This is one area where as a blogger I have an embarrassment of riches. Excellent comments are so common that I more often than not don’t acknowledge them even in the discussion itself. There are simply too many great insights to try to acknowledge them all.
As Looking Glass pointed out, this last paragraph from Brendan’s comment on my man up post<.htma> concisely distilled the issue in just four sentences (emphasis mine):
As for Bennett et al, they would do well to understand that the reason why men are underachieving is because they can. If liberation for women meant liberation from accountability to men, liberation for men meant liberation from responsibility to women. Again, these are two sides of the same coin. For some reason the numbskulls who pass themselves off as public intellectuals in this culture can’t seem to wrap their puny minds around that truism.
As a recovering So Con myself, I will venture that the instinctive So Con response to Brendan’s point is something to the effect of:
But what if I’m against feminism?
or (more to the point)
But what if we pretend feminism didn’t happen?
But of course feminism did happen, and denying it or not agreeing with it doesn’t change the fact that it did.
Commenter Woof corrected me on my misinterpretation of Dennis Prager’s position on marriage (followed by divorce) being good for men:
In the text you quote, Dennis Praeger does not argue “that it is good for men to marry and then have their wives divorce them”. He claims instead that it’s good for society. He’s not saying the fatted calf benefits from the slaughter. He’s saying the guests do.
Johnycomelately very kindly characterized my post fisking Ms. Nance with:
WOOOOOSHHHH
That’s the sound Dalrock’s response has to conservatives, just goes over their heads.
I can see their counter, what are you unpatriotic?
As much as I appreciate the intended compliment (and I truly do), I’m hoping that my post will be able to sway at least some social conservatives. I really meant it when I said that they don’t know what raving feminists they are. If you know some diehard So Cons, that probably would be the post to send to them and test their reaction. Realistically nothing I or anyone else can write is likely to change many minds on such strongly held beliefs, but I think if we can point out to So Cons (and everyone else really) that they have unknowingly swallowed feminism whole there will probably be at least a few on the margins who we can swing. We don’t have to win the war of ideas, but it is a nice bonus and hopefully we can speed up the process of returning to sanity.
Chels asked an excellent question:
Most of the MRAs seem to be against traditional gender roles–the man brings in the money, while the woman stays at home, raises children and takes care of her family. I’ve always been curious, what gender roles do you propose? (if any)
I don’t have the time or energy to write a reply which would do this question justice. I had some fun with the question here, and that plus having read some of my other writing hopefully gives you a rough sense of where I’m coming from. I may devote a separate post to this in the coming week or so. What I will say for now at least is that I don’t see us making radical changes in this area. I think there will be and should be plenty of opportunity for men and women to define how they want to live their lives. Some women are born to be CEOs, and I say more power to them. But this doesn’t mean we have to pretend men and women are the same, or that we should deny what we know about the mechanics of male-female relationships, or that we should create lower standards for women in order to make them or politicians feel good. And it doesn’t mean that we should lie to women about the real trade-offs they need to be prepared to make when deciding what they want to do with their lives. It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t roll back the incredibly biased laws and institutions feminism has erected against men. I’m sure I’m missing a great deal here, but hopefully you get the gist of it at least.
What you’re missing is that most ‘social conservative’ pundits/activists are pushing some sort of agenda, politically, or socially. In doing so, they don’t want to be tarred as ‘sexist’, or let their opponents maneuver them into refighting battles already lost. It’s not that social conservatives have ‘swallowed feminism whole’, it’s just that there is no advantage to them in announcing that they haven’t.
“If liberation for women meant liberation from accountability to men, liberation for men meant liberation from responsibility to women.”
I am going to steal this line and use it in my class.
@ theprivateman
The wymmin in your class may not like this quote (which by the way is great). 🙂
“I’ve always been curious, what gender roles do you propose? (if any)”
women work, men play video games. if women complain, they are punished.
“Some women are born to be CEOs”
crush their ambitions right from the start. Instead of trying to masculinize her even further like today(and inducing boys to verbalize their emotions), feminize her brains off. Tomboys should be beaten harder than boys.
Also that bit about Palin’s mama bear thing, the territorial aggression of women when it comes to children and yet denigrating the same in young men except when it’s played up for the whole of womankind. “Hey, what if it happened to your mother, sister, daughter, daughter’s cat?”
“If liberation for women meant liberation from accountability to men, liberation for men meant liberation from responsibility to women.”
THAT is going to be a bitter pill for women to swallow.
