Thursday, 18 September 2014

Liking Girls, Walking Away and Self-Development

What separates the London daygamers from all the other guys - aside from the whole pragmatic English vibe - is that they seem to have worked out how to have women in their lives but dodge the risks. They like girls. A lot of the commentators on the American sites don’t, I feel, actually like women. Some of that feels like “you’ve just had a bad experience, we’re not all like that” and some of it feels like “you’re just bitter because you can’t get a girl”, and some of it feels like “Jesus aren’t there any attractive women in this place?”. The London guys like girls, even though at the same time, they have no intention of being in an LTR or for that matter having female friends. I’m pretty sure all of them have said “If you’re not fucking her, you’re her girlfriend” at one time or other. And I would agree.

The London Guys like girls because they bail as soon as the bad stuff starts to show. To adapt an iconic quote: “don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the [bad attitude starting to show].”

Although Pacino’s Vincent Hanna calls that “pretty vacant”, what exactly is the alternative? We stick around for the random, the tantrums, shit tests and manipulations, in the hope it will go away for long enough to get laid again? That’s supposed to be what a meaningful life is about? Suffering random nonsense from one’s female partner? Ah hell, thanks no, I’ll pass. We’re all going to have lives full of random nonsense from employers, governments, train companies, banks, airlines, border controls, petrol prices, road works, plus whatever our genes decide to unload on us on a timetable we know nothing about. That’s enough suffering to make any life deep and meaningful. (It’s not easy for ACoA’s and co-dependents. We like a bit of pointless drama and deep meaningful messed-up relationships. Gotta work on that.)

The London daygamers, and you and I, can walk away for three reasons: first, we’re confident we can find another playmate without too much effort; second, we have an identity and a life that is independent of women; third, “it’s the discipline”, and we respect that. (I’m fine with the second and third. The first is a long story you’ve heard too much of already.)

We don’t need women for validation, for purpose, to give our lives structure or to give us meaning. We do not need them to give us a reason to get out of bed and go to work. For us, James Brown was talking utter crap when he said
It’s a man’s world / but it don’t mean nothing / without a woman or a girl
(I’ve recently moved my morning radio station to Planet Rock after a few months on Heart. Heart made me realise just how chronically Blue Pill pop culture was and still is in some parts. So many of the songs was about how she made his life worth living, and how he was lost / sad / nothing without her. And as for that twerp telling his perfectly imperfect girlfriend that she’s perfect? Eeech. Have some dignity man. But to realise The Godfather of Soul was preaching this muck? I still shudder slightly.)

This is why the Manosphere puts so much emphasis on self-development and the pursuit of one’s own projects. Without those to give you an identity, you will use your “relationships” to give you a sense of meaning and place in the world. Instead of being the man who does this, knows that, can fix this, and goes there, you will be “Sally’s ex-boyfriend” and “Jack’s mate”. As a consequence of being the Man Who Does, you will be “the tax guy” or “the electrician” or “he spends half the year overseas”. I know which I prefer the sound of. Therapy types have a nice phrase about how we should aim to be a “human being” not a “human doing”. If the “doing” is pointless rushing around after ingrates and users, and staying late to do bullshit work, then they are right. But if the “doing” is a character-building, mind-developing and maybe even people-helping project, then the therapy types are wrong. That’s exactly the kind of “human being, doing” we should be.

No comments:

Post a Comment