Henry Dampier

On the outer right side of history

by 15 Comments

Are Men ‘Commitment Phobic’?

In popular writing, modern men (and occasionally women) are occasionally accused of being ‘commitment phobic.’

The idea of phobia derives from the thought of Freud. Although there are theories about what physically causes the symptoms observed by psychiatrists, there are no objective tests for the existence of this syndrome (collection of symptoms). Further, most of the writers accusing various people of having ‘phobias’ are not clinically qualified to do so, and even if they were, they would not be able to legally diagnose it outside of a clinical setting.

Let’s ask ourselves: are men commitment phobic? Have the wicked men of this generation driven the good, hard-working feminist women into expensive fertility treatments, due to a lack of commitment-eager partners?

To even ask the question undermines the validity of the concept of ‘phobia,’ which medicalizes an inclination that may have rational roots.

Jillian, the author of the linked article, mistakes the salesman’s rapport-generating gambit for the truth, which is why people who think that they can spot sales techniques are often most persuaded by them. The doctor is a salesman for $4,500 a dose fertility treatments and egg storage subscription fees. Take away his doctor’s costume, and he could be selling vacuum cleaners or heroin.

There is nothing to fear about getting into a commitment when entering into a modern marriage, at least from the woman’s perspective, because she is not really making any commitments. In most situations, she can just seize the marital assets after cooking up some story or another about the evils of her bum husband with the help of lawyers and psychologists and all the other modern authorities.

The man commits to an unlimited liability that can be exercised as an option at any time, and gains few if any legal rights. Even rights to paternity in the form of visitation to children are conditional, at least as far as the man is concerned. It is up to the discretion of the judge, because paternity is more a question of law than it is one of biology, although the latter still matters.

Given that the woman commits to nothing other than the contract providing direct access to the man’s property, and the creation of a common family unit that can be looted later on, there is not really much commitment at all anywhere. A woman doesn’t even need a marriage to get child support payments from the biological father of her children. Parentage without paternal rights is just a parody of indenture, mixed with a confused genetic essentialism.

The other funny thing about the author’s personal essay is that she seems not to entirely notice that she gives away much more than she could ever expect to give away to a husband — like her youthful charms — to a succession of hook-ups which she calls relationships. Psychology sanctifies this behavior as ‘rational’ and ‘good’ while also noting that stable pair bonds have better life outcomes when measured in statistics. But the psychology of 50 years ago would have called it pathological behavior, because the language of mental illness is mostly concerned with medicalized metaphors for immoral behavior.

There has been no fundamental discovery in the way that the mind works since then — only changes in societal morality.

Despite all this, the faith that the moral system is not sick is as strong as the conformity towards lifelong monogamy once was. The belief is so strong that you can sell treatments that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to these women — money that could otherwise be going to her children are going towards the gambler’s hope of having late children. You can also make phenomenal money selling eggs to the women who have delayed too long for conventional treatments.

If these women were as committed to their careers as they say, they would be re-investing that money into their boss’ business (or their own) and sterilizing themselves. And if they were as committed to having healthy, happy children as they say, they would behave differently.

The human condition is one in which everyone is buffeted around by intense drives and desires, but no one has a fully adequate means of fulfilling those desires. The achievement of civilization is like that of turning a path through a frightening forest into that of a well-lit road. Without the road, few people would be able to navigate the path.

Revealed preference shows a desperate desire to reproduce, but inadequate methods by which to make that happen in a secure and successful way. When the old roads are demolished, and replaced by an invocation to navigate by the stars, ignorant navigators will walk around in circles until they perish. This is the tragicomic situation of the modern people.

by 5 Comments

The Negative Pose

In political rhetoric, it’s common to coalesce a group based on shared dislike; defining the group by what the group is not. On the pseudonymous internet, it’s particularly easy to create a persona that is more like a missile launcher than a person. The persona spends all day attacking some group of people which is not part of the group, using some mixture of mockery, criticism, and scorn for the general entertainment of all who read it.

This behavior is not particularly limited to the political left or right. It seems to be a human universal which hardens group sentiments, informing members where the lines are drawn, and passing the time besides.

The difficulty for such groups comes when the time comes to actually try to form something positive. A group unified by shared criticism is rarely on good footing to actually construct anything. Critics are like bandits in that they always need to be on the offensive. The second that they create something that needs to be defended, they stop being bandits. Most groups don’t make that transition successfully to stationary banditry, because managing the complexity is too hard, and it requires a different sort of mentality than the purely negative one.

Not everyone can shift away from the mindset of taking constant pot-shots at the hated enemy, especially when you’re in the political opposition, and have no territory to protect, no policies that can be criticized, and no weighty decisions of your own that you have had to make. Uncrowned heads are not burdened by the responsibilities that comes with power.

This tendency becomes more acute under universal suffrage, because everyone is encouraged to have passionate political opinions, whether or not those opinions are informed. Most people in the US don’t bother with this, but some large fraction do. The ideological content of those opinions is often non-existent or vestigial, in that few know much of their origins, or have integrated it into some system of thinking. It is instead more like being a fan of a sports team.

To go back to the title, the negative pose in a critic creates an impression in the observer that there is nothing there. The critic is a disembodied voice (even if you can see him speak) which represents nothing but an attack on the existing order. Whether or not the attack is justified, he keeps the focus of the observer on the target, rather than the person doing the attacking.

All human groups are political, and successful political groups have some mixture of builders and fighters. Critics are like homeless fighters, mobile bandits, generally because they have lost some sort of previous political struggle, or have otherwise inherited defeat, and are either unwilling or unable to join the dominant order. Different groups employ ideology as tools to meet their ends; and those ends may have reasons behind them, but those reasons are not necessarily rational — revenge or chips-on-shoulders is sufficient motive, or greed, or envy, or a sense of justice, or pure spite.

Thinking about ideology in this way helps to expose the men behind the voices, lays out the strategic map, and gives us a better sense of who is opposing whom and for what reasons. Ideology ought to be evaluated on a similar basis to a tool, like a rifle or a shovel. Is the tool an effective implement for achieving the given end? Is it the right tool? Are the people seeking to use it qualified to use it?

by 2 Comments

Update on Amazon Ads

Some people  asked me earlier when I started affiliate advertising to share how well or poorly it worked out. The answer is that is resulted in roughly $100 in revenue for January, plus some spare change in December, which is pretty solid, especially considering that my traffic isn’t all that high. I only reviewed four books for the whole month (although I linked to some others also). It’s about 5x what I thought it would be for the first month, so that’s nice. That’s off of over $1,500 in purchases.

I way prefer this to begging for donations, but I expect to have my first book out soon…ish… and this works well with that, so I have no plans to switch to that.

The bulk of it came in from books of various kinds, some home goods, the odd piece of furniture,tools, and a couple Kindles. I am not likely to branch out into those categories, but it’s interesting to see some of the kinds of things that my readers are buying.

If there’s a particular book you want me to review, or are an author, e-mail me your suggestions.

Top Posts & Pages