Dr. Helen’s book Men On Strike continues to drive the conversation, especially among conservatives. Unlike Tucker Carlson’s who cares? Rush Limbaugh’s response was far more receptive. Rush plugged Dr. Helen’s book on his radio program, and interviewed Dr. Helen in his July newsletter.
Recent Comments
Woody on Message heard. 
Christmas in The Chr… on Mistaking fecklessness for… Quiet Desperation on Farewell (for now at least), a… whiteguy1 on Message heard. Vektor on Farewell (for now at least), a… John O. on Message heard. Iowa Slim on Message heard. wodansthane on Message heard. wodansthane on Message heard. wodansthane on Message heard.
Getting the attention and praise from Rush is HUGE publicity. He probably just sold at least 10,000 copies for her right there.
Rush has to be careful with red pills, because Rush has to be careful with pills. But….I think he likes ’em. (the red ones)
Haha! But on a serious note, I’m glad to see Dr. Helen’s book getting such big-time publicity.
Can’t say that I am a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but if he can help drag the ghastly treatment men receive under Marriage 2.0 & Single Mother misandry…….then so be it.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
One of the remarkable things, which must be admitted to, is that despite Rush’s radio show and all the “conservative” blogophere’s good intentions, they have been losing the culture war for decades.
The government continues to grow as the debt augments, and still, there is no mention made of THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN nor returning the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, including the Bible, to the center and circumference of our culture and institutions.
Expect a few more decades of “conservatives” patting one-another on the back for being “the first to notice the decline” (aka logging on to the manosphere and finding out what has been said for decades) as nothing is done.
Not one of them–not a one–will ever mention Homer’s Iliad, nor Odyssey, nor quote from Shakespeare nor the Bible as our Founding Fathers all did regularly. Instead, they will enjoy the butthext as William Bennett enjoys his gambling, now and then wringing their hands on CNN as they too profit off the decline.
@empath:
HA! Exactly! Still, even a stopped clock is right twice each day. Glad to see that Lardbaugh has done something commendable for once.
The GOP could destroy the Left if they started presenting Helen Smith’s message and pulling more young male supporters. But I doubt they will, as they are content being controlled opposition right now.
GBFM, that is because it is Yankee conservatism. See R.L.Dabney’s definition:
@TMG
We are still very early in this. When I looked just three years ago I couldn’t find compelling evidence that women’s plan to delay marriage was in trouble. Since then the data has continued to develop rather quickly, but it is still very recent. This will take some time to be digested by conservatives, but it is very positive to see a real discussion starting. Just having a serious discussion about the issue is a huge change.
Yes Dalrock is entirely correct in his patient optimism:
“We are still very early in this. When I looked just three years ago I couldn’t find compelling evidence that women’s plan to delay marriage was in trouble. Since then the data has continued to develop rather quickly, but it is still very recent. This will take some time to be digested by conservatives, but it is very positive to see a real discussion starting. Just having a serious discussion about the issue is a huge change.”
However, I must disagree on one point. Dalrock seems to be optimistic about the conservative movement, whereas my optimism is inspired by Dalrock, who is driving the movement, and the all the men, young and old, finding him. 🙂
When we see more than growling about it, when we see counter-attack and rollback, then we’ll have “Progress.” To hell with Progress, we need Regression.
Dalrock,
I don’t think that you realize that we are in a self re-enforcing cycle of societal decline. Like all declines it starts at the periphery and moves towards the center. We’ve seen what has happened in the black community and to some extent the Hispanic community and it is moving rapidly towards the main core of our society very rapidly.
Conservatives may recognize what is happening (although based on their behavior I have my doubts about the majority of them) but they are powerless to stop the process. The devolution will continue until we are either overcome by another, more stable and vibrant civilization or we hit bottom. A good example of those that have hit bottom are the native Indians living the the tropical jungles of South America, they at one time built the Mayan civilization, now they live butt naked in the jungle in what amounts to a pre-stone age existence. Could we fall that far? Probably not but don’t discount the possibility of something worse that Detroit.
The culture was was lost when the issue became equality rather than teleology. We need to put teleology back as the center of the map; we need to understand the function of marriage rather than debate equal rights. Perhaps the loss at the supreme court will ironically be step forward as we can begin to ask what is the telos of Christian marriage. The answer is that it is a coming together of the child-producing unit to prevent the problems that occur from the production of children. Problems such as the social problems produced by fatherless children, the emotional problems fatherless children experience, and the problems single mothers face.
Helen gets publicity from radio host Rush Limbaugh? Woah.
@GBFM @Dalrock Hosts that are hired to use talent and mastery of skill to keep funded narratives ‘mainstream’ cannot promote Great Books For Men. When they try, odd things happen to them. Rush is deaf. I was able to arrange for Rush Limbaugh to do a segments including the work Suzanne Venker leading up to and after launch of her book http://amzn.to/TvUKmx “How to Choose a Husband” This had no meaningful impact on book sales, but the positive flames were put out by stuff like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7_DoO_758 Fox and Friends host yells at Suzanne Venker. All men should see the venom spewed against Venker by the news channel. Stop watching news! Created it instead.
OT, but regarding the ongoing discussion about whether or not having a daughter tends to make a man more inclined to be feminist, the founder of Lady Geek refuses to talk to female-only events, because:
“I have no problem with events that focus on women, but I’m done with women-only events that don’t engage men. It sounds like heresy (especially having founded Lady Geek), but, like the male academics and writers who have started refusing to appear on panels without a female speaker, I’m drawing a line in the sand that I think is vital.
I want to speak at events where women AND men are listening. This is not a “women’s problem”. It’s a “society problem”. And we need the whole of society to change it.
Whether we like it or not, men are in more positions of power in corporate life and politics than women. That depressing statistic about there being only three female CEOs in the FTSE 100 shows that sidelining men while trying to improve the status of women is wrong-headed.”
Let’s just see how she feels it will be helpful to include men in the discussion:
“Most of my clients are men, enlightened men who have daughters, nieces and sisters. Most men want more women in technology and they want us to do well. An interesting study on “the daughter effect” found that when a male CEO had a daughter, the wages paid to his female employees rose relative to males’ wages – helping to close the long-documented pay gap.”
In other words, Calling All White Knights, All White Knights Please Report for Duty, we need you for the next round of Lets You and Him Fight. And note where she thinks the best source for White Knights is. And note how they are ‘enlightened’, oooh, oooh, female approval, yes dear, I can’t wait to fight against those other ‘unenlightened’ men. Complete control of the narrative, something that will sail right over the heads of most guys (and 100% of White Knights).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women-in-leadership/2013/jul/03/why-i-wont-speak-at-women-only-events?CMP=twt_gu
Pingback: Limbaugh reacts to Dr. Helen's Men On Strike. | Viva La Manosphere!
Rush Limbaugh has been through three divorces. No one can pay alimony in his tax bracket and not get a healthy dose or red pill when it comes to marriage inequality.
@Casey
You know what they say about useful idiots…
Secret Kingdom
He doesn’t have kids and based on the conversation he had With Dr Helen he is blue pill with an idea but not full on red pill. If he does research and follow up and finds the manosphere then all bets are off the guy will be a re pill conservative. be weapon to have against the beast because once a conservative is red pill they will no longer be just target drones for the left to make progress on.
Ok i gotta go get this book and see what all the hooplah is about. For any of those of you who have read it, does she actually approach the subject with a positive male subjective or is she just a woman trying to write about things man in a feminist dominated world???
I see that The House of Lords has just approved marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex. I am afraid that this concession is not sufficient to persuade me that Marriage is a state into which I would think it wise to enter. Sorry girls (and boys) but you are going to have to do a lot more to persuade me that the benefits are worth the risks.
When I was younger I was clearly not sufficiently attractive to women whom I might have considered marrying and I see no reason to suppose that a few years later I am likely to be any more attractive than I then was. If I couldn’t have the kitten I don’t want the cat… As for the Carousel Riders and Unwed Mothers they made my choice that much easier by excluding themselves from consideration.
Yep. Mostly the GOP just plays Trotsky to the left’s Lenin.
HA! Exactly! Still, even a stopped clock is right twice each day. Glad to see that Lardbaugh has done something commendable for once.
Not so fast. It was merely a tongue in cheek statement of the truth, not an indictment of Limbaugh generally. I know its quite fashionable, faddish even, to dislike Limbaugh. I’m not into fads.
@Empath
Mega dittos!
@ Opus
“If I couldn’t have the kitten, I don’t want the cat”.
Love it, destined to become an often quoted CLASSIC!
Given the sorry state of Marriage today (and Marriage 2.0 specifically), it’s a wonder that GLBT wants any part of such a failed institution.
Does GLBT really want the unique equal right of getting to pay alimony to an EX-spouse?
@ TFH
“Conclusion : Being subjected to misandry has little correlation to whether a man becomes red pill or not….”
These are public figures who are concerned about their public image and ratings. You can’t come to this conclusion based on mainstream media employees actions or lack thereof.
Let’s just agree that Rush is helping our cause here……..and that is a good thing.
@Casey
I have to confess that I should have placed it in quotes for it is not mine – I wish I had written it as TFH proposes, for that is really funny! – thus: “If I couldn’t have the kitten I don’t want the Cougar.”
@ TFY & Opus
A bow to both of you….agreed it shall now be:
“If I couldn’t have the kitten, I don’t want the cougar”.
The royalties alone will make you rich.
Long, long time former daily listener (from ’93 – ’06), never called. In many ways, Rush is a tool for the establishment. But the man is an entertainer and very adept at skewering the left side of the aisle.
Rush was the first major mass media anti-feminist of noteriety. He coined the phrase “femi-nazi,” insulting German National Socialists everywhere.
He also gave regular feminazi updates by playing a hilarious clip of a feminazi shouting at a rally that ALWAYS made me lol
“We’re Fierce! We’re Feminine! And we’re in your F-F-A-A-A-A-C-C-C-E-E-E-E!”
He is a media type and has to tow the line to an extent. remember he had to back off from that slut professor trying to get free birth control pills so we could pay for her ride on the cock carousel.
@Greyghost
I think what happened there is Limbaugh fell into the trap of responding to the argument he assumed she made instead of looking at her actual argument. From what I saw of her argument she was focused solely on birth control pills to help with specific medical needs, not as contraception.
It’s pretty clear the country is in terminal decline. Just look what happened to some poor Latino guy just doing his job as a neighborhood watch captain being railroaded for “racism,” when it was an open-and-shut case from day one of self-defense. Corruption is rampant across the system and truth has been replaced with a lie in America. This is basically the same meat grinder men will go through when their wives get tired of them and file divorce.
You know who else could do this? The Church.
Only instead of Dr. Helen’s book, they could just use the Bible. I mean, they’ve got copies right there in the pews. All they would have to do is preach accurately on women, and men would FLOCK to hear the Truth. And where men go, women soon follow.
And where women follow men, they soon try to subvert men. But if the churches actually preached on the natural hierarchy, men would gently but firmly pass these fitness tests. And everyone would be happy.
But no. Somehow our pastors seem to feel that it is better to tip toe around anything that offends a woman or suggests she really isn’t supposed to be a big bossypants.
The trap was to get people to think as they wanted them to that it was for contraception. The other medical needs was plausible deniability. The liberals have been beating the socons for years with that game. It is accelerating now so fast that the lie is being seen as a lie now. BTW I first Rush in 1989 cruising around in Grand Prairie one night I had no idea who he was but thought he was funny.
Wow grey, I may have driven past you in another lane. I was in Dallas area then and heard him first time as well. Carrollton though.
Sunshinemary- “Only instead of Dr. Helen’s book, they could just use the Bible. I mean, they’ve got copies right there in the pews. All they would have to do is preach accurately on women, and men would FLOCK to hear the Truth. And where men go, women soon follow.”
Well as far as I am concerned, the Church has gone from being the Bride of Christ to the Porn Fluffer of Jezebel on gender issues. In fact, I would bet money that if there is an antifeminist awakening in the greater society, the Church will double-down on the chivalry and help the feminists repress opposition.
@TMG
This is certainly where we are today, and is probably where we will remain for at least a few more years. Sooner or later however I think we will see a rift here, with some churches eventually switching places to put the Bible in front of Feminism. This will be incredibly disruptive because as SSM points out women will tend to follow, something which the “blue pill” folks will find maddening. It would be difficult to overstate how much the average woman, the average wife especially, is thirsting for male leadership. Anyone who doubts this should look at the responses I get on Yahoo Answers. When this does happen it is going to be brutal for folks like Stanton, Mohler, and Driscoll because their written record will be very difficult to deny. Of course repentance would nicely solve that problem.
sunshinemary says:
“July 15, 2013 at 2:21 pm
The GOP could destroy the Left if they started presenting Helen Smith’s message and pulling more young male supporters.
You know who else could do this? The Church.
Only instead of Dr. Helen’s book, they could just use the Bible. I mean, they’ve got copies right there in the pews. All they would have to do is preach accurately on women, and men would FLOCK to hear the Truth. And where men go, women soon follow.”
Yes!
The same goes for the manosphere!
All they need to is open up and celebrate the RICH HERITAGE OF THEIR FATHERS found in THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN!
All men should begin immediately by reading the following books which the central bankers and their fellow churchians hate, fear, and detest:
0. THE BIBLE
1. Homer’s Iliad
2. Homer’s Odyssey
3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
4. Virgil’s Aeneid
5. Socrates’ Apology
6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
7. Plato’s Repulic
8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
9. Aristotle’s Poetics
10. Dante’s Inferno
11. The Declaration of Independence
12. The Constitution
13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
15. Newton’s Principia
16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
26. THE BIBLE
And as men are reading the Great Books for Men, they must start enacting their principles in the living world, so as to exalt our legal system and universities, for it is not enough to think and read, but virtue is ultimately defined by *action*.
zlzoozozoz
Porn Fluffer of Jezebel
Oh no. Try as I may to forget that….I will not be able.
Hey, anything is fine to further the disintegration and total destruction of the Human species as a whole and Human civilization until the Earth is a lifeless ball of rock like the other planets we know about. If men and women don’t marry and mate anymore, then eventually at some future time, the population will cease to exist. That is part of the big picture along with wars, disease, disasters, and other kinds of collapse. I am personally not too worried about this possibility.
Unleash the descolada
“When I was younger I was clearly not sufficiently attractive to women whom I might have considered marrying and I see no reason to suppose that a few years later I am likely to be any more attractive than I then was.”
This is female logic. You are more attractive. So since you are so attractive now, you can definitely do better.
Please keep saying that.
So many, many men listen to what women say. Please stop listening to us! We just talk poo, mostly. Anything feminists say that women want you can pretty much assume means, “This is a horrible idea, please save us from ourselves!” It’s the equivalent of the Abilene Paradox.
We really don’t want to be in charge, but we have to say we want to be in charge to see if men will say, “No, sorry, that is a bad idea.” And when men respond by saying, “Welll, okay, I guess if you really want to be in charge, go ahead then” it just fills women with hysterical rage.
Here is what happens to women when men let us be in charge:
Oops, my html to embed an image was not allowed.
Here is what happens to women when men let us be in charge:
one of the remarkable things i have noted
while perusing this blog over the past year
is how so many churchians have been
rabidly
anti-great books
anti-jesus
anti-moses
ant-rush limbaugh
and then the churchian men wonder, “why is my wife taking my children? why is my buttcocked wife cheating on me? why can’t i trust any women?”
and the churchian women wonder, “where have all the good men gone and why is my butt sore?”
and then the churchians, after their brief introspection, go back to ranting and raving against
the great books for men
jesus
moses
and rush limbaugh
and lo and behold their fiance’s bunghole gets sorer and sorer, and they can’t figure out why.
I was gonna say, SSM, don’t leave me on tender hooks.
*ahem* tenterhooks*
I blame beer.
