In a recent series of posts The Social Pathologist relays his professional observations regarding the differences in the men and women he treats in his medical practice. In Hypergamic Affirmative Action, he explains:
In my experience, women today seem to have more “balls” than men do. They seem more driven, more ambitious and can make stuff happen. They seem to cope better with adversity than many of my male patients. With most women, life goes on. The kids need to be fed, the uniforms washed and the bills paid. Many men flounder. My readers may not like this but they are my objective observations.
This seems to be a common concern today, especially in the media. What is happening to men? Why won’t they man up? I’m not entirely sold on the scope of the claim, but there does appear to be at least a kernel of truth here. In line with The Social Pathologist’s observations, there is evidence that on the margins at least young men feel less motivation to put in the effort needed to be prepared to lead a family.
What strikes me however is that we really should have seen this coming. Over the long term, mismatches of authority and responsibility tend to meet an adjusting force. We live in a culture which is terrified of men having power and authority in the family, and the culture is acting accordingly. At the same time, our society is increasing the legal responsibility men take on when they have a family. Where authority and responsibility used to be in alignment there is now an astounding mismatch.
Each year the law responds to ever greater levels of paranoia that husbands might have any power over their wives. This is after all what divorce reform is all about. During the marriage it is intended to provide a threatpoint in order to move power from the husband to the wife. Should that not be sufficient, the divorce regime kicks in expelling the father from the household (removing all power) while legally enforcing his responsibility. We also see this in the ever more absurd domestic violence legislation and enforcement. Not only are domestic violence laws and enforcement based in a corrupt intellectual paradigm, but each year they become more sensitive to any perceived transgression by husbands. It is now against the law for husbands to be rude, insulting or angry. But even this isn’t enough, so officials in the UK have taken the extraordinary step of calling it what it is. From the Daily Mail (H/T Feminist Hater):
At the moment, domestic abuse is generally taken to refer to acts of physical violence. But police and prosecutors will be expected to use the new definition when identifying and monitoring cases, meaning men who abuse partners in a ‘controlling’ fashion could face charges too.
The article explains that the definition of “abuse” now includes husbands who pressure wives not to associate with bad influences and who control the finances.
Not to be outdone by law enforcement, Christian leaders have jumped on the bandwagon. It is common practice to cut men off at the knees from the pulpit and in the box office. Christian author and blogger Sheila Gregoire explains in one of her books that biblical headship means the wife giving her husband a list of chores, while Dr. Mohler fears that pornography will jeopardize the Christian wife’s ability to control her husband via denial of sex. Everywhere you look in our society you will find outright terror at the thought of men having power, especially husbands.
While we might argue about the speed and magnitude of men’s reaction to such a shift, as well as the specific mechanism we might observe (marriage strike vs weakened signal, etc), I don’t see how one could argue that an overall decline in men’s eagerness to work hard in preparation to lead families is surprising.
We wanted non threatening men, and now we have them.
Responsibility without authority is enervating to a man of conscience.
If I could rent a billboard, I’d paste that last sentence right next to a busy expressway.
Yes, paying the bills with money gotten from working a government job while the kids are in government-subsidized daycare.
“In my experience, women today seem to have more “balls” than men do. ”
A half century of snipping them off men and surgically attaching them to women will do that to ya.
Is there even a reason to be married in Britain anymore? Their laws are terrifying.
It’s also hard to motivate oneself to “man up” when your only realistic option is a fat chick or getting and maintaining a slender one is an unending, very difficult, and completely unpleasant chore.
“Responsibility without authority is enervating to a man of conscience.”
Exactly. Why in the world would a man go through all the hassle of owning the risk for success and failure, when his ability to act effectively has been hobbled? We don’t give sprinters iron shoes and weight vests and expect identical performance. “Man up,” indeed.
They’ve done everything they can to stop boys from being boys, and then wonder why men aren’t men.
“In my experience, women today seem to have more “balls” than men do. ”
That’s cute. So women doing what every other woman does and is commended for it every step of the way takes balls. While men don’t have balls, because they are going against the grain and being shamed and made fun of while they do their own thing. So having balls now means you do what everyone else does. I though that was what having tits meant.
When most women use phrases like grow some balls, what they really mean is grow some tits, and like the rest of us.
I had a conversation a few months back. We were talking about what it would take for me to get married. I gave my prerequisites, number one being that on all things that matter my decision would be the final decision. I actually used the words, my way or the highway. I got the response that there has to be some flexibility in the relationship, that no woman would stand for such a situation.
The conversation stopped once I uttered the words, God gives the responsibility for the family to the husband, if the authority, (legal and moral), does not come with that responsibility then the husband has no ability to do his God given job.
What I take away from these observations is this.
With no father there is no family, with no family there is no church, with no church there is no example to a fallen world. At that point the world stops being propped up and the accelerating slide to chaos and destruction begins.
This may be a bit of a digression, but the above reminds of an article i read awhile back. The crux of the biscuit in the piece was that there are X number of women than men earning college degrees and X number of of the same going for advanced degrees and not so many fellas. The explanation according to the author was that women, now unfettered by the erstwhile repressive white man’s society, were free to pursue their true calling.
My take on the phenomenon is that for at least the past four decades the skids have been greased for ‘minorities’ in these areas while at the same time obstacles erected for those not in a ‘preferential group’. My two cents. Speaks to M3’s comment.
And so the solution is return to patriarchy and Biblical marriage: wife submits to husband, wife respects husband, husband loves wife.
The objections to this are manifold, of course:
Well, he doesn’t love me! He’s not NICE to me!
He puts me on a budget!
He gained weight during our marriage!
He won’t submit to the pastor!
He doesn’t like the pastor!
He tries to LEAD me in deciding where we will go to Church!
He demands that I account for how I spend money!
He wants me to have sex with him three times a week!
He wants blowjobs!
When I argue with him, he argues back and stands up for himself! That’s MEAN!
Look, he’s going to f**k it up. I should not have to follow him. I can make the decision better.
He’s been wrong before. He’ll be wrong again.
He doesn’t even know what to do. I’ll just do it.
Balls? Hmm. I thought they were the latest fashing in earrings. 😉
One female blogger complaining about the Peter Pan Syndrome said it best when she said, “After all, women are the new men.
P.S. – In my previous post, it should read “… latest fashion in earrings.”
Imagine for a second, the life of these “happily married” men. They have zero control over their life, that of their children and the “wife”. They know that, should their wife be unhaaappy, they will be forced into celibacy, financial ruin, eviction, and incarceration. Therefore, everything is “her way or the highway”, and they get no respect, no recognition of their work, and no say in anything that happens in the house – especially regarding the children.
Are these men “husbands” ? No way, it is obvious (if one can see beyond the labels) that they are slaves. Slaves to the matriarchical household (which really is: woman+kids), and slaves to the female-supremacist state (which is the actual “husband”).
Slaves have never shown much ambition and drive about their daily activities. Why would they?
I am a 63 y.o. Christian: there is nothing here; the ordinances of the Amorites are at their fullness: let it burn and the false church with it: from sea to shining sea.
But Deti, how the hell would the White Knights have even the mental possibilties to have affairs with these chicks if they don’t placate them?
I believe that all White Knighting and giving power away to women all has to do with subconcious desire to add these women to the hareem.
The man in question might not know it or admit it but when he sticks his nose where potentially pussy is involved, it’s a primal desire for sex. Pastors included.
To quote Lewis, they castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.
@FuriousFerret most pastors are betas elevating themselves to alpha status through their position, much like politicians. They then stand at the pulpit and convince men to become more beta. The side effect is a large number of women coming up to him and saying “I wish my husband were a leader in our house like you.” He gets as much trim as he wants. Some take advantage of it and others don’t, but he gets a ton of female attention.
Njartist49 @ 918:
Wow. Just…wow.
I see this in the military a lot as well, women have the freedom to use “colorful language” and behave in ways that mimic how she imagines a man might have behaved 50 years ago. Men don’t have the freedom to do that and they know it, their career would be over in no time if they did what women can do and be rewarded for. I believe that the rise in homosexuality (for both men and women) is because of this reversal in behavior.
Is the fear pathological or is it the culture itself?
Women kinda messed up here because they did something they shouldn’t have. And that’s put a knife into the backs of men to get where we are at today. Many need to realize that many women aren’t our companions, our lovers, our sisters, or our friends. They are the enemy simply because they tossed masculinity under the bus and either kept the accusatory tones going or stayed silent in order not to rock the boat of the sisterhood and conform. And maybe when they day comes and men “do find their balls”, it won’t be to take charge of old roles but to take back what was once theirs. And if that happens, women will not like it. Even the so called “good one’s”.
Yeah, let’s look at what he defines as ‘adversity’:
“The kids need to be fed, the uniforms washed and the bills paid.” In other words, woman are better-suited to the running of a household with kids. Wow, now there’s Deep Thought TM for you. And notice the words ‘the bills paid’, i.e. actually paying the pills, vs. earning the money that is used to pay the bills. Statistically speaking, who does that, the fish or the bicycle?
So let’s see, we completely redefine the workforce to be more female friendly (i.e. stable 9-5 hours, nice safe office work which is essentially a continuation of your liberal arts program, in a ‘safe’ and ‘respectful’ environment) and by law make sure that teh wimminz get access to this (to the jobs they want, none of this applies to anything that involves sweat or icky things), do the same for school, and then when somehow the laws that say at least 50% of the spots must go to teh wiminz regardless are enforced (by manboobs and white knights) and succeed in having over 50% of the spots go to women as designed, we are to accept that this ‘success’ just goes to show how great teh wiminz are when not held down by ‘the man’. Of course, the fact that ‘the man’ is holding down men far more than ‘he’ ever did women is completely beside the point.
And now that we have also completely re-defined and re-engineered ‘success’ and ‘having balls’ so that it also means ‘doing what comes naturally to women and what they want to do anyway’, we are shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that those that are getting everything they want served to them on a silver platter are having a better time coping than the ones given a shit sandwich and being told to polish the silverware.
Our wonderful, towering, intellectuals, advancing their tautological arguments as if they were anything but utter, mindless drivel. Funny how we can live in an age with the shiniest toys, but dullest minds.
It all sounds like a really good reason to pick up my balls and leave the game. Wonder what the sheila’s will play with then?
“Should that not be sufficient, the divorce regime kicks in expelling the father from the household (removing all power) while legally enforcing his responsibility. ”
Great observation! This is why when the wife seems to have lost all interest in sexual relations, the husband should know that divorce could be right around the corner. Because at that point what does she need you for. If there is no true intimacy, hence the avoidance of the ultimate expression thereof, and she can still get from you what she wants whether local or remote, why deal with the complexity of a live in relationship. Especially when there is no shame to be had on her part, only a heroes welcome.
Slumlord also has this:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2012/09/as-if-on-cue.html
Dalrock, your readers should also read that article and the comments. He got some good responses.
Summarizing, Slumlord writes of a consultation with a competent woman, has a job, works hard, planning for her future, has her shit together. She’s in a relationship with a loser man. Instead of standing up for himself, he deflects, dissembles, blames others for his failures (especially his GF, the counselee), and argues “like a girl”. He’s irresponsible and can’t keep a job. Her father thinks he’s a bum. She’s unhappy.
Slumlord’s response (paraphrasing) is that the man is the problem here, not the woman seeking counseling.
“Many in the manosphere would view this woman as a demanding bitch. I don’t. She would be a good modern fit for Proverbs 31:10-31. She has independently, on a low income, saved money and bought herself a house, put tenants in it and has a long term plan for the future. She is keeping down a job and has been able to organise her own affairs. She wants a stable future and does not want to live in poverty. By the way, I’d estimate her BMI at about 22. Such a woman is percieved as a threat to Western Civilisation by the manosphere. Facepalm.
On the other hand, her boyfriend, who can’t keep down a job, is poorly organised and pathetic and relies on his wife for everything is paraded as some form of victim of modern Western Civilisation by the manosphere. Houston, I think we have a problem.
Now, it may be my opinion doesn’t really matter here, but what I think is most telling is the opinion of her father, who seems to have his shit together. He thinks his potential son-in-law is a failure as well. I feel that the father’s opinion may have some validity.
The manosphere has quite rightly denounced the corruption of women by feminism but what it has been unable see is the failure in modern masculinity. Roosh and Roissy may get lots of lays but they would have hardly been though of examples of masculinity either in Roman, Greek or Victorian times. Hedonism was always the “soft” option of manhood. And the reality today is that many men are soft. Not so much physically as in character. Women are far “harder” today and more self disciplined. Making women “softer” may restore some of their femininity but it no way guarantees the masculinity of men. Taking away a woman’s rights does not give a man alpha qualities.”
_____________________________________________
Here’s my take on Slumlord’s comments:
Of course he’s not masculine or responsible. No one ever taught him to be, and no one ever expected this of him. He’s skated by on his looks, his bad boy/badass/alpha/I-don’t-give-a-shit personality, and his dominance and confidence. And what’s in being masculine or responsible for him, anyway? What does he gain from it? Burdens — supporting a wife who hates him and children who can report him to the cops for spanking them. Obligations: working like a dog to take care of a wife in a marriage which has a 50% overall chance of failure. Why should he do any of this? For what purpose?
And what of the woman? She’s putting up with his shit and his whiny pussified self. She’s seeking relationship counseling. She’s not even married to this waste of human flesh. If he’s this bad and he’s this much of a hassle and she’s such a StrongIndependentWoman, why doesn’t she kick this piece of human debris to the curb?
She puts up with him and f**ks him and stays with him….. because he’s hot. Because he tingles her. Because he’s Harley McBadboy or Alpha McGorgeous. She stays with him because she doesn’t want to live with or f**k Eddie Steadyman or Tom Teacher or Paul Plumber or Ernie Engineer or even Louie Lawyer, and she certainly can’t see staying with one of them for the rest of her life. She wants to go on dates on a motorcycle or in a droptop Jag, not in a Toyota Corolla. She wants to go to rock concerts, not movies. She wants fun, excitement, drama, mystery and intrigue, not dull drudgery of day-in-day-out marriage.
OT: Brendan has showed up again.
socialpathology.blogspot.hu/2012/09/as-if-on-cue.html?showComment=1348845418333#c3205245391889675424
This isn’t a light topic, and one that I contended with for years before discovering the Red Pill. And as good as a marriage as I had with Mrs. Ironwood, things didn’t go to 11 until I stopped being afraid of being seen as dominant in my relationship and un-apologetically embraced my own masculinity. Once I realized that she couldn’t ask me to lead, I just had to do it, things fell into place. And we didn’t have any scriptural authority to appeal to (or to argue for or against), I just started leading and most of the time she was all too willing to follow. I didn’t announce it, I didn’t lecture about it, I just did it, and quit caring about what her BFF, her sister and her mother would say. That’s the key: giving up the fear of other people’s perceptions.
If the system fears husbands gaining power, then the two tactics to take are to make less husbands (marriage strike/MGTOW) and to support the husbands who are doing it right (Red Pill marriages). When the value of “husband” goes up in the SMP, then we all benefit. That will by necessity separate us into those who go their own way and enjoy the manboy peterpan lifestyle of a Puerarch, and those who are earnestly trying to build quality families and raise high-quality children, the family man Wolf Alpha husbands — the neo-Patriarchs.
The two lifestyles can be quite complementary, if men can recognize that they have common issues and concerns and then realize that the two are more like phases of life than commentary on a man’s character. The worse the Puerarchy is, the better the Potential Husbands look. The higher the value of Potential Husbands, the easier it is for the Puerarchy to score. The Puerarchy filters out the “sexually liberated uninhibited tarts” from the Potential Mothers Of Your Children. The Patriarchs intervene on behalf of the Puerarchs in terms of protecting areas of masculine endeavor from female encroachment or intervention. Eventually the Puerarchs either mature into Patriarchs themselves when they’re in their 30s and settle down to marry that hot 25 year old Costa Rican babe who just wants to have babies, or they settle into a Valhalla-like lifestyle where they please themselves without supporting a woman. For things to work well, we Patriarchs need to support the Puerarchy’s right to be peterpan manboys. That way, when we need a pack of chaotic flying monkeys to descend, they’ll respect us enough to comply. And when they need to get bailed out of jail, well, someone did it for us. The Circle of Life.
I understand the Biblically-inspired inclination to try to get these overgrown boys to grow up, finally, but life in the 21st century isn’t going to work using 3rd century rules. Young men fear their own masculinity because they’ve been taught to loathe it by most of the women in their lives. They’ve been taught to be ashamed of their natural male impulses and desires, and (unfortunately) Christianity hasn’t done much to valorize and validate the benefits of a mature masculinity. You can blame either too much permissiveness or too little, but either way Christianity isn’t doing Men any favors as a class. Consider the sins of the Puerarchy the necessary growing-pains required in this day and age for a boy (or manboy peterpan) to enter mature manhood without the direct benefit of a strong father figure.
You can be quite sure that there will now be a rash of false mental abuse allegations from women keen to tighten a screw they have already wound. Every day I reflect on the relief I feel for being single. The only marriages that the British State is interested in are homosexual ones (but how I wonder are they consumated? – I mean, non-consumation leads to annulment and not dissoution of marriage).
