What exactly is the Roissysphere? I have to admit that I did not hear about this term until this month, or maybe it was last month. I can't remember. I consider it from an outside perspective as a MGTOWer. After reading some about it, it strikes me as a network of bloggers who follow the writings of individual named "Roissy." Who is Roissy? He appears to be somewhat like a PUA (a pick-up artist - one that seduces and beds women), who just also happens to have some views on gender relations that might fall in the category of MRA thought. In short, it's MRA meets seduction theory.**Novaseeker is supposedly in the Roissyphere. Ferdinand Bardamu is in the Roissysphere. So is Chuck Ross and Josh Xiong. And on it goes. The guys in the Roissysphere seem to be relatively new to the MRA scene on the internet. Roissy's blog only goes back as far as April 2007. These individuals have a lot of beliefs in common with MGTOW, and yet they largely seem to have only a partial knowledge of MGTOW. I say that because of statements that some readers of Roissy have made about MGTOW.
So for those of you who move about in the Roissyphere, I thought I would compare the MGTOW scene with the MRA/PUA hybrid ideas of the Roissyphere:
1. Critiques of feminized culture? Roissyphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.
2. Libertarian-leaning critiques of big government? Roissysphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.
3. Critiques of misandry? Roissysphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.
4. Critiques of conservatives being just as bad as feminists in their misandry? Roissysphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.
5. Realistic and brutal honesty about female behavior (including sexual behaviors and mating preferences)? Roissysphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.
6. Some members into learning aspects of "Game" in order understand and relate to women, especially for the purpose of intimate relationships? Roissyphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.
7. Some members of the community being happily married? Roissyphere: Check. MGTOW: Check. (One of the architects of MGTOW has been happily married for years.)
8. Championing standing up to women and not being a pushover? Roissyphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.
9. Some members of the community being happily single or even unattached? MGTOW: Check. Roissyphere: I dunno.
10. Realization that average men can live without sex or female companionship just fine? MGTOW: Check. Roissyphere: I dunno.
11. Realization that everything has it costs and trade-offs and therefore, being involved with women is not necessarily better than not being involved with them? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
12. Realization that a man's worth and happiness does not depend on women? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
13. Realization that when it comes to men's issues, "Game" isn't everything, much less the proverbial "silver bullet?" MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
14. Realization that "Game" doesn't make a low-integrity woman into marriage material? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
15. Realization that "Game" doesn't necessarily protect a man from a low-integrity woman or from family law, the false allegation industry, the DV industry, etc.? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
16. Realization that our culture and the proliferation of low-integrity women makes the American Dream for men increasingly elusive, "Game" or no "Game"? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
17. Avoidance of "real man" talk, shaming tactics, and other forms of high-handed judgment against men who don't want to play by the old roles, who don't make scoring with women a high priority, or who actually want do something about the inequality in our society? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
18. Respects the right of men to buck the system and embracing their own vision of manhood? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
In years past, when many men where trying to air their grievances on the internet, trying to come to terms with the misandry and gynocentrism in our society, and trying figure out what to do about it, some PUA-leaning heckler would invariably butt into the conversation and say something like, "You guys are just whiners who are not getting any! You need to learn seduction techniques!" Such an arrogant, myopic, and hopelessly naïve attitude about men's concerns has understandably left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of MRA and MGTOW men. I don't know enough about the Roissyphere to determine whether or not any of them indulge in the adolescent posturing and display of peacock feathers that some PUA advocates have embraced. Time will tell.
The Roissyphere has its share of talented writers who are saying some noteworthy things about what men face today. I tip my hat in respect to these gentlemen for that. On the other hand, I have a bit of "wait and see" attitude, given how some PUAs have comported themselves in past. I'll let the men of the Roissysphere speak for themselves on the questions I raise. The Roissyphere bills itself as (1) being realistic about relationships between men and women, and (2) being a voice that gives men's options. From my admittedly limited perspective, it remains to be seen whether or not the Roissysphere can live up to both of these promises the way MGTOW already does. In the end, "Roissyism" may actually be a form of MGTOW.
**Edit: The men of the Roissysphere generally follow ideas that come from the Seduction Community; however, not all of them fully accept the lifestyle that Roissy has embraced.
