How can men remain leaders in the face of feminism

 How do men remain leaders in a world where women became strong?

By adjusting their concept of what it means to be a strong man.

A leader can protect anyone under their wing, while bringing out the best in them. A leader cannot be a leader by putting down, downplaying and oppressing the skills, natural essence, potential, and talents of others. If they have to do that in order to maintain leadership, they are weakening the group as a whole, and weakening some individuals in that group.

That means that if a woman is good at nurturing children and bringing people together through empathy and building trust and cooperation, you don't put her down for being emotionally attuned, in order to elevate more masculine qualities like overcoming pain.

If a woman is good at problem solving and engineering, you encourage her, rather than encourage her to abandon that interest in favor of a more "feminine" role.

It means not tying your ego in being the best in everything, but instead at being the best at creating a strong team, and at using your aggression to protect its individuals when necessary.

This ideological change is not easy. I believe men and women have different biological inclinations and disposition toward a certain temperament and sets of skills. Men were born to fight people and obstacles, and they need to learn to overcome adversity in order to do that well. Unfortunately, they learned to differentiate and define themselves in contrast to feminine traits, which means that in order to elevate masculinity, femininity has to be put down. It has to be put down, even though the feminine traits of empathy, cooperation, attunement and nurture are required for the successful development of children, including male children. Children need warmth, tenderness and love, the same traits that adult males sometimes regard as "being a pussy".

A society cannot function in the long run with these ideas. And since modern ideas and technology now allow women independence, the conflict is no longer avoidable.

Tribalist aggressive mentality vs. enlightement

I think there is a pre-rational level of aggressive self preservation that all humans share, that is active in the absence of higher level abstractions.

Justice is a higher level abstraction than self defense: It involves identifying that other people are like you, and therefore they hurt just as you hurt. They care about their property like you care about your property. That abstraction ultimately leads to a moral conscience and self restraint: A person would not steal or harm others, and would become indignant when witnessing injustice inflicted on others.

But a person who did not perform that abstraction early on, will only care about their own suffering. The mechanism of anger still exists in them, and they will take hostile actions according to how they perceive others' behavior toward them, but they will support any unjust and vile action, so long as it aligns with their self interest (and I don't mean here, some objective self interest, but simply what they want and consider to be desirable).

I think one level above the most primitive form of self preservation exists the group identity. It's one step higher on the level of abstraction, but still includes your tribe vs. any other tribe. I think this level of abstraction is shared by tribe animals.

The next level of abstraction is humanity. A person learns to appreciate human life, regardless of race. They distinguish good vs bad people according to their actions toward others, instead of the color of their skin or the clothes they wear.
I think this level of abstraction collides with more primitive forms of tribe affiliation which exists in our psyche. But that point may be disputed.

Just as a gorilla will hunt and murder gorillas from other tribes, some people do the same.
It's interesting to note that it is likely only possible for humans to develop the phenomenon of psychopathy, in which a single person is stopped from developing an abstraction even on the tribe level, and is reduced to a circle of one. I think it is only human parents that can accumulate enough hate to raise a human beings that can be so defective in its capacity to trust and love. Animals would be driven by biology to care for their young and provide the necessary environment to become social. An animal cannot develop an abstraction of "the value of living things" on a conceptual level (although cross-species rescue behavior has been documented). It is more limited to its tribe of familiar members and genetic bonds.

It becomes confusing for modern, enlightened people to understand tribal behavior of other humans. We can't comprehend things like the holocaust. The Germans were not psychopaths; they did not murder their own kind. They came home at the end of a work day at the Jewish camp to a loving family. That is the horror we struggle to comprehend. They were not animals; they were something worse. Something that had the potential of develop an abstract understanding of the value of human life and justice, and instead chose the level of animals.

But my point is that, we should understand that the highest level of abstraction, the human being capable of valuing life as such, and justice regardless of race - is not a given, it is not a guarantee just because someone is human. It is a potentiality that requires other developmental components to come into fruition.

In the meanwhile, those of us who did develop this way have the burden of leading the world in two ways: one intellectual, of spreading the same values, ideas, and kindness to others; and the second is self preservation, when we are being targeted by those on the animal level of functioning, when they try to harm us.

Is qualia the same for different people?

It is said that we can't know for certain if one person's experience is the same as another's. For example, just because two people name the same color "red" does not mean that they experience the same thing.

But, I'd like to poke some holes in this idea. Of course, we cannot reach certainty at this point, since we do not understand exactly how the brain generates our experience (or how they correlate). But the way to induce is to piece together small pieces to form a picture, rather than to prove a theory beyond a shadow of a doubt. You cannot prove that which you have not yet discovered, and the process of discovery has to be understood as vitally important, for us to allow its precarious nature to exist within our mind.

