Picking up where we left off in the Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics.
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) – The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples:
“I bet you are fat and ugly.”
“You can’t get laid!”
“Have you thought about the problem being you?”
Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.” The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.
In my experience, this code gets pulled by two different types of people. The first being by a woman that’s attempting to shame men for taking a stand. This group also makes the assumption that men (MGTOW in particular) were just people that can’t get laid and have gone over the banner of MGTOW to justify their failures. Such accusations fall apart when you consider that until I reached my late teens had assumed that gay men decided to become gay because they were also failing with women. A very dumb assumption on my part proven wrong when I started meeting gay men in large numbers and finding them in some ways more capable of getting women than I was. The second type I’ve encountered that has tried this is the White Knight that comes in and uses this as a way to justify their superiority to men in the MRM. Again for reasons that I will have to speculate on in another blog MGTOW appear to get this code more than others.
In either case, this code is used as a way to dismiss anything you say to them. A hard correction steering back towards the facts and a direct challenge to what your appearance or relationship status has to the actual discussion usually shoots this down quickly.
Got to remind you about something here a man free is considered a serious threat in some segments of society
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target’s negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target’s anger or fear, but on the target’s supposed attitude of resignation.
“Stop being so negative.”
“You are so cynical.”
“If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat.”
“C’mon! Men are doers, not quitters.”
Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men just to accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
Walking away from a position that’s rigged against you isn’t being negative. Feelings of cynicism are also to be expected taking the red pill has never been a pleasant experience. I’ve yet to meet a man (or even woman for that matter) that has had their opened to reality and didn’t get a little cynical afterwards. You are under no legal obligation to just sit there and take the abuse. Finding a new path and not choosing the ones placed in front of you is your choice, not theirs. Taking the time to retreat, reassess and start again a whole new way is what freedom is about. Like the original author is saying you’re not giving up you’re finding a new way.
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) – The Pink Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate. Examples:
“No woman will marry you with that attitude.”
“Creeps like you will never get laid!”
Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy “argumentum ad baculum” (the “appeal to force”). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the “Pink Whip” is to realize that a man’s happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).
At this time, it would be a pleasure not to get married. Getting laid is a process that can be worked around in a couple of different ways. I recently posted up a blog covering this exact thing and cited a chapter from ‘Think and Grow Rich’ By Napoleon Hill that deals with mastering your sexual nature.
There was also a recent video YouTube post by Turd Flinging Monkey
Neither of the consequences of the Pink Hammer is real when examined closely.
Here some additional codes that have been added and can be found here
What is different about this blog is that the writer of these codes went into a little more detail than the original writer of the first color codes.
Charge Of Being A Leech On Society (Code Olive)
Discussion: The target is accused of failing to do his duty to society or is accused of being a leech on society. Examples:
If you don’t have children, medicare and social security will collapse.
We all have to contribute to society.
Women are weaker than men so men must lead women.
How dare you choose to work as little as possible? You’re no different than a welfare bum.
You’re a leech on society and/or the government.
Response: Men have to freedom to choose how they live their lives. Men are not required to work just to produce maximum tax revenue for the government or to ensure the stability of government programs. Since society has become hostile to men, there is no reason for a man to support such a society. If society wants men to do things for it, then society has a reciprocal duty to men. Duty can not be one sided. It is a logical choice for a man to remove his productive capacity for a society that doesn’t value him and is hostile to him.
The author of these codes goes into a little more detail that the author of the original codes. I’ve never run into this code personally what comes across to me is that this is something that I would hear from traditionalists. I have only run into a someone like this once, and it was a conservative feminist (Yes they are out there!) What it comes down to is this unless you have a gun to my head I have no obligation to oblige any current cultural more that is out there. Especially the ones that revolve around marriage and relationships. There’s no reciprocation in it for me, and there’s certainly not any real advantage.
Threat of No Legacy (Code Bronze)
Discussion: Because marriage has turned into an anti-male institution, many men have knowingly or unknowing decided to go their own way and avoid marriage. In most cases, this will correspond with never having children. The (unmarried and childless) target is threatened with a calamity that will befall them when they are older due to their lack of marriage and children. Examples:
While there’s a risk of divorce in getting married in the next decade, there’s a risk of dying in misery with no one to change your bedpan when you’re elderly.
You will be trapped in a nursing home when you are older with no one to visit you.
You will die alone.
There will be no one to remember you after you are dead.
Your family will die out with you.
Response: There are two issues here, what happens before death and what happens after death. After death, a man is not going to be around to care about if he has children or if anyone remembers him. Also, if a man wants to be remembered, he does not need children to accomplish that. Before death, the issue is one of frailty and long-term care, not “dying alone”. This shaming language assumes that children will be caregivers for their elderly parents. There is no guarantee of this. In rare cases, children may die before their parents. It’s likely that children will dump their parents into a nursing home instead of providing elderly care themselves. Women may try to alienate children from their fathers, so men with children could easily be in the same situation as childless men. A man who falls victim to this type of shaming language is more likely to make a bad marriage decision like marrying a single mother. In this case, the children aren’t his and are likely not to care about long-term care of an elderly man with who not related to them. Having children is not a guarantee of anything, and it’s more likely that a man will end up in a situation of getting divorced and having no one to “change his bedpan”.
There is a very strong similarity between this one and code pink. There is no guarantee that even if you have kids or get married that they’ll even be around. This is a more specific and direct threat to your future as opposed to the more vague, less specific code pink. The other part to consider here is that building a legacy doesn’t even have to include having a family. I can say that this path is what I’ve chosen for myself my legacy will be my artistic career and maybe this blog.