Doomed Harlot made the following comment in the discussion around The child support catastrophe:
Men benefit more from marriage than women, especially in more patriarchal societies. It is much easier to be content in your marriage when the other spouse is cleaning up after you, feeding you, taking care of your kids, handling your social obligations, cleaning your clothes, doing the shopping, and taking care of the myriad other tasks of daily life. I myself have often said, “I need a wife!”
I know this is boilerplate feminist martyrdom, but I have to admit I have a weakness for the classics. Those who have children know they are prone to think that they received the short end of the stick on any deal. The way around this is to offer to reverse the terms. Let them have your half, and you take their half. If the deal was unfair, they should be delighted. If they are just being childish, they will still feel cheated. Shortly after reading her comment I came across Alpha Women, Beta Men in New York Magazine. It opens with two women discussing an embarrassing secret. They are the sole breadwinners in their families, and support their stay at home husbands. One of the women compares it to the shame of being married to an alcoholic:
It’s like one of those things,” she says, “where you realize you’re married to people who drink.”
Like Doomed Harlot, these women wanted to trade places with men. They wanted wives, and they got them. But of course feminism is about being in a perpetual state of unhappiness. If women aren’t oppressed, how can they fight their oppression? And if they are happy, how can they know they are oppressed? Now that they have what they wanted, they of course aren’t happy. These husbands earning less than their wives are freeloaders! We learn about a public relations executive named Anna, and her husband:
He’d pay for groceries. He was running up credit-card debt to make it appear he had more money.
Can you imagine if a husband treated his wife that way? She kept her income to herself and her husband had to borrow money just to buy groceries! The line to shame a man who treated his wife like that would stretch around the block. You would have to take a number and wait your turn.
It also turns out that women aren’t wired to find men in a supporting role sexually attractive.
“Sex was not a problem for him,” she goes on. “It was a problem for me. When someone seems like a child, it’s not that attractive…”
Predictably, this is all caused by our patriarchal culture, since women are really just men who sit down to pee:
…as hip and open-minded as they like to think they are, they were, after all, raised on the same fairy tale as the rest of us—the one where Prince Charming comes to the rescue of Sleeping Beauty.
Going back to the analogy of offering a child the other half, it turns out that our divorce laws are somehow unfair. A divorce lawyer explains what happens when couples with breadwinner wives divorce:
“…the court bends over backward to be gender-neutral, and it is possible the bum is going to be rewarded for sitting on his hands. You do a flip-flop and make believe she is a guy.”
See Also: The problem that has no name
A woman like that and a man like that deserve each other. They can make a cozy hell together.
Wait, recognizing the good deal men have when women serve as “help-meet” makes me a martyr now? I hardly think so!
Just to be clear, when feminists say they need a wife, it’s a joke! The whole point of feminism is that there shouldn’t be a class of people whose primary function in life is to dance attendance on the other class. Yes, on some level, it would be nice to have someone cooking my meals, doing my laundry, taking care of the less-fun aspects of child care, and cleaning my house, but I would never advocate that men be required to take on the role that women once played. Even though it would be a good deal for me, I think it would be unjust and I also think hierarchy in a relationship inhibits marital intimacy.
In any case, men have not turned into wives. Men HAVE taken on more chores in the homefront than in the past, and sometimes men earn a lot less than women (as in my marriage). But men are not generally expected to be primarily responsible for home and childcare. And that’s fine. I favor a more even distribution of those responsibilities. I will note that culturally, we still tend to expect women to do more of that stuff.
It makes sense to me that anyone, male or female, would resent someone who is not pulling his or her weight at home. The women in your examples are aggravated because their husbands are not doing their fair share at all — not earning an income OR pulling their weight at home. Anna says that she wouldn’t have been so upset if her husband had actually taken on the Mommy role, but he hadn’t done so. This doesn’t seem like some special womanly resentment towards “beta” man, but rather human nature. Plenty of men get aggravated when stay-at-home wives do nothing but watch TV all day and fail to keep the household in order.
TFH, Historically women benefitted from marriage because the alternatives were being dead or living in poverty. Or, in my mother’s era, living out one’s life being pitied and living on crummy wages from one’s secretarial job. But when women have other options, traditional marriage starts to not look so good. Which is why women initiate more divorces.
We will have to agree to disagree on whether the PUA community has some great insight into women’s psychology. I will tip my hat to Roissy and his ilk for coming up with a brilliantly nasty and elaborate rationalization of their fundamental resentment towards women, but I can’t imagine it brings them much happiness.
TFH, I think you are misguided in measuring oppression in terms of “who has the easier job.
The problem women faced historically was having little agency or control over their own lives, or much influence in society at large.
TFH, I think the link below is along the lines your thinking when you stated to Doomed Harlot :
“And no, being a woman does not mean you know how women think. Quite the opposite in fact, as pickup artists have proved spectacularly.”
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/26/the-perils-of-introspection/
TFH, I am not conservative!
Just about all the married people are thoroughly miserable, while most of those who are single are happy and have a great life.
Doesn’t that tell something about marriage?
Likewise, most people who have children are unhappy, while childless people are free to roam as they wish: it’s the difference between a mustang and a work horse.
Why on earth do people want kids? It makes no sense at all.
Why chose to be a work horse, pray tell?
Why can’t we all be free and enjoy sex galore without any string?
TFH, I agree that most men have been crapped on too throughout history. If you go back in history, most of our male ancestors would have been serfs, not lords. Feminism has recognized that fact as well. That’s why 19th century feminists were heavily involved in the abolitionist movement. That’s why 20th century feminists were involved in the labor movement, the civil rights movement, and the movement to resist the draft. But at every level of society, the men had more social power than their women. It’s even enshrined in Christianity, with commands to women to submit to their husbands!
You seem to be stuck on who has it “harder.” In fact, protecting women from having it hard (benevolent paternalism) is one of the most insidious forms of sexism against women.
Both men and women are ceasing to listen to feminist crap, and both are proving to be a lot happier for it. Hence the shrill tone. The feminists are losing, and they know it…
Doomed Harlot wrote;
But when women have other options, traditional marriage starts to not look so good. Which is why women initiate more divorces.
The only reason why women have more “options” is because they’re subsidized by men through government mandated safety nets – either welfare or child support. Take away those financial incentives and give mandatory equal custody and divorce will drop like a rock.
The problem women faced historically was having little agency or control over their own lives, or much influence in society at large.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Lol. That is why women didn’t hand out white feathers and shame boys into dying in the trenches during WW1? Google the White Feather Campaign. Or just look into the history of the suffragettes. They were literally domestic terrorists who burned churches and museums and attacked officials and so on. Instead of having the army shoot them, in similiar ways that happened to rioters during the civil war, the powers that be caved in and gave them suffrage.
TFH, Historically women benefitted from marriage because the alternatives were being dead or living in poverty.
The way things are going around the world with 2011 being the year of riots, this may come full circle. Afterall, the feminist movement has broken the social contract between men and women and continues to do so. 22% of men that are eligible to marry in the USA are refusing, that’s almost 1 in 4. When the crap hits the fan, and you dial 911 and nobody is there, no cops to run to your assistance, no courts, no white knights… I wonder what women will do then?
As for Dalrock’s post, all I have to say is when the shoe is on the other foot suddenly it’s parasites and freeloaders. I think as men, we need to start calling women who divorce their husbands and steal their homes, and collect monthly CS and Alimony: Parasites and Freeloaders!
None of those women in the article were *actual* Alpha women, they are play-acting Beta women who found themselves in high salary positions. It is inherently silly to judge a woman’s “Alpha”-ness by her earning power, especially given how little men care about such a thing.
The fact of the matter is that what makes Alpha Alpha is actually somewhat similar for men and women: self-awareness, self-assurance, and a clear understanding of one’s environment, one’s actions, and consequences of those actions. We used to call these Alpha women Wise Women, but the entire concept of received wisdom has fallen by the wayside in these modern times.
A women who stands up and says “I want to be a wife and mother first, and raise my children, and teach them, and I will enjoy my role” is MUCH more Alpha than a woman who constantly lets everyone know that she isn’t interested in being “just a housewife”, but then defines her existence in opposition to that ideal, instead of finding her own definition, constantly living as a contradiction. If you define your life by what you aren’t, instead of what you are, you are almost definitely beta.
There are Alpha housewives and Beta ad execs, and only a decadent culture like the one of the NYC upper-class would fail to understand that.
My sister in law would love to have my wife as hers, as my brother in law is such a man as described here. Funny thing is she admits she wanted a relationship where she wouldn’t have to depend on her husband, and she got a relationship where she couldn’t depend on her husband. It’s typical role reversal stuff. As she provides and he sponges, the sexual attraction between them has gone to about nil, and the constantly denegrate each other.
Note of course if he were the breadwinner and she the “sponge” it would be quite insulting to call her such. She would be quite properly considered not on the income she contributed to the marriage but on the homemaking, mothering, and wifing skills she contributed. As the man, it’s quite unthinkable outside of hollywood that he would get any credit for such activity, so he’s called a sponge.
When feminists get worked up about this, I am reminded of when jazz lovers complain that jazz should be more popular. Well, it’s not. Feminists complain that things shouldn’t be this way. Well, it is. Between hollywood and government they keep trying to change it, and they keep wondering why so many marriages end up broken. Gee, maybe, just maybe, there was nothing really wrong with the way marriage used to be perceived and the roles men and women accpeted. That’s why marriages used to work! Changing the culture has produced marriages where roles are reversed, or outright abdicated, by one or both parties. In movies this is almost always portrayed in a positive light, but in reality it isn’t, and leads to marriages that end, or are miserable, are sexless, loveless, and with rampant infidelity. Marriage is broke because they “fixed” it years ago, and now doesn’t work anymore.
When a man has a woman who isn’t a provider, he is expected to love and protect her. When a woman has a man who isn’t a provider, she is fully entitled to henpeck/dump him.
I mean to point out the double standard above. Not justifying it.
Discussions like this are why I come here. I think this is fascinating!
Ray, Most women are not subsidized by welfare and child support. Women have other options besides traditional marriage because we have access to well-paying jobs that were closed to us in the past. In addition, women do not face the same degree to cultural, social and/or religious pressure to marry and play second-fiddle to their husbands as in the past, or even to have children at all. That is what I am referring to when I say that women have options that enable them to avoid traditional marriage. (In my case, I am married but I am in an egalitarian marriage.)
M. Steve, I don’t think a rejection of the traditional housewife role means that you can’t define yourself. That said, I think women even today have to grapple to one degree or another with the expectations of traditional femininity. You see women employing a variety of strategies. Some embrace it. Some (especially conservative women) purport to agree with traditional stereotypes of the sexes, while declaring themselves as “exceptional women” who are above what they view as the general weaknesses as their sex. Some (especially younger women who haven’t fully matured in their feminism) reject anything and everything that happens to be considered feminine or “girly.” Eventually some of us learn to define ourselves without regard to what is considered appropriately masculine or feminine. I hope I have gotten to that point, and I think the result is a mix of both “masculine” and “feminine” traits and behaviors.
Also note that I am not basing my opinion that the traditional marriage is the best working one on books I have read or movies I have watched or any philosophy. It is on pure observation. I once believed all the feminist lines about how men really want women they respect, as defined by her accomplishments, strong will, etc (ie in terms of how men respect other men). I also believed that women really wanted men they could depend on, would contribute with work, were empathetic, and patient (ie how women respect other women). I believed all of this and was constantly confused and puzzled why every marriage in which this dynamic played out failed or was miserable. Every. Single. One of them.
So, I re-evaluated things. I didn’t go to marriages I believed to be strong and puzzle why they weren’t, I went to marrages which were strong and successful and happy and tried to learn why.
Commonalities in happy marraiges (based on my own observations):
The man is clearly the head of the household.
That’s pretty much it. I’ve known successful marriages where the woman worked, and those where she didn’t. Where the man worked and where he didn’t. Where they had kids or not. Where they were rich or poor. Where they were religious or not. Heck, I even knew a swinging married couple who were quite happy with this dynamic. Every single one of them where I judged the marriage happy and both member in love, glad they married each other, etc had and have this one thing in common and almost nothing else.
Once I learned about game the reasons for this all made sense. But I realized this before I learned about game. I should also mention that I really don’t think those who understand game as practiced by PUAs have a very good understanding of it, but I don’t make an issue about that with them, they understand enough. However you get to some of the truths about life, truth is truth.
Dan in Philly,
How do you know that marriage used to work back when traditional gender roles were accepted? Just because there was a lower divorce rate? I am the product of a still-intact marriage with traditional gender roles and it was a miserable experience! I don’t think you can say that my parents’ marriage “worked” just because they are still married after 40+ years.
TFH, the fact that men had obligations under Christian marriage is irrelevant. Just because the more powerful party has obligations doesn’t mean that the power disparity is okay. Even slaveholders had obligations to their slave, as did lords towards their serfs, and masters towards their servants. Doesn’t mean the relationship is fair. (And as for women being happier when they are submitting to their husbands — hahahahahahahahahahahaha! If that were true, more women would do it. Nothin’ stopping ’em.)
That said, feminists constantly acknowledge the unfairness men also suffer under patriarchy. I don’t think it is fair for the man to be entirely responsible for the financial support of his wife and children. Men benefit from having wives who are equal partners in the financial support of the family.
One further aspect of comedy genius I gleaned from the aforementioned thread on child support was the way that if men did not leave their wives, even if they were ultimately less than happy with them, it was a further sign of selfishness on the part of the husband! I sh*t you not! So, despite acknowledging that men in general will often accept less than perfection from a partner, this was explained away as a further failing of the males involved. By letting children grow up in a family with two parents those fathers were not only taking the cowardly option, they were also exploiting the mother by having her look after her own children, all expenses paid. They also exposed their children to lethal levels of domestic normality, something they possibly never recovered from. Fortunately in the last 40-50 years these atrocities, once commonplace, have become a distant memory, with females capably taking the reins of society, leading to the absolute childhood bliss that most children experience today.
At that point I realised that my .50 belt fed hamster cannon with armour piercing rounds may not be enough…
I don’t like arguing with lawyers, but in response to DH, I would contend that you are far better off seeing your parents unhappy than if they had been divorced. I also suggest that they might have been unhappy with their choice in spouse, but they too likely would have been less happy had they divorced. Based on my own experience and observations, I have found that divorce seldom increases the happyness of any of the parties involved, and generally makes everyone less happy.
I hate to speculate about your family, which you know better than me, but I also wonder how much yuor father was the accepted head of your household as you were growing up. There is a difference between a man that the wife truly respects and is willing to be submissive to and a man a woman puts up with, grumbles about, undercuts, etc, even though she stays at home.
Your question about why do I think marriage worked better back then is because of my own observations of the marriages which do work and the ones which don’t. I have thought about the matter and believe I have determined the philosophical reasons which support my observations, but I certainly have been wrong in the past and even though my observations and understanding about human nature are both in accord on this subject, I would be wrong about this, too.
TFH,
I think women need to start paying alimony to men.
If the woman is the higher earner but becomes fat or aged in the process, the man should have the right to leave on a no-fault basis in order to ‘fulfill’ himself, and she should still have to pay maintenence to him.
Agreed?
Agreed whole-heartedly! I support gender-neutral application of the alimony laws. Of course, alimony is not easy for men or women to get since the law, in fact, expects divorcing housewives to get a job. It is most often awarded in cases in which one party has a disability, or there is a long marriage in which one party has taken on the homekeeper role, sacrificing earning capacity in the process. Fault, or lack thereof, also plays a role in determining a party’s entitlement to alimony. I think that’s as it should be.
In my own case, I make 2/3 of the family income. My husband has the capacity to match my salary but has chosen to seek job satisfaction in the non-profit world (a choice I fully support). 2/3 of our assets (the most significant being our house) were paid for out of my income. Yet, I fully support his right to walk away if he doesn’t want to be with me and to take 1/2 our assets in the process. I would feel the same way even if I were making 4/5 of the income, or 100% of the income.
Why? Because relationships should be consensual and because he contributed in a number of non-tangible ways to the high income I earn, He has taken care of a lot of home-related tasks and provided encouragement and emotional support that contributes to my ability to succeed at work. You can’t quantify the contributions of the lower-earning partner, and I suppose the high-earner risks pairing with a low-earner who doesn’t pull his or her weight. But marriage is a risk. If you are that concerned about it, marry someone who has an earning capacity similar to yours.
I have never been so pissed off by something I read in my life. Can’t we just get the technology complete so women can have children with women? The double standard here is just unbelievable.
Interesting conversation.
“It hardly matters. The point is, you have a number of faulty assumptions built on outright untruths, and also have no capacity to grasp what is fair between men and women, nor do you know anything about female psychology. ”
Just dropping by to make one statement. It isn’t that Feminists such as DH can’t grasp the truth, they don’t want too. The truth is that DH is simply a much better fencer than most, she’s not stupid, do not even consider that for a second as she’s highly educated and well spoken. One simply has to consider the reality of the situation as anyone who has seen D’s article knows.
Once you see the truth, then everything else is just a dance. The truth backed by stats is stark and clear and no amount of rationalizations are going to change 1+1 = 2. I bet she enjoys ‘discussions’ like these, for her not to look like a total loon while her views are being annihilated like TFH says. Its very difficult and a noteworthy skill to have learned and perfected. This isn’t simply an argument, a feminist has much more to lose than simply giving ground in a debate. For a staunch feminist to face these truths which are plainly displayed on the Manosphere and bluntly done so with stats on Dalrock’s Blog is to unravel the many years of…er…investment and beliefs and they need to reinforce the cornerstones of their realities.
Dan in Philly–fascinating observation! Do you have data? Studies? Explanation for how you got your observations or how you measured happiness.
I actually think you’re right, as I’ve written in my blog, and I believe God told us what arrangement would make us happy, and we tried it for thousands of years, then rejected it for a few decades, only to begin to return.
I would be fascinated by actual information or studies about this.
[D: In this post I shared a chart showing women were happier with their marriages in the past, and a study showing unhappily married people who stay married are happier 5 years later than if they divorced.]
Oh–and I don’t believe Head of Household necessarily means who makes the most money or has the most prestigious job. And I fully agree with your assessment of the contrast between the woman who respects and agrees with the idea of the husband being the head, and a woman who feels oppressed and miserable.
Dan,
The whole “women are happier with men in charge” bit always reminds me of people who insist the slaves were happier on American plantations with their owners taking responsibility for feeding and clothing them and making all the hard decisions.
You are right that my mother complied with but did not take kindly to my father’s role as head-of-the-household. Of all the women I have known in traditional marriages, I have never known one who didn’t bitterly resent her husband’s authority. I suppose you could argue that if they just accepted it, they would have been happier, but that kind of acceptance goes against human nature. Imagine how you would feel if your wife were accepted socially as the head-of-household, if she had the last word on all major decisions for the family, if you were expected to constantly show deference to her and take care of all her daily needs, and if you had to take her name. A lot or most or perhaps all women feel the same way you would in that situation. It’s humiliating.
Now, there is another piece to this, which is that most people (men and women) find leadership difficult and stressful. I’ve learned at work that most people find decision-making burdensome; it’s amazing how far you can go and how much you can get your way just by being the person willing to make a decision! So I can sort of see how some women, especially those raised with patriarchal mores, might be grateful to have someone else do the hard work of calling the shots. I bet a lot of men would feel the same way if the culture permitted it. The irony is that a lot of “sheeple,” those willing to let others run their lives for them, are still not happy with the decisions made on their behalf or their position lower down in the hierarchy. Self-determination is generally hard work and it doesn’t guarantee happiness. But it does allow at least for the pursuit of happiness and a life of dignity for those willing to do the work. Women deserve that opportunity as much as men.
Um, thank you Omnipitron. Sort of.
TFH, you mentioned the wage gap whereby women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. This is a much narrower wage gap than in the past, and women have options now to pursue lucrative fields that were alll but closed to us previously (such as working in a law firm). Also, if I am not mistaken, women do even better than 77 cents on the dollar by choosing not to have children, or if they do have children, remaining in the work force full-time. In other words, the situation may not be totally fair to women but we have lots of great options besides dependence on a man.
@DH:
” Imagine how you would feel if your wife were accepted socially as the head-of-household, if she had the last word on all major decisions for the family, if you were expected to constantly show deference to her and take care of all her daily needs, and if you had to take her name. A lot or most or perhaps all women feel the same way you would in that situation. It’s humiliating.”
If you were *forced* to? I agree, it’s terrible. However, if you *voluntarily* take on the role, and society allows from both the traditional role and the modern role, why should this breed unhappiness?
I happen to believe that “traditional roles” work for the average person, because biology drives society, not t’other way round. However, I also believe that each person must be free to determine if the “norm” is correct for them as an individual.
Let me see if I can clarify my thought: in my ideal society, it would not bother me in the least if 85% of CEOs were men and 85% of nurses were women. It *would bother me in the extreme* if a singular woman was barred from becoming a CEO, or a singular man was barred from becoming a nurse, simply because of their gender.
The question then becomes: can a majority make room for a minority, and can we prevent power balances from building up over time? I believe we can, as long as this notion becomes a part of our cultural identity.
Does this make sense?
@Doomed Harlot
I’m not sure if you are minimizing the reality of slavery or spreading hysteria about traditional marriage. I’m guessing some of each. I think we need an expansion of Godwins law to cover slavery. No one here is arguing that women should be forced into any role. I personally would be tickled if they simply picked what they wanted, quit the never ending (and very public) bitching, and kept their promises.
feminism has made women more dependent on men than in the past. The man who arrives when you call 9/11, the man who changes your oil, keeps your lights on, takes the garbage. You have no idea how totally dependent you are on men even now.
Quite true, Mr. TFH, but unless I’m misinterpreting the Harlot’s words, dependence on “men” in general is a very different thing from dependence on “a man” (i.e a singular husband). In the past, it may have only been one’s husband, father, or son who provided the protection/labor services you describe, but nowadays unrelated men can do all of these, which greatly reduces the necessity of getting married and raising a family for a woman.
M.Steve:
Makes sense to me.
TFH:
While I do think and hope the “marriage strike” will start to be discernable in the next set of numbers (.i.e. sometimes in the next ten years) Dalrock has posted pretty extensively on tihs and unless he is missing a phenomena (perhaps a marriage strike is taking place at lower income levels?) he’s come to the reasonable conclusion that , right now, a marriage strike cannot be discerned from the data. Now a SECOND marriage strike can – in other words for women who divorce there is a better than even chance they will never marry again – but that has yet to hit the popular consciousness which still seems stuck in EPL territory.
Man, what a hoo-rah going on over here. Dalrock sure knows how to stir the pot. He surely knew this was going to stick in DH’s craw. And it has. If you attached an electromagnet to DH’s spinning hamster wheel, you could supply Dallas’s electrical power needs for a week.
Here’s the thing. These women are no longer sexually attracted to their husbands. Why? Because they can’t depend on their husbands. Their husbands have become wives. The women are men — making all the decisions and all the money, and they have all the leverage in the relationship. The men are women — being taken care of and having fewer, less stressful demands put on them. And they like it. The women look at their househusband men and have no respect for them; therefore, no tingles.
DH, just admit it: Women have no tingles for a man who makes less, is less ambitious, and doesn’t bring home the bacon. They just don’t. I’ve seen this play out so many times.
DH’s hamster spins at atomic accelerator speeds when she says that she’s all for a “kept man” taking half the marital assets. Yeah, right. According to the divorce lawyer Cohen, a housewife who leaves her beta breadwinner husband for the poolboy is “oppressed” and a “victim”. But a househusband married to a breadwinning high earning wife is a “bum” who “sits on his hands” and will be “rewarded”.
I have to admit I have a weakness for the classics. Those who have children know they are prone to think that they received the short end of the stick on any deal.
This was good.
They wanted wives, and they got them.
Even better, LOL.
It also turns out that women aren’t wired to find men in a supporting role sexually attractive.
This used to be common sense. Alas, common sense isn’t common anymore. We should call it something else. Rare sense?
Predictably, this is all caused by our patriarchal culture, since women are really just men who sit down to pee:
ROFL! Great post Dalrock. Good stuff.
DH says: “The whole “women are happier with men in charge” bit always reminds me of people who insist the slaves were happier on American plantations with their owners taking responsibility for feeding and clothing them and making all the hard decisions.”
Wait wait wait. So now a wife is a slave? So now marriage is slavery?
DH, you just lost the argument. QED. Your point of view has absolutely ZERO credibility now.
Dalrock, time to lock the thread. Nothing more need be said.
@Clarence
Regarding future marriage/remarriage rates, I think one thing which will be very interesting to watch is how the delay in marriage plays out given the realities of the SMP/MMP. I think we both agree that it would seem unlikely for women to marry en mass at the same rates as before after so many waited an extra decade after their most marriageable years. But this should also make divorce theft more of a challenge for those women who successfully delay marriage. Older women are less fertile, so less (or no) chilimony. Short marriages should mean less assets to extract from the husband. Perhaps most interesting is the challenge this will place on remarriage. Frivolous divorce is very much about remarriage, which is why it is always presented as an option or at least hinted as one in divorce fantasies. Very few frivolous divorcées set out to become post marital spinsters, despite rationalizations to the contrary. The serial monogamy game could get a lot less fun than it already is. Since so many women are blissfully unaware of the current reality, they would seem to be in for a shock of gigantic proportions.
I also think it is very likely to see a tipping point reached. Right now 90% of white women are able to marry. Husbands are seen as plentiful, so they don’t convey as much status. Frivolous women are above all obsessed with status. If husbands become scarce, married women will have an obvious status advantage over unmarried/divorced women. This is true today for those married women who understand reality, but the effect could be greatly magnified.
“Women have other options besides traditional marriage because we have access to well-paying jobs that were closed to us in the past.”
