Likely the fastest growing Game site in the Manosphere, Just Four Guys has a new post up reworking the never married data I shared here. I haven’t gone through the numbers close enough to vouch for them, but I think you will find their analysis interesting. Check out Marriage Rates Plummet–Projection of Never-Married Rates to 2017.
To celebrate their offering of charty goodness, I thought I’d pull out some additional graphics which didn’t make the cut for this post on earnings. I’m not sure exactly what to make of them except that inflation seems to overshadow any real trends, but you have to admit they look pretty cool.
Even better than leftover animated charts, grerp is back with new posts. Check out Opting in, opting out as well as her other new posts.
In case you missed it, Vox Day had an excellent post the other day on the importance of nexting women who don’t demonstrate attraction:
Conclusion: as soon as you even suspect that a woman may have disqualified you, NEXT her and move on to the next one. When in doubt, NEXT. If you’re not sure, NEXT. If it’s a little confusing, NEXT. If she’s sending mixed signals, NEXT. If you are getting anything but genuine enthusiasm to see you, unnecessary touching, and enthusiastic physical contact, NEXT. Do not hesitate, ever. No more than two dates should ever be necessary to make this determination from the male perspective.
When I originally asked my wife out, she gave me some lame excuse about having to pick a friend up at the airport. I don’t really recall the exchange but I took it as a lame excuse and started to next her. She insisted that it wasn’t a lame excuse, and at her encouragement I proposed we go out another day and she accepted. This was roughly 20 years ago, and she still goes into a passionate explanation that she really wasn’t blowing me off if I tease her about it even a little.
@Dalrock
Thanks for the shout out and the good work that served as the basis for my article.
Feel free to read through what I did and give your thoughts. The projections are based on continuing current trends in two scenarios and keeping a flat marriage rate in another. I suppose for a 4th scenario and greater completeness I could have reversed the current trend to have marriage rates go back up but didn’t get around to that.
It will certainly be interesting to see what happens when the 2013 and later data comes out to see if the trends continue, stop or reverse.
The main thing guys need to learn about getting turned down is that, if she really does have a good excuse (if she really did have to take her mom to the hospital), she’ll make sure she gets another chance to say yes. A girl who’s interested in you isn’t going to let you get away after you approach her just because the first try didn’t work out for some reason. They’re actually really inventive at finding ways to put themselves in your path when they want to.
Looks like women have had a really good decade, is this data adjusted for inflation.
The male data seems fairly obvious. You make more money you are more likely to be married. The female data seems to suggest that higher earning women are closing the marriage gap while low earning women are blowing it open. Which of course squares with Charles Murray’s data.
Pingback: Dalrock & Vox Day on Moving on Faster — Explain Next with Data and Direct Words | Livefearless
Been there, wrote that,..
http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/19/next/
Pingback: NEXT & Nexting Illustrated by Radio Personality at the Top Los Angeles station Dalrock & Vox Day | Livefearless
A full-time on-air personality at the top radio station in Los Angeles just happened to channel the long tail of this insightful post. @Dalrock and Timing Rob Archer Warns: You must NEXT now!
One of the interesting parts of that graph (the woman one) is the fact that the the number of unmarried white women WITHOUT earnings went up to almost 20%. Child support gals?
LiveFearless says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:23 pm
is spam, please delete. Page points to e-junkie—co—. The “text” is just an image.
“They’re actually really inventive at finding ways to put themselves in your path when they want to.”
Their instincts tell them that the way to show value (their likelihood to remain faithful) to a man to whom they’re highly attracted is to make a “hard to get” move right away (Roissy’s ASD – anti-slut defense). It’s also a test of the man’s social savvy (ability to read signals).
I missed several years of my prime misreading that move.
If you’re in a position of getting young men up to speed, this is a good place to start.
For those young men: next her, but stay in reasonable proximity yourself.
Pingback: What a man should do if submission isn’t the women’s mission for the mans mission? | House-Wife Sexuality
One commenter on a previous post stated that in Canada, a cohabiting couple is treated as married after a certain period of time.
If the popularity of marriage continues to decline, I expect this rule will be enacted in most of the English-speaking world. The pretext will be to make “deadbeat dads” face up to their responsibilities; the real motivation, of course, will be to maintain the cash and prizes that are given to a wife when she decides it’s time to get back on the Carousel.
This will be the Misandry Bubble at its maximum size; shortly afterwards, the bubble will burst, because women will discover that they have begun to take a share of the pain. The threshold of “commitment” will have been lowered, but fewer women will be able to find a man willing to “commit”.
“as soon as you even suspect that a woman may have disqualified you, NEXT her and move on to the next one. When in doubt, NEXT. If you’re not sure, NEXT. If it’s a little confusing, NEXT. If she’s sending mixed signals, NEXT.”
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Walk away. Don’t spend hours learning to “neg” or “peacock” or any other bilge, just leave her in your dust and find someone worthwhile.
I don’t think (as Christians) we should be celebrating the fact that marriage rates are dropping. We should (instead) be having “the public” seriously looking at why men are “opting out” and perhaps CHANGE THINGS (in society) to make marriage more attractive so they would be willing to “opt back in.”
Tucker Carlson is a fool. If he has any daughters who want to get married (and they can’t find anyone) he may be changing his “…so what…” tune with regards to Dr Helen’s book. I have a daughter. Yes, I am most certainly going to want her married because (in my retirement) I want to be surrounded by grandchildren that I will be spoiling rotten. (I’m selfish, but that is what grand parents do.) But at the same time, I want to make sure that we have a society that encourages young men to want to marry my daughter and spend their whole life with her. Less and less, this is the world in which we live.
@innocent
I agree that society needs to make marriage more attractive.
Women are more herd “animals” than men are and so a lot of women who want relationships have postponed it because their herd masters (namely, the alpha mares like Hillary Clinton) tell them to put career and fun over relationships, marriage and children. Even though many of the educated women want to have relationships, they value being part of the herd more and forego relns to focus on career.
So, a big part of changing society is to tap into women’s frustrations that they’re being told to focus on something they don’t want that much at the expense of something they do want. Basically show them that their alpha mare herd masters aren’t looking out for their best interests and cause a revolt and replace the feminist and raunch queen alpha mares with more feminine alpha mares.
How you change the apex alpha males that have the most impact on society is a more difficult issue.
We should be celebrating that the rate of non-biblical marriages is dropping. And, if that means that the overall marriage rate is dropping, we should celebrate that too.
The Bible gives more warnings about marriage than alcohol (OK, I’m not 100% sure it’s more, but it’s a lot). The lesson taught is that it is better not to marry than to make a bad marriage.
The apostle Paul literally states that it is better not to marry; that marriage is a fallback position for those that can’t control their passions.
The Bible’s instructions on marriage are extensive. There is a specific form that a Christian marriage is supposed to take.
And, modern Christianity ignores it all–the warnings, the better not to marry, the prescribed form–all of it. They have substituted a secular form–a worldly form–of marriage. If that’s all that’s available to Christian men (a worldly form of marriage), then we should be celebrating men that are rejecting it; who are making a stand saying they will either have a marriage that meets the Biblical standard for marriage or no marriage at all.
Compromising and agreeing to a non-Biblical marriage is not maintaining your purity. If the marriage is adulterated, then you adulterate your purity by entering into it.
Rant off.
Han Solo,
Forget it. You are not going to change how alphas game the system. I know because I was/am alpha. And I remember all the advantages I had (with women) long before I got married. In my youth, I would never have given that up, I didn’t care that all my beta male friends were envious of me (in some cases even trying to pick a fight with me) mostly because they wanted what I had. You can’t change the apex alpha males or the aplha mare herd masters. They will do what they will do.
You must change marriage. More importantly, you must change divorce. As long as no-fault-divorce exists, marriage is worth almost nothing. The two are polar-opposites in all that they are. Without no-fault-divorce, both married parties know that if they have a fight and one storms out of the house to cool off, they both know (as do the kids) that they will have to reconcile because the marriage comes first, there is no other option. With no-fault-divroce, marriage is little more than legalized prostitution (you can legally sleep with someone until you find something or SOMEONE better to do.) This is zero-sum. It makes no difference what the spouses are alpha, beta, delta, omega, no difference at all…
Forget what the alphas want or do. As Jesus said we will always have the poor, we will always have the alphas. You can’t stop that, don’t even try. And women are going to want to have careers. That is fine provided society values marriage MORE and makes marriage SACRED. You do that, then every career minded alpha mare woman is going to want to be married because it is so valued and so sacred. Right now, it isn’t so they don’t.
And in the court of public opinion, this isn’t even being discussed. Until we get to that point (and until people like Tucker Carlson learn to shut the Hell up) we can’t have a serious discussion about marriage. There are far too many Tucker Carlson’s (and he is alpha) that believe that there is NO PROBLEM as the only reason why these men are opting out is (well) because they aren’t good enough to marry anyone anyway….
The way you encourage men to marry is:
1. Abolish no fault divorce.
2. Abolish “marital rape” (there is no such thing as marital rape; in my view a woman who marries a man gives standing consent to sex with her husband; and such used to be the law)
3. Cultivate slut shaming. Refuse to marry sluts. Any woman N>10 disqualified from marriage.
4. Excommunication from churches for unrepentant sin
5. Alimony is available only where the breadwinner spouse seeks divorce from the nonbreadwinner; or when the nonbreadwinner seeks divorce for cause (adultery, abuse, persistent abandonment).
6. Abolish the near conclusive presumption of maternal primary residential custody in child custody matters.
7. Abolish the percentage formula for child support calculation.
8. Divorce for spousal fault would be available ONLY in cases of adultery, persistent abandonment; habitual and hopeless drug and alcohol addiction with no hope of recovery (on the testimony of at least one physician); and real physical abuse in which there is an objectively reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.
9. “Extreme and repeated mental cruelty” is not a ground for divorce. “He yelled at me” is not grounds. “He put me on a budget” or “He’s not nice to me” or “Emotional abuse” or even “He hit me back after I smacked him” are not grounds.
Oh, and let’s be honest. None of this stuff is ever going to happen (with the possible exception of lengthening the mandatory separation period before a no fault divorce is granted).
Deti,
I’m with you on 1,2,5,6,7,8, and 9.
If someone wants to marry a woman who has been “around” that is up to him. You can’t tell him what not to do. Maybe he wants to marry a woman who is experienced and great in bed? And in Christianity, to forgive is Divine. A convicted murderer who is about to be put to death can still beg for a clergy member to be there to witness his end. So as someone who does not believe in ex-communication (under any circumstances), I can’t go with you on #4.
The rest, I’m with you.
Deti, N>10, are you fucking insane? Try greater than five, and i don’t wanna be fifth. I won’t be like you.
@innocent
I don’t disagree with you but it raises the question. How do “you” change marriage? It was largely the apex alpha males who wanted more pussy, votes, worker and customers that encouraged or were silently complicit in creating the current situation, combined with the feminist and raunch queen alpha females. And they were able to create a narrative that shamed men and made women angry about the limitations and injustices done to women throughout history to get women and men to buy into creating what was billed as an egalitarian society but turned out to be femcentric and misandrist.
So, how do you change marriage when many of the leaders in place right now love the current situation. The dems are fully in bed with the gov’t supported single woman narrative. And the reps are too clueless or spineless as well and often pander to women as well.
Beta males are lower in the societal hierarchy than beta females right now and so if you want society to change then you need to get a lot more women to realize the shit sandwich that feminism is bringing them and the men in their lives (use sollipsism to our advantage). Then these women converts will stop pressuring the leaders for as much misandrist and femcentric stuff and pressure to not be shamed for wanting relationships and kids.
Improving the average and lower status males is useful too but IMO they have less effect on society than the beta females, unless you can organize the beta males into a full-on rebellion. And it takes an alpha or sigma to really organize those beta males. Short of that, the beta males pussyfoot around trying to do whatever women demand of them in order to have sex and companionship.
But one way or another, the leaders of society have to be pressured from below to change things. That pressure can come from an economic or demographic crisis. It can come from beta females realizing they can’t have or don’t want it all and are tired of being told to not have relationships in order to pursue careers and only wind up as lonely spinsters or cum dumpsters. And to a lesser degree, that pressure can come from beta males who take the red pill and start putting up some boundaries and demanding better treatment from women and society while also improving their own value and lives.
@innocent
I forgot to add that the injustices trumpeted to gin up female rage and shame men had some basis in truth but were also largely exaggerated or completely fabricated.
@Dalrock
I’ve been going over the data, trying to gain some meaningful information on the economic implications of divorce for the women. I can’t find any definition for income on the CPS site (if you know where it is, please share), so I must assume it includes any child support payments, but don’t know if it includes federal and state benefits. For example: Table FG6, One-parent Unmarried Family Groups With Own Children Under 18 shows that in households headed by women:
45.6% have an income of less than $25,000 per year.
30.1% have an income of $25k-$50k per year
12.7% have an income of $50k-$75k per year
5.2% have an income of $75k-$100k per year
6.5% make over $100k per year.
I’m trying to make sense of this with respect to this graph. If the income isn’t reporting significant federal and state benefits, it goes a long way toward making the case that women are now married to the State and demonstrates the truth of the linked graph. I’m not making the case for causality one way or another, just sayin. Thoughts?
From the same chart, on the single parent households headed by men,
27.7% have an income of less than $25,000 per year.
30.6% have an income of $25k-$50k per year
22.3% have an income of $50k-$75k per year
8.2% have an income of $75k-$100k per year
11.2% make over $100k per year.
Intuitively, I perceive the differences reflect the ability of the higher-income men to afford good legal counsel and investigative services that would allow them to win custody of their children in court. Know of any other good data sources?
Does it even matter? Why is marriage important?
I don’t. And you don’t. The single male sexually-conquering alphas do.
George Clooney does. Bill Maher does.
When men like Maher go on the record to say why they are against marriage (and married men don’t shame the singles for being so “selfish” and “thoughtless”) it is only then when women start re-evaluating what they think of the institution. But not before.
