The culture war is over. Feminism won.
Feminism has completed its long march through the institutions of the west. Even the church is collaborating with an enthusiasm which would have made the Vichy French blush. The war is over. It is time to accept facts. Its all over but the crying.
The culture war is over. We lost.
Those looking for a leader to rally our forces and launch a bold new counterattack on feminism are misguided. There will still be opportunities for individuals and small groups to win isolated victories, but neither men nor women are going to take any meaningful action en masse. There simply are no institutions left which could facilitate this.
But the completeness of feminism’s victory is also its core problem. They control all of the institutions, but we are still here. Millions of men and women still haven’t accepted the mantra of feminism. Despite all of their efforts and having all levers of state and society available to them, the glorious new breed of woman they envisioned hasn’t come to be. And she won’t come to be. What more can feminists try except more of the same?
Now is the time for the insurgency. While there won’t be mass coordinated action, this doesn’t mean that individuals won’t respond to the post feminist reality and make choices which are in their own best interest.
For men the key will be to avoid the worst effects of the sexual revolution and the corrupt family law system. This means only marrying a woman if she demonstrates the ability to keep her promise. Many men who understand the current landscape will choose not to marry. For such a man the options are to disengage from women entirely (MGTOW) or to learn enough game to tilt the uncommitted sexual marketplace in his favor. To the great dismay of sluts and social conservative women, those women looking to use uncommitted sex to manipulate men into falsely believing they have commitment will find the men with game (the men they most want) turning the tables on them. Their planned McFling with an unsuspecting paypal will turn unexpectedly into joining a soft harem or pump n dump. Their attempt to snare an unsuspecting beta provider after riding the carousel will be haunted by the prospect of the men who might turn their own con against them. But not all men will immediately learn about the realities of the post sexual revolution sexual marketplace (SMP), and still others will hear the truth but refuse to believe it. We can only try to educate men to make better choices. Some will listen, some will not. All we can do is remain prepared to patiently share the message to those who are ready to hear it.
For women the choice will be to make a conscious decision about how they want to participate in the SMP as well. Some will undoubtedly decide that marriage isn’t important to them, and will knowingly ride the carousel. Others will decide that marriage really is important to them, and will take it seriously early on. Some will marry but then falsely assume they can continue to re-choose without consequence. Just like men, many will either not hear the message, or will refuse to accept the reality of it.
So the bad news is not all men and women can be helped, and we won’t be able to spawn a mass cultural movement. The good news is we don’t need to convert anyone else to be successful. We have an essential advantage; our message happens to be the truth. We don’t need to win the argument. The truth is the truth, whether others believe it or not. Feminists need to convince everyone that their view of the world is correct, or individuals will continue to peel off to follow their own best interest. All we have to do to win is accept the truth, and act in our own best interest. Ideally we should attempt to help others with this as well. If we can do this, we will change the culture one good choice at a time. However, we don’t need to convince others of anything to take practical measures for ourselves.
This isn’t to say that all of the effects of feminism and the sexual revolution can be merely ignored. The laws and courts are still biased. Men will continue to have their children taken away and their role as father reduced to that of walking wallet. Other men will be forced to pay support for children they never fathered. Other men will be falsely accused of rape or domestic violence, and face a legal system designed to placate feelings over justice. This is all true, and will remain true until and unless enough of the population acknowledges the truth. In the meantime, all we can do is figure out the best way to protect ourselves, our families, and (if they are willing to listen) as many other men and women as possible.
But what do you say to a man who is about to marry an alcoholic party girl, foolishly thinking that putting a ring on her finger will turn her into a wife? And what do you say to a young woman who is ready to choose the allure of the carousel instead of taking the search for a husband (and her own chastity) seriously from the beginning? You of course should try to help them see the light, and try to be patient as they resist the uncomfortable truth. If you can convince them, fantastic! This is one more life spared (or at least somewhat sheltered from) the awful effects of feminism. If not, their election not to take the wise path actually makes it easier for another man or woman to do so. Each man who marries a party girl leaves a virtuous woman available for another to marry. Each woman who rides the carousel leaves another greater beta available for a virtuous woman to marry.
Life’s wisdom delivered in a joke.
Once there were two hikers, and one of them spotted a bear. His partner immediately knelt down and started retying his bootlaces. The other hiker chuckled at his folly:
You fool. You can’t outrun a bear!
His partner replied:
I don’t have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you.
You don’t have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the other hikers.
Destroyed tank image by Mika Rantanen. Bear image by Vern Hall. Boot image by Rama.
Yes, the war is over, but the plundering and pillaging and looting is still going on. We are living in a conquered land.
If a stranger walked into your living room and tried to walk out with your kid, or your paycheck, what would you do? Why should women you’ve slept with or government officials be treated differently?
OK, that joke is just beautiful. Very nice Dalrock. I LOL’d.
OT: Another bear joke. A Christian is hiking in the woods, and sees a bear. The bear starts moving toward him, and he turns and starts running away, praying, “God, let it be a Christian bear!” The bear runs him down, and before tearing into him, stops and says, “God, thank you for this food.”
Nothing in this world is permanent
Brilliant.
Now all I have left is teaching my son. How do I teach an 11 yr old about game, and love, and marriage and not being a patsy? Age-appropriate but honest lessons? Roissy is surely out at this time. I find myself turning more and more to my conversion, the bible, and my church. I have also decided to move to an area that (hopefully) is more hospitable to such ideas rather than the area I am in. Any suggestions on how to approach this?
I find myself using commercials. There is one for a cell phone plan, and the wife looks at her husband and verbally rips his masculinity and dignity to shreds with a voice so venomous it will freeze your blood. That came on and i told him that if any girl he ever dated treated him like that, drop her and run. Then I told him to watch the mother of a girl he is interested in….if SHE treats her husband or male in such away no matter how nice the girlfriend may be, run hard.
I am also doing a paper for English comp. The instructor said to pick an idea that interests us and go with it to prepare a research paper. I submitted the topic about feminism, the sexual revolution, and the well-being of women, and that with those three, if one is dominant then by deafault the other two could not be….leaving the well-being of women last. She ok’d it, and said it would be interesting to read what I write. We’ll see. Any reading suggestions jump out at you? I swear the older I get the more I realize how inimical feminism is to women’s well being. Thanks in advance
“The culture war is over. We lost.”
There was never any war of that sort. All the positions were simply ceded to feminism without a fight.
I relish being a subversive.
Chesterton: “The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice”
This is more for Susan Walsh than Dalrock. If Susan Walsh wants to wean her audience off douchebags, she must teach one simple lesson. In fact, to teach them anything else would be counterproductive. The lesson is:
WAIT.
Wait before sex.
Everything else is worthless. Players will get sex with anything but their commitment.
Wait until he agrees to an exclusive relationship, until you’ve been on several dates, until you are publicly known as his girlfriend, before having sex. This makes it much more likely that the relationship is built on chemistry, not lust. Waiting ensures the guy is not slumming it, that he believes you are worth relinquishing his freedom for.
But women don’t want to hear this. No matter how good your game is, indicating interest in a relationship before a woman does is a huge turn off. They firmly believe that a quality man must be ‘pinned down.’ So if he asks for commitment, clearly he isn’t a quality man. To a man unaccustomed to women, this sounds ridiculous, but that’s how women behave.
The thing about easy sex is that it forms relationships that would otherwise never happen. I plow and schmooze until sex happens, and just coast from there, even when there’s little real chemistry.
Basically.
We know the story with the liberals. But the role of both free-market and traditional conservatives in advancing feminist reforms is given the short shrift in the manosphere all too often. Free-markets conservatives and the business class pushed for greater female entry into the professional workforce, dramatically increasingly the labor supply, destroying real wages, and creating a larger (and, yes, more gullible) pool of consumers. And the traditional conservatives will support any feminist reforms that are packaged as chivalry or protecting the womenfolk from teh bad, irresponsible menz.
The ‘war’ was lost without a shot fired because those who should’ve been most likely to man the defenses decided to bend over and take it in the rear.
And then turn around to ask, “Is it in yet?”
I will probably marry the woman I’m currently dating, but I still advise most men not to marry. The vast majority of women in this country aren’t good enough to deserve your monogamy. Learn game, knock some girls up, have fun. Don’t get married.
…face a legal system designed to placate feelings over justice.
Indeed, placating feelings at all costs is exactly what Gonzalo Lira
learned at Dartmouth.
@dragnet: “Free-markets conservatives and the business class pushed for greater female entry into the professional workforce, dramatically increasingly the labor supply, destroying real wages, and creating a larger (and, yes, more gullible) pool of consumers.”
The ‘marriage bar’ was primarily an issue amongst women Most intriguingly, there was a prominent official policy that persisted to within living memory: an apparently blatant sex discrimination—the ‘marriage bar‘. This was the rule whereby women who got married were given their cards or were refused promotion, and/or only single women were recruited. In Britain, America and Europe, this measure was brought in to combat mass unemployment in the cyclical economic depressions of the last century. Among the rank and file of the workforce, the common view was that the employment of married women was unfair to other family households that had no earner at all. In times of unemployment, there could be millions with no income for their starving families, while at the same time other households had two earners and luxuries.This was not at all an anti-woman sentiment, because single women were privileged in the workforce in being treated sympathetically. It was often (and usually wrongly) assumed that singlewomen were essential earners for their family household. When the ‘marriage bar‘ was investigated at General Electric in the USA, interestingly it was notmen who voiced opinion in favour of the ‘marriage bar’ so much as women; notably single women who did have financial responsibilities at home. They saw themselves as competing for jobs with married women. And thiswas true.Mostworkwas segregated sexually in some way, so that overwhelmingly a vacancy would be fought over by those of the same sex. Still today, male and female unemployment is very largely independent.
The ‘marriage bar’was anything but sex discrimination against women. It was primarily a way of ensuring that the great majority of people—that is, thewomen and children in family households—had enough to get by. It was also a way to skew available work,not tomenbut to women who were likely most to be in need of it. Itwas with the need to help women and families, that the ‘marriage bar’ was introduced…
…An instance where the ‘marriage bar’worked alongside something similar that caught men proves that it was non-discriminatory. This was a wider net than one that caughtmarried women, in catching anymale who had reached the age of twenty-one. Itwas an ’age bar’ formen, and only for
men. For example, Quaker-run firms like Cadburys and Huntley & Palmers separated the sexes in their factories; but as well as women being given their cards when they married, all young men were dismissed as soon as they reached the age of majority. This was because the factories could not compete using employees demanding full adult male wages, so the workforce was replenished with youths of both sexes, and adult unmarried women. The women at least had the choice of continued employment past the age of majority to support a single life instead of marriage, whereas men had no choice of any kind but were compelled to find work elsewhere; whether or not there was any available. Where, in any writing about men and women in the workplace, has this fact of blatant discrimination against men ever been mentioned? Of course, for most men and in normal times, they would have wanted to move on to better-paid work so as to support a family. In more desperate times, however, a wage of any kind would have been welcome; indeed necessary to avoid destitution—a situation almost unimaginable in the EU or North America today. A single man or amanwith a family would be pushed below the poverty line, but a single woman would have remained in employment, and her married counterpart would have the support of her husband. During boom times, reviews were undertaken to decide if the ‘marriage bar’ was to be kept, and then reasons would come to light in favour of the status quo. ‘Marriage bars’ were a particular feature of large employers and government, and a problem identified here was the large numbers employed in routine jobs. It was felt that the ‘marriage bar’ contributed to a healthy turnover of staff in basic grades. Removing it would lead to lengthier service in monotonous low-paid work, and this in turn would increase the turnover of men looking for something with better pay and prospects—men being the people the organisation wanted to hang on to for training up into management, as they were unlikely to cease work to become a home-maker. This was a latter-day rationale and did not eclipse the reasons for the ‘marriage bar’ being instituted in the first place. The ‘marriage bar’ was not uniform in manufacturing—in some jobs where pay was tied to productivity rather than length of service, it made no economic sense to let go of experiencedmarried women. In these cases, firms resisted popular calls for a bar. In clerical work, it was in just about every workplace. Teaching had long operated one, the civil service acquired one and, in 1932, so too did the BBC. The BBC and the civil service abandoned theirs in 1946, but in nursing—a near all-female profession, note—it was retained right up until 1973…
… Married women workers were, to some degree, socially castigated and, even with the recession easing in the late 1930s, opposition was strong if the prospect of the bar’s removal was raised. The Union of Post Office Workers, which had a high proportion ofwomen in its ranks, not only supported the ‘marriage bar’, but even called for the end of female employment. London County Council staff voted two-to-one in favour of the status quo. A ballot of civil servants in 1930 had shown just three percent of women in favour of scrapping it.
The ‘marriage bar’ was not discrimination against women. It can never be understood in that way. It was discrimination in favour of the full set of family households: a fairer redistribution amongst them. It was the progressive policy of its times—an importantmeasure to promote social justice in a periodwhen realwantwas a problem formillions. Times changed and it was abolished, but that it persisted up until recent decades was partly or even largely at the behest of women—to prioritise women in the work place who had no support from a husband.As soon as it ceased to be of use to women, it was rescinded.” (Steve Moxon, Woman Racket)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_bars
“But what do you say to a man who is about to marry an alcoholic party girl, foolishly thinking that putting a ring on her finger will turn her into a wife? ”
I have a much younger brother (by a decade) so I am privy to his social set and I can tell you the younger guys are absolutely SUPER cluey to the machinations of female hypergamy and there is a stupendously monumental blow-back in the pipeline. For goodness sakes a 19 year old got me onto Roissy!
I know of guys in their 20s going to the East to get married, young guys deliberately MGOW, guys who confronted a stranger for marrying an ex carousel rider (unbeknownst to him) and making him get a divorce, guys divorcing early and vowing never again and guys consciously playing the pump and dump.
The landscape is changing.
Superb post. I’m working on something eerily similar.
[D: Thanks Roosh!]
The war is never over.
This is essentially the same place Communism was in when Gramsci suggested that the cultural and intellectual institutions of the West were ripe for picking. Changing the laws and hard charging the high offices would be a suicide run, but every massive, complacent enemy has a soft underbelly ripe for the stabbing.
Time to start probing.
“And the traditional conservatives will support any feminist reforms that are packaged as chivalry or protecting the womenfolk from teh bad, irresponsible menz.”
Not quite. The problem with most traditionalists is that they have withdrawn from society altogether. These are the people that have been the brunt of “shaming language” long before the manosphere even thought it up. There was never enough of them to constitute a resistance, You are mistaking traditionalists with right-liberals who try to emulate the chivalry of the traditionalists without the embarrassing “women belong in the kitchen” vibe. The traditionalists are many things, but saps of feminism? Never.
“This means only marrying a woman if she demonstrates the ability to keep her promise. Many men who understand the current landscape will choose not to marry.”
Another good option you forgot about was moving to a foreign country and marrying a foreign woman–much more feminine and much more caring with traditional gender roles still intact where feminism hasn’t made inroads as much.
Thanks for this post, Dalrock. For me it was a much needed pep talk. I’ve clipped it and will read once a day until further notice.
@Basil
Yup. Otherwise known as “no sex before monogamy.” I’m trying, working on the margins as Dalrock described. Women may not want to hear it but they’re often ready to listen after being played. Interestingly, a lot of my readers are not riding the carousel – and they’re seeking support from like-minded women as they sit out the hookup scene in college.
Feminism is entirely to blame Dalrock; but it has not won. That would be ascribing feminism malice, which is not actually that case; just ignorance.
The real culprits of the crumbling of society are
1. Natural male hyper promiscuity
2. Popular culture which encourages female hyper promiscuity and the use of sex for selfish purposes
Both forces which have been historically retarded by conservative elders and parents. However, feminism which was an intellectual outgrowth of pop-culture got in the way, and so male and female promiscuity flourished.
It still makes no difference if you have a “good” woman or not. The laws of misandry are still there. What makes marriage a bad deal for men and children is not the selfish and bad woman it is the force of law that supports, enforces and encourages women to divorce at the expense of men and children. It makes no difference, a man will always have his well being tied to the opinion of his wife. Married life would still be like that Twilight zone episode with Billy Mumy(Its a Good Life) where some guy will be forced at gun point to say how good his wife is. This effect is strongest if there are hostages the man loves and if the man believes in the marriage vows. There is nothing more disgusting than to have to game a woman that made vows before god. (fuckin wife). The laws are in place and are the reason we are here in the first place.
There is nothing more disgusting than to have to game a woman that made vows before god.
I heartily agree with this sentiment, greyghost. Why a man has to “game” a wife into being what she vowed to be is beyond me.
grizzledwolf (September 20, 2011 at 7:35 pm) referred to Antonio Gramsci. He was an innovative and imaginative intellectual who has profoundly influenced Western societies — one of the patron saints of the feminist movement, you could say.
Here’s his concept of “weaving,” as explained in a c. 2000 essay by Jimmy Cantrell —
A second precis of Gramsci’s philosophy is given here, by Alberto Luzárraga.
— mgwk
“Each man who marries a party girl leaves a virtuous woman available for another to marry.”
Really? For that to really make sense, it seems to me that there must be a virtuous woman out there, in a one to one ratio, for every decent man. Or at least something close to it. So that a decent man who marries a party girl is foregoing marriage to a virtuous woman, and thereby increasing the chances of other decent men in marrying a virtuous women. The way I look at it, there are only a very, very few virtuous women to begin with, nowhere near enough to supply each decent man with a wife. When a decent man marries a party girl he does little or nothing to change the odds. That is still a vast oversupply of decent men and undersupply of virtuous women. It would be like saying that each man who marries a woman who is not one of Charlie’s Angels leaves a Charlie’s Angel available for another man to marry. Technically true, perhaps, but not very meaningful.
“Each woman who rides the carousel leaves another greater beta available for a virtuous woman to marry.”
Again, that might be technically true, but given the low number of virtuous women to begin with I hardly think it matters. There are already plenty of decent men (or “greater betas” or whatever) available for each virtuous woman.
“This is one more life spared (or at least somewhat sheltered from) the awful effects of feminism. If not, their election not to take the wise path actually makes it easier for another man or woman to do so.”
I guess what I’m saying is that it is already easy enough for a virtuous woman to marry well, and thus escape almost entirely the awful effects of feminism Because decent men abound. Not so for decent men. Because virtuous women are so rare, their only real choices are to not marry at all or to marry badly. Either way, they feel the awful effects of feminism. There is no equivalence here, as women not only hold the poltical power to negate feminism on a society-wide basis, but the power to live their own personal lives mostly free from the effects of feminism. Men have neither power.
“The real culprits of the crumbling of society are
1. Natural male hyper promiscuity
2. Popular culture which encourages female hyper promiscuity and the use of sex for selfish purposes”
I’m guessing you’re female. You outright blame men for their actions and then turn around and blame society for the actions of women. You are disqualified from the conversation.
Now all I have left is teaching my son.
My son is 7. It’s a challenge to present an image of a deeply flawed world and deeply flawed people without being a total downer or misanthrope. But I just keep presenting him the Doctrine of Incentives: that people will do things if they are rewarded for doing things, so watch what’s being rewarded.
The other day I was walking him and a friend home from school, and his friend started talking about how you can’t hit girls because they are smaller and weaker. I like this little boy and I like his family very much, but I think his father is a bit of a pedestalizer, probably because his father was terribly abusive and it’s affected the way he views men. I told them, “That’s right, you shouldn’t hit girls, but girls shouldn’t hit you either. Hitting is not acceptable, and you shouldn’t have to take it from girls just because you’re bigger.” They asked me what to do if a girl hit them. I said, “You look them straight in the eye and say firmly, ‘I don’t think you want to do that again, DO you?” Then tried to get them to practice it. My son liked that, and added a karate chop flourish at the end (which wasn’t really the takeaway, but he’s not violent, so whatever). The other boy wasn’t enthused.
In my view, the important life lessons aren’t given in Big Important Talks, but in little teachable moments, day after day, and you have to be there – and willing – to give them.
I haven’t got much advice yet about the sex angle. My son asked the other day about how babies came about and was fully revolted when I explained it to him.
@ruddyturnstone
Well argued. I see your basic point. For some of these men perhaps a better analogy would be diving on a grenade which would have posed no harm if left alone. Is that better?
I don’t know the actual supply of marriage worthy women. I suspect it varies greatly by the circles one travels in and different parts of the country. But from looking at the census stats, while far too many women divorce, a very large number don’t divorce. This isn’t a perfect metric, because some of those women who stay married undoubtedly put their husbands through hell. In addition, some of those who divorced must have had good reasons or been divorced against their will. At the very least we know that a large percentage of women avoid the temptation to commit divorce theft. For white women this appears to be the majority of those who married. Per the 2009 SIPP data, 42% of white women in their 50s who had ever married had ever divorced, so nearly 60% hadn’t ever divorced.
In addition, I don’t think that men are doing a good enough job at vetting prospective wives. While the remarriage data shows men are slowly catching on, many still believe the lies in our culture. This gives an advantage to the man who acknowledges reality. The market for wives isn’t perfectly efficient. This means a smart man can possibly still find “bargains” in this respect. It isn’t just about one single man overlooking cupcake’s previous frivolous divorce, her being bipolar, her woman’s studies major or history as the town bike, etc. It is about a societal pattern of encouraging men to assume none of this matters. So long as many aren’t searching for the right criteria, this leaves openings for other men.
You may also be overestimating the supply of quality marriageable men. Being a nice guy with a job isn’t enough. He has to be able to generate some real attraction. He also has to be interested in marriage.
They asked me what to do if a girl hit them. I said, “You look them straight in the eye and say firmly, ‘I don’t think you want to do that again, DO you?”
I don’t think threatening girls is going to work because some are just going to see it as a dare, and she is going to hit back. As well, I wouldn’t encourage him to hit her back because it could easily land him in suspension, or at the very least in the principal’s office with a call to you.
And if your son tells the principal that his mommy said it was ok to hit back, it might just be enough to accuse you of being a bad parent and get your son taken away from you (I’m not sure how far of a stretch this is though; but I do remember reading about it in the newspaper).
However, if I was the mother of a boy, I wouldn’t have any idea how to handle this situation, except for letting the teacher what’s going on, and if that doesn’t stop the girl bully, a call to her parents would be in order.
You may also be overestimating the supply of quality marriageable men. Being a nice guy with a job isn’t enough. He has to be able to generate some real attraction. He also has to be interested in marriage.
I think the Nice Guy™ is an exaggeration, and I seriously doubt all these guys complaining that they can’t find a suitable girl. It sounds like the “where have all the good men gone?”, and I’m sure that these guys have a bucket list of their own, preventing them from finding a spouse–she can’t be too thin, she can’t be too fat, her head is too big for her body, her eyes are the wrong color, she’s too conservative/too liberal, she doesn’t wear the right clothes, her hair is too short and so on. I’m sure they’ve done plenty of rejecting themselves, and some girls who were interested in them didn’t even appear on their radar.
“There was never any war of that sort. All the positions were simply ceded to feminism without a fight.”
Actually not so much. As much as it may appear that way from media coverage and the corruption of the legal system, a substantial minority of men and women fought against feminism at every step and in every institution. Oh and the war is far from over. For example even as we sit here there is a growing move to correct the legal system.
Dalrock
Eventually there will be “mass coordinated action”. I don’t think it will be organized from the top down, for you are correct, there remains no traditional institution to do that. Truth is a strange thing. Feminism at its core is a false idea, and it is failing all about us. Idea’s have power, and ideas rooted in truth are eventually unstoppable. You mentioned somewhere the rate at which your blog hits have and are growing. I liked the comment above about being turned on to Rossey by a 19 year old.
Whether or not you agree with the tenets of the Tea Party it is a mass coordinated action, without a central coordinator. It is what can happen when like minded people connect to make changes. When the human costs of feminism are high enough, people will move to correct it en mass.
Chels:
“I think the Nice Guy™ is an exaggeration, and I seriously doubt all these guys complaining that they can’t find a suitable girl.”
I disagree with your second paragraph.
You’ve been around these parts long enough to know that men’s attraction filters are much, much wider than those of women. Your statement completely ignores that fact.
Between 60 to 70% of all women are good enough initially for any given man. If she’s good enough, she’s good enough. End of story. She doesn’t have to be perfect. She doesn’t have to be anywhere close to perfect.
Most men I know don’t blow out girls because she doesn’t meet a desired physical characteristic. Most men (including myself) rejected girls almost all the time for a personality flaw that surfaced eventually. Did we make mistakes? Sure. But the fact remains that to men, the majority of women are at least initially attractive enough.
The problem is not that men are rejecting women. The problem is that women are rejecting men out of hand. Everyone knows that men display, women choose. Therefore, men don’t reject most of the time. Women do the rejecting. Women’s refusal to choose a particular man means he’s rejected.
The other half of the problem is that men can’t even get out of the gate with between 85% and 95% of all women. Most women sliently reject or friendzone men within the first few seconds of seeing them. Odds are he’s been rejected and friendzoned before the very first word comes out of his mouth.
Dalrock: “You may also be overestimating the supply of quality marriageable men. Being a nice guy with a job isn’t enough. He has to be able to generate some real attraction. He also has to be interested in marriage.”
Given that men have not understood the new situation and how the situation is skewed against them society and law wise, I would say that there are an oversupply of marriageable men (meaning men who will honour their wovs and who will have to pay the consequences if they don’t, and often even if they do).
In some places (Latin America, Russia, Asia etc.) there’s a shortage of marriageable men, and marriageable women (and other women) are leaving these places for better pastures, and marriageable men (and other men) are expatting there.
I don’t think threatening girls is going to work because some are just going to see it as a dare, and she is going to hit back.
It wasn’t meant to be a threat, merely a reclaiming of his personal space and a repudiation of her violation of it. Confident people rarely get bullied.
In considering the ways in which Feminism seems to have already won out, we often note the realities of “divorce theft”, and “child alimony” – especially those cases where men are beset with these liabilities years after the fact.
Now, it might even be possible for women who abandon their children to come back many years later and demand support…for those abandon children.
B.C. man sued by mother for parental support
I find myself at a loss for words, except perhaps to note that if an man who’d walked out on his family later tried to sue for support from them, it would likely be laughed out of court. But, because feminism has effectively set up a legal system in which women are considered not only de facto victims, but also as being entitled to have the men around them be forced to provide for them. Sadly, a Canadian judge has determined that this suit had enough merit to proceed; which seems to mean simply that a woman is in want of something from a man she can show some relationship to. Under the realities of Feminist society, that's apparently good enough.
@Chels says:
I think you have taken this too far in the other direction. The data does show that women are significantly less likely to marry in their 20s today than just 10 years ago. Unless you are arguing that this is because young men got pickier, your argument is at odds with the facts.
slwerner: The suit only has merit because of an obscure BC law that requires children to support their parents due to age, infirmity or illness. So by law, the son might be required to support his mother despite their lack of relationship.
How far we have fallen.
In years past, children would do this — and did do this — for their parents. And we did it without being asked, much less coerced under pain of legal penalty.
How disgusting that this mother shows up in her son’s life only now, and only when she sees him as a source of support. She does not want a relationship with her own flesh and blood. She wants only his money. And this from HIS MOTHER.
Despicable.
detinennui32 – ”The suit only has merit because of an obscure BC law that requires children to support their parents…”
I had hoped to draw on the distinction between the son who was abandon at the age of 15, and the other two children who were not abandoned. The “mother” is asking that they, all three, provide for her equally.
Simple logic would suggest that the son who was selectively abandoned should have been allowed to severe himself from her suit against her biological children, and have her claim against him considered separately; and have her willful abandonment of him weighed against her demand that he now provide support for her.
That’s why I specifically brought up the idea of a man who’d abandoned his family (abandoned his children) likewise choosing to go after them for money many years later. Allow the law would indicate that he might have a legitimate claim, I cannot help but believe that both his gender and his choice to abandon his children would be used as a way to indemnify those children he abandoned.
Such a consideration seems to have been ignored in this particular case, and I suspect that this is due to her being a women, and he being a man (in the general legal attitude that men owe women).
Of course, it’s merely my conjecture that gender and feminism have played a role here. But, it sure does seem hard to rule out.
I think you have taken this too far in the other direction. The data does show that women are significantly less likely to marry in their 20s today than just 10 years ago. Unless you are arguing that this is because young men got pickier, your argument is at odds with the facts.