I’m gonna call exception if not full on BS on the average woman/wife craving leadership thing.
That women, if posed a hypothetical, or presented an answer on yahoo answers for example, sort of in the abstract, are given the choice between two things, one that seems like male leadership and the other not, it may seem as if they are craving male leadership.
If it were only true. Its one of the tenets of game isn’t it, they want leadership…or some derivative of it. I prefer absolutes, but on this I’m gonna say……sometimes.
Take for example deti’s oft described scenario. Is that leadership? By that I mean nothing untoward about deti, that’s not the point. But lots of women requiring full on threat like that and then responding does not show that she wants leadership. It shows that the level that escalated to is THE ONLY level that would work. That is far far more common than not. I could go into personal example, not exactly the same, but of similar explosiveness.
The point is that to say women crave leadership would imply that once it is established some sort of need is met and that that is good and that that good manifests as good. To then see the constant straining against that leadership says something other than that she craves leadership.
Women in church absolutely crave leadership because what the church calls leadership is anything but. It isn’t the leadership skill/or even force of leadership that attracts women to thugs. Its the force….period.
This is a poorly conceived comment, I hope it makes some sense. It is more than hair splitting.
I take it that what SSM is really saying is that men should ‘man-up’ and take responsibility etc. Nice idea but Sorry! When I am as likely to be met with an allegation of harassment as compliance then the answer is No. What I propose is that women once again resume policing their own sex and call out the Femi-Nazis for the damage that they cause, instead of high-fiving female empowerment.
By way of example: Last week my friend was either coming out of or going into a building on the industrial estate. Seeing a woman behind him he held the door open. As she passed through the door he was met with a volley of abuse for his thoughtfulness. My friend who knows nothing of red-pills was shocked, but do you think the next time he is in a similar position he will do anything other than think twice about holding the door. As he said to me, he would have done exactly the same for a man.
That it has come to the stage when men have to think twice about common-courtesy and when you half-expect abuse as a result of any interaction with a female reveals the terrible state at which matters between the two sexes have now arrived.
“So many, many men listen to what women say. Please stop listening to us! We just talk poo, mostly. Anything feminists say that women want you can pretty much assume means, “This is a horrible idea, please save us from ourselves!”
No, what men need to do is abandon women completely. It is now basically illegal (or nearly so) for men to take leadership roles over women. So men need to act in pure selfishness and self-protection now. Women started this war (I understand many men enabled too) and enlisted the State as enforcer, now women can clean up their own mess, because your sorry asses are not worth me getting my life destroyed over.
Men need to take care of themselves and their own interests. If women want to follow us, and be a productive help to us, that’s great but otherwise men need to go their own way. I, for one, have no interest in protecting and providing for lazy, solipsistic moral ingrates.
“However, I must disagree on one point. Dalrock seems to be optimistic about the conservative movement, whereas my optimism is inspired by Dalrock, who is driving the movement, and the all the men, young and old, finding him.”
Exactly.
Don’t make Rouseau’s mistake and go all neo-con on us.
Manliness is leadership. It is in the action. Rush and his ilk only re-act.
I`m not a christian but I really support you guys in your efforts. i think if you can turn key people int he churches and so turn the church, that would be the most effective way to go about. Christianity already has a huge power structure and huge influence on people that is in place, it exists already. Taking over that structure is far more efficient than building something from the ground up.
As far as influence in general I have actually come to the conclusion that Facebook and social media will be key for influencing society at large. Some years back when I was reading web forums in my own language there were only rarely any men arguing MRAish ideas or red pill ideas. A couple of guys had read some PUA stuff and some where making bad guys vs nice guy arguments but that was it in terms of red pill and there was very little and very mean attempts at MRA arguments.
Now that has all changed. There are hardly any men in those forums that have not taken an MRA stance and not only that but in the last year or so they have obviously been reading a lot in the sphere and have become much better schooled in their arguments and they link to avoiceformen and similar stuff all the time. The key thing to note is that these are not just MRA types that come to troll forums but they are the regular forum users with thousands of posts about all other types of stuff. The reason they have taken MRA stances is because hanging out online exposed them to the arguments and to links to relevant blogs again and again. Something similar seems to be happening with red pill ideas where I see the sex and relationship forums overflowing with much more red pill arguments and more and more guys clearly having read sphere stuff and making references. The red pill is a bit behind the MRAs in development though.
Recently I have seen more and more stuff show up on Facebook and I have seen guys, and some women, become much bolder in what they are willing to say in their own names on Facebook. The reason Facebook and similar media is key is that everyone uses them and as more and more people who are exposed to the stuff on web forums start posting it on Facebook everyone will see links to articles and videos making our case and everyone will see discussions started by people in their networks regarding our topics. That makes people that usually don`t even bother to read the news become aware of the issues. And because these things end up on long Facebook arguments where things are discussed quite in depth the schooling people will receive is quite thorough. It will have far deeper reach than feminists ever had with their gender studies and mainstream media strategies because of this. And because so many of the important ideas are red pill ideas that are about relationships, sex etc. everyone will at some point look at the stuff and feel some involvement. Those willing to stand tall on social media, in their own names, will be able to really teach stuff and to hold people accountable in their behavior like we do here. You don`t really need seminars and workshops and university classes when you have those discussions on Facebook.
“What I propose is that women once again resume policing their own sex”
This is another piece to the puzzle. It is already happening among younger women. Only when this happens will men be able and willing to police other men to protect our sisters and daughters.
Keoni Galt says:
July 15, 2013 at 1:40 pm
“Long, long time former daily listener (from ’93 – ’06), never called. In many ways, Rush is a tool for the establishment. But the man is an entertainer and very adept at skewering the left side of the aisle.
Rush was the first major mass media anti-feminist of noteriety. He coined the phrase “femi-nazi,” insulting German National Socialists everywhere.
He also gave regular feminazi updates by playing a hilarious clip of a feminazi shouting at a rally that ALWAYS made me lol
“We’re Fierce! We’re Feminine! And we’re in your F-F-A-A-A-A-C-C-C-E-E-E-E!””
Actually, Keoni, I think the middle part of that feminazi screech was “We’re FEMINISTS!”.
Feminists are no more feminine than they are womanly, no question.
Sunshine Mary said:
Yep. Mostly the GOP just plays Trotsky to the left’s Lenin.
NAILS it. Someday, maybe, when both critical thinking and honesty start to regain traction among the mainstream, something approaching a majority will wake up and realize this. I’m cautiously optimistic that it might even happen in my lifetime.
Manliness is leadership. It is in the action. Rush and his ilk only re-act
What does this even mean? Rush is a news and talk show host, he reports or discusses things after they happen. If someone was looking to Rush to lead something, they look in the wrong place. He reacts by design, intentionally.
Not everyone can be an influential leader, like us, who comment on blogs and stuff.
Sunshine Mary said:
You know who else could do this? The Church.
If you mean the body of believers described in the New Testament, then yes, absolutely. If you mean The Church[TM], then not a chance. Unfortunately, the latter is bigger and with more influence on the culture than the former – at least for now.
Only instead of Dr. Helen’s book, they could just use the Bible. I mean, they’ve got copies right there in the pews. All they would have to do is preach accurately on women, and men would FLOCK to hear the Truth. And where men go, women soon follow.
Mary, Mary, Mary, tsk, tsk, tsk … that would mean people would actually have to read their Bibles, actually have to understand and apply the messages within it. How on earth could you possibly spew such heresy? Have you no shame?
But if the churches actually preached on the natural hierarchy, men would gently but firmly pass these fitness tests. And everyone would be happy.
Once again, in those bodies of believers worshiping and fellowshiping in the manner described in the Gospels, rare as those bodies might be, that’s already happening and always has happened. In The Church[TM], however, it ain’t never gonna happen, for obvious reasons we’ve all already been over.
But no. Somehow our pastors seem to feel that it is better to tip toe around anything that offends a woman or suggests she really isn’t supposed to be a big bossypants.
Shepherds of the body don’t commit this sin, but CEOs of churchian franchises have adopted it as their corporate guiding principle.
We can only hope and pray that as it becomes more and more irrelevant as a force to counteract the current sociological-cultural decay, The Church[TM] goes out of business soon and the Body of Christ regains its full strength and works its full power on an unprecedented scale.
Glad to see the good doctor is doing well… The men of America are really in a sorry state. They suck it up and deal with this terrible culture of ours because that is what men have been doing for 100,000-years, but for every stoic man that bears the burden, there is another young man that is opting out. This man does not go protesting, call his congressmen, talk about his problems, or seek assistance from others, but rather quietly drops out of society. Dr. Helen is really helping out a lot of men that aren’t speaking up for themselves.
Still figuring out if I should drop out or not. Even with a well-paying career that I enjoy and plenty of dates to keep me busy, I don’t see the point of it all. My reward for four-decades of toil is an ungrateful, selfish, feminized, materialistic wife? Why bother? Sure I would like to have a family… But if you really wanted a hot dog and you came across a hot dog stand with mold-ridden buns, would you still buy?
Had a friend that just killed himself. Nobody knew for sure why since he had such a bright future, but I can take a wild guess. Everybody knows there is something wrong with this blue pill world of ours. Sometimes you take all that blue pill crap like a good little beta, sometimes you take the red pill, or sometimes you take a bullet in the head. Hopefully Dr. Helen can convince a few more guys to take the red pill.
Dalrock is there a way I can see your replies on Yahoo answers? Do you use the name Dalrock? I am not familiar with how the site works.
[D: I think this should show you my profile.]
I’ve boycotted Rush ever since he apologized for calling Sandra Fluke a slut. He should have stuck by his (accurate) description of the tramp.
And whenever any of my conservative friends are listening to him, I let them know about my boycott.
Empathologism said:
I’m gonna call exception if not full on BS on the average woman/wife craving leadership thing.
…
If it were only true. Its one of the tenets of game isn’t it, they want leadership…or some derivative of it. I prefer absolutes, but on this I’m gonna say……sometimes.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here, friend.
Sorry Dalrock, SSM, but I just don’t see your claim here being the generally applicable truth for the majority of women out there today. What generally is true, from personal observation and experience, is that most women want men to shoulder all of the heavy burdens, make all of the key decisions where risk is greatest relative to reward, and take the fall and blame in the event of failure. But when the risks are few, the potential fallout from failure minor or painless, and the advantage is on the woman’s side, then she demands to have her say, if not assume complete leadership.
In other words, most women want to be “led” by men only when it’s convenient and painless for them to be led and they have the most to gain at the least personal cost. It’s not a consistent desire based on morality, trust, or the recognition of the man’s proper role in the relationship, but a calculation of opportunity. As always, the women who regularly post here (SSM being a prime example) are that rare and precious exception to this observation.
Feeriker
We must hope and pray, but that is not all we can do.
Recently Joseph of Jackson briefly broke his silence, and it is worth reading what he wrote to me and some of the resulting conversation. His story gave me a sense of hope that I hadn’t felt for awhile.
Creating a tribal culture: an update from Joseph of Jackson.
@TFH
I agree.
The test is now so hard to pass, and the punishment for failure so great that the only rational solution is MgTow, and it is from this comes The Marriage Strike, with females in their late thirties unable to grasp why they are unable to attract any man never mind one who might be suitable for them.
Women would do well to seriously ask themselves how they got into a situation where men prefer to avoid interaction with females and that is amongst Heterosexuals as amongst Homosexuals who do not have sexual desire for women and thus have nothing to gain from interaction.
The older generation (and perhaps Conservatives) are utterly clueless about this (notable exceptions of course) and just do not grasp the wilful and deliberate unpleasantness of so many women. Has such a situation ever happened before in history, that men go out of their way generally to avoid females? I rather doubt it.
The women need to get their house in order, because any man attempting to do so is sure to merely look like a bitter loser, and of course the woman can easily call on any white knight to see off the offending man. Only when women get fed up with having houses full of cats will the situation begin to improve.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/limbaugh-reacts-to-dr-helens-men-on-strike/#comment-86900
Add me to the skeptics that women are craving male leadership, and yes, I’d concur that the women posters here have a bit of a blind spot on this one. When you looks at the public actions of women, such as their voting patterns, you quickly see that they are actively hostile to tradtional family arrangements (that presumably involve male leadership and self-sufficiency). for one example, and I hate to use a single data point, but I’m pressed for time – women voted overwhelmingly for Obama (and their greater share of the electorate amplified their inclination to do so).
What women as a rule want are the benefits of male leadership without the concomitant sacrifices.
I always feel honored to read comments where da GBFM breaks character.
Rush, like most self-described American conservatives, is more of a right-liberal. Left-liberals know what they’re about and are always working to advance their cause. Right-liberals impotently grumble about some of the practical consequences of liberal principles – the breakdown of the family, the destruction of marriage, nubile young babes riding the buttehxting carouselzzolozozol – without ever really challenging liberalism itself. The late, great Larry Auster defined it as the unprincipled exception. This is why you’ll see right-liberals decry the systematic dismantling of traditional marriage, but very few of them are brave enough to suggest that feminism itself is irrational or inhuman. Heck, many of them will argue that they themselves are the “true feminists!”
Still, it’s great that Rush is bringing some much needed publicity to Dr. Helen’s work.
@Opus
I think you are confusing two entirely different things. SSM and I were talking about how women would react if churches went back to the Bible on male leadership, and the fact that women crave male leadership. Nowhere in either of our comments is there a “man up and marry those sluts” exhortation. That women crave male leadership doesn’t mean that you (or any other man) have an obligation to marry one and offer such leadership. My position on that hasn’t changed in the last few weeks.
@empathologism
As with Opus’ response to the same comments, you are conflating two entirely different things. Stating that women crave male leadership doesn’t imply that:
1) It is easy for any given good man (husband) to lead his wife.
2) Any given woman will choose the leadership of a good man.
We really don’t want to be in charge, but we have to say we want to be in charge to see if men will say, “No, sorry, that is a bad idea.” And when men respond by saying, “Welll, okay, I guess if you really want to be in charge, go ahead then” it just fills women with hysterical rage.
I may be wrong but my experience is that women don’t want men to be leaders. They want men to be in charge to do what women want. A woman want to do what she wants but she prefers somebody else (usually her man) to take the drudge of doing it, making decisions, taking the responsibility of possible failures, and make it happen (so she can bitch if she doesn’t like the results and she is absolved of any responsibility in the outcome). Women don’t want a leader: they want a chauffeur.
As an ex-girlfriend of mine put it:
“I don’t want a man without spine. I don’t want a man who does everything I say to him. I want a man who is a man, who is able to take their own decisions, take the lead and tell what to do every time so I can relax. A manly man. But I want that, every time he says “We are going to do X”, X is precisely what I want to do”
If this is a leader, I am Michael Jackson.
Here is what happens to women when men let us be in charge:
http://www.catholicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/600×4082.jpg
Exactly my point, SunshineMary. These women are not in charge. Texas politicians (who are mostly male) are in charge. If they had issued a legislation who pleased these female demonstrators (for example, enabling free abortion), they wouldn’t be demonstrating, even if the men were in charge (see Bill Clinton).
Women want men in charge to do what women want. Otherwise, they throw a tantrum. It is the mentality of four-year-old: I want you to be the daddy but I want everything to be the way I want.
[D: I think this should show you my profile.]
Thanks. I am surprised the answers you give get such good votes. Not that they aren`t good, they are, but I am surprised so many like them.
Part of the marriage strike is to due to MGTOW. However, some of it is due to the decline in the status of men, and the fact that women’s expectations have climbed very high. I don’t think most women want the men they could have. There’s only so many playboy, billionaire, alpha, jet setters out there. And no matter how borked the divorce laws are, I’m sure any decently attractive woman could find a husband at 30 or later if she wanted to. The problem is that they don’t want to.