Maher has openly said he’ll never get married because he has too much lose. He has massive assets (millions in the bank) and he has a long line of women half his age willing to date (and f@ck) his short, frumpy, 56 year old @ss. He is not Christian and totally believes that men are not truly happy unless they are humping as many different young women as their looks and money will allow. And I’m sure he brings his own condoms and he disposes of them himself after he’s done, they wont be trapping him. Problem is, not enough short, frumpy looking betas have learned how to be “alpha” the way Bill Maher has so… the system doesn’t have to change. And as long as their are married-alpha Tucker Carlson’s who (publically, for the record) denigrate the good work that Dr Helen did with her book, the narrative (to change marriage) never gets spoken about in public.
If you are single and beta (and you are going to know yourself better than anyone Han Solo) then, well, society is not going to listen to a damn thing you have to say. If you go out in public and open yourself up, a Tucker Carlson married alpha (who doesn’t believe there IS a problem) will just come along and say…
…and soceity will agree with him. And nothing will be done. You will just continue to be frustrated. They will think the only reason why YOU want to change the marriage rules are because those rules are stacked against you BY BIRTH. And those same rules were stacked against some women at birth because they were born ugly and (no matter what they do) they will always BE ugly. (Good luck getting married if you are an ugly woman.)
So really, you might not be able to do anything. We actually need more Bill Maher alpha-conquerer-MGTOW types to change the rules. The more of them that do what they do, the less and less marrital offers women will get, the more SPECIAL marriage will be, the MORE inclined they will be to take whatever offer they get (in their mid to late 30s, or early 40s, if at all) and that will be it. But if you are focused on getting a woman who is young, pretty, with a low N (or a ZERO N) then…. as a married-alpha to maybe a single-beta, I don’t know what to tell you. You might be screwed in this lifetime. I’m sorry man.
@Artisanal Toad
That graphic showing low-earning women getting more total benefits plus income than middle-earning women is mind blowing. Everyone should take a look at that right there.
@A. T.
Actually, the most striking thing of that graph is that a woman with 0 earnings gets more in welfare benefits + income (no income in her case) than a woman earning $45k!!!!! F-ing unbelievable!
@Artisanal Toad said: “For example: Table FG6, One-parent Unmarried Family Groups With Own Children Under 18 shows that in households headed by women:
45.6% have an income of less than $25,000 per year.”
Here’s a number a heart on the radio last night for the above women (assuming they have 2 children): if you remove all government assistance from these women, they would have to make $70,000 a year to maintain the same economic lifestyle.
Married to the government is exactly right. $25,000 in income + 2 kids + government support = a person making $70,000 with 2 kids–the exact same economic lifestyle.
There is no economic incentive for these women to marry or improve themselves economically–absolutely none. $25,000 a year is about $12.00 an hour. That’s a pretty low end job. One that requires no education, no special skills, has a low stress level, and requires little (if any) responsibility.
Blame LBJ. He set the narrative. His reasoning for encouraging Congress (and the individual states) to give single moms public housing and welfare benefits: “We are a rich country.”
@han
I recently spent time in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Birmingham Alabama. I found that virtually everyone in ‘the hood’ intrinsically understood the impact of that graph, which is that if one has no hope of ever earning more than $65k-$70k a year, there’s no point in even trying.
The predominantly black neighborhoods such as Ensley, AL., have a problem more serious than that of middle class single women in their thirties wondering where the men have gone. In this neighborhood, they know where to find the men- either in the graveyard or in prison. From my observations less than 20% of the women of child-bearing age are married. Talking to men in the churches, if the guy has a job and a house, his wife is living in fear that he’s stepping out on her because there are 10-15 women who’d like to take her place. The funniest part is that the women in these marriages don’t even do the basic things to make him happy.
Fix marriage? No. Not in this political environment. Marriage has to be replaced with a family structure that’s durable and provides incentives to all involved to stay in the relationship rather than leave it. There are no political solutions, only individual solutions. The biggest enemy of individual solutions are the churches and members of church leadership. So… if you tie it all together you get a nice picture of the people who self-identify as Christians and refuse to attend a church any longer. What Time Magazine identified as the “Nones”
Neither marriage nor anything else in Western society will be changed by relying on apex alpha males to do it.
Apex alpha males can do whatever they wish. They have no incentive to be standard-bearers or influential movers and shakers of sociosexual policy. Their only incentive is to protect and preserve their own; and what is theirs.
But even more importantly, you’re assuming men are “herd” creatures to the same extent women are. Men are not. That’s why you see such schisms and disagreement on what the manosphere is and should be about. Some men GTOW; a few become players, a few drop out; most will marry; and about half of those who marry will get divorced.
It will only change in one of three ways:
1. A critical mass (maybe another 5 to 10 %) of young single men forswear marriage (most likely);
2. There is a massive catastrophic societal/economic collapse (less likely);
3. There is a groundswell of nationwide support for comprehensive divorce reform (extremely unlikely).
@J
The reason for my question is that I don’t know if the figures provided by the CPS data actually reflect earned income + child support + government benefits; or just earned income + child support. In fact, it is my assumption that child support is included in this. I’m looking for their definition of what “income” means and what it includes.
@Artisanal Toad
Is there a larger document that that graph came from? It looks like those numbers come from the state of PA.
I did find this doc that contains that graph.
http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=920da599-e6a4-4a6c-93ca-e4dec6da40db
Ok so these charts show married men are making more money than single men. So all the people on Dalrock claiming single man = higher income are wrong.
@Han
I found the graph while doing some research on the disincentives to work produced by welfare after spending some time in Ensley. Everybody, and I mean literally everybody, understood this issue.
@Michael
I think it’s been posited here at Dalrock’s and on other sites like Vox’s that marriage is a strong social incentive for a man to make more money, and the destruction of marriage has created a disincentive for men to work harder, thus pushing the US economy into decline. All other things being equal, a married man works harder than a single man, so the earnings default to productive education (STEM) and skills.
@ Michael
In terms of raw income married men earn more. However, a more accurate number (which may not be available) is disposable income. A single man earning $50k a year is probably going to have more disposable income than a married man with children earning $100k a year. Children are expensive. Wives are expensive. And the extraneous costs associated with them (a larger home, more cars, more extensive coverage, etc.) are also expensive.
@Michael said: “Ok so these charts show married men are making more money than single men. So all the people on Dalrock claiming single man = higher income are wrong.”
The reason for this is when a man marries he focuses his energy on pursuits that make money.
A single man is free to focus his energy on pursuits that interest him–whether they make money or not is often meaningless (as a single male needs less money to live the same lifestyle as his married counter-part, because he only has to support himself; not himself, a wife, and children).
Men, by their nature, are achievement oriented. They set a goal, then go about achieving it. For the single guy, that’s usually his dream in life. When a guy gets married, that “need to achieve” is funneled into activities that make money, because he is now financially responsibly for a wife and (soon) family.
“And in Christianity, to forgive is Divine.”
Forgiveness? “You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Forgiveness is not acceptance (and it’s not applicable when there are no debts towards a person).
Re: Marriage premium:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/what_is_the_mar.html
NPR has caught on.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/13/211700456/would-some-marriages-be-better-if-couples-signed-wedleases?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130813
Marcus,
Totally agree.
But you don’t ex-communicate a single woman who has “been around” Marcus. That most certainly is UN-Christian. If she feels bad about what she did, then forgive. If she doesn’t feel bad about what she did then…. God will judge her.
Deti,
Mostly correct. I’d say 95% correct. The 5% where you and I differ is that the apex alpha male most certainly DOES impact marriage and Western society by not entering into it.
It is not the intension of the apex alpha male to make marriage more sacred (as the apex alpha male wants to remain single at all costs, have sex with as many women as possible without risking financial ruin) but by him “opting out” that is exactly what he is doing. He is returning power back to marriage making it more attractive for women simply by supply and demand (less supply of marriage offers from men they want to marry equals more demand for marriage from women.) This is Econ 101.
What we need (we = people who believe in marriage) is more and more apex alpha males opting out of it. THEY DRIVE CUSTOMS AND SOCIETY BECAUSE WOMEN WANT THEM. The betas opting out? Pssshh. No one cares. Tucker Carlson is right about them, no one cares. If you are short or ugly man or you have no game (or no income) and you GYOW, society doesn’t give a damn and you’ll have no impact on making marriage more special.
Women are not going to “opt out.” They want the money. For them marriage = $$$$$. That is their incentive as they already know that the nature of their gender makes them a net wealth consumer. So if we want marriage to be more sacred, the more men with $$$$$$ that “opt out” (thank you Bill Maher) the more POWER the men with less $$$$ and game get by offering marriage.
@Artisanal Toad
The CPS tables I’m familliar with reference earnings, which doesn’t include child support or government benefits. Here is the definition I found from the US Census blog. Income vs. Earnings
However, it is possible the data you are looking at is referencing income, not earnings (I’m not sure). The data I used for the animated charts above is earnings, and while I haven’t broken it out by earnings these are the same CPS charts I used to compile my data on never married rates (the same data set Four Guys then processed further in the linked post). I hope this helps.
Edit: To reinforce this, see the description of the CPS tables for 2012 here (emphasis mine).
Edit #2: There is another data set from the Census called SIPP which does use Income (it is the I in SIPP): Survey of Income and Program Participation Data on Families and Living Arrangements
@Dalrock
Thanks.
Table FG6, which is the CPS data table for 2012 that I was referencing, specifically refers to “Family Income” within the chart. I guess it’s enough to start asking pointed questions as to what constitutes household income with respect to census data. I’m pretty sure IRS definitions aren’t going to be used. Either way, this is likely to paint some ugly pictures on the feminist landscape.
Have you read THIS? Red pill stuff on feminist page Salon. F***ing unbelievable.
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/i_love_and_hate_dating_russian_men/
There is a definitions page which adds more detail on the definition of earnings for CPS here.
The other definitions there may also come in handy. I just bookmarked it for myself.
@Artisanal Toad
My pleasure.
Good point. CPS has different tables, and from the title that one clearly is referencing income. I think you can use the definitions page I linked above to decode what they mean. You might have to pull from several definitions but I think you can tease it out. If not, I think they have a customer service email box. I’ve never tried it in part because I fear it would be as accurate as the answers on the tax code from the IRS (50-50 as I recall reading). But if they publish the definition officially it should be right.
Edit: Note the different definitions for Family, Family Household, Family Group, Household, etc. The good news is they are being precise in their terminology.
The reason men in the Androsphere may appear to place Miscegenation above Misandry, is that Misandry (as TFH himself proposes) will self-correct from 2020 but Miscegenation is not so easily corrected.
Let me also say that I have long thought that Indians are the most beautiful women in the world (though obviously not Mrs Patel in the corner shop) yet on the one occasion a slim young Indian woman (aspiring lawyer) offered it to me on plate I just could not face it – something internal – I don’t know why, but I react just the same to East Asians and Negroes. I have tried! I can’t do it.
They seem to go a bit further than the IRS, in that they include charitable aid and support from family and friends. However, I didn’t see any provision for imputed income (living in a home in which the former husband has to pay the mortgage, for example) or any way to put a price tag on free health care for kids or other programs that provide services on an ad hoc basis. Thus, they seem to rather understate the real-life standard of living imputed by any specific income listed in their data.
I agree with the concept, but it is most useful for men with options. It’s easier to “next” someone you know won’t work when you’ve got a whole queue of alternatives lined up. I “nexted” a few back when I was young and single (and, to be perfectly candid, was more often “nexted” myself). Trouble was there often was a 4-6 month gap until the “next” one surfaced. Women (at least those under 30) can do this a whole lot more than men can.
@James K
“One commenter on a previous post stated that in Canada, a cohabiting couple is treated as married after a certain period of time.”
This is what is known as “common-law” marriage. It depends on what province you are the treatment of common-law couples is different. In some provinces you don’t divide property in an equalization sense, you leave with what you came in with and make claims in law to any property you bought or contributed to while cohabiting. Spousal support is unlikely. Children, of course, would still be entitled to parental support.
I lurk here a lot, but the content of too many posts are just so hopeless. If you deny the power of the Holy Spirit and God’s hand in history, then you are an apostate, or just an atheist like Faust up there. if you preach and live the Gospel comprehensively, then you will see a change. Will it produce a perfect society? No, not a chance. That’s the same trap the communists are chasing after without God, but the lesson of the Bible is a constant: humans outside of God cannot produce their own salvation.
So forget this idea of atheist New Soviet men and women bringing about the salvation of this culture. Christians who protect their daughters and empower their sons will inherit this country. This interregnum is just in preparation for that, since otherwise there is nothing of substance to lead and inspire the people. Everything the supposed Americans of a new century (Boomers, et al.) have tried has faily miserably, and that’s a good thing. Faithfulness deserves reward and corruption destruction.
From the article posted at JFG:
“I believe that most of this phenomenon is due to some women in their early and mid 20′s consciously postponing marriage in order to pursue education, work and fun”
“There are likely some men who are also postponing this but a recent survey showed more young men wanted to get married than young women so it seems to be driven more by women than men”
This interpretation may or may not be accurate, I don’t know. If it is accurate, I would seem that women are still the primary drivers in the obsolescence of marriage, and that the average young guy out there still just doesn’t get it.
Regarding fixes to marriage. I doubt it. Women and the State like things just the way they are. However, for sake of discussion…
– Alimony has to go. People don’t continue to collect a paycheck when they quit or get fired.
– Default presumption of 50/50 joint legal and physical custody.
It may just be me but it seems like the Men’s Rights sphere and the Father’s Rights sphere are two separate entities without the kind of overlap that one would expect. The Father’s Rights sphere seems much more active in terms of direct legal challenges to the system. Obviously, many fathers are very motivated and have very personal battles to fight..
@innocentbystanderboston
“But you don’t ex-communicate a single woman who has “been around” Marcus.”