@Deti:
Here’s my shorter interpretation of the situation:
Woman: Penny wise, Pound foolish. She doesn’t have “balls”, but she is a good parrot of what you’re “supposed” to do. That’s not determination, that’s herd following.
Man: Far smarter than the other two people that were in the counseling room. He doesn’t have to do much of anything to enjoy his life and can avoid all responsibilities. Yes, he is an overgrown child, but society will let him be just fine that way.
Oh, and any mental medicine professional is going to have a MASSIVE systematic selection bias. Higher income women (who can’t handle their own problems) are the main user of the services. When it comes to the men, it’s those with generally severe mental impairments. In other words, he’s not seeing even “normal” men.
On the topic as a whole, it’s really quite simple:
High Risk, Little Reward = no one takes the risk. If the Left ever figured this point applies to most things in life (especially taxes), the world would be a better place.
Regarding domestic abuse claims, watch how Judge Judy smacks down this bitch for bringing false domestic violence accusations against her former partner to counteract his allegations of destruction and theft of personal property and as a weapon in an upcoming Family Court case.
Shame there isn’t more of this. Interesting to note however, how Judge Judy acknowledges the inevitability that the woman will get custody of the child in Family Court.
http://antimisandry.com/good-news-forum/judge-judy-slams-woman-false-allegation-48986.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#axzz28K7lUTH1
Why in the world would a man go through all the hassle of owning the risk for success and failure, when his ability to act effectively has been hobbled?
Because women honestly, to their bones, believe they are worth it. They have been told this since the day they were born, and the more successful they are, the more of a prize they believe themselves to be.
Oh, and any mental medicine professional is going to have a MASSIVE systematic selection bias. Higher income women (who can’t handle their own problems) are the main user of the services.
That was Sigmund Fraud’s schtick from the beginning, separating money from rich women. Psychology is a bulls**t field, full of neurotic bulls**tters and bulls**tees.
Au contraire! I use psychology on a daily basis. I work in advertising and marketing. Works like a charm. Hell, half of Game is psychological manipulation. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t bullshit — it is just useful bullshit.
A few days ago I sensed a growing attitude of Men in the ‘sphere saying essentially “Marriage doesn’t look good to me. Fatherhood doesn’t look attractive to me. I think I’ll do what I want, live how I want, and never marry or reproduce.”
Now I’m sensing a growing attitude of “you know, we’re sitting around whining and complaining about how bad we have it, and people like Slumlord and Matt Forney and Mentu and Rollo and Ian Ironwood are right. Maybe we do need to “just get it” and just start being men and being who we are instead of bitching about teh wimminz.”
Men right now are redefining what it means to be a man. It used to be that “being a man” meant you prepared yourself for marriage and fatherhood; and that in turn meant you prepared yourself for a lifetime of work. You went to college; learned a trade; got out of high school and just started working somewhere. That was what it meant to be a man. There’s a lot of yelling at men to “man up” and Slumlord’s posts are the latest version of it. It’s just that men are starting to define for themselves what “man up” means to them. And I think more and more men’s versions of “man up” do not look like Glenn Stanton’s, or Mark Driscoll’s, or their wives’, or Churchianity.
I think also that a lot of women — married and single — are not going to like what the new version of “man up” is. Mostly, it will mean men doing what they want for themselves and their families, not what society or churches or pastors think they should do. It will mean more and more men foregoing marriage, leaving bad marriages, and finding alternative arrangements to traditional legal marriage.
It is also going to mean more and more men not working in high paying jobs, for two reasons: (1) women hold a growing number of them; and (2) most men either cannot get them or simply don’t want them. With no wife or children to support, they simply don’t need a lot of money, so they don’t put in the time to earn it.
The future will not be pretty , and women will not like it. The patriarchy is coming back, one way or another. Increasingly, it looks like it will come by force, rather than by choice.
And a man prepared himself for marriage because this was the only legal, cultural and socially sanctioned avenue to get sex. Human nature being mostly immutable, sex is what the man REALLY wants, but he was willing to get married and trade his independence for it because that’s what he had to do to live within the cultural restraints imposed on him.
Maybe I’m hanging out in different corners of the manosphere, but I have seen discussion of that. There’s not as much, because A) the corruption of women by feminism has been a more drastic change in recent history calling out for a response, and B) the failure of men is at least being addressed by the mainstream, if not accurately, while the failure of women is going unremarked upon — or being blamed on men.
I don’t think anyone in the manosphere thinks men are in awesome shape. But we’re wary of going down the path of saying that women are just screwed up because screwed-up men started it. That’s just another way of saying women are pure and innocent and men are the cause of all evil. Yes, effeminate men have allowed women to become ball-busters, but those women are ultimately responsible for their choices. Likewise, ball-busting women have encouraged men to be soft drones and PUAs, but those men are responsible for their own choices too.
The manosphere has quite rightly denounced the corruption of women by feminism but what it has been unable see is the failure in modern masculinity.
Given the level of beta shaming and male self improvement themes overwhelmingly present in the manosphere, one is tempted to ask what planet Slumlord lives on, until one remembers that most of his practice is probably counseling for women.
Cail, BC:
Yes, there’s been discussion of the “failure of modern masculinity”. Actually I think it’s in part a society-wide rejection of traditional masculinity. (I’m not saying this is a good thing; but that it is happening.) The issues are (1) what does “masculinity” mean, (2) how does traditional masculinity fit into things now; and (3) what does it mean to be a man in today’s society?
NO matter what happens, there will be a significant group of men who will not marry. This group will grow greatly, I think. Some who marry won’t stay married. Still others will return to “traditional masculine” roles in marriage. I think a lot of men will opt out of higher paying jobs or simply be unable to get them. “Being a man” thus will not necessarily include marriage and fatherhood, and in more and more cases, manhood might very well exclude marriage and fatherhood.
I think also that a lot of women — married and single — are not going to like what the new version of “man up” is. Mostly, it will mean men doing what they want for themselves and their families, not what society or churches or pastors think they should do. It will mean more and more men foregoing marriage, leaving bad marriages, and finding alternative arrangements to traditional legal marriage.
I think that the battle for male reproductive rights will have to be a part of this, although reproductive rights when applied to women tend to be defined as the right not to reproduce, for men it will be defined as the right to reproduce, to have children, to have access to those children, to provide for those children, to be the father of those children. It will necessarily involve “finding alternative arrangements to traditional legal marriage”: surrogate mothers, “marriages” for the sole purpose of allowing the man to father children, contract pregnancies, etc.
I actually used the words, my way or the highway. I got the response that there has to be some flexibility in the relationship, that no woman would stand for such a situation.
I think she meant “no feminist harpy like me would stand for such a situation.” And so, good riddance.
Back in the day (1980’s), I used to say that all the time and openly – “I will never get married unless my future wife agrees ahead of time that I have the final authority in every decision”. I highly recommend the practice to younger men today.
The hell of this is that no matter what happens, in the long run, rigged game or no, men are going to win.
As men reduce marriage (the weakened signal) stop having kids (like everywhere) and reduce maintaining and innovating the entire social edifice that we are foolishly trying keep alive will fall.
Its already crumbling with just a few years of depression. I can’t imagine what decades of emasculation and multi-cult will do, especially when there is a genuine crisis that requires leadership like any of the hundreds on the plate.
In the end this means a new age of barbarianism, tribalism and traditionalism . Not all bad mind you but the suffering thats going to happen to women and men was avoidable if we respected human nature and the iron law of consequences.
BC says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:54 am
“The manosphere has quite rightly denounced the corruption of women by feminism but what it has been unable see is the failure in modern masculinity.
Given the level of beta shaming and male self improvement themes overwhelmingly present in the manosphere, one is tempted to ask what planet Slumlord lives on, until one remembers that most of his practice is probably counseling for women.”
This is my problem with slumlord, he can’t get past his own indoctrination.
He can do the numbers on what having a sexual partner does to a woman’s ability to marry. He can do the numbers on tattoos, but then he completely goes off the rails.
Its like his mind starts saying”crimethink” and he immediately stops following where the logic takes him.
You denigrate men on television, in the law, in society and men “give up” and stay home playing video games and then blame them for it, which is what he is doing.
I remember when he was talking about addicts doing their addicted behavior long after they get no reward for it and how empty it was and then discusses people doing charity, and initially feeling good about it, but keep doing it even after they no longer get the reward and feel empty (like mother theresa).
Instead of seeing this as the same addictive pattern, he sees this as divinely inspired.
Slumlord is a perfect example of how older traditional religious men are for the most part fundamentally unable recognize the source of their own culture’s decline.
Ras Al Ghul says:
He can do the numbers on tattoos, but then he completely goes off the rails.
———————————–
Do you have any links or could you direct me to this info? I have a niece who wants them and it would be nice to have something tangible to warn her away.
@ deti
“Men right now are redefining what it means to be a man. It used to be that “being a man” meant you prepared yourself for marriage and fatherhood; and that in turn meant you prepared yourself for a lifetime of work. You went to college; learned a trade; got out of high school and just started working somewhere.”
That’s why despite getting a job and moving into his own places, a man is still thought of as a “man-child” or having a “peter pan syndrome”.
The articles i’ve read just describe a “man-child” as a man who isn’t married with children ,like men his age were decades before.
Funny how it all comes down to them whinning about us not doing what they want us to do.
I have a niece who wants them and it would be nice to have something tangible to warn her away.
That is will be completely unpersuasive. You have to find a way for her to personalize another person’s (or many) regret over tattoos.
The “sale” has been made on an emotional level to get the tattoo. You must “sell” the clean slate by invalidating the original, emotional sale. Logic and facts won’t cut it.
Nice grammar. Ugh.
That is will be completely unpersuasive. You have to find a way for her to personalize another person’s (or many) regret over tattoos.
————————–
Tried that already. Guess it doesn’t look good.
Sharrukin says:
October 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Yes, unfortunately your niece has made the conscious decision using her body to tell you that she has decided to be a sexual plaything for various inappropriate men. Drugs are possibly involved. The men will certainly understand that signal and will come after her. This means you must be extra vigilant or bad things will happen.It is a very reliable sign.
Make sure she is held responsible for her actions.
A visible tattoo is either a sign she has already started sleeping around, or wants to be sure guys consider her when they are shopping for someone to sleep with. As do any kind of out of ordinary piercing.
Just giggle and say, “You do realize what that’s going to look like after you’ve gotten pregnant, don’t you? Tattoos and stretch marks don’t mix.”
Yes, unfortunately your niece has made the conscious decision using her body to tell you that she has decided to be a sexual plaything for various inappropriate men. Drugs are possibly involved.
—————————-
She’s actually more sensible than most her age but her understanding of long term consequences isn’t what it should be.
The men will certainly understand that signal and will come after her.
————————
Well she’s 22 years old in a LTR with a decent guy (Beta), an electrician with their kid, and they have a new home, so if she can keep that without burning it down she may be OK. It is a signal and I don’t think she understands that, given the total lack of common sense in today’s world. They teach them sex education in school and not a shred of relationship advice to go with it.
Just giggle and say, “You do realize what that’s going to look like after you’ve gotten pregnant, don’t you? Tattoos and stretch marks don’t mix.”
———————
She has a three year old little girl so that train has left the station. You would expect more sense from someone that age(22).
Sharrukin says:
October 4, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Its not so much that she wasn’t taught it, its that she was taught it, and doesn’t give a “single fuck”. Semiotics and symbolism are well studied areas that have seeped into common parlance (dressing like a whore, ‘tatted up like a slut) the slut-walk phenomenon is a laughable attempt to argue against semiotics, seems your daughter has joined the legion vast in denying anthropology.
*niece
Sharrukin, it is possible given the information you provide that she’s feeling she “missed out on the fun”. Possibly one or more female friends are dumping YuGoGrrl on her, and she’s feeling guilt for failing to live down to societal expectations. Given that her LTR is with an electrician I assume a blue-collar, skilled-labor background. People from that background often have feelings of inferiority around people who went to “college”, even if it was only community “college”.
You might want to look at her social circle, for a clue as to where this desire for ink-piercing is coming from. It’s not just the larger social forces, it very likely is one or more individuals, almost surely female. It could be that she needs to be in a different “herd”.
I’m assuming that the man in the situation has no say over this, is that correct?
Sharrukin:
Here’s the relevant post over at social pathologist:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-screen-good-girls-from-bad.html
only 3% of the women with 0-1 partners have a tattoo.
If your niece is lookng to get a tattoo then she’s not happy in her current situation. I don’t care what the rationalization is, that ‘s what’s going on.
She is, on some level, wanting to signal her availability for short term flings. Expect her relationship to break up within a year.
I read Jezebel occasionally to see the true Id of women. This article demonstrates such a level of depravity that I welcome any judgement that God brings to this country.
http://jezebel.com/5948720/i-was-the-victim-of-an-abortion-scam
She just murdered her child, but expects you to be outraged that she got ripped off.
I’m assuming that the man in the situation has no say over this, is that correct?
It may be that she wants this man to put the kibosh on it himself. It sounds like she could be getting bored with him, I’m afraid.
Sharrukin, it is possible given the information you provide that she’s feeling she “missed out on the fun”. Possibly one or more female friends are dumping YuGoGrrl on her, and she’s feeling guilt for failing to live down to societal expectations.
——————-
There was that crowd previously but she has dumped most of them when she became pregnant and she’s been pretty critical of them and their behavior. One previous friend she says “is just using the guy for his money”, so I don’t think that’s it.
Given that her LTR is with an electrician I assume a blue-collar, skilled-labor background. People from that background often have feelings of inferiority around people who went to “college”, even if it was only community “college”.
————————
That’s him. She holds him in high regard and I asked her the other day if she thought he wanted love or respect more and she said respect, so she’s not clueless. I think she undercuts him a little too much but she does speak well of him to others.
I’m assuming that the man in the situation has no say over this, is that correct?
——————–
Not sure about this. They do seem to talk things over, but he tells that she doesn’t exactly listen when she should. She isn’t looking for someone else, that much I know.
Ras al Ghul, it seems to me that Slumlord wants women to be happy, no matter what it costs. He doesn’t seem to understand that since women want fried ice, i.e. to be in charge and yet to submit to a strong man, that to humor them is to invite disaster – on the individual scale, on a group scale, on a national scale, on a civilizational scale. Yet he’s completely fine with men suffering “for the good of society”. it could be pedestalization, it could be a great deal of sympathy with and for women. Slumlord sometimes has written things that frankly I would expect from a middle aged woman, rather than from any man.He really, really wants us to exert ourselves in order to provide as much fried ice as women want.
The experiment in Iran, if it can be made to stick, will be very interesting. The CIA factbook estimates that iran’s birth rate is below replacement, which in a country like that is a recipe for disaster in the next generation or even before. But there’s more to it than that – the Iranians apparently have the same problem the Europeans do, their most intelligent people are having zero to two children. It remains to be seen if making engineering men-only will make much difference; the pathologies of the governing regime make it very difficult to imagine much useful work coming out of engineers in Iran. A tremendous number of man-hours are expended every day in Iran just keeping an eye on anyone doing anything that might be offensive to the mullahs. This has effects upon any creative effort, I am sure.
I once knew a fairly bright engineering student who was dreading his graduation; he was from Syria, and there was no way he could remain in the West at that time, but life under papa Assad was sure to be boring and tedious. Anyone with a spark of creative thinking is a threat in a police state, so he was sure that he’d be put in some government office, with a couple of informers and maybe even a secret police “minder” in the same area to keep tabs on him and any contacts with Westerners he might have. The same is surely true in Iran.
Ras Al Ghul says:
Sharrukin:
Here’s the relevant post over at social pathologist:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-screen-good-girls-from-bad.html
———————–
Thanks
Ras Al Ghul says:
Sharrukin:
Here’s the relevant post over at social pathologist:
———————–
Thanks
I wrote:
I’m assuming that the man in the situation has no say over this, is that correct?
Stiingray
It may be that she wants this man to put the kibosh on it himself. It sounds like she could be getting bored with him, I’m afraid.
Duh. I need more caffeine. It’s obvious.
This could indeed be a fitness test, and as stated above a signal that she’s getting bored. The fact that the daughter is 3 years old is also a clue, as the child is now old enough to be put into day care, so the woman no longer needs to spend as much time on her. Hypergamy at this point is urging the woman to “shop around” for that better deal, and at 22 she’s likely cute enough to get one.
Her LTR needs to MAP himself if he wants her to stay around – and odds are he does, because of the child if nothing else.
Here are the ages to be concerned about with kids and female hypergamy. 3-5 years old for the youngest child. This is when her time frees up and she becomes idle as a SAHM or believes she doesn’t need a man to take care of her because of school and daycare. The next age is when the oldest turns 12-13 years old. This is when childcare become a fairly moot point. They are able to fend for themselves physically, and mostly emotionally, and no one will judge them for leaving them alone. My problems started when the youngest was 5 and she pulled the trigger when the oldest was twelve. It was a three year build up, but it was one that as I look back was pretty obviously heading one way. Running the MAP is the right play. She will either be repulsed and make it clear early where things are going, or she will respond to to him well.