Women don’t need men. It is by necessity in which we create strong bonds and strong families and that necessity has been broke and replaced with the state’s resources. The government can pay for day care, welfare, health care, etc. so the role of provider has been reduced greatly. They can have babies and live in decent life without a man while working their corporate jobs. At the same time they can keep having all the sex they like without worrying about being a cheat.
As much as I want to think the marriage strike is real, and I agree it is, I believe it’s currently overrated as to it’s effect. If women wanted husbands then they could find them. The deluge of where are the good men articles are all from women with unrealistic expectations of what they deem a “good man.” Put simply, for these women a good man is a man who is superior to her in every way.
If women we’re really having trouble finding husbands there wouldn’t be so many thirsty beta males all over every dating site on the net but there is.
Meh,
Obama (and all he represents) is the instrument of God. Bring on the destruction. Stick a fork in it we’re done
Dr. Faust (the thirsty beta male) says:
July 15, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Part of the marriage strike is to due to MGTOW. However, some of it is due to the decline in the status of men, and the fact that women’s expectations have climbed very high. I don’t think most women want the men they could have. There’s only so many playboy, billionaire, alpha, jet setters out there. And no matter how borked the divorce laws are, I’m sure any decently attractive woman could find a husband at 30 or later if she wanted to. The problem is that they don’t want to.”
lzozozozozo “’m sure any decently attractive woman could find a husband at 30 or later if she wanted to. ”
r u fucking kidding me? do u look at 30-year-old pumped n dumped baggage-carrying STD-ridden womenz and wanna marry that? well, maybe you do, as you are a self-described ” thirsty beta male”. lzoozooz
Welcome Dr. Faust.
The problem for the late 20s and (even worse) 30 something would be bride is a very large percentage of the men in her candidate pool earn nothing or very close to it. In 2012 16% of unmarried White men 25-29 earned nothing, and 31% earned under $15k. The numbers only get worse if you look at all races, and/or older age brackets. See the charts here.
There are no doubt a long list of causes for this, but I have no question that a significant contributor to the situation is these same women’s decision when young to postpone marriage. As women have postponed marriage farther and farther out, the kinds of (beta) men they would have married no longer saw the incentive to work hard to signal provider status. The problem for the aging would be brides is the men in their age group can no more go back in time and focus their 20s on education and career than the women themselves can go back and focus their 20s on finding a husband.
“As much as I want to think the marriage strike is real, and I agree it is, I believe it’s currently overrated as to it’s effect. If women wanted husbands then they could find them. The deluge of where are the good men articles are all from women with unrealistic expectations of what they deem a “good man.” Put simply, for these women a good man is a man who is superior to her in every way.”
I agree that “marriage strike” may be overstated. I think it is more of a supply / demand issue of attractive men that women want to marry. So the big question is, what are the desirable men doing? It doesn’t matter what the undesirable men are doing because most women would rather marry the State than an undesirable man. And, with women’s outrageous expectations, there are many undesirable men.
I found some of the theories at http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/how-r-and-k-type-psychologies-affect-societies-and-what-this-means-for-our-political-dialog/
Very interesting to our current times and I think it may apply to the marriage crisis. It’s possible that young men and women have switched into a r-type style of mating with the men becoming feminine, earning less, competing less, and the women becoming masculine, earning more (ostensibly) and competing more. A cursory look at a local night club shows angry looking women and weak looking men.
In r type of mating the need for long term provision and pair bonding is diminished because of an abundance of wealth and resources. As I’ve stated before necessity creates strong bonds. Without necessity we tend to flounder and only play at family.
This r type of mating could also be an explanation for why Japan has the current grass eaters problems.
Awesome post Peter Blood.
Dear Dr. Faust,
If you are going to talk about economics, and you don’t want to lie, you need to mention the Federal Reserve:
You write, “In r type of mating the need for long term provision and pair bonding is diminished because of an abundance of wealth and resources. As I’ve stated before necessity creates strong bonds. Without necessity we tend to flounder and only play at family.”
So what you are saying is that the Bible is a joke, and “obey thy husband,” and “thou shalt not commit adultery,” is optional, depending on grain and soybean futures.
So what are you doing on a Christian blog? did Ben BErnenek send u here to ebereberbenify our bunghzolzoxoxoholzioozssz? lzozzlz
Men not making them selves marriageable is the strike. The marriage strike is not a bunch of high dollar men refusing to marry. It is just a bunch of men that don’t feel the sense in knocking themselves out. Every step of the way boys are handy capped and shut down. There is no incentive at any point for a boy to be an achiever. That is how it works Any man that does make any kind of many still can’t fully enjoy the sex on offer for he is most likely to be hit up for child support. Professional athletes fall for that one. Even as a married man making extra money for the family is stupid better off getting the wife set up with a high paying job and have all of the bills including the mortgage in her name. That is how the strike is actually done TMG you are right it is a woman’s choice but the men have made it a choice to be a cat lady. At present it is on the margins and women still have the delusion of her getting the man she wants so she can divorce him or walk on him as she thinks an empowered woman lives. There is an actual male birth control pill now that will take care of the oops pregnancies. Closing off that avenue will be important for now the woman will have to pay her way for life as a childless one. Sooner or later the government will split women into the baby mammas and the credentialed high wage makers who will be childless paying the majority of taxes simply based on the income numbers.
I wish I could find the link, but there was a very good Red Pill reddit topic a couple weeks ago about whether the manopshere® is a conservative movement. My concern is that this is the association that’s going to be made without consideration for the validity of over a decade of red pill social development. In a fem-centric world Dr. Helen, being a woman, is allowed to publicly represent (plagiarize) the years of red pill theory and analysis the manosphere has evolved, but she does us no favors in co-branding the community with neo-Con morons like Limbaugh.
Once that connection is made often enough, the public association of red-pill awareness will be one of knee-jerk dismissal as a product of yet more politically conservative idiocy. I have no illusions that the liberal side of the field will ever embrace anything counter to feminine primacy, but if the red pill is to ever be taken seriously, if it is ever to convince more men of the truths of their conditions, it must remain fundamentally apolitical.
Regarding the issue of leadership:
I hear much exhorting to men to man up and lead; that women are just yearning for their man to finally take the leadership role. I also hear women verbalize that they want a manly man who will be a leader for them and their family.
I do not buy this. I believe that the vast majority of women who claim they want a man to lead are just putting out a ruse. The women really want a man who will put out a facsimile of leadership, but who will merely just acquiesce to what the woman wants. In other words, most women want a man who is willing to fake being the leader. The predominance for most women is for them to get what they want when they want it and having the cover of a man leading is just another instance of pathological game.
This also works for some men who have given up and just want some peace. To me it seems that many men who fake leadership know the true dynamic, but find the faking much less difficult than having to debate with their wives.
If the above is accurate, then my next thought is to wonder if any of the wives who use false subservience ever speculate the psychological effect this crap has on their husbands.
Bluedog has a lot going on … but I’m coming on quickly right now to add a “hear hear” and “2nd that!” to Rollo about the merits of avoiding the trap of being pigeonholed by those who will skip the necessity to self-educate or find at least a Red Pill Sharp Notes to begin to digest that there is a whole new ideology going on here. A notch-worth of nuance would be this: the political polarity that we have right now is comprised of lines that no one here drew. I would suggest that more than being “apolitical”, the “red pill” if anything transcends our present layout of political dimensions. I read enough of the Christian manosphere to have no illusions that there are those among you who – you and I – could never see eye to eye and our combined best efforts to reach through differences in language would still fail. And yet – I’m not all that uncomfortable here. I can barely stand to be on Heartiste. I require showers after reading Heartiste and I experience genuine dismay every time I read someone from here, lending their voice to over there. But here … I can be. And that says something. I suspect that I’m on safe ground to guess that a large number of you could enjoy a drink together with me and we would find ways to understand one another. If that is true – if my single-case example is true, then anyone would be on solid ground to assume it is true for many more, and that there is at least a risk, if not a likelihood, that alignment with and exclusion by way of present political fences, will lock out friends who would otherwise be allies. First – seek allies.
@SSM:
Thanks for the link. I certainly appreciated reading JOJ’s letter and definitely respect what he’s done in his new church and how he’s marshaled the “man power” to make the necessary changes to bring it back to the form of a real, New Testament Christ-centered church. The comments at the end were certainly fascinating too.
I would be very interested in seeing how the headship over the women of the congregation succeeds in other churches as it did for JOJ and his group. I suppose that constant prayer is the only effective driving force behind changing hearts and minds, because I can’t imagine anything else working to make the changes. Maybe that’s exactly how JOJ and his men’s group accomplished what they did. Outside of that as the driver for change, I just can’t see most women in today’s churchian franchises willingly paying attention to what the Bible commands and abandoning half a century (more than that, actually) of what they consider gains from grrrrrrl power, gains that, while destroying the church, has given them intoxicating authoritah that they never had before. Women giving that up will as difficult a slog as getting heroine addicts to quit cold turkey.
Once again, I hope I’m wrong, but my own observations over the last three decades, in a variety of churches (from mainstream “liberal” Protestant to fundamentalist evangelical) don’t make me optimistic.
@vascularity: Great comments.
If the above is accurate, then my next thought is to wonder if any of the wives who use false subservience ever speculate the psychological effect this crap has on their husbands.
It might occur as a passing thought to some of them, but I doubt they give it any serious focus or concern. Why would they? It’s not as if the husband’s mental health matters to them as long as they’re getting what they want all the time.
As to “false subservience,” I believe the Bible has something to say about this, but I can’t locate the particular scriptural references.
Women want sexual leadership if you don’t rule her tingles and body she will buck your leadership and authority in all other areas.
As with Opus’ response to the same comments, you are conflating two entirely different things. Stating that women crave male leadership doesn’t imply that:
1) It is easy for any given good man (husband) to lead his wife.
2) Any given woman will choose the leadership of a good man.
If that seemed the case it was just poorly worded on my part.
Should we assume that, because some people have trained lions, that lions crave being trained (led)? In that discourse one could make the same objection….”no one said it was easy”
There is nothing to conflate, really, in the statement “women are craving to be led”. Simply saying that, no, generally speaking (which is the same manner of speaking as the statement to which I am responding) women are not craving to be lead requires no conflation.
Its the suggestion that women are CRAVING leadership, left unqualified, that I once agreed with but no longer do. There are people, easy to spot, who literally crave leadership. These people, men and women are throwing themselves into submission to charismatic leaders and causes, they are only able to function under leadership. They are built as followers.
There are others who do well under leadership, but of their own volition. Some in the military would fall under each of these categories. They are ABLE to be led.
Some people reject leadership to the extent they spend all their time making sure everyone knows how “different” they are, and these people are usually followers disguised as rebels.
As to women, craving to be dominated? OK. Craving to be forced to acquiesce, OK. Craving to be tamed…maybe. Craving leadership….no way.
As to the “good man” part, I don’t see that I inferred that from anything you are SSM said because the statement I am reacting to was unqualified as to good man or not. Perhaps that was Opus? I didn’t go back and re-read.
It is not a nod to unique specialness to say that there are perhaps some women who line up very well under leadership. It is also true that the need for leadership is independent of whether or not the women craves it of not. Examples of this abound daily in the life of any man with eyes.
What is a craving? What happens when a craving is sated? One craves something, gets it, is sated, then craves it again later. Leadership is not consumable in a temporal sense. One doesn’t get leadership, be sated, then crave again, leadership. Here is where it would be better to say craving “correction”…..repeatedly, which is an aspect of leadership.
If a woman craves leadership why dopes she buck it? Do shit tests fit with the profile of one who craves leadership, or one who craves correction….or possibly neither and have a more nefarious goal either in mind, or by design?
The church has some idea of leadership that women crave. They say she wants to be “spiritually led”. But they tell men to ask her where you can lead her. Tell me how this differs from married game/leadership other than topically?
I can go with women NEED leadership, even that there are women self aware enough to know they need it. But to say women crave it, no way.
“The problem for the aging would be brides is the men in their age group can no more go back in time and focus their 20s on education and career than the women themselves can go back and focus their 20s on finding a husband.”
Exactly.
The support of a good wife in his 20’s is crucial to male success. What we have now is akin to society encouraging men to take a “break” from marriage in his prime years 30-40 and expecting the women to be cool with that. Or else.
Women actually crave TO LEAD. That’s a thorn in their flesh they have been given per scripture. Psychology agrees. The oft cited Gottman has shown that a woman’s desire to control and the lengths they will go to to do it are predictive of relational health.
So, she has an unhealthy craving for the very thing she needs to fall under….leadership. Does that not more correctly lay out something about weeds in the garden than the prescription that she craves THE RIGHT THING? To say that women crave leadership is to nod to the feral nature but claim that underneath is this great big virtue that we men just need to uncover through technique and suddenly she goes from caterpillar to butterfly.
Its akin to saying man crave sex, so therefore just meet the craving and you will find this hidden virtue where that men only really craves sex with his wife, and never has any craving that is not virtuous. It is to suggest that we can set up circumstances, drill deeply enough and not just find good, but find such a wellspring of it that its like bad never ever happened.
I realize this is suggestive of the Christian walk in general. And I agree that the goals set forth fit that. Is it not true that as a Christian one’s goal is to literally crave righteousness? Does anyone get there where that is the status quo for them?
Women crave leadership is too simple.
OT…..
Thursday @ 3:00 P.M. eastern time on
National Public Radio….call-in show about “changing families”, fatherhood, ect. I would love to hear the commenters here flood their switchboard with Red Pill!!!!!
Dead horse beating
Cane and I once had a dialog about this, I recall. I’m reminded of it, where the wife indeed craved something….not leadership. She craves conflict. The craving is unhealthy as most are. She NEEDS correction.
Example:
Sunday we missed church because our 7 year old dragged her feet etc etc. Typical stuff. Wife was itching for a fight, wanting to find a way to blame anyone and everyone. She said something to me, oozing with subtext, “now you can do that stuff you said you needed to do”.
Hold it. Whats the subtext there Mrs Empath?
None, just saying you now have time
No, you are somehow linking all this up to include me in your perceived conspiracy that caused us to miss church. Its wrong….stop.
Silence
Five minutes later, a confession of the subtext and an apology.
Does that men she craved leadership….or craved correction(which is an aspect of leadership but not leadership in and of itself)….or craved conflict, or all the above?
“I have no illusions that the liberal side of the field will ever embrace anything counter to feminine primacy, but if the red pill is to ever be taken seriously, if it is ever to convince more men of the truths of their conditions, it must remain fundamentally apolitical.”
And since the media is the primary disseminator of “new” ideas to the public, politics will always taint any discussion of the red pill. But this doesn’t mean it won’t be taken seriously. Do the millions that purchase Glenn Beck hardcovers not take his ideas seriously? Do the hundreds that watch Rachel Maddow not take her seriously?
The support of a good wife in his 20′s is crucial to male success. What we have now is akin to society encouraging men to take a “break” from marriage in his prime years 30-40 and expecting the women to be cool with that. Or else”
Bullshit. The average age for a man’s first marriage is in the late 20’s now. Are we to assume that all these men are bedraggled wastrels in need of a wife? If so, then why are women marrying them? It is established that women marry up.
As to your second statement, it is women who are being pushed to ride alpha male cocks without commitment in their prime 20-30 range. It is a miracle that men in their thirties aren’t laughing in the faces of single women in their thirties who gave their prime away in “all you can eat” style.
@Empath
In my first comment I used the term thirst, but I did later use the term crave. This isn’t a huge distinction, but I do think that thirst is the better term. Either way, your example would only prove your point if it turns out that your wife would have preferred that you cave in and follow her leadership. Are you saying your wife would be happier married to a man who let her lead?
Either way, your example would only prove your point if it turns out that your wife would have preferred that you cave in and follow her leadership. Are you saying your wife would be happier married to a man who let her lead?
Not so. First, it wasn’t a leadership issue, it was a correction issue. One is part of the other, but the converse is not true.
