On the nature of good advice

January 18, 2014 § 20 Comments

Many commenters have misunderstood the situation and are still asking questions based on a fantasy.

I’m just a blogger who goes by the moniker Zippy. It is not in my power to fix society, to make churches preach masculinity (as if that were the Church’s job as opposed to fathers’ job), etc.

If I observe a girl getting screwed by a sociopath, I advise her that it isn’t a good idea: she should not sleep with the sociopath. She answers “but what masculine man will love me?” because she, like many commenters, misunderstands the situation. It is not within my power to create a population of non-sociopathic masculine men for her.

(She shouldn’t take advice on how to be feminine from whores either.)

Yet the advice I am giving her — (1) stop getting screwed by the sociopath and (2) repent of your liberalism — is still the very best practical advice, beyond “repent your sins and be saved by Christ,” that anyone can give her under the circumstances.

It doesn’t matter whether or not that leaves a “vacuum”. By temperament I’ve never needed someone to lead me to the extent that most men feel, it is true, and therefore it is probably easier for me to see this than others. But “vacuum” or not, it isn’t a good idea to take the pervert’s disease into your person as a substitute for what is missing.  This is true for everyone, not just those of us who aren’t intimidated by vacuums.

Drop the fantasy. Nobody is going to fix society for you, and I certainly don’t have the power to do it. All I can do is give you advice on what to do in your own small (like mine) life.

And my advice in that respect is to stop getting f***ed by bad boys.

§ 20 Responses to On the nature of good advice

  • The Continental Op says:

    But, but, but…how will I get sex if I repent??

  • Mike T says:

    The Church is not your daddy, but the Church often preaches on masculinity and is often destructive in what it teaches on those things. Absolving the Church of its role in that destruction by saying it has no duty to be a father or that’s not its charism is beside the point; the Church often has no more of a problem preaching on such things (and often quite badly) than it does preaching on economic matters that are well outside its understanding and expertise.

    BTW, that first link was a great example, particularly this:

    The world is the way it is because we Christians are the way we are. If young men are following the example of cads, it’s because we failed to articulate and demonstrate the better way.

    Young men and women are following the cads primarily because the average Christian man is a “delta” if not a “gamma” by Vox Day’s social hierarchy. The Church struggles to show them a better example because even by the standards of 100-200 years ago, the average “sociopath” is more masculine than most Christian men.

  • I don’t expect some dude on the internet who goes by Zippy to have a top-down solution to roll back the revolution. Although I must say that when I first began reading you back in 2005-6 your writings against liberalism were like the red pill for me, ha!

    “To whom shall we go?” may not be objectively relevant but it’s still a very human question. Great leaders all begin as great followers. Jesus himself pitied those who were like sheep without a shepherd. Repentance, prayer, and fasting aren’t popular answers, but we have it on the highest authority that they do far more good than whatever socio-political counterrevolutionary plans we might devise. If we want people who follow the examples of cads and sluts to change, we have to change ourselves first.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    In my decades as a Catholic I don’t think I’ve ever seen a homily on masculinity at all. This ‘inauthentic preaching on masculinity’ seems to be a Protestant thing.

  • Scott W. says:


    “Perhaps this is the simple beginning of wisdom: yes, this thing is broken; no, it is not going to fix itself; no, we cannot fix it, either; and yes, it is getting slowly but surely worse.

    Honestly, I am happy just to stop believing in my government. The idea that, just because you are right and the State is wrong, you should be able to do something about it, is a nematode rather than a neuron. It is unique to the democratic era. We are lucky simply that I’m allowed to post these posts, that you’re allowed to read them, that we can both go to Google Books and scroll through politically unacceptable tomes from the 19th century until our eyes glaze over.

    If you by some chance agree with what I’ve written here, please avoid the impulse to act on it. Surrender completely to the impulse to think on it. Remember that the inexorable slope of the line is slow, slow, slow. There is no shortage of time for thinking, none at all.”

  • Mike T says:


    It’s often done via less direct routes like Father’s Day and sermons on marriage. Men get dragged down while on Mother’s Day even the woman who has 3 kids out of wedlock by 3 different men is made to feel special (because anything else and she’ll abort them; so let’s not stick to the truth mmmmmkay?)

  • Mike T says:

    By the way, one area where your critique of game falls down badly is that much of what gamers have to say on female nature is more or less true. The discussion is more than just about picking up women, but also how and why women do what they do. Christian critics of game are often completely uninterested in this, preferring to take a line of attack that pedestalizes women and practically says female sexuality is unknowable in what it responds to.

    Going back to the previous post, a key reason why women are attracted to bad boys is because they are badder and tougher than most men. They project a form of strength and leadership that, while broken and twisted, is still strength and leadership. Most men today project weakness, herd mentality, etc. Writing these men off as just sociopaths ignores the fact that they come from all walks of life and many of our most successful men fit that description.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Again, and I can only speak to my own decades of experience going to Mass, I just haven’t seen preaching on masculinity in homilies at all. One could argue that the silence is deafening, and it probably is, of course. It isn’t my intent to make excuses, just to point out that for some of us the Protestant experience here is an alien landscape.

    … a key reason why women are attracted to bad boys is because they are badder and tougher than most men.

    Not really true, at least in general and as an objective evaluation. As Mark Richardson observes in a post I linked in my previous,

    However, a lot of the time, women went for men who were clearly losers. There were men whose drug habits led them to live close to the edge and this was attractive for some women. One female friend went for a man who was mentally ill but who was, in her words, “fun to be with”. Men with borderline personality disorders can be highly attractive to women, as they are manipulative, unavailable, jealous, unpredictable and needy. In the school yard, you often see the bad boys, those who are more damaged, more unpredictably violent and who have the least chance of success in life, being followed around by a harem of admiring girls.

    What he doesn’t mention is that other men in the modern world tend to be in awe of these losers. It is just these sort of ‘rebels’ that we have lionized, for reasons I’ve explained.

  • Mike T says:

    Your response only covers one of many types of “bad boy.” It does not address the tatooed thugs, MMA fighters, etc. that women often find attractive. I have a relative or two that fits that description and I can assure you, they really don’t tend to be pansies on the inside. If testosterone radiated from their body, they’d set off all of the radiation scanners in DC just by getting on i95.

  • Karl says:

    Hey, The Continental Op

    Sex is not all its cracked up to be!

    That is the commentary from a celibate male who was not always celibate.

    Besides, it is dangerous to be masculine with all those pantywaists in control, or throbbing to be. You could end up a gelding if you’re not careful! Its not pretty.

  • Samson J. says:

    Sex is not all its cracked up to be!

    Well, it isn’t, you know. It’s pretty good, most of the time, but overrated, and there are things I’d rather do.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Your response only covers one of many types of “bad boy.” It does not address the tatooed thugs, MMA fighters, etc. that women often find attractive.

    Sure it does.

    In the first place, modern men do admire, fear, and generally act submissive toward tattooed thugs, MMA fighters, etc.

    What it also explains is the situations that would otherwise be inexplicable. Modern men have put rebels in general on a pedestal; so women, following the lead of men whether they want to or not, find rebels attractive – even rebels who are obviously total losers.

    The hypothesis is that men do the assessing of other men, while women subconsciously key into that assessment and find themselves attracted to the men that (other, most) men admire, respect, fear, and toward whom they (men generally) are submissive in some respect or other.

    Mind you I don’t pretend that there is no objective component to what women are attracted to in men. But I do think it is much more strongly socially mediated than men’s attraction to women, as I have suggested before.

  • Zippy says:

    I am quite confident in saying that The Continental Op’s comment was sarcasm.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    It goes beyond just the entire ‘thugs’ thing, as well. JFK – objectively lousy politicians and president, idolized by many not just despite his philandering, but *because of* it. Same with Clinton – a criminal, liar, perjurer, philanderer, and accused sexual predator who is lionized as much because of these things as despite them. By the time we get to millionaire athletes and rappers we are where the culture can pretend that Magic Johnson (a man who contracted AIDS from promiscuity) is a sort of hero rather than a cautionary tale.
    Personally I have heard many homilies on masculinity, traditional masculinity, from priests and a bishop or two especially in the last decade or so after joining an FSSP parish.

  • Mike T says:


    I was responding specifically to your comment that seemed to key in on the type of bad boy that is unequivocally a loser such as a drug addict. I wouldn’t disagree with you that men often act submissive in the presence of the tatooed thug, MMA fighter, etc. However that has much to do with the fact that they are hardened men capable of doing some serious ass kicking of the average man. I would liken that mechanism/behavior to the way good men who were also strong, dominant types got similar reactions from “lesser men.” Alpha is alpha regardless of where it comes.

    As to your point about men’s assessments, I would blame much of that on the fact that “good men” tend to be intrinsically more susceptible to social influence. So even good men who are natural alphas feel a greater pull to buy into whatever society is a good way for a man to behave; the “bad boys” and “sociopaths” obviously just do whatever comes to their mind because they are more alpha but with fewer (if any) mental filters to pull them in whatever bad direction modern society would insist they go.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    As much as I enjoy our disagreements I’m not sure we are disagreeing anymore. Basically we are dealing with two competing hypotheses about female psychology.

    Define “bad boy” = “men who make poor fathers”.

    The conventional hypothesis (CH) is that women like “bad boys” because bad boys are more objectively masculine. This hypothesis, I suspect, gives the female lizard brain too much credit for objectivity. The female lizard brain is built to be shaped by male leadership, not to operate “on its own” outside of the context of male leadership. It also begs the question[1] of what is “masculine” and fails to explain why women frequently go for the kind of bad boy Mark Richardson describes.

    The Zippy hypothesis (ZH) is that men — who are not natural leaders simpliciter, but arrange themselves into hierarchies as both leaders and followers – determine the hierarchy. The female lizard brain keys in on this male hierarchy (the actual one, not the formal one, thus “cool” vs nerd-king) and is naturally attracted to the men that (other) men “love”, that is, submit to, admire, judge to be dominant and high value, think are “cool”, etc.

    So women find themselves (unwittingly, really, since this is the lizard brain we are talking about) attracted to the men that other men love, fear, admire, etc. Women have some control over this just as men have some control over how they respond to a woman dressed like a slut; but at the visceral level there is an involuntariness to the way the flesh responds to temptation.

    So the reason modern women find themselves (whether they like it or not) attracted to “bad boys” – defined, remember, as men who make poor fathers – is because modern men go for bad boys. And the reason modern men go for bad boys is because liberalism is pervasive, the hierarchy has been destroyed, the whole world is on fire with rebellion against nature and nature’s God, and the bad boy rebel has been elevated to the highest point in the de facto hierarchy – a hierarchy which is not allowed to exist but which persists despite its prohibition.

    [1] Here I do mean actually “begs the question,” not “raises the question”, which is what the phrase is frequently misused to mean.

  • […]  This hypothesis either has or does not have merit as an objective explanation, and I laid it out this way in one of the comment […]

  • I got involved with a sociopath in the early nineties; although I didn’t know it at the time. He was Mr. Wonderful to me. After 4years together it all unraveled and I figured out every lie. It was as if I pulled a thread. The break-up was so unimaginably painful and he was so vicious. He was moving another woman into our beautiful home we shared while I still lived there!! (she was a friend of mine; I thought) I lost everything and she ended up with my things. Shortly thereafter she screwed around with his best friend and he (my ex) lost everything; including his high-paying job. Karma’s a beeotch. It took years to piece my life back together and I came across photos of him from happier times, before I knew who he really was. A psychic told me to burn his photos as it would provide powerful closure and healing. I burned the photos to cinder. I didn’t know it, but within weeks he became extremely ill and lapsed into a month long coma. He survived the coma but was very, very ill for 9 years; then he died. I found all this out by accident when I found the obit online and pieced together the time-frame and description of the events in the obit. There is so much more to this story as far as how deep a sociopath and psychopath he truly, truly was. He fooled so many people of the highest intelligence. I really learned a hard lesson and can now spot a sociopath before they even speak.

  • Maximus says:

    Zippy, your hypothesis is really good, but it doesn’t explain why individual men can up their masculinity in the context of their individual marriage and end up better off. Or am I missing something?

  • Zippy says:

    I can’t read minds, but is it possible that you are assuming that Game and masculinity are one and the same?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading On the nature of good advice at Zippy Catholic.