I never suggested they should be.
“If she feels bad about what she did, then forgive.”
If her sin is not against me, then it is not my place to forgive it (it’s God’s place, and whoever was sinned against). I certainly think we should still accept her as a person (forgiven, repentant, or otherwise), but not necessarily the sins or the consequences of those sins (e.g. sins, or consequences therefrom, that would unduly endanger or distress a marriage).
@Artisanal Toad
I did some digging on the topic of divorce outcomes:
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/07/divorce-outcomes-men-and-women.html
The NEXT concept often seems to get overblown. It doesn’t mean you tell the girl off, or cast her out of your life and refuse to ever speak to her again. It’s not meant to be an insult, like “Well, if you don’t want me, screw you!” It simply means, “I approached her and made my interest known, and she declined, so I’m going to accept that and take my romantic intentions elsewhere. If she changes her mind, or she was playing hard to get, it’s up to her to let me know that, or at least signal that she’d like me to try again.” It doesn’t mean you can’t still be friends/co-workers/whatever, or that something can’t still happen between you; it just means you don’t actively pursue a woman who isn’t giving you any encouragement.
The point is to avoid the trap most men fall into — especially when there’s any one-itis — of thinking that you just had bad timing, or she’s a little shy, or you didn’t charm her enough, or you just need to wear her down. That leads guys to chasing women who aren’t interested, upping the ante with better date offers and gifts, basically trying to beg/buy her affections. That never works, and it might even turn off the girl who was on the fence. “Relationship eagerness” may be one of the least attractive things a man can show a woman.
The NEXT concept often seems to get overblown. It doesn’t mean you tell the girl off, or cast her out of your life and refuse to ever speak to her again. It’s not meant to be an insult, like “Well, if you don’t want me, screw you!” It simply means, “I approached her and made my interest known, and she declined, so I’m going to accept that and take my romantic intentions elsewhere. If she changes her mind, or she was playing hard to get, it’s up to her to let me know that, or at least signal that she’d like me to try again.” It doesn’t mean you can’t still be friends/co-workers/whatever, or that something can’t still happen between you; it just means you don’t actively pursue a woman who isn’t giving you any encouragement.
The point is to avoid the trap most men fall into — especially when there’s any one-itis — of thinking that you just had bad timing, or she’s a little shy, or you didn’t charm her enough, or you just need to wear her down. That leads guys to chasing women who aren’t interested, upping the ante with better date offers and gifts, basically trying to beg/buy her affections. That never works, and it might even turn off the girl who was on the fence. “Relationship eagerness” may be one of the least attractive things a man can show a woman.
Your bold determination to make sure women avoid any discomfort at all is a shining example to Men’s Right Advocates everywhere. For reasons that are not entirely clear.
Practically speaking, your advice is useless as it allows women to play the string along game with impunity. “You can still be friends” and “she can smile and twirl her hair and now your expected to waste more time dancing for her”. In short, it allows everything that the advice is intended to stop.
This is all you needed to type.
Why do you suppose this is? Because we live in a fem-centric world where only women are taken with any legitimacy. This is exactly what’s frustrating Roosh right now, and exactly what I predicted almost 2 years ago:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/08/could-a-man-have-written-this/
Mona Charen, Girl Writes What? and now Dr. Helen are/have been the only public proponents of red pill awareness who’ve ever been afforded any measure of mainstream legitimacy. Don’t believe me? Look what happens to George from 3rd Millennium Man here:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/04/02/its-their-game/
This is the degree of legitimacy men are allowed in girl-world – standard boilerplate ridicule, no matter how well delivered, how well reasoned, how well debated, if you have a penis you are disqualified.
Susan Walsh was right, the manosphere does have a PR problem – but the problem is that, thus far, only women have been allowed to reveal any part of the manosphere to the MSM, and then in only measured doses that serve to palatably ridicule men. I don’t care how red pill a woman claims to be, she still fundamentally lacks the male experience, and therefore cannot legitimately represent the manosphere in any meaningful way.
Even Dr. get eviscerated for her second-hand male hearsay from ‘poor men’:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/oldest-war_742473.html?page=1
I disagree with Roosh that the manosphere is lost, but until such time that a Man becomes a legitimate, recognized and logically fluent representative of the manosphere it will have a PR problem. The fact that any man in the maonsphere would petition a woman to write a book for them, to represent the men of the manosphere is all the evidence you need of the problem.
Dr. Helen is as illegitimate a representative of the manosphere as Hugo Schwyzer was of feminism, and just as suspect of her motives, or the motives of those who petitioned her to be so.
Whatever, you missed the point completely. Where did I say anything about preventing her discomfort or letting her string you along? The whole point of nexting is that if she’s interested, she’ll get worried — discomfited — and do something about it; and it doesn’t let her string you along because you’re chatting up the next one.
When I said you can still be friends, I didn’t mean anything like “dancing for her.” But nexting is about indifference, and acting butt-hurt and avoiding a woman who’s in your social circle because she turned down your advances isn’t productive. Indifference means indifference — treating her however you did before, except that romance is off the table because she didn’t want it and you’re taking it elsewhere.
TFH, all I have to say is that if you think a blogger like Susan Walsh is part of the solution, YOU are part of the problem.
Cail wrote:
Whatever, you missed the point completely. Where did I say anything about preventing her discomfort or letting her string you along? The whole point of nexting is that if she’s interested, she’ll get worried — discomfited — and do something about it; and it doesn’t let her string you along because you’re chatting up the next one.
When I said you can still be friends, I didn’t mean anything like “dancing for her.” But nexting is about indifference, and acting butt-hurt and avoiding a woman who’s in your social circle because she turned down your advances isn’t productive. Indifference means indifference — treating her however you did before, except that romance is off the table because she didn’t want it and you’re taking it elsewhere.
And also this:
Wrote:
or at least signal that she’d like me to try again.
Since a “signal” is all it takes to re-initiate stringing along, I understood exactly what he wrote in every respect. His goals and the uselessness of his advice is exactly as I claimed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391223/Janet-Veal-56-gnawed-eaten-CATS-kitchen-floor-died.html
I’ll just leave this here.
I wonder if @Dalrock read the quote from the Russian-American woman’s Salon article…
Dr Helen = UN-NEEDED by men
Women might profit from her advices…. but I don’t care what women need.
@TFH
Darwin married his cousin (as did Malthus), indeed many people do just that, including many Indians. I tend to be most attracted to people who look vaguely like myself, (like that Canadian bitch), thus although she was as I said rather good looking, I flaked on my keen Indian. Come to think of it, I also had an arranged-married Indian who got the hots for me, but of course I passed on that too perhaps because her husband had a very impressive moustache. I am not one of those MRAs who can’t pull; I have to fight them off. An Indian Doctor was telling me how handsome I am; I accept this as entirely normal.
My dictionary defines Race as a group of persons characterised by common decent. If the various races mix then there will be less people that I will be sexually attracted to: this would be a bad thing for me. It is clear that you and I are looking at Race through opposite ends of the telescope.
India is a distinguished civilisation and Indians are wonderful people – I only met one Indian when I was in America but as soon as we met we embraced like long-lost brothers – such is the mutual love between our two countries: most Indian men are genius mathematicians – or poets; the women are beautiful (as I said); the rich all drive Morris Oxford’s; the lawyers wear exactly the same gear in court as I do, and if you remove their Turbans and shave their beards the Sikhs all look Greek – but you are an American!
Dr Helens book is and intentional escape route for a worthy woman in a besieged city. The conversation is on making a change in marriage and divorce ( about time) and not the usual finding the right woman shit or the biblical marriage garbage. Techniques to bring a change in attitude is a good place for men to be. (involuntary childless spinsterhood.) The focus is not on relationships but the laws of misandry that way little princess has an out, it is the law and not her. Works for me gets the law gone and little princess natural nature is utilized (not my fault) Only a stupid man can see a problem with that expecting more from a woman there isn’t more. mighow’s comment should be in the back of every woman’s mind with men’s indifference in the front and center.
When enough beta men forgo marriage and this Gandarusa pill becomes common in the USA with even the slightest drop in out of wedlock birth rates I’ll will be the biggest advocate of sex in the city girl power. I will publicly encourage divorce career slut empowerment to all women. I’ll know when the time is right to stop and retire and enjoy peace.
“biblical marriage garbage”
GreyGhost, you are TOO MUCH!
Legal/ state sanctioned marriage needs to die. You want to restore Bibical marriage? Preach the Bible, train up children in the way they should go and crush the state.
What part of this am I missing?
Whatever,
So you’re taking one phrase out of context, insisting that it means what I just said it doesn’t mean, and declaring me a stealth feminist or something. Bravo. That’s just the kind of nerdish absolutism that makes the manosphere such an enticing place.
In a perfect world, maybe women would never say ‘no’ when they mean ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’, and men could act accordingly. But in the real world, that’s not the case. What I wrote wasn’t intended for game veterans, but for the guy (my 20-year-old self, basically) who asks a girl out and she says she can’t because she has to drive her mom to the airport, but she smiles real big and thanks him and says maybe some other time. He doesn’t have the skills to tell whether she’s blowing him off or has a genuine conflict. If I tell him to NEXT her, he says, “But I really like this girl! If there’s a chance she likes me, shouldn’t I ask her again to show my devotion, and maybe bring a rose next time?” I’m trying to get him to see that it doesn’t matter; in fact, he needs to NEXT her because he likes her and it’ll keep him from supplicating. I want him to understand that NEXTing her isn’t rejecting her; it’s just taking a stand and saying, “I’ve done my part as a man; I don’t beg.”
If I tell this guy that NEXTing her means she’s off-limits romantically forever — she missed her chance, and if he ever approaches her again it means he’s a sniveling worm, even if she shows up the next week with cookies and stands there while he eats them, playing with her hair and laughing at all his jokes — he’s going to stop listening to me, as well he should, because that’s stupid. That turns NEXTing into a lifetime punishment for hurting his feelings, which is the opposite of what it should be. He needs to know it’s not about doing something to her; it’s about setting his own limits and letting her worry about hers. Then he can understand that it doesn’t matter whether her rejection-excuse is the 99% of cases where she’s trying to let him down easy, or the 1% where she thinks later, “Oh crap, I hope he asks me again; what should I do?” NEXTing is the right move either way, so he doesn’t have to worry about it.
Suz (driversuz, Suzanne McCarley) blogs at AVfM and has her own place at shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com.
That’s not a reference to Susan Walsh.
Ton says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:17 am
Yes, somehow the state must be extricated from marriage. The civil component of modern marriage confers no benefit whatsoever on the sacramental; indeed, it harms it immensely by way of the grossly perverse and lopsided incentives it creates for women to nuke their marriages. The secular world, by and large, has no use whatsoever for the sacramental; at best it is used as a quaint anachronism – more commonly is it is viewed as retrograde patriarchal oppression that must be stamped out.
I have no confidence at all that this is going to be happening any time soon.
Fair enough, I had thought this was in reference to Aunt Giggles.
Incorrect. I’m well aware of Dr. Helen’s credentials and her history. What I’m asserting is that the work had already been done for her by the manosphere years before she had a blog or published a book. The field was already tilled.
Again, incorrect. What I’m saying is that no woman will ever be an effective advocate for the manosphere because they fundamentally lack the male experience. I’m glad for the efforts of bloggers like Girl Writes What? and even Dr. Helen’s making public the effects of misandry, but neither will ever understand the manosphere from a male perspective.
The problem is guys in the manosphere desperate for an MSM champion. Only women are recognized in the girl-world arena so they’ll pile on the Dr. Helens and hope they come out on top. In doing so they’ll ignore her faults and inaccuracies, or even that she’s a poor substitute for the first hand experience of men themselves.
What you’re missing here is that you think her representation is limited to just exposing ‘misandric laws’, instead of being the personality responsible for defining the manosphere to the mainstream. Who would you rather have represent you, a public defender or professional attorney?
As for Dr. Helen, we should be thankful for any help we’re getting and not nitpicking.
Her ideas aren’t 100% original; she pulled some of her concepts from bloggers on the internet; so what? Read “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” Those open source concepts apply to more than just software. They’re certainly at play in the manosphere.
@innocentbystanderboston said: “But you don’t ex-communicate a single woman who has “been around” Marcus. That most certainly is UN-Christian.”
But, you don’t make her a Cardinal in the church either.
Forgiveness makes the sin go away, but it doesn’t make the long term effects of the sin go away. If after a decade of heavy drug abuse, someone gets their life together and totally stops using, that doesn’t undo the physical and mental damage done over the years by the drugs.
The same is true for women that have sought forgiveness and become “born again virgins.” I think it’s great they have gotten their life back on track, but the forgiveness doesn’t erase the physical and mental damage done by her previous life (which may take years or decades to heal–if they ever do fully heal).
So, the question for men isn’t if you forgive her, but should you want to make her a major influence in your life forever; should you make her a cardinal (your wife) in your church (your family) and ignore the damage done to her by her previous life, because she is forgiven?
Dr. Helen has publicly (on a TV interview I saw on YouTube) stated that none of the ideas in her book are original; that they all were well known on the manosphere/androshpere. So, the charge of plagarism does not hold. However, what she is doing is taking the information out of the echo chamber and exposing many new people, including women and uninitiated men, to the ideas. Anything that spreads these ideas is good for us men. It doesn’t matter what sex the messanger is as long as the message is getting through. In our misandric culture the only messanger who will be listened to is a female. Fair or unfair as this is, it is none the less a fact of life.
I think the disconnect I’m having here with TFH is that he thinks Dr. Helen’s influence is limited to just an MRA agenda, I’m saying it’s not. I will guarantee you that the next significant push the manosphere gets (and by association that means all the tribes of the manosphere) in the MSM will also come from a woman.
