The conservative reaction to Dr. Helen’s Men On Strike is interesting because it is the opposite of their general stance on government creating the wrong incentives. When high income taxes discourage investment and production, conservatives point to the Laffer curve and advise lowering tax rates to rectify the problem. The liberal response to conservatives pointing out that high taxes are strangling the economy is to accuse those responding to the current incentives of being selfish or unpatriotic. We see the same pattern across a slew of issues, including stifling environmental regulations, capital gains taxes, minimum wage laws, and rent control. Liberals tend to want to shame actors into going against their own best interest in order to prop up bad public policy, where conservatives tend to point out the folly of using shame and moral coercion to overcome bad policy. The solution to bad policy, conservatives regularly point out, is to fix the policy, not to try to strong arm companies and individuals to go against their own best interest.
But all of this suddenly changes when the bad policy is regarding marriage. Then the same conservatives* who stand ready to offer a detailed lecture on the need to match risk with reward, authority with responsibility, and to have consistent and fair enforcement of contracts suddenly switch to the tactics of a liberal defending a 90% marginal tax rate**.
Sure it goes against a man’s best financial and legal interests to marry under the current system, but making foolish choices regarding risk and reward is what being a man is all about! Where is your sense of adventure, your patriotism?
So what makes marriage different to conservatives? Why instead of pushing to remove the built in incentives for women to legally abuse marriage and the uncompensated risks men take in marrying, do so many conservatives reflexively dismiss the need for reform and passionately respond with bizarre and incomprehensible arguments and calls to duty and patriotism? (H/T SlargTarg)
There are three main reasons for this:
- They are responding emotionally and reflexively to the term marriage strike.
- They have been suckered into the role of enabling feminists.
- They are invested in the current corrupt model of marriage.
Reason one stems from the conservative tendency to dislike unions. The term “marriage strike” conjures up images of corrupt union bosses, a sense of entitlement, and stifling inefficiency. As a fleeting initial reaction by conservatives this is understandable. The term marriage strike is problematic, especially since it doesn’t accurately describe what is going on. The decline in marriage is no more a “marriage strike” by men than the economic malaise during the Carter years was a “business strike”. Businesses under President Carter didn’t shrink in an effort to hurt President Carter, they were simply responding to the incentives at the time. The risks of investment were high, and due to high taxes the potential reward was greatly reduced. Likewise we aren’t seeing men refuse to marry despite wanting to marry under the current system. Men aren’t engaging in collective bargaining to hold out for a better deal; individual men are simply making their own cost/benefit decisions, and as women have collectively upped the ante fewer men (on the margin) are now motivated to marry.
While the term marriage strike is problematic, Dr. Helen is using the term in the context of “going Galt”, referring to Ayn Rand’s famous book Atlas Shrugged. In Atlas Shrugged, the productive class find themselves torn between their natural instinct to work hard, produce, and to solve problems, and the fact that continuing to do so ultimately enables a perverse regime. There is no collective decision in the book by capitalists to refuse to continue to solve the problems the regime creates; this is something each character must agonize over individually. This same problem is something conservatives are struggling with today, and unfortunately large numbers are still stuck in the mental mode of trying to find a way to make feminism work.
But there is a final reason why so many conservatives forget their passionate belief in fair and predictable courts and in balancing risk and reward whenever the topic turns to men and marriage. Just like a liberal arguing that capital holders have an obligation to risk their capital no matter how unpredictable the courts are and how confiscatory the taxes on investments are, many conservatives are defending a system of perverse marriage incentives for men because they like the system. Of the three reasons conservatives turn into liberals when discussing men and marriage, this is by far the strongest.
While being invested in the current system is the primary reason so many conservatives suddenly become irrational on the topic of marriage, it is also greatly misunderstood and surrounded by a thick fog of denial. On the surface it seems impossible. Conservatives are after all, conservative. Surely they support traditional marriage! However, the modern conservative has bought into the lie of feminism. They see marriage as a zero sum game, and fear the oppression of women more than they yearn for traditional marriage. Reforming the corrupt family courts and corrupt churches would in their mind lead to widespread oppression of women. In short, they don’t believe that traditional marriage and traditional sexual morality are good for women. The idea of women marrying young with little or no sexual experience frightens and even repulses them, as does women being encouraged to focus on being wives and mothers over education and career, as does the idea of wives submitting to their husbands.
This is where our opportunity to engage conservatives lies. Part of the issue is that conservatives aren’t used to being challenged on their misplaced fear of traditional sexual morality regarding women and marriage. They see themselves as arguing for traditional sexual morality because they are measuredly critical of slutwalkers and oppose abortion and gay marriage, all the while supporting serial monogamy as a woman’s sacred path to marriage. The other part of the issue is that conservatives are misunderstanding the true nature of sexual morality as well as the nature of men and women. We need to help conservatives understand that romantic love doesn’t confer morality on sex and the choice for wives isn’t between happy rebellion and miserable submission.
This won’t be easy, and we won’t be able to convince large numbers of conservatives that traditional roles and traditional morality aren’t oppressive to women all at once. But when forced to truly face the issue I’m convinced that more and more conservatives will ultimately adopt a conservative position on marriage and sexual morality.
*Not all conservatives are like that.
**Not all liberals are like that.
Rational risk management is the foundation of life. A disregard of rational risk management is a form of insanity.
A man needs a woman like a bicycle needs a fish.
Our generation has been poisoned – intoxicated – by an independent self-determination that has brought the destruction of old order and community.
A woman can earn and provide for herself. (Failing that all too frequently the welfare state won’t let her fall too far…)
As a modern man I need no woman to cook, clean or keep a household for me.
Other people are such a bother.
And we wonder why we are lonely and crazy.
Main trouble with conservatives: Actually going back to the true root of the problem is hard and requires mental and imaginative effort, few do it. Most ‘conservatives’ defend a previous political arrangement rather than a timeless moral tradition, so they’ll talk about the Reagan Era far more than, say, the Coolidge policy.
We are raised to protect and defend women. That brings a great deal of emotion to the table when women are seen to be under attack, even when it makes little sense and involves those whom we don’t much care for. Rush Limbaugh ran into this with his comments about Sandra Fluke.
This reaction is cynically used by feminists to enlist us conservatives in self-destructive crusades. Women used to be more controlled by society and less feral and that instinct to protect was therefore less destructive than it has become. I can say that more and more conservatives are no longer buying into the neo-feminist arguments, but it’s a slow process and some will never grasp what is happening.
The irony of appealing to the “Reagan Era” is that Ronald Reagan was most infamously known for signing into law the first few “no-fault” divorces laws, which effectively for all intents and purposes, destroyed whatever meaning there is to the idea of a martial promise or obligation.
In the past, the only justification for a divorce are “faults” or wrong-doing by either party, known as “fault” divorces. Adultery, physical abuse and abandonment are among the very few justifications for divorce, and without such objective offenses, the courts would not and could not grant a divorce. And besides the courts, social stigma against divorce enforced the objectivity of the martial promises which norms its subjective participants.
However, a “no-fault” divorce is a divorce which is granted simply on the say-so or whims of anyone of its participants, independently of whether an objective fault or offense had occurred against the marriage. Thus, people could simply end their marriage as and when they feel like it.
It is clear that “no-fault” divorce has effectively destroyed any meaning there is to the very idea of a promise, nevermind a martial promise. In contract law, a promise or contract which contains the condition or clause which goes, “provided I feel like it”, is not a real contract, a contract which cannot be effectively enforced in any court of law. The legal term for this is illusionary contract. Thus, for example, a promise which goes “I promise to provide such and such goods and services to you, provided I feel like it” or “I promise to meet you at 5 pm provided I want to”, is not a promise at all, because it is a promise which doesn’t contain any objective obligations, but which performance is rendered optional to the choice of its participants, and therefore an illusionary promise.
Thus, a “no-fault” divorce, for all intents and purposes, turns a martial promise into an illusionary promise. It is a promise to be married “provided I feel like it”, which is no promise at all. Even in countries and nations which does not technically have “no-fault” divorces have such loose criterias for divorces (such as a year or two of separation, etc) that it is effectively “no-fault” for all intents and purposes, because as long as one can get a divorce without any objective fault or wrong-doing on the part of either parties and simply because one wants to, then it is effectively “no-fault” and falls under the category of “I promise to be married provided I want to or am happy.”
I elaborated more in detail how this lead to gay marriages here:
http://rationalityofaith.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/reflections-on-pinkdot-sg-marriage-died-at-no-fault-divorce-not-gay-marriage-a-proposal-for-an-insurance-policy-against-divorces/
It is hilarious that the striking down of DOMA is being heralded so strongly as the death of marriage by conservatives.
Marriage is ALREADY dead.
When the topic of rampant unfair divorce laws hits the airwaves, conservatives go silent. (A difficult task).
Thanks to the courts, politicians, & feminists…..the institution of marriage is a mere shadow of its former self.
Marriage was a broken institution long before DOMA was struck down.
Who is John Galt? I AM.
It is true.
And I have quit embedding the most popular media and entertainment content with what has protected you and those you love from the consequences of the majority of it.
It is verifiable, but unfortunately too many names would be revealed. Just know that I and my teams have protected you and yours through embedding the positive philosophical narrative concepts into everything popular.
But… It is you: You that think you’re a person with ‘values’ … You. Are. Fake. You’re a false teacher through the sickness that you have made of your life in the belief that you’be done your best.
You haven’t. While you enjoyed the benefits of the illusion of security, I have risked my life to embed the over-arching narratives with what protected you and your family’s children from the most perverse yet subtle influence.
“Oh but my _______ (kids, daughter, nieces, nephews) don’t understand the lyrics of those top five songs on the radio.” Oh? Really? Are you saying the children in your family aren’t intelligent?
I didn’t think so. They are intelligent. Do not insult your children by acting as if they’re not!
Pay attention. LiveFearless brings you truth you can’t get anywhere else. And you had better thank you’re God for Dalrock.
And since we’re on Dalrock: You ‘church’ “leaders” have enjoyed the protection of my sacrifices … You’ve been protected from the “Hollywood” and “video gaming” industries you rail against (despite your audience being its most important consumers and clients — the most easily brainwashed to believe nonsense because of pliable emotions and repetitive white-washing of truth)
… That protection has been removed and they’ve made it clear you’ll be the first to be ridiculed, exposed…
Now be ready. There are no more that go before the anonymous ones in control of the intentions of the narratives. Why? Because you chose to work a fake job instead of learning how to earn your way to global influence where it counts.
I’ve been your ONLY ally. Now this is shifting to something bigger.
You’ll doubt my words. That’s ok. You’ll remember me when you see the results when the last of the created content airs or appears in words somewhere popular. You’ll wake up and see how the narrative intentions have changed every person. You’ll feel alone and you’ll have no ally to change it back so you can have your chips and beer watching your sports instead of doing greatness to influence the globe.
For now I refer you to Vic http://www.lifegivingshow.com to get yourself quickly on the path of being a great man instead of an oblivious weight of living the mundane thinking it is all ok. I’m not calling you fat, but I know from experience that to gain influence you must make your life matter. It’s easier when you get your body together.
I am the ideal you think of when you ask “Who is John Galt?” I’ve shrugged though I’m strong and could continue holding you up.
Since you continue to bicker and cave in to the fake narratives on your idiotic news channels and ‘churches’ … It is a waste. Now you’ll have no choice. You’ll stop being brainwashed because what you have chosen to ignore will be ever present all around you. Stop being lost. Start here http://www.lifegivingshow.com
I guess it depends on what you mean by “conservative”, but abolishing marriage does allow women to achieve full workforce productivity, and through the capitalistic science of marketing they can get men to pay luxury prices to keep the reproductive machinery running. If men don’t buy it, labor force replacement is easily outsourced, with workers shipped in through immigration. While feminists talk all radical like teenagers with incompletely formed brains, grown-up feminism is just a power-play within the status quo, far from incompatible with conservatism. Feminists constantly slip into believing it is 1950 or 1850, and have a more old-fashioned sexist attitude than any modern people.
Basically Conservatives, Feminists, and American Society left men with two choices.
I will copy and paste part of part 2 of my book review on Men On Strike, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which choice is more attractive.
Dr. Helen Smith addresses the issue of Hypergamy, and revealed a survey which confirmed 20% of the guys were having sex with 75% of women (assuming it’s their prime years).
For this exercise, let’s remove those 20% of the guys, now we are down to 80%. Also for this exercise let’s assume another 25% of the guys got married young to the other 25% of the younger women who weren’t having sex with the top 20% of the guys. Basically society has provided the other 55% of the guys (being conservative here, good chance it’s much higher) two options in life.
The first option is what society has to offer these 55% of the guys’ once they are in their late 20’s and 30’s.
The terms are bail out an ex carousel cock rider who only has at best 10% of her sexual currency value left while the other 20% of the guys got to enjoy the other 90% of her sexual currency value at bargain rates. In terms of marriage, she can get fat eating bon bons all day on the couch watching TV, can nag you to no end, can freely tell you how fail to measure up compared to the other guys she got to have fun with in the past, cut off the sex supply, have little or no money and free time for hobbies. Are you then going to divorce her, well she gets half the assets, alimony, half the 401K, if children are involved get to pay child support (possibly on inputed income), if children are involved lose the home while still getting make the mortgage payments while at the same time trying to pay rent for a small apartment.
If you decide to be a good husband, she may very cheat on you because you are too nice and boring. Once she gets bored of you, she can make a false abuse allegation claim to get you kicked out of your house, you get pay yours and her attorney fees, lose your home but still get to make the mortgage payments, while paying monthly rent for a new place, lose half of your 401K, alimony, child support, and this ex wife may very well brain wash the kids against you.
Guess what you don’t like these terms, society will blast you by running tons of “Man Up Articles”
The other option for these 55% of the guys who many will come to the conclusion and say fuck it and bail out. Therefore remove themselves from the dating and marriage market all together. By doing so means these guys will only have to financially support themselves and no one else. Now these guys will have more free time and money on their hands to engage in hobbies they enjoy doing. Of course this means less stress, no nagging wife no fear of divorce etc.
As women get older their attractiveness goes down, as men get older, their sexual hormone levels decrease as well. These guys’ sex drives become more manageable when they get into their 30’s as opposed to when they were 20. Should the sex drive still be there, rampant internet porn is free, virtual sex technology should get better as the years goes on. What if these guys want to enjoy a sexual experience, there are plenty college age escort babes these guys could sample for $200-300 an hour which is a bargain compared to what married and divorced men have to pay for a rapidly aging wife/ex wife. As these guys get more income, they will be perfectly capable of taking themselves on overseas sex vacations should they decide to do so.
I think the problem that the TradCons look at the courts and the bias as being “Trad”, but trying to ignore or have a silly hope or rationalization hamsterization that we can wait until we go back to traditional marriage where the woman was the home-maker, had no career, took care of the children, so the bias for custody and alimony was warranted. The ratio of outcomes appropriate for the 1950s is not the same for 2010.
This is similar to arguments I have with libertarians that want to deregulate something – and are willing to accept the half of the loaf that becomes crony capitalist corporate welfare. The late Harry Brown said “Government breaks your leg and then gives you a crutch”. It also would protect you so you could compete even with the broken leg. Libertarians want “free trade” in the form of you with your broken leg and crutch having to compete with a foreign athlete on steroids that will die in a few years, but will outrun anyone until his heart blows up.
Similarly, the TradCons want the law biased toward the FAMILY, but it ends up being biased toward women, including single women, and women seeking to destroy their own family.
And again the word that dare not be spoken – contraception – is also behind a lot of it. I point out constantly that even the most conservative red-pillers use husband and wife when talking about perspective mates, and not father and mother. They want the sexual license within marriage.
Marriage is so you can do anything the gays do with an equal lack of temporal consequences. Gay marriage between heterosexuals. Apparently the biblical definition is one man and multiple (old testament) or one (new testament) woman, but nothing else. Procreation has been divorced from any other aspect.
And about once a week, something on a manosphere site decries the demographic suicide of whites/europeans. Yet on the same sites “Alphaness” is measured by the amount of sex (frequency or size of harem), not the amount of offspring produced. They accept that our genes are driving us to reproduce and find the highest status persons to do it with, but turn around and write up even more advice on how to avoid actually reproducing.
The traditionalists want to roll back the clock, but not too far. Not to the grandparents time when children were thought to be a blessing and the churches actively taught such. But just far enough so we can do the zombie pantomimes of families that either never really start, or are limited to stunted caricatures.
There is also the aspect that children were the original form of social security. Where are the economists here? In earlier times, you hoped one of your children would take you in when you couldn’t care for yourself. But we have Social Security and Medicare. What incentives did that create? That our retirement is now government and our 401ks? That we need to have children go to college to get useless degrees and become debt slaves?
Honor your Father and your Mother is one of the 10 commandments and was a capital crime to violate. That was one side, but the other was that the Mother and Father were expected to sacrifice for the children. A debt that could not be paid back but the children could try.
In sum, the traditional conservatives want to keep the materialism, and try to figure out how they can get just inside the edge on God’s law concerning marriage, spouses, family, and children. Even if it requires as much reinterpretation – the comfortable parts of the feminization of the Gospel.
“3.They are invested in the current corrupt model of marriage”
You are all missing something more fundamental. What is the single way to determine if a judge is going to be liberal or conservative?
No, it is not identifying with being part of a political party. It is not religion. It is not even identifying as conservative or liberal.
It is much simpler than that.
Does the judge have a daughter?
If he answer is yes, he will be liberal/feminist in family law and other matters.
This extends to everything else.
If a man has a daughter he will not support marriage, he will not support taking anything away from his daughter (even if he has sons).
You will not be able to win any of these men over.
Which is why not only should women not be allowed to vote, but neither should any man with a daughter, nor should he be allowed to hold office.
And it also why the West cannot be saved.
They’re fools, ignorant, or religious. If you are religious, there is a reason to get married: sin is worse than some Earthly legal ramifications. But the religious are also ignorant or fools if they don’t admit all of the costs and work to change them.
What are the ages of these folks? From my reading, they are older. I don’t think we need them or even need to engage them. Focus on the young.
Ras is correct. The West can’t be saved. The ‘Conservatives’ can blat on all they want. It is enjoyable to mock them.
In my youth, I didn’t have any problem whatsoever putting on a parachute and “jumping out of a perfectly good airplane”; my family and friends thought I was crazy, but I loved it (though I’ll admit that it was scary the first few times). Even the girlfriend I had at the time accused me of “having a death wish”. But I did it multiple times because:
1) it was something that I’d always wanted to try, and
2) it was a sport that, though risky, was made as safe as possible for the participant.
Although NO sport can be made 100% safe, safety was paramount and always stressed (through training, careful use and maintenance of equipment (body harnesses, parachutes, jump boots, static lines, etc.), and unnecessary and foolish risk-taking was discouraged (if not banned).
Would I have gone skydiving if I found out that there was a 50%+ chance of the parachute not opening, or that equipment was not properly cared for? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Risk-taking is one thing, but making foolish/stupid choices is another thing altogether.
I’ve never married, and I never will.
As far as I am concerned, the risks a man takes to marry are simply too many and too big, and the benefits are too few and too small (if not mostly illusory).
I’ll take risks but I won’t take stupid risks.
Because there ARE some things that even I won’t do.
Feminism is the main narrative in the public today, poisoning even those that want to be fair-minded into believing that men are privileged and women are victims of a war on women.
As to marriage, it’s really the 20-something women that are more at fault for delaying marriage.
Bring on the bachelorette tax!
The problem that I have with Dr Smith’s book is that she almost gets it right, but still gets it wrong. Going on strike is stopping working, stopping doing the job you are meant to do. That is not what is happening.
No longer are men ‘meant’ to get married and be a husband, rather they now have choices, they have been freed just as much as women. If you tear up the social contract, you tear it all up, not just the bit that applies to you, you know the bits you don’t like.
Given the risks of choosing to marry, why do something you no longer need to?
God bless Dalrock for consistently pointing out the absurdity.
And Dominic and Outcast Superstar nailed it!
Dominic
“In contract law, a promise or contract which contains the condition or clause which goes, “provided I feel like it”, is not a real contract, a contract which cannot be effectively enforced in any court of law. The legal term for this is illusionary contract. Thus, for example, a promise which goes “I promise to provide such and such goods and services to you, provided I feel like it” or “I promise to meet you at 5 pm provided I want to”, is not a promise at all, because it is a promise which doesn’t contain any objective obligations, but which performance is rendered optional to the choice of its participants, and therefore an illusionary promise.”
^^^^^THIS. An illusory promise cannot be enforced. It’s moot. Thus, marriage doesn’t really exist.
Churchians and trad-cons are rushing to the funeral to revive the body, only to find out it was buried several decades ago while they were arguing over whether or not dancing was from the devil. Score one for Screwtape.
Go ahead and picket the tombstones, Pastor McWhiteknight.
I’ll spend my time waving flares to warn unsuspecting men; men who are driving toward a marriage bridge that collapsed in the 70’s. Warning:There Is No There, There!
At the very least we should change the road signs to divert them toward safer passage.
Dear Dalrock,
Congrats on another GENIUS post! Today’s neoconz are the same way about war too.
Remember, my good friends, that long before Galt went Galt, Achilles QUIT the GREEK ARMY, on the very first PAGE of the ILIAD.
Why did Achilles’ quit?
Because his COMMANDER seized his rightful prize, Breisis, in the same way that the NEOCONZTHZ promote teh buttehxting and desouling of your future wife, seizing her ass while teaching her how to seize your assets.
The very first word
of all western literature
is RAGE.
The RAGE of ACHILLES when his property rights are violated.
ACHILLES, the GREATEST GREEK WARRIOR QUITS, and ZEUS’S WILL IS DONE, as te GREEKS BEGIN TO LOSE.
And so it is that as the neocons celerbate teh buttcocking buttcockers who make sectirivee tapings of butthext of your future wife in da WEEKLY SSTANDARDZ, so it is dat MEN
ARE WISING UP
LIKE THE HEROIC ACHILLES
and
GOING GALT!