Most women want the benfits of feminism but want men to continue to live up to their traditional responsibilities to women.
yaay I not only get mentioned in “outstanding comments”, (or question, whatever) but I may also get my own post 😀
Seriously now, I am interested in this because I have no idea what MRAs even want anymore and even some of them seem confused–does it go beyond fair laws?
And someone was complaining about people pushing their agendas–individuals are always going to push their own agenda, and are going to fight for the things that are most important to them (and the loudest usually wins). Personally though, I’m all for fair laws and allowing people to pick whichever lifestyle they want.
I didn’t really receive an answer to my question in the comments section, so I’d appreciate a post on it Dalrock.
Tomboys should be beaten harder than boys.
You must be kidding right? I was a tomboy when I was younger, and I’m happy my parents didn’t force me to play with Barbies (who are just so b.o.r.i.n.g), but allowed me to play with my brother’s toys, such as racing cars or things that made a lot of noise. And yet I still grew up feminine, who knew that was even possible?!?
“As much as I appreciate the intended compliment (and I truly do), I’m hoping that my post will be able to sway at least some social conservatives. I really meant it when I said that they don’t know what raving feminists they are.”
It’s not that social conservative are feminists. The truth that dare not speak it’s name is that radical feminists are the reactionary conservatives of the new social order. Any attempt to counter or question their position is met with draconian hostility and resentment. That’s why the two movements are such natural allies. They both think they’re protecting the “Natural Order” from the forces of change (or reason).
I don’t think it’s feminism. It just happens to produce that result in practice. The problem the SoCons have is that they are helpless in the face of women, for they know not game. Most men have made concessions to make a relationship work, in response to being told that there is a problem. Few SoCons have ever heard of a modern woman doing any such thing. As far as SoCons can know, no power on earth can influence female behavior in the slightest degree.
So telling women to change is right out. All their experience of life tells them that’s a lunatic fantasy, like antigravity or central planning. And it is (unless you game properly her first). So you tell men to change, because some of them may actually listen. And in fact, it is men who have to take charge of things. If only the SoCons knew what change is required.
The problem is nobody ever told the SoCons there’s any other way to influence people. They’re offering a solution they know to be worthless because everything they know tells them there’s no solution at all. Yet to them it seems better to fight on hopelessly than to give in to despair. They’re keeping a stiff upper lip and bravely throwing their empty gun at the enemy pouring into their trench.
It’s magnificent, but it’s not a neg.
I must say, that much as I agree with Brendan’s comment I do find it somewhat tortuous – doesn’t quite trip off the tongue. I would say, rather, that, women have always been held to a lower level of accountability (see Herodotus – though much lower now than before and indeed much lower within living memory, indeed there seems to be an ongoing race to ever lower a woman’s level of accountability) but sadly it is not in the instincts of men, no matter how rational it might now appear to be, to be less responsible for women. I feel quite sure that if one of those giant cruise-liners were next year to hit an iceberg, and with an under supply of lifeboats, the situation will be the same in 2012 as in 1912 – that is to say women first (whether fertile or not) then children and last of all men.
None of this will change until the Enlightenment idea of Egaliterianism (supported by the equalising of everyone and everything) is consigned to the dustbin of Utopian dreams, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.
As for the idea that some women are born to be CEOs, I will believe that when Dalrock is able to convince me that some women are born to be Stevedors or Road Diggers, or if that seems unfair, world Chess champions or great Composers, or great Philosophers or Nobel Prize winning Scientists (it hasn’t happened yet, and I am sure it never will). A woman CEO (or for that matter female High Court Judge) seems to me to bear as much resemblance to a man (in those positions) as a Transvestite does to a woman – something intrinsic is missing but you get a lot of posing and posturing as well as tears and emotion. Even if I were wrong about female CEOs, I do not think it a good thing for society that they should be so – because it is bad for men, who cannot help but play up to their sex – but if a man doesn’t that, upsets them too, (and other women always resent it) though what one is to do with women, now that men have ‘liberated’ them from cooking, cleaning, child-rearing etc – in short all the things that nature has designed them for, and which is ‘natural’ to them I have no idea. I would suggest that a woman CEO (if not married) will either be celibate – like a Nun – or a whore, with Gigolos to service her. The position of women in the 21st century seems to be quite intractable. Any earlier generation would have found this morally appalling, but then (unlike us) they are not enlightened.
Oh, also: Kind of you to quote my previous comment. Thanks.
TFH – “Women want to be liberated from accountability to men, and THEN want the state to force men to maintain their responsibilities to women.”