19 comments:
Well, in answer to some of your questions:
9. Single and unattached in the Roissysphere. There's David Alexander as a shining example of that. He's a definite MGTOW.
10. I think the Roissysphere perspective on this one is that men can get what they want from women without very much invested by the man. People need touch, and physical intimacy. It is why so many people have pets. Women do not complete men, but they are certainly a part of a man's life, it is difficult to avoid them. Your perspective may vary.
11. Everything has trade offs and dangers. I suspect the Roissysphere understands the huge costs of doing anything traditional such as marriage, as well as the dangers of relationships with women.
You have two 11s, the second one is a check for the Roissysphere in general.
12. We disagree on this one.
13. Check on this one. There are few American women that are worth marrying and there are discussions about all the red flags that warn you about a bad deal.
14. Qualified Check. Here we are talking about odds. Game does change the odds for a man, but there are risks and they are recognized.
15. Define American dream. If you mean home with wife and kids, then this is a check as well.
16. Qualified Check. There is a belief that one should engage, and not completely abandon the ideas of relationships with women because of the basic needs of men. Many in the Roissysphere believe that going John Galt is part of the solution.
17. Check.
Thanks, Talleyrand. I fixed the numbering.
Awesome post, Anakin. I appreciate the link. A few points:
"I have to admit that I did not hear about this term until this month, or maybe it was last month."
The manifesto I wrote in August that you linked to was effectively responsible for popularizing the term.
"Who is Roissy? He appears to be a PUA in the truest sense (a pick-up artist that seduces and beds women)"
Roissy isn't a PUA per se, as he's never used the term to describe himself and his opinions aren't representative of the seduction community. I'd classify him as a general cad who is influenced by PUA ideas.
As for your list, Talleyrand pretty much nailed everything, though I have a couple of points:
12) See Commandment III - "You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority"
18) Using game is in itself a form of bucking the system. See here.
"From my admittedly limited perspective, it remains to be seen whether or not the Roissysphere can live up to both of these promises the way MGTOW already does. In the end, "Roissyism" may actually be a form of MGTOW."
The advantage of the Roissysphere is that it gives men a means - game - for navigating the sexual marketplace successfully. Game allows us to understand how women think, why they act the way they do, and how an individual man can cope with them. I don't regard the Roissysphere and MGTOW as being mutually exclusive - in fact, the two groups are natural allies.
Have to go. May have more to say later.
as critical as i tend to be of "game" I've always acknowledged that its a valuable tool for bettering ones interpersonal relationships and social skills, even if you never use the skills to bed a chick, theres a lot of good and practiced theory regarding social value, and the power of perception. I got involved in Pick Up after watching that show on VH-1 a few years ago, and ultimately it wasn't pick up itself that turned me away from it, it was the PUAs I surrounded myself and their BS moral relativism, or rather, their lack of morals all together that made me check out. I was involved with the many douche bags on the Attraction Forum, men who advocated a very predatory attitude, which included stealing girlfriends and bedding married women from men they perceived as inferior because they didn't practice the game. I think a combination of Pick Up and MGTOW principals would be better, because I imagine that would promote a level of respect for your fellow man.
I don't regard the Roissysphere and MGTOW as being mutually exclusive - in fact, the two groups are natural allies.
I'm a member of the group that came up with the term MGTOW and articulated some basic principles - probably the most radical member. I agree completely with the above statement.
There is and has been a lot of doom and gloom among the MRA-type conversations. For a lot of men, loss of the old traditional roles and values has left them without a roadmap for how to live their lives. There is a lot of tendency to project morose fantasies about the future based on the twin assumptions that
1) things will indefinitely continue as they have been going, and
2) men will not come up with anything new and will simply dig in their heels and hope for an eventual return to the "goodle days and good old ways."
I have always maintained that men would innovate and adapt to the changing social environment. I see what is going on in the Roissysphere as being exactly that sort of adaptation. In many respects, it is simply the next evolutionary phase of men's response to the vast social changes currently underway.