And so ye see, once more, why the churchians detest HOMER and luv luv lubv buttcockingz lzozlzoz
Who the fuck cares really? No one I can see. Women are batshit crazy and expect so much for so little, just like liberals, non-white people and every other victim class, expect from whites. They expect whites and men in general to give up their entire existence. I just don’t care much about their shit anymore. They have literally destroyed anything of worth, the world is now empty, pathetic and worthy of immense scorn.
Going Galt is literally just a way for men like me to get from point A to point B, point B being death.
@Dalrock,
re: the whole first paragraph, and then taking into the concrete with “…suddenly switch to the tactics of a liberal defending a 90% marginal tax rate” … ahhhhhh, sources?
I mean, I know this is typical right-wing narrative of what it means to be, NOT conservative, so fill in with label of choice: liberal, progressive, democrat, whatever …
But what you are saying here is boilerplate conservative narrative. It is the specific discovery that, ahem, oh here it comes, “not all liberals are like that” … or better still, “liberals like that are actually really, really hard to find”, that makes for a specific kind of awakening by people who find less and less company in a party that understands all taxation as theft and all public programs and social safety nets as superhighways to Maoism. Turn off the Nation. Turn to the New Republic and the American Prospect. You won’t agree with it all, but last I checked, pretty damn hard finding a 90% marginal tax rate liberal. On the other hand, Rand Paul will trek the country with a PowerPoint presentation showing debt as a ratio of GDP as the highest since the end of WWII. Funny thing is … on the heels of two costly wars, he won’t tell you how we paid that off, or will he mention that if we hadn’t … we’d all of inherited a second-world country.
Don’t bifurcate this on left/right. It is both needless and foolish and you of all people are too smart for it. I’m working on my own piece that I will develop for a long time, but for now the comment.
Tell you this though: I can find common ground on this point that you did not articulate but made me think of you … fascinating listening to Republican politicians bemoan the Supreme Court rulings on same sex marriage. Fascinating because the most articulate beat chest over “woe woe the family … children need a mother and a father!”
Fascinating listening indeed. How I wish I could be face to face with such men to ask, eye to eye, toe to toe, “did you feel so strongly about that when you passed no fault divorce and created the child support regime?”
“This is similar to arguments I have with libertarians that want to deregulate something – and are willing to accept the half of the loaf that becomes crony capitalist corporate welfare. The late Harry Brown said “Government breaks your leg and then gives you a crutch”. It also would protect you so you could compete even with the broken leg. Libertarians want “free trade” in the form of you with your broken leg and crutch having to compete with a foreign athlete on steroids that will die in a few years, but will outrun anyone until his heart blows up.”
In the next few paragraphs you quote the dangers of social security and medicaid cause by removing the ties between senior and junior generations. The point of having dependence on family is that it prevents dependence on the state. If a worker breaks his leg on the job he has his brothers and fathers to help him out. Family is a form of insurance and social security. Just as when the family is strong it is born out of an interdependence. Women dependent on men create a strong marriage. The elderly dependent on the young creates a strong family. When we have little need for each other those bonds weaken.
This is not an argument against free trade. It is an anti statist argument. By removing the state run institutions of welfare, corrupt divorce courts, and social security, there would be an insurance and dependence gap created in which the family would naturally fill.
It is no surprise that the destruction of the family and the rise of the socialist state correlate. The state becomes the family serving all the roles previously filled except love and companionship. And they’ve got prozac for that. So when the family becomes redundant as a means of survival people just give up, don’t make it work, and walk away because they can. The family becomes a group of strangers which add little to someone’s life or, in most cases, a group of people you watch a lot of television with.
Libertarians are pro-family by default.
@Bluedog: You may be focused on a detail and have missed the bigger point, because you’re not the primary audience being confronted: Conservatives think themselves to be the rational, dispassionate, logical bunch. They think they are the soldiers fighting for God’s own definition of marriage. This article is meant to be an indictment of TradCons, so he is confronting them with how their view of themselves does not comport with their actions. This isn’t a Left vs. Right article, this is: “Creatures of the Right, you who claim to be the defenders of traditional marriage, you destroyed it.”
(In the later Bush years, there were certain online communities of the Left that liked to describe themselves as the true “reality based communities”. They opposed war then; they don’t now. It would be the exact same rhetorical strategy to confront these people as — you are better than the conservatives; you think about the consequences of these actions; you opposed the war then; why are you OK with it now that your guy is doing the bombing?)
Although, I have met a number of self-described liberals who argued for a 100% taxation rate above a certain multiple of the poverty rate. These were all people who worked for the government in some way (usually academia), and so had a wage schedule, and the 100% taxation rate usually was supposed to be some considerable distance above where their pay would top out. I’ve also met a number of self-described liberals that understood that behavior chased incentives, and so you couldn’t soak everyone you wanted to stay productive.
as feminist females are Slutwalkers for sex, conservative males are Slutwalkers for money and status
theyre a lot less concerned about “oppression of women” than about continuing the Amerikan Empire Gravy Train that’s been filling their pockets the past half-century
these go-along-with-evil cowards are Amerika’s judges, lawyers, cops , prison guards, political /media elite, corporate honchos . . . WHY would they want to change a sistem — no matter how malevolent — that’s been so good to them for so long? they dont, and they have no intention of changing (much less dumping) Der Matriarchy, despite dog n pony shows like the tea party
in church, at home, at the jobsite, these guys have been preening in their Big Man status before various “soft harems” for decades, and if you imagine they tolerate the feminist nations of the west out of ideals and lofty values concerning “oppression,” you are dreaming
they are just as afraid of, and subject to, females as are the lefties . . . however, they rationalize their subjugation using different excuses and cover-ups
death of fatherhood? tortured little boys? destroyed economy and inner cities? vast poverty? mass male unemployment, suicide, false imprisonment? so what, who cares? i just bought my grand-daughters new ponies out at our ranch, the wife’s having a huge party this weekend . . . so no, unfortunately i wont be joining your revolution . . . but hey! tell ya what, i WILL run my mouth about leftism when it’s safe to do so
. . . but aside from that, my friends and i will slap you down and cage you if you so much as blink at our Precious Darlings, or threaten my income stream, got that asshole?
oh yeah, these Bravehearts are a REAL spearhead that’s about to challenge the gynogulag, lol
Dalrock,
I’d like to propose a fourth possibility. The Church still views marriage as holy and the only way to legitimately express sexuality, but is under blue pill thinking when it comes to the involvement of the culture and state.
Because of the culture, the church encourages marriage at a higher age. The church doesn’t want to recognize the court’s problems with divorce because “Christians don’t do that.”
I don’t think it’s malice, but ignorance that is the biggest problem.
@tz:
>And about once a week, something on a manosphere site decries the demographic suicide of whites/europeans. Yet on the same sites “Alphaness” is measured by the amount of sex (frequency or size of harem), not the amount of offspring produced.
There has always been an awareness of demographic suicide in marriage strike circles, ever since before the manosphere was the manosphere. The writers who call for marriage strike are smart enough to understand that sex doesn’t define male worth.
Fred Reed was calling for a marriage strike as early as 2001. (He is also on record as being indifferent to the extinction of the white race.) 2001 was well before the manosphere existed as such. Fred Reed was blazing the trail for the manosphere before Tucker Max and Mystery and the PUAs were publishing their first books.
The most idiotic elements of the manosphere – notably Roissy – confused sexual promiscuity with male worth and call their confused notion “alphaness.” Sadly, Roissy’s idiocy generates more publicity and blog linking and online socializing than the sober philosophies of marriage-striking MGTOWs.
The current manosphere is unstable; PUAs, MRAs, and MGTOWs all write about sex, but don’t accomplish much political action. The Orthosphere, the White Nationalists, and portions of the HBDsphere are more political, but less adept at recruiting new bloggers. The manosphere’s current publicity niche might be overrun by a more politically active and less sex-oriented group of writers. The reactosphere is certainly a contender for that niche, but its victory is far from assured.
The manosphere is good at recruiting new bloggers and drumming up publicity, but it has a high attrition rate and a short list of accomplishments. (What has the manosphere done, other than generate a few extra book sales for Dr. Helen, Cappy, and Aurini?) By contrast, while the manospherians are exchanging “link love,” the Golden Dawn is out in the streets, feeding hungry Greeks.
I have to disagree on Dalrocks optimism towards conservatives … I know Dalrock means well … lol
Conservatives realising the truth about women, highly unlikely
Conservatives never gave a crap about abortion, why should they give a crap about men
It was only when their own teenage daughters aborted children, they started to give a damn about teenage sluts murdering their own unborn infants
Conservatives will have to build a critical mass of millions of conservative men destroyed & raped in the courts, before they start giving a damn about men
Conservatives worship government, they worship every piece of corrupt propoganda churned out of the backside of their bullshit politicians
Their idolatory of politics is the curse of conservatives everywhere
Conservatives inability to stand up against the government, & their inability to stand up against corrupt pigs & cops has been the bane of men for centuries
Conservatives have been the ultimate manginas for centuries
What we need are REAL conservatives, willing to stand up to government & the corrupt criminal courts
We need REAL Libertarians, anarchists, MRA’s, MGTOW & anti-feminists to fight them in the courts & get these god damn divorce courts bombed back to the dark ages, where they freaking belong
There is no reciprocating with conservatives
I cant believe the unspeakable evil & injustice wreaked on men
Either fight them in the courts now & get the divorce courts changed
Or fight the government in the streets & watch millions die
Do you really think MGTOW will stand around, & enjoy the decline?
Are you that naive?
We have to avoid the blood of men in riots & the blood of men dead in the streets
We HAVE to challenge & change divorce law, before its too late for our men …
Bluedog says:
June 29, 2013 at 4:53 pm
” Rand Paul will trek the country with a PowerPoint presentation showing debt as a ratio of GDP as the highest since the end of WWII. Funny thing is … on the heels of two costly wars, he won’t tell you how we paid that off, or will he mention that if we hadn’t … we’d all of inherited a second-world country.”
We haven’t paid off either of the debts from those wars. Fedgov debts are going hyperbolic.
Oh, and yes, we’re increasingly inheriting much of a Third World country (seen recent pics of Detroit?), not just much of a Second World one (the police state part).
Pingback: Conservatives ask: Who is John Galt? | Viva La Manosphere!
Pingback: Seize the Current not the Wash-ups – of Gilliard, Labor and a “Strategic Inflection Point” for the Manosphere | Blue Dog Talking
“The idea of women marrying young with little or no sexual experience frightens and even repulses them”
Anyone who believes this might be conservative, but they certainly aren’t christian and I don’t see any reason why we should consider them friends, rather than foes. Here are some stats for these geniuses
1940 Fornication Rate sub 1% (based on Kinsley)
Current fornication rate over 90%
In the current cultural center of America, NYC, there are more abortions than live births.
Homosexual marriage has now been codified into law
Non family (1 parent) household>family households (2 parent) due to a divorce rate above 50%
Cause:
birth control=objectification of women as objects of pleasure=all of the above
I think the book has been well-received on the Right. Even Tucker Carlson, who white-knighted over it, acknowledged the issues it raises.
I think most (not all) religious conservatives are basically hopeless, because they can cling to their pro-life stance to fool themselves into thinking they haven’t capitulated to feminism. I’m more optimistic about non-religious or vaguely religious audiences that hear these ideas.
rmaxGenactivePUA wrote:
“We have to avoid the blood of men in riots & the blood of men dead in the streets”
Why? Violence works. War is the solution. You may not like it, but this is where we are heading. You know it, I know–but no one wants to talk about it.
As Jack Donovan says: “It’s time to quit worrying and learn to love the battle axe. History teaches us that if we don’t, someone else will.”
My hunch is that once *real* Conservatives, Nationalists, Alt-Righters, and Manospherians turn off the computer and start organising and acting in real life, things will start to get really interesting, as the situation escalates.
“Does the judge have a daughter?
If he answer is yes, he will be liberal/feminist in family law and other matters.
This extends to everything else.”
yeah, the Secret Weapon of the matriarchate, operating unconsciously at the national-collective level, and across all aspects of life — economic, personal, psychological, legal, spiritual
conservative men with daughters truly are “instant feminists” and their collusion with commercial gynocracy guarantees rule under Fempire — doesnt matter if these guys are “christian” or “religious” — having a daughter brings the majority fully on-board with the fem-agenda, and no demographic possibly can arise to overcome this alliance . . . the numbers arent there (and that’s why the US fempire either sells or coerces “democracy” worldwide)
the families of clinton and obama trumpet this, yet, did the uber conservative bushes overthrow the gynarchy? lol no they sent their women around the world to feminize everybody else!
something good (a father’s love/provision for his daughter) easily is turned into something extremely evil (the socio-legal-economic-cultural partnership between these men, and the more “traditional” forms of female-supremacism)
this collusion is NEVER discussed, esp in mainstream media, because it jeopardizes the interests of way too may people on way too many fronts . . . psychological, economic, etc
only implementation of the Biblical and Apostolic models for human organization can break the stranglehold of this hidden alliance, which has ruled over all empires, esp in their late and decadent phases
otherwise, these Fine Upstanding Folk will destroy fatherhood and family right off your little planet . . . for as you see, “conservative men” even when in total political power, cannot budge this alliance, but instead only deepen and entrench it, strutting around playing I’m the Boss
a vast propaganda structure is necessary to conceal and further the interests of this alliance, and to demonize and criminalize males in general — for someone, in this system, must be the prey — forcing other males into second-class citizenship under cover of “equality” and “progress,” while simultaneously appealing to the protective/danger/greed defaults of the fathers of daughters
it’s pretty darn foolproof! by proof, the fools still lick satan’s ass, same as it ever was
fortunately, God wont let your sons be enslaved forever, and your families annihilated-for-profit
for resistors and escapees, the Lord’s Kingdom is a surety of restoration, inheritance and family
“I don’t think it’s malice, but ignorance that is the biggest problem.”
sounds like one step removed from hanlon’s razor. in fact, that’s the real truth of the matter. it’s not just a question of ignorance. believing that santa claus is real and that he controls the universe from the clouds is not ignorance.
Today’s conservative is the liberal of the 1980’s or at best a liberal of the 1950’s. What they are trying to conserve is the liberal agenda of a few decades past. As rule, they have no moral compass or moral standing, only a vague idea of how things were in the good old days, which makes them vulnerable to all kinds of silly thinking. Most are pretty far to the left compared to Western tradations of 150 years ago.
@Bluedog
Fair enough. I added a second asterisk.
@Ras Al Ghul
The problem is not the man having a daughter, or him loving his daughter. The problem is the false belief that feminism would save his daughter from the cruelty of traditional marriage and sexual morality. That he wants what is good for his daughter is noble. That he has mistaken harm for good is the problem.
The problem with conservatives is that they serve to protect the status quo. Conservatives never actually reverse or end any of the policies implemented by the left. At best all they do is slow down the implementation of the left’s policies and thus wind up actually helping to enable them to continue by holding off the inevitable consequences of such policies.
Conservatives are valuable when one has a well run society but are useless in fixing a society that has begun to destroy itself.
To actually change things one needs radicals. One needs radicals who are willing to upset the apple cart and shake things up. Unfortunately, conservatives just don’t have enough vigor to buck the system.
Conservatism is a damping force of society to slow down change and while that’s a good thing for a functioning society it’s not going to help when the society is no longer functioning properly and change is vital to solving the problem.
@Dalrock
“That he has mistaken harm for good is the problem” ~Dalrock
Many people (even Ronald Reagan) believe marriage 1.0 is/was harmful and they are never going to be convinced otherwise which you stated yourself. “In short, they don’t believe that traditional marriage and traditional sexual morality are good for women”
“We need to help conservatives understand that romantic love doesn’t confer morality on sex” ~Dalrock
What are you trying to say here? If one is a Christian and they choose to ignore Jesus Christ’s words regarding fornication, etc, what can we say? Why would they even listen when they can go find another denomination that preaches what they already believe.
If they are not Christian, then who cares about morality?
You are very very good at documenting problems, but do you or anyone you know actually have a realistic plan? Take a look at the stats I posted on my first post, we have been losing for the last 60 years. Perhaps a post detailing strategy/action plans, anything frankly would be uplifting.
Since we are looking at incentives, female and TradCon behaviour is based on incentives and completely rational. They are both operating on the micro level and pursuing outcomes that benefit them individually.
Problem is the issues at hand are at the macro level and simply changing laws to affect micro behaviours doesn’t change the macro realities. Railing against injustice has its place (it’s a start) but even Johah only staved Ninevah’s destruction by a generation.
Female behaviour is being dictated by seeking provisioning first (education, employment, subsidized employment, welfare, divorce etc.) and sexual intimacy second (fits well with Maslows hierarchy). The whole gamit of female behaviour and the famed ‘imperative’ can be described by this fact.
The issue is that sex used to be tied to male provisioning, so marriage was the natural institution for both, the problem now is that conjunction no longer exists
Unsustainable macro economic forces (technology, mass production, perpetual growth, massive credit etc) forced women out of the home and into gainful employment and self or subsidized self provisioning. Thereby creating a disconnect between provisioning and sexual intimacy.
The real issues are macro economic and for those interested in a broader broach on the subject, Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies is the best start (exellent hour long YouTube lecture).
Ultimately, the reason why these people are supporting marriage is that they are feminists, period. They are just the traditional variety, not the secular variety that grew up in the 1960’s.
There’s really nothing different that the conservative commenters are saying than any of the others like Driscoll in regards to this issue. They are man-hating feminists pure and simple.
The most interesting part of the Fox News Weekend clip is that they chose to elude to a clip from the Godfather. It’s the one where Johnny Fontaine is whining and the Don tells him to stop whining and act like a man. The interesting part is that the reasons why he did that were cut out of the movie. You can catch it in the book, though. Don Corleone’s man-up was “stop your whining and stand up to your wife in LA and stop letting her run you over, ridicule, emasculate, and humiliate you”. You see in the book, Johnny Fontaine is what those of us in the manosphere call a mangina.
This is not the man-up that the FNW commenters have in mind. Don Corleone’s man-up died in the face of the rise of traditional feminism and its acceptance of neo-feminist memes. Don Corleone’s man-up will now put you in jail as a spousal abuser for not observing Marriage 2.0. As frequent visitors to Dalrock’s blog know, man-up is now “stop your whining and placate your wife and be her bitch and if you don’t have a wife go out and get one you childish loser”.
In reading the book, you’ll find out that Puzo was very much a deep Red Pill writer. You can see it come out in the first two Superman movies, as he wrote those scripts. It’s an interesting testament, though, that the scenes from the Godfather book that were cut out of the movie were the most Red Pill parts of the bunch. It’s reflective either of how ingrained feminist thought already was in Hollywood or how much thought changed in the four years between the release of the book and the movie.
Dr. Helen Smith calls out Tucker Carlson (whole discussion starting at 25:10) and responds to what they said there.
Dr. Helen Smith answers Tucker Carlson on the show.
“The problem is not the man having a daughter, or him loving his daughter. The problem is the false belief that feminism would save his daughter from the cruelty of traditional marriage and sexual morality. That he wants what is good for his daughter is noble. That he has mistaken harm for good is the problem.”
No, the problem is incentives matter and you’re really doing the same thing toward women and their fathers as these men are trying to do men: “Make sacrifices for the greater good”
They’ll take your statement as a false dichotomy.
A return to traditional marriage means these daughters have to give up something ( a lot of somethings) you’re not offering anything on the individual level, you’re asking them to sacrifice power, and economic opportunity, and protection . . ..
Incentives matter and you don’t have any to win them over with. You’re appealing to their sense o morality.
Just because a person identifies as traditional conservative doesn’t mean they’re moral, or even the primary consideration is moral, because it isn’t.
This is a very crappy time to be a man. I don’t mean “this time” or “this age” of feminism. I mean July. But that depends on you as a man, your hobbies, and where you live.
Now for me July is a bit of a drag. There are no sports on that I like, the sports writing sucks about now. Most of the good sports writers are on vacation with the NBA season being over and football yet to begin.
So it was kind of a crappy day for me. I stayed up late last night watching the lastest Jason Stratham movie, Resurrection, then I slept late, got up, ate Chinese food, shrimp fried rice and a Dr Pepper, talked to a woman online, read some manosphere pages, some pitiful sports pages, and now another movie.
But a shitty day as a single guy is better than the best day a typical married man in this country is going to have.
I know. I was a married guy and now thanks to the wisdom of my ex-wife, she spared me that stupid monotony of being a married guy.
See today, nobody messed with me, nobody hassled me, nothing was stressful, and today, once again, was proof of the “Buddhist”-ish concept, “Happiness is not being unhappy” and my favorite concept, that took being single, no longer harangued, abused, and tormented to fully discover this simple truth “Nothing will make you happy; something will make you unhappy”.
So off on the horizon is Labor Day, and with it fall, football, crisp cooler weather, and those things I so enjoy.
And those people that wish to indict me for how I live and how I am not doing those things they wish to compel me to do,
Can just go suck a fat one.
Cause I’m On Strike.
And my collective bargaining position is this:
“Kiss my ass. “
lzlozoz DR. HELEN of MEN ON STRIKE CALLS OUT TUCKER CARLSON FATASSED DOUBLE CHINND TUCKER FUCKER FUCKTARD CARLOSON Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters reveiew
lzlozoz DR. HELEN of MEN ON STRIKE CALLS OUT TUCKER CARLSON FATASSED DOUBLE CHINND TUCKER FUCKER FUCKTARD CARLOSON CARLOSON CARLSON lzozozozo
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594036756/
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters review
Tucker Carlson don’t rhymes with Golman sax zlzoozozozoz
TUCKER CARLSOSNZ CARLSON considdierz himself to be a “consvertive.”
BUT WHAT THE FUCK IS HE TRYING TO CONSERVE? MANBOOBERY???
