Pick the badboy! He’ll make a great dad!
H/T to Mrs. Dalrock for finding the original article. From Live Science, Why Women Choose Bad Boys. The researcher has coined a new term, “ovulation goggles”:
When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.
Check out the entire article, but note that they found scientific proof of the rationalization hamster in action:
“When asked about what kind of father the sexy bad boy would make if he were to have children with another woman, women were quick to point out the bad boy’s shortcomings,” said Durante. “But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”
Hamster pic from Love hamster.
As an aside, this article illustrates perfectly well the need to repeal the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution. Little Ms. Horny Pants hooks up with Big Bad Alpha. Little Ms. Horny Pants becomes Little Ms. Unwed Mother as Big Bad Alpha moves on to seed other flowers. Little Ms. Unwed Mother gets together with legions of her unwed mother sisters and votes for the candidate who promises to garnish the paychecks of all the hard working betas through high taxes to transfer the wealth to her and her little bastards, since Big Bad Alpha will not be providing them any support. Just how long is this sustainable? And even if it is internally sustainable, how long until the nation as a whole is so weakened by internal rot to fall to the barbarians at the gate?
Ovulation goggles, LOL.
I thought about this a minute and it occurred to me that it makes sense. Women are more amorous (to put it mildly) when ovulating so of course they are attracted to a sexier man during that time. The answer is to marry a man who is both dependable and sexy.
And stop sending your sons to government schools and feminized churches who indoctrinate the attractive rugged masculinity right out of them. *Off soapbox*
Let the boys fight on the playground
okrahead:
This is why alphas say “I give up. There’s no point or profit in being a good man or a hardworking, honest man. Might as well get a vasectomy and bang the hotties.
This is why betas and omegas say “I give up. No point in trying to marry women who want nothing to do with me and who will take me to the cleaners based on their unhaaaaappiness. Might as well get a job as a discount store greeter and play video games.”
This is also proof that men like Stanton and Driscoll are following neither the Bible nor science in their lionization of unwed mothers.
Things must be getting pretty bad for the scientific community to start “discovering” this kind of thing.
Wait, I thought there was no difference between men and women, and that masculinity was bad, and that real femininity was double-plus ungood, and that women always only ever made rational decisions based upon the facts (at least 3000% more than testosterone laced men). Now I’m just confused.
“Let the boys fight on the playground”
…and play tag, keep-away, king of the hill, “soldiers.” Let them challenge the teachers and reason through their thoughts Let them laugh out loud. Let them get angry and work through it…
This also reminds me of this gem from Solomon II’s “New Year’s Resolutions” post:
“There’s no future in being a better man, so I will work hard to become a better woman. I will give myself free reign to do whatever I want whenever I want, and I will do so with impunity. I will demand the best for myself because I deserve it, and shame those who do not immediately offer it. I will be faithful to my partner when it suits me, and adventurous when it doesn’t. I will be bad and demand nothing but good in return. I want it all, and I want you to give it to me right now. I will find power and self confidence by being sexually promiscuous while ignoring the fact that I’m not accomplishing anything that your average chimp at the zoo hasn’t. I will demand that you accept, embrace and celebrate my actions because I am being true to my exceptionally unique self. I will righteously criticize those who engage in the exact same behavior I do, because unlike them, I’ll do it with style. Most importantly, if my Sex and the City lifestyle doesn’t pan out, I’ll blame it on whoever or whatever is closest to me.”
Thank goodness the researchers weren’t in the field of climate change, or they would have been crucified by now for arriving at findings that were not the findings the politicians wanted them to find.
@Suz
Teach the boys English, properly without political correctness, so that they have the vocabulary to be able to reson and functiona mathematics so that they will be able to do a useful job and earn, though this may by a British complaint. They’ll need those goames to relax in their breaks then.
The answer is to marry a man who is both dependable and sexy.
We had a meeting, and agree that this is a good start.
I guess all those dependable unsexy fellows are screwed. (figuratively of course)
And completely misses the point of the article.
Ovulating women find the bad boy’s sexy. Thus Elspeth’s advice to marry a dependable and sexy man could also read: marry a dependable bad boy. Let me know how that works out.
“marry a dependable bad boy”
LOL. Women who aspire to that might have better odds of a good outcome buying mega jackpot lottery tickets.
I married a guy who is both dependable and sexy. I fail to see what was problematic about that prescription.
I am truly interested in your thoughts mortarmanmike so tell me what was wrong with that.
Elspeth:
The “dependable and sexy” statement sounds oxymoronic. It’s the “women want fried ice” problem.
We men feel we can’t win with most women. If we’re dependable, we’re boring icky betas.
Women prove over and over again that the only men they think are sexy are bad boy douchebag alphas.
When given a choice between the frat boy douchebag and the nice beta guy, the girl goes for the douchebag every. Single. Time.
Even with Christian girls: choice between the nice guy and the sexy alpha? The alpha wins, every time.
Just joshing you a little. Nothing serious. The point of the article was that ovulating women find bad boys to be sexy. The hamster tells them so. So in light of the article bad boy = sexy. With a little logical gymnastics your comment reads:
“The answer is to marry a man who is both dependable and sexy.”
“The answer is to marry a man who is both dependable and a bad boy.”
I don’t think that’s actually what you meant, but I had to pick on you a little. With your liberty, I’ll infer that what you meant to say is that a responsible logical woman should kill her hamster with an RPG and realize that dependable can equal sexy. In that case your comment makes sense.
“The answer is to marry a man who is both dependable and sexy.”
According to many feminists there’s no such thing as a dependable man. All men are inherently flawed to the point that unless she keeps a tight reign on him, he will eventually fail in some significant catastrophic way.
i just finished reading “The Anatomy of Female Power” by Chinweizu (you can download it here since its out of print – http://therawness.com/anatomy-of-female-power-download-and-discussion-page/).
words cant describe this book. im still sort of shell shocked from reading it. i really want someone else’s opinion on this book.
The problem here, Elspeth, is that as a red pill woman, what you find sexy is not the same as what most women find sexy. In fact, a true red pill women will find dependability itself to be sexy. For most women, it is unexciting and therefore the extremely unsexy.
A cure for hamster-itis.
http://covertorbit.tripod.com/modern_recipes.htm
Anybody know the best bullet weight for hamster hunting?
Good grief, this silliness is new? Women are attracted to bad boys for various reasons, but yes, the lust for the dangerous animal-thing is like a man’s sexual urge to pair with a slut (the trick in general is simple raw masculinity: James Bond isn’t “bad”, he’s a hero, in fact, but he IS dangerous). The ovaries thing, though, must additionally affect their logic; otherwise, why in hell not just admit he looks hot because you’re horny, and not bother with all the defense bullcrap?
@MMM and Bskillet
I read Elspeth’s comment as she wants (has) a dependable man with some game. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. If you do, then is it your opinions that Game blogs are worthless, except as places to bitch about feminism and women?
Yes, dependable can be sexy. I do think that women are capable of finding a wide range of men attractive if they would kill their hamsters, LOL. I don’t know if I killed mine or not, but I am fortunate to have married someone who made me want to have his babies.
My husband is not (and never was) a bad boy. He is however, good looking by any objective standard and never had trouble getting a date. He took a liking to me (go figure) and the rest as they say, is history. Even though we’ve been married 18 years, I still find him as sexy as I ever did.
Nevertheless, he is dependable. He is a solid Christian (neither of us were when we married), strong, smart, an excellent leader and has taken better care of me than my father ever thought he would. My father thought he was too cocky, a bad boy if you will. and he had a child from his high school girlfriend. Still my father tolerated him because he had more vision than any 20 year-old he’d ever met, he looked my dad in the eye, he had a firm handshake and a good job. My father prefers his company to mine now, LOL.
The truth of the matter is that one woman’s beta is another woman’s alpha anyway. I know that was probably the worst thing to say but I kind of believe it. It’s the reason why I believe that most men, in their natural non-emasculated, ruggedly masculine state are undoubtedly attractive to some woman, more than one in most cases.
Precisely, Elspeth. Glad you found your own match 🙂 See you around.
@Elspeth
“I married a guy who is both dependable and sexy. I fail to see what was problematic about that prescription.”
Limited supply. All the female demand in the world for both traits will go unmet until we stop feminizing boys from cradle to grave. For now, there just aren’t be that many men who fit both descriptions, and it is prohibitively difficult to un-and-retrain enough men who are already of age to meet the demand. Game/PUA/MGTOW is only a stopgap, or should only be a stopgap, until we can train boys to be men from the getgo.
@ Elspeth
I loved all of what you said.
With all that we’ve learned through the last two years I realized my husband showed some amount of Alpha when we dated. He gained more beta the longer we were married, especially once we became Christians and were told how we should live by the church we were in. I can, however, go back to some times in our marriage where the Alpha in him kicked up, usually toward the threats to his family.
Today I can describe my husband much like yours- dependable, solid Christian, strong, smart, excellent leader and he does take very good care of me. A true Alpha leads, provides and protects. It’s a matter of balance.
As for limited supply. The word just needs to keep getting out there. My husband mentions sometimes if maybe we are the exception-with regard to the changes we’ver made in ourselves and our relationship-but I have difficulty believing that. Change is possible at any stage of life. Or am I just too optimistic?
@ M.Steve
In my opinion MGTOW is not a stopgap measure, it’s a tool to get them to realize that they(the out of control feminists) are the one’s creating the very problem they are bemoaning which is a lack of “real” (dependable AND sexy) men. At this point they are so entrenched in their circular “logic” and invested in the idea that men are somehow defective and morally inferior, that nothing short of them experiencing a drastic shortage of ANY men of any quality willing to marry, will cause them to change in the least.
@chaz
I understand your sentiment, but it seems very passive. Why, exactly, are we trying to change feminists by showing them the error of their ways and make them change? That path lies destruction. Re-educating 30+ year old spinsters is not going to solve the problem. I say MGTOW is a stopgap because it’s up to Red Pillers to raise our children in a more healthy manner and wait out the crazies. Unplug from the fetid culture in which we find ourselves steeped.
It’s not easy. My fiancee wants babies more than anything in the world, but she balks with fear about bringing them up in our society. Nobody said saving the world would be easy.
@ M.Steve
With the crazies having such a strong stranglehold on the messages that our kids receive, with Red Pillers being seen as the weird ones because we go against the accepted norm, it’s going to take a change from the other side for any real change to occur. And a severe shortage of marriage material will cause that change. As long as there’s an abundance of men willing to marry and put up with the nonsense, they won’t care. Start hitting them where it really hurts, in their drive to reproduce, and we’ll start getting somewhere. I get what you are saying about teaching the young, and to a degree it’s already happening, when I see a woman who “gets it” about half the time it’s a 30 to 40 something who’s been there done that, seen it hasn’t worked and straightened out her thinking, but the other half it’s a young 20 something, often married within the last couple of years.
So perhaps we need both education of the young and showing the older ones the error of their ways?
I agree that there may be limited supply. My reason for telling my personal is that I didn’t want to give the impression that I was a special snowflake who married a dependable choir boy, because I didn’t. In my own way, I proved the conclusions reached by the article Dalrock referenced here. But I was never mistreated or neglected, and as far as I know, have never been cheated on.
The whole beta thing never kicked in with him. He was dependable yes, but also very hard and most of my female family members and friends thought (think?) that he’s possessive and chauvinistic. He found that balance Jacquie mentioned as he grew in his Christian faith, and I’m thankful for it, but I still know my place with him and we are crystal clear on whose running this outfit here, LOL.
He (and a few other men I know) are why I believe there is such a thing as dependable and sexy. Is there a limited supply? Yes, maybe. Will it take an entire generation of proactive parents to see strong, take charge men who are attractive without being bad boy jerks? I hope not because I have five daughters and the thought unsettles me.
@Elspeth
Theres no such thing as a hot & sexy dependable guy …
Women overdose on hot & sexy guys, once their sex drives & looks, & sexual market value plummets, they settle for dependable beta’s …
Keep that hamster revved up …
@Elspeth
What I’m getting at, and the basic thinking behind MGTOW, is that if enough men simply flat out refuse to deal with overly feministic women on their terms, there will be enough of a shortage of any men, that they(the overly feministic) will be forced to reevaluate their position and attitudes. Right now by and large, the number of women who are willing to accept or even consider the idea that the current shortage of good men has anything at all to do with women and their actions and attitudes is very small. More men saying “screw it” and completely disengaging and causing the women to re-evaluate the whole situation is the entire point behind MGTOW.
The problem is that there is a perception, a carefully manufactured one, that a man who is strong and confident and has hard lines in terms of what he’ll put up with, is by nature, selfish,unloving, demanding and controlling and probably likely to become abusive. As you’ve discovered in your own marriage, that’s not at all true.
As much as anything we need to disprove the notion that caring and loving are mutually exclusive with confident and direct and willing to take charge. Seems to me that we Christians have the perfect model of that in Jesus/God if only the Church would teach on His WHOLE nature.
@mortarmanmike
2 schools of thought on taking down the might hamster:
A: Shot placement, I recommend a .17 Remington with a 22 grain BT (4436 fps) if you can’t get anything with a little more zip. More preferable in this category is the 22-250 Remington with a 40 grain bullet (4224 fps) with the potential of completely vaporized said rodent.
B: Penetration/Ballistic Coefficient, While nothing stops the 700 Nitro Express or the .50 BMG why stop at half-measures (I mean really) make sure it’s truly an sincerely dead with a 20mm Solothurn S-18/1000 anti-tank rifle? Like my grandpap used to say, “Why take a risk with dangerous game?”
“But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”
More like, would create handsome, bad boy kids who have sex with lots of women, increasing the chances my genes will procreate.
“Will it take an entire generation of proactive parents to see strong, take charge men who are attractive without being bad boy jerks? I hope not because I have five daughters and the thought unsettles me.”
Men can be attractive without being bad boy jerks. See https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/hypergamous-arms-race-revenge-of-the-nerds/
The issue is the quality of those they are attractive to.
Being attractive to someone only because you are their last resort … is also a type of being attractive.
Of course, the trick here is noticing the ineffable truth that stable men are in demand _only when their stability is needed_.
“The whole beta thing never kicked in with him. He was dependable yes, but also very hard and most of my female family members and friends thought (think?) that he’s possessive and chauvinistic. He found that balance Jacquie mentioned as he grew in his Christian faith, and I’m thankful for it, but I still know my place with him and we are crystal clear on whose running this outfit here, LOL.”
There are a few men like that about.
Rodent: Not merely dead, but truly and sincerely dead.
I Art Laughing,
Don’t you mean, “splattered into the next county?”
Dependable and ‘has provided well for me”=never lost job nor income for substantial amount of time.
Sounds more like providence than wise choice of mate.Luck of the draw.
Would you still be married if she had to get a job and support him for a lengthy period of time?
True marriage involves great work and sacrifice by both parties,not just married as long as he’s got money.
It seems most have forgotten the intent behind the original marriage vows:
In sickness and in health,for better or worse,richer or poorer,till death do us part.
Now it’s just as long as she’s not bored,got the NCU,or he loses his income or health.
The hamster is a zombie, it keeps coming back.
Oh yes, the promise to OBEY.That has perished,along with submission.What is left is seduction by doctrines of devils.(death of the family unit)
Truly the spirit of anti-christ is alive and well.
Can you think of a more humane way Suz? I mean for everyone involved?
Who can guess at the effects of getting any on’ya.
What I find amazing is how these ivory-towered, credential-laden buffoons laud themselves for discovering what a bit of logic might have let them figure out in all of five minutes, and often were things that have been understood if not common knowledge for centuries. Unfortunately, these days this seems to be the norm, not the exception, and the appeal to authority fallacy has never been more applicable than it is today.
Paul, sociologists are pretty useless a lot of the time. But they really are clueless about women. There is something absurd about a few bloggers having better insight into female psychology than entire departments of sociology.
@ Cane Caldo
“…is it your opinions that Game blogs are worthless, except as places to bitch about feminism and women?”
No, I do not find them worthless. However I also have little to no hope that they will bring about any significant change in the great scheme of things. Some limited success on the personal level maybe. But I have no reason to believe they’ll bring about either revolution or a sea change in the current sexual battleground. They are simply too little, too late. I enjoy them because they diminish that barrier of isolation in my own personal life. It sucks to feel like your the only sane person in a world of crazies. This site helps relieve that to a degree.
@ I Art Laughing
Thanks. Good ballistic info. May just stick with 22lr though. It’s cheap and as you pointed out shot placement is the key. I’ve found the difficulty not to be taking them down – it’s hitting them in the first place. Damn hamsters are elusive. They avoid slings and arrows like a D-list movie ninja. Happy hamster hunting.
@ Elspeth
It is great that you find your man both sexy and dependable. Truly. However, just judging from your comment history, you are not representative of the women that the article addresses. Your advice to women: “The answer is to marry a man who is both dependable and sexy.” makes no sense in light of the article. If the majority of women held your same values then your advice would be valid. But they don’t – and thus the reason for the article.
You see dependability as sexy. The majority sees dependability as weakness.
As written your comment smacks of ‘Let them eat cake.’
I mean you no malice just calling it as I read it.
—-
The hamsters should NOT be killed humanely. They are despicable war criminal hamsters that have visited death and destruction on families around the world. Their death should be public, painful, and humiliating…. wait, WHAT? The hamsters are zombie-fied? Crap, game over. Hamsters win.
@Freebird and MackPUA
Please feel free to answer my question above that was directed at MMM and Bskillet.
“The hamsters should NOT be killed humanely. They are despicable war criminal hamsters that have visited death and destruction on families around the world. Their death should be public, painful, and humiliating…. wait, WHAT? The hamsters are zombie-fied? Crap, game over. Hamsters win.”
Men! Big, massive guns are not always the answer….sometimes it takes big, massive flame throwers. Or nuclear bombs.
@MMM
Some limited success on the personal level maybe.
But in this game, personal success is all that counts. I think you’re expecting the wrong things from Game blogs. (Dalrock’s is not focused on Game.). The question is Can a dependable man learn Game–to be attractive to women–or not?
“Can you think of a more humane way Suz?”
Nope. It wouldn’t feel a thing. Just be careful not to breath the vapor.
It seems like a lot of women are into poison, I guess that is okay if you like to see them bleeding out of their eyes and ears. A mist of pink on a bush is too much evidence of a rodent passing if you ask me….
“Can a dependable man learn Game–to be attractive to women–or not?”
Absolutely. The basic premise of game is simply* unlearning feminist-taught behaviors, and relearning (what used to be) ordinary masculine behaviors. To whatever degree you choose to refine it, that’s where Game starts. A hundred years ago, Game didn’t have a name because it didn’t need one. Men and women KNEW that masculinity and dominance made men attractive; nobody pretended otherwise and nobody thought it was a good idea to suppress masculinity.
* “Simply,” not easily. Overcoming a lifetime of indoctrination can’t be easy.
Poison is sneaky and deniable, classically female. Any sort of percussive annihilation makes a Statement.
@ Cane Caldo
I guess I don’t consider the breakdown of western society to be a game. Neither do I consider the current sickness of the church to be a game. In the bigger picture, a few personal success don’t matter at all. Guess it’s all a matter of frame. You frame the problems on the personal level. My frame is bigger – and that’s what causes me grief. I’m a beta at heart. Any personal successes, while nice, don’t offset the overall destruction I see around me.
I expect very little from game blogs. I rarely if ever visit game blogs. I don’t consider Dalrock’s site to be one. I simply use it as an intellectual exercise to remind myself that I’m not (completely) alone. I also use it to sharpen my arguments before trying to get other men to exit the matrix.
Yes, a dependable man can learn game and find success with the ladies. I never questioned that. However, I find that to be almost identical to Elspeth’s advice above. ‘Hey guys, just learn game and score a hottie.’ ‘Hey guys, just learn game and keep your wife from divorce raping your ass’. Advice that may be good on the personal level – is totally unrealistic and unsustainable on the societal level. If every single guy on the planet learned and implemented outstanding game, the hamsters of the world would just find some other measuring stick with which to rap our knuckles. Game is just kicking the can down the road a little further. As long as women rule over men, and as long as the hamsters rule over women – we will continue to circle the drain.
As a side note, I have developed something I call dependability game. Numerous unhappy married women I know are chomping at the bit to get me on the hook. They want out and they see me living the comfortable single man life and they want some of that. Beta game. It’s like catnip for unhappy married women. I do not partake. As a matter of fact, I wish they’d just leave me the hell alone.
Can’t poison a hamster. They are way to wiley for that. Their sense of smell is too keen. Traps are only mildly successful as well. We’re going about this all wrong. Hamsters are like lemmings. Maybe we should just lead one off a cliff and see if the rest follow. Oh wait, I forgot you can’t lead a hamster, they’re too independant and strong to be led.
Yes, game blogs helped my marriage considerably. They also explained why my wife was sometimes unhappy to get flowers, for example, but tearing her a new one left her quite contented.
The downside is that once you see the innards, the creature never looks quite the same again.
The hamsters are empowered, kick-ass, feisty, take-no-prisoners, no-nonsense, can-do, liberated hamsters.
@MMM
Yes, a dependable man can learn game and find success with the ladies. I never questioned that. However, I find that to be almost identical to Elspeth’s advice above.
Yes, that’s why I said it–to show that dependable, sexy men can exist. Not only can they happen naturally, but that it can be learned. Like it or not, cultures are built and destroyed one relationship at a time. One guy invents some of shoes, and the next minute everyone wants a pair.
I’m not convinced that Western Civilization in the larger sense (that is, its traditional values) is totally doomed. There are up and downs in civilizations, and if worse comes to worst: repositories of knowledge were passed onto us, and we will pass them onto the next group.
Aside from all that, see: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/update-from-ann/
It’s totally worth it.
CC, there is no inevitability to trends, agreed. Game ideas might spread like the hula hoop. We shall see.
I am a bit surprised that game concepts are not better encoded in jokes and other memes. There is the old saw, “treat ’em (women) mean to keep ’em keen”. I heard that in about 1980. And saw it in real life in 1982.
In terms of memes, try Google Images, Friend Zone Fiona. The LJBF girl.
You are more optimistic then I. Glad things are working out for Ann and her husband. Wonder how many womyn downloaded 50Shades of alpha over the same year. Wonder how many abortions and his-fault divorces happened over that same year. Wonder how many man-up sermons were preached over that same timeframe. And I wonder how many kids were pulled from what they believed to be happy families and placed into latchkey purgatory over that same year.
