Back in February of last year Aol News ran a piece about a Latin teacher named Cord Ivanyi at Gilbert Classical Academy who was teaching chivalry to the boys in his class (see also this piece from ABC). At the time Ferdinand ran a post titled Castrated by chivalry which called this out. Ferd then outed what he believed to be Mr. Ivanyi commenting on his blog as a sock puppet. Welmer also wrote on this topic in The Spearhead in his post Training Boys to be Dogs. This all came back into view when Mr. Ivanyi’s students started writing Ferdinand letters again the other week, I presume related to the return of school following the summer break. Ferdinand followed up with another post titled Cord Ivanyi, World’s Biggest Mangina, Sics His Students on Me (language warning). Check out Ferdinand’s latest post for the whole exchange.
This post is intended for Mr. Ivanyi, his students, or anyone else who is otherwise familiar with his class. I assume you heard about the controversy and searched on his name. If you are looking for a place to defend Mr. Ivanyi, you are in luck. Before you do so, however, I ask that you first consider what I and others here in the manosphere have to say. There are good reasons why Ferdinand and Welmer reacted to the AOL News story with so much contempt.
Chivalry can only exist in the proper context. Implementing chivalry outside of context creates a mockery of the very concept, and makes the man or boy attempting it a fool. It doesn’t just make him a fool, but it tends to make him a lonely frustrated fool, because women aren’t attracted to men who put them on a pedestal. This is what chivalry out of context does, and the end result is a group of very frustrated young men who can’t figure out why all of the girls only want to be friends with them. These nice guys will quickly tire of being the soft shoulder his female friends cry on after the latest bad boy they threw themselves at treated them badly.
Note: If this doesn’t have a strong ring of truth to you, don’t worry about it. Just remember this page and come back after you have completed a few years of College. In the meantime, isn’t there a hot girl at your school whose books need to be carried?
The good news is you have come to a place with much knowledge. I don’t mean my blog, but the larger environment the blog exists in, which we call the manosphere. If you want to understand what attracts women, what you need to learn is game. Note that this is true whether you want to be a pickup artist or simply a happily married man. Female psychology and how to seduce women is something all men should understand, even if the only woman you wish to seduce is your wife.
I’ve created a page to list all of the different game resources out there. But if you are looking for a place to start, I would suggest the famous Dave From Hawaii post at Heartiste. I would also suggest this post of my own.
If you are a female student of Mr. Ivanyi, you may want to learn more about game as well. For example, you will be glad to know that you aren’t defective for not being attracted to really nice guys. Weird how I knew your deepest, darkest secret like that, isn’t it? But don’t take it from me, take it from Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart. While I have your attention, I would be remiss if I didn’t warn you about the awful advice many older people are likely giving to you. Conventional wisdom is that women who want to marry don’t have to take searching for a husband seriously until they are 30. This works for some, but many women have found out too late that it can fail miserably. Leaving this to the last minute can also leave you vulnerable, so be on the lookout. Additionally, your fertility will be declining sooner than you are being told. Also, if you do marry, be aware that divorce is regularly sold to women in the media. Once married you will be bombarded with messages suggesting that you would be better off divorcing. Don’t fall for this. You will watch movies with absurd stories like Eat Pray Love and How Stella Got Her Grove Back. You may even read what is claimed to be a factual column by an online dating site where a middle aged divorcée meets a secret multimillionaire hunky handyman. This isn’t likely in real life.
But misunderstanding female psychology is only one half of what is wrong with what Mr. Ivanyi is teaching. He is also ignoring reality. This is the generation of women he wants boys to revere. Even their own mothers know something is terribly wrong.
Additionally, women today are anything but oppressed. For example, while it is generally assumed that divorce is driven by men dumping their wives for a younger model, the opposite turns out to be true. Men are treated like second class citizens by family courts all too eager to rip their children away from them, and transform them from a father into a walking wallet. Men can even be thrown in jail for failing to pay child support for a child fathered by another man.
Young men don’t need to be taught to treat women as if they are superior beings. They need to be taught how to navigate the reality of the post sexual revolution and post feminist world. They are at a legal disadvantage to women in everything from domestic violence to getting a job. The last thing they need to be taught is to pretend nothing is going on, and to offer themselves up as the servants of women.
I say all of this as a strong advocate of marriage. Teaching young men to self sabotage makes them less likely to be able to find a worthy wife. This leaves worthy women having to choose between spinsterhood, pretending to love a man in order to marry him, and being pumped and dumped by players. If they are truly good women they will of course choose spinsterhood, but why force such a choice on them in the first place? Men and women both deserve better than the catastrophic failure Mr. Ivanyi is setting our young people and their future children up for.
And now having seen the error of his ways after reading this post and the comments below, my hope is that Mr. Ivanyi will finally understand why he was in fact being a mangina. As a result I am confident that he will change his ways sufficiently to make the title of this post an accurate statement.
Excellent post, Dalrock. Tons of top-notch resources at the fingertips.
“my hope is that Mr. Ivanyi will finally understand why he was in fact being a mangina. As a result I am confident that he will change his ways sufficiently to make the title of this post an accurate statement.”
Care to make a wager. I’ll bet he doubles down.
[D: I beg the court for some literary license.]
The proper context for chivalry is patriarchy, wherein male protection and provision is exchanged for female submission. Expecting boys or men to be chivalrous in a society that scorns the very mention of female submission and despises patriarchy is simply exploitation of male goodwill.
I had a disagreement over this topic with my wife a few weeks ago. She was asking me to teach our sons “manners”, by which she meant chivalrous gestures. I refused, and explained to her that I am teaching our sons to treat women no different from men. I want my sons to grow up free from the patriarchal obligations to protect and provide for women, to defer to them, and to support special privileges for them. While I think a young man can choose to undertake these duties on his own initiative to a woman he loves, he should not be expected or coerced to do so by society or his own parents, and he certainly should feel no pressure to behave this way to women at large.
However, when freed of societal obligation, chivalrous gestures can be a very useful element of game with a woman who shows signs of deference. Done properly, they are not only an expression of care towards a woman, but also an assertion of dominance. They place the man in the active role and the woman in the passive, and provide the opportunity to lead while simultaneously displaying generosity.
If my sons do choose to perform chivalry for a woman who deserves it, they will have a good example – I always treat my wife with respect and care, and I perform all the little chivalrous gestures for her because I know she likes it. But she is always respectful and lovingly submissive towards me, and thereby fulfills her half of the patriarchal bargain.
You are a genius, Dalrock!
Wonderful grabbing attention title it will secure he reading it and even though he might get angry and don’t believe you at first I’m sure he will eventually come around, reality will you probe you right time and time again. Unless he is is insane he is bound to get it…sooner or later.
Great post!
Chivalry is simply an obsolete version of game written in the time of marriage for the self improvement of what we today call ALPHAS…so they are less likely to inject too much alpha into the marriage. Given the relatively low number of natural alphas today, I’d think that it’s far more important to teach game to the young, rather than chivalry. Even more important, girls need to learn something of their own natures with regards to what they find attractive.
Dalrock you are getting good. That is the best article to date.
[D: Thanks!]
I just found an ABC story from around the same time as the AOL news one. It has some great stuff:
Due to female selfishness, to the point of killing killing a child in her own self interest (abortion) I think the most effective motivation for a woman to modify her behavior is the fear of pump and dump and involutary childless spinsterhood. If that teacher truely wants to restore politeness he should teach boys to reguard women as nothing more than things to have sex with. Add in restraints to how far to take the attitude based on self preservation and legal requirements. Get enough beta men to assume that attitude. (which truely is unatural for a man to do) and pump and dump to involuntary childless spinsterhood will become a feared reality. Kindness and politeness on the part of women will shut that off instantly.
Chivalry and kindness is only good for society with civilized women. The feral mob we have today does not have the capacity to fully appreciate nor the cultural empathy to understand chivalry. Feminism has liberated women. (just made women feral) Game is how you handle feral women. The ultimate comment is this “game your wife”. It is too bad that only the PUA and players see woman as they are and not as they want them to be. Even the church is clueless about how feral woman are now due to feminism and has infact fed the flames by going along with it in the name of christian faith and tradition. Chivalry has no place in a society that requires a man to game his wife to have a chance at a long marriage with his children.
Dalrock quotes ABC news
But Erin Matson, acting vice president of the National Organization for Women, said she wonders if singling out the boys for good manners is the way to go, even though she called the idea of old-fashioned manners “adorable.”
Perfect. Just perfect. The lip service paid to “equality” followed by the real agenda – men as beasts of burden / footstools. Feminists can be so very transparent sometimes.
“She was asking me to teach our sons manners.”
With half the nation’s children being born out of wedlock (I love that word, if nothing makes a young man run for the hills, ‘wedlock’ should) and 80% of teachers being women, it looks like it’s a loosing battle.
Awesome post, Dalrock.
If that teacher truely wants to restore politeness he should teach boys to reguard women as nothing more than things to have sex with.
Don’t you think you’re exaggerating? It’s like saying that girls should be taught that all men are rapists :S
Young men don’t need to be taught to treat women as if they are superior beings. They need to be taught how to navigate the reality of the post sexual revolution and post feminist world. They are at a legal disadvantage to women in everything from domestic violence to getting a job. The last thing they need to be taught is to pretend nothing is going on, and to offer themselves up as the servants of women.
I say all of this as a strong advocate of marriage
That doesn’t make you sound like a “strong advocate of marriage” at all. How about parents teaching their sons and daughters proper gender relationships, the downfalls of feminism, and how to properly relate to men/women? The only people that actually have the power to change anything are parents/close relatives.
If you want to bring back patriarchy, the solution is not to teach men that women are their enemies.
@Chels
How did you come up with that from the quote? I didn’t say anything like that.
Well no, you didn’t say it directly. However, that’s the message that this post is sending indirectly—-women are all bitches, all women will divorce you and leave you with nothing, women are not to be trusted, men should be suspicious of women and of their intentions, women are not interested in you, etc etc
There’s a huge difference between being aware and projecting this awareness to all women, and treating them with contempt, like they’re “guilty until proven innocent”.
Your message, in this post, is exactly the message that feminists are sending to women.
However, I do agree that what this teacher is doing is wrong. Men and women need to be both taught that rights come with responsibilities, and if a woman wants chivarly, then she should do her share.
I laughed with joy at the brilliance of this. It’s like MadLibs for the manosphere. Very well done. Thanks for the links, as always – I’m always happy to see my shit test post is still infamous 😉
Chels!!???
Did you just slip into a parallel universe? The Dalrock is the premier proponent of marriage in the manosphere.
This is female logic at work here. (no attempt on my part will be made to debate Chel here)
If that teacher truely wants to restore politeness he should teach boys to reguard women as nothing more than things to have sex with.
Don’t you think you’re exaggerating? It’s like saying that girls should be taught that all men are rapists :S
Not only does she leave out the what would kill her comment the two comments there don’t even go together.
I am assuming Chel is a female. Now as teacher of young men I would ask my students based on her comments including to Dalrock above what she would have to offer other than her physical attractiveness and vagina. To help the students i will let them know she is deleberately playing dumb to avoid having to even recognize an idea or point of view that does not flatter team woman.
The young man that gave this answer would be well on his way to a happy married life. (If that is possible) ” Well Mr greyghost she basiclly doesn’t care what we think. So if I do find her attractive physically and women do have vaginas, maybe not all women but this woman only has sex to offer. She has no empathy or compassion for any body. But I just can’t get past my beta maleness Mr greyghost. I’m going to just assume she is just dumb and be nice to her anyway.” My reply to that would be to remind him we are looking for deserving wives not baby mommas and ex’s. His next responds will be ” Gee you’re right Mr greyghost she is self centered and mean,you saved me a near lifetime of misery. I’ll point her out to Ramrod he likes show girls like that how to ride the cock carousel. You’re the greatest Mr. greyghost”
Women in general do a lot out of self interest. One of the reasons for “involuntary childless spinterhood” is to make that wicked self interest a viable and sustainable one. I have given up completely on appealing to a woman’s sense of justice ( doesn’t exist and is the hardest thing for a beta man to understand).
How old is Ivanyi? He looks pretty young in the pics. I expected him to be much older but he is just another clueless victim of feminism. The boys he teaches will be fine, the smart ones will find the answers on the internet and feminism is well on its way to the trash bin of history.
@Dalrock comment, 4:32 pm
No videos, skittles. Great post, BTW.
@Ceer comment, 3:51 pm
Game, not your father’s chivalry.
I am assuming Chel is a female. Now as teacher of young men I would ask my students based on her comments including to Dalrock above what she would have to offer other than her physical attractiveness and vagina.
…but that’s just it – women today are often taught the only thing they really need to bring to the table is physical attractiveness and a vagina!
I received a religious education, but I lately I can’t help but feel like I had been taught to use my virginity as a bargaining chip. Like, as long as you’re a virgin men should jump through hoops for you. I shouldn’t have to do any work; I just need to stand around and look pretty and men will flock to me […I think my old attitude was quite obvious when I first began commenting here].
I’m currently in a marriage-minded LTR so I’m quite shocked at how woefully misinformed I was. I genuinely love my boyfriend, I can’t expect him to jump through hoops for me; he doesn’t deserve to be treated like that. & although I plan to wait until marriage, there’s a lot more I brought to the table than just virginity!
I can’t believe only a few months ago I had been expecting, like, Prince Charming to just waltz up to me. I had been excepting men to notice my “awesome-specialness” instead of attempting to pursue a decent man already in my life [my boyfriend had been a guyfriend].
*thinks about it…*
My goodness, I had been an entitlement princess!
The Dalrock is the premier proponent of marriage in the manosphere.
No, he is not. While you’re not looking Dalrock is encouraging angry men to pump and dump, effectively abuse, women who want to get married.
[D: I’m flattered. I finally have a hater. Who else would dig up a comment I made over a year ago pimping my blog?]
From the article:
Whether this scenario turns out to be common or not I can predict with some confidence that like the previous rounds of the sexual revolution there will unfortunately be few winners and plenty of misery to go around. Part of the intent of my blog and many of those on my blogroll is to help ensure that better choices are made by all parties today to avoid heartbreak in the future.