I am pretty ambitious and motivated, and I have only dated a couple of men who were equally as “go getting” as I am. I have adapted to the idea that I am probably going to be the main breadwinner when I get married, which is fine as long as he at least has his own job where he can pay his own portion of the bills and pay for the stuff he wants. I’m not a gold digger so I don’t require a man to be a doctor or lawyer, just have a job and be content enough with it and pay for your own share, that’s it. Unfortunately, I have gotten into too many rumbles with men who want a hot wife in the bedroom and a mother when it comes to money and house chores rolled into one.
Anon Reader, 10/4/12, 2:36 pm:
“it seems to me that Slumlord wants women to be happy, no matter what it costs. He doesn’t seem to understand that since women want fried ice”
This is part of it. The other part is that Slumlord wants men to be happy too. He apparently thinks men will be happy too if they just sack up, and that that is all it will take to get men out of their doldrums. But not so for his counselee’s BF, who has it made. His woman is a BMI 22, smart and responsible, and she tolerates all his bad, irresponsible behavior. The BF doesn’t have to do anything. But most men aren’t douchebag alphas like his counselee’s BF.
But “man up” isn’t going to mean the same thing to the up and coming men as it means to, say, tradcons, or Slumlord, or others. To tradcons and Churchian pastors it means “marry the sluts!” To Slumlord and Cane it means “stop being such a whiny pussy!” To the manosphere, it means “be who you are and what you want!”.
Returning to the original posting, here is an observation I posted over at Social Pathologist on the issue of “man up”.
This much abused term traditionally has been used by men who are on the same team. Be it football (either version), long distance running, development team, factory floor, under the car in the dark fixing the brakes, or squad mates in the military, and so forth, only a man’s comrade, buddy, mate, etc. had the right to say that.
The persons now using this term – Hannah Rosin, for example, or Bill Bennett – are doing so on behalf of women. They are ordering men to cause harm to themselves, for the benefit of women who have nothing but contempt for them. They are telling men “Take one for the team – no, not your team, but for the other team. And that is why the term is generating such a response from men.
The assumption that many make – Slumlord / SP, GCK, and others – is that women and men are on the same “team”. This premise is both unspoken, and very much unexamined. But in the modern, “affirmative”, world women are more and more competing with men in all areas of life. Expecting the mid-level manager to defer to his competitor for a promotion just because his competitor is female looks a whole lot like neo-Victorian pedestalization to me. The same is true on the macro level. Expecting young men to “man up”, and let the “ladies” go first, in school, in university, in job applications, etc. when the “ladies” display nothing but contempt for all but 10% of men, is a totally different thing from demanding that men “take one for the team”.
And no woman, with the possible exception of a young man’s mother, or possibly aunt or grandmother, has the right to demand he “man up”. And that authority fades as he matures.
I consider any call to “man up ” from any woman as just a big shit test, and nothing more.
Case in point: pretty much any female author published in the Atlantic nowadays.
Deti
This is part of it. The other part is that Slumlord wants men to be happy too.
Well, maybe. But if push comes to shove, Slumlord is quite willing that men should suffer any sort of agony, if it spares women the slightest unhaaaaapiness, in my opinion.
He apparently thinks men will be happy too if they just sack up, and that that is all it will take to get men out of their doldrums. But not so for his counselee’s BF, who has it made. His woman is a BMI 22, smart and responsible, and she tolerates all his bad, irresponsible behavior. The BF doesn’t have to do anything. But most men aren’t douchebag alphas like his counselee’s BF.
Then Slumlord is having the same problem with the difference between “some” and “all” that a lot of other “ManUP” types have.
But “man up” isn’t going to mean the same thing to the up and coming men as it means to, say, tradcons, or Slumlord, or others. To tradcons and Churchian pastors it means “marry the sluts!” To Slumlord and Cane it means “stop being such a whiny pussy!” To the manosphere, it means “be who you are and what you want!”.,
Men increasingly are realizing that they can’t do anything right. Their masculinity is denigrated without mercy by a feminized society, and a feminized church all too often. Nothing they do is ever going to be “good enough”. So why should they do anything, for anyone, if all that effort brings them is more shaming, screeching and “man UP” screeds from feminist harpies and their White Knight errand boys?
If no-thing is good enough for women, society, and the White Knight “ManUP” brigade,
then some men will conclude that no-thing is what they should do. Obviously one can write the Zenlike term “no-thing” as “nothing”…
The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference. Since the leaders of western civilization have decided that it should be impossible for an average man to ever earn any respect, from them or any woman, more and more men will react to those leaders with indifference.
Turning up the volume on the “ManUP” bullhorn to 11 and sticking it next to such a man’s ear will not have the desired effect. It will just make him tune out the “ManUP’ brigade even more.
@Slumlord
Men choose to man up following your command. Unfortunately for you, it is not the endless panacea of benefits, never earned that you so desire for women. It results in fierce independence, a willingness to work through problems in ways you no doubt loathe, cannot endorse, and more than likely, not even able to comprehend. When this current decadent excuse for a society we have, flat lines into the pathetic failure bin of history, men who “manned up” will laugh as your hopes for a feminist utopia wither and implode along with their logical fallacies.
This post is amazing. It manages to tie everything up in a world view that somehow takes responsibility of their own behavior and blames it from all.
1. Women have more balls.
2. Law takes away men’s balls.
3. Church takes away men’s balls.
4. Men have no balls.
The law does have an impact, but few men get hauled into the court system. Maybe you need to ask what percentage of the public get the benefit of getting arrested, etc. Same with the church. Don’t you think the decline in the church have an impact. They are not as influencial as you think. Any marital couseling after the fact isn’t very effective.
There is a bigger problem. The school system is the first place for liberal indocrination. It doesn’t help that schools confuse gender roles for political impact. Male interests are not emphasized.
Another major impact is many households are run by single parents (mostly female run households). There is a pervasive divorce culture that gives women the advantage.
The kids need to be fed, the uniforms washed and the bills paid.
These are traditional female roles. Is there a point to this? Ha. The men need to get their balls by doing women’s work. Goodness. No wonder men are confused. Even the analysts don’t know what they are asking of men.
It seems like the feeling of manosphere new ‘man up’ can be summed up with Mark Minter’s attitude of forgoing marriage and living your own life on your own terms.
That’s all good and all if you don’t want kids. It’s down right wrong to have kids out of wedlock because it will seriously fuck the children up more often than not. That’s the catch.
Marriage is a risky proposition in this day and age but I believe in being fearless. I’m not afraid of divorce and getting raped in court. If it happens then I will deal with it then. I believe in the old Irish mentality that God wouldn’t give you what you can’t handle.
I also feel for old Mark. If you read his story, he’s an old soldier that has fought his war and done his time and he just wants to live out his life in retirement. Good for him. But his perspective is of a man in his golden years and not that of a twenty something. I don’t want to simply sit around play xbox and hang out at bars for the rest of my life.
Dal, I apologize for the thread-jack here, but I would urge anyone participating in this discussion to read Mark Minter’s recent response on my latest post here:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/up-the-alpha/#comment-10417
And his follow up:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/up-the-alpha/#comment-10455
I took on (and got a Twitter rise out of) Hugo ‘the mangina’ Schwyzer recently for his Jizzabel article:
http://jezebel.com/5944293/the-rise-of-the-needy-man?tag=genderal-interest
However it was Mark’s response that really gave me a more rounded perspective of this entire ‘Generation AFC’ dynamic. The problem with most of the articles I’ve seen written about The End of Men is that they only (conveniently?) approach the feminization of men from the perspective of the poor fucking women who can’t get the boys to play house with them the way they’re supposed to according to the feminine imperative’s grand scheme. While I’m sure that the pussification of 4 generations of men has a lot to do with this, in perfect alignment with feminine social primacy, they only want to consider the futures of the women who are lamenting their lack of options in men. In girl-world it’s ALWAYS men’s fault for failing them. The feminine defines their reality. In the feminine Matrix, men are only facilitators of a female reality.
Mark Minter’s story is the other half of this. HIs story isn’t about the 27 y.o. student loan wash-out who won’t (can’t) play upto the role feminization demands of him. Mark’s story is the cautionary tale of what awaits a man who DOES play by the Matrix rules. Mark is the end result of what all these empowered women authors and their vichy males complain a man wont live up to.
I don’t think there will ever be a coordinated marriage strike because there will never be a need for one. We talk about the Meta Game that the manosphere observes courtesy of our modern connectivity, but in the future, with even greater connectivity, and with even more legal and social restraint on men, the logical progression will be one where men will simply opt out to the point that marriage wont exist. It will have less to do with men being pussies and far more to do with men being cautious pragmatists.
It will come to a point where the next generation will say “why bother? why risk it?” Marriage will be reduced to a cost vs reward equation where a majority of men will just say ‘fuck it’, and those who don’t and end up like Minter will only swell their ranks once they recover and become ‘fuck it’ advocates themselves.
“Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.” — Samuel Johnson.
I have memorized this. I suggest everyone do likewise.
I realize that I am implicated in this, but it’s a great question. Every man has to answer this for himself, or not–which is an answer, too.
Nailed it. Now what? What are you going to do? Who are you going to man-up for, or not at all? I have a God. PUAs have a god or goddess. Churchians, arguably, have a God and goddesses.
Who is your god, that you obey no matter what because he or she is your god?
+1 on the Rollo Tomassi reference to Mark Minter’s comments on his RM blog:
Recently I discussed the themes of Dalrock’s and related blogs with a longtime friend and former co-worker. She’s in her mid-60s, long-divorced, no kids, semi-retired now with past family money and current SS/Medicare. When she saw some of the sites and quotes, she bristled in irritation and anger: “What they propose isn’t democracy… it’s more than patriarchy… It sounds like a theocracy, and that’s scary.”
But short of a theocracy (and not sure “whose”), can anything bring “the nuclear family” back?
You should have asked her why theocracy is scary, and seen if she could come up with anything. She clearly doesn’t know what the word means, so it might have been funny to hear her explain her fear of it.
Who are you going to man-up for, or not at all? I have a God.
———————————
The answer to that depends on the meaning you ascribe to man-up.
At some point someone will articulate an argument that will finally break down the wall that separates mgtow from the kyriarchical feminists (you know the type, the anti marriage, anti capitalist, anti authoritarianism girls, the “hipster ones” whose numbers are swelling constantly.)
And when that happens, this whole paradigm can finally shift to the man-up crowd vs. The “no thanks” crowd of all genders.
The man-up man-haters with the patriarchs, vs. the opt outs. Maybe Bakunin will be vindicated after all.
Yes and no. We’ve already seen the lower classes devolve into a matriarchy, and this will almost certainly continue in one form or another. But the problem is that marriage isn’t just important morally or from the modern romantic perspective, it is essential to raising children. Children need their fathers. Middle class and above families can remain that way past the odd early death of a father so long as the rest of the extended family is in tact. Middle class and above families will devolve into the lower classes or cease to reproduce if too much of this is introduced. Brendan has written extensively on how the UMC understands this. Those in the middle class will either do the same or visit their grandchildren (if they have any) in the low income side of town, presuming the baby mama permits it.
Yes and no. We’ve already seen the lower classes devolve into a matriarchy, and this will almost certainly continue in one form or another. But the problem is that marriage isn’t just important morally or from the modern romantic perspective, it is essential to raising children.
——————————
The program Uncommon Knowledge had an interview with Charles Murray on this subject which was posted on Youtube. I think a lot of commenter’s here have come to the same conclusion he does.
Peter Robinson talks to Charles Murray about America’s failing civic culture. According to Murray, America’s white working class has been “coming apart,” and has been since the death of JFK. From the decline of marriage, to the lack of religious participation, to declining labor participation, could white working class men be falling even farther behind white upper class America? And could this change in American culture be exacerbating class differences?
Let’s get one fact straight right now , there have always and will every be weak , underachieving people , is gender the root cause of their problem?
You’ll have to come up with a better red herring than that if you want to derail the thread peewee.
[D: That appears to be all peewee has to offer. Problem solved.]
Some else that indicates society’s attitude towards masculinity is that testosterone meds such as AndroGel are classified as controlled substances. Female hormones such as estrogen and progesterone are not. From a medical persective, present day society seems to favor feminization over masculinity.
We are in a new epoch of social organization. There is no going back. There is no cure, no magic bullet that will turn back gender relations to 1968. The world is going to evolve to some other form of social organization other than one that is based on the family, the nuclear family.
Things unsustainable will not be sustained. The nuclear family model of the last century was in my view, the last gasp of a dying social order; one that was only sustainable under modernity and the industrial revolution. If you take the longer view, families have never been predominantly nuclear, but extended, with roles for the unmarried and the old. The shift from an agrarian society to an industrial one larger slayed that model. BUT
the current ‘information age’ model is even MORE unsustainable than the nuclear family model and I suspect it will last for a shorter time. The big reason is that women have children and children need care. Men who are unattached to women and children (either through extended family system or nuclear family) are extremely destabilizing to a society. That is why currently the black community in the US is under such stress — the men are detached mostly from women and children — and that never leads to positive outcomes.
As that pattern continues, the pathologies that seem endemic in black communities will spread and well you can’t imprison, corral, and control men forever (which is basically how people try to respond to what is happening in the black community). So what will happen?
The old systems will likely reassert themselves naturally. It may take a while (probably a couple hundred years), but patriarchy is on its way back because it provides the most stability and creates the most good for society,even while it has somewhat high maintenance costs (in the realm of interpersonal relations), but the economic and social costs are very low.
John Derbyshire has talked about this, though I don’t suppose he was the first. The elites are wealthy and talented enough to survive (longer, at least) the social experiments they unleash on everyone else. They gave us no-fault divorce, but they still don’t divorce nearly as often as the lower classes. They destigmatized single motherhood and pushed women into the workforce, but they can afford nannies. They gave us abortion on demand, but while they might have one abortion after a slip-up, they’re not down at the clinic every couple years. They push the hedonistic, “if it feels good do it” lifestyle through all our entertainment and advertising, but if they develop a drug habit (which mostly they don’t) they can afford private rehab. Now they want to experiment with gay marriage, but it won’t hurt them any if their interior decorator “marries” their hairdresser.
On the other hand, all these pathologies hit the lower classes hard, because they don’t have the same future time orientation, or the wealth to buy their way out of mistakes. If you’re poor, you’re stuck with that tramp stamp, and while the government will pay for day care and many of your bills, your parents can’t send you to private rehab and let you stay at the summer cottage while you sort some things out.
On the other hand, all these pathologies hit the lower classes hard, because they don’t have the same future time orientation, or the wealth to buy their way out of mistakes. If you’re poor, you’re stuck with that tramp stamp, and while the government will pay for day care and many of your bills, your parents can’t send you to private rehab and let you stay at the summer cottage while you sort some things out.
Interestingly one of the biggest critiques before the evangelical revival that hit England in the 18th century was against the decadence of the upper classes, and how their behavior and values were negatively impacting society. they were wasteful, lustful — jumping in and out of each other’s bed, etc., and it was having a bad effect on the lower classes who imitated them, but who didn’t have the cash or social prestige to avoid the costs of such bad behavior.
That’s pretty much on target Cail.
I would also say that the higher educated classes (which is who we are talking about here — the lesser educated/intelligent dunderheads of the economic upper class also flail about as badly as the lower clases do — see, e.g., Hilton, Kardashian, etc.) mate select very differently, and act in marriage very differently. Future time orientation is a key aspect of this, with its attendant concern about the welfare of offspring — in fact that is a core issue for many people in that segment and why many of them stay married and so on. It’s not that they “do it for the kids” as much as the way they run their entire marriage is around the project of passing on to the kids the educational elite advantage and status that they have. What we see going on in this group is the creation of a new elite — not like the old landed gentry, but an elite based on educational merit/achievement, which they are now trying to replicate on a generational basis. That requires stable family life in order to pull off — and that’s a key reason why we see the people of that educational class getting and staying married. It’s the entire game plan.
The myopia comes from the reality that many of them endorse social values that are destructive to the social classes that have less FTO than they do, but a real reason why this myopia comes about is that (1) the people in this group have extremely limited contact with people in the lower educational and economic classes and (2) if/when they do (e.g., in their own families), they look at it as a failure of achievement and drive as much as anything else — that is, it is all seen from qa meritocratic perspective, and therefore the solution is “more emphasis on education” and so on. The problem is that the bog standard average Joes and Janes are not going to have high FTO or have great ambition or be high achievers, so designing the social model around people who have high FTO and are high achievers and highly motivated to sustain that advantage in the next generation is not a viable way to create a social model for Joe and Jane Average.
Murray is very, very much on point here, in my opinion.