Make work government bureaucracy, social programs, AA hires and female industries (beauty, fashion, etc) supported by women working these jobs or from their husbands. The money is going to run out and soon.
“That was until she found him taking money from her wallet and leaving an IOU. “I just didn’t want to be giving him spending money.””
Imagine the scandal if a wife took money out of her husband’s wallet and left him an IOU.
Feminists would be appalled that she felt the need to leave an IOU.
“He surely knew this was going to stick in DH’s craw. And it has. If you attached an electromagnet to DH’s spinning hamster wheel, you could supply Dallas’s electrical power needs for a week”
No, I don’t think it has stuck in her craw at all, Det32. I have read enough of DH’s comments to know that she is enjoying the discussion here immensely. This is the sort of thing she does to unwind. As she herself said here, she finds the discussion fascinating.
As for this “DH’s hamster spins at atomic accelerator speeds when she says that she’s all for a “kept man” taking half the marital assets. Yeah, right.”?
I believe that DH is genuine and sincere when she makes this statement. She has made similar comments on other threads. She is talking in relation to herself here. Why do you feel the need to try and discredit her personally, twist what she says and engage in personal attacks.? Cannot you just disagree and reply in a polite manner., as she is doing with all of you here.?
Now I am sure to cop a bollocking here, with all the male hamster wheels going into overdrive because (THEY THINK) I am supporting a … shock horror …”feminist”
Well, it’s nothing of the sort. You and TFH are aggressive and downright unpleasant when responding to DH , whilst she has been pleasant and engaging. Certainly the feathers being ruffled here are not DH’s. One feminist here and you are getting your knickers in a twist over her..I bet she is having a damn good laugh over it too!
And no ,TFH you most definitely do not know how women think! This is patently obvious. Give it a rest.
Now, this is reasoned, respectful and polite commentary, from Dalrock
“I’m not sure if you are minimizing the reality of slavery or spreading hysteria about traditional marriage. I’m guessing some of each. I think we need an expansion of Godwins law to cover slavery. No one here is arguing that women should be forced into any role. I personally would be tickled if they simply picked what they wanted, quit the never ending (and very public) bitching, and kept their promises”
See, it’s not that hard to be polite and disagree. You are more likely to get a reasoned and respectful response in return, too. 😉
Disclaimer: I am not a feminist.. I’ll say it again ! I AM NOT A FEMINIST.
I am a happily married woman who has two kids stays at home and runs the house while my husband runs a lucrative business (in which I assist.)..
Now, just because I do not subscribe to DH’s views on marriage and the patriachy in general, does not mean that I cannot engage in polite conversation with her. And, I have done so.
Doomed Harlot, if you have a free moment, and are so inclined could you email me at
rorkat@gmail.com
I have a question that I would like to ask you privately.
I will understand if you decline to do so.
It is true, Kathy, I am enjoying this and I thank you for your kind words. I fear that I may have to stop soon though. (Off to have sex with my low-earning hubby right after he gets done washing the dishes.)
To respond to a couple of points while I have time: To say that women today are “dependent” on men because we use a lot of modern amenities which you assume are manufactured wholly by men is misleading. Sure, I depend on these amenities but so do all the men I know. Unless you personally made your own flush toilet, water heater, electrical system, computer, and pharmaceuticals, the men here are just as dependent on others as I am. And it’s not all men I am depending on. The person who will be performing surgery on me next month is a woman. Dependence in the sense of buying goods and services manufactured by others is a fact of life in a modern, industrialized economy for almost all of us.
In terms of the slavery point, I wasn’t actually trying to say that traditional marriage is tantamount to slavery. The two institutions are quite different, although there are certainly points of similarity depending on the time and place. That’s not what I was getting at though. The point was the ridiculousness of arguing that entire classes of people are happier when another class of people call the shots in their lives.
Alright, that’s it. I gotta go. Hub’s got his French Maid outfit on!
I will send you an email shortly, Kathy!
“It is much easier to be content in your marriage when the other spouse is:
cleaning up after you,
feeding you,
taking care of your kids,
handling your social obligations,
cleaning your clothes,
doing the shopping,
and taking care of the myriad other tasks of daily life.”
And yet the females Dalrock provided as examples were anything but content when their partner provided those things for them. That’s why DH’s comment re: slavery was so laughably and idiotically hypocritical. Those women could not be content unless the male was out working and sacrificing (i.e slaving) for them.
I think the only possible to take away from this is to discuss strategies for males to successfully negotiate their lives in a society playing with different rules. I’ve often pondered that the best way to live now is to borrow money you have no intention of repaying, make promises you have no intention of keeping, and start work you have no intention of finishing. I’d personally draw the line at siring children you have no intention of caring for. However it’s no secret that these are the proven methods for success in a world in which females shape social conditions.
Doomed Harlot Poseur
Just to be clear, when feminists say they need a wife, it’s a joke! The whole point of feminism is that there shouldn’t be a class of people whose primary function in life is to dance attendance on the other class.
This explains why feminists tend to have few, or no, children. Thanks for making that clear.
When a man supports a family, his paycheck goes into the joint account. The mortgage gets paid, clothes for the kids and food are bought. When a woman supports the family, the man has to use a credit card to buy groceries and not spend HER money? Women will never be equal until they get rid of attitudes like these….these women are leveling at their husbands the same old tired myths about housewives that have been around since the 60s, with the genders reversed…’parasites’ ‘sit around all day’. I find it quite ironic that those who fought the stereotypes now use them and feel justified. Such comments from a man would never be forgiven.
‘Submit’ does not mean to become a slave. There’s one captain on a ship, one captain of a baseball team. Are the crew and players ‘slaves’ for submitting to the captain’s authority? Someone has to take responsibility to lead the family. It does not mean that you have no input, oer that you are a mindless drone.
“Dependence in the sense of buying goods and services manufactured by others is a fact of life in a modern, industrialized economy for almost all of us.”
It isn’t that you are dependant on men, but rather a great deal of wealth that women possess is either unearned or earned by selling to those who haven’t earned it.
Pointing out that “women are dependant on men” is merely stating that it is primarily men who are producing wealth in this economy. There are less “male” (productive) jobs now which coincides with the current economic crisis.
“The point was the ridiculousness of arguing that entire classes of people are happier when another class of people call the shots in their lives.”
Children seem fine with it, this psychology is not “ridiculous” if it can exist. They are not just another “class” of people, they are not biologically equivalent.
You are arguing from the perspective that women are “adults” yet this is a modern construct and a gift that women have wholly abused for the last century.
Suppose 10000 years ago I was an ambitious and innovative male of my tribe and built a grand hut. Also suppose that a women admires my house and me for creating it. I am willing to marry her on the condition that she serves me. She has a choice, serve me and share in the luxury I posses or manage life on her own.
The point is you consider women’s subjugation as some great wrong yet it really is matter of “this is my house and these are the way things are, if you don’t like it you can leave.” The fact that women have so much now is a testament to male generosity. I won’t even get into how coincidental it is that women start whining about equality as soon as men had created machines reducing our dependence on man power.
The wife’s sense of being the victim of a scam can intensify when children are involved. Even though some freeloaders are excellent fathers,
OK then, when a man is the breadwinner and the woman stays at home, she is not called a “freeloader”, and when they get divorced and he gets taken to the financial proctologist, that does not make him the “victim of a scam”, oh no. But when the shoe is on the other foot, and she’s the breadwinner, then she gets scammed by the freeloader in the divorce and that’s oh so wrong!
First rule of feminism — only women are supposed to benefit from divorce under any circumstances, period.
DH, I’d also like to point out that professions were rarely ‘closed’ to women. If you go to the site of nearly any college in America, they each proudly list the date the first female graduated from their institution. You might be surprised at the dates, starting in the mid-1800s. The first medical school for women was founded in 1848-50 in Boston. All the elite ivy league women’s colleges were founded (by those nasty patriarchs who didn’t want them to get an education….?) in the mid to late 1800s. For a country that wanted to keep it’s women in subjection, America led the world in women’s colleges and labor laws designed to protect women and children. In 1880 there were already over 500 female lawyers and several classes of doctors had graduated in Boston and other places. In 1864 the first African American woman became a doctor. I’ve seen material that says that 25% of New York University’s law school enrollment was female. Dig a little, you might fine a lot that contradicts what you think is history. Society was divided along class lines more than gender lines. Poor men, or men without someone willing to sponsor them, didn’t go to college either. It was a pursuit of the wealthy.
I am always amused by a few things I consistently notice in feminist arguments-
1. While railing on about ‘male dominated’ professions, I’ve never seen mention of the unfairness of the teaching and nursing professions being 90% female for most of America’s history.
2. While I see a lot of talk about equality in the workplace, the most frequent references I see are to the professions, medicine, law, finance. I never see outrage at under-representation of women in carpentry, pipe-fitting, or septic tank pumping. For all the talk of ‘equality’ it seems the ladies are more than willing to leave the dirty jobs to men.
3. For all the talk of ‘choice’ it really is a matter of making the politically correct choice, isn’t it? Not how any woman randomly chooses to live her life, but making choices only a REAL feminist would make. I frequently see women who choose to have children called ‘breeders’, SAHMs mocked, along with women who take their husbands’ last names. Remember the scrutiny that Feministing founder Jessica Valenti’s wedding was subjected to- what color is the dress? Is she taking his name? Any remnants of the Patriarchy’s suppressive traditions in her ceremony? The judgements began. One can not evidently, be conservative and feminist at the same time either. The mold is a pretty narrow one…..pro-abortion, liberal, anti-traditionalist….so spare me the crap about being in it “for all women”. That’s one of the biggest lies feminists peddle.
The whole “women are happier with men in charge” bit always reminds me of people who insist the slaves were happier on American plantations with their owners taking responsibility for feeding and clothing them and making all the hard decisions.
Come come now DH. This is not an apples to apples comparison. Not even close by a mile. Slavery? Screw me gently why don’t ya! That’s like me saying white people have it bad today, and it’s similar to when Attila the Hun rode into Europe and set some heads on spike. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
You are right that my mother complied with but did not take kindly to my father’s role as head-of-the-household. Of all the women I have known in traditional marriages, I have never known one who didn’t bitterly resent her husband’s authority
Ummm… your perspective is just that, your perspective. You are not subject to full disclosure from these women. I have doubt your mother told you about the mind blowing sex she was having with your dad, which made other aspects of their relationship worth keeping it together. I do not deny that there may have been some resentment (on both sides)… but I doubt you are privy to all the facts. Something made them keep it together, and the only two people on earth that know the answer to that are them. At best, you offer an opinion based on your feelings and perspective (and no, I’m not trying to be dis-respectful here, just stating fact).
but that kind of acceptance goes against human nature
Hate it when I have to disect what people say, but I must. Human nature is what is shared by both genders as being shared nature and can be attributed to the nature of both sexes as a whole. There is the sub set of Male nature and Female nature in which the subsets will have behaviours and tendences which are not shared. You arguement doesn’t work because you are viewing it from the whole perspective instead of the correct perspective of the Female subset.
Imagine how you would feel if your wife were accepted socially as the head-of-household, if she had the last word on all major decisions for the family, if you were expected to constantly show deference to her and take care of all her daily needs, and if you had to take her name. A lot or most or perhaps all women feel the same way you would in that situation. It’s humiliating.
This is not a valid arguement. Men and women are inherantly different. Might as well ask me to imagine I’m an elephant. Doesn’t work that way. All those things you are talking about are gender roles which have been messed up by feminists and their warped un-natural way of thinking. These things are traditional (today) but were required in order to build civilization (in the years gone by). Also, I have my doubt as to whether you are thinking about these things from a woman’s perspective, but rather from a feminist woman’s perspective which has taught you to be a man, not a woman. Again, I’m not trying to be disrepectful, I’m just seeing a pattern here with this particular post.
Now, there is another piece to this, which is that most people (men and women) find leadership difficult and stressful. I’ve learned at work that most people find decision-making burdensome; it’s amazing how far you can go and how much you can get your way just by being the person willing to make a decision!
This is partyly true. But men, raised right with their father in the picture have a tendency to become natural leaders given the right role model. However given the feminism has been around for the last 40 odd years, it’s fucked things up for both genders in that traditional gender roles (yes those same one feminists were saying are a figmint of your imagination), and now is a serious state of un-stable.
Look, I’m not trying to be disrepectful. But I will not read more than your post circa 15H36 today.
Anyone that has anything to fire at me, please put @WooZoo at the top of your post. I will scan this topic the next day or so and move on.
Good Lord, I really must proof read in the future!
“It is much easier to be content in your marriage when the other spouse is:
cleaning up after you,
feeding you,
taking care of your kids,
handling your social obligations,
cleaning your clothes
doing the shopping,
and taking care of the myriad other tasks of daily life.”
If you agree to be a SAHM, there is no reason you can’t do this. If you lived alone, you wouldn’t be doing any of that? From what I read on some boards, single women really don’t do any of this, and live in pig styes and they’re proud of not doing any of those ‘demeaning’ household chores. One woman on Forbes actually bragged to me that she never cleans, and ‘can’t even make mac and cheese out of a box’. By being told the feminist lies that housework and cooking, the art of making a warm inviting home that your family will like to come home to, was demeaning drudgery we’ve created a generation of women who shun the most basic aspects of daily life. What progress!
If you decide to be a stay at home mother, or wife, the above is your job description, not going to the gym and Starbucks and playing tennis all day long. After my husband works a 60-hour week (he owns his own company and it can get quite busy) I would not DREAM of asking him to scrub the toilet ‘because it’s his house too’. Women have amnesia or lack the mental faculties in many cases to be able to imagine how hard men work outside the home, and they conveniently forget that all the scut work at home like snow shoveling, painting, raking leaves, cleaning gutters, etc are all done by their men, and complain long and loud that men ‘never do anything around the house’. At our house the housework is all done by Friday at 5, fridge stocked, meals planned and we have great weekends where NOBODY has to do any housework. Seems a no-brainer, but I know of too many SAHMs and SAHWs who leave chores for their husbands on the weekends. Bleah.
Sorry for the long posts, but there is just so much here I felt I needed to address, hope y’all don’t mind .
crella:
Thank you for your posts.
WooZoo:
Glad to see you go. Mindless sexual essentialism is embarrassing, and is not going to be an argument that is going to sway DH , heck it won’t even sway ME, and I agree with most of those who post on here. Yeah DH is a bit deluded, but she is at least, intelligent and a veteran of these arguments so your half thought out reply is hardly likely to do anything to sway her to your side of this argument.
As for me, I just wish that people like Kathy would admit that if children are so important so is family law reform.
@Clarence:
Let’s agree to disagree. I’m not looking to sway anyone, I just have my perspective.
Ha ha ha as always ya crack me up TFH. You are an easy fish to bait. It works everytime.
More nonsense and personal attacks from you. I expected it of course, I know how you think. 😉
You ain’t bothering me with all the” you are a feminist “shaming language, claptrap 😉
We do agree on one thing though. Thag, Terri and Hestia are very fine women.
I’m doing okay though. Have a great husband, sex whenever I want it and two kids, so I can’t complain.
Why are you so unhappy and angry TFH?
Was it something I said.?
I thought my internet game was pretty tight. 😀
“As for me, I just wish that people like Kathy would admit that if children are so important so is family law reform.
Have never been against family law reform Clarence, so do not know where you are coming from here, nor what comment of mine to which you are referring.
I would appreciate it if you would clarify for me.
Exactly crella,
the fact is that SAHM’s are actually looking after their own houses, their own children, their own washing, their own mess. Like anyone else. DH isn’t nearly as smart as she wants to think, most people here would in real life tell her in no uncertain terms how ridiculous and childlike she and her opinions are. However as Dalrock runs this blog, most are somewhat more circumspect out of respect for the kind of place he likes this to be. She misinterprets the small amount of leeway that gives her, and imagines that she has tied the rest of us in some kind of logical bind. Hardly.
I love it how you try to beat me at my own game TFH.
It ain’t working, though.
“Ta ta”
Yes, best you pack up your bat and toddle off home. 😉
Sure the man can make less, but he can’t act like it, if you know what I mean. Men can take care of the children, but they need to retain their strength frame when doing so and ensure that their wives’ jobs are sufficient for the fam. And this is, I know, rare.
I’m not clear from the passage whether the wife was making her husband take on debt to buy groceries, or whether she was quietly allowing him to put himself in debt as part of a futile effort to look like a provider. Neither one would be acceptable, but the latter would indicate that she took a passive approach to a serious problem and desperately needed someone to call the shots in her life. The guy probably ended up making himself look worse by making such a feeble effort than he would have by just staying home and doing nothing.
Some men are wired to make good moms, some women are wired to make good dads, and while I think those percentages are probably quite small (far too small to justify restructuring social norms around), there’s no reason two people can’t live that way if they can find each other. A man not wired that way might mistakenly think having a sugar-mama is the way to go, only to grow to resent his own unmanliness as reality sets in – at which point his attitude would certainly bother any woman. I don’t think I need to elaborate on the reversed situation. The man in the passage was not wired to be a mom – he was a typical man, built with a drive to make his mark on the world (as an artists, in his case), but like most guys, he fell somewhat short of his ultimate goal – perhaps more so than most, but still. Not everyone who goes out to explore the New World comes back with gold and glory. His failure as an artist killed the passion and drive that made him attractive to his high-earning wife; taking on the mommy-role killed it.
Granted, all of this is just Internet pop-psychoanalysis, and one probably shouldn’t trust any process which turns two sentences of selected quotes into two paragraphs of explication, but I think this may be close to the mark.
What I’d be curious to know is if the artist husband also mows the lawn, puts on the annual or bi-annual coat of woodstain, grows a garden, builds a fort for his kids, performs basic low-skill household maintenance, teaches the kids to play football, kills spiders, chops wood, or ever does anything that makes his wife feel physically protected. Further, I’d like to know if she counts any of those things as contributions – or if she even notices them. Things like this, *IF* the woman appreciates them, can make up for some of the income gap in making a “provider” mentality. If wifey doesn’t notice or care about these things, she’s a mercenary and not wife material anyway, but let’s face it, how many boyfriends perform more than one or two of those tasks before marriage (and thus miss out on the opportunity to see if she cares)?
“This used to be common sense. Alas, common sense isn’t common anymore. We should call it something else. Rare sense?”
I personally vote for have common sense in the list of endangered species.
“so spare me the crap about being in it “for all women”. That’s one of the biggest lies feminists peddle.”
Heh love this. I keep saying it “Feminism is the movement created to liberate women from being oppressed by men so they can be oppressed by other women”
Doomed Harlot wrote:
Ray, Most women are not subsidized by welfare and child support.
Those that aren’t are subsidized in many other ways. If someone told me that the main business of our government was a massive transfer of wealth from men to women, I’d do little more than nod in agreement.
Look at the bloated service sector and government jobs if you want some examples. Or affirmative action. Or health-care spending and entitlements. Or our family court system.
Women have other options besides traditional marriage because we have access to well-paying jobs that were closed to us in the past.
The “well-paying” jobs that I see women in are usually produce very limited real value. Human Resources is a prime example.
Doomed Harlot wrote:
To say that women today are “dependent” on men because we use a lot of modern amenities which you assume are manufactured wholly by men is misleading.
No it isn’t. If men weren’t on hand to keep things running, the world would go to hell in a handbasket real fast. Read this article by Fred Reed for a bit of enlightenment:
http://fredoneverything.net/SexualFuture.shtml
Sure, I depend on these amenities but so do all the men I know. Unless you personally made your own flush toilet, water heater, electrical system, computer, and pharmaceuticals, the men here are just as dependent on others as I am.
All amenities developed almost entirely by men. Women’s contribution in terms of mastery over the physical world is conspicuous by its continued absence.
“Unless you personally made your own flush toilet, water heater, electrical system, computer, and pharmaceuticals, the men here are just as dependent on others as I am.”
Wow. I’ve read a lot of hair-brained things written by feminists since I had my red pill, but this one really filled my head with fuck.
With the exception of the pharmaceuticals, whenever any of the things you listed require repair or replacement, it is going to be a man doing the job. Oh sure, there may be the occasional handy-chick that will do some of these things (though I have never personally met such a female), but 98% of the time, either the man in the house is going to fix it, or when you call someone to provide that service, it will be a man that appears at the door.
Feminists are always more than willing to hold men as a group responsible for the sins of their fathers, real or imagined. After all, we need some justification for why men alive today who have never oppressed women must do things for women alive today who have never been oppressed. So because my grandmother would have had a more difficult time becoming an engineer, women engineers today must get preferential hiring over me. Because my great-great-grandmother couldn’t vote, politicians will be rendered unelectable if they take oppose VAWA or rape-shield laws.
So I think it’s only fair that if I, as a male, am going to share in the blame for things I never did, I think it’s only fair that I, as a male, get part of the credit for all the inventing and building that men have done. Since I’ve already complied with feminist demands about my punishments, where do I line up to get my rewards?
“We will have to agree to disagree on whether the PUA community has some great insight into women’s psychology. I will tip my hat to Roissy and his ilk for coming up with a brilliantly nasty and elaborate rationalization of their fundamental resentment towards women, but I can’t imagine it brings them much happiness.”
This is pure projection. Arrogance and Solipsism have fed that hamster to the point she is not able to see herself in the mirror.
The most outrageous idea in this article is that anyone in PR can make $270K/yr. (And her husband is called a parasite?) She’s first against the wall when the revolution comes.
As for the “alpha female” nonsense: It’s time to put a stop to this right now. “Alpha” is a male concept, because only men are physically capable of outsized reproductive success. It’s biologically meaningless to talk about “alpha” or “beta” females. It’s ludicrous to do so when those categories are assigned based on professional credentials, money, &c. It’s doubly ludicrous when “success” in those fields is usually based on useless activity, e.g. PR, that will be all but worthless in the wreckage of the welfare state.
I love how it’s a “shock” that “[t]he law is supposed to be gender-blind”. Isn’t that exactly what these noxious trollops have been fighting for all these years? (Doubly love that “supposed”.) ROFL. If you want to understand the feminist mind, you could do little better than that paragraph.
Women like this are useless, and that reality is what will ultimately drive the marriage “strike”. Which isn’t a “strike”. Strikes are negotiating tactics. Marriage is just an overpriced lemon of a car. It won’t sell because of the underlying value proposition, not because someone wants to make a point. (Before anyone argues that there’s still a lot of marryin’ going on: Yeah, and GM sold crap cars for 20 years, too.)
Once again, I am thrilled beyond belief. The disastrous fate that has befallen these stupid, callow women is too good to be true.
There is nothing better than knowing that your enemy can never find happiness, even though (s)he has destroyed your chance at happiness.
Rot in marital purgatory, ladies.
Course of logic. Chapter 5. Generalization. Exercise 3.
Given the following premises:
1. Women who are single are miserable and bitch about it.
2. Women who are married and are stay at home are miserable and bitch about it.
3. Women who are married and are breadwinners are miserable and bitch about it.
What is the conclusion about women? (The answer is worth 50 points)
@imnobody:
Umm…. women are miserable?!
LOL
Looks like you are the center of attention here on Dalrocks blog DH. Proving you have more intelligents and more to offer than the rest of us combined. Proving females are more developed than males.
Woozoo, you have an A+!!!! Women are miserable and bitch about it, no matter what happens.
“Men benefit more from marriage than women, especially in more patriarchal societies. It is much easier to be content in your marriage when the other spouse is cleaning up after you, feeding you, taking care of your kids, handling your social obligations ….”
This is typical lawyerspeak, or a ridiculously bad troll attempt, only a lawyer would be evil enough to twist something as a benefit for the victim ….
This is typically how all lawyers conduct themselves in all courts, twisted & evil beyond course
I have no idea why dalrocks tolerating somebody this twisted on his blog, let alone giving them the light of day
As a lawyer god knows how many innocent men shes put behind bars because of her evil beliefs in feminism
imnobody:
Actually the women at Alte’s Traditional Christianity blog are SAHM moms and are happy with it. Of course these aren’t “stepford wives” here, who are forbidden to ever work outside the home or use their brains or anything like that. Instead, they merely embrace their rule of putting their husbands and children first and they are happy with it. Now, not all women are like that, some need to be out on their own steam doing things, others (somewhere between 1 to 10 percent of women I’d say) want to be the Captain and not the first mate and so need a “Mr. Dad” if they are going to be happy in marriage and its all good. What needs to be noted is that the institution of marriage is not necessarily an unhappy or abusive one for most of the women in it.
Yes, of course, there are happy SAHM (Alte), and there are happy career women, and there are happy single women (for example, Bella DePaulo).
..
But most women are unhappy, no matter their circumstances and want to complain about that.
.
When women were SAHM they were unhappy because they thought they were slaves in the house. Now they are unhappy because a career is not what it was cracked up to be. You don’t have to listen to the endless articles of women whining. It is a waste of your brain.
.
Most women will be miserable, no matter what.
Wow. The female attitudes in this article are horrid, but the vitriol among commentators has swelled unbelievably.
“The “well-paying” jobs that I see women in are usually produce very limited real value”
I presume you’re not speaking of medicine, dentistry, writing, music, and other large arenas women have excelled in? As for the alpha female, the term may be different from the one for males, but it’s a perfectly valid term for traits of strong leadership in women. You see the term used in nature. Fred Reel’s article has some valid points, but was jaded with simplification and even some seeming contradiction.
“being a woman does not mean you know how women think”. Actually that’s usually exactly what it means. Unless you’re a feminist. “A woman who meets a PUA is usually happier for the experience”. LOL Meeting a man with game is different than being pumped and dumped by a PUA. Thanks as*hole, you know women are attracted to strength and you use it for cheap sex; I’m so happy I could meet you.
“The average woman never had it worse than the average man”
Careful. If you don’t take into account cruel tribes and Muslim practices, this is false.
The article about intrespection was good, though I hardly agreed with all of it. And the dude said, “When “Titanic” earned its Oscars, some people were saying it might just be the greatest film ever made. Now, it’s considered good but schmaltzy, a fine film, but decidedly melodramatic”. Who the hell changed their minds and said it’s schmaltzy???
“Feminists are always more than willing to hold men as a group responsible for the sins of their fathers, real or imagined. After all, we need some justification for why men alive today who have never oppressed women must do things for women alive today who have never been oppressed. So because my grandmother would have had a more difficult time becoming an engineer, women engineers today must get preferential hiring over me. Because my great-great-grandmother couldn’t vote, politicians will be rendered unelectable if they take oppose VAWA or rape-shield laws.
So I think it’s only fair that if I, as a male, am going to share in the blame for things I never did, I think it’s only fair that I, as a male, get part of the credit for all the inventing and building that men have done. Since I’ve already complied with feminist demands about my punishments, where do I line up to get my rewards?”
Brilliant post, Bob. You have some of the best points.
I agree with the male commentators unilaterally on one point: the nastier women in this article reaped exactly what they sowed.
@imnobody
The problem is this is the ideological foundation for modern feminism.
“Which is an arrangement that women are happier under, of course. In fact, Christianity pedestalized women more than almost any other major religion.
Christianity also had major restrictions on men, as well. As usual, your narrative of ‘women were oppressed in the past’ falls flat”
I don’t think you know much about historical Christianity. The first church’s idea of pedestalizing women was comparing them to Mary, whom they deemed perfect, and giving this perfet woman to women in general as an example to emulate.
“If you had to trade places with a man, you would be screaming about wanting to change back to the privileged female life”
Plenty of women are reaping everything they can from the working world, in cluding much harder fields that generally require male strength. Not that I think the latter situation’s a good one..
@Jennifer
Keep in mind that this only works for the PUA if cheap sex was in fact on offer.
“Most women will be miserable, no matter what.
The problem is this is the ideological foundation for modern feminism.”
.
Yes, in fact, feminism was a minority ideology until feminists found a brilliant method to bring it to the masses. The “consciousness raising” sessions which were invented in communist China (where they were called “talk bitterness”).
.
They gather several women, encouraged to bitch and moan about their problems in life (as if women needed such encouragement) and, later, the leader of the group explained that all these problems were due to the patriarchy and the oppression of women and that the members of the group should join political action. With these sessions, feminism spread spectacularly. After that, “consciousness raising” were brought to the Universities in the form of “Women’s studies” courses, which was the way of doing feminism a dominant philosophy of our time.
.
Mind you, woman bitching, moan and being miserable was something that has happened for millennia. Socrates’ wife was a shrew, for instance. But there were two new things:
.
1) Building a political movement out of this fact. The thing reached ridiculous levels, like when women made of the position of the toilet a sign of oppression by men.
2) Everybody dying to please women. Society changed radically only to make women happy (The result: women unhappier than ever).
.
Before feminism, the public discourse was not: “What do we need to do to make women happy?”. Men and women were told what they SHOULD do so the society can work. And they were told to be happy about this or go f*ck themselves.
Doomed Harlot…”That’s why 20th century feminists were involved in the labor movement, the civil rights movement, and the movement to resist the draft”
Do you think it would have been better if the men who went ashore at Omaha Beach had resisted the draft instead? If not, then you must admit there are at least some situations in which some members of a society must expose themselves to severe physical danger. And I would also observe that however many strides are made in workplace safety, there will always been important jobs that are physically demanding and dangerous in comparison with the life of, say, a lawyer or programmer or PR person.
Females have this strange ability to leave out details of their own roles in events that they will view as them being victimized.
BTW there is not a western women alive that would trade places with a man. (the responsibilty part is the deal breaker).
“I once believed all the feminist lines about how men really want women they respect, as defined by her accomplishments, strong will, etc (ie in terms of how men respect other men). I also believed that women really wanted men they could depend on, would contribute with work, were empathetic, and patient (i.e. how women respect other women).”
Dan, men do need women they respect, but her career’s not a requirement for this respect, as you noted. Women also need men they can depend on who are empathetic and patient; but that’s not ALL. Those men need to have their own goals, their own lives, and the confidence to go with it.
“Commonalities in happy marriages (based on my own observations):
The man is clearly the head of the household.
That’s pretty much it. I’ve known successful marriages where the woman worked, and those where she didn’t. Where the man worked and where he didn’t. Where they had kids or not. Where they were rich or poor. Where they were religious or not. Heck, I even knew a swinging married couple who were quite happy with this dynamic. Every single one of them where I judged the marriage happy and both member in love, glad they married each other, etc had and have this one thing in common and almost nothing else”
Ok, I’m calling that bullsh*t. A SWINGING couple?? The husband in that charade of a marriage is not head of ANYTHING, let alone his own damn house. I’m calling another correlation between those marriages: all the couples know what each other wants, and the man has the strong frame he needs. Both are things that require more than game, and I’m still not buying the crap notion that the swingers are in any way fulfilled or in a real relationship. And no, people who mistake the PUA tactics for real game, i.e. real masculinity, don’t know the half of it.
DH, I love many of your posts (do NOT agree with all of them), but this isn’t really accurate: “And as for women being happier when they are submitting to their husbands — hahahahahahahahahahahaha! If that were true, more women would do it. Nothin’ stopping ‘em.” Women are not happier when they obey, but they ARE happier when they submit; that’s what love’s about. Husbands submit as well (in a non-authoritarian way) and they are their wives’ “heads” as in cornerstones; they support their wives and are strong for them. I hate to say it, but that’s one area Roissy got correct: men need to be their women’s rocks. In fact, this is another reason why submission can be good: if there’s an upsetting situation, the man may be able to handle things more calmly, and the wife would do well to follow his example. This does NOT mean he makes all the final decisions alone or in any way controls her choices and her activities.
“The truth backed by stats is stark and clear and no number of rationalizations are going to change 1+1 = 2”
You mean the truth that women are happier with strong men who carve their own niche into life and excel at their own working spheres? (I agree).
“Note that men and women were both happier with their marriages before feminists “fixed” marriage”
I agree, because men were more free to be men and GOOD men neither dominated their wives nor felt the need to pander to their every whims. But those who did dominate or abuse the whole “headship” idea..not so good. Neither that nor the henpecking marriages work.
“Imagine how you would feel if your wife were accepted socially as the head-of-household, if she had the last word on all major decisions for the family, if you were expected to constantly show deference to her and take care of all her daily needs”
Yeah, not healthy. A man needs a strong frame, and sometimes there’s a fine line between that and repressing the wife. But I think the repression thing happened less in history than we might assume, as least in marriages that didn’t bow to society. And what do ya know, the happiest marriages are STILL ones that don’t bow to (now feminist) society.
M. Steve, you’re awesome! I don’t mind men being breadwinners and thus making the financial decisions; I don’t believe that they should be given the last word in everything, however. But the general rule is that men flourish more when they’re the main workers; that’s just how they’re wired. It doesn’t mean women can’t work, and if she is the main worker, the situation would still be healthiest if the man had some control/say in the financial matters, as I believe the Bible’s words that he is entrusted with the job of making sure the family’s provided for; I think this kind of functioning is the benefit that Dan in Philly noted.
“The women are men — making all the decisions and all the money, and they have all the leverage in the relationship”
No one should make ALL the decisions or have all the leverage, and women need to do more than “be taken care of”. Feminism ironically solved the first problem, than proved the truth of the second (women being taken care of by others’ taxes ain’t so good).
“Actually, feminism has made women more dependent on men than in the past”
Ach, the ultimate irony.
“Of course, because women are attracted to those traits (hence the female lust for serial killers, etc.)”
Um, that’s bullsh*t. How many women do you know that are actually attracted to serial killers? Healthy women are NOT attracted to lying, cheating men; the reason some women chase those ugly traits are because they’re done with arrogance, which many women confuse with true male strength. And because sometimes they rarely see true male strength; real alphas have been absent for a while, so women sometimes chase the faux ones. Hence the success of shallow PUA’s: when a man walks into a room with the frame of an alpha, it causes unilateral female attraction. And for many women, that’s ALL it takes before her pants drop. Once a woman gets to know the man, however, if she’s wise she’ll be able to discern the difference between a man of true strength and a peacocking PUA. An intelligent and strong woman will want, for long-term commitment, an alpha who truly has strength, loyalty, confidence and reliability, rather than a creep who just plays his tricks well.
“Once one realizes that women operate under the rules that worked well thousands of years ago (the violent and devious man usually became the tribe chieftain)”
That’s another explanation for why some women cater to killers; yech. Bella Cullen, you imbecile..
“When a man supports a family, his paycheck goes into the joint account. The mortgage gets paid, clothes for the kids and food are bought. When a woman supports the family, the man has to use a credit card to buy groceries and not spend HER money? Women will never be equal until they get rid of attitudes like these”
Amen!
“these women are leveling at their husbands the same old tired myths about housewives that have been around since the 60s, with the genders reversed…’parasites’ ‘sit around all day’. I find it quite ironic that those who fought the stereotypes now use them and feel justified. Such comments from a man would never be forgiven”
Great insight. I do not believe in one captain for the family, though; better to have spheres of authority.
“I have never been so pissed off by something I read in my life. Can’t we just get the technology complete so women can have children with women? The double standard here is just unbelievable”
LOL Touche John.
“I should add that feminists in the UK and Sweden are really troubled by this and are working to ban urinals and otherwise legislate that men sit down to pee. Not doing so encourages ‘rape culture’ or something”
SERIOUSLY??
“You are arguing from the perspective that women are “adults” yet this is a modern construct and a gift that women have wholly abused for the last century”
You are more full of sh*t of anyone I’ve seen for a long time.
“DH, I’d also like to point out that professions were rarely ‘closed’ to women. If you go to the site of nearly any college in America, they each proudly list the date the first female graduated from their institution. You might be surprised at the dates, starting in the mid-1800s. The first medical school for women was founded in 1848-50 in Boston. All the elite ivy league women’s colleges were founded (by those nasty patriarchs who didn’t want them to get an education….?) in the mid to late 1800s. For a country that wanted to keep it’s women in subjection, America led the world in women’s colleges and labor laws designed to protect women and children. In 1880 there were already over 500 female lawyers and several classes of doctors had graduated in Boston and other places. In 1864 the first African American woman became a doctor. I’ve seen material that says that 25% of New York University’s law school enrollment was female”
Amen, and this is how it should be; the idea that women are adults and need child-like care is offensive bullsh*t. In fact, the facts you listed are a great reason for why..gasp…we don’t need feminism!! That’s right: our society was already evolving for the better for women before the femmie screechers messed things up. And men were not disrespected in the process, big difference from the feminist way of things.
Woozoo, DH’s argument is very valid in one respect: women were not designed to have someone else decide and do everything for them. To say or imply that this might work “because women are different” is bollocks and bollocks again; many women will discount your words.
“These things are traditional (today) but were required in order to build civilization (in the years gone by)”
Keeping women from working was only required in the absence of birth control. Clarence, awesome response. Kathy, nailed the creepy childish stuff.
I still can’t believe the horrible woman Emily in this post; fully knowing that she’s wrecking her husband’s life, and glorying in it. Yet she shows her disappointment in his lessened state. Sorry hon, you can’t have both a ruled AND a properly functioning husband.
Jennifer wrote:
I presume you’re not speaking of medicine,
There they play a valid supportive role in nursing. That’s about it. Note that specialization is always top-heavy with males.
dentistry,
Same pattern here. All the dentistry specialists I’ve been to were men, general practitioners were (sometimes) women.
Angry Harry at http://angryharry.com has noted that it’s far more economically viable to train a male physician or dentist than a female one. They work longer hours and don’t take the downtime that women do.
writing,
I do see tons of fluff produced by women, aka romantic novels aka porn for women. Jane Austen is about as good as it gets.
music,
When you locate a female equivalent of Mozart or Beethoven, let me know.
and other large arenas women have excelled in?
What other large arenas? I defy you to refute the claim that women’s contributions to mastery of the physical world compared to men range between slim and none. Who builds the houses? Who comes to tow your truck if you’re in a car accident? Who does the engineering and scientific innovation that propels technological advances? The people who do this are almost always possessors of a Y chromosome.
As for the alpha female, the term may be different from the one for males, but it’s a perfectly valid term for traits of strong leadership in women.
Women are essentially followers, not leaders. It’s the product of their herd mentality. Kim Kardashian does not lead anyone in any meaningful way.
You see the term used in nature.
So what? We’re discussing humans here, who have a unique pattern of mating and sexual dimorphism.
Fred Reel’s article has some valid points,
His main ones are unimpeachable:
(1) Men produce, women consume.
(2) Women as a group have little understanding or appreciation of how much they depend on men. F. Roger Devlin has speculated that this blind spot may be an artifact of our evolutionary past where men always cooperated to protect women from physical danger. The end result is that women don’t notice it, nor are they especially grateful for it.
but was jaded with simplification and even some seeming contradiction.
If you want a full-length treatment, read Steven Goldberg’s The Inevitability of Patriarchy.
Jennifer, thank you for the kind words! Also, in regard to:
“How many women do you know that are actually attracted to serial killers? Healthy women are NOT attracted to lying, cheating men; the reason some women chase those ugly traits are because they’re done with arrogance, which many women confuse with true male strength. And because sometimes they rarely see true male strength; real alphas have been absent for a while, so women sometimes chase the faux ones. Hence the success of shallow PUA’s: when a man walks into a room with the frame of an alpha, it causes unilateral female attraction. And for many women, that’s ALL it takes before her pants drop. Once a woman gets to know the man, however, if she’s wise she’ll be able to discern the difference between a man of true strength and a peacocking PUA. An intelligent and strong woman will want, for long-term commitment, an alpha who truly has strength, loyalty, confidence and reliability, rather than a creep who just plays his tricks well.”
This is true and very insightful. One of my fears about modern parenting is that we are teaching our daughters about the “wonders” of sexual self-liberation, but we aren’t equipping them with the knowledge required to recognize and reject the “Beta who found the Alpha playbook” PUAs that abound on the scene. (This, again, would have been the role of elder Wise Women in previous eras.) For a culture to survive and thrive, its men need to be encouraged to take leadership roles in their lives, not GTOW like a Judd Apatow movie, and the behaviors our daughters expect are a significant driver for young male behavior.
Explaining Doomed Harlot, Game, and the Rationalization Hamster
DH,
I do love your moniker. That said, a few items you wrote stand out for me; others have covered them as well, but I’ll be a little more outrageous.
You can’t quantify the contributions of the lower-earning partner
Close down the family courts, then. They’re doing something that you say cannot be done.
Marriage is a risk… If you are that concerned about it, marry someone who has an earning capacity similar to yours. Ah, Mammon, that you have so many followers. I think you’d agree, DH, that equal earnings matter far less than honor, chastity, and responsibility. Your solution is no solution.
You are right that my mother complied with but did not take kindly to my father’s role as head-of-the-household. Of all the women I have known in traditional marriages, I have never known one who didn’t bitterly resent her husband’s authority.
I’ll repeat only what I read elsewhere: “Women love to be dominated, and hate to be controlled.” I should think submitting to an ineffective leader or a controlling shrew of a man would be FAR worse than the lonely life.
I suppose you could argue that if they just accepted it, they would have been happier, but that kind of acceptance goes against human nature.
Others have pointed out that there is a masculine and a feminine nature (let’s not go into Jung.) Is submission natural to women’s nature, and unnatural to men’s? LEt’s put it this way: what happened to all the women who were NOT submissive to stronger men in the days before laws and penalties for murder? What happened to the women who tried to fight? They died, and their genes died with them. I admire your struggling with thousands of years of human evolution, but it’s a fool’s game.
if you were expected to constantly show deference to her and take care of all her daily needs, and if you had to take her name. A lot or most or perhaps all women feel the same way you would in that situation. It’s humiliating. No more humiliating than a man whose wife prefers another man’s name to his own. It’s a sort of incestuous cuckolding, wouldn’t you agree?
But those were just minor things. You really set a number of people off with this one: The whole “women are happier with men in charge” bit always reminds me of people who insist the slaves were happier on American plantations with their owners taking responsibility for feeding and clothing them and making all the hard decisions.
Of course, you already KNOW, deep in your soul, what I am about to write. You yourself said: Now, there is another piece to this, which is that most people (men and women) find leadership difficult and stressful. I’ve learned at work that most people find decision-making burdensome; it’s amazing how far you can go and how much you can get your way just by being the person willing to make a decision!
The sad truth is, a lot of people are very much adapted to slavery. Freedom from decision-making in most spheres allows a person to conserve his strength for the spheres where decision-making is permitted (usually involving religion, but not always; see how Abraham treated his male slaves in the Bible). I’d refer you to articles in recent times, especially from the NY Times, that led me to this shocking conclusion, but you need only do a few simple calculations to prove it. How many slaves revolted in the US, despite superior numbers over slaveowners in most Southern states? They had gone to seek philosophical happiness (that is, living in accord with what they considered to be good) instead of revolution.
But your reading assignment, DH< and every manosphere reader, is this article in the NY Times this weekend: Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue? It describes a series of psychological experiments on men and women having to do with decision-making. I excerpt the following, and I will draw some conclusions from it:
(emphasis added)
So making decisions mentally exhausts people, and reduces willpower? How to get around this problem?
I think we can conclude the following. Marcus Buckingham asked what has happened to women’s happiness. Feminism did. It spurred women to take on MANY more roles (and you seem to agree that more choice is always better), and make many more decisions. This has literally exhausted their brains, and reduced their willpower below what it was before. (Disagree with Baumeister, please, not me.) So they give in more easily to divorce whispers, and cheating, and so forth.
Another conclusion: there is no such thing as a rationalization hamster, running on a wheel. What is running on a wheel is the exact OPPOSITE: a moral self-control hamster. When he has to make a lot of decisions, he gets tired, and cannot exert the control he did before: this is when moral slipups occur.
Another conclusion: game works by exploiting this weakness in human brains. Think about the Neg: because it involves thinking and adapting to what might be an insult, the moral self-control guy has to do work (it cannot just run the script of “guy hitting on me because I am attractive.”) This decision-making by the female brain lowers inhibitions against behavior she would normally not engage in. (Alcohol does this too.) The science says there is NO way to avoid this process, which is why Game works. The only solution, as Baumeister wrote, and normal societies have known for generations: “people with the best self-control are the ones who structure their lives so as to conserve willpower… avoid temptations like all-you-can-eat buffets (which is really what the modern bar scene is for young women!). … Instead of counting on willpower to remain robust all day, they conserve it so that it’s available for emergencies and important decisions.”
@M Steve
This is a bizarre argument. Why is it better to have our daughters pumped n dumped by natural alphas vs those who learned the trade? Better to be honest about what alpha really is, and hopefully help her keep her taste for alpha to manageable levels (greater beta).
“but we aren’t equipping them with the knowledge required to recognize and reject the “Beta who found the Alpha playbook” PUAs that abound on the scene. (This, again, would have been the role of elder Wise Women in previous eras.)”
Sorry, but I lived this era. I am forty and the traditional society was still alive in my country twenty years ago.
The role of elder Wise Women in previous era was not to recognize and reject the “Beta who found the Alpha playbook”. PUA didn’t even exist back then.
The role of elder Wise Women was to convince the young woman to reject the exciting Alpha and to marry the unexciting beta who was hard-working and had good values.
The role of elder Wise Women also was to convince the young woman to be virgin until marriage, teach her how to cook, how to make household chores, how to be a good wife, which included being pleasant to her husband.
Men were also taught to have good values, to be hardworking and good with their future wives.
Of course, no human system is perfect but this system worked WAY better than our current life.
Ah! The good old times! The one who hasn’t lived them cannot know how sweet they were. I remember young women preparing their trousseau: the clothes for their future home. Their eyes shone with emotion when you speak the name of their fiancee. Things were slow then and people were not addicted to strong emotions.
Courtship was old-fashioned. Casual sex was not allowed back then, but the rest of life was a lot better. People were nicer to each other. Kids could play in the street all the day long and we were safe. Friendship and families were strong and life was more humane. Life had meaning. Now we have a very basic life: only sex, money and status. Slaving ourselves in a rat race to buy things we don’t need.
But not me: I expatted so I could live a life more similar to the one I lived in my childhood.
Women have had less time, Ray, to contribute to the general professions in anything resembling an amount equal to men’s throughout time, and there are still many female composers, though I was referring mainly to singers and musicians; men do tend to dominate the musical world and I don’t care because I love their music, but I’m not ignoring the women who have done amazing things. In medicine they’ve swelled as doctors in many areas and your friend Fred Reel acknowledged this too; once given the chance, they’ve swelled largely in a relatively small amount of time; the point is, they do indeed contribute value. But the main difference that comes in is children; bottom line is that when married, their main domain tends to be the home and their children need them; they raise the next generation of the world, and this is a fact everyone should celebrate, not scorn, including the femmies.
“writing,
I do see tons of fluff produced by women, aka romantic novels aka porn for women. Jane Austen is about as good as it gets”
Ha. Seriously, that’s one thing you couldn’t hedge me less about. I’m a rampant collector of books and even after trying could not call one writer superior to another based on sex. And I despise fluff.
As for leadership, I have read Goldberg’s stuff, and it’s quite good; he pointed out the basic truths of biology and why the strong inevitabally lead if no other qualities are considered. But nowhere did he claim that women are unilaterally followers, and this is a humorous idea to me; women have proven themselves amazing leaders when given the chance, and this didn’t always occur on a throne or in an office; some of the greatest female leadership occured in the home, either of young adults or in influence of their husbands. Sometimes females lead in more subtle ways.
Thank you M Steve! You’re correct about teaching daughters, but betas pretending to be alpha are not the problem, as Dalrock said; PUAs being abusive period is. If anything, betas tend to be very kind; what we need to do is show girls to look for depth, not just alpha-ism, in a man. A man needs courage, goodness, strength and stability, both alpha and “beta” traits; THESE are what we need to raise in young men and train young women to look for.
@Jennifer:
Woozoo, DH’s argument is very valid in one respect: women were not designed to have someone else decide and do everything for them. To say or imply that this might work “because women are different” is bollocks and bollocks again; many women will discount your words.
Ummm… it is still invalid. I discount her view because it is looked on by her (and yourself as well) in the wide perspective instead of the narrow perspective of Female subset. I didn’t say that women want to be told what to do. I just said that she is viewing it wrong and attributing it to the wide rather than the narrow therefore making what she and you are saying invalid. Please re-read what I said!
@Dalrock
“Why is it better to have our daughters pumped n dumped by natural alphas vs those who learned the trade?”
No, no, no, I don’t believe that at all; I apologize if I was unclear. I *would* suggest is that Alpha pump’n’dumps are going to happen no matter the social structures (see your piece on The Scarlet Letter). However, women in our urban centers are now encouraged socially to seek out Alphas and ride the carousel, and there is no ostracizing in their future. Because of that encouragement, there are Betas essentially aping Alpha behavior (PUAs), not to attract and keep worthy monogamous mates, but to pump’n’dump women themselves. They are short-circuiting social cues that are meant to display genetic worthiness: “strength, loyalty, confidence and reliability”, as Jennifer said.
Beta pump’n’dump/teen mom situations are a potential “point of no return” in terms of the death spiral of monogamy. Our first step to reverse the trend, I believe, is simply to convince young girls and women that it takes more than one night and some tingles to judge the worthiness of a potential sexual partner. They need to be able to figure out who’s “reading from the playbook” and weed them out for their deception and lack of worthiness. Ironically, all that really means is a return to dating/courtship culture before sex. It’s a lot harder to “keep an Alpha frame” over the course of two months of dating than it is over the course of 3 hours at the club.
“If the funny hats and feather boas of some PUAs seem flamboyant, it is more an indictment of what women have become, that such props actually aid in bedding the most physically attractive women.”
Women are returning to thier base biological instincts – unrestrained hypergamy – without the previous era’s socialization to keep these instincts in check.
As for the alpha female, the term may be different from the one for males, but it’s a perfectly valid term for traits of strong leadership in women.
No it isn’t.
You see the term used in nature.
Fuzzy, politically-influenced thinking has led to many abuses of language.
Plenty of women are reaping everything they can from the working world,
Taking advantage of every bit of preferential treatment that that can.
including much harder fields that generally require male strength.
In a country of 300 million people, you can find large numbers of people doing anything, including screwing each other while dressed up as rabbits. That doesn’t make it a significant or common practice.
They gather several women, encouraged to bitch and moan about their problems in life (as if women needed such encouragement) and, later, the leader of the group explained that all these problems were due to the patriarchy and the oppression of women and that the members of the group should join political action.
Interestingly, this is textbook Alinskyism. Find (or create) grievances, present political organization as the solution to them, install yourself as the leader of the organization, use the organization to advance your (usually lefty) causes.
“I didn’t say that women want to be told what to do”
Not the impression I got, but ok; thanks.
“If the funny hats and feather boas of some PUAs seem flamboyant, it is more an indictment of what women have become, that such props actually aid in bedding the most physically attractive women”
More like what society’s become, I’d say; ever since the sexual revolution, things have become more flamboyant and more ridiculous. In the past men were taught that modest women are best; now they, too, go for the wild and the flamboyant.
“Black men have had even less time in those professions, yet they still outperform white women”
Once again, domestic life comes into play.
“If all women decide they would stop going to their jobs, there would be minor inconveniences in healthcare, etc. until men quickly found workarounds”
Incidentally, TF, I AGREE with you that the economic value would be disastrous if men stopped working; no doubt at all men outnumber women there, epsecially in physical jobs. I am simply not going to discount the different kinds of value in the wide range of female work. If all women decided to stop every job they were in, teaching, nursing, writing, preaching, counseling, missionary, medicine, there would be numerous consequences, not the least of which would be their clients. Women in the medical industry is one of the most important factors, due largely to their own way of contributing and moral support; we need more male nurses for a myriad of reasons, but female medical practioners are a must; I would never be comfortable seeing a man for personal causes, and in the field of baby-delivery, women are naturals and this is why there were midwives before doctors. I in no way promote women seeing their work as a competition to men’s; I just want them to continue to stay and increase their work in the fields.