Congrates to Ann but I am not at all optimistic.
Guess I’m just a cantankerous fuddy duddy tonight. Have a good weekend all.
You should see the feminists and male enablers squirm over 50 Shades. Culture Jamming at its best, and from an unexpected direction. The popularity of such books should put a smirk on the faces of men all over the world.
Maybe you can make them think jumping off a cliff is a route to freedom. The trick is to not have them notice you watching them as they jump, they might get suspicious. I’m nervous about any hamster death I don’t confirm with my own two eyes which makes poison and traps less than desirable.
@DC
“treat ‘em (women) mean to keep ‘em keen”
How we do it in Texas:
I think Elspeth is being misunderstood in regards to women should only commit to a dependable and sexy man.
She is correct – there has to be “a sex attraction” whether initially or later.
Would you want to marry a woman you weren’t attracted to ?
I don’t think so.
Neither should the woman.
Btw, dependability is required in both people and is a absolute requirement.
What she didn’t mention was wealthy ( I am surprised no one picked up one that). Ask any women to describe her “dream man” and she will mention sexy, dependable, and wealthy.
Sexy for a man or woman – just do the very best you can with what you have and don’t make excuses in all areas of your life – You will be quite surprised on what you can achieve if you actually go for it. Whatever you do – dont be a typical American.
In addition, allow me to suggest there is no bigger turn on for a guy than to have a women crave you and can’t keep her hands off you. It keeps the man in the driver seat – the woman is fearful of rejection and thus respectful (Yes, this can be done without manipulation). Discipline and integrity goes a long way.
Kudos to Elspeth for “getting it”, choosing wisely, and being introspective ( which turned into exceeding her expectations:)
Can a man be dependable and adventurous/passionate? Seriously, if I had to live a lifetime with mr. dependable but boring, fat….then I rather live a short time. If guys want the women to be thin, attractive, faithful, nice, cooks, cleans, works. ..then they better bring something to the table as well. Dependability by itself isn’t goinv to cut it.
Suz, it was not just 100 years ago. It was 30 or 40 years ago. Male dominance was the stuff of sitcoms and popular culture. I can remember several episodes of popular TV series in which strong male dominance (bordering on abuse) was portrayed, and nobody batted an eyelid. This weird puritan feminist thing we have now in the West is a blip in social history.
I remember a trendy little British show about a married couple, with John Alderton and some leggy blonde as his wife. He is annoyed with her, so he locks her in a room. When he finally lets her out, she tells him “you are the gaffer [English slang for boss]”. I remember another trendy show, with two young couples, in which one woman tells the other girlfriend that they should let the men be seated, in the absence of enough chairs, “because after all, they are the masters”. Another episode of the very mainstream show The Good Life had one of the wives, the prettier younger one, do a sort of kowtow to her husband at one point. Another kowtow-like gesture was seen in an episode of McMillan & Wife. The Wife in that show used to trot around obeing him happily at every step.
I could multiply examples. These were portrayed as, at worst, good fun. To some extent, they were presented as normative and natural. The sort of thing that might lead to a hot time in the bedroom later.
All of this would be promptly labelled “abuse” these days. I attempt no definitive moral judgement. I just note the sociological facts.
I came from a church where the men came first at dinner. At a barn raising even the working boys came before the women at meals because we were expected to eat and get back to work. The work was what was valued and the meal revolved around that. A modern feminist would freak.
I Art Laughing
When my wife bore me a son, my mother-in-law had me around to dinner (can’t have the breadwinner cooking for himself!). She put me at the head of the table (she’s a widow) and waited on me. It was one of the most patriarchal moments of my life.
Another time, both women, my wife and mother-in-law, got into a dispute about how best to serve the meal, while the menfolk let them discuss this delicate feminine matter.
We also have a family portrait, which has me seated, my young son on my lap, and one of my daughters, my mother, my mother-in-law, and my wife all standing behind me. I always get a kick out of it when I see it. I don’t know if it was deliberate, but it is outrageously patriarchal in appearance.
Women – great when they know their place.
I like to honor them when they are like that. The kind of people that you would willingly die for if necessary right David?
Yes, I Art Laughing. Absolutely. What you wrote sent a shiver up my spine. I would die for them. If a woman is in some sense under my authority, and respectful, I would indeed die for her.
Dalrock, I think you will enjoy this: The Divorce Conflict.
@CC
To clarify, I love Elspeth, & her posts … if she thinks she’s found a sexy dependable man, thats great
Im not here to pop anyones bubbles … Im just stating some facts as I see them, if you dont agree with them, great, i hope we can debate & be wiser as a result …
Most women dont know the difference between Alpha, Beta, when it comes to who they settle down with ..
It varies according to when theyre ovulating, ie when ovulating they crave Alpha assholes like crazy …
To their hormonal levels, ie at certain times of the month they crave Beta’s & beta behaviour
The third defining factor in a womans preference for men, is her Social Status, ie hypergamy
As she gets older her social status plummets, & it becomes easier to satisfy her hypergamy
When a woman tells you she’s found a sexy dependable man, what she’s really telling you, her biology as a woman is alot easier to satisfy, as she ages, her social status & hormonal levels plummet
Which is why men should never marry 30yr old women, who’re also a risk for birth deformities & miscarriages
You’re literally putting the future of your children at risk by marrying a 30yr old woman …
Addendum to the above:
Because you never know if a womans ovulating, or her hormonal levels, when buying gifts its easier to err on the asshole side & buy her a packet of skittles, or some cheap plastic ring
Appealing to a womans need for Alpha asshole, is alot more memorable to a woman, then simple flowers or chocolates … & cheaper … lol
MackPUA, I have done the no gift at all thing.
When they are in their twenties, most of them have the hots for a firm hand. But my missus is 51 and she still ovulates and starts to crave a little firmness. Of course, with a wife you have to provide a fair bit of Athol’s beta comfort.
Around her period, a lot of aloof game.
When she is ovulating: a bit of macho, even a spanking if she craves it.
Other times: mix alpha and beta to taste. If she is doing wife stuff (actions not words), you probably have it right.
As a self-confessed Bad Boy (in training) and being happily ignorant of what goes on inside a woman, can anyone advise me as to how to spot an ovulating woman? Do they do it often? How long does it last? They mostly seem consistently bad-tempered to me which only brings out my Bad Boy qualities.
Opus, that is British humour, surely. They ovulate once a month, as I am sure you know. That is when they produce an ovum to, ideally, meet a real badass, kickass, hardass sperm. One of those real bad boys. Women wear more provocative clothing and desire more masculine men at this time. Is that character Jessica Rabbit? They get the Jessica Rabbits. Mine has often felt a sudden desire for a spanking. Contrariwise, when she has PMT, which can look just like a bad case of bitchy mood, she needs gentle, aloof handling.
Women are almost unique in having concealed ovulation. It is not physically obvious when they are ovulating (cf. most primates). This may reflect female mating strategy. Find the beta attractive most of the time for safe provisioning, but take a tumble in a bush with the sexy alpha when actually fertile. That said, cuckoldry rates in modern humans are low. Although, perhaps the alleged strategy of being fertilised by a badboy and living off massed betadom could be called a form of contemporary institutionalised cuckoldry.
Are there many badass English barristers?
Women are almost unique in having concealed ovulation. It is not physically obvious when they are ovulating (cf. most primates). This may reflect female mating strategy. Find the beta attractive most of the time for safe provisioning, but take a tumble in a bush with the sexy alpha when actually fertile. That said, cuckoldry rates in modern humans are low. Although, perhaps the alleged strategy of being fertilised by a badboy and living off massed betadom could be called a form of contemporary institutionalised cuckoldry.
Cuckoldry rates will vary depending on how needed the beta provisioning/parenting is. In a culture which *requires* this for legitimacy, cuckolding rates will be higher (most women will be married, and a certain percentage will have “it just happened'” sperm upgrades as compared to hubby along the way, but pre-modern-era, this mostly goes undetected). In the contemporary setting, where male provisioning/parenting is optional (either provided by the woman herself or with the help of hubby state), de jure cuckolding is much rarer because the “need” for the beta side of the cuckolding equation is much less. De facto cuckoldry, of course, is sky high, as you say, if we consider that hubby state is really mostly the amalgam of male tax revenues being used to support a woman and her thugspawn.
Valid question:
To what extent is a “bad boy” “sexy” over an non-bad boy “upper beta” because the “bad boy” provides Drama for the woman and the “upper beta” does not?
Just how important is the Drama aspect to the superiority of the Bad Boy?
“Just how important is the Drama aspect to the superiority of the Bad Boy?”
Depends on the woman, depends on the time of the month. Even the most stable and sane females can’t help craving a little drama now and then, but run for the hills from a woman who lives for it. (Unless you just want to get laid.)
To what extent is a “bad boy” “sexy” over an non-bad boy “upper beta” because the “bad boy” provides Drama for the woman and the “upper beta” does not?
I think this is a great question for all men to ask themselves, about their women. How bored is she? Then dose excitement appropriately. DC touched on this above when he went through his wife’s needs according to fertility cycle.
By the way, DC, kudos to you for landing a babe fertile into her 50s. I realize that you could have no idea at the time, but still…High marks for selection.
I’ve seen this phenomenon in person, and it is strange to watch a married woman suddenly dropping bucket loads of IOI’s onto a man she barely knows. Bear in mind the “alphaness” is relative – she may be married /LTR’d to a very beta man, and so when ovulating her hamster wants more alpha but it may not be Harley McBadboy she is attracted to, it may be simply a greater Beta, i.e. a man similar to her mate but with more Alpha in his frame.
Women can control this, if they are taught to do so. It is a natural feature of the female human, regardless of how it got there, and so controlling / repressing / redirecting this desire is not at all natural and must be learned one way or another. In a world where women’s impulsive behavior is celebrated as “good”, where any degree of self control is denigrated as “repression”, where “I want what I want because I want it” is justification for a lot of things, it is not easy to teach self control in any sense, let alone the subtleness of re-direction.
Men need to learn about this. The great lie of feminism, that men & women are exactly the same except women can have babies (and more recently, men are evil), left a whole lot of men totally in the dark regarding female behavior. Every married man should know what his wife’s cycle is, in a lot of women it is quite predictable. It gets less predictable as menopause approaches. In extreme cases of modern women, if she suddenly wants to go on a “girls night out” that just happens to coincide with the window of time when she’s likely to ovulate, er, that might be viewed with some serious skepticism. Some may find this a bit over the top. Maybe. Then again, genetic research into inherited disease has turned up a distressing number of cases where “daddy” isn’t the guy who thought he was the father – 10% in some populations, higher in some others.
There is a reason why human societies as a rule have some form of mate-guarding behavior, or did until the modern era.
No, the cuckoldry rate is not as high as 10%. That is a myth, pushed in part by feminists, who want to destroy the morale of husbands. The slut matriarchy, celebrated for example in that disgusting film Mamma Mia which I won’t have in the house, has long been the goal of feminists, a world in which actual fatherhood is unknown or irrelevant. I remember a young feminist talking about the centrality of the mother-child pair in about 1974. Momism led to some of this, and the exclusion of men from the family is well underway now. Even the destruction of the virgin bride ethos was part of the same program.
But, on a more positive note, most married men who believe a child is theirs, are correct. The rate of cuckoldry is a percentage point or so, not 10%. This does not exclude the possibility of an infertile fling, especially now that contraceptives are so effective. Even in the past, an unfaithful wife would have been unlikely to fall pregnant following a brief affair. It normally takes several acts of intercourse to get a woman pregnant.
Nevertheless, women need to be watched. This iis what beta men don’t get, and why they get stuck, it appears, with some pretty sloppy leavings. They have never seen a woman “on heat”. Once you have seen that, your illusions about women will tumble. It does not matter how sweet she looks, she has a slutty side somewhere.
I could go on. But I will stop with this thought. All that bs about how respectful, gentle lovemaking is the ideal – sure it is, if the woman is not really turned on by the guy. I have this horrible suspicion that many women are only ever really sexual before they are married, and that was with other men. Putting it crudely, the same wife who demands gentleness and respect and lovemaking, may have bent over for a rough quickie with Harley McBadboy a few years earlier.
Womem have to be knocked off their pedestral. One of the reasons why men are unfairly regarded as evil, not women, despite scripture, is that men’s sins are obvious and often public. Women’s occur in a more private setting and society conspires to keep them hidden. Hence the huge emphasis on reproductive privacy. It is a kind of social enforcement of concealed ovulation.
Doofuses who scream at betas are indulging in classic misdirection. They should save their best screeching for the sluts. Yell at them for not being virgins when they married, perhaps … Not very likely.
@David Collard
You are both right and wrong. I think that recently someone posted here a link to a study measuring historical cuckoldry in South African boer family (clan) over male line. They found 0.7% rate. That is not bad.
Some time ago I read a source measuring historical rate of cuckoldry in England by comparing men with the same last name (quite inaccurate method). The rate was below 10%.
So we can safely say that in past (pre-feminist society) the rate was generally below 5%.
But on the other hand modern measurements of transplant surgery (father versus kids) have found cuckoldry over 20% and rising steadily. In hunter gatherer societies rate of cuckoldry is over 30%.
Rate of cuckoldry and (indirectly) male investment in society depends on prevailing culture. And this says it is getting worse every day (soon hunter gatherer rates will be crossed).
The extent to which women crave bad boys depends on the woman. When I see a bad boy, he may be attractive in a certain way, but I always think, “He’d make a terrible husband” or “Can you imagine saddling your kids with THAT for a father?”
I met my husband when I was 18 and married him when I was 20. He does have leadership skills, which I see as being an alpha-type trait, but he’s never been the kind of guy to play around with the ladies. He’s dependable and faithful. He’s also adventurous enough in the bedroom to keep life from being boring.
I guess it helps too that I never developed a taste for all the soap opera-ish relationship drama so many women seem to create for themselves. I didn’t want to date around; I wanted to find a good man to marry. I was extremely cautious. I didn’t date guys who were interested in me if I didn’t think they would make a good husband and father. That’s why my husband was the first and only guy I ever dated.
I saw plenty of drama growing up, and didn’t want it in my own life as an adult. My dad definitely was a “bad boy”. He drank and fought all the time. He also went out on my mom usually about twice a week. Then she got fed up and “got in church”. When she was ready to divorce him, he finally stopped misbehaving. He also “got in church” and handed the reins of the family over to her. After that, any time they argued (which happened frequently) Mom would scream and yell about all the cheating and drinking he used to do.
And the moral of the story is … maybe if more young women were looking for a man to be a good husband to her and father to her children, they would be less likely to date around and get hooked on the relationship drama that’s so prevalent nowadays.
“More like, would create handsome, bad boy kids who have sex with lots of women, increasing the chances my genes will procreate.”
So, in the interest of her offspring smart women should behave stupidly?
@Comment Whatever
“To what extent is a “bad boy” “sexy” over an non-bad boy “upper beta””
Excellent question
Tom Leykis basically tells men not to get involved in Long Term Relationships, in their 30’s or below, for a very good reason, as I explain below …
Bad-boys supply drama & satisfy a womans extreme hormonal needs … thats about it … which is why most women dont settle down with bad-boys, unless they’re sado-masochistic or enjoy being used in a permanent harem …
Men can cause a sharp increase in a womans need for bad-boys, by acting extremely beta
But older men, especially older upper-beta’s provide small bursts of drama & just enough alpha, while their social status Automatically forces them to act aloof & display acts of confidence
Also older upper-beta’s, because of their older age, naturally treat younger women like children, which is why you see so many hot young women, hooking up with older men, almost exclusively … much to the annoyance of young men …
Basically men WILL eventually naturally learn enough game to bang hot young women, when they hit their 30’s
Thanks to their wealth & status, men stop taking shit from society & women … hence naturally learning enough game to bag hot young women
But upper-beta’s lack of experience, also makes them vulnerable to gold diggers, & controlling women
Ie. They need to learn how to screen out controlling women, & basically how to control women …
This is why Tom Leykis tells men to avoid getting involved in Long Term Relationships, until they hit their 30’s or later ..
RE: Ovulating …
It’s pretty easy to easy to notice if a womans ovulating, they start wearing more revealing clothes & show more cleavage & leg … & the makeup starts to pile on …
As AR points out, they start giving out IOI’s to complete strangers, for no reason … ie., checking out mens behinds, & smiling & laughing at nonesensical stuff guys say, for no reason …
They also tend to sweat or perspire more …
As DC & AR state, knowing a wife’s cycle is crucial if you’re in LTR or married
Her times of the cycle are important, the times you really have to watch out for :
If you get sick, or ill
If theres a change in finances or a member of your family dies
A Male Sick, Grieving & loss of wealth, ie loose house, depromotion, etc., are the greatest times a woman is likely to leave you …
A womans biology, doesnt have the concept of empathy or compassion wired in
Basically when you need a woman most, is the time she’s most likely to leave
Which is why most Alpha’s avoid women & go into solitude if theres a change in status, or a personal death
Female biology doesnt tolerate displays or outbursts of humanity, from men … not even their sons
AR:
“Women can control this, if they are taught to do so.”
THANK YOU for pointing this out! The brain chemistry is real; it influences our thinking but does NOT absolutely rule our choices. For years I wondered why I occasionally found some men more “attractive” than my husband – men I didn’t know or didn’t particularly like or respect. I can’t stop my brain’s primitive attraction to any random display of alpha dominance, any more than I can stop the urge to go to the bathroom when I hear running water. These subconscious reactions are beyond my control, but how I act on them is well within my control. Any woman who can refrain from yanking her pants down and peeing on the sidewalk in front of a public fountain, can turn away from a hottie. Feminist-influenced women devote their entire lives to overcoming some of their natural instincts, yet they choose to give in to the most destructive ones. (…while legally and culturally, feminism encourages this self destructive stupidity.)
Yes. Men in relationships really do need to understand this phenomenon and work toward keeping it under control, but women can and must do our part. How stupid are we when we can recognize our own “PMS” mood swings, and not notice how else our hormones affect us? If I can stop myself from screaming at my boss because I know it’s “just hormones,” why can’t I stop myself from chatting up Mr. Hot Firefighter? The answer is: I CAN.
You’re also dead on about the approach to menopause. I never had cramps, mood swings or anything resembling “PMS” until the last 6 years leading up to menopause, and it got progressively worse. I sure wish I had known what the hell was going on!
Alarm says:
May 26, 2012 at 1:30 pm
“More like, would create handsome, bad boy kids who have sex with lots of women, increasing the chances my genes will procreate.”
So, in the interest of her offspring smart women should behave stupidly?”
Erm nope, wealth & status trumps bad-boys
Bad-boys are only prevalent in lower & middle class, upper middle & upper class, upper- betas rolling in cash beat bad-boys everytime … even younger chicks …
@Suz
Write a book on how to stop screaming at your boss, & stop yourself from chatting Hot provider type dude … rake in the cash from the hilarity & fury of a million feminists …
@ MackPUA:
It would be a very short book. “Shut up and THINK!” the end.
@Suz
Actually I wouldnt mind seeing a blog entry or even an entire blog devoted to the above …
You could call it Hooking Up PMS …
You’re blogs interesting , but an entire blog devoted to how women can save themselves from their hormones would be a massively highly popular site …
@30 something woman
Please describe for me, in a way I can follow, the thought process that hears a generalization comment…in this case about how/why women want alphas at times, and responds by saying
“not all women do, it depends on the woman”
Please
Allow a 49 yr old man to advise you something important. If you wish to be taken seriously in a discussion men are having, along with a few women who know better than to do what you did and understand what Im saying perfectly well, do not do what you did here…it makes you look silly, and a narcissist
Silly because you and so many women think its clever to start an objection that begins with “not all”, and then support iy by telling your personal story.
1. The generalization is 100% true, and IT DOESNT CLAIM THAT ALL WOMEN DO IT. To say “women____________________” if more than half do is a correct statement. The exception doesnt defeat the rule. Read those last 6 words over and over until they become part of you.
2. Narcissism because it is, at its very root, well, narcissism because you read the article, and think its about YOU, and this affords you and way to then talk about your favorite thing…YOU
That entire thing is not just incorrect, its also assuming that you, one person on a blog with thousands of visitors, matter to everyone else….narcissism
Im quite serious, if I get one women to understand this I will be happy
Thanks, Mack. The subject is on my list of articles to work on after I move. Right now I don’t have time to organize my thoughts. (It may look like I’m surfing the web around the clock, but I’m just here for during brief breaks.)
@empath, “If you wish to be taken seriously in a discussion men are having”? I had not realized this discussion was limited to men, with a few exceptions you personally may allow for some women? Dalrock doesn’t seem to have a problem with women commenting. I would think the female perspective would be useful.
There’s nothing illogical in saying “here’s my experience, and maybe it could help someone else”. I chose not to treat dating as a game, and avoided the consequences of getting pregnant by a bad boy or of being too addicted to bad boys to form a relationship with a good man. I’ve known other women who have done the same. Yes, there are plenty of women who do chase bad boys. Does ovulation force them to do so? No. Ovulation does not force a woman to jump in bed without regard to the consequences. Women can use their brains to choose what is best for them and their children. I shared my experience to illustrate that.
I may not have communicated my point in the same way that a man would have, but that is because I am NOT a man. If you are in or looking for a “traditional” relationship, it should not be a surprise to you that women are different than men.
DC is correct, the cuckoldry rate is lower than 10% . The median is around 3.7% according to this paper, but note that some studies found rates of 0.8% while others found rates of 30%. Clearly this phenomenon is very non-uniform across the human race, with some subgroups producing very little and others rather a lot of infidelity.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749.long
Abstract
Paternal discrepancy (PD) occurs when a child is identified as being biologically fathered by someone other than the man who believes he is the father. This paper examines published evidence on levels of PD and its public health consequences. Rates vary between studies from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%, n = 17). Using information from genetic and behavioural studies, the article identifies those who conceive younger, live in deprivation, are in long term relationships (rather than marriages), or in certain cultural groups are at higher risk.
You know, Emp, I struggle with that very issue. I try to word my comments so as not to end up singing “It’s All About Me!” because I know it’s not all abut me. However, like everyone else, I filter my perceptions through my own experience. Plenty of men make comments similar to 30’s, and nobody jumps on them. Your premise is valid but your tone is somewhat antagonistic.