I see that there have been 3 distinct types of reactions to feminism, historically, but only one type of SoCon resistance. The phases in order were -
1) men going along with feminism. In the idealized period of the 1950s-1960s, with civil rights and the Vietnam war as backdrops, the idea of "change" was very attractive to young people. The old traditional male roles were no piece of cake for men, so lots of young men were fooled by feminism's promise to "liberate" everyone - for a while.
2) the marriage strike. However, it became pretty obvious pretty quickly that feminism's true agenda was not the liberation of men, but their further enslavement. Feminists and SoCons were quite able to agree that women were perfect and men were awful and that all the blame for all the problems of the world belonged exclusively to men. Women were totally freed of any social pressure to conform to their traditional gender roles, while the social pressure on men to conform to theirs was replaced by a rapidly expanding police state and government intrusion into private relationships - "the personal is political and the political is personal." With marriage, fatherhood, and even in many cases finding a woman attractive being progressively criminalized, many men chose not to do those crimes because they did not want to do the time.
(I'm probably running out of my character allotment, so I'm going to break this post into 2 pieces here)
3) Marry foreign / expat. Some of the men who did still want a more traditional type of relationship saw their salvation in having relationships with women from cultures not yet poisoned by feminism. Some of these men also chose to abandon their country of birth and move somewhere the culture was more traditional.
4) Game. In sharp contrast to phase 3, I view "game" as being the first true innovation on the part of men. The other 3 phases all have in common some degree or desire to be "social architects" and shape the culture in the direction dictated by the person's individual beliefs. Game, on the other hand, is purely pragmatic. Young men without the idealism of the boomer generation and the desire to "change the world, rearrange the world" fully accept the fact that the world is not the way they wish it was, probably never will be, and that wasting one's life trying to make it so is probably pointless. So, their approach is to take the conditions given to them and make the best life that they can within that context.
I think it is the first approach I've seen in which men are taking back their own power, and it is obviously a world view that appeals to younger men. I see it as simply taking the groundwork that some men have been laying for the past 40 years, that eventually came to manifest itself under the term MGTOW, and taking it to the next level.
I think that's pretty insightful, zed.
I think that, in general, many of us believe that the genie is *not* going back in the bottle, in terms of things going backwards. Time's arrow points in one direction. The real options for men, I think, are determining what *kind* of personal adaptation they want to undertake in their own lives to the changes that have taken place and still are underway.
I see MGTOW as one way of adaptation, really. It means, to me, deciding for yourself what to do, regardless of what society and women want of you. That is a kind of adaptation to the current situation. Roissyism is another, different, one, for people who have a different focus. There *are* MGTOWs who are in relationships and marriages, but I think they are outnumbered, substantially, by the ones who are purposely not. This is fine, it is just a tenor of the group as a whole. And I think that there are some MGTOWs who use "Game" or parts of it, and so on.
I guess I don't see the MRA movement as ever realistically gaining much significant political traction. Men are too divided, women are too united, and ultimately men will, mostly, throw other men under the bus when a woman is involved. So I'm not sanguine on men's rights, as a movement.
I think, rather, that men need to realize that the times have changed fundamentally, and we are not going back. In light of that, I think the best way forward is for, as Welmer said so well on his blog a while ago, men to realize that the new system gives us the ability to refuse our own gender role, too, and to make our own way, however we wish to do so. This does not imply a unified political movement, but rather the actions of individual men, each taken in the fullness of the realization of their freedom, embracing that freedom, reveling in it, and living their own lives -- with or without women, with or without Game, with or without fatherhood and marriage and all of that stuff which serves today to hem in men as much as it does anything else. We can each be our own personal revolution, if we embrace that freedom and live it in our lives.
Good post Anakin...I just need to make a little point here. When linking to me, you wrote:
I say that because of the statements that some followers of Roissy's ideas have made about MGTOW.
I'm actually not a "follower" of Roissy.
I became an MRA blogger back in March of 2007. I was initially introduced to the MRA/MGTOW blogosphere and inspired to start my own and contribute my own online voice to the discussion.
It was from this initial foray into the MRA world that I came across a few now-defunct PUA sites...but through reading those sites, I gained a very realistic understanding about all of the gender-based misconceptions and indoctrinations that were sabotaging my own personal experiences with females in my life.
By changing my own behavior, by raising my own awareness, I was able to turn myself around.
When I eventually discovered Roissy's blog, I was fascinated by his convergence of MRA/MGTOW and PUA philosophies...as it actually somewhat resembled my own experiences in applying "game" to my own life.
I also saw a large number of Roissy commenters continually ask Roissy for advice on how "Game" applied to long term relationships and marriage. That is how I began relating my own personal experiences over there in great detail. I did so only to help share the things that helped me, in the hopes that I could help others.
I've received numerous emails and links and comments from many men who have indeed confirmed that my experiences helped them to improve their own lives and their own relationships.
As for MGTOW, my latest post goes into much greater detail regarding my beliefs about MGTOW and the substance of my arguments that I've had with you and other MGTOWers. I hope to make my position really clear - I really don't don't oppose you MGTOWers.
Oh, and I'll take a stab at answering your I dunno's too...
9. Some members of the community being happily single or even unattached? MGTOW: Check. Roissyphere: I dunno.
One of the primary points of "Game" is that men need to realize that in order to have success with Women, you need to have success with YOURSELF first and foremost. Most PUA's will repeat the advice that in fact jibe's with MGTOWers...your life mission needs to be priority number 1.
10. Realization that average men can live without sex or female companionship just fine? MGTOW: Check. Roissyphere: I dunno.
I'll disagree on this one. Can the average man live without sex or female companionship? Sure. Does that mean "just fine?" I don't believe so. Perhaps 'OK,' but did not God design us to reproduce? Did he not in fact command men to be the head of household...to dominate the woman? Otherwise why would He have given us men a sex drive?
11. Realization that everything has it costs and trade-offs and therefore, being involved with women is not necessarily better than not being involved with them? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
Check. This is the very essence of what "game" refers to as avoiding "one-itis."
12. Realization that a man's worth and happiness does not depend on women? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
Triple check. Make your mission your priority in life.
13. Realization that when it comes to men's issues, "Game" isn't everything, much less the proverbial "silver bullet?" MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
No, it's NOT a silver bullet. But the basic underlying understanding it provides is a hell of a lot better for men to guide their own behavior than it is to blithely accepting and internalizing the very subversive indoctrination of the feminist mindset...both Christian and secular! In fact, I argue from personal experience and observation of many other couples, Christian-based Chivalry which places females on a pedastal is the root cause of much Christian martial discord and divorce.
14. Realization that "Game" doesn't make a low-integrity woman into marriage material? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
CHECK! One of the basic principles of Game is to in fact discern the differences between LTR material and the pump and dump.
15. Realization that "Game" doesn't necessarily protect a man from a low-integrity woman or from family law, the false allegation industry, the DV industry, etc.? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
No, it doesn't protect...but it certainly gives men the awareness to better make that judgment in the first place. Many many men get "ambushed" because they have the image of female purity as the leading doctrine in their interactions with women.
16. Realization that our culture and the proliferation of low-integrity women makes the American Dream for men increasingly elusive, "Game" or no "Game"? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
CHECK. This is the very premise that has given rise to the "Roissysphere!"
17. Avoidance of "real man" talk, shaming tactics, and other forms of high-handed judgment against men who don't want to play by the old roles, who don't make scoring with women a high priority, or who actually want do something about the inequality in our society? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
There is a very real difference when I've used the term "man up" here, and the way feminists use it. I've used such language to urge men to improve themselves. To realize that not all relationship failings are always the females fault thanks to feminism. Men have their own part to play too! I have NEVER used such language to try and shut down the debate and shame people like you into silence.
18. Respects the right of men to buck the system and embracing their own vision of manhood? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.
Check.
We can each be our own personal revolution, if we embrace that freedom and live it in our lives.
I would have loved to copy your entire post, novaseeker, because I thought the whole thing was spot on. It seems that philosophically you and I agree just about completely. (I'm tgc, BTW.) You are an exceptional writer, and the whole so-called "MRM" is going through a transition which men like you (and Anakin, and Welmer, and a lot of other bright new stars in the men's blogosphere) can facilitate with your writing.
