I know for many of you this really isn’t a bad place. If you are a feminist or a player, this is pretty close to paradise. But if you are like me you very much want to leave. Everyone always asks, why don’t we just build a boat and sail away from here? We could make it to the land of sanity. But it isn’t that simple I’m afraid. Every time it looks like we are about to make it home, one of the Gilligans manages to screw it up.
Keep in mind that Gilligans aren’t malicious by nature. They also want to leave the island. But unfortunately they are rather simple and easily distracted. It wouldn’t be such a problem if there weren’t so many of them.
Take for example the issue of out of wedlock births. Gilligans are especially susceptible to what I call the it takes two fallacy. In the proper context it isn’t a fallacy at all. If an individual woman has a child out of wedlock, it is a fact that there is somewhere a man who is also responsible for the problem. So far, no problem. But the Gilligans want to use this to form social policy. They mistakenly apply at the macro level what is only true at the micro level. They assume this means if you have 100 baby mamas, that there must also be an equal number of baby daddies. They took this logical error and combined it with their natural sympathy for sluts, and decided to create a social order where only men are punished for out of wedlock births. What they didn’t understand is that it only takes a small number of irresponsible men to sire all the bastards the baby mamas could ever want. No matter how draconian our child support laws become, there will always be a small number of irresponsible men who are willing to play their part.
We’ve tried the Gilligan way for over fifty years now, and even though it has brought us from single digit illegitimacy rates to 40% and climbing, no one can talk any sense into them (chart source).
You explain it to them slowly and carefully, and they nod at all the right moments indicating they understand. Then a feminist comes by and whispers “double standard” or “it takes two” in their ear, and the Gilligan instantly forgets everything you just explained to him.
The same thing applies to slut shaming. Gilligans love their rule of it takes two, and they apply it there as well. Again at the micro level if we are considering the issue of individual sin this would make sense. But Gilligans live in fear of the dreaded double standard. It keeps them awake at night with visions of unhappy sluts crying out to them. Why do we have to shame sluts? they plead, Lets shame the players instead. They are the really bad ones anyway. We know from the history of civilization that slut shaming is what works. But the Gilligans are haunted by the faces of the unhappy sluts which fill their dreams. They are desperate for another solution, any solution, so long as it doesn’t mean unhappy sluts.
The tried and true approach: Slut shaming.
Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players. The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel. Now we introduce slut shaming. It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all. This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage. This directly translates into fewer fatherless children. This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier. Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her. After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on. This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel. You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.
The Gilligan approach: Shame players.
Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players. Now apply shame to the players. Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them. No problem! says the Gilligan, at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts! But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts. They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation. Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.
But it gets worse yet. Now that the ratio of sluts to players is even less in the sluts favor, the sluts actually get sluttier! They now have to compete even harder for each player’s attention. Now we have 100 even sluttier sluts!
But what if we could shame all of the players? the Gilligan asks. That way we could still achieve our objective and I wouldn’t have to be haunted by unhappy sluts! In theory of course the Gilligan is right. If you could shame all of the players into hanging up their smirk, you would then be able to stamp out sluthood forever. However, the Gilligan is once again barking up the wrong tree. Shame only works on those who are susceptible to it. Unfortunately players tend to possess the dark triad personality traits. It is actually a large part of what makes them attractive to the sluts in the first place. Our little buddy won’t hear of it though, and presses on with his plan to shame a group of narcissistic psychopaths to forgo their own pleasure for the good of society.
The hybrid Gilligan approach: Shame them both equally!
While the Gilligan would prefer not to have to shame sluts at all, his mortal terror of the double standard compels him to hold out for player shaming, even when agreeing to shame sluts (at least in theory). The problem is shaming players has the side effect of reducing the impact of slut shaming. This is rationalization hamster steroids. The moment concern for the double standard is introduced into the mix, even a little bit, sluts, their moms, and white knights will all rationalize that it wasn’t really the sluts’ fault. We’ve seen this with Jennifer Moses, the mother who wrote the Wall Street Journal article on the damage promiscuity is doing to young girls. Even after acknowledging the great harm this is causing young women she wrote:
I wouldn’t want us to return to the age of the corset or even of the double standard, because a double standard that lets the promiscuous male off the hook while condemning his female counterpart is both stupid and destructive. If you’re the campus mattress, chances are that you need therapy more than you need condemnation.
Better your daughter need therapy than commit the dreaded sin of the double standard! Anything but that! We see the same rationalization in pop music as well. I could go on, but you see it simply doesn’t matter. I could show charts and stats and tell them about the millions of innocent children and even the sluts themselves who are harmed by not shaming sluts. I could have every Gilligan on the island fully convinced. But after all of that it would only take one slut or feminist to walk by and whisper “double standard” and it all would wash away.
Welcome to my hell.
Ahem!!!!!! Again, with proper formatting –
ROFLMAO!! You have kept me laughing for the last 10 minutes with that line!
My hat is off to you, Dalrock. This blog is turning into a tour de force – perception, perspective, and humor. Well done.
[D: Thanks Zed!]
I agree that it’s futile to shame those of the Dark Triad. If you want to keep them in line and prevent them from raising their status in the sexual marketplace through the display of the Triad of Darkness, you need more….vigorous measures. Let the various operas, works of literature, and the historical record be your guide.
As long as Mary Ann gets to be my slut, it’s all cool. You guys can share Lovey Howell.
Slut-shaming works on the margins, of course. But are you disagreeing that cad-shaming works on the margins as well? I see nothing wrong with this comment: “a double standard that lets the promiscuous male off the hook while condemning his female counterpart is both stupid and destructive.” Why wouldn’t you shame the cad? Even if it won’t shame the psychopaths, you’ll dissuade the wannabe players. Cads need sluts and sluts need cads. Shame them both.
[D: Welcome to the blog little buddy.]
“As long as Mary Ann gets to be my slut, it’s all cool. You guys can share Lovey Howell.”
That leaves Ginger for me! 🙂 🙂
@Zed
Ginger is a tease with a Defcon 1 bitch shield and more shit tests than Mystery himself could handle. Good luck with that.
What they didn’t understand is that it only takes a small number of irresponsible men to sire all the bastards the baby mamas could ever want.
Is this really true?
In any case, if we agree that bastardy is a bad thing, then we should structure the laws to discourage it. This is achieved by withholding extra welfare support for children born to unwedded mothers, and by making women solely responsible for the child, without child support from the man except by his consent. Women could not then entrap a man. This is fair because a woman has several viable methods of preventing bastardy, while the man has about one and a half. The woman can opt for the pill, Plan B, abortion, the patch, the shot, IUDs and condoms. The man has condoms. The half method is pulling out. And often, the woman herself will request sex without condoms. If the man wants to have enjoyable sex, that is, condomless sex, he is at her mercy. Ultimately, he must trust her to actually be on the contraceptives she claims she is – how many of these bastard pregnancies stem from a woman lying about being on the pill? I don’t know, I’m curious.
Once deprived of a path to entrapping a man via pregnancy, women will think twice about having sex without contraceptives. Even then though, bastardy won’t disappear. The change might even be small. That’s why I’m in favor of government subsidized procedures for inserting IUDs, especially for unmarried “at-risk youths.”
I recall reading a forum where one man told the story of his friend, who was tricked into getting a girl pregnant. She had claimed she was on the pill, when she wasn’t. Yet there was still a chorus of males saying that he was responsible. That’s the mentality that we’re running up against, that women have the status of retards, and cannot be assumed to have any responsibility or integrity.
Passer_by is right, Mary Anne is a stone cold phreak man. i always had thing for that chick.
Hell indeed, Dalrock, but you ARE educating a lot of people here, like me for example, and I very much appreciate it.
Like all people I’m an idiot in some areas, and you help me understand what I see — but don’t see — out of my ignorance.
[D: Thanks, and welcome to the blog! I am also learning. The problem with the Gilligans is they will never learn, or if they do they will forget it at a whisper.]
@Passer_By,
– early 60s, never married, and truly sold on the advantages of leasing over buying.
If I had ever believed in marriage, Mary Ann could have been somebody I might have wanted to wife up. As cold-hearted as I am, it would pain me to treat MA like a slut.
Ginger, on the other hand, clearly wants my Dark Triad to come out and play. I would be happy to oblige her. I thank her, my brother Darryl thanks her, and my other brother Darryl thanks her.
Shaming attempts by white knight socons have about as much effect on me as telling your average Hells Angel that he has halitosis.
Brilliant! Don’t despair, you get it, others get it.
Common sense can only be ignored for so long. We either learn it the easy way (from tradition) or the hard way. We’ve chosen the hard way. In the meantime, I suppose we can always keep our sons and daughters in small religious communities where slut shaming is real and practiced. They do exist.
[D: Thanks, and welcome!]
Superb. MARY ANNE IS MINE!
dalrock, the thing is marriage as it stands just isn’t that attractive to a lot of men or women. In England we’ve had a big drop off, personally I feel a significant % is men who would have previously felt a need to do so stopped doing so (nb I am not blaming the men – I feel previously some did so against their wishes) after the Blair government’s assignation of parental rights to men who weren’t married (excludes the upper middle classes who would have got married anyway but includes the classes like Ed Miliband and co). If we (in England) had the new French style marriages, it would perhaps be more attractive. But we don’t.
What’s to gain from being married? It’s ‘forever’? Well we know that’s not true. Apparently women are exiting their marriages when it doesn’t work anymore (though I do find the comments on the other thread to Stephen from other men interesting). In the UK, inheritance tax breaks seems to be about the only thing, funnily the only cohabiting couple of my parents generation (parents of my friends) married after 35 years together (most amusing given they were seen as the rebellious ones but given when they married seem more committed to each other than the ones who were married). And for the inheritance tax break.
I don’t blame for not wanting to get married. My father who is one of the most traditional people I l know doesn’t mind if I get married or not, because of the legal and financial ramifications. It’s not so different from Roman fathers, only it’s not so much of a social stigma for me not to be married.
To me and my guy the inheritance tax thing is not a big deal, it’s just not in the greater scheme of things, the threshold is pretty inconsequential. He has full parental rights over our children, just as much as he would have if we were married. And of course they have his surname. It actually does just come down to me having his surname and more of a ‘feeling’ of togetherness. That’s it.
Up front Dalrock, I concede that this is anecdotal, okay?
But seriously I know several men (yes my husband among them as he had a child when I married him) who have a child with one woman they were never married to. And only one.
I hesitated to weigh in at all here but since the OOW birthrate in the town I grew up is at that well-quoted 70% mark, I’ve seen a lot of this and how it plays out. When you get out of the inner city/ ghetto type culture there really aren’t a lot of men with multiple children from many different women. That represents a pretty small percentage of the OOW birth trend.
Like I said, that’s anecdotal and maybe I’ll have time tomorrow to run down some links for proof, but I think I’m right.
But yes, I agree with you. Women as the gatekeepers of sex and the ones most susceptible to social pressure, are the ones who should be shamed away from promiscuity. Not because male promiscuity is any more benign. It isn’t. The fact of the matter is that putting pressure on the women is the most effective way to go. It comes down to whether or not you’re interested in perceptions of fairness, or interested in results.
The best shame for a player is to have them fighting over 1 slut. Feminist and white nights are stupid as hell. If the norm of young marriage returns wit good girl actual chaste then the cad will only have some skeezers and skanks. drive up to a conveniance store in and old (bad) neighborhood and see some of the shit hanging around the front of that place. Cads will be left with single moms and well worn carousel riders with an ever shrinking supply of new riders.
Maybe you could get one of your christian lady fellow bloggers to run and article for her female readers telling them of the only need to shame a slut concept Dalrock.
@zed
“As cold-hearted as I am, it would pain me to treat MA like a slut. ”
The only pain I’d feel might be a slight sting in my palm if I slapped her behind too hard.
Ok, enough, this used to be a wholesome blog, dammit!
“Ultimately, he must trust her to actually be on the contraceptives she claims she is – how many of these bastard pregnancies stem from a woman lying about being on the pill?”
No idea. But a man shouldn’t if he really doesn’t want to have a baby, trust someone else to protect him from the risk.
Personally, never had the experience. More likely a man wants you to have his baby (whether he wants to be in your life forever or not) than the other way around. But obviously I can’t make assertions about the greater ‘marketplace’ from personal experience.
@Elspeth
Even if it were true that for every 100 baby mamas today you have 100 baby daddies, it still is true that it would only take a relatively small number of irresponsible men to service them. To the extent that the law works, it merely shifts the paternity towards the most irresponsible men. You get the same number of illegitimate children, just with worse fathers.
But I disagree that this is true today. Your assertion that the ghetto/low class culture is a small percentage of out of wedlock births is suspect. I’ve shared data separately showing how unwilling college educated women are to have children out of wedlock. This is a lower class phenomenon, for the most part.
As a Swede I always have a quibble with equating OOW births with absent fathers. Sure its much more common that the father is absent in those cases, but at least in Sweden its at a generous maximum of 15 % under the line for parents married at the time of the childs birth (educated guess from a graph I linked to once but cannot refind).
I was looking for stats, but I found nothing with exact figures. This is about some other questions that might be interesting to google translate.
http://www.scb.se/statistik/BE/BE0701/2000I02/BE51030102_06.pdf
For example 50/50 living arrangements have quadrupled between 1992/93 and 2000/01.
No Dalrock, you misunderstand me. Or I expressed myself badly.
I mean that the percentage of OOW births where one man has several children is a small percentage.
I know that most OOW births occur at the lower socioeconomic levels.
[D: I don’t have any stats on this. Maybe someone else does. Given what we see in the mating market I would be very surprised if all men get equal shots at this. Still, the basic point that I think we are in agreement on is that even if it is equal numbers now the mechanics allowing for a small number of men to be the fathers is always in place.]
” Your assertion that the ghetto/low class culture is a small percentage of out of wedlock births is suspect”
That’s not what she’s saying though, is it.
Basil Ransom: I viable birth control for men would be to freeze sperm and then have a vasectomy. I do not see why that could not work. Any suggestions?
I re-read my comment and it meant what I meant for it to say Dalrock. I think you misread it. Lily understood what I was trying to say.
From what I have seen, there are single women with several children from one man, but not a very large percentage of men with children form multiple women.
I hope that makes more sense.
[D: Yes, it looks like you were clear and I simply misread it.]
Lavazza, there’s some Finnish guy who posts at HUSsyShaming who has some stats about living together/marriage amongst Finns which was quite interesting. Based on children. i.e. parents would have a baby then get married by 2nd or 3rd child or something.
They used to say in England that people who cohabited were more likely to split up than married parents but then they changed that, I haven’t looked into it too deeply but suspect it’s as it got more mainstream. If only the most rebellious people cohbabited previously, it stands to reason they’d be more likely to split up than a more mainstream person.
Still, the basic point that I think we are in agreement on is that even if it is equal numbers now the mechanics allowing for a small number of men to be the fathers is always in place.]
Yes, we agree on that. And I have grown up around and am currently aware of men that have 3,4,5 women with babies all at the same time. I’m certainly not disputing the reality of that. I’m just noting that there aren’t as many men siring children with multiple women as you might think. They may sire 2 or 3 with one woman they never marry, though. And I guess in those cases the result is the same.
Slut-shaming would be effective, especially if done by confident, attractive men. But I do have some questions. How do you envision slut-shaming working in addition to not marrying the used up women? Girls are well-known to lie about their sexual activities depending on their audience – how will you know you are or aren’t dealing with a slut? Also, girls who don’t go sluttish endure virgin-shaming by their peers and being ignored by the males and that can cause hopelessness in the girls who truly are looking for marriage and they sometimes take themselves off the market, so to speak. Will all women have to become de facto sluts, or is there a way to differentiate between the marriageable ones and the sluts? I’ve read some of the lists for ways to find a good wife, but women will do whatever it takes to get male attention; if men stop marrying the used up women, you’re going to see an explosion of “pure” women. With the mobility of our culture and the lack of community, it’s hard to see how what has worked in the past (a girl guarding her reputation, etc.) could work now to assure what she tells you about her past is true. I don’t mean to create even more despair. I really am wondering if there’s a way back as long as so many girls don’t have fathers because it’s fathers that largely determine a girl’s attitude about sex and men.
Lily: Sweden has over 50 % OOW births but still 74 % of all children live with their parents (higher for younger children).
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/6/40278615.pdf
http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____151501.aspx
Its quite common for people to have children first and marry later. About 20-30 % of all marriages I have been to have been like that.
Simple but effective argument (regarding who to shame with best results). The closing comment from Jennifer Moses says it all:
“If you’re the campus mattress, chances are that you need therapy more than you need condemnation.”
In other words: “not the condemnation! Oh God, anything but the condemnation!”
When feminists spell it out how shaming has the same effect on women as Kryptonite on Superman, why waste time on other methods (like debating with them)? Paul Elam seems to have got this well, and is using it with serious effect with his shaming registry. Stroke of genius.
All this fails to mention a very important aspect of human society – lethal violence.
There is always some amount of lethal violence in any large society.
Are conservatives more violent than liberals, or are liberals more violent than conservatives?
Is socialism enough to classify someone as “liberal”? For example, by Dalrock’s standards, are Uwe Boehnhardt and Uwe Mundlos liberals or conservatives?
Sweden has over 50 % OOW births but still 74 % of all children live with their parents (higher for younger children).
1) is that 74% of children living with BOTH parents?
2) doesn’t the fact that the percentage is higher for younger children support the contention that unmarried parents split up more than married parents? Or is the split up of parents equally divided between married and unmarried?
Lavazza
The silver bullet and the end of conversation and need to waste time even shaming a slut or any women is a male birth control pill. I really like this guy here.
http://www1.biu.ac.il/indexE.php?id=6220&pt=1&pid=6177&level=5&cPath=6220
and this is where he was at last year
http://www.israel21c.org/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men
The male pill would mean no need to even look at women or even see them as nothing more than cum buckets. Can you imagine how polite women will get when men have 100% control over a woman having a child. She loses the power to lie and decieve.
With that power no man would even have to talk to a woman until he wanted to bend her over for the dick. She can’t trap the guy she is on her own.
Have a look at the stats for teenage mothers in the Eurostat figures. Quite interesting.
Jocalyn. Check her for a hymen. I did.
I was not going to marry someone’s leavings.
Zed: Yes, its for both biolgical parents. If no married parents split up when having children at the age 0-1, the figure for OOW will be the double, i.e. 20 %.
I am a traditionalist and Christian, but I admit Dalrock is right. Recently the 17 year old daughter of our Pastor got knocked up by the most alpha boy in church. The boy comes complete with the regulation smirk and tattoo. They are getting marrried and will remain members of the church, but the marriage is probably doomed. Shaming and shunning are contorversial topics in Christianity. The LDS (Morman) church requires a behavioral standard be met in order to continue temple privilege. Most mainstream denominations have been feminized and have separated the act of repentance from forgiveness. These folks pre-mptively forgive evertone for everything. As long as anyone can be forgiven–especially sweet young girls, there is no incentive to change behavior. The solution would be for other Christian denominations to adopt more LDS- like policys and doctrines. It is more likely that the LDS will become more feminized and politically correct.
Zed: I think the separation figures for cohabiting parents are close to the double of married parents.
@Lily
The thing is the argument against marriage which I see you putting forward is that living together can be a de facto marriage. To the extent that it really is, you aren’t really arguing against marriage. If it means the parents remain together for life, it is far more a marriage than the couples who marry and then divorce. I’m not sure I entirely buy into the argument, but the piece of paper registering the marriage with the state isn’t an animating issue to me. If the man and woman are committed to each other for life and stick by it, what should you call that if not a marriage?
And this is why I keep reading this blog–I think that you’re absolutely amazing for the work you do, which must be extremely tedious and time consuming.
greyghost: I listened to a Swedish researcher and he said that a depository/shot is much easier to develop than a pill. But it is quite difficult to get the correct balance of added testoterone, if understood the interview correctly. Freezing plus vasectomy seems to be the safest solution available today.
The very act of not being a slut is the only way you can shame players. If most women froze out the players, saying “How dare you? I’m a respectable woman!” and the players had to sit down to yesterday’s stale bread instead of the piping-hot buffet they currently enjoy, they will find it much harder to enjoy themselves.
@lavazza
I would not be comfortable that the swimmers would be as healthy (and produce equally healthy children) once unfrozen. And the differences in children might be too hard too measure initially.
I’m suddenly getting flashbacks of the “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer” skits on SNL. LOL
Poor Phil Hartman.
Passer_by: According to scientists the female Pill is a piece of cake compared to the the male Pill, and still the female Pill was quite crappy healthwise for decades.
Elspeth picked up the point that I was making, that your assertion about deadbeat dads siring several children might be false. Framing your case around something that’s not necessarily true, and irrelevant IMO, makes your argument vulnerable to attack. Even if were 1 to 1, baby mommas to deadbeat dads, we aren’t much better off.
Basil Ransom: I viable birth control for men would be to freeze sperm and then have a vasectomy. I do not see why that could not work. Any suggestions?
That’s ridiculous. Let me chop off my arm because I don’t have much use for it currently, and I’ll see if I can reattach it successfully 20 years hence.
Intrauterine devices specifically seem like the best method of contraception – you insert a device into the woman’s uterus, and it’s proven to contracept successfully for 12+ years, no maintenance or intervention required post-insertion. One model is about as successful as tubal ligation itself. It also doesn’t alter her hormones, while the pill does, leading some to suspect it skews women’s mate choice for the worse.
@ lavazza
People think that’s because its One egg vs millions of sperm. They’re wrong. The reason its harder for a mens pill is because the male body once is passes puberty never has a time where it is unable to impregnate a woman(when functioning properly).Women do. All they had to do was mimic pregnancy hormones in woman, no such thing in men. Plus we’ve had 60 yrs of scientific advancement. I WANT MY GODDAMN BIRTH CONTROL!!!!!!
@lavazza
I think the potential for reversible vasectomies seems better than a male pill.
Lavazza
What the Isreali dr i posted about is doing is not interfering with the male hormones at all. What he found doing research on male INfertility was that the mans sperm was missing a protien. What he is developing and has tested on mice is a method to nonhormonally remove the protien. Stop taking the drug and a few days to weeks later you are fertile again. The only real threat to a player is a pregnant woman. Imagine the play a college athlete in the “draft” will get and imagine that guy insulated from the oops baby.
@ Basil
Please read up on IUD’s your info is incorrect.
Better your daughter need therapy than commit the dreaded sin of the double standard! Anything but that!
The interesting thing to me is that life is literally filled with double standards. Just about every aspect of human behavior/interaction has double standards. People have different behavioral expectations because well….they are different. The criminal justice system treats juveniles different than adults for the same crime. Just the other day at work, I was asked by a woman to do something because I happen to be a bigger guy (it required some strength).
But for some reason it is this particular sphere of male-female sexual activity where a double standard literally brings out a fury. Any person with half a brain would realize that overall the male and female sex drives are quite different and the consequences of male promiscuity versus female promiscuity are radically different. The idea you would have a double standard seems perfectly rational. I’m not quite sure what it is exactly that drives the INTENSITY of the opposition to this particular double standard.
Oops, I somehow misinterpreted the suggestion of a vasectomy. My response is that it’s an expensive, extreme measure, and freezing sperm is costly and risky. A man shouldn’t have to permanently disfigure himself, when a woman can deactivate her uterus at will, at much less cost, risk and effort.
@ Basil
Please read up on IUD’s your info is incorrect.
?