Speaking of outstanding reader comments…
TFH has proffered an accurate and important point as an addendum to Brendan’s keen observation.
Thanks, Dalrock.
Women want to be liberated from accountability to men, and THEN want the state to force men to maintain their responsibilities to women. So far, this is working, which is why Democracy inevitably transitions into a feminist police state. Women never vote for the benefit of ‘people’, they only vote for team woman, and view men as a resource to be pillaged.
TFH —
In a way, yes, but not in a deliberate way. In other words, I think this is mostly due to a confluence of (1) the white-knighting tendency pointed out by Opus (which is diluting greatly by each generation, as it is the 20s and 30s that are being dissed as Peter Pans, not the 50s-70s who are white-knighting on The Hill and in legislatures throughout the country), (2) the feminist interpretation of history (as the one-sided oppression of women by men) and (3) the failure to connect the dots of cause and effect, as you so often point out.
On the latter, there seems to have been a general assumption throughout the culture that the liberation of women would, by and large, not impact the behavior of men in any ways that women might not like. In other words, it seems to have been thought that women could liberate themselves from men, but that men would keep shoveling the gravel, and be responsible towards women. And, indeed, this is what happened for a time, particularly in the generations, like mine, that were stuck in the first one or two iterations of the transition to marriage 2.0. But that’s changing now — what we are seeing, via a 2-3 generation delay, is the response of men to the liberation of women *from* accountability vis-a-vis men. The peter pan genre of female complaint in this area is mostly directed at men between 18 and, say early 40s. That’s kind of the dividing line, and a more stark one the further down that age range you go, in terms of who has their eyes open to what is really going on, and has made choices that are rather intentional instead of simply “expected” or “traditional”. This really is simply the reaction to what has happened, once those changes had the time to work their way through the system deeply enough to create consequences that were visible, which in turn has begin to change behaviors among men.
To every action there is a reaction. It’s a truism, but it’s one that many women, feminist or not, seem to have forgotten when it comes to sex relations. The ancien regime involved restrictions on men and women alike, and the restrictions on men were almost all around responsibility vis-a-vis women. It was pretty obvious to anyone who would look at the matter in a more than cursory way that a likely reaction among a not small group of men to the widespread liberation of women from accountability vis-a-vis men would eventually be detachment from this responsibility towards women — that is, if women truly dismantled their half of the ancien regime situation, it was only a matter of time until a growing number of men dismantled *their* half as well. It’s the latter situation that the peter pan genre is whining about, but almost always in an incredibly clueless way, as there is generally a lot of psychological resistance to seeing this growing trend as a response to an action that preceded it. It’s understandable that this dismantling is being decried — many men decried the dismantling of the female side of the old deal as well — but it can’t be put back in place in isolation.
I often come across women who are puzzled about this, as if to say “why don’t men want to do this for themselves?” and so on. The answer is that feminism was about (some) women taking what men had (and which they coveted) for themselves — because they wanted it. Fair enough. But in the converse, there wasn’t much that women had that men wanted, in terms of coveting roles/jobs/power and so on that women had which men wanted (this isn’t because women had no power under the old deal, but that the kinds of power women had were not interesting to men, by and large). And once it had sunk through the culture that women were largely abandoning their role (and their men), and that hypergamy was running wild and so on, an initially small but now growing number of young men embraced what it is that men wished the old deal had NOT had: blanket expectations of responsibility on men in order to be considered “men”. It is this male raising of the middle finger at the old expectations — which is a mirroring of the female fingers that have been raised with gusto over the past several decades — that explains what the peter pan complainers are upset about. But they don’t get the “why” of this phenomenon — perhaps because to “get it” would challenge their own worldview far too much.
I honestly do think that the younger generation (under 25s, really) is going to reset the button here when it comes to relations between the sexes, and it won’t resemble much what has come before, or even prevails now, in terms of presumptions about behavior and expectations and the like.
Summed up “America” today quite well:
Indeed, the problem is that the young animal is being insufficiently punished for failure to do as it is told.
The “peter pan” men aren’t shirking responsibility because no one is punishing them…they’re shirking it because the responsible ones are being rewarded by divorce theft, being kept from their children’s lives, and unreasonably high mate search cost. Couple this with the extensive reward system for corporate corruption that curtails the growth of jobs all around, and encourages companies to give jobs to women at the expense of men…
You get an environment that makes it more difficult to “man up”. In terms of economics, the pressure is on both the supply side (jobs) and demand side (traditional family).
