The Wife Is Not Your Friend

Here is an excellent video about male emotional dependence and retardation. Men/boys are conditioned to believe that a wife is to be man’s closest friend but in reality, a wife is no such thing—rarely ever even close. When a man depends on his wife for friendship, it opens the man to emotional manipulation and exploitation. His emotional development retards and his relationships with other men becomes shallow and relatively meaningless talk about sports or some other fetishistic activity that deflects away from meaningful talk.

I talked with a man the other day who had labored for more than 30 years at the same job. I asked him how much longer until retirement. He wasn’t sure, but his wife…his “best friend,” chimed in immediately. She had the date coldly calculated to the month—knowing exactly how long his income would last. The wife kept better tabs on the husband’s career and money than the husband because she isn’t his friend. She doesn’t “love” him as a friend or human-being. She loves his function as a tool to provide for her—to satiate her greedy-pig lifestyle.

I considered talking to him about how he could have retired years ago, if not for his greedy-pig wife, but he believes that he would be helpless without her. And this is probably true to an extent, because without her, he would be emotionally crippled. Without her telling him who to be, he would suddenly find himself empty, in an emotional vacuum of loneliness, and face-to-face with the reality of his underdeveloped self—a self that exists only in relation to and dependent upon the dictates of his wife.

She would have it no other way. She would never dare look at her husband as a person, lest she face the reality of her exploitations of him. She needs him to be emotionally crippled and dependent upon her, for if he were to ever develop a self—independent from her, she would no longer be able to enjoy the fruits of his labors. As the host should never become aware of the parasite, the husband should never become aware of his exploitation…and as a parasite has little concern for the health of its host, so the wife has little concern for the emotional well-being of her husband. So long as he remains obedient and shows up every day for work, so long as he suffers in silence (or better yet, believes he isn’t suffering) the parasite remains content—calculating coldly the days until he is used up and time to be retired.

The wife is not your friend. No friend is going to make a friendship contingent upon a diamond ring or other sorts of trinkets to be placed on fingers or shelves. A friend doesn’t treat you as a tool or as an object-of-utility to be thrown away if broken. A friend actually cares about your emotional well-being as a human-being. Any woman who demands rings and other trinkets for the continuation of the friendship—she is not your friend.

Bill Cosby’s latest performance is a 90 minute set dedicated to this distinction between “the friend” and “the wife.” At 76 years of age, he still has the comic genius and the skills to reiterate, in a hilarious way, that his wife is not his friend. Men need to understand this. Men need to actually *listen* to their so-called friend. The Cos warns men that actually listening will reveal that she doesn’t give a damn about you. She gives a damn about what you do for her. Pay attention and listen. Hear what she actually says. A friend doesn’t demand rings and trinkets in exchange for friendship.

The wife is not your friend.

Economics, Coherence, & Gold Diggin’ Whores

The comedian, Bill Burr, has a funny bit called an Epidemic of Gold Diggin’ Whores. It’s an instant classic of comedy. It also echoes the sentiments of men who have dealt with these sorts of women. To men in the manosphere, gold digging is simply another phrase to describe female hypergamy–the tendency of women to “marry-up” and/or use men as objects-of-utility and to dehumanize men as nothing but tools to be used by women to accumulate various sorts of wealth.

Readers of my blog should know by now what I think; it is morally retarded to treat men as objects-of-utility and that it is also wrong to treat women as objects-of-sexuality. I don’t think there should be anything too controversial about treating people with respect and kindness, compassion and empathy. There shouldn’t be anything too controversial about a morality that precludes folks from treating each other as means to an end. (See the Golden Rule and Kantian morality-lite.)

This is where I’m prepared to take some flack. One thing noticed within the “manosphere” is a lot of noise and complaining about hypergamy and the gold-digging-whore. The complaints are justified as people should speak out against their being treated as objects-of-utility. However, more often than not, the men complaining about it are Randian Objectivists, American libertarians, and other sorts of free-market fundamentalists. I don’t want to get into a critique of various economic systems. That is a discussion for another blog, another paper, and another time…and, frankly, such discussions usually degrade into a boring circle-jerk of mildly autistic utilitarians arguing about the best way in which to quantify qualitative things.

What I do want to point out is that the men who often make so much noise about hypergamy are also the men who make a lot of noise in favor of economic systems that are inherently hierarchical. As Chomsky rightly points out, these economic systems permit “a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society.” The assumption is rubbish.

The simple reality is the direct correlation between money and freedom. The more money one has, the more freedom one has. There is nothing too profound about that, but it is a simple reality that gets overlooked by Randians, American libertarians, and other sorts of free-market fundamentalists.

These economic systems of wealth distribution typically have tremendous economic disparities. As such, they are systems of tremendous concentrations of power—systems of economic domination and authority. They are economic systems based on an impoverished understanding of human freedom. They are systems of wealth distribution that are inherently hierarchical.

If you want to defend such systems, go ahead. Do it. However, you have absolutely zero moral ground on which to stand for complaining about hypergamy or gold-digging-whores. Female hypergamy is simply the flipside of male hierarchies of dominance. If you’re going to defend such economic systems of dominance, you have no room to complain about hypergamy.

