No, I Don’t Care About Your Feelings

by Brett Stevens on December 6, 2011

in Featured, Gender War

In physics, work is a force times the distance through which it acts. In real life during modern society, work is getting ready to apply force when someone speaks up about “feelings.”

“Feelings” arose in the 1960s to mean personal perceptions, including emotions. Feelings are any personal thoughts you wish were real. It was popular back then to see business, culture, religion and the military as sociopaths hell-bent on controlling us by stealing our humanity and replacing it with cold logic.

To avoid that, we’re all supposed to respect the feelings that anyone has, which is a rule of the type administered by harried teachers: “Don’t touch anyone else’s books for any reason, ever!” That’ll keep the little bastards for awhile.

However, this means that any collective enterprise must stop as soon as one person, whether right or wrong, has an objection based on feelings. Political correctness may be the worst example, but it is not alone. People get insulted when shown they are doing something incorrectly, even if for their benefit. They get upset when any differences between people are noticed, because that might hurt someone’s feelings. Our entire society is swung by the balls for fear of offending someone or simply not including someone’s feelings. How many times have you heard some person in the self-righteous hollow tones of moral pretense tell you “But not everyone feels that way, so we can’t assume that”? Or have you seen good plans be taken into a committee room and chopped into little bits while every damn person in the room has to weigh in about how they “feel” the project is going to look, smell, or emotional affect others?

We have become a grotesque touchy-feely society. The promise of such a society is pure Disney: everyone is included and everyone is loved. The reality is that everyone has a super-big hammer called But My Feelings and they use it on us regularly. It’s a prison. A prison of other people’s irrational demands.

Advertisement

If a Men’s Rights movement has any founding concept, it is masculinity, and the founding role of masculinity is not to give a damn about your “feelings.” In fact, we need t-shirts that say I Don’t Care About Your Feelings. These would operate as a filter, sending foolish women and emo-beta males away in tears while winning approval from people with actual souls and common sense.

I don’t care about your feelings — or anyone’s. I care about results. In an emergency, emotion makes people break down when they need to act. In daily life, wallowing in emotion blocks us from achieving what we need to in order to feel satisfied of our own worth. The more we try to be soft and comforting like a pillow, the more our “love” chokes people, because feelings are not reality. When we indulge the feelings of other people, we push them away from reality and into a human illusion which crumples when it confronts reality. By endorsing their feelings, we are imprisioning people in denial — and then imprisioning each other in a society in denial.

If you want to know why the Men’s Rights movement is confused, look no further than this division:

  • Liberalism: Feelings. We are all equal, thus our feelings are all important, which requires we do away with the notion that reality somehow unites us. We are each our own worlds.
  • Conservatism: Realism. Order in this world is bigger than us and wiser than us, and our feelings do not matter. What matters is end results, or adapting to reality.

Feminism depends on the notion that reality is optional. In the feminist-world, nature did not create opposite sexes for a reason, and men and women can be made the same despite radical differences in their needs and inclinations. In the feminist-world, just because some people with political power say something, it becomes reality. Feminism is the child of liberalism; without liberalism, feminism never would have occurred. While not all liberals are feminists, all feminists are liberals, because feminism depends on us putting “feelings” before reality itself, and thus is from the genre of liberalism and not conservatism.

Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) are essentially crypto-conservatives, but the big joke is that MRAs don’t know it yet. They’re learning. Look at these juicy statements:

The only way a man will value you is if you made him put in a lot of investment before sex. The more work he puts in, the less he can rationalize that you were meaningless to him, and the more likely he will continue to pursue because he considers you above the rest. Each man you have sex with that doesn’t call you back will kill a part of your soul, and it’s your job to guard against that. Only have sex with men who earn it.

[He tells the above to his sister, who] is absolutely repulsed by the stories I tell her of quickly taking a girl to bed (or car). Her response is along the lines of, “How can they do that? Ewww.” My brainwashing has worked on her, and the truth is she appreciates my lessons. She’s happy not to be like other girls her age, drowning in a shallow life of liquor and anonymous cocks. – Roosh V

Why does marriage exist? To avoid this problem. Why do social conservative values exist? To avoid this problem and others by paying attention to what works. Virginity makes happy, long-lasting marriages. No promiscuity avoids burnouts who are incapable of love. No divorce avoids broken families. Sobriety, hard work and a meditative piety make self-actualized people who can figure out what is more important in life than owning gadgets and impressing the neighbors. Social conservatives didn’t just make this shit up. They derived it from several thousand years of history, which is time enough to see — probably from the vantage point of age 90 — who had the happiest life from birth to the grave, and who served an unsatisfying “life sentence” before settling blissfully into the arms of death.

If you want to know what was taken from you by the great liberal revolution of 1789-2009, it was this sense of a full and whole life. What you get now is table scraps instead. A certification in some industry you don’t care about, a boring job, a city where everything is a ripoff, and being Fuck #137 for some girl who doesn’t care about any of them and will steal from you as soon as it is convenient. The sociopaths won, and they did it by pandering to our feelings.

I believe that humans are not just a bunch of folks with different ideas. We are a bunch of castes, born to have in-alterable predispositions. That used to work, when society was structured differently. – Xsplat

This guy went straight from trying to make a liberal point to endorsing the caste system of ancient feudalism. He’s such a Godwin that he skipped right over the modern forms of control, and resurrected an ancient one. But he’s right. IQ and ability determine what you are capable of, and if you go beyond it, you screw up. We have only to look at our democratic leaders and our nouveau riche captains of industry to see how you can take the prole out of the cornfield but you can’t take the cornfield out of the prole.

I think it has something to do with the Anglo form of government, which is based on an adversarial relationship between the government and the people. From the Magna Carta onward, English speaking people have sought to define themselves apart from their rulers. Americans enshrined distrust of government into our Constitution, and to this day we remain extraordinarily suspicious of government power. – The Spearhead

Do you see what’s being said here? Adversarial relationships with government produce the worst results. By implication, that suggests that we need a society where we are not adversaries to our government. We all need to be on the same page. A homogenous society. You can’t pull that off in the USA, where everyone’s heading in their own direction.

You might as well just give everyone uniforms and pictures of the Kaiser.

If you are sizing a man up as a potential long-term boyfriend I would suggest that you let him know that explicitly.

Be 100% honest with him about both his merits and demerits in that respect. Talk about the future. Interview him to determine his suitability. – Johnny Milfquest

He is advocating that we treat sexual relationships like social contracts. That is the exact opposite of the But My Feelings approach. It denies feelings in favor of reality as a business negotiation.

Soulless? Perhaps not. It avoids misinterpretation, makes it clear what is expected, and perhaps, stops each person from moving in opposite directions. It enforces reality and homogenous belief. It’s fascist, but it’s also the best way to achieve a new kind of freedom — freedom from human failure.

Failure occurs when we do not understand our reality and get caught up in thinking that our thoughts are more real than reality itself. Inevitably, a collision occurs. We, being much smaller than the whole of reality, always lose.

True freedom means that you are not held back by anything. You do not have the ability to do “anything,” because you’re still going to need to find a way to adapt to your world, and you probably don’t want to do anything that is not to your own benefit, which cuts out a lot of activities. But if any person in your society can yell stop, whether or not that person has a good reason to do so, you have the opposite of freedom. You have a prison of the lowest common denominator and the weakest link in the chain.

Imagine being the survivor of a wartime tragedy, in which the city where you grew up had been destroyed in battle and your job was to lead other survivors through ice-shrouded mountains while an enemy pursues you. You would very quickly learn the reality-first principle: Feelings, even if legitimate, do not matter. Reality does; keep moving. If you are pursued, you may have to make some hard choices. For example, the old and infirm who cannot move quickly may need to be left behind. People who are so invested in their self-drama that they slow you down may need to be driven away. If you don’t do these things, all of the survivors may be killed. Everyone would lose.

The MRM will gain its true power the instant it stops caring about feelings and starts waging war against them. We are men. Our job is to focus on facts, causes, effects and strategies. We are not here to be a soft and comforting pillow; we are here to avoid the bad results that would cause that pillow to be your own relief. That is because our rational minds recognize that warm fuzzies lead to doom, and that the reality-first principle leads us away from that disaster.

{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Johnny Milfquest December 6, 2011 at 8:26 am

Thanks for the ping-back Brett.

“Our job is to focus on facts, causes, effects and strategies.”

I agree.

But that is why I reject designations like “Liberal” or “Conservative”. I look out for Number One (me) and I think other people (if they are smart) do the same.

Politics isn’t going to cut it. The actions you take in your own life in your own interests are paramount. Social change comes first. Political responses to those changes only comes afterwards.

Ideology asks people to shelve their own enlightened self-interest for some imagined Greater Good such as the The Nation, The Race (unfashionable now), The Gender (feminism and some MRAs), The Proletariat (never popular in the USA but very popular elsewhere), The Faith (the Umma, the global Anglican Communion, etc), The Planet, Humanity or some other horse-shit.

2 Dulst December 6, 2011 at 9:00 am

Interesting article, I agree that people need to be more rational and less emotional, on both a macroscopic and personal level.

However it is unfortunate that people can never entirely switch off their feelings, and so are easily manipulated by them. The manipulation of feelings is the means by which modern feminism has been so successful.

An implication of this is that it creates a problem with going back to socon values. Namely: The “way things were” in a traditional, patriarchal and wholesome family orientated society may have been better than the society we have now; but that state is a prelude to our current problems. A “calm before the storm” if you will.

If we went back to that kind of society it would only be a matter of time before capitalism degrades into consumerism, and dignity/pride in one’s objective accomplishments degrades into unwarranted self esteem – leading to feminism and entitlement culture.

I believe the MRM should focus on a new way of improving society, rather than temporarily rewinding its fall.

3 Eric December 6, 2011 at 9:35 am

Feelings give us orientation to the world around us. It helps to shape the fighting spirit, the morale that bonds us together, as much as anything else. Even if they are acting irrationally/in shock, they need to be treated with respect.

Diplomacy is a skillset not a solution. It’s much more varied and flexible than most physical skills.

4 Ouroboros December 6, 2011 at 11:08 am

Great article, Brett.

5 MeMyselfI December 6, 2011 at 2:55 pm

@Dulst
“I believe the MRM should focus on a new way of improving society, rather than temporarily rewinding its fall.”

Actually, we shouldn’t do either.

Liberals and feminists should suffer the consequences of their actions.

Civilization must FALL.

Then be rebuilt by “conservatives” (MEN) – once again as a patriarchy.

Any thing less and nothing will be learned, nothing will be remembered…

…and men will have failed at being men.

6 Bill Brasky December 6, 2011 at 3:16 pm

Like the article, but I agree with Eric.

You might think it sounds tough to discount emotions, but they are what drive us.

You still care about YOUR feelings. Why else would you bother to get laid or acccomplish anything?

It makes you feel good, in one way or another.

7 Extinguish December 6, 2011 at 3:52 pm

Great article!

By the way, Marcus Aurelius has a lot to say on this subject and I would encourage anyone to read him.

8 sestamibi December 6, 2011 at 4:08 pm

Great article, but wrong on one very important point: only SOME individuals (those with cunts) are entitled to have their feelings “respected” and prevail. All others are SOL.

9 Wishy-Washy Emotional Dude December 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm

I can’t believe anybody seriously writes an article about not caring about people’s feelings and expects to have friends, lovers or meaningful relationships where life is not just some perfectly procedural but ultimately empty pursuit.

Tune in to your mammalian brain – because as much as you wish you weren’t, you are a mammal – and take some time to explore that side of life.

If, as you argue, true freedom means not being held back in anything, that includes emotions and experiencing your feelings about other people’s emotions.

Without those, what’s the point in being alive and living the human experience?

Or is your true freedom really “the true freedom to be just like my argument claims freedom is”?

Lastly, did I get this right, your piece appears to suggest that “it’s fascist’ is OK. Is that really what you meant?

10 xsplat December 6, 2011 at 5:30 pm

I’m not sure if you paid much attention to my article that you quoted.

I’m not advocating for a caste system as a means of control. I’m stating that the reality is that humas are born into genetic castes.

It’s not an issue of what system should be. It’s an issue of what is.

Humans have genetic predispositions. Google “genetic basis for morality” and take an hour to read what you find and you’ll discover that out of 5 basic moral traits, only 3 are universal. The extra two relate to purity and authority. Some of us are born with different moral predispositions. Morals are innate, and not merely memetic.

I’m not suggesting a system. I’m describing one. Should be versus is.

11 Fresh squeezings from Tom Jone's soiled jock strap December 6, 2011 at 5:48 pm

Feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings!

12 Attila December 6, 2011 at 7:13 pm

The cleverest men are those who feel like a woman and think like a man.