The thing is…you’ll never really fully do away with traditional families. They’ll become rarer, less official, but for the foreseeable future, they will continue to exist because there will always be betas and a few women with a naturally high tolerance to beta.
“there is generally a lot of psychological resistance to seeing this growing trend as a response to an action that preceded it.”
Because that would require introspection, analysis, and a willingness to assign responsibility and blame where it belongs. It would also require an honest, unflinching assessment of what would need to be done by both men and women to restore proper order. That in turn requires women to accept that they, individually and collectively, have a role to play in fixing the problems — assuming they can be fixed at this late date.
I suspect a large part of the psychological resistance is a result of (1) men only now abandoning responsibility due to women’s abandoning accountability 40 to 50 years ago; and (2) the predominant feminist culture denies responsibility. During that time, men continued operating under the old rules. Men have wised up to the new social order and simply left women to their own devices. Many women and the prevailing culture simply deny that they have had anything to do with it.
Part of it I thihk is that men and women approach these things in fundamentally different ways. Men are assessing the landscape logically and pragmatically, whereas many women do not view such matters this way. Before taking on a relationship or a wife, men consider things such as money, living arrangements, figuring out how it will work, and then setting about doing what must be done to make it work. Many men have taken stock of the culture and the battlefield, so to speak. They venture out onto the battlefield only for a fling, a ONS, or STR, and then retreat when the battle fatigue sets in. They long ago concluded that seeing the war through to a conclusion isn’t worth the time investment. Many women are prone to assessing sex, love, and intergender relationships through prisms of emotion, desire, and feelings, rather than what they view as cold, calculating, impersonal risk-benefit analysis, and so cannot understand why a man won’t go out of his way for love or even try to find it.
“I often come across women who are puzzled about this, as if to say “why don’t men want to do this for themselves?” and so on. The answer is that feminism was about (some) women taking what men had (and which they coveted) for themselves — because they wanted it.”
And in taking what men had, more and more women unwittingly made freely available that which before had come the price of commitment and marriage — sex. So if the sex was on offer without commitment, up sprang a coterie of men willing to take it. Unrestrained hypergamy then led to more and more men being shut out of the SMP. An increasing number of men simply left the marketplace, leaving more and more women competing for the alphas and greater betas still playing the game. More and more women found themselves without men at 25, 30, 35, 40 for any number of reasons — waiting too long, focus on career, breaking up with suitable but not apex men, high partner counts resulting in mate disqualification and failure to partner bond, etc.
Chels says:
October 12, 2011 at 12:19 pm
The guiding principal for MGTOW is that women are strong and independant. Women need men like fish need a bicycle.
We agree, so goodbye. Do without us. What we do is our business, not yours. We certainly don’t care what someone thinks our responsibilities should be. Especially if it helps that person or society in a way that that person wants us to.
There are of course wide variations in mens reaction to today’s women. That’s where the confusion lies. Yet the first principle is that men are free and define their own responsibilities.
It seems the Russian mail order brides yield a full circle. Many Russian women live in poor economic circumstances surrounded with an abundance of alcohilic, thugivized, disincentivized male peers. Now, given the lack of resource allocation and provision to themselves from their male peers, or undemanding sugar daddy government, the beta male turns into a scarce commodity again. Who would have thought this?
In response to Chel’s question (from a Zeta Male/MGTOW/Roissinite/Whatever):
It’s not that I don’t *want* to have a good woman I love, honour, and cherish, a house I build with my own two hands, and become an established bedrock of the community; it’s that I don’t see good odds on it happening.
Even the good girls I meet are too empowered (GRR!) to take any authorship of a relationship; I’ll be carrying their water, with no hope of effort in return. The day I feel blue, they’re going to be finding justifications for breaking up. Given this reality, I may as well whore around, and save my money for myself. Keeping a low profile means no cops/attorneys showing up at my door, and plenty of fun with my buds.
Metaphor: I’d love to take my bike off some sweet jumps, but with a leaking fork seal I know it’s a bad idea. If cruising down the backroads is the only thing available, then by gum, I’m going to make the most of it.
Treating a woman with dignity and care got me locked up in prison; treating them like dirt gets me regular sex. Didn’t take me long to figure out where the stick and the carrot are.
Can you elaborate on the last paragraph please?
You write a whole lot of very good stuff, Brendan, but this one shows a real gap in your historical knowledge about the course of the cultural drift since the emergence of 2nd wave feminism.