If nobody is interested in her comments, she will be ignored. If her statements are false her ideas will be challenged, and if she’s a typical woman she’ll run away all wounded and confused. She probably doesn’t yet know how to communicate with so many organized, logical thinkers, because like most women, she has never encountered such people. No doubt this blog is like a foreign country to her, but she can probably figure out the culture here. Her heart seems to be in the right place, and she seems to have the intelligence to comprehend the issues. If she’s an idiot or a troll, she’ll show her colors soon enough. If she actually supports men’s rights and REAL marriage, is it wise to alienate her? Or are you just testing her?
Suz, it is surprising that somewhere in their expensive educations, they do not get trained in logical thinking. We hear a lot about female college success in America. How does this square with young women never being exposed to challenge and debate? Is it because PC ideas are never challenged?
I suspect that women coming to even a relatively gentlemanly blog like this might be surprised at its bracing style and lack of Team Woman.
I don’t see 30-Something Woman’s comment as a NAWALT or all about me comment. I see her being critical of the choices so many women make and pointing out the terrible cost of these bad choices. She watched as other women made bad choices, and made it a point not to do the same. Her final paragraph pretty much sums up much of what we discuss on this and related blogs:
Elspeth: “One woman’s beta is another woman’s alpha.”
So true. I was always attracted to this guy who was known as “the nicest guy” and “such a good listener” and “like a brother to me” by all the other ladies. Well, I really liked how good a guy he was and I saw the wicked sense of humor that all the other biddies missed. He’s all mine now!
I think there are more women who like dependable good guys than people in this forum seem to think.
Recent informed discussion on rates of non-paternity:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/paternity-most-assured/
@ 30 S-W,
I think Empath was referring to the tendency of women to arrive in the “manosphere” and start right away with “not all women” otherwise observed as a class of arguments generally known as NAWALT defense. (Not All Women Are Like That). While all of your argumentation may seem like deep insight to the newcomer, anyone that’s been around for awhile has seen it all before. A persons stubborness in sticking to NAWALT argumentation is corellative of how much credibilty they recieve in the “manosphere” and sites such as this one.
@Suz
Seriously consider doing a blog on womens hormones, theres a massive market, not to mention a need for telling women the truth about themselves, by another woman
Popularising the notion of hormones & its potent effect on women, could very well work as a potent weapon, against toppling the ridiculous feminist politically corrupt views women incur
Call it something like How to save women from their hormones or something … hell do it just to see a raging Walsh … lol
@ Anon
PD? Paternal Discrepancy? Who do I get to punch in the gonads for coming up with that?
@Elm
Women dont like nice guys, they like the alpha traits in a nice guy ie “I saw the wicked sense of humor” …
For truly nice guys, witness the nice guys orbiting fat chicks …
Women dont have the biology to bond with guys, who dont show innate provider, or protector traits … more bordering on the protector side, obviously …
David, I get the feeling you are making a general statement (IOW, not aimed at me as Empath’s was) that logic isn’t taught in schools anymore. You’re correct; it isn’t. It isn’t taught to boys or girls, which is one reason why both genders are falling for the garbage feminism keeps throwing out there.
Suz, I wasn’t attempting to make the ovulation study “all about me”. My first comment was simply illustrating my point with an example from my life. I agree with you though that it’s not a good idea to alienate someone who might just be discovering that there’s another side the story we hear in mainstream culture about men, women, and relationships. And now that you mention it, I also am wondering if this was a test from Empath. A male shit test? 😀
Dalrock, thanks, you understood what I was trying to say.
30-Something, I’ll tell you a secret. I wasn’t even sure who made which remark. Women come and go on these blogs, and only the very best or worst stay in my mind as individuals.
Also, as an Australian, nearly 57, I genuinely don’t know. How do young women reportedly excel at American colleges, write essays or whatever, absent logical skills?
I am married to a good girl, but she is no angel, which is one reason I am still trying to get tips and impart what I have learned. And she didn’t marry me just for my beta traits.
@I Art Laughing
It’s perfectly true that not all women are overcome by an irresistible attraction to bad boys while ovulating. All women have a choice (excluding rape) of who they will have sex with. Even if a woman is ovulating when a hot player tries to get her in bed, she doesn’t have to do it. She doesn’t have to do it even if she feels increased attraction for him at that time. She can use her brain and decide that he’s not good husband/father-of-my-children material. That’s what my point was.
In addition, even if every woman on earth has some sort of hormonally based reaction to bad boys while ovulating, it’s perfectly reasonable to suppose that that will affect some women more than others. Let’s use PMS as an example. Some get very, very moody on PMS, while others have a milder reaction to it. They are all having the same type hormones, but maybe not to the same extent.
@David
I had to keep scrolling back up to get who said what so I’d direct my comments to the right person. Your way is probably easier. Some American young women excel in college because they are smart and study and do their assignments well. Others excel by picking girly majors that reward participation more than content. Don’t tell anyone I told you that – I don’t want a mob coming after me!
No, thirty, I didn’t think you were, because your opinion shows that you can see beyond the tip of your nose. However, Emp and I Art Lauging do make a point. Nearly every woman who comments here starts with NAWALT, and most of them never go a single step farther. I’m pretty sure I did it, and I lurked for weeks before speaking up. I should have known better. It can get tiresome. In fact TFH has a policy of not even addressing anyone he thinks is a troll, for 72 hours. The trolls drop out by then. Always.
@David Collard
As a woman who is doing the education thing right now, I can tell you that original thought and logic are not expectations. Cite the studies and regurgitate what the instructors want to hear, that is all it takes and you can get A grades. it actually helps to shut off all logical thought for school, especially when doing ethics type courses. As long as you are writing perfectly in the approved format, they don’t care if you are actually thinking it through.
Glad you stuck it out Suz, I appreciate your feminine insights.
Antigrrl
Ethics is a subject that would demand logic, I would have thought.
Yes, Suz has joined a select group of women in the Manosphere I recognise and respect. There are about five.
Why should we care who you respect, Collard?
Suz, my husband and I have both been anti-feminist for our entire marriage. We both think that child support and custody laws are unfair to men, and many people (more often, women) divorce for really minor or even flat-out stupid reasons. I’ve just discovered the “manosphere” though. There’s so much insider terminology and acronyms, which is hard to get used to. Still very enjoyable.
30-something, you sound like a good one, as does The Antigrrl. But it takes time.
My sister was a military nurse, now retired. Her observation was that 1 in 6 children born in the military hospital had incompatible blood types with the ‘father’. She figured that it was a 20% chance that the guy got antlers.
If DNA testing became routine, lots of marriages would be exposed as convenience only (for the woman, anyways).
David Collard
Suz, it is surprising that somewhere in their expensive educations, they do not get trained in logical thinking. We hear a lot about female college success in America. How does this square with young women never being exposed to challenge and debate? Is it because PC ideas are never challenged?
While many people in the US have degrees from institutions that call themselves “universities”, IMO there are not that many who can be called educated. In technical disciplines and some branches of business there are people who are trained in a narrow speciality, but they cannot be said to be educated. The liberal arts – history, literature, art, music, etc. – have to varying degrees been taken over by left wing ideologues who see their task as brainwashing students and stamping out badthought. I have been the fly on the wall during informal meet & greet interviews of prospective art faculty at state funded uni’s, and heard with my own ears the contempt that faculty, teaching assistants & graduate students have for the bourgeois lumps that take their courses. They consider it a mandate to “challenge assumptions”, i.e. pour their disdain and even hatred of normal, civilized behavior in the course of “teaching art to the masses”. It’s frankly Marxist re-education in some sense, although increasingly the focus is on forcing approval of homosex onto the students (many of whom in this case came from working class families).
Training on the one hand, overt brainwashing on the other hand. And that’s in traditional liberal arts. The “studies” such as Women’s Studies are even worse. So there are few educated women. Lots of brainwashed ones.
Hope this helps explain things.
wow
Pretty much everyone who responded seemed to misunderstand what I said to 30 something girl….I must have been unclear.
Dalrock my comment had zero to do with her claiming NAWALT, I never thought that was her point in the least. My comment was of a much more basic logic nature…but I need to first clear up something for Suz
Yes we all process things with SOME personal experience, of course we do. But we do not use it the way I see women do it, and Im shocked you try to tell me “men do it too” as i that even matters to the point.
The problem is very simple, a woman reads something that she wants, for whatever reason, to try and refute or throw at least something counter at. Someone claims something, like what was claimed in the article….here is the rub…..in these cases it is neither stated nor implied that ALL of anyone is doing anything……THEREFORE, what drives some women to open with “not all women do that”, then follow with their story? This is the single most common tool women use in discourse and its maddening, its irrelevant, and it IS narcissistic, meaning not that she is a narcissist, its an observation that she is processing things nearly completely using only her anecdote. Then she as saying, as if the opposite was claimed, that not all do it since she doesnt do it.
Suz…..whats her point then? I mean what was her RELEVANT point?
She goes on and says this above:
“”It’s perfectly true that not all women are overcome by an irresistible attraction to bad boys while ovulating.””
Doing the exact same thing yet again. It is perfectly true and 100000% irrelevant….or….Suz….please tell me in clear terms how it is relevant. Dalrock….you as well, can you tell me what purpose is served by that.
All, the reason I made the point I made, as hard as I made it, was sincerely to blunt force trauma HELP her, because I read sincerity in her post and some reasonable tone that seemed she can understand whats being said and not play that silly game in responses. I frankly cannot stand the idea, after Christian forums for years of having that stuff shoved up my backside and it passing as real argument….it is simply a flawed way of expression.
After scrolling up and reading more, I want to re-emphasis I was not talking about claims of NAWALT. I was talking about, again, something much more fundamental, I even wrote an entry about this (For the Love of Math) a few weeks back on my scarcely visited blog,
Now Ive read more of her posts and I am still very glad I wrote what I did because as I said she may actually get what Im saying, while I have very low expectations usually when someone starts any argument with “not all” when ALL was never claimed in the first place.
I realize this looks like a standard NAWALT objection, but it isnt, its an objection to the logic and thought process that precedes a NAWALT claim, we have seen the example before
“There are more right handed guitars made than left, because most folks are right handed”
“not all people are right handed, I have 2 brothers that are left handed and they bought lewft handed guitars”
If anyone can take that exchange and show me a valid reason for the response, a logic behind it and a reason that does not include entirely seeing the world though ones own tiny environment, and a huge failure to understand language that infers statistical realities, then my hat goes off to that person.
Empath, maybe for the same reason women put emotion and hyperbole into a lot of what they say. And a lot of it is thinking out loud. It took me ages to learn to ignore, so as to find the kernel in there somewhere.
I find it hard to have a moderate conversation with my wife. I was a government regulatory scientist. Cautious statements come naturally to me. But not to many people.
I used to work in fisheries management. Ever heard fishermen speak? Declarative statements based on personal experience. “All the scallops swam away South. It was those foreign boats that did it!” Try getting him to moderate his opinion.
It has its good side. The first good Christians were fishermen and women. Not much demand for nuance.
David…I wasnt referring to a declarative statement made in a vacuum, such as your fishermen. I can ignore that all day, easily
Hers was a response tone and tenor off the block was to either contradict something OR to add her own personal nuance. I lean to the contradict, that’s how it sounds….there is a silent “no” before the sentence “not every__________” then follows the obligatory drawn out anecdote.
Ah whatever, I will drop it….hoping I made some valid points
Empath,
She opened her comment with:
This is an acknowledgment both that there is a curve involved, and that she personally experiences attraction to bad boys. After acknowledging those two facts, she describes how she was able to overcome this when selecting her husband.
She used her own example to make the larger point to young women that they need to tame their own hamster, lest they make the same mistake her own mother and many of her peers did. You replied with:
But this wasn’t the point she made.
Why should we care who you respect, Collard?
Well, I care. DC seems like a good guy.* Trust in the validity of information is based almost solely on trust in the person–the same concept is used in electronic keychains. After a time, I generally trusted DC to have good sense. So, if he passes those credentials on to Suz, then she gets to be in the keychain until she does something to break it. This is how these things work.
*He did hack me off once at another blog, but I let it go. I know: it was big of me.
CC, ever seen Meet the Fockers. “Circle of Trust”.
I don’t recall us having a problem.
You seem OK, for a loud-mouthed Texan (just kidding).
Check out our Metropolitan convo. Will has reported on the latest Whit Stillman film. Ladies, be warned, crude and “sexist” remarks.
Emp, I think you were very unclear. Your tone seemed negative, and you forgot to mention to 30 that you saw sincerity in her comments.
Her statement,”It’s perfectly true that not all women are overcome by an irresistible attraction to bad boys while ovulating,” was very similar to my statement, “These subconscious reactions are beyond my control, but how I act on them is well within my control.”
Hers was as relevant as mine, which was an unsolicited response to AR.
If you never thought NAWALT was her point, why did you begin your criticism with it? And why did you frame her comment as an “objection?” I see from your most recent comment, what you intended to say, but that’s not what you actually said. You made some important points, but it came across as a bit of an attack. If she has read more than a few comments here, she probably wasn’t expecting to be coddled and “euphamized” into feeling all special.
Your comments are rarely that strident; when they are, normally it’s in response to unmitigated idiocy.
Speaking of “points,” Did Marcus have one? What was THAT about? David, do you know this guy?
Suz, no. I suspect Marcus was a peeved female.
I can be a bit annoying at times.
I Art Laughing
@ Anon
PD? Paternal Discrepancy? Who do I get to punch in the gonads for coming up with that?
Danged if I know. Line forms on the left, take a number.
Pity Orwell’s still dead, I believe he’d find it grimly amusing.
On the other hand, possibly the individual in question doesn’t have any easily accessed gonads. Heck, maybe not even any at all – amazing things being done with surgery nowadays.
Good explanation, Cane, thanks. That I can understand. Suz, get out of this guys online harem, will you? Does your husband monitor your online activity?
Are you David’s wife?
DC,
Check out our Metropolitan convo.
Eh? Odd choice, for Aussies…
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=nash+metropolitan&qpvt=nash+metropolitan&FORM=IGRE
AR, at my blog, discussion of the film “Metropolitan”. It arose out of my crush on the Audrey Rouget character.
Thanks to Dalrock and Suz for clarifying the meaning of my comments while I was offline. You guys got it just right!
Empath, it sounds like you misinterpreted my first comment, then misread the other one you mentioned based on the misinterpretation of the first one. Anyway, it looks like we got off on the wrong foot here. Maybe next time will work out better.
Dave, thanks for the nice comment! Naturally, I think I’m a good person, although there are undoubtedly people who would disagree with that. 🙂
30-Something Woman
You sound sincere to me.
Read and learn in the Manosphere. You will learn so much. I have, over the last few years.
You will learn The Truth About Cats and Dogs. No, seriously, some of what men and women really think. It can be very surprising.
“Check out our Metropolitan convo. Will has reported on the latest Whit Stillman film. Ladies, be warned, crude and “sexist” remarks”
David Collard – could you please post the link for this? I’d like to read it. Thanks!.
pb, it is not that interesting. Just some film nerdery:
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/comments-on-a-favourite-film-the-sexual-politics-of-metropolitan/
the sleep of reason produces feral women and single mothers
@David Collard
No, I really am confused especiallly as it is not obvious to a male when a woman is so available for sex – at least not to me. I only ever had one sex education lesson you see; it lasted about three minutes and foreplay (never mind Game) was taken as read. Any questions? (my Head Master – who was giving me this one-on-one – said)’ Yes’, I replied, ‘Is that why girl’s bycycles do not have a cross-bar?’.
OT but a funny point regardless:
Tradition is such that so many of these things are just really not thought about or known. I studied bicycle repair for a little while, and in learning about bikes this question came up. Why is the top cross-bar straight on a boy’s bike while it’s angled for a girl’s bike? The truth is one of those things about tradition, no one really thinks about what they are doing (for most part) or questions why things are. The answer is this: Back when the time modern bicycles were first introduced (around 1890), women generally had floor-length dresses, so lowering the cross bar was a design change made so they could get onto the bike easier – this is the reason for the “girl’s bike”. The distinction is really anachronistic now, yet it’s still carried through in the average bicycle design.
The truth is, life (especially Churchianity) is full of these, in hindsight, stupid little things.
@ballista 74
Which is what I eventually concluded, but I think it threw my HeadMaster – at least he did not have a reply and I wasn’t trying to be cocky. It was really so embarrassing (doubtless for him too). Why he didn’t deal with this in class, but had to deal with it one-on-one, I don’t know. He really did not teach us anything we did not know (we were twelve or thirteen) and even more bizarely he had taken a vow of celibacy – so we knew that although he had the theory down pat, he had never put it into practice. I really am confused but squeamishness and confusion persuades me not to say more.
It is either that or have the girls ride the boys’ bikes side-saddle.
Thank God for Poms to talk to this time of day.
Opus, there may be subtle physical signs, and there is evidence that women dress sexier at ovulation. Female bloggers who suddenly start writing in a more sexually aware way will sometimes admit they are ovulating.
With my Missus, I think I have noticed her to be a bit more girly at that time, and she starts looking at spanking porn.
Good Grief, where did you go to school, Opus? Downside?
@David Collard
As I gaze out of my window at night at the young ladies in their micro-skirts and plunging necklines, as they head off to the local Disco, am I really to suppose that they are all ovulating? Where, at Chateau Heartiste are there posts about not wasting your time on women who are not ovulating, so as to improve your success rates? Slutty girls tend to be sluty I find – all the time. So I remain confused.
Why have a bar across the bike at all? It either serves a structural purpose or it doesn’t. I had inherited my bike from my cousin (a girl) so I never had a cross-bar – My parents were really cruel as I was thus the butt of jokes – a bit like making me wear a dress. No, not Down-side, but De La Salle – pretty sadistic though.
They are all fertile young bits of fluff. At that age they are probably at their randiest and most ready.
A study was done on women during their cycles and they were found to show most skin when ovulating. Interestingly, there is another sociological law, that a woman calibrates the amount of skin she shows quite closely. So, the girl in pants will wear a tank top. The girl in a miniskirt will wear a turtleneck. And so on. Casual observation suggests this may be true.
Can one target the ovulators? Perhaps instinctively. They may just seem flirtier, so you will notice them.
If you are seriously interested, Google the study. I may do so when I am at a real computer, not this iPad.
Men can be slow about these things. It takes an effort to guess that her unusual crankiness might be PMT or her sudden flightiness and attempts to grab your bottom suggest ovulation.
Inelegant as it may be, the bum grabbing thing is a fine barometer of Game. When I have been a big enough “jerk” to turn her on, I often get the bum grabbing and attempts to strike me on the arms. Athol Kay has covered the latter IIRC.
Not sure why women like men’s bums. I suspect it is because they are tight, not fat and round like a woman’s. I saw the Irish heartthrob Gabriel Byrne, in something wifey was watching recently, and I noticed that he had very small buttocks. But my enquiries end at that point. Even love of science will not take me further.
The bum thing gets an early run in Sleepless in Seattle. I think that was written by a woman.
@David Collard
It was a sunny Sunday Morning here. I guess it is late evening where you are. How wonderful to be able to talk without constant interuptions from Americans!
I agree with you about how much skin a woman shows, which is why my slutometer always reacts instantly to overexposure. I’ve had a fair amount of arm punching (look at me, look at me) but I have never been able to link it to the time of the month. Never been bottom pinched – I’m not fat or flabby however.
I dont think Roissy advocates looking for ovulating chicks, its more important to look for chicks who are receptive to you, ie attracted to you to begin with.
Also women can trigger the same feelings out of ovulation, as long as a guy can display confidence & social status …
It’s in relationships a womans cycles come into play, as you dont have stuff like pre-selection, or the danger of her being dumped, to keep her irrational emotional states balanced …
Ok mea culpa.
You could construe this research as women prefer alphas when ovulating … Or ovulating creates the same feelings as a Alpha would when ovulating …
This would explain why women bond with beta’s, as not everybody acts alpha when a woman ovulates
I was going to say that older wives are cooler. But mine is just as silly as ever, and wants to be cuddled all the bloody time.
@DC
As opposed to what … lol
I asked about 20 guys if they could pick only two traits they look for in a women. They said
1) Hotness
2) Chemistry (aka hotness)
So, maybe most guys just look for hot women. Girls look for alpha studly guys. I don’t see any disparity there. :p
By the way, I’m a 20-something. There was an article recently about how 35% of 20-somethings think marriage is obsolete. I would agree. Marriage is a joke. If two people can’t agree to stay committed without having that piece of paper, then they shouldn’t bother with it at all. Women do get married because they want the huge circus of a wedding. They want to show off to all of their friends that they got it all. Women are competitive, vindictive, and emotional. They can’t make an unemotional decision to save their life. That is why they need a good men to lead them. Good men are very limited though, just like skinny women are limited. So what’s the rest of the women to do? The same thing as the rest of the men do when they are in a sea of fat women…bail out of the dating life. For women…bail out of the marriage life.
I also believe sex = marriage. If you have sex with someone, I consider you married to them. Therefore, I would not have sex with someone unless I’m going to commit to them for life.
The study is biased in that it assumes that the reason women pick bad boys, is because they are thinking long term and the dude looks like mr right.
The study only shows that when women are attracted, they see the good, and when they are not attracted, they see the bad. And that this is a cycle and that it’s not in touch with reality.
“Why Women Choose Bad Boys? it’s because their body tricks them into viewing bad boys as nice guys!”
No. Idiot. You’re just rationalizing bad boy attraction, so you can keep the myth that nice guys trigger any attraction at all. While keeping the frame that when women do something “wrong” it’s because they somehow have been tricked into it. Those patriarchy hormones. Bad, bad hormonal cycle! Leave women alone!
Fucking losers.
This is a little off-topic, but did anyone else click the link in the bad boys / ovulation goggles article about surprising sex statistics? The last slide mentions a Russian woman who had 69 children. 69! She had 27 pregnancies, with lots and lots of multiples, including some quadruplets. Obviously, those were the days before reliable birth control.