13 Chad December 6, 2011 at 7:57 pm

A lot of good points in this artice, but emotion vs rationality is not necessarily an either or construct. Even a pragmatic approach has to incorporate how people feel about issues (even if the solution is to suppress the feelings). This is the entire rational for propaganda, because feelings will eventually manifest themselves in action. For this reason the government wants not only your obedience, but your love as well.

This is why any enemy of the state is an inhuman monster, any thinking besides what is taught in curriculum is stupidity, and why any opposition to your actions is for the worst possible reason. Ever wonder how well the race card (or any other appeal to bigotry) would work if the general population were capable of critical thinking?

14 Tom December 7, 2011 at 12:00 am

HAIL!

15 Clarence December 7, 2011 at 1:56 am

Xsplat:

Were you aware of this?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111205102713.htm

Before we start talking about “genetic castes” we are going to have to be sure that we understand how our environment affects the heredity we were born with.

16 kyle December 7, 2011 at 2:17 am

Not really sure why you would use Stalin as an exemplar of cold rationality. He murdered untold numbers out of people out of rage and was supremely paranoid. But reading the rest of your screed, maybe it wasn’t a bad choice.

Ooo, burn.

17 xsplat December 7, 2011 at 4:18 am

Chad, that research is interesting, however it has no bearing on the research that has been done by geneticists regarding the correlation of genes to moral traits.

If you would like to critique that research, I suggest you first familiarize yourself with it.

18 xsplat December 7, 2011 at 4:27 am

Meant to address Clarence, not Chad.

19 OK Comrade December 7, 2011 at 9:02 am

Why the hell is there a picture of Josef Stalin next to this article? I knew IMF were white supremacist sympathizers but I did not know you also lauded murderous communists.

20 GrellFar December 7, 2011 at 9:30 am

There is a nostalgic streak amongst at least a subset of conservatives that prevents them from adapting rationally to changing conditions. So assertions that a ‘conservative’ view is automatically less emotion-driven than a ‘liberal one’ do not always hold true.

You are dead right that action via feelings commitee is pointless.

21 Anonymous December 7, 2011 at 3:15 pm

The fundamental point of the TC’s post is sound, but a couple issues bring it down. My big one is you assuming conservatism equals realism. Yes, in our case conservatism is overall better than our out of control liberalism, but traditional conservatism (no relation to the white knight republican party) for DOES have its own set flaws nonetheless.

Our penchant for punishment over rehabilitation manifested in our prison-industrial complex does nothing to reduce crime, does little to stop repeat crime, and is woefully pricy. Our puritan views on drugs support a stupid war on drugs which is costing us too much money, doing nothing to curbe drug use, and feeds into the prison-industrial complex. Remember, America was founded on fundamentally liberal values in comparison to the conservative British Empire.

Though I’ll admit that its nitpicking since conservatism is needed to reign in our out of control women and “culture”.

22 Stoner With a Boner December 7, 2011 at 11:13 pm

well, I think you are making a big mistake in disregarding “feelings.” You are conflating “stoicism” with “masculinity” and while one with lofty goals may have to work through unimaginable pain and adversity, that is not to say that “feelings” are not strong within them. I believe, in fact, that they may possess more capacity for “feelings” than the average person.

George Lakoff, whom I imagine has a worldview about 165 degrees counter of yours says that by embracing the “rationality” of thinkers such as Locke and Rousseau-the progressives looked at humans as merely rational and ignored their emotions. He makes the claim that is why neocons and the religious right made such gains. They appealed to people’s emotions and “morality” rather than their sense of reason.

just look around you–people often conspire against their own self interests….

why does fast food outsell health food?

why does your friend go for the mean “hot” girl over the “plain” kind girl?

Time for people to start being more honest-at least with themselves of their true natures….

23 Stoner With a Boner December 7, 2011 at 11:18 pm
24 Stoner With a Boner December 7, 2011 at 11:21 pm

oh, and I don’t know why there is a picture of a reprehensible douche like stalin….that fucker was just as evil as hitler….

25 Brett Stevens December 8, 2011 at 8:17 am

@Johnny:

Politics isn’t going to cut it.

Unfortunately, politics is a fact of life. Being in a civilization means mass mobilization to achieve results. The underpinning structure for this is politics. Even more, the left/right division is fairly absolute — right is about the order of reality, left is about the desires of the individuals. So while disclaiming it is appealing in a social sense, it’s not realistic.