“Equality is not when 50% of CEOs are female but when 50% of CEOs AND 50% of construction workers/garbage collectors/slaughterhouse workers are female”
I give you that, the most dangerous jobs and dirty ones are men’s, and we’d be lost without them. There’s not a moment I see a man working construction in the middle of Florida summer and don’t thank God for them; you can bet my white girl’s ass would have fainted in half the time.
“Fuzzy, politically-influenced thinking has led to many abuses of language”
LOL
“Taking advantage of every bit of preferential treatment that that can”
Not all women do, but this is a rich example of how feminism screwed everyone. Once again, society was progressing just fine without it.
On a complete tangent, for a random reason I googled ‘I hate my husband’ and ‘I hate my wife’ this week expecting the results of the former to be a lot higher than the latter, but the former was 62,200,000 and latter 170,000,000. Obviously, results won’t all be about that but still.
“Also, just about all the stand-up comedians who are funny are men”
Strongly disagree; right now we’re operating mainly under opinion. It’s true that men have invented more, because they tend to range higher in abstract intelligence. The idea that women cannot invent, however, is very untrue, but luckily you don’t need to invent to be a strong contributer to society; in the fact of midwives, women did have less education, but still managed to save many lives. You can be sure that women raising kids on their own, in primitive places in history, were forced to be quite creative. Incidentally, Asian women often range higher in abstract intelligence than Western women, I believe; sometimes I wonder if it’s at all cultural.
When did this place turn into the Spearhead? lol
I never thought about tampons before, assumed it was out of a big lab (except for less commercial things which go back to Egyptian times). But I just googled it and turned out an inventor called Earle Haas. Then someone called Gertrude Tendrich founded the Tampax company to take them to market (after buying the ip from Earle Haas). Given many inventors are hopeless at business, tampons probably wouldn’t be around without both of them.
Iirc people are on a bell curve, with the right having inventor types.
But if you put men and women on the bell curve, there are more men at either end (most inventive and let’s say challenged). Whilst the majority of women fall in the middle.*
So they are less likely to be the blue sky inventor, but they are also less likely to be ‘challenged’.
I don’t know how that works out statistically in terms of the average woman and average man.
*Caveat I may have remembered this wrongly/I’m not an expert in this area.
Lily, I think the theory that men are both smart and dumn more often than women has been disproved or at least moved aside; many theories have arisen, including that taller people are smarter than shorter people. The tampon thing is, er, interesting.
“under 5% of stand-up comedians who can actually sell tickets are women”
Well, I did read that comedians think with the abstract side of their brain, while dramatic people think with the other side; this may explain the comedian thing. Although, incidentally, some of the funniest women I know don’t enter stand-up comedy; many are writers.
“dumn”
Wow, I misspelled dumb! LOL
“When did this place turn into the Spearhead?”
DH had to come on, then some of the men had to validate themselves.
“DH had to come on, then some of the men had to validate themselves.” 😀 😀 😀
I can’t believe people bother to wade through DH’… musings? crap?
She’s too prolix. Reading the counter comments to her also shows she is too stubbornly stupid.
I honestly don’t know how you can all do it.
“That’s another explanation for why some women cater to killers; yech. Bella Cullen, you imbecile..”
Another person that hates on Twilight without reading the books. Bella was attracted to Edward because of his looks and mystery, then she fell in love with him when he saved her life twice and when she knew his personal struggle with vampirism, his intelligence and nobility. Edward only killed serial killers and rapists, he never took an innocent life or a woman, if you are against death penalty maybe this doesn’t seem so noble, but it looks like Bella does believe that certain people deserve to die the way they lived, YMMV.
Sorry to ask Stephenie but I’ve never read. How did Edward kill them? Did he suck on the blood of these serial killers and rapists?
TFH:
Whilst I hate seeming to side with the female gang on “Inventor” stuff since you are largely correct there, your attacks on midwives are unfair. For thousands of years they were far better than natural birth and for thousands of years they were “good enough”. Many, if not most ancient socieities were rather stagnant technologically and these societies have been run by men, so it’s a bit unfair to push “stagnation” only on women. Last and most importantly when men and modern medicine first moved into the birthing business infant and female mortality went UP, in some cases drastically. And this was the case for a good 50 to 100 years after birth was “medicalized”. Want to know why? 3 basic reasons
A. Centralizing birthing in hospitals provided vectors for disease to spread esp in days before sanitation was known to be essential
B. Medical knowledge was incomplete and often inaccurate, and the Doctors of the time had trouble handling uncomplicated pregnancies let alone any complications
C. Stuck up attitudes towards women led many of them to downright discard the empirical knowledge that generations of midwives had accumulated. It didn’t fit the latest “scientific” theories.
In short while they were on the right track of applying the scientific method to birthing and thus would EVENTUALLY surpass the midwives in terms of knowledge , their prejudices and a male dominated society (midwives that complained about this stuff could be ignored) led nearly 100 years worth of women to suffer the consequences and be the unwitting guinea pigs.
Nowadays (and this makes perfect sense) in some countries midwives are considered sort of like the EMT’s of birthing. They can handle the normal stuff and a few complications anything else and the mother is sent off to the hospital. And that is why midwives survived. They were never totally useless despite what some male doctors thought back in 1800.
“Sorry to ask Stephenie but I’ve never read. How did Edward kill them? Did he suck on the blood of these serial killers and rapists?”
Yes he used to use his mind reading abilities to hunt them down and then feed on them before they committed their next crimes. Sadly drinking human blood has consequences, I guess it doesn’t help it was bad’s people blood, and he started to get depressed and guilty for playing God so he had to go back to be a vegetarian with Carlisle and his big new family (when he left it was only Carlisle, him and Esme, shortly after he came back it was Rosalie, later Emmet and finally Jasper and his sunshine Alice). It was a short time when Edward was more or less a teenager vampire and he felt that Carlisle calling on not eating people might had been wrong and he didn’t saw the need to deny his thirst. That happened around the 20’s so it was long before Bella was born but Edward did told her this so she would have a full information about him before she became his wife.
Oh come on Stephanie, he was a VAMPIRE. Most people define that as a demon. It just doesn’t make women look good, especially the readers.
Thank you for those excellent points, Clarence. TF is correct, innovation is primarily the men’s field, but I could never discount the importance of women helping women (and men helping men, for that matter, which is why we need men in the profession too).
The entire welfare state, from food stamps to EEOC, is designed to benefit women. Some of these subsidies, like gender-neutral laws, are designed to create the illusion that women compete on an even playing field with men when, in reality, they do not. Thus, women occupy a “video-game” reality where there is plenty to do, with many exciting experiences, and advancement comes from the virtue of playing, but there is ultimately no risk. Society prevents anything bad from ruining the gains any random woman has achieved.
Basically, the government is the woman’s true husband.
Edward’s a mind-reader too?? Blecch, at the risk of sounding like a fundie, those books are full of Godless stuff. I wanted to read them, but one of them at least goes way too far. Still..nice to know Edward got the bad guys.
“Society prevents anything bad from ruining the gains any random woman has achieved”
That’s a shame. How are women truly to gain if they can’t lose anyway? Treating women like children has always, always been unfair to both sexes and kept them both, in fact, from their true potentials.
“Oh come on Stephanie, he was a VAMPIRE. Most people define that as a demon. It just doesn’t make women look good, especially the readers.”
Vampire mythology started defining the vampires as demons that animated the bodies of the death and needed to feed in blood (usually relatives) to keep themselves existing they were also rotted, horrible and smelly, they go out at night because they couldn’t pass as humans in daylight. This hasn’t been truth for centuries. The truth is that vampires have enough subspecies that some of them are demons (Buffy) and some other are merely another species, the twipires are the latter. So I don’t think falling in love with a vampire means the same as serial killer depending on the mythology some vampires are not demons.
“Edward’s a mind-reader too?? Blecch, at the risk of sounding like a fundie, those books are full of Godless stuff.”
Most vampires have powers in the series. The books had been called “too christian” by the extreme liberals and “no christian enough” by the extreme conservatives, So yeah. I find them full of religious imagery (you can read Granger excellent essay about that), but interpretation is open for a reason.
“So I don’t think falling in love with a vampire means the same as serial killer depending on the mythology”
But even if he’s not a demon, he’s a killer. They are by nature killers. But what interesting info 😛
“They are by nature killers.”
So are we humans…your point?
We don’t have to survive by killing each other, Stephenie; we’re not designed with special teeth just for that parasitical purpose (if you discount the femmies). That’s my point.
My only post on Twilight stuff:
Background: I’ve read the first chapter of the first book. I read the summary on Wikipedia when I ran into more than one gal online into it. Alas, I have had to see all three of the movies so far as favors to my mom -prayers or tears are appreciated.
Anyway, redefinitions of the vampire in terms of turning away from the “Dracula” stereotype (which was itself a corruption and change of older legends [google Varnae the Vampire to learn about the first vampire book in english]) have been going on in popular culture since at least the early 1970’s. For instance, while never starring in his own book , Marvel comics has had at least one vampire superhero. I forget the name but he was the brother of Dr. Strange (Scorcer Supreme!) and did such things as subsisting off blood from either criminals or bloodbanks. What Twilight brought was SPARKLINESS (Vampires DO NOT sparkle! Repeat after me, they do NOT sparkle. or maybe its more accurate to say they sparkle for .0001 second before bursting into flame in the light of the sun) and for that, may it ever be accursed.
Anyway, here’s my final word on Twilight::
Now my secret shame isn’t that I was forced to watch Twilight. No, it’s that I’ve read EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Harry Potter books and watched every single movie voluntarily and I’m now a 40 year old man.
I hang my head in shame 😛
“Yes he used to use his mind reading abilities to hunt them down and then feed on them before they committed their next crimes. Sadly drinking human blood has consequences, I guess it doesn’t help it was bad’s people blood, and he started to get depressed and guilty for playing God so he had to go back to be a vegetarian with Carlisle and his big new family ”
And you talk about this stuff with a straight face. Reminds me of my sister talking about what an awesome program Charmed is…hey, whatever floats your boat, I guess, but what has really blown my mind about all of this is the way middle-aged women have reacted, their behavior at screenings, their absolute swooning over a fictional character. Ew! In the 50s your average bobby-soxer was in her teens. Now you see women in their 40s and 50s screaming and fainting and just making huge asses out of themselves at Twilight events. It’s not pretty.
‘Hate on’ Twilight? First of all I hate ‘hate on’ but the definition of ‘hate on’ tells us that we can’t ‘hate on’ Twilight–
“To be jealous of another’s success or talent. Note that the person being hated on *must posess these qualties*; thus it is not possible to hate on Ja Rule,Hilary Duff, or Paris Hilton, for example.”
As it’s defined as hating something that is legitimately great, I guess it’s just plain hate on my part. “Hate” and “hating on” in many cases is simply an accusation leveled in the case of someone disagreeing with someone else’s love of something. The Ego speaks, and you better be in step with me and like everything I like, or you’ll be hatin’ on me! **puke** No criticism allowed! For all their ‘strength’, women are awfully fragile!
“Charmed” is sometimes awesome 😛 But while “Twilight” may be cool, it is indeed the middle-aged women that SCARE me. What is it with lusting for the sight of hollow-cheeked “hotties” smooching through their fangs?
And what does it tell us if the best fictional alpha male women can swoon over is dead??
Excuse me, UNdead.
You’re a kick, Clarence 😛
Jennifer says:
Women have had less time, Ray, to contribute to the general professions in anything resembling an amount equal to men’s throughout time,
I’ve heard that one before, and am not impressed. Charles Murray has noted that when Jews were released from oppressive circumstances they almost immediately began making substantial creative contributions. No such thing has happened in the case of women. Some excuse of course is always trotted out like male sexism.
and there are still many female composers,
Name some that have accomplished anything significant and whose names we’ll still remember 50 years from now. There’s Joni Mitchell and that’s about it. And surely she’s not within an order of magnitude of Mozart.
though I was referring mainly to singers and musicians;
Singers and musicians are in the business of performing, not creating. So my point stands about the lack of female creativity.
men do tend to dominate the musical world and I don’t care because I love their music, but I’m not ignoring the women who have done amazing things.
Again, who does those amazing things? I’m not talking about singing a song written by a man, I’m asking what women or set of women is composing amazing music?
In medicine they’ve swelled as doctors in many areas and your friend Fred Reel acknowledged this too; once given the chance, they’ve swelled largely in a relatively small amount of time; the point is, they do indeed contribute value.
The value created is easily replaceable. As Fifth Horseman noted, if women just up and left those professions, there’d be some minor inconvenience until men adapted. If men stopped doing their jobs, society would start to collapse under its own weight within hours. The garbage wouldn’t get picked up, no oil would be drilled, and no infrastructure would be repaired.
But the main difference that comes in is children; bottom line is that when married, their main domain tends to be the home and their children need them; they raise the next generation of the world, and this is a fact everyone should celebrate, not scorn, including the femmies.
And careerism directly undermines their task of raising children.
TFH wrote:
Women just cannot invent. The fact that places where women spend thousands of times greater time than men still results in men creating the innovations says it all.
I once read a science fiction series about a race of creatures that were “technological imbeciles”. Beyond a very primitive level they were incapable of originating new technology. The only way they could progress was to steal technology and know-how from races that were capable of innovations such as humans.
I think you can see the parallel here. Men invent and build, women use men’s innovations.
“The garbage wouldn’t get picked up, no oil would be drilled, and no infrastructure would be repaired”
It would be an unparalled disaster, but women have adapted before and they could again. Whether they could on time is questionable, though. Incidentally, women like Sappho, Rachel Portman, Loreena Mckennitt, Enya, Taylor Swift, Madeline Fuhrman and Elizabeth Botkin have all written music; the latter two have not yet been widely recognized, and the last one may never be because she hopes to raise children more than anything else. Like I said, there are more men than women in there, and I don’t care about the tides of fame, as many fine works (besides music, like films and writing) have been overlooked; all I care about is that they do have great value. And if we lost every woman in medicine, counseling, nursing, missionary work, and preaching the loss would be more than just economical. And the fact that you call women uncreative is incredible; many were never witness to how women had to make do alone with their children in primitive areas; any idea how they must have struggled to make food and medicine? Or how they kept their working husbands sane and inspired the great male leaders? The fact that women can write and speak so powerfully makes them amazingly creative, and if they had no innovation, they’d have perished anytime they were on their own. The reason of raising children is NOT an “excuse” for less professional work; I would think you’d be exhorting that, not showing any mockery of it. The fact that you consider women a comparison to work-stealing drones is tragic to me.
Huggles the Jen
Thanks 🙂 Hugs back.
“We don’t have to survive by killing each other, Stephenie; we’re not designed with special teeth just for that parasitical purpose (if you discount the femmies). That’s my point.”
Historically killing each other is the we have used our brains for more effectively, for less than survival, just greed or lust, so yeah vampires are not the worst human predators is us, YMMV.
“What is it with lusting for the sight of hollow-cheeked “hotties” smooching through their fangs?”
Twilight vampires have no fangs…the lusting is because is a Romance the fictional creature is irrelevant if Edward writing as he was was an alien it would be the same phenomenon. Also the oldest Twilight fan I know is 80, the youngest is 9. You ain’t see nothing 😉
“Also the oldest Twilight fan I know is 80, the youngest is 9. You ain’t see nothing”
Aughhh!!
Hey guys, on an interesting note, if anyone’s interested in a great anology of good alpha vs. bad/weak alpha, there’s a brilliant YA thriller called “Shattering Glass”. The story’s told by a young boy who’s friends with the resident highschool alpha, Rob. Rob is THE alpha in EVERY way: he’s strong, confidant, unapologetic, polite, dominant of his sphere, persuasive, intelligent and kind, the latter of which wins him hard loyalty unmatched by any before him. Yet he’s also humble when he needs to be, listening to the friends in his circle. The alpha before him, Tristan, was a joke of a guy: good-looking, bossy, arrogant, obnoxious, nasty and unintelligent, always kicking those below him; Rob replaced him so fast when he moved to the school that he didn’t know what hit him. Now, incidentally, the main plot is about a guy that Rob wants to help out and lift in the social status; a kid named Simon Glass, a gamma, or omega or whatever, I don’t know what you’d call him, but he’s a nerd and easy bait for the shallow Tristan. But as Rob helps Simon ascend in the hierarchy, Simon shows a nasty side and wishes to replace Rob; the power play between the young men is one of the most fascinating aspects of the novel.
Doomed Harlot says:
August 19, 2011 at 12:19 pm
“But when women have other options, traditional marriage starts to not look so good. Which is why women initiate more divorces.”
The other option is the woman steals the mans labour as represented by the house. My case is quite famous for my ex getting 95% and me getting 5% of the proceeds of my 25 years of labour despite my ex refusing to work for 16 years of an 18 year marriage and me paying for her two children from a prior marriage.
I tell as many young men as I can that western women are liars and hypocrites. I tell them women openly support such crimes. I tell them
“5% is the new 50% if you are a man”.
Against a message like that? Your lies have no sway.
Just remember lads. Women condone crimes against you. Here is a link to my open letters to the International Womens Club of Dublin. I have included all the email addresses I have. This is 250 out of 250 of “self described good women” supporting a woman who is guilty of perjury, kidnapping, extortion and theft. She also committed child abuse but I have not issued affidavits about that as I wish to have testimoney from the children she abused.
And lads. Please spread this far and wide. I have gone to a lot of trouble to gather up such information to prove to you what a bunch of liars and hypocrites women are even when it comes to serious crimes.
It is up to you lads to take this and spread it to as many other yound lads as you can. Save them the trouble I went though. Tell them their “cupcake” is going to be no better than these women from the international womens club.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/80/threadid/337/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Incest Edition
About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was part of him — and I didn’t know how potent that part might be — that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.
-Bella Swan, Twilight
The genius of Twilight is that Stephenie Meyer managed to describe the abusive man many women get wet about while BYPASSING the political correct censorship. That was a stroke of genius. She used the vampire archetype to do that but, if you see, nothing from the traditional definition of vampire remains in the novel: only the thirst for blood. Besides that, he is only a teenager with super powers. The werewolf is another bad boy
.
A guy who enters the bedroom of a girl only to see her sleep is a harasser and a creep. A guy who thirsts for her beloved’s blood is dangerous, is exciting, is the ultimate bad boy that the girl will redeem with her love.
.
Of course, Bella’s love does not change Edward’s nature so he does not become beta and boring. She is always flirting with a dangerous guy who loves her but, at the same time, is driven by an impulse to kill her. When finally they end up making love, Bella gets up full of wounds, scratches and scars the morning after. The sex was violent: that of a beast.
.
The vampire alibi keeps Stephenie Meyer to be censored and ostracized as a propagandist of domestic violence.
.
Now women have a violent man in the theater and they love it. They can’t have enough of it. Simply genius.
I love Enya but Enya is not Mozart. The fact that the vast majority of genius have always been, are and will always be men is something so obvious, that nobody with an open mind can deny. The fact that, with very few exceptions, women have invented nothing is completely attested.
.
Look around your bedroom. Everything you say has been invented by men, from the paint on the walls, to your computer, to the light bulb, to the cloth who makes your sheets. Look through your window. Everything you see has invented by men: the street lightning, concrete, public electricity, cars, etc.
.
You can’t walk a step without seeing something that men have invented. You can go days without seeing something that women have invented.
.
Women love to say that they were oppressed, but this is an alibi. Jews was an oppressed race (they killed them because of being Jews: nothing comparable has happened to women).
.
Over the last five decades women, who make up roughly 50 percent of the world’s population, have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences, 8 percent in literature and 0 percent in economics. During that period Jews, who were an oppressed minority and who comprise less than 0.5 percent the world’s population, have claimed 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32 percent for physics, 39 percent for economics and 29 percent of all science awards.
But there are people that, when their beliefs go against reality, they refuse to accept reality. You can’t convince a person like that. He will keep denying and denying the most obvious things. There are guys who are convinced that the Earth is plain and the center of the universe. There are feminist convinced that women sexuality is the same as men sexuality (so casual sex is as enjoyable to women as to men). With these people who deny reality, it is a waste of time to argue. They won’t change their preconceived ideas, no matter how much evidence you give them.
“In any case, men have not turned into wives. ”
They can’t, women need husbands. When will women change? When will the grand society work to change women’s attitudes? To give men respect and to take care of their needs?
Feels like I am delving into science fiction here.
Jennifer wrote:
It would be an unparalled disaster, but women have adapted before and they could again.
Actually, when the going gets tough, they’ve always run into the arms of men for protection. That’s your adaptation. Female dependency on men is written into human DNA.
Whether they could on time is questionable, though
The answer to that would be no.
Incidentally, women like Sappho, Rachel Portman, Loreena Mckennitt, Enya, Taylor Swift, Madeline Fuhrman and Elizabeth Botkin have all written music;
Other than Sappho and Taylor Swift, none of those other women even ring a bell. Swift’s efforts will almost certainly be forgotten in a few decades. Sappho’s accomplishments were primarily in literature and poetry, not music. And yes, there are a few literature greats among women.
imnobody wrote:
I love Enya but Enya is not Mozart. The fact that the vast majority of genius have always been, are and will always be men is something so obvious, that nobody with an open mind can deny. The fact that, with very few exceptions, women have invented nothing is completely attested.
They don’t really deny it, they just trot out a few lame examples of alleged female giants in those fields. Then they claim that women were held back by male discrimination or child rearing or some other bogeyman. It’s nothing I haven’t heard before.
“Actually, when the going gets tough, they’ve always run into the arms of men for protection.”
The scurry into the kitchen evokes better visuals.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/30/uk-ireland-population-idUKTRE75T5IT20110630
btw came across this recent link about expansion of boardroom quotas for women in norway:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/250a33d8-c982-11e0-9eb8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1VfnntUmy
and the beta and creepy, irritating, loser, bitter men it produces:
http://www.amazon.com/Shavenballs-Mads-Larsen/dp/1445777037
“Let me first explain a thing or two about Norway. In Norway women are the holy cows of society. ”
imagine a cow scurrying into a kitchen lol
As an Alpha woman, with a capital ‘A’, I don’t require 99.9% of men. I am someone who refused to have children as I have my own life goals. I’ve learned that the only man worth my time is the one who will invest in me unquestionably and usually won’t be granted equivalent status in many areas of a relationship (although in some cases he will be allowed to). I wear the skirts and the pants and take control and will only relegate small amounts of control to a man because I will not allow him to run ragged over me. I’ve learned the lesson of having legal contracts that bind men to their word. I look for alpha men who accept my control over my own life and don’t get in my way in areas of my life that he could potentially screw up. I usually have a group of men doing my bidding and I don’t have to be sexual with ANY of these men. I have MORE than just a body and good looks. My mind is my biggest asset. I weed men out very easily. I simply test them and they either are so frightened of my Alpha status and run for the hills with their tails between their legs or they work with the facts. One of my male friends calls it ‘Alpha Female Chess’. This affords me a very simple way to determine who is worthy and strong and who isn’t.
I find Alpha’s like me to be emotionally strong and that, to me, is one of the critical things. I won’t mope around for a man if he starts to cause problems. I will simply cut him loose and move on quickly. This emotional skill has served me quite well once I attained it through much trial and error. I had it within me but just had to figure out HOW to effectively use it and master it.
There is no DNA that tells men or women to have kids. That’s just nonsense.
“I love Enya but Enya is not Mozart”
Doesn’t matter to me, Nobody; very few people are Mozart or any of the original masters, and again, I couldn’t care less about comparing numbers of men and women in music or even inventions; both those things seem to fit into abstract intelligence, which men excell at. I highly doubt that most of the women I mentioned will be forgotten, and as it happens, I listen to Enya more often than Mozart. My point is, one way or another, women contribute hugely to society and always have, professionally or otherwise; music and inventions are not all that run society, but women have succeeded there too. All throughout history, they learned to survive and were the backbones of men, from the inventers to the farmers. Calling child-rearing a “boogeyman” should be amusing to anyone.
“Actually, when the going gets tough, they’ve always run into the arms of men for protection. That’s your adaptation”
But when they couldn’t, they survived. Over and over.
“And yes, there are a few literature greats among women”
LOL!
“There are feminist convinced that women sexuality is the same as men sexuality (so casual sex is as enjoyable to women as to men”
That’s one thing I can’t imagine anyone ever wanting to believe.
Frankly namae, I’m all for women working more and the population dropping, especially considering our economy.
Nobody, you hit upon a very unhealthy and often delusional way of thinking for certain women. It’s strange to me how some have fantasies about men they’d get restraining orders against in real life. And rape fantasies?? I don’t what Meyer’s deal is either, but Mormons can be very weird.
I’ve rarely heard someone sum up the creepiness of Twilight so well, Nobody. I assumed Bella’s plight would be interesting in the way of a young woman loving a young man who fought his nature, but had a good heart. Looks worse than that. Women’s unhealthy delusions can lead to a lot of harm; so can men’s, with violent porn. And people still freakin’ deny that these things have any effect on them as people!
“I’ve rarely heard someone sum up the creepiness of Twilight so well, Nobody. I assumed Bella’s plight would be interesting in the way of a young woman loving a young man who fought his nature, but had a good heart. Looks worse than that. Women’s unhealthy delusions can lead to a lot of harm; so can men’s, with violent porn. And people still freakin’ deny that these things have any effect on them as people!”
I disagree with i’mnobody’s interpretation of Twilight (sorry you know I respect you a lot but all you say is completely wrong Edward is not an abuser and if the whole point of the story was Bella being with a bad boy she wouldn’t had turned into a vampire herself that would had screwed the dynamics right there, that allong with many other things that you edited out of your interpretation ,did you read the books, BTW?) , but there is something to be said about the fact that you assume literature affects people’s brains so much I know you think the same of porn something I disagree too, but in any case if a person has a personal issues the fiction (Porn or Romance) is bound to affect them. Normal people can have all kinds of fantasies that don’t influence their personal choices, YMMV.
Radical Tulip says:
As an Alpha woman, with a capital ‘A’, I don’t require 99.9% of men.
Yes you do. If those 99.9% didn’t pick up your garbage, maintain your plumbing, or put food on your table, you’d be wallowing in your own filth within weeks. You’re simply too dim to notice your dependence on men.
I am someone who refused to have children as I have my own life goals.
I suppose I should look on the bright side. You’re breeding yourself out of existence.
Jennifer wrote:
But when they couldn’t, they survived. Over and over.
Bleating the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true.
“Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was a German writer, pictorial artist, biologist, theoretical physicist, and polymath.[2] He is considered the supreme genius of modern German literature.[3] His works span the fields of poetry, drama, prose, philosophy, and science. His Faust has been called the greatest long poem of modern European literature.”
“Goethe had a great effect on the nineteenth century. In many respects, he was the originator of many ideas which later became widespread. He produced volumes of poetry, essays, criticism, a theory of colours and early work on evolution and linguistics. He was fascinated by mineralogy, and the mineral goethite (iron oxide) is named after him.[50] His non-fiction writings, most of which are philosophic and aphoristic in nature, spurred the development of many philosophers, including G.W.F. Hegel, Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernst Cassirer, Carl Jung, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Along with Schiller, he was one of the leading figures of Weimar Classicism.”
“Goethe’s poetic work served as a model for an entire movement in German poetry termed Innerlichkeit (“introversion”) and represented by, for example, Heine. Goethe’s words inspired a number of compositions by, among others, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz and Wolf. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe
It’s a tragedy that the man is lesser known than the contemporaneous Mary Wollstonecraft.
“Bleating the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true”
LOL But it is true; if you think women were never on their own with their kids, for extended amounts of time, you’re wrong.
Yes Namae, that man is amazing, though I hope you weren’t trying to disprove my quote. Incidentally, I’ve never heard of Mary Wollstonecraft.
“It’s a tragedy that the man is lesser known than the contemporaneous Mary Wollstonecraft”
Goes to show that some of the most masterful works/names can be neglected.
“Normal people can have all kinds of fantasies that don’t influence their personal choices”
Yes, but outside sources can severely help shape them. It’s true that Bella changed; this could be seen as her becoming more powerful, or just giving up something else to be with Edward.
Yes, but outside sources can severely help shape them. It’s true that Bella changed; this could be seen as her becoming more powerful, or just giving up something else to be with Edward.
I read it as both. But this an important point that many feminists don’t get “you can’t have it all”, Bella had to choose and she did. Feminists want to have men committed to them without them giving up any single thing about themselves. That is impossible. Couplehood always implies leaving behind many things from the single life.
A lot of Bella hate from feminists is the fact that she recognized at a very young age that a good man was worth following and she put her money where her mouth was. This is rare in fiction nowadays. Gabrielle left her family to go with Xena (Xena the warrior princess), many men are depicted as leaving everything or/and risking everything (life and soul) to be with their beloved. I can appreciate the same trope the very few times I see it in women. I think only Bella and Chuck (Pushing Daisies) had done that in recent fiction. So for me that works for a change, YMMV.
Sorry I meant I appreciate when a woman voluntarily leaves something to be with a man she things is worth it. Xena was an example of “sisterhood with lesbian undertones” so O.K. for feminists to root for her to leave her simple life to fulfill her dreams, if she had done this for a man…well we will still be hearing about it, no matter how accomplished she was with her man they will give her crap till the cows come home. Ces’t la vie.
NN…totally agree that Goethe should be much better known. Of course, he ended Faust with the line:
“The Eternal-Feminine draws us on high”
(“Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan”)
…and it is only Gretchen’s love that saves the soul that Dr Faust has sold to Mephistopheles
Jennifer says:
LOL But it is true; if you think women were never on their own with their kids, for extended amounts of time, you’re wrong.
Where and in what societies? If they’re in the inner city, they’re relying on welfare payments to survive and cowering behind closed doors from their own menfolk. Women with children without male aid are subject to :
(1) Being taken out by predators. Fortunately for women, men have suppressed most of them. But if you were a Cro-magnon female living in Western Europe 30,000 years ago, you’d likely end up as food for a cave bear if it weren’t for men.
(2) Invasion from other human groups. The loss of too many men would generally mean the death of a tribe. Another, stronger group would simply come in, take the women, and kill the children.
Many in the pioneer days had to survive in the wilderness, often while their husbands worked or traveled or ended up dead, or watched the home during times of war with their husbands gone. There would have been times in caveman days too when the man simply couldn’t be there all the time; when food was scarce, he’d probably have to go farther out for hunting.
“this an important point that many feminists don’t get “you can’t have it all”, Bella had to choose and she did”
True. But many times in certain patriarchal circles, I hear the reverse of the feminist tactics: men should never give up that much for a woman, only the woman should follow. Bella gave up her humanity.
Basically, there’s an important balance that many, including Christians, can miss: you never give up your being for another person, but you can give your life for them. You can and should do the latter and there’s a difference between that and the former: one female writer noted it (can’t remember who) by a heroine in one of her tales, who said, “I would give my life for my children, but I would not give my SELF for them”. Her companion didn’t understand the difference, and even in her statement a balance is needed; a person might be called to be more than a parent, to have another job, but if their family required it, they should be willing to give up their job at least for a time for the family. You can make sacrifices without losing your frame, your identity.
Jennifer says:
Many in the pioneer days had to survive in the wilderness, often while their husbands worked or traveled or ended up dead,
Note the pattern of colonization of the old West – men blazed a trail and women followed when it was safe enough to do so. In other words, when the area they came to had eliminated the Indians and dangerous animals to the degree that it was safe for them to be there.
or watched the home during times of war with their husbands gone.
Even in World War II the men were never all gone – they remained in significant numbers.
There would have been times in caveman days too when the man simply couldn’t be there all the time; when food was scarce, he’d probably have to go farther out for hunting.
Not all the men would leave at the same time. In a reasonably sized tribe there would be enough able-bodied men to leave some behind when a a hunt was needed. And if there weren’t, the band would either die out or be raided by another tribe. The pattern repeats itself over and over again throughout human history, but you don’t want to accept it.
This is one of the reasons why I sometimes feel that game strains too much on men being alpha, or stresses minute details in situations that have not even come up yet and couldn’t be entirely predicted. Their main theme is true: men need to have strength, no matter what. It’s some of the lesser issues and the over-analyzation of them that irritates me. Basically, once you find out who you are and who your partner is, you’ll work out things for yourself; I realized this while worrying over these issues and people taking some advice too literally. My personal guide is the Bible, and it has wonderful examples of people (namely Jesus) demonstrating both sacrifice and strong personal identity that’s not taken away by anyone. The best advice i’ve gotten is from people aspiring to learn from it. Of course, myriad good writing helps too; I appreciate your info and opinion, Stephenie, but I’m afraid as of now I’ll most likely be avoiding Twilight.
Ray, in times like the Civil War, there were many towns and homes that stretched a good distance from each other in the country. During the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, many homes were built in forests and were isolated. Even now, with welfare, there are other countries where fathers are dead and mothers are alone with kids in poverty; there are women living alone who have to protect themselves in this country. Yes, there are male police departments, but they’re not living with those women. You seem to have the impression that I think situations without men are desirable, and it’s not true; women struggle in those times. But those times have been there, even occuring on a one family at a time basis, and when women have had to, they’ve often pulled through. For you to assume that there was never a time in history, even with individual families, when some man wasn’t always around is simply false
Speaking of myriad good writings, “Cold Mountain” and Conrad Richter are highly recommended.
Jennifer…Conrad Richter….his trilogy (“the trees”/”the fields”/”the town”) was made into an excellent made-for-tv movie (‘the awakening land”) with Elizabeth Montgomery playing the central character. Made in 1978, it has only recently become available on DVD…I reviewed it here.
David Foster, thanks for the link! 🙂 My mom bought that film; Richter was actually one of my great-grandma’s best friends 🙂
TF’s right, we do need men. Where is this Radical Tulip? I don’t see her posts here..
Ohh, I see her now; her post and Namae’s second post in a row must not have shown up until after I made one of my own, and then I focused only on the ones under that. I bet you anything she’s not a real woman.
Jennifer wrote:
During the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, many homes were built in forests and were isolated.
They must have been very isolated if they weren’t subject to being attacked by brigands. Please tell me how your all-woman paradise would effectively defend itself from being overrun by them.
Even now, with welfare, there are other countries where fathers are dead and mothers are alone with kids in poverty; there are women living alone who have to protect themselves in this country.
They’re all lawless hellholes that the women are powerless to change. Protect themselves???! Please tell me exactly how women can effectively protect themselves and their children against a butcher like General Butt-Naked. Amazing that you still cling to the delusion that women can get along without men and male protection.
Pingback: Linkpost, 8/21/11 « Organicist
All-women paradise, my foot. Have you been paying any attention to what I said? Many of these were individual families, not entire societies run by women, and who the devil said it would be a paradise?
“They must have been very isolated if they weren’t subject to being attacked by brigands.”
Indeed they were, and local Natives were sometimes more likely than brigands; luckily they could be friendly.
“Amazing that you still cling to the delusion that women can get along without men and male protection”
Sometimes they’ve HAD to. No one ever said there were mass women alone at one place and at one time who all miraculously survived.
@”Radical Tulip”
As an Alpha woman, with a capital ‘A’, I don’t require 99.9% of men. … I usually have a group of men doing my bidding …
Now, of course you’re a lying and/or delusional troll. But I’d just like to point out the inconsistency in your very own post. You claim that you don’t “require” men, but, strangely, seem to have a bunch of them doing things for you. What happens when they tell you to get stuffed? What happens when they realize that you’re really quite defenseless, and have no actual ability to impose your will on anyone or anything? What happens when the lights go out, and you’re all alone?
As grerp puts it:
Life isn’t fair. Being alive doesn’t entitle you to anything. Women are ensuring their own downfall with their selfish behavior and short-term outlook. Men are bigger than women, stronger than women, and more violent than women. For the past half century our legal system has acted outside their interests, and men have taken the vast share of economic hits in this most recent “recession.” A backlash is coming. The pendulum is starting to swing back. What are you going to do to prepare for it?
Apparently, you’re making enemies and being a huge bitch. Let’s see how that works out for you.
A lot of women do know how women think, TF, at least if they pay attention; I’ve studied my own thoughts and the psychology between men and women for a very long time. OTOH, many women operate under how women “should” think; I know many women are attracted to jerks for ex, even though they shouldn’t be. DH does know, incidentally, how women like HER think.
“Now, how can such traits be compatible with being a good attorney? Can anyone imagine an attorney that did the ‘La la la la I can’t hear you’ fingers-in-the-ears routine?”
Well, yeah. Lawyers often thrive on bad or twisted logic, silly.
Anyway, why return to DH? She’s not the main topic here.
“Can anyone imagine an attorney that did the ‘La la la la I can’t hear you’ fingers-in-the-ears routine?”
Um. *cough* *cough* OBAMA *cough* *cough*
I think, TF, that women who speak inaccurately about other women know the truth, but would prefer it be different. Or, they speak a HALF truth: a woman might tell a man, “Women like nice guys, just be nice”. Without necessarily imagining that he WILL “just” be nice and nothing else, and thus the attraction will be DOA. It’s true, women do need kind men, but that ain’t ALL.
Anyways, I thought the topic was about miserable women making men more miserable by ruling them, not necessarily about DH all by her lonesome. But if you want to talk to her some more, have at it.
“I love Enya but Enya is not Mozart”
Doesn’t matter to me, Nobody;
Look, my male friends, because this can be educational. This is the way a woman reacts when she has lost the discussion and cannot deny reality. She dismisses it, she says it doesn’t matter to her, she uses shaming or emotional language.
.
Sorry, Jennifer, but you are not the Truth in person and the fact that something does not matter to you does not imply that it’s not true and that it’s not relevant. Your sentence reeks of solipsism (self-centeredness).
.
Jennifer, nobody gives a damn about what matters to you, the same way nobody gives a damn about what matters to me. We are talking about REALITY not about your feelings. REALITY is true and your feelings do not make any difference to the discussion.
.
very few people are Mozart or any of the original masters
.
Again you use an argument that has nothing to do with the discussion. It’s a fallacy. Of course, very few people are similar to Mozart. But this is not the point. The point is that all these few people who were similar to Mozart WERE MEN. Jennifer, try to tell me four female musicians comparable to Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and Wagner. I am waiting
.
, and again, I couldn’t care less about comparing numbers of men and women
.
And again, I couldn’t care less about what you care about. We are talking about things. We are talking that the vast majority of inventions were made by men. Let me repeat the numbers:
.
Over the last five decades women, who make up roughly 50 percent of the world’s population, have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences, 8 percent in literature and 0 percent in economics.
.
These, Jennifer, ARE FACTS. Since you can’t deny them, you say that they don’t matter to you. But, even when you die, these facts will keep on being true.
.
I listen to Enya more often than Mozart.
.
This is laughable. How self-centered can you be? Sorry, Jennifer, but the quality of a musician does not depend on your personal tastes. If you love Twilight, this does not mean that Shakespeare is worse.
.
My point stands: “The vast majority of inventions have always been, are and will always be done BY MEN”. This is a fact. Let me tell one more example:
.
For millennia, one of the few areas that were banned for men was midwifery. The outcome: women in the XV century gave birth almost the same way that women living in the Stone Age. For millennia, midwifery had not advanced a bit. Women have not made one single invention.
.
With the Renaissance, this taboo weakened a bit and some men were allowed to enter the profession. About 1634, one of the few men devoted to midwifery, Chamberlain, invented the first invention in the science of giving birth from the Paleolithic: the forceps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forceps_in_childbirth). A simple tool but it saves millions of lives. Another example about the difference between women and men when it comes to inventions.
.
Another example: in the Middle Ages, monasteries were centers of culture and scholarships. They saved the Classical culture for the future. They did it by writing books in an age where press didn’t exit. What number of books produced the nunnery? Zero.
.
These, Jennifer, are FACTS and doesn’t matter if these matter to you or not. They are true.
Can anyone imagine an attorney that did the ‘La la la la I can’t hear you’ fingers-in-the-ears routine?
Well, this is what Jennifer does when presented with facts. “La la la la la your facts does not matter to me”
Radical Tulip:
As an Alpha woman, with a capital ‘A’, I don’t require 99.9% of men. I am someone who refused to have children as I have my own life goals.
Good for you. As a statistical outlier of at least two sigma, you are surely entitled to be happy in your own way, however the rest of us are under no obligation to re-order society to fit the handful of women like you.
PS: It also means that in evolutionary terms you are irrelevant.
Oh dear… Jen you are banging your head against a brick wall here.
I know that you are not at all arguing that women can do without men.. Or that women do not need men, and can do without them. Some here are indeed not listening and have turned the debate into a ” men are better than women ” argument. 😦
“We are talking about things. We are talking that the vast majority of inventions were made by men. Let me repeat the numbers:”
Why? This is not in dispute. Jen has not said otherwise. She was just acknowledging the important contribution that some women have made. Having done so does not mean that she was trying to put down men or downplay their obvious importance and contributions.
Hey if weren’t for a man I wouldn’t be here. Wouldn’t have a roof over my head. Wouldn’t have clothes to wear or food to eat. Wouldn’t have the car I drive, the vacuum cleaner, the washing machine, the fridge, the dishwasher……Oh, wait, I don’t have a dishwasher.. , well, I do, really. It’s me! 😀
Oh and most importantly, I wouldn’t have mind blowing sex 😉 (with my husband of course)
“This is the way a woman reacts when she has lost the discussion and cannot deny reality. She dismisses it, she says it doesn’t matter to her, she uses shaming or emotional language”
Nobody, I’m rather stunned at your sudden acidic tone. Did you think I was dismissing what you said to me with my “sentences” regarding my own preference? I wasn’t; sorry if you got that impression. I said repeatedly that we speak of tastes here (like whether women have written wonderful works of literature) and I’m not the only one who’s presumed to use them, but we’ve discussed facts as well. As for the invention of forceps, Clarence already addressed the particular matter of midwifery.
“Sorry, Jennifer, but you are not the Truth in person”
I never said I was. If I gave you the names of four women I thought equaled the men you mentioned, you’d ignore them and say it’s just my taste, just as you’re going by YOURS now. Is the question of who’s a better musician a mathematical equation that can be determined with the solidity of numbers? No. But I too have given you facts. It is a fact that I have acknowledged, over and over, that men have invented more and exceed greatly in abstract intelligence; I don’t know how anyone could miss this, and I never claimed women were equal in numbers in that manner of intelligence, simply that some have succeeded in those areas so it’s not impossible. It is also a fact that women have contributed hugely to society, sometimes in similar and sometimes in different ways; this has been my underlying point all along. Incidentally, there seems to be an imbalance among some men as to what they want women to do that’s of value; I see people either trashing women for not raising children enough, or for not contributing enough of economic wealth because they’re busy raising children.
“That is also why Game works, btw, since women will believe anything that makes them feeeeel better about themselves”
Hmm, then it’s better that they study game and know when they’re being played. You are incorrect, TF, if you too think I offered no facts and was focused on making men and women equal in everything.
“Remember that Republican woman are often almost as steeped in misandry as lefty femininst women. Feminism is a disease that infects both sides of the political spectrum.
For one thing, Republican women tell men to ‘man up’ and become useful to women, (see Kay Hymowitz), while trying to avoid any mention of preposterously unfair laws levied against men. Republican women are just as attached to left-wing concepts of redistribution as Democrat women are, as long as Republican women themselves can benefit”
It’s true. TF, I think you may very much enjoy Phyllis Schaffly’s book “The Flipside of Feminism”.
Thank you a lot, Kathy. Thank God someone’s listening.
Jennifer wrote:
All-women paradise, my foot. Have you been paying any attention to what I said?
Sure have, and it’s hard to see why you’re still arguing, or what you’re arguing about. That some independent womyn somewhere, might escape predation and hostile natives by luck? It strikes me as too weak a point to continue a discussion.
And who the devil said it would be a paradise?
Well it isn’t one step below suburbia either – “matriarchies” (I’m using that term loosely) are degenerate hellholes. Look at Liberia as an example – those independent, empowered womyn spend their days cowering from tribal crossfire, and are defenseless against warlords snatching their children to ritually sacrifice.
Indeed they were, and local Natives were sometimes more likely than brigands; luckily they could be friendly.
They were every bit as likely to be more interested in killing intruders than “making friends”. When the Pilgrims landed in America, Miles Standish ordered them to bury the dead at night. He knew that if the natives had any idea of how depleted they were, they’d be attacked. Please tell me how women could have possibly survived independently under those circumstances.
Ray, I’ve been speaking not of ENTIRE SOCIETIES where women were by themselves, but individual homes. And not a whole townful of homes either.
Jennifer wrote:
:Ray, I’ve been speaking not of ENTIRE SOCIETIES where women were by themselves, but individual homes. And not a whole townful of homes either.
That’s nice. Those “individual homes” aren’t individual. They benefit from the resources and protection of the larger society similar to the way unvaccinated children benefit from herd immunity.
Except that, sometimes, these homes were far from each other, so immediate help wasn’t always nearby. But as long as you understand that I’ve never been describing or promoting entire cities full of manless women, I don’t think we need to argue.
Geez:
Why is everyone treating Jennifer like she’s stubbornly stupid or something? It’s a relatively minor point, but she is correct. Heck, people that imagine that all the men just went out to “conquer” the frontier while the women all stayed home are silly. Mining towns and some cow towns had local prostitutes, and many men took their families out west -ever read “Little House on the Prairie”? Pioneer women were taught to shoot defensively. and quite a few were taught to hunt. Yes, it’s true that except for the prostitutes that mining towns and cowtowns were often very bereft of women at first. But turnover of the male population of such places was rapid in part because of lack of women and the fact that many of the mining towns were never meant to last -they were just set up for one purpose only and when that purpose was fullfilled they often were left to wither away. Normal heterosexual men are never happy being away from the ladies for any extended period of time longer than a year or two. When you add in the fact that lots of widows were made on the prairies and in the cow towns it’s rather ridiculous to pretend that 18th and 19th century women, as a group, couldn’t take care of themselves.
(off topic)
Dalrock, here’s an idea for your next blog post: an article from The Economist entitled “Asia’s lonely hearts: The decline of Asian marriage. Women are rejecting marriage in Asia. The social implications are serious”
http://www.economist.com/node/21526350
Thank you, Clarence.
What a thought provoking article, Greenlander. That women in Asia are embarking on a sort of a marriage strike is indeed a cause for concern for Asian governments.
What happened to their biological clocks.?. Seems they’ve learnt to circumvent the urge.
The question is, how to arrest such an unhealthy trend.
Certainly worthy of a blog post, I agree.
You could always start you’re own blog GL. 😉
I just now found Electric Angel’s words, way up in the comments, and found them rather bizarre. She/he said to DH, “Feminism spurred women to take on MANY more roles and make many more decisions” and that this exhausted women (among other things) and thus actually lowered their ability to make moral choices. Um, disagree; having more options is not exhausting, but trying to choose them all is, which DOES explain feminism’s toll. Angel then claimed that women like DH died out before murder was outlawed (because men killed them), and this is apparently not true either, lol, though it is true that everyone had to adapt to many unfavorable circumstances (even non-alphas didn’t like polygamy, because they didn’t benefit from it). But now, obviously, we don’t settle for letting brute men rule, or rob young men of wives by polygamy. Angel’s post seemed largely about how decision making exhausts people; while this does explain why many busy wives trust their husbands with a lot of decisions (without stressing over being “equal”) I found it had little to do with the overall subject. But it does truly explain why so many women let their hubbies make many decisions; after all, if he’s good with finances and it’s not a giant decision that affects both of you, why not let him take care of it? Trusting your husband (or wife) with areas in their strength is a good thing. Just found this in passing, while I went over the comments.
“The role of elder Wise Women was to convince the young woman to reject the exciting Alpha and to marry the unexciting beta who was hard-working and had good values”
Ah, the old days; those women were wise. Many times we do have to reign in our sexuality, understand that a woman wearing loose clothes or a man who’s clearly a player are not good to hook up with, no matter how much they turn us on. Young people of today need to change their tunes again. Nevertheless, game is useful for helping guys get in touch with their inner strength; likewise, marriage-material women should not be trained to be prudes and therefore un-exciting to their husbands. Balance in everything.
Aww, the Asian guy in that article looks so down. That’s alarming and important, Greenlander, thanks.
Kathy, I saw your post in the other thread extending an olive branch to me. Honestly, I never felt like I had a dispute to settle with you. I can come across as opinionated on the Internet, but that’s only because I have an opinion. I don’t want to start flame wars with people. It’s just unproductive, I have too much other fun stuff to do like ride motorcycles, autocross, write software, pump iron and other fun guy stuff. I hold no bitterness toward anyone I have exchanged opinions with on the internet. I often don’t understand your opinions, Kathy, but you have your reasons for your opinions and I have mine. We just have very different life experiences.
I actually have an idea to start a blog. It’s something related to the manosphere but not completely. It’s a good idea and I think I’ll attract a “small but serious” crowd of readers. However, it’s not quite time yet. It might be next summer… for reasons I can’t go into now…
Being taken out by predators. Fortunately for women, men have suppressed most of them. But if you were a Cro-magnon female living in Western Europe 30,000 years ago, you’d likely end up as food for a cave bear if it weren’t for men.
At the risk of sounding like a contrarian, if this is true, one wonders if female hypergamy is really as bad as many MRAs have made it out to be. The kind of men who went toe-to-toe with lions, bears, wolves, alligators, mammoths, and all the other beasties you describe were physically strong, aggressive, and ruthless–i.e the sort of meathead ghetto alpha males your typical MRA condemns the typical woman for loving. Think what would have happened if women had instead been attracted to and bred with gentle, sensitive, herbs.The human race would have gone extinct long ago, the males of our species being too weak to compete with the other predators. A simple thought experiment is sufficient to demonstrate this: Take a pencil-necked, pasty computer programmer nerd, a beefy convicted murderer (white or black, race doesn’t matter), hand each of them a spear, and then drop ’em in a forest and tell them to kill the biggest thing they can. Suffice it to say that Mr. Convict will likely be much more successful than Mr. Nerd. If one wishes to point out that male aggression and physical strength is indispensable for the survival of the species, it becomes rather difficult to condemn the female’s hypergamous selection for strength and aggression in males.
Hurp, I think that’s been the point of Game: saying that choosing alphas is natural. The thing is, men need to have traits of both alphas and “betas”; men back then, many of them, were probably gentle with their families even while being rough with predators. Women need men who will be gentle with them, though strong in personhood; this is why women need to listen to more than their sexual instincts when singling out an alpha.
“True. But many times in certain patriarchal circles, I hear the reverse of the feminist tactics: men should never give up that much for a woman, only the woman should follow. Bella gave up her humanity.”
Mmm are you sure you are not a feminist? Those are feminist reasoning’s, IMO. You are looking at the issue from a feminist POV not from a couple POV.
