The MRA'ers generally decry the tactic as an irrational part of the modern female's modus operandi. But such a perfunctory admonishment of this behavior obscures the previous effectiveness of shaming. And, in its previous reincarnations, it wasn't merely for the trivial benefits of sexual politics; rather, it effectively drove large scale behavior and helped temper the potential dysfunction of modern peoples.
I previously touched on this topic a few months ago:
In the downfall of civilization, we see men and women attempting to subvert mores that encourage social stability. Invariably, primal desires take precedence over actions that provide for or buttress the common good. If wealth inequality pervades a region, such as in South America, men will murder and steal to appropriate wealth for themselves. If power becomes available, men like Stalin and Pope Gregory IX will claim it, implementing ruthless strategies to sustain their rule. If social norms preclude the shaming of old maids, women, motivated by their hypergamic urges for an alpha-male hunter, will waste their fertile years and end up childless as they hold out for a higher status mate.Prior to the 1960's, shaming was an integral part of how America reined in the dysfunction of blacks and women. Women were confined to the household, providing structure for proper childhood development and tending to the productive male workforce. Blacks, despite their relative dysfunction as compared to whites, mostly followed the European mainstream culture, stressing conservative values such as family and religion.
In this time, the PC rhetoric that so dominates our culture had little pull in controlling discourse. Thus, an underqualified woman, lacking proper aptitudes for work outside the home, would have been shunned and discouraged from seeking employment. The greater good, the collective stability of the West, took precedence over the insignificant wants of a selfish housewife. The corporate culture would only accept the most astute of women, as all others would be belittled through quips such as "little lady" and more blatantly sexist remarks. Respect was earned for those special few and they generally produced, but an overwhelming of the marketplace by women was moderated by white male shaming and even reiterated by fellow women. Addionally, the shaming of the old maid, a portrayal always shown in a negative light, scared women into higher fertility and away from hypergamy.
Similarly, racial minorities, primarily blacks, couldn't engage in the overt racialism so prevalent today. Instead, the ol' boy network, unwilling to give handouts to "affirmative action" candidates, didn't shy away from advertising the exclusivity of their clubs. Again, only the most competent of blacks would garner respect in such an intense environment. The ol' boy network would shame the incompetent Michelle Obama's, eventually pushing them into more appropriate work. Further, the thuggish, violent, and libertine norms of black communities and culture that liberals consider acceptable (moral relativism) would be shamed as the antithesis of the more proper and successful white mainstream. To deviate from the white norms of the pre-Civil Rights era was to be an outsider from the positive standards of society. This framing was possible because no racial PC rhetoric attempted to couch all cultures as equivalent; rather, the West was held up as a virtue and the standards of it were something to aspire towards.
But today, the entire system of shaming has reverted from those that should have it to those who shouldn't have it. Shaming is no longer the refuge of the most productive class, generally middle and upper class white (and assimilated Asian) males. This was the correct order of things; the most stable and productive of society should dictate the mores of its less able populations. Currently, NAMs and females have appropriated this powerful tool, one that could potentially prove useful in saving the West. White males are now shamed for merely existing, shamed for voicing the most obvious of truths, shamed for voicing opposition to deleterious behavioral patterns, and shamed for not acquiescing to the demands of the less productive classes.
Shaming must be reacquired by those capable of motivating the proper norms of the West. Until then, the cultural zeitgeist will continue to drift into oblivion.
25 comments:
What's MRA? Male Rights Activist? I couldn't find a definition anywhere.
This whole area is really a "moral hazard" problem. The question is always, "Do you treat foolish behaviour harshly or gently?" If you treat it harshly, you cause obvious hurt. But if you treat it too gently, you fail to discourage foolish behaviour that should be discouraged. An excellent example is the treatment of unwed mothers. If the community trends towards not shaming such women, this is kind to the individual women, but has the eventual negative effect of tacitly encouraging such behaviour.
If women are overall less intelligent than men in how they plan their lives, it might be particularly important to have social shaming apply to them, expecially as women tend to be "herd creatures". Also, women's mistakes tend to be more "life and death" errors than men's.
Shaming already well-behaved white and asian men does little harm, because it will have little net effect on their behaviour, apart from making cautious men even more cautious.