I find it particularly ironic that my blog was the basis for Mark Minter’s inspired rant. The thing is, I agree with Mark almost 100%. I am definitely NOT in the “man up and marry the sluts” camp — it’s not in the best interest of most men to marry, as Mark so eloquently relates. I favor the MGTOW method, wherein men make their own decisions and take responsibility for their own lives. In my case — and Athol Kay’s — that included being a husband (the dominant member of a long-term functioning heterosexual dyad) and a father. That is, a father who not just popped out a couple of puppies, but a father who invested the majority of his time, money and creative energy into building superior quality human beings and instilling them with the education and wherewithal to go themselves forward, mate, and reproduce. I’ve often told my kids that I don’t mind if they’re gay at all — but that doesn’t excuse them from providing me with grandchildren to validate my efforts.
All that being said, most men do not take the institutions of marriage and fatherhood as seriously as I do. Most are mediocre fathers at best, being unprepared and unfulfilled by their families and societies to do a great job at this most essential of tasks. Until we can get reliable male birth control, and put the reproductive privilege back into the hands of men, we’re going to continue to see the entire concept of family and fatherhood decline. Yet as unprepared and untrained as most men are, the desire to procreate — not just have sex — is often there. It’s a matter of character and temperment and native ability . . . and all men do not possess it, just as not all women have a maternal instinct. The fact is, most men shouldn’t marry unless they have the rare fortune to meet a woman who fulfills their criteria. And the problem is that men have been brow-beaten by feminists into lowering their standards and buying into the Transformative Power Of Pussy instead of pursuing their interests . . . as they alone define them
That means for a small number of us Wolf Alphas we find a compatible and agreeable female who meets our very high standards (preferably when she’s still young enough) and we mate. That doesn’t make us traitors to our gender, it merely makes us men whose Own Way included a wife and children — that’s a big difference from the usual Blue Pill Beta Future Ex-Husband. The Man Who Goes His Own Way and finds a proper wife and mother is fortunate beyond price — and rarer than pearls. We’re the foundation of the future Patriarchy, because we’ll be the only real fathers left.
To that end I’ve done what I can to explain to incipient Red Pill husbands how to have a decent and fulfilling relationship with an acceptable woman to your mutual long-term benefit. It can be done, but I’ll be the first that it is a HELL of a lot of hard work, and you damn sure better make certain that the juice is worth the squeeze. But if it is . . . you need to know the way to navigate the complexities of a marriage in detail. And I spelled them out because there are just so many clueless Betas and Gammas out there who need a huge push in the right direction. If you don’t have the stomach or the energy to do it, I understand. But for us who picked this as our particular hobby, such wisdom is valuable.
For the rest of you . . . have at it. With my encouragement and support, play videogames, hook up with skanks on the internet, devote your life to professional sports or toy collecting, pump-and-dump as many slitches as you like. I am NOT morally condemning you or resorting to sarcasm. Live for yourselves — because the alternative is unpalatable and demeans us all, as Mark demonstrated. Refuse to marry . . . which will drive the SMP “price” up for us Wolf Alphas dramatically. And that’s just good for all of us.
@Brendan
Hilton, Kardashian
Monied prole class, not upper class.
Sharrukin says:
October 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm
That is will be completely unpersuasive. You have to find a way for her to personalize another person’s (or many) regret over tattoos.
————————–
Tried that already. Guess it doesn’t look good.
Shurrukin
Ttry this. A tattoo would be great that way it will be easier for the guys you like to know who the ready sluts. You wouldn’t want him wasting good dick time on some plain jane. when he could be wearing your hole out. Sounds bad but hey it’s family things are different.
I didn’t suggest that they were “upper class”, but that they were financially in the higher echelon. My intention was to distinguish between people like that, who are economically at the top, and people who are the educational elites — it’s the latter that are marrying and staying married, not the rich fops (and the Hiltons aren’t really “proles” to be honest, anyway).
What we see going on in this group is the creation of a new elite — not like the old landed gentry, but an elite based on educational merit/achievement, which they are now trying to replicate on a generational basis.
I’m very glad someone else who posts here has an Idea of the stark class differences between the upper middle class and those above them. It is all well and good that the umc has a modicum of wealth, but in many ways, the recent financial crisis has shown the shaky ground the Joe and Jane average of the umc are standing on. The blue collar middle class is now largely extinct, the clerk class, whom call themselves umc, are fighting the tide. Their retirement funds are being eaten away from under them, their durable assets are largely useless (who wants to live in the suburbs anymore? No umc can afford to buy property in marthas vineyard, let alone Passy or Auteuil).
Umc couples share the same divorce rates their lower class compatriots have, with half to one third of the birthrates (higher class women are at replacement). The wealth destruction of divorce, consumerism among their women, housing market crash, emptied retirement accounts means that their wealth is trickling upward, and will not survive long after the boomers have been buried. The great chasm between the top and the bottom, will be quite stark twenty years after the boomers have died, as their children have drained the last of their inheritances on a trip to Hawaii and a new sc430.
slumlord says:
October 4, 2012 at 6:56 pm
@Brendan
Hilton, Kardashian
Monied prole class, not upper class.
I agree about kardashian, if the Hilton sisters may turn out quite shrewd, their inheritance is secured. Kardashian could consume her wealth in a single lifetime, I doubt Hilton could. What matters is the grandchildren and the line, wealth is being able to survive a generation of imbeciles every once in a. While.
Responsibility without authority is slavery.
Currently the black matriarchy of the poor black communities is susutainable due to the working middle class. When that is gone it will be really fun to watch such a huge swath of the population live with out any male connection to anything.
Ybm,
Your comment about oldies pissing money around strikes a chord.
If they choose to waste a lifetimes savings on pointless self indulgence, so be it. But dont expect me to encourage them beforehand, and pretend to admire the snapshots afterwards.
Usually, most interpret this as covetousness. They have no idea, and the greater depression has barely begun.
Gentlemen it’s time to “Go Galt.”
I.E., don’t do shit for a woman unless you are compensated for it on a risk adjusted basis.
Find a reason not to hire a woman applicant (have a reason or the EEOC will be after you). Exclude women from after work drinks where important information is being exchanged and relationships are being forged. Mentor only your male employees and let the women slide (as a side note most women that I have trained in my working life hated working for women because there was always some bitchy side competition going on – i.e. woman, for all their self-inflicted backslapping, are shitty managers). Give good advice to young men around you and shitty but earnest advice to the girls. Make your dates very cheap (and reciprocally funded) until you are getting laid (and even then), and cut out all women who chafe at this rule (“I just don’t get the sense that you are invested in this” should be your parting line). Refuse to open doors unless the someone is right behind you and you go first. I could go on for a while, but if the bitches want their equality then they should have to wallow in it.
Cheers.
Currently the black matriarchy of the poor black communities is susutainable due to the working middle class. When that is gone it will be really fun to watch such a huge swath of the population live with out any male connection to anything.
A feature of modern america is how parasitic the cities have become.
During the industrial revolution people moved to the cities because that is where the factories were. The cities existed because they produced wealth and had products to sell to the rest of the world.
Now cities are more like tumors sucking the nutrients from the rest of the nation’s body. Full of welfare dependents, government offices, and finance.
The last job I had was a small biotech firm that manufactured products used in DNA sequencing.
It was a building that was surrounded by nothing but cattle pastures for miles around. The remote location was chosen because the property taxes in the nearby city are prohibitive. All the workers lived in the city and had to endure a 40 minute commute each morning and evening.
The company is an international firm and we would often get high ranking visitors from the Asian branches who inspected the facilities. After they landed at the airport and got driven out of the city to the location they would frequently be in utter amazement at how ridiculous the scene was. A lone industrial building in the middle of absolutely nothing but cattle pastures.
So much gross inefficiency like that is structured into our lives just deal with the insanity of grasping governments.
Those who pay and take the responsibility are NOT the ones who benefit.
Simple as that. There is too much parasitic and envious attitudes towards (men’s) freedom and right to control their lives.
Result, the horse won’t pull!!
YOu to girls, and let big daddy government subsidize you by manipulating and exploiting men,
To Hell with that. ONly thing you’ll get from REAL men is contempt.
Dalrock, you have confused “law enforcement” with “law makers” the difference is meaningful. People pass these laws.
Cail Corishev on October 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm wrote:
My quick comment was part of a longer discussion/context. My friend considers herself both Christian *and* feminist, and has joined a church led by a female pastor (called a “Pastrix” by some on the Net) whom she supports and defends quite intensely. But she has another (female and married), more conservative friend, who believes that women should NOT be in ministry or “leadership”, and has said so clearly. So I was bemused by the argument between them!
As to the quotes from Dalrock’s and other sites, her first take was to say the quotes from men were from “losers who couldn’t get women” or didn’t like or respect women. What ‘threw’ my friend were quotes from women’s sites such as sunshinemary’s or Laura Grace Robins’ “Unmasking Feminism”: happily married women whom she couldn’t dismiss so easily. And despite her divorce, my friend would like to be re-married someday.
Re: the word “theocracy”, we were using a thumbnail definition, such as this from dictionary.com:
“the·oc·ra·cy [thee-ok-ruh-see]
noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.”
Making conservative men leaders, would have those men referencing and using as their authority a patriarchical God, at women’s expense – or so she believes.
Dalrock on October 4, 2012 at 4:40 pm – I quoted Mark Minter from Rollo Tomassi’s blog:
Dalrock responded:
Not to disagree with the esteemed Dalrock, but since you’re a data-driven individual, I’m curious to see where (and if) data supporting your assertions can be found.
A couple of months ago, deep in another Dalrock thread (so folks likely missed it), I reported on a USA site I’d read about in a local newspaper, Kids Count, where one can “Access hundreds of measures of child well-being,” such as child poverty data by state. I haven’t had time to go through the data, which may be “externals” such as money and health insurance, but it would be interesting to see if data for other factors such as married vs. divorced parents would be counted there or elsewhere.
For example, your state of Texas (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/StateLanding.aspx?state=TX) notes that 25.7% of Texas children (2010) live in poverty. Might be interesting to get a further breakdown on that.
Loser who “can’t get laid”= A man who wrongfully believe he should have the right to due process under the law and constitutional protections under the bill of rights.
2.A man who refuse to be hung by his dick.
3.A man who refuses to submit to a domineering psychopath.
4. A man who thinks with his big head.
5.A man who believes society should not equal people screwing like mindless bonobos and cow-towing to the gynocentrism.
6.A man who understand his has self worth outside of sex with women,and refuses to lower himself to his animal desires.
7. A man who has been in the courts and knows he could lose it all,including his freedom on a whimsical false accusation from a strong empowered woman.
In short,a loser is a man who learned to no longer lose.
He now lives a great fulfilling life away from sneering drama queens.
Theocracy=system of civilization that works and has been fine tuned over millennial.
anti-theocracy woman=secular harlot who demands rights without responsibility,at the cost of everyone around her.
Including the misuse of proxy violence.
Men would marry again,all it would take is to remove the penalties and disincentives.
Loser= a person who believes in fairness and justice,and knows it is not available to him since “The Law” has gone renegade and satanic.
Women who spout “loser” are miffed that their pussy is losing the power to make a man act in a manner not in his best interest.
She thinks her pussy is the know all and end all of everything.
As more and more men become “winners” her value and power decreases.
Women want more and more power and have no idea what to do with it.The idea that they could lose a bit instead of continual gaining to the point to totalitarian supremacy is both alien and frightening to her,yet she will experience this in old age as her physical power diminishes.
It is only by the “The Lawz” desire ti implement a Police State that this folly is enforced.This will not stand as men desire freedom and justice,they will rebel in new and creative ways.PUA is a fine example.
Get in,get the ex,and get out before she can get her hooks/power struggle into you.
Her quest for power kills her long term security as men as wising up to the scam.That 1st x-husband is going to be harder and harder to find.
This article suggests improvement:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121003/DA1LRMIG0.html
The fastest drop in fertility is among the young and poor. It also appears that the women with more money are having kids and those that don’t are having fewer kids. If these trends continue, it seems to me that much of our social problems will resolve themselves on their own without the need for any kind of social conservative political movement.
I think you guys are obsessing over yesteryear’s war.
Year to year comparisons for a 9 month gestation period are quite flawed, what matters is the 10 or 20 year rate.
That trend indicates the least number of births since 1998, with the largest drops among white, urban, educated women.
Whiskey alluded to this new type of man a long time ago, chavs. And who can say its not working, the loser is banging a respectable girl, getting his bills payed and gets a drink delivered to him for lunch to boot.
While respectable Joe working his arse off in the cubicle farm and climbing the corporate ladder gets to beat off to porn when he comes home.
Who’s the real loser.
The girl
ybm,
What is the difference between “monied proles” and actual upper class?
What is the attitude of men of actual upper class towards their women? I don’t believe I have ever had contact with such people.
I thik we were just taking the piss out of kardashian because she’s a moron. I mean Paris hiltons 35 stores have made 1.3 billion dollars in revenue since 2005, somehow I don’t think selling kardashian labelled water bottles is going to approach those numbers anytime soon.
Rich marriages (not umc) are made by family, the way it really should be. The nuclear family is an aberration, the extended family and the line is the better guiding principles. I have my occasional hookups, but it is absolutely unacceptable for me to “waste time” on a woman with nothing to her name except her dads “successful” restaurant chain business or something like that. I’m not a rockafeller, but I know what is allowed and what isn’t. My Sisters were married off young and except for one, are all back in Europe now. I’m the oldest boy, my next oldest brother met his wife in Italy and brought her here. The rest are too young to be dealt with yet.
I suffered a lot of family condemnation when i broke off my engagement, she was introduced to me by my father, her father was a fellow Rotarian of his. This is how it works for my class anyway.
A tragic situation. We can hope that society realises it has gone too far, and eventually swings back in the opposite direction. And do everything possible to lead the charge for men manning up and embracing masculinity.
TFH has a point the united states was not intenetd to be a democracy but a representitive republic. The constitution with it’s bill of rights is the standard guide of the society and not what the people want. With women having the vote the constitution is now null and void. The only reason why more men are not marrying in the US and the basis of the blue pill is men still think they have rights as taught in government class in grade. That lie of freedom is pushed every where in american society and is the definition of america. That lie is what is keeping this train wreck on the tracks. The whole blue pill red pill thing is based on who still beleives in the lie. The foundation of the man bad women good meme is also based on the principal of due process and the bill of rights. The only way family law can exist is if men are bad. They have to be bad. If not women will vote in the laws that make it so “legally” and now the lie becomes the truth by law.
I was rather thinking that Ashley Pariseau at 02.53, was in need of Hamsterlation.
Let it always be clear to your wife that in an event of her attempting to divorce-rape you, you will do the following:
1. Torch the house
2. Commit suicide
Do not bluff. Be prepared to actually do it, including killing yourself. At no point are you threatening to injure another person nor do you intend on doing so; you’re just establishing the fact that she will get nothing out of you in a divorce. Just as importantly, you are putting yourself in a fearless mind frame, and fear and weakness is what gets the ex-wife to go into a feeding frenzy.
Don’t wait to say this when a divorce is imminent. Establish this early in the relationship when things are going well. She will love and respect you for it and never think about divorcing you.
The very first time I read this blog was the Dalrock metaphor of comparing Marriage to a nice restaurant. There is some shred of my memory that can remember some moments that fit that description, of being very very middle class, of having these nice moments as a husband and father.
But now, mostly when I think back to that time, I remember it as a time of immense loneliness, of being angry most of the time, of having no choice, of abuse, of boredom, no freedom, of basically, being an indentured servant. When I first got separated there was this strange period of listlessness, or not belonging to that class anymore, of being alone, the strangeness of being in bars again after years of being married., of not having anywhere to go or anything to do.
But now, I wouldn’t go back for anything. Maybe there are moments when I wish it was like it was, but they do pass. I couldn’t wish being married on any man. My opinion is that everything about it was something I wish I could have skipped over. I wouldn’t have the kids I have but frankly the negative experience as a husband more than outweighed the positive experience of the children. My life was so much more meaningful before and after. Being married was such a waste of time. Maybe I was more successful because I was married but it came at such a price, I would have rather not had that success.
I feel sorry for the Christians that read this blog, that doctrinally, sacramental sex is the only acceptable sex that they might have.
Because to me, the only sane response to modern women is the purest form of Game, pump them, dump them. When I justify game, in my mind, is that it allows a man the ability fight off the dopamine addiction that accompanies intimacy with a woman. By having multiple women in his life, or the self confidence that he is able to replace any woman with a short interval between them, and by being aware that the feelings he is having is really just a chemical reaction and not any deeper connection, that women are basically shit and some grief that is just waiting to happen, then he is able to fight off OneItis, and avoid marriage.
The accusation that Game teaches men not to love women and to think of them as some kind of “it” is to me the best thing about Game. It is absolutely stupid to love women. Pump them, dump. Don’t be a fool and love them.
Maybe there is something to the theory of the Magic Vagina having incredible effect on the progress of men and that without women, that men will flounder and fail.
Maybe it necessary for men to be married and then divorce to truly appreciate that a life without women is a happy life merely on the definition that if you are not unhappy, then you are happy.