“MAN UP AND MARY DA BUTTCOCKED PRE=-BERNANKIFIED SLUTZ!!! lolzozozoz”
I bet that tucker carlsosnz never even read a GREAT BOOKS FOR MANZ!!! lzlozozozoo
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/22/men-strike-stirs-debate-are-men-boycotting-american-dream
zlozolzozoz
before the interview starts, they all discuss how women seek ALPHA FUCKS early on in life and the seek BETA BUCKS later on, and end up ebenrankified with CATS lzlzlozlolzoz
at the beginning of the interveiez Dr. HElen should read the famous poem:
“da professional womenz ode”
alpha fucks and beta bucks
dat is how we roll
da butthexting cockass we fucks and sucks
and in our anuthes it doth deosul
alpha fucks and beta bucks
it is da way of da fed
to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
cuckold dose who pay for our bread
beta bucks and alpha fucks
it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
da assetts from betas we plucks
after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
lzozozlzzolzlzlzlz
cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
as da feiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
and say da great books for menz was all fools.
yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats”
Sorry, I have one thing to add.
In light of the idea that “Happiness is not being unhappy”, ….
I greatly recommend Football Study Hall over on SBNation. If you googled for the term, Football Study, you should get a top level link to because apparently there seem to be a lot of men in this country that feel as I do. It is a page much like this Dalrock blog, that believes data is the key to true understanding.
And you can ponder such important matters:
Does having 3,4, or 5 wideouts improve the running game?
Why do teams tend to seem to leave receivers uncovered on purpose and just how successful is the “Palms” Deep Alignment defense? (Hint the leaders in pass defense last year LSU and OU use this strategy).
What formations do teams tend to use when in the shadow of their own goalposts?
And this one that I am sure has kept many of you up late at night:
Does the length of a game adversely affect the home field advantage? (yes, it does. The longer the game, the less probability of the home team winning. Ponder that one as to why.)
So none of these questions are going to make you giddy with joy, but none of them will destroy your life, rape you financially, crush your sense of worth, nor drive you crazy.
And one last thing:
The older men in the Sphere truly wish to pass on wisdom to the younger ones on how to be happy in life and not make the same mistakes we made. So in that light, here is a good good first line that you should use to be a happy man.
So when you encounter a woman, one that you are just sure might be the one, someone that you could build a future with, someone that you think you might wish to place your confidence in her, in short someone you might wish to marry, then use the Mystery 3 second rule, meaning from the very first moment you lay eyes on her until you approach, should be no longer than 3 seconds, walk up to her confidently, you are a man with options, a man women wish to be with , smile but not like a grinning beta idiot, and deliver this line:
“Bitch I hate your guts”.
That should do it for you. Trust me. It’s the best line to use in this situation.
@rmax “We HAVE to challenge & change divorce law, before its too late for our men ”
Interesting observation. IMO, the legal system is beyond repair and full of blood/money suckers who have no problem ruining families lives.
This is from a guy who recused a CA judge 3x’s and filed 2 appeals – they finally ” got it ” ie the message I wasn’t going to stand by and let them act illegally.
The downside is it cost me everything and I have not recovered to this day and maybe in another 5 years I will.
The system is broke beyond repair – a proper analogy would be throwing a lot of $$$$$ in a POS car that has a history of breaking down and continues to worsen despite the more money spent on it.
I predict men will retaliate and take matters into their own hands very soon.
There are three main reasons for this:
1. They are responding emotionally and reflexively to the term marriage strike.
2. They have been suckered into the role of enabling feminists.
3. They are invested in the current corrupt model of marriage.
You forgot reason number 4: “Conservatives,” like “liberals” are petty authoritarians who love the idea of coercion in human relationships as long as it is for the “right” reasons. The only difference between conservative authoritarianism and the liberal version are the superficial reasons behind the authoritarian bloodlust. The end result is always the same for the victims.
Reason one stems from the conservative tendency to dislike unions. The term “marriage strike” conjures up images of corrupt union bosses, a sense of entitlement, and stifling inefficiency. As a fleeting initial reaction by conservatives this is understandable.
If by “understandable” you mean that we should sympathize with the reasoning behind the reaction, I have to assert that it’s not understandable at all,. No such leeway should be given to so-called “adults” who are supposed to be capable of at least rudimentary critical thought, especially if they are part of the MSM. This reaction by conservatives, if indeed this is the real motivation behind the reaction, is another example of “brainstemming” – thoughtless, visceral, robotic, knee-jerk reaction to a stimulus that has nothing to do with the actual causes or explanations behind it. It is a disgusting and toxic habit, one that has become the norm for both liberals and conservatives within the mainstream media in recent decades, as well as of said media’s adherents.
That point aside, I’ll just point out that “conservatives” only dislike the concept of unions when said unions, or organizations acting as such, don’t front for “conservative” causes, however those might be defined (and these definitions will be elastic, since “conservatives” have proved themselves to be people without an operating set of moral principles).
*Not all conservatives are like that.
True, not all, but MOCALT (“Most Conservatives ARE “Like That”).
A big part of the problem is the age demographic of most of the current crop of prominent “conservatives” (and I’m talking traditional/paleo-conservatives here, NOT the neoconservatives that have hijacked the political conservative movement over the last fifteen years). Let’s face it: none of them are under the age of sixty-five. Their views on marriage and family were formed in an earlier age, one that was largely uncontaminated by feminism. They simply cannot see the reality of marriage today (i.e., Marriage 2.0), because they cannot relate to it. In the minds of these people, Marriage 2.0 does not exist. It cannot be allowed to be acknowledged and recognized as a living institution. If it were accorded such recognition, it would force the “conservatives” to face the reality that not only has their movement failed, but that they are powerless to stop or reverse the trend. For this reason they capitulate, if only unconsciously, to the feminist movement, agreeing amongst themselves to make peace with the least objectionable aspects of it in order to save face. What they don’t/won’t realize is that there is no “least objectionable” aspects of feminism. The toxin that is the whole movement destroys everything in its path, either slowly or all at once.
I agree with you that it won’t be easy to get conservatives to see the light on marriage and why men are opting out of it. Quite honestly, I wouldn’t waste time trying, since most of them are deliberately blind and deaf to the truth. Only a hard run-in with reality, whatever that might mean for the individual conservative, stands any chance of changing minds.
I have a daughter and think the proper legal status of women is property of their father (or closest male kin) or property of their husband. The notion that having daughters equates to a man being a feminist is horseshit
My father has 3 daughters and 2 sons. He has been radically anti-feminsim my entire life and beyond. He hates democracy, bi-culturalism, and homosexuality with a zealous passion and blames the U.N for it all.
He has separated from one of my sisters due to her choosing to live in a lifestyle that is anti-God.
My father is a man of integrity.
Some things are bigger than the individual, bigger than families, bigger than society.
Having your eyes open to Truth surpasses the partiality some men may have with having a daughter.
This is not an argument against free trade. It is an anti statist argument. By removing the state run institutions of welfare, corrupt divorce courts, and social security, there would be an insurance and dependence gap created in which the family would naturally fill.
It is no surprise that the destruction of the family and the rise of the socialist state correlate. The state becomes the family serving all the roles previously filled except love and companionship. And they’ve got prozac for that. So when the family becomes redundant as a means of survival people just give up, don’t make it work, and walk away because they can. The family becomes a group of strangers which add little to someone’s life or, in most cases, a group of people you watch a lot of television with.
This is among the reasons why liberalism and feminism are conjoined twins connected at the “sameness”.
You cannot be liberal and not grease the skids of feminism, 90% tax rate hyperbole notwithstanding (a distraction). A liberal reading will immediately begin to argue against one or some of the alternatives to being liberal rather than staying on topic. “But what about conservatives/libertarians/whatever when Mr Schmuck says_____________?” Huh? Huh?
They probably have a point and that’s what Dalrock is getting at. But the moral relativism that argument displays is an even deeper reason why liberalism and feminism are inseparable. When things are weighed against anything but an absolute you end up with the societal version of “continuous improvement”, “forced ranking”. This is ironically also what the church has done, accepted a line in the sand based on what it would cost. Gay marriage and abortion opposition not only cost nothing, they lather up the troops. Divorce, if it resulted in the sound of crickets may get some attention. What it would result in is a static electricity ignition as large spandex covered asses slid to the end of the pews and left forever. That violates fire code. Safety first.
The tax rate was 90% in the “conservative” 1950’s
http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes-193734550–abc-news.html
Sure Ton….and Kennedy figured out that it was a good idea to lower the rates. The point? That the labels have evolved and the democrats as defined by the hard left are so far off the radar of normality now that they, if compared to the democrats of the 50’s and 60’s they would look like the dung contrast to the painting of Mary it was flung upon.
But that is not even important. The principle is whats important.
One of my first posts at Heartiste was related to the fact that the neoconservative Weekly Standard was celebrating Tucker Maxlzozozoz rhymes with Goldman Saxllzozoz as a six foot tall butthextuula hero and a succesthsful filmmaker.
Tucker Maxlzozozoz rhymes with Goldman Saxllzozoz was butthextxing girls and taping it secretly and being exalted by the neoconservatives as the paragon of manhood.
One can see his true height here: http://www.quotabletuckermax.com/ (April 23, 2008
Actual height )
And one can see the abysmal failure of a movie which lost $10,000,000+ on a budget of $12,000,000.
HE butthextetstz girls and tapes it secretly, he lies about his height and succeth, he loses $10,000,000 on his film, and the Weekly Standard’s Charlotte Allen celebrates him.
This shows that women are unable of assessing honor, but rather, they think via their butt and gina tingslsosozlozzlo. Another woman heads the publishing house which publishes him.
THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN were are written in HONOR of HONOR–’tis their center and circumference. WOMEN lack the mental faculties of ZEUS’S And MOSES’S justice, which is why churchians hate ZEUS and MOSES and teach that JESUS came to abolish the LAW OF MOSES and sanctify buttcockingz zlzolozoz.
Here’s what the necocnths love and honor:
Note the proper pronunciation and articulation of “buttehxt!”
This is modern conservatism.
I.
A recent article on RoK attributes this quote to the Italian philosopher Julius Evola:
“The man who has his way with an American girl is under a material obligation to her. The woman has granted a material favor. In cases of divorce American law overwhelmingly favors the woman. American women will divorce readily enough when they see a better bargain. It is frequently the case in America that a woman will be married to one man but already engaged to a future husband, the man she plans to marry after a profitable divorce.”
http://www.returnofkings.com/7451/modern-woman-in-wanting-to-be-for-herself-has-destroyed-herself
The surprising thing (though I have not been able to check the source) is that this was written in 1945.
The first sentence is a concise expression of the common ground between Puritanism and feminism, and explains why TradCons, who tend to have a Puritan streak, find common cause with feminists.
II.
Men tend to outperform women at “nuts and bolts” tasks, while women are better at tasks with a social dimension.
A modern economy with a democratic government is primarily a social enterprise, and as such we should not be surprised to find that women have an edge. We should admire their skill in marshalling the forces of government against men; after all, they successfully run a permanent PR campaign for the government to give them more, more, more, while at the same time sustaining plausible arguments that in fact we are the ones oppressing them! We should admire – and learn.
III.
We should also realize that the odds are stacked against us. Not only are women better at the dark social skills of influence, manipulation, and plausible denial; the thread of Puritanism that runs through our culture favors women. It explains how feminism can succeed in the doublethink of promoting an equalist message, yet at the same time organizing the forces of the State to enforce its will on men when the need arises. This cultural tendency is not going to go away.
We try to tap into our national reserves of Puritanism by calling a slut a slut; but a comparison with feminists’ redirection of Puritanism shows our efforts, even when honest, as crude, loud and spiteful; rather than subtle, devious and, above all, successful. Women’s efforts at influence outshine ours as the sun outshines the moon.
Dalrock repeated:
By saying “the same,” surely you have a few “conservatives” in mind “suddenly switch[ing] to the tactics of a liberal.” Name them.
Did you mean one Ricochet commenter, who was taken to the woodshed by his own fellow web-denizens beneath his original post? (If you don’t know, Ricochet is a site wherein commenters like me pay to occasionally be featured in the main blog.)
Or does your entire understanding of “conservatism” proceed from one bow-tied talking head trying to stir controversy for ratings?
You are doing battle, again and again, with strawmen. Even your blockquote was a fabrication (or else completely unsourced).
Your NACALT warnings are inaccuracies. NACALT is highly misleading if the truth is NACILT = Not Any Conservative Is Like That.
As I attempted to counsel you in the past: pointing out the CINOs in your midst — as the Ricochet community did — is simply more practical than condemning conservatives qua conservative, especially since conservatism is philosophically on your side in this matter in every way. You yourself are a conservative.
All that you do is encourage these weird right-wingers to hop out of the woodwork, dying to demonstrate how “independent” they are from conservatism per se. Look at me! I’m too conservative for the conservatives! Like that egregious tool LiveFearless up the comment thread, but more on him in a moment.
Maybe you should join Ricochet yourself, and join the chorus, rather than the strange task you’ve undertaken to redefine conservatism.
Matt
Darlock are you now agreeing that there is a marriage strike? In previous posts you said that there doesn’t appear to be concrete evidence for a marriage strike: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/clarification-on-my-position-on-a-marriage-strike/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/marriage-strike/
If there isn’t a strike, then isn’t this post and Dr. Helens book, much ado about nothing?
“You are all missing something more fundamental. What is the single way to determine if a judge is going to be liberal or conservative?
No, it is not identifying with being part of a political party. It is not religion. It is not even identifying as conservative or liberal.
It is much simpler than that.
Does the judge have a daughter?
If he answer is yes, he will be liberal/feminist in family law and other matters.
This extends to everything else.”
Here is some evidence:
“Professor Andrew Oswald, from Warwick University, and Dr Nattavudh Powdthavee, of York University, wrote in an unpublished article that has been submitted to an economics journal: “This paper provides evidence that daughters make people more Left-wing, while having sons, by contrast, makes them more Right-wing.” Professor Oswald said that having daughters made men “gradually shift their political stance and become more sympathetic to the ‘female’ desire for a… larger amount for the public good” (Fathers of Daughters Become More Left-Wing, Academics Claim, The Telegraph, May 24, 2009).
And the study: Daughters and Left-Wing Voting.
Hey Matt,
Have you ever though of starting your own blog like Heartiste or Dalrock or da GBFM?
Or is it just easier to be a negative nancy on other folks’ blogs?
How modernly conservative of you! where consevtivae=Buttzhztzytext sectriev tapingz of butethxt zlzlzoz zlzozololzoz
zlzoozozoozo
This is the point that needs to be driven home over and over.
Seminal thing, Dalrock. It is an excellent test to see if certain Conservatives are able to overcome the emotional and histrionic rationalizations the left is expert at.
joeG-
I think he is referring to the oft-discussed marriage strike.
There is absolute, no doubt evident that many people are discussing the concept and the term “marriage strike”.
There does not have to be an actual marriage strike at all for there to be discussions about it, and for people to react to the concept or the term.
Dalrock is not implying that there is a marriage strike, he is noting the reaction by certain segments of the public when the concept of a marriage strike is brought up. Even if there is no provable marriage strike, most members of the public do not know that, and when mentioned, they may assume it is occurring. Some may not.
Nonetheless, I can observe and participate in a discussion about a certain religious belief, and even analyze it – despite the fact that I might consider that religion to be inaccurate in every way.
End point: Dalrock is not suggesting there is a marriage strike – he is discussing the reaction other people have when they hear the term.
My point Emp, is we have not had a traditional or conservative nation for many generations. Tradition died in the usa in 1860, & was dying before that.
LiveFearless bluffed:
Prove it. Go on strike already, and get your schnoz out of my business.
I just watched the two Atlas Shrugged films. Read the book years ago, and it inspired me as a teenager. It animated ideas into pulp fiction and encouraged my developing mind to think beyond received wisdom. I am grateful to Rand.
But those films set back her ideas substantially. If the level of greatness inspired by Rand could only produce those awful D-movies devoid of any trace of art, one must begin to wonder if it’s not the ideas themselves that attract mediocrity.
Which brings us to LIVE!! FEARLESS!!
Rather than demonstrating their power — shutting the fuck up and going on strike — they keep threatening to withhold their Essence from the world and to thereby destroy it. They are very earnest and plodding and have a high opinion of their worth. Which is the first sign you are dealing with a poseur: men do; empty blowhards blow hard. If you are used to scoring touchdowns, you don’t do the dance. You let the roar/silence of the crowd — and most importantly, the scoreboard — speak for you.
The “Who is John Galt” campaign had a point. It is instructive to remember the importance of one’s right to the fruit of one’s labors and to property in general. If only it were a straight-up contest between “looters” and producers, it would be an easy and quick fight.
But here’s the dirty little secret: those who whine about parasites and the weak and infirm not earning their keep are more often attempting to compensate for their own mediocrity. These empty braggarts believe they don’t thrive because there is a looter cabal against their greatness, not because they didn’t take into account the reality of human nature, which has always had substantial minorities of hangers-on. And always will. (John 12:8)
Yeah.
Don’t define conservatism against this brand of idiotic sub-Randian internet bravado. It only survives in door-stop sized novels where the omnipotent author, like a typical woman, gets to fantasize about how sorry everyone’s gonna be when she’s gone, the mark of the self-absorbed loser who was pickled in the self-esteem marinade for too long.
For those of you who are confused about conservatism, Randian claptrap, and state-centered leftism, think of it this way. We are born self-centered (the Fall), but there is something in us that acknowledges we must be other-centered (Eden). The difference between the right and the left is God. The right understands that attempting to force our self-centered selves to be other-centered cannot possibly work outside of God’s grace. We must first be God-centered, and through only through his benevolent power, can we truly “do unto others” and love our enemies and create lasting communion with people we would otherwise hate.
The left attempts to make the transition from self to other without the vital mediation of the divine, which always turns into a totalitarian selfishness in the name of the other: we have to kill a hundred million people to save them.
The Randians are the least sophisticated of all. They are too clever to pretend there’s a creator, so they attempt to rationalize the absurd solipsism at the heart of their philosophy as virtuous. They believe that our natural fellow-feeling for others is a sickness to be eradicated, and everything will be just fine once we eradicate our monstrous selflessness.
“Conservatives ask Who is John Galt,” do we? Dalrock wrote:
I will stop banging the drum about how no conservative (much less “many conservatives”) is making that extreme of a case so much as they are attempting to save an institution by compromising with the terms of a culture bent on destroying that institution.
I rather will simply say conservatism has nothing to do with what individuals “like” and is anathema to any social phenomenon that might be regarded as a “system,” with all of the inhuman mechanistic novelty it implies. Yes, conservatives conserve traditions — specifically the ones that are so reliable that they predate civilization itself. These are not “systems” invented in think tanks and foisted on humanity through politics and policy but rather naturally occurring institutions in every civilization ever.
You have a simple task before you. Point out to conservatives how divorce, contraception, abortion, and feminism have hollowed out what is still called marriage. Keep showing how what was always a fair deal for both sexes is now no deal at all for men. I assure you, no conservative “like[s] the system” of divorce rape, infidelity, and playing house that goes by the old sacrament of matrimony. But your insistence on label switching confuses the issue, and the result is your creating ten enemies for every new ally.
Matt
Looks like you are really effecting the essence of beings now Dalrock. The reaction will be this way until they get the red pill. You may come out of this the bad guy on the large popular stage. But I’ll still love you so fuck them. Stay on truth and have faith in that and you will live and die in peace. Conservative are correct in their views. Too bad their views are founded on blue pill lies. Perfectly logical and responsible way of living based on a lie to start with. Took me 2 to 3 years to get that out of my system. Many young men growing up know it is lie or just have a feeling it is a lie.
A red pill Christian man cannot be a feminist and by definition does not think in the feminine imperative.
Ton says:
“I have a daughter and think the proper legal status of women is property of their father (or closest male kin) or property of their husband. The notion that having daughters equates to a man being a feminist is horseshit.”
Apparently it went over your head so I will spell it out to you. My nom de plume is “Ras Al Ghul” and he had a daughter and I my self have a Talia. So while “Not All Fathers are like that” it doesn’t mean spit.
I swear there should be a badge of shame attached to any person that pulls out an anecdote from their personal life and says NOT ALL X(whatever group x is) ARE LIKE THAT”
That goes for you too Hannah.
A small set of apparent exceptions does prove anything and doesn’t get around the problem.
We’re not talking about the men that already see it they way Dalrock does, we’re talking about the men he hopes to convert.
And I’m spelling it out right now that all those men have women they care about in their lives and they don’t see things the way Dalrock does and Dalrock isn’t offering them, or their daughters anything but sacrifice.
He can not sell it, just as marriage is becoming a hard sell for men, because at the individual level the is nothing to be gained by buying what Dalrock is selling, just as there is nothing for the man to be gained by getting married.
Most conservatives aren’t conservative because of religion (though they might dress it up that way). They’re conservative because they have skin in the game. They want what is to continue because they are comfortable with it.
It will take nothing less than a collapse of every social support program before marriage is restored.
And that means it cannot be restored until the West collapses.
You all better wrap your head around that,
The mattking character generator is running.
Somebody please jiggle the handle.
GreyGhost:
“Many young men growing up know it is lie or just have a feeling it is a lie.
A red pill Christian man cannot be a feminist and by definition does not think in the feminine imperative.”
Therein lies the solution, not the men Dalrock is trying to redeem. Most men don’t find the red pill until they slam into a wall they cannot see because the blue pill won’t let them see it. The younger men are so impacted by the lies around them, so steeped in them that they are running into the walls all the time.