I don’t think he meant to advocate for such behavior, necessarily, though he may feel a bit of schadenfreude at the prospect, so much as he meant to predict what many people might do in the future. Entertaining the possibility that angry men “may” do something in the future isn’t the same as encouraging them to do so. Thought experiments like that can be fun every once in a while; I mentioned last thread that I found taking “Devil’s Advocate” positions to be more entertaining than ones which everyone agreed with already. I can hardly fault our host if he feels similarly about postulating scenarios like the one you linked to.
Then again, I haven’t been here long…is Del a troll of some sort? If I’ve just been baited I apologize for indulging him/her.
“The Dalrock is the premier proponent of marriage in the manosphere.”
Second to Athol I will say.
No, he is not. While you’re not looking Dalrock is encouraging angry men to pump and dump, effectively abuse, women who want to get married.
I don’t think you can’t blame men for having sex with women that found them attractive and cant be bothered a minute to make sure the guy is into them or is just another pumper and dumper. I mean we are not talking about abusing inexperienced minors, any modern woman can decide if she wants to sleep with a man or not and what strategy is she trying to use to get a husband. If after certain amount of time dating she doesn’t know how to tell apart, the quality guys from the players, chances are that she likes it, empowered and all that jazz.
Not that I think a man that pumps and dump is a good husband material either but that is my personal prerogative no woman is forced to casual sex so Dalrock is just trying for men to held women accountable by their actions and not assume every woman is a perfect little angel that will make a perfect wife if only men were not pumping and dumping her, that is total BS. She is responsible of her body and her choice and a man has all the right to try and have sex with her if she allows it too and decide if she is worth the ring or not based on this or any other traits he wants in a wife , you know the same thing women do deciding if a guy is dateable or not, just for the opposite gender. Crazy I know, that is “empowerment” for you.
Dalrock:
Both genders are already taught that women are superior to men: this is the whole problem with gender-relations in America today. Women are taught to despise men as inferiors; they especially hate men whom they cannot dominate or control. This is why they shun good men and chase relentlessly after ‘bad boys’ and metrosexual losers.
The chivalrous white knight is doomed to failure because his attitude is automatically seen by these Amazons as ‘patronizing’. Women in our culture hate to believe that they need a man for anything; including his deference and respect. Chivalry is anachronism today; historically women had obligations and moral duties towards men under the same code. But practicing chivalry today is pointless since offer men nothing in return for their affections but contempt.
Del:
That one wins the ‘Stupid Comment of the Week Award’. Encouraging men to ‘pump-and-dump, effectively abuse, women who want to get married?’ Exactly what do you call divorce? And which gender is seeking divorce, the overwhelming number of times…? It’s the men who get pumped-and-dumped by bitter, self-entitled women. A man who pumps-and-dumps does a ‘one night stand’. An Amerobitch keeps pumping before she dumps—after years of marriage and families are created.
Greyghost:
“Women do a lot out of self-interest”
Wrong—100% of what they do is out of self-interest. That’s what young men really need to be taught, so they can avoid these bitches and seek better options.
Chels:
The reason the tone of a lot of what you read here sounds like ‘women are bitches; women are not to be trusted, women are guilty until proven innocent, &c’ is because these sentiments happen to be TRUE. The goal of feminism and its various spin-offs has always been to disenfranchise and dominate men. It’s not surprising that women would behave as they have been taught to behave; with utter disregard for anyone or anything but themselves.
I don’t think he meant to advocate for such behavior, necessarily
Yes, Dalrock did. Read the link I provided. Dalrock encouraged a bitter angry virgin man to get back at women by “becoming a bear”. That’s not making a prediction.
[D: It is true; I’m guilty of ruining the men at omega virgin revolt for marriage. They were all set to marry a single mother, and I talked them out of it. Like I said, you have to be obsessed if you dig up a comment I made there pimping my blog back in August of last year. I’m guessing that obscure comment isn’t really what is causing your panties to bunch up in this way. My wager is that you object to my making a distinction between women worthy and not worthy of marriage. You want men to always play by the old rules even with women who play by the new. You might want to reflect on why this is the case.]
When I studied Latin we were taught to conjugate verbs not chivilate women:
Amo
Amas
Amat etc – or maybe not.
I note, for the people who still believe in such ‘nonsense’, that the theological virtues entail, in part, treating people better than they deserve, even if the consequences to one’s self are unpleasant. To wit, it may be perfectly true that chivalry does not ‘work’ without patriarchy (as it obviously does not, at least in the short run); still, if one is not a consequentialist, it does not follow that chivalrous behavior should be discouraged.
TFH: A man who pumps-n-dumps may be ‘morally no worse than 90% of women’ – but how does it do anyone any good to set the bar of decency so low? Since when is decent behavior conditional on everyone else’s – or anyone else’s? I take very strong issue with Dalrock’s insistence that female attractive instincts are not gravely defective and in desperate need of mortification, not coddling and titillating – I haven’t a clue how a Christian, of all people, could possibly think that only the male instincts suffered the Fall; neither can I fathom how anyone at all could look at, say, Roissy’s picture of the ‘irrationally self-confident’ alpha, then look at, say, the men of high finance (or any other group of obviously bad men, for that matter), and see no connection – but even if women have largely indulged the worst in themselves, how is it better (or helpful, in the long run) if men, mutatis mutandis, do the same?
@Chels
I may be wrong, but I think you do a honest mistake: you think all women are like you (excepting feminists). Of course, it’s your very right to position yourself in the middle and nobody can force you to educate yourself about the damages that feminism inflicted upon the western world. Some other commentators told you already that, but I want to reiterate: the feminism (the official ideology and so well represented in laws, media and politics) and the manosphere are not equal opponents. The worst thing that can happen to you in the manosphere is to be banned on some blog. An innocent man’s life can be torn apart, in today’s feminist world. I’m convinced that you don’t think it’s a fair game, but somehow you don’t understand why there are some angry men (it doesn’t matter they are powerless), maybe they are lunatics, aren’t they?
@unger
Your post sounds very Lawrence Auster-esque, if I may say that. Dalrock will have his say, he doesn’t need me to “defend” him, but if you agree, I would like to read more about how do you think men should act in today’s world. I mean, Catholic Church is more and more feminized (according to many men) and it looks like it’s more interested in politics than souls.
who is attempting to oppose feminism (but mainly for reasons of self-interest, not out of a true sense of justice
I’d say it’s both—sure some of it is self-interest, but some is also out of “a true sense of justice” and because I genuinely care about men (who happen to be my brothers, cousins, father, and so on).
Agree with the post and would like to add a minor point.
Even under a chivalric system, this guy doesn’t have it right. Gentlemen stood up for ladies at social functions. It was NOT the case that all men and boys simply stood up whenever a female of any kind entered or left the room. Men, including gentlemen, did not stand merely because a serving women or scullery maid entered the room. “Chivalry” only applied to ladies and gentlemen, meaning the upper class, and only in certain situations. Because male and female relations were so different in the “Age of Chivalry,” the type of situation written about here did not occur. Girls either didn’t recieve formal education at all, or recieved it separately from boys, perhaps with a personal tutor. Girls and boys were not presumed to be equal, and thus attending class together in a co educational enviroment. Maybe the notion then was that, because men and women and boys and girls did not mingle so often, especially in upper class settings, it was a big deal when a lady entered or left the room. But it is not a big deal if one of ten girls in a classroom of twenty gets up and goes to the bathroom or comes back. The boys and girls are together every day, all day anyway. The presence or absence of a girl (who is not a lady to begin with) is of no particular moment. Familiarity breeds contempt? Maybe. But then the onus should be on those who favor the familarity.
Similar to all this was a movie a few years back called “Take the Lead,” starring Antonio Banderas. It was yet another one of those annoying movies in which inner city kids are supposedly “improved” by having some form of culture (chess, violin, etc) shoved down their throats, in this case ballroom dancing. Besides the obvious reasons to hate the movie (supercillious, not to say tyrannical, outsiders forcing their values onto kids from different cultures….supposedly sympathetic teachers humiliating the children, berating them and telling them not to smile or laugh because their dancing was “ugly” and so on), we have the lead character acting as a allegedly “chivalrous” man and trying to teach that behavior to the boys. In one of the first scenes, Banderas shows up at school and is waiting to meet the principal. As he does so in an ante room, he stations himself by the door. He opens the door and holds it for every women who enters and leaves the room and then closes it, and then remains standing until they are seated or exit. That is NOT how chilvalry operated. Again, chivalry was something between ladies and gentlemen at social functions, not people of opposite gender who happened to be thrown together in a workplace environment. The women coming and going were not “ladies,” but teachers, administrators and secretaries. In other words, they were workers, and thus more analogous to maids or servants than to ladies. In addition, even if they had been ladies, a gentleman is not a doorman. Yes, a gentleman would hold a door open for a lady if they happened to be at the door at the same time, but he did not position himself by the door, as if he had nothing better to do than hold it open for women all day. The doorman was a servant, not a gentleman, and he opened and held the door for both gentlemen and ladies.
Of course, the women in the movie ate it up, like the girls in the school from the main article, and just as with NOW, they found it adorable. And why wouldn’t they? Who wouldn’t want to be treated like they are something special? But to be treated as something special one should actually be something special. Under the rules of chivalry, ladies were something special. Not all women were ladies, and even upper class women who did not play their part in the little theatre did not recieve the benefits of chivalry. Chivalry did not consist of men simply “respecting” all and sundry women for no reason other than their gender. It was a system of deportment that applied to both genders in the limited setting of aristocratic society. Not only is it BS to try to force their half of that system on boys and men today when no women even make the attempt to be “ladies,” but these jokers can’t get the supposedly correct male behavior right under chivalry even under its own terms. To them, chivalry simply means subservience of the male to the female. Nothing could be further from the truth….
@Chels
This is a strange difference between men and women. When I caution women to avoid the bad boys so they can find the nice guys, neither the bad boys nor the nice guys are offended. The bad boys aren’t worried that their supply will dry up, and the nice guys appreciate that I’m trying to direct the good women their way. However when I caution men to avoid the frivolous women so they can find the good ones, the good women are often offended.
Like I said, my position is fairly moderate, I don’t believe all women are bitches or that all men are assholes. Therefore, when no distinction is made, I will react negatively when such extremes are presented.
NAWALT, Chel, NAWALT.
If I happen to point out that blacks commit more crime than average, does every black person in the room need to raise their hand and say “Well, I’m not like that!”? Of course not – when discussing aggregate group behaviours, it’s presumed that there are exceptions.
Nobody said all women are bitches; grerp is linked on the blogroll, and if I recall, she’s recommended in this post. However, MOST women are living in Candyland right now – pursuing assholes such as myself, acting like entitlement princesses, spending way more disposable income than men, while expecting nice guys to buy them beers, and working under the benefits of an atmosphere of oppressive HR legislation.
Because Men tend to bear their burden without complaint, most women are completely oblivious to what’s going on; even those who realize that, say, divorce theft is unjust don’t acknowledge the whole extent of the problem. They drift blissfully along, as the pillars of society crumble around them. These women are not bitches; but their ignorance has the same effect.
Chel, I realize that this criticism of women is upsetting to you – if I had a cooter it would be upsetting to me – but it’s about far deeper social issues than personal barbs and insults. The conversation is about the future of Western Civilization. Of course, NAWALT, and you’re probably a lot closer to Marriage Material than most, but ultimately that’s a pointless tangent, upon which we all agree on already.
@Chels
But I do make a distinction:
Why does it offend you that I’m steering young men away from frivolous/slutty women and towards the good ones?
@Susan Walsh
Thanks Susan! I think I have probably set a record for the most references to a single post. That fresh meat post of yours has a lot of trackbacks to posts on my blog. I know you took a good deal of heat for your honesty on the shit test post, but I think you did men and women a huge service there.
Del’s post above links to a dalrock comment at OmegaVirginRevolt, which in turn links to this post:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/hypergamous-arms-race-revenge-of-the-nerds/
and this:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/old-rules-or-new/
These two Dalrock posts get to the heart of the matter. Which rules are we as a society going to follow and adopt? The old rules of chivalry, chastity, marriage for life, and honor? Or the new rules of extreme hypergamy, no fault divorce, pump & dump, divorce theft, “I’m not haaaaaapy”, MGTOW and involuntary spinsterhood?
Many women for the last 50 years have been acting solely in their self interest. It should be no surprise that a large number of men know and understand now that this society doesn’t follow the old rules anymore. To survive or at least avoid the divorce meatgrinder, more and more men are learning the new rules and living by them. The result? Pump & dump, serial relationships lasting a few months, putting off marriage until much later when they can attract optimal mates, refusing to marry used up carousel riders, calling out carousel riders for what they are, or MGTOW. And why shouldn’t they? IF women act in their own aggressive self interest, why shouldn’t men do the same?
Society is making its choice. Women made that choice first. The results are all around us to see. The entire manosphere and the theories and ideas it espouses are a response to choices women made and conduct women chose to engage in.
Cord Ivanyi exhorts men to follow the old rules, when those rules are being discarded left and right. That’s not helpful to the boys under his charge and in fact leaves them vulnerable to girls being marinated in the new rules.
Why does it offend you that I’m steering young men away from frivolous/slutty women and towards the good ones?
That statement doesn’t offend me at all, it’s common sense, but I will back down since I’m the only one who had a problem with part of this post.
pursuing assholes such as myself, acting like entitlement princesses, spending way more disposable income than men, while expecting nice guys to buy them beers, and working under the benefits of an atmosphere of oppressive HR legislation.
It must be so hard to deal with all the attention women give you, it’s like you don’t any choice in the matter, the women just flock to you without you doing anything. Such a tough life you have, I don’t know how you can manage!
The conversation is about the future of Western Civilization.
About which you obviously don’t care at all.
detinennui32 says:
“Society is making its choice. Women made that choice first. The results are all around us to see. The entire manosphere and the theories and ideas it espouses are a response to choices women made and conduct women chose to engage in.”
Women, collectively have made their choice, they increasingly now don’t like the consequences of the fallout to their choices, i.e. mens responses to that choice, i.e.:
“Many women for the last 50 years have been acting solely in their self interest. It should be no surprise that a large number of men know and understand now that this society doesn’t follow the old rules anymore. To survive or at least avoid the divorce meatgrinder, more and more men are learning the new rules and living by them. The result? Pump & dump, serial relationships lasting a few months, putting off marriage until much later when they can attract optimal mates, refusing to marry used up carousel riders, calling out carousel riders for what they are, or MGTOW. And why shouldn’t they? IF women act in their own aggressive self interest, why shouldn’t men do the same?”