-and it’s proven to contracept successfully for 12+ years
-no maintenance or intervention required post-insertion.
-One model is about as successful as tubal ligation itself.
-It also doesn’t alter her hormones, while the pill does,
-longest IUD goes for only 10 yrs.
-thats wrong
-again wrong
-there is only one non hormonal IUD
The point Dalrock was making is that it makes no difference the number of sluts to cads. Most out of wed lock births are women trapping betas any way. The elephant in the room is we use the the slut PUA arguement to be nice to the little cunts feelings. And what difference does it make any way OOW or divorce it is still a man being used and abused by the state for the benefit of some woman that couldn’t give a shit about any body but herself. As soon as men decide who gets pregnant all of this garbage ends.
Dalrock you are doing an awesome job here. It is as if you are reading the minds of men and putting it in writing for the public. You have also scared the hell out of your christian women followers.
Thanks Dalrock, for another excellent article.
@greyghost-“You have also scared the hell out of your christian women followers.”
They have been pretty silent they last few posts.
Dalrock, I don’t know why you bother. Oh, I think your blog is incredibly great and you’re a good writer. And I don’t disagree with you at all. But there is no putting the genie back in the bottle by own own efforts. This madness will have to play itself out just like it did in every other civilization that let women get the upper hand. Western Civilization will have to completely collapse before anything happens. And I suspect it’ll have to be a violent collapse in order to purge the system.
But I commend you. It won’t be worth it for society to collapse if it were to restart on shaky foundations without having learned a lesson. We need to carve in stone, as our ancestors once did, why women should be socially and legally sanctioned from their hypergamous instincts. It’s good that your blog is informing people of this (along with others like TFH and of course Roissy).
Until then, as Roissy says, enjoy the decline. If TFH is right, it’ll only take another 10 years. I hope he’s right. But I suspect it’ll take much, much longer.
There should be concrete disadvantages for women who have OOW births, and possible incentives for couples who have births within marriage. In the past, these disadvantages were mainly focused on the illegitimate children born OOW. This lead to the label of a “bastard child,” and even further, children who were born OOW were denied certain opportunities in life that other children had, e.g., vocational and/or educational. I don’t think this strategy would be as effective today.
The closest consequence I am aware of are teachers getting fired from parochial schools when they get pregnant OOW, and I do think that is an appropriate punishment. Unfortunately, most of these schools end up getting into trouble with the ACLU.
@Basil Ransom
But I didn’t make that assertion in the post. What I said was:
Unless you are saying that there are always an equal number of men to women in that equation, what I wrote is correct.
The heart of the problem are Laws. Shift the laws by reducing choices the OOW birthrate will dissipate.
Shaming will definitely help but the laws have to change. Laws dictate behavior. Period.
When you keep subsidizing the problems, then what do you expect.
This will reduce slutting around.
It is the nature of Gilligans to quibble about the details, even if they agree with the main premise, otherwise they would not be Gilligans.
Dalrock,
You’ve scored some blows on the sorry excuse of a “TradCon establishment.” You’ve exposed how many TradCons are ineffective and counter-productive.
But you misunderstand how deeply TradCons have been corrupted. Yes, there are actually laws that force them to follow the feminist script.
TradCons aren’t Gilligan, they’re more like Theoden under Wormtongue’s spell.
Let’s take a 1960s TradCon business owner who hates sluts and cads and wants to reward men who act well. He also knows married men are good investments. So he decides to favor married men, or men on the path to responsible marriage to a good woman, for hiring and promotions.
Then Congress passes anti-discrimination laws requiring him to adopt feminist standards of equality. What is he supposed to do? Go out of business, or knuckle under and repeat the magic words that ward off lawsuits.
Even churches have to follow feminist standards. Look up Roanoke Valley Christian Schools and how it got sued under the Equal Pay Act for favoring “heads of household” (who tended to be men.)
An old school TradCon is a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen.
Think of all the other things that TradCons used to do, and how these TradCon customs are now banned by new legal or constitutional rights.
You can’t refuse to rent to an unmarried couple or a divorced woman (or at least you can’t say so in a housing ad). You can’t screen new neighbors for their moral fibre. You can’t fire a teacher who gets pregnant out of wedlock. You can’t censor your local movie theater or library of material that will turn your daughters slutty. You can’t run the local abortionist out of town. You can’t ban contraceptives or limit their sale to married couples. You can’t prosecute someone for cursing in the presence of an honest woman. You can’t even run your local public school according to TradCon standards.
Almost all TradCon communities, businesses, news outlets, colleges and other institutions are banned or severely damaged by feminist or sexually liberationist laws and court decisions. Heck, Catholic colleges are now being forced to fund contraceptives in their student plans!
The system is totally rigged against them, because it was created to destroy them.
You are right to see public quasi-TradCons like Bill Bennett as slavish to feminist standards. But seriously, how is a 1960s-style TradCon ever going to rise to a position like Bennett’s?
The only TradCons who rise to prominence are castrati and eunuchs. Get rid of the castrators, and you’ll find the TradCon quality will improve.
Hilarious, and true. Well done, Dalrock.
Slut shaming is not coming back, because you are in competition with this blog:
http://mssinglemama.com/
In 2011, single motherhood is heroic. It even rocks.
“Slut shaming is not coming back…”
You’re probably right. “Slut” has been normalized, which has been the whole point of the slut walks. Once a word has ceased to distinguish an individual woman, and become a term adopted by the herd, it has lost its effectiveness. But that just goes to show how devastating shaming is to the female psyche. A massive part of feminist consciousness-raising is to eliminate any word of distinction – “Mrs,” “Whore” “bitch”. The word “cunt” drives them apoplectic in a way no other word in the language comes close to. In all this, they spell out their achilles heel. They cannot abide being distinguished in a negative way. And in training, one reinforces by giving what is desired, and by admonishing with what is not.
If we don’t learn to direct women by their strengths and weaknesses – as they daily do with us – then we will continue to be directed by them.
Mongo, what infuriates a feminist is being reminded of her femaleness. All the words you list do this.
Another trick they use is to use male activity words to refer to their own actions, and men fall for this one too. I wrote about this before:
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2010/08/19/fk-or-be-fked/
The problem with player-shaming is that for every player you discourage, you increase the amount of easy sex available to the marginal player. Higher average “profits” = new entrants to the market.
Player shaming targets demand. Slut shaming attacks the problem at its source. Supply-side sexual economics, as it were.
Excellent post, and the men of my generation owe you major debt for reaching out to us like this. In the future, though, you might want to use metaphors that we don’t have to Google. What the hell is a Gilligan? Sorry if I just made you feel old =D
Cheers,
Frost
Dalrock, when they say, “it takes two,” they’re saying that a woman doesn’t have a baby without a man’s help. So therefore, a man should help raise the baby, by paying child support, and possibly help raise the child. The exact ratio of baby mommas to daddies is irrelevant to their point. The problem isn’t their math, it’s that they don’t hold the woman responsible. After all, in most cases the man was either ambivalent about the baby, or expressly didn’t want one. Meanwhile, the woman had several opportunities to prevent bearing a bastard. Knowing that the law is on her side, the woman is more secure in forgoing contraceptive measures. By calling these men irresponsible, you’re actually ceding ground to the “Gilligans.”
As for why the woman is responsible, it’s because she has more control. With power comes responsibility. Sharing responsibility here, between the man and the woman just leads to confusion, finger pointing and failure. That may mean she insists on the use of a condom, or something else, but ultimately it’s her responsibility, and the law should reflect that.
It would also nudge women to behave more wisely, by either using contraception, or finding a man who actually wants to get her pregnant and stick around. If the latter is true, make him sign a statement that says he wants to have a child with her, give it legal force, and make him pay child support if he decides to leave her after she gets pregnant and gives birth (aka marriage back when people waited to have sex?). But there would be no penalty for him leaving before she conceives.
Otherwise, excellent post.
-and it’s proven to contracept successfully for 12+ years
-no maintenance or intervention required post-insertion.
-One model is about as successful as tubal ligation itself.
-It also doesn’t alter her hormones, while the pill does,
-longest IUD goes for only 10 yrs.
-thats wrong
-again wrong
-there is only one non hormonal IUD
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9494767
Wikipedia says there are 10 non-hormonal and only one hormonal, Mirena.
From personal experience, I know of several fathers that have several chldren by different mothers. One father had somewhere near 27 children by almost as many different mothers, so Dalrock is quite correct it takes very few cads to service many sluts.
An understanding of both history and hypergamy tells us this is true and our society encourages the worst of men to become the fathers of nations. Studies have shown that 80% of all women in history but only about 50% of men reproduce. While not quite a 2 sluts to one cad ratio, it is telling.
Hypergamy and preselection indicate that women would prefer to share an alpha than have a beta of their own.
Finally, we can see the societies that are succesful and those that are not, what works and what does not and an enforced universal restriction of female sexuality has by extension controlled male sexuality and harnessed male productivity.
There’s another source of irresponsible men that no one has mentioned: Prison. Men doing time for violent felonies average out to having 3 children. Sociopaths have double that, averaging 6 kids (that dark triad thing is a powerful lure). Who needs a player when you can have a real thug, complete with a genuine police record? Shaming has zero or even the opposite effect on these gentlemen of the bars, and their sentences do end eventually, allowing them free rein until they get caught again. They seek new baby-mommas for security: the woman will send them money for smokes and candy while in prison, and their apartment is a place to flop while out.
I haven’t even read the post yet, but need to congratulate you on the hilarious awesomeness of that metaphor.
“Welcome to my hell.”
Dalrock, why is it YOUR hell? You are happily married. I don’t understand why you are so invested in what grown people do in their bedrooms, or dorm rooms. Care to explain?
“There’s another source of irresponsible men that no one has mentioned: Prison. Men doing time for violent felonies average out to having 3 children. Sociopaths have double that, averaging 6 kids (that dark triad thing is a powerful lure). Who needs a player when you can have a real thug, complete with a genuine police record? ”
Ridiculous. Have you ever seen the baby mommas of these prison thugs? Believe me, half of them have done time themselves and are not the type of women that of the commenters of this blog would find the least bit attractive.
IUDs come with their own set of side effects all up inside there.
The best is for sexually active women to carry condoms in their purses. No glove, no love.
“what infuriates a feminist is being reminded of her femaleness. All the words you list do this.”-David Collard.
Well spotted. I hadn’t noticed that.
Funny, the one thing that seems to drive them delirious with glee is the removal of a man’s genitals – making him more like a woman. It seems to invigorate women like nothing else. The sense of their own depravity is clearly something much keener in their own minds than anything we could begin to imagine. To think that some men actually hold women up as their betters!
The irony of female birth control is that they decrease a woman’s libido drastically. What was made to help us have more sex, makes us want to have less. So far condoms are the only form of birth control (and STD control) that does not have side effects.
“Jocalyn. Check her for a hymen. I did.”
Some girls are born without one. For others it gets stretched out or “popped” (it doesn’t actually pop, by the way) riding bikes, participating in sports or masterbating. For others it may be fully in tact DESPITE having had intercourse.
In other words your approach is an ANATOMY FAIL.
mongo, the only thing Freud got right was penis envy. Feminists have it. Badly. So do many women. The cackling amusement of those women, Sharon Osbourne et al. (except Sara Gilbert) at the castration of that 60 year old man or the even more pathological remarks on a similar case by Nicole Fabian-Weber was pure penis envy. The latter crazy bitch actually referred to the penis as the “source of power” or some such expression. American women have penis envy real bad. In some ways American men are lucky, bearing the cult object of the entire secular religion.
Slut shaming is not the half of it. In order to bring out-of-wedlock rates down to a meaningful level, we need those responsible to pay the financial consequences and the shame that comes with that as well. By cutting all government benefits to single parents and their children and requiring mandatory paternity testing and fair but ruthless child support collections we will reverse OOW births to where they were before we set up the gravy train.
Shame only works in an interpersonal context. Collecting an EBT card that can be used anywhere; alimony, section 8 housing in regular neighborhoods, and Medicaid for a child which is accessed in privacy all has the opposite effect. They allow the beneficiary to live their lives with almost no burden or even the slightest stigma. But when forced to avail themselves on close family, friends, or private charity such as churches single women will be forced to endure the company of those who are forced to carry the burden. Not only will their selfish behavior be resented by those who have to accommodate them their children will also have to endure the fact that they are seen as surplus mouths that are competing with more responsible members of the tribe.
Women are status driven creatures. Cast into a conspicuous public role as parasites they will have to actually eat some of the crow and suffer a reduced status as charity cases who are dependent upon people for their daily sustenance instead of entitled victims who have a right to others hard won gains which is how they are treated as now. Furthermore, those who are successful will be able to enhance their lifestyle by not having to carry the handicap of paying for those in society who are dead weight. It will establish a clear culture of winners and losers who get what they deserve rather than a culture where irresponsible men and women can hold their children out in front of them like hostages in order to be bailed out by the rest of us.
1.) Dalrock, congrats on the blog. Your masterful hamster-baiting has been well and justly rewarded with (judging from the comment counts) massive attention.
2.) “69 comments”. Tee-hee.
3.) You just have to take “build a boat and sail away from here” a bit more literally.
4.) Take comfort in the fact that the wheel turns. Eventually, it will once again be fashionable to recognize the true nature of women.
Check out this pro and con list of polyamory
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/09/more-sex-with-more-people-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-open-relationships/
She even uses the word “Slutopia” which I guess you could name your island.
Being immune to shaming is a good thing
mongo, the only thing Freud got right was penis envy.
he got a few other things right too, but that was probly the Biggie
Feminists have it. Badly. So do many women. The cackling amusement of those women, Sharon Osbourne et al. (except Sara Gilbert) at the castration of that 60 year old man or the even more pathological remarks on a similar case by Nicole Fabian-Weber was pure penis envy. The latter crazy bitch actually referred to the penis as the “source of power” or some such expression. American women have penis envy real bad.
to a pathological degree. . . much worsened by the gnostic/masonic obsession with gender-reversal so favored by the ‘perennially powerful’
In some ways American men are lucky, bearing the cult object of the entire secular religion.
yeah well i wouldnt dangle mr lucky out there too far, it’s sharon oz-born’s world
good observations — america very much is a pagan cult, in the babylonian/ashtaroth model of the “sacred temple whore,” and feminism/woman is its religion — always has been, appearances notwithstanding
gen’ral george’s “washington monument” is of course an egyptian obelisk — cultic phallicism connoting solar and grain rites
the monument cracked in the recent east coast quake
a hint to the bint
Are you guys aware that in the African American community White women are stereotyped as being soft, sweet, humble and submissive “wifey” material?
You’d never know it reading the White Manosphere blogs. What gives?
Sluts are basically women with a bad sexual gambling habit.
Unfit for marriage or motherhood. I do not want my precious son or daughter to be kissed goodnight by a mouth that serviced some frat boy’s d–k.
Personally I am extremely grateful to feminism. No woman ever admits to promiscuity, however they are easy to spot as the more promiscuous a woman is the more she will market her pretended respectability – which is perhaps why I seem to have a GPS app which locates them without fail. Does that mean I sleep with all sluts? Of course not. Just because a woman is a slut does not mean I want to sleep with her – quite the reverse in fact. I have my reputation as a desirable male with some standards to consider, and I gain far more peer-status by turning her down – and much as night follows day – reducing her to tears, at her recognition of her undesirability to me – than I ever would from the dubious pleasure of short-time love with her; and then I also avoid paternity, and STD problems; and frankly from the way they carry on even though we fail to couple, it is clear that I am wise to avoid her. Furthermore, her problems in bringing up her son or daughter (it was her choice as she is so keen to remind me and to wear her child(ren) as a trophy) is of no concern to me and make me even less motivated to become involved with her, not that I was ever likely to do so.
I have no idea who Gilligan is, or where his island might be situate.
Not sure if this link has already been posted here, but apparently:
Roosh the PUA is ready to MAN UP
http://www.rooshv.com/im-ready-to-man-up
Opus here is and opening Theme that names all of the characters.
An episode 1 introduction to the characters with their full names
Agree with Professor Woland… shaming doesn’t work on people who don’t have any shame, which presumaby includes the bastard-spawning underclass. By all means, go ahead and shame “adventurous” career women, hypergamous sorority girls, etc. But the baby mammaz aren’t going to stop being baby mammaz until the government chedda stops first.
@Greyghost
Ah Television (I might have guessed) but for some reason the clips are not available in my locality or at least to my lap-top, but thanks.
Further on the subject of sluts:
I have known (even in the Biblical sense) some very highly promiscuous women (sexual partners well into triple figures) and (non-biblically) some real Alpha Studs, and I find that the women tend to be disturbed: Their lives are disordered – and are thus not marraigable (whatever their temporary desires might be) or suitable for motherhood (ditto); although frequently superficially very attractive and interesting as people. Whether their slutdom is the cause of their problems or whether their problems caused their slutting is more difficult to say. I would hazard a guess at the latter. Players however do not appear to have the same debilitating personalities. Frequently they are married or in LTR relationships and are devoted fathers but just have a very high sex drive (my main objection to PUAs like Krauser is that if you are not a natural player you are not really an Alpha – and I don’t get the impression that Krauser really is – no Real Alpha has ever heard of let alone studied Game).
Oddly enough we were talking about this last night in the pub. We were discussing an Alpha who had involved my companion and another male of my acquaintance in a foursome with a young woman – women will do anything for this guy – perfectly ordinary and respectable women too, I may add. She wanted to stay the night, but the boys wanted her to go home and I have noticed with promiscuous women a desire to be a wife by night (if not by day) whereas for the men once the sex is over, men lose all interest – for as a prostitute once said to me(I was eighteen – which is my excuse) ‘oy this isn’t love’ and it isn’t. One might thus say, that slut-shaming is ultimately for the good of the woman, but Alpha-shaming is a bit like trying to blame David Beckham for being able to score from the dead-ball position.
Opus:
Personally I am extremely grateful to feminism. No woman ever admits to promiscuity, however they are easy to spot as the more promiscuous a woman is the more she will market her pretended respectability – which is perhaps why I seem to have a GPS app which locates them without fail.
If there’s no slut shaming, then you’re right, there will tend to be certain cues one can use to tell the sluts apart from the chaste women. But no shaming also means that plenty of otherwise chaste women will become sluts. I see it as a small silver lining for a very negative phenomenon, not something to be grateful for.
I believe that I speak for many uk manospherites when I thank Dalrock for explaining Gilligan’s Island in terms of manginas and whiteknights…I am confirmed in my view that I never wish to see any of it
A very good post, again.
I would say what I said about this over at Mark Richardson’s blog a week or two ago. The (main) reason why slut shaming is not coming back — at least among social conservatives — is because these people instinctively know that it would involve likely shaming their own adorable beloved daughters and/or young female relatives — whom they simply do not want to shame. You remember your niece Jenny when she was five years old and reading books on your knew — you don’t really want to know what she’s up to now at Hookup State University, and you most certainly don’t want anyone calling adorable Jenny a slut, regardless of what she’s doing. This is even more the case when it’s your own daughter.
For the men involved, it’s a kind of protectiveness coupled with a need to not know whatever dark sides their beloved young female relatives/daughters have — to preserve the image of sweetness and so on — in short, to keep the blue pill image intact (because it is a nicer image than the red pill one).
For the women involved, it becomes more about the “fairness” of the double standard — I have not met many traditional conservative, social conservative, or religious conservative women who have not expressed a large amount of angst at the sexual double standard. It’s true that there are many other double standards in life, but this one really eats at women in a visceral way. I think that’s because it has to do with reproductive/sexual power, and so it becomes a very visceral issue. Sure, it gets cloaked in the language of fairness and morality and the like, depending on which woman is speaking, but the amount of visceral feeling about this indicates that it is likely something deeper that is going on here, behind whichever rhetorical mask is trotted out. But, suffice to say, that the overwhelming majority of women who claim to be social/traditional/Christian conservatives at the very least dislike the double standard, and so will recoil from slut shaming, which they see as something arising from it. It’s true as well that these women have an additional influence on conservative men (because the issue does get raised and discussed with them), and on the margins some conservative men might hold back in various criticisms of their daughters or young female relatives because of this, but I do think that with the men the greater factor is a kind of intrinsic need/desire to protect, and to preserve the innocent, sweet image of these young women in their own minds. No-one wants their dear, cute grand-daughter to be slut shamed.
Well Brendan if that is the case then the PUA are truely doing the lords (and mommy and daddy’s) work. Ok so you don’t want to hurt princes feeling huh. Ok fellas new carousel rider lets see if we can fuck drug addiction. This one is a carousel rideer and attention whore. Lets see if we can do some anal on video. Nothing like good christian parenting.
Dalrock,
Keep up the good work. It is important to keep saying this even if it has no effect. Nobody listened to the prophets in ancient Israel, but they were still supposed to point out the sins of the people.
Ezekiel 33:
‘when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+33&version=NKJV
‘There’s another source of irresponsible men that no one has mentioned: Prison. Men doing time for violent felonies average out to having 3 children.’
I should have mentioned prison specifically in my earlier comment, but yes, that’s another angle on lethal violence.
The “dark triad” is not just something that gets men laid – it also makes men commit murder.
Aqua Net- “Some girls are born without one. For others it gets stretched out or “popped” (it doesn’t actually pop, by the way) riding bikes, participating in sports or masterbating. For others it may be fully in tact DESPITE having had intercourse. In other words your approach is an ANATOMY FAIL.”
I’m a man and I even knew that.
On top of that, marrying a female virgin is no guarantee of anything. A friend of mine married a woman who grew up in an extremely religious and wealthy family. The family home-schooled her daughter and actually hired private security to watch over her during her four years at a Christian college. Within a year after she got married, she was cheating on him with her physical trainer and ended up getting pregnant by him.
While I think this is very true, there is also a bit of ambiguity related to the underlying reasons which could be interpreted one way based on the prevailing attitudes of the people who frequent this blog, but perhaps quite differently by someone with a different perspective.
I probably have that different perspective. I wonder if I shall become the target of a hail of verbal bricks and broken beer bottles by articulating it. It might be fun to try to see if we can blow up the comments to this thread the same way the last one got blown up.
I’ll state the premises first, and then apply them.
1) not everyone in the world, male or female, hates sex.
2) not everyone in the world is fortunate enough to find a situation in which they can enjoy sex which meets all the extremely narrow and contradictory criteria that people, particularly socons, demand that must be met before sex is considered “OK.”
3) and, this will probably be the most controversial – not everyone gets on board with sexually crippling the younger female members of their family in order to live up to social convention.
Throughout much of the world female sexuality is controlled by surgically removing women’s ability to experience sexual pleasure – generally called Female Genital Mutilation. Western cultures – being so much more sophisticated – leave the girls genitals intact, but take away their psychological and mental ability to enjoy sex. I call this Female Genital Mindfuck.
I expect to draw a lot of haters by pointing out the similarities between the way they do it and the way we do it.
Someone on a recent thread here pointed out that after spending years and years being told that sex is a really horrible thing unless and until the 467 conditions on the list to make it OK have been met – that many women have a hard time switching gears and becoming an enthusiastic bed partner to that man who wifes them.
That sucks for the woman – which is where I think the female issue about “fairness” comes from – as in “Why do males actually get to enjoy sex, while we have to lie back and think of England?” And, it sucks for the man – who the hell wants to beg for years and then get to crawl into bed with a cold, limp, fish?