Bella and Edward had an issue as long as she stayed human she would be vulnerable to other vampires because she smelled to good for her own good and everytime a vampire will turn to the Cullens to snack on her they will be forced to kill them, something they don’t enjoy, there is a reason they don’t drink human blood but animal one. Then even if they spent all their free time protecting Bella she will grow old which will change her relationship with Edward for the worse, as a couple their only two choices were breaking up (Edward did this and they barely survived it) or turning her into a vampire. She made the choice that made more sense and make her happier. And I don’t like the idea that every time a woman chooses to follow her husband, for work, for studies or for any other reason she is thinking of herself as some sort of martyr, if the man is worth it, he loves you and cares about you, you will have to be an idiot for not following him, IMO.
And this is something I think of men that follow their wives too, if they as a couple decide for him to go with her, I don’t think ill of him either. Again a worth it spouse is worth his/her weight in gold, specially in this time an day.
“I appreciate your info and opinion, Stephenie, but I’m afraid as of now I’ll most likely be avoiding Twilight.”
I’m not trying to convert anyone. Just offering a different and I think needed POV.
I agree with you, Stephenie; sometimes I’m just still leery because of bad things I’ve read. Trust me, I’m no feminist; I used to call myself that, but their true beliefs are about spoiling, coddling, worshipping women and tearing down men, not equality.
“She made the choice that made more sense and make her happier. And I don’t like the idea that every time a woman chooses to follow her husband, for work, for studies or for any other reason she is thinking of herself as some sort of martyr, if the man is worth it, he loves you and cares about you, you will have to be an idiot for not following him, IMO.
And this is something I think of men that follow their wives too, if they as a couple decide for him to go with her, I don’t think ill of him either. Again a worth it spouse is worth his/her weight in gold, specially in this time an day”
Pure gold my friend! Though I still consider Bella’s emotional state in general to be unhealthy.
“I agree with you, Stephenie; sometimes I’m just still leery because of bad things I’ve read. Trust me, I’m no feminist; I used to call myself that, but their true beliefs are about spoiling, coddling, worshipping women and tearing down men, not equality.”
Is okay we all though that feminism will make the world a better place for all of us male and female…what a joke. 😦
Yup. Truth is, the world was already changing for women, for the better. Imagine where we might have progressed had it not been for feminsm and its hatred.
“Yup. Truth is, the world was already changing for women, for the better. Imagine where we might have progressed had it not been for feminsm and its hatred.”
I actually blame second wave feminism, first wave feminism was just about finishing the trend of women being more independent but no shielded from her own mistakes. The whole hysteria about men trying to destroy women unless you thousands of stupid laws to keep them in line and protect women that are always victims, the whole women and men are the same, and in general the whole mess with dating was a combo of the second wave feminism and the pill, IMO.
Very true. The pill’s development was one of the reasons women could work more and, I believe, came about before the strongest of feminism, so it could be counted as a huge beneficiary. However, a lot of what came about was so harmful. Phylis Schaffly got a scholarship and was heading towards a good career before the suffragettes ever raised their cry, and states allowing women to vote were increasing in number. Something definitely foul messed everything up. Why raise the harshest levels of feminism when things were improving already?? Why not have raised it in the 18th century or something instead?
That’s true in the example you give. However, most civilizations were build on technology. Whatever civilization discovered iron had an enormous advantage on other civilizations. Then again, whatever civilization discovered bronze had an advantage on other civilizations. Advances in agriculture, husbandry, weaponry, construction, navigation, etc., are what resulted in successful civilizations. And who do you think developed all those things? Well, pencil-necked nerds, of course.
BTW, I’m quite the nerd by some standards… being a manager in a Silicon Valley tech company. But I don’t have a pencil neck! I have a 16″ neck, which makes it hard to find dress shirts that don’t make me feel like I’m wearing a tent lol.
“Why raise the harshest levels of feminism when things were improving already?”
The same reason all ideologies are born a combo of suffering, and timing and someone with a big mouth enough and power of convincing people. If we look at the past feminism had similar conditions that gave birth to Christianity, human rights, communism, nazi…of course there are moments when this new changes are here to stay because they benefit the majority, and sometimes they end up a nightmare. Hence feminist looked like an extension of human rights, and perhaps it was in the beginning, and now is more like Nazis claiming the Aryan race victims of lesser races that needed to be suppressed or exterminated. I will say lucky us that feminism was born in America, because obviously any other country would had picked a supreme empress that would had ended up killing every single men accused of rape, abuse or creep behaviour and things would be infinitely worse.
“? Why not have raised it in the 18th century or something instead?”
I was born and raised in the third world when your husband comes home after spending all day fixing cars under the sun, rain, dealing with aggressive people ha exhausted than you will ever health hazards and bigger problems that you will ever had in the house dealing with the kids and the housework…is hard to sell that you really want that life for you and that will make you really happy. My guess is that is something around the same lines, is easy to sell feminism when there is a lot of cushy jobs that can be done under AC, with nice clothing and pay really well.Not so much when 90% of men are dying of lung cancer they got in the mine work.
However, most civilizations were built on technology. Whatever civilization discovered iron had an enormous advantage on other civilizations. Then again, whatever civilization discovered bronze had an advantage on other civilizations. Advances in agriculture, husbandry, weaponry, construction, navigation, etc., are what resulted in successful civilizations. And who do you think developed all those things? Well, pencil-necked nerds, of course.
Quite true, my good man, and I thought you or Mr. Manta would bring this up. The problem is, it applies as much to male sexual desire as it does to female desire. What men are attracted to–large breasts, childbearing hips, etc. etc. etc.–may have been important characteristics in the days before civilization, but as you imply, with the march of technology it becomes less and less important, eclipsed by intelligence. After all, a stupid women (in case you’re one of those hardcore Spearheaders who believes all women are stupid, just pretend with me for a second) who gives birth to 5 airheaded kids isn’t going to contribute as much to civilization as a smarter but less fertile woman who gives birth to one Einstein or Da Vinci. After all, as much as it dismays MRAs, men get half their genes from their mothers; even an intelligent man won’t sire children smarter than he is if he mates with dummies. Therefore, one might argue men’s sexual desire for youth and beauty rather than intellect and mathematical ability is as counterproductive to civilization as women’s preference for physical strength and aggression as opposed to intellect and mathematical ability. Think how many Isaac Newtons or Albert Einsteins we might have had if the only women who had ever reproduced were the most mannish and Aspergy (as opposed to the flat 80% of them which managed to pump out kids in reality). Once again, it’s hard to condemn the female’s hypergamy without condemning the male’s appetite for T&A rather than number-crunching.
Great points, herp!
Stephanie, you show a lot of wisdom. Heh, yes obviously things had changed, but then women needn’t ever have been pressured to fill jobs that required physical strength; leadership positions in government and offices would have been nice, or anything that a farmer’s wife could physically pull off.
Women need men who will be gentle with them, though strong in personhood
Ugh. “Personhood”. Sometimes, a silly idea is given away by a silly word.
leadership positions in government and offices would have been nice
Yes, I’m sure we’d all like it if there were some nice, cushy “leadership” positions carved out for us. Unfortunately, jobs aren’t assigned based on what’s convenient for the employee. And, just maybe, a “leader” who’s actually shipped some product is preferable to one appointed because he can’t/doesn’t want to do anything else.
Bloated bureaucracies benefiting moguls and creating make work positions catering to special castes isn’t a sign of progress. Parkinson’s Law, unsustainable debt growth and Glubb’s cycles ensures relativism has to eventually bow to universal truths.
Alpha women, beta men in “Breaking the glass ceiling at home”: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea15f318-f428-11df-89a6-00144feab49a.html
I think Phyllis Schlafly was born after women got the vote…and just for the record, the Suffragettes began in 1897.
“Ultimately, it gets down to pretty basic stuff. It’s hard to be the power broker every day and then be the femme fatale. I’m not going to pay the bills—I feel like his mother—and then come home and suck his ****.”
“She kept her income to herself and her husband had to borrow money just to buy groceries!”
Yet plenty (most?) women expect the man to be the power broker, to pay the bills, and then come home and be the Romeo, and lick her c—-. or, more likely, to kiss her ass (metaphorically). Somehow, when women get the big ticket, executive job that the feminists claim that they want, all of a sudden, that, rather than being a “privilege,” or an opportunity to oppress others (as they say it is when men have those jobs), or, shoot, even just a good deal, it becomes a burden. To have a stay at home husband makes her feel like “his mother.” Yet woe betide to the alpha male executive who says that going to work every day as a “power broker” and paying Cupcake’s bills makes him feel like her father.
Of course, there are leeches and parasites of both genders. Of course there are some guys, who, if their wives are making a fortune, will just fool around all day and do as little work (wage, house, child care) as possible. But not only do more women lead this lifestyle than men, way more, but, for women, it is still presented as an ideal, as something they can attain, and feel no guilt about at all. Lots and lots of women in our society still aspire to be the wife of a rich man, not do any wage work themselves, and have servants to take care of the house and children. And, for the most part, no one sees anything as partiuclarly wrong with that. Sure, people might say “it’s a good deal if you can get it,” in a kind of ironic tone, but no one would start calling her names. Moreover, no one would even blink an eye at the fact that the husband was the ultimate source of the money that she “spent” on everything, including for all her luxories and frou-frous, never mind the groceries. Of course he pays for the groceries, why wouldn’t he?
And, needless to say, none of that would be considered as reason for him to not give sexual satisfaction, if she wanted it from him.
The point I’m making is NOT that it should be seen as perfectly OK for a man to live off his wife, and do nothing in return (which, I suppose, is what is DH is taking exception to). Rather, my point is that if this is seen as such a horrible thing when a man does it, it should be seen as equally horrible when a woman does it. But it isn’t. And that is the result of a combination of feminism and trad-con values, a lethal combination that rules most of our social reality. The trad con side of it says that of course the man should be the bread winnner and the woman stay at home. It also says there is nothing wrong with hiring servants to do the dirty work of house work and child care work. The feminist side of it says that whatever a woman does is right, and whatever a man does is wrong. Put them together and you get the modern double standard…..if a man does it, he’s a leech, a parasite, a failure, and not worthy of a woman’s love or sexual attentiona, if a woman does it, she is merely exercizing one of the many “choices” that are her birthright as double x chromosone bearing entity.
“After all, a stupid women (in case you’re one of those hardcore Spearheaders who believes all women are stupid, just pretend with me for a second.) who gives birth to 5 airheaded kids isn’t going to contribute as much to civilization as a smarter but less fertile woman who gives birth to one Einstein or Da Vinci. After all, as much as it dismays MRAs, men get half their genes from their mothers; even an intelligent man won’t sire children smarter than he is if he mates with dummies. Therefore, one might argue men’s sexual desire for youth and beauty rather than intellect and mathematical ability is as counterproductive to civilization as women’s preference for physical strength and aggression as opposed to intellect and mathematical ability………….Once again, it’s hard to condemn the female’s hypergamy without condemning the male’s appetite for T&A rather than number-crunching.” ……. touché , hurp. 😀
“Sometimes, a silly idea is given away by a silly word”
It’s not silly in the least. Fine, a strong “frame”, if you will; call it what you want.
“Yes, I’m sure we’d all like it if there were some nice, cushy “leadership” positions carved out for us. Unfortunately, jobs aren’t assigned based on what’s convenient for the employee”
No one ever said they were. My point is that women could have some good jobs without taking away jobs that require male strength from men, like construction, street-police work, or the army; I’d think people would agree with that.
“And that is the result of a combination of feminism and trad-con values, a lethal combination that rules most of our social reality”
Ohh, touche. Basically, both spouses have to be productive in some way; if men don’t like staying at home, they simply won’t be happy staying at home. If the wives push them to anyway and then see their discontent and let it breed contempt inside them, things will get even worse. Both spouses need to be in agreement as to their goals and desires, and while it’s good for women to be SAHM’s, they need to be actually doing something productive, not just hiring help.
Man Kathy somebody here must have said something to hurt your feelings.
“Just humor me now fellas”, “Women may be stupid but you’re stupider for wanting to stick your penis in me and ejaculating on my retared eggs making babies only half as smart as you. So who’s the dumby now now spearhead guys.? My hamster’s buffed mother fuckers”
What on earth are you talking about? Kathy’s fine, and she was repeating someone else’s words in her last post. Nor did she ever mention screwing ANY of the men here, or would have any interest to.
Yes, thanks, Jen.. What’s eating you GG, I was quoting Hurp, here. In any case you are not making any sense. Your assumptions are ridiculous.
Just got to the computer and saw that comment had to make fun of it.
Jennifer you are humorless. If you are with a good sense of humor say something intertaining and funny to the Dalrock crew here. And replace the name Kathy with Hurp and read it again.
Well, yes, that would be funny Greyghost, seeing as how hurp’s a guy. 😉
still works
A man thinking like that is still an idiot. Even you think it’s funny.
The problem with Hurps argument is that both beauty and youth ARE correlated with fertility, so if “smart” women are “dumb” enough to postpone this process too long they find they can only have one baby or even none at all, so it’s still an evolutionary loss.
The larger problem is that the current society (esp. the economic parts) isn’t set up to match human reproductive cycles and thus a large part of human nature.
@greenlander
Very interesting. W.F. Price just gave his take on this on the Spearhead. What struck me about the Economist’s piece is that they didn’t really make the case for women being on a marriage strike in Asia. The stats weren’t very impressive:
What they are saying is around 15-20% of Asian women won’t marry. For example, they say 1/3 of early 30s Japanese women aren’t married, and half of those probably won’t marry. This works out to about 15% of Japanese women. This is hardly a crisis. The same with Taiwan; 20% of late 30s women are single, and most of these will never marry. Sounds like about 15% of the total population of women to me. The most dire stat was the 20% of 40-44 year old women in Bangkok. This is a major city, not an entire country, and this is the worst stat they could find? This is a manufactured crisis.
My point is that women could have some good jobs without taking away jobs that require male strength from men, like construction, street-police work, or the army; I’d think people would agree with that.
Sooooo …. your idea is that women take the “good” jobs (“leadership positions in government and offices”) while men take the dangerous/dirty jobs like construction, street-police work, [and] the army!?!!
Forgive me if I decline to sign up for your feminist utopia.
Jennifer wrote:
Jennifer,
Always interesting to see reflected back something you thought you had made clear, and realize you made a muddle of it.
The point about feminism leading to a decline in moral functioning is tightly coupled to the idea of there not being any such thing as a rationalization hamster. There is, instead. a Critical Critter who runs guard in the brain against things we might want to do, like sleep with attractive people who are not our spouses. (This is tied to the idea that we do not possess free will, but we do possess “free won’t” [google that one for more info]). The more time we spend deciding, the less mental energy remains for the CC to run around and stop bad ideas from gaining a foothold.
As to options not being exhausting, I’d direct you to Moscow on the Hudson, the scene where a recent Russian immigrant collapses because of all the options in the market. It works because it strikes us as true. This is also why we read Dalrock, instead of searching out these items on our own.
I would think it was self-evident that masculine power, unrestrained by morality or law, would simply dispose of “sassy” females like DH. Now, sassiness might be genetically determined and return in every generation, but most women would not have gone around challenging and in-your-facing much stronger and brutal men, until an age like the present where the men had unilaterally abandoned the use of strength as a part of the civilizational contract. (Question: what do women have to give up under that compact?) So if Sass is genetically determined, it would be adversely selected for.
I know the idea was a little off-topic, but reading that article will give you a sense of just where feminism (and Keyesnianism, and communism) have gone wrong. They posit actions and behaviors by men and women that are at odds with the biological realities of the way our brains work. Religions that have survived for thousands of years with evolutionarily stressed humans are thus more likely to be correct.
@TFH
“Remember that only 20% of single men need to avoid marriage for ALL single women to be in big trouble, since 100 women competing for 80 men is stressful for all women.”
Based on various studies on the effect of male to female ratios in male & female promiscuity, the percentage required is probably a good deal less than 20%. Although we would need to adjust the overall percentages to correct for the percentage of men and women who would not consider marriage as desirable under ideal/any circumstances. While I have not been able to find hard data on exactly this topic, I’d bet that if/when the number of single men willing to marry falls to 90% of single women seeking marriage you will see significant impact. This presumes that the women realize WHY the numbers have turned against them. Since we don’t see women recognize this among the population who are single due to divorce, it may be quite a while before women accept the facts even when they become clear.
Taken in conjunction with the delay that women made before they seek marriage, this might be more sudden and dramatic than a slow shift over a decade or two. Impossible to predict without hard data, but it will be interesting to observe.
“Sooooo …. your idea is that women take the “good” jobs (“leadership positions in government and offices”) while men take the dangerous/dirty jobs like construction, street-police work, [and] the army!?!!”
LOL Most people complain about the fact that women try to elbow into jobs that require men, saying correctly that any unqualified women will mess up those jobs, possibly endanger others, and succeed in doing nothing but taking jobs from able-bodied men. My point was they should stick to jobs they can do; I never once advocated them taking all leadership jobs, safe or otherwise. What a typical presumption.
I do think there’s some truth to what you say, Angel; I just thought some of it was a stretch. I’d say there have been sassy women for eons; they just didn’t try to revel against the society as a whole for a long time. Thanks for explaining.
*Rebel
both beauty and youth ARE correlated with fertility, so if “smart” women are “dumb” enough to postpone this process too long they find they can only have one baby or even none at all, so it’s still an evolutionary loss.
You’re correct, Clarence, but the point I was making is that fertility is as near-useless in the civilized world as physical strength or aggression. A woman who bears one smart kid advances humanity further than someone who bears 5 dumb ones. Again, in the era before agriculture, fertility may have had the advantage (since any individual kid, smart or stupid, was likely to die anyways), but in today’s world, where a child’s survival is virtually assured, it’s better to have a few high-quality kids than a larger number of less-gifted ones.
This is not necessarily to say that men are “bad” or “evil” for preferring what we do; I find female hypergamy to be just as neutral in a moral sense. It is simply to point out the unhappy fact that if MRAs (some of them, at least) were as concerned about “civilization” as many claim to be, women wouldn’t be the only ones having to modify their behavior. Only having sex with women who’ve gotten high scores on the quantitative sections of the SAT or GREs, regardless of how horribly fat or ugly they may be otherwise, may go a long way towards breeding the next generation of math/science nerds required for the advancement of humanity.
Hurp:
No, to put it bluntly you are absolutely wrong.
From an evolutionary point of view you get more genetic variation from five kids than one. More to the point, it’s unlikely ALL of the kids will either be smart OR dumb. Of course, unlike you, I don’t assume that intelligence is the only positive genetic trait to be selected for in the first place. So no, I’m afraid that having only the smartest breed would not only slow down human evolution but actually leave us more vulnerable to a single illness or adverse environmental impact killing us all off.
Hurp:
I also like your half-assed attack on men’s beauty standards. Apparently you never got the memo that extreme ugliness (wildly assymetrical features) are often indicative of genetic disorders but also extreme fat (double chins or above) tends to be associated with poor infant health and higher mortality for both the infant and mother.
Beauty and intelligence
Wasn’t there a study that showed that pretty people are usually smart too?
I don’t assume that intelligence is the only positive genetic trait to be selected for in the first place. So no, I’m afraid that having only the smartest breed would not only slow down human evolution but actually leave us more vulnerable to a single illness or adverse environmental impact killing us all off.
Again, you make good points, but the problem here is that one could just as easily defend female sexual preferences along those lines. Women may only get wet for alphas, but there’s a great deal of variety in that group; they chase after both the useless (layabout cads) and the accomplished (rock stars and others with high degrees of musical/artistic ability), the dysfunctionally aggressive and physically powerful (murderous ex-cons) and those who put their prowess to less illegal use (football-playing jocks). If diversity is the spice of life, women’s proclivities would seem to contribute to it as much as men’s do.
The bsic point I am making is that it is difficult to proclaim one gender as ‘superior’ to the other, utilizing a logical comparison of their differences rather than hoary, repetitive, wishful-thinking claims of “equality.” If one wants to condemn women on the basis that their lack of sexual attraction to intelligence (in and of itself) undermines civilization, one is forced to look with a more jaundiced eye upon the fact that men aren’t turned on by intelligence either. By the same token, if one wants to praise the voracious sexual appetite of men for increasing our species’ genetic diversity, one might also have to praise women for being attracted to such a varied spectrum of alphas, ranging from the lowest (sociopathic ex-cons) to the highest (musicians and athletes).
Hurp:
The problem is, you are arguing with other people who aren’t even on this thread. I’m an old denizen of the “manosphere” and I’m mostly an MRA sympathizer. And I have yet to make any of the arguments you’ve put in my mouth. You’ve also oversimplified some of the arguments that you are arguing against. For instance it’s reasonable to be critical of UNRESTRAINED female hypergamy, because such a situation has never occurred in any of the older civilizations nor the times before civilization, and arguably wouldn’t be occurring now if it wasn’t for things like artificial birth control technologies of all types, governmental coercion that extracts resources from men to cover female bad choices , and our rather unique societal memes involving sexuality. In short it’s an unnatural situation , and would collapse in a moment even with birth control’s availability if women were actually forced to consider the consequences of their actions.
And as I noted: you obviously don’t understand genetics very well. For instance Albert Einsteins first wife was a physicist herself: both parents were of above average intelligence, Albert is one of the greatest geniuses ever. Yet of their 3 children while two did indeed get involved in the sciences and were of above average intelligence, neither was as near as smart as their father as they, themselves would tell you. The other kid got schizophrenia. In short, Albert Einstein followed your advice, but the results weren’t as spectacular as one might expect if one believed that smart parents always had smart kids.
The problem is, you are arguing with other people who aren’t even on this thread. I’m an old denizen of the “manosphere” and I’m mostly an MRA sympathizer. And I have yet to make any of the arguments you’ve put in my mouth.
Ah. In that case, I apologize if I seemed like I was assuming your own personal thoughts or opinions. Still, while you may not hold these ideas, and while the other participants here may not, I do think enough people do hold them that they deserve some consideration, particularly in a venue such as our host’s–I’ve lurked at Dalrock’s place for a while and I find that his choice of articles and his stewardship of the comments typically leads to productive discussion more often than not.
You’ve also oversimplified some of the arguments that you are arguing against. For instance it’s reasonable to be critical of UNRESTRAINED female hypergamy, because such a situation has never occurred in any of the older civilizations nor the times before civilization, and arguably wouldn’t be occurring now if it wasn’t for things like artificial birth control technologies of all types, governmental coercion that extracts resources from men to cover female bad choices, and our rather unique societal memes involving sexuality. In short it’s an unnatural situation , and would collapse in a moment even with birth control’s availability if women were actually forced to consider the consequences of their actions.
True. Like I said above, I find female hypergamy to be morally neutral, which means I don’t consider it to be inherently praiseworthy any more than I consider it to be inherently detestable. However, while government spending and our strange attitudes regarding sexuality may be changeable, the technology you mention, which contributes to the unrestrained female hypergamy you criticize, strikes me as something of a larger stumbling block. This is especially coming from a viewpoint such as yours–a high-IQ MRA sympathizer. Most of the people responsible for the technological shifts which have so enabled feminism have been people like you. High IQ nerds, albeit folks who specialize in drugs and contraception (such as the guys who invented The Pill) as opposed to computer specialists, as I believe you mentioned you were above. The greatest obstacles to rolling back the present regime are not all women, or even “manginas” or “white knights,” but a group of men who are not at all ill-intentioned (I doubt the people who invented the pill foresaw the sort of legal regime we live under today) and who are active contributors to society.
In short, Albert Einstein followed your advice, but the results weren’t as spectacular as one might expect if one believed that smart parents always had smart kids.
You’re correct in saying that the “soft eugenics” I’m considering is not a matter of absolutes, but here I think you’re oversimplifying what I’m arguing; I never said it was. On an individual scale, smart pairings may not necessarily lead to smart children 100% of the time, but on a macro, society-wide scale, the average IQ of the populace would rise. Genetic drift and all that–you won’t get Einstein after Einstein, but the next generation would, on average, be a little smarter than the last, and then the generation after that, and so on.
Now, as you correctly note, this could also mean a population plagued by schizophrenia (or Tay-Sach’s disease, which is what many European Jews have to deal with, IIRC). Diversity is the spice of life, and in the case of genetic diversity, necessary to it. But then again, we come to the point I made above–the female attraction to a wide variety of alphas would seem to help ensure our genetic diversity as the male attraction to a wide variety of fertile-looking women.
hurp:
While I will have to respond at length later – your contention that unrestrained female hypergamy will help assure genetic diversity as much as men’s attraction to fertility signs fails.
It fails because of two reasons:
A. Sex is disconnected from reproduction, and young women esp often do not want kids
B. Many of the “alpha males” women hook up with do not want kids anyway and its a hell for a woman to try to get them to “settle down”. Plus, at the extremes, you can’t “settle down” with a jailbird.
Pretty much all men are attracted to youth and fertility. Good men, bad men. Men of “good” genes. Men of “bad” genes. Female hypergamy doesn’t necessarily involve fertility at all. Thus, unrestrained female hypergamy can lead to a mismatch that causes birth rates to plummet, and lots of very depressed older , yet wiser, women.
Best for a man to be with someone he is sexually and emotionally attracted to. That way a man will have a “dog in the fight” so to speak. Intelligence is not something you breed. apart from a physical defect to the brain most of what we call intelligence is education. And raw intelligence is not neccesarily a good thing. While in the marine corp we found the guys with the hightest QT scores tend to be dangerous to have working on the aircraft. Those guys were great for talking physics but not for keeping machines running.
That boy there should get the prettiest girl that has hypergamy that lust for a strong working beta. Love her and make babies. Same to you girl..
your contention that unrestrained female hypergamy will help assure genetic diversity as much as men’s attraction to fertility signs fails.
Sir, I think you’re the one oversimplifying my position here–please re-read my above comments; you’ll note that I claimed female hypergamy was neutral, while I agreed with your critiques of “unrestrained” hypergamy, at least in the context of the present Western legal system.
