Archive | My Philosophy RSS for this section

The NAWALT


After my second divorce, in 2013, as a result of my stroke in 2011, I figured that I was entirely done with women except on a superficial level. However, in February or March of 2016, I had met an unusual woman.

The term “NAWALT” (an acronym meaning “Not All Women Are Like That”) is a thing that may or may not exist. It is like the unicorn, it is a very rare women who intentionally ignores or overrides her hypergamous nature.

Now, this woman of which I speak may be a NAWALT. I don’t know. We have gone for walks with each other, we have drank coffee on occasions, we have even gone out to eat with each other. And in every event, aside from our walks, she has always paid her own way.

She would not allow me to pay for her meals or coffee. At all.

That makes this woman a very rare woman.

And while all men with any brain would willingly die for this woman, since she pays her own way, is stunningly beautiful, and is built perfectly. I have sadly come to the conclusion that we are not compatible.

Yes, I have stopped pursuing the perfect woman because of our differences in politics, movie preferences, music preferences, book preferences, and some other minor differences.

Perhaps, in time, we can become friends, by my definition of a friend, but we can never be more than that. I was hopeful, and I was under the delusion that I could change myself to measure up to her. But, as I have said, that is a delusion.

But, I have saved myself from having a relationship that could go bad. It was a brief fantasy, but reality reasserted itself and I know that we could not work.

And so, I regain who I am. I regain my true nature. And I go through life, as usual, yet again.

But it was still a good fantasy for a short while.

 

Advertisements

The Blight of Third Wave Feminism: Part One


{{I have been asked about my opposition to Third-Wave feminism. This is my initial response to why I consider Third-Wave feminism is a threat to me, and to all people, not only men, but also to women}}

Once upon a time, during first-wave feminism, in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, woman had earned the right for all women to vote, and for equal pay for equal work. Under the “Equal Pay Act” of 1963, in the United States, the goals of first-wave feminism were officially over in the United States.

Although as a footnote, all men had gained their vote relatively recently prior to women getting the vote, and for that “privilege”, all men had obligations that women never had. Like military service, for one example.

So, first-wave feminism was focused on suffrage, and they won.

Second-Wave feminism, from approximately the late 1960’s to the late 1980’s, was focused on the issues of issues of sexuality, family, and workplace inequalities. Now, one thing to recall was the fact that the second-wave feminists had opposed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the United States.

We must question why.

See, there was much support for the ERA, and it had seemed several times that it would pass, but under the influence by the Second-Wave feminists, it had always failed. This is because if the ERA existed, then women, in general, would win nothing, moreover, women would lose what they had gained during Second-Wave feminism. And men would gain the rights that they had lost.

See, during Second-Wave feminism, since women had the same rights as men during First-Wave feminism, since Second-Wave feminism, women had more rights than men. If you disagree with this statement, you should ask yourself two questions: What rights does a man have that a woman doesn’t have? And what rights does a woman have that a man doesn’t have?

Every right a man has, a woman also has. But, there some rights that women have than a man does not. The primary right is biological integrity. In general, men are circumcised at birth, women are not. Yes, this is in the United States, it is a first country problem, nevertheless it exists and is acceptable, for some reason.

Also, with respects to birth, women have the option to be a parent, they can get an abortion or they can choose to not be a parent. Men do not have that option. At all. A man is not allowed to have a “legal abortion”, a man is not allowed to opt out of parenthood, a women is.

So, after that, you will realize, or you should realize, why Second-Wave feminists opposed the ERA, tooth and nail, and why the ERA does not exist, because under the ERA, women would win nothing, and would lose rights under the ERA.

Now, what in the world is Third-Wave feminism. More importantly, why does it even exist? During First-Wave feminism, the feminists won equal rights. During Second-Wave feminism, women have more rights than men. Third-Wave feminism is a blight on humanity, in my opinion.

First off, Third-Wave feminism started in the early 1990’s. It had arisen to the perceived failures by the Second-Wave feminists, and seems to be primarily focused on diversity, more importantly, non-white feminists.

The Third-Wave feminists are full of “body positive” rhetoric, bad rape statistics, even more control over their reproductive rights, bad statistics on gender violence, something called “man-spreading“, “man-splaining“, and more.

Because, lets face it, my statistics come from the Uniform Crime Report, produced every year by the Department of Justice, and are exclusively used by the FBI concerning all crime within the United States, and those statistics are in blatant contradiction to what the Third-Wave feminists claim.

So, essentially, the Third-Wave feminists are wrong about their statistics. All of them. In addition, the “hate all boys” thing is right from Third-Wave feminism, as are “I drink male tears“, “throw rocks at boys“, “cry me a river” (directed at males), and other such nonsense.

So, in my observation, Third-Wave feminists hate men, even though they claim that they do not. But, actions speak louder than words.

Additionally, the “body positivity” position is essentially fat acceptance, and … well…. ugly acceptance. Sorry if you disagree with that statement, but that is what I see, and that is what I feel. And if you dislike my statement, then communicate with me. Do not attempt to shame me, communicate with me like a real human being.

So, in conclusion, First-Wave was a good thing, they achieved their goals, and I agree with the First-Wave feminists. The Second-Wave feminism has overreached their bounds, and men have been losing rights since Second-Wave feminism roared its dangerous head. Third-Wave feminism is dangerous, not only to men, but also to women, and since Third-Wave feminism roared its horrible and sickly head, one is safe from its corruption.

It must be put to rest, and quickly, if it is not already too late.

I May or May Not Be A Difficult Person: Part One


Something happened this past Sunday (27 March 2016). It has been growing for the past few weeks, and it started getting worse to the point where I started complaining about it.

Background:

I go the the Unitarian-Universalist “church”. Which is generally referred as the UU church. Personally, I call it “The church without a god”, since most people in the church are Atheists. Really! And I have been involved with the UUs for the past twenty years in several different congregations. So, while I have never been an official member of that church, since I generally do not join anything, I do know the seven principles of the UU church.

However, these seven principles can be interpreted in different manners, and my interpretation of the seven principles are probably very different from most of the other people in my church. That is because I approach the church from a rational position, and I am a libertarian (notice the small ‘l’ in libertarian). Some will call me a conservative, some will call me a liberal, some will call be bat-shit crazy, but the truth of the matter is that I am a libertarian.

So, anyway. I had this idea about six weeks ago. I noticed that only members of the church had permanent name tags. I thought that was wrong. Nevertheless, the person in charge of membership in the church had made a decision that only members get permanent name tags. Now, I have a permanent name tag, because I took my permanent name tag from Pennsylvania into the Fargo-Moorhead UU church. Other non-members didn’t have the option, until I finally took action.

I bought a BUNCH of badge-holders and clips on Amazon.com. And brought them into church. Originally, I had left them at the front desk for those who wanted them. However, the membership person took them away from the desk, and put them in the office.

That caused a problem for me. Yes, I realize that I may have been stepping on the toes of the membership person. But, I didn’t care. I bought these things myself to give to other people. The battle had started.

I took back my name tags from the membership person, and had started to hand them out to people individually. The membership person had talked to me on three successive weeks. The membership person was telling me that permanent name tags are for people who are members. I disagreed. Membership person tried to explain it to me, but I didn’t care, I disagreed, and the membership person pretty well ignored my disagreements and had tried to shut my arguments down, I guess.

Wash, rinse, and repeat for three weeks until 27 March 2016. I became angry. Now, my mannerism has always been to start smiling when I am merely angry (when I get enraged, that is another story). So, at the part of the service for “Joys and Concerns”, I stood up, walked to the candles, lit a candle and started to talk:

Now, I do not recall exactly what I said, but here is the gist of what I said:

I am angry, I had a stroke in 2011, and among other things, my inhibitions are broken. I bought some holders and clips for permanent name tags for non-members. I paid money for these things. And I have been giving them to non-members, because I want to. I am getting a push-back. I understand what the push-back person is saying, but I don’t care. I am doing this because I want to, and I will not be stopped. Check the principles of the UU church, especially the first and the second principles. If you ask me to get out of this church, I will. (I turned to the person that was running the service and said: “That’d be a first, wouldn’t it?”). I then left the front of the sanctuary and sat down again.

Now, you do realize I had dared anyone to ask me to leave. But, within the UU church, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been asked to leave. So, in particular, I pushed back on the push-back person and dared the person to do anything about it.

After the service I left the church, because I had an “appointment” with the most beautiful and nicest women I have ever met, and ate and talk for about two hours as I lost myself within her wonderful eyes.

So… I may or may not have been difficult. In my defense, this is the sort of thing that the UUs will do. The only thing that the UUs agree on is that the UUs disagree on everything. They rarely get agreement on anything, they constantly bicker on the most trivial of things. So, by me doing what I did, I was actually the embodiment of the UU philosophy.

Now, nowhere in this article have I named any names, and neither have I identified the sex of the push-back person. Thus, in my attempt to be neutral, I have added a little confusion into my narrative. Well, I don’t care.

So, in your opinion, was I being difficult? Or was I in the right? Tell me what you think, please.

Friends and Friendship


First and foremost, I will be writing from a masculine perspective. If a woman is reading this piece, you should interpret it from a female perspective.

Since my stroke, I have pretty well isolated myself from other people. Firstly because my now-ex-wife had, for some reason, wanted it that way, I guess. Secondly because after my stroke, I knew that I had some problems and I didn’t want anyone to notice that I was somewhat duller than normal, and my aphasia called attention to that. And thirdly, because I had moved to Fargo, North Dakota approximately six months after my divorce, and while people in Fargo would probably understand, I did not want to impose myself and my problems to other people.

So, in Fargo, where I will most likely die, hopefully when I am at least 75 years old, longer if I am lucky.

But, I have very little friends anywhere right now.

See, I have a strict idea concerning friends and friendship. And I will not change my standards of friendship. I place a strict hierarchy with respect to friendship, from co-worker, acquaintance, friend, close friend, and finally a single best friend.

I think that many people make relationships haphazardly, and they claim that they have may friends, but I see that most of these “friends” are merely acquaintance or co-workers, with very few friends. I, on the other hand, know the value of friendship, and that it takes YEARS to make a friend, close friend, or best friend. And many people do not understand these relationships.

Let us define my terms:

A co-worker, or cow-orker, is a person who works in the same place you do. That is the only qualification for them to become co-workers. Such a relationship is worth absolutely nothing. Every co-worker relationship is self-serving, get the job done, maybe get a beer after work, and not much beyond that.

A co-worker is, in no absolutely no way, a friend.

An acquaintance is also not a friend, but they are people who, in general, are not co-workers. These are people that you share some common interests with. A similar hobby, a similar place you go on a regular basis. An example of an acquaintance would be some people in a church, a bowling league, a bar where you frequent, or similar things, wherein you see these people out side the normal place, and interact with each other regularly. Now, that regular interaction is not a friendship. Yet. But over time, it MAY develop a friendship.

Now, a friend is something entirely different. In my opinion, a friend is a person whom you consider to be a brother. Now, my entire family is somewhat dysfunctional, so my definition of a friend is not genetic, but a moral sibling, or an ethical sibling. A sibling by choice, not by hereditary.

A friendship also involves a commitment by both parties. A commitment to be there for the other, regardless of any other factors. For example, if you have a friend that is having any sort of problem, no matter how big or how small, a friend should be willing, if physically able, to stand by that friends side. Regardless of any other commitments, including, but not limited to, a job, a wife, a girlfriend, children, parents, etc.

This is a commitment that few people in today’s society can deal with or understand. So, to people on social media, are these so called “friends” really friends in that sense? Is there any kind of commitment of the sort whom I just detailed? And, unfortunately, the concept of “friend” has been abused by Facebook and other parts of social media. Now, I have some “Facebook friends”, but none of my “Facebook friends” are really friends; they are acquaintances. However, every “Facebook friend” is a person whom I have met IN PERSON, and whom I personally know.

Now, for the close friend. It takes AT LEAST a year for a friend to be a close friend. And we can see if someone is a close friend by the “dead body test”. If you, for what ever reason, have a dead body in your apartment, regardless of how it got there, and you need some people to help you deal with this dead body, your close friends WILL BE THERE as quickly as possible, we will dispose the dead body, and without having to remind anyone, none of the close friends will:

1: Ask why there is a dead body in the first place.
2: Never ever even talk about it with anyone except the other close friends.
3: Will NEVER tell “the authorities” about hiding the dead body or that there was a dead body in the first place.

Now, when looking at my definition of close friend, tell me, how many close friends do you really have?

Now we come to Best Friend. In my opinion, there can be only a single best friend a person can have, and that commitment of being a best friend MUST be a reciprocal thing, wherein there is a bond amongst best friends such that you can only have a single best friend, and you can only be a best friend to a single person. And, in my opinion, there is one criteria above close friend that makes a man a best friend. That is, a best friend is willing to die, without question, for the best friend.

And, again I ask, for those of you who claim that you have a “Best Friend”, for my definition, do you really have a best friend? REALLY?

Warning: I am brain-damaged due to a stroke in 2011, my sentence structure and syntax could be a bit “wonky” sometimes. Deal with it.

 

%d bloggers like this: