Kicking. Squealing.
Here’s my leap stemming from a post by Heartiste on SWPL pit bull rescuers: the desire to rescue dangerous dogs is the desire to control something chaotic; it is a very feminine desire; it is rooted in guilt. When speaking of the prototypical SWPL, Heartiste did use the feminized pronoun. Purposely or not, this bears significance inasmuch as SWPLism and other SWPL-like tendencies derive from such feminine pangs.
Women love pitbulls
The desire to care for, repair, and to fix is a feminine quality; it stands to reason that taming something with a greater capacity for destruction is a challenge to that desire. Besides dogs, thug love is one manifestation of this – the most extreme version of which is the curious adoration some women express for death row inmates and violent men of all degrees of institutionalization. Dangerous dogs are more acceptable for clean SWPL chicks to try to fix.
While it is true that the boards of directors of non-profits are often heavily filled by women, it is still interesting that all five executive positions of Pit Bull Rescue Central – a national organization – are filled by women. Another rescue organization is led by a woman and most of its volunteers are women. Six of seven officers of this group are women. This site was clearly designed with women in mind. All four of the officers of this group are women. This despite the fact that many men are dog-lovers and are also more likely to be the owners of pit bulls in the first place, for good or bad. This reminds me of Brangelina: it is my sneaking suspicion that if it were up to Pitt, he and Jolie would have only their biologicals, but Jolie wants to save the world and has taken orphans under her lanky, elbowy wing.
What does this feminine drive tell us? Do women view prisoners and disturbed men as animals or orphans that need to be saved?
Women are apt to feel more guilt than men so it would make sense that the various forms of ‘privilege guilt’ would prove most effective when used on them. Guilt-driven activist causes are mostly begun by women and move through feminine channels. It is also true that of both sexes women tend to take on caregiving roles. There are many motivations for this, and guilt figures prominently.
While pit bulls and prisoners are interesting examples of this guilt mechanism, I wonder how that translates to society at large. If guilt acts on women easier than it does on men, will we not, as a society, have a larger pile of guilt acting upon us as women gain political and economic power? In general, we’ll take on more guilt and enact policies to assuage that larger collectived guilt complex. For the people for whom guilt is a problem, this is all well and good, but for the people who do not feel guilt, this will seem like a waste of time. A battle between the sexes will brew, perhaps between a feminized political party and a masculinized one.
Food for thought: reading on women and their love of another animal, the horse, opens up some other possibilities. I assume that someone somewhere has written on the sexual undertones of women and horses, and certainly plenty of jokes have been made. The energy of the horse must literally be harnessed, and whereas men utilize horses as tools (though certainly there is a love for this tool), women adore horses more personally. They seem drawn to the horse’s power and are enraptured by its chaotic potential. Does this apply to large dogs and violent men as well?
white women love horses because it is the onky animal with the tool comparable to a Man of Color
Masculine men tend to have an attitude: my family, kids, woman are my first priority, screw everyone else. I generally like this attitude, as long as he respects other people feel the same way about their families, teaches his own kids to respect others, and his wife isn’t a bitch.
And some guys are great at running “care for me” game…basically the guy is the one giving congruence tests to the target, seeing if she will roleplay the got-it-together teacher to his bewildered class clown. The DHVs come from the guy setting the frame that 1) her knowledge, while helpful, is dorky/uncool, 2) ultimately, the teacher, not the student, is accountable for his ability to learn. Later in the interaction he can start to ask semi-nonsensical questions, trip her up and gaslight her for even more DHVs…if she goes along with the gaslighting then he’s found someone who’s likely to work hard, cater to him, and not feel resentment about it.
The beta doesn’t run this game because it seems counterintuitive to maintain frame control while acting ignorant.
Obama has run the “care for me” game on a wwwhhhooooollleeee lot of people. Is he a pit bull or a perp?
I’m about sick of Pitbull’s music, mainly due to my trips to Vegas where every club plays him ad nauseam.
I’ve got to applaud him for his sense of dress, though. He always wears tasteful, well-fitted clothing. I think he must wear sunglasses so much to hide his blue eyes (being that he’s a white-skinned Cuban and not a Mestizo)
This is interesting. I always thought of pitbulls as a guy thing — a good friend of mine is a dog nerd and would probably behead Micheal Vick with a butter knife if he had the opportunity. I know a lot of guys who are moved to thumotic rage over dog abuse, but that fits the profile. The idea of women actually doing the tending of the sick and abused dogs also fits their sexual profile.
This idea of women attracted to the chaos of these beasts is a poetic point.
OT, but I’ve gotta tell somebody – at my company we just conducted an interview for an entry-level (recent) college grad who felt compelled to tell us (unsolicited) that she was in the final stages of beating an adderall addiction. wtf? lol
There is a reality show on Animal Planet called “Pitbulls and Parolees”, if you were not aware.
“…..who felt compelled to tell us (unsolicited) that she was in the final stages of beating an adderall addiction. wtf? lol”
I know! It’s some kind of female trait, which cuts across low-medium-to-high-medium intelligence levels, in which they feel it’s noble and actually beneficial to disclose any-and-all personal information.
My girlfriend does that in instants (though she’s not that foolishly self-disclosing); it’s like they think they’ll get points for candor that transcend the bane of the indiscretion or something.
More commonly, women will disclose waayy too m uch personal information in informal social gatherings, not being mindful of human nature and its urge to be petty the second it’s inconvenient or criticized.
I’m afraid it’s true that many women just don’t know when to keep their mouths shut; similar to Camlost’s observation today, I’ve known friends of female associates who, while filling out applications for apartments, offer long explanations of their recovery and rehab efforts!
It’s just amazing how many of the better sex don’t adhere to the adage, “when it doubt, shut your mouth.”
I forgot to finish my post. “Pitbulls and Parolees” looks to be about a chick who rescues both pitbulls and paroled felons.
WW3,
thanks, i will look that up. hadn’t heard of it.
I think the “women act out of guilt” trope has been way overplayed. It stems largely from Jewish schtick and carpet-bombing Hollywood portrayals thereof (the whole Woody Allen world), with a side dish of “Catholic guilt” (also baloney). But it doesn’t fit. If a woman rescues a pit bull, what guilt is she atoning for? Did she kill a pit bull? Abuse one? Take part in dog fighting? No, no and no. Nor do I think she is transferring some fuzzy generic guilt about “privilege” or whatever.
No, it’s not about guilt, it’s about moral preening, it’s about showing off. A woman wants a pit bull for the same reason she wants to be on the arm of an Alpha: to show off to other women, to rank over them (so status — same thing as preening).
Similarly, “white guilt” was never about guilt, but about moral grand-standing over prole whites. Think Meathead over Archie Bunker. You think Meathead felt BAD for the poor little minorities? No, he couldn’t give a crap about them. He just wanted to degrade Archie and paint him as a moral monster.
Fiddlesticks 02/11/2013 at 1:31 pm
And some guys are great at running “care for me” game… giving congruence tests to the target, The DHVs come from the guy setting the frame that gaslight her for even more DHVs…
The beta doesn’t run this game because it seems counterintuitive to maintain frame control while acting ignorant.
How can anybody not notice the ridiculous nerdiness of this “Game” nonsense.
Betas don’t run Game because they are normal guys relating to normal women in a normal way.
Only sex-nerds run game or at least write about it on the internet.
Very few women want ANYTHING to do with pitbulls. Those who do are on the fringe. Statistically close to NO women want to be involved with prisoners.
You are doing what so many males in the Game world do with women – you misrepresent them as a group to feed a bitterness driven stereotype that women are irrational, anti civilizational, liars, and cheats.
And guilt is an overrated motive for many White people. There’s very little White Guilt.
Instead what it is is White “moral oneupmanship”. It’s about showing off and status striving. Not guilt but ego tripping. It’s ego mania in various forms.
“I’m BETTER than you. Because I’m more sensitive to the oppressed (black, gay. undocumented, animals, the persecuted and unloved).”
Are goofy Omega sex nerds even remotely prepared to deal with THIS:
Evolutionary biologist Richard Alexander has tried to explain the positive effect a dog has by suggesting that, if anything, it’s a man’s apparent ability to form close and intimate bonds with a dog, not the dog itself, that women find attractive.