Aunt Giggles was just on HuffPo Live prattling about how her marriage began as a ONS. She didn’t reference the manosphere directly in it, but (according to Vox) HUS is one of the top 10 manosphere sites in his most recent list of stats. It’s disturbing to consider her admitted echo chamber a legitimate manosphere site at all, but that she could gain mainstream legitimacy and, once again, by association ‘represent’ the manosphere or be considered an authority on it in the mainstream will delegitimize the manosphere as a whole.
This is what I’m getting at with the Dr. Helen issue. I’m not saying she isn’t providing a service by bringing MRA and misandry issues to the MSM, it’s that the MSM (not necessarily the manosphere) will designate her as the authority on men’s issues and base their already biased judgements accordingly.
J,
And you don’t put a beer in the hand of an alcoholic who has stopped drinking. That doesn’t mean that no one should EVER marry the alcoholic who stopped drinking.
I am not saying that you make the 28 year old single woman who had 28 sexual partners over the last 10 years a Cardinal in the church. And I’m not saying she has to make herself out to be some born-again virgin. (There are probably a few single women and men in my last church who attend each week even though they are living in sin.) I am just saying you don’t ex-communicate them and you needn’t shun them. You don’t have to marry them, but someone else in the church might. Someone else might not care that her N is 28 (or 38, or 98) and truly loves her for whatever reason.
Some men do not value the virginity or the low-N. Some men want to marry a woman who is VERY sexually experienced because they are under the impression that she is more likely to be a better lover in the bedroom. Now, we can all argue until we are blue in the face if this is accurate or not (we can start quoting ONLY the books we agree with and mentally masturbate ourselves into a frenzy), but there is this perception held by some men (and for the men where the sex is the most important part of the marriage particularly those men with a high-N, its going to matter.) I understand about the lack of “pair bonding” and I also understand that the larger her N the less useful sex has at making the marriage stronger. I understand all of that. I also understand that sex is one of many-MANY things that make a marriage strong.
I don’t like the concept of Ex-Communication. What happened to Joe Jackson was (IMHO) deplorable and entirely Un-Christian. The Pastors in that church were put into a terrible conflict of interest (trying to please the women because they control their husbands who control the money flow into the church which controls their salaries) and that is not the way it is supposed ot be. I understand it, but I don’t like it. More and more I am of the opinion that Protestant Pastors should not be a professional position (volunteer, lay-Pastors only) who hold paying jobs in other areas and preach on Sunday and do the Funerals and the Weddings on Saturday. And have lots and LOTS of them in the church. Afterall, men are supposed to be the spiritual head of their own household so (if you are a man and can read the King Jamed Bible) as far as I’m concerned, those are the only credentials I need to recognize you as a possible Pastor. And if those Pastors were working for free, the churchian-women would have NO CONTROL because you can’t take anything away from the Pastors.
Rollo,
That may be true but that doesn’t matter. The MRA needs someone (anyone) who is a good public speaker. They don’t have that. They certainly didn’t have that when Tucker Carlson denigrated Dr Helen’s book with his “…Who Cares…” comment. No one was representing the book on that show (not even Dr Helen) so OF COURSE there wasn’t going to be appropriate “judgements” held by anyone watching it.
If a very excellent speaker was on the show with Tucker Carlson trying to argue the merits of Dr Helen’s book, the moment, the instant Tucker Carlson White Knighted himself with the “..who cares…” comment, the person speaking on behalf of the MRA would have interjected and said “Well I care. Its obvious you don’t care.” At which point a very ANGRY Turker Carlson would probably then start to raise the volume of his voice and talk OVER the person represening the book and the MRA at which point that person would calmly and coolly say “…but Tucker, you are just trying to re-frame the issue here instead of talking about the book.” What would probably happen next is Tucker would White-Knightingly storm off the set and they would cut the speakers mike.
We don’t have a fair shake and we are not going to get one in the MSM. But the only way you start to get one is to totally fluster the White Knights (in public) by putting them on the spot and knocking them off their pedistal. That never happened. We need a great public speaker who is calm and cool and organized and can challenge the MSM. We don’t have that. Until we get that, we can’t start.
I would ex’m out and I would openly advise no man to marry a 28 count slut. The days of playing nice Christian man are over. Those women are casualties of feminism the same as a man that loved his woman and married and had children with her that later committed suicide after he frivorced. It is not about the right woman and saving marriage any more. It is about restoring marriage and civilization for our children or grand children. I some woman at the church dies and old spinster so what. Make sure all of the women heard that “so what’ Doesn’t mean god does not have a place in heaven for her. Just means she is not marriageable Not even for cap’n save -a- ho of the red pill. Put some of that in your church and watch how polite the bitches get, out of pure wickedness but hey it will look like virtue and all the churchians will say Amen.
greyghost,
Now YOU sound like Tucker Carlson. (shrug & smile)
Okay being nice and serious, the 28-N lady is not the wife for you. Okay message received loud and clear. You know yourself and I get it. However, she might be the one for someone else. Your position is that someone else marrying her HURTS YOUR CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE. I can’t see how it would.
Maybe she is not a wife for someone else. Maybe we should see the man that thinks she is wife material and help him not spend so much time helping the slut. As I said before it is not about a pussy for all dicks It is about getting the laws of misandry out of the marriage. That is all that should matter at this time. We are about making a shift because as long as there are laws of misandry there is no christian marriage for any one. No such thing as male head ship in any marriage to say so is a lie to avoid the truth of the law.
@innocentbystanderboston said: “…she might be the one for someone else.”
But, the message being push is “she might be the one for EVERYONE.” The message being pushed is that it is wrong–for anyone–to consider her lifestyle before she was “saved and forgiven.”
Sure, for some it won’t matter. But, for some it will matter a great deal. There’s nothing wrong with someone that takes either position (imho), but there is something wrong with saying one of those positions is illegitimate (which is exactly what many church leaders are saying).
Re the N=28 woman:
Right now it’s irrelevant. The N 28 woman will eventually find someone to wife her up, so it doesn’t matter. Whether she stays married is another matter entirely. Per the reasoning of Dalrock’s last post, even if she gets divorced, she has the status of being a once married woman.
If she repents and no longer is slutting around, fine. Some guy will think he hit the jackpot and put a ring on it (believe me, I know). He’ll have to do the mop up and cleanup later, and he may or may not succeed. With Game he’ll increase his chances of success.
greyghost is correct that the N=28 women (or sluts in general marrying) eventually marrying hurts marriage as an institution. It cheapens and reduces the value of marriage when sluts, even reformed sluts, are able to marry. It tells women that they can do whatever they want, sleep with whomever they want, devalue themselves all they want, learn nothing in the process, and still find some sucker to wife them up when they can’t ride the carousel anymore.
And it tells men that they have no right to expect anything, have no right to have enforceable standards, in selecting a woman. It tells men they should not use go0d common sense judgment when evaluating a woman. It tells men their scarcity mentality is correct; that a used up worn out reformed slut who found Jeeeeezus is the best he can do.
J,
Doesn’t matter what church leaders are saying. Church leaders can say whatever they want. They can’t make you marry anyone. And they can’t shame you (either) if you don’t share with them what you value most in women when considering making them your wife.
You feel you have to explain yourself and why you see her as a slut and unmarriagable. Dont. To anybody. It is no one else’s business if you don’t think she is worthy of marriage. And no one is going to give you a hard time if you don’t give her the time of day.
Women (feminist or not feminst) are going to continue to have shit-tests for men. Women are going to continue to NEXT perfectly good men and go through a rigorous process of weeding out men until they find the perfect one (for them) to marry. And that is not going to change. They have their lists of musts and there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it. But I’ll tell ya J, these women do not share with their church leaders what these lists are. They keep that to themselves. As well they should.
Stop worrying about what Church leaders think. They are going to say whatever is going to please the people who control the people who control the money. They are caught in a conflict of interest. Their paychecks are predicated on keeping as large a congregation (of married, working people) as humanly possible. And if women hear things in church they don’t like, they walk, they find a church they do like and their take their husbands and their husband’s dollars with them. So of course, Pastors are going to say whatever is the most popular and MRA thinking is NOT popular. It is hurtful (even if it is right and true.) Having integrity costs. And you must pay those costs if you want to keep your integrity. I have yet to find a church where Pastors have that level of Biblical integrity.
Deti,
No. You are combining issues that are not linked.
No-fault-divorce hurts marriage. That hurts marriage because it turns something sacred and pure, something that is so much bigger than either of the two parties entering into it, into nothing more than legalized prostitution. It is not until death do us part. It is only until one party or the other finds something better to do. That isn’t marriage. That is certainly not what marriage was for my grandparents but that IS what marriage is today. That hurts everyone’s marriage.
Sluts marrying does not hurt marriage as an institution. It does not because a man choosing (of his own free will) to marry a slut has no control over your marriage. No-fault-divorce laws HAVE legal control over your marriage. Some one else marrying someone you would NOT marry does not impact you (or your marriage) in anyway. Legally, lawfully, their marriage does not harm yours. YOU do NOT have to marry her. You can choose not to marry her for any reason (or no reason) and no one has any legal authority to do anything about it. That is the reason why it does NOT hurt marriage.
Moreover, a man marries a slut, you don’t have to recognize their marriage as a marriage. This is where I am today with two men marrying each other, I don’t care if it is legal by the state or not, I don’t call their union marriage. To me, their union is just bullshit. No government can force me to accept that which I must only tolerate. If she isn’t marriage material in your eyes (for whatever reason, this case, the reason is N = 28), that’s fine. So their union is not worthy of your respect, it doesn’t have to be. For me, it’s like Donald Trump or Rush Limbaugh or Larry King or Elizabeth Taylor or Jennifer Lopez or Newt Gingrich or Tom Cruise or anyone else who disposes of current spouse to replace with new spouse, I don’t consider any of those unions to be marriage. I don’t care what the state calls those unions NOR do I care what her ‘N’ is. Her ‘N’ is irrelevant as are those marriages.
What????? Who said this? Certainly not me.
Whoever is teaching you this is a moron. Do not listen to them. If this is what you hear in church, leave. Find a new church. I am serious. Leave. Take your tithing dollars with your. You vote with your dollars and your feet. You don’t even have to tell the Pastor why you are leaving, just leave. They might call you and want to know what’s up, and I leave that up to you to decide if you want to share but no one should ever say to a man “…this is the best you can do.” No, no, no.
You can expect anything. Whether or not you FIND the woman you are expecting (and whether or not she will have you) is an entirely different conversation.
Our “enforceable standards” differ from man to man. For me, my list was short. My “shit-test” (as it was) was nothing more than two things, two things that I would not under any corcumstances settle on: intelligence and credit card debt. That was it. I was looking for a woman who I could love who was intelligent and didn’t have the 5-figure credit card debt they all seemed to have. When I found that woman, I quickly married her as I wanted to make sure I got her before anyone else could, best decision I ever made in my life. Now having said that let me say this, I know that my list of “enforcable standards” are not the same list for all men. And that is fine. And if another man refuses to recognize my marriage to my wife as a marriage (in their eyes) there is absolutely nothing I can do about that. That is just the way it goes. But marriage could not possibly hurt anyone else’s marriage (or marriage as an institution) as I was able to get every single one of my “enforcable standards” met. I didn’t have to settle.
IBB:
You and I are not going to convince each other of the correctness of our respective positions. That’s fine. We can agree to disagree. But it gives us each a way to flesh out our positions, and will help others figure out who has the better argument.
I agree that no fault divorce hurts marriage. But that’s not this point. Sluthood does damage marriage as an institution. Whether it damages individual marriages (I am sure it does) is secondary to whether sluthood damages the institution of marriage. I contend that it does, for the reasons stated.
This society has more and more women delaying marriage until the last possible minute. People say it’s for career and for personal development, but we all know what’s really going on: Fear of missing out. The off chance that the ONS with the hot guy will morph into a relationship. Enjoying and sampling hot monkey sex with all the hot guys until she can’t do it anymore. This devalues women and makes them less able to bond, less fertile, and less submissive. From all her hot monkey sex she develops a taste for alpha bad boy dick and can’t be attracted to the men who would have actually put a ring on it. You also will have many more women getting into slut territory by doing nothing other than following the herd; and doing whatever they see their grrrrlfraaaands doing. This drives the value of women down en masse, and thus gives men no incentive to marry. If she doesn’t need to be worthy of him, why should he be worthy of marriage or worthy to society?
Men are getting the clear message that to women, marriage just isn’t that important. Maybe marriage IS important to women; but men aren’t getting that signal. Instead the signal they get is that fun and games (not commitment) are what’s important. This also drives marriage down as not a life goal for the betterment of society or for the sake of love or for children or getting a helpmeet or engaging in biblically sanctioned sex; but as instead another merit badge to collect; another status symbol to attain; just a way to lock in a sex partner.
That’s why sluthood damages marriage. It might not damage individual marriages (though I think you’re wrong about that too), but it does certainly damage, trivialize and devalue marriage as an institution.
IBB/Deti:
The current legal environment of marriage AND sluthood combine to in a synergistically destructive fashion to make marriage untenable in many circumstances. Sluthhood, as is well recognized in the manosphere (and in the wider world a few generations ago) damages a woman’s ability to bond to her husband thereby markedly increasing the likelihood of marital strife; sluthood is in many instances the proximate cause of marital difficulty. The legal environment (with all of its perverse incentives for women to destroy their marriages, including but not limited to ‘no fault’ jurisprudence) is the proximate cause of divorce.
It is tempting to conclude that both causes are necessary but insufficient in and of themselves to have produced the current state of affairs, but I would argue the latter has driven the former and therefore is ultimately necessary and sufficient on its own. Take away the legal advantages of Marriage 2.0 and women would get the message that their behavior toward their husbands would not be encouraged and would indeed be punished. Over time people would return to the conventional wisdom that saw promiscuity as a precursor to being a bad wife.
None of this evolution occurs without reform, however, unlikely.
Shame those sluts and the men that get the 28s (28!?). Also, try to get politicians in place that will end misandry laws…
Best regards,
A.J.P.
