Irrational Fears

A few weeks ago, when the fuss about the two black men being asked to leave Starbucks was at its height, the ZMan remarked that many American liberals genuinely believe there is a major demographic actively looking to lynch black men, even in New York, and is only kept from doing so by heroic progressives (or something). I doubt any black people believe this, even the lunatics who crop up in academia; the ones who perpetuate this nonsense without anything to gain personally seem to be white liberals who don’t know much about anyone other than white liberals. Now it’s certain there are black men who come to harm at the hands of whites, not least prosecutors who like chucking them in jail to advance their careers, but I thought it an odd mindset to carry through life. How do these people go about their daily business believing they’re surrounded by millions of people who are looking to murder some random black guy the moment they think they can get away with it?

Then last week I came across something similar in a discussion related to this post, where I said:

Modern men and women want to enter into something as complicated as a relationship but expect to be able to exit at the push of a button as if it never happened. I’ve seen women declaring love and talking earnestly with a man about long-term plans and then a few days later end the relationship by phone and block all communication saying “it’s best we both move on”, like some toad of a politician who’s been caught breaking the law. Men do the same thing, and it puts a serious question mark over anything which happened prior to that: if you’re prepared to pull the plug and run away like that, it was probably never serious in the first place – and he or she is certainly not ready for the give-and-take of a proper relationship. I’ve always seen a refusal to talk as simple cowardice.

I’ll not link to the actual discussion, mainly because I generally like the other stuff the lady in question has to say and I don’t want to bad-mouth her on my blog (by contrast, deranged and rather unpleasant feminists like Laurie Penny and Natalia Antonova with large public followings are fair game). But here’s what she said:

No one is EVER owed your attention, your friendship, your time, or access to you. So, yes, you can & should block/mute/ignore people. Especially exes. They can turn nasty so easily. Safety first.

The sentiments in the first part I covered well enough in this post, and I was surprised to see them expressed by someone who isn’t an obvious headcase. And while I know that people can turn nasty, can you imagine going into a relationship with “safety first” being the key driver? Isn’t dating supposed to be fun? I responded as follows:

Ah, this is where we disagree. A relationship is by definition a set of mutual obligations where you *do* owe each other (within reason). This is even captured in the wedding vows.

Which was met with:

Absolutely disagree. Even in marriage. If you no longer wish to be with someone, you are free to leave. If they can keep you prisoner that is a recipe for abuse.

So what on earth is the point in entering into a relationship – of any kind – where there are no mutual obligations and one party can just walk away whenever they feel like it? So I responded:

I believe you have moral obligations to one another to at least try to fix things and not just walk out. Otherwise there’s not much point going into a relationship in the first place. Granted there comes a time when you just need to leave.

And this was the reply:

Nope. You NEVER have moral obligations to the other person to try to fix things up. Nor do you go into the relationship like a prison sentence. You always have a right to be free from violence, abuse, rape, etc. This is non-negotiable. I don’t care what words were said.

At no point did I suggest a woman should stick around in a relationship while being subject to violence, abuse, and rape. I just said that, in most normal circumstances, you have a moral obligation to at least try to work things out. But it appears there are women out there who operate on the assumption that violence, abuse, and rape are likely to feature in a relationship and adjust their entire approach to men accordingly. The default setting of some women seems to be “this man could rape and abuse me, so for my own safety I consider I owe him nothing whatsoever”. As a worldview, it’s an odd one even by the standards of those featured on this blog and it makes me wonder how people navigate even basic social conventions with opinions like this. Quite staggeringly, the same person said a few months ago:

I don’t have a boyfriend. I wish I did. I have been unlucky in that regard.

Unlucky. And on another occasion I remarked:

I’ve *never* met a woman too physically unattractive to get a boyfriend, it’s always for other reasons that they’re single.

And the response was:

Sometimes it’s just bad luck.

The woman in question isn’t some purple-haired tattooed nutter who treats being raped as a handy entry on a CV, she’s fairly normal on many topics including the lunacy of third-wave campus feminism. Yet this is her view of men and relationships. Between this and feminists’ habit of being blindsided by sex pests if they mouth the correct political platitudes, something’s gone badly wrong somewhere, hasn’t it?

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

23 thoughts on “Irrational Fears

  1. She’s making an intellectually dishonest point. She doesn’t really fear being trapped in an abusive relationship, she is using that as cover for immense selfishness. What she wants is freedom to drop a relationship at any time for any reason and not bother to work at it. And it’s this selfishness that keeps her single.

    Nothing to do with luck.

  2. That approach to argument reminds me of the female Guardian writers who claim that arguing with their idiocy is part of the same spectrum of abuse as rape threats.

  3. I like the unstated asymmetry.

    Exes can turn nasty so easily. But the Ex already did, when she left without a by-your-leave! There’s *two* exes for any broken relationship!

    A woman dumps a man unceremoniously, but he’s the bad one if he thinks of objecting!

  4. She doesn’t really fear being trapped in an abusive relationship, she is using that as cover for immense selfishness.

    I think it goes deeper than that. My theory is these women realise they’ve missed the boat by a mile and are scraping the barrel, their dating pool filled only with substandard men. Deep inside they know they can’t commit to any of them, so they invent some reason for not even trying. It’s the same mentality which has women turning up on a date with a 374 bullet point list of requirements and then walking away, the bloke having inevitably failed to meet all of them. It’s easier for them to say the man has failed to meet some essential criteria than admit she finds all the guys in her dating pool repulsive.

  5. Absolutely disagree. Even in marriage. If you no longer wish to be with someone, you are free to leave. If they can keep you prisoner that is a recipe for abuse.

    Bet this doesn’t flow both ways, or would prevent her from claiming alimony if she could.

  6. It’s a basic lack of respect. She has precisely zero respect for men. So she doesn’t have one. Funny that.

  7. “Even in marriage” WTF??

    Let’s see what the BCP has to say about this:

    Most relevant bits:
    Preamble: (“the beasts of the field” has largely been dropped)
    which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.”

    In particualr:
    “Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

    The vows: (The “obey” has largely been dropped)
    “I N. take thee N. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.”

    And this woman thinks that it’s fine to just walk away? To be honest, if that’s her attitude, it’s probably a good thing that she’s unlikely to breed.

  8. You’d be surprised though how representative these views are of the current population of millennial women. They behave like entitled whores then wonder why Mr. Right (or in the end Mr. Anybody) won’t put a ring on it.

    Where have all the good men gone?

    Down the pub with the lads love. Enjoy your cats, boxed wine and dildos.

  9. Absolutely disagree. Even in marriage. If you no longer wish to be with someone, you are free to leave. If they can keep you prisoner that is a recipe for abuse.

    You still get the house though love, eh? So it is more a case of them leaving because you want out, really.

  10. What strikes me is they don’t realise that all relationships – marriages, friendships, business partnerships, with neighbours, and even the guy on the street – involve mutual obligations, otherwise it’s just a giant free-for-all and we end up looking like Lagos during rush hour.

  11. Wasn’t there a song about this?

    ‘They passed me by, all of those great romances
    You were, I felt, robbing me of my rightful chances…’

  12. I do think there’s a theme of people the (developed) world over dropping out of dating. Women like this, the guys (as one poster in an earlier thread mentioned) doing gaming and real ale, they aren’t really trying*.
    Apparently it’s a big thing in Japan, where I happen to be today. Actually, the first thing I saw when I got on the monorail today was a youngish couple with a baby. V cute! I’m amazed they don’t have more.

    *I still don’t agree that either the men or women are at bottom worthless, although your female acquaintance doesn’t sound nice.

  13. I still don’t agree that either the men or women are at bottom worthless

    They’re worthless in terms of dating due to their personalities alone, not because of their looks, wealth, intelligence, etc. Of course, I’m talking about the developed, western world here; it might be different in other cultures.

  14. Her argument reflects a certain manner of thinking which, I think, did not exist a hundred years ago.

    There exists my Will.
    There exists the Law, which adjudicates between my Will and the Wills of others.
    There exists nothing else.

    When you suggest her behavior might be constrained by Duty, or Morality, (I dare not mention God and Church) she treats these as a form of abuse. For her, they are impositions upon her Will which are not prescribed by law. It’s practically slavery.

    That said, her insistence on her right to leave at a moment’s notice might possibly reflect her being cruelly discarded multiple times with little warning – perhaps by fellows taking advantage of her increasing sense of urgency to enjoy themselves for a few nights. She seems unhappy, and perhaps deserving of sympathy.

  15. Let’s do the arithmetic. Man v man violence is more common than man v woman. Therefore a creepy lefty sex pest is more likely to avoid hitting on a woman in a relationship because of the jealous boyfriend. Note you don’t need to be jealous or violent, just ambiguous enough to give the pest pause.

  16. Her point is a little extreme, in that all she needs to say could, unless I misunderstand her, be covered by the rather more reasonable “we prima facie owe obligations to people we are in any kind of relationship with” – as Tim says in the comments, this isn’t just romantic entanglement but a general feature of life – “but those obligations can be cancelled by various factors including but not limited to fear of emotional/physical abuse”.

    To say “we have no obligations whatsoever” is individualism to the point of atomism. And who wants to be an atom? I mean, it seems that there are plenty of people who can tolerate it, and a few back-to-the-wilderness types might actively seek it out, but I don’t see it as a majority taste any time soon.