Those 19 and Counting people don’t got nothing on her…
@JLexi
Women dont need good men to lead them, women need strong masculine men to lead them …
reading this comment thread was like attending the Coffee Cake Circle after sunday morning services — lots of stale air, bad advice, and mutual backpatting
The basic premise of game is simply* unlearning feminist-taught behaviors, and relearning (what used to be) ordinary masculine behaviors. To whatever degree you choose to refine it, that’s where Game starts. A hundred years ago, Game didn’t have a name because it didn’t need one. Men and women KNEW that masculinity and dominance made men attractive; nobody pretended otherwise and nobody thought it was a good idea to suppress masculinity.
This is a common misconception. Game is not about being masculine. Masculinity is comprised by traits like dependability, practically-oriented thinking, asceticism. Some are inherent, some are socialized. Undeveloped masculinity is autism.
What women ultimately want is everything: a well rounded man with a masculine core who is also socially adept, which is why it’s so hard for men. Women want unshakably confident leadership but they want fun too. It takes a long time and a lot of experience to get there. In the meantime they take men who display aggression and daring – which is part of masculinity but only the beginning of it.
Game at it’s core is just a set of techniques that facilitate seduction. The problem is that the ‘manosphere’ has taken it and spun a confusing web of theories around it in an effort to redefine the ideal man using it as a core. But masculinity is not defined purely by what women find attractive. There is a lot more to it, which is why there is such a divide between Roissy’s “alpha male” and the traditional “alpha male”.
Pingback: Why Women Choose Bad Boys? Is It Because They Get Tricked Into Viewing Bad Boys As Nice Guys? | YOHAMI
Erm no game at its core, emulates & facilitates natural alpha’s … Seduction is a side effect of game, in much the same way seduction is a side effect of masculinity
You cannot seduction without masculinity at its core
… You cannot practise seduction without masculinity at its core .. it does not work …
Yohami
Absolutely. It was a typical example of journalism about women. Always spun to be favourable to them. Ultimately, it infantilises women.
Modernguy and Mack
The gamesters are refining again. I wonder why it matters that they agree on each and every nuance of game. I keep wondering when I will see the pedestrian posting of the Webster definition of the word GAME, and a derivation from there to where they wish to go. But then I realize that they have advanced way beyond any old Webster and they have Roissy, who is the final word on game, until ____________ comes along with his unique refinement and the process starts anew
—————————————-
“”The problem is that the ‘manosphere’ has taken it and spun a confusing web of theories around it in an effort to redefine the ideal man using it as a core.””
———————————————
Anyone in the manosphere who is wrangling out nuance after nuance on game is part OF those who hear that choral AHHHHHH and a soft backlite at the mention OF game…..IOW YOU, and anyone else going on about game. Please dont put that on the back of an inanimate and not sentient thing like the manosphere. Its you folks obsessed with it who happen to post in the manosphere. The rest frankly dont care enough to debate these finer points, rather we take what we think is good and applicable, we may be interested in reading some of the theory and rationale, but its not us making any changes or positing new theories on game, its you gamesters doing that.
@Empath
I dont think modernguy is a gamester … his assertion of masculinity not being a core of game or seduction isnt something a gamer would state …
Oh, ok…
Also game isnt a theory … masculine men naturally have game … game has always been modelled on natural alpha men, which is why its effects are so universal & effective on women
If game was theoretical, its universal effects would vary based on the theory of game
Theres various variations of game, but they all have the same core, strong masculinity
You cannot seduce women, or practise game, without a strong groundwork of masculinity
“Masculinity is comprised by traits like dependability, practically-oriented thinking, asceticism. ”
I don’t agree, modernguy. Those traits are valued as part of femininity as well. Masculinity is primarily dominance. It’s the ultimate male prerogative to dominate, since dominance earns resources for reproduction, from territory, to food, to a woman to bear and raise his children. It’s at the core of what separates men from women.
A man with a relatively low societal rank or less-than-godlike body type, can still be masculine by dominating his “niche” – his work, his family, his friends and acquaintances.
(and speaking of gossip over coffee, I just found out WE GOT THE HOUSE!!!! Only six more weeks living apart from WolfAlpha!)
There are a number of ways of describing LTR Game. A few times I have jokingly suggested, read all the advice for husbands you can in magazines, and do the opposite.
Another way is to ask yourself, what would a feminist want me to do right now? Then, do the opposite.
Or ask yourself, am I acting like a male chauvinist pig? If so, good.
Once the little lady is contented and calm, THEN be nice to her. Firm, then nice. If you lead with too much nice, chaos will ensue.
Also, don’t be surprised if her initial verbal reaction is bad. It is her actions to watch for. To use a recent lurid example from Heartiste, a man reported that a woman berated him for being arrogant, while taking her blouse off.
Suz, exactly. Masculinity is mastery of a man’s environment. Being the king of his castle, no matter how small.
It is really quite simple. When people try to make it something else, I get suspicious. Beware of statements like, “it is very masculine to help pick out the right cushions”. No, no it isn’t.
oh….ok, not gamesters debating game.
How’d I not realize?
a man reported that a woman berated him for being arrogant, while taking her blouse off.
———————————————————————————————————–
that was weird, she was in a dressing room at the department store, i was being rude to a sales clerk, and from inside that little dressing room that wench berated me
Also game isnt a theory … masculine men naturally have game … game has always been modelled on natural alpha men, which is why its effects are so universal & effective on women
I don’t think Roissy would agree. I definitely don’t think the person who used to actually post as Roissy would. Chateau/Heartiste seem to come at game–and life generally–from a more traditionally masculine perspective than the seduce-by-any-means Roissy of old.
Mystery definitely uses/used effeminate cues to pick up women.
MackPUA
As opposed to nothing. If I want sex, I just make her next cuddle contingent on sex.
And the more of a jerk (as the Americans say) that I am, the more she wants a cuddle.
Perhaps I should draw a diagram?
A little bit of alpha >>> desire for a cuddle >>> which can be made strictly contingent on >>> the kind of sex you want.
This has been my advice to husbands for a couple of years now.
Done right, she seduces herself.
Opus, an apparently small bottom on a man is probably honest signalling of high T, like broad shoulders.
Women have the fat arses and narrow shoulders.
Sexual dimorphism.
VERY late to this discussion, but I have to ask re: Okrahead’s suggestion of repealing the 19th Amendment… categorically? Or would there be, theoretically, some provision for proving one’s fitness for the right/privilege?
Ariane, well, some of us don’t live in America. But I understand that if a woman herself doesn’t want to vote, she doesn’t have to in America.
In Australia, voting is compulsory. It would probably be possible for a couple to get postal votes, on the ground that they were intending to take a holiday, and then have the husband fill in both. Or the wife could simply vote for the candidates her husband instructed. Or she could spoil her voting card in the booth.
I have never sought to influence my wife’s vote. I think she has come to share a great many of my views, and I often hear her repeating my opinions verbatim, but I am not inclined to try to tell her how to vote.
Australian women have not used their vote as destructively as American women apparently have. And the party of the left has not pandered quite so hard to women, although it is starting to.
I believe that the vote in some places was initially restricted to women over 30. Interesting.
These days, a good life is synonymous to a hedonistic life. Whatever feels good at the moment, is good. This short-sighted focus on the present pleasures creates negative consequences, but there are people who redesign the environment to absorb the negative consequences.
These are the solutions: go with the flow and enjoy the present’s pleasures with reckless abandon, or revolt aggressively to become the new designer, or convince the designers to abandon the current model of life, or convince the hedonists to abandon their way of life.
The first solution will seem the most promising to hedonists, hence we observe the rapid propagation of this morbid and delusional lifestyle.
Calling game masculinity is laughable. Game is a subset of masculinity. Even saying that is too much, because actually game is set of specific techniques distilled and concentrated from “masculinity” and put into use as tools to achieve seduction. Which is creating a connection and pushing for sex while maintaining dominance. There are a million things that are “masculine” and that comprise masculinity that are not in themselves attractive to women and have nothing to do with creating attraction. Philosophizing, cooperating, being honest and dependable, sticking to your word. None of that is going to get your foot in the door when it comes to seduction but all of those are necessary masculine traits for a fully developed modern man.
You might have been able to say masculinity was individual dominance when we were smashing things with clubs but we’ve moved on from there.
You make good points, modernguy. I would say that the life of the mind itself is typically masculine.
Nobody said game was masculinity … at first modernguy states masculinity is not the core of game or seduction, now he states game is a subset of masculinity …
Game is a natural result of masculinity
Basically he’s repeated ad-verbatim … what I stated earlier correcting his earlier clueless post … & added his idiotic assumption women dont find certain parts of masculinity attractive …
Men dont co-operate nor are they honest, nor do they stick to their word, masculine men compete & dominate
The strong do not co-operate, they take from the weak, while the weak prey on the strong for protection & resources
Your definition of a fully developed modern man, is a feminine definition, not a masculine definition, used by traditional & feminist women, to shame & demonise men at large
IF a man co-operates, is honest or sticks to their word, in this society, women are repulsed & turned off, jailing him & stripping him of his wealth
It’s pretty clear by your insistence men are somehow lesser men, if they’re not sensitive or feminine & solely rely on dominating & competing
What manginas & men who insist men be sensitive & feminine, our society JAILS & destroys men who fail to be dominant & compete
Game HAS ALWAYS been about TEACHING MEN about the INHUMANITY of society & the brutal hatred of women towards men who arent dominant & competitive
Which is WHY game solely concentrates on dominance & being Alpha
We live in a society DESIGNED to be inhumane to men & brutalise & destroy men
What you dont seem to realise, NATURE AND society DOES NOT want sensitive feminine men, it wants incomplete men who utilise the FULL extent of their masculinity
A complete man is NOT masculine, he is a dilution of feminine & masculine
Game has always been about utilising the FULL extent of masculinity in order to make men socially intelligent
That is to make men socially intelligent to the brutality of a society AND nature, towards men who try to dilute their masculinity by adding feminine traits
In short Nature & our society destroys the definition of a complete man, while it rewards men who utilise & leverage their masculinity to his advantage
You can try & state game doesnt create a complete man all you want, game has never been about creating a complete man
Game allows men, to leverage the inhumanity & brutality of society’s hate of men who dont embrace their masculine dominance & compete
By realising how brutal & inhumane & violent society is against complete men, game ALLOWS you to COMPETE & DOMINATE within the TRUE context of society
Once you’ve mastered the dominance & brutality, society REQUIRES OF men, THEN using that context you can go onto become a complete man
You cannot exist without realising the true context of society
That true context demands men be masculine, dominant & competitive
Our biology & physiology DEMANDS men be masculine, dominant & competitive
Men who embrace their femininity, will ALWAYS be detrimental to their masculinity
You can try & call a man who’s stupid enough to embrace his femininity a complete man, all you want
But that man who embraces his feminity, exists OUTSIDE the context of society
In reality Nature & society & women, will always destroy men who dont embrace or leverage the full extent of their masculinity
MackPUA,
Sticking to your word, honor, cooperation, living on your mind etc are all masculine. Hint: women dont do them.
Competition goes on hand with cooperation. We form tribes and attack the tribe next door. Just like what we’re doing here. PUA is your tribe, so you attack modernguy, but you team up with other PUA minded people. And you’ll not change your mind depending on the moment of the month and backstab or not your brothers: you believe in the code, and you fight for the code.
There’s plenty of evolution and antroposhit data you can check. Civilization is a masculine invention, politics, etc. Every philosophy. The whole system became feminized because… you know why. It’s late. Fill the blanks.
Edit: And you’ll [NOT] change your mind depending on the time of the month… – that was a reference about women not following the same code.
All these “constant” platonic ideals are masculine
[D: Fixed.]
mackpua your mentality and philosophy is that of a scavenger trying to turn into a predator. Mature men cooperate with each other and trust each other. At the very least that is the ideal. It’s a masculine ideal because it goes beyond what may be to any one man’s immediate advantage to create a benefit for the larger part. Without this kind of standard civilization would not be possible.
In the current environment, I agree that you have to behave as if it’s every one for himself and you take what you can get when you can get it using anything you have at your disposal. The culture has failed to uphold standards that are to everyone’s long term benefit. But don’t make the mistake of turning it into an ideal. That’s just myopic and unoriginal. And in the long run, to your own detriment.
@cane-caldo-regarding your question of ‘is game valuable in marriage:’
Game is making a man do the work of two men because she is half a woman!
It’s fine for pumping and dumping,but in marriage,naw.
Now if you want to work that hard
for something so plastic,transient and vacant,more power to you brother.
As you’ve said;”Personal success is the only thing that matters.”
So yeah, go ahead and be an aggressive man with your mark,frankly it’s all contingent upon $$.
Also:I’ve got to say as men we need to quit using the terms alpha and beta and they are contingent upon transient womens approval,rendering the terms meaningless.
The reason we embrace these terms is due to innate male competition.
There used to be a thing known as solidarity among men,where we knew women were not rational and lived our lives accordingly.
That is my answer sir.
3thing to fix marriage:
1.Default father custody.
2.Fault divorce.
3.Restoration of due process and presumption of innocence.
Excellent points mac-pua and modernguy.
Distillation=trust no one.
Outcome=no marriage.
Avoid the PTB.
MGTOW
Also,this train of thought that women are slaves to the hormonal cycle is an excuse to avoid responsibility.
Plenty of women pre-feminism learned to control their lust in order to have a stable life.
The difference is that now they are financially rewarded by being unstable,with the perk of embracing sluttery.(hypergamy)
In this context the only way to keep a woman is to have superior $$ and to with hold that from her for the most part.Using just enough to keep her baited in.
@Anon123
Are you still here? Are you still interested in opinions about “Anatomy of Female Power” by Chinweizu?
Also,this train of thought that women are slaves to the hormonal cycle is an excuse to avoid responsibility.
Plenty of women pre-feminism learned to control their lust in order to have a stable life.
——————————————————————–
Crucial truth. On one hand its interesting to point this out about the cycle and the alphas, on the other yep it is an excuse. Someone in this thread also wrote about how men pick hot women then kind of equated the two…..thats a big time mistake to make. The system works BECAUSE men do what they do and women control what they want to do….break that down and you have what we have
@Freebird
As you’ve said;”Personal success is the only thing that matters.”
So yeah, go ahead and be an aggressive man with your mark,
Ah. I think you’ve misunderstood me, and I can see how my phrasing could mislead.
1. All relationships are personal–as in “of intimate concern”; as opposed to “public”, or “theoretical”.
2. Success in a relationship cannot be defined competitively–it necessarily implies both parties are satisfied.
3. I do not assume men are fine the way they are. All are fallen. That includes men. It also means that our attractiveness to women–even those we are married to, and even among the good wives–suffers.
Now if you want to work that hard
for something so plastic,transient and vacant,more power to you brother.
Wait a minute: Not every cycle is a vicious one. I like a properly dressed woman. Airports and grocery stores are filled with women in sweatpants and knotted hair. It is offensive to me. It says she cannot be bothered to take the rest of us seriously. In the same way, when my wife dresses the way I like it says that she wants to please me; especially when she does it on a regular basis (as she does). Showing consideration for what is attractive to me–that is, for something so plastic, transient and vacant as my attraction–is totally worth it, to me, on a personal level. Game is just dressing up a bit for her pleasure; which she pays me back seven-fold with my pleasure.
To illustrate: Let’s talk about boobs.
Large breasts can make a woman very attractive, but it’s not guaranteed (even if we exclude fat girls). A heavy chest in a tee shirt can be very hard to ignore, if she has a properly fitted bra. Conversely, a small-chested woman can wear an evening gown with a neckline so low you can see her sternum, and still look sexy and sophisticated. Put the tee shirt girl in that dress though, and you’d be forgiven thinking she works for tips. Real small boobs are better than fake big ones, but she has to know how to attire them. That’s boob-Game: picking the right bra and neckline. AKA: choose your frame.
I want to add that, generally, I agree with Yohami’s philosophy (and I’ll be plaguing his blog soon enough) that having value is worlds better than feigning value. That’s not Game, though. Yohami is talking about self-improvement.
“…women are slaves to the hormonal cycle is an excuse to avoid responsibility.”
Yes, it IS an excuse. Wasn’t it brought up initially to show than men need to understand the phenomenon in order to avoid becoming victims of it? Women are certainly capable of controlling our lust, but we don’t because we don’t have to in this society.
If you were to teach the concept to a room full if men, and different room full if women, which group is more likely to use their understanding productively? Men, because women are rewarded for avoiding responsibility. In our current environment, each individual man who doesn’t buy the excuse, has a better chance of holding one or more individual women accountable.
Simply put, a man who increases his alpha behavior when his wife is ovulating, redirects her random lust back onto himself. If he does it consistently, he trains her brain to REFLEXIVELY direct her lust toward him. Of course she can and should train herself to do the same thing (like I did) but since most women are unaware of the phenomenon, and face few or no consequences for it, WE DON’T.
Yes, this puts an unfair burden on the man, which shouldn’t be necessary. However, taking in that burden can dramatically strengthen his marriage, reducing his chances for long-term misery. A woman isn’t likely to be hurt by not addressing her raging lust. A man is VERY likely to be hurt by not addressing his wife’s lust. Knowledge of this phenomenon is a valuable tool that a man can use to lead his wife. Or he can stamp his feet and say, “That’s not my job!”
I know, it’s a strange dichotomy: a husband must take responsibility for his wife’s inclination to be irresponsible, yet accepting responsibility for her inclinations is not the same as accepting responsibility for her actions. A good leader doesn’t just demand correct behavior. He motivates it, he facilitates it, and he reinforces it.
The problem with Game is that it defines success for men in a very narrow way. If you’re a REAL MAN (an alpha), then you’ll have sex with this number of women. If you are a man but not as much of one (a greater beta), you’ll have sex with this many women. And on down the list.
It doesn’t take into account the fact that different men define success in different ways. Some men measure their success by their careers. Some men do so in relation to their families, and how well they’ve provided for them. Then of course, there are men who measure themselves by the number of notches on their bedpost. It’s up to the individual man.
Another thing I noticed was that Game websites and blogs (excluding the Married Game ones), tend to sneer at married men and assume they aren’t getting sex at home. In reality, I’d say that depends on the woman he married and how well he handles her. Some married men get pussy more often than a lot of single guys, just not with different women.
30:
“The problem with Game is that it defines success for men in a very narrow way.”
It’s not much of a problem if you understand that there several definitions of Game itself, and many of THEM are narrow. As I said previously, the essence of Game is to consciously or unconsciously refine one’s masculinity. That covers a very broad spectrum which includes actions that appear contrary to each other, specifically LTR Game vs. PUA Game. Methods that work well for PUAs can backfire in LTRs, and vice versa. Used in the right context/circumstances, all of the methods CAN increase the appearance (and the reality) of masculinity.
@Suz
I’m guessing we really aren’t that far apart on this, but I do disagree with how you have framed this. I see a very clear and important distinction between deciding to employ game for your own and your wife’s increased satisfaction, and taking on the burden of her keeping her vows/chastity.
I would also point out that women very much are hurt by not controlling their own lust/emotions/whims. We have simply made this something which is less immediate and more difficult for them to foresee.
30-Somethimg Woman
Yes, some married men are happy not chasing other women and get plenty of “pussy” at home.
That said, the existence of the sexless marriage, or the marriage in which a husband has to effectively beg, in the real world not in jokes, came as a shock when I first started reading complaints in the Manosphere. I literally cannot understand the mentality of the women involved.
However, I have always been a one-woman man, and I never measured my manhood by notch count.
Dalrock,
“I see a very clear and important distinction between deciding to employ game for your own and your wife’s increased satisfaction, and taking on the burden of her keeping her vows/chastity.”
I agree with you, that’s why I added this:
“a husband must take responsibility for his wife’s inclination to be irresponsible, yet accepting responsibility for her inclinations is not the same as accepting responsibility for her actions.”
It’s not a husband’s responsibility as a leader to take “make” his wife keep her vows. It’s his responsibility to guide her TOWARD keeping her vows of her own volition. Women today have never been taught to be mindful or responsible. That doesn’t excuse our stupidity, that’s a reason to teach us mindfulness, with the kind of leadership I described.
And yes, women are hurt by not controlling their whims. You stated it much better than I did. Women THINK they’re not hurt by it because they’re allowed to believe something else is the cause of their pain.
David, I was pretty shocked when I learned about sexless or nearly-sexless marriages. I thought that was one of the reasons you got married. You know, this is the person you want to have sex with. For the rest of your life. Why on earth would anyone get married and NOT have sex with their spouse?
By the way, this can go the opposite direction as well. I used to know a woman whose husband would refuse to have sex with her, even when she tried to intiate. She ended up having an affair and divorcing him, which is supposed to be the sex-starved man’s role.
Precisely, Suz (on the matter of sexless marriages).
“Also, this train of thought that women are slaves to the hormonal cycle is an excuse to avoid responsibility.
Plenty of women pre-feminism learned to control their lust in order to have a stable life.”
“A good leader doesn’t just demand correct behavior. He motivates it, he facilitates it, and he reinforces it.”
A woman’s cycle is completely controllable especially if she feels protected, but she will not have this if she does not submit to his authority; she denies the strength that is hers only if she accepts his leadership.
A husband filling the dominant role in his marriage, his masculinity providing strength to the relationship and to his woman, when she is submissive she is able to draw from his strength. She is then stronger in her submission to his authority, making him a stronger, more powerful leader, giving her more strength to draw from and striking the balance needed in marriage. This is what my husband and I have found in our marriage recently.
Our relationship had been built on societal fallacies and it was difficult for me to control my emotional swings, and my husband not being in control, but being a ‘nice guy’, excused my behaviors because it was ‘that time of the month.’ Only within the past two years, as we have found our proper roles of headship and submission have we broken free of the enslavement of my hormonal cycles.
His strength provides for internal management on my part augmented by external influence through leadership on his part to such that the only evidence of where I am in my cycle is in the bathroom trash can.
But this also need not be a burden on a man. As the man and woman each contribute their gift to the marriage, leadership and submission, it becomes as natural as walking. When a woman does not draw off the strength of her husband, but tries to draw on her own strength she falls and pulls the relationship with her. She is the weaker vessel as stated in scripture and going her own way makes her vulnerable to not only the external dangers of the world, but her own internal emotional confusions. It is important not so much for a husband to game his wife, but exercise his leadership which would be protecting her from the dangers that could upset the marital balance. He may need to protect her from herself and her own thoughts, as well as outside influence. As with anything in life, maintenance is key, and costs a lot less than repairs.