Deti,
Maybe not, but we can talk about it.
I think that is very true Deti. I’m going to give you a win here but I’d like you to consider an alternative to your thinking that might give me a little win: they might be putting marriage off because of missing out but also because they haven’t gotten any marrital offers from men that they love, (maybe no offers at all!) Do you think that might be part of the problem? The “Good Stuff” in this post by Dalrock, the reduced amount of married men, is that so good? Is our gender blameless? Are all these guys proposing and getting turned down for cock carosels all the time?
And I’m going to agree with you here. You are right, she is going to continue to want to f@ck as many different alphas as she can and she will not be attracted to the worthy, sincere, beta. But that is HER problem. She did that to herself. She tasted what promiscuity tasted like, she likes it, it makes her feel wanted, and (as a result) she can’t pair bond the way a virgin would. She can’t find any attraction in those men that would put a ring on it. I grant you all of that.
Okay, now what?
The slut is not dead Deti. She had 28 lovers, 28 different dicks that she sucked, 28 different men that ejaculated into her, and she is not married. If she was responsible about the birth control pills (took them every day, same time each day), she won’t have any kids. And she is always going to remember her first. That is just the nature of women, the nature of pair bonding. But she isn’t dead. And she wants to be married as I believe that ALL women do. She is 28 or 33 or 35 or whatever and is done with the cock carrosel. What would you have her do now?
Obviously, you are not going to marry her. You are holding what happened in her past against her and you are free to do that. That’s fine. You have your own list of musts and the low-N is one of them. But she wants to be married. So what should she do?
My way, someone will eventually marry her. I think it is better that she be married than spend the rest of her days living in regret of her sins. Your way, you think any marriage she has will hurt marriage (and I’m guessing you might not want her to EVER marry.) If no marriage for her, ever, at least not in THIS lifetime, then what? Remain a slut?
Men don’t have any incentive to marry because of no-fault-divorce. The VALUE of a woman (I assume you mean marriage value) is driven up or down depending on the man and what he wants in a wife. That differs from man to man. You know what I wanted and I got it. If you don’t think that list should differ, could you please quote me scripture (book and verse) from the King James Bible exactly, PRECISELY what I should VALUE in a woman for marriage?
I assume you left the ‘s’ out there in your quote. She does need to be worthy of him to be worthy of a marriage. What is worthy is not always the same thing.
That’s all I’m saying. YMMV.
If I tell this guy that NEXTing her means she’s off-limits romantically forever — she missed her chance, and if he ever approaches her again it means he’s a sniveling worm, even if she shows up the next week with cookies and stands there while he eats them, playing with her hair and laughing at all his jokes — he’s going to stop listening to me
Wow, that’s so like the woman sending “a signal”. No wait, it’s totally different. I know! I know! I just didn’t understand what you REALLY SAID and you get to reinterpret your behavior endlessly and I have to keep pretending to believe you and trying to reason with you!
NEXT.
“they might be putting marriage off because of missing out but also because they haven’t gotten any marrital offers from men that they love, (maybe no offers at all!) Do you think that might be part of the problem? The “Good Stuff” in this post by Dalrock, the reduced amount of married men, is that so good? Is our gender blameless? Are all these guys proposing and getting turned down for cock carosels all the time?”
Several things here.
1. She doesn’t get marital offers because the men she associates with, dates and has sex with are not the marrying kind and are themselves unworthy of marriage.
2. She’s having sex with unworthy men not because she expects to get marital offers; but because they turn her on. If she was really interested in marriage and getting marital offers, she’d get with men who actually could and would offer marriage. But they don’t tingle her, so she avoids them.
3. Worthy men don’t approach the slut because (1) she’s not worthy of anything beyond a romp; (2) she won’t give worthy men the time of day and both the slut and the worthy men know it; and (3) she isn’t attracted to worthy men anyway.
The only real blame men have for this situation is putting up with it for so long; and going ahead and believing the lie that women are just like men and can work, act, talk and f*ck like men with no ill effects.
“She is 28 or 33 or 35 or whatever and is done with the cock carrosel. What would you have her do now? But she wants to be married. So what should she do? ***
Leave her as you found her. She chose her bed. She’ll have to lie in it.
“My way, someone will eventually marry her. I think it is better that she be married than spend the rest of her days living in regret of her sins.”
You’re correct that the odds are that SOMEONE will eventually marry her. But she’ll live the rest of her days in regret of her sins ANYWAY, married or single. She’ll bear those scars for the rest of her life whether she marries or not. The question is whether those scars will be inflicted on an unsuspecting beta man who will then have to clean up the mess. The question is who wants to take on that risk and whether it’s worth it.
The problem is that we have churches and a society who are telling these beta men that sluts ARE NOT a risk; that these women MUST get married and that beta men OWE IT TO HER to marry her and that beta men MUST just accept slutdom as a fact of life.
@IBB said “because they haven’t gotten any marrital offers FROM MEN THAT THEY LOVE” (emphasis mine).
I had a conversation with my wife last night that might be relevant. We were discussing my daughter working in IT, and my wife’s first thought was “what kind of men will she meet there; will there be any husband material there, or will they all be like Bob and Phil?”
Bob and Phil are two or our neighbors, and my reply “what wrong with Bob and Phil?” She looked a me like I was stupid; like it was so obvious she shouldn’t need to explain it–and she didn’t.
Bob has an EE and works for a utility company. Phil is an upper level manager with a tech firm. Both in their late 50’s. Both make very good money. Both in physically good shape (while not athletic, neither is overweight or even balding). Both on their first marriage and have been married 25+ years. Bob is very much an extrovert while Phil is an introvert. Neither has a drinking, drug or gambling problem, and as far as I know neither cheats on the wife. Both are reasonably attractive (certainly not ugly by any measure). Both are around 6 feet tall. Both seem to be solid family men that love their wives and children. By any reasonable measure they are good men and good husbands.
And, my wife’s reaction to my daughter marrying someone with those attributes is “Eeeeeewwwww!!!! She can do better than that.” Now I’m worried my wife is going to talk my daughter into becoming an old-maid by instilling some unrealistic standard of men in her.
If anyone like Phil or Bob had proposed to my wife in her youth, it wouldn’t have counted as a marital offer from a MAN SHE LOVED.
Which brings us to the hypothetical 28-N girl of this thread. Maybe she never had a marriage proposal (from a man she loved or otherwise), because she set the bar so high that she virtually eliminated any men that would have proposed to her (if given a chance). The reality is that if a woman can garner marriage proposals in her 30’s, she sure as hades could have garnered them in her 20’s. So why didn’t she?
Because, in her 20’s should could never love a man like Bob or Phil–they would have been beneath her. But, in her 30’s–for whatever reason–she finds that she could love a man like Bob or Phil. Or if not love, at least tolerate them enough to marry them (given her now limited options).
@I.B.B.
You certainly do think a lot of yourself trying to get these commenters to make “tough calls” for your hypothetical situation…
“If no marriage for her, ever, at least not in THIS lifetime, then what? Remain a slut?”
Let her do overseas missionary work. She is a bad influence if she stays. Some female relative of yours, I.B.B.?
A.J.P.
“If no marriage for her, ever, at least not in THIS lifetime, then what? Remain a slut?”
Yes, or no. Doesn’t matter.
“Men don’t have any incentive to marry because of no-fault-divorce. The VALUE of a woman (I assume you mean marriage value) is driven up or down depending on the man and what he wants in a wife. That differs from man to man.”
NFD is part of why men have no incentive to marry; but that’s not all of it. Sure, a woman’s marriage value depends in part on an individual man’s subjective view. But objectively, her N is a big part of that. The reason is because it affects her ability to bond.
“I assume you left the ‘s’ out there in your quote. She does need to be worthy of him to be worthy of a marriage. What is worthy is not always the same thing.”
No. I said it exactly as I meant it.
If she doesn’t need to be worthy of him, why should he be worthy of marriage or worthy to society?
HE does not need to be worthy of marriage or contribute to society if all he has to do is take care of himself. Why should he strive to marriage if there are no worthy women? Why should he strive to do anything beyond producing only what he needs if marriage is not in the cards (mainly because there’s no one worth marrying who will have him)?
“Because, in her 20′s [she] could never love a man like Bob or Phil–they would have been beneath her. But, in her 30′s–for whatever reason–she finds that she could love a man like Bob or Phil. Or if not love, at least tolerate them enough to marry them (given her now limited options).”
Exactly. She’s not attracted to them when she’s young and in her 20s. But in her 30s, she accepts Bob or Phil. And it’s not “for whatever reason”. It’s because they’re the only ones left; the hot guys she really wants aren’t going to propose marriage or commit to her (because they have options), and she’s running out of time and options.
And sure, she will like Bob or Phil; even love them as human beings and “emotionally”. But she just won’t be super attracted to them; and her marriage will suffer because of it. There aren’t enough hot guys to go around to all the women who want them for commitment. There just aren’t. The sooner women start realizing this, the better. Most don’t realize it, and slut it up, thinking they can get a hot guy for commitment by sleeping with him. An ONS is not the best way to get a husband.
I’m convinced one of the biggest problems in this SMP and MMP is that we have many many women married to men they aren’t sexually attracted to and never were sexually attracted to; and that it is far, far too easy for women to get out of their marriages.
“Your bold determination to make sure women avoid any discomfort at all is a shining example to Men’s Right Advocates everywhere”
The man who dedicates his life to making women happy, and the man who dedicates his life to making sure he never does anything to make a woman happy, are both being ruled by women.
Unless your name is Susan.
Beat me to it,..
Deti,
Those two questions are NOT linked. Got to keep them separated.
He does not need to be worthy of marriage but EVERYONE needs to be worthy of society. People need to be worthy to society. But their “worth” is subjective.
It has been said repeatedly (and I agree with it) that women are net wealth consumers. They are. But not ALL women are. What of the above mentioned single-woman who has the N-28 and (according to you) is not worthy of marriage. Does she therefore have zero worth in society? What if she is a registered nurse spending her day saving lives, has money in the bank, takes no government entitlement (does NOT live a life of Julia), and helps at a soup kitchen? In between sleeping with 5 different guys at a time, she works hard and gives back to the needy. Does that mean she is not worthy of society just because she likes to f@ck lots and lots of different alpha dicks?
Of course not.
The same is true for men. All men do not have to be worthy of marriage (regardless if there are any women worthy of them marrying) but should do all that they can to be worthy of society. There is no white knighting here, just knowing the difference between right and wrong. Society deserves your very best behavior even if the women that you meet in life, do not.
He shouldn’t strive for marriage. Marriage is not for everyone and not all people will run into others that are worthy of marriage. I can’t stand him but Bill Maher is most certainly worthy of society. According to him, not one woman on this planet is worthy of marriage.
That is a different question. Bill Maher made $10,000,000 last year. He doesn’t need it. He doesn’t need but maybe 1/100th of that. But he strives to produce so much more than he needs even though marriage will never be in the cards.
He does that because he is alpha.
The MRA needs someone (anyone) who is a good public speaker. They don’t have that.
It’s getting tiresome to see the number of folks who find these fringes of teh Interwebz make such pronouncements and start trying to tell everyone else what to do.
No, the manosphere does not NEED mainstream exposure.
No, going mainstream recognition will NOT be a “success” or a “turning point.”
You forget that aside from Public Education system, the mass media IS THE PRIMARY tool of the social engineers to create this society that feeds the feminine imperative with expendable male resources.
We are here because those who control the mainstream media want it this way.
Any Manosphere identity going mainstream will be co-opted and either marginalized, ridiculed or both. Any way you cut it, mainstream exposure of the manosphere will simply be used to reinforce the current status quo in some way or another.
The manosphere doesn’t NEED mainstream exposure.
The manosphere is a grass roots reactionary, anti-establishment, intellectual rebellion. The 21st century pamphleteer movement.
The mainstream mass media is the primary propaganda organ of the establishment.
The establishment will NEVER let the manosphere gain any sort of position of positive influence on the culture at large through their mass media platform.
We’ve already seen it with “Game.” Go look up the episode of the Big Bang Theory in which the script writers show the main characters “using game.” The caricature of game concepts to make it appear like nothing more ridiculous idiocy is precisely how the mainstream media will convey any and every issue any so-called Manosphere spokesperson or leader ever tried to discuss in their medium.
The mass media is THE Blue Pill dealer of our Matrix we call society. The blue pill dealer is not going to let the red pill dealers have a legitimate voice on their platform. They will only allow it so they can dilute it, cut it or completely neuter it’s effectiveness in waking up the sheeple from the status quo.
You can’t force feed the red pill to one person – let alone the masses via mainstream media. The red pill only works for people that actively look for it and want to take it for themselves.
We don’t need leaders. We don’t need movements. We don’t need lobbyists and we certainly don’t need spokespersons.
What we need is a continuing dialog to hash out the truth and expose the lies we all have to deal with so that we can all order our lives accordingly based on our individual situations.
@donalgraeme
“In terms of raw income married men earn more. However, a more accurate number (which may not be available) is disposable income. A single man earning $50k a year is probably going to have more disposable income than a married man with children earning $100k a year. Children are expensive. Wives are expensive. And the extraneous costs associated with them (a larger home, more cars, more extensive coverage, etc.) are also expensive.”
Now try saved income.
I make $110,000 net a year. I save about $80,000 a year, as I have no expenses (company car, company house). Single guy.
I know family guys with a $200,000 that save about zero, or are even deeply in debt…
The mental acrobatics of manginas, white knights etc is beyond amazing. We’d be on Mars with an army of robot servants if that amount of brain power was applied to useful stuff.