The biggest problem I see with slut shaming is that it is like fixing a flat tire on a new Corvette by trying to stick on a wheel from a covered wagon – it is an extremely small part of the overall context which absolutely does not fit with any other part of the context. Slut shaming and shunning may work well in small closely knit communities like the Amish, but who also wants to give up their cars and get around in horse drawn wagons to go with it?
One of the remarkable things about Dalrock’s blog here, is that he manages to walk the razor’s edge between several ideological divides – religious/secular, men’s perspective versus women’s perspective, etc. There is a remarkable amount of dialogue happening between groups of people with track records of shouting insults at each other. People are always trying to hijack the blog to their particular agenda – as in the guy who threw a hissy fit that a “Christian” blog would allow such things to be said on it. Dalrock firmly corrected him to let him know that this was not a christian blog, but a blog which dealt with contemporary issues, and that Dalrock’s personal perspective was christian but there was no ideological purity test which has to be passed in order to participate here.
This is already getting extremely long for a comment, and I have not even scratched the surface on a number of issues. Perhaps I should do a post on it over at the Spearhead. Anyway, I’ll cut to the chase as much as I can.
Back in the 1970s and 80s, I worked in the human services field. I worked with a large number of women who were largely or completely sexually dysfunctional. These were not carousel riders, but almost universally virgins who came to their wedding nights ignorant and terrified of sex. And, their husbands were not cads, but men who were largely in the same boat.
Back then nobody knew about things like oxytocin and all the other key concepts of the Game-osphere – they were two mostly innocents who were thrown into a situation completely unknown to both of them, and what little guidance they had been given was crap, and told to make the best of it.
It was no wonder that in those days most women really appreciated a man with a little sexual experience – so that both of them were not blindly bumbling around in unknown territory, afflicted by crippling shame over what they were doing.
A culture cannot bury a human function and need so basic and compelling as reproduction under hundreds of layers of conflicting social instructions. They cannot convince young women that sex is terrible until the list of 467 conditions for it have been met, and then on their wedding night be prepared to be a loving wife and sex partner for the man who marries her. They cannot demand that young people sit out their primary years of fertility, and sexual desire, and then when the green light goes on for them, settle into a perfect situation of marital bliss.
And, yes, I must admit that I have been a cad all my life. I like to think that I was an ethical cad because I never used Game to maneuver any woman into bed – and only slept with those women who made it absolutely clear that they wanted to jump my bones. (Newsflash to socons – women really do have a sex drive!)
But, the bottom line is that I see no need in screwing up young women’s minds about sex, creating creatures that would only make decent wives if their husbands had game – which, if the men had it, would mean that they wouldn’t have to marry the woman in order to have good sex with her.
And, given a choice between a slut and Sheila of “Love, Honor, and Vacuum” or the wife in “Fireproof” – bring on the sluts! Even if she has a bitch shield like Ginger, because I view both Sheila and the Fire-beyotch as having as big bitch shields as I have ever seen.
Zed, I think that was an insightful comment. It is like Dalrock has said, if SoCons hold forth that sex is only okay in marriage, and then expect folks to wait until 10-15 years after puberty for that sex, they are being unrealistic.
I do think it can be a psychologically crippling to be involuntarily celibate because of a lack of marriage. Which is the situation for a lot of young, SoCon men. Females will have to give a little in order to allow a better distribution for the men.
Well, if the alternative to being old is assuming room temperature, then give me old. 😉
Old is an accomplishment, Frost, neither a punishment or a failure. The only tracks that people who don’t get old leave on the world are written on marble headstones. 🙂
Enough with the smart-ass philosophizing. 😉
The reason that the “Gilligans” is such an insider’s joke is that one single concept encapsulates dozens of hours of experience and boils it down to one phrase. It would be like using the metaphor of white-water canoing – for anyone who has done it, those three words capture a full range of sensory and emotional experiences. For someone who hasn’t done it, you could write enough words to fill an entire encyclopedia and not convey the heart-racing, exhilarating, experience of riding the waves – or tipping over and going under.
Nothing that you can find on Google will convey the real meaning of that metaphor. The meaning comes from the experience of watching it week, after, week, after week, and the plot was always the same – someone would come up with an idea to get off the island, Gilligan would screw it up with his good-natured but bumbling ways. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.
Gilligan was good natured, and he really did mean well – but he screwed up every plan that everyone put forth to save themselves.
That is why it is so funny – the same mistakes repeated 100 weeks in a row, and the Gilligans never learn.
In my experience with SoCons, much of their hesitation to slut shame comes from a larger aversion to abortion. They try to encourage life and as a result encourage all babies to be born. I know my parents welcomed a single mom with open arms in to our family because they wanted to support and encourage her because she chose life in a bad situation. The left has often shamed SoCons as merely wanting to control a women’s body, and so now they have moved to the other extreme. But abortions have only increased as OOW births have, maybe this should be pointed out to them as a bad strategy.
Zed —
That’s fair enough. My own comment was addressing, mostly, social conservatives — folks who at least *say* that they are not on board with ditching the 459 conditions and so on, but don’tslut shame for other reasons. I don’t think they’re worried about sexually crippling their younger female relatives as much as they want to look the other way rather than draw attention to what is happening, because that way they do not know, and they do not have to resolve the issue (i.e., by either accepting contemporary mores about sex also in theory and in public or by castigating members of their family who are not living up to the non-contemporary mores that the parental set embrace in theory and in public).
It’s a contradiction much more for social conservatives than it is for non-conservatives, because non-conservatives can openly embrace contemporary sexual mores without abandoning a large portion of their worldview. This is why you had the emergence of the so-called “California conservative” (socially liberal, economically conservative). This was/is an attempt to embrace a part of American political conservatism (the anti-state, pro-business, etc., part of it) while simultaneously embracing contemporary mores when it comes to things relating to sex (sex being the single biggest “social conservative” issue by far and away, because the social revolution in the 60s and 70s was largely about sex).
A social conservative can’t do that without leaving social conservatism. That is, it’s fine to say that social conservatives are being unrealistic about pre-marital sex, but if a social conservative abandons that issue, there isn’t much of social conservatism left, because sex is the main issue. If a social conservative embraces the idea that sex outside marriage is fine because people are marrying later, he pretty much has to drop his social conservatism — that is, being publically and theoretically “down” with pre-marital sex is contemporary, but is in no way socially conservative. This is why the social conservatives face the contradiction that they do: they want things to be one way, but recognize that they are another way. And the way most of them manage that dissonance is either by trying to wall themselves off from “people who are behaving like that” in terms of creating a separate subculture that is countercultural (and I don’t mean on the scale of the Amish, I mean on the scale of a family) and/or looking the other way when it should be (and often is) clear to them that their own family members are “behaving like that”. To do anything else is to abandon being a social conservative, really. To my mind, this is why they refuse to shame — very different reasons from you, I think.
I saw part of an episode of the TV show Modern Family last night, as someone near me was watching it. There is the endemic emasculation of the father character, normalization of child obesity and homosexuals as parents, of which I had foreknowledge. There was also a character, a very attractive single woman of 30 or so, but isn’t a regular in the show. She reports that she has won a prestigious job in Paris, and, inn the same breath, mentions that she has lovers scattered across the globe including Paris. Of course, the makers of the show can take the same exact person, and accord them status, frame them as heroes or villains. And they portrayed this woman as admirable. And yet conservatives are always trying to redeem the irredeemable, protesting that this or that on television is inappropriate, when the whole enterprise, top to bottom, is rotten.
IUDs come with their own set of side effects all up inside there.
The best is for sexually active women to carry condoms in their purses. No glove, no love.
mongo says:
The irony of female birth control is that they decrease a woman’s libido drastically. What was made to help us have more sex, makes us want to have less. So far condoms are the only form of birth control (and STD control) that does not have side effects.
Have you ever had sex with a condom on? Condoms have one big side effect: loss of sensation. And when people are having sex precisely for that sensation, the loss thereof is a pretty big deal. Aside from sheer neglect, that is the primary reason people don’t use them. Holding them out as the best contraceptive device is ridiculous, and doesn’t recognize “human factors.”.
The side effects of IUD are not so great as to make it impractical. 160 million women around the world use it successfully. It surpasses sterilization in use in China. I don’t know that much about all the contraceptive devices out there, but based on a superficial comparison using Wikipedia, IUDs seem the most practical: little maintenance for most after insertion for a period of up to 12 years, no use of hormones, among the lowest risk of conception, and no loss of sensation.
The paradigm of making the man responsible for bastard pregnancies has failed among the lower classes. It’s time women were made responsible. Have you ever worked in a team where everyone did less, because they thought someone else would take up the slack? The law ensures that both parties must contribute, but bastardy is still proceeding apace.
The heart of the problem are Laws. Shift the laws by reducing choices the OOW birthrate will dissipate.
Shaming will definitely help but the laws have to change. Laws dictate behavior. Period.
When you keep subsidizing the problems, then what do you expect.
This will reduce slutting around.
Even so, changing who’s responsible might not reduce bastardy much. For many of these women, the man already isn’t on the line for supporting the baby. The woman didn’t bother with contraceptives despite knowing that she’d get nothing from him. If she wasn’t deterred before, why would she now, after a change in the laws?
This class of women has already proven incapable or unwilling, for whatever reason, of preventing a bastard pregnancy. Given that these women are engaging in sex, the only solution is long term, zero to very low maintenance birth control. That is why it’s the preferred method in third world countries like Bangladesh and China.
Talking about bastardy without an eye to how to actually reduce it is like talking about the threat of Islam while studiously remaining silent on what to do about it. It’s cowardly. And expecting women who can’t be bothered with contraceptives, to now start abstaining from sex entirely in a society that encourages it at every juncture, is delusion of panglossian proportions.
Dalrock
What they didn’t understand is that it only takes a small number of irresponsible men to sire all the bastards the baby mamas could ever want.
Basil
Is this really true?
Permit me to introduce this assembly to Desmond Hatchett of Tennessee, father of 21 children, who once boasted of impregnating four different women in one year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189232/Desmond-Hatchett-fathers-21-children-11-different-women–hes-29.html
We can argue about how common such men may be. But there can be no argument whether such a man might exist or not, right? It’s not theory that one man could have 21 children by 11 different women. It is fact.
And that is why I made the point of saying that my view came from a different perspective.
I am very protective of this blog’s ability to accommodate wildly varying viewpoints without descending into flame wars like most other blogs, so I tread carefully and think about what I intend to say long enough to get the point across in the least abrasive manner possible.
The way I view social conservatives today is that they are faced with the choice between hypocrisy and failure of their ideology. There are too many internal contradictions in their beliefs/philosophy – if they get one belief, that makes a different belief impossible.
From an outsider’s view, it does appear to me that the socons are setting up their own children for failure – that their beliefs are more important to them than admitting that their children find them impossible to live up to. They hold on to their beliefs – publicly at least – while casting their children adrift in a culture in which the “wisdom” the parents passed on to them is not just not useful at all, but in fact totally counterproductive to any child who follows it.
This is the meaning I take from Keoni’s statement that the anger we are seeing from younger persons is due to the fact that they are waking to having been lied to their entire lives.
I’m reminded of a scene from one of Mark Twain’s most famous books (I can’t remember whether it was Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn) where Tom and Huck and the former slave Jim were playing out one of Tom’s fantasies of breaking Jim out of a cabin where he was being held (even though the door was not locked). Tom decided to live up the romantic fantasy of digging their way out using a case knife. He was trying to saw through the leg of a bed with a knife – despite the fact that the chain which supposedly held Jim’s leg was just threaded over the leg and all they had to do was lift up the bed. (Remember that Twain was writing satire at this point.)
Tom gives up with the knife, throws it aside, and says “hand me a case knife.” This confuses the simple Huck, because he has just seen Tom throw away a knife and ask him for another, but being a good “Gilligan” he hands Tom his knife. Tom throws it away in disgust, and says “NO, hand me a CASE KNIFE” and points to a saw they had brought with them.
Thus we are introduced to the concept of “letting on” – we are going to saw the leg with a saw, but we are going to “let on” that we did it with a case knife.
And that is the basis for my animosity toward socons – their dishonesty. Instead of saying “Well, all these things I believe, when added together, add up to bullshit” and giving way on the less important values in order to protect the more important ones, they “let on” that they are living by all the rules – when in fact they are doing so no more than anyone else –
e.g. Jimmy Swaggert, Bob Livingston, Anthony Weiner, Jim Bakker, the list goes on.
My suggestion is instead of becoming “California conservatives” that they become “Arkansas Conservatives” and accept that young people are going to have sex and if they want people to wait until they are married to have it, allow them to marry young and live with their parents (as they do in most of the rest of the world) and not set the requirement that before they can marry young men must make enough money to not only support his wife as a SAHM in the manner to which she desires to become accustomed, but to make a lot more than she would have given her Affirmative Action treatment as a “Special Needs Employee” (Dalrock, feel free to insert link)
And, worst of all, waiting for marriage the way that young people are forced to do these days gives young women – a great many years to think about how they want men to treat them.
My view is that socons either adapt their beliefs to the realities they live in, or watch their children drown in their bullshit.
AquaNet
The irony of female birth control is that they decrease a woman’s libido drastically.
In what way does the diaphragm decrease libido?
What was made to help us have more sex, makes us want to have less. So far condoms are the only form of birth control (and STD control) that does not have side effects.
As I’m sure you are aware, condoms do not prevent transmission of all STD’s – chlamydia is but one example of a disease that can be transmitted via intercourse no matter how many raincoats the man puts on.
My own view on these things is that while I have a lot of time for the ideals of social conservatives, I don’t have a lot of time for their tactics (as currently employed).
For example, I do think that, in general, some form of patriarchy/monogamy works best for everyone involved, even if socially coerced. In that, I don’t differ from social conservatives in theory. Where I differ from them is generally in (1) not thinking that the “old rules” are capable of being resurrected (and in some cases would need adjustment anyway, along the lines Slumlord has been writing about), at least not for quite some time, and (2) not agreeing that contemporary realities can be dodged by an appeal to idealism.
As for point (2), my main view is that the idealism of social conservatives blinds them to the realities on the ground, or, rather, makes them recoil and not want to get their hands dirty by “collaborating with the corrupt and immoral system”. So, for example, you get social conservatives like Laura Wood and others who are 100% against men’s rights for almost exclusively theoretical/ideological reasons — i.e., that it is “more of the same discourse on individual rights” rather than a return to an orientation around social benefit. It’s not that what they are saying is completely wrong (in my view), but rather that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. In other words, it overlooks the very real good that some men’s rights oriented legal changes and cultural shifts away from misandry would make in the overall culture, because making these kinds of arguments means collaborating to some degree with the “corrupt system” and using the discourse of individual rights and so forth. It’s more or less a refusal to deal with the contemporary system on its own terms, and instead opting to disengage from it, to keep oneself ideologically pure, at the expense of not supporting changes that could in any case make a big positive difference. Many of them would prefer to maintain that purity, if you will, to a kind of pragmatically-informed activism based on the idea that some things ma very well be desirable and achievable, but can only be done so in the context of the current system.
So in general I agree with many of the ideals of the social conservatives. I disagree, however, with how most of them go about things tactically, because it smacks of impracticality. There is a desire to avoid pragmatism because it creates too many contradictions from an ideological perspective, but the problem is that you can’t avoid pragmatism, quite generally, because you have to live in the real world at the end of the day. So socons very much engage pragmatically with the real world when it suits them (i.e., by embracing feminism when it suits them in terms of the advancement of their daughters in the real world), but keep their hands off in other areas, like sex and sex war type issues, because they don’t want to get their hands dirty by making political compromises. It’s the lack of pragmatism that really annoys me about social conservatives. It’s fine to have ideals. But if you’re going to affect change, you need to do what it pragmatically possible as well as having ideals — being a purist (which is very “in” in our current political culture) is a road to nowhere, and simply perpetuates the existing rot.
Another really great post Dalrock. You’re on a roll!!
Funny and perceptive as all get out. Partly it’s I think because you know SoCons/Traditionalist so well, and partly because you get Roissy’s game/gender realism teachings so well. But also you’re just damn original and perceptive.
Zed’s right, a tour de force.
OK now I’ve got to go through the comments to see if Traditonalists such as Escoffier have any answer to this. My guess is he in particular will be a no show to avoid it. Will see though.
Well zed you have given the final peice to the puzzle. With a male birth control pill and no change in the laws of misandry we have a major problem sovled. (BTW zed sluts make for some good pussy. They are really fun to have sex with no doubt. The ones playing the monogamy game are the best to me because I don’t really like the player game. I did like having a regular fucking girlfriend. This as bad as they are for hard working honest beta men is a great time to fuck woman after women)
Zed you are right and I believe the real push should be for a male birth control pill. No more shaming women infact we can join in the express yourself and every women being true to herself.
The so con will be off the hook (the church too) they can just keep doing what they are doing. Pretty nice of an MRA type to say that huh/ no need to cause any trouble with the goodness and christian purity of those people. And while we are at no more of this double standard stuff for the sluts. Just go with your heart honey. I was wrong to unfairly oppress your sexuality. Let me get you a line of coke as I help you onto the carousel. I am truely sorry mam.
Now with a male pill it can and will be mens fault 100% for any OOW child birth. I think we have this issue licked Dalrock you are the man. Lets make a call to congress and have a male pill made. Think of the money we can save on welfare ,section 8 housing, WIC, abortion. etc. Think of the saved productivity of single women not having to take leave from the job for child birth. Our economy may just start to boom again. men ae awesome we can solve any problem. Anybody see anything wrong with this idea and solution to OOW child birth please add some other ideas.
As for unwed mothers getting preggers and keeping the baby, I’ve become convinced that a large majority of them are oopes, accidentally on purpose, either consciously or subconsciously. They really dig the guy and hope that a pregnancy will entrap him into marriage. Or their clock is ticking loudly. Yeah women over thirty with baby rabies or even close approaching it are scary.
How many guys who make any scratch worth talking about want an unplanned baby by a woman they’re not married to? Now ask how many unwed women want a baby by any means necessary.
(finishing my thought, here, after letting myself get a bit sidetracked)
I see 3 different types of reasons, one of which is the same as yours, and the other two are different.
The first, which I put a much more negative spin on that you do, is hypocrisy – claiming to believe one thing but acting differently. This is what I mean by saying that their personal identity as a social conservative is more important to some people than their own family.
It is also why I often make the point that socons have turned cannibal – that they are eating their own. If their advice harms the people who follow it, then the people they are harming the worst are their own children.
Reasons 2 and 3 are somewhat sex specific. I believe the reason that conservative women are unwilling to slut-shame is because they can easily see themselves in the slut’s situation. I love this particular quote from the blog “True Wife Confessions” – http://www.truewifeconfession.com/2011/09/true-wife-confessions-42-ultimate.html
I’ll bet just about every woman out there, conservative or not, can imagine themselves lying in bed with a man and having every cell of her body screaming “OH GOD, please don’t touch me” but feeling like she has to pretend because he is a great father, great provider, and keeps the bills paid on the McMansion, the country club, and the kids’ private schools.
That is why conservative women are far more concerned about whether a hookup is fair to the woman than slut-shaming. I’m sure many of them – like Sheila or the Fireproof woman – go to bed every night with a man they can’t stand, but who they believe has bought access to their body by marrying them and providing for them and their kids.
It appears to me that Dalrock is on a campaign to shame those who don’t shame sluts, but I can’t imagine that it will catch on as long as socons deny that women have a sex drive and do not consider meeting it to be a basic relationship need for women.
And, the third reason why people won’t slut shame applies to the men. A lot of men in churches are there just to fulfill a social requirement and are not quite “true believers.” Not all are Kirk Cameron level manginas. Given a choice between a woman who actually likes to have sex with them, and a cold-hearted bitch looking for a get-out-of-marriage-free card –
“I’m going to deny a basic need of yours in our marriage, and if you seek to meet it elsewhere I will use that fact to take you to the cleaners.”
I cam somewhat close to marrying a woman back in the early 1980s. Overall things were pretty good between us. Except, it was a bit like the counterpart to the true confession I mentioned above. She was absolutely and completely sexually dysfunctional. She came from an ultra reliigious RLDS family, and had a lot of very strange emotional incest issues tied up with her father.
I think a lot of married men aren’t going to slut-shame because they dearly wish they had married someone capable of slutdom – or sluttery, or slutitude – than the cold, dead, fish in bed that they ended up marrying.
In order for slut shaming to work, it must be offset by an equal amount of frigid-wife or sexual-withholding shaming.
The fundamental reason that cad shaming doesn’t work very well at all is that marking a guy as a cad who’s that with hot girls, tends to make him MORE attractive at least to the sluttier variety of hot girls and in fact to a whole hell of a lot of not slutty girls, if he just feigns a bit of “change of heart” – which girls are very wont to believe – especially when in their late teens and early to mid 20s, i.e. when they’re hottest.
Slut shaming does work because almost all girls want to get married and before that have LTRs with the hottest guys they can attract for that. They know or soon learn that by far most guys don’t want sluts for LTRs they fall in love with, much less marriage. Still many girls chose to believe the sex positive feminist message and believe they can shame men away from their tendencies based on equalist non double standards. Of course most of the hot guys (players) they want while young and not urgently looking for a hubby greatly encourage them in this (false) belief. As well lots of burgeoning sluts figure they’ll just move or otherwise develop a new circle of friends and be able to successfully lie about their prior sluthood. None of the MSM have any messages about this proclivity so guys who haven’t taken the red pill on gender realism by discovering Heartiste/Roissy and others such as Dalrock and Susan Walsh tend to be rather clueless and self deluding about this.
“As for unwed mothers getting preggers and keeping the baby, I’ve become convinced that a large majority of them are oopes, accidentally on purpose, either consciously or subconsciously.”
There was a survey of 6000 Women across the UK. In the survey 42% of the Women admitted that they would lie about being on the pill if they wanted to get pregnant and their partner didn’t.
As much as we need to bring back slut shaming, especially women to woman, we need to even LOTS MORE bring back unwed mother and bastard shaming. That shaming was mega effective in keeping the numbers of unwed mothers way low when it was widespread, until about 1970, especially among whites. White unwed births were at about 3% of all births in 1960, in a time before legal abortion and before all but one method of reversible birth control, and condoms were kinda hard and embarrassing to come by in many places in the US and world back then. And I think relatively expensive as well.
Zed —
I think Slumlord would very much agree with you in that the sexual needs of both men and women need to be taken into account in a realistic way. That was what I was referring to, in part, by mentioning that the old rules need some adjustment. The adjustment isn’t, in my view, away from monogamy, but rather towards an understanding of sexuality that can fulfill monogamy in a culture where choice is present. That means accepting that men and women, husbands and wives, have sexual needs, and it is beholden on the spouse to satisfy them. This is, again, part of what I was trying to get at with the idea of a pragmatic approach. If social conservatives were generally more open to approaching female sexuality, and female sexual needs, more realistically and pragmatically, they would actually be *helping* to further monogamy in existing marriages, and also family formation — rather than dissing Game and other vectors by which female sexual needs and desires can be both discerned and sated. This is exactly the kind of pragmatism that social conservatives need to embrace, but are quite unwilling to do so because too many of them remain wedded to traditionalist concepts of women. In so doing, the actually *undermine* the ability to have a successful marriage — which is kind of like cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Dalrock is — similar to Slumlord — taking a pragmatic approach that *serves* the ideal, instead of being beholden to a traditional approach that actually undermines the capability of the ideal being fulfilled.