I’m not arguing that men have gotten pickier, I’m just responding to the men complaining that they just can’t get a wife, and it’s not their fault either. I’m sure there are cases like that, but I think it’s a small minority. It’s not like men would accept anyone who was just into them, but that they have a list of their own when choosing a partner, which means that a lot of women are eliminated for no good reason. Not to mention that they have flaws too, and some are not too eager to admit to them.
As well, that post on supply and demand shows that most women do get married, but they just get married at a later age. However, that’s to be expected, since both men and women usually wait to finish their degrees and becoming more established before getting married. And unless the guy’s religious, most men do not want to men while he’s under 25, most wait until their late 20s-early 30s.
In that post, you compare the rates of marriage between 2000 and 2010, but I’d like to see the rates more far back, as the age of marriage has steadily increased, and it’s not only due to women becoming pickier, since the vast majority of them end up married anyway. As well, the increase in never married women is small, and I’m not sure how much of it is due to women’s choosiness.
And unless the guy’s religious, most men do not want to men while he’s under 25, most wait until their late 20s-early 30s.
I meant marry, “most men do not want to marry while he’s under 25”
It wasn’t meant to be a threat, merely a reclaiming of his personal space and a repudiation of her violation of it. Confident people rarely get bullied.
It does sound like a threat though, like “hit me again and see what happens”. As well, confidence has nothing to do with getting bullied, anyone can get bullied for any reason–I know of a lot of people who got bullied in school, and they were very confident; but her hair was ginger, and he had glasses and braces.
Kids will pick on anything.
“At the very least we know that a large percentage of women avoid the temptation to commit divorce theft. For white women this appears to be the majority of those who married. Per the 2009 SIPP data, 42% of white women in their 50s who had ever married had ever divorced, so nearly 60% hadn’t ever divorced. ”
Dalrock, that may be because there is no profit in divorce. A man with assets will be more at risk of divorce theft than a man who has no assets or very little. A woman may remain in the marriage simply because there are no financial incentives for divorce which of course is a good argument for removing those financial incentives to profit from divorce. However as you mentioned it doesn’t in fact say anything about the quality of the marriage as many men are living abusive or sexless or near sexless marriages.
Which comes back to the question how many women will make good/suitable wives in this feminst indoctrinated grrrl power culture. Some of us men who’ve taken the red pill think – not too many. But then again myself and inreasingly others have opted out [of marriage].
You’ve been around these parts long enough to know that men’s attraction filters are much, much wider than those of women. Your statement completely ignores that fact.
Yeah, all the talk about “younger, hotter, tighter” in the manosphere definitely shows a lot about men’s attraction filters.
Between 60 to 70% of all women are good enough initially for any given man. If she’s good enough, she’s good enough. End of story. She doesn’t have to be perfect. She doesn’t have to be anywhere close to perfect.
What’s wrong with the other 30-40%?
Most men I know don’t blow out girls because she doesn’t meet a desired physical characteristic. Most men (including myself) rejected girls almost all the time for a personality flaw that surfaced eventually. Did we make mistakes? Sure. But the fact remains that to men, the majority of women are at least initially attractive enough.
Some men are very shallow, and women have been dumped for gaining 20 pounds. And what were the personality flaws that got women rejected?
The problem is not that men are rejecting women. The problem is that women are rejecting men out of hand. Everyone knows that men display, women choose. Therefore, men don’t reject most of the time. Women do the rejecting. Women’s refusal to choose a particular man means he’s rejected.
Actually men choose since they make the first move the majority of the time, they’re the ones who approach the woman. Does he go for a size 2 blond cheerleader or for the size 10 brunette?
Chels:
“It’s not like men would accept anyone who was just into them, but that they have a list of their own when choosing a partner, which means that a lot of women are eliminated for no good reason.”
I would disagree with this. First, men don’t choose. Women do. Women do all the choosing and selecting in relationships. Full stop. The fact that a man asks a woman for marriage does not mean he has chosen her. IN fact, she selected him for marriage long before the question is ever asked. If you don’t believe me, ask every woman you know who has ever been married (happily or not), and she’ll almost invariably say that she knew she wanted to marry her husband months before he asked.
I doubt that most men in the market for a wfie have a list that eliminates women frivolously. My list was:
1. Is a Christian
2. wants a husband for life
3. willing to compromise on non-core relationship issues
4. is reasonably physically attractive to me (a given, of course, since we’d never get beyond initial conversation if this were not present)
That is not a very exclusive list. Just off the top of my head I would guess that better than a million women in the United States met those criteria. I would also guess that I knew personally more than a hundred women who met those criteria. I was only able to get beyond a first date with perhaps three or four of them.
I would disagree with this. First, men don’t choose. Women do. Women do all the choosing and selecting in relationships. Full stop. The fact that a man asks a woman for marriage does not mean he has chosen her. IN fact, she selected him for marriage long before the question is ever asked.
I’m not talking about marriage, I’m talking about the initial date–who chooses? The man does, he chooses with who he goes on the first date, and a lot of (good) women get rejected by him, because she doesn’t meet one of his criteria. I know plenty of women who didn’t get a first date with a man they liked because he decided he didn’t like them without even knowing them first. I know that women do that too (initially, I didn’t like my bf but he pursued me and convinced me to go out with him, and I’m very glad he did).
I think the men complaining they can’t get a wife should give the women he’s not initially into a chance, and not reject them immediately. As well, I’m doubtful they’re perfect, so they should try to work on their character flaws, and everyone has them (some more than others).
All I’m saying is that women being picky is only part of the story.
chels:
most men find most women at least initially attractive. That is simply a fact that cannot be refuted. “Younger, hotter, tighter” is the ideal being pursued by the true PUAs in the manosphere It’s not an attraction filter, and it’s not a realistic goal for most men. Most men are not going to marry 22 year old fitness instructors. And most PUAs won’t get to date them or bang them either.
“What’s wrong with the other 30 to 40%? ”
It’s a wider attraction filter. It does filter out some. It doesn’t let every girl in.
Sure, some men are shallow and some would dump a woman for gaining 20 pounds. Those men aren’t suitable for marriage, though, and are thus outside the discussion here.
Personality flaws that result in rejection?
–needy and clingy. Has to be with her man all the time.and smothers him
–can’t solve a problem herself. Can’t think her way out of a wet paper bag.
–unrepentant promiscuity
–doesn’t like sex at all, squeamish about sex
–entitlement princess
Actually, men don’t choose. Women do. Here’s that last paragraph again:
The other half of the problem is that men can’t even get out of the gate with between 85% and 95% of all women. Most women sliently reject or friendzone men within the first few seconds of seeing them. Odds are he’s been rejected and friendzoned before the very first word comes out of his mouth.
I’m not talking about marriage, I’m talking about the initial date–who chooses?
chels, now you’re changing the parameters of the discussion. We were talking about marriage. now you’re shifting gears to talk about first dates.
OK. Women being picky is part of the problem But I don’t think men’s selectivity in first dates is part of the problem. When it comes to first dates, I don’t think men are getting more selective. I don’t think most men are more selective in sex partners either. Men still have to work for every sex partner they get, either through display, DHV, charisma, attractiveness and/or game.
Where I suspect men are getting a bit more selective is in the level of investment and commitment they make to women; and to ultimately getting married.
deti: Women chose which men to give the incentive to propose and men chose if that incentive is big enough for them to propose. Women then chose if they will keep the commitment they gave, whereas men have a more circumscribed choice whether to stay commited or not, since it does not matter who renounces on the commitment: the man will not get out scot free in any case.
Actually men choose since they make the first move the majority of the time, they’re the ones who approach the woman. Does he go for a size 2 blond cheerleader or for the size 10 brunette?
I’ve hear this argument before, it’s a total Jedi Mind Trick. Not falling for it.
If you explicitly reject more people than you are being explicitly rejected by, you are choosing in the sense Deti means.
OTC: Humpty dumpty feminism is the only feminism.
http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/through-the-looking-glass/chapter-06.html
Dalrock:
“Well argued”
Thanks.
“For some of these men perhaps a better analogy would be diving on a grenade which would have posed no harm if left alone. Is that better?”
Much better! 🙂
“At the very least we know that a large percentage of women avoid the temptation to commit divorce theft. For white women this appears to be the majority of those who married. Per the 2009 SIPP data, 42% of white women in their 50s who had ever married had ever divorced, so nearly 60% hadn’t ever divorced.”
As you mention, this is a less than perfect metric. Plenty of women, as, again, you acknowledge, put their husbands through hell. Just cuz they don’t divorce doesn’t make them good wives or good women. Also, like all these data sets we use, it is backward looking. Women in their 50’s today were probably married decades ago. As I see it, the quality of women is going down and down, so that women in the marriage markey today are probably worse than those who were in it in the eighty’s and ninety’s.
“You may also be overestimating the supply of quality marriageable men. Being a nice guy with a job isn’t enough. He has to be able to generate some real attraction.”
Well, that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? Not so long ago, being a nice guy and having a job was pretty much enough. Nowadays, a woman wants more, even if she is only a “nice girl,” with or without a job.
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’
“I think the Nice Guy™ is an exaggeration, and I seriously doubt all these guys complaining that they can’t find a suitable girl. It sounds like the “where have all the good men gone?”, and I’m sure that these guys have a bucket list of their own, preventing them from finding a spouse–she can’t be too thin, she can’t be too fat, her head is too big for her body, her eyes are the wrong color, she’s too conservative/too liberal, she doesn’t wear the right clothes, her hair is too short and so on. I’m sure they’ve done plenty of rejecting themselves, and some girls who were interested in them didn’t even appear on their radar.”
Yep, because for every problem with women, it just must be the case that the men have it too….”but they do it tooooooo-ooooooo!” Um, no. It’s not like where have all the good men gone. Virtuous women are virtually non existent. It’s not about bucket list containing endless, but essentially meaningless, criteria. It’s about finding a woman who can pass the test that Dalrock proposed in one of his other threads. Few women can. Most women would not even understand the issues behind the questions that Dalrock proposes.
I can’t speak from personal experience since it’s been a long time since I’ve been in the dating market, but I can speak for my single friends who say that men in their 20s don’t want to commit, are not interested in marriage, and they want to either focus on their careers only or to have fun (and marriage isn’t fun). One of my friend’s boyfriend doesn’t want to get married until he’s in his 33 (yes, he was that specific)–he’s 27 and she’s 28 (no idea why she’s still with him though).
Therefore, you can’t say that all that men of marriage age want is a wife who follows Dalrock’s criteria (which is awesome btw). It might be true when he gets to be in his 30s or he’s religious, but it isn’t true of the average 20 something year old.
Chels: OK. Maybe young men are wising up to the fact that few women are able to meet the same standard of commitment that they want from a man. I recently met a divorced father who shocked me by telling that was remarried and have had children with her. But he was in his early forties when he met a woman in her early twenties.
@ Chels:
“men in their 20s don’t want to commit, are not interested in marriage, and they want to either focus on their careers only or to have fun (and marriage isn’t fun). One of my friend’s boyfriend doesn’t want to get married until he’s in his 33 (yes, he was that specific)–he’s 27 and she’s 28 (no idea why she’s still with him though).
“Therefore, you can’t say that all that men of marriage age want is a wife who follows Dalrock’s criteria (which is awesome btw). It might be true when he gets to be in his 30s or he’s religious, but it isn’t true of the average 20 something year old.”
Chels, I think your experience lines up with that of most people. It was my experience 20 to 25 years ago.
I didn’t say all men of marriage age want a wife who meet Dalrock’s criteria. I think most men should not even consider marriage until they reach age 25. I think this sexual marketplace has deteriorated and crumbled so badly that unmarried men should not marry at all unless both he and his future spouse want children.
But in terms of dating, I don’t believe men are more selective in dating. To be a bit crude about it, more than half of all women I see would be at least minimally suitable sex partners. Minimally attractive enough to have sex with. About half would be suitable for dating and sex.
I know it seems crass, but this is really the way men think. By and large, women just don’t see men this way.
I’ve hear this argument before, it’s a total Jedi Mind Trick. Not falling for it.
If you explicitly reject more people than you are being explicitly rejected by, you are choosing in the sense Deti means.
It doesn’t work, because the positions of men and women in the market are completely different. In the market, women are generally the sellers and men are generally the buyers. However, it’s a bid-oriented market. So while the men choose which stall to approach, the sellers will only sell to the highest bidders — that is, they choose their buyers from among a scrum of interested buyers. So while there is selection going on on the male side in terms of choosing which stall or stalls to approach and engage in the bidding war, the sellers who are in demand have the lion’s share of the choice power in this market.
The imbalance is only to the benefit of the buyers in two cases: (1) the case where the buyer has, in effect, a superbid such that all or most of the sellers want to sell to him and (2) the case of the 30-40% of women who are “below the floor” in terms of general attraction to the buyers. The first case is the familiar silverback alpha male. The second case are the women who receive fairly few bids.
What you see happening in the market, however, is that the women with lower power to attract bids from buyers will often end up lowering their price substantially to see if they can get some bargain hunters (i.e., reducing the “price” for sex, which is what we see in the SMP today). In doing so, they can lure some of the buyers away from the higher-priced sellers, especially buyers who are not in a position to pay the prices asked at those stalls. This generally has only a marginal effect on the higher-price sellers, however, because of the differential in perceived value of what is being sold (i.e., attractiveness differences). In a more economic market, more sellers would come along and increase supply, which would drive down the prices charged throughout the market to some degree. While some argue that this has, in fact, happened, with the increased supply of sex driving down its price, to me the impact seems quite marginal, as the sellers are still capable of demanding a high price (in terms of game, etc.) — while, of course, the ability to demand the price of commitment before sex has, in fact, declined due to the increased supply of sex. What would really impact the market would be an increase in the supply of women who are as attractive as the higher priced sellers — that would drive the price down in an economic way. But the SMP, of course, isn’t like that, because the supply of high-price sellers (or women who could be) is relatively fixed — so the market is structurally imbalanced in favor of the majority of the sellers (not the bottom 30-40% of sellers).
The previous iteration of the market was much less laissez-faire, because it (1) encouraged sellers to pick buyers who were more in line with their own market value, rather than engaging in a Darwinian bidding process in a quest to find the silverback alpha (harder to do when monogamy is more or less socially enforced, because everyone gets more or less one bite at the apple) and (2) discouraged strongly women increasing the supply of sex in an effort to tilt the market in their favor. This system was more beneficial to the buyers, because it reduced the power of the sellers to create bidding wars among buyers — bidding wars happened, of course, but the scope was more limited than today’s SMP which is one epic Darwinian bidding war. It was also beneficial to the sellers who could command the highest price (because they didn’t have to deal with downstream competition from lower-priced sellers who were discounting their goods — again, because socially and legally enforced monogamy limits the utility of that strategy) and the lower-priced sellers, too (the lower 30-40%), because the buyers at those levels were more “forced” to accept their peers, rather than participate in a bidding war for higher-priced women, and these lower-priced women didn’t have to engage in an aggressive discounting policy to compete with higher priced women for the bids of these same men (and, yes, the relatively higher-priced women benefit from the presence of these bids, as well, even if they have no intent to engage with the bidders, because it all serves to drive up her asking price).
The old system “hurt”, however, the rather large mid-block of sellers — neither the highest-priced nor the lowest-priced, because their ability to engage in more extensive bidding wars was quite limited — leaving the perception that they were being restricted from charging a higher price to which they may have felt they were entitled. Moving to the more laissez-faire approach was very enticing to this bloc of mid-level women, and they are a significant bloc politically and socially. As in all markets, the move to a more or less completely laissez-faire system has benefited some market participants at the expense of others. All markets are like that, but the issue with the SMP is that it is the core human life trajectory market, and when it is working in a way that overly empowers some market participants at the expense of others, it can have a hugely negative impact on the social fabric.
@ Brendan:
” the issue with the SMP is that it is the core human life trajectory market, and when it is working in a way that overly empowers some market participants at the expense of others, it can have a hugely negative impact on the social fabric.”
And it is having that negative impact.
–men refusing to marry
–reduced birth rates
–out of wedlock births straining the public welfare system
–masculinized women, feminized men
–explosion of STDs
–mancession
and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
OK. Maybe young men are wising up to the fact that few women are able to meet the same standard of commitment that they want from a man.
No, it’s not that. My friend is a really good woman, who can and wants to give that sort of commitment. However, he doesn’t want to give it to her until he’s 33 because he wants to live his life, he sees marriage as the end of a fun life, and because it’s the norm to get married late. Again, nothing to do with the woman, more to do with his expectations.
Chels: When I wrote standard of commitment I implicitly included what the commitment gives the person who gets the commitment over the whole time of the commitment. I think we all get what we deserve, if not always right away. If your friend is a bargain, her BF should be worried. He isn’t, so either he will pay for being a fool or you are wrong about your friend’s (immediate or long term) value.
The safe bet is to 1) wait with marriage until you have nothing to offer and 2) only marry after having fallen out of love, so that you can see the other person for who he/she is. Everything else is entering the slippery slope.
@Susan Walsh
Fantastic!
having fallen out of love, so that you can see the other person for who he/she is.
I sure hope you mean when the infatuation is gone, because love should never go from a marriage, otherwise a miserable life or divorce is around the corner.
@Chels
Your reliance on anecdote has blinded you to larger trends. You know one young woman who wishes her boyfriend would propose, so that must explain everything. This is one step away from J and her infamous former nuns. The reality is that women have the most SMP power in their 20s. If there is a shift going on it is only rational to expect that it is being driven by the group in the SMP power position.
@Chels
I would just add that your friend waited until that famous window so many male and female bloggers discuss (see bottom half of this post). Her SMP is on the wane while his is on the rise. Her timing is off.
@ Dalrock
The age of first marriage for men in Canada is around 30, as it is in most Western nations (except for the US, but I think it’s all the Bible belt folks pulling down the average). Therefore, you cannot tell me I’m relying on anecdotes when statistics show that the vast majority of men do not marry in their 20s.
I would just add that your friend waited until that famous window so many male and female bloggers discuss
They’ve been together for almost 4 years now, so she didn’t exactly wait for anything.
@Chels
You missing the fact that women often marry men a few years older than them. This shows up in the US Census stats for example on the ages each sex gets married. It isn’t until near middle age that men have married at the same basic rates as women. The question is, who is driving the decision not to marry when women are in their 20s. Are men refusing to marry young hot women? Or are young hot women in the peak of their SMP deciding that commitment is a bad deal for them? Yes they often overplay this hand, but it doesn’t change the fact.
I would argue that the current dating model is more like a continuous auction similar to how airline ticket are sold. The old system which Brendan described was in no small part a caste system. Everybody had a place and there was a place for everybody. Even the losers (omegas) got something out of the deal. But like a caste system, everybody had their place and had to stay there. Almost all men could find a spouse and have children and all women got some sort of social protection.
What has changed is that marriage, which was once for life, is now just a temporary legal status subject to the whims of either party thanks to no-fault divorce. The SMV discrepancies in any relationship that occur due to economic rent can be cashed in at any time. Airline tickets are a 100% perishable item. Sold (actually rented) at their peak they command a premium but once the plane takes off those empty seats are worthless. Women are now the ones who own the airline. Just because the last ticket you bought was expensive does not mean the next will. I might just drive next time.
@ Dalrock
Are men refusing to marry young hot women? Or are young hot women in the peak of their SMP deciding that commitment is a bad deal for them?
I think it’s both, it’s also men deciding to date serially until they reach a stage in their life where they think they’re ready to get married and do so. I don’t think there’s a lack of wives for the men that want to get married, or a lack of husbands for the women that also want to get married.
No, it’s not that. My friend is a really good woman, who can and wants to give that sort of commitment. However, he doesn’t want to give it to her until he’s 33 because he wants to live his life, he sees marriage as the end of a fun life, and because it’s the norm to get married late. Again, nothing to do with the woman, more to do with his expectations.
He’s never going to marry her. If she wants to get married, she needs to get out now and start looking and opening herself up to guys she might not have considered before. No man who really wants to get married says, “I want to wait until I’m 33.” That’s like not “breaking up” with a girl, but moving out of the country. In other words, a flashing sign.
Women fail to see the decent men all around them until it is too late. A girl I know on FB gets all kinds of attention from men and is annoyed by it, compares it to harassment. She is a 6, has been totally brainwashed by feminism, and already has several piercings and tattoos. She needs to GET ON WITH IT because, frankly, she is never going to be cuter than she is right now (19), but that is the last thing she will do. She’ll gripe about all the losers who won’t leave her alone while she’s taking a walk and talk about how babies are so not in her future, get a bright career as a secretary or hairdresser, run to fat, and then wonder why she can’t find a good man. Seriously, that’s the road map, and I can’t see that she’ll deviate from it one inch. Spinsterhood and cats, straight ahead.
It does sound like a threat though, like “hit me again and see what happens”.
The primary lesson here wasn’t really how to deal with girl violence, it was that 1) girls can be violent and mean and 2) they have no right to hit you and you shouldn’t have to put up with it. It’s sad that the only kind of defense he will be able to use is psychological, sadder still that girls feel they can hit boys because, supposedly, it doesn’t hurt them.
@Chels
Let me translate this for you: “One of my friend’s boyfriend has a higher SMV than her. She thinks she can secure commitment with him by continuing her uncommitted sexual relationship with her. I know the statement ‘has a higher SMV than her’ is true because if SHE had higher SMV, he’d be in awe that he was dating such a great woman and would want to get married to lock that shit down. In the end, he probably won’t marry her and will have just consumed her fertility.”
The correct move for her is to dump the guy and go catch someone in her league who will commit. The correct move for him is exactly what he is doing. In ten years, he’ll be married to a girl ten years younger than himself, and your friend will have three cats.
Your friend is committing the mistake that a lot of young women make: they somehow mentally connect the statements “this guy will put his cock in me” and “this guy will marry me.” There are lots of guys in the first category who aren’t in the second category. In this market, men are incentivized to string along women during their most fertile SMV if they have the ability to do so.
The hamster is strong in you, young Chels.
@ grerp @ 3:32 above:
“He’s never going to marry her”
Take that to the bank. I had a 4 year relationship from age 21 to 25. I stayed with her because I thought I had no other options. She pestered me relentlessly about getting married. I balked because I wanted to get my career going, but I knew deep down a marriage wasn’t going to work. I never had any intention of marrying her – not then, not ever.
At the end of that relationship we were both miserable — neither of us knowing how to communicate, both of us getting none of what we wanted. Had I any sense or game at all, that relationship would have been over in 4 months at the most, not four years.
Married life would still be like that Twilight zone episode with Billy Mumy(Its a Good Life) where some guy will be forced at gun point to say how good his wife is.
Is a shame we don’t use feminists weapons against themselves this sounds like a perfect way to elaborate “Men are incapable of consenting to marriage because their legal disadvantage and power imbalance to end the contract in the light of an abusive relationship, renders unable to have agency or choices to get out due to the harm society impose into them” then family court will get their head cut by their own sword when a woman wants alimony/child support, because the man couldn’t had really marred of his free will anyway…I know in my anti-feminist dreams 😦
@Chels
I agree with Grerp tell your friend (or if you can’t tell her to read some manosphere blogs, someone like Athol might be a good one to advice her) if they had been together for so long he should be ready to marry or move on. The guy is a) seeing something on her he doesn’t like for a wife, in that case your friend should do some soul searching and see if there is something she can do about that or b) He is experiencing a rise in his value with more women paying attention and he wants to keep himself open to move on to something better. At 33 your friend will be 34 right on the edge of fertility prime years dying down, she cannot afford to wait till he is ready if she wants a family, Also isn’t suspicious that he wants to have fun? If he is monogamous and committed he shouldn’t be thinking that putting a ring on it will have less fun unless he is cheating or they are on an open relationship and part of the marriage deal would be monogamy.
Sorry Chels but that guy has more red flags than the Titanic, he is securing sex and companionship till he can bail out or she gets fed up. She needs to move on before her eggs start to get old and her hamster move her to settle.
Johnycomelately said;
“I have a much younger brother (by a decade) so I am privy to his social set and I can tell you the younger guys are absolutely SUPER cluey to the machinations of female hypergamy and there is a stupendously monumental blow-back in the pipeline. For goodness sakes a 19 year old got me onto Roissy!
I know of guys in their 20s going to the East to get married, young guys deliberately MGOW, guys who confronted a stranger for marrying an ex carousel rider (unbeknownst to him) and making him get a divorce, guys divorcing early and vowing never again and guys consciously playing the pump and dump.
The landscape is changing.”
I agree. I have posted before that I see the same dynamic in my 18 year-old son and his peers.
Want to see the affect this is having on the female side of the equation? Take a look at this;
http://lifetwo.com/production/node/20070927-midlife-and-always-single-women
It’s all there, the entitlement, the solopism, the carosel riding, the competion with other women, the hypergamy. When I first starting reading through it I felt schadenfreude rising in me. But that soon died as post after post after post talked about the utter misery these women were feeling at the lack of a husband. These women casualties of feminism and they are growing in number everyday. But they don’t understand this.
The thread started in 2007 and is still going strong today. So far I have only read the first 20 pages (there are 30 posts on each page and 39 pages so far) and as yet I have yet to see any poster suggest that the behaviour or women has contributed to the problems they are facing. The manosphere may be a bit ‘wild-west’ at times, but only the manosphere seems to be able to see the problems for what they are and discuss solutions.
There are nearly 1200 posts on this thread. I know we often mock the use of anecdotes as data, but at what point does anecdote become a data point?
I have told my friend all of what you guys said but she loves him and after 4 years, it’s incredibly hard to break up. Even after I told her about one of my mother’s friends who started going out with this guy at 28, and broke up with him at 38 (!!!) because he refused to marry her–but in her case, it’s a good thing since she’s a huge bitch.
[D: This brings us back to a main point of the post. It is hard to get people to see what they don’t want to see. Some will get it, others won’t. It just is what it is. Meanwhile other women who are more on the ball are quietly marrying the other prospects she would otherwise be able to consider.]
Cats everywhere can rejoice!
“I have told my friend all of what you guys said but she loves him and after 4 years, it’s incredibly hard to break up.”
Actually I’m not surprised any woman would realize after four years and a guy that clearly says no marriage that the guy is not going there anywhere soon. But also she would had break up sooner too. Oh well she can complain about men not wanting marriage when he dumps her for a younger model and marries her.
P.S.
I’m Stephenie Rowling I’m going to change to this handle to avoid confusion with the new Steph
@Cadders
As I have posted many times MGTOW and the PUA culture are made of feminism. Involutary Childless Spinsterhood is something I would like to see made the norm. As it stands now the women of the blog you have reference are where they are by mistaken choices. Women under the influence of the blue pill. What needs to happen is for women to have that choice made by men for them. Men are very beta and need to be taught to behave that way and misandry at all levels and places in society greatly assist in teaching men to lose the female pedistal. More and more men are just seeing women for what they at this time only have to offer and that is sex. See the exchanges with Chels on this article and any other. With out the tingles a woman that thinks and response to the conversations the way she does can not have anything to offer to any man she is with. More men, the young ones too are getting it with out having to experience marriage/ divorce trauma. (getting the red pill) That “getting it” combined with women living the the feminist lie get to enjoy spinterhood. Hell on earth is a woman on blue pill having the majority of her male contact being men on the red pill.
Ooh, I know this one! She shows lack of self-control, a bad indicator for long-term fidelity and avoidance of divorce theft. Gluttony and lust are often linked.
What’s the next question?
See the exchanges with Chels on this article and any other.
Why does it bother you so much when men’s faults are pointed out? I’m sure it’s pretty nice to pretend they have none from that high place you’re sitting on, but it’s time to come down.
Oh well she can complain about men not wanting marriage when he dumps her for a younger model and marries her.
Well, she has higher rank than he does–she has a master’s degree, he finished community college, she has an excellent job, he makes close to minimum wage…It could be that he just feels emasculated being with her as she’s better than him.
Well Chels you made my point. Thank you for being so helpful to the conversation.
You’re taking an extremely naive stand, thinking that men are perfect, and that only women are the problem. Is it really that hard to even consider that maybe, just maybe, men are not perfect and have some fault? I don’t see how that’s so offensive.
Well, she has higher rank than he does–she has a master’s degree, he finished community college, she has an excellent job, he makes close to minimum wage…It could be that he just feels emasculated being with her as she’s better than him.
Err do you know that men don’t care about titles or job in a woman right?