But I would rather flounder and fail by some societal definition of failure and drift along, just getting by, then to be married. I would go as far as recommending floundering and failure to a young man as a career aim so as to insure that no woman ever picks him as a potential husband. I tend to concur with your belief that women drive marriage and that if they set their sights on marrying a man, that he is generally unable to withstand her attempt if he has a typical beta personality. A lack of success would immunize him from her target him with her marriage infection, the ultimate in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, one that damages his mental health.
My advice to a young man is that he should learn Game as opposed to preparing to be successful. I mean deep game, cold readings of personality, charm, dominance cues, conversational skill, female psychology, and then hit the streets and approach. And that he do this is lieu of other study. By not having those financial assets and attributes that are so important to women, then he insures that he would never be selected to be trapped in marriage.
I can see no upside to having a deep relationship with a woman. It almost always is going to turn out bad for the men. It was not only the marriage, but all of the relationships had a negative cost. I wish I would have known then what I know now and I would “Next”ed every woman after a month or two. Every one. I would have never considered any one of them as any more than a short term means of recreation. Women are never your friend. They can and will wound in ways that no man ever can, that no friend ever would.
So to me the downside of any success that man would have is that it makes him susceptible to being chosen as potential husband. The only thing that men need any money other than what is necessary to subsist is to have a woman. And having a woman is the biggest jeopardy to happiness that a man will ever have. It is a ticket to slavery.
A man would be far better learning game, putting on a front, letting the woman believe what she wants and then leaving her before she found out that you were not what you seemed to be or laughing it off when she did find out, and going on the next women.
So if you want to be happy in life, be a failure. Success will bring you nothing but unhappiness. I have been both a success and a failure, and failure was a far far more pleasant experience than success. Success brought women and women brought misery and unhappiness. Failure was a repellant to women and I ended up happy by not being unhappy.
And free.
One last thought. At the end of the book “The Game” Neil Strauss denounces Game and retires as a pickup artist to have a relationship with Lisa Leveridge, the guitarist from Courtney Love’s band. He ended the book with the idea that Game ultimately enabled him to find his soulmate, the love of his life, and that a relationship based on true love was the ultimate.
She left him three years later for another man. I don’t think he was foolish enough to make that mistake again.
Game is the antidote to the poison of love.
Failure is the shield that will protect you from women.
Falling in love is like procrastination. It feels good while you are doing it, but you will pay for it later.
@Mark Minter:
That’s some robust stuff, dude. Time to get a blog. Seriously. The Manosphere needs you.
“The accusation that Game teaches men not to love women and to think of them as some kind of “it” is to me the best thing about Game. It is absolutely stupid to love women. Pump them, dump. Don’t be a fool and love them.”
I would rather say that it is in a man’s essential nature and in his interest, not to mention a deep and fundamental part of his sexual psychology, to objectify women. It’s not a social crime, it’s a part of our software. It’s one of the ways we deal with rejection, and it allows us to be more objective about our romantic/sexual entanglements. “Twu Wuv” likely does exist, but only to the extent of the proper mix of hormones and neurotransmitters in your brain. It’s rarely sustainable without significant effort (or a billion dollars and a ten-inch dick). Indeed, “Twu Wuv” is a feminine rationalization to justify flakiness and escape accountability most of the time. But Twu Wuv is ALSO the prime motivator of female sexual response, at the cultural and personal level, so it would just be stupid of dudes not to exploit that.
Game is a reproductive strategy. So is Twu Wuv. The difference is that Game is cynical and realistic, and Twu Wuv is idealistic and fantastic (in the literal sense). I might have to explore this further.
And please check out my comment up-thread if you missed it, since I guess one of my posts inspired one of your more lengthy and profound comments. I understand your position — I’m about a decade behind you — but then I more or less “discovered” the Red Pill in the midst of my relationship, and was already doing a lot of it up to that point. Once you start taking that perspective on married life then the stress reduces considerably . . . and your life becomes more than tolerable. But implicit to that approach is the idea that women are fungible (replaceable), and even Mrs. Ironwood, who I love with all my heart and deeply respect as a human being and as a woman, knows her ass is out the door if she crosses any of the pre-determined lines. Ditto myself. And while I can’t envision a future in which she chooses to cross those lines, the gods are capricious. But as long as things are going well, and I manage her and my family properly, then I stand fulfilled as a man. For the moment, that’s enough.
I hope no one is taking PA’s comment above too seriously. I say nothing about torching the house (what if you live in an appartment? – rather difficult to avoid torching the other ones) but suicide is going to make absolutely no impression on your wife – I had a female client whose husband did just that after copiuous threats and she was a cross between contemptuous and indifferent. Her only bitternes – now that she had hit the wall – was that I was indifferent to her faded charms. She was gruesome.
Last weekend in England a man – a minor celebrity – whose wife had just divorced him took his children into the country; knifed them to death and then turned the knife on himself. I can’t think his former wife was too amused, at least so far as the children were concerned. Not that women are beyond such tactics, which was what Medea did to Jason and her children in Euripides’ Medea.
“PeeWee says: October 4, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Let’s get one fact straight right now , there have always and will every be weak , underachieving people , is gender the root cause of their problem?”
I think PW’s point was, is “being male” always the source of the problems? No, it can’t be, not even for feminists. Logically, I mean. Because for some feminists, that probably is always the cause of everything “Male”.
@Opus,
“what if you live in an appartment?”
Then she can’t take your house, so you’re gtg on that front.
A better plan is to empty your retirement account, buy the Ferrari 458 then make a run to Mexico and South America.
The fear of husbands having power is probably related to mothers fearing their boys will become men and no longer need them. I personally I have witnessed countless women who openly admitted that they want their boys to grow up and be responsible, but do so while staying home and under their motherly influence. Girls see this growing up and think that male independence is somehow an aberation from the norm.
Women fear their sons becoming adults because it means motherly authority over their child is transferred from her hands into his hands. She ceases to be “mommy” over him and becomes “woman” under him. This is corrupted by husbands who are so sensitive to their wife’s fears and anxieties they work against that transfer, thinking they are protecting their wives when all they are doing is destroying their sons and perpetuating decay from stagnation.
Nothing new under the sun.
locard says:
October 4, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Dalrock, you have confused “law enforcement” with “law makers” the difference is meaningful. People pass these laws.”
You just enforce the lawz as written,after all “You are just doing the job the superiors told you to do.”
Did not fly at the Hague hearings,does not fly now.
I suppose torture is also ok, as it’s become “legal?”
@Opus
Agreed. This is a terrible plan on many levels. Strictly practically speaking, it won’t work and it only increases the damage to your children. Better to make it clear that you haven’t bought into the whole “sometimes marriages just don’t work out” BS. If you wanted to be boyfriend and girlfriend, there is a way to do that and it doesn’t involve vows and a church. Teach your kids the same thing from the youngest age possible (because it is true). Deny her any moral cover for divorce theft. Ultimately if she pushes the plunger your kids might be brainwashed for a while, but over the long term they are highly likely to see the truth. If it does happen, avoid bitterness but don’t be unclear on exactly what she did.
@Dalrock I am seeing a trend, and it happened with me. Women are feeling powerful by letting the kids know that they chose to leave, and the father didn’t have a choice. I don’t have to explain to my kids what happened. She has done it, because it makes her feel powerful. Now she wonders why it is backfiring. Why are the kids angry with just her? Why are the kids sympathetic to dad in every situation? She made me her victim in the kids eyes, and yet my actions show them I am not a victim at all. This works out to her being a bad guy when things are tense, and yet I can still be their strong Dad. Its has been a wonderful blessing. I was dumbfounded when she started telling them, but I wasn’t going to stop her.
The kids eventually figure out what happened, regardless of whether they are told the details or not, from observing the parents after the divorce, and from their own interactions with the parents.
@ Mark Minter. Awesome insight.
My experience is quite similar to yours. I also made the mistake of getting married as for sacred sexual union. Yes it was the biggest mistake of my life and I was lonely and miserable most of time. Yes women are feral and hypergamous and emotional basket cases.
However, the problem was I had run through the initial red stop signs. Hence the mistake of choosing to marry the wrong person is my failure despite my best intentions. You cant polish a turd as they say.
Since then I have learned quite a bit and enjoy my freedom – G_D has been faithful and kept me over the last decade and making it through a horrible California divorce.
When I really look at the scriptures I dont see the emphasis of putting too much of emotional investment into “love” of a spouse (its not there).
What I do see is to love G_D first with your heart, mind, strength and treat your wife as yourself.
Adams mistake was he put Eve before God imo.
I forgot who said it – but once you make something/someone a “god/idol” it will become a demon.
Allow me to say that engaging in multiple flings to satisfy a glandular urge has consequences.
Physical / chemical from sex is quite addictive.
Using “Game” will allow one to have physical connection to satisfy a glandular urge however it atrophies mental, spiritually and emotional side of a person. This cannot be denied.
Allow me to suggest It is repeating the same mistake twice and the outcome is predictable.
As for myself I have learned and tried “game” post since my divorce and it is real and it works great if one is seeking a sexual encounter (single & divorced from a 17 marriage is quite a experience). I am very thankful I didn’t destroy myself in the process.
Now at 47 I am back where I was at 22 disciplined and first following Christ and it is far far better than “game” and it is the real thing and has made me a better “real” man (the “spiritual can strengthen or weaken” the physical, mental, and emotional – this cannot be denied)
As for game “I keep it in my pocket” – it is useful to know but is used with discretion and purpose for protection vs. satisfying a glandular urge.
Shalom
@Miserman
“Women fear their sons becoming adults because it means motherly authority over their child is transferred from her hands into his hands.”
All “primitive” cultures have used rites of passage in which young boys, generally at the age of 12, were taken from the mother and initiated into the world of men.
We don’t have rites of passage. What we have instead is middle school, which has far as I’m concerned shouldn’t exist.
On the whole upper-class women (e.g. women with a lot of money) have more children thing is it the Oprah Winfrey types having children (rich business women who seek their equals), the Jennifer Aniston types (rich artistic women who seek their equals) or the Ann Romney types (housewives of rich men)? Oprah Winfrey and Jennifer Aniston are both childless. Ann Romney had 5 boys. There’s a big string of (strong independent career) elite women who don’t reproduce (or reproduce only 1-2). Chelsea Clinton is childless and so is the daughter of G.W. Bush. We all know that kitchen bitches/househusbands (as some feminist women would say) are repugnant, despite feminist cries that “Oh! Househusbands are HOT!”. And these feminist women are the first types to walk out the door on these househusbands remember that. We even had a half-Asian feminist breadwinning woman writing badly about her househusband on the Atlantic a while ago!
Since class mobility is shrinking around the globe (and people tend to marry within their class), my guess is that elite feminist women who marry elite feminist men and will die out by 1-2 generations at most because of their sub-level replacements rates.
Maybe that’s why feminist career women are constantly shitting themselves over the “glass ceiling”. They move to the upper-class, enforce their UMC feminist ideals in another class level and it just doesn’t work. They keep the wanting more and more while giving less and less. Then they die out. And who’s left in the upper-class? The couple who reproduced.
And the only women left in the upper-class reproducing are the Ann Romneys types lol. Then the wealth keeps getting insulated.
Note: Upper-class liberal women are the worst for marriages. Hollywood celebrity females are typically these types and Hollywood marriage is a joke. The only reason UMC feminist women don’t divorce is because it’s financially impossible for them and they just have to pay back their student loan debts or else!
Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton just shows one how trashy promiscuity is for the upper-classes. It exposes them and ridicules their reputation.
Those in the middle class will either do the same or visit their grandchildren (if they have any) in the low income side of town, presuming the baby mama permits it.
It’s amusing you assume they will have a choice. The rich have made it quite clear that any American animal paid above the lowest wage of the worst hell-hole in the world is OVERPAID. Since this includes countries with slave-labor that means anything above barely surviving.
And yes, that’s exactly what “lots of people in China and India would be glad to do your work for that pay” means.
The middle class will enter this level whether they “try hard” or not. Other forces are at work to.
Brendan said:
The kids eventually figure out what happened, regardless of whether they are told the details or not, from observing the parents after the divorce, and from their own interactions with the parents.
And just to keep perspective, can mean they discover that their father really was an extremely abusive nutcase. It was swell.
Rich marriages (not umc) are made by family, the way it really should be. The nuclear family is an aberration, the extended family and the line is the better guiding principles. I have my occasional hookups, but it is absolutely unacceptable for me to “waste time” on a woman with nothing to her name except her dads “successful” restaurant chain business or something like that. I’m not a rockafeller, but I know what is allowed and what isn’t. My Sisters were married off young and except for one, are all back in Europe now. I’m the oldest boy, my next oldest brother met his wife in Italy and brought her here. The rest are too young to be dealt with yet.
China and India and the Middle East have gone far on that model. Well, not really.
You’ll have to let me know if you are being sarcastic or not because the nuclear family absent of extended family lasted what? 50 years? 25 of which has been spent in decline?
@mark minter
“I would go as far as recommending floundering and failure to a young man as a career aim so as to insure that no woman ever picks him as a potential husband. ”
Funny stuff. Maybe better still to acquire money but hide it so that women think of you as a guy only good enough for sex (just make sure you have enough edge for them to want it).
@Brendan
This does seem to be the case. There are advantages though to being clear on this upfront. The first is you are teaching your kids a healthy view of marriage. Marriage isn’t what the culture and (most of) the church is saying it is. I think men are afraid to be extremely clear on this out of a combination of being cowed by the culture and the idea that they might want to live out their own version of a chick flick. Even if this doesn’t prevent a divorce at least the kids can process what actually happened. It also allows them to understand what is happening to their peers. The standard line we tell kids is sometimes their whole life gets turned upside down for no explainable reason. As I’ve shared before, our daughter was horrified when another child told her that “sometimes mommies and daddies just stopped loving each other”. Once we explained that it wasn’t something that “just happened” but an act of villainy (and neither of us are villains), she was put at ease. At the very least, they can learn something valuable which should assist them when considering marriage.
The other advantage is it somewhat blunts the threatpoint. Moral cover is essential to pull off the heist. Being clear that you will not offer an ounce of moral cover should the theft occur is essential to preventing it. Anything men can do to help wives understand the real cost* of blowing up the family before they blow it up is worth it for the children.
*Taking this full circle, I’m not talking about making threats of destroying property, violence, kidnapping or suicide.
@dalrock something that is increasing the ability for men to do this is that more and more states are moving to a 50/50 time split arrangement. Some have created true joint legal/physical custody laws, while others do it through the courts. These women want the man’s treasure, but they also want freedom so they aren’t resisting and are even encouraging it. Another trend I am noticing in my area is that many of the women are leaving the marital home when they decide to split. Its much easier to use phrases around the kids like “When your mother left me”, when physically that is what happened. Harder for them to understand when she did by restraining order and calling the police to kick you out. Most of the modern women are not feminists, they are infected with feminist ideas. The ones sold to move the people a certain direction. I suspect there are many feminists losing sleep over how women are using their freedom and failing to seize absolute power from their husbands when it is just in their grasp. There are plenty who still do, but I see a trend where our culture is moving to divided parenthood. Mom’s and Dad’s have their own houses and time with the kids, and sometimes if everyone gets along they do things together. Not just in divorce, but there are plenty of never married parents doing it this way. I may be concerned for the family and our country, but if you remove child support from the mix and VAWA type legislation, this is a better solution than the raping the family gets in the modern divorce culture.
About the kids who figure out what happened and ultimately side with dad, I have seen that too, several times now. In one case I’ve seen, a fellow’s batshit ex managed to wangle full custody complete with abuse accusations and restraining orders and so pretty much cut him out of all but the briefest visitations because he couldn’t afford the attorney fees required to fight back. Well guess what, the kids were out of their mother’s house as soon as they turned 18, they had long ago figured out on their own that their mother was too much batshit to be around. They didn’t mind their father only had a very tiny house to share, the kids made it work because they found their father to be so much better to be with than their mother. Even when he was disciplining them…
While this happened years ago, it’s only recently that I’ve come to understand the dynamics, the major part of which one should not underestimate the ability of children of either sex to figure out when their mothers are at fault more than their fathers. So I agree the father’s frame is important in helping the kids along those lines, especially when the mother is the one doing all the heavy lifting to frivorce him.
You’ll have to let me know if you are being sarcastic or not because the nuclear family absent of extended family lasted what? 50 years? 25 of which has been spent in decline?
First, I am talking about arranged marriages, not “I talk to my uncle Danny.” Extended family is not arranged marriages. Maybe I could have been a little clearer on that, but it is the very first line of the piece that I quoted.
Did your family tell you a story about how it was in Europe three-hundred years ago? Back in the “old days”?
Let me tell you a story about every grandma in America. They grew up in a culture where 1 in 6 marriages ended in divorce(low estimate, probably higher). This is before No Fault divorce. This is the 1900-1960. Yet, that canny old girl will say that “back in her day, divorce wasn’t allowed”. Cause one in six marriages ending in divorce means something is “not allowed”. Somehow that canny woman seems to have forgotten all the divorces among her family, her friends, and quite possible herself. Isn’t that canny of her?
Of course, you parents weren’t even around 300 years ago, so that makes their descent into retarded fantasy even easier.