The HUGE increase in white unwed pregnancies since 1960 despite the factors I list immediately above is another reason why I’m utterly convinced that most of them are accidentally on purpose these days, consciously or subconsciously. Most of the penalties are gone. True accidents just don’t wash. “Forgetting” to take the pill, or lying about being on it or an IUD are more like it.
In order for slut shaming to work, it must be offset by an equal amount of frigid-wife or sexual-withholding shaming.
One thing at a time tough guy.
I like this ” I’ll bet just about every woman out there, conservative or not, can imagine themselves lying in bed with a man and having every cell of her body screaming “OH GOD, please don’t touch me” but feeling like she has to pretend because he is a great father, great provider, and keeps the bills paid on the McMansion, the country club, and the kids’ private schools.”
My answer to that woman is fuck you bitch with the laws the way they are and men screwed over in this society the way it is and some cunt living like that has the nerve to come up with some shit like that. Screw you lady or better yet leave with nothing and get the dick you want. The kids and house stay with the discusting man that provided it and you go down to the county lockup and find yourself some gina tingle. Ask the same cunt that can stand the thought of him touching her would due or say when he just can’t stand the thought of a commitment to such a women. I already know the answer just take a look at family law.
Zed, you’re latest comment brings to mind several conversations I had with former co-workers – both Mother’s of teenage daughters. They spent hours and hours talking about their worries about their daughters getting into college and picking the right careers to “succeed” in life. Both of these ladies were So-con, Christian family women who attend church and regular bible readings. I tried to tell them that the biggest life decision their daughters would ever make would be who they chose to get into relationships with and who they ended up having children with, and that they really shouldn’t focus so much on education, but focus on choosing good mates. These Christian women couldn’t even comprehend my point. They had bought into the secular/feminist paradigm hook, line and sinker.
Their daughters HAD to get a degree and career BEFORE even thinking about marriage and children! Otherwise, what if their husbands left them? They needed to be able to be INDEPENDENT.
When I brought up the point that even if their husbands left them, they still had the ability to get alimony/child support, which doesn’t require a college degree or a career, they simply ignored it and re-stated their concerns…there daughters MUST get a degree and career! It’s the most important, life decision their teen aged daughters were ever going to make.
Now these Christian ladies also believe their daughters should be virgins until marriage.
Their utterly delusional thinking that when their daughters are in their early 20’s while attending college, they will be keeping their virginity intact until they get married.
Basil Ransom–
Here here. I’ve been saying this online and in real tangible life for years and years. It outrages women and white knighting men at first, but then they mostly have no answer. It’s really effective to point out that only about 3% of white births in 1960 were out of wedlock, whereas now, with all these additional methods of pretty cheap birth control for women, abortion, but almost no single mother shaming but rather lionization as brave, and with rich state forced bio dad child support regardless of how much he didn’t want her to get preggers, it’s up to 28% among whites. Obviously the current policy isn’t working. Leftism is to blame, QED.
Oh and it’s only women who can put their kid up for adoption in this country. That too has about ended for white women.
“Back in the 1970s and 80s, I worked in the human services field. I worked with a large number of women who were largely or completely sexually dysfunctional. These were not carousel riders, but almost universally virgins who came to their wedding nights ignorant and terrified of sex. And, their husbands were not cads, but men who were largely in the same boat.
Back then nobody knew about things like oxytocin and all the other key concepts of the Game-osphere – they were two mostly innocents who were thrown into a situation completely unknown to both of them, and what little guidance they had been given was crap, and told to make the best of it.
It was no wonder that in those days most women really appreciated a man with a little sexual experience – so that both of them were not blindly bumbling around in unknown territory, afflicted by crippling shame over what they were doing.
A culture cannot bury a human function and need so basic and compelling as reproduction under hundreds of layers of conflicting social instructions. They cannot convince young women that sex is terrible until the list of 467 conditions for it have been met, and then on their wedding night be prepared to be a loving wife and sex partner for the man who marries her. They cannot demand that young people sit out their primary years of fertility, and sexual desire, and then when the green light goes on for them, settle into a perfect situation of marital bliss. ”
Smartest thing I’ve read on this blog – ever.
I said before that by the time most American men and women marry, they are already PAST their sexual prime and horniest years. Would make more sense if those who were going to marry did so before 22.
Oh and Basil, I think by far most of “accidental’ white women pregnancies are accidentally on purpose, consciously or subconsciously. Punish them for it by shaming and no state coerced child support from didn’t want to be fathers and it will go WAY down.
“On top of that, marrying a female virgin is no guarantee of anything. A friend of mine married a woman who grew up in an extremely religious and wealthy family. The family home-schooled her daughter and actually hired private security to watch over her during her four years at a Christian college. Within a year after she got married, she was cheating on him with her physical trainer and ended up getting pregnant by him.”
Happens a lot in the strictest of Middle Eastern countries. And lets not forget there are other ways to have sex, without having “real” sex (p2v intercourse). They are technically still considered “virgins”.
Basil–
No the change would be HUGE, if not immediate. It especially would be huge if shaming of unwed mothers came back in a big way.
If girls don’t want to get preggers they don’t. Consider how few girls at elite universities get unwed pregnant, or at least give birth and keep the kid. Damn few.
No, women get preggers because the consciously or subconsciously want to, by far most of the time. BTW I think that’s true of black women as well. The idea that people don’t know about birth control is a complete and utter myth.
“Confession #421
I love you. I love our life. You are a fantastic father and provider. But
oh Lord help me you suck in bed. I haven’t had an orgasm with you in the
room in about 16 yrs. I think about having an affair ONLY to have good sex.
One day I probably will do it. Consider this an apology in advance.
I’ll bet just about every woman out there, conservative or not, can imagine themselves lying in bed with a man and having every cell of her body screaming “OH GOD, please don’t touch me” but feeling like she has to pretend because he is a great father, great provider, and keeps the bills paid on the McMansion, the country club, and the kids’ private schools.”
Yep. One thing men don’t seem to get is EVERY WOMAN IS DIFFERENT. What worked to make one sigh, cry and scream out in sheer delight may NOT work on other. When your woman tells her what gets her going, listen to her, and do that.
My sister once had a lover who INSISTED he knew how to make awesome love because he was “taught” by an older woman when he was a very young man, and then after that he had had girlfriends who were stunned by his skills. But whatever he did did NOTHING for my sister and when she tried to tell him what works FOR HER, he kept saying, “I know how to make love, I know how to make love”. Well he knew how to make love to OTHER women, but NOT HER. And he wouldn’t even try what she was telling him. Then one day he said, “women these days! they can’t be satisfied!” She said, “I could be satisfied but your EGO is not willing to do what it takes to satisfy me”.
reg–
Slut shaming worked hella good before the 1960’s, when it was rigorously applied by almost the whole society, save some far leftists and proto Marxist feminists who weren’t yet in cognitive, cultural power.
Will says:
“November 19, 2011 at 5:48 am
Not sure if this link has already been posted here, but apparently:
Roosh the PUA is ready to MAN UP
http://www.rooshv.com/im-ready-to-man-up”
Already talked about on another thread. I agree with what Roosh wrote. Young people should travel and experience the world. It will do more for their larnin’ than any University education. Riding the cock/cunt carouself is of course optional. But globetrotting? Hell yeah. Seems that many young Americans though have no sense of adventure. Or else they fell hook, line and sinker for the “American Dream/Nightmare”. But that bubble is bursting fast.
Lily—
That’s just nuts Lily. (Though your last sentence is a bit of a saving grace.)
Women want babies vastly more than men and always have in every culture. Evolution thought it was entirely sufficient to just have men want to push for sex lots more than women. It felt that was entirely sufficient, since it didn’t forsee birth control, and well, it feels better to not pull out.
Now men sometimes want babies for cultural reasons, to have an heir. They especially tend to the more high and mighty they are and how trivial the cost in money and time having them are to them, or in agricultural societies to have more enserfed farm hands.
“[D: …little buddy.]”
The new nickname for all our socon shamers.
And the whole virgin thing is a very, very, very small minority of Americans, usually on the extreme end of religion. Most American adults do not expect their spouses to be virgins at the wedding.
And no religious so-con yet has been able to explain exactly what is so “bad” about 2 grown-ass adults having consensual, safe sex in the privacy of their own homes. They want Big Gubmint outta their private lives don’t they? Well the rest of us also want Big Religion and Big SoCon outta our private lives too.
(They don’t REALLY want Big Gov outta anyone’s lives. What they want is for their Big Ideology to REPLACE Big Gov and to stick its tentacles in everyone’s home, heart and mind)
Greyghost: “Anybody see anything wrong with this idea and solution to OOW child birth please add some other ideas.”
I’m all for a male pill, but I imagine it will leave millions of Women feeling seriously baby-deprived when they can no longer entrap a man into fatherhood or at least involuntary child-support.
Will shame on you, I guess we’ll just have to go back to shaming men even harder that is always good sermon for a pastor. That way we won’t have to be so sexist with our double standards against female liberation. Men will still have to take responsibility for their child.
Greyghost, I expect a male pill will cause the shaming language directed at Men to change from “Man Up [and Marry]” to explicitly “Man Up and PROCREATE” [knock us up you b’stards!]
You know we should be talking liking like this Will. But I’ll tell you something women are really crazy. A woman that has decided she wants kids will screw 2-3 times a day. If I lived closer to job I could have gone home for a nooner during the work week while my wife was trying to get pregnant. Didn’t last very long we are both really fertile all I had to do was wave my dick past her and she was knocked the hell up.
Now I’m having a lot of fun going over this topic. Imagine the world that actually was shaming men to procreate. Just think if some mean and insensitive woman hater let it out that men respond well to adoration,respect and kindness. And men that regularly spanked their woman with a coat hanger statisticly enjoyed having children up 75% more than men that spanked women with their hand.
There are exceptional cases, but a virgin will normally have a hymen which breaks on first intercourse. And, yes, it “pops”.
Marry a virgin.
The shame resulting from financial penury will have much greater impact than any shame resulting from sexual activity. One reason for this is because it will be felt by friends, family, and the other people in close proximity with the baby-mamas. Personal scorn cannot be avoided by those they have to avail themselves on for support. Their burden and resentment is her shame. The current system of anonymous government support has the opposite effect where widows, rape victims, sluts, and whores are all lumped together and treated as equals. Women can keep their “privacy and choice” they just can’t have my money.
Greyghost,
I think if large numbers (millions) of Women are unable to have children because of the male pill, they’ll go NUTS.
Perhaps the male pill will give birth to a whole new industrys – International Mail-Order Semen On Demand as Women go overseas in a desperate search for Semen.
Or perhaps as you suggest Women can be persuaded [under duress of involuntary childless spinsterhood] to treat men with “adoration,respect and kindness” whilst being spanked with a coat hanger.
It sounds funny and silly but actually that is how it works. Sometimes when people argue points that deal with women sometimes it is best to just agree and play out their arguement as it would in actual practice.
“I think if large numbers (millions) of Women are unable to have children because of the male pill, they’ll go NUTS.”
This one here is a big time no shitter. I hope to be alive and aware when this happens. Hell iI’ll start cross dressing and go to get my nails done just to read the magazines waiting for my turn.
“the Gilligans want to use this to form social policy .. We’ve tried the Gilligan way for over fifty years now, and even though it has brought us from single digit illegitimacy rates to 40% and climbing, no one can talk any sense into them”
So, “social policy” in America has been formed for the last fifty years by “traditional conservatives”.
At this point a little alarm bell SHOULD be going off in the back of your mind telling you “Wait a second – you’re talked yourself off a cliff and are currently suspended in mid-air like Wiley Coyote just before he falls”.
TFH
“That such people show up for a day or two, and then vanish, is getting suspicious.”
those people are real, man. Those are blue pill people. They come in for a couple of days get messed with and just quit commenting. They are still reading the blog I’m sure.
Fear motivates women that is why I comment with a harsh reality. sugar coating only makes for a smoother and nicer road to hell.
TFH: “Don’t underestimate how much sperm banks are used.
I have personally donated to two banks, in two separate 26-week programs. The usage there is *high*, and while many are couples, I am sure than many are single mothers.”
But donations to sperm banks are drying up because of court cases making individual sperm donors liable for child support.
Greyghost and Lavazza–
I think the most promising method of male birth control they’re working on is the non sergically reversible vasectomy. This is accomplished by inserting a special plastic plug inside a man’s vas deferens tubes, blocking sperm. It get’s absorbed into his body. The plug can be dissolved when a wand emitting microwave energy at a certain frequency (which is apparently variable by varying the plug composition) his held right on the skin over where the plug is located. They’re working on clinical trials in India and I believe Australia now.
@flenser
Since I’m evidently short on time, perhaps you can quickly show me where social Conservatives are pushing to shame sluts and not getting tied up over the worries about the double standard? Or how about showing me the Conservative backlash against Glenn Stanton of Focus on The Family for referring to unwed mothers as “heroes” while ignoring any possibility that the mothers themselves could be responsible.
“I think if large numbers (millions) of Women are unable to have children because of the male pill, they’ll go NUTS.”
“This one here is a big time no shitter. I hope to be alive and aware when this happens. Hell iI’ll start cross dressing and go to get my nails done just to read the magazines waiting for my turn.”
Its definately going to be interesting to watch this all unfold. Both in Womens reactions to impending childlessness and the knock on societal consequences of it.
Perhaps the state will step in at that point with new reproductive technologies such as artificial sperm, eggs and wombs.
Perhaps the state will [eventually, largely] replace individual men and women in their roles of procreation and parenthood as suggested in certain science fiction novels.
And no religious so-con yet has been able to explain exactly what is so “bad” about 2 grown-ass adults having consensual, safe sex in the privacy of their own homes.
Religion doesn’t need to explain. It is not God’s will for us. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I also believe this. Because I live in a pluralistic society, I understand that this cannot be forced on others. However, I do regret the choices of others to reject God’s plan for them.
How does this square with what I wrote above? Easily. Politics is about compromises and strange bedfellows. In the US, in terms of laws, it’s about finding allies who can support laws that are supportive of this (I realize you are not one of these). But allies are allies — not necessarily Christian and maybe perhaps set for eternal perdition, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be allies.
Since I’m evidently short on time, perhaps you can quickly show me where social Conservatives are pushing to shame sluts and not getting tied up over the worries about the double standard?
You’re already asserted in very blunt and specific terms that traditional conservatives have formed Americas social policy for the last fifty years. Instead of trying to quickly change the subject here (“show me where social Conservatives are pushing to shame sluts”) why don’t you make some time to defend the core of your beliefs? Or else stop saying things which are patently false.
Look at the hubris of this.
Don’t play with words you don’t understand
flenser, you are a Gilligan. Get used to it
Spock himself would bow down before such iron-clad logic.
Acqua Net–
Condoms have the side effect of making sex much less pleasurable, especially for the man but for both – you selfish woman.
The non hormonal IUD has no side effects for most women. Hormonal IUDs have sufficiently low hormones to not have much of the effect you mention.
how about showing me the Conservative backlash against Glenn Stanton of Focus on The Family for referring to unwed mothers as “heroes” while ignoring any possibility that the mothers themselves could be responsible.
You’ve got a bee in your bonnet about those wicked “conservatives”. Show me a link to Stanton’s remarks and I’ll tell you then what I think of them.
[D: Enjoy.]
Flenser —
It’s that social conservative strategy in this area has been so spectacularly and self-indulgently ineffective if not outright outrageously stupid as to attract a huge portion of the blame for what has happened.
Professor Woland—
No.
We already have ruthless (way too ruthless) child support collection of unfairly high percentages of a man’s after tax income that amounts also to stealth alimony, and what have we gotten? Ever increasing amounts of out of wedlock kids, now 28% in the white community, 71% in the black, about 40% among Hispanics and 40% overall. Reward something and fail to punish it and you’ll get more of it.
Far more effective would be what we did in 1960 when the white out of wedlock birth rate was 3%, at a time without legal abortion any of the forms of female controlled birth control we have now. Back then there was serious shaming of unwed mothers, and generally no child support extracted from the unwilling, likely oopsed on bio dad, nor welfare either in most states. That’s what we should bring back. No forced child support for unwed mother extracted from unwilling bio-dads. And lots of unwed mother shaming instead of “how brave you are” lionizing. That would plummet the rate of bastardy.
It’s that social conservative strategy in this area has been so spectacularly and self-indulgently ineffective if not outright outrageously stupid as to attract a huge portion of the blame for what has happened
Can you restate that in plain English, using examples of things which have happened and why they happened? Because I don’t have the foggiest idea of what you’re trying to say. Are you trying to say, for instance, that Dan Quayle’s remarks about unwed mothers are “to blame” for the rising rates of unwed mothers? Or are you arguing that the welfare reform laws which those “outrageously stupid” conservatives pushed through in the mid -90’s have led to more unwed mothers? In either case, how?
Flenser
Soc consevative values are basic american values that are based in christianity and are timeless not the last 50 years. You are full of it if you think that the crap going on is socon. It is pure feminism. The stuff you’re are seeing today and trying to bullshit us and insult us with as socon is just a bunch of whiteknighting for feminism calling itself socon. You knew that and know that now. The sad thing is a whole western society and a generation of young girls and boys are on their way to being wasted away,with people like you pushing the same crap that got us here.
Opus–
Oh rubbish. One can always get better. Besides the Heartiste game blog also teaches tons of gender realism. I’d already discovered / taught myself most of both decades ago, but he ties it all together in a very interesting and revealing way even to me. Well I discovered him under his former monicker 3.5 years ago or so. Besides I just like talking about it. Sites like Heartiste’s are also a lot more effective in teaching MRM truths such as how unfair family courts and laws are to American men in divorce.
I am so happy with my offspring that I am surprised that women arent approaching my constantly offering me money to impregnate them, but I do think that the result is not totally genetical but in large amount related to my influence over the years. I cant imagine having abandoned offspring having to make do with whatever their mum offers them. For me sperm banks are totally immoral.
Soc consevative values are basic american values that are based in christianity and are timeless not the last 50 years. You are full of it if you think that the crap going on is socon.
I think you need to take a deep breath and go back and reread what’s been written. I’m objecting to Dalrock’s claim that what has been going on for the last fifty years has been “traditional conservatism”. I’m asking (so far without success) for him to defend his position that over the last fifty years Americas social policy has been made by traditional conservatives.
The problem is that social conservatives, of whom I am one to a fair degree, have overdosed on the mercy and forgotten about justice. They also tend to focus on the immediate problem but forget the context. They are often “nice” people who feel sorry for hard luck cases, while forgetting that the sin of folly may have brought on the “bad luck”.
Being nice people, they tend to be naive. So they see a single mother as a poor wronged angel, not as a satiated slut.
The whole thing is also a giant strategy game between men and women, who have differing fundamental goals. Notice how feminists and many social conservatives want to muddy the waters constantly, to reduce the information available to men. If they can get men to marry non-virgins, then men have no idea of their wife’s sexual history. As a woman I knew very well put it, “you don’t miss a slice from a cut loaf.” The pill is great for women because the man has no way of knowing if she is using it. And so on.
It is all about information, who controls it, and how it can be used tactically. Most of what feminists do is about using the ancient feminine tool of deception and denying men information.
Brendan–
I don’t know Brendan, I think this is off. It’s mostly other girls/women who do slut shaming in real life. Often it’s really hot and popular girls (who can get commitment out of a boyfriend who’s actually alpha, so they don’t have to slut up to sleep with a male 9).
The guys who could effectively do it, the attractive to hot women alphas usually don’t want to do it in real life because they like to have sluts to screw, and want to appear slut friendly and not judging to sluts and on the road to sluttery girls. They just don’t want to fall in love with them much less marry them, by in large. Slut shaming by betas isn’t very effective in real life and tends to mark them as definitely not any kind of alpha and pretty far away from it to most girls. This is all just instinct mainly. Girls see who is and isn’t doing slut shaming among the guys, and act accordingly.
Pingback: 100% Mathmatically Accurate! Manosphere blogger Dalrock on slut-shaming « man boobz
Notice how feminists and many social conservatives want to muddy the waters constantly, to reduce the information available to men.
It’s hard for me to notice this when you don’t cite any actual instances of it. But clearly you have some such examples in your mind. So write a quick comment mentioning a few examples of the many social conservatives trying to reduce the information available to men.
Bicycle–
I hope her husband divorced her right quick. I sure as hell would have. Not much damage if done right away after a year of marriage. He won’t get stuck with child support=also stealth alimony if he gets a paternity test and hasn’t acted as the bastard’s father for any significant period of time. Not much time for property split to cost him much, and there’s no chance of alimony for that short a marriage. Would serve the bitch right. And how. Not fair to her lover though who probably didn’t want the kid she oopsed him with, well maybe planning on her hubby just Christian “manning up” and living with the situation. The chump, if so.
Can you restate that in plain English, using examples of things which have happened and why they happened? Because I don’t have the foggiest idea of what you’re trying to say. Are you trying to say, for instance, that Dan Quayle’s remarks about unwed mothers are “to blame” for the rising rates of unwed mothers? Or are you arguing that the welfare reform laws which those “outrageously stupid” conservatives pushed through in the mid -90′s have led to more unwed mothers? In either case, how?
I’m saying that, by and large, your movement’s strategy really hates men. For the reasons I pointed out above and in the last post. Bennett is one key, and very recent, example, here. Another is the social conservative support for Sarah Palin, an avowed feminist who has nothing to do with conservatism other than via redneck identity politics. Another is the support up and down the pole among conservatives for most of feminism, among their daughters, their sisters, their nieces.
The points you are mentioning were far too little and far too late, and frankly had much more to do with other political fish the GOP was trying to fry at the time than any commitment against feminism. The conservative movement in the US is a part of feminism, full stop.
I don’t know Brendan, I think this is off. It’s mostly other girls/women who do slut shaming in real life. Often it’s really hot and popular girls (who can get commitment out of a boyfriend who’s actually alpha, so they don’t have to slut up to sleep with a male 9).
Apex fallacy, perhaps? I wasn’t speaking of the really hot women — they are also “losing” in the current setup, so of course they have an incentive to slut shame. The (much larger numerically) average woman — not so much.
I’m saying that, by and large, your movement’s strategy really hates men.
And I’m asking you why you think that. In response you simply repeat the same vague accusations again.
The conservative movement in the US is a part of feminism, full stop.
I think we’ve successfully established that you hate conservatives, if nothing else. Best of luck in your political marriage to liberals. May you and the feminists have a long and happy life together.
Flenser
You are right “traditional conservatism” . in quotes because it has nothing in the definition that includes duty and responsibility for women. But it is still called social conservatism and christianity and it is a lie and has been a lie for 50 years . What is different today is due to the internet, guys like glenn sacks,welmer price, and all of the MRA types that actually want to see a change for the better and we come to a guy like dalrock that actually challeges the lie in a way that has your attention.Traditional conservatism has run the west always (and should beleive it or not) only 50 years ago the difinition was changed. What you are doing here is what we have been talking about (Gilligan) you are rightiously and manly standing up to defend the honor of a lie.
They took this logical error and combined it with their natural sympathy for sluts, and decided to create a social order where only men are punished for out of wedlock births.
I call BS on this. Tradcons have NO “natural sympathy for sluts” whatsoever.
it only takes a small number of irresponsible men to sire all the bastards the baby mamas could ever want. No matter how draconian our child support laws become, there will always be a small number of irresponsible men who are willing to play their part.
True, and this is why you are correct in your assertion that, if we really want to solve the problem rather than worrying about being “fair”, we’d be better off focusing our efforts on shaming sluts rather than players.
Better yet, some state needs to pass a law making out of wedlock childbearing, punishable by 40 lashes.