That said,
A. Sex is disconnected from reproduction, and young women esp often do not want kids
B. Many of the “alpha males” women hook up with do not want kids anyway and its a hell for a woman to try to get them to “settle down”. Plus, at the extremes, you can’t “settle down” with a jailbird.
This seems to me as if it would apply with as much force to the male preference for youth and fertility. Many of the most fertile-looking women (i.e the most beautiful) don’t want kids any more than the most alpha men. Think of how many good-looking (but slutty) girls have abortions because they don’t want pregnancy to ruin their good looks. It’s impossible to tell from breast size and waist-to-hip ratio how “genuinely” fertile a woman is, i.e how likely she is not to abort a child you sire.Therefore, in the context of present-day civilization, it would be better for genetic diversity for men to be attracted to women who are pro-life/want tons of kids as opposed to women who simply seem to have the outward tells of fertility. This, of course, is not the case, men typically don’t get aroused by a woman’s declaration of being pro-life any more than women get aroused by a man being a dutiful beta provider.
This from Hurp
This, of course, is not the case, men typically don’t get aroused by a woman’s declaration of being pro-life any more than women get aroused by a man being a dutiful beta provider.
God put that hamster in woman for a reason. With the right environment women will be dripping wet with excitement for a dutiful beta provider. If there is one thing I have learned over the years and from reading these stupid women post here is women do not follow male logic. Ever wonder why women didn’t have the vote?
With the right environment women will be dripping wet with excitement for a dutiful beta provider.
Um…maybe I’m missing something, but if this is true, isn’t that a good thing rather than a bad thing?
Einstein’s wife was a physicist?? Wow!
yes it is and what is the goal of a civilized society.
“Einstein’s wife was a physicist?? Wow!”
Einstein was also very anti-marriage, not like she was anywhere happier with him cheating on her with every skirt available…so I would be wary of call his marriage they goal of a civilized society.
Although if I have to choose I will choose Darwin and his wife and Bell and his. They were not scientists themselves but they loved and respected each other and no cheating that I know off. The Curies also seemed really happy too 🙂
Jennifer
Phylis Schaffly got a scholarship and was heading towards a good career before the suffragettes ever raised their cry, and states allowing women to vote were increasing in number.
Gee, I did not know that Phyllis Schafly is the oldest human being on Earth. Please do tell us more…
Yep, she’s up there in age. And still working. And she hates feminism. Ain’t she something?
Jennifer, she’s not THAT old–the 19th amendment was ratified in the early 20th century, before Ms. Schlafly was even born.
I know; I didn’t call her the oldest person on the planet.
She was born four years after women got the vote, in 1924 which makes her 87. The Suffragettes were much earlier (don’t you remember Mary Poppins 😀 )
What? That can’t be, I thought she got a big scholarship and everything before women got the vote! Urghh, will have to look it up again. Maybe she cited ANOTHER woman who did that, in her book..
To Doomed Harlot,
You seem like a very bright, articulate woman. Looking through the comments, I see that very often you are arguing with bitter, misogynistic morons. I commend the politeness and respect that you show them!
hurp says:
At the risk of sounding like a contrarian, if this is true, one wonders if female hypergamy is really as bad as many MRAs have made it out to be.
Has its place, but unchecked, yes it is. It’s the Achilles heel of Western, “advanced” cultures which haven’t evolved the counterbalancing mechanisms that some older societies have (such as India).
The kind of men who went toe-to-toe with lions, bears, wolves, alligators, mammoths, and all the other beasties you describe were physically strong, aggressive, and ruthless–i.e the sort of meathead ghetto alpha males your typical MRA condemns the typical woman for loving.
Bullshit. Do you have any clue what it takes to hunt a mammoth and live to tell about it afterwards?
The remains of prehistoric hunting sites show that they were professional hunters with a high degree of expertise. They were anything but meatheads. The same is true for other forms of hunting such as persistence hunting. A balance of alpha and beta traits was needed (not necessarily in the same individual) and they had to cooperate.
Think what would have happened if women had instead been attracted to and bred with gentle, sensitive, herbs.The human race would have gone extinct long ago, the males of our species being too weak to compete with the other predators. A simple thought experiment is sufficient to demonstrate this:
Take a pencil-necked, pasty computer programmer nerd, a beefy convicted murderer (white or black, race doesn’t matter), hand each of them a spear, and then drop ‘em in a forest and tell them to kill the biggest thing they can.
What about a programmer who works out, does mixed martial arts as a hobby, and has experience camping with minimal equipment?
Suffice it to say that Mr. Convict will likely be much more successful than Mr. Nerd.
I wouldn’t bet on it. It takes far more than mindless aggression to survive in a hostile environment.
If one wishes to point out that male aggression and physical strength is indispensable for the survival of the species,
That it is, but it needs to be balanced with other masculine qualities. Your contrived examples don’t come close to doing it.
it becomes rather difficult to condemn the female’s hypergamous selection for strength and aggression in males.
I would hardly condemn it in itself. But the affluence of advanced civilization makes women artificially independent of men, plus gives them a degree of unprecedented choice. That of course makes it more difficult for the average man to attract a woman.
In third world countries women as a group are far more respectful to men. That’s because they understand what life would be like without having them around.
Hurp wrote:
What men are attracted to–large breasts, childbearing hips, etc. etc. etc.–may have been important characteristics in the days before civilization, but as you imply, with the march of technology it becomes less and less important, eclipsed by intelligence.
Men are attracted to markers that indicate youth and fertility because the eggs they produce are far more likely to be viable. Unless some genetic modification allows women to forgo menopause, there would always be severe selection pressure for men to be attracted to the conventional markers of femininity.
The remains of prehistoric hunting sites show that they were professional hunters with a high degree of expertise. They were anything but meatheads. The same is true for other forms of hunting such as persistence hunting. A balance of alpha and beta traits was needed (not necessarily in the same individual) and they had to cooperate.
This may be true and makes sense, so I won’t argue with it. However, one could easily make the case that the sort of sociopathic alphas which make women wet aren’t exactly bereft of these positive characteristics either, though. Gang members need to have some knack for organization (being part of a gang by definition necessitates being a part of some kind of group, even if a loosely organized one) and drug dealers need to possess a degree of foresight, business savvy, and other laudable ‘beta’ traits to be successful, to take two examples of the sorts of men women are attracted to. That being the case, one must continue to wonder, then, if female hypergamy is such a terrible thing. Maybe the “thugs” and “douchebags” the ladies love aren’t all bad after all.
What about a programmer who works out, does mixed martial arts as a hobby, and has experience camping with minimal equipment?
I take it, my good sir, that you have no trouble attracting women. While I sincerely salute your success, I’m afraid that you’re not really representative. If most or even many beta males had the “alpha” characteristics you possess, female hypergamy wouldn’t be a problem for civilization (all the smart guys who maintain it would be the same guys women are attracted to) and we’d all be better off. Unfortunately, while you personally may be equally well-suited to contexts where physical strength/aggression is of paramount importance and where an ability to crunch numbers reigns supreme, most men are not so fortunate. Therein lies our problems.
In third world countries women as a group are far more respectful to men. That’s because they understand what life would be like without having them around.
Is this necessarily true? I’ve heard many tales from others in the manosphere about how horribly bitchy women from Thailand and other similar places may be. One of Ferdinand Bardamu’s favorite bloggers (Do you hang around In Mala Fide? I think I saw a “Ray Manta” there a while ago, but I may be mistaken; my apologies if I am) had a piece on this–in his view, “Where men subjugate women physically, women ravage them psychologically.” While I won’t pontificate on the superiority of Western cultures to that of “Third World” ones (my own parents are from a particularly dysfunctional Asian country), I believe I may be forgiven if I express some skepticism as to whether or not things are really that much better for men over there.
clarence says:
Hurp:
I also like your half-assed attack on men’s beauty standards. Apparently you never got the memo that extreme ugliness (wildly assymetrical features) are often indicative of genetic disorders but also extreme fat (double chins or above) tends to be associated with poor infant health and higher mortality for both the infant and mother.
I believe Hurp is trying to make a clever (to him) equating of the excessive hypergamy of women with men’s attraction to female beauty, suggesting that they’re both equally dysfunctional in the modern world. He’s comparing apples and oranges. Men’s attraction to female beauty is universal and impervious to social trends – does anyone seriously believe that the fat-acceptance boosterism has made obese women any more attractive to men? Women’s hypergamy OTOH is highly susceptible to current fads and fashions.
Ray Manta you are damn right on that.
Men are attracted to markers that indicate youth and fertility because the eggs they produce are far more likely to be viable.
In modern society, thanks to the wonders of science (fertility treatments and so on) there’s no reason for a man to be particularly concerned about the viability of his mate’s eggs. Therefore, from the standpoint of civilization, it would be better if we went after the women whose eggs would be most likely to turn into math/science nerds rather than the women who’d simply have the most viable eggs.
As Clarence mentioned above, this isn’t an either-or proposition; the uglier women are often lacking in intelligence as well. The problem is, despite our evolved preference for physical beauty (and the associated benefits), the simple strength of the male sex drive means our desperation to get a root outweighs even those considerations–as many MRAs have pointed out, no matter how fat, ugly, or stupid a woman is, she’ll be able to find some guy out there desperate enough to have sex with her. In this sense, one could argue that male sexuality is truly evil and dysfunctional–if so many men weren’t so desperate to get laid that they’re willing to white-knight for even the most worthless women, feminism and all its attendant evils might never have managed to make the inroads they did.
Women’s hypergamy OTOH is highly susceptible to current fads and fashions.
“Highly susceptible to current fads and fashions?” You mean female hypergamy isn’t as universal as male sexuality? I may be misinterpreting you here, so before I respond to this, may I ask if you mean that women aren’t universally hypergamous, or that their hypergamy takes different forms in different cultures?
“It takes far more than mindless aggression to survive in a hostile environment.
If one wishes to point out that male aggression and physical strength is indispensable for the survival of the species,
That it is, but it needs to be balanced with other masculine qualities. Your contrived examples don’t come close to doing it.
it becomes rather difficult to condemn the female’s hypergamous selection for strength and aggression in males.
I would hardly condemn it in itself. But the affluence of advanced civilization makes women artificially independent of men, plus gives them a degree of unprecedented choice. That of course makes it more difficult for the average man to attract a woman”
Wise words, Ray.
“That being the case, one must continue to wonder, then, if female hypergamy is such a terrible thing. Maybe the “thugs” and “douchebags” the ladies love aren’t all bad after all”
Whaaat??
“Where men subjugate women physically, women ravage them psychologically”
Whooaa. That’s deep…
Of course it’s partly true in general anyway: men use physical violence, women emotional.
Hurp wrote:
Gang members need to have some knack for organization (being part of a gang by definition necessitates being a part of some kind of group, even if a loosely organized one) and drug dealers need to possess a degree of foresight, business savvy, and other laudable ‘beta’ traits to be successful, to take two examples of the sorts of men women are attracted to.
The impression I’ve gotten with drug dealers in the ‘hood is they operate on a very short-term horizon. Thugging it up for a few years until you get shot in the back by a rival gang member could well be the only strategy they’re following. There’s always someone to take your place and is doable if you don’t mind the abbreviated life expectancy.
There are of course criminal groups that are run by cold-blooded Michael Corleone types. Those individuals are far more dangerous than simple-minded ‘pure alpha’ thugs.
I take it, my good sir, that you have no trouble attracting women.
Wrong, I’ve had plenty of trouble attracting women, at least Western ones, although I’m married now – to a woman from a third-world country.
While I sincerely salute your success, I’m afraid that you’re not really representative
Actually, I’m a lot more representative and “typical” than you think. The problem isn’t just confined to pencil-necked geeks. Plenty of regular, ordinary guys, even those who are quite accomplished, don’t have pussy falling into their lap.
About foreign women
Is this necessarily true? I’ve heard many tales from others in the manosphere about how horribly bitchy women from Thailand and other similar places may be.
Is this necessarily true?
No, not necessarily. I’ve known of blatant gold-diggers in those countries too. Their usual common denominator was they came from wealthy families. My wife’s family was not wealthy, but some of her close relatives were and she spent a good portion of her early life with them. That side of her family had some of the worst pieces of work imaginable. On the other side of the balance sheet is her sister-in-law, who’s the salt of the earth. She lives in a simple wooden house on stilts on top of a river.
I’ve heard many tales from others in the manosphere about how horribly bitchy women from Thailand and other similar places may be.
You’ll probably read many more if you google Stickman – he’s an expat who’s an authority on life in Bangkok. My guess is that more than a few of his tales of woe are due to a naive Westerner trying to “rescue” a girl at a go-go bar and convert her into a wife/girlfriend.
One of Ferdinand Bardamu’s favorite bloggers (Do you hang around In Mala Fide? I think I saw a “Ray Manta” there a while ago,
That’s me – I do spend time reading Bardamu’s blog. and comment occasionally.
but I may be mistaken; my apologies if I am) had a piece on this–in his view, “Where men subjugate women physically, women ravage them psychologically.”
I glanced at the article – there’s a bit too much handwaving in it for my taste. Does Spengler’s law mean that women and men will always be miserable together? In my time outside the US, I saw women who seemed to be very happy and pleased with their lot in life, even though their material circumstances were less than impressive.
While I won’t pontificate on the superiority of Western cultures to that of “Third World” ones (my own parents are from a particularly dysfunctional Asian country), I believe I may be forgiven if I express some skepticism as to whether or not things are really that much better for men over there.
You can be forgiven – there’s no bed of roses anywhere in the world. But I stand by my assertion that a man’s sexual prospects are much better in a gender-normative culture where the status of men is still high compared to women.
Hurp wrote:
In modern society, thanks to the wonders of science (fertility treatments and so on) there’s no reason for a man to be particularly concerned about the viability of his mate’s eggs.
Yes there is. In the current state of the art, pregnancy through artificial means is still far less efficient and more arduous and expensive than doing it the normal way. That will eventually change of course with the march of technology. But we have a long way to go.
Therefore, from the standpoint of civilization, it would be better if we went after the women whose eggs would be most likely to turn into math/science nerds rather than the women who’d simply have the most viable eggs.
“Nerdism” is a highly complex, polygenic trait. It may well be more optimal for nerd type men to mate with the women they’re viscerally attracted to. Note that Ashkenazi Jews have higher concentrations of high-IQ individuals than other groups but favor a degree of outbreeding. Genetic disease such as Tay-Sachs are far more common among them than in other groups and outbreeding is a helpful strategy in curbing it.
Women’s hypergamy OTOH is highly susceptible to current fads and fashions.
“Highly susceptible to current fads and fashions?” You mean female hypergamy isn’t as universal as male sexuality?
It’s universal, but is far more malleable than male sexuality. Men’s sexuality is more or less a one-trick pony with relatively little deviation. Yes, there are preferential homosexuals, but it’s as if something went awry during their brain development. And note that they favor youth and beauty just as their heterosexual counterparts do.
I may be misinterpreting you here, so before I respond to this, may I ask if you mean that women aren’t universally hypergamous, or that their hypergamy takes different forms in different cultures?
Their hypergamy takes different forms in different cultures, and can be “molded” towards society’s ends. For example, the higher status of men as a group and women’s more obvious economic dependence on them in more primitive cultures essentially raises the average “alphaness” of a man. The female “herding instinct” where women pick up and follow the social cues of her cohorts is also used here. In other words, if the members of a woman’s family say her suitor or husband is good, she’s likely to believe it too. And if she ever gets into a dispute with him, her family will usually not show much sympathy for her as long as he treats her decently.
Kathy’s comments perfectly illustrate how Team Vagina operates.
“I saw women who seemed to be very happy and pleased with their lot in life, even though their material circumstances were less than impressive.”
I’m from the third world and I approve this comment 🙂
Ray Manta writes-
“Hurp wrote:
In modern society, thanks to the wonders of science (fertility treatments and so on) there’s no reason for a man to be particularly concerned about the viability of his mate’s eggs.”
Yes there is. In the current state of the art, pregnancy through artificial means is still far less efficient and more arduous and expensive than doing it the normal way. That will eventually change of course with the march of technology. But we have a long way to go. ”
And the rate of birth defects is more than double. A natural pregnancy and birth carries a 3.6% (or thereabouts, maternal age ect factor in ) but an in vitro fertilization carries an 8% risk of a defect. It was recently found that one drug used in IVF is linked to the higher rates of autism we’re seeing now. Egg viability is what makes you fertile.
Hurp wrote-
“In this sense, one could argue that male sexuality is truly evil and dysfunctional–if so many men weren’t so desperate to get laid that they’re willing to white-knight for even the most worthless women, feminism and all its attendant evils might never have managed to make the inroads they did.”
What? You’re going to blame male sexuality for what women have done for the past 40 years and more? Read up on the founders of the feminist movement. They were, many of them, well off, at the top of society. Others were Marxists, some were pushing eugenics. I don’t think white-knighting had much to do with their actions.
“if so many men weren’t so desperate to get laid that they’re willing to white-knight for even the most worthless women, feminism and all its attendant evils might never have managed to make the inroads they did.
That makes sense. Men have not at all been discerning.. A root is a root, for many of them.. Better than nothing. One only has to look at the recent article in UK paper.(Ferdinand Bardamu covered this) where a late fifty something woman was rooting a heap of blokes from their twenties to their sixties.. EWW Sick stuff! There was no shortage of suitors… for want of a better word.
That coupled with the fact that so many women engage in slutty behaviour and have no self respect does not augur well for the future.
I hold women and men equally responsible for the immoral mess that the world finds itself in today.
Hedonism, materialism, selfishness..Both sexes are guilty of these, Each blaming the other sex for all their problems… What we need to realize is that we need to pull together, to turn things around.
Blaming the other sex gets us all nowhere.
At the moment it’s like a dog chasing it’s tail..
Crella:
And the rate of birth defects is more than double. A natural pregnancy and birth carries a 3.6% (or thereabouts, maternal age ect factor in ) but an in vitro fertilization carries an 8% risk of a defect. It was recently found that one drug used in IVF is linked to the higher rates of autism we’re seeing now. Egg viability is what makes you fertile.
Exactly. Every single brave new world technology is associated with a set of severe risks. I would seriously consider waiting a while before attempting to manufacture the next Einstein. Even artificial insemination is overrated in its effectiveness.
“In this sense, one could argue that male sexuality is truly evil and dysfunctional–if so many men weren’t so desperate to get laid that they’re willing to white-knight for even the most worthless women, feminism and all its attendant evils might never have managed to make the inroads they did.”
Now that truly makes no sense. When I debug an application that’s malfunctioning at work I look for the components that have changed, not the ones that haven’t. Male sexuality has been a constant for millenia, women’s has not.
Of course it makes sense. The components have indeed changed. If men had been more discerning then the malfunctioning beast that is feminism would not have gotten such a foothold.
“The components have indeed changed. If men had been more discerning then the malfunctioning beast that is feminism would not have gotten such a foothold.”
Then, Kathy, the best thing to have done was prevent the establishment of NOW, deny women the vote, not establish women’s colleges, and bar women from becoming Senators and Representatives. Because *that’s* how feminism got pushed through, was women entering politics, and yes men gave them the inroads. Men did listen to what women wanted. Men established most of the universities in the US, including the all-women’s schools in New England, among the oldest in the country. If we follow your logic, that it was men bending over backwards to please women who caused feminism to flourish, we come around full circle and say that the best thing would have been to keep ’em barefoot and pregnant?
You really shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you…
“That makes sense. Men have not at all been discerning.. A root is a root, for many of them.. Better than nothing. ”
Which means that you don’t understand male sexuality, the power of the male sex drive, the urge to procreate, at all. Not surprising, as feminists have been dismissing and trying to subvert their own biological functions for decades, to the point of claiming that sex differences are not inborn, but imposed by socialization.
“and yes men gave them the inroads”
Thanks for proving my point Crella.
In any event you are preaching to the choir here. The worst thing men ever did was to allow women into politics. We have a female Prime Minister here in Australia she is “useless as tits on a bull” The only good thing that will come of it is, that there will never again be a female Prime Minister in Australia. Well not in my lifetime, that’s for sure.
“Which means that you don’t understand male sexuality, the power of the male sex drive, ”
I call (as Jen would say) BULLSHIT on that one, Crella.
The implication there is that men have no self control. Rubbish. They have a hand. they have internet porn. Men are not animals. As for this facade of the urge to pro create? It’s just that.!
More and more men are saying they don’t want kids (not saying no to a root though) More often than not it is some unscrupulous woman who tricks a man and gets pregnant deliberately.
My husband and I both have high sex drives and have sex most days. Before I met him (after split from my first husband, who, incidentally did not have a high sex drive) I went for over a year without sex.. It was damn hard. Yes I was tempted. Had plenty of offers, but I resisted.It was my religion and my self respect that held me back.
However I am sorry to say that I frequently masturbated during that period as a means of relief(yes, it was a sin, and I was weak. I’m not perfect) So I indeed know how hard the sex urge can be.
Don’t forget, too, that as a reasonably good looking woman in good shape, I did not have to go looking for it either. It was offered to me on a platter..So, yes, very, hard. Sometimes I had difficulty concentrating at work and was very distracted.
Your tut- tutting santctimonious inference that I am some sort of a feminist also stinks 😉 I also said this.
“That coupled with the fact that so many women engage in slutty behaviour and have no self respect does not augur well for the future.”
It takes two to tango.. Both sexes need to pull their collective heads in>
“If men had been more discerning then the malfunctioning beast that is feminism would not have gotten such a foothold.”
It must be great being a member of a gender that has no moral responsibility whatsoever. This little sentence encapsulates the whole conundrum, being that females are never responsible for their own actions.
Kathy, I agree about male sexuality, but you honestly believe women shouldn’t be in politics? No, they can be wonderful there; even before feminism president’s wives could be great in their involvement and support. Men did not make a mistake helping women gain freedom; the mistakes are of those who repaid this justice by stabbing men in the back, and the liberal movement who decided to seize women’s rights and make the movement about LEFT-WING women’s empowerment.
“This little sentence encapsulates the whole conundrum, being that females are never responsible for their own actions”. You are putting your own slant on it JCL.
Females are indeed responsible for their own actions. Never said that they weren’t. This is not about responsibility, more about enabling.
Sorry Jen, have to agree to disagree. Come for a visit down under, we have some of the dumbest female politicians in parliament. One created a furore because she wanted to be able to breast feed her baby in the parliament. Thank God they knocked that one on the head. (rolls eyes)
I’ve heard there are bad female politicans in Aussie, but certainly this hasn’t been the case unilaterally through history. Oh well.
Kathy wrote:
Of course it makes sense. The components have indeed changed.
If men had been more discerning then the malfunctioning beast that is feminism would not have gotten such a foothold.
One of the reasons feminism has been able to run through our culture unchecked is due to the weakening of patriarchal extended family groups in Anglo-based culture in favor of impartial institutions. It makes technological and economic progress a lot more efficient but its susceptibility to feminism is its Achilles heel. Women can continually lobby for privileges and men can’t effectively oppose them due to their hard-wired protective instincts and absence of their male “herd” (the extended family).
Eventually women’s collective demands become impossible to sustain and the whole thing collapses under its own weight. TFH’s article at http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html gives a good account of what’s likely to happen.
So what do you suggest we do? Should people revert to the older pattern of extended families? It can be done, but It’s not especially compatible with modern society and the rule of law. Think of the Bedouin desert tribes or the Mafiosi as examples. Is that what you want?
Without disregarding feminism, I really doubt any ideological movement could explain the huge change in behavior we’ve seen throughout the developed world in regards to marriage. The truth is things like modern economic automation, technological advancement, globalization, and the pill have all had such radical effects on gender relations that the traditional model probably won’t survive. If I had to guess monogamy as we know it will probably not survive, irregardless of whether everyone all decides to abandon feminism.
The most likely scenario is a monogomy/polygamy hybrid, even if some of it is unofficial, cohabitation, not legally endorsed, serial monogamy, etc. My guess is the top 5-10% of men will have harems, the next 30-50% will be in monogamous relationships, and the bottom half will be largely sex/relationship deprived with the exception of prostitution, which is actually a pretty common model throughout history.
People, men and women, will bitch about this, but its not going to change anything. 80% of your fate on that hierarchy will be determined by genes and the remaining 20% by choices you make.
LOL!! Anything regarding polygamy will simply not happen. Boy is this world screwed up. Nor should we revert to giving one person or a group of people control over our personal choices.
TFH’s article is pretty amazing. Many opinions I didn’t agree with, but the facts are pretty irrefutable. Damn, do we need Christianity; strong assertive men, strong faithful women, and family put above all else. How can liberalism have wrecked so much? The idiot femmies tell women to sleep with anyone (so they choose the cads and man-whores) and punish a man severely if they get divorced (or, sometimes, he just doesn’t “fit” her anymore). In a nutshell, feminism is telling women to EMULATE bad men and to PUNISH good, hardworking men. Unbelievable.
(pardon me for taking a while to come back here, was moving IRL)
Thugging it up for a few years until you get shot in the back by a rival gang member could well be the only strategy they’re following. There’s always someone to take your place and is doable if you don’t mind the abbreviated life expectancy.
Oh, of course, I wasn’t implying that drug dealers were criminal masterminds. Do they have enough foresight to be successful over a lifetime? No, probably not. They do have enough, by necessity, to keep from messing up and getting themselves shot right off the bat, though. Thus, despite not being a drug dealer or other sort of criminal, I believe I have to acknowledge that women aren’t necessarily completely stupid for choosing those types of men. It’s not as if they’re entirely worthless, they do possess “positive” characteristics which might have been less dysfunctional in contexts outside of a modern-day inner city.
Actually, I’m a lot more representative and “typical” than you think. The problem isn’t just confined to pencil-necked geeks. Plenty of regular, ordinary guys, even those who are quite accomplished, don’t have pussy falling into their lap.
Ah, in that case, I apologize for making assumptions about your experiences. However, in that case, doesn’t this seem to raise some problems for the theory of female hypergamy? Women, as you’ve asserted above, are almost completely dependent on men for survival. Why, then, wouldn’t they be attracted to accomplished men such as yourself? Women who paired with guys like you would have been much more likely to survive and pass on their genes, which means women “ought” to have those preferences. But they seemingly don’t, at least if I have interpreted you correctly.
In the current state of the art, pregnancy through artificial means is still far less efficient and more arduous and expensive than doing it the normal way. That will eventually change of course with the march of technology. But we have a long way to go. (Ray Manta)…And the rate of birth defects is more than double. (Crella)
I agree that the technology isn’t perfect, and it would be foolish of me to claim it’s entirely without problems, but I don’t think you can really deny it’s considerably more effective than it used to be and also that it’s improving at a rapid pace. Indeed, on a societal level the expenses required to breed not even “baby Einsteins” but simply more intelligent people generally may pay for themselves in succeeding generations. For instance, the first generation would have to deal with the higher costs/defects of the technology as you describe, but the surviving, more intelligent children would grow up to refine the technology, and *their* children would be born smarter and with less expense, and would go on to refine the technology even further, and so on. A “virtuous circle” of intelligence, so to speak.
Still, that is getting into sci-fi/”eugenics” territory there. While I’m not squeamish about the subject, I do think it has too many problems to be really very feasible on such a wide scale as we’re describing here, though that would be perhaps going *too* far off topic for the tastes of our host. So I will concede that the male desire for tells of fertility has its place today. However, this brings me to your next point:
“Nerdism” is a highly complex, polygenic trait. It may well be more optimal for nerd type men to mate with the women they’re viscerally attracted to.
If this is true, might it not also be optimal for women to mate with the sorts of “bad boys” their hypergamous instincts make them attracted to? This is not an attempt to be cute or contrarian just for the sake of it, but rather it seems to me that some very laudable men have been born of choices which might have seemed at first to be bad decisions on the part of the mother. Richard Wright, for instance, one of the most famous and accomplished African-American writers of the 20th century, was born to a father who had more in common with a dimwitted alpha than a smart beta (and he was raised by his mother alone). He was also pretty stereotypically nerdy, being enamored with books and reading from his youth (just to make things clear, I’m not black m’self, I just like Mr. Wright’s books). There are other examples of famous and accomplished writers, scientists, and other nerdy types of people who were sired by “alphas” and/or raised by “single moms” from outside the African-American experience as well, it was just the first one I thought of.
Now, in reference to the Third World, while my parents come from one of those countries I haven’t lived in any of them for a significant amount of time, so I suppose I will defer to Mr. Manta’s positive assessment of the sexual marketplace there. That said, while the low economic status of women may be nice in a sexual sense, isn’t their dependency grating on the man they’re dependent on? As Twenty implied above, it’s long been the gender norm that men take all the dirty/dangerous jobs; it seems to me this would also be the case in more “gender normative” cultures. While I don’t wish to insult your family or belittle your life choices, may I ask if it ever feels as if your economically-dependent wife is leeching off of your skills, productivity, and intelligence without providing much of her own value? If you don’t want to answer, though, that is of course fine. My apologies for my intrusiveness in that case.
When I debug an application that’s malfunctioning at work I look for the components that have changed, not the ones that haven’t. Male sexuality has been a constant for millenia.
The thing is, societies have been dysfunctional for millenia as well. As many MRAs like to point out, this is not the first time we’ve had feminism, it (according to what I’ve heard) did in the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, and so on, and so forth. Why does this keep happening over and over again? I would submit that it’s at least partially due to how much men are willing to give up in order for (perceived) chances for pussy. After all, women have no power whatsoever in and of themselves, at least in the view of MRAs. Would they ever have gotten the right to vote if men hadn’t allowed them to? Would the anti-male laws MRAs decry have any force if men didn’t enforce them? Of course not, and this was the case in previous societies, as well. Your points about our protective/indulgent attitudes towards women are astute and well-taken, but it seems to me, using admittedly anecdotal evidence from what I’ve seen around me, that the roots of this misguided “paternalism” lie partially within our sex drives. I think I mentioned on PMAFT’s place once that even the ugliest and/or most misandric feminists like Jabba the Dworkin and Jessica Valenti have managed to get husbands. Many men I’ve seen IRL are happy to accept whatever tenets of feminist thought they come across because they think it’ll help them “get laid.” As bad as it may look to agree with Kathy, I think male responsibility for feminism is the inevitable conclusion of acknowledging male supremacy–the “inevitability of patriarchy,” so to speak. If we really are superior to women in nearly every respect, stronger, smarter, and generally better than they are (sorry, Jennifer), it would seem that it’s our fault for letting them get out of hand, whether due to giving in to their whims out of a desire for pussy or simply indulging them out of our protective instincts (or both, which seems likely).
davver wrote:
The truth is things like modern economic automation, technological advancement, globalization, and the pill have all had such radical effects on gender relations that the traditional model probably won’t survive.
I wouldn’t argue the matter.
If I had to guess monogamy as we know it will probably not survive, irregardless of whether everyone all decides to abandon feminism.
Feminism won’t survive full-immersion adult entertainment technologies, which will be available over the next 10-20 years.
Feminism won’t survive full-immersion adult entertainment technologies, which will be available over the next 10-20 years.
I’ve heard this essential argument before (technology will be the end of feminism), but a lot of the discussion here has begun to make me skeptical of it. As you mentioned to me above, the sort of Brave New World technologies I praised in reference to human reproduction have a long way to go, and that it’s not a good idea to rely on them to produce the next batch of “baby Einsteins.” However, by the same token, is it a good idea to rely on VR tech and so on to bring about the end of feminism? It’s uncertain “immersive” porn wouldn’t have its own set of issues–flawed AIs, the “uncanny valley,” the difficulty of stimulating touch and smell as well as sight and sound, and a host of other issues seem, in my view, to present an equally sizable array of potential problems which would mitigate the effectiveness of the technology.
(This would also apply double to artificial wombs, which would make wholesale abandonment of women/MGTOW feasible on a societal scale. If things like IVF are already plagued with as many problems as Crella described above, I find it hard to imagine artificial womb technology would be much better).
Hurp wrote:
Why, then, wouldn’t they be attracted to accomplished men such as yourself?
They are, but not in first world countries. The presence of the lamestream media can give a distorted sense of reality of what kind of man an average Western woman thinks she “deserves”.
There are other factors at play too such as the lack of acquaintance with any real hardship and the relative anonymity of modern urban existence which makes it much easier for a woman to mask casual “exciting” sexual escapades.
about nerdism
If this is true, might it not also be optimal for women to mate with the sorts of “bad boys” their hypergamous instincts make them attracted to?
No, because women rarely had that much of a choice in mating until very recently. Arranged marriages are still common in many societies (and they often turn out very well) and even when women did have some ability to choose it was severely constrained by her family and peer groups.
The “gina tingles” that PUAs like Roissy are probably an artifact of women being captured and enslaved by raiders. In those cases, they absolutely did not have a choice of who to mate with, so the women most likely to survive would be someone who took some pleasure in submitting to a powerful man.
As Twenty implied above, it’s long been the gender norm that men take all the dirty/dangerous jobs; it seems to me this would also be the case in more “gender normative” cultures.
Yes it is. The men don’t seem to mind that much, as long as their women keep their end of the bargain, stays sexually faithful and takes care of the children. I’d say they’re wired to be more tolerant of physical danger and an arduous working environment. MRAs bring up dirty, dangerous jobs mostly as a counterpoint to feminists incessant complaining about how badly women have it.
The thing is, societies have been dysfunctional for millenia as well. As many MRAs like to point out, this is not the first time we’ve had feminism, it (according to what I’ve heard) did in the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, and so on, and so forth. Why does this keep happening over and over again?
Human nature. Here’s my capsule summary :
1. The default human mating pattern is a patrilocal system where male relatives stick together and women disperse. This is directly opposite of the usual primate pattern. Even in the modern world by a wife generally takes her husband’s surname and in my wife’s culture, grandchildren are distinguished by whether they come through the male or the female line. Those that descend through a daughter are known as “outside grandchildren” and are considered less important than “inside grandchildren”.
2. Since women needed to acquire resources through their male protectors rather than directly, they developed the ability to network with unrelated females to present a “united front” to get what they wanted. This is the foundation of female herding.
3. Over time, people have formed larger affiliations, eventually forming nation-states. This level of organization requires at least some weakening of patrilocal authority in deference to sovereign power.
4. The culmination of this trend is highly advanced societies such as the British Empire and the United States. In those cases, nepotism is minimal, the rule of law has replaced blood feuds in extracting justice, and the nuclear family has (mostly) supplanted extended families This particular formation of society encourages rapid technological progress and economic advancement.
5. Over time, women start demanding more privileges, usually in the name of “fairness” or “equality”. They do it in the same way they did in the earlier tribal days, by networking with unrelated females. Thus you inevitably see the birth of feminism in affluent societies.
6. Since the patrilocal extended family is severely weakened, men have lost their biologically-based defense against the female herd (their own male-based clan). If you’re wondering why men seem to be doing such a piss-poor job of defending themselves from feminism, there’s your reason. Unrelated men have literally no natural instinct to work together purely for their own self-interest (unlike women). Men’s natural protective instinct towards women only makes matters worse form them.
7. Eventually those whole system collapses when women’s demands become too excessive.
And so it goes.
6. Since the patrilocal extended family is severely weakened, men have lost their biologically-based defense against the female herd (their own male-based clan). If you’re wondering why men seem to be doing such a piss-poor job of defending themselves from feminism, there’s your reason. Unrelated men have literally no natural instinct to work together purely for their own self-interest (unlike women). Men’s natural protective instinct towards women only makes matters worse form them.
I always wondered why countries that value strong extended family bonds [like Italy] are more patriarchal.
I guess in a way feminism is unnecessary when you have a network of family looking out for you. Worst case scenario a woman will always be taken in by her family – she won’t be left to fend for herself [or become a single Mom surviving off of social programs].
Pingback: Thoughts on the future of marriage | Dalrock
@DH
The person who will be performing surgery on me next month…
Best of luck with this. If this is an infertility surgery and you want to talk, let me know. BTDT
Hurp wrote:
However, by the same token, is it a good idea to rely on VR tech and so on to bring about the end of feminism?
I’m not “relying” on anything. VR porn isn’t part of my evil master plan to rid the world of feminism. It’s simply a predictable convergence of near-future technology trends and male sex urges. Eventually there will be sex robots too, but I expect them to arrive at a later date. Immersive VR porn has a lower technological hurdle to clear, plus has big advantages in terms of economy and variety.
It’s uncertain “immersive” porn wouldn’t have its own set of issues
Of course it would. There’s never been a new technology without its issues, especially with early adopters. One thing it is quite likely to do is to make men far choosier about who they sleep with.
flawed AIs
Virtual porn doesn’t require anything close to human-level AI. Why should it?
the “uncanny valley,”
An overrated artifact that will be pushed aside by incremental technological improvements. If the uncanny valley were the showstopper that many people claim it is, you wouldn’t have men jerking off to anime porn.
the difficulty of stimulating touch
Touch would be the primary sense that needs to be engaged. Equipment with haptic sensors is already being mass-produced. Huge demand will almost certainly drive innovations that make it as realistic as possible.
and smell
You can probably forget about smell in the near-term future. Eventually with direct neural stimulation, it would be possible to stimulate all the senses in VR. I expect that to happen too, but not in the next 10-20 years.
as well as sight and sound, and a host of other issues seem, in my view, to present an equally sizable array of potential problems which would mitigate the effectiveness of the technology.
VR porn wouldn’t have to be 100% realistic, it would just have to be an experience that’s ‘good enough’. Fifth Horseman has written that once it becomes more compelling than a sexual experience with an average-to-decent looking girl, a tipping point would occur and the average woman’s SMV
(sexual market value) would crater. Extremely beautiful women would still be able to command the attention of men, but they’re only a small minority of all women.
(This would also apply double to artificial wombs, which would make wholesale abandonment of women/MGTOW feasible on a societal scale. If things like IVF are already plagued with as many problems as Crella described above, I find it hard to imagine artificial womb technology would be much better).
Oh, they’ll come around, it’s simply a matter of time. But for the near term (10-20 years) it’s very unlikely they’ll be a significant factor. It’s still possible for a gung-ho MGTOWer to go the Cristiano Ronaldo route and father a child with a surrogate mother.
Butterfly Flower says:
I guess in a way feminism is unnecessary when you have a network of family looking out for you.
The feminism that we see in Anglo societies can’t really get off the ground with the strong family networks that we see in patriarchal cultures. Could you imagine Andrea Dworkin opposing the likes of Tony Soprano? If she really pissed him off, she’d end up at the bottom of a river wearing a cement overcoat.
Davvvy: “My guess is the top 5-10% of men will have harems”
Many of the the Alphas who are choosing not to settle down already do ATM.
Tony Soprano’s the kind of bastard we don’t need at the head of families.
Jennifer wrote:
Tony Soprano’s the kind of bastard we don’t need at the head of families.
Tony Soprano is simply the end product of a society based on distrustful extended families instead of the rule of law. A degree of ruthlessness is necessary to survive under those circumstances.
All those mobsters are familial cannibals; very creepy indeed.
The women mentioned in that article were idiots, notwithstanding their professional and financial success. I see this a lot where women overlook the hard-working successful professional man because he is too “straight-laced” or “boring” and instead have relationships with unambitious men. Women like that are so head-strong that they ignore the advice of their parents and other older people to be with these unambitious men. Of course, they eventually lose respect for those men because of their lack of ambition, just as their parents warned them prior to marriage.
How can these “alpha” women blame the men they married – the men didn’t change at all. The women are the ones who changed, not the men, yet the women rationalize their poor marriage choice by blaming the men they married for being “losers.”
Of course, the men that those women overlooked when they were 25 and hot (assuming they were ever hot), often eventually settle down with a woman who not “alpha” and is much nicer and would make a far better mother to his children in any event.
@Doomed Harlot:
“It makes sense to me that anyone, male or female, would resent someone who is not pulling his or her weight at home. The women in your examples are aggravated because their husbands are not doing their fair share at all — not earning an income OR pulling their weight at home. Anna says that she wouldn’t have been so upset if her husband had actually taken on the Mommy role, but he hadn’t done so. This doesn’t seem like some special womanly resentment towards “beta” man, but rather human nature.”
How do you know what really went on in that relationship? You notice they never actually asked the husband for his side of the story, they just take it asgospel truth that he was lazy and didn’t do anything. No matter hwat a guy does he’s going to be the wrong. If he’s a SAHD he’s treated like a parasite, and the “second shift” card is played if he expects his wife to help with the kids when she gets home. if he works and she doesn’t it’s “she’s been with the kids all day, help take care of your own kids you lazy bastard.”
Pingback: Feminist nostalgia for traditional gender roles. | Dalrock
Pingback: Feminist nostalgia for traditional gender roles
Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce. « Patriactionary
Pingback: Christian Marriage Doublespeak « Maude's Tavern
Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian Marriage Doublespeak and Hair Trigger for wife Initiated Divorce – By Dalrock | Christian Feminism Watch
Huh? I wouldn’t complain. I’d love to have enough money to put my husband out of his very hard work. He is very disciplined and talented and would make a wonderful stay-at-home Dad.
As someone who grew up thinking feminism meant “equal rights and equal duties” (call me naive, I was really told this, and I was told the equivalent for male rights was masculinism), and who fervently believes in equality…
… I think a self-respecting woman will respect a man who stays at home. I would respect mine. Of course, there is a difference between a homemaker and an unemployed person.
And… I don’t think it’s fair for men that they ought to do all the breadwinning work, with the wife at home. Granted, I don’t want to stay at home, but if I did, my husband would be in a horrible position.
How many of you have had psychopathic bosses? You know, the sort of dude (or lass) who thrives in having absolute control over his/her underlings? I know people who complain about bosses who love to terrorize and scare and manipulate their workers.
The worst threat? “You cannot complain because you have a mortgage. You cannot complain because you have children”.
Well, I wouldn’t stand for such a treatment of my husband. He CAN complain because I work. OK, none of us earns much, so if one of us had to sue the psychotic boss (after getting proper proof of the mobbing), we could take the risk. We would have to strive a bit, save a lot, have a tight budget. But we could be able to do it.
So… I think it’s good if the woman works. I think the psychological weight it must be for a man to be completely responsible, with no way outs, for the whole well being of his family… It’s too much, don’t you think? I either endure daily mental abuse, or I lose my house? It’s not fair.
If I was a man, I’d choose a woman who got her own money. I think that support is worth the sacrifice of doing half the household chores.
But then again… I have an American friend, from Kentucky. She complains that one of her brothers works in a mine. He works six days a week, twelve hours a day, and his wife is not a proper housewife and doesn’t even treat him well.
Now, if what “feminism” has become in America means that “men work as always and women want to be pampered like a housewife without the housework or the respect”… Well, I guess I see your point. That hasn’t arrived to my country yet (and I really hope it never does).
Thing is… If I can have a job, my husband would NEVER work in a mine, six days a week, twelve hours a day.
I guess this is all a question of respect. A man can stay at home and be respected (it depends on the woman, too), or he can be merely unemployed.
In any case, I think it’s better if both sides work. It’s safer for everyone in the family. Lay-offs happen for men and women.
“I guess this is all a question of respect. A man can stay at home and be respected (it depends on the woman, too), or he can be merely unemployed.”
He’d have to have a piping hot gourmet meal waiting for his wife when she got home from work. I know several lazy ass stay at home dads who don’t do a damned thing.
That was such an inspiring post for young American women. I can imagine them hopeful and joyous.
Then I imagine the indignation when they get to the part about “in your country” And realize women like you are why men expat.
Feminine American Woman: R.I.P.
Ok here’s my story. I drank the feminist kool aide and suffered irreparable harm to my career, the failure of my marriage and a broken home for my kids. In 1993 I married my now ex wife when I was 3 years out of law school. She had an MBA from top 5 business school and she had a well paying job for a large financial corporation earning may 20% more than what I was earning. Eighteen months into the marriage she was pregnant with our first child. I had secured a promising position at a small law firm. About half way through the pregnancy I suggested she consider taking a few years off from work to raise our child. Her response wasn’t just “no”, it was “hell, no!”. So six weeks after my son was born he was in day care and I was driving him there and picking him up by 6 pm. If you are not still in the office as a young associate in a law firm at 6 pm you are not on a partner’s radar for promotion. The writing for me was already on the wall, though I didn’t fully realize it at the time. Seventeen months after my son was born, my daughter was born. More or less the same thing occurred, she started into daycare about 8 weeks after her birth and though by this time we had gotten a live in au pair, she got off work by 6 and I compelled to be home to relieve her; again an associate out of site is out of mind and luck. Then in 2000 my (ex) wife was made an extraordinary offer from a dot com which included over 100,000 stock options, an officer’s title and six figure bonuses and salary, but it required us to move from a state where I had practiced for 10 years and had been admitted to practice in to a state where I knew no one and I was not admitted to practice. Fortunately, the two states had reciprocity agreements and I was able to waive into bar. With some reservations I agreed to the move, after all she should be entitle to pursue extraordinary opportunities to the same extent as I could if one came my way.
So in February 2000 she moved to the new state and I stayed behind continuing to the work, take care of the kids and sell the house. In May 2000 the kids and I followed. I became a SAHD (I pronounce it SAD). I managed to secure an associate’s positon with a small family owned and run law firm in our new locale but was forced to take a 25% pay cut because of my “lack of familiarity” with the law of my new state of residence. Then the dot com bubble burst. The company my (ex) wife worked for imploded, she was out of a job. I had a job, but it paid 25% less than what I had earned in our former locale. My ex was resistent to returning to our former state of residence arguing that it was too much change to impose on the kids. My old boss had replaced me and said that my replacement had given him no reason to let him go and he could not afford to take on an additional associate. So my ex and I agreed that she would look for work in our new state of residence and if she did not find one within 3 months we would move back to our former state of residence and we would both look for work there. Well, she has an MBA and she secured work within about 6 weeks, though, the compensation was not remotely close to the offer that drew us to this new location in the first place. Three years later my ex lost her job again. This time I was on the phone to my contacts in our former state, contacts I had maintained since moving to this new place and I interviewed and soon secured a very nice offer from a mid sized firm due a good friend’s efforts with a partner of the firm. While I was interviewing in old state of residence my (ex) wife interviewed in our the state we had moved to. Within a few days of the receipt of my offer my (ex) got an offer. Her base was a little greater and she given some stock options. My offer included a very respectable base and percentage of revenues earned in excess of an annual minimum. When confronted with this dilemma my (ex) wife refused to move. I was now confronted with the dilemma of leaving my kids and my family or giving up a very nice opportunity. I consulted a lawyer who advised me that it would be doubtful that a court would permit me to move the kids back to the state we had once lived in. So, I chose not to leave my family. I returned to the family law firm I was slaving at earning still 25% less than what I had been earning and about 60% less than what I would have earned had I taken the position in our former locale. By this time the au pair was gone and I was, by my ex’s own acknowledgement, the primary care giver to the our kids, which frequently required me to get into work late and leave early justifying my boss’ refusal to increase my compensation. I slipped into a deep depression; my ability to perform sexually was damaged. My wife and I grew increasingly apart. Three years later, she lost her job again. My inquiries back to our former state of residence were met with skepticism and I was told that by turning down the offer I had been made previously I had burned alot of bridges. My wife found work pretty quickly, but it requireed her to comute a great distance and she was frequently absent from the home. I discovered she was having an affair with a doctor who was married to a stay at home mom. A doctor who never considered for a second to accommodate any career aspirations his wife might have had. They moved to a place that his career would florish without consideration of the effect it might have on her career. He did the right thing for himself. I did, what I thought, was the right thing for my wife and family. I was wrong and he was right. I had thrown a surprise birthday party for my (ex) wife’s 40th birthday which occured about 4 years before the divorce, but for my 50th birthday I got a divorce decree. I am still here, but I have left the small family firm which paid me so poorly and I have gone out on my own. I am struggling to make up for lost time. I have 50/50 legal and physical custody of my kids. While law school friends and colleagues have moved on to partnership and the bench and are looking toward retirement, look to the day I retire which will be the day the doctor says “call the undertaker”.
For my sons I say this, get a good education, focus on your career, court a woman with less education and lower career aspirations than yourself. Before you decide to marry, make clear to your potential bride that you will not compromise your career aspirations for hers. If she does not like that, show her the door. If she complains about your absence from the home due to work remind her that you are not there because you are out earning for her and the family. To extent that you can, pitch in around the house, but jealously guard your career, it is the only thing you have if she leaves.
‘I know several lazy ass stay at home dads who don’t do a damned thing.’
Like a lot of housewives….does he watch Oprah?
TFH wrote at August 19, 2011 at 4:33 pm:
Yes. That does not match up.
Clearly many man does not think that .
TFH wrote at August 19, 2011 at 4:52 pm:
Unbelievable! But apparently it is?
Pingback: Why have misandry delivered when you can bake it at home? | Dalrock
I have been reading many of the feminist-female oriented responses here.
I am amazed at the level of mindless self satisfied twaddle they put out.
Some things that stick out.
The emotional rewarding they give when someone supports an argument of there’s, such as “Thank You!” that I’ll see a commenter like Jennifer give out, much like a scoobie snack to a properly obedient dog. That disgusts me because it implies that truth is less important than support.
Or the mindless discussion about Twilight. The mere fact that someone could bring that topic up is proof that the arguers (all women no doubt) were weak minded children. It is foolish to let such women have anything resembling control or power. Or to give them credit for having an intellect worth respecting.
Then we have the meaningless “Bye now! I’m going to have sex with my husband!” bit, that was cropping up in the earlier posts. Really? You’re going to have sex with your husband? How exciting! Your life is clearly one grand magnificent adventure! Oh how I long to be you, you glamorous, dynamic, interesting personality you!
We also have assertions backed up by absolutely nothing more than … MOXIE! (I have to amuse myself at this point, because the smug idiocy these women give off is just so frustrating). At one point a commentator asserted in a retort that it would be unlikely for anyone to name music or books written by women on a Mozart-level of mastery. Instead of simply replying with a list of names and book titles to the contrary, Jennifer, simply asserted that such existed. I suppose she was too busy preparing to have SEX! with her HUSBAND!
Don’t marry Anglo women. They are garbage. It’s that simple.
@anon “That disgusts me because it implies that truth is less important than support.”
Pure gold …
Lily wrote at August 20, 2011 at 5:08 pm:
Yes, I have seen that on Is There Anything Good About Men?:
Having just been in a 10 year childless marriage where I was the sole breadwinner, where I cleaned up after myself, did the shopping, fixed the cars, did the house maintenance, paid for the vacations and provided everything an idle wife could dream for, I find this piece offensive, cliched, ignorant, arrogant, dishonest, and self motivated. I was divorced and screwed by California laws that said she got to keep the assets she brought to the marriage. Since I liquidated my pre-marriage assets and invested them in the marriage I lost half of them and all of my future security. What purpose are you serving here? Or are you just whining? Get over it. California laws are unfair to men!!!!!!
Hi Neville,
Welcome to the blog. I think you may have misunderstood my point in the post. I am in agreement with you that the laws aren’t fair to men. See my recent post A case for anger for an example of this. My point with this post was that while women complain that they have it harder, when they are able to trade roles like they claim they want to, this makes them unhappy as well. Whichever half they are given they feel like they were cheated.
If marriage didn’t exist, a lot of problems would be solved. Personally, I think women are better off staying single. Perhaps a lot of men would be too but I’m not too concerned about their issues. Whoops! Do I have a double standard too?
Pingback: House Husbands: More housework, less sex for married men: study. - WMASAW..