Also why are you justifying him? If he feels emasculate he has a device designed to express thoughts called mouth. He could just say so so she can decide to move on as it is she is wasting her youth in a guy that still wants to have options if she doesn’t go out she will lose out is the simple cruel truth.
Well, she has higher rank than he does–she has a master’s degree, he finished community college, she has an excellent job, he makes close to minimum wage…It could be that he just feels emasculated being with her as she’s better than him.
Why is she staying with this guy if she has a higher rank than he does?
Because she doesn’t have a higher rank than he does.
Otherwise she wouldn’t be (guessing here) propping him up financially, she would be twirling about in her greener pasture singing “The Hills Are Alive.”
There is a window, and it is closing for her. She needs to get serious about her boyfriend and his lack of intentions.
I don’t know Steph, I find it hard to believe that men are ok with women basically being in the provider role.
And I’m not justifying him, there’s definitely something off with him, but then it’s also her fault for staying with this guy.
@Anacaona
He is still around because this higher ranking ladyfriend is still supplying the minimum wage guy with regular pussy. The emasculated bastard getting that master degree pussy and not having to pay for it.
In fact, I commend you for even recognizing this yourself – it is rare.
I had been reading the manosphere (Dalrock, Susan Walsh, Athol, Badger…) for almost a year now but I’m from the third world too. Pretty lies can get you killed there, so even if never said out-loud you kind of see a lot of professional guys picking younger and hotter but uneducated women for mates. One has to be stupid not to add 2+2
Yes. It is remarkable how feminists in the West think they are ‘advanced’, but in reality they have UNlearned the wisdom that was accrued over centuries (and thus knocked back the development of Western women by centuries).
First is AnaCAONA like a Taino princess from Dominican Republic, is not a big deal but if someone wants to pick anaconda as her/his handle is going to get confusing again.
Second they are filtering sadly, the new generation has a lot of mass culture imported and they are slowly falling for it, so unlearning can be taught, we just hope feminism dies before it poisons more countries.
From a random anonymous post on the thread mentioned by Cadders:
“I’m 32 and I hate being single at this time in my life.
“In a big city like mine, admitting that I’m not comfortable with my single status is tantamount to taboo: especially as I dream of exercising my choice to be a stay at home mum within a mutually supportive relationship (gasp!)”
Forget about the intended irony re the supposed taboo of rejecting the sex and the city lifestyle.
What strikes me here is the incredible sense of entitlement, traceable, to the very word,to feminist claptrap. This woman really believes that is her CHOICE, which she should be free to “exercise,” at, apparently, her sole discretion to not only have a mutually supportive relationship, but to be a SAHM too. Her choice. Period. The mutually supportive relationship is not something that she should have to work for or at. Nope, she simply should be able to “choose” it. Same with SAHM status. That’s her choice too. Not that she needs to get together with a man who is willing to go along with that, willing to do all the wage work, leaving her free to stay at home with the kids. No, she has been told by the feminists that being a SAHM is simply a choice, which she should be free to exercise whenever she feels like it. Like her choice to have vanilla or chocolate ice cream.
This woman, assuming she is even minimally attractive, can choose the sex in the city lifestyle in her twenties and early thirties, but a mutually supportive relationship, marriage, and SAHM status are not mere unilateral choices for her to exercise or not at her discretion. Feminists have told women over and over again that these various lifestyles (sex in the city, SAHM, anything in between) are simply choices that women have. They can have one, they can the other, they can first one and then the other. But nothing could be further from the truth. For there to be a mutually supportive relationship, marriage, and SAHM status there has to be a man willing to go along with it. While there is no shortage of men who will happily play their assigned roles in a woman’s sex in the city lifestyle, there very much is a shortage of men willing to play their assigned roles for a woman who has ridden the carousal for a decade and a half but who has now decided she wants a mutually supportive relationship, a husband, and SAHM status.
The sense of entitlement that most women have is astounding. What man would talk about “exercising” his “choice” to have a mutually supportve relationship with a woman, a wife, and to be a SAHD (or even a husband provider)? Men learn early on, both from what they are told and from the hard reality of life, that they are entitled to almost nothing, when it comes to interpersonal relationships. That what they “choose” is only the first, baby step in getting what they want. Women are told that they can have it all pretty much just for the asking, that they can choose this, that or the other, and are free to change their minds whenever they want to. And the reality of life for even a moderately attractive young woman seems to validate what they’ve been told. Men their own age and older constantly seeking their attention, approval, sexual favors, etc. Legions of men from which they can choose. So they ride the carousel. They “exercise” that “choice,” not realizing that it is perhaps the only one that fits the model that they have been taught (ie is unilateral on their part). Until one day they turn 32 and find themselves in the position of this letter writer….
TFH on Facebook: “As such women get older, in order to keep the stream of attention going, they will only keep older photos on there. So even the attention she is getting is from photos of when she was 30, despite her current age being, say, 36.”
My last date through an online site was with a woman who looked 7 years older and 30 pounds heavier than her pictures online. I broke the date off after ten minutes and emailed her later to tell her how disreputable it is to misrepresent her physical appearance like that. It is no different than if a man claimed to be a professional when in fact he made sandwiches at Subway.
The Sexual Devolution
Watch the video.
Been a long time coming..
Gramsci’s Left may have wanted to march through the institutions.
What happened was that the institutions marched through the Left.
The Sexual Devolution is only one of the many unintended consequences – but the thing they have in common is that they’re all highly regressive.
The big loser has been the common man.
People like Susan and Dalrock are the only true Left left.
The feminists (sic – they hurt women just as much as men) and their enablers like Chels can obfuscate all they want about how NiceGuys are defined. Whatever – Leo Durocher beat you to the punch by half a century,
We’re talking about something far more primal.
Basic human relations can be remarkably well modeled by a prisoner’s dilemma game, with tit-for tat (i.e. trust but verify) showing remarkable resilience as the optimal strategy. Most people throughout recorded history knew this intuitively, and general morality was premised on it across cultures. Sure some people tried to cheat here and there, but people knew what it was – cheating.
In observing their choices over the past 20 years, it appears that a good chunk of our female population (yes, aided and abetted by a much smaller chunk of males) either thought they could get away with a different strategy or were oblivious to its existence at all.
Either way, the reality so embarrassing that it is hard for the rest of society to come to terms with it. Unfortunately for those who chose so unwisely, there is a reason that tit-for-tat is optimal.
Payback‘s a bitch.
Civilization famously consists of alpha females teaming up with beta males to enforce monogamy to their mutual benefit. Beta females and alpha males are relatively worse off in the mating market, but benefit from a stronger family environment growing up, and a stronger community as the stakes of being the alpha are lowered.
Western Civilization lured the alpha males onto the team with promises of expanding the fields of their mastery. The promise was fulfilled. See Churchill’s biography of his ancestor Marlborough. He was banging the King’s mistress at 21, but was fiercely monogamous after marriage and spent twenty years kicking the Sun King’s ass instead of chasing skirts.
And then at the height of its power, Hugh Hefner defected. No big deal, few mature men would have missed him. What they did miss was all the alpha females he took with him. So began the slide. Now few alpha females remain on the team, and fewer still alpha males (Roissy is one, which explains his strange mix of anger and amused mastery. He knows how much more he could have mastered.) .
We built it once. All that is left is to do so again.
I thank God, that I live in my own little world. People can do whatever they want in the world. I am going to enjoy my happy, traditional family. Enjoy yours, Dalrock. 🙂
[D: Thank you! I very much am!]
“I don’t know Steph, I find it hard to believe that men are ok with women basically being in the provider role.”
If they’re not married, its not an issue. Especially if she’s still servicing him.
“What happened was that the institutions marched through the Left.”
Actually, the Left did march through the institutions. They even had manuals on how to do so, such as Alinsky’s Rules. The first bastion they captured was the academe. This is why the academe will be the last place they will be routed from. The academe was a high enough perch from which to expand to the arts, entertainment, media, education, etc.
“People like Susan and Dalrock are the only true Left left.”
I never got the impression that the blog author was an American liberal.
“We built it once. All that is left is to do so again.”
Yep. Rome fell once, It will fall again. And we will still be here.
RE Chels’ unmarried friend: She stays with him in the hopes of getting him to marry her and she knows her options are limited. He stays with her solely because he’s getting laid and because she’s the best he can get and because she’s the path of least resistance. I don’t know whether he’s alpha or not. Doesn’t matter. As long as he’s getting what he wants and something better doesn’t fall in his lap, the status quo will remain.
RE older unmarried women in Cadders’ and ruddy’s posts: same old, same old. Women in their 30s lamenting their plight and not having the slightest idea why. They blame it on the men, but refuse to look at themselves. It’s all there in these women: career uber alles. It’s all about Me, Me, Me. His dick isn’t big enough. He doesn’t make enough money. His abs aren’t defined enough. Pump & dump. Carousel. Master’s degree and great career — why can’t I find a man?
RE Chels pointing out flaws in men: Yes, men are flawed. We get fat and don’t take care of ourselves. We get complacent, leading to beta behaviors. We once believed the lies feminism told us. We go for easy sex (but we’d never get any if there wasn’t such a steady supply from women). We supplicate to women, thinking it makes us attractive. We believed women when they tld us to “be nice, be ourselves” to be attractive to women. We took women at their word.
We won’t make these mistakes again.
RE Grizzled and desiderius and the decline: I want to avoid falling into nihilism. Having said that, I think there will have to be some kind of decline, fall and “bottom” or crash before anything changes in the SMP. I don’t see much of a sea change happening even with the yeoman’s work being done in the manosphere.
This woman really believes that is her CHOICE, which she should be free to “exercise,” at, apparently, her sole discretion to not only have a mutually supportive relationship, but to be a SAHM too. Her choice. Period. The mutually supportive relationship is not something that she should have to work for or at. Nope, she simply should be able to “choose” it. Same with SAHM status. That’s her choice too. Not that she needs to get together with a man who is willing to go along with that, willing to do all the wage work, leaving her free to stay at home with the kids. No, she has been told by the feminists that being a SAHM is simply a choice, which she should be free to exercise whenever she feels like it. Like her choice to have vanilla or chocolate ice cream.
As a Christian, I was always taught that good Christian women become housewives/SAHMs. I think that mantra is often twisted into “good Christian women should only consider marrying men that can afford to provide them with a housewife/SAHM lifestyle” – it becomes an entitlement thing.
Fortunately I don’t have to worry about money; or else I have no idea how I would have expressed my housewife desires to my boyfriend without making him think I’m a gold-digger.
I know of guys in their 20s going to the East to get married
Here’s a lulzy article written by a typical-American entitlement princess living as an expat in Japan:
http://www.vagabondish.com/female-foreign-japan/
If you’ve ever visited Asia, you’ve likely seen the pale, rail-thin, greasy-haired white boy walking hand-in hand with a perfectly made-up, mini-skirt wearing Asian chick. This would never happen anywhere else in the world. Because everywhere else, Barbie ends up with Ken, not his underemployed, socially-awkward, samurai-sword-collecting neighbor, Kevin. But in Asia, dating rules defy all logic or evolutionary law. In Asia, the nerd is king.
Social awkwardness is considered endearing in Japan. For example, Sheldon from Big Bang Theory has a large Japanese fanbase. A tall skinny nerdy gameless Western-Beta is a Japanese girl’s 10.
…I wonder if there’s a genetic reason as to why I like Betas so much; I have Japanese ancestry [mostly Italian, insert Madame Butterfly joke].
Master’s degree and great career — why can’t I find a man?
Why would getting a postgraduate degree stand in the way of finding a man? By the time she’ll be done with it, she’s going to be around 24-25, and that’s still young to get married; and it’s not like her being in school stands in the way of marriage.
As well, it has become the norm to do a master’s degree, a bachelor’s is no longer enough, and parents push both their daughters and sons towards achieving financial independence. No parent is going to encourage their kids to get married and have kids before having a good standard of living. Lots of parents also encourage their kids not get married at all since they had such a bad experience themselves, and see marriage as a trap, more than anything.
This is why I believe that the delay in marriage is due to people having different priorities (must finish education, must have a good job before, must have a mortgage, etc etc), and not only to women getting pickier.
24-25 is not too young at all, it’s too old, Im 31 year old male I will never marry, Im more MGTOW. IF I were to Marry it wouldn’t be with someone over 25. 18 -23 is the only option
“Master’s degree and great career — why can’t I find a man?”
The point is that many women mistakenly think these things in a woman are attractive to men, or will attract a good man. They aren’t, and they won’t.
det,
The sea change is already happening among the rising generation. I see it in the teenagers I teach, and I think its a direct result of the (lack of) job market they see their peers entering. All those attendance-award degrees and the fake-status they conferred don’t produce much entitlement if no one will hire you.
There really is a difference between those 17-22 and the last ones who made the gravy train who would now be 25 and older, and it ain’t inexperience. If anything the younger ones are more mature than their older sisters.
“Why would getting a postgraduate degree stand in the way of finding a man? By the time she’ll be done with it, she’s going to be around 24-25, and that’s still young to get married; and it’s not like her being in school stands in the way of marriage.”
It’s only “young” by today’s standard. In the not so distant past, 25 was already past the average age of marriage for women. Then too, if one does not finish school until 25 (and many women take longer than that to finish grad school), and one wants a career, one is still not ready to marry. Prime fertility starts to decline at age 27. At that point, our hypothetical girl is just starting her career, and is still not looking to marry. Perhaps, maybe, by her early thirties (five or so years into her career) she is. But that is already perilously close to the complete fall off in her desiribility to men. And she still has to actually meet a man and establish a relationship with him before she can get married.
“must finish education, must have a good job before, must have a mortgage, etc etc”
And all of that will easily push a woman into her mid thirties, at which point there are far fewer men willing to marry her than there would have been at age 25.
The one downside is that it will take awhile for things to shake out since there is such a glut of good men the morally-retarded* women 25-40 missed out on. They’ll keep demand for those more mature younger women unnaturally inflated until they get paired up. MGTOW will speed that up, so knock yourselves out guys.
I might just use my newfound dark powers to take a shot at rolling my own decent wife.
* – I sometimes wonder if there is a moral version of Aspergers afflicting them.
The point is that many women mistakenly think these things in a woman are attractive to men, or will attract a good man. They aren’t, and they won’t.