@Dulst:

The manipulation of feelings is the means by which modern feminism has been so successful.

Exactly! Why attack a head of the Hydra when you can attack its neck?

@Eric:

Feelings give us orientation to the world around us.

Two points: first, emotions and feelings are different; emotions are disciplined and not entirely subjective. Second, emotions are not the only source of that orientation. However, I agree emotions (not feelings) emerged for a reason.

@xsplat

I’m not advocating for a caste system as a means of control. I’m stating that the reality is that humas are born into genetic castes.

Conservative here. Noting that something is an aspect of reality is the same as advocating for it. :)

@OK Comrade

Why the hell is there a picture of Josef Stalin next to this article?

Because he’s the ultimate “git r done” person in all of history. He treated people like idiots (which for the most part, they are) and used them like kleenex. I will always admire him and Genghis Khan for these abilities. “Machine guns at the rear!” is a morally disgusting principle — and yet it beat the best army on earth.

@Stoner with a boner

You are conflating “stoicism” with “masculinity” and while one with lofty goals may have to work through unimaginable pain and adversity, that is not to say that “feelings” are not strong within them.

I don’t think I am. I’m disregarding “feelings,” which are a super-subjective view of emotion used by subjectivists (liberals) to evade reality.

that fucker was just as evil as hitler…

In my view, he was much more evil, which is why I adore him. Git r done!

26 Stoner With a Boner December 8, 2011 at 11:02 am

“I don’t think I am. I’m disregarding “feelings,” which are a super-subjective view of emotion used by subjectivists (liberals) to evade reality.”

So, are you saying that only information that can be empirically proven is of value.

Hypothetically, if you owned your own business and you interviewed a candidate who looked great on paper but gave you a “creepy” feeling, would you hire them?

27 Anonymous December 8, 2011 at 9:00 pm

@ Bret Stevens:

Firstly, Stalin’s army was initially crap because the guy kept purging every high ranking official. The Russians only pushed the Germans out when he realized this and started to let his officers do their job.

Secondly, let’s be honest, its much easier to admire somebody when you weren’t one of the people who were their victims and are overly detatched from their abuses. There’s acknowledging the pragmatism and the overall effect of Ghengis Khan’s policies and Stalin’s massive industrialization efforts despite how evil they were and then there’s ADMIRING them for their evil, given that you weren’t a victim. I really hope you weren’t one of those guys who supported the commemorative Stalin statue being built on American soil?

Thirdly, Stalin was a fucking LEFTIST. How in goddamn hell can someone who’s supposedly right-wing and preaches the virtues of conservatism support an geniunely evil monster, much less one that is leftist? Do you even understand how hypocritical it is to complain about our government and admire Stalin?

Fuck, no wonder why white women hate men so much.

28 OK Comrade December 10, 2011 at 12:19 pm

Anonymous: In Mala Fide regularly takes Leftist positions. How that is supposed to coincide with their white supremacism, i don’t know.

29 uh December 12, 2011 at 6:56 pm

“You might as well just give everyone uniforms and pictures of the Kaiser.”

FINGER CRO卐ed!

30 whhaaatt? January 10, 2012 at 4:24 am

This anti-feelings notion is dismissive of the social nature of human beings. If we all ignored feelings, we would have no problem with murdering each other to eliminate competition. Homo sapiens is a social creature, much like bees. We collaborate for the success of our species. Anti-social behavior violates the social contract and encourages elimination of the competition (i.e. murder). Since everyone is a gun owner in the U.S., it would seem as though we have a compelling reason to give a shit about the mental well-being of our neighbors.

31 butt stevens fan January 23, 2012 at 11:57 am

It’s funny this article talks about “Virginity makes happy, long-lasting marriages” yet there’s advertising for penis and male enhancement. The dichotomy here is so absurd. Good job, Brett! :^D

32 SMC January 23, 2012 at 2:36 pm

“why does your friend go for the mean “hot” girl over the “plain” kind girl?”

Social status. We –both genders–don’t want to _be seen by others_ with someone beneath our presumed station. (Our “presumed station” is manifestation of puberty competition; reflections of ourselves from others’ eyes.)

On a deserted island, men would get wood for a fat chick and dames would get wet for waldo. Humans are susceptible to “fetishizing’ and “imprinting” (ala birds for momma bird). That’s how pair bonding works BTW.

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: