On Love, Kindness, and being Nice

Love is kind, and patient, and we all know the verse.  But one thing love isn’t (always) is nice.  We often conflate love with niceness, because being nice is, well, nice.  Nice is pleasant; nice is agreeable.  However, nice is not a virtue, and while love should be kind and gentle, it should not always be nice.

The thing about love is that truly loving behavior sometimes requires us to become uncomfortable, and to make other uncomfortable, because not to do so would be far worse.  

As a very simple example, say you were to see a young child reaching their hand out to touch a hot burner.

You would not likely think to yourself, “well, it wouldn’t be nice to say no.  He probably has a perfectly good reason for doing that.  It’s not really my place to interfere.”

No, it’s far more likely you would immediately stop the child, and scold him for the attempt.  It would not be fun for you, and if questioned, the child will certainly say he would never have wanted to be scolded.  Scolding for bad behavior isn’t “nice”, but it is surely more loving than allowing a child to burn himself.

And so, when we witness others in sin, lovingkindness means that we should, gently, compassionately, but nevertheless firmly call them out on it.  For while confrontation can be painful, and no one “enjoys” an intervention, it is better to help out brothers and sisters in Christ extricate themselves from sin than to allow them to continue, at great cost to themselves (though they may not recognize the cost). 

Advertisements
So, I try not to post many comments around the sphere unless I feel like I’m actually saying something that hasn’t been said yet. I don’t want to be part of the chorus, or just be another “great job!” (as nice as those are) because most of the places I lurk get plenty of discussion already. Those authors don’t need any “great jobs” from little ole’ me: they know they are doing well. And I don’t want to clog up discussions that already break 200+ comments frequently, just to say “bravo” (however well-deserved it usually is).

As a young lady, I try to be very conscientious of the fact that while I may not be altogether unwelcome in the manosphere, it is certainly not FOR me. Men are talking, and they don’t need fangirls, or sycophants, or shaming.

Still, I do sometimes chime in. Usually by the time I’m able to add something, though, it’s deep in the conversation, and liable to get lost. This would be fine if I yapped a lot (as I am wont in real life) but since I try to only offer new or different points, I’m usually pretty proud of my rare posts, and would like them to be preserved somewhere. So, I will probably archive many of them here, if only for my own vanity’s sake.

That said, this one is in response to a comment on SunShineMary’s post Theory of Feminine Devolution, and I have quoted the commenter to whom I was specifically addressing:




The interesting thing is that men don’t show this degenerate behavior. Even if you remove all social control from a group of men, they will form their own hierarchy, code of conduct and morality with a clear sense of right and wrong. Men are fundamentally builders, creators and fixers.

I think the key we should all focus on here is that men don’t show this degenerate behavior (i.e. bonobo-like). This comment is clearly framed to paint men as wholly superior (the foundation of society – builders, creators, etc) and women as completely useless to society. However, men DO show degenerate behavior, but, to continue the analogy, theirs is the brutal, war-like nature ascribed to chimpanzees.

This is Mansterationalized by those who responded to another commentor’s point re:prison society as still having “rules, hierarchies” etc, but while this is the case, is this seriously a good faith argument that men in such situations are not “degenerate”? They are simply degenerate differently, that doesn’t make them “civilized”.

Men are builders, creators, and fixers BECAUSE it is a way to impress women when you are not the brute force alpha. Society, civilization, gadgets all exist because men want to impress women to get access to sex. This is why alphas don’t bother with these things (they don’t need to do more than grin right to get laid) and why many men are dropping out of creation/building etc – there are no guarantees on return anymore. But just as most women will degenerate as explained above with out the incentive/discipline of an alpha-enough man, so will men often degenerate into cave/basement dwellers content to eat, fap and sleep without the appeal/incentive of an attractive enough woman.

Please note that I don’t mean to say no man will bother himself unless poozy is on offer, but over time, over generations, the average man will decline just as (but not in the same way as) the average female. We can already see this in the rising PUA and MGTOW movements, and the rise of men, not formally affiliated with either, who are just dropping out in general. This is exacerbated by the rising penetration of video gaming, and the increasingly immersive game designs. (This is not meant to shame gamers, as my husband and I both are; merely pointing out that video games, by design, make it easier to avoid, ignore, or replace a boring/uncomfortable reality with a much more appealing one).

Again, I don’t mean to shame anyone with this post except the guy who suggested that men aren’t capable of being degenerate. I consider the PUAs, MGTOW and unofficial drop outs to be acting rationally (whether or not morally) in light of the legal circumstances.This does not excuse ANYONE’S behavior (male or female). It only goes to show that men and women BOTH degenerate when society gets out of whack, but that they degenerate differently.

I do hold that men are able to do many things much better than women can, and I agree that women need men more than men need women. I even agree that women mostly need men if they are to be disciplined, where as men can mostly be disciplined with or without women (sometimes much better without – e.g. military). BUT the notion that only women will naturally degenerate, that men are too good, too pure, too dedicated to building to likewise degenerate, is patent nonsense. It may be slower, it may be different, but it is degeneration.

I’d also like to state that it is not my original assertion that men create to attract women. I believe I read it on Rational Male or Chateau Heartiste, but so far I haven’t been able to dredge up the original article. I believe I remember enough to back the assertion up, but I did not want to take credit for an idea more intelligent and studied people than I put forth.




Thus ends the last of the comment. In closing, I will just add that I have been lurking the ‘sphere for over two years. I think the men here are right about a lot of things, and I support a great deal of what is said here. I have been making efforts to be a more submissive wife myself because of the ‘sphere, and have a happier home and life because of it. I have even become Christian after discovering Dalrock, SSM and others. I recognize that the men hereabouts have been shamed quite enough and are rightfully, righteously angry. However, there is a certain point where anger clouds judgement. I do not often call it out; it’s certainly not my place to do so, and I know just as easily as I can throw around the word “bitter” it will be responded back to me “shaming language”. But after the Mark Minter saga, I think there’s something to be said for occasionally having a reality check.

Yes, things are bad, really bad. But we must not become so clouded by emotions, even very much appropriate emotions, that we cease to see the forest for the trees. I called out this poster because he seemed (by the wording of his post and subsequent responses to others) to believe that men are not prone to excesses and degeneracy in the way women are. But just because it is not the same way doesn’t mean it’s not there. We don’t need to address this much here; it’s already everywhere else. It is good and right that the manosphere is more focused on educating men on the faults of women, which are so glossed over everywhere else. But just because we focus here on things which are not talked of elsewhere doesn’t mean we should forget that we’re all human and prone to faults. We should not be knocking women off pedestals just to put men on them.

On Comments, and Degeneration

Atheists and Christians: Everyone’s got a Strawman

So, I’ve been watching a bunch of YouTube videos propagandizing for BOTH sides.  The biggest commonality?  Well, same as the commonality to almost all YouTube self-made videos.  These people should not be allowed to speak their minds, record it, and put it out there for the world to see (and mock).  Of course, I tease when I say “allow”, but certainly the ease with which we can put ourselves out their for the world to see has had many interesting, and many unintended repercussions.  But this is a discussion I’m sure we’ve all seen, even been privy to, before, and is not really the meat of this post.

In seriousness, the mistakes many of these people make are three fold: they don’t take the other side seriously, they don’t do sufficient research on the opposition, and sometimes even on their OWN side, and they judge the beliefs of the other side by its adherents, rather than the strength of the beliefs.  This all works towards the creation of a straw-man argument, wherein the speaker believes they have proved/disproved everything, but really they have shown nothing.  They change no one’s mind, because those in agreement don’t know enough to see the fallacy, and those in disagreement recognize the misrepresentation, and go on believing as they do, because the speaker has not actually addressed them.

All of this, I daresay, could be easily remedied by doing more research.  Not all of this need be arduous, life’s-work kind of research, but enough to be truly conversant with the subject matter: both your view, and the one you mean to debunk.  Now, I am, of course, biased.  I am a Christian, albeit a new one.  But I was, myself, taken in by these fallacies, particularly that of judging a faith by its adherents, rather than it’s own merits.  I could see so many Christians out there who didn’t really know much at all about their faith, didn’t live differently in any observable, meaningful way, that I thought, “Well, why bother?”  And what’s more, I was often more knowledgeable than the average Christian about Christianity, and so I assumed that if the followers couldn’t be bothered to understand their faith properly, it must not be worth looking into.

The thing is, while one’s beliefs should make a difference in a person’s life, not everyone really lives like that, so you can’t judge a faith based on the quality of its adherents. After all, look at all the amazing art, literature, and discoveries that have come from Christianity – the same Christianity that so many Americans pay lip service to, but don’t really live by. Why discount all of that on account of one (modern) wayward flock? Yet, this is what I did (even as I appreciated all these things).

Now, it is easy to find that many atheists “debunk” Chrisitianity based on the appearances of the followers, or the actions of outspoken outliers. Because some “Christians” use the Bible as a crutch to defend their own prejudices, many atheists see the Bible as only being a weapon, a tool of oppression. Any yet, part of the revolutionary nature of the Bible is that it actually uplifted and sanctified all people, and while making allowances for some of the practices of the day, it made requirements of humane treatment. Just because I can beat someone to death with a hammer doesn’t mean that all hammers are dangerous and oppressive. It just means that hammers should be handled with respect to their proper purpose, and a certain reverence for the inherent risks involved in making a mistake. Likewise, the Bible is not oppressive, or meant to be used as a weapon. Like a hammer, the Bible helps us to build a better civilization and a better life, but it can be used against people. This happened even in Jesus’ time, with Pharisees obeying the letter, but not the spirit of the law. Jesus spoke against this, and all good faith Christians should do likewise, but since we don’t see that very much, the idea of a Bible as a weapon goes uncontested, giving atheists the appearance of being correct.

But it’s not just atheists, either. Christians make many assumptions about atheists as well, and although they may be true of many practitioners, or the most vocal practitioners, we do ourselves a great disservice when we “debunk” atheism on the grounds of these assumptions, and not on the actual tenets (or, perhaps it is better said, “lack of tenets”) of atheism. For those of us who want to seriously promote Christianity against atheism, we must clearly set ourselves apart from others by demonstrating the ability to think critically, rationally, to examine the others side’s actual case and show compassion to the people who accept it. They know that we believe them to be, at best, misguided. They expect many of us will see them as downright evil. If we do think they are misguided, and we truly want to help them, we must go to them where they are, and consider what is actually going to have an effect on them, rather than just mouthing platitudes.