “bullshit you are”
I think to myself “well that was pointless”
Hide? Really man, I am not hiding from anything. I just don’t want to be part of such a narrow philosophy as feminism or MRA’s or MGTOW or Democrats or Republicans, etc…
I agree with parts of feminism and parts of the men’s rights movement does that make me a “feminRA” or a “F&MRA”
And it never occurred to you to maybe site and think about why all of these feminists react that way to such a declaration? Like maybe go “Hmm, perhaps I am spouting views that are distinctly unfeminist! Perhaps I should look into this further!”
Brandon: I don’t think you are a feminist, because you say aren’t. And I don’t care, if you are a feminist.
What I am talking about (again, this is reading comprehension 101) is why you say you aren’t a feminist.
I am a Roman Catholic. I don’t agree with all the doctrine of The Church. Doesn’t make me say I am not a Roman Catholic.
You say you won’t “join feminism”, no matter how much you agree with it*, because there are things you don’t agree with. That’s not being an individualist. It’s being group-minded, and not liking the group.
And, from all the writing you’ve done here, I’m not seeing much of an original thinker. Your views are more in the “late-20-early 30s American IT Dude” school of thought than anything else. I can go have lunch at Google any day of the week and hear people talking about the things you about, in the ways you talk about them; right down to some of the turns of phrase (see the quotations from, “The Devil Wears Prada, and apply the thinking to politics, not fashion). You are chanting about how much of an “individual” you are, about how much you “think outside the box”, but you don’t have the self-awareness to see there are lots of boxes, and you are in several; and quite happy there.
*I am not sure I would say you agree with feminism, given your overt hostility towards it. What with the, “if I am pissing off feminists I must be doing something right”, and your attempts to filter out feminists from some circle of your acquaintance, to your insistence that to be a feminist almost always means to be an, “outlier’ in the,”looks good to Brandon” dept. That’s why people tell you you aren’t a feminist. You don’t walk any of the walk.
@Brandon:
Ya =/= Yeah.
#Pecunium: I am not chanting about how much of an individual I am…just that I value the principles of individualism. I think the individual is more important than the group.
I am not running around, saying “I am this special individual that has nothing but original thoughts”.
I believe in lots of philosophies and I get to pick and choose the best parts of them so I can apply them to my life. I don’t have to be weighted down by all the worst parts.
And I am not a Roman Catholic anymore because I ceased to share certain core beliefs of the RC faith, such as the existence of God. When I still believed in God I still considered myself a Catholic, even though I was a feminist and pro-LGBT rights. Because you can disagree with the Church on those things and still believe/benefit from the rites and community.
If you believe that women and men are roughly equal in capacities and deserve equal rights under the law and equal standing in society, if you believe that gender roles should not be compulsory and all forms of gender expression are valid, then congrats, you’re a feminist. The rest is up to you, and believe me, there are more flavours of feminism than you can imagine. But I don’t think you are a feminist, Brandon, because I don’t think you really grok that other people are people, and that is what the core beliefs of feminism boil down to – that women are people. So the experiences of others will always be a closed book to you, and your empathy circuits will stay fused.
This, incidentally, is why people keep asking you if you’re a teenager. Because this kind of solipsism is generally outgrown by the late teens.
If you weren’t such a mega-douche I’d feel sorry for you.
No kidding! Isn’t this the kind of debate that usually gets hashed out by slightly drunk freshman in college? “No man… y’see, culture is all just dogma and shit. The sheeple watch TV so that they won’t question their meaningless lives because McDonald’s doesn’t want them to, yanno? Britney Spears is like … like the real opiate of the masses. But I’m not like those sheeple, I’m gonna start a band and travel to Thailand and not pay taxes!”
You are so deep, Brandon. 😀
You’re such a child, Brandon. When asked to provide examples of feminist answers to questions that you use to screen for feminism you hedged like a mother-fucker, ultimately admitting that your “smoking out” of feminists consists of nothing more than asking “are you a feminist?” Tremendous powers of deduction there. If feminism has such a rigid set of bullshit dogmas, then you should have answered the question posed to you: what is the feminist answer to a question about false paternity claims?
I won’t even bother asking you to define, with precision, what men’s interests feminism is working against. I doubt you’d be able to answer with any real insight or clarity. But you know, I’m a feminist who also works actively on issues that affect men and boys. So what does that make me? Not a feminist? Or someone genuinely capable of thinking for themselves and forming their own opinions about the world. What do you do to advance the interests of men an boys?
Like Pecunium, I don’t really care whether or not you ever consider yourself a feminist. Unlike you, I can look beyond people’s self-appointed labels -or lack thereof- to their character, words, and actions and make my own determination about whether or not they’re someone with whom I’d want to associate. My man probably wouldn’t call himself a feminist. But he would help a stranger in need. He views me as his moral and intellectual equal as well as his baby. He’s able to present himself in an argument without constantly contradicting himself while simultaneously, defending his positions and keeping an open mind. And he wouldn’t videotape a sex partner without consent. That sort of thing is much more important to me than what he does or doesn’t call himself.