I worked on a guest post for JFG which analyzes who is behind the decline in marriage, complementing Han’s analysis:
http://www.justfourguys.com/women-start-marriage-strike-men-complete-it/
I’m reminded of articles like this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/
Ton
Damn right guys are still thinking they can make it work out. Fuck that kick their asses and they will fix it. All men should learn game and fuck at their leisure and let the beta mangina and white knight pay for it. Want a kid, get a surrogate, stay on the male pill legal or illegal handle your business. N28 bitch play mature milf with her and get that number up to N57 and find another one with the I just need someone to settle down game on her. 6 months of wicked selfish submission for that and then say I think you are a little old for me “next” Don’t worry about it.
Speaking of N=28, an annoying article I read a few months ago (it’s everyone ‘favorite’ author): http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/her-number-doesnt-matter/
Some people just don’t know statistics…
TFH may be right: that Dr Helen (of whom I only know of by reputation) may be the best that the MRAs can hope for and that she is infinitely better than any of the alternative women on offer. Let’s hope so, for of course when a woman talks Androsphere, both women and men will listen; but when a man does so he will largely be ignored, because it looks like privileged whining.
There is however a danger, which is that what is a conversation between men will be co-opted by women (or ambitious men) for their own purposes; that the Androsphere will acquire Dogma, Heresies, High Priests and Priestesses, and expulsions, and then finally it will be invaded by women making it all about their Vaginas, as they set out the rules for engagement. To some extent AVFM already seems to have gone in that direction, even as it became one of the (if not) most read Male Blogs and certainly one of the most visually sophisticated – it clearly has money! One only has to reflect further on what happened to the ‘New Atheists’ to see exactly how easily a movement – a movement that claimed to be free of all ideology – can be subverted such that it has become of interest only in the way that a multiple car-crash or Spanish High-Speed Train Crash, or Cruise-ship capsizing in shallow water is of interest. I may not sufficiently believe in the Deity but I absolutely draw the line at Atheism.
“Exactly. She’s not attracted to them when she’s young and in her 20s. But in her 30s, she accepts Bob or Phil. And it’s not “for whatever reason”. It’s because they’re the only ones left; the hot guys she really wants aren’t going to propose marriage or commit to her (because they have options), and she’s running out of time and options”
This is why i refuse to get married. I got ignored a lot by women during my early to mid 20’s because i was short(i suspect),. but i still got a bit of play here and there, but mostly in Greece, not in the country i grew up in(Australia). Yet now, in my mid 30’s, with a receding hairline, i have more women expressing interest in me than ever; and most of them are in their early to mid 30’s. The stories are all the same: i was young, didn’t know what i wanted, but now i know what i want; the usual script. What bothers most about all this is how easily this line is accepted by both men and women alike. Whenever i try to question it–‘does it really take that long for a person to realise who is right for them?’, their options are lower than they used to be etc—i’m mocked and shut down for being ‘close minded’. One older woman called me ‘childish’ when i tried to question it jokingly.
Women really have much invested in the notion that they suddenly ‘grow up’ at a certain age for no discernible reason; and betas, particularly low level ones, buy into it too, mostly for egotistical reasons(‘I am the only one that understands and cares about her, that’s why she picked me’, oneitis etc). It really is a sick joke, and i for one i’m glad i discovered the Manosphere at just the right time in my life.
I’m not marrying some woman that would have rejected me two years ago. Sorry. I have too much to lose at this point in my life.
rejected me ten years ago, not two years ago.
and i spoke to a financial advisor recently who informed me that trusts are no longer protected in a marriage situation, especially when kids are involved, and neither is inheritance. This is a concern for me because i will be inheriting some property from my grandmother when she passes on and i sure as hell am not letting some bitch get her hands on it.
@ bios:
“i have more women expressing interest in me than ever; and most of them are in their early to mid 30′s. The stories are all the same: i was young, didn’t know what i wanted, but now i know what i want; the usual script.”
Two things:
1. my question isn’t so much “why did it take so long for you to figure out” but
“why did you have sex with so many men, thinking that you’d get a relationship out of one of them? What, did you REALLY think you were going to screw the guy after meeting him at the hotel bar and he was going to fall to one knee the next day and propose marriage to you? How many times did you have to get pumped and dumped before you finally deduced that that was NEVER going to happen? Five times? 10 times? 20 times? And why didn’t you figure that out after the second pump and dump instead of after the 22nd?”
2. There’s always something, some excuse, some rationalization the hamster offers, to come up with why she is now interested in you when she’s 29 and coming up hard against The Wall. No matter what she says, it always translates to
“I couldn’t get one of those hot alpha studs to commit to me. You’re plan B and I guess you’ll be good enough. I’m not really attracted to you but I’ll act like it until I get the ring. I like you well enough, I guess, maybe I could even love you, but I’m not hot for you and never will be.”
“If she doesn’t need to be worthy of him, why should he be worthy of marriage or worthy to society?”
“Those two questions are NOT linked. Got to keep them separated.”
On the contrary, those questions are INEXTRICABLY linked and woven together. They cannot be separated. In Western civilization, marriage IS society. Marriage is the basic, fundamental building block of society. Whatever society we have post-marriage (and we’re careening toward it at breakneck speed) will not look anything like what we had 100 years ago.
“He does not need to be worthy of marriage but EVERYONE needs to be worthy of society. People need to be worthy to society.”
No, everyone does NOT need to be worthy of society, particularly not a society that cares nothing for them.
One of my favorite comments read on Heartist’s site and one I have passed on to my sons is, “men, don’t give a s**t about society, because it is certain that society will not give a s**t about you.”
The marriage strike is men not working hard to be marriage material. In the blue pill world hard work and building a nest is how to have respect and a wife that loves you. (ha ha ha what a lie that is) Men are apathetic and are not even being told to be . This is what the destruction of civilization looks like. The road to hell paved with the good intentions of equal rights for women. Society by its actions hates men for the benefit of women. All covered by lies of the blue pill and every day the lie is seen for what it is by more and more men.
Think about that being kind and respectful of the feelings of women based on what “society” teaches young men is pussy repellant. Women divorce those men and boring. and society punishes those men for not pleasing women and the church shuns those same men. And then turns around to other men and commands them to be a shunned man for the pleasure of a woman who sees him as a tool. Yes be worthy of that society by their definition of worthy.
TFH
The key is not activism in that sense it is normalism of the red pill frame of mind. The laws will change on their own with guidance from a few that work in the law changing business. (with the red pill in the back of their mind) A male birth control pill for example is a great way to control female fertility with the male behaving as a blue pill supplicant. He is being responsible so a woman will not have to suffer an unwanted pregnancy. Or a PUA uses birth control because he doesn’t want some bitch trapping him with CS, fuck that ho. The results are the same a slut riding the carousel or practicing churchian serial monogamy is childless and not entitled to men’s labor. Arrived there with completely different attitudes. A woman is virtuous or a woman behaves with virtue because she gets the most from it good enough for a civil productive society.
@TFH
Your second paragraph is so true. That is why I think that Elevator-gate is so instructive. Imagine: I am a techy-nerd of a godless disposition who wants to hang out with other Atheists, so I pay for the train and tube to Heathrow Airport (about £20.00 in each direction) buy a return flight from Ryan Air to Dublin, pay for the costs of the Dublin name-Hotel and for being an attendee at the conference, as well as sustenance, alcohol and other inevitable expenses (such as getting around Dublin), yet the world is being led to believe that my sole purpose once there is to inappropriately proposition an aging pie-faced, women and that I am thus probably a repressed Rapist – Jeeez! I can go down the Dog and Duck any Friday night to do that and at a fraction of the cost. As soon as a group of men are together, the women claim that they are being excluded and as soon as they arrive – late – start making up rules as to their paranoid delusion that the men are only there for them – and it is always the ugly women who claim this. The only exception I can think of is when the group of men are actually doing something physically demanding – like digging roads – or plumbing or the like. David Collard (Julian O’Dea likened the usual behaviour of women to Cargo cultism, and I think that most perceptive of him).
gg,
Blue Pill, Red Pill, bananas. You are not changing a thing. You missed the most important aspect that Ayn Rand talks about in Atlas Shrugged. It is only a meaningful strike, if the people opting out are such vital PRODUCERS that they can’t be replaced and their absence means NOTHING can be redistributed to moochers.
Women want to be married. Most women (not all, but most) are net wealth consumers. So they look towards marriage as a way to gain access to a lifestyle that they feel they are entitled. If a man does not work hard to better himself, if he spends all his days living in his parents basement smoking crack, giving up entirely on a world that he believes never gave him a chance, then his “marriage strike” is irrelevant. He will not be missed by women. No woman is going to care that he has taken himself OUT of the pool of available men for which she can marry. Sure, he can GHOW, but no one will give a damn (least of all single women who want to marry and start consuming a man’s resources.)
The single women will MISS the Bill Mahers of the world. They will miss the alphas who make the BIG MONEY who have decided to GTOW. These are the guys who make the resources and who are NOT sharing it in marriage that (to the benefit of women) will be missed. Now, we all don’t have the alpha talent and cognitive ability of a Bill Maher. But most men (beta, delta, even omega) can find a way to earn a living, create, and accumulate (and NOT consume) wealth. Men can do that. And if men better themselves to the point where it is obvious that they are doing this, low and behold, the women will flock to you because you have the resouces.
NOW, if you GYOW (a marriage strike) you will matter. If enough single men do this, single men will have changed things. However, single beta men are nowhere NEAR being able to have this kind of power/leverage over single women (to get them to value them in their 20s and not their 30s) because far too few single beta men have bettered themselves to produce suffiicent wealth to matter. You are trying to put the cart before the horse, don’t do that.
I’ll close with a personal experience of mine. I worked 3rd shift doing menial labor to put myself through engineering school. While doing that, I worked with a lot of hard people, uneducated people, salt of the earth so to speak. And (over years) they got to know me and eventually, trust me. But that trust only came after me proving myself again and again. At the ripe old age of 20, one of these men brought in a brown paper bag, smiled at me, and asked me to come over to his workstation. I did. He produced two pictures out of that bag, his two daughters. He told me one was 19 the other 21. He admired me so much that he wanted to know if I wanted him to fix me up on a date with either of them. I know that is the most immense form of flattery that there is (for one man to another) and I was taken back, I didn’t know what to say. So I asked him if approached any of the other young men that we worked with for the same proposal and he said no, that he didn’t think any of them were worthy of his two daughters, that they were not bettering themselves and that his girls could do so much better. Long story short I didn’t want to hurt his feelings or hurt my working relationship with him so I just smiled and lied to him “…I don’t think I’m good enough for either of them.” That little white lie was the least hurtful thing I could say to make him feel even better, which he did. And we continued to have a great working relationship. But take that one isolated incident, and blow that out to millions of single men GTOW, single men who are net wealth producers, and NOW you change the game. You get what you want because single women will have to value you (and not the alpha dick) at a much younger age.
@ IBB:
“If a man does not work hard to better himself, if he spends all his days living in his parents basement smoking crack, giving up entirely on a world that he believes never gave him a chance, then his “marriage strike” is irrelevant. He will not be missed by women.”
What you’re ignoring, IBB, is that these crack smoking basement dwellers would be out there producing if there were incentives to do so. So these are men who WILL be missed in a “marriage strike” (assuming there is one, I don’t believe there is – YET). These are men who would be marriage material by societal standards.
Men respond to incentives.
@IBB said: ” If a man does not work hard to better himself, if he spends all his days living in his parents basement smoking crack, giving up entirely on a world that he believes never gave him a chance, then his “marriage strike” is irrelevant.”
Don’t assume that (1) men better themselves with the goal of attracting a husband, and (2) that married men achieve more in life than single men (notice I didn’t say make more money, but achieve more).
Had I stayed single I would have gone on to get a doctorate and do teaching/research in my field (that was my plan anyway). But, because I got married and had a child money became a primary concern, so I started working and concentrated on advancing up the corporate ladder.
Do I make more money now than I would have as a college-professor/researcher? Yes I do, but I would have accomplished more and contributed more to society as a teacher/researcher.
Money isn’t the proper measure of everything. The man that shuns marriage is also freed up from the pressure to make money and is free to pursue goals in life that may (1) be more personally satisfying and (2) actually contribute more to society. So, ironically, the marriage-strike men may actually do more to support society (and thus help maintain the very societal structure they are striking against).
Deti,
No.
No they will not be missed as they are not marriage material by anyone’s standards. These men going on strike will not change a thing mostly because any man who spends his days in the basement smoking crack, is not a man.
Yes. And so do women. And you are ignoring ALL a woman’s incentives (the same incentives the alpha men have seen and have acknowledged all their lives.) I hate to sound all Tom Leykis but she wants your money. That is why they get married, they want your money. If you have none because you haven’t bettered yourself because you don’t think women are deserving of it (and maybe they aren’t), no one will care (least of all single women.)
Don’t put the cart before the horse. Make yourself an awesome beta first. Do that first, the hell with what everyone else thinks. Then after you get the power (when you GYOW) you will have changed the game because they are going to want you. YOU will have the power.
Get the power.
It is the biological nature of women to seek out any gathering of men, and insert themselves in it. The reason for this is that women are hardwired to believe that if a group of men have gathered, resources are being produced, and women want to be there to consume these resources. Millions of years of evolution have optimized women to seek out and consume resources that men produce, preferably before another woman gets there first.
It is also the biological nature of men to somehow want women to insert themselves into our environment. Red pills inoculate against this somewhat. One only need to see the popularity of certain red pillish blogs written BY women to note this dynamic. We are our own enemy in this.
@bios
“”i spoke to a financial advisor recently who informed me that trusts are no longer protected in a marriage situation, especially when kids are involved, and neither is inheritance.”‘
This is true in Canada,and it has been for years.This was always a major factor with myself when I was “getting involved” with a woman.
bios,
Best advice I can give parents with adult children that they want to inherit their assets, don’t give it to them. Just allow them to use the assets. What do I mean by that? Simple.
You own a house free-and-clear. You are retired. You have an RV and you want to roam the world. But your son or daughter does not have the kind of earning power to pay for the house that you own. So you let your son or daughter rent your house for $0 a month. You keep the asset, but they use it for free.