    When we all lived in the village, you couldn’t just dump the person you were courting and pretend that you cannot even see or hear them, because they were your nextdoor-but-five neighbour and their mum is a friend of your aunt and they hung out with your cousin’s friends or whatever.

    Purely from a Game Theory point of view (not PUA Game, I mean Nash equilibria an’all that), there has to be a real danger that near-costless “ghosting” changes payoffs during courting – don’t really like the term “dating” because not much of it seems to be about the actual dates, and particularly not much of what really matters – in a way that brings us to a worse social equilibrium.

    For example, the risk your (potential) partner could simply vanish on you without warning incentivises under-investment in the relationship, because there is now more doubt over whether you will benefit in the medium/long term from that investment. It makes it harder to establish trust, not just from the selfish perspective that you have no mechanism (e.g. village social pressure) to see that promises or obligations are either carried through or some suitable excuse or alternative is proffered, but because you have no mechanism for making your own promises or commitments enforcible. After all, you could just vanish too – even if you’re 100% sure you won’t, even if you want to demonstrate it isn’t in your character to, you can’t “prove” it. Similarly, the fact that you could vanish, increases your incentives to engage in bad (e.g. caddish or selfish) and possibly long-term counter-productive (if you intend ultimately to settle down) patterns of behaviour. The thought process could range from a more innocent “might as well get what I can out of this arrangement while it’s here, they could vanish tomorrow” to the more dastardly “take what I want, keep searching for more options, dump and move on when something better opens up (and which requires I end this one, else string both along for maximum options and terminate only when confronted about loyalty/exclusivity)”, but either way the incentives are laid down socially and technologically so it isn’t surprising when people follow them.

    There was some advice a few people gave a couple of threads back about dating often being more successful in social situations where you meet and get to know someone in a real-life environment first (eg shared friendship group, hobby, or organisation). I’m sure some of that is about the lack of human dimensions in currently available search technology, though the whizz-kids of Facebook may be in a position to capture more of that. But I suspect it may have rather more to do with socially-enforced norms and behaviours, and a higher-trust environment, producing a more conducive set of incentives not to be a total arse – something where FB and any other virtual-world “solution” to the coupling problem are going to struggle.

  17. When we all lived in the village, you couldn’t just dump the person you were courting and pretend that you cannot even see or hear them, because they were your nextdoor-but-five neighbour and their mum is a friend of your aunt and they hung out with your cousin’s friends or whatever.

    Which is what I went into at length in my linked post.

  18. At no point did I suggest a woman should stick around in a relationship while being subject to violence, abuse, and rape.

    And the fact that’s immediately where she went should tell you something.

    She’s been smacked around in a previous relationship, but it happened when she was an adult.

  19. Tim

    Yes your linked post was one of my old favourites of yours. These days the incentives are different – change the incentives and you change the behaviours, change the behaviours and you change the outcomes…

  20. She’s been smacked around in a previous relationship, but it happened when she was an adult.

    I doubt it: I think she’s using her mates’ exaggerated stories to justify an unwillingness to engage with the men who are in her dating pool.

  21. Slightly off but related.

    I read the other day that certain women will spend their 20’s shagging men who won’t commit to them, and at some point in their 30’s will ‘panic marry’ a man who they’d never have had a one night stand with in their 20’s. The husband then finds himself in a sexless marriage, consigned to the 2nd bedroom after the 1st child is born, and at risk of losing everything if he complains about it. I know men in this situation – normal men at that.

    I think more and more men are looking at the tradition of marriage and the financial risk it entails and deciding it’s not worth it. A sort of cost-benefit analysis. What we have is women working on a new set of rules since the sexual revolution, but men still being asked to cough up with the traditional commitments and all the associated risk. I.e. the old set of rules.

    Rollo Tomassi nails these dynamics amazingly well:

    https://therationalmale.com/2014/01/14/the-second-set-of-books/
    https://therationalmale.com/2014/09/15/alpha-agents-of-righteous-karma/

    If you like the above blog essays, then I’d suggest reading the best of, year 1 and go from there. Then just follow the links in the essay down the rabbit hole.

  22. There are always two sides to a story and it is rare that you get to see both sides of the point side by side.

    Going back to black people in America and the interaction with the law, it seems from my reading of various blogs, news stories and other reports that blacks behave like spoiled 5 year olds and twist the narrative to make them the victim.

    Compare and contrast the narrative from the “persecuted-because-I-is-black” female here and the body camera record from the officer concerned:

    https://gunfreezone.net/index.php/2018/05/10/police-body-cams-the-worst-thing-it-could-happen-to-the-politics-of-racism/

    Stepping back from that interaction and applying the lesson to the deranged cat ladies, we are only hearing one side of the situation, not both, so the truth probably lies a fair way away from the initial, bald statement.

Comments are closed.