“When a dog is showing trust in and companionship with a man, a woman knows that the man likely has whatever it takes to establish an affectionate relationship and keep it going,” says Alexander. This makes him closer to the average woman’s ideal of the “perfect partner” and thus makes him more interesting and desirable.
There’s another Animal Planet series about a group of midget friends who rescue endangered Pit Bulls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_Boss_(TV_series)
“And guilt is an overrated motive for many White people. There’s very little White Guilt.
Instead what it is is White “moral oneupmanship”. It’s about showing off and status striving. Not guilt but ego tripping. It’s ego mania in various forms.
“I’m BETTER than you. Because I’m more sensitive to the oppressed (black, gay. undocumented, animals, the persecuted and unloved).”
@ rifleman
-In your opinion do you think this is a white racial trait? or more of a recent white cultural meme? For me personally, I have grown up around whites my entire life and indeed I have picked up on this desire for moral oneupmanship?/exaggerated sense of morality that whites seem to be inclined towards, and for the life of me I can’t really figure out the appeal. (Not saying its necessarily a negative trait though, dont get me wrong) Even ever since I was little, I always noticed that the tattletales in class, and the people who cared the most about rules seemed to be white. Anyhow, the thing that makes me most curious is that as an asian person, is this a white complex that I will never be able to understand*? (I personally lean more towards this theory) Or is the desire for moral preening something that is latently present within me and would only present itself if I too were in a society composed mainly of racial peers? IE being an asian amongst many other asians. (this too could be possible I suppose) Or perhaps asians do some sort of preening, but they don’t do it through morals, rather maybe they do it through ostentatious displays of weatlh. What do you think about it?
*As an asian person I can say that at least for myself, my views regarding rules and morality are relatively pragmatic and flexible. When it comes to ethics, I tend to evaluate things on a situation by situation basis, and in general I don’t really have a universalistic view of morality, IE always doing X in Y situation. Another sort of interesting facet of my psychology is that my primary grasp of morality/ethics is primarily viewed from the point of view of how I can benefit from a given situation (whether in the long or short term) by acting morally, or conversely precisely which rules I should follow and abide by in order to avoid possible punishment. In any case, morality for the sake of morality disgusts me, and it always has, I think its silly and a waste of time. (just my 2 cents!!)
^Sorry for the long post, but something else just occurred to me as well. When it comes to the moral dispositions of whites and asians, I thought for a moment that maybe asian christians may be a pretty good argument against white and asians having different senses of morality due to genetic factors; however I then remembered that from what I’ve seen, christianity to most asians definitely is something based ultimately on pragmatism. In other words, christianity to a large number of asians is probably more like a sophisticated cargo cult, where asians believe they can get a better job, better health, find a spouse, etc by being a good christian. This is the impression ive got from most asian christians, would you say white christians are the same way? Or do they simply have faith for the sake of having faith?
In your opinion do you think this is a white racial trait? or more of a recent white cultural meme?
It’s Cultural Marxism, largely Jewish in intellectual origin, inculcated in Americans from the moment they are born and fed to them 24×7. I don’t know why certain people naturally resist it and others don’t. I even have twin kids and one is a total SWPL Lib and the other a born Alt-Right type. Why? No idea.
I don’t think Asians are immune genetically or otherwise. From what I see, plenty of American born or raised here from an early age Asians are neck-deep in SWPL habits and moral preening. They don’t seem any different than their white counterparts as far as that goes. And they voted for Obama in droves.
But I think it’s pretty clear that if there is a genetic component to an Alt-right mentality, that is one mother of a recessive gene.
-Peterkike
That’s true what you say about asians with regards to SWPLism, and I would be hard pressed to deny it. At the same time, asians are known for sort of being copycats; so I think that it is also possible that what you are seeing isn’t a true expression of SWPLism, but rather just a (pragmatic) attempt to fit in for social gain. In other words, I don’t really know how committed most of these asians actually are to SWPL habits, for some reason I just can’t imagine most asians getting worked up about moral/ethical issues as whites do. I’m not saying that asians don’t get outraged at all, but they certainly don’t get as heated about issues like that to the same degree whites do. Another thing is that whenever I do meet a left leaning asian american, something about it just seems really transparent and phony; like what I am witnessing is their own attempt at trying to act like what they think a SWPL would act like. In other words, their moral posturing comes across as paper thin. Maybe its because im very consciously biased against lefty asian americans and thus would wish to assign them lower value in my mind (of them being a lame drone who can’t even mimic properly) or maybe I am actually picking up on an actual phenomena here, I can’t say either way for sure.