Now, son or daughter marries an @sshole. There is nothing you can do about that but the @sshole son-in-law or @sshole daughter-in-law know THE LAW. They are going to get THEIRS that’s for damn sure. So they divorce your son or daughter and want half the house because it was community property.
WHOOPS!!!! Your son or daughter are protected because they don’t own the house. YOU DO. It’s still yours not theirs, you are just letting your child use it for free. There is NO LAW that allows divorced spouses access to assets not owned by their former spouses. They can’t take half something that they spouse never owned. You can do this boats, cars, houses, businesses, anything. Never give it to your kids, just let them use it. So you protect your kids from their own marrital incompetence.
If you are going to put in into a trust, make sure the trust owns it and never your kids. There are some anti-trust laws against perpituities, but those are for trusts going a long-long time.
Something I came across yesterday: http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/rwc/conferences/fourth/pdf/craigiemyersdarity_draft8c.pdf
“The Decline of Marriageable Males and Family Structure Revisited”
IBB
Check this out http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/poolside-in-america/ this was made to order. He is missed and I’m proud of the man just doing it his way and getting pussy and free food. hell yeah. This is what a marriage strike looks like and he is missed.
“You own a house free-and-clear. You are retired. You have an RV and you want to roam the world. But your son or daughter does not have the kind of earning power to pay for the house that you own. So you let your son or daughter rent your house for $0 a month. You keep the asset, but they use it for free.”
This is precisely what a relative of mine is doing for his daughter while he is alive. I have no idea what the plans are for when he does though.
“If you are going to put in into a trust, make sure the trust owns it and never your kids. There are some anti-trust laws against perpituities, but those are for trusts going a long-long time.”
The problem in my situation is that i am part of the family trust now. Perhaps i should have my name removed, but the laws are different in Australia when it comes to trusts. They aren’t as protected as they used to be.
Thx for the advice. I’ll have to look into this
J says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:33 pm
“Don’t assume that (1) men better themselves with the goal of attracting a husband, and (2) that married men achieve more in life than single men (notice I didn’t say make more money, but achieve more).
Had I stayed single I would have gone on to get a doctorate and do teaching/research in my field (that was my plan anyway). But, because I got married and had a child money became a primary concern, so I started working and concentrated on advancing up the corporate ladder.
Do I make more money now than I would have as a college-professor/researcher? Yes I do, but I would have accomplished more and contributed more to society as a teacher/researcher.”
Fact check time here. Most, like 6 out of 7, Americans who earn Ph.D.s never find fulltime permanent work as college professors. (For liberal arts, it’s much worse; for example, odds are close to one in a thousand for Philosophy doctorate holders landing tenured full professorships.) At best, they get temporary (benefitless, zero chance to ever get tenure) adjunct contract slots, where they teach 5 classes a term at 3 different colleges, pulling in maybe 25K. Gee, when a 6-month training course in a trade could double that in short order, with a bachelor’s in engineering tripling it, sounds to me like a doctorate would have been a stupid thing to do.
Oh, and doctoral-level research jobs are even harder to come by. (Technician-level jobs, making maybe 50K, but filling someone else’s research orders for their credit, don’t get offered to Ph.D.s much.)
innocentbystanderboston says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:53 pm
“It has been said repeatedly (and I agree with it) that women are net wealth consumers. They are. But not ALL women are. What of the above mentioned single-woman who has the N-28 and (according to you) is not worthy of marriage. Does she therefore have zero worth in society? What if she is a registered nurse spending her day saving lives, has money in the bank, takes no government entitlement (does NOT live a life of Julia), and helps at a soup kitchen? In between sleeping with 5 different guys at a time, she works hard and gives back to the needy. Does that mean she is not worthy of society just because she likes to f@ck lots and lots of different alpha dicks?”
What that does is make her entire life irrelevant at best, since she can almost certainly never become a good wife and mother. Those are the only things women can do that men can’t do. There are millions of under/unemployed men in this country that could fill every worthwhile complicated workforce job women currently hold. However, there are not nearly enough women living as true women, where they birth enough children into marriage that they raise well, all while inspiring a man to go be ambitious or at least hard-working.
Oh, and your pedestalized slut above is causing all kinds of damage, easily listed out to over 10 aspects by any longtime reader here. Better she was never born.
you noticed that too Luke.
@Luke,
You are missing the larger point I’m trying to make. I ended up as a worker bee in IT–a safe choice. Was the risk of failure higher going for a doctorate? Yes, but the potential accomplishments were also higher.
People that make a real impact on society are usually those that go against the conventional wisdom, people that take huge risks. Is their failure rate high? It’s astronomical, but for those that succeed their impact on society is often beyond measure.
How many of those risk takers ended up as worker bees–taking the safe route–because they got married felt the pressure to support their wives? I would argue a huge number. What has society lost, because they quit being risk takers and instead became worker bees?
@ Luke and J regarding PhD
As a PhD candidate myself (also in the liberal arts), I can say that doctoral programs attract certain types of people who express many of the ideas J has like risk-taking, wanting to contribute to society. PhD’s can be a idealistic lot of people with big ideas. Some of these people would thumb their nose at taking up a trade or studying something more practical or tangible. That’s their loss. I’ve encourage colleagues to get other types of work experience. Personally, being an adjunct isn’t bad to me because I have other work experience so I can have a full time job with a decent salary and benefits and teach a class or two on the side.
Luke, what you point out, the financial side of pursuing a PhD in certain fields, is all the rage on sites like The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed. Numerous articles with comments like yours and J’s. So yes, everyone in higher ed knows that. There are those who say just don’t do it. And then there are those who say do it with a back up plan. And then still there are those who say let’s reform higher ed (get rid of adjuncts, or unionize them and pay them more, get rid of over inflated budgets, top heavy administrations, don’t admit as many grad students, don’t let them TA or RA forever, fund grad students more, reduce time to degree etc., etc.).
@Rollo,
August 12, 2013 at 9:57 pm
Can you please explain what you mean by “real dates” and give some examples?
Thanks
@Hopeful,
I am not against anyone taking up a trade or being practical in their life choices. In this regard I’m take the libertarian/christian stand: “a man that doesn’t work should not eat.” But, as has been noted, the typical single man can get by on remarkably little money, because they generally live a more simple/fugal lifestyle.
What I’m against is the assumption that the man that chooses an alternative lifestyle/career is somehow damaging to society. Point in case: the slacker–stereotyped as the loser that lives in his mom’s basement playing video games all day. The guy who is always trotted out in the “man up and marry those s**ts.” diatribes. Why though, should we be critical of the slacker?
(1) If he is paying his own way financially, what damage is he doing to society? He may not be contributing anything to society, but he isn’t damaging society by becoming a leech that demands the government financially support his life.
(2) Playing video games for hours on end can be viewed two ways: as wasting your time, or as developing a skill. It may not be a useful skill (one you make money at), but it is non-the-less a skill. And, with the rise of the video game culture, we’ve seen the rise of competitions and even people who make their living as professional video gamers.
Does the slacker accomplishing less with his life than the man that works a full time job in a store selling video games? At the end of a year, the slacker has honed a skill to near perfection. It’s not a very valuable skill by society’s standard (playing a video game), but it is a skill. What does the man working in the store have to show? A little more money in the bank.
Which though, is accomplishing more in life?
@ J
Alright, I see your point. You say “Point in case: the slacker–stereotyped as the loser that lives in his mom’s basement playing video games all day. The guy who is always trotted out in the “man up and marry those s**ts. Why though, should we be critical of the slacker?”
(1) If he is paying his own way financially, what damage is he doing to society?”
How is he paying his way financially?
Who says he isn’t? A part time job is more than enough to cover his food & lodging expenses.
I used the slacker as the most extreme example to make a larger point. That if a man is supporting himself (even at the most marginal level) why should he be criticized for chasing his dream or vision of life instead of following the beat of someone else’s drummer?
When the “man-uppers” trot out the slacker image, what they are trying to imply is that the man who has decided not to marry (for whatever reason) and instead has chosen to follow a different path in life is somehow a slacker. Even if that different path has (or has the potential) to lead to fame, fortune, and a fulfilled life, he is still no better than the slacker. It’s the basest form of manipulation.
Luke,
There are millions and millions of women in the United States who (through no fault of their own) could never ever be a mother and will never have an opportunity to be anyone’s wife. Your statement is false on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin…
False.
I mentioned she was a nurse. I have known entirely too many men in my life that lack the cognitive ability to pass Nursing School and be a Nurse. Any man smart enough to get a BSN, rest assured Luke, if he wan’t a job he’s got one (make 75K or more.)
The majority of the men who are under/unemployed in this country have IQs that are well below 100 (in many cases, below 90.) What under/unemploys them is their lack of cognitive ability. They were screwed from birth! Now in the 1950s (when there were no other manufacturing plants on the planet, they had all been destroyed in WWII) this was not a problem. A man with an IQ of 85 could get a high paying, well-formed, unionized, seniority-based (not merit based) manufacturing job in a plant anywhere in America and support a wife, children, and buy a home. Those jobs are all gone because WWII is long over, the plants were all built in Asia, and a 13-year-old Malyasian girl can be taught to do the same thing that American man can with the IQ of 85.
The jobs that pay the most in the United States are NOT well formed jobs. These are thinking mans jobs where you are forced to think and do things that robots (and 13 year old Malyasian girls) can not do. And if you have an IQ of 85, you can’t really do them. So, no marriage for you because you’ll likely never be able to get enough earning power to support a wife or children.
Men need to be hard-working with or without a wife. They do not need to be inspiried by their wives. I worked two jobs for the 12 years BEFORE I was married. No one needed to inspire me.
I hope you don’t mean that. I’ll assume you were just drinking very heavily last night.
gg,
We all saw this guy on Fox News. We all know his story. No, he most certainly is NOT missed (not from the standpoint of women wanting to marry him.) If he went out surfing tomorrow and got eaten by Bruce the Great White Shark, no one would care.
More to the point, why would you mention him? Do you admire this man? Do you really? He is stealing from the taxpayers of California. He is a thief, gaming the system for benefits simply because he found a way to get it. Shame upon him
We expect women to shame other women for being horrible people who abuse the system. I applaud when women do that (because so few do.) I applaud them because I want to encourage other women to demand acceptable behavior among their own gender. Men need to do the same thing. If we don’t then we wind up being the exact type of LOSERS that women have grown to expect us to be (when you and I know we are not.)
His is a waste of a life. It is not to be admired. He is not to be respected. No, he is not missed. No one cares whether he lives or dies. And that’s the truth.
I agree with @IBB, this guy is a leech.
Yeah he is a leech just the kind of man we need many more of. I’m not here to save the system I am here to see to it the system fails as it should and needs to. He will be missed and is missed by all of the where have the good men gone. One question to ask yourself is he a product of the male incentive we have today or is he the type of guy that was always there. The defective man “alpha” (remember he has the ability to attend any college he chose not to.) 25 percent of men with his ability take his path and we can make progress in ending this madness.
gg,
No we do not.
He is a product of liberalism.
It is liberalism’s belief that people are simply NO GOOD. So it is the responsibility of the government (and when they say “government” they really mean the people who work hard and pay taxes) to make people WHOLE because they are NO GOOD.
It is not that he was always there. He is only there NOW because he is allowed to be (whereas 100 years ago, he would NOT be.) He is taking advantage of a system that got started with the New Deal in the 1930 to the Great Society of the 1960s, people are NO GOOD and we have to give them things or they will starve and die
This type of “defective man” is not going to end this madness as you so aptly put it. There is absolutely NOTHING that this man adds to soceity or any counter culture, that’s for damn sure. That’s like saying the Occupy Wall Street movement and We Are the 99% changed something (anything) when that was clearly NOT the case. All I saw was people sticking their hands out expecting me to make they whole for the 100K student debt that piled up for their Women’s Studies degrees.
No one cares about him. The only reason Fox News showed him is so they could use him as an example of how wrong government is. He was shamed by the network and he isn’t even smart enough to acknowledge that, did way too many drugs, burned up way too many brain cells.
IBB: “We expect women to shame other women for being horrible people who abuse the system. I applaud when women do that (because so few do.) I applaud them because I want to encourage other women to demand acceptable behavior among their own gender. Men need to do the same thing.” ~ … Shame! ha – who cares about your shame? get over yourself – no matter what you do to make yourself ‘not a loser’ you will never be good enough. But keep on trying – you obviously need the training = teh Womynz find you much more sexy as you prove to them what a ‘WINNER’ you are… soon to be followed by complaints, accusations, shame, blame and abandonment. At which point you da LOSER. But you GO boy, GO! You’re a WINNER fersure –
“Winner Winner Chicken Dinner”
Next.
TFH,
All of that is true. You get a win here. No argument.
And all of this is false. I disagree completely.
The root problem I have with this thinking (the thinking you are quoting from Dalrock’s recent article) is that according to you (and Dalrock, and Surker Dude) is that two wrongs make a right. F@ck that sh*t. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. Just because 10,000 women did it (and we know they do) does not mean that men must do it. I have to support 10,000 c-nts, please do not make me support 10,000 c-nts and one male @sshole.
If we in the Manosphere want the Patriarchy back (and we do because that is the only way to “end this madness”) then as men, let’s be deserving of it.
We’d be on Mars with an army of robot servants if that amount of brain power was applied to useful stuff. (Ton)
Now somebody’s finally talkin’ sense!
Even if Dalrock or GB4M or someone was to stumble upon the crucial key to the development of a thoroughly comprehensive and complete grand unified theory of wimminz, then what?
What’s the plan? Total world domination?
“We believe the planet is being led to destruction by a race of inferior creatures who place blind trust in their own culturally dictated concept of ‘intelligence’.
Look, you guys, you know as well as I do…they may be smart, but they don’t have
good sense.”
