My last post Starting young featured a five year old girl who was already practicing saying no to prospective suiters. As Elusive Wapiti pointed out, it is fairly evident that she has been coached, most likely by her mother. The sentiment is hardly new, and is a standard feminist mantra. The premise is not only that women are somehow demeaned by marrying at a young age, but that wives are the scarce resource and husbands are a dime a dozen.
While the idea is anything but new, the widespread postponement of marriage by women in their 20s is happening to a degree we haven’t seen before. What will be interesting is to see how correct the implicit assumption of there always being another man interested in marriage turns out to be. I’ve shared the US Census data before on marriage rates in table form in the past, comparing marriage rates for white non hispanic women in the 1999 and 2009 census. Hearing the 5 year old’s screed made me want to take a fresh look at the question, using data from the 2010 census as well as the same data from a decade ago. Here is what it looks like in graphic form:
I made a separate chart with just the deltas:
Interestingly women are still marrying at fairly comparable rates in their early twenties, but are falling much farther behind their sisters of 10 years ago by their late twenties. Those women in their early 30s today are the same ones who were in their early 20s in the 2000 census, so you can’t necessarily predict that today’s late 20 something women will catch up in their thirties. They are starting from a very different baseline.
In fact it would be quite surprising if they were successful en masse in their bid to postpone marriage past their most marriageable years and still marry at previous rates. All of the factors would seem to line up against them. The most marriage minded and eligible bachelors around their age range have either already been selected by their quicker to the draw sisters, or are interested in marrying women 5 to 10 years younger than they are. Additionally, the surplus of single men to women has largely disappeared by the time they are in their 30s. Add to this that a large percentage of available men have likely either learned to be a player or dropped out of the dating market, and the true uphill nature of their path becomes painfully evident.
As a collective today’s unmarried twenty something women have made men an ultimatum: I’ll marry when I’m ready, take it or leave it. This is of course their right. But ultimatums are a risky thing, because there is always a possibility the other side will decide to leave it. In the next decade we will witness the end result of this game of marriage chicken.
What I think it will all come down to is who needs/values marriage (as currently defined) more, men or women. This isn’t something that we can think of in terms of absolutes, though. The same man may decide a feminine and chaste early 20 something woman is worth the legal risks men face in marriage, while coming to the opposite conclusion for her ten year older former alpha chasing career gal sister. The older sister is betting that at the end of the day enough successful men will blink when faced with the choice of starting a family with her vs not starting a family at all. We won’t have to wait too long to see if their gamble is right.
If it turns out their gamble was incorrect, this would seem likely to precipitate a wide spread power shift in the marriage market. Just like a real estate market can quickly shift from a sellers to a buyers market, we could see a sea change where men see themselves as the scarce commodity and women fear being the ones without a seat when the music stops.
See also:
If women are going to make men wait to marry, they’d be well advised to think seriously about making themselves worth waiting for.
Some are. Most aren’t.
I think women get married much earlier in the US than the UK or Ireland.
The median age of first marriage for women here is late twenties – for a middle-class woman to get married in her early twenties would have been unusual even as far back as the 1990s – early twenties marriage would have been for our parents’ generation.
Most couples who get married in their late twenties/early thirties have been going out/living together for a few years previously, and they tend to be more or less the same age, give or take a couple of years.
I’m not sure it’s affected demand though.
[D: Interesting. Do you know of any comparable data (by age bracket) for Ireland or the UK? It might help us make a better guess what is in store for the US.]
Also, surely it’s a good idea for women to have some experience in the workplace prior to marriage – if something happens to their husband, someone will have to support the family.
[D: I don’t get the assumption that life for women stops at marriage. After marrying me, my wife 1) Went to College. 2) Found a job. and 3) Traveled the world (with me). I think this fear predates birth control, and for some reason never went away.]
Housing(Picky Woman)
The big problem with being overpriced (too picky) is that you don’t know how overpriced you are until you need to sell quickly (marry within a reasonable timeline).
It is easy to imagine that the house you have on the market (your golden V), stubbornly priced at $200K (alpha male) would sell if you reduced it to $180 (lesser alpha, higher beta). It is easy to be fooled because you are getting a lot of showings (pump & dumps). Surely that offer from a buyer is just around the corner…
However, since you have no tangible offers, you can’t actually know that the market price is actually $140K. There are some clues, such as feedback from some semi-interested shoppers (beta orbiters), but the rationale is “I’m not GIVING it away (your offer is ‘creepy’).
Sure, there may be that “one buyer” (alpha soul mate) who wants you very badly (snowflaking), that he will pay $180K (not notice that you are wrinkling, gaining weight and a bitch), but time is running out.
[D: Well played.]
I don’t think you can compare Ireland and the US because divorce was only introduced here in 1996.
The UK/US would be a better comparator and Lily would be the person to ask about this.
I did find some information on wikipedia – the current average age of marriage in Ireland is slightly higher than I thought – also slightly higher than the UK – I think this may have been due to high property prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage
Incidentally early 30s marriage doesn’t seem to have affected fertility – our birth rate is higher than ever.
[D: Thanks. I did some searching at the same time, and found this page which seems promising. Fertility is another issue entirely. In the US at least there is still a big status difference between being a baby momma and a wife.]
Having lived in Brazil for 5 years, I can give some insight into what the dating market looks like when the worm turns. I lived in Salvador, Brazil, and the girl/guy ratio appeared to be 2:1. To make matters worse for the women, the men with high paying job/high status-middle class to wealthy background could be estimated at maybe 20 percent of the overall male population.
Some observations: you can get laid whenever you want. The women are beyond jealous on one another. The women will mate poach without a second thought. Every man in a committed relationship cheats. I could go on but I will leave it at here for now.
Interesting that you should pick housing as a parallel. The artificially low interest rates created by the Fed combined with a myriad of Federal programs to encourage home ownership created an artificial sellers market. Buyers bid up house prices to absurd levels, and flipping houses became a way to make extra money — my favorite moment was watching casino employees “buying” new houses in Las Vegas by putting the $5,000 down payment on their credit card, because they just knew that they’d flip them in less than 6 months for a profit.
Now there is a huge overhang of housing. Every year, the number of new houses started is lower than the previous year. Every year, the number of houses on the market is a new record. Not just low end, I’m informed of a sale in Phoenix where a property (4,000 sq/ft) nominally priced at $2.6 million sold for $1.3 million cash – 50% off.
Let’s turn to the subject at hand. Given the amount of MGTOW that is going on out there in the 20-something men, it seems likely that the women in their 20’s who are betting on being able to find a man to marry when they turn 28-29-30 are being foolish. If there was a way to sell them short, or buy a put option, I’d do it. Because what’s likely to happen is that women younger than they are will learn from their error, and cut them out of the competition: (36/2)+7 = 25, which suggests that we may well see that the 20 to 25 year old women will be more heavily competed for by men aged 26-36, because those men will be less inclined to sample the “used” market of 25-30 year old women.
The excess of housing will take years to work off. I firmly expect another turn of the housing collapse in the next 2 years as more underwater loans (more owed than house will bring in a sale) are foreclosed upon, bringing still more houses onto the market. The excess of young women in their upper 20’s may well turn out in a similarly unpleasant way — more “sellers” than “buyers” means the “value” must be dropped in order to complete a sale.
“Take it or leave it” is a very dangerous ultimatum to issue in the marriage/LTR arena, because we already see men in their 20’s just walking away.
I’d echo an idea I see here and other places that I’ve realized in my own life – that I now (27) look at the women I knew back in the day and my first thought, almost uniformly, is “too old”. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I’d have to see a hell of a lot to offset the age differential. And I’m rarely finding it.
Fantastic post, DR.
I can understand why women might hesitate upon the point of engagement or marriage if she’s unsure. What has astounded me has been how “overpriced” some of these women have been for first dates. Girl, it’s just a damn date. These girls don’t realize that one of these guys that they send off to the wilderness might have wound up being a suitable match, if she hadn’t sent him packing. She’s counting on another always coming along. She very well may have a lot of time later to reflect on those decisions.
The market will correct itself, and it won’t be pretty.
Augustine DeCarthage, recall two things:
We are not discussing all young women, but rather a subset.
That subset is clearly of the “Special Snowflake Princess” mindset, for example the 5 year old precocious, precious, princess in the video Dalrock pointed to previously. Entitlement is an insidious thing, I am sure, rather like narcissism (to which it surely is related). Reading old books from the 19th and even 18th century, one can see this is not a new thing, young people have labored under such delusions before, however it is much more widespread than at any time in recent history. In those older works of literature, such people often are only relieved of their delusion by a serious dose of reality, up close and personal.
I’m afraid that’s what many (not all) young women are setting themselves up for: a nasty, cold shower of reality. No, it won’t be like “Sluts in the City”, or “Eat, Betray, Love”. Although I suppose that some can just about rationalize anything, if they work hard enough.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if in a few years, 30-something women were actually attempting to import husbands, to make up for a domestic shortfall — and IMBRA was in their way?
I don’t think this is special snowflake princesses as much as a culture which tells young women, over and over, that they are snowflakes.
Within the church, we need to revise the script. The current one is… graduate high school (18) get first degree (22) go graduate school (as first degree is useless (26) get some kind of job at 27 and become independent at 30. For both genders. Women do better at this (most graduate study rewards compliance rather than snarky enquiry) on average than men.
So we now have a 30 yo woman with a career and very little chance of “relating up”. With her clock ticking. Her male classmate can… wait. Until he is in his late 30s, really wants a family, and then can… choose (in the range 22-28). Or not. There is no advantage in marrying or cohabiting (which is treated as marriage) if the divorce rate is pushing 60 — 70%, which it is in parts of Europe.
The Church needs to return to traditional advice. Leave high school. Young men do a practical apprenticeship (Nursing and teaching would count), graduating as a journeyman around 23. Those who do not want to work in a trade are apprenticed (or cadet job) into businesses A minority (the true scholars) do the 4 year degree thing, leading to a professional degree in Theology, Medicine or Law. There is an expecation that young men are self supporting by their early to mid 20s.
Young women are trained in the housewifely arts… finish high school, then either do the practical degree or get a job. The men in their young 20s are encouraged to marry young women around age 20. The couple, now self supporting, can then space their kids over a decade. the Church has a sign noting the number of years since a divorce among their flock.
The humanities, like music, are seen as something valuable, beautiful, that many will contribute to but few will do full time.
We need to starve the educational-industrial complex that is burdening our young people with undue debt and insisting that they extend adolescence (and thus delay bonding) beyond the natural span of this phase of life.
Interesting. I have noticed a strong disparity in our marriage market.
We joined the “West” roughly 20 years ago. Illegitimacy was about 8% that time. Now it is over 40% (yes, communism was more stable than current liberalism is).
As I can see around me, when a young man wants to find a mate he has to lower his expectations seriously. It is common when young male 7s date and marry female 3s or 4s (or even single mothers). At least for middle/upper-middle classes. More atractive young women often whore around.
It is switch from a true monogamy to a high polygyny in just one generation.
It will be interesting to watch impacts on our society in longer term.
I’m in my late thirties. I’ve cleaned up my act since I was a beta engineering student at the university. I speak three languages, have been all over the world and have lots of cool hobbies and life experience to talk about. I manage a group of engineers at a software company and I’m pulling down bank in stock options, management bonuses and salary in Silicon Valley. If I said how much I’ve been making nobody on this blog would believe me anyways. I hit the gym and I hit it hard, and I have a personal trainer to kick my ass. I’m in the best shape of my life. I get all my clothes made-to-measure in Asia and dress the part. I speak and act with a confidence that I didn’t have in college. I’m a whole different person.