So if we take this principle of induction as valid, and apply it here, let's consider the reasons why it is reasonable to expect that our qualia (conscious experience) IS actually the same, or very similar.

For starters, we can observe the general nature of living things within the same species. We have genetic variations, but there are certainly more things in common than differences. We all have the same organs that perform the same functions. We all have the same structure of a brain that develops similarly. Yes, there are variations, but compare a human being to a leaf or a rock, and it is immediately clear that we are more alike than different.

We also know that consciousness emerged later on in evolution, and not right from the start, which means that consciousness is a result of evolution, perhaps a likely result (maybe even inevitable), but still, it is a process which is subject to all the principles of evolution, just like other processes, such as breathing or moving.

Therefore, our consciousness can be judged the same. Do different people have different legs? There are variations, but essentially, they still work the same and produce the same function. Same thing goes for all other things, such as the immune system, circulatory system and so on.

I think this makes it LIKELY that this is also true of consciousness and of the brain.

And so this means that while there may be slight variations in the "red" qualia, it is far more likely that it is the same rather than different. Just like the lungs of human beings are more the same than different.

Also, I think it helps us understand out own consciousness better, as a process which undergoes selective pressure to produce survival and reproduction (or to carry on the genes).

OK so. "smart intellectuals" may put you on the stand and remind you that "oh no, you cannot be certain that your red is the same as the other person's red, and don't jump to conclusions blah blah blah", but the INDUCTION way of thinking would suggest putting more weight on all the "common sense" factors that may be hard to name, that suggest that there is no bloody reason why evolution would work so hard to produce a solution that works, only to modify it drastically among the individuals of the same species. Right. So screw the skeptic intellectuals and their methodologies.

OK, that's what I wanted to say, only without aiming at starting a war with anyone. Red is red. More or less.

The importance of non-verbal communication

You know, something really interesting that occurred to me, is that as a species, we are uniquely disconnected from our "gut feelings" in favor of processing verbal content. You can see it in "The Dog whisperer", where he shows how dogs can immediately sense people's state of mind, mood, ability to lead, whether or not they are calm, and so on. They can immediately sense and respond to your "energy" through very subtle things like the way you hold the leash, how you breath or how you stand. Now humans can definitely read all that stuff, and we DO, but we prioritize processing verbal content over this. As a result, we habitually suppress that type of information, or take much longer to pay as much attention to it as the things that are SAID.

One reason is that our mind is complex and has a layer of abstract thought, which is very dominant. Another reason is that CULTURALLY, we teach ourselves to pay attention to words over gestures and non-verbals.

We even have the idea that since we cannot objectively interpret non-verbal cues, that it is best to ignore them. That's why dogs can sense moods so much better than we do. Let me give you an example... You are shopping at a supermarket late at night. Someone in line behind you starts asking you about the price of products. They are asking you what are you buying and whom you are buying it for. Now the verbal information may be very trivial, but the non-verbal... wooha! Danger Will Robinson! The non-verbal communicates that this person has a right to cross your boundaries without asking permission. If they do this with information, it is a good indication that they can do it physically as well. That's also why a person can spend a long time debating someone else who is treating them as if their life, feelings and well being do not matter, and keep responding to the verbal ideas being put forth. This doesn't just work for negative non-verbals, but for positive ones as well. But as a society, we will tend to deny non-verbals and many times scold someone for making them explicit. We have the habit of lying about them. Because, verifying them is more difficult to do objectively. And if we want to function as a society, we would like to be able to agree on the facts. But - does it serve us, if it can land us in a situation where we accept a truth like: "My feelings don't matter" over facts about China in the 1920's as more important?

Ayn Rand's True concept of 'Selfishness'

Ayn Rand is thought of as opposing charity, friendship or good will, while encouraging selfishness.

But what was her Real concept of selfishness? What did she stand for and what was she against?

Certainly NOT what today's thick headed idiots think she did.
I am referring to persons such as Hitchens [Link] or this dude [Link] which says the following about her views:
"She thought that all the government programs, Medicare, social security etc' were for the weak, and that being selfish was the best thing you could do. Being altruistic and helping others she thought was evil".

Right, Ayn Rand; the exterminator of the weak.

Dude, what the hell is the matter with you? Are you really that stupid, too lazy to try to study someone' actual views or just finding it easier to attack a straw man? Yeah. Freakin' Liar. Aren't you tired of these?