– “Bob” to the Senate Subcommittee, 1956
…from The Book of the SubGenius
@TFH said: “Men ‘shaming’ other men already happens in excess. What you advocate is leads to misdirected shaming of red-pill men by manginas and whiteknights for ‘not living a useful life’ (i.e. not devoting their lives to being useful to women to the exclusion of anything else).”
What we need to do is a new definition of what it means for a man to “live a useful life.” Useful to who? Themselves, God, society, women, or what?
IMHO, a man that isn’t a net taker (demanding others in society support him) has met the minimum requirements, and has the right to determine for himself what it means to “live a useful life.”
J,
Agree. With. ALL. Of. This.
You can only control what you can control, and that is your own life. Be a net wealth creator.
TFH – “But the man should NOT be cut off before the women doing the same are.”
Exactly. As you said earlier, they ALL need to be cut-off – and for the exact same reason. They are ALL useless scammers, leeching off the well-intentioned, but ultimately ill-thought out efforts to help the (truly) needy.
And, as you also note, Fox News can use him as an example because he is a male. He is no worse than the female scammers who so greatly outnumber him.
In my opinion, a man should have the pride in himself to take care of himself (and not mooch off of others: friends, family, and/or taxpayers), but until we are willing to hold women to the same standard, we cannot reasonably cut-off only the male scammers. Besides, they are only a small fraction of the bigger problem with public leeches.
innocentbystanderboston – “I have to support 10,000 c-nts, please do not make me support 10,000 c-nts and one male @sshole.”
So, if we can cut off the one douchebag, your theoretical burden with be reduced by one one-hundredth of one percent.
But, hey, at least you can feel proud that you took a stand against a man taking advantage of the system.
TFH (total feminist hater?),
I think we might have quite a few more options than that. We just have to think about it.
I understand your point. Everyone f@cked up giving single moms lifelong benefits, entitlements, housing, everything. It was okay before (giving nuclear families public housing and benefits) because men are supposed to have PRIDE and they are going to want to get their family OFF the checks and OUT of the housing. But with only women, that never happens. LBJ and liberals ignored human nature and difference between the genders and how they evaluate their lives.
But even if your point is valid, it still doesn’t make it right. And we can think of something else other than your 3 options. I know we can.
A little off topic but Blueseed-Googleplex (if they ever actually build it) is not about tax avoidance so much as it is about US corporations that work in technology NOT wanting to pay fair market wages for technical labor. That is ALL that is about, avoiding US H-1B Visa law and importing people from India to cannibalize Bay Area wages for US citizens.
Obviously, technology start-ups want to be in the Bay Area where all the other Technical companies are, but they don’t like paying $108K for an entry level software developer. Seasteading allows them around this because you have about 10% of the population of India with enough skils and cognitive ability that would work for far less than half that amount if given a chance to live like illegal Mexicans, 10 to a apartment in San Francisco.
I’m not sure that Seasteading will get us there either because the moment the Googleplex is built and anchored offshore, 1 mile into international waters, liberal Congress-critters will just change the lawon Federal INcome taxes and find a way to tax all that income earned there OR they will send a Coast Guard cutter out to the Googleplex and FORCE the people working there (at gunpoint) to LIVE there. Now the cost of that Googleplex becomes so cost prohibitive, it might not be built.
innocentbystanderboston says:
August 16, 2013 at 11:01 am
“Luke,
What that does is make her entire life irrelevant at best, since she can almost certainly never become a good wife and mother.
There are millions and millions of women in the United States who (through no fault of their own) could never ever be a mother and will never have an opportunity to be anyone’s wife. Your statement is false on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin…
There are millions of under/unemployed men in this country that could fill every worthwhile complicated workforce job women currently hold.
False.
I mentioned she was a nurse. I have known entirely too many men in my life that lack the cognitive ability to pass Nursing School and be a Nurse. Any man smart enough to get a BSN, rest assured Luke, if he wan’t a job he’s got one (make 75K or more.)
The majority of the men who are under/unemployed in this country have IQs that are well below 100 (in many cases, below 90.) What under/unemploys them is their lack of cognitive ability. They were screwed from birth!”
Horseshit. Absolute horseshit.
Have you never heard of A) how most of the above-average smart people are MEN (due to our IQ curve being much less mean-clustered than women’s) and B) affirmative action? I have been fairly close to over half a dozen guys who’d have made fine doctors if they could have gotten into medical school, but ended up as mere technicians or leaving the sciences altogether. More personal example of the latter… I have B.S. and M.S Geology degrees. I also beat the scores of over 4/5 of same-year fellow Geo B.S. holders on the Geology GRE Subject Test way back when. I’m eminently qualified for an oil company’s exploration department. Yet, I have only been able to get oil industry bachelor’s level slots throughout my career, largely field ones that 95% of the women don’t want. A possible explanation could be from the geologists at Shell, BP and Hess (among others) that I’ve spoken with. (No, it’s not because the women are smarter or know more; I’ve dealt with enough of them on my job to KNOW for a fact the truth is opposite.) Routinely, U.S.-based departments of 14+ M.S geologists include a zero to one American white male under the age of 55, when we’re over 4/5th the holders of such degrees. Government geo jobs are even worse for this (look around behind the counter at your local DMV or big-city airport TSA station sometime for a nontechnical example of this).
I repeat: everything complicated and worthwhile (latter cuts out most in-gov’t/for-gov’t compliance make work cr*p) that women do in jobs could easily and often better be done by men in this country. But, women are in men’s places, and there is no one to fill the women’s places in men’s homes. (Men can’t gestate or lactate, nor can they motivate another man with the prospect of heterosex and a family, plus careerist women routinely cheat on and frivorce, even cuckold, SAH dads.) Throw in all the hypergamous well-paid (not usually earned, but paid anyway) careerist post-wall types wailing about how they can’t find an uber-alpha male to marry, because they took their would-have-been husband’s job, and the insanity and unsustainabllity of our current societal experiment become clear.
I have known entirely too many men in my life that lack the cognitive ability to pass Nursing School and be a Nurse.
Well technically you only need an ASN to sit for the NCLEX test and become an RN. But correct, the BSN draws higher pay, the RN without the BSN still makes good pay, the LPN/LVN wage is even livable without a family to support.
That there are men who are incapable does not negate his point whatsoever. His point doesn’t hinge on every man being able to take over for every women, but that A man could take over for A women, cumulatively displacing them all or the vast majority.
I believe this is even true for taking over the raising of children and management of the home. Men are generally more efficient at that too. I loved this anecdote, my brother tells me today that his MIL is arriving the weekend. Wife has all week said she needs to big time clean. So, its Friday, the house is a mess. He asks, have you cleaned? She says yep….just look, Ive eliminated all the canned food that was out of date. Though trivial its a perfect metaphor for all of this dynamic, at work or working at making home home.
Luke,
Nothing of what you just said disputes anything of what I have said.
Jobs for bright, problem-solving people, are not FINITE. Those jobs are INFINATE. Those jobs also pay big bucks. And whether or not men can do all the jobs that bright, problem solving women can do, (and maybe they can) does not take away from the fact that the bright, problem solvers who know a thing or two about business and technology, are already employed.
I don’t give a damn about your credentials. Apparently, you think you have an IQ well above 85. So you (and the things you can do, your mad geology skills) do not apply in anyway to what I was saying. What I am saying (and still saying) is that an IQ of 100 is average and if your IQ is 90 (or 85 or lower) you are going to have a very hard time finding a job that pays you sufficent earning power to supoort yourself (let alone a stay at home lactating wife and all your children.) That is not horseshit.
Now if your argument stems from the civil-servant argument (a well formed job, TSA, Postal Worker, DMV worker, any government beurocrat) and those jobs are well paid and do NOT require any cognitive ability (and they don’t because the jobs ARE so well formed and repetitive) and it isn’t FAIR that so many WOMEN are working them (because they take away a job from a stupid man who can’t do anything else) all I can say is man, why didn’t you join the Army? In every single instance of these bullshit civil servant jobs, priority is given to military veterans FIRST. You serve 4 years in the Army, you go to the top of the list for any civil servant job openings. They even make it easier on you by not requiring you score the 100 on that idiot-proof civil service exam.
The dumb will always be with us. The government has created a plethora of higher-paying bullshit jobs for dumb people. They do dumb repetitive, non-thinking work, for socialist work whose pay is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. And if men don’t join the Army (or the Navy, or the Marines, or the Air Force) then yes, they wind up getting BEHIND the women who want to do these dumb jobs.
Sorry if that is harsh, but those are the rules. I don’t want to hear anymore about your damn credentials. Sounds to me like you are doing just fine.
innocentbystanderboston says:
August 16, 2013 at 4:11 pm
“Luke,
Nothing of what you just said disputes anything of what I have said.
Jobs for bright, problem-solving people, are not FINITE. Those jobs are INFINATE. Those jobs also pay big bucks. And whether or not men can do all the jobs that bright, problem solving women can do, (and maybe they can) does not take away from the fact that the bright, problem solvers who know a thing or two about business and technology, are already employed.”
Wrong three ways just in the above portion. (“Infinite”, not “infAnate” being the least of them.)
2), yes, actually, the number of jobs for “bright, problem-solving people” ARE finite on any given day.
3) Hello!! Affirmative action, which I mentioned in my post above to which you’re replying — have you heard of it? Do you even know what it is? (Hint: it’s millions of times a year “we’re equal opportunity here, so we’re only going to look at women or minorities for this open position.”)
Your brain is too short for this ride. Go post on Jizzabel or some such.
Luke,
Affimative action only applies (in a legal sense) for government jobs. And you can make it work FOR YOU if you served in the military. You go to the top of the list because you are a veteran. So that takes care of the bullshit civil service jobs.
Now if a private company says “…we are an Affimiative Action employer…” that doesn’t mean anything unless that company is doing WELL FORMED WORK for the government. Again, the jobs that they would be offering are WELL FORMED (require less cognitive ability) and almost anyone could do them. Which is why the government stepped in, and used a law to FORCE that company to hire “affimitaviely.” If (however) they are like most companies and are looking for bright, problem solving people, the Affimiative Action requirement does NOT APPLY because they will not FIND THEM. There is no way the Justice Department can force a company to hire people (or a certain gender or skincomplexion) to do work that they can’t do because they will never be qualified.
Let me put this to you another way, a way that might get through that thick skull of yours. Mark Zuckerberg went on the record last year that he was having a big hiring push for Facebook. He specifically stated that if you didn’t graduate from Harvard, MIT, or Stanford, you really needn’t apply. Those graduates of those schools were the only people he was seriously looking at. You think Affimiative Action is going to apply in this scenario? You think the Justice Department is going to go over the books at Facebook to make sure he hires a certain quota of minorities? Of course not. They are going to take the best and brightest regardless of skin color or gender. Merit is the only thing that matters in this instance and the government would be wasting its time trying to SUE Facebook for not following Affimiative Action hiring requirements.
I’m sorry Luke if you got passed over for jobs that you thought you were qualified for because you weren’t a woman (if that is what happened to you.) When I’ve been passed over for promotions at companies for people whom I thought were less qualified, I get even. I find another job and I quit. And when that happens, my previous employer gets PISSED. They get angry because they feel like I am abandoning them, and they are right, I am. But their getting pissed doesn’t help them because I’m still leaving and now that less qualified person will have more work to do. And if he (or she) can’t do it, the company will suffer and everyone will have to face the consequences of their bad hiring decisions. Luke, I’m your ally, but if we want to change things in the manosphere, change things in society to make it better for men (and I’m sure you do) deal from a position of strength. Do not bitch and complain to me, it will do you no good.
Well if you actually know the people who are close to that project, explain this to me, why aren’t they going to employ US Citizens to work on it? If this is all about VCs keeping their capital gains (as you said), then certainly, it isn’t about cannibalizing extremely high Bay Area wages of technical people, then why not put US citizens on the Googleplex? They don’t because they are expensive. They do NOT want to pay that kind of money, there are not enough H-!B Visa out there to import the cheap technical labor, and they found a creative and inventive way to get around US Federal H-1B Visa law. Kudos to them for thinking outside the box, but don’t try and bullshit me with some sob story about VCs keeping capital gains.
That just makes you look disingenuous.
All moot. Don’t be a smart-@ss.
I’ve seen reports that there could be anywhere from 5 to 10K of workers on the Blueseed Googleplex. Now, you said you are close on the project and if it ever happens (I’ll believe it when I see it) the real question is, how many people are working on it? I some how get the impression they are NOT building this to just employ 12 elite software developers making 60K for jobs that would pay 120K if they were in Marin County. Keep your inane comments like that to yourself.
I’m not convinced. You didn’t sell me that there will be US Citizens on the Googleplex. Managers maybe. Software developers who live in the Bay Area. No. There will be none.
The point I made about 10 Indians living in a one-bedroom apartment was a little rhetorical flourish. No, they will not live like illegal Mexicans. But they are NOT going to live like US citizens either, (certainly not ones who live comfortably in the Bay Area.) Yes, they will pack in a bit tighter to make the dollars go further, you better believe it. (It’s either that or live on the Googleplex.) And the many points you are missing (the 95-100% males on the Googleplex) is that they are not supposed to be living there. But you knew that already because you said you are close to the people on that project.
I never said I wasn’t pro-free market. I am. And I don’t really have a problem with the Blueseed Googleplex becoming a giant offshore software sweatshop (which is what it will be.) The only thing I have a problem with is your narrative. I don’t think you know what you are talking about as far as VC’s trying to keep from paying taxes on their capital gains. All I see is a creative and inventive way to get around H1B Visa law and getting Indian labor cheaper. I don’t have a problem with it (so no I am not John Kerry) I would just like people to be honest about it.
“If we in the Manosphere want the Patriarchy back” I don’t want the Patriarchy and I hope it stays gone for a long time. I want what we have today with out the misandry or wit it applying “equally” to women. And men need to stop supporting this flawed system. be a leech at best just enough for you and get that male birth control pill
Pingback: How does a young woman demonstrate attraction and interest but still act like a lady? | Sunshine Mary