Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Authenticity

Gucci Little Piggy ran a post the other day on the subject of the Men's Rights Movement and the adherents of Game. It was pretty much the same stuff that has been rehashed on the rest of the blogosphere. But one of the commentators, Harry, most likely a troll, raised what I think is a toxic contemporary issue: that of individual Authenticity. I've edited some of Harry's comments to get to the gist of his argument:
I want to find women who concede that who I AM is a value. I do not want to have to ADAPT to what SHE considers a value. I do not need a woman who does not see ME as a value to become *ideologically contrite* – I simply do not wish to be with her. A self-respecting man does not wish to be with people who do not see HIM (the genuine him) as a value.
and:

Right, and ADAPTING to female group preferences by faking what I think, feel, value, and believe, is NOT honestly presenting myself, is it? Yet you say this is part of game – to the extent that it is, the concept of HONEST GAME is a contradiction. 

I would not insult the interviewer because it is not relevant to the interview. Honesty pays attention to context – you do not pointlessly volunteer information that is not relevant in that particular context. If the interviewer ASKED me, however, I WOULD be honest.

Being authentic does NOT mean volunteering every thought that is on your mind regardless of context. It DOES mean being honest when asked, and not disguising your true thoughts in context where it is appropriate to reveal who you ARE (social interactions).
See what I am getting at?

You make a GREAT point that a job does not NECESSARILY involve degrading yourself. I believe FAKING myself involves degrading myself. If a job required that, I would not do it. If a job required me to PRETEND to think otherwise than I do, I would not do it.
Its the same with women – if she requires me to pretend to be who I am not, I do not want her.
Harry's arguments, like all great heresies, contains an element of truth. Most men would agree, that one of qualities which define masculinity is independence, and Harry's contention that men shouldn't bend to the will or tastes of others would superficially seem quite correct. However, like a lot of mental pathologies, it's a good idea that has been taken out of context and taken too far. The question that needs to be asked is, is changing of self, in response to the desires of others, always wrong? Does a man diminish himself in someway by acquiescing to others?

It's an idea that's rooted in solipsism, an idea that assumes that uniqueness and goodness are the same, and that conformity is someway an evil. It is a profoundly anti-social concept and an inconsiderate view,  in that it denies the legitimacy of other peoples desires, especially those desires that are in themselves legitimate.  It's boorishness masquerading as high principle.

The reason why I raise this issue is because of one of the subtle unndercurrents that bobs up occasionally in the Game and MRA communities, namely, the illegitimacy of a woman's desires. There somehow seems to be this meme that keeps rearing its head, that a woman is somehow in the wrong for wanting an alpha male. There seems to be this disapproval amongst quite a few men, especially in the MRA community that a woman is somehow evil for wanting an alpha male.

Now, there seems to be fair amount of scientific evidence that suggests that women involuntarily find certain traits sexually attractive and that this response is relatively hard wired: Attraction is not a choice. Therefore is a man somehow inauthentic by changing himself in someway to satisfy a woman's desires.

I mean, if we flip the script for a moment, would we criticise  a fat woman for loosing weight in order to make herself more attractive to her mate? Would we criticise a woman who instead of spending all the household finances chose to restrain herself in order to keep her husband happy? Would we criticise a woman who dressed in skimpy lingerie, to keep her husband happy, even though she normally would be quite happy in her standard cotton underwear. Would we say that she is inauthentic or comprimising herself in such a way? Most normal people would say that such a woman is a good woman for doing these things.

In fact, her changing to satisfy her husband has made her more womanly. We become more ourselves when we are considerate of the legitimate desires of others. A man who can push his wife's sexual and emotional buttons is more manly than one who can't. It's  therefore incumbent upon men to ensure that they make themselves attractive to their partners. Men and women are complementary. We were made for each other and we aren't ourselves when we pretend that the other does not exist or matter.

Of course, it would be the radical feminists who would be the first to disagree with this line of thought (It's why I suspected that "Harry" was a woman). Their line of reasoning,  is that any "sacrifice" a woman makes for the sake of a man is somehow a loss of her "identity". It's the same argument made by Harry and some the MRA types. In fact, a lot of MRA thinking has the same structure as feminist thinking, and sometimes  I wonder if the MGTOW types are really the male versions of Andrea Dworkin. What happens when sexual desire needs to be sated and  women are off the radar?  It becomes a choice between celibacy and Homosexuality.

We can't be fully men without recognising that being a man involves being able to satisify the desires of a woman.  Think about it.

11 comments:

Will S. said...

Or at least, we can't hope to attain a relationship, if we aren't the type of man women find attractive. A man is a man regardless, but if indeed he seeks companionship, as most do, he will have to be a good catch.

The Social Pathologist said...

A man is a man regardless

A lot of men "out there" are boys. It's one of the reasons for the alpha harem effect.

If we assume that the sexes are complimentary, then by definition, a woman will respond to what is masculine, and not respond to that which is not masucline. The implication of this is that a lot of men out there are not masculine.

A man then needs to "alpha up" in order to become more masculine.

This does not men being the man women want, but being the man women need.

Will S. said...

If they are 'boys', as you term them, they are simply immature men, no?

Is not an adult male a man, simply by virtue of bearing the Imago Dei? We are created in God's image, and therefore, all it takes to be a man, is to be an adult male. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't aspire to certain standards, uphold them as ideals that men ought to reach for. But the whole 'be a man', 'man up', rhetoric invoked by both feminists and all too many social conservatives as well, is predicated on the idea that masculinity is socially constructed, rather than inherent in being an adult male. Whereas women, apparently, get to be a women simply by virtue of being adult females; no-one, traditionalist or feminist, ever suggests they have to do or achieve something to be thought of as a woman.

Frankly, I find such a discrepancy bullshit.

nyccine said...

I can only shake my head in sorrow.

I don't think I've seen a posting so completely miss the point; not just of the target of your criticism, but of the entire issue.

You specifically criticise the poster for insisting on "being true to himself," yet accept as given that a woman being "true to herself" - her hardwired desires - is just and right.

I thought you claimed to read Roissy? You have completely failed to grasp what he teaches. He, and "alphas" succeed by engaging the Dark Triad behaviours, and this is what the research shows women want. This is not compatible with Christ's teachings, full stop. This is not compatible with creating a stable, civilised society, full stop.

This aspect of social conservatives just blows my mind - our entire world-view is predicated on the notion that our innermost desires are not compatible with long-term happiness - we are hard-wired to eat to satiation and beyond, we are hard-wired to persue short term gains over long term, and any evolutionary biologist can confirm this for you. Yet, when it comes to female sexual preferences, we cannot criticise it, we must embrace it (note that the male preference for soft harems, where he takes no responsibility for the care of the women, contrary to Bibilical commands to love one's wife as Christ loved the Church; i.e. lay down his life for her, is not given the same leeway.)

Jehu said...

Pathologist,
A great deal of the resentment comes from this combination of factors:
1. Women find the dark triad behaviors attractive at a gut level and,
2. Healthy societies hammer the hell out of males showing dark triad behaviors (which means that under healthy conditions, getting away with such behavior indicates that you've got something ELSE going for you in a big way). Our society does not, and,
3. Many of the costs to women of playing in the dark triad have been socialized away (welfare, aid to single mothers, etc) and,
4. Society has ceased to shame women for playing in the dark triad.
The resentment comes from the feeling that the game has been systematically rigged---that is, once those resenting it work through their resentment at being systematically lied to about what women want by their culture and women in general.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Will S.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't aspire to certain standards, uphold them as ideals that men ought to reach for. But the whole 'be a man', 'man up', rhetoric invoked by both feminists and all too many social conservatives as well, is predicated on the idea that masculinity is socially constructed,

With due respect there is a contradiction there. One one hand, you're saying we need to aspire to certain good standards, on the other you saying standards are social constructed and therefore bad.

Masculinity has a certain quality. And a man can choose to act in a way that affirms that quality or act in an opposite way. Homosexuality, for example, is anti-masculine:Since the proper object of male sexual desire is a woman. Forbearance of pain, industriousness and courage are likewise the qualities of man hood. These are not social constructs but universally recognised qualities of manhood.

Can you point me to where I said women should get away scot-free? I'm sorry, but women too can violate their essential natures through actions which violate their femininity. A classic example of this is the butch obese lesbian who, through her choices, presents a most unfeminine version of the XX chromosome set. The concept of femininity is associated with grace, demurement, beauty and elegance. The drunk co-ed with her legs in the air can be said to lack that quality as well.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Nyccine

You specifically criticise the poster for insisting on "being true to himself," yet accept as given that a woman being "true to herself" - her hardwired desires - is just and right.

Firstly, I qualified my statement with the word legitimate, I also mentioned that female desire operates not on its own, but in the context of the other factors of a relationship. In other words, what I'm trying to say that female desire has a proper object, but the satisfaction of that desire has to achieved within reason.

and this is what the research shows women want. This is not compatible with Christ's teachings, full stop. This is not compatible with creating a stable, civilised society, full stop

Jesus did not expect us to be nice, he wanted us to be good. There is a big difference. Each man must have a bit of the dark triad in him. To be a supplicant to your wife is to kill the sexual attraction, a sexual appetite that was put in there by God.

Athol Kay and Keoni Galt deal with this balance between alpha and good husband very well. I suggest that you look at their material.

our entire world-view is predicated on the notion that our innermost desires are not compatible with long-term happiness

Nope. That's not social conservatism, that puritanism. Our innate desires are meant to be satisfied, but rationally and according to Gods law. The aim is to be able to control our appetites, not suppress or worship them. I agree though, that a lot of social conservatism, particularly Anglo conservatism, tended to drift toward the puritan side of things.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Jehu

A great deal of the resentment comes from this combination of factors:

I agree Jehu. I had drunk a lot of the Kool-Aid myself. Still what bothers me about a lot of the MRM is the solution they propose in response to the realisation.

Tarring all women as being bad is rubbish. There are good women out there and the natural biological urge should be to go and find them.

Secondly, there's quite a few men who feel that there is something wrong with women for not liking them for being who they are.

Now the fundamental question is, are who they are someone worth liking?

Look, I see a lot of women contemplating divorce in my professional work (believe it or not most women don't want to leave. But the number one complaint I get from them is that are sick of being their husbands mother.) They want a man who can make decisions and give direction. I've actually had women ask me Roissy's blog address to show to their husbands.

I've also tried helping some of the "nice guys" out. I have even bought Neil Strauss's book for some of my personal friends who aren't married and are having a hard time with the opposite sex. Guess what? They haven't even bothered to read it. It's too hard to change. They'd rather be lonely than make the effort to change. But they sure as hell complain about being alone. It's far easier to blame the women than make an effort.

That's not saying that some women are outright evil bitches. But there are some good women out there who have married objectively loser males. I'm quite happy to lay the boot into the evil women, but I'm also going to lay the boot into men who don't want to change for the better.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Good post SP. Finger on the pulse as usual. You have what many lack in the MRM.. Objectivity..

I love a man who takes things into his hands and gets what he demands. (Like my husband)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4R6rMdELtM&feature=fvwp&NR=1

Just the right combination of Alpha and Beta.. ;)

Kathy Farrelly said...

A man just shouldn't be a doormat. I think that sums it up.

Women like strong decisive men. Not pushovers. My husband is actually what you would call an upper beta I suppose.

However he is assertive(has to be to run a successful business) and won't put up with crap. If I am in a PMS mood he completely ignores me. Lol..And, really, when a woman is in such a hormonal mood it is best to ignore her because you won't get too much sense out of her. ;)

I was attracted to my husband's openness and honesty. No pretence's(he's a straight shooter like me)It was a breath of fresh air.

The first time we met, when he came around to my house to give me a quote on a pergola cover, we talked for about two hours. We had a lot in common.. Mind you he had the most beautiful smiling blue eyes as well.

He's not an Alpha in the true sense of the word, though.

I have never been attracted to the cocky overly confident types.

Some women may equate that sort of behaviour with being masculine, but a man doesn't have to be an "asshole" to be attractive.

Just strong and assertive.

The Social Pathologist said...

I have never been attracted to the cocky overly confident types.

Whilst we generalise about women, it needs to be understood that there is a wide spectrum of response to typical alpha behaviour. Some women like overt and crude alpha displays whilst others like more subtle manifestations. Generally speaking, the "coarser" the woman the more overt the response. Still, every man has to have at least a bit of alpha, and every now an then a lot of it.