Ayn Rand was not against friendship, family, love, gift-giving, providing help or charity to someone or doing something to make someone else's life better. She was not against taking out the garbage on your wife's turn when she is having a bad day and is tired. Ayn Rand had a very romantic view of love. She saw it as one of the highest experiences a man can have and she would certainly be motivated to give a lot of herself to those she loved.
Regarding charity: In her novel, Atlas Shrugged, the main character, Dagny Taggart offers a free meal and a ride to a homeless man that has boarded the train illegally. The reason she did is because the man appeared to have been a hard working man one time and she offered him charity out of respect for that.

So this may come as a shock to some idiots out there, but Ayn Rand was not fighting for the extermination of the weak and the prevalence of value-less sociopath gold diggers. She was also opposed to the type we consider "selfish" today, who has no moral values and would sell their own mother to slavery to make an extra penny.

Her concept of selfishness takes some attention to grasp and a moment of concentration and thinking. Something a lot of people are apparently incapable of doing nowadays. So listen up, jagheads, because I am about to explain what she really meant.


In her words;

"The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment."

She does not approve of altruism either. Ayn Rand supported Rational Selfishness. This means a way of living in which a man takes the time to think about what is good for him or bad for him, both for the short term and the long term and chooses his values by thinking. It is a system in which his values are rational and required for human life, instead of values which are destructive, against the requirements of human life or are just senseless. 

She does NOT mean the commonly understood concept of selfishness, and that is the source of the confusion.

Ayn Rand thought that humans beings are a social creature, with love and friendship being a very important value. Her heroes were men of integrity who produced and traded for their existence, not robbed and deceived to get their hands on a pile of money. Like, hello? The guys that did do that were the villains. Didn't you read the book?
John Galt quit his job as an engineer to start a war again the world to provide a better world for the woman he loved. How many men do you know today who would take this course of action? They preach 'altruism' but no love is possible when one is being made to feel guilty for everything and when one is expected to deliver "love" as if they were a cow at a dairy farm.

Ayn Rand thought that one gives love, friendship and sometimes charity when one judges the receiving individual to be deserving of it. She considered it a selfish delight to give something and invest in those one loves and love itself, is a very selfish value.

She recognized that peaceful cooperation and trade among men was the only way to prosperity and therefore she considered a thief immoral.
She thought that to be selfish meant to think hard of one's decisions, not to blindly chase every random desire. She one should live their life passionately, while making choices based on thinking.

The secrete to understand her concept is that charity does not have to be a product of altruism. Caring for someone enough to help them, can be a selfish act. It is selfish because other people are of spiritual value to us, as well as material. By valuing ourselves we also value others with similar virtues and it is natural to express that value in one's behavior, in a way that works with one's specific context of life.

Anyway I hope I helped you understand what Ayn Rand's "Selfishness" is all about. It is not an easy concept to grasp since it is so different from today's concept of "selfishness".
I suspect a lot of people would come to this point without a feeling of new understanding, but rather something like: "well, she says that Ayn Rand thought friendship and love were good, and that Ayn Rand is not entirely opposed to giving, so that means that.... I know! It must mean that Ayn Rand was part altruistic, despite the evil things she preached for!" Well, no, chuckle head. That was not my point. My point was that she would give to others and consider it SELFISH. Yes, giving to others can be selfish. So in those times she gave of herself, she was following her principles to a tee.

That, my friend, is the whole point. Selfishness does not equal sociopath, certainly no in Ayn Rand's view. Her concept of a selfish man was a producer, an inventor, an industrialist, a hard working man happily doing his job well and making good friends, an artist, a family person hoping to raise his children well. All those are selfish actions according to her. They cease to be selfish when one does them out of duty - in THAT case they are altruism and she was against that.

So, good luck to you in your endeavor to understand Ayn Rand's morality and please share this article and forward it to others if you liked it and think it could set the record straight.


Peace and Prosperity to you, dear reader.

On setting Personal Boundaries

One of Altruism's worst effects is that people feel the obligation to let others step on their personal boundaries or to act toward them in a way that is less than respectful or beneficial.
People believe that this is necessary to maintain healthy relationships and they try to smile as they agree to things that in actuality fill them with resentment.
The final result is that the accumulated frustration comes out in the form of angry eruptions, criticism of the people who take advantage of their "generosity" and so on.

In reality, you get as much respect and personal space as you take for granted you should have.

It is not enough to communicate once in a while what you want and expect, you have to believe it and be convinced of it subconsciously so that it is expressed in small things that you do, in small reactions to how people speak to you, what they ask of you and so on.
When you are truly convinced that you deserve something and you take it for granted that you deserve it, then setting your boundaries is done in a manner that is calm and assertive rather than angry, defensive or demanding.
(That is not to say that it is always the case that if one demands respect angrily that one invited to be stepped on. There are people who want to step on others regardless of how others project themselves).