Your families beliefs are typical of rich people, because rich parents have the enormous club of removing inheritance to force their children to do what they want. No matter how idiotic that want may be. But “cause I wanna” doesn’t sit well with their hyper-inflated pride, they make up a story, a fable, about why what they are doing is not only okay, but the best way possible. Then, they get to snap and bite at their own children and feel good about it.
Isn’t that great for them? Aren’t they great people? They made up a STORY to justify doing what they wanted! And it evens sound clever! They wrote themselves their own children’s story in crayon and then read it to themselves! Doesn’t it make them feel so grown up?
I can see why you don’t want to walk away from all that money, and you know what? That’s probably the best choice you can make. I’d probably make the same choice in your shoes.
But at least they made the right call on evacuating America before it goes boom. Good call on that one.
Dalrock wrote:
This is great! Yes!! I am becoming more and more convinced that there are a lot of women who have stupidly believed fantasy literature and movies about about a number of issues, including careerism (young women are seriously indoctrinated to believe this is what they “want” and must do) to frivorce (all the divorce porn).
For example, I have been fascinated lately by reading the blog posts by Kristy Campbell on Maria Shriver’s site. Ms. Campbell has been documenting her own frivorce, and she described how, after she filed, her husband dropped a bombshell that put a serious kink in her frivorce theft:
Not exactly EPL, is it? More women should understand reality. Anything men can do to inform women of reality is very beneficial.
First, I am talking about arranged marriages, not “I talk to my uncle Danny.” Extended family is not arranged marriages. Maybe I could have been a little clearer on that, but it is the very first line of the piece that I quoted.
I understand, thank you. Most people meet through friends, family, or work. I was just saying through my experience that the family introducing you to potential men/women is how my experience has went. There was a certain expectation to take it seriously, and I did, but breaking off the engagement after dating for a year didn’t really cause as much of a problem as you think. I think where I was confused is that to me it seemed less of ‘arranged marriage’ than ‘arranged dating’. But I See where my post may have implied otherwise.
Being the oldest there was a certain expectation, but disinheritance would not have happened, since I’m the oldest and I also Steward the family assets since education is in finance, ( I think that’s the correct term steward…)
I agree with everything you wrote, it was my mistake. Although divorce was not legalized until 1971 for Italy, people simply “moved out” or the like. So I agree with your assessment of the earlier generations.
@HeligKo What you said reminds me of reading this:
“What’s happened is enough people in society have accepted the notion that divorce is not only normal, but it is a right. Most 40-somethings like me can only remember a distant time in their early existence when divorce wasn’t the norm. A cultural paradigm has shifted, by use of gradualism and time. Now virtually everyone has 50% or more of their relationships ending in divorce, or was raised in a broken home to begin with. Divorce is so “normal” that no-one even questions its validity. The proper acceptance of new values, via brainwashing techniques, has been achieved. And now, the push is on for “shared-parenting” to alieviate the problems created by the divorce epidemic. Nobody is openly questioning if we should abolish No-Fault-Diivorce. No, not at all. All that is being said is that the system ought to be re-organized to make it more fair. Divorce is part of our culture now. The “acceptance” phase is now complete. It’s time to move the family unit on to a further totalitarian idea that destroys the family, commonly known as Shared-Parenting, where the courts will decide every facet of people’s children’s lives, right down to the times they are allowed to see their parents. which religion they ought to subscribe to, and how far away their parents are physically allowed to live from them which removes their right to freely move about the country.”
http://no-maam.blogspot.ca/2012/03/dialectic-useful-idiots-and.html
Rollo, thanks for bringing our attention to this Mark Minter stooge. I had not noticed how unhinged he was until you asked us to consider his lengthy testimony, which I had previously scrolled past as the typical mournful wailing of a man “going his own way.”
If you are going to knock off the champion, the incumbent, the tyrant, you will have to perform one-and-a-half times to twice as good as number one. They hold all the advantages of incumbency, all the presumptions of virtue, all the entrenched defenses of being at the top. (cf. the Romney-Obama debate)
Feminism has enjoyed that stature for at least half a century. It does no one any good to bitch and moan how hard it is to knock off the queen. How sad it is that Mr. Minter was taken advantage by her during his naïve decades. Sad, but it is done. We who are gathered here, by virtue of our very presence, know the score already. It is beyond useless to personalize the struggle and beg for commiseration like old women at a sewing circle.
The alpha has his hand to the plow and is not looking back. “Let the dead bury the dead.” The regretful beta has made his bed, and now he is lying in it. Just lying in it, clutching his tear-stained pillow and howling for relief like a widow. That pissing and moaning is okay in small doses, we should support one another to some degree. But “epic post is epic” harangues are entirely unacceptable.
Yes, “empowered” feminist shrews wreak untold damage upon innocent men, tell us something we don’t know. We are not primarily a support group, we are a reaction force. Say your piece, join the fight, don’t look back. The wallowing is not just womanly, it is contagious.
What’s more, “Game is my shepherd, I shall not want”? Wrong answer, you spiteful, batty, vengeful geezer. We will not transfuse our youth to the old guard, just to comfort their passing some. We will rather sacrifice for the men who are coming after us, because, It Is Not All About You. If you had the right answer to who is your true shepherd, you would indeed not want for anything, particularly the immature fantasies that you can change the past or revenge yourself upon the world for your regrets.
Matt
Look you churchians have already showed your ass on this. Men that have adapted to reality are taking care of this for you. Look at the article Dalrock wrote one more time and think about what it is that will change the attitude of women. (“they just need to repent and come to Jesus,thats what I would do If I was a fine ass slut bitch”) Mark Minter is doing more for the christian church tyhan any of you churchian sissies. Nice of Dalrock to get you a safe topic with athe good commenter Mark Minter tyhere to give you cause pump you chest up and show some good religious churchian macho for all of us fallen Moe-foes. When the PUA and MRA’s are done making enough cat ladies the sluts with no options will come to you churchians. Then you can clean the semen off their faces and then tell them how great they are for cock carouseling those players and getting knocked up. Next you can look to your good virgin churchian boys that are fully aware of the moral superiorty of the female just as you taught them and have them fellas supplicate to these heroic bitches until they are deam worthy by her sluttness to play father to the player’s child. Those young chuchian bucks will be in good hands when asshole like Dalrock comes around talking about game. (you’ll just tell your young stud that “Game’ is for heathens to arrouse sluts for sexual pleasure in complete violation of the word of god. Yeah sluts, my churchian brother like those heroic pieces of ass we’re telling you fellas to stay pure for for marriage ) But churchian gods have been too kind today bring in a true player with written testimony on how to wax that ass. Now it is time to flex and show what keeping it real is all about churchian style.
Matt
Agree plus 4.
Being stoic is being alpha. Being alpha is being stoic. This is only a mystery to very modern folks. Men whine-ing is worse than a waste of time.
greyghost says:
October 5, 2012 at 8:43 pm
I made a sick post on here after chugging a 26 of vodka in a nightclub parking lot one time with one of my friends. It looked a lot like this , preach on mf! Maybe I’ll do some drunk posting later tonight when I get home, on my way to a predrink party at a friends house right now. Lol
no drinks tonight gotta work tomorrow.
@Whatever
Divorce rates from 1900 to 1960 were far lower than 1970 to present. I don’t know where you get your 1 in 6 stat, but even taking that at face value for sake of argument 16% of marriages ending in divorce is much lower than the roughly 50% we have today. Granny wasn’t lying; only a small minority of marriages ended that way.
Who is this “King A (Matthew King)” to attack Mark Minter’s commentary at Rollo Tomassi’s blog and here? Especially since Mr King appears to have been talking smack over at Chateau Heartiste’s? (Crass site and language warning.)
Pingback: Demanding More « Free Northerner
Prolly jus another game nur. I’m telling you guys not out of hating game or any shot like that, best thing you can do is get out of the roissspger Nd live in the reel world. Roissu is the front of the fringe when to comes to game, real life is a lot better then feeling shitty everyday cause you dont have the perfect life.
Divorce rates from 1900 to 1960 were far lower than 1970 to present. I don’t know where you get your 1 in 6 stat, but even taking that at face value for sake of argument 16% of marriages ending in divorce is much lower than the roughly 50% we have today. Granny wasn’t lying; only a small minority of marriages ended that way.
1 in 6 means divorce was allowed. Clearly. And for not very serious reasons. Granny knew people who got divorced. Personal friends. This is not “in my day people stayed together”. It is “in my day, people stayed together unless they didn’t”. I doubt there was any moral censure at all. There simply wasn’t cash and prizes.
If you want to say 1 in 6 is wrong, I’d like to see what calculations you use to turn 1 in 140 marriages ending in divorce PER YEAR (1/(7/1000)) into a lifetime chance for divorce of less than 1 in 6. There are factors like increasing population and serial divorces that make it so you can’t just 45*(1/140) to get a good number. But I halved 45 years to adjust for that. And ignored the increasing rate of divorce during that time. Including that huge spike. That’s generous. It’s absurd. 1 in 6 is absurd. I’m sure it’s higher. But if you have some justification for less than 1 in 6, I’d like to hear it.
To be clear, I used 7 in 1000 marriages ending in divorce per year as the rate of divorce for grannies group. This is clearly low.
Selection bias….the guys a shrink. He can only comment on the slice of the population that comes to see him. He’s not going to see many (if any) real men who can handle adversity, deal with pressure and take from life what they want. Men like that don’t go see shrinks.
Like I said man, Shakespeare in his time was basically Divorced, it just wasn’t a “legal divorce”. I’m with you on the “nit married in every way but the sacramental breaking” back in those fuckers day. Just didn’t call it divorced, they just lived separately and didn’t speak to each other, it wasnt legal then, so that’s what they had to do.
Dalrock you arguing with whatever over semantics, they were “divorced” in every way except The temporal breaking of the sacrament.
Thank god for autocorrect
Who is this “King A (Matthew King)”
Looks like a troll to me.
Not every Disciple of Jesus has gone the “Beta Churchian pathway”
Here is a quote from AW Tozer a bit of a maverick in his time and still considered as a one.
“There are three sexes: men, women and preachers.
Now I am all for preachers and I do not expect them to be perfect, but I am downrightness, too….Our theological schools may be at fault here. They strive to turn out creatures who will be all things all men in a sense Paul had never had in mind….. Everything natural is as far as possible refined away. All tang is a eliminated from the speech, all angularity carefully filed off the language. The young man is train to gesture gracefully, smile faintly and sound scholarly. The direct language that men naturally use when speaking to each other is edited out and a vague, stilted jargon is substituted for it. The total result is artificiality and ineffectiveness….You must be totally committed to Christ and deeply anointed with the Holy Spirit. Further, he must be delivered from the fear of man. The focus of his attention must be G_d and not man. He must let everything dear to him ride out on each sermon. He must so preach ask to jeopardizes future, his ministry, even his life itself. You must make G_d responsible for the consequences and speak as one will not have long to speak before he is called to judgment.
And people will know their hearing a voice instead of a mere echo.”
Every Disciple is a Christian but not every Christian is a Disciple.
A Disciple may attend a church but he is not a “Churchian”.
There were plenty of followers/believers but only 12 disciples – do the math.
Shalom
Does anyone feel that King A is good for their vocabulary?
I’m serious. Every time I read one his posts I have to look up word meanings.
harangues – A lengthy and aggressive speech.
How many of you knew the meaning of harangues before today?
I’m totally serious about this too.
“He’s not going to see many (if any) real men who can handle adversity, deal with pressure and take from life what they want. Men like that don’t go see shrinks.”
This is an over-generalization. I man I greatly admire, a gifted corporate leader who is a mix of Alpha and Beta (weighted toward Alpha), told me in response to a compliment I gave him about his unparalleled ability to handle volatile, highly charged, emotionally-laden conflict situations with such effectiveness and self-control, “I have a lot of experience at home, and have done a lot of marriage counseling.” He said this with a smile and a chuckle.
I have never seen this guy angry, but he always takes immediate control of anything that his thrown his way.
It is beyond useless to personalize the struggle and beg for commiseration like old women at a sewing circle.
Amen to that. My impression of faux-“alpha” peacocking cads has always been that they tend to be rather girly nancy-boys. Nothing I’ve read in the manosphere has disabused me of that impression.
I think that (my previous comment) gets to the nub of my problem with the relationship between PUAs and the Christian manosphere. I agree with Dalrock that focusing on the PUA’s sins is a distraction that keeps is from addressing pervasive Christian enabling of feminism. But PUAs, despite seeing the holes in feminism, are not models of manliness. They are really rather pathetic. If you want to learn to be a man, you can’t model your behaviour on the behaviour of woman-obsessed nancy boys.
“But PUAs, despite seeing the holes in feminism, are not models of manliness. They are really rather pathetic. If you want to learn to be a man, you can’t model your behaviour on the behaviour of woman-obsessed nancy boys.”
Love this pithy observation.
Does anyone here think Charles Martel spent ten seconds in his entire life fretting over what women want and how to get them to put out?
Zippy,
Great men, including the saints and martyrs were masculine men. They had far better things to do with their time. The depiction of William Wallace in “Braveheart” (as historically inaccurate as it was) says it all.
+JMJ+
P.S. Remember how the beautiful French princess literally swooned over Wallace on the turret stairs before she even clamped eyes on him? 🙂
Zippy, do you think Charles Martel’s only option when he was a young man and wanted to start a family and keep the family line going was to sign up for a “marriage” in which he had all the responsibilities and none of the power, and that with a used-up slut with no domestic skills whatsoever? Oh, no? Then don’t compare what he faced and what most young men today face.
@James B. Oaks
Don’t get me wrong: I am not calling into question the Christian manosphere nor Dalrock’s work in particular. Quite the contrary.
I am specifically addressing what I see as problematic in setting up nancy-boy PUAs as models of behaviour for Christian men.
Zippy, although I’m a big proponent of Game, I don’t have much use for the “mascara and a funny hat” version. Even when I was actively using Game, I never peacocked. I’m afraid if I did, I might sprain an ankle or something.
However, I’m glad they exist, because they prove a useful point: it’s not so much what you do or say as the attitude you do or say it with. The funny hat itself isn’t supposed to attract women; it’s a signal to women that you’re confident enough to ignore social pressures. But that only works if she feels the confidence; otherwise she’ll think it’s a scam. If a guy shows up to a party looking like David Bowie’s little brother but giving off massive alpha vibes, women will flock to him. If another guy tries to imitate that success but gives off vibes of hesitancy and supplication, he’ll get killed. So the peacockers help to teach the lesson that it’s the frame you project that’s really important, not the specific words you say or the clothes you wear — though paying some attention to your words and clothes can help improve your frame. That’s a useful lesson, even for guys with no intention of ever wearing a feather boa.
I can’t say I’ve really seen anyone point to the likes of Mystery as a “model of behavior for Christian men.” Maybe I just haven’t visited the right blogs. Most of what I see, in the burgeoning Christian-Game sphere, is the acknowledgement that the secular Game pros may have some useful things to teach us, but that we must be careful to put them through our moral filter. Seems fair enough.
I’m your daddy.
I have a low tolerance for pussies in my midst. Particularly the whiny ones who sabotage the most important effort of my lifetime in the few fora where men can strategize bluntly.
… and most particularly, the politically correct pussies.
Did you have a point? Care to state it directly instead of nibbling around the edges like a seething little hot-cheeked girl too timorous to speak plainly among men?
Matt
Michael Singer wrote:
Well said, brother. Mincing words leads to mincing epicene fops in charge of Defending the Faith. I direct your attention to my scandalized critics above whose first recourse at the scent of battle is to get the vapors. Those who think The Lion of Judah is “nice” need to get their chemically-castrated minds back to scripture and catechesis.
Matt
@Cail Corishev
I see that by using the word “peacocking” may have given the impression that I was referring to a subset of PUAs as opposed to all PUAs. That was not my intention. I intended to capture all PUAs without exception in my characterization.
In order to be a PUA a man has to continuously focus all kinds of energy on figuring out what women want and catering to those wants, as a means to the end of aquiring the self indulgent gratification he seeks. This kind of obsessive self indulgence of base desires is not all that different from the 500 pound kid living in his parents’ basement stuffing his face with twinkies 24/7: the main difference is just which particular base desires have him enslaved.
And God bless both of them when they escape from their slavery: but don’t hold them up as models of manliness.
I find the phenomenon of Game-friendly “red pill” women rather interesting. It seems plausible to me that at least some of them may like it because in a so-called red pill Game world, women and what they want remain the center of attention. Some resurgent patriarchy, that.
@Matt – I agree.
I cringe what is perceived as “Christianity”. It is “Femchurchanity”.
No wonder why the Jews and Islam laughs at the impotence due to the male castration of American men from the lack of spiritual teaching/discipline due to the absence of a moral witness / lampstand / integrity.
Try to pull off what is common in a typical American church in a synagogue in Israel or Iran and there would be blood shed.
To present typical moral American issues politically in the Middle East – there would be blood shed and war.
The western mind simply does not understand the Holy Scriptures. There are exceptions – Dietrich Boehnhoffer, CS Lewis, Watchman Nee, Sundar Singh
The very few that have the balls to live and teach the truth or “swim at the deeper end of the pool” are quickly expelled as hertics ( much like Paul during his lifetime).
G_D will bring forth His few prophets, apostles from among the few disciples (abiding in Christ not a cheap profession of “accepting Jesus in your heart”) to be Witnesses of His character, person, will, and purpose. However, I fear it will be come out of war, famine, and much bloodshed as the scriptures indicate.
Shalom
Men who are lurking but not posting. In case you dont know zippy catholic is a woman and you shouldnt follow her advice.
I’m reasonably well known in the Catholic blogosphere. Mark Shea has stayed at my house a couple of times. I’ve had dinner with Jim Kalb twice, and Larry Auster once. I’m pseudonymous but hardly unknown. I don’t do group blogs anymore, but an old blogging CV is here: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/author.php?author_id=9.
Idiot.
Women couldnt even get social security until the 50’s or something like that…U HAD to be married back then a lot more than you do today…
http://thecaptainpower.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-has-dating-changed-since-1990s.html
*facepalm*
Went right over your head. Previous post is a prime example why noone should listen to you. If you argue like a woman you act like one.
Stupid, juvenile, take your pick little man.
The two elephants in the room of popular “ministries,” the two realities that they will not admit to, are:
1. The church holding women as fundamentally innocent and men as fundamentally guilty, making women morally superior.
2. The political empowerment of women, which stems from female moral superiority.
If Christian leaders would dare to challenge both female innocence and female rights (they are not innocent and therefore do not have half the rights they claim), Christian men might make some constructive repairs to marriage in the church.
gdgm+ says:
October 5, 2012 at 11:20 pm
He’s a churchian ass.
zippycatholic
the PUA is a guy that is there for the pussy. nothing more. The benefits to the MRM is that they occupy the sluts past their fertility. They have also gifted to western civilization the concept of game. The PUA quest for pussy has motivated them to abandon the standard work hard be honest and nice path to to loyal and faithful pussy. (doesn’t work any more not with todays women) They have developed and quantified and shared the things that motivate and tingle women. It is the base psychology of women and is as or more predictable than any psychology out there.
Cads, guys that are in it for one thing, natural alphas have always been there. They are actually defective beta men. They are men that have a guilt quality of their nature that is turned off that allows full confidence in what they do (mack pussy) Thugs also have that characteristic. Women see that as confidence and strength on an emotional level the “gina tingle” The gina tingle is extremely powerful. Powerful enough to destroy western civilization and modify the christian church to churchianity.
What makes PUA special is that they are not natural alphas but thoughtful beta males that looked at what was happening in reality. A female sexual psychology was discovered and developed to a point that a man can learn to turn off his guilt trait for a purposeful and controled way and have alpha characteristics that receive the same results as the real cad or thug only the man is still a beta. ( be nice if it was a christian beta to bad the churchians are hostilely terrified of that) They then wrote it down and shared it with all men something only beta men have the capacity for. PUA are not role models for a sane society but in an insane society led by feral women they are doing the lords work. (I hope that bothers the churchians) For as can be seen we sure can’t count on a churchian to bring any consequences to a cock carousel rider.
“Faux-alpha…..Girly nancy boys….Not models of manliness.”
I guess Roissy was right, women hate betas learning game.
@johnnycomelately
This explains things,
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/women-policing-the-hierarchy/
@greyghost
The benefits to the MRM is that [PUAs] occupy the sluts past their fertility.
Yeah, I’ve seen that claim before. I’m dubious: it strikes me as similar to claiming that drug dealers benefit society by keeping the junkies occupied.
But even if I accepted that PUAs perform a kind of societal garbage collection function, that wouldn’t make them less pathetic.
Very interesting Farm boy Another tell for the manosphere. All men understanding female psychology will have the same effect as every man having the right to keep and bear arms. A lot of politeness there
Zippy
Their is nothing pathetic about a man enjoying himself there is something pathetic about an empowered slut. And you are right about the drug dealers. Much better a slut to be a midnight booty call than a good man marrying one of them only to be divorced and abused by the state in the name of pussy.
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – Octoberish | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
I work in the the Englewood area of Chicago every day doing armed security. I have seen theories that a large part of society will devolve to that. Woman that are doing traditionally defined mens roles and are hyper aggresive and men essentially doing what they want when they want and not giving a damn about society. Sex is a currency to be traded for payment (light bills, car notes, etc.). The woman are covered in tatoos and so are the men. Violence is a way of proving your cred. The men and woman have not a lick of learning or sense. Example: I noticed a woman trying to put oil down her dipstick tube. I showed her where to put it along with the other fluids. I then noticed in the front passenger seat a male casually adjusting his hat and not doing a damn thing. Welcome to the new world. Not exactly as Auldus Huxley foresaw.
zippycatholic
Does anyone here think Charles Martel spent ten seconds in his entire life fretting over what women want and how to get them to put out?
Probably not. Neither did Genghis Khan. Or Tokugawa Ieyasu. Or Mohammed, for that matter.
Do you have some sort of point to make? Or was this just a random non sequitur?
@AR:
Do you have some sort of point to make?
For people capable of seeing it, yes.
zippycatholic your average typical anti-gamer cultist … next
These idiots as clearly visible, are too busy attacking men who want solutions to a feminised society, instead of offering solutions
Idiots like zippycatholic attack other men, precisely because they have no solutions to offer
They work from a place of desperation at the unavailability of solutions to societys problems
The truly pathetic are people who work from a point of desperation, grasping at straws instead of being open to solutions
Cult members, like anti-gamers dont want solutions, they just want reinforcement of their inabilities & inability to see how society manipulates them & destroys their masculinity & manhood
Cultists want validation, not solutions or real ideas on how to turn our society into a just functioning society for decent hard working men…
Validation is emotional catharsis, it is not a functional logical response to how our society destroys & warps its men
Cultists want validation of their emotions, REAL MEN want REAL LOGICAL MASCULINE SOLUTIONS to how our society operates
Game maybe about women as a goal, but its made up of understanding how society operates & tapping into your masculinity & aggression as a male
A womans greatest strength is her submissiveness, a mans greatest strength is his aggressiveness & dominance
Dalrock brilliantly points out, society is “terrified of men having power and authority in the family”
Anti-gamers are terrified of men having power and authority in their relationships …
Used to be Feminism was the force of darkness spreading vicious evil lies about men.
Now, “Game” has taken over that role.
Oh, that’s right, they’re the same thing.
MackPUA:
Anti-gamers are terrified of men having power and authority in their relationships …
Right. It is impossible to find PUAs pathetic without being “terrified of men having power and authority in their relationships”.
Pass the Kool Aid.
Now, “Game” has taken over that role
Who in the hell said that?
Zippycatholic is just a chick don’t pay any attention. Game really is the psychology of what is going on a PUA uses game to pussy. MRA’s use game to understand the workings of civil order.
An excerpt from a recent post by Free Northerner that fits nicely into this discussion:
If you are an awkward, nerdy male, the only people willing and able to teach you practical advice for attracting women are the PUAs. I’ve checked. There is simply no one outside the manosphere teaching men how to meet a pleasant, moderately pretty girl for a stable long-term relationship.
I’ve read a number of Christian books and articles on dating, but they all assume a woman is attracted to you. They are either discussions of what kind of dating is appropriate and exhortations against sin or man up articles on how to avoid sex in relationships, how to avoid leading women on, and how to be firm in your intentions. There is almost no practical advice on how to actually attract a girl in first place so that the other advice has any relevance. …
Going outside the Christian stuff, everywhere else you look the socially awkward male is given the same advice: be yourself and be a nice guy, she’ll come… eventually.
Guess what?
We already do that: it doesn’t work. If it did work, we wouldn’t be looking for advice.
For women (and church leaders and others who may care): if you do not want awkward guys going to PUA’s for advice on attracting women, offer a viable alternative.
http://freenortherner.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/the-hamster-in-action/
@AR:</i
Do you have some sort of point to make?
For people capable of seeing it, yes.
Aside from the obvious “might makes right, and if the king commits rape it’s not actually rape”, what are you trying to say, in this rather feminine guess what I’m thinking! manner?
Personally, I’m leaning towards “random non sequitur” at this time. It fits the facts at hand better than anything else.
Lets suppose that PUAs have useful advice for awkward men to help them attract a nice girl. It does not follow that therefore the PUA is a noble creature.
PUAs are pitiable creatures, just as much slaves to their urges as the 500 pound Twinkie eating kid in his Mom’s basement.
It is one thing to concede that (some) truth can be found in some group of men. Stopped clocks are correct twice a day, and all that. It is another thing entirely to hold pitiable men who may be right about a few things up as some sort of general healthy example.
They aren’t. If you are a socially awkward guy, by all means take useful advice where you can find it. But don’t make the mistake of modeling yourself after pitiful slaves, unless your goal is to become a pitiful slave.
Lets suppose that PUAs have useful advice for awkward men to help them attract a nice girl. It does not follow that therefore the PUA is a noble creature.
You know it does make him noble. The PUA is actually helping another man find a wife. Something a fucking churchian wouldn’t and can’t do. That pitiable creature will help another human being socially fit in and enjoy a life. something you are not willing to do or even respect as another human being.
Hi ZippyCatholic
What is Larry Auster like in person? Does he unwind a little?
That piece of mine is my most popular post. These days I might say that women “police the hierarchy” unconsciously:
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/on-the-origin-of-the-hamster-by-means-of-natural-selection/
@greyghost:
You know it does make [the PUA] noble.
That belief, in a nutshell, is a crucial problem with the “Christian” manosphere. If you want to become a slave to your own base desires and the whims of slutty women, then by all means lionize men who are slaves to their own base desires and the whims of slutty women. If you don’t want to be a slave to your own desires and the whims of slutty women, you’ll need to find different heroes.
@David Collard:
What is Larry Auster like in person?
A refined gentleman and a wonderful human being. Our dinner was many years ago – I used to comment as “Matt” in the eary days of VFR, before the birth of “Zippy Catholic” in Mark Shea’s comboxes.
I have read that piece of yours, and I think the issue of policing the hierarchy is interesting. There must be a way to address it without making heroes of society’s slut-garbage collectors though.
ZippyCatholic
I remember reading your blog some time back. I enjoy Auster but his commenting arrangements baffle me. I used to comment at The Thinking Housewife.
Mark Shea is good.
I think the value of Game is to attract and keep a good quality woman.
MackPUA:
Anti-gamers are terrified of men having power and authority in their relationships …
zippycatholic
Right. It is impossible to find PUAs pathetic without being “terrified of men having power and authority in their relationships”.
Embedded in the above is the assumption that Game begins and ends with PUA’s, that no one other than PUA’s knows Game, is capable of understanding Game or employing Game. Therefore, zippycatholic is calling David Collard a PUA, despite the known sexual history of Collard.
Alternatively, zippycatholic is not just dancing with a strawman, but also letting the strawman lead.
Pass the Kool Aid.
Ah. Another deep thinker who finds murdered children to be funny.
Your character has been duly revealed and noted, zippycatholic.
@Anonymous Reader:
Embedded in the above is the assumption that Game begins and ends with PUA’s, that no one other than PUA’s knows Game, is capable of understanding Game or employing Game. Therefore, zippycatholic is calling David Collard a PUA, despite the known sexual history of Collard.
Since the manosphere prides itself on dispassionate reason, maybe you’d like to show precisely how your ravings follow from the premise that PUAs are pitiable creatures, slaves to their own appetites and the whims of slutty women. It should be interesting to see you make all of your assumptions, which I may or may not share, explicit. After all I didn’t so much as mention Game, nor have I denied the possibility of learning something useful from the 500 pound Twinkie-gulping basement dweller.
I don’t approve of PUAs.
Let’s be frank. Game, or whatever you want to call it, is about men regaining power. It gave me the power to marry the kind of woman I wanted; and to keep her in line.
“We want non threatening men, and now we have them.”
Classy!
I don’t approve of PUAs’ conduct. I don’t think it’s good for society.
But most people and institutions today don’t do what ‘s best for society.
I respect the lifestyle choice PUAs have made, because they have concluded it’s the best one for them. At least they are honest about their lifestyle choices. At least they are honest by saying theya re in it for themselves and for the easy lays. And if they are using subterfuge, they’re not using it any more often than the women who slut it up. The PUA’s “I’m all about relationships” is no more dishonest than the slut’s “I’ve never really done this before” or “I’ve only had sex with 4 guys”.
I can’t say the same for the North American Church culture, which:
–has lied and continues to lie to men about their natures and the nature of women
–has departed markedly from time-honored and time-tested Scriptural teachings on men, women, marriage, love, respect, headship and submission
–when faced with the truth about its lies and heresy, instead doubles down and castigates dissenters
–in a divorce situation, does not examine scripture and apply it to the marriage; but instead sides with the wife every time in blaming the husband for the marital breakdown
–has created an entire feminist false theology to support the pedestalization and dominance of women in marriage
–fully supports marriage 2.0 and the unfair feminist-created laws on divorce, alimony and child support
And another thing. Anyone here who thinks that women don’t have game or run game in their dating lives is very mistaken.
Examples of girl game playing:
–hot cold hot cold
–clamming up, refusing to talk (“Well, if you can’t figure out what’s wrong, why should I tell YOU!”)
–silent treatment, ignoring her man
–manipulation through overwrought emotional displays and outbursts
–shit testing
–passive-aggressive verbal exchanges and conduct
–conniving, scheming, behind-the-scenes manipulation using other people and situations
–using sex to manipulate (either becoming sexually aggressive or withdrawing sex)
–deception about past sex partner count
–overt public displays of sexuality in dress, mannerism, speech and conduct
–lying about true relationship, sexual intentions, or other current romantic/sexual involvements
–placing primacy on her sexual/relationship objectives to the exclusion of the man’s or the relationship’s (i.e. the feminine imperative)
–pitting family members, pastors, parents, others against the man to apply pressure for a desired outcome
–marriage ultimatums (“We’re getting married or I’m breaking up with you and you know you’ll never get a woman as good as me ever again!”)
@Deti:
I agree that women have their form of “Game” to make themselves artificially more attractive to men: makeup, skirts, lipstick, and slutty behaviours. But I’m definitely skeptical that men can become more manly by adopting their own versions of the miniskirt, lipstick, and pouty lips.
zippy:
PUAs make themselves artificially more attractive through displays of confidence and dominance, and the “I don’t give a shit” or “cocky funny” attitude, and through working out. The point is to get the bang.
Women’s artificial attractiveness with makeup, dress, and slutty behavior is just that — artificial. It doesn’t make her more feminine. I myself have found this out the hard way.
@ Deti- your previous post on girl game playing is priceless and a treasure chest of knowledge.
Shalom
@Zipplycatholic – I beg to differ. What you are referring to is a womans outward clothing to send signals.
Men that are in good shape physically or financially can dress a certain way to send signals whether it be a form fitting shirt exposing ones biceps or send a signals of $$$$ by a nicely tailored well fitted suit and accompanying shoes in either case (shoes do make the man).
Very few men know how to dress like a man.
Shalom
I am not questioning whether a man can attract women more effectively by catering to women’s actual desires (which they often don’t understand themselves). I am questioning whether sucking up to women’s desires in this way actually makes one more manly. At bottom I suppose I am calling into question Roissy’s contention (paraphrased) that female behaviour, and in particular the behaviour of slits, is the measure of manliness.
I just don’t really give a crap what sluts think or like, and I think men who spend lots of effort catering to what sluts think and like are not especially manly.
sucking up to women’s desires in this way actually makes one more manly
If a guy becomes more manly to impress women, and then finds that it helps with all endevours in his life, where is the problem?
If a female objects to men learning game, does one believe them?
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/women-policing-the-hierarchy/
@farm boy:
If a guy becomes more manly to impress women, and then finds that it helps with all endevours in his life, where is the problem?
If attracting women is what motivates a boy, as a first step, to start becoming a man, that is all well and good. The mistake comes when he turns some measure of the attention of sluts – as Roissy and other of society’s garbage collectors do, in a rather ridiculously adolescent and transparent attempt to play king of the ego-mountain – into the measure of manliness.
As I’ve said several times now in various ways, if you don’t want to become a skankomatic 3000 garbage collection slavebot you probably don’t want to lionize the skankomatic 3000 as your hero.
If a female objects to men learning game, does one believe them?
I believe that they object. I don’t believe that they object for sound reasons until I see those reasons.
As I mentioned before, I have a sneaking suspicion that some “red pill women” like Game because it keeps them at the center of attention. Their hubby-puppets willingly play dominant bad boy for them so they get 50 shades of constant attention. Even when he is ignoring her it is because he is paying attention to her.
Screw that. If a woman needs to be “Gamed” to be happy, don’t marry her. Period. Life is too short. That’s my advice, which, of course, combined with five bucks, will get you a nice latte.
Already-married men do have a different problem, of course. Game may be quite useful for them, depending on their particular situation.