@JustLexi
I asked about 20 guys if they could pick only two traits they look for in a women. They said
1) Hotness
2) Chemistry (aka hotness)
So, maybe most guys just look for hot women. Girls look for alpha studly guys. I don’t see any disparity there. :p
The disparity is that you ask guys what they want in a woman and they say: hotness, attractiveness, etc. You ask girls what they want in a men and they say: niceness, good feelings, being treated well, an affectionate, a gentleman etc. In short, a beta.
So women know what guys want and they can act with this information. Women use makeup, sexy dresses, etc to get a guy.
By contrast, a whole generation of boys have been trying to be betas in order to get a woman. They have been LJBF while women have banged the bad boy. I wasted 20 years of my life this way, trying to be nice (and being celibate).
There’s nothing bad in women being the way they are. God or nature made them that way. But saying lies is something bad and the whole society has lied to these boys.
imnobody +1
You didn’t waste any time being celibate; that’s both safe and Christian. As for niceness, everyone needs to find a balance between being good and being a pushover; good women want the former. No woman wants the latter, but this society has directly or indirectly lied to men about that. Some women prefer to rule men, but they don’t respect these men.
“But saying lies is something bad and the whole society has lied to these boys.”
’nuff said.
30-Something Woman
I don’t mean that my wife has not put me off a few times, but she has been consistently generous. And she has never held back on sex as a weapon. The sheer meanness of that, and of continuously denying a husband, just stunned me when I read of it all through the Manosphere.
I don’t approve of the player type of man. They disgust me a bit. I have never been seriously tempted to stray. When I was a younger husband, I had a couple of cute young women sidle up to me. But I never responded.
On the issue of leadership, we have always followed a fairly traditional model. I am not sure of my wife’s rationale, but she has tended to be compliant most of the time. Yesterday she sent me an email home checking that I was OK with her spending 100 dollars to order some plants. I replied, saying that she had my permission. Partly I was teasing, but she seems to do this naturally. She went from her father’s house directly to mine. So maybe she just replaced her father with me as Head of House in her mind.
A note to men: I have found that reference to HOH status is what Game boys call a DLV (demonstration of low value). It will attract bad shit tests.
On another point, that FemDom site I managed to shut down by aggressive trolling looks like it is down permanently. Woman was running a little matriarchy and mentally emasculating both her husband and son-in-law. It is time to stop playing soft in these situations.
Turbo hamster indeed…
David, she sounds like a good wife, and you sound like a lucky man. I also pretty much went directly from my parents’ house to marriage. The difference was that my dad wasn’t in charge in my family. My husband might have had an easier time of it had I had a firm, consistent fatherly influence in childhood. (Not that I was spoiled – I wasn’t. My mom was more than firm, in the screaming, yelling type way, but that’s entirely different than having a good father.) Anyway, my husband has managed. We’ve had our ups and downs, but overall, we’ve had a good marriage.
30-Something Wife
A LOT of men abdicate, as my mother once said of her father-in-law (my grandfather). There have always been cases. Being a husband is hard work emotionally, and many men don’t endure. Oddly, my wife’s father, while notionally HOH, had lost a lot of respect through a bout of alcoholism. For some reason, this did not induce the contempt of men you might have expected in my wife.
I seem to have better control over my 18 y.o. daughter than my wife. I think children still find fathers more authoritative than mothers. If the fathers can be bothered.
`Nowadays, more men abdicate than not. You’d think that wouldn’t be so in the more conservative churches, but it is. When we used to go to church, they’d pay lip service to the man being the head of the household, but that was about it. They never tried to help younger men learn to lead their families.
I recall one case in which a younger couple was asking for advice in our small group. (It sounded to me like she was having trouble following because his expectations were unrealistic.) No one helped them at all. Everyone acted like they should just be taking care of that at home, but they didn’t know how. He needed to learn to lead effectively, and she needed to learn how to communicate her problems in a way that didn’t make him feel like she was challenging his authority. I think maybe it was that the older couples didn’t really know either. Or maybe they were afraid of saying something that might have offended someone else.
30-Something, there is little help from the polite broader culture. There is plenty of macho and slut raunch culture, with thuggish boys, and girls who wear crude t-shirts – my BIL sent me some pics today. But the polite culture is broadly feminist. (I think an extension of Norbert Elias’ ideas about the spread of politeness might help explain it. When you have a time when politeness is queen, the masculine virtues will not be much honoured.)
Also, most people in churches are not the kind of strong personality which makes them seek even what we Catholics call “white martyrdom”.
But, as you suggest, the culture has also just forgotten how. The chain of tacit knowhow that used to help make marriages work has been broken. We are left awash in a sea of liberal pieties.
I imagine my MIL showed my wife, probably by example, how to “wife”. And I am very grateful. I have some hope my daughter will do a good job of it one day too. But we really feel like the Last of the Mohicans sometimes.
Feminism is pushed, as a social architecture, for one simple reason. There has NEVER been a successful rebellion carried out, in recorded history, when the men are undermined by their own women and children.
Feminism, as a political tool, leads women (and children) to viciously turn on men. Men are shocked, bewildered, and demoralized.
The ever tightening grip of the State can proceed apace, without interruption nor risk of revolt.
P.S.
Afghanistan is, correctly, referred to as the Graveyard of Empires. As the British, Russians, and Americans have found out, Afghan men are too independent and rebellious to subdue. Hence, the reason for wanting to “educate” Afghan women. Education will deliver the feminist payload into the minds of Afghan women. The Afghan women will turn on their Afghan men. Resistance collapses as the society implodes.
If someone put together a good seminar on how a man can lead his family in an effective manner, I’d bet there would be a lot of demand for that. I used to know quite a few Christian couples who genuinely wanted the husband to be the head of the family but didn’t know how.
Right now the last thing we need to do is open the flood gates of telling men how to lead, to date that is nothing but license for women to tell me that they will follow all day so long as he leads where she wants him to
Right now the last thing we need to do is open the flood gates of telling men how to lead, to date that is nothing but license for women to tell me that they will follow all day so long as he leads where she wants him to.
I agree. It’s a father’s job to teach his son to be a man, along with other trusted men in his family and inner circle. The minute you start trying to “seminar” something that was meant to be organic, it’s a slippery slope.
Elspeth, I like your use of organic there. A lot of this is tacit knowledge, passed on in families, and now lost. Seminars given officially can be subverted in numerous ways.
The thing is, the very dynamic of having a seminar approach fits the feminine narrative of the church, and it becomes just another accountability group, a manifestation of another Fathers Day sermon. Women would be lining up with warnings and caveats pitching fear that men be taught to be overbearing hence abusive.
Im of the opinion these things are not really subject to how-to lists anyway, I find then the most successful Ephesians ordered marriages I know of are ones that kind of find their own functional protocol in the details while leaving little doubt as to the over arching guiding principles
Yes, I doubt we will ever see an Idiot’s Guide to an Ephesians Marriage.
I go up to Christian men and ask point blank… “how does your leadership manifest itself in the home?” The answer I get back…? After some mumbling, it’s always something to the effect of… “and I try really hard to watch my mood– I notice my mood impacts everyone else.”
Excuse me for a second, but… what the hell is that? Can you imagine a platoon leader or a CEO looking over his men/workers and thinking anything remotely like that…? Sure leadership requires self control… but… mood and emotions as the main deal…? What?
I’ll tell you what this means.
Christian men do not expect obedience. If they did, then the answer would be… something else besides how he emotionally reacts to what goes on in his house. He is reactive because his wife rules over him. He knows he is responsible for how family, but he has no authority… no real, active leadership. This is extremely frustrating, so he is constantly angry. His idea of leadership is to keep that anger tamped down at all times.
Responsibility without power is a recipe for a nervous breakdown. I think they did experiments on rhesus monkeys that showed something like that. Frankly, I think a lot of Western Christian husbands are being tormented by this culture.
@ David Collard “Yesterday she sent me an email home checking that I was OK with her spending 100 dollars to order some plants. I replied, saying that she had my permission. Partly I was teasing, but she seems to do this naturally.”
My wife is an avowed feminist, a perfectionist, assertive, and hates Paul and his epistles. Even so… she is constantly seeking my approval and direction. I used to view this as general bitchiness and meddlesomeness (I took her demand for “mutual submission” at face value and assumed she was a rational actor in spite of evidence) but now I see it for what it is. She is rebellious, but she still yearns for my leadership.
When I took the “honey do” list from her and turned it into *my* list-of-everything… it’s weird. But she actually comes to me as things get crossed off and says… “what do I do now?” I do not have a lot of respect from her yet… but she does present “hooks” where I can assert myself.
There’ve been times at work where the boss is away on business for a long time… and the workers hold it together, but… we’d gradually just sort of… lose focus. That’s what my marriage was like before the change. Now… it’s like someone is actually in charge.
That is another reason for the Christian man’s anger: he has given his wife the reigns in an attempt to make her happy– and it only seems to make her more resentful and hateful. To understand why this is happening, he would have to adopt some extremely politically incorrect views– things that would never be said in a real “Christian man leadership seminar.”
Yes the mood thing….good observation. Men are being frustrated big time, someone said its why we stay at work, this is true….your point that we are not demanding obedience is true as well, but the women cannot agree on that lest they lose the threat and fear of the man becoming an abusive ogre.
Love the cog diff of “she demanded mutual submission”
Cog Diss, not cog diff
“That is another reason for the Christian man’s anger: he has given his wife the reigns in an attempt to make her happy– and it only seems to make her more resentful and hateful. To understand why this is happening, he would have to adopt some extremely politically incorrect views– things that would never be said in a real “Christian man leadership seminar.”
This is exactly The biggest hurdle my husband faced (he’s voiced it since) is that he kept thinking ‘this is not how a man treats his wife, not a Christian man’. He pushed through it. The more he was strong in leadership, the more he saw me respond positively. The more I responded the more he lead.
It’s a matter of undoing decades of teaching that you assumed was correct. Now going against it makes you feel like you’re the one that’s wrong even though you feel more right than you ever have in your entire life. Recently I even asked my husband to please not let us go back. I know I’m going to push even when I’m not trying to, and I need him to push back. Each time he does my respect for him increases.
Some Guy, Ah, yes, “mutual submission”, the great escape card for the modern Christian wife …
A maxim I would give would be: She is your wife, not your employer. I hate the mentality that all of life is “who? whom?”. But modern wives seem to want to go to the mats. If there IS a tussle, make sure you get up first. I write figuratively, of course.
I am not sure if my wife is aware of the way she sounds. Once not long ago, she told me I was not the boss of her … and then asked me, using my pet name, “Can we get a parrot, one day, BB?” I was teasing her about that for weeks. She asked me exactly like a daughter with her Dad.
Perhaps I could propose the Panty Test. You should be able to get your wife to show you what colour panties she is wearing. I was able to Game her into this when she was young. A good tease. I checked recently. Yep. She will still do it.
See if you can get her to pass the Panty Test eventually.
If you can get her to send a panty color test photo by sms you really got game
empath, that is for the young folk. I don’t know how to do SMS. I use the low-tech, classical panty test. It is simple. Just ask her to show you. She will squirm a bit, then her girly obey-the-male chip fires up, and up goes her hem.
Maybe, I am 50 but had to have to learn these things to communicate with my uni age kids
I’m not ready for the panty test yet.
What I do right now is lead the children. I give instructions. They follow them. I don’t build consensus. I know what they need. I know what the family needs. I lay out a plan that takes into account their frailties… and then expect them to get on board. Being young, if there is anything rebellious in their spirit, it comes out very quickly. In fact… I would go so far as to say that the arbitrary command is the best way to get a temperature check on their spiritual state. (God knew what he was doing when he set up the garden of Eden.)
Just being the “big dog” of my house… the kids naturally follow me. There are no child training tricks involved… nothing I learned from books or seminars. I just expect obedience… and then wait for it. The more I put my foot down, the less I have to do it. Again… the kids get excited when their dad takes charge– they yearn for it and have less to unlearn.
My wife… in contrast…. she has no coin. She bullies and shames the children to get compliance. And she fails… she comes to me and says a six year old girl won’t follow her. I am now the “big guns” for my wife.
It happens every day and I just think… wow… fish really do need bicycles. (And I know that the only way that my wife can gain any really authority with the children is if she chooses to come under mine.)
empath, my daughter told me that SMSing would be too hard for me.
I daresay if you manage to blog, sms would be nothing. I resisted for long time, only to find if I wish to reach my kids, they answer sms immediately
:light bulb goes off:
The panty check is an arbitrary command that reveals your wife’s spiritual state.
I get it.
Funny how that is outright unthinkable.
Some Guy, no, it is just a fun thing to get a woman to do for you. A tease.
But yes, it is an interesting Game experiment to simply give your wife a direct order. I think women respond better to that than to a more flowery request. I have now trained her to say please. She says please in emails now too. She used not to.
Rarely, in a serious situation, I have simply used a command tone. But that is only for something really serious, like leaving a child unattended in the bath.
The last word on sex-with-the-husband was that it would be rape. Not a lot of room there for teasing. I’m leaving that alone for now.
She wants some boyfriend/girlfriend crap, but if sex=rape to her then she can just get her ass to work. (Yeah, things are pretty eff’d up. I’m going to work on what I *can* work on and get us out of the hole we’re in… but some of this stuff is gonna have to wait..)
“It’s a matter of undoing decades of teaching that you assumed was correct. Now going against it makes you feel like you’re the one that’s wrong even though you feel more right than you ever have in your entire life.”
Lots of your comments resonate with me, Jacquie.
Right after I got married, my husband got a job in a new city. The company I worked for didn’t have a location there, so I couldn’t transfer, I had to quit. My husband encouraged me to stay home for a while, write, and set up our new place. So I became a housewife and very domestic.
A friend of his came to visit us. He was talking to me alone and asked me what I was up to. I got embarrassed and said something about needing to look for a job. He was like “Why? Don’t you like being a housewife? (Your husband) says you’re really into it and good at it.” I blurted out “Yeah, I love it but I feel so guilty. I feel like a traitor.” He was like “To what?!” and I was like “Uh, I don’t know, feminism I guess.” He thought that was really funny.
It was the first time I’d articulated it, but it was so true. Even though it felt “right” and natural, I couldn’t fully enjoy being married or doing any kind of wifely stuff because I’d grown up feminist and been taught that all those things were stupid and oppressive. I’d actually felt like a traitor from the moment I fell in love with my husband, because I thought it meant I was weak and dependent (and you know we are all supposed to be strong, independent women and not need, or even LIKE, men, much less love them). Even though I was over the moon, I didn’t talk about my relationship much because when I did, I could tell other girls thought I was an idiot for being so admiring of a guy and, later, for doing all the domestic things for him and letting him support me financially. I got a lot of raised eyebrows because I completely dropped my last name and changed it to his, too. A male friend told me I was the only girl he’d known so far who’d changed her name when she got married. Then he looked at my husband with all this obvious respect. LOL.
Anyway, hate to blather on about myself but you never know…someone else out there might be feeling the same way and need to know they’re not the only one. I wish I’d known sooner.
Whether by seminar or some other method, there ought to be a way for older men to teach younger men how to lead in their own homes. A lot of men didn’t learn it from their fathers – that’s part of the problem. So to say that men should learn this from their fathers doesn’t help.
None of the churches my husband and I ever went to provided any help. They just told men to “love your wives as Christ loved the church”. OK, that’s nice, but it doesn’t tell them how to lead. It doesn’t help to tell women to submit without helping the men learn to be leaders of their families either. One of the churches we went to tried that. Well, it’s a little hard to follow someone who isn’t leading. In my opinion, it’s best to start from the head and work down. Get the man to lead, then the woman to submit, then the children to follow along.
Those of us here that post regularly openly discuss that we have never known of a church to say to women that submission is a good thing.
Also, I cannot imagine what kinds of things one would teach, this type of thing isnt explicable via seminar , power point, or lecture.
It was interesting to read the comments by 30-Something and Emp especially after this weekend.
A couple of months ago I met a gentleman while shopping and we struck up a conversation. I learned he was an asst. pastor at a church and told me a little about their ministry. The thing that stuck out in my head was that he told me that while most churches cater to women’s and children’s ministries, that women bring their children but the husbands don’t go that they had a different vision; they wanted to be the church where men went, that by training the men to lead then they would lead their families to church. I mentioned it to my husband and this past weekend we visited.
Afterward my husband and I spoke with a couple of men, one of them heading up the men’s ministry. They explained that men have basically been feminized(I kid you not, those were his words) and they needed to step up and be men again, to lead. They want to teach men, but also the boys to be leaders in the church, in their families and in their communities. They don’t have a children’s ministry; they pair the younger members with adults to serve in the church as young as they are able to. They work to prepare the young men to lead much like an apprenticeship.
Wow, I couldn’t believe what I heard them saying. It had a different feel than any other church we’ve ever gone to. My husband said we will visit again.
Actually, Emp, I think the most basic elements would be explicable is small seminars, and it would be a good start. 30 is right. Two generations of men now have no clue how to lead women, or even think they’re allowed to, let alone ought to. You’re around my age; we have known many “old school” men throughout our lives, and been influenced by them. Millions of young men these days don’t even recognize masculinity for what it is. There must a way to reach more men than those who read blogs.
The trouble with the seminar approach is that it would likely get co-opted by men who are into power and control (over other men) as an end in itself and a hierarchy would develop, which would then begin to mean more than the message. That, and sexual politics would intervene as well.
There was a men’s movement from the 1970s and 1980s in the real world as well. It was subverted again and again and again by squabbles among the men for power and hierarchy determination, and when women came into the mix, even peripherally, these struggles only intensified as they became imbued with the sexual competition cast. This is a problem we face as men when we are operating outside clearly established hierarchical conventions (like the workplace, the military, the athletic team and so on), there are huge squabbles and they tend to drown out the entire point of it. A good reference for this is the poster who posts as Anonymous Aged 70, as he was a veteran of this kind of shenanigans in the pre-internet men’s movement days.
The benefit of the internet is that its very decentralization subverts that natural male dominance struggle. People tussle in comment threads and ban each other and so on, but really the message is much less diluted by power struggles than it would be in a real life setting, sad to say.
Good points, Brendan.
Also, I think for men to start to lead women in the home, an intimate situation, this needs to be learned and applied at the personal level. A man needs to be able to try stuff out in the privacy of his own home, seeing what tips he has heard or read about work for him and his woman. Also, it needs to be as relaxed and fun as possible. Seminars and the like breed excessive seriousness. One thing I have noticed is that a bit of fun can make a woman more receptive to being led. You could call it the Ballroom Dancing Effect. But one sees it everywhere, once one starts to look. Feminists, not famous for bringing the fun, have nevertheless managed to convince women that male dominance is boring, something associated with tiresome partriarchs. I suspect this is why women will often respond to sexy secular dominance but reject the more religious form.
Yes, very good points. Any in-person “class” would have to be minimal, and I think it should refer men to the internet to learn more. Brendan is absolutely right; decentralization is the only thing that will keep the message relatively pure.
Suz that there are no role models etc is true, but still the subject is not seminar ready. Brendan makes one good point, another is its way too low hanging of fruit to not be influenced by women.
Nah….no seminars. Seminars are too appealing for women and white knights.
Is 30 something related to you?
Women draw power from social groups. Men do better with a woman one-on-one. Getting women into groups is the preferred progressive strategy. But an individual man’s strengths play best in intimate situations. The best situation is for a man to be in his own “castle”.
Women in the anonymity of the Internet have sometimes commented that they only came to understand something about their husband’s needs when they read the remarks of another man.
Holy Hamster Batman!
I said “women are not slaves to their hormonal cycles” and the gals reply”
No, not if a MAN
(my husband) leads me right.
The whole idea of my comment was SELF agency.
@cane-caldo, thanks for your kind response,in the same vein of thought,a “stronger” alpha comes along and games your wife and she’s off and running?
I am truly sorry this sounds adversarial in text- I do not mean to be contrary in spirit.
For you see: this has happened to me, my male cousin was staying over for a bit and whispered a little something in her ear and she was gone in spirit like that.
freebird, LOL.
This whole idea that transient coercion superceeds
the spoken logical vows is very unsettling.
A promise is a promise,right is right and wrong is wrong and that Should Suffice?
On a related note I was reading Leviticus,the penalty for adultery was the stoning of both parties.
Perhaps this “fear of God” is what it takes to subdue the animal instinct?
Was that a sinister laugh from predator to prey,or was it a humorous chuckle at the human condition?
A speechless laugh.
Are you slave of your hormones? NO! Im slave of the men messing with my hormones.
So if a man messes with them and fucks her better than the husband, it’s the husband fault, again, for not being the man in charge of her body.
In short, yes. Women are slave of their hormones. Mainly, I think, because instead of taking charge of them, they dump it on the nearest man, conceding all the power – victimize themselves.
On the other hand, a man do can use this stuff. Like I do. But. It renders female commitment void of meaning.
A promise is a promise,right is right and wrong is wrong and that Should Suffice?
Absolutely it should suffice. Vows are vows and promises are promises. The idea that a man should bear the burden of keeping his wife faithful is abhorrent.
My husband leads me quite well, but even if he didn’t I am still bound by my commitment to love and be faithful to him no matter what. Further, the idea that I get to set a personal definition of what makes acceptable husbandry and leadership is absurd. I’ve lived long enough not to trust myself that much. Principles are unchanging, it’s best to go with those.
Nevertheless, my hormones respond to my husband, and I’m thankful for it. My ovulation goggles respond to him just fine, though many have argued that we’ve gone overboard with that.
@Freebird
@cane-caldo, thanks for your kind response,in the same vein of thought,a “stronger” alpha comes along and games your wife and she’s off and running?
I am truly sorry this sounds adversarial in text- I do not mean to be contrary in spirit.
For you see: this has happened to me, my male cousin was staying over for a bit and whispered a little something in her ear and she was gone in spirit like that.
You’re welcome, and that is a terrible story. Are you still married? You may have stated so before, but I get people’s stories confused.
To go back to my Game= dressing up analogy, let’s say my wife likes men in suits. So, I get some Ralph Lauren suits, and wear them. That doesn’t mean I should expect that if a guy in an Armani comes by she won’t be able to help herself because the cut and thread-count is better. Our vows didn’t include the line “…as long as he’s the best-dressed man in the room”. We each are responsible for our vows. Dressing up (Game) just makes it more pleasant. Wives don’t cheat because their husbands lack Game. When wives cheat it’s because they’re pathetic, just like the rest of us.