The whole “Peter Pan” meme was so well established in the cultural consciousness by the early 1980s – 30 years ago – that it formed one of the major themes of Warren Farrell’s “Why Men Are the Way They Are.” – published 1986. Playing on a historic major league baseball rivalry, Farrell cast the SMP of 25-30 years ago as a rivalry between the “Commitment Dodgers” (men) and the “Commitment Giants” (women).
This “Peter Pan” meme is at least 35 years old – and I lived through it through most of my mating years. I think the reason it seems to be resurrected right now is due to a down turn in the economy which leaves those fish becoming acutely aware that they really do need bicycles.
Back in 1971, Norman Mailer came out with a book called “Prisoner of Sex”, in which he admits to “the firmest male prejudice of all – that women already had the better part of the deal.”
I completely agree with him, and back as far as the end of the 1960s I always said that feminism would liberate men far more than it would women.
Men generally no longer have to make enough money to support some woman as a SAHM, and HER kids, which cuts their earning obligations by more than half. And, the sexual revolution means that as long as they have Game they can get more sex than most husbands used to get.
Islam will be a bigger force in terms of keeping traditional families going. They are outbreeding feminists and manginas at a very rapid rate.
For now, perhaps. However, you may be interested (along with other readers of the blog, particularly our gracious host, being the statistics fan that he is), in a Pew Research report published at the beginning of this year:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1872/muslim-population-projections-worldwide-fast-growth
While the first part of it confirms what you’ve said (Muslim populations are more fertile than other European ones), it also makes note of this:
The growth of the global Muslim population, however, should not obscure another important demographic trend: the rate of growth among Muslims has been slowing in recent decades and is likely to continue to decline over the next 20 years, as the graph below shows. From 1990 to 2000, the Muslim population grew at an average annual rate of 2.3%. The growth rate dipped to 2.1% from 2000 to 2010, and it is projected to drop to 1.7% from 2010 to 2020 and 1.4% from 2020 to 2030 (or 1.5% annually over the 20-year period from 2010 to 2030, as previously noted).
The declining growth rate is due primarily to falling fertility rates in many Muslim-majority countries, including such populous nations as Indonesia and Bangladesh. Fertility is dropping as more women in these countries obtain a secondary education, living standards rise and people move from rural areas to cities and towns.
There was a time when feminism hadn’t made the inroads it presently has in our culture, but as we grew more prosperous, it took root more and more. The same process might very well be beginning among our Muslim friends. 😦
Long, tawdry story: in a nutshell, I allowed a Borderline Personality Disorder to move in with me, she got violent, and when I asked her to move out the State with it’s Primary Aggressor Laws locked up the individual who’d run away, and was the only one carrying marks from the alleged ‘wife beating’. The State then forced him to pay $10 000 in legal fees to prove his innocence despite a complete lack of physical proof, or consistent behaviour/testimony from the accuser.
On the plus side, having been to prison turns women on, and I got some good primary data: turns out cops and prison guards are just as digustingly contemptible as I’d always suspected.
@Aurini: Wow! There is a good reason why most men don’t want to move in with their girls. And that risk which actually happened gives further evidence to this attitude!
@TFH: You already mentioned this ins a previous comment. Firstly, the question is rather when (whether) this further downgrade would happen, and secondly, given the increased cost of further debt, which services the government will cut first, especially, last time both parties were blocking each other in debt negotiations.
@RL
Living with a woman gives cops carte blanche to invade your space at any time; it’s roughly the legal equivalent to being an adoptive parent. A few weeks before my arrest, the Borderline and I were watching a horror movie, and the cops pushed their way in because my neighbour heard crying coming from the apartment.
They proceeded to search my entire apartment, confiscate the suriken my brother had just brought from japan (a restricted weapon, apparently, here in Canada), and threatened to shoot me as I pulled out my wallet at their request.
No, I did nothing to provoke them – moved slowly, told them what I was doing, spoke politely (but firmly). Cops, however, are primarily low-IQ bullies and cowards. The Good Ones don’t last long. I consider it a travesty that impulse-control doofs are locked up in cages with monsters, while these dirtbags walk the street with government jewellery.
Don’t even get me started on Crown Prosecutors.
Zed
“Men generally no longer have to make enough money to support some woman as a SAHM, and HER kids, which cuts their earning obligations by more than half. And, the sexual revolution means that as long as they have Game they can get more sex than most husbands used to get.”