NAWALT, NAMALT, but we’re talking about a collective response by Men to Womens collective actions/choices. Every action has a reaction, even if that reaction is not envisaged or liked by the people (WOMEN) who made their choice in the first place.
> It must be so hard to deal with all the attention women give you, it’s like you don’t any choice in the matter, the women just flock to you without you doing anything. Such a tough life you have, I don’t know how you can manage!
Believe it or not, Chel, I’d actually like to settle down; problem is, even the relatively ‘good’ girls nowadays aren’t doing the sort of things needed for a relationship to have legs. ‘Girl Game’ pretty much boils down to acting like a lady, and enabling a Man to be the sort of Alpha/Provider that hits all their buttons. Unfortunately Feminists have taught this generation of women that being a lady is comptemptible, and that they’re a failure if they aren’t some sort of ball-busting career girl. For every good girl, there are twenty of her friends that will bitch about her boyfriend and tell her she can do better, no matter how well you treat her.
My last attempt at a serious relationship exploded because I was feeling down for a couple of weeks; instead of picking up the slack like a person with agency, my ex became unsatisfied with the lack of adventure on my part. I wrote about it here: http://www.staresattheworld.com/2011/08/know-your-heart/
I’d like to see a world with stable social structures, where the West prospers, but I’m not going to be sticking my head up above the trenches in an unwinnable war. If women want to be treated like whores, so be it. A wife is better than a pump-and-dump, sure, but a pump-and-dump is better than divorce court.
Women drive the sexual market. The choices they’re making are setting them up for spinsterhood, casualties in a gender war they started. I can see the sense in a negotiated truce – I advocate a negotiated truce – but until women come to the barganing table, don’t expect me to go down with the ship.
I’m touched, go cry me a river.
I’m touched, go cry me a river.
And that is the attitude that continues the gender war women started.
Make your choices, gracefully accept the consequences.
I wasn’t asking you for pity; I was asking you to stop shooting yourself in the foot.
Seriously Detin? He comes here bragging about how many women he banged, how irresistible they find him, like he’s sex crazed animal with no choice; but I’m supposed to feel sorry for someone who is boastful now and then 5 min later turns remorseful?
I was asking you to stop shooting yourself in the foot.
And how exactly am I doing that?
Who wants to bet that if I hadn’t ‘bragged’ about all the notches on my bedpost, she would have accused me of being a bitter loser who can’t get laid?
I’m not being emotional, Chel; I’m just laying out the facts and hoping that you’ll look at them.
detinennui32 says:
“That’s not helpful to the boys under his charge and in fact leaves them vulnerable to girls being marinated in the new rules.”
And who might those girls be? My son is on Facebook. All the kids at his middle school are on Facebook. And I, as his father, am friended so I can monitor his activity just to make sure he doesn’t do something stupid. Like a lot of his buddies he has hundreds of FB friends. But there is a sad fact as part of this. There are girls who are posting profile photos wearing highly inappropriate clothes like bikinis. And it is the proverbial cell phone photo taken in the bathroom mirror. He has even opened some up to show me how some of these girls post hundreds of photos of themselves in their photo section. All or most of them taken in the bathroom mirror. Keep in mind these are 13 and 14 year olds. It’s like it has become a race to which girl can act in the worst way possible. Nobody steps in. I know of one case where the mom actually cheers her daughter on for dressing like this.
He is just starting to show interest in girls and has a lot of girls as friends. So I asked him the other day. “What do you think a girl is thinking about when the only photos she posts are photos she takes of herself? Especially when she posts hundreds of them?”
He thought about it a bit and finally said, “Herself?” Yep. And then I asked him if he were to date a girl that posts only hundreds of photos of herself on her FB page did he think he would matter? The dawning realization in his eyes was a joy to behold. His answer? “Probably not”
Of course, NAGALT. I also realize that my son will have to learn some hard lessons on his own. But the thought that he has to start navigating this mess at his age is just sad.
@ Unger:
“I note, for the people who still believe in such ‘nonsense’, that the theological virtues entail, in part, treating people better than they deserve, even if the consequences to one’s self are unpleasant. To wit, it may be perfectly true that chivalry does not ‘work’ without patriarchy (as it obviously does not, at least in the short run); still, if one is not a consequentialist, it does not follow that chivalrous behavior should be discouraged.
TFH: A man who pumps-n-dumps may be ‘morally no worse than 90% of women’ – but how does it do anyone any good to set the bar of decency so low? Since when is decent behavior conditional on everyone else’s – or anyone else’s? I take very strong issue with Dalrock’s insistence that female attractive instincts are not gravely defective and in desperate need of mortification, not coddling and titillating – I haven’t a clue how a Christian, of all people, could possibly think that only the male instincts suffered the Fall; neither can I fathom how anyone at all could look at, say, Roissy’s picture of the ‘irrationally self-confident’ alpha, then look at, say, the men of high finance (or any other group of obviously bad men, for that matter), and see no connection – but even if women have largely indulged the worst in themselves, how is it better (or helpful, in the long run) if men, mutatis mutandis, do the same?”
Unger, Gabriel replied and asked how Christian men should behave today. I’d like to reply too.
I feel your pain, unger. I really do. I say that as a Christian man, too. The old rules are not nonsense. They worked well for centuries. But our society doesn’t play by these rules now. There is an entire societal structure that supports and celebrates the new rules, which have now been written into our society’s laws, culture, mores, and customs.
People should be treated better than they deserve. But at the same time it does not follow that men should voluntarily subject themselves to women who don’t love them, just want a beta provider, and who will divorce them and take half their assets.
Female attractive instincts are natural. Hypergamy is natural. A woman desiring a man better than she is is natural. It is her acting upon it, cheating on her husband, and divorcing him, that is destructive and defective.
If women have indulged themselves, as you say, unger, then men’s continuing to marry and support these damaged women simply rewards their behavior. Those rewards should be removed. Women need to be penalized and shown consequences for their self-indulgence. The penalties and consequences are now appearing in the form of
1. men refusing to marry,
2. MGTOW
3. carousel riders judged as unworthy of marriage
4. involuntary celibacy and spinsterhood
5. women’s increasing inability to remarry after divorce
6. women being required to work for a living, i.e. Adam’s curse of having to till the soil for sustenance
7. men refusing to come to the aid of a woman in obvious distress or needing assistance for fear of being falsely accused of rape, sexual harassment or domestic violence
Unger, I agree it is not better or helpful for men to “do the same”, i.e. indulge their own worst behaviors and instincts. But consider this, unger. For some men it is not a matter of revenge, but of survival and avoidance of life-ending or life-altering consequences:
1. Avoiding the divorce meat grinder
2. Avoiding false accusations of rape, domestic violence and sexual harassment
For many men it is simply learning to play by the new rules. Men are sexual creatures. Most will not voluntarily live without sex. Men will always accept easy sex, when it is on offer.
1. Serial dating with minimal commitment and investment
2. Taking advantage of available sex
3. Making oneself as attractive as possible so as to avail himself of available sex
4. Ending relationships when the woman becomes so difficult and the complaining reaches critical mass
5. Passing and blowing up the woman’s incessant fitness testing
That is the unfortunate world we live in. It’s a world the young men need to learn. It’s a world I’ve been learning as a middle aged man. Women have had a 60 year head start. I’ve a lot of catching up to do.
‘Pumping and dumping’ aka male choice, is not abuse.
It is no different than a woman getting Beta males to spend money on her, without her giving them anything. So a man who pumps and dumps is morally no worse than 90% of women.
This is probably true. I followed the link over to PMAFT the other day in which he addressed running day game at churches to facilitate some P&D (and, supposedly, force churches to see how feminized they are). I really didn’t like this idea because it is advocating using people, running cons, and getting something for nothing. Then I thought about women more or less scamming men for drinks and dinners, like that Lilly at A Pre-life Crisis who bragged she hadn’t paid for dinner out in over a year. And I wondered, idly, how many of those men she would have had dinner with had she been paying her own way or even paying his way too. 10%, maybe? Maybe more, maybe less. But if even if she’d gone out with 70% of them without the financial incentive of a free dinner, that means for 30% of them a “date” was a wallet cleaning. Would they have agreed to those terms had she been completely upfront with them?
I thought about how I would have felt if I’d been seduced, P&D’d at church; it upset me. I thought about how I’d feel about Lilly had she dated my son and then did a funny little write up about him on her blog after he paid for dinner and drinks; it upset me. Then I went out and worked in my garden because at least there I can do something about the coming danger (an early frost). I wish I could throw a sheet over the entire SMP in the same way.
chels – it really doesn’t matter if NAWALT. Enough women are like that. Enough women are reacting to the financial and social incentives given to them for bad behavior and are acting badly. And the force of the law and government is on their side. This is an unsustainable situation, Every action provokes a reaction, and the feedback loop for feminism is only starting to get ugly. I want grandchildren some day, but I don’t want them if the mother of those grandchildren will one day decides my son isn’t enough, she isn’t fully self-actualized, and she needs to go and find herself – taking said children away from my son with a goodly chunk of his wallet, and screaming lies at law enforcement so this kind of hideous betrayal goes more smoothly for her. Would you take an umbrella if the forecast said 50% chance of rain? If there was a 30% chance of a grenade going off in your street would you go out of the house? I suppose it depends on how well informed and/or risk averse you are.
@unger
Are you arguing that what he is teaching the young men in his class is biblically commanded? Or are you saying it should be biblically commanded because you like it?
As I have written before, this obsession by social conservatives with making sure hookups are “fair” and satisfying for women is bizarre. You want to make sure that it is safe for women to offer casual sex. Why?
I didn’t condone alpha chasing, and I have specifically advised women against this in multiple posts. Nor do I condone coddling women for their immoral choices. What I said was that a woman who finds herself not attracted to really nice guys (like the ones in the class) isn’t defective. This is perfectly normal. I have also pointed out in a separate post that women who can’t feel attraction for ordinary men have something very wrong, and shouldn’t paper this over by marrying a man they aren’t really attracted to. Most thought I was pretty harsh with that post. I have also offered suggestions to women on how they might tune their attraction more towards good guys here and here.
I have no idea what you are saying with this or if it is even addressed to me. If it is addressed to me, can you please rephrase it?
Adding to my reply to unger:
I have been married 15 years. I don’t want to go through the divorce meat grinder. After having been around these parts for a while, I know very well that in a divorce, I’d have next to no rights, and my wife would have nearly all the advantages. I’d be paying child support and alimony at crushing, confiscatory rates. I’d be impoverished and transformed into a wage slave, reduced to seeing my kids every other weekend. My life, and that of my children, would be destroyed.
My wife can do this to me any time she wants for any reason at all, or no reason at all. She can do this to me if she decides I don’t bring the tingle. She can do it if she decides she’s “not haaaaaapy” anymore. She can do it if she meets a man who she thinks is better than me. She can do it if she just decides she doesn’t want to be married to me anymore. And if she does it, she will get everything, and I will get nothing. Society will lay the blame at my feet for the failure of my marriage, calling me “neglectful” or “emotionally unavailable” or unworthy. Whenever a marriage fails, even if the woman files, it’s always the man’s fault. If he works too hard but provides well, he’s emotionally “unavailable” and “neglectful of her needs”. If she cheated, it’s because he drove her to do it. If he is a househusband, then he’s not providing for the family and is “neglectful”. Society will say to my wife “You go grrrl!”
So I need tools to reduce that risk. What tools do I have? Game. Knowing and understanding female psychology. (The Bible is the moral code. It does not tell us about female psychology or other life skills that are important and have to be learned.) Improvement of body and mind. Emotional detachment. Demonstrating higher value. Showing and knowing my worth and value. Telling her I won’t put up with her insolent, insulting behavior. Gentle negs. Providing some mystery and adventure.
IN the old days, this used to be called “being a man”.
Here’s what I think a Christian man should do in today’s society, if he adheres to traditional Christian values:
1. Subject any and every woman to Dalrock’s tests as set out in his previous posts. Test her hard on her attitudes toward marriage, what it means, taking his last name, carousel riders, divorce, children, and work.
2. Steadfastly refuse to marry a carousel rider. Women with high partner counts and sluts (redundancy alert) are immediately disqualified.
3. Refuse to marry any woman who did not pass any of Dalrock’s tests with flying colors.
4. Make himself as attractive as possible: get in shape, cultivate his life plan.
5. The following women are also disqualified:
a. women who demand that she never pay for a date under any circumstances
b. entitlement princesses
c. status whores and attention whores
d. needy, clingy girls
e bat guano crazy girls
f. stuck up snobs
May I make three points (and please bear in mind that coming from the other side of the pond things may be different over here). In reverse order of importance:
1. Why is it assumed that women are wasting their time sleeping around? I mean: not every woman is the marrying type and they know what they are doing, and do not in my experience have any desire, need or wish to form an LTR let alone marry. Women are also past-masters at dissembling and getting round men for what they want, including a wedding band.
2. Men who are good with women tend to be naturals, however, it is as much a curse as a blessing because they are the slaves of their desires and cannot stop. They are not really to be envied as they seem incapable of a meaningful relationship, but when they do marry seem to have all the typical marital problems including being treated like a doormat. All the game in the world will not turn you into a Casanova. Fakery is instantly noticable, and men’s characters seem not to change over the decades.
3. Whereas one should avoid pedestalising women, it is natural for men to defer to females. Done properly this shows male status e.g. opening a door for woman and letting her in (or out) first. If you ask a woman out, you pay because it was your invitation but there is no such thing as a free gift, and thus, they will quickly attempt to reciprocate.
If you treat someone properly there is the hope (if they are decent people) that they will respond in kind – and if they don’t that is their loss. You cut your losses and avoid them in future. In short: is Ivanyi trying to teach his students manners?
@Opus
Yes. He is teaching men to do things for women, and women to say thank you. Seems even enough, right?
Women are somewhere between children and grown men. They really don’t know what’s best for them, can’t reason their way out of a bag, are immune to irrefutable logic and mountains of evidence (APB on Chels), think they are indestructible and have forever to live out all their dreams, are driven by impulse, and see little connection between cause and effect. When they try to be men, they end up like teenaged boys. Unleashed, they are hell on earth.