You’re barely worth the energy it takes to tap out this comment, flenser. That’s why you’re getting flippant responses, as you deserve.
I think the key word is “admitted” there. I think the percentage who would in fact do so consciously or subconsciously under the right circumstances is much higher.
The blog does not exactly cater the to Internets rocket scientists, does it?
You are right “traditional conservatism” . in quotes because it has nothing in the definition that includes duty and responsibility for women. But it is still called social conservatism and christianity and it is a lie and has been a lie for 50 years
So fifty years ago, in the early 1960’s, “traditional conservatism” changed to mean liberalism and feminism. And nowdays when we refer to people as “traditional conservatives” we mean people like Justices Brennan and Blackmun, and Presidents like Carter.
Conservatism actually means “radical liberalism”. And Christianity presumably means “worship of the Anti-Christ”.
Given that Dalrocks and his minions here consider conservatism and liberalism to be interchangeable terms, and Christianity and anti-Christianity to be the same thing, what (if anything) do you call yourselves? Which politicians (if any) do you support?
There are no politicians to support. The current system is divided between right-liberals and left-liberals. See ozconservative.blogspot.com for details. And, yes, US “conservatives” are, in fact, right-liberals. See Sarah Palin.
Read the prior thread under the ’40 years of ultimatums’ article. That has about 10 different people logically rebutting every point you could possibly make
You would not recognize a logical rebuttal if one was forced up your ass with a hydraulic pump.
Your previous “logical rebuttal” to me was “you are a Gilligan. Get used to it.”
There are no politicians to support.
Zounds! Sounds like a plan to me! I predict a bright and rosy future for this movement of yours.
So what do you guys plan to do, other than to hang out on this website bitching about bitches?
So what do you guys plan to do, other than to hang out on this website bitching about bitches?
More than your sorry ass of a movement has done for men in the last fifty years.
flenser,
You want an example. See this thread:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/firebombed/
This is a perfect example of the anti-man, anit-male bias of “social/traditional conservatives”. I think what has correctly been pointed out is that traditional conservatism is ALL ABOUT what the duties, responsibilities, obligations of men/husbands are, without even the slightest peep what the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of women/wives are. Even in the discussions about players versus sluts, the trad con view has an undertone that the players are the real guilty parties simply preying on the sluts who don’t know any better. I think overall the point is there is a reluctance on the part of trad cons and official trad con institutions like churches to tell women “Hey, cut the shit out, be good women, be supportive wives, don’t defend bad behavior (such as EPL decisions), nurture your husbands, be loyal, etc.”
MIke C —
Also here, from Slumlord: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2011/11/feminist-in-every-social-conservative.html
More than your sorry ass of a movement has done for men in the last fifty years.
People on this blog sure have a lot of feelings.. If you can just express yourself more vehemently, with more feeling, with more outrage, you believe you can win the day.
It’s a lot like talking to liberals actually.
flenser, I think the plan is to spread information and insight about women at places like this. Remember my remark that feminists want to prevent men from finding things out. Even really traditional women dislike men having too much infornation.
What do you do if the formal power lies with feminists? Fight a guerrilla information war on the Internet. To take one example, check out the effective bigot-shaming at RegisterHer.
We gave you reading material
.
Stupid, but also possessed of delusions of grandeur. I’m getting a bead on you now – you’re just a common or garden lefty.
Social conservatives have a tendency to hold women to much lower standards of accountability than they hold men to.
No, they do not.
I know this because I am one. Remind me again what your qualifications to waffle on about social conservatives are.
Social conservatives are in fact a leftist group that happens to reside within the Republican Party.
Yup, you’re a lefty alright. With all the peculiar tics of your breed.
It’s a lot like talking to liberals actually.
It’s nice to see you describe yourself with such candor.
And if you’re wondering why I’m not taking you seriously, it’s because you don’t deserve it. Social conservatives in general don’t deserve to be taken seriously by people interested in men’s rights, as I have learned the hard way in my 44 years.
“The blog does not exactly cater the to Internets rocket scientists, does it?”
No educated or as i should say indoctrinated smart people just people that give a damn.
“So fifty years ago, in the early 1960′s, “traditional conservatism” changed to mean liberalism and feminism. And nowdays when we refer to people as “traditional conservatives” we mean people like Justices Brennan and Blackmun, and Presidents like Carter.”
So now you are playing dumb. Good luck man. You got me on that one.
I guess all I can do now is bitch about bitches.
Flenser, I think what they are saying is that many people can identify as a “Social Conservative.” However, the social conservative movement AS IT IS EXPRESSED in popular politics, ie, the ones running candidates like Rick Perry, Bachmann, Palin, etc have adopted some of the traits of liberalism and feminism.
Individuals may differ and identify as Social Conservatives. It’s what they believe that matters, not the name. I think you’re onto a No True Scotsman fallacy, in that you seem to believe anyone who allies with feminism can’t be a Social Conservative. Sure, by your definition of that, but not by the definition of Social Conservatism that is used in modern American politics.
David, you mentioned something about finding a virgin upthread. I’ve given it some thought, and I’ve concluded that is not possible.
So what do you guys plan to do, other than to hang out on this website bitching about bitches?
Well, some guys will tell guys like Bennett pushing the “Man Up” message to fuck off and they’ll go on their merry way, playing video games and fucking sluts.
http://flyfreshandyoung.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/dear-william-j-bennett-you-dont-get-it/
Other guys will MGTOW. Some will take the Roissy route of “Enjoy the Decline”. The thing for most men is the personal is ***NOT*** political. There are no grand political objectives or political war to be won like the feminists, simply a choice on how to live one’s personal live to minimize personal harm from the existing system, and actually to benefit from it. I think what scares the beejesus out of trad cons is if this information/view hits some sort of critical mass especially younger guys because then the jig is up. I can’t remember who the poster was who made the point that for feminists it is about muddying the waters and keeping guys in a state of confusion. You are starting to see a massive pushback from feminists on evopsych/evo biology and what it means for male-female relations and sexuality. Science isn’t on their side though
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/study-proves-the-validity-of-game/
Here’s the thing with trad/soc cons AND feminists with regard to women and female sexuality. They are the Catholic Church arguing the Earth is the center of the universe with the Sun orbiting the Earth, and then you’ve got that nutcase/heretic Galieo (the Game/Manosphere community) informing people that no the Sun is the center with the Earth orbiting it. The truth can only be hidden/obfuscated so long.
I think the plan is to spread information and insight about women at places like this.
Dude, the “information” you are spreading is the information that you are a bunch of deranged lunatics who think that up is down, black is white, and left is right.
“Conservatives” are actually left-wingers, “Christians” are actually anti-Christian. Women are cock-hungy sluts. Then there’s the whole idiotic “game” thing, with its jargon of alphas and betas. One obstacle to you people spreading information anywhere is your habit of making up your own language. “Gilligans”, for instance. You can talk amongst yourselves, but you’re almost unintelligible to outsiders.
The John Birchers were well-grounded and rational by comparison. Sure, they thought that Eisenhower was a communist, but they never said that communism was conservatism.
For your own sanity, spend a little more time interacting with people in the real world. Maybe give your mom a call.
Oh man after that last comment from flenser i feel really bad about myself. I wish one of your female commentors would say something nice to me Dalrock.
I have produced more right-wing literary content than you can dream of.
I suspect your idea of “right-wing literary content” involves assorted libertarian rags. Before you started reading those you were no doubt some other species of leftist – a socialist, perhaps. Socialist -> libertarian is a common transition. And it lets you retain most of the stupid things you believed all along.
We provided our opening points and arguments
What is this “we” nonsense? Unless you are the Queen of England, correct English usage is for you to refer to yourself as “I”.
I wish one of your female commentors would say something nice to me
One of those blasted whores? Why would you want one of those to say something nice to you? You need further indoctrination in order to rid yourself of this thoughtcrime.
This is a lefty-site pretending to be conservative in order to take swipes at conservatives. TGH has wandered off to TAP or Reason in search of something else to say.
Dalrocks may be a Christian (though I don’t see him saying so anywhere) but Jimmy Carter is a Christian.
“Conservatives” are actually left-wingers, “Christians” are actually anti-Christian. Women are cock-hungy sluts. Then there’s the whole idiotic “game” thing, with its jargon of alphas and betas. One obstacle to you people spreading information anywhere is your habit of making up your own language. “Gilligans”, for instance. You can talk amongst yourselves, but you’re almost unintelligible to outsiders.
flenser,
Not sure how you found/came across this blog. I think this is the first post you’ve commented on. Anyways, this above reminds me of the Jack Nicholson scene in a Few Good Men where he shouts back “You can’t handle the truth”. There is a reason the Matrix analogy of red-pill/blue-pill is used. You clearly aren’t ready to process/ruminate over any of this. It is too destructive to your worldview. Many people when faced with a truth they cannot handle retreat to the comfort of stubbornly held unexamined beliefs and then simply decry those others as nutcases. I’ve got a post stuck in moderation apparently due to maybe profanity where I highlighted the similarity of this stuff to the Catholic Church/Galileo controversy over the Earth/Sun.
One thing I’ll give Escoffier major credit for both here on this blog and on HUS is when he came across this stuff especially the female hypergamy stuff he was open minded and smart enough to realize it was hitting on some major truths with a high degree of explanatory power. He is still to willing to give women a pass though and shiift most of the moral culpability to men.
flenser, I am a 56 year old Australian, much more conservative than most of my friends and family. I sometimes joke that I would only be socially comfortable in rural Alabama – except they don’t like Catholics. But even I can see that most SoCons have been out to lunch for forty years.
And Game works. It keeps my wife happy and compliant.
Tim, I found a virgin. You only have to find one.
flenser: “One obstacle to you people spreading information anywhere is your habit of making up your own language. “Gilligans”, for instance. You can talk amongst yourselves, but you’re almost unintelligible to outsiders.”
You are unintelligible to me. What do you want to say? And I dont mean what do you want say about what others are saying (I get that you say that others are stupid but not exactly why). What is your message? Who are you speaking for?
Oh of course, I only have to find. How silly of me. They’re everywhere. Oh wait…
flenser, all women are POTENTIAL whores. The trick is to get to be her only client. I have seen women do things you would not believe. “Nice girls”.
David Collard
They took this logical error and combined it with their natural sympathy for sluts, and decided to create a social order where only men are punished for out of wedlock births.
v.R.
I call BS on this. Tradcons have NO “natural sympathy for sluts” whatsoever.
For some definition of TradCon, I suppose that is true. Such people are few and far between nowadays. Perhaps you are thinking of traditional conservatives of, oh, 75 years ago? I’d agree.
Say, the people at “Focus on the Family ” likely would call themselves tradcons. Did you read the previous article on this site in which some mangina name of Stanton called unmarried women with bastard children “heroes”? I did, and it wasn’t anything new to me.
Today, the people who would call themselves tradcon are always read to welcome another unmarried woman with her bastard children into the church. Always. Because it would not be merciful to turn them away. There’s something to that idea, to be sure, but where’s the line between mercy and approval? If Sally Slutpants and her two bastard children, by two different men of course, is welcome to come in and be a full member of the church, what message does that send? Sympathy, or no sympathy?
So, v.R., show me these tradcons who have no sympathy for sluts – where are they?
Good hunting, Tim.
the social conservative movement AS IT IS EXPRESSED in popular politics, ie, the ones running candidates like Rick Perry, Bachmann, Palin, etc have adopted some of the traits of liberalism and feminism
You seem to be defining “social conservatism” as meaning “all Republican politicians”
Political parties express the will of the country, to some extent. To a greater extent they express the will of politically powerful groups. The Chamber of Commerce, for instance, has rather more clout in the GOP than does Focus On The Family.
Saying that the GOP is socially liberal-ish because social conservatives are actually socially liberal makes exactly as much sense as claiming that the GOP is a big-government party because libertarians are actually big government fans.
I’m sure you can see the problem in the latter case. So why can’t you see it in the former one?
Anonymous Reader, I think you have attributed a quote to me incorrectly.
flenser, a good example is National Review Online. I gave up my regular reading because the site started going soft on feminism and dumb on American interventionism.
;laughing my damn ass off
Relative to what social conservatives used to be, today’s social conservatives are quite liberal.
Just as, the poor people in the US are rich compared to the poor people in some other nations. So yes, our poor are rich.
Palin, Bachmann, and Perry have all been praised by many of the groups today who identify as “socially conservative.”
flenser,
What is this “we” nonsense? Unless you are the Queen of England, correct English usage is for you to refer to yourself as “I”.
He clearly meant that more than one person gave you the opening case against socons, as both Brendan, Mike C, and TFH did.
What a cowardly way to dodge the points presented. But we expect nothing more from a feminist socon.
flenser, all women are POTENTIAL whores. The trick is to get to be her only client. I have seen women do things you would not believe
.
You’d be surprised what I’d believe and what I’ve seen.
I get the impression that the average reader of this site* is an idealist who’s had his ideals shattered. Guys who once thought that women were the essence of all that is good and pure in the world, and who have been left embittered by the discovery that they are just as flawed as men are. And now you’ve swung from one extreme to the other.
Since I never had unrealistic views of women I was spared that problem. And I can tell you that reality lies in between the two extremes of women all being saintly beings of Pure Light on the one hand and all being Dirty Filthy Whores! on the other.
*(TFH is as queer as a three dollar bill. Not that there’s anything wrong with that ..)
flenser
Dalrocks may be a Christian (though I don’t see him saying so anywhere) but Jimmy Carter is a Christian.
Really pathetic. Missing facts, missing spelling, pointlessly bringing in losers … it won’t do, flenser, it just won’t do. If you propose to troll for flames here, at least try to keep up the threads, and don’t use such threadbare, second rate material.
Come on, give us something new, or something more creative than this dreck.
David Collard, you are correct, I mislabeled one of Dalrock’s comments as yours. My apologies.
Really pathetic. Missing facts, missing spelling, pointlessly bringing in losers … it won’t do, flenser, it just won’t do
Oh, good! Another wannabe hall-monitor! He can’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag but he can “Tut-tut” with the best of them.
Flenser the tv watching, believes politics are real, women are virgins
& loves the left right wing paradigm fake manufactured, propoganda by bank driven corrupt government
A true brainwashed, mind controlled Sheeple … or a really bad troll … I’m guessing troll … nobody’s that retarded surely … lol
Palin, Bachmann, and Perry have all been praised by many of the groups today who identify as “socially conservativeI
Well, there you go then. Of course all prominent Republicans have been praised and criticized by all sorts of people, including by “social conservatives’. So you made a pretty safe remark.
flenser,
I don’t think anyone is claiming that social conservatives are less conservative than social liberals. Of course that wouldn’t make sense. I think folks here are arguing that our social conservatives are RELATIVELY liberal compared to how they used to be, and far too liberal to solve the problems of the deteriorating family and the misandry in society.
flenser, keep your cool. When you are arguing with several people especially, keep cool. That is genuine, friendly advice.
I was never an idealist about women.
Flenser the tv watching, believes politics are real, women are virgins
& loves the left right wing paradigm fake manufactured, propoganda by bank driven corrupt government
Oh, come on. You wanted to say “Zionist entity” but you chickened out. If you cant be fearless here surrounded by the other True Believers, where can you be fearless?
One of the political weaknesses of the men’s rights movement is the continuing belief, as one previous commenter put it, that “Traditional conservatism has run the west always”.
That’s the very opposite of the truth. There is no traditional conservative establishment. The Western establishments are liberal. That’s widely recognised amongst political scientists (see <a href="http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/08/chapter-1-liberalism-as-orthodoxy.html" here).
Dalrock is very good at challenging the “wriggle room” people leave themselves. But why challenge “traditional conservatives” if a) the people the arguments are directed at don’t think of themselves as traditional conservatives and if b) the small number of people who do identify this way are already onside?
Society keeps moving in an ever more liberal direction because the Western political class is liberal on both the right and left. It is, in terms of principle, a closed system. Therefore, if you don’t like what Western society has become your first concern should be to challenge this closed liberal system.
Sure, it makes sense as well to criticise the bona fides of those who claim to be conservative but who are either ineffective or who have, in reality, adopted mainstream liberal principles. Call them out on their politics, by all means, but let’s not make the mistake of addressing “traditional conservatives” as if they are the establishment controlling society.
Yes, Celeste, well put.
Sorry, that link is:
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/08/chapter-1-liberalism-as-orthodoxy.html
flenser, keep your cool. When you are arguing with several people especially, keep cool. That is genuine, friendly advice.
Well, thanks. But this is me being cool. Or at least, this is me pitching my remarks to reflect the milieu in which I find myself. You don’t talk like you’re on Firing Line when you’re shooting the breeze with the guys in the barracks. If your would like to see a different style from me, start with it yourself and I’ll join in.
Go fuck yourself, David. I remember you from somewhere before, I can’t recall. You were clogging up various threads about how you fuck the shit out of your wife. Drop it already. Give it a rest. You’re the type of guy who hides behind a computer and brags about this nonsense, when we all know that a woman’s pussy get dessicated, most especially in her fifties. You ain’t inspiring anyone here. Knock it off or hit the bricks, tough guy.
I think folks here are arguing that our social conservatives are RELATIVELY liberal compared to how they used to be
Is that what they are saying? Because to get back to where I came in, Dalrocks claimed that “traditional conservatives” have been making social policy in America for the last fifty years.
Of course that’s not incompatible with “social conservatives” being “RELATIVELY liberal compared to how they used to be”. The two could both be true. But there is a very large world of difference between saying that conservatives been dragged along with the liberal tide, and saying that conservatives ARE the liberal tide.
Since Dalrocks won’t defend his remarks I put it to you, Celeste, and to you, Mark Collard. Do YOU believe that traditional conservatives – even relatively liberal traditional conservatives – have been running America for the last fifty years?
This should be very easy.
Tim, I meant good hunting. Sincerely.
I think that the broader political movement that is social conservatism in America has sanctioned policies that harm the family, despite all of their “pro-family” posturing. I think that they are largely attacking symptoms (abortion) and barking up the wrong tree (gay marriage) while ignoring the source of the problem, which is a broken social contract, wherein women now have privileges without responsibilities.
Have they been running America? I wouldn’t say no, they have been one of many forces at work. But insofar as they have influenced the nation, I do not think they have been as “pro-family” as they would have us believe.
flenser, Mark Richardson and I are two different people, tho’ both Australians.
I am an interested observer of American society, but not an expert. I would say that American politicians of the Right have been increasingly weak on social issues, especially on the woman question. Australian conservative leaders have been relatively good (John Howard, Tony Abbott).
That sounds about right, Celeste.
@Mark Richardson
Not all people who call themselves Traditional Conservatives are like that, but the vast majority either are, or are going along with the flow. Some issues like gay marriage fire conservatives up. Other issues like no fault divorce, out of wedlock births, crickets or even outright enthusiasm for the catastrophic status quo. See my two previous posts regarding Glenn Stanton and his gloating over a 38% devout Christian divorce rate and his lionizing single mothers as heroes. Note also his inability to acknowledge that women are ever to blame. He is from what most in the US would consider the bedrock of Social Conservative organizations, Focus On The Family.
I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking the others who would hide behind you. However, I would implore you not to inadvertently give them cover. Also, just like I’ve asked for someone to locate one of these mysterious serious about marriage churches I keep hearing about, I’ll ask again if you can point me to a mainstream Traditional Conservative organization which is seriously implementing slut shaming (since this is the specific topic at hand). This should be easy, since they don’t need to pass a law to do that. All they have to do is be willing to call out bad behavior.
No, Traditional Conservatives have not been running America for the past 50 years. In fact I’d argue that the liberals have had a firm grip on the direction of the country since about 1960.
Of course, I may be missing something so I’d appreciate Dalrock elaborating on how he came to that conclusion.
Social conservatives have not been running America for the last fifty years, that’s why they are constantly bashing liberals. What we have here is a bunch of socially conservative guys that are a failure with women and see other social conservatives as traitors because they don’t think like them and they are a not a failure with women. Normal social conservatives are not a failure with women – there was a lot of sexual scandals among them, that’s the reason liberals call them hypocrites.
Yes but Elspeth, if an Australian can comment on this, you have had Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes, all ostensibly social conservatives, and none of them did much to stop the feminist agenda. I think Reagan appointed the first female justice of the Supreme Court.
I admire Reagan, incidentally. A very great man.
Have they been running America? I wouldn’t say no
That is the problem, isn’t it? You people are stupid. There’s no more delicate way of putting it. People who are under the impression that traditional conservatives have been making social policy in America for the last fifty years are either fools or liars. I’ve argued with 9/11 Truthers who had a firmer grasp on reality.
I’m out of here. Go ahead back to your circle jerk already in progress.
I don’t think that folks here think self-styled SoCons have been running things and are responsible for messing things up. I think folks are criticizing SoCons and TradCons for failing to identify the source of the problems, and for failing to use their not negligible influence to help correct the problems.
I say self-styled SoCons, because I consider a SoCon to be anyone who identifies as such. To do otherwise, as an outsider to that group, would be for me to claim that I know better than they do who they are and what they believe. If you identify as a SoCon and you don’t fit the criticism leveled at SoCons here, then no one is talking about you. But I’d prefer you didn’t give cover to those who are being criticized.
Thanks David, but do me a favor, will ya? Put a lid on this babble about you giving a good rojuring to your wife. You’ve been saying this for years now, and it has become your signature blog comment. Also, you are so far out of the hook-up scene that apparently you are unaware of something: there are no virgins, and I don’t give a flying rat’s ass if you found one. There are none anymore, zero, zilch.
Now enjoy tapping your wife’s dessicated, 50 year old snatch. Sincerely.
While I agree with shaming as a tactic of changing some of this Dalrock, there is a small elephant in the room that hasn’t been addressed. Or if it has I missed it.
The reason the sexual revolution started and is unlikely to end
despite all the shaming in the world is because of 1. Birth Control 2.
Abortion.
Both of these allow promiscuity to happen in secret. So while slut shaming will have the desired effect in certain circles, on a larger scale it’ll just cause women to adapt and learn to present a persona of purity that at present they feel no need to present. But they’ll still be having pre-marital sex.
I know there is a contingent here that balks at the very idea of rolling back these little legal and medical advancements that make sex without obligations a reality for those who would enjoy it without the hassle of being married. But the reality is that the prospect and public shame of an OOW pregnancy was a big deterrent to young women before the advent of the birth control pill and the availability of abortion on demand.
@flenser
I don’t know why there is so much confusion about this. I never wrote that Trad Cons ruled alone. In this specific quote I stated that we have been trying the Gilligan method, which I then defined. It is in fact the status quoe and something Traditional Conservatives always defend when the issue is brought up. This blog has a fairly long history with this in the discussion. In a previous post I pointed out that Trad Cons had come to an unspoken agreement with Feminists. The examples are everywhere. Reagan supporting no fault divorce (and I’m a Reagan fan). VAWA, along with the draconian “dead beat dad” child support policies implemented as part of welfare reform.
By the way, we need a way to page Zed whenever Trad Cons claim they never supported Feminism.
Tim, it’s spelt “rogering”.
flenser,
Yes that was stupid, and it was a mis-type. What I meant to say was:
Have they been running America? I wouldn’t say so, but they have ben one of the many forces at work.
And my opinion is not representative of everyone here, it’s just mine.
Elspeth, precisely. It is about information, and the female desire to gain tactical advantage by keeping men in the dark. But men are wising up and some of the technology, for example easy paternity testing, is objectively pro- male.