There is no "going back." As you say - time's arrow only points forward. History is nothing but one continuous process of change, and we happen to have been born in a time when there was a lot of change going on. The future belongs to those who rise to meet it.
While I share with Anakin some personal-values-based resistance to "Game", at it's simplest level it is nothing more than Dale Carnegie updated for today's social conditions. "Winning Friends and Influencing People" took different strategies in the past than it does today, and those who remain stuck in the strategies of the past will get left behind.
I'm one of the original marriage strikers - closing on my 60th birthday without ever having married. I have a perspective that straddles a lot of viewpoints, but isn't really part of any of them. The remarkable thing to me is how similar "Game" of today is to conventional notions of masculinity 50 years ago. "Everything old is new again" as the saying goes.
The old roles were what they were because they generally worked for both sexes and that was what both sexes generally wanted. After a few-decades-long massive experiment in social re-engineering attempting to change the natures of human beings, those natures are forcibly re-asserting themselves. Men under the age of 30 or so have never seen any of the old social values and roles, so they are looking at things from a fresh context without the blindness induced by pre-conceived notions which afflicts a lot of us older guys.
Those of us raised pre-feminism but living most of our lives under the Feminist Reich have, for the most part, gotten stuck in the mode of defending the sort of manhood and masculinity we were raised to live. Men a few years younger pretty much were indoctrinated into the "new" order of things, and tried to work out new roles having little to go on except the building blocks left over from the old ones - protector, provider, etc, along with "sharing the housework and childcare." I think you fall into this category, novaseeker.
Now, we have a third group of men who were born and have lived their entire lives under the Feminist Reich, and who are quite rightfully telling older men that we don't know squat about the world they live in and the lives they lead and thus have nothing of any use to tell them about it. They are neither entirely right nor entirely wrong, but like every generation of men will have to learn for themselves.
Like many posters I have seen recently, I have a lot of animosity toward the SoCons who have done absolutely nothing toward reining in or balancing female excess and sociopathology and have reacted only by attempting to hold men to their old roles with a massive police state while allowing women to run wild. They have lost all credibility and moral authority by living in denial of the real world that young men must live in, and therefore hae lost most of their ability to influence young men. A culture which turns on, attacks, and alienates a large percentage of its future citizens makes a grave error.
I think the best way forward is for, as Welmer said so well on his blog a while ago, men to realize that the new system gives us the ability to refuse our own gender role, too, and to make our own way, however we wish to do so.
That, in a nutshell, is MGTOW.
Good to see you here, tgc!
Men a few years younger pretty much were indoctrinated into the "new" order of things, and tried to work out new roles having little to go on except the building blocks left over from the old ones - protector, provider, etc, along with "sharing the housework and childcare." I think you fall into this category, novaseeker.
Pretty much, yes. My parents were married in 1958, so very pre-feminist, and they still think women want nice men who are stable and good providers -- hehe. That particular intergenerational change is too much for them to really see, I think. So I was raised with a lot of things that did not apply at all in the current setting. Led to disaster, really, but that's life.
They have lost all credibility and moral authority by living in denial of the real world that young men must live in, and therefore hae lost most of their ability to influence young men
This is very true. I think that many on the left smack their lips over this and think all these guys are becoming Obama leftists, but I don't see it. What I see is a generation of men who are saying "screw this", and slacking, playing X-Box, learning Game and so on. They hate the liberals because their message is so inherently anti-male to anyone but the most privileged alpha male (or brainwashed "beta") it is viscerally perceived as rubbish. But the right is besotted with women, and how wonderful they are, and is so eager to throw men under the bus that it results in an odd feedback loop of men being pushed by both camps back to the X-Box. The right then condemns them, not realizing that their own stupidity was part of what led them back to the X-Box. As a result, I think we have a younger generation here who will find its own way, more or less.
"Game, on the other hand, is purely pragmatic. "
Yet this is social architecture in and of itself. I agree wholeheartedly though that Game is one of the first innovations for men to respond to the current climate. MGTOW is another, admittedly less radical one.