My wife and I were discussing a couple where the husband is fustrated and moving out. And the wife is i just wish he would just leave. Both are emotionally charged. My wife and the other wife are the ones talking to each other and i told my wife the problem is rooted in sex. She said it was. The husband has a good relationship with his kids. And he is a guy that comes straight home from work and when ever I was there he was playing with his kids. I told my wife he was wrong to think being married also included sex. I told my wife that if he wanted sex he should have stayed single. She didn’t even question it. You are right about single men can now enjoy regular and predictable sex lives that loyal faithful husbands and fathers do not and have not for years
@greyghost: See my comment at https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/smp-searching-costs-and-the-unmourned-death-of-courtship/#comment-16497.
Chels
Seriously now, I am interested in this because I have no idea what MRAs even want anymore and even some of them seem confused–does it go beyond fair laws?
There is no unified, “MRA movement”. There is no male equivalent of NOW. There is no male writer along the lines of Germaine Greer, et al. So there’s no one answer to this question that is The Right Answer, because there is no party line for anyone to follow.
The righteously angry men are not an organized force. There’s no central committee. That’s useful, because it means that the angry men cannot be stopped by a decapitation strategy; take down Voice For Men’s website, and two more like it will spring up in its place. Take down the False Rape Society, and two more sites will come back up – maybe on servers outside of the US. The righteously angry men are a form of leaderless resistance.
That has various implications. It means that some men who advocate for certain rights to be restored to men reject the label of MRA entirely, while others call themselves MRA’s but disagree on what should be done, and when. There is a whole spectrum of opinion within this amorphous blob, and a lot of disagreement on many issues (see pretty much any thread at Spearhead). But there are some core subjects of agreement, starting with the misandric divorce laws, one-sided (anti)Family Court system, utter lack of punishment for false rape accusations, just off the top of my head. Some of us believe that mandatory testing of all newborns for paternity would be a useful, and achievable, first step to roll back some of the injustice by making the cost of cuckolding higher and more visible. Others want a full rollback of all Affirmative Action, every Domestic Violence law passed in the last 40 years, an abolition of the anonymity of women who claim rape, an end to all preferences for women & girls, and so forth. Good luck on all that, eh?
I suspect it varies with age. I know some men in their 60’s, some divorced, some never married, some married, who just are sick and tired of being dumped on by women. They basically just want to be left the hell alone. They want to go their own way, and be left alone. I know of some divorced men in their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s who suffered so much in the divorce industrial machine that they are the same way – some of them are PUA’s, and quite cynically so, others are utter MGTOW, a couple are raising children and have basically pulled up the drawbridge on the world. Disturb them at your peril.
Younger men are even more all over the place. Some would like to have families, but having watched their own fathers get chewed up in divorce court are just reluctant to commit to it. Others are consciously living as PUA’s. A lot of young men are living the life of a frustrated beta, wondering why they cannot attract women. They would be happy for now with just being able to have girlfriend. They should learn Game. In fact all men should learn Game, even if they do not apply it, in order that they “put on the glasses” and see women as they really are.
There’s two more effects of leaderless resistance. First, it means a lot of different approaches are taken to the problem: from Angry Harry to FalseRapeSociety to Ferdinand to Captain Capitalism to Spearhead to Dalrock to Athol (when he stays in his baliwick) to Badger and on. Some solutions work in one area of life, others work in other areas. It’s like genetic algorithms in a way. That’s good. Because Athols’ game works in LTR’s and marriage – but it won’t solve false accusations – and can be implemented by any man right now. Changing laws to raise the cost of false accusations of harassment or rape will take longer, and will likely involve political organization. It can’t be put in place right now. More men, trying to come up with more solutions, can only help.
Second, leaderless resistance means there’s no one to surrender to at the societal level. There’s no group of men that NOW can ever sit down with to hammer out a peace agreement. It’s not going to work that way.
Women as a group, and as individuals, should bear this in mind: the opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference. And that is beginning to show up as a social factor, first in the older men going their own way, but it is also visible among young men. Indifference has a whole lot of implications at the societal level.
If women have become less interesting to be around than an Xbox to young men, whose fault is that? Whose job is it to correct that?
“I feel quite sure that if one of those giant cruise-liners were next year to hit an iceberg, and with an under supply of lifeboats, the situation will be the same in 2012 as in 1912 – that is to say women first (whether fertile or not) then children and last of all men.”
Most of the married beta males would probably sacrifice themselves. All the other men, however…
Hollenhund
I woudn’t bet on all those betas giving it up for you ladies. That disaster at sea may be a serious stroke of luck.
Oh, and the ‘brilliant’ notion of a higher tax rate on men is being discussed on conservative sites like National Review. Yes, the bastion of conservative thought still proves that many conservatives support any and all leftism as long as it is packaged as ‘chivalry’.
TFH I had an idea on something like these so-con communities. uncle Elmer as you may know was trolling Forbes and commenting. he would usually get deleted but there are a few that kept him on and a large number of guys posted comments. A lot of people that normally don’t get the chance or have never seen MRA comments before have now seen them. Dalrock mentioned about getting the so-con ‘s to see there feminism and maybe we can at least get them to have to delete us..Using good skill we may get them to see the error in their ways. And most importantly if we get enough talk going in this election year we get a candidate to make mention of an MRA topic. Nothing to lose and should be fun if nothing else..
Dalrock;
There is no point in trying to reform the US relationship/marriage scene as long as American women are part of the solution. There is no ‘NAWALT’ here; socons and feminists are two sides of the same coin: they both see men as inferiors and expendable. The best thing men can do is avoid them and leave them to the thugs and losers they seem to desire anyway.
In fact, the quality of American women is so bad, I doubt if anyone can explain why they are worth pursuing in the first place. There are real women out there; but they aren’t part of this culture.
My question is: why don’t we move the tenor of the debate in that direction? Helping men get out of this hell before any more of them learn the hard way? Contrary to what the egomaniacal Amerobitches believe about themselves—we men really DO NOT NEED THEM. Men need to learn that we’re better off without them.
I consider myself a social conservative…by that I mean that I believe in hetro-sexual marriage, a ban on abortion, for cause divorce, equal opportunity. I also believe in equal protection under the law. As a cop, I enforce the law that way! Aurini not withstanding, I routinely arrest the woman when she is clearly the offender in domestic violence cases and I refer-to-file rather make an arrest when there is no compelling evidence to support one parties allegation. Admittedly this is the US, Canada is far further down the feminist road than we are as far as the law is concerned. Yes, many cops are badge-heavy strokes, and yes, the Canadian cops I’ve encountered are some of the most officious I’ve ever met.
As a cop for 30 years I’ve seen first hand the rotten double standard with gals in policing. I have been hamstrung as a straight-white-male in my career. I know I have NO hope of ever getting promoted.
God bless you, Buck. That said, in my own experience I’ve met quite a few cops who are bros–the kind who’ll let you off with a warning if they catch you speeding a little on a bad day, and the kind who won’t white-knight automatically once they hear the words “DOMESTIC ABUUUUUUSE!” That said, though, though there are good cops like them and you, there are so many bad apples out there that you can’t really blame people for being suspicious of the badges nowadays.
hurpadurp,
” That said, though, though there are good cops like them and you, there are so many bad apples out there that you can’t really blame people for being suspicious of the badges nowadays.”
I agree and I have almost no cops as social friends. I am highly suspicious of government agents in any form and any thinking person should be too! As Reagan said, the most frightening words in the english language are ” I’m from the govt and I’m here to help”…
So, 30 years of domestic abuse calls have led me to certain truths…
Never shack up!
Never hit or argue, just leave!
Marry and have children at your peril!
Have a stash of cash, spare car keys, clothes etc, off site!
If a woman EVER threatens to call the police on you, run from her like your hair is on fire, lose her number, drop kick her, etc. If fact, shit test prospectives on this subject and if she is reflexive about calling the cops…DANGER WILL ROGERS!!!! Most of the people I know have never called the police for anything ever… chronic callers are shit birds you should stay away from!
Thanks Buck, it’s good to hear from a cop who understands his job. I appreciate the tips you give.
I’ve noticed the trend in the last decade of younger cops entering the force with dangerous attitudes and as a result of recent encounters with them, I no longer trust any young officer. The scary part is I’m white, how are law abiding blacks and other minorities faring? The lack of trust in officers was always strong in the poor areas, but it is spreading out now. Which is really too bad.
Back on topic, there are so many good quotes, I may steal a couple to use as signatures on forums I participate at. With attribution.
As if we needed another reason to work less and play more.
I suppose concentration/labor camps would be a future logical step to force those troublesome young men to “man up”.
Its wouldn’t be too difficult to re-purpose the vast American prison/industrial complex and expand the definition of dead-beat. The superior sex would, of course, be exempt.
A young black male already knows he’s been in a work camp working for a dollar a day making shirts, it’s already here.
Interesting how easily Americans fall-back on vengeful retribution against their fellow country-men, if they are perceived to “deserve” it. Does the fact that America has the largest (or second largest) percentage per capita of their citizens incarcerated say that American men are just more evil than any other men in the world, or is it largely the fundamental ignorant vindictiveness of the average American to not wonder how such a situation came about, except to rail for harsher punishments (which invariably come back to bite them in the ass).