I know that the original comment that inspired my comment accused whites of engaging in moral oneupmanship, however I actually think that by now I am making a slightly different argument, which is that whites are intrinsically more concerned with issues of ethics and morals; at least more so than asians and other races. In other words, IMO when it comes to the modern (white) SWPL; they actually believe at least 60-70% of the crap they spew, as for the remainder it is just them engaging in moral preening. Asian SWPLs on the other hand are probably the exact reverse proportions, with actually only (weakly) believing in like 30-40% percent of what they say, with the rest of it being all about moral preening and showing off. I think it is precisely because whites have such an intrinsic humanitarian streak that they have been able to be co-opted by jewish thought so easily.
Also it is instructive to add nuance to the issue by considering black people; from what I have seen they are nearly the diametric opposite of whites when it comes to morality, they seem to have a much much more relaxed view of it. In fact, whenever I’m going along my way during the course of the day, and I end up in a situation where the the stated rules may hinder me, I am always pleased if I end up having to deal with a black person because usually the black person will be a lot more lenient than a white person would be. (Naturally I recognize this is something that is good on a small scale, but on a large scale would lead to dysfunction.) In any case, I stand by my point that attitudes towards morality and ethics are to a large degree influenced by race/genes. In a way, I think we both may be right though and I do concede that culture has a role to play as well; its just not clear yet exactly what is that role, and how it affects each race differently.
asian anon: very interesting points, thanks for that response. Like you, I don’t know the answer here, but I think your comments that Asians may be more copycat SWPLs than truly committed ones has a ring of truth to it.
“There’s another Animal Planet series about a group of midget friends who rescue endangered Pit Bulls:”
I went to high school with the asian one.
He and his dwarf sister were adopted by a dwarf couple, and they lived in a little dwarf house with tiny doors and stuff.
True story.
How does this hypothesis take into account “dangerous” dog breeds vs. breeds not perceived as “dangerous”?
My sister has two pits, and far from dangerous, they are stupid, lazy, and will let other dogs (my collie) harass them without reacting at all. I don’t see my sister acting any different with her pitts than she did with the golden retriever our family had when we were in high school.
My cat — the very source of my avatar and screen name — was killed by a pitbull. The situation is so exemplary of what Chuck’s been writing about. The owner was a 20-something woman whoran a doggie daycare business, called Canine Playtime.
Hey doggies, it’s canine playtime! Let’s play “attack the kitty”!
She “rescued” this dog and kept it, even though the she knew dog was major trouble. So she’s visiting my ‘hood — ironically, visiting a friend whose mother had been a cat sitter for us — and the dog breaks out of her van. It runs amok a couple blocks, jumps over a three foot fence into the back yard, and mauls our cat, who was there just minding his own business.
This woman had no business trying to care for this dog. At least she understood after the dog murdered my cat that it had to be put down.
It so happens that my GF and I were in Rome, on our first full day in Italy, when we found out. So there we were 1/3 of the way around the world, calling the vet from outside the Colosseum. They tried to save him but after three days we had to let him go. By then we were in Assisi — talk about synchronicity. It was still a great trip but, needless to say, there was an overlay of serious emotional distress.
Our cat sitter at the time is a friggin’ saint.
We sued the owner in small claims court and were reimbursed the max amount allowed in CA, about 80% of the vet bills. The woman was covered through her homeowner’s insurance, so she got off easy.
I hate pit bulls. And I find them so friggin’ ugly that the appeal to anyone besides a thug completely escapes me.
Interesting page here: http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-owners.php
“”Owners of vicious dogs who have been cited for failing to register a dog (or) failing to keep a dog confined on the premises … are more than nine times more likely to have been convicted for a crime involving children, three times more likely to have been convicted of domestic violence … and nearly eight times more likely to be charged with drug (crimes) than owners of low-risk licensed dogs.”"
