The Way of Men

[quote]theuofh wrote:
My main take away from the book is that primitive, small group, hunter gatherer societies had these characteristics. I’m reading another one on the Comanche, the last of the nomadic hunter-gatherer Indian tribes, who raided every one from agricultural indian tribes to settlers, and managed to stop the spanish move north dead in tracks. They gang raped the women of the tribes they conquered and tortured the men. They expected the same treatment from their enemies. Its just how these cultures were, from the vikings to the mongols.

[/quote]

Any commentary on what this means for modern man and society is bound to lead to crazy talk.

Yeah I see what you’re saying here.

Folks say that men are wired to be in small communities and it’s what we should strive to be (like), but there’s no way this small community template can be used in todays society.

A man (with a family) in todays’ society has to be at least 4 different kinds of person at different points within their day.

Provider
Parent
Subordinate
Supporter

There is no longer a single minded focus to get food and procreate. We’re in a complicated world with an outdated hard-drive, if you will. (borrowed phrasing from Joe Rogan of all people)

I find it a bit funny when a man expouses primitive traits as the essence of manhood. You know what the object of the game used to be, when this sort of philosophy was necessary? Have the most offspring, so your genes could propagate. Maybe a woman should be writing the book on how to be a man.

I was somewhat interested in reading this, however it is starting to sound like just another ‘fight club’ mentality piece with a splash of machismo on the side. Almost to the point that I would categorise it as the male version of the feminist movement.

I may be wrong though…

My main beef with the way men are evolving is the fact we as a gender are becoming far too soft-skilled.

[quote]Teledin wrote:
My main beef with the way men are evolving is the fact we as a gender are becoming far too soft-skilled.[/quote]

Why do you see that as a problem?

Soft skills generally get you further along in modern society. Just because they’re “soft” doesn’t mean they’re immune to aggressiveness and competitiveness.

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
He never once mentioned the role the ability to get laid in the book plays in this or how women may have coevolved along with men.

He did say modern day anarachists are pussies for listening to noam chomsky, when they use to wield some real power and assassinate world leaders regularly. [/quote]

Well he is right, but the point is that you can draw conclusions from this, in fact you must if you want to take our true nature into account.

Men are not fluffy teddy bears but born killers and a fruitful approach does not try to suppress that but to channel it. [/quote]

He does talk about getting laid. That’s where the “Bonobo Masturbation Society” stuff comes in. Basically, he argues that in today’s society the only expression of masculinity that is left is hooking up with lot of women, which, although men have always wanted sex, was never really one of the four original manly values. Really, it is the free sex movement and advent of birth control that has allowed women to open this up to society. He suggests that properly masculinized men would not be so concerned with hooking up or gaming women because they would have other outlets for their masculinity and sex would assume its normal role. Really, he says, you are playing into the exact role that women want you to when you are working so hard to be exactly what they want to have commitment-free sex with, just like the bonobo males who try to please their females in order to get their turn. And you might think that you are winning because you are being what they REALLY want, not what they say they want, so YOU are in control. But if you have deformed your masculinity into being their bodily vibrators (and working ever so hard to be a good one, at that), then really they have succeeded in diverting your attention away from your natural male impulses, of violence and male-oriented social interactions. That’s a win for the feminist movement.

In other words, by coming in here and immediately trying to apply it to getting women, you have already lost.[/quote]

After the first sentence I wanted to answer that it is not all about getting laid and then you wrote the rest and now I cant.

I hate you.

[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
I find it a bit funny when a man expouses primitive traits as the essence of manhood. You know what the object of the game used to be, when this sort of philosophy was necessary? Have the most offspring, so your genes could propagate. Maybe a woman should be writing the book on how to be a man. [/quote]

na, that just happened on its own.

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Teledin wrote:
My main beef with the way men are evolving is the fact we as a gender are becoming far too soft-skilled.[/quote]

Why do you see that as a problem?

Soft skills generally get you further along in modern society. Just because they’re “soft” doesn’t mean they’re immune to aggressiveness and competitiveness.[/quote]

Usually “soft skilled” men are weak.

They emulate women.

Men that are not weak and can use soft skills usually border on the psychopathic side.

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, if its behavior that gets rewarded?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Teledin wrote:
My main beef with the way men are evolving is the fact we as a gender are becoming far too soft-skilled.[/quote]

Why do you see that as a problem?

Soft skills generally get you further along in modern society. Just because they’re “soft” doesn’t mean they’re immune to aggressiveness and competitiveness.[/quote]

Usually “soft skilled” men are weak.

They emulate women.

Men that are not weak and can use soft skills usually border on the psychopathic side.