All you do is run around these threads claiming that you’re an original thinker, absent of group think and beyond cultural influence. And when a group of people carefully explain to you that you’re: 1) absolutely not and 2) nobody really is, you pout like a child.
Brandon is about 3 steps beneath most stoned phil 101 students, at some point they actually read a book about something and absorbed its contents. Has Brandon managed to say one correct statement?
@Brandon: when you come on this forum and talk about what you do and what Ashley does, you are gossiping.
Or, if you wish, engaging in small talk, at times (there are linguists studying the cultural roles of gossip and small talk–they overlap).
But you, Brandon, yes, you are gossiping.
And doing the primate thing of interacting with other primates (badly, mind you, but I’m not gonna throw stones because I’m not too good at it myself, although better on the internet than face to face).
You insist on coming here, telling us all your opinions, and answering back — all about how to live and what do do, etc. Now, mind you, you’re stone ignorant about a lot of stuff, but that doesn’t affect the basic process.
You, dear sir, are engaging in gossip.
AND if you tell anybody else about this forum (like you did Ashley), that is also gossip.
Brandon, you say you aren’t claiming to be some original thinker, but you spend a lot of time trying to convince other people they aren’t like you; because you can see the problems in the system (e.g. marriage is a trap, which no longer benefits men*, and you can replicate it, and money needs to be linked to a tangible assets, as opposed to being a medium of representational exchange) and that, should we/the world, come to your way of thinking things would be better.
That’s claiming to be special. It’s claiming to be better at seeing things than other people. Then you say you pick and choose, “the best”** aspects of all the philosophies you encounter to live the best life you can.
Mind you the definition of, “best life” seems to be, “best for Brandon, every one else can go hang”.
Everyone picks and chooses, it’s not an individual trait. I call myself a social libertarian. It’s a gloss of my general philosophy. I call myself a feminist, it’s a gloss of my general philosophy.
They are, big surprise, consonant. I am, insofar as I am a dogmatic Catholic, a “liberation theologist”. It’s a gloss of my philosophy.
Why use them? Because they give people an idea of what I think. It provides a framework in which to find out what my specific beliefs are. You don’t do either of those things (usefully identify the broad strokes of your beliefs, nor make honest inquiry about what other people mean when they use a label). This makes a couple of problems for you.
The first wouldn’t be a problem if you had a coherent sense of your actual beliefs. You don’t. Months of interaction has made that more than plain. It’s not that you don’t have beliefs.. it’s that you don’t really know what they are. I know you don’t think this is true, but when asked to explain what you believe… the explanations change; with every question.
The second… you hear “Feminist”, “Democrat”, “Republican”, and you assume that defines all of the things that person believes, based on your ideas of the words. That your ideas are overly rigid, dogmatic, and seem to lack any sense of introspective reformation based on what people say/do, hurts you too.
What success you appear to have on predicting people’s views on things are based more on consonance, than understanding. You were right that we wold be opposed to your ideas on marriage, but the why of it still escapes you. You think it’s because we are in love with marriage. It’s not. If your idea was practical, I’d be all for it. If it were practical to do away with marriage and replace it with Civil Unions (as was done in the UK), I’d be all for it.
But it’s not. The intricacy with which it has been interwoven to the society means that there are hidden benefits to being married which would be lost. Add the resistance of those who think any admission that non-straights have rights is an attack on society, etc., etc.
But none of that gets into your awareness. Nope, we are too stupid to see how right you are, because we are in love with marriage. Which actually limits the ways in which you can adopt the aspects of new philosophies which might benefit you. You are not enough of an individual (no, to be honest I think it’s that you lack the education/practical experience) to look at the different on it’s own merits.
Easier to say listen to the people who tell you “feminism is over, they get too vote, they get to work, they can own property, and the courts give them advantages when marriages break up. They hate men and besides they are ugly.”
That’s why you aren’t the fan of individualism you think you are. You don’t know what it means. You trot out slogans and verbiage, but there don’t have any real meaning, and you don’t show any evidence of doing anything to give them substance.
*why men? Why not people?
**Even that “best” is a value claim. Best in relation to what? Unless you want to use someone else’s definition, then you are claiming to have found a “best”. It might just mean, “that which makes my life easier”, but that’s not being an individual in any meaningful sense. It’s either a claim to some form of hedonism (I’d say selfish), or a claim to an original definition of, “best”. But you don’t think out the implications of the things you say (see the whole, “I’ll commit a series of felonies to prevent myself from being accused of something which almost certainly not going to happen to me. I’ll violate people’s autonomy, and that’s ok, because well… BRANDON!).
You guys, do you think it’s time to let Brandon go?
@Kristin: If you want to label yourself as a Roman Catholic go right ahead.
Umm..women are people. When did I ever say they weren’t. Or are they ALIENS!!! ;P
@Bagelsan: You are mixing two different topics. Culture isn’t dogma but feminist ideology contains dogma. So to try and mock me with culture is all dogma makes no sense because our culture is always changing while dogma usually doesn’t change or is slow to change. Our culture has no parts of it that can not be questioned.