Men and women tend to marry within their own socioeconomic class, so while having a master’s degree is not going to cause an erection in a man, most prefer women with some education as it’s becoming harder and harder to live on 1 income. Few doctors/engineers/PhDs/etc are going to marry a secretary or someone who only has a high school degree.
i hope you are right about that sea change, and I hope the crash is a soft landing. I don’t think we’re there yet.
I have to confess that hanging out in the manosphere is depressing me more and more by the day. I’m married for 15 years. But it’s bad out here for singles, and it looks to be getting worse.
I have to confess that hanging out in the manosphere is depressing me more and more by the day.
It shouldn’t, the real life doesn’t look at all similar to the manosphere, it’s just a tiny, tiny percentage of men thinking this way.
grizzledwolf,
Ever tried to march through an institution? It’s an expensive proposition. In addition to their integrity, idealism, and simple decency, the Left (sic) also had to sell out any credible claim to actually be Left in any meaningful sense.
The people who started their march on the Left are now objectively the Right – look at the ads in the New York Times! – and America has never seen one so dismissive and antagonistic to the common man, one so inimical to actual progress and celebratory of moral and cultural regress, so authoritarian and intolerant.
It’s really a remarkable con job. But like the white-knighting tradcons, you go on enabling them.
Academia is actually full of liberals who kow tow to that fake left because they have to and they see no alternative and they’re kept in fear of a make-believe “right”. It does no good to attack it from the right, that’s where all the defenses are.
The weak link is the extent to which the Left has been a failure on its own terms.
“Men and women tend to marry within their own socioeconomic class, so while having a master’s degree is not going to cause an erection in a man, most prefer women with some education as it’s becoming harder and harder to live on 1 income. Few doctors/engineers/PhDs/etc are going to marry a secretary or someone who only has a high school degree.”
Nonsense. The issue is attraction. Most women with master’s degrees won’t be attracted to, much less want to marry, men with less education or earning power. Second, male physicians, engineers and PhDs have more earning power and. if they understand male-female relations, more options. They don’t need the woman’s earning power. They can provide for themselves, for a wife, and for their children just fine on their own. That gives them options. They will want the most attractive woman they can get, and more often than not, that means the secretary, the teacher or the woman with a HS diploma. Better to marry her than the woman with more education who doesn’t find him attractive anyway.
Regarding Chels supposedly hot and desirable friend who cannot get commitment out of her supposed “bum” of a boyfriend, Badger nails it:
“Many of those pragmatic men who desire relationships with women will stop short of marriage if it is not in their interests, and still others will not find a woman sufficiently worthy of their marital commitment within the timeframe in which marriage is the biggest net benefit to their life (i.e. the childbearing years and the years in which they are doing the most active, interesting things with their lives).
The point of this post is not to debate the costs and benefits of marriage; however to allude to the pragmatic position, I will quote radio host and four-time divorcee Tom Leykis: “I do not say marriage is bad. I say there’s very little benefit to men, far less than women and children get from it – a man can get almost everything marriage used to provide without getting married today.””
Nonsense. The issue is attraction. Most women with master’s degrees won’t be attracted to, much less want to marry, men with less education or earning power. Second, male physicians, engineers and PhDs have more earning power and. if they understand male-female relations, more options. They don’t need the woman’s earning power. They can provide for themselves, for a wife, and for their children just fine on their own. That gives them options. They will want the most attractive woman they can get, and more often than not, that means the secretary, the teacher or the woman with a HS diploma. Better to marry her than the woman with more education who doesn’t find him attractive anyway.
I never said that men want to marry someone with more earning power than them, I just said that that the difference between them can’t be too big—for example, if he makes around 60K, he’s going to want someone who makes at least around 40k (and even this amount requires a degree, as having a high-school diploma is only going to lead to a McJob). He’s going to want that because he knows a family can’t live on his salary alone.
The engineers/doctors/PhD do have more options, but they’re not going to look at high school graduates as they’re not even in the environment as they are. As well, few women who only have high school diplomas are better than those with a bachelor’s degree. Not to mention, of course, the age difference between them.
That’s what I said that generally, men and women marry in the same socioeconomic class.
@slwerner
I told my friend to either dump him or give him an ultimatum, which hopefully she’s going to do soon because she’s getting irritated herself.
Chels – ”Men and women tend to marry within their own socioeconomic class, so while having a master’s degree is not going to cause an erection in a man, most prefer women with some education as it’s becoming harder and harder to live on 1 income. Few doctors/engineers/PhDs/etc are going to marry a secretary or someone who only has a high school degree.”
While there is some truth in this, what you haven’t done is try to figure out “why” it is this way (well, okay, you do suggest that it’s for the potential second-income; even though for a high-earner, a secretaries salary would be quite adequate as a second income stream).
I would suggest that it comes about due more to men seeking someone they feel compatible with. For educated men, they want educated wives because they want to have a wife who can share some common interests and with whom they can have intelligent conversation.
They might also be considering the sort of genes that may be passed on to any children they father, and as IQ is somewhat linked with genetics, choosing a smarter women to have children with is perhaps the best way to ensure that ones children will also be of higher intelligence.
They are not likely to be as concerned about her “earning potential”, as a significant portion of todays remaining stay at home wives and mothers are well educated women (Alte, etc.)
I’m less convinced that the reverse holds true – that women seeks equally educated men based on concerns like “compatibility” or even the quality of children they might father. With women (in general [insert obligatory NAWALT here]), the primary consideration typically seems to be his “earning potential”.
While many educated and well employed men would be happy to marry a (worthy) woman who is also well educated, even if she is under-employed or even unemployed; the reverse is rather rare in comparison (personal anecdotes not withstanding). This is actually a rather well-known phenomenon.
And we’ll agree to disagree, Chels. I just don’t see at all what you’re saying. I don’t see it in male-female behavior. Men don’t seek to marry a woman for her earning power. Women are not attracted to men who aren’t better than the women doing the selecting.
In the UK the number of FIRST Marriages has more than HALVED between 1970 and the year 2000. Looks like there is a marriage strike occuring in the UK.
http://www.2-in-2-1.co.uk/ukstats.html
@Chels
You are arguing that women need to get a masters degree to be attractive for high earner men to marry. It is no small irony that you are making this argument in relation to your friend, and specifically to explain why she will delay marriage during her prime marriage years. Yet her masters degree doesn’t seem to have accomplished what you are arguing it was needed for:
@slwerner–yeah, I completely agree and I would have mentioned that next.
@deti–read what slwerner said for why people marry within the same socioeconomic class.
@ dalrock–I wasn’t even thinking of my friend when I made that statement, I think their relationship is not working out because they have nothing in common (e.g. she’s much smarter than him which makes conversation difficult between them). However, I do believe that a marriage has higher chances of being successful between similar people, even when it comes to education. For example, my boss’ wife is a SAHM but she has a master’s degree, as does he. How many well off men do you know married to only high school graduates?
Depends. My brother has only a high school diploma and makes far less than I do—but is able to support his son and his girlfriend on his salary in a two bedroom apartment and own a car. But he lives in Tucson. In Boston, where I live, this could never happen. I would bet the assortative mating you are describing is more common in areas with a high cost of living.
Another reason to leave the coasts if you ever want to take a chance on getting married.
Yes, assortative mating is an observed phenomenon—but in some ways it’s a bit artificial. I’ve already stated that it’s more common to find these things in areas with high living costs, but I also think many men feel socially engineered pressure to marry within their SES, regadless of physical attraction.
I think sometimes we underestimate just how much the average man has been influenced by the tenants of feminism. I was just recently seeing a girl 8 years my junior (she’s 20) and while my buddies are cool, I’ve gotten a few comments from manginas about “jail bait” and “craddle robbing” lol. Too many guys have bought into this notion that you should pursue women according to feminist diktats–same age, same economic status, same everything. You add to this pressure from their families about who they should/shouldn’t be dating and you have a propaganda machine that many guys just can’t fight.
We know that women are herd animals who just go with the flow. But the truth is that men are, too. People are sheep. Women more than men, but that’s a low bar. Just because women are more readily influenced and brainwashed doesn’t mean guys are immune.
Just means we have a long way to go before red pill market penetration is at saturation levels.
“How many well off men do you know married to only high school graduates?”
That isn’t the right question. The right question is how many well off guys are married to woman who are not as well off. And vice versa. They might both, on the surface, have the same or similar levels of education, but, usually, the guy is much more well off. I happen to know (since we are playing anecdotes) two top notch male dentists that are married to their office managers. In both cases, their wives have college degrees, so, at some level, you could argue that they fairly equally well educated. Nevertheless, there is a pretty big earning and prestige gap between a dentist and a dental office manager. I personally know no couple in which the reverse situation is true (ie the wife is a dentist, or a doctor, or lawyer, or whatever, and the husband is something significantly “worse,” in terms of earning power). In the cases that I do know, the wives are (or, at least of the time of marriage, were) total “hotties” and are somewhat younger than their husbands. The husbands are only moderately good looking. In other words, yeah, the wives are not competely uneducated lumps, but it was their youth and looks that sealed the deal with the guy. From the other point of view, the guys were not totally ugly or insanely old, but it was thier high status, high income job which sealed the deal with the girl.
@Will
Interesting stats. At first glance, it appears that might be the real deal. One thing which stands out is the total number of marriages per year (vs per 1000 unmarried women) is declining dramatically there, unlike in the US for the same time period. It would be interesting to see how this impacts the UK version of the breakdown I did here for the US.
Edit: Interestingly the out of wedlock birth rates for the US and the UK are still very similar.
Ruddy, I think the key is being of similar intelligence, which is (mainly) accomplished through having comparable levels of schooling. Otherwise, it would just make for a very dull marriage.
Will, have you looked at cohabitation rates? Even though marriage rates might be going down, I’ve read somewhere that rates of cohabitation are increasing.
“At first glance, it appears that might be the real deal. One thing which stands out is the total number of marriages per year (vs per 1000 unmarried women) is declining dramatically there”
Yeah, cuz that shows that the issue is not women (or men, or both) merely “waiting” longer to get married. If folks were merely waiting, then the overall number of marriages should remain constant, as all those folks who don’t marry in their twenties or early thirties get married in their late thirties and forties. But the overall number of marriages, far from remaining constant, is plummeting, down thirty five per cent since 1970. And that stat includes all marriages, including remarriages. The number of first marriages over the same time period has gone down even more, fifty four per cent. Consider too that the absolute number of marriages has gone down over a time period of either population stability or small growth. So it isn’t a case of falling marriage numbers reflecting a smaller number of people overall.
“Will, have you looked at cohabitation rates? Even though marriage rates might be going down, I’ve read somewhere that rates of cohabitation are increasing.”
Your point being? Co habitation is not marriage.
“Ruddy, I think the key is being of similar intelligence, which is (mainly) accomplished through having comparable levels of schooling. Otherwise, it would just make for a very dull marriage.”
Possibly true, to some extent, but it does nothing to disprove the notion that high earnings and prestige in a man are big deals to women but not to men. No smart guy wants to marry a dope, but many, many smart guys are happy to marry smart women who don’t have hotshot jobs. Having a hot shot job is a big plus for a man in the eyes of women, but not so much for a woman in the eyes of men. Women love men with hotshot jobs, men are pretty much indifferent to the earnings and prestige of the women they marry.
Social awkwardness is considered endearing in Japan. For example, Sheldon from Big Bang Theory has a large Japanese fanbase. A tall skinny nerdy gameless Western-Beta is a Japanese girl’s 10.
Sheldon is the Spock or Data of this generation so of course he gets a lot of love, Suposedly I have some Asian blood in me that would explain a lot. 🙂
“must finish education, must have a good job before, must have a mortgage, etc etc”
But who is pushing for this to happen before marriage and not during it? I mean people don’t frown about young people cohabiting during their “career years” why marriage is considered the moneymaking/education killer? My mother married fresh out of HS and she managed to get her degree and post degree later in life.
(well, okay, you do suggest that it’s for the potential second-income; even though for a high-earner, a secretaries salary would be quite adequate as a second income stream).
I will happen to agree with this, men are always considering themselves the main breadwinners they mostly want enough money to cover the basics and have a luxury or two and they are happy. IME they are more concerned over a woman that consumes more money from the household than she adds, so a woman with a part time job as long as she is not trying to expand her Prada bags collection with the money is more than enough to have wiggle room and not worry about not having money to save.
We know that women are herd animals who just go with the flow. But the truth is that men are, too. People are sheep. Women more than men, but that’s a low bar. Just because women are more readily influenced and brainwashed doesn’t mean guys are immune.
Women are herd animals, men are pack animals. Given the way feminism has infected society the manginas follow whatever looks like the Alpha leader and in this case feminism makes sure that only what is PC gets praised so of course many of them will join the shame troops even if they are not getting anything but pain out of them, they are wolves without a leader they are seeking the closer thing to one: mainstream, YMMV.
Dalrock,
I don’t have the marriage rates per age bracket in the UK, but as noted by Johnnymilkfest on HamsterMath the Median age for Men marrying is 37 and 34 for Women, so people are clearly waiting much longer before tie-ing the knot. Also see below – Cohabitation is set to overtake Marriage in England & Wales..
Chels,
Cohabitation is predicted to overtake Marriage by 2014 for under 40 age bracket:
“Figures for England and Wales suggest that by 2014 the number of people under 40 who are cohabiting will overtake the number of people of the same age who are married. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7028975.stm
Dalrock,
I probably won’t be able to find the survey, but about a year ago there was a survey that stated that in the UK the average or median (not sure which) sexual partner count was about 15 partners by the late twenties age range, so that could be effecting marriage rates as well as people are becoming more promiscuous.
Steph
All you said is the cause of feminism, and I don’t support it, I don’t support women prioritizing their careers over their families, they’re basically being sold a lie.
However, I do believe that having an education is important and it doesn’t get in the way of marriage–if it was, I’d also be against it.
I think that people assuming that marriage leads to the death of everything is something passed on through the generations, when there was no birth control.
So I guess we’re heading the way of the blacks—no marriage, just serial (live in) boyfriends and children out of wedlock by numerous baby daddies.
However, I do believe that having an education is important and it doesn’t get in the way of marriage–if it was, I’d also be against it.
I believe education is important to but I will say that people shouldn’t over do it and delay marriage and childhood in the name of it, its a poor strategy and not the way we were biological designed, YMMV as usual.