I don’t, myself, object to all Game all the time, depending on what it means. I most certainly object to some of it, again depending on what it means. The “depending on what it means” isn’t an attempt to get into another time-wasting definition war; it is an observation that Game in the manosphere is a very postmodern concept the meaning of which is difficult to pin down and depends very much on who is asserting it and why. If I have time I will at some point make my own attempt to go analytically deeper on the subject in one or more blog posts.
deti says:
October 8, 2012 at 10:44 am
Hey want to know something funny?
Under all criteria currently embraced by the social system, 100% of those items fit the criteria of “psychological terrorism” aka psychological abuse, which is a criminal offense and are grounds for a no fault divorce.
MacPUA wrote:
Anti-gamers are terrified of men having power and authority in their relationships …
To which zippycatholic replied:
Right. It is impossible to find PUAs pathetic without being “terrified of men having power and authority in their relationships”.
I helpfully pointed out:
Embedded in the above is the assumption that Game begins and ends with PUA’s, that no one other than PUA’s knows Game, is capable of understanding Game or employing Game. Therefore, zippycatholic is calling David Collard a PUA, despite the known sexual history of Collard.
Zippycatholic
Since the manosphere prides itself on dispassionate reason, maybe you’d like to show precisely how your ravings follow from the premise that PUAs are pitiable creatures, slaves to their own appetites and the whims of slutty women.
Out of generosity, I have restored the context you chose to cut out. MacPUA made an observation about those who oppose Game, and you obligingly replied by essentially defining “game” as “something PUA’s do”. Given that, the rest is obvious.
It should be interesting to see you make all of your assumptions, which I may or may not share, explicit. After all I didn’t so much as mention Game,
Your feminine, passive-aggressive game doesn’t work here. You challenged MacPUA’s comment about Game, and therefore your comments about PUA’s clearly are in the context of Game, so to feebly attempt now to pretend “Oh! This wasn’t about game!” is simply silly. You may be trying to flirt here, but it isn’t working.
Now, then, please explain why you find the murder of children to be something so funny as to make a great tag line to one of your passive-aggressive flame-trolls. Be clear, and explicit, even bold in your text.
PS: It wasn’t Kool Aid, it was Flavor AId. Survivors and physical evidence agreed on that. Just FYI.
Also, we’re still waiting for you to man up and tell us all what your random comment about Charles Martel has to do with anything. Don’t let us down indefinitely.
Careful readers will look over Deti’s examples of “girl game”, and note how many of those entries also apply to traditional-conservative or social-conservative male humans. It’s funny to see he-man patriarchs writing like girls….
zippycatholic
As I’ve said several times now in various ways, if you don’t want to become a skankomatic 3000 garbage collection slavebot you probably don’t want to lionize the skankomatic 3000 as your hero.
Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. Make a note of this for future reference.
@AR:
MacPUA made an observation about those who oppose Game, and you obligingly replied by essentially defining “game” as “something PUA’s do”.
You are right. He wrote “anti-gamers” and I read “anti-PUA”. My bad.
That doesn’t make his “observation” any more rational, of course. Being “anti-gamer” doesn’t make someone “terrified of men having power and authority …” any more than being anti-PUA or anti-fiat-currency makes someone “terrified […]”.
The whole “terrified of Game” schtick is pretty much a mirror image of feminist shaming, actually: emotional rant devoid of reason.
I judge PUAs to be feeble and pathetic little creatures, poor role models for men. I judge Game to be a postmodern ambiguous concept: depending on what the particular speaker intends its meaning varies from interesting and potentially useful to outright evo-psych nonsense to moral sewage.
Nobody has to agree with me in those judgements, of course. But if that makes me a Churchian woman then I expect you’ve got some work to do on your categories.
Zippycathalic is not here to add to the conversation for a solution she is here to derail it. There is a real fear of men freeing themselves from the lie. And it involves more than just the feminist and females.
You guys are doing a lot to reinforce my impression that a significant element of the manosphere, at least in the comboxes, is really just postmodern feminism. The shaming, silly personal attacks, incapacity to see disagreement in anything other than emotional terms, etc — y’all might as well contribute to Gawker.
Knowledge is knowledge. One does not have to emulate Roissy in order to understand the knowledge he has.
Some people feel compelled to discredit game. I wonder why…
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/women-policing-the-hierarchy/
@farm boy:
Knowledge is knowledge. One does not have to emulate Roissy in order to understand the knowledge he has.
Absolutely. I’ve learned things in the unlikeliest of places, and I’m sure that is true for most people.
Some people feel compelled to discredit game. I wonder why…
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/women-policing-the-hierarchy/
I think “policing the hierarchy” is an interesting way to look at the very common female behaviour of playing mysterious: the whole “if you can’t figure me out without me having to make it explicit, you aren’t good enough for me” dynamic. (Most) women have always done that to some degree or other, and if labeling it “policing the hierarchy” helps with the evo-psyche just-so stories, well, I think that likely gives women too much credit for conscious scheming but I’m not gonna die on that hill.
However, it is a mistake to conclude that Game skepticism from anti-feminist patriarchal men is an instance of the phenomenon. More generally it is a mistake to impute all Game skepticism to feminism, female psychology, Churchianity, and the like.
Speaking generally without singling out particular commenters, it doesn’t help the discussion to engage in feminist-style tactics to try to silence people: shaming, name calling, personalizing conflict with TMI, inability to frame things in terms of substantive disagreement, imputing bad motives, framing disagreement as the product of emotion or psychological defect, etc.
Understand what that makes things look like to a reactionary patriarchal manosphere outsider like myself: it looks like you took a bunch of crazy modern feminists, shook them up until they realized that feminist equality is tommyrot, and then unleashed them in the comboxes without them having learned a thing from the realization. I’m your best friend. If you can’t disagree with me without personalizing and psychologizing it, you are hopeless.
ZippyCatholic
Calling evol psych “Just So stories” is itself dismissive. I should point out too that there is no reason to assume that behavioural strategies are conscious. That was the point of this:
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/on-the-origin-of-the-hamster-by-means-of-natural-selection/
And yes, I am not 100% serious. But I see no harm in playing with ideas in an open-minded way.
It is important to meet new ideas fairly and squarely; not simply dismiss them. I am a patriarchal Catholic too. Who is it precisely who is having trouble identifying allies?
@David Collard:
I’ve studied molecular biology and bioinformatics, so I’m not just an evo-psych skeptic. I’m an evolution skeptic, period, and view the entire discipline as mostly just so stories based on a bunch of unsupported assumptions (e.g. that homologous structure implies common descent, just as one example). I’ve written about it in the past, and have largely lost interest in the subject.
But as I said, I’m not gonna die on that hill. If people find evo-psych explanations helpful I’m not going to try to talk them out if it. It doesn’t really matter: what matters is the accuracy of description of current phenomena, not origin stories.
I am a believer in evolution, and have recently been cited in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. So we will not agree on this.
@David Collard:
That’s fine. I don’t know a single person that I agree with about everything, but that would never stop me from buying you a beer. I think “Game” can be thought of as a useful social model like Meyers-Briggs or some
other four quadrant personality model. These things can be quite helpful, especially when dealing with people you don’t know very well. They can be problematic when they evolve from a tool for sometimes-helpful social insights into an ideology though.
I can only add that they (the Game insights) are very good applied sociology. If sociologists had been doing their job, amateurs in the Manosphere would not have had to discover them independently. The approach certainly has improved my marriage too.
zippycatholic
I judge PUAs to be feeble and pathetic little creatures, poor role models for men. I judge Game to be a postmodern ambiguous concept: depending on what the particular speaker intends its meaning varies from interesting and potentially useful to outright evo-psych nonsense to moral sewage.
This article by Badger has some interesting things to say on this topic.
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/the-underlying-axioms-of-game/
Now, let’s discuss moral sewage: what is it about the murdering of children that you find so risible that it is something you casually employ as a joke, zippycatholic? And for your future reference, it was Flavor Aid, not Kool Aid.
It was your remark, zippycatholic. You can continue to act like an 8 year old who passed gas and seeks to pretend it didn’t happen, or you can Man UP and take responsibility for your own words. I have found over the years in a variety of places, that people tend to reveal their character in small things. The bartender who dips into the waitress tips when he thinks no one is looking turns out to be the one stealing from the till. The co-worker who swipes just one granola bar from someone else’s lunch turns out to be one of the people peddling office supplies out the back door. And so on.
Words mean things. All your big talk about morals is foundering on the rock of your own words right now.
Nobody has to agree with me in those judgements, of course. But if that makes me a Churchian woman then I expect you’ve got some work to do on your categories.
All we know about you is what you choose to write. If your writing sometimes looks a whole lot like something a 50+ year old 2nd stage feminist born-again churchlady on her 3rd marriage would produce, whose problem is that?
@AR:
what is it about the murdering of children that you find so risible that it is something you casually employ as a joke, zippycatholic
I don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
@AR:
what is it about the murdering of children that you find so risible that it is something you casually employ as a joke, zippycatholic
I don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Here is the comment in question:
MackPUA:
Anti-gamers are terrified of men having power and authority in their relationships …
zippycatholic
Right. It is impossible to find PUAs pathetic without being “terrified of men having power and authority in their relationships”.
Pass the Kool Aid.
I see my error clearly, now. I made the mistake of assuming that you, zippycatholic, actually pay attention to your own words, that you have some knowledge of history, and are aware of where certain pop catchphrases come from or came from. I assumed that you were knowingly implying that righteously angry men are just like the brainwashed followers of the evil, murderous cult leader Jim Jones, and I find that to be absurd, offensive, insulting. It’s been many, many years since I had anything but contempt for those who use such terms as “Kool-Aid drinker”, “Pass the Kool-Aid”, etc.
But apparently, I assumed malice where simple ignorance explains all.
My apologies for overestimating you. I’ll strive to avoid that in the future.
@anonymous reader, you were being obtuse with your child/baby killing talk. I was following most of your arguments except those, and I was aware you were hung up on the Jones legacy of that phrase because of the Flavor-Aid mentions
@AR:
Kool Aid? Seriously? You are all worked up about my use of an English idiom for closed minded cultish attitude that has been in common use since I was a kid?
OK. Nice shit test, girly man.
@zippy
I look for models that work, ones that can accurately predict things. That is why I use both Myers-Briggs and red pill studies.
One can look for the perfect model forever. It is best to with the
most effective current model, and be on the
lookout for something better
@DC
Sorry for dragging you into this
@AR:
Kool Aid? Seriously? You are all worked up about my use of an English idiom for closed minded cultish attitude that has been in common use since I was a kid?
Oh, so now you admit that you knew what you were referring to? Fine. Clears up any doubts about you.
Here’s what zippycatholic finds amusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
A total of 909 Temple members died in Jonestown, all but two from apparent cyanide poisoning, in an event termed “revolutionary suicide” by Jones and some members on an audio tape of the event and in prior discussions. This includes over 200 murdered children. The poisonings in Jonestown followed the murder of five others by Temple members at a nearby Port Kaituma airstrip. The victims included United States Congressman Leo Ryan. Four other Temple members died in Georgetown at Jones’s command.
Don’t preach to anyone about morality, boy. Your credibility on that score is now zero.
Heligko
@anonymous reader, you were being obtuse with your child/baby killing talk. I was following most of your arguments except those, and I was aware you were hung up on the Jones legacy of that phrase because of the Flavor-Aid mentions
Call it a personal quirk – I labor under the delusion that words mean things, and that people should be held responsible for what they say and do. Obviously not something that endears me to churchians, or other modern people. I don’t react well to Holocaust jokes, either.
Your endorsement of rap music, and of all that it entails, is duly noted zippycatholic.
Don’t bother even trying to discuss morality, boy. If 200 murdered children doesn’t bother you, you don’t have a clue what the word even means.
@AR:
I’ve tried to educate you on the fact that the idiom “drink the Kool-Aid” is very common in the corporate world and is not singularly
traceable to Jonestown. It occurs to me that perhaps you’ve never had a job, or at least no a corporate one; but whatever the case, you’ve certainly drunk the Kool-Aid.
Oh, and zippycatholic, if you are trying to defend yourself with the argument “Everyone else is doing it!”, you might want to consider just where that notion leads.
AR:
It isn’t that I am defending myself. From what? It is just that I find your persistent lunacy clinically fascinating.
@AR:
I’ve tried to educate you on the fact that the idiom “drink the Kool-Aid” is very common in the corporate world and is not singularly traceable to Jonestown.
I understand perfectly. “Everyone ELSE is doing it! All the cool kids are doing it!”, very mature of you. It also appears that you would not think to inform people when they are being crude. So be it.
It occurs to me that perhaps you’ve never had a job, or at least no a corporate one;
Assume all you wish. So far as I’m concerned, you’re just a boy who wants to do what everyone else is doing. I bet you have a lot of good Holocaust jokes, too, now don’t you? Dead Jews would surely be hilarious to you.
but whatever the case, you’ve certainly drunk the Kool-Aid.
Obviously this statement is false. It’s not worth refuting, though, because of the source.
AR:
It isn’t that I am defending myself. From what? It is just that I find your persistent lunacy clinically fascinating.
You’re correct, you are not defending yourself. You’re just claiming that whatever is currently in fashion is good. That fits in with your Charles Martel non sequitur of a while back, in a way. Of course, this contradicts all that “oh, so traditional” blather of a while back. But that’s not my problem.
As for the whole “Kool Aid drinking” joke, we’ll just have to disagree. I find the Jonestown deaths to be horrible, and references to that event in a jocular manner to be worthy of contempt. You take the opposite position, drawing your moral stance from whatever is popular in some corporate meeting room or other, this week.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/10/10 « Free Northerner
Pingback: Patological women | Upstairsgaller
Pingback: How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state. | Dalrock
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Grape Harvest Edition « Patriactionary
“”In my experience, women today seem to have more “balls” than men do.””
Is this a joke?…..or is this guy some pansy loser ass faggot?….I assume the latter! Women owned business’s contribute 5% to GDP….62% of government employees are women!…This speaks volumes!!!!….Men have the “balls” to go into business….women want a cushy,overpaid job with the government.If WIMMIN had balls they would go into business!…..what a LOSER comment!
There’s also http://yourbrainonporn.com/
Regarding the tattoo issue a friend of mine was asked why he didn’t have tattoos. His response. “You don’t put stickers on a Ferrari.”
Have to disagree with the apparent sentiment on this thread abut the value of men ‘whining’ about the success of the feminist movement. As an educator, I appreciate the power of information and this information of female supremacy and the growing matriarchy is not discussed or even conceptualized anywhere else but the manosphere.
@Thomas: “Slaves have never shown much ambition and drive about their daily activities. Why would they?”
Slavery is exactly the right word when men are divested of property and family rights, or deprived of their rights under the marital contract yet required to fulfill their obligations. Wouldn’t it be interesting to look at the literature in the South on motivating the slaves to work both during the institution and afterwards in the Antebellum period? We are basically faced with the same problems.
@Dalrock: “Anything men can do to help wives understand the real cost* of blowing up the family before they blow it up is worth it for the children”
This insightful statement also provides the simple solution- increase the real cost of blowing up the family! SHTF scenario avoided.
Dalrock, I know you have an open posting policy but sweet Mother of Mercy I had to take a Tylenol (at least) after reading that continuing barrage of nonsensical contrarianism. I get it, game sucks, the people who learn game are pathetic losers and even though it works it is bad. So let me invoke Zippy and say I appreciate that your opinions are expressed. However, I and others have seen the huge transformation that a tiny bit of game can do for a dude who has lost his confidence. Now please limit your contrarianism to a couple posts per thread or I would beg Dalrock to make you go away forever. This is textbook trolling and the volume of posts is ridiculous. Say all you want in one big post, that’s all.
And this quote from Deti is pure magic:
“I think also that a lot of women — married and single — are not going to like what the new version of “man up” is. Mostly, it will mean men doing what they want for themselves and their families, not what society or churches or pastors think they should do. It will mean more and more men foregoing marriage, leaving bad marriages, and finding alternative arrangements to traditional legal marriage.
It is also going to mean more and more men not working in high paying jobs, for two reasons: (1) women hold a growing number of them; and (2) most men either cannot get them or simply don’t want them. With no wife or children to support, they simply don’t need a lot of money, so they don’t put in the time to earn it.
The future will not be pretty , and women will not like it”
@Bluepillprofessor
Quite likely, the future will have many men abandoning homes, jobs, money, and, yes, divorcing spouses and families in order to serve Christ and spread the gospel.
Few men have more zeal for God than men who realise they have nothing to lose. Of course, lots of women aren’t going to like it, but none of those women are interested in Christian headship or marriage anyway.
“In my experience, women today seem to have more “balls” than men do.”
This is incorrect. If you compare beer to whiskey, whiskey is stronger. Water the whiskey down enough and the beer appears stronger. Yet it remains what it was, the standard of measurement has been changed. So to it is with men. The standard that men use to be measured by is gone. A few men are beginning to forge a new standard. It’s going to get interesting.
Pingback: Hogyan fojtja meg a házasság lerombolása a feminista jóléti államot - Férfihang.hu