Honestly, are you going to make the claim that pop stars contribute to society in any meaningful way other than dangling a carrot in front of you and making you want to have their lifestyle. Edison and electricity, Lovelace and programming, Gates and desktop computing…all dwarfed by the contributions of Britney Spears and Bow Wow.
Oh right…they tell you what clothes you should buy next season because you will get ostracized from society if you don’t…or not. You know for a lot of Marxists that frequent this site…you really are defending mindless consumerism to the point of absurdity.
There are so many other people that deserve more respect, praise and admiration than mediocre singers and other “manufactured” prolefeed this country produces.
I never made the claim that I was “deep”.
@Nobinayamu: I have a different set of values and morals than you and that makes me a child…ya ok. What’s that crap MRA’s are always bitching about…shaming language. You really do make everything personal don’t you? It’s the ideas and principles of a philosophy that matter…not attacking people because they disagree. Calling me a child just makes you look like one.
Hedged like a motherfucker? I gave you a step by step guide from start to finish.
“Smoke out” in the sense of LEADING UP TO THE QUESTION. You can’t just go up to people and randomly say “are you a feminist?”. It’s cumbersome and it breaks rapport and conversation flow. But you can lead the conversation so he/she is put into a position to answer your questions.
I help people that are actually victims. Some frat boy that gets drunk and wants to throw up all over the street even though he knew the risks isn’t a victim. He knew what his behavior would lead to and he made the decision to ignore it. He made himself his own victim. If he is capable enough of making a bad choice, he is capable of dealing with bad consequences. Maybe next time he will remember “Hey I didn’t like throwing up downtown and feeling like shit…maybe I wont do that again”
I never made the claim that I was 1) an original thinker 2) not susceptible to group think or 3) susceptible to culture
@Brandon: hey you capitalist dude you, celebrities support a gazillion dollar industry–lots and lots of people make a living off the celebrity bandwagon (and often the person at the center of it all ends up broke and broken). So in that way they’re probably contributing more to society than you ever do–i.e. how many paychecks do you sign a week?
Haha, Brandon, culture includes language. (NEWSFLASH!) In fact, Langacker and Johnson prove that our language literally shapes how we conceive of and understand the world. You participate in culture simply by knowing and using language.
Edison and electricity, Lovelace and programming, Gates and desktop computing…
All of these are culture.
This conversation started about culture (inclusive) and you’re trying to move the goalposts by acting as if culture is ONLY pop culture. Not true.
Brandon no one is saying that Spear’s contribution to music outweighs Edison’s contribution to electricity. What we are saying is that studying trends, musical styles and how they influence spending, dating, clothing etc is as valid as studying how electricity influence housing trends, the development of radio (which allows for say…music) and how music and pop trends (or non pop) influence technology back. Can you understand that concept.
Not that BS has talent per se, but that her popularity indicates something else going on…and what that means.
I don’t, personally, think you can understand that though.
So, Brandon cannot see that it’s possible to identify with some beliefs of a group’s ideology without being some sort of boxed in cookie shaped sheeple — he also cannot see it’s possible to analyze a phenomenon without being some sort of sheeple — i.e. there’s only one way to talk about Brittany Spears.
Shorter version: he doesn’t get the idea of selection and choice, or meta.
I’m beginning to think he can’t, and wondering what it took to so limit his critical thinking skills which he vaunts all over (without actually giving us any evidence).
Maybe we should gently release him back into the wild instead of continuing to torment him here….except that, HE chooses to come here.
So he must be getting something out of the shared interactions and GOSSIP.
One can pretty much sum up Brandon’s density and grandstanding towards “low culture” (lol) with this quote,
“…germans?”
“Forget it, he’s rolling.”
Keep on rolling, Brandon.
Brandon:
Yeah, particularly since there’s no such thing as an attractive woman.
ithiliana:
Most people don’t “screen,” I think, they make conversation. It has the same effect, but it’s not creepy or weird.
Brandon:
There’s nothing wrong about screening for strawfeminists. By all accounts they’re horrible people.
I’m not going to bother asking Brandon how many he’s found with this subtle approach because I’m not going to believe his answer anyway. I think he’s prone to erroneously attribute beliefs he disagrees with to people who turn him off in some way or who reject him, and moreover he strikes me as the sort of person who has no qualms about lying to philosophical or political NOKDs in the service of a higher truth.
kristinmh:
One thing I’ve learned from these discussions over the years is that it doesn’t pay to prespond.
random:
Of course, if callling Brandon “gay” wouldn’t be insulting to Brandon, it’s not considered an insult.
Brandon:
That’s a hell of a choice: be stupid or ape your social betters.
Also, that’s kind of a circular definition, isn’t it? How do you know if something is “prolefeed” and if its fans are stupid? What if “stupid people” and “the elites of society” agree on something?
Brandon:
People who use “you’re smart” or “you talk fancy talk” as insults/retorts have nothing useful to contribute to any conversation.