Summary

  1. It’s exactly as it was pointed out: “hyperbole based on a misinterpretation”. You are only trying to deflect from this.
  2. The counsel is in the right direction. Furthermore, the plethora of personal attacks and name-calling in lieu of counterpoint is a clear indication that few critics have any substance (and are really lashing out from pure emotional reaction).
  3. It was not stated that the desire for ‘nourishing” your soul is reckless or destructive. It was the means by which one pursues these goals that can be (reread the part about “recklessness and self-centredness in the pursuit of happiness). You know the difference and are rewording the comment in order to refute it.
  4. You are definitely confusing the act of committing with the conditions of an agreement. They are distinct.
  5. As far as giving “everything to someone”, that is the price of most committed personal relationships. Are we forgetting that the man will “give all of himself” to the woman too?
  6. As before, the filters are far from “irrelevant” no matter how many times one repeats it.
  7. If the article said, or even implied that a man doesn’t have to pass any requirements himself to be at the stage of making these decisions, then you may have a point. It doesn’t, so you don’t.
  8. We mentioned armchair “equality” activist as one who may not see the difference between _1_ complimentary and relative equality _2_ Homogeneous Parity. The point is not about the merits of crusading or the arenas in which one takes up such a cause. It was that you likely cannot or will not see the difference between the two concepts.

Minced Word with a side of Coyness

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

It’s not an exaggeration. Every human being strives to love and be loved purely. A woman in this kind of situation would not be loved purely, but a faithful servant – and nobody wants that. Instead of integrity, what he wants will be more like blind devotion, submission and faith to a man who has many arbitrary requirements for his definition of a keeper.

Answer:
Seriously. That segment of your post was an exaggeration. Reread the part, “she becomes his plaything in any way possible” (this is clearly an extreme embellishment on the spirit of concepts presented). It is aptly criticized as “hyperbole based on a misinterpretation” (which is what was said in context.)

After this deliberately false revelation (that your comment was not an exaggeration) and convenient sidestepping of the misinterpretation, you then proceed to employ the same tactic by expounding on the concept of “being loved purely”.

As you continue to employ this deflective scheme, it is clear you are aware of this misrepresentation and how it is the only way you can support this conjured argument.

Man Kind

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

When I speak of what kind of man, I speak of the kind of person who would write something like this, or who could actually think this is reasonable advice.

Answer:
Someone who recognizes how the character of a person can be ascertained by a history of their conduct in personal relationships as well as how much relative value that person places on material goods is practicing observational acumen.

Providing some advice on this publicly is, at the very least, being proactive.

If the judgement of the man’s character is based on the aptness of the advice, you have yet to demonstrate any case where the recommendations are incorrect, or even impractical. Even then, giving “bad advice” online, is on it own, not a definitive measure of a person’s demeanour.

Specifically, the counsel is in the right direction. Furthermore, the plethora of personal attacks and name-calling in lieu of counterpoint is a clear indication that few critics have any substance (and are really lashing out from pure emotional reaction).

Ruins amongst the Love

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

It’s not reckless or destructive to find what makes your soul feel nourished to do in this world and bravely accomplish it, including to purely love and be loved as you should. It’s the best accomplishment a human being could make: rising above perceived limitations and accomplishing what your soul has been driven to do, and as a result, making yourself and the world better for it.

Answer:
Sidestepping the point again are we?

It was not stated that the desire for ‘nourishing” your soul is reckless or destructive. It was the means by which one pursues these goals that can be (reread the part about “recklessness and self-centredness in the pursuit of happiness). You know the difference and are rewording the comment in order to refute it.

Specifically, when someone goes after personal fulfillment without consideration for the direct or collateral damage to others, it is, a self-centred endeavour. This includes trading intimacy under false pretence, not effectively evaluating future consequences against short-term gratification, and a host of things covered by the filters the author presented.

By your argument, such pursuits are unrestricted and certainly no consideration is given to others. Accomplishing what “your soul has been driven to do” is not a guarantee that the world is a better place for achieving it (so you cannot merely connect the events). Essentially every bank robber, every confidence man (or woman), every despot dictator is pursuing what their soul has been driven to do (No, that is not hyperbole). We know these pursuits rarely accommodate the well being of others or the overall betterment of the world.

What this touches upon is how an alarming number of feminists feel that the right to self-empowerment is an excuse to be irreverent to all but themselves (read that as entitlement to be self-centred). They want to have all the advantages that they perceive men to have, but retain all that they have inherently as women. Hence, it’s not balance, or even equality they seek. It is clearly a campaign to gain advantage under the guise of seeking parity.

