The Fitness Test – Chapter Nine

27 Feb

Tree shelter

 

Even as children, my brothers and I could build these shelters pretty easily. And they do warm up quickly, although it’s always nice to have a big dog with you.

 

Chapter nine is live.

5+ hours of video all about me? Yeah, no thanks.

26 Feb

Some YouTuber who goes by the name RazorBladeKandy has thus far dedicated more than 5 hours of his life to examining whether I am a lying, filthy whore who hates men and only wants them for money and sperm.

Guess I haven’t been obvious enough? I wish that were a joke, but it’s not. I have not watched the videos, nor do I have any plans to. What I did do was offer to talk to RBK and answer any questions he might have. I was planning on agreeing with everything he said, as a flummoxing technique to highlight the absurdity of his apparent arguments.

RBK: Is it true that you are a whore who fucks your husband so he will buy you things?

JB: Yes

RBK: Is it true that you only value men for money?

JB: Yes

RBK: Is it true that you think men should die in filthy sewers so women can lead lives of luxury?

JB: Yes

And so forth….it had the potential to be rather hilarious, I think. Alas, RBK had a hissy fit because I had no idea who he was and was thus unaware of the fact he has a health issue that prevents him from speaking. I suggested adapting a platform so that he could use text and I would use spoken words. He sent me an email that scrolled over pages and pages and pages and once I passed the “you’re a bully and a cunt” part of the message, I was less than inspired to give this person any more of my time.

time

The MGTOW wars have been going on for some time now and I mostly pay them no attention, despite the fact that I appear to have achieved some sort of status as the personification of TEH EVIL WIMMINZ! The MGTOWs I work with at AVfM and elsewhere are of the rational, risk assessment mindset, and not of the all women are evil whores variety. I don’t disagree with MGTOW as a rational response to family laws that are deeply biased against fathers. Why would any sane man agree to give away half of his stuff when a surrogate mother can be purchased for $20K? Inherent in the whole MGTOW philosophy though is that a man makes his own decisions about his own life, and does not serve an ideology at the expense of his own well-being.

A man who makes the decision to marry after assessing the risks and the probabilities specific to his own situation is still going his own way. I find it kind of amusingly ironic that the Men Going Their Own Way philosophy espoused by the radical MGTOW sect includes sanctions against which ways men are allowed to go. Men, go your own way, unless it’s a way we don’t approve of! Lol! Sound familiar?

fuck-you-traitor

A separate conversation over at AVfM led in an unexpected direction, and I think this is the key issue.

suz comment

JB comment

For the vast majority of people, just average, common, normal people, the ideal marriage and family (let’s assume men and women are treated equally under the law at this point) would look something like this, I think: both men and women have the flexibility to earn money and be with their families to the extent that each wish to do so. A breastfeeding baby with a tiny tummy, who eats every two hours around the clock will need mommy around. An older baby or a baby who eats less frequently allows for a more equitable sharing of time between mommy and daddy, depending on what mommy and daddy want. The conversation that we don’t have with either men or women is one that encourages both to really think about how they want their families structured. An ambitious parent, male or female, who lusts for the corner office above all else, needs to consider who will be doing the daily slog work of raising children, assuming that couple wants children.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ambition, but there is something very wrong with adding children to that life without thinking through the impact on those children. Most humans, like it or not, are pretty predictable. Most women want to be at home with their young children, and most men take great pride in providing for their families and there is nothing wrong with that. Enforcing that as an immutable social requirement is not acceptable to anyone, one hopes. There are plenty of women who are perfectly happy to spend an hour with their children on an average day, and plenty of men who would love nothing more than to be at home with their little ones, making mud pies and doing laundry. Those men and women should find each other.

What happens in our current reality is that women are taught that earning an income is the only measure of their worth, and it’s only when they have children they realize how very wrong that is. Men are also taught that earning an income is the only measure of their worth, and when they have children, that is generally confirmed for them. The most important thing a man with children can do is protect them. We don’t live on the savannah in grass huts anymore, so hunting down predatory lions isn’t on the daily calendar for most men. Modern life requires a man to hunt down money. Radical MGTOWs scream blue murder about this because they hate that a great many men take an enormous pride in providing and protecting their families. They are hysterically opposed to any definition of masculinity that centers on men providing for and protecting their loved ones, because they take that to mean men are “disposable” to their loved ones.

couple

Their loved ones, no doubt, tell a very different story.

Radical feminism hates femininity, and despises women who would rather stay home and raise happy, healthy families, and radical MGTOW hates masculinity, and despises men who would rather work to provide for their happy, healthy families being raised at home.

Isn’t that just a match made in heaven?