Consider these little questions. Does wealth curb hypergamy? If all humanity had a middle-class standard of living and a good education, would hypergamy and the gold-digging-whore wither away? I say yes. Hypergamy exploits these economic stratifications of male dominance and submission. Without such socio-economic strata, men wouldn’t be exploited via hypergamy…and neither would hypergamy exist in its current forms. As such, if you’re going to argue against hypergamy and the gold-digging-whore, and if you’re going to be coherent, you must also argue against socio-economic disparities and stratifications that are the flipside of female hypergamy. If there’s no gold to dig, where will the gold-digging-whores go? Just sayin’…if you complain about hypergamy, and at the same time, argue in favor of economic systems of wealth distribution that are inherently hierarchical, you’re full of incoherent gibberish. It’s time for you to rethink your life and economics. You guys can rant all you like about the vile nature of female hypergamy and how it makes men into objects-of-utility, but nothing will change so long as there are drastic socio-economic disparities.

Before any of you start calling me a commie pinko, realize that capitalism and socialism are two different mechanisms of wealth distribution. Neither of those systems “create” wealth; they simply distribute wealth in different ways.

Technology has always been the key. From the Stone Age to the industrial revolution, machinations and manifestations of tech drives the changes in efficiencies that “create” the quantitative surpluses of capital and other forms of wealth that often translate into qualitative improvements in life.

If you take the perspective that capitalism and socialism are simply different mechanisms of wealth distribution, you can perhaps see that these mechanisms are forms of technology (a sort of social technology, think marriage as tech). Perhaps both are obsolete pieces of technology.

They are obsolete because we have the surplus wealth to ensure that nobody starves or freezes to death on this planet, but people do so every day. We have 19 million empty homes here in the US, yet we have millions of homeless men. Obviously wealth didn’t get distributed, even though there is plenty—a surplus of homes and other sorts of wealth. We have the surplus wealth to ensure a quality education and relatively high-quality living standards for everybody, yet millions of folks live in relative squalor and can barely even read, if they can read at all. Folks everyday live lives as dullards and have miserable existences with no real freedom because they were born into a cycle of poverty with shitty parents who had shitty parents and so on. If you want to defend capitalism or socialism, or some sort of hybrid of the two, you’re going to have a difficult time of it with me. We have the surplus, but neither system seems sufficient to ensure that the wealth gets distributed to those who need it the most. As such, perhaps both are broken pieces of tech. Perhaps we need entirely new economic systems of wealth distribution—an entirely new way in which to look at economics, a new sort of social tech. Whatever your perspective on the matter, there is no way to be a free-market fundamentalist, coherent, and a complainer about gold-digging-whores. Get a clue, fuckwits. If you support a system of socio-economic stratification with gobs of economic disparity, you also support gold-digging-whores.

[Note: As women climb up the economic strata, there will be a rise in the number male gold-digging-whores. So, stop with your accusations of misogyny. A gold-digging-whore is not necessarily a woman, but they usually are women.]

Gawking

Comic Blasphemy Vs. Divine Feminism

I watched a video the other day of a debate between the comedian Jim Norton and the feminist Lindy West. Here is the video. This discussion between comedians and feminists regarding “rape culture” has been raging for the past year. Type “Daniel Tosh rape joke” into a search engine to learn the backstory. Much has been said on both sides, discussions about free speech, censorship, comedy-as-catharsis, the trivialization of suffering, and the contributions made by comics to rape culture and violence against women. Those are all perfectly fine discussions and I’m glad that our society is having this discourse about such things. One thing that is not being discussed in this realm of discourse is the economic concept of “consideration.”

 We don’t have to be economists or legal analysts to understand this. It’s not some obscure jargon used only by economists and lawyers. It’s an old concept that has been around for centuries and most people understand it without even knowing that they understand it. Consideration is roughly the idea of fair trade. If I give you money, you give me an equivalent value of your services or products. It’s not complicated. Most people know when they have been ripped off. If somebody steals your car, they didn’t provide an equitable amount of consideration to you. Most people know this and generally expect to give and receive consideration for all sorts of things in their daily lives. Well, reasonable people have this expectation.

 Enter Lindy West. If we view the discourse between a comedian and the audience as a sort of economic exchange of ideas, thoughts, and feelings, Lindy West is demanding that this discourse provide consideration to her without her providing an equitable amount of consideration in return. She is demanding that the discourse between a comedian and audience provide to her a consideration in the form of sensitivity to her (and others like her) regarding what she labels offensive to her delicate sensibilities. The only consideration she offers in return is the absence of her feeling offended. That is literally nothing–the absence of something. In economic terms, she is a thief and ripping us off. Most reasonable people know this, but feminists are not typically known for being reasonable. They sometimes argue that reason is a violent assertion of patriarchal oppression. In reality, feminists like Lindy West assert a gender supremacist ideology that does violence to our reasonable sensibilities.

 One example of violence-doing to our reasonable sensibilities is hypocrisy. Most reasonable people understand hypocrisy. Perhaps Ms. West understands it, but simply feels some sort of divine feminist entitlement to being hypocritical. Notice at about the 5 minute mark in the aforementioned video that Ms. West actually performs a rape joke about audience members in the club rallying to rape a girl because they aren’t doing anything better and have the free time. The joke gets a laugh and Ms. West chuckles and smugly continues with her moral correction and shaming of comedians who make rape jokes.

 Hypocrisy is offensive because it does violence to reason. Being morally excused from saying one thing and doing another is that which the divine Law-Giver does and this is what feminists like Lindy West often do. She is clearly an inconsiderate hypocrite. She does not give consideration in exchange for a comedian’s sensitivity. She does not practice what she preaches. She gives nothing in exchange for her demands. She simply asserts a sort of divine right to demand control of the narrative in exchange for literally nothing–the absence of something, her offence. Lindy West, you are a bigot, a hypocrite, a gender supremacist, and not much different than a racial supremacists. In the words of the great comedian, Bill Burr, “go fuck yourself.”