I see a trend to mock women more these days for bad choices, especially for "forgetting to have children". I suspect though that women will learn mostly from watching the unhappiness of older women they know. The misery of a childless aunt will teach a woman more than the kindly advice of a man.
"Hypergamy" is a term I've seen used a lot in the Steveosphere. What exactly does this mean? Is this meant to mean that some women aren't simply "marrying up", but that they are holding out for men much further above them? Further above than has been normal?
Shame is a very valuable tool and should be learned to be used effectively. I've found that many men are poor at effectively shaming others, as they usually attack others in a hostile manner and that only serves to drive a rift between people as opposed to causing real shame. Shame is best applied through establishing mutual connections and empathy. This is one of the reasons that women are so good at it. They understand the emotional connection involved in the act. In order for a person to feel real shame, they need to have a respect or admiration for the person shaming them, or at the very least they need to feel they need that person's approval.
When speaking with liberals, the best approach is not an intellectual one, but an emotional one. You must connect with their point of view and show passion for their concerns. They must see you as an ally to their cause. If you come across as an opponent they won't listen to anything you say. Who cares what your enemy thinks? Once a common ground is met, then you must turn the tables on them. Shame them for their beliefs. Get them to believe that they are the racists. When they promote affirmative action, tell them how disappointed you are that they don't believe Blacks are our equals. Attack what is most important to them - their sense of superior morality.
Generally I agree with OneSTDV, but he may be over looking the value of withholding praise. Women are especially keen to seeing who is being praised and for what. They are extremely easy to manipulate with praise and more specifically by withholding it. In my opinion this is the reason girls will work so hard in school. Girls tend to get better grades than their ability would predict. Some say it is because so many teachers are female and relate better to girls but I am skeptical. In contrast, boys are much harder to motivate this way. They are more motivated by competition with other males and care far less about having a good report from the teacher or her approval.
Anyway the rise in single motherhood among women has more to do with the praise they get from society for being "independent" than it does with just the loss of shame. Just removing shame isn't enough, there has to be an upside. Likewise many young women who see themselves as "good girls" maintain this status in their family and peer group by going to college and doing well. Since I am so old, I know many women kicking themselves for waiting too long to start families and not being able to have as many children as they wanted because they were on the approval gravy train. Many of these women actually married young enough, but still seeking approval, delayed having children for the various reasons that society and family approve of.
I bring up the point of women's self image because they are more affected by other's perception of them than men are. So I agree that not shaming for bad behavior affects women's behavior, but I also think that the positive reinforcement women get for being "independent" read employed and slutty, may be as great or greater influence.
As for women holding out for a higher status mate, this is a non starter. You don't "hold out" for a higher status mate because holding out implies waiting which is like wasting all your ammo before you get a chance to shoot the big bad monster at the end of level 11 in a video game. To get a higher status mate (alpha leader of other men or rich) she has to have something to offer, like amazing beauty, a lot of status of her own, wealth, or youth. Obviously the only one of those we all get is youth. So holding out is counter productive even if she is rich, or a doctor, or gorgeous.
I think this is a dumb side issue mostly brought up by guys who are bitterly divorced. Women have always been good at ridiculing - other women, mostly.
The problem with women ridiculing men for being pussies is that nowadays men are damned if they submit to feminized modes and damned if they act like men.
As Mort Sahl said, "women alternately bemoan the lack of virility in men and stamp it out wherever they find it."
THAT's the problem - not that some chicks have sharp tongues. You enjoy that sharp tongue when it's deployed against your enemy to bring him down.
"As for women holding out for a higher status mate, this is a non starter."
Here is what I'm trying to understand:
*Where does the Steveosphere differ from liberals and feminists in their definition of hypergamy or "marrying up"?
*What are the differences in the critiques?
As long as I've been alive, I've only heard liberals, especially feminists, criticize "marrying up" (and conservatives pronouncing it as natural and biologically driven) so when I started seeing it pop up here as something bad, I began wondering what was going on.
Julian, Sagat, and Silly
Girl; great posts, and excellent insight.
Anon,
Why not pick a handle? You do realize that when it comes down to it you are no more anonymous this way, right? You still have an IP#, etc.