"What I see is a generation of men who are saying "screw this", and slacking, playing X-Box, learning Game and so on. "
This pragmatic step is also a culture-shaper too. Wait and see what happens when the dominant hegemonic culture starts wondering what to do with its mass of retreating men who don't marry, shag chicks because they can, don't produce kids, and doing only as much as they need to at work to personally survive (and thereby not creating lots of income to tax). The culture can go one of two ways: find ways to positively re-integrate those retracting men into the culture, or forcibly subjugate them into supporting it. Right now (b) is looking more likely, but coercion is only good up to a point.
"But the right is besotted with women, and how wonderful they are..."
True, the socons are very fem-positive, but I look for that to change in the next generation as women's behavior becomes much harder to paper over and/or deny.
And your point about both camps (libtards and their fembot co-travellers and the political right) pushing guys to the margins is absolutely correct, Nova.
I appreciate the comments thus far. IMO, MGTOW is very inclusive. It presents the option of picking up one's marbles and leaving the game. "Marriage strike" and "going Ghost" are the terms used to describe the men who do that very thing. There are a lot of MGTOWers who have indeed exercised those options, but there is nothing in the message of MGTOW that actually *demands* that one do that.
"But the right is besotted with women, and how wonderful they are, and is so eager to throw men under the bus that it results in an odd feedback loop of men being pushed by both camps back to the X-Box. The right then condemns them, not realizing that their own stupidity was part of what led them back to the X-Box."
This is one thing that I tried to convince a few MGTOWers a few years ago---the individuals in question honestly believed that the political right, while giving lipservice to anti-feminism, were somehow pro-masculine in essence.
What a crock.
I even tried to provide examples why a more "traditional" camp politically had no qualms about squashing men's interests for power and gain. Does the rallying cry of saving women and children sound familiar?
This is one reason why anti-feminist---yet pro-chivalrous---women clamor for "real men" to come back. They what men to engage in self-sacrifice even if it's not in men's best interests.
Benevolent sexism is the flip side of this that also helps feminism. It's essentially the same thing---expecting men to throw themselves under a buss for women regardless of what women do, even if they don't have to live up to a social compact one iota.
"The culture can go one of two ways: find ways to positively re-integrate those retracting men into the culture, or forcibly subjugate them into supporting it. Right now (b) is looking more likely, but coercion is only good up to a point."
Coercion would only serve to further alienate and embitter those men, and let's face it---quite a percentage of them are already disgusted with a culture that demonizes and flattens masculinity to begin with. Not good.
And I should know---I'm one of those retracting men.
The way I see it Roissysphere is part of MGTOW. It is a form of MGTOW, but not the only one by any means.
Ghosting and Roissysphere form the opposite ends along one axis of the equation (i.e. sexual involvement with women). But there are other axi within MGTOW as well. These include ones position on financial choices, career choices, geographical choices, etc.
MGTOW is a multidimensional movement.
One other analogy that came into mind recently is that if MGTOW was early Christianity; then Roissy would be like John the Baptist. He is no Messiah; but a colorful and important member of the group.
Here is another PUA-MGTOW merger in action; one not related to Roissyism. The Mature Men of the SoSuave Seduction Forum:
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164840
It seems once they are passed their hormone-crazy years, most PUA's naturally gravitate toward MGTOW.
That alpha, beta, omega stuff is a bunch of crap that you guys are being asked to swallow. In truth, it is based on wolf packs. If one looks closely at the wolf pack, positioning in it is fluid. Get out of the BS and assume a place you really want to be.
Sometimes a wolf breaks off from the pack and starts its own...
The problem with PUAs is that many simply start with the assumption that being able get a woman is one of, if not THE, most important thing in life; then build their whole skyscraper on that foundation. The problem with this foundational assumption is as follows:
If there are more solid sources and dependable sources of true, sustainable happiness than getting a woman's approval, or even garden variety marginal attention in a non-sexual context; then all the PUA implications that a man HAS to have game to have self-respect are irrelevant. In short, a man's happiness does not HAVE TO depend on some special skill or talent at going through some animalistic rite - no matter what mainstream society says.
TRUE, sustainable happiness comes from being happy with what you have (not saying lose all ambition, just that the ability to your ambitions shouldn't be your source of happiness). Hobbies, books, learning something new and profound are excellent ways to achieve this true, sustainable happiness.
Post a Comment