Ton — “I have a daughter and think the proper legal status of women is property of their father (or closest male kin) or property of their husband. The notion that having daughters equates to a man being a feminist is horseshit”
like most fathers-of-daughters, you are in denial . . . and v emotional denial, at that! (“horseshit”)
not ALL daughter-daddies enable feminism, yes, but the vast majority DO, and you and Hannah’s Daddy as extreme-outliers does not refute the rule and standard (i.e., daughters, like all females, are independant operators beyond the rule of any male)
indeed, your emotionalistic insistence illustrates that rule . . . that daughter-daddies are well-aware of the sinister pact they strike with the western Fempires, and become EXTREMELY defensive when called on it (bc nobody ever does)
i will repeat, feminism’s total takeover could NOT have gone down without the collusion of “conservative” fathers-of-daughters, and such men are the hidden backbone (and enforcement mob) of the matriarchy, and baby have these guys and their Precious Snowflakes kicked ass and cleaned up over the past fifty years
whether leftie, rightie, or apolitical, EVERY father of a daughter in the modern west vastly benefits from the Fempire — traditional cultures desire sons FOR A REASON, chiefly that raising daughter often meant a lifetime burden of economic and social responsibility for the girl/woman . . . at very best, fathers tried to marry their daughters asap, so she was in the hands of a husband, and daddy’s responsibilities were ended, or reduced greatly
in our feminist matriarchies, fathers of daughters have EVERY possible cultural and economic advantage over Some Other Guy’s Sons, from cradle to grave, and suddenly the (often lifetime) burden of carrying daughters went kaput . . . now their daughters get all the health money, all the scholarships, all the job offers, every possible cultural aid, the career advancements, the start-up-business loans from banks and government, and on and on and on
. . . while Somebody Else’s Son gets doodlysquat . . . and is told he’s an Abuser and and Oppressor to boot, have a nice life asshole
this is a massive and unprecedented reversal of traditional human organization, and the inevitable result is to toss millions of Somebody Else’s Sons onto the jolly pyre of our gynarchies, while Ton’s Wonderful and Delightful Daughter (and every other guy’s daughter) goes to the head of the line all her life
ok great Ton and Hannah, you and your daddy arent feminists . . . yet you still greatly benefit from the Fempire, and your outlier status as critics of the matriarchy does not invalidate the reality of the general dynamic i describe above
the VAST MAJORITY of fathers-of-daughters do NOT share your view that such daughters belong to fathers/husbands . . . so when you call “horseshit” when this is pointed out, and refute the obvious correlation between feminism and fathers-of-daughters, your true colors (and the very bias i was exposing) show
attempting to silence the truth, or shame those pointing it out, doesnt help your daughter in the long run, Ton — for eventually (soon, actually) she and other females will have to face the consequences of the past half-century of fem-tyranny, and of the destroyed lives of boys and men left in its wake
that is not a Godly and responsible way of protecting her, it’s just the easy and profitable way out offered by Satan and his feminist nations
@joeG
There are two basic questions here:
1) What is happening?
2) What should we call it?
In the post which you link from three years ago I pointed out that there wasn’t (at the time) evidence that women were having trouble marrying. What was evident in the data was women (attempting) to delay marriage to their late 20s/early 30s. If you read the post you will see that I stated that it struck me as unlikely that they could do this and marry at the same rates as the women who preceded them. Here are my closing paragraphs from that post:
I’ve continued to review the situation as each new year’s worth of data has become available. When I wrote the post you linked to the latest data available was from 2009. I covered 2010 data here, 2011 data here, and 2012 data here. If you are familiar with those posts you already know the picture has changed quite rapidly. See the posts for more detail, but my own interpretation is women who waited to marry are now having a much harder time of it than just a few years ago (and far more are now waiting).
That covers what is happening. The other question is what should we call it. As I pointed out here and in several other posts, I don’t think the term “marriage strike” is an accurate description of what we are seeing. The first reason is that the men forgoing marriage aren’t saying they want to marry under the terms available. This is something else. Even here, I think the strongest dynamic isn’t men deciding they are fed up with marriage 2.0. I think the strongest dynamic is women overplaying their hand by postponing marriage too long. This removes the incentive for young men to work hard to signal provider status, and once the women are old enough to marry the men who are established as providers have come into their own in the SMP.
However, I do think that we can draw a rough analogy to the stock market. For the last 40+ years men have been driven by fear (of missing out on marriage), and women have been driven by greed. Young women are in the power position in the SMP, and this allowed women to keep renegotiating the marriage deal with men. I think it is likely that with a glut of aging would-be brides and a shortage of marriageable men, the tables will turn. This is a nightmare scenario for those who back the status quo, because there is 40+ years of feminist demands to walk back, and what took decades for feminists to “win” will likely take decades to unravel. What started as an accidental overplaying of their marriage hands by young women could very well turn into something like a movement by young men rejecting marriage (as fear and greed trade places). I don’t see any evidence that this has happened (yet); just like in 2010 we can only wait and look for the data.
lzozozlzlzozoo
what dalorkc is wisely saiing saying is
“sit back, grab da popcornz and enjoy da show!!”
for dalrock hath noted
dat once upon a time
men like bill bennett
manned up
and protected da bungholez of owmenz womenz
from lostats cockas
lest they be desouled
but today da CNN fatassed gambli9ng unmanly bennett
is not man enough
to stand awathart history
and yell at da buttcockingz
2 stop
lzlzozozozozozozozoz
and so you get what we have here
a genertaion of buttehxted deosuled unmarriagaglble womenz
who were lied to by da bernanke leleitezz lzlzlozoz elitesz zllzlzoz
“dey berankified my soul away
and left me with cats”
ends da famous poem by da gbfm zlzlozozozo
yes, sit back, relax, grab da popcornz, and enjoy!! zzzpzz;zpzlzolzoz
@Luke, June 29, 2013 at 6:32 pm, please see:
@Ton, June 30, 2013 at 8:05 am, re: “The tax rate was 90% in the ‘conservative’ 1950′s”.
Yes – in fact, WWII was paid for – the present state of broad prosperity is on account of this. The alternative would have been a 50-year tax mortgage, payable by the middle class.
The lower and middle classes paid for WWII with blood, the upper classes paid for it with money. Today’s upper classes don’t want to hear about this trade off. Today’s libertarians are busy holding up a sound barrier so the UC doesn’t have to hear about it and so the LC or those with any sense of economics and history can be silenced and shamed.
@jaybeespancakes, I get you, but I think the words I’m adding here are seed that at least so far, I don’t see as being unwelcome, and in the long run, make the soil considerably more fertile. The way forward is through the center of mass cutting through the river’s bed at its center, on both the right and the left side of the center. Understanding how we pivot our language makes all the difference between choosing the wash-ups at the rivers edge, or catching the current in the middle and taking this where we really want to go. Dregs all over the manosphere are clamoring here for the shore. I put myself here both to argue, that won’t end well, and the alternative is both real, and more promising. I’m glad Dalrock wrote this article – I am a FT professional and a FT single parent, it is hard for me to keep up with this, but it’s important, so this article got me off my back-end and I finally wrote a first-firing salvo (http://bluedogtalking.com/2013/06/29/seize-the-current-not-the-wash-ups/).
Regardless of the OWS crowd – which will always be with us and always was – there is a real mass of liberal-side thinking that constitutes the thinking not of the OWSers would have, but the percolation upwards to legislative leadership of “the liberal next door” is thinking. You will see more of that in journals like The New Republic and the American Prospect. Again – much you will likely disagree with, but from TNR (very center/left) to TAP (more left, still center) … no one but no one is contemplating 90% marginal tax rates, nor do they think they are a good idea economically (say nothing of politically). You have to get to the “progressives” who sympathize more with what you see written in the Nation before that is even debated, let alone finding purchase.
The message is: pay close attention to who you are talking with and talking about … if you can avoid needless alienation, you are likely to find allies where you maybe thought there were none.
Until I saw Minter’s comment I thought I had stumbled onto an Obama recruiting site.
“Conservatives love government”; tea party a “dog and pony show”. WTF? Have not seen this many strawmen since Obama’s last speech. King has it right there. And I never agree with him.
I get Dalrock is pissed at the blue pill preachers and the poison fem message they send to parishioners. As a lazy Catholic who rarely goes to church I have no dog in that fight. But to take a snarky comment by a bow tied twit (and his literal statement about men craving responsibility was true) as an indication conservatives support fems is way wide of the mark.
It was the tea party that got so many conservatives elected in 2010 that Nancy Pelosi is on the back bench. And why they got the IRS to go to general quarters to insure there would be no repeat in 2012. Those tea party house members may be all that is standing between us and that horrible immigration bill.
It has been the leftists Dems who have been carrying fem water for over 40 years. Some conservatives (Bennett, et. al.) may need to get the red pill shoved down their throat but there is a simpler explanation that Dalrock missed. While acknowledging all the destruction to families and marriage the fem/leftist coalition has caused, some of us wonder how to get another generation of males educated so that some semblance of civilization survives and hopefully prospers. Other than counsel our sons about the pitfalls of marriage 2.0, another alternative is to teach them how to prospect for red pill women. They are around. Unfortunately, almost all with blogs are married.
All the MGTOW and doom sayers may well be right. But even Roosh wants kids.
So all the hajjis who have daughters are closet feminists? If a man is a liberal, which “conservative” fathers are, he will support some version of feminism. If a father is not any version of liberal he will not support any version of feminism
It’s not wether a man has a daughter it’s wether a man is a liberal. The turning point is how progressive men have become, yes that means you, not the sex of their children
I will repeat what I have said in the past. Dalrock is without a doubt the best blogger in the manosphere, bar none. That does not mean he is without flaw. His flaw is the determination with which he has rejected an obvious marriage strike. He was told, I wasn’t the only one, several years ago, calculus showed the reduced marriage rate mandated that more women will never marry. He went through several stages, and finally announced he did understand calculus, but that calculus cannot be applied to human beings, thus proving he did not understand calculus.
He seemed surprised some time ago when he did indeed finally get evidence that marriage was going away, though he still tries to explain it away.
Now, he seems to repeat a mistake certain feminists have made, while refuting the existence of the obvious marriage strike. If I understand, they assume a marriage strike has a certain format and nothing else counts as a strike.
I was in a union for 31 years, and have walked picket line, as well as studied the legal issues, which may give me an advantage over those who have not belonged to a union.
I think those who use this argument are thinking only of a “sanctioned” strike. A sanctioned strike means a group of workers went through the governmental rigmarole, organized a union, and after much nonsense became a government approved union. Then, when things do not go their own way, they perform a government approved negotiation and then have a government approved strike vote. Then, they notify the government approved parties of a pending strike, And, at the announced time, workers stop going to work.
There are other types of strikes, whether sanctioned or not. Imagine a group of union workers who see their management and office workers get a 5% raise every year, while they get nothing for a number of years. And, their union leaders attend training sessions every year in the Bahamas at luxury hotels. [/sarcasm]
One day, Joe The Lathe Operator, without warning, jumps up, screams at the top of his lungs, “I’ve stood all I can stands, and I can’t stands no more!” He hits the emergency breaker on his lathe, kicks his stool over the lathe into the next aisle, grabs his lunch box and heads toward the time clock. By the time he gets there, a line is following him and by the time he gets to the door, there is a pushing crowd. In half an hour the production floor is nearly vacant, except for the usual scabs.
That is a strike, period. It has its own name, but despite not having government sanction it is still a strike.
Interestingly, Dalrock seems to be describing just such a strike in his posting while he says it is not a strike.
In fact, the one-at-a-time refusal to marry phenomenon is the only possible way to have a marriage strike. While a labor union can obtain government sanction, no men’s avoid-marriage-at-any-cost organization can under any condition. The minute you have a central committee or central leader, it will be subject to every dirty trick that has ever been used in the world. With most attacks coming from other men. We even had the most peaceful blogs not long ago labeled as hate groups by men operated wimp groups.
How do I know this? Because just this is the 45 year history or the men’s movement. This attack mode is so effective that most of you young men are totally unaware of 45+ years of activism by men. And, thus accuse my generation of having done nothing at all.
Here are the stats in hopes at least a few folks read them:
Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:
1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)
2010 32.9 State of our unions data
I don’t agree that “tacking to the center” is a viable approach for the kinds of issues being addressed in the manosphere. Feminism and the left are inseparable. They are one and the same. I understand that some moderate leftists disagree and want to temper feminism, but the problem is that feminism, and its ideas, stem from the core principles of the left — it’s a bigger problem than just feminism, it’s the entire system of ideation and thought in which feminism is embedded.
The fall of marriage is inevitable and, in fact, has long since already begun. And, sad to say, there will be no reversing it. There are many more factors in play than simply the disincentive for men to get married.
Ton: “If a father is not any version of liberal he will not support any version of feminism”
well boss, that denial is bigger than the one in Egypt! and in nonsequiter fashion no less! lol
. . . managing to avoid every point i made, while subsituting a nonsensical statement so obviously disproved by the past half-century of amerikan society
non-liberal fathers DO SUPPORT FEMINISM, they just do it silently and/or in endless backhanded ways that rationalize their collusion with eve-ill, while absolving themselves of that Male Responsibility that Fucker Carlson and his sellout (non)conservative pals keep jamming down the throats of Other Men
if Fucker and Company took some REAL responsibility, they would publically expose and resist the matriarchy, rather than feeding off it with safe and comfortable lives, disseminating lies and amassing wealth and celebrity from said matriarchy, while concurrently pretending that as “conservatives” they “oppose feminism”
the deepest pits of hell are reserved for such, as they ladle Hyprocrisy Gravy onto their Porkchop Feminism
Ton — “It’s not wether a man has a daughter it’s wether a man is a liberal.”
no, it’s both, and whether has an h
if you have to lie to yourself about this to keep yourself comfy psychologically, economically, or whatever, then do so
but dont lie to the rest of us please — just keep it to yourselves, as you’ve been doing these many decades running
Ton — “The turning point is how progressive men have become, yes that means you, not the sex of their children”
ah, i see
you have no answer for my substantive arguments, except that i am automatically a “progressive” eh?
well again, i think your River of Denial (and attempted slander) may be refuted by the past couple of decades of my works . . . but at this point, i will not direct you to them, as reality clearly has no chance of overcoming your self-serving opinions and desires (nor, btw, do truth, logic, or reality overcome the self-serving opinions and desires of other “conservative” fathers-of-daughters in the West)
the only thing these punks have “conserved” over the past 50 years is the advancement of themselves and their daughters at the cost of the nation’s spiritual and material health
congratulations, you won
TFH says:
Also, social conservatives are economic leftists.
BS
Social conservatives think that the only way to get government out of civil society is to strengthen the family, churches and other private institutions so that they can resume the job they once did. Their destruction gave government the opportunity to move in as the sugar daddy to the welfare state. That defense of family leads them to defend marriage 2.0 which is very different than marriage 1.0. Many conservatives have not faced up to that difference.
Listen sparky, if they support feminism they are by default liberals. It is that simple. Not sure what else you’re ramblings are about, but the more words you need to make a point the more full of shit you’re likely to be.
Ps, I am not a conservative, don’t think anyone who claims to be a conservative is one, nor do I praise conservatives in any fashion. Think you’re barking up the wrong tree
@Ray:
“ok great Ton and Hannah, you and your daddy arent feminists . . . yet you still greatly benefit from the Fempire, and your outlier status as critics of the matriarchy does not invalidate the reality of the general dynamic i describe above
the VAST MAJORITY of fathers-of-daughters do NOT share your view that such daughters belong to fathers/husbands.”
Agreed.
@ Ras Al Ghul:
“I swear there should be a badge of shame attached to any person that pulls out an anecdote from their personal life and says NOT ALL X(whatever group x is) ARE LIKE THAT”
That goes for you too Hannah.”
Fair enough!
Genuine question though – does this mean that we ought not share complimentary examples that highlight the case in point?
The example of my own father was given to express desire for a reclaiming of the Patriarchy.
I wasn’t using it to squeal NAMALT, rather lamenting the destruction of family order.
Thanks in advance 🙂
TFH says:
I very much doubt you have even met a conservative much less have any idea what we believe.
We want to preserve the parts of the past we like, but only on the condition that we don’t require any accountability from women.
That applies to everyone. There are very few people who are willing to call women to account, so what does that have to do with conservatives as a group?
as well as stop abortions
And lots of abortions are going to help society in some way? What does this have to do with anything? The leftist welfare state is no small part of why abortions and single mothers are so prevalent. Uncle Sam is bankrolling their behavior.
They want big government, because big government is the only way they can create some semblance of the past…
Sure, thats why they keep saying they want a small government and getting pissed off when the Republicans keep voting for big government along with the Democrats? That’s why the Tea Party exists?
The divorce machine was created by the Bolsheviks who spearheaded the communist revolution and murdered millions of Christians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZzMNKqGfnc
Even the tea party wants all manners of big government, like social security.
There is no party of small government, most particularly the gop which got its start as the party of consolidated federal power and was heavily supported by German immigrants who lost their shot at a German Marxist revolution.
@FeministHater
“Who the fuck cares really? No one I can see. Women are batshit crazy and expect so much for so little, just like liberals, non-white people and every other victim class, expect from whites. They expect whites and men in general to give up their entire existence. I just don’t care much about their shit anymore. They have literally destroyed anything of worth, the world is now empty, pathetic and worthy of immense scorn.
Going Galt is literally just a way for men like me to get from point A to point B, point B being death.”
Well said, I agree. But what do we do in the interim? How do we pass the time?
What about those of us who once dreamed of being a father? These times are literally heartbreaking.
if it can happen to bob geldoff, it can happen to you:
Geldof on Fathers Part 1
This can not be underscored enough. This is the way most all of the CHURCH thinks (social conservatives are almost always church goers). Women do not sin, in fact women are without sin. Women do not do evil things. Women do not abort children. Women do not divorce. Women do not commit adultery. Women do not give false witness towards their husbands. Women do not choose to deprive their children of fathers.
If they do these things, it’s because the men pushed them to do it. Period. This is how they really think, because they have all fallen on their faces towards the Altar of the Vagina and they have been given over to it in the wickedness of their minds and hearts! Do not be fooled into thinking these traditional feminists are any different than the Allreds and Valentis and women like Big Red. In fact, that version of feminism wouldn’t exist without the existence of chivalry’s qualities of female moral authority, female infantilization, and male disposability, and is built on top of that. Hence, to be chasing after secular feminism is only chasing after shadows. You have to bust the foundation of feminism to topple the structure.
While Anglo social conservatives (particularly of the American stripes) are almost all enabling the enemy and awash in their poison, I have to respect the aspect where they fought against abortion. That’s maybe one of the few things they got right. Abortion is like another version of infanticide, and infanticide can be seen as human sacrifice for false gods and idols throughout various stories and fables in the world.
The more I think on what I’m seeing and reading with this Dr. Helen stuff (and seeing with my blog travels), the more I think there’s really a fourth (or is it fifth or sixth) reason that any attempt to describe the sheer wickedness and vileness of what passes for marriage today: Being married invests the person so much that they are offended when someone points out the problems of marriage. They become extremely solipsistic and their objective minds shut down because that’s not how it works for ME. In other words, MY marriage is how it’s supposed to be, and how it is for marriage, period. Or they become personally offended because to challenge marriage in general is to challenge their marriage specifically.
So the male disposability routine of traditional feminism kicks in and says that all the men who think marriage is a raw deal are just petulant little whiners complaining because they don’t want the hardness of marriage and they should just man-up and marry the sluts. A great example from the Last Dr. Helen link I posted here:
@Anon Age 71
It’s not like I have a marriage where I’m supposed to be (and which pays me in some fashion for being there), and have had a temper tantrum and stormed off in a tizzy.
This is what gets twisted around by those who want to make it sound like men are doing something (striking), when in fact they really want to convict us of committing a sin of omission. Using the active verb ‘strike’ just adds a sin of commission to the already trumped up charges.
The problem all of the pro-marriage crowd has is expressed in the Yogi-ism: If people ain’t comin’ to the ballpark, how ya gonna stop ’em?
@Anonymous age 71 June 30, 2013 at 2:53 pm,
+1
@Novaseeker,
re: June 30, 2013 at 3:33 pm …
I am not going to vest too much in trying to convince you personally, but I’ll toss a few crumbs out to you and see how you think about my cooking.
First, read “Anonymous age 71 June 30, 2013 at 2:53 pm” … and note in particular his anecdote of “Joe The Lathe Operator”.
Is Joe a leftist?
Is Joe anti-capitalist?
Is Joe anti-property?
Is Joe anti-market?
Is Joe a dogmatic student of Marx?
Is Joe a puissant sophomore in college dressed like a hipster talking in bigger words than he really understands whose deep down inside saying “validate me professor, validate me!” and just one layer above that looking at what are effectively powerless men manning machines in a construction site on the way to work thinking “God don’t send me there, God don’t sent me there”?
This is it:
The lines are not drawn exactly as you see them.
That’s it.
Some of us are cool with taxation. There’s a pretty solid American tradition for that. It’s the “without representation” part that gets the blood pressure up. Some of us are cool with a measure of social programs. There’s a history there. That one … is huge. Huge. Flip flopping rip roaring HUGE. Fills bookshelves. All I’ll say here is:
There was this thing, called the “gold standard”, and another thing, called “gold”. We on one hand should be thankful that humankind discovered currency … it has enabled EVERY good thing of modernity we enjoy now.
And yet … the thing about gold, especially in 1850 … is some people had, nearly every person, everywhere, did NOT. And:
1) There was no making more of it
2) The way that the Haves came to be Haves, and the HaveNots came to be HaveNots … did not all have everything to do with a Platonically idealistic system of perfect fair market Ayn Randish capitalism
And because of that … we have Labor.
Labor … is not the left that you are talking about in June 30, 2013 at 3:33 pm.
Labor … is the thing that is banned and jailed when one-party communist governments come to power.
Labor … is the thing, resisting communism and promoting … get this: MARKETS (!) … when the capitalists (i.e.: not idealogues … the real ones with real capital) are in bed with Castro and Xi Jinping and the CCP.
The only true freedom is the freedom to opt out.
You fellas jumping on Ton and Hannah are full of crap on that . I saw their comments as an example of how it is possible to not white knight your daughter on to the feminist carousel. I got two daughters so that makes me a double pussy licking mangina feminist?
TFH is right I was the same kind of conservative blindly not being liberal. Blue pill hard working man. With out that blissful ignorance I would be single and childless. Red pill greygost would have never married. Today I am a red pill conservative. I guess that could be called a masculinist. I look at things as a man and make a judgement call on the results. One would be amazed at how much that mirrors what is already written in the bible. `I believe in real equality between the sexes. It always comes off as misogyny because it is rule of law based and not outcome based. Female privilege comes from her husband and father not by law or culture.
>Anonymous age 71 says:
>June 30, 2013 at 2:53 pm
Good comment in general.
>I was in a union for 31 years, and have walked picket line,
Those life experiences seem to have taught you quite a lot. You should write more. If you had a blog, I would read it.
>Here are the stats in hopes at least a few folks read them:
Interesting stats, thanks.
Is ok GreyGhost, they think we somehow defended their Arch-eneimes, the socon’ s, where my position is there are no socon’ s. Leastwise not enough to matter politically. They have confused being a modern conservative, which is pretty damn liberal, with having daughters. Some how it’s always a woman’s fault I guess
Now with Hannah, she was displaying pride regarding her father and holding him out as an example of masculinity. She does the same with her husband. A woman having pride in the men in her life should be encouraged, but haters going to hate, I reckon.
and I am stilled puzzled, one dude thinks I should take him serious because he has a blog, the other because he has a screen name…. Not likely
TFH says:
The problem with SoCons is that their real ideology is as follows :
“We want to preserve the parts of the past we like, but only on the condition that we don’t require any accountability from women. Hence, we want to create a version of the past (as well as stop abortions) by punishing men only. If that does not work, we just have to punish men more, because repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is what we do best.”
And he is describing a preponderance of those who self describe as conservative. Many men here including me would have fit that description perfectly, and all of us encounter those men who still do, daily.
The problem is then, and I loath to go there, is that there need be a new term. And oh when that gate opens its page after page of defining as libertarians do, or game people do, all wanting to be THE ONE who has it just right. And that is obviously a huge problem because it gets stuck in process. Its having a meeting about having a meeting and as much fun as that may be to some, it is in the main a waste of time.
Assuming that NACALT isn’t sufficient, and knowing NACALT is besmirched rightly and is NA-anything, then how do people discuss the point of this post, for example, without buttressing liberalism hence feminism? I say you don’t. Those are not held up, necessarily, among the men reading and writing here who actually understand what its taken three paragraphs for me to say, but lots of folks read here and the take away is, “look, more Christians and/or conservatives eating their own”. For some reason that doesn’t bother liberals who seem to enjoy the taste of their own.
On the pecking order of who gets outed fastest here and on similar blogs, white knights rank number one. Good. But because of these trending topics and the hunger for outing white knights the tendency is to see any mention of a conservative looking idea, even if its not even related to manosphere matters, and pounce on that person as if they are a white knight before they even get to an issue that would reveal same.
There is a hard left group of n’er do wells that get good food when they read it.
TFH again:
That is what I have been saying for a while. Every other ‘conservative’ value gets tossed aside when the prospect of being a chivalrous whiteknight/groveler presents itself.
True.
But what do we do with or about that? Whether intended or not the context here can be construed as therefore negating the values that are indeed tossed aside at the alter of women. Even the quotes around conservative are suggestive.
But as Novaseeker and I agreed, you cannot find a viable alternative that is not fixing the aspect of conservatives that would do what TFH rightly observes. To imagine a liberal non-feminist society, well, there would have to be unicorn farms and plasticine skies.
Pingback: Why are we pedestalizing “red pill” women? | Sunshine Mary
Marriage has been crumbling for decades. It’s not just no-fault divorce. It’s the rampant promiscuity, the decriminalization of fornication and adultery, the loss of the concept of the husband as the head of the home, the crazy idea that being a wife and a mother is not as rewarding or important as sitting at a desk all day, and many other things.
The whole calculus of marriage has changed dramatically. However, I still think men should marry.
http://crowhill.net/blog/2013/06/why-should-a-man-marry/
empathologism
The So Cons are parrots that have been taught right with the as we know conservative values. What they did was attribute conservative values to women’s virtue. (there is no such thing) They have built a beautiful home (cultural way of life) on a lie. Look at this way The PUA and player the PUA especially he is a beta that KNOWS THE TRUTH. They build nothing but their foundation is the truth.. They are and will win this. One PUA says she is the one and makes a family his will be stronger than any so con union because his is founded on truth. he knows she’s a self centered childish bitch, the so con worships the cunt. That is why I say and always will that the PUA is doing the lords work for simply operating from a foundation of truth.
You base the most PC moral what ever on a lie and no matter how great you are with money wealth and social status you will fail. The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by red pill conservatives. Women sure behave well in that world and in less than 200 years that country was the most powerful in the world that was thousands of years old. Bitches were so well behaved that we could project all manor of goddess characteristics on that skank ho. It was a lie you wanted to believe because you loved her and she needed that love to survive, and she did what it took in her own wicked selfish ways so you would want to love her.
As soon as So Cons build on a foundation of truth. (red pill) they will become culturally dominate and believe or not get the gina tingle. Right now the only men of truth are the PUA fucking your daughter. The few exception are the men using red pill in their current marriages. The rest are blue pillers building on a lie.
I don’t agree that “tacking to the center” is a viable approach for the kinds of issues being addressed in the manosphere. Feminism and the left are inseparable. They are one and the same. I understand that some moderate leftists disagree and want to temper feminism, but the problem is that feminism, and its ideas, stem from the core principles of the left — it’s a bigger problem than just feminism, it’s the entire system of ideation and thought in which feminism is embedded.
Succinct comment Novaseeker.
Now with Hannah, she was displaying pride regarding her father and holding him out as an example of masculinity. She does the same with her husband. A woman having pride in the men in her life should be encouraged, but haters going to hate, I reckon.
Ton
This right here is what amazes me about some of these guys here. I see no reason to dog the lady at all. I would like for my own daughter to speak of me and her husband like she does. Hell I would sign the adoption papers for mutha fucka right know show every body here’s my and son in law. I don’t think the fellas talking all of that trash are fully red pill. I think they are blue pill so con types calling themselves men trying to keep that house of cards from falling.
TFH says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:25 pm
“What Social Conservatives have demonstrated is that they are economic leftists who want big government in all matters that involve the transfer of wealth from men to women.”
I have always felt that the Christian right was anything but right wing. Anyone who wants to use the government to get there way, other than the minimum requirements of the USA Constitution, is a lefty.
I have always felt that the Christian right was anything but right wing. Anyone who wants to use the government to get there way, other than the minimum requirements of the USA Constitution, is a lefty.
Yes It is all a variation of socialism with the difference being what they tell you to do. Right wing is no government. Somalia is right wing big time.
Grey ghost I agree with you. It’s not mutually exclusive to agree with you and still defend the ISM of conservativism while not defending what the parrots made of it. However you ignore another large group….there are those who actually have arrived at the ism thoughtfully and still are deceived by pandering to women. They have less to be peeled off to fix them. For the most part, if they are reading and writing here regularly, they are thoughtful even if deceived about women. They are worth convincing.
It begs the question…….what then? If its as simple as this sorting…..what? While the isms get led around by their pedestaled women, what’s left?
I get slightly sideways with dal rock on this almost everytime and have gone back and forth extensively with him on it to the point of accord. But I still squirm because of the comments these true and accurate posts invite.
The marriage strike is not just for the West. It’s happening wherever feminism has sunk its teeth into society. In Japan the number of men who see any benefits of marriage is rapidly decreasing with age.
“Japan’s younger generations increasingly fail to see the point of marriage at all, with a survey of 37,000 revealing some 40% feel the institution “has no merit.”
A survey of 37,610 Japanese asking the question “Do you agree with the sentiment that ‘I don’t understand the merits of marriage’?” found some distinctly negative attitudes to the merits of marriage in abundance.”
・Teens: 38.0％
・Twenties: 39.1％
・Thirties: 40.5％
・Forties: 35.9％
・Fifties: 27.2％
・Sixties: 19.7％
・Seventies: 14.3％
・Eighties: 15.3％
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2013/07/01/40-of-young-japanese-marriage-is-worthless/
TFH said:
I have always felt that the Christian right was anything but right wing. Anyone who wants to use the government to get there way, other than the minimum requirements of the USA Constitution, is a lefty.
This has been pointed out in great detail elsewhere on many occasions, but no, both the left and the right are authoritarian statists who have no qualms whatsoever about using the force of the state to impose their will upon others who differ in belief from themselves. The only difference between left and right is in the specific motivations for the use of government force. While the fascist right nominally believes in private ownership of wealth and capital, they believe that such property should be subject to control by the state for “the greater good” at any time deemed necessary by those in power (“greater good” as THEY define it, of course). In that sense the churchian right (let’s call them by their proper name, shall we?) are indeed right-wing. Fascist, in fact. But “Christian” they definitely are not.
I have always felt that the Christian right was anything but right wing. Anyone who wants to use the government to get there way, other than the minimum requirements of the USA Constitution, is a lefty.
You feel wrong, oh so wrong.
Let me add something for the ilk here. Patriarchy is the way God intended, designed, and implemented. Here is a short review of Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, which is a brilliant discourse on the patriarchy, and therefore, on the divine right of kings.
Foseti: https://foseti.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/review-of-patriarcha-by-robert-filmer/
Filmer’s Patriarcha: http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm
Supporting the American rebellion, the French rebellion, and the entire Western rebellion against kings, fatherhood, and God, is a dismal story we see played out around us every single day.
I was going to remark on many issues raised in this long and beneficial discussion but decided to be concise instead.
Socon = the other feminism
The word “conservative” is being bandied about and casts a very wide net. I can think of those who identify as social conservatives, religious conservatives, economic conservatives, political conservatives, etc. Some one can be an economic conservative, but not a religious conservative or can be an atheist. I think a clearer focus and definition of what kind of conservative is being addressed with the title, “Conservatives ask: Who is John Galt?”
@ TON and Greyghost
Telling someone who you only have snips about from an anonymous online source is fairly futile. That said, having daughters does predispose many men to fall, slowly, and securely into the feminist camp. They fall their not through malice (like Andrea Dworkin) or male envy (like most women who self identify as feminists) but through not trusting that any male is as good at taking care of their daughter as they are. What that is, is PRIDE.
Clearly and without any further explanation the way for men who have daughters to not become enmeshed with the feminist and gynocentric view points and political stances is to let go of their own hubris and allow that all men are sinners (ROM 3:10, ROM 3:23, ISA 64:6). Their husband will not be perfect but as fathers men must let go of their authority of their daughters to other men, and not the state.
Most men will tell their daughters, go to college, get a degree, rely on the state, any thing besides the biblically endorsed message of be under the authority of your husband.
It comes to this, if a man has a daughter and says anything other than get married young and obey your husband, then he is a feminist.
Empathological
However you ignore another large group….there are those who actually have arrived at the ism thoughtfully and still are deceived by pandering to women. They have less to be peeled off to fix them. For the most part, if they are reading and writing here regularly, they are thoughtful even if deceived about women. They are worth convincing.
This is what I was speaking about. Thoughtful conclusion based on a lie. “deceived by women” Those guys need a foundation in truth and with that there is no deception. Have faith in the truth things will work out very well in fact. Even a red pill world of PUA is more stable and sustainable than a blue pill So con churchian world. Believing in a universal lie is so safe and normal. But the red pill is mentally invigorating and makes conversation great and the bible so fresh and real. Traditions and customs make sense. Have no fear.
The OP focuses on a very a useful insight: that when it comes to men and (certain legal aspects of) marriage, suddenly “conservatives” rail against the natural results of social policies they don’t want to give up, believing that the policy failure represents a moral failure on the part of the populace (as opposed to, you know, a policy failure). Just about everyone who self-identifies as “conservative” has strong loyalties to political liberalism; and those loyalties manifest themselves as the OP-described social morality reframe that liberals use whenever their favorite policies fail.
The liberal tradition of preemptively reframing policy failures as moral failures in the populace goes all the way back to the American founders:
Pingback: Reframing policy failures: an American tradition | Zippy Catholic
If you want to make sure you are not a liberal, you have to deliberately embrace something clearly illiberal, something pre-“Enlightenment”. It has to be something that cannot be defended with liberal principles. For example, I could recommend embracing the Patriarchy and Monarchy that Robert Filmer describes. Many … interesting … things follow. (Tip: if Christ is King and you’re in his kingdom, that’s an excellent starting point.)
Entropy is My god
Take a look at this article from the spearhead and note the last commit from me. I have been pushing as an MRA for this article to be reality with a little more pain. I want to add in a male birth control pill and a little more red pill for men to keep the violence down.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/06/30/the-end-of-male-gridlock/
I can’t speak for Ton but I consider myself a soldier at war. I am deliberately making a world that if my daughter follows the path of the empowered cock carouse rider she will suffer. (and rightfully so) No matter how bad it gets a woman in submission as a wife is spared. I have a son too.
http://contraceptivereviewer.com/no-low-dose-birth-control-for-pancha-hes-got-gandarusa/
http://sartikaherbal.com/home/extract-herbal/gandarusa-justicia-gendarussa?vmcchk=1
Mutha fucka’s never finish last in a feminized world.
@Greyghost
If only all fathers could behave as you do this situation would not exist as it does.
You want to be like John Galt?
The remedy begins over at Vic’s blog, his new post: http://bit.ly/13SNNNO
Search “working smart” if it’s not at the top of the page. Get on his no spam list, it’ll change your life.
the important (and under-discussed) topic of Social Conservatives being very selective on how they apply their morality
It is over-discussed, not because of the number of articles/posts written, but because it lathers up the liberals wanting to besmirch conservatISM.
A formerly concealed element of conservative hypocrisy?
Do list off the elements of hypocrisy that have already been exposed which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
“Just about everyone who self-identifies as “conservative” has strong loyalties to political liberalism’
Explain Zippy.
Great explanation Entropy, but ignoring the Bible, putting your child, daughter or son on the pedestal and recommending those make a man a liberal by default?
I’m leaving the usa and taking my family with me. God, family…. an well there isn’t anything on my list.
When did A hypocrisy negate AN ideology or any system of beliefs?
be careful using that tool if you subscribe to any religion, or it will come back at you in multiples…..wait……that is a primary argument made by the ignorant when they lambast people of faith.
There was a news clip I saw, where Dr. Helen was saying that schools discriminate against boys because “boys don’t sit still”…blah blah blah.
No Dr. Helen, boys wont sit still because they are bored with the dumbed down collectivist curriculum.
An educational system that catered to boys would allow boys to excel as far as their talent and willpower will take them. An educational system which caters to girls must slow the learning process down so that “everyone can learn together at the same pace”.
Boys are naturally competitive. Not all boys are going to be academic genius superstars, but if we allowed students to run the race and if we allowed the superstars to win that race, we may find some 18 year old boys who have already earned a college degree.
And I doubt many girls would be able to keep up with that. In fact, I bet they would give up the race earlier than grade 12. Because girls are good at repetitive tasks, and boys are good at critical thinking.
I bet the girls would give up after being left in the dust, and become wives and mothers.
And people would understand WHY people never bothered to educate their daughters in the ancient world…because girls may be able to memorize …but they are unable to attain a mans level of understanding.
I consider myself a conservative. Not all caricatures are like that though. (NACALTT?).
Sure the political party, that would sell itself as championing conservatism is headed up by one of the bigger sissy boys ever to take up politics (and that’s saying something) by the name John Boehner. But most of the conservatives I know, are actually liberty and pluralism loving conservatives. Not ‘big-government-is-great-if-we-are-in-charge’ conservatives like Boehner.
More conservatives take issue with the sissy boys ‘on their team’ than the leftists do. That in my mind means that conservatism still actually exists.
BTW Dalrock
The asterisk and nalalt, cute.
Another great article Dalrock!……Congrats!
@Chris
“”The marriage strike is not just for the West. It’s happening wherever feminism has sunk its teeth into society””
I agree.But,I think it goes a little bit further than that…..at least from my perspective.What I am seeing is a “woman strike”.Let me explain.The office tower that I work in…. in Toronto,Ontario,Canada(Int’l real estate and securities investment) there are ALOT of single wimminz. The single men that I am associated with are making high 6 figures,low 7 figure incomes and they want NOTHING to do with wimminz. Last month a Matchmaking business in the office tower had a singles night after work….of which I was invited as well as many friends and associates.105 single women showed up…how many men showed up?….you ready for this?…3….that is correct..THREE! The dating service was astounded and did not know how to explain it.Of course,they blamed it all on the MEN…..What a joke! This is just one example.
Another example.When we go for drinks after work we will walk into the bar and the bar is filled with single wimminz aged 25 to 50(all from the same area).The wimminz always motion to my friends and I to “sit down and have a drink with us”.Our response..”Thanks,but we have some business to discuss”…and then we go grab our own table AWAY from them.They are never approached and hang out amongst themselves….usually with a bitter scowl on their faces as they do not deal with rejection very well.
Another example.This 38 year old HOTTIE that I know who works in the same office tower has asked me out 3 times(I am 48) and all 3 times she has gotten the same response….NO! Last week I ran into her and she asked if she could come up to my office and talk to me after work.I said “sure…why not”.She arrived,I made her a drink and then she asked me point blank….”What the hell is wrong with me”? My response…”I give up..what is wrong with you”?….L*. She said “I have been turned down by the last 10 men that I have been interested in.I have given them my phone number and none of them have called me to ask me out……so what the hell is wrong with me”? I was shocked to say the least.In my own mind I was thinking WOW!…if a Hottie like her cannot get a date…the ugly ones are seriously DOOMED! I tried to be nice and explain to her that maybe she is chasing the wrong men and should look for greener pastures.She explained that she wants to get married and have a kid but it looks very bleak for her.She also stated to me that…”If I did not pretend to like a guy on a date I would not get sex once a year…and I would be celibate”….again I said WOW!….as I did not know what to say.I tried to be sympathetic and understanding but,then I decided to give her a dose of brutal honesty combined with a dose of harsh reality.I told her that …”due to femi-nazism,bullshit LTR & divorce laws that men have decided to ‘Go Their Own Way’…which means men are avoiding women as they are not worth the hassle to date…let alone getting into a legal agreement with them where the man could lose his assets by getting royally raped in Family Court”…She seemed to understand this…I think! She then asked about me and a few of my friends that she was interested in.I told her point blank……”we are not interested in dating or a relationship…let alone marriage to get robbed of at least 50% of everything that we have worked for.I myself as well as the others keep a few wimminz on the side for ‘sport sex’…and if that fails there are always CallGirls…..but,under no circumstances do we get INVOLVED with them…do you understand”???…She replied “Yes”. I want to feel sorry her…but I do not! These wimminz are getting exactly what they asked for.They have no one to blame except themselves.I could give a lot more examples,but,I think I have stated my point from my perspective that I see everyday.Thanks.
Mark
That is what involuntary spinsterhood looks like. Throw in that non hormonal male birth control pill(Gandarusa from Indonesia) and you have involuntary childless spinsterhood. Your story is the goal and Dalrock is the cultural leader that gives them the way out. In a hopeless world like that women will be more likely to be “gamed” into not stopping the law being stripped of misandry. Women are too stupid to do it on there own “and lose all of the gains they have made towards equality” The new white knight and churchians will be trying to get laws of misandry relaxed. Fathers rights and default custody for his kids born in marriage and a male pill will solve almost all of the issues with out having to fight the silly battles over details that are really just symptoms of the blue pill.
Over all That is what the blue man will do to survive feminism when he is of social status and has his eyes open.
“As women get older their attractiveness goes down, as men get older, their sexual hormone levels decrease as well. These guys’ sex drives become more manageable when they get into their 30’s as opposed to when they were 20. Should the sex drive still be there, rampant internet porn is free, virtual sex technology should get better as the years goes on. What if these guys want to enjoy a sexual experience, there are plenty college age escort babes these guys could sample for $200-300 an hour which is a bargain compared to what married and divorced men have to pay for a rapidly aging wife/ex wife. As these guys get more income, they will be perfectly capable of taking themselves on overseas sex vacations should they decide to do so.”
If you live close to the former Eastern Block, 200-300$ is unrealistic.
It is much, much less.
Our birth rate is 1.45 per capita.
Involuntary childless spinsterhood will be the eventual pain that makes women back off on the misandry. They will not give up what they have won for nothing. At this time the childless portion of the spinsterhood is not working. Looking around you can see plenty of upper 30s and 40s women with babies or very young children. They can get pregnant if they want to. Too many men are not carefull enough and get an oops pregnancy and child support orders. There is also the sprem bank option for IVF. We need the male pill to make this work. Then we need to convince ment that donating to a sperm bank is a very bad idea. Several recent court cases that have held sperm donors (not to banks but through personal arrangements) responsible for child support should help with this.
None of this will relax the laws of misandry by themselves. Default father custody is not going to be supported by the churchians or the white (blue) knights, ever. It is going to be a long slog to get any sort of balance restored. I do not expect to see it in my lifetime. Women hold the power in our society, and alwyas have. We need to show the younger generation that the path of feminism leads to bad outcomes in the clearest possible way. The older generation (women currently in their 20s and above are never going to see this until it is too late for them.
Dalrock, have you tried looking at the marriage strike data from a vintage analysis viewpoint. In credit risk circles we analyze a portfolio of accounts by breaking the whole into tranches based on their origination date and then track results by number of months on books. For the marriage data for women you could look at groups of women born in a set of years, for example 1955 – 1960, tracking the percentage ever married at their average age (for 1955 – 1960 the average age might be 22 in 1980). You breakdown the entire population of women this way and then you plot and compare the curves. This allows you to see if some tranches are trending lower or higher than others in the same point in their life. If the set of curves is trending in one direction it is an even stronger indicator that something has changed. I think it would clearly show that the younger tranches today are starting to look spinsterhood in the face. Of course trends can shift rapidly in the future, but it is usually a good indicator if something in the process has changed and likely to have different results in the future. Not that I expect to convince women with this or anything else they do not like. They see and hear what they want to and believe whatever they think is in their best interest at the moment.
BTW in the book, “Atlas Shrugged”, the people going Galt did not do so to try and change the system. They had given up on the system and removed themselves from it to improve their individual lives. I have not seen the movies so I do not know if this is true of them. This is the real emphasis on the MGTOW movement. They are not trying to change women; they are just getting away from them as much as possible. This is not to punish women, but merely as a self defense move and trying to maximize their lives in a bad situation. So those of you that think this is going to lead to involuntary childless spinsterhood, and a change to the misandrous society, that is not the intent or belief of the adherents. They see no hope of change. That is why they are not men’s rights advocates. They believe that it is too late, and a hopeless effort, to shift from a feminist dominated culture.
MANy OF you have realized by now dat da GBFM is a prinminet prominent CHRUCH LEADERZ LEDERZ ELDERZ CHRUCH CHRUCH HIGHER UP GRAND PUPAZ zozozzl zlozlzlzo!!!
but i have bad newsz sad sad so very sad neewsz churchian church news
my church defuneded my bible studey study greta books for men club cause they needed the moneyz to fund the “Repentant Sisterhood of the Sore Buttholez in Search of Beta Providers to Support Our Bastard Kidz” Bible study club zlozozozozo
this is they’re hymnal hymenal hymnal no-hymen hymneell lzozozzoz:
THE PRAYER OF THE REPENTANT SISTERHOOD OF DA SORE BUTTHOLEZ lzozoz
ten alphas pumped and dumped me
so i considred myself a ten
told all the betas “let’s wait and see,”
and now i am a single old dried up hen.
empowered today with my haughty blogs
calling on men to man up everywhere
where cocks once penetratd my hole for logs
jesus now forgives me via my prayer
please jesus please heal my sore butthole
i repent so send a beta provider my way
a good manned-up man with a good soul
the ones i ignored back in the day
but now i desrve me a nice nice moneyed guy
to pay for dates while i make him wait ’til i die.
to make him pay for what i gave away for free
back when i was younger hotter tighter
no longer can he butthext the reformed me
like they did when i was fifty pounds lighter.
so please jesus please help da men man up everywhere
to marry da jesus-healed butts of slutty slutts
and pay to raise our bastard kidz it’s only fair
dat betas we don’t lay gotta pay & never touch our holey butts
jesus holy jesus you had better answer our sisterhood’s prayer
or da sisterhood of da sore buttholzizoz gonna cut off ur nutts.
lzozozozozoozozooz
cluck clcukc cluck cluck clcuck
clukc clcuclkuc lcuk clukck clcolzozlzozolzzoozzozlz
hey dalrocklas lostsas cockas and heearteiztztets i think dat glen stanton is gonna put this in his hymnal bookz at all his mega churches/fort godz zlozlzozozoz
@Ton,
> I’m leaving the usa and taking my family with me. God, family…. an well there isn’t anything on my list.
The problem is where do you go? I can’t find any other place that looks to have reliable stability over the long run either.
@Mikediver,
That is why things have to collapse before serious change comes. Incremental changes are almost always guaranteed to go the wrong way.
@BradA:
The Manosphere tends to also collect resources on “how to survive the coming financial collapse”. It’s probably a good idea to read up.
That is true LG. I have read quite a bit and continue to do so. My biggest issue is that my wife and I have no one to take care of us when we get older. Went the adoption route when children weren’t coming and they have all rejected us as parents when they became adults. At least I have no trust in having them care for us when we are older, as families should do.
That means I need to make provisions, but that is tough when society is literally falling apart. I do not expect the “safety net” to last through my retirement years and you can be in trouble no matter how much you save up and store up for those years. The body has this way of decaying….
Too much rambling on that though. I will continue to keep my eyes open for good resources, though I tend to stay with a few sites now (Dalrock, here, SD’s site, Alpha Game) and not the whole sphere. I definitely get turned off by the hedonistic focus of non-Christian sites.
@Mark
Excellent comment mark, as I dont generally hang around blue pill men, I had no idea the marriage strike was this huge … lol
What most women dont understand
Most men are able to satisfy themselves from porn, just as easily as a real woman
Men are visual & they dont need anywhere near the emotional or physical reinforcement, or drama a woman needs to get off
Because sex isnt exactly a drive for men, as theyre able to seperate the need to procreate, & the need for sex, theyre able to easily satisfy themselves with porn
Yes, men have a huge drive to pro-create, a sex drive & biological imperative to reproduce, but theyre able to seperate the two, which is why most men dont get baby rabies …
Anyway, women are too masculine & the lack of any incentives to date women, ie no marriage, which is causing the huge marriage strike
Considering how unstable the numbers are for the usa, its not hard to find a new place. And I am looking at three generations.
I found a place with only one major enthic group, a state church I respect, decent gun laws (already have a CC permit) sane immigration laws, not a major trading partner with the usa, or with any nation that is… National debt and soccer are the only things I am unhappy about.
Took me three hours top on the google to narrow the list and one trip to decide
up to 60% of voters are woman. Nuff said.
oo hooo! ton and greyghost, you sure can Maintain the mansplainin’
ANYTHING except admit that fathers-of-daughters, including “conservative” fathers, have played a HUGE role in the establishment of western matriarchy
but nupe we aint’ talkin’ about that, uh uh baby, not ’til the last bubble of this sinking ship pops!
like the liberals/feminists, you’d rather play Pin the Tail on the Scapegoat
ergo you ARE feminists, of the typical daughter-daddy variety
you would prefer to attack those telling you the harsh truth, rather than face the reality of the collusion between feminism and the abovesaid fathers . . . so no wonder the actual underlying problems of the matriarchy never get discussed, much less solved
tell these guys the truth, and they get defensive, and go on the attack — and that’s exactly how, and why, feminism took over — guys like YOU jumping down the throat of anybody who gets a bit too close to your self-interest comfort zones
which was precisely my point above: it is men (whether left or right or neither) who cut the legs out from under any other guy who shows how the matriarchy actually functions, and who REALLY has skin in the gyno-game . . . beyond the usual lefties-are-loonies rap, long ago well-covered and exposed
your responses illustrate exactly how most men were silenced over the past half-century: not just by the dworkins and steinems, but by Y-O-U . . . they have to fight through TWO Walls of Denial, not just Team Woman and her organizations
p.s. greyghost: all your “mutha fucka” yap doesnt make you seem like a Big Man in the eyes of your daughters, nor in the eyes of others . . . it works in the matriarchal inner-city ghettos, tho, to be sure!
enjoy the gynarchy! your emotionalism, rationalizations, and evasions point strongly towards complicity, and you deserve what you defend
I’ve said no such thing sparky. What I said is its having daughters isn’t the problem, its men being liberals and the like.
A non liberal man won’t support feminism in any form for any reason
As for the rest of your vomit, again notice how short my reply is. Thats rational and non emotive.
Ray
What’s wrong with you. My daughter is only 12 years old how in the hell is she going to make me drive the west to feminism. She and I have nothing to do with it. No body here does. Just because you have daughters doesn’t mean you have to raise them to ride the cock carousel and empowered feminist. Mutha fucka is a figure of speech meaning you don’t have to play churchian to live by the word in deeds. You are being really strange.
Ton
It would be cool to check out living in another country. I would like to bring something to that country. A fab shop, or some kind of manufacturing to create wealth there. Greenlander I think it was moved to Russia. It would be tough move on my part as I’m married with kids. Good luck and enjoy the adventure.
If fathering daughters caused feminism, would we have had a lot more feminism a lot sooner, like from the beginning of time
GreyGhost, I don’t know your family, but I don’t see why having kids would be a deterrent, course my youngest is 22… Thanks for the well wishes my friend
Ton — “A non liberal man won’t support feminism in any form for any reason”
De Nile, with a low-fog of scapegoating drifting along the top
intellectual and interpersonal cowardice is not a substitute for honest examination of any issue
greyghost —
ok your daughter is 12 . . . and her age is relevant to my points . . . exactly how?
it’s not, actually, is it homey?
nupe, it’s just a dodge towards reader-emotionalism, groping for The Group to come save you from your foolish words . . . a standard feminist tactic, when attempting to avoid or stop discussion of any issue that discomfits them
there is no validity to my observations, only something “wrong with me” . . . no response except a (lame) personal attack, hm what group of people have i noticed doing that before, hm hm hm, lemme think back over the past few decades…..
yo boys: avoiding substantive discussion is weak enough, but hiding behind insults is the lowest of the low
you have learned well from your feminist masters! :0)
“Mutha fucka is a figure of speech meaning you don’t have to play churchian to live by the word in deeds. You are being really strange.”
you propose that “mutha fucka” is common cultural shorthand for “not playing churchian but to live by the word in deeds” (whatever in God’s great name THAT nonsense means, and bro i’ll break this to you gently . . . YOU are the only one using that “definition”)
then you tell me that I’M strange?
LOL! hoooo-weeeeeee
yee friggin’ ikez, you two are quite the couple! mebbe obie was right about homo marriage, hey it’s not too late for you to tie that knot you’re making
@GreyGhost, if you think expat with a wife and kids is tough, try with an ex-wife and kids. Though, I have broached the subject with her and she’s coming around to my way of thinking.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Ray.
Ton
I fully understand the short to the point reply
Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place
Congratulations on the Instalaunch Dalrock. I expect you will be kept busy dealing with moderation issues in the near future.
Instalanche incoming.
You may just be that man Dr. Helen was hoping for.
Keep your head about you.
Hey GreyGhost, are you reading that guys post? If so, is it worth responding to?
oh yr welcome, it was my pleasure :O)
and if you boys pull that again, rest easy, i will be back to call you on it, again
cheers!
I recommend Thomas Sowell’s book A Conflict of Visions. In it, he describes the contrast between the “constrained” vision, which believes people are flawed and imperfectable (note the Christian angle there), and the “unconstrained” vision which believes people are perfectable and utopia is possible if we just do the right things. Often, those visions correspond to right and left but not always. The problem is that even many conservatives and Christians who should know better have romantic “unconstrained” views of love, marriage, men, and women that makes them think and act like liberals on this topic.
Ton
Nope
no response needed
What the hell are you waffling on about, nancy? Who are these “conservatives” you mention? You don’t name a single person.
Men and women differ…shock of shocks…by the amount of serum testosterone. Most men, with a high level of serum testosterone, see sex, and woman, as a [deliriously happy] end in itself. Most women, with a low level of serum testosterone, see sex, and man, as a [merely useful] means to an end. And therein lies the almost inevitably unhappy relationship between the sexes, with or without marriage. Yes, there are men [and women] who equate variety with excitement. But one man and one woman can be exciting well beyond one man’s or one woman’s physical ability to express himself or herself sexually. Your humble author thinks of himself as one of the latter, capable of being infinitely impressed with one extraordinary woman, if only the look in her eyes speaks the same of him to him.
Hey GB4M! I gotchya an xtian ClassyLady — even if she does say so herself — for your new certain-to-be-successful church.
Be sure to check out what she has Will Smith (I think that’s who that is) ‘saying’ on her behalf.
Anyway, I hope you pay a big fishy finder’s fee! lollzzz
This is so convoluted and backwards I don’t know where to start.
Conservatives decry the way liberals altered the incentives in marriage, placing huge incremental burdens on men and stripping them of most of their rights.
How is this not exactly their same position as regards all the other matters economic and social that you talk about?
oops – I think I just omitted the URL close-quote symbol; please correct. thx
Thanks brother
Eh, I think the reason for reactionary petulance by conservatives on marriage is more easily stated in terms of reflexive conservative attitudes. (In the preceding sentence, “reactionary” is equivalent to liberal/feminist because these represent the unenlightened status quo to which we have fallen, and any attempt at a restoration of sanity necessarily represents a “progressive” alteration to the status quo which will be resisted by reactionaries.)
Conservatives are reflexively gallant and protective towards the weak.
Conservatives reflexively give loyalty and honor and license to partners who have proven themselves valuable, helpful, noble.
And, Conservatives reflexively consider “good manners” to go along with the best traditions and wisdom of civilization.
Combine these attitudes together, and you get a reflex towards protecting the current legal and cultural privilege of women.
For of course if a woman is silly and a bit dim, she is weak, and as “the weak” needs protecting from anyone who’d reduce her power in society;
And, if a woman is a good wife and companion (as some, even these days, still are) then loyalty demands she have influence in society, and honor, and even a certain amount of broad license;
And many conservatives were taught “don’t hit a girl,” and “let the lady go first” at their mother’s knee, and (reflexively) read extension of female privilege as the grown-up equivalent.
I really don’t think it’s any more thought-out than that. All reflex.
All wrong, of course. But 5% of the human race makes any effort to think hard about who they are and how they live. The rest kinda just go with their gut, don’t they?
This is absurd. The “conservatives” in this tract bear not the slightest resemblance to any conservatives I know, in person or in print.
Conservatives generally support none of the popular modern groupthink “isms” – communism, totalitarianism, National Socialism, and – of course – feminism.
They are also aware of the perils which await any society which in its hubris converts itself into an exclusive club for little girls. Pure Emilia Earhart effect, doomed to failure by its very nature.
Dear R.C.,
You write, “Conservatives are reflexively gallant and protective towards the weak.
Conservatives reflexively give loyalty and honor and license to partners who have proven themselves valuable, helpful, noble.
And, Conservatives reflexively consider “good manners” to go along with the best traditions and wisdom of civilization.
Combine these attitudes together, and you get a reflex towards protecting the current legal and cultural privilege of women.”
Women have aborted/murdered over 50,000,000 babies by their choice alone over the past forty years or so.
What about this makes them “weak?” How is this “valuable, helpful, noble?” Where are the “good manners” in murder? Should not conservatives seek to show good manners by protecting the weak–the children, as well as the innocent men who have their families destroyed by women who initiate divorce in 80% of the cases?
I mentioned Helen Smith’s book in my own take on the current state of the marital institution here: http://geeksjourney.com/when-you-come-to-the-horrific-realization-that-a-marriage-takes-work-and-b-women-are-crazy
One thing’s for sure, listening to all those sappy love ballads during the 80s really ruined my perception of reality. I should have stuck to Van Halen and left well enough alone.
Only an overage adolescent would try to indict conservatives for being right that the attitudes they oppose have had the deleterious effects they predicted. Grow up.
This is the worst post in years to receive Instapundit’s approval; it’s flaw is so obvious, I wonder what he was thinking. The author describes a generic conservative view of how people _do_ respond to govt-created incentives, and contrasts it with a generic conservative view of how men _should_ respond to incentives surrounding marriage. Of course the two views differ. The first is descriptive, the second normative. In fact the standard conservative view is consistent: Incentives now dissuade men from working hard, and from marrying; regardless, men should work hard, and marry. That view may or may not be right, but it isn’t incoherent.
Shoot: should be “its flaw.” Dumb.
I write heavily on DGM-4. It is hard to become a member, in fact you have to figure out how, like an i.q. test, but there is an open thread.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/07/03 | Free Northerner
@Leo G
up to 60% of voters are woman. Nuff said.
Here in Ontario we have a new Premier,Kathleen Wynn.She is openly a lesbian….. She marched in the “Gay” Pride Day on the weekend here in Toronto.She was the center of attention in the “Dyke Walk”…..and this is what “wimminz” and a lot of manginas vote for in Ontario,Canada. Things are definitely not looking up for the Province!
@rmax
“”women are too masculine & the lack of any incentives to date women, ie no marriage, which is causing the huge marriage strike””
Yes I agree………….”lack of incentives” ………….being the key phrase in your post! Another funny thing. Guys that are between the ages of 25 and 30 seem to flock to me and my friends when they see us socially at lunch or in the bar for an after work drink…..and we have been coaching these guys as they are eager to learn from us.Not just business but wimminz also! Don’t get me wrong here as these guys have no problem picking up women at all……..they are just VERY naive about wimminz!….L* Here is the clincher….the Wimminz hate it when they see those nice young specimens hanging out with the likes of yours truly and his cohorts……L*…..Why do you think that is? Because truth hurts maybe? They know that they are no going to manipulate us….L* The thing that really pissed the wimminz off was when they they encountered these fine young specimens conversing they were huddled around a table drinking beers and discussing a book that myself and my cohorts had given them to read. Here is a link to that book:
http://www.protectionformen.com/
This really opened their eyes.When the Wimminz viewed this book shit really hit the fan…….I have never been so shamed in my life!…….and I mean shamed!……myself and my cohorts were referred to as misogynists to gay to you name it…..I think they were trying to hurt our feelings….L*
TFH
They are commenting exactly as if on cue.
My now ex-girlfriend and I asked many successful couples how they handled many aspects of merging adult lives together. I was surprised that the replies from the church couples were not all that helpful on practical financial things. Many just merge everything together jointly and pray a lot. Seemed to us that two people who had been single for a long time would need to put some thought into separate property and space vs. joint property and space and just learning how to live together.
Maybe there needs to be some push back on the fairy tail expectations of women regarding the expensive rings, marriage reception party, impressive starter castle for her, perfect children, etc. From a man’s perspective, this appears to be a lot of competitive spending for the sake of showing off the ability to throw the man’s money around. I felt pressured to rush into a situation that was about as desirable as getting a horrible disease and I chose not to pursue that marriage. Remove the expensive high expectations and marriage could be a better deal for the man at the start.
The other area that needs to be fixed is the anti-male bias of family courts. I found that I could use a prenuptial agreement to make a more balanced marriage contract, but once children are involved, the guy loses in divorce no matter how careful he was with the prenup.
Well, this is a relatively easy puzzle to answer – you are confusing Libertarians with Conservatives.
I notice that all the new conservatives showing up here are not addressing the main point, which is that they like big government and wealth redistribution, as long as it benefits women at the expense of men.
Maybe because your caricature of “conservatives” isn’t correct? Can you give me an example of an actual conservative who believes this, other than a pundit or politician?
I’m a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. And I agree with just about everything said on the post and comments. Just because conservative pundits and politicians believe what they do, it doesn’t mean all conservatives in general do as well.
That aside, I also understand why those pundits think what they do. Society is falling apart. The breakdown of the American family is one of the direct causes of it. Less women being married to real men is the reason for the breakdown. If men don’t marry and support their kids, the breakdown of society will continue, and get worse. That’s where the “Man Up” view is coming from.
Here is the paradox: The world needs men to be men again. It’s up to this younger male generation to fight the power structure that created this mess in the first place. If a “conservative” politician votes to give more benefits to women and screw over men, then they need to be primaried and beaten on these issues alone. Going Galt, though understandable, will do NOTHING to fix society, or make any male happy and fulfilled. And when you young guys are 50 or older, and you remark on the big chunk of your lives that has passed by, you’ll see then that you’ve missed out.
“It’s up to this younger male generation to fight the power structure that created this mess in the first place”
No, it isn’t.
Young men cannot out vote women and feminist supporting (implicitly / explicitly) men.
Stop telling men that they need to sacrifice themselves for your agenda.
Going Galt is the best chance for happiness that many men have. They are choosing that path regretfully (usually) but wisely. They don’t care about your agenda, your shaming or your concern trollery (those days are gone). They have looked at the choices left to them, and they’re taking their best option.
You can’t shame men for taking rational decisions. You can only make yourself look isolated from the real world. You could try leading by example, by making sure that your church returned to preaching from the bible, rather that from the feminist creed. But you guys never get round to doing that, do you? Else Dalrock would have received many recommendations of churches preaching the weaknesses of women, as well as those of men.
Well crap, I think I’m going to have to find a different title for my political philosophy. I call myself a “social conservative” because I oppose abortion, oppose gay marriage, and support the (likely impossible) goal of rolling marriage and marriage law back to how it was around 100 years ago. I suppose “fiscal conservative” would work, as I am a believer in small government – however I’m not down with the socially liberal BS that libertarians tend to be. However, I’ve been reading this blog (and the manosphere) for several months now, and I completely understand the problems that have been outlined here. Perhaps “regressive” would be more appropriate…
Welcome I Callahan
Yes, this is a large part of the issue, and what I referred to in the OP as enabling feminism. Over the last 40 years women have become increasingly feminist, greatly delayed marriage, and had the laws changed. It is easy for a conservative who sees the societal value of marriage to get to work finding a way to get all of those aging feminists married despite a hostile legal environment for men.
I don’t think it is that simple. The men who forgo marriage are giving up something of great value, that much you and I will agree on (and I wrote more on that here). But if you look at the choices of a very large percentage of unmarried women, an equally large percentage of men will either need to marry an aging feminist slut, or forgo the option to marry. My advice to men is to try to find a way to marry one of the marriage worthy women, but this advice won’t work for every man (the numbers just won’t work). Also, men choosing not to marry does have an impact; it terrifies the supporters of the status quo precisely because of its power. We won’t see a change until feminists and the conservatives enabling them become uncomfortable with the status quo. Despite all of the talk, American women still very much want to marry. Today they just see it as their birthright. If a generation of aging feminists find themselves struggling to marry, younger women will take note. This will in all likelyhood be a slow and incomplete corrective process, but a slow and incomplete turnaround is better than continuing to inflate the feminist bubble.
@ Greyghost and TFH
Admittedly my post contained no allusion to the fact that government was the heavy in enforcement of feminism and the destruction of masculinity. However, it appeared that the post was more concerned with what exactly, so called “conservative” men were doing to promulgate the spread and intensity of feminism and the feminine imperative and thusly my post was focused on such….
It is self evident, or it should be to men of discernment, that the government is the obvious hand behind the level of feminine enforcement present today and that it backs the virtual enslavement of men due to methods documented previously (Alimony, child support, quotas, affirmative action, title IX, etc.).
greyghost, women have found a way to avoid the ‘childless spinster’ syndrome you hope will sweep them:
http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/cdc-report-drug-overdose-deaths-spike-among-middle/nYcds/
lolollolzlolzz
Dear I Callahan,
You write, “Here is the paradox: The world needs men to be men again. It’s up to this younger male generation to fight the power structure that created this mess in the first place. If a “conservative” politician votes to give more benefits to women and screw over men, then they need to be primaried and beaten on these issues alone. Going Galt, though understandable, will do NOTHING to fix society, or make any male happy and fulfilled. And when you young guys are 50 or older, and you remark on the big chunk of your lives that has passed by, you’ll see then that you’ve missed out.”
Yes, the most important thing to do is to return THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN–the classical, exalted SPIRIT OF THE LAW and epic mythology–to the center and circumference of our institutions.
Apparently this will not happen as long as women, funded by the FED, are running our institutions. For you see, instead of honoring honorable men and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, women attack, deconstruct, and debauch them.
Dear I Callahan, perhaps you have heard of the Weekly Standard? Not so long ago a woman author there celebrated Tucker Max who sodomized a girl and taped it secretly. She dutifully repeated his lies about his hieght and labeled him a successful filmmaker, even though his film lost $10,000,000 on a $12,000,000 budget. He also makes fun of fat people, Asians, and minorities. The Weekly Standard could have devoted the colum space to the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN or to heoic men fighting wars on distant shores, but instead the celebrated the secretive taper of buttcocking. Another woman runs the major publishing house that published the buttcocker.
The question is, I Callahan, what have you done to exalt the contemporary culture? Or are you one of those conservatives who think the American Revolution was fought to exalt secretive tapers of buttehxt and desecrate Shakespeare, the Bible, Homer, Mises, and Moses?
Perhaps you could “man up” and write a letter to the Weekly Standard expressing your dismay. Thanks in advance!
For those conservatives who don’t support big government did you vote for mittens Romney, or the Bush’s… all big government liberals. You vote for the gop, you are voting for big government
Meh, conservatives over the past 50 years have laid back and watched their countries go down and they’ve done nothing. Now they simply just ‘expect’ men, men who have had no proper upbringings, men who have been drugged and mistreated at school, men who have been taught by everyone, who was meant to love them, that they are nothing but brutal and hateful beings, to just suddenly find their manhood, fight a political and military machine the likes of which have never been seen, to fight a constant battle with the women in their lives, the courts, the legal system, the domestic abuse system and the entire spectrum of institutions and laws set up for female advancement against that of men. Men are expected to just take up all the risk and claim responsibility for the failure of women, but these same men shouldn’t expect any reward at all…
These same men have received little to no instruction on how to actually be men. It’s like taking a caveman and putting him in a seat and telling him to write a science fiction novel and then blaming him when he doesn’t know what you’re talking about…
yea, hmm, I just can’t seem to put my finger on why these conservatives seem to be given the finger???
@Michael Greenspan
Are you saying that conservatives feel the same way about other issues of bad policy and disincentives? For example, do conservatives then believe that under Obamacare a business with 51 employees has a moral obligation to retain all 51 employees? Or (from a conservative perspective) do businesses which would be more profitable if they moved production overseas have a moral obligation to keep their production facilities in the US? What about rent control. Do investors have a moral obligation to invest as much in new housing under rent control as they would if such a law weren’t in place? Likewise if the state of California has overly restrictive regulations and taxes, I assume from your explanation that the conservative perspective is that a business or individual has a moral obligation to remain in the state and pay their fair share of the state’s taxes.
Or, could it be that conservatives only adopt this descriptive vs normative rationalization when the bad policy in question is something they are invested in?
@Feminist Hater
I hate to cross pollinate blogs to much but I posted the following over at SSM and think this might give you a slightly more positive outlook.
http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/creating-a-tribal-culture-an-update-from-joseph-of-jackson/#comment-13901
Progressive ideology says that paradise on Earth is possible if only X can be done, so therefore everything must be sacrificed for X. The bible says paradise is after death. Any issue with that is an issue with the bible.
Resign yourself to the idea that you WILL suffer, you will be pained, women will destroy you if you let them, the world does hate you, they are out to get you, and one day you will die.
Stop being afraid, prepare yourself for a glorious death, in that their is no defeat.
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 1COR 15:55
Don’t fear women or their abusive partner the government, they will try and take your children they will try and take your money, they will try and take your life. Stop accepting their satanic and heretical promulgations of evil, fight back in every you can.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. MAT 10:28
MOLON LABE
Dear Michael Greenspan,
You write, “Michael Greenspan (@MichaelGreenspa) says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:27 pm
This is the worst post in years to receive Instapundit’s approval; it’s flaw is so obvious, I wonder what he was thinking. The author describes a generic conservative view of how people _do_ respond to govt-created incentives, and contrasts it with a generic conservative view of how men _should_ respond to incentives surrounding marriage. Of course the two views differ. The first is descriptive, the second normative. In fact the standard conservative view is consistent: Incentives now dissuade men from working hard, and from marrying; regardless, men should work hard, and marry. That view may or may not be right, but it isn’t incoherent.”
Actually, Michael Greenspan, that view is both wrong and thus incoherent, if we assume intelligent souls.
If we assume diabolical and/or foolish souls, then yes, the view is coherent.
So tell me, Michael, are the conservatives you know, who state that men should work hard and marry even though they risk incarceration, trial without jury, having their children seized, violation of their Natural Rights, criminalization sans due process, invasion of privacy, and having their past, present, and future assets seized by the State–are the conservatives who advocate that men get married diabolical or foolish, or some combination of both?
And yes, please feel free to interject your “descriptive/normative” buzzwords to as to obscure the foundationally moral issues here. Do you also dismiss Moses’s”Thou shalt not lie,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not commit Adultery/fornicate,” and Christ’s “What God has joined together, let not man put assunder.”–do you also dismiss these tenets based on their “descriptive or normative” nature, like a grad student in Bill Bennetisms?
Dalrock, you write: “Despite all of the talk, American women still very much want to marry.”
Still largely true, but less so than in the past. And if current trends continue, we will likely find within a generation or two that American women are more like today’s Japanese women with a majority saying they don’t want marriage and huge proportions of women under 35 unmarried.
Helen Smith’s book makes some fine economic points, but the death of marriage is much, much bigger than mere economic disadvantages suffered by men. Easy divorce, easy sex, feminism, loss of traditional morality, rampant self-absorption, a lavish public welfare system, and general economic prosperity are all bigger problems, and in fact, have spawned the secondary issues Smith writes about.
Marriage will recover when society collapses and religion and the traditional gender roles are restored out of necessity (i.e., for survival). Western society is currently expending a lot of energy trying to rearrange the parts inside a Corvette so that it will operate like a microwave, and surprisingly enough, it doesn’t work. This farce will have to end at some point because the one sure thing about reality is that it always reasserts itself, and usually rudely.
Pingback: Who Is John Galt? - dalrock
They still think that men being ‘deadbeat dads’ is the only reason for single motherhood. That women are doing this by choice, and are excluding the father from the child’s life against HIS will (via massive state apparatus that conservatives have allied with feminists to create), is something they are in full denial about.
Maybe the “real men” comment through you off, and if so, I apologize. But I most certainly do not believe the above in any way. In fact, I am a strong believer in the fact that the entire system is piled against men and boys in general.
You might consider using the term “social conservatives” instead of the broader “conservatives” when you are talking about these kinds of things. There are a whole bunch of us out here that consider ourselves “conservative” without the religious nonsense.
having said that, I favor an approach that really is conservative, namely getting the government out of the marriage business altogether. Remove all penalties, “benefits” and accommodations to “married people” and let the churches marry whoever they will. You want to have some sort of contract between humans, feel free to draw it up and sign, then let the existing contract system handle breaking the contracts.
I don’t agree with this, I see a largely lackadaisical attitude towards marriage by women in their twenties (they kinda sorta, kinda wanna get married, but only after they finish finding themselves and wrap up their 5 year missionary trip across Africa, THEN they’ll be ready to get settled down into the boring, dull, prison life world of marriage… maybe.)
I’ll tell you what American women REALLY wants to get married in a seriously bad way though: Single moms in their thirties. Come get ’em while they’re hot!
Dalrock writes,
“Despite all of the talk, American women still very much want to marry.”
Yes, they want to “marry” in the modern sense, where all the risks go to the man and all the wealth flows to the the women.
Yes, they want their expensive wedding, their wedding cake, all their friends and family, and then, a few years later they will seek to destroy their own family for profit, exiling the father from the children’s life, and disobeying the tenets of Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, Moses, Christ, and Homer too.
And conservatives/neocons/etc. by and large support this modern form of marriage. 🙂
Read/listen to Roger Devlin!
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01.htm “But whether based upon knowledge or pleasing illusion, the regard in which our civilization has held women depends utterly upon their practice of monogamy, and makes no sense apart from it. As long as cases of female adultery were few enough, they could be passed off to men as freaks of nature, akin to two-headed babies. When, on the other hand, wives in their millions act upon the feminist plan of “liberation,” walk out on their husbands, separate them from their children, bankrupt them in divorce court, and shack up with other men, that system breaks down. That is where we are today.
–Roger Devlin–read it all here: http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01.htm
Hello lavazza1891 July 3, 2013 at 01:23
[(highwasp: “if Americans hadn’t defeated Hitler we’d be speaking German in stead of English”.
Who are “we” in this sentence?)]
you and me bro – we are both writing in English – there’s reasons for that… I am not saying I know what those reasons are – I am using that ‘old saying’ (“if Americans hadn’t defeated Hitler we’d be speaking German in stead of English”) as an example to show how cultures and societies can completely change under the influences of competing interests – Feminism is one such influence…
Oops! wrong blog…
@rmax & greyghost
Here is a book that I a friend gave me…….he said….”read this BS…you will not believe it”…..
http://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Strategies-Every-Woman-Needs/dp/1558506004
He is correct.Allow me to quote the author for you:
“Criticize Him Daily …by carving into his ego like a Thanksgiving turkey, you can effectively break down his self-esteem… A man’s self-image is greatly affected by his perception of his virility. If you degrade his sexual ability, you will essentially emasculate him – his entire sense of self-worth will be dismantled.”
Isn’t this lovely? I would love to meet this c**t. So I could put my money on the table and hire a “contract hit man” to put her in the Lake Ontario!
Ooops………sorry.I forgot the author is a man……..What kind of man this is I will never know!….but he is an attorney……and a severe loser at that!
I Callahan said:
That aside, I also understand why those pundits think what they do. Society is falling apart. The breakdown of the American family is one of the direct causes of it. Less women being married to real men is the reason for the breakdown. If men don’t marry and support their kids, the breakdown of society will continue, and get worse. That’s where the “Man Up” view is coming from.
A point on which conservatives invariably fall on their swords: they assume that there is some inherent moral obligation to perpetuate society, to create posterity, even if the society in which they live is wholly undeserving of perpetuation. Their collectivist mindset also comes roaring to the fore here in that they assert that people have an obligation to reproduce, for the “greater good” (now, gosh, what ideology loves to use that phrase?). The desires, needs, and circumstances of the man carrying the penis (or woman carrying the womb) be damned.
Here is the paradox: The world needs men to be men again. It’s up to this younger male generation to fight the power structure that created this mess in the first place. If a “conservative” politician votes to give more benefits to women and screw over men, then they need to be primaried and beaten on these issues alone.
Another example of conservatives’ terminal naivete (or, dare I say it, sheer stupidity): they think that the political process is a pure, pristine, corruption-free process in which millions of little guys and gals can “vote” their way out of socioeconomic and political chaos.
Going Galt, though understandable, will do NOTHING to fix society, or make any male happy and fulfilled. And when you young guys are 50 or older, and you remark on the big chunk of your lives that has passed by, you’ll see then that you’ve missed out.
Ah, there is: the conservative broadbrush. I KNEW it would arrive eventually.
As to your first sentence: 1) you’re conflating two different, unrelated messages, and 2) Newsflash, pal: those who “Go Galt” couldn’t give two shits or a damn about “fixing” society. They’re smart enough to know that it’s beyond being fixable. They’re walking away from it altogether before it comes crashing down on their heads. Striking out on their own is what makes them happy and fulfilled. As to your last sentence, into projection much?
@St Swithunus
“Young men cannot out vote women and feminist supporting (implicitly / explicitly) men.”
This is why men must fight them in court & get the divorce laws changed, its the only way to fight the injustice of the vote
Legion
That article was good news. When the rate at least gets double that of the men’s rate and when it is felt to be as high a probable future as marrying at 40 then the activist types can appeal to the laws of misandry. Even that will require the so cons and churchians to preach and inform the cunts that it is the laws of misandry that is stopping marriage not some immature man. Most likely the rebellious cunts will double down and demand more misandry in the name of the vagina divine. And the so con and churchian will follow their lead as they are doing and have done in the past.
@Mark
Its great to see you guys creating real solutions for men
If you want to promote your material over at my blog, post some stuff in the comments section
If you like I’ll be more then happy to create a few articles to promote you guys
I get over a thousand hits a week, which isnt bad for a new blog considering I havent had a chance to rev up promotion of my blog lol
Let me know, I’ll be more then happy to help you guys out
@Mark
Men will always refuse to date, if theres no long term incentives for a relationship
Men date for relationships, they hookup for sex
What most women dont realise, when they put out too early, men consider it a hookup
If a man gets too many hookups on dates, he checks out of dating altogether & switches to hookups & eventually doesnt bother with women altogether
This is essentially why women ride the carousel, most men dont want a continous string of hookups with a single woman
Most men want a relationship, if all he can find is sex with a woman, he’ll just move onto another woman
This forces women to constantly have to find new men
TFH
Is this blue pill conservatism founded on a lie? The red pill is the true nature of women and relationships on display. When a conservative can honestly say women do not have the capacity to love and not feel horror and anxiety he is red pill and ready to lead men. Even the bible reads better with red pill eyes. There are no red pill churchians by the way.
Bashing conservatives, as is being done on this thread, is certainly cathartic (I have done it myself) but does not really address the root of the problem. People who see this as a political issue with one party (CONservatives, LIEbrals, Marxists, Libertarians, etc.) are missing the point, as the vast majority of people in power are feminists regardless of what label they cloak themselves in. Let’s remember that VAWA was sponsored by one of the most conservative republican members of the US congress (Mike Crapo) and co-sponsored by one of the most liberal democratic members (Leahy). So we can bash Crapo and the conservative republicans, as they certainly deserve some bashing, but we shouldn’t limit ourselves there. To limit ourselves is to see things in the way that our masters want us to see them.
When it comes to gender/sexual politics, the rulers have established a “heads they win, tails they lose” system which totally transcends parties or ideology. Labels mean nothing. It’s like with women: pay absolutely no attention to what they say, watch what they do instead.
The inverse is obvious too. If some upstart defies the status quo, it won’t matter if he is liberal or conservative (Liberal Traficant and Conservative/Libertarian Ron Paul will both vouch for this). They are railroaded out of politics once they question things.
Way up above, someone says:
This is the real emphasis on the MGTOW movement. They are not trying to change women; they are just getting away from them as much as possible.
I don’t think MGTOW can be thought of as a movement at all, except perhaps as a very unstructured educational movement. Many MGTOW bros I have met (admittedly over the internet, but I think they’re sincere) have removed women from their lives. Some others who identify with MGTOW went abroad to get married, in places like Philippine Islands, where there is no real divorce industry . Others have found MGTOW after being married. As one guy told me, a couple of years ago “I don’t think it’s rational to fight divorce by getting one, so I’m married and pretty happy to stay married”.
The acronym stands for men going their own way. Their way is not my way, nor anyone else’s. I am sort of a liberal hippie in the sense that if another bro wants to get married to a woman, I am not going to preach myself into his face or try to stop him. I might feel a minor obligation to try and tell him of the inherent risks, but that’s about it. What is right for me (being a sort of hedonistic playa and enjoying the single life) is, admittedly, not right for everyone. My brother’s way is not my way, and vice versa. Everyone does his own thing, and allows everyone else to do his own thing, and we all try to have enjoyable lives as best we are able.
@Frank
One doesn’t negate the other. You are right that very large numbers of women today don’t want to marry when they are young. But the foundation of their nonchalance about marriage is the assumption that once they are ready the men will line-up-to-man-up. This is somewhat understandable because previous generations of women were more or less able to delay marriage and nearly all still marry, but this was at a much smaller scale. The 90% marriage rate for US white women in their 40s translates into a great deal of confidence when today’s young women look at their mothers, aunts, and older sisters. But those older women didn’t wait nearly as long to try to marry as today’s women are, and as I’ve shown the data already suggests this is a risky bet.
@UnicornHunter & greyghost
If you cant ex-pat, you should relocate your families to strict traditional orthodox societies & communities
Just make sure they havent been contaminated with feminist nonsense
This will protect you from liberal & feminism & give your kids an amazing education
This is what I’d recommend for men & family who cant ex-pat
Mark sez:
I agree.But,I think it goes a little bit further than that…..at least from my perspective.What I am seeing is a “woman strike”.Let me explain.The office tower that I work in…. in Toronto,Ontario,Canada
I don’t know what is up with t-dot, but in my experience, the women there are *horrible* to be around. I lived there briefly and still have some family there. I would not touch any of the women in Toronto for any amount of money.
It is a little bizarre, because other cities in North America of similar size/status (Los Angeles, New York, Houston, Vancouver) are not nearly so devoid of femininity, in my experience. I travel some, and I have never seen a more bitter wasteland than Tarannah. Truth to tell.
If there is a woman strike (your words) there, then the women are getting what they have been asking for, for years.
If we men are monsters then we are so only because we are products of a society that Feminism and Liberalism jointly gave birth to.
It seems to be the order of things… it is the nature of man (or maybe in this case Woman) to create monsters. It is the nature of monsters to destroy their creators.
The only person that we as men of this once great nation can rely on is ourselves. The government has betrayed us. Our women (largely, not all but most of them) court together in intrigue against us. And God in heaven watches down from above.
If he wants to save his country he had better well act quickly… or there won’t be anything worth saving.
Boxer refers to Mark Minter at 01.42 on the 2nd July. Both say that the females in Toronto are the worst on the planet. This is music to my beaten ears, for although I have been romantically linked to a number of women from your continent, I can safely say and without fear of contradiction, that the worst, the absolutely worst female I have ever come across anywhere – and she was up against some pretty strong competition – was a single child-less thirty-eight year old corporate-cubicle spinster from that very City of Toronto. From my very first sentence aimed in her direction – I thought her appealing but I have certainly dated better looking women – a sentence intended to be witty, such that she might notice me above and beyond the usual riff-raff and I am afraid to say at the expense in my joke of Americans from California – but I have been there, indeed worked there, so it wasn’t some hand-me-down view – I was met with a volley of vitriol which stunned me into temporary silence. Was that the end ? No, of course not, merely the beginning of our ‘non-relationship’ – for how else can one describe behaviour which is the inverse of that which one would normally describe as a relationship, where this thirty-eight year old woman felt the need on all occasions to attempt to belittle, insult and verbally abuse me – whilst of course always drawing herself to my attention, and in the most sexually provocative manner. This led to my being stalked – stalking being a malign substitute for a proper relationship – yet this woman being in her late thirties was also suffering from the baby-rabies and saw herself as marriagable. I have never touched her (as such) yet that has not prevented her physically assaulting me and worse. I last saw her nearly three months ago when by chance we caught each others gaze – the anger and hate in her eyes was undimmed – yet she claims to be indifferent to me. Hmmm.
Is it any wonder that the phenomena of women of a certain age who go abroad for the purpose of securing the services of Gigolos has acquired the term ‘Canadian Secretary Syndrome’. I am thus grateful to both Mark and Boxer for reassuring me that it is not me.
@rmaxd
“This is why men must fight them in court & get the divorce laws changed, its the only way to fight the injustice of the vote”
it’s not that I disagree with you, but that takes money. And like as not, the guy is paying for both legal bills. In that situation, I just wanted out. I paid $500 legal fees and $5k to her to get it over and done with (over ten years ago, outside the US). The marriage was gone, justice was not available, I just wanted out. That was money well spent.
I hate to say it, but I think that there’s going to have to be a LOT of women suffering very badly before they get things changed. We’re probably talking a cessation of state support for kids and the marriage strike. Basically, you want a baby, baby? Then you’re going to have to finance it yourself.
It would help a lot if women saw the consequences of divorcing before they divorced out of unhaaappiness – the toxic state of the SMP (let alone MMP) for single mothers.
I long gave up on many women empathising with men in general. The women have to be suffering. Interesting news about women’s rate of death by overdose. Even the CDC leaves around 30% probably being deliberate. Cats don’t do it for every woman, perhaps?
As I said, it isn’t that I particularly disagree with you, but at best all he’ll get is a Phyrric victory – at best.
Have to agree, for me LA was awesome. I was literally thrown by the mellow behavior of most of the women I came across while I was there. New York can be hit or miss depending on where you go, but overall I’m pretty comfortable when I’m downtown. Walking a dog at Battery Park gets you ample opportunities to talk to a broad range of women.
Vancouver though was bleh. There’s a very heavy Chinese population that blankets the region with a layer of frigidity and sort of quiet hostility. I read elsewhere that Vancouver could be described as a turd surrounded by flowers. LOL
Probably not as bad as Toronto though, and thanks to all the warnings here, I’ll be staying as far away from that city as humanly possible during my travels.
@rmax
Thank you.I will check out your blog.
@8oxer
“”I would not touch any of the women in Toronto for any amount of money.””
L*
Well, happy 4th of July Dalrock.
@opus
“”the absolutely worst female I have ever come across anywhere – and she was up against some pretty strong competition – was a single child-less thirty-eight year old corporate-cubicle spinster from that very City of Toronto.””
You are sooooooo correct!………See them everyday. It seems that they are all wearing the same cologne these days……..it is called DESPERATION!
“”women of a certain age who go abroad for the purpose of securing the services of Gigolos has acquired the term ‘Canadian Secretary Syndrome’””
This is a topic all by itself!…….Costa Rica and Carribean Single Cruises seem to be the most popular.Here is the kicker……most of them go on those “cruises” by themselves!….to hunt down the elusive penis!
I wrote:
“Just about everyone who self-identifies as “conservative” has strong loyalties to political liberalism’.
empathologism requests:
Explain Zippy
I’ve written a lot about this over the years, from many different perspectives and in a number of different places. I’m too lazy to create a magnum opus and in any event a comment with dozens of links is usually more annoying than helpful. So here are a couple of potshots: Here I explain how equal rights – which both liberals and “conservatives” claim to support – result in a tyrannical social hive. Here I explained why “a government’s just powers derive from the consent of the governed” – a core conservative belief derived from the Declaration of Independence and Jeffersonian political philosophy more generally – is tommyrot.
@ Ton and Ray:
I know a couple of men who have daughters and both are socially and fiscally conservative. To me it appears that we generalize too much. In this case the overgeneralization is grouping all men who have daughters into the camp of not being conservative.
But I also agree that there is a TENDENCY for men who have daughters to be more liberal.
make sense?
vascularity777
The tendency comes from following the blue pill that they know and understand. There is nothing wrong with being conservative. The issue is a conservative founded on the blue pill. Or a man on the red pill that is conservative. Before I started participating in the manosphere I would most likely been a hard core blue pill conservative dad with a fully prepped and ready cock carousel rider to add to the PUA pool of cunts.
@greyghost:
I don’t know what to characterize myself as now. I definately used to be a moderate conservative. If conservative is defined as wanting things to be as they were in the past, then I am a partial conservative as I want some culture to be as it was 70 years ago, but not all. Anyway, there is no going back. There is only reshaping the future. But what will that reshapement look like? Unfortunately, to me it seems like a more extreme of what we have now; less marriage minded men and w0men, more welfare, more kids allienated due to broken homes, etc.
The bottom line is we need to look to Christ for the answers; for our hope and peace of mind.
I always thought and is how I define it for myself is conservative Is a term used to describe a set of moral and social values rather than some social standard It has a political connotation now. Once you get the red pill You will naturally be conservative and it is also much easier to live by the word of God. The bible becomes reaffirming rather than a wet blanket on what you want or what you believe is right. Most so called “conservatives” as we think of them are just parrots that don’t have a clue as to why they are follow traditions and values. One of the values of a conservative is to be lawful and orderly. That is how you see “conservatives” going along with evil because they are good people following the rules. Hard to explain and maybe I didn’t do well but it has a lot to do with the road to hell and good intentions.
I would concern myself with being red pill and from there you will be a on solid ground as a christian and secular leader and it will be natural and normal with out having to follow along with the herd of popularity.
I notice that all the new conservatives showing up here are not addressing the main point, which is that they like big government and wealth redistribution, as long as it benefits women at the expense of men.
———–
THF
Correct. Tom Swift is not a thinker. He uses feminism as camo, hiding behind the radical fringe while the real feminism is unchecked because it is I sufficiently labeled. The only he of convincing my misguided conservative friends is to get them to see feminism as inclusive of the gynocentric things we are all aware of. Lacking that feminism gives them cover, how else could they hide so well in churches?
I think thats what I have been saying, that and very few people have a traditional or conservative view of the world. and if they do, that only extends back a little while to an already very liberal time frame like the 50’s.
Dear Opus:
Wow, that sounds like a prize catch of a woman. I’m astounded that you didn’t immediately fall at her feet and offer to wife her up after those lunatic tantrums.
I don’t have any super dramatic stories to tell about myself being stalked or attacked. My opinion grew out of a consistent but almost unnoticeable pattern of female entitlement.
Once in the Mississauga post office, a (much older) woman started screaming because I apparently didn’t hold the door for her. I hadn’t noticed her and ignored her as she cursed me in line as I did my business.
On several occasions, when out at dinner with friends, when the bill arrived, one or more of the female partiers disappeared, having previously agreed to pay their share. This became so common in Toronto that I eventually just accepted it as normal, as most men there do, apparently.
About a year ago, a guy I knew in childhood and still talk to occasionally was sued for maintenance by a woman who he had lived with for (no, I’m not kidding) 6 weeks. Now, with my “they live” glasses on, I will concede that this is partly his fault for moving in with her. He’s a rather naïve guy of Japanese descent from Alberta, and he went off to Toronto and apparently got lonely enough to move in with a skank ho single mom. She became so intolerable that he departed rapidly. She apparently sued him, thinking that 6 weeks of hell was enough to put him on the hook for weekly payments.
The judge who heard his silly cohabitation case was apparently not impressed with the woman either, and he got off without paying her anything, but he had to spend several hundred dollars hiring people to help him prepare for the hearing and it was a big hassle. Typical T-dot crap.
If I lived in Toronto, I’d probably go to Ottawa, Buffalo or Montréal for weekends and meet people socially in those places.
empathologism: I didn’t address that point because I actually do not believe in big government and wealth distribution. Most welfare programs are unconstitutional and counterproductive, and I would like to see the end of Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, etc. I had never really considered the redistribution inherent in the divorce system (I was raised by parents who are still successfully married, so I wasn’t really exposed to it at all) until I discovered the manosphere a few months ago. Reading the Futurist’s “Misandry Bubble” opened my eyes regarding that issue, and I am now very hesitant to marry despite my religious values and upbringing. I believe that “the laws of misandry” as greyghost often refers to them need to be reformed or repealed, but I’m not sure if a conservative politician exists who is brave enough to take up that cause.
Ton: Agree with you here. I would like to roll back marriage law (and most interactions between the sexes) at least a century, but that opinion is in the extreme minority today, even among conservatives. Heck, I would like to roll back our government to pre-progressive era functionality. THAT opinion would probably get a little more traction among conservatives, which could be useful.
100 years ago, progressives had already been at work, successfully for 2+ generations.
Collapsar
Did you experience a personal trauma or did simply reading here convince you? If the later, that is rare. Men like you with still married parents and no exposure to the effects of misandry laws usually are not convinced.
Ton: You’re right, I was tying too much importance to the first progressive presidencies, which happened 100ish years ago. More than 100 years then…
Empathologism: I was raised as a beta niceguy Christian, and went through a shitty breakup as a result of that last year. I was already starting to question the “truths” about women, relationships, etc. that I had been taught when I discovered heartiste (and then this site soon after) early this year. My ex-roommate (y’all might know him as S1AL) is a better example of what you are referring to.
The progressive ideology goes back a long, long way. 2 of americas founding fathers were levelist meaning wealth redistribution ( both yankees paine and an adams)
Might be more, those are the two I know about
lzozozozoozoz HEYZ GOOD NEWSZ FROM MILEY CYRUS 4 DA TWERK TWERKING CHURCHIANSZ To my homegirls here with the big butt lzozozo ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE YOU!!! SO TWERK AWAYZ ZLOZOZOZOZ AND IGNORE DA H8RS!! LZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZ
To my homegirls here with the big butt
Shaking it like we at a strip club
Remember only God can judge ya
Forget the haters, cause somebody loves ya
And everyone in line in the bathroom
Trying to get a line in the bathroom
We all so turnt up here
Getting turnt up yea yea
lzozozozoozoz HEYZ GOOD NEWSZ FROM MILEY CYRUS 4 DA TWERK TWERKING CHURCHIANSZ To my homegirls here with the big butt lzozozo ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE YOU!!! SO TWERK AWAYZ ZLOZOZOZOZ AND IGNORE DA H8RS!! LZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZ
^That….do you really want to man-up and marry it? Do you blame Christian men who don’t want to man up and marry that? Miley Cyrus…twerking for the Churchian women….it’s the Churchian National Anthem!
of only more men manned up:
lolzlzlolz its funny how people assume, if only God can judge them then they’re outta da woods . . .
I sorta feel sorry for Miley Cyrus, for the same reasons I always felt sorry for Michael Jackson. To be a child star is to be reified from one’s earliest beginnings, and I think it gives these people a very warped view of themselves, the world, and the ways in which the two merge.
This is not to excuse any lousy behaviour any child star indulges in, but it does make the phenomenon understandable.
Twerking is pathetic.
Bill Bennett et al. state “MAN UP AND MARY DA TWERKERZ! lzozozoz”
lzozozozozo lzozozozozoozo omg zlzoozozozoz
finally someone characterizes female churchians zllzooz
lozozlzlzlozz
Pingback: Vito Corleone’s Forbidden Man Up Rant | The Society of Phineas
Coincidentally, Miley Cyrus is a Churchian, literally (at least in 2010):
Compare to the song…lzozozozozozl A little more:
Lzozozozozozozol. Typical Churchian. Do you really believe that she’s a virgin after watching that video?
Again, that’s what we’re supposed to man up and marry? Man up and marry the sluts, indeed.
lzozozing so much I forgot to link that second one. It’s this I’m quoting from.
The Almighty is pretty judgemental. And a remorseless judge at that, destroying almost the whole human race, wiping out whole nations and tribes. Personally I’d rather be judged by men, but that’s not how it goes.
I always figure folks who say “only God can judge me” in that context have never read the Bible, most specifically the Old Testament.
i think that
whenever men
who have thier children seized by the state
are forced to pay
child support and alimony
under threat of incaceration
i think that men should tell the judge
“only hod can judge me!”
i think that when bill bennet and the now plump tucker carlson
tell men they need to man up and marry the twerking, buttcoked bebernkenakifed slutzlzlo
i think that men should tell the gambler and the bow-tie blimp
“only god can judge me!”
i think that whenever pastors
in the dumbeded down bernnkidied soulless churhcez
try to shamesz menz into “mannning upz and marrying da lsusystz”
the men need to tell da churchianz preachersz
“only god can judge me!”
for why is it that pereachers judges pundits and culture
are able to judge men
but god and only fistant god (and the nerannakified debuached god at that)
can judge womenz lzzzozo?
With her short hair and increasingly masculine looking facial features, Miley Cyrus has become a mutant freak of this Bimbotopia — as if some bizarre transporter malfunction fused the heads of Justin Bieber and David Bowie, and then that got tacked onto the rest of her.
I always figure folks who say “only God can judge me” in that context have never read the Bible, most specifically the Old Testament.
“Only God can judge me” – one of the ten most popular churchian cliches in circulation. And no, they probably haven’t read the Bible, at least not beyond memorizing a few popular verses. If they’ve read any portion of the Old Testament at all, it’s only in following along with some fire-and-brimstone sermon that their “fundamentalist” pastors have delivered (“fundamentalist” “evangelical” churchian “pastors” LOVE the OT) but forgotten as soon as church was over. Very, VERY few churchians are biblically literate on any level.
hey dalorckckas!! good news dalrockas!!!
this just in: IT IS GOODZ 4 WOMENZ TO WAIT TO 30 TO GET MARRIEDDZ
by dat time dey are good and ebenrnakkfified biungholed butethxted and desouled from all da loatssta cockas caroleuels ridingz and will be more loyal to da fed and da state dan man, god, and chirdrenz zlzozozloz
Off-topic, but… News flash, science finds Manosphere was right again!! Women DO trap hot men with “accidental” (wink, wink) pregnancies!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200508/not-so-accidental-pregnancies
Wow, da menz was right! How, ’bout dat, ladies?
Who is John Galt?
@ Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)
Interesting video.
The comments from Stephanie Coontz Ms. Coontz cites “the rise in the age of marriage” as a “good thing” because “the longer a women delays marriage RIGHT UP UNTIL HER EARLY THIRTIES the lower her chances of divorce” (Capital emphasis on these last 6 words).
This seems to contradict pair bonding. What is Stephanie Coontz basing her assertion on? Stephanie Coontz position runs contrary to Dalrock on women who delay marriage.
Michael
John Galt is ma homey. We were occasionally urged to read his stuff by teachers. As a makeweight to The Bard, Robert Burns (we could see one of his (failed) farms out the school window). Too contrived and smug for my liking. Much more impressed by Hogg’s “The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner”, based on the Greenside Murders in Edinburgh (by another 18th century calvinist minister, Renwick or something similar by name I think, slit the throats of the children he was tutor to, in a quarry).
HTH 🙂
@ The Miley Cyrus video
From an innocent Disney role model to an S.D.& R.R promoter.
The Miley Cyrus video is interesting because if you think about it the video is designed edited and photo cropped by the best producers and directors in Hollywood to make Miley Cyrus look as HOT AS SHE POSSIBLY CAN. And that’s the BEST they could do. Right there your looking at thousands in diet, nutrition, personal training, and light plastic surgery and makeup to showcase a girl who is arguably less attractive than a typical 7-8 on any college campus.
What happened to her? She used to be so cute..
It got me thinking because I remember in the past you actually had to have talent to warrant a music video. Today it really does mean nothing. Singers are a dime a dozen. And even if you can’t sing money, connections, studio technology and auto-tune can make anyone sound like a talented studio star.
and they say women aren’t feral…
Dear Michael,
Yes you are right!
You write, “The comments from Stephanie Coontz Ms. Coontz cites “the rise in the age of marriage” as a “good thing” because “the longer a women delays marriage RIGHT UP UNTIL HER EARLY THIRTIES the lower her chances of divorce” (Capital emphasis on these last 6 words).
This seems to contradict pair bonding. What is Stephanie Coontz basing her assertion on? Stephanie Coontz position runs contrary to Dalrock on women who delay marriage.”
Long story short, the more women delay marriage, the more marriage crumbles.
The Ancients understood this. The more a woman is buttcoked ginacocked mouthcocked and nosecockez zlzlzolozo, the less she can be trusted, as each cocoaks cockingz desouls her.
See, the soul is a male, manly improvisation. Women have no need for it nor sense of it.
Thusly Stephanie Coontz does not see the connecting between lostaoss cockas in da Stephanie coontz and buttcoontz and teh loss of the soul, as to women, there is no such thing as soul.
Women were only ever chaste and virginal because en trianed them to be so. Remove men and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ and women descend to their true babboonish, soulless cock-craving nature, lead by the likes of Stephanie Coontz who may or may not know what she does, as while she does not have a soul, she yet possesses female cunning, which allowed Eve to subvert God and taste of the Apple given her by the serpent (loststa cockasz zlozzlzl).
In response to feeriker
A point on which conservatives invariably fall on their swords: they assume that there is some inherent moral obligation to perpetuate society, to create posterity, even if the society in which they live is wholly undeserving of perpetuation. Their collectivist mindset also comes roaring to the fore here in that they assert that people have an obligation to reproduce, for the “greater good” (now, gosh, what ideology loves to use that phrase?). The desires, needs, and circumstances of the man carrying the penis (or woman carrying the womb) be damned.
Regarding the above – if you can give me one example, in recorded history, where men decided that society was not perpetuated based on those mores, and that society did not turn into anarchy, then I stand corrected. Hopefully you’re still reading this post. Also, the above pretty prose completely ignores the fact that society WILL be perpetuated, one way or the other. Men will still screw, and women will still conceive. The question is what happens afterwards. And you must live on a different planet if you believe you’re insulated from it.
Look buddy, if you think you’re going to live a utopian version of the world if you just skip out of it, just admit that, and skip the philosophical B.S.
Another example of conservatives’ terminal naivete (or, dare I say it, sheer stupidity): they think that the political process is a pure, pristine, corruption-free process in which millions of little guys and gals can “vote” their way out of socioeconomic and political chaos.
So just throw your hands up and chicken-out. That’s your remedy? At least if you try to fix the problem, you have a chance, and if it doesn’t work out, nothing happens. Which is where you’d be if you didn’t try.
Newsflash, pal: those who “Go Galt” couldn’t give two shits or a damn about “fixing” society. They’re smart enough to know that it’s beyond being fixable. They’re walking away from it altogether before it comes crashing down on their heads. Striking out on their own is what makes them happy and fulfilled. As to your last sentence, into projection much?
The idea that if you walk away from society you’ll be spared from it crashing down on your heads is what’s laughably naive, unless you really believe this isn’t going to happen in your lifetime. The fact is it’s all going to crash down, and pretty soon. Unless you’re in your 70’s, I’d expect to see it, if I were you. So continue to hide, if it makes you feel better.
icallahan120493 ‘splains things:
Regarding the above – if you can give me one example, in recorded history, where men decided that society was not perpetuated based on those mores, and that society did not turn into anarchy
Counter examples to your “theory” are as numerous as the stars. Basically, any decadent society that got conquered by a less decadent society… often to the advantage of the common people. Alexanders conquest of numerous parts of the Persian Empire as a specific example.
I trust you will refuse to apologize now.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Weird Asian Nazi Fetish Edition | Patriactionary
Just to have a little fun. The Fate of Empires by John Glubb p 15:
The screw turns and always makes it back around again.
icallahan120493
Pretty much useless drivel.
Sure, it’s coming down. Let it burn. Let it burn. It’s the best honest chance we have for something better. The political process holds zero chance of that.
People in the usa don’t have the balls for an actual crash and reboot. They’ll just keep limping along, no matter how degraded things become, holding on to their america is #1 delusions
I once read a list written by an expat on all the things he could do in his new country vs america. The responses were a riot of people saying they could do the same things in the usa when a 15 minute Google search would have proved otherwise. That pretty much sums up the stupidity of americans and the stupidity of internet debates.
Tron
“That pretty much sums up the stupidity of americans and the stupidity of internet debates.”
And yet here you are entering into an internet debate. I always agree that no one ever lost any money underestimating the intelligence of the Americam public. Like any mob take the IQof the most stupid member and then divide by the number in the mob to get the mob IQ.
icallahan120493, who inexplicably changed his handle (embarrassment, maybe?), and in an attempt to further cement the conservative stereotype, said:
Also, the above pretty prose completely ignores the fact that society WILL be perpetuated, one way or the other. Men will still screw, and women will still conceive. The question is what happens afterwards. And you must live on a different planet if you believe you’re insulated from it.
That men and women will still “screw and conceive” is a “common” sense-based given, one that I never attempted to deny in my original response to you, which you would have realized had you actually read my post carefully, instead of brainstemming over a few of its buzzwords (so typical of conservatives; I would hardly have expected any other reaction). Although you clearly can’t be bothered to read what people actually post, let me restate what I clearly said.
That other men and women decide to “screw and conceive” is their prerogative as consenting adults and is completely irrelevant to ME. I choose not to do so, am under no moral or legal obligation to do so, and am, in my own small and insignificant way, withholding MY consent for the perpetuation of society as it currently exists. I’m certainly under no illusion whatsoever that my doing so will have a major or even any measurable effect on society’s sustainment. It is simply that I chose not to subject posterity to the degradation and suffering that is inevitable given current society’s obvious, rapid decline. But of course as a conservative, the very concept of the rights of the individual is as alien to you as coconuts would have been to an aboriginal Eskimo.
Here’s a question for you, Mr. Conservative, one that I would ask your ideological Doppelgaengers (i.e., liberals) as well: why the hell do you care one way or another whether or not I, or any other individual, choose to reproduce? Exactly what the hell is it to you? If you want to see society perpetuated for its own sake, then feel free to “screw and conceive” to your heart’s content. Indeed, since you apparently consider the perpetuation of society to be an imperative for its own sake, however unworthy of such that society is, isn’t it your OBLIGATION to “go forth and multiply?” Have at it. Neither I nor anyone else who believes in individual freedom would ever dream of stopping you.
To answer your final point, no, I most certainly don’t think I’m “insulated from” the society you would see perpetuated (like your liberal twins, you conservatives would see to it that no one could ever opt out of the society you will force down the collective’s throat). But that doesn’t mean that I have to enable it or ensure its perpetuation.
Look buddy, if you think you’re going to live a utopian version of the world if you just skip out of it, just admit that, and skip the philosophical B.S.
So a world in which the natural law prevails (i.e., individuals are left in peace to live their lives unmolested so long as they respect the rights, person, and property of others) is, to you, a “utopia?” Funny, that’s how I and most others I know live our lives every day.
Yup, a true conservative. Check.
So just throw your hands up and chicken-out. That’s your remedy? At least if you try to fix the problem, you have a chance, and if it doesn’t work out, nothing happens. Which is where you’d be if you didn’t try.
I shouldn’t even bother responding to this, as it’s akin to trying to make a colicky newborn stop crying, but here goes.
Lemme just ask you this: for how long have “conservatives” been “trying” to “change the system” or “fix the problem(s)” by voting or “working from within the system,” only to have nothing of substance change?
‘Nuff said. If you enjoy political masturbation (most conservatives do), feel free to indulge. Again, I’ll certainly do nothing to stop you from your enjoyment, but I’ll pass, thank you. My precious life-minutes are better spent in other, more productive endeavors not dependent upon corrupt collectivism.
The idea that if you walk away from society you’ll be spared from it crashing down on your heads is what’s laughably naive, unless you really believe this isn’t going to happen in your lifetime. The fact is it’s all going to crash down, and pretty soon. Unless you’re in your 70′s, I’d expect to see it, if I were you. So continue to hide, if it makes you feel better.
How very revealing that you ADMIT that the society you and your fellow authoritarians spent so much time creating/perpetuating is going to come crashing down “pretty soon.” Yes, I certainly agree. I also agree that I won’t be fully spared from its aftermath either. I’m even more certain that those of us who have done everything we can to prepare ourselves in order to mitigate the disaster of your making will be mercilessly hounded by your ilk (and your liberal twins) in an attempt at re-assimilation. If we’re not for you, we’re against you, right?
You may want to caveat that with “some conservatives” as I tend to view myself as a conservative yet I am 50 and single – why? Because it isn’t worth the risk and my life is a series of cost/benefit analyses. So just as I am off shoring my businesses, and figuring on the US going bankrupt before I retire, I plan on having a family with several Asian women at some point in time – I won’t marry any of them, but will have children with them. Some of those women who will be mothers to my children may actually already be born – but I wouldn’t count on it, as long as they are legal at that time, I couldn’t care less…
Why will I have children? Because I want to – but I won’t be held hostage to them by a government that holds a gun to my head. Chaos is a good thing – if a government spends all of it’s time trying to stay in existence, they will leave me alone, and that is really ALL that I REQUIRE from any government, and actually, it is what I want from a government…
Pingback: Links and Comments #14 | The Society of Phineas
I was “on strike” back in the early 1990’s, and still am today. It wasn’t by “choice” in those now long gone days of the early 1990’s when I was young, cocksure, and a full-time college student.
It is now.
I went to a very private, very, very liberal-arts college, and in that incubator I saw first hand what I didn’t want in a woman. Many of my fellow “college aged guys” back then thought I was “stupid” and dumb because I wasn’t putting up with that behavior from women. Thought I was missing out on sex, on all these cool things because these women WOULD sleep with you with little or no effort.
I viewed it at that time as “anyone can behave like a trained monkey” to get a “master” to reward them….
Flash forward to well over twenty years later almost all of what I saw there is just about commonplace now. So many men will do anything for a girl to drop her panties for him.
Really sad actually.
I have read “Men On Strike” and it’s a good read, sadly, the men who do need to read it won’t.
Pingback: Ugly? | Parisuhdeblogit