I think that people assuming that marriage leads to the death of everything is something passed on through the generations, when there was no birth control.
I also think the way parenting is portrayed here as something you should get involved too in obsessive levels or else your child will become a failure in life. Kids in my country are very independent and most assume responsibilities and duties while they are growing up as they need to learn to interact with adults because they have to adapt to their parents lifestyle no the other way around. In here they are supposed to be little kings and princesses and anything less is child abuse. I think the big problem with USA is that they always take everything to an extreme. Dr Spock advice fueled by nuclear energy.
Chels,
Are blacks in the US even cohabiting. I was under the impression that in the US inner cities there is no man around at all.
In the UK a proportion of the cohabitees are in LTR for many years, thus substituting for marriage. Not sure of the percentages though.
@Chels
I think we will continue to see a stark difference in out vs in wedlock births by class, at least in the US. Out of wedlock baby mamas are still frowned upon by the US middle class*, although strangely the indirect route of baby mamahood doesn’t carry the same level of stigma (marry-baby-divorce)**. But you can’t take the indirect route if you can’t find a worthy man willing to marry you and knock you up so you can declare yourself unhaaaaaapy, divorce him, take his kids away, and force him to pay child support. This is where the gnashing of teeth is coming from today, and what Badger is predicting will increase threefold.
*I think this holds true for the black middle class as well.
**There seems to be a change in how this is viewed by middle class women in the US as well. There is some evidence that middle class women are starting to see raising kids in broken homes following divorce as a sign of failure due to the understanding of how this will disadvantage their children.
“I’m sure there are cases like that, but I think it’s a small minority. It’s not like men would accept anyone who was just into them, but that they have a list of their own when choosing a partner, which means that a lot of women are eliminated for no good reason. Not to mention that they have flaws too, and some are not too eager to admit to them.”
Chels has NO fucking clue. She doesn’t even know where to start looking for a clue. 80% of men would accept ANY woman who showed interest, at least for the short term, as long as she wasn’t deformed or retarded. And probably 20% of us would do the retard if it wasn’t illegal.
LMAO @Chels talking about men wanting to marry a higher-earning female. YOU NEVER HEARD OF CINDERELLA,bitch!? Haaaaaaahahahaha. Listen, if you want to figure out what men think is attractive in women, you’ll arrive a lot closer to the truth by taking all the things women find attractive in men and then doing the opposite than you will by doing the things YOU find attractive in a man. Also, dumping a woman for gaining 20 pounds is not “shallow” or superficial, gaining 20 pounds isn’t like having a bad hair day. And before you talk on that shit, how many of you would date a man with bad b.o. or shitty teeth? Very damn few.
Also, men do not reject women based on shit like the color of their eyes. We don’t give a shit what color your eyes are. They could be glowing neon orange for all we care, we’re not even looking at them, we’re looking at your tits. We just make remarks about your eyes and shit because “Hey, nice tits!” usually gets the cops called on you or a gang of females all over you calling you a “pervert”, even though it is the OPPOSITE of perverted for an adult man to be focused on an adult woman’s tits.
I would like to say more, but the Law of Diminishing returns tells me that the more I attempt to reason with someone this clueless the less I get back for it. Suffice it to say that you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, watching you attempt to argue with men and tell them what they REALLY want when they are telling you “No, you are wrong. We don’t want that at all.”, one after the other,is almost comical, and you should really shut up and listen to the men tell you what they like.
You were right about men not being perfect. We have PLENTY of faults, but the stupid shit you listed are your own faults projected onto men. Not only are you not on the same intellectual plane as everyone else here, you’re not even in the same universe.
Furthermore, the views expressed in the manosphere are NOT the minority opinion. Most men would say this shit to your face if they weren’t cowering in fear of being cut off from pussy. So yeah, in that respect, we are a minority. We’re the minority with more balls than “brains” (if you call acting in your own sexual interests but against your own social and legal welfare brainy). We don’t give a shit about YOUR cunt, every woman on earth has one,they’re all pink, and they all smell like fish.
Well then TE, I wish men were more direct like you so that women would actually have a clue about men. And how about men just tell women straight out what they want? After all, all that advice from Cosmo is wrong anyway, there aren’t that many women in the manosphere, and men in real life send mixed messages.
PS: I never once said men want someone with a higher earning power than them; what I said is that not all men can afford a stay at home wife.
@ Chels: “Well then TE, I wish men were more direct like you so that women would actually have a clue about men. And how about men just tell women straight out what they want? After all, all that advice from Cosmo is wrong anyway, there aren’t that many women in the manosphere, and men in real life send mixed messages.
PS: I never once said men want someone with a higher earning power than them; what I said is that not all men can afford a stay at home wife.”
This will be my last comment on this thread.
Chels, all of us here in the manosphere are pretty explicit about the issues men face, what we find attractive, what we don’t care about in women, and what we want. I think you know very well why men are not so direct about what they want outside the manosphere. In the real world, directness about these matters gets men labeled sexist, misogynist, violent, patriarchal, and potential rapists. It ends careers. People lose jobs. It leads to social and professional ostracism.
The more exchanges we have with you, the more you wave your hands, raise your voice, point to one or two anecdotes in your personal knowledge, and proclaim that your personal experience with your friends invalidates the oceans of scientific evidence to the contrary presented here and at other sites. I, for one, just don’t understand how anyone can ignore the facts and statistics. For me, when I stumbled in here six months ago, the evidence, my life situation and my personal experience had reached a point where the truth could no longer be ignored. Perhaps you are not there yet.
I suggest you read more here and at other manosphere sites.
I think sometimes we underestimate just how much the average man has been influenced by the tenants of feminism. I was just recently seeing a girl 8 years my junior (she’s 20) and while my buddies are cool, I’ve gotten a few comments from manginas about “jail bait” and “craddle robbing” lol. Too many guys have bought into this notion that you should pursue women according to feminist diktats–same age, same economic status, same everything. You add to this pressure from their families about who they should/shouldn’t be dating and you have a propaganda machine that many guys just can’t fight.
You had to deal with sarcastic comments? For real?
I have a similar age gap with my boyfriend [7 and a half years] and my boyfriend never receives any sarcastic comments. & both our families support the relationship.
I could see an 18 year age-gap being frowned up, but 8 years seems rather tame. I mean, most girls my age are going after guys in their mid-20’s; usually 25 – that’s the age when most men start to get serious LTR focused.
Although you’re right; there definitely is a modern stigma attached to dating/marrying younger women. I look young for my age [approximately 15 years old] & I feel like my youthful looks negatively impact my SMP value. I used to always have to throw in “btw, I’m legal” when I would flirt with guys. I understand men being concerned about accidentally pursuing jail-bait; however guys have now become concerned about dating legal girls that look too youngish, ’cause everyone [i.e. women] will instantly jump to the worst conclusion.
This will be my last comment on this thread.
How can I respond then?
In the real world, directness about these matters gets men labeled sexist, misogynist, violent, patriarchal, and potential rapists. It ends careers. People lose jobs. It leads to social and professional ostracism.
I think this is at the core of the problems between gender relations; it seems like neither side understands what each other wants anymore and it leads to a lot of conflict and misunderstanding.
I suggest you read more here and at other manosphere sites.
There aren’t that many good websites though (except for this one and Athol’s). However, I would be open to some recommendations (no Roissy types though pls).
@Chels
I think Susan might be a good site for you to visit, the commenters are smart articulate and have the patience of Job to teach the women that are willing to listen and understand. Google Hooking up smart or check the link at the recent post about douchebag domination.
LOL Steph, I don’t need to learn how to hook up, I’m already in a relationship…..
Oh but there is a lot of commentary about how men think about sex and relationships. We had a lot of commenter that are married or engaged offering insight on many of this issues.
Tactical Error says:
September 22, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I think you went to easy on Chels. Post after post she does the same dumbshit routine and doesn’t listen to men telling her what they think or feel. Maybe if you really laid into her a little of what you say might sink in. Then again, maybe not.
Oh but there is a lot of commentary about how men think about sex and relationships. We had a lot of commenter that are married or engaged offering insight on many of this issues.
Thanks, I’ll check it out.
Post after post she does the same dumbshit routine and doesn’t listen to men telling her what they think or feel. Maybe if you really laid into her a little of what you say might sink in. Then again, maybe not.
That won’t be necessary, I’ll be more considerate from now on.
“And how about men just tell women straight out what they want? ”
I can assure you, there is nothing on earth we would like to do more. Unfortunately, women have a way of punishing people for saying or thinking the “wrong” things.
If you want men to be honest and upfront with you, all you have to do is sleep with them (if you were already planning on doing so) even if they say things that hurt your feelings, when what they say is what they believe to be the truth. I can guarantee that if you tell men upfront “Tell me what you really believe about X, don’t worry about it upsetting me, we will still be having sex afterwards no matter what you say.” and actually follow through on that, they will tell you. At first they’ll probably think you’re fucking with them and be thinking about telling you what you want to hear instead. If they get a pained look on their face and hesitate reassure them that you are not trying to fuck with their head and you really want to hear the unvarnished truth.
If women weren’t constantly carrying around an invisible scorecard, adding and subtracting “points”, we would be completely upfront with you, I promise you. If you want proof of that,watch how we interact with other men. No scorecards there. If our best friend was wearing something stupid or had a bad haircut or something, we’re like “Dude, you know I got your back, but you seriously look like a fag.” and the friend never gets upset because he’s grateful someone told him he looked stupid so he could FIX THE PROBLEM . And at the end of that exchange everyone is still on the same level they were before.
We have to actually go against our instincts to not do the same thing with our women and it is entirely uncomfortable for us and makes us feel bad if we have even a shred of a conscience. We don’t lie to people so they won’t feel bad out of instinct, women guilt us into doing it,because that’s how they handle problems. By pretending they aren’t there.
I will be more considerate of you too, Chels. I think many of us can still learn.
“As a Christian, I was always taught that good Christian women become housewives/SAHMs. I think that mantra is often twisted into “good Christian women should only consider marrying men that can afford to provide them with a housewife/SAHM lifestyle” – it becomes an entitlement thing.”
It sure is, although a different kind than that put forth by the feminists. The feminists say it is a “:choice,” and one that a woman can exercise whenever she likes, regardless of past behavior. The Christian trad cons say it is a necessity, and that a woman can demand it of any potential suitor. Either way, it is something that women, somehow, “deserve.”
“Fortunately I don’t have to worry about money; or else I have no idea how I would have expressed my housewife desires to my boyfriend without making him think I’m a gold-digger.”
Er, if you weren’t independently wealthy, your housewife desires would make you, to some extent at least, a “gold digger.” To be a SAHM (barring independent wealth), a woman needs an at least moderately wealthy man for a husband, and specifically and exclusively seeking out such a man to be one’s husband IS gold digging.
I don’t think anything good can come out of discussing with women like Chels. She will never get it. And I guess the amount of readers here who need more info on in what ways she does not get it is not that big. I do not know why she comes here. The gina tingle theory seems like the most plausible explanation.
@ TE
That’s interesting, reminds me of the whole “Do I look fat in this?” and expecting a “no”, even though it might not be true.
In any case, what you said just seems really tough to do for men, with all these mind tricks :s
@ Lavazza
I do not know why she comes here. The gina tingle theory seems like the most plausible explanation.
No, that’s not plausible at all; that’s absolutely nuts. Have you ever considered that I come here because I might just be interested in learning? (if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t even read this blog, much less actually comment)
“We don’t lie to people so they won’t feel bad out of instinct, women guilt us into doing it,because that’s how they handle problems. By pretending they aren’t there.”
That’s an extremely good summary of the fundamentally differant ways men and women face (or not) reality.
Facts are not enemies to be avoided, or denied. They are a necessary tool to be used in fixing the issues.
@Chels (in particular)
And speaking of reality, can we please stop pretending that a master’s in chemical engineering from Yale is equivalent to a master’s in women’s studies from a yokel college?
Saying your friend is of higher class due to a master’s from an unnamed school in an unnamed subject means nothing.
I would place no value whatsoever on a women’s studies master’s, in fact (as a likely indicator of debt and entitlement attitudes) it would likely be a huge red flag.
YMMV as you appear to live in an alternate universe, untroubled by any consideration of reality
chels: I’m not biting.
I said I would not comment on this thread again, but this is crucial. It’s not likely to be fixed, ever, but here goes.
@ Tactical Error:
“I can guarantee that if you tell men upfront “Tell me what you really believe about X, don’t worry about it upsetting me, we will still be having sex afterwards no matter what you say.” and ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THAT, they will tell you.”
(Caps added for emphasis.)
This. This right here.
THis is an enormous cause of male-female relationship problems. What man on this thread has not had a woman make the silent threat:
“If you dare do or say anything that offends me, or hurts me, or hurts my feelings, it will be no sex for you, And I am the sole arbiter of when you will get sex again. You will jump when I say, apologize when I say in the manner I want, and you will do everything I say, and then, maybe I will consider thinking about having sex with you again. Or, I’ll just break up with your sorry loser ass, and then you’ll never get sex again, because I’m the only one who will have sex with you. So keep your mouth shut. Who cares how YOU feel? It’s all about me, me, me.!”
It’s the “I will withhold sex” threat. It’s a gigantic fitness test. It’s the nuclear bomb of male-female relationships.
(I’ve been in this situation before. The way I used to respond is to do what she said. Wrong, wrong, wrong. IF any woman actually does this, and starts withholding sex, dump her immediately.)
The problem is that if you are honest with your woman and she doesn’t like the level or content of your honesty, she’ll withhold sex — even if she says she won’t. Women sometimes don’t say what they mean, and assert the “I’m a woman so it’s my prerogative to change my mind” canard.
“It’s the “I will withhold sex” threat. It’s a gigantic fitness test. It’s the nuclear bomb of male-female relationships.
(I’ve been in this situation before. The way I used to respond is to do what she said. Wrong, wrong, wrong. IF any woman actually does this, and starts withholding sex, dump her immediately.)”
Actually I should say that to a sniveling beta it is the nuclear bomb of his relationship.
In reality it is a woman’s last ditch attempt at control. She’s playing her trump card as the gatekeeper of sex. She is doing this to regain control. And to a beta, he cedes all control to her by acceding to her demands. He has failed the fitness test, and she now knows he is at her mercy. Tingles gone, relationship gone soon after.
To a recovering beta or an alpha, it is a fitness test. He retakes control by walking away, not calling, and if it gets bad enough, by breaking up with her.
It sure is, although a different kind than that put forth by the feminists. The feminists say it is a “:choice,” and one that a woman can exercise whenever she likes, regardless of past behavior. The Christian trad cons say it is a necessity, and that a woman can demand it of any potential suitor. Either way, it is something that women, somehow, “deserve.”
You know what’s weird? I’ve noticed many trad-con women are former feminists with less than Christian pasts.
*thinks about that for a moment*
…um did I just have one of those Red Pill epiphanies?
Er, if you weren’t independently wealthy, your housewife desires would make you, to some extent at least, a “gold digger.” To be a SAHM (barring independent wealth), a woman needs an at least moderately wealthy man for a husband, and specifically and exclusively seeking out such a man to be one’s husband IS gold digging.
I’ve been told that a decent Christian man should just automatically provide a young Christian women with said lifestyle. Jesus only wants men to work and earn money; women belong in the home. It’s not gold digging, in a good Christian world it’s the social norm. [Notice how said logic could easily imply that all of modern society’s problems are caused by men not supporting housewives/SAHMs?]
Am I the only person who thinks there’s something suspicious about modern Christianity’s high expectations of men and its pedestalization of women?
I mean, obviously there’s a reason why young men are leaving the Church in droves.
“In reality it is a woman’s last ditch attempt at control. She’s playing her trump card as the gatekeeper of sex. She is doing this to regain control. And to a beta, he cedes all control to her by acceding to her demands. He has failed the fitness test, and she now knows he is at her mercy. Tingles gone, relationship gone soon after.
“To a recovering beta or an alpha, it is a fitness test. He retakes control by walking away, not calling, and if it gets bad enough, by breaking up with her.”
All well and good, unless you are married, in which case you can’t just “walk away,” because you live in the same house, can’t just “not call” her, for the same reason, and can’t just “break up with her,” because ending a marriage is a little bit more complicated and serious than ending a GF/BF relationship.
And that’s the main reason why “GAMING your wife” is a croc of shit.
This really backfires on women who have let themselves go so badly that the only way a man can overcome his gag reflex and have sex with them is based on some sort of emotional connection and sense of obligation he feels. When she tries to hold the relationship hostage in order to regain control, a lot of men check out and relegate her to the status of an annoying roommate who is too expensive to ditch. Since their sexual attractiveness is more significant to their own sense of self-worth than it is to men, when a woman alienates her mate sexually she has really shot herself in the foot and bought a long term lease on being pump-and-dump property of desperate unattached lower betas and omegas. .
ruddy:
well, you can game your wife. Athol Kay is the foremost authority on using Game tactics to improve a marriage. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. .
I’ve done it. It can get dicey. You can’t run PUA game. You can’t go hardcore a**hole. There is a husband response to the withhold sex tactic. It’s a fitness test and you have to pass it. If you don’t, you’re consigning yourself to a marital hell. I had to stand up for myself. It’s not easy, and there is risk involved to be sure. But it can be done.
It sucks if you need game to get your wife to sleep with you. It seems to me that if women were taught wifely responsibilities, game would be rendered useless.
“I’ve been told that a decent Christian man should just automatically provide a young Christian women with said lifestyle. Jesus only wants men to work and earn money; women belong in the home. It’s not gold digging, in a good Christian world it’s the social norm”
Just cuz it’s the norm in the good Christian world doesn’t mean it isn’t golddigging.
“well, you can game your wife. Athol Kay is the foremost authority on using Game tactics to improve a marriage. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.”
You can TRY to GAME your wife, but if he doesn’t want to put out, she doesn’t have to, and unlike the single guy, all of your threats and bluser are BS, and she knows it. Basically, you can GAME your wife if she consents to being GAME’d. If she sees it as role play and desires to engage in it. You ACT like the Alpha, and she reacts to that, even though she knows you’re not really all that Alpha. .
“I’ve done it. It can get dicey. You can’t run PUA game. You can’t go hardcore a**hole. There is a husband response to the withhold sex tactic. It’s a fitness test and you have to pass it. If you don’t, you’re consigning yourself to a marital hell. I had to stand up for myself. It’s not easy, and there is risk involved to be sure. But it can be done.”
Leaving aside the issue of why a man who has married a woman, who has foresworn all others, who brings home the bacon, who showers his wife with TLC, cards and presents on her birthday and anniversary, a shoulder to cry on when she wants one, an “I love you” when she needs one, etc, should HAVE to GAME, should HAVE to pass her “fitness tests” five years, ten years or more into the marriage, leaving aside the injustice and undesirability of living as a husband under those circumtances, of not being able to simply be yourself, even though you are married, of still having to “court” and “woo” like a single guy, even though you are doing all the things that married men do for their wives, leaving all of that aside, I still don’t believe it really works. Stand up for yourself? Sure, as long as she goes along with it. If not, it’s no sex for you. And unlike a single guy you can’t just blow her off, because, unless you are going to break your vows, your stuck with her and only her as a possible sex partner. Stand up for yourself once too often, and you’re in divorce court, ready to be butt raped. Try “GAMING” your way out of that one!
GAME is predicated on the notion that a single man, while at a disadvantage viz a viz any single woman in the meat market, does have a fair bit of leverage in that he is a free agent. “Plenty of fish in the sea, sweetheart” A guy can say or imply that, can be or feign being confident and nonchalant, and mean it, and have it stick, because it is true or at least plausible, and the woman knows it is true or might be true. She holds the top cards, but he has the option of leaving the table and finding a different game. A married man has no such options. He’s not running a “GAME,” he’s running a bluff. And the wife knows it. As I said, he can get away with it, if it amuses her. If she wants to play along. If she can, and wants to, make believe that he really is as cool and unconcerned as he is pretending to be. But not if she doesn’t want to or can’t. Then it’s GAME over. Welcome to, as you put it, marital hell, or see you in divorce court.
Athol Kay? Pfffffffffft!
Let’s take a look at one of his latest offering of wisdom:
Sitting on your butt and looking beautiful is only sexy if you’re a woman. If you’re a man…
Playing football is sexy.
Watching football, not so much.
Making money is sexy.
Reading about someone else making money, not so much.
Being in good physical shape is sexy.
Talking about getting into shape, not so much.
Walking up to a woman and starting a conversation is sexy.
Reading pick up artist blogs and books, not so much.
Wearing nice clothes is sexy.
Thinking about wearing nice clothes, not so much.
Getting a promotion at work is sexy.
Complaining about work, not so much.
Traveling to another country is sexy.
Watching the Discovery Channel not so much.
Doing something a little risky is sexy.
Always being safe, warm and dry, not so much.
Saying what you want in bed is sexy.
Watching porn about what you want in bed, not so much.
Becoming a Black Belt is sexy.
Playing Street Fighter on XBOX, not so much.
Re-telling the story about something you did is sexy.
Telling the story about something someone else did, not so much.
Finishing your high fantasy novel and holding the finished book in your hand is sexy.
Playing World of Warcraft, not so much
You get the picture. A man, even a married man, must do x, y and z to be “sexy.” It’s not good enough for a guy to work his job, be faithful, be a good father, and a “nice guy.” Nope, he has to get a black belt too. Or write a book. Or dress fancy. Or get promoted. And so on. Notice too, that little or none of this is really “GAME,” as that term is generlly understood. GAME, for the overwhelming majority of guys interested in it, is a short cut. It’s a way to act Alpha and be percieved as Alpha for guys who actually aren’t Alpha. But what Athol advocates here is not techniques for appearing Alpha, but actually being Alpha. Well, duh, guys who really are Alpha are sexually attractive. Tell me something I don’t know. Many GAME gurus engage in this conflation/equivocation/whatever you want to call it. Guys come looking to them for tips on picking up women or getting their wives to put out. That’s what they want…tips, not a regimen of self improvement advice. Get in shape, dress better, get a better job, become a martial arts master, and so on and so forth and the ladies will like you better….Really! You don’t say! That;s not GAME and it’s not GAMING your wife. That’s becoming a hot property, being rich and studly. And listing the things that make a man a hot property, that make him rich and studly, is a lot easier than doing even one of them, and no one needs Athol to tell them what they are.
Pingback: Best post ever | Deansdale's Blog
“Just cuz it’s the norm in the good Christian world doesn’t mean it isn’t golddigging.”
A woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mother is automatically a gold-digger? That sounds like specious reasoning to me. Especially since being one is the best way she can raise the children.
ruddy:
So you don’t think a man should have to game his wife. OK. But women aren’t attracted to beta simpering and supplicating even in a marriage. Men can’t just “be nice, be yourself” in marriage any more than in dating. Part of “Game” is being the leader and having dominant frame.
We here in the manosphere are blunt with women, telling them to keep their attractiveness up and their weight down, not be bitches, and cultivate pleasant personalities, It isn’t enough for girlfriends to do that. Wives have to do it too. It’s in any sane wife’s interest to do it. Why?
1. If she doesn’t, she’s consigning herself to marital hell too.
2. If she doesn’t, and she divorces, it’s Feline City where the only sex is pump & dump, and she’ll be lucky to get that (at least in my locality). Around here, if she’s 40, it doesn’t matter how well preserved she is. She’s flat up against the Wall. She’s worse off if she has kids because she’s now a dreaded Single Mom — good for pump & dump and nothing more.
The women I know are keenly aware of this dynamic.
Yeah, I know about divorce butt raping and all that. OK. But there are things that can be done about that too.
There’s nothing to lose by the man improving himself. Sometimes all he has to do is adopt a more dominant frame. And if the wife is not going to follow that lead and respond to his more alpha traits, then she’s not marriage material and it’s probably best for the marriage to end anyway.
Good talking with you, ruddy.
ruddyturnstone believe it or not women are blessed or as I could men in a way with the hamster. women can be gamed. You are applying male logic to something that requires male knowledge of female psychology. I hate the idea of gaming a wife and logicly as a man it should not be possible. but it is.
greyghost: I didn’t think about your point. My wife’s still got a hindbrain and it still responds to game.
“It sucks if you need game to get your wife to sleep with you. It seems to me that if women were taught wifely responsibilities, game would be rendered useless.”
I don’t know much about “game”, but I do know something about keeping the nagging down and the sex forthcoming. I guess it’s pretty much the same thing. But as I understand this “gaming your wife” thing, which I’m reading contextually here, the game is not employed to get your wife to fuck. Hell, after you’re married, I don’t think God himself can do that for you. I believe the game is used to keep the ball and chain from taking half your shit and walking out,in this case. Maybe one of the wife-gamers can verify if that’s true or not.
“A woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mother is automatically a gold-digger?”
Let me attempt to cut the Gordian knot here, if I may. The short answer is yes. But, qualifications are in order. I would argue that a woman who wants to be a stay at home mother, and who is looking for that scenario because she’s lazy,manipulative,or stupid is in the wrong, but if she wants to be a stay at home mother because that’s the most stable model for raising children and because she wants to commit to a man and faithfully live out her life together with him,even though she is taking advantage of a man (which can’t be helped because this is the natural way humans live) she is still a good person and is innocent of any wrongdoing.
It’s a lot like homicide. If you shoot someone because they’re trying to kill you, even though you acted in self-defense, it’s still homicide, and the taking of human lives is still wrong generally , but in this case it’s “justifiable homicide”.
So,in my opinion, a woman who wants to be a stay at home mom for the sake of the children’s well-being and to pursue a lifelong love with her husband is a justifiable gold-digger.
I hate being an apologist for marriage,personally, I think the old D.A.R.E. slogan is sage advice. When it comes to marriage, “Just say NO.”. I do,however, recognize the more subtle aspects involved here and can’t argue against the facts on record regarding the need for a committed marriage when raising kids. File this under “G” for “Giving the devil his due”.
I don’t really believe in “true love” or “meant to be” or any of that sappy shit, but I’m big on freedom. I wouldn’t begrudge anyone their right to pursue it if that’s what they want to do with their life,even if they have to walk a tightrope between manipulation and loving support from the female perspective,or loving support and being assraped from the male point of view.
“The short answer is yes.”
Your short answer does not match your long answer. Your long answer is summed up as “it depends on the intent”.
While I appreciate what you are saying, it would seem to me that wanting to be a stay-at-home mother is a good thing that can be corrupted by malicious intent, rather than a malicious thing that can be salvaged by good intent, as you seem to imply by your analogy.
grizzledwolf: I would say that it depends on how much she herself facilitates her SAHM solution, Things like marrying young, not being in debt, keeping expenditures down, having small needs, being generous and hard working in relation to the husband and the kids etc.
An older woman who is in debt, spending a lot of money, having large needs and who sets herself before others and who still wants to be a SAHM quacks like a golddigger.
“Your short answer does not match your long answer. Your long answer is summed up as “it depends on the intent”.
While I appreciate what you are saying, it would seem to me that wanting to be a stay-at-home mother is a good thing that can be corrupted by malicious intent, rather than a malicious thing that can be salvaged by good intent, as you seem to imply by your analogy.”
Your own perspective gives you that belief. As a young man with all my years ahead of me, financing a woman and children for the rest of my life looks like a pretty bad deal from where I’m sitting. I can’t think of a single reason to part with the fruits of my productivity and creativity.
No woman has ever offered me anything on par with my abilities. I don’t think any woman could . Therefore, any woman whose stay at home aspirations I were to facilitate would be seriously ripping me off in the bargain. A woman’s “love” is worthless to me, it is more unstable than an artificial element in an atom smasher, her sexual services,also, are likely to be mediocre and unsatisfactory.
I believe the institution of marriage is necessary and laudable, based on the evidence I have seen, but as it stands today, with all the liabilities on MY side of the aisle, I have to treat such an outcome (being the breadwinner for a woman) in my own life as a threat to my financial, emotional, and psychological well-being.
Pingback: Why won’t these Peter Pan manboys man up and marry aging flighty selfish career gal sluts already? | Dalrock
Pingback: Outstanding reader comments | Dalrock
Pingback: We are not sheep or cows. Divorce and covenant | Dark Brightness
Pingback: One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill « Elephants & Trees
Pingback: Two years, two million hits, and a Ph.D in Red Pill Pharmacy | Dalrock