The few exceptions (tip of the hat to Mrs. Op) tend to want to be…feminine old-school women. Now that’s being a woman.
Opus:
” If you ask a woman out, you pay because it was your invitation but there is no such thing as a free gift, and thus, they will quickly attempt to reciprocate.”
Are you saying women attempt to reciprocate when men take them out and pay for the date? that’s not my experience at all. In fact, many women I’ve known in the USA treat the man paying for dates as a given with no expectation of any kind of reciprocation on her part at all. In fact, in my experience men in the US are told explicitly and implicitly that if he expects something as innocent as a kiss good night in exchange for paying a woman’s way on a date, he’s a sexist, encouraging prostitution, and perhaps a potential date rapist.
Perhaps it is the ones only claiming to be “good”, Dalrock. 😉
It is a strange, and incredibly destructive difference. The social conditions discussed here did not reach the level they have reached overnight or even in a few months. It has taken nearly 50 years of continuous progress to get here. And, certainly, the astute gathering of folks here are not the first to either recognize or mention it.
Why, when the social costs of the prevailing social policies have been so obviously destructive, has it continued in the destructive direction?
Well, at least part of the answer is “NAWALT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” – any attempt to draw attention to or focus on the destructive choices that a growing number of women were making were shouted and shamed into silence by any female (or mangina or white-knight) within hearing distance. In other words, even the WWALT(Women Who Aren’t Like That) have ended up carrying the water for the WWRALT (Women Who Really Are Like That) by taking up their cause and attacking anyone pointing out the problems.
The friend of my enemy is probably not my friend, particularly when they do my enemies’ work for them.
The problems have grown so great that continuing to silence those men trying to point out the problems no longer works – and that is to a large extent due to the fact that so many women wanting to claim the mantle of “good” will leap to the defense of women doing bad things.
In legalese, there is a concept of aiding and abetting after the fact.
Grerp gets it – NAWALT, but enough are that they are tarnishing the reputation of all women, alienating a whole lot of men against their entire sex, and creating a lot of men who do not care what happens to any woman.
Cause and effect – feminism is the cause, and you see the effect.
I have always said that women would turn against feminism when it started to hurt them and not just the men and boys in their lives.
I think that day has arrived.
it really doesn’t matter if NAWALT. Enough women are like that. Enough women are reacting to the financial and social incentives given to them for bad behavior and are acting badly. Would you take an umbrella if the forecast said 50% chance of rain? If there was a 30% chance of a grenade going off in your street would you go out of the house? I suppose it depends on how well informed and/or risk averse you are.
Instead of relying on women to change their behavior, the laws should be changed so that they’re balanced–that just seems like a more effective and quicker solution.
zed:
Maybe I have overdosed on the red pill. Anyway, in the past few months in reading here, at your old site and others, I’ve been nursing a growing sense of frustration and despondence that we’re not getting anywhere and not making any inroads in rolling back the destructiveness of the current state of intersexual relations. Look at the wreckage around us:
1. Easy no fault divorce and the financial devastation it brings
2. The divorce industry meatgrinder
3. Unrestrained hypergamy
4. The hookup pump & dump culture
5. Unbelievable moral decay, with our culture literally rotting from the inside out
6. False accusations of rape and domestic violence
7. involuntary childless spinsterhood
8. carousel riders in their 30s with bio-clocks roaring like freight trains wailing about how they can’t find men wiling to pay full price for their used up ground up bodies and souls
9. women unable to remarry after divorce
The few women turning against it – have you noticed who they are? Grerp and Susan Walsh have husbands and sons of their own. I don’t know that we’re there yet but maybe we’re getting there. There is still a lot of obtuseness out there.
Instead of relying on women to change their behavior, the laws should be changed so that they’re balanced–that just seems like a more effective and quicker solution.
Impractical and not going to happen. Women’s lobbying groups would kill any bills designed to equalize the situation. In the culture and the legislatures, women’s groups (NOW, Emily’s List, NARAL, etc.) have all the money and power.
We will get nowhere until women do two things:
1. Change and soften their hearts, and
2. Realize that it is not to their advantage to maltreat men.
“Instead of relying on women to change their behavior, the laws should be changed so that they’re balanced–that just seems like a more effective and quicker solution.”
Catch 22.
Women vote; women are mostly irresponsible; ergo, the female vote is mostly irresponsible. Heck, the vast majority of voters are irresponsible, more interested in obtaining weath-transfers for whatever minority group they belong to (racial, regional, industry, age bracket, what have you), than choosing stable and rational policies for the long term.
This isn’t even getting into the fact that NOW and other organizations have way more influence on the law than any election ever does.
I wish this were a solution; I wish there were a way to convince poor, ignorant, uninformed and selfish people to revert back to a “property owners only” vote system, but that probably ain’t going to happen (and it’s definitely not going to happen without us bloggers pointing out the flaws in the system). I hate to say it, but Western society’s going to have to hit rock bottom before it smartens up. Expect to see more divorce, more spinsterhood, more men behind bars, fewer men investing in society, and general messed-up relations for anybody.
About the most we can do now is write a “Post-Apocalyptic Survival Guide” so that the few of us who see what’s going on don’t get completely dragged down into the whirlpool.
@grerp
I think more relevant is the fact that P&D isn’t possible with a woman not offering uncommitted sex. She offered, he accepted it. She either offered because she wanted uncommitted sex, or she hoped to achieve commitment through uncommitted sex. My guess is she wanted #1 with the option to claim reason #2 if she decided she wanted commitment. Unless he was doing something other than P&D, for example E,P&D (Engage, Pump & Dump), the fact that he met her at a church really has no bearing. All it shows is that she was trying to present herself as something other than she was. I’m not condoning P&D, but the moral issue isn’t accurately framed as the harm this supposedly does to innocent women. Just like one shouldn’t be outraged that the local prostitute is spreading STDs to honest married men. Prostitution isn’t something I condone, but the reason isn’t because of some harm it supposedly causes by corrupting honest men. If they were honest, they would have nothing whatsoever to fear.
I say all of this because I think it is incredibly cruel to women. It gives them a false sense of victimhood, when they should acknowledge their own responsibility and true motives. Denying their culpability denies them the opportunity to repent.
We will get nowhere until women do two things:
1. Change and soften their hearts, and
2. Realize that it is not to their advantage to maltreat men.
I wish it was that simple, women’s hearts can be softened temporarily, but in the long term, when she’s going through a mid life crisis?
As well, it is in their advantage to maltreat men, seeing as the laws are in their favor, and they basically get everything. Why not divorce the “loser” and get rich?
I’m ashamed to say that some women are really that focused on winning and are that predatory.
“We will get nowhere until women do two things:
1. Change and soften their hearts, and
2. Realize that it is not to their advantage to maltreat men.”
That won’t happen until Women collectively suffer the consequences of feminism good and hard.
Its starting to happen but will need to get much worse before Women will collectively reject feminism. IMO.
@Will
I disagree. All that is needed is for men to start practicing discernment. Those men who do this will mostly solve their immediate problems. If enough men understand this and act in their own interest, women will recognize that choices have consequences, and respond accordingly. No need to punish the good women (and yourself) for the sake of the bad.
Dalrock, whilst I don’t disagree with your point about men practicing discernment (infact thats a big part of taking the red pill) I was thinking more about the anti male laws.
I think a critical mass of Women will only be open to changing the severely biased laws (pro-women) when the consequences of feminism outweigh the benefits. i.e. involuntary childless spinsterhood, pump and dump etc.
I think a critical mass of Women will only be open to changing the severely biased laws (pro-women) when the consequences of feminism outweigh the benefits. i.e. involuntary childless spinsterhood, pump and dump etc.
I really don’t think that’s going to do much. Look at Black women–the majority of them don’t get married, but they still support feminism and they still blame men for not getting on with the times and they’re still managing to have kids.
As well, it is possible to have children through means that do not require a man beyond insemination, and then there’s always adoption.
Plus there are growing numbers of men (myself included) who have simply decided never to marry under the current legal environment.
@TFH
So far this hasn’t had a real cost for women who make bad choices. Roughly 90% of white women in the US have married by the time they are 40 (data). This may well not end up the case for today’s 20 something crowd, but they won’t feel the pinch until it actually materializes.
We see women acting rationally quite often. They respond very rationally to the incentives of child support, divorce theft, etc. They also respond rationally (as a group) to their declining chance of remarriage when considering whether to divorce.
See ladies, I’m standing up for you! 😉
“I really don’t think that’s going to do much. Look at Black women–the majority of them don’t get married, but they still support feminism and they still blame men for not getting on with the times and they’re still managing to have kids.”
That’s because they still haven’t felt it’s true cost.
As things stand, there is still a middle class, and a large (if shrinking) group of productive males, who support ghetto women through wealth transfer; they’re opting-out of marriage, but only because the safety net is so attractive.
This is not sustainable. Already we’re seeing the cracks that will tear the system apart. Once it finally does, THEN women en masse will see what the true costs of feminist/socialism/et al really are.
Chels
Instead of relying on women to change their behavior, the laws should be changed so that they’re balanced–that just seems like a more effective and quicker solution.
Exactly backwards. Laws won’t be changed until enough women see those changes to be in their interest. Consider one simple change: mandatory paternity testing. Why that, you ask? Because in most parts of the western world, a man has a short time, sometimes only 1 month, to contest paternity. After that, he’s legally responsible for the child, even it can be proven not to be his.
How many such cases are out there? Eh, research into such a topic doesn’t seem to be a high priority, but I’ve seen estimates of 10% or so. That’s 1 in 10 children whose legal father is not their genetic father, due to some form of dishonesty on the part of the mother. Adding MPT onto the other blood tests done on newborns is technologically trivial. But few men are gutsy enough to ask for such a test while a woman is nursing a newborn, it implies…a lack of trust. Mandatory PT on all newborns would take away the “lack of trust” objection. It would provide a sure proof if a woman got knocked up by her badboy Alpha and then quickly hopped in the sack with a reliable Beta who would stick around afterwards, for example, or of a wife who decided to broaden out her gene pool a bit. In the majority of cases, MPT would simply provide evidence of what the parents already knew. So the cost is low…except to bad women. Only bad, manipulative, dishonest women would pay a price under MPT.
And guess what? When an attempt was made in a few years back, in Tennessee IIRC, feminists fought tooth and nail against MPT. They were joined by some number of middle class “good women”. The effort failed. In my opinion, because women are more herd oriented, they will see a threat to even the worst among them as a threat to themselves, in the “state of nature”. Now, women can be trained to prefer virtue – but it isn’t natural to them. (It’s not natural to men, either, so let’s not have a round of MDDT, ok?).
If men started demanding PT’s as a matter of course, and good women saw that this was to their advantage because it was a proof of their trustworthiness, then such a law might be passed easily. But men won’t do that, because we tend to believe the best of our women until proven otherwise — so MPT will have to be enacted the hard way, in the face of determined opposition.
And that’s just one law. A fairly minor one, in the larger picture: compared to VAWA, MPT is nothing. The misandric legal/social structure was not built in a day, or a year, or a decade, and we all better hope that it takes a while to come down, unfortunately.
Laws won’t be changed until enough women see those changes to be in their interest.
Well, I’d say that’s a lost battle from the start because some women are not going to want to give up their safety net. All it takes is some sweet talking, and convincing her man that she’s not like that and she will never be like that, so he can rest easy. Until she starts being unhappy, and then she becomes like that.
As well, and this is only an idea, how about some men just start growing some balls and start imposing themselves and demanding the laws be changed?
Chels:
When I talk about women with the same lack of mercy or empathy, your typical “tough dumb b****” is shocked into silence. That’s because you can’t go to war, you mighty warrior you, unless the “enemy” promises to be nice to you.
But heh, weakness is attractive in women, am I right?
The battle cry of the modern harlot, “YOU CAN’T FIGHT BACK! YOU CAN’T!”
Followed by her attacking:
Yeah, it’s just like that.
Ok, I know I shouldn’t have said that and it made me sound like a tough bitch, but the way he bragged about it annoyed me.
It was supposed to annoy; not maliciously but informatively.
As I age I get a progressively lower view of women. Now here’s the thing – I make no secret of this; I’m completely open about it to the women I seduce. This actually *helps* me, believe it or not.
I’d like for women to be moral equals to men, but pretending that they already are would be enabling behaviour. Instead I point out that they’re irresponsible sluts, and if they want respect they have to earn it, I don’t give it away for free. Almost inevitably they dissapoint, and I warm myself by the glow of a burning civilization.
The exceptions, however – the grerps of the world – these Ladies I treat with respect. Such a shame that there’s so few of ’em left.
Oh, you mean “men” like Cord Ivanyi?
The most perplexing characteristic of the gender war is the fact that men generally, as a group, are about as unlikely to act in unison as women are likely to do so. The natural tendency of men seems to be to figure out the maximum number of ways a hair can be split.
One of the great many divided among men is about what changes to the law are necessary to bring about the social changes they would like to see. Dalrock and I have a good-natured (I hope so, at least) running disagreement between the best way to exert pressure on women to clean up their act. Not being any sort of proponent of marriage, I don’t have much need to ask that the laws be changed in order for me to be able to do what I want. If women want to criminalize fatherhood – or having men find them attractive – I can scrupulously obey the law, and stay out of trouble, by mostly doing what I would prefer to do anyway.
I’m doing my part to change things – there has to be some men out here who refuses to marry those women who support laws that punish men for marrying them.
Depending on women to change things is a dead-end. Waiting for women’s approval is a dead-end. Something was seriously wrong with the men who decided women should vote.
We are now locked in to waiting on women to change things, and for their approval for change.
It’s a dead end. We can’t turn it around. We must reach the end of the road and crash.
men just start growing some balls and start imposing themselves and demanding the laws be changed?
Why are you so desperate to place all the responsibility on men? Plenty of us *are* demanding the laws be changed; a few guys like Glenn Sacks have managed to make a bit of progress. We’ve still got a long way to go, but we’re trying. Now, if women started to help instead of going “tough luck,” that might be nice…
Why are you so desperate to place all the responsibility on men?
I don’t want to place all responsibility on men and I’m not saying tough luck, I’m contributing as much as I can.
I’m just saying that women won’t do it by themselves, so it might be more effective to work together.