It was interesting for me to read this article because it explains so much of my life experience. In college I couldn’t get the time of day from women.
Now, I separate them into two categories by age. Women below about 27 are potential marriage material. Everything after that is pump & dump. I laughed to myself when you wrote about men seeking women 5-10 years younger, because that’s not young enough for me. I’m dating a 26-year-old blue-eyed blonde who is on the high side of 7. (I tap some ass on the side when I can for fun, though.)
The women I know in their early thirties are just delusional. I sometimes seduce them and sleep with them just because I know how to play them so well. It’s just too easy. They’re tired of the cock carousel, and they see a guy like me as the perfect beta to settle down with before their eggs dry out. I know exactly how to tickle both parts of their alpha and beta “receptors” to get them interested and willing. I practically read their thoughts that say, “Greenlander seems like a guy I could settle down with.” Then, I bang them a few times, and when I get tired of them I just delete their numbers from my cell phone and stop taking their calls. Fuck them, they don’t deserve my respect. They overplayed their hand. When they had the upper hand they were complete cunts, and now that I have the upper hand I’m returning the favor by being a raging dickhead. It doesn’t really hurt them that much: at this point they’re used to pump & dump!
The younger ones who want to settle with an “upper beta” guy like me while they still have SMV have my respect. I can see myself marrying the 26-year-old if it continues to go well… and if I cut her loose for whatever reason then I’ll also do it respectfully. I treat her respectfully because she deserves respect.
C — I also think the school system is partially responsible for this. It takes longer and longer, but it does not necessarily give more education. It mostly prolongs childhood. Of course people at age 24 feel too young to start family; they have just finished school! The exact age depends on specific country and school system.
In my opinion, the school should be only until age 18 for most people. University should be only for those who really study hard, only for the best ones. It should be considered an equivalent of a job, not yet another school. On the other hand, everyone regardless of age should be given many opportunities to learn from books and internet in their free time; but that does not contradict having a family.
krakonos — I know what you mean. Until a girl is pretty close to 30, she feels too young to settle. Needs a lot of sex, though. Preferably including some foreign experience as au-pair.
As an individual, you need to learn Game. As a society… I expect a dark tomorrow. Or maybe just this generation will be damaged, and the following ones will behave more sanely, learning from our errors.
D, you do like your charts and graphs, don’t you?
[D: Doesn’t everyone?]
Any woman who wants to see what’s out there but also wants to marry should follow this strategy: Date 50 men (try to keep that dime between your knees, ladies, or you’ll blow your shot), and at that time evaluate who you like best. Then start dating with the intent to settle down. As soon as you find a man interested in you as good or better than the best of the first 50, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, marry him!
Be sure to adjust your standards if you are not successful in getting one as good as you can, settle for less sooner rather than later, or soon enough you’ll be settling for divorced dads with kids of their own, and bitchy ex wives to go with ungrateful step children. You should marry no later than 27 or 28 if you expect to have any chance at a strong alpha type never married before, and that’s only if you’re a high number (7 or above). Otherwise, shoot for 24 or 25.
The idea that just about everyone needs to go to college, and those who really want to be successful need to go on graduate school, has done immense harm. It encourages narcissism and extended adolescence, and acts as a barrier to social mobility by encouraging employers to disregard those motivated and talented individuals who, for whatever reason, did *not* spend 16 or 18 or 20 years of chair time in an educational institution. These factors in addition to the impacts on the mating market discussed above.
Interesting concept and great article D. IMO if one want to see where this is headed in the interim before getting to a situation such as Brazil, look no further than a ghetto. Blacks are simply a few years ahead of other communities in regards to these same social ills and we all know that it isn’t pretty. Not trying to thread-jack and make this about race, but I have seen some very eerie similarities emerging more and more within the white community which I have seen for years amongst my own countrymen.
The biggest complaint amongst black women everyone here must have memorized by now; “Where are all the good black men?” and I can tell you from personal experience how upset and insulting black women get if they see a successful black man with a non black wife or girlfriend. The ‘suitable’ men are simply hard to find, supply and demand working against them.
It will be a dark future indeed.
Dan in Philly: “Be sure to adjust your standards if you are not successful in getting one as good as you can, settle for less sooner rather than later, or soon enough you’ll be settling for divorced dads with kids of their own, and bitchy ex wives to go with ungrateful step children.”
Where have you seen divorced fathers wanting to start another family?
My impression is that most divorced fathers would be interested in a LTR with a 33 YO woman (or whatever the age when they think women *should* not be interested in becoming mothers anymore) but balk at the idea of starting a new family with a woman this old. I guess most divorced fathers can forgive themselves for marrying their ex wives, given that they had them in their prime twenties and that the exes saw something in them that other women did not see, but would never take that gamble for a woman in her thirties.
A woman who supports herself and is not interested in having children can get a much higher quality man than a woman who wants to have children and be supported to do that.
Lav, I know of one man who did in fact that very thing, namely myself. Of course, my wife (also in her 30s when we met) was not married before and was in her prime a 10, and still quite firtile, as we’ve had 3 healthy kids together since, and she stays at home and treats me like a king. But maybe we’re the exception and not the rule.
@Viliam
I expect dark tomorrow. From what I saw in Western Europe, huge parts will be muslim in 2 generations. When you walk on streets you see muslim families – father, mother and three, four kids. Native Europeans have one, barely two kids (plus single mothers). Eastern Europe has its own minority – gipsies. Not long time ago I created a demographics model (just for fun), in Slovakia majority of newborn children will be gipsies in 50 years – keeping relatively low TFR of 2.4 children per gipsy woman (note: Luník IX is a legend).
The market power is already shifting, and it will continue to shift. Because men are “falling behind” women in various noted ways, hypergamy is under pressure. Yes, it’s true that a woman in her 20s who is not thinking of a committed relationship will have a sex-filled STR or MTR with a guy who lives under a bridge, but when she is eventually wanting to marry, she won’t want to marry that guy. And that’s where the rubber hits the road.
There will, for this generation of young women and the next 1-2 or more, simply be far, far fewer hypergamous men relative to the women. I don’t mean only in terms of earning power (although that will be the case, too), but in terms of the kinds of combinations of alpha/beta qualities that seem to be in demand when hypergamy shifts from bar/club sexy time to finding a husband. There will simply be way too few of these men to meet the demand for them — meaning that the men who are in that category are going to have a huge amount of power in the marriage market.
This is already happening (and being noticed, as witnessed by the growing number of articles complaining about the lack of “good men”, this time not from black women but from women of various races). But the trend is increasing and getting worse.
So, 94 % never married in the 20-24 YO bracket in 2020 and 54 % in the 25-29 YO bracket in 2020? Most women will not have been able to get married during their twenties sweetspot?! Quite grim!
@Dan in Philly, I am not sure about this whole date 50 men thing. It seems like bad advice as the sheer volume of selection can go straight to a woman’s head.
I think there is something else going on that is contributing to later marriage, and that is longer time of cohabitation. There are people cohabiting for 5 years in their 20s and 30s. It is very rare nowadays to see a couple getting engaged within two years of starting to date.
Hope, the number is arbitraty, I admit, but the theory is sound. It comes from simple economics, where the best way to maximize your chances of finding the best mate given 100 possible men and considering that you have only one shot with each of them is to date with no intent of committing the first 50, then marry the first one you find as good as or better than the first 50. You’d have to adjust for your own declining value, but you get the idea. Of course, this is a very rational approach, which means actual application in the real world is problematic.
FWIW, I would advise my daughters (I have 3) not to get involved with a man long term (like, 1 year or so) unless he has proposed marriage and set a date. If he hasn’t proposed after about that long, I would advise to talk to him and ask to fish or cut bait. Otherwise you’ll end up with a man who, after stringing you along for 3 or 5 of your prime years, will dump you for someone younger when he decides to marry, leaving you forced to settle and settle quick.
Pingback: Marriage strike? | Dalrock
Note: I just added a link to Solomon II’s post Proverb 14: The Marriage Zone. He describes the risk women who delay marriage too long run into when they leave the betas to their own devices for a decade or more while sowing their wild oats.
I’m confused…… less people getting married is a PROBLEM?? I think it is the solution myself. When there is no more marriage, there will be no people living off of/taking advantage of/stealing 5o% of the man’s net worth in a divorce. Sounds like a great idea to me!
I bang them a few times, and when I get tired of them I just delete their numbers from my cell phone and stop taking their calls. Fuck them, they don’t deserve my respect. They overplayed their hand. When they had the upper hand they were complete cunts, and now that I have the upper hand I’m returning the favor by being a raging dickhead. It doesn’t really hurt them that much: at this point they’re used to pump & dump!
This is quite the cautionary tale for women suffering the twin pathologies of baby rabies and hypergamy, both part of the biological imperative. Our man Greenlander is also practicing the biological imperative by spreading his seed widely. Women have liberated themselves from the social contract of gender expectations. Men, such as Greenlander, are learning to do the exact same.
You go boyo!
Greenlander,
Welcome to the dark side! It truly is liberating, isn’t it?
Marcos, el escarchado
I don’t know why I waited so long to take the Red Pill. If I’d taken it when I was twenty I would have been much better off. I’m jealous of the younger guys who can start reading all this great material on the internet and take the Red Pill at a much younger age.
“Some are. Most aren’t.”
This is the sobering realization I’ve come to. The freedom society we’ve built since the 60’s (really since the end of WWII) has one major and undeniable dark side: the potential for a LOT of people to get left out in the cold. It’s just like a free market economy, those who are not maximally savvy, shrewd or high quality will find themselves on the back side of the efficiency curve. There’s no law of nature that says all these women have to get married to somebody.
“I don’t get the assumption that life for women stops at marriage. ”
One way to organize people is into those who believe marriage is a starting line and those who believe it is a finish line. If the latter, run (no pun intended).
“I can see myself marrying the 26-year-old if it continues to go well… and if I cut her loose for whatever reason then I’ll also do it respectfully. I treat her respectfully because she deserves respect.”
Greenlander, welcome to the forum and to the red pill society. The part I quoted is something a lot of women don’t seem to understand, that they aren’t entitled to respect because they have breasts. I laugh whenever I hear a woman complain that some sexy asshole guy “doesn’t treat women with respect.” Men treat people with the respect they command. I just had a discussion on this last week at Susan Walsh’s site with a woman who couldn’t believe her frat guy friend would be nice to her and then refer to the frat rat sluts as holes and other dehumanized words. As women see alphas as men and beta males as invisible subhuman trash, men see decent women as such and women who present as sex objects as sex objects.
“D, you do like your charts and graphs, don’t you?”
Suddenly it’s obvious – Dalrock is Ross Perot!
“As an individual, you need to learn Game.”
Amen. There’s just no excuse anymore – pick a game guru and read his stuff. Do about 2,000 approaches so you lose the AA and the oneitis instinct. Become great at something and take pride so you can have inner game. Don’t take too much shit from people. It’s not difficult – it’s like a Golden Ticket, a better life awaits you and all you have to do is buy some chocolate bars.
Thanks Badger.
Susan’s blog is interesting because it’s a microcosm of the SMP right now. There’s a lot of smart posters like yourself over there… but there’s also a lot of female hamsters running in overdrive. Reading the BS that Susan’s female followers write with 100% certainty just makes me want to do a facepalm. However, it’s a great sandbox for finding out how the female mind really works. They really ARE incapable of understanding their own inner hamsters. It’s just proof that female “logic” works in reverse: first they decide the conclusion they want to have, and then they contort the available evidence to support that conclusion. For that reason, I find Susan’s blog insightful… but I can only take it for fifteen or twenty minutes at a time before I risk my head exploding.
Susan herself doesn’t quite get “it.” She gets about half of “it” (which is far more than most women get), but her own hamster keeps her from seeing a lot of things. She’ll occasionally comment on a post from one of the more insightful posters and say something of the form “Wow, that’s a really interesting idea! I’d never realized that if you stuck a paper click in an electrical socket that you could get shocked!” However, for anyone that has walked on this earth for twenty minutes with a Y chromosome, some of her “great insights” are as plain as the sun in the sky.
The best analogy I heard is that women look at betas like men look at fat chicks. It’s not that you like or dislike a fat chick. They’re socially invisible and androgynous. It simply doesn’t occur you to think that a fat chick actually has sexual desires. Once I realized that women perceived my “betaness” in the same way, I realized that I needed to drop it.
The cool thing about game is how freaking easy it is. Once you get the idea and see how well it resonates with pretty much any woman you run it on, it becomes a part of you. You aren’t playing game, you become it.
“Fuck them, they don’t deserve my respect.”
And, you don’t deserve the respect of a decent woman either., Greenlander.
A man who has slept with a slew of women is a worthless piece of trash ..As is a woman who has slept with a slew of men. And, certainly not to be trusted, nor viewed as a potential faithful marriage partner and good parent.
Ugh! You make my stomach turn. People who use others up and then spit ’em out always do.. You have no sense of decency!
“Susan herself doesn’t quite get “it”
But of course you DO! Lol!
You are so far up yourself you can’t see the light of day.. You’ll reap what you sow.
You can come on here bragging about your immoral sexual exploits but you’ll get no kudos from decent folk..
Kathy’s response to greenlander is an instance of the aphorism that chivalry died when women allowed whores to be counted among ladies.
Don’t like some of your own medicine Badger?
I married a good and decent man..
I myself have slept with only two men. My first husband, whom I married as a virgin when I was nineteen(the marriage was subsequently annuled) and my husband to whom I have been married for fifteen years..
We have a beautiful nearly fifteen year old daughter.. She is a good girl..
We hope one day that she meets and marries a good and decent man..
Greenlander, does not meet the criteria of a good and decent man..
What parents in their right mind would want a slag like that for a son-in-law?
Newsflash!!!
Decent women do not like men who have slept around..Just like decent men who do not like women who have slept around..
Kathy
Decent women do not like men who have slept around..Just like decent men who do not like women who have slept around..
However, decent women will not criticize, let alone condemn, their sisters who have slept around. In fact, decent women will go out of their way to stand in solidarity with their sluttier sisters in many, many ways. Decent women in churches can’t bring themselves to speak out against single mothers, or “man’s fault” divorce, both useful tools for women who like to sleep around but not pay a price.
Until such time as decent women stand up and are counted, men like Greenlander will continue to thrive. Like it, don’t like it — doesn’t matter. Facts are facts.
Kathy,
Your personal situation is irrelevant to the first comment you made. You are condemning greenlander for not giving respect to a certain class of woman. You’re asking him to treat a whore as a lady, and failing that you are saying he’s unworthy to bestow respect at all.
He has no sense of “decency” wrt people who don’t deserve decency. He gives decency and respect to those who do. Whether he “deserves respect” from a “decent woman” is also irrelevant. He’ll get respect from people he respects, who themselves he judges as worthy of respect.
“Decent women do not like men who have slept around..Just like decent men who do not like women who have slept around..”
That’s a matter of some debate, the selection psychologies of men and women are quite different. A man with a moderate sexual past raises his attractiveness to women compared to if he had stayed celibate – look up “preselection.”
“I married a good and decent man..
I myself have slept with only two men. My first husband, whom I married as a virgin when I was nineteen(the marriage was subsequently annuled) and my husband to whom I have been married for fifteen years..
We have a beautiful nearly fifteen year old daughter.. She is a good girl..
We hope one day that she meets and marries a good and decent man..
Greenlander, does not meet the criteria of a good and decent man..”
Good for you, but you do realize, no? that people like myself and greenlander would have loved that kind of life path. We didn’t get it, because popular culture has destroyed the institution of marriage and made most women unmarriageable, and because we were never taught how to properly manage interactions with the opposite sex. What was once ingrained in culture is now dangerous, esoteric knowledge.
At some point we realized that not only was our betaness unattractive, women actively hated us for it. We took the red pill and made the switch to the kind of men women want. Some like greenlander have decided to sample the buffet table of free sex that is the alpha man’s for the taking. Others like me have taken other paths. Either way, we keep hearing on the Internet how we’re not “real men” but in the real world women continue to eat it up.
So if you’re wondering why we haven’t taken your path, it’s because no woman chose us for it because the ones around us wanted to ride the carousel. You might argue they detected our “lack of decency,” but the fact is that lots of guys who go the red pill game path didn’t start out that way, they were driven to it by hitting bottom. The first thing we had to toss was our reflexive “decency” and “respect” for women who didn’t deserve it. Once we did that life started to get a lot better.
Where I come from TRULY decent women do look down on sluts. And criticize them..
Greenlander and his ilk, will of course continue to thrive. Just as the sluts that he pumps and dumps will as well. There will always be immoral unethical and indecent people who will we willing to use others up for their own ends.
Not marriage material.. These feckless people find it hard to bond and stay faithful .. They are, in effect worthless.. And, that’s a fact!
Like attracts like.
No one has ever said that you should respect sluts Badger.. However if you become like the very sluts that you condemn (and I am speaking generally here, not directed at you personally) then you are no better than them. Nor do you deserve any respect.
Greenlander deserves NO respect. It is one thing to engage in such immoral practices, but quite another to come to this blog, frequented by many decent men and women and brag about such lewd exploits, without compunction. Says much about his character..
I think what happens is that Game is like a Pandora’s box. Once it is opened, it can lead to various places.
The places it leads to depends on the guy — what he wants, what his background is, how vengeful he may be from his past dealings with women, what place he is “starting from” in terms of base level of physical attraction, moral restrictions and the like.
From my perspective I don’t think that using the Dark Side of Game is moral, in most cases, but I know why guys do it. For the most part it has to do with a pre-Game experience of a LOT of rejection and poor treatment by the same “general type” of woman he is Dark Siding after he learns Game. It’s a type of table-turning fueled by the negative experiences before learning Game. There aren’t that many Dark Siders who go an practice their Game on decent Church girls, really … mostly they’re going right back into the shark tank with the type of girls who wouldn’t give them the time of day, and pumping-and-dumping them. I can understand the logic and the emotion involved, even though I don’t agree with it morally.
I think, though, that it’s easy for women to underestimate the damage done to men who are rejected as betas routinely between say 16-25, while they are simultaneously seeing a small number of guys getting laid to beat the band. It causes quite a bit of damage, and can easily lead to a LOT of negative feelings about women. Some guys can overcome this, and some can’t. I generally advise younger guys who are facing this catastrophe to do everything they can to avoid becoming bitter about it, because building up that bitterness can tend to lead to the Dark Side. Learning Game is also pretty much mandatory for any guy who wants to do reasonably well in the market today, but the emotional mindset needs to be addressed as well, I think.
The best analogy I heard is that women look at betas like men look at fat chicks. It’s not that you like or dislike a fat chick. They’re socially invisible and androgynous. It simply doesn’t occur you to think that a fat chick actually has sexual desires. Once I realized that women perceived my “betaness” in the same way, I realized that I needed to drop it.
Pretty much how I think it works, too. Betas are just “invisible” to most women in terms of sex/emotional attraction. Trouble is that this excludes most men from the radar screen, hence exaggerated hypergamy. Guys need Game to deal with that under the current conditions, however, because the other way of dealing with it isn’t coming back into play any time soon.
Where I come from TRULY decent women do look down on sluts. And criticize them..
Where would that be, I wonder? Not any where in North America, or in Europe, or in Australia, so far as I can tell. So tell me where you come from, in general terms. Because where I live, in North America, “sex positive” feminists are supported by other feminists, no matter what. Women who divorce for any old reason at all are not criticized at all, but in fact are celebrated; if you’ve read this site for any period of time, you’ve seen examples.
Show me any number of women who have stood up in public to criticize the slut who wrote “Eat, Pray, Love”, ok? I can’t seem to find them at my local Barnes & Noble, where EPL is proudly displayed for sale, and often found in the hands of middle aged women, both married and otherwise. And yes, the authoress of “Eat, Betray, Love” is a slut.
Heck, just show me where you and your imaginary friends got up in public, and used shaming language – the kind women use on men all the time – on Karen Owens. That should be easy to do, if what you say is true…
Greenlander and his ilk, will of course continue to thrive. Just as the sluts that he pumps and dumps will as well. There will always be immoral unethical and indecent people who will we willing to use others up for their own ends.
That’s true. But irrelevant. The real question is this: will the large number of young women in the 20 – 25 year age bracket who are adamant about their freedom now, still be able to find a husband 5 or so years from now, or will the supply/demand relationship in the marriage market be working against them.
Or to put it another way, will the large number of young women riding the carousel now actually find a beta AMC a few years from now? Hey, maybe if they got off of the carousel before it was too late, and started acting like adults rather than spoiled sluts, they might find the man they claim to want.
Of course, that would require other women to tell these overaged girls that what they are doing is wrong. Which is not, not, not happening so far as I can tell.
Not marriage material.. These feckless people find it hard to bond and stay faithful .. They are, in effect worthless.. And, that’s a fact!
Yes, that’s true. And yet, young women continue to be told they can “have it all” by other women from Oprah to Sarah Palin. So there’s no reason for sluts to stop being sluts, is there? Therefore, there’s no reason for cads to stop what they are doing, either. Certainly there’ s no logical, rational reason for any man to get married to the average North American woman today. Even a pre-nuptual agreement won’t protect him against the armed agents of the state that his wife can call into their home at any time she chooses.
Like attracts like.
No. That is not true. Ask any number of basically decent men who have been screwed over royally by “nice girls”…
@Badger, I agree with you about Dark Game as well, but I think it is an individual decision. There are men who were spurned while young then learned game, but who still don’t sleep around. They are actively repulsed by the thought of casual sex on a fundamental level.
Part of this is very primal. Many guys would be repulsed by the idea of sleeping with a slut and getting a nasty disease. Likewise a good girl who wants a family might find preselected men attractive, but if he has a long past then he is more likely to have STDs, which cause fertility issues. Being clean and healthy is more important to people who have high future-orientation personalities.
On the subject of girls shaming other girls for promiscuous behavior, it definitely happens. There was a NYT article recently about a girl who texted her naked photo to a boy, and the picture got out. The girl got called all kinds of names by other girls and was socially ostracized and shunned, and even after changing schools she still got sneers from other students. That part just doesn’t make headlines the same way that Karen Owen’s dissertation does, because it’s just anonymous reactions without names or faces. It speaks more volumes about the media than it does about what really happens in regard to slut shaming. Girls also trash other girls and sometimes falsely label them slutty because they know it destroys their reputations.