I suspect a great many of the radical MGTOWs do not have children, and many of the normal MGTOWs do, and have experienced first hand the brutality of the family courts. A good friend introduced me to the term neotraditional, and I think it’s a great concept. It describes people who take the good parts of traditional gender roles and adapt them to their own circumstances, personalities and situations. In practice it means that while women contribute to the family financially, and while men contribute to the family in terms of childcare and housework, the central ideal of man as breadwinner doesn’t change. And it appears that most men and women prefer their lives this way.

I personally would like to see our culture change, not to rigidly adhere to any particular family structure (it’s none of my business who scrubs the toilet in your house) but to openly, honestly and without any kind of shame talk about what we as individuals want from our families. Women who prefer to spend most of their waking hours at work should not be shamed, any more than a man who loves and wants to work long hours should be shamed. Both, however, should be shamed for demanding a partner who shares the same mindset and then having children. In simple terms, ambitious workaholics of either gender should not marry one another if they plan on having children. Dentists should marry one of their hygienists, not another dentist.

This, to me, is what MGTOW hysteria comes down to. I am extremely happy taking a backseat to my husband’s career and he is very happy that he does not have to negotiate with a working wife over who makes dinner every night. We have a traditional marriage. He earns a living, I make the living worthwhile. MGTOWs screeching about what a lazy whore I am, and how much I clearly hate men and think they are cash dispensers are, in fact, insulting my husband and his choices. Fairly profoundly. As our children are getting older, I am very much interested in rejoining the labor market, although never in a way that eclipses my husband.

This whole MGTOW Janet is a whore who hates men “debate” has actually prompted a very interesting decision in my personal life. As many of you know, I am in a PhD program in Entrepreneurship and Innovation and I have completed my literature review, which is now published. I took a year’s leave of absence and must now decide whether I want to enter the data collection phase of the dissertation. During this same time period, my husband has completed a very complicated accreditation process for his organization that opens up a number of other job possibilities for him, and looking over the preliminary offers, it occurred to both of us that if I pursue the PhD, his options are instantly limited. Over the course of several days, we have discussed what that really means to both of us. Mr. JB cannot hide his disappointment that certain opportunities will be impossible for him to pursue if he must take a job for me into consideration. I have no burning desire to continue my research into biotechnology clusters, trust me.

I am already being offered positions, with starting salaries coming in around $100K. That’s a significant amount of money. I chose my specialization knowing I would be in high demand. I have no particular interest in my subject area. It’s just hot in business schools right now. Innovation, entrepreneurship, biotechnology, cluster theory, Big Data analytics, monetizing intellectual properties, incubators – I can earn some very nice money going down this path.

And in doing so, I will prevent my husband from doing the job he actually loves doing and I will keep him from realizing the full financial potential of his skillset, built up over the past twenty years.

For what?

So we can pat ourselves on the back for rejecting traditional gender roles? So we can enjoy meeting the ideological conditions of our brave new world while I do a job I have no interest in and he watches other candidates take the positions he would love to have?

Hang on to your little hats, radical MGTOWs. I’m quitting the PhD. I will stand happily on the sidelines and cheer my husband onwards and we will both have exactly what we want.

RBK: Is it true you have refused a job for $100K/yr so you can continue to exploit your husband?

JB: Yes

RBK: Is it true you have no real interest in ever being independent?

JB: Yes

RBK: Is it true you plan to leech, like the vile parasite you are, off this innocent man until you die?

JB: Yes

Til death do us part, baby.

kiss

Til death do us part.

Lots of love,

JB

 

 

 

 

 

 

GQ and their comical hit piece on the MRM

24 Feb

sage

The pictures kill me. Like seriously?!?!  Hey, let’s supersaturate the color and make them look really, really, super scary evil and terrifying and oh my god these guys are mass killer rapist woman beaters waiting to happen! Run, everybody! Ruuuuuuuuuuuun! Kudos to the photographer. He made Sage look badass. Lol. For those of us who actually know Sage, this is hysterical. No offense whatsoever to Sage, but he is a nerdy science geek who looks more likely to bust out a Scrabble board than a cheesy pick-up line and an attempted rape. Don’t get me wrong, Scrabble boards make me swoony, but Sage is pretty much the last guy to aggressively and forcefully hit on a woman he has just met.

Jeff interviewed me for this story, and I recall discussing Laura Mulvey’s theories of representation and the male gaze, and then economist David Graeber and how his concept of “bullshit jobs” is directly tied to women entering colleges and the labor market en masse.

Guess I should have grabbed his dick at some point during our interview so he would have something to write about?

My bad.

Paul’s take on the article is below.

 

blair333

Originally appeared at A Voice for Men

OK, so GQ has released its contribution to the recent parade of hack journalism about the Men’s Human Rights Movement. This particular balloon float of pristine yellow was inflated with hot air from writer Jeff Sharlet. I am afraid it won’t stay afloat long, at least to anyone capable of critical thought. Floats don’t do well when they are full of holes.

Jeff’s antics are plentiful in this unnecessarily long and wandering piece, dedicated to shaming men who see something rotten with modern feminism and painting them as the tried and true sexual threats in waiting that feminists are always wailing about. It will be best to make a few good articles in response; mercifully shorter and a good bit more honest.

Right now I want to address Sharlet’s anti-climactic attempt at playing the master “gotcha” when he shows up at my hotel room with Blair Braverman. Blair’s the girl that narrowly escaped the clutches of the sinister Sage Gerard earlier in the day when he almost raped her at the conference in front of (or maybe with the help of!) the Honey Badgers. Alas, another piece, another day.

Blair Braverman. When she is not the sidekick of a yellow journalist, she is marsupial

Sharlet shows up at my room late. He is sans the bottle of Maker’s 46 he has promised but he has Braverman in tow. Jeff, being the astute, journalisticky guy he is sets the tone by saying, “Elam is pleased by the entrance of another female.”

Oh really? Mr. Sharlet is in my head now? I suppose he is gifted or something. Clairvoyant maybe? Anyway, I say that just to make a point. Setting the scene of your story with the writer mindreading doesn’t work unless you are Stephen King. One pass through Sharlet’s article will confirm that is not the case. Jeff continues:

“He fixes her with a gaze that says, “I really want to listen to you.””

Well, at least he hinted at some reason to suppose what was in my mind, but it hardly seems remarkable. I seldom ask questions when I am not interested in the answer. That comes with warm and gushy “I really want to listen to you,” kind of vibe. But I have to pass on the gaze thing. Too many rounds of “evil male gaze” propaganda of late.

Jeff, courtesy of his mind and eye reading, has set up his scene now. He is going for the coup d’état, the inappropriate rape conversation….with a woman!

I’m curious,” Elam says. “What did your friends think when you told them you were coming here?”

“To be honest?” Blair asks. Elam nods. She says, “I had friends who said I’d get raped.”

Blink. You can almost see the struggle in Elam’s bones: Play the nice guy? Or the perv? No question. “All right!” he booms, swinging his arms together. “Let’s get started!”

Jazz winces.

“Get the video camera!” Factory yells at his girlfriend, who giggles weakly.

I should be very clear here: At no point does it seem like Elam or Factory is actually going to rape Blair. We know they’re joking. Just a couple of middle-aged guys joking around about rape with a young woman they’ve never met before in a hotel room at one in the morning.”

Yes Jeff, there we were, a couple of middle-aged guys, joking about rape at one in the morning with the girl (much more on her later), who you brought to our hotel room — who had also just walked in with you after friends told her she was going to get raped. The same girl you had already sent after Sage Gerard earlier.

Pretty freaking funny if you ask me. Sharlet actually missed some of our best lines that night.

And I need to come back to something else you said, Jeff, if you don’t mind us speaking so intimately here in front of the world. This:

I should be very clear here: At no point does it seem like Elam or Factory is actually going to rape Blair. We know they’re joking.”

I am so thankful at your concern to be so clear with your readers, but I don’t really think they are that stupid.

Let’s see, a girl enters a room with a journalist. The room is occupied by two or three men, including the girl’s boyfriend, a clinical psychologist and another woman. The girl informs the group she has been told she will be raped if she comes there, and we all laugh it up.

If your readers at GQ need it so “clearly” pointed out that this is not a serious rape threat to pretty young Blair, then I would suggest submitting your work here. We don’t pay, but at least you won’t be writing for impressionable morons who would need that explained.

By the way, Blair is into dogs, but I want to make it perfectly clear that I don’t mean that in a sexual way.

Clearly Jeff examined what he had written at this point, and in a fit of hopelessness blathered away his account of the rest of the evening on a diatribe of “These guys actually think men have problems, hardy har har harr.”

It is good fodder, I suppose, when you don’t respect your audience enough to be honest with them. Concerns about false rape accusations are easy to paint as paranoid, even when it has happened to the men you are mischaracterizing. Easier still to attribute even more paranoia about the mainstream media, even when you are the mainstream media, and you have shown up there with a plant to help you create the story you want to write. And when you are busy cherry picking quotes, making fun of us for taking issue with cherry picking quotes.

There was a time when places like GQ and, duh, Rolling Stone, would take serious issue with a “journalist” manufacturing a story. But we all know those days are gone, don’t we Jeffy? It’s all about the clicks and the bucks.

It’s all Buzzfeed now, ain’t it?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,996 other followers

%d bloggers like this: