Ok, I know I have not been writing much lately. But it’s not because I don’t feel the same, or don’t care.
It’s maybe because I am just slightly ahead of the post-outrage curve. Not peak outrage. More like — I am over it outrage. Or maybe never even was outraged, except at the nonsensical outrage. Outrage fatigue?
Like facial razor companies complaining about testoserone? Um… yeah… awkward and obviously in so many ways — not a good strategy. But you go, razor company!!! Die on that hill, if you must. I’ve got better things to do.
Like live my life. Pardon me for not caring. I just can’t relate. I really don’t care about your outrage. Meh.
(Boys acting like boys?!? Girls acting like girls?!? Omg!!! Refreshing TBH!!!)
Anyway… here’s the link.
https://nypost.com/2019/01/19/how-the-media-convinces-us-were-all-outraged-even-when-no-one-cares/
How about you? Over it? Outraged? Just discovering the red pill? Please share in the comments!
Notes From a Red Pill Girl 
David Foster,
Ha ha! Good one.
Faustian does aptly summarize it (IMO) David.
C. S. Lewis explained it well decades ago, argued against the prevalent “Life-Force philosophy” that his contemporaries were expounding at the time. It was the “spiritual but not religious” explanation of the day.
“The Life-Force is a sort of tame God,” C. S. Lewis said.
“You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?”
Shaking my head. As a life-long atheistic agnostic contemplating a bleak futurity, I find it bizarre to hear a believer accusing others of wishful thinking.
I think that we don’t know the answers and we wish we did. So we posit a God who does. We find comfort and a sense of righteousness in the very difficulties imposed by the God we made in our own image.
(See, I am more of a grumpy secularist than “a spiritual but not religious” person. But I guess I’ve mellowed lately, since I now do Buddhist retreats and meditations.)
the basis of one who believes the Bible is an UNchanging God … the only God who has always been and will always be … and who never changes.
any and every other religion is man adapting a god to fit what they want at any given time.
do Christians get it wrong? absolutely.
but the foundation is that God has always been, will always be, and that God never, ever changes. God is Truth, and God Truth never changes.
yes, we are all searching b/c God created each of us – as He is Creator – and when God created us He hardwired us with a desire to seek Him. many find substitutes … actually, the Bible even says that most people will follow the substitutes rather than The Real God. but for the few who have eyes to see Truth and ears to hear Truth, they get to have a relationship for now and all eternity with the Real, True, and only God.
– – –
if you’ve never read the Holy Bible, i encourage you to do so. there are many places to get a Bible online … biblegateway dot com is one of them. if for no other reason than to enlighten yourself and stimulate your intellect, download a free Bible and read it … or listen online – they have audio bibles, too, even at biblegateway.
I’ve read it! A lot actually. All of it. I think Bible education is crucial. It’s the foundation of so much of our literature and history in the west. You don’t have to be a believer to see that.
I appreciate your perspective, Ame.
Well said, Ame
apropos to this discussion:
The Only Gate – A Christian Allegory
By D.I. Telbat
https://ditelbat.com/the-only-gate-a-christian-allegory/?utm_source=D.I.+Telbat+Blog+Updates&utm_campaign=a502282a04-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e962890a94-a502282a04-98395001
also … Matthew 13
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13&version=NKJV
In a thread whose title is “Outrage Fatigue”, this just might spark more fatigue. For the sake of your own internal thinking, consider the man who claims he is not spiritual, he is just religious, in view of the following. (Trying to stimulate thinking here, not argument.)
In life, there are foundational truths. All other truths must be consistent with the foundational truths. (e.g., gravity and folks trying to fly while on LSD) So it is with the Bible. There are many people out there in life talking, saying certain things. Whether they are true or not depends upon whether the following are foundational truths. The Bible is either true, or it isn’t. If it IS true, then these verses must be considered. as foundational.
1. No man cometh unto the Father but by me (Jesus speaking. John 14:6; KJV) Yet – No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: (John 6:44; KJV) All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37; KJV)
2. … no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the [help of the] Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3; KJV)
3. Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world. (James 1:27; Douay-Rheims Bible)
4. He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8 (NIV)
5. Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
—–
Within the context of foundational truths, are Points 1 and 2 above within the same ballpark as Points 3 – 5? That is, does the Bible tell us that God requires something more than just being religious? If the answer is “yes”, then we must admit that only those who can accept someone else’s rule over them will have any interest in the Bible. Which leaves us at this point with regard to what the Bible says about the human condition:
The natural mind is hostile to the things of God. Paraphrase of Romans 8:7.
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. (Colossians 2:13; NIV) And you [hath he brought to life], who were dead in trespasses and sins; (Ephesians 2:1; KJV) Note that in neither instance did the spiritually dead person bring himself to spiritual life. Lazarus can’t call himself out of the grave.
On the subject of free will, assume it exists. What will the man choose, of his free will, whose mind is hostile to the things of God? The question is not, does he have free will? The question is, what will the one whose mind is hostile to the things of God, who is dead in trespasses and sins, choose? Why do we assume he would even think to choose God? If God’s grace is the only means of rescue, how does such a man get himself out of his condition when he – of his own free will – will not, can not, choose God? The answer, obviously, is that God must reach down and grab the man. That is exactly what these verses display: when you had no interest in God, God acted on you. God is the actor here in these verses, not the man.
The assumption here is that the spiritually dead stay spiritually dead unless and until God acts on them. But boy can the spiritually dead be religious, in the vein of Points 3 & 4 above..
‘Course, maybe the Bible is wrong (and maybe the God of the Bible doesn’t exist). How do you suppose anyone will ever figure out the truth? (hint: Colossians 2:13)
Getting back to the original post, it seems feminists have been counting on this for a long time. Guess who they are trying to lionize for the Sundance Film Festival?
Let’s hope that it backfires on them in a big way.
Richard, as I said it’s pattern recognition. “I’m spiritual not religious” isn’t wrong in and of itself. It just never seems to mean what the words would imply….much like the statements: “It’s not you, it’s me” or “All I want is a really nice guy”.
What the statement seems to mean in practice (again and again) is…”I ignore rules I don’t like”
Examples of pattern recognition:
Someone says they’re “tolerant of diversity”- I expect bullshit
Someone says they’re “strong and independent”- I expect bullshit
Someone says they’re “demisexual”- I expect bullshit.
Spiritual but not religious is in the same category as the above statements. Nothing is 100 percent, but it’s a pretty accurate indicator.
Richard P. — It could be that some parts of the Bible are true and others aren’t, no?
Liz,
Whoa. I learned a new word – “demisexual.”
I can honestly say I’ve never heard anyone in my life say, “I’m strong and independent.” And I can’t fathom why anyone would make that statement.
“I’m strong and independent” is the bumper sticker version.
It sounds to me a bit like, “I can tie my shoelaces!” There should be no reason to assert such an obvious thing unless (a) you are trying to cover up the fact that you are one of the rare adults who can’t tie their own shoes; or (b) you are responding to someone who is asserting that you can’t or shouldn’t be strong and independent.
Yes, mastery of the obvious is kind of part and parcel to the type of bullshit I’m speaking of. Most people who talk a good portion about the importance of diversity for example, are the ones who object to diversity of ideas outside of their own. Most people who wax poetic about tolerance are very very intolerant people. Most people who brag about being independent and strong are anything but, and people who speak of being spiritual…well, again, pattern recognition.
Oddly enough, I never hear about “tolerance” other than from conservatives mocking liberals for not being sufficiently tolerant. “Tolerance” and “diversity” are both very broad terms that can mean a lot of different things.
Does tolerance mean welcome and inclusion or simply acceptance of another’s right to exist?
Does diversity mean diversity of people with a variety of backgrounds or other immutable characteristics such as race – or does it mean a diversity of ideas?
Does tolerance of diversity mean I have to have tea with the KKK members next door?
I think if I heard someone claim to be “tolerant of diversity,” I wouldn’t necessarily call bullshit but I might have more questions about how they are defining those terms. It’s obvious that a person claiming tolerance wouldn’t mean anything goes.
Catherine
9h ago
Richard P. — It could be that some parts of the Bible are true and others aren’t, no?
short answer:
no. the bible is all true or all false.
the Bible is God’s Word.
God is Truth.
His Word is Truth.
the whole Bible is True.
For an actor who played thugs and heavies, his pain is obvious. And it is not his pain but pain he feels for others.
Outrage fatigue?
For this last worthy cause I can and do muster outrage at evil in our midst.
I believe in a woman’s right within reason. This is beyond reason.
Horseman – this is NOT about women’s ‘rights.’ this is about evil. pure evil.
this is NOT about adoption.
this is NOT about wanted babies or unwanted babies.
this is about evil.
This is what radical feminism wants. I hope that they have stepped over a line with this.
If Catherine is still around I have a simple question for you:
What do you believe will happen to you when you die?
Oddly enough, I never hear about “tolerance” other than from conservatives mocking liberals for not being sufficiently tolerant.”
That happens when ideology is its own parody. Better investigate your own tribe, Catherine….the questions you ask aren’t for me. I’m not the outspoken diversity and/or tolerance advocate.
Man steps into a bar, asks for a drink.
“Can I have a vodka and tonic please?”
The place isn’t busy.
Bartender says, “sure! just a minute…”
He goes into the back, starts doing dishes.
Man waits and says, “hey I’m kind of in a hurry…can I have that drink now?”
“Sure! Just wait a little…and look up at the sign there, it says, “Customer service is our number one priority!”
Man says, “Okay, I see the sign…”
Bartender answers, still in the back doing dishes, “So what’s the problem? As you can see we care more about customer service than anything else! You need to learn to read and listen better. Let’s talk about what customer service means…it might mean something different to you than it does to me…”
This is what it’s like dealing with a liberal.
Larry G,
Thank you for your question as to what I think happens to us after we die. My answer is I know my body will disintegrate. And I hope that my organic material becomes part of something new – rocks, trees, animals, etc. But as to what happens to the rest of “me”: I haven’t the foggiest idea and I don’t think there is any way to know. I try to rest in my uncertainty – because I don’t believe there is any choice but to be uncertain.
Liz,
Hypocrisy is a universal human failing. Another universal failing is also failing to live up to the aspirational.
What I do notice is that the portrayal of “liberals” and “feminists” by conservative media, conservative facebook memes, or blogs like this bears no resemblance to any actual liberals or feminists I know. I think there is a lot more time spent demonizing liberals and feminists than actually trying to listen to them and see things from their perspective. I imagine that is true the other way around as well, though my impression is that liberals spend more energy trying to reach out and listen to their ideological opponents. Hell, *I’m* here, aren’t I?
I don’t know that I identify the liberals as my tribe. I guess so. But really I would say I am slightly left of center. I would claim the “feminist” label without hesitation, however.
Ame, I’ve had conversations with Muslims who have said the exact same thing about the Koran.
Catherine – i’m sure they have.
we each have the freedom to choose what we believe. it doesn’t change what is Truth and what is Lie.
Catherine,
The decomposition of dead flesh and bone is a provable fact. It is curious to me that you hope that your remains, after death, become part of something else..
“And I hope that my organic material becomes part of something new – rocks, trees, animals, etc.”
Given enough time, that too becomes a certainty…hope is not required.
“But as to what happens to the rest of “me”: I haven’t the foggiest idea and I don’t think there is any way to know. I try to rest in my uncertainty”
Fair enough. Uncertainty will give way to certainty when you draw your last breath.
Ame,
I DEFINITELY agree with you on the second part of your statement – that whatever anyone of us believes doesn’t change what is truth and what is a lie.
Larry,
You are right that, given enough time, my remains will absolutely become part of something else. I used the word “hope” because I was imagining the possibility of my remains being placed in some kind of vault or marble coffin. My preference would be to have my remains in closer contact with the natural world – whether through the scattering of my ashes or the new composting type burial recently legalized in Washington State. I do find something lovely in the notion of my body returning into a great stream of life.
As for whether I will somehow know what happens next as I draw my last breath – I don’t know! I am in the same camp as Socrates – there is no point in worrying about something unknowable. I am sure that if I were threatened with immediate death right now, my instincts would kick in and I would be terrified. But overall, I ponder my inevitable mortality on a regular basis with a fairly high degree of equanimity, (I’ve been practicing since I was 12.) On the other hand (back to the uncertainty principle), who knows how I will feel in the event i receive a terminal diagnosis or reach extreme old age with death looming ever closer. We’ll see!
Ame, Actually I would change the statement slightly to say: Whatever anyone of us believes doesn’t change what is true and what is false. To make a lie the opposite of truth implies some force that is intentionally deceptive, and I would not agree with that when it comes to the major questions posed by spirituality and/or religion.
“On the other hand (back to the uncertainty principle), who knows how I will feel in the event i receive a terminal diagnosis or reach extreme old age with death looming ever closer.”
You choice of phrase is interesting.
“Hypocrisy is a universal human failing.”
Indeed. But that story wasn’t an example of hypocrisy.
It was a story designed to illustrate a difference in world view.
Liz,
Ha ha I just read the story. I overlooked it before!
Larry G,
Please elaborate! What is interesting about my phrasing and what does it imply to you?
Catherine – there absolutely is a force that is intentionally deceptive.
these are all definitely big questions with lots of intangibles. my suggestion, if you’d be willing, is to ask God, that if He actually is who the Bible says He is, to reveal Himself to you. and then be willing to accept it when He does.
because … if there IS one, True God … who is all-knowing and all-powerful … who created you … who knows all your thoughts, who knows the number of hairs on your head at any given time, who knows when you sit and when you stand, and who loves you and cares about you not only in this life but in the after-life, then He is perfectly capable of revealing Himself to you. and if there is such a God, then i would guess you would want to know that and to know who He is.
As I internally debated about continuing a discussion with you, Catherine, I went back and carefully reread every comment made to get a 360 degree overview of who you say you are. Blogs are generally a piss poor way of communication due to the probability of misunderstandings and lack of details. So, using your own words below I assume I have a fairly accurate idea of Catherine?
I am in my late 40s and am in a very loving but open and uncommitted relationship. As such, I am looking ahead to a time when I may be post-menopausal and single.
I do not care whether that conforms to someone else’s notion of “femininity.”
I just want control over my own life and my own body – and I want the same for men. The idea of using sex as some type of bargaining chip to get a commitment from a man is horrifying to me.
I have been delving into the world of high end prostitution over the past few years – as a client with my bf, not a provider…I definitely think a lot more than sex goes on. I have total respect for these women and I think it can be a calling, a spiritual practice and a form of connecting and giving love. There is also no reason whatsoever for regular women to feel threatened by prostitutes – men want sex but they also want relationships and there are very clear boundaries and limits to the relationship a man has with a sex worker.
I am very open to criticisms of my participation in prostitution. It is something I have questioned myself a lot on. I ask myself what does it mean for women’s position in society if it’s easier to make money on one’s back than doing many other arguably more valuable types of work? How do I ensure that I am not exploiting or taking advantage of someone in a desperate situation? (I am confident that’s not been the case but it’s an issue I am very concerned and watchful about.)
Originally, Unitarianism was a radical backlash against New England Calvinism and orthodox Christianity in general. Its name (“Unitarians”) comes from the rejection of the Trinity, the rejection of Jesus’s divinity, thus affirming the oneness of God. Jesus is considered, however, a central and key teacher, though UUs look to all the world religions for guidance and wisdom. UUs also reject the concept of eternal damnation.
But the idea that anyone in a “looser” church is just looking for validation to spend all their time and money on meth and rent boys is incredibly cynical. It ignores the fact that most people, certainly people who go to church (or in my case currently, a Buddhist sangha) are hungry for something more and are highly concerned about working through ethical issues and questions.
Personally, I would define “success” a bit more broadly, at least for purposes of the goals of religious belief. Success would include attaining a sense of perspective, contentment, gratitude, and a sense of abundance, regardless of one’s external circumstances.
As a life-long atheistic agnostic contemplating a bleak futurity, I find it bizarre to hear a believer accusing others of wishful thinking.
I think that we don’t know the answers and we wish we did. So we posit a God who does. We find comfort and a sense of righteousness in the very difficulties imposed by the God we made in our own image….since I now do Buddhist retreats and meditations.)
It could be that some parts of the Bible are true and others aren’t, no?
I never hear about “tolerance” other than from conservatives mocking liberals for not being sufficiently tolerant.
I don’t know that I identify the liberals as my tribe. I guess so. But really I would say I am slightly left of center. I would claim the “feminist” label without hesitation, however.
On the other hand (back to the uncertainty principle), who knows how I will feel in the event i receive a terminal diagnosis or reach extreme old age with death looming ever closer.
Did I miss anything?
Catherine…”I imagine that is true the other way around as well, though my impression is that liberals spend more energy trying to reach out and listen to their ideological opponents.”
I think that’s way off. Leftists, from what I have seen, have a very simplistic and stereotypical view of how their opposition thinks. They seriously fail at the “ideological Turing test” (which is: can you credibly explain what arguments the other side would use on a particular issue?)
For example: a friend who is a conservative blogger is frequently told by commenters that her opinions just reflect the fact that she is an ignorant evangelical Christian. (actually, she is a highly educated Jew)
Larry G,
Well, of course, any conversation on the internet is entirely voluntary – as is the choice whether to continue a conversation. So given that and given your internal debate whether to engage with me, I want to reassure you that I will bear you no ill will if we start to communicate and then you decide to withdraw for whatever reason. And I also want to thank you for engaging to the extent you have.
Yes, it does appear that you collected accurate copies of my comments from this discussion thread. And those are all comments that are true and reflect my beliefs.
You ask whether they provide “a fairly accurate idea of Catherine.” First, I would say I am a little bashful about being focused on in this way, as the discussion should really be about the topics at hand rather than about ME. But I did volunteer those details, and you asked, so I will answer your question.
I doubt it’s possible to really know someone from a few comments on a discussion thread. These comments DO reflect my outlook and experiences as to certain aspects of life, but obviously over the course of many years on the planet and many hours of the day, any person’s life and being will encompass much more than a few theological opinions and some sexual experimentation. So I guess, I would say no, the comments do not provide a fairly accurate idea of me. Anyone concluding that it does would have to make a lot of assumptions and fill in a lot of gaps.
One thing I’ve found is that whenever I think I’ve got someone pegged, that person will surprise me. We are all a lot more and a lot more complex than the basic categories people might tend to put us into based on religious or political identification.
David Foster,
I would agree both liberals and conservatives (to use the two broad categories in our political and religious life currently) are guilty of stereotyping, parodying, misunderstanding and demonizing “the other side.” But my impression that liberals are more inclined to reach out and try to understand is based on a number of specific efforts I’m aware of – such as the book “Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right,” by Arlie Russell Hochschild (a book by a Berkeley sociologist who embedded herself among a group of Louisiana Tea Party Activists), “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonathan Haidt (an examination by a self described liberal as to the different factors that lead to the development of diverging liberal and conservative moral codes and the difficulty of seeing the other side’s point of view), the popularity in liberal circles of J.D. Vance’s memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” which seeks to explain the point of view from the generally conservative residents of a rust belt city in Ohio), and the humorous but still sincere effort of Sarah Silverman to get to know red state families across the country in “I Love You, America.” Those are just a few examples that come to mind. Oh and, as I write, I am remembering a supper club started by a group of Massachusetts liberals to visit back and forth and break bread with people from deep in Trump country. I am constantly hearing about that kind of thing initiated by liberals.
I am here because I seek an accurate understanding of the point of view and experience of those for whom “feminism” is a dirty word. I think I get it. I don’t agree with it but I get why people, even women, land where they do. That’s not an endorsement in any way, shape, or form but I prefer an accurate and nuanced understanding of my ideological opponents, rather than an inhuman parody.
Ame,
As you can tell, I am skeptical, but I am open to such a revelation and would find it very interesting.
Catherine,
After considering all that you have written, I will say that you and I have not one thing in common for discussion purposes, although I will continue to read your opinions for a while longer perhaps. Peace.
Larry G,
I understand and thank you for letting me now. Not to be too much of a stereotype but – Namaste. 🙂
Thank you letting me KNOW, I mean.
‘I prefer an accurate and nuanced understanding of my ideological opponents, rather than an inhuman parody.”
Well, if you have a question (if I have time) I’ll answer.
These few paragraphs come from the introduction of DeAnna Lorraine’s book entitled Making Love Great Again. She wrote this nearly three years ago. I would say that the situation has developed over the years as she predicted. American men and women are divorcing. I have divorced American women, including my mother. I felt so upset and disconnected that I walked away never to return.
As we begin this journey together, I want you to imagine something for me. I want you to imagine that the entire population of men (or, women if you’re a man)—whoever your opposite sex-partner is—is YOUR partner. Yes, your husband or your wife. I know it’s kind of weird, but just roll with it for a while.
If you go through this book imagining that you are relating to all men like your actual husband, and all women like your actual wife, it may allow you to tune in more with an open heart and mind, to their experience. Because right now, if we were in one giant marriage, we would be on the verge of permanent divorce. Men and women are hurt and confused. We have trust issues with each other and deep wounds that have been accumulating for the last several decades.
How would you respond and treat your partner you once loved, if you knew they were so upset and feeling so disconnected from you that they were about to leave and never come back? Just think about that as you go through this book. Like the above quote says, empathy is everything. We are in a relationship emergency right now, and we need to stop the bleeding; and fast.
Catherine,
Speaking of Haidt, here’s an interesting passage from the book you cited:
https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/
Catherine,
Also Haidt-related–my post Professors and the Pornography of Power:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/56415.html
I know this is a rhetorical question, but I still find it funny…
“How would you respond and treat your partner you once loved, if you knew they were so upset and feeling so disconnected from you that they were about to leave and never come back?”
I’d tell her to drop her house keys on the table and don’t let the door hit her in the ass as she leaves….Door, meet bitch…Bitch, meet door
Roger, it still amuses me sometimes how western (American) men still expect to catch trout by fishing from a sewer..
“We are in a relationship emergency right now, and we need to stop the bleeding; and fast.” No, we are not in an emergency yet. It will get a fuck of a lot worse in the near future.
Roger, just my opinion on this..Western females have almost completely used up all the goodwill and consideration men had towards them for generations, any empathy or warmth had been burnt to a crisp.
The females declared war on men, it took awhile but we finally believed them and are just now getting ready for battle. The next 10 years here in the west is going to be really interesting if you participate..
Because men age like fine whiskey. Women like cottage cheese.
Face it amassing resources (to turn women on) is just a matter of will and effort.
But if you ugly, you ugly
(and most women over 39 sure aint pretty)
(But my half million nestegg is sure pretty)
Just sayin
Nothin wrong with being skeptical. it’s a huge credit to you that you’re open.
you might find David Wood interesting … a former athiest, thoroughly knowledgeable in both the Bible and the Quran. not at all mean spirited.
here’s a link to his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics/featured
feminism …
i don’t think anyone supports a person getting the crap beaten out of them simply b/c the perp can do it and get away with it.
when we think of things, we often think of the extreme … which does exist, but it is not the common.
in promoting the support of giving women the ‘right’ to not have the crap beaten out of them by men – and no one denies this happens or that it shouldn’t happen – there are those who can’t stop at balance.
they want more and more and more. and that’s where the problem lies. they don’t know where to stop. they don’t believe there are *any* boundaries ever, or if there are, they don’t apply to *me,* and if they do apply to *me,* they change given the circumstances whenever *i* determine it is justified based on my own criteria at any given time.
they ignore truths that do not promote their desire for more – for example, women beat the crap out of men and children, too, but are never held to the same standard or given the same punishment. why? b/c they’re women. this is not right. this is not justice. this has taken the original precept: men shouldn’t beat the crap out of women, to the extreme, allowing women to do to others what they believe (rightfully so) is wrong for men. (are there exceptions; of course).
the general base nature of women has proven they need help placing appropriate boundaries on themselves and that they are emotionally driven. this is NOT bad or wrong; it simply is. are there exceptions? of course.
the general base nature of men has proven that they know boundaries are needed and therefore they develop and maintain them … and that men are logically driven. this is NOT bad or wrong; it simply is. are there exceptions? of course.
women, in general, want men and others to acknowledge their feelings and needs and desires … yet they don’t give the same consideration to men. that is wrong.
in the balance of life, everyone sacrifices something along the way – this is not a bad thing – nor does it give you more power b/c you did or had to.
life is not and has never been fair, just, or equal. trying to find a balance where the extreme are not treated cruelly does not give one the right to turn around and treat people with cruelty.
i recently had a very interesting discussion with a friend who has been married for 30+ years, raised 4 great kids together. i had to explain what women in general call ‘abuse’ and what is actually ‘abuse’ and why the difference matters. using the abuse card to get what you want is wrong. manipulating perception of normal behavior to have it look like abuse is wrong.
most of the time, the women who are truly abused are not the ones going all-out trying to get what they want. those women just want the abuse to stop; they just want to be safe. they want to be able to live in a safe place where they and their children are not being hurt. they’re not the ones pulling the ‘abuse’ card to get something different, or to get more, or to change b/c they’ve changed their minds. they’re not the ones inciting others and pushing them to extremes. they’re surviving and focused on protection. they’re not the ones putting themselves in stupid situations and making stupid choices.
but it feels good to have a ’cause.’
and then fear sets in … fear that it *could* happen to me … or my sister … or my daughter.
and then they have a cause based on irrational fear … because most men do NOT abuse women … because most men protect others and the weaker because that is their base nature.
but if you’re going to raise up a whole culture to say that all men are abusers, that all men are bad, and then enact laws to bend in that direction, automatically assuming the man is bad and wrong just b/c he’s a man … and the woman is good just b/c she’s a woman … then it is logical men are going to protect themselves.
how do men protect themselves from being treated as something they are not? they avoid the ones treating them that way.
and what are these women doing? they’re chasing after the men who are leaving them.
crazy.
Ame, well said, well said.
Ame
Well done girl, well done. All thinking women are afraid of MGTOW. Karen Straughan figures that this is the first male firing back from 170 years of feminist attacks. She may well be correct.
While Deanna Lorraine is trying to build bridges, I have doubts. She is trying to preserve as much advantage as she can. While I had some hope that things could mend, #metoo came along and killed all that.
I do like LarryG’s analogy. Perhaps men should try fishing in another pond?
Worse its going to get.
A large part of keeping women safe and society in general is social pressure.
We have seen what happens when we remove shame from women by women.
“Slut” checked women when it was called by women.
Now we have men removing the check on other men.
In the old days men lost respect of other men by being rude, abusive to a woman.
Now its “not my bitch, not my problem” or just not getting involved.
Men did not check women in all this, partially because they assumed women would as they always had.
Watch as men stop checking other men. Good men are good men. Bad men will now run unchecked.
She screamed “Help! Save me!”
And 100 guys whispered “no” and went on with their day.
To be making money as a cited relationship expert, Deanne Loraine must have a big family, long lasting and happy marriage….her husband must have a perpetual smile on his face! Oh, wait….Oh well, whatever!
Now I’m going to learn chess not by a chess master, but someone who doesn’t play.
Next, I’ll entrust some indigent guy to give me financial guidance, and after that I’ll take the health advice of an obese lady working at the Chikin’ Lickin’
Liz,
Thank you for your offer to answer any question. I think my main question for “red pill women” is how they are okay with the way women are portrayed and talked about on “red pill” sites.
I go on red pill sites and see pure hatred for women, across the board. There is occasionally some grudging acknowledgment that a woman who is constantly submissive, sweet, pretty, and embracing of very traditional gender roles might be tolerated and even “loved” (whatever love may mean to these men) but even then never entirely trusted or respected. But mostly women are portrayed as screeching, evil, intensely stupid, utterly callous harpies who need men to control them for their own good and for the good of society – essentially overgrown, evil children.
If you consider yourself “red pill,” how do you reconcile this portrayal with the fact that you are yourself a woman? Do you view yourself as an exception to the rule? Or do you view yourself as being in the one small category of “good” women? Do you believe you need a male to keep you in line – and, if so, how does that feel?
Ame,
Thank you! I will check out David Wood’s channel.
Right now, I am reading “Pastrix” – by the Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber. She probably wouldn’t be too popular in these parts as she is a liberal, female, Lutheran pastor. But she had some hilarious (albeit) affectionate things to say about UUs in one brief passage. (I’d quote it if I had it with me.)
David.
Yes! I remember that bit about how baffling we liberals find conservative moral thinking. That probably accounts for our greater curiosity and outreach to conservatives.
But what really disturbs me is reading the comments sections at places like the “The FOX & Friends” facebook page. I get the impression of masses of people who have never met a liberal or even a non-Christian and who have this incredibly cartoonish view of such people as evil and almost inhuman. And a total lack of curiosity as to what would make such people tick. In contrast, if *I* thought there were a significant group of people in the world who hate men and want to kill babies for fun, I’d want to know more and figure out what drives such an outlook.
David Foster, I will check out your blog and blog post on Jonathan Haidt when I have a chance soon!
Ame,
Thank you for your view of feminism. Are you a woman by the way? I assumed you were. I think this paragraph of yours may be what causes my confusion and alienation from blogs like this:
“but if you’re going to raise up a whole culture to say that all men are abusers, that all men are bad, and then enact laws to bend in that direction, automatically assuming the man is bad and wrong just b/c he’s a man … and the woman is good just b/c she’s a woman … then it is logical men are going to protect themselves”
As I read feminist blogs or go out and about in society, I just do NOT have that impression. I have never been in a feminist environment where I walked away thinking that anyone thought all or most men are evil abusers. I think there is a sense that cultural assumptions about men’s and women’s roles or ways of being may enable abuse, but never ever ever have I encountered the anti-male sentiment you describe. Certainly, you would never go to a feminist blog and hear men discussed with the pure vitriol that women are discussed on most red pill blogs. Occasionally on a feminist blog there might be a contemptuous reference to a “bro” (a sort of callous, frat boy type), or a take down of the “nice guy” – a guy who engages in an obnoxious set of behaviors under the guise of being “nice” when he is anything but. But you never see whole scale demonization.
Feminism, as I see it, is an ORIENTATION. It doesn’t tell you necessarily where I stand on any given issue. But when I consider political, social, or legal questions, it is very important to me that women be treated as full and equal citizens and human beings just as men are. It doesn’t mean I hate men or that I think women should not be held accountable for wrong-doing.
I think the perception that feminism is about having one’s cake and eating it too (reaping the benefit of both old and new gender roles) is due to the fact that we are in flux. Old fashioned views of gender didn’t just die, but it’s not feminists who are calling for chivalry out of one side of the mouth and equality out of the other. Show me a judge who gave a break to a female teacher statutorily raping a male student and most of the time it will be a conservative minded male. In the criminal justice system, women do still benefit from the fact that we are not seen as dangerous or as threatening, but that’s not due to feminists.
“Watch as men stop checking other men. Good men are good men. Bad men will now run unchecked.
She screamed “Help! Save me!”
And 100 guys whispered “no” and went on with their day.”
and four guys took videos of the assault in progress to post to YouTube later…while twelve others sat down to watch. Yep, when you sow thistles don’t expect a crop of wheat.
I think the new crop is ready for harvest, Horseman
Ame,
I would also STRONGLY disagree that women are more driven by logic, compared to men, who are allegedly more driven by logic. Having worked in a number of male-dominated environments, that stereotype just seems crazy to me! I think it derives from the many periods in history when women didn’t have equal educational opportunities. It’s education that teaches people how to temper their emotions, put them in perspective, and to turn to the powerful tool that is human reason.
AHHH TYPO. I would strongly disagree that women are more driven than men by EMOTION
Thoughtful questions, Catherine, thanks.
Per red pill forums, I’m more interested in topics than personalities (at least, until I take an interest in the participants on a personal level…as I do in the couple of forums I participate in, to include this one).
I don’t check to see what RP people think and then decide on what I believe…it just generally happens that I fall ideologically into the “red pill” paradigm most of the time. Forums differ, and I avoid unproductive ones.
I’m from a military family and have sons, so most of the topics are of interest to me as I have a personal vested interest in the outcome. I could take each topic specifically (which would take a long while, and be excessively longwinded).
If you consider yourself “red pill,” how do you reconcile this portrayal with the fact that you are yourself a woman?
I don’t consider myself to be red pill.
There is no universal definition for red pill as far as I know (seems to vary by individual), so I cannot accept a title without understanding the definition.
”Do you view yourself as an exception to the rule?”
Definitely not.
”Or do you view yourself as being in the one small category of “good” women?”
We’re all sinners so…no, I don’t think I’m “good” (though, candidly, if I were only good, my husband would have tired of me long ago..so maybe such things are meant to be). I do think I’m unusually good at making value assessments (knowing what to value, and how to value it…relationships included). And I’ve been very very blessed and fortunate in life.
Do you believe you need a male to keep you in line – and, if so, how does that feel?
When my husband leads, the results are best…for much the same reason sports teams need a coach if they really want to excel.
That doesn’t mean I have no input (he values my judgment), but he has ultimate say.
Overall, I see the results of fatherless sons and daughters raised by “strong, independent” single women and (outliers excepted) they’re not good. No one wins, so I favor policies and paradigms (perceptions matter) to dissuade bad results.
Yo, LIZ! Stop training your cat in urban warfare tactics….
LOL Larry. 😆
Liz,
Thank you for your detailed answer. I suppose the captain-and-first-mate analogy for marriage that I’ve seen elsewhere kind of answers the question I have about how women can feel self-respect when they let their husbands “lead.” After all, a first-mate doesn’t feel humiliated following the captain’s lead; the first mate knows that he is an important and valued part of a hierarchy that is necessary to accomplish certain goals.
But families aren’t like a ship with a temporary hierarchy for a limited purpose. A family encompasses a person’s whole life and that of the children. Also, a first mate isn’t like a wife in a family that believes in wifely submission because the first mate can eventually get the captain’s job. Lastly, the first mate isn’t expected to have sex with the captain.
I am just old enough to remember what it was like when men were assumed to be the “head of household” and treated us such. I am adamant that we NEVER go back there as a society. It’s not that I think men across the board are all naturally horrible abusers – but I’ve seen first hand that that’s a situation that does not bring out the best in people. And yes, it’s a situation that enables abuse This isn’t a male-vs.-female issue – other than the fact that men were historically in that position of power and authority. Some of the most adamant feminists I know (including my boyfriend) are men who were bullied by their fathers, only to have their mothers unable to protect them because the mothers felt they had to defer to the father’s authority.
I also just don’t buy that men are more competent to make decisions or that a family needs one leader. Even when a man is a benevolent leader, it is still an unnecessary degree for authority for one adult to have over another – especially on such an arbitrary basis as sex.
Catherine,
“But what really disturbs me is reading the comments sections at places like the “The FOX & Friends” facebook page.”
From what I’ve seen, almost ANY comments section with hundreds or thousands of commenters will display an alarming level of very disturbing stuff. One of the weirdest was the 2013 Yahoo thread on…the battery problems with Boeing 787!!! The comment thread displayed considerable levels of disturbing blame-casting (directed at many targets) and anger, coupled with a high level of cluelessness about aviation and manufacturing. See my post The Dream(liner) and the Nightmare (of Social Toxicity)
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/34475.html
A lot of the craziness I observe in various places does not fall neatly into a Left/Right paradigm.
Catherine, we’ll just have to defer to results.
I’ve been very happily married for 26 years. Through 21 moves, raised a family.
How about you?
Dave,
I’m looking forward to checking out your blog and posts. Probably this weekend at the rate I am going!
You are right that massive comments threads do tend to be a train wreck.
Liz,
I married young (at 23) and was happily married for 20 years. My ex-husband and I supported each other emotionally throughout the first 20 years of our careers, we built a house, we loved our dogs together, and we had many good times. We never had children due to a combination of infertility (his) and choice (we looked into adoption and medical intervention but didn’t follow through). I still love my ex-husband very much and he is very much in my life. (And to the angry men on this thread, no, I didn’t walk off with cash and prizes. We had each contributed to our wealth in roughly equal measure and that wealth was divided amicably down the middle, without lawyers.)
Currently, I am in a passionate, madly-in-love relationship with the boyfriend I met the year after my divorce. We’ve been together for 3+ years, and we keep expecting the passion to fizzle, but it doesn’t. I am sure we will calm down eventually. Consistent with the ideal of “resting in uncertainty” and given that we are past the age in which we would contemplate children, we have no plans to marry, though we both have imagined a life-long relationship with each other. Given that we have both been married before, however, we are both reluctant to “lock down” our relationship. Things can shift and changed and I’d hate for someone to be tied to me against his will.
You referred to “the results.” I don’t buy that results in this area are measurable. My parents have their 49th anniversary this year – and their marriage does not appear positive at all. In contrast, I judge both of my adult relationships with men as successful – though I realize most people automatically label any divorce or break-up as a failure. I am extremely grateful that my ex-husband and I had the opportunity to divorce painlessly.
You referred to “the results.” I don’t buy that results in this area are measurable.
You don’t have to buy it. But results matter.
My parents have their 49th anniversary this year – and their marriage does not appear positive at all.
Then the results are negative. Misery = bad result.
In contrast, I judge both of my adult relationships with men as successful – though I realize most people automatically label any divorce or break-up as a failure. I am extremely grateful that my ex-husband and I had the opportunity to divorce painlessly.
Well, then you cannot speak knowledgeably about how to raise a family (you didn’t have one) but you did have a career-oriented marriage that lasted 20 years, ended in amicable divorce, with a follow on self described passionate relationship (that involves including prostitutes)? Anyone who desires those results can follow your advice.
Of course, as I ponder your question Liz, I now am questioning my own judgment in giving the outlines of my life story. Because one thing I know from reading “red pill” sites, is that Red Pill proponents (not you, I know, but perhaps other readers, who do identify in that way) loooove to look at women’s lives, especially uppity older women, tear them apart and explain why the woman is either evil or a loser or both. For men going their own way, and to whom women in their 40s and older are allegedly invisible, they sure seem pre-occupied with us. Of course, I am commenting essentially in anonymity so I don’t care what people make of it.
Thinking through how my situation would be viewed by a Red Pill person, it occurs to me that this world view is designed as a way to crap on women. It’s all “heads you lose, tails you lose.” For example, a red pill person looking at my life could see all the ways that my boyfriend is successful and/or “alpha” – and argue that proves I’m “hypergamous,” and desirous of some kind of provider or leader to dominate me. OR this person could conclude my bf is a “beta” and therefore, I’ve gotten the comeuppance and humiliation that must necessarily come to any woman over 40 who dares to be unmarried and then finds herself stuck only with uninspiring choices of men.
In reality, human beings and human experience are far more diverse and complex than the sweeping generalizations and rigid categories that red pill theory – or traditional gender roles – allow for.
Liz,
I don’t think I gave any advice!
I would also mention that I know PLENTY of long-term and HAPPY marriages that are utterly egalitarian. My best friend’s parents are married about 50 years and to me, they are probably the epitome of lives well-lived. He’s a senior partner in a major law firm and she is a college professor. They have two children, 5 billion friends, very active charitable interests, are still working at nearly 80.
‘I don’t think I gave any advice!”
Above you stated: I am just old enough to remember what it was like when men were assumed to be the “head of household” and treated us such. I am adamant that we NEVER go back there as a society. It’s not that I think men across the board are all naturally horrible abusers – but I’ve seen first hand that that’s a situation that does not bring out the best in people. And yes, it’s a situation that enables abuse (snip)
I also just don’t buy that men are more competent to make decisions or that a family needs one leader. Even when a man is a benevolent leader, it is still an unnecessary degree for authority for one adult to have over another – especially on such an arbitrary basis as sex.
IOW, don’t let the man lead. That’s advice.
Always interesting to me when these discussions come up and folks claim to know happy egalitarian people. Well…overall happiness for women is lower now than in the 1950s, and higher in developing countries. Women in your (and my) age group are the highest level users of anti-depressants. And a lot of forums like Blooms are sprouting up as women who bought into that egalitarian utopia have found it to be less than what the glossy pamphlet led them to believe.
I look at what works. I don’t worry so much about why it works. Results matter, not wishes. This has saved me a lot of misery and bad choices in life (and fwiw, the Bible is a great blueprint…when one tries to do what it says one doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel). I could go on but we both know there’s not much point.
Have a good day!
Liz, I’ll chat with you over at Spawny’s. The discussion with this Catherine is boring, always the same lame hamster mewling.
Liz,
You mention people who “claim” to know happy, egalitarian people. Wow!!! It’s as if you cannot believe it’s even possible. Everyone I know is egalitarian and I know tons of women who are flourishing. It’s not like everyone is miserable and unhappy.
As for women being dissatisfied with egalitarian utopia – well, maybe that’s because it’s not egalitarian utopia.
We are, in a way, caught between traditional gender roles and feminism. Red pill guys appear to see this as an advantage for women in that women have the benefits of independence while it is still expected in many quarters that men pay for dates or engage in other acts of “chivalry.” But we also have is a situation in which women are still expected to be the primary caretakers of children while also working full-time in careers.
I think the major problem is that childrearing does not fit into our current model of industrialized capitalism. Don’t get me wrong – I loooove me some industrialized capitalism and I am very grateful for all the comforts of our society. But it creates a situation in which women who stay home with their children are necessarily dependent on their men (as opposed to more egalitarian hunter-gatherer or even agrarian societies in which everyone contributes to the provision of the group.) And if women become dependent across the board, then history has shown that women WILL be disrespected, women’s interests WILL be ignored, women’s rights WILL be run roughshod over, and men WILL become domineering (nooo, not because men are evil but because that is human nature).
I don’t know what the overall solution is but, at least now in America, we have the freedom to pursue individualized solutions. That can include not having children and falling in love in one’s 40s with a guy who likes seeing prostitutes. That can include having a family with a stay-at-home dad. That can include being a stay-at-home mother – while enjoying the greater respect that women have now that so many of us are more involved in public affairs. That can include becoming a two career family and cobbling together child care solutions. That can include staying at home when the children are young and then pursuing a career. In any case, I know that now we have greater freedom to pursue happiness without being pressured into a one-size-fits-all model.
I am sensing you are sick of this discussion so I can stop – but I wish you a good day as well.
Larry G,
That’s damn rude, but at least you didn’t call me a dumb cunt or a slag, so you’re a step above some of your fellow Red Pill guys so far.
Although I liked the photo of a kitten aiming at Fido, cats in the real world are more subtle, and perhaps more cruel. I knew one that would walk the top of the fence that kept the dog in to tantalize him.
Catherine, trust me…that was not rude. If I had intended to offend you or be rude, you would have zero doubts in your mind that I insulted you. As far as calling you petty names, I think Liz can vouch for the fact that I take great pride in creating unusual and colorful insults, which you are not worth my time or effort. Have fun with the handful of your remaining years, bye!
Larry,
I did not claim to have any doubt that you insulted me. I was calling you out on the fact that you did insult me — and then did it again. That’s neither here nor there because, after all, you’re just a random, internet misogynist.
Being proud of your track record as a put-down artist is pitiable. You may not realize it but your insults say a lot more about you than about your targets – and they serve no real purpose other than to give your pathetic ego an illusory sense of satisfaction. Think about it.
LMAO! Bye Catherine. I’m quite finished with you
Likewise! Namaste, Felicia!
@Larry G
“The females declared war on men, it took awhile but we finally believed them and are just now getting ready for battle. The next 10 years here in the west is going to be really interesting if you participate.”
What I think is interesting is that almost all of the women around me are self-destructing. Your sentence implies that men will take an active role in harming women. That may come to pass. But what I am saying is that it seems as though women are self-destructing right now, and we are are peak simping.
These women can’t be saved. It seems as if no man needs to lift a finger to hasten women getting what’s coming to them. In fact you could put on your cleanest pair of Captain-Save-A-Ho tights and cape, which I’ve done many times, and you can’t save them. No one can save them. They are beyond human aid.
Take my mother as an example. Technically she is still alive. But to me she is already dead. She is just waiting to give up the ghost. My mother was born in 1946 (now seventy-two years old) and is the first of the Baby Boomers.
I have more examples. I have posted here about the hottest woman in my hometown, who is now without a job, without her own housing, and without her health. I asked her, “What is so hard about letting a man love you and take care of you? Because you are obviously not doing such a great job of taking care of yourself.” She would hear nothing of it. No one can save her. She is beyond human aid.
I’m sure that MGTOW Horseman would agree with me that in the coming decades we will see women drop like flies without men lifting a finger to harm them. The oldest of the Millennial women turn forty years old in the next five years. We are going to see a whole generation of middle-aged women lose their shit.
Men are going to have to take to heart the three central tenants of Alanon (the wives and family members of alcoholics in Alcoholics Anonymous). These three tenants are:
1. I didn’t cause it;
2. I can’t control it; and
3. I can’t cure it.
Hi Catherine. 🙂
Roger
Agreed. And what is sad is I live the alternative.
30 years in. 20 more gods willing.
I work full time for myself and she works two days a week. Comfortable taking care of each other in mutual respect and compatible differences. I am male and all that brings. She is female and all that brings. 30 years of investment brings tolerence of each others bullshit within reason.
I see the broken women every day. The out and out hatred in their eyes seeing us walk hand in hand down the street.
Yes they are beyond saving. Even beyond pity. I no longer even see them.
And I dont even slow down for cars stuck in the snow. A man should be able to deal with it. A woman…dont give a fuck.
Worse a situation of violence or real danger….risk my life to intervene in a fight?
I served my country in combat. My fighting days for anyone but kin are over.
Oh and having my gasfitters ticket the number of calls I have gotten for heating calls…
“Sorry I don’t go into houses owned by women. Yes you are freezing. Yes I know your brother Bill from hockey. No I wont come over if Bill is there.
Yes, yes I am an asshole but its for your safety…you have seen the Jillette ad right?”
Forget men saving women from street violence etc.
Talking to other tradesmen. Many hearing my thoughts have come to the same conclusion….lots of work doing commercial, industrial jobs or jobs for men (lots of single men buying bachelor homes.) Hassle free work.
Its coming where single women wont be able to get a tradesman in.
Men wont even save them from major appliances.
P.s. five of seven heating companies I work with have gone to bodycams like the one I wear. Tells you something.
28 upvotes. 2000 downvotes. Read the comments
mgtowhorseman: “No one makes the movie about fifty years after. As the survivors rebuild after the clean slate. The hope of a new society with plentiful resources for the small population left.”
Nobody’s made a movie out of “A Canticle for Leibowitz” yet …
The apocalypse happens before the events of the book, but as the survivors “rebuild after the clean slate”, someone discovers some knowledge of certain engineering discoveries made before the apocalypse.
Naturally, even those who haven’t read it can suss the eventual trajectory for these developments.
Catherine –
the red pill is, at it’s most basic, one realizing that the world they thought was true is not what is actually true.
this process is different for each person.
usually it’s a very slow realization.
but for some, it’s a shocking wake-up call … almost always due to either themselves or someone they care about being screwed over by a woman or women and being left with no recourse.
and this is why you see such bitterness and even hatred towards women in the male dominated red pill sites. these men have been screwed over – or someone they deeply love and care about has been screwed over – by women, and those sites give them places to vent it out. they are not really places for women, so you have to think of it like a man’s club … a place for men to talk about man stuff with man vocabulary.
the thing is … most every one of those guys would sacrifice his life for a woman who loved him, willingly had great sex often, cared for his needs and desires, never talked bad about him or treated him poorly in public or private. men want to go above and beyond taking care of a woman. it’s their nature. but not when it gets them screwed.
once you begin to *see* it, you see it everywhere. the easiest way to begin seeing the red pill truths is to simply switch things from female to male perspective and vice versa. if you see a meme, switch man/woman. for example, all the memes on “A Great Man is one who …..” switch it to, “A Great Woman is one who …” etc.
i just went to facebook and saw this meme: “To make a woman happy, give her these three things: Attention, Affection and Appreciation” … switch it around and repost: “To make a man happy, give him these three things: Attention, Affection and Appreciation.”
also pay attention to how media presents men. they present them as weak beings who need rescuing by women in some form.
Post Alley Crackpot…”Nobody’s made a movie out of “A Canticle for Leibowitz” yet …”
Someone should…it would be difficult but not impossible to do it right.
It’s a deep book, truly thought-provoking.
“The closer men came to perfecting for themselves a paradise, the more impatient they seemed to become with it, and with themselves as well. They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for them, perhaps, it was easier for them to see that something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow. When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it. But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle’s eye, and that rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn. Well, they were going to destroy it again, were they, this garden Earth, civilized and knowing, to be torn apart again that man might hope again in wretched darkness.”