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, if its behavior that gets rewarded?[/quote]

Psychopathic? Nah. Just being pragmatic.

It’s not my fault people can be manipulated. :wink:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Teledin wrote:
My main beef with the way men are evolving is the fact we as a gender are becoming far too soft-skilled.[/quote]

Why do you see that as a problem?

Soft skills generally get you further along in modern society. Just because they’re “soft” doesn’t mean they’re immune to aggressiveness and competitiveness.[/quote]

No denying that however that isn’t the context I was referring to.

Soft-skill dominance is a problem when your typical adult male is incapable of thinking themselves through a simple hands on problem.

  • Changing the oil in the car
  • Solving basic plumbing issues
  • Driving a car
  • etc.

Life basics. Unfortunately it is far too prevalent with contemporary young adults.

[quote]Teledin wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Teledin wrote:
My main beef with the way men are evolving is the fact we as a gender are becoming far too soft-skilled.[/quote]

Why do you see that as a problem?

Soft skills generally get you further along in modern society. Just because they’re “soft” doesn’t mean they’re immune to aggressiveness and competitiveness.[/quote]

No denying that however that isn’t the context I was referring to.

Soft-skill dominance is a problem when your typical adult male is incapable of thinking themselves through a simple hands on problem.

  • Changing the oil in the car
  • Solving basic plumbing issues
  • Driving a car
  • etc.

Life basics. Unfortunately it is far too prevalent with contemporary young adults.[/quote]

Oh, I see what you mean.

Yeah. Soft skills at the exclusion of all else is a problem. As part of a greater package, I find them very useful.

WOuld be interesting to see how he compares Ghengis Khan, the Roman legions, Greece, Vikings and American Indians to today’s equivalents.

Such as the military, African ethnic armies, Terrorists, Mexican cartels, the City power brokers in New York, London etc and the ever increasing violent crime such as murder suicide of families and mass murders in cinemas.

Man has always had the capacity to destroy itself, the nuclear bomb is no different to the sacking, rape and pillage of ancient cities after a siege.

Bandits roaming the countryside in groups can be likened to the cartels and terrorists.

Leaders such as Ghengis Khan who believed in spreading his genes can be likened to leaders today who cheat on their wives or in some countries, take multiple wives.

Then there are those leaders such as Julius Caesar. He can be likened to several generals over the past one hundred years.

Man has never changed, he has just been faced with different challenges from both adversaries and society. You cannot really expect to get away with kicking a guy in the face, even if he deserved it.

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

Man has never changed, he has just been faced with different challenges from both adversaries and society. You cannot really expect to get away with kicking a guy in the face, even if he deserved it.

[/quote]

Lies.

Machiavelli had the answer to this, if you start kicking, make sure that he stays down.

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
He never once mentioned the role the ability to get laid in the book plays in this or how women may have coevolved along with men.

He did say modern day anarachists are pussies for listening to noam chomsky, when they use to wield some real power and assassinate world leaders regularly. [/quote]

Well he is right, but the point is that you can draw conclusions from this, in fact you must if you want to take our true nature into account.

Men are not fluffy teddy bears but born killers and a fruitful approach does not try to suppress that but to channel it. [/quote]

He does talk about getting laid. That’s where the “Bonobo Masturbation Society” stuff comes in. Basically, he argues that in today’s society the only expression of masculinity that is left is hooking up with lot of women, which, although men have always wanted sex, was never really one of the four original manly values. Really, it is the free sex movement and advent of birth control that has allowed women to open this up to society. He suggests that properly masculinized men would not be so concerned with hooking up or gaming women because they would have other outlets for their masculinity and sex would assume its normal role. Really, he says, you are playing into the exact role that women want you to when you are working so hard to be exactly what they want to have commitment-free sex with, just like the bonobo males who try to please their females in order to get their turn. And you might think that you are winning because you are being what they REALLY want, not what they say they want, so YOU are in control. But if you have deformed your masculinity into being their bodily vibrators (and working ever so hard to be a good one, at that), then really they have succeeded in diverting your attention away from your natural male impulses, of violence and male-oriented social interactions. That’s a win for the feminist movement.

In other words, by coming in here and immediately trying to apply it to getting women, you have already lost.[/quote]

Great post. This is exactly the point that I just finished making in the “pussywhipped” thread regarding Western males and Japanese females. The reason “Game” as a cultural meme even exists is as a remedy to an issue that didn’t even exist, would not have been conceivable, even a hundred years ago. It is necessarily misdirected, as so many of our energies are, and the void that once was filled by a clearly defined duties, responsibilities and expectations; honor, and a very real life and death struggle as leader (as head and protector of your household, if nothing else), has atrophied into, well, yeah, a bonobo is a pretty good metaphor for what masquerades as “respectable” these days.

I’ll take building my business, contributing to my community, raising my two sons, caring for my wife, and improving my mind and body and leaving the world a better place than I found it over Mystery’s entire lifelong harem of vapid semen-receptacles.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Great post. This is exactly the point that I just finished making in the “pussywhipped” thread regarding Western males and Japanese females. The reason “Game” as a cultural meme even exists is as a remedy to an issue that didn’t even exist, would not have been conceivable, even a hundred years ago. It is necessarily misdirected, as so many of our energies are, and the void that once was filled by a clearly defined duties, responsibilities and expectations; honor, and a very real life and death struggle as leader (as head and protector of your household, if nothing else), has atrophied into, well, yeah, a bonobo is a pretty good metaphor for what masquerades as “respectable” these days.
[/quote]

“Misdirected” is a strong word for something that adresses the most basic human drive.

It is bad for society as a whole, yes, but why should any man feel any responsibility for a society that expects him to be the workhorse without any of the benefits, mostly sex and respect.

[quote]
I’ll take building my business, contributing to my community, raising my two sons, caring for my wife, and improving my mind and body and leaving the world a better place than I found it over Mystery’s entire lifelong harem of vapid semen-receptacles. [/quote]

That was the deal and women scrubbed it.

The best most men can hope for is a women who wised up (meaning she can no longer compete with 19 year olds) after having explored her sexuality (meaning she jumped from alpha cock to alpha cock) and pay the full price for a rapidly declining asset that was given away for free in its prime.

Even that can be taken away from him, even if he has done everything “right”, “right” being by and large defined by an emasculated society that swallowed the female narrative hook, line and sinker.

If the average beta, meaning men who get things done, has to whorship at the altar of pussy and accept an atrocious deal in order to get some, keeping the wheels of civilization turning does not seem to be such a noble calling after all, if he can get more and better sex with a feather boa and a nipple piercing.

This book and this thread = Overthinking to the maximum degree.

The phrase “One mans cowardice is another mans courage” can be changed to “One mans manliness is another mans girliness/womanliness”

Tis all subjective.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

Man has never changed, he has just been faced with different challenges from both adversaries and society. You cannot really expect to get away with kicking a guy in the face, even if he deserved it.

[/quote]

Lies.

Machiavelli had the answer to this, if you start kicking, make sure that he stays down.

[/quote]

Spot on. “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”

[quote]theuofh wrote:
Theres one shitty section in there where he dicusses some emails he exchanged with the guy from the art of manliness, which should be scrubbed in an edit.
[/quote]

He has an issue with Brett Mckay of AoM? Do you mind elaborating?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Teledin wrote:
My main beef with the way men are evolving is the fact we as a gender are becoming far too soft-skilled.[/quote]

Why do you see that as a problem?

Soft skills generally get you further along in modern society. Just because they’re “soft” doesn’t mean they’re immune to aggressiveness and competitiveness.[/quote]

Usually “soft skilled” men are weak.

They emulate women.

Men that are not weak and can use soft skills usually border on the psychopathic side.

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, if its behavior that gets rewarded?[/quote]

Define soft skills please

Because if this basically boils down to what you yourself deem “masculine” or “hard” skills, this is just a wank fest.

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
Theres one shitty section in there where he dicusses some emails he exchanged with the guy from the art of manliness, which should be scrubbed in an edit.
[/quote]

He has an issue with Brett Mckay of AoM? Do you mind elaborating? [/quote]

No.

Yes, Read the fucking book.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Great post. This is exactly the point that I just finished making in the “pussywhipped” thread regarding Western males and Japanese females. The reason “Game” as a cultural meme even exists is as a remedy to an issue that didn’t even exist, would not have been conceivable, even a hundred years ago. It is necessarily misdirected, as so many of our energies are, and the void that once was filled by a clearly defined duties, responsibilities and expectations; honor, and a very real life and death struggle as leader (as head and protector of your household, if nothing else), has atrophied into, well, yeah, a bonobo is a pretty good metaphor for what masquerades as “respectable” these days.
[/quote]

“Misdirected” is a strong word for something that adresses the most basic human drive.

It is bad for society as a whole, yes, but why should any man feel any responsibility for a society that expects him to be the workhorse without any of the benefits, mostly sex and respect.

“Misdirected” as in the belief that man’s most admirable achievement can be quantified using notches on a bedpost.

We pretty much agree on everything else. Indeed, based upon everything you wrote after the first sentence, we are pretty much saying the same thing.