Greenlander took the red pill and learned Game. That warrants respect right there.
What he decides to do with his newly found knowledge is his own business. He’s now practicing some dark Game. So what? He’s getting what he wants in life and as a fellow man, I give him respect for that, too.
Kathy might stomp her feet and pout. That’s her business. It’s more than likely she’s annoyed not by Greenlander’s actions, but the fact that he learned Game and the “secret” to understanding women.
Most of the female opposition to Game comes from snowflaking women. Most of the male opposition to Game comes from white knights. Such opposition is a constant reminder that Game works. You know you’re over the target when you’re getting lots of flak.
As for the whole male slut versus female slut, consider the oft-told lock and key analogy:
A key that opens many locks is called a master key.
A lock that can be opened by many keys is called a shitty lock.
Kathy:
Why don’t you women admit that you fundamentally hate men and consider us all to be your inferiors? 90% of all relationships—including marriage — are terminated by women. Most of the time, they’re into another relationship before they’ve even terminated the other.
So don’t go on about ‘decent women looking down on sluts’. Practically none of you have the slightest concern for fidelity to a man; and it’s laughable to believe that any of you consider sex as something intimate or special. Usually, women use it like any other form of manipulation against men.
I don’t subscribe to Game Theory, but none of you women have any right to criticize men who ‘pump and dump’ since, given the divorce rate and the statistic I previously mentioned; that’s precisely what the majority of you are doing to us men. Women consider us men as utterly expendable and a relationship no more than getting out of it whatever short-term expedient you believe you’re entitled to. So, don’t criticize men who want sex and use women for it; unfortunately, you women have created a society where gender relations are carried out on what’s practically a ‘kill-or-be-killed’ basis. This is why I’ve abandoned the whole thing, and many other men have as well.
I see that you’re well-versed on Shaming Tactics. However, I’ve already heard them all. You’re not original. Shaming language is just a form of “you dumb beta, STFU, get back in your cube and pay your taxes.”
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
I’m done playing by the beta rules. I play by my own rules now, just as women do. Ever since feminism and the sexual revolution, the beta rules are for tools.
Then you did the intelligent thing: you attracted a man for marriage when your market value was higher and the risk for the man was low. That’s a very different strategy than riding the cock carousel until you’re thirty-four and then complaining that there marriage-minded men. If most women took the path that you did then all these blogs wouldn’t exist.
You’re half-right. Decent men don’t want hos. Men instinctively know that hos are trouble. However, women want high-value men (hypergamy), and high-value have options. That’s the part you don’t get. Most women care much more about getting a high-value man than they care about “man-hos”. I can say that with certainty because if that wasn’t true, they be pursuing their peers in the SMP rather than riding the alpha cock carousel. I’m polished enough that I don’t give off a Mystery-style douchebag-player vibe. Women think that I’m a confident, fun, worthy, professional guy. The only women that have accused me of being a player are the ones I’ve dumped.
The other thing is that for men, success creates success. Success with women gives you the inner frame, “I can cut the woman I’m with right now and find another one. Women are a dime a dozen.” That, in turn, gives you the ability to keep a dominant frame and not take any crap from women, which women find sexy. A man who has no success with women has the inner frame, “I need to cling to this woman, because I don’t know if I can find another one.” Women pick on that frame and will reject him.
If I was in your place and sending a young woman into the world today, I’d be very afraid. Young women are notoriously bad at picking men. Regardless of what you say to her or how you raised her, her peers in the SMP are invisible to her: the inner hamster of a teenage girl runs like no other. Without the help of societal constrants on women, nothing you can say to her will make her want to choose her peer. The old societal rules of slut shaming are gone. She’s already near the peak of her SMV and she thinks (or will soon think) that she can catch the alpha two notches above her. I can’t tell you how many young girls I’ve seen put on a nice charade for mom and dad but then act like raging hos the moment they are out of their naive parents’ view.
Exactly, thanks Badger. I’ve been accused of not “respecting women” before: Kathy isn’t the first. I honestly don’t know what people are talking about when they talk about “respecting women.” It’s just white-knighting BS. I respect individuals, some of which are women and some of which are men, based on their actions and character. The argument “X has a vagina, therefore X should be respected” is wholly unmeritorious.
Thanks again, Badger. Kathy, I was the “nice guy” that Badger is describing. I thought that if I just did the right thing all the time, was professionally successful and treated all women with respect that I’d find a great one. I did all that, and I was making a six-figure salary at age 28. (At that point I had slept with a grand total of four women.) My success didn’t matter for anything: women didn’t care that much. The only thing I noticed was that my peers in the SMP were becoming more jaded and bitter from the pain of riding the carousel (even while they excluded me from participating).
Kathy, the thing that most amazes me about your position is that you can’t see the big picture. Feminism is destroying our society by dis-incentivizing productive behavior by men. (…and men do almost all the heavy lifting in society and are far more capable of it than women, as anyone who has worked with a lot of women knows.) The response of women is to bring out the shaming language, but that tactic is getting so over-used that men are becoming tone-deaf to it. Now, men are just opting out of productive work simply because there is no incentive. They either get stoned and play xbox all day, become players, or expatriate. The only thing that will save our society and our standard of living is to reverse the “progress” of feminism. Since there is almost no political will do that, it’s pretty much guaranteed that our standard of living and the strength of our culture will continue to decline.
I love watching my ex who split from me 7 years ago at age 28 because I wouldn’t marry her right there on the spot. Now, at 35, she has nothing, but agreed to marry some 55 year old dude from India, online, sight unseen, because he told her he is rich and wanted marriage and children. 10 months later there’s no hide nor hair of him yet.
Pingback: It Gets Better For Men, Sort Of « The Private Man
Hope
On the subject of girls shaming other girls for promiscuous behavior, it definitely happens. There was a NYT article recently about a girl who texted her naked photo to a boy, and the picture got out. The girl got called all kinds of names by other girls and was socially ostracized and shunned, and even after changing schools she still got sneers from other students. That part just doesn’t make headlines the same way that Karen Owen’s dissertation does, because it’s just anonymous reactions without names or faces. It speaks more volumes about the media than it does about what really happens in regard to slut shaming. Girls also trash other girls and sometimes falsely label them slutty because they know it destroys their reputations.
Hope, with all due respect, you are confusing tactics for competing in the SMP with actual shaming of promiscuity. Your last sentence is the real giveaway. Looking back at some situations with the insight of Game, I can recall that in the 1980’s young women who were the quickest to trash other women as “sluts” just happened to be riding the carousel for all they were worth. Projection, anyone?
No, what I’m talking about is middle aged women, matrons like what Karen claims to be, getting at least as indignant over Gilbert and her “Eat, Betray, Publish” actions as they do over blunt statements of the truth. I’m talking about social leaders, like, oh, Sarah Palin getting out there and saying that Karen Owen is bad for what she did. I want to see Oprah publicly shame young, black women who have multiple children, each with a different father. I want to see some adulthood on the part of “all grown up” women.
Do you see any of that? I surely don’t. What I see is a lot of “you go, Grrl!” and not a speck of “You’re wrong, girl, stop what you are doing now“, and until that happens, it is actively dangerous for a man to commit to a woman in any way without knowing a whole lot about her past, her friends, her previous relationships with men, her debt levels, her character in general.
Karen, on the other hand, doesn’t get it. But if she really has a 15 year old daughter, she should read more of this site, much more, in order to learn what her daughter needs to avoid.
Hey guys, Kathy is actually quite OK, doesn’t hate men, and has called a “horny toad” at times. She understands Game and is not against it, but often laments how it is used. I do think she overreacted on here, but she is also not one of the dumb bunnies with the overactive rationalization hamsters either.
Now blast me for doing my White Knight routine, but as a recovering beta, I still fall back into the old habits once in a while.
Yeah people here don’t know her well.
I still don’t understand who in their right mind would want to get married at all! “some see marriage as a starting point, some see marriage as a ending point”? I don’t see marriage as anything at all except an outdated, useless, leeching, institution. If we abolish marriage in this country, we will see a total different attitude of women towards men. The only way to have “true equality” of the sexes is to get rid of marriage…… this is the logical conclusion of Feminism, however they (feminist) have showed their hand by supporting marriage. All they want is to never work but get TREATED AS IF they actually do work. No dice, broads.
CSPB
Hey guys, Kathy is actually quite OK, doesn’t hate men, and has called a “horny toad” at times. She understands Game and is not against it, but often laments how it is used. I do think she overreacted on here, but she is also not one of the dumb bunnies with the overactive rationalization hamsters either.
That’s easy to say. Not so easy to prove. Got any evidence, in the form of links to other postings?
PS: What does this mean: “Has called a ‘horny toad’ at times.”
No, I don’t need to provide proof and I don’t need to explain. Either you recognize her from various places on in the manosphere or you don’t. Now exactly why would someone with an Anonymous name expect details on someone else?
The only way to have “true equality” of the sexes is to get rid of marriage…… this is the logical conclusion of Feminism, however they (feminist) have showed their hand by supporting marriage. All they want is to never work but get TREATED AS IF they actually do work. No dice, broads.
The thing is — if that happens, all it means is that child care will become state-supported, and the majority of the taxes supporting it will come from men. One way or the other, male resources will be commandeered to support women’s children — either through family court theft or simple taxation, which still tends to hit men harder than it does women.
CSPB
No, I don’t need to provide proof and I don’t need to explain.
I see, so I’m supposed to take anything you say as revealed truth, just because you say it. Is that what you mean?
Either you recognize her from various places on in the manosphere or you don’t.
What I think I see in Kathy (not Karen as I wrongly wrote above) is another trad-con gynosupremacist.
Now exactly why would someone with an Anonymous name expect details on someone else?
Who cares? I can use any goofy name I want. What matters is the content of what I write, not the label I paste on it. I could call myself Zorgon, King of Planet Frunabulax — but if what I write is true, and I can back it up, who cares?
What I have learned is that you like to make big claims, but don’t like to back them up with facts. I’ll bear that in mind in the future.
PS: A simple “Sorry, can’t do that right now” would have sufficed, and would have been much less obnoxious.
Greenlander and his ilk, will of course continue to thrive. Just as the sluts that he pumps and dumps will as well. There will always be immoral unethical and indecent people who will we willing to use others up for their own ends.
Yes, they will. And this galls you to no end. Sorry, but a slut is not worthy of respect, neither is a woman who manipulates men with sex.
So if you want to think that greenlander is a bad person, and you admit that the slutty girls are also bad people, then what is your problem. Let them have each other – why do you care. Unless, of course, you are more inclined to defend the girls.
why would child care HAVE to be state supported? We could just abolish marriage and then abolish the state supported welfare system and then sit back and watch the birth rate drop! Only those women with high incomes would procreate, since our society would be set up with the idea that “you birth it, you pay for it.” Yes, this means that the majority of child care will not be carried out by the biological mother but by some lower status female that she hires to do the work. This is NOT new. History shows that this was the way that all high status females raised their young. Wet nurses, nannies, boarding schools, in-house tutors, these things have been the norm throughout history for the high status holders. It did not adversely affect these children, some of our greatest minds in history were raised this way. This seems an acceptable solution to me.