Perhaps as a blog community we should respond with titles such as "sport", "buddy", etc to those who refuse to assign a title to themselves. ;)
*Where does the Steveosphere differ from liberals and feminists in their definition of hypergamy or "marrying up"?
These are two entirely different things. Hypergamy is what is happening when women all go after essentially the same very small subset of men in a non monogamous context. The other term I've seen for this is "soft polygamy". "Marrying up" is when a woman marries the best man she can. Of course men are trying to do the same thing. The only difference is that men tend to value beauty and youth, while women tend to value wealth and power, etc.
Another way to look at the hypergamy vs monogamy question is: one breeds tramps, the other breeds the next generation.
"Hypergamy is what is happening when women all go after essentially the same very small subset of men in a non monogamous context."
Thanks for this, Dalrock.
"Hypergamy" is colloquially known as "marrying up"; a better term needs to be used for what you describe. The corollary to women "marrying up" is that men marry down (feminists hate this because it means the *bettering" of themselves is worse than useless). This inequality has always been despised by liberals who explain it away as "an artifact of society where women depend on men".
I remember Rush Limbaugh ticking off feminists years ago by recalling that his grandfather taught him this and pronounced it true.
@anon
"Hypergamy" is colloquially known as "marrying up"; a better term needs to be used for what you describe.
I looked this up and see that you are right. Perhaps I'm the one who has misunderstood the term. Or perhaps it is being used differently in the steveosphere, or more specifically the roissysphere (http://roissy.wordpress.com/).
I'm sure someone who knows this better than I will chime in.
Oh, and next time I'll call you sport! :)
The other day I noticed a number of blacks using shaming language at Roissy's blog.
"Women were confined to the household, providing structure for proper childhood development and tending to the productive male workforce"
Sorry, but I just cannot accept that in a modern society the only possible role for the large majority of females is permanent housewifery.
Due to our long lifespans and low levels of infant mortality, a woman may produce several childen, stay at home with them while they are very young and still have decades in which to pursue a career.
Now, given the time she has invested in her offsping, she might have to accept that she will likely not climb as far up the hierarchy as a male peer of comparable ability.
Persuading society to accept disparities such as these would be easier and more productive that shrilly demanding that, once their kids are in school, women spend the rest of their lives simply "tending to the productive male workforce". Some will be happy to do that, but to many intelligent women being "confined to the household" would be terrible.
LFSS, you're the only one being shrill here. As you've just demonstrated, most people will react to anything that is even mildly critical of the "girl power!" status quo as if they were demanding that all women be barefoot, pregnant, and handcuffed to the stove. Merely observing that traditional culture had some advantages over our own is not the "shrill demand" you seem to think it is.
"Some will be happy to do that, but to many intelligent women being "confined to the household" would be terrible."
Fully agree. I tried to make that point here:
"Respect was earned for those special few and they generally produced, but an overwhelming of the marketplace by women was moderated by white male shaming and even reiterated by fellow women."
There are many capable women and they should be encouraged to pursue intellectually and emotionally challenging work. But way too many of them are being unproductive (government jobs, diversity jobs, feminism organizations, other ones that I can't think of right now) and would be a better service to the society by properly raising children and supporting the male workforce.
"Sorry, but I just cannot accept that in a modern society the only possible role for the large majority of females is permanent housewifery. "
Well, you won't have to "accept" it. It won't be an option.
Even though white/Asian women aren't as productive as white/Asian men in the workplace, they are still better than NAMs. These women will be in demand because they are more able than NAMs.
Raise your hand if you would rather have a white nurse or a NAM nurse. The hospital agrees.
And to Jay Silverheels, I don't think "sharp tongues" are the issue here. OneSTDV is commenting on how our society seems to have granted the moral authority to the least productive groups - the "to each according to his need" of Cultural Marxism - and how that shapes the debate.
Mike,
I take your point but I disagreed with the introductory example on the grounds that it's unique to our time.
Perhaps being a little older than you I can tell you that women have done this forever. It didn't take modern feminism to bring it on.
As far as morals are concerned everything's been turned upside down. Being white is at best uncool; being black is candidacy for sainthood.
That's what we've got to expose at every opportunity. Face that, and the shaming issue becomes much easier to handle.
Sorry to be verbose, but I want to clarify something. Mixing up white women with NAM's in the shaming business is sick and dangerous. As I said, women have always used shaming techniques - they didn't in the past have political power. So they made men act like men using shame.
What's horrible about white women using shaming techniques now is this:
1. They are shaming them into being unmanly;
2. They have political power, so why be afforded the feminine power of shaming, as well as the formal power of men?
This sucks. It's screwed up. It's bad for business.
When white women start acting like ladies again, I'll put up with their age-old shaming like a gentleman. I will never submit to NAM shaming. They are not my friends, wife, mother, sister, or daughter.
I protest against mixing the apples represented by white women with the rotten eggs of NAMs. The two aren't remotely comparable.
"OneSTDV is commenting on how our society seems to have granted the moral authority to the least productive groups - the "to each according to his need" of Cultural Marxism - and how that shapes the debate."
However capitalism is the means by which you get "from each according to his ability".
this reminded me of a great post by T aka Ricky Raw, found here http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/008351.html
Regarding the effectiveness of shaming tactics, he writes that it is dependent upon the target's 'locus of control': that is, their perception of how much influence they have upon their own success. The 'leftist' attitude of entitlement fosters an external locus of control. Minorities that are taught in terms of racism, oppression, and corrupt, plutocratic capitalism are much less likely to take responsibility for their plights, as blame can be appropriated elsewhere. The same goes for fat people who focus on genetics and thyroid conditions over their own diet and exercise, and 'equal rights' feminists that hit career ceilings.
This ideological split mirrors our current political bipartinship. The suggestion to be gleaned is that shaming is most effective when an internal locus of control is the status quo.
Shame only works on people who give a crap what other people think about them.
As an anti-social person, I thumb my nose.
And let me say the "little lady" etc remarks more showed me how insecure various men were than as a way to keep underqualified women out. Speaking as one who has seen it in action, it's generally the second-rate men who engage in that activity.
OneSTDV: this might be a bit late, but, rereading my comment of a couple of days ago, it seems more hostile than I meant it to. All I can say is that it was written long after I ought to have been in bed (I'm in the UK).
Anyway, although I might be somewhat more sympathetic to (aspects of) feminism than you, I think on the whole you (and the Stevosphere generally) are doing a very valuable job: discovering sites such as this one has been a real eye-opener, I can tell you.
"this might be a bit late"
it shows up in the recent comments, so it's highly likely i'll read it.
"it seems more hostile than I meant it to."
Not really.
"although I might be somewhat more sympathetic to (aspects of) feminism than you"
I doubt it. Compared to the Steveosphere and definitely the Roissysphere, I'm probably an outlier. As for feminism, I don't object to the notion that qualified women should be free to pursue occupations for which they're qualified. Though this must be tempered somewhat considering that women have children, have lower aptitudes in many important fields, women are the best parents, and they're the natural nurturers. In general, I probably disagree with the idea that feminism is a horrible threat.
Further, I object the idea that we live in an OPPRESSIVE patriarchy, in the sense that some garbage glass ceiling exists. We live in a male-dominated society though, because males are the best leaders. Also, and this one is obvious, i have no problem with the disparate achievement of gender groups.
Finally, what really irks me about feminism is the prevasiness of female supremacy, or the notion that females have a higher value than males. Look at terms like "violence against women" or "respect for women". And look at how female medical problems and domestic abuse are classified in media as compared to generally male problems.
"I think on the whole you (and the Stevosphere generally) are doing a very valuable job: discovering sites such as this one has been a real eye-opener, I can tell you."
I appreciate it. When I started by Steveosphere reading a few years back, I had a similar experience. Though I've had un-PC beliefs for many years now.
"The corollary to women "marrying up" is that men marry down (feminists hate this because it means the *bettering" of themselves is worse than useless)."
NOT. We actually LOVE it, because that means the more we better ourselves, the higher up we can go, since only the cream of the crop men will be "marrying down" for us.
(in prole terms that you can understand: we're becoming too good for ordinary men, which is fine by us)
Post a Comment