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/02/13 « Free Northerner
For the people for whom guilt is a problem, this is all well and good, but for the people who do not feel guilt, this will seem like a waste of time.
Washington Post editorial by a Michael Gerson, appeared in the local rag. The opinion page is highlighting a sickly and dying child, Africa and Aids, and editorial is on about the nobility of altruism around the world – the idea that that is government’s prime directive.
From the concluding paragraphs:
I remember once citing PEPFAR’s achievements to a conservative leader as one example of successful governmental action. He responded dismissively, “but other than that?” Other than saving a few million lives on a distant continent from a cold start in less than a decade?
There is also a potent lesson here about America. My first professor of international relations assured me that altruism is always a ruse in the affairs of nations — nothing more than the pursuit of interest in the camouflage of morality. I now know — personally know — this is untrue.
America is a flawed and fallible nation. It is also the nation that does things such as this.
More evidence of a divided nation, i suppose. Editorials in the paper are on about AIDS in Africa, … really ? The 80s called, they want their sympathies back.
Out group altruism as a status display, we are calling it. But this guy “personally” knows this is not the case – his motives are from the heart.
His perspective is caught up in the emotionalism of it – and sure that is real – but it is shallow understanding of motives and behavior. The benefits to him personally in prestige and status, for his work in saving the children in africa, are not to be weighed in considering motives ?
*********************************
White Guilt for african kids is such racism – the bad, academic type. Have some respect for kids and those people – leave them be.
Flying down and saving them? – what delusional self important non sense.
Think Meathead over Archie Bunker
What was the deal with Archie’s character – that way of talking with the funny voice, and the over expressed look of cynicism and disbelief screwed up on his face ?
Of course Bunker was represented as a generational hold out – but i am trying to get at that way of talking and acting – i tried to make it through the first episode of that show, to get some perspective on the fuss – but it was insufferably overdone – in the way of Archie’s character being insufferable and overdone.
But obviously, he must have represented a type that people could relate. Times change fast. Meathead wore clothes that were stylish, he was well groomed; but his face was doughy.
The actor playing Edith was the only believable character on the show; great comic delivery.
Looking back at these shows – Good Times, for example – it amazes, how awful and obvious they were.
when it comes to the modern (white) SWPL; they actually believe at least 60-70% of the crap they spew, as for the remainder it is just them engaging in moral preening
Liberals are not deliberately lying. It is for them a matter of priorities. They want the world to be a certain way – equal and fair, say – and that is their first principles.
What does not align with those goals or runs counter – something undeniably true, say about smarter races or dumber ones – then is not to be made a big deal of because it is not the important thing, the important thing is that things should be equal and fair or at least more so and what can we do, what do we have to do, to make them that way or least get this ship headed in that direction !
That is my basic understanding of liberals and their approach to things. Such a description might seem to consider their motives as awfully nice and selfless and outward directed and helpful and goody goody gumdrops for you !
But i see no disconnect between the outward justification – seeking a Righteous World ! – and an inward one more congruent with more realistic consideration of behavior, which is finally status driven but complicated with tensions between individuals and group dynamics.
The milieu of liberalism is all pervasive all the time, in terms of media; but not so in conversation. People do not see the distorting aspect of media; though they proclaim to be skeptical.
Not believing in liberalism is not believing in the world. Liberalism is coddling and reality is cold. Yin and yang.
Pingback: Real Girls of New York City: Doggie Decor « Gucci Little Piggy
He and his dwarf sister were adopted by a dwarf couple, and they lived in a little dwarf house with tiny doors and stuff.
Did this dwarf house have little round doors and windows like a Hobbit hole?
Bitches are attracted to dominant and masculine cock regardless of what creature that cock belongs to. If there’s one mindset you should have, it’s to make sure your bitch(es) respect the cock (yours)
anti-racist 02/11/2013 at 12:35 pm
white women love horses because it is the onky animal with the tool comparable to a Man of Color
…
And with comparable IQ.
Pingback: Randoms « Foseti
Pingback: Does Lena Dunham have rabies? | Gucci Little Piggy