Some people might protest the idea of children being raised by people other than the biological mother. These will most likely be baby boomers. Baby boomers have an blind spot when it comes to history. They are so self absorbed they think that all of history was exactly like they remember their childhood to be. You can see that they have this mindset when you tell them that the US only became the “greatest country in the world” with “the largest economy” after WWII. They think it was always like that!
Bizarre to see the comments about Kathy. She’s an equal-opportunity slut shamer… male sluts or female sluts… everyone gets shamed. LOL.
Kathy classic from my own blog, concerning Julian Assange:
Yup. Kathy’s a real gynosupremacist.
And as to the “master key”… Kathy is right. The highest quality women don’t want a promiscuous man because such men tend to make unfaithful husbands, among other reasons. Why would a woman with options settle?
CSPB,
I suppose I’m a White Knight, as well. 🙂
I think it comes down to the fact that women have been programmed to think that if they can get stuff out of men (attention, free drinks, dinner, an entire lifestyle), they are entitled to it. But men shouldn’t get the same deal. What greenlander is describing is his willingness to use women who are willing to be used (and very likely looking to use him). And women think, “Wait, he should have to pay something for that!” But our society is devolving rapidly into one that questions only, “What’s in it for me?” and not “What is my responsibility toward those around me?”
greenlander states he can get women to have sex with him with no investment in them personally. Under the old rules, that was considered wrong. Times are a-changin’. And it’s only sex, right? Right? We’ve been telling ourselves for years that sex is only scratching an itch, and humans naturally have a whole lot of dry skin. Unconsciously, women know that’s a lot of bunk, but we’ve trained ourselves to look only at the side of the balance sheet where that idea works in our favor (teens and twenties) and close our eyes tightly at the rest.
why would child care HAVE to be state supported? We could just abolish marriage and then abolish the state supported welfare system and then sit back and watch the birth rate drop!
I’m talking about what will be the likely policy response to falling marriage rates, not an ideological one to your preference. The state needs kids, and it will find a way to coerce the resources to raise them by force if needed. That’s reality.
Grerp:
“What’s in it for me?” is the attitude most women carry into relationships with men. When there’s nothing else to gain, the man is thrown aside like a sack of garbage and it’s ‘on to the next guy’. What Greenlander and others like him are doing is ‘getting them before they get you.’ Unfortunately, that’s what gender relations have come to, when women see men as rivals, enemies, and inferiors. To women, all men are only sperm donors anyway, so it’s natural they would use sex as a weapon against us.
I’ve come around to the belief many MRAs have promoted, that women (at least in our culture), haven’t any empathy or affection for men at all. They certainly don’t behave as though they possess a capacity to love; women overwhelmingly are the party who ends a relationship; and without the slightest sense of remorse, at that. This is also why don’t endorse Greenlander’s approach: a man who ‘pumps and dumps’ is a walking target for a false accusation of some kind.
“And as to the “master key”… Kathy is right. The highest quality women don’t want a promiscuous man because such men tend to make unfaithful husbands, among other reasons. Why would a woman with options settle?”
This is bullshit. I’m a promiscuous male and the girls (the few of them that exist) are attracted to me
I have more respect for a man who Goes His Own Way than a man who pumps-and-dumps. The man-ho’s sexual exploits lowers the SMV of women and creates more bitter feminists. He pollutes the water that all men have to drink from.
And lets face it- most of these beta guys who complain about the 7’s and 8’s riding the cock carousal would sooner throw themselves off a bridge before they dated a 4 or 5.
It isn’t WOMEN who are doing them wrong…it is pretty women doing them wrong. The average ones sit around and wait for acknowledgement while you all chase the pretty ones. But who pays the price for a mans bitterness? ALL WOMEN… including the innocent uglies.
I probably set her off with my callous comment “Fuck them, they don’t deserve my respect,” and her emotional response to that made her blind to the point I was making.
The only real reason to get married is if you want children. If you don’t want children, then you’re better off being single with game. As others have pointed out, getting married is no escape from the SMP. Trying to nail down a girl in marriage to get sex is a strategy destined to fail.
You’re right that the screws are getting tighter. The increasing tide of feminism and socialism in this country will continue to consume more resources, and therefore there will be higher taxes. However, there will reach a point at which it is counterproductive. We’re pretty high up the Laffer curve already. At a 30% tax rate, most people will stay in the system and pay. At a 70% tax rate, there’s a huge incentive to hide your income or drop out of the system.
Yes and no. Women have a lot of attraction toward men who could get a lot of women. The only men who could catch a lot of women but haven’t are men who are highly religious or who get married early. I see this sentiment from women from time to time on these blogs, but my own experience is that women will almost always take the higher-status guy and try to tame him, especially when they are young.
That’s a fair and insightful comment, Grerp. I’m acutely aware that they want to use me: it’s practically written on their foreheads.
Exactly. Once a woman is done with a man, any action is justifiable by putting the hamster in the judge’s seat. You only need to take a look at what happens to guys in divorce 2.0 to see that. Men, even when in conflict, have a sense of fair play and fair fighting that women simply don’t have.
Well, note that the girls that I pump-n-dump are in their early thirties: their SMV is pretty low anyways. I contend that I’m not materially lowering their SMV. PND on a 32-year-old doesn’t change her SMV that much. PND on a 19-year-old changes her SMV quite a bit. My original point was that I separate girls quickly into two groups: fertile/young/marriageable and infertile/old/not-marriageable and handle them with wholly different strategies. I’m not polluting the well of marriageable girls.
Paige, will you put please your hamster back in the cage for a few minutes? After that, go look up “female hypergamy” and “projection” in the dictionary. Then you can tell me what I already know: the fours and fives you’re talking about aren’t pining for the men that are fours and fives: they’re pining that the sevens won’t ask them out. After you’re done with that, you can come back in the living room and sit with the grown-ups, OK?
Greenlander’s response was pretty good.
A 4 / 5 who was never shown any interest at all in high school will take what they can get. They may prefer a 7 but they will take a 5. None of my less attractive friends were picky. Most all of them are married now.
CSPB is right I probably did overreact..
I’m a passionate person .. I admit it..
My mother has always said that I take after my father 😉 (He’s a passionate Italian -Australian)
I don’t resile from my initial points, however.
I guess I AM an equal opportunity slut shamer.. Lol..
I have been very fortunate and blessed to have encountered some very wonderful and special people in my blog hopping travels over a few years.
I am over the moon, to have discovered recently, that two exceptional people for whom I have the greatest respect have now gotten together..(through blogging)
Two fine people who love each other.. (They know who I mean)
In this oft jaded and broken world that we live in, I am heartened to see a beacon of light in the darkness….. It fills me with hope. 🙂
FWIW-
Early 30’s is not infertile. Early 40’s is more likely to be infertile.
Pingback: The ethics of pump-n-dump. | Dalrock
Alte, thanks for posting a few words from Kathy. That is useful.
However, she could still be another one of the trad-con women who “respects” men the way a farmer “respects” a mule; valuable not in and of itself, but solely in terms of what can be gotten.
Certainly the conspicuous use of standard feminist shaming language as a “debate” tactic is suggestive. We’ll see.
AR,
Nah, it’s not suggestive of anything. She gets into it with all of us, as she likes a good scrap.
Paige,
Peak fertility ends at 24, and egg quality declines rapidly after 28. The decline of both is much slower for women who already have children, which is probably why you’re skeptical of that. Pregnancy slows the decline of fertility and egg quality, so women who have more children remain fertile longer.
Alte- Interesting. I didn’t know that.
Of course you don’t know that. You don’t really worry about your fertility, since you’re busy producing your own soccer team. LOL.
Fertility is a use-it-or-lose it thing.
Alte
Nah, it’s not suggestive of anything. She gets into it with all of us, as she likes a good scrap.
You are missing the point. People use words that are in their heads to argue or debate with. The words that are in their heads are the same words they use to frame the world. The words that people use to frame the world tend to reveal how they think.
When someone uses Marxist words to define the world, such as “capitalist”, “worker”, “oppression” that tells me their thinking runs in certain ways, certain tracks, because they have bought into the underlying premises of Marxism, consciously or unconsciously. And that in turn means there are a whole lot of facts, and opinions, and logic streams that they may well be unable to comprehend without a lot of argumentation. This may or may not be worth the effort.
When someone uses feminist terms to define the world, that tells me that person is carrying around some, or possibly many or even all of the various premises of feminism. That person can call themself anything they want; “traditionalist”, “conservative”, “libertarian”, “rastafarian”, “Queen of the May” for all I care. The label isn’t useful. What almost always follows is some form of gynosupremacy, because that is what feminism is, it’s a form of Marxism that preaches and demands the supremacy of women over men and boys.
I repeat: there are trad cons who clearly “value” men in the exact same way that feminists do, as beasts of burden who can be tapped for sperm and resources. Such a person may say they are anti-feminist, and in terms of pure slogan-spouting that is true, but when you dig deeply enough, you find the same mentality as in feminism. And when you see a “traditional” or “conservative” couple where a man basically “leads” his wife only as she wants and where she wants to be led, IMO you see a mule and his mistress. She may treat her mule a little better than some others do, to be sure. But she still regards him as a beast, not a man.
AR,
No, you are missing the point I am making. Kathy isn’t like that, at all, and I get tired of people pulling out bits and pieces from comments to form arguments about someone’s personal motivation. They do it to me, as well, and it is tiresome. I see it on various blogs, and it is pure Sophistry. She has a long history in the MRM, and that reflects her motivation better than some rant she posted in disgust after reading something revolting posted by a yet-anotha-playa.
“Shaming language” isn’t something the feminists invented, you know. We know all about the power of shame and guilt, and your own attack of her was clearly meant to shame her into silence, so it’s hypocritical of you to pull the worn-out MRM “shaming language” card, or imply that her vocabulary implicates her as a “gynosupremacist”.
@Alte, I did not know that either. It makes me feel a bit better about losing our son, I suppose. He was a few days from full term.
Alte
No, you are missing the point I am making. Kathy isn’t like that, at all,
Don’t tell me. Show Me because talk is cheap.
and I get tired of people pulling out bits and pieces from comments to form arguments about someone’s personal motivation. They do it to me, as well, and it is tiresome. I see it on various blogs, and it is pure Sophistry. She has a long history in the MRM, and that reflects her motivation better than some rant she posted in disgust after reading something revolting posted by a yet-anotha-playa.
Where is this “long history”? Not here, not so far as I can tell at Spearhead or False Rape society.
“Shaming language” isn’t something the feminists invented, you know.
Particular forms of shaming language are something the feminists invented, and when some woman rolls out the same old, tired, crap don’t expect me to bow down and put her on a pedestal. I’m surprised Kathy didn’t accuse Greenlander of secretly living in his mother’s basement, playing computer games and worrying about the size of his penis. That would have been the next, logical step.
We know all about the power of shame and guilt, and your own attack of her was clearly meant to shame her into silence, so it’s hypocritical of you to pull the worn-out MRM “shaming language” card, or imply that her vocabulary implicates her as a “gynosupremacist”.
I replied to an obvious, feminist, attack upon a man for the crime of not following the orders she wanted to give him. I pointed out the facts as I saw them. We were informed that Kathy is Not Like That. Rather than accept that oh so typical White Knighting defense, I asked for some evidence. You provided a little something, but nothing of substance. There are tradcon women who are indeed just as gynosupremacist as any feminist. Whether Kathy is one or not I do not know, but no one, not you, not her, seems able to provide me with any facts to the contrary.