Thirst or crave differ only by implied voracity. I disagree with both. NEED is the word I would prefer and it has an important distinction. The she crave leadership infers some craving for virtue that is dependent on the man’s leadership only. Would this apply to sin nature? Are we back round that bend? If so, then we cannot take a stand against man up and marry the sluts, when after all, but for that not happening thus far, they would be pinnacles of virtue.
Another way to look at it is that if it is a craving it cannot be sated. Wives prove that over and again, and no matter how good your game, no matter how spiritually upright, you cannot do it. Look at how the truth of Jesus Himself has been manipulated to be The Personal Jesus. If she so craved leadership, why would she not fall under what we call the perfect leadership? Because she NEEDS a man’s leadership to maintain such submission. She certainly does not crave it. She may crave something, and at times that craving may look as if she craves leadership, but that’s not exactly right. She may crave tingles, dominance. etc. That is not craving leadership.
In that moment my wife well may have preferred I not assert myself. I did it calmly, firmly, and my teen son heard the whole thing. I am certain he noted it. When I look back on the next 24 hours after that I can see evidence of craving, but again, tingles and/or situational dominance, not systematically as in leadership. The escalation of her emotion and then the forceful tamping down of same by me led to a rough afternoon Sunday, one that even involved me being “sent to bed without my dinner” metaphorically speaking.
But, still metaphorically speaking, after work Monday and before the small group study to my surprise “dinner was indeed served”. I’m also certain the same 16 year old son saw the absurdity of, when my wife yelled from the bedroom to tell our seven year old to stop playing with the dog and making her bark, when asked “why?” my wife replied “because I’m getting dressed”
Fooled a 7 yr old, the look on my 16 year old boys face as I exited the room said….not so much.
Was it leadership or tingles that compelled her?
but if the red pill is to ever be taken seriously, if it is ever to convince more men of the truths of their conditions, it must remain fundamentally apolitical.”
Functionally apolitical….OK
Bereft of ideology….impossible. The absence is ignorance manifest, or liberalism without self awareness
@Empath
How is the fact that a thirst can’t be sated proof that there is no such thirst? If anything, it proves the opposite.
The tingle is certainly part of it, but women quite frequently describe aching to have their husband take charge, and not always in a sexual context. This is probably more visible now than at other eras, because the culture has campaigned to eradicate male leadership.
How is the fact that a thirst can’t be sated proof that there is no such thirst?
It is not proof that the craving doesn’t exist. It is to say that the craving is not for something altruistic like what is suggested when saying “women crave leadership”.
but women quite frequently describe aching to have their husband take charge
I’m not linking and wouldn’t plug the hasty piece anyway, but my previous blog entry “Ask your wife to point out where you can be leading her” was about exactly this, women craving leadership, what the marriage ministries say about that, and what it actually means when women say it and when the ministers teach it. I mention this solely to refute the idea that there is some preponderance of outcry for male leadership. Yes, there is such and outcry, but it is counter intuitive to think in a Christian church world like we observe, that women are crying out for something altruistic and not self serving. The big voice may exist, but its goal is a lie. There would, buy our own corpus of experience, readings, and writings, not be sufficient women honestly crying out for male leadership to make that a piece of evidence germane to this debate. If it were so, blogs like SSMs would not seem like outliers, so novel. So we cannot use the existence of such a cry as evidence that women crave leadership without asking….what are most of these women REALLY saying?
That someone like SSM is self aware enough to see the need for stifling her lesser emotional urges is great, and she can perhaps honestly then say she craves leadership, though i’d still say correction is not leadership and that leadership is anathema other than a series of loosely strung together corrections.
@ Dalrock, Empath
The word you are looking for is not leadership. It is Dominance, perhaps the most potent expression of Masculine Power. Women need a dominant man in their life. Leadership is but one facet of this. Dominance is much larger than that, however, and must include correcting the woman when she goes astray. What Empath’s wife gave him was a fitness test, pure and simple. And he passed the test by showing dominance. I think the word thirst is highly appropriate here. Women thirst after dominance with a passion we men have trouble understanding. The female love for drama, for conflict, is a means to an end. It is not the drama which drives them, it is the desire for that drama to be corrected, curtailed by a dominant male.
This “women crave leadership” is a very sneaky thing. Its not intentional by you Dalrock, but its effect is an extremely subtle form of effective white knighting.
We converse about the base sin natures of the genders. We compare the sex drive and how it is perceived to the empathy drive (as I call it) of women and how that is perceived. Call it the emotional primacy of the female motive, whatever. Then where do we go?
We do not state that under the male sex drive is a craving for something righteous, that with the willing cooperation of a woman will unfurl a banner of right thing. Conversely we do not suggest that a man acting out sexually does so do to the lack of a woman’s action that would show that really underneath everything, he REALLY wants to be a monogamous man.
But analogously here, you plaster over dysfunction and sin nature by saying, no, really what they really really want is this good thing. There is virtue behind all of this and the poor dear cannot help it. We men just need to tap into that virtue for her….its there….its up to us to mine for it.
As imperfect as the analogy is, don’t miss its functional aspect. Sin nature to sin nature and the gendered responses to their own sin natures. In some ways women saying they crave leadership is just another layer of complicated manipulation. And men are prone to lap it up because it pushes buttons on us we kind of like to have pushed, those being the buttons that say, look here, this challenge is very very difficult but I got this.
The NEED it. Maybe because they crave SOMETHING (and that is even a moving target)….they need leadership.
Donel, I used the word dominance. I agree mainly with you. Its a better word because the desire for leadership suggests a morally good thing, always good. The desire for dominance can be a desire for righteous correction as a source for tingles, or a desire for bad boy superficial dominance as a source for tingles.
@Empath
But I’m not saying it is altruistic. Women very much do crave male leadership. That some women seek this out with men like Roissy, etc. while others channel this to biblical submission in marriage (or are miserable in their marriages because they don’t) only reinforces the basic fact. By your same argument one could assert that men don’t crave to know and follow God.
I don’t think we have any disagreement regarding what is going on in the churches. We are in violent agreement on that point. The point I was making was something else. Yes, the churches are nearly all getting this terribly wrong, reading from the Book of Oprah instead of the Bible. And yes, women are fallen and as Gen 3:16 states have an impulse to rebel against their husbands. I may not have made my point clear enough, but what I was getting at up thread is that many women will be drawn to a church which goes back to biblical roles of husbands and wives. Despite feminist denial, there is great status in having a real, leading husband. As SSM said, where men go women will want to follow. Whether this is due to a base urge like envy or properly channeled via biblical submission is not the question. Either way, the impulse is there. Not all women will choose to follow, but given how rare such a congregation would initially be the counter intuitive result will be no problem attracting women to the congregation.
SSM’s blog is absolutely an outlier. As is mine. As is yours. What we are doing is for our era incredibly new. A better metric than volume of blogs is rate of growth. Do you know of a church which wouldn’t love to have growth rates like we have, or even half of what we have in our corner of the blogosphere?
Yes, one one hand women do naturally crave male leadership.
But displaying traditional male qualities is now just too dangerous in the home and beyond, as teh fiat masters have legislated against male nobility.
In some countries raising one’s voice is considered domestic violence, and even in America, it is more than enough for a divorce, whence the woman’s lawyer will use it as evidence of an abusive husband so as to seize his house ad children.
When is everyone going to wake up here and realize that feminism was created by the bolsheviks to destroy the family and transfer wealth from men to the state by violating their Natural Rights?
But I’m not saying it is altruistic. Women very much do crave male leadership.
Not overtly. But leadership invokes good images. It does so to such a degree that we would place words before it if it were intended that we say BAD leadership, or WRONG leadership. That’s why I refute that women crave leadership, I am assigning virtue to the term.
there are women who like to be told STFU!. They get something from that. Would we say that is craving leadership?
I’m not convinced that women would flock to churches that switched frames. Ultimately some would. It would not be the growth that you rightly point to in the manosphere as enviable and good. the overall attendance at church would plummet, and never recover to its present level. The real church is a fraction of the sum of the churches anyway. And I am not prone to over stating such exclusivity for other reasons as so many like to do when we start down that path. My point is the sole reason women are there, now, is the lack of challenge and the affirmation. Those women who would fall in with manosphere Christians would go. That is less than the number of women who presently go. Voddie Baucham would have a mega mega church if the theory was correct because his teachings are prolific and he sits smack in the midst of a highly churched population.
I’m not saying anything that the bible has not already told us.
“This “women crave leadership” is a very sneaky thing. Its not intentional by you Dalrock, but its effect is an extremely subtle form of effective white knighting.”
I have another prediction that in the coming years, as women realize how badly they screwed the pooch, a whole lot of them are going to go to this excuse. “How could men let this happen?” “I’m just a woman! I wouldn’t know how to poop in a toilet if there wasn’t a man to show me! It’s men’s fault society got destroyed, because they stopped teling us what to do!” It’s the next logical step of female hypoagency, that is, feigning weakness to get sympathy and escape responsibility. And there will be many men, perhaps well-intentioned in some ways, who will echo them.
This is total crap. Every man and every woman has to take responsibility for themselves. In order to force women to become fully-responsible agents, men need to abandon them and let them take care of themselves. This is all we can do, when it is basically illegal for men to lead women. I understand this isn’t the “traditional” perspective, but it is the only thing that will work in the long run.
Exactly TMG:
“This is total crap. Every man and every woman has to take responsibility for themselves. In order to force women to become fully-responsible agents, men need to abandon them and let them take care of themselves. This is all we can do, when it is basically illegal for men to lead women. I understand this isn’t the “traditional” perspective, but it is the only thing that will work in the long run.”
Women want all the rights and riches without the responsibilities nor risks nor work. This is why the fiat master central bankers have chosen to use them to destroy Western Civilization as they are now doing.
This discussion, Dalrock, has all the elements of when you and I split hairs about socons and conservativism. There is more common ground than not, but the differences are more than just word and definition parsing.
I can see at once my wife “craving leadership”, and how that is also dysfunctional and can be used for nefarious manipulation. Women have long-game behind all the short games they play. I will not suggest that the long-game is even conscious or calculated in most. But it is there. TMG is onto some of the long-game with his comment, whether it happens like that or not.
Have you never outed a strategy your wive took that she didn’t even know she had taken? Some of this is so complex it doesn’t lend ready example. Its way way more than some simple manipulation. Its, well, long-game. Its instinctive and present in nearly all. To crave leadership would be to crave that that long-game be stifled. But it cannot be. Some of the most frustrating things that happen in happy marriage result from this long-game instinct where the most brilliant attorney could have never fashioned a two year rhetorical strategy so sound for the win. This stuff is all bad. Take great care in simplifying it or even implying some grand need in women.
I can see where you are coming from Dalrock with the aversion to responsibility women have, a take charge man will relieve a woman of that source of hysteria. Then it runs into the empowered woman thing the church has fixed by having men take responsibility for things a woman tells them. “I will follow a man that goes where I want him to go” Some men see the rebellion and others see the nature of women. I see the law and any man foolish enough to lead a woman is just asking to be tazed or lose his job. The most effective leadership today men have shown women in the indifference of MGTOW. Peterpan and “bitter man full of hate” are driving this bus. Good old fashion male leadership in a relationship is craved and desired but not enough to put down a rebellion. This book and the cultural buzz was created by MGTOW, and PUA not good Christian men I’m for the foot to the throat technique. When the suicide rate for women is double that for men (doesn’t matter how we get there men’s rate down women’s rate up or both) Then we’ll send them your way. How do we send them? Repeal or change the laws of misandry and family law and see if the little dearies try and keep misandry in place. An example is the abortion law in Texas Sunshinemary brought this one to us http://www.catholicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/600×4082.jpg Those women are protesting so guys like this can stay in business http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/13/dr-kermit-gosnells-abortion-case/.
I told a woman a couple days ago. ” At one time I would step in and help a chick. After being married 12 years and seeing how family law is and everything else if I saw a woman clearly beat up by some guy or what ever I wouldn’t care” I meant it. I also know I have done more to end misandry with that than all of the conversations on the laws of misandry with an appeal to logical reason and empathy that doesn’t exist. I added the only women that matter are my daughters and my wife and then other family in that order.
@Empath
All sorts of accusations are being made against me which have no basis. This is tedious, because if we disagreed then there would be an opportunity for a productive exchange. Arguing about things we fundamentally agree on is pointless, a pure waste of time. I’m not telling men they have an obligation to marry. I’ve made the case against that several times, and the most recent time was just a few weeks ago over at the Orthosphere. I’m also not giving women a pass for their actions and choices. I’ve spent the last three years meticulously cataloging the pathology as I see it. Why is there this assumption that I am now arguing something entirely different? It makes no sense. There are two ways to read my comments above. One is entirely consistent with what I have gone to great length to explain. Another goes against what I’ve been writing for years. If you are filling in the blanks, there is only one rational way to fill them.
GBFM
You have that right Traditional male qualities are just too dangerous by law of misandry. Just the way SHE wants it. Now she does still crave male leadership. So what when she dies we’ll tell he grand daughter how to get it.
All sorts of accusations are being made against me which have no basis.
Not so. I expressly stated otherwise in the very quote you pasted. I’m talking about the effect of the words, not the intent. My view is perfectly consistent with your being consistent in yours.
What is the point of saying “women crave leadership?”
Yes, pathology. There you have it. Is the craving for leadership a pathology in and of itself, or is it a begging for repair of said pathology?
Its genuine curiosity, not tedium. Is it not useful to see disagreement on a simple statement? People wrangle for pages about definitions of game, why not delve into this? Its like leaving your weapon on the battlefield for the other side to pick up and shoot with. You and your weapon are all good objectively. But would it not be better to not leave it there? Ive seen, for too many years, the gymnastics used to manipulate Christian men. I’m trying to point out another one that has that potential.
Dalrock
I believe whole heartily women crave male leadership. That is why the marriage strike thing has such and effect. And everywhere articles are coming up about the reduce college participation of men further reducing the marriageable men. Yeah you are right. I think the argument is really about the mechanics of getting it done today. By law nothing really matters SHE is still calling the shots if a man involves himself with a woman in anyway. I also know how important you are in this because we as a civilization need to know how to live past the war. Very few men know or understand what a normal civilized society lives like.
We have no example of the joy a woman receives from male leadership because it was removed by gun point but we are seeing the effects of that absence. The one leadership action they haven’t figured out how to kill over is MGTOW all other avenues such as foreign bride, cohabitating ,childbirth etc has some kind of hook in the law. MGTOW and indifference has an effect. And with that we may see action on the part of women. Maybe.
“This is total crap. Every man and every woman has to take responsibility for themselves. In order to force women to become fully-responsible agents, men need to abandon them and let them take care of themselves.”
In other words, what decidedly non-religious, non-feminist feminist(?) GWW/Karen Straughan styles as “owning your shit”, which she accurately identifies as the one thing feminists can never do.
I believe whole heartily women crave male leadership. That is why the marriage strike thing has such and effect.
So, women are lamenting the lack of men to lead them when they say “where have all the good men gone”? Seriously?
“The most effective leadership today men have shown women in the indifference of MGTOW.”
Men provide women protection and provision. Women provide men companionship and babies. Good companionship and babies are a blessing for men. Protection and provision are necessities for women.
As repeated ad nauseum in the manosphere, women have enlisted the State as protector, and in terms of pure selfishness it has worked very well for them in the short term. But I think that’s mostly because they’ve been able to get the “best of both worlds” of State-subsidized empowerment and pair-bonding. The only way we will see change is to remove the pair-bonding. It’s not like most women are going to give a rat’s ass about the suffering of anyone else other than themselves.
“Women want all the rights and riches without the responsibilities nor risks nor work. This is why the fiat master central bankers have chosen to use them ..”
Ah, GBFM, “power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages”, as Stanley Baldwin observed.
empathologism
Yes seriously. Leadership is not necessarily this positive thing. That is how game works. You can’t put too much male logic and common sense into it. Women never gave a damn until men said no the only legal way possible. It is about getting the laws removed so a “good” man can lead with getting killed. So a woman that rebels is left on her own as it should be. Not some chick that rebels to cash out as we have now. The big stink believe it or not is women are losing the cash out on the chump option. Doesn’t look pretty but women are reacting to men now. Leadership
Empath
No, that isn’t so. It may look that way on the surface, but that isn’t what the desire really is. Whatever they may say, women really do crave male leadership (even while sometimes attempting to rebel against it).
We only push ourselves into that role as a means of fitness testing. That comes from a deep sense of anxiety about making sure that whatever man is in charge of us (in other words, our fathers or husbands) is able to handle it. A woman can talk herself through that desire to fitness test; she can remind herself that her husband has been a good leader in the past so there is no reason to question him now and she can also remind herself of the biblical command to wives to submit to their husbands.
Men would flock to such churches. Women will follow them. JoJ is living proof of that.
By the way, my saying that women crave male leadership is simply an informational statement. There is no imperative contained within that; I have not suggested that men must or should do anything in particular. Each man can decide for himself what he wishes to do with that information. Some will decide that there are women in their lives who need their leadership and provide it. Other men will decline to provide such leadership. This is a separate issue from the fact that women desire male leadership.
TMG
“It’s not like most women are going to give a rat’s ass about the suffering of anyone else other than themselves.”
That is right and that is normal. That is women and always has been. Civilized society that thrives is set up with that understanding in its laws and culture.
GBFM:
Yes. No argument here; a man can only display traditional male qualities if the woman is okay with it because the State has stolen the authority to intervene where it really has no business intervening.
That doesn’t change the fact that women desire male leadership. They still do. But the silly fools have made it extremely difficult for men to provide it.
Anyway, for my final comment on this thread, I’ll summarize before I skedaddle:
1. Women deeply desire male leadership.
2. Women fitness test by rebelling against male leadership.
3. The State has made it risky for men to attempt to lead a rebellious woman; some men will still do it; others will decline, as they see fit.
4. Do whatever seems best to you. It makes no difference to me because I am not calling on any men to “man up” and do anything in particular.
“That doesn’t change the fact that women desire male leadership. They still do.”
Women do desire leadership, but many of them will only agree to whatever relationship gives them the most cookies with the least amount of accountability. This does not require a male to be the leader of her in the home, because she can fulfill her desire for leadership by following any number of new-age gurus, celebrities, and politicians. She can also satisfy her carnal desires by taking thugs and players to bed with her. Again, it’s all about eating all the cookies she wants without ever being held responsible.
Re: the Dalrock / Empath / greyghost variations on “leadership”… I’d start by slightly modifying Sunshine Mary’s statement that launched the sub-discussion. Rather than saying “wives want (thirst / crave) leadership”, I would suggest that wives want *structure*.
Once given a structure, the discussion Dalrock and Empath in particular appear to be having is about what it should look like in a marriage: Is it “leadership” or is it “power”? Can the man utilize it to direct the marriage? Or does the woman seek to acquire it, or otherwise undermine the man?
(from http://seanheritage.blogspot.com/2009/11/leadership-versus-power.html)
Women leading can also be seen as women controlling. All of that is just a desire for security. That is where all of the misery from being empowered comes from. Feminism it is joked was started so ugly women could get what the pretty women were getting from men.
sunshinemary writes:
July 16, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Anyway, for my final comment on this thread, I’ll summarize before I skedaddle:
1. Women deeply desire male leadership.
2. Women fitness test by rebelling against male leadership.
Sunshine Mary–so when a woman aborts her baby, without asking her husband for leadership, she is just “fitness testing” him? Sunshine Mary–so when a woman destroys her family (as 80% of divorces are initiated by women), without asking her husband for leadership, she is just “fitness testing” him? So are you saying that men who have their babies murdered just aren’t “fit” enough to handle women? So in both these cases, Sunshine Mary is stating that if only the man had manned up, all the 50,000,000+ babies aborted by woman’s choice would be resurrected, and all the families would be rejoined! So you see, that abortion (which is 100% a woman’s choice) and the destruction of the family (intitiated by women 80%of the time) *really are* the fault of men!
3. The State has made it risky for men to attempt to lead a rebellious woman; some men will still do it; others will decline, as they see fit.
In 1940’s Germany, Sunshine Mary would have penned, “The Nazi State made it risky for Jews to own businesses in Germany. Some Jews will still do it, others will decline, as they see fit.” lzozozoo
4. Do whatever seems best to you. It makes no difference to me because I am not calling on any men to “man up” and do anything in particular.
Dear Sunshine Mary, why do you never call upon the State to “man up” and start treating men in an honorable, manly fashion?
As I said, women don’t crave men taking leadership. They crave men taking charge and responsiblity to do what women want. As someone said, to get whatever they want with the smallest responsibility.
IOW, women are like children. They want daddy to lead, take responsibility and do all the sh*t to get them what they want. But they want to protest and throw a tantrum when things don’t go the way they want. Then they can say they didn’t have anything to do with the failure.
TMG nails it when he says:
I have another prediction that in the coming years, as women realize how badly they screwed the pooch, a whole lot of them are going to go to this excuse. “How could men let this happen?” “I’m just a woman! I wouldn’t know how to poop in a toilet if there wasn’t a man to show me! It’s men’s fault society got destroyed, because they stopped teling us what to do!” It’s the next logical step of female hypoagency, that is, feigning weakness to get sympathy and escape responsibility. And there will be many men, perhaps well-intentioned in some ways, who will echo them.
Also see:
The marriage strike isn’t quite here yet, but the relative scarcity of marriage-minded men is having some interesting knock-on effects:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/audrey-shulman/sitting-in-bars-with-cake_b_3581293.html
Yes, that’s right – trying to lure men into marriage with cake. To me this article signifies three things:
1. Western women doing more than just looking pretty. These women are deliberately taking other actions to prove their fitness and find men, which shows that they feel a need to step up their “game”. In other words, in this case the SM is slowly moving from a buyer’s market (for women) to a seller’s market (for men).
2. Why cake? It shows that despite decades of feminist programming, some women realize that deep down, most men find a warm meal infinitely more impressive and inviting than a Ph.D. We’ll hire the Ph.D, but we refuse to date her (maybe a one-nighter if she’s cute though).
3.18 cakes and 18 bars, but no boyfriend. This shows that hypergamy is still very, very much in effect. This means that these women are upping their value proposition, but still keeping their inflated standards.
Predictably, the Jezbots have gotten to this already and given it the standard propaganda whitewash treatment:
http://jezebel.com/wily-woman-lures-unsuspecting-men-into-marriage-with-ca-757452506?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=morning
“First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi
“The support of a good wife in his 20′s is crucial”
I would say that this was part of the social agreement which benefited women quite a bit. In return for her support when he was struggling, she was rewarded with the family she craves. Instead, that 20 year old, struggles and makes it, or fails, alone – and if he makes it he learns he doesn’t need a woman. She is like spice – it makes food taste better, but you don’t have to buy a farm to get the spice. Instead buy what you need – so instead, date that sweet little teenager, take her to bed, enjoy all she has to offer, then move on to the next one because nothing tastes better than something fresh and new. There are plenty and you can never exhaust the supply.
That is the truth those 30 and 40 year old men learn. Women are for pleasure, to enjoy, but not to take seriously. Why does a man need a family? He doesn’t – and if he wants one at 50+, that’s easy – just hook up with some 20 year old in Brazil, or China – keep her there and have a family. It’s easy.
I would say that men are learning exactly how necessary women are – they aren’t… And the only thing they had as an incentive to control men was sex – now they give it away, so why would you buy something that has been used by 100+ other men? It’s like that cartoon where the kid is asking the father about wanting a can of soda that hasn’t been opened, and the Dad responds with – “Well son look at it this way. Do you want an unopened can of soda, or one that has had 20+ cocks cum inside of it?”
It may not be pretty, but that is the fact… I like my can’s of soda unopened, and for it to be all mine…. To this day, the women who’s virginity I have taken, have a special place in my heart. Doesn’t mean I am willing to give up access to all of the younger women, but they always have a fall-back. Yes, that is stupid – but think of it as what’s left of chivalry – sort of an echo of what once was….
Yes!
“imnobody00 says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:47 pm
As I said, women don’t crave men taking leadership. They crave men taking charge and responsiblity to do what women want. As someone said, to get whatever they want with the smallest responsibility.
IOW, women are like children. They want daddy to lead, take responsibility and do all the sh*t to get them what they want. But they want to protest and throw a tantrum when things don’t go the way they want. Then they can say they didn’t have anything to do with the failure.”
Yes!
Some things that children don’t do, which women do do, include:
1. Abort/murder babies.
2. Destroy families.
3. Vote to grow the state/increase debt to fund bastard spawn born of fornication out of wedlock.
The good news is that all of this will soon be rectified, as the problem stems from the fact that all these baby-killing, family-destroying, debt-augmenting women are just craving, craving male leadership, which men are failing to give.
When men finally man up and give the little ladies the male leadership they so crave according to Sunshine Mary, all the babies will be resurrected, all the families reunited, and the welfare state will disappear alongside the massive debt. And Sunshine Mary will ascend to the clouds, riding a golden beam, for having solved the problem. Had she only told us earlier, that all the abortions (by women’s choice alone) and destroyed families (divorce is initiated by women 80% of the time), were really just the fault of men failing to man up and serve the baby-killing, family-killing little ladies with the exalted leadership they so divinely wished for all along!
Also, it was discovered that Eve’s tasting the Apple and succumbing to the serpent was all Adam’s fault! Had he only given her the Godly leadership she so craved, while riding the serpent carousel with here gina and buttholzizol going tingzllzzlzozzoz, Man would never had fallen!
GBFM,
I don’t self-describe as a thirsty beta male. I observe what I see on dating sites and from the people around me. I don’t advise any man to marry.
R/K mating types do not contradict the bible. Your argument is a non-sequitur. If you read through the site I linked to you’ll find that the abundance period which generates the R type mating causes decline and calamity much like what we’re going to face in the coming years. There is a definite need for monogamy and strong husbands, and the best way to bring that out is through the church.
Necessity creates strong families. In the past social security used to be known as “raising your kids right” with the assumption that children would attend the elderly when they no longer could. But social security seperated that need and so a generation gap occurred where the baby boom generation had no need to raise their children right because there was no consequences for their actions. The same thing happens when men and women have no consequences for divorce. You can take almost any random man and woman and put them in a marriage and they’ll make it work. They make it work because they have to. If they options then they’ll take it.
During the Holocaust, according to Sunshine Mary, the Nazis were craving to do the right thing. They were craving to not murder, and they were seeking Godly, Manly leadership. Had the Jews only manned up and provided the Godly, Manly leadership the Nazis were so desperately seeking, they would have all lived! Those silly Jews! What were they thinking? Just like those silly, silly men today!
This has been stuck in my crawl for awhile and Im glad it comes out:
SSM, I am well familiar with the whole theory, the fitness testing, etc. I have stated and will repeat, I agree with the theory regarding the dynamic that is unfolding when a woman fitness tests her mate. However, it is quite an assumption to then say that because a woman is testing her mate, she therefore must be craving to be lead.
You say:Do whatever seems best to you. It makes no difference to me because I am not calling on any men to “man up” and do anything in particular.
No, you are not calling on anyone to do anything in particular, granted, but indirectly that is the unavoidable end result logically if you choose to say women crave leadership.
Crave….so, if I crave chocolate and I’m in a room full of chocolate, what will I do? Eat chocolate. Focus on the word “crave”. Therefore, if women crave male leadership and are figuratively “in a room full” of men (or the one man she married”, what would she do to sate her craving? Partake of that which she craves correct?
Oh? Whats that? Some of the chocolate is not fit for consumption (yet). Ding ding ding……man up. That is the unintended white knight inevitable result of this line of thinking. You cannot use the word crave and NOT then suggest men man up to be crave worthy. Its nonsense on a stick.
Greyghost says:
Women leading can also be seen as women controlling
Fair enough, I retract my statement that women wish to lead and change it to women wish to control. If you accept SSMs narrative, then what is fitness testing besides controlling behavior?
gdgm:
I would suggest that wives want *structure*.
I’m good with that. That is boundaries and correction.
iamnobody says:
They crave men taking charge and responsiblity to do what women want.
This gets closer to the point. This may be actually what they crave, and are willing to tolerate the rest of what leadership would entail in order to have the cover the leadership affords for the rest. The balance between his leading her where she wants to go, and her fitness testing him (exerting control) on the other things may be like a fingerprint, unique to every woman.
GBFM seems to fully understand my objection. This is not in indictment of Dalrock contrary to the rest of his content as he suggested. Its a very narrow and simple disagreement.
Did Gavin Newsom’s ex-wife express a craving for leadership in the program SSM outlines on her site?
Only in the most twisted ironic meaning can it be said that women crave male leadership. I do not understand why this is a line in the sand. Women NEED, women’s behavior BEGS FOR, some other expression of it besides “women crave male leadership” or the only place you can go with that is………..MEN? Where yat?
Empath,
I still don’t see where we really disagree. Would you disagree with the following:
Feminism doesn’t make women happy.
or, as I have put it before:
The choice for wives isn’t between happy rebellion and miserable submission. It is in fact exactly the opposite.
This is the flipside to the same basic statement you are objecting to. Women are getting precisely what they thought they wanted today, what they demanded, and they are miserable with it.
One more thought. Perhaps the misunderstanding is in viewing my statement that women are thirsting for male leadership as an indictment against men. This isn’t what I had in mind at all. Over the last 40+ years women rebelled against male leadership and took concrete actions to weaken men’s ability to lead them. Even if this weren’t the case, the Bible still repeatedly stresses the obligation to wives to submit to their husbands. Men have also failed in all of this, but it doesn’t change the fact that Christian wives have rebelled en masse against very clear and repeated instructions in the Bible.
After having rejected the leadership of their husbands, large numbers of wives now are surprisingly open about the void they now feel. Even larger numbers are close enough to getting this that if you present it to them carefully they will also recognize it. I offered examples here.
Men would flock to such churches. Women will follow them. JoJ is living proof of that.
How so?
Your update includes this sentence:
If Christian men would abandon Team White Knight and establish such a tribal culture as JoJ describes, feminism in the church would shrivel away.
The phrase “if Christian men would” is sufficient to make the point that what women allegedly crave is ……something……but having men necessarily adapting to such a degree to the “craving” of women is anything but women craving leadership.
One manosphere writer, I forget who, rightly explains the leadership and submission dynamic saying something key in refuting the notion that IF men do this this and that THEN the woman will submit, when in fact that misses the entire point of “as to the Lord” and puts condition on the unconditional. Women, if it is true that they crave leadership, must then teach women that it is right there, in the form of the man you have….just submit, and walla, you get your leadership. The rest is monkeys dancing to an organ grinder.
That men need to or should do xyz is likely true, but should be walled off completely from these points about women to avoid conditionality.
My asking “how so” meant that, despite the good news of what he reports, I do not read that women have flocked to the church. I read that some women have acquiesced to the new norm, and that is good. But it misses the important question….why? Why are SOME women falling into line? It is not credible to suggest that all the women did so. But why some? What is different about those who did? Are they innocently responding to releasing the burden of leadership to the men? Are their cravings being sated? Is it REALLY onerous to demand no slut heels? Have they eschewed divorce openly? Have they stigmatized any other woman who is frivorcing? Is there skin in the “game” other than that on the soles of their feet that now wear flats?
Fitness testing is not designed to test a man’s leadership ability. The craving driving it is not for leadership by a man. The craving is for something even more fundamental, masculinity itself. Leadership, Dominance, Correction, Structure… all of those are fruits of a Masculine Frame. that is what women want, what women crave. Masculinity. They crave it in all forms, including in the purely physical (as Cane Caldo argued in his “Women Love Dick” post).
BREAKING NEWS: All evil ever perpetuated by women is a man’s fault. For women naturally crave manly, exalted leadership. Sometimes it appears otherwise, but really, this is just a woman’s way of testing a man to see if he is strong enough to make her butt and gina tingellzlzo simultaneously. For instance, when a woman checks herself into an abortion clinic, by her choice, and has the baby vacuumed out of her fetus, by her choice, it is no cause for alarm, as it is just a “shit-test” of the men in her life. Manly men will rise to the occasion, whence her butt and gina will tingle, and they can conceive another bastard out of wedlock, so she can shit-test him again by murdering her baby.
Dalrock
I don’t know if we disagree or not. If my saying women do not crave leadership and your saying women do crave leadership means we disagree, then we do.
Feminism doesn’t make women happy. But evangelical feminism seems to make Christian women the most happy. A veneer of leadership, the occasional bold assertion of power (correction) from the husband, and all the benefits. I do not begrudge them the benefits as it is Gods design, the begrudging is using the benefits as motive and selectively weeding out the aspects of leadership that require something of them that they do not not like or are unwilling to tolerate. They do not crave that. They rebel, and not as a fitness test.
Women are less and less happy for a simple reason. Too much time to live in their ever swirling tormente of emotions. To the degree that leadership can afford some relief to that I am still not sure that the end result of getting to experience empathy isnt a more compelling motive than happiness and contentment. Happiest when unhappy….like that.
Fitness testing is not designed to test a man’s leadership ability
Right. Its designed to generate drama. Rebellion that must be put down is great drama. Do we define good leaders by how frequently and adroitly they deal with malcontents and uprisings in their charge? Or do we define successful leadership by periods of relative calm? If the former….who the hell wants that?
From Stingrays quote on the post Dalrock linked:
Because that would mean that women would have to simply let go of any control. To have control while being malcontent seems better than relinquishing control to increase happiness. A happiness that they really have no conception of and literally cannot imagine.
Cannot imagine. Exactly. Therefore cannot crave.
You cannot lead without authority to commit acts of leadership. Women craving leadership from men, whilst actively exchanging in sabotage, not just towards grown men, but with boys too, seems not to support the craving hypothesis. You don’t get something by destroying it…
This is all nonsense anyway, for the power has been given to the State. There is not one man on this Earth stronger than an entire state. The state has more power, more wealth, more intelligence, has a better ability to skirt the law than a single man, the ability to detain a man without cause, and has the legal, social and military means to kick any man, ANY MAN, to the curb or to simply kill them outright without a second thought.
Women are not craving leadership in this scenario, they’re craving power, via the state.
A perfect illustration of the assumption SSM makes with regard to this ‘craving’ is cutting a man’s legs off, leaving him bleeding on the ground and then telling him you crave a walk in a park… whilst being carried on his back.
Dear SSM,
If women are really craving male leadership,
Why do they not repeal
All the misandric, anti-male laws
which penalize and persecute men for leading?
As women are the vast majority of law students
why do they not form men’s rights legal groups
to defend the leadership of men?
SSM, as you state women crave male leadership,
why are not women acting in a way
to return male leadership to the center and circumference
of society?
SSM–are you going to blame this on men too
are you going to state that even though women
are the vast majority of law students
they need a man to found the men’s rights group
and lead women into it?
Is that what women are waiting for on all the college campuses?
Men to found men’s rights groups
and Corral/herd women into them?
SSM–you really do have quite a low opinion of women
and yet, you blame men for their inadequacies
and you see your low opinion of woman
as being a man’s fault.
Interesting video, imnobody00.
I find it interesting how she states that being an object means to reduce or avoid risks, but being an agent means to take on risks. She says that women are acted upon, as object, by men, who are agents.
Are men expected to take on risks (i.e. marriage) because they are agents?
Just a thought,
When da GBFM was a mere child
I remember a girl
Who used to come to the sandbox
And say,
“All boys are smelly! Tee hee hee!”
And then she’d run away.
Well, it was just girls being girls,
Cute and fun
But even then da GBFM knew
he wouldn’t want her
leading his Church
nor telling men
what to do.
Today I saw her again,
She said,
“Women crave male leadership! All the divorce, abortion, fornication, misandric laws, anti-male courts, and bastard children are just shit tests men are failing to pass, and thus they are men’s fault! Tee hee hee!”
And then she
ran away.
lzozozozozolzo
Do children “crave” leadership, force, dominance, governance, ect?
Do children act out just to get a reaction from their father?
Do people act out and sin against their heavenly father so as to get His attention?
The answer: heck if I know.
I think it has been covered already, its not leadership, its dominace. I get the nuances between Dalrock and Empath’s “disagreement” but I think that what happened is that they got “stuck” on an idea/frame that was put forth (IIRC) by SSM. Sort of like Dalrocks post a few days ago about asking the wrong question, it seems both got sucked into a false frame (very educational though).
Women do not “crave” leadership. They NEED leadership. Just like a hungry person NEEDS food or a man with no water, dying of thirst in the desert NEEDS water. Both of these individuals, against there own good, may not “desire” or want food or water when the really NEED it but that doesnt change the fact that they NEED food and water (and with women, leadership.)
They need leadership to the point where it should be forced on them, not given to them in their terms (subtext is that this is what women want, to be lead where the want to go anyways). What they NEED is leadership but leadership FORCED on them, hence the dominance. Unfortunately, the laws makes this illegal.
What women “Crave” is dominance/power (womans original sin was she was tempted with power). They want to wield power. Women will always be tempted and desire power. Once you understand this, it is a lot less confusing.
On a side note towards SSM. This may be unpleasant.
I just find it some what ironic that you claim to be Christian and use the Bible and agree with the Bible in the area of wifely submission but at the same time, seems to disregard the part where Paul states that he does not allow women to teach men.
I think, as Christians, we will run into problems being “taught” by women. I take her words at face value but with a grain of salt. I use her comments as a way to go inside a woman’s mind but do not view her as a “Christian intellectual equal”. I will learn things from her, but will not be taught by her.
@RedPillPaul – the consequences of giving women a voice in the assembly results in usurping which leads to Jezebel ( literal “without cohabitation”).
Nowhere in the Levitical/ Aaronic priesthood is a woman found, they are not allowed to even speak in the assembly (Paul further confirmed this).
The only time women were seen speaking in OT/NT was when asked/informally and prophetically – that cannot be denied.
The Christian churches have made excuses / ignored most of the 1053 NT commandments and most of these includes the stern commandments of very well defined roles between men/women, husband/wife, and rules for the local assemblies.
Just as the Jews placed oral traditions (Talmud) about the Torah to their own harm- the Christians have placed pagan/feminized/gnostic traditions about the greatly amplified Torah of Yahshua & the apostles to their own harm.
~Shalom
empathologism
I can see you are driving yourself to madness. Do not apply logic to any discussion about the actions or thoughts on women.
No woman should ever under any circumstances ever get leadership. A woman offers submission. Period. Empathologism your question on why women at the church JOJ was running had women behave. My guess they knew their submission would allow them to belong. They didn’t lead them hoes they ran their church and if you bitches want to stay this is how you behave. most women as we see will rebel and those that don’t will stay and belong to an exclusive herd. (women never stop being women even the “good” ones) It starts at the margins. They know things are not right. The America we live in now is nothing like it was even 10 years ago.
As god said her place is to submit I don’t lead shit. I just handle my business. That is why this MGTOW thing is working like nothing else in beating feminism. (Where have all the men gone?)
@mikesinger
Totally agree. It’s the mechanics of the structure (Women are not allowed to speak in public but can speak their concerns/legit complaints to their husbands/fathers so that the man, if he deems the woman’s complaint/concern worthy, brings the case up to the assembly) that keeps the assembly “pure”.
To teach men is to have power. Women will struggle with, crave, tempted with power. That is woman’s original temptation/sin. Man will a struggle with, crave, tempted by women. That was Man’s original temptation/sin (putting woman ahead of himself and God).
Women need to understand (maybe they do but pretend that they don’t) as well as men, that men have a tendency to put woman at the top, hence the pedestal.
women desire male leadership.
In need of leadership, but desiring rebellion.
The fate of the womenz of our once great nation. They don’t crave leadership – they crave the opporunity to end up like this:
Total Bernankification
Sunshine Mary said: Yes. No argument here; a man can only display traditional male qualities if the woman is okay with it because the State has stolen the authority to intervene where it really has no business intervening.
That, exactly, is at the root of my long-held assertion that no matter how much a man might want to exercise headship of his wife and family in accordance with biblical precepts, he will NEVER have it, in practice, for the very reason quoted above (or at least not unconditionally). The very second his wife decides “enough of this, I’m not putting up with this ‘headship’ shit anymore. I don’t give a damn what the Bible says, I’m outta here!” it’s over. Done. Finished. The man is no longer leader/head of anything, not even himself.
His soul may belong to God, but his ass belongs to the State.
At this stage the man has two options: roll over and do what his wife, using the secular state as her weapon, will force him to do at gunpoint, no matter how contrary to scriptural commands (and this is what his churchian “pastor” will almost invariably have him do, a grotesque misreading of Romans 13 as his basis of authority), or do what the Lord commands, knowing that it will result in almost certain martyrdom. I’ve never heard of any man choosing the latter option.
His soul may belong to God, but his ass belongs to the State.
EXACTLY!
So many of the ‘red-pill’ manosphere (especially over at this alphagame thread) savaged me when I brought up that a man is *legally* his wife’s slave…they simply denied it and heaped invective, as if that somehow changes the facts.
The bottom line is – your authority over your wife extends only so far as she is far-sighted enough to submit to the Will of the Highest Court, whose Judgements, while unavoidable and just, do not always extend into this fallen realm. In this life, you wife is free to ignore the Lord and follow another god, known as the state.
The wise course of action for a woman might seem obvious, but that would be so only if you were male. Women tend to be very shortsighted and totally emotionally driven – do you really want to put yourself totally at the mercy of such a creature?
Also (as I was savaged on the same thread) note that the state has made protecting and providing for a family *exponentially* more difficult than it used to be. But somehow, we are supposed to ‘man-up’ and overcome impossible obstacles and make a Godly family work in thus messed up society.
With God all things are possible, but men are not God, and cannot be expected to overcome the obstacles to having a Godly marriage in today’s environment.
greyghost @ empath:
I can see you are driving yourself to madness. Do not apply logic to any discussion about the actions or thoughts on women.
Exactly. I’m glad you refreshed us with that advice. I was just about to post a rhetorical question to all the women out there who might be lurking based on SSM’s explanation of why women “fitness” (i.e., shit) test, but thought better of it. No good could ever come to one’s mental state in trying to decipher the responses in expectation of honest or rational answers.
I crave to be fit and in perfect shape, but I am not, since the short term (over a bit of time) is more than I am clearly willing to pay. I believe our bodies also crave good pure water, yet few drink that.
Having a craving merely means that fillng it has gray value even if filling that craving it is tough.
We stray far from where we will be best fulfilled, male and female. Why is that a big surprise?
Do you really want to argue that most people don’t crave some order and stability? Yet they do not get that in spite of the craving, since other desires pull them to the increasing lawlessness we see today.
@ BradA
“I crave to be fit and in perfect shape, but I am not, since the short term (over a bit of time) is more than I am clearly willing to pay.”
-If you have the guts to say that on a public forum I’m you can get started right away. My Dad used to tell me “anything worth having is worth working for”.Exercise will become a habit. After 6 months you will love with going to the gym (checking out the attractive desperate divorcees in the process) and running a few times a week. What’s even better is finding a sport like surfing, kite boarding, tennis, boxing etc. It turns from “work” to “play”.
Life is always putting up walls around things that are worth having. The longer you wait the higher the wall gets. But once you dig in and get off the ground it becomes easier and easier to climb over; then wall is behind you and your “in”. Just a generalization.
“I believe our bodies also crave good pure water, yet few drink that.”
-I calculated the H2O cost, gas, and time spent on driving to the grocery store lugging up gallon jugs of water each week. I discovered I was paying just a little less vs. having 5 gallon jugs of bottled water delivered to my door. Today I get 30 gallons each month delivered to my front door for the exact same cost. I drink 1/2 – 1 gallon per day. I also use it to cook with and water my plants. The water machine is free.
No I do not want to argue that people don’t crave order and stability. I fail to see where anyone has argued that or anything remotely like that. The discussion is very specific, not lent to things like “we all stray”. That’s true. But do we crave not to stray? No…we crave what is wrong. Paul asked why does he do what he doesn’t want to do. This is him fighting his cravings, which are for wrong things.
Water is a need, absolute. Craving it is a magnitude expression of the need. No more no less . Craving leadership means craving submission. Women twist not only scripture but the concept of Jesus himself to make what THEY CRAVE be what they want, not what they need,
Others clear it up by using need and dominance and correction as the needs, craving leadership that she may be all she can be is folly
Running and tennis keep me fit, I desire to be fit and so far so good at 50. But I do not crave the effort. If I could find someone else to suggest that if they just do X….lead me…..I crave that result to get fit. Then it’s off me.
One more thought. Perhaps the misunderstanding is in viewing my statement that women are thirsting for male leadership as an indictment against men. This isn’t what I had in mind at all. Over the last 40+ years women rebelled against male leadership and took concrete actions to weaken men’s ability to lead them. Even if this weren’t the case, the Bible still repeatedly stresses the obligation to wives to submit to their husbands. Men have also failed in all of this, but it doesn’t change the fact that Christian wives have rebelled en masse against very clear and repeated instructions in the Bible.
After having rejected the leadership of their husbands, large numbers of wives now are surprisingly open about the void they now feel. Even larger numbers are close enough to getting this that if you present it to them carefully they will also recognize it. I offered examples here.
It’s the 20% 25-55 male unemployment rate combined with the now inability of the government to dump all pain on men and poor women. Them whores are now feeling suffering. They is divorced and the kids are gone and the money train has stopped and now they need their husband-slave back. They is ready to be a whore, full whore, $1000 per lay, at 60, they is ready, them whores are.
They is needing the husband/chump. They is ready to whores out at $1000 a lay. Where have all the men gone?
The divorce wave has hit the final stage. Where the husband is gone. The child hostages are gone. The 20 year old boy toy is gone. And the taste of ashes is all that remains.
“It’s the 20% 25-55 male unemployment rate”
I’d rather not say where I think your pulling these statistics out of.
I’ll just leave this right here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/daddyless-daughters-promiscuity-self-mutilation_n_3600946.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl11%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D344651
I’d rather not say where I think your pulling these statistics out of.
The employment ratio released by the federal government?
Employment data: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.pdf
@rollo: I think red-pill is reactionary.
@empathologism: It seems to be that dominance and leaderships are made of the same metal. So I think you can’t believe women want to be dominated without also wanting leadership. I have a feeling that those, along with the other game concepts fit strongly within the desire for security. I would also like to look at that study, if you have a link handly, as I have an inkling that the results may not support what people claim in regards to leadership.
Regarding the fitness testing generating drama and leadership – I think leadership is proven real during times of crisis.
Finally, regarding the leadership/whiteknighting, I would submit you can make a pedestal out of anything. Eternal vigilance.
@donalgraeme: I agree that dominance and leadership are part of the same package. Leadership strikes me as the dispassionate, while Domainance, the passionate.
@LFM: children test boundries to learn society.
I’m uncomfortable equating wives with children, but here it goes anyway.
In my opinion, what women crave is to be loved. That sounds easy enough right. But it isn’t. In my experience in order to feel love from their man he has to be masculine, strong and fit. God (the Father) like. If he is not than his love won’t fulfill her overarching craving for in the flesh love from the Father. I’ve observed and corrected children who were always pushing for some boundary, some limit that will help them to define what is acceptable and reasonable behavior on their part. A place that is secure, a place that they can rest and know that they are accepted. Some children will push and push and push UNTIL they find that boundary, the more insecure the child is the worse this will get. Same goes for adults.
Frame = security = love.
I wouldn’t say that women ‘crave’ leadership from men. With fallen natures(just like men), women are susceptible to the same trappings of power though their methods and goals may vary. A good indication of how they value the leadership of men may be seen in the way they interact with men with whom they have no stake in the game. In other words, it shouldn’t be assumed they crave male leadership but rather it will be reflected in their relationships. Sooner or later, they WILL show their true colors, as we all do.
The official unemployment rate is less than 10%. Where did you get 20% from?
Greyghost
“It is just a bunch of men that don’t feel the sense in knocking themselves out.”
Excellent observation, never thought about it in those terms.
I think your the first to reflect that men not trying IS the actual marriage strike, the common notion that successful men are refraining from marrying is the prevailing misconception.
The 30% of young men earning under 15k are the actual strikers, there would be very few successful men earning over 70k that are refraining from marriage.
I should have made that connection earlier considering my 27 year old friend just left everything and is now a beach bum surfing off the coasts of Bali (having a great time as well).
“The craving is for something even more fundamental, masculinity itself. Leadership, Dominance, Correction, Structure… all of those are fruits of a Masculine Frame. that is what women want, what women crave. Masculinity.”
We cannot kindle when we will
The fire which in the heart resides;
The spirit bloweth and is still,
In mystery our soul abides.
But tasks in hours of insight will’d
Can be through hours of gloom fulfill’d.
With aching hands and bleeding feet
We dig and heap, lay stone on stone;
We bear the burden and the heat
Of the long day, and wish ’twere done.
Not till the hours of light return,
All we have built do we discern.
Then, when the clouds are off the soul,
When thou dost bask in Nature’s eye,
Ask, how she view’d thy self-control,
Thy struggling, task’d morality–
Nature, whose free, light, cheerful air,
Oft made thee, in thy gloom, despair.
And she, whose censure thou dost dread,
Whose eye thou wast afraid to seek,
See, on her face a glow is spread,
A strong emotion on her cheek!
“Ah, child!” she cries, “that strife divine,
Whence was it, for it is not mine?
“There is no effort on my brow–
I do not strive, I do not weep;
I rush with the swift spheres and glow
In joy, and when I will, I sleep.
Yet that severe, that earnest air,
I saw, I felt it once–but where?
“I knew not yet the gauge of time,
Nor wore the manacles of space;
I felt it in some other clime,
I saw it in some other place.
‘Twas when the heavenly house I trod,
And lay upon the breast of God.”
Morality, Matthew Arnold
The official unemployment rate is less than 10%. Where did you get 20% from?
(Total civilian males with jobs between 25 and 55 years old)
DIVIDED BY
(Total civilian non-institutional male population between 25 and 55 years old)
Women desire power. They were tempted with power. “You will be like God, knowing good and evil”.
Masculinity is a source/form of power so i subtly disagree with Desiderius. She was tempted with power like “God”. Man happens to be the next most powerful thing here on earth. In between man and God would probably be the angels, and women sure seem to love to be lead by these evil spirits.
Women crave, desire, want power.
@lozozozozozozoz on July 16, 2013 at 6:46 pm:
You have just PERFECTLY summarized what I’ve been trying to say all along. THANK YOU!
As you note, bringing up these FACTS anywhere will generally make you the target or brainstem-driven invective, but that does NOT change the fact that these facts are the reality here in the temporal world.
Once again: God owns your soul, but, like it or not, the State owns your ass (and assets, including your family)! I wish the reality were otherwise, but it’s not.
Michael said:
The official unemployment rate is less than 10%. Where did you get 20% from?
He got it from that seldom-visited realm called reality.
Government statistics, especially those concerning unemployment, are largely politically-driven, fictitious bullshit. whatever did what any sensible person does with these statistical figures issued by the world’s most skilled liars: he doubled them. That gives us something approaching the real figures, although in this case even doubling them might be understating the reality of the situation.
Johnycomelately
What gave it away to me was the conversation was not getting anywhere and the fact it is still women not marrying, not men of means walking away from marriageable young women. They do walk away from 30 plus year olds. (I would walk away also, those women are for sex and sex only especially now days)
It was the grass eater, peter pan types. And the guys that just have no drive to do anything. Then the full on MGTOW fellas combined with the PUA. The blue pill working men that have survived feminism and are still trying to play the husband and father role of the good civilized man are so unappealing to women that they just pass on them. When they do get married they divorce the guy making MGTOW types and broken men no one wants. Then they start with the where have all of the men gone? stuff. Women are still in the drivers seat but have run the bus into a ditch and have had all of the men that can get it out for them arrested or charged with contempt of court for being too poor to keep up with the court orders. They are currently trying to root out the only demographic of the American population willing to serve in the combat arms of our military. (white heterosexual men which is fine with me) The men with a little sack to them see women as not a good bet and MGTOW other men don’t even try, and the PUA give them false hope and take their sexual value and fertile years to ensure they are well used when they are done with them. (I have said in the past all men of the MRM have a role to play) My one thing to add is a male birth control pill to finish this off and up the female suicide rate. Along with closing off marriage to the government option for the little dearies. The old spinsters (childless) will be the demographic with the most education and money and will be the tax base. (can’t wait to see that sometime next year)
“The old spinsters (childless) will be the demographic with the most education and money and will be the tax base. (can’t wait to see that sometime next year)”
When this comes to fruition we outta have a party. I’ll buy the first round…….
On her behavioral Bell Curve just a little nudge away from those cravings lies her rape fantasy.
Remember fellas, it’s her fantasy and in it she’s totally in control.
To use a little of the lingo in that Bible which Sunshine Mary recommends, the female wants to “kick against the goad.”
Remember folks, before The Fall the female had a man for whom she was the perfect complement and vice versa. Then she fell in with The Snake and after listening to her, shit-tested her man with the Forbidden Fruit.
At best, the Men Are People Too movement is on the threshold of Phase II. Men’s complaints – when a rare man musters up the gumption to speak up for himself and for other men – are still mostly ignored or waved away (dismissed). Realistically, I’ll say the MAPT movement is hardly in Phase I. It’s not getting much positive attention, rather it’s getting the sort of attention the usually quiet, bright but bored boy gets when he makes a rare noise in class. Nothing changes really, except maybe he’s moved further toward the back of the room where’s he’s even easier to ignore.
How successfully has The Establishment ignored the MAPT movement? Some of the lovely and talented Dr. Helen Smith’s examples of how men are treated as the disposable sex are more up-to-date but Dr. Warren Farrell was talking about these things 20 years ago in his book The Myth of Male Power and even before that in Why Men Are the Way They Are. There’s also Jack Kammer’s classic If Men Have All the Power, Why Do Women Make All the Rules? But just look around you. Are Establishment Media outlets falling all over themselves to find out What Do Men Want in the way they responded to feminist whining in the 1960s and ’70s? (That was a trick question. The answer of course is “no”.)
You’ll know a real breakthrough has happened when a media outlet with widespread influence amongst the elites (example, the PBS News Hour) pairs Dr. Helen with a friendly, sympathetic interviewer, say Dr. Warren Farrell perhaps, to discuss her book with her on-air. And more books on the topic are discussed in the NYROB and climb the NYT best-seller list. And works of fiction taking up the theme become best-sellers, hit movies, Oscar winners, and are talked about because of that theme rather than their car crashes, explosions, or the hotness of the female co-star.
Another example: the counterpart of 1975’s The Stepford Wives (the cheap knockoff flick, not the Ira Levin book) is 1987’s RoboCop. You remember, one is a flick about a female turned into a robot show she could better fulfill the female role of mother & housewife, the other is about a man turned into a robot so he could better fulfill the male role of protector. But the Verhoeven picture show never generated the social angst about how men are taken for granted, pressed into a dehumanizing, socially-constructed role blah blah blah that Stepford did and the blah blah blah is still mentioned in Women’s Studies classes, textbooks, and feminist monographs almost a half-century later. There’s even been a remake of it. In contrast, RoboCop is discussed in none of those places and there’s no honest university-level Men’s Studies program anywhere to discuss the implications of RoboCop and how it illustrates the disposability and oppression of men. Think about it.
P.S. When a feminist claims “feminism is only about equality” ask her when she protested the lack of a Men’s Studies department at her alma mater. Good luck getting even as much sense as a dial tone out of her weak female mind in response.
Those relatively few young “successful men earning over 70k” who do not refrain from marriage also serve the Men Are People Too movement. By marrying, they sweep a big percentage of the potential female-ist leadership out of the feminist Gender War battlespace. What’s more, a significant number of the females they marry are converted into mama-bear warriors against Feminism and all her works.
Given Greyghosts excellent observation concerning who the actual strikers are, it behooves any manosphere heavy weight to do a comparative analysis on this subject.
It would be interesting to note the change of percentage of ‘slackers’ on a generational US census level, inflation adjusted of course. That’s where the strike data would be most evident.
Anyone with relevant links would be most appreciated.
I would suggest adopting a frame of simply delivering a perspective or a point-of-view. This movement cannot be ignored. Smart feminists will recognize this….they will recognize that this push back is part of the natural evolution to this biological discussion. Smart feminists will recognize that the current situation is not sustainable….eventually there will not be enough provider men to supply the system with enough resources to continue. Women are enjoying the double standard….all the rights and privileges….none of the duties and responsibilities. Unsustainable This movement cannot be killed….cannot be denied….but they will try to delay. Women are irrational and illogical (generally speaking). Logic…reason…facts. The words will not be heard….they CANNOT be heard by the irrational…but that is not the point.. Reality cannot be denied forever.
Did anyone catch Rush Limbaugh today talking about Whitney Tilson and the college hook-up culture that his daughter is no doubt taking part in? I guess Whitney is angry (and confused).
http://katenews2day.com/2013/07/17/hedge-fund-dad-brave-dating-advice-whitney-tilson-of-kase-capital-told-daughters-to-kick-bite-punch-any-guy-who-would-dare-ask-them-to-get-down-on-their-knees/comment-page-1/#comment-11190
http://www.businessinsider.com/tilson-response-to-nyt-campus-sex-article-2013-7
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/woman-claims-sex-with-cat-687453
Saucer of milk, table for two, Meow!
Michael says:
July 17, 2013 at 2:29 am
Spoken like an idiot. We all know of the people who have given up looking for work and are not counted in that stat.
I thought Michael’s question was sarcastic. If it was serious, it casts a pale over all his posts.
I thought it was sarcasm also
‘women crave male leadership’
Being a leader is more than having power, it is also having duties and responsibilities. Feminists talk about the evil patriarchy…how men ‘owned’ their wives and children, but they leave out that the women ‘owned’ their husbands as well. They owned the surplus of their husbands labor. The husbands received sexual access, but were obligated to provision and support the wife for her entire life, as well as the children. This was a duty. Men assumed a leadership role because they HAD to assume it to fulfill their duties.
To hell with what women crave or don’t crave. I crave equal ownership of my own children, and if the state would deny me that, then I demand to be released from financial responsibility. If she has full ownership, then she must assume full leadership. FULL leadership, with all the duties, responsibilities, and consequences that it entails.
This will never willingly happen. Society has never expressed empathy or even sympathy for men. Men just need to ‘man up’…complete BS. Women are nuts and no longer know WTF they want.
‘Male leadership’. I want real, LEGAL leadership, not just words or behaviors.
Today at 3 PM Eastern Time on National Public Radio (NPR)
A call in Radio Show about Families, Fatherhood, and Children.
What is the most important thing the listeners need to know?
May or may not be OT, but…
http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/17/the-debasing-of-marriage/
Evidence of the red pill leaking into the mainstream? You decide.
From the redstate article:
So, dear readers, if you wonder how we find ourselves in a situation where opposing something that was a felony a decade ago now makes you a bigot and you are no longer sure whether than nice man across the street is a dog lover or thinks your Lab would make a wonderful bride
Dude just will NOT stop throwing his damn Frisbee into my yard
@Texas Engineer
Gob-smacked!
If ever there were reason to oppose females becoming Vicars that is it. The short fat unshaggable ‘Vicar of Dibley’ allowing and attempting to turn the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony into a Stage Show and the House of God into a Disco where she gets to attempt to upstage the Bride and Groom with her embarrassing gyrations – what’s not to like? What was all that stuff about ‘not lightly or selfishly but reverently and soberly’ which they must have just recited. Let’s hope the surely inevitable Divorce proceedings are as much fun. 🙂
I am obviously just a killjoy and party-pooper not abreast of the spirit of the times.
Why is Tracy wearing a white dress? She should have chosen a more vibrant colour for her special, disco day!
@ TE – life is a spectacle now. We have to show our peers how “special” we are.
Shallowness is normal, living for depth is psychotic.
Tracey is a virgin and all virgin’s wear white to symbolise their purity just like the virgin Mary – I thought every one knew that. By the way ‘You may kiss the bride’ is not in the prescribed wedding service but seems to be a Hollywood import – I am surprised that was all they were encouraged to do.
Anyway, I thought all Lower-Class English weddings end with a fight – but perhaps that come later?
… and talking of weddings , my friends Niece (the anchor girl) is tomorrow marrying in a Castle followed by a reception in a field (sort of Camelot meets Woodstock) – so as we are in the middle of our first heatwave in seven years I suppose it will be safe for the female invitees to wear their high heels. I do not have an invitation and neither does God.
“http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/17/the-debasing-of-marriage/
Evidence of the red pill leaking into the mainstream? You decide.”
Yes. It takes a broad view and doesn’t just blame “the liberals” or “the gay agenda.” Of course it is weak sauce compared to articles in the red pill manosphere but, baby steps.
The traditional color for a bride was blue, which symbolizes faithfulness. That’s why you’ll more often see the Blessed Virgin Mary in blue than white in the classic depictions. And why the old rhyme instructs the bride to wear “something blue” not white. Then along came Queen Victoria who wore white at her wedding and excused it with some poppycock told to the yellow press about white symbolizing purity. (Gold symbolizes purity.) Females everywhere in the English-speaking lands began to copy. I realize few people know where white at weddings came from. (Diamond engagement and wedding rings are likewise a recent innovation.)
These days, a bride draped in white should bring to ones mind Martin Luther’s remark about a dung heap covered over with snow. She is very unlikely to be a virgin and may well have once procured an abortion at some point in her past. Yet she’ll cling to the idea that she’s gotta wear white On Her Special Day.
Her groom will wear black – a color which symbolizes… well, I’ll just point out that most people today associate black with funerals. Think about it.
I do not have an invitation [to the wedding] and neither does God.
Priceless, Opus. God doesn’t appear to get invited to very many weddings at all nowadays, even –heck, especially– the ones that take place inside of churches.
Micha Elyi said:
These days, a bride draped in white should bring to ones mind Martin Luther’s remark about a dung heap covered over with snow.
Thus making white the most appropriate color imaginable for the typical western wedding today. After all, as you pointed out, the idea that any given bride today is a chaste virgin, is pure, or will remain faithful is the ultimate SNOW job.
Her groom will wear black – a color which symbolizes… well, I’ll just point out that most people today associate black with funerals.
Black too is an appropriate color for exactly the reason you imply. Perhaps an orange jumpsuit, complete with wrist and ankle shackles, would be even more appropriate. Black bow tie optional.
Her name is Tracy and his is Gary and it may not be obvious to those on the other side of the pond, but that tells me everything I need to know about this newly married couple. What is truly appalling is that a (wo)Man of the Cloth is engaging in this and without even a hint of embarrassment.
Now if it had been Tarquin and Chloe, or Jeremy and Emily, I think I can safely say we would not have been treated to the Flash Mob, but surely something from Lohengrin (though it always sounds awful on the organ but fabulous in its original orchestral colours).