Dalrock wrote: “I’ll ask again if you can point me to a mainstream Traditional Conservative organization which is seriously implementing slut shaming.”
In Australia the only traditional conservative organisation is a small religious pro-family group. They’ve been good on men’s rights issues, even speaking up at UN conferences. But, no, they don’t do slut shaming.
However, The Social Pathologist is an Australian blogger of a conservative bent who has had some influence in researching the negative effects of female promiscuity on marriage outcomes. Tony Abbott, who I would describe as right-wing rather than conservative, is the leader of the opposition in Australia. He did publicly express the hope that his daughters wouldn’t give it away “too lightly” – for which he was castigated by the Australian left. Some of the more right-wing commentariat in Australia came out against the slut walks.
In the UK, the Daily Mail, a conservative leaning paper, does slut shaming (or, more broadly “ladette shaming”).
The reason the sexual revolution started and is unlikely to end despite all the shaming in the world is because of 1. Birth Control 2. Abortion.
That’s taking it waaaay too far. I’m sure that as a fundie Christian, there’s nothing you’d like more than for women to be forced to pop out numerous babies, or to abstain from having sex. Both single and married people use birth control, and it is not your right to prevent access to it, despite what the Catholic church says. People would be more receptive to your message if you didn’t feel like it’s your right to interfere with what other people do, and if you’d stop with your holier than thou attitude.
As much as I am against promiscuity, I’m even more against certain groups of people interfering in my life, and telling me what I can do. How about you focus on the negative effects of sluthood instead?
As well, the abortion rate in the US is around 4%, so I don’t know what exactly you’d achieve by banning it.
Really, as soon as you said that, my ears just turned off, and I’m even less inclined than I was before to take anything you say seriously.
“The examples are everywhere. Reagan supporting no fault divorce (and I’m a Reagan fan). VAWA, along with the draconian “dead beat dad” child support policies implemented as part of welfare reform. ”
I know Reagan is considered conservative by American standards. But he described himself as libertarian. In fact, he tried to redefine conservatism as libertarianism. He said:
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
And that’s the issue. Whenever you look into the politics of mainstream “conservatives” they come out as believing in some version of liberalism instead.
Elspeth
The reason the sexual revolution started and is unlikely to end
despite all the shaming in the world is because of 1. Birth Control 2.
Abortion.
Not to mention small electric motors. But that’s a different topic.
Actually, fairly reliable birth control has been around longer than anyone posting here has been alive. Condoms and the female diaphragm, if used properly, will have a very high efficiency. Both were surely in use by married couples in the 1940’s and decades earlier. So “birth control” per se isn’t sufficient.
It is unfortunate that hormonal birth control came along in the early 1960’s. If it had been developed 20 years earlier, then strict controls would likely have been placed on it; only married women would have been able to get birth control pills, for example. However, by 1968 it was very easy for young women to get a birth control pill prescription by doctor shopping. Once on the pill, they were free to sex up anyone they wanted to with no preparation.
Abortion is, as you say, the other half of the sexual revo. And in the US it was imposed by a tiny cadre of lawyers. Under a different legal regime, reliable birth control would not have resulted in the sexual revo and abortion would have been much more tightly controlled in the US, although some jurisdictions such as DC would perhaps have been more permissive.
There are some straws in the wind that suggest to me the days of low-cost promiscuity are coming to an end. As I pointed out to Aqua Net, chlamydia can spread even if a man uses a condom – and it increasingly is without symptoms. Untreated, that disease can render a woman infertile. In some parts of the US up to 1/3 of the women probably have the disease. Then there is the strain of gonnorhea that has been detected in Japan that resists all known antibiotics save one – and that is not a sure cure. There is an increase in antibiotic-resistant disease around the planet, for that matter, as this newspaper report makes sort of clear.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/antibioticresistant-infections-spread-through-europe-6264079.html
Prior to the discovery of penicillin and mass production, contracting syphillus was a death sentence. Most of the inmates of insane asylums in the 1950’s were due to end-stage syphillus; it attacks the nervous system and the brain towards the end. An anti-biotic resistant strain of that disease would be like slow-motion AIDS.
If the trend continues, and it may well not, then STD’s will become major diseases again. That’s going to end the sexual revo, one way or another. It is nothing to look forward to, but it may happen.
Yes, Mark, but Reagan was anti-abortion. Not libertarian in that area.
The Daily Mail is really good on policing women, which is interesting because it is a paper read by a lot of ladies. And I do mean ladies. Check out their Femail online magazine. Quite socially conservative. They deride feminists, partly by throwing them to the commenting wolves.
Tony Abbott has three very attractive daughters and he said he thought that young women shold value their chastity. John Howard and Tony Abbott are men after my own heart.
Chels, that was damn rude. You should apologise to Espeth.
@ DC
Nope, I’m not apologizing for anything, as I have nothing to apologize for. If she doesn’t like it, tough luck as I meant every word of that post.
I’m so sick and tired of fundies/Christians telling secularists what they can or can’t do, and insisting that their way is best even though the other people don’t subscribe to their beliefs.
Educate people, yes, but don’t start banning things, and I’ll repeat that sentence for as long as I have to. So again, NOT apologizing.
Elspeth, not Espeth.
Excellent points, AR. Hollywood never shows herpes. In real life, the entire cast of Friends would have caught herpes or something else. Some of even the minor STDs are foul.
You were rude, Chels. I thought better of you.
You were rude, Chels. I thought better of you.
Well, I really don’t care if I was rude, certain things need to be said, and I’m just disgusted by fundie Christians, overwhelmingly so, and I will not stop saying what I think just because someone’s feelings might get hurt.
Apparently the message here is that we should shame the sluts and embrace the cads! That’s moronic.
Promiscuous behavior occurs because there’s a demand for it from cads and a supply of it from sluts. Slut shaming increases the cost to the suppliers. But it’s more effective to also shame the cads and increase costs on the demand side as well. The fact that the cad’s demand for sex is less elastic than the supply of loose women doesn’t mean you wink and nod at them. Roissy and game players increase the number of cads, which increases the supply of sluts. If the goal is to limit promiscuous behavior, they should be subjected to similar shaming.
Further, how exactly do you propose going about this slut shaming program while immunizing cads from similar shaming? You are in another universe if you think that’s even remotely realistic. Slut shaming is conceivable noly if you shame both sides of the transaction, which should be done. There is a growing realization that the sexual marketplace is broken. You explain well the problems that arise from promiscuity. But you simply can’t blame it only on sluts.
As far as churches go, shaming is not a Christian concept. Who did Christ shame? Christ protected sluts and forgave them; told men even their bad thoughts were sin worthy of damnation; and explained that men should be ready to sacrifice themselves for their wives. Christian churches forgive, otherwise they aren’t Christian. Shame can be a byproduct of repentence though. I know some conservative churches that make public adulterers or live-in boyfriend/girlfriends make a public apology to the congregation to remain. That’s a great thing. But that probably doesn’t count, because according to the misogynists here, that should only be done for the sluts, and the cads should get a wink and nod instead. If you really want to shame sluts and celebrate asshole gameplayers, go join the Muslims.
I think you provide a valuable service, as the culture peddles lies about female sexuality and excuses their whims at every turn. I don’t need to say anything our legal system and daddy government. But gameplayers are part of the problem and should not be given any cover.
Mark Richardson just loves a certain fallacy. I’ve been round this particular game of No True Scotsman a time or two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Pretty much any public figure with any degree of authority or following who is culturally, socially or politically conservative isn’t what Richardson will call “conservative”. He pretty much limits the definition to himself, a few of his friends / followers, and that’s it. Then having limited “Traditional Conservatism” to a group that could meet in a large booth at a Denny’s restaurant with room to spare, he demands that the righteously angry men should “ally” with tradcons – except that “ally” basically means “do what tradcons say, because they say so”. The problem with that is, according to Richardson tradcons are so few and so weak and so divided that as allies they are useless.
The tradcon “strategy” so far as I can tell is to have lots of babies and wait for civilization to crumble, whereupon the survivors will naturally beg tradcons to tell them how to live, because the tradcons will have been so incredibly successful at surviving. Or something like that, there are also tradcons who dream of a Catholic monarchy (no doubt to be formed by acclimation), and so forth.
Increasingly I think that tradcons are just white suburbanites who live comfortable lives, who can’t imagine anyone not being able to live “just like them”, and who to some degree are in a fantasy world.
Apparently the message here is that we should shame the sluts and embrace the cads!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Haha the socon bitch boy was chased away. Good riddance, bitch-boy.
Reg Rollins, Christ told the adulterous woman to “go and sin no more”.
I don’t think cads can be shamed. They are the 5% of men who are not easily socialised. Sociopaths, some of them. Many women love sociopaths.
Pingback: Pile up on social conservatives « Throne and Altar
AR,
a) Read the earlier link. There are plenty of respected political scientists who will tell you that we live in a society dominated by liberalism (liberalism in the larger sense which includes classical liberalism). Or else, go look up what those in the political class really believe. You will almost inevitably find that they not only believe in liberalism but self-identify as liberals.
b) You’re correct that tradcons are small in number. Outside of the political class there is still a fair bit of support for tradcon positions (e.g. sex distinctions within the family). But the political class itself is stuck within a left-liberal vs right-liberal politics.
c) Tradcons do not “demand” that men act simply on our say so. More than a lot of other political currents we look at what they underlying principles of modern society are and critique them.
d) One aspect of the tradcon strategy is to begin the process of reframing politics, so that it’s not limited to left-liberal/right-liberal positions. Another is to challenge the nihilistic mood amongst so many Western intellectuals. But we have also attempted to influence opinion on MR issues such as domestic violence; divorce; relationship dysfunction and so on.
“Many women love sociopaths.”
Many sociopathic women love sociopaths. There, fixed it.
“The reason the sexual revolution started and is unlikely to end
despite all the shaming in the world is because of 1. Birth Control”
It could be that the Sexual Revolution was created by Big Pharma so they’d have a solid customer base for their Pill.
“Promiscuous behavior occurs because there’s a demand for it from cads and a supply of it from sluts.”
Why do you posit the cads as buyers and the sluts as sellers? Women want sex too.
flenser says:
November 19, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Flenser the tv watching, believes politics are real, women are virgins
& loves the left right wing paradigm fake manufactured, propoganda by bank driven corrupt government
Oh, come on. You wanted to say “Zionist entity” but you chickened out. If you cant be fearless here surrounded by the other True Believers, where can you be fearless?
+
Ha! Commenter Legion popped out of nowhere to call me an “anti-semite” simply because I said Jews do well wherever they live and have no (current) reason to migrate to a small strip of desert in the Middle East where they do not fit in or assimilate culturally. A Gay Pride Parade in the “Holy Land” – come on now, folks. You can bet your sweet *ss that if s/he sees the word “Zionist” here – s/he’ll come crawling back out of the woodwork.
a) Read the earlier link.
Been there, done that. As I’ve pointed out to you before multiple times, the West did not get to where it is solely by the efforts of liberals alone. Plenty of people that even you would consider TradCon did their part to give in to feminist demands. So long as TradCons continue to insist that they had nothing to do with the enactment of men’s-fault divorce, anti-Family court, “deadbeat dad” laws, ever-expanding “domestic violence” definitions then they simply prove they cannot be trusted.
b) You’re correct that tradcons are small in number. Outside of the political class there is still a fair bit of support for tradcon positions (e.g. sex distinctions within the family). But the political class itself is stuck within a left-liberal vs right-liberal politics.
TradCons by your definition are small in number. Social conservatives by any normal definition are large in number. In the US that number is well over 40% of the population. This is the fork you continue to skewer yourself on, apparently so that you can insist that TradCons had and have nothing to do with the current situation.
c) Tradcons do not “demand” that men act simply on our say so.
BS. It is routine for TradCons such as Woods to pop off demanding that men should do this, or men should do that, just because they should. Or have you forgotten the multiple times she had a screeching hissy fit about someone on Spearhead not respecting her ? Since you always pop ’round to defend her, it seems curious that you should suddenly become forgetful of that fact.
My point stands. TradCons flatly demand that men who are righteously angry about misandry should do what you order them to do, because you have some imaginary authority. And what do TradCons offer in return? Any effort on the issue of false rape accusations? No. Any effort on the issue of false DV or harassment accusations? No. Any effort on child custody after divorce? No. Any effort on paternity issues? No.
TradCons demand that men obey them, “marry and reproduce”, submit to divorce theft, submit to false rape accusations “for the good of women”, in other words submit to real harm and in return TradCons will …. talk. Some alliance.
d) One aspect of the tradcon strategy is to begin the process of reframing politics, so that it’s not limited to left-liberal/right-liberal positions.
…talk…
Another is to challenge the nihilistic mood amongst so many Western intellectuals. But we have also attempted to influence opinion on MR issues such as domestic violence; divorce; relationship dysfunction and so on.
Oh, bollocks. Point me to these TradCon efforts on DV, divorce, and so forth. Not comments in blogs, either. Cripes, it took a lot of work from slwerner and others to convince you that, eh, maybe “marry and reproduce” wasn’t quite the ticket it was when you were 25. And even then, you didn’t produce anything useful for young men, nothing remotely close to Dalrock’s series on how to interview a prospective wife.
I’m not from Missouri, but for now consider me so: Show Me (the motto of the state)
Brendan,
“For the women involved, it becomes more about the “fairness” of the double standard — I have not met many traditional conservative, social conservative, or religious conservative women who have not expressed a large amount of angst at the sexual double standard. It’s true that there are many other double standards in life, but this one really eats at women in a visceral way.”
Doug1,
“I don’t know Brendan, I think this is off. It’s mostly other girls/women who do slut shaming in real life. Often it’s really hot and popular girls (who can get commitment out of a boyfriend who’s actually alpha, so they don’t have to slut up to sleep with a male 9). ”
Doug, how old are you? The last 2 years I’ve spent 6 weeks per semester on a Junior High School Campus doing workshops with 12-15 year olds. The really pretty girls have a new boyfriend every couple of months. Many of them are sexually involved. Are they having sex with a different boy every weekend? Hell no, and I guess they would “slut shame” a girl who did
Are they having sex with a different boyfriend every few months? Yep!
As a general pattern, really attractive girls (8-10) will always have a boyfriend from the age of 13 onward.
If the trend continues, and it may well not, then STD’s will become major diseases again. That’s going to end the sexual revo, one way or another.
Judging by how many diseases in addition to STDs are getting harder to treat (at least from the article you posted), I don’t think the Sexual Revolution is the only thing that’ll be coming to an end in that scenario. Wonder if we’ll see Stephen King’s “The Stand” come true in our lifetimes.
Really, as soon as you said that, my ears just turned off, and I’m even less inclined than I was before to take anything you say seriously.
You must be a woman, and a somewhat attractive, American one at that, to think that this constitutes an argument. You are a source of endless mirth darling.
Doug1, good to see someone else excited about the prospect of IUDs, haha. It seems like such a great technology, yet no one in America uses it. You said the hormone levels in the hormonal IUDs are much lower than those in the pill – do you have a citation for that?
That aside, you quoted my skepticism of whether the law changing will reduce much the incidence of bastardy. Up until a few minutes ago, I was skeptical that revoking child support for bastard mongers would have much effect. Then I saw this: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf . I’ll give a little more credence to the influence of incentives here.
It’s the first I’ve seen the PDF above, and it has some interesting data. Bastard births peaked in 2007 and 2008, and have since declined slightly, but are still 9.4% above just 2002 levels. Interestingly, bastard births declined among women under 30, but increased 1 to 3 percent over 2009 levels. But, the magnitude of the effects are small; the changes aren’t statistically significant declines in the vast majority of states.
Still, many of these bastard mongers chose to conceive by poor or unemployed men. Taking the man off the hook for child support wouldn’t make their situation any worse. They wouldn’t suddenly be cut off from Deadbeat Daddy Warbucks’ cash spigot, because there is none. Changing the laws wouldn’t make it any worse for them.
That’s why I think long term, low maintenance birth control is the only way out of this. Everything else is just willful ignorance of reality.
I did some statistical skulduggery, and it’s apparent that bearing bastards is spreading to older women. Over the period 2000-2010, women 30+’s share of bastards went up by a factor of 25%, from 15.6% to 19.6%, and went up 52% in absolute terms – 319470/210674.
It would be appropriate right about now for Mark Richardson to define a term in the interests of communication. If we are using words that are poorly defined, or that each person has a different definition of, then communication is difficult or even impossible.
Therefore: Mark Richardson, please define “Traditional Conservative”, in detail.
“And no religious so-con yet has been able to explain exactly what is so “bad” about 2 grown-ass adults having consensual, safe sex in the privacy of their own homes. ”
Brendan,
“Religion doesn’t need to explain. It is not God’s will for us. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I also believe this. Because I live in a pluralistic society, I understand that this cannot be forced on others. However, I do regret the choices of others to reject God’s plan for them.”
All ancient religions tell the “chosen people” of that religion to procreate and populate the Earth. However those books were written at a time when there was not 6-7 billion humans on the planet.
God wants us to give it a rest now.
“The irony of female birth control is that they decrease a woman’s libido drastically. What was made to help us have more sex, makes us want to have less. So far condoms are the only form of birth control (and STD control) that does not have side effects.”
Doug,
Condoms have the side effect of making sex much less pleasurable, especially for the man but for both – you selfish woman.
The non hormonal IUD has no side effects for most women. Hormonal IUDs have sufficiently low hormones to not have much of the effect you mention.”
Bollocks.
Circumcision does the most damage to male sexual pleasure, cutting off all those delicious nerve endings, ie, the closest thing to a male clitorous (though the clit has even MORE nerve endings)
And an intact penis is more pleasurable for the woman too! I won’t go into the details as to why, that would be TMI. But for those of you reading this who are uncut (as nature intended), and might be “ashamed” as how it looks, rest assured the “side effect” when in action is appreciated by your female partner!
You can do online research as to what are the side effects of NON hormonal IUDs.
No glove, no love! If I were out in the dating world today there would be NO WAY I would have sex without 2 condoms. STDs are a risk, too, you know.
AR wrote,
Plenty of people that even you would consider TradCon did their part to give in to feminist demands.
Why did people give in to feminist demands? The fundamental reason is that they had no principled basis to oppose these demands. If you accept the liberal principle that the aim of politics is to liberate people from impediments on their autonomy – then how could feminist women be denied their claims to the same thing? Even Bill Bennett, who is often held up as an example of a social conservative, believes in this liberal principle. He has written that:
“In developed Western countries, man has unprecedented freedom to choose, to a degree heretofore unknown, a life of his own wanting and design.”
It is therefore wholly unsurprising thatBill Bennett looks on feminism so favourably. He sees feminism as being in line with this increasing freedom of women to “self-design”.
So if we want a conservatism which doesn’t collapse into liberal modernity, we need to make sure that it is a conservatism with principles of its own rather than the liberal one. And that’s why I take issue with Dalrock’s attacks on “traditional conservatism”. The term “tradcon” was supposed to represent the “principled” version of conservatism, as opposed to the term “mainstream conservative” or “establicon”.
So long as TradCons continue to insist that they had nothing to do with the enactment of men’s-fault divorce, anti-Family court, “deadbeat dad” laws, ever-expanding “domestic violence” definitions then they simply prove they cannot be trusted.
Again, who were these tradcons? Ronald Reagan who claimed the term conservative was a “misnomer” and that “libertarian” was a truer label?
In Australia all the measures you describe were agitated for by feminist academics and then brought in by left-wing Labor Governments. It’s true that right-wing governments did little to repeal them (though Howard did amend custody laws) but the right-wing party in Australia does not call itself tradcon – it calls itself the Liberal Party. I know the Liberal Party mentality (my father is a long-serving member) – most of them identify proudly as not being conservatives.
Social conservatives by any normal definition are large in number.
Yes, but that’s the tragedy of the West. There was never a socially conservative media or political party to harness rank and file socially conservative opinion. At election time in Australia both parties suddenly become very socially conservative – even the Labor Party starts to talk about the importance of the family or the need to secure the borders. Within a month of the election it all evaporates and it’s business as usual.
It is routine for TradCons such as Woods to pop off demanding that men should do this, or men should do that, just because they should
Just because they should? No, she holds to marriage 1.0 in which both men and women have obligations, with these obligations making sense within the needs of the family; the complementary natures of men and women; the welfare of the larger society; and a moral framework.
And what do TradCons offer in return? Any effort on the issue of false rape accusations? No. Any effort on the issue of false DV or harassment accusations? No. Any effort on child custody after divorce? No. Any effort on paternity issues? No. <
Well, thanks AR. I’ve spent much of the past decade working on these issues. In fact, I was working on these issues at Melbourne University in the early 1990s, long before an MRM came into existence. And why do you forget figures like Phylis Schlafly, who was one of the few to effectively oppose feminism (or Babette Francis or Bill Muehlenberg here in Australia)?
TradCons demand that men obey them, “marry and reproduce”, submit to divorce theft, submit to false rape accusations “for the good of women”, in other words submit to real harm and in return TradCons will …. talk.
Which is your way of saying that we don’t go along with the “men going their own way” tactic. AR, I’ve had a very happy and fulfilling marriage. Do you really want me to say to young men “Don’t do what I did, I’d rather you die childless and unmarried”? Would that really be acting in the welfare of young men?
It’s true that there are men being harmed by the current situation. But they will be harmed as well if they don’t become husbands and fathers. There is, therefore, no fantastic option available to young men. But it’s certainly still possible to marry well, so I would encourage those men who can to do so – not to sacrifice themselves for women, but so that they have the opportunity to fulfil themselves as husbands and fathers in a loving marriage.
it took a lot of work from slwerner and others to convince you that, eh, maybe “marry and reproduce” wasn’t quite the ticket it was when you were 25.
I was trying to marry at the height of third wave feminism amongst a group of politically correct uni educated artsy women. It was literally impossible – I had to give up on “assortative mating” and marry a woman who had never been to uni. I have first hand experience of the difficulties of relationshps facing men.
Mark, there are two basic ways to be an intellectually consistent TradCon, which is mostly my position. One is to be a believer in a patriarchal religion, as I am. The other is to have some kind of evolutionary ethics, including Game, which is simply applied sociobiology. I rely on both.
The problem, David, is that even sincerely religious people can be influenced by the surrounding secular culture. I know a woman who is a very strong Christian, and very conservative in her personal life, but who politically is hopelessly liberal. So I’m not sure it’s sufficient for people to believe in a patriarchal religion. It’s important to get politics and philosophy right as well. And the key political failing of the modern West has been the belief that we are made human by our capacity to be self-defining, self-determining, autonomous individuals. This had led to a rejection of whatever in life is predetermined rather than self-determined. It has also established one overriding ideological good rather than a concept of politics as a balancing of a range of goods.
OK, Mark, but one problem at a time. We were talking about the woman problem. I know a man, representative of a number, who is quite the patriarch, Trad Catholic (Latin Mass), big family, anti-abortion. And he works for Julia Gillard. No more info, but let’s just say he puts words in her mouth. “There’s nowt so queer as folks”.
I think we all resent our limitations. My wife gets bored cooking. I used to get bored toddling off to a boring job I had for about ten years. I agree that it is getting harder to get people to “take one for the team”.
Regarding birth control,
I think it would be foolish in the highest degree to at this point limit birth control use to married women. That would be an excellent way to decrease the married birth rate and increase the out of wedlock birth. The fact that this is even suggested tells that some are more interested in policing morality than in actual results to society.