I cannot make bricks without clay. Bring me facts, not emotional claptrap, and we’ll see what is true and what is not true.
In the mean time, bear in mind fewer and fewer men will respond to the tired, worn out feminist shaming tropes in the way Kathy clearly desired, by cowering in deference mumbling “Sorry, ma’am, won’t happen again”. Waving those words around is just like holding up an enemy flag on a battlefield.
Don’t expect any man to surrender to that banner, and don’t be surprised at the charge that results.
Hope, I am terribly, terribly grieved to read of this calamity. Please accept all the deepest sympathy that I can give. I can’t really imagine your situation, but hope that whatever the cause, it can be overcome next time. Take care.
The difference between a trad-con and a feminist is that trad-cons believe that men and women share in the responsibility to uphold society. A trad-woman is a beast of burden because she holds herself to a similar standard of usefulness that she holds men.
Hope: I am so sorry for your loss. That is terrible.
Anonymous Reader – “Don’t tell me. Show Me because talk is cheap.”
At the risk of being a bit of a White Knight, I’ll stick up for Kathy as well. I’ve seen a lot of remarks for her, which, on balance, do indicate that she is actually one of the decent ones, who does love and value her husband.
One the other hand, I’ve also see her (figuratively) stick her foot in her mouth [I’m pretty good at recognizing that behavior as I am very well versed in doing so myself].
I’d only ask that you give her a chance. Consider why a women in her position (mother of an attractive teen-aged daughter) would feel as she does, and see if her comments on other issue (which would not hit so close to home for her) demonstrate something quite different than did her comments here.
None of us (fellow travelers in the Manosphere) will agree on everything, all the time; so I simply advise to “agree to disagree” on certain matters with those who are otherwise good allies.
@Hope
I would add my sympathies for you and your husband to those being expressed by others.
Hope, I’m very sorry for your loss. Having lost one myself, all I can say is time will go on, as it always does. Greif does not end in this world, but joy will also be present. God bless.
Sorry, did not mean to veer off topic, but thank you everyone for your thoughts and sympathies.
slwerner
At the risk of being a bit of a White Knight, I’ll stick up for Kathy as well. I’ve seen a lot of remarks for her, which, on balance, do indicate that she is actually one of the decent ones, who does love and value her husband.
Where have you seen these remarks? This is getting annoying. Look, if it were 1990 and we were all posting on USENET to soc.men, and I couldn’t find any postings by “Kathy” because my local site had a fast expire on the soc.* groups & DejaNews didn’t exist yet, this dialog would be acceptable. But it’s 2011, everyone argues on web sites and the sites are regularly trawled by search engines from Bing to Yahoo. So why can’t anyone provide a link to a comment on a web site that I can read for myself? I just did a site search on Spearhead and didn’t find much, for example.
One the other hand, I’ve also see her (figuratively) stick her foot in her mouth [I’m pretty good at recognizing that behavior as I am very well versed in doing so myself].
Ditto. But you know what? When I do that, I make an effort to remove said foot, admit error, and even apologize if need be. That’s what adults do, right?
I’d only ask that you give her a chance.
More than willing to do so. Not willing to knuckle under to feminist shaming tactics. Not willing to tug my forelock and humbly kneel at the pedestal, either.
Been there. Done that. Never again.
Consider why a women in her position (mother of an attractive teen-aged daughter) would feel as she does, and see if her comments on other issue (which would not hit so close to home for her) demonstrate something quite different than did her comments here.
That’s a problem that deserves attention. I’ll think about it, and post something in the “pump-n-dump” thread.
None of us (fellow travelers in the Manosphere) will agree on everything, all the time; so I simply advise to “agree to disagree” on certain matters with those who are otherwise good allies.
I already do that. Plenty of threads I just don’t participate in, because anything I might say has already been said, or people I disagree with won’t pay any mind to me anyway. I extend the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. However, I am not willing to hand the benefit of the doubt to someone who drags her own, private pedestal into a thread, jumps up on it and demands we all sit up and be still like good, little, boys for our scolding. I quit putting up with that kind of finger-wagging from my mother a long time ago, and she had a lot more moral authority over me than any random woman on the Internet ever will have.
My sympathies, as well, Hope.
But it is true, pregnancy protects fertility and helps you maintain egg quality, even if it doesn’t end in a live birth. It also strengthens your immune system and protects you from numerous life-threatening diseases, like ovarian and breast cancer.
That is why some women wait until 35 and then can’t have a child, while others start at 25 or younger, and then keep having kids into their 40s or even 50s. That’s the paradox we see around us, and it’s why so many women are confused and think they can start trying to have children at 45.
If I might be so brazen as to offer you unsolicited advice, I hope you have had your thyroid function tested. Many doctors forget that or discount it, and it is a major cause of miscarriages and infertility that can be very easily treated.
I just did a site search on Spearhead and didn’t find much, for example.
Really? Kathy has been around for about 1.5 years now, with Brendan, Slwerner, Hope, and I. Amazing that the old threads are so buried now. That is why we all assume everyone knows her already, and we’re surprised at the reaction she got.
Alte, after the stillbirth we had all the tests done that were possible to be done. It was not a maternal issue or a chromosomal defect, but they found a heart artery that was physically narrow. I had a completely normal pregnancy otherwise. I should probably make an update sometime but it is a difficult topic for me.
That’s alright, I didn’t mean to be nosy. It’s just that my family has a history of thyroiditis, and the most awful pregnancies.
I’ll pray for you and yours, especially for your son.
I just did a site search on Spearhead and didn’t find much, for example.
Alte
Really? Kathy has been around for about 1.5 years now, with Brendan, Slwerner, Hope, and I. Amazing that the old threads are so buried now. That is why we all assume everyone knows her already, and we’re surprised at the reaction she got.
Around for 1.5 years on Spearhead, or somewhere else? I can do a more careful site search in a bit. Someone posting a link would be as fast, or faster…
Anonymous Reader – “Where have you seen these remarks?”
I didn’t really expect you to good searching for comments she had made. I hoped you’d just take my word for it that she’d made some good ones. If I wanted you to see some examples, the onus would be on me to produce them for you (not for you to have to go search them out). If are are still looking, try Kathy Farrelly”.
She posts more on Alte’s blog. Here’s one wherein she speaks of her husband:
file:///G:/Documents/02-2011/Female_Bloggers/Trad_Catholic/I’d%20like%20to%20give%20a%20man%20a%20moment%20to%20speak%20«%20Traditional%20Catholicism.htm#comment-4616
Better link:
http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/id-like-to-give-a-man-a-moment-to-speak/
BTW, I’m watching a the Monte Carlo Herbie movie with my kids (both have spent the day with a stomach virus), and there’s a scene where the female race-car driver starts throwing pottery at the guy, screaming around like a madwoman.
Alte – “Better link”
Thank you. I neglected to notice that I’d searched my own archive, and thus the link wouldn’t do anyone any good.
The comment I was specifically looking at was this one I excerpted here:
“Often.. before my husband has come home from work I have worked out a way for us to have a bit of time alone together.. It’s fun…And the anticipation greatly enhances the mood..”
I think it shows how she feels about her husband.
I’ve never seen Laura Woods say anything like this about her fondness for her husband, for example. Kathy doesn’t seem to think of her husband as her mule. I have yet to see anything to indicate that Laura Woods does not.
Oops. forgot to close the anchor tag. My apologies.
Kathy’s been around the manosphere since before there even was a Spearhead or FRS at places like Anakin Niceguy’s Biblical Manhood and The Elusive Wapiti, at least 3 years by my recollection.
It does seem odd to me that someone like Greenlander would come to a Christian blog and brag about his sexual activities, or what a Christian would consider his sexual sin. Much more odd than Kathy saying he was a male slut.
I think what happens a lot on these sites is that people grant respect to others based primarily on the quality of what they post. The respect greenlander was given was due to the insights/experiences he shared. You can value something somebody writes even if you don’t agree with their conclusion.
And there’s also an element of shared experience. A lot of guys dealt with the early frustrations that greenlander wrote about, and it’s easy to sympathize with him. The PnD lifestyle is not something I approve of or would do, but I can see why others would.
And then there’s guys like me, who travel abroad to find foreign brides.
To which “Kathy” responded by accusing me of being a homosexual pedophile on Spearhead :
Elmer, why don’t you put that Vietnamese boy you imported to work?
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/10/mras-are-not-a-monolith-response-to-amanda-marcotte/
Same “Kathy”? And if she’s Catholic, her insult has quite a bit of irony to it.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: The Last Edition?
We can complain about Sith Game all day but the simple fact is this: women’s sexual preferences are utterly devoid of moral considerations. The implication is that when these preferences are the only rules a) defining the SMP b) separating men in groups of sexual/romantic winners and losers, all bets are off and morality is thrown out of the window. This is inevitable.
I can understand why some men complain about Sith Game because men normally pay attention to moral considerations whereas women don’t. Women complaining about Sith Game is like the IRS complaining about people who take advantage of loopholes in the tax code. Well, what’s your basis for your complaints? You got to define the rules, and now you don’t like it when people adapt to them?
That was not me Uncle Elmer.. You can verify that with Bill Price. Heis an honest guy, and he will most certainly tell you that I no longer comment on the spearhead. I meant what I said when I left many months ago.. I only clicked on the link YOU PROVIDED. to see who this ” Kathy” was..
IF YOU ARE FAIR DINKUM YOU WILL ASK BILL.
All right then, Kathy, I accept your answer that you are not the same person that insulted me on Spearhead. While you were arguing your point here you did not stoop to vicious insults, so I believe you.
Good luck with your daughter. I have two sons and several nieces that I fear for as they grow up in this culture. Already my sister’s daughter, a very attractive young woman, is getting trashed, and she’s only 17. Another niece has a child and is unmarried, which is hard to fathom as her parents are decent, conservative small-town folks who were about as good parents as can be expected.
Pingback: Misery and vice. | Dalrock
That is an interesting link, slwerner, and it shows a different attitude than Woods has. Although I am certain I could find feminists who might well right almost exactly the same thing. The poster “J” might. I can think of some others. But I’ll take it as some evidence that Kathy isn’t a feminist, and at least isn’t the same kind of tradcon as Woods.
In slight defence of Laura Woods, back when I still read her site, she tended to write about bigger issues, and not about personal ones. Most of the time. I do recall a snide remark, in an aside, about how “we all know how men need variety”. It had a definite fingerwagging quality. But I don’t have much reason to read Woods anymore.
She made it quite, quite clear what she really thinks of men in her last broadside, and “let’s you and him fight”, attack on the Spearhead. So that’s that.
Ah, slwerner, you are too kind.. I sincerely mean that.
You are a gentleman, and I have always held your opinions in high regard, from the very first comment that I saw of yours, some years back on Mark Mark’s blog 😀
Gee, Kathy,
You’re going to get me labeled/smeared (in the Manoshpere) as some white-knight mangina.
I just wanted to make the point that, based on your history of commenting, I felt that some here had gotten he wrong impression of you.
In the end, you really didn’t need me to stick up for you, as you seem to have requited yourself quite well in a subsequent thread, sticking to your guns as an equal opportunity slut-shamer. Even if I may hold a different opinion, I can certainly respect someone who stands firm in theirs.
That sad thing in all of this is that there are far to few women, who like you, will actually shame anyone for promiscuous behaviors.
“A 4 / 5 who was never shown any interest at all in high school will take what they can get. They may prefer a 7 but they will take a 5. None of my less attractive friends were picky. Most all of them are married now.”
Paige, let me introduce you to my wife. At 5’6″ and 180+ when I meant her I was the “they take what they can get”. Fast forward a decade plus (8 years of marriage) and she’s pushing 300 and decides to lose it via gastric bypass.
It worked and now she was pretty. At nine years of marriage I was abandoned and while I did initiate divorce it was two years later after it was clear she wasn’t coming back.
Yep, you’re right they’ll take what they can get and when what they can get gets better they’re happy to move on.
Hypergamy is real and men need to wake up.
The problem I have with supply-and-demand is that, being in my late fifties, my supply is dried up and I’m not in demand. ‘Course it doesn’t matter, I’m a guy. A dirty old man, as I can’t manage to trump up an interest in the blue-hair ladies and I don’t have the means (i.e. wealth proved by conspicuous consumption) conducive to younger women. (By which I mean in their 40s or maybe even 30s.)
There are other ways to enjoy my life, though. I guess my sailboat is the practical equivalent of (I’m about to find out if that works for a link.)
BeijaFlor, a man’s atractivity has nothing to do with age, provided he stays in shape.
The morning I had a discussion with two cleaning ladies at work. The younger one was enthralled by our mayor because he went out of his way to shake her hand. The guy is past sixty, but very high status.
Wealth as such does not matter so much. The same girl asked me whether I had any children (answer : none I am aware of, but you never know) after I told her that I owned no car.
She also told her notably older coworker that age mattered… for women. Nice creature, isn’t she.
Anonymous Reader what is your problem with traditional conservatives? In my opinion MRA’s and feminists are more alike than different. To call Alte, Woods or Kathy feminists is like calling a libertarian a reactionary authoritarian.
alcestiseshtemoa
Anonymous Reader what is your problem with traditional conservatives?
Pretty much the same problem I have with feminists: pedestalization of women, reduction of men to sperm donors and walking ATM’s.
In my opinion MRA’s and feminists are more alike than different.
I’m aware this is a standard trad-con claim. There is not much to back it up, but it is clearly popular.
To call Alte, Woods or Kathy feminists is like calling a libertarian a reactionary authoritarian.
Feminism is the ideology or belief that women are inherently superior to men. Feminism is thus female supremacy. Men are to be tolerated, so long as they are useful to women, and some men can even be sort of liked, so long as they are very useful, such as by keeping other men in line. Men have duties, women have choices. Men have responsibilities, women have options. Marriage 2.0, Affirmative Action, the whole VAWA legal structure, etc. are all legal manifestations of the feminist ideology.
A lot of traditionalist conservatives are basically on the same page, although with different slogans. Because many trad-cons wish to create some sort of pseudo-Victorian society, they accept (perhaps unconsciously) as a fundamental premise the idea the women are morally superior to men. So stripped of the different slogans and wrapping, trad-conservatism boils down to just another form of female supremacy. Men are valuable, but only in terms of what they can deliver for women. Hence the scorn, vituperation and even open hatred of men who won’t marry — just like feminists. Trad-cons demand that men must work, and women may work, or may not as they prefer — rather a lot like feminists. A woman may insult a man in any and every way, and he’s supposed to just take it and like it, woe to any man who dares to stand up to a woman — just like feminists.
In essence, shorn of all the slogans, trad-cons and feminists have the same attitude towards men: those who are able to provide sperm and money to women are to be tolerated, otherwise not. I’m not saying all trad-cons are this way, but it seems quite a few are. Woods certainly is this way, she puts herself on a pedestal far above mere mortal men. Alte doesn’t. I have no opinion at this time regarding Kathy.
PS: The notion that women are more moral than men is so wrong, it’s absurd. If we have not learned anything else from the last 30-40 years, we surely have learned that women can be just as cruel, as nasty, as downright mean, and as evil as men — just in different ways. There is an army of men in the US alone who can testify to that, thanks to “mens-fault” divorce, anti-Family court, and so forth. And the trad-con notion that women are inherently monogamous is not just wrong, it’s scientifically wrong; hypergamy is a fact, no matter how much annoyance it may cause to feminists and trad-cons.
Does this explain some of my disagreement with feminists and trad-cons?
Anonymous Reader – ”A lot of traditionalist conservatives are basically on the same page, although with different slogans. Because many trad-cons wish to create some sort of pseudo-Victorian society, they accept (perhaps unconsciously) as a fundamental premise the idea the women are morally superior to men. So stripped of the different slogans and wrapping, trad-conservatism boils down to just another form of female supremacy. Men are valuable, but only in terms of what they can deliver for women. Hence the scorn, vituperation and even open hatred of men who won’t marry…
This sort of “men’s value = beast of burden” is quite evident at Laura Wood’s site. She no longer even tries to claim that the system is unjustly “rigged” against men (she and I had a long-running “discussion” of that…back before she banned me). She just continues to push the idea that men MUST marry despite the pitfalls and piss-poor odds. To her, it’s their duty to God and country – when, actually, their duty to (white) women, so as to make it more conducive for those women to pump out white babies; so let’s call it their duty to motherhood and White/Western Society.
But, no matter how she defines this duty, it does all boil down to men need to work to support women, and marry them to provide for them, and create the best possible situation for women to have babies.
Mark Richards large agrees with this general line of thinking, but clearly struggles with it in that he seems unable to shake-off the truth that men are eventually being sacrificed. That’s why he has spun that theory of “Autonony as evil”. That way he can justify to himself why men must be sacrificed for the “greater good”, and why men who refuse to go along with that “greater good” are being rebellious against God’s wishes (aka, “autonomous”).
What seems to slip his (and his supporters) notice is that they are tending to equate what women want as being (essentially) “God’s plan”, and are therefore elevating women (onto pedestals).
Due to this elevation of women over men, they are unable/unwilling to confront the pathologies of women, which are the real reasons why marriage is a bad bet for men, and why marriage rates are falling.
In this regard, Kathy is someone like the other TradCons. She and I disagree on what needs to be “fixed”, with her disagreeing with me that the best and most logical approach would be to confront (young) women and implement ways to try to curtail their (as of now, largely unbridled) hypergamous and libertine sexual expressions. I argue that (young) women are the ones who wield the greatest power in the SMP, and their behavior is therefore key to subsequent male behaviors (i.e. thugging it up of becoming PUA’s, as that is what is women seem to prefer). Kathy disagrees with this view, but I think this is due to her relative isolation from the “cultural battlefields”.
On the other hand, she, herself demonstrates her own “Autonomy”, not only in that she refuses to go along with popular treads, but in that she seems to have married her husband as an act of love, rather than from the desire to get his money and babies.
On the surface, she does seem to hold many of the TradCon values, but her motivations seem diametrically opposed to those of, say, Laura Wood. She married for love, not money, and she opposes sinful behaviors because she opposes the sin, rather than because the sin interferes with men performing their “duty” to women.
In this way, I thinks she more like Alte.
slwerner, it seems to me that trad-cons have not really come to grips with all the implications of the unleashing of female hypergamy. Some may still basically be either denying it or ignoring it (hoping it will go away, perhaps). Heck, if I recall correctly, Woods decided a while back that female hypergamy didn’t exist, perhaps it was one of her solipsistic moments (“I don’t think that way, so women don’t think that way”).
It’s understandable why this is, because so many trad-cons seem stuck with the notion of women as “more moral” than men. It’s impossible to be “more moral” if you not only want the best man (within each woman’s definition of “best”) to mate with, but are willing to dump him on short notice in order to trade up. The act of “trading up” means that promises are broken, heck, in a traditionalist marriage it means oaths, taken before God, are broken. It means deliberately causing emotional harm to at least one person (the discarded man) and any children, implying a serious degree of pure selfishness. And that’s just describing a “friendly”, no-contest divorce.
Add in all the really nasty stuff, such as lying to the police (false DV accusation), lying under oath in court, and so forth, and it’s simply impossible to hold the idea of women as “more moral” just because of their XX chromosomes at all — it fails the basic “laugh test”. We all understand why feminists don’t want to touch this, it crumbles one of the basic premises of their ideology.
What perplexes me is why so many trad cons are so determined to hold on to a clearly false idea. And not only is it false, it is in direct contradiction to their professed religion. Look, I’m no scholar of the Christian religion, but it’s not hard to recall names like “Delilah”, “Jezebel”, Potiphar’s wife, and others from the old testament. It’s also not difficult to search online Bible sites within the new testament and find all sorts of advice on relations between husband and wife — none of which even remotely imply that women are “more moral” than men. Often the opposite, in fact. Plus I’m pretty sure that “traditional Christianity” used to preach that both men and women were big time sinners, maybe different sins, maybe not, but definitely both groups prone to things like envy, lust, laziness, unjustified anger and so forth.
So the only thing I’m left with is that the trad-cons are, as I said before, clinging to some sort of version of Victorianism in which women are somehow, via some magical process, better moral agents than men are, and therefore only the real sluts are to be criticized, never the “virtuous” women. Which leads us back to the pedestal upon which so many women wish to stand, and that in turn leads us to put some criticisms of women completely off limits. That’s where Woods is, it seems to me. Richardson will accept some of these criticisms, but then he’ll just start talking NAWALT, as if that means anything.
The reality is, all people have the capacity to be extremely selfish. We have to be taught not to be that way. The self-esteem movement has done a lot of damage in that regard, and the feminist movement in combination with self-esteem has made some number of women just about impossible to live with, work with or even be around for very long. Given the different ways in which a deceitful, vengeful, woman can damage a man in the world – at work, in a home, in a family, walking down the street – the cry of “NAWALT’ is almost meaningless. Enough “Are Like That” to constitute a threat.
Trad-cons need to give up their romantic-era, rose-tinged ideas about the way men and women really are, and stop with the endless “yes, but…” argumentation, if they want anyone to take them seriously. Dalrock’s “interview questions” for a wife contain more useful advice for a man contemplating marriage than any postings I can recall from any trad-con site. Athol Kay’s site contains more useful, practical advice to married people than any trad-con marriage advice site I’ve seen — in the universe of the web I’m sure there could be such sites and I’m not aware of them, but nobody’s pointed one out yet. Both Dalrock and Kay are married, but neither are laboring under the illusions I see trad-cons burdened with.
@Anonymous Reader
slwerner, it seems to me that trad-cons have not really come to grips with all the implications of the unleashing of female hypergamy. Some may still basically be either denying it or ignoring it (hoping it will go away, perhaps). Heck, if I recall correctly, Woods decided a while back that female hypergamy didn’t exist, perhaps it was one of her solipsistic moments (“I don’t think that way, so women don’t think that way”).
How many people outside the manosphere and pickup community even know what the term hypergamy means? And even dictionary definitions that I have seen don’t really capture the full essence of what we mean here when we use the term. Merriam-Webster has it as:
marriage into an equal or higher caste or social group
I think the issue for the vast majority trad-cons is they are fully unaware of the kinds of sex differences we are discussing.
Edit: Laura Wood is another case altogether. She has been exposed to the issue but still wants to pretend nothing is happening.
Also, thanks for your remarks on my interviewing a prospective wife page. The feedback is very much appreciated.
Pingback: Anonymous Reader On Tradcons » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology
Sheesh , slwerner you know me better than I know myself! 😉
Scary stuff..