Black too is an appropriate color for exactly the reason you imply. Perhaps an orange jumpsuit, complete with wrist and ankle shackles, would be even more appropriate. Black bow tie optional.
Thus making white the most appropriate color imaginable for the typical western wedding today. After all, as you pointed out, the idea that any given bride today is a chaste virgin, is pure, or will remain faithful is the ultimate SNOW job.
Black too is an appropriate color for exactly the reason you imply. Perhaps an orange jumpsuit, complete with wrist and ankle shackles, would be even more appropriate. Black bow tie optional.
Freeriker, if I might say, your comments are genuinely awesome.
I think many of the men who deny the absolute legal power of women are simply in denial, as they have now invested their lives and fortunes 100% into this one endeavor, and like the ostrich putting its’ head in the sand instead of acknowledging incoming threats. To acknowledge that they live under the sword of Damocles is simply too much, so they have to snarl and rage against those who do point the truth out.
The average man will not find any help either in modern bernankified women, or in modern slave-men who delusionally think they are the masters.
Its great seeing Empath point out women don’t crave leadership
Empath is correct women don’t need leadership
This is another mistake the manosphere makes about women
Women crave correction & being held responsible for their own actions
Women like SunshineMary use leadership so hey don’t have to be held responsible to their own shit tests & bitchiness
No amount of leadership or being submissive fixes shit tests or emotional outbursts
Those are the responsibilty of the woman, she has to learn to correct herself & learn to control her shit tests & batshit crazy
Women like SunshineMary don’t want women to be held responsible for their shit tests, their bitchiness or emotionally corrected
Women really really don’t like being held responsible for their own emotions, or their lack of maturity
A relationship.for women is all about throwing all the responsibility in a relationship to the man
Leadership my ass, screw leading women, call women out on their shit & hold them responsible for their emotional bullshit
Dominate women & bend them to your will, never give a crap about your wife, & she’ll follow, that’s how you have a relationship.with a reformed slut
The belief that women crave godly leadership is severe self-delusion on the part of men.
Where does it come from? Some sort of ego boost when their woman obeys them.
Is it “I am better than all those weak men out there”?
If women rebelled against God for power in Eden (and what more godly leadership could Eve have had than God and an uncorrupted Adam?), how can mere men believe in their “godly leadership.
It is not borne out by the scriptures or experience.
I have had doubts about the Greek letter ranking when it first came up, but I am convinced now that it is fundamentally flawed because woman is not the measure of man. A man is not more of a man because lots of women tingle for him, nor is he less of a man if many women do not tingle for him. The old words, womanizer, cad etc. are familiar and clearer and get to the point.
Churches and fathers need to re-institute manhood initiation markers for men for woman is not the measure of man.
I was reading SSM’s blog.
Now here’s a woman who followed her tingles to marriage, and kept married despite unfaithfulness from her husband.
Mainly men comment on her blog, taking instruction from her – men who in real life wouldn’t have had a chance with her in her prime, men whom she would have frivorced because they aren’t “alpha” enough to make her tingle.
The irony (is that the right word?) is rich.
Lord help us, man, there needs to be some manliness instilled in men.
Action is the cure to whining.
The Christians – no godly women? Migrate, be celibate, or (God forbid – forsake God for sex)
The non-Christians – visit prostitutes (they’re cheaper and have the same traffic as the chicks you’re trying to ‘game’.
Speaking of action,
Joseph of Jackson interests me but his schtick can only work with:
1) small churches – thus he will be able to coopt the church to his way of thought.
Bigger churches have strong churchian alphas whom he will not be able to depose by stealth or force of argument. They will simply kick him out.
2) And only as long as he or one of his followers resists temptation to become a churchian alpha.
This is the temptation of success – which is more likely than number 1.
As they grow in power, and they get more female attention, then they might believe they can provide ‘Manly Alpha Leadership that Women Crave’.
SSM has confused her desire for leadership from her man with a general female desire for leadership from dominant men. But the divorce rate is too high to accommodate that view.
As Genesis tells us women desire power, the power to do things without effort, like God. Failing that, there is always a man about.
Her feralness was nipped in the bud early, but that was a more restrictive time. If she was a 20 year old now, she probably wouldn’t have ‘settled’ but would go far and wide in the search of ever-increasing tingles.
If women rebelled against God for power in Eden (and what more godly leadership could Eve have had than God and an uncorrupted Adam?), how can mere men believe in their “godly leadership.
It is not borne out by the scriptures or experience.
Marlon
You have said it there. I could never understand this male competition with hypergamy and leadership. It was always about man pleasing God and a woman submitting to enjoy a man of God. Nothing more and somehow we all got into this what women want shit. Give them everything in the world and look what is done. Man has even given women the church. Submit to the leadership you crave bitch and suck that dick until he say he’s hungry, and get into that kitchen and make it happen. Make sure he never forgets how happy you are to be in submission to him. Have faith bitch when the time comes he will proudly drown on the “Titanic” for your wicked ass and god will relieve you of your hysteria and give you inner peace. Just make sure the pussy’s good and often.
thanks Marlon good set of eye’s you have there.
Dear Marlon,
FINALLY!
Marlon writes, “The belief that women crave godly leadership is severe self-delusion on the part of men.”
Yes, all one need do is look at Cosmo to see what women truly crave. There is no mention of Jesus, nor Moses, nor Homer–it kindof looks like the comment section of Dalrock’s blog lzozozozozozolzo. (Except for Marlon and a few others.) 🙂
And all anyone need to is look at the “conservative” Weekly Standard and Dr. Helen’s MEN ON STRIKE, whcih make NO MENTION of JEsus, nor Moses, nor HOmer, nor SOCRATES nor any of the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN who define FAITH AND FAMILY.
When women write for the weekly standard, all of a suddent sectriev tapersz of buttehxt iwthout da griths cocnthent who lie about tehir height and succtteeh are heralded as six-foot-tall buttehxtual heroesz, while the MArines giving thier lives are ignored. For women are blind to true honor and intgerity, as they navigate not by light and truth, but by butt and gina tingzlzlzozozlzo. Which brings us back to Cosmo–the bestselling magazine on college campuses. The latest issue has an article promoting buttehxtz and talkng about the proper anal lubesz. So it is that women define “Alpha LEadership” not as the US MArine giving his life and jumping on a grenade to save his fellow men, but as the man who shows up with the proper butt lube to sodomize her “like an alha man.”
This is simply unprecedented. Never before, in the history of civilization, were women supposed to give der buttz and ginasz due to thier butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlzoozzo, as the Ancients recognized that Eve would follow her butt and gianat tinagaalozozlzoz on towards the losta-cockas serpent carosuel every time, as Eve saw the Serpent–not God–as providing leadership. Women crave the Serpentine Cockas, and so, in order to create civilization, Women were only allowed to participate if they subjugated their baser cravingz to God, Law, Moses, and Jesus.
And thus you see why so many churchians teahc that JEsus came to abolish the LAw of Moses, as they so crave and love their bttehtxingz .zlzlzlzozozo over God, Law, Moses, and Jesus.
The funny thing
about PUAs and Gamers
is that they also navigate
by butt tingzlzlzoo and gina tingzlzlzoz
and call this MANHOOD.
The funny thing about churchians
who PREACH GAME and GAMING
is that they are slaves to
butt and gina tinzgzlzzlzozoozloz
As they live their life trying
to please da butt and gina tingzlzlzozoz
That is why the churchian had to deocnstruct
JEsus and teach that Moses came to
Abolish the law.
As the chuchians replaced
Jesus and Moses and Homer
with the Butt and Gina Tingzzllzlzool goddess
Whence the churchian gamers ascended
to the mountaintop
and proclaimed
“ALL HAIL DA MIGHTY BUTT AND GINA TINGELLZOZOZU!”
IN DA BEGINNING DER WAS BUTT AND GINA TINGLLOLZOZOZ
And the churchian was pleased (in der bunghzozlzzlio felt gooood)
And so dey proclaimed dat henceforth
Men would SERVE the BUTT and GINA TINGALAOZOE of women
via GAme and so the Churchian taught GAME
and told his PUA readers,
“THOU SHALT HONOR AND SERVE WOMENZ BUTT AND GINA TINGLESZ,”
and “BUTT AND GINA TINGELZZLLZ are a JEALOUS GOD,”
“and thou shalt have NO OTHER GOD BEFORE
the woman’s butt and gina tingelzlzo”
While meanwhile da GBFM was persecuted for wishing
to serve God and Moses and Chirst and Homer
over womenz butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlzlzlzozlzozzzloz
@Marlon
Yes, SSM is a product of her hypergamy, she dumped plenty of good men, to find her dark triad alpha husband …
Oh yea, she also says dont judge women for their hypergamy repeatedly on her blog .. no surprise … lmao
Oh btw, if you want a good laugh, in her latest post “Service with a smile”.she compares herself to obese fat chicks, as she runs smack into the wall …
When are women going to learn comparing yourself to obese fat cows, doesnt make you any less uglier … lol
@Geryghost
“woman submitting to enjoy a man of God”
Mike Singer & Hannah over at my blog, brilliantly pointed out women giving birth is an act of spirituality
In otherwords if women dont give birth, they cant find god … its a fascinating concept the act of childbirth, is a spiritual way of getting closer to god for women
Anyway .. that’s precisely what marriage is about, marriage is an opportunity for women to enjoy a man of god, as women are made incomplete
Women came from the rib of adam, this is WHY women dont have morals or ethics or empathy
This is WHY its so important for women to be feminine, as being feminine teaches women morals & ethics they dont have
A woman only understands morality & ethics through her biology, ie being feminine, or her maternity
This is WHY its so important for women to give birth, it teaches them morality & ethics through caring for a child
IF women dont have birthing experience or the joy of serving a man of god, they have NO sense of morals, ethics, or any sense of justice, or codes of conduct
If a woman doesnt have any of the above, they become feral, primitive & cut off from god & have no sense of morals or morality … this basically explains why women are so screwed up today
Also women have NO concept of leadership
Leadership for a woman is always translated as beta shaming, is he being alpha enough, or gina tingles …
This is why these idiot christians are always talking about servant-leadership, its a blatant form of beta shaming …
How the hell can you be a servant & a leader at the same time, theyre exact opposites
Bat shit crazy christian morons …
Lead & dominate your wife, bend her to your will & stop giving a crap about her, THATS how you lead
Real leadership is doing whatever it takes, kicking ass & dominating & conquering everything in sight
Hail to the freaking king baby … honour & worship your husband … yes thats right worship your husband …
Good luck finding god, if you dont worship your husband …. Wife > Husband > God in that order
I’ve got cardboard cutouts & hand puppets, if you so called ladies still dont get it … lol
Marlon says on 7/20/13 @ 12:18PM:
If women rebelled against God for power in Eden (and what more godly leadership could Eve have had than God and an uncorrupted Adam?), how can mere men believe in their “godly leadership.
It is not borne out by the scriptures or experience.
This. Exactly.
As if to further strengthen this point, and to repeat a point I made earlier, woman has THE STATE on her side, which means that here in the temporal world, she holds ALL the power over man. ALL of it. Period. We can hammer home the point all day and all night long that “God will judge her in the end” and that’s certainly true. But woman, even she who calls herself “Christian/God-fearing” doesn’t think care about this because she doesn’t think long-term, big-picture (refer back to Eve for the original lesson in this. Nothing has changed in 6,000-10,000 years). She’s focused on the here, the now, on this Earth, on ‘gina tingles, or whatever she wants now. No amount of “male headship” is going to change that, especially in what passes for civilization today. In fact, as I implied in my previous point, “male headship” has effectively been outlawed by the temporal regime (a.k.a “The State”), a point that churchians have de facto acknowledged in their feminist pedestalization of St. Vagina, but are too cowardly and servile (to The State) to ever admit.
Churches and fathers need to re-institute manhood initiation markers for men for woman is not the measure of man.
That’ll NEVER happen within any of today’s churchian franchises. What Joseph of Jackson did in his letter to SSM is something similar to this suggestion, but it only worked for reasons you later state that it did: it happened outside of a large, incorporated churchian mega-conglomerate.
Marlon said at 7/20/13 @ 1:03PM
SSM has confused her desire for leadership from her man with a general female desire for leadership from dominant men. But the divorce rate is too high to accommodate that view.
While I don’t personally get the sense that this is true of SSM herself, it certainly does seem to be true among women in general in that they are looking for “dominant men” not so much to “lead them” as to carry their burdens for them. It’s when men finally come to the realization that they’re not husbands leading wives, but “babysitters of little girls in adult bodies” that they call a halt to the whole thing, putting their wives in the position of having to start taking some responsibility and accepting some accountability for themselves. That’s when wives get panicky and angry and decide to pick up the phone, call the divorce lawyer, and get the State to white knight for them.
Lead & dominate your wife, bend her to your will & stop giving a crap about her, THATS how you lead
Real leadership is doing whatever it takes, kicking ass & dominating & conquering everything in sight
Hail to the freaking king baby … honour & worship your husband … yes thats right worship your husband …
Just as a practical exercise, trying doing that in “the real world” and see for how long you can stay out of jail.
@feeriker – much to my surprise. Women actually enjoy be dominated / disciplined. Theodore Dalrymple wrote a very interesting book based on real world experience titled Life at the Bottom.
What I make of servant leadership is this as depicted in the OT/NT is this:
– here are the rules. Obey the rules and all is well. Disobey the rules / get out of line and expect “discipline” or better put a “spanking”
Spanking works really well with women and was/is acceptable for centuries in society if a wife “got mouthy” or out of line. Much to my surprise, it also makes for great make up sex.
Btw, watch the early b/w of “I Love Lucy” and lo and behold every single show intro shows Ricky putting her over his knee and spanking her till she cry’s.
In retrospect, I think the I Love Lucy was a great depiction of common M/F traits and marriage interaction.
Rmax, I went on your blog (not the first time by the way), and read the discussion you and Michael had on 1 Timothy 2:15 – great stuff! Really solid.
I had noticed in the past how having children had a “feminising” effect on some aggressive women, and thought of that verse but all of the other connections weren’t there until Michael laid them out.
Michael, “Women actually enjoy be dominated / disciplined”…by a male she perceives as dominant. Nearly any display of dominance by a she-qualified male will get her tingling.
Michael, I have no problem getting water from the local “windmill” dispenser every so often. We have a dozen or so bottles when all are full. I still don’t like drinking it, though I should. It is in a dispenser and ready whenever.
Exercise and eating right is a work in progress. Not enough work and progress though. Purely my own fault, but I still crave being fit at some level. I just don’t follow through. That was my point in the post. We don’t always do what we crave.
@Marlon
Yea its a fascinating concept, I’ll be covering how childbirth makes women more feminine & how giving birth to a child teaches women how be moral & ethical
Women who don’t give birth won’t be able to find god or any real sense of morals, as morals & ethics arent hardwired into women
Women are literally feral & primitive if they don’t give birth to children or strong men to dominate them
Women only worship authority, they have no ability to tell if something is moral or immoral
Which is why they need strong men as a moral compass & domination
Women have no moral compass, or a real sense of right
My wife never had any children, (not for lack of trying of course) but she knows God. No carrousel for her either. Your thesis is a bit flawed.
In a nutshell:
Women who don’t give birth won’t be able to find God or any real sense of morals, as morals & ethics aren’t hardwired into women
Women are literally feral & primitive if they don’t give birth to children or strong men to dominate them
Women only worship authority, they have no ability to tell if something is moral or immoral
Which is why they need strong men as a moral compass & domination
Women have no moral compass, or a real sense of right
And there you have it.
Also.
@Casey
@ TFY
@Opus
If I couldn’t have the kitten, I don’t want the cougar.
Best manosphere quote of all time.