That isn’t to say that I am not careful about how many suited men I let my wife be around, but in the end she must take her vows seriously no matter the circumstances.
Bskillet’s blog has a discussion on women’s agency, and their role as responders. It’s true: they are designed to respond. Some nutbags have a “ministry” based on the idea in its most absurd extreme. It says, basically, that women can only respond positively to stimuli; that is, if the stimuli (husband) is good, the wife does good. If the wife does bad, it’s because the stimuli was wrong. No! Her respond should have been negative, in the sense that she should have not returned wrong with wrong.
Thanks for the replies,IMHO this is the most important discussion on these matters on the net,I take it seriously.
The most recent post a professor (something) said:”So when I rebel against God it is his fault because he is not loving me or leading me properly?
CHECKMATE, Christian girl adulteress.”
@Yohami-Thanks for your reply,I respect that position.
@Elspeth-thanks for your reply,you are golden.
@cane-caldo-Thanks for your reply,quite good.
Summation:The gals here are the cream of the crop and trying so very hard, I do feel bad about poking about the mote in their eyes whilst not casting the beam from mine own.
Frankly I’m a bit saddened overall.
Well- I suppose this is why I am not a social person,the climate is all daggers for the next person over
(in general-not here)
and no sense of introspection.
(hedonistic society)
I will have a look see @ that bskillet blog again, sounds familiar,I do read a lot.
“Of course mama’s gonna help build the wall.”
I’m gonna try to back away slowly,not my intention to Bible whip the folks here.
Freebird you are fine, post on man, post on
@Cane Caldo
To stretch this analogy a bit further, good game form would suggest that you shouldn’t wear the suits strictly because your wife likes them, but that you should adopt a genuine frame that you enjoy being well dressed. There is nothing wrong with understanding what she wants and working to deliver, but the frame can’t be one of fear that if you don’t wear a suit she will leave you for a man who does. This is to me the irony of the game purists who would assert that a man’s game should be the bedrock of the marriage. With an LTR this frame is probably fine. The stakes are deliberately kept low. But with marriage the stakes are high in a state mandated/lose your children, assets, and income sort of way. Taking on that frame in marriage strikes me not only as morally/practically impossible, but very bad game frame as well.
Taking on that frame in marriage strikes me not only as morally/practically impossible, but very bad game frame as well.
———————————————————–
Yes taking on that frame I’d have a hard time differentiating it, functionally, from the Joel and Kathy rot
@freebird
I’m gonna try to back away slowly,not my intention to Bible whip the folks here.
I’m sure that’s been thought of me more than once.
@Dalrock
Spot on.
No, Emp, I don’t know 30 something.
@Lord Valtrex 10:56 pm
How do you explain the Nien Rebellion then?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10430539
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/hudson_and_den_boer_spring_2002.pdf
It’s normally unattached single men who start rebellions, not married ones, for reasons that hardly need an explanation.
@Suz 5:18 pm
Can we please finally stop with this nonsense? This has to be the dumbest idea I’ve encountered online in about 6 months, which is saying something.
Men cannot be expected to lead women when wifes can have their husbands arrested and evicted from the home simply by calling 911 and saying “I’m afraid of him”. Men will lead women when they can exercise legal authority over them. Nothing will change until women’s privileges are annihilated.
I’m obviously not a man, but it seems there are many men here who “lead” their wives. Legal authority can’t make your wife submissive, if your wife does not choose to be submissive.
You can’t lead people you have no legal authority over, people that can ruin your life with a mere phone call, Antigrrrl. Is it really necessary to explain that?
@Hollenhund
You’re making the classic liberal mistake of transposing government with culture. In the long view, culture drives government, not the other way around. Government can make laws that influence culture, but it only does so in the direction that the culture is already going. Indeed, as Antigrrrl points ought, there are women in the very thread who are led by their husbands, living under the same laws. There isn’t even a law that forbids a wife from doing so.
I maintained a blog years ago for mental masterbation. I posted detailed analysis of football teams, the debate about anti-intellectualism, etc. Whatever struck me as interesting, but truthfully never really accomplished much.
Over the past month or so, I’ve read a number of blogs and contributed my story. I retooled my blog and called it, “Red Pill Parenting.” My new purpose is trying to find the best way to raise two boys (11 and 9) in a Red Pill world. I intend to draw from a number of blogs and books, everything from Dalrock to Badger to Mystery Method and Day Bang. Not looking to turn my boys into players, but I’m not ready to turn my back on some collected wisdom from unconventional sources.
I’m responsible for raising two boys to be Christian man. More to the point, Christian husbands and fathers. Years ago, I read a book, “How to Raise a Modern Day Knight.” It really struck home when it mentioned that we’re raising boys to be men, but not really equipping them to be fathers and husbands. Even then, though, I had difficulties really moving forward because I saw a disconnect. I think Red Pill has bridged that gap.
Antigrrl, exactly! Even when the laws used to be slanted in favor of men, there were still unsubmissive women. They just couldn’t get divorced so easily.
Why would men need a legal advantage anyway? If the laws regarding divorce and child support and custody were neutral, favoring neither the woman nor the man, that would probably be enough to prevent a lot of divorces. Women, in general, are cavalier about divorce because they know they’ll get custody and child support. If joint custody was standard except in cases where a parent was unfit, that would make child support almost non-existent. If the woman doesn’t get to take the children away from the father and legally extort money from him for doing it, she would be a lot less likely to file for divorce.
@ Hollenhund:
” Men will lead women when they can exercise legal authority over them. Nothing will change until women’s privileges are annihilated.”
That was a given. Now. How, besides the internet, do you propose to make more man aware of this fact? I agree that “seminars” have the potential to be twisted into something disastrous. Are you going to sit at your keyboard ridiculing other people’s ideas for forward action, or do you have a few suggestions of your own?
That said, Antigrrrl is also right, and so is Cane. Women can legally chose undermine male attempts at leadership, and that must change. However, women who understand the benefits of male leadership, are already not making that choice. There are just too few of us, because of the cultural myths taught by feminists.
“If joint custody was standard except in cases where a parent was unfit, that would make child support almost non-existent.”
Not necessarily. Joint custody is not necessarily the same as primary residential custody. It does not mean that each parent has the child(ren) living with each of them an equal amount of time, thus negating the transfer of money from the ex husband to the ex wife. Joint custody means each are equally responsible for parental decisions: religious education, schooling, medical care, etc.
Why would men need a legal advantage anyway? If the laws regarding divorce and child support and custody were neutral, favoring neither the woman nor the man, that would probably be enough to prevent a lot of divorces.
The laws are currently neutral on their face, actually. It’s the courts who generally enforce them in one way, based on the fact that most marriages still feature women providing more child care in the early years (when divorce is more common) — the parent who provides most care is generally given custody under the policy of most courts, and that is still in most families the mother. I know of one case where the father was a SAHD and he got custody and gets CS payments, much to his ex-wife’s chagrin (although she likes the fact that he has custody so she can focus on her law partnership, she doesn’t like that she has no control over what he does with the CS, complains that she thinks he’s using it on his GF and so on).
There is a huge anti-group involved whenever shared parenting as a legal norm is proposed. Most of it comes from feminism, and although several arguments are deployed, the main one is generally that shared parenting, if legally mandated, forces women to remain connected to abusers — again the presumption is that most divorce happens because the husband is to some degree abusive, and so mandating shared custody (even with exceptions for cases where actual abuse has been demonstrated) is vehemently opposed by a large number of well-funded women’s groups. I do some volunteer work for a shared parenting oriented group called Fathers and Families, and it’s very, very hard to get legislators to care about this issue when so many of their female constituents are dead set against any changes in the area.
The laws do need to be changed, no doubt. Until they are, the molotov cocktail of (1) calling 911 and getting hubby arrested and given a restraining order based on VAWA follow-on mandatory arrest policies plus (2) guaranteed temporary custody order issued based on (1), followed by a permanent custody order being issued eventually based on the “de facto custody situation” in light of (1) and the temporary custody order itself. So, the two areas — VAWA and custody — are closely related, and when used in tandem are a virtually unbeatable one-two punch. This is not lost on women, who can easily read about this strategy in any number of places on the internet. Both laws are involved, really. Changing one without the other would do little good, because a legally-mandated presumption in favor of joint custody would easily be set aside by a VAWA type mandatory arrest followed by a restraining order and a temporary custody order issued in light of that.
Not necessarily. Joint custody is not necessarily the same as primary residential custody.
Right. It would have to be joint physical specified in a shared parenting arrangement. Joint legal custody is not that uncommon, but it typically today goes along with one parent having primary physical custody.
Höllenhund is correct.
Leadership requires authority. There are different types of authority. The two types most influential in a marriage are (were) legal authority or moral/spiritual authority. Man has been stripped of ALL legal authority which leaves only moral authority. It is too easy for people to disregard moral authority when the whim strikes them. Without authority a woman is only allowing a man to lead where she wants to be led.
Neutral CS and custody laws would do little to change that and aren’t possible anyway. Neutrality is a myth. It only exist until there is a crisis point. Then neutrality goes out the window.
If a godly woman truly believes she is under the moral authority of her husband, and truly believes that the moral authority is the higher power, she should have no problem if the law also gives her husband legal authority. A husband with moral authority but without the legal authority is on shaky ground. It causes him to constantly earn his leadership role. Even if he is able to do so, his leadership suffers because he is constantly on guard. How much mental energy is wasted on gaming a wife? Energy that could be put to better use improving the quality of life for the family.
It’s great that so many women here are recognizing their husband’s moral authority. But they are doing so under the shadow to the law. What happens when he decides to lead you in a radically different direction? In a manner you don’t care for?
@ Cane
“You’re making the classic liberal mistake of transposing government with culture.” That may be true, but when government has become a means of enforcing culture then the difference becomes irrelevant. Government is the hammer that the culture uses to keep all those counter culture people in line. Thankfully it’s a rather awkward and unwieldy hammer in most of cases.
@30SW
Why would men need a legal advantage anyway?
Curious word: “advantage”. In a perfect world, legal law would reflect moral law. You might as well complain that moral law gives the advantage to men. You seem to have adopted an inherently competitive notion of marriage; which is oxymoronic.
@MMM
That may be true, but when government has become a means of enforcing culture then the difference becomes irrelevant.
Not true, and that’s my point. Here’s the difference: You can’t kill a hammer, but you can the wielder. We have to kill the culture, and you do that by outbreeding and out-succeeding the dominant culture.
@ Cane
Good point. Both of them.
But a better method then killing the wielder would be to pry the hammer from his hands and use it against him. So the question comes down to which method is more likely to succeed. Fighting the culture while it still wields the hammer or taking control of the hammer against the culture.
An expansion on my previous post after I re-read it:
The current legal framework places the husband into the same position as a pastor. A pastor may have moral authority over his congregation but no legal authority. Most people will follow the leadership of a pastor until it becomes uncomfortable. Hell, most people won’t even do that. Thus continuous pandering. Thus a broken church.
Why would we then expect a familial relationship to succeed under the same conditions? A husband without legal authority is simply playing at leadership.
Men and women have hamsters. The main and only difference is that women think the hamster is rational while the men know that the hamster is only a rationalizing module to be dealt cautiously. It does not help that women have their baser innate drives hidden from awareness by a stricter compartmentalization between their reptilian and mammalian brains. It is as if an invisible curtain within a women’s mind divides one from the other.
Vain Yogi,
“Men and women have hamsters. The main and only difference is that women think the hamster is rational while the men know that the hamster is only a rationalizing module to be dealt cautiously”
For me it’s more like women have hamsters to compensate for logical gaps, and men have goats, to push through and endure abysmal logical gaps.
Otherwise, really, there wouldnt be blue pill nor any of the current problems. The logical mind alone could figure this out quickly, if it wasnt all focused on helping the goat push in another direction.
@MMM
But a better method then killing the wielder would be to pry the hammer from his hands and use it against him.
Haha. It would be fitting, but it doesn’t usually work that way. David slew Goliath with the sling he had, then he picked up Goliath’s sword and chopped his head from his body.
Why would we then expect a familial relationship to succeed under the same conditions? A husband without legal authority is simply playing at leadership.
Only if you subscribe to a materialist viewpoint. It is very hard to feel like you’re leading a family when no one is following you, but that’s simply not true from the eternal perspective. The leader finds the way; then the leader points the way; then the leader walks the way. A husband is to be a leader of the eternal reality; not a slave-trader of the material one.
What I think you’re concerned with (rightly) is exactly what we should expect to happen when either husbands don’t lead, or wives don’t follow: mass chaos in the material world. Hopefully, you can do a better job than me at remembering that the wheat and the chaff will be separated in the next Life; that what constitutes the church today, will be scrubbed of parasites to become the Church of Tomorrow.
To clarify, I meant joint physical custody, which would mean no child support. I wouldn’t divorce my husband anyway because 1) I made a commitment for the rest of my life, 2) I love my husband and wouldn’t want to hurt him that way, and 3) It’s much better for the children to have both parents in the household all the time. But, if I was tempted to divorce and found out that I actually wouldn’t have my kids 50% of the time, there is NO WAY ON EARTH I would ever do it. Most women I know wouldn’t either. They’re willing to hurt the kids by taking them away from the father, which they rationalize as being for the kids’ own good, but they’re not going to want to lose half their own time with the kids.
@morterman
Isn’t “game” partially about making yourself more attractive to your spouse? It wouldn’t make much sense for me to say “it is a waste of time doing my hair and exercising to be more attractive to my husband when I could be doing blank for the overall benefit of the family” because putting basic effort into being attractive to my husband is beneficial for my family.
Not sure if you mean men should always have legal authority over women or just husbands over wives? Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem if my husband had legal authority over me, I picked him because he is a good man and I trust him. But if my father had had legal authority over me into adulthood it would be another situation. And if for some reason I was widowed, I can safely say my husband would not want my father to have any authority over me or our children.
Nice analogy regarding David and Goliath.
You’re right. I was looking at leadership from a worldly perspective. But that is because that is where we are living. God set that system up knowing that it’s application is for the current fallen world. Family leadership is only important in a fallen world. Once He returns and the Church restored the dynamic changes completely. I wasn’t speaking to that time, but to this one..
Current laws give women legal authority over men. They may have the appearance of neutrality or egalitarianism but in practice, women have authority over men in marriage. When a woman can have a husband thrown in jail on a whim, take his children, take the fruits of his labor – she has authority. It is not only that the man has no legal authority, that would be bad enough. The authority is actually transferred to the woman. We can dance around all we like about husbands ‘leading’ and wives ‘submitting’ but until that changes men cannot actually lead.
“The leader finds the way; then the leader points the way; then the leader walks the way.” True, but if nobody follows him, he ceases to be a leader. He may be doing right, but he is not leading.
——–
“We have to kill the culture, and you do that by outbreeding and out-succeeding the dominant culture.” Well, guess that’s on you guys then. I’ve failed at both points. I’m just here for the mental ‘masturbation’ as someone else called it.
——–
Keep up the good work Dalrock.
Family leadership is only important in a fallen world.
Why do you say that? Eve was given to Adam–under his authority–before the Fall. It’s a pernicious lie that they were egalitarians before the Fruit Incident.
True, but if nobody follows him, he ceases to be a leader. He may be doing right, but he is not leading.
A captain is a captain even if his crew has left.
I hope one day you’ll get out of this funk. The Church–and the culture–needs good single men, as well. Sometimes more. You have a freedom from responsibility that married men don’t. Your position is far from hopeless.
Well my understanding of biblical times leads me to believe that yes. Women were always under the authority of some man. I was not speaking to that however. I detect that you view that as a negative. I suspect that you also only see the female side of that dynamic. You do realize that your father would not only have authority, he would also have responsibility. Women rarely understand the significance of that. Leadership is not easy. It sounds great, until you’re actually doing it. Leadership is hard. It is possibly the hardest endeavor most people will attempt. Most good leaders make it look easy. Thus the ‘led’ think they’re getting the short end of the stick. Never realizing the responsibility that goes along with that authority. In biblical times yes your father would still have Responsibility for you/ authority over you.
Once again, I was only speaking to marriage.
As far as game, that was not the game definition I was speaking to.
“It wouldn’t make much sense for me to say “it is a waste of time doing my hair and exercising to be more attractive to my husband when I could be doing blank for the overall benefit of the family” because putting basic effort into being attractive to my husband is beneficial for my family.”
Doing those things to please your husband would not be a waste of time. Neither would him doing the type of game you mention. Those would be simple gifts given to each spouse out of love. It is when those activities becomes a requirement to maintain the family that it becomes an issue. If a husband has to ‘Game’ his wife to earn submission (constantly and perpetually) then it becomes counterproductive and a waste. See the difference?
Yohami,
“For me it’s more like women have hamsters to compensate for logical gaps, and men have goats, to push through and endure abysmal logical gaps.”
Is that why stories and fiction appeal to women while dry tomes full of facts reassure men? Goats are aware of the abysmal gaps they have to leap over, get a slim to very slim chance to prepare, but the effort involved can sometimes distract their attention. If so I am not sure how a hamster’s stories can be stable enough to run across the gap. Please, do build bridges.
Cane, when I said “legal advantage”, I was referring to how things used to be, before feminism. Women were not allowed to own property. When a woman’s husband died, the property would go to his nearest male relative, who was not required to provide for the widow and children, even though his inheritance of the husband/father’s property left them destitute. A woman also was not allowed to divorce an abusive husband, even one who was severely abusing the children. (I read of one case where a woman tried to divorce her husband because he was raping her daughter, and the divorce was denied by the court.) If she was able to divorce him, he automatically got custody of the children, even if he was abusing them.
This is probably part of the reason why feminism was able to succeed initially. A decent man isn’t going to want his widow and children to be left in poverty on his death. A decent man also will want his widow to be able to divorce whatever man she remarries if he ends up being abusive to her or the children. Early feminism was able to gain support from men because of the clear injustices in the way the system was set up.
Now it’s been taken too far, and the injustices are against men. I think the first step to fixing this would be to make divorce and child support / custody laws truly neutral, in practice as well as in theory.
However, I don’t think the government needs to be involved in what goes in people’s homes, unless there is abuse or divorce. A man should be able to lead without the government enforcing his authority. What could the government do anyway? Put women in stocks if they don’t obey their husbands?
Yogi,
“Is that why stories and fiction appeal to women while dry tomes full of facts reassure men? ”
Women dont like fiction, they like emotional drama and aesthetical escapades. Men like fiction and mechanical stuff, and data, when they can plug the data and build something with it and make sense of the world.
Neither is related to the hamster / goat. The female hamster comes in place to fill the gaps created by rapid emotional and automated movements that made no sense, but that have to be processed rationally somehow. The male goat, pretty much does the same, only that pushes farter distances and is able to survive for long long periods without air nor food and keep the peace, with the aim that if it “achieves”, then the whole thing will be rationalized on his favor someday. He might be on the abyss now, but he´ll reach the other side. The hamster, on the other hand, cant process the abyss nor the distance. It’s too worried looking for water and a little comfort in the here and now.
*without air nor food and keep the pace (not the peace)
@ Cane
Yes, Adam had authority over Eve. However, after Christ returns, He will wield ultimate authority. The family relationships we have here today will not exist. The husband/wife dynamic will be replaced. Thus I believe the model of the family as outlined in the bible is only for us while we still live in a fallen world.
I’ve been fighting this funk for a decade now. Sometimes with more success then others. No I don’t feel hopeless, just directionless. I have no vested interest in this world. Just living one day after the next. Thanks for the thought though.
Good day to you all.
@Höllenhund
From the first link:
What strikes me about this is the common misconception we suffer under now regarding what this means. Men like Stanton look at this and conclude that women civilize men. What they don’t understand is that marriage and the opportunity to have/lead a family is what gives men a stake in an orderly society. It isn’t the magical influences of females, and it isn’t proximity to women or even wedding ceremonies.
I know that you and I ultimately fall on different sides of this, but what I think is your fundamental point is still correct. Women have voted themselves near absolute authority in marriage. With this over-sized authority comes near absolute responsibility if the marriage fails, whether they like it or not. This means they can’t blame anyone else if their emotions get the best of them and it all blows up. Her husband can offer her his own emotional stability as a sort of gift, but it only helps if she chooses to accept the gift and submit to his leadership.
@30-Something Woman
I think more accurately men were able to empathize with the corner case injustices which while exceptions did occur. What they didn’t understand was that the empathy fundamentally only ran one direction.
Yohami,
Thank you for clarifying the hamster/goat concept. I grossly overestimated the female hamster w.r.t. the abyss.
Dalrock, maybe so. I know my husband would be against going back to the nearest male relative inheriting and women not being able to divorce abusive husbands both because of empathy for women in those situations and because of what might happen to our children and me. If he died and his father inherited our property, his father would not take care of me and the children (his grandchildren). Plus there would be the worry about what could happen to our daughter when she is old enough to marry.
I’ve talked to people who seriously want to go back to that. I don’t get it. Sure, we’ve gone too far the other direction, but that doesn’t mean we need to go all the way back to how it used to be and start ping-ponging between extremes.
@30SW
Your fantastical worries are pretty funny.
What strikes me about this is the common misconception we suffer under now regarding what this means. Men like Stanton look at this and conclude that women civilize men. What they don’t understand is that marriage and the opportunity to have/lead a family is what gives men a stake in an orderly society. It isn’t the magical influences of females, and it isn’t proximity to women or even wedding ceremonies.
Very true. It isn’t about the women per se, it is about how the men decide to order their relations with women. The current order is “laissez faire” which is the same as “the jungle rules”. That represents very low male ordering of relations between men and women, which results in decreased trust among men, increased sexual competition among, and increased female power vis-a-vis men. An earlier ordering was more beneficial to most men (which also means viewed more favorably by most fathers at the time), whereas this ordering is more beneficial to a subset of men and to fathers who want their daughters to be independent (which is most fathers). The key problem is how men decide to order their relations with women, as a sex. Yes, women have a say in this, too, but the bigger issue is how men decide this amongst themselves, and currently there is no consensus among men, which results in chaotic competition to the advantage of women, as as sex. The civilizational advantage of having most men “engaged” is now widely assumed to have passed due to the rise of the Hubby State and female economic wealth gains — so there isn’t value seen any longer in the idea that most men should be tied into society by means of having mating opportunities and child-raising opportunities. That’s considered very passe, very “agricultural revolution”, dontcha know?