Au contraire –
“Sisters Are Doin’ It For Themselves” – Annie Lennox & Aretha Franklin
First we take away the vote from women.
See? It’s Pandora’s Box.
so it might be more effective to work together.
Well, okay, but I’m just sayin’, a lot of guys might be more willing to “work together” if women like you–“good women,” so to speak–weren’t so quick to trot out platitudes like “I’m touched, go cry me a river.” in response to the reactions of folks like Aurini to the present legal milieu. Condemning him and guys like him may feel good and suit your moral predilictions, but it really won’t do much for anybody else.
(also, sorry for the name change, I just noticed that wordpress kept giving me the gravatar of some other guy also known as “hurp.” If he should ever show up around here, sorry dude, ’twas unintentional on my part).
[D: I’m pretty sure gravatars are generated based on the email address you enter. You must have accidentally used the same one as him before.]
mandatory paternity testing. Why that, you ask? Because in most parts of the western world, a man has a short time, sometimes only 1 month, to contest paternity. After that, he’s legally responsible for the child, even it can be proven not to be his.
I was thinking about this and there might be a way to get away with it, in 23andme when you have a sample of your DNA they link you to people related to you. If you had it done along with your wife before starting to breed, you can order for a kit for the baby before it arrives (keeping it secret of course) and is only a matter taking care of it for enough time to get a sample and sent it to them. If the baby is not related to you it will be shown in the lack of familial connections so unless the baby is your brother’s till could help to find out the truth and if the baby is yours is just a matter of “oh we also have his DNA information to protect him for disease! Any thoughts on this idea?
weren’t so quick to trot out platitudes like “I’m touched, go cry me a river.” in response to the reactions of folks like Aurini to the present legal milieu.
You misunderstood me, I said that to Aurini when he started boasting about how many chicks he screwed.
I said that to Aurini when he started boasting about how many chicks he screwed.
Not to be pedantic, but if I may be forgiven for attempting a bit of mindreading, I got the distinct impression he was less boasting and more lamenting the fact that the “asshole” methods he employs are so effective. A lot of guys, Chels, would really, really like it if acting like a jerk *wasn’t* necessary to get in bed with girls. Unfortunately, female desire is what it is.
Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.
Well, actually, don’t hate Game either. Hate what makes it necessary, whether you want to lay the blame at our present society/culture, over 9000 years of biological female evolutionary programming, or whatever.
Women are not going to change the laws. And when the laws do change it is not going to be the way one would think either. We do need to change mens perception of the false reality of feminism. More men need the red pill big time. the ideal would be for boys to be taught and raised on the red pill. As it stands now it takes marriage and divorce trauma, a false rape charge, going to jail after your wife/live in decide to physically assault you or any other act of misandry from child support on a kid that is not yours,to retroactive alimony. This is where your suicides and murder come from. And the over all destruction of western civilization.
Getting men off the blue pill and on the red pill of actual reality is key to change. Waiting on a “change of heart from women?” (you must study your game man) Not going to happen. As stated by TFH appealing to a womans sense of justice is futile (absolute truth as reliable a base as the sun rising in the east). What will happen is bills will be proposed and they will pass. (women won’t stop it, always remember women are not resposible for shit) As the influence of the red pill grows with out trauma the as Dalrock discribe the discernment of men will grow.
Now I believe with the discernment young men develope the lsi the detinennui32 made on an earlier comment should be a male cultural norm
1. men refusing to marry,
2. MGTOW
3. carousel riders judged as unworthy of marriage
4. involuntary celibacy and spinsterhood
5. women’s increasing inability to remarry after divorce
6. women being required to work for a living, i.e. Adam’s curse of having to till the soil for sustenance
7. men refusing to come to the aid of a woman in obvious distress or needing assistance for fear of being falsely accused of rape, sexual harassment or domestic violence
The mechanics of making that happen will begin with doing away with the NAWALT garbage (zed was right on with that) My thing is MGTOW and the PUA. The Man gone his on way and the pick up artist are the same man with about 15 years of pump and dump. (see Aurini ) That new reality is very “annoying” and may cause a women to say something like this in her own best interest. “Instead of relying on women to change their behavior, the laws should be changed so that they’re balanced–that just seems like a more effective and quicker solution”
You won’t see the laws change until the culture changes. If you want to see the culture change,people are going to have to take on the institutions that are driving the culture. Universities, media, movies, music, ect.
If you look at Scandinavian countries, men and women still marry, so I don’t think it’s likely that men in the US will be going on a marriage strike.
(I know the danger of Islam that those countries are facing, but that’s a consequence of liberalism)
[D: The data is pretty strong against you here. Marriage hasn’t stopped altogether in Scandinavia, but it is becoming much less common. This chart shows that Iceland, Sweden, and Norway have the largest percentage of out of wedlock births, with Iceland being at 66%. I know Iceland isn’t part of everyone’s definition of Scandinavia, but it is considered that by some.]
“oh we also have his DNA information to protect him for disease! Any thoughts on this idea?
Genetic testing is more of a diagnostic tool than a preventative measure; considering science currently lacks the ability to genetically engineer defects out of DNA. For example, I received genetic testing to confirm the diagnosis of an inherited disease.
It’s quite scary to think about the negative impact cuckoldry may have on a child’s health. Family history is important; from medication allergies to inherited disease – it’s information your Doctors need to know. […it makes me wonder if there’s a protocol for Doctors that suspect cuckoldry. It must come up; having to diagnose people with disease incompatible with their family history]
It could work, but the fact that a man has to keep this secret is itself a summation of the irrevocable taint of modern women.
I know I’m trying to be practical about the issue if the risk is so high and many men still want to get married in spite of this (really how many men will say that a baby doesn’t need a mother? unlike their female counterparts very very few), so let’s work under the assumption that the guy is trying to cover his bases before anything goes terribly wrong, YMMV.
Chel:
The post right about the “Cry me a river” post by Chel:
Aurini:
It’s called damage control. I mean, at least she hit the “I didn’t really do that” button instead of silently refusing to admit anything… the typical response…… but still, really. Let’s be honest.
If you can put up with her behavior then you are a wimp. Some people might be willing to “correct” it, but really, if you are willing to go through that every day for decades then you are a wimp.
Detin made the same comment to which I replied:
Chels says:
September 14, 2011 at 11:32 am
Seriously Detin? He comes here bragging about how many women he banged, how irresistible they find him, like he’s sex crazed animal with no choice; but I’m supposed to feel sorry for someone who is boastful now and then 5 min later turns remorseful?
However, I will admit that my comment was inconsiderate.
Off-topic: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/wal-mart-to-announce-multibillion-dollar-women-s-initiative.html
Well TFH feminism would have never gotten off of the ground with out the reality of male empathy
I’m surprised that it seems that the laws in the USA wouldn’t be changed due to feminism as one would guess Sweden is a much more feminist country than the USA yet in a typical middle class family split up the default set up is joint custody and no child support by either party, in the odd instance where there is child support it is more something paid to a 3rd party rather than wealth transfer from one party to another.
In regards to mandatory paternity testing, I can’t say for the USA but if in the UK I think it could get through relatively easily, just say that it is at birth, along with the myriad of other tests they do and to establish paternity and the biological father has responsibility. The state has an incentive to push that through. I can’t say women, feminists or whoever having an issue if pitched like that.
Re the P&D thing, this thinking works if you are in frame of mind of women don’t have sex before marriage or engagement. I’m not sure how realistic that is in this day and age (though again there may be geographical differences). And it seems to me that for every person I read with that attitude in the ‘manosphere’, there is another who would think the woman was using sex (or making him wait for it) as a way to manipulate him.
And I have to say it baffles me a bit, there are more than enough women up for casual or NSA sex, so why the need to lie etc to women who aren’t up for it.
Oh I see someone else mentioned Sweden. However, iirc it doesn’t have a lower but higher rate of divorce than the USA, despite the fact that women don’t profit from it.
That sentence strongly indicates that men have a greater capacity for adult responsibility than women, and are more capable of treating the other gender as human beings, than women are.
Well that is why we are here, to try and remember the “empowered women” that a kid needs both father and mother and that if they couldn’t secure a male to help them raise a baby they shouldn’t be opting for single motherhood because they “want a baaaaaby”
Any child needs both a mother and a father, regardless of how “good” they are (unless they’re abusive).
As well, it’s completely ironic that someone would advocate for single fathers, when single mothers are derided so much.
People advocate for single fathers for the simple reason that single fathers are often better, in an American context. I could post that picture of the “lol females” image that has the different statistics between single fathers and single mothers (where the fathers come out on top every time) but I found it on a thread on a “questionable” website and even though it’s worksafe, I don’t want to offend our host or anything. You could also just look up “single fathers vs. single mothers” and see what I mean.
Chels:
I’ve dropped out of the US relationship scene and encourage other men to do the same. I’ve often said that the best argument for leaving it is, simply, to let women speak for themselves; and they give men all the reasons they need to quit.
So, please keep posting — we MRAs often need reminders of why we don’t pursue American women any longer.
P&D advocates:
While I understand what you’re doing and why you’re doing it; I can’t wholeheartedly support it. Our misandryist laws, for example, are leaving men who P&D wide open for false accusations and other acts of female depredation upon us. But even aside from that:
We all agree that Amerobitches shun decent men and throw themselves at thugs and jerks. We deplore the fact that they reward such verminous males with sex. So, if this the case, why reward women with sex for preferring such louts? Wouldn’t it be better to leave them alone for the thugs they really desire and pursue alternatives to them? For example, I only date women from non-feminist cultures; other men MGTOW. Either of these are more productive outlets for healthy sexuality.
Dalrock:
“The thing that is needed most is for men to practice discernment”
Dalrock, in a culture like ours, a man’s alternatives are so limited that talking about discernment or choice is actually irrelevant. American women are so uniformly bad that a man who chooses one has to do so from the perspective of choosing the least objectionable, rather than the best options. Really, the place for discernment and choice is to opt out of the whole system.
Ah, you THINK you know that.
Those things that we don’t know we don’t know can be a real problem.
Which states refuse to report their divorce rates?
I’m not really an advocate of pump and dump as much as I am an advocate of string along and dump. I suppose you could call it extended pump and dump. Regardless this only works with women in church who are no different than women outside of church. That is to say it will work with most women in church.
One thing you have to remember is that the women in church are running cons too. Many of them are there because they want to snag a beta for marriage, kids, and divorce before their time runs out. Pump and dump or string along and dump doesn’t destroy anyone life unlike divorce. Running game in churches keeps these women from being able to con and destroy the lives of men who don’t know the truth yet. That’s very different than just using someone.
Unless you are an “alpha”, then sex isn’t a reward. The way to not reward those women is to deny marriage and to deny children, not to deny sex.
PMAFT you “get” MGTOW . The carousel riders 25 years of sex in the city to enjoy involuntary childless spinsterhood. With no man stuck having to make payments to her. No entitlement to “half ” of anything. 43 single and childless getting botox trying to look young competing with young women or just plain getting used to reality. All the while working full time not because she don’t need a man but because she has no man invested in her.
Default custody only worked for a couple of years in Sweden and was changed to the worse already in 2006.
“If one of the parents wants a change in custody, the question of custody may be decided by a court. The same applies to the questions of which of the parents the child is to live with and how access for the other parent is to be organised. In divorce proceedings, moreover, the court must, in the absence of a claim, award custody of the child to one of the parents if joint custody is manifestly incompatible with the welfare of the child. This Law, passed in 2006, has resulted in significant majority of all court cases in which sole custody is requested, being awarded to the mother.[35]
If a child is born to an unmarried mother, the mother gains sole custody automatically unless she elects to, in her sole decision, agree to shared custody. The same law in Germany was recently determined to be a violation of Human Rights by the EU court of Human Rights
http://www.pappa-barn.se/ is a lobby organisation in Sweden with a large membership of fathers and mothers supporting true equal gender rights in custody.
The Swedish courts rarely order high-conflict litigants to solve their problems with parenting courses, training courses, or mediators, but instead often award sole custody when it is requested. Sweden’s statistics bureau reports that more than 90% of all such cases are ruled in favour of the mother.
Enforceability of visitation and joint custody is very difficult in Sweden, as there is no contempt of court, and the courts often will not apply fines or police support of visitation until the complaining parent has gone to court several times. Payment of court fees is often forced by the complaining parent, if the fines asked for are not granted, even if Grounds are clearly established.
In Sweden, which claims to be progressive and promote Gender Equality, has reports 128,000 women currently hold SOLE custody of their children (mostly against the father’s wishes) and 11,000 men hold SOLE custody of their children, a ration of more than 11:1 in favour of women.[36]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights_movement_by_country#Sweden
But among the urban middle and upper middle class joint custody without alimony or CS IS the default solution. I don’t know any divorced couple that does not have joint custody. Or actueally, one, but hat was beecause the parents wanted tol ive in different countries. And the father later took the boys with him to a different country, and is noww propably takking the girl, who now is a teenager, toa the country they where living when they divorced.
Dalrock: I don’t recall seeing anything in the Bible that specifically commands men to stand when women enter a room, or hold doors or chairs for them, etc., etc.; nonetheless, the chivalric tradition is, at bottom, just the practical application of what most assuredly is commanded: “self-denial, ‘service’, courtesy, honour, and courage.” Men and women are different, so it quite naturally follows that all of those qualities should take different forms in men and women, and differ depending on whether they are applied to men or women. And what is commanded is commanded unconditionally – do it even if it costs you your life.
On the bit to TFH about P&Ders-vs-90%-of-women: I wasn’t saying anything at all about making it safe for women to have casual sex. TFH said, in the 9/14 12:35a comment, that P&D is just ‘male choice’ and ‘not abuse’, and equated it with women stringing men along, and thus seemed to be defending P&D on ‘fairness’ grounds. In retrospect, I probably should have separated the reply from the interjection on female attractive instincts, but I was trying to point out that reciprocality is a miserable base for a standard of decent behavior, that no indulgence of impulse, taste, or decision at all can long remain indecent under such a scheme, and that whether it be nature or will that has gone wrong, we are lost if we refuse to call wrong wrong, regardless of who is doing it or why.
As for that interjection: There seem to be two views of the female attractive instinct: either that it’s naturally good (or at any rate naturally not bad), but can be indulged in a deleterious manner; or that it’s naturally corrupt, seeking out superficial ‘qualities’ at best and downright evil ones at worst. One’s view of Game depends on which view one takes. Obviously I take the latter view of the instinct, and Game was what I meant by the remark on ‘coddling and titillating’ women. It seems to me to appeal to the insipid and vapid, even in its ‘harmless’ forms. An ‘irrationally self-confident’ (in Roissy’s three-word summation of ‘alpha’) cocky show-off damnfool may be what women naturally like, but I can’t see how it could be morally good or even neutral for them to like it. They shouldn’t be excused for liking it, and should be excused even less for pursuing it – or in other words, for encouraging men to be cocky show-off damnfools. You said that ‘a woman who finds herself not attracted to really nice guys like the ones in the class isn’t defective; this is perfectly normal’. ‘Perfectly normal’, however, does not imply ‘not defective’: that is the summation of the whole doctrine of the Fall, and something anyone can verify just by looking around. Women are defective, just as men are in their own ways, and pretense to the contrary does not help either of them rise above their natures. And peacocks belong in zoos.
detinennui: The Bible isn’t totally silent on female psychology, but no, it doesn’t say much about it. And why should it? The portrait it paints is of a God who could not care less about anyone’s ‘feelings’. It commands unnatural and all but impossible virtues; apart from grace (which involves no license), that is the beginning and end of the matter. It commands them of men and women alike. It has very little good to say about treating people merely how they wish to be treated or even deserve (per justice or fairness) to be treated; it says much about treating them how they ought to be treated. Improving one’s mind and body is certainly a good thing, but…the rest? Feeding and displaying one’s pride? Cold-heartedness? Calculated rudeness? Maybe it wins and saves marriages these days, but the cost seems pretty steep – in the longest run, too steep. The fact that someone loves the taste of poison is no reason to give it to them. Even if everyone loves the taste of poison – i.e. it’s ‘natural’ – that is no reason to give it to them. And I would not call such things ‘being a man’.
You said that men must learn to play by new rules, but in light of eternity, there are no ‘new rules’. The rules never changed; they never will change. Men are ‘sexual creatures’? So? ‘Most will not voluntarily live without sex?’ Suppose their circumstances demand it of them? Mastering the art of the ‘neg’ is manly, but temperance and fortitude are not? Adaptivity is a strange new definition of manliness.
gabriel (and detinneui): Lawrence Auster? Hah. I don’t fear the Jihadis Next Door enough to be Lawrence Auster. Neither am I Catholic: at present, I belong to a non-denominational ‘bible church’ of the sort one finds all over the South. I’ll confess to being a Catholophile, though, enough to where I’m seriously questioning Protestantism. But that’s neither here nor there for now. You asked how I think men should act…
First, men in general, and the Church in particular, had better start getting it into young men’s heads that celibacy, even involuntary celibacy, is not the worst thing that can happen to them. Men and women are very much intended to be together. It is not good that either should be alone. Circumstances, moral or prudential, however, may demand that one bear that cross. Nobody seems to have the slightest interest in preparing or helping anyone to bear it; it is, I suppose, much easier to excuse them from it.
Second, as a practical matter, I’d strongly encourage men to look less to the hotties they meet in freshman calculus, and more to childhood sweethearts, women they grew up with, women whose families they know, and who know his own family – or, more simply, women with whom they share some bond of community, some body of people to whom they’re both accountable. Encouragement to fidelity and shame for infidelity from people who matter to both parties will do more to encourage the practice of virtue than all the ‘negging’ in the world.
You’ll notice I said ‘virtue’. Men do not need simply companions with the requisite orifice(s); they need virtuous women. They tend not to hang out at bars. One tends not to spot virtue from across the room at a ‘mixer’. Realistically, one is unlikely to spot it with any accuracy without years of observation, and it’s better that it be closer to ‘decades’ of observation, both one’s own and others’.
Trivially, men should categorically refuse to marry anyone but virgins and young widows. I seem to be in a distinct minority, even among ‘conservatives’, but as best I can tell, biblically, there is no such thing as ‘unmarried sex’; a given sexual act either A: creates a marriage, whether anyone wants it or likes it or not; B: is done within the confines of marriage; or C: is adulterous. I consider it, then, a moral imperative that men refuse to marry anyone but virgins or young widows. But even if it is not so morally imperative, it is socially imperative. History matters; doubly so where there’s been an exposure to alpha. Ask Roissy – a hostile witness if e’er there were one – if you don’t believe me.
And yes, realistically, in this day, there aren’t enough such women to go around. You were right when you said that ‘men shouldn’t voluntarily subject themselves to women who don’t love them, just want a beta provider, and who will divorce them and take half their assets’. If only those women are available, they must be avoided. Hence the first suggestion. I didn’t say it was easy or fair.
Third, men in general, and the Church in particular, should stop recognizing all remarriages (aside from the aforementioned exception of widows), and should stop recognizing all divorces without proven infidelity. Boobus americanus is unlikely to vote to change the legal side of things, but that does not mean that Christians ought not enforce their own rules amongst themselves.
And fourth: men should behave as they ought, even if they are despised for it, even if it costs them. The world may get better – one can hope, anyway. It may get worse – I’m afraid I am just about out of hope for the next generation or two. Does it matter? Game theorists are dreadfully correct about one thing: willingness to adapt to change, to take one’s cues from everyone else and from the world at large, to bow to power, right and wrong be damned, is characteristic of the feminine. It is an outrage that it is equally called ‘being a man’.
Chels:
I’ve dropped out of the US relationship scene and encourage other men to do the same. I’ve often said that the best argument for leaving it is, simply, to let women speak for themselves; and they give men all the reasons they need to quit.
So, please keep posting — we MRAs often need reminders of why we don’t pursue American women any longer.
That’s fine, I just hope you remember to keep her in whatever 3rd world country she’s from and that you know the only reason she’s with you is because of your money and status awarded by being an American.
Pingback: Feminist nostalgia for traditional gender roles. | Dalrock
Instead of relying on women to change their behavior, the laws should be changed so that they’re balanced–that just seems like a more effective and quicker solution.
Changing the laws isn’t going to stop women from running the “free dinner and drinks” con. It isn’t going to stop women from feeling entitled to men’s labor/money either via marriage or entitlement transfers. I think the laws should be changed. If you stopped subsidizing promiscuity and single motherhood via WIC, welfare, food stamps, Section 8, child support/alimony, etc., and gave fathers default custody after divorce (unless they were proven incapable) – you would see an immediate drop in bad female behavior. Chances of seeing any of those things changed when women make up 50% of the voting population? Zero, nil, nada, neecheevo.
But, again, even if you could change that, it doesn’t change the drink running scam. Men and women have always traded sex for resources/protection. The difference was that once upon a time, a woman didn’t have 15, 20, 25 years to run the drink running scam. She got married at 18, 20, 22 years old and stayed married. Which meant that most men had wives, most women had husbands, and not nearly so much conning was going on. She might nag him to death or spend all his money, he might take a swipe at her or spend all of his free time with his buddies, but the two of them were effectively out of the SMP. Permanently. And, if they were decent human beings, they cared for each other and propped each other up, and raised a passel of young’uns together.
That’s fine, I just hope you remember to keep her in whatever 3rd world country she’s from and that you know the only reason she’s with you is because of your money and status awarded by being an American.
I don’t think most men care why they women they are with love them as long as they are kind and pretty, faithful and loving, and can whip together some honey drenched smoke pork chops and mashed potatoes for dinner.
I think more relevant is the fact that P&D isn’t possible with a woman not offering uncommitted sex. She offered, he accepted it. She either offered because she wanted uncommitted sex, or she hoped to achieve commitment through uncommitted sex.
I see what you are saying. The problem as I view it is that church is a wasteland for men. Young women don’t realize that feminism – deliberately introduced by women to churches – is the reason there are no young men in churches anymore. They just hear the “unequally yoked” proscription and wonder how they are going to manage getting married to a Christian man when all the Christian men in their church are either married, gay, or divorced with kids and a difficult ex-wife. I can see how any confident, attractive man could easily run a con in any church.
Maybe I am not representative, but I was once young and painfully naive about men. I did not have sex with anyone but my husband, but I can see that in an alternate reality, a reality in which I was not raised by a loving, watchful father, or one in which I’d been abused or molested, or was painfully homely or very overweight, or even one that was just more saturated by sex than the one I grew up in – I can see how I might be different. I don’t know. All I know is that if you are conning a con, you are still a con.
I don’t think most men care why they women they are with love them as long as they are kind and pretty, faithful and loving, and can whip together some honey drenched smoke pork chops and mashed potatoes for dinner.
But what happens when he gets laid off or becomes disabled? Is she going to stay by his side or upgrade to a higher model? That’s why I believe people must love each other for who they are and not their material possessions; a marriage is not sustainable otherwise.
Chels: The safest/wisest is only to marry at a time when you have little to offer and when marriage is not an obstacle for anything else you want to do. And to marry a person your are no longer in love with, so that you can see that person for who he/she is.
Anything else and you are off on a sliding scale.
unger:
You said a mouthful. Let me respond a little because you raise interesting points.
One of your points appears to be that the old rules (pre-sexual revolution conventions based on generally and widely known Judeo-Christian ethics and principles of chivalry, industry, honor, fidelity and extended family) worked very well. I wholeheartedly agree. They did work well. In pockets of American society, they still work.
The problem is that you’re describing a civilization that, sadly, no longer exists except in small pockets here and there. You describe a society that no longer uses or abides by those old rules. We cannot send our sons out into that world equipped only with the old rules. They have to know the new rules so they can navigate the new world feminism, easy birth control and increased automation and knowledge created. It would be like sending my son to France without an English-French dictionary. He can’t get what he wants or needs, he can’t go anywhere, and he’s doomed to a life of frustration because he doesn’t speak the language.
Second, you note that the old rules created behavioral conventions and a social contract. This is true. There was a social contract between women and men: Men were chivalrous and honorable. They offered their protection and resources in exchange for women’s submission to their authority, chastity, fidelity, and a clean womb in which to bear children which the man could presume were his. The greatest shame was reserved for sexual infidelity in either gender.
Women and feminsm shattered that social contract decades ago. You seem to advocate that men should continue to uphold their end of that contract despite the fact that society and even churches long ago relieved women of any obligation to uphold theirs. Respectfully, I strongly disagree.
Why should I tell my son to hold a door open for a girl who kicks him in the shin for doing so while sneering at him “I don’t need no man to hold my door open!” Why should my son pay for a date with a girl when she probably earns more money than he? Why should he deal with women who want only to use him and steal his money?
I don’t agree with you that the nature of men (to spread the seed far and wide, wanting to have sex with as many women as possible, providing resources in exchange for exclusive sexual rights) is corrupt. It is neutral. The species cannot propagate without it. The nature of women (hypergamy, seeking the best men to reproduce with, seeking men to provide resources) is neutral. The species could not propagate without it. It is neither good nor bad. It just is. Granted, the Bible’s moral code superimposes layers of moral constraints over those behaviors to restrain their more destructive natures and thus permit civilizations to rise and flourish. And those constraints work.
I grant you: men should behave as they ought. And in today’s society, they “ought” not marry sluts. Then who are they going to marry?
Here’s the problem with your theory that men should marry their high school sweethearts: The facts on the ground don’t allow for that anymore. Respectfully, you have no idea what is really going on in today’s world. We already have millions of men forced into involuntary celibacy because no woman will have them. Those men who used to get jobs and work, and then get married off to the local girls, have no incentive even to try anymore because they can’t get work. The women have all the jobs. The women have all the education. Those women who have more education, more money and more earning power, don’t want those men. At all.
So they live in their parents’ basements, sating themselves with World of Warcraft and internet porn, and stocking shelves at the local Wal-Mart because that ‘s the best job they can get in today’s mancession. Meanwhile, the local girls they knew and you describe in your email are home from college, working in a cubicle HR or PR job, and earn three times what their male counterparts earn. Those men aren’t attractive to those women for several reasons: (1) hypergamous instincts. (2) the men aren’t seen as good providers. (3) While in college those girls already had sex with about 5-15 other guys, some of whom were top dog alphas, and have a wlidly inflated self-view of their sexual market value.
In the final analysis, those sweet hometown girls who you think these men should be pursuing and dropping to one knee to pledge life, fortune and honor to, have already acted as the semen receptacles for a football team; make more money, and don’t want anything to do with these men. So tell me again what incentives these young men have? Tell me again what these sluts have to offer these men? Tell me again why these men should offer a ring to Hometown Girl, fresh off the alpha carousel?
Unger, I feel your pain. I really do. But we don’t live in the world you and I knew. That world is gone. We all have to do our best to navigate the world we have.
@ Grerp:
“I don’t think most men care why they women they are with love them as long as they are kind and pretty, faithful and loving, and can whip together some honey drenched smoke pork chops and mashed potatoes for dinner.”
Cosign. Hell, most men don’t even ask for physical attractiveness, affection, or good cooking skills. They ask for one woman, just one, to be somewhat nice to them and don’t have sex with anyone else. But in today’s society and today’s women, even that seems to be asking too much.
@ grerp
BTW, love, love, LOVE your site. When will we get more pearls of wisdom I can give my daughter?
@ grerp:
“The problem as I view it is that church is a wasteland for men. Young women don’t realize that feminism – deliberately introduced by women to churches – is the reason there are no young men in churches anymore. They just hear the “unequally yoked” proscription and wonder how they are going to manage getting married to a Christian man when all the Christian men in their church are either married, gay, or divorced with kids and a difficult ex-wife. I can see how any confident, attractive man could easily run a con in any church.”
And young single men who really, fervently hold to Chrisitan tenets and attend worship regularly are seen as unattractive sissy boy Nancy boy betas. The single women in today’s feminized churches don’t want them.
“That’s fine, I just hope you remember to keep her in whatever 3rd world country she’s from and that you know the only reason she’s with you is because of your money and status awarded by being an American.”
Ohh that is so unacurate that is not even funny.
And young single men who really, fervently hold to Chrisitan tenets and attend worship regularly are seen as unattractive sissy boy Nancy boy betas. The single women in today’s feminized churches don’t want them.
Yes, unfortunately, this is also true. A young man has to have a lot of charisma to make up for doing the right thing.
I keep meaning to blog, but it’s been a busy time of year. My son is now settled in school, but I’m ramping up for leading his cub scout den, and I’m blanching, freezing, canning and drying my garden produce as well (and putting in a few new beds for next year). I just need to pencil in some time.
I do appreciate the kind words of people in this thread, but I’d like to say, for the record, that I’m not a perfect person either – not a perfect wife, not a perfect mother. I lose my temper, I have my bitchy moments. Sometimes I indulge a bad attitude or give myself a pass. The most I can say for myself is that I am trying, really trying, to be the kind of person others can respect, care about, and trust.
Ohh that is so unacurate that is not even funny.
You know, Steph, that’s my impression too. I’ve read different things about going abroad to find wives, but the consensus tends to generally be that it’s not really worth it and that’s been my personal experience as well. Or that if you go that route, it’s better to stay in that country because the foreign women quickly adopt the American mentality and screw you over just as fast as a Western one.
It seems to me that these men are fooling themselves–the women in Russia/Eastern Europe, South America or Asia are not that much different than American women. The only difference that I saw was that they tend to be more permissive, not so arrogant or entitled and they’re only a bit more submissive than the American ones. However, they’re just as promiscuous and they’re just as hypergamous (not to mention that Asian women are soooo obsessed with status, with famous brands, etc…)
As well, I’ve seen men advising each other to skip the cities, and go to the villages because that’s where they will find “good” women.
You know, Steph, that’s my impression too. I’ve read different things about going abroad to find wives, but the consensus tends to generally be that it’s not really worth it and that’s been my personal experience as well.
Well given that the numbers of men willing to marry 3rd world women has been steadily growing I’ll go on in a limb and say that you might be in a social bubble. Most of the women I know that married foreigners have their husband’s single friends to come to my country and other similar to get a bride in multiplying numbers. If demand is growing don’t you think it shows that maybe there is a better chance at success?
However, they’re just as promiscuous and they’re just as hypergamous (not to mention that Asian women are soooo obsessed with status, with famous brands, etc…)
All my friends meet their hubbies virgin or with a partner count of 1. I think you ought to travel to a third world country and hang out with women there, I don’t want to sound like I don’t think there are not good American women good enough for marriage or that all third world women are a safe bet, but the odds of a raised in a third world woman to undo her marriage to chase cock and take a faithful husband to divorce rape, are definitely a lot lower, if you look at the data of how many international marriage the chances or the divorce are three times lower.
http://www.cis.org/MailOrderBrides
Of course there is the issue that time and logic will usually tell the whole tale, if the American wife is better than third world bride (meaning they are less likely to cheat, will stay with their man when things go bad, will not divorce him frivolously, will be pleasant to live with…) I’m sure we will see more men wanting to marry local than to go overseas, right?
According to that link you gave me, there are 4000 marriages between Americans and mail order brides–overall, it’s 0.19% of total marriages, that’s absolutely nothing, or in other words, 99.81% of American men that marry believe that American women are a good choice.
I’m sure we will see more men wanting to marry local than to go overseas, right?
I don’t think so, there are too many cultural differences, in addition to a language barrier between American men and foreign women. Therefore, I don’t believe these marriages will actually become a threat to American women.
PS: Did you meet your husband in this way?
Therefore, I don’t believe these marriages will actually become a threat to American women.
So why are you warning the men in the manosphere against it?
PS: Did you meet your husband in this way?
Nope I meet my husband at Sciconnect and I nerd lover so I looked for an specific type of type of man.
Dominican Republic doesn’t need visa and is a cheap tropical destination with a lot of good beaches, food and ecotourism, so many men looking for brides just book a trip and show up, most of the times the women interested in them will approach, but sometimes they go with references from their friends brides or ask a guide for women.
Also agencies are not romantic and we have our families to measure the man and see if is a good prospect so in general terms Dominican women wouldn’t use an agency to find a husband unless they have issues to meet foreign men, like not being able to travel to the tourists destination or living in a very rural zone.
I wasn’t warning them (I couldn’t care less, and I’m not even American), I was merely making a statement.
Living in Toronto, I know people from lots of countries, including DR/South America, and they don’t seem that different from Canadian women–sure they’re warmer and more loyal, but they don’t strike me as that traditional or submissive (which is what these men are looking for).
However, imo, Latin men are also better than Canadian ones, they seem warmer, more affectionate, and just kinder (and more masculine).
warmer and more loyal…. I’ll take one of those!
Chels:
You Amerobitches have absolutely no credibility accusing women from other countries as being uncultured, money-grubbing sluts. It’s typical feminist projection: accusing everyone else of doing what you’re doing yourselves.
if any real man wants a real woman, ignore the propaganda and ditch the Amerobitch.
[D: There is nothing wrong with preferring to date/marry women from other countries, or with suggesting this to others. But calling Chels an amerobitch doesn’t score any debating points.]
grerp this is the first time i ever just sat down and read your comments. You are a rare woman and I am going to have to and see about your blog now. Really nice how you noticed that even christian nice guys need game. Todays christian church needs a cad very badly. .
I have a 5 year old son and two daughters 7 and 10. Keep doing what you are doing and have faith. You and guys like Dalrock will be the ones that teach women how to live in true christian joy even if they never attend church to get the title of christian woman. I’ll do the best I can to give women a reason to know what you know today. Involuntary childless spinsterhood remember that term and know the cure. (smile and be pleasent to be around).
Dalrock I truely think you are having a ball with this blog of yours.
However, imo, Latin men are also better than Canadian ones, they seem warmer, more affectionate, and just kinder (and more masculine).
They are warmer and more affectionate with every single woman they meet, whether they are married or single, they also are more willing to beat you if you burn the dinner. Why do you think so many Latin women marry first world men? Latin men might look good in theory but they (in general terms) will not be loyal to you and boss you around like hired help, won’t read a book to become more educated and will be hitting on your sister while you pay the debts they incurred by their drinking and skirt chasing, and finally they will indeed trade you for a hotter model the moment your looks start to fade. There is really a lot of things behind closed doors among my culture but don’t take my word for it, if you are single date a Latin man, and then compare. There are of course masochist women that love their “macho” Latin men but the majority try to outsource as soon as they can.
Detenennui32:
You’re right—in today’s climate expecting ANYTHING from an Amerobitch is asking too much. Remember, they’re entitled to everything; have all the relationship power, and the man is expendable. IOW, they have the attitude that they deserve better than any man and owe us nothing. The only kind of men they want at all are either dysfunctional thugs or noodle-wristed meterosexuals—because it’s easy to feel superior to such losers.
It’s a waste of time for men to pursue them at all.
Eric
Now you’re just projecting, and you should also remember that NAWALT tsk tsk. And have you wondered that there’s a chance that you might just be the problem, and not the women, since you come off as being an arrogant, bitter asshole?
As well, I’m reminded why American men are at the bottom of my list by your example, and why I’m sooooo happy and relieved to not be in the dating market.
Stephanie, yeah, I’ve heard that before, but I’m not interested anyway, I already have an awesome man.
Actually it’s pretty easy. Old Chels for example has predictably started wildly lying about women from other countries. She is keenly aware of the market forces that threaten her “product” and “Team Woman” and acts decisively to counter them.
That’s why women push for “fairness” in hook-ups. That is, if they can sucker the man long enough to sleep with him, they can then guilt/bully him into marriage even though he knows this is a horrific mistake!
Pulling this off with someone out of the Honest American Sluts league is the dream of every Honest American Slut. Needless to say, there is good chance of a pretty big downside to this little stunt. Which Honest American Slut is keenly aware of. Thus the rage to men who take the bait and leave the hook.
Their “rep” is key to pulling off the guilt/bully stunt, of course.
Oy, I’m not worried about my value dropping at all (there’s no reason for it) and I’m not defending sluts. However, I think it’s lying to yourself if you believe that a foreign woman is with you simply because you have such an awesome personality.
They don’t ditch their husbands just because he had a layoff, nor do they abort their babies 2 weeks before birth because the father was denied a promotion.
Neither do American women, and you cannot even get an abortion 2 weeks before birth, not to mention that the child is wanted by both the mother and the father.
You’re just making false statements now, so stop with the BS.
And why does a woman need to wait 36, 37, or 38 weeks before deciding to get an abortion? Because the man had a setback and the woman has ‘buyer’s remorse’.
What are you even talking about? The legal limit of abortion is 20 weeks!!!!!!
These are well-established patterns that have been heavily analyzed in this ‘sphere.
Are you married? If not, why?
It doesn’t matter why she is with me. She is pleasent to have around and treats me well. Her pleasing nature makes a man want to do all he can for her. She enjoys a man fully invested in her. She will also enjoy a house full kids and grandkids happily argueing and fighting over the WII remote during the thanksgiving holiday.
Why else would abortions happen after 8.5 weeks or even 2 days before birth?
You CANNOT get an abortion 2 days before birth, you can only get an abortion before the child reaches 20 weeks, WTH?
Again WTH? You don’t even know the laws in the US, the legal limit in ALL US states is up to 24 weeks.
And show me the feminists fighting to kill newborns.
SHOW me those articles advocating for the murder of infants or STFU.
And partial birth abortion is not legal neither in the US or in Canada, unless the mother’s health is in danger.
It is not common : well under 1%, but it is legal.
It’s only legal IF the woman’s life is in danger, like I already said above!!!!!
Chels
Living in Toronto, I know people from lots of countries, including DR/South America, and they don’t seem that different from Canadian women–sure they’re warmer and more loyal…
Do you understand the statistical concept of “sample error”? And do you note the self-contradiction in your statement?
Please, Chels, bear in mind that many posters here are from the US, where there is no time limit on abortion. It is legal for a woman to have an abortion in the 9th month, if she chooses and could find a doctor who would do it. There are not many abortionists who will do the job on women after 6 months or so, but there are some. Perhaps there is a 20-week limit in Canada, but thanks to Roe there is no time limit on abortion in the US.
Well if you’re going abroad to find a nice wife, be careful
http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2011/09/15/bkk-airport-g-string-fetus-killer-caught-on-samui-island/
Chels, you do not know what you are writing about. Abortion to “protect the health of the mother” includes her mental health. All she need do is demonstrate that here “health”, i.e. her sense of well being, would be affected by carrying her blob of cells to term, and an abortion can be obtained. The number of abortionists willing to perform them after 6 months is not large, but it is not zero, either. Every week in some parts of the US, a premature birth is in the special ICU being cared for, while another human being of almost the same age is being surgically removed from its maternal host in an abortion.
Late term abortions are legal in the US. And late term, partial birth abortion is a right that NARAL, NOW and other feminist organizations will fight with all their resources to protect. You can add all the exclamation points you want, but the facts will not change.
Stella McCartney shows that 40 is the new 30: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23987272-stella-mccartney-shows-that-40-is-the-new-30.do
Lots of info on partial birth abortion here: http://www.rtl.org/action_center/pba_2011/
The Michigan legislature has passed partial birth abortions 4 times, but three times the lawyers got after it and the last time that cow Jennifer Granholm vetoed it. So much for the will of the people. The procedure is barbaric and cannot possibly spare the mother since she has to give birth anyway.
detinennui: Sadly, I know all too much about ‘the facts on the ground’. I’m 30 and unmarried, have few of the qualities that bring the girls a-flocking, and little opportunity to display what I do have. I am having to face up to the likelihood of never marrying. I don’t like it at all, but it beats being divorced, or being a cad, or – perhaps worst of all – being someone’s ‘gina tingler’, a wind-up toy in danger of being kicked to the curb at the first hint of ‘failure’ to ‘demonstrate higher value’, and trying to convince myself that it’s ‘happy marriage’, in spite of the reality being the marital equivalent of running Long-Term Capital Management.
I must also very sharply deny ever having said anything about men dropping to their knees and pledging lives, fortunes, and honor to the ‘sweethearts’ who’ve gone a-carouseling. I’m pretty sure I said men should avoid marrying, pairing with, or otherwise ‘getting involved with’ women who’ve made even one ‘mistake’, let alone many.
At any rate, I said nothing about social contracts. The world works best when people treat each other well, but to infer, from people doing so, the existence of a contract to do so, is wrong. There never was a social contract, and the idea that there ever was one is one of the most morally and socially corrosive ideas mankind has yet devised. Decent behavior is decent behavior; it isn’t, it can’t be contingent on anything else. In what one can call ‘better days’, most people either really wanted to behave decently or were forced into a credible simulacrum of decent behavior. (I suspect that laws are far more often people’s reflections than their moulds.) Either way, one half’s shirking says nothing about the other half’s obligations. The contrary is just an excuse for indecent behavior – and, ultimately, saying ‘if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em’.
I don’t see how men wanting to rut like alley cats, and women fawning over what the hypergamous instinct considers to be (as opposed to what actually ought to be considered) the ‘best’ men, are required, or even ever have been required, for the species to continue. But suppose you are right: either survival is the highest good or it ain’t. If it is, all ancient and decidedly out-of-touch-with-the-modern-world books aside, there is no longer any sense in distinguishing between what the instincts consider to be ‘good’ and what actually is good. And in that case, behold, the ideal man. I shudder. (And on the male side, that’s where compromise with modernity is heading. I have seen the future, and it looks ridiculous.) But if you agree that survival is not the highest good, on what grounds do you disagree with me that the instincts that perpetuate survival are at war with the virtues? The practice of Game, i.e. catering to the instincts, depends on the fact that the instincts would have us chase simulacra and stand-ins instead of real virtues – which is just what I meant by saying that the instincts are corrupt. I, again, don’t think survival really requires people to chase the insipid and false, but if it does, that fact very strongly supports the belief that the instincts, along with the rest of the world, have gone horribly wrong. In either case – whether the instincts for men to rut and women to chase shinies is vital to human survival or not – if we are to keep the virtues as virtues, we must call the instincts ‘defective’.
The cub scouts have been high on feminist hit list. You, grerp, can make a difference here. At least teach the boys not to be manginas, and to reject the Cord Ivanyi paradigm.
My goals in leading the cub scouts are threefold: 1) to teach boys that they qualities that they have as boys are valuable and necessary to society; that being a boy is good 2) to teach them useful skills that will help them to stay healthy and safe and to better navigate life and 3) to build community within our den. I thought about saying this to the boys’ parents, but I’m waffling now as I think it may come across as passionate and strange.
My assistant leader is an ex-marine and has an extensive tool collection. We will make opportunities to showcase the skills he has. I’m also going to canvass the den parents to see what they can impart too.
greyghost – Thank you for your kind comments. I hope to update my blog again soon.
Chels:
” Remember that NAWALT, you might be the problem, &c., &c., &c.”
Now this wouldn’t be shaming language would it, Chels? You know, it doesn’t work on men any more, right?
Considering that I’ve had little or no trouble forming relationships with non-American women and nothing but problems with American ones; or that every US guy I know has been treated like garbage by American women and the only happily-married ones married Latinas or Europeans: I would say that the problem isn’t exactly residing in myself.
Also consider that practically the only men who seem to have no problems getting American women are the types of men no sane man would ever want to imitate. Maybe women’s attitudes are the problem, a little more than you think.
Dalrock:
I didn’t call Chels an Amerobitch; I informed her that she is one. Since she and others like her seem to have the idea fixated in their minds that ‘all men are pigs’, I’m not certain that the term is too objectionable.
[…it makes me wonder if there’s a protocol for Doctors that suspect cuckoldry. It must come up; having to diagnose people with disease incompatible with their family history]
I don’t think there is the medical oath of privacy is too important for a doctor to keep, so he might likely just check with the mother to make sure is not a switched at birth situation and work around the issue to the best of his/her ability or something along those lines.
Does the name Dr.Kermit Gosnell ring a bell anyone?
Question to the guys here. I promise is not a trap you can ask at HUS I always ask questions. I’m a curious woman. 🙂
So we already know that many of you are very skeptic about female real abilities in many fields that had been dominated by males for centuries, and that is your right. If you were in a situation where you needed a life saving surgery, like brain surgery, and the surgeon you were assigned to was a woman, would you look for a male surgeon or will allow her to operate you? and why?
Thanks in advance! 😀
Does the name Dr.Kermit Gosnell ring a bell anyone?
Oh please God no, don’t remind me of that. On top of his “actions” I saw how many women at Jezebel were sorry for the women that had to go to insanitary conditions and no the poor babies that were alive and killed by him, really for all the supposedly campaign “abortion is okay because is just a group of cells and not a baby that can live outside the body of the woman” they surely didn’t have any pity for the babies that actually could live without their mothers and were killed anyway…I think I need a shower….
SR: While I do think it’s difficult to seriously argue that the female average in technical fields is as high as the male, or that, if one could plot such a graph, the ‘right tail’ of their ability distribution is as fat as the male, and while I am not entirely at ease with the idea of the career woman, no, I wouldn’t worry about having a female doctor assigned to me. Even in the worst case, which probably wouldn’t happen, there’s only so much the medical schools, state boards, and hospitals will relax their standards in the name of ‘diversity’; the odds of her work not being good enough – and the odds that I would notice a difference in her work, are pretty low. It’s not worth raising a stink over.
If I’m given my choice of doctors and the dirt on them all, I’ll pick the best one I can, male or female. It’s likely to be male, but where I live, in a couple of fields, I know of exceptions who I’d see over any of their male competitors. But…they are exceptions.
Now, in the rather contrived case that I’m given a choice of doctors, but have no information but their names, and no time to get more information than that? Yeah, I’d pick a man. In pure games of chance, one goes with the odds.
Stephanie, let me answer it this way:
A priest, a rabbi and a feminist walk into a bar together.
The bartender looks up and says, “What is this, some kind of a joke?”
Thanks for you answer Unger very informing *kissinthecheek* 🙂
AR
Heh funny.
And show me the feminists fighting to kill newborns.
They’re not only fighting, they’re succeeding, and in your very own Canada:
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2011/09/infanticideabortion_connection.html
I didn’t call Chels an Amerobitch; I informed her that she is one. Since she and others like her seem to have the idea fixated in their minds that ‘all men are pigs’, I’m not certain that the term is too objectionable.
And just how am I “Canadio-bitch”? (I’m not American). As well, I never, ever suggested that all men are pigs, nor have I ever even thought that. That’s why I said you’re projecting, you think that AWALT, simply based on nationality even though you’re the only one here who seems to think that I hate men (personally, I think most men are great).
Pingback: Feminist nostalgia for traditional gender roles
unger:
I say this in all seriousness.
You mentioned in your first comment on this thread that men should pursue childhood sweethearts — women from families they have known their whole lives. Yet in response to me, you say you are 30 and unmarried, and face the prospect of never marrying.
Why haven’t you snapped up one of the girls you knew from second grade? From what you’ve told us, aren’t those girls in abundant supply? I don’t think they are. At least that was my experience. If they are not, it proves my point: that they are all hypergamous and not worth investing in, or they are home from college, working dead end cubicle jobs after sexually servicing five to 15 men before you, and still not worth investment or commitment.
I have never been so sorry to be right.
@Stephenie Rowling
My brother in law is a surgeon, and told us the following joke:
Q: What do you call a guy who graduated last in his class in med school?
A: Doctor.
I’m probably not the one this question is aimed at, because I have written previously that I have worked for very competent women, I currently work with very competent women, and I have lead very competent women as part of project teams. I also had a medical issue last year and went through multiple specialists before it was finally fixed by a female doctor.
In answer to your specific question I would go with a combination of the the information available to me at the time and my gut feeling after talking with her. Really sharp and competent people tend to be fairly easy to recognize, as do less sharp people who are in their jobs due to affirmative action.
Steph, can I answer your question? Personally, I don’t care, unless they seem really incompetent and it has happened before with both men and women.
My dentist is a woman and she’s fantastic, my family doctor is a man and he’s also fantastic. However, the exception is gynecologists, I prefer women, having been to men and it’s just really uncomfortable. I’d take a guess that men are also most comfortable going to other men in that case.
@unger
I don’t claim to be an expert, but I don’t think you should claim that men have an obligation to give their lives over something based on a general feeling you get from the bible. I’ve seen it argued that men should be willing to give up their lives to protect their wife based on specific scripture. But your roping in a misguided view of chivalry based on a general feeling of the bible is highly suspect at best. I think in the case of your general feeling, it would make more sense if you had a more context appropriate view of chivalry in mind. See my post on chivalry having to come from a position of strength to see what I mean here. But a gut check may be just as effective. Look at the picture of the boys in the article. If you can’t see that it isn’t a healthy example of (young) manhood, I don’t know what further I can say.
Women not being attracted to weak, supplicating men is perfectly normal. Continuing with your biblical framing, God commands wives to submit to their husbands. Women not being attracted to men who don’t show strength and leadership and they don’t find themselves wanting to submit to doesn’t seem at all at odds with this. None of this is to say that women aren’t fallen just like men, or that the entire range of observed female sexual impulses should be unchecked. I’ve written a great deal about the problem of feral females, and the problem with lying to women about the reality of their own desires and choices. You are taking a very narrow statement of mine, and extrapolating it to say that I’m condoning women chasing alpha/player types. This simply isn’t what I have said.
I’m not sure if this is addressed to detinennui or myself, but I’ll respond with my own view for clarity. What I said was: They need to be taught how to navigate the reality of the post sexual revolution and post feminist world. See my recent post on Christian women seeing it as being more important to “be true to themselves” than to do anything for their husbands. Note that this recognition is coming from a Christian woman who writes books on marriage for Christian women, and lectures on the topic at churches across Canada. See also her blog post in response, and the comments by the women who read her blog. Good Christian women see what is going on, but Christian men by and large are willfully blinded to it. Teaching young men to further pedestalize women will only make this worse.
The culture has changed profoundly, but we are telling men that women are precious snowflakes. We need to teach men (young or otherwise) discernment. Right now very few Christian men (including pastors) can distinguish between a truly good Christian woman and a harlot.
Unger:
And fourth: men should behave as they ought,
Very vague. Sometimes, ‘behaving as one ought’ means simple disengagement. For example, I don’t think a man who is a Christian has any obligation to go to church if all he’s going to get is sermonettes about how bad he is and not stepping up to the plate.
even if they are despised for it, even if it costs them.
Men ‘behaving as they ought’ needs the right social backdrop. If that’s missing, the obligation may go away. Only fools would rush to defend the honor of a crack whore.
However, the exception is gynecologists, I prefer women, having been to men and it’s just really uncomfortable. I’d take a guess that men are also most comfortable going to other men in that case.
Interestingly enough most of my female friends back in DR prefer men, they say men are more gentle. I don’t really have a preference in gynecologists in gender, but were good and professional (funny anecdote in here male doctors ask for a female nurse when they are poking to the naughty bits, in my country they don’t do that the male doctor does his job and there is no fear of suing them from it or they doing something inappropriate, it was odd when I started to undress and the doctor asked me to wait for a nurse here) but I do I prefer the ones in my country for some reason the biopsy here hurt like a bitch and in my country it was less painful like a barely felt it, I’m going to ask when I visit if they use a different tool or something because really m y poor uterus was all jumpy for days when I did it here.
Thanks Dalrock for your insight, Thanks Chels for answering too.
unger, I have a leading question. Now, I’m no expert on the Bible, but a while back in the study of Game I came across an example of hypergamy at work that the writer claimed was from the Bible. So I went and checked it out for myself to see if it was truly quoted or not. Turns out the writer was correct. Let’s look at Bathsheba and David. You can read the story for yourself, then consider this question:
What did Bathsheba deserve? Is she the kind of woman that men should protect, take care of, open doors for, change tires for, etc. and so forth and so on? Because in the modern world there’s a heck of a lot of Bathshebas, and they don’t have to have their husbands sent off to a battle to get rid of them now, the divorce industry will do that job for them. It seems to me that you are saying all men should respect Bathsheba, and support her in all of her choices. Is that what you really mean?
I’m going to support unger here. I agree with what he’s trying to say, although many are misinterpreting the thrust of his message.
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” does not mean supplicate yourself to every selfish whim of another. Doing good and being kind to others may mean rebuking someone or disciplining them (allowing them to experience consequences). Every parent can appreciate this difference. It also means reaching out to help those who need help (real help, not just making them comfortable), even when they have wronged you or are walking a path of sin and destruction.
Also, being a Christian involves dying to self to follow Christ, not just agreeing with His moral principles. Let me rephrase Matthew 19:16-22.
And behold, a sex-starved man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The sexually deprived man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, get castrated and donate those parts to a laboratory, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great unfulfilled sexual desire.
Jesus said to them, ” And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Now, I’m not saying it’s easy. I have been walking through significant marital misery for three years now. But the issue is the same for everyone – who/what is your god? Sex, money, approval/desire from a woman, fun, friends, kids? If it’s Christ, His call is to show your love and allegiance through obedience. Even when it doesn’t make you happy. After all, what does it profit a man to gain the whole world (all the great sex he wants) and lose his own soul?
unger and jcr
I think that I more or less see what you mean, and I happen to agree that one shouldn’t make the desires of the world bigger than the desire to serve God. But being the best posible part of the world is a way to serve God too and I think The Lord didn’t brought is here to completely quit the world. My parable is the Gold Coins one:
“For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
My personal interpretation (emphasis on personal) is that the coins are our lives and souls and through learning how to work in the world, in this particular case getting married and having children all in a good satisfying relationship more likely to get emulated for the children we will produce, means that we are adding richness to the world and eventually to the lord. Renouncing means that you are only in for your own well being and you will only have yourself to respond to, instead of working to spread the wealth among the most people possible. There is a middle point in which trying to live the best life possible can be better than trying to live the most stoic life possible, YMMV as usual.
Unger and jrc:
It is one thing to love your enemies. It is quite another to show chivalry to undeserving women. I won’t give women a rope with which to hang me.
Your objection to game seems to be moral in nature. Two points:
1. You make it sound as though everyone who learns game is transformed into a pickup artist. That is false. Go reread dalrock’s OP if you doubt this. Dalrock himself is married. Many learn game to be better husbands. Some learn it to teach their sons.
2. For a wife to submit to her husband, there must first be something to submit to.
detinennui32
2. For a wife to submit to her husband, there must first be something to submit to.
Exactly. And the advice given men today, young and not young, is generally the exact opposite of what they need, it makes us into supplicating betas. Maybe Bathsheba’s husband became too beta for her, eh? So she shopped her wares to the biggest alphas in the kingdom.
unger, it is a common mistake to assume that Game is inherently immoral. Game is applied psychology, although some include a bit of neuro-linguistic programming but it is not needed. The trappings that some men use are merely props to assist their inner Game. Ultimately, Game is being masculine in a certain way, in order to attract one or more women. As dedinennui32 states, it can be used within marriage to reinforce, bolster, improve.
Finally, there’s a big difference between a man deliberately and knowingly sacrificing something for a woman, and men being taught to regard themselves as inherently inferior to women. A very big difference. IMO this Ivanyi is teaching the latter. See the comment of slwerner in the thread on feminist nostalgia for chivalry for the complete details on that.
“But what happens when he gets laid off or becomes disabled? Is she going to stay by his side or upgrade to a higher model? That’s why I believe people must love each other for who they are and not their material possessions; a marriage is not sustainable otherwise.”
Irrelevant.
I’ve known many dudes who get laid on their unemployment or disability checks. Most men don’t believe in the concept of “the one” unless they are misinformed or coerced into accepting such a belief. Therefor,if one woman leaves, another will be along shortly, as long as you have anything that they can steal from you.If a man really wanted to make sure he would always be in pussy,do what black men do, get a mouthful of gold teeth. Also, wear a pair of pliers on a chain around your neck. (I don’t think black men do this yet, but they should) That way, even if you were to suddenly become paralyzed and keel over right there, a woman might reckon she can snag a couple of your teeth after you passed out from post-coital exhaustion.
I laughed my ass off when you said “That’s fine, I just hope you remember to keep her in whatever 3rd world country she’s from and that you know the only reason she’s with you is because of your money and status awarded by being an American.”.
It’s absolutely no different with the women here. Except being an American doesn’t get you very far with American women, so you have to generate status in another way.
You show me the woman that says “I just want to find a short,socially-awkward,homeless,bald,fat man to settle down with and faithfully and lovingly raise his children.” and I’ll show you Lucky Charms and the Loch Ness monster jerking each other off over the Philosopher’s Stone right smack dab in the center of the lost city of Atlantis.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Homage to Quiplinks Edition « Patriactionary
Mr. Ivanyi saved my life.