Rulers of Engagement

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

Commitment is absolutely necessary between a couple. But commitment does NOT happen when it’s about submission instead of freedom to choose to give everything to someone (and receiving it in return) and meeting arbitrary points of requirements instead of simply being who you are (including making said choice freely.) It’s like a magic equation really, and very powerful if you can be free of all requirements and choose to create something in this world.

Answer:
You are definitely confusing the act of committing to the conditions of an agreement. They are distinct.

In the former, outside of cultures that support arranged marriages, few relationships are entered without the freedom of consent of both parties (and, no, we cannot include criminal cases as they are not in the scope of this discussion). In the latter, the conditions are general known to both parties. Should they not be and there are avenues one can take to remove oneself from the agreement.

In regards to a relationship where one party has more of a leadership role than the other (and the varying degrees of such), committal to such an arrangement is entirely possible. We don’t even have to go as deep as an intimate relationship to find a plethora of working examples. Practically every employment contract is one where one party has more of a leadership role than the other. With few exceptions, both parties enter the agreement consciously, are aware of the trade, and can sever the relationship on their own volition.

As far as giving “everything to someone”, that is the price of most committed personal relationships. Are we forgetting that the man will “give all of himself” to the woman too?

Free of all requirements? That is really a ridiculous notion. Do we have no thresholds in choosing anything in life (let alone a significant other)? If you are talking about the freedom to “be who you are”, you are confusing “freedom to choose” with “freedom to choose without consequence”.

You have ability to choose the lifestyle of your liking. However, no one has the privilege to choose a path while demanding that no one judge him or her for that choice. You are FREE to of all these “requirements”, but you are not free of how others will view your choices.

As far as “arbitrary”, it has already been noted that these filters are not based on random and irrelevant factors. They are clearly based on how a person respects others (be those others a significant individual, an associate, or fifth business) in their means to achieve life goals. That is hardly “arbitrary”.

Give and Goal

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

I’m not using something irrelevant as a gauge of equality here. Giving what you have to offer as equals in a situation where complimentary equality reigns sounds great, but it’s definitely not where this article is coming from. I hate to repeat myself, but it is absolutely inequal to have so many requirements for a woman and think of yourself as a gift to her while she ‘follows you’ as this article implies. It’s not just ‘feminist’ to think so. It’s humanist to believe that this idea in itself is wrong. It’s still about submission and control.

Answer:
As before, the filters are far from “irrelevant” no matter how many times one repeats it.

This article speaks to some of the attributes men need to be aware of when choosing a life partner. It doesn’t address the points that women need to look for just as it doesn’t address the requirements for a functional submersible nuclear weapons system. Neither of these are the scope of the article.

If the article said, or even implied that a man doesn’t have to pass any requirements himself to be at the stage of making these decisions, then you may have a point. It doesn’t, so you don’t.

At any rate, it is clear that every man has to be bringing something to the table in order to be faced with these decisions. The default isn’t “You are biologically male so of all these hot women fawning over you, choose the one that is most willing to be a slave”.

The only thing about “control” is the agenda that some have to retain all their advantages as a female while demanding “equality” to remove any advantage that men have for being men.

Hopeless Semantics: Here we go again…

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

You may call me an armchair activist, but fighting the fight does not have to be a physical act of marching down the street with a sign or talking to a legislator in person. It can and absolutely does take place hugely online. Writing blogs, educating yourself, talking about abuse and what it’s like to be in a controlling relationship, talking about experiences, asking questions, sparking debate, signing petitions, and sending emails to lawmakers are all things you can do online. It’s a wonderful forum where people can find many a comrade, effectively plan, organize, raise money, raise awareness, and reach out to others in need.

Answer:
LOL. It is likely not lost to most of the audience that you are choosing to avoid the issue that was pointed out.

We mentioned armchair “equality” activist as one who may not see the difference between:

1. Complimentary and relative equality
2. Homogeneous Parity

The point is not about the merits of crusading or the arenas in which one takes up such a cause. It was that you likely cannot or will not see the difference between the two concepts.

That you choose to avoid it by deflecting into a monologue about various avenues of activism, it is clear that you know there is a difference. Furthermore, you likely know that this difference renders your efforts moot based on a faulty premise.

Feel free to elaborate how, seeking point-for-point equality is an effective way to create parity between the genders, much less a practicable way to create harmony. While you are at it, explain how allowing people to act on “nourishing one’s soul” without regard for consequence and how it affects others is creating a better world.