Am I THAT obvious..? 🙂
“BeijaFlor, a man’s atractivity has nothing to do with age, provided he stays in shape.”
Not NOTHING. Outside of very very high status and wealth, a man’s physical beauty is important. Even a man who is powerful and wealthy would get better women if he were also handsome.
Not saying nearly as important as women’s, but it does matter. And it does decrease with age (I would say the decrease starts around 40, before that if they are overweight).
Kathy – “Am I THAT obvious..?”
That, or I have an army of spies working for me down-under.
@Kathy
I should really have added that you’re actually quite frank and honest in the things you post. I think that it serves to make you more “readable”.
From an old Benny Hill routine:
Game show host: Define “bachelor”
Contestant: “A man who hasn’t thought seriously of marriage”
GSH: “Wrong…The correct answer is ‘A man who has thought seriously about marriage.’ “
Pingback: Last one down the aisle wins part 1. | Dalrock
Pingback: Advice to a woman in her 30s looking to marry. | Dalrock
Of the little girls who eschew marriage here is the motive for some. The insight from experience I can give is that young girls at least are often traumatized by the loss of a father through divorce.
What some of them take from the expience is that if you give your heart to a man he may very well disappear from your life. Lesson they learn: don’t give your heart to a man it’s going to end up too painful.
Losing a father is more terrifying for a girl than losing a husband is for a woman. The child’s every instinct tells her she needs her dad for shear survival.
There was one 8 year old in this situation sitting next to me at dinner. She launched into bragging how she had “dumped” three boys at school that day.
She had lost her dad by divorce at age 4. She was clearly operating in emotional survival mode. My divorce came a few months later.
Last I heard at age 28 she still hadn’t married and her long time boy friend from college gave up after about three years and said it was because he “didn’t see a future in this relationship.”
As guilty of instigating divorce as young women are prone to be, the people who are potentially hurt the worst are the children, or at least girls in my limited experience.
Maybe the best thing for you divorced guys with kids, especially daughters is to give them as much time as you are able and allowed.
There is also a phenomena that I’ve seen with step dads, (I think and hope it doesn’t apply to bio-dads, ) where the step daughter will ignore any attempt at contact from the now-x step dad. This happened not only to me but to the neighbor across the fence.
The reason for this is simple. People want to have control over the critical things in their lives. So they chose to take charge of a coming bad event by preempting it.
The employee who discovers he is about to be terminated walks into the boss’s office and announces “You can’t fire me, I quit!”. The prisoner scheduled to be strapped to the gurney at dawn manages to hang himself in his cell that night. The Japanese soldier on Tarawa who sees the marines maneuvering ever closer blows his own brains out. The step daughter who senses from mom what is coming shuts down emotionally toward the step father, and after the divorce ignores him totally. “You can’t take my daddy away from me, I’m going to throw him away!”
For you step dads, the kids are like the birds twittering in the trees. When they suddenly become silent, you know there is danger out there.
Pingback: Next Phase of the Hypergamous Arms Race: Revenge of the Nerds? | Dalrock
Pingback: Economics of sex | Dalrock
Pingback: Does divorce make people happy? | Dalrock
If someone did call GL a male slut, they were 100% correct.
Kathy, you did not overreact at all, and Paige’s points were excellent too. That response, Alte, was horrid. Sam honey, they were referring to women looking for LTRs.
Jennifer, do you often drop in to old threads in order to make comments months after everyone else has moved on to some other subject? I’m curious to know.
Pingback: Advanced spinster mathematics | Dalrock
Pingback: Charts on delayed motherhood | Dalrock
Pingback: Why won’t these Peter Pan manboys man up and marry aging flighty selfish career gal sluts already? | Dalrock
I’m thrilled that women are marrying later. More time for me to bone them 😉
Pingback: All the lonely feminist spinsters | Dalrock
Pingback: 40 years of ultimatums | Dalrock
Pingback: Playing career woman | Dalrock
Women appear to be marrying later because they’re wary of the men available it appears. Many of them will never marry and don’t want to. Women are much more financially independent and don’t have to rely on a man anymore.
Agreed, many of them are narcisstic but that has always been the province of the majority of men (as opposed to women) in regards to the “power” in a relationship, and God knows that majority of Gen X and Ys are famously narcisstic (whether male or female). Frankly, I think most of them deserve each other (they can text each other all day and talk about themselves)..
Also thinking that most guys out here just don’t get it. Look at what has happened to world demographics and you will understand it is MEN who are in a world of hurt. India and China have been routinely killing off their female babies for 30 years and it is catching up NOW.
Many a man in this world will NOT be able to find a wife in the near future but most don’t seem to know that yet. And if you’re living in North America, don’t think that other men around the globe will want to just stay home while you enjoy a surplus. Forget that. There’s already been estimates of 60 million “brides” missing in China alone by 2014.
It’s always been comical to me how men think their stuff is so great they can afford to be so picky about the age of a woman because the tides have turned there too. Maybe you guys should wake up. The reason so many young women act so fussy is because they can afford to be fussy, they have ALL of you chasing them. Most “betas” as you call them would be MUCH better off chasing female “betas” about age 30 and you will find the sweet spot. In particular, it wouldn’t hurt to grab a gal your own age or even older, because you may have to soon.
Most of all, I just think the younger generations are just too dang self-centered to ever be balanced enough mentally and emotionally to ever sustain a long-term relationship (the way it appears to be going now). That’s the impression I get watching them all playing around still at age 43 or so..
Pingback: The weakened signal | Dalrock
Pingback: Mark Driscoll’s feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
Pingback: This blog and the Manosphere mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald. | Dalrock
Pingback: How young should a woman marry? (Part 1) | Dalrock
Pingback: Never marrieds piling up | Dalrock
Pingback: Manosphere – Female Age and Sexual Market Value | 3rd Millenium Men
The low supply of men is insignificant due to the fact that women are choosing to raise their children by themselves. I know. I was one of them. Second, women waiting until they are older have a higher chance of being encountered by the young males in their early 20’s. I know. I am married to one of them.
Pingback: Manosphere: Marriage and Age | 3rd Millenium Men
Here is an example of a woman who understands her value in the marriage market well–not! She is 41, 5’5″, okay looking, and advertising herself on OkCupid:
http://www.okcupid.com/profile/Quizjunki
Here is her description of the man that she is wanting to find.
Her description of what she has to offer such a man is of course very brief.
I just read the above mentioned woman’s profile. Wow she is delusional. She gets ‘excited’ thinking about her dream man; she’s never advanced from the teen princess dreaming stage.
How many women are like this in the West? This type of woman is not exactly the poster girl for female sanity.
Also, S.Chan you said: “Her description of what she has to offer such a man is of course very brief.”
Yes so brief I can’t find it in her writing, unless you are referring to her calling herself ‘happy” I guess being a “happy person” offers something to the prospective male mate…until she no happy no more!
Another sad and a bit pathetic is in her photos of her alone (click photos on the top of her page), she is dancing in one of them with two men in the background and she captions it with:
“I was the Wedding Dancer. Neither of those guys was anywhere near me! ”
In other words, “I’m not a slut!”
But one wonders what she is like the rest of the time?
BTW I’m new here. I just took the red pill a short while ago. Wow what a wasteland the dating-marriage scene is.
I have also read the profile linked to by S.Chan and what struck me most was – in her self summary; where she sets out what she seems to want in a man – that she gives a mirror image of herself. Pure Narcissism! Well let’s wish her luck, but wearing more lipstick, in her photo than a transvestite, I won’t be replying to her ad, even though I am probably geographically within her desired range for I know that there is simply no way I could match up to most of her requirements. As the old saying has it, ‘some girls think they are too good for anybody; they may be right – but are more frequently left’.
I have been looking at some of the other links on OK Cupid – never seen it before – and so far as I can see, if this is typical, most of these women are single and in their thirties; most have dullish job office jobs, but all have a degree if not also a Masters Degree – frequently in something stupid like performance art – really one should have concluded ones MA by ones mid-twenties. Unfortunately most are not very attractive and some are frankly, fat (and I am guessing too not very easy to get along with). I suppose you don’t join OK Cupid, unless you are a slut looking for a quick hook-up, or seriously lonely and unattractive to men, although they all say how fabulous their lives are – why can’t I meet people like that, if its true?
What this country desparately needs is an arranged marriage system, so these future cat-herders, can experience the joys of motherhood, but it looks as if they are going to miss out. They are all perfect examples of white middle-class women who failed (despite their education) to notice that men prefer younger women and don’t give a tinker’s cuss about a woman’s educational qualification. I know a guy who is always sleeping with women he meets on-line – perhaps he uses OK Cupid – perhaps they are easy though you’d never guess it from their holier-than-thou, resumes. One I saw – quite pretty actually – said she much wanted children. At forty one this seems unlikely. This is sad both for her and for her race who are not adequately reproducing except amongst the Neanderthals (who of course do not have degrees or even finished High School).
Perhaps I have however got it all wrong because Nancy above on 11 December at 01.07 seems to think rather differently, and that women simply do not need men, which she confirms with (in so far as her comment is understandable) with some good old shaming. She tells us that women are marrying later because they are financially independent, wary of men, and in any event do not want to marry – and that was just her first paragraph. Can she be referring to the women in the OK Cupid profiles – surely not!
“”We could just abolish marriage and then abolish the state supported welfare system and then sit back and watch the birth rate drop!””………………………………I agree! The majority of welfare we pay here in Canada goes to single mothers(Fuck em!)…….they get knocked up by some LOSER…just so they can get a welfare check?…..ah yes!…this is Femi_Nazism at it’s best….screw the taxpayer so some whore can raise a bastard child at the expense of the taxpayer…..and then the kid ends up in jail…all at the taxpayer’s expense!….what a joke!
To all the Femi-Nazis that do not like the attitude of Greenlander?….OH well!….guess what ladies….if there were not so many easy “do anything for a man” women out there….Mr.Green and myself would never get laid!.PERIOD!…..I am the same species as Mr.Green….and so are most of my friends.We have no use for most women except to “sport-fuck” them!…Hell, I like Mr.green so much I might even want to have his baby!…….Lmao!….You go gurlz!….now go feed your cats!
Pingback: The Marriage Strike seems to be working. | Bohème Chinois
I don’t recall how I just ran across this blog but have to say it’s awesome. I am 36 and have been sorting through my feelings about my future as a single, never been married, and overall happy guy. Reading through the comments has put light on a perspective I didn’t know existed. This whole “red pill” business… where do you start to learn all about this?
Greenlander, you have definitely got a solid handle on things. I respect your full disclosure honesty. Too bad some of the unhappy critics can’t see it just as that. Which makes me wonder what “happily 15-year long married women” are really doing “frequenting” this post?? Irregardless, thanks for the inspiration.
as long as justice and just rewards are appropriately served, as long as the world can take a step towards order and a step away from the wild beasts we are reverting to, i can be at peace. my genetic heritage can perish for the greater good, i’m just a single cell in the organism known as the human race after all. if i find the outlier woman that makes life better instead of harder, as i’ve seen in few examples, then that’ll be just dandy. if not then i am content with my life, i get to do things i enjoy, i have my freedom, life is good.
Pingback: How this Dennis Prager video hurts regular guys | American Dad
Pingback: Marrying in the Current Year | Finance and Morality
Pingback: Why women lose the dating game. | Dalrock
Pingback: Why women lose the dating game. - Top
Pingback: Men find their own solutions to the gender wars