@ Dalrock
Off topic: Saw this and thought you’d find it interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/?single_page=true
poester99 says:
October 13, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Interesting how easily Americans fall-back on vengeful retribution against their fellow country-men, if they are perceived to “deserve” it. Does the fact that America has the largest (or second largest) percentage per capita of their citizens incarcerated say that American men are just more evil than any other men in the world, or is it largely the fundamental ignorant vindictiveness of the average American to not wonder how such a situation came about, except to rail for harsher punishments (which invariably come back to bite them in the ass).
As a native of a country with a murder rate some four times the U.S. rate, the answer to me is simple: if you commit a serious crime in the U.S., you have a reasonable chance of ending up in jail for a long time – and while there, you don’t commit any further crimes. How I wish my country had the American incarceration rate…
As a native of a country with a reported murder rate some four times the reported U.S. rate…
There, fixed it for you.
PS:
You are a fool.
@ uncleFred says: October 13, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Almost don’t know where to begin. The sad thing is that she can sense the hamster within and the true nature of hypergamy, but can’t bring herself to betray the sisterhood by being honest about it.
There really is going to be a generation of savagely obese cats.
“There really is going to be a generation of savagely obese cats.”
Hopefully this will mean that NO CAT IS LEFT BEHIND.
No longer will cats in animal shelters have to be put down because a suitable owner cannot be found.
UncleFred:
I toughed out about 2/3rds of that article and had to stop..bored.
I’ve always had a theory of circularity of history….the flower children of the 60’s who hated the police are now using “their” police ( because they are the Govt) to stop protesters …just like them!
With women, they ranted, chanted, marched to be treated “equal” (whatever that means)… as anything but a domestic sex object, only to find themselves nothing but a sex object again, only now paid, arrogant, self absorbed and minus a family.
Their high-school educated waif fore-sisters were married by 20, stayed home, had families and America had the highest living standard in the world. Women goosestepped into the work place, driving down wages, increasing the size and scope of Government (taxes) and America is now on the brink of third world economic status. Women are still only sex objects, but now rather than domestic skills and nurture to offer, they have a paycheck and a tender trap. A guy may commit to a domestic waif who needs his help, but the current “business partner” arrangement is just that, a temporary arrangement for the benefit of both parties, so long as there is a benefit…and guess what ladies, for you it’s looks and libido. The only guys who care about your paycheck are cads looking to be kept men…you know, losers! (oh, and by the way, what do you suppose they are doing while you are at work?)
As a native of a country with a reported murder rate some four times the reported U.S. rate…
There, fixed it for you.
Unless you’re of the opinion that the U.S. has more unreported murders than a Third World country, how does your “fix” change anything?
PS. And you’re a moron. But don’t worry: you’ll eventually get mugged by reality as soon as the U.S. incarceration rate drops…
That entirely depends on who I believe failed to report them.
I have far more chance of being screwed over by a law-in-order scared-of-his-own-shadow master-worshipping fool such as yourself than I do of being mugged by a “colored”. You, on the other hand, have every reason to be concerned that someone you have nobly, and with Elan, taken advantage of might beat your head in.
“If liberation for women meant liberation from accountability to men, liberation for men meant liberation from responsibility to women.”
But a lot of comments about the Costa Concordia are based on the idea that any man is still responsible for any woman.
“If liberation for women meant liberation from accountability to men, liberation for men meant liberation from responsibility to women.”
But a lot of comments about the Costa Concordia are based on the idea that any man is still responsible for any woman.
Yes, of course. The concept of men being liberated from these responsibilities is not popular — either with most women or with most men (especially WKs). But as you can see, the behaviors of actual men have — and are continuing to — change compared to what the “old obligations” would expect. This is not *liked*, but it is nevertheless happening, and it’s the logical counterpart to female liberation. A diehard academic feminist would not deny that, either, I think — the ones who complain are the softer feminists and white knights –> more mainstream, less “consistent”, and more concerned about “the impact on women” than the academics are.
Swedish MRA Pär Ström wrote a joking article about Costa Concordia where he argued for lower ticket prices for men, since they take a bigger risk than women when going on a cruise. The former leader of the Swedish Communist Party and later Feminist Party, Gudrun Schyman, replied with an article where she more or less said that he was right (but not unexpectedly still managed to fudge the issue).
Pingback: Why wasn’t it women and children first? | Dalrock