The irony is that relationships in which people try to be altruistic to one another will end up falling apart because both parties would end up feeling used and disrespected even though they are inviting it with a smile.
They act in a way they consider "generous" and expect others not to take advantage of it at the same time. This shifts the responsibility for setting your personal boundaries from yourself to those around you. They have to try and guess if you would really benefit from something you are offering to do or not. For example, suppose we are talking about a married couple with a kid. The mom, say, offers to leave her work to take the kid out of school several times a week, feeling that she is being generous and expects to be appreciated for it and for her husband to understand that she does indeed sacrifice work time for this. However, surprisingly, the husband starts asking for her to take the kid out of school more and more. In his mind, he may not see it as using her at all because of how nice she acted about the whole thing. Meanwhile she accumulates resentment thinking "who does that bastard thinks he is? Does he think his work is more important than mine? Why doesn't he take our child out of school?" and so on.
Had she simply took it for granted that they should split the responsibility equally, no such emotions would result and the relationship would be much happier. Would the husband really benefit from his wife's "sacrifice"? No. He may save a couple of hours during the week, but he loses something much more precious - the happiness he has had at home.

Altruism ends up benefiting no one.

According to Ayn Rand's concept of rational selfishness, people in a relationship act as traders - they never give when it is a sacrifice and they never expect someone to sacrifice for them. "Trading" is used here in a wide sense that includes emotional payout, not in a business sense of financial deals. The selfishness principle of behavior is based on the idea that people live to be happy and that they get into a relationship to increase their happiness - that they are right in getting into a relationship for the primary purpose of being happy.
Altruism, in contrast, holds that a relationship should be based on an obligation for mutual support in times of trouble. It predicts sickness and trouble primarily rather than happiness, life and self-fulfillment.


One last thing I want to write about on this topic is the effective way to set personal boundaries. This is something I learned from watching numerous episodes of "The Dog whisperer", a famous show on national geographic about dog's psychology.
One of the main things the show teaches you is that an animal must set personal boundaries in a calm and assertive manner if it is to receive them. This becomes especially clear in observing different types of leadership (or attempted leadership) of a pack of dogs. You can't get a pack of dogs to behave by frantically yelling at them or by showing anger. You can't do it by hurting them out of frustration. It won't work if you ask them really nicely or plead them to do what you want and expect. The only way it works is by taking it for granted that they should follow you and calmly asserting the boundaries as soon as a dog crosses them. A pack leader that lets other dogs step on his boundaries will cause a break down of the pack, where everyone attack everyone, including the leader. Dog owners often think they are doing their dog a big favor by not setting limits, but in fact, as the show shows, such dogs become anxious and start assuming the role of leadership themselves and they get very confused if and when they are being punished for something.


I find that for people it works the same way. Suppose someone tells a disrespectful joke to you. How you respond in that instant determines how others will treat you in future cases. If you are convinced that you deserve respect, you are likely to react calmly and assertively in dismissing the joke or communicating that you do not approve of it. If you you believe, however, that you should be tolerant of such jokes you may A) try to accept the joke with a smile or B) erupt angrily against your own inner demand to accept it and burst in anger at the person who told it.
Small cases like these over time create an expectation others have from you on what you should tolerate or not. If you accept such jokes, but then, once a year you bother to tell people you find them offensive, don't be surprised if you will see very little change. If you yourself are not convinced you deserve that respect and that others should give it to you, neither will anyone else be convinced. In conclusion -


You get as much respect and personal space as you take for granted you should have.

Bad ideas made powerful by unidentified true ones

A lie is best hidden between two truths.
Nothing can give more feeling of conviction to a wrong idea than to have it sandwiched with a couple of unidentified good ones.


One might look at a person who is blind to facts and to anything that does not confirm some belief of his and conclude that "One must have an open mind", which means, "one must listen to every Bullshit out there and never assert any full confidence in one's own opinion".
The true problem with the stubbornly blind is that they are stubbornly blind - that they do not conform to facts and truth, NOT that they are loyal to their own way and view.

There is a tendency not to distinguish between the different elements, to clamp them together, and then use one of them as the "core guideline", sandwiched in the power of the emotional conviction of the other truths surrounding it.
In this case, unwillingness to listen to others who disagree is what's being targeted - it is the lie that is hidden and reinforced by 2 truths, the truths being that it is bad to be willfully blind, it is bad to ignore people when they present relevant facts.


Consider a few other examples in which the true element explaining some bad behavior remains unidentified and some other good element is made to curry the guilt.

Take for example the following case:

A military-trained sniper decides to take the law into his own hands and execute people whom he believes deserves punishment without a trial. He also kills those who stand in his way and any law-enforcers who try to stop him.

There are many things that can be said about his behavior: He stands on his own, he has a strict moral code he is certain of, he is extreme in doing what he thinks is right, he is more focused on punishing the evil than protecting the good and more.

There are a lot of elements in his behavior that under a different context are admirable and yet in this case they all yield a bad result. If one is unable to determine what is the root of the evil in what this man is doing, one might easily warn oneself against one of those other traits that are good.
One might tell oneself something like: "See? this is what standing above other men will do to you", "See? being extreme can turn a man into a cold blooded killer. It is much better never to be certain of something when it comes to moral issues", or "This is what happens when a man stops listening to other people. One should always come to agree with others before acting on one's own".

The real problem in this sniper's behavior is that he is focused on punishing evil at the expense of hurting the good. If justice is his goal, he does not serve it. He chooses an illogical way to live in society (assuming the legal system is not corrupt - that would be a different discussion).

It is not easy to identify that element among all the rest, but if one does not take the time to do so, one might end up with a conclusion which would be devastating to one's life.
One might become afraid to make decisions on one's own, or do what one thinks is right, or stand alone in disagreement with others or even develop one's own moral code and stick by it.

If a crazy sniper that kills good guys is what happens when one is certain one is right, maybe it's better never to try to be right or do the right thing at all. The conclusion is a spiritual death sentence.


Another example of a lie hidden between "two truths" is the concept of selfishness.
We all know the type of people who seem to think "only of themselves" - they exploit others, do not respect their property or sovereignty and basically see people as tools for their pleasure or goals rather than real people with goals of their own and values.

Then, people confuse that with EVERY form of selfishness. They think THIS is what selfishness IS.
So actions like, making an honest living and wanting to keep the money for oneself, is all of a sudden bad, because one "only thinks of oneself" in doing so. Or wanting to take a vacation in Disneyland instead of giving the money to someone who needs food is "selfish".

Notice, however, that there is a big difference between exploiting someone else for one's own pleasure and simply making an honest living and enjoying it, but this concept of selfishness makes no distinction between the two.
The real problem with those who exploit others or see them as nothing more than a tool is a failure to see other human beings for what they are: human beings with goals and values of their own. It is a psychological problem and it actually makes the one who has it psychologically injured because they can never form intimate relationships and can never enjoy other people.

This element is much harder to identify, but it is the right one, and not identifying it can lead to devastating results, such as feeling guilty for wanting to enjoy one's property, life and money instead of giving it away.


Another example is a wrong conclusion about sex. One might look at a promiscuous person and conclude that sex in itself is wrong. The true element which makes the behavior wrong, is something else. There could be several reasons I can think of why someone would be promiscuous: they are afraid of bonding with someone deeply and so they project their fantasies on strangers, they have low self esteem and are trying to bring it up by getting sexual attention from others and so on.
The true element is harder to identify, but a conclusion like "sex is bad" or "it is bad to be attracted to many people" are wrong and damaging. For teenagers especially, because as a teenager, it's not as easy to identify one's values in others and so it is normal to be attracted to more people than one's adult version would.

Another example is the notion that caring about one's external appearance is "superficial" and bad. It's ground in reality is people that appear to have "no personality" and only care about their appearance, or people who preserve their appearance as a replacement of good character.
A.K.A the Beverley hills bitch who would be caught dead wearing the wrong item but would destroy someone else's hopes without a moment's hesitation.

One might look at her and conclude that somehow caring a lot for one's appearance is tied with being evil. This can lead to giving up on a great pleasure: On looking good and celebrating one's own value in social settings.

Similarly, one might look at a narcissist and conclude that self-love is bad. Or at least "excessive self love". Well, how would one measure something like that? It can't be done.
Narcissism has its root in something entirely different.


One does not have to identify the truth in all of those cases. One does not have to become a trained psychologist in order to avoid the problem of condemning self-love.
However, it is sometimes hard to leave some case one observes without drawing some conclusion from it. In fact, one might conclude from this blog post the conclusion that it is best never to draw conclusions from cases one sees.
I think the correct course of action is either to take the time to completely figure out what is the root and cause of some bad behavior you see, or just to tell yourself that you have no way to determine that and simply walk away without a conclusion.

What one ought to watch out for are those snappy conclusions one makes based on superficial observations (like looking at the pretty bitch and conclude that caring for your looks is bad).