Dear Suz, the factor you aren’t taking into account is feminist legal persecution. Seminars aiming to instill ‘true masculinity’ are exactly what feminists want – something they can embellish as proof of some misogynist, male supremacist conspiracy designed to destroy women’s rights (or something like that). This is exactly the kind of response feminists always wanted to provoke. The mainstream media would have a field day with it, and the men involved in the seminars would get laid off, ridiculed in the media, accused of hate speech and sexual harassment at court etc. In other words, the whole enterprise would fail and end up causing even more needless and pointless male suffering. I, for one, therefore cannot support such an idea in good conscience. The notion that men are responsible for cleaning up society’s mess, that they should sacrifice themselves for the so-called common good is exactly the mentality that got us into the current mess in the first place.
And to answer your question: no, there’s no need for other venues. The mainstream media will never endorse anti-feminism, any attempts to make it do so will backfire. The disease will run its course in time.
30-something, laws were never slanted in favor of men. That’s a typical feminist lie. In fact, laws were slanted in favor of monogamous marriage as a lifelong institution plus the general well-being of children.
Dalrock, while on the subject of ‘bare branches’ in China, have you ever read a book called “Unnatural Selection” by Mara Hvistendahl? I haven’t yet myself, but the good Simon Grey did an interesting write-up on it a little while ago, which you may find intriguing:
http://cygne-gris.blogspot.com/2012/04/book-review_30.html
In the comments I also bring up a couple of questions about porn and/or VR and sexbots as a solution to these problems, his responses to which are as worthy as the post itself, IMO.
Every woman who files a divorce has been abused
@Cane Caldo
This was my initial thought, but perhaps I’m simply uninformed. I did a quick web search and found surprisingly little hard information on the topic of unmarried adult women’s property rights in the US/UK. Most of the smoke appears to be about married women having the right to own property separate from their husbands, but they appear to be deliberately vague about what the real issue was. The vagueness strikes me as concealing a reality which didn’t fit the hysterical picture but I’d be delighted if someone can educate me here. At the very least, I would be interested in knowing when and where 30SW is referring to when she writes “before feminism”. 1800s US and UK? Early Roman empire?
Well, the fears are fantastical anyway, as they are just easy to slip stream into the ever flowing narrative about “what if he abuses her”….and other ogre like proclivities men must be prone to.
The thing is, preventing divorce or allowing divorce has little to do with abuse continuing. Its common sense, getting physically away is what has an effect. There are tons of other salient facts about abuse that negate these fears or ameliorate them at least. Feminists want to use these what if scenarios to press back. In fact Im not sure where the idea came up here anyway. Correct me if Im wrong but the inheritance and other notions originated with 30SW
If Im wrong, forgive me….if Im right…why would she raise such things?
Maybe she has just heard them so much that she doesnt realize that they are tools and is innocently parroting them. I hope so. But I think not. Saying “he wouldnt want me to not be able to divorce the man who was abusing men if I remarried” was a telling stretch of the hypothetical.
The laws need to protect the family. Period, end of story. The SAFEST place for a woman is in marriage, period, as it is for kids. The outliers cannot all be codified. But I submit thats not the idea anyway, the idea is fodder for the status quo with a tiny bit of tinkering
What would happen to the daughter when she is old enough to marry? I dont sit and worry about “whats going to happen to my daughter when she married”….why would 30SW’s husband worry over such a thing?
The trick of conflating divorce with safety has proven useful, but I say CALL…..its over. If there are people defining life through the worst case, using extremes to decide the daily, I would recommend relaxation techniques
Just look at how quick the MSM was to jump on that ‘war on women’ crap after the Rush Limbaugh dust-up. The progressives and the media are poised to keep those ‘fantastical worries’ right there in the consciousness of every woman. At the slightest hint that the legal environment may shift back to reality all those mean ‘ole patriarchy stories are pop up.
That is an excellent way of looking at it. I CALL as well. The burden of proof is now completely on women. Show me the proof. You claim your husband was abusive? Show me the bruises. Women have lost all credibility with me. Claims of any perceived or potential wrongs are now falling on deaf ears. They’ve cried wolf too long. Fantastical fears of the female mind indeed.
Worried about what’s gonna happen when her daughter is old enough to marry?? How about worrying about what’s gonna happen when your son is old enough to be divorce raped. That at least is a real current threat. No, let’s worry about some possible future scenario that will never happen.
@ Höllenhund
“The notion that men are responsible for cleaning up society’s mess, that they should sacrifice themselves for the so-called common good is exactly the mentality that got us into the current mess in the first place.”
Seconded! Sadly I had that mentality for a long time as well.
One more year under my current oath, then I’m free. I will no longer be serving two masters. I’m done being this cultures whipping boy. I’m good enough to sacrifice for the women folk, not good enough to be trusted with authority. I’m done being their pack mule.
Dalrock, Jane Austen is an ok guide for early 19th century and late 18th century UK property law. Women could have property settled on them, but they only inherited if a patrilineal (male relative) option was unavailable. So girls received cash/stocks/real property, but generally couldn’t inherit land easily. This meant that they were protected to some extent in a poor marriage (there was money even the jerkiest husband couldn’t gamble or scam away) but generally had to marry to maintain or improve the living standard they were raised under.
Of course, all this applies to people who had money enough for all this to matter, which was not the majority of the population.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/29/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights-ii-coverture/
That is also helpful, though not the alt-right link I was looking for on the topic.
[D: Thanks!]
The property rights issue was one of the things that upset Elizabeth Cady Stanton so much. I’ve read that she personally knew women who were destitute after their husbands’ deaths because the closest male relative inherited instead. I did a quick search online and have only found overviews of her life, nothing in that kind of detail, so it’s possible what I read previously on inheritance of property was inaccurate. I do know that it was possible for a man to set up a trust for his wife and children in the event of his death, but he would had to have been fairly wealthy to be able to put enough in it to be worthwhile.
Pretty late comment here, Jacquie (May 29, 2012 at 5:04 pm). That church you and your husband want to attend sounds just like a Driscoll type from your description. Find out if they hold women accountable or if it’s just the same “man up” nonsense before you get too excited. Dalrock’s post about pastors cutting husbands off at the knees in front of their wives is a good one.
BTW, this isn’t a worry of mine, because it’s extremely unlikely ever to happen. I have known people though who do want that. I actually talked with one woman who thinks women shouldn’t even be allowed to drive. Sure, when my husband and I are in the car together, he drives. But who would drive the children to the doctor when he is working if I couldn’t drive?
And I still don’t get what the one commenter (was it Cane? not scrolling up to check) meant when he said the man doesn’t have authority without the government enforcing it. Is he wanting legal penalties for women who don’t obey their husbands? My husband doesn’t need the strong arm of the law to back him up in order to be the leader in our family.
I don’t see divorce as really being a safety issue, especially if a woman is able to provide physical evidence that her husband is abusive to her or his children or vice versa. Just like if she/he is proven to have physically assaulted someone else, they should be immediately shipped off to spend time in jail anway, nobody wants people like that on the street. I don’t see marital rape/abuse as being a widespread worry, most men are smart enough to realize that brutalizing their wives isn’t exactly the way to home peace. Ya’ll have to sleep sometimes too. If such laws were in place fewer women would marry, which is a good thing. Thinking “this is what I am married to forever” sure made a difference in the choice I made.
@30 There are some pretty interesting comments in male authored novels of the time about what men thought when “married womens property rights” came along. So I doubt you are inaccurate, basically my understanding was before they put the above law in place, woman could bring property into the marriage but if their husband died it went to the next heir, not back to them. And evidently there were some issues with men just blowing everything their wives came in with too. The laws insured that the property would revert to the women/children or reserve portions of it to provide for the wife/children( in my admittedly very general understanding.)
@30 I have actually seen families with the “no driving” rules. Makes for interesting economic issues. Kind of goes with “women will never work outside the home, under any circumstances” mentality. Personally, I think if the captain is incapacitated, the first mate better be darned able to get the crew safely to shore.
Antigrrrl, can you give the names of some of those novels, just off the top of your head? I’m wondering if I’ve read any of them without noticing that. And the line about the captain being incapacitated, exactly! When my husband was in a serious accident, it was a good thing I could drive and had access to bank accounts, etc. I’ve talked with a few women who don’t want their names on accounts. The accounts are in the husband’s name. That’s insane. What if he’s in the hospital, as my husband was, too injured and in pain to handle financial matters?
I think some women dream up a fantasy and then want their lives to fit it. It could be the I’m-strong-and-don’t-need-a-man illusion or the I’m-so-submissive-I-can’t-drive-or-have-my-name-on-a-bank-account fairy tale. Neither one seems healthy. I don’t see too many men really wanting either the ball-busting bitch or the incompetent little lady who can’t drive to pick up a sick kid from school.
@ 30
One I was thinking about was “The Forsyte Saga” but it was written a bit later ( last book in series 1921) than the setting I think (starts in 1880’s), I think Anthony Trollope goes into it a bit, but then he seems to go into everything. Like Ayn Rand, makes me wonder if he even knew what editing was.
Sometimes I think the “helpless” thing is almost spousal abuse (towards the husband) because some of those ladies are hell bent that the husband should be sole financial support of the family, and woe betide him if he isn’t. Like he is a terrible Christian man and husband if health/circumstances prevent him from bringing in income.
@30SW
“And I still don’t get what the one commenter (was it Cane? not scrolling up to check) meant when he said the man doesn’t have authority without the government enforcing it.
It was me. (Possibly Cane as well.) I did not say the husband doesn’t have authority. He doesn’t have legal authority. Biblically, he still has moral authority. For as long as the woman wishes to honor it. Which will be right up to that point she doesn’t feel like it anymore. The government would not need to penalize the wife. The husband would have authority to penalize rebellion by withholding privileges or resources. It would not be the governments place to do so, but it would not be the governments place to interfere either.
“Is he wanting legal penalties for women who don’t obey their husbands?”
Do you mean like the legal penalties in place today for men who don’t obey their wives?
“My husband doesn’t need the strong arm of the law to back him up in order to be the leader in our family.”
Because he’s probably leading you where you want to be led, for now. You are choosing to follow along with his direction. You are judging his leadership to determine whether it is worthy of submission. The day you no longer view his leadership as worthy he only has moral authority to fall back on – which is basically no authority in this day. If a woman was truly submitted to the moral/spiritual authority of her husband, his legal authority would be meaningless.
Their is no leadership without some authority backing it up. Legal, moral, spiritual, parental, etc… That is because with leadership comes responsibility. Responsibility without authority is a trap.
@A Lady
Dalrock, Jane Austen is an ok guide for early 19th century and late 18th century UK property law. Women could have property settled on them, but they only inherited if a patrilineal (male relative) option was unavailable.
Her stories deal with land that was mixed in with titles. When the Duke of Nevermore dies, someone else has to be the Duke, and his wife the Duchess. You can’t be creating nobility out of thin air and against tradition. If you did, pretty soon you’d have Barons Rifflepants, XXIV. The land went with the title because of the ancient system of fealty, the responsibility to provide men-at-arms, lead them, etc. America does not have codified classes and titles, so there’s no risk.
@30SW
BTW, this isn’t a worry of mine, because it’s extremely unlikely ever to happen.
Then I must conclude that you conjured it up to be a club; in case some man got too big for his britches. Still funny. Still revealing.
@Dalrock
This was my initial thought, but perhaps I’m simply uninformed.
I thought more about it, too, and the more I did, the more I wondered about what else was invented; and what good is it to arm such people with property? In a round-about way, she is convincing me against her argument.
(Possibly Cane as well.)
No, I argued against that notion; that the true Authority had invested authority in me as a husband regardless of the law.
I think his authority is derived from God, if it were just legal I could find ample ways around it. Many men were “whipped” long before they got screwed over by the government, if someone doesn’t want to submit, they won’t. Even the government cannot make people submit, or there would not be prisons. You can give someone ample encouragement to submit, which will make it more likely, but in the end there is always free will.
Good points 30-Something and Antigrrrl,
An incompetent woman is a burden.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Purely Blogroll Selection Edition « Patriactionary
Cane, I have no idea what a “club” is. Must be some sort of manosphere terminology I haven’t encountered yet. I scrolled way back up to find the comment I was originally responding to, which was from Hollenhund, “Men will lead women when they can exercise legal authority over them. Nothing will change until women’s privileges are annihilated.”
He’s basically saying that men can’t lead their wives unless they have the government to back them up. I’m contending that men don’t need a legal advantage such as they previously had. They just need a level playing field when it comes to divorce and child support and custody laws. Men tend to naturally be more aggressive than women and more likely to take charge so take the current prejudice in favor of women out of the system, and men ought to be able to manage the rest by themselves. Granted, not every man can lead, and not every woman can be led, but that’s why personal choices are so important.
Antigrrrrl, if Anthony Trollope’s writing is anything like Ayn Rand’s, I can’t read it. I’ll look it up on Amazon though to see if I can make it through his stuff. And yeah, I see your spousal abuse point. Having the man as the leader is great, but he shouldn’t have to carry the entire load. His wife should be capable of pulling her fair share.
Cane, I have no idea what a “club” is. Must be some sort of manosphere terminology I haven’t encountered yet.
Just a plain metaphor; comparing you bringing up (supposed) grievances against shadowy past men, to you bearing a wooden stick meant for beating.
But you’ve got me thinking…God created the world, and then he entrusted it to Adam. Interesting. Some time later, He says, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Not a partner; not a co-conspirator; a helper. Maybe women shouldn’t own property.
@30
Trollope gets really, really wordy. But he is also so old he is free, if you have a kindle or the like. I liked “Barchester Towers”, he really makes a point on how bad the church in England was already at that point, and the way he writes is fairly amusing. I have not been able to get into much of his other stuff, he just loves to hear himself talk too much.
@David Collard
As others (and me) have said, Australia and NZ has the same Anglosphere-mindset-of-females-problem:
Marital Prostitution, is what they call sex in a marriage now.
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life/blogs/citykat/the-prostitution-of-marriage-20120529-1zh6l.html
The comments are wonderful, and bring the hamster to light most effectively.
I wonder what Alte and the rest of the hamsterisers have to say about that 🙂
P Ray, it is late here. But what I see in that article on cursory examination is a woman journalist trying to make trouble. The Age is a failing newspaper, and they probably need to attract readers.
“But you’ve got me thinking…God created the world, and then he entrusted it to Adam. Interesting. Some time later, He says, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Not a partner; not a co-conspirator; a helper.”
Looking to what scripture says about a woman being a helper, Proverbs 31 tells how a woman should conduct herself under her husband. She has earned the trust of his heart and she does him good. It also tells of her considering a field and purchasing. Since women didn’t own property she would not have purchased it on her own, but on behalf of her husband after she did the footwork, gave him all the information and then he gave the final decision. She was not at all ignorant of good value and business sense.
The Bible is also filled with plenty of Jezebels, women in power who probably had much influence on how the women of the time behaved in their own homes. There were also rebellious women in the early church. Paul admonished the women of Corinth for their outward rebellion regarding head coverings. It has been mentioned that man needs legal authority for women to have to submit. In the days of Corinth this may have made it easier for the men in the church to rein in the women since they did have the law to back them up. But who reined in one such as Jezebel but God. He is still in control.
A class I took recently taught that it was the Christian church that was a driving force for many of the rights and privileges that women have gained through time. That it has been the church to put women on a pedestal and as the church grew so did its influence throughout the world. This is just what the church brought on itself; reaping what they have sown.
One has to wonder what God thinks when he sees what has become. He knew all this when he created the world and yet he still created. There has to be a purpose.
But who reined in one such as Jezebel but God. He is still in control.
That is such a great–true–story.
When Jehu came to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it. And she painted her eyes and adorned her head and looked out of the window. And as Jehu entered the gate, she said, “Is it peace, you Zimri, murderer of your master?” And he lifted up his face to the window and said, “Who is on my side? Who?” Two or three eunuchs looked out at him. He said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down. And some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her.
She gets all gussied up (what a vain, uppity bitch), and then killed by her own emasculated pets.
Thanks for reminding me of this! It needs to be cross-posted elsewhere.
@Brendan 5:32 pm
I agree with your assessment, as usual, but I also think Lord Valtrex is also right in a way. Once feminism takes hold in any culture, it saps it of its vitality, be it economic or military, as male-female cooperation breaks down and matriarchal free-for-all replaces it. Such cultures are vulnerable to foreign attack because they are incapable of resistance. When the wellspring of trust between men and women is poisoned, men no longer defend the common good. A feminized Afghanistan would’ve been easily subjugated either by the Soviets or the Americans.
The Bible does not say that women can’t or shouldn’t own property. When the woman in Proverbs bought property, it does not say in whose name she bought it.
In the book of Ruth, when Boaz wanted to marry Ruth, he had to offer the option to another kinsman first, because the other man was more closely related to Ruth’s dead husband and so had a greater claim on the property. He had to marry the widow to get it though, which he declined to do. So Boaz married her instead and inherited the property.
Under that system, the closest male relative did inherit, but he had to marry the widow so she was cared for. That was the way that culture worked, but nowhere does the Bible say women couldn’t own property at all. Besides, I can’t see too many guys wanting to marry their dead brother’s wife and take care of her for life in order to inherit the dead man’s property. If I recall correctly, they also had to consider their first son to be the dead man’s son in order to continue his line if he died childless.
Oh, and didn’t Caleb’s daughters inherit his part of the Promised Land because he didn’t have sons? They at least briefly owned property, even if it went to their husbands after marriage.
I agree with your assessment, as usual, but I also think Lord Valtrex is also right in a way. Once feminism takes hold in any culture, it saps it of its vitality, be it economic or military, as male-female cooperation breaks down and matriarchal free-for-all replaces it. Such cultures are vulnerable to foreign attack because they are incapable of resistance. When the wellspring of trust between men and women is poisoned, men no longer defend the common good. A feminized Afghanistan would’ve been easily subjugated either by the Soviets or the Americans.
It’s true — it’s trust in general having broken down — between men, between men and women and so on. Everyone out for themselves, no social glue. This really results from sexual chaos and unbridled sexual competition, which is what happens when you have a “laissez faire” sex/relationship market, really, with a few winners and lots of losers. It leads to alienation and a breakdown in trust, which weakens social bonds generally over time.
When Jehu came to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it. And she painted her eyes and adorned her head and looked out of the window. And as Jehu entered the gate, she said, “Is it peace, you Zimri, murderer of your master?” And he lifted up his face to the window and said, “Who is on my side? Who?” Two or three eunuchs looked out at him. He said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down.
She gets all gussied up (what a vain, uppity bitch), and then killed by her own emasculated pets.
Gotta wonder, given the customs of the day — she may have been the one responsible for their castration in the first place. They may have joyfully jumped at the chance for payback.
Anybody know the best bullet weight for hamster hunting?
Never waste ammunition on anything smaller than a wolf unless you need food desperately.
— US Army Survival Manual, 1940s
@van Rooinek
The smallest thing they had was a .30 Carbine. If you shoot a squirrel with that you aren’t going to get much of a meal. That’s why small game hunters like .22 long rifle and .410 shotguns. Hamsters (of any size) are not edible.
What is the point of this property argument anyway? The idea of moving the pendulum I suppose was raised, and these are points of alarm for women?
But want if _________________??
It started from my response to Hollenhund’s comment stating, “Men will lead women when they can exercise legal authority over them. Nothing will change until women’s privileges are annihilated.” In my response, I mentioned property rights as an example of the way things used to be. The broader point I was making was that men don’t need the kind of legal advantages they used to have. They just need a level playing field. Apparently, the property rights example touched a nerve though. I still find it hard to believe that some folks feel women shouldn’t be allowed to own property.
Hollenhund still has not explained what he meant by the original comment. It sounds as though he thinks there should be legal penalties for women who disobey their husbands.
I’m not sure what you want be to explain. I merely stated that men cannot be expected to behave as heads of families as long as they aren’t recognized by law as heads of families. Leadership implies authority. Shouldn’t that be obvious? Marriage 1.0 was an insitution where both sides had legally defined duties, and it was the husband’s duty to lead.
It sounds as though he thinks there should be legal penalties for women who disobey their husbands.
——————————————————————————————
No. It doesnt. This is par for the course, pick and extreme interpretation then debate against that as if thats what was said. Its been going on here for a few pages now. Fear over daughters wedding, fear momma may not get her money, fear momma gets abused if she remarries, now men want laws to enforce wife obedience
Suz…..where yat?????
On womens legal superiority in marriage read the book
Taken into Custody
Stephen Baskerville
and read his well researched and footnoted articles here:
http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/default/
Then lets talk about throwing out wild hypothetical points about women and their potential plight in order to temper us mean ogres
Hollenhund, what does that legal authority entail? And why would men need the strong arm of the law to enforce their authority? And is he really even leading if he has to rely on “legally defined duties”? What if the circumstances of that family require different duties? For instance, what if the law does not allow married women to work outside the home, but her husband has a disability or debilitating illness? I’m personally a SAHM, but I’d rather that be something my husband wants, not something the government decrees.
We don’t need the government telling us how to conduct our marriages.
Men who want to be heads of their families don’t need the strong arm of the law to enfore their authority. What they need is the strong arm of the law NOT enforcing his wive’s attempts at undermining and dissolving his authority.
Hollenhund, if you mean that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to take a man’s children away from him through divorce and then force him to pay her for doing so, I would agree with you. If women didn’t have the advantage in divorce, they wouldn’t file for one so often. I think without that threat hanging over a man’s head, more men would naturally lead.
Maybe there ought to be an option for people who want to consider their marriages to be legally binding contracts. You could specify before the marriage what actions would break the contract and result in divorce. If you did that with a prenup now, it wouldn’t stand up in court.
The government should not be able to mandate “legally defined responsibilities” or “legal authority” though. Level playing field, I would agree with. Legally binding prenups, I would agree with. Legal authority or advantage to one gender or the other, no. The government doesn’t need that kind of control over people’s personal relationships. Especially since another group of politicians could get in power and change the “legally defined responsibilities” or “legal authority”. That’s way too risky, for everyone involved.
30,
I don’t think any reasonable people object to females owning property that they have earned or inherited. Indeed if more women had to earn their property, they’d probably be less inclined to vote their property into others’ hands. The problem is with women who acquire assets through the courts – primarily divorce theft and “welfare.”