Anonymous Reader
+1
@Mike C
“I’m not quite sure what it is exactly that drives the INTENSITY of the opposition to this particular double standard.”
It’s that women demand the right to have casual sex with alphas.
I appreciate the defense David, but it’s fine. I find it interesting how Chels’ rant ascribed all kinds of views to me that don’t apply.
I am not Catholic.
I am not 100% anti0birth control. If I were I would have had far more than 5 kids. Trust me, LOL.
Most men don’t desire the financial burden of a house full of kids and I believe in “the family goes the way the husband desires”, not “have as many kids as you can pop out.”
I was simply pointing out what is true. The advent of the pill and the legalization of abortion opened the floodgates sexually where women could have as much sex as they wanted without an immediate and visible consequence.
It’s funny Chels that as much as you’ve read from me you could write such a silly comment. But oh whell I realize that’s just your anti-Christian bias.
I agree with Elspeth, that is the truth about birth control. However, I do think it’s an important technology and I wouldn’t want to be rid of it.
Pingback: DALROCK TAKES CHRISTIAN “CONSERVATIVES” TO THE WOODSHED YET AGAIN
This one concept illustrates the reason why the socons are drawing so much animosity from men who are not socons. I am beginning to think that your average socon would rather cut off his own nuts than have to admit that women actually have a sex drive and sometimes like sex without some awful man forcing them into it.
The biggest problem is that the principle extends far beyond the issue of sex – any time a woman does anything bad, it is because some awful man made her do it. When Andrea Yates killed her own 5 children – “it was her husband’s fault.”
The problem runs so deep that I sometimes suspect that socon males would rather cut off their own nuts than have to admit that women have agency. They are certainly happy to cut off the nuts of every other man they can get their hands on.
The socon male views the world as filled with two kinds of beings – sentient, but evil, males, and innocent, but empty, females. The men are the actors, the women just a sort of furniture that the men move around. The contortions that they have to go through in order to keep promoting this belief make Cirque Du Soliel look like rank amateurs.
So, if “Promiscuous behavior occurs because there’s a demand for it from cads and a supply of it from sluts”, what are the cads using to pay the sluts with?
What makes socons so disgusting is that they project their own evil tendencies on everyone else, while assuming a holier-than-thou attitude.
It doesn’t matter how much power the SoCons have in the larger society if they can’t even keep their own house in order. When they provide a better alternative, the larger society will take note and likely adapt that which works. Not before.
Flensers foray here, insults blazing, reminds me of this:
At the time of that video, church attendance in Britain was somewhere along the lines of 70%. Today it is under 10%.
“The fact that this is even suggested tells that some are more interested in policing morality than in actual results to society.”
As if morality had nothing to do with the actual results to society!
This “I’m not one of those creepy people policing morality” radical non-judgmentalism tribal marker is literally killing us, inside and outside the tribe both.
The decision not to judge is a judgment itself. Being a grown-up requires making judgements, and good ones. We already judge the fuck out of men in every conceivable situation, but to judge women in any context is to turn back the clock and thus violate that which we all ultimately most value in this country – progress.
Well, a stone age SMP is not progress. Past time to figure out how we got here.
,,,will send socons and feminists running from the room screaming insults at any male present.
The socons refusal to see female evil – evidenced by everything from the pussy-pass in the legal system to recent proposals to tax women’s earnings less than men’s (or, not at all) – is the largest single factor in how widespread it has become.
Those who tolerate, deny, or excuse sick or intolerable behavior are – to that extent – responsible for its continuation and spread.
@Zed
I need your mailing address so I can send you a pager. 🙂
@Dalrock
Use the contact form over on the Spearhead to send me an email and I will reply to you. I’ve gotten in enough faces and pissed off enough peopleover the years that I don’t publish my addy on a public forum. 😉 🙂 It took me almost 5 years to shake Turin Turambar. 😦
[D: I was only kidding on the mailing address. Although we really do need a way to contact you in cases where someone starts crowing about how effective Trad Cons have been in opposing feminism. We had just such an emergency last night, and you were nowhere to be found!]
BTW, there was no real serious thought behind Reagan’s signing America’s first “no-fault” divorce law in 1969. That is, no serious thought on his part. He was just residually pissed off at the way Jane Wyman had left him in 1948. Divorces had to have “grounds” of some kind so she sued him for “mental cruelty” and won. Reagan thought that was BS, unfair and humiliating so 20 years later, when he had the power, he changed the law (which feminists of course pushed).
Goes to show how momentous things can arise from (relatively) trivial origins. For want of a nail, etc.
@Mark Richardson
The problem is these folks think of themselves and call themselves Traditional Conservatives. How can I possibly challenge them if you insist I use a term they wouldn’t use for themselves? I have stated before that I’m not gunning for you with this. You have been blogging on these issues for many years. I haven’t seen anything which makes me question your willingness to confront the bad behavior of women. I don’t know why you won’t take my word for this. I haven’t been shy about calling people out.
This is very closely tied to my exposing the church. I think we would agree that the natural home for Traditional Conservatives is in the church. There can of course be secular ones, but the morality one would conserve in the West would either way be a Christian one. If the church is corrupted on the issue of sexual morality (and it is because you can’t be right on sexual morality if you aren’t right on marriage and divorce), the political expression of conserving sexual morality is also corrupted. One flows directly to the other. Yet when I pointed all of this out, Christians instinctively knew which side they were on. They know they are very much in the minority, surrounded by people who have abandoned Christian sexual morality but still call themselves Christian. This infuriated them as much as me, and they dove into the comments section not to complain that I had unfairly tarred Christians like them, but to explain the problem even further.
The problem is not unlike during the cold war when Marxists hid under the skirts of Liberals. Liberals failed to call them out on this, and then loudly complained that Conservatives failed to make the distinction when criticizing Marxists posing as Liberals. They provided either deliberate or inadvertent cover for the Marxists for decades at great risk to our way of life, all the while complaining whenever conservatives challenged the Marxists posing as Liberals. What I hear you saying is that false Trad Cons have swarmed your ranks, overwhelming the real deal. I would agree with that. But don’t let them hide under your cloak and take offense when I call them out. Help me shine the light on them and ferret them out.
TA DAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! There is the heart of the issue – Regan, socon extraordinaire, “vented his spleen” by using his power to change a law – a socially conservative law in its day, scapegoating him for “mental cruelty” to his wife, rubber stamped by all the socially conservative men of the day, – without thinking through the unintended consequences.
In his day, Reagan was an MRA. 😉
However, he reacted emotionally and did not think through the consequences of his actions. Lenin called people like this “Useful Idiots.”
And, if the indictment being hurled at socons right now could be boiled down to one phrase, it would be “acting as the useful idiots for the feminists.”
Your Honor – I take the comment above as a plea of guilty, and I recommend clemency if these idiots will wake up and mend their ways.
I recommend 5 years of community service where they are required to stop knee-jerk reacting, venting their own spleen, and must think everything through before they do it.
No more of the “I’m gonna get tough on crime” by building and filling more jails” getting a thunderous ovation from people with a cop standing right behind him with his cuffs out and ready to apply.
@zed
BINGO!
FWIW, Reagan later said he had only a handful of major policy regrets: TEFRA, the ’86 amnesty, de-institutionalizing the mentally ill in California (to save money), and … no-fault divorce. So, at least he realized he botched that.
Dalrock, the term traditional conservatives is not widely used. Parties on the right are sometimes called “conservative”. Those who resist changes to family or nation are sometimes called “social conservatives”. There is a small but growing group of countercultural thinkers who sometimes call themselves “traditionalist conservatives” or “tradcons”. You seem to be the one who has picked up and run with the similar term “traditional conservatives”. The problem is that many of your readers are not going to make any distinctions between any of these terms. Anyone and everyone will be lumped together. Those social conservatives who have resisted feminism consistently for decades (Phylis Schlafly) will be lumped in together with populist faux conservative feminists like Sarah Palin. Principled tradcons like Laura Wood will be lumped together with mainstream right liberals like Bill Bennett.
It’s a bit like looking at the left and criticising everyone on it for being communist or even Marxist. Sometimes it’s better to make the distinctions. Yes, there are Marxists on the left and you could even argue that Marxism has influenced the thought of many more mainstream leftists. But it would nonetheless sound odd to criticise Bill Clinton as a Marxist or to claim that the problem in the US is that Marxists have been running it for the past 50 years. There are distinctions on the left just as there are on the right.
Marx himself was the first trustifarian. His uncle was the founder of Phillips and he never worked a day in his life. Engels was the second. Social democracy is a fake Left created by the ancien regime to thwart the revolutionary power of classical liberalism and the social mobility it inevitably engenders.
That is why the current SMP is so regressive – it is part of a larger phenomenon of fake (i.e. illiberal and hostile to the interests of the common man) Left domination. To beat it will require an alliance of true liberals and those who imagine themselves on the “right” because they oppose the fake Left now promoted by the corporate state (crony capitalists) and its Pravda media.
“Marxists hid under the skirts of Liberals”
Awfully kind to the Liberals, Dal. We sold our soul to the Marxists and fellow travelers for fleeting political power. We’re still paying the price. As that price becomes more dear, there is hope that more of us will figure it out.
What you’re calling for is social change. Liberals are better for that task than conservatives.
It is an unbelievably poor choice of terms, Mark. The dictionary connotation indicates that it supports what is “traditional” – widely practiced and handed down from generation to generation. Calling a countercultural line of thinking “traditional” is a complete oxymoron.
If you want to establish yourself as a splinter group actually trying to distance itself from past practices, “radical conservatives” would be a much better choice. By claiming to support “tradition” it appears you support what is “traditionally” widely practiced today – not oppose it.
That locks you into a perpetual “no true Scotsman” justification loop which no one believes.
“Even as Mosque attendance is skyrocketing.
And who can blame men who want to go to the only place that is still not misandric?”
Me.
Fuck Islam.
You want my submission, try creating something worthwhile this millennium.
For those keeping score at home, 28 percent of women with two or more kids have different fathers for them. It is highest among Black women (59%), followed by Hispanic women (35%) and White women (22%).
Link here/. Another link here.
Elspeth is quite wrong, at least for Black women. Among Black women nationwide, the illegitimacy rate is over 70%, and over 90% in the urban core/ghetto. For Whites it is 40% for the Working Class, about 20% for the Middle class, and less than 4% for the upper class [according to Charles Murray at the AEI talk “State of White America.”] Among Latinas it is over 50%.
Zed — Most guys just are not going to be that sexually attractive. They’re not Edward Cullen, nor the actor who plays him. The Wife Confession may have an affair, but odds are she’s nothing to write home about either. She has the affair, and the hubby finds out about it, which most do, the marriage is quite likely over. Or she dumps him for a sexy guy, same difference.
WOMEN CANNOT HAVE IT ALL. EVER! Any more than an average guy can have either Mary Ann or Ginger in their prime. It is not possible. Women either settle for guys who are not sexy (about 90% of all men) as their husbands, with deal being that they don’t have that sexy stud, or they live Samantha on Sex and the City with the caveat that the quality of men continually drops after say, age 20, catastrophically around age 32 or so, and they become invisible to men they want age 40 or so.
Given the above numbers of illegitimacy, it seems all but upper class White women (and Asian women) have given up on the compromises needed for husband/nuclear family, in favor of sex and Samantha. So be it. That works both ways. Pretty soon all you’ll have is Roissy types of varying skills among men. If all women want is sexy guys, that’s what they’ll get.
‘That such people show up for a day or two, and then vanish, is getting suspicious.’
You might entertain the possibility that some people read long enough to post one or two comments, and then realize that this site is not worth the powder and shot.
Absolute master class. You are the authentic good cop to Heartiste’s bad cop. The total set of your readers covers an extremely wide swath of readers, and is the primordial intellectual soup from whence a workable policy solution shall emerge. Focus on penetrating the mainstream media with your ideas, as that is the most difficult challenge. Once the pundits begin discussing the issue, your exposition of the truth will destroy their obfuscating, politically correct posturing. The masses are capable of understanding the truth if it is presented simply enough, and in a positive light.
Zed,
I agree that those of us following a more principled conservatism haven’t come up with a great name for ourselves. The term tradcon caught on early and stuck. It’s useful in the sense that it signals a disagreement with the course of liberal modernity. But it has its drawbacks as you point out.
Whiskey,
My comment was not in reference to the women, btw. Although I acknowledged up front that my thoughts were based on what I have seen, my notes were in reference to Dalrock’s assertion that the high rates of single motherhood are powered by the few men impregnating the many women. IOW, for example that one man is often (note the word “often”) the father of children by many different women.
Again, I know for a fact that such men exist. I know a few. But these men are not the overwhelming majority of fathers siring the children of single mothers. I am well aware of the facts on the ground in the black community surrounding OOW births and I do not dispute your statistics.
The elephant in the room is that the triumph of feminism has been so complete and so universal that ANY opposition to it that emerges from the piss-and-moan-osphere into anything remotely resembling a legislative agenda will provoke an immediate and violent suppression.
It is in this context that I can understand ZenPriest’s extreme cynicism. I am reminded of a scene in the Argentine movie La Historia Oficial where the right-wing goon is berating his pansy-ass leftist family, who evidently emigrated to Argentina after their side lost the Spanish Civil War:
What you cabrones can’t accept is that you lost. Fucking lost. Completely and permanently. You can sit out here on the pampa and spin all your pipe dreams about how history is on your side and that events will inevitably turn again in your favor. But they won’t, not until you are willing to be bigger bastards than we are. History is always on the side of the biggest bastard.
At least one guy over at Throne and Altar gets it:
We’re the ones who’ve been in the trenches fighting feminism and depravity all this time.
Not only that but against liberal sectors within conservatism, e.g. neoconservatives, social liberals whom label themselves conservatives.
And even against heresies within religion, e.g. http://www.alittleleaven.com/
Now that’s warfare.
Yeah, and we lost, so it’s our fault.
I guess we didn’t “man up”
THE REAL BLAME FOR THE TRIUMPH OF THE FEMINIST IDEOLOGY CANNOT BE LAID AT THE FEET OF TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVES [remember the fight against the ERA, anybody?], BUT WITH THE MAJORITY OF MEN OF MY GENERATION WHO TRULY BELIEVED FEMINISM WOULD RESULT IN EASIER AND WIDER ACCESS TO PUSSY. IT REALLY DID, FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS OR SO, FROM 1973 TO 1978. After that, the chains were firmly attached, and women learned that they could afford to be fussier. Much fussier. Men dug their grave with their dicks, big surprise there. On behalf of my generation, I apologize. I’m sorry. Who could have predicted this?
At this point, I cannot even imagine a viable ideological alternative to feminism. It’s a failure of imagination, I admit. Even more abject a failure because I, like Brendan, am an Orthodox Christian, one who belongs to a Church and a subculture that has, because of its relative obscurity, escaped the notice of the wider society until now. I don’t know how things are in the traditionally Orthodox societies of Eastern Europe. The long years of Communist repression and the current onslaught of Western consumerism and the demographic death cycle they seem to be caught in may have left the Orthodox Church too weak to respond.
But I’m not going to turn to Islam, or female clitorectomies. I just wish I knew where to turn.
I should add to the above that there were a lot of men in the 60s and 70s who believed that feminism was “fair”.
That too.
All sensible men always preferred Mary Ann over Ginger.
Ginger reminds me of what a friend once said about Pamela Anderson. He said he winced at the thought of having sex with her, because, in his words, “Look at her face, man. She’s so…used.”
On the contraception question:
I think the best plausible near-future answer is for there to be two legal forms of artificial contraception, with all other forms either banned under extreme prejudice or taxed until they’re impractical.
(By the way I’m mostly a libertarian so I don’t think this is actually a moral way for government to act…but I’m setting that aside for the purposes of this post.)
Here are the two permitted (indeed, subsidized) forms of contraception:
1. For women: Implanted devices to assist in fertility awareness. The implant constantly reads her temperature and hormone levels and broadcasts them to a base-station she keeps beside her bed. This allows her to know when she’s ovulating, but does nothing to suppress it. (Password protection, wireless encryption, naturally.)
2. For men: Implanted devices that implement a mechanically-switchable vasectomy, the on/off status of which a man can check or change from a base-station. (Ditto on the password protection, wireless encryption.)
Subsidize the heck out of all of this, so that either one costs under $300 including the implantation. (The technology already exists, BTW, although not yet combined in this form, and I’d guess actual costs range from $1500 to $2500 until economies of scale are factored in.) Indeed, a practical way of subsidizing it would be a large enough tax on all other forms of contraception that made them comparatively just as expensive.
Result?
1. Men can’t become fathers without wanting to be;
2. Women know exactly when (about 7 days per month) they’re capable of becoming mothers;
3. Women can’t safely slut around during the time of the month when they’re ovulating, which is when their hormones make them most inclined to slut around, and especially most inclined to pursue the “alpha” types with the Dark Triad traits;
4. The particularly foolish women who’re both currently fertile AND choosing to slut around are at the mercy of the Dark Triad guy as to whether he decides to impregnate them and leave them, or not. This sounds rough on those women but (a.) we want it to be, because it’s a very practical way of identifying sluts for slut-shaming, and (b.) in THAT kind of society, all the current laws making men financially responsible for their unexpected children would actually make sense, wouldn’t they?
After that, the chains were firmly attached, and women learned that they could afford to be fussier. Much fussier. Men dug their grave with their dicks, big surprise there. On behalf of my generation, I apologize. I’m sorry. Who could have predicted this?
I think most of the criticism isn’t directed towards people at the *time* (i.e., in the 60s and 70s), but rather what social conservatives have done, in general, *since* that time. And on the latter point, they’ve been almost universally worthless, really. Yes, there is Schlafly, who is pretty much the exception which proves the rule. She’s vastly outnumbered by people — men and women alike — who are “okay with” most of feminism but only against its “excesses”. These people tend to see the problem as not being really the changes in female behavior, but, like Bennett (who by any *American* definition is a social conservative), locate the problem repeatedly in the behaviors of men. This is a very strong, deeply-ingrained conservative impulse, and one which happens to be terminally dysfunctional in a society which is de facto feminist, and therefore, by implication, substantially misandrist already. It’s numbskulls like Bennett and Hymowitz and so on that are the ones who are under attack, for the most part, not Phyllis Schlafly.
The underlying problem with American conservatism is that it tends to be reactive — that is, it tends to conserve the status quo, at least in social terms. The status quo, of course, keeps moving, because liberalism is driving the bus. So what was liberal 20-30 years ago is now accepted by contemporary conservatives as the new “status quo”, while liberals have moved on to areas that are now seen as “beyond the pale” by conservatives. The apparent exception to this is abortion, but even there quite a few conservatives are quietly trying to make that a much less prominent political issue in conservatism (for political expediency purposes, for the most part), which generally matches the longer term trend of conservatives eventually accepting the new status quo. This is exactly what has happened with American conservatives and feminism. This explains, in part, the popularity among many who would certainly self-describe as “social conservatives” of someone like Sarah Palin — someone who openly calls herself a feminist and certainly has led a feminist life script. We will see more of the same, as the political conservative movement in the US tries to find women candidates for political office, almost all of whom will be substantially feminist, even if they believe in supply-side economics or are small-statists in theory. Feminism is now mainstream, it is the status quo, and apart from “extreme feminism”, it’s as much a part of the social conservative status quo as anything else is.
Even more abject a failure because I, like Brendan, am an Orthodox Christian, one who belongs to a Church and a subculture that has, because of its relative obscurity, escaped the notice of the wider society until now. I don’t know how things are in the traditionally Orthodox societies of Eastern Europe. The long years of Communist repression and the current onslaught of Western consumerism and the demographic death cycle they seem to be caught in may have left the Orthodox Church too weak to respond.
It varies a lot by country, but the damage was certainly done during the communist era in various ways. The Orthodox countries still have more elements of “traditional” approaches to various things, but this uneasily coexists with a legacy of official atheism and Soviet-style feminism. If you go to Moscow, for example, you notice that women are generally much more feminine in appearance and act/movement than in the West (or particularly the US), but beneath that surface, divorce is pretty common, single motherhood is not uncommon, and so on. More people are attending church, of course, but it’s still a minority (outside of large holidays where attendance is becoming more cultural than anything else). The main difference is that the Orthodox Church itself in the Orthodox world has been less compromised internally with feminism and homosexuality than the Western Churches have — note “less” rather than “completely shielded”. In the West, the Orthodox Church is very much subject to having been compromised by these elements, even if the degree to which it has been is much less. It’s just a part of the diseased culture we live in here in the West. Feminism is the air we breathe — it’s unavoidable apart from voluntary isolation from the culture, which of course comes at a tremendous cost.
This is just a small comment. In Russia, Christmas (Dec 25) is a solemn day. There is no mass consumerism and shopping and gift-buying. It is a quiet, solemn day to reflect on the birth of Christ. They reserve their shopping and mass consumerism for New Year’s.
Brendan can back me up on this. Orthodox Christmas is just not as big a deal as Western Christmas. Indeed, the month-plus round of parties and shopping leading up to the Big Day seem kind of out of place while we are still undergoing the privations of the Advent Fast. Epiphany is a bigger feast by Orthodox standards.
I think the Russian Orthodox Church is still on the Julian calendar, so they celebrate Christmas on Jan 6 civil calendar.
@ Tim
Probably because Russians celebrate Christmas on January 7th, and NOT on December 25th.
@ RC
Seriously? The stupidity is just astounding.
Yes, I do remember the fight against the ERA. I remember that Phyllis Schlafly’s organization was called “STOP” which stood for Stop Taking Our (meaning women’s) Privileges.
The ERA passed the US Congress in 1972, with a 7 year time limit on ratification. By the end of 1973, 30 states had ratified it.
The 26th Amendment to the US Constitution which gave the vote to 18 year olds was passed in March 1971 and signed into law in July 1971. Since virtually all elections of state legislators occur in odd numbered years, the 22 states who ratified the ERA before the end of 1972 had legislatures who were elected by people who were born by 1949 – at the latest. In other words, given the commonly accepted date of the Baby Boom as 1946 (assuming that is the generation you are referring to, Mule) only the oldest 3 years of the Boomers had any voice in electing any of the people who provided overwhelming early support to the ERA.
Strangely, it was as the Boomers gained electoral presence that the momentum of the ERA stalled, and then collapsed.
The #1 argument that killed the ERA was “If it passes, you will have to draft women into the armed forces.” This really didn’t break the heart of a lot of Boomer males. To many of them it meant that 29,000+ of the names that now reside on the Vietnam Memorial might have belonged to women instead of men. Instead, it was the older, more chivalrous men who had second thoughts about what “equality” really meant and decided that they weren’t really down with equality, but eek-WALLET-ee would be just fine with them.
For the past 40 years or so we have been in sort of holding pattern – one foot in eek-WALLET-eee, one foot totally mired in chivalry – straddling the fence. But, the situation is starting to fall apart for some people. The husbands who got sidelined from the success track back in the 1980s to make more room on it for women, are not showing up to bail the 30ish carousel riders out of their “rewarding and fulfilling careers” and paying off their student loans.
Game has supposedly replaced feminism as men’s means of getting easier and wider access to pussy, and it seems to even be required within marriages.
I’m not sure which generation you are speaking of, Mule, but Warren Farrell – the archetypal male feminist – was born in 1943, three years before what the US census considers the beginning of the baby boom. Like most of the authors, musicians, and political activists who were identified with the beliefs and behaviors of the Boomers, they were older and mostly members of the Silent Generation.
Both my older siblings are Silents, and their grandchildren are as old or older than you indicated that your children are, so I’m guessing that you aren’t referring to them as your generation.
So, I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, Mule.
Yes, Xmas is 07 January in Russia, my bad. My point is that there is no shopping bonanza – that’s reserved for new year’s. Sounds like they have their priorities straight.
Game is just about the only access left, ZP.
I am talking about my generation, the Boomers. Those born 1946-1964 or thereabouts. We screwed a lot of things up. Relations between the sexes is one of them. I was under the impression that the ERA stalled due to the rise of the influence and organization of the Religious Right. Do you see the RR as part of the Boomer generation or of the Silents?
F Roger Devlin comments on the birth control pill and what men expected women’s response would be. Men thought back then (I’m snickering as I write this) that women would suddenly become sex machines just as men are. Well, they do – but only quite selectively. They do enjoy sex, and quite voraciously, but only with the leaders of the pack.
I imagine 1973 – 1978 were fun years, though.
@Mule,
I really didn’t see the RR as being that much of a factor in the defeat of the ERA from my perspective. The two biggest factors were the attitudes of the feminists themselves and concerns that Phyllis Schlafly raised in people’s minds that it would take away women’s privileges, including “dependent wife” benefits under Social Security and exemption from Selective Service registration. She argued that it would lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms. (the horror, the horror). This got the conservative men’s attention, and led to some of the states withdrawing their ratification.
Actually, I believe the obnoxious in-your-face attitudes of the feminists believing that they could ram it down everyone’s throats contributed more to its defeat than anything else. The straight-woman/lesbian divide in feminism ramped up in the early 70s. “Can I be a feminist and still like men” was a frequent topic for straight women. I think that the push to equate all heterosexual sex with rape lost them a lot of support from straight women, but which strangely secured the support of the RR men.
Most of the RR men I encountered during the late 70s through the mid-80s, and all the ones who climbed into bed with Dworkin and MacKinnon were middle aged and older, so I did perceive the RR as mostly a Silent generation phenomenon. None of my religious contemporaries seemed to be as strident about their religion as older folks seemed.
My mother was a religious conservative woman. Over 40 years ago she sat my teenage self down and told me there was a sexual double standard, and it was the price paid by women in order to have civilization. Women that paid the price of this double standard were given the respect and title of ladies. This was an intelligent, but only high school educated, lady born in 1920. She knew all that time ago what has only recently fully entered my consciousness. So there are conservative women that are well aware of the existence and need for the sexual double standard.
I have come to a rather harsh point of view about single mothers. I have two nieces that intentionally, and fraudulently, got pregnant in order to be single mothers. One engaged in Child Support Fraud and the other did not. They had no interest in marriage, and even less interest in the sperm donors they randomly selected. They have raised their daughters (thank God they weren’t sons) by themselves, actively fighting any involvement by the biological fathers. The two grand nieces are now in their twenties. My take, even with my own family, is that women such as this should be charged with child abuse, have their parental rights revoked, their children removed from their care and put up for adoption, and the women forced sterilized by tubal ligation. What these women are doing to the next generation is not heroic, but criminal. I am conflicted about the morality of abortion, but I put it out as a possibility for true contraception failure. The other choice is to have the couple contract to raise the child together (note marriage is not required).
My other harsh assessment based on life experience is that marriage must be made for life. I might modify that rule as follows: if there are no children, or the children are grown, then divorce may be granted with consent of both parties. Note there would be no unilateral threats or extortion by divorce. There must be no option for divorce at all where children are involved. Marriage is not for the happiness of the two adults, but to provide the best situation for the welfare of the children. All people (men and women) are fallen, and given to sin, so any way out of a marriage will result in manipulation to endlessly expand divorce until we are right back to where we are now. There are many of you that say this can not work. I am married to a Filipina because in the Philippines there is no divorce, full stop. What happens when people can not stand to live together is they separate, but remain married. They can not enter into another marriage, or take away their partner’s parental rights.
My wife was 25 when we married. This is very unusual for a Filipina. Most follow Darlock’s advice and marry young, and have children right away. Sex outside of marriage is very much shammed, and the old standard of doing the right thing by marrying your pregnant girlfriend is still culturally enforced. This is made possible by the fact that in almost every case you know the child is yours since you are the only partner the girl has ever had. My wife told me on our first meeting that she would be a virgin on our wedding night. How is this enforced? It is not by mind f**king the girls into believing that sex is dirty, bad, disgusting, and not enjoyable. My Mother-In-Law’s advice to my wife as a young girl was that sex was the best thing in the world, but was highly addictive; “once tried always wanted”. She told her be sure you are in a permanent relationship that will assure you of all the sex you want (marriage) before you engage in it. She was told sex was wonderful and sacred. The second control mechanism is that all dating for properly brought up respectable girls is chaperoned (including ours). The assumption is that young women are just as horny, and want sex just as much, as the boys; so they can’t be trusted on their own. After we were married my wife totally floored me by saying I was the first “boy” she had ever kissed. We started dating when she was 23.
My advice to young men is, “Leave the island.”
@ZP
In a sense we have been stranded in a world even worse than the one that would have obtained had the ERA passed; one where women retain many of their traditional advantages, especially that of sexual power whereas the traditional advantages of men have been stripped away.
@Mule,
My view is less pessimistic toward men, and more pessimistic toward women than yours. Women of a certain age may retain some of their sexual power over men, but instead of spending it to purchase their matronage, they spend it partying and end up like Kate Bolick. Instead of a house and yard full of kids who think her cookies are the best in the neighborhood, they have traded that for a corporate cube exactly like millions of others. One of the SATC girls may have landed Mr, Big (which they all fantasize about doing), but Samantha still goes home with a guy whose name she can’t even remember.
Once that sexual power of youth gets squandered, I know a lot of women who have no “Plan B.” I know quite a few women in their early 60s – bra burners from the 1960s – who have no husband, no savings, and no job. I feel sort of sorry for them, but not sorry enough to be their 11th hour retirement plan.
I’m sure you have heard the old Jesuit saying “Give me the boy until he is seven, and I will give you the man.” Or, as farm people would put it – “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.” The 27 y/o bridegroom of today was given to us 20 years ago. The men of today were shaped by their experiences between 1984 and 1991. That fact alone should cause a young woman with any sense at all to have nightmares. Most young women today had their potential husbands torpedoed off the husband track 20 years ago by feminist zealotry – and big pharma.
For young men, a few minutes at wikipedia reading up on things like trench foot, or Gallipoli, or the Battle of the Somme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_foot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme), or viewing the Vietnam Memorial, make me see these “traditional advantages of men” as not a huge loss.
Even though the female death toll in Iraq has been a tiny percentage of the total, I think that female amputees from injuries sustained in war was another part of the “equality” equation that women really didn’t think through before they asked for it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-28-female-amputees-combat_x.htm
If you would take out all the man bashing and the hostile relations between the sexes, I think feminism has been a lot better for men than it has for women. Women won’t be able to hold on to any of their “traditional” advantages once all the old farts who remember them are dead.
Here’s a true life example of the benefits of Slut shaming.
Earlier this year, I had an impromptu reunion with 6 of my childhood friends. During the night of drinking and other activities, the amount of children that we’d managed to make became a hot topic. In the end, we came up with a total of 23 children between the seven of US. Here comes the fun part.
Me: veteran, graduate student, widower- no kids.
Friend 1: HVAC technician, divorced, full custody- 2 kids
Friend 2: CPA, married, 1 kid
Friend 3: Doctor, single- no kid
Friend 4: Teacher, historian, writer, married- 2 kids
Friend 5: Businessman, married- 5 kids and 1 on the way
Friend 6: unemployed, former felon (3 separate sex charges, 2 felony assault charges)-
12 kids and one on the way.
The married guy with (now) 6 kids is korean. He married a fellow Korean woman (virgin) who he met at church.
The predicate felon with more than a dozen kids is a Boriqueno who breeds like a lunatic to make up for his… extracurricular activities during his prison stays (IOW, gay behind bars, straight outside of jail.)
The CPA, teacher and myself are all black men who grew up with plenty of male parental guidance-raised
The doctor and the HVAC tech are Boriquenos who were also raised with plenty of male parental guidanc.
The Korean guy with 6 kids is… Korean. Let’s not disseminate, we know that daddy was always around for him by default.
My felon friend was allowed to do whatever he wanted.
For the rest of us, going off of the straight and narrow wasn’t an option. For him, knocking up sluts was de riguer. By deferring gratification, 5 ghetto guys produced 5 kids. 1 ghetto-raised guy produced 6 kids in wedlock. *1* ghetto guy produced a full basketball team. All of his baby mamas chose to make children with him (and ignored the rest of us.) Shaming players limits the amount of men who are playing, shaming sluts limits the amount of children who are created. Nuff said.
P.S.- this info was posted before on this site. A few details have been updated as new information has been received.
If you would take out all the man bashing and the hostile relations between the sexes, I think feminism has been a lot better for men than it has for women.
Sure, what’s a little thing like divorce theft, debtor’s prison, and general institutionalized misandry between friends, eh?
@Mark
Those social conservatives who have resisted feminism consistently for decades (Phylis Schlafly) will be lumped in together with populist faux conservative feminists like Sarah Palin
Excuse me, it’s true that people like Phylis Schlafly have resisted feminism for decades but people like her are not our allies. Feminists and socon are two branches of the same movement: “the pedestalization movement”. See here:
Socon women = Each man has to work for his woman. Feminist women = All men have to work for all women (through taxes). Same goal (transfer of resources from men to women). Different means (individual means for socon women and social means for socon men).
See here
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/why-a-womans-age-at-time-of-marriage-matters-and-what-this-tells-us-about-the-apex-fallacy/#comment-13039
On a different topic, maybe it’s because I’m foreigner, but I’m appalled at the fact nobody has disputed the argument claiming that socon men don’t want to slut shame because they want to protect their daughters and nobody likes to shame their daughters while they are at the Hookup State University so they do as if they didn’t knew (they look the other way). This argument was repeated by Brendan (who I usually agree with) but it was introduced by a socon before him.
Look, I get the fact that you don’t want to slut shame publicly your daughter. But these white knights are not willing to shame them IN PRIVATE. What kind of parenting is that? Is this the way fathers raise their kids in the States? Because this explains why your society is so F*CKED-UP.
So, if my daughter starts doing heroin, will I look the other way, because she was so pretty when she was 5 y.o. and I told her fairy tales? And is this called “protect” your daughters? Protect from what?
For me, a KEY component of parenting is teaching your children the difference between good and evil. So I don’t buy the cop-out “They are going to do it anyway”. They are going to, but if you tell them that IT IS BAD, at least they know it is bad or they know you think it is bad. And this is one of the most basic DUTIES of a parent.
This does not mean that you have to be angry at your children. You have to hate the sin, love the sinner. But, yes, it’s more comfortable to look the other way. But then, don’t tell yourself conservative, brother, and don’t teach me Bible lessons. You are only a bad parent.
@Kel
„This madness will have to play itself out just like it did in every other civilization that let women get the upper hand. Western Civilization will have to completely collapse before anything happens.”
If we accept this as a given – and I currently see no reason to do otherwise –, I think our greatest possible act of charity towards future generations would be to accurately and meticulously catalogue all the excesses, crimes and consequences of modern-day feminism in a thick book, or something similar, and preserve many copies of it. If and when another great civilization rises in the West in a couple of centuries, they will find and read some of these books, draw the consequences and thus avoid the mistakes that current Western civilization has made. At this point, it is the West’s only realistic hope.
Ahem.
Now might be a good time for Mark Richardson to define what he means by “Traditional Conservatism”.
What tradition does he want to conserve? Edwardian? Victorian? Georgian? Even in the Anglosphere there are any number of traditions that leave most average people living lives that are quite limited in a lot of ways, including legal rights.
In Spain 150 years ago the tradition of unquestioning obedience to authority was something that cultural elites wished to conserve. So much so that they didn’t bother to teach common people to read. Thus beginning about 100 years ago, leftists and anarchists began literacy campaigns as part of their anti-clerical & anti-monarchal efforts. The longer term result was a multi-year civil war in the 1930’s. So in 1911, a “traditional conservative” in Spain would have been interested in “conserving” illiteracy and a social order not too far from feudalism.
In Russia as I write this, there is an ongoing disagreement over how much power the executive leaders of that country should have – Putin wants more power, to be blunt. Looking back at Russian history over the last 700 years or so, it seems the “traditional” government has consisted of a Tzar (“Caesar”) with absolute powers. So “traditional conservatism” in Russia would demand support for an absolute leader whose word is literally law.
Shall I discuss what the “traditional” and “conservative” form of society under Islam is?
Come, come, sir, you use this term regularly. If you cannot define it, then it is meaningless as anything said by Humpty Dumpty to Alice.
What tradition are you seeking to conserve? What does “traditional conservatism” mean?
“R.C. says:
I think the best plausible near-future answer is for there to be two legal forms of artificial contraception, with all other forms either banned under extreme prejudice or taxed until they’re impractical. …”
Why not enable both to shut off their systems at will? I’m not in favour of sluthood, but I’m even less in favour of unwanted children, and of children paying the price for the mistakes of their parents (either by being ‘aborted’ out of existence, or by a difficult childhood with incompetent parents).
I’d favour a system which simply turns off the system in both people, so pregnancies can only happen when both deliberately try. It won’t help the people who purposely get pregnant despite being too dumb to parent, but it will eliminate all the varieties of ‘oops!’.
And as a non-religious person who believes in science, I think the ability to overpower the body’s basic desires is a benefit of civilisation. As a married woman not looking to procreate at this time, I’m strongly in favour of the ability to prevent it.
Pregnancy might be punishment for sluthood, but children come out of it, and avoiding that should be a major concern for the better of society.
imnobody says:
Look, I get the fact that you don’t want to slut shame publicly your daughter. But these white knights are not willing to shame them IN PRIVATE. What kind of parenting is that? Is this the way fathers raise their kids in the States? Because this explains why your society is so F*CKED-UP.”
Yes, it’s true, and it does explain it. There’s a whole generation of people coming up on 30 years old who have grown up being told they are special precious snowflakes, and that the world will be excited just to have them around. Personal responsibility is not taught, as everything must be someone else’s fault.
Grades are bad? The teachers must be terrible. Or biased. Can’t get a job? They just don’t recognise your unique skills. Your daughter sluts around? Must be evil men preying on her.
I think the Roissy/Heartiste authentic game link in this article had this quote about the Madonna aspect that goes along with the agenda of this post, “[When I’m often asked] if I would be ok with some erudite guy telling men to get chicks if my hypothetical daughter was to wind up in the arms of such an a-hole of course I wouldn’t. Amoralistic biology ensures there will be competing and contradictory passions, double standards up the wazoo. What father in his right mind would want his daughter to fall for an a-hole? And yet, I am not my hypothetical daughter’s pleasure center. What I would want as a hypothetical father should not stain the quest for truth. I present the truth, suggest ways to exploit this truth, and allow the readers to ultimately decide which path to take for themselves.” In early human history tens of thousands of years ago people did not get married, right? I am the result of a teenage pregnancy by a queen slut mother and an alpha father and they did not get married, I’m a good looking stud/successful/have won numerous awards/we are now all upper-class/ and this post calling me a “problem” could make me feel like garbage but I have confidence and I am certain that I am better than that and I am not a problem. Thanks for the Christian love. I won’t throw the first stone or judge others in ways to then have Jesus measure me that way in return. I won’t try to be God and say who has the right to exist. I accept my own right to my existence. It is a crazy world and because of my awesome slutty mother I am enjoying every moment of my life. I will not get on a high-horse, but I will take the high-road. Good bye. Happy Thanksgiving to all of you!
Pingback: The missing fear | Dalrock
So ARE WE looking at an increase from 5% unmarried births in 1940 to 50% post 2007?… a tenfold increase? 1940 America was still a rural farming blue collar modest income culture… with a neighbor’s or “midwife’s” assistance bundles of joy frequently being dropped off at the doorstep of hospital, Foundling Home, or police station… all contributing to less ability to determine what the exact birth origin was (single, new “divorce” or married too poor/unwanted). Taking into account large majority use of effectual contraception or abortion post-2007, in contrast to routinely accessible 24/7 & effective contraception being either usually illegal or at minimum unavailable/non-existent for everyone in all States of the Union (Protestant & Catholic) in 1940 (illegal abortion additionally being a fraction per capita of post Roe v. Wade 1970s legal abortions).
Why this post-nominal Christian of any stripe generation(s) shames “pregnancy”, when that is in fact the natural course of events/designed purpose in following, in contrast to whoredom & morality of activity themselves….(?) Could it be when adusting for the previous factors that the TRUE unmarried birth rate frequency is a fair bit under 5% in adjusted theoretically in the 1940 figure AND 90% in adjusted theoretical post-2007 figures (projecting 1940 non-consistent/non-effective contraception, illegal minority case abortions into 2007… coupled with 2007’s superior hospital reporting “provenace” as to technically “unmarried”). Thus the Whoredom & promiscuity rates are not tenfold more in 2007, but twentyfold or thirtyfold more…
When was the last time you heard of the not infrequent in the 1970s teen girl going up in front of the “church” & announcing to the congregation “I’m going to keep my Baby” nowadays (post 2007) in the average “church”?
I came across this site by accident by answering a blog on why older women seem to not want men.
Well I am amazed at how much hatred is written with cold callous indifference towards women on this site.
And what is it about feminism ruining the world?
I am a single mother of three children and If I had stayed married I would not be alive now and my children could not have achieved or be happy.
Using incorrect data and spouting religious ideologies as a right to insult more than half the population of this planet ( yes females), says it all really.
Most women do not need sex as their male counter parts do, but most men seem to think we do and that birth control or feminism turns females into sexual beasts.
When will the male human start to grow up, because if you don’t you may be left behind.
@Wedny
“I am a single mother of three children and If I had stayed married I would not be alive now”
Sure sweetie, whatever you say. We’ve heard this before.
“When will the male human start to grow up, because if you don’t you may be left behind.”
Thanks for the man-up pep talk, why don’t you say we have small genitalia next?
We might be left behind, and then we men can finally get some work done.
And you forgot to make a remark about how we all have small genitalia.
Pingback: Rules of the road for fornication. | Dalrock
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that SoCon/TradCon white knights have a subconscious belief that young women don’t like sex. As such, if she’s having sex with a lot of guys who don’t commit, it must be because they tricked her into it.
Now, given SoCon/TradCon white knights are weenie men who have been utterly emasculated and drive around in Jeep Liberty’s or Dodge Minivans and wear helmets when they ride bicycles with their kids, and think they’re “cool” for doing so, I have little doubt that of course their wives don’t like having sex with them. I mean, what woman would?
@Wendy
“birth control or feminism turns females into sexual beasts.”
what if we swap sexual with amoral, any better toots?
“cold callous indifference towards women”
what’s the big problem with our indifference’?
I thought you were all smart and independant and shit?
Pingback: Will betas shrug? | Dalrock
Re: The hybrid Gilligan approach: Shame them both equally!
I’m not sure that I fully understand the case you have made here. It seems to me that you are making the case that if you get a large number of people to shame both, there will still be enough trying to shame only “the cads” that the shuts will have an avenue to reject the shaming, and the shaming against them will become ineffective. Is that the case? If not, please elaborate.
Pingback: Dr. Phil enforcing the feminine imperative. | Dalrock
Pingback: - Sunday Supplications: the efficacy of slut-shaming – a case study and a prayer | The Woman and the Dragon
I’m late to this party, but I thought I’d mention that anyone familiar with hunting and animal populations could have predicted this. When the state wanted to reduce the population of the King’s deer, they used to give out more tags for shooting bucks (males, which are what most hunters want, because they have the antlers). The thinking was much like the idea of “player shaming”: a single buck impregnates a couple dozen deer, so for every buck we shoot, we reduce the population by several times that many! Eventually they figured out that when you shoot one buck — even assuming he was the alpha male doing most of the impregnating — there’s always another one ready to fill in, so to speak. It doesn’t reduce the herd in the long run at all, unless you shoot all the bucks, and then you have no deer at all.
Finally they started to encourage hunters to shoot does (females), making their tags cheaper, giving out more of them, and so on. If you shoot a doe, you reduce next year’s offspring by one. It’s only one, but that’s one more than you reduced it by shooting a buck. Human animals (and let’s be honest, we’re talking about people who are little more than animals when it comes to their sexual habits) are no different. You have to take the females out of circulation, because you’ll never get all the males.
Pingback: How should the orthosphere engage the manosphere? « Zippy Catholic
Pingback: Commentary on Christians about Marriage | Thinking 8
Pingback: Moral Agency in Women- Revisted | Donal Graeme
Pingback: Evangelical women, also known as covert Christo-feminists, rail against slut-shaming. | Sunshine Mary
Just reread this at Cane’s suggestion. It is a great article. As is Cail’s comment above. Hopefully one comment gets it back into circulation for a bit.
Hard to resist posting more from CAF: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=794116
Dalrock you must be the Professor – at some point I hope you build a boat that can actually get us back to civilization.
Years ago I came across an article claiming that Gilligan’s Island was a metaphor for Hell, and that Gilligan was the Devil (not the same one, but similar: http://973thedawg.com/gilligan-is-satan-you-decide/).
Interesting…
And, as always, the Chesterton quote about conservatives fighting to retain the mistakes of liberals…
Pingback: Why I am not a neoreactionary | anagrammaton
This is the funniest thing I have read all week.
This is gold “his plan to shame a group of narcissistic psychopaths to forgo their own pleasure for the good of society.” Really i think feminism is the ultimate shit test. A man and a society has to discover its balls to pass it.
Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
5 stars. They don’t believe women could act criminally or maliciously. Ironic sexism.
Pingback: A Greatest Hits Collection Of Millennial Women, Internet Shaming, And Professional Victimhood
Pingback: Coveting sin: The Law of the Double Standard. | Dalrock
Pingback: Gilligan! | Dalrock
I recommend removing any children whelped by unwed females from the broken home she birthed them into and placing the children with a married, stable heterosexual couple who wishes to adopt. Failing that, orphanages. No visiting privileges for the irresponsibly breeding female.
Removing the children breaks the Make A Baby, Win Cash and Prizes temptations currently dangled by the State (thanks for nuthin’, do-gooders!) in front of Ms. Baby-Rabies. Leading those females into temptation and undermining what little self-control they have is bad public policy.
Dismissal when an out of wedlock (OOW) pregnancy by any staffer at a parochial school is a consequence, not a punishment. (Our half-wit president insists that the pregnancy is the punishment. Wrap your head around that.)
Pingback: Why does female hypergamy matter for society? | Farther Right
Pingback: Father Roulette | Dalrock
Pingback: Someone tell Gilligan. | Dalrock
Pingback: The gospel of child support. | Dalrock
“Nothing that you can find on Google will convey the real meaning of that metaphor. The meaning comes from the experience of watching it week, after, week, after week, and the plot was always the same – someone would come up with an idea to get off the island, Gilligan would screw it up with his good-natured but bumbling ways. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.”
The cartoon “Pinky and the Brain” followed the same format.
Just a word of support here, but I’d rather join you in your hell than join them in their heaven. Just sayin’…
Pingback: Kind words from The Other McCain | Dalrock
Pingback: You Death-Cult White Apes Can’t Handle the Truth | ‘Reality’ Doug
Pingback: Making the world safe for foolish promiscuous women. | Dalrock
Pingback: The Overton Shake | Σ Frame