(Emp, WolfAlpha is home…)
@30somethingwoman
Part of the discussion in the UK over same-sex marriages has suggested that because the word ‘marriage’ has become so misused, we ought to allow a new covenant, called, say,’Holy Matrimony’ which could only be dissolved by the church acting under Biblical principles. and could only be entered into in a church. One suggestion has been that churches stage a marriage strike, ie if you want to be wedded in church, then you have to agree to enter into a covenant of Holy Matrimony which is not enforceable or dissoluble in civil courts. Alongside this there needs to be support for marriage by the church by instituting Community Marriage Policies as described by Mike McManus of Marriage Savers. Basically what the argument is saying is that if you want to have the protection that you would have under civil law as it exists right now, you need to get married in a civil ceremony, but if you want to have a Christian ceremony, you will have to agree, and the state will have to agree, that the state has no role in ending the covenant relationship that it had no part in starting.
One of the problems with any common law based system is that pre-nup agreements are invalidated in most instances by the event of a marriage of one or both parties to the ppre-nup.
UK Fred, I’ve never heard of a group proposing anything like that. Have they said what the causes for divorce would be? That solution still wouldn’t work for non-religious people. It wouldn’t work for people who leave the church they were married in or leave religion altogether after marriage (as my husband and I did).
Suz, I’ve talked to people who actually think women shouldn’t own property, including a couple folks in this thread. I would agree that that’s not reasonable.
Feminists know that, given a level playing field, at home or at work, men will tend to dominate. So they have taken care to slant the laws against men.
The problem with a pre-nup, is that it is routinely invalidated or disregarded by the courts (or so I often hear… no personal experience.) The laws of state-recognized “marriage” ultimately trump the pre-nup when push comes to shove.
It may be time for traditionalist men, to abandon state-recognized marriage entirely and consider that route: Handle whatever legal exigenicies attendant to living together and having kids, by means of a contract, a contract that won’t be invalidated by state marriage laws because there isn’t going to be a state recognized marriage. This approach is called “contractual cohabitation”. (Watch out if you live in a common-law marriage state though).
If you must, for spiritual reasons, get married, then by all means have a sacred church or synagogue ceremony. But don’t get the gov’t marriage license. Just a civil contract. If the girl won’t take that deal, she’s after your house and money. Oh yea, and DNA testing of all offspring should be a part of the contract.
This would be the position I’d take if I were still single, knowing what I now know. Fortunately, I seem to have married well, so it’s moot…. But I offer it for consideration, and this will be the counsel I give my sons when they get older if things don’t change.
Any lawyers out there who can comment?
Since I am a SAHM, my husband would not be able to claim me on his income tax return if we weren’t legally married. Also, at least here in the US, the courts could easily disregard any part of the contract that has to do with possible future children of the union.
It would probably help with preventing divorce theft. You’d have to talk to a really good lawyer and make it airtight though. Remember Anna Nicole Smith. She managed to get a huge chunk of money that her husband did not leave her in his will.
David, that’s right on!
David I disagree. Its a quaint notion, but no, men will not dominate in the ways that are feared, or the ways that are important.
30-s keeps saying:
“And why would men need the strong arm of the law to enforce their authority? ”
And why would women?
If a woman is widowed it is her husbands brother that is REQUIRED to marry her.Gosh read a bible.If no brother, the father takes the harness,if no father than the church.
Also all this talk of absolutes:
A “decent” man can and would provide for his wife via a will whilst also leaving something for the son.
Same with the abuse angle:there are plenty of sufficient laws against assault, no need for the nuclear option now encouraged.
The whole point being that a moral woman engenders support by good faith and works.
Families used to stick together because:
1. That is the law from the Bible.
2.It naturally came from the inherent solidarity that comes from male leadership.
Since we are telling anecdotes:
Mother has consumed the entire inheritance from her fathers life
(not a problem as she’s the only child)
She has also consumed the entire resources my father produced.(his choice)
But there is no inheritance for me as the son.
I saw this coming in my formative years and the instability is one of the factors I never had a family of mine own.
Now she thinks she is entitled to all of MY property and effort for the remainder of her life after father passes.
No,this is too much.
Father COULD have made a living will were she had all the resources till her dying and day and still made SURE I would have it in the end,but the feminist churches have reversed his mind against this time-proven scenario.
I have given both pater and mater the fruits of my labor via the family business and there is no reward forthcoming.
What’s more I cannot trust her to leave an inheritance due to the Oprah style man-hating that has been ensconced in her mind.
Logical outcome:
I must fend for myself as an orphan and abandon Mater in her declining years.
This is what happens in an anti-christic society.
No solidarity,all self interest for the fems and daggers from “the law” 30-s claims no one needs.(except women)
BTW@mortarmanmike- I feel ya brother.Good posts.
I’m off on my own too, this society can go to hell in this life and the next.
@30SW
Suz, I’ve talked to people who actually think women shouldn’t own property, including a couple folks in this thread.
Oh? And who is that?
Exactly, it was never said that I can find, and its been quite the diversion
Cane, here are the two examples I found in this thread of people who seem to think women shouldn’t own property. Please note the name of the first person I quote.
Cane Caldo, May 31, 2012 at 12:39 am
“But you’ve got me thinking…God created the world, and then he entrusted it to Adam. Interesting. Some time later, He says, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Not a partner; not a co-conspirator; a helper. Maybe women shouldn’t own property.”
Jacquie, May 31, 2012 at 8:39 am
“Looking to what scripture says about a woman being a helper, Proverbs 31 tells how a woman should conduct herself under her husband. She has earned the trust of his heart and she does him good. It also tells of her considering a field and purchasing. Since women didn’t own property she would not have purchased it on her own, but on behalf of her husband after she did the footwork, gave him all the information and then he gave the final decision.”
Jacquie quoted you first, then went on to talk about the virtuous woman in Proverbs in support of your statement. This in spite of the fact that the book of Proverbs never states her husband bought the property. It says she bought it.
Freebird, typically the brother would marry the widow. If there was no surviving brother, then it was the closest male relative. If he didn’t want to, then he had to take off his shoe and make a statement declining to marry the widow. Then the next in line could marry her, as Boaz did Ruth. Perhaps you should read the book of Ruth, which happens to be part of the Bible.
@30SW
Are you familiar with the literary device known as satire? If I were to use the phrase “I’m goading you for making monstrous leaps of logic to bring up really old shit that we 21st century folks had no part of.”, what would that mean to you?
You’re digging your hole deeper by bringing up Jacquie’s commentary. She did not state that women should own property. She made a case about how women and property are discussed in the Bible.
Suppose you really investigated this (because you have a genuine fear and not just because this is some outlandish sidetrack meant to credit or discredit men; AKA, a shit-test), and you discovered, lo, the Bible does seem to support property rights for husbands, but not for wives? Who goes: God, or your real estate broker?
Cane, so your initial stance was that no one said women shouldn’t own property. Then after I quoted you saying exactly that, you changed your mind and said it was “satire”. Jacquie was agreeing with you on your women shouldn’t own property comment. She even quoted you. Apparently she didn’t take it as satire either.
You last paragraph in your “you misunderstood, it was satire!” comment shows that it wasn’t satire. If that’s really your position, stick with it and defend it instead backpedaling. Either that, or just say, “Wait, I changed my mind.”
30SW
He said “Not a partner; not a co-conspirator; a helper. Maybe women shouldn’t own property.”
You are derailing pages over that statement, which is NOT a definitive statement that he thinks that.
Your feminism is getting more manifest. Im not sure why I saw it in your very first post, but I did. I stood corrected when suz and dalrock said no no no she is not that way.
I think you are “that way”, because there is just no reason for this obsession with what he said other than using it as a kind of bouncing off board for you to them make points
@Empath
Just for the record, my argument was specific to one set of comments by her. I do see feminism in some of her other comments here.
I’ve always considered myself to be anti-feminist because I don’t believe that women should have privileged status and I don’t believe that divorce, child custody, child support, and domestic violence laws should be biased against men. I also don’t believe that men are stupid or unnecessary, which seems to be one of the main tenets of modern feminism. I also believe that men, in general, tend to be more dominant and natural leaders, and women, in general, are not as likely to have those traits.
But if all of that counts for nothing, and I am really a feminist because I do believe in property rights for women and do not believe that men need to lean on “legal authority” from the government to lead their families (as it sounded like Hollenhund was initially saying), then so be it.
@30SW
You are not tall enough to ride this ride.
30-Something Woman
I can’t see anything wrong with what you have said.
I do just want to comment on modern feminists thinking men are stupid and unnecessary. I really have to wonder what planet they are living on. It must be a planet where women have invented everything and keep it all running.
On property ownership, and why I think you’re chasing after a red herring, 30 Something.
It’s not that men had property rights and women didn’t, some men had property rights, far fewer actually had property, and then there’s everyone else. My ancestors were peasant farmers and craftsmen from northern France. They didn’t own their land, their lord did, they worked it for him. That was they way of things in most of the world in most of history.
Which is another salient point, for most of history, and in the context of the Jane Austen novels, when we’re talking about titled land, it’s not in the American context, it’s in the context of land belonging to a title, i.e. duke, count, etc. The ability to inherit titled land in this context had nothing to do with the ability to own private property as we think of it today, but the Byzantine inheritance laws passed down from feudal times.
And even in the American context, not every man could own property for many years. As has been previously mentioned, there were previously many factors determining exactly which men could own land, including race, religion, and probably other factors. And of course you actually had to come by it, which meant inheritance or buying it. And since at that time wealth came mostly from land, if you didn’t have it you were likely not wealthy enough to buy it. Again, even in the American context, that meant that ‘men’ didn’t all have property rights, and far fewer owned property. And since being a property owner, in addition to other criteria, was initially a requirement to vote, guess what, not all men voted, again, probably a minority.
Universal suffrage has always been taken to mean women getting the vote. Guess what, there were lots of men who weren’t voting till then either. For example, I believe that the Franchise Act in Australia that gave voting rights to women also eliminated the restrictions regarding the necissity for male voters to be property owners before being able to vote, meaning many men voted for the first time too.
In other words, all of this bellyaching and it’s not fair and bringing up all these extreme examples as if women were the only ones hard done by historically is simply hyperventilating feminist balderdash, the vast majority of men had no more rights than the vast majority of women at any time in history. But hey, since history is mostly about dead white males, there’s no need to bother with it, why not just create our own stories that justify how we feel about things, after all, the hamster hasn’t lied to anyone yet.
Paul, the problem is women never get this information in their history lessons. Instead, they get a cartoonish history of “women’s oppression”, suitable for the minor minds who go into teaching at high schools. You would think they might ask themselves who was more oppressed in 1917, the ordinary man who had to go and fight in the trenches or his sister who did not. But that never seems to occur to them.
History as feminist sob story is all that women get in their education. You cannot entirely blame them for their ignorance, except that it helps feminists foment hatred, which is their main goal of course.
And then we get into the entire question of whether any old idiot should be allowed to choose the one who governs an entire nation. Should the functionally illiterate moron down the street with a 75 IQ who thinks Obama is gong to give us all free money from his own personal stash, really be allowed a part in choosing which person gets to have the power to wipe out the entire human race with the push of a button? I’m not sure this is ethical.
I am sure it’s logically absurd. Democracy, as Franklin said, is a lamb and two wolves voting on what to have for dinner.
Maybe, if we actually went further back in history, we would find there were characteristics of monarchy that our society is sorely missing today. Our Anglo-Saxon ancestors in the age of King Alfred for instance (most of whom were NOT serfs, BTW) would not have put up with our totalitarian divorce court system for a day… Back then even an illiterate man without a penny to his name had the right to appeal. Not so anymore.
But we have iPhones now so I guess that means universal suffrage is better.
I certainly believe women always have had property rights and certain sections of the good book support that theory.
It’s always been a cultural truism that what’s his is hers, and whats her is hers.
If the wife has had a business of course she’s entitled to the profits thereof.
My personal experience is funding the fist two years of mothers real estate career before she turned the fist commission check.
She did moderately well for the next 10 years.
But to hear her tell it,she’s slaved upon hands and knees for 30 years to feed her family and no on else’s efforts counts at all.
A professional martyr if you will.
This self centeredness is the reason I’m sure no inheritance is forthcoming.
The patriarchal system of father to son is one that builds a strong family of the next generation,one that is required to provide extra for mom later in life.
None of that applies to me as that biblical requirement has been disregarded,so has my filial duty in turn.As to 30-s comment 354, she’s just agreeing with me.(inadvertently I’m sure)
Oprah and Dr.Phil have a lot to account for.
One the fist hand mater says “you need to find a good woman to take care of you in your old age” and on the other “I need to make sure If I leave you anything you won’t wind up giving it away to some woman..”
This double mindedness is exactly why she can’t be trusted.
I want to say “well why don’t you find some ‘deserving’unwed mother to leave it to and cut out them middle man and save me those 15-20 of servitude to you in your old age.”
To Pater:
“you may as well get a reverse mortgage and live it up while your alive,because I doubt there is going to be anything left in the end for me anyway.”
This after 20 years of service to Pater and Mater via construction business that did not pay into SS or 401k.
Now tih the back injury:I’m screwed,blued and tatto’d.
(yes it was my decision at the time,but when did a young man know enough to plan for himself w/o pater’s good advice?)
He failed,she’s failed,I’m failed, all by lack of true biblical direction-which I blame directly on the flawed churches.
How annoying to hear of their ‘bible studies’ and activities in the financial planning of the church insurance industry.
I want to say “you get what you fund/subsidize-and you did not invest in your son’s future-do not complain about no grand children.”
Lacking a daughter to invest in, I’m certain mater plans to use and discard me (again) at the last moment.
Logical outcome:
Abandon mater in her declining years and fend for myself as an orphan.
Thanks femininty/churchianity!
David, thank you. You seem like a rational, calm person. I guess all that Aussie sunshine turns the blokes out right. 🙂
@SW30 & DC
Hahahahaha!
CC, what is so funny?
As for being calm, 30, I have had years of practice with my wife.
As for sun, well normally. But it is grey and wet outside today.
Your game, David.
David has a point about education. I aced the Constitution test both in 8th grade and 11th. We discussed blacks getting the vote and women getting the vote, but I don’t recall any discussion of MEN having ever been excluded. And that was 35 years ago. We can’t learn what we don’t know until we find out what we don’t know.
Assumptions are pervasive and women are less likely to even notice them. Men question what they’re taught, men challenge. Men notice the holes in the story. Women spackle; we need a clean narrative, so we tend to automatically fill in and smooth out the uneven parts. That’s how we connect to other women to create our support networks – we don’t challenge each other.
If 30 is here to learn, and she’s educable, kudos to her. At her age, I’d have been a lot less willing to seriously consider the wisdom here.
If 30 is here to learn, and she’s educable, kudos to her. At her age, I’d have been a lot less willing to seriously consider the wisdom here.
Your stated conception of learning is to regurgitate what someone has told you. What you described between “Assumptions…” and “…each other.” is what learning is. Another way of saying that is: Women don’t learn until they’ve long been adults. Learning is what you do, not what is done to you. This more demonstrates the folly of bothering.
Regardless, this is all beside the point. Let me be clear so you and 30SW can understand:
I have no intention of starting a movement to revoke women’s property rights. I have never been concerned with what the Bible has to say about women owning property before this conversation. I’m sorry to say it just wasn’t on my radar. My wife and I own everything. Together. As it should be. This bit of conversation started when 30SW went to several paragraphs of pain to stress that men should in no way be given a legal “advantage” over women; lest we go back to the bad old days of women not owning property; having to submit to the care of an adult male; (Which now seems downright reasonable in light of your comments on women not being able to learn.); and, of course, viciously low divorce rates.
Some time later, when I explicitly said that I was engaging in satire for the sake of irking her*, I asked what she would she do if she investigated for herself what the Bible had to teach on female property rights, and found that it disagreed with her modern sensibilities. Again I haven’t done this. While I have stated many places that women shouldn’t vote (check out my sexist cred!), I have never once, anywhere, seriously postulated the idea that women should not own property. Only once have I done it insincerely, and that was in this very thread.
Now, I wouldn’t ask her that question again because I know a couple more things about her.
1) She’s so invested in her ideas that merely asking her a hypothetical question about what she would do if she found out different information makes her automatically assume that such a position is, in fact, my position; I’m just too afraid to say it. Please.
2) In this thread she’s mentioned leaving a church, a small group (an evangelical unit of study/worship), and Christian friends. On UMan, she congratulated a man for “deconverting” from Christianity; whose blog has, as one focus, of being anti-Christian. It suggests to me that she left not only the Church, but Christ, too. That’s fine, but I never would have suggested she study the Bible for an answer to a question if she’s not a Christian.
So, I think my initial summation was correct: She’s terrified there are men out there banding together for the sake of taking away her rights. She’s got to find out what they’re plotting, and she if she can derail them from this madness! It doesn’t matter to her whether the bad old days were actually the good old days, or just different old days. Her position is that they’re old days that don’t meet her qualifications for “equality”, so they are de facto bad. That’s fine too, but I don’t have to treat her arguments like they’re sensible, or even relevant. In fact, I’m going to do the opposite, and deride them as the shrill incantations of feminist hysterical voodoo that they are. You can see above how willingly she took up the mantle herself.
I’m not at all convinced that learning is her reason for being here, but by all means: teach away.
*(And erroneously wrote that Jacquie did not said women should own property, when I meant to say that Jacquie did not say women should not own property.)
I think Vox Day, who supports removing the franchise from women, has pointed out that women held property rights before they could vote. But he is talking about America, not my country.
Cane, people do learn gradually. My views have changed a bit over the last couple of years, due to contact with the Blogosphere in general and the Manosphere in particular. I think we should give 30 the benefit of the doubt. If she turns out to be some kind of subtle feminist troll, I am sure we will find out soon enough. It is surprisingly common for trolls to expose themselves accidentally.
(My language brings to mind some kind of evil feminist workshop where more and more sophisticated feminist trolls are created by a wicked witch.)
@ Brendan 1:00 pm
This is obviously not without precedent, but what I consider to be a real game-changer this time is that it’s occurring all over the world. Every country is becoming more and more feminized, even in Latin America and the Middle East. Feminist female politicians in Egypt and Tunisia are getting more attention, for example, and Roosh had an excellent post about the anti-male law in Brazil. Traditionally when a society became matriarchal and thus economically and militarily weak, they got overrun and replaced by stronger patriarchal cultures. But there aren’t any patriarchal cultures anymore, so we only see encroaching matriarchal squalor everywhere. Thus different countries and cultures are no longer a credible threat to each other, what we have instead is every society being weakened and threatened by masses of its own unattached, disaffected single men.
ust for the record, my argument was specific to one set of comments by her. I do see feminism in some of her other comments here.
————————————————————————————————-
Materfully done!…..just kidding, yea they were specific to that post, and Im not about to scroll around looking just to see if you intimated any general comments about her. Whats good is that the force is finally strong here Luc
Can it be Cane has put paid to this tab? Otherwise how long before Dalrock adds the “Property Rights” category in his header?
sheesh
Höllenhund
This is a good observation on your part. In the US we have our foil hat guys. The conspiracy theory types that come up with the new world order stuff. This is what it looks like when you set up something like that. The world will just move into a feudel dark age. there will be a ruling class and a vast majority of billions in the slave working class sueing and argueing with each other for the very limited (on purpose) resources. To “fix” the resource problem they will move to a one world government. It will be like the US with each state having it own laws but all of the laws will be on federal guide lines. Like drivers licenses are the same state to state along with blood alcohal levels for DUI and drinking age etc etc. Misandry and feminsm will be universal. easily past off as good due to the female vote. No matter how bad it gets even with death camps and what have you to pay for it women will vote for misandry. That is why you have a republic based on a written constitution.
Cane, people do learn gradually. My views have changed a bit over the last couple of years, due to contact with the Blogosphere in general and the Manosphere in particular. I think we should give 30 the benefit of the doubt. If she turns out to be some kind of subtle feminist troll, I am sure we will find out soon enough. It is surprisingly common for trolls to expose themselves accidentally.
You be Ed Exley. I’ll be Bud White.
Cane,
“Your stated conception of learning is to regurgitate what someone has told you.”
No, that’s what women do and it’s not learning, it’s memorizing. Learning is when you compare what you’ve memorized with new information, and analyze the contradictions instead of ignoring them. I suspect that’s what 30 is trying to do, but you don’t agree: [“She’s terrified there are men out there banding together for the sake of taking away her rights.”] She could just be terrified that everything she “knows” might be wrong. Learning the truth can mean stepping away from everything one has always trusted. It’s scary.
I do agree that “women’s property rights” is a non-issue, and 30’s delving so deeply into it is rather pointless. That’s why I stayed largely out of the conversation.
She keeps bringing up HER understanding of it, and the question is “Why?” Does she want more detailed information so she can see how her past “education” is wrong? Or is she trying to cram her perspective down your throat? I see three ways to deal with her: Ignore and/or ridicule, presuming she’s a clever troll. Engage on her terms (and if she’s been reading female sites, those are the only terms she knows.) Give her facts and see what she does with them.
I sometimes wonder how many people thought I was “trolling for tingles” when I first started commenting on men’s sites. Time will tell whether she actually wants to learn, or is an attention whore.
The pointless focus on this one issue is an unusual approach, its as if she found some tiny leverage, even if its created from whole (or at least partial) cloth and cannot let it go.
Ignoring THIS issue though is a good start, lets see how it goes for the rest. I dont think she trolls for tingles, i dont think she is a RAGING feminst, but I do think she is as dogged as one
I agree, Emp.
@Cane Caldo
Strike one for our previous plans of glory. I hope you are at least still on board with the plan to create sammich making reeducation camps.
Absolutely. Nor have I laid aside our “Wenching: Dutifully Delivering Beer”, manual.
Gotta be pita bread and free range organic you know, sammich, in fact she can tend that garden
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/02/does-eating-organic-food-make-jerk/
Pingback: End Single Mothers Torturing of Children. Children Need their Dads. - WMASAW..
Pingback: Stanton’s wake-up call. | Dalrock
Pingback: The cult of women’s self esteem. | Dalrock
Pingback: Rape avoidance, prevention, and escape - Acquaintance rape considerations - PreDefence
Pingback: Women’s self-esteem: boosted to their self-destruction - Fabius Maximus website